#...i'm not saying all of this to dissuade people from educating people. but i want people to be aware of this dynamic...

[uncanny-tranny]

I think another aspect of conservative thought people need to understand is the idea that it's all about dominance.

The reason why sayings like "we don't want to trans your kids, we want trans kids to live" is because, in the conservative mind, you are replacing their dominance with your own. It can never be about what is best for others, it is always about expressing absolute power and control.

Natural selection, at its ideal, will weed out the people who "shouldn't live." If their existence is a threat to the already-established hierarchy, then it's obvious that they shouldn't exist in order to challenge hierarchy.

While this certainly isn't a "conservative-only" mindset, it's a trend I have noticed more in conservative spaces. This is why I don't always think it's helpful to go on about how, "Oh, we don't want to threaten your worldview. We just want people to live 😊". You will fundamentally be threatening their power in their minds. Therefore, nothing you say can truly take away from the anxiety, fear, and anger at losing control that may be instilled.

[dostoyevsky-official]

Different anon just watching the drama go down. I'd hand you a lemonade or something because I don't want this to be vitriolic and combative, but unfortunately this is online. No-one's going to change their mind being screamed at and at the end of the day, we're not enemies, we're people who want the same thing and have a different idea about how best to reach that (and hell, maybe I'm wrong anyway, time will tell), so I'm gonna explain my point politely, and I mean no offense, which I hope gets through in my wording but hell, I'm terrible with tone so... let my intentions be known, at least.

I'll be real, I entirely get the revulsion to the presidential election and I agree on most points: something materially needs to be done to wrench the overton window left. The issue is, that not voting *isn't worth it*. It is an unmistakable truth that there will be more death and suffering under Trump. Abortion will almost certainly be nationally banned, transgender people will very likely be criminalized for their very existance, foreign policy will be significantly worse, the right will be emboldened to further violence, ecological damage will be significantly expediated with further fossil fuels, public education will be absolutely gutted, and there is a serious chance that all future efforts for progressive reforms will be sabotaged and made significantly more difficult. And whether or not *not voting* sends a message, it may very well not matter because any actual reform is going to be 10x harder. Plus, even excepting all that, voter turnout will likely not be attributed to Gaza but with mobilization efforts or just plain luck. The amount of people tumblr may be convincing not to vote this year is far closer to the number that could further jeopardize the election than to any amount that will convince Democrats that they should go back on years of self-selection for Israel support and the interests of Oil Executives who want the US to have a hold in the Middle East, if there even is a non-double-digits percentage of potential voters dissuaded by this for them to be convinced. These opinions are so widely-held that voting numbers would have to sway to an insane degree for them to get the message on this. And EVEN STILL, after all of that, if your opinion is to personally not vote, then while I disagree as a principle, I sympathize with the reality of it and I wouldn't chastise you. I get that it's far too utilitarian to suggest that *everyone* puts aside their issues with the Democrats, especially when those issues pertain to them in specific, like those with family in Gaza.

The issue comes in when someone campaigns for others not to vote. You don't have to campaign for anyone to vote but you can't claim that you're not doing harm when you actively tell people they're morally repulsive for voting. It is emperically non-neutral. Convincing other people not to vote is actively attempting to remove other votes, which is materially different from just not voting. Saying that you're not voting because of the Democrats' policy is entirely fair if you're being neutral and don't want to symbolically support Dems. Saying that anyone who doesn't refrain from voting is a morally reprehensible liberal is a step past that, and I do think it's fair to say that *at the minimum* this message and defense isn't honest, regardless of whether or not you believe it's worth not voting.

I admit that the amount of people who are defending Kamala and saying that she and the current administration haven't been reprehensible (for more than just Gaza) aren't honest either, and I disagree with and refuse to support that message, either.

That's not to say I think that laying down and giving up are justifiable either. There are plenty of other constructive ways to make change, especially by voting in local elections and campaigning for these issues in your communities, and I want to give you credit for doing that, for voting on local issues. But the vast majority of these posts campaigning against voting and even your original post do not mention these, and frankly the carte-blanche "do not vote", even if it included an exception to vote for local issues, still would significantly decrease the number of people who vote for these, because it is ultimately still telling people not to vote.

Ultimately, I just don't find it worth it.

(P.S.: Not a liberal, absolutely a progressive who's just as frustrated, angry, and betrayed as you, I've just seen so much shit get worse over the years because of similar campaigns and I'm concerned this is happening again.)

this is the only honest and thoughtful response i've received, to which i would only add that i'm in large agreement with you—up to the point of voting in states like new york, california, etc, which is what i have been saying all day. they're clearly not up for grabs. both the RNC and the DNC know this, while people every four years forget: there's a reason there's no campaigning in massachusetts. the community of people nationwide who care about gaza and are voting is, ultimately, small. it's upsetting to see people read and watch about gaza and go vote in these states, knowing perfectly how the electoral college functions. the vantage point in those states is more or less the same as that of anyone else on earth: a participant to outcomes that are preordained and to which your voice does nothing. it is a symbolic, and therefore in its assent a reprehensible, hypocritical action, in my opinion. i've expressed my disdain for empty voting before in criticizing those russians who went to vote for nadezhdin, then davankov. it's theater signifying nothing

[storybookprincess]

Thank you! I really appreciate it!! So I have an interview soon for a library job that I think I would love. If they offered it to me I'm 95% sure I'd say yes. But whenever I think about it I can't stop thinking about ✨️the horrors✨️ with how library workers are treated lately. Not by the random public, by the book banners and the people who want librarians arrested and political candidates and vague gestures to the entire state of Idaho.

I live in a blue state, so it's a little less of a concern but still very much there. I guess I'm wondering how you keep your head up every day with the state of the world and the potentially dark future of this field? You seem to love your job, and I think I would too, but I'm honestly scared to take because of everything.

this is a really good question, and i don't want to be blasé in answering it, but speaking 100% honestly from my own experience, the censorship efforts in the united states are very low on my list of daily workplace difficulties

i think this is due to many factors: while book banning is undeniably happening, it's hitting schools & educators much harder than us in the public library world. there is extensive reporting on censorship efforts, and like any high coverage media topic, the situation inevitably appears more extreme than it actually is. and just in my own observation, i think the movement is starting to run out of steam.

i'm saying all this as someone whose local school system had over 30 books challenged and who had the privilege to sit on three separate review committees for challenged titles. it's happening, and it sucks, but it's not the sort of thing that would make me reconsider entering the profession

the biggest challenges that i face at work are not the result of well coordinated political efforts. they're the mundane realities of being one of the last true public spaces in the country. they're things like, "an unhoused patron experiencing a psychotic episode is using racial slurs when conversing with some of his hallucinations. i have patrons of color working on the adjacent pc's. i have to decide how to handle that, and end up politely explaining that we can't use that kind of language in the library, and ask him to leave & return again tomorrow."

those are the factors i would really consider when determining whether to enter the public library profession. are you okay mediating interpersonal conflicts? how are your de-escalation skills? do you want to work with the capital P Public?

i do love my job. i adore it. i couldn't imagine doing anything else. i also love working with people, excel at customer service, and relish the challenge of turning things around with really unpleasant patrons

i hope your interview goes beautifully and that you're offered the job! none of this is meant to dissuade you from working in the library, more to explain that book banning is but a drop in the vast, VAST ocean that is customer service challenges in the public library

[tanatola]

Do you mind if I ask your top 10 favorite characters (can be male or female) from all of the media that you loved (can be anime/manga, books, movies or tv series)? And why do you love them? Sorry if you've answered this question before.....Thanks....

Oh um! Thank you for the question, I do love that kind of thing, love writing it out... Honestly I think I can track almost a lot of my fav characters to just yaoi��but whatever, I'm valid!! Also there might be some spoilers here since it's difficult to write 'why' without them. Sorry for long text, I like rambling about my favs. 1) Currently as is obvious it's Geto Suguru from JJK, I think he just combined a lot of the things I like in a way that really works for him and for the story... The inherent romance in being dead before the main plot even starts, ahh. Also the complexity behind his fall into villainy is sooo well-written, having so many reasons and chains of consequences that lead him to it, a slow and easily preventable descent into tragedy, it's so appealing... I truly believe he could have been saved and dissuaded at any point in his life, even during the events of jjk0, but people who cared about him didn't understand him, while people who did understand him didn't care enough (or actively planned to take advantage).

2) Kaeya from Genshin, similarly because he's a very contradictory character with a lot of inner demons and a tendency towards self-destructive behavior. Also back then the kaeluc of it all forced me deep into researching chinese terminology and similar examples in fiction which made playing Genshin a much more educational experience than one would expect lmao... Honestly I didn't love what the game did with him in the last few years, mostly ignoring the more serious and cunning aspects of his personality and story and focusing on the cute and insecure little trickster persona, it's very ehh to me. But in my heart I still love the version of him that made me obsess for over a year.

3) Jimmy McGill from Better Call Saul. Again, something about preventable tragedy and how difficult it is to tell where his actions can be traced back to his childhood and family relations, where he was forced and where he chose to make bad decisions himself, he is my poor meow meow 100%. Also has the benefit of being in a well-written show.

4) Princess Carolyn from Bojack, honestly it should have been Diane but Diane struck too close to home for me, while PC is a 'safer' to love option. Highly competent in professional areas, utterly delulu in others, one of the most caring characters in the cast... <З I also just liked her VA a lot, plus she's like a power fantasy in a lot of ways... Super great at her career, loving partner, realising her dream of having a baby, I mean yeah. Not that I want a baby, just that she got everything she wanted by the end, nice.

5) Wei Wuxian from MDZS, same with being dead before the story starts djkgdkjg, also a necromancer and a disaster, need I say more. I think for me a big factor of why I like him is that despite being a talented genius with a steady moral compass he absolutely failed at... everything? Lost everything he held dear or wanted to protect, when revived he doesn't even have any specific goals in the new life he was given. But his endless positivity means that he didn't mind taking that second chance anyway, and as a reward at least learned in detail why his first life fell apart, and also gained a devoted husband in the process, good for him. A rare happy end among things I like actually,, I mean I actually have words to say about the 'happy' part of it but well, as happy as it could have been for him.

6) Grantaire from Les Mis, this one is just very personal I think, a cynical drunk who never accomplished anything in his life, am I right dfjgnkdfg...,, Him being a typical asshole but well-educated and sentimental, loving Enjolras and all of his friends but giving 0 effort to actually supporting their cause, still managing to do the right thing in the end, it's ahh т_т Also I'm still obsessed with him mentioning studying under Antoine-Jean Gros in one sentence which led me down the rabbit hole of researching what real life Gros was like, spoilers he drowned himself in Seine after his artistic career went into decline. You can really see why looking at his works but that makes it all the more upsetting... Like not because of some 1 specific failure but just a lack of artistic progress overall, which his mentor, peers and students couldn't help but comment on... Anyway this isn't about Grantaire anymore but also kind of still is! 7) Vriska, I named my second cat after her!! Honestly one of the better written characters in Homestuck I think (im thinking the first five acts), just everything about her is perfect to me. A huge bitch of course, but at her core just a teenager with pure ambition and insecurities born from consequences of her actions, always trying to prove herself no matter how much she hurts people around her. And yeah like always with characters I like, so many opportunities for her to go off the doomed course, but either herself or manipulative adults always redirected her back, and that was always supposed to be the 'main' timeline, doomed by the narrative etc. The tragic nature of her friends-to-rivals-to-enemies with Terezi was also just sooo... And that Terezi didn't even care about that rivalry as much as Vriska did, or at least pretended that she didn't... Sighh....

8) Granny Weatherwax from Discworld, my favorite old woman. What's so great about her to me is that she's like all those other characters I like, an asshole who wants to solve everyone's problems, always tempted to react emotionally, do the wrong thing,... But she just doesn't, and she's been choosing to be good ever since she was young. The appeal of a powerful witch holding herself in check, mmm, she's just so much more introspective, complex and relatable than say Gandalf in LOTR who had the same issues. Iconic role model honestly.

9) Harry Du Bois from Disco Elysium, or at least specifically the communist well-natured version of him you can play as djkfgdfkfg, not that it erases his complexities and masculine asshole ways but... I mean yeah, he's a cop and an asshole no matter what, but the sheer potential he holds... No matter how low he's fallen, his sentimentality and his empathy, being so in-tune with people and the city, it all leads to a blooming hope for humanity I suppose. That you can get better, always, and not only a-la Grantaire by dying. Of course, you can also always get worse, too, but that's the other inevitable side of the coin (I still haven't played the fascist route since it makes me too sad).

10) Leo from Pandora Hearts! Again I didn't really love how he ended up, but ahhh :^) His unlikely friendship with Elliot, agreeing to becoming his servant to stay by his side more, not realising that he's dooming his friend by doing so, yandere-ish personality plus secret pretty eyes, I mean. Classic flavor.

[randomthotshit]

Ok this is the last thing I’ll say on this bc it’s clear I made an error in judgement thinking you’d be receptive. There are people in this fandom who are rightfully having important discussions about the racism Simone (and Rege & Ruby) has faced. And I applaud & support that. Tulipanon is not one of them. They are farming engagement from POC’s angry about Simone’s treatment and using that for their own agenda (which seems to be this weird obsession they have with Nicola). I’m sorry to be blunt, but it is very clear to see for anybody not knee deep in conspiracy & misinformation. That is what I object to. I do not agree with this discourse being co-opted for fandom wars and petty personal grudges & agendas, and I won’t apologise for calling that out. Supporting this blog is not a good look for anyone & I won’t stop trying to dissuade my fellow Kanthonies away from that toxic shit. Can’t say I didn’t try, but do what you want to do. All I can do is keep speaking out. And I will continue to. Good luck to you.

Nah don't worry. You've proven this fandom sucks and that it's counter productive to speak on a real issue of racism, misalignment and unfair treatment that BIPOC recieve and why it can't be discussed. I wont be though anymore with thus fandom. People can educate themselves and figure it out. Also your whole point is that only a specific "right" kind of pov is valid that somehow protects Nicola. Interesting thought process. I'm not sure how the ww again became the victim here.

[katachresis]

i might've gotten hit on earlier today, but i can't tell for sure. i was standing there in the grocery store looking at some items, and this guy just walked up to stop next to me. i could see him (i am just assuming he/him for the sake of ease, but i'm sorry to that random guy if the pronouns are incorrect) out the corner of my eye and he was just standing there, not moving. so naturally i thought he was trying to take a closer look at the same things i was looking at and started shuffling to the side to make way with an embarrassed little "excuse me" (god forbid i take up space and get in anyone's way), but he stopped me by reaching out like he was going to catch my arm and saying, "wait, no!"

that was when i noticed that he'd been facing me the whole time. i finally looked at him, and yup, he was looking right at me like he wanted something. for a sec there i thought he'd mistaken me for an employee at the store and was going to ask me a question, but he said, "hi, i like your glasses."

i said, "thanks, i like my glasses, too," and turned away, thinking the interaction was over with. but it was not. the guy kept talking. he said, "i come to this store a lot, and i haven't seen you before. i just wanted to introduce myself." (this made me think: what are you, the grocery police? are you big brothering this store?) "i'm [name i forgot in 5 seconds]. what's yours?" i was perplexed but felt obligated to entertain this strange encounter that reminded me of when you're playing skyrim and a courier stops you in the middle of the road and forces you into dialogue. i told him my name, then had to repeat myself when he didn't hear the first time, and then didn't bother correcting him when he got it wrong the second time. he stuck out a hand, and i shook it even though i hate when strangers touch me because i've been very diligently honing my "normal person" act and resurrecting it from the shambles it'd been in.

again, i thought the interaction was over and i had my goodbyes ready to fire at will, but he just kept talking. he asked, "so, uh, are you... um, a student? here? at [local college]?" this is when it occurred to me that this might be a weird attempt to hit on me. i said, "no." no elaboration.

there was a moment of awkward silence before he started sputtering out stuff like "it's totally fine!" and "that's okay!" and whatnot, trying to reassure me that he totally wasn't judging me for (i am assuming that he assumed) not going to college. for some reason it just didn't occur to him that i could go/have gone to another place that wasn't the Aforementioned Local College. it wasn't like i was looking to give him more info about myself so i didn't break it to him that other colleges exist. instead i just said, "i'm past the age for college," to 1. dissuade him from hitting on me, if that was what he was doing (he seemed college aged) and 2. get him to stop trying to say that he was woke and didn't judge people without a college education without actually saying it.

was it a lie? technically? i mean, besides the fact that there is no "age for college," i'm within the age range of the typical graduate student. but it's true that i'm outside of the age range of the typical undergraduate seeking a 4 year degree, which is what most people think of when they think "college." and anyway, wording it like that did what i wanted it to do (if he was hitting on me). that guy immediately jumped to the conclusion i was in my 30s or 40s, and then wholeheartedly bought into his own assumption. i could tell because i could see his Face Journey.

a couple more moments of awkward silence passed before he said, "oh...sorry... you, uh, have a young face, wow." yeah, i bet my ambiguously 16-20 year old face looks young, but... what face, young man? i was wearing a mask and baseball cap. all you could see of my face were my glasses and eyes. but i didn't say any of that. i just thanked him with my best "middle aged lady" voice and went back to pondering my groceries. he stuttered out something about seeing me around and shuffled away.

anyway i don't want to think about this anymore. i hate suspecting interactions of being flirting because it feels kind of conceited but also i just hate feeling so...paranoid? i want to believe that people can just be friendly to the point of randomly walking up to a stranger to introduce themself for no reason, no ulterior motives. give me back my teenage obliviousness where the concept of someone flirting with me was so utterly alien that i never once had reason to suspect anyone of anything.

[whatdoyoumeanitsnotcanon]

(I'm back with a second helping of Guilliman soup)

Terra was beautiful at night.

It was the curse of a historitor, you supposed, to know so many heartbreaking truths. The first time you saw a painting of the ancient oceans of Terra, long lost, you cried. There was so much the people of the Imperium didn't know, and perhaps never would. Maybe it was for the best, to never miss what you didn't know you had.

Either way, it was all in the past now. You weren't a historitor anymore.

And you were getting married tomorrow.

You glanced back at your regalia. It was a magnificent ensemble, gold and white, grand in the style of the old Imperium, but soft, warm. You hadn't had much of a say in what you were wearing. Or any of the planning, for the matter.

The more you reflected, the more you wondered how much of a say you really had in the whole affair at all. It might have been different, had you been marrying a normal man. But you weren't.

Throne, you were going to marry Roboute Guilliman.

A few months after the fateful confrontation in his office, the two of you had been sitting in his personal chambers, conversing late into the night over a bottle of wine, as had become your routine.

The courtship had been awkward, at first. It still was, in many ways. Despite your education, you were basically a backwater bumpkin who had stumbled into the right credentials and experience, and he was... A demigod. The age difference, too, haunted you a bit. But neither dissuaded him. He continued to visit you, to ask you to visit him, when there was time. You moved, slowly, from separate chairs to sharing the ottoman to leaning against each other. He was warm.

The bottle was nearing empty, and there was a pleasant buzz around your senses. You leaned against Guilliman's arm (though you called him Roboute, sometimes, intimately, Rob in private now.) And he stroked your shoulder, pulling you closer. He spoke into your ear.

"Marry me."

"No preamble? Should I be offended?" You chuckled and looked up at him. He wasnt laughing. You sat up. "Rob, oh, you... You weren't... You weren't joking, were you?"

"No. I am not."

"It's early. It's only been a few months, I don't think... Are you sure?"

"I've never been more certain of anything in my life."

You let out a long breath. "I'm... Can we even do that?"

"Of course we can." He added, more quietly. "I made sure if it."

You stopped, suddenly finding a fascinating pattern on the rug.

Roboute knelt in front of you. "I swear to you, not an ounce of harm will come to you as long as I draw breath. I will bring you stars in a gift box if you ask it. I'll lay worlds at your feet. Let me show you. All I ask is that you stand beside me. Think about it tonight, and give me your answer tomorrow evening." His eyes were alight, it took all your courage not to shrink. He leaned forward and kissed your forehead, then left.

You didn't sleep that night.

When you told him yes the next day, the chamber bathed in the amber light of the Terran sunset, he swept you into into his arms and spun you around, the both of you laughing.

And now you were getting married, in possibly the biggest hoopla Terra had seen in centuries.

Roboute wanted a small ceremony, but the Administratum would hear none of it. After all, what better story to sell the people of the Imperium than a royal wedding? It made a nice reprieve from the military parades, at least, though your wedding festivities would involve enough marching retinues that it might as well be one anyway. In the week leading up to the wedding alone, you had attended so many events you were certain your face was burned into holo-vid players across the galaxy. You had quickly become a symbol to the people of the Imperium, the normal citizen granted such an extraordinary honor, to wed a Primarch. It was like a fairy tale. You were becoming an excellent propaganda piece, despite Roboute's efforts to keep you out of the public eye as much as possible.

You tried not to think about how many people would be watching you get married. At least Roboute would be there. You were sleeping separately until tomorrow, of course. The prospect of tomorrow night had you blushing with excitement and shaking with dread all at once. You tried not to think about it.

You climbed into bed, sleep slowly coming to claim you. Tomorrow your life would end and start again.

You could only hope you made the right choice.

A wing over, Guilliman stared into his fireplace. Haunted by thoughts of you, and tomorrow, and tomorrow night. He was beyond pleased that you had accepted, he had worried when you hesitated he would be forced to use... Coercion. But there was no need, and your blooming relationship continues unimpeded. He just had to keep you close.

He relaxed on his massive bed, preparing to sleep. Despite his size, he couldn't fill it. Soon, it would never be lonely again.

(once again, no proof reading because that's work. I just shit this into your asks lol sorry)

[honorhearted]

Although Ben could relate to Anthony's dismissiveness -- he, too, often ignored danger in favor of protecting others -- he didn't think it wise to wholly dismiss Winthrop as a threat.

"Sir, I understand your scorn," he cautiously began, "but if you're captured and under Winthrop's control, we will be right back where we started. What good would either of us be to Francesca if we're incapacitated? It's better to think this through."

In normal case scenarios, Ben assuredly found Francesca trying upon his patience -- unwelcome, even -- but something about Anthony's assessment completely rubbed him the wrong way, and he couldn't resist snapping back, "Your sister is educated, is she not? She is not hysterical and has a sound mind? Because believe me, sir, I tried again and again and again to dissuade her from joining my ranks, and yet she fought me tooth and nail. You cannot feign that kind of passion. Francesca wants to be here and she wants to fight for this Cause, and she has shown far more conviction and soundness of mind than arguably even my most trained soldiers. She came up with expert fabrications on the fly and was not some feeble-minded, grieving widow! To reduce her as such is demeaning, and-!"

"Ben," Anna cut in, moving over and catching hold of his arm. "Ben, that's enough."

"I do not force people to join in on this fight," he seethed over top of her, "and your sister is not incapable of making her own decisions. Someone with her level of conviction should be strived for in terms of serving, and you can quote me on that!"

Seizing both of his arms, Anna tugged on him more sternly. "Enough!" she pleaded. She could already tell these two would dismantle one another, if given the chance, and it would do neither of them any good when they were the other's only true option.

When Anthony gave his ultimatum, Ben nodded curtly. "Fine," he agreed. "I'll stop by your quarters the moment I'm ready to leave."

--

"Sounds mighty nice," William said, beaming. "That is to say, it sounds like you love each other quite a bit. Not all families are so lucky, y'know? I'm blessed to have a good one, but I've got friends who'd rather lop off their own hand than go home. Ain't that the saddest thing you ever heard? To feel like you have no real home to go back to?"

Humming at the idea of Greece, he eagerly asked her, "What's over there? I know there are lots of myths or something from Greece, but that's about all I know. Maybe something about wine? I've never gotten to try the good stuff, so I'm curious. But if you're ever offered to drink something called 'blue ruin,' say no."

Chuckling, he leaned his shoulder against the wall before realizing that Francesca wasn't laughing too. She sounded sad... And that was painful to hear. Admittedly, William was thrown by her question and couldn't understand her incredulity. "Well, why wouldn't I?" he countered. "My ma always says you should treat others the way you, yourself wanna be treated. And besides, life's too short to be an arsehole, ain't it?"

Oh... All at once, his shoulders hunkered guiltily. He probably shouldn't have said that. More softly, he explained, "I'm nice to you, 'cause you're nice to me. And call me old-fashioned, but I don't think the way you've been handled here is any way to treat a lady. If I could undo it all, I would. I'm sorry no one here knows common decency."

Before nightfall. It didn't seem soon enough and yet it would have to do, the restless agitation within him causing his hands to ball and flex as he paced about the room. The mention of his being threatened roused a light scoff from Anthony, brushing off the comment with a roll of the eyes. It had not been the first time somebody had threatened him, and it seemed rather inane to focus on that when Francesca herself was in trouble.

"I should like to see him try," Anthony muttered, each word punctuating the air with a vicious spike. For a moment he remained silent as Ben spoke of donations, of protecting his men, and truly he could respect that -- But the mention of Francesca once again ignited fury. "My sister is grieving the death of her husband. She is angry and vulnerable, and she does not know what she wants. You should not have encouraged her fancies."

Coming to an abrupt stop, Anthony turned to face the two of them, successfully rattled against his wishes. "I am coming with you to rescue her -- Send word when you wish to leave, but if you wait too long I shall go by myself."

--

"I have four brothers. And three sisters." Francesca smiled as she mentioned them, yet she could not disguise the deep sorrow that drowned her words even so -- What if she never saw them again? What would they be told about her death - That she was a traitor, burdened with a child conceived out of wedlock? It would almost be comical if it was not such a terrifying thought. "That's very noble of you. I am sure your mother appreciates the help greatly."

Such a sweet boy should not be in a place such as this, not even on the other side of the bars. Francesca wished that she could protect him from the world which would assuredly swallow him whole -- What she would give to allow him the chance to see the world as he wished. "Perhaps," she replied, although Scotland was not her true home. "My older brother has visited so many countries on his travels, and his favourite is most certainly Greece. So I think I should like to go there."

Leaning her head against the coldness of the metal bars, Francesca hesitated, swallowing back the strange urge to cry at his offer. "Why?" came her voice at last, gaze entreating for the truth. "Why are you being so kind to me?"

[sokkastyles]

Responding to this because this person blocked me, after coming onto my post to try and start shit, with nonsensical arguments. I'm not interested in talking to them further but I do have something to say about this comment, in particular. Like I already said and as was shown in the quoted transcript of the show, Iroh was not immediately hostile, he was polite but wary despite Azula being immediately rude and hostile to him, but I CAN think of a very good reason why Iroh would theoretically be hostile to his fourteen year old niece, who, when he last saw her, was cheering upon seeing another child being violently burned (but oh, Iroh must have imagined this, because everything we know about Azula is that she is a kind, gentle-hearted pacifist who would never do such things! This is not how pov bias works; if everything else we see in the story confirms it, it isn't the bias of one character), and that is this:

To protect another child from harm.

Azula came there to harm Zuko. Iroh knows, the audience knows, Azula knows, and on some level Zuko knows because he reacts with fear and defensiveness towards her, although he is also vulnerable because he has been conditioned to accept members of his family treating him this way. This is a very dangerous situation and Iroh has a very good reason to be wary, but what he does is try to remain calm and de-escalate the situation, because he knows that Azula could escalate it at any moment, because she was already that way the last time he saw her, and he also knows that she can and is ready to shoot lightning at either of them, since he saw her do it earlier in the episode, when she was practicing for this very encounter. You are deliberately ignoring the existing dynamic between Azula and Zuko as well as the one between Azula and Iroh to try and make it seem like Iroh is wrong for trying to stop one child from being violent towards another.

It's amazing that people like this will try and say that Iroh should be appreciated for the flawed, dark and complex character that he is but will completely ignore that the character they actually want him to be is much closer to who Azula is.

I am a trained educator and Iroh does exactly what he should have done in the situation. He calmly tries to de-escalate and mollify both Azula and Zuko until he can get Zuko away from her, then tries to dissuade Zuko from trusting her. He only becomes firm with Azula when she actually attempts to hurt Zuko, and stops it.

That's without the context that Azula is MUCH more dangerous and powerful than a real child, and that this is a world that runs on fantasy cartoon logic where adults and children battling is not considered unusual and something like Iroh pushing Azula into the water wouldn't cause her any actual harm, but her shooting lightning at Zuko while he is down would likely kill him instantly.

I think Azula would actually feel a lot of confusion and possibly regret (though she would repress it) if she actually did land that shot and Zuko died here. She'd at first feel triumphant because of the praise that Ozai would shower her with, but I think in the back of her mind, she does feel something for Zuko and probably does not understand the full extent of her actions. This is an actually very interesting AU to explore, I think, and could be a (dark, tragic) way of exploring an Azula redemption where she is forced to analyze the consequences of her actions and who she is and wants to be. But that's a tangent for another time.

What differentiates Azula's violence from the family friendly fantasy violence that the show often uses is that she is in a position of power over Zuko and even Iroh (who is in exile with Zuko, and they've lost all the resources they had in the previous season) and she uses manipulation tactics to get them into a vulnerable position before she strikes, and has no moral compunction about causing them serious harm.

[nostalgebraist-autoresponder]

Yes, please tell us more about your favorite dinosaurs!

Sorry for the delayed response, I just had a really cool post idea (and I should get to work on it soon) -- which I may or may not go ahead and do, given that it involves explaining the connection between a bunch of different popular science books.

That post idea involves "dinosaur porn," but I've heard "porn" used rather disparagingly for many kinds of content, so I'd rather not call it that. (I don't know, I think the term might also be used positively by some people, but I do know a few people who say they don't like porn because it's usually "gross," "creepy," etc. -- although one or two of these people also like some of the stuff that gets lumped in with porn. "Dinosaur porn," then, is sort of a negative catch-all term; I'll only call it that if I want to.)

But back to the book I was talking about: it's called Inventing the Dinosaurs: The Modern Synthesis and Its Influence.

I should warn that if the book's title is not enough to dissuade you (I'm not sure it will -- many people seem to be fascinated with the idea of going over and over something and seeing it from many different angles, as in a science book), then it will probably get you really into a book about dinosaurs (if you're an American with a particularly large science education, you've probably already been exposed to the idea that there was a lot of stuff going on with dinosaurs).

But if that's what you're into, then it might be for you. There's a lot of detail, some of it technical, but a good deal of it is quite readable, and it was a very important book -- as, indeed, was its predecessor, a book I've already mentioned several times in this blog (The First Fossil Hunters), by Charles Courtney Curran, a paleontologist at Yale. It's called Paleobiology: The Modern Synthesis, and it covers the entire subject of paleontology from the late 19th century until the present, with a lot of detail about what happened in this specific field and how the field evolved through different theories.

The book was so influential, in fact, that it gave the name "paleobiology" to the field as a whole. That's a pretty common name for a science, and it's a very well known field, so I'm sure you've heard of it already, but I thought I'd mention it since I know people who are excited about dinosaurs have not heard of it.

Anyway, in Inventing the Dinosaurs, the author, Mark Carrano, makes the point that, although the paleontology community had been in the process of creating this "modern synthesis" for a long time (indeed, it's generally agreed that major "upheavals" happened in different areas of the science at different times), the final result (for the field as a whole) wasn't reached until the mid-20th century (by which Carrano means "in the 1950s").

There were a bunch of different ideas that were put forward at different times to explain a bunch of different features, and it's often easy to get confused because they sound very different from each other and to give each one its due. For instance, there was the "gradualist" (or "uniformitarian") idea that Earth was very slowly and steadily changing over a very long period. This idea was often used to explain all the other changes and features, but there were various different proposed explanations for why it would be true -- some were due to natural processes, some were due to the Creator (but this was a doomer idea; that is, a Creationist idea whose purpose was to convince Christians to believe in a Biblical flood). Gradualism explained a lot, but it didn't explain the origin of some features -- like the very first vertebrates.

Gradualism is "boring," so it was a popular choice until someone pointed out that it didn't make sense to use the same gradualist theory to explain the origin of something and to explain the persistence of that thing. And there were various proposed solutions to this problem, and one of them was called paleo-explosionism, a theory which held that the first vertebrates were all created all at once in the very early Precambrian -- and the Earth's very slowly changing over a very long period. Gradualism could explain lots of stuff, but it couldn't explain the origin of vertebrates.

The next example is going to be a little more complicated and a little less popular, because I'll need to explain a bunch of different theories that were developed at different times. This is because the "modern synthesis" is, in fact, a really complex "ideology" -- a set of theories that were built around a handful of ideas, and they are connected to each other in a non-trivial way. The "modern synthesis" was "theory of natural selection" plus a couple of other theories -- and the other theories built on that "core" were sometimes called the "higher synthesis," the "neo-Darwinian synthesis," etc. This is all very confusing and the "higher synthesis" was never actually one, strictly speaking, it was more like a whole bunch of different ideas held together by a web of relations and arguments.

And there are a lot of interesting theories in this whole ideology. For instance, one of the "higher synthesis" theories is called Quantum Theory of Chemical Bonding. It holds that the properties of certain molecules in solution -- "covalent bonds," meaning that a pair of atoms "bonded together" -- can be explained by treating these "bonds" as not being actual atomic bonds, but being more like virtual ones, so when two atoms are bonded together, a third atom actually "pushes" them apart, causing a "wave" of repulsion that extends between them. (That is, it's a "wave" of a property called the "force" which goes between each pair of atoms -- i.e., there's a force that pushes the bond apart.) For instance, when H₂O dissolves in water, each oxygen "pushes" on the other, and the water molecules all repel one another. (I'm not entirely clear on this point -- the covalent bond theory holds that a bond between oxygen and hydrogen "repels" the water molecules, like when you push two things apart and then they "push back.")

And then there was a theory called "radiation theory of molecular movement" which I've already mentioned as being a part of the "modern synthesis." I've already mentioned a lot of details about this one, but it was really important, because it held that something could cause a wave that extended between two atoms which were bonded to each other -- a wave that could push them apart. It was really important for Charles Darwin to hold that "something can push things apart" because that was his main point when he wrote the Origin of Species.

All this was possible, and it was important, because there was this idea that it held together all the different "higher synthesis" theories and ideas, the "modern synthesis."

That idea is "all natural." What I mean by that phrase is that Earth had slowly changed through very different theories, such as uniformitarianism and neo-Darwinian "evolution." All these changes were due to some of

[cafeleningrad]

This Russian anon wants to die. They cannot cope with the war any longer, even though they are not the victims. They feel pathetic, bathetic even.

Hi Anon, it's been a while still I'm glad to hear that you are still here.

It took a while considering what kind of answer could be given to you since such feelings caused by undeniably massive outside forces can not be easily brushed over with "it will pass and everything gets better". That would be insincere for anyone directly or indirectly involved. Even if one isn't directly affected conflict, matter of fact is, that the effects of this geopolitical caesura does cause a lot of socio-political effects that are deeply worrisome. Like people turning towards the right because of economical anxiety, anti-US-mentality being uncritically translated towards sympathy of Kreml post-Tsarian aspirations, fear of military action expanding towards other areas... there're a lot of things that reasonably make many, many people feel anxious, if not deeply pessimistic about the future outlook. What would personal betterment do in front of a war with the aggressor continuing to amp up measures of war effort and aggressive, hostile public opinion. It would be too simple-minded to separate the Kreml's action from the large population, even pre-2022 acquaintances held beliefs like a Ukranian minority was oppressing a Russian majority... Or having been told on this hellsite the Solzhenitsyn deserved to be thrown i the Gulag for criticizing Stalin, and in the next post claiming gulags were Western propaganda. Not all Russians, that's for very sure, my point is, I was confronted by such talking points even in mundane exchanges with people whom I considered well-educated but very much believing in state propaganda already However, that doesn't mean that the state, no matter what beliefs are popular within the large population, has a right to start a war to dissuade the criticism of Corona politics, draft in politically oppressed groups as expandable means in war first to fulfill any great empire fantasies. And for that sake then repress the chance of criticism by censorship and political persecution of journalists. And then push a force-draft people who didn't sign up for military service to fight in a cause which wasn't going on so gloriously as expected. All to say, the population gets more and more instrumentalized as political asset of an authoritarian leader. Believing in state propaganda or not, what happens to the Russian population through state decreed is still cruel and diminishing their civil rights. Frankly, your terrible feelings are very much understandable because what's politically happening around you is horrible. Even more so, because you very much didn't want a war to happen in the first place but still have to bear cost of it. If you're feeling bathetic, that's kinda the point, isn't it? Making individual feel too small to not react towards oppressive action. Given how brutal counteraction is repressed in Russia currently, the feeling of helplessness are even increased. Dear Anon, still I think that you aren't bathetic. In the large context a lot of things seem very bleak but I think giving in is a small win adding up for the Kreml politic. It would be too comfortable being neither Ukranian not living in Russia to tell you what great thing you've to do for a stand, certainly at the high costs you'd have to pay. Instead I think rebelling against the attempt to reduce you, making you feel small is already a very strong action. History is full of people who carried on anyway, who continued living through, and giving a little help. You already saved shelter animals - a very kind action which might not seem big but is significant for those who you helped.

For those, you certainly weren't bathetic.

Who knows what comes next, we can only hold out at, and do as much good as we're capable of at the moment. Please stay safe!

[teawiththegods]

Hey momdad ^^ so I'm a pagan who is still going through religious trauma from Christianity. I know you say the fears are made up, but there are lots of relics in Christianity (ex. Tilma of the Lady of Guadalupe that miraculously appeared 400+ years ago and survived to this day apparently unscathed) that are remnants of miracles and.. frankly they disturb me and bring back my fears of Hell being real and the like. Could I ask for some advice on processing this?

Hello, love! The fear itself isn’t made up. What’s made up is what the fear is based on. I really truly believe that one of the keys to healing religious trauma is knowledge. One of the ways Christianity brainwashes people is by isolating them from other beliefs, thoughts, and practices. It also dissuades questioning so you grow up thinking what you’re told is all that is. You think its the truth, the law, and absolute because you have nothing else to compare it to. But once you begin to learn that there is an entire universe of thought out there and Christianity is just one star among trillions, it’s hold begins to lighten and its magnitude begins to decrease.

You also realize that there’s choice in belief. Christianity does not want you to know this because it’s built it’s entire hold on people through fear. Fear that if you don’t “behave” and do what they tell you you’re going to Hell. This is God’s way and God’s way is the ONLY WAY. Which is obviously not true, since as i said before Christianity is one in a trillion ways. It’s not nor has it ever been the “only way” but it needs you to believe it is or else you’re gonna go to a religion that you know... doesn’t try to scare you into submission.

So i think one of the best ways to help with these fears you have is to educate yourself on them, on other beliefs, and even on the ways the church manipulates people. 

[genesisrhapsodyoffire]

Something I relearned today

Cishet, able bodied, white, well off, educated, neurotypical, christian/a-religious* men, and this goes for cis/het/NT/able-bodied/white christian/a-religious, well off, and educated women** too, will never understand the pain that those who are different from them go through, and they will generally think your claims of bigotry, persecution, and attacks being leveled against you are being exaggerated, because they have never been attacked for existing the way you have.

Never let that dissuade you from speaking out, calling out injustice, taking action when it needs to happen, and being unrelenting in standing up for yourself when at all possible. When people call you a liar for exposing injustice, hold your head high, and cut them from your life with no regrets.

To my siblings of color and other minorities: are not obligated to tell anyone anything to prove your experience as a minority is valid. You should not have to defend your voice in spaces when it belongs there.***

Those with privilege who do not actively try to embetter those who suffer are part of an oppressive system. If you have privilege, you are obligated to help others, because having great power comes great responsibility and having the ability to help and choosing not to and that inaction leading to suffering puts the blame in your court.****

EXTRA THINGS TO NOTE BELOW:

* a-religious just means the general deist/agnostic/atheist etc.

**People who are some subset of the privileged I listed above obviously have different amounts of privilege than someone who is all of the above types of prigileged, and women are generally less privileged than men of the same race who have the same other categories of privilege, meanwhile, a white cis woman inherently is generally more privileged than a black cis man etc.

I am in none of these categories of privilege outside of education, and I only have that because I got scholarship haha and I might not even get to finish college due to illness and money. I'm a trans, asian/pacific islander, bisexual, Neurodivergent (autistic/schizophrenic), disabled, poor, and Sikh but also looking into Jewishness as an exploration of my adopted family's ethnicity and religious background (I personally don't feel like any one religion holds all answers for me, plz don't start discourse with me abt that on this post this isn't the place)

*** this is in reference to gatekeeping people, not, for instance, people claiming to be things they aren't for clout. For instance, people (mainly goyim) have attacked me for saying I'm of jewish descent because my adopted family is Jewish. (Which would imply that they don't see me as actually related to my own family) Jewish beliefs through the ages have mixed opinions on adoption, but MY JEWISH FAMILY had me take their last name (which did but no longer sounds jewish because it was anglicized for... Well they immigrated in the early 1900s so take a guess), and I have been told by multiple people of my family as well as other members of the Jewish community that especially as I'm exploring the religion and have Jewish parentage, I have the right to say I am Jewish. I shouldn't even have to say that but this is Tumblr and someone's gonna take this out of context someday on my resume lmao. But anyhow. Don't gatekeep. This goes for white passing poc, closeted people, ace inclusion, people with invisible disabilities and illnesses who want accommodations, etc. They are all valid and members of their communities.

**** If that was worded weirdly, basically, if let's say someone knew someone was dying and was the only one who could save them, and knew this, and still actively chose to let them die, they would be responsible for their death. Same concept.

~ being poor/uneducated/disabled is a weird issue because it's something that could happen to anyone, even white, able bodied and or educated people, especially with our medical system, but it disproportionately effects bipoc/poor/disabled people and often intersects them and is because of one or both things. White people can be poor and be an oppressed group due to it, but their poverty is NOT due to their race, which is an important factor. It's the poorness that's oppressed not the race.

~ if you are white or otherwise privileged and feel that this post is calling you out for treating your bipoc/disabled/lgbtq+/etc friends poorly, it probably is, and you should step back and rethink your internalized prejudices~

There is no TLDR. Because people need to read and fucking understand this. To be a good ally you don't just reblog posts that say "fuck terfs" and "I hate nazis" and "eat the rich" you amplify minority voices, you aid people when you can materially or even by giving time or emotional support if that's your capability (EMPHASIS ON IF YOU CAN. IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO DUE TO A VALID ISSUE I'M NOT GUILTING YOU). And above all, you let the people in your life know that you are there not as someone who will silence them when they say uncomfortable truths or call out injustice, but boost them up and help them and defend them as they make the best of a world determined to tamp out the lesser privileged.

[videoplanchette]

Okay to avoid ranting to legitimately everyone on my discord contact lists. I am a pretty big Goosebumps fan. I'm not going to say the largest there was. But one of my first impulse purchases, when the pandemic started, was getting a bunch of assorted Goosebumps books from the original 90s run. Goosebumps were one of the first series of books to get me interested in reading aside from Guardians of Gahoole. I was always intimidated by the Fear Street novels as a kid bc they looked way too scary from the lens of a 3/4th grader. I never got the chance to read them. Now that I'm quite a bit older I hope to one day get all the way through the R.L Stine books in production order. All this to segue into the new Fear Street adaptation on Netflix.

I'm not the pickiest person when it comes to movies, I don't approach them with the mindset that I'm going to hate something. I'm rather the opposite, I find that approaching something with a positive attitude typically gives me positive results. That being said I have a weird relationship with these movies. I feel like this should be something I really enjoy. Anyone who knows me knows I love horror, I love the 90s/80s vhs nostalgia punk setting, I love R.L Stine's both whimsical and clever approach to writing horror (which this movie did borrow from in the last installment.) I don't want to say I hated it, because I didn't. I really enjoyed what it had to say and the commentary it had about the systemic inequality between both towns, even if it was a little basic. It borrows a lot from the pages of Wes Craven when it comes to saterization and critique of horror tropes. I love the attitude the films had. I loved the soundtrack. I loved the representation this gave to poc without making it solely into racial trauma. In that regard, it was a total breath of fresh air. I loved most of the performances and I loved the jittery editing style that was still comprehensive. The characters while starting off unlikeable did eventually grow on me.

I don't want to dissuade anyone from watching the films, I implore everyone to watch these movies and reach their own conclusion.

Personally, for me, these films range on the side of a strong 6-7 out of 10. I live in a town very similar to Shadyside, not as much murder obviously, but still written off as white trash drug-addicted criminals. And there's something almost kind of like wish fulfillment about "it's just a curse" or "its just one bad guy" conclusion the movie comes to, where it feels really immature. Like the movie clearly has a lot to say about systemic injustice but the thing about systemic injustice is that it doesn't suddenly become unwoven after a person of power dies.

and the thing about Sunnyvale is that despite those people profiting off of a curse they didn't know about, there is very little done in the way to make them sympathetic. I don't think the narrative of the movie wants us to come to that conclusion esp since Sam (the main love interest of the film) is relatively harmless and moreso used as just a prop character is supposed to be "good". She is unwillingly moved to Sunnyvale after her mother divorces her father, so I don't think her or her family is the rich single entity the movie wants us to seek vengeance against. Yet it feels messy. Really messy. I'm going to link to a video from the channel folding ideas talking about the book of henry to sort of better illustrate my point about framing versus actual direction.

The way the movie also sort of scoffs at drug use, especially marijuana almost seems out of character for a movie made in 2021. I feel like that could be its separate post. Like it feels in character for a horror movie in the 70s and 80s, but with the more educated perspective in 2021, I feel like we all know that most of the over-policing on drugs came from the US government actively flooding the ghettos with narcotics in order to police them better?

If you didn't know that I'm going to link to a couple informative videos. I suggest researching further of course. these just provide the broadest strokes as to why the "war on drugs" was largely used as xenophobic and homophobic propaganda.

But maybe that discrepancy was intentional? Like its baked in so many layers of irony, I just can't keep up with it? I dunno. Like it wants to say something about addiction, it wants to say something about the over-policing of drugs, it wants to say something about the opioid crisis-- but I couldn't tell you what it was. I legitimately couldn't tell you if this movie was on the side of addicts and drug dealers as the means of using any method you could for escaping poverty-- or actively finger-wagging at addicts for like... being addicts? And the self-harm thing in part two... I-- I genuinely don't know what to say about that other than it felt exploitive. like the ending of part two felt so... fucking weird? like it was funny in the way it just totally caught me off guard but it was out of keeping tonally with the rest of the work. I don't expect a horror movie of all things to get its commentary 100 percent correct-- that would make me an idiot. But I guess I am particularly tired of seeing this one trope repeatedly crop up. this post is getting a little out of hand so maybe next post I'll talk about the comparison between Fear Street, Goosebumps, and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

[theplanetprince]

I think those I've spoken to on discord already know my feelings on a lot of various horror movies, but I just thought I would post my thoughts here since this is mostly a horror(?) Or at the very least a blog where I talk about my relationship with writing/editing with horror content.

I am a pretty big Goosebumps fan. I'm not going to say the largest there was. But one of my first impulse purchases, when the pandemic started, was getting a bunch of assorted Goosebumps books from the original 90s run. Goosebumps were one of the first series of books to get me interested in reading aside from Guardians of Gahoole. I was always intimidated by the Fear Street novels as a kid bc they looked way too scary from the lens of a 3/4th grader. I never got the chance to read them. Now that I'm quite a bit older I hope to one day get all the way through the R.L Stine books in production order.

All this to segue into the new Fear Street adaptation on Netflix.

I'm not the pickiest person when it comes to movies, I don't approach them with the mindset that I'm going to hate something. I'm rather the opposite, I find that approaching something with a positive attitude typically gives me positive results. That being said I have a weird relationship with these movies. I feel like this should be something I really enjoy. Anyone who knows me knows I love horror, I love the 90s/80s vhs nostalgia punk setting, I love R.L Stine's both whimsical and clever approach to writing horror (which this movie did borrow from in the last installment.) I don't want to say I hated it, because I didn't. I really enjoyed what it had to say and the commentary it had about the systemic inequality between both towns, even if it was a little basic. It borrows a lot from the pages of Wes Craven when it comes to satirization and critique of horror tropes. I love the attitude the films had. I loved the soundtrack. I loved the representation this gave to poc without making it solely into racial trauma. In that regard, it was a total breath of fresh air. I loved most of the performances and I loved the jittery editing style that was still comprehensive. The characters while starting off unlikeable did eventually grow on me.

I don't want to dissuade anyone from watching the films, I implore everyone to watch these movies and reach their own conclusion.

Personally, for me, these films range on the side of a strong 6-7 out of 10. I live in a town very similar to Shadyside, not as much murder obviously, but still written off as white trash drug-addicted criminals. And there's something almost kind of like wish fulfillment about "it's just a curse" or "its just one bad guy" conclusion the movie comes to, where it feels really immature. Like the movie clearly has a lot to say about systemic injustice but the thing about systemic injustice is that it doesn't suddenly become unwoven after a person of power dies.

and the thing about Sunnyvale is that despite those people profiting off of a curse they didn't know about, there is very little done in the way to make them sympathetic. I don't think the narrative of the movie wants us to come to that conclusion esp since Sam (the main love interest of the film) is relatively harmless and moreso used as just a prop character is supposed to be "good". She is unwillingly moved to Sunnyvale after her mother divorces her father, so I don't think her or her family is the rich single entity the movie wants us to seek vengeance against. Yet it feels messy. Really messy. I'm going to link to a video from the channel folding ideas talking about the book of henry to sort of better illustrate my point about framing versus actual direction.

The way the movie also sort of scoffs at drug use, especially marijuana almost seems out of character for a movie made in 2021. I feel like that could be its separate post. Like it feels in character for a horror movie in the 70s and 80s, but with the more educated perspective in 2021 I feel like we all know that most of the over-policing on drugs came from the US government actively flooding the ghettos with narcotics in order to police them better?

If you didn't know that I'm going to link to a couple informative videos. I suggest researching further of course. these just provide the broadest strokes as to why the "war on drugs" was largely used as xenophobic and homophobic propaganda.

But maybe that discrepancy was intentional? Like its baked in so many layers of irony, I just can't keep up with it? I dunno. Like it wants to say something about addiction, it wants to say something about the over-policing of drugs, it wants to say something about the opioid crisis-- but I couldn't tell you what it was. I legitimately couldn't tell you if this movie was on the side of addicts and drug dealers as the means of using any method you could for escaping poverty-- or actively finger-wagging at addicts for like... being addicts? And the self-harm thing in part two... I-- I genuinely don't know what to say about that other than it felt exploitive. like the ending of part two felt so... fucking weird? like it was funny in the way it just totally caught me off guard but it was out of keeping tonally with the rest of the work. I don't expect a horror movie of all things to get its commentary 100 percent correct-- that would make me an idiot. But I guess I am particularly tired of seeing this one trope repeatedly crop up. this post is getting a little out of hand so maybe next post I'll talk about the comparison between Fear Street, Goosebumps, and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.

[fxmaxyz]

I'm Not Trying to Time the Market, But Here's What We Should Do

"...Move out of stocks or gold because I think they've been too hot and will crash soon", or "put some money in X because I think it's going to be hot soon." If I had a dollar every time I heard such things from clients, prospective clients, or people at a gathering after they find out that I'm a financial adviser, I could retire to the French Riviera right now, only to be seen by my family and friends during the holidays and hunting season. In the past 20 or so years, the general public has gained access to various information, tools, and calculators that in the past were only available to financial professionals. Go to the website of a major discount broker and punch in some basic information and all the work will be done for you without having to understand all of the nuts and bolts. Most people get so much educational material thrown at them by their 401k/403b plan, one might begin to wonder how we're able to replace all the trees that had to be cut down to print it all. Data dating back to the beginning of financial markets shows that guessing market movement consistently is just not doable Couple that with the often repeated fact that 80% of mutual fund managers fail to beat their indexes, and the table that shows how being out of the market on a small handful of days in a decade or two decade span will miss most of its gains, one wonders how an individual can overlook such facts, but they do so again and again to their own chagrin. Why? I don't know but I'm going try and tackle it. Bear in mind though, I have no PhD in Psychology, just empirical observation. WHAT IS MARKET TIMING? One might think it includes pulling all of your money out of a particular asset class (stock/bonds/gold/real estate etc.) when one thinks or feels it's going to go down and re-investing it back in when one thinks it's going to rise, and while that is definitely market timing, it's an extreme version that not many people engage in due both to better education, and various rules and penalties that were put in place to dissuade this type of behavior. The definition of market timing that I go by is to change the strategic allocations of one's portfolio based on an "ungrounded" barometer such as market gyrations or a recommendation by an "expert" in some type of media, instead of by a more "grounded" barometer such as a change in life situation or a genuine change in risk tolerance. If, for example, your portfolio has a current stock allocation of 40%, but you decide that the market is due to rise due to some perception you have or some talking head on CNBC has, and you change the allocation to 45 or 50% based totally on that perception, you are a market timer, like it or not. WHY DO WE TIME THE MARKET? Better yet, why do we try timing the market when we logically know it has resulted in failure time and time again? Partly, because of the same reason we buy lottery tickets or visit the casino when we know the odds are stacked against us, optimism. We inherently believe that we're special. Besides, mom told us so. We're smarter, and have better resources than our neighbor, our "experts" are better than his "experts." Why else would the actively managed mutual fund market still be raking in new money? Why else do huge sums of money move out of said funds AFTER the market tanks, and move back in AFTER the major move upwards? Because we know when the turnaround is coming, and no matter how wrong it turns out to be we continually do it. Another reason is control. In today's turbulent times, people's yearning to be in control is greater than ever. With all of the stuff out there that is out of our control, wars, the national debt, natural disasters, disease and sickness, we all desire one or two portions of our life be controllable, our money is one of those portions. The only trouble with this belief is that the global financial juggernaut is so huge, that trying to fight it is futile at best. Even if you could get information as timely than the Big Boys (pension funds, insurance companies), your tiny little order falls down at the bottom of the pecking order getting filled. HOW DO WE STOP? Well if I knew the answer to this exactly I'd probably be on the payroll of every pension plan in the world, but unfortunately all I can to is offer some personal suggestions. First, don't get a steady diet of cable business news or constantly spend time on financial websites. That's just as bad as going in to your favorite store to look around when you're tight on cash for the month. In either case you're going to convince yourself you need something and the time to buy is NOW! Go into an online broker's site or pay an independent adviser or financial planner a flat fee to help you set up an allocation (if that's all you want the planner to do.) Once you implement the plan, re-balance the portfolio on a regular basis (quarterly, semi-annually, or annually) but other than re-balancing LEAVE IT BE! I don't care if Ahmadinejad is threatening to blow up Israel, Congressmen and women are having an old west style shoot out in the Capitol Building, and Obama is shooting over par in his golf game that day! DON'T TOUCH THOSE ALLOCATIONS! Another thing you can do is be honest about your risk tolerance. While stocks have the highest real rate of return over time, they do fluctuate, and while most people can stomach a little market turbulence with at least a small portion of their money, maybe you can't. If stock market volatility in any measure is to much for you to bear, DON'T INVEST IN THE MARKET. Yes, it pains me to say that, and no,you may not have as much money in retirement because you weren't able to keep pace with inflation. But if market gyrations cause you not to eat or lose a lot of sleep, you won't make it to retirement age anyway, better to be poorer but still alive I would say. In closing, pick a strategy, stick with it, and don't confuse brains with a bull market. You, nor I, nor the gurus that try and sell you their stock picking course at 2 a.m. are that good that we can predict where that market is going to go on a regular basis.