#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?

[esamastation]

Shizuroth, part twenty-two

Previous parts: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one

-

Professor Hojo is in the middle of an important experiment, when an overly excitable technician from the SOLDIER floors calls in to disturb him.

"Professor, I am very sorry for disturbing you, sir, but you need to see this!"

That is such an uninformative, insipid thing to say that Hojo mistakenly gives the man the benefit of the doubt and expects him to say more, to explain himself. When the man doesn't, he scoffs. "See what? Be more specific!"

"Yes, sir, sorry, sir - it's SOLDIER First Class, Sephiroth - he's in the training room."

Useless! "Sephiroth is often training, that is hardly anything to get excited over."

"Sir, by our estimation he's held a sustained Limit Break state for the past twenty-five minutes! And he isn't fighting!"

Hojo perks up at that. "Was he fighting when the Limit Break began?"

"No, sir, he's just, sort of… swinging his sword around? There's no enemy AI, he hasn't been in active combat at all!"

And yet he entered a Limit Break state? Sustaining it for twenty five minutes? Setting aside the utter incompetence of the tech for not calling him earlier, Hojo strokes his chin. Limit Break is caused by stress in life and death situations - a surge of strong emotions activates certain chemicals in the brain, which in turn push the body into a higher state of alertness and cause it to use all potential avenues for survival. It can increase a person's power output on all fronts, even doubling it - but only for a brief moment in time. Longer than that, and the muscle strain alone becomes detrimental.

It is a primitive instinct, a last ditch effort in the face of death, which Mako exposure has made slightly more commonplace in humans - and very commonplace in SOLDIERs. Mako acts as a natural stress trigger - and at the same time it acts as a well of power for SOLDIERs in Limit Break to use.

Much research had gone into intentional activation of the Limit Break state, with less than satisfactory results. If Sephiroth has figured out how to trigger the state outside combat…

"I'm on the way," Hojo says. "Do not tell him and do not let him leave."

"Yes, sir!" the overly excitable technician cries, and Hojo snaps his PHS shut.

As he strides to the elevator, Hojo considers the reports he had gotten, of Sephiroth's unusual activity in the last two days. Request for time off, unusual purchases, shopping trip with Hollander's failed project… coping mechanisms, he'd thought with disappointment. Sephiroth had dealt with the incident with a disheartening show of what could only be called mental weakness, striving for some semblance of control by spending money on frivolity. 

But though an unusual reaction from Sephiroth, Hojo has seen worse, and so he'd been satisfied letting it slide, for now. If the usual behaviour continues it might require correcting, but only if it affects overall performance, and results are still pending. Further observation is needed.

The elevator carries him down to the SOLDIER floor, and he finds it unpleasantly busy. There is a crowd in front of the training room, SOLDIER Seconds and Thirds vying for a view inside. They're almost all babbling amongst themselves.

"He never trains here - I thought the virtual scenarios were kinda beneath him."

Yes, Hojo thinks with some satisfaction, they usually are. Though Hojo had been thinking about adding to the programming, to bring the virtual training chamber up to actually usable standards, for now it has very little to offer for someone like Sephiroth, a truly superior specimen.

"Do you think they're recording him? Do you think we'll get to see the recordings?!"

A very worthy thought, it's good to see there's some sense among the experimental subjects. There is much the lower ranks of SOLDIER could learn from Sephiroth.

"Did you see what he was wearing?" 

Bah. "Will all of you move!" Professor Hojo says, irritated now, and watches with a displeased curl of his mouth as the SOLDIERs finally notice him. "You are in my way."

"Professor Hojo!"

"The professor is here!"

"How scary -"

"Sorry, Professor -"

Hojo waits until they've cleared the way, wondering if he should take a firmer hand in the program. Clearly standards have been slipping since the time he was directing the program personally. Sadly, he doesn't have time to manage grunts these days, there's much more valuable work to be done, but perhaps a message to Deusericus would set things to rights.

Something to deal with later.

Hands clasped behind his back, Hojo enters the training room observatory. The technicians both quickly rush to greet him, and he waves them off, walking up to the viewing window.

Sephiroth is performing Wutai sword forms, slowly moving between stances and attacks, with all the grace and precision Hojo has come to expect from him.

And he is, indeed, putting off enough energy for a Limit Break - even though the holographic setting, the glow around him is visible.

"What have you recorded?" Hojo asks, narrowing his eyes.

"Everything from the moment he entered, sir," the overeager technician tells him while the other one fumbles with a pad, handing over the latest printout. "His level is showing in the low fifties range!"

Low fifties? "Then he's not at Limit Break," Hojo scowls, scanning through the readings.

"But, sir, the signature glow -"

"Sephiroth's resting level is forty eight," Hojo says impatiently. "His Limit Breaks regularly go to the upper seventies and beyond. Whatever this is, it's not a Limit Break."

But it is most definitely something. The energy output of Sephiroth's little session started uneven and then slowly levelled out as he continued. It had even decreased, which normally would be cause for concern, but seeing the steady, regular energy output now…

Hojo smiles, feeling the beginnings of a giggle in his gut. 

Clearly, Sephiroth is figuring something out about himself and his enhancements. He has unlocked a new ability, a sixth sense, perhaps even a whole different way of controlling energy. Something he inherited from his mother, but wasn't yet able to use.

There is only one explanation. The incident in the lab has pushed Sephiroth forward. The excess Mako or the moment he was technically dead - one or both together had broken through a human limitation. 

The experiment has evolved.

-

Ick.

[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.

[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.

[tendersky]

hiii, do you have sources for the whole ao3 situation? where the volunteer didnt actually get kicked out for being pro palestine?

Sure! I'm getting all my information from the "official" sources that everyone is sharing, which is this tumblr post and this Google Doc. (I believe there's a "new year" Dreamwidth post that people also reference but I haven't read it so won't reference it).

First, a direct quote from the Tumblr post: "I left because I was horrified by the org and all of the racism they promised to work on but never ever did." -> didn't get kicked out, suspended, or anything from AO3, the user (Bjorn) voluntarily left the organization.

The rest of the screenshots from the Google doc are from a Slack channel you have to opt into about I/P, which is a place you are most likely to find Zionists.

I'll break down the conversation here.

Here's the first included warning:

I'm writing to you on behalf of Tag Wrangling Chairs due to a few serious issues which have been brought to our attention.  A number of volunteers have approached us, either privately or through VolCom, to convey concerns regarding your behaviour in the #x-politics-society-current-events and #x-politics-israel-palestine-events Slack channels.

Our Code of Conduct,, which you agreed to in our most recent Still Willing to Wrangle, requires that all volunteers maintain a level of civility when interacting with one another.  Specifically, "We never lose sight of everyone's right to be treated with dignity, compassion and respect."

The language and tone that you have been using do not convey compassion or respect toward your fellow volunteers.  For example, you accused a fellow volunteer of defending murder and war crimes, and have referred to another as a "fucking asshole".

We understand that this is an emotionally charged situation, and that with so much death and destruction happening, it is easy to misdirect the anger and helplessness you might feel.  However, to the best of our ability, we need to assume that our fellow volunteers are well-intentioned and speaking in good faith, and not devolve to insults or name-calling.

Please understand that should we receive additional complaints or note that you have continued to violate the Code of Conduct in your treatment of other volunteers, we Chairs may step in and remove you from certain social Slack channels, either temporarily or permanently depending on the number and nature of the complaint(s).  We hope that this will not be necessary.

--> so, they're being warned for not following the Code of Conduct, which includes being civil to other people. Nothing is said about "from the river to the sea". Bjorn brings up "from the river to the sea" unprompted in their response:

Additionally, if me saying "from the river to the sea" is supposedly against the Code of Conduct and grounds for repeatedly removing me from the channel, when other people are allowed to deny genocide and defend war crimes on perceived technicalities with explicit defense from the org, I believe that reflects extremely poorly on the org as a whole. If this sentiment continues to be upheld by supervisors, that is extremely concerning. Especially since I was reported and warned for accusing someone of supporting genocide, but people are allowed to accuse me of the same thing with support from other people in the channel.

It looks like two days passed before staff responded to Bjorn, and we get this quote:

Okay. To be very clear. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and to your beliefs, and we have zero issue with you expressing those opinions and beliefs in conversation so long as you do so while obeying both the letter and the spirit of the Code of Conduct.

Now, to the other side of this.  You have been removed from the room repeatedly within the past 24 hours for Code of Conduct violations as we told you might happen, and I am now going to go ahead and remove you from the room and ask that you do not return for one week while we discuss the room in general with the other chairs.

When we wrote to you two days ago, we specifically chose not to address your Slack status "Palestine will be free" with you even though several volunteers had mentioned to us that this phrase made them uncomfortable.  While the phrase did make some folks uncomfortable, it also wasn't obviously trying to be antagonistic.  We are not responsible for making sure everyone is comfortable all the time. It was an expression of your beliefs, and that wasn't an issue we felt was appropriate for us to address since it wasn't in and of itself a violation of the Code of Conduct.

So: Having your Slack status as "Palestine will be free" is not a violation of the Code of Conduct.

We go on with their response.

What is a violation of the Code of Conduct is that since we notified you that folks were having a hard time with your behaviour in that channel, the behaviour has gotten worse.  You've gotten into arguments repeatedly and called folks names; you've accused folks of defending murder. You've been abrasive and argumentative throughout your exchanges there.

Are you the only person who has done so? Clearly not. And you aren't the only person we've spoken to about this.  If it feels like you're being singled out, I'm very sorry for that, and you are correct that you are not the only one who has caused issues. However. We do not address the behavior of other volunteers with you the same way we do not address your behavior with them.

That said, when we let you know that others were uncomfortable, instead of discussing this with us or asking any questions, you gave us a dismissive "k", and instead began relentlessly posting articles to the room and occasionally leaving long tirades about your disgust for folks who do not agree with your specific point of view.  Within about an hour of our having spoken with you, you changed your status from "Palestine will be free" to "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free".  And this was after we let you know that you were making folks uncomfortable and specifically asked you to be more mindful of your language and not to lose sight of everyone's right to be treated with dignity, compassion, and respect.

Basically, 'we talked to you about the code of conduct violations, you continued to specifically provoke people with your Slack status, you know how it affects people'.

You have been involved in enough conversations over the last month about that particular phrase that you knew or should have known the impact it would have on other volunteers to see that in your status given its fraught and controversial history. You were also aware of the impact it would have to use it in the room, repeatedly.

We are a volunteer organization and the use of Slack is, at its core, a way for us to be able to communicate with each other more easily to do our work. The social aspects are absolutely a lovely bonus, but they are not the point. If you can not have civil exchanges in those spaces and respect your fellow volunteers enough to stop when they ask you to stop, we expect you to remove yourself from those spaces. Just as we expect of every single other volunteer on our committee.

So: removed from the specific channel for violating the Code of Conduct and deliberately provoking other people.

I also want to address another part of Bjorn's accusation, as seen in their response to staff here:

when other people are allowed to deny genocide and defend war crimes on perceived technicalities with explicit defense from the org

if there was any explicit defense from ao3 about this I would expect to see screenshots, which I don't see

We don't know if other people in the channel also got reprimanded from AO3, because Bjorn doesn't know.

I'd love to see a comprehensive investigation, possibly with undercover volunteers, into Ao3's zionism and racism. Unfortunately, I find this to be shoddy, sensationalist journalism. Something else that puts me off of this statement is that @end-otw-racism refused to promote/work with Bjorn on this because Bjorn refused to redact names from the screenshots in the Slack, opening up volunteers to potentially being doxxed. With the past CSAM attacks happening to AO3 volunteers, I find this extremely off-putting.

[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.

[thisislittlerunaway]

Right, maybe I’m just having my moment, but in this post I’m gonna rant because I am getting very, very sick of eating mouldy bread and crumbs at the waffle house nowadays 🤢. It is demoralising, is it not?

Firstly, please don’t attack me, I’m as much a hardcore shipper as you are, but undeniably my rationality never stops me from playing devil’s advocate. It has been vexing seeing the fandom going back and forth with theories just to keep the Lukola ship afloat amid the reality of L dating and N moving on from captaining the ship.

As much as I love Nic and Luke, I don’t plan to give up my grasp on reality to fool myself into delusion. I’m way too old and realistic for that, and by crossing over to delulu land I would be making what I believe real in my mind, rather than observing something real and appreciating it, which is how I believe I got into this fandom.

So far evidence has shown N & L seem to be very different people in terms of work ethics, career projection, choice of friends, attitude to fans and fame, and PR strategies among other things. Plus, as much as the fandom tries in its most creative ways to dismiss this, Luke does have an ‘alleged’ gf whom he takes seriously enough to bring with him almost everywhere, and who has somehow stuck around for almost a year. Say what you like but Luke’s actions don’t scream one-sided from A at all. And who is she to be so powerful to ‘force’ him into bringing her everywhere?

I ship Lukola, but I don’t NEED them to exist. If there really isn’t anything between them (ever, or anymore) apart from a good friendship, it is OK, I just want to know.

Promotion period is over. We have given S3 so much hype and this has resulted in amazing success and public recognition. Luke is still with A and seemingly distancing himself from the B’ton bubble, N has moved on to other projects, so why can’t they just release us from this rollercoaster of emotions by confirming once and for all that they are just friends. I bet some fans (like myself) will appreciate being freed from the misery.

The only possible reason I can think of to explain why we are stuck here in the WH with all this mess is perhaps when N & L were chosen as S3 leads, their contract got renewed and part of it requires them to drive this dating narrative for as long as they are cast members. It is likely Shondaland has learnt from previous seasons and QC how powerful fans can be when they wholeheartedly believe in a ship and decided to fully capitalize on this, not just for S3 but for as long as they can. Conveniently they have N & L who are very close and comfortable with each other, and the very hard working Nic who seems to have chemistry with everyone and understands how a fandom works way too well.

So, as per their contract, N & L cannot publicly claim any gf/bf, but of course neither Netflix nor Shondaland can stop them living their personal lives, or stop their friends and tabloids from digging into N and L’s private lives for publicity. I can imagine this to be suffocating, I wouldn’t be surprised if L did find it too much and just wanted to get away from it all as soon as possible, hence his behaviour since Part 2 premier. This is obviously bad for publicity and potentially upset N + Shonda who work super hard for B’ton and S3 to be a success. I suspect there is tension and disagreement behind the scene, and while they want to keep us believing in Lukola, they really can’t control Luke’s life. This explains all the mixed messages we are getting.

So now we have it, an awkward situation where our beloved find themselves damned if they do and damned if they don’t. So much conflict of interest, so strong also is the sentiment from fans who are ready for the next backlash in response to any upsetting news that no one wants to risk losing the support by officially busting the bubble.

Hence we are all stuck. Luke buried himself in the sand with HBS ver 2 and Nic buries herself in work. We are left starved, only barely kept alive when Netflix, Shondaland and some cast/crew occasionally drop some BTS and info to keep us interested.

This was never what I signed up for when I joined this fandom. I am frustrated, a bit heart broken, and getting more and more cynical each day. I am hanging dearly on to my seat in the waffle house but trust me, some days I wish I had never got here in the first place.

End of my rant, I’ll probably sulk a bit and get back here tomorrow to continue with all this shipping business 🤷🏻‍♀️.

Have a good day!

[grizzersmamma]

Son of Zmei | Fae AU | Nikto x F!Reader | Part 2.

Overview: Nikto confronts Mr. Petrov & Reader gets a visitor who drops some new information.

A/N: Second part babyyyyy! I’m on a roll now. Shorter than the last part, but the next one should be a bit longer. Continuation of my little Nikto fic based on the Fae AU by @ghouljams​

Warnings: Murder, Arson.

Series Masterlist: Here

CoD Masterlist: Here

Prev Part | Next Part

The man kneeling at Nikto’s feet is quivering like a leaf in the breeze, head pressed to the floor in a deeply exaggerated bow. It does little to quell the simmering rage that burns just under his skin, leaving him to huff out a plume of smoke in his agitation. Clearly, this pathetic excuse for a human doesn’t understand what kind of situation he’s in.  

“Mighty Zmei, forgive me for failing you,” the irritating cretin pleads, “allow me to try again, I can do better!”

He can’t help the growl that rumbles out of him, one of his lips curling to show off his pointed canine. “You offered a life, willingly given, in exchange for your own,” he hisses, starting to circle the human, “you think I cannot take a human if I desire one?” Petrov jumps at his sharp tone, mouth opening and closing silently.  

“O-Of course not, I-”

“You think I am a fool? You would try to deceive me? To break your word by offering the life of another who has not agreed?” His words get louder with each passing syllable, sharp teeth now on full display in a horrifying snarl.  

“Never, All Powerful Zmei! I could never hope to trick someone so wise!” the coward grovels, stinking of fear.  

The black shepherd dog snaps it’s jaws at the man’s face and the raven, perched on one of the chairs, caws angrily. The animals are growing restless at the clear disrespectful behaviour of the human, goading Nikto into action. “We have given you a chance to repay us, the deal is off.”  

It seems Petrov has some spine, for the man straightens, “merciful Zmei, to throw away the years of work I have dedicated to you, it would-it would be foolish!”

The heads of all three dark figures, man, bird and dog, all snap to glare at the human. “We are no fool!” their voices join together, speaking as one entity. Their bodies have begun to shift, twisted and drawing together, the lines between the three different creatures growing blurred. “We require your services no longer.”  

Minutes later, Nikto, the dog and the raven stand together in the street. They watch as the house belonging to Petrov burns steadily, flames casting dancing shadows across the nearby houses. The smoke does not bother them, nor the heat.  

Eventually, they turn to leave.  

The raven flies off ahead, while the man and dog walk. “Return to the female. She is oblivious, too fragile to be near so many Fae,” he spits the word in disgust.  

“Would such a weak creature be a suitable mate?” the dog replies, an exact copy of Nikto’s voice.  

He simply snorts, “we are strong enough for the two of us,” he says simply. The two part ways, Nikto to return to their home and the dog to return to his duty protecting their newest prize.  

When the sun rises, you wake with a large, furry body pressed up against you. It startles you, until you recall the events of yesterday. You had been exhausted after returning home, emotionally and physically drained from needing to walk so far back to your home after enduring such a terrifying encounter. The dog had refused to leave when you’d tried to shoo it away and, reluctantly, you decided to allow the canine into your home.  

It would be wrong for you to abandon the poor dog after it had followed you all the way back to your house. The man who owned him was a creep, but you couldn’t find it in you to leave an innocent dog out in the street where anything could happen to it.  

The dog in question wriggles about slightly to get comfortable, kicking you with big paws while whining loudly. Clearly, he was unhappy with you disturbing his rest, because he rolls over, putting his back to you with a rather dramatic sigh. It’s admittedly rather adorable, even if you don’t recall inviting the animal into your bed. The blanket you’d put on the floor for him is untouched, clearly not good enough for the massive ball of black fur.  

“You need to go home, buddy,” you mumble, stroking the animal’s silky fur. You know it’s not safe to have an unknown dog in your home at all, let alone sharing your bed, but you get the feeling you aren’t in any real danger.  

This thought is confirmed when the dog turns its head to try and nose at your fingers, offering them a small lick.  

When you finally gather the strength needed to get out of bed, the dog is more than happy to follow after you, hopping down from the mattress and onto the floor with a loud thump. It treks through the house, patiently watching while you complete your morning routine.  

You don’t have any dog food in the house, so you offer him some leftovers from your dinner a few nights ago after ensuring there isn’t anything poisonous to dogs in it. He doesn’t seem to mind the food, snapping it up at rapid speed.  

Not needing to be at work (and not planning on going back), you’re sitting comfortably on the living room couch, a warm drink in hand, while your canine companion takes up the rest of the couch. You had attempted to tell him not to climb on the cushions, not wanting dog hair shedding all over everything, but your words fell on deaf ears. So now, you sit on the furthermost cushion with the dog resting its huge head on your thigh.  

After a little bit of Googling on your phone, you believe you’ve figured out what breed the dog is. He’s huge and fluffy, clearly built for a cold climate and likely a livestock guardian dog of some kind. It took a while, but you managed to narrow it down to a Caucasian shepherd thanks to the abundance of pictures on Google Images.  

He’s sweet, but you’re not sure you’d be able to afford to feed such a huge dog, especially now you’re abandoning your job. It would be best for you to drop the dog off at the local vet. He’s probably microchipped, and if not, you’re sure they’ll be able to track the owner down. Such a huge dog is probably fairly memorable to someone who will know how to find his owner.  

You’re startled from your peaceful morning by a knocking at your door.  

The dog leaps to his feet, scampering to the front door with a snarl on his face. He starts barking, pacing back and forth. You’re a little anxious to try and get between the dog and the door, but he thankfully seems to back off once you draw close.  

When you pull the door open, you’re met by a police officer. “Good morning, miss,” the man seems anxious, glancing warily at the massive dog growling at him from behind you.  

“Hi,” you greet slowly, unsure, “is there something I can help you with?”

After confirming your identity, the man sighs softly, offering you a sympathetic smile, “I’m very sorry, but I’m here to inform you that your employer, Mister Petrov unfortunately passed away last night.” You blink at that, swallowing nervously, but the man must not notice, for he continues, “there was a fire at his apartment block.”  

“Oh... that’s horrible...” you’re not sure how to respond to that, stunned.  

Were you responsible for what happened? Was the strange, masked man, Nikto, responsible? A nervous sweat breaks out across your forehead.  

“A lawyer will be around shortly to discuss the assets afforded to you.”

“The assets?” you asks.  

“Ah, yes, it appears Mister Petrov left you some of his assets in his will, miss,” the officer smiles, oblivious to your internal battle. He offers you a brief farewell that you numbly return before leaving you once more to your own devices.  

The dog offers you a bark, nudging at your side when you continue to stare after the officer’s retreating form, snapping you out of your stupor. With a deep sigh, you step back into your home and close the door. You gently lean your head against the door, taking a moment to collect yourself.  

When you turn around, the dog is staring at you intensely.  

“What?” you ask him with a snort, as though he could actually respond to you.  

“You are a strange human,” the dog says.  

You faint on the spot.  

[punishing-eden]

Hello, I would like to request a headcannon regarding Lee and F!Commander who often accidentally see and equate Lee with a cat because of their behavior. I have a cat at home that behaves similarly to Lee, when chased it gets scared but slowly gets closer on its own. So I want to know how Lee would react if he came across this situation. Thank you very much for your time, have a nice day.

Author’s Notes:

WWWWWWWW… Is it the one in your pfp?! AYe, your cat is so cute!

Yes, Lee is a cat, and nothing will convince me otherwise!

-Punishing Eden

———————————————

I Also Got A Cat At Home, His Name is Lee...

Pgr Lee Headcanons

"Awww, they're so cute~" You commented as a cat was resting with her kittens. Watanabe ignored your comment and continue to care for the family of cats.

Among the five kitten, one has caught your attention. It was small, yet it radiates an standoffish energy. Whenever Watanabe tried to coax or touch it, the little kitten fought back and hissed to scold.

"He's a grumpy one..." Watanabe sighed, "... Just like someone over there..." He motioned at Lee who was busying looking at his control panel.

Tags: Lee, headcanons.

Lee (Palefire/Entropy)

It started out small, Lee noticed that sometimes you would stare at him. He initially, personally, don’t mind.

However, the more you observed him, the more your construct feels a little uncomfortable.

Uncomfortable as in: "Why are you looking at me like that?" he bluntly asked.

"Hm? Me? Oh, it’s nothing..." you said.

Your excuses and denial was meet with Lee's skepticism and suspicion.

As time went on, Lee noticed, you seem to treat him a little differently. You seem to be more... Lenient...or...maybe a little too affectionate.

You gave him trinkets and gifts. Sometime, you (unconsciously) teased him with snacks. But, he would give them all to Kamui.

Your behaviour puzzled Lee greatly.

"You have been acting strange lately, What are you up to?", "Commdant, please, my inner device is not a toy. Stop touching them.", "You do know we construct do not require food to function. These snacks prove no use for me.", "Commandant, what are you doing?", "If you don't need my help, I should get going.", "Stop being so childish.".

At one point, he would get fed up and confront you straight up:

"What are you doing? You have been treating me a little different lately. What is going on." he said.

"... What do you mean?" You were a little anxious from him calling you out. You tried to deny it.

But Lee was able to pressure you to confess. Thus, you finally cracked under the pressure.

"I just want to be closer to you..." you confessed.

Lee crossed his arms. He seems to understand where you were coming from, in a sense.

"You don't have to worry about me, [y/n]. I am fully capable of taking care of myself... But if you want to worry about someone, it should be you, yourself."

"But, don't worry... I will always be there for you, be it on missions or in the base." Lee spoke with professional tone.

"I know, but...you're a bit too aloof.... You know, like a cat." you said.

Lee.exe. Stopped working for 2 seconds.

He didn't seem to happy with what you said. He fully disagrees, and asked why would you think of him that way.

You told him your encounter of a family of cats during your mission with the Forsaken.

Watanabe taught you about how to deal with cats, and you thought it would be a good idea to exercise it on Lee.

Lee gets a little embarassed. He was embarassed to know that you have been seeing him as a cat all this time. Yet, he never caught on.

He holes up in his room after that. It took him a while to come back out.

Once he's out, made sure to put a little more effort into group activites, hoping you won't equate him to a grumpy cat again.

(C) Punishing Eden