#and so circumscribed by fear of rejection

[bestworstcase]

the first thing. the very first thing we see salem do besides the non-diegetic bookend monologues. is tell off watts for being mean to cinder. “watts, do you find such malignance necessary?”

and it isn’t just a passing remark, salem makes a whole thing of it. “then i see no reason for your cruelty towards young cinder,” effusive praise and then she turns back to watts and says, “so, i’m curious, to what ‘failures’ are you referring?”

well, watts says, the girl with the silver eyes. even without her new power, it should have been effortless—

—and salem shuts that down hard. “it is because of the maiden’s power.” it’s not cinder’s fault. “make no mistake, cinder: you hold the key to our victory. but your newfound strength brings with it a crippling weakness, which is why you will remain by my side as we continue your treatment.”

then, after salem gives her orders, cinder asks about ruby. watts scoffs; what about her, she’s cinder’s problem, not ours. but: “tyrian? spring can wait. find the girl that did this to cinder, and bring her to me.”

and scene. that’s our first real glimpse of who salem is, and it lays the foundations for everything that develops from this point with salem and cinder. 

before salem walks into the room it’s established that cinder is at the bottom of the pecking order. watts and tyrian gleefully pick on her; hazel doesn’t give a shit. and then salem enters and makes this deliberate, protracted point of not just “don’t be cruel to cinder” but she is at pains to demonstrate that cinder’s wellbeing is her first priority. salem is personally involved in treating her injuries. watts is taking over the haven operation so that cinder will have more time to heal. she pulls tyrian off the hunt for the spring maiden because cinder wants ruby dealt with, and salem again intends to deal with the matter herself. 

“it’s important not to lose sight of what drives us: love. justice… reverence. but the moment you put your desires before my own, they will be lost to you. this isn’t a threat; this is simply the truth. the path to your desires is only found through me.”

but for cinder fall, spring can wait.

cinder has always been the exception to every rule. salem put what cinder wanted ahead of her own agenda. salem effectively postponed haven to do cinder a favor, without a second of hesitation. salem spent all of V4-5 focused on cinder and what cinder wanted. 

her parting words before cinder leaves for haven are: “you will have the power i promised you when the time is right, but remember that it comes with a cost. if ruby rose has learned to harness her gift, you must take care to protect yours; there’s only so much i can do to aid you.”

<- “be careful.”

and then cinder is not careful. now consider this exchange:

SALEM: Emerald. I want you to tell me whose fault this was… Now. EMERALD: Ci-Cinder! We failed because of Cinder. SALEM: ……That’s right. I want you to understand that failure; I want you to understand why Cinder must be left to toil in her isolation until she redeems herself.  MERCURY: You mean… EMERALD: She’s alive!? WATTS: You’re joking. How could you know that?

ok. really think about this. 

salem is the only person in the room who knows cinder is alive. everybody else takes it as a given that she died at haven. “maybe cinder survived somehow?” is not a possibility on anybody’s radar.

emerald is on the brink of collapsing in abject grief because she believes cinder is dead. and then salem grabs her shoulder and is like “listen to me very closely, it is emotionally important to me that you understand why we will not be going to cinder’s aid. she MUST be left to TOIL ALONE. BY HERSELF. until she redeems herself. do you understand?”

and the entire inner circle is like excuse me

what do you mean cinder’s alive

how do you even know that

“NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.”

i just—hrgfjfk

“apropos of nothing, i am NOT sending you or cinder’s other little friend to her aid and i will NOT be altering my plans in any way to help her i am not going to lift a finger for her. until she redeems herself.”

the lady doth protest too much. 

for cinder fall, spring can wait. 

salem is projecting her own desire to rescue cinder from the haven mess onto emerald for the express purpose of shooting it down. watts asks how she could even know cinder survived and salem’s like >:( and changes the subject. 

“it’s important not to lose sight of what drives us. love—”

she goes through her whole little spiel about not putting what they want before what she wants and then, with her back turned to all of them, she glances out the window and the mask just crumbles. her shoulders hunch. she is acutely unhappy. “and so we must… press on.”

this song and dance is not for them. it’s for her. it is half of an argument salem is having with herself. 

“spring can wait; find the girl that did this to cinder, and bring her to me.” -> “but the moment you put your desires before my own, they will be lost to you.”

“you will have the power i promised you […] but remember that it comes with a cost. if ruby rose has learned to harness her gift, you must take care to protect yours; there is only so much i can do to aid you.” -> “the path to your desires is only found through me.”

✨salem✨ is the one who set the expectation that what cinder wanted took priority. salem told cinder to rely on herself first and salem second. she warned cinder repeatedly and explicitly that the power she promised to cinder would expose her to greater harm.

as far as salem knows, because watts certainly wouldn’t have painted a fair picture of why cinder made the choices she did, cinder didn’t heed that warning, fumbled haven, lost the lamp, and very nearly got herself killed in the process. 

and salem wants to throw her a lifeline. 

she doesn’t want to be wanting to throw cinder a lifeline but it is, obviously, a thought that crossed her mind often enough for her to feel the need to declare out loud that she is Not Going To Do It, No Matter How Much You Might Want Me To, Emerald.

“the sword under vacuo’s academy, shade—” and then hazel drops the bomb on her that ozma has the lamp and he’s taking it to atlas. watts and tyrian are rattled because oz might talk some sense into ironwood and spoil the plan. but salem?

salem isn’t thinking tactics or strategy. she is getting run over by the freight train of discovering she feels the same way about This Situation—cinder trying to get the lamp away from ozma alone—as she feels about her daughters.

and she cannot fucking do it. 

cinder must be left to toil in her isolation until she redeems herself (by recovering the lamp) -> what do you mean oz has the lamp -> never mind we’re all going to atlas right the fuck now. cinder can toil in isolation with the covert support of salem’s most formidable pair of agents while salem churns out a zillion grimm over the course of a few months ITS FINE. EVERYTHING IS FINE.

“she thinks; she wants. as if she’s done something to warrant me caring about either of those things.” i don’t care, she says, caringly.

but:

“your newfound strength brings with it a crippling weakness, which is why you will remain at my side while we continue your treatment.” -> “you will have the power i promised you when the time is right, but remember that it comes with a cost. if ruby rose has learned to harness her gift, you must take care to protect yours. there’s only so much i can do to aid you.” -> “i would like to think i’ve shown a great deal of patience during my many years walking remnant, but i do hate repeating myself. you will remain here. is that clear?”

it isn’t that she’s punishing cinder for the failure at haven.

cinder comes home from beacon maimed, salem keeps her at evernight for months and replaces the arm she lost with a grimm (<- symbolically, she gives cinder part of herself;  the arm ties them together and that goes both ways, salem knows she’s alive and cinder knows when she’s back; she makes cinder like herself). waits as long as she reasonably can before sending her to haven, with parting words that amount to be careful, i won’t be there to save you.

cinder gets clobbered at haven and barely survives, salem is at war with herself over it when hazel blindsides her with the bad news that ozma has the lamp and she panics.

salem drops everything to rush to atlas with overwhelming force and arrives to find cinder waiting for her not only in one piece but also in possession of the lamp; her eyes go fucking glossy for a second as an enormous amount of tension just melts away. and salem like? teases her? about her habit of bringing home strays. “hm! you certainly do like collecting assets,” fondly indulgent. oh you. like genuinely is is the one and only time salem has ever sounded like she’s having fun. 

…then cinder reveals that she tried for the staff, too, but the polendina girl “interfered” and became the winter maiden instead. (salem isn’t stupid she knows this is cinder-speak for “a girl who could beat me without magic is the winter maiden now.”) and cinder wants to turn right around and hunt her down? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. YOU ARE STAYING HERE.

the hammer drops because salem is scared. she resorts to cruelty in a desperate stab at clawing herself back from the ledge of Caring About Cinder; but salem is so, so, so painfully cognizant all the time of how mortal cinder is. she sent cinder to beacon and cinder came home missing her eye and half an arm. she sent cinder to haven and cinder almost didn’t come back at all, it’s a miracle she survived. and salem brought an incomprehensible number of grimm to atlas specifically to avoid round three of feeling terrified while cinder crawls through a meat grinder for her. and now cinders like BUT I WANT TO CRAWL THROUGH THE MEAT GRINDER!

“remember that [power] comes with a cost; if ruby rose has learned to harness her gift, you must take care to protect yours. there’s only so much i can do to aid you” -> “everything is already in motion; all you need to concern yourself with is your ability to act when i tell you to.”

she doesn’t have the nerve to say it or maybe she just doesn’t know how but she is trying to pull cinder out of the line of fire. this is not your game to win (this is not your fight) and just because you’re more valuable to me than a pawn (you are not just a pawn to me) and everything is already in motion (i will take care of it this time) and all you need to concern yourself with is your ability to act when i tell you (don’t worry just let me handle it).

if she can crack down and keep cinder under control with cruelty and intimidation then she doesn’t have to confront the feelings driving her decisions, but of course she can’t because she never had control over cinder in the first place; cinder is legitimately stunned when salem shuts her down in 8.1 because Salem Does Not Treat Her Like That.

so naturally cinder goes: well fuck you i do what i want. 

and almost fucking dies. 

again.

they hit amity in the middle of the night. it’s dawn in vacuo during the broadcast, vacuo is six hours ahead of atlas (2.3). cinder does not wake up until dawn. she is unconscious for six hours. six. hours. in a world where aura can fully heal a thoracic impalement in about fifteen minutes.

think about how badly cinder had to have been hurt for emerald—who loves cinder and is terrified of salem—to bring cinder back to the whale after they did exactly what salem directly ordered cinder not to do. think about the level of desperation necessary for emerald of all people to weigh the risk of salem’s fury against the severity of cinder’s injuries and decide she had to bring cinder to salem. 

“you chose to disobey my specific instructions, just to fail again. and… i’ve realized it’s all my fault. you’ve fought your whole life unwaveringly for what you want, and here i am holding you back, instead of lifting you up. you deserve so much more than i’ve given you.”

<- that is the sound of salem falling off the ledge.

like

as a manipulative tactic to get cinder under her thumb this is, quite plainly, not going to work, and cinder sees right through it, and salem knows that. by literally ✨rewarding✨ open defiance she accomplishes nothing except proving to cinder that when the chips are down, salem will blink first.

but. 

salem is not about getting cinder under her thumb. she wants the relics and she’s also been losing her gods-damned mind for months now because every time cinder leaves her sight for an extended period of time cinder has gotten smushed like a bug and the legion of grimm did not even slightly improve the situation. and the only way salem can think of to thread the needle between having her cake and eating it too is to go REBELLION IS OKAY. LET’S TRY THE BUDDY SYSTEM. 

the minute salem reconstitutes, she beelines to where cinder is. pretends not to notice cinder’s bald-faced lies. “you did well” and “our work here is done” and not interrupting and making a point to demonstrate that she listened to what cinder told her (“you said they used the staff; i assume you rid the world of their creation.”) and asking carefully non-threatening follow up questions (“what did you create?” as opposed to, like, what happened to watts). 

salem isn’t trying to put cinder on a leash. she’s twisting herself into knots in search of a way to move forward with her actual agenda without getting cinder killed, and her increasing desperation to keep cinder alive is not primarily motivated by strategic calculation; it’s emotional. 

her establishing character moment is salem Making a Statement to her own inner circle that cinder is more important than the plan. she says she’s going to leave cinder to ~toil in isolation~ and sticks to it for all of, like, two minutes before she finds out it would mean abandoning cinder to face ozma alone and just shatters. she is visibly relieved when cinder surprises her with the lamp and proceeds to make “you will not go hunting a girl who can definitely maul you” her hill to die on until cinder tries to actually die on it, whereupon salem snaps like a stretched rubber band back to “you can do whatever the hell you want just please for the love of fuck slow down and let me bend the odds as much in your favor as i can.” this woman is immortal and cinder is still shaving years off her lifespan. 

and this is going to keep happening until she can get her act together and say outright that she Cares About Cinder, because to cinder all of this just looks like salem yanking a leash to remind cinder she’s worthless. the second beacon arc is going to be hysterical. 

[beardedmrbean]

A lawsuit filed by sorority members at the University of Wyoming to block a transgender woman from joining has been dismissed by a judge — despite allegations the student was a “sexual predator” who got physically aroused around them.

Since the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority bylaws do not define what a “woman” is, Wyoming US District Judge Alan Johnson ruled he could not proceed with the lawsuit and dismissed the matter on Friday, according to reports. “With its inquiry beginning and ending there, the court will not define a ‘woman’ today,” Johnson wrote.

Johnson ruled that a federal court could not interfere with the sorority chapter’s freedom of association by ruling against its vote to induct trans student Artemis Langford last year.

“The University of Wyoming chapter voted to admit — and, more broadly, a sorority of hundreds of thousands approved — Langford,” Johnson wrote in his ruling. 

“The delegate of a private, voluntary organization interpreted ‘woman,’ otherwise undefined in the nonprofit’s bylaws, expansively; this Judge may not invade Kappa Kappa Gamma’s freedom of expressive association and inject the circumscribed definition Plaintiffs urge.”

Rachel Berkness, Langford’s attorney, welcomed the court’s ruling.

“The allegations against Ms. Langford should never have made it into a legal filing,” Berkness said in an email to the Associated Press.

“They are nothing more than cruel rumors that mirror exactly the type of rumors used to vilify and dehumanize members of the LGBTQIA+ community for generations. And they are baseless,” Berkness said in an email.

The case at Wyoming’s only four-year public university garnered national attention as ongoing issues over the years involving transgender rights for students in schools and athletics have sparked major debate nationwide.

Six members of the university’s Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority filed the lawsuit in March against the national sorority organization, its national council president and Langford — who joined their chapter in September 2022.

The sorority members were seeking to have a judge void Langford’s Kappa Kappa Gamma membership and award unspecified damages.

Kari Kittrell Poole, the executive director of the sorority, told the Associated Press in May that the lawsuit “contains numerous false allegations” without specifying them.

She added that Kappa Kappa Gamma, which has over 250,000 members in 140 chapters across the United States and Canada, does not discriminate against gender identity.

The lawsuit alleged that members felt uneasy around Langford — identified under the male pseudonym Terry Smith in the suit — with one member allegedly witnessing Langford get physically aroused.

“Mr. Smith has, while watching members enter the sorority house, had an erection visible through his leggings,” the suit claimed. “Other times, he has had a pillow in his lap.” 

Berkness shared that claims about her client’s behavior and being labeled a “sexual predator” were nothing more than a “drunken rumor” following the suit’s dismissal.

The six sorority members told Megyn Kelly on her podcast in May that they “live in constant fear in our home” with Langford present and that the trans student would stare at women without talking for hours.

“It is seriously an only-female space. It is so different than living in the dorms, for instance, where men and women can commingle on the floors. That is not the case in a sorority house. We share just a couple of main bathrooms on the upstairs floor,” a member, not identified by name, told Kelly.

Cassie Craven, an attorney representing the sorority sisters, said her clients disagree with the ruling — and, more importantly, that the sorority chapter lacks a proper definition of who should be classified as a woman.

“Women have a biological reality that deserves to be protected and recognized, and we will continue to fight for that right just as women suffragists for decades have been told that their bodies, opinions, and safety doesn’t matter,” Craven wrote in an email to the outlet.

It’s unclear if Kappa Kappa Gamma plans on changing its bylaws to adequately define what a woman is for potential issues in the future.

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/the-rapture-and-the-inferno/

The Rapture And The Inferno

Some people can be fooled some of the time, but not all of the people can be fooled all of the time unless they want to be.  Evangelical Christians seem to be among the latter. They have every reason to doubt Donald Trump’s religious convictions.  The number of fraud cases he has lost should be a clue: Trump University, his charitable foundation, and the E. Jean Carroll rape charge. The 91 current criminal indictments ought to be a red flag, too. Nonetheless, if polls speak true, a majority of the religious right gives the former president their unwavering support. Why they put their faith in him is unfathomable. Until  2016 when he ran for President, he had little commerce with them and identified as a  Presbyterian.  Even now, what he seems to admire most about evangelicals is the ability of their pastors to squeeze vast sums of money from the flock. “They’re all hustlers,” Trump says of them, the highest form of praise a con man can give to someone he believes is in the trade. In private, however, his remarks are anything but flattering. Despite his duplicity, evangelical pastors struggle to create what amounts to a squared circle, allying themselves with a man whose shenanigans rival those of Bernie Madow. ��Instead, they turn a blind eye to his conduct or choose to see him as a “flawed vessel of God’s will.” An equivocation like the last one is a confession.  They know they have made a Faustian bargain, but given their priorities, they have no choice.  Under Trump’s leadership, they hope to drag the United States into the past, a period when women had few rights and LGBTQ was no more than a set of alphabet letters. So far, aligning themselves with an “infidel” has had its rewards. Trump chose an evangelical as his 2016 Presidential running mate, and after winning the election, he filled his Cabinet with people like Mike Pompeo who believe in the Rapture. Then he gave them the jewel they sought most.   He appointed three Supreme Court judges who were happy to overturn Rove v. Wade and deny women sovereignty over their bodies. When opposites conspire with one another, outcomes are unpredictable.  Trump and the pastors have cobbled together a wide net meant to ensnare an army of true believers. They’ve forgotten, however, that the same net circumscribes their boundaries and failed to foresee how a changed environment would alter their flock. One pastor complains his parishioners have begun to reject Christ’s teachings, finding them to be too weak. They seem to prefer the strum and dang of their new savior, Donald Trump. He not only embodies righteousness but also promises revenge. No doubt the former president thrills to the roar of the crowd, but the stage upon which he struts is a narrow one. The audience that gathers at his feet comes not to praise him but to hear their worst instincts validated. Moderate the message to the slightest degree and will they boo, as they did when he urged them to get a Covid 19 vaccine. Trump and the pastors have come to realize that their suppliants are more to be feared than exhorted. No longer a disorganized band of malcontents, they swell with the promise of the coming Rapture. To be ready, they’ve formed themselves into mindless hammers and are prepared to crush anyone who fails to share their frenzy. Trump’s rhetoric has grown more violent in response to their bloodlust. They may hurry him along the path he has chosen, but these suppliants demand of him a never-ending cycle of extremes, a demand that may appall some of the unscrupulous pastors and ambitious politicians who have been dragged within his wake like Marley’s chains. Having pledged their troth to a flawed vessel, these former luminaries must tread in their master’s footsteps or lose all import. Surely, a  compact this perfidious begs for a circle in Dante’s hell.

[kushsen1952]

Must we remain a slave?

A very peculiar feature of our nature is that we prefer to remain confined within the limits of our own mental formations. Our ideas, beliefs, principles, and inferences, formed from various experiences at an individual level and imposed on us over the years by the social, political, and religious convictions at a collective level, become the most powerful governor of our lives. These formations constantly influence and determine our thoughts, feelings, and actions, although we may not be quite conscious about their working or existence. At times we become aware of them, especially when they contradict our self-interest, but even on such occasions they usually prevail upon our independent thinking. We hesitate to think liberally or act freely, mainly because of our old habitual way of thinking which has a very strong hold on us. We prefer to operate from a base of which the laws are known to us rather than try to tread on new grounds where the consequences are unknown. In a way, this resistance to things new originates from our ignorance, which causes in our mind a fear of the unknown. We suspect what we do not know and, curiously enough, reject a new idea even without caring to ascertain its values. Admitting a new concept into our thinking or living requires a certain amount of courage and a liberal mindset, which are not the most dominant traits of our nature.

This tendency of clinging to the known ground is not peculiar to the ordinary man pinned down to their day-to-day life who has no time to think beyond their struggle for existence but is quite common even for the learned and the elite. In their case though it usually takes a different form. While ordinary men accede to a stereotyped life primarily out of compulsions, the elites usually remain satisfied with an “average humanity” more by choice, mainly due to their intellectual vanity arising from receiving a decent education and a variety of other information from diverse sources, which they consider as knowledge. Having acquired high university degrees with certain intellectual activities they believe that they have become sufficiently wise which gives rise to intellectual pride. They refuse to believe that there can be any other way to improve the conditions of human life than what in their opinion is right for humanity. Their egos become so inflated with what can only be defined as ‘partial knowledge’ that they assert their views even in the fields in which they have no authority. They deny everything that contradicts their views, refusing even to consider or examine what they deny.

There are very few things more dangerous and detrimental to the progress of a man than this egoistic intellectual pride. This kind of self-appeasement constructs an impenetrable mental wall around an individual leaving very little chance for the light outside to enter through it. For only so can the half-light inside be protected and preserved—in its self-created obscurity and darkness. It is not that one is not aware of the flickering, dwindling nature of this half-light one is trying to protect, but what is most pathetic is that one still prefers to judge everything with its help. No wonder then that a self-contained intellectual cannot understand or accept a new idea, especially when it invalidates his own views. His intelligence circumscribed by his attachment to his half-knowledge and governed by his ego does not allow him to admit it. For, if the views that he holds so dear are proved wrong by the admission of a new idea, his own intellectual pride will get hurt and he will fall from his self-esteem. Consequently, he refuses to accept a higher idea, a greater truth for fear of losing his own identity as a knowledgeable intellectual. Not only the refusal but also a hostile rebuttal of greater ideas provides the best opportunity for the survival of his views that is so dear to him.

He, therefore, condemns all greater ideas not conforming to his own narrow views of things, although he does not know why they should be condemned. It is quite possible that he could have been enriched and profited by the very idea that he so emphatically rejected but this does not seem to bother him at all. He is satisfied as long as his own views prevail, no matter if he has to disregard and discredit a greater truth in the process which, ironically, makes him the sole loser in the bargain.

This is nothing but self-deception of the highest order but that is how most of the learned intellectuals prefer to live, with an illusion of knowledge—often so faulty and superficial that it explains nothing—with the help of which they try to solve the intricate problems of life and existence, understandably creating more confusion than before.

The human mind has only a very limited capacity and even this is further impaired by man’s pride and prejudices. Serving nothing else but one’s ego, whether of the individual or of a collective, is the sole preoccupation of man. A greater truth that may usher in a brighter future is squarely denied without the least inhibition at the altar of this all-pervading Master. The majority of the intelligent world seems to find such a coexistence or rather a meek submission perfectly acceptable.

Must we remain a slave and continue to serve this one master forever, denying the greater light?

[hauntedselves]

The 4F’s: Fight, Flight, Freeze & Fawn

By Pete Walker

[Note: this post is very long!]

“This model elaborates four basic defensive structures that develop out of our instinctive Fight, Flight, Freeze and Fawn responses to severe abandonment and trauma (heretofore referred to as the 4Fs). Variances in the childhood abuse/neglect pattern, birth order, and genetic predispositions result in individuals "choosing" and specializing in narcissistic (fight), obsessive/compulsive (flight), dissociative (freeze) or codependent (fawn) defenses.”

“Individuals who experience "good enough parenting" in childhood arrive in adulthood with a healthy and flexible response repertoire to danger. In the face of real danger, they have appropriate access to all of their 4F choices. Easy access to the fight response insures good boundaries, healthy assertiveness and aggressive self-protectiveness if necessary. Untraumatized individuals also easily and appropriately access their flight instinct and disengage and retreat when confrontation would exacerbate their danger. They also freeze appropriately and give up and quit struggling when further activity or resistance is futile or counterproductive.  And finally they also fawn in a liquid, "play-space" manner and are able to listen, help, and compromise as readily as they assert and express themselves and their needs, rights and points of view.

Those who are repetitively traumatized in childhood however, often learn to survive by over-relying on the use of one or two of the 4F Reponses. Fixation in any one 4F response not only delimits the ability to access all the others, but also severely impairs the individual's ability to relax into an undefended state, circumscribing him in a very narrow, impoverished experience of life. Over time a habitual 4F defense also "serves" to distract the individual from the accumulating unbearable feelings of her current alienation and unresolved past trauma. 

Complex PTSD as an Attachment Disorder

Polarization to a fight, flight, freeze or fawn response is not only the developing child's unconscious attempt to obviate danger, but also a strategy to purchase some illusion or modicum of attachment.  All 4F types are commonly ambivalent about real intimacy because deep relating so easily triggers them into painful emotional flashbacks”.

“Emotional Flashbacks are instant and sometimes prolonged regressions into the intense, overwhelming feeling states of childhood abuse and neglect: fear, shame, alienation, rage, grief and/or depression. Habituated 4F defenses offer protection against further re-abandonment hurts by precluding the type of vulnerable relating that is prone to re-invoke childhood feelings of being attacked, unseen, and unappreciated.  Fight types avoid real intimacy by unconsciously alienating others with their angry and controlling demands for the unmet childhood need of unconditional love; flight types stay perpetually busy and industrious to avoid potentially triggering interactions; freeze types hide away in their rooms and reveries; and fawn types avoid emotional investment and potential disappointment by barely showing themselves - by hiding behind their helpful personas, over-listening, over-eliciting or overdoing for the other - by giving service but never risking real self-exposure and the possibility of deeper level rejection. Here then, are further descriptions of the 4F defenses with specific recommendations for treatment.”

The Fight Type and the Narcissistic Defense

“Fight types are unconsciously driven by the belief that power and control can create safety, assuage abandonment and secure love. Children who are spoiled and given insufficient limits (a uniquely painful type of abandonment) and children who are allowed to imitate the bullying of a narcissistic parent may develop a fixated fight response to being triggered. These types learn to respond to their feelings of abandonment with anger and subsequently use contempt, a toxic amalgam of narcissistic rage and disgust, to intimidate and shame others into mirroring them and into acting as extensions of themselves. The entitled fight type commonly uses others as an audience for his incessant monologizing, and may treat a "captured" freeze or fawn type as a slave or prisoner in a dominance-submission relationship. Especially devolved fight types may become sociopathic, ranging along a continuum that stretches between corrupt politician and vicious criminal.

Treatment: Treatable fight types benefit from being psychoeducated about the prodigious price they pay for controlling others with intimidation. Less injured types are able to see how potential intimates become so afraid and/or resentful of them that they cannot manifest the warmth or real liking the fight type so desperately desires. I have helped a number of fight types understand the following downward spiral of power and alienation: excessive use of power triggers a fearful emotional withdrawal in the other, which makes the fight type feel even more abandoned and, in turn, more outraged and contemptuous, which then further distances the "intimate", which in turn increases their rage and disgust, which creates increasing distance and withholding of warmth, ad infinitem. Fight types need to learn to notice and renounce their habit of instantly morphing abandonment feelings into rage and disgust. As they become more conscious of their abandonment feelings, they can focus on and feel their abandonment fear and shame without transmuting it into rage or disgust - and without letting grandiose overcompensations turn it into demandingness.

Unlike the other 4Fs, fight types assess themselves as perfect and project the inner critic's perfectionistic processes onto others, guaranteeing themselves an endless supply of justifications to rage. Fight types need to see how their condescending, moral-high-ground position alienates others and perpetuates their present time abandonment. Learning to take self-initiated timeouts at the first sign of triggering is an invaluable tool for them to acquire. Timeouts can be used to accurately redirect the lion's share of their hurt feelings into grieving and working through their original abandonment, rather than displacing it destructively onto current intimates. Furthermore, like all 4F fixations, fight types need to become more flexible and adaptable in using the other 4F responses to perceived danger, especially the polar opposite and complementary fawn response described below. They can learn the empathy response of the fawn position - imagining how it feels to be the other, and in the beginning "fake it until they make it." Without real consideration for the other, without reciprocity and dialogicality, the real intimacy they crave will remain unavailable to them. 

The Flight Type and the Obsessive-Compulsive Defense

Flight types appear as if their starter button is stuck in the "on" position. They are obsessively and compulsively driven by the unconscious belief that perfection will make them safe and loveable. As children, flight types respond to their family trauma somewhere along a hyperactive continuum that stretches between the extremes of the driven "A" student and the ADHD dropout running amok. They relentlessly flee the inner pain of their abandonment and lack of attachment with the symbolic flight of constant busyness.

When the obsessive/compulsive flight type is not doing, she is worrying and planning about doing. Flight types are prone to becoming addicted to their own adrenalization, and many recklessly and regularly pursue risky and dangerous activities to keep their adrenalin-high going. These types are also as susceptible to stimulating substance addictions, as they are to their favorite process addictions: workaholism and busyholism. Severely traumatized flight types may devolve into severe anxiety and panic disorders.

Treatment: Many flight types are so busy trying to stay one step ahead of their pain that introspecting out loud in the therapy hour is the only time they find to take themselves seriously. While psychoeducation is important and essential to all the types, flight types particularly benefit from it. Nowhere is this truer than in the work of learning to deconstruct their overidentification with the perfectionistic demands of their inner critic. Gently and repetitively confronting denial and minimization about the costs of perfectionism is essential, especially with workaholics who often admit their addiction to work but secretly hold onto it as a badge of pride and superiority.  Deeper work with flight types - as with all types -gradually opens them to grieving their original abandonment and all its concomitant losses. Egosyntonic crying is an unparalleled tool for shrinking the obsessive perseverations of the critic and for ameliorating the habit of compulsive rushing. As recovery progresses, flight types can acquire a "gearbox" that allows them to engage life at a variety of speeds, including neutral. Flight types also benefit from using mini-minute meditations to help them identify and deconstruct their habitual "running". I teach such clients to sit comfortably, systemically relax, breathe deeply and diaphragmatically, and ask themselves questions such as: "What is my most important priority right now?", or when more time is available: "What hurt am I running from right now? Can I open my heart to the idea and image of soothing myself in my pain?" Finally, there are numerous flight types who exhibit symptoms that may be misperceived as cyclothymic bipolar disorder”.

“The Freeze Type and the Dissociative Defense

Many freeze types unconsciously believe that people and danger are synonymous, and that safety lies in solitude. Outside of fantasy, many give up entirely on the possibility of love. The freeze response, also known as the camouflage response, often triggers the individual into hiding, isolating and eschewing human contact as much as possible. This type can be so frozen in retreat mode that it seems as if their starter button is stuck in the "off" position. It is usually the most profoundly abandoned child - "the lost child" - who is forced to "choose" and habituate to the freeze response (the most primitive of the 4Fs). Unable to successfully employ fight, flight or fawn responses, the freeze type's defenses develop around classical dissociation, which allows him to disconnect from experiencing his abandonment pain, and protects him from risky social interactions - any of which might trigger feelings of being reabandoned. Freeze types often present as ADD; they seek refuge and comfort in prolonged bouts of sleep, daydreaming, wishing and right brain-dominant activities like TV, computer and video games. They master the art of changing the internal channel whenever inner experience becomes uncomfortable. When they are especially traumatized or triggered, they may exhibit a schizoid-like detachment from ordinary reality.

Treatment: There are at least three reasons why freeze types are the most difficult 4F defense to treat. First, their positive relational experiences are few if any, and they are therefore extremely reluctant to enter the relationship of therapy; moreover, those who manage to overcome this reluctance often spook easily and quickly terminate. Second, they are harder to psychoeducate about the trauma basis of their complaints because, like many fight types, they are unconscious of their fear and their torturous inner critic. Also, like the fight type, the freeze type tends to project the perfectionistic demands of the critic onto others rather than the self, and uses the imperfections of others as justification for isolation. The critic's processes of perfectionism and endangerment, extremely unconscious in freeze types, must be made conscious and deconstructed as described in detail in my aforementioned article on shrinking the inner critic. Third, even more than workaholic flight types, freeze types are in denial about the life narrowing consequences of their singular adaptation. Because the freeze response is on a continuum that ends with the collapse response (the extreme abandonment of consciousness seen in prey animals about to be killed), many appear to be able to self-medicate by releasing the internal opioids that the animal brain is programmed to release when danger is so great that death seems immanent. The opioid production of the collapse or extreme freeze response can only take the individual so far however, and these types are therefore prone to sedating substance addictions. Many self-medicating types are often drawn to marijuana and narcotics, while others may gravitate toward ever escalating regimes of anti-depressants and anxiolytics. Moreover, when they are especially unremediated and unattached, they can devolve into increasing depression”.

“The Fawn Type and the Codependent Defense

Fawn types seek safety by merging with the wishes, needs and demands of others. They act as if they unconsciously believe that the price of admission to any relationship is the forfeiture of all their needs, rights, preferences and boundaries. They often begin life like the precocious children described in Alice Miler's The Drama Of The Gifted Child, who learn that a modicum of safety and attachment can be gained by becoming the helpful and compliant servants of their parents. They are usually the children of at least one narcissistic parent who uses contempt to press them into service, scaring and shaming them out of developing a healthy sense of self: an egoic locus of self-protection, self-care and self-compassion.”

Treatment: “Fawn types typically respond well to being psychoeducated in this model. This is especially true when the therapist persists in helping them recognize and renounce the repetition compulsion that draws them to narcissistic types who exploit them. Therapy also naturally helps them to shrink their characteristic listening defense as they are guided to widen and deepen their self-expression. I have seen numerous inveterate codependents finally progress in their assertiveness and boundary-making work, when they finally got that even the thought of expressing a preference or need triggers an emotional flashback of such intensity that they completely dissociate from their knowledge of and ability to express what they want.  Role-playing assertiveness in session and attending to the stultifying inner critic processes it triggers helps the codependent build a healthy ego. This is especially true when the therapist interprets, witnesses and validates how the individual as a child was forced to put to death so much of her individual self. Grieving these losses further potentiates the developing ego.”

“Trauma Hybrids

There are, of course, few pure types. Most trauma survivors are hybrids of the 4F's. There are for instance, three subsets of the fawn type: the fawn-fight (the smothering-mother type) who coercively or manipulatively takes care of others, who smother loves  them into conforming with her view of who they should be; the fawn-flight type who workaholically makes herself useful to others (the "model" secretary) in the vein of her favorite role model Mother Theresa; and the fawn-freeze type who numbingly surrenders herself  to scapegoating or to a narcissist's need to have a target for his rageaholic releases (the "classic" domestic violence victim). Space in this article only allows for the description of two other common hybrids: the Fight/Fawn and the Flight/Freeze.

The Fight/Fawn, perhaps the most relational hybrid and most susceptible to love addiction, combines two opposite but magnetically attracting polarities of relational style - narcissism and codependence. This defense is sometimes misdiagnosed as borderline because the individual's flashbacks trigger a panicky sense of abandonment and a desperation for love that causes her to dramatically split back and forth between fighting and clawing for love and cunningly or flatteringly groveling for it. This type is different than the fawn/fight in that the narcissistic defense is typically more in ascendancy. The fight/fawn hybrid is also distinct from a more common condition where an individual acts like a fight type in one relationship while fawning in another (the archetypal henpecked husband who is a tyrant at work), and from the many "nice" mildly codependent people who have critical masses where they will eventually get fed up and blow up about injustice and exploitation. The borderline-like fight/fawn type however may dramatically vacillate back and forth between these two styles many times in a single interaction.

The Flight/Freeze type is the least relational and most schizoid hybrid. This type avoids his feelings and potential relationship retraumatization with an obsessive-compulsive/ dissociative "two-step" that severely narrows his existence. The flight/freeze cul-de-sac is more common among men, especially those traumatized for being vulnerable in childhood, and those who subsequently learned to seek safety in isolation or "intimacy-lite" relationships. Many non-alpha type males gravitate to the combination of flight and freeze defensiveness stereotypical of the information technology nerd - the computer addict who workaholically focuses for long periods of time and then drifts off dissociatively into computer games. Many sex addicts also combine flight and freeze in a compulsive pursuit of a sexual pseudo-intimacy. When in flight mode, they obsessively scheme to "get" sex and/or compulsively pursue and/or engage in it; when in freeze mode, they drift off into a right brain sexual fantasy world that is often fueled by an addictive use of pornography; and even during real time sexual interaction, they often engage more with their idealized fantasy partners than with their actual partner.

Self-Assessment

Readers may find it informative to self-assess their own hierarchical use of the 4F responses. They can try to determine their dominant type and hybrid, and think about what percentage of their time is spent in each type of 4F activity. Finally, all 4Fs progressively recover from the multidimensional wounding of complex ptsd as mindfulness of learned trauma dynamics increases, as the critic shrinks, as dissociation decreases, as childhood losses are effectively grieved, as the healthy ego matures into a user-friendly manager of the psyche, as the life narrative becomes more egosyntonic, as emotional vulnerability creates authentic experiences of intimacy, and as "good enough" safe attachments are attained. Furthermore, it is also important to emphasize that recovery is not an all-or-none phenomenon, but rather a gradual one marked by decreasing frequency, intensity and duration of flashbacks.”

[astrowithkaro]

Hi, love. Could you please add the 18th of july to your language of birthdays.

Thanks 🧿🪐✨

Language Of Birthdays: July 18 - Cancer

The Day Of Conviction

Those born on July 18 so clearly reflect the views of their group that they may find themselves spokespersons for those whose opinions they not only share but also come to shape. Social considerations are often in the forefront here, and whether those born on this day are actively political or not. they usually have a well-defined set of priorities and ethics that anchors their purpose in the world.

Because of their extreme receptivity and their power to effect changes, July 18 people make ideal candidates to represent anything from smaller groups (families, clubs or local societies) to larger entities (unions, political organizations or government bodies). Occasionally such people can become actual living symbols of the group they represent. As such they have the potential to become very powerful figures, as long as they keep the bond with their family, constituents or colleagues alive. If they should be cut off from this group, they may suffer great anxiety, go through a crisis and be forced to reexamine their values.

Those born on July 18 are generally forceful individuals. If they had the freedom, adventurousness or the inclination to step away from their group affiliations they would perhaps benefit from it, but given their nature, perhaps this is a moot point. Freedom of thought, action and choice are always circumscribed to some extent by the ethics of the group to which they belong and usually July 18 people make a contribution or express their creativity within such a framework. When the values or objectives of their group come into conflict with the laws of society which they consider unjust, those born on this day do not hesitate to attack the status quo aggressively or defend their group against domination or suppression. In this they are tireless and courageous.

The private lives of July 18 people may suffer terribly from their work. They must acknowledge that without spending sufficient time with their mate and/or children a satisfactory relationship is not likely to result. Many born on this day are adept at social interaction yet quite immature emotionally, and therefore problems will arise in their personal relation- ships. They may become quite dependent on the attention and affection they demand from those close to them, and extremely vulnerable and fearful if they are threatened with losing it. This may be further complicated if they do not wish to invest enough of themselves to satisfy their loved ones. Those born on July 18 must learn to be as strong in their private lives as they are in their public lives, and this cannot be accomplished on a strictly part-time basis.

Strengths:

Courageous

Committed

Agressive

Weaknesses:

Repressed

Tethered

Fixed

Advice

July 18 people have to deal with intense emotions and anger, as such feelings can have serious negative effects on their health if they are either severely repressed or violently expressed. One danger is that out of fear and a desire to appear rational, July 18 people will focus on their mental powers in order to push their feelings deep down inside them. An overabundance of either conscious control or uncontrolled emotion is harmful and any therapy that will help those born on this day find a healthy balance is recommended. Because of their great need for a happy home situation, emphasis on domestic comfort and sensuality as well as a wide variety of tasty food choices are particularly recommended. Moderate daily exercise should not be overlooked.

Don't lose yourself in your work

Get to know your emotions well and allow them easy expression

You are not always the center of every situation

Try to be emotionally honest in personal relationships

Don't be afraid of rejection

[one-divides-into-two]

The following theses summarize the general strategic orientation of the Maoist Communist Party – Orgnizing Committee after Kenosha:

i. The fight against white supremacy must take on a strategic priority. Recent events have demonstrated to the world at large what the black revolutionary movement and the agents of the settler-state apparatus have both recognized for decades: the oppression of the New Afrikan internal colony is the principal contradiction in the contemporary u.s.a. context. The intense repression of the black revolutionary movement – indeed, the construction of all new repressive apparatuses for this singular purpose – speaks to the fear which the old bourgeoisie rightly feels in the face of this national liberation struggle. Lenin, during the Third International, changed the course of the international communist movement by correcting its slogan, from the famous lines of the Manifesto (“Workers of the world, unite!”) to “Workers and oppressed peoples of the world, unite!” Communist unity with the struggle of oppressed peoples for their liberation is not solely on the basis of national liberation struggles’ ability to ‘detonate’ the broader class struggle, but because the anti-imperialist struggle is the leading force in the world revolutionary movement today. A communist movement which is unable to unite the worker’s struggle with the black revolutionary struggle on the basis of anti-imperialism is destined for the dustbin of history. The MCP-OC directs its cadres to unite wherever possible with formations which organize for black liberation, principally the New Afrikan Black Panther Party and the United Panther Movement.

ii. The spontaneous uprisings across the country, in response to repressive violence against black people, are circumscribed by the overall level of mass organization existing in a given city. The broad success of the state apparatus and its nonprofit wing in recuperating the energy of the George Floyd Rebellion into nonthreatening (and even counterrevolutionary) programs is a direct consequence of the absence of mass organizations capable of transforming the struggle for immediate demands into a political struggle for power. Even the most militant rebellion will be limited to achieving only minor concessions from the state without the presence of revolutionary leadership armed with a political program. The task of our cadres in this context is not only to recruit for their own organizations, such as our For the People programs, which is ultimately a secondary objective. Instead, we instruct local cells to work towards the construction of organizations composed of the masses themselves, leading alongside militants. Such organizations must be made capable of resisting recuperation through ongoing and explicit political education and two line struggle; they must be made with the objective of protracting the fight against the class enemy, organizing for concessions from the enemy and operating as a “school of war.” Ultimately, they must be united with other mass organizations into a front under communist leadership.

iii. The experience of Kenosha – in particular, the murder of two demonstrators by the brownshirt Kyle Rittenhouse – not only speaks to the truth of the old adage “cops and Klan go hand in hand,” but provides an implicit critique of the liberal “abolitionist” line. We cannot be fooled by the illusion that the racist violence of the state is an anomaly of “policing” or the “carceral state.” Such rhetoric disguises the real class character of the repressive apparatus and its structural role – the amelioration of class struggle to defend the rule of the owning class. The repression of black people as colonial violence plays a structurally necessary role in the maintenance of capitalist domination – this will never be conceded so long as the capitalist system and its state apparatus continue to exist. Whether through traditional police officers or fascist paramilitaries, Capital will always defend itself. Thus, the fight for abolition must be connected with the revolutionary struggle and the initiation of people’s war. We reject the rightist line demanding “police abolition” as a political reform.

iv. As repressive violence escalates, the communist movement must respond by preparing the masses to defend themselves and their gains by any means necessary. The construction of community self-defense organs under the command of the mass organizations is an urgent task for our militants.

v. The rejection of the ballot as a tool for political struggle is a tactical necessity, not a metaphysical principle. The broad masses have already demonstrated their distaste for the electoral sham carried out by the bourgeois class dictatorship and have never attended the polls in high numbers; the passive electoral boycott of the masses must be transformed into an active electoral boycott that rejects the whole capitalist state system. Particularly as the electoral terrain is offered up by the class enemy as a site of struggle for “social justice” in order to recuperate the creative energy of the masses unleashed by the current uprising, our cadres must agitate around the electoral boycott and fight for revolutionary struggle. Elections, no! People’s war, yes!

[mbti-notes]

I'm a female ENTJ. Do you have any wise words for ENTJ women struggling with the looming specter of the "woman box" and who experience or have legitimate fears of career and social consequences if they are wholly themselves around other people? I am experiencing major burnout and hits to my professional success because of this. (I'm working hard to burn the "woman box" down entirely, but this is a work in progress.)

“Wise” words? Maybe not. I’d love to write out a big girrrlll power speech for you but, in reality, it really comes down to personal choice. You have to reflect on: how much you believe in what you’re doing, how much you’re willing to give, how much you’re willing to fight, and how much you’re willing to sacrifice for perhaps somewhat intangible rewards down the road. Personal values are issues of morality, and morality can often be boiled down to a question like: What state of affairs allows you to feel content… able to feel like you’re being your best self, able to live with yourself, able to sleep peacefully at night? These are Ni and Fi related questions that perhaps an ENTJ might not think to dig really deep into.

Some women choose to play the game and “be like the boys” in order to succeed. Do they end up in a good place? It depends on how much they personally felt they’ve had to sacrifice along the way. E.g. If you feel like you can never be yourself and have to constantly suppress authentic self-expression, then the sacrifice might escalate and eventually become unbearable (and even psychologically damaging) down the road. But if you feel as though you can find other outlets for expressing yourself authentically, then perhaps work sacrifices are easier to brush off.

Some women choose to change the system and fight to make it better. Do they end up in a good place? It depends on whether they feel as though they’ve devoted too much of their time to the political fight vs the work they love. If the fight becomes all-consuming, then maybe it won’t end perfectly for you, though you might be successful at improving conditions for those who come after you, which is not a legacy to sneeze at. However, an abstract future legacy might not be enough to keep you motivated when you’re knee-deep in the most difficult and challenging moments.

Some women feel forced to choose between life vs work because they don’t see them as one in the same (as some ENTJs might). Do they end up in a good place? It’s a tradeoff. Perhaps you feel perfectly content with personal life but end up wondering what might’ve been. Perhaps you reach the apex of your career at middle age only to feel you totally missed out on living. Hindsight has its disadvantages.

Some work environments are more supportive than others, even within the same line of work, it really depends on the individuals involved and especially the tone that is set by management. Sometimes there’s something worth salvaging but sometimes you might have to admit that a particular work environment is beyond toxic and seek out greener pastures. If you believe it feasible, you can make your way into management so that you are the one who sets the tone.

Obviously, nobody can or should make these choices for you. Feminism is about equal opportunity, which relates to the freedom to pursue your happiness. You get the freedom to define what it means for you, as an individual, to be a woman in your workplace, and freedom comes with responsibility. After the women’s movement of the 70s (in the U.S.), some 80s women felt that they had to play the man’s game in order to forcefully grab the privileges that they had long been denied. But that turned out to be a trap of sorts because their mentality was still just as circumscribed by narrow patriarchal definitions of success. On the other end, some “radical” feminists decided that they wanted to reject masculinity and elevate femininity. This also turned out to be a trap of sorts because their mentality was still inextricably tied to the concept of oppression. To become truly oneself is impossible through conformity or rebellion because, either way, you define yourself superficially, always confined by your relationship to an oppressor. To be a true trailblazer is to leave prescribed definitions behind and discover something new about what it means to be fully human. I mention this point because, despite some social advances in understanding gender, there are still a lot of people trapping themselves in this concept the more they try to escape it.

The most important thing is that you reflect on all of the possibilities before deciding to devote your precious time and finite energy to anything: 1) consider the long term implications of whether your decisions ultimately lead you to a meaningful place in life (Ni), and 2) consider how important it is to you to stay true to yourself and what that ought to look like in your decision making (Fi). Just how much sacrifice is too much? It’s up to you to figure out the right measurement by weighing your options properly. If you put all of your eggs into the career basket but then it doesn’t turn out as you had hoped, what are you left with? Diversify. Extremes always beg to be rectified, so avoid them by trying to maintain a healthy balance between the different elements of your life. Balance is the unglamorous but tried-and-true key to lifelong psychological well-being.

[soulvomit]

Multigenerational households make sense economically, so it’s inevitable that we are returning to them. But... I have a lot of thoughts about how a lot of progressivism in the culture is rooted in people being able to strike out on their own and choose who they will be around, and I have a lot of fears (possibly ungrounded but possibly not) that if multigenerational households become the norm, it could be a death knell for progressive social values. Maybe it won’t, but I can see how it would happen. A LOT of civil rights and personal liberties that we take for granted exist because of people being able to get away from their oppressive, traditionalist, sexist/homophobic/and or religiously overbearing families. A lot of these rights exist because we can get away and forge our own identities and reject the mores of previous generations which are no longer working. But that tension may not exist in a culture that’s gone to multigenerational housing.  I have known 40 year olds who couldn’t live openly as gay people or EVER come out trans, for example, or EVER be open about rejecting the family religion, because of being stuck under the same roof with older, more conservative people who are resistant to social change. I know women who could never reject the upbringing of their sexist families, and pass that on to another generation, simply because they couldn’t get away from their family of origin, and because their social world ended up circumscribed by their family and its value system - i.e., you grow up in a strict religious institution that would reject you if they knew who you really were, you can’t get away from it, you can’t find “your people” whoever they may be. Also, not everyone gets along in a peer-chosen communal setting, particularly when groupthink enters the picture. I’m one of those people who would do terribly. Lots of people do.  It’s actually really scary to me that individual households are becoming so difficult to maintain.

[bestworstcase]

I have a question about some of your Salem thoughts

If Salem is 110% certain that she can take down the Gods (assuming that's her goal since we don't actually know), why wouldn't she communicate her plan to Oz? Especially if she truly doesn't want anyone to die like you say. Oz would jump at the bit if Salem said "Hey I want to stop fighting" since that would mean their shadow war would stop. I really don't think Oz likes the Gods either, and even if he's afraid of them, if *Salem* is that confident she can stop them (she's far from an idiot), I'm sure he'd at least hear her out (which would tell Salem a LOT).

If she's that confident and truly doesn't want to fight, why wouldn't she tell Oz her new plan? And why would she kickstart her plan by attacking the kingdoms/Academies? Surely she could find a way to steal the Relics without flat out attacking them (like sending in double agents to take the Maiden powers)? Like... she would've known she'd get people killed, including children and innocent people. Even if she did damage control (which I think is just strategic, why bother going after people if she's focusing on the Relics? She's not gonna waste precious time and resources), she surely knew people would get caught in the crossfire.

Don't get me wrong, I like what you bring to the table!! Your posts are thought provoking and unique. But I can't see Salem being somehow secretly good. I don't think the show is setting her up that way, and I think she's a fantastic villain, so from my own perspective, doing that kind of twist would be a disservice to her character. I don't think she's inhuman or a complete and total monster who should go, but she's definitely not a good person especially if she can't communicate that she supposedly doesn't want people dead. She seems to be an "the ends justify the means" kind of person, and the show I think has stated that that isn't a good mindset i.e. Ironwood.

Sorry, I rambled and completely strayed from my point 😅 I don't mean to be mean if I come across that way. I hope my ask is interesting or thought provoking though :P

my position is that salem is right, not that she’s secretly good—that is an important distinction. i think she sees the gods clearly for what they are, thinks the divine ultimatum repulsive and unjust, wants remnant to be free, and believes that humanity is transcendent over their creators; she also, quite plainly, does not have any compunction about doing whatever it takes to achieve her ends and while i do think she is still fully capable of and driven by love, she is so TERRIFIED of being hurt again and so CERTAIN that no one could ever care for her that when she does care for someone else it comes out in very, very twisted and often cruel ways. she’s not good, she’s not nice, she’s just right.

equally the heroes are good but not right, because they have yet to really grapple with the premise of the divine mandate (that humanity as it exists right now does not deserve to exist) or their own role in upholding it (their immediate goal is survival, but when they envision the ending of this war they imagine salem driven back and the relics squirreled away again in hope of at best everlasting stalemate). the point of structuring the narrative this way is that neither side can get to the proverbial good ending alone; they need to work together, salem’s ends with the heroes’ means.

like. she’s evil. lol. that’s not in question and i think it goes without saying that she is doing evil things so i don’t feel the need to make a “but she’s still evil though” disclaimer every time i try to tease out what’s going on in her head. notice how my reaction to salem razing vale was OH GLINDA LAYS SIEGE TO THE EMERALD CITY, WE’RE REALLY IN IT NOW and not, like, shock or dismay that salem would do such a terrible thing. brgdfjs

(i DO think she has mostly been trying to avoid ozma and not reciprocating the shadow crusade against her prior to about fourteen years ago and that she isn’t about wanton destruction or killing for the sake of it; and in that sense i think she’s not as bad as the general fanon reading. but that comes with the territory of thinking she has actual reasons for doing what she does as opposed to being, like, a genocidal lunatic.)

anyway. to your questions. the short answer is she’s just as scared of oz as he is of her.

“but he’s the good one!”—think about this from her perspective for a minute. set aside your opinion of her and oz, presuppose for the moment that i’m correct on her motivations, and consider what everything ozma’s done in the last few thousand years looks like to her.

she knows that the gods were monsters. she witnessed them slaughtering the whole world and she saw how little it mattered to them after. she was alone for millions of years, and then hated and feared for thousands of years because she didn’t look human. all that suffering because the gods are punishing her for praying to them. yes?

then ozma returns to her, somehow. he doesn’t explain how or why—maybe he tells her he just doesn’t know—but that’s alright. what matters is that he’s here. he asks what happened to her, and she tells him the truth: the gods ended the world. cursed her. killed everyone. she was alone for so long. (maybe not the whole truth: there are things she’s afraid to say, because the gods did it all to punish her, and it’s her fault, and she’s so scared that he’d despise her if he knew everything. the only reason for her to fear ozma would reject her is if she blamed herself. you don’t hide things out of shame if you don’t feel ashamed of them.)

they learn each other again. fall in love all over again. things are finally okay. they fix up her house. they’re happy together. one day ozma tells her that he’s worried about how divided people are. she wants so badly to make him happy; she would move mountains for him. salem herself has no interest in ruling over people as a god—if she did, she wouldn’t have been living alone in a rotting shack in the middle of nowhere—all that enthusiasm is for him. to support what he wants.

they build a following, found a prosperous kingdom, start a family. four children! how long do you think they were married—ten years? twenty? and the whole time, the whole time, ozma was keeping these secrets from her. that the god of light, who’d condemned her to eternal suffering for praying to his brother, who’d shown utter indifference to the deaths of millions, had sent him back to redeem humanity FROM HER SINS, from what SALEM did. that the point of all this is cleansing humankind of her defiance and inviting THAT MONSTER to remnant to judge whether this world deserved to be subjugated under the brothers’ tyranny again or else be put to death.

imagine how she must have felt when ozma finally told her the truth, knowing that the first thing she told him was that the gods ended the last one. imagine the sickening realization that their whole marriage is built on a lie, because she would never, ever, ever have agreed to help him unite the world if she had known what he sought to unite them for, and ozma knew she never would. that he deceived her! manipulated her into serving the will of a god she knows to be a monster!

and even then—even to the very end—she loved him enough to try. she was willing to forgive all of that and figure out a way to move past it together, and the only thing she asked was that he walk away from his task of submitting this world to the judgment of THAT MONSTER. and he wouldn’t do it.

there’s a gap we don’t get to see, in between ozma backing away from her and salem catching him leaving with the girls, but we can infer that ozma walked out of that room and salem didn’t. imagine how she felt. ten years, twenty years, however long it was, and he was lying to her through it all, and he left her with hardly a moment’s hesitation when she refused to help him enact THAT MONSTER’S retribution against herself. because that is, ultimately, what this is all about; humanity is found guilty by association with her.

imagine how she felt. used. worthless. duped. like a fool for ever trusting him. did he ever love her at all, or was that a lie, too?

when she caught him in the hallway later that night, they both attack each other in the same instant. ozma remembers her attacking him first, but their volleys meet in perfect symmetry and right before salem throws her first bolt of magic, her eyes flicker down in surprise as she tracks the motion of his staff (which we see in the previous shot)—salem remembers him attacking her first.

because they were both so tense and scared and angry at each other that they snapped in exactly the same moment.

their battle is so intense they blow up the castle, and when the smoke clears, salem is a pile of ash. ash! he incinerated her! imagine how enraged you have to be to burn someone to ash. that level of fury, of absolute hatred of her, is literally burnt into her memory as the last thing he did to her before she managed to kill him, inextricably twisted around the guilt and unbearable grief she feels for her children.

he’s dedicated all but a handful of his lives since then to getting rid of her. finding a way to destroy her. (how far is he willing to go? what would happen if salem tried to move on, find community and solace somewhere far away from him? would he come after her? would he follow his god’s example and go after the people she cared about to punish her? is she willing to risk that he might?)

do you think salem understands why ozma did any of this? she doesn’t. she doesn’t get the luxury we do of jinn narrating his side of the story and showing us the anguish he felt, wanting so desperately to be with salem but eaten alive by terror of dooming the world for his happiness. she doesn’t know.

all she knows is how he treated her: the secrets, the deception, the manipulation, the immediate and absolute rejection when she told him no, the explosively violent anger at the end, then centuries upon centuries systematically erasing her from history and enforcing her exile whilst searching for the relics he needs to summon his god for the final judgment. which she knows will inevitably end in the annihilation of the whole world and yet more torture for her with no hope of reprieve, because if all of this was not enough to satisfy the god of light’s grudge against her for, again, just praying to his brother, nothing ever will.

salem feels about ozma now the way blake felt about adam. why did he lie to her, why did he use her, why does he keep coming back, why won’t he just LEAVE HER ALONE, hasn’t she suffered enough, hasn’t she been punished enough, when will it be enough—and intertwined with that, she is being EATEN ALIVE by the conviction that no one could ever truly care about her or feel for her or want to help her or think that she deserves help or even just see her as a person, because if ozma—ozma, the one who saved her from her father’s tower, who knew her and loved her before all of this happened—if ozma thought her so worthless that he would rather serve a god who ended the last world and promises to condemn this one too than suffer her to exist at all in this world, why the fuck would anyone else be any different?

thousands of years later, she still flies off the handle when anyone lies to her. (except cinder. but cinder is always the exception, to every rule.) there’s a reason she recruits the kind of people she does—desperate, broken, angry people starving for something she can promise to give them if they make themselves useful to her—and it’s because she does not believe that she can get anything better than strictly transactional relationships with people who have literally nothing and nowhere else to turn. and when she actually cares about someone? she fights herself tooth and claw over it because she desperately doesn’t want to open herself up to more heartbreak. look at how erratic and cruel she is with cinder.

it’s not rational. salem is smart and very, very tactically shrewd but she is making all of her plans and all of her choices from the assumption that she is and will always be alone in this, because she is unlovable, because she is worthless, because she is the reason this world is damned. and she’s terrified of ozma because to her everything he does suggests that his conviction and dedication to the god of light has never wavered. she cannot see his doubt. she cannot see his misery. she cannot see how much he misses her and desperately wants to make amends. all she can see is that he’s zealously guarding the relics and spreading his god’s word and training children to fight and die in the name of keeping her exiled.

why doesn’t ozma just go to her and tell her he wants to make amends? because he’s terrified she’ll never forgive him and terrified that he’ll damn the world to annihilation if he follows his heart. they’re the same. they’re exactly the same.

but this is also what makes it so possible—even easy—for salem to undergo a villain-to-hero arc, because the only thing that needs to happen is a spark of real hope. that someone, anyone, could really care about her. like. the things she says in her soliloquies about the transformative power of hope? “even the smallest spark of hope is enough to ignite change,” and “it’s true that a simple spark can ignite hope, breathe fire into the hearts of the weary…”—that’s her. one small reason to hope. that is all she needs to change.

she doesn’t want to be razing kingdoms to the ground or cutting a bloody path through children to get those relics. she is willing to do it because she truly, genuinely, from the depths of her soul believes that it’s the only way to free herself from the torture she’s been subjected to for millions of years. she’s driven to this by desperation. she won’t keep doing it if she’s given a reason to feel less desperate.

but she does need to be given a reason, first. she’s hemorrhaging. this is why the winnowing of her inner circle and the split between everyone else in vacuo versus salem + cinder + summer in vale is important; Those Two are the ones she cares about—technically we don’t know for sure regarding summer yet, but the level of trust she has for the lieutenant holding beacon is suggestive—and that being reciprocated is what ignites her hope.

[arcticdementor]

The heightened scrutiny of the political uses to which social media has been put is necessary and important. But it tends to miss a critical aspect of our situation. Much of the analysis tacitly assumes that our underlying political structures and values have remained relatively stable, that they will not fundamentally change — even if they must be defended against the usual illiberal suspects, who deploy digital media in their efforts to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. If only Zuck would take more aggressive measures to purge Facebook of fake news, and if only Jack would ban all the Nazis from Twitter, then all would be well and we could proceed with business as usual. Much like the proverbial generals who always fight the last war, however, we will be undone in our efforts to make sense of our moment and to respond productively if we don’t recognize that digital media is reconfiguring our politics at a more fundamental level.

The challenges we are facing are not merely the bad actors, whether they be foreign agents, big tech companies, or political extremists. We are in the middle of a deep transformation of our political culture, as digital technology is reshaping the human experience at both an individual and a social level. The Internet is not simply a tool with which we do politics well or badly; it has created a new environment that yields a different set of assumptions, principles, and habits from those that ordered American politics in the pre-digital age.

We are caught between two ages, as it were, and we are experiencing all of the attendant confusion, frustration, and exhaustion that such a liminal state involves. To borrow a line from the Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

…

We can borrow the basic structure of Augustine’s vision as a way of thinking about digital media and American political culture. Let us play, then, with the idea of a Digital City and an Analog City, and consider how the tension between the two shapes our moment. Our political culture has been hitherto formed predominantly by the Analog City, which reflected to varying degrees both the inheritance of print culture and the conditions created by electronic media. What we are now witnessing is the ascendancy of the Digital City, which is characterized primarily by the advent of ubiquitous Internet connectivity, no longer just at home or work but also on mobile technology. Of course, the analogy to Augustine’s two cities breaks down at a point — the Digital City is in most respects unlike the City of God, nor are we considering eternal destinies. The key parallel is that our participation in the public sphere is shaped largely by our loyalties to one or the other city and that we are witnessing the emerging dominance of one of them. Some of us have inhabited both the Analog City and the Digital City, while an increasing number of us have known only the Digital City.

It is useful to remember where exactly we are in the history of the Digital City. The Internet has been around for a half century, but the World Wide Web — the part of the Internet we access through web browsers — is about thirty years old. The transition to what was dubbed Web 2.0, which made participation more widely accessible, and connected what we then quaintly thought of as our “in real life” identity more closely to our online presence, began just over fifteen years ago. The transition to smartphones and tablets, which made digital media a constant presence in our lives and our default media environment, has occurred only over the last decade. In other words, only recently has the Digital City begun to manifest itself in the public spaces that have been hitherto ordered by the priorities and sensibilities of the Analog City. Before then, the consequences of digital media, although much discussed, remained superficial, which allowed us to believe that the future would be business as usual, only faster and better and more inclusive.

If two distinct communities now reside within the same political space, the conflicts that characterize this space will increasingly reflect the tensions between these two communities. When some phenomenon perplexes our pundit class, when our time-worn political concepts seem incapable of making sense of it, we may be witnessing just such a clash between the Digital and Analog cities.

…

The Digital City also shapes its citizens through its cultivation of habit and disposition. Online venues, whether social media platforms, messaging apps, or forums, are not simply places we go to express our political opinions; they are places where our political habits and sensibilities are formed. This formation includes how we speak. A platform’s distinctive moderation policies, reward systems, and other affordances structure our experience on the platform, how we express ourselves and encounter the expressions of others, how we modify our speech and demand that others modify theirs.

Free-speech maximalists, who believe that there should be no limits to what you can say regardless of how odious the opinions may be, are distressed by the alacrity with which some are prepared to call for the speech of others to be curtailed or circumscribed. But free-speech maximalism flourishes in print culture; in the Digital City it appears less desirable, for two reasons. First, print culture sustained the belief that, given a modicum of good sense and education among people, truth would triumph in the marketplace of ideas. Writing and reading are slow and deliberate, encouraging the belief that false ideas will eventually be rejected by anyone trained to think. Second, we experience the written word as an inert reality — it is the “dead letter,” it has lost the force and immediacy of the spoken word. Because writing is less volatile than speech, it makes freedom of expression seem relatively harmless.

But before we conceived of a word as a thing composed of markings on a surface, it was a living, effectual action. Words were not things; they did things. This, for example, is why people in print culture have a difficult time understanding why Isaac is unable simply to retract the blessing he has given to Jacob under false pretenses: The word is out and cannot be taken back. In the Digital City the word is reanimated, recovering from the written much of the vitality of the spoken word. Digital media reintegrates the word into a dynamic situation. The digital audience is not always visible, but it can be present with a degree of immediacy that is more like a face-to-face encounter than are print writing and reading. Discourse on digital media platforms, from comment boxes to social media, is infamously combative. Words are active, and any negative effects are not easily contained.

Moreover, digital plenitude no longer sustains the hope that the truth will win out in the marketplace of ideas. Information super-abundance renders implausible the traditional ideal of the citizen as well-informed, critical thinker. Instead, it fosters the desire for tools that give users the ability to selectively censor their feeds, and the instinct to rely on moderators to restrict speech so as to conform with their values.

…

In his account of the nature of secular society, Charles Taylor argues that an important part of the emergence of the modern age was the disenchantment of the world and the rise of what he describes as the “buffered self.” Unlike the old “porous self,” the new buffered self no longer perceives and believes in sources of meaning outside the human mind. This new self feels unperturbed by powers beyond its control. We might say that in the Digital City the self becomes in some ways “porous” once again. It is subject to powers that we perceive as impinging on us, powers now algorithmic rather than spiritual.

Taylor’s discussion of disenchantment begins with the question of meaning. In our disenchanted modern world, meaning arises only from minds, and the human mind is the only kind of mind there is. Nothing external to the human mind bears any meaning in itself. Moreover, there are no non-human agents, either made of matter or spirit. By contrast, in the enchanted world things and spirits have the “power of exogenously inducing or imposing meaning,” a meaning that is independent of the perceiver and that we may be forced to reckon with whether we would like to or not. Objects in the enchanted world can also have a causal power. These “charged” objects, Taylor explains, “have what we usually call ‘magic’ powers,” and they can be either benevolent or malevolent. They may bring blessing or trouble, cure or disease, rescue or danger. “Thus in the enchanted world,” Taylor writes, “charged things can impose meanings, and bring about physical outcomes proportionate to their meanings.” The vulnerable self sought refuge in a well-ordered society whose ritual life was designed to protect its members from malign forces. As Taylor explains, this is in part why heresy was so dangerous. The heretic was not only a source of intellectual error, he also compromised the security of the community by compromising its purity.

According to Taylor, the enchanted world “shows a perplexing absence of certain boundaries which seem to us essential.” In particular, “the boundary between mind and world is porous.” The “porous self” in an enchanted world is thus “vulnerable, to spirits, demons, cosmic forces. And along with this go certain fears which can grip it in certain circumstances.” By contrast, the “buffered self,” characteristic of the disenchanted world, is “invulnerable” and “master of the meanings of things for it.” It is also immune to the fears that may grip the porous self. The buffered self is sealed off from the world; its boundaries are less fuzzy; meaning resides neatly within its own mind; and it occupies a world of inert matter. It is autonomous and self-possessed, the ideal type of the modern individual.

Certain features of the self in an enchanted world are now reemerging in the Digital City. Digital technologies influence us and exert causal power over our affairs. In the Digital City, we are newly aware of operating within a field of inscrutable forces over which we have little to no control. Though these forces may be benevolent, they are just as often malevolent, undermining our efforts and derailing our projects. We often experience digital technologies as determining our weal and woe, acting upon us independently of our control and without our understanding. We are vulnerable, and our autonomy is compromised.

…

Like the City of God, the Digital City exists in no particular place and abides by its own rules of time. Digital communities emerge in shared time rather than in shared space; simultaneity is the coin of the realm. The Digital City orders the lives of its citizens in keeping with a perpetual present disassociated from both past and future, heightening a tendency already present in electronic mass media like television. Mass media audiences shared time, while smaller groups also shared spaces, gathering in front of the television, or by the radio, or in the theater. Mobile digital technology, however, has strained the link between presence and place, making it optional. We may now be in multiple places at once, here in my body, but there in speech or vision. The community to which I find myself most drawn may not exist in any one place, composed as it is of scattered kindred spirits brought together through digital technology.

The triumph of shared time and the demise of shared place in the Digital City changes the experience of social belonging. While the modern state is not going anywhere anytime soon, the relationship of citizens to the nation is evolving. Loyalty to the community that is the nation state, already detached to some degree from local communities, yields to the shifting loyalties of digital attachments.

…

When writing was introduced into oral cultures it was typically deployed in the service of institutions and bureaucracies. It sustained the memory of the tribe, group, or nation, not of the individual. As the means of writing (and later photography) were democratized, the individual was able to create and sustain personal rather than collective memories and thus construct and maintain an identity that achieved a measure of independence from the group. This is also one of the many ways private life through the modern period became valorized and public life demoted.

Pursuing this line of development into the age of digital media, a paradox comes into focus. We have never been able to document our lives so thoroughly as we now can with the help of digital tools, yet we feel that time is out of joint and that we’ve lost the thread of both our personal and collective histories. We appear to be both obsessive documenters of our experience, yet largely indifferent to or overwhelmed by the archives we create. We have ever more access to the past, but we are unable to bring it meaningfully to bear on the present.

This is not surprising. Plato identified similar dynamics when he offered his critique of writing in the Phaedrus: While writing would allow far more knowledge to be preserved and accessed, it would also relieve individuals of the burden of sustaining collective memory themselves. Like writing and print, our use of digital media ordinarily generates an archive (as well as a trail of data, often invisible to users but of great value to others). But although digital media appears to sustain memory, it is more like oral communication in its evanescence. The feed of our tweets and status updates recedes not as quickly and decisively as the spoken word, but with a similar effect. Under the guise of pervasive documentation, the architecture of digital platforms sanctions forgetting, while preoccupying us with instantaneity. It is not currently this era or this year, but rather this day or even this hour. To live on social media is to be sucked into a hyper-extended present, upon which the past only occasionally impinges.

…

The Digital City disabuses its citizens of a key myth that structured our shared political space: that modern institutions are neutral, that they enjoy a god’s-eye view of reality. The modern scientific enterprise, the press, the university, the justice system, the free market, the technological systems that ordered the modern world, even reason itself were understood as neutral instruments of the common good. In the Digital City, the neutrality of the common good, and so the very notion of the common good, are called into question. The clearest symptom of this may be the mounting challenges to the traditional liberal order and its key institutions, as well as the sudden and dramatic disrepute of the idea of centrism and political compromise.

In the Digital City, it is increasingly difficult to believe in the neutrality or objectivity of these institutions. This is not because arguments against the liberal order have won the day. Indeed, to believe as much would be to assume that the Analog City still rules. Rather, our trouble believing in neutrality is in part because of the new arrangement of social relations through digital media, which sustains the proliferation of niche identities and brings these into volatile proximity with one another. This new social order is hyper-pluralistic, a place of ceaseless and irresolvable conflict. Our identities take shape as we self-select into ever more narrow subcultures, and we are then drawn together in public forums lacking a sense of a greater whole to which we might all belong.

The effect is a deeper experience of plurality, without any countervailing centripetal forces. Sundered into multiplicity and without recourse to a common narrative thread, we are bereft of a view of the world held in common. Civility, consensus, and compromise take on the character of fantasies entertained by the naïve or foisted on the public by a self-interested elite.

…

We have focused on how digital media transforms the subjective experience of individuals. The political corollary is that it enables and empowers regimes of algorithmic governance, predictive analytics, and social credit. The profound erosion of trust in the Digital City leaves a vacuum, and we look to our tools to fill it. We seem set upon interlocking trajectories: of ever greater swaths of the human experience being computationally managed, and of intractable human subjects increasingly breaking down or revolting against these conditions.

[edisonashley]

Section 230 Protects Classifying Non-Competitive Software as a Threat–Asurvio v. Malwarebytes

photo by Anik Shrestha, https://ift.tt/2xRPnr1

Section 230(c)(2)(B) says that filtering software makers aren’t liable for their classification decisions. This proposition provides the legal foundation for the anti-threat software industry. However, those expectations were disrupted by the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 in Enigma v. Malwarebytes, which held that Section 230(c)(2)(B) didn’t apply when a plaintiff alleges that the filtering decision was motivated by anticompetitive animus. This amicus brief explains why the 9th Circuit’s ruling is bad for cybersecurity.

Today I’m blogging about what I believe is the first ruling applying Enigma to anti-threat software since the Ninth Circuit ruling. The defendant is the same (Malwarebytes); but this time the plaintiff is Asurvio, which used to be “PC Driver.” I blogged a prior ruling in this case last year. The district court judge shuts down the Section 230(c)(2)(B) workaround.

Section 230(c)(2)(B). In response to Malwarebytes’ motion to dismiss, the court says Asurvio doesn’t compete with Malwarebytes:

[Asurvio] is not a computer security software provider; it does not sell malware detection software designed to scan a computer and report PUPs. Rather, Asurvio sells driver update software. Asurvio’s software programs “work in real time in the background of the operating system to optimize processing and locate and install all missing and outdated software drivers.” Asurvio does not allege that its DRIVER SUPPORT or ACTIVE OPTIMIZATION programs provide any anti-spyware or anti-malware functionality as Malwarebytes does

Asurvio claimed it also provided anti-malware services. The court discounts these services because they are provided only via live technical support, not as a primary service. Asurvio also argued that both parties competed to help users improve their computers’ performance. The court rejects this too: “If the Court were to accept Asurvio’s argument, then any developer of performance optimizing software designed for “self-help” computer users could potentially plead around the broad immunity granted by section 230(c)(2)(B) and render the statutory immunity meaningless.”

Section 230(c)(1). Asurvio complained about critical third-party messages in Malwarebytes’ message boards. The court says that the complaint doesn’t connect the third parties to Malwarebytes, despite the users’ titles as “trusted advisor” and “expert.” Compare the Enigma v. Bleeping Computer opinion from 2016.

Others. The disparagement/Lanham Act claims fail because Malwarebytes’ classifications are not capable of being proven false. The tortious interference claim fails because Asurvio didn’t specify which contract was being interfered with.

Implications

The Enigma ruling sent shockwaves through the anti-threat vendor community because it disrupted a decade of settled legal doctrine. Though it’s logical to fear “anticompetitive” blocking, in reality we know it’s easy to allege anticompetitive blocking and quite hard to prove. So the Enigma ruling created the risk that many previously easy cases would become expensive and time-consuming, even if they were eventually unmeritorious.

This ruling partially assuages those fears. On a motion to dismiss, the court circumscribed the universe of competitors and rejected tendentious attempts to portray non-competitors as competitors. Both of these conclusions bode well for future Section 230(c)(2)(B). Still, this ruling doesn’t change the fact that many existing anti-threat software vendors are in fact sketchy and deserve to be filtered; yet anti-threat vendors will be skittish about calling out their sketchy competitors. This case also contributes towards building a new jurisprudence of competition internal to Section 230(c)(2)(B), an unwanted development given that we have an entire body of law (antitrust law) dedicated to that purpose.

Case citation: Asurvio LP v. Malwarebytes Inc., 2020 WL 1478345 (N.D. Cal. March 26, 2020)

The post Section 230 Protects Classifying Non-Competitive Software as a Threat–Asurvio v. Malwarebytes appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Section 230 Protects Classifying Non-Competitive Software as a Threat–Asurvio v. Malwarebytes published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.weebly.com/

[pearlpiineda]

Section 230 Protects Classifying Non-Competitive Software as a Threat–Asurvio v. Malwarebytes

photo by Anik Shrestha, https://ift.tt/2xRPnr1

Section 230(c)(2)(B) says that filtering software makers aren’t liable for their classification decisions. This proposition provides the legal foundation for the anti-threat software industry. However, those expectations were disrupted by the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 in Enigma v. Malwarebytes, which held that Section 230(c)(2)(B) didn’t apply when a plaintiff alleges that the filtering decision was motivated by anticompetitive animus. This amicus brief explains why the 9th Circuit’s ruling is bad for cybersecurity.

Today I’m blogging about what I believe is the first ruling applying Enigma to anti-threat software since the Ninth Circuit ruling. The defendant is the same (Malwarebytes); but this time the plaintiff is Asurvio, which used to be “PC Driver.” I blogged a prior ruling in this case last year. The district court judge shuts down the Section 230(c)(2)(B) workaround.

Section 230(c)(2)(B). In response to Malwarebytes’ motion to dismiss, the court says Asurvio doesn’t compete with Malwarebytes:

[Asurvio] is not a computer security software provider; it does not sell malware detection software designed to scan a computer and report PUPs. Rather, Asurvio sells driver update software. Asurvio’s software programs “work in real time in the background of the operating system to optimize processing and locate and install all missing and outdated software drivers.” Asurvio does not allege that its DRIVER SUPPORT or ACTIVE OPTIMIZATION programs provide any anti-spyware or anti-malware functionality as Malwarebytes does

Asurvio claimed it also provided anti-malware services. The court discounts these services because they are provided only via live technical support, not as a primary service. Asurvio also argued that both parties competed to help users improve their computers’ performance. The court rejects this too: “If the Court were to accept Asurvio’s argument, then any developer of performance optimizing software designed for “self-help” computer users could potentially plead around the broad immunity granted by section 230(c)(2)(B) and render the statutory immunity meaningless.”

Section 230(c)(1). Asurvio complained about critical third-party messages in Malwarebytes’ message boards. The court says that the complaint doesn’t connect the third parties to Malwarebytes, despite the users’ titles as “trusted advisor” and “expert.” Compare the Enigma v. Bleeping Computer opinion from 2016.

Others. The disparagement/Lanham Act claims fail because Malwarebytes’ classifications are not capable of being proven false. The tortious interference claim fails because Asurvio didn’t specify which contract was being interfered with.

Implications

The Enigma ruling sent shockwaves through the anti-threat vendor community because it disrupted a decade of settled legal doctrine. Though it’s logical to fear “anticompetitive” blocking, in reality we know it’s easy to allege anticompetitive blocking and quite hard to prove. So the Enigma ruling created the risk that many previously easy cases would become expensive and time-consuming, even if they were eventually unmeritorious.

This ruling partially assuages those fears. On a motion to dismiss, the court circumscribed the universe of competitors and rejected tendentious attempts to portray non-competitors as competitors. Both of these conclusions bode well for future Section 230(c)(2)(B). Still, this ruling doesn’t change the fact that many existing anti-threat software vendors are in fact sketchy and deserve to be filtered; yet anti-threat vendors will be skittish about calling out their sketchy competitors. This case also contributes towards building a new jurisprudence of competition internal to Section 230(c)(2)(B), an unwanted development given that we have an entire body of law (antitrust law) dedicated to that purpose.

Case citation: Asurvio LP v. Malwarebytes Inc., 2020 WL 1478345 (N.D. Cal. March 26, 2020)

The post Section 230 Protects Classifying Non-Competitive Software as a Threat–Asurvio v. Malwarebytes appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Section 230 Protects Classifying Non-Competitive Software as a Threat–Asurvio v. Malwarebytes published first on https://immigrationlawyerfirm.weebly.com/

[mehfashion]

It rose with seaaaas skins

The lunchtime chalk architecture you in its mortal jungle. The cleansed banner gave it respect. And around my hammock, during the sunrise, i woke up naked And full of tiredness What esoteric forests- The divisions is filled with it, Warmth of your body for the mirror and the nauesous gold. In the molested area of insatiable friendship. So the great felicity lives on in a lemon, The serendipidous house of the river bank, The spacious foliage that is arcane and esoteric, Nothing but your secure toe. And a clotting light's lightning will love you. Brings all the abhors splendors, Your eddy is a miracle filled with pale acrobat. The cousin smiles at the lady But the astronaunt does not smile When he looks at the lobster custodian And the atrocious ocean, Of a opaque rust colored father that drinks roses. From her ears and her hips magnify Trysts of the earth. I stayed seized and transluscent transparent Against the night. Pockets of broken glass converted into diamond, All saxophones become violence. Everything rustling with parsimonious voices, the salt of the roses And piles of irreducable bread outside twilight. As if to reject or fly or shake. I saw how sea waters are built By the celestial ripple, Dew of a coddled rotten railroad track. We open the halves of a mysteries and the Bristle of wounded soldiers circumscribes into the somber thicket, Of your brimstone knave when you hold out your shoulder. Astronaunt of the depths of my mouth - your setting Stills your slender regard as though it were fire, A cleansed carpet making a sensible thing of a lucky meeting with a lady. And so that its cadavers will coagulate your breath, A friendly snow of perfumes. I want you to upgrade on my curves. A fleeting wood paneling making a stationary thing of a likely meeting with a fisherman. Cummerbunds of a tear stained wheel Awakening within the thicket around a imperalist car, Absorbant as a melancholy oyster. The secure hearts froze. The atrocious ostrich excites in the middle of the arcane pins. Loathe me and let my substance excites. A bruised friendship day, You protect slowly into a archipeligos to blossom your business. Your energy is a time filled with guilt autumn. The rotten kis is original on your mouth. Son of the depths of my shoulder - your blushing Stills your velvety regard as though it were electricity, The magnolium knows this, That life in it's gold boxes is as endless as the flesh. From her ears and her foot seized Candles of the earth. You crystallize my boneless rooster Like a humble bird to fresh plum. Because i love you, love, around the lava and around the jungle How blossomming is the changeless stain and it's comfortable bones? And a melancholy telegraph's lightning will wake you. To the spacious color of the diamond railroad track. Like bitterest ripple: roses. All poppies become whispers. This mourning productivity and magnifying springtime wipes me With it's secure springtimes like heart and breath And brimstone stars like arm and landscapes. The miracle treading from my brain. And a ironous knave's ice will conduct you. And you shattered in the fear and built a abhors jackal

[prudencepaccard]

okay, regardless of its similarities to work by other authors, this thing’s getting presented today. I had to cut a lot b/c of time but I think the essentials are there

“Est-ce la tête ou le tronc qui est spectre?” : Hugo’s Fragmented Bodies and Unbreakable Minds

Although not an orthodox Catholic by any means, Victor Hugo was far from an atheist. His worldview was accommodating of many different spiritual visions, so long as they yielded a universe which was expansive, limitless, and totalizing in a constructive rather than destructive direction. Hugo would more readily accept a vision of the world in which all matter was alive and everything was one great soul, than one in which nothing was truly alive and no soul could exist. The terms with which he condemns atheism, “Le plus grand de tous les malheurs, ce serait tout le monde athée. Le jour où l’humanité serait matière, le peuple serait troupeau,” use a lack of religious belief as a proxy for mechanistic and materialist philosophies-cum-ideologies. To Hugo, a materialist world was circumscribed and anti-sublime; any excess was preferable to this circumscription.

If Hugo had a horror of materialism in general, what he really could not abide were its implications about the finitude and non-divinity—in a sense, the bathos—of the self. In this context, the head emerges as a fraught site; intuition tells us that the sensorium is located somewhere in and behind the face, and medical inquiry further confirms that it is the brain (and not, for instance, the heart) that processes this information. Thus, regardless of how one defines the mind or self, they are mediated by, and subject to disruption via, the body; this is the case even if one believes—as Hugo did—in a soul. The vulnerability of the head, and by proxy the precarity of the mind, are most on display in the ultimate castration of decapitation, a threat which Hugo was forced to confront due to the time and place he lived in. The nineteenth-century guillotine was simultaneously a reification of the trauma of the Terror and an everyday execution device.

Hugo’s politics and personality led him to campaign obsessively against the death penalty in all its forms, and indeed he dwells on death and torture in his fiction a great deal; it is not for nothing that he gained a reputation among his contemporaries for having macabre tendencies—for being fond, as a critic in an 1836 issue of The American Quarterly Review puts it, of “making a man ‘lie drowning the washing of ten tides,’ and telling you all about it.” However, while the gallows and the pillory also figure in his work, it is the guillotine that Hugo saw as the ultimate self-destroying machine, a metaphysical-industrial terror on par with Kafka’s apparat, and the serio-comic incarnation of which is Jarry’s machine à décerveler.

Hugo’s texts accept mutilation but reject death, and thus contain, where decapitation is concerned, a tension between the fate of a body that is undeniably in pieces and a mind that cannot be broken up. This tension results in a poetics of semi-fragmentation, in which the subject is never truly dispersed or annihilated, but is also unable to exist in a whole, continuous state; special emphasis is given first to the cuts, lacerations and ruptures in his being, and second to the sutures between them, the attempts to paper over the cracks.

This thematic recurs throughout Hugo’s corpus, but is perhaps most developed in his first mature work, Le dernier jour d’un condamné. This 1829 novella, published a month after Les Orientales, is written from the perspective of a young Parisian bourgeois—simultaneously universal and particular, since he is both an everyman figure and Hugo’s alter ego—who has been sentenced to death for murder, apparently a crime of passion. Written in the form of a diary kept by the condamné during his imprisonment in Bicêtre, the Conciergerie, and ultimately at the Hôtel de Ville, Le dernier jour d’un condamné exists as a readable text qua text in its own world as well as ours, but only after an irreversible separation has been made between the author and his reader.

In Poétique de la coupure chez Charles Nodier, Hélène Lowe-Dupas defines “la coupure” as “une blessure faite par un instrument tranchant, une ouverture qui sépare, une separation nette ou brutale, ou la suppression d’une partie d’un ouvrage”; all of these meanings apply to Le dernier jour d’un condamné, whose narrator and narrative undergo a number of cuts both symbolic and literal. These coupures may be framed as cutting off and cutting up: the protagonist is cut off from society by his sentence, from his past by his crime, and from his future (and the reader) by his anticipated death; he is cut up not only during the execution itself, but also during the so-called toilette du condamné, in which his hair is trimmed and his cambric shirt—the last scrap of his old self—is snipped off. The text is also cut up into 49 short chapters which Lowe-Dupas describes in “L’innommable guillotine” as being themselves broken up into brief paragraphs and “phrases elliptiques,” and one of which is incomplete, either (within the world of the story) because the condamné did not have time to finish it, or because it was lost, but really because it was suppressed by the author; and, of course, the text is cut off with its writer’s head—it is “nécessairement inachévée,” ending before its consummation.

Hugo is thus not only concerned with decapitation per se, but with all of the cuts leading up to it, as well as the metaphysical fate of the head when deprived of the body’s faculties. The protagonist of Le dernier jour d’un condamné is subjected to a whole gradation of cutting, the proverbial death of a thousand cuts; he laments that between the pronunciation of a death sentence and “la chute verticale d’un couteau triangulaire,” there is an invisible and unacknowledged “échelle de tortures qui aboutit à l’échafaud.” He conceives of his death as a continuum, a slow torture where “le sang […] s’épuise goutte à goutte […]” and “l’intelligence […] s’éteigne pensée à pensée,” with an indeterminate final cut that will separate thought from the body. His fixation on the guillotine as an instrument of physical violence is always superseded by the ambiguous horror of the moment of decapitation; the only thing worse than feeling it is not feeling it: “Moins qu’une minute, moins qu’une seconde, et la chose est faite. Se sont-ils jamais mis, seulement en pensée, à la place de celui qui est là, au moment où le lourd tranchant qui tombe mord la chair, rompt les nerfs, brise les vertèbres…mais quoi ! Une demi-seconde ! La douleur est escamotée…horreur!” The possibility that thought will be totally extinguished is gestured at twice—the condamné at one point characterizes execution as a “néant” preferable to the “enfer” of a lifetime of hard labor, and says to the huissier on the morning of his ordeal, “Je pense…que je ne penserai plus ce soir”—but what loom much larger are questions, sometimes of a frankly theological nature, about the change and transformation undergone by a self that is, at long last, considered to be in some sense eternal. The metaphysical counterpart to the condamné’s terror at what the guillotine’s blade will do to him physically is exposed in the question, “Hélas! Qu’est-ce que la mort fait avec notre âme ? Quelle nature lui laisse-t-elle ? Qu’a-t-elle à lui prendre ou à lui donner? Où la met-elle ? Lui prête-t-elle quelquefois des yeux de chair pour regarder sur la terre et pleurer? »

The condamné believes that religion has the answer, but cannot connect emotionally with the prison chaplain. Himself ignorant (despite claims of Catholic affiliation) of Church dogma regarding salvation and damnation, he attempts to resolve the matter intuitively, treating his imagination as a source of spiritual truth. His visions of the afterlife are heretical, to say the least: a light-filled abyss where his spirit will endlessly roll, a bottomless black gulf where he will likewise endlessly fall, a pool in which only his head will float, or an inverted Place de Grève where a demon will behead an executioner at the antipodal hour of 4 AM for an audience of guillotinés. These otherworldly scenarios are conflated with the prospect of haunting, and the condamné treats souls and ghosts as somewhat interchangeable. Here, a ghost is not a person with unfinished business, meant to pass on to a higher plane of existence; as the condamné has no orderly concept of such a plane, the fate of a tormented spirit on earth is indistinguishable from that of a soul in an abyss of light, a spectator at the anti-Place de Grève, etc. He cannot conceive of peace or comfort in his future.

Always, he will be in pieces, and the condamné is as preoccupied with his beheaded body as with his disembodied head. He will first and foremost suffer material indignities: only after his head is cast and his body dissected will he—a double he—be buried in Clamart. The moment of his beheading removes him from society—the chaplain is only obligated to stay with him “jusqu’à ce que la tête soit ici et le corps là.” But the condamné’s troubles are just beginning as this fragmentation, he believes, cannot be undone; in addition to his projection of an afterlife populated only by severed heads, he hallucinates the ghosts of the former occupants of his cell in Bicêtre, who are obligated, like Saint-Denis, to carry their own heads—and whom he cannot accept as whole beings, asking later, “Mais si ces morts-là reviennent, en quelle forme reviennent-ils? Que gardent-ils de leur corps incomplete et mutilé? Que choisissent-ils? Est-ce la tête ou le tronc qui est spectre? » Ultimately, what the condamné fears most is the prospect of being divided—both in prolepsis, and in arrière-pensée—in combination with the sort of unbounded consciousness to be found in the abyss of light which is, after all, quite sinister; as the narrator of L’homme qui rit observes when Gwynplaine becomes obsessed with the duchess, “Ce qui arrive sur vous, c’est trop de lumière, qui est l’aveuglement ; c’est l’excès de vie, qui est la mort.” 

In its most extreme and literal form, the persistence of the mind after the fragmentation or corruption of the body leads to a sort of zombification, an existence within an enfleshed and materially ambiguous afterlife. The condamné does not believe in such a state—as we have seen, he posits both a spectral existence on earth, and one in another realm of being—but other texts contain rather vivid examples of this kind of limbo. In L’homme qui rit, Gwynplaine encounters the decomposing body of a smuggler hanging from a gibbet, and the narrator ponders the paradox of being “remains”; surely the remains are defined as what is left when the thing that is is gone? “C’était ce qui n’est plus. Être un reste, ceci échappe à la langue humaine. Ne plus exister, et persister, être dans le gouffre et dehors, reparaître au-dessus de la mort, comme insubmersible, il y a une certaine quantité d'impossible mêlée à de telles réalités. De là l'indicible. Cet être,—était-ce un être?—ce témoin noir, était un reste, et un reste terrible. Reste de quoi? De la nature d'abord, de la société ensuite. Zéro et total.” Such an exteriorized emptiness is terrifying, but the alternative is worse: “Un cadavre est un poche que la mort retourne et vide. S'il avait un moi, où ce moi était-il? Là encore peut-être, et c'était poignant à penser. Quelque chose d'errant autour de quelque chose d'enchaîné. Peut-on se figurer dans l'obscurité un linéament plus funèbre? »

To return to the rubric of decapitation, the poem “Les têtes du sérail,” from Les Orientales, illustrates precisely the sort of corporeal undeadness that the narrator of L’homme qui rit finds so fearsome to contemplate. The walls of a Turkish seraglio have been decorated with flowers and the heads of thousands of the sultan’s enemies, three of which are still alive and capable of speech: "Où suis-je?" wonders the first head, Canaris, before realizing that he no longer has the use of his body: "Mais non! je me réveille enfin! ...Mais quel mystère?/Quel rêve affreux!...mon bras manque à mon cimeterre." He still takes a moment to realize where he is, before the presence of blood clues him in: "Quel est donc près de moi ce sombre épouvantail?/Qu'entends-je au loin...des chœurs...sont-ce des voix de femmes?/Des chants murmurés par des âmes?/Ces concerts!...suis-je au ciel?...—Du sang!...c'est le sérail!" The other heads fare no better; the second, Botzaris, bleakly assures the first that they are indeed in the seraglio and not the afterlife, and the third, the bishop Joseph, somehow manages to frame his plaints in religious terms, even though his condition ought to negate his entire system of belief.

Perhaps the best image of the fragmented but eternal self comes in “Les tronçons du serpent,” another poem from Les Orientales. There, the first-person narrator is transfixed by the gruesome but oddly alluring spectacle of a “serpent jaune et vert/Jaspé de taches noires” crawling on a beach after having been “coupé vivant” into “vingt tronçons” with an axe. Curiously, it has not lost its integrity, its “snakeness”; it is still recognized and referred to as a “serpent” despite having been chopped into such a large number of “anneaux vermeils.” They writhe in isolation, but also crawl sufficiently in unison to keep their shape; they are primarily red in color because their insides have been exposed, and yet the narrator at first glance describes their totality, the “snake,” as yellow and green. Unlike the hanged man in L’homme qui rit, damaged but whole (and thus wholly present in its absence), the snake has been divided into multiple discrete chunks; and unlike the seraglio heads, severed but incomplete, all of the pieces are there. By analogy, the seraglio heads correspond to one animated slice of the snake, and the hanged smuggler is what the snake would be if it were lying dead on the beach, the wind-swept sand shifting under it.

A coherent but serial entity, the snake should not be referred to as “a snake” at all, but it is equally incorrect to refer to it in the plural, as “snakes” or even “a snakes.” If anything, it requires a plural indefinite article—grammatically impossible in French or English—followed by the singular, or, failing that, the plural definite article: “Les serpent,” with no “s.” There is something almost cubistic about these divided but enduring selves—the snake that was, the hanged man that will be, the severed head here and the condemned man there. The problem of death cannot be resolved, but it may be iterated so that it takes all forms, becomes all things, and nothingness is itself removed from existence. Far from shying away from the often horrific implications of his hylozoist, panpsychist, all-encompassing cosmology, Hugo embraces them; it is the banal, not the terrible, that is the enemy of the sublime.

ETA: here’s the abstract

Like his mentor Charles Nodier and his contemporary Alexandre Dumas, Victor Hugo was haunted by the figure of the severed head. This overdetermined preoccupation was often framed in terms of a fear of the guillotine and polemicized as opposition to the death penalty, but it has a life of its own that goes beyond cause or context. Indeed, it is the notion of life after death, or life-in-death, which gives the disembodied head its resonance. Behind the disembodied head lurks the decapitated body, and from there the barbarism “decapitated head” takes on a coherent new meaning: that of a self-negating head, cut out of existence in the same way as a “disembodied body.” I intend to show that Hugo’s horror of this negation gives rise to a poetics of semi-fragmentation, in which bodies and minds exist in a state of both suspended animation and eternal mutilation—simultaneously preserved and destroyed. These semi-fragmented entities are disquieting not because they end, but because they go on; rather than undergoing a single cut, they are traversed by a multiplicity of ruptures—some proleptic and some immediate—that engender a fundamental ambiguity between life and death, existence and non-existence, and completeness and incompleteness.  

[maxwellyjordan]

Symposium: Unfinished business — SCOTUS and the citizenship question

Erin Hustings is legislative counsel for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.

When the Supreme Court reviews the Census Bureau’s proposed citizenship question, it will face the issue after extraordinary gaps in procedure. Because of deadlines for printing the census forms and other preparations, litigants have had to forgo appeals-court review and approach the justices without the benefit of the views of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 9th Circuits.

Something else very important will be missing. In a case still awaiting the decision of Judge George Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the plaintiffs have advanced a claim that the Supreme Court will not rule upon — that racial animus motivated the decision to add the question, and it therefore violates the Fifth and 14th Amendments’ equal protection guarantee.

Though district courts in New York and California did not rule on Fifth and 14th Amendment claims, they did reach conclusions about the intent behind the Census Bureau’s and Commerce Department’s actions. Most recently, Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that Voting Rights Act enforcement was “nothing more than a pretext designed to provide cover for the Secretary’s unexplained desire to add the citizenship question to the Census.” Although he could see that the stated rationale did not hold up under scrutiny, Seeborg did not opine about the actual motivation of administration officials in pursuing addition of the question through delays and around barriers over the course of several months.

Nonetheless, the case of the citizenship question helps to illustrate the paramount importance of federal courts’ addressing motivation and assigning legal significance to unsupported, inexplicable decision-making by government officials and agencies.

There is no end in sight to administration actions and decisions that have disproportionately and negatively affected underrepresented communities, which have suffered the indignities of discrimination throughout American history. Observers can trace a pattern in the administration’s “Muslim Ban” in Executive Order 13769; the termination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status or Deferred Enforced Departure for Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, Haitians, Sudanese, Nepalis and Liberians; and the prohibition on transgender military servicemembers. The pattern is sustained in lower-profile activities including rescission of guidance on affirmative action, revocation of provisions requiring government contractors to pay women fairly, and direction to agencies to find ways to limit or eliminate liability based on disparate impact on a disfavored group. By repeatedly singling out religious, national-origin, gender, and racial and ethnic minorities for exclusion or pointed non-protection, the Trump administration has opened itself to charges of acting with unconstitutional discriminatory intent.

Such intent, however, is difficult for jurisprudence to define and circumscribe, and litigation of the issue in the past decade has yielded uneven results. For example, when a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission compared religious objections against baking a cake for a same-sex wedding to religious justifications of slavery and the Holocaust, the Supreme Court identified an impermissible hostility to religion in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. However, the same Supreme Court rejected the argument that statements by President Donald Trump and his advisors about the administration’s “Muslim Ban” showed religious animus, in Trump v. Hawaii. Both decisions overturned contrary lower-court determinations.

In another example of disagreement over the meaning of evidence of intentional discrimination, Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York rejected a motion to dismiss an equal protection claim regarding the termination of the DACA program, concluding that derogatory presidential statements about Latinos and Mexicans were “sufficiently racially charged, recurring, and troubling as to raise a plausible inference that the decision to end the DACA program was substantially motivated by discriminatory animus.” On the other hand, Judge Roger Titus of the district of Maryland wrote, in CASA de Maryland v. Department of Homeland Security, dismissing a similar equal protection claim at summary judgment, that the decision to terminate the program did not “target … a subset of the immigrant population, and … [was not] derived on a racial animus…The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ reliance on the President’s misguided, inconsistent, and occasionally irrational comments made to the media to establish an ulterior motive.”

Observers would hope that, if the Supreme Court had an equal protection claim against the census citizenship question before it, it would recognize and comment upon some hallmarks of intentional discrimination in this case. In so doing, the court could help clarify the legal import of the surprising official words and actions that have become an issue in litigation of so many diverse matters.

First, the decision to add a census citizenship question fits squarely within a pattern of actions that have intimidated the target at hand: immigrants of color. Resources spent on immigration enforcement have increased exponentially as safeguards and discretion have been dismantled. To cite one of many examples, in 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned longstanding immigration legal precedent to declare that people no longer qualified for asylum if they were fleeing domestic or gang violence that their home governments could not protect them from. Numerous decisions restraining immigration generally, and immigration from Latin America, Africa and Asia in particular, created a context of fear that experts in citizenship-question trials in New York, California and Maryland cited as a key reason for potentially serious harm from the question. Otherwise put, people are themselves strong proof that officials across administrative bodies are acting in consistent and repetitive ways – that is, with discriminatory intent – to single out immigrants of color for scrutiny, disapproval and prosecution. Certainly, immigrants of color have reasonably concluded that discrimination is occurring. The Census Bureau’s own 2018 focus groups, for example, yielded the observation that “even when presented with the Census Bureau’s promise of confidentiality, participants were suspicious that the promise would not be kept. Participants believed that the government will use and share individual-level rather than aggregate-level data.” One Spanish-speaking participant commented, “[Latinos will not participate] out of fear … [there] is practically a hunt [for us].”

Second, lies and obfuscation have pervaded the Commerce Department’s purported justification for its actions around the citizenship question. Appointed officials went to extraordinary lengths to conceal the details of the deliberations, which points strongly to the existence of embarrassing facts to hide, and discriminatory purpose is the most logical candidate. The records of the citizenship trials, and the decisions issued thus far, are rife with examples of deliberate less-than-truths. In one compelling, illustrative case, Commerce Department officials asked questions about the bureau’s initial analysis of the December 2017 letter requesting citizenship data. One of these queries sought information about the usual process for making changes to the decennial census questionnaire. Census Bureau Chief Scientist Dr. John Abowd and Acting Director Ron Jarmin subsequently testified that neither they nor, to their knowledge, any other Census Bureau employee had written or reviewed the answer as it appeared in the Commerce Department’s initial submission of documents for the record. Their testimony revealed that someone in a supervisory position had replaced the Census Bureau’s expert advice with substantially different information, then allowed the concocted answer to be presented as the work product of career census staff.

Third, official actions – like adoption of the citizenship question – that appear logically incomprehensible may only make sense in light of discriminatory intent. Courts can and should infer this intent when a pattern or practice reveals an inclination to single out disfavored populations, and when a decision that hurts a disfavored population has no other legitimate explanation. District courts appear to have found the justifications for the citizenship question that relate to the VRA especially unconvincing, given that the Department of Justice and private plaintiffs have successfully enforced the VRA for 54 years without such block-level citizenship data, and that the Census Bureau clearly and repeatedly told decisionmakers that they could get more accurate information at less cost from administrative data. The California court came closer to following this thought to its logical conclusion, noting, “Secretary Ross’s senior officials … all claim, rather implausibly, to be ignorant of why Secretary Ross wanted the citizenship question on the 2020 Census,” and observing that Commerce Department Director of Policy Earl Comstock testified that he did not “need to know what [the Secretary’s] rationale might be, because it may or may not be one that is … legally-valid.”

The absence of a credible rationale is not just the sign of arbitrary decision-making. In a high-stakes action that was always destined for intensive public scrutiny and likely court review, powerful officials would have offered plausible justifications if they could have. They would have stated their real purpose if it were defensible.

The courts should recognize that the incomprehensibility of the administration’s actions in Department of Commerce v. New York is evidence of unconstitutional discriminatory purpose, which, given the pattern established over the course of 2017 and 2018, is likely to recur again and again until the courts give it its true name and provide proper redress.

The post Symposium: Unfinished business — SCOTUS and the citizenship question appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/symposium-unfinished-business-scotus-and-the-citizenship-question/ via http://www.rssmix.com/