#(no such thing as an unbiased account of history? sure

[uncontrolledsubstances]

The Roses of Heliogabalus (detail), Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, 1888

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for not telling my partners I'm a system?

💚🐻

To preface this, I don't use Tumblr and I'm using my partner's account, so I would rather ask this anonymously. Forgive any non-tumblr-isms 😅.

This happened a while ago, but to be honest I can't let this go. I feel so horrible about it despite being reassured and I figured Tumblr, who has a lot of systems/people with DID/OSDD, would be able to give me an unbiased (as much as I can give an unbiased account, anyway) answer.

I, (24M), am a system with one headmate, P, (??). (Neither of us are sure how old he is, since it seems to change on the day). I don't want to get into exactly how I got him, but I believe the term for what we are is "traumagenic"? Sorry, again, I'm not really familiar with everything.

Anyway, I've had him since I was 8, and he's been... well, a real pain in the ass, to be frank. I understand now that he's a defender by nature and was trying to protect us, but when you get expelled from middle school for several physical attacks and almost get sent to juvie you start to resent the guy a bit. He's a bit like a sleeping bear, except if the sleeping bear had one eye open and killed you before you could hurt him.

Back when I got out of my abuser's house and went no contact at age 20, I moved in with my current partners, Bonfire (24M) and Greenhouse (25NB) (names changed for privacy, obviously.) At the time I didn't know them, but they were looking for another roommate and I desperately needed somewhere to live.

So I moved in with just the clothes on my back and my wallet (bad move, I know, but I didn't have anything anyway). I didn't care to interact with them all that much, not wanting P to get defensive and attack them for no reason, but they just kept pushing and eventually I relented and hung out with them some.

"Some" turned to "often," and then "often" turned into "sleeping-in-their-bed-and-sharing-our-clothes." At that point I was too far into it and embarrassed to admit I'd been hiding a whole other person from them in my mind. I wasn't sure if they'd even like me after, what with P's history of violence.

...so I never told them. I did my best to forget about anything that ever happened and tried to just enjoy the future I'd always wanted for myself. Bonfire and Greenhouse are lovely people and I was finally, maybe just a little happy. I'd never been a happy person and I was content to bask in it for as long as I was able.

This, of course, backfired immensely. P and I didn't have the best relationship at the time, with both of us wanting to do very extreme things to get away from the other. He wanted to kick me out and be by himself in my body, and I wanted to kill myself to be rid of him. We've since reconciled and made strides in accepting ourself for who we are- it hasn't been easy by any means, but that isn't the point.

I recognize now that he was afraid of being hurt again, not wanting to get out of that survival mindset in case Greenhouse and Bonfire turned out to be super-secret mega abusers taking advantage of our trust, but I also know what he did after was wrong.

He got physical with Bonfire, screaming at him and threatening to kill him if he got any closer. I don't have any memory of this happening, so some details may be incorrect, and I apologize for that. Bonfire, not knowing that P was not, in fact, me, (coupled with the fact that he's a fucking idiot (meant with affection)), he got closer and tried to talk me (him) down. P punched him in the face and broke his nose, after which he ran out of the house and left me to "wake up" a few miles away curled up under a tree.

P left me a note a few days later that said he didn't mean to break his (Bonfire's) nose, but that he was lucky he hadn't done worse. This, in P speak, is probably the most sincere apology I could get at the time.

To try and keep this as short as possible, I'll summarize what happened next. I told Bonfire and Greenhouse about P because at that point the cat was basically out of the bag. They said they'd wished I'd told them sooner, and that they were a little uncomfortable being in the same house as "the lean, mean, stabbing machine" (- Bonfire) but that they were willing to help me manage him if I promised to tell them everything I knew about how he worked.

I did, and it's been years since then, and now P and I are, as stated before, closer than ever. I recently asked my partners whether or not they were still upset with me for not telling them, and they just said that they weren't entitled to my medical history and trauma (which, yeah, but he did break Bonfire's nose) and that they didn't care because, "hey, we basically got a free dog out of it" (- Bonfire), and "we made a promise to love you, including all the less-than-savory parts." (- Greenhouse).

Sweet, yes, but I think I might be TA because, um, P LITERALLY BROKE BONFIRE'S NOSE AND THREATENED TO KILL HIM? AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF I HAD TOLD THEM?

TL;DR: I didn't tell my partners about my headmate that's prone to violence and he did violence on them and I feel bad.

AITA?

(P says hi, by the way, and he also wants me to tell you that he isn't like this anymore and much prefers soft blankets and eating fruit to breaking his family's noses.)

What are these acronyms?

[notasapleasure]

un-paywalled interview with David Olusoga, with some choice quotes:

“When I was a young historian, I imagined that history was, as I was told, a way of avoiding the mistakes of the past . . . what I think now is something much less grand. I think [the job of historians] is to try to stand there at this arsenal of dangerous ideas and to make it more difficult for people to raid that arsenal to use it for their political projects. It is to complicate the picture; it is to show that these simple assertions are much more nuanced; it is to muddy the waters and to try to de-weaponise the past.”

and

“I don’t need history to build my identity. I’m fascinated by history, I draw things from history, but I draw different things than I drew 10 years ago or 20 years ago. It’s only a problem if you believe in magical exceptions and that those complexities should be disguised.”

This idea of undisguising and de-weaponising history is so so important. Reminds me of part of this conversation (cw: i/p conflict) that's been rattling round and round my head since I read it: "[according to Hillel Cohen] historians really have no better justifications than anyone else; people have their beliefs, and then bring in whatever justifications their discipline offers. Hillel talked about how historical narratives are not objective truths but are used as ammunition. To have a future, we have to be able to let some things go." An awareness that historical narratives are used as ammunition is a start, but how do we diffuse them? How do we unpick history from the historical narrative? People want so badly for the sciences to do this for us - clean, unbiased science! give us the One True Explanation for this! - but that's not how history works.

Letting things go means letting go of the idea that there's a single, correct interpretation or answer. It's embracing the messiness and the gaps in what we can uncover and letting go of the need to have a definitive, palatable version. It's accepting that history exists in a messy state that can't be neatly packaged up to offer a fix to the way things are now.

...it's finally coming to terms with that exchange that made me stop wanting to be a historian.

Me: I've been studying this for ten years and I don't have an answer. I'm open to the possibility, but we don't have the evidence to say this for sure. Guy on the Internet: Well if you've been studying it for ten years why don't you get off the fence and pick a side!

What I did: deleted my account on that forum and vowed never to do public engagement again.

What I should have done: told him that yep, being a historian is being an inveterate fence-sitter. I'm not here to tell you how it happened, I'm here to make you doubt everything you thought was a certainty in the hope that maybe, just maybe, you'll stop and think twice before repeating the past or asking it to make things right for you now or hoping to exchange it for justice.

[horizon-verizon]

I hate how GRRM use Nettles’s sexuality to undermine her accomplishments just to shake things up. Here’s a 16 years-old girl who relied on her intelligence instead of a pedigree to tame a dragon and succeeded in becoming a dragonrider, but her taming of Sheepstealer gets prefaced by a statement about how “worse was yet to come with dire consequences for the Seven Kingdoms” to preemptively blame Nettles for Rhaenyra’s own cruelty and Daemon’s subsequent abandonment of her cause (a statement not made any better by talking about how “the power young maidens exert over older men is well-known” when discussing Daemon’s affair with Nettles as if to cast her as a seductress), and that’s when her dragontaming is not getting framed as something she traded sex for as suggested by Gyldayn’s speculation about how she traded sex for the sheep she fed Sheepstealer. He makes sure to treat us to his thoughts on the state of Nettles’ virginity when she began her affair with Daemon while he is at it as well.

Likely responding to this post.

You can take a look at this post and this one for more context.

Answer: GRRM has Gyldayn do all that. Gyldayn is the in-world maester who writes Fire and Blood to be published and stored within the Citadel so the maesters could compile knowledge about the Targaryen dynasty. It is meant to show the consequences of Rhaneyra's paranoia.

How is it that we should look at an invisible character GRRM created to be the book's in-universe writer over GRRM to blame for Nettles when GRRM is the real-life writer of Fire and Blood? Didn't he decide that Nettles should receive said treatment in this story?

Fire and Blood works as a pseudo-frame narrative within the larger world of the main ASoIaF series/narrative and has its own unique unreliable narrator from the main series. An unreliable narrator, is when a/the narrator's credibility is compromised by clear inconsistencies of events, perceptions, and their own biases and/or psychological processes. They are more often found in first-POV or limited third/deep third POV narratives because we are in the actual mind of the protagonist and there is no real 100% unbiased narrator because the fictional character or entity narrating has agendas, desire to lead someone/the reader towards a specific perspective, biases, etc.

That underpins the entire narrative. However, when real-life writer intentionally and consciously uses in-world or a voice that is distinct from their own, they are trying to establish that there is another, overarching entity that tells the story with their own agenda and in-world audience.

GRRM's history book is itself pretty unique for a popular audience. Gyldayn is that unreliable narrator with a kind of "3rd-1st person omniscient POV", where the narrator is a character in the world but is still external from the characters being focused on.

I say "kind of" because the omniscient part of Fire & Blood is really Gyldayn's attempt to be as neutral a histographer or collector of historical accounts as possible while making reasoned conclusions from missing or suggestive but ambiguous material--speculating & trying to solve mysteries. But it is seems 3rd person bc Gyldayn is not a participant in the events and stories he's describing in Fire & Blood--he's writing of times he wasn't even a conception of, writing them either right before or during Robert Baratheon's reign that begun in 283 A.C. He is writing in the perspective of a person who has read multiple accounts of multiple events and generations that have themselves been debated over, parts lost, etc. When Gyrladyn writes of characters/past people's personalities, thoughts, feelings, etc., it's coming from external observations of them, recorded dialogue or other sorts of speech, or their own firsthand recordings (Daemon & Otto's writing in The Rogue Prince).

The book is "unreliably narrated" not in the sense that nothing is "true" (thr main series narrators are actually ALL if not mostly "unreliable!!") not because of this amalgamation, the anecdoters' own biases or agendas, & narrative holes in some places, but because it's written by a man who comes from an institution that upholds sexist, classist, mores AND one that has been in opposition to the Targs & dragonlords since its dynasty's inception. So he should be also scrutinized in how he writes about the Targs, esp towards its women who do not, in some way, conform perfectly to Andal-FM gender performance in its patriarchal, feudalist system.

F&B is not actually that unreliable; like most history books, it includes good research of witnesses and contemporary documents on events.

The maesters are not septons, but they--like every other Westerosi--come from the Faith and the Citadel itself rests in the exact same town that the High Septon (a sort of pope) and the cultural/religious epicenter of the Faith resides: Oldtown. Where the Hightowers are based, have patronized the Citadel, supplied both the Citadel & Faith institutions with their own members for generations (like Ceryse Hightower's uncle, who was the High Septon in Aegon's & Aenys' times), and have gathered for themselves high prestige in Westeros for centuries for being the ones preserving the Faith and with it, whatever counts for "Westerosi values".

The purpose of an unreliable narrator is to:

LINK ...create a lot of grey areas and blur the lines of reality, allowing us to come to our own conclusions. Fallible storytellers can also create tension by keeping readers on their toes — wondering if there’s more under the surface, and reading between the lines to decipher what that is. Unreliable narrators can make for intriguing, complex characters: depending on the narrator’s motivation for clouding the truth, readers may also feel more compelled to keep reading to figure out why the narrator is hiding things.

Fire & Blood is not really this, but to just sohow that there are layer sof narration...

A frame narrative is a story told through layers of other narratives like a Russian nesting doll's structure. One overarching narrator tells a story, say to another character, and we do not get details about them as much as we do about the characters of their story:

The Framing Device is a narrative technique in which a story is surrounded ("framed") by a secondary story, creating a story within a story, often through Separate Scene Storytelling. The inner story is usually the bulk of the work. The framing device places the inside story within a different context. Framing devices typically involve outer story characters as the audience of the inner story, such as a parent reading a bedtime story to a child. Other times, the outer story character is the author of, or a performer in, the inner story. Occasionally, the inner story is a hallucination or delusion experienced by one of the outer story characters. The inner story does not need to be a work of fiction from a frame-story character's point of view: letters, journals, and memoirs can also be used as framing devices, often in the form of Day in the Life.

There is a reason why Gyldayn is compiling all these accounts, secondary or primary, bound or loose, into this one book. That's a story right there.

So there are GRRM -> Gyldayn/all the maesters who wrote about the Targs' and their interactions/decisions -> the Targs and those around them, whose first POVs we do not often get and must inspect since the masters are the ones collecting accounts of their words and dialogue. Some dialogue had been recorded in the then-declarations, some are reported by individuals, and some by many individuals at the scene of the event.

GRRM is rather "telling" us stuff--implying, showing, and not just telling--about how the Targs are perceived not just by the maesters, but by larger Andal-FM Westerosi society at their time as well as after their end. Intermingled in that are perspectives of Targs themselves, but you'd have to investigate and weigh the context of their actions.

If you clicked on the link to the post I made a long time ago about how Gyldayn writes and relates Nettle's character, it's clear that he's looking at her as more a young brown, low-classed slut, or allows that interpretation, to subsume her impressive brave acts to explain why she would in any way be attractive to Daemon. And the thing is that this is exactly how misogynist men who've enjoyed male privilege (there are no female maesters) often interpret a female person's value in various ways to discredit them and the men, but more often the women/girls. Rhaenyra nor Mysaria get away with his misogyny either. Helaena could have had a stronger personality, but along with her own family likely sidelining her unless it has to do with kids, Gyldayn also merely characterizes her as "pleasant", "would-be good mom" and "less attractive than most Targs" as if these were the primary qualities they are looking for from a royal woman/Targ woman. Motherhood, socially undisruptive, and looks.

Side note: And anyone else who visits the Citadel could read one of the copies of Fire and Blood, but I think most copies would be in the Citadel because I haven't found evidence of books in Westeros spread to many regions in mass production and cheaper paper or if they use paper, what it is made of and how expensive it is. Without said evidence, they'd likely paint words manually into books and that takes time, so you're not going to see as many copies as you'd see in real-life Renaissance countries and later eras. (medieval books and illuminated manuscripts, pic below, were also made of animal skin [often sheep], called "vellum". Are most, if not all, books in Westeros made of vellum, or paper, IDK)

[chellerbelles]

I decided that for the Vale Soleada prompt, I would have the story (or the bulk thereof) set in Vale Soleada, heh. Evangeline Whedon (Vange) got a cameo in the beach scene I sent out earlier. Also, Marie D'Ancanto gets to have a supporting role.

For the uninitiated: although “Marie D'Ancanto“ is Rogue’s name in the movies, in the comics, Marie D'Ancanto is a separate character that we meet in X-Treme X-Men while in Vale Soleada. For this story, I decided to make her one of Robert & Marian’s descendants, because I thought it would be funny.

Rogue & Gambit Week 2023: Vale Soleada

A few days later Rogue and Gambit were in Rogue’s little red sports car, speeding off down the highway.

“So, Vale Soleada,” Gambit said as Rogue drove. “Ever been there before?”

“Sure, plenty of times. I have a lot of friends who either live there or have vacation homes there,” Rogue said. “It’s a quiet little coastal town in California. The most exciting thing ever to happen to it is that they used to have a vampire.”

Gambit snorted with laughter. “A vampire?”

Rogue grinned. “Yup! His name was Robert Lord, and he was married to a witch named Marian.”

“Of course.”

“Whose brother was a werewolf.”

“Naturally.”

“The brother’s name was Victor Creed. Victor Creed Junior.”

Gambit frowned. “Wait… Isn’t that Sabretooth’s name?”

“Yup. I wondered if you’d notice that,” Rogue replied. “I looked into it. There was a guy named Victor Creed who married a local girl after getting her knocked up.”

“I can’t see Sabretooth submitting to a shotgun wedding. Hell, I can’t see Sabretooth submitting to any wedding.”

“The family was rich. If it is the same guy, that was probably why. He was a solider, and he wasn’t around much. He fathered two kids on her, and disappeared before they were even teens. The son was named after him in an attempt to get him to stick around. Didn’t work, obviously,” Rogue went on, warming up to her subject. “Victor Snr was basically hated by the family. Marian and Victor Jnr weren’t treated very well. Marian talks about her cousins getting better treatment and presents and stuff. Obviously, that’s not an unbiased account, but we can verify from other sources as well that Marian and Victor Jnr got the short end of the stick.”

Gambit nodded. “So, was there actually any validity behind Victor being a werewolf? Maybe taking a little too much after his father?”

“From the way Marian writes about him in her diaries, I think he might have inherited something from Sabretooth, actually. Maybe. Not sure. Marian does mention that Victor recovers quickly from things, but doesn’t elaborate. And Victor did end up dying from drowning.” Rogue gave a half shrug. “He was also pretty hairy and a bully.”

“What about the witch and vampire stuff?”

“Marian didn’t know when the witch stuff started, but she thinks it was because she used to rescue and adopt black cats. However, there is a formerly hidden garden on the estate that might have been associated with her as well. It’s full of poisonous plants. The garden actually belonged to Robert’s mother, Elizabeth. It’s available for tours now.”

Gambit laughed. “Of course it is.”

“As for the vampire stuff, we think that Robert had albinism. He had white skin and red eyes. Except, red eyes aren’t actually red, they’re a blue so pale they’re transparent and what you’re actually seeing is blood vessels. That lack of protection makes you light sensitive, which Robert was. He didn’t like to go out during the day, so that added to the whole vampire thing.”

“Interesting. You said his last name was Lord? Isn’t the place we’re staying the Lord’s Manor?”

“Yup. The family turned it into a hotel. I stay there every time I visit. The place is amazing. And they really play up the history. Marion’s diaries are on display too. They’re super old though, so if you want to read them, you need to get a copy of the pdfs. They scanned the pages. It’s a fascinating read.”

“I may just do that. So, Victor drowned, what happened to Marian and Robert?”

“A few weeks after celebrating their golden anniversary, Robert was murdered. His body was found with a stake through his heart.”

“Ooh. Harsh.”

“And Marian died a few months later of a broken heart.” Rogue gave a sigh, and then threw Gambit a grin. “At least, that’s how the story goes. It’s not too far away from the facts, really. Marian did have a heart condition that she was taking medication for. Some people theorise that she might have stopped taking her meds though.”

“She and Robert were that much in love?”

“Eventually yeah. Their marriage was arranged though, and neither of them were keen on the idea in the beginning.”

[irithnova]

Were the Mongols really that stinky?

Me trying to summarise/simplify notes I've found on the Internet. But also this is me trying to defend Mongolia ‼️😔✋🐴

(Editing this to re-work the Yassa and Mamluk part as the source I have used to explain it was most likely biased. )

The hygiene practices of the Mongols have been documented by the Mongols and foreigners alike. Apparently, according to some historical resources, the Mongols smelled so bad that you could actually smell them incoming, and that during battle, their stench actually helped them. This seems like a ridiculous exaggeration to be honest, and probably was written by people who were subjected by the Mongols and therefore were very butthurt. All soldiers on a campaign, no matter where they're from, can smell pretty bad.

It is said that the Mongols would not bathe, in fear of angering the water dragons which controlled the waters. This was recorded by the 15th century Mamluk Historian al-Maqrizi. It is true that the Mongols were a shamanistic people, however the mention of dragons is peculiar. The appearance of dragons in original Turco-mongol mythology is almost absent, and dragons are more used in Chinese and tibetan mythology.

In addition, do we really know if the whole "not bathing in running water" thing was truly what was happening with the Mongols, or was it another mistranslation after centuries and centuries of copying things and translating things? François Pétis de la Croix, a French historian of the 18th century, had access to Al-Maqrizi's original work. François came to a different conclusion to his findings - that bathing in running water was banned only during thunderstorms. Both because it was dangerous and also to show respect to Tengri.

Then, in the 20th century, George Vernadsky, who was a Russian-American historian, came to agree with François Pétis de la Croix's conclusion. He agreed that this law was not as restrictive as we may have originally believed. Further, let's remember that they were "banned" from using "running water". Surely that means they could have collected water in jugs and used that or something?

There is also issues with Al-Maqrizi's original source - he is not really regarded as a reliable one. His information on the Yassa was apparently given to him by a man called Abu-Hashim, who claimed that he saw the whole of the Yassa in the libraries of Baghdad during his political exile.

Abu-Hashim is an obscure historical figure and little is known about him and his works, if he even had any.

What Al-Maqrizi thought to be the Yassa was actually just a small list of punishment for offences from the Mongol Criminal law.

Al-Maqrizi also fails to admit that he borrowed pretty heavily from the scholar Ibn Fadl Allah al-Umar in his works on the Mongols. Ibn Fadl Allah al-Umar based his works off of Ata-Malik Juvayni, who was a respected official in the Ilkhanate. Further, Ata-Malik Juvayni wrote the book "History of the world conquerer". This was probably the most unbiased account of the Mongol conquests of Chinggis Khan at the time.

Considering this, you may think. Oh! So it was kind of based off of a reputable source. Must be legit then. But no, Al-Maqrizi, as we can further see in this post, omitted many things from the works he was influenced by, because he had a pretty sour bias against the Mongols.

Juvayni, in his work, records how bathing was banned during certain times of the day during spring and summer months, during which thunderstorms were common. Al-Maqrizi makes no mention of this.

It could be argued that Juvayni himself was biased in trying to make the Mongols look good. Some argue that this "bathing in midday was banned" fiasco was written in by Juvayni to demonstrate the mercy of Chagatai Khan when he pardoned a poor Muslim who was caught bathing in midday. But honestly that seems like a weird thing for Juvayni to lie about, even if it was to make Chagatai look good, so I agree with the original conclusion.

Let's also not forget that Al-Maqrizi lived during the time of the Egyptian Mamluks in 1364-1442. He definitely had a sour opinion of the Mongols, especially the Golden Horde and Ilkhanate, who were the products of the brutal conquest of Muslim-majority states.

It is rumoured that the some of the Yassa codes may have been used to administer affairs in with the Mamluks, however accounts of this are greatly exaggerated. However the Muslim Mamluks certainly knew of the Yassa and were very cautious and critical of it.

Al-Maqrizi, during this time, was very adamant and vocal about the Yassa being satanic, hmm I wonder why (hint: he had a sour opinion of the Mongols).

Considering all of this, can we truly believe what Al-Maqrizi said about the Mongols hygiene practices? Even other historians at the time had this strong bias against the Mongols, and we should really be taking what they say with a pinch of salt (probably like. 100kg of salt tbh)

In addition, I've seen a Mongolian answer this question online, and they said that in those times, Mongolias used ointments of animal origin to rub dirt off of the skin - similar to the inuits. Let's also remember that "running" water was not allowed to be used, and not allowed during thunderstorms. Running water was more often seen in nature settings for the Mongols in those times, and the fact that you weren't allowed to use running water during thunderstorms? Yeah honestly to me that just seems like respecting nature/Tengri and avoiding danger if anything.

So basically. They probably didn't smell that much worse than anyone else during the time!

DEFENDING MONGOLIA‼️ LEAVE HIM ALONE

[jewishbarbies]

I wish that people would realize that blatantly false or wrong information just delegitimizes their cause. So many people just don't understand the definitions of the words they're using or they don't know the history of the topics they're discussing. And while it may lead to stronger language used and a greater appeal to emotion on tumblr, in the real world all it does is give their critics weak points to dig into. It's just really sad to watch people who are misinformed (hopefully i really don't want to assume that they're being malicious) just hand the horrible right-wing pundits talking points on a silver platter.

honestly, they’re so desperate for “unbiased” sources that they don’t properly vet the ones they find on social media. they trust random accounts and their claims way too much for people who say they don’t trust msm. “I can’t trust the news that has a vetting process and makes corrections when the info is wrong so I get my news from a 14yr old tiktoker who says things I agree with and a random twitter account with a blue check that claims to be from the area instead.” like. that’s not better. they have the right intentions and the empathy is there, but they definitely could do a much better job making sure they have all the information and the CORRECT information before they act.

[txttletale]

sure! so, the problem with classical historiography is an extreme paucity of sources. many, many contemporary histories of the early roman empire just don't exist anymore--we know about many of these, because they are referenced, cited, and quoted by works that we do have--but they just fell out of circulation in the 2000-odd years since they were written and there are simply no remaining copies.

this means that the later we go back, the more we have to rely on a smaller number of sources, which were also on average written later after the events they describe, which have also often only survived in abridged, incomplete, or translated form. obviously, there's no such thing as an 'unbiased' source, so the best way to get an accurate picture of historical events is to try and read as broadly as possible and make comparative assessments of different claims and the positions from which these claims are made -- this is really fucking difficult for a lot of Roman history, because often the number of sources describing a specific event will be in the low single digits.

as an example, let's take something that's a bit of a stir recently because of a museum doing some dumb shit to the equally dumb anger of apoplectic transphobes: the assertion that emperor elagabalus was 'transgender'.

we have three (!) substantive Roman histories of the reign of elagabalus: the contemporary cassius dio and herodians' accounts and the sensationalist and mostly-fabricated 4th-century historia augusta. now, all three of these describe him as effeminate, certainly: but these are claims that need to be contextualised. when elagabalus ascended to power, he was the high priest of a syrian cult worshipping the solar diety of the same name. the stereotype of the effeminate, barbaric foreigner from the east was a very prevalent one in the ruling class discourses of the roman empire: herodian is very clear that elagablus' effeminacy is inextricably tied to his easterness:

Leaving Syria, Elagabalus proceeded to Nicomedia, where he was forced by the season of the year to spend the winter. Immediately he plunged into his mad activities, performing for his native god the fantastic rites in which he had been trained from childhood. He wore the richest clothing, draping himself in purple robes embroidered in gold; to his necklaces and bracelets he added a crown, a tiara glittering with gold and jewels. His dress showed the influence of the sacred robe of the Phoenicians and the luxurious garb of the Medes. He loathed Greek and Roman garments because they were made of wool, in his opinion an inferior material; only the Syrian cloth met with his approval. Accompanied by flutes and drums, he went about performing, as it appeared, orgiastic service to his god. When she saw what Elagabalus was doing, Maesa was greatly disturbed and tried again and again to persuade the youth to wear Roman dress when he entered the city to visit the senate. She was afraid that his appearance, obviously foreign and wholly barbaric, would offend those who saw him; they were not used to such garb and considered his ornaments suitable only for women

— Herodian, Book VI (emphasis mine)

the clarity with which Herodian makes this link is very helpful in considering how we conceptualize the accusations -- and they are accusations, they are intended to be read in a profoundly negative light by their audiences as signs of foreign decadence and perversion -- made by Cassius Dio. it gives us some hint of the constellation of tropes which the Romans had around foreign gods, foreigners (and Easterners specifically), and effeminacy.

Cassius Dio himself was also very much favoured in the government of Elagabalus' successor, Severus Alexander, who came to power after Elagabalus, his mother, and several influential figures in his court were assassinated by the imperial bodyguard. understanding these tropes and Cassius' natural inclination to flatter Elagabalus' successor, the reigning emperor and therefore his patron, we might therefore rightly treat Cassius' extravagant accounts of Elagabalus' behaviour, with great skepticism!

so, like, what was elagabalus' deal, then? we just don't know, because these three sources, all bound up in the Roman cultural image of degenerate Eastern effeminacy, one of them comically unreliable and noncontemporary, are all we have! there is of course, some archeological evidence: coins bearing inscriptions of the meteorite which Elagabalus' cult worshipped seem to confirm parts of the narrative wrt Elagabalus trying to introduce the primacy of his own god into Roman publc life: but there are no accounts from sources who were close to or knew Elagabalus, let alone anything from Elagabalus himself!

so, like, was Elagabalus 'transgender'? (leaving aside the question of applying modern frames of queer sexuality/presentation/etc to ancient subjectivities, which is a different if slightly related can of worms). well, the quotation typically given by supporters of this reading is generally from Cassius Dio, attributed directly to Elagabalus:

"Call me not Lord, for I am a Lady."

wow, seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it? now let's put it in context:

Aurelius Zoticus, a native of Smyrna, whom they also called "Cook," after his father's trade, incurred the emperor's thorough love and thorough hatred, and for the latter reason his life was saved. This Aurelius not only had a body that was beautiful all over, seeing that he was an athlete, but in particular he greatly surpassed all others in the size of his private parts. This fact was reported to the emperor by those who were on the look-out for such things, and the man was suddenly whisked away from the games and brought to Rome, accompanied by an immense escort, larger than Abgarus had had in the reign of Severus or Tiridates in that of Nero. He was appointed cubicularius before he had even been seen by the emperor, was honoured by the name of the latter's grandfather, Avitus, was adorned with garlands as at a festival, and entered the palace lighted by the glare of many torches. Sardanapalus, on seeing him, sprang up with rhythmic movements, and then, when Aurelius addressed him with the usual salutation, "My Lord Emperor, Hail!" he bent his neck so as to assume a ravishing feminine pose, and turning his eyes upon him with a melting gaze, answered without any hesitation: "Call me not Lord, for I am a Lady." Then Sardanapalus immediately joined him in the bath, and finding him when stripped to be equal to his reputation, burned with even greater lust, reclined on his breast, and took dinner, like some loved mistress, in his bosom. But Hierocles fearing that Zoticus would captivate the emperor more completely than he himself could, and that he might therefore suffer some terrible fate at his hands, as often happens in the case of rival lovers, caused the cup-bearers, who were well disposed toward him, to administer a drug that abated the other's manly prowess. And so Zoticus, after a whole night of embarrassment, being unable to secure an erection, was deprived of all the honours that he had received, and was driven out of the palace, out of Rome, and later out of the rest of Italy; and this saved his life.

okay, so: the context for this quotation, which Dio attributes to Elagabalus, is: he is saying this to an athlete, who he has had brought to him by the men he hires to find men with gigantic penises, before his other gay lover poisons the athelete with limp-dick pills and Elagabalus, enraged that the man cannot fuck his ass because of this, banishes him from Italy. we might, i think, fairly say, that this is far from a neutral recounting of the emperor's own words, and i think we may in fact go further and say that this seems very obviously an overwrought scandalous fabrication. but putting all that aside: how does Cassius Dio know the emperor said this? he does not seem to have been present at this event -- if he spoke to someone who was, or pulled from the written account of someone who was, or if he pulled this from someone who also wasn't there, or if it was revealed to him in a dream -- we don't know! we have no way of knowing if any of this happened, or what real events it might have been based on. we literally just don't know, and it's unlikely we'll ever know!

and, y'know, this is just one example. there are countless stories about roman emperors doing crazy sex acts and enacting ridiculous violence, and in many cases these are obviously written to flatter their succcessors who came to power when they were murdered -- and they're still all we have. so. it's kind of a bind. we know that the pictures of caligula, nero, commodus, elagabalus, and all the other 'bad emperors' are inaccurate, probably full of slander and exaggeration from their political enemies -- but we have very little else to go on to try and build a 'more accurate' picture of what they might actually have been like as individuals or as administrators. and

this is a problem that plagues not only these controversial individuals but entire societies, wars, epochs of history -- huge chunks of our modern understnading of Sparta comes from Plutarch, writing centuries after it stopped existing as an independent polity. other chunks come from Thucydides and Xenophon who, while more contemporaneous, were Athenians who never set foot in Sparta. and this is something i think that people who talk about ancient history in a like, casual sense really don't grasp, that it is genuinely just impossible to know for sure how much of what scant sources we have is true or not, except in the cases where things can be independently confirmed by archeological evidence. it's fascinating but daunting! and it's frustrating how often it's collapsed down into silly debates like 'was elagabalus trans' that can't possibly be answered in any meaningful way.

the historical source we have for understanding much of the early roman empire are so fucking bad. like whenever you hear any insane story about tiberius/caligula/nero/commodus/elagabalus imagine trying to put together an account of any modern figure if your only avaiable sources were tucker carlson archives and the daily mail

[talkingpointsusa]

Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings, Ben: December 4th, 2023.

So folks, we're back after diving back into the Daily Wire's past coverage of January 6th (which was mostly just yelling about BLM instead of addressing the actual events that took place at the Capitol). So I figured we should take a look at Ben Shapiro today before we dive back into the culture war swamp of Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh.

As mentioned previously, Ben Shapiro is probably the most polished of the big four over at the Daily Wire. When you watch his videos, you can tell he at least took time to think about his position, which is more than can be said about some of the other people over there.

Now, Ben has been really running cover for Israel recently. His position has been essentially to call anyone who questions anything Israel is doing "antisemitic," even though questioning governments in times of war is essential to holding everybody accountable.

Ben also seems to have thoughts on fossil fuels, keep in mind that the Daily Wire is funded by fracking billionaires Farris and Dan Wilks. Knowing that, I am sure that Ben will be completely unbiased on this issue.

Trigger Warning; Brief mentions of sexual assault and a lot of talk about the Israel-Palestinian Conflict. If you're not comfortable with these topics, turn back now. If you don't want to turn back, skip to the end where Ben hilariously butchers an op-ed about Beyonce and reveals he lacks even basic media literacy skills. Also also, Ben's views don't represent my views over here at Wired.

Now, without further ado; let's get into it shall we?

2:09: "But still, why can't the Israelis meet their jew hating terrorist enemies halfway? Increasingly this seems to be the logic of the Biden White House. Although to be clear they aren't actually asking Israel to meet the Palestinian's halfway, they're actually asking them to meet them about 80% of the way"

What Ben is talking about here is the White House increasing pressure on the Israeli government to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza. No matter what side you are on in this conflict, you hopefully agree that innocent civilians being bombed indiscriminately is a bad thing in the same way that we can agree that Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7th was a bad thing.

Ben's position throughout this entire conflict has been that as many Palestinians as possible should be killed and that Palestine should be annexed. In an October 30th speech, Ben stated that the only solution is for Israel to "kill those sons of bitches". He went on to state that he would not condemn the deaths of innocent civilians. A question I would ask Ben is this: How is arguing for the death of an entire group of people different from antisemitism?

It isn't, because Ben has a history of extremely racist beliefs. At one point he tweeted out that "Settlements rock" and "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in sewers"

2:40: "Israel is actually taking more precautions to avoid civilian death than any army in modern history"

Anyone who has been following this war knows that this claim is laughable. So far, 15,200 Palestinians have been killed, with 6,600 of them being children and some being journalists. For context, according to the UN, there have been 9,614 civilian deaths in the Russia-Ukraine War. When you remember that this stretch of the conflict between Israel and Palestine has only been going on for two months, you'll realize that what Ben is saying here makes absolutely no sense.

4:19: "The Biden Administration is reportedly encouraging Israel to restore humanitarian aid into Gaza at the same levels as they did in the recent ceasefire"

And given the civilian casualties and injuries, this is a good thing. What Ben is suggesting is denying aid to civilians to put pressure on Hamas. Again, no matter what side you are on, you have to agree that innocent civilians being killed and injured in a war is bad.

Denying humanitarian aid to a region that is being cluster bombed is essentially saying that you don't care how many innocent people, including children, die. That is a disgusting position to take.

9:28: "The Democratic Parties base is showing sympathy for terrorism"

Again, questioning a government isn't "showing support for terrorism." We can live in a world where Hamas killing civilians on October 7th is bad and Israel bombing civilians indiscriminately is also bad.

Ben continues on to talk about how Dearborn MI is one of the centers of radical Islam in the US. How is this any different from Alex Jones saying on air that Hamas sleeper cells would activate on Friday the 13th and launch attacks across the US? An attack which never actually happened.

11:59: "That's why members of the progressive caucus have to downplay the mass rape of women"

Nobody is downplaying sexual assaults that Hamas has carried out against Israeli's. No matter who you are, rape is rape.

However it can be true that we can condemn violence from one side while also condemning violence from another side. Giving civilians who have nothing to do with Hamas aid is not downplaying sexual violence.

14:45: "Over the weekend, a knifeman in Paris killed a German tourist and wounded a Briton. He said he was motivated by the war in Gaza according to the UK Telegraph"

That is indeed horrible. It is a tragedy when innocent people are killed because of wars. That is why Ben Shapiro naturally must also hate the brutal killing of a six year old Palestinian American in Illinois. Interestingly, I've never heard Ben talk about that. If we were going to have a conversation about how the climate of war enflames people into committing violence, that's a conversation worth having. However, this cherrypicking game is useless and gets people nowhere.

14:53: "The suspect is 26. He is a convicted terrorist with a history of psychiatric problems. Which makes you wonder why is he out on the streets of Paris?"

Because his sentence was up? He was also under supervision at the time meaning that he wasn't just wandering around unchecked like Ben is trying to say here.

What happened in Paris was a tragedy, which makes Ben using it bolster up his political arguments about the war in Palestine even more ghoulish.

15:39: "Sure, they hate jews. But why are they just attacking random German tourists?"

Notice how Ben immediately turns one guys actions into "they", they in this case meaning Muslims.

Also, he himself stated that the guy had mental issues. Maybe that would explain this irrationality that Ben is noticing here? Just a thought.

16:55: "By the way, the amount of projection here is just astonishing. These are people who would love to see every Jew wiped off the face of the Earth which is why they are attacking a Jewish falafel shop in Philadelphia."

I agree that this is an insanely counterproductive protest that gets us nowhere. However, to portray this restaurant as being targeted "just for being Jewish" is disingenuous.

Before the protest started, the owner of the restaurant, Michael Solomonov, pledged to donate 100 percent of sales to an organization that partners with the IDF.

Is this a helpful way to protest? No, it would be more valuable to protest in a way that government leaders can hear your cries instead of one business owner. Is there context to what happened that Ben is leaving out? Yes!

Also, it's pretty dangerous to portray a protest group as "wanting every Jew wiped off the face of the Earth". This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that led to that child in Illinois getting stabbed.

20:54: "Meanwhile, intimidation on college campuses is continuing a pace. The Columbia School of Social Work is holding a teach-in this week. The poster for this thing is insane, again this is the Columbia School of Social Work"

Alright, so the image Ben flashes up is a screenshot from Instagram about a Pro-Palestine student groups event at the Columbia School of Social Work.

What Ben is leaving out is that this isn't the school hosting it, it is a small student group. The university supports it so much that they shut it down a couple hours after Ben's episode went live.

Ben then talks about Venezuela's plan to annex Guyana. I agree that that is awful but disagree with how it is being used to argue that this is proof that Biden's White House is weak. He then talks about the Ukraine invasion, considering that Trump has historically shown to be very Putin friendly I find Ben's declaration that all this would be better under the Trump administration really dumb. Moving on we get to Ben's second big topic of the day:

28:38: "But what the left is concerned about is fossil fuels"

I said it at the beginning of this post, and I will say it again: fracking billionaires play a large part in keeping the lights on at the Daily Wire.

At the end of the day, it is Ben's company, and as a result, he can get sponsored by anybody he wants. However, basic media literacy tells us that this creates a giant conflict of interest where Ben needs to push climate denialism in order to protect the best interests of his financial backers.

30:55: "But, the west has this bizarre religious vision that if they magically say that fossil fuels should be phased out, then they will just disappear and everyone will retain their level of economic development"

Does Ben know what the term phased out means? The left isn't saying we just take away all fossil fuels in one foul swoop, it is saying that we slowly phase them out and ideally put economic incentives in place to prevent the very thing Ben is talking about.

Also, if we let climate change get out of hand there won't be an economy anymore, just saying.

39:12: "I'm sorry to break it to the Pope and everybody else in the environmentalist corner, the single most efficient source of fuel on the planet remains fossil fuels. That's particularly true if you're looking at places like Africa."

Ben does make a valid point that developing nations will have a difficult time transitioning away from fossil fuels, and I fully agree that they should be given more leeway.

However we aren't talking about developing nations, we are talking about the United States which is only second to China in the most greenhouse gas emissions by country. Since the United States is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, it makes sense for them to start phasing out fossil fuels since they emit twice as much as small developing nations.

40:44: "Meanwhile, closer to home, over the course of the last few days the Congress expelled George Santos"

Oh hell yeah!!! I have been excited/dreading to hear the Daily Wire take on George Santos ever since the news dropped on Friday that Santos is getting the boot. Keep in mind that this is an organization dedicated to portraying everyone on the left as lying and dishonest. Now here is a conservative who is a pathological liar to an almost comical degree. I was thinking of making a "Daily Wire Responds To", and I still might (although it certainly isn't headline news over at the DW), but since we are already here let's talk about Ben's response.

41:09: "So, Congress moved to boot Santos because he was pretty obviously guilty of all this stuff, however setting a precedent of booting members before they've actually been booted of a crime, that's gonna open a door to a lot of things."

What would you want them to do Ben?! Let a proven pathological liar continue to sit on Congress and help make decisions that will impact the future of the country?

But let's not get too hasty, lets hear Ben out and see WHAT this will open the door to.

41:20: "Once you start booting members based on the fact that they've been accused of a crime, welcome to Congress where half of Congress is accused of a crime"

Alright, hold it right there Ben. Let's recap some of the stuff George Santos actually did that led to him getting expelled from Congress.

Lied to donors and used their money to make multiple personal purchases, including on OnlyFans.

Committed identity theft

Lied about having Jewish heritage and when confronted on this stated that he actually said he was "Jew-ish" (not even kidding)

George Santos was obviously guilty which makes this situation radically different than just "getting accused of a crime". Ben seems to be fine with a guy who was exposed as a criminal being allowed to be a sitting congressman which is...concerning to say the least.

42:01: "And really that started with the anti-Trump movement, because again the accusations against Trump based on Ukraine, based on Russia, and all the rest of this sort of stuff, were considered sufficient"

Never question the glorious leader!!!!!

Also, what about Bill Clinton's impeachment? What about Richard Nixon's impeachment? They were never charged either. How are those cases any different from Trumps impeachment?

43:22: "And, there is some hilarity to that because the reason 'Bidenomics' became a thing is because Obamanomics was a thing and Obama was personally popular."

Reaganomics anyone?

Next up, Ben rants about op-eds about Donald Trump. Who cares? I'm not a DailyWire+ subscriber so I don't get the rest of the show, however Ben said something at the end that tickled my interest.

51:56: "Alrighty, coming up we'll get to the new religion of the left, with Goddess Beyonce."

This is then followed up by Ben plugging DailyWire+ so I don't get to watch this on the website. But I found this intriguing.

Now for those of you who are not aware, Ben Shapiro is notorious for having truly godawful takes on pop culture. This was perhaps best demonstrated when he published a now infamous review of the Barbie Movie that led to him being almost universally mocked for displaying a stunning lack of media literacy. Now, given all this hard hitting stuff we have been covering in the past couple of days (Racism, Jan 6, transphobia, Israel/Hamas, etc), I thought it would be only fitting to laugh at how ridiculous Ben's take on Beyonce is.

Which is why I went on to his YouTube channel and promptly found the video:

00:00: "Well folks, Beyonce has a new documentary out and that means, according to Michael Eric Dyson at the New York Times, that she is...wait for it...wait for it...a prophet"

Alright, so this video is essentially about this op-ed that the New York Times put out entitled "Beyonce. Amen."

We already run into a problem in of that this is an opinion article. This means that it is not the papers official position, never mind the entire political left. This is just the thoughts of one guy, not the entire left.

Ben is also missing the entire point of the article. What Michael Eric Dyson is essentially saying in this article is that Beyonce's concerts provide a safe haven for people who have often been cast out of traditional religious settings, particularly black queers. This leads, in the authors view, to her concerts providing a "church-like" sense of community to people who traditionally aren't accepted elsewhere.

He also compares her to a process theologian. A process theologian essentially believes that God is not omnipotent and therefor they value processes instead of set beliefs. This comparison is essentially being made to emphasize Beyonce's profound impact on the people the article says have found community in Beyonce.

What Ben is doing is taking this article completely literally and viewing it as proof that the left views Beyonce as a deity. Never mind the fact that the article never even says that she is one. Anyway, most of this video is just Ben reading the op-ed in a sarcastic voice.

00:30: "He means this quite literally, he means that Beyonce is a goddess. She is the cult leader."

The word "goddess" doesn't appear once in the op-ed. I read it over twice to make sure I am correct in this assertion.

1:05: "She's a scantily clad lady who can belt a little bit but has given up belting to warble lyrics within a one octave range"

That's your opinion Ben and you are entitled to that opinion just like Michael Eric Dyson is entitled to his. Also, let's say I turned around and used this as "Proof that all right-wingers hate Beyonce". That would be stupid...almost as stupid as saying that everybody on the left is part of a cult worshipping Beyonce as a goddess.

2:11: "First of all, if your a Baptist preacher you probably shouldn't talk about human beings in these sorts of terms. Just gonna point that out. As a religious person, if you are going to talk about people as prophets typically they should be talking about God. And typically they should have prophecy. They shouldn't be singing about 'shaking their thang'."

The last bit is somewhat reminiscent of the time that Ben Shapiro read the lyrics of "Pound Town" out loud on his show and we got to hear him say "bootyhole waxed down" out loud, which is as hilarious as it is stupid.

Now, I would like to point out to Ben that there are these things called "metaphors" and the comparison of her to a prophet is Michael's way of emphasizing the massive impact that Beyonce has on her fans and the sense of community her music has fostered for them.

Ben then points out that a lot of Beyonce's songs are co-written. I mean yeah, most songs nowadays are. Doesn't change the overall point of the article which Ben is missing. Here's how Ben closes the video.

8:39: "There's something deeper going on here. The thing that's going on that's deeper is that we have a culture that has completely done away with church, that has completely done away with community, and now we have a bunch of ersatz churches and communities that barely hold together because they are not ideological in any serious way. They're a mishmash of people who feel themselves victimized in large part and they are oriented against something else, and the thing that they are very often oriented against is the people outside the room."

*Sigh*

This is such a ridiculous takeaway that we are going to have to go through it point by point. First of all, we have already gone over why this article isn't legitimately calling Beyonce a deity. Once again, Ben fails to grasp the metaphor at the heart of the piece.

Now let's talk about that "culture that has completely done away with church" remark, because if you look at the numbers it is completely absurd. Worldwide, there are approximately 2.38 billion practicing Christians and 1.907 billion Muslims. Combine these two and that makes up over 50% of the global population. And that's just the two major religions.

"That has completely done away with community"

But...the article clearly points out that Beyonce concerts are an extremely communal event. I would argue that concerts in general are an extremely communal event. By saying this, Ben is ignoring the literal topic of the article!

"And now we have a bunch of ersatz churches and communities that barely hold together because they are not ideological in any serious way"

I thought society had "completely done away with church and community". Even if Ben thinks a church or community is "ersatz", it is still a church or community, which means society hasn't done away with those things after all. It also means that Ben has contradicted his argument, thus undermining it.

"They're a mishmash of people who feel themselves victimized in large part and they are oriented against something else, and the thing that they are very often oriented against is the people outside the room."

First of all, the article outright states that Beyonce concerts are an open and inviting place for everybody, a line which Ben read in his sarcastic voice just moments before. But if you don't want to listen to Ben Shapiro, which is perfectly understandable, here is the line:

"Their presence at her concerts is a vivid reminder of what the church should do to welcome everyone who shares a desire to get better"

Ben, by the way, mocked this line:

2:57: "All church is, it's basically a building where you get together and everybody performs wild acceptance"

So, if Beyonce concerts are places where "wild acceptance" happens, than it's weird how Ben states later on in the video that they'll cast people outside of the group out. Almost makes you wonder if he maybe has no idea what he is talking about.

Well, that was my first truly deep dive into the world of Ben Shapiro. This episode was painful on so many different levels. It was certainly more subtly bad than the Michael Knowles blackface episode, but that's not saying much. I am still curious to see what Michael Knowles and Matt Walshes takes, if any, on George Santos' expulsion from Congress are but I guess we'll see that on a later episode. I'll see you guys in the next one!

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for keeping tabs on an ex friend?

So basically, years ago there was this huge split in my friend group. It was over some dumb bullshit, not really relevant. One of these friends (ill call them Kate) was particularly bitter.

A little while later, once we were adults, a friend (lets call them Ron) broke up with their toxic bf (lets call him Vince)

Flashforward a few months, and now Vince and Kate are dating and living together. They start to stalk us online and in real life, even so far as to take a picture of Ron at an event we all happened to be at. I should mention that Vince is well known for holding intense grudges and doing absolutely wild things like writing extremely inflammatory posts about them, contacting ppl theyre associated to claim they're bad people, trying to report fake fire-able offenses to people's work, etc etc

So, understandably, everyone is really scared in my friend group that Kate and Vince are planning something. Like some kind of plot to try and ruin our lives. It sounds dramatic, but we've witnessed the lengths that Vince will go to doctor screenshots and events before. It's landed in other people's detriment - loss of work, friends, partners, etc.

Here's where I could be TA.

Kate has a private acc that they let a lot of people into. It's not super super private, has like 70 followers, and it's really only locked so they can vet people and avoid bot followers. So I may have made a bit of a ghost account to follow it. My logic behind this is that I know they have a history of posting the shit they plan to do on their locked acc. My reasoning is just that I check in every so often to make sure they aren't still following us around in real life or planning to try and get us fired.

They're moving away next year and because they won't be in close proximity anymore, I intend to delete the acc then. But I understand that this might be stalkerish behavior so I just want to get the unbiased opinion here.

TL:DR; a couple of ex friends tend to stalk ppl so I followed their private accs to make sure they aren't stalking me

What are these acronyms?

[penguicorns-are-cool]

OP, you seem to have done a lot of research and I appreciate your effort to find an unbiased source, but Al Jazeera is not it

They write incredibly antisemitic stuff in arabic and make it look less antisemitic for English articles but their english articles are still affected by that bias.

AP news has made a lot of decent articles about it recently, but actually try to look at a lot of them because individually they're generally pretty short and end up biased in some way or another but the bias kind of balances out if you just read a bunch of articles. They don't have much nuance though and the historical context is very important because even having a basic understanding of the history can help you sort through disinformation (very important cause there is a LOT of it)

Here's an article with the history of the Gaza strip

Hey Alma has a lot of really great articles just going over different aspects of the conflict in a way that you can understand. they make an effort to be objective and are open to critique if you find bias or innacuracy. Here is one on the pre-Israel history and one on the settlements.

If you want to find a different article about the history be sure to fact check cause there is a LOT of historical revisionism around this topic and really anything ever that has had to do with Jews. One big thing to look out for is if the source says that the history starts in 1948 or later. You will not get a good understanding of the history if you start anytime after like 1920. ideally it should really start in the late 1800s, but that's a lot harder to find.

as for the disproportionate number of Palestinians dead compared to Israelis dead, those numbers can be pretty misleading because Hamas has been known to use Gazans as human shields. This has been an ongoing problem as long as Gaza has has power in Gaza. Here's an article about it from 2021. Hamas continues to use Gazans as human shields to this day.

Also, here's a link to Whispered in Gaza which idk if it's really relevant here but I think everyone should know about it. It's basically a bunch of interviews with people from Gaza talking about life under Hamas. They're heartbreaking to watch but they provide first-hand accounts of the stuff that Hamas does.

Gaza and Israel

It is Sunday, and my heart is heavy.

As most of you are aware, the past week has been remarkably difficult in the world, to say the least. The Holy Land of Israel and Palestine has erupted in the latest conflagration of war. What I have seen from American news has not been exactly easy to parse, as there is a significant effort by them to support the efforts of one side over another. I decided to go to Al-Jazeera, as they A) tend to be fairly objective in their coverage of these affairs, and B) are both geographically and journalistically closer to the events as they take place in the Middle East. I've spent the morning sifting through article after article of explainers, analysis, pro-Israel, pro-Palestine think pieces and boots-on-the-ground reporting. This link is a good explainer of how we got here so far, the geography of the conflict, and how this current conflict is occuring:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker

Now, allow me to say this: I am not from Israel or Palestine. I'm a white Christian from Texas. I am not qualified at all to talk geopolitics in any way. The conflict has been going on for longer than I've been alive. I don't imagine my words here on the topic are going to sway too many people, but what I do know is that there is a humanitarian crisis, and it is extremely one sided.

There was indeed a terrorist attack upon the citizens of that nation, and that cannot be overstated. Hamas did fire rockets into Israel, and killed thousands of people. This is, obviously, deplorable. In no way am I ever going to be in support of Hamas, their actions, or their extreme government. That government has made decisions I cannot support, and will not support. However, the people of Palestine are not Hamas, just like the people of the USA are not our political parties. Thus, we must always put emphasis on what is actually happening: the government of Israel and of Palestine are at war because of an extreme attack.

How did we get there? That story is far longer than any one person can tell without an entire book. However, from what I have learned from people who have been to Palestine, the Arab population is being occupied by an overwhelming military force, their ancestral homes taken by colonial settlers, and forced to live in conditions not unlike those of apartheid South Africa at its worst. People have compared Gaza as an "open-air prison," where Israel has complete control of the water, food, waterways and airways, power and utilities, everything, and each day that territory shrinks more and more as more colonial settlers occupy the homes of the Palestinians.

This of course, was set in motion when the State of Israel was established by the Western Bloc as a solution to the problem of all the exiled and displaced Jewish people from World War II. It was an imperfect solution to a complicated problem. In the decades since, Israel has been empowered by the US and its allies to pursue a campaign of colonization of the lands of the local Palestinians.

I am an ethicist, and a realist at heart. I do not enjoy “both sides”-ing this kind of situation. However, in order to make decisions and judgments, one must remove oneself from the bias and prior judgments as delivered by the powers that be and the media. Everyone has a vested interest in their own story. So much of what I’ve seen on western media, however, has been so clearly one-sided. It is obvious that our government and our media is vocally and monetarily supporting the Israeli government.

I am skeptical of most media, always looking for how the reporters are using words to cover for whatever bias they might have. More telling, however, I see how truly one-sided the numbers of this conflict are. So far, 1900 Israelis are dead, compared to the over 7600 Palestinians dead since the start of this current conflict. Israel has dropped more bombs on Palestine in one week than the US did on an entire year of the Afghanistan conflict. Israel has destroyed schools, hospitals, and displaced millions of Palestinian refugees. They have fired on fleeing civilians and allegedly used white phosphorus, a horrible chemical weapon, upon the people of Palestine.

This is in no way symmetrical warfare. This is, in so many words, extermination. On the news yesterday, I saw a pundit say that “Israel had no choice but to drive these refugees into Egypt.” Really? No choice? I understand the need to defend oneself, but this has gone far beyond “defense.” Israel could end this conflict right now if it chose to. It has the backing of almost every Western power at their disposal.

I’m simply at a loss for words in some ways, despite my rambling here. This is so thoroughly devastating. I weep for my Jewish friends who have lost family and friends in the terrorist attacks. I weep for my Muslim and Christian friends who have suffered much the same loss at the hands of the Israeli government. I simply weep, and my heart is full of sadness.

It is in this time of conflict I echo the words of my own tradition, and lament for the loss and horror of conflict. How long, O Lord, must your broken, feuding creation continue to shed blood upon the earth? These horrors are not monsters, but human, all too human. I don’t have answers. I have opinions, but that and a dollar-fifty can get me a can of coke. I’m just despondent, and I weep for those who grieve.

May God have mercy on us all for our part in this. May God have mercy.

[celestianstars]

What happened with Chris?

It was announced that his political info (?) company, A Starting Place is gonna have a six part series of discussions about the “past present and future of the US in the Middle East” which isn’t appropriate given how much the US had destabilized countries in the Middle East up to this point already and there should be absolutely no future involvement by the US and I highly doubt the politicians and people going to be speaking on it are going to give a truthful, unbiased history of all of America’s very terrible and inhumane actions taken in these countries, not to mention Chris has said ASP aims to be unbiased in helping people understand today’s political issues, that’s the point of the site but especially with politics, being unbiased isn’t a thing, everything has bias especially when the questions are being answered by politicians, it’s just untrustworthy

It is not his place nor his company’s nor anyone else’s on the lineup to speak about the Middle East, I’m sure many actual people from these countries living there or in the US could tell you their history and have been about what the US has done to them and what they would like to see for their future. ASP as a whole and this series specifically is not the cool or good political endeavor he believes it is

He also took a tour with the military I believe a few years back with ScarJo and was signing US military missiles so his involvement with this in any capacity is just inappropriate and gross! It’s obvious that this series will be biased and will most likely not be taking accountability for actions against the Middle East

[jibarichan]

To Marcos loyalists/apologists

DISCLAIMER: Mahaba 'tong post, 10-15 mins. read more or less (kung di kasama yung mga articles and links sa baba). And this is politically charged (saka may mga corny jokes, sarcasm, at ilang pilit na pop-culture references). Kung di kayo nandito para sa ganon, then that's alright, naiintindihan ko nang lubos. May choice kayo para lampasan 'to. Feel free to scroll away po. O kaya, skip to the TLDR at the end, although you'll miss some of the points I stated, saka yung mga shared online articles. If you do intend to read, then thank you very much. I'll also accept criticisms. Di tayo ipokrito. And I know, and understand, na magkakaiba ang political views natin. Pero we can disagree na po when it comes to the ethics and morals attached to our political views.

Ako, ayoko rin magmukhang keyboard warrior kasi bihira lang ako magpost, pero eto na nga. Nakakapanlumo lang kasi na marami akong kakilala na bilib sa Marcos apologists and loyalists. This post won't sway hearts and minds, I know. Di ko pati to sinulat in an academic or formal manner (this is very informal, rambly, at puro rhetoric hahaha), but if the following arguments and counter-arguments will make you pause and think, pwede na rin yun.

So let's address some of the common arguments, posts, and comments being thrown around:

"DI NYO NA KAMI MAUUTO" o "FAKE NEWS YANG GMA/ABSCBN/OTHER NEWS OUTLETS"

Sure ba kayo na di rin kayo nauuto o nagpapadala sa sabi-sabi ng Marcos loyalists and apologists? Aba, dapat eh napakasipag nyo din mag fact check at research. Aba, dapat reliable din sources nyo. Certified at official. Kung maduda kayo, then pakiusap, double check nyo rin mga sinasabi nila.  Saka nung nag research ka ba, yung mga articles na pabor lang kay Marcos binasa mo? Articles na pinapaganda pangalan nya? Eh baka naman yun lang gusto mong basahin, kasi gusto mo tama ka (confirmation bias po tawag don). Basahin mo rin yung mga masasamang nangyari nun, para patas. Kasi patas po ang totoong research. Both sides, tinitignan. May cross-referencing at pag double-triple check ng sources; at sources ng sources. Yes ganun kalalim dapat. At oo, because of such principles sa research, alam din namin mga magagandang projects nun. Alam namin yung potensyal ng Pilipinas to rise as an economic tiger sa Asya, at the time. But at what cost? Tambak na utang? Makapal na missing persons lists? Mga nakaw na salapi? Mga sipsip at balimbing na cronies? Pano na? Pride na lang labanan, kahit parang tanga na?

"DI KA PA NAMAN BUHAY NON" o "DI MO NAMAN INABUTAN PANAHON NI MARCOS"

Really? Don't let that be your best reasoning hahahaha. Di ka rin naman buhay nung panahon ng mga Kastila, pero alam natin na binaril si Rizal sa Bagumbayan. Ano, ang pilosopo ko ba? Ikaw rin naman, pag ganyan arguments mo. And what's next? Fake news na rin ang Spanish occupation dati?

"SABI NG LOLO/LOLA KO" o "SABI NG MAGULANG KO"

I'm sure na naging mapayapa buhay nila. Kasi yan din sabi ng mga mas matatanda sakin. Surprise! Hindi naman kasi nila binatikos dalawang dekadang pamumuno na hindi na demokratiko eh. Saka baka yung iba sa kanila, wala sa urban centers, wala sa sentro ng gulo. At kung hindi man sa kanila nangyari yung gulo, it doesn't mean it didn't happen somewhere else. Eh pano yung mga murang bilihin kamo? The gov't that time was well-funded, and the economy was booming on the surface. Dahil sa ano? Sa utang. Towards the end (ibig sabihin po DURING Marcos' term pa rin) nagsimula nang mag crash ang ekonomiya. Na-expose na rin mga kinuha nilang pera.

"HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE VICTORS"

Okay, easy sa quotes Lt. General Shepherd (MW2 reference wink wink). Tama na pa-astig natin, okay? Half-truth lang yan. More aptly siguro, history is written DESPITE the victors. Marami pong unbiased saka objective na pagaaral sa usaping yan. Kaya nga alam natin na di rin naman malinis ang mga Aquino. Kaya alam natin na involved din pangalan nila sa massacres. Gusto mo ng sources no? Wow look at you, you fact-checking golden child. Keep it up, dapat ganyan lagi. Sana binasa o tinignan mo rin sources ng apologists. Sana dinobol check mo rin mga sinasabi ng may first hand at second hand accounts. And friends, never magiging victors yung mga biktima ng torture, rape, at extra-judicial killings. Oh, hindi sila biktima kasi nanggugulo sila?-- I hear you say. Dear, yung pagbatikos lang sa gobyerno kinoconsider na nilang panggugulo. Maraming inosenteng nabiktima. And if you think na walang inosenteng nabibiktima-- Are you serious? Naive ka ba?

"PAST IS PAST" o "MOVE ON NA"

Don't use these words lightly. Wala sa iisang playing field ang feelings mo saka feelings ng isang collective. Magkaibang pahina yan. Hindi po parehas ang history ng isang taong broken hearted o na friendship over ang history ng mga biktima ng human rights violations saka political injustice (at marami po sila ah). Wag basta basta magbitaw ng past is past kapag may mga taong di na natagpuan ng pamilya nila, mula noong past, hanggang present. Unfair. Unfair sobra. Para bang okay lang na maraming namatay saka natorture, o kaya naman missing, kasi mayaman naman Pilipinas, maraming infrastructure projects, saka mura bilihin. Bad yun.

"HINDI NAMAN YUNG MISMONG PRESIDENTE ANG GUMAWA" 

Oh so ganyan tayo? No accountability for the head of state? Commander-in-chief of the military? Sino ba nag empower sa mga high ranking officials? Officials, who in turn, nag execute ng directives? Suddenly, nakalimutan ba natin ang chain of command? Or naniniwala ba tayo na covert lahat ng yun, at di alam ng presidente? If so, pano naging magaling yun at effective ang pamumuno? Ganon ba ang best president? Nganga tayo sa ganyan mga kapatid.

"HINDI KASALANAN NG ANAK ANG KASALANAN NG TATAY" / "SINS OF THE FATHERS" argument 

Totoo. Totoong totoo. Kaya dapat ina-acknowledge ng anak ang ginawa ng mga magulang nya to establish separation of beliefs, at di sana pinagtatanggol. Oh mga amigo amiga, double-triple check nyo yan ah. Mahusay naman kayo sa ganyan di ba? Smart kayo. Di kayo mahilig magpautot. *uto. Teka pati, running mate nya si Digong. Okay lang sayo yun? Ay baka okay lang sayo yun, kasi okay din si Digong para sayo. Figures. Paalala lang: Unfair sobra, para sa mga casualties ng current regime. At kung sasabihin mo na 'ganun talaga eh mga adik mga yun eh', aba. Okay din pala talaga sayo na may namamatay outside the boundaries of law. Tanggap mo rin talaga nangyari during Martial Law-- which is ironic, dahil hindi lawful kahit kailan ang rape, torture, at suppression. Wala kang pake eh (past is past). At pag wala kang pake, wag kang magpanggap na makatao. Lalong wag magpanggap na maka-Diyos.

"KAYA NGA NAG MARTIAL LAW DAHIL SA MGA TERORISTA EH"

Yes. Except hindi lang yung mga terorista ang naapektuhan. Kahit yung mga critics lang saka nagboses ng opinyon, nadali din. The collateral damage was too much FROM BOTH SIDES. Where to draw the line?-- I hear you ask again. It's one thing po na makita ang realidad ng law enforcement at war on terror/crime/drugs/beliefs etc. It's another to look away from too many casualties. Not fighting or voicing or even THINKING against collateral damage IS too much.

"EH BAKIT DI INALIS ANG MARTIAL LAW SA BATAS?"

Dahil kaya po yang i-implement na hindi naaapakan ang human rights at judicial system. For example, despite the criticisms towards the current admin, yung implementation ng martial law during the attacks in Marawi, was arguably justified. Oh ayan ah patas tayo.

"EH FAKE NEWS NGA KASI MARAMI SA NANGYARI NUNG MARTIAL LAW NI MARCOS" 

Luh eto na naman? Sabi nang dapat sure din kayo na di kayo napepeke ng mga binabasa saka pinapakinggan nyo eh. Dapat double check nyo rin 'real news' nyo.

"EH PANO SABI NG LOLO/LOLA KO?" 

Eh ano bang sabi ko kanina tungkol jan? Sige basahin mo ulit sa taas. Makinig ka pa rin sa ikukuwento nila, kasi we respect our elders. But we shouldn't be beholden to everything they say (luh English na naman). May sarili po tayong isip at kakayanang magaral.

"DILAWAN KA"

Nakakakilabot ah. Ayoko rin sa kanila. Whew pareparehas lang silang may ginawang masama. I'm sure na gustong gusto mo rin na kastiguhin mga Dilawan. Tara sabay tayo. Kaya nga di umunlad bansa eh, lalo pang nalugmok. Involved nga din sila sa killings ng mga magsasaka saka protesters. And duh, as if wala ding namamatay o nawawala na union members and leaders sa current regime. Pero di yan excuse para pagbigyan mo na lang mga Marcos loyalists.

"AKTIBISTA KA" 

My school mates and friends at the time can attest na hindi ako nagparticipate. Naniniwala din marami samin sa diversity ng ETHICAL methods and ETHICAL political views. Still, I must admit that my stance only changed drastically by the time na umupo si Duterte. Nagsisisi ako na tinamad ako so many times, and I wasn't informed or mature enough to make a choice, to make a vote. Di ba nga, you can stay neutral until you're not.

"EH ANONG GAGAWIN KO?"

Pagbanggain po ang mga nabasa o napanood na ebidensya at accounts from both sides (and 3rd party/international sources din), hanapin ang mga overlaps, then form an informed opinion. If somehow napaisip ka at nakaramdam ng konting hesitasyon sa pagboto kay BBM, wag ka munang magpanic at pagdudahan lahat ng bagay. Maghintay ka muna ng iba pang tatakbo. Wag yung bilib na bilib ka rin kaagad kay BBM. Maghihintay ako, at sana, maghintay ka rin. Wow romantic no hahahaha. De, sana may additional confirmed candidates pa.

"DI NA LANG AKO BOBOTO" o "WALA NA KONG PAKE" 

Kasi evil is evil, lesser, greater, middling? Hindi ka si Geralt (wink wink sa mga nakakuha ng reference). Bumoto ka pa rin if you can, please, and if it's safe (taking into account this pandemic). It matters. Evidently, nag matter yung mga boto towards Digong. Nanalo sya nun eh. So by the same token, may halaga yung boto mo, even if it's counted against sa boto ng iba. It will be one less vote laban sa ayaw mong maupo. It may seem like there's only few against many, pero pag mas maraming taong informed, mas dumadami yung.. yung few.. so magiging many sila. And of course, mas maraming may informed votes saka educated na desisyon, more chances of winning.

"NADADAYA ANG BOTOHAN" 

True. Very true. Pero mas mahirap dayain pag mas maraming legit na boto. Pahirapan nyo man lang sila, kahit pano. At pag nahirapan sila, mas madali silang papalpak. Mas madali silang magiging subjects to scrutiny.

I'm sure na meron pang mga arguments na di kasama sa mga nabanggit, pero pwede nyong kunin yung sagot sa ibang points na na-raise ko. If you've ever used any of those arguments above before, and somehow, medyo napaisip kayo after reading the counter-arguments (which is the best I could hope for), then take some time to rethink your decision. 

Hindi kailangang maging matalino para magkaron ng informed opinion. Dapat masipag lang manaliksik. Otherwise, madali ka ring mapaniwala, which is the very thing that you accuse others of. At kung sa tingin mo, napagisipan mo na nang maigi, then sige. Buo na desisyon mo eh. Baka well-informed ka na. Pero kung medyo napatigil o napaisip ka sa mga counter-arguments kanina, then walang masamang magisip pa ng konti. 

-----Additional articles po, past this point-----

For infinitely less rambly, more reliable, data-driven works, eto po mga pwede nyong basahin. Remember, don't judge too hastily na fake yang mga yan. A lot of the articles have been around for years, for people to read. Also, remember that these are from people with experience, expertise, and credibility, more so than a lot of us, including our own lolos and lolas (bless them, still). 

Galing po itong mga to sa internet-- for goodness' sake. Mag search lang tayo with intent to look for proper journalism and academic studies. From Brittanica yung unang dalawa, no less-- which is highly accessible, very digestible, concise, and still manages to present the good and bad (non-biased representation po). Easy to read na po yang mga yan ah:

The Marcos and early post-Marcos era (scroll down po kung gusto nyo magsimula agad sa Marcos era)

Martial law

And hindi mawawala ang mga nagsasabi na golden age ang Marcos regime. They saw those times with rose-colored glasses (idiomatic expression yern). Pero you'll notice something. Very anecdotal. Very similar sa mga nagkukwento sating matatanda. Medyo tricky maghanap ng ganito, sa totoo lang, from an online article na galing sa news outlet.

30 Years After Revolution, Some Filipinos Yearn for ‘Golden Age’ of Marcos

But this. This is easy to find. An apologist fb page. Non-academic and very fanatical, no surprise there, pero isisingit ko so you can check.

WE Love Ferdinand Marcos

Whew there are some interesting videos and posts here, primarily dahil sa mga footage and photos na meron sila. Watch or check those footages and photos ah, then ibangga nyo po sa mga alam natin from history. See how eloquent and compelling Ferdinand Marcos was, and you'll see kung ano ang isa sa mga kinabibiliban ng loyalists and apologists. There's value there, para makita mo kung anong hook nya sa mga tagasunod nya. 

You want more? Okay sige. Search mo sa Google yung Department of National Defense's web page for Ferdinand Marcos' biography, for some more heroic representation. You'll notice na nalimitahan sa iilang sentences yung Martial Law saka change of legislation. 

But it gets more bloody and not so heroic, with the other pages and articles ahead. It's true, mahirap nang maging non-biased when confronted with cruelty and injustice, but KEEP IN MIND, the numbers and statements na mababasa nyo from these links came from the security forces na appointed dati. Official numbers and statements po ang raw data nila. So there. 

Let's start off with a view on the economy. Opposite to the fanatical page earlier, here's an academic fb page post, para po alam nating numbers ang tinitignan nila, at hindi nostalgia at conspiracy lang. You can check the primary source na meron din sila for the compilation.

Econcepts: The Economy under the Marcos Era

For a slightly more detailed breakdown of the declaration of Martial law, with links or hypertexts in each section of the article:

Declaration of Martial Law

For the more sinister side na hindi kailanman bibigyan ng transparency ng mga security forces at the time-- here are some more readings:

��San Juanico Bridge,’ other tortures detailed

3,257: Fact checking the Marcos killings, 1975-1985

Pano kamo mga massacres during the Aquino admin? Di po makacancel out nyan nangyari nung Martial Law, pero sige, para makita na rin natin na hindi natigil ang gulo. And ohoho, they're just as bad.

The Mendiola Massacre: Decades on, Philippine Land Reform Movement Remains Mired in Blood

Hacienda Luisita Timeline

Ayan online na po yang mga yan ah. No need to download anything as well. Kulang na kulang pa yan though, dahil this post is waaaay too long na po para mag accommodate ng ibang in-depth articles, let alone studies and published PDFs, and books! Physical and digital books! Pero di ba, may internet na pipol. There are loads of historical fiction as well, if you want to look at it from a literary angle, and even music and movies! Meron at meron po pag naghanap. Conspiracy theories nga nahahanap eh. But for my friends or colleagues na marami pong additional articles, readings, downloadables, books and media suggestions-- please po, do share if you're inclined to comment. Malaking tulong po yun. Maraming salamat! 

------------------------------------------------

TLDR; Ang bottomline po, wag basta basta susuporta sa political dynasties ah? Yung bagay lang na umuulit sila, nagpapasa-pasa ng posisyon sa angkan, dapat mapaisip na po tayo, oki? Di po dapat family business yan. If you have to make a decision to support someone from said families, make sure lang po na at least, nagresearch po tayo. Lesser evil and all that.

[thedreadvampy]

Hello! Sorry to intrude your blog but uh. I'm (somewhat) new to the mechs fandom (I'm not sure if you get annoyed with the constant mech stuff, knowing your partner. Sorry if you do!) And it appears most, if not all, of the fandom has a dislike to you? Why is that, if you know?

Again, sorry, but I hope you have a good day/night!

I don't know tbh, my dude. I'm blissfully unaware of who hates me because for the most part they just block me and I don't see them. but realistically to whatever degree I'm disliked it's probably because I was not prepared to be treated as Someone With A Platform and continue to use this blog mostly as a personal vent/musing space, as I have for the last decade, including:

mentioning that I don't like knowing that people write rape fic about my friends' and family's characters That Have Their Faces

taking about things I personally don't like in Mechs and TMA fandom and having that interpreted as me using my Massive Platform To Censor People

frequently going on long train of thought rambles about queerness not really intended for public consumption which I write at 3am and which are sometimes open to some (I think) pretty bad-faith interpretation*

asking people to back off when things have occurred on Twitter or Tumblr that set me on edge for my partner or my brother's wellbeing

literally like I surf the discourse tag for Brain Juice and then if I have any thoughts about what I see I often end up rambling about them here I'm a messy person which is. pretty obnoxious but can't stop won't stop I applaud people who dislike me and have chosen to curate their feeds so they don't see me, that seems sensible

tbh I'm kind of a snotty bitch sometimes so that's fair

*specifically I think a lot of people probably started taking issue with me after I made a non-mechs related TMA post where I said I thought there was some stuff to unpick around headcanoning fat MLM specifically as virginal given the history of desexualisation of both fat people and MLM and I also kind of unintentionally conflated asexuality with that? and then I have continually been pretty vocal about not being open to people popping up in my inbox asking me to justify What I Think About Ace Discourse because I think the question is broad enough to be meaningless and I don't believe in encouraging people to feel entitled to demand that people provide and defend detailed and unambiguous and unimpeachable opinions at any time for any reason. anyway based on the few things I have seen about people disliking me this specific chain of events seems to be at the heart of it because while I still think 'I'm not interested in litigating Are Ace People Real as if it's a valid question' is a reasonable stance, a lot of people seem to interpret it as me actively thinking ace people are bad/fake/not important.

also this hasn't been a live issue on my end for a while but I'm pretty sure people will take issue with my characterisation of events. which is fair. I can only express what I think happened, that is by no means an unbiased or objective account so 🤷‍♀️

[pantestudines]

Sure! Since I said I could give at least 3 reasons, I'll do so, in no particular order:

1. As many have pointed out, the "fall of shady sands" in 2277 is listed as a seperate event (Indicated by an arrow on the chart) from the nuclear explosion. I'll get into the "fall of shady sands" in point 2, but as for the bomb itself, I follow the same logic as fallout wiki dating it "sometime in the 2280s". FNV takes place in 81, so it could easily have been dropped anytime from 82 onwards. This means the nuke does not contradict any fnv events.

2. The "Fall of Shady Sands" isn't exactly a clear event. We get no indication of why the town fell, and what "falling" even means apart from the bomb. Personally, I assume that the general issues faced by the NCR as referenced in New Vegas (being effectively owned by Brahman Ranchers, corruption, spreading its army too thin, an upcoming famine, and a lack of economic prospects on the west coast leading to an eastward migration) could all be factors. We're seeing this from nearly 20 years in the future, so they would be seeing 2277 as history a generation old at this point. We don't know why 2277 was chosen as a specific date, although I have seen some interesting theories (such as 2277 being the date of the First Battle for the Hoover Dam, which while a victory, certainly set a precedent for the ncr's involvement in the Mojave). There's also the billboard that claims shady sands is the "first" capital of the ncr. If so, what's the second? It seems like if they moved the capital somewhere else, that could constitute a "fall" (although I admit if this point is correct there is at least 2 dialogues in fnv that become contradictory) worthy of the history books. (Also. While I'm here. Wild prediction: second capital of the NCR is New Vegas, and we'll see that next season.)

3. We didn't actually see any of this. It's not a firsthand account. It's a chalkboard in a childrens classroom written by a group of traumatized shady sands survivors and (intentionally written as stupid) mutants who are being controlled by a cult that worships a specific NCR leader. Do you trust them to write history completely unbiased? Moldaver was a prewar communist who knew what vault tec was planning. I dont think it would be wild for her to make some serious critiques against late stage NCR, with its corporate corruption (i.e. Crimson Caravan trading company, before mentioned Brahman Ranchers, etc.), calling these factors "the fall of shady sands". Hell, we don't even know if Moldaver knows about a any of this. It's possible the vault 4 cult just uses the "fall of shady sands" as some sort of explanation for the bomb, since they wouldn't have any clue otherwise. We have no visual proof of this chalkboard being an accurate history in the first place.

4. Bonus! It could also be a mistake and just wrong chronology on the behalf of the showrunners. I dont think it would be the first time it's happened in fallout, but I'd have to look it up. There's enough other specific references to other fnv things that, even if parts of the game were decanonized, the general idea of the location is clearly still present and a factor for the writers of the show.

For what it's worth I did watch and enjoy the fallout show. It seems most of the people actually involved in making the old fallout games also did. I'm more intrigued by what they are doing with the New Vegas lore than upset by it. They clearly understood this would need to be addressed, and are going to do so. Anyone who takes 5 minutes to dissect it can see that the chalkboard scene doesnt retcon new vegas, for like, 3 seperate reasons at least. I was scared Amazon would sanitize the themes, but like, almost more than any past fallout game this show has a thesis of "Greed, Monopoly, and Fudiciary Duty are what caused the world to end/be bad in the first place". Every new instance of the series adds new lore, and we don't actually KNOW what's going on with the vials, the last scene, etc. so I don't think getting mad about it is like.. productive? It's well made, well acted, looked great, and the characters have enough going on to intrigue me. I dont really have a thesis here, but I think at this point trying to fight for new vegas (and sometimes 1/2) as some sort of seperate, other perfect game series from 3, 4, and 76 is silly. 76 can just go the way of tactics and brotherhood, it's happened before, and if the next game has the same care and detail the show does it might even be decent.

[thejustmaiden]

Jaken = Rin's Dad?

Okay, is this how a daughter treats their so-called father?

Most definitely not.

Rin and Jaken's relationship clearly screams of your typical sibling rivalry punctuated with cute and silly moments of playful bickering.

Yes, Jaken may technically be her main provider, but that doesn't necessarily equate to him being more of a father than Sesshomaru. If anything, he demonstrates more of a brotherly love towards her. As we all know, parents (which Sesshomaru embodies more based on real life patterns and parallels) will leave their older more capable children in charge of looking after their younger brothers and sisters. In this case, that would mean making Jaken responsible for watching over Rin and protecting her if need be. Ah-Un offers protection, too. Think of it as Jaken as the big brother and Ah-Un as the family dog who are babysitting while Sesshomaru as the parent of the household is away at work or taking care of business. I mean, they literally fit that description to a tee and I'm dying at the accuracy of it all! 🤣👌

[Quick! Someone write up a modern au where Sesshomaru finally gets out to have a nice date night but everything goes wrong in the most spectacular way. Like maybe Rin and Jaken catch a ride on Ah-Un to go spy!]

I recently revisited some episodes from The Final Act, and I couldn't believe how many moments like this there were where Rin got after Jaken or when she would "put him in his place" so to speak. Obviously, all of it is mostly harmless. I was only surprised by how often it occurred, not to mention how Jaken would just stand there and take it. Towards a supposed father figure, Rin's behavior is downright unacceptable. There's a certain level of respect a child is expected to show their parents/guardians, and that's just not what I'm witnessing here between them. Like at all.

Rather their dynamic has the nature of some sibling relationships like I mentioned above. So I really wish fans would stop pretending otherwise, because based on what we know of father-daughter relationships- healthy ones at least- they don't appear anything like what Jaken and Rin have. If you could please provide me other examples of where we've seen similar portrayals in fiction or in real life, then perhaps I can get on board.

Look, that doesn't have to mean that because Jaken isn't her father then Sesshomaru must be. They can both be her caretakers without necessarily filling that traditional father role. I'm just saying that if we're going to start assigning titles to characters, let's make sure we are accurate and truthful in our assessments. If you're going to label anyone Rin's dad, then it needs to be Sesshomaru. Jaken doesn't have precedence over him in terms of fatherly attributes, that just wouldn't make sense.

After all, this isn't about what you want to see, this is about what Rin very likely sees. It's safe to assume that she views Sesshomaru more like a father than she does Jaken. She knows she's safe with him (broadly speaking lol) and that he'll come for her no matter what. That sense of security and comfort is what a child seeks and what they should always feel in a parent's presence. She trusts and even idolizes him, just as a young and innocent child tends to do with their parents. At that age, parents are perfect and could do no wrong in their child's eyes. Idk about you, but this describes perfectly how Rin is around Sesshomaru.

Rin adores him and will follow him anywhere- yes, even into danger! That's what the innocence and unconditional love of a child will bring them to do if necessary. Fortunately, at the end of The Final Act we learn Sesshomaru takes Kaede's advice when he realizes that leaving Rin with her in the village is in her best interests. That way she'd be able to lead a more normal and safer life alongside other humans. Remember, Sessrin shippers, that doesn't mean he wasn't still a part of her life and didn't witness her become a young woman over the years right before his very eyes. Therefore, if they eventually do become romantically involved, then most if not all of those gifts had intimate and seductive intentions and it essentially constitutes as child grooming.

I understand from a Sessrin shipper's point of view why it'd be so much easier to claim Jaken as the father. In doing so, they diminish Sesshomaru's role in her upbringing. By refusing to acknowledge the real role he had in helping raise Rin (short periods can be crucial and impressionable too esp. in a child's early years so yes they did assist in raising her not only Kaede), these shippers are better able to justify how their filial-like relationship evolved into a romantic one. So yeah, I get it, if I were a Sessrin shipper I'd probably do the same. It's one of the more plausible arguments available to them, after all. "Let's pin Jaken as the father to fend off antis!" is the best chance they've got, but even so, it's still not good enough. But if you insist Jaken is indeed like a father to Rin, then Sesshomaru is most certainly one too. Who says she can't have two fathers anyway?

The thing is however much you want to deny or downplay what Sesshomaru truly means to Rin and vice versa, nothing will ever change or hide the truth of the matter. Please, stop acting like they're only traveling companions and nothing more. Some of y'all even go so far as to say that they're like strangers. Knowing potentially little about a person is not equal to a lack of love and affection. Making big assumptions such as this to defend your ship is actually doing you more harm than good. Let me elaborate.

According to your reasoning, if that's all Rin ever was to him was a companion and Sesshomaru had no real attachment to her, then what precisely is the basis of your ship? Recall that Adult!Rin doesn't exist yet, thus we have no real idea what she will be like or if she's even alive. So how can you make comments like that but then go on later to say "they have such a unique and unbreakable bond" or "only Rin can be the mother because she's the only human he ever cared for" if all that time spent traveling together didn't amount to much in the first place like you claimed to believe beforehand? Do you see how your rationalizing is confusing?

Contrary to what some of you may think, I'm not just saying all this because I'm an anti and I'm obligated to disagree with you, or whatever other excuse you want to tell yourself. Believe it or not, I'm attempting to give as unbiased and objective of an analysis I can based on widely accepted interpretations of family dynamics, development, and any history we know of.

Of course I respect that at times fans will perceive things differently since that's bound to happen. What's hard for me to wrap my head around however is the unwillingness of some fans- not exclusively Sessrin shippers- to apply basic common sense and sound judgment to their observations and deductions.

Looking at all our facts, then taking the small handful of scenes Sesshomaru and Rin do share together into account, one can logically conclude that their dynamic is akin to one found in a typical parent-child relationship. If you still fail to recognize Sesshomaru as a parent to Rin, then that's fine too. In the end, that won't really change the fact that he'd still take on a role resembling an adult figure overseeing a young child's care and protection. Be it as a vassal, guardian, what have you. Plus, nobody is saying here that Sesshomaru doesn't make mistakes regarding Rin's general well-being, but so do all parents. Overall, I think the majority of us agree that Rin is in good hands. Whether it's in his direct company or in his occasional supervision from his frequent visits to the village.

In other words, it doesn't really matter what exact title you assign him in relation to Rin, as the distribution of power is all inherently the same with any and all adult-child relationships. That bond never changes once you've established it either, seeing as it's a special kind of connection one can only form with a child and a child alone.

I was a teacher for a few years, and speaking from personal experience, you don't need to be a parent, per se, to take on a role of authority in a child's life. I know without a doubt that I could never and will never view any of those kids I taught in a sexual/romantic light later down the road; yes, not even once they become grown-ups who are independent and more than capable of making their own decisions. Those of you who disagree are usually missing the whole point though, because we're not trying to dictate what Adult!Rin can and cannot do like many tend to accuse of us doing. This isn't a question of taking away from her autonomy nor does it fall under "purity culture," which is why people shouldn't continue jumping to these outrageous conclusions and really listen for a change. You're deflecting from the real issue here when you choose to misinterpret what we're saying by ignoring the problem we're actually referring to. You cannot present a valid counter-argument if you persist in twisting our words.

Bottom line: once these kids become old enough to pursue a sexual/romantic relationship, of course they have that right if they're ready. All we're trying to say is you guys ought to stop pushing forward this it's-completely-normal-to-want-to-bang-your-adoptive-dad-since-you're-an-adult-and-can-do-as-you-please agenda and not expect backlash. Ship it if you want, but please stop acting like their romance would be the epitome of a pure and healthy relationship.

Sesshomaru may not wear his heart on his sleeve, but it's foolish to presume he didn't actually care about Rin during their whole time together just because he didn't openly express his feelings until the very end. Surely everybody can comprehend that people handle and process their emotions differently. The way Sesshomaru chooses to is completely valid for the most part, so let's cut him some slack regarding this already.

What I'm trying to get at is that any child whose life you played an influential role in will always be a kid in a lot ways to you even when they're old and wrinkly. Just as they will always picture you as the loved one who guided and protected them when they were most vulnerable and couldn't always fend for themselves. Can't we relate this to children we know personally and apply it accordingly?

Finally, I want to end on this note. Could you kindly take a look at these two images below for a second?

The reason I ask is because of something I recently read that's relevant to the topic. There was this pro-sessrin tweet I saw that stated Rin trying to take care of Sesshomaru when they first met is what a mom would do for a child, which in their opinion, translates to Rin being more like a mother than a daughter if anything.

First off: are you freaking kidding me????

Seriously, so now children aren't allowed to tend to their sick or injured parents?! Parents are apparently superhuman and shouldn't be offered a helping hand from a child, even if they mean well and want to help their parent who's in pain?? Now this Twitter user was mostly being a smartass, but at the same time, it was evident they genuinely thought they offered a valid enough point that warranted no further explanation or clarification.

Secondly, by saying this Sessrin fans don't seem to realize that in actuality they're contradicting themselves and proving the point we've been trying to make all along. Glancing at the first picture and moving down to the second, the role of the one being cared for and the caretaker is reversed. So then by their own logic, Sesshomaru IS in fact like a father to Rin.

What it comes down to is the names you give to the roles these characters play aren't as crucial as the dynamic they share. The specific characteristics of that dynamic are what define the importance of said role, not so much the name in the role itself. So real father or not, Sesshomaru and Rin clearly mean a lot to each other. Close relationships are defined and solidified by the devotion and belonging they have to one another, not solely by the duration of time spent together and their proximity.

Well, that's a wrap! I hope you guys got something outta this blog, and that you enjoyed or found some portions of it interesting. I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject from this fandom, but only engage in conversation if you plan to be respectful. Thank you!