#doubtful as always

[beardedmrbean]

Complaints from some progressive Democrats about the much-heralded Respect for Marriage Act are on the rise, as they realize that the legislation often labeled in the press as the "same-sex marriage" bill would not actually require states to recognize same-sex marriages.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., lauded the legislation as a "momentous step forward for greater justice for LGBTQ Americans." But complaints from the far left started surfacing as the Senate passed the bill last week.

Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart, who is gay, said in a column that he supports the bill but admitted that the more closely he looks at it, "the more my joy diminishes."

"What the act does not do is require states to issue marriage licenses in contravention of state law," he wrote.

SENATE PASSES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

Charlotte Clymer, former press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign and LGBTQ activist, put it more sharply in a blog post. "I hate the Senate bill and we need it to pass it," she said, adding that "it sucks" and "it's our only real option."

Democrats in Congress whipped up the bill after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. There, he said that in light of the decision to let states decide abortion, the court should also "reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents," including the Obergefell v. Hodges case that took same-sex marriage out of the hands of states and said it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

RICK SCOTT DEFENDS RELEASING 'RESCUE AMERICA' PLAN AHEAD OF MIDTERMS: 'I DON'T REGRET IT ONE BIT'

No other justices joined Thomas. But that opinion became a major campaign issue for Democrats and spurred lawmakers of both parties to write legislation aimed at requiring states to recognize same-sex marriage, in case the Obergefell precedent fell.

But if the Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) passes, it would not go so far as to require states to permit same-sex marriages, which is what has some progressives disappointed. Instead, it would require the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal.

The act would also require states to recognize same-sex marriages in other states for the purpose of distributing benefits, and wouldn't let them interfere with the federal recognition of those marriages. But otherwise, each state would still be able to define marriage as they see fit, and would not be required to issue licenses or permits for same-sex marriages that take place in their state.

Tim Schultz, president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, told Fox News Digital that the passage of RMA is about "political realism," and that both sides had to cede some ground in order to turn the language into law. Schultz noted that the bill doesn’t go as far as banning states from making gay-marriage illegal, and includes an amendment by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., aimed at protecting religious liberty.

GOP SENATORS DEMAND ANSWERS OVER SPIKE IN MIGRANT CASES DISMISSED BY COURTS AS DOCS NOT FILED IN TIME

"The interest groups on the left I think are begrudgingly admitting that these religious protections had to be in the bill to pass," Schultz said. "Some of them are saying that’s an affirmative good. Others are saying, ‘Well, I guess this is what you have to do to attract Republicans.’ I’m not saying they feel religious liberty in their soul."

"I think that this is actually a big political deal," Schultz added. "I think that legally the RMA is not a huge deal. And I think that's why people are hyperventilating for no good reason."

"But I think like politically it's a very big deal. Because I think it shows that there is a kind of center that wants to get things done on this issue."

Schultz says the overturning of Obergefell is a "very unlikely scenario."

[giantkillerjack]

Today my therapist introduced me to a concept surrounding disability that she called "hLep".

Which is when you - in this case, you are a disabled person - ask someone for help ("I can't drink almond milk so can you get me some whole milk?", or "Please call Donna and ask her to pick up the car for me."), and they say yes, and then they do something that is not what you asked for but is what they think you should have asked for ("I know you said you wanted whole, but I got you skim milk because it's better for you!", "I didn't want to ruin Donna's day by asking her that, so I spent your money on an expensive towing service!") And then if you get annoyed at them for ignoring what you actually asked for - and often it has already happened repeatedly - they get angry because they "were just helping you! You should be grateful!!"

And my therapist pointed out that this is not "help", it's "hLep".

Sure, it looks like help; it kind of sounds like help too; and if it was adjusted just a little bit, it could be help. But it's not help. It's hLep.

At its best, it is patronizing and makes a person feel unvalued and un-listened-to. Always, it reinforces the false idea that disabled people can't be trusted with our own care. And at its worst, it results in disabled people losing our freedom and control over our lives, and also being unable to actually access what we need to survive.

So please, when a disabled person asks you for help on something, don't be a hLeper, be a helper! In other words: they know better than you what they need, and the best way you can honor the trust they've put in you is to believe that!

Also, I want to be very clear that the "getting angry at a disabled person's attempts to point out harmful behavior" part of this makes the whole thing WAY worse. Like it'd be one thing if my roommate bought me some passive-aggressive skim milk, but then they heard what I had to say, and they apologized and did better in the future - our relationship could bounce back from that. But it is very much another thing to have a crying shouting match with someone who is furious at you for saying something they did was ableist. Like, Christ, Jessica, remind me to never ask for your support ever again! You make me feel like if I asked you to call 911, you'd order a pizza because you know I'll feel better once I eat something!!

Edit: crediting my therapist by name with her permission - this term was coined by Nahime Aguirre Mtanous!

Edit again: I made an optional follow-up to this post after seeing the responses. Might help somebody. CW for me frankly talking about how dangerous hLep really is.

[somnimagus]

My page for @sheikahzine; about Impaz's duty to her village, empty of people and full of memories.

[id in alt text]

[puppyeared]

my attempt at making a fursona

[uncanny-tranny]

To any disabled person undergoing tests to find What's Wrong: I hope your results come back the way you hope and that you receive the help you need. I hope you are not denied care, I hope you are taken seriously even after this, and I hope that you will be taken care of compassionately

[jeonwonwoo]

Shoot a perfect pair, you're my identical soul. Drive off the darkness once more, and so it flowers this story of us.

ARMAGEDDON — ÆSPA (2024)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Against Lore

For the rest of May, my bestselling solarpunk utopian novel THE LOST CAUSE (2023) is available as a $2.99, DRM-free ebook!

One of my favorite nuggets of writing advice comes from James D Macdonald. Jim, a Navy vet with an encylopedic knowledge of gun lore, explained to a group of non-gun people how to write guns without getting derided by other gun people: "just add the word 'modified.'"

As in, "Her modified AR-15 kicked against her shoulder as she squeezed the trigger, but she held it steady on the car door, watching it disintegrate in a spatter of bullet-holes."

Jim's big idea was that gun people couldn't help but chew away at the verisimilitude of your fictional guns, their brains would automatically latch onto them and try to find the errors. But the word "modified" hijacked that impulse and turned it to the writer's advantage: a gun person's imagination gnaws at that word "modified," spinning up the cleverest possible explanation for how the gun in question could behave as depicted.

In other words, the gun person's impulse to one-up the writer by demonstrating their superior knowledge becomes an impulse to impart that superior knowledge to the writer. "Modified" puts the expert and the bullshitter on the same team, and conscripts the expert into fleshing out the bullshitter's lies.

Yes, writing is lying. Storytelling is genuinely weird. A storyteller who has successfully captured the audience has done so by convincing their hindbrains to care about the tribulations of imaginary people. These are people whose suffering, by definition, do not matter. Imaginary things didn't happen, so they can't matter. The deaths of Romeo and Juliet were less tragic than the death of the yogurt you had for breakfast. That yogurt was alive and now it's dead, whereas R&J never lived, never died, and don't matter:

https://locusmag.com/2014/11/cory-doctorow-stories-are-a-fuggly-hack/

Hijacking a stranger's empathic response is intrinsically adversarial. While storytelling is a benign activity, its underlying mechanic is extremely dangerous. Getting us to care about things that don't matter is how novels and movies work, but it's also how cults and cons work.

Cult leaders and con-artists know that they're engaged in mind-to-mind combat, and they make liberal use of Jim's hack of leaving blank spots for the mark to fill in. Think of Qanon drops: the mystical nonsense was just close enough to sensical that a vulnerable audience was compelled to try and untangle them, and ended up imparting more meaning to them than the hustler who posted them ever could have dreamt up.

Same with cons – there's a great scene in the Leverage: Redemption heist show where an experienced con-artist explains to a novice that the most convincing hustle is the one where you wait for the mark to tell you what they think you're doing, then run with it (scambaiters and other skeptics will recognize this as a relative of the "cold reading," where a "psychic" uses your own confirmations to flesh out their predictions).

As Douglas Adams put it:

A towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitch hiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with.

Magicians know this one, too. The point of a sleight is to misdirect the audience's attention, and use that moment of misattention to trick them, vanishing, stashing or producing something. The mark's mind is caught in a pleasurable agony: something seemingly impossible just happened. The mind splits into two parts, one of which insists that the impossible just happened, the other insisting that the impossible can't happen.

You know you've done it right if the audience says, "Do that again!" And that's the one thing you must not do. So long as you don't repeat the trick, the audience's imagination will chew on it endlessly, coming up with incredibly clever things that you must have done (a clever conjurer will know several ways to produce the same effect and will "do it again" by reproducing the effect via different means, which exponentially increases the audience's automatic imputation of clever methods to the performer).

Not for nothing, Jim Macdonald advises his writing students to study Magic and Showmanship, a classic text for aspiring conjurers:

https://memex.craphound.com/2007/11/13/magic-and-showmanship-classic-book-about-conjuring-has-many-lessons-for-writers/

There's a version of this in comedy, too. The scholarship of humor is clear on this: comedy comes from surprise. The audience knows they're about to be surprised when the punchline lands, and their mind is furiously trying to defuse the comedian's bomb before it detonates, cycling through potential punchlines of their own. This ramps up the suspense and the tension, so when the comedian does drop the punchline, the tension is released in a whoosh of laughter.

Your mind wants the tension to be resolved ASAP, but the pleasure comes from having that desire thwarted. Comedy – like most performance – has an element of authoritarianism. You don't give the audience what it wants, you give it what it needs.

Same goes for TTRPGs: the game master's role is to deny the players the victories and treasure they want, until they can't take it anymore, and then deliver it. That's the definition of an epic game. It's one of the durable advantages of human GMs over video game back-ends: they can ramp up the epicness by "cheating" on the play, giving the players the chance to squeak out improbable victories at the last possible second:

https://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/03/behind-the-screen.html

This is so effective that even crude approximations of it can turn video-games into cult hits – like Left4Dead, whose "Director" back-end would notice when the players were about to get destroyed and then substantially ramped up the chances of finding an amazing weapon – the chance would still be low overall, but there would be enough moments when the player got exactly what they'd been praying for, at the last possible instant, that it would feel amazing:

https://left4dead.fandom.com/wiki/The_Director#Special_Infected

Critically, Left4Dead's Director didn't do this every time. As any showman knows, the key to a great performance is "Always leave 'em wanting more." The musician's successful finale depends on doing every encore the audience demands, except the last one, so the crowd leaves with one tantalyzing and imaginary song playing in their minds, a performance better than any the musicians themselves could have delivered. Like the gun person who comes up with a cooler mod than the writer ever could, like the magic show attendee who comes up with a more elaborate explanation for the sleight than the conjurer could ever pull off, like the comedy club attendee whose imagination anticipates a surprise that grows larger the longer the joke goes on, the successful performance is an adversarial act of cooperation where the audience willingly and unwillingly cooperates with the performer to deny them the thing that they think they need, and deliver the thing they actually need.

This is my biggest problem with the notion that someday LLMs will get good enough at storytelling to give us the tales we demand, without having to suffer through a storyteller's sadistic denial of the resolutions we crave. When I'm reading a mystery, I want to turn to the last page and find out whodunnit, but I know that doing so will ruin the story. Telling the storyteller how the story should go is like trying to tickle yourself.

Like being tickled, experiencing only fun if the tickler respects your boundaries – but, like being tickled, there's always a part where you're squirming away, but you don't want it to stop. An AI storyteller that gives you exactly what you want is like a dungeon master who declares that every sword-swing kills the monster, and every treasure chest is full of epic items and platinum pieces. Yes, that's what you want, but if you get it, what's the point?

Seen in this light, performance is a kind of sado-masochism, where the performer delights in denying something to the audience, who, in turn, delights in the denial. Don't give the audience what they want, give them what they need.

What your audience needs is their own imagination. Decades ago, I was a freelance copywriter producing sales materials for Alias/Wavefront, a then-leading CGI firm that was inventing all kinds of never-seen VFX that would blow people away. One of the engineers I worked with told me something I never forgot: "Your imagination has more polygons than anything you can create with our software." He was talking about why it was critical to have some of the action happen in the shadows.

All of this is why series tend to go downhill. The first volume in any series leaves so much to the imagination. The map of the world is barely fleshed out, the characters' biographies are full of blank spots, the mechanics of the artifacts and the politics of the land are all just detailed enough that your mind automatically ascribes a level of detail to them, without knowing what that detail is.

This is the moment at which everything seems very clever, because your mind is just churning with all the different bits of elaborate lore that will fill in those lacunae and make them all fit together.

SPOILER ALERT: I'm about to give some spoilers for Furiosa.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

FURIOSA SPOILERS AHEAD!

Last night, we went to see Furiosa, the latest Mad Max movie, a prequel to 2015's Fury Road, which is one of the greatest movies ever made. Like most prequels, Furiosa functions as a lore-delivery vehicle, and as such, it's nowhere near as good as Fury Road.

Fury Road hints as so much worldbuilding. We learn about the three fortresses of the wasteland (the Citadel, the Bullet Farm, and Gastown) but we only see one (The Citadel). We learn that these three cities have a symbiotic relationship with one another, defined by a complex politics that is just barely stable. We meet Furiosa herself, and learn something of her biography – that she had been stolen from the Green Place, that she had suffered an arm amputation.

All of this is left for us to fill in, and for a decade, my hindbrain has been chewing on all of that, coming up with cool ways it could all fit together. I yearned to know the "real" explanation, but it was always unlikely that this real explanation would be as enjoyable as my own partial, ever-unfinished headcanon.

Furiosa is a great movie, but its worst parts are the canonical lore it settles. Partly, that's because some of that lore is just stupid. Why is the Bullet Farm an open-pit mine? I mean, it's visually amazing, but what does that have to do with making bullets? Sometimes, it's because the lore is banal – the solarpunk Green Place is a million times less cool than I had imagined it. Sometimes, it's because the lore is banal and stupid: the scenes where Furiosa's arm is crushed, then severed, then replaced, are both rushed and quasi-miraculous:

https://www.themarysue.com/how-does-furiosa-lose-her-arm/

But even if the lore had been good – not stupid, not banal – the best they could have hoped for was for the lore to be tidy. If it were surprising, it would seem contrived. A story whose loose ends have been tidily snipped away seems like it would be immensely satisfying, but it's not satisfying – it's just resolved. Like the band performing every encore you demand, until you no longer want to hear the band anymore – the feeling as you leave the hall isn't satisfaction, it's exhaustion.

So long as some key question remains unresolved, you're still wanting more. So long as the map has blank spots, your hindbrain will impute clever and exciting mysteries, tantalyzingly teetering on the edge of explicability, to the story.

Lore is always better as something to anticipate than it is to receive. The fans demand lore, but it should be doled out sparingly. Always leave 'em wanting more.

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/2024/05/27/cmon-do-it-again/#better_to_remain_silent_and_be_thought_a_fool_than_to_speak_and_remove_all_doubt

[ewwww-what]

friendship so strong it grants you a sixth level spell slot. I have words to say.

[sea-buns]

SO insane that Sam has seen AND liked this... I'm so cozy in my little tumblr corner that I forget my words can escape containment and be perceived beyond Aabria Iyengar

[cthulhum]

and dean winchester thought he was unlovable and didnt deserve happiness he hated himself and thought eveyone would eventually leave him and then a literal fucking angel fell in love with him. like loved him more than anything else in the world.

[p4nishers]

i just cant get over how desperate abed was in geothermal escapism. like the way he was practically begging for troy to understand. he never did that before. he wasn't ever desperate like THIS. not even once. he needed troy to understand that this wasn't his fault, that it wasn't intentional, that it wasn't manipulation. he never had to explain the way his brain worked to troy before. but this was different. troy was LEAVING him and he literally saw lava and had to kill his "real" self and be a clone bc he genuinely could not have let troy go otherwise. that whole ep is just screaming how troy is the most important person in abed's life and he cannot live without him unless he's not himself. and he knew that. and troy almost stayed bc that's how important abed is to him. god. just. GOD.

[popcornkwantum]

"Jerry is Lincoln's and Scary's biological son, which means teen pregnancy" or "Jerry is adopted"

NO.

It's Scam Likely again

What's the one good thing that Grant and Marco got out of Scams shitty wedding gift? Their son Lincoln. So Scam has learned that the best gift at a wedding is giving someone a child of course

[sapphsorrows]

trans is an inherently spiritual belief. you believe that somehow, in an unfalsifiable way, you were born the wrong gender. i don't have to believe that. i have freedom of religion, and therefore freedom from religion. i am an atheist. i don't believe in god. i don't believe in weird spiritual gender woo. expecting me to refer to your spiritual gender instead of your biological sex is like expecting me to pray to your god and getting mad when i don't. sorry not sorry <3 i only care about material reality.

[cyarskaren52]

[spicyraeman]

messy cropped smut cuz ive got a headache

[skywalker-swift]

btw cause I think some people still need to hear this, but the rose colored glasses coming off and the ‘revision’ to the meanings of her songs about joe was always gonna happen. with travis around or not. so saying she should focus on her new relationship is not the dunk you were thinking it is. like I keep saying it but she wrote him into her world, she included him in the world she wrote music in, and when she needed to, she wrote him out. why would he get to stay when he hasn’t earned that anymore? she would have kept him in, she even would have left the bad stuff in a box, but he didn’t seem like he wanted that part of her life. please can we all just realize that this is just such a normal reaction and end to a relationship and Taylor doesn’t need to ‘take the high road’ or whatever just because she’s in a new relationship. the reckoning of what happened was always going to be closing the chapter of the story she wrote for them. she’s releasing it whether you’re ready to reckon with her or not.