#Versus Bias. which is evil people controling everything

[rotzaprachim]

one of the biggest issues with the current misinformation and/or propaganda discourses is that a lot of people on some level hold the idea that there's a linear separation between "media that is Propaganda" and "True Media, which is Correct and Pure," and that is fundamentally not how the news works, or how history works, or how historiography works. Some news and history is certainly working to push particular points more than others, and not all aspects of the political equation bear equal validity, but a lot of people are refusing to engage with the fact that all news and all media needs to be engaged with critically, and that "read from a variety of sources" isn't a conservative psyop but an attempt to try to counter the fact that every journalist ever - every person every, and certainly every twenty something tiktoker ever - has certain biases. there is no linear, singular, pure "truth." in fact, the acceptance of the idea that there can be some media that is wholly pure versus others that is nothing but pure propaganda is exactly how people buy into propaganda to begin with - because it presents a clean, straightforward, and seemingly just explanation for the world

[alwaysbewoke]

alwaysbewoke

dickslapthestate:

ranting-rose:

ittybittykittykisses:

ranting-rose:

vgcgraveyard:

caitallolovesyou:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

lazyhat:

I was pretty skeptical about the figures, since they contradict what I usually hear on the media, so I did a little research. Here’s what I found:  (Sorry this is so US centric)  (I’ll also try to stay close to primary sources as possible)

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e)

- the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.0% of women experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner -an estimated 14.2% of women experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey. -*4,774,000 women have been victims of physical violence by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey -*17,091,000 women have been victims of psychological aggression by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey

- the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.8% of men experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner -an estimated 18.0% of men experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey. -*5,452,000 men have been victims of physical violence by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey -*20,471,000 men have been victims of psychological aggression by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey

*Table 6

By the data presented by the Center for Disease Control, out of the estimate of 10,226,000 yearly victims of intimate partner violence, 53.3% of victims where male and 46.6% were female. As for psychological aggression, out of the estimate of 37,562,000 yearly victims, 54.4% were male and 45.5% were female. These statistics would support the claim made in the bottom left.

Now I couldn’t find a primary source for the 70% of DV is initiated by women, but here’s the facts that I found, which may have been interpreted by the people who made this poster:

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html) -Women who were in a battered women’s shelter, 67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year.

This can be interpreted as “67% of violent couples with IPV is mutual”. But then again, primary sources and full data would be helpful to back up this claim.

But the one that is most interesting is:(http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsArticle.aspx?articleid=111137)(Another report analysis from the CDC)

-23.9% of relationships are violent -50.3% of IPV is non-reciprocal and 49.7% is reciprocal (Reciprocal IPV= Mutual violence) -70.7% of non-reciprocal IPV is initiated by women. 

So summing up the numbers, it’s not that 70% of all DV is initiated by women, its that 70% of non-reciprocal DV is initiated by women. To go further would say that 49.7% of DV is mutual, 36.2% of DV is initiated by women, and 14.5% of DV is initiated by men

Male victims of domestic violence are real. They are hurting. And they often don’t get the attention and compassion they so urgently deserve and need.

Have a heart. Open your mind, and give a care.

Hm. These numbers are all so different to anything I’ve seen before. I’m reblogging and liking this both for my own reference and to spread these numbers to others. I’m definitely gonna look into this and see if I can find more sources and more information.

Mother fuckers can we all just say let’s not be dicks to our fucking love ones already?

Tagging this for my speech project that I need the sources for

Here are 221 studies on IPV / DV for y’all.

You are a life saver.

That list is good, but outdated.  I e-mailed the researcher who compiled that list a couple weeks ago and he gave me three different documents.  I uploaded them to this dropbox folder. You can go there and download them.

The list of studies is now up to 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews). Not only did he send me that list, but he also sent me two meta-studies (also in the dropbox folder).  One is on male/female perpetration rates and the other is on male/female victimization rates. 

There is also “Rates of Bi-directional versus Uni-directional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review“.  It’s a mouthful to be sure. Basically this study took the data from 48 other empirical studies, collated the data, placed it online for public viewing, submitted it for peer review, and was found to be accurate. 

It’s findings basically wind down to this:

84% of relationships are non-violent

58% of relationships that are violent, both partners abuse the other.

28% of violent relationships only the woman is violent

14% of violent relationships only the man is violent.

This is featured Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project website and is part of a much larger DV research project.  You can read the summarized findings here or take a gander at the full 61-page review.  This is a compilation of the research of Erin Pizzey, Murray Strauss, Don Dutton, and many others who are challenging the feminist model of patriarchal dominance. They also have some videos that are very informative as well.

Murray Strauss also compiled: Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment.  A report detailing the existence of over 200 studies showing gender symmetry in victimization rates. Studies that show symmetry going as far back as 1975.  He also examines the methods feminist researchers have used to suppress the evidence from public discourse, hence the title “Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence”.

Two other excellent and brief videos on the topic come from the MenAreGood YouTube channel:

Male Victims of Domestic Violence - The Hidden Story

Bias Against Men and Boys in Mental Health Research

I really need to write up a solo reference post for domestic violence data…

so what do we have here? what i’ve been saying forever. women as initiators of domestic violence is one of the biggest, closely guarded secret around. we literally had female FEMINIST researchers hiding evidence. FEMINISTS!! but i’m the bad guy for stating that feminism is filled with man hatred. what would you say of men of who information about abuse women and thus allowed the abuse to continue? YOU FUCKING KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU’D SAY!! am i surprised by the research? no fucking way. we don’t teach women in society to not hit men. we only teach men to not hit women. for little boys on up we are shamed if we even defend ourselves if little girls hit us BUT NOT ONE TIME HAVE I EVER HEARD OR SEEN ANY PARENT TEACHING THEIR LITTLE OR DAUGHTER THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HIT MEN!! we always make excuses for it. “she was emotional” “he said…” “he did…” “he had it coming…” and more. this research is fantastic but let’s be honest, this post isn’t going to get many reblogs at all because most of y'all are married to the idea that women are angels and men are devils. women have no agency and are always victims of men. that only men hit and women never hit. only men can be abusers and women can never be abusers. no amount of research is going to change your minds. men have done some evil shit but i so sick and tired of this narrative that women are just innocent, perfect deities. IF SHE HITS YOU ONCE, LEAVE HER ASS QUICK!!! IF SHE DID IT ONCE, SHE’LL FUCKING DO IT AGAIN!! GUARANTEED. and one more thing, FUCK FEMINISM. hiding empirical data but standing on your high horse preaching gender equality?! fuck feminism. so fucking glad i ceased to be a fucking feminist years ago. eye wide fucking open now.

sinjia

Thank you @alwaysbewoke !!! And did you know that there are feminists on here sending hate mail just because you don’t agree with them? It’s fucking sad, but I’m so happy that you said this. It lets me know that I’m not the only one realizing the shady bullshit that they preach but never practice themselves.

alwaysbewoke

i’ve only known one feminist who was on the right side of this issue and she was so because she works in the domestic violence field as a counselor. she told me she sees it all the time. men get hit, have things thrown at them, women come at them with knives, scratches on their faces and everything and yet we never talk about it. never. the only people who we pounce on for dv are men. we never ever talk about women. never ever. and if you do, you get shouted down. fuck all that.

this is why many men when they hear “feminism” they think “ok that means i get to hit back now.” because we’re tired of the bullshit. we’re tired of women getting away with hitting because society AND FEMINISM tells them it’s fine. it’s okay. they’re allowed. feminism PROTECTS FEMALE ABUSERS ALL DAY!! my goodness. to hide evidence as a researcher is akin to a crime. the ripple affect of that shit is fucking insane. however let them tell it, it’s a problem with men that we think feminism has a man hatred problem. yea the problem is with us because feminism is perfect. feminism ain’t never do no shit, no wrong ever. srsly fuck feminism. fuck it to the depths of hell.

this is why i tell people, dealing with only ONE half of a problem will only allow the problem to continue to exist. it doesn’t change shit. if anything it makes things worse.

racist, sexist feminism. fuck off. i spit on feminism every fucking chance i get. first they fuck over black women (and black men) and then they fuck over men with this type of bullshit. i refuse to align myself with that fuckery. i can help black women much better without it. i don’t need to be a part of something that hates me both as a man and as a black person to help sistas get equal pay and shit. fuckouttahere.

that’s why i call out all these people still posting pics and riding for solange knowles. imagine if i was posting pics and niceties for ray rice. but when women do some violent bullshit, we stay given them a pass smfh. 

[mittensmorgul]

7.13, The Slice Girls.

Yes, yes, bucklemming and their creepy magical babies, but let's put that aside and talk about Sam and Dean and what this episode says about them, instead, for once. Instead of letting the focus on the creepy baby blind us all to what's actually happening in this episode, and what it says about s7 (and s6 too, and honestly a good chunk of Sera Gamble's approach to storytelling in general since she was the architect of these seasons even if she didn't pen this particular episode) overall.

Because whoa... it's kinda... not friendly to Sam...

My tag about how Sam and Dean are entirely different people, with different psychological composition, different mental and emotional processes, came about at the beginning of s11 (when the show was using a two-episode mirroring structure, thematically pairing episodes until the midseason 10, 11, 12 worked together as a triptych, and in a season where the final message the characters had to accept and learn was the understanding of Balance Of Opposites, these differences were on stark display) is "sam sympathizes and dean empathizes." It felt like a baseline difference in how each of them approach the world, and something necessary for US to understand their entire dynamic.

And that's on PERFECT display in this episode.

I've been talking throughout my s7 posts in this series about how Sam can't even see how compromised he is. Despite the fact he spends the entire season actively hallucinating Lucifer and openly admits he has difficulty telling those hallucinations apart from reality, he remains convinced that he's coping with it effectively (via the magic button of sanity he believes the scar on his hand to be), and all he has to do is press that button any time Hallucifer pops up, and everything will be fine again. This is Advanced Level Pretending The Bad Thing Doesn't Exist To Make It Go Away. And he can't understand AT ALL why Dean is intensely wary of him, and is unable to fully trust in Sam's perceptions or decision making abilities throughout most of s7.

(which... I mean turns out to be totally valid, but that's for another post... or at the very least, much later in this one... for now, let's try to stick to 7.13, Mittens, and avoid running off ahead of yourself for once... okay we have that settled, back to the point)

We don't see much of Sam actively Hallucifering in this episode, nor relying on the old Hand Squeeze maneuver, but it's impossible to watch this episode and draw the conclusion that Sam was an Objective Observer of Reality here. He's completely entrenched in his personal bias regarding Dean's actions, behavior, and mindset. And again, it's incredibly frustrating to watch.

Sam is so utterly convinced (because he HAS to be in order for it to continue working for him) of his own self-control, of his own stability, of his own soundness of mind, of his own perceptions of the world to be the One, True, Right, Correct Understanding. If that fails him, then as Dean told him in 7.02 when he first squeezed that wound on his hand to bring him back to reality, then "Stone One" of the foundation of his ability to cope with anything at all will just shatter, and his entire sense of self will slide away with it, and his unstable construct of sanity will collapse.

(which... happens two episodes later, but again, I'm getting ahead of myself... *slaps self and gets back to the point*)

Sam NEEDS to believe in his own "correctness" here. And sadly, part of that sham of belief involves the go-to mindset of s4-- that Dean is somehow "broken," that Dean is the one clearly not coping, or not engaging with reality as Sam interprets it, and that it's Dean's perceptions that are inherently suspect. Because Sam doesn't know a different way of relating to the world. He sympathizes.

I've written a lot about the difference between Sam as Sympathetic and Dean as Empathetic, but a super-quick and messy breakdown of this for the purposes of understanding my whole entire point here:

Sam understands others through an examination of them as filtered through his own personal past experiences and his own personal feelings and beliefs. He assumes that everyone else understands the world in this same way, and when someone's reactions or behavior deviates from his own personal experience, from how HE would behave or react in a given circumstance, he frequently disconnects or misinterprets, or attempts to re-file his observations or reclassify the other person in question into something he CAN relate to and understand.

In other words, Sympathy. (versus Dean’s empathy, where he is more able to set aside his own reactions and see people as they are, themselves. It’s what makes him so good at cold reading strangers, being able to put himself into their shoes rather than needing to imagine their shoes are identical to his own...)

We finally see a small subversion of this in Sam’s interactions with Jack in early s13, wherein he projects his own past experience onto Jack, applying the same things he experienced (or even wished he had actually experienced when he was younger) regarding his own psychic powers that he once believed may have made him "evil." Or at the very least made him "other." And Jack directly calls him out for his treatment in 13.03, which gives Sam pause, forces reflection, and drives him toward actually seeing Jack, rather than just seeing Jack as a projection of his own personal beliefs.

I really hope this makes sense... because 7.13 is demonstrating the root of this lack of understanding as the toxic and dangerous thing it can be, when pushed to this sort of deliberately self-deluding extreme. And of course Sam's ongoing ability to walk and talk and function at all completely relies on his ability to do this during s7 (which... ick is one of the reasons I think a lot of folks really have trouble with the entire narrative of the season, even if they haven't put their finger on why, because this is a super-icky, incredibly uncomfortable thing to watch).

Meanwhile, in addition to everything else going on, from the Leviathans being gooey and creepy and plotting world domination as their endgame goal while largely working to achieve it in plain sight, disguised as humans as they slowly infiltrate... everything and influence everything from politics to real estate to healthcare to the food supply to achieve their ends, to everything Dean relies on for his own personal comfort and stability and connection to the world being gradually stripped away from him (beginning with Cas and running right along through his own literal identity), this episode will steal yet another small physical comfort from him-- human sexual intimacy.

He's already lost Cas, his car (the singular constant in his entire life and the closest thing he's ever had to a home), his actual identity, his innermost thoughts (which went along with the identity when a leviathan took his form), comfort food (the TDK slammer slammed him good), Bobby, and even-- to an extent, due to his ongoing concern for his mental health-- Sam. Dean is... adrift... and now he can't even allow himself the simple pleasure of human touch and physical intimacy (even shrouded in the lie of a false identity... he can't even fake it for self-comforting purposes anymore). And yet, he still knows himself, far better than Sam does. And yet for Sam to maintain his self-control, he needs to believe that it's Dean who is deluding himself and succumbing to the depression Sam is not allowing himself to own.

Dean spends the majority of this episode actually doing his job, making connections, and coming to an understanding of the case through his own personal experience of it. While Sam puts the entirety of his reliance on coming to an understanding of the case on the Academic Validation of an "expert" in ancient Greek. Sam dismisses Dean's direct experience by rejecting it as inherently flawed-- because Sam doesn't necessarily trust his OWN ability to have made these observations himself, yet is 100% dependent on the conclusion that only his own observations are remotely reliable, lest his illusory grip on reality shatter entirely.

Dean, meanwhile, is not similarly compromised in a fundamental way, despite his increased drinking, which Sam uses as yet another excuse to dismiss Dean's assessment of reality. Dean's still insisting that he believes that Bobby's ghost may be haunting them, while Sam explains away each new incident rationally-- or so he believes, as the evidence mounts to a ridiculous extent. It gives Sam the false impression that Dean is emotionally compromised to the point his judgment has become irrational and based on his emotions, rather than his point of view and direct experience that Sam simply can't grok, and therefore needs to dismiss to maintain his belief in his own rationality.

These themes will become the "beating a dead horse dot gif" of s7, continuing even after Sam is healed by Cas in 7.17, proving they're inherent to Sam's fundamental makeup, rather than just a side effect of this "soul damage" he suffered with, or the demon blood he was addicted to in s4.

I'm still attempting to force myself to remain focused on just this episode, though, so I'll conclude with a few direct observations:

DEAN: I'm outside Lydia's. SAM (on phone):  Oh, come on, man. What, are you obsessed or something? DEAN (on phone):  No, I'm telling you. I have been eating at the buffet of strange all afternoon. SAM: Meaning what? DEAN: I'll tell you the second I know. But something ain't right. SAM: Or you're obsessed. DEAN: Shut up. I'm serious.

Despite Sam being told real facts by "experts" that the murdered men had all visited the same club Dean had the night before, he easily dismisses Dean's observations of something weird happening with the woman he'd hooked up with. Sam even tells him he's lucky he "dodged a bullet" since Dean hasn't been killed like the other men he's investigating, and is incapable of even making the connection between what killed those men and the "strange" things Dean's seeing with his own eyes regarding Lydia's rapidly growing daughter, Emma. Sam has to jump through increasingly flaming hoops with a straight face to maintain his belief that Dean is simply obsessed with this woman, that Dean is continuing to slack off, that Dean isn't objectively addressing The Facts™ as Sam understands them.

SAM: So what? I mean, so maybe she has another kid she didn't tell you about. DEAN: Nope, just the one. Emma. But that night, when I was with her, she didn't have any. And I was at her place, man. There was no playpens, no blankets, no rubber ducks. SAM: Right. Like you would have been focused on that kind of thing. DEAN: Hey, dude, that's the first thing you notice. Red flags. Then, all of a sudden, boom – baby. SAM: Yeah, the one you thought talked. DEAN: Oh, it talked. And not baby talk, either. SAM: Now you know so much about child development? DEAN: I know enough to know that they don't say, "Hey, Mom. Who's that guy?" So, cut to... Lydia's handing this kid who's calling her mommy over to these two women, right? But this is not a baby. No, no, this kid's got to be five. And same name – Emma. SAM: You know, George Foreman named all his sons George. DEAN: Are you deliberately messing with me? Dude, I know weird. Okay? There is no non-weird explanation for this. This morning, Emma was a baby. By sunset, she's Hannah Montana. Early years.

And yet Sam is still intent on the "expert" opinion of the professor they asked for help, over and above anything Dean might insist he's personally experiencing. Here, have a very short but complete meta encapsulation of this entire dynamic:

SAM’s phone rings. SAM: It's the Professor. DEAN: Oh. Good. The Professor. Yeah, I'm sure he'll crack this wide open. SAM: Shh!

Dean is sarcastic and dismissive of the professor, the supposed expert who deals in theoreticals and mythology, and not the reality Dean has directly experienced. Meanwhile Sam shushes Dean, dismissing not only his direct experience, but Dean's frustration at Sam’s repeated dismissals.

And here we have it again:

SAM: There's this whole crazy side to Amazon lore that Professor Morrison didn't even mention. DEAN: That's 'cause he doesn't believe in it, which is a real handicap when you're trying to deal with it.

THIS IS SAM'S WHOLE ENTIRE PROBLEM IN A SINGLE EXCHANGE. and then the moment Sam finds something In The Lore™, written down in a book where it's impossible to dismiss, he realizes that Dean hasn't been making shit up or somehow misinterpreting his own lived experience:

SAM: The lore says they reproduced quickly – as in, after mating, they gave birth within 36 hours. The babies grew incredibly fast, then the aging process became normal. Which is one way to make an army, I guess. The mating cycle is every two years. They send out all the women who have reached child-bearing age. DEAN: Which lines up, 'cause this happens every couple of years in different towns, right? SAM: Yeah. And we know for sure that at least some of the vics hooked up with strange women days before being killed Amazon style. DEAN: Hooked up in the same bar I met Lydia, right? SAM: Yeah. DEAN: And then suddenly she's got a little baby in like fruit-fly time. That baby turns into a little girl just as fast. SAM: Wow. So maybe you're – you’re, uh... DEAN: Don't say it.

But rather than questioning EVERYTHING ELSE Dean has been saying over the last few days (or longer, regarding his experiences related to Bobby's ghost), Sam holds on to the rest of his beliefs even more tightly. And he reframes this entire revelation into a different validation of his original thesis-- that Dean's still compromised, Dean's not being objective, Dean letting his emotional damage control him, and it's still A Problem. Because if that's still the case, then Sam is still Maintaining Control Of Himself, and not-compromised himself.

Sam latches on to this and refuses to let go, dismissing Bobby's ghost as a potential explanation for anything, dismissing Dean's evaluation of a document and again running off for a "professional opinion."

DEAN: Maybe it's useful. SAM: It's in a pile of "maybe it's useful." Besides, it's in Greek. Nobody reads Greek. DEAN: Yeah, except Greeks. Oh, and Bobby. SAM: And Professor Morrison. DEAN: Really? SAM: I'm going, Dean. You stay here, keep the door locked. Don't go anywhere. I mean it.

Meanwhile, this approach leaves Sam vulnerable. While at the professor's office, he's attacked by one of the Amazons. While left alone in their motel room, Dean's confronted by his Amazon daughter. He doesn't immediately kill her, though, despite drawing a gun on her before she can attack. And she is talking with him rather than outright attacking anyway, so he lets her talk. To me, this is the key exchange:

DEAN: You look exhausted. EMMA: And starving. It's been a tough sweet 16. So you believe me? EMMA: You'll help me? DEAN: If you really want help.

He is willing to help her escape her life IF SHE REALLY WANTS HELP. We know that when Sam does return, he literally sees a side of Emma that she never reveals to Dean-- the Amazon red eyes-- which convinces Sam that she's a monster incapable of not being monstrous.

A knife drops into EMMA’s hand from her sleeve. DEAN closes the refrigerator and points his gun at EMMA. DEAN: You were asking if I believed you.

I.e., no, Dean didn’t believe her, but he was still willing to hear her out, from an understandable “I’m still gonna point this gun at you while we chat” perspective. When Dean wavers, Emma uses that to question his ability to kill her at all... which is shockingly reminiscent of Dean's inability to kill Jack, even under direct orders from God, in 14.20:

EMMA: It's weirdly hard, isn't it? It is for me. DEAN: Knock it off. EMMA: How could it not be? You're my father. DEAN: Hey! We're not gonna do that. EMMA: But it's true.

So while Dean had wavered in just outright killing Emma, waiting to see if she would succumb to her monstrous nature and try to kill him first, Sam makes the choice to kill her immediately. And in his defense, he even invokes Dean's killing of Amy Pond back in 7.03 as proof that Dean is still compromised:

SAM: What did you say to me... when I was the one who choked? What did you say about Amy? "You kill the monster!" DEAN: I was going to! SAM: Oh, the hell you were! You think I'm an idiot? DEAN: What, you think I am? SAM: Dean, you were gonna let her walk! DEAN: No, I wasn't. That's ridiculous! SAM: Look, man, she was not yours. Not really. DEAN: Actually, she, uh, she was, really. She just also happened to be a crazy man-killing monster. But, uh, hey. SAM: You know what? Bobby was right. Your head's not in it, man. When Cas died, you were wobbly, but now... DEAN: Now what? Oh, what, you're dealing with it so perfect? Yeah, news flash, pal – you're just as screwed up as I am! You're just... bigger. SAM: What?! DEAN: I don't know. SAM: Look... Dean, the thing is, tonight... It almost got you killed. Now, I don't care how you deal. I really, really don't. But just don't – don't get killed.

Because that's what it boils down to, even underneath "stone one" and his Magical Scar Button, the foundation Sam laid that stone on was Dean's assurance, Dean literally guiding him through the mess of hallucination and reality that he'd been unable to separate out for himself, which Dean gets that Sam isn't actually dealing with outside of pushing the button every time Lucifer pops up for him. And without Dean, Sam knows his entire baseline for holding himself together would be gone. And isn't that just terrifying.

Because what Bobby was actually worried about wasn't Dean's head not being in it, but Dean's ability to carry the weight of all of this amid the relentless assault of the universe. From 7.09:

SAM: Yeah. Yeah, I kind of mean more like, uh... more like ever since my head broke... and we lost Cas. I mean, you ever feel like he's -- he's going through the same motions but he's not the same Dean, you know? BOBBY: How could he be? SAM: Right, yeah, but what if -- BOBBY: What if what, Sam? You know, you worry about him. All he does is worry about you. Who's left to live their own life here? The two of you -- aren't you full up just playing Snuffleupagus with the Devil all the live long? SAM: I don't know, Bobby. Seeing Lucifer's fine with me. BOBBY: Come again? SAM: Look, I'm not saying it's fun. I mean, to be honest with you, I-I kind of see it as the best-case scenario. I mean... at least all my crazy's under one umbrella, you know? I kind of know what I'm dealing with. A lot of people got it worse. BOBBY: You always were one deep little son of a bitch.

Bobby never actually said to Sam that Dean’s head wasn't in it. He gave Dean a bit of a talking-to after this, which is distressingly similar to what both Frank and Eliot Ness also tell Dean over the course of the next few episodes, but he never said this to Sam. This is SAM'S interpretation, based on SAM'S assessment of Dean, which informs Bobby's "buck up or else, you're a hunter not a person" speech to Dean from 7.09. Because this was what SAM needed to hear and believe to keep that "umbrella of crazy" firmly in place where he could manage it.

And as the universe continues tearing away at Dean's entire reality, that shield of "professionalism" is just about all he has left. And Sam unintentionally undermines even that at every turn.

What a horrific mess.

[jbuffyangel]

Crossing Lines: Arrow 6x14 Review (Collision Course)

Am I supposed to agree with the Newbies at some point? Am I supposed to be more conflicted over this OTA versus Newbies Civil War? Cause I'm not.

Let's dig in...

Original Team Arrow versus Newbies

Someone pointed out to me, in the midst of all my snarky tweets about the newbies, I have a bias and it's disgusting. Horror of horrors. 

Of course, I have a bias. This is an Olicity blog and I worship at the altar of John Diggle (re: see blog name). My bias is plastered everywhere. I'm not reporting fact based news. This is my opinion and it is framed by the things I like and don't like (re: see my pretty banner). I am super okay with my bias and hopefully everyone reading these reviews are too! If not, I'm sure there's someone out there who agrees with the newbies.

Somewhere. Moving on.

Cayden James is dead and Oliver thinks that's pretty shady because it is. There's no time to investigate because Star City is missing $70 million and Oliver would really like to pay the electric bill. Anyone else think it's a little odd Star City is on the verge of financial shut down because of $70 million? Isn't it supposed to be like Seattle or something? I'm not saying $70 million wouldn't put a hitch in Seattle's giddy up. I just feel like they should be able to absorb it better. Whatever. Government finance ain't my thing - other than giving them exorbitant amounts of our paychecks every week only to be charged MORE when we file our taxes.

I miss the days when Oliver was a billionaire. He could just cut Star City a check and bake cookies with Felicity and William. Yeah, that's right. FELICITY AND WILLIAM BAKED COOKIES. 

Source:  oliverfelicitygifs

This ranks high in the domesticated adorable scale. To be fair, I think William baked the cookies and Felicity did the science, math and physics part, but it was still cuter than all the cute in the world.

I love this gif. This man is stupid in love and is so happy to raise William with Felicity. Remember the days when Oliver thought he’d die alone? Now he’s all heart eyes over cookies. 

Source: oliverxfelicity

Felicity rocks her hacker goddess skills and gets Oliver the Corto Maltese security video, which shows the person who stole the money:

Source:  katie-mcgraths

Bl*ck S*ren. My kingdom for Arrow to burn that wig. I thought she had a bullet wound? When did she have time to go to Corto Maltese? You know what? Never mind. Best not to spend more time than necessary on her.

Of course, Dinah finds out Evil L*urel has all the money and we're off to the races. Oliver is adamant Dinah should not kill BS. 

Remember when Oliver used to break people's necks? Six years later, plus extensive morality lessons from John Diggle, an intelligent, beautiful and light inspiring woman to go schmoopy for, and an impressionable son has turned Oliver Queen into a freaking Care Bear. Tender Heart if you want to be specific.

"I don't trust you to do the right thing."

To his credit, Oliver states he's the last person to lecture anyone about murder, but he's not going to dwell on the obvious. Oliver is the only one who can kill people. Everyone else is a hard nope. Is Oliver being a hypocrite? Yes and no. Yes, because his policy on killing is harder to nail down than Jell-O. (He only kills when necessary and only if the Big Bad is super evil. I think?)

No, because Oliver has killed and knows what it can do to a person.  

In many ways, Oliver is the best person to speak about the consequences of murder.

Source: jamescarstairs

Settle down, honey. This isn't Quentin you are talking to. Oliver barely acknowledged L*urel when she was alive. He is certainly not blind with "the feels" over her evil doppelganger. Oliver just wants to pay the water bill.

Dinah: If you are going to threaten me Oliver, you better be damn sure you can deliver.

Honestly, it's like the noobs have amnesia because they act like they don't know Oliver Queen. 

Of course he can deliver, but sure snowflake throw the gauntlet. Noobs versus Team Arrow, Round 349,834.

Source: gothsmoak

Apparently, it is Dinah's first day out of the academy because she leaves a bloody shoe print in the alley where BS was shot. You are a lieutenant Dinah. Didn't anyone teach you how to control a crime scene? Lord, this is like working with Barry Allen right now. 

The footprint leads OTA to believe Dinah took BS. They break into the newbies bunker, and by break in I mean walk in with the lights shut off, which leads to the trading of words. Fightin' ones.

Dinah: Since when is our word not enough?

Part of this newbie amnesia thing means they forgot everything that's happened since 6x09. Everything from 6x09-6x14 is the reason why your word is not enough, Dinah. Can brain cells start to fire please? Be smarter noobs.

Rene throws Vincent's death in Oliver's face and Diggle rightfully points out if these impertinent toddlers listened to them in the first place Vincent might still be alive.

Source:  herostairss

Curtis flips his shiznit over Felicity hacking their system to search for Bl*ck S*ren's heat signature. Is there anything that doesn't get Curtis' undies in a twizzle these days?

Oliver: She's tracked all of you because we needed to know if one of you broke our trust. One of you did.

Ya hear that amnesia boy? THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT! REMEMBER? Suck it Rene. Oliver says all of this in his growly Arrow voice, which makes it so much better. Don't ask me why. Growly Arrow voice makes everything better.

Dinah: You have already punished Rene for that mistake.

Rene is still testifying right? Can we get some clarification on that, show? I maintain kicking Rene off Team Arrow hardly equates to Rene sending Oliver up the river for life without the parole.

Dinah: You know it's just too bad he doesn't look like L*urel L*nce because if he did you would probably forgive him for murder!

Solid burn Dinah. I got nothing.

Curtis starts shrieking about OTA breaking into their bunker and finally annoys Felicity enough to tell him to shut his trap. GLORIOUS.

One of the reasons it's hard to be interested in the remaining villains is because the noobs seem to be campaigning for Big Bad. Rene adopts a fairly nefarious tone and talks smack about William. Man, Damien Darhk wasn't even that low.

Rene: Oliver wants to fight because that's how he solves his problems. That doesn't make you a hero. It makes you a thug. It's a real shame because he's going to feel so betrayed when he figures it out. You know who I'm talking about don't you hoss? William.

It's a little difficult to stomach Rene lecturing Oliver about fighting and parenting. This is the same man who left his daughter in foster care, so he could kill people like Damien Darhk just like the Green Arrow. Alright, his reasons were slightly more noble, but that's the basic gist.

Rene getting up in Oliver's face is all a ruse to plant a bug on him, which is also hard to believe. Felicity needs to wear the red dress for that to happen.

The newbies over hear OTA's conversation with Quentin, Thea and BS.Oliver agrees to help Bl*ck S*ren get out of the country in exchange for the $70 million. The only thing I agree with the newbies on is Bl*ck S*ren will never give the money back.

OTA ditches the bug and this is where things really escalate. Curtis says he can track OTA to Bl*ck S*ren's location if he uses the chip in Diggle's arm. 

It's going to hurt Diggle A LOT if he does.

Rene is almost gleeful when he says, "You act like that's a deal breaker hoss. That guy is the whole reason I got shot." It's difficult to determine if Rene knows Curtis is talking about physical pain. Rene immediately drew a comparison to his physical pain (i.e. bullet wound). However, Dinah tells Curtis not to worry about John's feelings. Dinah's reference implies Rene was merely speaking about emotional pain, but that could have been her misinterpretation. The waters are murky for sure.

What is not murky is Dinah's response when Curtis clarifies he's talking about physical pain. She doesn't hesitate, not even for a second, when she tells Curtis to find OTA. Perhaps, Dinah feels morally justified in her quest to kill Bl*ck S*ren. Perhaps, she even feels morally justified to hurt John physically because his lies about his injury put everyone on the team at risk. Rene was wounded after all.

However, John didn't make his choice with the intent to physically harm his fellow team members. He convinced himself that his presence as Green Arrow saved more lives than it cost. Rene's injury was a terrible consequence of John's poor choices, but it was not one he made deliberately.

The newbies are making a deliberate choice. They have full knowledge Diggle will be hurt, even severely. They know John will be unable to defend himself in the field. There are no questions. No what ifs, buts or maybes. The newbies know exactly what will happen.

Furthermore, their intent is clearly based on vengeance. Rene wants revenge for his gunshot wound. Dinah wants to kill Bl*ck S*ren as revenge for Vince. These are not noble pursuits filled with good intention. Rene is actually laughing about Diggle and gleefully congratulating Curtis on a job well done as they drive to the cabin, "I pity those fools now."

The juxtaposition between the two teams and their conversations prior to battle is quite telling. Dinah tells her team not to hold back. If they do then they will get hurt.

Source:  gothsmoak

Whereas Diggle worries about the cost of OTA's plan. Bl*ck S*ren avoids capture and they end up hurting the people who used to be their friends. Oliver counters with his own philosophical question, "Would John be asking these questions if the people coming after them didn't look like Rene, Curtis and Dinah?" Of course not, but John also adds, "But I have to wonder would we be doing this if the person they were after didn't look like L*urel?"

It's really not about that for Oliver, which he will make clear in a minute, but what matters is Diggle is the only one arguing caution. And that's after the newbies deliberately hurt him. Diggle tells Oliver they may cross a line they can't take back. Dinah tells Rene and Curtis to cross the line and not look back. It's a stark contrast between the teams. It's also very difficult to side with the newbies when OTA are the only ones debating morality.

The decision is already made for Oliver. He agrees with John they are about to cross a line they can't take back, but the newbies crossed it first. They crossed it the minute they deliberately hurt John. You do not mess with Oliver Queen's first wife. He will defend bae no matter the cost.

However, I don't think Oliver is only speaking about John. Rene's betrayal cut to the core for Oliver. He brought Rene into the fold, trained and trusted him. The newbies may feel they were treated "differently," but Oliver made himself vulnerable to Rene, Curtis and Dinah. He trusted them with his biggest secret. Oliver put his life into their hands and not just out in the field. They each have the power to take Oliver from the people he loves (Felicity and William). This is exactly what Rene did. His betrayal is as much a threat to Oliver's life as the newbies messing with Diggle's chip.

Oliver even gave Rene a second chance and he still left him high and dry. Curtis and Dinah had their own reasons for leaving the team, but they also sided with Rene. Neither of them have told Rene what he did to Oliver was wrong. In fact, Curtis defended it. They are complicit in the betrayal in that sense. If Dinah and Curtis can morally square outing Oliver Queen as Green Arrow to a prosecutor then how does Oliver trust them again?

And no, the threat of losing his daughter does not justify taking Oliver from his son. There were other options Rene chose to ignore - like telling Oliver and asking for help. Even if it did justify it, Rene should respect a natural consequence of choosing Zoe is forfeiting Team Arrow. But he didn't. Instead, Rene believed his choice should be consequence free.  He acts like a toddler whose favorite toy was taken away.

Of course, Dinah, Curtis and Rene have their own list of betrayals. Most of which I find inferior to the betrayal that kicked off this civil war. We have to remember how we got here, because it's important.

Source: oliverxfelicity

Felicity is furious Curtis hurt John and is ready to kick his ass. Oliver should have let her go. Mr. Terrific would have been on the ground in less than a minute. Unlike him, Felicity can throw a punch.

Curtis only lasts in the fight for as long as he did because of the T-spheres. The same T-spheres anyone can operate, which continues to bolster my why-do-we- need-Curtis-in-the-field argument. 

Source: dmichellewrites

The T-spheres ultimately don't matter. Oliver puts him down hard. Next?

Oliver knocks Rene down and warns him to stay down. Rene refuses and picks up an AX. Yes, an ax. 

Rene takes Dinah's instructions not to hold back to heart and swings at Oliver with all his might. 

I ask everyone to consider the bodily harm Rene would have inflicted on Oliver if any one of those swings landed. The injury would be bloody, severe, awful and very likely life threatening.

Source: olivergifs

Oliver defends himself. Plain and simple. He kicks Rene hard in the chest and sends him flying into a tree. This unintentionally reopens Rene's wound and he's rushed to the hospital. Rene's injury is life threatening, which requires recuperating off screen for while. This is fine by me. I need a looooong Rene Ramirez break. Perhaps a permanent one.

Curtis convinces Dinah not to kill BS by waxing poetic about how they formed a new team to be better than Oliver Queen. ARE THE WRITERS REALLY EXPECTING US TO BUY THIS? 

All the noobs have done is bitch about OTA, pitch hissy fits, act like hypocrites and try to kill BS. But sure kids, you are really living in the light.

Diggle and Felicity go to the hospital to check on Rene, while Oliver wisely stays behind. Oliver knows his presence will only create a more volatile scene. He does tell Diggle and Felicity to pass along his apologies.

Source:  gothsmoak

Curtis and Dinah believe Diggle and Felicity have lost the right to ask about Rene. They are done with them FOREVER. Lord, if only it were true.  

Let's run it down:

Rene was injured in a fight the newbies started with OTA.

Oliver warned Rene to stay down and he refused.

Rene escalated the fight to life and death by swinging an ax and Oliver defended himself.

Diggle and Felicity show concern for Rene and check on him, even though Curtis deliberately hurt Diggle's arm, Dinah hit an unarmed man with her staff, Rene almost shot Felicity and tried to kill Oliver.

The newbies tell Diggle and Curtis they don't have the right to ask how Rene is doing while Rene was gleeful over hurting John.

The newbies tell Diggle and Felicity, once again, this is all their fault despite Rene's betrayal being the catalyst for this entire conflict.

Oliver actually feels guilty about hurting Rene. He is sorry it came to that and Rene is in the hospital. I'm not hearing a lot of sorry from the newbies over hurting Diggle, 

Source:  gothsmoak

shooting at Felicity, Quentin and Thea

Source:  gothsmoak 

and swinging an ax at Oliver. And yes, I know Felicity jumped in front of Rene’s gun. By why did she do that? To stop Rene from shooting at an unarmed Thea and Quentin. This woman, who was paralyzed from a gun shot wound, threw herself in front of a bullet to protect her family. She has more courage, honor, loyalty and selflessness in her pinky finger than Rene does in his entire body.

Nor were the newbies debating the morality of crossing the line. They simply acted without remorse, believing the ends justified the means, and then blamed everyone else but themselves. It's getting difficult to tell the difference between the newbies and the villains.

Quentin Lance, Bl*ck S*ren and Thea Queen

Quentin has taken an extended vacation to Crazy Town, is keeping Evil L*urel in some cabin and is lying badly about it. Quentin used to be captain of the police department. That has to require some undercover work. You'd think he'd be better at lying, but nope! What's worse is Oliver's Spidey sense doesn't tingle. It says to me he's really preoccupied with this stolen money cutting into his son's tutoring time. This cuts into his sexy time with the wife by default. (Sure would be nice to actually SEE the sexy times.) Stick with me folks! I can always connect it back to Olicity sex.

Quentin pulls out the photo album (JUST PUT IT DOWN MAN AND STEP AWAY) 

and blah blah blahs to Evil L*urel about redemption. Yawn. Quentin lays all of Bl*ck S*ren's evil firmly on the dead father trope. Not everything a woman does relates to a man issue, show. Sometimes we just do stuff because we want to and it has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a man in our life.

Quentin doubles down on the "It's Not Evil L*urel's Fault" psychoanalysis and states, "My guess is that it's been a long time since you had a chance to decide what you want your life to be."

Really? REALLY? I’m drunk-Scott-Moir-yelling-about-Canadian-hockey annoyed. It's called free will Quentin and Bl*ck S*ren had it since the day she was born. There are plenty of people who grow up without a father who don't turn into serial killers. Bl*ck S*ren has been CHOOSING her life for a long time now. Bad things happening to you is not a free pass to do bad things to others.

Thea's Spidey senses does tingle (she really needs to be Mayor) and she follows Quentin to this remote cabin he owns. She placates Quentin and all his crazy, which is just beyond irritating. Can someone please tell this man he has gone round the bend? 

The only moderately enjoyable aspect of these cabin scenes was KC going all in with the camp. Her over the top villain reactions felt like a suitable balance to the lunacy of this Quentin Lance storyline.

Quentin offers to leave the country with Bl*ck S*ren. He's going to open up a little shop with her in Barbados, make straw hats together and save her soul. WHATEVER DUDE.

Seeing as how Quentin's character is in shambles,  I am in favor of this plan. Ship both Quentin and Bl*ck S*ren off and we can get back to a Lance free show.

Oliver believes Bl*ck S*ren will keep the money and she will kill Quentin the moment she is out of the country. It's good to see our lead still has some sense. But Oliver chooses to go along with Bl*ck S*ren's plan because he believes in Quentin. I don't think Oliver believes Quentin's plan will work, but he wants to show Lance the trust and loyalty he deserves.

Oliver and Quentin's relationship has been rocky no doubt, but in the end they forged something based on mutual respect and dare I say love. 

Quentin was prepared to go to prison for Oliver once. Oliver cannot take the little hope Quentin has left. No matter how ill advised. Is it a huge risk? YES, but Quentin eventually set aside all he knew about Oliver and chose to believe in him. Oliver is simply offering the same belief in return. He isn't choosing Bl*ck S*ren. Oliver is choosing Quentin Lance.

If you give Oliver loyalty and trust, then you will receive the same in return. Your problems are his problems. It's the piece of him the newbies never understood - particularly Rene.

The line of the episode, of course, has to be what Oliver says to Bl*ck S*ren:

Source:  olivergifs

HAHAHA!!!!!!!! I cackled. I cackled in an evil way.  

There is no love lost between Oliver and BS. He has his head screwed on straight. L*urel is dead and BS is not L*urel. Instead, BS is an annoyance Oliver wants out of his face. To be fair, this is how he used to treat L*urel when she was alive, but he's just more forceful about it with BS.

It's like the writers know exactly how we feel about BS and gift us with these scenes so we can abuse the gifs.  

In all my days, I've never seen a show throw shade on a character they created more than Arrow does with LL/BS. Things that make you go hmmm.

Quentin admits how badly he screwed up. Thea reassures Quentin he loves BS in the only way it matters - through the eyes of a father. It's a clunky line, but she's not arguing BS is dead L*urel. Thea is simply saying what Quentin feels for BS is beyond reason 

and biology. It's similar to the way Thea could never quite untangle herself from Malcolm Merlyn. Or how Malcolm Merlyn could rationalize every evil thing he did in the name of loving Thea. Or how Robert Queen loved Thea as his own even though he knew, biologically, she was not.  Thea is over identifying a little too much, but since her days on Arrow are probably numbered I’m going allow her some wiggle room. At least she learned something about fathers and daughters in the midst of all her daddy drama over the years.

Love is often unexplainable and it certainly isn't bound by biology. It doesn't make Quentin's actions rationale, healthy or right. He is merely acting from gut instinct, a love printed into his DNA, for a woman who wears the face of his daughter but is absolutely nothing like his daughter. The thin connection of hot sour soup notwithstanding. 

"I know how much we all wish she was like the L*urel that we lost. She's not."

This line from Oliver does feel like a final verdict (God willing) on Bl*ck S*ren's redemption. 

Quentin believed in Bl*ck S*ren time and time again. Time and time again, Bl*ck S*ren chose evil. There comes a point when unconditional love meets free will. Quentin's love for Bl*ck S*ren, no matter how irrational or misguided, doesn't change the fact that she rejects it. I don't believe unconditional love requires we be okay with everything a person does. You can disagree and demand better from someone while still loving them. At a certain point, Quentin has to accept the choices Bl*ck S*ren makes. His love doesn't go away, but it doesn't change who BS is.  Quentin is in the enabling BS. Hopefully, we move to tough love next.

Rather than redeem BS, Arrow doubles down on the evil and we end "Collison Course" with BS pretending to be dead LL. 

Source:  katie-mcgraths

Now THIS is a storyline I can get behind. This sounds fun. 

I am not here for more "Let's redeem kuku-for-cocoa-puffs" and dragging Quentin & Thea down with her. Also, there's no better way to snap Quentin out of his "She's L*urel" delusions than to have BS mess with memory of his L*urel and try to steal her life.

In a way it's giving LL fans what they crave. They want BS to be redeemed and to assume dead L*urel's life. So, it's like LL didn't die at all. It's still wonky logic because the two women are different people, but whatever. Arrow is delivering on that wish fulfillment, but with a twist. It will be Bl*ck S*ren pretending to be dead LL, which will continue to highlight how different these women are and hijinks will ensue.

I believe "Collision Course" presents a cross in the road. A definitive point where BS could have gone right, but instead went left. She could have chosen to be good and return the money, but instead she becomes an imposter. Quentin very clearly offers a path in which BS can be redeemed, living somewhere tropical as father and daughter, but BS goes another way. Oliver's line to BS is foreshadowing, which why there's emphasis on the shot.

Source:  olivergifs

What's the end goal here? I think there's one of three options. 1) Quentin dies and it's finally the trigger for Bl*ck S*ren’s redemption. She leaves town to lead a good life somewhere on a different Earth, but never to be heard from again (Oliver's wish).  2) Quentin and L*urel leave town together as planned in 6x14. 3) L*urel continues to be a villain and wreak havoc in a similar way Malcolm Merlyn did.

None of these options equate to BS becoming good L&urel, joining the team and being BC again. One, they have a Bl*ck C*nary on the team. Two, it lands Arrow back to square one with a character they exhausted and were done with. And three, a villain is the only way to make the character different. The minute BS chooses another path then I think she hits the road just like "Collision Course" laid out.

Stray Thoughts

They never treated you like equals Curtis because you weren't equals. Everything in your behavior now proves that.

Curtis' hologram image of BS was baaad. The show doesn't want to spend more money on this character than absolutely necessary.

I love Juliana Harkavy, but something about her performance was just off putting tonight. She needs to scale it back a little.

The fire department and the teacher's union were super snotty about the $70 mill. It's like they want to put out fires and teach children. Calm down folks.

Curtis taught Felicity to hack something? Give me a freaking break. Oliver's magical powers in Season 4 were easier to buy than that.

OTA was back in the van, which always gives me Season 2 nostalgia.

Dinah also doesn't know how to tail someone because she was 30 feet behind Diggle's bumper.

"I found something that can bury Queen." The new DA works for Dragon and what he has to bury Oliver is Roy. Roy confessed to being the Arrow and is supposed to be dead. If Roy is alive then it's all a lie and the new DA can convict Oliver of being both the Arrow and Green Arrow.

Is it ever up to the newbies to save the city? No. You serve a supporting role in saving the city at best. Get a grip.

Next week is Roooooooooy. Give me all the Theroy. I need to snuggle Colton Haynes.

Disclaimer: Any gifs on the blog are not mine. If you would like a gif removed from my reviews, please message me. 6x14 gifs credited.

[exit-is-everywhere]

The danger is that if we invest too much in developing AI and too little in developing human consciousness, the very sophisticated artificial intelligence of computers might only serve to empower the natural stupidity of humans.

While science fiction thrillers are drawn to dramatic apocalypses of fire and smoke, in reality we might be facing a banal apocalypse by clicking.

The economic system pressures me to expand and diversify my investment portfolio, but it gives me zero incentive to expand and diversify my compassion. So I strive to understand the mysteries of the stock exchange while making far less effort to understand the deep causes of suffering.

So we had better call upon our lawyers, politicians, philosophers and even poets to turn their attention to this conundrum: how do you regulate the ownership of data? This may well be the most important political question of our era.

Each of these three problems – nuclear war, ecological collapse, and technological disruption – is enough to threaten the future of human civilization. But taken together, they add up to an unprecedented existential crisis, especially because they are likely to reinforce and compound one another.

Yet it is precisely their genius for interpretation that puts religious leaders at a disadvantage when they compete against scientists. Scientists too know how to cut corners and twist the evidence, but in the end, the mark of science is the willingness to admit failure and try a different tack. That’s why scientists gradually learn how to grow better crops and make better medicines, whereas priests and gurus learned only how to make better excuses.

Human power depends on mass cooperation, and mass cooperation depends on manufacturing mass identities—and all mass identities are based on fictional stories, not on scientific facts or even on economic necessities.

Religions, rites, and rituals will remain important as long as the power of humankind rests on mass cooperation and as long as mass cooperation rests on belief in shared fictions.

As long as we don’t know whether absorption is a duty or a favour; what level of assimilation is required from immigrants; and how quickly host countries should treat them as equal citizens –we cannot judge whether the two sides are fulfilling their obligations.

If a million immigrants are law-abiding citizens, but one hundred join terrorist groups and attack the host country, does it mean that on the whole the immigrants are complying withthe terms of the deal, or violating it? If a third-generation immigrant walks down the street a thousand times without being molested, but once in a while some racist shouts abuse at her, does it mean that the native population is accepting or rejecting immigrants?

The less political violence in a particular state, the greater the public shock at an act of terrorism.

Morality doesn’t mean ‘following divine commands’. It means ‘reducing suffering’. Hence in order to act morally, you don’t need to believe in any myth or story. You just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering. If you really understand how an action causes unnecessary suffering to yourself or to others, you will naturally abstain from it.

Questions you cannot answer are usually far better for you than answers you cannot question.

The world is becoming ever more complex, and people fail to realise just how ignorant they are of what’s going on. Consequently some who know next to nothing about meteorology or biology nevertheless propose policies regarding climate change and genetically modified crops, while others hold extremely strong views about what should be done in Iraq or Ukraine without being able to locate these countries on a map.

How is it possible to avoid stealing when the global economic system is ceaselessly stealing on my behalf and without my knowledge?

In a world in which everything is interconnected, the supreme moral imperative becomes the imperative to know. The greatest crimes in modern history resulted not just from hatred and greed, but even more so from ignorance and indifference.

Most of the injustices in the contemporary world result from large-scale structural biases rather than from individual prejudices, and our hunter-gatherer brains did not evolve to detect structural biases.

Even if you personally belong to a disadvantaged group, and therefore have a deep first-hand understanding of its viewpoint, that does not mean you understand the viewpoint of all other such groups. For each group and subgroup faces a different maze of glass ceilings, double standards, coded insults and institutional discrimination.

Should we adopt the liberal dogma and trust the aggregate of individual voters and customers? Or perhaps we should reject the individualist approach, and like many previous cultures in history empower communities to make sense of the world together? Such a solution, however, only takes us from the frying pan of individual ignorance into the fire of biased groupthink. Hunter-gatherer bands, village communes and even city neighbourhoods could think together about the common problems they faced. But we now suffer from global problems, without having a global community. Neither Facebook, nor nationalism nor religion is anywhere near creating such a community.

In fact, humans have always lived in the age of post-truth. Homo sapiens is a post-truth species, whose power depends on creating and believing fictions. Ever since the stone age, self-reinforcing myths have served to unite human collectives.

In practice, the power of human cooperation depends on a delicate balance between truth and fiction.

Humans have this remarkable ability to know and not to know at the same time. Or more correctly, they can know something when they really think about it, but most of the time they don’t think about it, so they don’t know it. If you really focus, you realise that money is fiction. But usually you don’t focus.

Truth and power can travel together only so far. Sooner or later they go their separate ways. If you want power, at some point you will have to spread fictions. If you want to know the truth about the world, at some point you will have to renounce power. You will have to admit things – for example about the sources of your own power – that will anger allies, dishearten followers or undermine social harmony. Scholars throughout history faced this dilemma: do they serve power or truth? Should they aim to unite people by making sure everyone believes in the same story, or should they let people know the truth even at the price of disunity? The most powerful scholarly establishments – whether of Christian priests, Confucian mandarins or communist ideologues – placed unity above truth. That’s why they were so powerful.

One of the greatest fictions of all is to deny the complexity of the world, and think in absolute terms of pristine purity versus satanic evil.

Whenever you see a movie about an AI in which the AI is female and the scientist is male, it's probably a movie about feminism rather than cybernetics.

Many pedagogical experts argue that schools should switch to teaching “the four Cs” – critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity.

Due to the growing pace of change you can never be certain whether what the adults are telling you is timeless wisdom or outdated bias.

You might have heard that we are living in the era of hacking computers, but that's hardly half the truth. In fact, we are living in the era of hacking humans.

The god Krishna then explains to Arjuna that within the great cosmic cycle each being possesses a unique ‘dharma’, the path you must follow and the duties you must fulfil. If you realise your dharma, no matter how hard the path may be, you enjoy peace of mind and liberation from all doubts.

Most successful stories remain open-ended.

A crucial law of storytelling is that once a story manages to extend beyond the audience's horizon, its ultimate scope matters little.

A wise old man was asked what he learned about the meaning of life. "Well", he answered, "I have learned that I am here on earth in order to help other people. What I still haven't figured out is why the other people are here.

Most people who go on identity quests are like children going treasure hunting. They find only what their parents have hidden for them in advance.

Almost anything can be turned into a ritual, by giving mundane gestures like lighting candles, ringing bells or counting beads a deep religious meaning.

Of all rituals, sacrifice is the most potent, because of all the things in the world, suffering is the most real. You can never ignore it or doubt it.

Just as in ancient times, so also in the twenty-first century, the human quest for meaning all too often ends with a succession of sacrifices.

Similarly, you can find plenty of Bernie Sanders supporters who have a vague belief in some future revolution, while also believing in the importance of investing your money wisely. They can easily switch from discussing the unjust distribution of wealth in the world to discussing the performance of their Wall Street investments.

If by 'free will' you mean the freedom to do what you desire – then yes, humans have free will. But if by 'free will' you mean the freedom to choose what to desire – then no, humans have no free will.

The process of self-exploration begins with simple things, and becomes progressively harder. At first, we realise that we do not control the world outside us. I don’t decide when it rains. Then we realise that we do not control what’s happening inside our own body. I don’t control my blood pressure. Next, we understand that we don’t even govern our brain. I don’t tell the neurons when to fire. Ultimately we should realise that we do not control our desires, or even our reactions to these desires.

Many people, including many scientists, tend to confuse the mind with the brain, but they are really very different things. The brain is a material network of neurons, synapses, and biochemicals. The mind is a flow of subjective experiences, such as pain, pleasure, anger, and love.

- Yuval Noah Harari, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century

[suzanneshannon]

<![CDATA[ Nothing Fails Like Success ]]>

A family buys a house they can’t afford. They can’t make their monthly mortgage payments, so they borrow money from the Mob. Now they’re in debt to the bank and the Mob, live in fear of losing their home, and must do whatever their creditors tell them to do.

Welcome to the internet, 2019.

Buying something you can’t afford, and borrowing from organizations that don’t have your (or your customers’) best interest at heart, is the business plan of most internet startups. It’s why our digital services and social networks in 2019 are a garbage fire of lies, distortions, hate speech, tribalism, privacy violations, snake oil, dangerous idiocy, deflected responsibility, and whole new categories of unpunished ethical breaches and crimes.

From optimistically conceived origins and message statements about making the world a better place, too many websites and startups have become the leading edge of bias and trauma, especially for marginalized and at-risk groups.

Why (almost) everything sucks

Twitter, for instance, needs a lot of views for advertising to pay at the massive scale its investors demand. A lot of views means you can’t be too picky about what people share. If it’s misogynists or racists inspiring others who share their heinous beliefs to bring back the 1930s, hey, it’s measurable. If a powerful elected official’s out-of-control tweeting reduces churn and increases views, not only can you pay your investors, you can even take home a bonus. Maybe it can pay for that next meditation retreat.

You can cloak this basic economic trade-off in fifty layers of bullshit—say you believe in freedom of speech, or that the antidote to bad speech is more speech—but the fact is, hate speech is profitable. It’s killing our society and our planet, but it’s profitable. And the remaining makers of Twitter—the ones whose consciences didn’t send them packing years ago—no longer have a choice. The guy from the Mob is on his way over, and the vig is due.

Not to single out Twitter, but this is clearly the root cause of its seeming indifference to the destruction hate speech is doing to society…and will ultimately do to the platform. (But by then Jack will be able to afford to meditate full-time.)

Other companies do other evil things to pay their vig. When you owe the Mob, you have no choice. Like sell our data. Or lie about medical research.

There are internet companies (like Basecamp, or like Automattic, makers of WordPress.com, where I work) that charge money for their products and services, and use that money to grow their business. I wish more internet companies could follow that model, but it’s hard to retrofit a legitimate business model to a product that started its life as free.

And there are even some high-end news publications, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian, that survive on a combination of advertising and flexible paywalls. But these options are not available to most digital publications and businesses.

Return with me to those Halcyon days…

Websites and internet startups used to be you and your friends making cool stuff for your other friends, and maybe building new friendships and even small communities in the process. (Even in 2019, that’s still how some websites and startups begin—as labors of love, fashioned by idealists in their spare time.)

Because they are labors of love; because we’ve spent 25 years training people to believe that websites, and news, and apps, and services should be free; because, when we begin a project, we can scarcely believe anyone will ever notice or care about it—for these reasons and more, the things we make digitally, especially on the web, are offered free of charge. We labor on, excited by positive feedback, and delighted to discover that, if we keep at it, our little community will grow.

Most such labors of love disappear after a year or two, as the creators drift out of touch with each other, get “real” jobs, fall in love, start families, or simply lose interest due to lack of attention from the public or the frustrations of spending weekends and holidays grinding away at an underappreciated site or app while their non-internet friends spend those same hours either having fun or earning money.

Along came money

But some of these startup projects catch on. And when they do, a certain class of investor smells ROI. And the naive cofounders, who never expected their product or service to really get anywhere, can suddenly envision themselves rich and Zuckerberg-famous. Or maybe they like the idea of quitting their day job, believing in themselves, and really going for it. After all, that is an empowering and righteous vision.

Maybe they believe that by taking the initial investment, they can do more good—that their product, if developed further, can actually help people. This is often the motivation behind agreeing to an initial investment deal, especially in categories like healthcare.

Or maybe the founders are problem solvers. Existing products or services in a given category have a big weakness. The problem solvers are sure that their idea is better. With enough capital, and a slightly bigger team, they can show the world how to do it right. Most inventions that have moved humankind forward followed exactly this path. It should lead to a better world (and it sometimes does). It shouldn’t produce privacy breaches and fake medicine and election-influencing bots and all the other plagues of our emerging digital civilization. So why does it?

Content wants to be paid

Primarily it is because these businesses have no business model. They were made and given away free. Now investors come along who can pay the founders, buy them an office, give them the money to staff up, and even help with PR and advertising to help them grow faster.

Now there are salaries and insurance and taxes and office space and travel and lecture tours and sales booths at SXSW, but there is still no charge for the product.

And the investor seeks a big return.

And when the initial investment is no longer enough to get the free-product company to scale to the big leagues, that’s when the really big investors come in with the really big bucks. And the company is suddenly famous overnight, and “everybody” is using the product, and it’s still free, and the investors are still expecting a giant payday.

Like I said—a house you can’t afford, so you go into debt to the bank and the Mob.

The money trap

Here it would be easy to blame capitalism, or at least untrammeled, under-regulated capitalism, which has often been a source of human suffering—not that capitalism, properly regulated, can’t also be a force for innovation which ameliorates suffering. That’s the dilemma for our society, and where you come down on free markets versus governmental regulation of businesses should be an intellectual decision, but these days it is a label, and we hate our neighbors for coming down a few degrees to the left or right of us. But I digress and oversimplify, and this isn’t a complaint about late stage capitalism per se, although it may smell like one.

No, the reason small companies created by idealists too frequently turn into consumer-defrauding forces for evil has to do with the amount of profit each new phase of investor expects to receive, and how quickly they expect to receive it, and the fact that the products and services are still free. And you know what they say about free products.

Nothing fails like success

A friend who’s a serial entrepreneur has started maybe a dozen internet businesses over the span of his career. They’ve all met a need in the marketplace. As a consequence, they’ve all found customers, and they’ve all made a profit. Yet his investors are rarely happy.

“Most of my startups have the decency to fail in the first year,” one investor told him. My friend’s business was taking in several million dollars a year and was slowly growing in staff and customers. It was profitable. Just not obscenely so.

And internet investors don’t want a modest return on their investment. They want an obscene profit right away, or a brutal loss, which they can write off their taxes. Making them a hundred million for the ten million they lent you is good. Losing their ten million is also good—they pay a lower tax bill that way, or they use the loss to fold a company, or they make a profit on the furniture while writing off the business as a loss…whatever rich people can legally do under our tax system, which is quite a lot.

What these folks don’t want is to lend you ten million dollars and get twelve million back.

You and I might go, “Wow! I just made two million dollars just for being privileged enough to have money to lend somebody else.” And that’s why you and I will never have ten million dollars to lend anybody. Because we would be grateful for it. And we would see a free two million dollars as a life-changing gift from God. But investors don’t think this way.

We didn’t start the fire, but we roasted our weenies in it

As much as we pretend to be a religious nation, our society worships these investors and their profits, worships companies that turn these profits, worships above all the myth of overnight success, which we use to motivate the hundreds of thousands of workers who will work nights and weekends for the owners in hopes of cashing in when the stock goes big.

Most times, even if the stock does go big, the owner has found a way to devalue it by the time it does. Owners have brilliant advisers they pay to figure out how to do those things. You and I don’t.

A Christmas memory

I remember visiting San Francisco years ago and scoring an invitation to Twitter’s Christmas party through a friend who worked there at the time. Twitter was, at the time, an app that worked via SMS and also via a website. Period.

Some third-party companies, starting with my friends at Iconfactory, had built iPhone apps for people who wanted to navigate Twitter via their newfangled iPhones instead of the web. Twitter itself hadn’t publicly addressed mobile and might not even have been thinking about it.

Although Twitter was transitioning from a fun cult thing—used by bloggers who attended SXSW Interactive in 2007—to an emerging cultural phenomenon, it was still quite basic in its interface and limited in its abilities. Which was not a bad thing. There is art in constraint, value in doing one thing well. As an outsider, if I’d thought about it, I would have guessed that Twitter’s entire team consisted of no more than 10 or 12 wild-eyed, sleep-deprived true believers.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I showed up at the Christmas party and discovered I’d be sharing dinner with hundreds of designers, developers, salespeople, and executives instead of the handful I’d naively anticipated meeting. (By now, of course, Twitter employs many thousands. It’s still not clear to an outsider why so many workers are needed.)

But one thing is clear: somebody has to pay for it all.

Freemium isn’t free

Employees, let alone thousands of them, on inflated Silicon Valley engineer salaries, aren’t free. Health insurance and parking and meals and HR and travel and expense accounts and meetups and software and hardware and office space and amenities aren’t free. Paying for all that while striving to repay investors tenfold means making a buck any way you can.

Since the product was born free and a paywall isn’t feasible, Twitter must rely on that old standby: advertising. Advertising may not generate enough revenue to keep your hometown newspaper (or most podcasts and content sites) in business, but at Twitter’s scale, it pays.

It pays because Twitter has so many active users. And what keeps those users coming back? Too often, it’s the dopamine of relentless tribalism—folks whose political beliefs match and reinforce mine in a constant unwinnable war of words with folks whose beliefs differ.

Of course, half the antagonists in a given brawl may be bots, paid for in secret by an organization that wants to make it appear that most citizens are against Net Neutrality, or that most Americans oppose even the most basic gun laws, or that our elected officials work for lizard people. The whole system is broken and dangerous, but it’s also addictive, and we can’t look away. From our naive belief that content wants to be free, and our inability to create businesses that pay for themselves, we are turning our era’s greatest inventions into engines of doom and despair.

Your turn

So here we are. Now what do we do about it?

It’s too late for current internet businesses (victims of their own success) that are mortgaged to the hilt in investor gelt. But could the next generation of internet startups learn from older, stable companies like Basecamp, and design products that pay for themselves via customer income—products that profit slowly and sustainably, allowing them to scale up in a similarly slow, sustainable fashion?

The self-payment model may not work for apps and sites that are designed as modest amusements or communities, but maybe those kinds of startups don’t need to make a buck—maybe they can simply be labors of love, like the websites we loved in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Along those same lines, can the IndieWeb, and products of IndieWeb thinking like Micro.blog, save us? Might they at least provide an alternative to the toxic aspects of our current social web, and restore the ownership of our data and content? And before you answer, RTFM.

On an individual and small collective basis, the IndieWeb already works. But does an IndieWeb approach scale to the general public? If it doesn’t scale yet, can we, who envision and design and build, create a new generation of tools that will help give birth to a flourishing, independent web? One that is as accessible to ordinary internet users as Twitter and Facebook and Instagram? Tantek Çelik thinks so, and he’s been right about the web for nearly 30 years. (For more about what Tantek thinks, listen to our conversation in Episode № 186 of The Big Web Show.) Are these approaches mere whistling against a hurricane? Are most web and internet users content with how things are? What do you think? Share your thoughts on your personal website (dust yours off!) or (irony ahoy!) on your indie or mainstream social networks of choice using hashtag #LetsFixThis. I can’t wait to see what you have to say.

published first on https://deskbysnafu.tumblr.com/