#unless this is the actual ssa

[answrs]

this “slam the scam!” email reads exactly like the scams it’s theoretically trying to warn people about lmaoooo. like it lists off five descriptions of common scams and this email has four of them straight off the bat

[pathologicalreid]

newly creds | S.R.

in which the BAU team wants to see your newly issued credentials

who? spencer reid x fem!BAU!reader

category: fluff

content warnings: marriage. changing your name. slightly suggestive at the end but nothing explicit.

word count: 498

a/n: first and foremost, thank you so much for 100 followers AND for almost 3k likes i am so astounded by this im just so grateful. i absolutely wrote this while i was supposed to be doing privacy law homework. very proud of the title too. also today is my birthday so legally you have to like and reblog this!!! please enjoy <3

“So, let’s see it,” Derek prodded as he leaned over your desk, obviously searching the surface of it for something.

You peered up at him, “Can I help you?”

Before he could properly answer you, Emily entered the bullpen. Her eyes found you and she hastily piled her things on her desk before joining Morgan next to yours. “Do you have it?” She asked, dark hair shining as she inspected your desk.

Obviously, you had missed some sort of memo about whatever ‘it’ is. “I have uh, half of a bagel?” You offered helplessly, gesturing to your unfinished breakfast that was waiting patiently for you on top of a napkin.

“Y/N!” Penelope called your name from the glass doors she was rushing through, “Did I miss it? I want to see!”

Spencer rounded the corner of your desk, slowly placing a mug of fresh coffee on your desk, next to your abandoned bagel. “What’s going on?” He asked, carefully bringing his cup of coffee to his mouth to take a sip.

You shrugged, “They all want to see something but won’t tell me what ‘it’ is.” You grumbled, holding out your left hand, “Is this it?” The whole team had seen your ring already, Emily, Penelope, and JJ had even helped Spencer pick it out. You wondered if maybe they all wanted to see the engagement ring with your wedding band.

“Y/N,” another voice called, you resisted the urge to bury your face in your hands as you turned to face JJ. “Did you get the envelope that was on your desk? It got delivered to me by mistake, but I kept it safe while you two were honeymooning.”

Your lips parted, “Oh!” Quickly, you realized what everyone was pestering you about. You and Spencer had just gotten back from your weeklong honeymoon. The both of you got to work first, just to find a package on your desk. Rolling your chair back slightly, you rolled your eyes, “You know, you all could’ve just said something.”

You reached into your desk drawer and pulled out your credentials before unclipping your badge from your belt loop. Handing your creds to Derek and your badge to Garcia, who squealed in excitement, you couldn’t help but smile at Spencer. “SSA Y/N Reid,” Derek said, sounding like a proud parent.

Spencer placed a hand on your shoulder, and you beamed, “I wasn’t expecting them so quickly, I don’t even have my new driver’s license yet.”

“Does this mean you’re both going to answer to Reid now?” Emily asked, smiling at the prospect of confusion.

Shaking your head, you took your badge back, “Not unless it’s a prank. Hotch actually specifically asked us not to do that.”

“Welcome back,” Rossi said, walking into the bullpen and passing your desk. “I sure hope the two of you had the same kind of fun I did on my third honeymoon,” he teased, winking as he continued up to his office.

Spencer choked on his coffee.

[storiesofsvu]

Okay I do live reactions for svu so I should do them for evolution too, right? Lol

TO the newcomers: my live watch thoughts are always rather disjointed, unhinged and might not make sense without context, my opinions/thoughts might change on a second glance/second watch through (which i'll do once it's on disney this weekend). anything in my askbox related to this i will wait a few days to reply to to avoid spoilers for others!

Starting off strong with the vic they dressed similar to jj to make us all panic, so that’s out of the way.

Kinda lowkey hate how this is a follow up from last season but starting with shit we have no major connection to HOWEVER, I do like that that’s how the og eps would start so that’s a step in the right direction, right?

“SSA emily prentiss”??!! has she been demoted or was that just an easier way to introduce herself?

OKAY, em not being at garcia’s bday makes a little more sense now if she’s off working a different case, she hasn’t been kidnapped …yet…

“we should eat some cake” tara being the realest here. Where’s my cake? I still haven’t gotten my birthday treat, this is a crime. Someone remind me to pick up cake on Friday before work.

“you’re hot”(screaming cause jj sees what we see) “a hot mess…” yup.. tara is still the realest. Also “mr or mrs right” confirmed pan queen

Jfc Emily looks SO FUCKING GOOD

OH FUCK ME the SMOKING IS IN THE FIRST EPISODE?! Fuck

BOTH OF THEM ARE SMOKING OHHHMY FUCKING GOODDD. It’s a crime that we didn’t get to see either of them actually smoking though, like they were half offscreen, we all know paget knows how to inhale LOL.

It’s voit she’s consulting with, right?

“good book I hope” LOL. Omg luke

And we have our first fuck of the season!

Voit showing off just exactly how good he is and how he would absolutely win over a jury is such a good play and im here for it.

Second fuck of the season.

Also like…yeah.. they’ve got zero concrete proof that voit was/is sicarius. That’s the thing with criminal minds, they NEVER follow past the point of arrest. 90% of their unsubs would end up in mental health facilities or be able to plead not guilty by reason of mental defect. That’s why the show worked so well prior to evolution, we didn’t deal with that much of the political side of it, the team went home and we all just imagined the unsubs went to prison (if they weren’t killed). There would be no way voit would end up charged with this shit unless they had a TON more of evidence.

LOVE rossi & prentiss’ little tiff that’s really just them watching out for each other and making sure they know the other person still has their back.

On the other side, I’m still not sure whether I’m leaning toward Rebecca or tara’s side. I love them both and will forever be made about the killing the gays trope holding up so we’ll see how the season goes..

I am loving how heavy prentiss of an ep this is

JFC. The two with the most heavy trauma lingering from the last season REALLY had to go through THAT???

OKAY THAT WAS JUST LAZY WRITING!!! I KNOW that Emily only said the “didn’t call 911, walked 3 miles…” thing to rossi earlier but to repeat it that quickly in the same episode is…ugh..

“HE” compromised an investigation… uh… that was half Penelope my guy

Ok but now that that whole investigation is no longer a thing and no longer a case whatsoever that was just the easy way of making it not a conflict of interest and now we’re stuck with this awkward love triangle that shouldn’t be a triangle, right? Like, last season it was a little off imo of Garcia, but we’re what? Halfway through episode one and I don’t EVER remember seeing Penelope like this, she keeps saying “I broke up with him” GURL, you WERE NEVER TOGETHER. You kissed twice, you helped him through a public drunk/hangover, you banged and Emily went “dude wtf call it off” and you ended it. She’s acting like a love drunk highschooler who’s been pining after this guy for months…

Rebecca is SO SMOL

Tyler green’s actor reminds me of ryan Reynolds… like… voice and mannerisms? He’s Canadian.. are they like, distantly related?

“he tried to kill me” “but he didn’t” wtf bruh

LOOOL the way rossi stepped in before Emily could end up all “yeah fuck authority, fuck this, fuck you, and fuck your mom. Here’s my badge”

YESSSS EMILY’S FIRST FUCK

Also can we talk about the fact that we’re into like.. day 3? I think and these babes have not slept…. (day 3 for at least em, tara & pen..)

“I’ll post it on youtube myself” dave… there is no way in hell you know how to use youtube…

Okay. Episode one down. Onto episode two.

 Goddammit there’s no subtitles on ep 2 lol

Tbh. I love clark Gregg, I think he’s a great addition to the cast.

I can’t stop thinking about the thirst tweets and Zach being all “you guys think serial killers are cute? Uwu” LOL

Penelope comparing her like, week long hook up with tyler to tara’s entire relationship?? (yeah I know we don’t know exactly how long they were together but if they were talking about moving it we can assume it was a decent amount of time?). I HATE what they’re doing to Penelope… like..i could turn a blind eye last season and say it was a fluke but not anymore.

FUCK Emily is so goddamn hot

I repeat my last statement oh my fucking god.

Rossi hallucinating is not okay, like…I know a lot of it is ptsd or whatever but like.. man needs to retire

I am REALLY liking getting to see this much prentiss and rossi in the first 2 eps, I saw a tweet or something bout how paget really got to shine in the first 2 eps and that’s so true. HOWEVER, that makes me stressed that she’s got a ton of screen time in the first couple of eps cause of whatever happens to her later on and her being kidnapped/going rogue or whatever happens that has her nearly blown up/injured in the promo shots we’ve seen.

Also okay, listen, Paget’s incredible. She’s been doing this same role for… let’s say 12 years, she’s stepped away to other jobs and come back to CM, the show’s been cancelled and then renewed and she’s still managing to play it perfectly, keep the character the same, her line delivery, her body language, she just slips right back into it and her acting never deviates (unlike some other actors in similar situations). Her talking to that kid was PURE Emily from earlier seasons.

Omg this entire ex gf bickering in front of tyler is HILARIOUS and I am tyler…like, get me out of the car PLEASE lol.

Okay wow… tara that was a little deep cut my girl.

A HOTCH REFERENCE?!?! Also yeesss Emily calling rossi out to say he’d never do it to him. It’s gotta be that awkward situation of being his boss when he’s older, he’s a man, he “should have been the UC before her”, maybe there was a time when he outranked her. trust me, as someone who’s had to navigate that kinda shit in a bar world, that’s awkward enough, props to em for calling him out. Please continue to call men on their crap.

  YES ANOTHER FUCK omg.

I wanna say thank you to whatever director had Rebecca behind the drivers seat and tara in the passenger seat and the camera angles filming them diagonally rather then Rebecca sitting in the middle for no reason other than angles.

Emily’s hair is going to get progressively more straight/unstyled as the season goes on cause she’s more unhinged/out of control/losing it, isn’t it?

The fact that they really listened and put Emily in blue and red in her first two eps…thank you .. lol

“it used to be hard to get someone to take a life. But now, it’s easy. All you’ve gotta do is go on the internet.. tell em a lie.. a big lie..” the TRUTH to that statement is actually fucking terrifying…

Hate voit calling jj “Jennifer” BUT I also know in previous seasons she’s been  all “my friends call me jj, you can call me Jennifer” it’s just weird to hear lol.

Okay,,, is em hyper fixating and she fucked up by mentioning gold star or are we meant to believe that rn? Like obvi she’s gonna be focused on that cause of bailey’s death and her denial of working with voit and wanting to solve that case but… still.. yup… no gold star.. not totally surprised. HOWEVER would NOT be surprised that the same trope comes out later in the season, that they’re working something else and Emily is second guessing herself/dave gives her a look and she’s all “yeah you’re right, I was wrong last time.” And doesn’t believe herself and BAM it actually is gold star and maybe that’s what draws her into the field on her own or whatever.

Okay… im assuming we weren’t supposed to hear what voit said to luke? Or am I just deaf without my subtitles LOL.

“who’s infected now?”  oooohh kay…. Way to end an episode.

Alright, there we are. ep 1 was better? I’ll likely rewatch when they drop on Disney plus tomorrow/Friday after work, but those are my thoughts so far.

[dantesinfurno]

dante did NOT overcome his same sex reactivity and be nice to finn... instead he tried to mount him and finn got scared and they locked mouths for a bit. and then while i was talking to the lady who was helping with finn, dante sat next to me and barked nonstop. -_- and poor little finn was just making the saddest face because i (his favorite person) let a mean dog come near him...

does anyone have advice for dealing with SSR/SSA and successfully introducing a reactive male to another male dog? dante will not take any treats when out of the house unless he is in an area he knows well & doesn't want to wander and smell & there are no other dogs there. i brought his most high value treat today and even when just walking he won't take treats.

and the main problem is - dante desperately wants to mount other males & be the dominant dog in the situation, and other dogs understandably do not want to be mounted. and esp in this instance - finn was trying very hard not to fight or bite dante. when they grabbed each other it was one bite and then held, not actual fighting. (they weren't doing multiple bites).

and - dante slipped out of his collar and did not go for finn, he went for where finn had marked and marked next to it then came back to me. so he isn't completely aggressive either.

i just don't really know what to do with them... we agreed to try one more time next week and see if they can be more calm since they met once already, and i will try and exercise dante extra in between so he is less energized but... any tips are welcome! (and it may just not work, which is also okay. but i don't want to give up yet!)

[vintage-bentley]

im a huge book nerd, so i hang out in bookstores, libraries and antique shops to look at books a lot. something ive noticed lately is that every time big stores would put out a stand for pride month with LGBTQ+ lit and/or by LGBTQ+ author, there's contemporary lit only. i haven't seen a classical book by gay/lesbian/bi authors in ages. its all that "They both die in the end"s and "Heartstopper"s, "A Little Life" 😬. Contemporary romlit, all that hot new garbage from booktok. but it's never oscar wilde, or james baldwin, or virginia woolf, or sapho, or em forste, or anna-maria sh, or radclyffe hall, or patricia highsmith. even of the never ones, there are more than just ya and romance or romantasy, like let me see like alice walker at least, or sarah waters, leslie feinberg???

i know that they are chasing the trends and trying to be as unproblematic as possible and "uplift trans and q*eer voices" and also they probably have contracts with these authors. but by doing that they are basically erasing lgbt voices from the past, who were already silenced at the time. younger people don't discover authors from the previous centuries, even decades, on these stands. if you are a ssa teen or ya, unless you are doing your own searching, nowadays you won't find any connection with the people from the past that were like you.

I’ve noticed this too. My local library had an “2SLGBTQIA+” pride month display, and I swear it was ALL trans stuff. It was all books starring trans identifying characters or books about gender identity. I think out of the whole display there was maybe two books about same sex attraction. And of course, all of the books were the modern ones with rainbow covers, “progress” flags, and that tik tok book art style.

And I think it’s because they don’t care. They never cared. They’ve just found an easy way to pretend they care so that they can be hailed as Amazing Allies. I feel that way about everyone that’s jumping on the TQ+ train. They’ve found a super easy way to feel good about themselves, and they don’t even have to put in any work to actually support LGB people. It’s all performative.

Why would libraries and bookstores put in the work to find works written by LGB people throughout history, if they can just pull out every rainbow coloured book they see, and still get praised for it?

[heterophobicdyke]

it’s the same anon here, i wanted to clarify that i agree with you on both of those points as well. i don’t think i believe in aphobia as its own axis of oppression, but i’m unsure. is the reason lesbians are oppressed for not being attracted to men purely down to misogyny (obviously we also experience homophobia for being attracted to women)? it’s the point of commonality between us and asexual women so i think about it often.

i agree with you as well about aromanticism, but i specified it in particular because i do NOT believe that people who have romantic desire are at all asexual, they are just celibate. the orientation ‘asexuality’ to me strictly describes people who have no romantic or sexual desire. i don’t believe that people who are in relationships but are celibate are asexual, but the label has been completely coopted to mean ‘somebody who doesn’t desire sex’ so it can be difficult to make it clear what you mean when talking about the topic. we seem to be on the same page here since i completely agree that romance is sexual. the actual act of sex is just a small part of sexual attraction and desire. i think that true asexuals must be rarer even than homosexuals, since i’ve only met three in my entire life (two women and a man).

It’s a radfem myth that lesbophobia is purely down to misogyny. No, we share homophobia with gay men too. We are subject to misogyny and homophobia for being lesbians. Part of it comes down to us not fulfilling our duty as women (fucking men, having their babies), but the other part is that fear of anyone who doesn’t prove the supposed default “human nature” of opposite-sex attraction. This is why our experience with homophobia is so different to bisexuals. SSA is looked past if someone experiences OSA because OSA is the fundamentally “normal” state of being. A bisexual experiences the most homophobia when she’s in a relationship with a woman, has children with a woman, is perceived as not being interested in men at all - or, if she is, she’s not giving him the time and attention patriarchy requires. A lesbian is not attracted to men whatsoever, so she is viewed as fundamentally defective in or out of a relationship. She’s not redeemable. Or else she’s not believed and is perceived as bisexual. Oppression isn’t just “people think romance and sex is default so asexuals are oppressed,” oppression is systemic and material. Asexuals might get weird looks and confusion, but it’s not as threatening to not be attracted to anyone at all. You move through the world easily. Homosexuals do not. Because we do desire a relationship and sex but in order to have it we must be subject to violence, unless we hide it. There is no eternal romantic/sexual loneliness when it comes to asexuals because they don’t feel the drive in the first place. No rights are being held from them. There are similarities between asexuals and homosexuals but asexuals aren’t viewed as gross monsters for wanting the same sex. They’re not written about in the religious texts (unless revered like monks and nuns). There is almost a virginal privilege over homosexuals, and it’s that virginal privilege people refer to as annoying - asexuals often aren’t afraid to be homophobic in their “eww sex is icky” even about homosexuals.

[bulldyke-rider]

RE the whole thing abt bi women: an impression i get is that lesbians are generally more likely to have questioned more things related to the way women are expected to be with men and center men in so many ways. At some point we realize that that's not something we will ever have and something we don't want, which can feel alienating and lonely, but most of us are gonna have to come to terms with it sooner or later. While i sometimes get the impression that a smaller proportion of bi women actually question that stuff and break it down because they're not basically forced to do so by their own sexual orientation to the same degree, esp those who have never actually been with women in a serious way. There are bi women who do question those things and break them down in their heads (and there are even some lesbians who kinda don't), but it feels like the proportion is smaller, the likelihood is smaller, if that makes sense. Doesn't help that there are straight girls out there who think they're bi bc they can recognize when a girl is good-looking and sexualize women as a result of living in a patriarchy that treats women as sexual objects all the time and focuses on men's views and experiences. But also, in my experience, there's also a considerable amount of bi women who everyone assumes are lesbians bc they have thought abt all the stuff (in my experience, many of them have some level of preference for women) and prefer to be around other women (esp SSA women), and they just don't say they're bi unless someone asks, and, since they're often assumed to be lesbians, nobody asks. And they stay quiet about it. On top of what i just said, also in part because unfortunately there are lesbians who are super shitty to bi women. So yeah, tl;dr: being a lesbian often kinda forces you to go through certain realizations about relationships and womanhood that can affect how you see yourself in relation to other people, especially in the context of sex and relationships, and how you interact with them, many bi women experience that too, but there are many who kinda don't bc they're not "forced" to do so to the same degree.

Plus, bisexuality is a spectrum, in the sense that there's a ton of variety in what bi people's basic sexuality is in the first place. Someone with a big preference for the same sex, someone with no preference and someone with a big preference for the opposite sex are all bisexual, which means bi people are super varied in their basic orientation, which can make things messy. Meanwhile, the basic orientation of, say, lesbians does not vary as much. In my experience, bi people who've been experiencing SSA their whole lives, having same-sex crushes and having gay sex and all that, are pretty different from someone who mainly feels attracted to the opposite sex and only occasionally to someone of the same sex.

No, exactly. You're less likely to disect the idea that your purpose is to be with a man if you don't have to.

[apricotbuncakes]

It truly baffles me how many government systems rely on each other to actually function, and for you as a user of the system to navigate them.

Like, in order to update my information with the Social Security Administration I need several things including:

-Name Change Court Order

-Proof of US citizen ship (birth certificate, passport, state/federal ID)

- Proof of address (such as an envelope addressed to you at the correct address or a W2 with your address if you are updating your address)

-An ID with the new/correct gender marker (if changing the gender marker at all).

Just to update information with the SSA I need two or more proofs of identity to verify that I am who I say I am. Specifically when it comes to a gender marker change you have to already have a document with a gender marker that matches what you want to change it to. I was lucky because I had to get a (several hundred dollar) passport a few years back for a school trip, and since you can self select the gender marker on a passport I already had that ready. But some places cross reference with the SSA to verify identity which means you need the SSA updated before you get to those unless you really want to spend the money and wait on a passport, but if you are also updating your name then you'll likely have to get a passport with an already outdated name on it just to get your gender updated. So really you need your state/federal ID AND Social Security Card updated TOGETHER in order to update anything else, and you better hope you have the verification needed for everything else.

And the list goes on.

There was a guy who came in to the SSA building in my town to get a new Social Security Card because he needed one to verify all of his other ID, which was stolen from his wallet. But he NEEDED the other IDs to verify his identity with the SSA. So his only option is to pull medical records from a local hospital that he has visited in the past. Except, there's a problem. He will likely have to verify that he IS the person requesting the medical records, which is going to be a PAIN if he doesn't have any form of ID.

Ya see the issue?

Now each situation will vary by person and what information they have to update or is available to them. If you aren't updating a lot of things at once like I am, it will likely be a lot simpler to go through. It will be tedious, but simple.

But even my job, who has already verified my identity over a year ago for the hiring process, requires either an updated birth certificate (which I can't do because in order to update the gender on mine I'm forced to get a $10,000 gender affirming surgery, see this GoFundMe to help me raise enough to do that) OR two-to-three other documents that are updated to verify each other, because the name change court order isn't enough. And the bank my paychecks are sent to requires similar things.

Places that ALREADY KNOW WHO I AM AND HAVE ALREADY VERIFIED MY IDENTITY WITH ME REQUIRE A RE-VERIFICATION TO UPDATE MY SHIT.

And listen, I get it. You wanna b on the safe side, and a name change order isn't enough because of the company's rules or maybe legal requirements, but Jesus fucking christ, does EVERY system rely on EVERY OTHER SYSTEM to get shit done? Can nothing be a standalone thing????

Anyway, this has been the end of my rant.

[dr-spencer-reids-queen]

A Higher Power: Part One

Pairing: Spencer Reid x Female!Reader

Word Count: ~2.6k

Warnings: canon violence, canon language, canon talk of death, methods of kill

Author’s Note: I do not own anything from Criminal Minds. All credit goes to their respective owners. If there is any warnings that exceed the normal death/kills from the show, I will list them. If you’ve seen the show, then it’s the same level of angst unless otherwise stated

"There is no refuge from confession but suicide; and suicide is confession." - Daniel Webster

When you get to work, you notice that Hotch isn't with you. You're not sure where he is, but JJ looks like she can't wait for him. She passes out the files to everyone and gets started whether he is absent or not.

"Three months ago, a fire in the shadyside rec center killed fourteen children. Over the past three months, there's been five suicides. All of them lost a child in the fire. The last one was Paul Baleman. He was found electrocuted in his bathtub yesterday. I received a request for our help."

"Why do they need our help? They're suicides," Derek shrugs.

"What evidence do you have to support that?" you ask him.

"All of the suicides were within two weeks of each other. It could be some kind of pattern," Spencer says.

"Detective Ronnie Baleman from the Pittsburgh PD thinks that something's going on."

"Of course he does," Derek says.

"Why do you say that?"

"He's related to that man, isn't he?"

"It's his brother," JJ confirms.

"A cop who doesn't believe his brother committed suicide. Come on, next case."

"Why are you so against this?" you ask. "What if they were murders staged to look like suicides? You can't dismiss the case without knowing all the facts and evidence. Five suicides in the same neighborhood within months is a little suspicious."

"Suicides don't spike after a tragedy," Spencer says. "It's quite the opposite, actually. Following World War I and II, right after Kennedy was shot, and following 9/11, suicides plummeted. Within a society, external threats usually create group integrations."

"So, if there's reason for doubt, which there obviously is, don't those families left behind have a right to know?" Emily backs you up.

"Yes, they do," Rossi nods in agreement.

"Okay, sure, they deserve to know, but let somebody else tell them, like social services."

"Contact detective Baleman. Let him know we're coming," Rossi says despite Derek's disagreements.

"Hotch would never have taken this case," Derek says when you get to the plane, "and I say case in the loosest sense."

"Yeah, well, Hotch isn't here. You're the only one against this, so why don't you spend less time complaining and more time focusing on the facts without bias," you snap.

"What facts, Y/N? Look at us. We don't have a single file."

"Fact one: we don't have a file, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Fact two: There was one fire that occurred with fourteen deaths, and a result of it, five suicides. Fact three: All suicides were exactly two weeks apart."

"Okay, I get it," Derek sighs.

"Do you? That's a pattern, Derek, and a timeline."

"A lot of people lost their kids in that fire. That's a whole world of grief, and for a few, suicide is their only way out."

"Or someone decided it was," Rossi backs you up. "What if they made it look that way?"

"Then we're looking for one very smart unsub who targets people in grief," Derek sighs.

"What would that make them?"

"An angel of death. Someone who thinks they're putting them out of their misery," you answer and look at Derek. "Not everything is black and white, Derek. Sometimes, things run deeper than that."

The rest of the plane ride is filled with silence. Derek doesn't want to admit that someone is doing this, but you're here to prove him wrong. Someone is doing this, and it's your job to find them and bring them in.

"Agent Jareau?" the detective on the case greets the team. "Hi. I'm Detective Ronnie Baleman."

"Hi. This is SSA Rossi, SSAs Morgan, Prentiss, Y/N and Dr. Reid."

"Thank you all for coming."

"Well, your colleagues don't look all that happy to see us," Derek notices the unhappy faces of the officers inside the station.

"They didn't just lose a brother."

"I'd like to get started on all the files," Spencer says. "We're gonna build what we call psychological autopsies to determine whether the victims killed themselves."

"Everything is in those boxes," Ronnie points to the boxes in an empty conference room.

"We'd also like to take a look at your brother's house," you suggest.

"I'll take you there."

"I think it's better if you stay here."

"It's my case. I brought you here."

"Technically, there is no case. If there was, you wouldn't be on it," Derek says bluntly.

"Ronnie, we need to profile the scene without bias. It's best if you stay here and let us do our jobs," you say gently.

"I could use your help with these files. It looks like there's quite a few," Spencer says, trying to get him to stay here.

"Fine. My brother kept a journal. I found this on the desk in his bedroom. Read the last page. They're not the words of a suicidal man," Ronnie hands over his brother's journal.

You're better off at Ronnie's brother's house, so you leave with Derek, Emily, and Rossi. Ronnie is so sure that there is an unsub here, and if there is, then there could be evidence inside his brother's house about it.

Pam, Paul's wife, is at the house to meet you when you arrive. She is depressed, sad, and it's strong enough to rub off on you. If someone feels something strong enough, you can also drown in their feelings.

"I'm not sure how this happened. He wasn't on antidepressants. He wasn't depressed," Pam sighs sadly.

"Do you mind if my colleagues take a look upstairs?"

"No, I don't mind."

You, Derek, and Emily walk upstairs and to the bathroom where the crime--supposed crime--took place. Emily and Derek go in first, and nothing seems out of the ordinary. When you enter, your eyes immediately drift to the body inside the bathtub. You gasp loudly and jump back from shock, concerning your colleagues.

"What is it?" Emily asks.

"Paul is here. He's in the bathtub," you sigh sadly, "with the space heater."

You approach him and kneel down to get a better look at him. There is only one energy lingering behind, and you don't see any spiritual evidence that an unsub ever came into this bathroom.

It's as if Paul did commit suicide.

"Okay, so the door was locked from the inside and the wife broke the door in, but he could have gotten out that window," Emily speculates.

"It's a good twenty-foot drop. It'd hurt, but you could do it."

"Hey, check this out." You peel your eyes from Paul to the sink where there is an outlet. "It's a one hundred and ten outlet with no GFCI. This is a 1930s house, but it's been remodeled with no ground fault circuit installation."

"Wait, that makes no sense. There is a GFCI unit in the kitchen. I make sure all my properties have them, especially in the bathroom and the kitchen. Any surge of electrical current will shut the power down at the source."

"Properties?" you ask. "How many?"

"Four. Whoever threw the space heater in this tub knew that there was no GFCI."

You three leave the bathroom, and you pause by the door to look at Paul again. This time, he's gone and the space heater is gone with him. With a sigh, you leave the bathroom and join everyone downstairs.

"Mrs. Baleman, what did your husband do for a living?"

"He was a contractor."

If Paul truly committed suicide, then he'd know not to install a GFCI unit in the bathroom. There is no evidence of an unsub ever being inside this house, so maybe he did kill himself. Though, that's the last thing you're going to tell Derek who would gloat about being right.

The only way you're going to know for sure is if there is another crime scene.

Much like you predicted but didn't hope for, another crime has occured. You found out the second you got into the police station the next morning, so there wasn't time to get coffee or anything like that.

The person who died is a woman, Beth, who hung herself while her baby was crying for her in the kitchen. By the time you get there, the body has already been moved, but you can see her hanging where she was found. Her spirit is lingering behind to show you exactly what happened to her.

You and Rossi are outside the house looking into the doorway where she was found while Emily and Derek are on the small porch right outside the front door. They argue, but you can't seem to take your eyes off her.

"Alright, you got a kid, and there's a bad guy in the house. What do you do to protect your child?" Derek asks.

"Fight."

"There wasn't a single defensive wound on her body."

"She didn't climb up there on her own free will," you comment.

"Unless she committed suicide."

"No, this wasn't suicide. She has a baby in the other room crying for her."

"She couldn't cope. She snapped. It happens. It happens every day."

"Not here it didn't."

"Y/N, right now, that's exactly what happened."

"No, it's not because the unsub is right behind you."

Derek turns, but no one is there.

"What happened?" Rossi asks you.

It's as if you're brought back to last night. The street is dark only lit up by dim streetlights. There are a few cars parked on the side of the road, but nothing of import. You're standing at the front of the property on the sidewalk when you see someone pass by you.

It's a man with blonde hair. He's of medium build, but you can't see more than the color of his hair. He walks past you and up to the front door where he knocks. Beth opens it and smiles at him as if she knows him, and then she opens the door to let him inside.

Beth knew her killer, so you have to look at friends, family, and acquaintances of her.

Suddenly, the outside walls of the house disappear so you can see everything that's happening even while standing on the sidewalk. The unsub talked to Beth for a bit before doing something to her that you can't see.

What he does next confirms that these aren't suicides.

She isn't fighting back, and that confuses you, but he's the one who drags her to the front door and puts her head in a noose. If she didn't fight back, then that must mean she was drugged because her kid is in the kitchen crying for her.

Once the unsub is finished, he leaves the scene. When he passes by you, all you see besides blonde hair is striking blue eyes.

"Y/N?" Rossi asks, bringing you back to the present. "What did you see?"

"This was a suicide because the unsub visited her last night. She let him in willingly, so he must be someone she knew. She wasn't scared by his presence at all. He might have drugged her, and then he strung her up like a doll. All I've done is replay the scene over and over again, and all I see is the same thing. I did catch two things about the unsub; blonde hair and blue eyes so that must narrow things down a bit, I hope."

Everyone can see that you believe what you saw, but Derek still has doubts about this. You're going to do everything in your power to prove to him that these aren't suicides. Emily believes an unsub is doing this, so she calls Penelope who waits eagerly for her call.

"Emily, the strange and great, what can I do for you?"

"I'm looking for a drug that would temporarily paralyze or subdue someone, not kill them."

"I always use alcohol. It's less fussy, and way cheaper," Penelope jokes.

"Look for something that wouldn't show up in a toxicology report."

"You got it."

You're so sure this is a murder spree, sand the only way to determine that with hard evidence is to go over the suicide notes that every victim left behind. Spencer is more of an expert in handwriting and languages, so you want to work with him on this.

When Ronnie hears your theory about this, he gets excited and a bit cocky. He won't even consider the possibility that at least one of these is a suicide... and that's his brother. There was no indication that an unsub was ever in the house.

Still, that doesn't cross Ronnie's mind.

"Is there anything to tell us whether these are suicides or not?" you ask Spencer when you get back to the station.

"These are some samples from Diedre Nollard. See, we have an insurance form, a letter she wrote to her neighbor a month ago, a birthday card she wrote to her husband a week ago, and her suicide note as found on her body."

"The suicide note matches, right?" Ronnie asks.

"This is definitely by her own hand, but she's professing regret. 'I'm sorry I let you down. Please forgive me. I disappointed you', and so on. With the handwriting, the forensic analysis is saying the exact opposite."

"What do you mean?"

"Do you see how the handwriting slants uphill? It's a clear sign of optimism. The same with how the spacing is so consistent. These long T-bars indicate an enthusiastic person."

"Not someone who would take a swan dive off a five-story walkup?" Ronnie asks.

"Look, even if we had alerted the media--"

"Now we'll never know," Ronnie interrupts JJ. "Like I said, that's on me. Now we have the proof that these aren't suicides. Those notes, were they coerced?"

"If you were to force someone to write their own suicide note, these are words you generally wouldn't use."

"I'll take that as a no. What about my brother's journal?"

"I haven't... it's extensive," Spencer stutters.

"Another no. Can we inform the media now?"

Ronnie doesn't want to believe his brother committed suicide, but that's what he did. He's kind of annoying you now because he wants so badly to believe his brother wouldn't leave him like that, but he did.

"I already did," JJ sighs.

"I need you all outside," Derek pops his head in.

You leave the conference room, Ron included, and the police station to join your team outside the building. Hotch is here; he must have just come back. You're not sure where he's been or what he's been doing, but you're glad he's back now.

"This is SSA Aaron Hotchner. He's just arrived," Rossi introduces him to Ronnie.

"What have we got?"

"Including extended families, over one hundred individuals within the Pittsburgh area were affected by that fire."

"So, this unsub is targeting grief."

"Grief?" Ronnie asks, confused.

"A single event in this unsub's life led him to end the life of someone he believed had to die. From that moment on, he created his own sense of morality, and he rationalizes what he did by targeting people that he believes can't be saved by anyone other than himself. He decides who lives and who dies, and this gives him an all-consuming sense of power," you explain.

"So, he's not going to stop anytime soon."

"That's assuming there is someone to stop," Derek mutters.

"Derek, I told you, I saw what happened. You always believe me," you say sadly.

"If there is someone, he's on a mission of mercy, and even after he's caught, he'll maintain he did nothing wrong."

"He's a white male, mid to late thirties, and he's polite, forthcoming, and doesn't stand out. We believe his victims, these families, are all letting him in."

"My brother and his wife weren't letting anyone in. If anything, they were closing themselves off," Ronnie says.

"Well, this unsub found a way in, and that's very hard to trace. In every case there was no evidence of a struggle and no attempt at escape. He finds a personal connection and uses it to buy time," you explain.

"My officers need to know this."

"We've found that Angels of Mercy are often people in the medical profession as well as law enforcement, which is why we're meeting out here."

"Now, we're only fishing. We don't want to point a finger," Rossi assures Ronnie.

"Point it. I don't give a damn."

"If that's what it's about, let us figure out where to point it."

"Ronnie, you're too close to this. You're so hell bent on the idea that someone did this that it's making you act irrationally," you explain. "You're going to make mistakes. I know you want to find out who did this to your brother, but if you let my team and I do our jobs, we'll figure that out for you."

Ronnie nods in understanding, but you know he's not actually listening to you.

x

Follow my library blog @aqueenslibrary​​​​​​​ where I reblog all my stories, so you can put notifications on there without the extra stuff :)

[redheadedbrunette]

Cool so I reread the series and I noticed a lot more than I did the first two times I read it which is fun. The relationship between Ben and Erica is more explored than I remembered which is good and I can definitely see her character arc a lot clearer.

X is still my least favorite book and there’s absolutely a corner that Gibbs wrote himself into on that one unless he’s entirely giving up on the idea of having Ben and co. be secret agents.

Ben’s a lot more of a competent spy than I remember too, which is refreshing.

I also completely forgot that all 10 of these books happen in the span of like a year and a half which is hilarious.

Oh and the age gap seems like something that would be a lot more of an issue if there weren’t only like 300 people in the world they could have contact with. Even Erica and Josh had a bit of a gap since she had to have been 14/15 or so while he was 17/18. A gap of 2.5 years would be problematic for normal kids but I think different rules would apply.

I'm so glad it was clearer on a second go around! Honestly, I didn't even really see it all that clearly until I reread the series a couple years ago (SSAS came out my first week of college) and had a lot more experience with how stories work on a fundamental idea. Erica's development is very much in the background, but when you're looking for it (excluding SSPX, but that's a different rant) it's so clear and interesting and I love it.

SSPX bothers me for SO MANY REASONS the biggest of which is that Mr. Gibbs puts the message before the overarching plot of everything, and then! It's not even a relevant message! Like, what twelve year old is hardcore believing QAnon (it's pretty obviously meant to be that or something similar). I feel like something could have been achieved and a message about privacy, like Murray makes getting a video of Ben part of some TikTok knockoff challenge, because that seems like a much more likely thing kids would do, but gotta make fun of people who remember what the news said two years ago and comparing it to what they say now! Can't have people with good memories! But yeah, it does shoot the series in the foot kind of, and I understand the reasoning behind why things were done the way they were! I just don't agree with it most of the time.

It's even funnier when you realize that it's not a year and a half evenly spread out, it's one mission his first year with five months before summer, one that summer, and seven his second year. Eight if you want to count SSGS and SSBI as different missions (I go back and forth as to whether or not I do). It's so funny. Please give poor Ben a break.

And yes! Ben is actually so much more competent than people seem to give him credit for sometimes. It's just that his skill set tends to be less flashy and useful in battle scenes, but he's very much the chess master of the group. He's the one planning and strategizing, and all the karate moves in the world aren't going to do you any good if you can't actually foil the plans.

My reasoning for why I'm okay with the age gap is because the narrative treats them as equals who are more or less in the same place in life. Like, yes she's two classes ahead of him, but for all intents and purposes, they're teamed up together constantly with others in Ben's class and I think Erica is the only one we really know about in her class (can't remember Chip's age, but he might be? idk, doesn't really matter). It's never dwelt on, and it bothers me when people try to make a deal about it! Like, they're not going to be in the same place in their lives forever. It's high school. Almost no one marries the person they dated in high school. I've long held that they'd break up sometimes after Erica graduates and starts her adult life while Ben is still in school (or something similar depending on how Mr. Gibbs decides to do things moving forward).

[butch-reidentified]

whats your opinion on the email leaks linking the rampant transphobic legislation in america to future plans to remove gay rights? are you angry that we were right all along? are you going to deny that trans people have been saying this THE WHOLE DAMN TIME?

Lmao I have a (very busy) life, so I don't know what email leaks you're referencing in this ask, but I have heard rumor of this being a thing in theory, so I'll address this to the degree I can.

I've never been a lawmaker nor encouraged any legislation that would deny anyone a single human right. If you bothered to check out my top posts, etc., before sending this, you'd see that I got top surgery myself and experienced significant relief from it. I've never in any way advocated for conservative legislation, or any legislation that would restrict adult autonomy or that is pro-censorship or in any other manner authoritarian. I'm not the one to blame, but of course you come to blame women/feminists instead of the white male conservative lawmakers who did whatever you're mad about this time, and their constituents who allowed it. I hold no political power (i don't even use other social media lol), yet here you are. You confront me anonymously, blaming me who had nothing to do with any law, but did you ever call your congressperson?

I want one thing very clear: yall are the ones who wouldn't let us pass bills to protect SSA people unless trans people were explicitly included. Transactivists are the ones who convinced lawmakers that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are the same as trans-identifying people in the first place. You delayed our rights to things like marriage and freedom from employment and housing discrimination by refusing to let pro-gay legislation pass without including trans "rights" (cosmetic surgery is not a basic human right). The association lawmakers now make between homosexuals/bisexuals and genderists is a direct result of your movement's actions, and now we have to suffer for it *again.*

I want women's rights protected. That doesn't mean I want trans people to suffer. I would really prefer nobody innocent ever have to suffer. But if you refuse to respect women and if you deny myself and my sisters our established rights to safety from males, I will fight back every time. That isn't me wanting you to suffer or not have your rights; it's me not being cool with women and girls (as in female human beings) being stripped of our rights, and me not permitting the removal of our rights to go down without a fight. Y'all always send these anonymous messages blaming us, threatening or wishing death and rape on us, calling us literal racial slurs... yet as soon as we try to have any genuine good faith conversations with you, it's an instant "block to stay safe," like you're in danger from hearing a feminist's counterpoint on tumblr 💀

Get a grip. Almost all of us radfems used to be allies or full-on trans-identified ourselves. We know your perspective, but you don't actually know ours. Yall make it obvious time and time again how drastically misinformed you are about what radical feminism is about, but how could you not? You aren't allowed to talk to us, so your idea of who we are and what we stand for only comes from what you've been told by people who share your exact views. I know because I once was you, for many many years.

Come and talk. I don't hate you for who you are, I don't want you to suffer or not have rights, and I don't bite. DM me and have an adult conversation. At the very least, if you aren't open to a real conversation, shouldn't you know your enemy? If radfems really are your enemy, shouldn't you make sure you have an accurate understanding of radical feminist views? Or is ignorance and disinformation (via misrepresentation of radical feminism) the real tactic?

Don't you ever wonder why so many of us used to be trans activists?

[goodmiffy]

x is a lesbophobe is the misandblr equivalent of op is a terf. bc u say it about anyone over anything and it makes it rlly fucking hard to weed out actual lesbophobia when the biphobiacentral fanclub is accusing anyone who’s ever associated w men or anyone who just doesn’t kiss their asses and repent for being bisexual. some of you say honest to god the most fucked up vulgar misogynistic shit about bi/osa women and if we reply to it like hey can you fucking not say that you jump straight in with “lmaoo lesbians dont oppress you (when no one even implied tht) god forbid a lesbian speak wow ur rlly comparing lesbians being mean to hetties to ACTUAL discrimination and homophobia which u know nothing about btw ugh you’re so lesbophobic!!!” when it straight up has nothing to do w you being a lesbian and everything to do with you being a shitty horrible person who’s mean just for the sake of being mean & repeatedly ignores everything bi women say abt our experiences w being ssa and w experiencing homophobia. like fr nothing is good enough for you. absolutely nothing. unless we are absolute dead silent about being bi and never defend ourselves against the things you say, and even then we’re clearly on thin ice

like i said every irl lesbian I’ve known has not been like this and tbf like 90% of the ones online aren’t either but u talk over/for them. you’re a totally unhinged vocal minority who spend too much time online now why don’t u spend ur time addressing actual lesbophobia and get a grip !! bi women are not ur goddamn enemies my godddd

[anticomphet]

Hiii, just found your blog randomly and as a bisexual woman who is more ssa i just wanted to say that i loved your post about ssa women and mlm because i relate a lot and you put into words a lot of thoughts i have.

Like the part about exploring my attraction to men without having to put myself throught it really resonated with me because even thought i'm attracted to men, and love reading mlm erotica/porn, the idea of doing something about it doesn't usually appeal to me unless i have a drink or two (not black out drunk, just kinda buzzed i guess) because it lowers my anxiety, pulls me out of my head and more into my gut, plus i kinda get more horny lol. Another interesting thing it's that when i have celebrity crushes i never really picture myself with them?? It's weird but if i find them attractive most of the time i'm gonna search for fic about them (these men tend to be guys from bands or athletes so it's fairly easy lmao).

Anyway, it's also true that it helps me explore same sex relationships without getting too personal and uncomfortable i guess??? Because when i started reading mlm fic i already knew i liked girls too and it didn't matter to me that i was reading about two guys because i could relate whatever i was reading to me and a girl i had a crush on most of the time. Like the story would be about two guys who were best friends and my brain would inmediately go "ye, me and bestie", but it's also true that sometimes i read more sexual fics and unfortunely reading about explicit sex between two men does turn me on, especially if i really like the dynamic or if i find one of the guys attractive

So yeah, as a heavy leaning ssa woman i can confirm that mlm appeals to me because i experience sexual attraction to men but have some anxiety around it and also because it's about a same sex relationship so it kinda mirrors whatever me and that one bestie had going on, and i'm glad that other bisexual women can kinda relate because i always read about straight women wanting to be men and kinda inserting themselves as one of the guys and that was never really my experience, always seemed more voyeuristic for me with a side of mirroring my own experiences as a ssa woman

Sorry for the long rant!

aww this makes me so happy! i’m so glad you relate to that post:) and yes further confirmation that being drawn to mlm content as a woman is often connected to liking men but not enough to want to be with them yourself

i totally relate to the second and third paragraphs. i never picture myself w celeb crushes and i kind of just take myself out of the picture when i’m attracted to a famous guy, and it makes sense bc i don’t actually wanna be with them but i’m attracted to them enough to feel that attraction. and yeah omg like i’m drawn to gay content in general so seeing two guys dating in a show warms my heart and if i find one of the guys attractive it excites me to a certain extent, but seeing two women dating in a show feels so.. personal and intense and ahhhhh. so yeah watching two guys together as a wlw definitely lets you experience watching something gay without it feeling super personal

[theohonohan]

Let X=X: Notes on Refresh

This post is a discussion of Kristin Lucas's 2007 performance art work Refresh.

—

The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy includes the following text:

Irving Copi once defined the problem of identity through time by noting that the following two statements both seem true but, on the assumption that there is change, appear to be inconsistent:

If a changing thing really changes, there can't literally be one and the same thing before and after the change.

However, if there isn't literally one and the same thing before and after the change, then no thing has really undergone any change.

From the point of view of the implementor of a computer programming language, this puzzle is easily solved by introducing the concept of a variable. The first statement could be addressed by traditional mutable variables—“boxes” which contain a value which can change, while maintaining the same name and memory location. The second statement evokes the other kind of variable, the immutable mathematical variable. These, once defined, can’t be changed. The way to simulate change in a system that uses immutable variables is to introduce versions of each variable. So a variable \(x\) would actually exists in versions \(x_0\), \(x_1\), \(x_2\) … and so on. “No thing” undergoes a change when the assignment statement \(x_1 \leftarrow x_0 + 1\) is evaluated, but anyone who seeks the resulting value of x now needs to look at \(x_1\), not \(x_0\).

It is possible to convert code which uses mutable variables into code which uses immutable variables. The result is called Static Single Assignment (SSA) form. This conversion is often used in compilers because it simplifies the analysis of imperative code. SSA brings the simplicity of functional programming to imperative code.

The expression Let X=X is the title of a memorable song by Laurie Anderson, from her album Big Science. It’s also legal in many programming languages. What it does, in cases where it’s permitted (ie in cases where the binding is not interpreted recursively), is to make the variable \(x\) refer (in the subsequent code) to whatever it previously referred to. It’s a variable binding. In SSA, it corresponds to \(x_1 \leftarrow x_0\). If we drop the “let”, the expression is just \(x = x\) (or, in the clearer and more formal notation, \(x \leftarrow x\)). Optimising compilers will eliminate such an assignment, unless the variable x is declared volatile (or marked in some other equivalent way). In cases where the assignment actually does take place, it can be thought of as a destructive update whereby the value of the variable x is read, and then x is immediately overwritten by the just-read value. In SSA, of course, no overwriting takes place.

I don’t claim to understand what Laurie Anderson means by the song title and lyric Let X=X. It seems likely to have a different connotation than the update of a variable. Perhaps it’s more like The Beatles’ Let it Be: accept whatever the unknown X is; don’t attempt to change it. An assignment statement (or, equivalently a non-recursive binding) where the left hand side is the same as the right hand side just doesn’t do anything.

This brings me to Kristin Lucas’s Refresh, a 2007 artwork in which she legally changed her name from “Kristin Sue Lucas” to “Kristin Sue Lucas”. The idea, inspired by digital technology, was that the name change would be “like refreshing a Web page.” Refresh is the defining work of Lucas’s career as an artist who “intervenes in systems and paradigms to experiment with new ways of being in a technologized world. Her circuitous works resonate with humor and philosophical ponderings.” Lucas's work is not completely unconnected to that of Laurie Anderson.

The canonical example of a refresh in computer technology is is the refresh rate of a video signal. As with a TV signal, the displayed image must be continually refreshed, even if it doesn't change. In the theory of video art, this fact has implications for the nature of video. As Ina Blom writes:

[Bill] Viola treats video as a quasihuman subject. It is a witness, an observer who should have memory but (sadly) does not. This is the drama of his account: video is a living entity that happens to lack some vital functions. It might of course just be an example of conventional narrative personification of things, yet there are reasons to take it at face value. For the are numerous examples that video—a signal-based feedback technology operating at speeds far beyond human perception—was experienced not as a tool but as a living entity, a technical actant challenging human conceptions of design and control. Secondly, and as significantly, video's reliance on constantly repeated cycles of scanning challenged the idea that cultural memory was based on relatively stable forms of inscription. Video disturbed the view of media technologies as recording systems that would serve memory by storing otherwise ephemeral phenomena, such as sound or movement. ... This was in many ways the beauty and fascination of analog electronic systems: too "dumb" to store information, to quote engineer-artist Dan Sandin, their signals were lost as soon as they were spent.

The notion of a refresh as a replacement of some data with new (possibly identical) data forms the concept of Lucas's work. Rather than being a self-sufficient entity, she chooses to imagine herself as partaking of the ghostly inadequacy of a computer video signal, as if her very existence was granted and sustained by the government.

In order to effect her name change, Lucas had to appear in a California courtroom. Fortunately, the presiding judge was intrigued by her idea and granted the name change court order she sought, even though it arguably constituted a mild abuse of the system (the court order is completely purposeless). The transcripts of the hearings (first hearing, second hearing) constitute the primary document of the performance.

In a cynical interpretation of the work, Lucas seems to be thinking “The court is just like a computer, so logically it will have no difficulty approving this name change petition, which changes nothing at all.” But the success of Lucas’s court room performance (as art and as legal petition) is due to her commitment to the conceit behind her work.

MJ: How did your ‘refresh’ feel? KL: It felt instantaneous with the judge’s ruling. There was an immediate change. Blood rushed through my body. and I experienced a sense of detachment from everything that had happened before-it was fun. I loved it. I felt different. In that moment I imagined my body being redrawn in space, refilled identically through the process of refreshing, much like the image of being beamed through a transporter on a Star Trek episode, with witnesses present. l had anticipated that my entire field of vision would blip off: death, then blip back on: life. Same information, fresh eyes. There is nothing like facing your own death to make you feel more alive.

This commitment to a goofy idea—Lucas’s ingenuousness—surely influenced the judge to view the concept in a positive way. It’s also very clear that what Lucas was up to is affirmative. As she said to the judge, the reassertion of the name she received at birth is akin to a renewal of marital vows. It is far from an anarchist gesture to present oneself for “processing” in court, or to opt, given the choice, to retain the name one received from one’s parents. Lucas makes this active embrace of the court’s authority and the status quo seem uncomplicated and beatific. In doing so, she neglects the problematic and unjust aspects of the legal system. One assumes that this voluntary acceptance of the court’s authority, her neutral and respectful attitude to the legal system, implies that she had previously neither suffered involuntarily through a trial nor been a litigant in some other unpleasant business.

The continual refreshing of a video display, or the reloading of a webpage from the server, don’t exactly correspond to the \(x=x\) assignment statement. What’s clear, though, (at least to me) is that the perspective of Static Single Assignment explicates what is going on when Lucas changes her name. She’s going from “Kristin Sue Lucas”₀ to “Kristin Sue Lucas”₁. What changes is the version of her name. This interpretation doesn’t require us to consider “destructive update” or the copying of values (or bodies) from one mutable variable to another (from one container or memory location to a new one). Lucas’s post-refresh Twitter handle ksltwo is compatible with this interpretation.

While Lucas’s gallery tendentiously described the outcome of the work as a “government-issued refresh” (an interpretation explicitly disclaimed by the judge), commentaries on the work sometimes get a bit carried away and go even further:

Trading in her name for the exact same name, the artist asserted that she wanted to “refresh” her identity as though she were a Web page. Divorcing the particularity of the name from the body, even temporarily, questions the construction of subjectivity in relationship to formal measures and therefore demonstrates the contingency and artificiality of identity. Lucas petitioned the court for a name change in the standard procedure, and after some deliberation, it was eventually granted.
 Lucas put statutory procedure into a feedback loop, forcing administrators into a double take of the system they invest in and maintain. Her deference to the legal system “is both crediting the government with more power than it actually has, and tacitly raising the question of whether, in fact, the judge has the authority to grant a new lease on life.” Lucas entered, irritated, and provoked the mouthpiece of the institution to question its own regimes philosophically and, in doing so, forced the court’s voice, the judge, to not only acknowledge her, but to accept her existential change. In its noisy obstruction, the parasite reinvents the host, becoming an integral part in the system by forcing it to reorient whatever message the host transmits. 


It’s this kind of nonsensical discussion that I think the SSA perspective can usefully deflate. The authors of this Fillip piece may think that they are playing along with Lucas’s bit, but I think they go too far by positing that she “traded in her name for the exact same name” or that her name as “divorced” momentarily from her body. That’s not how this works, at all. A name isn’t a token you unclip from your shirt and hand across the counter to a bureaucrat. A recursive binding (let x=x) does resemble a feedback loop, very approximately, but I don't see how that interpretation is justified by what happened here. I don't think a presentation of Refresh as a work that critiques the institution of the law, that turns the logic of legally administered name changes against itself, is compatible with the sincere and direct way Lucas addressed with the judge. If that interpretation were true, it would surely turn the work into some form of contempt of court, which was not her intention.

[wish-i-was-lived-in-80s]

Rambling today in therapy about good luck babe and how I think my life would’ve played out differently if I had actually dated a girl when I was 18, and realized that I would not have been ready if I had actually had the opportunity. Like, no matter how much I prayed to God, crying on the floor of my shower, insisting that I would give up anything and everything not to lose her even if it meant distancing myself from church & ruining things with B forever (lmao), if anything had actually had the prospect of happening, I was in no way ready to actually do those things. I had not even *began* to process my religious guilt with merely having *feelings* for another girl. I was only out to two people! (And that was “out” as “straight but idk what’s happening rn”) I would have definitely ruined things between us anyway dealing with *that* 😂 (and with how differently I got treated at church when people found out I identified as “actively praying the SSA away so I can be worthy and good” I can’t even imagine what would’ve happened if I was actually dating a girl at that time). I would have freaked out and left and settled for some man who could secure my good reputation at church for sure.

10 years later, my relationship with church is very different, most of the people who treated me differently have changed for the better (even the ones who never apologized), I’m openly gay, and I haven’t even talked to B in like 6 years. Things are different now than they were back then. I’ve been on a handful of bumble dates (and had one insane failed talking stage that altered my brain chemistry 🤪)

So like maybe 10 years from *now* I can have a beautiful wife to cherish 🤔 hahaha jk unless

[placesthatchangedpeople]

Aadi N. at Sedona Sky Academy

Do not under any circumstances send your child to this program. This is possibly the worst program out there. I was basically starved at Sedona Sky Academy. I was fed the bare minimum which derailed my progress because at the time me and other girls attending the program had eating disorders. Most nights we were fed stale tortilla chips topped with ground beef. We would only be allowed 2 servings. Whenever a girl would bring up the ground beef being pink we would all eat toast and fruit for dinner. A majority of the food we ate at SSA was close to expiration or we would eat it on the expiration date. Don't get your hopes up because the staff is no better than the food. I knew a girl who was personally victimized and bullied so brutally by a staff member that she had to be put on one-on-one with another staff while the staff that bullied her was working. She was told not to listen to a word the staff bullying said and to ignore her. That same staff member and many other would smoke on there breaks and came back smelling so strongly of tobacco that it would trigger the girl attending the program. I have personally got into argument with stay we're I have asked them to speak nicer to me and got the response "your never nice, why should I be". No action has been taken to talk to or fire any of these staff members. In fact in many situations the student ends up getting in trouble. At this program the girls attending are told to follow rules by hypocrites. I was put into a level one restraint to remove me from my room while I was experiencing a panic attack. Sedona Sky Academy claims that they do not use restraints unless a student is trying to hurt themselves or others which I can tell you first hand that is not the case. When leaving the program I brought these concerns to the head of the program which she responded that I was not actually in a restraint and that it was just a hold. I was picked up by both arms from two staff members and dragged down the stairs. Those same staff member spoke on their walky-talky saying that they had put me in a "level one restraint. I was kicked out of therapy multiple times because my therapist didn't want to have a session with me and my parents still paid for those sessions. I have so many more stories but to say the least this program has not earned the title as a treatment facility.