#We Are The In Crowd Guaranteed to Disagree

[iamtryingtobelieve]

You're Not Quite Satan

But I Really Think I Hate You

[transmutationisms]

Feel free not to answer this ask so you dont have to step into this particular hornet's nest but do you have any thoughts about people sharing inaccurate science about COVID in order to push for more COVID regulations? I agree that COVID is being neglected and we need better policies but I'm also a biochemist so it pisses me off to see people cite research in a way that makes exaggerated and terrifying claims. Two years ago, I was warning my colleagues against this condescending "just trust the science" approach but now the same crowd pushing that has shifted to pushing "don't trust any of the positive science, only my catastrophic interpretations of it". Can't we mask without also trying to convince each other that COVID is a guaranteed one way ticket to death and permanent disability?

you must be new here haha i swing bats at this hornet's nest like once a month. yeah i think the current state of covid communication sucks a lot. i mean the truth is that "follow the science" is always a disingenuous sentiment; Science doesn't speak, and scientists disagree with one another. and it's naïve to pretend majority consensus is a reliable mechanism to identify truth—anyone who has followed the covid aerosolisation about-face will recall that although linsey marr was not the first researcher to challenge medical orthodoxy on airborne disease transmission, even well into the covid pandemic the idea of aerosol transmission was marginalised by global health authorities because it was politically inconvenient, out of favour with powerful established academics, and reminiscent to some of pre-pasteurian miasma theories of disease. those who would "follow the science" were not presented with a convenient dichotomy between reasonable evidence-backed expert consensus and fringe peddlers of heterodoxy; to evaluate these positions required actually, yknow, reading and evaluating the arguments and evidence from multiple competing positions, and deciding which had the greater explanatory power. which is good epistemological advice only insofar as it's so obvious as to be trite.

fundamentally a huge driving force of this situation is the social, political, and institutional forces that make expert knowledge (a generally good thing) all too often synonymous with inaccessible knowledge. i don't mean inaccessibility caused by knowledge being specialised; obviously this is inevitable to some extent simply as a result of the fact that no one person will grasp the entirety of human knowledge. but the fact that knowledge is specialised, specific, highly technical, and so forth doesn't automatically mean, for example, that it has to be monetarily gatekept from all but a select few with the resources to persevere through a highly punishing, nepotistic, hegemonic university system; this is a political problem, and one that additionally has the effect of enabling and sheltering low-quality work (see: replication crisis) behind the opaque walls of university bureaucracy and the imprimateur of the credentials it grants. in lieu of an ability to actually engage with, read, or challenge much of the academic research being generated on any given topic, the lay public is supposed to rely on signs of reliability like possession of a degree, or institutional reputation. what we in fact see again and again, and with particularly high stakes in the case of something like a pandemic, is that these measures are instruments of class stratification and professional jockeying that don't inherently ensure quality information: MDs can and do peddle anti-vaxx lies and covid / long-covid denialism; the CDC and WHO can and do perpetrate bad and outdated scientific advice, like that masks are unnecessary and isolation periods can be shortened for convenience. many of these are just blatant cases of kowtowing to political pressure, which arises from the capitalist logic that counterposes disease prevention to economic growth.

this all leaves us in a position where it is, in fact, smart and correct to evaluate the information coming from 'official' and credentialled sources with scepticism. the problem is that in its place, we get information coming out of the same capitalist state-sponsored scientific institutions, and the same colonialist universities; the idea that some chucklefuck on twitter is telling you the secret truth just because they correctly identified that the government sucks is plainly absurd. where covid specifically is concerned, the liberalism of academic and scientific institutions is on display in numerous ways, including the idealist assumption, which many 'covid communicators' make, that public health policy is primarily a matter of swaying public opinion, and therefore that it is always morally imperative to form and propagate the most alarmist possible interpretation of any study or empirical observation. this is not an attitude that encourages thoughtful or measured evaluation of The Science (eg, study methodology), nor is it one that actually produces the kind of political change that would be required to protect the populace writ large from what is, indeed, a dangerous and still rampant virus. instead, this form of communication mostly winds up generating social media Engagement and screenshots of headlines of summaries of studies.

meanwhile, actual public health policy (which is by and large determined at the mercy of capitalist state interests, and which by and large shapes public opinion of what mitigation measures are 'reasonable', despite the CDC repeatedly pretending this works the other way round), remains on its trajectory toward lax, open exposure of anyone and everyone to each new strain of covid, perpetuating a society that is profoundly hostile to disabled people and careless with everyone's life and health. this fucking sucks. it sucked that we have treated the flu like this for years, and it sucks that we are now doing it with a virus that we are still relatively immunologically naïve to, and that produces, statistically, even more death and disability than the flu. and it sucks that the predominating explanations of this state of affairs from the 'cautious' emphasise not the structural forces that shape knowledge production under capitalism, but instead invoke a psychological narrative whereby individuals simply need to be sufficiently terrified into producing mass action.

[ash5monster01]

Hii! I’ve just seen a prompt that goes: “You don’t talk much.” — “I just really like listening to you, that’s all.” and it made me think of Todd Anderson ✨🥰 soo, if you could do something fluffy based on that prompt, it would be great

Enough For The Both of Us

Pairing: Todd Anderson x FemReader

Warnings: fluff, blabbing, minor sadness, mentions of being shy, lack of friends

Summary: When getting partnered up for class, you’re desperate to make this mystery guy your friend. Yet maybe things work out a little better than that.

word count: 1k

Masterlist

College was supposed to be fun. At least that’s what you thought. It had been two weeks and you had yet to make friends. Even your roommate had left you behind, finding a group she didn’t bother to include you in. It had become hopeless, that was until your English professor announced an assignment. An assignment that required you to partner up and work on for a full two weeks. A golden opportunity of guaranteed time to make a friend. Yet with just your luck the name placed beside your own on the list is not a female name. Instead you eye the suspicious lettering of a boy named Todd.

Yet you don’t falter, you take it with stride. Boys and girls could be friends right? At least not in your experience but you had also never tried. It didn’t help you went to an all girls school before this. Boys were new territory, something meant to explore once you made friends in college. You’d just have to do things out of order now, which you remind yourself of that as you start your trek to the school library. The very place you had agreed to meet this so called Todd.

He’s not hard to find, a blonde boy with shy eyes who raises a sheepish hand to flag you down. You shuffle towards him immediately, dropping your school books as you sit in the seat beside him instead of across from him. The action makes him blush while you pull out the assignment from class. “Hi Todd, it’s nice to meet you. I’m excited for us to start working on this project together”

“Y-yeah. Me too” the boy stutters, eyes never quite meeting your own as he turns to face his own work on the table.

“I was thinking we could be friends Todd. I need a friend around here and the person forced to work on a project with me is better than any” you tell him, filling in the conversation where he lacks. You figure with his shy nature he won't put up much of a fight. Perfect.

"Okay" he sounds uneasy but you don't give him much time to think about it as you finally organize all the papers in front of you.

"Not to say I'm not cool or anything. I'm really cool, I just haven't found the right crowd around here yet. If I'm being honest I was kind of upset I wasn't partnered with another girl. Not that a boy is bad but it would be nice to have a girlfriend first to talk to about all the boy stuff. Like you're cute, but I couldn’t tell you that" you ramble, not even a semblance of vulnerabilty as you speak. That's why Todd stares at you with such awe, shocked at how easy it is for you to communicate and not regret it after. He had been better, no longer the meek boy he once was, fading like a dying flame but he also was no where near the level of confidence you were.

"You just did" Todd points out, the tips of his ears burning red as he tries not to dwell on how pretty you are. He had thought it had to be some curse that the beautiful girl he couldn't stop staring at in class somehow got partnered up with him.

"I guess you're right, well either way I'm sure you have some guy friends and get what I mean. It's not like we can share every detail of our lives with each other, it's unnatural. We're so different" and as much as Todd wants to disagree, having only been surrounded by boys his whole life he would have to understand.

"Different how?" Todd inquires, other than the obvious gender difference he wants to hear what this gorgeous girl had already deemed of him in only five minutes of her blabbing and him sitting here and silently listening. If he had the confidence of Charlie or Neil he would’ve asked you on a date already, stopped this silly friend train because there was no way he could possibly be friends with someone who looked like you.

"Well you know, boy, girl. I'm outgoing and you're, well you're just sitting here" you say with a serious look that has a laugh escaping Todds lips and betraying him. The minute the sound reaches your ears his face is as red as a tomato, but she only finds the boy impossibly cuter. Curse you for all this rambling about being friends when you really should've been flirting this whole time.

"Okay" Todd agrees after a moment, nodding his head along and trying to look away before you could see just how red his whole body was from this simple conversation with you. To think you hadn't even started working on a project yet.

"You don’t talk much" you state, looking at him with suspicous eyes and trying to understand the entirety of him. What a mystery this boy was.

“I just really like listening to you, that’s all” he finally says with a slight confidence you hadn't thought him capable. The shock of his words makes your nerves buzz inside you. You knew you could talk to much but to have someone speak so fondly of it was different. Mainly you were picked on for never holding your tongue and instead a boy had complimented you on it. A cute boy at that.

"So I haven't annoyed you yet, scared you away?" You ask curiously, hoping he won't say he was just messing with you. It was possible he could still up and leave, request another partner, and you had humiliated yourself.

"The opposite actually. It's nice being around someone who talks enough for the both of us" the sentence reminds him of Neil, a sad smile painting his features as you let the words wash over you. The most he had said directly to you since you had sat in this seat.

"Than this partnership might just work Todd" you grin and he blushes again, liking you hadn't used the word friend. Especially now that he wanted to be much more than your friend.

"Agreed"

[penguindrumchronicler]

Slight introduction: I'm not a nuclear brain linguist, or Japanese, or acquainted with all the nuances of other works of artists mentioned here

What I wanted to write as a lengthy post turns out to have already been written down by someone much more literate and knowledgeable about this issue. I like viewing Penguindrum as a work of art dealing with Japanese national trauma, and seeing it from this perspective gives a fresh view of the story as a whole.

I can't bring myself to disagree with any of the mentioned parts, such as characters being personifications of a way of dealing with the tragedy.

One thing I really want to see asked though is - why? What is it meant to accomplish?

The closest neighbor to Penguindrum in this matter that I can think of is Murakami's Underground. And it had a very clear purpose - to revive the thought about the tragedy, to give birth to the analysis of not who did this or how, or even how to stop it. No, the primary point was *who* did that. And the results were shocking because it wasn't anything that's guaranteed to never happen again. Even more so, it's difficult to imagine the same events not happening over and over again, as loneliness spreads among the most normal, unassuming, everyday people.

I feel like Penguindrum serves as a reminder. A cautionary tale, almost - here, look what happened sixteen years ago. Have we learned anything? Have we done anything? Has anything improved?

In the final episode, the story goes on and makes a full circle. None of the characters were evil. None of them had some inherent will to destroy that made them stand out in a crowd. Ikuhara goes out of his way to portray Kenzan and Chiemi as great parents who risked their lives for their children. Sanetoshi still sends Double H Himari's scarves. We get to watch Kanba, Shoma, and Ringo grow as people, and yet everything still goes on. The attack still has to be stopped by one person's sacrifice, as if Ikuhara was giving a big middle finger to the Japanese myth of exceptionalism, and a silent nod to the unsung heroes that paid with their lives on the 25th of March 1995.

Great, Momoka stopped the attack by paying with her life. What will happen when she's gone again? Next time, there might not be anybody sacrificing themselves for the bigger good. It's like some inherent fight between good and evil, but the evil is here, it is between us, and it isn't leaving if we don't deal with it., and approaching the trauma is the way to do it, and will do more than banning trash bins in public spaces

One difference I would like to point out between the real story and anime is the omission of Asahara. I fully believe it was intentional, as in not to dilute the message. Imagine Penguindrum, but instead of trying to find the Penguindrum, you end up trying to track down this omnipresent fat-ass cultist who's plotting the downfall of the world. Yay, we stopped him! And we will all live forever... yea nah, this was very clearly not the focus.

And what brings me down the most is the realization that nothing has gone away, and nothing has changed. You can argue that Sanetoshi is no longer even a ghost, and the Takakuras have basically been reborn, but why wouldn't the Kiga group be born again?

And it will. I'm terrified because any day it could be me on the train. Or, if it were you, I don't know if I could be the hero. I shouldn't need to be.

slight plug:

And yes, the image is AI-generated. It's hilarious

[your-hotdog-husband]

There are a lot of reasons why I don't like politics. I think they're bringing out the worst in people. People have their values, and we are driven to defend them and ourselves. And where our values diverge, I believe, is a very small area. But it's magnified all out proportion. Most people would probably disagree with me on that point.

But that's not my only point, anyway. So check it out this way. If you have a dog who you take to dog parks, then you know. But anyhow, when you go to parks and your dog meets other dogs and plays with them--whether it's chasing, tugging, wrestling, or just meeting and greeting--you meet some of the other owners. And that crowd is diverse! And I'm mainly talking about backgrounds, like from all walks of life. And even though I live in a minor metropolitan city with primarily "city folk," I guess, there are a lot of rednecks at the dog parks. And I only use that word in a friendly way. I've spent a lot of time in more rural places and around all different crowds. I know better than to think less of any particular group based on where they were from or how they were raised, much less the more superficial differences like clothing, accent, their manner of speech. It's not a matter of "tolerance." Usually, when somebody doesn't like certain people, it's because they've never sat down and talked with any of 'em. While most folks would peg me as a city boy, that's only mostly accurate. I've spent time in lots of different places, with people from all over. Individually, people are wonderful folks. When somebody isn't well liked, it's usually because they won't really talk to others and connect to them. They don't trust anyone and probably think they're superior. Anyhow, I'm off track.

So one of the best things about the dog park is that nobody talks about politics or all the damn things they hate. We're focused on our dogs and they joy they bring us, the challenges we deal with, and that's true on the collective level the more we interact with the other owners. And the people we click with or not has nothing to do with politics, I guarantee you. There are good and bad owners (I don't like that word, but... IDK) of all backgrounds. You can't tell on first glance. But I'll trust the hell out of any good owner and cuss the fuck out of a bad one. I don't give a shit what their politics are, or what any of our supposed similarities or differences are.

If I could encourage others to find ways to experience this somehow. If you're not a dog owner or don't have access to dog parks, I'll forgive you. LOL But seriously, then look for some way of connecting with others where you don't have to bother with politics.

Because what I'm hearing and seeing with too many people (most? I hope not, but definitely lots) is that they've sworn off "those people." But when we don't even know we're talking to one of "them," it's amazing how well we get along. And if we end up in a group with a shared purpose and start to achieve something, you have to start doubting what all the fuss and anger was about.

Our brains want to protect us from threats. We get angry. Then others think of us as angry or having a bad attitude. We don't want to give each other a chance. "They're destroying everything that's good! They can't be bargained with. They're basically terrorists." Maybe there are a few bad apples, who am I to say? But not talking ensures that the bad apples spoil more of the bunch.

It's not a perfect analogy, but that's how analogies are. Analogies are like people. Not perfect, but there's no getting away from how much we need them.

I can hear so many people, "Our bad apples are better than their bad apples!" That's based on so many assumptions about people we've never met. People are calling each other intolerant without looking at themselves first. People are accusing a whole lot of other people of a lot of horrible things, and defending themselves against accusations. Us vs. Them mentality. There's even arguments that boil down to: "Both sides do that!" vs. "Don't you dare compare us to them!" When all the while, there is no "both," because it's not nearly as simple as two sides. Two sides of what? Right and wrong? Good and bad? Do you agree with *everything* that everyone on your side says? "Well, I agree with everyone who's actually on my side. Those other ones are fake!" Or crazy, or just a little stupid. We keep slicing things thin enough to make sense, and there'll be nothing left. We'll be less than the sum of our parts. We may as well have never existed in the first place.

"It's not that bad." Okay, then prove it.

Imagine the future. Ten years. Twenty years. Fifty. It gets harder and harder to imagine that there even is a future. Are things going to get better in your lifetime? The younger you are, the easier it is to imagine that they will. Not just because of optimism and the energy of youth. A lot more can change in Fifty years than in twenty. A lot more can get worse, too.

More importantly, imagine how things could get better. As in how will that happen, do you think? Will one side destroy the other? That's the big question, isn't it? Will one side simply outlast the other? Outlive the side that's doomed to fail? Social Darwinism? One side will survive due to inherent superiority. War or no war... Actually try to imagine one side dying off. How, really? Is your side going to kill all of them? Will they just die out as they reach their inevitable obsolescence? There are a lot of scenarios. How many of them are plausible? Am I trying to say there's no way that will happen? I'm just skeptical. Will we join together a hundred years from now to fight a common enemy? Will half of us escape the madness and expatriate? These are each very large changes.

Who wants to see half of the country destroyed? Because a lot of that will be your half, no matter who "wins."

Just consider, millions of them have dogs, cats, even children. Or other family, even if they don't have those. We all love somebody, and we're all loved. Think of a typical person who you would totally disagree with. (I disagree with the "totally" part, but I'm trying not to make this about me.) Imagine that person. They believe terrible, terrible things. About the world, about you. Or people like you, anyway. Their concept of "people like you." Do you believe terrible things? You imagine that they cannot truly love. They have no real love in their lives. But imagine somebody loving them. Imagine they yearn to feel love, whether it's friendship, kinship, or relationship. Imagine they discover love and their world changes and they abandon hatred. They stop persecuting others. They may not necessarily join you exactly. But imagine they stop judging, insulting, or attacking your people or people like you.

I'm not asking anyone to believe in anything or to stop believing in anything. Just try to imagine.

[messengerhermes]

Okay so here's my thing, I am not disagreeing with you that voting is power, and neither is the OP, who mentioned they work in public policy in the US.

The thing that I'm currently frustrated by is *there are eight months until the November election.*

Voting is power, because after elections, constituents have the ability to call and pressure our representatives to do the jobs we put them in office for.

Now, Congress and presidential administrations are kind of notorious for not doing shit other than campaigning in election years (which is part of some folks frustration with campaigning starting earlier and earlier, because please do the jobs you were elected to do, stop asking me for more money you wet walnut), but 8 months is more than enough time for our federal government to stop dragging ass about the Palestinian genocide, push for a ceasefire, and quit giving weapons and funding to Israel.

So, speaking personally, my frustration with the "vote blue no matter who/You still must vote in November" crowd right now is they're applying pressure in the wrong place.

If we want the election to not turn into a shitshow where Biden loses (when he's already an unpopular candidate who is going back on his own initial plans to just run for one term. A thing I'm still pissed over, personally.), then instead of badgering disenfranchised voters and voters who've utterly lost faith in the democratic party, pressure needs to be on this administration to get their shit together.

If everyone at Biden's speeches turned around and joined protesters in chanting for a free Palestine, for ceasefire now, rather than trying to shout them down with their "four more years" bullshit, imagine how fast Biden would get his shit together in regards to pulling support from Israel.

If Biden wants to regain favor, he needs to get with what many Americans, as OP has highlighted, are wanting in regards to Israel's genocidal violence of Palestine. He needs to stop sending Israel funds, stop blocking UN initiatives for humanitarian aid, and call for an immediate permanent ceasefire. The Democrats in Congress also need to fall in line on this.

If constituents who are still firmly in the Democratic party want to engage voters who've left or fallen off, they will be more effective in doing that by pressuring their representatives and the Biden administration to get their shit together. Our elected officials are the ones who are in positions to make rapid, tangible change if they want to keep their jobs.

Yelling at vulnerable people who have grown suspicious of our government is not an effective strategy. Especially as domestic infrastructure and policy fail them all while we watch our tax money go by the millions to slaughter civilians across the world. People are understandably pissed.

yes, voting matters.

But part of what makes voting matter is what elected officials do inbetween elections and how they respond to the will of the people who put them in office. Right now, Biden's administration is absolutely falling down on responding to the will of the people, and it is bananas to blame voters for turning their nose up at this shitshow behavior.

Now is not the time to call "vote blue no matter who" now is the time to refuse to give our elected officials peace or guaranteed support until they stop making us all complicit in genocide.

They have eight months until election day and know full well how they can fix those polling results.

okay, if you have ever made or reblogged a “hold your nose and vote for biden” post, this is for you.

here’s the fucking thing about these kinds of posts. i've been seeing them since i first returned to tumblr in, I think, late 2022? they've certainly increased in frequency since october 7, but they were there before too, ready to counter any kind of opposition to biden that has cropped up. many of them are not just trying to educate people about what positive things biden has done, which, like, at least I can understand the motivation behind those ones? but so many of them are directly in response to people criticizing biden, and their only real point is “sure you’re upset at this thing biden did, but have you considered the election?” starting YEARS before the next presidential election, mind you.

and october 7 only made that clearer. i don’t think it had been a week before i saw these posts cropping up. can you not see how fucking ghoulish that is? to look at the rightful pain and anger of those whose relatives and communities are being slaughtered with active american support, to respond to one of the few pieces of agency most americans have in influencing what their governments do – their vote – by saying “yes but trump would be worse.” as if the primary people you’re lecturing – palestinians, muslims, arabs, black people, indigenous people, disabled people, other marginalized people – don’t remember exactly how bad it was under trump!

and even if you think not voting is an empty gesture – something i, who studied political science at a mainstream american lib college, who has worked as a field organizer on a previous democratic presidential campaign and for several policy campaigns, who currently works in public policy in america, used to believe, but have absolutely changed my mind on – what is in no way an empty gesture is saying publicly that you will not vote for someone. the arguments people usually have about why simply not voting is bad are that you can’t tell why someone is not voting, so it is as likely to be apathy or disenfranchisement as it is a political statement. but saying publicly that you will not vote for someone, and why you will not vote for them, absolutely is a political statement, and potentially a powerful one! but you choose to negate and/or ignore that by trotting out the “lesser of two evils” bullshit.

and then there’s the whole “yes but people will DIE under trump”. PEOPLE ARE DYING NOW. even if you’re fucking racist and have decided that palestinian lives don’t count, have you forgotten biden’s ongoing covid minimalism and dismantling of the CDC’s covid research and prevention infrastructure? have you forgotten his increase in spending for law enforcement scant years after the murder of george floyd? have you forgotten his recent ramp-up in deportations of undocumented immigrants, including the active continuation of many trump-era policies?

maybe you have forgotten all those things and do purport to care about palestinians, but you just think that biden is doing his best to influence netanyahu and is getting nowhere! but then you must have forgotten all of the things that biden and his administration themselves have done to further this fucking genocide, including:

continuing to send arms to israel

putting together a military task force within days of yemen’s red sea blockade and attacking yemeni ships

bombing yemen

bombing syria

bombing iraq

vetoing three ceasefire resolutions at the united nations

testifying to defend israel and its genocide and occupation at the international court of justice

refusing to rescue palestinian-americans stuck in gaza

halting funding to the united nations relief and works agency for palestinian refugees (UNRWA) based on israeli claims that 12 of UNRWA’s over 30,000 staff were hamas agents, even though u.s. intelligence has not been able to independently verify this

lying that he’s personally seen photos of babies beheaded by hamas when he hadn’t because they didn’t exist (and even when his own staff cautioned him that reports of beheaded babies may not be credible)

questioning the number of palestinian deaths reported by the gaza ministry of health (when even israel has not questioned them, since they are in fact proud of those numbers)

perpetuating lies about hamas having committed the attack on al-aqsa hospital

questioning united nations reports of adults and children raped by israeli soldiers while claiming to have proof (that no one else has seen) of hamas doing the same

honestly so many more things that i can’t remember them all but others feel free to add

or maybe you haven’t forgotten any of that, and think that you’re still justified in lecturing people about why they should vote for biden, because you genuinely believe trump would still be worse. if that is the case, you have still failed to see that by saying you will vote for biden no matter what, you are part of the problem of biden continuing to act like this. because biden is counting on fear of trump to win him this next election no matter what else he does. despite his appalling polling numbers, despite the knowledge that he is losing the palestinian-american vote, the arab-american vote, the muslim-american vote, the black american vote, the youth vote – despite all of that, he is secure in the idea that he will still win because he is better than trump. can you not see how that allows him to act without impunity? how it becomes increasingly impossible for his base to influence what he’s doing if he thinks that they will be with him no matter what? this is how you make yourself cabsomplicit to biden’s actions, by not affording anyone even the slightest power to hold him accountable for anything.

and in most cases, the “hold your nose and vote for biden” thing is the response of people who aren’t even being instructed by others not to vote for biden. it is their response to people saying they themselves are choosing not to vote for biden. fucking ghoulish.

[aviewfromthecheapseats]

Freedom Under Fire: The Dangers of Censorship in America

Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to express themselves without government interference. However, in recent years there have been growing calls to limit speech deemed harmful or offensive. While well-intentioned, restricting free expression could have disastrous consequences for our society.

Social media platforms have begun aggressively policing content, banning users for ill-defined violations of terms of service. There are increasing demands for hate speech laws that criminalize unpopular rhetoric. On college campuses, students shout down speakers they disagree with and advocate policies that tightly control expression. Meanwhile, many public figures face intimidation and boycotts for expressing controversial opinions.

These censorship efforts may arise from understandable impulses. Hateful language can be deeply painful, especially for marginalized groups. There are valid concerns about the spread of misinformation and extremism online. However, restricting speech is a blunt instrument that gives more power to institutions we may not fully trust. Once we open the door to censorship, it can be difficult to close it again.

History shows that limiting free speech often backfires. Suppressed ideas don't disappear, they go underground. Censorship breeds mistrust and factions, cutting off channels for honest dialogue and debate. It also disproportionately impacts minority viewpoints and underrepresented communities. For instance, LGBTQ rights and racial justice activists were frequently silenced in the past under so-called "public decency" laws.

The Supreme Court has upheld reasonable restrictions on speech that directly incites imminent lawless action, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. But broad limits on expression seldom pass legal muster. More importantly, they aren't the right tool to create a just society.

Instead, the best way to overcome hate and misinformation is through open and thoughtful discussion. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Rather than censoring social media sites, we should teach digital literacy and empathy from an early age. Instead of no-platforming campus speakers, students should engage them with tough questions. Leaders should set an example by responding thoughtfully to controversial speech, not seeking to punish it. Protecting free expression allows us to debate pressing issues fully and transparently.

Suppressing speech also makes martyrs of extremists, fueling resentment and conspiracies. It's preferable to defeat bad ideas with compelling counterarguments. When dangerous views are aired publicly, their flaws are exposed. For instance, televised debates with Holocaust deniers often end up spreading historical facts to larger audiences.

Of course, preserving free speech protections doesn't mean we cannot hold people accountable for deception or malice. Defamation and fraud are still punishable under the law. And private citizens or companies can choose not to provide platforms for certain content they deem inappropriate. But the government itself should not have broad authority to censor legal speech.

Americans have resisted authoritarian crackdowns on speech throughout our history, from the Alien & Sedition Acts to McCarthyism. As the ACLU wrote in response to Charlottesville, "preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality." We cannot maintain a pluralistic democracy while granting officials unchecked power over public discourse.

In challenging times, we must hold firmly to the values that make our society freer, more humane and more just. For all of its messiness, a marketplace of ideas open to all remain our best chance at progress. Only by trusting citizens to weigh facts and arguments can we build common ground. As the Supreme Court put it, "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves."

In an era of disinformation and tribalism, critical thinking and empathy are more vital than ever. Censorship will not achieve these ends. It treats society's adults like children, instead of equipping citizens with the tools to make responsible choices. Americans should be trusted to consider a wide range of perspectives, rejecting dangerous ideologies through ethical self-government.

The road ahead will not be easy or comfortable. But the alternatives - an internet controlled by unaccountable corporations, intellectual discourse policed by the state, dissidents afraid to speak their minds - are far worse. Our rights to question, to explore, to advocate are worth defending, especially when the most fundamental principles hang in the balance. Though free speech can be messy, it remains our best hope of preserving a government by and for the people.

[themetaisawesome]

17.

17. there should be more of this type of fic/art

I think we need more material that has a healthy relationship to canon.

This has nothing to do with material for crack ships. Those are people just having a good time in their sandbox. This belief does apply a lesser extent to AUs, but still to an extent.

So many people will take something from canon and cram it into the same repeated fandom tropes over and over again. It's not even examples of missing the forest for the trees, it's missing the forest and the trees for some bark you peeled off of a log and shaped into something you're gonna sell on etsy.

What actually happened within the text only matters to such a crowd to a degree where they see what they want to and run with it. This leads to so many OOC content made by people who don't realize that what they're doing is OOC. If you want good examples, I present 99% of everything z*kka related. You know how many times I think of this image whenever my dash forces me to see what people on that ship create?

Not all canons are made equal, I get that. I can name a few canon materials in my fandoms that I outright ignore because they do not spark joy within me. But here's the thing: I stay away from making content that's too related to things that I ignore or outright hate. Z*kka doesn't work for me, so I don't make things for that ship. I also don't bother trying to find ways to bash it in the fics I write. When I do make a decision to ignore something, I examine what I'm going to cut so that I can do so thoughtfully. If you're not careful when cutting a cake, you're gonna cut a fucked up slice.

If one approaches everything creative with a fix-it mentality, you gotta wonder if the original thing needed fixing at all. If I say that I'm a van Gogh fan and then present you something I made that looks like it came from Warhol, does it really matter how much I insist that it's a tribute to van Gogh? If I present a Hamlet AU where Hamlet isn't depressed, has no daddy or mommy issues, isn't a nerd, isn't impulsive, isn't self-centered, and isn't an extra af little bitch, I'm not writing Hamlet fanfiction, I'm writing a brand new character and calling him Hamlet.

Hamlet can absolutely be the protag of your Hamlet/Horatio coffee shop AU. But if you want to write that, use that brain of yours to ask, "what would the Prince of Denmark be like in all his hamlety ways if he also had to work at a starbucks?" I guarantee that the answers you come up with will have more and tastier meat on their calcium-filled bones.

If you are approaching an aspect of canon that you dislike or disagree with, don't immediately try to dance around it. Approach that thing head on and apply your critical thinking skills. Why do you dislike it? Can you understand why the creators made that decision in canon? Can you build on it and play with it rather than retcon it? If you ignore something you dislike without giving it a chance, you can't learn from it.

If I'm reading a fanfic you wrote and I can't feel your love for the original source material, you forgot why it's called fanfiction.

[hehehsbebd]

women who want all female care teams makes plenty of sense. Not super related to what im talking about however. That person didnt say anything about the idea of requesting an all female team but there is a trans identified man on the care team. That person explicitly said trans people cant be trusted to provide medical care, as if a scalpel is guided by being cis or not. Im all for people not being forced to deal with trauma (within reason) if thats what they need, but thats really not what she said.

I dont agree at all that pro trans crowd specifically means 1) biological denial. Some trans people understand bio sex is immutable and decide that the social benefits are worthwhile still to justify transitioning. (Lmk if you ever do see a nurse who believes sex can change at a cellular level because i haven’t seen anything to indicate there are many people who go through medical school and still think this). 2)the trans monolith disagrees with any woman ever requesting an all female care team. This is a ridiculously large group you are generalizing with a thoughtless swoop of the hand. Its silly to have a hypothetical person in your head who represents ALL trans people. As soon as you stop talking about individuals and start talking about oh every trans person thinks this way, youve dehumanised the group you are speaking about. Hypothetically Someone could say all gay people are drama queens, and since the only gay person they have knowingly met was flaming this honestly seems like the truth to them despite it being completely untrue (i know its not a great metaphor, and that one is just how you were born vs an opinion that you can hold, but they’re called metaphors, not sames)

Plenty of racist homophobic sexist medical staff already exist in the field (which sucks), so holding out for ideological purity, which this definitely is, will kill you. what if your doctor is racist? Would you deny medical care from them in a life or death situation? Or a misogynist or a homophobe or anti-abortion activist or a ctholic etc etc. What is your threshold of people who cant be allowed in medicine? Because i guarantee if we open the floor to talking about removing people from medicine, youll hear some ugly things about literally every creed. And then when you have gotten rid of every single one of them, there may be enough people leftover to stock one hospital. They are humans not robots. You cant make it illegal for people to have opinions you dont like.

Its pretty obvious to me the difference between when someone is saying that a man in a dress is a sickening idea vs people who dont believe biological reality can be changed, but are accepting of and sympathetic towards cross-dressing transexuals. Not sure which one you subscribe too, but i personally could not care less about cross dressing, as much as i care about single sex spaces for women and men remaining sacred.

Yeah im sure it shakes your faith in the medical system when a hypothetical someone who believes bio sex is transmutable, is charged with your care. Youve got my empathy here, but not an unending amount of it. People have opinions i disagree with but im not advocating for removing their rights to have jobs. Yes it goes against biology but its such a wide spectrum of belief that its totally useless as metric. One person will know they are not a man and never will be, and still transition while having a level of understanding for that, another will say that biology has no importance whatsoever and that you can change sexes on a cellular level(strangely, i rarely see these types… wonder what that means. Probably nothing to do with having to go to medical school and take advanced biology courses for a period)

If i seem bothered its because I am. Thats my sister your talking about. She buys into gender ideology, but is still a capable nurse who has touched more lives than most of the people talking shit from behind a screen ever will. How many people have you driven to the hospital? She has saved lives. Have you assisted in giving birth? Probably not, and that is fine, me neither. Alls Im saying is that it would be suicidally short-sighted to remove her right to provide medical care. Also, she is not a voice that you want removed in favour of cis nurses who have just as much capacity for foolishness. Your thinking purely in hypotheticals but that doesn’t work here. These are real people whose livelihoods depends on their jobs, AND have a willingness unmatched by the general public to subject themselves to shit pay and shit hours so shitty patients can say shitty things about them, like complain that their pillows aren’t fluffed, or that a nasty trans person is touching them.

My sister has tattoos and is a lesbian. Some people would say that should disqualify her from the medical field. You and those people are in the similar enough boats here as far as im concerned. You cant just take away the right to serve the community from a whole class of people because they might disagree with you about single sex spaces and pronouns being sacred as they are. Thats who you are talking about here, in addition to the sex is spiritual crowd.

People can contain multitudes. Should Ben carson should put those tumours back in the brains of any women he operated on because he said sexist things? Or do you think maybe they are grateful for their lives, and couldn’t give a a single shit if he ate babies for dinner every night, as long as their lives were saved? You generally dont have much in the way of right of first refusal when it comes to medical care. You take the nurses you can get, or you get the hell out of their beds and off their floor. If they only have the resources to have a care team (and again, with any single person you you meet you could find something you disagree with them on) that you disagree with, are you gonna hold out for a group who perfectly represent your ideas and opinions? Nah

What about cis nurses who arent interested in transitioning but consider it valid. Do you say they should also be run out from the field? Are nurses who still buy into mlms worth having around? What about the ones who think vaccines cause autism? Why is this the priority, and not nurses who chronically give black patients less pain medication. some of yall (not you specifically, i havent a clue which side applies to you) hate clearly trans people more than you love women. You can tells whos on radblr because this is an easy place to shit on trans people, and who is here because they are shaken by the idea that men can become women (and vice versa) and are able to recognize this isnt true without diving into homophobia.

The medical field is already so understaffed and women are dying because of it. Hospital corporations obviously could fix this, but since that cant be banked on, why on gods green earth would you want that group to become even smaller and less diverse? diversity itself isnt the be all end goal, but the medical field is one of those places you want people from all different backgrounds, otherwise you end up with white doctors who believe black people feel less pain. Male Gynaecologists who refuse to give anything stronger than a tylenol, cause women feel less pain. That babies CAN’T feel pain. Multiple viewpoints save lives.

I ask again. Do their hands not work? Can a trans person not figure out how to change a bedpan because the hormones are clogging their brain? Or help a person train to walk again? No trans EMTs i hope, cus youll have to fire them too. Just in case of course, cus you wouldnt want a trans person to make any decisions on your behalf.

And then in your tags you say nobody should be denied a job and simultaneously say that actually no trans person should be allowed into a situation where someone who needs medical help disagrees with them.

“ #but that's different than saying you have to allow people who fundamentally disagree w/youabout reality to be in charge of ur medical care. “

Im not sure it is. Do you think they should be allowed in or not? Your giving mixed signals.

‘Why am i pressed about people picking and choosing their care teams’ because thats fundamentally just not how medicine is prioritized. The gravity here is escaping you. Its not a starbucks for customizing silly little coffee orders. You are talking about teams of trained specialists that represent thousands of hours of training and knowledge you and I will never hold. Physical before psychological. Ideally both would be prioritized, but sometimes that just isnt going to be possible

Aphrodite wants you to love your female body

[cameronhvrley]

Music meme: 5/6 EPs → Guaranteed To Disagree | We Are The In Crowd

[sunsetlyrics]

For The Win;  We Are The In Crowd

[onlybandlyrics]

I used to be all you would need, you always tease but baby you'd never leave.

— We Are The In Crowd // We Need A Break

[missdcalls]

while he liked to be in charge, joey didn't mind stepping aside to let someone else take the reins (as long as it wasn't on the ice.) and matilde was experienced in the field of deception, so it only made sense to follow her lead. it would guarantee them the most success, and that's what they both wanted. to be successful in deceiving not only their friends, but the rest of the world as well (or whoever bothered to follow his story.)

"it was, but the scholarships helped. i collected as many as i could. they thought i couldn't do it, but look at me now." he grins, but doesn't elaborate on who they were. just left it at that. "i'd say i disagree, but i can't knowing that it's the truth. i love a good argument, and you know what i love even more? winning."

"or we're smarter than most. i like to think the latter, if i'm being honest. i don't think 'pathetic' and 'joseph delima' belong in the same sentence." and he meant it. he wasn't pathetic, unlike jess and ryan. god, the two of them were really fools, weren't they? maybe this would be easier than they thought. at least it would be for mattie. tricking rich people sometimes was like taking candy from a baby.

her offering makes him laugh. "i'll keep that in mind the next time i think about swiping a kit-kat from the convenience store." something he had done as a teen maybe once or twice. he remembered crying about it for a week when his father had caught him red handed.

"we met in college. ryan actually took me under his wing, in a way. he was in the same fraternity as i was, and had joined before i did. didn't let the others fuck with me when i was a pledge. looked out for me. jess was just...there, i guess." joey shrugs. if it weren't for that, he probably wouldn't have even glanced at the two. they weren't his usual crowd. "i guess i felt like i owed him something. like if i dropped him, it would be real shitty of me, so...we're still friends. if you could call us that."

“and don't you forget it!” mattie gave a small smile. though she quickly figured out joey had a strong personality, she was the experienced one in the arena of deception, so she had to be the boss of their operation. if he was to ever get her onto the ice some day, which would've been a fucking miracle and everyone should check their windows to make sure pigs were indeed flying, then he'd get to be the captain. off the ice, she was in charge.

“that's an expensive way to prove your worth, meu amado.” she teased, though it wasn't exactly a lie. her own time at college had been costly and she dropped out after one year. she couldn't imagine the debt she'd be in if she had gone to law school, it would've been astronomical. the various credit cards in her name had enough debt to pay for two trips to law school, but mattie preferred to ignore the credit statements she got nearly every day in the mail and debt collectors that constantly left her urgent voicemails. “well, if today has taught me anything, it's that you love to argue and broker deals. you're halfway to being a lawyer already! don't count yourself out yet.” she had to wonder: did lawyers make more money or did professional athletes? it would've been uncouth to ask, but it always came down to net worth for mattie.

anyway, it wasn't as if they were getting married and his money would become hers... hm, how much would she get for alimony?

put on to do list: marry a rich man for his money, then divorce him.

she surprised herself, getting a bit misty-eyed after telling her sordid tale. not tears of sadness, but embarrassment, maybe. perhaps it was from relief. mattie blinked, looking away from joey. she had just been the most vulnerable she'd ever been in years, crying in front of him would take it too far. one step at a time, girl, she thought.

so far, this fake relationship was the most successful one she had. really, all of the relationships she had were fake, even the platonic ones. in a way, their arrangement was the most genuine relationship mattie had ever had since moving to america. their boundaries were set, they were honest with each other, and now they had a secret to share. if she had been a honest person, and she naturally learned who joey was beyond his playboy persona, maybe they would've actually dated. maybe they would've had a real friendship, at the very least. alas, mattie was not an honest person, so who better to be his fake girlfriend than her? she could lie as easily as she breathed. for all he knew, she had made up that whole backstory, but for once in her life, she told the truth. a historic day!

he didn't think she was pathetic. well, that made one of them. still, it made her exhale a breath she hadn't realized she had been holding. “then we're both pathetic, i guess.” despite the insulting words, there was a soft smile on her face. how had she missed it? when she met joey, she wrote him off as some dumb jock that didn't have nearly as much money as their friends, so there wasn't any point in trying to get close to him. he always looked at her with a critical stare, and she tried her hardest to be as pleasant and agreeing as possible, but it was clear from the moment she started hanging out with the group that jess and ryan were the suckers. there had been no point in trying to win joey over. now here they were, and joey was the one winning her over.

“thank you. and, y'know, you too. i don't have much to offer, but if you want... i don't know, shoplifting tips or something, i'm your girl.” being a con artist and occasional petty thief came into clutch sometimes. “let's cross that road... bridge... whatever the saying is when we get to it. if we play it smart, they'll never find out the truth and we won't need any dirt. besides, they're total idiots anyway. jess thought nashville was the name of a state, not a city. i mean, i'm not even american and i know that.” mattie laughed. out of all the people she conned in the last few years, jess and ryan were the easiest. it was as if they were saying please, mattie, take our money. we don't want it anyway. “why're you friends with them, by the way? did you go to school together or something?”

[lyricallymnded]

we need a break // we are the in crowd

[aestheticslyrics]

never be what you want // we are the in crowd

[beta-lactam-allergic]

I have to agree with @thisgingerhasnosoul on this @bisexualseraphim. I'm an gentile/goy who was born & raised in a culturally-Christian country (though neither me nor my parents are Christian ourselves, my parents both left Christianity before they met each other). But I could still see the western "Pro-Palestine" movement was sketchy.

Before October 7th, I naively assumed that if Israel got hit badly, that most leftists would realise how bad Hamas was. After all, I could see how bad they were & with the exception of my pro-Israel/pro-Ukraine/pro-Taiwan stance, there's not much daylight between me & a lot of leftists. I called myself a leftist until probably November (I don't know what to call myself now, the other labels don't fit either).

Just so you know @bisexualseraphim, I glanced at your profile & despite our disagreement on Israel, we agree on more than we disagree on @bisexualseraphim. I always find people like you the most confusing of the anti-Israel crowd because our other positions are similar enough that our thought processes can't be that different. And yet, we are on opposite sides of this issue as I despise Hamas & support Israel in its right to self-defense.

I also despise transphobes (a given, I'm transfem), racists (I'm white-passing but most of my mum's side of the family isn't & because Dad moved up here with Mum, that's the side I grew up knowing), queerphobes (I'm bisexual), ableists & misogynists. I'm not vegan or vegetarian myself, but I find the commitment of those who choose their diets on moral principles rather than taste or health (I don't eat red meat or consume drinks that aren't water for health reasons) to be worth admiring, rather than distaining.

If MRA means what I think it means, yeah those guys suck & I don't like thinking about them.

Your dislike of conservatives tells me that you are probably pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, support a fully decarbonised economy, improvements to public health care & public education & free tertiary education. Perhaps a guaranteed minimum income system (or even UBI), limits to the number of houses a single person can own, increased taxation of millionaires & billionaires, improved funding for the ATO (or your country's equivalent of it), reforestation of some areas that were deforested by humans in the past & free public transport that goes everywhere in the city regardless of time of day. Great, those are all positions I hold.

I too get frustrated by those who scream "they are only two genders". Those ignoramuses ignore the fact that intersex people exist. They ignore all the studies that show that transwomen's brains are closer to that of ciswomen's brains than cismen's brains even before the commencement of HRT, which does tilt it slightly further still. They ignore that other studies shows the same holds for transmen. They ignore the possibility that since we know that sexuality & biological sex are spectrums, than gender identity must be as well.

I agree that those who insist on a transmedicalist approach are being overly narrow-minded. I got my surgeries because I needed it to deal with my own dysphoria, which worked for me. But not all trans people have dysphoria. Of those who do have dysphoria, some don't want to take the risks associated with surgery which is fair enough, one mistake by the surgeon & you are dead (my surgeon required me to know the risks before approving me for surgery. He didn't take clients who didn't know the risks). Others literally can't afford the costs of surgery. Gatekeeping around whether or not you are post-op excludes our poorest members.

That's actually one of the things I like about Israel. Israeli citizens can get gender confirmation surgery covered under their public health system. And those who won't get GCS can still change their legal gender. I learnt this when comparing the rights in my country to the rest of the world before I had my surgeries. In Australia, we have to pay for GCS out of our own pocket. Most of us can't afford the exorbitant costs. I burnt through most of my savings paying for it. Also, at the time QLD still required GCS to get a legal gender change, which was scummy as we can die in at least three different ways if things go wrong.

And I agree that throwing xenogender individuals, non-binary & genderfluid individuals under the bus is just stupidity I'm binary. I identify solely as female. But the bigots want me dead too & throwing those who are xenogender under the bus won't save binary transpeople like myself, it just means we have fewer allies when they come for us (the LNP hates us, so if they win QLD in October, things will get bad here). Also I don't get why anyone cares if someone is xenogender or genderfluid. It doesn't harm anyone, why should anyone else raise a fuss about it.

I hate how our societies treat the mentally atypical. I have Autism, ADHD, Anxiety, Insomnia & Sensory Processing Disorder. Most of my relatives have some kind of neurodivergent conditions. On top of what I got, the following also appear in the family: Schizoaffective, Bipolar, Depression, PTSD, everything in Clusters A & C & most of Cluster B. We are basically just missing HPD (from Cluster B) & DID as far as I know. And even that may be because I'm not told everything. So I have seen & experienced how our society fails us.

As for the British monarchy. Yeah, they are useless wastes of space & I don't understand why we still fund their lifestyle in the 21st century. Just abolish it already.

So we agree on more than we don't @bisexualseraphim. But I support Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas & understand that some civilian casualties are inevitable when fighting Hamas. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Just saw some Free Palestine supporters on the road to my parents’ house and was about to wave at them but then I saw a couple of them holding signs making disgusting antisemitic jokes about Passover. Guys seriously how fucking difficult is it to just. Not do that 😭 You’re really not giving Palestine extra help by making horrible comments and jokes about Jews ffs can you not just promote support for Palestine without bringing hatred for entire minority demographics into it DURING THE TIME OF A RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY. It is remarkably easy to criticise Israel without antisemitism and if you can’t do that then maybe you should stay out of the movement because you’re causing much more harm than good