#THE!! THE SELF SACRIFICE IN THE ANTI MATTER CHAMBER

[fizzie]

this is the most important reference in that entire movie

[abhorsenkatiel]

I've been making really over-thought TLT character playlists for about a year now as a background program to keep my brain entertained while I'm at work, and I realized that I have kind of a lot now, so I figured I'd share them here if anyone is interested.

Here's the ones I made for Harrow and Gideon. I'm really happy that I was able to get them to have the same number of songs, and also nearly the same run time! If you listen to them in order, they follow each character's emotional narrative.

Song lists below the cut

Harrow

Walk With Fire, Hunter As A Horse:

For when you're a suicidal ten-year-old committing the gravest sin and having complicated feelings about your life's purpose.

REPENT NOW CONFESS NOW, Lingua Ignota:

For when you're a mentally ill teenager leading the congregation of an apocalypse cult while stewing in your own hypocrisy and guilt.

Anti Body, Gazelle Twin:

For when it's your first time away from your home planet and the fate of you and your entire House depends on getting along with your childhood nemesis.

I Walk The Line, Those Poor Bastards:

For when your cavalier is hanging out with another necromancer and you feel weirdly jealous about it. (Fun Fact: There also ended up being a Johnny Cash reference in Gideon's playlist, which was completely unintentional)

True Love, Eivør:

For when the person you love most is with you for eternity, but not in the way you want. (Favorite line for maximum emotional damage: "House of pain, this body is too small a chamber")

Out of Focus, Ioanna Gika:

For when God denies you your only wish, so you decide to take matters into your own hands.

The Time Machine, Hunter As A Horse:

For when you construct an elaborate alternate reality to keep yourself from remembering your ex. (If someone had told me this was written about Harrow in HtN I would've believed them.)

When That Head Splits, Esben and the Witch:

For when you make your worstie give you a back alley lobotomy to save your cavalier's soul.

Oh You Are Not Well, Chloe Foy:

For when you come back wrong from traumatic brain surgery and all you can do is vomit, murder, and follow cryptic instructions from your past self.

MANY HANDS, Lingua Ignota:

For when you beg God for salvation and he tells you to learn how to make soup. (Favorite line for John and Harrow's relationship: "The Lord spat and held me by my neck. 'I wish things could be different', he wept")

God's Dark Heaven, Those Poor Bastards:

For when you're having a crisis of faith while you wait for a cosmic horror eldritch being to show up at God's vacation home.

SOHEAVYSOHOLLOW, Varien, Tori Letzler:

For when your only comfort is the hallucination (?) of your dead monster girlfriend.

I'm Not Done, Fever Ray:

For when you're dead, but it's not the end.

Gideon

Toll, So Below:

For when you're an abused orphan living in an apocalypse cult.

rise, Origa:

For when you're a teenager and you dream of escaping indentured servitude by achieving military glory.

Dark Room, Foreign Figures, Johnny T:

For when your childhood nemesis foils your 86th escape attempt and you get the depression.

Throne, Saint Mesa:

For when you're and epic, badass swordswoman, but your childhood nemesis makes you pretend to be her cavalier at a nerd convention.

Let You In, Marc Straight, Ellen Rose:

For when your childhood nemesis bares her soul to you and you don't know how to feel about it.

Bad Apple!!, RichaadEB, Cristina Vee:

For when you're trapped in a murder house going into a suicidal spiral.

Martyr, Roniit, Saint Mesa:

For when you decide to sacrifice yourself to save your necromancer whether she wants you to or not.

We Are Forever, Hunter As A Horse:

For when you're at peace with your sacrifice. (If someone had told me this was written about Gideon at the end of GtN I would have believed them.)

Lights Out, (DOLCH):

For when it doesn't work and now your still-conscious soul is trapped in her broken mind.

Song for Zula, Phosphorescent:

For when you give her everything you have and she doesn't even want it. (Here's the Johnny Cash reference for Gideon.)

Family Tree (Intro), Ethel Cain:

For when it turns out that your parents actually are super important and powerful, and also they suck.

Exorcise, Gazelle Twin:

For when you get halfway resurrected and it sucks.

Glory Amem, Those Poor Bastards:

For when you're Her Divine Highness, only child of God, and it sucks.

[incorrect-quotes-from-she-ra]

Morning! I hope you don't mind if i give you yet another She-Ra thought I'm too damn lazy to post on my own. Also, it's long again. I WILL find that character limit some day.

So, we know the way Shadow Weaver raised Adora resulted, among other issues, in her being selfless to the point of self-sacrifice, which came to a climax in the Heart's failsafe business.

And it's been suggested that this was basically intentional on Shadow Weaver's part. Basically, selflessness is a very beneficial quality for others to have. My theory is that <b>her plan for Adora had always been specifically for her to someday use the failsafe and release all magic</b>.

(i will admit i am also curious how formatting works in this app. thank you for your help with these experiments)

So, evidence. Let's start with her name. I know this is a remake and they were stuck with the existing names, but there's a scene where Scorpia complains about it ("yeah i GET it, everyone LOVES you"), which constitutes the writers acknowledging its meaning, which makes me think it's fair game to analyze.

First, I'm obviously assuming Shadow Weaver choose it, as part of her ongoing parenting plan. It's also possible it was her original First One-given name, we don't know. Neither quite works because either she or Light Hope should have had some issues knowing what the name was and they clearly knew automatically. Really the entire series is weird in that everyone communicates with everyone else way too easily, and i will definitely rant about that someday.

For now let it stand that Shadow Weaver is the parent figure, it makes the most sense for her to pick the name, both in-universe and narratively, so i shall assume so by default. I have two things to say about that choice.

First, as we all have noticed, most of the princesses have names ending in -a. All of them, if you count "Glimma". It's never said to be intentional, but it would make sense. And then IF such a tradition exists among Etheria's royalty, it's not unreasonable for Shadow Weaver, a notable and moderately respected member of the land of knowledge, to know about it.

And then if she knew, of course she would take it into consideration when looking for names. Admittedly it's a little weird with the anti-Princess propaganda that the Horde has, but she doesn't really need to explain or justify this. Hordak has a very [i]laissez-faire[/i] attitude, and everyone else she clearly doesn't care about.

And if she knew or suspected that the princesses' powers were related to the Heart of Etheria, which i will argue for later, then giving her a princessy name is also adequately ironic.

The second name bit is that Scorpia clearly knows some Latin, but not enough. True, <em>adorare</em> means to worship and/or to love, but Latin verbs are more complex than that. _Adora_ specifically is 3rd person singular present indicative active. The translation would be "she loves".

Names aside, i want to talk about how they (we) learned about the Heart of Etheria. Castaspella doesn't know what to do, Shadow Weaver suggests they take a road trip to research, which she's reticent about but concedes is probably the best use of her time, and they find success. We don't know how long it took them, but i had the distinct impression that it wasn't very long.

Naturally, I'm suggesting Shadow Weaver knew all along, and led Castaspella on the trip to have an excuse for the inevitable "how do you know?". Also tricked her into thinking it was /her/ discovery, and maybe even that she was succeeding where Shadow Weaver had failed before, if necessary.

That's why she's so excited to share their results with everybody, and Shadow Weaver cuts her off, apparently just to antagonize her for fun, but I'm suggesting it was also because for her this is the culmination of a decades-long plan, and she wants to Get On With It.

It's also interesting that there was a mural depicting the Spell of Obtainment in the hallway leading to the failsafe. It was a reminder of Shadow Weaver's past, and an opportunity for her to show she regrets her results but doesn't repent from her choices, which i quite like actually. But I'm also saying that, meta-textually, it was a signal that she'd been there before, literally.

And then there is the potential in-universe connection, since we don't know what exactly the spell was meant to be obtaining. Power, for sure, and from what happened we're probably meant to assume it's tapping into some sort of demonic entity or dimension.

Fair enough, except that it never comes up again. And it's kind of a big plot point that Etheria is isolated from the rest of the cosmos, which may or may not conflict with it having a contactable "hell". Meanwhile there's the Heart of Etheria Project collecting all that magic, which Mara's allies (and their descendants) would know something about, have access to at least one backdoor to, and may well have tried to tap into its power at some point.

And then what went wrong may well be one of the defense mechanisms of the Project, though I'm admittedly veering into unfounded speculation.

So, a rough timeline. Light Spinner was always motivated to excel and craved power. She was probably always envied the princesses, who command greater magic than most sorcerers with apparently none of the study and practice.

She took to researching everything she could that might lead to power, eventually discovering the chamber with the failsafe, and presumably other information left by Mara's Friends, either in other chambers or in documents she's since removed. She would have learned a lot of things from this.

As i suggested, i believe she knew there's some connection between the princesses at large and the Heart of Etheria. Incidentally, i don't know exactly what that connection is, and in particular whether princesses were created by the Project or an existing phenomenon that the First Ones co-opted. But it doesn't matter, exactly.

What's important is that there's clearly a connection, more specifically a control system for the princesses and their magic, which is presumably related to how Shadow Weaver was able to tap into the Black Garnet's power. With Hordak's help, obviously, since she clearly believed it when he claimed he could cut her off at will, but he's later shown to have basically no understanding of First Ones' tech, so the knowledge must have come from her.

For the record, i would guess she thinks princesses are artificial, empowered both magically and politically to keep the planet in check, and that they would be depowered once the failsafe was fired. I also think that may be true, actually, since it almost happened when Entrapta was messing with the system, and if i recall none of them were shown to use any magic after Adora did fire it, while she clearly used Perfuma's power. But anyways!

Back to what Shadow Weaver learned, she would know some of what the failsafe does, namely disrupt the system that's hoarding most of the planet's magic, thereby spreading magic to all (most notably her), and some of how to use it, and the fact that she couldn't do so and hope to live, and some of the criteria for who can. That part is important.

But first, she also learned the Spell of Obtainment, deemed it more likely but didn't think she could do it herself, despaired of getting help until she thought Hordak's rise to fame would give her #casus belli#, lost her patience when the Mystacor leadership disagreed, etc etc etc. Pretty uncontroversial in this part, i think.

After she'd joined the Horde, when Hordak showed up with baby Adora and wanted to lump her with the rest of the orphans they have, Shadow Weaver pleaded to have her get special treatment. She even said that she's special, and it couldn't have been her leadership skills or good heart, since she didn't have either yet. It's heavily implied she could recognize her as a First One, but it's not clear why she would care, since they were known for leaving behind advanced technology, which a baby also doesn't have. Unless, of course, she knew there are devices only a First One could use, and maybe has plans related to that.

So I'm pretty sure she learned the criteria that the failsafe requires, devised some spell or technique to check people for them that she pretty much used all the time, just in case, and was very surprised when a newborn tested positive. She was also surprised when Hordak made her personally responsible for the raising of the kid, but her reaction is pretty much "ok, that could work, i guess".

Also also, i suspect she can read First One script. Not perfectly like Adora, but better than Bow's parents probably. Mostly because when she puts Adora's hand on the crystal and says "i think you know the password", that seems like a very transparent attempt to pretend she knows it too when she doesn't. But that seems irresponsible at such a crucial moment, she and Castaspella should really have researched it earlier. Or at least her line there should have been "you can read this, right?" or somesuch.

So I'm thinking it's a double bluff, hoping everybody assumes she doesn't know so she doesn't have to reveal how and why she knows, again.

And that's all i have, i think? This is not nearly as well laid out as i would like. But then, nothing ever is, right?

Also it's not even close to morning anymore. Thank you if you even got this far, and have a good evening!

hi!!! this took me a while to answer, i'm so sorry about that <3

i'm very low on energy today so i cannot summon up the brain energy to respond properly to this, as much as i want to, i'm really sorry for that as well

i love this theory!! it actually fits in really well with canon and makes, like, a LOT of sense now that i think about it. i definitely wouldn't have thought of this on my own, so thank you for sharing this with me!! :D

[qqueenofhades]

Do you think the technology/internet/broad access revolution we are in will change things for POC, queer people, racism, etc?

I think it's obvious that it already has? If you're asking whether technology/social media will change things re: marginalised people for the better, the jury is still out, and we're at a critical tipping point (both in America, but also worldwide) as to whether empirical reality, critical nuance, and acceptance of facts that don't fit your preferred worldview are going to have any continuing relevance to our political and social systems whatsoever. The internet has done a lot of good things, but the instant social media became a place where a) competing ideological narratives and outright fake news were all treated as equally valid, as long as it drove traffic and made money, and b) the owners of these platforms absolved their duty to control them with a shrug of "free speech," we were destined to go down this path, where we all inhabit custom-made information universes where we only ever interact with like-minded people, any critique becomes a sign of insufficient loyalty to The Cause, and collective civic responsibility no longer exists, but is instead replaced by downright sociopathic ultra-libertarian selfishness packaged as "individual freedom." (Just witness how some people have behaved during Covid, refusing even the slightest restrictions, even if making sacrifices would help save other, less fortunate people.) Not to sound like a grumpy old woman, but I think the impact on the real world was truly devastating and, in the short term at least, genuinely irreparable.

The internet has done us the service of connecting and empowering marginalised people who would never have met each other otherwise, providing the entirety of human knowledge at the touch of a button, raising visibility, and so forth. However, we are at an absolute crisis point of whether we're going to let people behave, act, legislate (and try to legislate for others) according to their preferred Facebook feed-version of reality, because see again: the monetization of information, no matter what kind of information, was always going to lead to this. We are just now realizing the devastating consequences of large segments of society walking around in their own personal universes and simply rejecting tenets of empirical reality that do not conform to their own ideology. The problem is, when a lot of people (on both the extreme right and the extreme left) live in lulu-land because of what they consume online, it inevitably affects everyone else. Social media makes it incredibly and poisonously easy to enter an entire information ecosystem that reinforces itself, therefore self-justifying itself in an entire universe of total bullshit, and once people get into that echo chamber, it is very hard (albeit not impossible) to get out.

So, you say. This all sounds awfully pessimistic. What would I do about it? Well, this is the part where I have to say that while I have ideas, and they're things I try to do for myself, it's not anything I can pull off alone. I have talked at length about how the humanities (and their attendant critical thinking skills) have been repeatedly, deliberately, and extensively devalued in late capitalism, precisely because they a) don't generate Production For The Machine and b) encourage people to ask awkward questions about power and control. As long as people aren't explicitly taught how to push back on this stuff, or aren't able to reject something -- even if it fits with their Ideology -- because it isn't true, we're going to be stuck in this mess. I'm not optimistic that legislative efforts against Big Tech will have any effect. I'm glad that at least we saw, however completely terrible it was/is, the stark result of alternate-universe grievance politics on January 6, and in the conservative media loudmouths dogpiling on the Covid vaccine as an attempted way to hurt those liberal sissies who believe in science. It's no coincidence that the states with the lowest vaccination rates are deep-red Trump-supporting southern states. It's only now, as the pandemic resurges in those exact places, that (once more out of expediency) the conservative "news" is finally, tepidly endorsing the idea that huh, maybe you should get vaccinated.

Anyway. The relentless monetization of social media at the expense of any kind of moderation for hate speech, the encouragement that you can post anything you want and never face any consequences Because Free Speech, and the way that we have all seen the vast and horrifically ugly prejudices that the social media universe has both exposed and cultivated anew... it's all pretty much a giant shitburger, if you ask me. I don't know how to quickly fix it. It's way too easy to exist in a bubble, to horrifically bully strangers you will never meet, and to have real and terribly detrimental consequences on our offline lives as a result. The internet obviously isn't going away, but if we don't seriously grapple with the kind of anti-citizens it's made us, I'm not sure what's going to happen, or if it's anything we should want.

I would like to think that we will slowly learn to use this awesome power more responsibly, and reverse some of the incredible damage that has been done, but if that does happen, it'll come when we've already hit rock bottom. Again, it has done good things: the worldwide protests after George Floyd's death, for example, would have been completely impossible without modern technology, in any number of ways. But if it's going to be a concrete social good for all of us, let alone the most vulnerable among us, we have so very far to go, and the global systems in place have absolutely no interest in enabling a reversal of the current trends. So. We will see, but I'm not too hopeful.

[jack007]

What data breaches need to be reported?

Thai society has more hopes for eradicating corruption. This is because Thai knowledge, data breach meaning , and attitudes towards corrupt behavior have changed greatly. From having surrendered that it was something that everyone could do and it was the duty of the government or the NCC to prevent and catch cheaters Today, most people besides rejecting and averse to corruption. Also, try to take part in solving problems Do not absorb and haphazard to be a matter of the government anymore The strength in the struggle to overcome the corruption of the public sector has made great progress in the past.

Many works and sacrifices will be discussed below. Is a story that Thai people, business people, government official’s Modern-headed youth the awakened press and scholars have joined forces to fight the corruption that surrounds them.

Thais understand and are ready to fight

Diamond ring case and luxury watch Is a clear example that Whenever false information is released. (Although not intended), Allround checks by the public can take place quickly and efficiently. There is still a lot of corrupt information of politicians and government officials that have been told by the public via online media such as the 'watchdog' page, the page 'must unfold' 'Isara news agency' 'Thai Publica news agency' 'as well as the main media. For example, newspapers, TV, and radio, fraud prevention uk, are more interested in producing programs that address corruption issues.

What is more pleasant to know that Today people are not waiting for what the government will do to prevent or catch fraud. But many people are ready to join in and do it themselves. Just ask the state to open up to support the public disclosure policy in accordance with international standards. Along with protecting him to have the right to have a voice have the freedom of expression this allows him to unite and fight to expose fraud without fear of intimidation like in the past.

This fact can be confirmed by the National Reform Committee's public hearings across the country. Anti-Corruption Including the survey results of the University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce and International Transparency Organization

The private sector that cares and takes responsibility

The big and important projects that need to be addressed are: 'Thailand's Private Sector Collective Action Coalition Against Corruption Project' or CAC that wants to tackle corruption with the cooperation of the business sector And joint projects of the capital market business in the establishment There are 11 'Thai Governance Funds' that can raise nearly 4 billion baht in total funds to invest in companies operating socially responsible businesses. And when the fund is profitable, 40% of the funds are shared to support public-led social and anti-corruption programs.

Today there are many well-known companies and young businessmen. Be intentional and take part in making society better. In a method that is self-confident and has resources As a result, personal data breach, we have seen the private sector campaign to become more conscious and socially responsible rather than endlessly pursuing profits, so many good titles have appeared in recent years, such as smart movies, cheating games for teenagers, titles. Corrupt - to stop or let go Sujarit Thai Course A good pocketbook such as the equation of corruption, a dog wagging its tail through the Thai corruption crisis. Organizing an event to do good, hope for a good society, easy 2 minutes, and many other things caused by the need to participate in solving the corruption problem of the country.

Civil servants and taking care of themselves

Together with a new concept that 'Corruption in the bureaucracy will be greatly reduced. If the government officials in the agency do not agree 'and when an offense is detected, the punishment will be arranged, ready to find a solution to prevent immediately. Without having to wait for an external agency such as NACC, NACC, data breach uk, or OAG to inspect first

Important departments like the Anti-Corruption Operation Center of the Ministry (ERA) working closely with government officials Began to be promoted and create understanding with fellow civil servants. This agency is, therefore, more important than the dozens of agencies or committees established by the government of the February or OPEC, and works in duplicate without any tangible results.

The success of the campaign for the announcement of a 'no-not-accepting gifts on the New Year's Eve' policy from young government officials and businessmen in 2017 is also a masterpiece of the National Organization for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives.

Scholars work together to find knowledge to fight to cheat.

Overcoming corruption requires real knowledge and understanding. Rather than beliefs or using feelings to judge what is seen and heard. Over the past year, we have seen a great deal of support and useful research from institutions such as the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), the Research Fund (TRF), the NESDB, TDR. IPCC and some foundations, Of course, this knowledge will help us to solve problems at the root cause worthwhile. More to the point

An academic institute of good governance and anti-corruption was established in Rangsit, Nida, Chulalongkorn, and Thammasat universities. There is also a gathering of young scholars such as Siam Lab, Recognize, Cheat, Hand Change, Fusion, 1.2 billion data breach, and many other networks that work together.

Conclusion

These good things are a spark of hope that ensures that 'The trend of the country's corruption situation is improving' Thai people can overcome corruption. But how soon will it be achieved It depends on the support and participation of all Thais. And this is a new dimension in creating a better future for Thailand.

[elljayvee]

Severus, Harry, Albus, & Tom

(This post is based on some thoughts I spewed all over Twitter a bit ago.) 

I was thinking about the final duel in Deathly Hallows, which first of all has Albus Dumbledore’s fingerprints all over it -- Harry calling Tom “Tom”, lots of talking intended both to drive Tom right up a wall & to reach for his humanity.  There’s a lot of talk of love in it, which is something Harry understands and Tom doesn’t. (Has Tom ever loved anyone?) 

Tom understands sexual desire, and knows that sexual desire is not love -- but he doesn’t understand that Snape loved Lily. As far as he is concerned, there was only desire there, and he clearly perceives desire as fairly shallow. He says that Snape agreed that there were more worthy women: basically that Snape just wanted to fuck Lily. 

Harry understands love a lot better. (He’s been protected by love all his life. There were limits and flaws in that protection, but it was still there.) Harry knows that Snape could both desire his mother, & love her in other ways as well: for their shared past, for his childhood friendship. (I mean I'm not denying that Snape was kind of a creep, here, because there's all kinds of ways in which he was.) But I am saying that Tom only understood "Snape wants to fuck this lady" & not "Snape has a complicated emotional relationship with this woman that includes sexual desire." 

Also, re-reading that scene after reading Cursed Child puts a new complexion on Tom's knowledge of sexual desire. 

The whole duel works its way through two of the major triads in the series: Tom-Snape-Harry and Tom-Dumbledore-Harry. (Rowling uses triads & 3-vs-1 setups a lot, which I love. They’re very appealing. One of the notable things about the Horcruxes is that they aren’t triadic; they are unbalanced and scattered, symptoms of Tom’s broken and irredeemable soul.) 

The Tom-Dumbledore-Harry setup is about their relationships to love and power. They're all extremely powerful wizards who have very different approaches to both love and power. 

Harry cares much more about love than he does about power. There’s a deep satisfaction, for me, in seeing Dumbledore's infuriating dueling style used against Tom by Harry, a wizard whose strength lies in his ability to love. Harry understands love AS a force, as a power in its own right, but a power that lies in being given away. In open-heartedness. This makes Harry naming his second son after Snape more understandable: he understands love's complexity & has a generous heart himself. It also makes his complicated relationship with Albus Severus in Cursed Child more understandable: Albus Severus sees that same openness as nonspecific and uncaring. 

Dumbledore craves power & only resists it out of love, & only after tragedy. He is never again open-hearted as he was with Grindelwald, because for him love has been complicated by fear, pain, resentment, manipulation. He does love -- it seems to me that he loves both Snape and Harry -- but his love is always at a remove, never letting anyone too close. Dumbledore, at the liminal King's Cross, tells Harry that going to Hogwarts was resisting power; that’s either a bit self-deluding or he’s straight-up lying. There's a lot of power in controlling the education of generations of children, Albus. People make fun of the Slug Club, but at least Slughorn is open about what he's doing. Dumbledore cultivated people, too, and he used Hogwarts to do that cultivation -- which included recruiting children to war under his command. Dumbledore knows he has a lust for power, & maybe he honestly tried to avoid power, but he failed. I mean: "You will find that I will only truly have left this school when none here are loyal to me." Come on, Albus. I think he's VERY clear that he wants power too much & shouldn't have it, but NOT clear with himself on how much power he has via Hogwarts.

Tom loves only power and nothing else. It’s not clear to me that Tom has ever loved another person. 

Albus Dumbledore is very present in that duel, and so is another: Severus Snape. Harry, in talking to Tom, in centering a narrative of love, protection, and remorse, talks a fair bit about his mother, & about Snape, & he does it in front of EVERYONE. Snape spent his time living "no one must know"; Harry, by contrast, is about emotional accessibility. Everyone must know. It is all right to love people and not to hide it. 

The Tom-Snape-Harry triad is one of the most interesting in the series. It is formed by similar heritage, early lives, their relationships to Hogwarts, to Albus, to power, and to love. There are so many ways in which they are three men who could have been similar, but their choices define them. (Love. Choices. Respect. Names. These are some of the recurring themes of the series.) They’re all abused/neglected halfblood wizards who found their first real home at Hogwarts. Tom & Snape both loathe their Muggle fathers, & let that lead them to a very nasty belief system. In Tom’s case, he picked up his belief system at Hogwarts. We don’t know exactly how but there are implications that it was at least in part through a fascination with Salazar Slytherin -- his ancestor and fellow Parselmouth. In Snape’s case we know he probably didn’t start out with those beliefs, and also adopted them to a certain extent at Hogwarts. He tells Lily, before they go to Hogwarts, that birth doesn’t matter. He apparently doesn’t start using the word “Mudblood” until sometime after that. He leaves the Death Eaters and began to distance himself from their views for love, & renounced them entirely in at least two timelines (in Deathly Hallows, he tells Phineas Nigellus not to use the word "Mudblood", and in Cursed Child he says that he came to believe as Lily did). Harry...did not learn to hate Muggles or Muggleborns at Hogwarts. He had as much reason to hate his Muggle relatives as Snape or Tom, and he DID, but unlike them he didn’t generalize.

Tom, Snape, and Harry also all had relationships with Dumbledore beyond usual teacher-student relationships.

Of the three of them, the one whose relationship with Albus is the most obscured is Tom’s -- partly because so much of it was so far in the past, but partly because Tom doesn’t have normal human feelings. Albus knows a lot about him, and Tom hates that. (If you were trying to be a powerful Dark Lord, would you like it if your old teacher kept reminding you of when you were a young, vulnerable student? If you were trying to be more than human, would you like it if someone kept pointing out how human you still were?)

Severus Snape might have the most complicated relationship of all of them with Albus, and we see a lot of that in his memories in Deathly Hallows: there’s genuine dislike and disgust, there’s friendship, protection, sacrifice. How much Albus saw Severus as a tool to be used vs how much he cared is, I think, something of an open question. But I do think he did care, and that Severus cared for him -- Severus’s reaction to Albus putting on the Gaunt ring, for example, shows that. (Sidenote: given Albus’s issues with power, you’d think he’d be more understanding of Severus’s cravings for it. Shut up, Albus.)

Harry is very clear that he is “Dumbledore’s man”, despite a fraught relationship at times. He knows that Albus is manipulating things, and he isn’t exactly pleased about that, but he is also very clear that he knows which side is which and on whose side he stands. Even when he’s angry or frustrated with Dumbledore, he is still loyal to him. (As a sidenote, I think it’s clear in-universe that Dumbledore’s sexuality was either not secret or an open secret, at least among the adults. The Daily Prophet article by Rita Skeeter says Albus had an “unnatural interest” in Harry. “Unnatural interest” is a specific anti-gay term used to indicate sexual abuse of male children by gay men. Skeeter is using a homophobic slur towards Dumbledore. The Prophet article is written to imply to adult wizards that Albus had been AT LEAST magically & sexually grooming Harry, if not molesting him. It’s meant to cast aspersions on Dumbledore and on Harry’s emotional stability. Given how Rowling uses the Prophet and Skeeter throughout the series, I suppose one could say that readers were not intended to see any truth in that article -- but what always made Skeeter’s work effective was that there was just ENOUGH truth in it to build belief on.) 

All of Tom, Severus, & Harry have a lot of anger (& a lot of JUSTIFIED anger) but how they direct it is very different & it comes down to love.

Tom doesn’t love. He thinks of love as silly; he tells Harry that love didn’t save Dumbledore or his mother, after all. He mocks Lucius Malfoy for caring about Draco; he treats Bellatrix callously when she shows him affection (because I do think Bellatrix loved him, in her way). Tom only cares about power: the power of his weaponry, of his army. 

Severus comes to understand the power that love can have but he remains always twisted up about it, ashamed & secretive. That’s real tragedy of his life, I think. If he could have learned some openness he probably would have been happier. Moved on from Lily, at any rate. He did care for Albus, who up until very late rather thought that Severus HAD moved on from Lily -- I think, to an extent, Dumbledore also felt that Severus’s love was mostly desire-based, and so was surprised that almost two decades later it was still strong. 

And then there’s Harry. When thinking about choices, and about love, and about anger, Harry has at least as much reason as Ariana Dumbledore or Credence Barebone to become an Obscurial & doesn’t. He has at least as much reason as Tom Riddle or Severus Snape to hate Muggles, and doesn’t. Rowling implies that a lot of that has to do with Lily’s sacrifice, with her love protecting her child. It also has to do with Harry himself, though, and his choices: his choice of Ron over Draco, his choice to go after Ginny in the Chamber, his choice to be offended on Luna’s behalf when he sees she is being bullied, his choice to love Sirius, to share victory with Cedric, to trust Albus Dumbledore, to free Dobby, to bury Dobby. Not all of his choices work out for the best, and his anger at Snape (which is largely justified because Snape really is a jagoff to him) clouds his judgment at times. But largely, he is making choices that show him to be a caring and loving person -- when, like Tom and Severus, he has plenty of reasons not to be that kind of a person. 

[egnblogs]

Fake News, Information Bubbles and Skepticism

At the time of this writing much of the discourse surrounding social media is related to the emerging problem of fake news. Actually perhaps “emerging” is a little misleading, as what is currently deemed “fake news” is just the old problem of misinformation given a new label. The specific term seems to have come to prominence in the days after the 2016 election, with many blaming the results of the election on misinformation spread by social media.

What is new, however, is the sheer amount of misinformation out there and how the simultaneously developing problem of internet information silos assists in its propagation. Digital content creation tools have never been easier to access or more ubiquitous, and while that brings forth a host of benefits such as more diverse viewpoints, it also creates that much more misinformation, spread by those who are either uninformed or manipulative. This overabundance of misinformation is not helped by the dual threat of confirmation bias and information silos. Algorithms created to cater to internet users, by providing them with only information that will be relevant to them personally, end up creating information bubbles that admit few outside opinions or facts. This problem is further compounded by a natural confirmation bias, human tendency to seek out and engage only with information that reinforces already held beliefs and viewpoints. These two aspects combined lead to a situation where algorithms used by social media platforms reinforce an already human tendency to self-select information, and either misinformation or information presented through a biased lens is propagated throughout that existing bubble.

The solution to this multi-faceted problem must be as multi-faceted as the problem itself. New algorithms will have to be created which expose social media users to differing viewpoints and stories, but equally people must be taught to engage critically and skeptically with the stories and claims they encounter. People must be encouraged to seek out differing viewpoints, to get past inherent biases and self made echo chambers. At the moment, it would seem large sections of society simply do not possess the skills needed to critically engage with news stories found online. Consider a recent study done by the Stanford History Education Group, which found that most students in the public school system cannot distinguish fake news from genuine news stories.

The experiment run by the group asked students at several levels of education, from middle school to college, to evaluate the credibility and accuracy of various articles and ads presented to them as news sites, tweets, infographics and other websites. Most students were able to successfully distinguish ads from news articles, but most students also failed to distinguish traditional news reports from “sponsored content”, despite content being clearly labeled as such. They saw no reason to be suspicious of content that was being sponsored by groups with agendas, and even with the ability to use the internet and search for outside information on the source, did not pick up on potential conflicts of interest when examining websites funded by lobbying groups. More than 80% of middle-schoolers who took part in the experiment couldn’t discern what the difference was between sponsored content and non-sponsored content, which is rather disturbing when 88% of young adults regularly get their news from some form of social media.

(Let me do due diligence before moving on. It is not necessarily that sponsored content cannot is entirely fake or that it cannot make arguments worth hearing. If an argument is supported by solid reasoning and evidence than the origin of the claim should not matter. Yet when seeing sponsored content, one should be extra careful to read the article with a skeptical mind and seek out alternative viewpoints.)

It is clear that the skills needed to effectively engage with news and information in this current era (an eye for possible bias, a skeptical mind, a willingness to seek out other viewpoints, etc.) are deficient in many members of society, and it is not entirely their fault. The public school system must begin teaching the sorts of skills needed to effectively navigate today’s news world. Furthermore it falls to all of us in society to encourage critical thinking and diverse viewpoints, to keep each other honest and informed.

Let me say also that skepticism is not the same thing as refusing to engage with a person or source. A worrying trend is the refusal to engage with traditional news sources, a fundamental distrust people seem to have developed in institutions. Distrust in governmental bodies, distrust in academic institutions, distrust in news media, and distrust in the very scientific endeavor all seem to have increased in the past few years. There is an assumption that the educated elite of society, who have spent their lives studying and thinking about their own fields, are out-of-touch, power hungry, corrupt, or utterly mistaken. What has taken their place is a reliance on anonymous twitter users, viral images, reddit/tumblr armies, Youtube celebrities, caps lock posts and yes, fake news.

It is good to practice skepticism, but that skepticism should be applied equally to every claim you interact with, not just to those who represent “the establishment”. It is good that the internet enables more diverse viewpoints, but standards of evidence and logic need not degrade to accommodate them. Experts on fields of inquiry and politics should be heeded, not worshipped blindly of course, but given a benefit of the doubt until an individual has done the amount of homework necessary to call their views into question. Yes, no doubt modern news media deserves much of the criticism it receives, as focused as it is on tabloid stories, celebrity gossip, and the shallow bias coverage created by the 24-hour news cycle.  However, remember that not all news media is the same, and to distinguish between individuals and institutions. Good institutions have self-correcting mechanisms like fact-checkers and ethics boards (many news companies have these, surprise surprise), the self-correcting mechanisms of science work the same way. If we are prepared to dispose of an institution, we should have something better to replace it with. At this moment, I venture to say we do not.

Isaac Asimov said that, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

We want the internet to be a place that celebrates intellectualism and the standards of evidence and argument that advance science and epistemology. We do not want it to be a place that promotes anti-intellectualism and sacrifices these traits in the name of equality. If this situation is to improve, companies like Facebook and Google will have to do their part in combating fake news, yes. Yet it will fall to all of us to keep ourselves and other intellectually honest, curious, and skeptical and for those of us who can to help others develop those all important traits and skills.