#but academic research just doesn't exist about it

[betty-bourgeoisie]

I think more college students should try doing essays and projects on blue collar labor issues, if for no other reason than to highlight just how under represented blue collar issues are in the academic spaces

[tanadrin]

Can you explain in what what you think eugenics doesn't work? Does this basically boil down to skepticism about the accuracy of GWAS studies? My understanding is that academic consensus is "G probably exists, disentangling direct genetic inheritance vs genetic cultural inheritance is complicated but possible, we can identify a number of alleles which we're reasonably confident are directly causally involved in having a higher G factor"

when it comes to intelligence, its heritability, and its variation at the population level, my understanding of the science is:

highly adaptive traits don't, in fact, vary much at the genetic level between populations of a species because they are strongly selected for. in an environment where a trait is being strongly selected for, a population that failed to express that trait strongly will be rapidly outcompeted.

intelligence is probably the quintessential such trait for humans. we have sacrificed a great deal of other kinds of specialization in favor of our big brains. we spend an enormous amount of calories supporting those brains. tool use, the ability to plan for the future, the ability to navigate complex social situations and hierarchies in order to secure status, the ability to model the minds of others for the purposes of cooperation and deception means that we should expect intelligence to be strongly selected for for as long as our lineage has been social and tool-using, which is at least the last three million years or so.

so, at least as a matter of a priori assumptions, we should expect human populations not to vary greatly in their genetic predisposition to intelligence. it may nonetheless, but we'd need pretty strong evidence. i think i read this argument on PZ Myers' blog a million years ago, so credit where that's due.

complicating the picture is that we just don't have good evidence for how IQ does vary across populations, even before we get into the question of "how much of this variation is genetic and how much of it is not." the cross-national data on which a lot of IQ arguments have been based is really bad. and that would be assuming IQ tests are in fact good at capturing a notion of IQ that is independent of cultural context, which historically they're pretty bad at

this screed by nassim nicholas taleb (not a diss; AFAICT the guy only writes in screeds) makes a number of arguments, but one argument I find persuasive is that IQ is really only predictive of achievement in the sense that it does usefully discriminate between people with obvious intellectual disabilities and those without--but you do not actually need an IQ test for that sort of thing, any more than you need to use a height chart to figure out who is missing both their legs. in that sense, sure, IQ is predictive of a lot of things. but once you remove this group, the much-vaunted correlations between IQ and stuff like wealth just straight-up vanishes

heritability studies are a useful tool, but a tool which must be wielded carefully; they were developed for studying traits which were relatively easy to isolate in very specific populations, like a crop under study at an agricultural research site, and are more precarious when applied to, e.g., human populations

my understanding based on jonathan kaplan articles like this one is that twin studies are not actually that good at distinguishing heritable factors from environmental ones--they have serious limitations compared to heritability studies where you actually can rigorously control for environmental effects, like you can with plants or livestock.

as this post also points out, heritability studies also only examine heritability within groups, and are not really suited to examining large-scale population differences, *especially* in the realm of intelligence where there is a huge raft of confounding factors, and a lack of a really robust measurement tool.

(if we are worried about intelligence at the population level, it seems to me there are interventions we know are going to be effective and do not rely on deeply dubious scientific speculation, e.g., around nutrition and healthcare and serious wealth inequality and ofc education; and if what people actually want is to raise the average intelligence of the population rather than justify discrimination against minorities, then they might focus on those much more empirically grounded interventions. even if population differences in IQ are real and significant and point to big differences in intelligence, we know those things are worth a fair few IQ points. but most people who are or historically have been the biggest advocates for eugenics are, in my estimation, mostly interested in justifying discrimination.)

i think the claims/application of eugenics extend well beyond just intelligence, ftr. eugenics as an ideology is complex and historically pretty interesting, and many eugenicists have made much broader claims than just "population-level differences in intelligence exist due to genetic factors, and we should try to influence them with policy," but that is a useful point for them to fall back onto when pressed on those other claims. but i don't think even that claim is at all well-supported.

[cookinguptales]

You know... I had an experience about two months ago that I didn't talk about publicly, but I've been turning it over and over in my mind lately and I guess I'm finally able to put my unease into words.

So there's a podcast I'd been enjoying and right after I got caught up, they announced that they were planning on doing a live show. It's gonna be near me and on the day before my birthday and I thought -- hey, it's fate.

But... as many of you know, I'm disabled. For me, getting to a show like that has a lot of steps. One of those steps involved emailing the podcasters to ask about accessibility for the venue.

The response I got back was very quick and very brief. Essentially, it told me to contact the venue because they had no idea if it was accessible or not.

It was a bucket of cold water, and I had a hard time articulating at the time quite why it was so disheartening, but... I think I get it a little more now.

This is a podcast that has loudly spoken about inclusivity and diversity and all that jazz, but... I mean, it's easy to say that, isn't it? But just talking the talk without walking the walk isn't enough. That's like saying "sure, we will happily welcome you in our house -- if you can figure out how to unlock the door."

And friends, my lock-picking set is pretty good by this point. I've been scouting out locations for decades. I've had to research every goddamn classroom, field trip, and assigned bookstore that I've ever had in an academic setting. I've had to research every movie theater, theme park, and menu for every outing with friends or dates. I spend a long time painstakingly charting out accessible public transportation and potential places to sit down every time I leave the house.

Because when I was in college, my professors never made sure their lesson plans were accessible. (And I often had to argue with them to get the subpar accommodations I got.) Because my friends don't always know to get movie tickets for the accessible rows. Because my dates sometimes leave me on fucking read when I ask if we can go to a restaurant that doesn't keep its restrooms down a flight of stairs.

I had one professor who ever did research to see if I could do all the coursework she had planned, and who came up with alternate plans when she realized that I could not. Only one. It was a medical history and ethics class, and my professor sounded bewildered as she realized how difficult it is to plan your life when you're disabled.

This woman was straight-up one of the most thoughtful, philosophical, and ethical professors I've ever had, one who was incredibly devoted to diversity and inclusion -- and she'd never thought about it before, that the hospital archives she wanted us to visit were up a flight of stairs. That the medical museum full of disabled bodies she wanted us to visit only had a code-locked back entrance and an old freight elevator for their disabled guests who were still breathing.

And that's the crux of it, isn't it? It's easy to theoretically accept the existence of people who aren't like you. It's a lot harder to actively create a space in which they can exist by your side.

Because here's what I did before I contacted the podcasters. I googled the venue. I researched the neighborhood and contacted a friend who lives in the area to help me figure out if there were any accessible public transportation routes near there. (There aren't.) I planned for over an hour to figure out how close I could get before I had to shell out for an uber for the last leg of the trip.

Then I read through the venue's website. I looked through their main pages, through their FAQs to see if there was any mention of accessibility. No dice. I download their packet for clients and find out that, while the base building is accessible, the way that chairs/tables are set up for individual functions can make it inaccessible. So it's really up to who's hosting the show there.

So then and only then I contacted the podcasters. I asked if the floor plan was accessible. I asked if all the seats were accessible, or only some, and whether it was open seating or not. Would I need to show up early to get an accessible seat, or maybe make a reservation?

And... well, I got the one-sentence reply back that I described above. And that... god, it was really disheartening. I realized that they never even asked if their venues were accessible when they were booking the shows. I realized that they were unwilling to put in the work to learn the answers to questions that disabled attendees might have. I realized that they didn't care to find out if the building was accessible.

They didn't know and they didn't care. That, I think, is what took the wind out of my sails when they emailed me back. It's what made me decide that... yeah, I didn't really want to go through the trouble of finding an accessible route to the venue. I didn't want to have to pay an arm and a leg to hire a car to take me the last part of the journey. I didn't want to make myself frantic trying to figure out if I could do all that and still make the last train home.

If they didn't care, I guess I didn't either.

If they'd apologized and said that the only venue they could get was inaccessible, I actually would have understood. I know that small shows don't always get their pick of venues. I get it. I even would have understood if they'd been like "oh dang, I actually don't know -- but I'll find out."

But to be told that they didn't know and didn't intend to find out... oof. That one stung.

Because.... this is the thing. This is the thing. I may be good at it by now, but I'm so tired of picking locks. I'm tired of doing all the legwork because no one ever thinks to help me. I'm tired of feeling like an afterthought at best, or at worst utterly unwelcome.

If you truly want to be inclusive, you need to stop telling people that you're happy to have them -- if they can manage to unlock the door. You need to fucking open it yourself and welcome them in.

What brought all this back to me now, you may be asking? Well... I guess it's just what I was thinking to myself as I was tidying up my phone.

Today I'm deleting podcasts.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Do you have a list of good sex ed books to read?

BOY DO I

please bear in mind that some of these books are a little old (10+ years) by research standards now, and that even the newer ones are all flawed in some way. the thing about research on human beings, and especially research on something as nebulous and huge as sex, is that people are Always going to miss something or fail to account for every possible experience, and that's just something that we have to accept in good faith. I think all of these books have something interesting to say, but that doesn't mean any of them are the only book you'll ever need.

related to that: it's been A While since I've read some of these so sorry if anything in them has aged poorly (I don't THINK SO but like, I was not as discerning a reader when I was 19) but I am still including them as books that have been important to my personal journey as a sex educator.

additionally, a caveat that very few of these books are, like, instructional sex ed books in the sense of like "here's how the penis works, here's where the clit is, etc." those books exist and they're great but they're also not very interesting to me; my studies on sex are much more in the social aspect (shout out to my sociology degree) and the way people learn to think about sex and societal factors that shape those trends. these books reflect that. I would genuinely love to have the time to check out some 101 books to see how they fare, but alas - sex ed is not my day job and I don't have the time to dedicate to that, so it happens slowly when it happens at all. I've been meaning to read Dr. Gunter's Vagina Bible since it came out in 2019, for fucks sake.

and finally an acknowledgement that this is a fairly white list, which has as much to do with biases with academia and publishing as my own unchecked biases especially early in my academic career and the limitations of my university library.

ANYWAY here's some books about sex that have been influential/informative to me in one way or another:

The Trouble With Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life (Michael Warner, 1999)

Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences (Laura M. Carpenter, 2005)

Virgin: The Untouched History (Hanne Blank, 2007)

Sex Goes to School: Girls and Sex Education Before the 1960s (Susan K. Freeman, 2008)

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex (Mary Roach, 2008)

Transgender History: The Roots of Today's Revolution (Revised Edition) (Susan Stryker, 2008)

The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women (Jessica Valenti, 2009)

Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex (Amy T. Schalet, 2011)

Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality (Hanne Blank, 2012)

Rewriting the Rules: An Integrative Guide to Love, Sex and Relationships (Meg-John Barker, 2013)

The Sex Myth: The Gap Between Our Fantasies and Realities (Rachel Hills, 2015)

Come as You Are: The Surprising New Science That Will Tranform Your Sex Life (Emily Nagoski, 2015)

Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men (Jane Ward, 2015)

Too Hot to Handle: A Global History of Sex Education (Jonathan Zimmerman, 2015)

American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus (Lisa Wade, 2017)

Buzz: A Stimulating History of the Sex Toy (Hallie Lieberman, 2017)

Histories of the Transgender Child (Jules Gill-Peterson, 2018)

Revolting Prostitutes: The Fight for Sex Workers' Rights (Juno Mac and Molly Smith, 2018)

Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex (Angela Chen, 2020)

Pleasure in the News: African American Readership and Sexuality in the Black Press (Kim Gallon, 2020)

A Curious History of Sex (Kate Lister, 2020)

Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent, and Navigating the New Masculinity (Peggy Orenstein, 2020)

Black Women, Black Love: America's War on Africa American Marriage (Dianne M. Stewart, 2020)

The Tragedy of Heterosexuality (Jane Ward, 2020)

Hurts So Good: The Science and Pleasure of Pain on Purpose (Leigh Cowart, 2021)

Strange Bedfellows: Adventures in the Science, History, and Surprising Secrets of STDs (Ina Park, 2021)

The Right to Sex: Feminist in the Twenty-First Century (Amia Srinivasan, 2021)

Love Your Asian Body: AIDS Activism in Los Angeles (Eric C. Wat, 2021)

Superfreaks: Kink, Pleasure, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Arielle Greenberg, 2023)

[synticity]

Can you please, pretty-please do a "3 linguistics papers to read" about neopronouns? I'd love to get some academic perspectives on them! :)

Ooh, yes, I can do this!

Three papers to read about neopronouns

The first one I'm linking is by Em Miltersen from 2016, which I am highlighting because the data comes specifically from tumblr!

Miltersen, E. H. (2016). Nounself pronouns: 3rd person personal pronouns as identity expression. Journal of Language Works-Sprogvidenskabeligt Studentertidsskrift, 1(1), 37-62. Open access to the paper here

Next, a very short paper by Rose et al., 2023, which is just looking at whether people even find neopronouns acceptable / grammatical:

Rose, E., Winig, M., Nash, J., Roepke, K., & Conrod, K. (2023). Variation in acceptability of neologistic English pronouns. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 8(1), 5526-5526. Open access paper is here

And then finally, I'd recommend this super cool paper by Laura Hekanaho, 2022, looking at the metalinguistic commentary and ways people talk about neopronouns - overlaps a bit with Rose et al.'s paper, but goes into much greater depth:

Hekanaho, L. (2022). A thematic analysis of attitudes towards English nonbinary pronouns. Journal of language and sexuality, 11(2), 190-216. Author's copy of the paper here

One thing about neopronouns is that there's comparatively little linguistics research published about them, and what does exist is very focused on English. Part of this is because the ways neopronouns are cropping up in English speech communities (especially online) are different than in other language communities, and the other part of the reason is that they're just super rare -- best estimates of how many people use neopronouns are very very low (the US Trans Census and the Gender Census report numbers <10%, and that's out of only trans people), and their appearance in every day language appears to be very rare.

What this means (frustratingly! and I hope this is changing!) is that at best neopronouns are mentioned in footnotes of linguistics articles and books about other stuff. There's also Dennis Baron's 2020 book, What's Your Pronoun, which is a really thorough documentation of historical attempts to coin gender-neutral pronouns in English... but Baron kind of comes to the conclusion that singular 'they' has 'won' the competition, and that none of the neopronouns he tracks have become mainstream.

Anyways, my personal opinion as a linguist is that I get frustrated with linguists who dismiss neopronouns because they're rare. Just because something's rare doesn't mean it's not a part of the language, and therefore a real part of the phenomenon we've decided to study! Devil's hole pupfish of english, tbh.

(Previous "3 papers to read" post was "3 papers to read about singular 'they'." If you like these posts, you can request a topic in linguistics and I'll do my best to recommend 3 open-access published papers to read!)

[captainmalewriter]

The 1000 Year Old Heart

Ch. 1

Deep in an unnamed cave somewhere in the Andes Mountains of South America, the HEARTS research team was in the middle of their latest expedition. Samuel, the historian of the team, read recently that some random backpackers had found wall paintings deep within the cave. After some initial research, it was discovered that these paintings had never been documented before. 

The discovery set the world of history academics on fire. Esmeralda, the team leader and archaeologist of HEARTS (and Sam’s wife) was bouncing off the walls when he shared the news. She had been dying for a good opportunity to use the last of her team’s research grant funds. Being the excitable woman she was, Esmi seized the golden opportunity as soon as she caught wind of the news. She expedited the paperwork processing and in just a few months, she was out in the Andes with her trusted colleagues and friends. Esmi was overjoyed to be back out on the field— especially with her beloved husband Sam right at her side. 

“Let’s GO, team! I’ve got a GREAT feeling about this cave!!” Esmi shouted as she went on ahead deeper into the cave. The rest of the HEARTS team sighed as they followed. After a week-long expedition, they started running out of steam. Esmi, on the other hand, was just raring to keep going. Even her husband Sam had to hurry up just to keep up with her high energy. 

“Hey Bebé, what do you think could be at the end of this cave?”

"Who knows! Maybe we'll find a mythical creature like a phoenix or something."

"C'mon, be serious," Sam said with a chuckle. "You know the supernatural doesn't actually exist."

“But I am serious! You never know what you could find in the depths of a cave like this. There could be an entire fairy civilization tucked away in here for all we know!”

“Yeah, yeah I guess so… Hey, uh, Esmi? I know it’s probably a bad time, but I was wondering if you’ve given our last conversation any thought since we talked. It’s been a couple of days now.”

“Huh? What conversation?”

“You know! The one about us hanging up our exploring boots and settling down to a quieter life—”

“Oh Sam,” Esmi groaned. Even though they were in a dimly lit cavern, Sam felt his wife rolling her eyes as she spoke. “I don’t wanna talk about that right now. We’re in the middle of an adventure!”

“I know I know! I was just curious if you’ve been thinking about it is all. We’re not in our early 20s anymore. We’re parents now! We can’t keep leaving to go exploring forever, you know.”

“I know that! I just think we can hold off this talk until we get back home. I want to enjoy this expedition without thinking too much about what if’s and maybe’s. Oh watch your step, amorcito.”

They reached a ledge. Esmi tossed a pebble into the dark pit. The thud came a couple seconds after. Nothing too steep, but they still needed to be careful climbing down. While Sam grew nervous just seeing the height, Esmi effortlessly scaled down the ragged slope like it was nothing. Sam watched her climb down with a glimmer of admiration in his eyes. In that moment, he was back in college.

It was at the school's gym where Sam first met Esmi. While he was struggling to get through his workout, Esmi was busy setting new records at the nearby climbing walls. Sam was immediately smitten by Esmi's beautiful smile and adventurous spirit. Being the shy type, Sam couldn't work up the nerve to introduce himself to his crush. But luckily, as fate would have it, they registered for the same advanced chemistry class that semester. Esmi struggled to get by in the class, and then Sam came to the rescue as her personal tutor. Although Sam was a bumbling mess, Esmi loved spending time with the awkward nerd. He was smart, funny, and so gosh darn cute whenever he got shy and flustered. Sam had a genuine quality that Esmi was very attracted to. It was something that a lot of men lacked. Too many of them were too self-absorbed and shallow. It made Sam stand out in Esmi's mind.

Soon after that semester ended, Sam finally made a move and asked Esmi out on an official date. Long story short: they hit it off incredibly well and became inseparable for the entirety of undergrad. They wound up graduating together with rings on their fingers. They then began exploring the world's secrets together, while also picking up a few new friends that would later make up HEARTS research team along the way. With careers they loved, a house in the suburbs to call their own, and a beautiful baby boy, life was going great for Mr. and Mrs. Benavides. Sam couldn't help but smile every time he reminisced (which was often). His frequent daydreaming was just another one of his quirks that Esmi found endearing about him.

"Okay everyone!" Esmi called out to the rest of HEARTS. "It's a short distance but the slope's insanely rocky. Just follow my directions and you'll be fine!"

Esmi verbally guided each member down to a safe landing. As always, Sam was the last one to make the trip. It took him longer to do things when it came to the physical part of adventuring. Sam tried his best not to slow down the team; not that Esmi really minded it, as she was always patient with him. She trusted him to get the job done despite his persistent nerves.

“There ya go!” Esmi said as she gave Sam a hand to steady himself. “You’re getting faster at this! I’m proud of you.”

“Thank you, I’ve got the best teacher a guy can ask for.”

The two adventurers shared a loving look with each other. They were still holding hands and there was only a small gap between them. They probably would’ve kissed too if the geologist of the team Harold didn’t start gagging audibly in their direction. 

“Oh my God, can y’all save the lovey-dovey shit for when you’re alone!? We got a job to do!!” Harold shouted. Esmi brushed off his annoyance with a chuckle.

“Alright alright, let’s keep moving.”

The HEARTS team continued trekking deeper and deeper into the cavern abyss through its many twists and turns. Their headlamps and flashlights were shining at max power just to keep their ragged pathway lit. Despite the ever-present danger, the HEARTS pressed on with their courageous leader Esmi leading the way. 

They eventually hit a dead end after some time. Unfortunately, there was no secret treasure or historical discovery waiting for them at the end of the cave. The team took the chance to catch their breaths while Sam photo-documented the cave walls for their research. 

“Is everything coming in clearly, Ruby?” Sam asked on the radio phone. 

“Crystal,” Ruby answered. Ruby was the brain of HEARTS. Although she usually stayed behind during expeditions, the team would be nothing without her technological know-how. 

“Perfect! Are we good to head out, Esmi?” 

Esmi didn’t answer. Instead, she kept staring at the empty rock wall that stopped their exploration. She reached out and felt around with the palm of her hand. She did this for several minutes without a word.

“Harold?” Esmi called out. “Does this rock wall seem unusually smooth to you? Almost like… it was sanded down.”

Harold walked up to the wall and placed his hands on the rock. 

“You’re right. It’s too smooth to be natural. Something’s wrong here.” 

The rest of HEARTS had a look for themselves too. As they marveled at how smooth and soft the rock was, Esmi came up with an idea: to push down the wall. The team joined their strength and with enough force, successfully toppled down the fake wall. Much to Esmi’s delight, they had found a hidden pathway.

“Hey team, the signal’s getting pretty weak. I don’t doubt it’s gonna cut out if you go even deeper. I won’t be able to send an SOS if something happens. Stay extra safe, okay?” Ruby advised. 

“Roger that, we’ll be quick,” Esmi said. She then led the charge into the narrow hallway. One by one, the members of HEARTS squeezed through until they all ended up in a small, dirty room. At the center of the dingy room was a small pedestal with a brown box on top. The box sat wide open, revealing a metallic human heart sitting inside of it.

“Is that it? All this spelunking in some unknown mountain cave just for some polished piece of silver?” Harold exclaimed. The annoyance in his voice was palpable in the tiny square room. 

“Don’t be like that, Harry! I know it’s been a long, tiring road but we finally did it! This could be the discovery of the CENTURY in our hands!! Hey babe, do you recognize it at all?”

“Hmm… No, at least not off the top of my head,” Sam answered. “I need my books for an in-depth analysis. We’ll have to take it back.”

“Okay, perfect!” Harold stepped up the podium and snatched the box. Esmi gasped as he did so. 

“Hey whoa whoa whoa! You can’t just do that!!” Esmi shouted.

“I just did. We were gonna take it back with us anyway, so what’s the problem? Let’s just get the fuck of this cave already!” 

“What the hell? What’s gotten into you today, Harry!?”

“Nothing! I just wanna go home already! I’m tired!!” 

A shouting match broke out between the exhausted Harold and overly zealous Esmi. Sam took a step back while the other HEARTS members tried breaking up the fight. Resolving conflicts was never Sam’s strong suit.

As he watched the yelling continue from afar, Sam noticed the silver heart Harold was carrying light up. There was dull, red light coming from the intricate carvings and grooves of the relic. It was mesmerizing to watch. It reminded Sam of Christmas decorations. He was about to call the team’s attention to it, but just before he could, one of the valves began pouring out luscious red smoke. The smoke piled up just behind Harold. Within seconds, the smoke gathered up and materialized into a muscular man who was heavily adorned with tattoos.

"Hey, who the fuck is that!?" Esmi shouted. She and the rest of HEARTS took several steps back. Unaware of the man's sudden appearance behind him, Harold simply looked at them with a confused expression.

"What's wrong? Why are you guys backing away all scared like that?"

They pointed at the man behind him. Harold turned his head slightly to look back.

“Hm? What the—”

It was too late for Harold. By the time his mind registered that there was someone behind him, the man with tattoos disintegrated back into a floating mass of scarlet smoke. It took advantage of Harold's surprised, agape mouth and shot straight into his throat.

"Aaagck!? Uuuughhhh!!!"

Harold let out a low, gagging groan as the red smoke forced its way inside of him. His eyes rolled to the back of his head as he convulsed uncontrollably. His shirt and pants became visibly too tight as his body became bloated with every gulp of smoke. An intricate spiderweb tattoo began forming on Harold's throat too. The pitch-black ink stood out harshly against Harold's pale skin. It looked like someone had scratched it on with a ball point pen. Awful, jagged, and hard to look at without wincing.

The rest of HEARTS watched in abject horror as a massive amount of ominous, red smoke filled their beloved friend and colleague.

Harold jolted his head back down once he finally swallowed all of the smoke. Aside from his now bloodshot eyes and new neck tattoo, Harold looked more or less the same on the outside.

Everyone stood still, not saying a word. The air had become tense. Sam swallowed a breath. It felt sharp in his throat as it went down. Something was deeply wrong.

"Everyone, get back!!" Esmi commanded the team. Her voice snapped them back to their senses. "Harry, try to stay calm and listen carefully to me. Some kind of entity just forced its way inside your body. Tell me: how do you feel right now? And are you in control of your movements?"

Harold lowered his gaze down to the ground. His eyes matched a baby deer in headlights. The corners of his lips curled into a slight frown. Then, once he finally opened his mouth to speak, his voice came out shaky and quivering.

"I can feel it..." Harold held a hand against his chest. "It's slithering around inside of me. It's—"

He cut himself short. Harold threw his hands up to his head, gripping his temples as he began screaming horrifically. Esmi ran to his side while the others maintained a safe distance.

"What's wrong!? What's happening?"

"IT'S HIM! HE'S SCREAMING INSIDE MY MIND!"

"Who's screaming!?"

"ALACAN! HE WANTS HIS PERFECT VESSEL! HE'S FURIOUS— AAAAAHHHH!!"

"This thing's getting aggressive! Hang on, I've got a plan!"

Esmi took a step back. She then pulled out what looked like an egg from her backpack. Sam recognized the object. It was one of the many supposedly supernatural items Esmi liked to play around with. Sam didn't understand how an egg could possibly help them, but in a dire situation, he was ready to put all his faith in a magical trump card. Esmi stood in front of Harold with the egg held high.

"This is gonna hurt like hell, but I promise it'll get whatever's inside of you out whether it likes it or not! Now hold still!!"

With all her force, Esmi slammed the egg onto the back of Harold's head. The eggshell shattered upon contact, covering Harold in egg yolk. The yolk then spontaneously combusted, engulfing Harold in bright white flames. Sam winced as he watched his friend flop onto the ground, writhing in agony like a worm drowning in salt. His blood-curdling shrieks echoed off the walls of the tiny cave chamber. Halfway through his screaming, Harold’s voice dropped several octaves. His voice became hoarse and demonic.

“AAAAHHHH-OWWWWW!! yOU fUcKINg bITcH! GeT AWaYY!!!”

Sam wasn’t sure what exactly happened next. He heard Harold screaming, but then suddenly he found himself lying face down on the ground in severe pain. The back of his head ached, and the scraped, bloody skin on his arms and face stung with the air. Had something pushed him away? Was it some kind of invisible telekinetic force field? Sam didn’t know, but what he did know was that he wasn’t the only one affected by the impact. The other members of HEARTS had been thrown to the wall too. However, while Sam struggled to pick himself back up through the pain, the others had already gotten up and joined Esmi in fighting off whatever entity was inside of Harold. 

They were fighting a losing battle. Harold had gone into a full-blown rampage. He was slashing away at them and himself like he had razor blades for fingers. Blood and ink splattered the area. Sam watched the violence with bated breath. His heart felt like it was ready to explode. He wanted to jump into the fray and stop the demon from hurting his loved ones. But at the same time, his mind and soul were screaming at him to run away as fast as he could. Get away from the monster before he gets hurt too. Sam stood there, paralyzed by an impossible decision. It wasn’t until he heard his wife’s voice that he came back to his senses.

Run!

Sam looked up. His eyes locked onto Esmi’s. His heart dropped at the sight of her bloodied face. Her mouth was moving, but Sam couldn’t hear her through the adrenaline pumping in his veins. Esmi strained her voice, shouting again and again until finally, her words reached him.

“RUN! RUN AWAY, SAM! SAVE YOURSELF BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!”

Without any hesitation, Sam turned around and bolted out of there. The last thing he heard was the amalgamation of several screaming voices behind him. But even that sound was tuned out by him focusing on running at full speed. Sam ran with every last bit of energy he had in his body. He did not stop until he made it out of the cave and back to their campsite, where Ruby waited patiently for the team’s return. Needless to say she was flabbergasted when Sam came charging in by himself. She tended to his wounds while he took the time to catch his breath. 

“Are you okay? What happened back there, Sam?” Ruby asked. His eyes darted around wildly as he processed what he had just experienced. Although he had regained some of his composure, it still took him quite some time before he could finally speak again. 

“The cave collapsed…” Sam started. His voice came out flat and monotone. “They were crushed under the rubble... I-I had to get out there before I got caught too.” 

“Oh my God… Everyone’s gone?”

“Everyone’s gone… Everyone.”

Sam repeated that last sentence out loud several times. Like he was trying to convince himself as opposed to Ruby. Naturally, Ruby broke down in tears at the shocking and sudden loss of her close friends. Sam was devastated too, though he shed no tears for his face was locked in a thousand-yard stare. He had just lost the love of his life to a demon. It was a truth his mind couldn’t accept as reality. Sam had survived, but his soul had gotten killed in the process. 

…Over the course of the next 48 hours, Sam and Ruby gathered their belongings and returned to their research headquarters with essentially nothing to show for it. Nothing but tragedy anyway. Sam had fallen into a stoic silence. Although she was equally grief-stricken, Ruby took the initiative to report what had happened. She figured Sam just needed time to mentally recover after what he had endured firsthand. 

Once it was all said and done, Sam returned to his household— alone. He relieved the nanny from her duties, then sat in silence in the living room. The trauma from the past week weighed heavily on Sam’s body and mind. He took several deep breaths, trying to calm down, but to no avail. Sam rose from the couch and made his way to his son’s bedroom where Abel was sound asleep in his crib. The nanny had just tucked him in for the night. A slight smile cracked on Sam’s face. The sight of his baby boy sleeping peacefully was the only thing that gave him peace. 

He watched him sleep for a few minutes, then ran off to his bedroom when a sudden realization hit him like a pile of bricks. Sam rummaged through all of Esmi’s old stuff. She collected various paranormal things over the years as a personal hobby. Sam never really cared for the supernatural the way Esmi did. But after the violent encounter he had in the Andes, he had no choice but to believe now. He pulled an all-nighter as he studied everything he could through Esmi’s collections. By the time the next morning came, Sam had crafted two charmed necklaces designed to protect the wearer from supernatural harm. He designed the necklace charm specifically to resemble the accursed relic that brought him so much pain in hopes that it would grant extra protection against it. Sam was no expert craftsman by any means, but he hoped they would get the job done.

Sam donned one of the necklaces, then went to the nursery room with the other in hand. 

“There you go, mi cariñito…” Sam whispered as he carefully placed the other necklace around Abel’s neck. The eerie jewelry looked out of place on a 1-year-old baby, but Sam didn't care. He refused to take any chances. He knew he didn’t have the privilege of blissful ignorance anymore. There was no telling if/when another demonic entity would try to attack them. Sam shuddered at the thought. Abel cooed in his arms as he woke up. Sam shook off the bad thoughts and held his son close to his chest, their necklace charms almost touching. 

“Those evil demons took away Mamá, but they will never hurt our family ever again. I promise I’ll protect you no matter what, my sweet little Abel. Papá’s here, forever and always.”

[historicity-was-already-taken]

Hi! I really appreciate your nuanced and informed thoughts. Apologies if you've already answered something like this somewhere, but I'm only occasionally on Tumblr these days.

My question is what do you think about calls for academic boycotts as a means of protest? (Against Russia and Israel, most recently - curiously, I've never seen any suggestions for an academic boycott against, say, China, due to persecution of Uygurs and Tibetans. Cynically, I'm guessing this is because Chinese academia is simply too big and too financially integrated into global academic publishing profits for anyone to imagine a boycott, whereas Russian and Israeli academics are much less visible and much less profitable.)

I often sympathize with the feelings of those calling for boycotts, but it feels like it's useless at best and counterproductive at worst to cut off potential regime critics from international support, making them more dependent on keeping the regime happy for funding. I've seen some of what happens in an academic community (Hungary) that is poorly integrated with the international academic community when a repressive government start going after insufficiently nationalist research, and it's not great - entire fields of study the government doesn't like pressured out of existence, or only hanging on because of external EU funding. I have trouble seeing how essentially helping a regime stamp out dissenting voices is a good way to protest that regime. I also fear that if dissenters feel that the international community rejects them and views them as no different from the regime that they will be more likely to embrace apathy for survival.

I'm not sure how to respond to calls for academic boycott in a way that opens dialogue about these concerns, and I also recognize that I may be missing something. I'd love your thoughts on this issue if you have any!

imo academic boycotts are the political equivalent of punching parallel/down.

especially, since, as you pointed out, many academics in the boycotted nations are already dissenters. that said, i do think it's bullshit that these calls for boycotts aren't extended to china.

there's another aspect here, though, which i think was best presented in The Good Place: in a globalized economy, such simple measures as not buying that tomato or using that app or talking to that one israeli medical researcher don't have the impact we'd like to think they do. everything is soo layered and interwoven and codependent and opaque, that we can't truly know what decision we're making and what kind of impact it will truly have without expertise in international finance and tax law and supply chain ethical management.

in our world, as it exists, money and hard power are the only things which will effect change. they're the only things that matter. shitting on some russian grad student who just accessed the closed soviet archive of Khanate-era mongolian literature, or the israeli social scientist researching the intersection of public health and addiction won't do anything, except keep the West in the dark about Mongolian literature, and blocking findings valuable for public management of those struggling with addiction.

if universities and 18-22 year olds want to effect change, go for the wallet. research which defense contractors give money to which university labs/departments, target the administration of those departments, and make as big and loud of a stink as possible. i don't think the individuals calling for these boycotts want to do that though. it's dangerous and scary and requires them to actually put themselves at genuine risk. it's easier for them to just attack academics living under shitty governments, harass jewish students, and call it praxis.

but that's just my (cynical, lowkey depressed) take.

[matrixbearer2024]

I had an ask about this regarding my AU but I don't know what happened to it after I saw it in my inbox cuz it might be tumblr being funny but essentially it was just:

"Does West Coast Tech still exist? Why didn't Ford go to West Coast Tech?"

Short answer is, he simply didn't want to in this AU. West Coast Tech is among the Ivy Leagues in my AU and BMU still exists too, it still has the prominent reputation of being a back-up university.

In this AU ultimately Ford never really developed the mindset that he was "special" and had to make a point of it or prove that he was somebody. Because of their upbringing, there wasn't a "preference" others had towards either twin because Filbrick disliked them equally and their academic and extracurricular skills basically made them break even. There wasn't a stupid twin/smart twin between them and Caryn made damn sure about it.

Possibly the only thing that most people say about the two is that they're "smart but stupid" because of all the trouble they get wrapped up in doing whatever or being too curious for their own good.

The teachers or coaches didn't favor one twin over the other either and they were generally liked by their peers. Ford didn't end up with that sense of arrogance that you can typically see in canon where he believes he is above the rest and he has to be and Stan didn't develop that inferiority complex compared to his sibling.

In this AU, Ford had the option to go to West Coast Tech but even throughout senior high he already knew that a good university could really only get you so far. He was a sharp tool yes, but... he didn't think that edge would really push him far. He had an edge, but it wasn't much.

There's a lot of gifted people nowadays and even good credentials aren't going to guarantee a decent job or a stable career, that's if you can even get a job right away.

The science project and everything was still what gave him the opportunity and Stan even congratulated him for scoring that high but Ford wasn't really pleased? I'm not sure with the word but he wasn't exactly happy with the circumstance. They didn't fight over it considering all throughout highschool they kept talking about potential careers and whatnot.

It didn't help that Filbrick encouraged the idea of West Coast Tech because of how much money Ford could potentially make. Even so, Ford was stupidly skeptical after seeing the pamphlet and researching online. Realistically it seemed too good to be true, and he couldn't even sleep on it from how much he kept thinking.

Stan knew he would likely take longer to figure things out but he'd get there, and he was willing to let Ford just reach for the stars as he always did. They still have that dream of sailing around the world as adults but it's a lot more defined and realistic compared to how they planned it in canon. They're thinking, work hard, get rich, then retire early to sail and travel around the world. If their paths split early, they'll find a way back when they grow up. They always do.

It's something they constantly talk about because they both desperately want to move out after graduation just to get the hell away from Filbrick. It doesn't matter where they end up they just need to get away.

Even so, Ford mulled over the offer and decided to visit the university before making his decision. His gut feeling was both parts right and wrong, sure— what he thought was too good to be true was the actual reality of the school and it's pursuit of academic excellence, but he was right to be skeptical after he noticed the snobbish and arrogant nature most of the students have. It's a common thing for ivy leagues to have that mentality that they're the cream of the crop. The best there is. Not everybody is like this of course, but sometimes the loudest crowd doesn't always have to be the majority.

It does take a lot of work to get to their level and to stay at that level but Ford couldn't see himself in that school. He didn't want to allow himself into that crowd where he knew it would potentially make him worse off as a person. Also, he had the entirety of undergrad to get through, if he so much as wanted to transfer to an Ivy League to get his masters or doctorate he knew he could! So what was the rush?

University was a stepping stone and he had time, he knew he could do a lot but he didn't need to rush. So... Ford turned down the offer.

Sadly, it was pretty much as chaotic(bad) as you'd think.

Of course, that meant looking for another university instead and it was mostly Stan who did the research this time because Ford was too burnt out and sulky after everything. He knew he made the choice that would inherently grant him more happiness, but it doesn't always feel like that right away and it didn't help that the walls were paper thin. It's hard to fall asleep to your parents yelling and throwing things around in a fight because of a decision you made.

Both of them had generally pretty good track records academically and a long list of achievements to follow it so it wasn't hard for them to find universities either. That's how they ended up with Graviton University in Oregon, it's not an Ivy-league but it's not as bad as BMU either. It really is just a stepping stone in the middle, your performance practically shapes the path you walk on.

The Stan twins have a choice in this AU mostly because they could also afford it, take note- the family is financially comfortable in this AU because Filbrick is one hell of an unscrupulous businessman but very successful. They're not rich but they're comfortable, and that's a lot in the state of the economy nowadays.

Ford has choices in this AU and it's also a very big part to play in why he could turn down the offer at the time and not look back at it with regret. Stan also being on even ground beside his brother is why they don't ever fight about such topics either, he's not ever chasing after Ford— he's standing right next to him.

The subtle differences from canon can genuinely just make a world of difference in the bigger picture. But yeah, it's why I had them go to Graviton University instead. It's a middle-ground and it's also how I can essentially get them to stay in gravity falls instead of ending up elsewhere when I cranked the "weirdness" level pretty low. There's still bits and bobs of it around, but not to the degree of the canon show I would think.

I hope this generally clears up how I wrote or my thought process as to why I didn't have Ford reach for the stars despite having that option and why the Stan Twins are generally this tight knit in my AU.

[chaifootsteps]

Sorry this is gonna be long. Vivziepop doesn't understand the gravity of sin and hence cannot comprehend the idea of redemption.

It's so obvious Viv has had some bad experiences with the Christian church, but she is also totally unwilling to research the philosophy behind the religion. There are reasons we believe what we believe, and reasons why what we believe gets twisted and used to hurt people, and even reasons why our beliefs in their truest and purest form can STILL hurt people. But regardless of their effects, whether good or bad, there are REASONS those beliefs exist, reasons backed up by literal millennial of theology and historical/academic study.

The idea that her characters don't even understand HOW someone gets into heaven just proves she gave no thought to the other side of the argument. The premise of Hazbin Hotel is that people can change and deserve a chance to be redeemed, but she fails to illustrate any actual change or redemption.

Redemption is predicated on the recognition of what you've done wrong and the desire to do better. It is an internal battle of constant self-examination and dedication to improve. The people that make up her main cast are sinful. Whether or not their sins mean they deserved hell is up to interpretation. I'm not asking her to follow the Catechism of the Catholic church. But if these people are to be redeemed, they have to acknowledge themselves as full of fault.

Husk was a gambler. A gambling addiction is not a fun or quirky hobby. It, like any addiction, is a complete loss of control and subservience to a vice that destroys your life and relationships with other people. Alastor was a cannibal and serial killer, who took the lives of fellow humans and desecrated their remains for his own pleasures, showing a complete lack of respect for the sanctity of life. Angel Dust hurts himself over and over and over again through his addiction to pleasure and narcotics. Sometimes sin doesn't hurt other people as much as it hurts us, but it's still a sin because we are supposed to treat our bodies as temples. These are all massive flaws of the characters, sins that have overtaken their personalities and lives, and yes, they may be interesting and fun and entertaining, but that doesn't change the fact they did bad things.

Vivziepop can't redeem anyone, because she fails to set a standard of righteousness. Sin is just a mutation of virtue. It's taking prudence and turning it into greed. It's taking humility and turning it into self-flagellation. It's taking love and turning it into lust. Because of her, I'm sure, completely valid religious trauma, she fails to recognize the humanity of the people that hurt her. That they too are just people who struggle with their own sin and vice. She can't comprehend or give the benefit of the doubt that religious people have valid explanations for their beliefs.

She seems to think of heaven as just a place of stuck-up hypocrites who don't know how to have fun. She seems to think the rules and regulations of religion are just arbitrary rules someone made up for a power grab and not a detailed and dedicated attempt of humanity to understand God and his desires.

Viv's understanding of redemption is likeability. It's illustrated in Angel's scenes in episode six. Yes, Angel is being nice and kind and caring about people, but his problems were never a lack of caring about people. His problems were using substances to deal with his problems, and yes he did deny the drugs Cherry offered him, but there was no moment of reflection as to why he no longer wanted to take them. It seems more like he wants to make Husk happy with him than he actually wants to form better coping mechanisms or even a recognition that he doesn't need the drugs to numb the pain anymore now that he has a support system.

She seems to think that if a sinner is likeable, they don't deserve eternal damnation. That's why she woobifies every character she grows to like, because being a good person and sin cannot co-exist in her mind. People who are likeable cannot be bad people and thus a system that would put a likeable person in hell is rigged and stupid. But that fails to comprehend the multi-faceted of humanity and sin.

Sometimes people you love, people who are good to you, are bad people to others. Child molesters can be good friends. Rapisits can advocate for animal rights. Murderers can be good parents. A person who abused you could be someone else's best friend, and a genuinely good friend at that. A failure to recognize the complexity of virtue and vice is a failure to understand what redemption means.

She can critique the idea of perfection. She can critique the hypocrisies of the church. She can critique the tenets of religion. She can even say the things I believe in are unfair and nonsensical and evil. But she cannot make a good critique without understanding the other side of the argument. Because without that, she herself has no counter argument!

The plot of Hazbin is no longer that people can be redeemed, but that redemption is not necessary, because the rules that government heaven and hell make no sense. And that's a COMPLETELY different argument to be making.

I apologize for the length. I hope I've made some semblance of sense.

No, no apologies for the length. It was an interesting read!

Some would argue that all religions are nothing but arbitrary rules someone made up for a power grab, but it's true, there's at least supposed to be some kind of rhyme and reason to it all. In theory at least, it's supposed to improve yours and everyone else's quality of life, but that goes against Viv's theory that the only thing that matters is doing whatever you want all the time. Viv doesn't have to side with Heaven or go full blown scripture, but you can't tell me that Heaven doesn't even know what it takes for someone to get in.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[marzipanandminutiae]

The Snark Is Real This Morning

Oh no! Some patriarchal shill just had an Illegal Corset Thought on the Internet!

Maybe they said "corsets weren't invented by the patriarchy" or "comfort was actually often a prime concern for most women's day-to-day corset-wearing, as evidenced by mid-late 19th century advertising" or "women didn't go around fainting constantly because most of them didn't tightlace most of the time."

Maybe they brought up "survivorship bias in extant clothing" or "rampant photo doctoring in the 19th/early 20th century" or "treating satirical cartoons and fashion plates as gospel" or "museums displaying corsets laced entirely closed when wear patterns and primary sources indicate that lacing gaps were more common in many times and places" These concepts are actually conspiracies invented by Big Misogyny to sell more booze to depressed history workers!

Maybe one of them said that she'd worn corsets, or even that she and/or her friends actually found them more comfortable than bras! Clearly she believes this is representative of all women throughout history and in the present day. Besides, she is suffering from Femininity Poisoning and nothing coming out of her silly, weak little brain can be taken seriously. Remember, it is Peak Feminism to dismiss what a woman says because of her gender presentation!

Don't be fooled! All of these statements mean one thing: they are saying that corsets were and are, always and forever, universally feminist and empowering. That no woman in the past ever found them uncomfortable, and that GNC women didn't exist before 1960 and also are icky. Did they actually say that? Doesn't matter! You know what she Really Meant- you've seen P*rates of the Caribbean and Br*dgerton! Corsets were always torture devices meant to oppress women, and any statement contradicting that clearly means the extreme opposite.

So what's a right-thinking and concerned Internet Citizen to do? You have a few options:

See point above re: femininity. Feminine-presenting women are basically brainless, so if a woman talking about dress history Wears An Skirt, you can just write off whatever she says. Easy peasy! Be sure to say something derogatory about her appearance, so others know why they shouldn't take her seriously.

Accuse them of not knowing their history. Any degrees, professional experience, publications, academic accolades, etc. they may have are irrelevant. Their primary sources are...idk photoshopped or something? Best to ignore them altogether. You have Feelings on your side, and that's far more valuable than any research!

Accuse them of accusing you of being a t*rf. Works especially well if they've said anything about the preponderance of t*rfs expressing your True and Correct views- that just means they're calling everyone who thinks like you a transphobe, duh!

Tell them they're not believing women. If they have cited so-called "realities of historical women's lives," well, that's clearly just the rich elite of any given era (who were also brainrotted by Femininity, natch). If you're a woman, and you say corsets were the spawn of Beelzebub, that should be enough ~evidence~ for anyone!

Appeal to common knowledge. Everyone KNOWS corsets were evil; can they really be DEFENDING a KNOWN HATEFUL OPPRESSIVE HELL-GARMENT?! What is the world coming to! If they ask how exactly everyone knows that and where that collective belief comes from, reply with a snarky GIF and block them. There's just no reasoning with some people.

Call them a tradwife. Are they a tradwife? Irrelevant.

With all these tools in your arsenal, you are now well-equipped to fight the horde of vile corset apologists online. Remember: It's Only Real Oppression If The Oppressed Group Is Miserable 24/7!

[therecordconnection]

Some Thoughts Regarding James Somerton

I know I'm rather late to the conversation and some of these points may have already been talked about in some form elsewhere on the site, but if you don't mind, I have some thoughts of my own regarding the subject of hbomberguy's latest video and I would like to take time to voice. This blog is normally dedicated to music and music writing, not posts about disgraced Youtubers, so I apologize for the detour in regularly scheduled programming.

First, I think it's important to make the distinction that Somerton isn't just a case of "problematic Youtube guy got owned... twice" but rather a genuine case of academic dishonesty, which is several grades above youtuber drama. This isn't something like Tati Westbrook getting angry at James Charles for sucking dick and cock at a birthday dinner. This isn't Ethan Klein and Trisha Paytas or whomever having beef. It's not Charlie Critikal talking about some stupid drama of the day or someone just using Youtube videos to say a bunch of gross and problematic stuff. No. This is a fucking grifter who not only lied, cheated, and stole his way to the top, but also did it by using a vulnerable community that has long had their voices snuffed out and their history completely rewritten or wiped from existence altogether. What history he didn't plagiarize, he twisted and outright lied about. He just made shit up to suit his own gross agenda.

A lot of things about James Somerton left me absolutely livid, and I admit that I didn't even know who he was until hbomberguy's video. I think what makes me the most mad is that I went to undergrad and grad school with a number of jackoffs that were just like him. People that didn't give a shit about the art of writing and research and just treated academia and the pursuit of knowledge and how to critically engage with art and media into a stupid game that only chumps take seriously. Somerton pisses me off because I AM a writer. When I write the Ranting and Raving series of posts on here, that stuff doesn't just fly out of my ass. I have to sit with a song, study it, research it, and make sure I know what I'm talking about so I don't look like a clown. I also have to make sure that I link and credit where I'm getting information from. It's not just important for my own satisfaction, but it's important for anyone who stumbles upon a post on this blog and takes time out of their day to read it and/or reblog it.

I think that's the part that makes me the most mad. That he and Nick Hergott have so little respect for the work that goes into researching and writing about a topic that other people are really passionate about. Spending time with something, studying it, and figuring out an interesting and unique perspective on it is a great feeling. Sharing what you find or how you see something with others and having them either like or reblog your work is an even greater feeling. That's my writing that somebody enjoyed and thought was worth sharing with others. Fuck fuck fuck Somerton for thinking you can take a million little shortcuts to get to that result.

While I'm on the topic, I don't think Hergott gets a pass for Somerton's actions. I've seen some people make the argument that he isn't complicit and there's a chance that he genuinely had no clue that Somerton was doing this... but I don't buy it. There's no way he didn't know and wasn't in on it in some capacity. Even if he wasn't, as Todd in the Shadows pointed out in his video on this situation, Nick is, whether you like it or not, an accomplice to Somerton's lies and he is complicit in the blame, due to his name being included in the "Written By" credit of a lot of those videos with Somerton. The way I see it, I find it hard to believe that he couldn't have known. I imagine part of Hergott's signing on with Somerton was that in the event that shit hits the fan, Hergott would be used as a fall guy to help deflect accusations of plagiarism.

To return to Somerton, in a way, he's almost worse than AI/Chat-GPT because, really, an AI has no morals. It can only do what someone punches in and tells it to do. Somerton is a guy who does have genuinely insidious ambitions and knows fully what he's doing. That shit about "only the boring gays who didn't mess around in the eighties survived the aids crisis" is the wildest and grossest accusation I've seen about gay people in some time. The wild takes about the Nazis (especially all the wrong things he said about fitness relating to Nazis) should also raise a lot of red flags. I'll say this though, I don't blame anybody in the slightest for not fully realizing Somerton was saying shit like that or doing all of what he was doing until hbomberguy and Todd presented it a certain way and made it all very clear. It's easy to not notice it when Somerton buries it by ripping stuff off from other, better writers. So, if you were someone who was a big fan and was genuinely shocked by the things Todd had to fact-check and debunk and worried that you're a bad person for having not caught any of them, trust me, you're not. Nobody should blame you for not catching it. <3

While I'm ranting about this, I want to say that Somerton's patreon grift was really gross to see exposed as well (through Dan Olson's really great thread, which can be read here). I understand the allure of wanting to buy expensive gear and thinking that's somehow needed in order to make Good Content™️, but there's a stark difference between someone saying "I think I need to shell out a little money in order to get something of higher quality" and "I need to have the appearance of looking like my stuff is being made with high quality stuff." As someone who has been experimenting with trying to turn his writing into video, I did some audio tests this weekend and realized that maybe (just maybe) the old Turtle Beach microphone my brother left behind when he moved out isn't going to cut it. If I want to record something I can be happy with, I'm gonna have to bite it and look at getting something decent, but somewhat affordable from a Best Buy or something. You don't need the best tech in order to make something great, but you can't use copper tools forever if you have the means to be able to enjoy using iron ones, you know?

Somerton's grift reminded me of guys like Onision and Spoony. Grifters who looked to Patreon and other creator donation sites for an easy pay day and would bitch and cry and complain that it's your fault when they don't get it. Somerton making poor financial choices ON TOP of it being money that he scammed from a community of people that were looking to invest in a voice that they genuinely thought was speaking for them in a meaningful way, only makes the grift more disgusting and foul. Even if he's just "some Youtuber," Somerton still had a responsibility to his audience to present queer topics in an ACCURATE manner. He didn't and we all have the right to be angry with him about it. This isn't just silly youtuber controversy, this is academic dishonesty in it's purest form and if it gets you expelled from any college program, it should get you expelled from being able to show your face on Youtube as well, which is how Somerton's story will end.

I've been on the internet for many years. I've seen some of the worst, most problematic creators of all time find a way to bounce back from all kinds of controversy and find some kind of success again. I don't think that will happen for Somerton. Not one bit. What he's done is something you can never come back from, no matter how much you try to reform. If two different youtubers can make two completely different videos about why you suck, I don't think there's any recovery. What happened this weekend is a now classic episode of World's Most One Sided Fist Fights Caught on Film.

This post has gone on for a while, so let me wrap it up. I mean this without hyperbole and without exaggeration: James Somerton is a disgrace to both media criticism and the art of video creation. I genuinely hope he remains propped up as a cautionary tale of what can happen when you fully decide you have absolutely no respect for the Humanities and decide that lying, cheating, and stealing your way to the top, all while scamming and being incredibly shitty towards a community that has long suffered and is STILL suffering greatly to this day, is better than any kind of academic honesty. I understand that Somerton is just "some youtube fraud" to some people, but the problem lies more in what Somerton's actions and motivations represent. I really think hbomberguy's video on plagiarism is going to do a lot of good. It's going to help a lot of people avoid doing it as well as help people become more aware of what it really looks like and all the damage it can do.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. It doesn't really need to be said at this point, but make sure you support the queer voices and writers that did the work Somerton thought was good enough to just copy and paste into a video. They're the ones that suffered the most through all of this and my heart goes out to them, from one writer to another. <3

[traegorn]

Hey-o! Tis the season for people to talk about how the holidays were "actually pagan" and I'm on the hunt for sources about how that's really not the case, if you have any you'd recommend!

Okay, so the problem is there are so many weird "Christmas is stolen!" bullshit memes going around, it's so hard to just give you a comprehensive list of sources. Christmas celebrations have evolved as the religion has spread, and different things come from different times...

The key here is to go for academic sources. This is a question of history, and a well supported historical research is going to tell you whether they're operating from primary, secondary or tertiary sources.

So while I can't give you a simple list, let me give you a couple of examples off the top of my head and give you tips on how to investigate any the dumb claims that get passed around.

Christmas being in December: So a lot of people go for the "Christmas is in December so it can steal from [INSERT SOLSTICE CELBRATION]" is ahistorical... because we know exactly why Christmas is in December. Because the guys who made the decision argued with each other and left behind written documentation. The two big names you need to look up are  Clement of Alexandria (who pitched January 6th) and Hippolytus of Rome (who proposed December 25th). This is around the turn of the third century, and you can find both of their writings. Some folks have questioned the authenticity of some of Hippolytus of Rome's writings, but Clement of Alexandria's seem well supported. These were internal arguments about when the birth of Christ took place within the early church, and when they settled on late December. There are reasons for this, and you can read their arguments (it largely has to do with the importance of when Jesus was conceived -- they wanted that to be an important date and then added nine months to it). Importantly though, because linear time is a thing, this means Christmas was set in December before the Christianization of the Germanic and Norse tribes... so anyone who says Christmas was set to December to correspond with Yule doesn't understand the concept of "coincidences."

The Christmas Tree: The Christmas tree was invented in 16th century Germany. That's... that's just written down all over the place. Now, there are legends about Martin Luther being the first who did it -- but I'm pretty certain that's just an embellishment that got added on. There are preceding traditions where part of an evergreen was brought into the home as a part of solstice traditions (though some will claim the Egyptians did this? Which is wild -- likely misinterpreting their use of palm fronds as the same thing), but the act of taking a whole ass tree, cutting it down, putting it in your house, and decorating it? That's 16th century Germany all the way. You can rabbit hole so many sources on that one, but honestly just pick apart the citations on the Wikipedia page. Putting a branch in your house and dragging a whole tree in are very different acts.

Jesus's story is copied from [INSERT RANDOM GOD]: There are so many of these, and some are just downright disrespectful to major world religions (the Krishna version of the meme especially). The answer is... just see if what the meme is saying about the god is supported by the mythology. Like I've seen ones that says Dionysus was "born of a virgin." If you know anything about the Greek gods, you're probably already laughing on the floor. Horus gets dragged into this too, because Gerald Massey was trying to pull a "White Goddess but with Dudes." But any serious research on Horus will tell you the supposed parallels aren't supported by the mythology.

So sorry, this wasn't so much sources you can use as it is how to look for them to begin with. Because there's just so, so much. This isn't even covering cases of syncretism, where pre-existing cultural traditions got continued post-Christianization. Because it's almost always the case that if a pre-Christian practice endured post Christianization, it's because people decided to keep doing it -- not because the church was trying to "steal" it. The latter means there was some mustache twirling plan behind it, when the former means (usually) the church went "Well, they're paying their tithes and saying it's for Jesus, so who gives a shit?"

I'm just going to finish this off with linking to my podcast episode on this, along with Ocean Keltoi's great Yule video on the topic. Hopefully that helps.

[sophieinwonderland]

Now, why would you dare me to embarrass you and your pals like that?

I appreciate how you wanted my attention so bad you posted me to not one, but two subreddits.

Makes a girl feel special! 🤣

I have actually never seen Wikipedia cited as a source about endogenic plurality. Though I do see anti-endos all the time, when asked for sources, telling people to just Google things.

Anyway, here's @guardianssystem's document filled with academic papers about endogenic plurality:

I've compiled my own, but honestly, theirs is better organized than mine.

And in the interest of fairness, here are all the anti-endo papers debunking endogenic plurality:

Sorry, I forgot. Those don't exist. Oops. 🤷‍♀️

Echo chamber? LOL!

Weren't you the one spouting a bunch of lies on Tumblr, got totally debunked, posted the people who debunked you to r/systemscringe to have a hugbox where fakeclaimers could assure you how the people who contradicted you are all fakers, and then blocked everyone who disagreed with you?

Weren't you also the one who, when shown a quote from an expert in dissociative disorders who worked on the DSM-5 saying that a disorder isn't a disorder if it doesn't cause distress, argued that the people who defined what disorder are must be wrong about that definition?

You're a misinformation machine who can only find support when huddled in cringe subreddits. Don't try to talk about people in echo chambers.

Also, you know most of psychology is just... listening to people? That's how it's been as long as the field existed. DID (or MPD at the time) was a recognized disorder since long before the first brain scans were conducted on DID patients. It's saying something though when basically every single scientist who has ever researched endogenic plurality has said they believe it's a real thing, or that it could be. While absolutely zero academic papers have expressed that it's fake.

There is also an fMRI study into tulpa systems that's been in the works, but results have yet to be published.

Sure, if that's what you'd like me to call you, Crazy. 😊

Anyway, Crazy, you should know that just because you personally find something scary doesn't mean everyone will or that the thing is bad. Personal preferences are a thing.

In a study of tulpamancers though, most generally reported their lives becoming better after the practice.

78% reported improvements in their mental health, and 91% on overall life.

There are many out there who would jump at the chance to have someone there with them that knows them intimately, and to never have to be alone again.

If it's not for you, then so be it.

But it's certainly not something to be afraid of.

And maybe, for those who are willing to commit to the practice while America struggles with an epidemic of loneliness, it's something worth being open to.

This is actually pretty fair.

But that's now, and I'm looking at course of history and trends of plural acceptance.

300 years ago, any plural would be viewed as demon possessed and end up tortured or killed for their plurality.

70 years ago, all plurality was seen as a mental illness, and it was common to force plurals, as well as anyone else associated with mental illnesses, into asylums.

30 years ago, the first real plural communities were able to connect on the internet and form in small numbers.

8 years ago, the first studies into endogenic plurality started being conducted. 4 years ago, the ICD-11 acknowledged that you could have multiple distinct personality states without a disorder. 2023 marked the first, but certainly not the last, time a system used their system name as an author of an academic paper.

Recently, new plural resources have been designed and put into use. More servers than ever are using Pluralkit. And Simply Plural went from 100k users at the end of 2021 to 210k at the end of 2022.

Progress is happening far more rapidly than you realize. And you had best be ready for it.

BOO! 👻

Oh, hey, I just realized... this is literal pluralphobia!

Liberté!

Egalité!

Fraternité!

And yes, The Future is Plural! 😜

[myautisticpov]

I think one thing I've been seeing more of is a debunking of stats/facts about autism/ADHD, but in a way that seems divorced from the fact that academic/clinical work and the neurodivergent community are in discussion with each other

Like, I've been the first person to say that unemployment stats for autistic people are likely skewed (i.e. people who are diagnosed are more likely to have pursued a diagnosis because they struggled in school/work), but that doesn't mean that assuming that there aren't any employment difficulties for autistic people is the right alternative

And, in fact, people online finding the employment stats so easy to believe, and using them as a jumping off point to talk about the problems autistic people have finding employment, helps to point researchers towards that problem as one that needs investigating further

Like, it wasn't long after the backlash to RSD ("it's not a real thing - it's not part of the DSM") that it started being taught to therapists in formal settings

So, idk, I just keep seeing people going out of their way to debunk claims in a way where their solution to "the only evidence for this was a pilot study that concluded that we need to look into it more" is to treat the findings like they don't exist and not talk about the problem until someone looks at it further, but, like, researchers are a lot less likely to look at it further if we're not talking about it...

[matan4il]

Okay, story time.

Years ago I was writing a paper for uni about a queer reading of David and Jonathan, and why it's totally legit (even intentionally invited by the text).

When I started doing my research for it, I discovered that while the queer reading of David and Jonathan is pretty well known in queer circles, there's very little in the way of actual academic material on it, whether we're talking about a literary, religious or historical analysis of the text and this interpretation of it. I had maybe 2-3 essays about queer reading of ANY part of the Bible. And most of ot? Was actually not that great. Very little of it was about anything objective, most of it was just a suggestion for a different subjective reading of the text. Which is legit, but not enough. Most of the time, for an interpretation to be considered legit, we have to show that it relies on something that objectively exists in the text.

And then I found this paper by a guy determined to DISPROVE the queer reading of David and Jonathan. Now when I barely have material that's in favor of a queer reading of David and Jonathan, why would I be wasting my time reading what was written against it? But I'm a weirdo, and I always wanna know the counterarguments that can be used against me, too. Yeah, even if I disagree with them.

AND OMG AM I HAPPY I'M LIKE THAT.

Because this guy? Did a PHENOMENAL job at proving that objectively, the bow is the symbol of masculinity to the ancient Israelites. This is relevant because a biblical verse mentions that Prince Jonathan gave David his bow. I'm gonna say it again, this guy proved that for any Israelite back then, regardless of the subjective place they come from, when they were reading the text, what they would get from it is that JONATHAN GAVE DAVID THE PHALLIC SYMBOL OF HIS MASCULINITY. Tell me that doesn't align perfectly with a queer reading...

So why was this guy, who's trying to disprove the queer reading of David and Jonathan, proving the gay potential of this moment? Because to him, if Prince Jonathan has a symbol of masculinity, that means he's a masculine man, and no masculine man can be gay. Yep, the guy writing this paper was so blinded by his own bigotry, homophobia and misconceptions about masculinity and sexual orientation, that he didn't even realize he was handing me a valuable tool to prove queer readings of David and Jonathan are 100% legit.

Why am I mentioning this now all of a sudden?

Because sometimes the haters and anti's of a fandom are actually precisely like that guy, and it both amuses me to no end, and also makes me wonder if they realize how much their efforts sometimes backfire, and instead of destroying my love for and belief in a ship, they actually end up reinforcing it.

If you ever feel down because of haters in your fandom, just remember this.

[grenade-maid]

Man I'm not even like, an AI person, but this is such a dumbass take. Like, okay yeah, the text is non-retrievable. Do you know what else is non-retrievable? A conversation between two people that was not recorded audio/visually. People reacting to an exhibit at a museum. Behavior in an online video game. These are still things you cite in academic papers. There are even entire books about these kinds of non-retrievable events.

The vast majority of citations don't actually link up to something concrete that the reader can track down and see for themselves. That's not really what citations are FOR. You cite something in order to establish where you sourced the information that you're writing about. Even in quantitative research on concrete subjects a citation doesn't represent objective verifiable Truth. To be writing about rabbit populations in North America and cite a study that lists population numbers, that study does not represent the true number of rabbits. That citation points to a field study whose methods section tells us X scientist went to Y location over Z period of time and counted # rabbits. We the reader can't see those rabbits. Even if we go back to that field, it will be a different day, with different rabbits, or no rabbits, or more rabbits. But we trust that the researcher counted accurately.

Sometimes people lie. Maybe that researcher deliberately skewed the numbers. Sometimes studies were done poorly and don't yield representative findings. Sometimes the rabbits just hid in their burrows all day. When lots of researchers go out and do similar counts, though, we can get an overall impression that can be assumed mostly accurate through the aggregate of observations.

Regardless of what is being studied or the methods being done, we cite shit in order to establish where we found the information we are referring to. If you are doing *anything* with AI then it behooves us to have a formalized way of indicating how you obtained your information. Whether you are writing about weird racist tendencies reflected in AI output, reporting on citations pointing to non-existent sources in AI output, or trying to convince credulous techno-dipshits that chatgpt just gained sentience, it is useful to have an established way of saying "I input this prompt into this AI model and got these results".

Whether the audience can retrieve the precise results that you're quoting is of astoundingly little importance. Maybe you'll go to the field and the rabbits aren't out. Maybe you'll go to the museum and people aren't reacting to the exhibits the same way. But if AI tends to have patterns in its output based on the input and the model (and it does!), *that* provides a critical avenue for academic study for the same reason ANY source that we cite does--it lets us make judgements about the information we're presented with.

"The decline in critical thinking" fuck off, man, this take itself is frankly much more indicative of a lack of critical thinking that worries me.