#discuss credentialed media

[pyrosomatic-metamorphosis]

OH. okay so normally i dont touch discourse with a 20 ft pole, but this has been niggling at my brain tonight and i finally realized why

the people who are mad at qbbh for the memory loss and “dodging consequences” dont understand that he doesnt want to dodge consequences. Like they cant know that, they werent focused on him when he was literally feeding himself to the soul vultures and planning his eventual imprisonment and also. The Many Many Many hints he made towards suicide/sacrifice/Just Fucking Dying.

ccbbh is a subtle roleplayer, he’s been building this shit up for two whole months- it was day FIVE of the eggs going missing that he resolved to do whatever it took (hurting his friends) to get the eggs back. It was day three that he followed in dapper’s footsteps and started feeding himself to the soul vultures (and gaining a Massive headwound beneath his hood in the process- you can only see it if you go on namemc and remove the layers). He’s got impaired judgement. Even the memory issues arent a new thing- i cant remember exactly when they started, but one of the first big moments i remmeber was september 30th where he spent an hour falling into a delusional frenzy searching his base for cameras that he forgot he asked aypierre to plant.

The super murder of purgatory and the memory loss afterwards probably all feels very sudden for people who havent been following his story, but as someone who has been- all of this has been true to character. The only cheap swings he’s made have been combat-based in purgatory, and even the motive for those was built up in rp.

People are calling for consequences, but he has alrwady been experiencing self-inflicted consequences for months. The blue on his usual outfit is blood. This recent memory loss isnt a restart to get away with the atrocities - it is yet another consequence of his egg-protecting complexes and the ways he punishes himself for failing them.

he is NOT a moral character. he’s a demon hiding in plain site. he has eaten people. he has killed people. he understands the cruelty of his actions, and the consequences of them for the loved ones of his victims. but it matters when that harm is being done to his loved ones. he’ll still do it, because he will do anything for the eggs, but it matters, and that means that he has already started the process of self-inflicting those much-demanded consequences

[luckthebard]

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about storytelling vs. gameplay in Actual Play and finally had some solid thoughts coalesce around it when looking at Worlds Beyond Number and Thresher.

Thoughts after the cut:

This is going to be a hot take but I think, increasingly, Worlds Beyond Number is not an Actual Play but a collaborative audio novel/drama. While the margins between those things might seem on some level semantic, I think they’re really key for thinking about how Actual Play is different from other kinds of storytelling media. WBN was originally conceived of and advertised as “like the games you run in your living room” but as it has gone on the podcast has moved so far away from that that it is no longer delivering on that original conceit. This does not mean it is bad! I think WBN is actually succeeding more on a storytelling level as it sheds more of its obvious gameplay. But it’s gotten to a point where the game mechanics are either edited out and therefore not central to what is heard by the audience, or incidental to the story being told, which is driven far more by Brennan as the main worldbuilding storyteller than by game mechanics or player action. When a supposed Actual Play has a key narrative episode that finishes with almost 10 minutes of story narrated solely by the GM with no gameplay rolls or mechanics mentioned, of an epic, hugely narratively important combat, in my mind gameplay has taken enough of a backseat to the storytelling process that the podcast is no longer an Actual Play.

And I think we’ve seen an evolution over time of a lot of Actual Plays de-centering game mechanics or the conceit of gameplay in favor of more crafted narrative beats, to both the benefit and detriment of the stories themselves. In Critical Role for example, C1 and C2 in many ways felt more like a D&D game than C3, if only because of the presence of incidental, seemingly narratively insignificant combat moments. As late as late C2 with the Mighty Nein in Aeor, the players were rolling random encounters that had no relation to the larger endgame plot. This led some viewers to complain about pacing, but made other Actual Play enjoyers happy to the extent it showcased game mechanics and allowed character moments to emerge from the combat mechanics themselves, the core gameplay element of D&D. Contrast that to C3, which very early in the episode count did away with “meaningless” incidental combat and pushed forward with a very clear endgame narrative. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that fan engagement with mechanics really fell off in C3, with less meta about what spell or feat choices meant for character development. Similarly, the sunsetting of the CritRoleStats project, while certainly because founders were just busy and had put years into it already and were ready to move on, also was at least somewhat influenced by having less to work with as gameplay mechanics were emphasized less and less at the table in C3.

If you were to look at a lot of the more professional and academic study and critique of Actual Play, you might be convinced that a move away from centering gameplay and above table mechanics discussions was universally good for the medium, as an emphasis on storytelling over gaming would make it more universally accessible. I would posit though that at least some of this comes from the loudest, most professionally credentialed commentators on Actual Play coming from literature backgrounds, and therefore valuing storytelling and narrative over gaming for audience appeal. But I think that misses the gaming audience of Actual Play, who are less and less catered to as the medium becomes more mainstream.

There’s often not a lot of understanding of the appeal of gaming itself as an object of, especially curative, fan obsession, even as sports fandom exists as a huge example of the wide appeal. I am, pretty loudly, a baseball fan as well as a ttrpg and Actual Play fan. In many ways, these things hold similar appeal to me. I am interested in thinking about the game mechanics and action economy of certain character builds and how they fit into party composition in the same way I might obsess over a pitcher’s ERA and arsenal, as well as what his role is in the starting pitcher rotation or the bullpen. I find the prospect of a matchup between, say, Shohei Ohtani and Zack Wheeler appealing in the same way I’m excited about a mechanically strong D&D party fighting a Beholder. Gaming has long been interesting to people not only as something to participate in, but something to study and analyze. Win scenarios, optimal builds, and gameplay tactics are engaging to viewers as well as players. And I think, increasingly, Actual Play productions either forget this or, if the prevalence of editing gameplay out of edited AP is any indication, do not think the gameplay itself is of value or interest to the audience. Published Actual Play scholarship, in my opinion, continues to make this mistake as well. This has led to an increase of productions which are labeled as Actual Play and ostensibly have a gameplay component but are so far removed from watching/listening to people play a game that it is hard to argue that they are still Actual Play.

Which brings me to Thresher. Thresher was brilliant at threading that needle between production, radio drama vibes, and centered and narratively driving gameplay. I am someone who often complains about Actual Play production and editing doing Too Much but I actually loved the costumes and some of the editing gimmicks on Thresher because all of the storytelling and narrative was still so clearly grounded in the gameplay mechanics. Uses of drive mechanics and character abilities were clearly defined even as the audience could hold their breath in a tense horror atmosphere. Mechanics like Turn the Tide and Jasper’s move as the GM to allow the players to pass him secret notes were fantastic ideas to center player choice in crafting the narrative, and let the players surprise each other, leading to big and exciting moments a the table. The storytelling was enhanced by Abubakar’s above table exclamation of “what the fuck is this??” at the end, because it wasn’t just about the story that had unfolded but that his fellow players had surprised both him and the GM by using their game mechanic options to change the direction of the narrative and the condition of the story. I would love for more Actual Play to remember the value of the audience seeing that or being in on the extra-narrative elements of gameplay that shape story. Not all Actual Play needs to be the same, but I think we’ve lost something in the medium as a whole recently with a shift away from visible mechanics and toward streamlined, almost audio drama style story that just happens to have scaffolding from a tabletop roleplaying game.

[librarycards]

based on someone elses recent ask (and apologies if you've answered something like this before): do you have any tips for exercising and picking up the skill of being able to parse and make sense of academic language, especially for those of us who can't be in a formal academic setting? thx!!!

yes! the most important way to get yourself ready to parse academic texts is practicing close-reading & critical reading of any kind. you can do this with novels, nonfiction, popular articles/news, poems, and so on.

try printing out or having a paper version with you. read once without annotating. read again with a highlighter/pencil, and make it your goal to find the thesis and sub-arguments of the text. if you're looking at a creative work, substitute thesis for primary themes and motifs. then look for supporting evidence, imagery, and/or other details in the text that help further that argument.

on your next read-through, focus not only on the text but on what surrounds the text: where is this printed, who published it, who is the author, what are their credentials? when was it published, in what country, under what sociopolitical conditions? take some notes on how this may have influenced the text itself, particularly if you're reading an article funded by a specific entity/entities. if an article has citations/external links, check those out too. this is a good exercise in media literacy more broadly, but it will also help you better understand the argument a text is making.

all of this can happen before you open up an academic article, or an article you consider to have challenging, dense, or otherwise unfamiliar language. you do this for the same reason you train shorter distances before running a marathon - you get your body used to something so that when the time comes, you can go all-out. when you get to the dense peer-reviewed article, use this same three-step method, but take the piece one or two sentences at a time. try decoding and rephrasing a text sentence-by-sentence; if a word is used in an unfamiliar way, take a break and use google scholar to find other texts using that word. for example, if an economics paper is using the word "materialism," it's useful to find other (likely marxist) economists using and discussing the word, because it will mean something distinctly different from its colloquial usage of "having a lot of stuff."

I also recommend using command+F in longer papers especially, as well as reading the abstract and conclusion before reading the middle of the paper. you do this for the same reason that it's good to read a book in your native language before trying it in your L2, 3, 4, etc.: you already know the shape of the story, and now get to focus your energy on filling in the blanks. search (especially in humanities texts) for terms like "i argue," "drawing on" (for the texts it's in conversation with), "first," (this can get you to a roadmap of the text/arguments, usually at the end of the introduction), and, of course, "in sum/in conclusion". in a scientific or social scientific text especially, words like "evidence," "results," "limitations," and "implications" can also get you to vital information.

my last piece of advice is this: don't expect an academic text -- or any text, tbh -- to be a one-and-done thing. there are papers i first read as a teen, then read in undergrad, then read in grad school, and now cite in my scholarly work, that i am still returning to, asking questions of, being confused about, and googling terms in. learning is a process that we have the honor of engaging in with scholarship old and new, and often, the writing style in which work is presented is actually vital to that learning process. give yourself over to the unfamiliar language and take your time, annotate liberally (leftistly), and prepare to read other works "around" the one you're interested in to get a fuller picture of what you're reading. and if you can, do it with other people!!!!

A few texts we did this with in high school that were helpful in my learning:

Virginia Woolf - A Room of One's Own

Toni Morrison - Beloved

Frederick Douglass - What to the Slave is the Fourth of July

Dion, Berscheid, and Walster - What is Beautiful Is Good

Jonathan Swift - A Modest Proposal

Chinua Achebe - Things Fall Apart

[ralfmaximus]

America is not just suffering from a wealth gap; America has the equivalent of a class apartheid. Our systems—of education, credentialing, hiring, housing, and electing officials—are dominated and managed by members of a “comfort class.” These are people who were born into lives of financial stability. They graduate from college with little to no debt, which enables them to advance in influential but relatively low-wage fields—academia, media, government, or policy work. Many of them rarely interact or engage in a meaningful way with people living in different socioeconomic strata than their own. And their disconnect from the lives of the majority has expanded to such a chasm that their perspective—and authority—may no longer be relevant.

Our society is run by people who don't buy their own groceries, who buy stuff without looking at the price tag, who don't have to worry about a sudden $500 emergency wiping them out.

Most of us are a bad month away from homelessness.

Or are already homeless. And our leaders are baffled by this.

Just get a job. Just get off the street. Just ask your parents for money. Just put it on your credit card. The old one broke? Just get a new one. Just take the day off if you're sick.

Anyway. The article taught me a new concept, "comfort class". It describes anybody who never has to worry about money. But alas, there's not much discussion there about what we can do about it.

Suggestions?

[temple-of-hephaestus]

Welcome to The Temple of Hephaestus

A space for Hellenic Polytheistic worshipping and honoring the Greek God, Hephaestus -- the God of fire, volcanoes, crafts, blacksmiths, metalworking, carpentry, sculpture, and artisans. 

Join Us:

Tumblr Community: https://www.tumblr.com/join/FPQjkXBU  Subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TempleOfHephaestus/  Discord: https://discord.gg/ZWVhnan3KN

In addition to following site's Terms of Service, our members must follow the community guidelines:

🌋 Honor Hephaestus: Above all else, this is a religious/spiritual space to honor Lord Hephaestus, and should be treated as such

⚒️ Uphold Xenia: Engage with others in a kind and respectful manner. This space should be a sanctuary from inflammatory rhetoric, discourse, and infighting. Healthy, kind, and respectful discussions are welcomed. Remember that we all have different ways of honoring the Gods.

🏺 Inclusive Space: No discrimination against marginalized groups/individuals, including: ableism, saneism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, fatphobia, misogyny, etc. We prioritize “calling in” (educating, encouraging healthy discussion, etc.) before calling out, but outright hateful behavior will result in a ban/mute, depending on the situation.

🧑🏽‍🦽 Accessibility: In honor of Lord Hephaestus, we want this space to be as accessible to disabled folks as much as possible. Include image descriptions, captions, and/or transcriptions with media you post if you’re able to. Avoid posting fancy fonts and strobing/flashing lights.

🔥 Quality Content: No spam, bots, AI, porn, gore, self promotion, off topic, inflammatory, or hateful posts, or other similar content. Myths involving sex, artistic nudity, and offhand NSFW references are allowed, as long as it is indicated or spoilered when needed. Porn or erotica in art, text, or images is not allowed. No AI allowed whatsoever. 

🫏 Adult Topics: Sensitive topics (such as sexuality, swearing, alcohol/cannabis, artistic nudity, and reclaimed slurs) might be discussed in this space. Please keep content appropriate for ages 13 and up, and use spoilers and censors when applicable.

Admin: (Note: NOT a priest/priestess/clergy/etc. I have no training, credentials, titles, or certifications Phoenix @fireandfennel

[reddanceragain]

"Democracy Dies With the First Amendment"

A president who jails authors, attacks media, and bullies truth-tellers isn’t defending America—he’s dismantling it, one silenced citizen at a time. I was the first, but sadly, I will not be the last!

Michael Cohen and MeidasTouch Network

Apr 24

“I’ve never seen such a clause in 21 years of being a judge.”

That’s not hyperbole. That’s not a political pundit’s take or an MSNBC talking head getting dramatic. That’s U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, during a teleconference ruling in my own case; the moment when the federal government under Donald J. Trump tossed me back into prison—not for committing a crime, but for writing a fuckin' book.

Let that sink in.

Judge Hellerstein continued: “I make the finding that the purpose of transferring Mr. Cohen from furlough and home confinement to jail is retaliatory, and it's retaliatory because of his desire to exercise his First Amendment rights to publish a book and to discuss anything about the book or anything else he wants on social media and with others.”

Retaliatory. Because I exercised my constitutional right to speak.

The judge called it unprecedented. He said it plainly: the Trump administration’s actions were an attempt to coerce me into silence, essentially telling me, “You toe the line about giving up your First Amendment rights, or we’ll send you to jail.”

And they did.

This isn’t North Korea. This isn’t Iran. This isn’t Russia. This is the United States of America—allegedly. Because under Trump, that sacred First Amendment, the very heartbeat of democracy, is nothing more than an obstacle to bulldoze.

And now, once again, the Trump camp is gearing up to bring it all back—only this time, if we don’t pay attention, it won’t just have been me. It’ll be you.

Don’t believe me? Just look at what they’re already trying to do:

Start with Voice of America—a U.S. government-funded news outlet broadcasting factual, uncensored journalism across the globe since 1942. A symbol of American ideals and freedom, used to puncture authoritarian disinformation. Trump and his cronies tried to turn it into their personal Pravda. The courts, again, had to step in. But what happens when the courts stop holding the line?

The banning of press credentials. The open lawsuits against ABC, CBS, and 60 Minutes. The legal intimidation of Ivy League schools for “radicalizing” students. The targeting of protestors labeled “illegal” for speaking out. Trump’s war on speech isn’t metaphorical; it’s a live wire, and it's burning through every institution that used to safeguard truth.

He even went after law firms—not because they broke laws, but because they dared represent clients he didn’t like. Chris Krebs, who told the truth about the 2020 election, got fired and slandered. Myles Taylor, who penned an anonymous op-ed calling out Trump’s recklessness, got harassed. These weren’t political disagreements; they are acts of war against dissent.

What happens as Trump seeks to increase the power of the presidency—this time using the judiciary he packed with loyalists instead of constitutionalists? What happens when there’s no Judge Alvin Hellerstein to say, “Enough is enough”?

I’ll tell you.

You lose your ability to protest. Your press gets gutted. Investigative journalism becomes espionage. Student protests become terrorism. Books are banned—or worse, never written. The line between "illegal speech" and "unflattering truth" disappears.

A satirical tweet? Jail. A peaceful protest sign? Felony. A critical op-ed? Sedition.

And the First Amendment? It becomes a memory. A relic of a once-great democratic experiment.

What follows is not democracy—it’s Trumpocracy. One where he is judge, jury, and algorithm. One where loyalty to him replaces loyalty to the Constitution. One where fear, not freedom, controls speech.

Imagine a country where every newspaper reads like Truth Social. Where comedians are charged with treason. Where journalists must register with the state to be “approved.” Where students are investigated for “un-American ideologies.” Where your group chat becomes evidence, and your silence is assumed guilt.

This is not a movie script. This is where we’re headed if this keeps going.

Because when the First Amendment dies, the Second doesn’t protect you. Nor the Fourth, the Fifth, the Fourteenth. You cannot defend democracy if you are forbidden from speaking about it.

This is not alarmism; it’s history repeating itself, wearing a red hat and holding a Sharpie. This is real—I lived it. Lived it in solitary confinement.

So ask yourself: When the courts can no longer stand between your voice and Trump’s vengeance, what will be left of America?

Nothing but the echoes of a failed republic. A 250-year experiment snuffed out. Not by war, not by foreign invasion—but by a man with a microphone, a vendetta, and an army of enablers.

And we let it happen.

Unless we speak. Loudly. Now. While we still can.

[nebulaad]

there's some good discussion about the idea of "useless degrees" floating around and I would like everyone to remember that every degree is useless in a world where hiring power is wielded by bosses who will refuse to hire you after surveillance into your social media proves that you don't agree with them, that you hang out with people they don't like, you're an age they don't think is professional/trainable, or simply that they don't want to fuck you enough to tolerate your presence.

you have to remember the lesson we learned on the knife's edge between millenials and genz which was that as long as no one will hire you, your degree is as useless as anyone elses, and the hiring process is so rarely as such that people are more concerned with your credentials than how they personally decide to feel about you based on internal biases. remember how there had to be laws passed to even attempt to stop workplaces from openly discriminating against people?

[kaleido-write]

Leasebound: artsyle or art choices

I've seen the latest comment and wanted to add information and context my credentials on the matter are being a multidisciplinary art student , I've done pretty much any type of art you can think about going from glass painting to kabuki theater.

Leo here this absolute king was eloquent and very nice in his questions wich i absolutely love , he showed a level of respect rusty isn't capable of

And here is rusty reply

1.

We start terribly wrong here , clothing *is* about personality, it is about someone preferences , likes , dislikes ect . Its here to tell us about the characters

Such as , well any characters in media their fashion style is representation of who they are , and the same goes irl .

Let's use the howl house as an exemple because it's a really great dos and donts made by a women so hopefully rusty will swallow better the criticism ! Dana uses fashion to show the evolution of her character and their personality , reducing fashion as unnecessary is a tell that rusty doesn't know anything about character design nor how to make a story that matters and make sense

And what do i mean by matters ? Because it can sound harsh and mean I admit it , i mean something that tell us something, not just a place holder to say she is relevant nor good because she made a comic . Because you can do something for a long time and still be bad at it . Time isn't always an indicator of something value

2.

Color schemes are completely natural in artwork ??? What is she talking about ??

Color schemes are so so important to ensure the color coordination of your panels , to ensure everything fits together without being such different color it will give a headache , color schemes are there to tell stories to and her complete lack of acknowledgement towards it tells me everything i need to know about her as an artist

She doesnt know anything about the theories nor is her limited art knowledge truly worked on , she simply started drawing one day and never bothered to study anything art related

3.

Its actually quite simple to do , all that work you find monstrous rusty is actually the before work you do , its the work you do to get to know your own characters and how you will tell your story , and it's quite easy to do , you simply lack the imagination and understanding of the importance of forework

4.

No rusty nobody is insulting your skills , Leo was simply asking about your stylistic choices , yk what you claim is an art style? Because there's a difference between the 2 if you didn't knew wich i know you don't.

5.

Rusty , you made a comic on the basis that lesbians don't have enough representation. How can you in your right mind complain over people asking if you will represent them too , how stuck up do you have to be really .

Also many many 1 person comics have theses little details , details that are not concise , like Jaden tattoo !! But apparently that tattoo and shez tattoo aren't too annoying to draw uh ?

You can pick and chose what you want to represent but don't belittle people for asking why you're representation is a very selective way of portraying lesbians , representation that at its core is the lesbians you would be attracted to nobody is blind enough to not realize you do that , especially with how much every main character slowly start to look like each other .

6.

Actually rusty you did break art design rules and comic making rules to actually make the comic go better and faster . You just don't know them so obviously you can't know that you broke them because you're too ignorant to actually study art properly

In conclusion no one (again) discussed rusty actual artstyle wich involve the way she draws , that's the artstyle

The art choices are wich color to use , the design choices ect , so thank you for anyone to actually take the time to learn what an artstyle is and maybe yall will stop bitching and moaning about a fight that doesn't exist .

Also special shout out to Sarah 🫶 hope you doing good too

Unfortunately yet again rusty and her over inflated ego took over any sense she may have and decided to just be absolutely mean and awful once more

Sarah only showed to you that a color palette is used *everywhere* (i will use neutral pronouns but if Sarah wish for me to correct the text with the appropriate pronouns I will) they came forward to show her and she had the audacity to complain ??? They didn't latch onto it they simply wanted to help you improve

It is a mistake rusty , you're actively making art mistakes because you don't know shit about art . You keep having the sheer audacity when many people who actually study art tell you you're wrong and making mistakes .

Yikes since you can't insult him you decided to misgender him ? You're right rusty you're not stupid you're pathetic cruel and mean and can't differentiate hate from genuine comments for wich reason ? Oh wait I know ! Because everyone that came forward with good tips and advice you see it as hate , you have no distinction of it because if someone doesn't comfort you into your self idealized version of yourself you feel too challenged and the idea of growing to be better is terrifying to grown ass women like you .

You seem to be incredibly bitter over making your comic for free , and to think of the hatedom as genuine interest when no rusty, me personally I simply take great joy in dissecting your work and seeing every mistakes you make , because you're a terribly mean person that has no idea what respect is and can't be respectful to people if they're not your bootlicker , i pity your friends and fans , they must live in fear of saying the wrong thing and make you mad

Cola we all blocked you because you too have no idea what you're talking about you too can't even tell us what is an artstyle from art choices

A great exemple of representation and simplified artwork is "high class homo" on webtoon with the main lesbian princess having a prosthetic leg or again "the cursed princess club" wich is amazing and has a simplified artstyle

What we are critiquing are art choices , please you all should go take art classes and learn a fraction of what I know

But rusty , Leo was good faith , Sarah was good faith , we are all good faith you simply chose to see it as attacks because of your over inflated ego , please go to therapy you need it more than me , learn that other people have feelings ok ?

No , it is a hatedom rusty , I do not in the slightest enjoy your work riddled with mistakes and hatred for anyone that doesn't conform to your narrow definition of how people should be.

If you're losing money then..stop it ? Stop complaining about losing money , if you have health issues too you should put that all first instead of a comic .

[bbddbopp]

Manifestation techniques #1: Water technique 💧

༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡

This technique is by no means, a new one nor do I claimed that I was the one created this technique. I’ve seen countless people share similar methods, with slight variations, across many social media platforms. It’s a concept that’s been around and shared by many.

I first encountered a version of this technique sometime between 2020 and 2021 (I can’t remember exactly when) while watching a tarot reading video on YouTube. The tarot reader suggested placing a water bottle by the window during a full moon to harness its energy for manifestation. This idea immediately reminded me of a lecture I attended around 2016-2017, where the speaker (whose credentials and name I completely forgot lmao) talked about Dr. Emoto’s research on water molecules.

For those interested, I’ll also share a link to Dr. Emoto’s full study below:

The water research, combined with various religious practices involving the 'blessing of water'—such as baptisms in Christianity and ruqyah with water in Islam—motivated me to try the water method for myself. In this post, I’ll be discussing the technique, along with my personal experiences and the results I achieved using these methods.

༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡

TL;DR (just in case if you're too lazy to read the whole study lol)

Dr.Emoto found that water exposed to different types of stimuli, such as positive or negative words, music, and even human thoughts, resulted in distinct crystal formations.

Positive Influence: When water was exposed to positive words, music or thoughts (like “love,” “gratitude,” or “peace”), the resulting ice crystals formed beautiful, symmetrical patterns.

Negative Influence: When water was exposed to negative words, music or thoughts (like “hate,” “angry,” or “evil”), the crystals were chaotic, disordered, and ugly.

In short, Dr. Emoto’s work on water suggests that our thoughts, words, and emotions can influence the molecular structure of water, and by extension, potentially impact our physical and emotional well-being.

Note: There are criticism against Dr.Emoto's work on water, mainly for its lack of replicability and control that failed to meet the scientific standards. Since I want this blog to focus on the techniques rather than his study (which is only meant to support and explain my beliefs), I’ll link to a Google Doc that may help those who are more logical or have difficulty overlooking the criticisms of his research.

༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡

Both Emoto’s study and various religious practices suggest that words have a noticeable effect on water. Based on this, we can apply it to our manifestation practices.

There are 2 ways of doing this method:

The Affirmation way.

Write down your affirmations, either on paper or in your phone’s notes. I recommend focusing on 3 or fewer goals at a time. You can do more, but it will take much longer, so unless you have plenty of free time, I’d suggest keeping it to 3.

Grab a bottle of water and open the lid.

Read your affirmations aloud, making sure you’re close to the bottle.

Once you’ve finished, close the lid, and make sure the bottle is kept away from anything you consider as negative influence.

The water now 'holds' your affirmations, and you can drink it at any time to help manifest your desires!

Tip: I personally like to use a large bottle for this method, storing it in the fridge for about 3 days. I cover it with cloth to prevent mold or algae from forming, and I always close the lid after drinking. This way, I don’t have to repeat the process daily to avoid it feeling like a chore that I had to do.

The Subliminal way.

Choose your favorite subliminal or playlist and play it near your water. I recommend choosing subliminals that don’t have music, as some songs have lyrics that can carry negative connotations that could adversely affect the water’s molecules.

Make sure the volume is loud enough, or that your device is close enough for the affirmations to be 'absorbed' by the water.

After the subliminal or playlist finishes, close the lid or let it play on loop for however long you want.

This method is really convenient because you can let the subliminals run while you’re doing other things. If you have a long playlist, consider following the big bottle tip I mentioned earlier.

It's up to you whether you want to do the 1st or the 2nd method or both. It's just depends on which one is more suitable for your current lifestyle and schedule.

༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡

My Experiences & Results:

Grades: I used this method to manifest better grades and ended up with straight As for two semesters in a row.

Clear Skin: I was able to maintain relatively clear skin for a whole year! While I did get a few small pimples, they were barely noticeable and only popped up a couple of times during the year. This was a huge improvement, considering I usually dealt with painful cystic acne every month.

Love Life: After breaking up with my ex, I manifested a guy who was exactly as described in my affirmations. We've been happily together for 4 years now 💗

Free Stuff: I didn’t specifically affirm for free stuff, but I think it might have been in a subliminal from an old playlist I used to play for this method. Several brands sent me duplicate items I had ordered, or even extra items I hadn't requested but found useful at the time. Sometimes this happened by mistake (which they did informed me to just keep it after I told them about the mix up), and other times as an apology for delays. Either way, I usually ended up with more than what I paid for!

Money: Because of my academic success, some lecturers gifted me with free stationery, food and money. Even my family started giving me money randomly, even though I never asked for it.

I stopped doing this method after about a year because my schedule became pretty hectic, but I have to say—it helped me manifest many of my desires and was a fun, fulfilling process!

༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡⋆.✧˚༘˚⋆𐙚｡

That’s all for this post, everyone! I hope you enjoyed reading it. If you decide to try out this technique, remember to have fun with it and not stress too much about the results. Manifestation should be fun, not stressful! ✨

11:11 11:11 11:11 11:11 11:11 11:11 11:11 ⋆.˚🦋༘⋆ 11:11 11:11 11:11 11:11 11:11 11:11 11:1

[mbti-notes]

What is your opinion on the site Personality Database? It's a website where people comment and vote (by majority) on a fictional character or celebrity's MBTI type. I notice people use different theories in their arguments, such as the 8 function stack one, that conflict with with 4 function stack, which isn't very conductive for a debate. This, and the majority vote system, means that many profiles get mistyped. Would you say debating there is of any use to study type theory?

You're asking two separate questions. The first is what I think about the website. I know about it because it pops up in searches but I don't use it myself, so I don't really have a strong opinion. With the voting system, the results are only as good as the people who've voted. Generally speaking, if you understand and accept the limitations of a system, then you're in a better position to get something useful from it.

The second question is whether it is of any use for studying type theory. This is a more complicated question to answer because it depends on several factors:

(1) Different people have different learning preferences. When your study materials match up well with your learning preferences, it helps you stay engaged and motivated to keep learning. So, the more important question is: What are your learning preferences and does the website align with them?

I was a philosophy major and worked as a debate coach, so debate is basically my second language. I'm fine with debate but I much prefer to learn through dialogue and discussion. I've known plenty of students who hated debate and couldn't engage because they found the atmosphere too antagonistic or polarizing.

The problem is that most people don't really know how to debate. A lot of "debates" are really just people shouting over each other and putting forth mere opinion as fact. Ideally, debate should be about bringing to light all the relevant points, evaluating them fairly, and determining where the truth lies by exposing falsehoods and fallacies.

However, since debate has a performance element, it's all too easy for ego and emotions to take over and derail noble intentions. If you're the kind of person who has a hard time concentrating only on the merits of ideas and keeping them separate from the people doing the speaking, then debate is probably not your ideal form of learning.

(2) The quality of the information provided in a debate can only be trusted to the extent that the debaters are knowledgeable people.

Beware that a lot of people are good at speaking confidently despite not really knowing what they're talking about. The problem with communicating anonymously on the internet is you don't immediately know who you're talking to and what level of education they have. An open comment section could easily include anyone, from 10-year-olds to college professors.

In order to benefit from the comments, you'd have to be able to judge their quality. But this implies that you already possess a certain level of foundational knowledge in order to judge well. But... if you already had that knowledge, how much more could you gain from a comments section?

As a general rule, when I'm a total noob at something, the first thing I do is seek out experts to learn from, people who've spent a significant chunk of their life devoted to the subject. I never want to risk being misled by inexperienced/ignorant people. I'd much rather slog through a dense book written by a well-respected person in the field than listen to a smooth-talking social media influencer with questionable credentials. I value my time and this is one way I protect myself from making costly learning mistakes or wasting my efforts.

(3) A debate is only educational to the extent that the information presented is representative of the subject as a whole.

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of debaters you ought to avoid when learning is your main goal: "egoists" and "dogmatists". These people don't take learning seriously and the way they present information can seriously bias your view of the subject.

- Egoists are skilled at "framing" a debate to make themselves look good. They believe that debating is about winning and they'll do anything to win, even if it means obfuscating the truth. They mainly care about getting attention, obtaining rewards, and/or feeling superior, so they only learn what is minimally necessary to achieve those ends. To them, knowledge is relative rather than objective, all smoke and mirrors.

- Yes, there are a variety of theories, so it can be difficult to reconcile them, or it can lead to people talking past each other. This can also produce tribal mentality as people pick sides. Dogmatic people usually start out as insecure or directionless students, so they're unconsciously looking for ways to compensate for their lack of confidence. By picking what they believe is a "winning team", they gain a more solid identity and feel more emboldened to debate and argue from a place of "authority". Unfortunately, dogmatic people end up having glaring blind spots because they're not willing to consider counterevidence and alternative viewpoints. Their learning is incomplete, and they like it that way.

This isn't to say that egoists and dogmatists can't be right about anything; it is to say that they only grasp a tiny sliver of the bigger picture. Have you ever flipped through introductory college textbooks? You'll notice that they all share a similar structure. They break the entire field up into subfields and then provide a review of the most important research for each. When you're new to a subject, getting a full and objective view of the entire subject is important for structuring your learning process logically. You won't get that breadth from egoists and dogmatists.

.

I'm a "holistic" learner, whether I like it or not. This means I have to be able to visualize the bigger picture or the final outcome in order to learn smoothly. For me, learning is like trying to put together a giant jigsaw puzzle, so it really helps to have the box with the picture on it as a guide. As a holistic learner, I welcome rather than decry the existence of many different and conflicting theories. I'm always looking to fill in the missing pieces of the grand puzzle, and one theory alone usually doesn't cut it.

If you've ever studied the history of science, psychology, or philosophy, you'll realize that there's a running narrative behind the development of major theories. New theories arise because people are responding to deficits in the theory that came before. Each new theory tackles the subject from a slightly different angle that was previously missed. I love when theories conflict with each other because that reveals the most important aspects of the subject to examine.

I don't subscribe completely to any one theory because I believe every theory has something valuable to contribute to the ongoing development of a subject. Observing a debate, I'm open to different theoretical viewpoints because I want to hear things I haven't considered yet or wasn't able to think of on my own. This fast tracks my learning. Thus, I only find debate useful to the extent that it adds something new to my understanding.

With my training in philosophical debate, it's easy for me to organize information quickly and ignore everything but the key points. I take key points from different theories and then assemble them into a framework that I can personally use and apply (this is how the study guides on my blog came into being). Similarly, if I want to type a person/character, I appreciate people bringing up details that I forgot/missed and then add them to my analysis. Also, different people perceive human behavior differently and divergences in perception often reveal important information, so I'm all about seeing exactly where people disagree.

However, not everyone learns well this way. Some people are easily overwhelmed because debates often present too much information too fast, in a messy, nonlinear format. It can be hard to pick out the key points and it's easy to get distracted by the "tone" of voice or the "dynamics" between the speakers. Whether the format will work for you, I don't know. Your mileage may vary.

[filmnoirfoundation]

ASK EDDIE returns Thursday, January 9, 7:00 PM PT to our Facebook page.

FNF prez Eddie Muller responds to film noir fan questions fielded by the foundation's director of communications Anne Hockens. In this edition, we discuss Le Trou, The Killers, I Walk Alone, as well as the noir credentials of “The Whistler” film series and Man in the Net. We also answer the question, “Who do you think was the best overall film noir actor?” We wrap up the show discussing what we’ve been reading and watching including the Ripley novels, Lars von Trier’s The Kingdom, Joker: Folie à Deux, and  revisit The Substance from Eddie’s P.O.V.

Want your question answered in a future episode? We solicit questions from our email subscribers in our monthly newsletters. Sign up for free   

Everyone who signs up on our email list and contributes $20 or more to the Film Noir Foundation receives the digital version of NOIR CITY Magazine for a year.   

Can’t join us on Thursday? No problem! A recording will be up on our YouTube channel, @NoirCity, on Friday, January 10.

Note: Eddie will not be able to answer questions posted during the livestream nor ones left on our social media accounts

[wat3rm370n]

People who care about public health: stay focused on fundamentals regarding vaccines.

There was a Moderna presentation at the CDC ACIP meeting regarding the next generation covid-19 vaccine. It’s a second generation, single antigen vaccine. Unfortunately a lot of people talking about it online, on social media, and in some forums, don’t have the expertise in this to really discern what it all means. Some people have erroneously and incorrectly claimed that Moderna is “trying to bring back the bivalent vaccine” from previous seasons. This is false. It’s possible some enthusiasts misconstrued the issue because the trial covered in the presentation was conducted with the bivalent because that was available at that time. I also think that this is getting muddled up with the weird erroneous and non-factual comments made in the news by RFKJr about Novavax. Some people are also spreading anti-vax talking points about mRNA vaccines — claims that are not true.

Be aware that there seem to have been considerable efforts to make Novavax into a meme stock, and there may be people who are motivated in strange ways to confuse the issue. It’s not always about making money, product cults are unfortunately enticing to a lot of people for social reasons, many who are feeling at loose ends these days, and a lot of communities are being target marketed leveraging that, but also there are people who just want attention. Nobody should get medical advice from social media hot shots who might be credentialed but may still be unreliable, because there are lots of incentives and motivations and relationships that may lead to poor science communication when people are promoting their work on social media.

And definitely nobody should be getting medical information from media interviews with RFKJr either because he’s not even a doctor and says stuff he’s pulling out of the air, or somewhere else.

The CDC ACIP meeting to determine recommendations for the covid vaccines will take place in June 2025. The discussion in this recent meeting around the covid vaccines may have been less than reassuring, that’s for sure, and doesn’t give me any hope for an actual vaccination campaign to improve uptake sadly, which is what we need. However, I’d like to remind everyone that this shockingly lukewarm vibe from this committee has been the case at basically every CDC ACIP meeting for years now, sometimes with people pushing the idea that the vaccines should be restricted to the very old, or just restricted seemingly based on following the politics. I’ve been writing about the wishy-washy CDC guidance for years now. So all hope is not lost here by any means based on odd stuff said at this meeting. But it means that everyone who cares needs to make our voices louder than the anti-vaxxers who are but a loud minority. The problem is that people on the side of science-based medicine have rested on the laurels of fact. We simply can’t do that. Everything is political and doctors and public health experts need to get political on this. Don’t take vaccines for granted, nobody ever should have.

My letter to elected representatives:

I want vaccines. I want research on effective vaccines funded, I want covid vaccines, I want vaccines covered by all insurance, and I want free vaccination available to the uninsured. I want vaccines mandated in congregate and high risk settings like nursing homes, hospitals, schools, and the military.

Please feel free to copy or repurpose the contents of my letter for your own.

[milfstalin]

Musk made direct appeals to Trump to reverse sweeping new tariffs

The world’s richest person, a key Trump adviser and political donor, was ultimately unsuccessful.

April 7, 2025 at 7:46 p.m. EDT

(full text under cut)

MUSK MADE DIRECT APPEALS TO TRUMP TO REVERSE SWEEPING NEW TARIFFS

Over the weekend, as Elon Musk launched into a barrage of social media posts criticizing one of the lead White House advisers for President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff plan, Musk was going over that same official’s head — and making personal appeals to Trump.

The attempted intervention, confirmed by two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private talks, has not brought success so far; Trump threatened Monday to add new 50 percent tariffs on imports from China to go along with the 34 percent taxes he announced last week. (The president did signal he was open to negotiations on some aspects of his policy.) Musk, meanwhile, posted a video to X in which the late conservative economist Milton Friedman touted the benefits of international trade cooperation — “the impersonal operation of prices,” as he put it — breaking down the sources of the materials that go into a simple wooden pencil.

Musk’s break with Trump over a signature administration priority marks the highest-profile disagreement between the president and one of his key advisers, who poured nearly $290 million into backing him and other Republicans in last year’s elections and has been leading the U.S. DOGE Service’s cost-cutting efforts since January. Musk has also disagreed with other members of Trump’s coalition on issues such as H1-B visas for skilled immigrants and on DOGE’s approach to government spending.

On Saturday, Musk took aim at the administration official who has been key to developing the tariff plans, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, lighting into his credentials.

“A PhD in Econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing,” Musk wrote.

Navarro did not respond to a request for comment.

“The President has put together a remarkable team of highly talented and experienced individuals who bring different ideas to the table, knowing that President Trump is the ultimate decision maker,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “When he makes a decision everyone rows in the same direction to execute. That’s why this Administration has done more in two months than the previous Admin did in four years.”

In an interview with Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini over the weekend, Musk also said he would like to see a “free trade zone” between Europe and the United States: “At the end of the day, I hope it’s agreed that both Europe and the United States should move ideally, in my view, to a zero-tariff situation.”

Musk also said that he would like more freedom for people to move between countries in Europe and the United States and work in either “if they wish.”

“That has certainly been my advice to the president,” he said.

Musk, who is chief executive of electric vehicle maker Tesla, has long seen tariffs as detrimental to the business aims of a company that counts both the United States and China as key manufacturing and consumer hubs. Other car manufacturers, though, are likely to be hurt more by the new tariffs, analysts have said.

But Musk has opposed tariffs since at least Trump’s first term, when Tesla filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the tax on Tesla’s imports from China to the United States.

In 2020, top executives at Tesla wanted the company to sue the Trump administration over its tariffs on China. Musk initially agreed, saying that parts of Trump’s package were unfair to the carmaker. But after Tesla filed the lawsuit in September 2020, Musk reacted in a “super negative way” about the decision, even berating some staff members for suggesting Tesla file the suit, according to a person familiar with the matter, because right-wing accounts on Twitter said Musk was trying to curry favor with the Chinese and was going against Trump’s “America First” agenda.

Many of the business and technology leaders who supported Trump’s candidacy were stunned by the president’s decision to go forward with such steep tariffs, and equally disappointed that they weren’t able to exert more influence on the policy, the two people familiar with the matter said. People in Musk’s orbit made direct appeals to friends in the Trump administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Musk, arguing for what they felt were more sensible free trade policies. One Musk friend, investor Joe Lonsdale, posted on X that he had argued to “friends in the administration” in recent days that tariffs would hurt American companies more than Chinese ones. Lonsdale declined to comment about his arguments beyond his X post.

A group of business leaders worked over the weekend to put together an informal group that would lobby members of the Trump administration for more moderate policies, said one of the people.

Many supported Trump last year even while knowing that the steep tariffs he had long promised could be destructive to both the tech industry and the economy as a whole, but they felt that Trump could be swayed by advisers such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to adopt a softer approach, the people said. The business leaders also did not anticipate that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who had been one of Musk’s key conduits into Trump’s orbit, would be such a strong advocate of protectionist polices.

The dispute between the president and one of his most influential advisers comes just weeks before Musk, the world’s richest person, is expected to depart his post in the administration. It also comes amid increasing pressure on Tesla to reverse signs of slumping demand — prompted in part by Musk’s foray into politics.

“The backlash from Trump tariff policies in China and Musk’s association will be hard to understate,” said Dan Ives, analyst with Wedbush Securities, an enthusiastic Tesla backer who lowered Tesla’s stock price target — a measure of its viability — from $550 to $315 “to reflect these new softer demand estimates.”

“Tesla has essentially become a political symbol globally … and that is a very bad thing for the future of this disruptive tech stalwart and the brand crisis tornado that has now turned into an F5 tornado,” he wrote.

Tesla stock closed at $233.29 per share Monday, down more than 2.5 percent. So far this year, the stock has lost more than 38 percent of its value.

Musk showed signs of attempting reconciliation later Monday. He touted an X thread from the official U.S. trade representative account highlighting what it called unfair trade practices affecting American exporters, in light of Trump’s tariffs. “Good points,” Musk said.

Musk’s brother and fellow Tesla board member Kimbal Musk also lobbed sharp criticism at the president over the tariff policies Monday.

“Who would have thought that Trump was actually the most high tax American President in generations,” he wrote on X, the social media site Elon Musk owns. “Through his tariff strategy, Trump has implemented a structural, permanent tax on the American consumer.”

The remarks came less than a month after Kimbal Musk had thanked Trump for hosting an event featuring Teslas on the White House lawn.

[bubblesandgutz]

I love your unpretentious sharing of both music and your lovely family (and that hot bod). It’s objective and personal at the same time, which really makes your musings stand out. It kind of makes me feel that I know you a bit and strangely some kind of relation. That and the previous question made me wonder if you experience that people feel you are more approachable, to the point that it affects you? If I ever met you I would like to say hi and express my gratitude for all your creativity have given me, but on the other side I don’t want to encroach or anything.

Also, please write more.

Thank you so much for the nice message!

I started sharing my records here as a writing exercise back when I was a freelance writer for a few different outlets (mainly The Stranger and Noisey / VICE). A big part of music criticism is eliminating the "I" from your work---you don't need to tell the reader "I think this record is good," you just need to say "this record is good." It makes a certain amount of sense---the readership doesn't need to be reminded that they're reading one person's opinion---but I always had a couple of qualms about eliminating the "I."

Sometimes the reader really does need to be reminded that this is one person's opinion and not the opinion of an entire media outlet or the larger press world. Also, I think criticism could stand to be more personalized. As a reader, I'd love to know more about the credentials of a writer. Am I reading a review written by a nineteen-year-old or a fifty-year-old? Because I would expect those two people to have vastly different perspectives on any given piece of music.

And beyond that, I'm more likely to discover a new artist or album from someone I know in real life. Someone whose frame of reference is closer to my own. Someone with shared interests. The more I know about someone who's discussing or suggesting an artist, the more context I have for understanding their perspective.

And more specifically, sometimes hearing about someone's personal history and connection to a piece of music can help me find my own path to appreciating it.

So I guess that's why these little write-ups tend to be so personal. As far as public perception goes, I don't really know how to gauge that sort of thing. Based on the number of notes my posts get, I assume only a couple of people read these posts. But then I'll have random folks come up and talk about a piece I wrote here, or something I write here will get picked up by a music website, so I really have no clue as to how many people pay attention to this blog and even less of a grasp as to how people perceive me based on what I write here.

All that said, I'm always happy to hear someone's appreciated my work, so please don't hesitate to come up and say hi if you see me out and about.

[ambiencowboy]

Misinformation spreads on tumblr so fast!!! Please remember, just because an article is saying something that appeals to your politics, doesn’t mean it is coming from a trustworthy source. It is possible to promote a good cause badly, or to use false information to promote a message that’s truthful overall.

Here are some tips for things to ask yourself before reblogging any article:

1. Who is this written by, and who are they writing for

2. What are the credentials of the author and the website/newspaper they are writing for

3. What are their agendas and political affiliations?

4. What sources do they reference?

5. Has their story been covered by other sources?

6. Does the headline accurately represent the information contained in the article?

Please stop posting articles from tabloids and websites that look like they’ll give me twenty viruses. The daily mail is a conservative tabloid and I see articles from it posted on here constantly. It’s important to note that misinformation is bipartisan, both left wing and right wing media can contain misinformation and/or propaganda.

Also here are some tips for any “studies”, as I see some dubious ones posted on here all the time:

1. Who conducted this study and what are their credentials?

2. Was it publicly funded or privately funded?

3. How many times was the experiment in the study conducted? If it was just once, it’s not strong evidence of anything, the results may be due to coincidence or unknown variables, running the experiment multiple times is the only way to verify results

3. How was the study conducted? Like how many subjects were involved and were the subjects of a specific demographic? Was it conducted ethically? Was there a control group in place?

4. What was the hypothesis of the study/experiment and how do the results compare to the hypothesis?

5. Have any other scientists responded to the study with criticism, or conducted a different study that had results which challenge the original?

6. Was it a survey? The results of surveys should be taken in with the largest pinch of salt ever. Like a whole cup of salt.

Please be mindful of this stuff, I think a lot of political discussion on tumblr but also on every other social media site would be a million times less toxic if everyone was hyper vigilant about this stuff. Myself included, I can def stand to be more vigilant, I don’t wanna sound condescending or like I’m above accidentally spreading misinfo, I definitely have before.

[emblemxeno]

I find it very frustrating how some Americans refuse to consider the possibility that they might be misinformed about what someone from another culture might be saying

They'll take any translation at face value if it validates their opinion and don't think to verify or double-check the translators' credentials

And they won't even hear out someone actually from that foreign culture who's discussing the situation from their perspective

Sorry, but not everything needs to be seen from the American perspective

Valid! There is a TON of things in media centralized on the American perspective, and while it's understandable (economic and entertainment superpower) it's still... not good?

There are billions of people on the Earth that can and should offer their views on things, and that's why as you said, it's important to double, triple or even quadruple check your work instead of running with your confirmation bias Google Search and going "See! See! I knew my American brain was correct!"