#ABOLISH THIS TERRIBLE TRADITION

[baileycatarina]

oh mother fucker daylight savings happened didn't it.

[the-empress-7]

Empress, welcome back! What do you think of Meghan's new Nigerian Princess title?

I'm thinking the braying laughter of a hundred upper class drawing rooms, upon hearing the news, should have been heard from space - only no one cares about them any longer, not even to laugh at them. But this means the two grifters no longer - never ever - get a single proper dinner invite, right?

The tour was a total Wales cosplay, done badly. But the press is ever ready to sing their praises, and Charles is still ignoring the problem. Meghan's terrible fashion choices are still entertaining, though. Worst dressed celebrity for the last 6 years and counting.

There is no such thing as a Nigerian Princess, since Nigeria as a country doesn't have a monarchy. Although it is true that there are tribes in Nigeria with titles, unless Meghan can prove she descended from a specific tribe in Nigeria the Princess title is meaningless. Not only that, the titles of nobility in Nigeria don't serve a purpose beyond being deeply meaningful to a specific tribe, meaning it's not like the many Kings and Queens serve a constitutional purpose or get to automatically serve as members of the Parliament (e.g. The House of Lords in the UK). Nevertheless the many Kings and Queens within Nigeria serve a very important purpose, which is to preserve the customs and traditions of their respective communities and they take this job very seriously.

"From 1960 to 1963, Nigeria was a sovereign state and an independent constitutional monarchy. Nigeria shared the monarch with Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and certain other sovereign states. The monarch's constitutional roles were mostly delegated to the governor-general of Nigeria.

Elizabeth II was the only monarch to reign during this period. As such, she was officially titled Queen of Nigeria.

The monarchy was abolished on 1 October 1963, when Nigeria adopted a president as its head of state."

How exactly can Meghan be a Princess when the country itself has no Monarch?

[stutee]

Thoughts while and after watching The Crown Season 6 part 1 -

1. As the crown was and is about the Queen(now Late Queen), this season made me dislike her character more. Claire Foy's character was, if not sympathetic, at least helped us in humanising her as a young woman who did not like the spotlight but had to become one of the important people in the world. With Olivia Coleman's queen, her coldness grew. And Imelda Staunton strengthened her position as the cold mechanical Queen. Still won't deny that she had some sort of charm that made people like her or at least be intrigued about her but other than that, there is nothing

2. Season 3's Charles deserved sympathy. He had so much potential to do something but was constantly shut down and beaten until he lost that battle and ended up being ruthless. But if at one side you wish to show the utter heartlessness with which he and others treated Diana, then how can you show Charles as someone who needs to be sympathised and felt sorry for. Sure as any other human he deserved happiness but on the cost of what? This whole thing with Diana was a huge chain of events that resulted in this. There are articles which wrote that in a better way on how if at one side the crown shows him as the selfish husband, on another side it shows his political/royal campaigns as an attempt to show that he is not entirely a bad person?

3. Which brings us to here, the Ghost of Diana. That was terrible. If that all, we were supposed to have Diana's spirit visiting someone it should be only and only her sons. Some article or someone here wrote how it would be better if Diana haunted the Queen and Charles provoking feelings of regret and guilt rather than a learning and a redemption arc. But out of all the people she went to comfort and impart wisdom to the two people who were the most responsible for her pain.

4. Showing Diana as reckless and seeking attention was a terrible move again. Okay maybe they showed how the royals perceived her but the writing was also aimed at showing how she was also not without her faults and even going to the extent of showing Charles as the bigger person.

5. What's interesting is seeing the growth of Prince Philip. From someone who valued his freedom and independent thinking to becoming one with the royals. Sure if we see from Season 1 and 2's perspective of the husband he was, this is better in how Elizabeth and Philip have now become partners. He advises her and supports her and even fights for her(season 5) but now he is just another royal. Telling her how she should not go to London to offer her regards to Diana's funeral. In real life he is known for weird racist remarks which obviously weren't shown here and yes he wasn't any better either way. But still, he eventually became the Prince of windsor from just Philip.

6. There is obviously a grey area where one finds themselves standing, when we see a personal tragedy depicted in a fictional series. Sure Diana was the people's princess and a public figure but somewhere it felt slightly strange witnessing the whole thing. I can't name or describe the strangeness but well it was there.

7. Last and not the least, there is this one thing that I conclude every season i complete, that is, the royals are utterly useless. Now I get that you are all from a large history and it is nice to keep your traditions and cultures alive but not growing or staying stuck to it even after the world outside was changing rapidly? Saying the same old scripted speeches when the common people were desperate for food and better living conditions is terrible. I am not saying to abolish the monarchy, I mean yeah that would be great but sure if you wish to keep that culture but why the pomp and show and treating them as invincible and even funding them. Why can't they have normal jobs? Sure some royals lead pretty normal lives, so why can't they just be normal? Why on earth do they still feel so superior and God like even in the 21st century? The recent events of King Charles lll speaking of poor living conditions sitting on a throne of jewels. That's such a poor taste and being so ignorant of basic things.

I have always loved the cinematography and acting of this series. No wonder it won awards. And while some of it remains in the final seasons, it lacks the same charm of the initial seasons.

Waiting for part 2 to see how this series concludes.

[soup-mother]

this may be shocking to hear from someone who's not very fond of psychiatry™ and also not very fond of explaining away people's real problems with religious bullshit™ but telling people that since psychiatry is an abusive system, instead of going to therapy they should become religious is like saying "lets abolish prison and replace it with penal forced labour" or something.

like in general it's kinda funny being in that in-between where I think the current system is terrible but also don't fucking think that "return to tradition, stop knowing things and start believing in mumbo jumbo" is in any way a viable solution to things.

where like idk for example medicalisation of plurality is weird and heavily rooted in the actual satanic panic and i think that's stupid, but also I think that spiritual explanations for it are...how would you put it...very dumb? like annoying at the best of times and actively genuinely harmful to people not even at the worst. and so it's like... I'm not going to send the kgb after people who see their own experience as spiritual but like that's obviously not a fucking helpful template to apply in a non personal context. like if you tell someone else their plurality or what have you has a spiritual basis you are 100% going to sound like the final fantasy house lady. idk it's weird and i have lots of thoughts and need to sleep.

it's just funny being in this sorta very liberationary ideological camp in a space that is very firmly divided into the sysmed discourse people, the tulpamancy people and the people who just want to grill.

[bonefall]

Nothing to do with riverclan family tree here sorry (although i'd really like for Bluestar's line to keep going after Reedwhisker's death).

About your Queen's Right rule, do you have any in-universe basis for it? Trying to find a way to circumvent a problem for a fic that's trying to stay as canon-compliant as possible.

I do have in-universe basis for it! godd I need to finish the guide to the new SE "Darkstar's Commandment"

But the long and short of it is this; The Queen's Rights were created in response to the drowning of Mapleshade's kittens. StarClan was so furious that they summoned Darkstar and Oakstar to a trial, damned everyone even tangentially related to the incident in blind rage (Appledusk, Ravenwing, Frecklewish, Mapleshade) and told Oak and Dark,

"If you don't get your shit together you're next. StarClan OUT."

Darkstar fought an uphill battle against Oakstar, who was a terrible ally. The original law was just about protecting kittens regardless of origin, however, during an argument Oakstar said something dismissive along the lines of,

"it's pointless, we'll HAVE to punish any queen who's been disloyal anyway if she doesn't have a father available. It's obvious."

And Darkstar, DESPERATELY trying to be charitable, is like, "Oakstar... you're correct. We'll make it so they won't be obligated to reveal a father. The parentage of a kit is a queen's right to keep private. If they've been disloyal, StarClan will judge them as they are judging us."

Oakstar of course is still dismissive, and even goes so far as to attempt stealing Reedshine's kittens to replace ThunderClan fatalities. Kit Stealing was the old tradition before the Queen's Rights abolished it completely.

He then goes on to start Crusades against Chelford cats in an attempt to please StarClan which does not work. Bonefall Oakstar is in the Dark Forest for failing his assignment and trying to turn in something else completely, lmao.

Feel free to take as much of it as you'd like, you can cut the Crusades completely and be almost completely canon-compliant, since we know very little about Darkstar and Oakstar.

[cathkaesque]

if you could travel back in time, is there a specific time and place you'd want to go? assuming you'd instantly know the local language and not bring back a plague

I have a tonne of thoughts about this actually. I would go back to the 1984 miners strike, armed with all the knowledge and government documents that my bf has uncovered during his research. We both fantasise often about going back in time to fix the mistakes that happened during the 80s, in order to prevent the destruction of the world as ongoing today.

The 1984 miners' strike is one of the fundamental world turning points - it's when the ideas of resources should be used for need, rather than profit, versus the idea that resources exist to make money and should be thrown away if they don't, are explicitly tested and the latter wins out. The working class movement never recovers and the social bases of its existence are destroyed. Capital taken out of national industries is exported abroad, and Britain's economy becomes a consumerist. Fundamentally, it's this approach that has destroyed the world.

The strike was utterly winnable - Thatcher takes on each individual group of combative workers one by one (first inner city riots in 1979-80, then the steel workers in 1980, then rail workers in 1982, the miners in 1984, local government in 1985, print workers in 1986, dock workers in 1989). If all of these groups had taken unified action at once then the government would have folded - they say so themselves in their internal discussions. There were multiple opportunities for joint action - there is an attempted general strike in Wales that fails to get off the ground due to poor coordination.

The other thing as well is how close the Labour Party came to being led by Tony Benn - in the 1981 Deputy Leadership he was basically a handful of votes away from unseating right wing ballsack Dennis Healey (50.4% vs 49.6%). He could have won a leadership challenge against Foot, and definitely could have beaten Kinnock in the 1983 leadership election had his seat not been abolished in the election of that year. A Benn party would have backed the strikes, rather than tried to sabotage them like Kinnock's ilk did.

The other turning point is post strike, the transformation of the National Union of Mineworkers from a workplace union first and foremost to an organisation that represented the whole coalfield community. Women in the pit communities built an alternative welfare system in the form of Women Against Pit Closures, which provided communities with essentials as well as manning picket lines. There was a motion at NUM conference in 1985 to give WAPC branches affiliate membership, but this was defeated largely for entirely misogynistic reasons. If this had succeeded, and the NUM had invested in developing and supporting these branches rather than , they could have retained some of their political organisation post pit closure. Furthermore, this would then have given other community based movements such as the Anti-Poll Tax Leagues a model for something that could exist after the strike.

This transition, from workplace to community union, was achieved in Bolivia which went through a very similar process - the tin miners were the vanguard of the workers' movement there, and had won the nationalisation of their mines, which were all closed when the price of tin dropped in 1984. The miners kept their political traditions alive as they moved into informal work in El Alto and coca growing in Chapare, and were the base of the CSUTCB peasants union, the COR-El Alto informal workers' union, and the FEJUVE community union. These organisations were the political foundation for Evo Morales' transformation of that country. I really do feel strongly that the same could have happened in the UK - they could have provided an anchor to left wing challenges that broke through in the 2000s (Ken Livingstone's mayorship of London, George Galloway's Respect Party) which failed due to the terrible politics of the people that led them.

However, this would require me to have established myself in advance of the strike - so I would probably go back to 1979, or potentially earlier to 1968 to properly embed myself in the culture.

[cryptid-pet]

Six Goodnight

Week 2 Day 3 >>> Caruki Month

NOTE >>> This was an anon ask I got a while back and accidentally deleted, so if the anon sees this I AM TRULY SORRY, I WAS GOING TO WRITE THIS AND NEVER DID SO HERE YOU GO, ENJOY

Azusa moaned and accidentally rested his head hard on the table. It’s hot, too hot, the room is spinning clockwise then anticlockwise. It’s killing him: How he’s starting to sweat and get flustered after a single drink. Half Looney Tune over here too. Unlike him, it takes Shin a couple drinks in order to get drunk, which he wasn’t yet. After all, it was his bright idea to let Azusa have a bit of vodka behind Ruki’s back. Good move for a boyfriend, barely.

Carla only waits in the other room, Ruki’s room, for his drink. He couldn’t believe after all those years trying to abolish the vampire race he now was dating one- An impure, in fact. As adjusting the long braid that almost could put Rapunzel to shame, Ruki comes back from downstairs moments before Azusa falls victim to alcohol. He sometimes wonders why he allowed his youngest, innocent brother to date a founder, though he shouldn’t be talking himself.

“What’s in the bottle?”

“Tuica,” Ruki responded, having said bottle in one hand whilst glasses in the other. “It’s a national Romanian drink, quite strong if you ask me.”

Carla doesn’t nod, only makes a brief, deep noise. “Perhaps that’s why you fetched shot glasses?”

“Exactly.”

It’s the start of a New Year, why not have something strong tasting? Even when being immortal living in a mortal world, it doesn’t hurt often to live by their traditions. As Ruki sits beside Carla, he pops the bottle open and begins pouring drinks.

“Have you ever tried alcohol?” Ruki asked.

“Wine and Champagne.” Carla said, keeping it basic.

That’s…A little sad?

Ruki chuckles, handing his partner a nearly full glass. “Just down it, let me know how it is.”

The smell is strong itself, almost numbing Carla’s nose. His eyes fixate on the colorless fluid and the way it barely sparkled in its clear prison. As suggested, rather instructed, Carla does down the drink without any issue, not even cringing or grimacing. It’s bitter.

“Well?”

“It isn’t terrible,” Carla began, licking his lips silently. “Nor is it good, but seemingly enjoyable.”

“It’s something my father would drink during tough times,” Ruki recalls, downing his glass afterwards. “He would be out like a light within his fourth one.”

“Perhaps you’ll be the same?”

That’s hard to answer, but easy to understand why it was said. It’s not every holiday Ruki is up past midnight having a drink, he can’t even bring himself down to Kou’s level of partying with Laito until sunrise. It becomes a big deal to see Ruki holding a jello shot in a hand and picking away at it, then not ending up drunk. It’s a mystery whether Ruki has ever been drunk, since he’s so mature and responsible. 

Ruki pours the skinny, tinted bottle back in his glass, before looking at Carla’s. “Another?”

Carla nods, “Please.”

“Your question however.” Ruki smirks, “Would you like to see it for yourself and get your question answered?”

“You befallen a curse afterwards and become my responsibility in the end.”

Ruki drinks his second round fast, wiping his mouth. “So?” He tilts his head.

Carla only smirks on his end faintly, letting the impure pour his glass halfway before immediately drinking it. 

There were more conversations before Ruki had his third drink, most of the talk being about the two downstairs and hoping nothing more than making out would occur. Both eldest brothers of both families seem to trust their youngest sibling, dating is a big deal after all. It’s currently 12:45 AM, and Carla fails to realize Ruki downed his fifth glass gradually. It’s strange that only the male’s cheeks flush a rosy color, but his speech doesn’t dare sluur into a cluttered mess.The night gets interesting as Carla now was the one pouring himself drinks as he catches on that the other is out of commission. 

“You’re holding onto me rather tightly, Mukami.”

“Mmmm?” Ruki cocks his head up that was resting on Carla’s shoulder. After six drinks, he finally hiccups, clearing his throat. 

There’s a sigh as the founder settles the nearly emptied bottle on the nightstand, dragging the two mini glasses with it. From two glasses from him and the promise Ruki would have four, it also adds to six not counting the extra two the impure consumed.

“You are…” Carla leans his head to the side when feeling Ruki peck and jokingly nibble at his neck. He pauses, “...You are asking for it?”

“Indirectly, i-in fact.” Ruki swooned.

Comedy.

For a moment, Carla does give in with one kiss before lying himself and Ruki down. Silence. Not for long, it’s quick for Ruki to pull that slacker head of the Sakamaki family, move, and fall asleep within seconds. Is it that shocking? Is it really? Six drinks does the trick, doesn’t it?

[idioticbat]

Not gonna lie, but I'm really fed up with drawing tech, I have been for at least two years now, and not being assertive about that and still doing commissions with that theme was one of the things that really burned me out earlier this year and helped me develop health problems which are still affecting my everyday functioning almost a year later.

Yeah, I need an income (and kinda real bad at the moment), but after discussing that with close friends I came to the conclusion that it’s just not worth it having terrible anxiety from drawing stuff I don’t enjoy, over and over again, then getting physically ill from all the stress involved.

I do enjoy drawing a lot, it’s one of the things that gives the most meaning to my life, I get quite sad when I can’t draw for a while, and these health problems have been keeping me from doing exactly that. I did enjoy drawing tech for a good while, but there is a context in how that is part of my worldbuilding, despite me almost never saying anything about that publicly. However, drawing characters sitting in front of computers again and again drained me out really fast, and I don’t blame that on anyone who commissioned me or anything, it was oversight on my part and my inability to be assertive enough and turn down commissions with that theme is what I have to blame. I guess everyone knows how the delicate balance of “doing work you more or less enjoy but not always” vs “having an income at the end of the month” goes.

I’ve been wanting to depart from that as my main thing since early 2021, and I’ve mostly did it and focused on other things a lot of the time, at least with my personal work. I don’t say I want to completely abolish that from my work, though, since tech is still an important part of my worldbuilding stuff. I’m pretty sure someday in the future I’ll come back to it, with renewed spirit. But, meanwhile, I want to focus on drawing weird creatures doing cool things and whatnot! From my perspective, the main thing about my work has always been characters doing fun/nice/cool/interesting things, usually together, be it walking on a field, lighting a fire, programming a computer or just chilling out in the shade. But I guess no one is ever going to figure out what I feel and what I like just from me posting my art with no description whatsoever, especially when sometimes I get quite obsessed about a particular theme for a long time.

So that’s what I want to do in 2023. I want to draw more characters doing fun stuff, being active, going outdoors, reading books, talking to each other, etc. I want to do more traditional art commissions with ink, because that’s what I find the easiest and most enjoyable drawing, and I actually charge way less for them than digital stuff, for that exact reason. I also want to work more on other aspects of worldbuilding, and I have been secretly working on lore and conlang stuff for a while now =, D Overall, I want more variety, and I want to do more the things I enjoy on my work!

[dyke-on]

I'm very aware how terrible the chocolate industry is, that does not mean we have to abolish chocolate, just the industry. I get that it is labour intensive and will be very expensive, but there will still be chocolate, just less probably. In rich countries you will still have those making traditional food the traditional labour intensive way, taking a lot of money for it without any slavery.

Saying shit like anit-imperialism is when no chocolate seems so virtue signaling to me. "Look how dedicated I am to the cause, I bet you guys aren't, you guys need to check yourself, you in front of the computer need to educate yourself and do more for the vague cause." A bit like a political dick measuring contest. "read fucking book". I mean I have read books on the subject, but even if I hadn't you made the post to be provoking, so don't be all up in arms when someone asks questions about a frankly dumb statement you made.

Idk why I care this is all very tumblr politics, but I do think it's unhelpful.

Dude shut the fuck up omg why is it every single time I say anything one of you cunts comes crawling out of the word works to nit pick the specific way I said what I said, the funny thing is you aren't even disagreeing with me you're just harping on "no chocolate" vs "hard to come by". When you compare that to how readily available it is it might as well be no chocolate, not to mention I'm not saying ban chocolate or something I'm pointing out if there are revolutions in the global south and those countries focus on domestic entirely that could very well mean ZERO chocolate export. Why tf are you so mad that I'm saying this could very well happen?? How is this me being more dedicated to a cause, you're literally throwing a fit over semantics in my inbox over CHOCOLATE

[unseenphil]

Prompt #14: Clear

The downside of a world-saving champion of darkness coming from a distant star to save everyone from the aftereffects of the flood of light is that it's terrible for the predictability of your work, reflected Sam-et, a skywatcher from a long line of skywatchers at the Crystarium. For nearly 100 years, the weather hadn't changed; it was always just 'uncomfortably bright', no matter the hour. It had nearly led to the abolishment of the traditional post of Skywatcher, but apparently the Crystal Archon had refused to allow it- the post existed for the hope of a darker tomorrow.

But still, very few people came up to ask a skywatcher for the weather, as the answer was always the same.

At least, until now. Now there was day and night, and the weather might change from one day to the next, and Sam-Et had to dredge his memories for the relevant lessons in order to tell people the correct information for what might happen next in the sky.

The other day someone had actually thanked him for predicting a storm, such that they delayed a drip and weren't caught in a deluge. That felt good, if he was being honest with himself.

But sometimes he still missed the boredom of clear skies.

[ausetkmt]

Some ideas are so terrible that combining them into a cocktail of awfulness makes rotten sense. So it is with gun control and qualified immunity: Why not mix impunity for violating basic rights with denial of a specific right so as to maximize the harm? At least, that's the inspiration that struck two law professors who propose qualified immunity for enforcing even overtly unconstitutional gun control measures. While the duo sees the idea as much as a means of weakening officials' protections from liability as for promoting restrictions on private arms, it's a dangerous innovation that could entrench authoritarianism.

Constitutional Protections Are So Frustrating

"Gun regulation seems to have hit a legal brick wall," complain Guha Krishnamurthi, associate professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, and Peter Salib, assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center in Notre Dame Law Review Reflection. "In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court threw out what had been the standard approach for applying the Second Amendment to gun laws."

Krishnamurthi and Salib argue that Bruen impedes "regulatory innovation" and leaves lawmakers "shackled to the regulations of the distant past." That's an interesting way of regretting that government is bound to respect constitutional protections for individual rights. But the two legal thinkers have a fresh regulatory innovation to propose for bypassing such protections—or, at least, a fresh way of applying a controversial legal doctrine to achieve their desired ends.

Feature? Bug? What's the Difference?

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that protects government officials from liability for allegedly violating an individual's constitutional rights, when the officials' actions do not clearly violate the law," they note. "The theory is that state officials should not be monetarily liable unless a 'reasonable person would have known' that their conduct was unconstitutional."

Some people might argue that qualified immunity is a bad thing. "Something has gone seriously wrong in our criminal justice system when the federal courts are running this kind of interference on behalf of blatantly unconstitutional police actions," Reason's Damon Root wrote in 2020 on his way to calling for the doctrine to be abolished. But Krishnamurthi and Salib see opportunity.

"Even if Bruen is eventually read to reject most or all new laws specifically aimed at regulating guns, states may retain significant power to decide who is and is not armed," they insist. "That power will be effectuated via state law enforcement officers, pursuant to state law or traditional police powers, and enacted via case-by-case disarmaments. Under current qualified immunity doctrine, such disarmaments would enjoy broad protection against monetary liability."

Basically, they propose that police seize guns from whomever their Spidey senses tell them ought not be allowed to own firearms. Those on the receiving end of gun grabs could pursue expensive litigation that might win them back their property but is otherwise unlikely to result in consequences for misbehaving officers, even when the courts conclude that the Second Amendment has been violated.

Even if They Lose, They Win!

To give the authors their due, they're not huge fans of qualified immunity as such. Instead, they see a clever—well, they think so—opportunity to squeeze conservatives between a rock and a hard place.

"Gun rights advocates, who lean conservative, would doubtless decry this state of affairs as lawless. Liberals and civil libertarians have long said the same about qualified immunity, albeit as applied to violations of other rights," they write. "The possibility of qualified immunity as a gun control law thus poses a dilemma for the conservative voting public: Support qualified immunity and police, at the expense of gun rights, or vice-versa?"

In their eagerness to stick it to their ideological foes, Krishnamurthi and Salib briefly acknowledge and then gloss over the existence of libertarians, who overwhelmingly oppose qualified immunity and support self-defense rights, and even of conservative critics of qualified immunity such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The bright idea here is to weaponize qualified immunity so as to make conservatives' heads explode.

"Going forward, the doctrine will either provide cover for left-leaning states to disarm potentially dangerous citizens, even in tension with Second Amendment principles. Or it will be weakened, reinvigorating civil liability as a mechanism for policing the police."

Ha! Gotcha!

Or Maybe We All Lose

But if Krishnamurthi and Salib see deliberately creating tension between gun rights and qualified immunity as a means for building conservative support for stripping government officials of protections against liability for their misdeeds, their tactic is at least as likely to invigorate a liberal constituency for qualified immunity. Actually, if you assume (as I do) that people who pursue government office are more strongly wedded to wielding state power than to shielding people from it, that's a likelier outcome as left-leaning officials who might nominally oppose qualified immunity for reasons of tribal affiliation instead learn to love it as a means of pushing preferred policies past constitutional barriers.

Using qualified immunity to achieve gun control might nudge conservatives to question the doctrine. But it's easier to envision it becoming a popular means of working around not just the Second Amendment, but all sorts of constitutional protections. Clever idea, indeed.

Does the proposal in this law review article pose real danger? We live at a time when supposedly serious publications run piece claiming that "free speech is killing us," when the ACLU questions its own civil liberties mission, and when we're told that "freedom" is a fetish word for extremists.

"There is a long history of ugly freedoms in this country," George Washington University's Elisabeth Anker huffed last year. "From the start of the American experiment the language of freedom applied only to a privileged few."

Courts May Not Consider the Scheme So Clever

Encouraging politicians already embracing authoritarianism to attack protected rights is dangerous and deeply irresponsible. But there is hope since Krishnamurthi's and Salib's clever gambit was anticipated.

"The Supreme Court has never said that qualified immunity protects state actors who intentionally seek to violate a recognized constitutional right simply because the legal artifice they employ has not been the subject of a prior court decision," Robert Leider, assistant professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, pointed out earlier this year when officials proposed anti-gun policies they knew wouldn't stand scrutiny with the idea of daring people to risk arrest and litigation. "Denying qualified immunity in these cases could mitigate much of the resistance to Bruen. Law enforcement agencies are often regulated by their insurance providers, and insurance providers may deny coverage to jurisdictions engaged in willful court-defiant behavior."

Insurance companies seem unlikely saviors from government functionaries running roughshod over constitutional rights. But maybe that's what it takes to thwart law professors hoping to bypass legal protections for liberty.

[esotericmama]

Men's energies work on a 24 hour solar cycle- their testosterone spikes in the morning with the dawn and depletes in the evening. The average 9-5 work day is ideal for the male energy cycle.

Women's energies are on a 28.5 day lunar cycle. We have about two weeks of high energy- the follicular phase and ovulation, followed by two weeks of low energy, the luteal phase and menstruation.

I think of lot of us women feel out of sync with the 9-5 work week because working a male solar cycle really was never meant for us. I know a lot of women struggle through the luteal and menstrual phases while working- I saw it take a big toil on the women in my family while I was growing up.

A lot of traditional cultures are actually more understanding of the fact that women are not men and have different needs, and have a custom that women rest during menstruation (no housework or chores, just a self care week basically). Yet many Western/modern people think that this some terrible practice that must be abolished? Idk but I think embracing and structuring our lives in harmony with our monthly energy cycle is a better way than trying to follow a cycle that doesn't match with us and never will.

[ithisatanytime]

Bad Gyal, Myke Towers - Mi Lova (Official Video)

 women dont actually contribute to society at all right now, especially not working women, the majority of them are in make work jobs that didnt exist a hundred years ago, and literally all of them are performing poorly compared to their male coworkers despite what they think. every man in private amongst themselves talks about how their women coworkers are legitimately useless. women cant work, they can barely think, they were made to serve men. whats happening now is due to the increase in technology men are many times more productive than they have ever been in history and the small subset of men who are still allowed to work (by necessity to keep the fucking lights on) have the majority of their productivity stolen from them and given to women in the form of unearned wages at their jobs or more likely from welfare. men who are at home not working and unmarried (thats the MAJORITY of all men thirty and under) are not happy because they arent fulfilling their roles, women who are working and/or unmarried are without exception deeply unsatisfied, because similarly they arent performing their duty. their duty has beeg warped, even traditional people think womans primary role is to raise children, no the fuck it isnt they are terrible at it, and that is the point i will make that has the most data to back it up, no social phenomenon has been more thoroughly documented than single motherhood and the results are universally horrifying. woman can watch kids not raise them, they arent very good at raising kids. so what is a womans role? her role is to serve her husband and they excel at it. what women are uniquely good at, the only thing they are uniquely good at, is making the small domestic world a refuge from the bigger world of working and striving. they make every small moment special when they are functioning as intended, they make your house into a home, they are like squires, no they are a knights entire retinue, without which a knight is just another fag on a horse. they cannot perform this function because when the satanic ritual marriage replaced what marriage actually is, marriage as a concept was abolished, women need to understand that courtship is over and they are secure in their relationship now, but some big faggy party with rings and organ music is just a party, FUCKING is something significant and no one needs to be told this because oxytocin, once you fuck you belong to each other and when everyone is on this same page women finally get what they truly crave, security, and to focus on their actual duty which is serving her husband, i say again theres no other path to satisfaction only cope, you arent going to bullshit yourself into having different brain chemistry.

[daenerysstormreborn]

Have you finished reading Fire and blood?

Who are your favorite characters?

Who do you think are the villains?

Hello!

I actually haven’t started Fire and Blood but I do generally know what happens and how it differs from the show.

As far as I can tell, the greens are the villains in both the show and the book, but I’m aware that in the material beyond season 1 of HotD, members of the blacks do some pretty horrible things. But personally I believe that maintaining the Westerosi tradition of the throne passing only to males is unimportant and SHOULD be abolished. The greens are directly responsible for the dance for trying to usurp Rhaenyra. I know she did terrible things throughout the course of the dance, but I think she would’ve been a good queen if her own family hadn’t betrayed her. I don’t give a shit she had kids with Harwin. I literally don’t care at all. She could have had children with ten different men while married to Laenor and I wouldn’t think she deserves to be disinterested as a result. She made the best out of a situation where she was forced to marry a man who was incapable of loving her. I know you all would not be pearl clutching about irresponsibility and disrespect if she was male. And I know that because Aegon has bastards and he’s married!! Jace, Luc, and Joffrey aren’t even bastards. Both Rhaenyra and Laenor acknowledged them. Anyway that’s just a little side rant. I genuinely didn’t believe at first that there were lots of people who believed Rhaenyra didn’t deserve to be queen and actually supported Aegon II’s claim because it seems so ridiculous to me. But now I’ve seen them and I just don’t understand it.

As far as favorite characters go, it’s kind of hard to say. In the show, I’m not particularly attached to any of them. I liked Milly’s Rhaenyra a lot, but I’ve been less impressed by Emma’s. Whether this is due to acting or directing and writing, I can’t say. I think that Daemon, Aemond, Aegon II, Helaena, and Alicent are all interesting characters and I think their actors have done BRILLIANT jobs. But I don’t really know that I actually… LIKE any of them. Definitely nothing close to the way I love Dany, Arya, and Jon. I read a lot of complexity into Alicent that most team black fans don’t but that might just be me adding things that aren’t really there because I always want to like female characters. She’s my pathetic little meow meow. Kinda love to hate, if you know what I mean, but I do feel a lot of sympathy for her. Sympathy but I want to shake some sense into her too. Wake up girl!! Do something!!!

Based on what I know of the book, I expect I’ll favor Baela, Laena, Daemon, and Rhaenyra, in that order.

I’ll reblog this with an update when I do read the Fire and Blood but for now I’m chugging through ASoIaF.

[darkwingphoenix]

ESPECIALLY seeing how fucked up all of the Royal Families are rn.

Oberon doesn't want Winnie to replace him, and Trista and Nate are allegedly horrible candidates for now, and he's putting all his bets on OJ.

Even ignoring my fic's fanon, Indiga is basically pressuring Cobalt to get to the throne, and Evangeline is literally facing a war with Folkvar and insurgents whose numbers grow by the day, and it's only a matter of time before Evangeline faces a terrible civil war, a rebellion, and full on invasion from the north at the same time in a gangbang NO ONE in Evangeline wants.

Yerim-Mor is basically teetering on the brink of collapse as is.

Not to mention every ruler except Titania, Morgause, and Sovereign will be replaced in 50 years. Indiga, Oberon, Roz, Uzoma, Yazid, Hethor, and maybe even Qara, Serafeen and Chua will likely not be on this mortal coil in 50 years. Especially Indiga, she's a fucking fossil.

Out of the Great Kingdoms, the Aquarian Alliance, Etios, both Faery Courts, Lamai, and Damijana have the best chances of being mostly the same in 50 years, because the Courts and AA will have their leaders still, and Etios is just a buncha gaians in barns. Damijana and Lamai have too tight of a culture to really change.

Winnie is ACTIVELY attempting to destroy Oberon's whole career with telepathy too

I thus believe that the most likely places to change drastically or even irreversibly so to be Evangeline (With Cobalt on the throne, civil war or rebellion looming, and traditional Lindism slowly taking root in the young uns), Folkvar (Possibly because Blomi finds out about Sygbarne), Yerim-Mor (Almost certainly gonna collapse unless Jaq or someone else takes SERIOUS action to help Yerim-Mor recover), and Matuzu (Most likely by Marghan getting his ass deleted from this mortal coil once Uzoma is no longer able to protect him/dies by literally anyone who's willing to risk treason charges and then is replaced by a much better ruler)

I see Evangeline becoming slightly better, if no slaves are abolished then it's likely Modern Lindism starts to fail to keep everyone controlled (Via traditional Lindism making waves despite all restraining attempts), insurgencies, and civil war.

Folkvar likely becomes a BIT more welcoming to disabled people (Especially if Blomi finds out about Sygbarne and that makes her wanna be an actually good ruler)

Yerim-Mor could either collapse completely and become an abandoned land just like Bormek/Burmek before it or ascend into a new golden age, it's one or the other, no in-between.

Matuzu's... Likely seen some assassinations (AKA plenty of 'em) and dynasty change overs, so most likely Marghan getting assassinated only does everyone good.

Other places most likely to change are Mogdir, via Winnie, OJ, or their kiddos, or Zareen via ideas started by Qara.

I doubt the AA Water Bois are gonna change (Unless Sovereign contracts brain cancer and goes belly up, or gets proxy assassinated by his reject kids), and neither will the Fae Courts. Damijana and Lamai will likely swap rulers but ultimately stay mostly the same.

darkwingphoenix Plot Twist: Evangeline abolishes slaves because COBALT falls for a fae/gaian girl early on and pulls a Qara, slowly replacing the odd policy that seems reasonable, like only X amount of slaves per person in Y household (And allowing household servants to count as people in the household they work in) and slowly letting Evangeline adapt, until he can ultimately let slaves stop bein' enslaved

-----

Great idea! The dynamics of the Great Kingdoms could change drastically in a generation or two due to things like this. Looming Gaia could be a completely different place in 50 years.

*

Questions/Comments?

Lore Masterpost

Read the Series

[jackoshadows]

It’s interesting to me how readers and fandom in general view traits like compassion and kindness in ASoIaF. I feel like compassion is often defined and viewed through the lens of first world liberalism and traditional femininity. Compassion is seen as being soft and gentle and often described in feminized terms.

For example, I find it rather strange that the character most associated with compassion and kindness is Sansa Stark or rather that’s the quality that’s always highlighted for the character by fandom.

I find this to be baffling because we are introduced to Sansa as someone who looks down on her younger sister for being different - not pretty enough or graceful or excelling in the same things Sansa is good at. She looks down on bastards, is sick of the very sight of Mycah, disdains the company Arya keeps and has no empathy for the fate of the butcher boy.

Sansa does evolve and grow over the course of the next few books. But again, the extent of her compassion and kindness is to tell some servants to help Lancel or interject on Dontos’ behalf or speak politely to a lord with a stammering problem. Her compassion and kindness is still limited to her inner circle. Granted, Sansa herself does not have much agency or freedom to do more than this, but the question then is why is she seen as this beacon of compassion and kindness?

Compassion and kindness are rarely ever brought up with respect to Arya and Daenerys. Even though Arya is not being polite or charming towards high born nobles, her dragging weasel along risking their lives IS compassion. Her sharing what little food she has - a rabbit leg - with Gendry and the others IS compassion. Arya giving water to caged, dying men IS compassion. Or even giving free mussels to Sam. Her sense of guilt and remorse for what happened to Mycah.

Daenerys’s campaign in Essos to abolish slavery is based on compassion. Compassion for the slaves. She’s using armies and sieges to bring down her enemies, but the act is still based on compassion and empathy for the oppressed.

Compassion can be empathizing with the oppressed and those who are different and actively trying to help them.

Just coming back to this quote:

This was pointless, Jon thought. Pointless, fruitless, hopeless. “Thank you for your counsel, my lords.”

Satin helped them back into their cloaks. As they walked through the armory, Ghost sniffed at them, his tail upraised and bristling. My brothers. The Night’s Watch needed leaders with the wisdom of Maester Aemon, the learning of Samwell Tarly, the courage of Qhorin Halfhand, the stubborn strength of the Old Bear, the compassion of Donal Noye. What it had instead was them. - Jon, ADwD

Of all the people Jon Snow has known, it’s Donal Noye that he highlights for compassion. Rough spoken, one armed blacksmith Donal Noye. Donal Noye who cared enough about NW recruits like Grenn and Pyp to call out the son of the Warden of the North as a bully. That’s what Jon sees as compassion.

Compassion and empathy is not always about being politely charming or saying nice words or not thinking ill of people. Compassion and empathy can involve anger, harshness and even violence towards oppressors - in some instances it must involve violence towards oppressors. Compassion can involve aggressive, fierce and courageous acts. It’s our compassion that makes us want equal rights for everyone. It’s our compassion that makes us decry unfairness in society. It’s our empathy that makes us understand the pain that the oppressed feel.

A traumatized Theon Greyjoy risking everything - knowing the terrible torture/death that awaits him at Ramsay’s hands if he is caught - to save a nobody like Jeyne Poole IS compassion. At that instant he is showing ten times more compassion than anything Sansa has done so far.

Pretty much all our characters have had moments of compassion and kindness and it’s just that their expression of that compassion and empathy is different and carries weight in different ways.  I personally think that Dany or Arya or Jon’s acts of compassion hold more weight than Sansa having kind thoughts towards high born nobles. But again, that’s just me.