#because even not being in those groups you can see the harm bad media can do if you care even marginally

[weirdmageddon]

i was thinking about this since i posted earlier about us needing to address the trend of gen z men being pulled into alt-right pipelines might have contributed to the outcome of this election.

i think contrapoints is really smart, and from what i’ve seen, has been way more effective at getting people out of harmful ideological pipelines than i’ve seen from the majority of leftists online who instead berate and drive a greater wedge of antipathy (though i understand why! and it can be very hard to have empathy for the people who see you as a threat). that antipathy makes the right more radicalized because they don’t feel like they can talk about anything without the “crazy lefties” who won’t even engage with them. where did these issues come from?

what i’ve noticed, and i’m even guilty of this, is that people don’t interact with groups of people whom they refuse talk to, which makes realities more hypothetical in the minds of their opponent since they aren’t open to seeing reality from their perspective. this is true on both sides. from what i’ve observed, it seems to originate from hypothetical perception of the opponent, but when people treat those perceptions as though they are real, it becomes real with their actions, which then makes the antipathy justified to someone. again, on both sides.

what makes contrapoints so successful at breaking this down is that is that she creates these socratic dialogue skits that represent real people and ideologies, has a sense of humor, isn’t afraid to discuss these things, reframes how we see these things by introducing nuance to both sides. she’s a leftist, but she also knows how to engage without ripening division, of meeting someone halfway and being completely humble about it. she is able to soften extremes.

she is able to get into the mind of people who aren’t aligned with her views, understand the nuance and rationales from a realistic perspective, breaking down a big block of “this is all bad” into “ok, some of this makes sense…”, what this does is create a space for self-reflection that doesn’t feel ham-fisted (which could otherwise cause people to double down on their beliefs instead of opening up to other perspectives outside of their bubble). while also being entertaining and well-produced on top of it.

what she is doing is creating these scenarios and socratic discussions that SHOULD be happening in real life but aren’t in this polarized social climate.

i graduated from new college of florida this spring, the small liberal arts college that was in headlines across the country for ron desantis’s board of trustees hostile takeover and exodus of professors.

new students and student athletes from conservative walks of life were being basically incentivized to go there who were taught to fear the lgbt boogeyman growing up in their conservative communities. but once they actually interacted with lgbt students there, many of them they felt like they understood them, and they weren’t as bad as they were told they would be. new college of florida was also famous for getting derek black (child of the man who created stormfront, and godchild of the kkk grand wizard david duke) out of white nationalism. their peers at NCF called them out but also interacted with them, invited them to dinner. black wrote a book about it.

now of course some people are too far gone and you shouldn’t waste your time with them, like derek’s family for example. but i also think a lot of people who voted for trump are not informed, are operating off of emotion and knee-jerk mentality because it’s easier than thinking, and they are not seeing the discussions that need to be had to change their mind because fuckin…nobody is doing them.

and we feel this visceral disgust to people of the opposing party because of its associations. i just want to know how it happened and how we got to be like this. i think social media is partly to blame and also the algorithms that take people down dangerous pipelines and sharpen them, insulate them.

i myself understand the vitriol you might have for anyone that voted for trump. i feel so disappointed that half the people of this country voted against our collective benefit. and i’ve seen a lot of sentiment from the left today saying “every single person who voted for trump is dead to me. i disowned you”.

you can see the reality of trump’s demagoguery, and it’s so obvious, but what i want to know is: what do they see? why did they vote for him? emotion and entertainment travel faster and have more reach than reason. and it’s that’s why i think contrapoints’s videos are exemplary at tackling this ideological divide. this is something i’ve been thinking about for months before today and i thought now was a better time than ever to give my two cents on it.

[cy-cyborg]

I'm getting a little tierd of the idea because amputees get more representation in media, it means rep for our disability is better and we "have enough"

People are right, we do have way more rep than really any other disability, im not going to deny that, and ive joked before about how often people write amputees without even realising it. So you would think, by sheer numbers, we should have at least some good representation, but by-and-large that is not the case. Legitimatly, the closest example I can think of to point to of good amputee rep is Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood and even that uses multiple tropes I hate (the miracle cure/quest for the miracle cure, the almost perfect prosthetic replacement/forgetting the chatacter is an amputee until it breaks or needs repairs, refusal to call prosthetics, "prosthetics" (automail), the amputee who can't do anything without a prosthetic) and they call Ed a slur for another disability (m*dget) CONSTANTLY. I love fmab deeply, it legitimatly helped me feel seen and represented as a childhood amputee in a way no other show has even come close to, and when it gets it right, it gets it really right, but it's also very far from great and should not be the best example I can think of. Especially nearly 15 years after it released...

A big part of the reason why I don't read many books anymore is because of the sheer amount of books with downright offensively bad amputee rep, some of which were touted as good by people with other disabilities and were recommended to me as good examples. others times, I wasn't even looking for books with amputee/disability rep, it just popped up. It has ruined one of my childhood hobbies for me. Ive tried to get back into reading again as an adult but it hasn't gotten better in that time i was away. I was kicked out of 3 different scifi writing groups on facebook and reddit for asking people to remember "cybernetic enhancement" users are amputees - a real group of people, and maybe debating weather or not we're less human isnt great, and for pointing out seeing those discussions every day was making me feel pretty unwelcome in that space (yes i know, "real" cyberpunk isnt trying to say that, i had to turn notifications off on my post about the topic, it doesnt change the fact that newer creators in the genre dont seem to get that bit, that ive seen cyberpunk writers in these spaces say that debating weather people who loose more parts of their body were less human was, in fact, their intent but they hadnt even considered the fact this made their chatacters amputees, it doesnt change the fact that these tropes, intentionally or not, help make those spaces hostile for disabled fans/creators, especially amputees).

But yeah, I should be thankful I get more rep than other disabilities, no matter the quality, right?

It doesn't just stop at being me being made uncomfortable, though. The sheer, overwhelming amount of amputee chatacters with "perfect prosthetics" has had a noticeable impact on how we are perceived irl. In my lifetime, the general idea people have about multi-limbed amputees in particular has gone from "literally the worst thing that can happen to a person and the worst disability to have" to "is it even a disability? The prosthetic fixes it". These are both wildly untrue and harmful ideas about my disability that were both perpetuated by media, but now that the second one is taking root, it's causing real problems. I have not been shy in talking about how I have to fight to maintain my NDIS funding every time I get something done with my prosthetics, and had to get my prosthetist to sign off, twice, that my fancy prosthetic knee that costs the same as a higher-end new car ($125,000 AUD) is not, in fact a cure and I still need help with other things. It took me nearly 2 years to get a new wheelchair because they didn't understand why I needed it if I had the prosthetics - which to be honest, is not comfortable for me to wear, let alone use all day every day. Guys this isn't just assholes on the street or on twitter saying dumb shit, it's the people in the government body who decide how much funding I get to help with my disability who beleive it. People who have very real control over my life. It's not entirely the media's fault, but when the sheer, overwhelming majority of representation for people like me confirms that belief, it's hard to ignore the possibility that these portrayals are contributing to it, you know?

Which makes it so frustrating when I come on here and see other disability writing advice blogs saying to not write amputees because they have so much representation already. We do, I can acknowledge that, but the vast, vast majority of it is shit, and no one, not even other disabled people, are listening to us about it. And what makes it even worse, is the people they're advising to not writing amputees are the creators who care enough to be doing the research. They're the ones willing to listen, to ask questions. They could be the start of the positive change. But instead they're advised to not even bother with us.

And don't get me wrong, other disabilities ARE under-represented. There are so many disabilities, including some I have myself, that I've never seen represented as anything other than the butt of a joke. There does need to be more reprentation of disabilities other than amputation and limb differences. 100%! but can you please talk about that without saying "amputees have enough"

This isn't even touching on how amputees/people with limb differences who dont/cant use prosthetics, or even folks who use prosthetics sometimes but not others, are almost never represented unless it's for pitty-porn, or how the non-fictional media's (news outlets, etc) portrayal of amputees in particular is used to justify hurting very real, very vunderable people but this rant is long enough and honestly, ive got enough thoughts to make whole other posts on those subjects. That second one in particular deserves its own (more thought-out) spotlight and shouldn't be a footnote in a frustrated rant post lol.

[nqueso-emergency]

it's gonna be long but i'm so tired of this lame shit.

stop doing this "both sides are bad" bullshit. both sides have bad apples but hell should not put bad bucktommys in the same "bad" category as people who is:

1. an owner of a big news acount inciting bully and harrassment to a queer black teenager because they got accused of creating a new news account when it's actually a buddie who made that account, and guess what, never appologized!

2. a person who infiltrate a discord space and getting informations like age and sexuality from people out of that discord to X/twitter and let the cult bullying and calling the discord's people "hags"

3. made a tumblr blog dedicated just for wishing harm and death on a fictional character

4. orchestrated on creating some horrible fanfictions with the wrong tags about a fictional character being a child abuser and child killer, and sent the links of those fanfictions to the fans of said fictional character through inboxes

5. changing a fluff ficlet of a ship created by a fan to a horrible abuse story and sending it to so many fans of the ship through inboxes

6. harassing artists by reuploading art on other social media just for your cult to shit on the art

7. creating a fanart and draw a fictional character as a monster and using the term "lizard people" (but hey they got rewarded!)

8. harassing multishippers for creating fanarts and fanfictions for the newer ship

9. sending phising links and reporting as spam to a positivity project

10. you can check on Lou Ferrigno Jr's latest post on X/Twitter about him swallowing an apple sticker and see how many wishes of harms and deaths you can find on the quotes and the replies

11. throwing tantrums and sending threats to THE showrunner over a scene that didn't included on the final cut (the scene not even significant enough to the whole episode arc:((()

12. recorded an X/Twitter space when the black fans there expressing their disappointment about people (actors included)'s treatment toward a certain actor with racism history during blm, putting the recording out so the cult could harrass the fans who's talking in the said space

there are bad apples on bucktommys side. even sometimes i think maybe i am one of the bad apples. but i love how bucktommys never holding back for calling out someone's bad behavior even it's from their own side. so i'm always grateful that i'm on bucktommys side. oh, for all of those points of bad behavior above, we have receipts, bcs we would never speak without receipts.

P. S. certain group of shipper could made a team to investigate who nqueso-emergency actually is but not one of them move to investigate who are these people orchestrating csa fics and made their community look bad? shocker!!!

P. S. S. points of bad behaviors above is mostly about their treatment toward other fans and real life person. i'm not getting deep into their treatment toward fictional characters on the show, especially their treatment toward a certain gay character because when we tried to call them out, they just twist it to "hAtinG on a rAciSt aNd mYsOgIniSt chArActEr iS hoMOpHoBic noW?". well, honey, that character is already change to a better person now and he stated that he's not a good person back then. you know who's homophobic, now? yes! YOU ARE!

thank you for your your service, nqueso, have a great day. and i love you, bucktommys! we'll get through this🫶🏽

[nats-revival]

Not they tryna reenact KOSA… anyway yall, here’s why KOSA is bad!!

If you don’t already know, KOSA, or Kids Online Safety Act is a bill that was proposed to keep children safe on the internet. You might ask ‘why is this bill bad if it’s in favor of supporting the safety of children online’? Well, according to stopkosa.com, it puts pressure on platforms to add even MORE filters on anything they think is inappropriate for children. This is especially harmful for LBGTQIA+ youth because the knowledge about this topic would be censored, as well as knowledge on suicide prevention and LGBTQIA+ support groups. Do you see how this an issue? For those children who are wanting to learn more about these topics they’d be turned away because of this bill. It would also be likely that it’ll allow the shutdown of websites that allow them to learn about race, sexuality and gender.

This bill would also add more internet surveillance for all users across all social media platforms. It would expand the use of age verification and parental monitoring controls. These things in itself are already very invasive, but doesn’t take into consideration the children who live in unsafe environments where they are domestically abused and/or are trying to escape these situations. To add my two cents onto this, I strongly believe that the KOSA bill is an unnecessary violation of our first amendment rights (if you’re American), and doesn’t really make the internet any more safer. It actually makes it more unusable for youth. Hypothetically, if this bill were to be passed, then this would make social media unusable for literally anybody. To censor content from the youth about wanting to learn about their identity is extremely harmful. Blocking them from accessing resources that may prove as helpful in their scenarios is outlandish and unneeded. We try to shelter our youth so much to the point where we try to boil them down to only being with their parents want them to be and also not being able to let them learn and explore about other things that they may want to identify themselves with. This is very harmful.

This is a list of companies who are saying no to KOSA ..

• Access Now

• ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)

• Black and Pink National

• Center for Democracy & Technology

• COLAGE

• Defending Rights & Dissent

• Don’t Delete Art

• EducateUS: SIECUS In Action

• Electronic Frontier Foundation

• Equality Arizona

• Equality California

• Equality Michigan

• Equality New Mexico

• Equality Texas

• Fair Wisconsin

• Fairness Campaign

• Fight for the Future

• Free Speech Coalition

• Freedom Network USA

• Indivisible Eastside

• Indivisible Plus Washington

• Internet Society

• Kairos

• Lexington Pride Center

• LGBT Technology Partnership

• Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition

• Media Justice

• National Coalition Against Censorship

• Open Technology Institute

• OutNebraska

• PDX Privacy

• Presente.org

• Reframe Health and Justice

• Restore The Fourth

• SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change

• SWOP Behind Bars 

• TAKE

• TechFreedom

• The 6:52 Project Foundation, Inc.

• The Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center

• Transgender Education Network of Texas

• TransOhio

• University of Michigan Dearborn – Muslim Student Association 

• URGE

• WA People’s Privacy

• Woodhull Freedom Foundation

There is something you can do to stop the KOSA bill from being passed! On the website I linked, there is a petition. All you have to do is fill out the information and it’ll send off an email for you. The email reads as follows:

I’m writing to urge you to reject the Kids Online Safety Act, a misguided bill that would put vulnerable young people at risk. KOSA would fail to address the root issues related to kid’s safety online. Instead, it would endanger some of the most vulnerable people in our society while undermining human rights and children’s privacy. The bill would result in widespread internet censorship by pressuring platforms to use incredibly broad “content filters” and giving state Attorneys General the power to decide what content kids should and shouldn’t have access to online. This power could be abused in a number of ways and be politicized to censor information and resources. KOSA would also likely lead to the greater surveillance of children online by requiring platforms to gather data to verify user identity. There is a way to protect kids and all people online from egregious data abuse and harmful content targeting: passing a strong Federal data privacy law that prevents tech companies from collecting so much sensitive data about all of us in the first place, and gives individuals the ability to sue companies that misuse their data. KOSA, although well-meaning, must not move forward. Please protect privacy and stop the spread of censorship online by opposing KOSA.

The website also gives you like a format of what you can say if you chose to call your representatives. If after reading this post, you feel inclined to do something then I would say just go ahead and do it. My first time learning about KOSA was today immediately after seeing the post I felt inclined to send my lawmakers an email. Please try to help when you can and this will only take a few minutes so I think this is something that you can consider. This post is getting a little long now, so I’ll stop here. There are more resources online if you would like to learn more about the cons of this KOSA bill, thank you for reading.

[fatphobiabusters]

Fatphobia is so popular and normalized that you don't even need to watch fatphobic shit for YouTube to recommend it to you.

Making fatphobic shit is also so lucrative that you can get 500,000 views on a less than two minute video made by AI, meaning that you didn't even have to do the work yourself. All you have to do to get half a million views is put a picture of a fat person as the thumbnail and make the most unoriginal garbage pile of a pun that you can think of to slap on the video as a title.

And you want to know why?

You want to know why everyone and their mother loves to freely harass fat people? You want to know why this makes half a million views on a video that doesn't even meet the two minute mark?

It's because fat people are one of the only oppressed groups left who you can abuse and oppress with zero backlash. We aren't protected by anti-discrimination laws. There's a single organization that gives a damn about our oppression, and it's not even a powerful or well-known organization to people outside of the very small community of fat liberationists. You won't even be shamed on social media beyond a tiny percentage of accounts like this blog. I can't begin to describe how many fatphobic bigots I have dealt with over the years who were people who claimed to be "progressive" and said they supported equality. So many fatphobes I have dealt with had pride flag icons and argued to me that fat people aren't oppressed because "[insert whatever other group here the fatphobe was using this time] has it worse!" Fat people have even been thrown out of the body positivity movement that WE. STARTED.

So if I can't even rely on "progressive" people who give a shit about everyone else to give a shit about me? People who claim to care about equality and all of my other oppressed identities but treat me like the dirt underneath their feet as soon I'm not "fuckable" to them? You can see pretty fucking clearly how this world has a strangling hold on fat people and refuses to let go of their last punching bag that has zero consequences for pummeling into the ground.

The world knows that you will endure consequences (legal, financial, and/or social) for being bigoted against any oppressed group with a mainstream activism movement, so that's why conservatives and progressives alike wipe their brow in relief that there's at least one group they know is okay to harm as much as they want without having to worry of backlash.

And for the people who never developed their reading comprehension skills, no where did I say that other oppressed groups don't have it bad. No where did I say that other oppressed groups aren't still harmed today. Stop it with your bad faith takes and attempts to make this another "piss on the poor."

There's a major difference between what I endure as a fat person and what I endure for my plethora of other oppressed identities. If you discriminate against me for being gay, there's anti-discrimination laws and policies. There's financial losses to your business by the people who will boycott you. There's loss of reputation. There's loss of relationships, social status, and trust. People have even lost their jobs for being homophobic. It's not perfect, but it's far from lacking consequences.

But when I'm discriminated against for being fat? All those people who supposedly cared about me for being gay are not only silent when I'm discriminated against for my fatness, they often actively support the fatphobia I faced.

That is the fucking difference.

-Mod Worthy

[malloryrowinski]

u talk about trans women being violent as if they're not one of the most discriminated against groups. trans folks are over 4 times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape and SA

So? Does experiencing violence make a group somehow “pure” or incapable of violence themselves? Women, as an oppressed group, also experience higher rates of violence, yet no one claims this makes women incapable of committing crimes, and no one silences those talking about female criminals. Actually, the media and public often focus on and sensationalize female-perpetrated crime. Marginalized or oppressed groups can and do contain individuals who commit violent acts—being a victim doesn’t erase that fact.

This trend of denying that men can exploit gender identity policies to harm women is exhausting. There are real cases of men hiding behind gender ideology to gain access to female-only spaces and commit abuses. This isn't hypothetical—it’s documented in cases around the world. Ignoring these risks doesn’t erase them; it just lets them go unchecked. Read the news, and you’ll see that this concern is grounded in real events.

My point has always been that gender ideology and the uncritical acceptance of it create loopholes that violent, misogynistic men exploit to victimize women. Are we supposed to ignore this out of "political correctness," because you can't say anything trans-related that isn’t overwhelmingly positive? How is silencing women’s real safety concerns politically correct? Women are being assaulted and even killed in spaces that are supposed to protect them—this should matter!!

To be clear, I don’t condone violence or discrimination against the trans community—no one deserves that, obviously. But acknowledging the reality of violence against women and advocating for safety in female-only spaces doesn’t contradict this. Anyone capable of basic critical thinking should recognize that I’m not attacking the trans community, nor am I labeling all trans women as “bad” simply by raising these issues.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Hello RTA! Could you explain what the red flags about Harry being a security risk are?

I don't have any sort of training in this, and I'm curious. How would the idiot party playboy Prince who is an avowed drug addict and a fantasist be considered as a source of reliable intelligence about his family? - this guy thinks there are penguins in the North Pole.

I'm more inclined to believe that the recent conspiracies over Catherine may have been encouraged by those who want to destabilize UK democracy - taking down William and Catherine would certainly cause some upheaval. But as I said, I have no training and this is just speculation. What do you think?

Well, you can't discount anything these days. The world changed a lot with COVID so there's a lot of upheaval everywhere.

To me, the attempted takedown of William and Kate reads a lot like bored people stirring shit up about boring people for entertainment. Because let's face it: compared to a lot of other worldwide famous people, William and Kate are probably two of the most boring and uninteresting people out there. They have complicated jobs but lead uncomplicated lives, which isn't the norm these days. Social media and the 24/7 news cycle has made us realize that most famous people are hiding complicated, messy lives and it's only a matter of time before it comes out. So when someone like Kate comes along - someone extraordinarily likeable and extraordinarily uncomplicated - it's so unthinkable that denizens of social media will do everything they can to break that person down to discover the skeletons in their closet. They do this to either a-tear them down off the pedestal society has placed them upon (e.g., "see? I always knew she was a bad person. I'm glad I didn't waste my time supporting him/her"), or b-feel better about themselves (e.g., "see? Even I know not to do that).

That's what I see happening to Kate. People can't handle that she's so ordinary and uncomplicated despite having this incredible life. They're accustomed to scandal and controversy and it's so bizarre to them that Kate's only mistake is that her skirt blew up at a windy airport and everyone saw her bum twice so when the photo edits were discovered, there was a wicked "see? I always knew she wasn't a very trustworthy person. What else has she lied about" gleefulness that perhaps she isn't so unlikeable after all.

But certainly bad actors or adversaries who want to shake things up are probably participating in the discourse about Kate. I don't think they want to shake up or destabilize UK democracy (and besides, even if they did, this is totally the wrong avenue - they need to disrupt the economy instead because all they've done is expose that Kate is happy staying at home with her family and not working so she really couldn't give a shit about the monarchy). I think it's more like they want to weaken her influence over culture, society, and the public...but the problem with that is who do they replace her with? The only options are Meghan, Charles, and Camilla, but they just don't galvanize public sentiment the way Kate (and her children) has.

Anyway, well, that's a tangent.

Let's get into the red flags and the security piece of your question. I submitted a couple of anons to another blog about this very topic a long time ago. I'll see if I can track that down later.

So some vocabulary first:

Insider threat: Someone with authorized access to or knowledge of an organization and its resources (which is everything from people to buildings/facilities to information to equipment and infrastructure).

Protected information: Information that you need authorized access to, which may or may not be classified and/or restricted.

Bad actor: Someone (a person, a group, a country) who purposefully engages in harmful behavior against another (person, group, country, region, etc.)

Adversary: An enemy

Bad actors and adversaries are often used interchangeably but this isn't correct. They're distinctly separate. A bad actor isn't always an adversary.

Harmful behavior is a huge wide range of things from the unethical and immoral to criminal and illegal. On one side of the spectrum is stuff that's pretty innocuous, like not telling a colleague a meeting was moved so you can take exclusive credit for work. On the other side of the spectrum is more serious stuff like espionage and terrorism.

When we consider whether someone is a security risk, we're looking at a) their predisposition to engage in harmful behavior and b) their predisposition to be exploited by a bad actor or an adversary. To do that we assess what indicators or stressors (aka "red flags") they have. The more indicators your profile flags, the higher your potential security risk. The higher your potential security risk, the more scrutiny you're under.

And do note that having indiciators doesn't mean you're a threat. It just means you're watched a little more closely so your patterns are better understood and once your patterns/habits are known, then someone can decide what your actual security risk is. But just as equally, not having indicators doesn't mean you're not a risk or that you aren't a threat. So it's a negotiable spectrum that changes constantly from day to day.

There are six categories of indicators: personal, background/history, behavior, technical, environment, and violence.

I'm going to list examples of them all. I'll put a 🚩 next to the ones I see in Harry and a ❌ next to the ones I see in Meghan.

Personal Indicators - Items that reflect on events currently impacting the person. There are two subtypes: personal and professional/work-related.

Serious physical, emotional, or mental health concerns 🚩 ❌

Financial need 🚩 ❌

Address change/move 🚩 ❌

Death in the family or a close friend 🚩

Addiction - Drugs, alcohol, gambling, sex, etc. 🚩 ❌

Criticism from partners, friends, work 🚩 ❌

Interpersonal relationship issues (e.g. a break-up, divorce)

Unmet expectations relating to role, responsibility, recognition, or compensation 🚩 ❌

Legal problems (e.g. bankruptcy, traffic tickets, lawsuits)

Demotion or failure to achieve anticipated advancement at work 🚩 ❌

Loss of seniority or status at work 🚩 ❌

Conflicts with coworkers/bosses, including complaints/criticism and bad performance reviews 🚩 ❌

Transfers/relocation

Termination, including end of contract 🚩 ❌

Background Indicators - Events that happen before an individual is hired or prior to gaining access. Not things that are easily known, typically pop up in a background check.

Involvement with individuals or groups opposing core beliefs or values of the organization

Engagement in activities representing a conflict of interest with the organization ❌

Addiction 🚩 ❌

Short-term employments

History of emotional or mental health concerns 🚩 ❌

Spending exceeds income 🚩 ❌

Criminal record

Concerning business relationships 🚩 ❌

Social or professional network concerns 🚩 ❌

Behavioral Indicators - Events reflecting patterns of activities based on how the individual interacts with others, including technology.

Unwillingness to comply with established rules, procedures, or organizational policies 🚩 ❌

Observable resentment with plans of retribution 🚩 ❌

Excessive or unexplained use of data copy equipment

Making unapproved contacts with competitors or business partners 🚩 ❌

Discussions of new opportunities or of resigning from current position 🚩 ❌

Excessive overtime work or working odd or late hours without reason or authorization

Bringing personal equipment into high security areas 🚩 ❌

Carelessness or impulsiveness 🚩 ❌

Inappropriate statements, jokes, or bragging 🚩

Poor social interaction or social withdrawal 🚩

Disgruntlement towards peers due to perceived injustice 🚩 ❌

Increasingly erratic, unsafe, or aggressive behaviors 🚩❌

Repeated breaches of rules, procedures, or organizational policies 🚩 ❌

Litigiousness 🚩❌

Exploitable behavior (including gambling, sexual misconduct, substance abuse, etc.) 🚩 ❌

Excessive volunteering that elevates access to sensitive systems, networks, facilities, people, or data 🚩

Financial difficulties or unexplained financial gains 🚩 ❌

Taking multiple, short unexplained trips outside the US

Efforts to conceal foreign travel and contacts

Technical Indicators - Those that require IT systems and tools to detect.

Direct correspondence with competitors ❌🚩

Email messages with abornomally large attachments or amounts of data

DNS queries associated with Dark Web activities

Use of activity masking tools (e.g. VPN or TOR)

Executing offensive tools

Executing malware

Connecting unauthorized devices to networks

Downloading or installing prohibited software

Unexpected activity otuside of normal working hours

Attempts to bypass or disable security controls

Unauthorized attempts to escalate permissions or privileges without need to know 🚩❌

Attempting to print or copy protected or restricted documents (including photographs)

Abnormally large number of software or operating system errors

Attaching an unidentified device to a workstation

Maintaining access to sensitive data after termination notice

Different users attempting to log in from the same device or workstation

Lack of log messages or monitoring data

Unauthorized modification of centrally stored files

Copying large numbers of documents to a local drive

Authentication failures or failed login attempts

Unauthorized database content changes

Irresponsible social media habits ❌

Attempts to access resources not associated with the individual's role

User accounts used from multiple devices

Multiple accounts identified for a single user ❌

Triggering of key words or phrases in emails, text messages, or phone calls

Lack of controls to prevent unauthorized modification of critical data

Use of excessive access privilege

Compromised passwords

Failure to protect critical files

Violation of need-to-know policies

Unauthorized data download

Organizational/Environmental Indicators - Factors within an individual's organization or environment that can be used to create motivation or justification

High stress environment 🚩 ❌

Lack of candor or transparency 🚩 ❌

Tolerance of poor performance

Toxic leadership 🚩 ❌

Inconsistent enforcement of policy 🚩 ❌

Inaction following notification of grievance, threat, or increased risk 🚩 ❌

Overly aggressive reaction following notification of threat 🚩 ❌

Inappropriate disciplinary action

Bureaucratic compartmentalization of information

Lack of understanding or awareness regarding threat risk 🚩 ❌

Pattern of ovework

Lack of appreciation for employees/members 🚩 ❌

Hightened financial uncertainty 🚩 ❌

Apparent indifference to complaints of harrassment or discrimination 🚩 ❌

Undertrained staff

Violence Indicators - Specific behaviors or collections of behaviors to instill fear or concern of physical harm to others. Three subtypes - violence, domestic abuse, and terrorism, bias, hate crimes.

Intimidation 🚩 ❌

Stalking

Emotional abuse 🚩 ❌

Domestic violence

Expressions of hatred or prejudice 🚩

Harassment or bullying 🚩 ❌

Excessive use of alcohol or drugs 🚩 ❌

Unexplained absenteeism

Change in behavior 🚩

Statements indicating desperation or suicidal thoughts 🚩 ❌

Resistance to change, persistent complaining about unfair treatment 🚩 ❌

Decline in job performance

Paranoia 🚩

Violation of company policies 🚩 ❌

Emotional responses to criticism (e.g., mood swings) 🚩

Threats of homicide/suicide

Personality changes 🚩

Constantly checking in with partners

Never having money

Overly worried about pleasing partners

Uncharacteristic absenteeism or lateness

Poor concentration

Signs of emotional distress 🚩

Expressing bias or hatred towards a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or disability 🚩

Browsing extremist websites

Expressing hatered or intolerance of US society or culture

Advocating violence for a political, religious, or ideological cause

Monitoring or recording security equipment, movement, or responses

Engaging in deception or concealment. 🚩 ❌

So as you can see, Harry (and Meghan) have red flags all over the place. That makes them a legitimate security risk for the UK and the BRF. All a bad actor or an adversary has to do is flatter their egos and give them money, and the Sussexes will roll over. It's happened so many times already - with Spare, with the Netflix docuseries, with Meghan's interviews and her podcast. And let's not forget Finding Freedom, where Meghan and Scobie literally printed directions on how to find the royal vaults!

And because it's very obvious Charles wants Harry back - Harry keeps coming back for events and there's all these trial balloons from BP/CH and Montecito - it would be very easy for someone to gain control of Harry and hold him hostage against Charles and the BRF. All someone has to do is say "Harry, you've been selected to receive the inaugural Princess Diana Humanitarian Award for Superior Excellence. It comes with a $4 million USD cash prize but you have to come to Bosnia and do a landmine event to claim it." Then Harry goes to Bosnia, they get him drunker than sin and higher than God, he passes out wherever, and they Weekend-at-Bernie's him to Russia, where he's held in the gulag, escalating their blackmail demands until Charles is broker than a busted doorknob.

Farfetched? Sure. But still possible, which means it's a valid risk they need to consider.

And when we assess risk, we look at the probability of such an event happening and the consequence of the event happening on a scale from 1 to 5 where a 1 in probability means not likely to happen or a 1 in consequence is little to no damage or impact and a 5 in probability means most certainly going to happen and a 5 in consequence means significant damage/destruction, including significant loss of life or millions and millions of dollars to fix/repair/rebuild.

So the probability of Harry getting kidnapped and held hostage in Russia is 1. It's pretty low, not likely going to happen. But the impact, or consequence, of Harry getting kidnapped and held hostage in Russia is a 5. Meaning there will be a loss of life (such as war or perhaps a CIA-like exfiltration that goes wrong or perhaps Harry getting sacrificed) or a LOT of money being paid to guarantee his safety.

But Harry doesn't even have to get kidnapped by the Russians. He just has to be so disgruntled and so pissed off about how the BRF and the UK treats him that he can leverage what he knows against Charles or William to get what he wants. Which is, by the way, exactly what's happening. Harry is so pissed off that he's devolved to ultimatums: "Give me X or you won't see my children." "Give me X or I'll tell everyone about the time you Y." Which, depending on who your neighborhood tarot reader is, is what people are saying is happening in the background: Harry is using his insider knowledge and/or access to cause harm to Charles and the monarchy to gain advantage over William or the public.

That's why Harry's still on the website. That's why he still has the titles. That's why the US is dragging its feet on the visa lawsuit. Because whether he (or we) realize it or not, there's protection around Harry that's working to keep him safe from extremist threats like this because to threaten - or activate - Harry is more dangerous to UK stability and UK democracy than social media activists declaring that the Waleses are divorcing.

Well, that took a wild ride.

Anyway, I hope it's helpful, anon. If you'd like to learn more about this kind of stuff, check out some of the free DOD-supported online training courses here. These are pretty similar to the annual training requirements I have to do for work so they should give you a good background on red flags and insider threats to help better see the threats and risks that Harry poses to the UK.

Also, just a real quick thing. Risk and threat don't always mean the same thing. Risk measures potential loss. Threat measures potential harm. Sometimes they're used to mean risk = potential and threat = actualized but not in the security world.

[edenfenixblogs]

outside of the general principles of credibility and fact-checking (or including those if you want) and looking for commitment to peace and shared prosperity like you mentioned in your pinned, do you have any other advice on gauging the reliability of sources regarding israel/palestine? or any particular sources you recommend as reliable or warn against as unreliable? there's so much misinfo and disinfo out there that i often end up getting overwhelmed and sharing nothing specific - and i know that's not exactly helpful, i'm just not sure where to start.

This is SUCH a good and important question!!! Thank you so much for asking it. I’ve been waiting until after work today to answer, so I can give it the attention it deserves.

This is an incredibly complex topic. It is completely ok to tackle only one item of this at a time. It is ok to spend more time listening than speaking. It is ok to only do basic fact checking until these things become second nature. It seems like a lot. But it actually becomes quite simple when you realize that, as a member of a non-affected group, your only job is to steer the conversation toward truth and peace.

That means most of what you are doing is rejecting sources and individuals engaging in bad faith discourse by simply not engaging with them. Your next most common task will be to publicly fact check bad faith discourse or incorrect information that has spread too far.

It is tempting to become outraged when you become familiar with bad faith discourse and data and see it spread widely. However, remember that this is incredibly complex and even the most experienced people get things wrong on this subject all the time. If you notice an error in what appears to be someone trying to bring attention to a cause they care deeply about, approach with kindness first. Always.

Try a reblog or a personal message with a link to the problematic post and say something like,

Hey. I care a lot about [issue] too. And I am trying really hard to make sure everything being spread right now is verifiable and accurate so nobody gets upset about things that aren’t true. Did you know that [thing you said+link to the post where you said it] was actually proven false by [reliable source+link to that source]? I’m really glad that didn’t happen. Of course, terrible things are still happening [to Palestinians/Israelis/Jews/Muslims/Arabs] on/in [college campuses/diaspora/Palestine/Israel/etc] there all the time. But at least nobody has to suffer through [incorrect info]. By the way, I’ve found a lovely organization run by actual Palestinians/Israelis/Arabs/Muslims/Jews working together to find peace for all. Check it out, I think it has promise! [link to reliable cause/organization]

Here is a wonderful site for MENA-based organizations geared toward fostering a shared peaceful future in a variety of ways.

Give the poster a chance to self correct. You will be wrong in the future. Model the way you would like to be informed of an error.

I briefly touched on the basics of identifying any source as reliable here. I won’t reiterate because this may be a long post and I wanna save space. But it contains the basics of what I learned in college.

One of the most important things to keep in mind is that no source is objective. No source is without bias. And there is no way to make any source objective or without bias.

News is written by people. And all people have viewpoints. Giving all voices in a conflict equal importance is not inherently unbiased, because that risks giving support to more harmful ideas and equating harmful ideas, ideologies, and organizations with reasonable ones. Likewise, asserting that one viewpoint is correct and being unwavering in this belief no matter what is obviously no way to cultivate a balanced and well informed viewpoint.

Your job is to use critical thinking skills to examine the level of bias in a piece of media as well as how responsibly the source handles that bias. Your job is also to do your best to be aware of bias as well as what bias is relevant to the subject matter being reported. A source that is left leaning, but never shares fake information and is always verifiable is preferable to a source that is moderate but consistently shares half truths or faulty information.

Sometimes, information from a less than ideal source can be shared, but if you are sharing that source, you must explicitly state that source’s flaws and why you chose to share that information anyway. And if you are unable to find a better source, you should state that you are sharing information that may be incomplete or inaccurate and you are happy to update the post you are sharing if and when more information or confirmation from a more reliable source emerges. There are very limited situations where this is appropriate. Usually I would suggest not sharing information from such sources at all unless it can be backed up by better information.

One example of such a case is information about antisemitic hate crimes from the ADL. The ADL has a very problematic history and one should be aware of it when they share statistical data from the organization. However, that doesn’t make their information inherently unusable. It makes their information inherently suspect, though. In order for anything shared from the ADL to be worth sharing, you should be able to evaluate the data collection method and the sources of the data. And if there is any information in the data you are sharing that is not appropriate, you should explicitly draw attention to it, not try to hide it.

Case Study: Global Antisemitic Incidents in the Wake of Hamas’ War on Israel

This list contains very useful data on incidents of antisemitic violence against Jews in diaspora since 10/7/2023. I trust this data because: it links to each individual news source it references, often with pictures of the attacker/attack/incident and time stamps. It’s data is open to questioning and its sources are available to check individually. This is in line with the ADL’s mission statement of tracking antisemitism. Documenting antisemitism is not an inherently biased practice nor do I have any reason to believe that they lie about the antisemitic incidents they document. As that is not one of the things that critics accuse the ADL of, I do not see a reason to question its record on antisemitic incident reporting. I have never heard a critic make a substantiated claim against their formally collected data as falsified. I am willing to be proven wrong on this, but I will interrogate a source claiming this as thoroughly as I interrogate the ADL as a source itself. I am skeptical of this source because: the title of the article uses extremely biased language that makes the war seem one sided. The advantage of this source is: it is one of the few sources existing that collects data on antisemitic violence and hate incidents of Jews in diaspora. A sign of good faith from the organization: they dedicate a page to addressing criticisms of their organization, which means they feel confident that criticisms of them will stand up to scrutiny. It is not sufficient to use this page to absolve them of any of the listed criticisms, but it should help you find articles that critique the ADL as well as relevant information that supports their defense. Thus, you must come to your own conclusion on whether or not that information is trustworthy on the matter you are commenting on. A sign of possible bad faith from the organization: their page devoted to confronting myths and inaccuracies about their organization’s history does not address accusations about supporting South African Apartheid or failing to call the Armenian Genocide a genocide. An acknowledgment of my own limitations: I am not an expert in South African Apartheid in any way nor am I an expert on the Armenia genocide. Any other relevant information: Any reputable news sources verify information before reporting. If a news source that is verifiably responsible in its reporting cites information from the ADL, I will assume they have made adequate inquiries to verify that information as accurate enough to report. For example, if AP reported information and cited the ADL statistics, I would assume that the ADL made sure the data fit its high standard for reportage.

Conclusion: I find the ADL to be a trustworthy enough source of data about antisemitic attacks and incidents on Jews in diaspora, but only in cases where their sources and/or methodology are made public and/or another more regulated or otherwise more reliable source of statistical information partners with them. Because I lack expertise on South African Apartheid on the Armenian Genocide, I will not share information from the ADL about Palestinian apartheid, segregation, oppression, or genocide (until or unless I become more well-versed in these topics or am able to devote substantial energy into fact checking each claim in what I share. If I ever choose to do this, I will share every source I used to verify the information so that others may check my work and inform me if I’m wrong. At this time, I do not foresee a situation where I would refer to the ADL for matters about Palestinian concerns). The ADL in general and the linked source in particular seems to be an overall worthwhile source to cite on matters of antisemitism. The ADL does not meet my standards of a reliable source on Palestinian suffering. Check each link/source on an ADL source you want to share and form an informed conclusion on its reliability before sharing.

Also, be aware that primary sources with biased information are extremely valuable but never objective on their own. A tweet from the IDF or a statement from a released Palestinian prisoner may both be true! But sharing them as if they are definitely true without fact checking the information through the most trustworthy sources available is irresponsible. Do not share any social media information as fact. You are free to share social media information and publicly explore its implications in a responsible manner, but it is not responsible to discuss them as facts.

Case study: When something in Gaza or Israel is bombed, be sure that you know who the key players and commentators are.

When the IDF releases a statement blaming Hamas for bombing their own citizens, know that the IDF has a vested interest in not being perceived as an aggressor. When the Ministry of Health in Gaza accuses the Israeli military of being responsible for the attack, be aware that the Ministry of Health in Gaza is run by Hamas and is not a third party neutral source. Do not post anything about an event like this until the information is fully vetted by a neutral third party source (or as neutral as you are likely to find on such a hot button issue).

The best way you can help during an emerging story is to urge others to wait for full details, call out people irresponsibly casting blame before the facts are in (especially politicians), and repeatedly verify every source of information as they are named so that you know if they are trustworthy. Do not trust politicians who espouse inflammatory and prematurely accusatory information and do not make a public retraction and apology when they are found to be wrong.

That said, it is always appropriate to express sorrow for loss of life. You do not need to accuse a killer in order to do this.

There are also sites geared toward helping you identify the source itself fairly. Note: sites like these will help you evaluate the publication or news entity (eg New York Times, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, etc.). They won’t help you evaluate an individual journalist or article.

Some sites to help you verify credibility:

Media Bias Fact Check: Allows you to verify sources based on the news source’s political bias in terms of a left-right spectrum as well as by their reliability on matters of science, their use of questionable sources, and use of satire. Also, you can check how reliably factual the source’s reporting is. You can also sort by country, media type, general credibility, and how well trafficked the source is. They also publicly offer insight into their methodology of coming to these conclusions.

The Associated Press (AP) fact checks individual claims. Other news organizations fact checking claims include Reuters, The Washington Post and AFP. While AP is a gold standard and generally reliable, be aware that news organizations are also subject to bias. The advantage is that news organizations have investigative reporters on staff to investigate claims. The disadvantage is the bias inherent to the publication itself.

Other third party cites checking facts in news reports and in politics include:

FactCheck.org

Politifact

Snopes

Lakehead University offers an entire site devoted to developing media literacy as well as many ways to search fact checking sites. So does Kansas State University, and UMass Amherst. Many universities offer sites like this. I urge you to look into them.

Once you find a news or data source you trust, do a quick google search on the journalist’s name and a relevant phrase to the aspect of the conflict being reported on. For example The Newspaper Tribune Times Chronicle may be trustworthy. Veteran reporter, Ima Journalist may have written an article about Israel Bombing Gaza. So, before sharing it, just Google: “Ima journalist” + Israel Palestine Jews antisemitism Islamophobia. Make sure you don’t see something like “Ima Journalist photographed screaming ‘Hitler was actually a super good guy!’ anywhere in her history. When satisfied, feel free to share the story.

Other points to keep in mind:

Be aware of crappy tactics on both sides of the i/p conflict.

The IDF is often accused of excessive violence and planting evidence on Palestinians. This often leads to Palestinians being unfairly accused of terrorist intent and criminal violence.

Hamas uses civilians as human shields — both by using individual humans as shields and also launching bombs from civilian buildings (like hospitals, preschools, and libraries), building militaristic infrastructure in or beneath those same civilian buildings, and instigating conflict with IDF soldiers positioned near residential and civilian locations. This allows Hamas to escape criticism by framing the IDF as mindlessly bloodthirsty and eager to kill Palestinian civilians.

And finally, make sure accusations and talking points never conform to antisemitic conspiracy theories.

The universal aspects of antisemitic conspiracy theories (detailed more fully in the source linked above and also in another post I made) are:

Accusing Jews of replacing another group or population

Accusing Jews of pretending to be something they are not

Accusing Jews of dominating or attempting to dominate a prominent or essential aspect of a society or the world at large.

Accusing Jewish people of genocide and bloodlust in pursuit of personal gain

Accusing Jews of undue privilege or if appropriating something belonging to others.

Dehumanizing Jews by grouping them under a collective name or identity.

I hope this helps! Feel free to share it!

[northwest-cryptid]

Limbus company brought more eyes on project moon and got more people interested in the games that's probably one of the best things that can happen to a a game company

It also resulted in them firing a key member of their staff due to sexism in the workplace/from those eyes that got brought to it.

It also resulted in Wonderlab becoming lost media because the artist decided to cut ties with Project Moon.

It also resulted in the CEO being exposed as a total prick who underpaid and overworked staff, is generally weak willed and gives in to sexism, and values money over just about anything. Threatening to sue people for boycotting.

It also expanded the fandom/community from a tight knit fun group to an oversized mess of differing opinions that are generally hostile but that's not really too important over all, just sad to see it happen. I miss the days when the community didn't bicker and argue and fight and complain and shit. That's just how things go when a community becomes bigger, bad for the individual good for the company I suppose. It is what it is.

It also resulted in a boycott for the said horrible things the CEO did.

Like, look we're not arguing here; you don't have to hide behind anon I'm not gonna bite or some shit. I mean hell what do you think I could even do if I knew your URL? Like realistically there's nothing I could do to you anyways not that I'd want to, like why do you think I'd wish you harm? Because we have differing opinions? I agree it financially was very good for the company, but it's the worst thing to have happened both in how the general community around the company shifted, and in how much came to light about the shady business going on at Project Moon and how weak the company was to actually protect their own people, because they don't care about their people.

Project Moon is a company I had a lot of respect for, and it's why I'm very critical of them. I want them to be better, but I don't see that happening, because in spite of ALL of the shit that happened, Limbus is successful and now the CEO knows he doesn't need to worry about doing all that shitty stuff.

Anyways, yea Limbus Company is the worst thing to have happened to Project Moon, this time; I really will not elaborate. I shouldn't have to. I'm not attacking you, I'm criticizing a company for their shitty behavior and actions, primarily that of the CEO.

We have differing opinions on the matter, that is fine. No harm done here my friend. That's just part of being human, we're not always going to agree on stuff.

[rotzaprachim]

the thing is that in real life I’ve been accused of “only caring about Palestinians” or abandoning Jews or something after Oct 7 because I’ve been so focused on the ceasefire efforts and advocacy, and it’s like, of course I am. If I could bring back anyone killed on October 7 I could but I can’t and so the only thing I can do now is prevent more deaths. That’s what I can do. And on here I’ve now been accused of being a selfish nihilistic white nationalist cryptozionist for talking about antisemitism, because that is the fire I see happening every day on social media and at this point it has now got a body count. And it’s like, we have got to allow people the realization that the best thing we can do is put out fires where we see them. We do what we can. That’s the best we can do. but a few addendums:

Let’s stop assuming peoples opinions based on what they /don’t/ post. There’s so so many reasons people are /not/ posting about things on (anonymous/semi anonymous) social media in particular that governments everywhere /are/ cracking down on pro-Palestine activism and so peoples posting may not be apathy but rule number one of protesting, which is don’t doxx your comrades!

in the immediate aftermath of Oct 7 I reblogged a post with links to support, one of those links ended up leading straight to a group that had celebrated the H AMAs attacks. A day later I saw a post trying to discredit recordings of the attacks and it linked to a website that linked to the daily stormer. This is the newspaper of the KKK. I’ve also reblogged things that were shared by people who have also supported the Russian and Syrian governments continuously. This is not me telling you NOT to support journalists or the need, but it is me telling you how I have been part of the misinformation feed as no well and why I am hesitant to share unsourced information. I will not reblog or post anything that does not have an immediate source link. White nationalists, tankies, and white supremacists are not your friends. They do not care about the Palestinian cause.

I think people are really, really lost on the dangers and extent of antisemitism. I am patently not saying that what’s happening to Jews is /as bad/ or /less bad/ than the absolutely horrific war crimes being inflicted against gazan citizens right now. I am not saying that. I am saying that whole hearted willful antisemitism is being partaken of by a huge sector of people around the world, both white and nonwhite, and I do not think people fully understand there repercussions of it because they think Jews are still ultimately privileged and it ranges from /not that bad/ to /something they’ve all collectively made up to justify war crimes./ I cannot emphasize enough how bad public, violent antisemitism done in the name of the Palestinian cause is to both antizionism and the support of Palestine. This is not a two sides zero sum game, this is something that is actively harming the movement in real time and which people do NOT comprehend is happening in the age of the screenshot, where anyone can get recorded. One of the most significant issue is that attacking Jews and Jewish institutions has now made this a domestic citizen issue in many countries, and that has given Islamophobia and anti-Arab security states a legal prerogative to attack Muslims and Arab communities as well as any Palestinian activism. Calling for the mass death of Jews (even the ones you don’t like) on social media is an incitement to ethnic violence, guys, and it’s made so so much worse when you’ve put a Palestinian flag in your bio. These “neutral” things on social media are having a REAL impact on attacks on Jews AND on legal crackdowns against Palestinian activism.

there are a lot of bad actors out there and both Jewish and pro-Palestine groups I fear have gotten in bed with some really sketchy people because they’re saying what they want to hear. “I hate terrorism and especially Arab terrorism!!!” Is something conservative white nationalists have been saying for years and it’s best if Jews don’t get in bed with those who want to claim everyone is supporting Hamas! Likewise, the idea of “Zionists” and “the Zionist occupied government” or “evil Zionist pigs” has been used by the kkk and other explicitly white supremacist groups for years, and it’s for the fucking best if people don’t deny what actual white nationalists are saying, and don’t decide that everyoneeee calling for the death of the Zionist scourge is their friends.

[amporella]

Those posts floating around about how all the boys are equally as bad as Cartman (and thus the hatred of Cartman is driven by fatphobia) are really undeserving of a response because of how much of a reach they are, but I'm going to give one anyway:

To compare Cartman to the other boys is foolish for many reasons, but the largest one is that it utterly misses the point of the actual show, and of the characters. Naturally, as a fandom, we try and see the characters as more than they're intended to be, and in some cases, that's a totally reasonable perspective - take a character like Craig, for example, where his characterization is limited solely by the fact that we see very little of him. For all we know, his inner life could be rich; in fact, it's likely that it is. It makes logical sense to want to explore that more deeply.

Cartman's characterization is also limited, but not because his screen time is lacking; he very well could be the character we've seen the absolute MOST of throughout the series. Instead, it's limited because Cartman is not an actual character. He's one huge extended joke, and the fact that we don't see his good qualities isn't because we don't have time to; it's because he literally doesn't have any.

Cartman exists for shock value, and that's it. He exists to be an iconic example of what's wrong with the world; he's antisemitic, racist, and a raging misogynist. Even the scenes where he appears to have a 'soft spot' for something aren't actually representative of his character; when he appears to try and save cats in Major Boobage, it's all part of a joke about Anne Frank. In Post-Covid, when he appears to develop a family of his own and convert, it's part of a scheme to take down Kyle. Every single action of his throughout the series is either a joke, or part of the build up to a joke at some minority group's expense - usually Jewish people.

His actions - his attempted genocides, attempted murders, antisemitic comments - can be taken at face value because of those traits. When Matt and Trey have Cartman make an antisemitic comment, they don't intend for you to think of it as another tally mark of the Bad Things these characters do; they intend for it to be viewed as a legitimately evil act coming from an irredeemable character, which is balanced out by zero positive qualities.

Have the other boys done bad things too? Sure! Kyle did blow up Canada. But is that actually intended to be seen in the same light? Kyle's act of blowing up Canada isn't meant to be seen realistically; it's metaphorical, and it's supposed to be read as absurd. Cartman, on the other hand, is supposed to be taken literally. Reading into him as a character as someone who is secretly pure of heart, or even just on the same moral level as the other characters, shows a massive lack of media literacy. Furthermore, when Kyle blows up Canada, it's significant because it's out of the norm for him. We don't bat an eye anymore at Cartman's behavior because that is literally the point of his character. It's only when he doesn't do anything along those lines that his behavior comes off as uncharacteristic.

So no, Matt and Trey don't intend for Kyle to be 'just as bad' as Cartman. Kyle is a legitimate character, while Cartman is a political statement at best condemning nazis and a joke at worst. The fact that we're even discussing comparing a Jewish character's few and far in between harmful mistakes to a nazi's (whose ONLY REAL CHARACTER TRAIT IS TO BE A NAZI) intentional attempts at genocide is baffling to me. You are absolutely grasping at straws if you think Kyle (and the other boys) being as bad as Cartman is what Matt and Trey were going for.

This is literally the most basic concept of the show.

[sillysootyboi]

i like to hope there's an other side to this situation (like an end point), and when it happens, I do hope we can be kind. This is unfortunately some people's first brush with these kind of accusations and these kind of situations, and when you're introduced to situations like abuse in your comfort media, I know it can feel so...so horrifying, so it feels easier to go the other way, to be so angry to feel like you have control.

I don't really think people who joined hate mobs or spread vitriolic messages or acted how they acted are inherently bad people (even if some are still acting that way). I feel like for many they feel ike the 'message' justifys their angry actions.

I do hope we can instead help people understand why approaching any situation that demands you form an opinion 'RIGHT NOW' and demands biiiig emotions urgently should always be met with skepticism and a willingness to discuss it and ask questions without immediately attacking or labeling others who disagree with you as abusive/harmful.

More below for a rambly essay on misinformation/persuasive content 😵😶‍🌫️🫣

Misinformation is always a concern, but with short form video content and short form media like tweets, I really feel like it's the same as headline reading in the before-decade. You're seeing parts and parts and parts of a story, and due to time constraints, you're going to only be able to process those parts. ANY story, even if it's about stuff you agree with, that wants you to be upset and angry from the get go needs to be handled with more skepticism than standard.

It's okay to decide 'i don't know enough about this topic to form a strong opinion.' it's necessary to realize 'this tiktok made me hate this thing...should I? Who made the tiktok? Why did they make this tiktok? What did they leave out?'

I know there's been some posts circulating about the actions of Wilbur's mods/discord mods, and I do think they did more harm themselves to the community than Shu(b)ble did alone. People forget it isn't outsiders that ruin fandoms; it's the people in it. Their initial behavior regarding it was downright deplorable and continues to be something I am bothered by, but not surprised.

But it was their initial posts. Their initial condemnation without any evidence, without waiting for a reply or anything from Wilbur, that started this in my eyes. It was the update accounts. It was the mods. That was how I first heard of it.

I can't say it was like theyre evil masterminds, obviously, it wasn't their intention, but being able to say 'hang on, this is really upsetting, but I need time and space and more information before doing anything' is a skill people must learn.

When we enter the other side, I want people to look at what moment they made up their minds (whether it was in DMs, tweets, posts, etc.) and ask "what thing did I see before this?" For most people it'll be a friend or a mutual or some big account they follow that's opinion sealed the deal.

For most it won't be that Sh(e)lby stream at all.

And if you realize you looked to others, you looked to 'group leaders' in the fandom to seal your opinion, then I really, really, really need you to learn to validate your emotions and allow yourself to feel 'I don't know what to make of this. I need time.' Because most misinformation campaigns that will affect your life extremely won't be as detached as fandom, they'll be much, much more subtle and play a bigger role in your life

For example if you Google something for information and the results are pages trying to sell a product or service EVEN if they frame it as a simple information page, if it ends in trying to sell a service...it's not. Their purpose isnt to inform you, it's to persuade you. Know their language and information are going to try to make you feel a certain way they think will make you buy their product (whether it be anger/fear/shame/envy/happy)

And unfortunately that happened here. And suceeded. And it's going to happen again.

so kill me for the essay, but unfortunately that's what I studied :').

[shiraglassman]

Hey, I know this is kind of a dumb question, but I came across a TikTok about a month ago suggesting that dragons (the western, fire breathing, princess snatching, treasure hoarding ones) were rooted in antisemitic in the same way something like goblins are. I couldn’t tell if it was a joke or not, and it kind of sent me into a tailspin, since I’ve always loved dragons (I read the WoF series ONCE and wouldn’t shut up about it for 3 years), and I was worried that I would have to drop them entirely for fear of offending someone. I can definitely see the similarities between common antisemitic tropes and dragon tropes, but I’ve always heard that the origins of the western dragon were that it was just a scalier of the devil and not meant to represent any marginalized community. However, I am not Jewish in any way, and I’m aware it’s not my place to dictate what is and isn’t harmful, so I was curious as to what you thought. (Sorry about how long this is TuT)

I held on to this ask for a few weeks to try to make sure my response made sense, so here goes. Disclaimer that I'm just one Jewish woman who loves dragons, and I claim no expertise or position of authority. I can't guarantee that someone won't look at your special interests and judge you unfairly. I also can't guarantee that you'll be hyperaware enough and careful enough to catch dogwhistles if they're subtle, compared with ordinary fictional dragons. What I can guarantee is that your average Jewish person is not going to assume you are more unsafe to be around than other unknown gentiles just because you like dragons, but fandom spaces and Tumblr spaces sometimes represent a skewed or specific cross-section of the population and may react differently. I can't make any of those calls. I don't want to tell you to start tuning out marginalized people when we speak about our issues including bad representation, but I also don't think "every Western dragon" is a problem the same way the entire perception of Halloween witches is, for example. For "some reason" (antisemitism) we've decided that big hooked noses are a thing you strap to your face to fake being a witch, or the way witches look in clip art. This is an issue because it takes a simple, neutral feature that some of us have and exaggerates it to the point of looking nonhuman. "Ha ha," says the trope. "Wouldn't it be funny if this trait that these Others have was so different and so jarring in appearance that they looked as different as they truly are, from us, the In Group?"

If the same group of folks who had anxiety about us coexisting alongside them created the witch aesthetic as created the Western dragon lore, and indeed much of old-fashioned European fantasy, it's easy to see how their feelings about us an other marginalized groups (disabled people etc.) creep into the stories. HOWEVER, it's also incredibly easy for dragons to not be us. Or have anything to do with us. If you're nervous when writing your own stories that someone is going to mistake your greedy characters for Jewish-coded, try to establish that real (human or otherwise) Jewish characters coexist with the greedy dragon or whatever to show that you're not using the dragon as a subconscious Jewish reference. But if you're talking about just "can I continue to buy dragon merch from creators who draw cute art", the only thing I can tell you is that there's an intense diversity of opinion among the Jewish people and even though I'm saying it's fine and probably most people at my temple would say it's fine, I can't account for strangers on apps I don't even have. Personally, I think you're safe as long as you avoid dragon things that evoke the trope directly. And many MANY dragons don't even evoke the trope these days, because so many millennials and younger grew up adoring dragons so we launched media where dragons are good. And don't even always hoard wealth. Much of modern dragon media seems to ignore the greedy and/or hoarding tropes entirely or have replaced greed as a motivator for the collections with "this dragon has a special interest", which is cute and doesn't evoke antisemitic tropes at all. You'll probably be able to make good judgments about what does the trope and what doesn't, but for some additional help here is a post Meir and I did on @writingwithcolor, which is where we'd prefer these questions be directed (yes, I know we're closed currently but we're reopening soon.) P.S. If this was sent to my personal specifically to avoid the WWC ask box being closed, please don't — that's an amount of volunteer work I simply can't take on. But I also know that it's possible and likely that you didn't know about WWC at all, so now you do — feel free to peruse our vast archives of past posts. @im-tired1124

[quartings]

A little story about how I became me:

In the most supportive way I can say it, my thoughts on what people need to hear to become better, and why it's not always obvious.

Like pretty much everyone, I was a dumb teenager many years ago. I grew up in a very conservative environment, without many chances to really hang out with people who weren't also teenage guys either. I was surrounded by a lot of homophobia, sexism, and a lot of people telling jokes that weren't just horribly offensive, but even worse- they were honestly really generic and unfunny. And that's a small part of why I'm here to talk about.

For anyone who followed my blog in its earliest years, you might know I was a huge fan of the Yogscast YouTube group as a teenager. I loved Simon, and Lewis, and Duncan, and Kim, and so many of its members. But there was one member who was quite different from the others- a woman named Zoey.

Zoey Proasheck was one of the first big openly gay YouTubers I think ever. But what made me gravitate to her so much was that while she never downplayed that part of her identity, she promoted the positive stereotype-breaking parts of her personality even more. She's honestly not just one of the nicest content creators I've ever seen, but maybe even the nicest person I've ever seen. (And I know she doesn't like being put on a pedastal because celebrity worship is bad and all people have flaws, but I think her positive actions and impacts should at least speak for themselves) As a dumb teenage guy who at the time had never even met an LGBT person, it was eye-opening experience watching Zoey RP as characters who liked guys, and play kiddie games like Scribblenauts, Pokémon, and Puyo Puyo.

Dumb teenage me would have been under the impression that lesbian YouTubers would only promote queer content. Disclaimer that I'm not promoting the "model minority" argument, minorities are not obligated to act a certain way in order to earn respect or not be bullied. This is just a story about what it took to change me as an individual in a way that may not apply to everyone.

But yeah, just as her straight coworkers played games and expressed their interests that didn't telegraph their sexuality, most of Zoey's content wasn't either. It was nice seeing such an eternally kind, funny, and creative person just enjoy sharing her happiness and creativity with others, and her liking girls was just an added detail. Some highlights include her just joking about wanting to meet pretty girls in Scribblenauts, expressing her love of rainbows, and just saying 'boobs' because it's a funny-sounding word. And those bits while funny, were only a fraction of the overall funny and creative content she made that was for all audiences! Zoey was never a person who was there to lecture others on her identity, or to create content only for people like her. Just because she was queer, it didn't mean she marketed her content only or even mainly for queers- she made it for everyone- I'm happy so many LGBT youth found solace with her, too. But if she did try and make content solely or mainly for queer audiences, myself and others like me would probably have been dissuaded from watching her channel and having our worldview expanded.

But yeah, after watching Zoey for so long, slightly-jerky teenage me had a small space in his heart open up for accepting queer people. Because no matter what harmful stereotypes I saw on TV, no matter how many actual people fit those stereotypes in online spaces or irl, I would always know that if a real queer person as eternally kind and funny as Zoey could exist, being LGBT couldn't possibly be the factor that makes people "bad" as all the fearmongers say.

This next part will probably be tough to hear for a lot of people, but I don't think representation in media matters the way many people think it does- at least, not in the realm of animation and acting.

What I mean by that is, I was raised on well-written and amazing female protagonists as a kid- Kim Possible, Lilo and Stitch, My Life as a Teenage Robot, The Proud Family, Totally Spies, ATLA, and especially the girls of the Teen Titans. But because I was raised in an environment that was very oppressive towards girls and one that deliberately isolated guys from them, I had no good female presences in my day-to-day life. No amount of strong female characters in media could change the fact that my irl view of girls was shaped by the very conservative and honestly disappointing ideals of the girls around me. It took moving to a vastly different environment where I could interact with less conservative girls for me to start unlearning the misogyny instilled in me during my early teens.

And in the same vein, no amount of fictional LGBT characters would have undone any homophobic beliefs I used to have back then. Because I know such characters aren't real and don't reflect the values of real people around me. What actually contributed a lot to me becoming less homophobic was Neil Patrick Harris as Barney Stinson in How I Met Your Mother. If I only grew up on gay actors being allowed to play gay characters, my mind would never have been allowed to separate them from the shallow stereotypes I was taught as a teen. Neil Patrick doing such a great job of playing a caricature of a hilariously cartoonish straight guy allowed me to see that gay people aren't bound to always acting "gay". Their sexuality doesn't control their day-to-day behaviour. While such things are obviously clear to people who are also LGBT, I think we easily forget how straight people with literally zero experience talking to LGBT folks don't know these things by heart. Barney Stinson being straight was better LGBT representation to me than all other queer characters thanks to Neil Patrick Harris.

I think a lot of today's dumb teenagers are immediately put off listening to minority voices because they oftentimes come across as a "lecturer" or an "enemy". Someone who isn't necessarily evil, but still a person who views them as a "thing to change" or "person to yell at". And it's hard to give a mean person yelling at you the satisfaction of being right, even if they are right. If someone came up to teen me and started exasperatedly telling me how being homophobic made me a bad person (even though that's obviously true), not even yelling at me, teen me would have been off-put by being antagonised and would probably not listen to them. Heck, teen me may have even become more homophobic since this hypothetical irl LGBT supporter was so antagonistic to me, and the idea of being like them would seem off-putting.

EDIT: And I know certain celebrities have recently come under fire for not openly stating their political leanings. And sure, it's probably because they don't wanna get cancelled, or because they have the privilege to be impartial in situations that impact a lot of innocent people, but there's another detail I want to note. At this stage in the game, I wonder if a celebrity coming out as liberal would instantly turn their entire conservative fanbase against them before listening to what they had to say. Sure, it's probably just the celeb covering their ass, but I can't help but think about the silver lining of a conservative viewer hearing their favourite celebrity saying "hey, most people on the other side are chill to talk to, don't be mean to them even if you think they're really annoying" maybe being more impactful if the celeb claimed to be apolitical rather than openly liberal. You can absolutely chew me out for being wrong on this one if you think I am, I'm just speculating.

I don't at all mean to victim-blame anyone here for not being nice enough to bigoted people. Sometimes people are so hateful that no amount of kindness can change them, and you are well within your right to distance yourself from them or fact check them when they spread hate. What I am saying is that nobody likes being lectured. Not on big things like human rights, not on medium things like airplane safety instructions, not even on small things like promotional giveaways sometimes. I think a majority of people who don't support minorities aren't hateful bigots who constantly rant and rave about getting rid of other people. Maybe 10% of them are like that. But the rest of them are just poor isolated folks like teen me was, who just need that one cool person to show, not tell them that kinds of people they've never met can be cool too.

So what does that mean for me? Well, despite the massive amount of rambling I just went on here, I also don't want to be a "lecturer" in the content I make and how I conduct myself in daily life. I know it's difficult, and I've faltered before, and maybe will in the future. But if by some miracle you're a person who dislikes "wokeness" or "things being shoehorned into media" and you've read this far, thanks! I'm not here to tell you you're a bad person, I'm not here to tell you to change, and I'm not going to say any of my content is "not for you". I'm here to make art and comics and animation for everyone to enjoy. If you're feeling down or even just bored, I hope the things I make can make your day even a little better. I'm not a lecturer, and I hope I'm not an enemy - I'm just here to be a friend. I also have some of my biggest animation and comic projects EVER coming soon, and I really hope you like them!

And to people of all demographics, I want to add that if someone ever makes an offensive joke, there's no point yelling at them that it's "offensive" or "bigoted" or "whatever-ist". What's more important is letting that person know that, honestly? That joke ain't it, chief. It's worse than being offensive- it's honestly kind of boring and predictable, dude. Teenage me probably made that joke 10 times over a decade ago, and my classmates probably made that same joke 1000 times. Don't worry though - I've told lame jokes before too, but thankfully I took the L and my jokes now are honestly getting way better!

Stay safe out there, okay? I hope your tomorrow is happier than your today!

[sophieinwonderland]

people are calling you racist for using tulpa terms.. i thought tulpa language was okay to use by the tibetan community??

and that anti-endos arent racist which okay maybe some of them arent but theyre still ableist right?

- a confused system

Tibetan Buddhism is generally considered an open religion, and the Dalai Lama himself has said that people of other faiths can take and use Tibetan Buddhist meditations in the past. And when I've seen the topic brought up to Tibetan Buddhists who aren't part of the system community, the majority seems fine with the use of tulpa language.

In this current conversation, it feels like a misdirect to me, and is more an ad hominen to distract from the fact that plurals are, in fact, oppressed for being plural.

I talked in a post yesterday about how beliefs can be harmful and yes, make you a bad person. As an example, I referred to how we have been arguing with right-wing racists who have been spreading the lies about immigrants eating pets, trying to correct their misinformation, and seeing them double down and go into denial mode when corrected.

My point was that beliefs that harm marginalized people are bad. And while some may be misinformed, people who are simply misinformed will adjust their beliefs when corrected. Whereas bigots will double down because they want the lies they tell to be true. They want an excuse to hurt marginalized people.

But apparently, if while arguing with racists and correcting misinformation the racists are spreading, I happen to notice the clear parallels in how these racists and anti-endos think, drawing attention to those parallels makes me racist? Is that what they're claiming?

Anyway, sysmeds are many things, but they aren't very original. I've listened to a lot of types of bigots. And when you do that, you pick up on running themes. The fear of the "other." The invaders who are coming to take your resources and your way of life. And yeah, the clinging to lies in the face of reality.

A week ago, I even talked about parallels in the events of the "immigrants are eating pets" lie, and the lie that system hopping is a RAMCOA term. It was interesting to see how both controversies started from a social media post, with the ones who started it trying to distance themselves from the bigotry it spawned, and deleting the original post. But both narratives spiralled out from there, because even though they were debunked and retracted, the lies could be used to justify spreading hatred against marginalized people, so the bigots clung to them.

I genuinely don't know how people can listen to different groups of bigots and not see the similarities in how they speak and how they think.

And obviously, I am not saying sysmeds are exactly like racists or xenophobes. They're actually far more like transmeds and TERFs.

But the fact is that there are still some pretty clear commonalities present in the rhetoric they use.

[valtsv]

The original post seems to be about something other than the tropes around revenge being bad. Not many people will disagree that revenge is dangerous, not always productive and often selfish. That's not the same thing as "you're just as bad them" which is not only an unfortunately common trope, but also not only a trope, it's an idea, a belief.

We see this idea when strikes inconvenience other people, when we're intolerant of bigots and even when taking about revolutions killing their despots. We got to the point that people sided with Mussolini's family and followers against people sharing a photo of him hanging.

If we cannot empathize with the people of Italy for beating their fleeing dictator, instead condemning them as equally bad for using violence and seeking revenge, but can empathize with him and his followers, then I believe there's something of ourselves that we see in the oppressors that we don't see in the oppressed. That it would be easier for us to be collaborators than to be resistors.

Sometimes it's just a trope, yes. Batman won't kill the joker as he progressively does more and more harm because "that's not that kind of story", but the fact that almost all stories in the mainstream are "not that kind of story" and the real life examples of people and media criticizing revolutionaries, protesters and other people lashing out against oppression show that this is not just about good and bad storytelling. Some people believe these ideas to justify the status quo.

i completely agree, and i want to stress that i don't actually totally disagree with the tweet (i worded myself a bit badly when writing in the tags because i was rushing, and that's my bad) but i think that 'getting revenge makes you just as bad as the person you're seeking revenge against' is more nuanced than it appears on the surface. a better way of expressing what i mean would be "getting revenge can lead to you becoming arguably 'just as bad' as whoever you're seeking revenge against, if you end up losing sight of the reasons you're seeking revenge and start to perpetrate the same violence and abuses of power that whoever you're seeking revenge against did in your quest for satisfaction".

i believe those stories have an important place in the world and as a member of marginalized groups who wants to assist in fighting back against my and others' oppressors and oppression i consider them very valuable in helping to remind me not to get caught up in feeling right and justified and forget to ask myself if i'm actually helping myself and others. i'm going to make my own post to explain it, but i was using that tweet as a discussion point (hence why i wrote in the tags), not arguing with it.