#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

[simply-ivanka]

Kamala Harris: Mystery Commander in Chief

How would the Vice President keep America safe in a dangerous world? The voters deserve some answers.

The Editorial Board --- Wall Street Journal

Kamala Harris is all but telling Americans they’ll have to elect her to find out what she really believes, as the Vice President ducks interviews and the media give her a free ride. This is bad enough on domestic issues, but on foreign policy it could be perilous. The world is more dangerous than it’s been in decades, and Americans deserve to know how the woman aiming to be Commander in Chief Harris would confront these threats.

Ms. Harris this week tweeted a photo of her sitting next to President Biden in the White House situation room discussing the Middle East. The point is to suggest she’s a co-pilot on Biden foreign policy.

This isn’t the credential the Harris campaign thinks it is, and the voters should hear directly from her what she thinks about the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, the failure to deter Russia in Ukraine, the Iranian nuclear program, China’s island grabs in the South China Sea, and more. The matter is all the more important because Ms. Harris conspicuously declined to choose a running mate who might lend foreign policy experience to the ticket.

Ms. Harris has given a few hints about her own views on the Middle East, and those aren’t encouraging. Her team spent much of Thursday walking back whether she told an anti-Israel group she’d be willing to ponder an arms embargo against Israel. She skipped Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress when our main Middle East ally is under siege. Did she pass over Josh Shapiro as her running mate because he would have enraged the anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party?

To the extent she has revealed a larger instinct on national security, it’s been wrong. She told the Council on Foreign Relations in 2019 that she’d rejoin the Iran nuclear deal as long as “Iran also returned to verifiable compliance.” But Iran didn’t comply and is now on the brink of a nuclear breakout.

Her 2018 Senate vote to “end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen,” as Ms. Harris put it in a tweet, also hasn’t aged well. The Houthis the Saudis were fighting are now targeting commercial ships in the Red Sea almost daily and putting U.S. naval assets at risk. Does she think this status quo can persist—and what would she do differently?

Ms. Harris will surely argue that she and Mr. Biden reinvigorated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization after Vladimir Putin’s invasion in Ukraine. But absent a change in U.S. political will, the war in Ukraine isn’t on track to end on terms favorable to American interests. Her past enthusiasm for banning fracking—which her campaign is trying to walk back—also suggests she isn’t serious about checking Mr. Putin’s main source of war financing.

Ms. Harris would no doubt also tout the diplomatic progress the Biden Administration has made in Asia with Japan, the Philippines and others. Yet she whiffed on one of the single most important diplomatic questions in Asia: She opposed Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that would have excluded China and boosted America as the region’s premiere trading partner.

Most important, will Ms. Harris build up the hard military assets required to deter China’s Xi Jinping and a consolidating axis of U.S. adversaries? “I unequivocally agree with the goal of reducing the defense budget,” Ms. Harris said as a Senator in 2020 after voting against a Bernie Sanders proposal to slash the Pentagon by 10%. That vote needed no explanation, but Ms. Harris wanted to make sure the left knew she was sympathetic. Does she still want to slash the defense budget?

Donald Trump often shoots from the hip on these subjects, and his favorable comments about dictators are witless. But his first-term record, especially on Iran and the Middle East, is far stronger than the Biden-Harris performance.

Americans shouldn’t have to read tea leaves to figure out if Ms. Harris would keep the country safe in a treacherous world.

[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.

[reachartwork]

On the "is glaze snake oil/does glaze replicate" discussion: (quora.com style bullshit credentialism statement: I'm using neural networks for my PhD in a top 10 university)

Supervisor of the author on the glaze paper has almost 36,000 citations so very unlikely any information in the paper is faked or large issues being swept under the rug.

Results are replicated in "IMPRESS: Evaluating the Resilience of Imperceptible Perturbations Against Unauthorized Data Usage in Diffusion-Based Generative AI", supervisor of the author has 2000 citations, which is very high for an assistant professor.

Programs written by academics rarely work outside of the very specific environment they're designed in, but the author seems like an asshole based on media presentation, so its fully possible he's trying to hide (when talking about it, not in the publication) that it only works on the style replicator he trained it against.

The 'impress' paper also mitigates the impact quite strongly.

Tl;dr: these perturbations do seem to exist and have the reported impact, but they seem to be reversible and highly tailored to specific encoders.

posted without comment

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Please share your reasoning when you get a chance on why you don't believe Theresa Longo Fans. Granted, they have been wrong before.

So the TL;DR of it is:

They're anonymous journalists and that's suspicious.

They haven't updated their brag sheet in 6 years, which means they haven't had a good source in 6 years.

They plagiarize almost everything.

They use vague language and broad generalities in their scoops that lets them take credit no matter what happens.

Keep reading for the longer explanations.

1. I'm always immediately suspicious of anyone in journalism that doesn't use their name. When a journalist is anonymous, especially when they have no need to be like in TLF's case, it's not easy to hold them accountable to lies and mistakes. The two guys behind TLF like to brag about their journalism credentials, and that's huge because there's no way to follow up to make sure they are who they say they are. They rely on "just trust me" authority, and when has that ever worked out? Especially with blind gossip sites (in addition to TLF, this includes CDAN, Blind Gossip, DeuxMoi, and Exposing SMG), you can't verify the accuracy of what they post - especially when you consider that CDAN, Enty, and DeuxMoi all admitted they make stuff up.

(And also ExposingSMG rarely has new information when it comes to the BRF. (They might have sources for other celebs, but I don't pay attention close enough.) Specifically, they just repeat what was being discussed on the blogs and reddit, calling them "my source" so they don't have to cite. BTW, ExposingSMG has since rebranded as Scandalous.Media. They posted about the Sussexes recently and some of their quoted sources or "revelations" are things that have been around for awhile. This one in particular I think is a combination of info from CDAN and SMM.)

I saw somewhere once that the TLF guys don't share their names so they can protect the privacy and confidentiality of their sources. But I call BS. If journalists needed anonymity to protect their sources, then why aren't more journalists reporting anonymously? These two guys are the only people I know that calls themselves journalists who do this, and to me that is suspicious. (Exceptions only for reporters in war zones.)

2. Look at the scoops they take credit for in their pinned tweet: Sussex baby #1, Khloe Kardashian's pregnancy, Kylie Jenner's baby, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's divorce, Megxit, Wendy Williams's show demise, and the Pulse/Orlando nightclub shooting. What these all have in common is that they are events from 2016 - 2019. Meaning they had really good sources, contacts, and access 6-8 years ago. And that list not having anything more recent suggests they don't have the kind of sources, contacts, and access anymore. If they did, and if they were still getting the same sort of accurate scoops that they were 7 years ago, this list would be updated to inclde those more recent events. Why haven't they?

Now, that's not to say they never had good sources. They did have good sources, and whoever it was, their information was solid enough that it upset Meghan enough to get Bouzy to take TLF down. That doesn't really mean anything because a broken clock is still correct twice a day.

3. The tweets themselves are problematic. In fact, most of them are plagiarized.

If there's a direct quote in the tweet, it's plagiarized from some other source/news media and TLF never cites the source. For example, this TLF tweet from January 8th:

It implies that they've interviewed Dominic himself. But they never spoke to Dominic. The quotes come, verbatim, from this January 6th article published by The Mirror.

And for tweets without a direct quote in it, they usually try to pass it off as their own scoop but nine times out of ten, it isn't. For example, this tweet:

It looks like a good scoop. At face value, it is: they know someone who saw Shia at church and connected one plus one.

But #1, when you search "Actor Shia LaBeouf appears to have converted to Catholicism after being seen at a New Year's Eve Mass presided over by Capuchin Franciscan friars," this article from the Associated Press on December 31st comes up:

Almost everything they publish is like this. Go ahead - choose any tweet, copy the text into a search engine, and see what happens.

And #2, look at their verbiage. Specifically, the phrase appears to have in the Shia tweet above. This is how they get away with passing off their stories as scoops, with vague verbage that could go either way. That way, when an article is later published about it, they can grab the "original" tweet and claim credit with "as we told our followers back in..." or "no surprise to our followers..." tweets.

*******************************

Now, specific to royal-watching: they completely and totally missed the ball on big stuff (like Platinum Jubilee and Coronation appearances), but they got it on the smaller stuff (Spare and Frogmore). But the kicker is that the smaller stuff is things that were either written about by royal reporters or was plausible gossip floating around the royal fandom.

The things they were wildly wrong on - for instance, the children being on the balcony at the Platinum Jubilee and the royals hosting a birthday party for Archie after the coronation - were things that came directly from Meghan's PR. So either they didn't realize it was Meghan's PR or they decided to hedge their bets and post it anyway on the off-chance it happened, which I think is in poor taste but it makes for very fun entertainment.

[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!"

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Katherine Stewart at TNR (08.10.2023):

Earlier this year, nearly 1,000 supporters of “National Conservatism” gathered at the semicircular auditorium of the Emmanuel Centre, an elegant London meeting hall a couple of blocks south of Westminster Abbey, to hear from a range of scholars, commentators, politicians, and public servants. NatCon conferences, as they are often called, have been held in Italy, Belgium, and Florida and are broadly associated with what is increasingly called the “New Right.” In London, speakers denounced “woke politics,” blamed immigration for the rising cost of housing, and said modern ills could be solved with more religion and more (nonimmigrant) babies. The break room was lined with booths from organizations such as the Viktor Orbán–affiliated Danube Institute, the U.K.-based conservative think tank the Bow Group, the Heritage Foundation, and the legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, which is headquartered in Arizona but has expanded to include offices in nearly a half-dozen European cities. When I attended NatCon London in May, I heard a number of American accents in the crowd, and I was not surprised to see Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank, on the lineup. These days, Anton and other key representatives of the Claremont Institute seem to be everywhere: onstage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC); at the epicenter of Ron DeSantis’s “war on woke”; and on speed-dial with GOP allies including Josh Hawley, J.D. Vance, and Donald Trump.

Most of us are familiar with the theocrats of the religious right and the anti-government extremists, groups that overlap a bit but remain distinct. The Claremont Institute folks aren’t quite either of those things, and yet they’re both and more. In embodying a kind of nihilistic yearning to destroy modernity, they have become an indispensable part of right-wing America’s evolution toward authoritarianism. Extremism of the right-wing variety has always figured on the sidelines of American culture, and it has enjoyed a renaissance with the rise of social media. But Claremont represents something new in modern American politics: a group of people, not internet conspiracy freaks but credentialed and influential leaders, who are openly contemptuous of democracy. And they stand a reasonable chance of being seated at the highest levels of government—at the right hand of a President Trump or a President DeSantis, for example.

[...]

Founded in 1979 in the city of Claremont, California (but not associated in an official way with any of the five colleges there), the Claremont Institute provided enthusiastic support for Donald Trump in 2016. Individuals associated with Claremont now fund and help run the National Conservativism gatherings; Claremont Institute chairman and funder Thomas D. Klingenstein also funds the Edmund Burke Foundation, which has held those National Conservatism conferences across the globe. Claremont is deeply involved in DeSantis’s effort to remake Florida’s state universities in the model of Hillsdale College—a private, right-wing, conservative Christian academy in Michigan whose president, Larry Arnn, happens to be one of the institute’s founders and former presidents. Claremont honored DeSantis at an annual gala with its 2021 “Statesmanship Award,” and the governor returned the favor by organizing a discussion with a “brain trust” that included figures associated with the Claremont Institute. If either Trump or DeSantis becomes president in 2024, Claremont and its associates are likely to be integral to the “brain trust” of the new administration. Indeed, some of them are certain to become appointees in the administrative state that they wish (or so they say) to destroy.

The Claremont Institute in the Trump era has become a clearinghouse for far-right and fascistic ideas.  

[polarisbibliotheque]

About the time a guy was being creepy to me on a professional setting and my gut feeling told me "GET OUT NOW"

Ok, so hi! This post has to do with a reblog recently here in my blog, on one of my fics regarding Dante and Vergil with an s/o suffering from being hit on without their consent. I write Devil May Cry fanfiction and that was my way of coping with a CREEP being, well, a creep.

Who would've known, fanfic is therapeutical

My answer got so big, I decided to make a separate post about it - and I'm talking like this because, if this gets out the DMC sphere and other people read it, they'll understand the fandom talk a little bit. This is not just for the fandom, but everyone out there.

Including men. All of us are prone to being targets of creeps - even if I'll be telling about my experience as a woman, take this advice to your heart NO MATTER your gender.

When this episode happened in my life, I was 27 y/o, I think...? I got pushed into such a stupid corner by this guy who kept messaging me with "work related" stuff... And my family wasn't validating my "this is weird" feeling.

So... What happened?

(TW: I mention the words "rape" and "sexual abuse" but none of that has happened. It was a red flag and I want to talk about avoiding it like the plague and how people might dismiss your gut feeling when something is wrong. I write with brutal honesty, curse words and don't censor anything, because I'm here to tell people how it is not curating content to go viral on clean ~family friendly~ social media. This is honest advice I'd give someone else, so it's just a heads up. I'm a little jaded with all the censoring of "forbidden words" when you have to discuss serious subjects like this nowadays hahahaha)

First context, I'm a Lawyer. Hi. I know it doesn't sound like it Second context, I'm from Latin America. Hi again!

Well, in my country, we have to vote every couple of years for the National Lawyer Association President and Vice-President (for my USA people, it's like the BAR association for Lawyers - meaning only lawyers who have passed the BAR and are, indeed, full-fledged to the association and with a lawyer permit can vote). I hate it, but it is what it is, I have to vote every time for one of those posh speaking clowns or else.

This much older guy stopped me at the entrance to the voting building to do some political propaganda of one of the candidates. Expected. They weren't the ones I was gonna vote 'cause their agenda didn't fit what I wanted for the Association - nevertheless, I smiled and was polite. Guy wouldn't shut up, but that's a lawyer thing. Kept being polite, dismissed him kindly and went inside to vote.

As I came back, guy is there and stops me. I had called my mom to give me a ride home - by that time, I had been broke and without a job for 2 years up until that point, trying to get back into the ~lawyer business~ and recover from a very bad burnout, so paying a ride back home was a big no. I had my phone on my hand and kept chatting because, you know, networking. You never know.

Now, mind you. I'm about to celebrate my 30th birthday this year, but people seriously think I'm underage wherever I go. I have to literally show them my credentials and ID so they can believe a single word I say. This guy, must've been around his 50s or something - and I look like a teen or, at best, 20 years old. I graduated when I was 22, so that's the most he could've imagined I was.

As we're talking, dude is flexing his career so hard I start to do the same. He says he has known the President and influential people in politics (back then, far-right government, so red flag already waving in the horizon), he has an office both here and in New York and Miami, he has worked with the FBI (we're in Latin America, the USA stuff is a flex for far-right people). I say I have worked as the Labor Lawyer in a huge worldwide known multinational company, coordinated with people in the USA and UK, had around 100 cases to manage monthly and keep the company in order when the directors were not around.

Guy is impressed and asks for my contact on LinkedIn. I'm down for it, I'm looking for a job and he could be one hell of a way to get back on business. Dude mentions he's in digital law and, heck, I wanted so bad to get into digital law! It was like he was put in my way by the angels to help me get back on my feet!

He asks for my resumé and my cellphone number, so he can have me in his office to have a cup of coffee. I am soaring by now. "That's it!!" I think "That's my ticket back to being a lawyer, to having my own money, to breaking the cycle of unemployment and having my career back!" - so I do it! I give him my number!

hello, workaholic aunt here speaking, my career was everything to me, I'd do everything for it

After I got back home, told my mom everything, and everyone was so happy. That's when he started sending me messages - asking for my address so he could send me some lawyer magazines and such... Even though he had asked when we were talking before and I changed the subject. I didn't give him of course, but instead sent him my resumé.

So, next day he asks me about that coffee and I said we can make it happen... Even if he got my name wrong. I have a pretty exotic name in whatever country I go, so it's a common mistake, known to happen, no one can pronounce my name right if I don't teach them how to, so yeah. I'm willing to gloss over that.

I'm assuming he read my resumé, saw how smart, capable and hardworking I am, and wants to talk business. Wants to offer me a job. I'm super ready. I'm taking my business clothes out of the closet, I'm cleaning my high heel black boots, I'm checking my references and vocabulary so I don't screw up. Guy sends a message saying he wants to take me out for lunch.

Red flag. My instincts flare up and I'm just staring at the screen. I start reviewing everything. I mean... Business lunches are ok, right? I had lunches with my manager and director plenty of times back in the day and it never got weird. So... Why was I feeling weird now...?

Guy says we can go out for lunch and then back at his office so he can show me around. I was like "hmmm... ok? shouldn't be weird. this is normal." but nevertheless I went to check with my mom and my sister.

Both said it was fine. I was feeling weird because it's a guy and me and I shouldn't be feeling uneasy - it's my social anxiety/workplace trauma talking. It's the opportunity of a lifetime. I shouldn't screw up.

I keep talking to him. I ask where we should meet up for this lunch and he tells me to give him my address, so he could pick me up and we can go to "a nice place to have lunch" (his words, not mine).

Red flags are dancing around my head. I keep thinking "have I lead him on something????" and going mad. What was I wearing? Only work clothes, that's all - suit pants, black high heel boots, dark silk shirt and only a nude lipstick so my lips wouldn't get chapped. My shirt didn't even show cleavage.

It's ridiculous how I feel this is a thing I should add 'cause heaven forbid the cleavage

What about what I've said? Did I accidentally flirt?? 'Cause that's been known to happen - I'm a clueless ace who can't for the life of me notice when people are flirting or not or notice when people think I'm flirting with them. And usually when they are not flirting or being attractive, that's when the magic happens for me! So... What gives?! Did I do something wrong, that sent the wrong message?

I mean, I was nice, yes. But you're supposed to be nice to people. I'm not gonna be rude just because most guys can't keep it in their pants.

I go over the messages. I didn't do anything strictly not business like. I'm very good at that. I have only worked responding to men as bosses in my life, had four male bosses before him, all different ages, marital status, star signs, backgrounds, lives. The best colleagues and co-workers I used to spend hours having coffee and laughing with were men. So I know how to keep professional and not mixing things up. It wasn't a slip up from my side.

Well, then there's always the chance I was going crazy and overreacting, soooo... I go over to my mom and sister. They think it's weird, yes, but they do think that's exactly what's going on: I'm overreacting and my social anxiety/workplace trauma is blocking me from pursuing this opportunity that can help my career - and make me have a salary again so I can help at home.

Ok. I though up and go back to talking to him. I tell him fine but I'll go to the place myself, so he can tell me where he's thinking about having lunch. Guy tells me nothing and keeps insisting I give him my address and he will give me a ride so we can "get to know each other better".

My GODS I've never felt so uncomfortable. Not even when I had to stay ONLY with my boss working until 1 am, only the two of us in the company building, every light out except the one in the room we were in, him being around 15 years older than me and very confident, with the two of us having one of the best work chemistry I had in my LIFE.

He could've done ANYTHING to me, but we only talked strictly work. We were tired, he waited for my mom to pick me up at 1 am outside so nothing bad would happen to me, both of us under an umbrella, he apologized to my mom for having me stay at work so late and then went back home to his wife and kid. I NEVER, at ANY moment felt unsafe around him. He was my mentor, he was my boss, he was a good colleague and even somewhat of a friend.

So why on EARTH was I feeling SO UNCOMFORTABLE with this guy I had only met ONCE face to face in my life?

I start to voice my concerns. My mom and my sister think I'm only saying that because I don't want to go back to work. That I want to throw my career away because I can't control my anxiety and my feelings. We fight a couple of times and a couple of days. My mom tells my aunt about it. My aunt goes full FBI and does a background check on this dude.

That's when she told my mom some things weren't adding up. His LinkedIn profile was a little too weird and he had no ties whatsoever with the elected President of the Lawyer Association - was he really someone in their team for propaganda? Nevertheless, he did have an office and did work with digital law, both here and in the USA. I shouldn't let this opportunity slip.

I got so mad. SO MAD. To the point my sister decided to ask her boyfriend for his opinion on all of it and he was like "hey... your sister is kinda right. guy wouldn't offer to take ME to a nice restaurant to have lunch and go to his office later for a coffee, would he...? I mean, this never happened to me" - and sis' boyfriend is on the business meetings and negotiations/selling part of the spectrum. He knows what he's talking about.

So now I finally have a man validating my concerns.

I take the decision to shut the whole thing down. I go "very well, I will NOT meet him, I will NOT maintain contact with him, he's treating me like a whore he picked up on the street". At this point, I am FUCKING FUMING. But still, my sister and mom gave him the benefit of the doubt and made me feel like I was doing something wrong.

So I decided to marinate him for a while.

I should note that all his messages were sent close or around midnight, not at working hours. And I only answered at working hours. Since I was taking a while to respond, my dude just goes like, and I kid you not, "ooooh she's not answering, she's ignoring me, I don't like that *sad emoji*" LIKE A FUCKING 13 YEAR OLD (no offense, 13 y/o peoples, but this dude is a FULL GROWN ASS MAN).

I am offended, I am flabbergasted and I wish I could suplex him to oblivion.

I show my mom the message. She just stares at me in awe. She FINALLY is like "yeah, ok, this isn't very professional". ALL THIS TIME, I never really told her what I was thinking and what was really worrying me. And then I break her the news that, what I'm really afraid of, is that this guy is going to rape me in his car. Or he's going to drive me somewhere I can't fight or scream and then he'll rape me. Whatever the scenario, it ended up with me being raped and I was scared. SO. FUCKING. SCARED.

My mom goes into Sphinx mode - that's when she doesn't answer and doesn't even look at me and just ~thinks~. It's a brutal reality she doesn't like and I don't like it either, I mean, it's my safety we're talking about here.

I shut down the guy completely. I tell him there's a family emergency and I couldn't continue to give him any attention nor I could go out for that lunch and I couldn't talk anymore. He SUDDENLY goes cold and "I am sorry if any of my messages seemed inconvenient. Do answer when you have the time so we can make an appointment." And that's it. No more messages. He's done in my book.

My mom tells my aunt. Aunt goes Sherlock Holmes mode this time and, lo and behold, they find an website of this guy's office. My mom is shocked at how 90's internet it looks for a guy who works with digital law. She then recognizes the address of the office but the doesn't remember of any office building in that street - so she Googles it.

His "office" is actually a residential building - meaning, it was his home address. She shows it to me and I want to cry - out of rage, shame, fear, sadness. I go like "yeah, this is the place he wanted me to go, to his home. What was he going to do to me there, huh?" - and I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Later, speaking to my sister, she's like "I dunno why you're so mad" and I'm like "WELL MISS I just got PICKED UP LIKE A WHORE outside of an OFFICIAL EVENT for the NATIONAL LAWYER ASSOCIATION while I was DRESSED UP PROFESSIONALLY and looking for PROFESSIONAL opportunities and I COULD HAVE BEEN RAPED. I think I have all the right in the FUCKING WORLD to be FUMING."

That's when we diverged some more. She just said like "hey that's how the world works: women are treated like whores - you weren't the first one to have this happen to you and you won't be the last. What are you gonna do about it? Get over it."

Oh. Boy. I looked at my sister's eyes. I saw her just staring at me weirdly. A storm was approaching. The skies darkened. Bury the Light started playing in the background. Vergil's doppelgänger was standing behind me like an angel of death. (All DMC references for my non-DMC peoples)

"Well. I wanna have power. So much fucking power in this world that no one ever even thinks about treating me like that again. So much power they will fear standing in front of me and saying those words - they will look into my eyes and shut up. So much power I will never be afraid to walk on my own again and I will never have to doubt my feelings when I'm feeling unsafe because some lowlife pitiful little shit decided I should be a whore to satisfy him. I want to have power so I will never be this helpless again."

Cue in my sister just sitting there with butter in the slice of bread in her hand, staring at me like "wtf man... do you need a hug...?" and me doing a dramatic exit back to my room to, well... Write the fanfic in question.

(For my DMC creatures: I never even thought of Vergil when I said all of this, I just noted that thought later in my diary and reading it a couple of days later I was like "omg I have become my worst enemy, fuck you Verge" because I kid you not, I used to hate this man with all the fibers of my being - hence where my longfic Nemesis came from. I realized I lived long enough to become my worst enemy - and maybe I hated him because Vergil made me look at the part of myself I didn't like and didn't want to admit existed *I'm laughing while writing this, I do find it weirdly amusing*)

DMC things aside, this WHOLE episode made me feel so frustrated. I never had anyone to validate me, only people doubting me or asking me if I lead him on, or what was I wearing, or if I smiled too much, if I was being too nice, if I said something inappropriate, and so on. I had to get it all off my chest and I thought maybe, juuuust maybe, Dante and Vergil would've been more supportive regarding that.

Because, you know, they know trauma and they are protective as fuck. They can have all the red flags and mental issues in this world, but I don't think they would EVER dismiss their partner - especially a woman - feeling unsafe and fearing being abused or raped. In order to trust, you have to give the person and opportunity and room to open up to you without judgements - and I do think they aren't very judgy people.

I mean, they are demons, for fuck's sake. They can't judge anything especially Vergil

Also, I don't blame my mom nor my sister (even if I got really mad at her). In the end, both of them wanted what was best for me, they thought it was an opportunity and wanted me to get my career back. Truth is, no woman knows how to act when this happens. And they didn't know how to act as well. They didn't want to think of the worst: just like I was doubting myself and my own feelings, they were doubting theirs as well. We ALL had to be validated by a man to admit something was wrong and we weren't hysterical.

Ok, ok, storytime over. But I felt like sharing this because people, you are ALWAYS valid in your concerns - and there's no clothing, no smile, no attitude, no NOTHING that JUSTIFIES abuse. If you're abused or feeling like someone wants to take advantage of you, especially sexually, YOUR FEELINGS AND FEARS ARE VALID. Don't shrug it off or water it down just because people are saying you're overreacting - if I had listened to everyone around me instead of my gut feeling that something was REALLY wrong, only the gods know what would've happened. But I'll tell ya, it probably wouldn't have been good for me.

At best, I'd be mad this guy would want to pick me up like a whore and I'd have to turn him down and take a ride home. At worst, he would've raped me - in his car, at the "restaurant", at his "office". We don't know, but I didn't want to "give luck to bad luck" as we say where I live.

I didn't have support, so I wrote a story to feel supported by the fictional characters I look up to - I wished SO bad I was dating someone, especially a man, who'd tell me he'd go through hell and back to keep me safe and wouldn't allow anyone to hurt me and validate my feelings. Someone who would make me feel safe and I wouldn't have to only rely on myself.

cue in V saying he too wanted to be loved and protected, I tell you, all this time I thought I hated Vergil when I had only found my nemesis in a mirror

So, don't ever doubt yourselves. Don't ever doubt your gut feelings. We might want validation and someone to keep us safe, but sometimes we don't have that and have to rely on our survival mode. It sucks, but there's a reason why that thing is called "survival": it keeps you alive. It keeps you going.

And no one, NO ONE has the right to say you're overreacting, you're being hysterical, you're reading too much into it, you're just trying to find the easy way out, you just don't want an opportunity because you're lazy, you're crazy and deranged, etc, etc.

If your gut is flapping red flags all around, then overreact. Be hysterical. Read too much into it, find the easy way out, be lazy, be crazy and deranged. Be the villain. Be the bad person. You're not perfect. You're not a princess. Be comfortable with people telling you you're bad - but never NEVER let go of your gut feeling when your safety is on the line.

That fucking thing WILL save your life. Being too nice, though, might not. Listen to yourself, be TRUE to yourself, and, again, don't be afraid to be bad.

Someday you might just find your half-demon man who will support you, protect you and treat you as an equal powerhouse, but until that day, keep on conquering your self-esteem and unwavering will.

I'm just saying all of this now because:

1 - I was too scared to talk about this for a looong time afraid the guy in question would find this, know it's me and my safety would be on the line again

2 - Just now I'm getting comfortable with the concept of being "seen as the villain" and being "seen as bad". My whole life I have been dancing around this because people always said I had a "difficult" personality. I watched Cruella recently and it hit home so hard. We do have things to learn from villainous characters and maybe this is just who I am. People are going to see me as bad so, who cares. Even if I'm not, it would do me good getting used to that idea - I can be more assertive to my boundaries and not allow any of this to happen again. So, there you go. It's an exercise everyone should do. Are you comfortable defending your ideas, your boundaries and your integrity even if people are mad you're not being a pushover/perfectly polite?

It's something I think all of us should think about ;)

Also

thanks for coming to my TED Talk :')

[lacewise]

There’s an existing but increasing trend of people moderating comment sections by leaving up actual bigotry but taking down critical thoughts (even if the criticism is building onto the discussion and not insulting it) and blunt discussion of deeper topics (even, again, when they’re directly relevant to the conversation being had). I don’t like it and what’s more I don’t like propaganda and bigotry being left up because the assumption is that readers will reject it. If you leave enough of it up, even if challenged, eventually people will only remember the bigotry and its justifications.

There’s a proper way to regard lies and half-truths: you say it’s not true, you repeat the lie in a context indicating it’s not true, and then you repeat that it’s a lie. Otherwise you can invoke the illusory truth effect. There is no way, that I know of, to use this process against throwaway comments and threads online if you’re not the original poster.

In some cases, the moderator doesn’t know enough to know the original comment is hate speech, even when it’s overt.

I had a run-in with a person commenting on a popular social media account, and the comment said that talking about your disability online is equivalent to scamming (yes, that’s what they said and yes, the person they were policing is disabled). I confronted them about it, as did several other people.

The comments calling a disabled person talking about their disability a grifter (yes, the word was used) stayed up. The replies condemning this were taken down.

Why? Because calling him a grifter was in line with the original content (which I otherwise have no problems with. Disabled people can be scammers too). The comments defending his humanity, however? Clouded the discussion bashing him. Added nuance where it wasn’t wanted.

What I’m saying is a lot of these “moderators” don’t have the skills, time, resources, credentials, or background to be monitoring discussions. And it’s really hurting community dialogue considering how ubiquitous these platforms are and how difficult it is to find other places online for these conversations.

Some of these comment sections are engaged in toxic positivity and either or thinking. Some in critical thinking bashing and anti-intellectualism (yes, really). Some of them are engaged in misinformation and some are pits of chaos and hate.

But nearly all of them have one thing in common: if you say something unpopular or controversial (so it can be completely factual, just less well-known) your contribution will be taken down, while comments literally calling people slurs will be left up. Leaving many conversations stuck in a surface-level loop.

This is a good way to cement false information but a bad way to encourage learning. It feels like respectability-politics lite. Pretty soon, bluntness (and here I mean informative, and not blunt for bluntness’s sake) will be regarded as bullying but trying to get the point across politely will be regarded as duplicity. I can already see it happening. I do not want to go back. We cannot go back.

People are engaging in potentially devastating long-term harm for short-term engagement. And I’d rather not find out what the cost will be.

[teacuppuck]

Writing my capstone partially concerning a media that has very little academic presence yet, but strong fandom presence is testing me. I have to work around different adaptations, or just using another book to show the same thing, when I just want to engage someone else's ideas about the show against my own, to build on that argument, like I'm supposed to do. All the while, there is lots of good analysis on the exact themes I am discussing in tumblr meta, but I can't use it because of lack of peer review, or academic credentials, or just for the fact that I can't cite some tumblr user called lestat's vampussy or whatever in my final paper. Which all makes sense but still contributes to the continued disconnect between academia and casual spaces but it doesn't always need to be there, academia could benefit from the well thought out analysis that can be found here. Also, academia is a snake eating it's own tail. To talk about something and it be taken seriously, you have to engage it in context with others' writing on the topic, which, if it's a new idea, doesn't exist. I wish that gap could be bridged and I wish I could quote such good analysis on my paper

[quitefair]

From Sea to Shore: A Josephine Montilyet lore/meta project

Start reading here!

Hi, hello. I suppose introductions are in order.  

My name is Meera and I am a fan (derogatory) of Dragon Age. Have been since 2014, the moment my ears heard the Dragon Age Inquisition theme. (I’m a sucker for soundtracks, I can count on my hand the number of interests I’ve dived into solely because of the soundtrack.)

The reason I’m so fascinated with Dragon Age, as with many people on this site and beyond are, is because of the rich and complex lore that is contained within the world of Thedas. Whether it be within the games themselves, or the massive catalogue of supplemental media – books, comics, short stories published online, the massive hardcover bible of The World of Thedas, etc.

I think you can see where I’m going with this.

Dragon Age is known for… well. Not putting shit into their game. Which is arguably, the most important part of Dragon Age. Yknow. The games? Couple this with the fact that the writers are known to retcon things left right and centre… leaving fans with a, if you don’t mind my language, piss poor understanding of anything beyond surface level.

Now I’m not going to argue semantics about topics that I am clearly not qualified to talk about. I’m still learning things. So while I do read some absolutely delightful discussions on the Mage-Templar war, Tranquility, the Dalish, the Qun… I’m not qualified enough to write proper discussions on these serious and interesting topics.

Instead, I’m armed with having read too many books and watched too many shows. So, what I can do is to look at characters within Dragon Age that I have an unhealthy obsession with, and try to make sense of their stories.

And guess who I’ve decided to start talking about first?

[source]

I’m gonna start off by mentioning that I haven’t done anything like this before. My only credentials are having been unhealthily obsessed with this game franchise for coming onto 9 years now, and owning The World of Thedas 2. Which I haven’t read in its entirety. (Bioware please… put your motherfucking lore in your games, im beggin…) But I have been researching a lot of things recently while planning a frankly quite complicated Dragon Age fic, and after reading a lot of very well written meta on tumblr, and also realizing I enjoy writing my own, I thought I’d take a stab at it myself.

One of the main things I’ve been researching is Josephine and her backstory. On a surface level, it is easy to love her. She’s kind and sweet and absolutely adorable. Her romance fuels my entire existence. She is my Wife and I love her character to the ends of the earth.

But as with a lot of the characters newly introduced in Inquisition, she suffers from a scattered plot, a very superficial stance in the political scheme of things (despite being the political ambassador of Inquisition??? hello???), and is often reduced to several one-dimensional tropes that grate on my nerves.

I’m not discrediting people who enjoy her character as it is. Hell, I spent years loving her story as it is. But I am doing this as an aspiring writer and lover of stories, and a lover of complex, nuanced characters. I see Josephine as a character, much like many others in Dragon Age, who has so much potential to be more. I also see her story in the base game as being quite solid in itself, but is presented in a very scattered, messy way, that you as a player character, might not understand the full impact of.

This series is going to be equal parts laying down the lore of Josephine and the Montilyet family, in a way that people can easily understand and build their own meta and headcanons off, and also for me to speculate and build on my own meta that I’ve been working on. I’m not sure how many parts it’s going to be, we’ll take things as they come.

If you’ve made it this far, kudos for listening to this dude ramble for a thousand words. The real shit comes in a bit. Hope you enjoy.

(Josie in this picture is so me coded when I’m ranting in my Word document so I had to leave this here.)

[teawitch]

Is it possible to learn witchcraft just by books?

Every method of learning will have its strengths and weakness. Books are great because you can learn at your own speed and focus on the aspects that most interest you. And these days, just about everything is in a book somewhere - if you can figure out where to look.

With enough books under your belt, you'll be able to sort through good/reliable authors and unreliable sources. But keep in mind - a lot of terms and presentations have changed over the years. And some are unreliable on history but strong on technique.

Oh the other hand, over the past few years Amazon has developed an Author Problem. As in - some of these authors don't actually seem to exist. Even before AI, there has been a problem of accounts skimming popular books, reformatting the info and then publishing on Amazon with a pleasantly made up witchy name. It can be useful to search on the author and see if they make appearances, have a schedule with conventions listed, actually belong to a real world group, etc.

Some traditions really should be learned from a real world teacher. Closed traditions fall under this. They have their own requirements and usually that means you study with someone. Real world teachers can provide information and guidance that may not be in books.

Of course real world teachers also come with drawbacks, even if it isn't a closed tradition. They can't teach what they don't know. Sometimes, well, personality can be an issue. And I've seen a fair amount of "credential collecting" out there. Someone will be initiated into one or more traditions, self-publish a book and declare themselves a teacher. But you soon get the sense that they aren't active in any of the groups they claim to belong to.

Online information can be a good source if you need something free and perhaps unobservable. But you have to be good at putting together your own syllabus because the topics aren't always linked in a good beginning, middle, end process. It can be frustrating to come across a resource for an advance ritual when you don't even have the vocabulary to understand it yet. It takes patience.

Social media is probably the most unreliable place to learn. Oh, it can be a great place to exchange, discuss, understand techniques when you've built a good starting foundation. But social media posts are usually just to short and fragmented to really learn the full story from. And they are often just too casual to expect people to cite resources. (I do not trust spells unless I can determine where the author drew their correspondences from.)

[ukroyalupdates]

Netflix CANCELLED Meghan's Cooking Show After Top Chefs, Including James Beard, Called It POINTLESS

Watch the complete video below 👇

Netflix has canceled Meghan Markle's cooking show after criticism from top chefs who questioned her culinary credentials and the show's authenticity. The backlash, amplified by social media, highlighted tensions between celebrity culture and professional artistry. Critics argue that Markle's ventures often prioritize fame over substance, raising doubts about her future projects. Some supporters claim the backlash was rooted in bias, sparking discussions about representation in media. The incident underscores the importance of authenticity in specialized fields and serves as a cautionary tale for celebrity-driven projects in the entertainment industry. Click here for more

[shazwan-iman]

How to Find a Trusted Ahrefs Group Buy Seller

Navigating the Maze: Finding a Trusted Ahrefs Group Buy Seller

Ahrefs, the SEO (Search Engine Optimization) powerhouse, equips users with an arsenal of tools to analyze websites, research keywords, track rankings, and gain valuable competitor insights. While coveted by SEO professionals, the subscription fees can be a barrier for some, particularly freelancers, small businesses, or those starting out. This is where Ahrefs group buys emerge, offering a potentially cost-effective alternative. However, navigating the world of group buys requires caution, as not all sellers are created equal. This guide equips you with the knowledge to find a trusted Ahrefs group buy seller, allowing you to access these powerful tools without compromising security or reliability.

The Allure of Ahrefs Group Buys

Ahrefs group buys operate on a simple principle: multiple users share the cost of a single Ahrefs subscription. This can significantly reduce the financial burden, making Ahrefs' comprehensive toolkit more accessible. But the benefits go beyond affordability:

Collaboration: Agencies or teams working on SEO projects can benefit from shared access, fostering streamlined workflows and efficient communication.

Regular Updates: Reputable group buy sellers ensure access to the latest Ahrefs features and updates, keeping you equipped with cutting-edge tools.

The Buyer Beware Approach: Potential Risks

Before diving headfirst into the world of Ahrefs group buys, it's crucial to acknowledge the potential downsides:

Security Concerns: Sharing account credentials with a third-party seller can pose a security risk. Meticulously research the provider's reputation and security practices.

Unreliable Access: Some sellers might offer unstable access due to account suspension or limitations imposed by Ahrefs.

Limited Usage: Certain group buys may restrict daily or monthly usage limits for specific tools to maintain fairness among users.

Ethical Considerations: Ahrefs frowns upon unauthorized account sharing. Consider supporting their development by opting for an official subscription if financially viable.

Finding the Trustworthy Seller: Essential Criteria

With the potential drawbacks in mind, here's how to identify a trusted Ahrefs group buy seller:

Reputation is Key: Start by researching the seller's track record. Look for online reviews, testimonials, and forum discussions to gauge their reliability and customer satisfaction.

Transparency Matters: A trustworthy seller will have a clear and transparent website outlining their pricing structure, terms of service, data security practices, and refund policy (if applicable).

Security First: Inquire about the seller's security measures to protect user data. Secure login protocols and two-factor authentication are strong indicators of a responsible provider.

Communication Channels: Opt for a seller with established communication channels, allowing you to reach them promptly with questions or concerns.

Going Beyond the Basics: Advanced Tips

Once you've identified a few potential sellers, take these additional steps for further verification:

Social Proof: Check if the seller maintains active social media profiles or online communities. Engagement levels and user feedback can reveal valuable insights.

Payment Methods: Opt for a seller who uses secure payment gateways like PayPal or credit card processors with buyer protection mechanisms.

Trial Periods: If available, consider a trial period to assess the quality of service and tool access before committing long-term.

FAQs: Demystifying Ahrefs Group Buy Sellers

What are some red flags to look out for when choosing a seller?

Be wary of sellers offering unrealistically low prices, vague terms of service, or limited communication channels.

Is it possible to find a completely risk-free Ahrefs group buy?

There is always an inherent risk involved in using a group buy service. However, by following the outlined tips and conducting thorough research, you can significantly minimize these risks.

What are some alternatives to Ahrefs group buys?

Several free and paid SEO tools offer varying functionalities. Explore options like Google Search Console, SEMrush, or Moz before committing to a group buy.

Can I get banned from Ahrefs for using a group buy?

Ahrefs can potentially suspend your account if they detect unauthorized access or suspicious activity.

What are the long-term implications of using a group buy?

Using a group buy for an extended period might hinder your ability to access the full benefits of an official subscription, such as dedicated customer support or priority access to new features.

Conclusion

Ahrefs group buys present a potentially cost-effective way to leverage powerful SEO tools. However, approaching them with caution and due diligence is crucial. By following the outlined strategies and prioritizing security and transparency, you can increase your chances of finding a reliable seller who who can provide access to Ahrefs' tools without compromising your data or hindering your SEO efforts. Remember, the ideal scenario involves striking a balance between affordability and peace of mind. Here are some additional considerations:

Official Ahrefs Subscription vs. Group Buy: If your budget allows, weigh the long-term benefits of an official Ahrefs subscription. Direct support from Ahrefs, access to all features without limitations, and a lower risk of account suspension are valuable advantages.

Alternative SEO Tools: Explore free or paid alternatives like Ubersuggest, KWFinder, or Moz Pro. Depending on your specific needs, these tools might offer a good balance of functionality and cost.

Building Your Case for an Official Subscription: If you work within an organization, consider presenting a well-researched case for acquiring an official Ahrefs subscription. Highlight the long-term ROI (Return on Investment) potential and how Ahrefs can enhance your SEO efforts.

Ultimately, the decision to use an Ahrefs group buy rests on your individual needs and risk tolerance. By carefully evaluating the options and prioritizing security, you can make an informed choice that empowers your SEO journey.

[sunskate]

Christine Brennan, maybe the only American (maybe even North American?) journalist at a major media outlet regularly covering figure skating. tw:

she has persistently stayed on the Kamila Valieva story and also was the first to report about the allegations against Nikolaj Sorensen

about FB/S's media presser at Worlds - she says Skate Canada protecting, coddling, covering for Sorensen by trying to restrict what questions were asked does him no favors - that he's a grown man, if he wanted to say no comment, he could

about big institutions and their interest in keeping silence around these topics: Brennan says that Canada is keeping the alleged victim from speaking and telling her story and how appalling that is. says SC seemed better than fine with having him represent them on the ice. she compares with Ashley Wagner and how nobody muzzled her when she spoke out about John Coughlin. "there is no telling the victim that she or he cannot tell his story. so Canada is doing that. that's unconscionable"

Brennan was also the one who asked the President of the ISU about this case, and she says the "double speak was extraordinary"

the host of this podcast, Anna Kellar, asks good questions, including questioning Christine Brennan herself when she only talks about Ilia and Isabeau when asked about the major storylines coming out of Worlds and says nothing about Kaori for instance. Christine Brennan actually got a little flustered and brought up her own credentials covering international stories

but a lot of the discussion centers on the Sorensen case. it's brought up how in doping cases, a positive test will immediately trigger a suspension and that the burden of proof is on the athlete to prove they're clean, but that in cases of abuse, the system favors the alleged perpetrator

(i put this is the tags, but it shows up outside the tw, so - i'm not sure how or why Canada is silencing the alleged victim - is it bc of the ongoing legal case)