#'you don't know their personal details so how can you identify the ideological influences in the words they said'

[starfieldcanvas]

if you are saying ariaste's attempt to link anon's question to fascism is incorrect, then you are making an argument. yours may be a correct argument, but it is an argument. ariaste laid out a position with their logic and their evidence; you don't find their logic or evidence compelling; you disagreed with their conclusion and said so; you tried to point out what you saw as the problem with that. it's an argument!

but it's still kind of unclear what you think the problem is. why shouldn't someone point out that the premise of a question is one of the hallmarks of fascist thought? people who aren't card-carrying self-avowed fascists say kinda fashy things all the time. even well-meaning progressive people. that's why anti-fascists put so much effort into trying to explain how certain attitudes can link into fascism.

i frequently think ariaste is overdramatic and i often disagree with the way they choose to frame things—i wouldn't even say i totally agree with what they said here!—but if you disagree with them, you should try actually engaging with their arguments, not just assume it's totally impossible to identify fascist influence in a short paragraph.

Do you think authors sometimes don't realize how their, uh, interests creep into their writing? I'm talking about stuff like Robert Jordan's obvious femdom kink, or Anne Rice's preoccupation with inc*st and p*dophilia. Did their editors ever gently ask them if they've ever actually read what they've written?

Firstly, a reminder: This is not tiktok and we just say the words incest and pedophilia here.

Secondly, I don't know if I would call them 'interests' so much as fixations or even concerns. There are monstrous things that people think about, and I think writing is a place to engage with those monstrous things. It doesn't bother me that people engage with those things. I exist somewhere within the whump scale, and I would hope no one would think less of me just because sooner or later I like to rough a good character up a bit, you know? It's fun to torture characters, as a treat!

But, anyway, assuming this question isn't, "Do writers know they're gross when I think they are gross" which I'm going to take the kind road and assume it isn't, but is instead, "Do you think authors are aware of the things they constantly come back to?"

Sometimes. It can be jarring to read your own writing and realize that there are things you CLEARLY are preoccupied with. (mm, I like that word more than concerns). There are things you think about over and over, your run your mind over them and they keep working their way back in. I think this is true of most authors, when you read enough of them. Where you almost want to ask, "So...what's up with that?" or sometimes I read enough of someone's work that I have a PRETTY good idea what's up with that.

I've never read Robert Jordan and I don't intend to start (I think it would bore me this is not a moral stance) and I've really never read Rice's erotica. In erotica especially I think you have all the right in the world to get fucking weird about it! But so, when I was young I read the whole Vampire Chronicles series. I don't remember it perfectly, but there's plenty in it to reveal VERY plainly that Anne Rice has issues with God but deeply believes in God, and Anne Rice has a preoccupation with the idea of what should stay dead, and what it means to become. So, when i found out her daughter died at the age of six, before Rice wrote all of this, and she grew up very very Catholic' I said, 'yeah, that fucking checks out'.

Was Rice herself aware of how those things formed her writing? I think at a certain point probably yes. The character of Claudia is in every way too on the nose for her not to have SOME idea unless she was REAL REAL dense about her own inner workings. But, sometimes I know where something I write about comes from, that doesn't mean I'm interested in sharing it with the class. I would never ever fucking say, 'The reasons I seem to write so much of x as y is that z happened to me years ago' ahaha FUCK THAT NOISE. NYET. RIDE ON, COWBOY.

But I've known some people in fandom works who clearly have something going on and don't seem to realize it. Or they're very good at hiding it. Based on the people I'm talking about I would say it's more a lack of self-knowledge, and I don't even mean that unkindly. I have, in many ways, taken myself down to the studs and rebuilt it all, so I unfortunately am very aware of why I do and write the things I do most of the time. It's extremely annoying not to be able to blame something. I imagine it must be very freeing. But it ain't me, babe.

Anyway, a lot of words to say: Maybe! But that might not stop them from writing it, it might be a useful thing for them to engage with, and you can always just not read it.

Also, we don't censor words here.

[qqueenofhades]

Okay all -- few quick thoughts about the Elon Muskifying of the government, especially the takeover of the Treasury and associated financial data for every single US citizen and organization, that we are learning about in detail today.

Don't panic. This sounds bad, because it is bad. It's really, really bad. It's outrageously fascist bad. But we've still gotta take a deep breath and get through it.

This is the kind of shock-and-awe exercise of untrammeled fascist power where they are absolutely counting on gleefully terrorizing, paralyzing, and stunning you into mounting no resistance, or just giving up and giving in. They are literally live-tweeting it in real time and boasting about all the access and influence they have right now. They want you to know about it and feel like you can't do anything, so you might as well let it happen.

We have to show them that's not true.

TIME TO MAKE SOME NOISE. Because it's Sunday night, I've gone ahead and contacted my state Attorney General and both senators by email (but come Monday morning, we should all be calling). Here is the email that I wrote to my AG:

Dear Mr. [AG],

As you will be aware, today (February 2, 2025) the Trump administration has granted wide-ranging access to sensitive US Treasury data, including the personal and private information of [state] citizens, to Elon Musk's so-called "Department of Government Efficiency." Musk is an unelected private citizen who has no legal right to access this data, and is engaging in extensive intimidation and coercion to fulfill his personal and harmful ideological agenda. The present and material harm that this causes to US citizens, [state] residents, and basic laws of government, privacy, and financial security is direct, unconscionable, and actionable. I strongly urge you, in your capacity as [state] Attorney General, to file direct suit against the Trump administration, Elon Musk, the "DOGE" office, and any identifiable individuals who have taken part in this action, in order to protect consumer data, citizen privacy, and basic faith and trust in government.

All the best,

[Qqueenofhades]

Short! To the point! Doesn't waste time, tells him what I want him to do, how Elmo's nonsense directly harms the residents of my state, and why he should take action to stop it! And frankly, given how on-the-ball blue-state AGs have been thus far, they're probably already working on it. You are very welcome to copy-and-paste this message and fill in your AG's last name and your state as appropriate. Super easy to do. Takes five minutes. Call tomorrow.

If you are in a red state, your voice is particularly important right now. The Trumpsters are counting on and are even emboldened by blue state pushback, but you really need to make it start coming from Republican strongholds. Congressional Republicans will only feel the slightest amount of unease about docilely enabling this BS when it starts threatening their own personal power. Hit them where it hurts.

Other lawsuits are coming. Marc Elias, Democratic lawyer extraordinaire, is well aware of this situation and has noted on Bluesky that more lawsuits are in the works. He often wins his cases. This does not mean that you shouldn't loudly make noise elsewhere, but please remember that this is one of those 24-hour periods where, as noted, they are counting on demoralizing you with a nonstop blizzard of bullshit. It does not say anything about how this will play out long-term or the opposition that can and will be mobilized to stop it.

Once again: courage. Take the small steps that you can do today. Then take a breath and get off social media for a little while. Try to take the long view. One step at a time, we will get through this.

Courage.

[squidproquoclarice]

Why do you say Dutch is running a cult? I don't think I disagree but you explain things in a way people can understand so I wanted to get your thoughts.

OK, so in the interest of having a clearly defined set of criteria identified as often present in cults, I’m going to run the VDL Gang through a Cult Characteristics Checklist from the International Cultic Studies Association. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.‪Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.‪   Extremely and constantly present in Dutch’s dialogue.  Consistent expectations of affirmation of obedience and loyalty rather than “doubters” or “second guessers”, depicting blind faith as strength and dissent as a weakness they can’t afford in this situation.  Demands for things like “Say it, ‘Yes, Dutch.’ “Frequent testing in ways like “I know you doubt me” and “Do you have my back?” Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).‪   Not as much.  While there are some routines/schedules for guard duty and the like, a lot of it’s pretty loose.  There’s a bit of this in the very theatrical demand and/or praise sessions, like when Dutch gets up on a stump to demand people go earn money (while visibly sitting around himself) or to loudly praise the successful Valentine bank robbery.The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry, and/or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).‪  Somewhat.  Dictating the movements of the gang in-game despite advice by others, definitely.  I’m guessing he highly dissuaded Arthur from considering leaving for Mary, and then later for Eliza, and helped dictate his marital choices.   The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar and/or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).‪  I’d say they have this one to some degree, albeit less so than in an outright savior/Messianic way.  Dutch paints them as the smart ones who have chosen to fight back against a corrupt social order, who will found a “savage utopia” and live life as it should be.  Rather than admit to being the orphans and outcasts they are considered worthless by society, he encourages them to think of themselves as elite chosen ones with the brains to see the truth.

The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.‪  Dutch says “us or them” verbatim.  Repeatedly.  And the whole “we reject this rotten society” tension forms most of the conflict in the game.The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).‪  He’s the leader of an outlaw gang who’s proclaimed them subject to no law or order except their own, i.e., his.  I’d say that qualifies handily. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).‪  Very much present in the increasing “whatever it takes” justification growing throughout the gang.  The gang has also evolved from vaguely Robin Hood-esque to self-interest and looking only after their own via increasingly violent means, as remarked upon despondently by multiple gang members.  Hosea’s got a line something like “We don’t even have the pretense anymore of being anything but a bunch of killers.”  I doubt most of them would have considered things they do in-game, and even then, it’s clear they feel doubt, shame, or horror at some of it.The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.‪ Extremely present. Demands for affirmation of loyalty and depicting doubt or even questioning as anathema, the thing that will kill them all. Visible praise for others with the implication the rest aren’t pulling their weight, and introducing an element of competition.  We can see very clearly with Arthur how he deftly manipulates Arthur’s lack of confidence with alternating devaluation and praise.   Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.‪ Definitely present. They have the gang, and the gang, its people, and their needs, is their entire world.The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.‪ Given the population explosion between 1894 and 1899, absolutely.  Prior to 1894, it seems the only gang members were Dutch, Hosea, Bessie (deceased at some point), Susan, John, and Arthur.  That’s nobody new since 1885, when John joined, with most of the rest having been there the better part of 10 years even before that since the late 1870s.  Then suddenly in 1894, something changes.  The gang balloons to over two dozen over a mere 5 years.  I suspect this is when it evolved from a family to an increasingly violent cult.The group is preoccupied with making money.‪ Constant “WE NEED MORE MONEY” and demands for members to bring in money.   Nuf said. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.‪ Total devotion to the gang and its people is expected.Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.‪The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.Arthur demonstrates this pretty clearly.  He missed at least two chances for life outside the gang due to loyalty and fear of the unfamiliar.  His journal and dialogue makes it clear that in his depression, he believes he’s unable to live any other life.  Increasingly in Chapter 6, we see the latter part of this in action.  Arthur demanding Dutch let the women and Jack leave, and Dutch refusing.  People sneaking away in the night rather than risk being caught.  Clearly there’s a fear of consequences.  Dutch expects them to die with the group, rather than survive outside of it.  Their loyalty is worth more than their lives.So all in all, the Van Der Lindes definitely demonstrate the majority of these cult criteria very openly, and virtually all to some degree.