#'these laws are literally not intended to harm people'

[faggotry-enjoyer]

"i celebrated the one year anniversary of matt walsh's what is a woman by watching it again" - a friend of mine, 2023, following conversation about pride month

[spacelazarwolf]

Hey there! I’ve really appreciated your posts and perspective over this past month, I’m having a hard time (as so many Jews are) and your voice helps.

I’m hoping you can help me with reliable resources. A friend of mine condemned the Hamas attacks etc (as they should, to my relief) but is under the impression that Israeli govt is doing genocide to the Palestinians. I’ve no idea how to approach that to verify (or not), I don’t even know where to start looking. Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you.

thanks! this is a really tough question, but i'm going to do my best to break it down. also if anyone's thinking of clowning on this post without reading it, inb4 "omg ur denying genocide!!!!!!" bc this post is literally outlining, in detail, all the ways the israeli government is, by definition, committing genocide.

this is really long, just a heads up.

a big frustration i have with a lot of progressive or leftist spaces is the tendency to throw around words like genocide without being able to define the term or properly apply it to the situation in question. this isn't just a semantics issue. if all you're doing is repeating the buzzwords you've heard on social media, your "activism" is going to be less than useless. it is crucial that if you are going to talk about the current genocide in gaza, you must be able to define exactly what a genocide is and how it applies to what's happening in gaza.

i'm paraphrasing from this article by the united nations. the word "genocide" was coined in 1944 by raphael lemkin in his book "axis rule in occupied europe." it was developed partly in response to the shoah, but also to previous instances of what we would now define as genocide. it was recognized as a crime under international law in 1946, and codified as an independent crime in the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.

the definition of genocide

(from article II of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide):

in the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. killing members of the group; b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

the 10 stages of genocide

a model created by gregory stanton, the founding president of genocide watch

classification - people are divided into "them and us"

symbolization - when combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups.

discrimination - law or cultural power excludes groups from full civil rights: segregation or apartheid laws, denial of voting rights.

dehumanization - one group denies the humanity of the other group. memmbers of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases.

organization - genocide is always organized... special army units or militias are often trained and armed...

polarization - extremists drive the groups apart... leaders are arrested and murdered... laws erode fundamental civil rights and liberties.

preparation - mass killing is planned. victims are identified and sepaarated because of their ethnic or religious identity.

persecution - expropriation, forced displacement, ghettos.

extermination - it is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human.

denial - the perpatrators... deny that they committed any crimes.

application to the crisis in gaza

to start with the first definition from the united nations:

a. killing members of the group - YES

the death toll in gaza has risen above 8,000 according to the associated press. as far as i know, as of writing this post, there has been no ceasefire so the death toll will continue to rise.

b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group - YES

over 20,000 people in gaza have been injured, and gazans - particularly children - suffer incredibly high rates of ptsd.

c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part - YES

the israeli blockade of gaza has had devastating consequences for gazans. they are running out of food, water, fuel, and medicine, and this is costing additional lives.

d. imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group - unclear but leaning toward YES

whether or not it is the explicit goal, the current bombardment of gaza has put the lives of 50,000+ pregnant women in gaza at risk, along with their babies. babies who need incubators are also in danger as generators begin to run out of fuel.

e. forcibly transferring children of the group to another group - as far as i am aware, NO

according to the us embassy in israel, the palestinian authority ministry of social development is the only authorized entity regarding adoption of palestinian children. this doesn't mean it isn't happening, it just means i was not able to find any credible sources.

the 10 stages of genocide

classification - YES there is a long history in israel of othering palestinians, both socially/culturally and legally. former israeli minister of interior and minister of justice ayelet shaked shared a racist quote from netanyahu's former chief of staff explicitly framing palestinians as "the enemy."

symbolization - not yet there are no overt symbols palestinians, even within israel, are required to wear to outwardly identify themselves, but there are identifying features on their ids. in fact, the opposite has been happening, with far right members of the israeli government attempting to pass legislation making it illegal to publicly display palestinian flags.

discrimination - YES there is, again, a long history of discrimination against palestinians within and by the state of israel. it is difficult for palestinians from the west bank or gaza to gain status in israel, israeli work permits are used as a form of control, and often forcibly separate palestinian families.

dehumanization - YES former israeli deputy minister of defense eli ben dahan said of palestinians, "to me they are like animals, they aren't human."

organization - YES israel is currently carrying out an organized and brutal attack on gaza.

polarization - YES from extremist groups like hamas, to the corruption in the likud party in israel, there are very clear signs of extreme polarization. israel's siege against gaza has caused polarization across the entire globe.

preparation - YES gazans in particular are unable to leave gaza without a permit, and now with the blockade from both israel and egypt they are essentially trapped.

persecution - YES gaza in particular could absolutely be likened to a ghetto. as stated above, (in "usual" circumstances) they are unable to leave without a permit, and since hamas took control it is nearly impossible to get an israeli work permit.

extermination - GETTING THERE if the siege continues and gazans are unable to get out of gaza, there will be catastrophic casualties.

denial - YES i often hear that "israel has a right to defend itself" but i cannot possibly find a way to frame the current siege as "self defense."

so in conclusion, israel is - by multiple definitions - committing genocide against gazans. and it's very important to be able to identify specifics, especially if you are planning on having discussions about it. and i've said it in the past, but if you are not directly affected by what's happening - palestinians in particular, but israeli citizens and jews and muslims in the diaspora are also getting hit hard - it is IMPERATIVE that you are able to talk about this with a level head. escalating tensions and pushing away potential allies is only going to make things worse. find common ground, form connections, and then have a productive discussion.

[azeriairis]

I'm going to go on a rant about Les Mis adaptations real quick.

If an Adaptation of Les Mis has Javert commit a crime or abuse his power I automatically have no hope for how they will handle his character arc.

Disclaimer: I generally have no problem with Works in which a Police Officer or other Authority figure do these things, but it is so antithetical to how Javert as a character works thematically that I have a problem when Les Mis adaptations have him do so.

In the original work Javert serves thematically as an extension of the police system, and in order for this to work Victor Hugo specifies that he always does specifically what he is supposed to do, and never does anything that could even be perceived as stepping outside of the lines. However crucially he still causes harm to others and he does it by specifically doing what he is supposed to do.

Simply put: The way Victor Hugo critiques the police system in Les Mis is literally just by having a cop who rigorously follows the book cause harm, not by deviating from the book, but by following the book to the fucking letter. The takeaway this logically leads to therefore cannot be "If we root out the bad apples everything will be fine," because Javert definitionally isn't a bad apple, but is instead "the police system is fundamentally flawed and needs changing" because he uncritically unforces the system and causes harm by doing so.

This literally does not work if there is any reasonable way to label Javert a "bad apple," which having him abuse his powers or commit crimes, could certainly lead to. If Javert can be labeled a "bad apple" then it is possible for the audience to conclude that if only a "good apple" was in Javert's position everything would be fine, and that is specifically not the intended takeaway.

If you want Javert to be more complicated than "cop who does everything by the book" then there's other aspects of his character you can lean into, Specifically speaking his origins. Canonically Javert comes from a disadvantaged background and had to struggle for his position because of class-based discrimination (there is also a case to be made that he is also of a racial minority (specifically Romani) and there's some racism going on there as well, but whether or not that is the intended takeaway is rather unclear), and that his reasons for joining the police include a resentment towards his own background and a belief that his background precluded him from any other legal routes of earning a living. Maybe you could lean into how he went from someone screwed over by the system through no fault of his own, to someone who uncritically enforced the same system that screwed him over, in the process harming those who are from the same communities he himself was born into, and how that may have impacted his reaction after he was confronted with the fact that the system is broken, instead of fucking up his original thematic purpose by having him be a corrupt shitty cop.

And if you still want a shitty corrupt cop in your Les Mis Adaptation, then make an original character. This way you can use this OC to acknowledge the actual problem that "bad apples" who abuse their power, break the law, and violate people's rights are often able to act with complete impunity without facing any consequences, whilst also not fucking up the original point of Javert's characterization, that even the "good apples" who do everything by the book cause harm because the book is flawed and needs changing.

[aratedfreyjablog]

Corner Talk about in Regards to PB's Announcement in Sharing Paid Contents

So, at this point everyone has read the recent announcement PrettyBusy has posted in regards to sharing ANY paid content. For the full announcement you can access it here but for those that just wants a sweet, small summary, it's essentially them taking legal action on anyone who:

Share any DATAMINE of PAID characters

Share any of the PAID characters FULL story, chats, etc.

So, they still allow players to share parts/bits and pieces of the paid content, just not all of it.

Though it seems like everyone can understand the whole business side of things, there's still confusion on the datamine aspect as in how is datamining is illegal, why is there legal action taken against datamining, etc.

First, I feel like people need to understand that datamining, itself, it NOT illegal. The problem is sharing datamines publicly on any social media. The reasons are for the following

Intellectual Property Rights: when companies release games, all of their contents are protected by trademarks, copyrights, and intellectual property laws. When posting content that company didn't share themselves on their own social media page or to EVERYONE (both F2P and P2W), it's infringing copyright laws since the one sharing it wasn't the one to have produced/created the work or data (think of it reposting artists work without their permission but you're sharing a work that was put in by artists and game creators of the company without their permission).

Terms of Service Violation: Many software applications, websites, and digital platforms impose terms of service (ToS) that users must agree to before using their services. These ToS often prohibit activities like reverse engineering, data scraping, or extracting data in a manner that circumvents the intended use of the service. By datamining and posting content obtained in violation of these terms, you are breaching a contractual agreement between yourself and the platform, which can lead to legal consequences.

Security: there are certain codes and firewalls set up that many (if not ALL) game companies put in as a means to detect if there is any malicious activity happening within the system that could potential harm the players (e.g., hacking and extracting players' personal information). When datamining, most people aren't aware in what form these protective barriers are set-up, so when extracting contents from the game, rather than being seen as simply getting contents for one's amusement, it can be detected as a threat by the security system.

What I wrote are only snippets of the few reasons as to the legal concerns in sharing datamine contents. And despite for other fandoms, it's not as prevalent, game companies are starting to take up action in regards to datamining, some being obvious about it while others are being discreet.

However, if we were talking about solely on the announcement, it's understandable why it would bother players, especially F2P. For other games (not saying ALL or MOST), they do eventually make the paid content accessible at some point for F2P without having to make them wait for so long. However, PB isn't taking much initiative with that, where now they're adding characters from the Solomon Seals after 3 MONTHS while, for now, not letting F2P have ANY ACCESS to limited characters from Nightmare Pass. To top that off, previously PB had promised re-runs of events, which would've allowed newer F2P to have a chance to play the event and obtain resources/characters from it. But now they have their previous events accessible behind paywall, decreasing the likelihood for event re-runs to happen. As for P2W, players are literally paying to get the character and related contents related to said character so there shouldn't be much restrictions in sharing their paid content on public platforms in the first place (this is not to say they should disrespect PB and share everything though). This is without mentioning some of the promises that have already broken based on the announcement earlier this year and last month (?) (Main story drop every 2 months, Friendship System, Comics related to Cards being posted on their Social Media, etc.).

Hopefully PB will reconsider and address some of these issues with the upcoming event for Bethel and Belphegor dropping on 6/26.

[valictini]

(Anon from previous ask)

What doesn’t sit right with me is that Quackity said during a stream that there was no volunteer positions within his studios. Wouldn’t that mean that he or his team would have budgeted in order to account for admins payements even before the last merch drop ?

Even if you assume he wasn’t much involved in the behind the scenes workings of his company, didn’t know how many people exactly were working under it, it’s impossible to ignore the eggs admins, he literally played with them for months (putting aside Chunsik who joined much later, that makes 10 eggs who have been around for 6 months/an entire year).

Then if volunteers were never supposed to exist, wouldn’t they have budgeted in order to have enough money to pay AT LEAST these ten people every month ? Even if there was indeed a bad apple higher up who was misusing the funds before, this shouldn’t be an issue now.

I’m sorry for the rant, it’s just that the financial issues argument has felt very inconsistent for me since it was first brought up and I need to air my frustration.

Yeah I feel you anon, I really feel you.

First of all, I believe Quackity said he knew that there were volunteers, but he thought people were eventually hired after a trial. Also, I think the egg actors role was explicitly a volunteer role. Since it was supposed to last for like, 2 weeks, I can understand the reasoning. It should have probably been reevaluated after it was made clear that the eggs would stay longer though.

What still baffles me is that no official structure was implemented for when a new language would be included. I feel like one paid manager per language would have been the BARE minimum, but instead, we got Lumi (with later Lea) carrying the entire french side of the server alone, for months, for free, while also playing an egg.

Honestly, the ONLY way I can see Quackity being fully ignorant of the real state of things is that the administration lied about everything, especially the payment (as in, they showed fake receipts, declared that they paid people when they didn't, and pocketed the difference) AND, critically, that Quackity never checked himself.

This is in the realm of possibilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were what actually happened. Doesn't change the fact that it would mean that Quackity was sorely incompetent and naive, and doesn't excuse the real harm that this caused to the volunteers. But hey, at least he had no ill intents.

The fact that in this scenario, he never talked to the admins privately is, again, baffling to me, but seeing how limited the communication seemed to be between admins and ccs, it unfortunately is in the realm of possibilities too.

So here, this is the most generous scenario I can think of for Quackity. Unrealistic ambitions combined with absolute incompetence of how to manage such a big project and blind trust in people that ultimately exploited his ignorance.

Still, the fact that he never hired any HR and never personally checked why, for example, there were languages that were consistently left out of official announcements are a big red flag to me, and a reminder that we just don't know wtf happened. I want to believe he never intended for the abuse, but there are ways he has facilitated it when, as a law student, he should have known better, and people have every right to not trust his intentions.

[skaruresonic]

why do they think criticizing OOC stuff but saying people don't deserve to be attacked and put in danger in terms of abuse and harassment or law and copyright is comparable?

OOC stuff we don't like still has a right and freedom to exist, just like how stuff like shota and loli do. but that doesn't mean we don't also have freedom to dislike it, just like they do to dislike loli shota etc lol

and that's not hypocrital either because our criticisms are just criticisms, not the same as saying that people deserve to be harassed, suicide baited, and threatened with legal trouble!

Exactly. They were assuming so much about me in that ask. I can't even stand people who go "they made Shadow gay" or "MUH DEI IN MUH SILENT HILL, IT'S WOKE GARBAGE NOW" or whatever else they think I believe.

The reason I get upset over, say, indigenous-coded Knuckles and not Random's InkBunny account is because I know that real children are not being harmed in the latter. If they are, the fault lies entirely with the abuser, not the art.

The former, on the other hand, is predicated on very real and very, unfortunately, thriving stereotypes about Native people. This isn't even me saying fiction cannot be used to harm people ever, because it is true in some instances.

It is 10x more obnoxious to see fandom parrot "KNUCKLES IS LITERALLY INDIGENOUS" and have that stuff reinforced through tropes like the Noble Savage in Paramount's films. You know, big-budget, mainstream works that have a far wider reach than someone's NSFW DeviantArt account.

Meanwhile, if I, a Native person, were to go and search "Native representation in video games" and Knuckles is the first result? AKA a red, cartoon, animal? (True story. Wish it wasn't.)

Yeah. No. I can go around fandom and have that shit shoved in my face without any preamble or warning because people in this Chili's don't care about Native representation. I have heard people literally liken Knuckles' backstory to cultural genocide.

...But sure, Jan, tell me more about how the existence of someone's horny fanfic that they dashed out at 3 AM means we have to coddle the creator's feelings of discomfort.

The worst part is that oftentimes well-intentioned kids get swept up in these witch-hunts. It is so fucking skeevy to send any of your fans, let alone kids, to vet the "badwrong" content because YOU cannot personally deal with knowing that your work is going to be interpreted in ways you didn't intend.

[sophieinwonderland]

Am I A Criminal 😱 ???????

(Spoiler: The answer is no.)

(Link to the post that started this drama for reference.)

First, minor point, but I don't think I backpedaled. I think, as plurality becomes accepted and more well-known by the general population, the world is going to become a miserable and unaccepting place for anti-endos to exist in. I think it's integral that it does, to limit the reach of anti-endos.

I do hope that what many anti-endos will take away from this shift against them is that they need to change. And I do think many will. A lot of anti-endos I see are giving into peer pressure, not really thinking for themselves. If pro-endos become the more vocal presence and their friends change stances, I think many of these people will change.

But not everyone will.

I didn't say in my post that I thought they would be isolated forever. But I also didn't say that they wouldn't be.

Hate is a choice, and how people respond to them is going to depend on their own choices. If they continue to choose hate against endogenic systems, this is what I believe awaits them until they change.

But to the main point, are these words criminal?

Could The Anon Be Charged With Threatened Harm For Their Comments?

Maybe.

I want to mention that I actually didn't think of it as a death threat at first. I saw the threat to bash my head in until I had an "actual split personality" as "only" a threat to physically assault and brutalize me until the trauma left me with a dissociative disorder. (You take you pick of which interpretation is worse.)

It was only on reflection when others mentioned it being a death threat that I realized the intended meaning may have simply been literally splitting my brain, being a poor play on words.

In either case, it was clearly a threat to cause me great bodily harm.

Having said that, looking at Cali's law on threats, there are a couple points that may be hard to stick.

I picked Cali because it's the first thing that popped up in the search, and laws like this do vary from state to state.

That fourth point is what I think may make this hard to pin down for prosecution. An anon potentially from the other side of the globe who has no idea what our real name saying they would murder or brutalize us "if they saw us IRL" probably can't be prosecuted under this law, as it doesn't invoke an immediate threat like it might if they had said "I'm going to come to your house and attack you."

Additionally, I can't say that this caused me a sustained fear, in large part due to the point I just mentioned.

(But also because, as I said then, the anon is a coward.)

Although, for that last point, I think such a threat COULD result in sustained fear if directed at someone else.

And the OP's hypothetical does say "if this were face-to-face."

In that case, I have zero doubt that threatening to harm or kill someone face-to-face in this manner would fulfill all the criteria since it could easily be acted on and would cause someone to fear for their safety.

Could I Be Charged With Threatened Harm For My Comments?

Short answer: No. Definitely not.

Long answer: A criminal threat has to be of a crime and causing bodily injury. "I'm going to call you mean names later" would not be a criminal threat, for example, even if you could argue that calling someone mean names would be a form of emotional damage.

And while this varies again from state to state, I would be surprised if any state outlawed threatening to cause purely emotional harm in a noncriminal way.

It would be a huge attack on freedom of speech to do so here in the United States, at least.

Furthermore, like with the previous issue, the threat also has to be specific to the victim and convey an immediate possibility of being executed.

My own words are several degrees removed from that.

An example of an immediate threat with the possibility of being carried out would be something like "I'm going to come to your home and kidnap you, then lock you in a box to keep you isolated."

That's scary and would put someone in immediate fear of being harmed. It's also threatening a clear criminal action. This one would probably constitute a criminal threat.

Moving further away from what could be protected under this law, you might have something like "I'm going to personally go around telling all your friends and family how bad you are so they'll leave you."

This one is in-between my post and an actual criminal threat. This is something that could invoke a fear of an immediate action. But it's no longer fulfilling the criteria of threatening something criminal nor is it really putting anyone in immediate fear for their safety under any reasonable definition.

That brings us to my post which essentially can be boiled down to "I'm going to push for broad social rejection of anti-endoism over a painstakingly slow process that will someday leave people like you ostracized by every group you care about."

Was I saying this in a way that was intentionally mean to someone who threatened me with injury and/or death? Sure. Did I think carefully about how to make my words cut the deepest before speaking because I really wanted the troll to have a worse day upon reading my response? Yeah. 🤷‍♀️

I'm not a saint and am not going to pretend otherwise. And I don't regret my actions in the slightest. I don't have a responsibility to play nice with people threatening to maim and/or kill me.

What I did not do was threaten bodily harm.

I did not threaten any future personal interaction whatsoever with this person nor any direct action against them or anyone they care about.

And while I know the US is especially known for its freedom of speech, I suspect that most Western countries probably wouldn't criminalize "threats" that aren't even threatening an actual criminal action.

Because the actual actions I "threatened" are... doing exactly what I've always done. Keep criticizing anti-endos. Making it clear that the science and psychiatrists oppose. Reminding people again and again of their cruelty and the toxicity of their community. Highlighting their attacks on religious beliefs of systems. And making it clear that we cannot tolerate intolerance of endogenic systems.

And also... posting scientific articles on endogenic systems, posting about plurality of fictional characters, sharing resources about endogenic systems, and encouraging endogenic and mixed origin systems to be proud of who they are. Because every act of encouraging acceptance and normalizing endogenic systems is also another small step towards this goal. The more tolerated endogenic systems are, the less tolerated anti-endos will be.

This is Beyond Ridiculous

Over the past week, people have claimed that my words are worse than suibaiting and death threats.

They've compared my predictions of and efforts to push for rejection of anti-endoism to personal abuse tactics and violence.

(I'm not sure if they think I was "abusing" the person who threatened to maim and/or kill me by responding how I did, or if they think successfully bringing about a society where anti-endos wouldn't be accepted is the abuse. Both takes are equally laughable.)

Now it's apparently a literal crime!

At the rate this is evolving, I'm expecting the next post to claim I'm encouraging a genocide of anti-endos. 🙄

People are entitled to not like what I said. Fine.

But trying to paint it as a Violent criminal abuse tactics worse than death threats or suibait is absurd.

There are comically huge leaps being made to blow my comments to that anon way out of proportion beyond what any rational individual would.

And in the process, these bad takes misrepresent the law while also minimizing death threats, threats of violence, abuse tactics, and literal acts of violence.

[theblogtini]

So, do you think that Charles and Kate are really on the letters? Or is what Omid wanted make people to believe? Or they indeed are, but is because they say something ‘meh’ and H&M wanted to make people believe they are racists!?

I know that topic is super complicated, but if I’m honest, I don’t think Charles and Kate said something so outrageous to be labeled as ‘racists’. And the version has changed a lot that I don’t know what to think. First was only one royal, then she said that was while pregnant, then H said that it’s before even the engagement, first were ‘several conversations’ and then just one, etc. I just don’t see Charles telling him that the better their future children were white or he won’t give titles nor security or Kate telling him that she was worried because maybe if the children weren’t white that would look bad for the monarchy, which is what they basically said of how conversation went.

Also, MM can claimed that were Charles and Kate, but how are we sure they really were?

I think Charles and Catherine were really named in the letter. The "source" from Montecito said that Meghan "never intended for the names to be public" but there was no denial or correction. So I'm assuming they were the ones accused.

BUT I don't believe it's true that they necessarily said anything racist.

Meghan said that - during a conversation she wasn't even a part of, that happened when she wasn't even present, before she was even engaged to Harry - there was "concern" about how "dark" a baby might be.

We KNOW FOR A FACT that Harry has had this conversation before -he admitted as much on TV.

My guess is that Harry was speaking/joking with his father and sister-in-law about Meghan's genes wiping out his gingerness (again, as he has admitted to doing on TV). And at the time there was NOTHING malicious or anything even presumed about the conversation. But as time went on, as Meghan became more bitter, as Harry and Meghan's hate bubble grew, and as she realized that in order to try "win" or "beat" Catherine she needed to be a victim, she decided to take a VERY INNOCENT conversation and turn it into something incredibly mean spirited at best, and evil at worst.

But ... Meghan hasn't provided any PROOF of this. Harry has flat our refused to speak about it (during the Oprah interview he was VERY uncomfortable when it came up and literally said he didn't want to talk about it) and he said during his Spare press tour that his family is not racist and he never claimed they were.

Claiming that someone is a racist is a HUGE accusation to make, and Meghan hasn't backed it up once. She actually hasn't even directly said it - she's insinuated it. She's implied it. She's let people draw their own conclusions. But she's never outright said it. And she has never done a single thing to confirm it.

In my opinion, the fact that she won't provide proof of such a serious accusation tells me that she KNOWS it wasn't what she's trying to make it seem like it was. She knows no one was being racist. She knows no one was trying to be hurtful or harmful or malicious. Someone - whether it was Catherine or Charles or even Harry himself (because again, Meghan wasn't even there) - made a comment and Meghan decided to capitalize on all of the "the UK is so racist toward her" rhetoric and let that accusation stick there.

If it's true - she needs to prove it. And she CAN'T because she wasn't even there. But even if she wasn't there and she 100% truly believed that what was said was racist, she could easily go out and say "This is what was said. Yes, it was a second hand conversation, but this is what my husband told me was said and this is how I've interpreted it, and I am very hurt and disgusted by these comments and I am owed an apology."

She hasn't done that. And she won't do that. Because she KNOWS that wasn't the case. At all.

And also... it makes even more sense now that Catherine was the one who said that "recollections may vary" needed to stay in the statement. Because she KNEW what was going to happen - she KNEW that Meghan was going to say that she was the one who said it (which does give credence to the fact that Charles and Catherine were the ones named in the letters) and - therefore - she knew that it was important that people understand that what actually happened and the Sussex retelling of things were very different.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Nathalie Baptiste at HuffPost:

For the last four years, conservative and right-wing activists and pundits have been engaged in a culture war that demonizes racial justice, the LGBTQ community and progressive ideals. So, when presumptive Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris announced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as her running mate on Tuesday, the culture warriors immediately dusted off their old playbook to attack Walz. Walz, a veteran and former teacher, has been a champion of LGBTQ rights, public education and racial equality — a platform that is anathema to Republican ideology. As governor, he approved a measure that would provide free menstrual products to public schools, including putting them in both girls and boys bathrooms.

Scandalized by the idea, Chaya Raichik, the person behind the Libs of TikTok account, which is dedicated to smearing the LGBTQ community, began calling Walz “Tampon Tim,” suggesting that he should be embarrassed by advocating for period products. But studies have shown that there is still a lot of stigma around menstruation, and 23% of students struggle to afford their own pads and tampons. Elsewhere, Fox News’ Jesse Watters recently took aim at Minnesota’s new flag, which debuted this year, and blamed Walz for the change. “This guy changed the flag of the state to look more like Somalia,” Watters claimed this week. The old flag, which was introduced in 1957, depicted a white man plowing the land while an Indigenous person rode horseback. Native communities in Minnesota asserted that the flag promoted the removal of Indigenous people from the land.

The new flag design was conceived by a state commission created by the legislature. While Walz did sign the bill creating that commission into law, he played no part in the design process. Also, the star design that conservatives allege was a copy of the Somalian flag was actually intended to be a literal representation of the state motto, “The Star of the North.” But that hasn’t stopped conservatives and right-wing figures from making false claims like this and others about Walz. During a recent Fox News appearance, Stephen Miller, who was a senior adviser to Trump, said Walz and Harris would “turn the entire Midwest into Mogadishu,” also citing Walz’s backing of refugee resettlement programs. Meanwhile, Angela Morabito, the spokesperson for the Defense of Freedom Institute, a conservative nonprofit, posted claims on social media Tuesday that Walz kept “pornographic books in Minnesota schools” and “promoted critical race theory.”

These are popular lies among conservatives and right-wingers, who have spent the last three years attempting to ban books that promote racial equality or have LGBTQ themes from schools by falsely claiming they are sexually explicit or harmful to children.

But some of the most unhinged attacks have come from Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who is largely credited with manufacturing a panic about critical race theory and helping Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ (R) takeover of the New College, a small liberal arts school in Florida. In a series of social media posts filled with lies, Rufo said Tuesday that Walz “shouts ‘trans women are women’ in the shower,” “knows that child castration is life-saving, gender-affirming care” and “speaks fluent critical race theory.”

The right-wing attacks on Minnesota Governor and Kamala Harris running mate Tim Walz are weird, especially the fake outrage about tampons in schools for grades 4-12 and the redesign of the Minnesota flag.

[kiwisandpearls]

honestly, looking back at my original post about fiction being used to groom minors, I stand by what I say but to be honest I am still so frustrated at the equation of me arguing that any fiction can be used to groom minors so the argument that some problematic fiction isn’t ok because it can do so is flawed to anti-gun control laws.

like, I can see why they’d argue that but it still super flawed. Fiction can be used to harm others but unlike guns that’s not its intended purpose. Guns are literally made to kill and injure. Fiction is not. It can be used by others to cause harm but unlike guns that’s not its intended purpose.

You could maybe argue some have made fiction in order to harm others but even then on its own and as a whole that’s not what most people make fiction for.

idk it’s such a flawed argument to try and equate people pointing out that any fiction can be used to groom minors to anti-gun control arguments when fiction and guns aren’t even made for the same purpose. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, they’re both fruits, but at the end of the day they’re still two different fruits.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Talia Nava

Published: Mar 13, 2023

It is often claimed by many trans activists that genocide is being committed against the trans community via “anti-trans laws.”

More recently, Anne Fausto-Sterling, a biologist and trans activist, made this very argument in a post made on Twitter and Mastodon, another social media alternative. Accusations of genocide are very serious and should not be used without good reason.

This begs the question: is genocide being committed against the trans community?

Let's break it down piece by piece. 

What is genocide?

The term genocide typically brings up images from intolerable injustices committed against various groups in history. The most pronounced being the Holocaust committed against the European Jewish people by the Nazis in Germany. This is because the term genocide was explicitly defined as a result of the Holocaust during the Geneva Convention in 1948-1949. The documents created during the Geneva Convention describe genocide as: 

“genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…”[1]

The Convention further described the elements of genocide as:

“1. A mental element: the ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such’; and

2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:

Killing members of the group.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.’”

Using these very specific qualifications, let's go step by step to see if there is a genocide against trans people.

Intent

The very first part includes the mental element of intent. There are two parts to this mental element. The first is the intent to destroy. The second is the definition of what kind of group is being targeted, specifically religious, ethnic, racial, or national group.

Are trans people a religious, ethnic, racial, or national group?

Intent is already very difficult to determine, and as mentioned in the definition of genocide is the most difficult to prove. Is the intent of many of these lawmakers to completely eliminate “trans” individuals? If you look into the motive behind many laws being passed, the people proposing these bills state that they intend to protect children from sexually explicit content that they are not old enough to be able to handle. 

Let's look at the example of the Florida bill known colloquially as “Don't Say Gay.” Officially labeled “Parental Rights in Education,” the bill restricts discussing the topics of gender identity and sexual orientation in grades kindergarten through the third grade.[2] Age wise, this includes children age 4-9. Why this age group? 

Psychologist Jean Piaget, who explicitly studied cognitive development, defines two stages involving this age group: preoperational (ages 2-7) and concrete operational (ages 7-11). One of the major differences in these age groups is the change from self centered thinking in the preoperational stage to being able to separate themselves from the topic being discussed in the concrete operational stage.[3] What does this mean? It means children age 2-7 tend to apply everything that they learn to themselves. If you discuss gender identity to this age group, they are more likely to conclude that their gender identity is also in question. 

In other words, children in this age group literally can't think about these topics outside of themselves. Is protecting children from topics they are not capable of handling appropriately trying to eliminate trans people?

The other example to think of here is the issue of child centered drag performances. Authors of these bills have explicitly said that the goal is to protect children from adult content. You certainly wouldn't want to show a child pornographic material, would you? Is protecting children from adult material attempting to erase trans people?

For the matter of the mental element of genocide, I think it has not been met in terms of trans individuals.

The Physical Element 

The physical element includes five acts that meet the conditions of genocide. There are a few that can be eliminated automatically. The first is killing trans people. There is no group in the US that makes a deliberate attempt to kill trans people. The second that can be dismissed is causing serious body or mental harm to a group. There is no group that intends to cause serious bodily or mental harm to trans people.

That leaves us with three remaining acts, let's look at them in detail. 

Conditions of Life

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

There are many that claim that laws being passed to prevent “gender affirming care” are being passed to attack the trans community. Advocates claim that “gender affirming care” is “life saving care” and that not having these treatments results in trans people committing suicide. 

Is this true? One of the largest studies of its kind says it isn't true. The Swedish study found that suicidality remained virtually constant at every stage of transition from the initiation of hormones to after surgical procedures.[4] 

Recently, reports out of the UK from Tavistock clinics have indicated that these treatments aren't helpful either. But the UK is “transphobic,” right? Except they are not the first to make this observation. This Finnish study from 2019 demonstrates that cross sex hormones aren't enough to give relief from gender dysphoria.[5]

This probably explains why Finland has changed their protocols for treating gender dysphoria and why they suggest intensive psychotherapy instead of the gender affirming model.[6]

In 2020, Sweden also had to change their policies, putting a halt to hormonal and surgical interventions and instead opting for psychosocial support until adulthood. Apparently, after extensive research, they determined the risks outweigh the benefits.[7]  It's probably why France followed soon after.[8] The most recent country to implement changes is Norway, who has determined that puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and gender affirming surgeries are experimental and lack evidence proving efficacy.[9]

If it is true these treatments don't actually prevent suicide, then can you say that preventing these treatments is causing suicide?

What other options are there? According to the available research, the vast majority of children who identify as trans don't carry that identity into adulthood. In fact, the percent of kids who “grow out of” their trans identity is somewhere between 68-90%.[10]

This is likely why the medical organizations from these other countries suggest psychosocial support to adulthood.  But does the psychosocial support actually work?

One study has shown that group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy was able to significantly improve the moods and outlooks of trans identifying teens. It also gave them coping mechanisms to help cope with the many social pressures that trans and gender nonconforming individuals experience.[11]

Why are these therapies not being sought after by trans activists?

Jack Turban, a prominent trans activist and medical doctor, wrote a study that identified anything except for the gender affirming model of treatment as “conversion therapy.”[12] This has been turned into a rallying cry for trans activists, who claim that any psychosocial therapy is conversion therapy and an attempt to eliminate trans people.

If “gender affirming care” doesn't work, is pushing for “gender affirming care” pushing for suicide? 

If most kids grow out of their trans identity, is pushing for “gender affirming care” pushing for harm against a community?

Is discouraging use of therapy that works in favor of “gender affirming care" pushing a group into self destruction via suicide?

Preventing Birth

“Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group…”

During the Holocaust, many individuals had medical experiments performed on them and often these experiments were done with the intent to prevent pregnancies or to eliminate the fertility of these individuals. 

Is this happening in the trans community?

Let's take a closer look into what treatments people are seeking, since so many of these laws are looking at preventing treatments. For younger people, the traditional thing they want to do is block puberty. And the most common medication to block puberty is Lupron. But is that the only thing the drug is used for? 

No, it's not. 

Lupron is in fact the same medication Canada and the US uses to chemically castrate sex offenders and pedophiles to control their sexual urges.[13]

In addition, cross-sex hormone therapy has a known risk to permanently and irreversibly damage the reproductive systems of individuals undergoing these treatments.[14]

These are treatments that many of these laws are trying to ban in children. Trans activists claim that these laws are an attempt at genocide, and yet these “gender-affirming” treatments are doing harm that can actually be considered genocidal…

Forcibly transferring children…

“Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Despite the clear harm that can be caused by these treatments, some still push for these treatments. What happens to those who object to these treatments? 

Some parents are now having their children taken from them for not pursuing the gender affirming model. Unfortunately, these cases happen with divorced parents where one parent refuses to consent to these treatments.[15][16]

Not only are some children being removed from their parents, but in some cases, children are leaving of their own accord. 

California senator Scott Wiener authored a law that will take in families of trans identifying children who are seeking “gender affirming care.” The bill will also take children into custody of the state to allow for them to seek out medical transition.[17] This law went into effect January 1, 2023.

Of note, it is also Scott Wiener who proposed a bill in 2020 which does not require people who commit acts of oral or anal sex on minors to be registered as sex offenders.[18] It seems concerning that a person who is interested in protecting pedophiles also is interested in removing children from their parents. 

Who Is Committing Genocide?

The claim of genocide by trans activists like Anne Fausto-Sterling appears to have no legs to stand on. For one, there is no clear intent to commit genocide against trans people, but additionally the trans community is not of any particular nationality, ethnicity, race, or official religion (although one could argue that transgender ideology is a religion, it is not a recognized religious group).

But, if one could prove intent, who is actually committing acts that would qualify as genocide? 

Who is promoting treatments that don't prevent suicide in trans people while simultaneously calling treatments that help trans people “conversion therapy”? 

Who is promoting treatments that eliminate and prevent births and pregnancies in trans individuals?

Who is removing children from families who question if these treatments are worth the harmful side effects? 

It appears the group that is most harmful to trans identifying individuals are the activists who claim to be protecting them.

==

You have to remember this is a postmodern "genocide." I've been accused of this myself, endorsing "cultural genocide" for celebrating the ongoing decline of religion (as a hypocritical bigot, this person was completely content with the decline of Xianity; she didn't see that as "cultural genocide"). I've covered this in depth, but in summary, it's all about labels.

If children are encouraged or facilitated to complete puberty unimpeded, they'll more than likely (80+%) resolve the discomfort with their body, and they won't feel the compulsion to transition. They won't take wrong-sex hormones, with the risks and irreversible effects that go along with them, they won't amputate body parts, and they won't become life-long medical patients.

But social constructivists don't care about any of that. They even tell lawmakers that it's unacceptable, and even bigoted, to regard transition as an undesirable outcome. They don't care about the wellbeing of kids. They don't care about the individual. Critical theorists themselves will complain that there has been too much focus in the individual and the universal, and not enough on identity characteristics.

What they care about is blurring boundaries and subverting biology. What they care about is bolstering and populating novel "identity" groups. What they care about is that kids might no longer need to think of themselves as "trans." That's it. That's the entire "genocide."

It's eerily like Islam. In Islam, believers are either part of the thing, or we kill you. In genderism, believers are either part of the thing, or they've been "genocided." They're both absolutist ideologies, they just differ on being the aggressor or a manufactured victimhood.

If medical science intervenes and repairs a defect which prevents a baby from hearing, that's "erasure" of "deaf identity" and, as Nyle DiMarco melodramatically wails, "cultural genocide."

In a similar vein, "fat genocide" is the “the effort to eradicate fat people via weight loss as a form of genocide perpetrated by the medical profession” (direct quote from Fat Studies literature). You heard that right. Encouraging people to eat healthier and exercise is a form of "genocide," because there will be fewer fat people. Or more accurately, fewer people who "identify as" fat. And "erasing" an "identity" group is "genocide."

If you think the language is bizarrely histrionic, you'd be right. And if it sounds exceedingly unhealthy, you'd be right about that too. But it's not an accident or sincere misunderstanding. It's deliberate. The point is to use the most incendiary language possible, to warn you off getting in their way. It's why they've labeled trying to address a trans-identifying girl's homosexual shame or a trans-identifying boy's sexual abuse trauma as "conversion therapy." It's deliberately intended to make you think of ice dunking or electroshock treatments that gay men were subjected to, trying to make them "straight." Rather than what it is: normal, everyday talk therapy to resolve distress.

Like a brightly colored frog warning you it's poisonous. Ignore it. Unlike the frog, there's no substance, only the mimicry of substance.

More insidiously, it's intended to create panic in kids, that there's gangs of people roaming out there trying to murder you, or your government actively wants you dead. Even your parents are suspect. You can only trust your "trans family." We're the only ones who understand you. It's classic cult tactics. And comparable to when religions send believers out to proselytize. It's not to convert the non-believers, but to create uncomfortable interactions with non-believers so the faithful will be drawn back to the safety of their fellow believers. Us vs them.

[snickerdoodlles]

☕️ speak to me on what you want/think about for black post canon

BLACK MY BELOVED MURDER GREMLIN ❣

on a lighthearted note, Sean and Black and the behated in-law shenanigans. i want Black breaking into White and Sean's apartment to steal all their cereal and irritate the shit out of Sean (Ugh) and Sean to flirt with White in front of Black (the audacity!), because what is the POINT of Black and Sean being in-laws if not for them to irritate the shit out of each other. White absolutely knows what's happening and absolutely turns up the innocent "who, me?" mask as he winds them up, because the kid who resorted to biting Sean during a fight will absolutely be a gleeful gremlin about this.

on a cracky note, more of Todd and Black and their like...homoerotic tom and jerry act. what? i'm a simple person. Sing makes a beautiful villain and Gun makes a wonderful angry rebel. there's so much wrong with their relationship and i'm so invested, i could've watched an entire show of just these two getting bloody and physical about their ideological differences hello 👀👌

on a serious note though, Not Me as a show really let Black down :( Not Me's intended audience is an age group where people are really first getting involved with politics as well as often challenging their childhood (read: their parents'/guardians') beliefs, and Not Me as a show is both a love letter and wish fulfillment to the sense of injustice and anger at systematic discrimination that often follows that growth. it has a lot of overarching themes of marginalized people uniting as one community, validating the different ways righteous anger can express itself, and an overall message of needing to come together as one voice even when ideals don't align 100% (see Nuch and Gram).

all of which makes it really fucking frustrating that the gang leaves Black behind.

like. i agree with the show's message that Black's anger had tipped into self-destructiveness and that's bad. Black at the beginning of the show was burning himself to pieces trying to spark a revolution, and also pushing everyone who might've helped or cared about him away. White literally had to half-drown them both to knock Black out of his tunnel vision of rage -- i like the message of don't use injustice as self-harm and that trying to be a martyr isn't the answer.

but the gang isn't separated from Black because of any of that. sure, Black put distance between himself and them, but in action the gang actually dropped Black because the depth of his rage was like...inconvenient. they dropped him just because they didn't like him. Sean, Yok, and Gram don't follow up when Black has an abrupt personality change, they just like that he's suddenly a lot more personable (tbf to Gram, he did the first few episodes, then got a personality transplant so he'd drop it for plot convenience). thinking the standoff guy you barely know has been replaced by his twin you never knew is a bananas theory and there's no reason for them to ever suspect that, but then they still don't really care about Black or his well-being when he does come back. Gumpa as a character plummeted for me when he said he realized White wasn't Black right away and not only didn't follow up on Black, he went "oh yes, i like this one better, who needs Black." they didn't even look for him after Black rescued them in the hospital! the only people who ever give a shit about Black in the entire show is White and mfucking Todd, the guy who literally nearly kills him at the start, which is completely counter to the show's like. entire point. canon!

anyways, this is my long winded way of saying justice for Black. i don't want him to become a self-destructive rage monster again, but i like his righteous anger and post-canon i want Black to find a group of people who care about him and love him for being himself. i'm not against him eventually making his way back to the ROL group, but honestly i'd rather Black get a new group entirely because of *waves at previous paragraph* all of that. i did enjoy Not Me overall, but it completely dropped the ball on Black and i'd just like him to find a place that fully accepts him and all his rage and jagged edges beyond Only White.

[[ send me a ☕️ and a topic and i’ll talk about how i feel about it ]]

[archivalofsins]

Okay, it's Mugram time. It took a while but I'm a much better writer than a reader. This is sarcasm I've had this in the back of my mind for a while and I've just gotten enough free time to really catch up on everything I was interested in. Sadly my attention is rather up and down with a lot of things. So, I'll be going over my first responses to the information provided so far and highlighting things that stick out to me.

Welcome to Gunsli and once again Star's notes on Mugram!

The Files

Es

Gunsli: In Mugram Es goes by He/They and is identified as a Demiboy. I just find this interesting in general. I also like how it's noted that Es believes without a shadow of doubt that all the prisoners within Mugram are guilty. Yet, is choosing to adhere to J's words and look into the prisoners and their circumstances further.

This is a good way to highlight that Es has a bias that's leans more unfavorably in regards to the prisoners from the jump. This stated bias also leads me to wonder about the last part of their file.

"Es plans on finding out the truth behind these prisoners so he can finally give them the verdicts they deserve."

Because it just screams of confirmation bias a little bit. So I wonder how he'll end up interpreting the audiences verdicts.

Es even has to catch themselves from saying murders in their first voice drama lines and instead state crimes. As though they themselves already firmly believes the prisoners are all murderers. This plays on the fandoms and my own particular habit of taking milgram very literally in contrast to those within the fandom who will take things more figuratively.

There are a lot of people within the fandom who like to stretch the meaning of the word murder. To be fair, this is something that is easier for people to wind up doing. Especially when they themselves have not experienced the loss of a loved one due to something of that nature. A persons comfort with discussing violent crimes more hypothetically is incredibly dependent on their proximity to the concept of violent crime or how likely they believe it is for these things to happen to them.

Someone worried about being shot isn't going to really care about comparing anything less than what causes an immediate end to their life or physical harm a violent crime. While people protected by the individuals who do the shooting aren't really going to consider what those people are doing murder but self-defense.

So, having Es course correct from murder to crimes broadens the idea of what the prisoners can be in Mugram for. Crime is a broader term that gives the audience more space to assume and doesn't necessarily have to involve someone dying. Unlike the original term murderers that can be taken in incredibly subjective ways depending on ones proximity and experiences with murder.

"Hello, prisoners. I am your Warden, Es. I want to know about the mur– crimes you have committed. I am here to decide on your crimes, whether to decide that you are FORGIVABLE OR UNFORGIVABLE. I am... Es... I am the Warden of MUGRAM."

Finishing up with,

"...Well, no matter, I’ll figure it out in the end and judge them according to the law–"

Making it clear that Es' primary concern is judging the prisoners within Mugram in ways that align with the legal system.

Star: Hi! First of all, I think this is the tallest Es I've seen- in an ocgram and in any of the canon works. Though the age range does fit. However, the way that both their description and quote is written leaves me to believe they will be more inclined to vote unforgiven regardless of what he finds out. Furthermore, it shows a stubborn nature- someone who tends to stick to their beliefs regardless of any information shown. Whether that be in the present or future.

It also comes off as Es being the type of person to look for loopholes within the rules they have to follow to get to his intended outcome. (I need to specify that I don't think this is a bad trait by any means- it makes him feel as though he's more willing to act on his own discretion. Which is something I think would be very fun to play with.)

I also like the aesthetic of using files to show character profiles! The brief glimpses I've seen of Mugram before seem to portray it in a very court of law fashion so it's a nice attention to detail.

J

Gunsli: In contrast, J (the Jackalope of Mugram) is young naïve and can't even imagine the prisoners committing murder. Even referencing the three years old age for J that was speculated to be Jackalopes canon age earlier in the fandom. Since many ran with the assumption that Jackalope within the web series only began to exist when Milgram started.

Yes, even though in Es' first voice drama Jackalope makes consecutive references to his age and alludes that he is, in fact, older than Es. By teasing them and wondering if they're too young to actually handle the themes that Milgram will be covering.

I think it's a nice dichotomy to have here while being a kind of subtle nod to that idea. Though I don't know how much we should listen to either of them.

Since they both have clear biases.

Star: I like J's fur pattern- it's cute! And I appreciate having a birthday for him. Though the fact that he wants to forgive everyone seems as though he's overly invested. Emotionally speaking, that is. I could say that there's also the possibility that he's negligent/unaware of the prisoners past a first impression? Since his quote-

"I mean, in my opinion, I'd just FORGIVE all of them. Some of them don't seem like they'd ever commit murder. But, it's really up to you, Es."

-comes off as rather flippant. However, if we refer back to Es' profile, it's implied with this-

He believes there is no doubt the prisoners are guilty, but they'll listen to J's words and try to learn about their lives.

-that Jackalope specifically asked them to enquire about their circumstances. So it's more likely that he's either too attached emotionally or that he is gunning for reformation instead, for lack of a better word.

The Beginning of the Choices

Gunsli: It's kind of weird that J says they're murderers then that some of them seem like they could never kill anyone. It's like, buddy, do you even know why they're in here? If they don't seem like they could commit murder don't call them murderers so definitively.

It seems like J is more so going off a script of sorts than information they actually have. Since he contradicts himself a lot.

Plus it kind of sticks to Milgram proper with the explanation and heavily highlights the forgiven or unforgiven title. It emphasizes it a lot. Yet when it comes to people dying I feel like the only people who can really choose whether to forgive that or not are the ones tied to those people.

Mugram focuses on the legal system. So, legally they could be pardoned or convicted/sentenced. To keep it unforgiven or forgiven makes it seem like what they did has no real legal basis. At least that's the impression it's giving off.

Star: It's... hard to put a pin in J's behaviour. Because, as Gunsli has said above, it could come off as reading a script. But then immediately contradicting it with personal opinions and not actually being that informed. However, it could also come off as... almost goading Es into doing due diligence. Though that might be extending the benefit of the doubt too much. It is a bit disconcerting when compared to his and Es' character profiles though.

Justice

Gunsli: Well, that at least confirms the growing suspicions I had about J. It seems he's kept here in the Milgram with even a room of his own. So he's really no different than the prisoners in that regard.

Es: What’s opposite my room?

Jackalope: My room! You can’t enter without my permission, though.

Es: Eh, I don’t plan on it. Plus, there’s no door big enough for a human anyway.

There wasn't a room for Jackalope in the original was there?

Star: I find it interesting that, in contrast to Milgram proper, J claims to not know much about the prisoners because it's restricted information. As opposed to Jackalope, who says he's just not invested enough. I wonder if this is intentional as a way to show that J isn't as high up on the scale as one would be lead to believe? But it does seem like he is pushing for Es to do their job, despite their clear lack of interest in acting outside of the confines of the law.

Es also comes off as fairly dismissive in this, which leans into my point about him coming across as stubborn. And less likely to take in information that contradicts their worldview.

Gunsli: This line highlights again how naive J is in contrast to Jackalope of the web series.

Jackalope: Well, first impressions reveal a lot about a person, so…

In Es' voice drama in the milgram web series around this time Jackalope says,

"A human's first impressions reveal about ninety percent. If I had the right I'd vote guilty without hesitation."

J just says that first impressions reveal a lot about a person. Jackalope is more specific about the amount of information it reveals stating it tells you ninety percent about the person. You can get a good grasp of them but Jackalope as he's prone to do leaves what information it gives up to interpretation. A first impression usually involves learning a persons name seeing how they look/present themselves. Yet it doesn't tell you how they think, feel, or ended up in front of you. That's the ten percent you find out over the course of getting to know someone.

J is a bit too immature to really hone in on what first impressions tell you and what they leave to be desired. So they just say they tell you a lot. Because he was probably told they're meant to tell you a lot by someone else.

J shows his ineptitude when it comes to how Milgram functioned here,

Es: Well, no matter, I’ll figure it out in the end and judge them according to the law–

Jackalope: Eh? According to the law? Well, if we just judged them according to the law, then there’s no point in you being here. [Es makes an annoyed noise] You should make decisions based on your own standards. Even if it's based on sex or love, I have no problem with it.

Es: …Let’s just move on.

When he dissuades Es from making judgments based on their preferences. Saying if we were judging them by the law then there would be no reason for Es to be here. This is something said in the webseries but it is swiftly brought up after that using the law as a reason for a verdict is actually still allowed. Because any bias is allowed and none are excluded.

Yet, for some reason, J tries to exclude the law as a basis. This could be because the prisoners here are already unforgivable in the eyes of the law. So, J has a vested interest in keeping the legal system out of it.

Or due to general naivety.

Since this is Mugram maybe the law is exempt from being considered proper criteria to cast a judgment through.

Judge, Jury, Executioner - Scene Transcript

Gunsli: It's interesting I'm not too concerned about Es yet though. I don't know enough about them and he seems like a bit of a hard ass. I don't really like rigid characters too much. I tend to like people who are more flexible.

Star: Reading this, Es moreso feels like they are trying to cling to some form of control/identity markers, despite him recognising that those roles don't fit. It also makes the continued insistence about voting the prisoners unforgiven seem as though it's an extension of those issues. That combined with the mental image they seem to have of the law and those who work within it. That being said, they know at least one thing about himself- he likes sweet tea! It's something small, but it is something :- D

However, they don't seem as confrontational as they initially come off. Since when J asks if they like the tea, he says yes- despite immediately thinking it's bitter. But also can't wait to see Es fall into dissociative patterns lmao

001: Mayumi Kubo

Gunsli: Weird that's she's arguing for everyone else's innocence but not her own. People tend to do that when they have something they feel guilty about or are trying to make up for. It's also kind of stupid she says that not everyone here can be a murderer. It's a prison of ten they sure as hell could all be murderers statistically speaking.

It's just not as unlikely as she's making it sound.

This might be their glitches voice line,

“You can’t be serious… They can’t be…” or “You can’t be serious… They can’t do…”

Star: Mayumi... doesn't seem as logical as she's trying to come off. Her logic would make sense if this was a normal 'setting'. But it's a very small group that have specifically been picked. So unless she knows any other connecting factors, she can't just presume that anyone isn't a murderer. Though her hidden quote is pretty ambiguous, since it could apply to both a court case or the discovery that someone has died.

Gunsli: They changed the autopsy report on her.

Star: -_- <- look of disappointment.

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: Mayumi isn't good at her job. Like she's a comedically bad lawyer. No wonder she couldn't as much as she says she could sway the court. I mean she fails to have any notable deductive reasoning skills and she isn't that charismatic. It doesn't seem as though she's that good with debate when talking within her voice drama either and she backs off too easily.

She just seems bad at this. Before even going into her music video.

I guess if it was a crime to be bad at your profession, then she deserves to be here. If those are Mugram's standards. Yet, failing to get your client off the hook and that client then being killed in jail isn't really a failing of the person defending that individual but the prison system. I don't consider things like that murder and never will. By that logic, the jury should be here as well. Because they're just as responsible, if not more so than this woman. Ya, know; since they decided to put that person there.

But let's talk about this real quick,

"So, don't even worry. I have the command and the proof in my hand. I'll make sure that these things will only sway in my favor."

Me when I lie. Mu Kusunoki core when she said,

"Hey, what if If I am a bad girl Don’t hate me. Don’t even try to proof from “After Pain”."

As though there was no fucking evidence to be found there except there was an abundance of evidence.

This is the opposite of that. She's saying she has evidence when her best argument is did you see my client do it. As though the witness' eyesight has any bearing on any other evidence the prosecution may have outside of that witness. This doesn't even discredit that witness whom she admits was across the street so wouldn't have been able to get a clear look at the situation anyway.

“I have to ask.” Mayumi stands. “Witness, did you see my client actually go over to the store, rob it, and leave minutes after?" "Well, I didn't see her rob it, but the alarm–" The witness starts. "You didn't see her do it." Mayumi points out. "Yes, but–" The witness rubs their neck. "You were across the street from the store; how would you know it was her?" Mayumi stares at the witness, who now is uncomfortably shifting before they finally breathe. "If you don't have any answer, then I guess my line of questioning is over."

No wonder her client had to serve time.

Like I recognize that she may be trying to establish reasonable doubt while the witness is basically going,

"Why did your client run then?"

But the witness is right. Why did your client run? Why was their leave conveniently timed with when the alarm went off? It doesn't look good to leave as soon as the alarm goes off. The fact that her client did that is more concrete than her debate of,

"Well, did you catch her in 4k?"

No I fucking didn't because I don't have cameras for eyes what the fuck type of question. In fact even with just having her perspective on this case. I'd still come out of this thinking she's gullible and her client is lying. Because her client has every motivation to steal. Her client is just running the old question of is stealing okay if it's for a good reason. Such as is it okay to steal food, diapers, or medicine for your family.

And the answer to me is yes, as long as you don't get caught. Once you get caught, it's up to the system to decide if you get leniency or not. However, since her client is vehemently refusing to admit they stole anything, she can't even make the argument they were doing it for a good reason. An argument that might have afforded them more leniency. Because they clearly did it like that's not up for debate.

On top of that, what her client stole is conveniently omitted. Again, this is a display of her being bad at her job. Because that should have been a focus of discussion.

"Your Honor, this is an outrage.” Mayumi stands up. “Surely you can find some leeway–" “It’s clear to me that after all this back and forth what my stance will be.” The judge bangs a gavel and Mayumi swallows with a frown. Don’t condemn anything I say Because I swear I’ll make them pay “...is GUILTY of the charge of theft.” The judge announces.

Her client winding up guilty is the only reasonable outcome here. Since the judge can't give leeway if no additional context on the offenders' circumstances are given. Her entire defense was attempting to disprove the person you were defending did not do something you at a point suspect they did yourself.

What did you think the outcome would be here?

“But, she was clearly innocent!”

Mayumi denial isn't good.

Because if she was innocent, you are just a trash lawyer. I don't even have all the details of that case, and I think your client was guilty because they had the motivation to do it.

Something they do not hide from you,

"Okay, I need you to tell me. Be honest." Mayumi exhales. "Did you steal from the store?" "What?" The client shakes her head vigorously. "No, no! I wouldn't do that. I went there to grab some snacks and medication for my sister. I wouldn't rob the store! I have a job and I'm the only source of income for them and I can't leave them because then–"

What the fuck did she steal to go to prison?

Like where are they where theft is this severe of a charge? Alright, Larceny is punishable with jail time. It's not a long sentence like a max three months to a year. At least where I'm from, but that's still dependent on the price of goods stolen and how often one has been caught stealing.

Source: CriminalDefenseLawyer

However from how it's consistently described as theft and stated to have occurred in a store. What her client did is instead shoplifting or where I'm from retail fraud. Which to be honest has much more severe of a punishment depending on the degree which is again determined by the price of the items stolen,

Source: Law Office of John Freeman

So, pardon me for asking but what the fuck did her "very innocent" client "allegedly" in her opinion steal? Like I hate to sound like I'm on the side of the prosecution here but I kind of am. Because Mayumi's entire defense is,

"My client didn't do this trust. Your honor my clients vibes are immaculate."

Which isn't good enough.

Still not guilty because I judge murders not oh there's this thing I feel bad about. If anything- the judge should be in here, not her, but still... This entire case is weird. Also, if Mayumi viewed this individual as innocent and I can poke an egregious amount of holes into why that may clearly not be the case it certainly doesn't make me trust her words on the other prisoners. Because she's a comedically bad judge of character.

Star: She comes off as very naïve. Both in terms of how much faith she seemed to have in her client and how she claimed she was going to get said client no jail time, without even bringing up motivation as a potential way to get leeway. She also didn't bring up the idea of a plea deal at any point, which didn't help her client's case. Though this isn't too surprising, given her attitude concerning the prisoners in Mugram. Assuming no one here could possibly be a murderer is a very heavy assumption to make. Doubly so when you decide to act as the advocate to get everyone out based on said assumption.

002: Masaru Iwai

Gunsli: I dare him to incriminate himself. I double-dog dare him to admit what he did on the mic. Only a chicken wouldn't do it. I bet he's too much of a coward to follow through. A real man takes any dare. But his file is right he's all bark, no bite- All kid, no man.

Possible glitchesd voiceline,

“SHIT! FUCK! This wasn’t supposed to happen! We should have left when we saw them – DAMN IT!”

Ha-ha loser did a dare and killed someone. Ha, ha point and laugh at the guy who makes poor life choices at the age of- NINETEEN. Ha that's ridiculous. That actually makes it so much funnier that's exactly what someone like that would be doing at that age.

Star: He's fun! I like him :- D. Should probably work on how headstrong he is though, that's gonna keep getting him in trouble.

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: Oh the restraint thing is interesting also the way he's describing this bet thing reminds me of the movie Nerve. That was a pretty fun movie I might watch that again.

Oh wait yeah back to this guy.

Star: It is interesting that mugram has a an in canon reason as to why the prisoners don't leave the interrogation.

Gunsli: I'm going to say this before I even read the song thing- If he's a bad gambler this is going to be hilarious. Mugram is just incarcerating people for being bad at their chosen occupations. Huh it's not good to cheat in card games.

These games are already incredibly predatory without this guy counting cards and bringing spares on him to up his chances. He's a shitty person. The casino already does what he's doing. So maybe he justifies his actions with that. Yet, that only works when he's betting in those areas. He seems to be betting with friends repeatedly and taking their money to the point of financially ruining them.

It doesn't shy away from that either, and it's not even like he's playing fair. Is it really a gamble when you always have an ace up your sleeve? But it doesn't seem like people are too bothered by his consistent winning.

Since two player call him on his bluff,

"The final two players call and Masaru smiles."

Call means to match a players raise. So it's not like they folded, which would have been pulling out entirely. This is usually why people raise to make the more risk-averse pull out.

This is also the reason Masaru states he raised,

"Was it a good idea to raise the betting amount? He wasn't entirely sure, but it would at least weed out the ones who didn't want to be here.  It was a little of a bluff, anyways. Glancing at his cards one final time, he exhales and stares across the table at someone."

To know for sure what he's doing here we'd need to figure out what he's playing. Which is impossible to discern because it's going by both blackjack and poker rules. Where Masaru seems to be playing poker and the other person with a five and ace is playing blackjack. Because there's no case in which one person in a poker game has only two cards.

So, what's more than likely happened is him and his friends were rigging casino games for quick cash.

They all played at different tables. They did this to save up money and may have probably split it amongst themselves. That or something went egregiously wrong when it came to describing these card games, but barring that being the solution-

There's evidence that Masaru and his friends are just running a casino scam.

Sorry, got distracted playing poker and blackjack with my father. But yeah him and his friends seem to be cheating at the casino.

He brings extra decks to add cards to the game if he's lagging behind,

"He looks around the room and walks back to his desk. He slides some boxes into his bag quickly and walks out of the door, shutting the door as he leaves."

This exchange implies his friends are in on it as well,

“Yeah, yeah. We know. You’ve told us many times.” One of the people who paid Masaru groans. “Seriously, I’m going to go bankrupt on this shit.” “Seriously? You should’ve just said. We’ll do a couple with you next time, dude.”

It's also highlighted that he grabs a box of cards from his bag during one of the games and he's shown doing card tricks. Him and his friends seem to frequent this place and could have ordered duplicate decks online or picked them up from somewhere else.

"Masaru instinctively ruffles through his bag to find what he had slid inside it earlier. A box of cards."

Masaru is implied to be better at this than his friends. Knowing when to toe the line and not draw too much attention to himself.

This can be seen here,

"He lays his cards out. Just a pair of normal cards, nothing special. Some show a similar hand, which isn’t too bad. There are a two people who both have a straight, which makes Masaru huff. Splitting the plot."

Only giving himself a good enough hand to stay in the game and split the pot. He's slowly building up to bigger wins as the game progresses. He does say in his voice drama that this is how he frequently makes his money and gambling isn't something that's consistently reliable unless someone is cheating.

His friends don't seem to be as good at it as he is though.

Since one of his friends says they're losing money and on the verge of going bankrupt- Which would have been a perfect time to go just don't play then it's luck based and if you're not winning you just aren't winning. Instead, they say they'll do a couple with them next time as though that could change the outcome. I mean, if they cheated successfully, then it could have changed his friends financial situation a good deal.

But it didn't work out that way; did it?

Instead, what seems to have happened was Masaru's associate was caught and pulled away from the table. Which could have led to all of them getting caught, his friend being arrested, or killed depending on the establishment and how it functions.

Still not direct murder. So, it's none of my personal concern how he decides to make his money and endanger his peers. They're all adults play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Star: Definitely cheating , though that isn't really surprising. With how confident he was making that bet in the interrogation.

003: Keisuke Izumi

“You should have known that wasn’t good for them. You should have known this wasn’t good for them. They’ve died because of you.”

Gunsli: Not to be that person but this guy kind of has the sort of personality I dislike. He seems like the sort to entrust things to others and then get mad when they don't turn out how he wanted. Sure he's trusting and cooperative but honestly it kind of comes off like he's only being that way so he can't be held accountable later.

The sort to say something like,

"I left it all to you! I trusted you to do this right-"

Or in this case you should have known. Nothing can ever really be his fault if he never commits to it himself.

Star: He kind of gives Muu vibes. At least in terms of how he seems to give leniency with the expectation that it will be returned to him. Idk if that makes sense though. Also it's interesting to note that whoever is writing these profiles up is unsure of Keisuke's gender- implying they are going off of an impression rather than any concrete data. This also implies it is J who is collating this information.

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: Oh, finally, someone who seems to actually have committed murder. Even then, it's kind of up in the air. Seems my first impression was right. He's someone who kind of just hocks things he could very well do himself on other people without putting much regard into the scope of what he's asking for.

If no one is speaking up about an incident then there's not much an authority figure can do about it. They're not all powerful and omnipotent. They can't punish students for things. They haven't witnessed themselves or based on hearsay from other students who weren't involved with the incident and refuse to get directly involved. This teachers hands are literally tied. So, unless he's doing something completely irresponsible like having the person doing the bullying look into it because maybe they don't know it's them doing it I don't see how the teacher is to blame.

Saying I thought you'd do something about this is as good as the teacher telling him,

"Hey if you really care about your friend I'd think you'd do something about it."

However, the teacher has to be a professional and just say,

"None of the students are discussing things with me honestly. So, until they do there's very little I can personally do about the situation."

Which frankly is something this guy could have done himself. Since he's witnessed these altercations he should know the names of the parties involved by this point. So why didn't he do anything else before escalating the issue to further violence. There are so many things one can do before attacking someone else.

Plus it's not like what he did was self-defense. It just seems like he decided to attack someone to the point of killing them simply to stick to his word. It's like okay you kept your promises. That's not always a noble thing and there were probably other ways for him to keep that promise without harming another person. Now this is under the speculation that he did kill someone and not just harm them because that is the implication. However, I need to make it abundantly clear I don't feel bad for him nor do I like his attitude.

He decided to mindlessly obey and rely on authority figures to solve issues for him and wound up being complacent in what was going on within his school. Honestly, he's more responsible than his teacher. The teacher at least did what they said they would. This dude can't get mad because he knows the teacher is telling the truth.

Because he's accepted that his friend is lying and dragging out the situation longer than it needs to be. Tgis exchange implies he's accepted that this is his friends decision so who's really being shady and to blame,

He glances up after a couple of pages and spots someone walking over to him. “Hey!” The person immediately looks up before frowning. “Hey, Keisuke.” “You wanna talk? I saw what was happening earlier and–” Keisuke hops off the brick wall and walks over to the person. I'll trust you just for a little longer "I'm sorry." "Huh?" “I don’t want to talk about it. I know what you saw and I know you wanted me to talk about it, but–” “Look, I get it.” Keisuke sighs. “Don’t worry, okay?” “Got it.” 

Also it's not like at any point he intervened either despite having opportunities too,

Keisuke begins to move away as the pitch darkness turns into the hallway of the school again.  He glances over at the classroom door and stares at something. Someone inside notices him.  "Hey, is your friend coming to save you?" Someone sneers. "W-wait, leave him out of this–" The person at the desk cries out. "Only if you do everything we say for the next day." "Fine.".

So, he just comes off as complacent.

He's just over here like,

"T3

"Teacher why aren't you doing anything?! You're supposed to be better than me because authorities are meant to protect people. Not other people there's nothing- I a person with no authority can do. So, I'm wiping my hands of any part in this. Plus, if I do a bad thing, it's not bad because I'm just keeping a promise. A promise you should have kept as an educational professional."

Likw okay brat. He really could have helped but,

"He's a kid, he's just a high schooler!"

I'm sorry I was in very anti-bullying schools, not because of the teachers but the students. Change starts with you sometimes. It just simply does. I got bullied because people told other people I was bullying them at points. Can you imagine someone coming up to you and bullying you like we don't tolerate your kind here- Bullies! And now you're just kind of here like getting bullied but also like wait a fucking second I'm not a bully- I'd bully me too if I thought that!

He could've thrown hands.

Other students didn't want to speak about the conflict get personally involved in the conflict then speak about it yourself. Fuck it, we can all go down together. Make it egregiously loud, get your parents involved be a problem that can't be ignored. Do it in the classroom if necessary. What the fuck is the teacher going to do to stop you? They can't even stop the other bullying. Be a disturbance. Make this teachers day hell until something is done.

This isn't the teacher's fault but this would give them something to work with and look into at least. Like if you give the teacher something to work with they're going to work with it. It's certainly more reasonable than murder!

Then being out here like,

"Oh teacher you aren't paying attention to this issue because every party involved is telling you there is no issue and that I'm a lying piece of shit. Something I know my friend is complicit in. Well I guess i just have to respect their choice."

This guy just seems like he doesn't want to get his hands dirty or in trouble unless he can get something out of it. Like in a I'll keep my word so you keep yours way. So, I don't feel bad for him or his circumstances because that's an asshole way to be.

Star: He seems like he's just trying to help for self satisfaction. And even then, only doing things that can be done passively. Granted, I might be biased because I already wasn't fond of this guy. Also, as Gunsli pointed out, he could have done more instead of relying on others.

004: Tomoko Shiratori

Gunsli: She seems nosey.

Star: I don't have much of a opinion on her.

Gunsli: Fair, not sure if this is right but-

This seems to be her glitched voiceline,

"How. How unaffected."

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: You know when you give people dirt on others it gets on you too. If she was so concerned about what her clients would do with the information she gave them then she should have been more careful. Saying I was just telling them the facts after can only get her so far. If she feels guilty about it then maybe don't work in trading and discovering other people's secrets.

She chose this occupation I don't feel bad for her.

This kind of just comes with the territory. So if it's just a case of her telling a wife her husband is cheating on her and that wife killing said husband. Yeah, it's not her problem and it's not murder. So, I don't care.

I just really don't care for indirect murders they bore me. It's like you could hail a taxi for someone or get them an uber thrn their driver could be a murderer. The driver could just decide that's what they want to do today. Does that suddenly make you responsible for how that person chooses to live their lives?

No.

Chances are she would have just hired another private investigator if Tomoko didn't do it. So I just don't care. This is a risk that can occur in her line of work if she doesn't like the risks and direct consequences of the profession she choose to go into get a different job.

That or actually do due diligence. If she believes a client of hers may wind up attacking the person they hired her to look into over the information you give them then just don't give them that information or alert the proper authorities of that risk. She didn't have to take such a sketchy job.

Again this is why i don't think of Milgram proper through an indirect lens it simply isn't murder. If someone didn't have the intent to kill another person and their actions didn't directly cause that persons death- I mean directly not in a domino effect or a butterfly flapped it's wings and a tornado formed way then that's not murder. That person is just living their normal life. The only participation awards for murder are accessories and abettors. Both of which are still more actively involved than this.

Star: Whether it counts as murder or not, she did not do due diligence. Furthermore, if she was really as suspicious of the job she was doing (as implied) she could have refused it, or put in any safeguarding measures.

005: Shun Minami

Gunsli: Not that concerned about her despite the warning. J is writing these and he's like three not the best judge of character a three year old rabbit or person. It's just like they seem to be hiding something I think you should vote everyone innocent they don't seem like they could do anything wrong. Alright buddy pick a lane.

Star: She kinda reminds me of that one Vocaloid song Super Hero

Ummm...I think it's this,

"Yes, it’s been done. Good we even now."

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: I didn't vote on them or any of the characters before Daiki- who I just voted guilty for no reason. But it's not his turn yet I thought it was but no this is someone else. Ahn they killed someone and it was for money but uh you're the jobs you choose. She doesn't particularly say they have to do this. I guess they could be lying because it starts on a stage with gun imagery but ends with her using a knife but uh that's none of my business really.

Again this just seems like one of those cases where enough isn't really known. So, I guess they deserved that 50/50.

Star: ... huh. Was she asked to kill the guy in the previous case?

Gunsli: Well there was a knife stabbing at the end of that so maybe. Damn the private investigators negligence really had a domino effect huh?

There's a quiet laugh and a stabbing noise.

Huh being shit at your job just does that I guess. Maybe next time investigate your clients. Because she didn't even know if that person was actually the others wife or not. So she could have just been hired to stalk someone for somebody else.

Star: It does seem like they dithered on whether they should kill him or not. Though I am curious what they'd need the money for.

Gunsli: I mean not to sound unsympathetic but a crime is crime regardless of one's personal motivations. No one really thinks about crimes objectively just in terms of what they find relatable or morally just themselves. It's kind of why so many cases of similar caliber have such varying verdicts. Put a criminal on a stand that a jury can't project upon and the more likely they are to actually wind up Guilty.

Even Es is only being nice to Shun because they were nice to him. That's the only reason he thinks they couldn't have done that. That's just how fickle the judgments of people are.

Star: Definitely, yeah. Though, to be fair, I'm just curious about it because this seems like a lot of effort to go through to get money. But that contrasts with the seeming delay of the killing.

Gunsli: I mean she went through a lot of effort to not get a real job and instead make money off of ending the lives of others. Furthermore she said she's only killed one person but in the song extraction the person says they took longer on this job implying they've done more.

So she just seems dishonest.

"Hey, you spent a long time getting this contract complete. Why?" The man asks, placing his head on his hand, his smirk still on his face.

I mean I'm curious about why she would need the money as well. But- again everyone here choose the ways they wanted to make money and live their lives for better or worse.

I just can't bring myself to feel that bad for them.

Star: Yeah, I agree with that. Which is why I'm just curious, not particularly sympathetic.

Gunsli: Ah, fair I thought I was being a bit too harsh on them but this is one of those not my business scenarios. So, I'm glad I didn't vote on it. Like I don't particularly feel like it's really good or really bad.

The situation is just there.

Star: Yeah. It's not really something to judge, especially at this point. Like they were hired. If she didn't do it, someone else would have. Which may be cynical, but it is what it is.

Gunsli: Hey it's just business at that point, baby. Either you're getting that bag or someone else is. So, I feel you there Star. His death certificate was pretty much signed and sealed the last thing it needed to be was delivered.

The saying is don't shot the messenger not the messenger can't shot you bang, bang.

006: Daiki Kawaguchi

Gunsli: Oh hey a dude to bully. I voted this guy guilty I had no reason to. I just heard everyone was innocent so far and that's pretty boring. It doesn't really matter he seems to be innocent anyway.

Star: He seems pretty defensive. Partially because he mentions that he's an office worker then immediately backpedals-

"I work in an office, but I really don't know if you care too much about that."

-and because he literally tells the listener to not say he's in the wrong.

Now onto the glitched voice line,

"I need to get her/him back, damn it!"

List of unnecessary/unlikely variations~

I need to get her/him back, fuck it! I need to get her/him back, need it! I need to get her/him back, kill it! I need to get her/him back, mash it! I need to get her/him back, cook it! I need to get her/him back, burn it! I need to get her/him back, tear it! I need to get her/him back, slap it! I need to get her/him back, hurt it! I need to get her/him back, roll it! I need to get her/him back, boop it! I need to get her/him back, will it! I need to get her/him back, wish it! I need to get her/him back, free it! I need to get her/him back, read it! I need to get her/him back, turn it! I need to get her/him back, tell it!

Gunsli: And that’s what Daiki did that day in exactly that order. It was fucked up what he did and those people will never be the same. The witnesses will need a lifetime of therapy. There’s nothing that can make them unsee what they just saw.

This man should not be allowed to cook.

Star: We think it's the first one, but we ended up doing all the rest of them because of the lack of known letters on that word.

Thoughts on Voice Drama and Song

Gunsli: I voted this person Guilty his thing hasn't ended yet I think. Which is probably good because I was just being a bitch if I'm being honest. I didn't even know who he was or what he did yet. I was just doing it for chaos reasons. But ya know I'll argue anything so let me just hope they suck real quick.

Damn I'm glad he sucks.

He is his own worst advocate. Like got damn I picked a good person to vote guilty. Oh cool fuck cops. Good enough reason I didn't need more but like I said with Kazui ACAB is a state of mind. It overwrites everything fuck this guy. I mean maybe he isn't a cop. He stole information from the police station and dishonorable discharge can be related to the military.

So maybe it's that but like he still sucks.

Like I know his sister is missing and maybe one of the kids here killed her can't say who. But ya know throw a dart a board I'd wager maybe Mia because people keep highlighting she's harmless and Izumi seems to have killed a guy.

Plus this dude keeps highlighting there are kids here and that may be because they're around his sisters age.

Or maybe Es is right and he did kill his sister and just doesn't remember doing it.

Star: Yeah, definitely defensive. Also, would be fucked up if Tomoko was the person who got the extra info he found-he feels very sketch though, even if we know he's trying to find someone.

007: Isamu Takao

Gunsli: On principle I distrust people who are super adamant about not meaning to be somewhere. Because if you really weren't meant to be here you wouldn't be.

This isn't like real life where false imprisonments happen. Maybe that is something that can happen in Mugram but that would be a structural issue at that point. Especial if they really did nothing.

But it seems like he did something to me.

Star: He's... interesting. They feel a bit suspicious, but that might be because his mannerisms feel reminiscent of how Mikoto tends to try and blow off stuff to avoid any potential wrong he's done.

Glitched line seems to be this,

"Ah-No, no, this wasn’t supposed to happen-" or "It– No, no, this wasn’t supposed to happen–"

Gunsli: Not the words of the most uninvolved party in the world.

008: Mia Fukuda

Gunsli: You ever not trust someone solely based on how they carry themselves and the color they're wearing. This is one of those cases.

I haven't read a thing yet and I just don't like her. That probably says something about me. Like I don't like the nervous quiet character trope. Which I don't. That's one of the reasons I'm still not that fond of Haruka.

So, the characterization is characterizing I just hate this personality type.

I literally typed this before reading her description saying she's nervous. So again the characterization is characterizing. Damn life is testing me she's a Pisces...

Unfortunate we share a sign...

Star: I don't really know what to think of her. So I'll just wait till I see more of how they interact with people in general before coming to a full decision.

This is her glitched voice line,

"I’m sorry."

Gunsli: Ahn... this is going to be one of those situations where I have to abstain simply because I just don't like her.

Those come up from time to time. Maybe I'll change my mind when I find out more about her but for now... Mmm nah.

No, I think I'm good.

009: Ryuu Seki

Gunsli: Bitch that's not how patient-doctor confidentiality works. You are in jail the existence of that does not stop your from being interrogated if a crime has taken place in which your or your patients are incriminated.

What type of bullshit? He just came here and lied. Well we at least know you killed a patient now.

Like the fact that he said this is more incriminating. We could have assumed it didn't even involve his job. But, he just made it abundantly clear it does in one statement.

So at this point he was either assisting his patients with suicide which in some places is against the law or killing his patience then claiming it was assisted suicide. However since he brings up patient-doctor confidentiality there's an implied sense of agreement or discussion between patient and doctor.

He could just be a liar though.

I don't trust him much at all since he started off on an untrustworthy note by lying about how patient-doctor confidentiality works.

Star: I don't trust him as far as I could throw him. And I greatly dislike him to boot. His whole quote about being a doctor and how that makes it easier to make hard decisions is. Incredibly suspicious. Not to mention an egregious leap of logic to begin with. It ends up coming off as though he's saying all this to gain a position of power/authority. Also, as Gunsli brought up, that isn't really how doctor-patient confidentiality works. It's also a common misconception that it is that people don't really look into. All of that makes it feel like he's lying about being a doctor in general.

010: Sora Mochizuki

Gunsli: Seems like an average engineer. From what she said she may be pretty well known outside of Mugram.

At least this comment implies that,

"Oh, funny thing. I didn’t know no one knew who I was."

Star: Can't really think of anything to say about her. She doesn't say anything noteworthy.

"It... It’s good." or "Ah...It's good."

[adambja]

Listen, I really like you but there is some truth in what this person said

https://www.tumblr.com/candy-girl18/733467702866444288/i-think-its-so-sad-to-see-what-the-loablr?source=share

are y'all crazy? 💀

First of all I don't see any truth

You didn't work on my tapes

Go study psychoanalysis and more... Then come make a tape like one of my tapes - maybe you will understand the too much work I put

But I didn't lose sight of the actual goal of being here I saw what the @candy-girl18 said but baby

What I am doing here is different!

I can't be working on a tape for 47 days and give it to you for free!

This isn't fair to me ;)

And I really value myself

I can't do it like this

That's why there are free tapes that I made it in 2 days and you can request them via DMs

And even if you hate me or hate my tapes or intend any harm to me it will go back to you it won't affect me

And I am doing something different here no one else does or did before and no one will even do it like again

It isn't my issue that y'all don't understand what am I doing here

YOU PEOPLE THINK I PUT POTIONS AND MAGIC IN MY TAPES💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

Wtf? No actually wtf

I work directly on the subconscious mind 💀💀💀💀💀💀

So yes all of this is wrong

And I am not even annoyed or mad it's just y'all don't understand what am i doing here

It's clearly your issue I said multiple times And I never faked any success story even most of my clients told me not to share their success stories and that's the price people pay for to have their success stories not shared if they buy my paid tapes

People are paying me normally and everything is going well with me even got more people y'all are literally beefing with me about NOTHING

What you talk about isn't like what I am talking about

We don't have the same points THAT'S IT

You want it for free - get the free tapes via requesting thru my DMS 💀💀

That's it - I am over it

If you still see all of this drama on y'all's side right

You have an issue and I am not responsible for solving your issues for free

I literally have a clinic and people ready for me to get a $400 per session - so y'all really need me - I don't even need your money

This money is for the 47 days I spent on my tape THAT I MADE WITH MY KNOWLEDGE

You have no right to decide whatever it's for free or not because of your law of assumptions

Again you are really stuck on something here guys

I said many times I am. Not a loa coach

I am Self-concept coach

I am even a subconscious mind programming coach

Even a psychologist

Add to this I have my own personal PERSPECTIVE from loa, non-dualism and more....

Because even Neville got a lot of limiting beliefs and non-dualism is full of limitations 💀💀💀

Then how the hell are you telling me this doesn't how it is in loa

Well I am like this

I am not gonna give you my 47 days tape for free 💀💀💀💀!!!

[mithliya]

trans people aren't hurting anyone with what they do. that should be reason enough to see them as how they identify, no? i know today it's hectic with so many non dysphoric people. shouldn't you, as a feminist be moving past defining the limitations of men and women by biology?

if their ideology and what theyre pushing for was truly hurting nobody, i would still be in support of their movement the way i was the first 5 or so years i heard of trans activism.

insisting that there is no kind of potential harm to self-ID laws and that no one will be hurt by it and saying anyone who identifies as a woman should be allowed into women's spaces isn't "not hurting anyone". in fact, it very clearly endangers women. there are countless predators who have invaded women's spaces, recorded women in bathrooms or sexually assaulted women or flashed women. this already happens without giving them loopholes that allow them to do it more easily.

insisting that putting anyone who identifies as a woman into women's prisons isn't "not hurting anyone" when this has resulted in literal rapists being put in prisons filled with vulnerable women who ended up being sexually abused by said rapists.

insisting that anyone who identifies as a woman gets to go into women's sports isn't "not hurting anyone" when it results in unfairness and pushes women out of sports, defeating the entire purpose of even having a women's category in sports.

insisting that lesbians are attracted to anyone who identifies as a woman isn't "not hurting anyone" when this resulted in the cotton ceiling and lesbians being harassed and deemed "terfs" & "bigots" for not wanting to have sex with someone who has a penis.

insisting that anyone who identifies as a woman gets to be considered for female-only scholarships or other facilities such as quotas meant to help women access education or certain careers isn't "not hurting anyone" when it results in males applying for said scholrships and facilities and getting awarded a place that was intended for someone of the female sex.

insisting that sex doesn't matter and is a social construct isn't "not hurting anyone" when it pushes harmful pseudo-science and women's health is already understudied. moreover, it has made it so women cannot even discuss abortion as a women's rights struggle.

insisting that access to transition needs to be made available to kids as long as they believe they're trans isn't "not hurting anyone" when gay children are more likely to be impacted by the idea that their gender non-conformity means they're "born in the wrong body" and has resulted in numerous kids transitioning due to comorbid mental health issues, internalised homophobia, and/or internalised misogyny.

these are just a few examples off the top of my head. if it was harmless, i would not care and i doubt anyone else would care. if some random adult decided to transition but did not do any of the aforementioned things and respected women + gay ppl there'd be nothing to be concerned about, but i do care that an ideology seems to take presedence over women's rights and people's well-being.

[astercontrol]

So I just saw someone reblog a frantic PSA about a proposed law that was (supposedly) going to cut off millions of people's access to online fandom within a few weeks if we didn't stop it right away.

There were tons of details that looked not quite right about this story. So, of course, I skimmed through the reblogs to see if anyone else had added more context...

I'm gonna say right off: I did not get to dive very far into the many red flags, because the main disqualifier turned out to be that the law already failed to pass years ago and the post was half a decade old.

Always look at timestamps.

But also:

You gotta be careful of assertions that some law is about to pass and that it will immediately ruin a lot of lives in some way. There are cases where that's true or nearly true (I could name some anti-abortion decisions from the past few years). But that's not the norm.

First of all: When a law is "passed" that does not mean it instantly goes into effect. Passing a law (in the US but also lots of other places) is a multi-step process, and VERY often a news story will say something "passed" or "is about to pass" when it actually just means passing ONE of those steps, and not the final one.

Then, even once something is signed into law, it almost always has a period of time before it actually gets enforced. Especially if it's a law affecting a complex system, like how websites are required to moderate their posts or manage the accounts of their users.

Even assuming absolutely everyone tried their hardest to obey such a law right from the moment it passed... they literally couldn't, until they had time to restructure entire systems. So the law probably contains something like, "every organization affected has 9 months to make the required changes."

(And during those months, there may very well also be protests and movements to repeal or amend the law... and they might succeed. So it's not even guaranteed to be fully in effect after the stated timeframe.)

Also: please think for a little while about the logistics of how a law would or COULD be enforced, once fully in effect.

Suppose, like this one I saw the post about, it's a copyright law targeting potentially infringing material. What would a social media platform have to do in order to comply?

Would there need to be a team of moderators vetting every post in real-time as it was posted to make sure it didn't violate anyone's copyright? Or an automated piece of software making that decision as things are posted? (YouTube seems to do that, and it sucks.) Or would moderation only happen if someone reported it for violation? And how does it happen then? (Will it follow Tumblr's model, where if a poster has enough enemies maliciously reporting their posts, the moderators will just go "oh I guess there MUST be something wrong with these posts" and ban them?)

You'll notice I mentioned a couple of bad systems that are already in effect. Both of them exist at least partly because of legislation that passed at some point. But neither of them appeared instantly after such legislation was signed. And neither of them cut off the whole population of a country from fandom.

In fact those systems of moderation are hugely ineffective even for their intended purpose -- in both directions. They unjustly censor a lot of stuff that DOESN'T actually break their rules, but at the same time they let through a ton of stuff that DOES. If you were gonna investigate whether the legislation behind these policies had "cut people off" from being able to access any particular type of content... you'd have very mixed evidence to analyze.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't protest such legislation when it's in process! In many, many cases you absolutely should! I wish to hell that more people already had!

BUT when people go around sharing these calls to protest worded in such a panic-inducing way-- "we'll all instantly lose access to everything!"-- that is harmful to the cause even if it is a good thing to be protesting.

Firstly, because when the people opposed to a bill are spreading inaccurate information about it, this obviously erodes respect for valid protests and weakens them.

Secondly, because after the fact-- if the harmful legislation does pass-- the people who feared it are going to be dreading some immediate apocalypse.

And if that doesn't happen (which usually it doesn't, since real-world change tends to be slow!) ... they'll lose their fear of the legislation.

Over time, they'll forget what they were even afraid it would do.

And, months or years later, they'll start seeing things happen that are scarily close (though probably not identical) to what they were once fear-mongering about...

...and they will not realize where it came from! The bill they were scared of before, that's so long ago it isn't even on their radar anymore!

They'll go looking for something recent to blame. And of course it'll be something much too recent to have actually caused the problem.

But it'll get all the attention (because attention spans work that way). And the actual culprit will go on doing its damage, undisturbed. I have seen this happen. We all have.

So just.... think, when you're reblogging calls to action about something that scares you, okay? Pay attention and think about it for a few minutes. Please.