#bolstering the self advocate

[the-golden-comet]

✨Thankful Thursday✨

Hello writers, artists, musicians, and creative minds alike! 💫

I want to take this day to give thanks to all you wonderful people. As artists, storycrafters, composers, and humans…it can be easy to lose sight of your love and passion when your brain is your worst critic.

I’ve been creating art and stories for a while now, but kept everything private because the Imposter Syndrome side of me kept saying: “I’m not good enough.”

I want to let you all know: That side of you is a bully, only existing to hold you back from your highest potential. For every self-critic your mind creates, manifest a self-advocate to shut them down.

“Yes, I AM good enough. I have important stories, art, music, and culture to share with the world, and I’m not gonna let you dampen my spirits.”

Life gets busy. That’s understandable. I had A LOT going on that kept me occupied since 2014. Now that I’m married, settled into a routine, and activities have slowed down a bit, I can focus on my hobbies again. And man, am I so glad I did.

You are all wonderful. I can’t ever thank you all enough for your kindness, your energy, and your imaginative spirits. Keep writing, keep drawing, keep composing, keep creating, keep inspiring.

The world needs more motivated minds. 💫

[crookedfandomquill]

This is very situational, and sadly may not be realistic for everyone, but I need y’all to understand that a very important part of political activism is fucking talking to your conservative or moderate friends and family.

My dad voted for Trump in 2016. He’s a middle class white evangelical from Arkansas. He raised me with conservative Christian values, just like his parents raised him. When he voted Trump, he was holding his nose, but he didn’t feel too bad about it, and went on to vote red down the ticket in the 2018 midterms, as well.

But I started college in 2017. Higher education and independence changed everything for me, and I went home over holidays and summers with fire in my belly and a thousand arguments ready at the drop of a hat, to my father’s dismay.

I remember crying in my room after emotional, intense arguments with him. I told him over and over that I felt betrayed by his choice to vote for a man who admitted to sexually assaulting women, who built his platform on dehumanizing immigrants and the disabled, who spread overtly-racist rhetoric, who flouted the values of kindness and self-discipline that I’d been raised on. And my dad always had some justification about the “greater good”: fighting against abortion, bolstering the economy, getting other Christian politicians into office.

But over time, as we grew further apart and I lost my will to discuss anything with him at all, he softened. He started asking me why I thought the way I did about the things we disagreed about. He would listen to my answers without interruption, and mull them over afterward instead of expressing his own opinion. And all the while, he watched the Trump presidency become cruel and absurd and devastating.

The first time he openly expressed regret to me, I had come home for a weekend after Kavanaugh was confirmed to SCOTUS. My dad realized he had helped elect a man who preyed on women… and that man had opened the door to more predators. I can’t tell you what it felt like for him to admit that he’d made a mistake, not just in voting for Trump but in defending him for so long. We kept arguing, but it was more debating than fighting. I knew he was capable of seeing my side of things, even if it took a while, and he knew I wasn’t just a sensitive college student with shallow new ideas about the world.

And then 2020 hit. Specifically, George Floyd was murdered, and the events that followed played out on the national stage. My dad was incredibly shaken by it. He asked me if I had any books from college about racial issues. I loaned him The New Jim Crow, one of the required readings for my Race and the Law class. Then I gave him Just Mercy. Then he watched the documentary 13th. Then he joined a racial harmony group he learned about through one of the few Black families at our church and insisted our whole family come. He held up signs at a protest against Confederate monuments in our conservative southern town. In three years, he went from defending Trump’s comments about “Black-on-Black crime” to publicly advocating for racial justice and opposing the death penalty.

We went together to vote in the 2020 primaries. I couldn’t help asking who he’d voted for; I didn’t even know if he’d asked for the Republican or Democratic ticket. He admitted he’d voted for Bernie. fucking. Sanders, then made me promise not to tell my grandma he’d voted liberal. When the election rolled around in November, he voted Biden. I’m sure he held his nose to do it, just like he held his nose voting in 2016. But I know he doesn’t regret it.

I am, of course, unbelievably lucky to have a parent who loved me enough, and was empathetic enough, to choose his relationship with me over his strongly-held opinions. He kept searching for truth because, as much as he’ll deny it, he’s a very smart and curious person. No degree of intelligence or curiosity makes you immune to propaganda, especially if you were raised not to question the party line. It’s easy to dismiss our conservative, conspiracy-pilled loved ones as stupid, hypocritical, and cruel. Sometimes they are. But sometimes they aren’t. Sometimes they will bend to keep their relationships from breaking. Sometimes, if they can be made to understand that their beliefs and actions are harming someone they love, they will make concessions. And sometimes they just need one person in their life to put a foot down, to be vulnerable and assertive and argumentative, to bring the impact of their politics close to home.

As the most important election of our lifetimes approaches, do not put peace over progress. If you have someone like my dad, someone who is good-willed and smart and loves you more than their own opinions, tell them how you feel. Tell them what their choices will mean for you, for your friends, for your community. Tell them what they could lose: your trust, your affection, your respect. Don’t avoid conflict if it could be productive. Because my conflict with my dad didn’t just win him over–it won over my moderate mom and one of my conservative brothers. And it put us in community with other like-minded people and led my parents to a healthier and kinder faith.

All of this to say, there is hope in conflict. There is hope in our relationships with people who think differently from us. There is hope in exposing your fear and anger and pain to people you love. And hope is a form of activism.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

read amebedkars the annihilation of caste, plus arundhati roys book-length historical preface. in honesty i prolly learned more from the latter, which is more than anything a screed against the cult of gandhi as mahatma, tho she does give the impression of a writer willing to selectively present historical facts to paint a narrative. still, its facts shes painting with, and in many cases its very hard to imagine any context that could exonerate gandhi from the relevant charges. certainly a helpful pov to finally read in depth rather than as offhand iconoclastic remarks

the speech itself i think left me more flummoxed. ambedkar is at his best when he is railing against the evils of the caste system and the implausibility of various defences and concessions made on its behalf. this is a pretty easy pitch for me tho, growing up as a westerner without any reason to be invested in the chatuvarna. its like the cagot, such an obviously perverse system from an external vantage point that it hardly seems fair to award credit for thoroughly denouncing it unless youve been raised to see it as natural. still, its very stirring as a bit of skewering, especially of the "moderate" and "reformist" casteist positions it attacks, and of the "caste-blind" socialists and liberals who ignore the internal divisions and acrimony the caste system imposes on their envisioned base

he is more compelling as a symptomatologist than as a diagnostician or prescriber/prognostician. he takes by the end what seems like a maximally anti-"materialist" view of the causes of the persistence of the caste hierarchy: the social phenomenon of caste is due entirely to vedic dogmatism, to the point that advocating social rather than doctrinal reforms (primarily: inter-dining and inter-marriage) is futile and self-defeating. this is the context for his remarks about the need to reject the authority of the shastras. this interpretation of the basis of caste discrimination is accompanied by a shocking proposed solution: a purified and democratised hinduism as a state religion, whose new priesthood and scripture/dogma are to be administered by the state itself. only thus can the plague of casteism be stamped out effectively at the root (retrograde religious beliefs)

the blow of what reads to my own usamerican sensitivities as a brand of revolutionary theocracy and state control of religion is somewhat softened by his apparent lack of ambition in implementing it. he is upfront that he thinks the kinds of anti-caste reform he is advocating are simply impossible in the face of hindu society, a demoralisation bolstered in part by a top-down view of social change on which it is only possible as guided by a societys intellectual class—which he identifies with the class least incentivised to upend the system: the brahmins. obviously i had seen ppl draw the analogy between usamerican antiblack racism and indian dalit suppression, but it had never occurred to me that the topic would invite the obvious caste analogue of afropessimism

on the topic of ambedkars predictions about the future of hindu society, its sort of interesting to place him in the context of the current ascendancy of hindutva on the subcontinent. where ive seen ppl (roy in the preface included) speak of modi and ambedkar in the same breath, its usually (when not simply whitewashing ambedkar) been to take him on board as an ally against the hindutva menace. but im not sure how well the text of the annihilation of caste supports that reading? not in terms of what ambedkar would think of modi and hindutva, ofc; its not at all hard to imagine which side he would come down on there. but at the core of much of his criticism of the caste system is its inflexibility and incompatibility with a modern, cohesive, mobilised nation state and nation-building project. a house divided against itself etc etc. on his view, the system introduced social resentments and hostilities too deep to permit a hindu identity that could effectively unite the national public. one is inclined to say: would that it were so!

anyway these are just rough first thoughts, its very much not a topic where ik a huge amount. still wanted to put them on paper for an audiencxe, just to help clarify them to myself more than anything

[multiplicity-positivity]

Here’s some positivity for systems with eating disorders!

Life for most systems can be challenging, and many of us may find that we have mental illnesses that harm us or negatively affect our quality of life. Systems with eating disorders are such cherished and important members of our community, and they deserve to be recognized and uplifted in our spaces! Here’s to any system out there with an eating disorder!

✨ Shoutout to systems with an eating disorder that formed alongside a dissociative disorder, or had one that contributed to the other!

🌺 Shoutout to systems who are seeking treatment to help heal from their eating disorder!

💫 Shoutout to systems who have been diagnosed (either professionally or self-diagnosed) with multiple eating disorders!

🌷 Shoutout to systems who are relearning or learning for the first time how to have a positive relationship with food!

✨ Shoutout to fat systems with eating disorders, or systems who are often told “but you don’t look like you have an eating disorder!”

🌺 Shoutout to systems who have split new alters or headmates due to trauma surrounding their eating disorder, or as a means to cope with their eating disorder!

💫 Shoutout to systems whose eating disorders arose from digestive problems, allergies, or food sensitivities and intolerances!

🌷 Shoutout to systems who consciously created headmates in order to help manage and cope with their eating disorder!

✨ Shoutout to systems who have been grappling with their eating disorder for years or decades!

🌺 Shoutout to systems whose eating disorder is often coupled with fear, pain, shame, low self-esteem, or low self-worth!

💫 Shoutout to systems who have recently relapsed, regressed, or backslid in their progress healing from their eating disorder - these things do not in any way negate how far you’ve come!

🌷 Shoutout to systems who educate others on the realities of living with an eating disorder, or who advocate for and uplift other folks with eating disorders!

For any system out there living with an eating disorder, please know we see you, we care about you, and we want to support and uplift you in any way that we can. Your struggles are real, and you deserve to have your voice heard in plural spaces while being met with support, hope, and reassurance. We truly wish that things will get easier for you in the future, that you and your system will be able to bolster a positive, nurturing relationship with both food and yourselves as a collective.

We hope that you can do your best to show yourself and your system some kindness and grace today! Remember that healing will not happen overnight, it’s normal for progress to be difficult and take lots of time. Please keep your chin up and know that you deserve to be cherished and accepted as you are today, right now, no changes necessary! We are rooting for you, and wishing you the very best with whatever comes your way in your future. Thank you so much for reading, and take care!

[everlastiingiimmortals]

Songbird, Martyr, Lamb.

Name: Robin Species: Halovian Occupation: Singer, celebrity Region of Origin: Penacony Height: 5'4" Age: Early-mid 20s Birthday: May 7th

Sexuality: Pansexual, sapphic-leaning. Open to multiship.

The younger sister of Sunday, Robin is an intergalactic star native to Penacony. After losing their mother to a Stellaron disaster, she and Sunday were taken in by the Dreammaster, and she proceeded to undergo intense musical training in her pursuit of lending her voice and strength to others. Now, she's known and loved far and wide, with several of her songs remaining at the top of the charts regularly and thought to have the power to bring people together.

Though known primarily as a sweet, demure woman by her fans, the more striking thing about Robin is her bravery. She's courageous, compassionate, and selfless, willing to put others before herself even at risk to her own safety. Much of her efforts are known through her humanitarian work; no matter how dangerous the situation, she seeks to better the lives of those she meets and preserve the musical culture of those ravaged by war and other disasters. Even so, Robin's sense of self is strong and sturdy; throughout all the trials and scrutiny of her career in the limelight and the horrors she witnesses out on her travels, she persists, ignoring the rumors and breaking free to embrace herself in the hope that others can learn to do the same. She also advocates for the freedom to live and enjoys exploration, adventure, and, secretly, many, many things that a delicate songbird likely should not dirty her feathers with. What people don't know about Robin is her occasional childishness, known only to those who grow close enough for her to be comfortable sharing this side; those wrapped around her finger may find themselves prey to her beguiling charm and pleading, doe-like eyes. Perhaps a certain brother is to blame for his spoiling, even though he is the biggest victim to her machinations?

Abilities:

Emotional and Mental Manipulation: Due to her nature as a Halovian, Robin is capable of both transmitting her thoughts and emotions to others as well as manipulating their own state of mind.

Physical Manipulation: This is less a direct ability and more a result of her mental manipulation; by granting others courage and energy, she's able to indirectly bolster their physical strength as well via a psychosomatic effect.

Telepathy: Her Halovian abilities grant her telepathic means of communication; she is mostly able to do so with her brother, Sunday.

Vocal Mimicry: Her blessings from the Harmony grant her a powerful voice; she's capable of both mimicry and ventriloquy.

Cuteness: She is so cute, would you ever want to hurt her??

Read More: Honkai Star Rail Wiki

Updated: 07.28.2024

[qui-rault]

Bellart on Herault de Sechelles

In my quest to start building some sources, I have translated Nicolas Francois Bellart's anecdote on Herault de Sechelles.

Please note:

The source for this is Oeuvres de N.-F. Bellart, procureur général à la cour royale de Paris. Tome 6, 1827-1828 authored by Billecoq. You can find the original here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5586566r and it starts on page 124 of the text.

My French is absolute trash. And Bellart's writing does not help. @ans-treasurebox was lovely enough to help me out with a chunk of the translation and I am very grateful. However, any incorrect translation or mistake is entirely on me.

Italics are my own notes.

M. Herault de Sechelles, as everyone knows, was Advocate General in the Paris Parliament. He had wit, a lot of pretensions to the talent of speaking well, which he possessed very little of, a determined taste for metaphysics which ruined him, and above all an unbridled desire to have fame. Moreover, with everyone, and especially with the men whom he believed could serve to propagate his reputation, [he had] the most engaging manners, gentle forms and treated those around him with flattering equality to bolster their self-esteem. 

Young lawyers, principally, were the objects of his coquetry. He spied on their forces, and when he thought he had discovered that a beginner was worth winning over, he had no rest until he had attached him to his chariot by his attentions and courtesies. 

And to deserve his attention it was not necessary to have brilliant faculties; it was enough to be someone ordinary. I was precisely one of those men. So, I had my turn of seduction with M. Herault de Sechelles. He sought me out, made many advances to me, even coming to see me in a poor little apartment which I occupied at a cork maker. There was indeed, in these kindnesses of a great magistrate, for a poor little lawyer, the son of an artisan, enough to turn my head. So, he turned me around: and frankly, I began to love M. Herault with all my heart, to recommend him, to praise him, to celebrate, in short, as best I could, his fine and good qualities. 

He undoubtedly learned about it. He was very grateful to me: and to add to my enthusiasm by his good graces, he invited me with M. Pigeau, then his secretary at the Palace, to go and spend a few days of the holidays at his chateau at Epone*  

*Bellart writes Éponne here.  

One can judge the eagerness with which I accepted. On one of the first days of September, I therefore went there. I found there, besides the master of the house, a certain Y.....,* his private secretary (1), brother of the conventional of that name; M. de La Salle, the most obscure metaphysician of his time, author of the Desordre Regulier, and finally Vitry, prosecutor in parliament. The revolution had begun. I noticed it in the evening. 

*I’m not sure who this is referring to.

(1) The man of whom Bellart spoke here has been, for some years now, by his humility, by his piety, by the practice of all Christian works, the model of the most sincere conversion. Bellart most likely ignored it, since he didn’t comment on it, but I, who know who this man is, I had to say it. (Author's Note) [Billecoq].

And at supper and after supper the most extraordinary theses were raised. We were discussing them three against three, M. Pigeau, Vitry and myself on one side, M. Herault, Y..... and de La Salle on the other. I heard proposals to make my hair stand on end. God, religion, even the respect due to paternity, everything was called into question, and with a cynicism and freedom of expression that made me wonder more than once if I was not dreaming and if I was really with one of the first magistrates of France. M. Pigeau and I, when we retired to our rooms in the evening, we moaned, about everything we had heard, blaming on Y .... and de La Salle all the odious doctrines that the ease of character of M. Herault had made him welcome. For me, in my real tenderness for the latter, I was truly distressed.  

An incident happened the next day to divert me a little from my sad thoughts. Very early in the morning, the famous president of Saint-Fargeau [Lepeletier] arrived at M. Herault's, to whom he told, as he got out of the carriage, that he had spared himself a week to spend it with him. The master received this new guest wonderfully, and the two of them, with M. Pigeau and myself, went for a walk in the park while waiting for lunch. I don't know how it happened that we got together two by two. [Lepeletier] took possession of M. Pigeau for a few moments; I stayed with M. Herault. When we were a little apart from each other:  

"You heard,” said M. Herault to me, “[Lepeletier] telling me that he was coming to spend a week here. He won't even stay for dinner.”  

“- How! Why?”  

“I don't want to tell you that. You'll find out later. But you'll see if I'm prophesying correctly." 

He didn't want to go into more explanations then. Soon the lunch bell rang. Everyone from the night before gathered to meet the newcomer in the dining room. He looked rather distant, said little, and went out for a few moments towards the end of lunch, then returned to his place at the table. We chatted; half an hour passed. [Lepeletier]'s valet brought letters to his master, who, to read them, retired to an opening in the window. 

Soon he returned to M. Herault, to whom he declared, with great appearances of contradiction, that he was in despair, but that it was necessary to get him post horses without delay, since a matter of the greatest emergency recalled him immediately to Paris. M. Herault seemed to take this speech at face value. The horses came. [Lepeletier] left. When the carriage which carried him left the yard, M. Herault burst out laughing, saying to me: 

“Well! Will you now believe my prophecies?” I asked him for the key to the enigma.  

“The key to the enigma,” he replied, “is Vitry. " 

Everything was explained. Vitry was a prosecutor in parliament. [Lepeletier], such a great zealot of liberty and equality, was the most arrogant man who existed. He considered it a diminution of dignity to go down to dinner with a prosecutor. The prosecutor had put him to flight. This is where this execrable demagogue was then in his republicanism, he who voted for the death of his master. 

Rid of him, M. Herault and his guests returned to their ease. Metaphysical controversies resumed. In this cursed castle we only discussed, and God knows what we discussed! The master of the house rested from impieties with obscenities. Finally, in two or three days, I discovered that he was materialistic to the highest degree. My sorrows came back to me. I was losing respect for the master. I couldn't stop myself from retaining my affection for him. I set out to convert him. I clung to him. Several times, tete a tete, while out walking, I employed all my wisdom to combat his deplorable doctrines. I spoke to him with force, with warmth, with interest. 

"What a disheartening belief," I said to him one day, grasping his hands warmly, "to have in this world neither the interest to do good, nor a witness to the good one does, nor a goal toward which one strives while doing it. Religious beliefs, the desire to please God through love and charity towards others, the hope of being rewarded by being kind and obliging to others, even at one's own expense, are the foundations of benevolence, friendship, and generosity. In materialism, the universe is empty. Morality is even emptier. There remains no longer a single reason not to sacrifice others to a harsh and cruel selfishness."

As I was uttering these words with great heartfelt enthusiasm, my interlocutor could only discern one notion from it, namely that I feared his opinions might make his willingness to assist me grow colder; thus, seemingly, I was engaging in a dispute with him only for the sake of the safeguarding of his favor that I wished to maintain!

"Don't be afraid," he said to me in a tone that brought tears to my eyes, "even though I am a materialist, I will still take care to serve you if necessary." Ah !

“Advocate General,” I cried to him bitterly, “you are cruelly mistaken, it was not about me: it was only about you, but since we understand each other so little, let's talk about something else. " And we talked about something else. Indeed, this sordid suspicion, thrown on an outpouring of heart which would have made me at that moment almost sacrifice my life to pass into his soul, for his happiness, all the convictions which burned in mine, had the effect on me of icy water falling on hot coals. 

I made up my mind from that moment to make a short stay at E, where disgust pursued me all the more invincibly because my friendship, mingled with gratitude for the master, had at first been more exalted, and because the hope of seeing him return to reason and happiness had just died. A discovery which I made two days later made me make up my mind in a hasty manner.* 

*I can't believe Bellart doesn't tell us what he saw.

 I left the next day. I never saw M. Herault again in my life. 

I don't see him again at his house, at least. I contented myself with writing to his door at the times of the year when I could not have omitted this homage without exposing myself to the danger, either of appearing insolent, or of explaining my conduct. I saw him again sometimes, but in public, at the prosecutor's office, where the lawyers used to go before the hearing. I saw him there again to confirm myself in the estrangement which he inspired in me, and to which he added considerably by a story which I heard him tell one day. It was some time after the storming of the Bastille. The unfortunate Berthier had been massacred by the revolutionary cannibals, who paraded his sad remains in the capital. His head, carried on the end of a pike, had reached the top of the Faubourg Saint-Martin. However, M. Foulon, father-in-law of the victim, arrived at the same place, dragged in a cabriolet from which the imperial had been torn off, by another troop of scoundrels, who also demanded with loud cries that they hang him from a lantern. The two bands met. The monster who bore Berthier's head had the ferocity to bring it closer to Foulon's and to force this poor old man, half dead, to kiss it. 

It was precisely this execrable adventure that M. Herault related. He told it with a kind of naturalness and lightness that made me shiver. He told it almost pleasantly, and as if he had told something that would have been nothing but ridiculous. And when he came to the atrocious act of having wanted the unfortunate father-in-law to lay his lips on this head separated from the trunk of his own son-in-law, he smiled, saying "Just imagine this scene, and this bastard presenting his head to the father-in-law, as if he had said to the son-in-law, kiss dad, kiss dad."* These words froze me. I didn't want to hear any more coming out of that coldly cruel mouth. Never have I seen him since.  

*The actual French here has him saying, “Baise papa, Bais papa". You may translate that as you wish.  

This man was not a barbarian; he was not even revolutionary. He was so little [a revolutionary] that, when asked which political party he was from, he answered: “the one that doesn’t give a fuck about the two others.” And it was true. He was selfish; he was a philosopher; he was materialistic. He wanted to escape, to live, to live like animals. He was neither good nor bad. He possessed neither virtues nor vices, at least not the kind that harm others; and with all that, either through absolute carelessness, the primary trait of that base soul, or through complete indifference to good and evil, or, finally, due to a crude desire for his own survival, he complied with whatever was desired, took part in crimes, and voted for the death of his king, and perished on a scaffold, in the midst of brigands whom he had made his fellows, his companions and his friends. I dwelt on this man, because I recently read his eulogy, and I felt indignant. 

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

At a fundamental level, for a patriarchy to exist, men will have to value other men, above women.

We know the story by now.

Laws, policies, jobs, departments, societal structures and social strategies, are designed for the advancement of men – aka male privilege.

But whilst it’s undeniable that the laws are written by men (mostly), this in no way means that the laws are written *for* men.

Because they aren’t.

I’ve never heard of the Office for Mens Health, or seen the Minister for Men.

I must have missed the Violence Against Men Act, or lost the Biden Agenda For Men.

I for one am looking forward to @UNWomen (and the dozens of other handles the UN has for women) making their first account for men, so too I’m excited to see the Department of Labor launch their Men’s Bureau too.

I mean, have you *ever* seen a political leader advocate for men’s issues, or call themselves a men’s advocate?

It’s certainly a strange kind of patriarchy.

I joke, but beneath this is an obvious truth, for which there is lots of scientific evidence: as a group, men don’t actually value other men above women.

And even more uncomfortable, this in-group bias is far more pronounced in women.

So let’s take a look.

-- Sources:

Study, In Group Bias: http://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf

Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.

Fake Gendered Articles: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12463

Abstract Two studies investigated (1) how people react to research describing a sex difference, depending on whether that difference favours males or females, and (2) how accurately people can predict how the average man and woman will react. In Study 1, Western participants (N = 492) viewed a fictional popular-science article describing either a male-favouring or a female-favouring sex difference (i.e., men/women draw better; women/men lie more). Both sexes reacted less positively to the male-favouring differences, judging the findings to be less important, less credible, and more offensive, harmful, and upsetting. Participants predicted that the average man and woman would react more positively to sex differences favouring their own sex. This was true of the average woman, although the level of own-sex favouritism was lower than participants predicted. It was not true, however, of the average man, who – like the average woman – reacted more positively to the female-favouring differences. Study 2 replicated these findings in a Southeast Asian sample (N = 336). Our results are consistent with the idea that both sexes are more protective of women than men, but that both exaggerate the level of same-sex favouritism within each sex – a misconception that could potentially harm relations between the sexes.

APA In Group Bias: https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women

Women like women more than men like men

Women are nearly five times more likely to show an automatic preference for their own gender than men are to show such favoritism for their own gender, according to a study in the October issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 87, No. 4).

Through four experiments, psychologists Laurie A. Rudman, PhD, of Rutgers, and Stephanie A. Goodwin, PhD, of Purdue University, used the Implicit Association Test to discover 204 heterosexual college students' automatic gender preferences and gender identity by asking them to associate positive and negative gender-free words with either "men" or "women." They also tested participants' self-esteem by asking them to associate those words with "I" or "others."

Both male and female participants associated the positive words--such as good, happy and sunshine--more often with women than with men, Rudman says.

Moreover, men and women tended to show high implicit self-esteem and high gender identity; however, men showed low pro-male gender attitudes, according to the study.

"A clear pattern shown in all four studies is that men do not like themselves automatically as much as women like themselves," Rudman says. "This contradicts a lot of theoretical thinking about implicit attitudes regarding status differences."

Hiring Bias: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176519303428

Abstract We investigate in-group gender bias in real-world hiring decisions by combining administrative data with data from a large-scale field experiment on hiring in which fictitious resumes with randomly assigned information about gender were sent to Swedish employers. Our results suggest that women (female recruiters or firms with a high share of female employees) favor women in the recruitment process. In contrast, we do not find much evidence that men (male recruiters or firms with a high share of male employees) favor men.

==

Theologians don't study cosmology, evolution, developmental psychology, evolutionary psychology, biology, anthropology or the evolution and origin of morality. They study one book of dogma, and "sin," and parse the latter through the former.

Feminist theorists don't study human psychology, evolutionary psychology, sociology, developmental psychology , statistics, biology or demography. They study a canon of dogmatic presuppositions and parse their personal grievances through it.

There is nothing evidence-based, rigorous or intellectually honest about either. They're not even wrong, because they're unfalsifiable and believed based on faith.

Here's a couple of extras:

"Going blind to see more clearly: unconscious bias in Australian Public Service shortlisting processes": https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/projects/unconscious-bias.pdf

This study assessed whether women and minorities are discriminated against in the early stages of the recruitment process for senior positions in the APS, while also testing the impact of implementing a ‘blind’ or de-identified approach to reviewing candidates.

Over 2,100 public servants from 14 agencies participated in the trial. They completed an exercise in which they shortlisted applicants for a hypothetical senior role in their agency. Participants were randomly assigned to receive application materials for candidates in standard form or in de-identified form (with information about candidate gender, race and ethnicity removed). We found that the public servants engaged in positive (not negative) discrimination towards female and minority candidates:

Participants were 2.9% more likely to shortlist female candidates and 3.2% less likely to shortlist male applicants when they were identifiable, compared with when they were de-identified.

Minority males were 5.8% more likely to be shortlisted and minority females were 8.6% more likely to be shortlisted when identifiable compared to when applications were de-identified.

The positive discrimination was strongest for Indigenous female candidates who were 22.2% more likely to be shortlisted when identifiable compared to when the applications were de-identified.

Interestingly, male reviewers displayed markedly more positive discrimination in favour of minority candidates than did female counterparts, and reviewers aged 40+ displayed much stronger affirmative action in favour for both women and minorities than did younger ones.

Overall, the results indicate the need for caution when moving towards ’blind’ recruitment processes in the Australian Public Service, as de-identification may frustrate efforts aimed at promoting diversity.

That is, they discovered they didn't have the problem they assumed they did. There is already "positive" racial and sexual discrimination in favor of women and racial minorities, and de-identification removes that bias. Except there's no such thing as "positive" discrimination. It's just discrimination. But they were fine to just keep that discrimination in place when it's against men and white people, to the extent of warning against implementing de-identification.

-

Intersectional implicit bias: Evidence for asymmetrically compounding bias and the predominance of target gender: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35587425/

Abstract Little is known about implicit evaluations of complex, multiply categorizable social targets. Across five studies (N = 5,204), we investigated implicit evaluations of targets varying in race, gender, social class, and age. Overall, the largest and most consistent evaluative bias was pro-women/anti-men bias, followed by smaller but nonetheless consistent pro-upper-class/anti-lower-class biases. By contrast, we observed less consistent effects of targets' race, no effects of targets' age, and no consistent interactions between target-level categories. An integrative data analysis highlighted a number of moderating factors, but a stable pro-women/anti-men and pro-upper-class/anti-lower-class bias across demographic groups. Overall, these results suggest that implicit biases compound across multiple categories asymmetrically, with a dominant category (here, gender) largely driving evaluations, and ancillary categories (here, social class and race) exerting relatively smaller additional effects. We discuss potential implications of this work for understanding how implicit biases operate in real-world social settings.

While demonstrably false, what the feminist pseudoscience of "the patriarchy" does do is accidentally reveal the thinking behind those who conceived it and those who subscribe to it. It's a projection of their own biases and prejudices, mapped onto everyone else, as they assume everyone else thinks the same way they do. That is, they assume men are out to hurt them, because they're out to hurt men. The non-existent "male in-group bias" required for the mythological "patriarchy" is simply an assumption based on the biases of those who came up with this conspiracy theory in the first place: "the patriarchy" is just a mirror image of themselves, and what they want to do.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Ostromizing democracy

Friday (May 5), I’ll be at the Books, Inc in Mountain View with Mitch Kapor for my novel Red Team Blues; and this weekend (May 6/7), I’ll be in Berkeley at the Bay Area Bookfest.

You know how “realist” has become a synonym for “asshole?” As in, “I’m not a racist, I’m just a ‘race realist?’” That same “realism” is also used to discredit the idea of democracy itself, among a group of self-styled “libertarian elitists,” who claim that social science proves that democracy doesn’t work — and can’t work.

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/04/analytical-democratic-theory/#epistocratic-delusions

You’ve likely encountered elements of this ideology in the wild. Perhaps you’ve heard about how our cognitive biases make us incapable of deliberating, that “reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments.”

Or maybe you’ve heard that voters are “rationally ignorant,” choosing not to become informed about politics because their vote doesn’t have enough influence to justify the cognitive expenditure of figuring out how to cast it.

There’s the “backfire effect,” the idea that rational argument doesn’t make us change our minds, but rather, drives us to double-down on our own cherished beliefs. As if that wasn’t bad enough, there’s the Asch effect, which says that we will change our minds based on pressure from the majority, even if we know they’re wrong.

Finally, there’s the fact that the public Just Doesn’t Understand Economics. When you compare the views of the average person to the views of the average PhD economist, you find that the public sharply disagrees with such obvious truths as “we should only worry about how big the pie is, not how big my slice is?” These fools just can’t understand that an economy where their boss gets richer and they get poorer is a good economy, so long as it’s growing overall!

That’s why noted “realist” Peter Thiel thinks women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Thiel says that mothers are apt to sideline the “science” of economics for the soppy, sentimental idea that children shouldn’t starve to death and thus vote for politicians who are willing to tax rich people. Thus do we find ourselves on the road to serfdom:

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/

Other realists go even further, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with orthodox (Chicago School) economists shouldn’t be allowed to vote: “[a]nyone who opposes surge pricing should be disenfranchised. That’s how we should decide who decides in epistocracy.”

Add it all up and you get the various “libertarian” cases for abolishing democracy. Some of these libertarian elitists want to replace democracy with markets, because “markets impose an effective ‘user fee’ for irrationality that is absent from democracy.

Others say we should limit voting to “Vulcans” who can pass a knowledge test about the views of neoclassical economists, and if this means that fewer Black people and women are eligible to vote because either condition is “negatively correlated” with familiarity with “politics,” then so mote be it. After all, these groups are “much more likely than others to be mistaken about what they really need”:

https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/03/the-demographic-argument-for-compulsory-voting-with-a-guest-appearance-by-the-real-reason-the-left-advocates-compulsory-voting/

These arguments and some of their most gaping errors are rehearsed in an excellent Democracy Journal article by Henry Farrell, Hugo Mercier, and Melissa Schwartzberg (Mercier’s research is often misinterpreted and misquoted by libertarian elitists to bolster their position):

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/68/the-new-libertarian-elitists/

The article is a companion piece to a new academic article in American Political Science Review, where the authors propose a new subdiscipline of political science, Analytical Democracy Theory:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/analytical-democratic-theory-a-microfoundational-approach/739A9A928A99A47994E4585059B03398

What’s “Analytical Democracy Theory?” It’s the systematic study of when and how collective decision-making works, and when it goes wrong. Because the libertarian elitists aren’t completely, utterly wrong — there are times when groups of people make bad decisions. From that crumb of truth, the libertarian elitists theorize an entire nihilistic cake in which self-governance is impossible and where we fools and sentimentalists must be subjugated to the will of our intellectual betters, for our own good.

This isn’t the first time libertarian political scientists have pulled this trick. You’ve probably heard of the “Tragedy of the Commons,” which claims to be a “realist” account of what happens when people try to share something — a park, a beach, a forest — without anyone owning it. According to the “tragedy,” these commons are inevitably ruined by “rational” actors who know that if they don’t overgraze, pollute or despoil, someone else will, so they might as well get there first.

The Tragedy of the Commons feels right, and we’ve all experienced some version of it — the messy kitchen at your office or student house-share, the litter in the park, etc. But the paper that brought us the idea of the Tragedy of the Commons, published in 1968 by Garrett Hardin in Science, was a hoax:

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/10/01/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-how-ecofascism-was-smuggled-into-mainstream-thought/

Hardin didn’t just claim that some commons turned tragic — he claimed that the tragedy was inevitable, and, moreover, that every commons had experienced a tragedy. But Hardin made it all up. It wasn’t true. What’s more, Hardin — an ardent white nationalist — used his “realist’s account of the commons to justify colonization and genocide.

After all, if the people who lived in these colonized places didn’t have property rights to keep their commons from tragifying, then those commons were already doomed. The colonizers who seized their lands and murdered the people they found there were actually saving the colonized from their own tragedies.

Hardin went on to pioneer the idea of “lifeboat ethics,” a greased slide to mass-extermination of “inferior” people (Hardin was also a eugenicist) in order to save our planet from “overpopulation.”

Hardin’s flawed account of the commons is a sterling example of the problem with economism, the ideology that underpins neoclassical economics:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/27/economism/#what-would-i-do-if-i-were-a-horse

Economism was summed up in by Ely Devons, who quipped “”If economists wished to study the horse, they wouldn’t go and look at horses. They’d sit in their studies and say to themselves, ‘What would I do if I were a horse?’”

Hardin asked himself, “If I were reliant upon a commons, what would I do?” And, being a realist (that is, an asshole), Hardin decided that he would steal everything from the commons because that’s what the other realists would do if he didn’t get there first.

Hardin didn’t go and look at a commons. But someone else did.

Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel for her work studying the properties of successful, durable commons. She went and looked at commons:

https://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons

Ostom codified the circumstances, mechanisms and principles that distinguished successful commons from failed commons.

Analytical Democratic Theory proposes doing for democratic deliberation what Ostrom did for commons: to create an empirical account of the methods, arrangements, circumstances and systems that produce good group reasoning, and avoid the pitfalls that lead to bad group reasoning. The economists’ term for this is microfoundations: the close study of interaction among individuals, which then produces a “macro” account of how to structure whole societies.

Here are some examples of how microfoundations can answer some very big questions:

Backfire effects: The original backfire effect research was a fluke. It turns out that in most cases, people who are presented with well-sourced facts and good arguments change their minds — but not always.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x

Rational ignorance: Contrary to the predictions of “rational ignorance” theory, people who care about specific issues become “issue publics” who are incredibly knowledgeable about it, and deeply investigate and respond to candidates’ positions:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08913810608443650

Rational ignorance is a mirage, caused by giving people questionnaires about politics in general, rather than the politics that affects them directly and personally.

“Myside” bias: Even when people strongly identify with a group, they are capable of filtering out “erroneous messages” that come from that group if they get good, contradictory evidence:

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674237827

Majority bias: People are capable of rejecting the consensus of majorities, when the majority view is implausible, or when the majority is small, or when the majority is not perceived as benevolent. The Asch effect is “folklore”: yes, people may say that they hold a majority view when they face social sanction for rejecting it, but that doesn’t mean they’ve changed their minds:

https://alexandercoppock.com/guess_coppock_2020.pdf

Notwithstanding all this, democracy’s cheerleaders have some major gaps in the evidence to support their own view. Analytical Democratic Theory needs to investigate the nuts-and-bolts of when deliberation works and when it fails, including the tradeoffs between:

“social comfort and comfort in expressing dissent”:

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37004-3

“shared common ground and some measure of preexisting disagreement”:

https://sci-hub.st/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080

“group size and the need to represent diversity”:

https://www.nicolas.claidiere.fr/wp-content/uploads/DiscussionCrowds-Mercier-2021.pdf

“pressures for conformity and concerns for epistemic reputation”:

https://academic.oup.com/princeton-scholarship-online/book/30811

Realism is a demand dressed up as an observation. Realists like Margaret Thatcher insisted “there is no alternative” to neoliberalism, but what she meant was “stop trying to think of an alternative.” Hardin didn’t just claim that some commons turned tragic, he claimed that the tragedy of the commons was inevitable — that we shouldn’t even bother trying to create public goods.

The Ostrom method — actually studying how something works, rather than asking yourself how it would work if everyone thought like you — is a powerful tonic to this, but it’s not the only one. One of the things that makes science fiction so powerful is its ability to ask how a system would work under some different social arrangement.

It’s a radical proposition. Don’t just ask what the gadget does: ask who it does it for and who it does it to. That’s the foundation of Luddism, which is smeared as a technophobic rejection of technology, but which was only ever a social rejection of the specific economic arrangements of that technology. Specifically, the Luddites rejected the idea that machines should be “so easy a child could use them” in order to kidnap children from orphanages and working them to death at those machines:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/20/love-the-machine/#hate-the-factory

There are sf writers who are making enormous strides in imagining how deliberative tools could enable new democratic institutions. Ruthanna Emrys’s stunning 2022 novel “A Half-Built Garden” is a tour-de-force:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/26/aislands/#dead-ringers

I like to think that I make a small contribution here, too. My next novel, “The Lost Cause,” is at root a tale of competing group decision-making methodologies, between post-Green New Deal repair collectives, seafaring anarcho-capitalist techno-solutionists, and terrorizing white nationalist militias (it’s out in November):

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865939/the-lost-cause

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Mountain View, Berkeley, Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, DC, Gaithersburg, Oxford, Hay, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

[Image ID: A lab-coated scientist amidst an array of chemistry equipment. His head has been replaced with a 19th-century anatomical lateral cross-section showing the inside of a bearded man's head, including one lobe of his brain. He is peering at a large flask half-full of red liquid. Inside the liquid floats the Capitol building.]

[eaglesnick]

WHO IS RISHI SUNAK?

Rishi Sunak’s true character has begun to show during this election campaign and what is being revealed is not pretty.

In 2021 the BBC asked the question “Who is Rishi Sunak and what does he believe?” The BBC was hard pushed to answer its own question, but one trait they did note was Sunak's reputation among fellow Conservatives for his  “close attention to his image". His social media footprint was described as "a highly calibrated piece of marketing activity". (BBC:03/03/21)

More revealing of the man behind the media image is a London School of Economics study. Using the well-established profiling framework known as Leadership Trait Analysis they found that:

“Sunak has a very high belief in his ability to control events, is very highly motivated by power, is more people- than task-oriented, tends to see the world in binary terms and is highly distrustful.” (LSE: 14/11/22)

In behavioural terms this means Sunak may be:

 “ less focused on solving problems and more concerned with how people are reacting to him and how he can secure and maintain power. Sunak is likely to be active in policymaking and may push through policies confidently, believing he can control the outcomes. He may be reluctant to listen to advice, delegate responsibility to others and compromise. He may prefer action over analysis and be hypersensitive to criticism. He may advocate hawkish foreign policies.” (LSE: 14/11/22)

Now, we should all have a healthy scepticism regarding psychological profiling but some of the personality traits listed do seem fit with Sunak’s behaviour. His obsession with his public image is a case in point. In May 2022 Sunak was even accused of using taxpayers money to “bolster public image” (National:22/05/22)

Another reported personality trait, his desire for power, was highlighted yesterday when he thought it more important to abandon the D-Day commemorations in favour of a TV interview. When it became obvious his self-seeking behaviour had caused “fury" amongst the general public he issued an apology for his actions.

Surely his advisers would have told him that leaving the D-Day commemorations early in order to do a self-promoting TV interview was not a smart political move?  Perhaps they did, but if Sunak’s personality profile is accurate then he would of been “reluctant to listen to advice". What’s more having realised he had made a political plunder and having issued an apology to the nation, he went on to undermine that apology by telling people not to “politicise" his shameful behaviour, an example of his “hypersensitivity to criticism” and an inability to accept full responsibility for his actions. 

We have learned more about Sunak in the last two weeks than in the previous two years and we have four more weeks of electioneering to go. The self-promoted image of Rishi Sunak as the squeaky-clean, ultra efficient technocrat, whose only concern is the economic well being of the nation is fastly unravelling.

 We had a clue to his self-serving faults during Covid when the Metropolitan Police fined Sunak, alongside Boris Johnson, over lockdown parties in Downing Street. Somehow the blame fell mainly on Johnson, who was eventually forced to resign. While the rest of us were confined to our homes, forbidden to attend funerals or visit aging relatives in hospital or care homes, Sunak and Johnson were partying in Number 10. That should have been a warning to all of us as to the true nature of Rishi Sunak.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"While prison administrators boasted that prisoners were able to earn money while in prison, their assertions were somewhat misleading. In a 1924 article in the Baltimore Sun, Henry C. Raynor, a former prisoner who served a three-year sentence in the Maryland Penitentiary in the early 1920s, complained that prisoners often were forced to spend portions of their wages to purchase necessary items such as bedding, underwear, and clothing—items that many would consider the responsibility of the state to provide. These expenses prevented prisoners from saving more of their wages while engaged in the prison workshops.

The low-wage labor system generated enough revenue to the state to allow the Maryland prison system to operate mostly on a self-sufficient basis and return a profit to the state. The balance for the combined earnings of the Maryland Penitentiary and House of Corrections for 1927 resulted in a surplus of over $33,000 paid to the state treasury. A considerable portion of the surplus came from the profits of prisoners laboring in contract shops and state-use industries. Taxpayers in Maryland during the 1920s contributed little to the general upkeep of the prisons. A 1928 Baltimore news article lauded the convict labor system in the Maryland Penitentiary for being largely “self-sustaining” and noted that the prison “costs the taxpayers of the State less than $60,000 annually.”

While the prison labor system was celebrated by state officials for its rehabilitative benefits, it is clear that the revenue it generated substantially motivated the continued reliance on prison labor. Labor union members were concerned with the competition of prison-made products on the open market. Labor leaders agitated for the ending of private prison contracts and advocated for state-use industries. Labor leaders believed that the state-use system was favorable because it meant that prison-made products would be sold directly to states outside of the free market and thus pose less of a threat to workers in labor unions. Evidence of efforts made by prison administrators to bolster state-use industries can be seen in some of the Board of Welfare minutes. For example, in April 1923, the warden of the Maryland Penitentiary and members of the Board of Welfare discussed a plan to employ female inmates in the House of Correction in laundering the clothing of the inmates in both the Maryland Penitentiary and House of Correction. This motion reflected both the desire to find employment for prisoners and to provide traditional gendered work assignments. During this time, women sentenced in the Maryland prison system were kept apart from male inmates. This separation influenced the type of labor that was considered appropriate for female prisoners, thus reflecting the gender norms of labor that were imposed by the prison administration. The Board of Welfare approved the laundry plans, and in the fall of 1923, laundry equipment was moved to the House of Corrections for the use of female inmates.

Male inmates, on the other hand, were seen as fit workers for labor-intensive manufacturing and road construction. Members of the Board of Welfare sought ways to expand the state-use automobile production, and in the spring 1923, held a meeting in the Maryland Penitentiary “in which all parties interested in the making of automobile tags…were present.” Prison administrators sought to secure auto tag making contracts in states outside of Maryland, and signed a contract with the State of Florida to manufacture automobile tags in the Maryland Penitentiary state-use shops. However, this expansion did not supply enough work to keep all inmates employed, and additional work for inmates was secured by hiring out inmates on state road construction projects. Throughout the summer and fall months, prisoners were taken outside of the prison and transported to road construction sites in various Maryland counties.

True to Progressive Era bureaucratic principles, prison administrators focused attention on the prison conditions and rehabilitation of inmates. One prisoner, Henry C. Raynor, who served a prison sentence in the early 1920s, pointed out the need for better ventilation and temperature control in the cells. Overall, however, he seemed satisfied that conditions in the prison system were improving. Raynor described conversations he had with “old-time” inmates in the prison who spoke of improved food and work conditions compared with those of years earlier. The prison warden enacted clear policies about appropriate disciplinary methods to rein in power abuses of prison guards. Officers who oversaw work in the prison shops were restricted by new prison policies from using undue force to control the prisoners. One officer complained that he had once been able to beat a prisoner in order to instill discipline, but was now prevented from “knock[ing] his block off as he pleased.” This illustrates a shift in prison discipline from a reliance on physical force to more humanitarian policies. In addition, it reveals the expansion of bureaucratic rules and procedures used to govern the actions of guards and civil servants employed at the prison. … In regards to the full implementation of these progressive policies, much depended on the attitudes and behaviors of the prison guards. Raynor remarked that the warden was limited by his inability to automatically dismiss guards from service without major cause. Guards who were resentful of the restrictions placed on them found ways to unfairly punish prisoners anyway through nonviolent means. For example, one domineering officer forced inmates on his watch “to stand in driving rain or snow for ten minutes at a time, for no reason except that to show his power.” While prison policies and punishments were more humanitarian in principle, the attitudes and actions of prison guards responsible for enforcement varied the actual treatment of the prisoners. In similar manner, the ethics of some private contractors at the prison were also suspect. Raynor described how one contractor of a pants workshop would strategically require prisoners to load products during lunch or dinner time as a way to eke out extra work without pay. Another contractor, angered by new terms which required the payment of a higher wage to experienced inmates, attempted to shirk the requirement by rotating inmates through tasks to avoid paying them the higher wage, and a shirt-making firm attempted to “evade the payment of any wage at all to their men, and constantly tried to raise the daily task.” Prisoners brought grievances to the warden in regards to the shirt contractor, and one day the inmates found the “the contract cancelled, the contractor gone, and another in his place who was more fair.” Such accounts reveal that prisoners actively negotiated for fair treatment and that their grievances held some weight with the warden. While the reforms of the 1920s largely improved prison conditions, like other aspects of progressive reform, new prison policies also sheltered racially prejudiced social science recommendations, medical opinions, and merit-based grading systems. Raynor, himself a white male, described his alarm at being seated in the dining hall between rows of black inmates. He learned from fellow prisoners who had been sentenced to the Penitentiary years before, that the “mixing of races” in the prison used to be more standard, but in more recent years “ha[d] been partially corrected.” This “correction” resulted in increased segregation. Revealing racial prejudice as the normative social view of the time, Raynor published evidence of increased segregation in the prison to further his argument that prison conditions were better in the 1920s than they were years before.

Moreover, racial prejudice also affected services that were rendered by private reform groups that operated outside general state jurisdiction. The Prisoners’ Aid Association provided many services for recently released inmates at the John Howard Center boarding house. This center provided temporary housing and shelter and assisted inmates in finding stable employment. However, the housing, meals, and resources at the John Howard Center were only available to white male ex-convicts. The Association reports that similar resources were made available to women and “colored men” through “private houses or other agencies,” thus signaling the separation of resources on a gendered and racially segregated basis. Progressive Era science also led to troubling medical policies and procedures, including sterilization of prisoners deemed as “feeble-minded.” During the 1920s, members of the Board of Welfare and the Board of Mental Hygiene arranged for semiannual joint meetings. The two boards, responsible for the security of those deemed criminal and mentally ill, often communicated regarding the transfer of inmates from the prison system to hospitals and mental care units if they were found psychically unstable. At a joint meeting of the boards on February 17, 1927, the administrators discussed the “sterilization of certain insane and feeble-minded under proper safeguards and with the consent of the patient or his guardian or next friend” and motioned that such “should be authorized by Act of the General Assembly.” Discussions such as these highlight the troubling ethics of progressive reforms. State oversight of normative categories severely restricted the freedom and rights afforded to marginalized inmates and mental health patients. While progressive penologists and civic reformers may have insured better living and working conditions in the Maryland state prison system, such reforms came at the cost of greater state control over those deemed unproductive, both in terms of their labor and their reproductive capabilities.

- Erin Durham, “In Pursuit of Reform, Whether Convict or Free: Prison Labor Reform in Maryland in the Early Twentieth Century,” Master’s thesis, University of Maryland, 2018. p. 60-67.

[monstersdownthepath]

Monster Spotlight: Bushyasta

CR 6

Neutral Evil Medium Outsider

The Complete Book of the Damned, pg. 248

Fiends of laziness and sloth who loathe to see mortals complete any work, myself and many other creators in the world would absolutely love to be able to punch these horrible things in the face for what they represent. These creatures are not Demons or Devils or even Daemons, but an esoteric category of fiend called a Div, a species of malevolent corrupters and despoilers of mortal creations we’ve just barely touched on, all lead by Ahriman, the Shadow Across Creation. They are petty and spiteful beings and can be considered something of an antithesis to the very ACT of creation as a whole; no matter what a mortal makes, there is a Div that exists to destroy it, regardless of whether it’s a physical item, an intangible idea, or even an entire faith. 

The Bushyasta, however, go above and beyond this call for ruin and focus on destroying things before they’re made. They exist to slow down construction of any sort, using their Bluff (+15) or Knowledge (Local) (+12) and 100ft of telepathy to act as the voices in the heads of anyone attempting to work to convince them that their efforts are better put elsewhere. Think of them like an external Executive Dysfunction Demon, lurking somewhere in a darkened corner, clinging to the ceiling (via permanent Spider Climb) so it cannot be seen as it spreads out malicious whispers of complacency and advocating for sloth. Given its ability to speak fluent Celestial, it’s even be to masquerade as a benevolent force attempting to warn someone away from a catastrophe, when in fact it’s simply trying to keep them from their goals. Why do today what you can do tomorrow?

Ironically, Bushyasta do not go out of their way to kill people to keep things from being done, despite that being the most efficient way to stop progress. Not only is that counterproductive to their message of sloth, but they revel in being able to see mortals succumb to frustration and even despair as their deadlines come and go while their projects sit unfinished on their desk. It’s not enough that no progress is made on any work, someone must suffer mental or even physical consequences for the fiend’s meddling. To this end, the fiends can use Touch of Fatigue at-will to sap their ability to do anything for extended periods, Deep Slumber 3/day to knock a target unconscious so it physically CANNOT do any work, and Suggestion 1/day to “gently” suggest they do something, anything else, even at the cost of their current project. Though they do not have a natural means to disguise or otherwise hide their hideous forms, they DO have a +15 to Use Magic Device in order to make use of any scrolls or wands of Disguise Self or Invisibility they find.

If it manages to secure an especially attractive (in one way or another) disguise, one that gets the attention of a whole crowd of mortals at once, or if the fiend finds itself in combat, it can release a pulse of Withering Effort once per day to blast all creatures within 30ft of itself with negative energy, fatiguing each one that fails a DC 18 Fortitude save. If a creature is already fatigued (such as if it’s affected by Touch of Fatigue), it becomes exhausted instead, further reducing both its ability to work and its capacity to harm the Div of laziness. The combination of Withering Effort and Touch of Fatigue is especially potent, as the latter has a duration of 6 only rounds, but if bolstered by the withering wave, the exhaustion becomes permanent until the victim takes 10 minutes of literally doing nothing. Not one single non-free action at all for 10 minutes, or the conditions simply cannot be removed without magic.

While their melee prowess isn’t exactly stellar--their CCB dealing 1d6+3 and 1d8+3, respective--and they have no other spells that could directly cause harm (aside from their potent ability to summon a pair of Aghash to their side if they succeed a coin flip), they further embody the obnoxiously slow and grinding pace yet again with their power to rob a party of its ability to make full-attacks. Not only do they have their withering pulse to exhaust anyone trying to charge them, but their Staggering Touch adds +1d6 nonlethal damage and a staggering effect to their claws. The stagger can be resisted with a DC 18 Fortitude save, but it must be made every single time a victim is hit by their claw attack, and the duration (1 round) stacks up with every failure. If that doesn’t work, their 1/day Slow to slam the whole party at once with a stagger just might.

With a party’s martial fighters robbed of their full-attacks and the party’s casters struggling to find a way through their resistances (Fire immunity, 10 Acid and Electricity resistance, and Spell Resistance 17), the fiends can afford to just very, very slowly cut an aggressive party apart. If they haven’t used any of their other spell-likes for the day, they’re all the more dangerous, able to just knock a few of the party out with Deep Slumber, keep one out of the fight with Suggestion, and rip apart the weaklings that are left over.

Just before I forget anything and put off this article even more, there’s a few amusing things that should be covered. The first is that they have Light Sensitivity, imposing a -1 penalty on all their attack rolls while in bright light, but while they’re in bright light they’re also partially invisible, prompting them to expose their horrible true shapes to the sunlight just for the extra defenses (a 20% concealment bonus). Secondly, all Div have unique and unusual quirks within their very souls that drives them to specific, obsessive behaviors. In the case of the Bushyasta, they HATE the smell of perfume and any especially aromatic flowers, treating fragrant flowers and powerful perfumes as though they were impassable barriers. They tend to save their 3/day Gust of Wind precisely for scattering such smells out of their way, as it takes an enormous amount of their willpower--more than the lazy fiends enjoy mustering--to overcome their loathing.

I think it’s really funny that a party hoping to overcome these hideous creatures and best their own laziness can vastly increase their chances of success by letting the foppish dandy of the party douse them all in their perfume collection.

You can read more about them here.

[facesofcsl]

Kendra F. Senior Coordinator of Research and Knowledge Mobilization at Volunteer Alberta.

Kendra Fincaryk is the Senior Coordinator of Research and Knowledge Mobilization at Volunteer Alberta. Volunteer Alberta focus on promoting civic engagement and volunteerism throughout the province, primarily by utilizing a network of volunteer centers. Essentially, they work on connecting and catalyzing this kind of community to make it easier, better, and more fulfilling for volunteers to be volunteers

Can you trace your involvement with the CSL Program?

I only participated in one CSL class, a Knowledge Mobilization course (PSYCH 505), a course designed for students who have had a Community Service-Learning experience or have considerable volunteer experience and wish to gain a deeper understanding of civic engagement and community changes. Students can investigate community engagement as a means of knowing the political contexts of volunteerism, self- and social narratives, concepts of community and citizenship, and community-based research methods. 

I first got involved because I was interested in the topic, but I was doubly excited when I learnt that there was a CSL component. Since I transferred from the University of Ottawa to the University of Alberta in my third year as an Honors Psych Student and getting involved in my community was really important for me, CSL could help me find some grounding in a new place. Therefore, I did a work experience internship through the science internship program for sixteen months, and when I got back, I learned a bit more about the CSL program, and that's how I got to know about CSL. 

Why did you choose to incorporate CSL students into your organization?

Being one of the first CSL students to work at Volunteer Alberta and knowing the experience I brought to the table during that time made me want to advocate for CSL students. Students can bring in fresh perspectives and bolster our work, especially since we often have a plethora of data to sift through. As a nonprofit, we're really limited in the amount of funding we have and the amount of staff we have, so taking on eager, engaging students was an excellent way for us to not only be able to provide experience for them as they get their hands on community-based research but also a way for us to be able to analyze and report data that we might not have been able to previously do as well as utilize the great knowledge that CSL students can bring forward.

What do CSL students learn in their placements?

CSL students can learn a lot because Volunteer Alberta is a diverse place that provides opportunities to grow in various areas. For example, one of our departments focuses on youth engagement. One of my first roles at Volunteer Alberta was working with the Youth At The Table Program, which gets youth involved in board governance. My role included qualitative data analysis followed by a knowledge mobilization activity.

Mainly, CSL students would be doing research-based activities, whether that be assisting with focus groups, interviews, survey development, data analysis, or communications design. We want to ensure that the work that we do is something that our community needs, and that our processes reflect that.

What have CSL and CSL students added to your organization?

CSL students have brought a lot of fresh perspectives. Especially being a nonprofit, this is a sector few know about, so it can seem very complicated to look into when trying to comprehend the structure of it all. It’s nice to have students come in and be that perspective of questioning what we're doing and pick apart why we do certain things this way or provide suggestions for how we can work more efficiently. Curiosity and inquisitiveness are valued in our organization, and we really like allowing people to flourish. Students have such a great capacity to do that with Volunteer Alberta. 

What have you learned by being involved with CSL?

In terms of being involved in CSL as a former student, personally starting as a student and taking this Knowledge and Mobilization course has helped me better understand the nonprofit sector. Also, the added factor is that I would have never gotten this job if it weren't for CSL. I started my CSL placement in January 2022 and volunteered with the organization as an evaluations intern that summer. Then that fall, I was recruited part-time during my final semester of school. Afterwards, I was hired full-time in January (working two different roles initially to be a full-time employee), received a full-time contract and have been working here ever since.

For me, not only did I learn about the nonprofit sector, I was able to develop many connections while working with an organization that cares about its employees. Also, through CSL, it was cool to see the other work students in my class had done and the impact a program like that could have on the community. 

When I continued volunteering with Volunteer Alberta after my placement, it was cool to feel valued as a person. The sense that often, I think, unfortunately, the university system tends to say, "you're an undergrad; you don't know anything" or "you need to cite your work" because your opinion doesn't matter yet. However, the organization I'm working in is incredible because I found that people valued my thoughts, opinions, and knowledge, which I was grateful to be able to experience.

If you can, sum up your experience with CSL in one sentence.

I'm a woman of many words, so I'll try my best. 

"My CSL experience was very validating and rewarding."

This organization valued me so much as a student, not even as a student, a person, a potential employee, and someone who had knowledge and experience. So my CSL experience was very validating as well as fulfilling. As a student, before my full-time contract, I learned many concepts and skills from the CSL course, which allowed me to bring my knowledge from class to the real world in a way that was rewarding for myself and the organization.

[downydig]

what were the top information you got from the white papers regarding self-assessing your art? like what helped you the most?

most of what's useful to me is the sorts of assessment tools that my teachers use! its like a cheat sheet in a way! knowing what assessment tools they use kind of helps me plan out my projects better/understand why ive been given what grade.

part 1 goes into why self evaluation can bolster creative flow and allow yourself to take creative challenges, part 2 covers things like test anxiety and advocating for education of the visual arts, and part 5 has a list of successful formative and summative assessments with pupil's feedback from interview! parts 3 and 4 are more for those who are art educators wanting to make their own lesson plans, but if you want you can go through and read them!

i shared it mostly as a way to say "hey! this is what your art teacher's most likely use, if you want to reverse engineer it!" yknow?

edit: didnt realize the question you asked! most of what i got from self assessment specifically was from part 1. having moments to evaluate your own work and give yourself constructive feedback for next time can give you future goals for your work! when given chances to evaluate yourself or create for the sake of seeing if you can do it can also lead to challenging yourself more! exploring new avenues! all the fun stuff! 

[utah-criminal-defense-attorney]

Understanding Simple Assault Utah Charges and Defense Strategies

Introduction

Building a Defense with a Utah Criminal Attorney

A Utah criminal attorney plays a pivotal role in building a defense strategy for cases involving self-defense laws in Utah. They will analyze the specifics of your case, gather evidence, and develop arguments to support your claim of self-defense. This may include collecting witness statements, reviewing police reports, and examining any physical evidence related to the incident. An experienced Utah criminal attorney will also help you navigate the legal process, from pre-trial motions to courtroom representation, ensuring that your defense is robust and well-prepared. Here’s how a Utah criminal attorney contributes to your defense:

Case Analysis: The first step involves a thorough analysis of the specifics of your case. The attorney will review all details surrounding the incident to understand the context and nuances of the situation. This analysis helps in identifying key elements that support your claim of self-defense.

Evidence Gathering: A crucial part of the defense strategy involves gathering evidence to support your case. This includes:

Collecting Witness Statements: The attorney will seek out and interview witnesses who can provide statements corroborating your version of events. Witnesses may offer essential perspectives that can validate your claim of self-defense.

Reviewing Police Reports: Analyzing the police reports associated with the incident helps in understanding how law enforcement interpreted the situation. This review can reveal discrepancies or additional information beneficial to your defense.

Examining Physical Evidence: Physical evidence related to the incident, such as photographs, forensic reports, or medical records, is scrutinized to bolster your claim. The attorney will ensure that all relevant evidence is collected and properly presented.

Developing Legal Arguments: Based on the gathered evidence, the attorney will develop compelling legal arguments to support your claim of self-defense. This involves:

Formulating Legal Theories: The attorney will create a legal strategy that aligns with Utah’s self-defense laws, demonstrating that your actions were justified under the circumstances.

Preparing for Cross-Examination: Anticipating the prosecution’s arguments and preparing counterarguments is crucial. The attorney will strategize on how to address and rebut any challenges posed by the opposing side.

Navigating the Legal Process: From pre-trial motions to courtroom representation, an experienced Utah criminal attorney will guide you through every step of the legal process. This includes:

Filing Pre-Trial Motions: The attorney will handle all necessary legal filings, including motions to dismiss or suppress evidence that may negatively impact your case.

Representing You in Court: During the trial, the attorney will represent you, present your case, and advocate on your behalf. Their courtroom experience ensures that your defense is articulated effectively to the judge and jury.

The Role of an Assault Attorney Utah

When dealing with simple assault Utah charges, hiring an assault attorney Utah is essential. An assault attorney Utah specializes in handling cases related to assault and provides expert guidance throughout the legal process. Their role includes offering legal advice, explaining your rights, and representing you in court. An assault attorney Utah will thoroughly review the details of your case, gather evidence, and build a defense strategy tailored to your specific situation. They will also handle negotiations with the prosecution and work to achieve the best possible outcome for you. With their expertise, you are better equipped to navigate the complexities of the legal system and address the charges effectively.

What is Aggravated Assault in Utah?

Utah aggravated assault defense attorney often deals with cases involving aggravated assault, a more serious form of assault compared to simple assault. In Utah, aggravated assault is characterized by the use of a weapon, intent to cause severe injury, or assault causing serious bodily harm. This charge is classified as a third-degree felony, which carries more severe penalties than misdemeanor assault charges. Understanding the definition and implications of aggravated assault is crucial for developing an effective defense strategy. An experienced criminal lawyer Utah can provide detailed insights into how these charges are defined and the potential consequences of a conviction.

Expert Criminal Defense Attorney Utah

An expert criminal defense attorney Utah plays a crucial role in managing simple assault Utah charges. These attorneys bring extensive experience and knowledge to the table, which is vital for developing a strong defense. An expert criminal defense attorney Utah is familiar with the nuances of Utah’s criminal justice system and has a proven track record of handling similar cases. Their expertise allows them to identify potential weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, advise on the best legal strategies, and advocate on your behalf. Whether it involves negotiating a plea deal, challenging the evidence, or representing you at trial, an expert criminal defense attorney Utah ensures that your case is handled with the utmost professionalism and skill.

How an Assault Defense Attorney Utah Can Help

Exploring Legal Options with a Criminal Defense Attorney Utah County

For those facing simple assault Utah charges in specific areas, such as Utah County, a criminal defense attorney Utah County can offer valuable local insights and expertise. A criminal defense attorney Utah County is familiar with the local court system, judges, and prosecutors, which can significantly impact the defense strategy. They can provide tailored legal advice based on regional practices and help navigate any unique challenges associated with your case. Engaging a criminal defense attorney Utah County ensures that your defense is adapted to local legal dynamics and increases the chances of achieving a favorable outcome. Local legal representation can significantly impact the outcome of your case due to several key factors:

Familiarity with Local Court Systems: A criminal defense attorney Utah County is well-versed in the nuances of the local court system. They understand the procedural norms, administrative practices, and unique aspects of how cases are handled in Utah County courts. This familiarity allows them to navigate the system more effectively and anticipate potential procedural issues that may arise.

Knowledge of Local Judges and Prosecutors: The dynamics of a case can be influenced by the specific judges and prosecutors involved. A local attorney has experience working with the judges and prosecutors in Utah County, allowing them to tailor their approach based on the preferences and tendencies of these key figures. This can be beneficial in negotiating plea deals, understanding likely outcomes, and strategizing effectively.

Understanding Regional Legal Practices: Legal practices and strategies can vary by region. A criminal defense attorney Utah County provides insights into the regional legal culture, including local precedents, typical defense strategies, and common prosecutorial approaches. This regional expertise ensures that your defense strategy is aligned with local practices and is more likely to resonate with the court.

Handling Unique Local Challenges: Each jurisdiction may present unique challenges and opportunities. Whether it’s dealing with specific local statutes or addressing community-related issues that impact the case, a local attorney is equipped to handle these unique aspects. They can provide targeted advice and develop strategies to address any local factors that might influence the outcome of your case.

Tailored Legal Advice: Engaging a criminal defense attorney Utah County means receiving legal advice that is specifically tailored to your situation and the local legal environment. This personalized approach ensures that all aspects of your case are considered, and the defense strategy is crafted to address both the charges and the local legal context.

The Importance of a Criminal Attorney Utah

A criminal attorney Utah provides essential legal support when facing aggravated assault charges. They offer expertise in managing complex criminal cases, including those involving serious allegations such as aggravated assault. A criminal attorney Utah will work closely with you to understand the details of your case, gather evidence, and develop a comprehensive defense strategy. Their role involves handling negotiations with the prosecution, representing you in court, and ensuring that your rights are protected throughout the legal process. Effective representation by a criminal attorney Utah is crucial for navigating the legal system and addressing the challenges associated with aggravated assault charges.

Addressing Additional Criminal Charges

In cases where simple assault Utah charges are accompanied by other criminal allegations, such as drug distribution or domestic assault, it’s crucial to address each charge comprehensively. If your case involves multiple charges, including those related to drug distribution lawyer Utah or domestic assault attorney Utah, working with attorneys who specialize in these areas can provide a more holistic defense. Each charge may require specific legal strategies and expertise, and coordinating with a team of legal professionals ensures that all aspects of your case are handled effectively. Addressing additional charges alongside simple assault Utah ensures that your defense is thorough and well-rounded.

Understanding Utah’s Self-Defense Laws

Self-defense laws in Utah are an important consideration when facing simple assault Utah charges. Utah law allows individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm, but the force used must be proportionate to the threat faced. Understanding the nuances of self-defense laws in Utah can be critical in building a defense strategy. If you believe that you acted in self-defense during the incident, presenting evidence and arguments that support this claim can be a key component of your defense. An experienced attorney can help you navigate these laws and determine how they apply to your specific situation.

Defending Against Sex Crimes in Utah

In cases where aggravated assault charges are accompanied by allegations of sex crimes, the complexities of the case increase significantly. Defending sex crimes in Utah involves addressing the specific legal challenges associated with such allegations, including understanding the evidence and legal standards involved. A Utah criminal defense attorney with experience in sex crime cases will provide specialized representation, helping to navigate the intricacies of the charges and develop a tailored defense strategy. Their expertise ensures that all aspects of the case are addressed, and they work to achieve the best possible outcome for the defendant.

Defense Strategies for Sex Offenses

Addressing DUI Charges

If your aggravated assault case involves DUI allegations, a DUI defense attorney Utah is crucial for managing both aspects of the case. DUI defense attorney Utah specializes in handling driving under the influence charges and can provide valuable insights into the legal strategies for addressing DUI allegations. They will work to challenge the evidence, negotiate with the prosecution, and represent you in court. Effective representation by a DUI defense attorney Utah ensures that both the aggravated assault and DUI charges are addressed comprehensively. Here’s how a DUI defense attorney Utah can significantly impact your case:

Specialized Expertise: A DUI defense attorney Utah specializes in handling cases related to driving under the influence. They possess in-depth knowledge of DUI laws, legal procedures, and potential defenses. This expertise is crucial for addressing the specific legal challenges posed by DUI allegations.

Challenging Evidence: One of the key roles of a DUI defense attorney Utah is to scrutinize and challenge the evidence presented against you. They will review police reports, breathalyzer results, and any other evidence collected during your arrest. By identifying potential flaws or inaccuracies in the evidence, they can build a robust defense strategy to counter the DUI charges.

Negotiation with Prosecution: A skilled DUI defense attorney Utah will negotiate with the prosecution to seek favorable terms for your case. They may advocate for reduced charges, lesser penalties, or even a dismissal of the DUI charges, depending on the circumstances of your case. Their negotiation skills are instrumental in achieving a more favorable outcome.

Representation in Court: Representing yourself in court can be challenging, especially when facing multiple charges. A DUI defense attorney Utah provides expert representation in court, presenting arguments, cross-examining witnesses, and ensuring that your rights are protected throughout the legal proceedings.

Comprehensive Defense Strategy: Addressing both aggravated assault and DUI charges requires a comprehensive defense strategy. A DUI defense attorney Utah will work closely with your overall legal team to ensure that both sets of charges are managed effectively. They will integrate their DUI expertise with the strategies used for the aggravated assault defense, creating a cohesive approach to your case.

Understanding of Legal Consequences: DUI convictions often come with severe legal consequences, including fines, license suspension, and potential jail time. A DUI defense attorney Utah will help you understand the potential impact of these consequences on your life and work to mitigate them through effective legal representation.

Legal Challenges of Prostitution Allegations

In cases where aggravated assault charges intersect with prostitution allegations, a prostitution lawyer Utah can provide specialized legal support. Prostitution lawyer Utah is experienced in handling cases related to prostitution charges and can offer valuable insights into managing these allegations. They will address the specific legal issues associated with prostitution charges and work to develop a defense strategy that considers the complexities of both the prostitution and aggravated assault charges.

The Role of a Drug Possession Attorney in Assault Cases

In cases where simple assault Utah charges intersect with drug-related offenses, such as Utah drug possession attorney involvement, the complexities of the case increase. A Utah drug possession attorney specializes in defending clients against drug charges and can provide valuable insight into how drug-related issues may impact your simple assault Utah case. They can assist in addressing any drug-related allegations and work to mitigate the potential impact on your overall defense. Coordinating with a Utah drug possession attorney ensures that all aspects of your case are addressed, leading to a more comprehensive defense strategy.

Navigating Sex Offense Allegations Alongside Simple Assault

If your simple assault Utah charges are coupled with allegations of Utah sex offenses, it is crucial to address both issues simultaneously. A sex crime defense attorney in Utah specializes in defending against sex-related charges and can offer specific strategies for managing these complex cases. When faced with both simple assault Utah and sex offense charges, working with a sex crime defense attorney in Utah ensures that you receive expert legal representation for all aspects of your case. This approach helps in developing a defense strategy that considers the interplay between the different charges and aims for the best possible outcome.

Conclusion

FAQs

What is Simple Assault in Utah?

Simple assault Utah refers to a criminal charge involving the intentional infliction of bodily harm or the threat of harm to another person. Under Utah law, simple assault can involve physical contact or the threat of such contact that causes a reasonable fear of harm. It is typically classified as a Class B misdemeanor but can escalate to a more serious charge under certain circumstances.

How Can a Utah Criminal Attorney Help with Simple Assault Charges?

A Utah criminal attorney is essential for navigating simple assault charges. They offer legal expertise and representation, including evaluating the evidence, developing a defense strategy, and representing you in court. They can help you understand your rights, negotiate with the prosecution, and work towards reducing or dismissing the charges.

What Role Does an Assault Attorney Utah Play in Defense?

An assault attorney Utah specializes in handling cases related to assault, including simple assault. They provide targeted legal advice, represent you in court, and build a defense strategy tailored to your case. Their role includes gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and negotiating with the prosecution to achieve the best possible outcome for you.

What is the Difference Between Simple Assault and Aggravated Assault in Utah?

Utah aggravated assault defense attorney often handles cases involving aggravated assault, which is more severe than simple assault. Aggravated assault involves using a weapon, intent to cause severe injury, or inflicting serious bodily harm. It is classified as a third-degree felony, carrying harsher penalties compared to simple assault, which is usually a misdemeanor.

How Can an Expert Criminal Defense Attorney Utah Assist in a Case?

An expert criminal defense attorney Utah brings extensive knowledge and experience to handling simple assault charges. They can identify weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, advise on the best legal strategies, and represent you effectively in court. Their expertise is crucial for challenging evidence, negotiating plea deals, and advocating on your behalf.

[wastheheart]

Your personality type is:

Protagonist

Your full personality type code is:

ENFJ-Turbulent

53% Extraverted:

Extraverted individuals readily enjoy group activities and value social interaction. They tend to be outwardly enthusiastic and express their excitement.

95% Intuitive:

Intuitive individuals are very imaginative, open-minded, and curious. They value originality and focus on hidden meanings and distant possibilities.

64% Feeling:

Feeling individuals value emotional expression and sensitivity. They place a lot of importance on empathy, social harmony, and cooperation.

79% Judging:

Judging individuals are decisive, thorough, and highly organized. They value clarity, predictability, and closure, preferring structure and planning to spontaneity.

51% Turbulent:

Turbulent individuals are self-conscious and sensitive to stress. They feel a sense of urgency in their emotions and tend to be success-driven, perfectionistic, and eager to improve.

Strengths:

Receptive – People with the ENFJ personality type (Protagonists) have strong opinions, but they’re far from closed-minded. They recognize the importance of allowing others to express themselves fully. Even when they don’t agree with someone, they recognize that person’s right to voice their truth.

Reliable – Few things bother ENFJs more than the prospect of letting down a person or cause that they believe in. People with this personality type can be counted on to see their promises and responsibilities through – even when it’s difficult to do so.

Passionate – ENFJ personalities brim with interests, and they take great pleasure in pursuing their hobbies – whether that’s hiking, cooking, dancing, growing houseplants, or something else entirely. As a result, they rarely find themselves at a loss for something interesting to do.

Altruistic – ENFJs are known for harboring a deep desire to be a force for positive change in both their personal lives and their professional pursuits. Their unwavering inclination toward fairness often compels people with this personality type to advocate for those who are unable to do so for themselves. Their joy lies in seeing those around them thrive, making their altruism heartfelt and sincere.

Charismatic – Determined and inspiring, ENFJs often find their way into leadership roles. Whether they’re captain of their softball team or a leader on the world stage, they excel at engaging in conversation, captivating people’s attention, and rallying people together behind a common goal. ENFJ personalities also have a profound capacity for empathy that oftentimes causes the people they come across to feel truly seen and valued, further bolstering their natural allure.

Weaknesses:

Unrealistic – Many ENFJs put pressure on themselves to right every wrong that they encounter. But no matter how hard these personalities try, it just isn’t realistic for them to solve all of the world’s problems. If they aren’t careful, they can spread themselves too thin – and be left unable to help anyone.

Overly Idealistic – ENFJ personalities tend to have clear ideas about what’s right and what’s wrong. They often think that everyone shares these fundamental principles – or, at least, that everyone should share these principles. So it can come as a genuine shock to ENFJs when people violate their core values, such as truth or justice.

Condescending – People with this personality type enjoy teaching others, particularly about the causes and beliefs that matter so much to them. But at times, ENFJs’ attempts to “enlighten” others may come across as patronizing – not the most effective strategy for persuading other people, unfortunately.

Intense – When it comes to self-improvement, ENFJs are rarely short on energy or determination. But they may not recognize that not everyone shares these qualities. At times, these personalities may push others to make changes that they aren’t ready for – or simply aren’t interested in making in the first place.

Overly Empathetic – Compassion is among this personality type’s greatest strengths. But ENFJs have a tendency to take on other people’s problems as their own – a habit that can leave them emotionally and physically exhausted.

[costenruizlaw]

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Work Tirelessly To Protect Your Rights

A skilled Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who will work tirelessly to protect your rights is essential if you have been accused of domestic violence in Los Angeles. Allegations of domestic violence can have severe repercussions on your reputation, family, and future. We comprehend the complexity and sensitivity of domestic violence cases. Our seasoned attorneys will approach your case with compassion and commitment, ensuring that the truth is revealed and your innocence is upheld.

To defend against domestic violence charges, we go to great lengths. Our legal team will conduct a comprehensive investigation into the allegations, gathering evidence and witness testimony to bolster your defense. We will also investigate potential defenses, such as self-defense or false accusations, and challenge any inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. Our objective is to achieve the most favorable outcomes for you, whether through aggressive courtroom advocacy or negotiation.

Domestic violence charges can be overwhelming, but you are not obligated to confront them alone. Riverside criminal defense attorney is committed to providing you with the experienced legal representation you need to safeguard your rights and future. We encourage you to reach out to us today to schedule a confidential consultation.

We acknowledge the severity of the challenges that individuals encounter when they become entangled in the intricate web of the Los Angeles criminal justice system. Our steadfast dedication is to be by our clients' sides at every turn, offering expert legal representation and unwavering support.

In the harsh reality of the Los Angeles criminal justice system, having a trusted advocate on your side can be the difference. Our criminal defense attorneys are well-versed in the intricacies of local laws and procedures. We are committed to empowering our clients to make informed decisions about their defense by offering them the necessary knowledge and guidance.

We are committed to advocating for you in the event that you are confronted with charges in a high-profile criminal case or are experiencing the repercussions of a false accusation. Our commitment to achieving favorable outcomes for our clients is evidenced by our track record of success. You can be assured that your rights will be strongly defended and your voice will be heard in court with Costen Ruiz Law by your side.