#this barely scratches the SURFACE

[xieyaohuan]

Would love to hear some propaganda 101 from you if you're ever so inclined c:

I think I'm going to start from current events, what I've been seeing on tumblr, and why I would categorize most of what I see here not as propaganda but rather as propaganda-related phenomena, namely the largely organic amplification of propaganda messages, ideologically motivated framings, and heaps upon heaps of misinformation. Ultimately, I actually find what we see here much worse - if all we saw on here was propaganda in the stricter sense, I would find that comforting and reassuring because it would suggest that maybe fewer people than we think actually buy into the views currently being spread (because more of the work would be done by specific groups with organizational structures and a budget for propaganda). Now, I personally still think that much of what we see on here is the outcome of various long-term, organized propaganda campaigns that have been driven by multiple groups with different if sometimes overlapping goals. And a lot of these groups are probably still actively contributing to the current wave of propaganda/information manipulation, but there's a huge organic component as well. Hopefully by the time I'm done with this post, it'll become clear what I mean by this. All lessons for media literacy still apply.

If we look at the definitions of propaganda, it's pretty clear why many of the posts on here don't qualify. There are a large number of definitions for propaganda, each with slight variations, and I should probably point out that many people working in this area reject the term per se because it has been thrown around too much and used by people simply to refer to content they disagree with. I personally still use 'propaganda' to refer to systematic and coordinated information manipulation in service of broad or narrow political goals, and so do some other people. Basically what most definitions of propaganda (or the alternative terms used by those who don't like the term propaganda but, at least in my view, still analyze the same phenomena) have in common is a set of ingredients/boxes to be checked for something to qualify as "propaganda." The one I'll use here is the ABC model, which looks at Actor, Behavior, and Content. I'll tackle these in reverse.

Content: This is the content of a message that is being spread. In many ways, this is the weakest and least meaningful checkbox of the three, though it can and should be used in combination with the other two to assess whether something is propaganda/coordinated information manipulation. When you look at content, one of the things to look for is whether something is true or whether it is disinformation/misinformation. (Generally speaking, the term disinformation is used to refer to false or misleading information spread intentionally, while misinformation is used to refer to false or misleading information spread either intentionally or unintentionally/unwittingly. Just like a lot of people don't like using the term propaganda because it has been thrown around too much, some people have started shunning the term disinformation because they argue it has been abused to much. I have no strong opinions here one way or the other. False or misleading information, whether spread on purpose or not, can range from anything that is outright falsehoods, conspiracy theories, etc. to more subtle forms of manipulated information, such as an incomplete and one-sided picture, selective presentation of facts, the promotion of specific narratives, and framing/selective presentation of reality, either quite literally by literally showing only part of the picture, but also, for example, by presenting facts through a particular ideological lens).

Behavior: On its own, content only tells us so much. False information could be an honest mistake or spread unwittingly. Framing is also something most humans do automatically to make sense of reality. All of this occurs organically pretty often and therefore on its own does not qualify as propaganda/systematic information manipulation by pretty much any standard. This is where analyzing behavior comes into play. This includes stuff like whether there is coordinated behavior, such as multiple accounts spreading the same message either because they are part of the same network or because they have agreed in advance to do so. (An example of coordinated behavior might be the use of a WhatsApp group to push out messages to hundreds of ideologically aligned tumblr users to alert them that another user has posted something "problematic" and asking the members of the group to harass the "problematic user.") A further step is coordinated inauthentic behavior, such as bot or troll networks that are used to promote certain content or pile on/harass others in a coordinated fashion. There are certain ways how analysts can detect inauthentic behavior, especially in more obvious cases when large numbers of accounts created within time frames of each other all start pushing out the same messages, use repetitive language, jump from one topic to the next in unison, etc. but if it's smartly done and involves a strong human component rather than pure automation, it is often harder to detect. (I've done a lot of research on bot/troll networks in their various forms. Political bot/troll networks exist on tumblr, but they have negligible impact as far as I can tell.) Transparency is often used as another criterion when analyzing behavior: is someone transparent about their identity and their goals? Behavior can also include the use of certain (rhetorical and other) techniques used with the intention to manipulate. Intention matters a lot to determine if something qualifies as propaganda. People can spread propaganda unintentionally, but that does not turn them into a propagandist (rather, they would be a potential resource that a propagandist/an actor engaging in organized propaganda could try to use). The point is: somebody somewhere has to be doing something on purpose. This is where the actor comes in.

Actor: When looking simply at information manipulation, an individual can qualify as a relevant actor, but most definitions of propaganda would look at collective actors, such as state actors and non-state actors (religious groups, lobby groups, etc.) pursuing specific broader or narrower political goals. Yes, a single tumblr user can engage in intentional information manipulation for a number of reasons ranging from trolling to acting in service of a larger ideological conviction, but most definitions of propaganda would not count the relatively unsystematic actions of an individual as a propaganda campaign (unless maybe they're Elon Musk and wield massive resources en par with that of a government or a political party to promote their messages and further their goals.) Some definitions of propaganda might include individuals, but in my opinion, that's unhelpful because it potentially turns everything into propaganda and makes the concept useless both analytically and in terms of practical responses. So it is better to look for a collective actor with a goal. The goal is usually to change the behavior of people in a way that is favorable to the actor, for example by starting to support a goal pursued by the actor, by opposing something the actor opposes, or often simply by deciding to refrain from doing something that the actor doesn't want people to do. (The goal can also be simply to confuse people and to create the perception that everything and nothing is true.) In practice, when looking at individual pieces of manipulated information, the actor is not always clearly identifiable, but for something to be propaganda/coordinated information manipulation in pursuit of a political goal, there absolutely has to be an actor acting with intention. A criterion that I personally use to determine whether something is propaganda in the stricter sense is whether the actor has an institutional structure (usually with a budget, however large or small) in place that is dedicated to propaganda, for example a government's propaganda department, a military's press liaison bureau, a company's press or publicity department, a political party's press office, a religious group's communications office, etc. Now just because a state or an organization has a structure in place dedicated to communicating with the public does not necessarily mean it is engaging in propaganda: this is where you have to look at the kind of behavior it engages in together with the content it promotes. This is why A, B, and C are looked at together to make a judgment call on whether something should be treated as propaganda/systematic information manipulation.

Based on all this, when I look at tumblr, what I see is (probably) very few actors that would qualify as actual propagandists (though I'm sure some are active here as well), but still massive spread of messages that contain false and misleading information through largely authentic networks that are not engaged in organized propaganda themselves, but that possibly feature in the resource and ecosystem analyses conducted by actors that do engage in organized propaganda. Where and how organized propaganda and organic networks intersect on this website would require much more detailed analysis that I am personally not capable to conduct in this particular case.

[sillygoofynerd]

The way that, despite being all the same character, every doctor is the opposite of the one that came before but perfect for their role in the Doctor's development.

Nine was fresh out of the war, avidly protesting violence and learning to let people in. Learning who they are and how to love themself and the people around them. Their time was cut short but they had a good run, figuring out who they were amidst all their trauma and regrets.

Ten was created for Rose Tyler, created to love, yet never able to say it. While Nine learned to love Ten lost everything and almost lost themselves too. They almost took a step back in the sense that they gave into their grief and regret, aiming to hurt those in the way they were hurt instead of helping everyone they could.

Eleven is the utmost contrast to Ten's "timelord victorious" arc, being goofy and childish and finding their family with the Pond's. Being able to find their wife and do everything they could to protect the people they love. However, they couldn't keep the act up forever, as once they lost the Ponds, they just shut down and kept to themself, ready to die and thinking that they would. They were, as the war doctor put it in the 50th anniversary special, the doctor who forgets, or tries to, rather than deal with it.

Twelve. Oh god I could talk for hours about them as much as I love Tennant there's just something about Twelve that has my heart. They're more closed off, living up to the 'grumpy professor' stereotype, but by god did they love their friends. That's a whole other essay, but in contrast to 11 running from their problems, 12 faced them, and while they ultimately paid the price for it, they were able to move on in a way none of their predecessors could.

Thirteen, my favorite girl. While I do think that the series should have ended with 12, never doubt that I love 13. They had so much thrown at them but never dealt with any of it, shoving it down instead of facing it head on like 12. Still, they never gave up, and while they didn't let people in as much as well, any other doctor, they always did their best to protect their fam. Always smiling, even if it wasn't always true, and they never hid their love for their friends and life in general.

And now Fourteen!!! The blorbo is back and they are blorboing so hard. 14 really is 10 but with all of the best parts of the others. Freely talking about how they love their friends, nearly breaking down when they though Wilf had down and getting very close when Donna not-died in their arms. I'm so excited to see how their character is developed over the next specials even though it's going to hurt by the end.

[chthonicthemeter]

Crazy ass day. Woke up at 6:30 after 3 hours of sleep, showered, ate cereal, went to work, got coffee/pastry, bid on an Oscar de la Renta tuxedo jacket, went to class, ate a sandwich outside, went to other class, presented a quarter inch scale model, took a break from class and picked up a package, finished class, frolicked <3, partook of an offered hookah pipe, lounged in the sun, ate dinner, filed a claim at the ministry of loneliness, went to work, edited photos, gave myself a haircut, oiled my hair. And the night is still young.

[noblekenshi]

Only 39,000 minutes? That *feels* so underwhelming. Also found it interesting that my #1 song I only listened to 35 times over the year.

Most of these are on my workout mixes, hence their repetition.

[vinnybox]

🟩⬛Mr. L

[ottosbigtop]

started playing in stars and time yesterday!! It’s really cute so far, I’m very excited to get deeper into the story :]

[spacebubblehomebase]

"A New Day Will Dawn."

-Said some guy named Luke probably.

Welcome to my #HHStargazersAU! Stay Tuned~♡? -Bubbly💙

[ramshacklefey]

It's amazing to me just how good the Mormon church has been at hiding just how bad they really are from public view. Even the shit that gets spread around is the relatively harmless bullshit. They had a crazy prophet with magic glasses. They believe in god-mandated polygyny. They think everyone who is good enough will get their very own planet after the world ends. They wear magic underpants. Mormon men are all paladins.

Here's one of the ones you hear less often:

See, like many other Christian sects, the Mormons really do believe that the existence of Christ obviates the existence of Judaism. Judaism was just a placeholder until the "real" church could be established by Jesus.

And the Mormons in particular believe, dead ass, that the entire inheritance of Israel has been given to them, because the Jews failed to recognize the Messiah when he was on Earth. They really do. They have this whole system where people are given a "divine revelation" about which of the Tribes of Israel they're a member of (don't worry, they decided that most people belong to the two tribes that are willing to "adopt" people. Only the most specialest boys and girls are members of the original ten).

Let's sum up so far. The Mormons believe that they are the people of Israel, chosen and protected by God. If Jews want to get back in on that party, they can always repent and convert to Mormonism, the one true church to which God gave all the rights and blessings that were originally bestowed on Abraham's house.

But it doesn't stop there!

The Mormons also believe, in all seriousness, that all Indigenous peoples of the Americas are descended from a small group of Jewish people who left just before the fall of Jerusalem (~600 bc iirc). Their entire weird-ass extra bible is a chronicle of those people's history in [unspecific part of America]. At the very beginning of the book, two brothers in the original family turn away from god, so they and all their descendants are cursed with dark skin, so that the good Nephites (who remain "white and delightsome") will always be able to tell themselves apart from the wicked Lamanites.

So, you've got supposedly Jewish people running around the Americas. And the "good" ones are white, and the "bad" ones are brown. Then, ofc, Jesus comes to visit them (I guess supposedly that's part of what he was doing during his dirt nap? Or possibly after he left again, it's not clear), and they all convert to Christianity, which they think is clearly the natural evolution of Judaism. Well, at the end of the book, all of them become wicked, in a kind of weird pseudo-apocalyptic series of events. They are all cursed with dark skin, until such time as they repent for their ancestors sins and return to the gospel.

But of course, Mormons being the good and kind people they are, they want everyone to receive the blessings of God and be brought into the houses of Israel etc etc. And it isn't the fault of those poor little Indigenous children that their distant ancestors turned away from God and became wicked.

So what's the natural answer? Well, Mormons are real big on missionary work, as we all know. But apparently that wasn't enough in this case.

Because the Mormon church has been one of the big players in abducting as many Indigenous children as possible, in order to indoctrinate them into being good Mormons, so that they can turn white again and be blessed. My mother remembers hearing talks about this in the 70s and 80s. The church literally had a "Lamanite Adoption Program," where families in the church were encouraged to get as many Indigenous children as possible away from their families and not let them be reunited until they were fully assimilated and ready to go back and proselytize about how wonderful the church is.

The church leadership literally talked about how wonderful it was to see these children becoming whiter. Actually whiter. Like, saying that when they finally saw them with their families again, it was beautiful how much paler they were.

I'm pretty sure this program has been officially ended, but it doesn't take a genius to speculate about who might be behind the curtains on the movement in the western US to gut the ICWA....

So yeah. Next time someone tries to tell you that the Mormons are just harmless weirdos, please remember that they're an antisemitic cult that advocates for the forced assimilation of Indigenous children to help them escape the cursed brown skin of their ancestors.

[what-the-floofin]

So how do baby taurs work for the equitaurs and cervitaurs in your stuff?

Oh that's a good one actually - lots to talk about! Too much for one post, but gotta start somewhere. Enjoy some messy micro scribbles peppered throughout. They were originally very very tiny so, pardon blurriness.

I've got my Taurs running overall pretty similar to equine cycles and gestations - meaning they are what you call 'long-day triggered' by the spring and summer seasons.

(Though they do cycle throughout the year, just at slower rates and less consistently over cooler seasons)

This goes for the cervitaurs too - rather than using the shorter gestation of their deer alikes - as they and their foals are a bit bigger and more complex to deal with. Which also goes to suggest that twins/multiples are not a frequent occurrence for cervitaurs in comparison to actual deer, and inherently poses as much danger as it does for equines instead. Possible, but high risk and incredibly demanding.

So, you're looking at an 11 month gestation on average, and typically starting in a mid-spring to late-summer window. Which places most taurs at being born early-spring to mid-summer. It's most uncommon to be winter born, but not weird tbh.

Foals are super awkward, there's no getting around that, and in the first year they have a ridiculous growth rate when compared to other sentient creatures of similar lifespans.

These things are weeds - the difference from one day old to three months old is phenomenal alone. They are, however, cooked a little further along than what you'd be comparing to for a newborn human. They're able to support themselves enough to avoid outright injury (think like a 3-4 month old baby), but gaining actual control of all those limbs takes a bit more time. The equine half however would be a touch undercooked for a horse. Just physically, in size. No worries about comparative internal developments, that's all good and ready to go.

So they're typically gonna spend shy of their first month feeding and sleeping, practicing rolling up, sitting and limb coordination to build strength for self-standing. If mama has places to be, that baby is getting carried.

I also absolutely subscribe to the idea of arms being naturally held close to torso prior to having balance and coordination. It would support them a lot! Then it becomes a self-soothing gesture seen in the anxious, and an instinctive positional response when badly startled. Tuck in!

By three months you can expect them to be racing on their little stilt legs - albeit still with the occasional wobble and spill. And wowee did that happen fast when you think about it.

While the zoomies are a lot, they're balanced out by the fact that so much oncoming growth means foals crash nap very frequently. These buggers sleep a lot. It's go hard and sleep hard on endless rotation. Play, snack, nap, rinse and repeat.

This accelerated growth races away throughout their first year, and then drops right back into something a bit more reasonable - at least when you're considering it from the human perspective!

Yet in comparison to how they first started out, it's practically snail paced.

I'm meaning, you look at the size of a 3 month old horse foal, and that's the closest comparison to a 2 year old taur foal in body. Every 'horse foal month' thereafter starts guiding the next 'taur foal year' visual until you hit that yearling horse look for a taur when they're 10-11 years old. Then by that point, they've reached most of their full leg length, and the next 10 years is focused on finishing the bulking out of their frame.

(click to enlarge I hope) - Featuring my lass Thalo here haha

By rule of thumb I just have both equid and humanoid aspects grow in relative balance to each other, lanky stages and all. From the human perspective, the humanoid half grows crazy fast at first and then becomes comparatively similar. From the horse perspective, the equine half is crazy slow and always is. It would also give credit to having a higher physical durability than their animal counterparts. More time was spent growing!

It's worth noting that a lot of perceived 'weirdness' only comes from trying to compare them purely 1 to 1 with either horse, deer or human kids. Taurs are their own thing though! And nature's most consistent attitude is to Find What Works and Do it. No matter how wack, if it works it's used.

So, a rapid starting growth tapered into a much slower rate once they're stabilised and running was just the path that worked best for this Taur survival. Keep it simple!

There's always more to cover, but this is chunky enough for now. Whew!

[idliketobeatree]

NO WAIT ROB ARE YOU TELLING ME AZIRAPHALE HAD, ADMITTEDLY, THE WORST KISS IN RECORDED HISTORY AND HE WAS STILL LIKE "come back and do that again, please, right now"?????!?!??!

[villtura]

homesick

[bestjeanistmonster]

Dc au- jumping on the ‘making shadow suffer’ bandwagon and it’s been fun so far

[valeovalairs]

They guys, the bros, the high schoolers who are probably failing at this point given how much school they skip and how many shenanigans they get involved in and it’s only the first week

[gojobait]

people who did not watch vikings s1 through 3 do Not understand the enormity of ragnar and athelstan, the viking earl who kidnapped the christian monk and the two of them spent the rest of their lives falling harder and harder in love with each other to the point that when the christian monk died the viking earl (now king) had the bishop of paris baptize him so they could be reunited in heaven and later tried to kill himself but didnt manage to and spent the followong 10 years away from everything and everyone and only came back to die at the hands of the other king who was psychosexually obsessed with the monk

[nartml]

"You just don't get her deep lyricism and her poetic plays on words—"

Yup. You're right. I don't get it.

Because how am I supposed to get it, when the beat puts me to sleep? How am I supposed to get it when all 31 songs somehow manage to blend into one?

You want me to listen to the lyrics, but I'm too busy nodding off.

I don't give a rat's ass if Taylor Swift is some sort of lyrical genius (which I know she isn't), because if I wanted only good writing I'd pull out a fucking poetry book.

Taylor Swift is a singer. You know, a song artist.

Who makes music. Who is regarded by Swifties as this amazing, misunderstood genius. She's 'objectively good'.

But I say that to be objectively good at music, you're supposed to be able to take care of the lyrics and the rhythm.

You're supposed to be able to both write well and have a good beat in the background. Preferably, one that doesn't sound the exact same as the previous five.

I'm not under any circumstances saying that every song has to have both. Not at all.

But if an album of 31 songs is to be considered actually good, then it better have both to an extensive degree.

There should be variation. There should be something to make it interesting, to pick up the pace.

Now before the whataboutisms kick in, I'm not saying that you can't enjoy it. I'm not saying that it can't be your favourite.

I'm fucking saying that you have no right to act as if we're the crazy ones because we don't "get it".

Or, or, or maybe, have you considered that for some of us, there's nothing to get.

We're not stupid, nor slow. We know what a damn metaphor is. We get what she's trying to say.

But just because there's meaning in something doesn't mean it's good, or smart, or interesting.

'You wouldn't last an hour in the asylum that they raised me.'

Mhm. Yes, Taylor, tell me more about how your parents brought you to Nashville to get famous because you wanted to. About a deliberate choice that you made and keep making, even though that line implies that you had no say in the matter.

Fascinating. How difficult it must be to have a billion dollars lying around in your bank accounts.

That's just cringe worthy.

[botanautical]

'We all yearn for the woods. That's why every fellow on this island wants to settle down near a tree - just one will do.'