#can't believe that I disagree with their reasons for gun control

[camelcasebestcase]

They changed Ripley's backstory in a way that makes her into one of those 'villains who have a great point but inexplicably kick puppies about it'. Sure, she's a foil and makes different choices from Percy after having a similar experience, setting her on a different path- but those different choices are not shown apart from the ones she made long after she already dived off into the deep end of villainy. I'm left with the impression that the difference is some inherent 'goodness' which is bleh. I like Percy having 'Noblesse Oblige' as a character flaw, but it could be explored a bit more as a flaw, you know?

[writtenbynath]

Can a hypnotist make you do things you don't want?

It's a complicated question and everyone always wants to ask it. In order to answer, you have to understand what hypnosis is and isn't.

It's not mind control. The hypnotized person doesn't accept everything the hypnotist says without question, and will not simply do whatever the hypnotist tells them. Following hypnotic suggestions is a skill that can be learned, and not everyone is good at it, which is why stage hypnotists spend so much time weeding and finding the talented people in the audience.

Hypnosis is a way to learn and quickly connect ideas together. You can learn to feel disgusted when you smell a cigarette. You can learn to connect happy thoughts to healthy food. You can learn to disconnect panic and anxiety from the things you fear.

An ethical hypnotist will tell you that you can always unlearn the things a hypnotist has taught you, and you can always refuse a suggestion. This is a skill that might require some practice, with the hypnotist or by yourself.

However, if a hypnotist plans on making you do something you don't really want to do, they may omit telling that you can refuse, or they may even tell you that you cannot refuse. Which is an idea you can connect in your head: hypnotist -> can't refuse.

Another thing an unethical hypnotist could do, is to make you forget things, or make you believe things that aren't true. He could try to make you believe he is your husband, and attempt to make love to you, for example. Or he could make you not feel anything, and then fondle you, and ask you to forget. He could make a trained soldier believe he is back on the battlefield and hand him a gun.

A really skeevy hypnotist I know would tell his subjects "I'm always right" which sounds ridiculous the first time you hear it, but if repeated enough times it becomes exceedingly difficult to disagree.

Whether these things actually work, depends on the skill of the hypnotist and the amount of trust and authority the subject believes the hypnotist has. Meeting a man on the street who hypnotizes you, is unlikely to be able to create the effects I describe above. But making several appointments with a trusted hypnotherapist might.

Fact is, too many people don't know that hypnosis is just a tool to quickly learn things. Too many people believe that hypnosis is some kind of mind control. And that belief strenghtens the hypnotists who might want to take advantage of others in their position.

Of course hypnokink can be consensual; it's a lot like rope in many respects. Once the scene has started, the bottom's ability to consent or revoke consent is impaired, so the top should stick very strictly to what was negotiated.

So, can a hypnotist make you do things you don't want? The truth is many people can make you do things you don't want. Your mother or your primary partner can probably make you do things you don't want. There are many social situations where people assume or coerce consent. Luckily, in most of those situations, the damage caused by ignoring consent is not very great. If someone in public touches your shoulder without your consent, the damage is minimal. The reason why we insist on clear, uncoerced consent in kink, is because we take risks that could cause far more damage than in vanilla life.

The risks when doing kink, can range from physical injuries to psychological trauma, including rape and death, because we don't just play with dangerous tools, but also with power dynamics, heplessness, humiliation and sex. No matter how many safety precautions we take, only you can judge whether you can still take more, and there are moments when that judgement is impaired, and we have to trust on our partner(s) or spotter(s) to make sure we'll be ok. When we are that vulnerable, that's when clear uncoerced consent really matters.

Clear consent means that your partner explicitly says that they want to do this with you. Talking about what you want to do together and how you want to do this, makes sure that there is clear consent. Sure, maybe, kinda, and ok are not clear enough, enthusiasm is much easier to understand than half-hearted responses. But uncoerced consent, that's where things become complicated.

We live in a society where saying No is difficult because it's so often considered rude, especially if there are power dynamics at play. So, clearly making it known that you do not consent to this, is sometimes considered rude. Then, there is also persuasion, being friendly and charming in the hopes of getting consent, social pressure from friends or spectators who expect you to consent, and the fuzzy head we can get during a scene. All of that can lead to coerced consent.

So, can a hypnotist make you do things you don't want? Yes. And so can a rope top. And so can your friends when they're trying to encourage you. The trick with kink is to be risk aware. To be aware when consent may be slightly coerced, or slightly unclear, and to check in. To give your partner the safety and the space needed to revoke consent, and to end the risky shit as soon as possible when consent is revoked.

The trick is to be constantly aware that your partner can end whatever you're doing together, to immediately comply with that when it happens, in order to minimise any damage, and to understand that is for the best.

[marshmallowprotection]

somebody on tiktok said saeran and yoosung have a breeding kink. thoughts?💀

I tend not to answer NSFT comments because my blog is safe for work. But, I will break my rule for a moment just to give you a basic response because I get so tired of that one.

I disagree with the notion that Saeran would have one. You're looking at a character with complex trauma, and his entire life was built up on the idea that his very birth was meant to benefit his Mother. He went on to admit in the game, if you tell him that you don't want to have a kid, that he is fully aware that he loves you most of all, and he is kind of anxious that he would put you before a child every time.

A lot of people who're child-free come to the conclusion that they don't want kids for similar reasons. There are many reasons, but one of the most important ones is knowing what you value and how you value it. Do you think you're the kind of person who wants to be with your partner and just them for the rest of your life? Do you know that you won't be able to apply the right amount of dedication and care to a young human that will one day be an adult?

It's not even about being able to afford raising child, though, that can be a factor for many people. There's also feeling morally conflicted in every sense of the word by bringing a child into this crumbling world and knowing that they might not have a future no matter how much love you give him. But, again, there's a multitude of reasons why one may choose to be child free.

Because, that's the thing, if you have a child, you have a young human that is one day going to be an adult. That journey is a hard one and that journey is for life once you make the decision to have a child. You need to mentally prepare yourself to put your kid first and think of them always, raising them with the knowledge that they have needs you need to think of as they experience the world for the first time and learn how to exist as a person.

This information has nothing to do with someone having a kink, but I do think when you think about Saeran's trauma, the way he owns up to the thought that he's nervous about the idea of a family, and how readily he communicates that fact, I just can't see him having that as a kink.

The idea of lording control of another person and taunting them by saying you'll make sure they have a kid and can't escape you just isn't it for him. Even in the confines of consensual intercourse. It just feels like his parents, and that's the last thing he wants to feel. His mother purposefully went after his father with the intent of trying to tie him down for money, that's my own assumption, and while I don't think she attempted to have a family with him before tying him down in a marriage first, the fact that she inevitably would've tried that with his father...

It's another reason why I can't see Saeran being turned on at the thought of pretend baby-making. There's just so many reason why I'm not going to believe he has this interest. There are definitely other things he's interested in, but this one and hell, I don't want to see any more people drawing Saeran tied and bound. Stop doing that by the way. Unknown doesn't even do that to MC, and he tends to be most guilty of having fanart drawn this way. That ain't a kink for him and I implore y'all to not, LOL.

I'm going to be honest, even Saeyoung, who wants to be a father by his own admission, arguably, likely doesn't have this kink, either. I'm just saying, I don't think their trauma would make them comfortable with the idea of this particular kink. I suppose someone might could argue for Saeyoung if he's in a world where he doesn't have a gun at his back from a million different sources, but even then, I just don't see it.

As far as Yoosung goes, there's nothing there as far as trauma goes to push him one way or the other, so hey, if that's what you want him to be into when you're fantasizing, who am I to stop you, LOL. After all, I am just one person with an opinion, and even with what I've said, the fact remains that you can imagine whatever you want because this is fandom and my thoughts don't have to align with your thoughts.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Steve QJ

Published: May 6, 2024

A child’s first taste of power comes from their imagination. 

In the real world, they can't choose their bedtime or operate heavy machinery or eat unlimited ice cream. But in imagination-land, they can host dinner parties and perform lavish makeovers and pilot rockets into outer space. 

And best of all, they discover, they can make the grownups play along! 

We know there’s no tea in the teacups, we know their spaceships are made from cardboard, we know they lack the fine motor skills and colour palette knowledge to make us look beautiful, but we'll still drink their imaginary tea and swoon at their artlessly applied makeup and join them on their imaginary adventures.

Heck we’ll even fire schoolteachers for telling kids that Santa isn’t real.

We instinctively want children to enjoy a world where they get to make the rules. At least for a while. Because one day, inevitably, they'll have to grow up. 

Sadly, by the time kids get to college, imagination-land doesn’t offer much power. But as some students are figuring out, there’s an alternative.

After all, in the real world, kids don't decide whether they pass or fail or set U.S. foreign policy or control their college's investment practices.

But in protest land, you can demand a passing grade because the havoc you’re causing on campus has left you “unable to focus.” You can command their college president to “fold to [your] demands.” You can even dictate where your fellow students can and can't go. 

And best of all, if anyone refuses to play along, you can make imaginary allegations. 

Students who disagree with you become “agitators,” and “stochastic terrorists,” the hand-delivered catering you’re demanding from your I’ve-League college becomes “humanitarian aid,” the students who are practising their equally legitimate right to protest are “waving bananas around like settlers waving machine guns.”

As long as you’re shameless enough to say it with a straight face, hyperbole and disingenuousness can also be paths to power. 

The problem is, how does any of this bullying and dishonesty stop a single bomb from killing children in Gaza or a single bullet from killing innocent people in the West Bank? How does it free the hostages? How serious are these kids about the cause they claim to be fighting for?

And a little over a week ago, we got our answer.

Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish scholar who’s been supporting the Palestinian cause since before these students were born, suggested that they drop, or at least change, their infamous chant, “From the river to the sea.” 

He argued that slogans like these can easily be interpreted as a call for Israel's destruction instead of for Palestinian independence. And with the eyes of the world watching, with the lives of the Palestinian people at stake, this small change could make a meaningful difference:

...if you’re saying to me I’m a killjoy by saying that if we modify the slogan a little it’s not as much fun, I kind of get that. However, I do believe one has to exercise, […] if for no other reason than for the people of Gaza, one has to exercise maximum responsibility.  Maximum responsibility to get out of one’s navel, to crawl out of one’s ego, and to always keep in mind the question, ‘what are we trying to accomplish at this particular moment?’

And here, at last, the students showed what they were made of. They put their egos aside, chose meaningful discourse over a “fun” slogan, and agreed to speak in a way that would bring people together instead of driving them apart.

Just kidding.

Finkelstein barely had time to finish speaking before they started chanting, “From the river to the sea.” 

Maybe it’s that same instinct to humour childrens' efforts, but there’s this notion that all activism is "valid." 

That every political issue can be reduced to a battle between good and evil. That it’s mean, or worse, boomer-esque, to ask how a specific plan of activism will led to results.

And so we end up with activists who never learn to think beyond "tearing it all down," as a student at UCLA explains:

…it’s more than divestment […] given that the University of California is founded on colonialism, it’s inherently a violent institution. There needs to be an addressment (sic) of U.S. imperialism and its ties to the UC system…

But to be very clear, I don’t blame the protestors for this. 

It’s the grownups’ job to set boundaries and structure. To help children think about the world in nuanced and constructive terms. To show them, preferably by example, that there’s a better way to communicate than name-calling and absolutism.

Because, sure, it’s fun to yell and grandstand and chant edgy slogans. It's empowering to turn complex issues into your hero’s journey. It's tempting to claim that everybody who disagrees with you is cruel and stupid and out of touch.

But one day, if you want to make the world a better place, you have to grow up.

==

They're stupid children playing dress-ups and make-believe to satisfy their own need to feel important.

[lesbianwyllravengard]

Alrighty here’s mah lil ranty rant (But long, many apologies I dunno how I could shorten it)

Let’s start with Ada bc mommy- I mean mommy- I mean- (/j)

Ada Wong:

-So I see a lot of people trash Ada for the fact her personality seems to be more cold. She has distant she’s cruel (although she still seems to have lines she won’t cross, like with Wesker and the Las Plagas sample). I see people complain about that but I would like to make a hot take, here: it’s actually better. She’s a mercenary. She’s a gun for hire- her job has to be cold because she could be betraying her friends at any given second. In the older games, she was sort of just… I don’t know… A bit too human for the job, and the role in the story that she is meant to fill. I see people describing her as a Bella, and honestly, I strongly disagree. In fact, I would argue that the original was more of a Bella then the remakes. This is because all she was really there is for the generic “Ooh look pretty woman, bad ass eye candy” trope. I’m not saying that she didn’t have any depth as a character- I’m just saying that the remake gave her much more credit as a character, and made her much more interesting.

all right, moving onto the old man. (#1 Wesker hater over here I’m sorry I’m not sorry lol)

Albert Wesker:

-I know that I hate this guy, but even I have to appreciate that out of quite a few of the Weskers that have been made, this version is just better written. I see people complain that he is too angry and honestly, I disagree. The fact that he has a hidden anger, makes sense from a character perspective. And he’s getting increasingly more cheesed off at Spencer for obvious reasons. No wonder he’s pissed. Personally, I think the fact that they’re showing that he has emotions- he’s just learned to control them- is honestly much more compelling. I still hate the guy, but I can see where he’s coming from- in a twisted and a messed up way.

yeah. That’s it l. that’s all I got for him. I don’t really like him that much so he doesn’t deserve a whole essay like Ada imo. (Still like his character, though he’s very interesting.)

that’s my rant. Thanks for hearing me out -> I know this was ridiculously long. That’s why I asked permission first. I basically just wrote an entire essay in your asks and I am so sorry lmao

hjadsg no need to apologise. I may have to contest you for #1 wesker hater tho,,, 👀 I hate his guts too

BUT you're absolutely right the DLC added so much depth to their characters. and personally made wesker MORE hate-able to me personally because we just further see how messed up he is, to the point where even Ada - who has had to numb herself to the details of the job to survive - had visible negative reactions to his genocidal nonsense. I loved Lily's performance in the base game but she especially got to shine in the DLC, she absolutely nailed the cold look with emotion hidden underneath. Ada's cold exterior is her armour against her own emotions, she can't take a second to feel as that could be the second she dies, she doesn't have the luxury of emotional vulnerability; even though she does feel, she does care, she cannot afford to let herself. And little things like eye movements, lip twitches, subtle body language, and her inflections were all techniques Lily used to portray that tumultuous relationship between Ada and her feelings, and Lily did fucking amazing at it. Best Ada performance ever. Ada's never been allowed that depth before because she's always had to be palatable to the male audience :) so I'm glad she's finally getting it. And Wesker finally feels like a real villain, rather than just another power hungry white guy (which, he very much is, but now there's depth to it lol). Wesker's dialogue in the DLC is scary, and it makes the audience more aware of what exactly he believes and what his motives are. This DLC added so much to the base game that really drives it as my favourite RE game.

[monorayjak]

Notice - So, I've been going through blogs I follow on here... and it turns out some people I follow are... not who I thought they were when I followed them. I figure at least one of those could potentially be a mutual. So, just to get it out in the open (keeping in mind these are USA centric):

Elon Musk is a fucking crybaby idiot. If you think that man deserves an ounce of my respect, get out.

Bernie Sanders may not be a perfect man, but he's fucking better than most other options the US has had in the recent past.

Trans rights are human rights; trans women are women; trans men are men.

Minimum wage needs to be higher.

Billionaires need to be taxed.

Everyone deserves housing.

Everyone deserves medical care.

Everyone deserves food.

Capitalism is a shit-show.

99% of republicans are utter assholes/idiots (the 1% is basically just that republican guy who voted in favor or trans care. He at least has earned the right to not be grouped with the rest.)

Fascism is BAD.

Actually, no, fuck that, FASCISM IS UTTER TRASH AND IS BAD.

Queer people deserve rights.

Disabled people deserve rights.

Greta Thunberg may not be perfect (I don't really follow her honestly), but she doesn't deserve people to shit on her because she voices concern for the future.

Cars are something that we are forced to own. Hopefully someday in the future people can exist without needing to own one to live.

Global Warming is A FUCKING ISSUE.

Women should have bodily autonomy. (Yes, this includes abortions).

America IS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. It is a country where christianity has been a dominant religion, but it is not one that is defined using christianity.

Black Lives Matter.

All Cops Are Bastards.

Trump is a fucking moron, traitor, monster, and several hundred other things.

Gun control reform is needed.

Decriminalize drug use, because, believe it or not, most people who use drugs are using them for a reason; sometimes that reason is "get away from the shit world we live in." And as long as this world is that shit, we shouldn't punish people for trying to find escapes, no matter how much we disagree with the method they use. (In other words: Don't punish people for trying to dull the pain of the world. Help them deal with that pain.) Also turns out a lot of people who are addicted to said drugs, DON'T WANT TO BE ADDICTED. They just can't get help because if they do they end up in jail. Humans deserve compassion. Humans make mistakes. People deserve help.

Racism is bad.

Sexism is bad.

Cis, cisgender, and similar ARE NOT SLURS.

We seriously need prison reform.

Critical Race Theory is not evil or bad.

DeSantis is a fucking idiot.

Vaccines are not evil. They help.

Do not sexualize children.

Sex work is work.

Teach adequate sex ed in schools.

The school system here is kind of a pile of shit and needs serious work.

[angel-is-not-creative]

Psycho-Pass (14-17)

OMG THEY KILLED HIM 😭😭 I'm never going to recover from this loss, everyone leave an F in the chat for Kagari 😢.

Anyways on to the actual review, I do want to start by saying I recommend watching episode 11 because it is one of my favorites and I think it establishes a lot of different ideas.

The main thing I want to talk about is Tsunemori's inability to kill without the dominator. This is shown first in episode 11 and again in episode 16 with Makishima. If Tsunemori was in the exact same position and the dominator turned to lethal mode, she would have had little issue pulling the trigger and killing him. However, since the dominator is unable to detect his crime coefficient correctly, she refuses to kill him.

This is in direct opposition to what Kogami says in the first batch of episodes, he is aware that he is the one doing the killing, not the dominator. Tsunemori is unable to see it this way and sees the dominator as a method of carrying out Sybil's ideals, and without Sybil's guidance, she is unable to kill.

She knows full well that this man is a criminal and by all walks of logic he should have a high crime coefficient and that the dominator should be going into lethal mode. Yet, she is unable to kill herself and lets an innocent person die. Even after Kogami tells her to kill him, she brings him into custody. This is not because she believes he is innocent like the victim in episode 2, but because she is unable to live with the blood on her hands. Killing with a gun would be fulfilling her own ideals and not Sybil's, she has no authority to decide who gets to live or die.

Another thing I want to mention from the episodes in between is when we get to see the rehabilitation centers. We can very clearly see that these are not actually meant for rehabilitation, and for the most part, turn people into latent criminals, cause their psycho-pass to get foggier, and even result in people going crazy/killing themselves from the isolation. The point of these centers is to get control of these people that they already believe are going to become criminals and hold onto them until their coefficient is high enough that they can justify killing them.

The craziest thing we learn is that the Sybil system is really not an objective computer-based system, but rather the collective ideals of the "smartest" individuals in the country. Making this a system full of personal bias and led by power-hungry individuals. It makes their society no better than ours, a group of people determining people's likelihood to commit crimes. It is nothing more than surveillance and profiling from objectively intelligent people. There is a reason that this cannot get out to the public, no one would trust the system anymore.

However, people are already starting to doubt the system. When it comes to things like this, the worst criminals will always find a way to work around the system, they will always find a way to commit the violent crimes they fantasize about. Then innocent people get roped in, turning into violent murderers in attempts to keep others safe. This turns into a neverending cycle of violence that can't be stopped until the loophole is removed.

With this kind of system, there are inevitably going to be people who oppose it, and there are always going to be people who will result to anything to dismantle the system. Obviously, the problem here is not disagreeing with the Sybil system, but rather inflicting violence on innocent people in order to get this point across. Yet, is it possible to have anarchy without violence? Can you completely rewrite a system like this without hurting people? Probably not, without a collective agreement, this is likely the only way the Sybil system would be brought down.

I also think there's something to be said about how punishment is often the only thing keeping people from doing things. Rather than morals or personal ideals keeping a person in line, it is fear doing this. Once they found a workaround, so many people jumped at the opportunity to begin killing. Even those who may have thought they were doing it for a just cause (killing criminals is okay as that is what Sybil does, this is what Sybil would have done had the dominators been working, which is completely opposite to the idea Tsunemori had) they are still equally guilty. Sometimes, fear of punishment is the only thing keeping people from hurting others.

I'm gonna stop rambling now but I just want to say justice for my girl Yayoi because she is literally labeled a latent criminal for literally just playing music!! Free her! Also, they're canonically dating so everyone clap!

[phantomspren]

I was just going to put this in tags but I'll put it here.

This is why I'm uncomfortable when people make sweeping generalizations about conservatives/Republicans.

On a fundamental level, I do disagree with the political beliefs that lead people to holding those labels.

But at the same time, there's such a huge difference between someone who is Republican because they think that we should have lower taxes, and someone who is Republican because they think rich white men are the only people worthy of rights.

When we make those blanket statements of "every Republican is racist" or whatever, we're making it less likely that those people are going to do stuff like this. Often it leads to people doubling down on their beliefs, even if they are inherently harmful.

You also have people like my mom. She is a registered Republican, born and raised in Idaho, super super Mormon.

She's a registered Republican because she thinks that society should be built to promote the family and help families thrive.

But she also supports universal healthcare.

I tell her all the things I think are cool about Harris and Walz and she's always like "wow, yeah, that is really cool!"

She's a high school teacher and because of that now supports gun control.

She doesn't give a shit that I'm aroace. (Haven't talked about gender stuff but I'd feel pretty comfortable bringing it up at this point to be honest.)

The thing is that the public/left awareness of the Republican party has shifted, following the people who are in power. Because those in power are getting more extreme.

There are people who have always held really extreme right-wing beliefs.

There are people like many who are voting for Trump who used to be less extreme, but have followed those in positions in power in gradually making their views more extreme.

There are those like my mom and dad who have some not great but far more reasonable beliefs who feel like the Republican party no longer represent them.

It's important to talk about those problematic beliefs that people like my parents hold, but at the end of the day they are genuinely good people. They've got internalized racism and homophobia and misogyny just like everyone else, but they're still good people.

Honestly even most hardcore Trump supporters are good people. (My grandparents voted for him! They're some of the kindest people I know!)

But if we just throw everyone under the label of "Republican" and then assume that includes things like homophobe, white supremacist, etc, you're going to end up with a lot of people who don't want to get behind what you're behind.

It's so much better, in my experience, to build a report, built trust, try to genuinely understand where the other person is coming from. I've talked to my Trump voting grandparents about trans people and they listened to me. I may not have changed their minds, but they have at least seen that other side from someone they respect.

That's going to go a whole lot more good in the long run than just calling them Republican and never talking to them again.

Of course there's more nuance than this, and if someone has like genuine beliefs that. Really really not great. Dump their ass. It's not worth it. There's a difference between someone who's a white supremacist because that's what they deeply believe, and someone who's just parroting what they saw elsewhere. The later deserve time and understanding, because they have the potential to turn into the former but aren't there yet.

And of course there are people like my mom. If she took a political compass quiz it would tell her she's liberal, hands down. Still a registered Republican.

Anyways, these are thoughts I've had for a bit and maybe I'll write something later that's a bit more planned out. Hope that makes sense.

And there's just a ton of nuance here that I can't get into because I've almost hit my time limit on Tumblr and I need to go take an exam. Plus it's dumb to expect me to elaborate on every possible way this could be misinterpreted. Just assume I kinda know what I'm talking about please, unless I accidentally said something blatantly incorrect. O7

Please vote tomorrow.

Be compassionate.

Imagine those around you complexly.

Think about my mom. :p

Have a cat picture for the road.

i'm a huge fan of Republicans, conservatives or however you want to be politically labeled choosing country over party. please let me see more stories. it's a brave thing to do this. even if you voted for him in both 2016 & 2020 but you changed your mind now, WELCOME. it's a massive deal to get out of any cult successfully & MAGA is no different. being filled with anger & hatred, & fear is intoxicating & honestly easier than choosing to do the right thing. i'm glad you saw the light.

check your registration status often & don't stop talking about Project 2025. they can pretend they're distancing themselves from it as much as they want but it's absolutely their policy. we can do this though if we just show up & VOTE. we got this 💙

[libertarian-druid-ny-separatist]

It's insane to me that some anime icon having weirdo, who's now blocked me, can accuse me of being someone else (for legalities sake I am New here) and make up something I didnt say, and then a swarm of rightoids can come out of the woodwork with anon hate again. At least you're being reasonable...

But no, your situation doesn't give more weight to anything cause anecdotes are rarely useful or relevant when giving ones opinions on public policy, especially regarding ones rights to ones own body and pregnancy from you, a man. Framing removing a brainless clump of cells as "murder" is pretty christian, to my mind, at least culturally anyway. Since most people who study the human body don't consider it murder. But thats neither here or there rn.

originally, I was speaking to a maga delulu cultist, who finds it ok to force other women to have children against their will, but shrieked and started a whole stink when I said that they should face the circumstances they so easily and casually were willing to force, legislatively, on others. Hypocrisy. From christians? par for the course, lol.

If I had been arguing at the time with someone against say, what I consider common sense gun control, I would have said "I hope you have to live through a shooting event that makes you reconsider". Or on a different track- I would hope some anti-public transit person, Id wish them nothing but traffic and exhaust fumes, because the empathy free dont realize they could be wrong or change their minds until something effects them personally.

And Im not offended when someone says to me "I hope your support for democratic socialism gets you (insert rightoid holocaust fantasy about evil denmark style socialism)" because I understand thats just words on a screen, not a "wish" or a "threat" lol. Could my wording have been better originally? Probably? Who knows or cares though?

This is only still going on cause some rightoids and neonazis keep bringing it up so they can pretend to be offended by me, as fascists do, to ignore reality. And also to pretend to defend a white chick and her virtue against a mouthy jew who sources stuff. Its all clownery and mostly from maga cultists 😂.

I can appreciate you being reasonable about it though, which is why I bothered to reply at all. Sorry for the rambling.

Okay, this is a long one, so I'm gonna kinda break it up a bit for ease of reading.

Thank you for being reasonable in return, just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be civil, which is a thought process I wish both sides of the aisle would be more open to. There are admittedly people on both sides that agree with that sentiment, but not nearly enough.

My point is that it's still a life, snuffing out innocent life will always be murder to me, whether it's a year old, a decade old, a century old, or a second old. Every life has inherent value so long as it retains innocence. I appreciate the honesty in saying that it's because I'm a man and that your original points about rape and Christianity were more or less just repeating talking points (I know that's going to come off as sarcasm, but I assure you it isn't).

I don't tend to care much for the religious portion of the issue, if you're having unprotected sex, there can be consequences. One of those consequences can be impregnation. I can agree that being forced to carry the child of your rapist is wrong, I don't believe it should be forced, so much as deregulation of adoption so that abortion isn't the go-to solution. I think you can probably agree that despite the circumstances, the child is still innocent of their father's crimes. So while I wouldn't force it upon anyone, I would say it would be wrong to end a pregnancy, and continue to disagree with that portion of the decision. If being brainless is what makes it okay to you, then it stands to reason that upon the third gestational week, abortion should be off the table, as that's when brain tissue begins to develop. If not, feel free to correct me.

Yeah, I can agree that the phrasing could have been better, it comes off like you're wishing pro-life people would get raped in the post. And honestly, the modification to the scenarios you present isn't much better. But it also doesn't help the situation that I'm in full support of all natural rights, self defense being one of those. I actually offer to teach anyone how to shoot in a defensive manner, especially my Romani "family" and Jewish folks given the situations regarding those groups internationally and here in the US. That said, if you're more comfortable having to look your attacker in the eye while bludgeoning or stabbing them in defense, then more power to you, I can almost relate. As far as public transit goes, I support opening the market to private competition, partially to lower costs and partially to improve the services. I'd also avoid calling them "empathy free" just because they disagree. I assure you, in most cases, they're not sociopaths.

My issues with socialism arise from family history, and how many times socialist economies have failed/converted to capitalist ones. While it makes tyranny an easier goal to achieve, that's less of an inherent worry for me than the fact that it seems to fail so often. I'd hope you'd consider that it's largely only a good system on paper given how things actually work, but your views are yours to hold, and possibly change, on your own.

Can you honestly say that the people arguing against (what they view as) murder (to which you disagree) are fascists though? Is it possible that they simply don't want to have a society in which the murder of children is acceptable? I don't think the government should regulate it, so much as it should be deregulating alternatives such as adoption. If an adoptive parent wants to help take care of the child as it is developing in the womb, and then raise said child, I see no harm in that. However, there is already a wait list for adoptions, and not really much going into helping to shorten that wait. If the government should be doing anything that would actively use tax dollars, it should go towards helping out adoptions and adoptees. As someone who was adopted (I know, I've got a whole lot of skin in this) it generally works out for the best for all involved parties. That said, I understand that "generally" is different than "always" and the concern some have if it's not something with a 100% success rate. Most folks are a lot less willing to take risks than they were 20, 30, 50 years ago.

If you're interested in continuing the conversation, or if I skipped something you feel is relevant, my dms are open, asks are open, and of course, reblogs will remain available.

I ask that you use reblogs if any are applicable, but won't demand it. Just helps to keep things organized.

[fishy-xp]

"kissing is for people we like only" (1/2)

in which pete loves and vegas lusts

so a lot of people think that the vegaspete dynamic is interesting because they are in fact polar opposites of each other, but in ways that they make up for what the other lacks. that they are two sides of the same coin. i also think this, particularly in the way vegas and pete approach love, lust and intimacy.

pete loves unconditionally and pete loves hard. pete will do anything for the people he loves and it doesn't take much for pete to get attached. take his relationship with porsche. pete is very much a giver in that relationship - pete shares grandma's cooking with porsche, he guides porsche around and tells him about the main family, he comforted porsche after the whole dub-con thing, he gives porsche defensive tips when porsche was getting 'punished' by kinn (oh you dumb sweet boy). now i'm not saying porsche does nothing in return, but they don't show porsche reciprocating this kind of care, comfort and advice that pete gives. so from the audience perspective, porsche hasn't done anything of substance to gain pete's trust and loyalty. hell, they even pointed guns at each other and had a little dungeon dalliance. yet pete knows porsche is a good person and trusts him so much to the point he asks to be sent on a suicide mission. he knows the consequences if he gets caught and he's completely willing to go through a painful, slow, tortourous death for porsche.

pete himself is incredibly strong and capable. his mentality and physicality is nothing to underestimate as proven by the way he handles vegas' torture and the many times he's kicked ass. but when it comes to people pete loves and cares about, his resolve disappears. as soon as vegas brings up his grandmother, pete breaks - "i give up vegas. i give up." pete loving people to the end of the earth is not a weakness, it only proves his strength, that yes he can find something in the worst people, in vegas, and he can find empathy and love for someone absolutely no one else can - "everyone has good and bad parts" - pete can see both parts of vegas when others don't even try, they just think it's non-existent.

here's where i think a lot of people are going to disagree, but pete is naive and innocent, especially when it comes to love. but this may be by choice. pete, who sees the world in shades of grey and doesn't believe in heroes or villains, believes in love as something pure and uncorruptable. he believes in this whole heartedly because maybe that gives him some sort of hope in this world he's come to know (the abusive family life and the underworld of the mafia). love is something he can control, it is his to give out and it is something valuable to pete. intimacy, touch, kissing, pete finds these things precious and pure. it gives him a sense of good amongst the bad. this is why he aims to spread more smiles than tears, if he can love, then he can ignore the pain. pete thinks the same for vegas too, and this is why when he's reading the blood type book he tells vegas "you need love", why he reinforces that vegas has macau "who loves you very much" (quote from the book and frankly, i'm livid they didn't make pete say that line but made him say the first half, also more macau character study coming up soon hohoo) because truly, deeply, pete believes in the power of love. perhaps that's why, despite being porsche's best friend, he was completely oblivious to kinn and porsche. pete only knew porsche was being punished, and he has seen kinn be mean to porsche, so the thought they were in a relationship or had something brewing amongst them didn't cross his mind at all because how could they have feelings together when kinn is mean? pete can't believe love is anything other than perfect because then he would have no reason to believe in the good along with the bad.

pete probably thinks his first time and virginity should be precious and 'right'.

but vegas doesn't, he doesn't even remember when his first was.

(p.s. i'd like to clarify that i am not saying either of those above perceptions about losing your virginity in a negative way, either perspective is completely valid and no one should be shamed for how they perceive their sexual autonomy!)

Vegas (2/2)

[love-your-stance]

TAEMIN

This has been on my mind for a while and it's now time to get it off of my chest.

It breaks my heart that due to his being harassed and under stress while in regular service, for his protection, he needed to be placed in the public sector to complete his military service while he went under medical attention for the extreme mental stress he suffered from other enlistee's who would not leave him alone to just serve his time the same as any other soldier.

But on top of that, he's been made to stay in service yet another six months more than other enlistees, because he's doing his time in the public sector. Basically, being punished for being harassed in an environment unnatural to him, that does not protect him while he is expected to protect his country.

Why do I feel this way?

It's already hard enough for a performer to be ripped out of their life which relies on the public for 18 months to get back to it once they've fulfilled their commitment, but TWO YEARS? I wonder how his record label sees this, and his other band members who have no choice but to pursue solo projects and hope when he comes out - he's still going to keep the group's cohesion by still performing with still them. (SUPER M - SHINee)

If TAEMIN were someone who had a regular 9-5 job, I'd understand his country choosing to ask more time from him, but TAEMIN is not. He was a solo performer, who also worked with not one but TWO other bands producing high-end memorable music and bringing recognition to South Korea - attracting tourism. Perhaps not to the extent of our world-famous BTS, but his name is still recognized worldwide by anyone who listens to Asian music, and he's undoubtedly contributed to South Korea's economic bottom line.

It concerns me that very few artists - even though they make more than a decent footprint in their culture's tourism economy, will not be recognized for what they contribute in comparison to the regular person.

There will probably be many who disagree with my opinion, but I don't feel that people that are in the public eye are provided the respect they deserve. It's not recognized that they have needs that are unique in comparison to others who are not consistently in the public eye - who are not famous. his experience proves this.

I completely understand the importance of countries being prepared for the chance of war, and I know that the only way to be ready is to train your population, but I also believe that those that already provide some economic stability to their country's well-being, should be protected reasonably and not be punished when their regiments cannot keep their soldiers under control.

I also feel that if a country can see that an artist notably contributes to their economic health - they should be considered as 'serving' because serving a country can be done in more ways than carrying a gun. (You need money to run a war. Tourism & the sale of merchandise brings That money into the country.)

Rather than forcing TAEMIN to serve an additional six months, I believe His government needs to measure the influence of Actors and singers, differently, and consider the impact...influence they hold.

My biggest fear is that he's gone through a lot that was not his own fault. I worry about how this will impact on him once he's finally released from his service obligations.

How will it impact his music ( good or bad...)

Will he feel he can't get back out there and perform as he used to.

If he can't - we can pretty well count on who won't take ownership for that - He'll be expected to deal with his issues on his own - or his label will. How tragic if his career suffers due to his military commitments.

Ok.. this post was going to be my TAEMIN Playlist but I will drop that in another post shortly.

What are your thoughts on TAEMIN'S extended service?

[tuttle-did-it]

Hard disagree.

Larry Linville left specifically because he (and the writers and show runners) felt the character could NOT and should not ever become more fleshed out.

He was an archetype, an absurdity-- a symbol of the sadistic, erratic, greedy, malicious, malignant, bigoted, criminally incompetent US military (and US government). He was a symbol of the war they were fighting against, and so they could never fix him because they were still in the war.

He was a physical manifestation of everything they were surrounded by.

The point of Frank Burns was that he had a tiny kernel of potential to turn into a decent human, but with every opportunity he had, he refused it. Every chance he could be an empathetic, sympathetic, kind, sane, reasonable human, he refused.

Because there are humans like that. Look at the people in our governments. They are people like Frank Burns everywhere. Bosses at work. Their bosses. The white woman who votes for a rapist convicted criminal to be president, knowing her daughter’s autonomy is being stripped back to the 1950s. Your church-going neighbour with a MAGA hat cheering for a ‘United Reich.’ The TERF "feminist ally" who argues for white feminism. The "pro-life" military sergeant who votes to defund children getting food at school and removing gun control laws so children can be shot in schools. The doctor who asks you why you can't just be happy being the gender you were assigned to. The "loving" parent who asks "what they did wrong" to "make their child gay" before sending them to a church-run conversion "therapy" camp. The corrupt judges who give a Black child life in prison for being a witness against cops who beat him, and gives a white teenager who shoots up a fucking school 2 years probation. The billionaires who fund politicians and run the fucking world.

They are so many people who all have the potential for being more, and yet they willingly and repeatedly choose to use their power to destroy people without hesitation— gleefully so.

We are surrounded by these people. And just like Frank Burns couldn't be changed for the better by being around more open-minded people, we cannot change them. And we need to recognise just how dangerous these people are.

One such man is running for president again in America. And people just like him are going to vote for him, knowing what he will do. Another such man—in a long line of people just like him— is currently prime minister in the UK.

Pretty sure most countries can look at our leaders and see someone like Frank Burns. That he was capable of becoming a human, And repeatedly refused it.

Linville said of Frank that he

‘was displaying his genuine kind of insanity as if it were conscious and objective behaviour, and people reacted to that as if he were a conscious, objective, functioning human being. […] that kind of senseless double-talk, where the man didn’t even know he sounded like a complete idiot, is part of what made him such a dangerous person. […] There’s a mind that [is] stripped of its gears, obviously. And yet he is functioning with a knife in his hands on other human beings.’ (Kalter, 115-116)

They could not risk losing that. In fact, with every season, he became more exaggerated, more hateful, more unbalanced. Finally, he was essentially a cartoon. Linville left because he felt Frank had become so unstable, so exaggerated, that we were all laughing at a seriously mentally ill man (which I agree with).

When people asked Larry why Frank didn’t become a decent person, his reply was, ‘What do you want him to be, Alan Alda?’

They could never let Frank just become tolerable. They had pushed him so far, he could never have just turned around. It would never have been believable if they did, and it wouldn’t have fit the theme and framework of the show.

Them teaching Frank to be a decent human is not nearly as impactful as repeatedly failing to turn Frank into a human being. And it’s not nearly as impactful as him repeatedly refusing every opportunity he has to become a human being.

We are surrounded by Frank Burns. People who choose, over and over and over and over and over again to be the worst versions of themselves. And we cannot change them. This is the revolting sublime beauty and tragedy of Frank Burns.

Larry Linville was right — they couldn’t just change Frank into a good person; it wouldn’t have been believable. Because he represents these people who choose, every day, to be their worst selves. This is why he is so dangerous. Frank Burns is everywhere.

And Larry was also right that Frank had become so exaggerated that it was no longer funny to laugh at a truly unwell man. They could only ever make him worse, not better.

[pipipinyyy]

Explaining why I have added every song in my entire and very long Niragi playlist because I can and because over analyzing him is my passion (I usually update it from time to time but I'll do it with the current songs)

Completely self indulgent post, but I decided to share to feed my fellow Niragi stans (*˙︶˙*)☆*°

This is entirely based on my view of the songs and how I interpret them while thinking about Niragi. I'm aware that most of them have entirely different meanings, this is just for fun :) (Also sorry if my explanations don't make much sense, English is not my first language and I might make mistakes when trying to put my feelings and thoughts into words)

This may contain manga/s2 spoilers

Hayloft-Mother Mother: Vibes

Criminal-Britney Spears: The whole song describes him ("he is a sucker with a gun") and the fandom's obsession ("mama I'm in love with a criminal")

Daddy Issues-The Neighborhood: I feel like he would act like this, using the most vulnerable spots to pick on someone ("cry little girl, nobody does it like you do")

Psycho-Jin Dogg, OVER KILL: Vibes

Riot-Hollywood Undead: He'd definitely start a riot like he did in the 10 of hearts, burning and destroying anything that crosses his path

Bitches-Mindless Self Indulgence: He most likely thinks he's a total fuckboy and popular with girls since he can get almost anything he wants out of scarying people

Baby's on Fire-Die Antwoord: Vibes

Insane in the Brain-Cypress Hill: This man is being consumed by his own way of protecting himself

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing-Set It Off: Based on how he feels towards the people who hurt him in the past ("Listen, mark my words, one day, you will pay" "You've always been a huge piece of shit, if I could kill you, I would" "Karma is gonna come collect your debt")

Death no more-IC3PEAK: Vibes

Gasoline-I Prevail: Sort of similar to Riot, ("So burn it all down, burn it all down, I don't give a fuck")

Toxic-Britney Spears: The whole fandom knows how much of a piece of shit this dude can be, but we still find ourselves liking/enjoying his character (to an extent), a toxic addiction

Nice Guy-GRLwood: As much as I love this man, he'd use the "I'm a nice guy c'mon" card just to fuck. If he wants to, he'll get it, if he doesn't, he'll most likely get mad

Dernière danse-Indila: Vibes

TRRST-IC3PEAK: Mostly vibes, I kinda see this song as how he felt the first time he killed someone on purpose inside the borderlands ("mama they say I'm a terrorist, I did nothing wrong but I got on the blacklist")

Saint Bernard-Lincoln: Vibes

Nowhere To Run-Stegosaurus Rex: Being with him at the Beach would either be ignoring each other completely or a game of tag, no inbetween. If this man wants to kill you, he'll get his fun time out of it as well ("You're gonna die, I'm gonna kill you")

The House of Wolves-Bring Me The Horizon: Based on how he sees life after being consumed by his current mental state ("Show me a sign, show me a reason to give a solitary fuck about your god damn beliefs" "What you call faith, I call a sorry excuse")

Smells Blood-Kensuke Ushio: Vibes

SIU-Maretu: Similar to Daddy Issues, don't expect this man to be a therapist. If he sees anyone crying or panicking in or outside a game, he'd most likely tell them to suck it up, just like this song.

Judgement-Kensuke Ushio: Vibes

MONSTER ENERGY GUN!-KevinKempt: Vibes + He for sure has an energy drink addiction, specially pre-borderlands

HURT-1 800 PAIN: Vibes

Fear Is The Mind Killer-Zheani: Vibes

I Bet on Losing Dogs: Based on how I know Niragi is toxic, and most likely unsaveable of his deteriorating mental state, but I still have him as my biggest comfort character ("I bet on losing dogs, I know they're losing and I'll pay for my place")

Emo Boy-Ayesha Erotica: He's been in an emo phase (and maybe still is), the lyrics are pretty self explanatory, they describe us Niragi simps perfecrly ("come on fuck me emo boy")

Crybaby-Destroy Boys: Vibes

The Fox's Wedding-MASA Works DESIGEN: Vibes

You're a useless child-Kikuo: We don't know much about his past, but judging by the unstoppable bullying he's suffered, his parents didn't care about him, or were straight up absent. He's been insulted by pretty much everyone in his past to the point of believing it and telling those things to himself ("You're a useless child, the most useless child in this world" "Drool in snot, dandruff, shit and piss" "I'm a useless child" "Nobody will save me" "I'm a lonely kid")

Take A Slice-Glass Animals: Vibes

Fighting With The Melody-Jimmy Urine: Vibes

Comics-Caravan Palace: Vibes

Rhinestone Eyes-Gorillaz: Vibes

Butch 4 Butch-Rio Romero: Mostly vibes, sort of how I think the most "peacefull" moments in a relationship with him would feel like, kind of bittersweet feeling

Suki Suki Daisuki-Jun Togawa: Yandere Niragi. If he's interested in someone, he'd go through an obsessive phase, most likely forcing the other person to "love" him. This man is so confused about the feeling of love that he's unable to tell when he loves someone or when he's obsessed with them due to his lack of attention ("Like you, like you, I love you. Say you love me or I'll kill you")

:(-The Garden: Vibes

Kitty City-Cyriak Harris: Vibes

Blood-My Chemical Romance: If Niragi went to a therapist, he'd act like this song, with his signature cocky and sarcastic personality (at least before he gets better) ("I can't control myself because I don't know how" "They can fix me proper with a bit of luck" "I'm the kind of human wreckage that you love")

A Mask of My Own Face-Lemon Demon: He feels like he needs to protect himself or else he will get hurt inside the borderlands by others again. He uses another personality, a completely ruthless one, even if he doesn't like it and hates himself for it, he doesn't see another way to deal with his fear, allowing his "new self" to consume himself. ("I'd wear that mask of my own face" "I look into my eyeholes and what do I see? A handsome motherfucker motherfucking looking back at me")

I'm a Murderer-Freddie Dredd: Mostly vibes ("I'm a motherfucking murderer")

'Cause I'm a Liar-Mcki Robyns-P: He would lie just for fun even in serious situations. If he needs to manipulate someone to survive, he'll do it his way, after all, he doesn't care anymore, he just seeks for excitement. ("Without emotion, without devotion. It's much easier to fake something happy")

I Disagree-Poppy: I don't know exactly how to describe it, but I feel like this is how he sees and feels the world and those around him, feeling misunderstood and going his own way ("If only all of you could see the world I see, then maybe everyone could live in harmony")

Personal Jesus-Mindless Self Indulgence: He has a superiority complex, that's for sure. I don't think he sees himself as a god, but I see him joking about it

Rainbow Factory-GLAZE, WoodenToaster: Vibes

Frontier Psychiatrist-The Avalanches: I kinda see this as Aguni taking the role of Niragi's "father figure" inside the borderlands, realizing he's turning insane and is unable to control him ("That boy needs therapy")

Hate it. Hate it. "JIGAHIDAI!"-WADATAKEAKI Kurage P: Jealousy. I can see it either in a pre-borderland situation where he hates the popular students in school, or inside the borderlands hating both Chishiya and Arisu. Jealousy takes over him constructing a big ego, causing himself to develop his superiority complex ("You see, I hate that popular girl!" "Does she think I don't notice? How she looks at me as if I'm trash" "I want to be praised" "I'm different from you all, I have my own ego! I'm not a side character" "I have zero common sense. I'm special")

Villain-Stella Jang: He knows damn well he's a villain, that's his goal after all, but what if someone took his point of view? wouldn't the villains be all of those who hurted him in the first place? ("We all pretend to be the heroes on the good side, but what if we are the villains on the other")

Violent-carolesdaughter: This is how I view an argument inside a relationship with Niragi. He's used to violence, to cause fear, and getting what he wants, so being in a healthy relationship would require a lot of patience and strenght. While he's getting better and suppressing those violent actions, there will be times where he accidentally uses violence or threatens the other person unintentionally, mostly hurting himself and his partner psychologically. The lyrics change between both points of view ("Don't make me get violent, I want my ring back baby that's a diamond" "She knows I'm a wreck" "I gave you all my trust and I told you just don't break it")

Hey Bunny-Baby Bugs: Based on how I think it would feel to partner up with him inside the borderlands and catching feelings for him while knowing the huge mess he is ("Hey bunny, what's with those evil eyes?" "Hey bunny, what the hell is wrong with us?" "Hey bunny, what if I loose you too? If I become the monster, together we can always be blue")

Kokoronashi-majiko: I'm pretty sure Niragi isn't able to see himself as someone able to love, even if he doesn't want to be alone (just like when he confesses this feeling while fighting with Chishiya and Arisu). If someone truly loved him and was willing to not letting him go, it would hurt. He can't see himself as someone who can love or be loved, so he can't accept the love he's seeking for in case that turns him "weaker" making his true self confront with the protective mean personality he's created. He could learn how to accept it, so he might want the other person to stay in the end, but it wouldn't be easy for him to accept it ("It's awful, I'd rather you destroy my body, tear it to sheds, do as you please" "No matter how much I'm loved by you, my heart is just one" "I don't know this, don't leave me alone")

Nightmare Parade-FAKE TYPE.: Vibes

Slipping Through My Fingers-Meryl Streep, Amanda Seyfried: Niragi seeing himself loosing his young, gentle and caring personality due to his fear, being unable to control what's happening inside, nostalgia and sadness kicking in ("The feeling that I'm loosing her forever" "That funny little girl" "Sometimes I wish that I could freeze the picture and save it from the funny tricks of time")

Kuroneko No Tango-Pink Martini, The Von Trapps: Vibes

YKWIM?-Yot Club: Him confroting his feelings of loneliness when he's left alone with his thoughts ("It feels like I care too much when I'm alone, oh no")

Romantic Lover-Eyedress: Just appreciating his physical appearance ("She's a killer, I love her features")

Wrecking Ball-Mother Mother: Based on how he sees himself as someone who needs to destroy everything in a way or another in order to be powerful + the fun he has with it ("Call me a reckless wrecking ball" "Let's break it just because we can")

Edge-Rezz: Vibes

Freaks-Surf Curse: Again, confronting feelings when loving someone, but not in such a painful as Kokoronashi ("I need a place to stay where I can cover up my face" "Don't cry, I'm just a freak")

Little Bit-Lykke Li: Vibes

6up 5oh Cop-Out (Pro/Con)-Will Wood and the Tapeworms: Vibes

PHONKY TOWN-PlayaPhonk: Vibes

I WANNA BE YOUR SLAVE-Måneskin: Freaky time. He would absolutely love this song, definitely his type of thing ("You could be the beauty and I could be the monster" "I wanna touch your body so fucking electric" "I wanna make you hungry, then I wanna feed you")

#BrooklynBloodPop!-SyKo: Vibes

A Cold Freezin' Night-The Books: Vibes

A Pearl-Mitski: My most favorite song to associate with Niragi. Represents his evolution as a character. Creating an scenario where he is loved by someone,he rejects it at first, acting tough ("I don't want your touch") and then proceeds to explain why ("It's just that I fell in love with a war, nobody told me it ended" "it left a pearl in my hand and I roll it around every night just to watch it glow") the war being the borderlands and his new personality, he loved it, but nobody drew a line and it's getting out of hand. The pearl is the feeling of power, the one he has to remember when feeling weak just to feel something. At the end of the song it changes to ("Sorry I can't take your touch"), realizing that he wants love, but he's not able to take it or else he'll become the Niragi from the past

Problematic-Bo Burnham: Him acknowledging his problematic actions but not wanting to apologize because he doesn't feel the need to. He knows he's done bad things but he is going to laugh at it and be a sarcastic mf about it

First Love/Late Spring-Mitski: Similar to Kokoronashi, he wouldn't be able to accept love and how it makes him feel. He would think that he prefers for everyone to hate him and be lonely instead of sacrificing his tougher side. Also talks about how he's grown way too quickly for him to understand feelings properly ("So please hurry leave me, I can't breathe, please don't say you love me" "One word from you and I would jump out of this ledge I'm on baby" "I was so young when I behaved 25, yet now I find I've grown into a tough child"

The Other Side Of Paradise-Glass Animals: Vibes

Bodybag-Chloe Moriondo: How I feel about liking his character, confronting feelings basically ("Don't know if I hate you or if I wanna date you" "I don't wanna like you, I just wanna tie you up, then keep you in a cage and watch you sleep for ages"

Get Into It (Yuh)-Doja Cat: Vibes

Psycho Killer-2005 Remaster- Talking Heads: Vibes

HOT DEMON B!TCHES NEAR U!!!-CORPSE, Night Lovell: Vibes

INFERNO-Sub Urban, Bella Poarch: Again, another song that describes him pretty well ("Baby I'm the reason why hell's so hot" "Terribly like terrible, she's a villain" "Think I'm getting butterflies but it's really something telling me to run away")

Bad Morning-Omori: Vibes

Trouble Brewing: Vibes

Dueles Tan Bien-Bruses: Another song about my confronting feelings with this man ("You know what? You taste better than alcohol to me. You know that and you've got control" "Because you hurt, and you hurt so good that I don't know what to do")

And that's it!! This took me the whole day to write but it makes me very happy to be able to share it :)

I've you've read the entire thing, hope you enjoyed the character analysis! ლ(◞‿◟ლ)

[child-of-sunshine]

In the wake of this latest tragedy, there's been a resurgence of posts talking about "mental health checks" as some kind of middle ground measure for preventing gun violence. Regardless of any political opinions about whether that's just an attempt to yet again divert the conversation from the real solution, I just want to make some things clear.

I've been seeing this sentiment a lot, and unfortunately, my perspective as an ER doc in the middle of a massive country-wide mental health crisis is that it's really not helpful. First, the whole "mental health background check" is a lot more complicated than people seem to think. Where are the lines drawn? Is everyone who's ever received psychiatric treatment banned? What if it was just for anxiety? What about postpartum depression that's now resolved? At what point is it an invasion of privacy to go digging through health records? If someone saw a counselor in high school because they were 15 and hormonal and angry, does that mean that follows them for their entire adult life?

And when it comes to the "assessments" that everyone seems to think are a magic wand that will weed out the sorts of people who will commit these despicable acts: they won't. Doctors aren't human lie detectors, or mind readers. We can only believe what patients tell us. Now, there are definitely cases where we have reasonable suspicion that someone is lying, or actually a danger to themselves, but they're few and far between. We see it all the time in the ER, especially with children: mom and dad bring in a teenager because they're worried that they're depressed and thinking about doing something to hurt themselves . The unfortunate reality is that there aren't any psychiatric beds available, and if the kid, alone with the doctor, says no, they don't actually have thoughts of it, then we have to believe them, and we can't do anything other than suggest outpatient resources.

The reality of a lot of emergency psychiatric care in this country is that most of it is prompted by the patients themselves. If they come in saying they want to hurt themselves or someone else, then we can do something about it. But if they choose to conceal that, we have no way of knowing. And if they then go home and try to do it, we won't know until they're brought in--if they're lucky--for an attempt (rather than a completed act). "Psychiatric assessments" for gun ownership would work exactly the same way, and anyone who wants to own a gun would have a good reason to lie, to conceal any bad thoughts, to not disclose any violent tendencies. The same way we often don't know if someone is truly depressed until they try to hurt themselves, we won't know someone wants to hurt others until they get hold of guns and actually do it. In other words, the exact same thing that happens now.

Have your opinions about gun control and I will agree or disagree, but can we please stop acting like mandating "psychiatric assessments" will do anything except place a huge strain on an already overburdened system?

[djgblogger-blog]

Why Harvey Weinstein can't redeem himself through charity alone

http://bit.ly/2zttRYw

Filmmaker Harvey Weinstein, shown attending a concert to raise money for the Robin Hood Foundation in 2013. Photo by Andy Kropa/Invision/AP

As allegations of sexual harassment, abuse and rape topple his career and wipe out his clout, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein is apparently trying to contain the blaze with generosity. So far, he isn’t finding takers for this contrition cash.

Fast-tracking a plan he claimed was in the works for a year, Weinstein said in his initial public statement about his monstrous behavior that he would donate US$5 million to the University of Southern California in scholarship money for women directors. The school declined that gift. He also pledged to leverage his wealth and – what he expected would continue to be – his power to advance gun control, swearing to “give the NRA my full attention.”

As a political philosopher who studies the ethics of philanthropy, I see the Weinstein scandal as embodying an important question: Can the rich and powerful redeem their reputations through acts of generosity?

‘Blood money’

Offering money as a form of atonement is easier for Weinstein than finding someone who will accept it now that the source is so tainted. As the Change.org petition started by a USC student put it, these donations are “blood money” intended to distract the public and purchase forgiveness.

There’s nothing new about rich and powerful men who try to strip the tarnish off their reputations through philanthropy. For centuries, the Catholic Church encouraged rich people to purchase “indulgences” as tickets to heaven. Martin Luther’s disgust with this practice helped spark the Protestant Reformation.

“Robber baron” philanthropists like steelmaker Andrew Carnegie and oilman John D. Rockefeller still raise hackles for how they gave away money amassed through ruthless business tactics.

John D. Rockefeller (left) and John D. Rockefeller Jr. gave a large share of their fortune, made in the oil business, to charity. American Press Association

More recently, the Sackler family, which made its fortune in pharmaceuticals, has come under fire. Until news of their role in creating the opioid crisis through aggressive marketing emerged, the Sacklers were best known for major gifts to universities and museums.

A series of lawsuits is starting to change that reputation.

And the UCLA law school accepted a $10 million donation from Lowell Milken, who nearly went to jail with his brother Michael for their role in the junk bond scandal, in 2011. That move prompted Lynn A. Stout, a business law scholar, to leave the school.

Real philanthropy

Despite those precedents, philanthropy is about benefiting society, not repentance. Done well, it requires a thoughtfully selected worthy cause and a wise strategy to advance it, coupled with respect for all the stakeholders involved and compliance with the law.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether other characteristics also matter, how to rank these criteria and what constitutes a good cause. What about motives?

Donors who make big donations to advance their business interests appear to betray philanthropy’s main purposes. Conflicts of interest, or even their appearance, can make philanthropy morally dubious and even illegal.

And Weinstein’s gifts to support feminist causes – at least in the aftermath of revelations of sexual misconduct – reflect one giant conflict of interest. (New York state Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman was already investigating corporate governance at amfAR, a New York-based charity that works to cure AIDS, over concerns raised by its support from Weinstein before this scandal unfolded.)

At least two institutions – Rutgers University and the Clinton Foundation – have vowed to keep their Weinstein donations, arguing that they can do more good by using the money to advance good causes than by returning it.

Meanwhile, many politicians, including former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, are either returning money he gave their campaigns or donating those sums to charity.

It seems clear that his attempt to cover the cost of women seeking a degree in filmmaking, announced as his scandal broke, was a desperate attempt to deflect blame and salvage his reputation.

The German example

“Guys, I’m not doing OK but I’m trying. I got to get help. You know what, we all make mistakes,” Weinstein said a few days later, as more women spoke out about how the now-disgraced producer had demanded sexual favors in exchange for movie roles for decades.

Are there conditions under which the court of public opinion owes wrongdoers the “second chance” he said he hoped might be in store?

I suggest that Germany provides an instructive example. In the aftermath of the Holocaust and the other horrors its Nazi government meted out, that country underwent a profound period of collective soul-searching.

In a nationwide attempt to atone for its crimes against humanity, West Germany honored the outcomes of the Nuremberg Trials, imposed by the Allies. But it also took numerous and considerable steps on its own accord to try to make amends.

West Germany held its own tribunals two decades after World War II, the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials, to punish Holocaust conspirators not tried at Nuremburg. It made Holocaust denial a serious crime – and Germany continues to do so today, long after reunification.

The country is dotted with memorials and Jewish museums. Its educational curriculum includes frank historical accounts of the nation’s tarnished past. And it has voluntarily paid more than $70 billion in reparations to Israel and individual Jewish survivors.

Though none of these acts can excuse the Third Reich’s despicable behavior, many people perceive them as authentic displays of atonement. What’s more, these efforts made it possible for Germany gradually to resume its place as a member of the international community in good standing.

The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe is located in the heart of Berlin. Jorge Royan, CC BY-SA

Applying the German model

Here is how I believe that disgraced rich and powerful people can learn from Germany’s example. Imagine that Weinstein had first issued an earnest apology, instead of rambling defensively after The New York Times first reported his protracted abuse.

Then imagine Weinstein welcoming and dutifully complying with the legal and professional investigations about his conduct that are in the works. And then picture him graciously accepting any verdicts and serving any sentences required of him for the crimes he has allegedly committed. Visualize, if you can, Weinstein keeping himself checked into rehabilitation clinics and enrolled in courses on gender inequality as long as he isn’t behind bars.

Now suppose that after all of this hypothetical behavior, Weinstein would then meet with victims of sexual abuse and experts in grantmaking. And that with their guidance, he would give away what’s left of his fortune – currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of $250 million – to advance gender justice and end workplace harassment and sexual abuse.

None of these efforts I have conjured up would excuse Weinstein’s behavior. But I contend that in such a case, it would make sense for charities and universities at least to consider taking his money.

Sensitive acts of this kind of compensatory philanthropy can be an acceptable part of a process of making amends for past crimes. To count as legitimate, however, acts of charity as penance cannot substitute for official punishment for civil and criminal misconduct and they must be closely related to the crimes.

No matter what, money can never replace genuine contrition and rehabilitation.

And such donors should cede control over how their money is spent. Germany, for instance, did not demand that recipients of reparations spend the money in specific ways. Rich and powerful wrongdoers should likewise not seek to micromanage or receive a seat on the board of organizations they fund.

It’s hard, in other words, to give large sums of money away as one of several steps toward atonement for heinous crimes. This is just as should it be.

Ted Lechterman ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son poste universitaire.

[rubye402]

Disclaimer right here and now, this is not to attack OP, this is my own critique saying "Hey I disagree a lot with this take." And don't send hate their way either. Play nice.

Anyways, ignoring the fact that this is a scripted game where the player was actively trapped in the elevator and couldn't walk out even if they wanted to, so blaming the player in THAT regard makes no sense, I'm gonna assume we all understand that fact, right?

How are we meant to communicate ANY positive acknowledgement of Wheatley before hand? The opening joke of jumping instead of saying "apple" proves to us we can't talk to him so that's a no go. And Wheatley is CONSTANTLY on his railings that's higher than the player, so even if taking him off the rail WOULDN'T make him question if that's a negative response (After all, if someone wordlessly pulled you down to their level without warning, and just stared at you without speaking after you were talking, I'm PRETTY SURE your reaction wouldn't be to assume anything positive.)

"Oh but in Chapter 1 we can reach him on the bed!" And using the interacting button does what exactly? A whole heap of nothing, I promise you. Hell, in the same chapter we COULD balance his model on out head, but the Portal Gun doesn't work to catch him, so we HAVE to drop him. Believe me I've TRIED and it DOES NOT WORK.

OK OK, that debunks the player is at fault part, but surely that means Wheatley is innocent right? No the FUCK it doesn't. Am I saying he's a straight up villain? Absolutely not. But if you'll notice also with GLaDOS there's this thing called being "Morally Grey" (Or "Gray," depending on how you want to spell it. Same thing, different spelling.)

See now, I acknowledge that Wheatley was mad with power in the chassis. I'm sure that the "itch" clouded his decisions. And I'm not so sure on if the Aperture scientists were KIND to him, but admittedly THAT part is speculation... But the problem becomes is that he's still the one in the chassis. As he points out in the ending "[He's] still the one in control [of the facility.]" His actions are still on HIM.

His plan to kill Chell the moment he finds the Co-Op testing bots, forever living, able to come back from what would be a humans death, and most importantly, eager and built to test.

Not the Chassis.

Not Chell.

Not the Player.

Not even GLaDOS.

And you could argue she was the catalyst that got him enraged enough to go beyond the point of being able to be reasoned with, even sit here and talk about how he even says at one point that he wanted to try HER (GLaDOS') way so he could get "his itch scratched" properly, but that's all another topic for another day.

Now does he deserve to be sent to the moon? Or for GLaDOS to torture him like she was at one point planning? No. I argue he doesn't. I hear the pain in "you didn't even catch me!" But what I'm not gonna do is agree that he's done something wrong and HAS fucked up... Because even towards the end he realizes this. As he floats in space, with nobody- aside from Space Core maybe- to hear, he apologizes for his actions. He couldn't be lying, because what reasons would he even have to after all he's JUST lost?

Wheatley is not a perfect fucking cinnamon roll. But that's OK because he admits he did wrong, and I'm sure if given the chance he'd try being better.

I’m gonna say it

Wheatley did nothing wrong. Everything that he did is the pc’s fault