#but i am never in a situation that requires this behaviour

[zincbot]

need somebody to try something so i can freak the fuck out on them

[artemisbarnowl]

Every woman should be given a button when she's born and if she presses it her dad explodes. No exceptions.

[crystaltoa]

I’m going to go the second one because I believe there’s a difference between ‘a robot could do this job’ and ‘a robot SHOULD do this job’. Even in a world where robots can emulate almost any human behaviour or skill.

(Content warning: I discuss some pretty heavy hypotheticals relating to medical abuse, eugenics, racism and ableism)

You know the rule that “a computer can never be held accountable. Therefore a robot should never make a management decision” Well, these days, people do delegate management decisions to robots. But the robot lacks human values and understanding of nuance. It is still impacted by biases, sometimes to an even greater extent than a human. And our understanding of bias, equality and equity is constantly evolving and is driven by human values. If you take humans out of the equation, who is checking the AI for biases and reasonable behaviour? Another AI?

Look at politics. Like it or not, a sufficiently powerful politician is going to have to make difficult decisions that will ultimately impact who lives and who dies (decisions on health, war, crime and the justice system, etc.) And a robot politician is going to face the same problems. An AI politician programmed with the objective of letting nobody die is going to fail horribly, since such a thing is likely impossible, even for the most advanced AI of the distant future. So, it will always have to act on the logic that a certain number of humans may die as a consequence of its actions, but that it should keep that number as low as possible using the information that it is given.

An AI is going to boil this down to a system of logic. If the goal is to use the available resources to minimise the number of lives lost, and no human life is inherently more valuable than any other, then it is going to spend the bulk of its resources on areas where it will have the greatest impact and save the greatest number of lives.

Now that sounds good on paper, doesn’t it? But there is a problem: if you reduce the issues down to a multiple choice game, it allows no space for inspiration, creativity, and nuanced discussion of ethics.

if you gave our robo-politician the trolley problem, it would quickly tell you that pulling the lever was the correct option as it minimises the number of lives lost. Okay, you might think. Sounds reasonable. Lots of humans who engage with the problem reach the same conclusion.

But the thing is, the robo-politician will pull that lever again and again and again without ever considering that perhaps it’s possible to change the system so that there aren’t so many people stuck on the tracks in the path of an oncoming train in the first place. If the robo-politician already thinks it has enough information to solve the problem, it won’t seek new information. It won’t try to come up with a better system. It will always be a two-choice logic problem that it already has an adequate solution to.

It’s theoretically possible that a robot politician might actually do an adequate job (at least compared to some human politicians) simply by playing this numbers game and emulating actions of past politicians that have produced good results before.

BUT

If you want meaningful systemic change driven by new ideas, you need human involvement. AI’s ability to at least simulate creativity probably will improve in the coming years, but balancing the new AI-generated solutions with a respect for human values and quality of life is a very complex thing.

Furthermore, there’s a need for nuance that AI may not ever be able to fully grasp. If the goal is only to minimise number of lives lost, in the most economically viable way, you could wind up with dystopian scenarios like the following:

“We want to reduce the number of people who die when receiving medical treatment. Therefore, euthanasia/medically assisted dying is now illegal, because that results in human deaths” (ignoring human bodily autonomy and quality of life needs)

Or conversely, “Keeping some disabled and chronically ill people alive takes resources that could be used for other purposes. Therefore, it makes economic sense to euthanise some of the higher-care needs patients so that those resources can be used to save other lives at a more cost-effective rate.” (Horrendously ableist)

“We want medical resources and funding to go where they will help the most people. No human life is inherently worth more or less than any other. This country has a lot more white people than black people. Therefore, it makes economic sense to focus funding, research, and training of future medical practitioners primarily on the care and treatment of white patients” (Perpetuating or even amplifying existing societal inequalities, dismissing helping minorities as not economically viable)

“We want to reduce the number of people affected by serious health conditions, which puts a drain on medical resources and reduces the number of lives we can save. Therefore, people who carry genes for certain conditions will be deterred or outright prevented from reproducing” (again, horrendously ableist and robs people of bodily autonomy)

“We want to reduce deaths from vehicle and other types of accidents that occur primarily outside the home. Therefore, there are now stricter regulations regarding when humans should be allowed to leave their homes.” (Authoritarian police state).

(Note: The intent here is not to imply that dedicating resources to vulnerable minorities is “objectively” illogical or wasteful. The point is that logic is only as good as the goals and principles behind it, and having overly simplistic success criteria without strong ethical considerations will result in those vulnerable groups suffering further mistreatment and neglect)

Humans have a wide range of needs, values and priorities that vary between individuals. Safety vs Autonomy, Privacy vs Protection, etc. And a politician must be compassionate and responsive to those values, even with all their contradictions, but to do so, human input and participation is required. No one politician, human or otherwise, is going to get it exactly right and please everybody. But a human is still going to have more success in trying than a robot, as it is near impossible to reduce the balance of these issues down to mere numbers and algorithms.

So while I’ll entertain the idea that a robot maybe could run a country, I don’t think anything would ever convince me that they should do so.

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[ghelgheli]

Afab people can also develop a gendered subjectivity in response to transmisogyny, whether they've been victims of it or not, just as amab people can develop it as a result of misogyny. So, if transfemininity is also defined by this characteristic, afab transfem also fit into it. Your objection to this fact is just a bias based, at best, on ignorance.

-

It's is a bioessentialist prescription because you're adopting a conception of transfemininity that dictates that to be transfeminine, you have to fulfil to expectation of being male assignment at birth. this is no different from someone who uses the bioessentialist conception of womanhood which require female assignement at birth. Both are form bioessentialism that we should not perpetuate at our level, but rather we should re-thinking these gender categories in a way that doesn't align with bioessetialist conceptions

whoops! you caught me out aha. I forgot that afab trans people have subjectivities shaped by transmisogyny. I also forgot that cis womanhood is defined in large part thru transmisogyny: the fear of being clocky, constant affirmation by distancing from the tranny-object except when it's hot to have a bit of a jawline now, palatability as opposition to the monstrosity of being the shemale. I guess cis women are transfeminine too!

let's remember, while we're at it, that transmisogyny is the spectre that haunts the subject of the cis man. the gendered border policing lest one take a step too close to sissification, the prohibition on behaviour that could threaten to make him a girl—oh! cis men are transfeminine too!

in fact, we're all transfeminine! transmisogyny, as the recognition and attempted correction of the tranny-glitch that undoes the threads of gender, asserts itself against all of us. it is impossible to be a gendered subject without having contours shaped by the domineering pressures of transmisogyny, because that is what demands we all fall in line to the gendered nightmare. oops! all transfem!

but wait. a certain group, deprived now of unique identification, has just lost the ability to describe its gendered situation. it has been swallowed up by the seas of inclusive thinking or whatever. I guess that's okay :) I guess we'll drop our complaints :) we were a nuisance in the first place, weren't we? sorry. so sorry for existing this way.

listen to me. listen to me not as your fucking ephemeral gender oracle telling you what you want to hear before being thrown away, not as your bullshit mouthpiece granting you entrance to this mystical domain you want to claim for yourself, but as a god damn person for once—an impossible thing to ask of the transmisogynistic tranny wannabe, I know, but try!

you cannot escape hegemonic gender and its violent devices with flaccid platitudes about "re-thinking these gender categories" as though by changing the names of things you can change the things themselves. transmisogyny is the bioessentialism, and transmisogyny is why I am a failed man—the faggot embodied—something less than both man and woman—a gender traitor specifically against my assignment itself. and if you cannot recognize the unique ways that transmisogyny is deployed unrelentingly and irrevocably against the ones who will never be able to resort to birth assignment as a defense—against the ones who cannot throw their hands up and say, "I was never supposed to be a man in the first place!"—you have not understood the first thing about the root source of transmisogyny, and it is no surprise to me that you have no sense of transfemininity as a political category, a(n un)gendered class.

[youremyheaven]

Jupiter Dominant Women & Daddy Issues

TW: mentions of rape, abuse, suicide etc

Over the years of my studies, I have noticed that its Jupiter dominant women who tend to have daddy issues more than any other planetary dominance. Solar women (Uttarashada, Uttaraphalguni & Krittika) tend to benefit from positive male influence in their early life, so they have healthy Yang qualities (they're driven, self-motivated, critical thinking) whereas women who haven't had a healthy male influence in their early lives, either develop a heightened but fragile femininity (understood in a very traditional way, this means being passive and excessively reliant on others to get by, I know this is misogynistic but i am talking strictly about a traditional notion of femininity) or they cultivate inner masculinity.

Jupiter is a masculine planet and across the naks of Punarvasu, Vishaka and Purvabhadrapada, women tend to have a very unguarded, open, almost masculine presence. I mean this in terms of what they talk about or how self-assured they seem, traditionally women were expected to be more withdrawn or to talk little. I don't mean to say Jupiterian women are brash or aggressive, they're very poised, and elegant and put across their point eloquently. They're 9/10 times very well-spoken. When one lacks the security of a male figure early in life, one tends to cultivate inner masculinity because it's understood that you cannot rely on any man.

Caroline Polachek, Punarvasu Moon, has spoken about her difficult relationship with her father on numerous occasions. Here's a link to a post where she talks about it. Her lack of a father figure in her own words caused her to be "self-sufficient". Notice how in the post, she speaks about making amends with him later in life and even ended the post with "love you dad". This is the kind of generosity that you don't see from most other nakshatra types. To forgive someone who was never there for you/abused you/hurt you/caused you immense pain, requires a great deal of strength and maturity and not everybody has it. Punarvasu's innate nature is to absorb everything into its orbit and always be the bigger person. Due to the vast, abundant nature of Jupiter, they are ABLE to, accept these people for all their contradictions and see them as flawed, which makes it easier to forgive them. Most people let their traumas define their identity (im not saying traumas don't shape you, only about the kind of perception most people have about their own traumas) and spend their whole lives blaming others for who they've become or what they've done to them. To live a peaceful life, one has to take the high road, look beyond everything and see it as a part of life. It sounds very callous when I say it like that but that's what I mean. Not everyone is capable of being the bigger person or taking the high road.

Jupiter is the guru or teacher and how would one describe an ideal teacher? Someone who forgives the mistakes of their students as having risen out of immaturity and forgives them for not knowing better or being better. A teacher is forced to operate on a higher moral plane than others simply because chaos would descend if the teacher came down to the level of others. They are figures of wisdom, knowledge and higher learning, therefore their behaviour has to reflect the same. Jupiter natives are harshly punished for behaving in ways that are not fit for a "guru" because subconsciously society/those around them subject them to a different standard. Others can do the same exact thing and not suffer any consequences but when a Jupiter native behaves that way, they're ostracized. People kind of expect them to have it all together or be better. Any lapse on their part is judged harshly.

One of the biggest mysteries is how Jupiter natives emerge from often brutally abusive and neglectful childhoods into relatively well-adjusted adults. In the case of famous parent-child situations, there is public proof of their wrongdoing but in numerous other instances many do not believe Jupiter natives to have suffered the way they have or to the extent they have simply because on the outside they seem to have it all/seem so put together. This is yet another manifestation of Jupiter's duality and this not being believed/seen for who they are/how they've lived can be a source of pain/grief for some of these natives whilst others like to pretend it never happened and present a very positive view of their life. They don't hold grudges and often simply overlook the horrible nature of their loved ones, especially their parents and try to make amends with them.

Drew Barrymore, Punarvasu Moon, comes from a very famous family of actors but her father John Barrymore was a violent alcoholic and a drug addict who abandoned her & her mother when she was a child. She did not have any relationship with him and seldom spoke to him until he was diagnosed with cancer. She took care of him and even paid his medical bills until he passed away in 2004. Here's an IG post where she talks about her dad. It's so touching to see the compassion with which Punarvasu natives talk about people who've hurt them so much (in her memoir, Drew recalls how one time her father picked her up as a three-year-old and threw her against the wall). Truly, I don't see this level of kindness in any other nakshatra if I'm being honest. This is a photograph of her with Steven Spielberg who directed her in E.T when she was 7 years old, he's kind of a godfather figure to her and she apparently asked him to be her dad when she was a kid 🥺🥺

I also think Jupiter natives have a complicated relationship with their mothers as well, sometimes they're extremely close but other times, I think Jupiter natives feel the need to be their mother's saviour because they know how much she's gone through in her life. This manifests itself in a very complicated relationship. There is love but there is also a lot of bitterness.

Drew Barrymore has a very complicated relationship with her mother, who used to date the men Drew dated, pushed her into acting and exploited her as a child and admitted her to a psych ward when she was 12 among other things. Drew still takes care of her financially and has mentioned that her mother has even tried to steal money from her.

Charlotte Gainsbourg, Punarvasu Moon is the daughter of Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin. Her parents separated when she was a child and she lived with her father. In 1984, she did a duet with her father and starred in the music video for a song called Lemon Incest which describes an incestuous relationship between father & daughter. She was 12 years old at the time.

The music video is creepy, to say the least and features both of them half-naked in bed together. In 1986 when she was 14, she starred with her father in a movie called Charlotte For Ever which is about an alcoholic man whose only link to life is his daughter (Serge was an alcoholic). She has spoken about how difficult the filming experience was for her as he would push her to her extremes.

Here's a very uncomfortable clip of him kissing her on the mouth when she wins a Cesar. She is 16 years old.

Jane Birkin commented on the song saying "It never came as a shock or a surprise or even a worry [to her], knowing Serge's great love for Charlotte". Many believe that Birkin enabled Serge's abuse of their daughter since she left him due to his alcoholism and violence but left Charlotte in his care. She has also stated that her mother would always dress her up as a little boy when she was a child and that this complicated her relationship with her femininity.

Charlotte has only ever said good things about both her parents and denied any abuse.

She's also starred in multiple films directed by Lars Von Trier where she plays gruesome sexually depraved characters and Lars is well known for being difficult to work with. She has said that she sought fatherly approval from him ._. and again has only said good things about him.

Kali Uchis, Punarvasu Sun, Vishaka Moon & Rising has spoken about being abused as a child and that she no longer maintains contact with her family. She was kicked out of the house when she was 17 and slept in her car and worked at a supermarket for years to support herself.

Halsey, Punarvasu Moon. She grew up poor and has spoken about her difficult childhood, both she & her mother suffer from bipolar disorder and in her song Whispers she sings “Why do you need love so badly?/ Bet it's bеcause of her daddy." In the Armchair Expert podcast, she said that she has both "mommy and daddy issues".

Mariah Carey, Punarvasu Moon, has published a very revealing memoir about her life where she chronicles the abuse she experienced from her family. She had a moderately good relationship with her dad but was estranged from him as an adult. Her mother however continually exploited her for money.

Miley Cyrus, Vishaka Moon has a complicated relationship with both her parents. Currently, she's not on speaking terms with her father after he married a woman around Miley's age.

Beyonce, Vishaka Moon has been performing since she was a child and was in a girl group Destiny's Child which was managed by her father. She dropped him as her manager in 2011 and in the same year, his divorce from her mother was also finalized. He had apparently fathered a love child with another woman in 2009 and this was the reason for their divorce. Some speculate that they are now estranged but in typical Jupiter fashion, she has never bad-mouthed him in public. Jupiter natives do not air their dirty laundry in public ever. Their grace and dignity even in the face of extreme humiliation/shame/pressure is commendable.

Jennie, Vishaka Moon is very close to her mother but she's never mentioned her father in the 8 years since her debut. In the Blackpink documentary, she said that growing up it was just her and her mom. In this interview she spoke about living with her mother and how she never got a chance to spend much time at home as she was sent to boarding school at 8 years old. She remarks that she and her mom are like sisters but she's never said anything about her relationship with her dad, ever. I am not going to assume that they have a bad relationship but I thought it would be interesting to mention.

Demi Moore, Vishaka Sun

Moore was born to a 19-year-old mother and her biological father left before she was born. The actress' mom remarried a man who worsened her problems with alcohol, which led to violence and instability. The family moved many times throughout Moore's childhood and when she was 17, her stepfather committed suicide. In the early '80s, she embarked on her acting career and helped her mother stay in rehab throughout the years. In 1997, her mother was diagnosed with brain cancer and she reunited with her in the final months before her death.

Lily Collins, Purvabhadrapada Sun

Lily had a strained relationship with her dad growing up“Because my dad was often gone, I never wanted to do anything that would make him stay away even longer,” she wrote. “I became extra careful about what I said and how I said it, afraid he'd think I was angry or didn't love him"

She penned an open letter that said: "I forgive you for not being the dad I expected. But it's not too late”.

Alia Bhatt, Purvabhadrapada Sun has said that growing up she saw very little of her filmmaker father Mahesh Bhatt who is known in the media for being a very problematic figure. He once posed for a magazine cover in the 90s with his daughter Pooja Bhatt where they're kissing on the lips (Pooja is Alia's half-sister) and said that he would have married her if she weren't his daughter 🤮🤮Mahesh is known for being a very temperamental man (you'll be hard pressed to find a video of him not screaming) and it's quite well known that he and Alia's mother had a pretty rocky marriage that her mother could not leave as she was financially dependent on him. Her sister, Shaheen Bhatt has talked about struggling with depression and suicidal tendencies since she was a child.

Rekha, Purvabhadrapada Moon is the illegitimate child of actors Gemini Ganesan and Pushpavalli. Her father was already married to another woman when she was born. He refused to accept the paternity of Rekha and her sister Radha and she grew up in the same city that her father and his "legitimate" family lived in and attended the same school as her half-siblings where she occasionally saw glimpses of him dropping his other kids to school. She has stated that growing up she was called a "bastard" and that the only male figure in her life was "God". She made her debut as an actress when she was 13 against her wishes because her family had fallen on bad times and she had to work to support her 6 siblings and ill mother.

This interview of hers offers a glimpse into her early life. Regardless of what she's been through, Rekha has always been stoic and conducted herself with immense grace and dignity even when she received an award from her father who was never a part of her life. She said this in response:

“Why should I grieve for him when he’s so much part of me? Why should I grieve when I’m so grateful for his genes, his teachings, his rich life and his sheer existence? Grieve for what??!! I’m happy I didn’t have to share unpleasant moments with him. He existed for me in my imagination. And that’s so much more beautiful than reality. Everything I love is unqualified by worldly time constraints. I’m just a small link in the larger scheme of things. I’m not the first one to go through death, nor am I the first one to receive an award. I’m enjoying everything that comes my way…good bad or ugly. I try to make good use of what life’s experiences offer. I think I’ve done a good job of my life, whatever others may think.” 

The Jupiterean ability to always look at the bright side and forgive people who don't deserve your forgiveness is heart-breaking but enlightening at the same time.

Rita Hayworth, Purvabhadrapada Moon confided in her husband Orson Welles that she was sexually abused by her father as a child and had been repeatedly raped by him.

Elexus Jionde aka Intelexual Media, Punarvasu Moon has mentioned that she's estranged from her father.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Punarvasu Rising & stellium has spoken about being emotionally and physically abused by his parents especially his father who would beat him up. They also abused him because they thought he was gay due to his preoccupation with the male physique (he wanted to be a bodybuilder and would later become Mr World).

Keanu Reeves, Punarvasu Moon has been estranged from his father for the majority of his life. Charles Reeves abandoned the family when Keanu was 3 yrs old.

Kaia Gerber, Purvabhadrapada Moon has like most other Jupiter natives kept a low profile and seldom spoken about her personal life and has only ever said nice things about her parents. Her father Rande Gerber has been accused of sexual harassment by multiple women and there have been blind items about Cindy putting Kaia on a calorie deficit diet since she was a child to prepare her for a modelling career (this is awfully common among celebrities so I don't even think this is a stretch). When Kaia was 7 years old, her parents were threatened with a picture of her, barely clothed being gagged and bound. It was said that the picture was taken by a female babysitter during a game of cops and robbers because she wanted to prank the Gerbers by pretending to kidnap Kaia (sincerely, wtf) but there have been conspiracy theories that perhaps Kaia was abused by her parents and this picture was leaked from their collection. Anyway the matter has been settled and it feels wrong for me to speculate too much but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Asia Argento, Purvabhadrapa Moon, is the daughter of filmmaker Dario Argento and has said that she never saw her father as a child and had no kind of relationship with him until she started acting in his movies when she was 16. She said "I never acted out of ambition; I acted to gain my father's attention. It took a long time for him to notice me. … And he only became my father when he was my director."

Her characters in his movies were undressed, raped and generally psychologically traumatised on screen. She once said:

"But I always had this feeling of never being a part of anything, not even of my family. My parents forgot about me. I did everything I could to get their attention."

Chyler Leigh, Vishaka Moon. Her parents divorced when she was 12, following which she was estranged from her father for many years. Her mother moved her to LA when she was a teenager so that she could pursue an acting career. At 15 years old she starred in a movie called Kickboxing Academy as her biological brother's love interest (he was 19). She is said to have been manipulated into doing so by her mother. She has said in a recent interview that she's been estranged from her mother for over 20 years and that like her mother, she too suffers from bipolar disorder. She said, "Because I was put in a position to support my mother, I didn't get the opportunity to speak about my own feelings when I was in my teens." She moved out of her mother's house to live with her then-boyfriend and now husband Nathan West.

Han So Hee, Vishaka Sun was in the news when her mother using her name to borrow bank loans and her debt became public news. Its very rare to hear about the private life of a celebrity in Korea but Sohee came forward to clear things and said her parents divorced when she was 5 following which she was raised by her maternal grandmother with whom she lived until she was in highschool. She's estranged from both her parents and only realized that her mother had been in debt after she turned 18. She found out that her mother had been borrowing money under her name illegally ever since she was a minor. She paid off this debt and apologized to everybody concerned.

IU, Purvabhadrapada Moon grew up in poverty. Her family fell into debt and she was raised by her grandmother who could barely take care of her and her brother. She saw little of her parents growing up. Its unclear how close they are now.

I realize just how many of them are nepo babies lol but I'm kinda glad because it means so much of their life is on public record. Its really unfortunate to see that so many of these natives had absent fathers or fathers who were present in their lives and very abusive.

[deadandphilgames]

A note from Daniel (new epilogue from You Will Get Through This Night)

Thank you for reading This Night. Writing this book in 2021, while sitting locked down in a lightless basement apartment for months, had a certain self-fulfilling irony that was not lost on me.

In many ways, I wrote this book for not only my past self that I wish could have known these things when I needed them most - but for the guy sitting in an incredibly uncomfortable, hunched, t-rex-esque position typing, that needed it right then. Like many of you, I thought those particularly fun couple of years were a temporary inconvenience, that I wouldn't have to age the book by diving into. And here we are. I hope you enjoyed that new chapter about resilience and whatever the hell a 'polycrisis' is. Turns out certain global events do have an additional effect on our mental health - it's understandable that you may try to power through it and pretend it never happened, but we all deserve to take whatever time we need to honestly process how life makes us feel. I hope you're doing alright. My journey of reflecting honestly on my own life experiences and lifestyle while writing was …like spontaneously punching yourself in the stomach. "Wow. I really live like this? That is apparently not conducive to a healthy mind. Oops. Guess I'll go touch some grass." I'm happy if that made this a more entertaining read occasionally.

Even now, I find myself continually re-reading the book in those small moments of first emotional reaction to situations where I now at least think "Wait - what was I supposed to do here? Right. Not catastrophise." If this is you - that is fine. You are not expected to perfectly memorise this book or retain all knowledge you hear in life. I know I don't. If you're ever sat next to me in the emergency exit aisle of a plane, know that you may be required to physically throw me out of the door in order to inflate the slide because I was busy during the briefing, imagining how my life would have been different if I actually had the nerve to dye my hair black that time in school. I am at peace with that.

It was honestly terrifying for me to try and mine the content of my life to try and actually illustrate advice for people that may really need it …for me to honestly look at the balance between joking about my mental health, and really getting real. Hey - if your attempt at opening up via some humour comes out a bit offensive, you still get points for at least putting it on the table. That's progress.

This is not a book about me. I am here just as an example of terrible behaviour that you have permission to have an inappropriate public transport snort at, and as a writer who has repeatedly not finished traditional 'self-help' or scientific study books for being dry, unrelatable and preachy. I just hope you found this moist, identifiable and accepting of all of your beautiful flaws. So many flaws. I often worried if any of the material was maybe obvious, or something you could stumble across on the second page of Google - then I had a small moment of honesty with myself contemplating my own ignorance, commitment to procrastination, attention span …and the fact that factually just 0.63% of all people searching online, ever bother clicking to the second page of results. If you already knew some of this, good for you. Honestly. You must literally be happy with yourself. I'm just looking in the mirror and trying to do something for the 99.37% of humanity that spend their lives never successfully researching how to not lay awake at night fantasising about their doom. Look forward to the upcoming pocket size book of 'offensively self-destructive jokes' by Dan - or 700-page memoir of my yet un-girthy, mostly unremarkable life so far if that's what you're really looking for.

Perhaps the most terrifying result of releasing this book into the world, has been coming face to face with those of you that have read it. For in these moments, all of my protective self-deprecating persona comes crashing down in an instant when someone says this book made them feel better. Hearing that this book was the first time they finished anything tangentially related to self-improvement, or that just one thing they read was a new perspective on a part of their life they needed, makes me feel my mission in life is already complete. Seeing it be recommended by bookstores amongst all the other choices, hearing that people have shared it with their therapists or had it suggested to them by a professional, is an unbelievable seal of approval that I appreciate. I am so inarticulably grateful to have been given the opportunity to do anything that could make your life easier, more peaceful, more enjoyable. I've met people who annotated this book with post-its, told me they listen to audiobook exercises on their commute - and even a few people that have had illustrations tattooed onto them as a symbolic reminder of a message.

All of this puts that year of typing like some kind of infinite monkey at a typewriter into perspective. I'd do it all again. Mostly. It has been the greatest privilege of my life to be the guy whose name is printed on this book, and I just hope that reading it helped you, as much as writing it helped me.

Love and good luck.

- Dan

[happyk44]

Thinking about Percy who ties his personhood and identity/sense of self to the relationships he has (Sally's son, Grover's bestie, Annabeth's boyfriend) because it's easy and aligning himself to them provides a clear picture of who he's supposed to be. But often where he ends up short with this is in his concept of Nico's protector, because it's not mutual. At least not in his perception of it. Aside from the beginning of TTC, Nico does not see Percy as his defender the way Percy does.

On one hand, it provides a relief because it gives him space and leeway to develop a relationship with Nico outside of preconceived notions, but on the other hand, it denies him the framework he's used to having for developing relationships with other people. Nico sees himself on more equal footing with Percy, and while Percy would never deny Nico his strength and power, his capabilities are often ignored in order for Percy to showcase himself in the role of Nico's protector. I can see this kind of dynamic providing a stressor for both of them. Nico doesn't want to be denied his agency and will get frustrated with Percy for assuming less of him, where Percy will get frustrated with Nico for not stepping back and keeping himself safe the way he thinks Nico should.

Nico is more informed in certain situations than Percy, especially when coming across mythical figures. So while Percy would be content to listen to him and allow him to present a strategy, I think he'd become agitated at the idea of Nico being a participant in that strategy. To which Nico would become agitated at Percy's dismissal of him. He would see this as Percy not trusting him, where Percy would see his refusal to stay in the background as a direct defiance to Percy's assumed role in his life.

When it comes to Percy tying his sense of self to the people he cares about, he doesn't tend to notice he's doing it. Sort of seeing himself in the framework of "Who am I? Oh, I'm Sally Jackson's son" versus "Who am I? Im Percy Jackson". It's not odd or abnormal to him, so he can't see it, and thereby he's not able to verbalize or explain his behaviour with Nico in a satisfactory manner.

Not to mention, I think Nico calling him out on his behaviour is a stressor in and of itself, so his mood spikes and instead of trying to analyze why he's acting like this or focus on Nico's words, he just doubles down on it instead and/or splits. And then they fight and argue and Percy just thinks "this fucking little shit" the whole time, annoyed and pissed with Nico. Then, when Percy settles down by himself a few hours later, he's suddenly swamped with intense depression and misery for failing Nico over and over again.

Despite this, he still can't analyze himself. He just sees himself as a failure undeserving of being someone's protector, much less Nico's. He notices the intensity of his emotions, notices the sudden shift in mood, but it's so normal to him and so overwhelming, he can't wonder about the why. Not to mention, wondering about the why requires introspection that Percy despises because looking inwards just shows he doesn't really know the answer to "who am I?" He's Percy Jackson, sure. Sally Jackson's son, Grover Underwood's best friend, Annabeth Chase's boyfriend. Two time saviour of the world. Child of the ocean.

But who the fuck is he outside of other people?

Who he is when he's alone?

[amphibious-thing]

In Short What is Now Termed a Maccaroni Dishabille

Perhaps one of the most interesting parts of John Gilbert McCurdy's book Vicious and Immoral was the way in which the men of the 18th regiment cited Newbugh's clothing as evidence of ungentlemanlike behaviour.

I'll start with a brief summary for those who haven't read the book (tho I highly recommend reading it). Robert Newburgh was the chaplain for the 18th Royal Irish Regiment of the British Army that was stationed in America. Rumours that Newburgh was a buggerer reached America before Newburgh himself did. Things only got worse for Newburgh form there, leading him to persuade Private Robert Jeff to formally accuse him of buggery. See Newburgh knew they did not have enough to convict him of buggery and hoped a court-martial would clear his name.

On Monday the 8th of August 1774 the general court-martial of Reverend Robert Newburgh began. Newburgh stood accused of "Vicious and Immorral Behaviour" which broke down into six charges: perjury, prevarication, falsehood, "Scandalous and Indecent acts," conduct "Derogatory from the Sacred Character, with which he is Invested," and having treated his commanding officer "in a Disrespectful manner." He was notably not charged with buggery as there was "only circumstantial and Hearsay evidence" and yet the prosecution continued to insinuate that Newburgh was a buggerer. (p166)

They could not prove that Newburgh was guilty of buggery as such a conviction would require proof of the act itself. Instead they chose to prosecute him for ungentlemanlike behaviour. As part of this charge the prosecution introduced evidence of Newburgh's effeminate clothing. Captain Benjamin Chapman testified:

that part of his Dress on that occasion, as nearly as he Can recollect was a Close Light Coloured Surtout, with a Scarlet or Crimson falling Collar, with a round Buck Hatt, perfectly in the Stile of a Groom; that at other times he has seen him in the Barracks and streets at Philadelphia in a Dress that had not the Least resemblance to that usualy worn by a Clergyman, one Dress that he has seen him in, as nearly as he Can recollect, is a Light Coloured frock made of Bath coating, Close Buck or Lambskin Breeches, white Silk Stockings and a Smart Fashionable Cocked Hatt, in short what is now termed a Maccaroni Dishabille. (p199)

When the prosecution questioned Thomas Batt whether he has seen "Mr. Newburgh's appearing in a Dress unbecoming a Clergyman?" Batt replied that "He has hardly seen him in any other Coat than a Light Coloured one." Asked if he had heard officers express "Surprize at Mr. Newburgh's manner and Style of Dress," Batt replied, "Frequently." (p203)

When it came time for the defense's case Newburgh questioned his friend Nicholas Trist about his clothing:

Q. As he has seen Mr. Newburgh almost every Day Did he ever See him in what might be called a fashionable Morning Maccaroni Dishabelle? A. He cant say what they call a macerouney Disabill he never saw him Drest in any manner, but what he has seen other Clergyman.

Trist testified that he had seen Newburgh in "a Graish Bath coat, Bound with Black, and Black Buttons," and a "half Mourning coat, with Black buttons" and that he had seen "many a Clergyman Drest in the Same manner." (p215)

Newburgh's servant William Osborne was asked whether Newburgh owned "any coat, either Body or Surtout, with a Crimson Collar?" to which Osborne relied "No". (p218)

During his questioning of defense witnesses Newburgh attempted to refute claims that he dressed like a maccaroni, down to the specifics of the colour of his collar. However in his closing arguments he instead pointed out the ridiculousness of the situation:

First I am Charged with a capital Crime, thence the Gentleman descends to perjury, thence to Prevarication, thence to simple Faleshood, thence to giving Rum Toddy to some thirsty Soldiers, thence to uncivil Language, thence to wearing a red Collar on a borrowed Coat, thence to leather Breeches and so quite away down to white Stockings. (p234)

Unable to prosecute Newburgh for buggery they had tried to prosecute him for the crime of wearing white stockings, which was of course not a crime at all.

The court found Newburgh guilty of falsehood and "impropriety in his conduct" for being "unguarded in his expressions" before soldiers. However in regards to the remaining charges the court found them "ill founded, and some of them frivolous accusations." (p245)

While wearing white stockings or even a "Light Coloured Surtout, with a Scarlet or Crimson falling Collar" was indeed not illegal, even for a chaplain, the prosecution brought this into evidence in hopes of undermining Newburgh's character.

The association between fashion and sodomy was well established by August 1774. The prosecution did not have to spell out the implication. It's unusual to see this sort of character evidence enter into trial presumably due to it being unreliable. In at least one sodomy case a character witness for the defense testified that the accused "never behaved with any effeminacy". However this testimony was clearly not convincing as the man was sentenced to death. (Trial of William Bailey, 21 October 1761)

While effeminate dress may not have been strong evidence for courts in the 1780's the Parisian police would profile suspected sodomites based on their clothing. Commissioner Pierre Louis Foucault and inspector Louis Henri Noël identified what they called the “pederastical uniform”*, which generally included “some combination of frock coat, large tie, round hat, small chignon, and bows on the shoes.”

*In the 18th century “pederasty” was used synonymously with “buggery” and did not denote age simply sex. An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1726) defines “A pederast” as “a Buggerer” and “Pederasty” as “Buggery”.

The Parisian police sent out "pederastry patrols" to arrest suspected sodomites. Reports explicitly reference the suspected sodomites clothing. A gilder Coré was "attired in such a way as to be recognized by everyone as a pederast", a hairdresser Calman was "clothed with all the distinctive marks of pederasty" and the unemployed Joubert was "dressed like a pederast".

Of course it was not illegal to dress "like a pederast" and one man when questioned about his outfit simply responded that everyone "dresses as he sees fit". (Commissioner Foucault, Inspector Noël, and the "Pederasts" of Paris, 1780-3 by Jeffrey Merrick)

A man could not be convicted on his stockings alone but he sure could be suspected of sodomy based on the way he dressed.

[55sturn]

i haven’t spoken about the situation with @sturniololuv08 [ can’t tag bc she has been blocked ] yet due to me being at work, but i’ve caught up with everything since and i just want to say i am disgusted.

first and foremost, my heart goes out to the victims that have been deeply hurt and impacted by this person’s actions. whether the victims that have been triggered, re-triggered, groomed, and/or forced to relieve their own worst nightmare and experiences.

CNC, otherwise known as CONSENSUAL NON-CONSENT, is a tricky subject to write about, regardless of anything. you are toeing the line between indulging in a rape-esque fantasy and indulging in something that requires a lot of discussion and trust before anything is even attempted. now i’m not going to kink-shame someone if properly done CNC is what they’re into, but when you’re portraying it as a sexual act is being performed without any prior talking about consent nor is consent actually given beforehand, you are writing a rape scene. there’s no other way to put it.

a sexual act cannot start before consent is given, at least not legally or morally. to write it and have one person give consent half way through the act, is not okay. the fact that you have written a real person committing a crime that is not taken seriously enough, as if it was nothing, shows the kind of person you are. the very scene you have written is a very serious, very vile, and very real experience for most women and men. this is not okay.

i understand having darker and more taboo sexual interests, but rape or rape-play should never be one.

as for texting minors privately, that in itself isn’t weird to a degree, but your intent was very clearly weird. you went in with the intention of flirting with one, and continuously asked minors personal questions about their sex lives at the age of twenty eight. that is creepy, weird, and wrong. and especially as a mother of what i’m assuming is a younger child, you should never think of or look at a minor as your next partner. you need to remove yourself from the internet and get serious help because you’re a disgusting human being.

and once again, my heart goes out to those that have been deeply affected by her behaviour. you did not deserve to suffer through that.

[offtotheiceberg]

Chapter 431, what have u done? Part 4

Spoilers

4) I’m sorry for everything I’ve done up until now.

Okayyy let’s get started.

Katsuki x Izuku is one of the most popular ships in mha. Whether you like it, hate it, or reject shipping culture entirely, their relationship (however you see it) is one of the main pillars of the story. I will say that I like them together, I think they make sense and their history is compelling, and I love writing them, but pls don’t disregard everything I’m saying just because of that.

First of all, hot take, but bkdk would never EVER have been canon. Shonen (particularly popular shonen) doesn’t do queer couples, at least not obviously. Notice, that’s not what many fans are concerned about. I’m going to try and unpack it as best as I can.

Izuku attempting to save Katsuki from the sludge villain was the reason All Might gave him his power. You cannot spin this any other way. If Izuku hadn’t run into that fight, he would still be quirkless. One one end, I don’t think it mattered who was in that villain’s grasp - I think Izuku still would have gone if it was someone random from school, but on Katsuki’s end, it mattered that it was Deku. In some ways, they were both catalysts to the other’s Hero journey.

Second, Izuku progress and All Might’s downfall were two of the main influences that broke down Katsuki’s superiority complex (plus realising that he wasn’t the strongest in the class, and he too needed to be saved). This break down allowed to two of them to be “proper rivals” which is a direct quote from the manga. Win to save and save to win are two halves of All Might’s ideology, and that is NOT a coincidence. In many ways, they’re supposed to be foils that build each other up. Even if you hate it, you can’t deny that they’re significant influences on each other in their hero journey.

(tw here, brief discussion of suicide)

Now, the atonement. THIS is where the hypocrisy comes out to play. What Katsuki did to Izuku in middle school cannot and should not be taken lightly. Aside from the bullying, telling someone to kill themselves is not okay. But, and it’s a big but, YOU CAN AND SHOULD MAKE UP FOR YOUR MISTAKES. This is not systematic, malicious abuse, like we saw with Endeavour (who never gets to fully atone, rightfully so that is a different situation) these are the actions of a 14 year old kid. Katsuki was cruel to Izuku, I am not trying to deny that. HOWEVER, in real life, people are not held to the horrible shit they say when they’re 14. Come on, this is obvious. Atonement requires two things: an apology, and a change of behaviour. Katsuki does both of these things. However atonement in literature, or in “not real life” or whatever, is slightly different. It ALSO requires the relationship between those two characters to be affected in some way, and this relationship change is what clues us as the audience in to whether this atonement has been successful. Take Endeavour, for example the way we as the viewer see that he has not fully atoned is via Natsuo, the son who didn’t forgive, and Shoto’s hesitance to. We get taught this as writing students, I’m not pulling this out of my ass.

The bare minimum to fulfil the message that people can atone for their past mistakes is a resolution to Katsuki and Izuku’s relationship that fulfils the arcs set up for them. Just a reminder, these arcs are: twin stars, rivals, “win to save, save to win”, “I will surpass you” otherwise known as catching up to each other, and both of them wanting to be the best Heroes in the world.

The soundest, most logical way to finish these arcs is the two of them becoming a Hero Duo. The second most is them working together, which is what Katsuki offered Izuku in the last chapter. THIS IS NOT AN ADMISSION OF ROMANCE, FFS. It’s good character development!!! You can have Izuku working sith Katsuki AND have a satisfying Izuocha romance in the same universe, they are not mutually exclusive!!! I can’t believe I needed to say that???? Be an izuocha shipper and ACKNOWLEDGE THE FUCKING STORYLINE. Please don’t make this into a petty ‘them vs me’ narrative, there was already enough of that shit with the US election.

Them going their seperate ways might even have been a satisfying ending if it had been written better, but it wasn’t. There was no evidence of that for 430 chapters. Their growth, particularly Katsuki’s was irrevocably tied to the other. Again, some of the most nonsensical writing I’ve ever seen. What it implies, whether intended or not, is that atonement is a falsity and no matter what, Katsuki and Izuku’s relationship is forever scarred by what happened when they were kids, even though the final battles in the war have evidence to the contrary. This is NOT a positive message. For more analysis of Izuku’s decision to not be a Pro Hero, pls see part 1.

Come back for Part 5 (conclusion)

[kalikalahansa]

Are there any differences between just wearing diapers full-time and actively untraining?

A follower sent me this question in an ask recently. I didn't feel like I could answer it comprehensively without derailing the ask. I'm answering it here instead.

The answer is: Yes, but actually no (but ...)

In humans, and in many other species, the body system which controls the voiding of bodily waste is adapted such that it is under voluntary control. However, the means by which that control is maintained require it to be maintained through use. If it isn't used, it erodes.

Untrainers actively target this, by actively refusing to use their control and by adopting strategies which will allow their body to void with minimal physiological effort. People who want to wear and use their diapers 24/7 (henceforth "24/7ers") obviously don't actively seek to lose their control. However, using diapers 24/7 means they will increasingly generally be in a situation where not using their control is a convincingly better choice and/or using it is convincingly worse.

Here's a hypothetical. It's based heavily on my experience but is not a direct factual account; it's also heavily simplified because I'd have to either do anonymisation or worldbuilding otherwise and I'm not going to do either of those things.

Say you're a college student. You have a very predictable college administration, and because of that, four days a week, you have:

a 9–11 AM lecture

an 11 AM–12 PM interval

a 12–2 PM tutorial, with no break in the middle

You have a chance to snack, hydrate, and get a coffee in the interval. As a result, you consistently have the problem of realising, about 30 minutes into your 12 PM tute, that you need to pee.

This is a problem. See, in most places, excusing yourself to pee is a neutral act, but in college, there is an expectation that you'll stay in the room unless you absolutely have to leave. Not usually an overwhelming one, but present in the same way that getting up constantly to pee at a movie theatre is somewhat more frowned upon than doing so while watching the same movie at home.

So, what do you do? Well, if you're continent, or at least wearing underwear, the answer you're pressured toward under those circumstances is just holding it for the remaining 90 minutes. Sure, it might be annoying, but if you have normal continence it's not likely to be so distracting that you can't willpower through it. If you're wearing diapers and have decided to use them, however, none of this logic applies. Short of any other intervening factors too complex and individual to be listed here, if you feel the need to pee 30 minutes in, there's no reason not to pee 30 minutes in.

The effect of this is obvious: that's 90 minutes you're not exercising your control when you otherwise would have. That's not much, but you can never have just one potato chip, as the saying goes. For instance, you also realise that you've been feeling the need to pee about 30 minutes into your morning lecture. You haven't really been thinking about it because that one does have a break at 55 minutes and it's a lot easier to wait until then. But why wait?

And so this continues. This hypothetical person is based on me so it would probably be pretty reasonable to nominally divide their day into 3 blocks of 8 hours each:

college and related things (studying on-site, commuting, etc.)

home and related things (work, study at home, free time, etc.)

sleep

(No, I did not get anywhere near that much sleep; yes, the non-college-time block was a lot bigger than that for me.)

Out of your college and related things block, when you level out you're probably holding it for maybe 50% of the time you were before, on average. So you're effectively holding for at least 4 hours fewer out of 24 per day, 4 days a week: –16 hours out of 168 per week, total.

Still not a lot, but it builds up. For instance, I think at this point we can safely assume you're still dry at night and your continence behaviour during sleep is the same as it was before you started wearing full-time. But most people at least initially find it easier to start using their diapers at home and in other familiar places, where nobody has any reason to watch them. So at home the amount of time you were holding it had already been maybe half what it would have been before. Another 4 hours' worth of non-use of control, 4 days a week, making –16/168 h/w, for a total of –32/168 h/w.

On the 3 days a week you're not at college, we can safely move the 8 hours a week that would have gone to "college and related things" into "home and related things", the block during which you're only holding for about half as long as you were anyway. So that's 16 hours total, so that's 8 hours fewer of control on each of those 3 days; 8 × 3 = 24, making a total of –(32 + 24)/168 = –56/168 h/w.

But wait! All that practice you're getting wetting your diapers at college, where you're nervous about it, is helping tremendously with wetting your diapers at home and other places where you're more comfortable. So suddenly instead of holding for 50% of the original length of time at home you're holding for 25%. Then 10%. So now that 8 hours of control not being used is 14 hours 24 minutes (× 3 days a week) and now it's –75.2/168 h/w. And it continues to add up.

And of course you can respond to this by saying, well, I want to wear diapers 24/7 but I know I don't want to lose my bladder control, so I'll simply pee at the same time I normally would have. Which makes perfect sense, but also, that's an abstract long-term commitment, and it's now competing with things like the visceral discomfort of needing to pee increasingly for 90 minutes, when you know you don't have to be experiencing that discomfort. You have to really care about the thing you're committed to for it to serve as the bulwark of your self-discipline in that kind of situation. And even then, there are probably going to be days when you're going to give in, because the machine didn't have mocha iced coffee today, it only had double espresso, and now your eyeballs are swimming.

And you can say, well, I'm not going to need to avoid peeing for 90 minutes, because I will simply do other things, like not have water and coffee directly before my two hour tutorial with no break. To which my answer is, sure. Water is necessary for brain function, caffeine is addictive. Yes, it's plausible that you'll give up one of those, but the path of least resistance is the one where you wet your diapers because it's the one where you get everything you want (staying in the lectures, wearing diapers, using diapers, drinking coffee, drinking water).

And all this discussion of self-discipline and paths-of-least-resistance is ignoring the positive disincentives against using your control. For example: When we pee in a toilet, we tend to release it all at once and as quickly as possible. In most diapers, that's not advisable. The superabsorbent polymer can't absorb that much liquid that fast; the inside of the diaper will flood and leak.

Diapers obviously can absorb a lot of liquid given enough time, so the first thing to address is flow rate. Flow rate is determined by volume (that is, if there's more pee you need to void, you will pee faster). Therefore, the way to pee at a lower flow rate is to pee when there's less pee in your bladder. The kidneys produce urine at a rate which is strongly predicted by your diet and medical conditions, so if those are relatively stable then your urine output will be too. In that case, the most effective way to pee when there's less pee in your bladder is to pee frequently. In short, diapers literally discourage you from holding your pee and encourage you to pee as close as possible to when you feel the urge.

And then, of course, there's the fact that the map is not the territory, and the view from the top of a mountain differs from the view from the bottom of the adjoining valley. Decisions about maintaining continence and responding to continence failures that are made prior to going into diapers 24/7 are made in one context. Decisions about the same matter that are made well into the process, when the things in question are or might be actually happening, are made in another context entirely. And there are obviously factors other than immediate short-term discomfort or utility that dictate what choices someone makes.

Wearing full-time isn't the same as untraining. But it makes not untraining a lot harder than it was before wearing full-time.

[saintsenara]

waitt i need to know why you hc ludo bagman as a genuine death eater sympathiser omg. that sounds fascinating

thank you very much for the ask, pal!

that bagman was really a death eater sympathiser is something i've been committed to believing since i first read goblet of fire, but it's something i've been pondering particularly recently as part of writing subluxation, which is a big look at the set-up and function of the wizarding state during voldemort's takeover in 1997-1998 from the perspective of percy weasley.

which means - of course - that it requires a bit of grappling with percy's main man - and bagman's frenemy - barty crouch sr.

the way the canon narrative - not only harry's perspective but also characters harry implicitly trusts, like sirius and dumbledore - wants us to react to crouch sr. is something that really interests me. because i think it's reasonable to say that - while the series doesn't regard him as a villain villain, per se [as it does for characters such as umbridge] - it doesn't see him as someone we are supposed to regard in a particularly positive light either, even after the reveal that barty crouch jr. was a death eater and his father was justified in sending him to azkaban [even if he didn't keep him there...]

crouch - like cornelius fudge, rufus scrimgeour, and percy himself - is a victim of the narrative's general consensus that ministry workers who are not under the impression that the ministry cannot function admirably or efficiently without input from dumbledore are people we should have no real respect for. he is shown, in his canon appearances, to be something of a jobsworth - officious and dull and uncreative in his thinking, which serves both as a personification of what the series thinks about the civil service and as a narrative device to make the reveal that he broke his son out of prison and kept him, essentially, drugged at home all the more shocking.

but crouch is also interesting in another sense - in that he is not a villain, but that he does not fit into the way the series categorises the behaviour of its heroes surrounding mercy.

we are told in goblet of fire that crouch - as head of the department of magical law enforcement in the 1970s - was responsible for the escalating harshness of the government's response to voldemort. policies such as the instructions for aurors to shoot to kill if they encountered suspected death eaters and the use of internment without trial of those accused of collusion with voldemort [both of which, as i am always banging on about, are references to the actual behaviour of the british state in northern ireland during the same time period] emanate directly from him.

and this ties into a theme which is prominent in the run of books between prisoner of azkaban and half-blood prince: that the world is not split into good people and death eaters. the purpose of these central books in the series is to show that - once harry's worldview widens from the hogwarts-exclusive focus it has in the first two, more childlike, books - the rot in the wizarding world goes far beyond voldemort. the wizarding state is shown - time and time again - to be cruel, corrupt, prejudiced, and stagnant, and the ministry's most loyal bureaucrats and their unwillingness towards mercy are largely blamed for this situation.

because of course - as i have complained about before - the morality of the harry potter series is individualist. good and evil are located by the text within the individual, which means that states and their institutions are automatically less interesting to it than singular heroes and villains in an epic baddies-versus-goodies showdown.

but it's also true that - as a protagonist - harry's morality is extremely self-serving. by which i mean that he has a tendency to reach black-and-white judgements on people he encounters - they're good if they're nice to him, they're bad if they're cruel to him - and to never deviate from them.

and - indeed - to never have to deviate from them. it's worth saying that harry's conversion rate on being right about people is really high - his immediate dislike of characters such as draco malfoy, lockhart, and umbridge is entirely justified; his immediate trust of characters such as sirius is the same. his only misjudgments relate to characters who are crucial to the narrative outside of harry's feelings towards them - he's wrong to trust the teenage tom riddle in chamber of secrets, he's wrong to trust the fake "moody" in goblet of fire, he's wrong to trust "bathilda bagshot" in deathly hallows, and he is, of course, wrong about both snape and dumbledore.

but - outside of this - his judgements are usually proven to be right [and, indeed, his good instincts are lampshaded by the narrative in deathly hallows, when lupin literally says this]. and so we are supposed to assume, i think, that character judgements he makes which we see no broader resolution to are correct.

for example - harry's conviction that stan shunpike is under the imperius curse is never taken by the text as anything other than true. there is no suggestion whatsoever that harry is wrong and that stan - a young, working-class man with delusions of grandeur, who would presumably be reasonably easy to radicalise - might be a genuine supporter of voldemort, and harry's complete certainty that stan is falsely imprisoned [with the callbacks this gives to his feelings about sirius' treatment] isn't used by the narrative as an example of him being naive and self-righteous, but as an example of the fundamental goodness, sensibleness and mercifulness of his character which justifies his ascent to an allegory for christ in the latter stages of deathly hallows.

and the same applies to ludo bagman. when harry witnesses his trial, he finds the suggestion that he might have been a death eater absurd, clearly finds the jury's immediate dismissal of it amusing, and is unsympathetic to crouch when he is infuriated by bagman's acquittal. he takes dumbledore's assurance that bagman has never been accused of any nefarious activity since without question [something he does not do for snape] and his view throughout goblet of fire - much as it is for stan - is that bagman is seedy and not particularly clever, but that he is also such a transparently ridiculous person that to suspect him of being someone voldemort would care about is idiotic, and that crouch's inability to bang him up in azkaban on spurious charges can only - given what happened to sirius - be a good thing.

but the issue is that - notwithstanding his commitment to extrajudicial punishment - barty crouch sr. is... clearly right to investigate bagman thoroughly.

we are told in order of the phoenix that voldemort's power depends on a vast network of ministry informants. we are shown in deathly hallows that his coup is only successful because almost the entirety of the civil service remains in post. we are shown time and time again throughout canon that voldemort's views - on blood-supremacy and magic-supremacy, on the supposed value of maintaining the class system - are incredibly mainstream political opinions, and we can infer from this that a majority of the population of wizarding britain have the view sirius tells us his parents did: that, while they're uneasy with voldemort's violence and while they're certainly not paid-up death eaters, they think voldemort has the right idea.

dumbledore - and the order - are shown throughout canon to be preoccupied with the big fish. the death eaters they target are voldemort's inner circle - the marked loyalists he trusts as generals. we never see - outside of the snatchers - the lower-profile but infinitely more important cogs in voldemort's machine: the people who traffic stolen goods and lift ministry secrets from filing cabinets and observe potential recruits in pubs and pass gossip along whisper networks until it reaches the dark lord. the sort of people crouch clearly wanted to eradicate, but couldn't find the goodwill within the ministry to do so.

bagman can easily fit this profile - he's presumably a pureblood or a half-blood and raised in the wizarding world, since his parents canonically have at least one wizarding friend [augustus rookwood]; he is clearly relaxed about making use of the class system, since he expects to finesse a job out of rookwood when his professional quidditch career ends; and he is possessed of extremely dubious morals. we also know that pleading ignorance of who you were working for was a famously successful - and, presumably, voldemort-sanctioned - way of getting away with having colluded with the death eaters. it makes just as much sense - then - for bagman's "oh, i just thought i was chatting about state secrets with rookwood as a mate" act to be in the same vein as lucius malfoy pretending to be under the imperius curse as it does for him to actually have been that dumb, and so it makes sense for him to have gone actively looking for information he could pass to rookwood because of some sympathies [even if they were uneasy ones] with rookwood's cause.

do i think he was a marked death eater? no - i think voldemort couldn't pick him out of a line-up and he never achieved anything other than being an informant rookwood could tap for details and documents he could pass up to his master if they looked interesting.

but this would have been what voldemort's ministry infiltration actually looked like - and it is a much more insidious, and interesting, concept than loads of aristocrats fighting and being sexy, which i think is really worth exploring when we think about wizarding politics.

[kyouka-supremacy]

hello!

I saw your recent post and you hinted that Atsushi is actually kinda twisted and that yoh don't agree with his morals?

If its alr with you, do you mind elaborating? ❤️

Alright, to be fair, I *am* self aware enough to realize a lot of what I say about Atsushi is probably fairly detached from canon. When push comes to shove, he's just a guy trying to get through. A polite dude. I like to stretch on how a lot of his well-mannered behaviour and his desperate attempt to prove himself good are moved by deeply selfish reasons of validating his own right to live, but that said, that doesn't make him inherently evil, either.

Atsushi's double morality is something that comes up a lot, so please check out these posts!! (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8). But overall... Is a good action that is done for deeply selfish reasons, still good? I'm not sure. But when I watched the anime for the first time, and in episode 8 it turned out that Atsushi was not helping the train passengers out of spontaneous inclination to help people in need, but rather just due to a self-interested aim to validate his own right to live... Idk, it didn't positively impress me? I was even less positively impacted by the later line “people can't live unless someone tells them ‘it's okay to go on’! ” The thing is, both scenes feel like more of the author's underlying worldviews that end up being conveyed through the series' protagonist, and that's a consideration to be made by its own– it's not an issue I have with Atsushi specifically, as much as me fundamentally disagreeing with most of bsd's perspectives on the world, as I've already said before.

But that doesn't change the fact that Atsushi is fundamentally selfish¹, does it? The difference is - I think - that for the author, more or less all people are, while to me no one is born selfish. But that still makes Atsushi not really morally virtuous, and I think that's narratively interesting to explore by its own!!! What if there was a character who only did good because (he thinks) that's the only way he has the right to live? What if there was someone who believed the right to live had to be owned in the first place? After having overcome the admittedly jarring sentiment I felt when first engaged with the character, I must admit those are some compelling concepts to explore, even despite disagreeing with the underlying morals.

At the end of the day, it's just a complex nature of the character? I like to emphasize on Atsushi's uncommendable selfishness especially as opposite to Akutagawa's hidden selflessness; but all said, a man who tries to do good despite it not being his first nature is a better man than any of us, isn't he?

¹ And Atsushi is profoundly selfish. I think that Beast in particular proves that he's ready to commit evil just as much as in canon he is to do good, if it's to pursue the goal of his own survival. The first thing we see him do, at the very start of the series, is, symbolically, contemplating robbing other people for his own survival (though in real life I would never judge someone's morality in life and death situations... But maybe since this is fiction, that can still hold narrative value). He will stop acting good as long as it's no longer required of him (each of his interactions with Akutagawa). Maybe it's a little pessimist way to interpret the manga, but perhaps still a consistent one?

[zmayadw]

|| Moonvale Eric and Charlie Headcanons ||

A/N: Okie, so I've never done HCs before, but I guess there's a first time for everything, right? 😅 So don't be too harsh on me, and I hope you might find this somewhat likeable! 💚

Also, just wanted to mention that these HCs are based solely on my impression from Moonvale's episode one!

ERIC:

If you need help with anything, Eric is your go-to guy! Be it some small nuisance or a big pain-in-the-ass problem, he will never say no to his friends.

Even if you call him at 2 am, he won't have a problem to jump into his car to pick you up from anywhere, with no need for some detailed explanations!

Eric is fun and easy to talk to guy, too, so hanging out with him is definitely not going to end up in disappointment.

He is always polite and kind, but he does not hesitate to show his firmness!

He can be pretty stubborn and closed to suggestions at times, but he also doesn't shy away from admitting of being wrong.

Although he is good at problem solving, Eric is somewhat...clumsy. And that kinda makes him even more adorable. 🤭

And let's be honest here, he's pretty easy on the eyes, too! 😏😉

CHARLIE:

Charlie is the goofball of the gang. If there is a prank being done at someone, you can bet it was Charlie who initiated it!

Also, because of his goofy nature, he is the one who always tries to mend any kind of tensions and/or conflicts between the others (even more if he might be the reason for that).

But don't let that kind of behaviour mislead you - after all, the coin has two sides, right? Well, so does Charlie!

Although he may appear to or act recklessly most of the time, he's intentions are always pure and good-hearted.

And even if it seems very unlikely, he can act very mature if the situation requires so.

Chalrie likes to talk a lot, and I mean A LOT! He very often speaks before thinking, which gets him chastised a lot, but he never takes it to his heart.

All in all, Charlie is a good friend, the kind that is always there for you, and will always give his all to make you feel better and put a smile back on your face.

[scaly-freaks]

not the same anon, but i was actually ok with brothel scene?

aemond's clearly obsessed with never looking weak, he doesn't feel like he can be weak in front of his family - even his mom. alicent can't offer emotional support to her children (maybe a little to helaena), so they find it elsewhere.

aemond prob view this woman as "beneath him", someone he can use and vent to because what is she gonna do? it doesn't matter if she sees him being weak because she's inconsequential in his world.

aegon and aemond are sooooo affection starved. they do feel, they need to feel loved. they need comfort but lack the emotional intelligence to reach out and form those connections.

It was honestly very tame. I was expecting Homelander level of build up and pay off, but there are good shows and then there's...HOTD. Besides, the fandom is already flustered over this little scene, which for a canon stuffed with incest and non-con and dub-con and gore and violence, a large number of its fans have surprisingly surface-level intelligence/empathy. I do think darker topics require more of both these traits to be consumed well but the show itself chooses not to go full on with them so I'm not surprised the fandom is wrapped in cotton wool and spoon fed like a baby.

And I totally agree with your view on the madame. I am not a fan of terming her his "abuser" the way some people have been doing. Using words frivolously makes them lose all meaning and impact.

In what sense is she an abuser exactly? In the sense that you feel protective over Aemond, and this middle-aged woman is not young or attractive enough to be a satisfying self-insert? And I won't be told this isn't the case with some fans, because some of them definitely have on horse blinkers.

Logically, she is not an abuser. She looked to me like she didn't even want to be there and was disengaged from him mentally/emotionally. He very clearly told her not here and was in control of the situation, suggesting the experience is meticulously tailored to his wants and needs. The last time they met when he was thirteen, sure it's gross that a boy that young is going through something like that, but guess who brought him there? Aegon. The madame turning down the patronage of a royal prince would make her insane if you go by in-world logic. Royal patronage attracts more customers and more money for her girls. It's common sense. Do you know where her real priority was? Getting him to be aware of the smallfolk the next time he loses his temper and does something stupid (since he's already done one stupid thing).

If anything, Aegon might be termed the abuser and the madame was the tool he used, but even then, he was also taught that this behaviour was okay because someone took him to a brothel at 13. Just because he accepted and conformed to this way of living, doesn't mean it wasn't wrong that he went through it too.

Anyway, tip of the iceberg, but there you see - spoon feeding all this context to an audience that is largely unequipped to dive deeper into uncomfortable topics in the span of an hour is impossible.

[joannerowling]

Going anon for this because this is a very unpopular opinion in the radfem community and I don't want to get cancelled, but I agree that JKR could only have supported Depp if she truly believed he never abused a woman.

I...agree with her.

Having seen that trial I do not believe Heard was abused in the ways she claimed. However, I do believe the treatment towards Heard was terrible because male abusers who have done far worse do not get anywhere near that, but nobody gets violently raped by a broken bottle and requires no medical attention. She never did have any evidence proving abuse and her behaviour in the trial as well as before and after it and the recordings they had confirm he never abused her. I mean, she submitted a literal diagram from a medical textbook as evidence of her broken nose. People cite the UK trial but neither Depp nor Heard could submit any evidence there and Heard, being a third party, wasn't even required to. The case was against the Sun with the judge being related to the newspaper company and Heard's word was all they needed for the Sun to win that case.

As a DV victim myself she comes off as the abuser not only towards Depp but basically everyone in her life, including her sister who's financially dependent on her. Still, Depp has said nasty things about Heard and his fans are definitely misogynistic towards her, using this ONE case to justify hating and abusing women. Heard is a very troubled women with a history of abuse and she has hurt women far more than men. She was also arrested for abusing her ex-wife Tasya van Ree and her PR team released a false statement on Tasya's behalf defending Heard even though Tasya is friends with one of the women who testified against Heard, but I don't see anyone wanting justice for Tasya van Ree? Multiple witnesses have confirmed she has abused and maybe continues to abuse her sister, but nobody wants justice for her. Is it because they're not famous or they're women?

Either way, the women in Heard's life would be far more in danger than Depp ever was and I do not think it's Feminist to support her when she's hurt other women. She also has a young daughter I am afraid for. It's no wonder JKR doesn't support her because as a DV victim, she would recognise the abuse patterns in Heard. I just wish her female victims were given more attention instead of Depp who is a middle aged drug addicted man who always had the resources and the strength to protect himself. Whenever Heard would get violent towards him, he would go hide in his bathroom or go to some other apartment of his, but could Tasya van Ree do that? Could Whitney Heard? Would Oona Heard be able to do that if her mum decides to abuse her (if she hasn't already)?

I've decided to publish this because you spoke about being a victim of domestic violence yourself, and i needed to tell you that i'm sorry you had to suffer that. Whoever it was, i hope you are free and safe from them.

Immediate warning, this will be the ONLY Depp/Heard related ask i will publish. I do not want the drama that's going to inevitably follow, so i'll answer this once, and even if the next ask says something like "i'm also a DV victim and i think that anon was full of shit" assume i'm equally sorry for you but do not wait for me to respond because i won't.

To go back to you anon. As i said, i'm very sorry, and what i'm going to say i say in the hope that you won't find me condescending or hypocritical, but i have to say it. I think the amount of details you've put into this ask shows you're more invested in the topic than is healthy, and it colours your judgement. I don't know you but just with this ask i can tell you were in too deep girl. You don't know these people. And with the amount of shit that was put online on this topic, how can you reasonably trust that you're not deceived by either side?

What i'm saying is when a situation's very messy it's okay to a) examine whether this one topic is really that vital that it requires you to become an expert in it and figure out the truth at all cost even if you factually won't ever have all the details necessary to actually find out; b) once you've established you really can't live without having an opinion on this issue, step back, try not to get spiralled into examining all the details, but instead look at the situation from afar.

What do we know for sure about Depp and Heard?

A: Depp is one of the biggest and most powerful stars on the planet (especially before that whole shit show), and is older than Heard, who was barely known for a few roles here and there. Depp left his wife (already a younger woman) to get with this younger, sexier woman. They have a 23 years age gap.

B: Depp's team encouraged the misogyny that was thrown at Heard, which you recognise yourself. He's the one who wanted this public, filmed trial.

Knowing this. What interest should any woman have in defending him, whether he is a victim, an offender, or both? You are not a defence lawyer.

You need to look at things more politically and strategically. You need to look after your OWN interest first, not after those of celebrities who, whatever happens, should know better than to date women who are only old enough to be their daughters. Depp will be fine. Well, maybe he won't, but he's an alcoholic who was already having issues finding a job because of his behaviour on set, that has nothing to do with any woman he dates. He's an adult, it's his problem, not yours. And whether or not radfems were wrong to defend Heard, they were at least right to defend her from the assumption that all women who date older and richer men are secretly evil bitches manipulating them for their money. And serious journalists who picked up on the media manipulation the Depp side orchestrated were absolutely right to report it, because THAT is way, wayyy more important a topic, socially, than whether or not Johnny Depp is being hit or hitting his too young starlet girlfriend.

Edit: Also, you should stop worrying about being "cancelled". Say what the fuck you want, your opinion is worth just as much as anyone else's. If radblr isn't capable of handling disagreement over stuff like this, we aren't better than TRAs.