#either you hold them ALL to the same high ethical standard (in which case you probably pick a different interest) or you don't

[papayafiles]

f1 fans talk about wags as if formula 1 is some super progressive revolutionary space for marginalized people and women... as if the majority of people in this industry aren't extremely white, wealthy, and privileged, and thus benefit from the systemic status quo. as if some of your favorite drivers aren't conservatives whose families have ties to fascism. as if your favorite white men are absolute heroes but also helpless puppies and anything "problematic" you see in a woman is an isolated incident reflective of her character alone but definitely not the people who choose to be around her.

anyways kelly piquet remains one of if not the most vocal voices in support of palestine of anyone in or around that paddock. she's spoken out consistently going back months, and you don't get to call that "performative" when your fave hasn't even said ANYTHING about the genocide. no, i'm not saying she's perfect; obviously neither of us know her personally, and i don't know the full details of people's various gripes with her. but is she really worse than these male athletes you love so much? do you know that for certain, or do you just have double standards when it comes to applying morals to THE capitalist-advertisement emissions-producing elitism-classism sport?

[free--therapy]

How to Deal with Social Anxiety

Social anxiety tells us two lies, says Boston-based clinical psychologist Ellen Hendriksen. The first is that the worst-case scenario is bound to happen: We will be rejected; people will point and laugh; we’ll be humiliated. The second is that we can’t deal with that worst-case scenario or the ups and downs of a socialized life that come with being human.

“I have a history of social anxiety, and I was actually nervous to disclose that in the book,” says Hendriksen, referring to How to Be Yourself: Quiet Your Inner Critic and Rise Above Social Anxiety. The book details her scientifically based, judgment-free approach to social anxiety. “I thought revealing a struggle would make people pull away as if it were contagious. But when you disclose something about yourself, more often than not, someone will disclose something very similar to you, and that creates a bond. If I had a nickel for everybody who came up to me and said, ‘I have social anxiety, too…’”

A Q&A with Ellen Hendriksen, PhD

Q: What is social anxiety? How do you know whether you have it?

A: Social anxiety is self-consciousness on steroids. It is the perception that there are things deficient about us that—unless we work hard to hide or conceal them—will be revealed, resulting in our being judged or rejected.

We can all relate to the experience of looking in the mirror in the morning and seeing some kind of physical flaw that we feel self-conscious about. Maybe we have a big pimple, or maybe we’re having a bad hair day, or maybe we think we look weird in these pants. So we try to conceal that thing. We might put on some extra foundation, or wear a hat that day, or change our pants. But if we can’t do those things, if we go out into the world with our pimple or our bad hair or our weird pants, the resulting feeling is similar to social anxiety.

Social anxiety usually falls into one of four categories:

The external self. There’s a whole category of perceived physical flaws—we’re ugly, we’re fat, our skin is blemished.

The symptoms of anxiety themselves. We may believe that it will become obvious that our hands are shaking, or that we’re blushing, or that our voice is trembling.

The fear that our social skills will be judged inadequate. We’re boring, or we’re annoying, or we have nothing to say, or we keep going blank.

Our entire personality. The anxiety here is that it will become obvious that our entire personality is somehow defective or inadequate, that we’re stupid, or that no one wants to hang out with us, or that we’re incompetent.

Social anxiety can blossom as many different flowers, but they all come from the same perceived root that there is something that needs to be hidden. But these perceived flaws are not true at all. At most, there’s a grain of truth in a perceived flaw—like maybe we do blush, for example, but not to the extent that we think—plus it doesn’t cause the amount of attention or rejection we anticipate.

Q: How is social anxiety distinct from generalized anxiety disorder?

A: If there were a Venn diagram of general anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder, many people would fall in that overlap. General anxiety disorder is characterized by worries: There’s worry that feels uncontrollable and skips from topic to topic. We might start with, “Oh, I’ve got a headache this morning,” to, “Oh my god, maybe I have a brain tumor.” Then: “If I die, how would my family support itself?” And so on. It might skip from your job to your social life to your health to global warming.

Whereas social anxiety is centered on this fear of the reveal: The fear that something theoretically deficient about you will become obvious to everyone.

Q: Does social anxiety ever work itself out? Or is it always something that needs to be worked at to be overcome?

A: It depends. Social anxiety is driven by avoidance. Avoidance might be overt: We might not show up at a party, tell our best friend we can’t participate at her wedding, or not tell anybody it’s our birthday at the office. Avoidance can also be covert: We could show up at a party but spend all our time scrolling through our phone. Or we could tell people it’s our birthday at work, but then make sure that we basically hide from everyone, all day, so they don’t make a big deal, etc.

Either way, through overt or covert avoidance, what results is a buildup of a dearth of experiences. We don’t realize that we were safe all along, or that our imagined worst-case scenarios don’t actually happen. If we keep avoiding as we move through life, then the anxiety will not resolve itself. It will be maintained by our own avoidance.

However, social anxiety does often get better as people age, because generally we can’t avoid everything. Life happens. We will often passively absorb experiences and realize they weren’t so bad. For example, maybe our boss makes us give a talk, and even though we dreaded it and secretly hoped it would be canceled, it goes fine, and we realize, “Oh, maybe I can do this.” All in all, it depends on how much we engage in avoidance and how much we are willing to try the things we’re afraid of despite our fears.

Now, actively working on social anxiety can turbocharge that growth and change. I advise people to select a few things, big and small, that they would like to work toward and actively try to not avoid those experiences but actively search them out. It feels awkward, but the key is to start small and work your way up. You can start as small as you like—you don’t have to cannonball into the deep end.

Q: How can you help a friend with their social anxiety?

A: Unfortunately, what usually happens when somebody discloses social anxiety is that their friends tend to ask less of them. The friends tend to try to accommodate to make them feel comfortable. Which I get; which is lovely and heartwarming and I appreciate that they’re trying to make their friend feel better. But what happens is then they decide, “Oh, now I can’t invite this person to the party.” Or “Now we can’t go to new places.” Or “Oh, my cousin is coming to town, so my socially anxious friend probably wouldn’t want to meet her.” In protecting their friend, they end up enabling them.

What I tell friends to do, in contrast, is to be a champion. That means hearing their friend’s fears and working with them to see what they want to strive for. How do they want to stretch and grow? See if you can help them with that.

It’s important not to dismiss their fears, such as, “Don’t worry—you’ll be fine,” or “There’s nothing to be afraid of.” We don’t want to minimize their very real fears. Instead we can tell the truth and say, “You’re strong and you can do this.” Or “The scariest moment’s right before you go in. Let’s give it a shot.” Or “Last time you stuck with it, you felt better after just a few minutes. Let’s see if that happens again.

"In sum, let them be in the driver’s seat, but also ask how you can help.

Q: What are things socially anxious people have in common (besides social anxiety)?

A: Social anxiety comes bundled with some really good traits. People with social anxiety often have really high standards, so they hold a good work ethic; they’re conscientious; they often can read others’ feelings. (Well, sometimes we overread them.)But in general, we’re pretty empathetic; we’re helpful and altruistic; we’re often good listeners. We work hard to get along, because if you roll back caring too much about what people think of you, what you get is simply caring about people. In terms of living a happy life, the greatest thing you can do is connect with others by being kind and warm. People with social anxiety are extremely well-suited to do that.

Plus, it’s important to emphasize that as we work on our social anxiety, as we try to conquer our fear, those good traits don’t go away.

Read More of the article and Q&As here

[alewyren]

I dislike redemption arc culture.

I hate seeing arguments over which characters are “irredeemable,” and this notion that every villain story has to be a morally didactic narrative in which the bad guy gets punished, the end.

I’m almost tempted to say we were all spoiled by having Zuko as a formative experience, because he’s really just the picture perfect redemption arc. He started out as a legit villain, but he never did anything too atrocious, had a tragic backstory that explained why he was like that, and went through three whole seasons of gradual character development. Like, Zuko was an amazing character. That’s the problem, though; he set our expectations too high for what “the perfect redemption arc” should be. Everyone expects their “reformed villain” characters to follow those same beats, but not every story is that cut and dry. There are lines between redemption and reformation, reformation and rehabilitation, rehabilitation and just... continuing to exist but no longer hurting anyone, and there’s a lot of nuance lost when people try to cram all that into the box of “redemption arc.”

Gonna be bringing a lot of different examples to the table here, but let’s start with Azula for ease of transition. She went through the same abuse that Zuko did, but she never got a redemption arc in ATLA proper. Some people say this isn’t fair. I disagree. This is not to say I don’t think she should be afforded the opportunity for post-canon character growth, because I absolutely do. I fully think she is capable of Getting Better, and spinoff media has consistently portrayed her as a sympathetic character. But like... she’s done some shit. She was a straight up war criminal, and emotionally abusive towards basically everyone in her social circle. I understand why. She was a 14 year old raised in an environment that rewarded that behavior, and never given a healthy outlet for her aggression.

The difference, in my opinion, is this: Zuko was fundamentally a good person from the start. Far from perfect, but he has a strong sense of values even as a child. Azula is not. Redemption for someone like Azula would look much different than it did for Zuko. Besides, in ATLA proper she was already filling an important villain role. She’d need her own show. (Which would be awesome, actually.)

But I think that’s where you have to ask the question: what even is a redemption arc? Is it any story where a villain stops being a villain? Is there a scale for like, “must do X amount of good deeds equal to Y bad deeds to qualify for redemption”? Must they be sufficiently punished for their bad deeds? What if reformation is possible without punishment--is punishment for its own sake truly justice? The focus people have on penance and atonement feels very baked in Christian moral philosophy. People don’t work like that. There’s not a cosmic scale of right and wrong, or a cosmic sin counter, there’s just... actions and their immediate impact. Bad people being let off the hook too easily can leave a bad taste in your mouth, and there are of course things with unfortunate real world implications which can’t be divorced from real-world context which are... irresponsible to allow in the hands of Certain Groups, but I hate this notion of “villains must be punished appropriately for their crimes, always, even if they have extenuating circumstances, even if they have demonstrated the capacity for personal growth, because that personal growth will never negate their misdeeds.”

In real life, it’s different. In real life, you can never be sure what’s going on in another person’s head. But the prison system of justice is fundamentally broken. People are rarely fundamentally evil, but there are some people who are too twisted and dangerous to society to be allowed to live without, at the very least, constant supervision. True evil is banal, rooted in social systems, not individual “bad people.” People have individual will, but ultimately they’re just the products of the environment and systems that fostered them. Setting aside the questions of whether people can be born evil or at what age you become personally responsible for your actions, you will get bad apples in any sufficiently large group of people. If someone has to be punished and removed from society, that’s not a success of justice. The fact that they reached that point in the first place is a failure of society in and of itself.

In fiction, technically everyone is redeemable. You can get into the heads of the bad guys and do basically whatever you want with them. Fiction should be responsible when dealing with real-world issues that affect real people, but it does not have to be morally didactic. Sometimes there just... isn’t an easy, morally didactic answer for dealing with morally complicated characters or situations. And more importantly, sometimes the morally didactic answer isn’t the narratively interesting answer. 9 out of 10 times, what’s more interesting to read about? A horrible villain being put to death, or a horrible villain being forced to live and grow?

Some hypothetical examples to ponder, purely in the context of fiction.

Horrible war criminal villain with a body count in the millions has all memories of their crimes wiped, or is forcibly brainwashed into being a better person. Setting aside the ethics of brainwashing: are they still required to “repent”? Would a victim still be justified in seeking penance from this guilt-free shell? Would this change at all depending on who was responsible for the mind-wipe?

More realistic: horrible war criminal villain with a body count in the millions straight up retires. Gets older. Bloodlust, national zeal, whatever once motivated them to do such evil loses its edge. They fall in love. Start a family. As they grow as a person, learn the value of life, the weight of their crimes starts to sink in. They atone in little ways, through little random acts of kindness and helping the people around them, but for one reason or another (not wanting to risk harm to their family, knowing they’ll be tortured for information? you decide) don’t turn themselves into the proper justice system and are never punished. Should they be punished, or allowed to continue existing? Would this change at all depending on the surrounding political circumstances, i.e.: whether their public execution would hold any symbolic value, whether affected groups are calling for their death? Does it matter at all in deciding justice whether this hypothetical villain feels personal guilt or regret over their war crimes? Why or why not?

Child villains. IRL there are documented cases of violent crime in children as young as grade school age, not all of whom had violent backgrounds. Should they be held to the same standards as adult villains, even if the scale of their crimes are the same? What’s the cutoff age? Are all villains under 18 capable of rehabilitation, no matter how horrible their crimes? How about 16? 14? 12? What about villains whose ages aren’t really clear, ie Cell from DBZ being like, six?

How much does backstory matter? Should it matter if there’s a good reason someone is Like That, or should their actions be judged as-is? It doesn’t matter to the victims whether or not the villain had a bad childhood, right? Moreover, does it matter at all whether someone is “fundamentally a good person,” at least insofar as genuinely caring about the people around them and caring about a moral code? People do evil things for reasons other than “being evil people.”

Morally bankrupt person who regularly fantasizes violent harm on the people around them, wholly selfish with no love for any other human being, fundamentally incapable of meaningful self-reflection or growth. Just a complete piece of shit all around. But they never have, and never will, commit any crimes, either due to some divine ordinance or just plain self-preservation/fear of getting caught. They might, at worst, just be a toxic asshole, but not one who holds any power over others. Should they be punished solely for their moral character, rather than actions?

There aren’t always easy answers. It’s okay to acknowledge that, and it’s okay to tackle hard moral questions like this in fiction. And I hate seeing this boiled down to “stop trying to redeem villains who are Actually Horrible People” or whatever. Especially in kids’ media which takes an optimistic stance on people being capable of change in the first place. Y’all gotta stop holding it to the same level of moral realism as gritty stuff for adults.

On the whole, I think we should do away with the term “redemption” in the context of morality entirely. Like redemption arc, redemption equals death, what does that mean? It implies one has sufficiently made up for their past deeds, that that’s the gold standard, but is that really ever possible? Like I said, there’s not a cosmic good deeds | bad deeds counter for every person, or at least not one that living people have any way of knowing about. And that’s a flawed way of thinking to begin with. Those bad deeds can never be erased, ever. There plenty of examples of villains who commit crimes they can never realistically atone for. Regardless of whether they want to atone in the first place, it’s like I said: in fiction, it’s often just... more fun to force them to live and deal with the consequences. But on the flipside, there are so, so many people who see themselves as “good” and use that to justify their own bad deeds. Which ties back into what I said about the whole discourse reeking of Christian moral philosophy, because lmfao @ corruption in the catholic church.

The point is. There are shades of grey. Not everything has to be a full-blown bad guy to good guy redemption arc. You don’t need to “properly atone for your sins” to be worthy of life or love.

Here are some better questions to ask than “is this character redeemable”:

Is it believable, from what we know of this villain as a character, that they are capable of becoming a good, law-abiding citizen?

How about capable of love?

Guilt?

Are they capable of any personal growth whatsoever?

Are they capable of being a positive impact on the lives of the people around them?

Is it actively harmful to leave them alive, even with clipped wings?

Is it interesting to leave them alive?

How morally didactic is the narrative as a whole?

How much forgiveness are they offered, versus how much could they possibly ever deserve?

How abstracted is this character from reality, ie: are there any real world parallels that make it uncomfortable to frame this character in a sympathetic light? (be careful not to fall into a black and white abuser/victim dichotomy)

Would further punishment or suffering be productive? (Productive, not justified, that’s a key distinction--punishment for its own sake is just pointless cruelty.)

Even the most vile, irredeemable bastards can still be dragged like... an inch. And that’s still a fun and valuable story in and of itself, even if it’s nothing remotely approaching a redemption arc and they’d very much still deserve to rot in Hell by the end of it. I don’t believe Hell is real, as much as I personally wish it were sometimes, but like. If it were, or in fictional universes where it is.

But also, there really are some characters and botched “redemption arcs” that just come off insanely uncomfortable. And there is a subjective aspect to that as well, but more than once I’ve seen people say “X villain did not deserve redemption/forgiveness” and 9 times out of 10 I’m like “that’s... really not what they got, though?”

It’s complicated.

[parrhesiablog]

The Case for Trivial Anarchism

An analysis of proceduralist, legal obligation and political authority arguments against anarchism

The Consummation of Empire from The Course of the Empire by Thomas Cole (source)

Read here on my substack: https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/the-case-for-trivial-anarchism

I. Trivial Anarchism Defined

Think of the nature of a utopian society in which everyone lives up to their moral obligations according to whatever your moral theory is. Hardly anyone would envision an ideal society in which people steal, murder, trespass, cheat on their spouse or any other clearly bad action. If you are the type of person who thinks everyone should go to church, then imagine everyone does this. If you are the type of person who thinks everyone should donate 10% of their income to effective charities, then imagine people in this society do.

In this utopia, the laws were exactly how you would like them to be. Your wildest policy dreams could be implemented whatever they may be. If you’re a liberal, you can have universal basic income, wealth redistribution, subsidized housing, legalized gay marriage, reparations and anti-discrimination policies. If you’re conservative, you can have border control, strict policing and drug prohibition.

If you think for a second about what the laws would be, you might notice there would be a problem of sorts. If everyone fulfilled their moral duties, government would not be necessary. If nobody committed murder, theft, assault and so forth, you would not need laws to prevent people form doing this. You would not need police for enforcement or prisons for confining criminals. If nobody created drugs that were unsafe or prepared food in an unsanitary way, then you do not need regulatory bodies to check on them. If people donated a large portion of their income to charities, you would not need to tax them.

Government is an institution that punishes people who do not conform to the law but if everyone behaved as the law wanted, then you would not need the government. I think this position could be called something like being a Trivial Anarchist. In a utopian society with perfect actors that follow all their moral obligations, you would be an advocate for anarchism but in some sense this is a trivial point because we do not live in that world. This does not mean you want to reduce the size of government under present conditions.

Within the philosophy of anarchism, there are the extreme anarchists who would end the state immediately and there are those who are more hesitant. In an essay entitled “Do You Hate The State?”, Murray Rothbard critiques some Anarcho-Capitalists for being too gradual in their approach compared to his more radical “abolitionist” approach:

The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed.

Relative to the trivial anarchist, the Button Pusher Anarchist would be toward the opposite end of the anarchist spectrum with the always-and-everywhere button pusher being the furthest extreme. So, wouldn’t everyone be on this spectrum as at least a trivial anarchist? I think no and the reasons that they would not be tell us a lot about political reasoning and ethics. I will argue that there is not a good reason to not be a trivial anarchist.

II. Instrumentalism and Proceduralism

In discussions of democracy, different justifications for the institution are provided. Someone may say that democracy is a good institution because it creates peace and thriving economic conditions. This is an instrumentalist argument. It takes the stance that democracy is good because it gives us good things. If other institutions were better, the institutionalist would probably want to switch systems.

There are other arguments which are about the process itself. For example, one could argue democracy is good because it allows a nation’s people to shape their own institutions and allows everyone’s voice to be heard. These types of arguments are proceduralist.

Proceduralism is the thesis that some way (or ways) of distributing power or making decisions is intrinsically good, just, or legitimate.

Pure proceduralism, the most radical version, holds that there are no independent moral standards for evaluating the outcome of the decision-making institutions.1

Pure proceduralism is not popular because it has absurd and revolting conclusions. For example, a democracy that elects a leader that commits atrocities would be the most good, just or legitimate option because the election process was good. Most people are a blend of proceduralism and instrumentalism. They believe in the institution of democracy to some extent and value the process but they also care a lot about the outcomes that it produces.

I would consider myself a pure instrumentalist. The only thing that matters is the outcomes that are produced. I want my policies to win. If letting children vote achieved my policy goals, I would support it. If raising the voting age to 45 and above achieved my policy goals, I would support it. Do I support the electoral college, DC statehood, gerrymandering, campaign finance laws or voter ID laws? It depends on what policies it would produce.

You could object that I should have at least some proceduralist considerations but the consequences of elections are important and the value of voting is either really small or non-existent. Does a gang of robbers out-voting a lost traveller about whether to steal from the traveller make the action anymore ethically acceptable? I would probably say no or maybe but ever so slightly if so. Presidents command influence over trillions of dollars, the wellbeing of hundreds of millions and the lives of many foreigners and soldiers in US war zones.

Imagine two Central European presidential candidates: Novak and Vesely. They will be the exact same in all ways except Vesely will invade Ruritania and kill 100,000 people for no good reason. You can tell the future. You’re in charge of counting the votes and notice that Vesely won by 99,999 but you can switch the number so that Novak wins by 1 vote, essentially switching the vote of 100,000 people. Would this be ethical? I think I would switch the votes. I value a life over a legitimately counted vote. How many deaths would it take for you to change the votes? Please don’t tell me people can’t tell the future or that more than one person counts the votes.

I believe that someone could reject trivial anarchism if they had proceduralist beliefs. That would mean that an ideal situation in which everyone was acting totally morally was not good enough. You would also have to have votes on issues. If you imagined a society in which everyone had the right to vote for what they believed, then they would likely vote for things that are ideologically appealing (I am skeptical of the self-interested voter theory2). The result would be that it would be necessary for government to enforce laws which people would not voluntarily follow even if they were acting morally. It is imaginable that the will of the people is not congruent with perfect moral action.

III. Discrepancy Between Moral Obligation and Legal Obligation

There is another reason someone may reject trivial anarchism regardless of proceduralist concerns. Someone could believe that you do not have positive moral obligation to do things like donate to the poor but that the government should enforce laws that take money from people. This would mean perfect law is more demanding than your moral obligations.

While I do not think that people would admit they feel this way, I think this stance is common. There is a common refrain among conservatives towards liberals:

If you really want to raise taxes so much, then why don’t you donate to the government?

This could be said with varying levels of snark and in some contexts it may be inappropriate because the person may not be the target of the desired tax increase. But I do think that this is getting at something important. This point jumps to my mind when I see an article like “These Billionaires Want The Ultra-Wealthy To Pay More In Taxes” with a quote like this:

At least a dozen billionaires have made public statements that call for the super-rich to pay more in taxes.  On Monday, Salesforce chairman and cofounder Marc Benioff penned the latest in a string of billionaire op-eds calling for higher taxes on the wealthy. The California software entrepreneur, who ranked No. 93 on The Forbes 400 list of richest Americans released earlier this month, wrote that “increasing taxes on high-income individuals like myself would help generate the trillions of dollars that we desperately need to improve education and health care and fight climate change.”

For some reason, I doubt that he donates his money to the government. In fact, hardly anybody does. From what I found, in 2020, $1.6 million was donated as a gift to “reduce debt held by the public”. That may sound like a lot but the government spent $6.55 trillion in 2020. I can reasonably say that he does not donate the equivalent of what he believes he should pay in taxes because if he did the number would be greater than $1.6 million.3 Are these billionaires acting in a consistent manner or is this hypocrisy?4

It seems odd to me to think that someone would want the government to punish them for doing what they are doing currently (not paying “enough” in taxes or charitable contributions). You would think that if this billionaire felt that improving education, health care and fighting climate change were so important you could use coercion to solve it then you should be morally obligated to do it without coercion.

I want to provide an example to demonstrate the weirdness of this. There is a famous thought experiment popularized by philosopher Peter Singer in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in which he asks the reader to imagine a drowning child. Here is a description5:

Your route to work takes you past a shallow pond. One morning you notice that a small child has fallen in and appears to be in difficulty in the water. The child is crying in distress and it seems is at risk of drowning. You are tall and strong, so you can easily wade in and pull the child out. However, although you'll come to no physical harm if you rescue the child, you will get your clothes wet and muddy, which means you'll have to go home to change, and likely you'll be late for work.

In this situation, do you have a moral obligation to rescue the child?

It is as if you would say that you do not have to save the drowning child but the drowning child should be saved. In fact, the drowning child should be saved so much so that use of coercion is necessary. It would be like you saying if you had a gun, you would hand it to someone else and say “coerce me and others like me to save the child.” That person would take the gun and then point it at you and then you would save the child happily. Something seems off about this position.

IV. Political Authority

Some believe there is actually a duty to obey the government and that the state has a right to rule. This position is a belief in political authority. If the state is legitimate, then you should not abolish the state and the ideal society would be one in which people obey the government. Rejecting trivial anarchism because of political authority could make sense depending on what one’s justification is for political authority. The Democratic justification was discussed in the proceduralism section.

The consequentialist justification for political authority is the Hobbesian position against anarchy. It is the belief that without a government, things would be really bad. In his words “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”6 If everyone behaves well, as stipulated in the thought experiment, then life would not be like this. Therefore, there would be no legitimate political authority.

If one was an advocate for the Divine Right of Kings, then one could see that a king had a right to rule regardless of the behavior of his subjects. Hardly anyone advocates this position so I will not devote time to rejecting the divinity of kings, a time consuming task.

The social contract argument is very popular. It usually takes the form that we tacitly consent to being ruled by the government In a world with ideal behavior, what would the government do? If there is no proceduralist considerations and no difference between legal and moral obligation, then this state would only interfere with society in unnecessary and harmful ways. It would be weird to have a government which is not necessary or desirable in the consequentialist sense but it exists because everyone consented to it by remaining where they are. This makes me think that social contract theorists would admit that it is actually for consequentialist reasons when pressed. I have never heard of someone who was a social contract theorist but thought government was not necessary.

If someone says that you continue to remain in the territory despite claiming you are oppressed by the government therefore the government is legitimate, they would have to assume that a government has a right to lay claim over the area in the first place. If I was a mafia boss and claimed a neighborhood in New York and then went and collected taxes, it would not be a good justification to say that the residents of the neighborhood should just leave. I would have to justify me laying claim to the neighborhood first.

Perhaps you would say that the citizen accepts services provided by the government. Maybe it’s like eating in a restaurant and not paying. If you are receiving services for which you have to pay regardless of whether or not you consent, in other words “an offer you cannot refuse”, then it is not analogous to services provided by a private business. If the mafia provided protection from other gangs, would that mean the mafia was legitimate in its collections?

One could argue that natural rights are real and ought to be protected by the government. But the government would only violate natural rights and not do more to protect them because nobody would be violating anyone’s rights in the ideal society. Government is the existence of an entity which takes away some rights to protect some others. Without other forms of justification for political legitimacy, under a natural rights viewpoint, taxation is equivalent to theft. To think that we should advocate taking some rights to prevent the taking of others is weighing and evaluating tradeoffs. It is in some sense meta-consequentialist. A non-meta consequentialist would believe that rights can never be violated, no matter what, and be an anarchist a la Rothbard.

V. Conclusion

What all does this matter? The point is that if you believe in this trivial form of anarchism then you believe that we should abolish the state in a world in which everyone acts according to their moral obligations. Although I am likely unsuccessful, I hope to have convinced you that proceduralism is not a legitimate justification, that legal obligations are equivalent to moral obligations and that non-consequentialist political authority arguments are without merit.

The conclusion would be that the only legitimate justification for government is consequentialist in nature if it exists. It is the belief that things would go poorly under any form of anarchy and that is why we need a state. This is a major change in political thinking. It means if a stateless society would function better than one with a government, there would not be a reason to have a government. I do not actually believe in political authority because I believe that there is no good justification for government, including the consequentialist one.

The task of convincing someone that consequentialist concerns about anarchy are not as warranted as concerns about the existence of government is too much for an essay of this size. It involves an extended discussion of possible objections, hypothetical scenarios and usually a lot of economic reasoning. For this type of argument, see David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom or Edward Stringham’s Anarchy and the Law.

1 Brennan, Jason. Against Democracy. 10 - 14. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 2017

2 See: The Myth of the Rational Voter by Bryan Caplan

3 Please let me know if you find this number to be incorrect. I didn’t find any other examples of donations to the US federal government.

4 Perhaps they donate the equivalent to a charity that they feel accomplishes the desired tasks more efficiently than the government. If this were the case, it is feasible to imagine a consistent argument in which they feel they are fulfilling their obligation in a more efficient manner but in an ideal world taxes would be higher and they would pay those instead.

5 https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/

6 Hobbes, Thomas "Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery.". Leviathan.

[9ofspades]

The biggest problem in the Hole Problem Discourse TM is the paradigm of moral absolutism on tumblr.  Anyone trying to label or pigeonhole Simone as a “good” or “bad” person is missing the point of the entire show.  

We’ve seen in the past few episodes that no character on this entire show is fully incapable of changing.  Eleanor changed to be a better person.  Jason grew as a person and learned restraint.  Michael had been torturing people for thousands of years and got to the point where he was willing to sacrifice himself to save the four humans.  Hell, even Eleanor’s mom changed and became a decent parent.  

The Judge’s tests showed that Chidi was still indecisive, Tahani was still focused on what people thought of her, and Jason was still way too impulsive towards the end of season 2.  Michael’s argument, which the Judge and the entire show support, was that a one-time test to see how good a person any given human is at the time, based on the choices they made, was a terrible way of evaluating a human’s moral worth given how complicated and ever-evolving humans are.  

Deciding to abandon Brent in the hole is one decision, much like the Judge’s tests.  The show has established time and time again that humans are not “good” or “bad” based on one decision they make in their lives, no matter how important.  

Admittedly, some people in the Discourse aren’t arguing that Simone is a good or bad person, but rather that she didn’t actually change or confront her character flaws during the experiment, which would absolutely negatively affect her point total based on The Good Place’s moral system.  That’s a fair point.  

There is a lot of blue sky, to use Marc Evan Jackson’s phrase, between being a “good” person and a “bad” person.  Eleanor spends the entire first season arguing this:  The idea that you have to be one-in-a-million levels of good or else you spend eternity being tortured is fundamentally flawed.  (Even though pre-redemption Eleanor was kind of an objectively bad person, the point stands)  In the Hole Problem, Chidi’s choice sets him apart by making him one of the one-in-a-million people who would actually have risked his soul to help a... toilet full of broccoli.  That doesn’t mean that anyone who didn’t choose the same thing is automatically a bad person.   The world isn’t divided into “saints” and “bad people”; there is absolutely a universe of grey in-between.  If you wouldn’t run into a burning building to save a child, you aren’t necessarily a “bad person”; you are just a person who didn’t make the most selfless moral choice in that particular moment.  It’s what you choose to do or become throughout your entire life that might maybe come close to determining where you fall on the good/bad spectrum.  

 Simone is operating by a different moral system than Chidi and the people who are saying she’s a “bad person”, and while Chidi is mature enough as a philosopher to recognize and respect that, most of the naysayers on tumblr are not.  

By his own particular moral standards, Chidi was absolutely doing the right thing in that particular moment.  

However, from a utilitarian perspective, all Chidi actually accomplished was to hurt both Simone and himself, a negative net effect.  He made a good choice with the absolute best of intentions.  I would personally argue that this is a reason why Chidi deserves to be in the Real Good Place.  But the perspective that Chidi made the wrong decision is also valid:  While the sentiment was nice, Chidi didn’t actually help Brent out of the hole.  He accomplished nothing on that front.  Moreover, he landed himself in the hole and inconvenienced Michael & Co, who then had to save him; and his rigid moral philosophy caused him to break up with Simone, who likely thought she would never see him again and that he would end up being tortured for eternity.  The net impact of his actions could easily have done more harm than good, even if most of us adopt him as a sweet being too good and pure for this world.  (Luckily this was all an experiment, Simone’s probably going to see Chidi again at some point, and Chidi might have actually saved all of humanity from being tortured.) 

Simone, by contrast, was running with the high probability of saving both herself and John, as opposed to the mere possibility of saving Brent, which, even if it had been successful, might have doomed all four of them in the process.  From a rational choice perspective, if they had actually been in hell, her choice might have led to more net good -- Brent was probably doomed anyway, so the main difference was just whether she was tortured along with him.  This might not have been her actual rationale, but from that perspective she was making the only rational choice available to her.  

It can easily be argued based on what we saw of the accounting office in Season 3 that Simone’s actions ended in net good, since they directly resulted in Chidi being able to speak to Brent alone about what a terrible person he was, and Brent finally having the time and space to process that and feel remorse.  So from that perspective, Simone technically did a good deed as well by leaving Brent in the hole.  

(There are numerous possibilities for what Simone was thinking, and there are multiple systems under which she could have been making an ethical decision.  The point is not to argue for which one, or to try to ascribe motives to her, but rather to point out that Chidi’s and Michael’s brands of ethics are not the only brands of ethics in this world, even if they are in the world of The Good Place, so it’s entirely premature to try to classify even just Simone’s decision as objectively, inarguably “good” or “bad” based on those ethical frameworks, let alone Simone herself as a person.)  

Another possible key distinction here is between preventative and retributive justice.  

Some people are arguing that the only possible moral decision would have been to save Brent, because he couldn’t have actually harmed any of them without systematic privilege on his side; the worst he could do was to try to fight them or say terrible things to them.  That’s coming from the perspective that the only valid form of justice is to prevent bad things from happening in the future.  Which kind of goes against the whole premise of a Bad Place.  But regardless of whether that’s wrong or right according to the show, that is only one possible perspective on morality, justice, and punishment.  

An alternative perspective is that it is one’s moral duty to leave Brent in the hole so that he can be punished for his actions.  We’ve seen throughout the season that Brent has not done a single good deed either on earth or during his year in the afterlife, with some exceptions (picking up a fork for a waiter, holding a door for someone, both of which were for the purpose of getting into the “Best Place”).  He didn’t have Eleanor’s excuse of having to fend for himself his entire childhood, having grown up in a place of wealth and privilege, and he also actively hurt people through gross negligence and apathy and a fundamental lack of self-awareness.  If you’re coming at it from a retributive perspective, he absolutely deserves to be punished for the life - and year-long experimental afterlife - that he lived, and trying to save him from that violates principles of justice and is the wrong thing to do.  

Admittedly, John has also done terrible things in his life, and it’s possible that Simone feels she has a few skeletons in her closet; the moral duty in those cases might be for both of them to stay so they can be punished as well.  In this case, they’re still choosing to make the selfish decision to save themselves even if it goes against principles of justice, but, hey, pobody’s nerfect.  No absolute philosophical framework can be followed exactly, which is why they’re more like guiding principles you strive for than actual laws you have to follow 24/7.  Simone might be making a mistake here even according to that philosophical framework, but it isn’t an irredeemable one.  

While Chidi disagrees as much as humanly possible with Simone’s decision, he ultimately doesn’t tell her off, try to explain ethics to her, or tell her that she’s a bad person.  Instead, he just says, “I respect your position”.  This isn’t him being passive or polite.  He genuinely recognizes that Simone holds a different philosophical position from him, and that while his particular brand of ethics would say that Simone is being wrong and bad, his ethical viewpoint is not universal and it isn’t his place to judge all other people in the world by it.  He recognizes that different brands of ethics exist, that it’s possible to lead a good or ethical life doing something a Kantian would morally forbid, and that he is not the sole judge of morality.  Simone isn’t a “bad person” because she did something that Chidi and the Soul Squad disagreed with.  She’s simply operating under a different moral perspective.  

It’s fairly safe to say that people saying Simone is a bad person for abandoning Brent would believe Chidi is doing the right thing and being a good person.  And that most of us want to be more like Chidi in that particular instance.  To do that, though, we all have to have the humility and philosophical understanding that ours is not the only valid viewpoint, and that things that oppose our tenets of morality are not objectively “good” or “bad”.  This nuance is the entire point of The Good Place, after all.  Let’s do what the show wanted us to do all along, and come at these messy philosophical quandaries from a place of questioning and empathy instead of knee-jerk judgment and condemnation.  

[severelynerdysheep]

Hi! You recently shared a post of mine and I'd just like to clear up a few things. We British farmers are incredibly proud of our welfare standards and the quality of which we uphold our commitment to high welfare and happy lives of animals. Non-stun slaughter is actually illegal in the UK so these lambs won't be strung up and our sheep are used to protect Christmas trees not used for meat! Anymore questions please send my way, I wouldn't want false information going around!

Hi, and apologies in advance for the upcoming length of this answer, there's a fair bit to talk about. 

So first I think it's important to keep in mind that while you and other farmers can feel as proud of your actions as you would like. The truth is that you are still exploiting, abusing, and murdering sentient beings for profit. In the words of former farmer Bob Comis, “Livestock farmers, no matter what kind — from the largest, most cynical, and inhumane factory farmers to the smallest, seemingly most ethical pasture-based farmers — traffic in death. It is death that is our aim, our purpose. Death is the end. Life is the means. Money the reward.” 

And a few more quotes from former “high welfare standard” farmers on whether their animals live happy high welfare lives, putting aside for the moment that the overwhelming majority of animals exploited, abused and slaughtered in the UK are factory farmed:

“In my experience, there is no such thing as humane animal products, humane farming practices, humane transport, or humane slaughter.”

“Humane labels still designate animal lives as so inherently inferior and existentially worthless that breeding, exploiting, and killing them for completely unnecessary reasons can still be embraced, celebrated even, as “ethical” and “humane.”

“I would tell everyone, “They have a really great life, up until they no longer have one.” It makes me cringe now to type that. I wholeheartedly believed in the “humane slaughter” myth.”

“ And even worse, even though I soon learned that sheep all have individual personalities, are SMART, and definitely form bonds with one another, show joy, fear, friendship–every human emotion–I still did not make the connection.” 

 I would also like to note that this “high welfare/happy” animal farming idea is !00% a myth. In even the “highest welfare” British farms, animals are forcibly bred into existence to live their too-short lives trapped in genetically engineered bodies that are ravaged by their size and/or forced overproduction of babies and milk (or in the case of sheep, both babies and the wool they grow as a result of genetic engineering which results in many health issues for these animals) till they are either “spent” (in the case of sheep, they are “spent” from their reproductive systems being exploited or they are no longer profitable enough for their wool) or reach ”market weight” and are slaughtered for profit. This is fundamentally unjustifiable and unethical, and to use the term “high welfare” or “happy lives” to describe this is frankly outrageous and deeply disturbing. 

And let's not forget that the “high welfare” “and happy lives” these animals are living include forced impregnation, stealing babies away from mothers, routine mutilations without anesthetic, the murder of newborns and young animals, unnatural and cruel living conditions, denial of important instinctive behaviors and preferences and brutal transport and slaughter conditions. And yes, this includes in sheep farming, as I explained in my original response. And also yes, all these cruel practices take place on every farm form the biggest factory farm to the smallest, highest regulated local British family farm. 

And a great article by @acti-veg here. 

And an excerpt from a fantastic talk below: 

“We turn these living beings into data points, flowcharts, and percentages—calculate to a decimal point’s certainty the exact cost of every aspect of their lives and details for their deaths. We relegate the annual mass murder of over 3 billion day-old conscious, innocent babies to a footnote. A footnote in a study conducted for the welfare regulations we’re so graciously creating. We deem them legally sentient, deserving freedom from hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, injury, disease, fear, distress and mental suffering, as the EU did—then use this very recognition of their capacity to feel the same emotions and sensations as we do to design—in language so disturbingly detached it’s nothing short of sociopathic—the exact manner in which we may legally violate, imprison, cut, burn, alter, and murder them.

This is how profoundly illogical our thinking is when it comes to animals. It goes against all basic human understanding. Knowing better but doing wrong anyway is worse than having no knowledge. Yet we have the audacity to hold this legislative recognition of non-human sentience on high as a giant step forward for the rights of animals. As if systematically exploiting individuals with fully admitted knowledge and comprehension of their capacity to suffer is something to commend.

Look what we offer ourselves as evidence of progress: one news report extolled the reduction in animals slipping and falling on their way to slaughter in one abattoir in one country. When we look at our actions from the other side, the perverse absurdity of our deluded self-congratulations is astounding. If you were in the place of these beings, how grateful would you feel if your captor laid down a bathmat on the ramp to your execution?

Is this really the best we have to offer? Being the most courteous murderers? The most considerate rapists? Pouring untold resources into these convoluted laws and regulations, all the while completely blind to the fact that there’s another option entirely”

The whole video:

You say that the sheep you farm are not murdered for their flesh. Are you trying to say that you don't send lambs or sheep of any age to slaughterhouses? You let them all live out their natural lifespans, caring for them till they die of old age>

And when it comes to slaughter, yes these animals are strung upsidedown to have their throats slit open. It's also not illegal to slaughter these animals without stunning in cases such as halal and kosher slaughter. But let's say that every single animal is slaughtered painlessly, this doesn't make this needless taking of life justifiable. @acti-veg has a great article here explaining why this is the case. It's important to recognize that the idea of some sort of ethical or even “humane” slaughter (which you seem to be implying is the case) is an oxymoronic marketing term designed to make people feel good about supporting something that is inherently immoral, taking the life of an innocent, sentient being for an unnecessary purpose. 

 But if we want to talk about the actual stunning of these animals for a moment, while stunning is supposed causes a temporary loss of consciousness. The MHS says that the interval between stunning and knifing can be as high as 70 seconds for sheep. Another study found that the average interval was 21 seconds. Sheep take an average of 14 seconds to lose brain responsiveness if both carotid arteries (the major arteries that supply blood to the head) are cut. UK law only requires one carotid artery to be cut and in this case, sheep take an average of 70 seconds to lose brain responsiveness. Yet an electric head-only stun only lasts between 20 and 40 seconds. This means that an estimated 4 million lambs/sheep will regain consciousness each year before they die and there is a lot of video footage showing lambs/sheep regaining consciousness as they bleed to death after being stung upside down to have their throats slit. 

And when only one carotid artery is cut, sheep are often still alive after the required 20 seconds bleed out time, which means they are literally skinned alive, in British slaughterhouses. Researchers at Bristol University found that after an electric stun, sheep have periods of being fully aware of their surroundings i.e. they can still feel fear and they are conscious whilst hanging upside down on the killing rail, bleeding to death. They could not prove whether the electricity has an immediate effect and Dr Harold Hillman, Director of the Unity Laboratory of Applied Neurobiology has stated that when animals are stunned, they actually suffer extreme pain, they are simply unable to cry out or move because the massive electric current paralyzes them. So the stunning itself, which you are promoting as being an example of “high British welfare” is itself immensely cruel. 

And I will link to some more info below for anyone reading this, my askbox is also always open if anyone has any questions. 

~ Report on the British “high welfare” sheep farming industry

~ Fully referenced fact sheet here

~ Investigation into “high welfare” UK sheep farms and another here

~ Article form the guardian

~ Stress response in sheep during handling

~ Impact of lambing on sheep

~ Lamb slaughter ages

[allthighsnolies]

A quick list of excuses for police violence

1. "a few bad eggs"

If we can't hold the police to a higher ethical standard, tell me again why we should respect them?

Someone might say that even though some cops are abusive, violent and racist, but that they aren't representative of the police force.

If an Amazon employee can't work fast enough, they're fired.

If a doctor puts someone in danger, they lose their license.

If an author can't finish a book, they don't get published.

"a few bad eggs" never EVER applies to those who aren't in power, it apparently only applies to those who wish to not be held accountable for their actions.

So tell me, why do a minority of protestors behaving violently discredit a movement?

2. "But people are being selfish, they're destroying property"

During the pandemic, many stores stayed open, forcing their workers to either put themselves in danger or be replaced without compensation. During the protests, stores are shutting their doors, barricading the windows, and sending their workers home.

It appears that they care more about protecting their property than protecting human life, the destruction of property sends a clear message and hits companies where it hurts: the wallet.

3. "The protestors should be peaceful"

THEY ARE. In most cases the protestors were peaceful, nonviolent, and did not engage in violence until provoked or put in danger.

Let's also not forget that politicians and companies have been paying people (and compelling their employees) for YEARS to go out and "protest." Unfortunately, there are people who will incite public violence for a few bucks, and they are not representative of the movement.

4. "Peaceful protest is the only way to get anything done"

Wrong again. Peaceful protests have rarely been effective, and when they are it's because they were coupled with other (non-peaceful, economically damaging) methods of protest. Civil rights movement? There were sure as HELL riots. LGBTQ movement? Stonewall was NOT peaceful.

Suffragettes? Shit hit the fan.

The American revolution was violent and cost many lives, and people seem to be proud of that movement.

Civil war? Absolute bloodbath. And the modern-day Confederates seem to be pretty proud of that.

It is in the best interest of the government (which is funded by the rich), to push the lie of successful peaceful protests so that people can go chant for an hour, feel better, and then feel accomplished and go back to complacency for a while.

If you only like violent unrest when white people are doing it, reevaluate.

5. "police are human too, they might get scared and overreact"

The police are supposed to be trained, elite, and responsible. They're armed. They get the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of the law, and most times in the eyes of a jury.

You tend to hear this one in the same breath as "they shouldn't have resisted" "they should have been calmer" "they should have been more polite"

Just for kicks, let's say that those statements are true. Say that someone is mouthing off or resisting.

If we make excuses for trained officers, who often have time to prepare for a situation, why do we not make excuses for untrained civilians ambushed with an encounter with an officer?

Police are scary, I'm white passing and they scare me. Talking to one is stressful, getting arrested is usually painful, and the instinct to run or fight back is biologically engrained in us. You always expect a civilian to respond calmly in such a high stress situation, especially not a civilian with a gun pointed at them.

We need to be able to trust our officers to remain calm and not act like teenagers when they're in a dangerous situation. For all the money we pour into law enforcement, it sure seems to be spent more on guns, tanks, and missiles than on training police to behave ethically.

I spent my grade school years in schools where the students were mostly POC, and none of the students were ever shot or beaten.

Now, in highschool I saw people running from the SRO, resisting him, even fighting him. We were teens, we acted up. From time to time someone would bring a gun or knife to school, which is completely inexcusable, but none of the students were ever shot or beaten.

Now, whether this was because the SRO was expected to deescalate, whether he knew he was surrounded by witnesses, or whether he just wanted to behave ethically, I'm sure there were times when kicking someone's ass crossed his mind. But he never did it. It's VERY reasonable to expect police officers to deescalate, or use non-lethal force at the very least. I've seen it happen under extreme circumstances, there's no reason for extralegal murder.

6. "but ALL lives matter"

I hear this the most, so I'm going to explain it nicely because I think people just genuinely don't understand:

There is an implied "too" at the end of the phrase.

"black lives matter (too)"

As in, we all know that all lives matter, which is why we don't say it, we don't have to.

We apparently DO have to tell people that black lives matter. Black people and other POC face systemic inequality and real danger. Systemic means that some police officers might be good people, but the laws and status quo that they protect perpetuate inequality.

"stop and frisk" who is more likely to get stopped?

Who is more likely to get pulled over?

Who is more likely to be unfairly sexualized?

Who is more likely to be assumed to be violent?

Who is less likely to get the benefit of the doubt?

If you talk to black children, they know about it. Most black children have already experienced racism by a very young age, and sadly understand it better than many adults.

When we say black lives matter, it's because some people need to learn it. If there are systemic issues that perpetuate inequality for black people, clearly not everyone is on the same page.

Even if racism disappeared tomorrow in entirety, that would not account for centuries of oppression that make black people more likely to be poor, food insecure, underemployed, and have insecure housing. Black Lives Matter would still be necessary.

.

.

.

The tags are to get this to a broader audience, not to reflect the content of the post.

I'm so proud of everyone out protesting.

[rockandrollstorytime]

Rock and Roll Storytime #6: The Rolling Stones Against the Establishment (Or: The time 3/5 of them went on trial for drug posession)

Let’s face it, I think every now and again, we all have those moments where we’re glad that we live in the time and place we do at this very moment. This particularly goes out to the musicians, who seem to get in trouble for drugs less frequently nowadays, in favor of worse charges... 

But that wasn’t always so. 

Once upon a time, the threat of rock stars getting long prison sentences for first time offences was very omnipresent, and this story is about that bygone era. A time and a place where even a hint of subversive behavior meant that adults lost their shit and went on literal moral crusades. 

Enter Sgt. Norman Pilcher, or, as John Lennon called him in “I Am the Walrus”, Semolina Pilchard. He was a detective in his 30′s and was dead-set on getting drugs off the streets, which meant that, invariably, he primarily set his sights on rock stars. His list of arrests includes Donovan, John Lennon, George Harrison, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Brian Jones. He would’ve nabbed Eric Clapton, but Eric bolted out the back door as soon as he heard there was someone at his doorstep with a “special delivery.”

For now though, we’re just going to focus on the Stones, and how this whole drug trial business may have accelerated the decline of one of its members. 

Given how trying to get rock stars busted for drugs was practically a sport in 1967, the now-defunct tabloid News of the World decided to capitalize on this by publishing a three-part “story” entitled, “Pop Stars and Drugs: Facts That Will Shock You.” In it, the tabloid alleged that many popular musicians of the time were not only doing drugs, but also holding drug parties at their homes, including Donovan, Pete Townshend, and Ginger Baker (R.I.P). Part Two seems to have primarily targeted the Rolling Stones, and it was alleged that Mick Jagger had taken several Benzedrine tablets, displayed a bit of hashish, and invited his companions back to his flat for a smoke, one of whom just so happened to be an undercover reporter. As it turns out, the person in question was actually little Brian Jones, who was being way too casual with his drug use. Mick tried to sue the paper over that one. 

I just want to ask, how the hell did they mix up Mick and Brian? One’s blond and has a cherubic face, and the other’s brunette and has massive lips!

In either case, like with how Donovan was arrested and charged after the first issue came out, the article attracted the attentions of authorities, and in particular, one Semolina Pilchard. News of the World was also more than a little interested in avoiding a major lawsuit, even to the point of allegedly wiretapping and paying off informants (it’s shit like that which is the reason why they ultimately became defunct in 2011, after a phone hacking scandal). Ultimately, on February 12, 1967, eighteen police officers raided Keith Richards’ home, Redlands. Mick, Keith, and an art dealer friend, Robert Fraser were arrested and charged with amphetamine possession, allowing his home to be used for the smoking of cannabis, and heroin possession respectively. 

In addition, salacious rumors started to swirl around that Mick was found eating a Mars Bar out of Marianne Faithfull’s... nether regions. Truth of the matter is, while Marianne was only wearing a fur rug, there weren’t any orgies taking place. She even wrote in her autobiography, “The Mars Bar is a very effective piece of demonizing. It was so overdone with such malicious twisting of the facts. Mick retrieving a Mars Bar from my vagina, indeed! It’s a dirty old man’s fantasy – some old fart who goes to a dominatrix every Thursday. A cop’s idea of what people do on acid.”

Their manager, Andrew Loog Oldham, was supposed to help these kids figure out what to do about the impending drug trials, but instead, he fled to America, leaving his role to Allen Klein (Andrew was fired in September). Lawyers told Mick, Keith, and Brian that, essentially, since they were the most visible of the Rolling Stones, to not talk to the press and even to temporarily leave the country. And so, Mick, Keith, and Brian (bringing along his girlfriend, Anita Pallenberg) set off for Morocco. This is something I’m going to have to go into more detail about another time, but suffice it to say, it ended with Anita leaving Brian for Keith and Brian being stranded in Morocco for about two days. 

On May 10, Mick, Keith, and Robert were marched into court where they were formally charged with the aforementioned charges. Mick and Keith decided to plead not guilty, Robert pled guilty, and all three elected to undergo trial by jury. That same day, twelve officers raided Brian’s home, and though he allegedly tried to clean up the place before the coppers arrived, they still managed to find a “purple Moroccan-style wallet” with cannabis in it. Needless to say, Brian and his friend, Prince Stanislaus “Stash” Klossowski were also arrested and charged with drug possession. On June 2, they were formally charged in court and elected to undergo trial by jury. However, Brian decided to plead guilty, a move that would come back to bite him in the ass later on. 

Starting with Mick, Robert, and Keith’s trial, the odds were against them from the very start. For one thing, the judge they were up against, Judge Leslie Allen Block, was notoriously unforgiving. Given that two of the people on trial were Rolling Stones, it quickly became apparent that the people running the show would very much be gunning for long jail sentences. It can also be argued that, since Pilcher knew what press would come if he made some high-profile celebrity arrests and didn’t arrest anyone with a status lower than Donovan, it could easily be argued that he was only making these arrests to gain some serious cred for his task-force. Going back to the original point though, at one point, as Mick’s trial was wrapping up, the judge even told the jury to dispel any notion of reasonable doubt. 

The last time I wrote this, that sounded seriously ethically dubious, even considering that the usual phrase here would be “innocent until proven guilty” (though it usually plays out the other way around, it seems). Well, I did eventually ask my mom about it (she’s a paralegal and she knows a thing or two about U.S.A. law), and she said that it would depend on the case and if the reasonable doubt presented was excluded by a previous court order. 

Granted, I know that’s dealing with U.S.A. law and that I can’t find anything saying that there was a court order barring reasonable doubt, but I guess that’ll have to do. 

In either case, on June 27, Mick was found guilty of illegally possessing Benzedrine (despite the fact that it was purchased legally in Italy), but because Keith’s trial hadn’t begun yet, Mick and Robert were sent to Lewes Prison overnight. 

Keith’s trial began in earnest the next day, and Keith really didn’t help his case when he said, “We are not old men. We are not worried about petty morals.” However, the trial remained unfinished at the end of the day, so Mick and Robert (who were being held in a cell under the courtroom) were escorted back to Lewes. 

The trial finally came to a close on June 29, and all three of the defendants were summarily sentenced. Mick was sentenced to three months for the aforementioned drug possession charges, Robert was sentenced to six months for heroin possession, and Keith was sentenced to twelve months for allowing cannabis to be smoked in his home. Additionally, all three were fined. Mick was sent to Brixton and Robert and Keith were sent to the notorious Wormwood Scrubs. 

By today’s standards, these would definitely be considered harsh sentences, and might not even happen the same way (I’ll save more of these details for the ending). Back then though, surprisingly, there was actually quite a bit of support for the Stones and not just from fans. Even newspapers that had once viciously mocked them, voiced their support. In fact, William Rees-Mogg, a well-known conservative, wrote an article for The Times called “Who Breaks a Butterfly Upon a Wheel” in which he criticized Mick Jagger’s sentence, essentially saying that the only reason he got three months was because of his being a Rolling Stone, and that had he not been, the consequences would have been much less severe, considering he was a first-time offender. The Who also voiced their support for the Stones, saying “The Who consider Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have been treated as scapegoats for the drug problem and as a protest against the grave sentences imposed on them at Chichester yesterday, The Who are issuing today the first of a series of Jagger-Richards songs to keep their work before the public until they are again free to record themselves.” The New Law Journal wrote, “The three-month prison sentence on Jagger for a first offence, and the introduction at this trial of evidence about a girl in a skin rug are two disturbing features of the case.” Some fans even protested outside News of the World’s headquarters, including Keith Moon’s girlfriend (later wife), Kim Kerrigan. 

However, there were still some sources who agreed with the judge’s decision. In particular, Charles Curran wrote for the Evening News: “I hold that people who break the law ought to be punished. The law that Jagger and Richards broke is not a trifle either. For it seeks to prevent people from using dangerous drugs for fun... Look at Jagger and Richards. Each of them is a millionaire at twenty-three. How does it come about that they are so rich? Their wealth flows from the fact that they are manufactured pieces of wish-fulfillment... Their lives tend to represent, in reality, what their admirers’ are in fantasy. So as long as the pop idol sticks to bawling and wailing- well, we can put up with that. But once he starts to add drugs to his drivel, society must take immediate note of it.”

The next day, Mick and Keith were released on appeal, and went to appeals court on July 31. Years later, Bill Wyman wrote, “The appeal was on five grounds: (1) That the evidence made a cornerstone of the case by the prosecution was wrongly admitted. The evidence of the girl, her dress or undress, was ‘wholly inadmissible’; (2) That if it was held to be admissible, the evidence should have been excluded by the discretion of the judge, because it was so prejudicial; (3) That the chairman misdirected the jury about what the prosecution had to prove as to the meaning of the word ‘permitting’; (4) That he failed to detail the lack of evidence regarding the knowledge of the cannabis drug; (5) That he failed to put fully the defence to the jury.” Keith’s sentence was completely overturned, while Mick was sentenced to a year’s probation, though he wound up spending another night in jail. 

Robert, who ended up serving his full sentence, apparently alleged that everything at Keith’s house that night had been his, and that he’d been taking heroin pills for an upset stomach (sort of like how Kurt Cobain claimed to be on heroin because of a stomach condition that may well have been psychosomatic). 

With Brian’s trial, it is important to note that, as I’ve said, he didn’t really take the affair as seriously as he could have, Also, there’s the fact that Allen Klein, in a misguided attempt at trying to protect Brian, told him to stay away from the other Stones as much as possible, which had the effect of isolating Brian from his band even further at a time where he needed them most. In fact, according to Stash (who was later acquitted), “Brian was not OK within a month of us getting busted. I was at Robert Fraser’s apartment when Brian came in, and, much to my horror, he proceeded to hit about twenty objects, banging into the walls and ricocheting across the room like a ping-pong ball. That was the terrible effect of those downers. He took them because he felt alienated, worried, and it was the only way he could isolate himself into some kind of security blanket. It was a one-way street. He had a disaster written in neon lights all over him and none of us could do anything about it.”

In fact, Brian was in such dire straits, he wound up being admitted to the Priory Clinic for psychiatric analysis on July 5, and was discharged as an out-patient on July 12. When his trial finally came around on October 30, he admitted in court to possessing cannabis without authority, but denied that he’d used cocaine or methedrine. His defense pleaded with the judge not to send him to jail, since he’d taken responsibility for the cannabis (the prosecution was more willing to accept that Brian might not have known about the stronger drugs) and that Brian had a nervous breakdown after the arrest and had suffered greatly. In fact, Detective-Sergeant David Patrick said that, while all drugs were serious, the amount of cannabis found was relatively small, and Brian’s psychiatrist said that his client should be hospitalized rather than imprisoned, and that Brian wouldn’t be able to handle prison. 

However, it all came to naught, as the judge, Reginald Seaton, sentenced Brian to three months in jail for cannabis possession, nine months for allowing his home to be used for smoking cannabis to be served concurrently, and a fine, stating, “I have given your case anxious and careful consideration. The offence of being the occupier of premises and allowing them to be used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin is very serious indeed. This means that people can break the law in comparative privacy and so avoid detection for what is a growing canker in this country at the present moment. No blame attaches to you for the phial of cocaine, but there are people who come to this sort of party and that is how the rot starts, from cannabis to hard drugs. You occupy a position by which you have a large following of youth, and therefore, it behoves you to set an example... Although I am moved by everything I have heard, I would be failing my duty if I did not refer to the seriousness of the offences by passing sentence of imprisonment.” Brian ended up spending the night in Wormwood Scrubs, where, apparently, guards threatened to cut off the long, blonde hair he was so proud of. 

Looking at pictures of Brian right after his initial arrest and right after his sentencing, the toll that these proceedings took on his physical and mental health becomes quite clear. 

As with Mick and Keith’s sentences, Brian’s conviction caused an uproar. Eight people were arrested as a peaceful protest practically turned into a riot, including Mick’s brother, Chris. In addition, The Daily Sketch wrote, “...dishing out a nine-month sentence is as likely to turn a pop star into a martyr as to deter his fans. Besides, if the Appeal Court later reduces or quashes a harsh sentence, as happened in the case of Jagger, the authority of the law is lessened.” Similarly, The Sun (yes, the same guys who botched their coverage the Hillsborough Disaster and got largely banned from Liverpool) wrote, “Such a sentence, far from convincing young people that cannabis (hemp) is harmful, is too likely to make a martyr of this wretched young man and invest it with false glamour.” 

Brian, though shaken, was released the next day on appeal. What helped his case, though, was when Judge Block made a rather tactless statement: “We did our best, your fellow countrymen, I, and my fellow magistrates, to cut these Stones down to size, but alas, it was not to be, because the Court of Criminal Appeal let them roll free.”

Though Block later claimed he was being sarcastic, Les Perrin issued a statement of his own: “In view of Brian Jones being on bail it seems deplorable that a member of the judiciary should so contravene the normally accepted practice in a case being sub judice, as to joke and poke fun. He made an unprecedented observation both on the trial he conducted at Chichester, and the subsequent findings of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Is this the kind of justice Brian expects? Is this man typical of those who hold the title, the high and esteemed office to try and sentence people? How can the public believe, in the light of this utterance by Judge Block, that the Rolling Stones can get an unbiased hearing? His statement smacks of pre-judgement, a getting-together, ‘to cut the Stones down to size’ because of who they are. It is a pity that he did not observe the ethics of sub judice in a like manner to Mr Jagger, Mr Richards, Mr Jones by remaining silent.”

At the appeal on December 12, Brian’s doctors again said that he had become potentially suicidal as a result of the trial, and its effect on his mental health. When all was said and done, his sentence was reduced to three years’ probation under the condition that he pay a £1,000 fine and that he receive psychiatric help, with the judge saying, “Remember, this is a degree of mercy which the court has shown. It’s not a let-off.”

Later on, Stash would note, “An artist can be hounded into a state in which his mental health will deteriorate and that’s what happened to Brian, I’m sure. I was very angry and blamed the authorities, but ultimately, an individual has to blame himself.”

On December 14, Brian’s chauffeur found him collapsed in his flat and called 999. After an hour, Brian walked out, against doctors’ orders that he should stay overnight. He went straight to the Priory Clinic, and the next day, went in to the dentist to get two teeth pulled due to having a raging toothache. Brian later said that the collapse had been a reaction to the trial. 

And even so, that is not where the story ends, though I honestly wish it did. On May 21, police showed up at Brian’s door again, this time being led by Detective-Sergeant Robin Constable. Once again, police found cannabis, and Brian was utterly distraught, saying such things as “This can’t happen again, just when we’re getting on our feet”, “Why do I always get bugged?”, and “Why do you always have to pick on me?”

Speculation exists to this day that this second search was a carefully orchestrated plant, but whether or not it was will likely never be known for certain.

While the substance was taken away for testing, Brian found himself being dragged to the courthouse shortly before 10 AM. You can probably imagine the press had a field day, and by this point, Brian was completely mentally drained. 

Brian appeared in court on June 11, 1968, where this time, he pled not guilty to the charges of cannabis possession. By this time, there was a new procedure under the Criminal Justice Act, preventing the need for evidence to be given in detail in court (which was a provision that hadn’t been present the first time around). Brian also elected to once again undergo trial by jury. 

Brian’s second trial occurred on September 26, 1968. He was also looking very sickly; his skin was pale, he’d gained weight, and the bags under his eyes were more pronounced now than at any other time in his life. Brian was charged with illegally possessing 144 grains of cannabis, and once again, he entered a plea of not guilty. Brian’s defense was that he’d been staying in the flat that actress Joanna Pettet had moved out of just two hours before while a house that he’d recently purchased was being decorated. Pettet later claimed that she’d left the ball of wool there, but denied any knowledge of the cannabis found inside it. Brian also claimed to have been receiving medical treatment since the last trial, and his doctor said, “Nothing suggested to me that Jones was playing around cannabis. If I put a reefer cigarette by this young man, he would run a mile.”

Chairman Reginald Seaton (the same guy at Brian’s first trial) in his last address to the jury said that the burden of proof should rest with the police, considering that all that was found in Brian’s flat was the cannabis, but no evidence that it had been smoked. Despite this though, the jury returned 45 minutes later to pronounce Brian guilty. Luckily for him, Seaton took pity on him, only giving him a fine, stating, “I think this was a lapse and I don’t want to interfere with the probation order that already applies to this man. I am going to fine you according to your means. You must keep clear of this stuff. You really must watch your step. You will be fined £50 with 100 guineas [£105] costs. For goodness sake, don’t get into trouble again or you really will be in serious trouble.” 

Of this second trial, Brian himself later said, “When the jury announced the guilty verdict, I was sure I was going to jail for at least a year. It was such a wonderful relief when I heard I was only going to be fined. I’m happy to be free. It’s wonderful. This summer has been one long worry to me. Someone planted the drug in my flat, but I don’t know who. I will state till my death that I did not commit this offence.”

The rest, as most would say, is history. Brian continued to spiral out of control, losing interest in the Stones until he was eventually fired on June 8, 1969, and replaced by Mick Taylor. Twenty-five days later, Brian drowned in his backyard swimming pool at the tender age of 27, becoming one of the first members of what would eventually be dubbed the “27 Club.”

I do have a theory that Brian’s death was primarily caused by sleeping pills and alcohol, maybe even some combination of heart failure, liver failure, and/or undiagnosed epilepsy exacerbated by the side-effects of some of the drugs he was allegedly prescribed right before his death, but that, dear readers, is another story. 

Meanwhile, the Stones are still rolling and Mick and Keith are still alive (obviously), the latter of whom celebrated his 76th birthday while I was writing this, by some miracle. 

While I was unable to ascertain whether using one’s home for drug abuse still carried the steep penalties it did in 1967, I was able to find UK law regarding drug possession. Sentencing largely depends on the quantity of the drug and whether or not there was an intent to sell, but amphetamines and cannabis can still land you with a fine and a jail sentence of up to five years. 

If there is a silver lining to be found in this whole mess, Pilcher was eventually found guilty of perjury (though not for possibly planting dope on rock stars), and was himself sentenced to four years in prison for claiming a drug smuggler was innocent and had served with the police (not true in the slightest, as he was actually caught red-handed in the act of selling). 

What can I say? Karma’s a bitch. 

Sources:  https://www.gov.uk/penalties-drug-possession-dealing http://www.timeisonourside.com/chron1968.html http://timeisonourside.com/chron1967.html https://stewarthomesociety.org/blog/archives/1813 https://groovyhistory.com/sgt-pilcher-stories-narc-arrested-mick-jagger-john-lennon-keith-richards-george-harrison https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/inside-allen-kleins-role-in-1967-jagger-richards-drug-bust-43267/ https://wbig.iheart.com/featured/lisa-berigan/content/2017-07-05-rolling-stones-jagger-remembers-drug-arrest/ https://dangerousminds.net/comments/simon_wells_the_great_rolling_stones_drugs_bust https://rulefortytwo.com/secret-rock-knowledge/chapter-11/redlands/ http://www.rockonrockmusic.com/the-redlands-police-raid-jagger-keith-richards-jailed-for-drugs/ http://blog.bathroomwall.com/police-raid-keith-richards-redlands-home-in-sussex-for-drugs/ https://www.nme.com/photos/the-great-rolling-stones-drug-bust-1402298 Faithfull: An Autobiography by Marianne Faithfull Stone Alone by Bill Wyman Life by Keith Richards Brian Jones: The Untold Life and Mysterious Death of a Legend by Laura Jackson Brian Jones: The Making of the Rolling Stones by Paul Trynka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Pilcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fraser_(art_dealer)

[ostrumregalis]

Caspar and Hilda: Living in the Shadow of an Older Sibling

As the title states, this is a simple observation piece that’s been on my mind all day about how Caspar and Hilda deal with having to have expectations brought upon them because they have an older sibling. In Caspar’s case; he’s from the Empire. I believe he’s the only Noble in the Black Eagle’s house whose directly from Adrestia, and has a surname that is actually a place in Adrestia who does not have a crest. Which means his older brother must have inherited it. I’m not sure about this however, so take that with a grain of salt moving forward. 

From Caspar’s supports with Edelgard, it was revealed that his older brother is rather incompetent. And despite never having to have worked hard for anything, his brother got all the status and inheritance. Under the system of the crests, Caspar suffers from playing second fiddle. And so, Caspar resolves himself to work extremely hard. He has a lot to prove after all, having gotten nothing from his family.

Edelgard’s support with him shows a lot of Caspar’s family life. It shows how Caspar really did not inherit anything from his family, despite being a Noble from House Bergliez. That being said, that fact doesn’t actually get Caspar down. Like at all. This boy is a bundle of joy. Instead, he focuses it all on proving himself... which is the direct effect of being a second-born son. Edelgard gets pissed in his stead, however. And states later on in their support that the Crest system brings people like Caspar down because people with crests are immediately held up on a pedestal and given Noble status. 

Edelgard wants to create a world free of such prejudice. She doesn’t want a world where people like Caspar are brought down just because his Older Brother got the crest instead of him. But to Caspar? It doesn’t affect him in the slightest. While in the BE route, he agrees with the world that Edelgard is trying to create, Caspar pretty much does not change in any way no matter what the route. He’ll still carve out his own path no matter what the future holds, or who he was born to. He may live in the shadow to an incompetent, lazy older sibling, but it never really mattered to him. But... he does say that he wouldn’t mind the title. Though, seeing as his older brother’s entire future relies on inheritance, he wouldn’t be too happy seeing him go down like that. Regardless of it all, Caspar wasn’t really too affected by it... 

But Hilda? Hilda was affected rather negatively by having an older brother. Her circumstances are completely different, however.  Unlike Caspar’s failure of an older brother; Hilda’s brother, Holt, was set to be the Alliance’s next leader before Claude’s appearance. And he is straight up the Alliance’s greatest general. He even won the Battle of the Eagle and the Lions during his academic career. And judging from her supports with Claude, he’s quite the doting older brother. He often sends letters to Hilda during her time in the academy just to make sure how she’s doing. All in all, he seems to be a good person.

However, his ridiculous achievements has made Hilda rather... complacent. From her general attitude, she doesn’t seem to see a point in putting in effort... even if she does put in a lot. Her gameplay reflects that too with the fact that she mainly wields axes. Her other supports also show how competent she is at everything she does... but she doesn’t seem to see a point to it all because it’s not to the same ridiculously high standards her brother is capable of. While Hilda is an amazing person in her own right, her baseline measurement is what Holt is capable of.

And so, this results in a sort of... inferiority complex. Now she’s rather lazy, and would rather pawn off her duties to others by sweet talking them into doing her jobs. She acts as if she’s a helpless maiden but she’s anything but that. Ferdinand, especially, keeps getting swept into her pace. Sylvain sees right through it after he gets tricked once. Of course, her laziness and duping of others doesn’t only extended to all the guys. She pawns of her duties to pretty much everyone including Mercedes and Marianne. 

Her brother’s straightforward jabs at her work ethic don’t really help either. I think she really does value her brother’s opinion. And they seem to have a good relationship overall. 

Despite her helpless maiden act, Hilda can actually reach that level of competence that she holds her brother up to. She seems to afraid of disappointing people; but her effort never goes unseen. Raphael is especially grateful for her efforts in helping him create a necklace for his own little sister.  

BUT GODDAMN SHE’S SO CUTE I’D DO ANYTHING FOR HER

Anyway, I find it interesting how these two can be so similar in situation, but so different at the same time. Their older brothers don’t really come up much in their own support conversations. I also find it quite funny that they actually end up fuelling the habits brought upon onto them by being a younger sibling. Hilda actively encourages Caspar to get into fights, and Caspar is more than happy to be her little errand boy... even if she doesn’t tend to take advantage of him. He ends up noticing this, actually. And he straight up just tells her to ask him for help. No need to coerce him. He’s Caspar. A good guy. Hida’s a good person too... when you dig her out of the hole she dug herself in. 

[edogawatranslations]

Danganronpa Kirigiri (3) - Chapter 1, Part 4

Table of Contents | Previous: Chapter 1, Part 3

The entrance door opened automatically.

The ground floor of the castle resembled a hotel lobby, and even had a reception desk where children wearing receptionist outfits were stationed. A soft carpet and sofa in a waiting area off to the side contributed to the cozy atmosphere.

I was surprised to see that a number of children in employee uniforms had formed a line between the entrance and the elevator, all in preparation for Ryuuzouji’s return.

“All together now...”

“Master Ryuuzouji, welcome home.”

The children bowed as a group. Their greetings weren’t in sync, which I thought made them look all the more adorable.

The queue of people continued through the lobby and ended at a door. Those waiting were likely the “lost lambs” who sought Ryuuzouji’s services, and the room beyond that door was probably where they would present their cases and vent their troubles.

Once we reached the elevator, the boy in the vest pressed the call button. After a moment, the doors opened, and he helped reverse Ryuuzouji’s wheelchair into the elevator.

“You get in as well.”

I obeyed Ryuuzouji’s instructions.

Moments before the elevator doors shut, two boys in janitor outfits holding mops and buckets rushed in.

“Oh, Master Ryuuzouji. Welcome home.” “Welcome home.”

The two kids said in unison.

The doors closed, and we began our ascent.

“Have you completed your cleaning duties?” Ryuuzouji asked the children.

“Yes. We made the windows and floors look sparkling new.” “Sparkling new.”

“Very well.”

The children looked ecstatic to receive Ryuuzouji’s affirmation.

They rode with us for a little while, before getting off on the third floor. The elevator continued up further, until we reached the fifth floor.

The doors opened to reveal a red carpeted hallway that stretched out directly forward. The boy in the vest began carefully pushing Ryuuzouji’s wheelchair down the hall.

“You must be wondering what kind of show we are putting on for you,” Ryuuzouji mused. “Or perhaps, you are thinking you have stumbled into the lair of a cult. However, I assure you, this is my normal day-to-day life with no embellishments of any sort.”

All those people in line who revered Ryuuzouji and requested his assistance. All those trusting children who worked under his guidance. This was the daily life of a hero—one who has saved more people than anyone else.

Was this what he wanted to show me?

The world as seen from the chair of a successful detective. And the tranquil paradise he built.

At the end of the long hallway was a set of double doors, which automatically opened as we approached.

What lay beyond those doors stood in harsh contrast to the paradise outside—the lonely battlefield of a hero.

Towers of files and documents piled high. Reference materials haphazardly scattered about. Photographs and scribbled notes pasted here and there. The room was about 600 square feet in size, but the mountains of books stacked all over the place and the oceans of jumbled bundles of paper strewn across the floor made the space feel like a miniature nature diorama, or perhaps, a visual recreation of the world inside Ryuuzouji’s mind.

Once we entered the room, Ryuuzouji took control of his motorized wheelchair and maneuvered into a position by a corner of his desk.

The boy in the vest took a bow before stepping out of the room.

Ryuuzouji and I were all alone.

Following a painful cough, Ryuuzouji tossed a tablet into his mouth and washed it down with a glass of whiskey.

“I hire orphans to work for me here, all of whom are training to become detectives. When necessary, I send them off on investigations. They serve as my eyes and ears, as well as my arms and legs. Think of them as similar to Sherlock Holmes’s Baker Street Irregulars. There are always things you can learn from your predecessors.”

As Ryuuzouji explained the role of the children, he scanned through a couple of papers and jotted down a few notes, before shifting his attention to a completely different set of documents. Even now, he was solving cases one after another.

“Do you force those kids to help carry out your crimes?” I asked.

Ryuuzouji flashed a wide grin before shaking his head. “Their work is solely as detectives.”

“So they aren’t aware of what you do behind the scenes,” I spat in disgust. “You’ve achieved the highest honor and standing as a detective, and even today, you continue to devote your efforts to solving cases. Why conspire with a criminal organization? I can’t wrap my head around it at all. How can someone like you call yourself a detective while simultaneously serving as an associate of the Crime Victims’ Salvation Committee without feeling conflicted?”

“I ask you, what possible reason would I have to feel such inner conflict?”

His unashamed tone struck me speechless.

“There is no difference between the ultimate goal of a detective and the Committee—salvation,” Ryuuzouji explained as he filed away documents one after another. “Of course, the methods may not completely be sound; undoubtedly, there is blood on my hands. Nevertheless, it cannot be refuted that I have saved more people with these hands than anyone else on this earth. That is my pride, and that pride is what allows me to continue my work as a detective.”

“None of that justifies committing crime,” I said, venting my frustration. “That goes even more so for a detective! Someone like you should despise crime and constantly be fighting against those who break the law.”

“Fufufu... I suppose.” For a second, he stopped flipping through his files to glance at me. “However, do not misunderstand me. We do despise crime, and we are fighting against those who act unlawfully. Tell me. Compare yourself—someone who has only been spouting platitudes on the sidelines without engaging yourself in combat—to us seasoned veterans who have bathed in the rain of blood in the heart of the battlefield. Who can you claim to be truly fighting?”

“Erm... But...” I struggled to find the words to counter him. As someone with only a few years of experience dabbling in detective work, I had no chance of winning a debate against a detective whose illustrious career spanned multiple decades.

“Working as a detective for many years... you find yourself in situations where adhering to ‘decent’ methods fail to save a single soul. Throughout my life, I have been one to strictly observe laws, ethics, virtually anything that can be deemed a set of rules, and I have judged myself by that standard. However, because of that, I have found myself frustrated on many an occasion. I have prayed to God countless times, wishing for the opportunity to save more and more people.”

A prayer befitting his status as an exceptional detective—

This world may have been too small to fully appreciate his genius.

“Is that why you joined the Crime Victims’ Salvation Committee?”

“Yes, to put it simply. Duel Noirs at their core are held in accordance with a fair set of rules. I sensed a fair spiritual aura emanating from Mikado Shinsen. If he were simply a terrorist who lacked a moral code, I would never have associated myself with him.”

“So involving completely innocent bystanders in revenge plots is fair to you?”

“Sacrifice is inevitable in seeking pure salvation—that is the conclusion I have reached.”

“N-No way... You’ve got that completely wrong!”

Compared to him, I was a total neophyte in terms of experience and expertise, but I was certain in my conviction. Condoning murder and failing to question its legitimacy irrevocably descended into the world of sin.

“You will never forgive us—that is what you believe.” Ryuuzouji slowly circled around the desk and approached me. “We are one and the same. I could never forgive evil either. That is why in order to defeat that evil, I vowed to obtain a weapon far stronger than it.”

“No... I’m not like you.”

“You merely have yet to make the commitment.”

“You’re wrong!”

Was he really wrong?

“I...”

I always wanted to be an ally of justice. I always wanted to save those in need of help. That was why I started walking down the path of a detective.

After reminding myself of that, I suddenly grew fearful of myself.

My image of the ideal detective was none other than Gekka Ryuuzouji himself.

“You have every reason to hesitate. That is precisely the part of you that I found myself fascinated with. You are exactly like who I was in the past.”

No... I'm not like him.

“You value the honor that derives from being a detective. I see that as the sole condition necessary to continue in this line of work.”

Before I realized it, Ryuuzouji had made his way right in front of me. His sharp, glimmering gaze pierced through my soul.

“Now, focus your ears. You should be able to hear them—the voices calling out to you...”

Sis...

...Yui.

Ah... I can hear a voice calling out to me for help.

It’s my little sister.

And Kyoko too.

What was I fighting for?

“I understand you,” Ryuuzouji said. “You are one of us. You are someone who is ready and willing to dirty your hands for those who seek salvation.”

What was the meaning of justice for a detective?

What did I even want to accomplish in the first place?

“Now, let the game continue,” Ryuuzouji said, interrupting my thoughts.

Taken aback by his remark, I snapped back to reality.

“Do you recall the rules?” he asked. “All you have to do is make a choice. However, this choice is not to be made lightly—no matter your decision, the result will have a resounding impact on your life.”

As I stood there in stunned silence, Ryuuzouji pulled out the two envelopes from his inner coat pocket.

One was black. The other was white.

“As soon as you take one of these envelopes into your hand, turn around and leave the room,” Ryuuzouji ordered, pointing at the closed set of doors through which we had entered. “At that moment, the new world you have chosen for yourself will manifest beyond those doors.”

White or black.

Which would be the path towards actually saving people?

I didn’t know.

Which choice should I make?

I had no clue.

The only thing that rang clear to me—

Was the sound of her voice.

Maybe that was where I should look to find the answer.

I shall venture forth—

I grabbed one of the envelopes from his hand.

—On the path I have chosen.

With a smug smile on his face, Ryuuzouji spun his wheelchair around, turning his back to me.

“It appears I have won this gamble,” he said. “I find your decision honorable.”

My body turned around and started walking towards the exit.

I opened the door and left the battlefield behind me.

Next: Chapter 1, Part 5

[cowardsanctuary]

i absolutely refuse to talk about this more than necessary but i just read. a discourse post that i find extremely Very Dumb. holy Shit.

so here is my only take. make with it what you want. steal my argument. yell. i don’t care. i’m not going to respond to anything unless it’s a question of clarification because i’m a dumbass who gets overworked by little things.

creating this w/love to @therealmephone4. i personally think opinions and kins should be respected, but there are lines to be crossed. i do not expect everyone that reads this to agree with me, but i hope that it enlightens some opinions that some of us hold to others who do not understand it/agree with it.

tl;dr bit of an analysis of object show ethics in relation to cobs, as well as a light touch on a cobs character analysis. i kind of go off at the end but eh

anywho with the logic of the show, it should be noted that any object can and often is treated as someone autonomous and capable of free thought. box is treated like his own person, despite being an entire box. however, there’s an apparent distinguishing between such—smaller devices, like Fan’s laptop and phone, are not treated like their own people. objects can accidentally be treated as non-sentient, but are often able to prove otherwise. (i.e. the trees in the 1st season of inanimate insanity.) everyone is quick to respond respectfully and accordingly.

to create such objects that are capable of fulfilling actions thoughtfully, capable of independent thought, and creating them with a resemblance of the sentient species of the world is basically creating life in inanimate insanity. cobs is not a parent in the biological sense, but he consciously and purposely created objects that fulfilled this purpose. not only that, but he already created handheld, non-living devices in the past.

creating mephones like 4 and 3gs and 4s were conscious choices. he’s continuing to make conscious choices. he knew he was creating what is essentially lifeforms, and he knowingly saw them through to completion and consciousness. he didn’t push them out of a fucking womb, but birth is birth. creation is creation. he had the choice to give them autonomy, gave it to them, and then when he decided it wasn’t convenient, he took it away from them despite them being capable of such. in inanimate insanity infinity, he regressed in allowing autonomy of the MePhones, but still created them to appear like such. the appearing MePhones were only limited to responding to commands, and remain creepily... idle and unresponsive otherwise. when they’ve outlived their relevance, not even their use, they are immediately replaced by a new one. that’s pretty. unsettling, as is.

think what you want about AI and AI rights, but basically this is a situation similar to (dread I say it) the game Detroit: Become Human. If an AI, even a “device” created for the servitude of their creators, is made to be close to and is capable of acting alike to their creators, even without traditional emotions, should they be given rights similar to humans and accommodating to the autonomy of the AI? honestly, i think the answer should be yes. if you make them like people, you treat them like people.

i think the actions that cobs is taking is inherently immoral. i’m not saying that cobs is obligated to make AI as close to people because he is capable of doing so, i’m saying that if he wanted to make advanced, sophisticated devices that are engineered to cater to the whims of people, he should design them that way. he’s giving Meeple products like MePad and MePhone5 and so on and so forth not just distinguishable personalities, but individual self-awareness and individual self-consciousness. what defines a person? what defines a person with autonomy? in the inanimate insanity world, the bar is low, and people are still expected to have common, human decency. the Meeple products were most likely created to emulate lifeforms. why? because cobs had the choice to make them not so.

because he made his AI’s so close to life, it is cobs’ responsibility as their lifegiver to give them a standard quality of life. it is an obligation for him to give them high qualities of life, by treating his creations as people, and by treating them as people capable of autonomy at the least. why? not only did he knowingly encode conscious, sophisticated thought into his creations, but he made it so that it is within the realm of possibility for them to act like people. The MePhones, therefore, should be considered as people. Along this line of reasoning, as their creator, mentor, and guardian, should be treating them as people.

Cobs has little respect for people in general. Cobs is not a nice person, or at least a pretty uncomfortable person to be around. He took his parents’ garage because it was relevant to the legacy of his company, presumably without their consent. That’s called stealing. Cobs was determined to take Fan’s egg, simply because it interested him. He’s also apparently self-absorbed, deigning to take them on a tour of his headquarters despite the contestants mentioning they needed to take care of something. He also, um, y’know, berated and yelled at MePhone4 doing things the latter enjoyed because the former was being inconvenienced (once because he was mad that MePhone4 didn’t do his chores, another time because MePhone4 walked in with a thing he wanted Cobs to see and Cobs was reviewing paperwork). When MePhone4 didn’t “work right,” his first instinct was not to work with MePhone4 personally in a way to hear out his creation’s concerns, but to replace him with someone new.

The Meeple products being Cobs’ children or not, he is still an immoral person. And with my later examples, it’s apparent that he is an abuser, even if you don’t consider the Meeple products to be his children. He pits his own creations against each other to get rid of what he views as his “mistakes.” When he isn’t happy with someone, he immediately looks for someone better while destroying the “failure,” either emotionally or physically. He has a golden standard for his inventions, and he doesn’t lose a wink of sleep over whether or not his creations are doing the same thing trying to meet those standards. He knows he appears as a monolith of great inventions and great ideas and he flaunts it, and attempts to use that to his advantage to get what he wants out of others. He’s self-absorbed and only looks for his own gain.

Isn’t this alarming? Isn’t this setting off some flags? It does for a good amount of people, which is why they feel the way they do. We think he’s an abuser because he abuses people. To me, and to most of us, that’s not something that can be easily forgiven—or forgiven at all. Cobs’ actions hurt others, and as far as we know, he doesn’t see it as an issue. He doesn’t try to change himself. He is an antagonistic force on the show, and can very much be the primary antagonist.

Now, this doesn’t mean liking Cobs is bad, for most cases. It’s completely okay to like a villainous character in terms of narrative, as they can provide an age-old sense of conflict in stories. Some villains can be absolutely heinous, and Cobs is no exception. He’s well-written... but none of that, absolutely nothing of his role in the show and how he acted is acceptable, nor should it be acceptable in real life. Fiction affects reality. God, does fiction affect reality. This doesn’t mean that liking Cobs will make you a bad person, though understandably it will make quite a few people wary of you. What I mean is that the appearance of a character like Cobs might resonate with people who’ve gone through abuse (not just child abuse, any kind tbfh). People like that are given venues to recognize what they’re going through and, with hope of the writers’ direction, realize that what they’re going through is not only bad but can be survived. Characters like Cobs gives folks a fictional outlet to deposit bottled hate towards. Even if a viewer hasn’t personally been abused or know someone that’s gone through abuse, they can still recognize his behavior as problematic and make use of that information as they please (make sure they don’t act like that, try to observe if people like that exist in their life or the lives of their friends, etc). He’s a villain, and people are allowed to despise villains and what they stand for.

So it’s understandable if people vocally hate Cobs with a passion. Yes, they are attacking the character. No, they are not attacking you, nor should you behave as such. Some of you relate to or kin Cobs in some fashion, and I can respect that hate like that makes you uncomfortable. But for the ones I’m aware of, it appears most of you are separating a good chunk (or all) of his actions from his identity. So if you're aware of Cobs’ harmful actions, why are you so quick to defend him? If someone is uncomfortable with your presence or preference of Cobs and they explain it’s because of his actions, why are you so eager to change their mind?

You can’t keep saying that it’s okay to hate a character while trying to convince someone otherwise.

You can’t keep saying your opinion should be respected while trying to change someone else’s opinion, when it’s obvious they won’t agree.

You can’t keep saying you don’t dismiss a character’s actions if the person you’re trying to convince would have to dismiss said character’s actions to like them.

You can’t keep saying you’re not trying to argue while trying to continue the argument.

Everyone believes they’re right, so they won’t listen if you say they’re wrong.

What you say is independent of what you do. What you do determines where your loyalties lie, whether you say you’re something or not. I don’t think it’s so bad that some folks get pissed at the existence of abusive people, because such people have been extremely detrimental to others, and especially to people I care about. If you’re so eager to prove Cobs isn’t abusive, to people who think he’s abusive no less, then I’d like you to ask yourself: why? How come you want your opinion to be respected when you think someone else’s opinion is wrong enough to prompt you to attempt to change it?

These are rhetorical questions, by the way. I don’t mind hearing other people’s takes, but I won’t listen to anyone who approaches me with the intent of conversion. You are permitted to read this, disagree, and go on your way. Live your life as you intend. Just remember that your actions are the greatest factor in determining how people act towards you. This may be your only warning.

[euteh]

How long have you been using your current smartphone? The answer for an increasing number of consumers is years, plural. After all, why upgrade every year when next year’s model is almost exactly the same as the device you’re holding in your hand?

Dutch social enterprise Fairphone sees this as an opportunity to sell sustainability. A chance to turn a conversation about ‘stalled smartphone innovation’ on its head by encouraging consumers to think more critically about the costs involved in pumping out the next shiny thing. And sell them on the savings — individual and collective — of holding their staple gadget steady.

Its latest smartphone, the Fairphone 3 — just released this week in Europe — represents the startup’s best chance yet of shrinking the convenience gap between the next hotly anticipated touchscreen gizmo and a fairer proposition that requires an altogether cooler head to appreciate.

On the surface Fairphone 3 looks like a fairly standard, if slightly thick (1cm), Android smartphone. But that’s essentially the point. This 4G phone could be your smartphone, is the intended message.

Specs wise, you’re getting mostly middling, rather than stand out stuff. There’s a 5.7in full HD display, a Qualcomm Snapdragon 632 chipset, 4GB of RAM and 64GB of storage (expandable via microSD), a 12MP rear lens and 8MP front-facing camera. There’s also NFC on board, a fingerprint reader, dual nano-SIM slots and a 3,000mAh battery that can be removed for easy replacement when it wears out.

There’s also a 3.5mm headphone jack: The handy port that’s being erased at the premium smartphone tier,  killing off a bunch of wired accessories with it. So ‘slow replacement’ smartphone hardware demonstrably encourages less waste across the gadget ecosystem too.

But the real difference lies under the surface. Fairer here means supply chain innovation to source conflict-free minerals that go into making the devices; social incentive programs that top up the minimum wages of assembly workers who put the phones together; and repairable, modular handset design that’s intended to reduce environmental impact by supporting a longer lifespan. Repair, don’t replace is the mantra.

All the extra effort that goes into making a smartphone less ethically challenging to own is of course invisible to the naked eye. So the Fairphone 3 buyer largely has to take the company’s word on trust.

The only visual evidence is repairability. Flip the phone over and a semi-opaque plastic backing gives a glimpse of modular guts. A tiny screwdriver included in the box allows you take the phone to pieces so you can swap out individual modules (such as the display) in case they break or fail. Fairphone sells replacements via a spare parts section of its website.

Despite this radically modular and novel design vs today’s hermetically sealed premium mobiles the Fairphone 3 feels extremely solid to hold.

It’s not designed to pop apart easily. Indeed, there’s a full thirteen screws holding the display module in place. Deconstruction takes work (and care not to lose any of the teeny screws). So this is modularity purely as occasional utility, not flashy party trick — as with Google’s doomed Ara Project.

For some that might be disappointing. Exactly because this modular phone feels so, well, boringly normal.

Visually the most stand out feature at a glance is the Fairphone logo picked out in metallic white lettering on the back. Those taking a second look will also spot a moralizing memo printed on the battery so it’s legible through the matte plastic — which reads: “Change is in your hands”. It may be a bit cringeworthy but if you’ve paid for an ethical premium you might as well flaunt it.

It’s fair to say design fans won’t be going wild over the Fairphone 3. But it feels almost intentionally dull. As if — in addition to shrinking manufacturing costs — the point is to impress on buyers that ethical internals are more than enough of a hipster fashion statement.

It’s also true that most smartphones are now much the same, hardware, features and performance wise. So — at this higher mid-tier price-point (€450/~$500) — why not flip the consumer smartphone sales pitch on its head to make it about shrinking rather than maximizing impact, via a dull but worthy standard?

That then pushes people to ask how sustainable is an expensive but valueless — and so, philosophically speaking, pointless — premium? That’s the question Fairphone 3 seems designed to pose.

Or, to put it another way, if normal can be ethical then shouldn’t ethical electronics be the norm?

Normal is what you get elsewhere with Fairphone 3. Purely judged as a smartphone its performance isn’t anything to write home about. It checks all the usual boxes of messaging, photos, apps and Internet browsing. You can say it gets the job done.

Sure, it’s not buttery smooth at every screen and app transition. And it can feel a little slow on the uptake at times. Notably the camera, while fairly responsive, isn’t lightning quick. Photo quality is not terrible — but not amazing either.

Testing the camera I found images prone to high acutance and over saturated colors. The software also struggles to handle mixed light and shade — meaning you may get a darker and less balanced shot that you hoped for. Low light performance isn’t great either.

That said, in good light the Fairphone 3 can take a perfectly acceptable selfie. Which is what most people will expect to be able to use the phone for.

Fairphone has said it’s done a lot of work to improve the camera vs the predecessor model. And it has succeeded in bringing photo performance up to workable standard — which is a great achievement at what’s also a slightly reduced handset price-point. Though, naturally, there’s still a big gap in photo quality vs the premium end of the smartphone market.

On the OS front, the phone runs a vanilla implementation of Android 9 out of the box — preloaded with the usual bundle of Google services and no added clutter so Android fans should feel right at home. (For those who want a Google-free alternative Fairphone says a future update will allow users to do a wipe and clean install of Android Open Source Project.)

In short, purely as a smartphone, the Fairphone 3 offers very little to shout about — so no screaming lack either. Again, if the point is to shrink the size of the compromise Fairphone is asking consumers to make in order to buy an ethically superior brand of electronics they are slowly succeeding in closing the gap.

It’s a project that’s clearly benefiting from the maturity of the smartphone market. While, on the cellular front, the transformative claims being made for 5G are clearly many years out — so there’s no issue with asking buyers to stick with a 4G phone for years to come.

Given where the market has now marched to, a ‘fairer’ smartphone that offers benchmark basics at a perfectly acceptable median but with the promise of reduced costs over the longer term — individual, societal and environmental — does seem like a proposition that could expand from what has so far been an exceptional niche into something rather larger and more mainstream.

Zooming out for a second, the Fairphone certainly makes an interesting contrast with some of the expensive chimeras struggling to be unfolded at the top end of the smartphone market right now.

Foldables like the Samsung Galaxy Fold — which clocks in at around 4x the price of a Fairphone and offers ~2x the screen real estate (when unfolded), plus a power bump. Whether the Fold’s lux package translates into mobile utility squared is a whole other question, though.

And where foldables will need to demonstrate a compelling use-case that goes above and beyond the Swiss Army utility of a normal smartphone to justify such a whopping price bump, Fairphone need only prick the consumer conscience — as it asks you pay a bit more and settle for a little less.

Neither of these sales pitches is challenge free, of course. And, for now, both foldables and fairer electronics remain curious niches.

But with the Fairphone 3 demonstrating that ethical can feel so normal it doesn’t seem beyond the pale to imagine demand for electronics that are average in performance yet pack an ethical punch scaling up to challenge the mainstream parade of copycat gadgets.

Read more: Source link

Fairphone 3 is a normal smartphone with ethical shine – TechCrunch How long have you been using your current smartphone? The answer for an increasing number of consumers is years, …

[nayanasri]

How long have you been using your current smartphone? The answer for an increasing number of consumers is years, plural. After all, why upgrade every year when next year’s model is almost exactly the same as the device you’re holding in your hand?

Dutch social enterprise Fairphone sees this as an opportunity to sell sustainability. A chance to turn a conversation about ‘stalled smartphone innovation’ on its head by encouraging consumers to think more critically about the costs involved in pumping out the next shiny thing. And sell them on the savings — individual and collective — of holding their staple gadget steady.

Its latest smartphone, the Fairphone 3 — just released this week in Europe — represents the startup’s best chance yet of shrinking the convenience gap between the next hotly anticipated touchscreen gizmo and a fairer proposition that requires an altogether cooler head to appreciate.

On the surface Fairphone 3 looks like a fairly standard, if slightly thick (1cm), Android smartphone. But that’s essentially the point. This 4G phone could be your smartphone, is the intended message.

Specs wise, you’re getting mostly middling, rather than stand out stuff. There’s a 5.7in full HD display, a Qualcomm Snapdragon 632 chipset, 4GB of RAM and 64GB of storage (expandable via microSD), a 12MP rear lens and 8MP front-facing camera. There’s also NFC on board, a fingerprint reader, dual nano-SIM slots and a 3,000mAh battery that can be removed for easy replacement when it wears out.

There’s also a 3.5mm headphone jack: The handy port that’s being erased at the premium smartphone tier,  killing off a bunch of wired accessories with it. So ‘slow replacement’ smartphone hardware demonstrably encourages less waste across the gadget ecosystem too.

But the real difference lies under the surface. Fairer here means supply chain innovation to source conflict-free minerals that go into making the devices; social incentive programs that top up the minimum wages of assembly workers who put the phones together; and repairable, modular handset design that’s intended to reduce environmental impact by supporting a longer lifespan. Repair, don’t replace is the mantra.

All the extra effort that goes into making a smartphone less ethically challenging to own is of course invisible to the naked eye. So the Fairphone 3 buyer largely has to take the company’s word on trust.

The only visual evidence is repairability. Flip the phone over and a semi-opaque plastic backing gives a glimpse of modular guts. A tiny screwdriver included in the box allows you take the phone to pieces so you can swap out individual modules (such as the display) in case they break or fail. Fairphone sells replacements via a spare parts section of its website.

Despite this radically modular and novel design vs today’s hermetically sealed premium mobiles the Fairphone 3 feels extremely solid to hold.

It’s not designed to pop apart easily. Indeed, there’s a full thirteen screws holding the display module in place. Deconstruction takes work (and care not to lose any of the teeny screws). So this is modularity purely as occasional utility, not flashy party trick — as with Google’s doomed Ara Project.

For some that might be disappointing. Exactly because this modular phone feels so, well, boringly normal.

Visually the most stand out feature at a glance is the Fairphone logo picked out in metallic white lettering on the back. Those taking a second look will also spot a moralizing memo printed on the battery so it’s legible through the matte plastic — which reads: “Change is in your hands”. It may be a bit cringeworthy but if you’ve paid for an ethical premium you might as well flaunt it.

It’s fair to say design fans won’t be going wild over the Fairphone 3. But it feels almost intentionally dull. As if — in addition to shrinking manufacturing costs — the point is to impress on buyers that ethical internals are more than enough of a hipster fashion statement.

It’s also true that most smartphones are now much the same, hardware, features and performance wise. So — at this higher mid-tier price-point (€450/~$ 500) — why not flip the consumer smartphone sales pitch on its head to make it about shrinking rather than maximizing impact, via a dull but worthy standard?

That then pushes people to ask how sustainable is an expensive but valueless — and so, philosophically speaking, pointless — premium? That’s the question Fairphone 3 seems designed to pose.

Or, to put it another way, if normal can be ethical then shouldn’t ethical electronics be the norm?

Normal is what you get elsewhere with Fairphone 3. Purely judged as a smartphone its performance isn’t anything to write home about. It checks all the usual boxes of messaging, photos, apps and Internet browsing. You can say it gets the job done.

Sure, it’s not buttery smooth at every screen and app transition. And it can feel a little slow on the uptake at times. Notably the camera, while fairly responsive, isn’t lightning quick. Photo quality is not terrible — but not amazing either.

Testing the camera I found images prone to high acutance and over saturated colors. The software also struggles to handle mixed light and shade — meaning you may get a darker and less balanced shot that you hoped for. Low light performance isn’t great either.

That said, in good light the Fairphone 3 can take a perfectly acceptable selfie. Which is what most people will expect to be able to use the phone for.

Fairphone has said it’s done a lot of work to improve the camera vs the predecessor model. And it has succeeded in bringing photo performance up to workable standard — which is a great achievement at what’s also a slightly reduced handset price-point. Though, naturally, there’s still a big gap in photo quality vs the premium end of the smartphone market.

On the OS front, the phone runs a vanilla implementation of Android 9 out of the box — preloaded with the usual bundle of Google services and no added clutter so Android fans should feel right at home. (For those who want a Google-free alternative Fairphone says a future update will allow users to do a wipe and clean install of Android Open Source Project.)

In short, purely as a smartphone, the Fairphone 3 offers very little to shout about — so no screaming lack either. Again, if the point is to shrink the size of the compromise Fairphone is asking consumers to make in order to buy an ethically superior brand of electronics they are slowly succeeding in closing the gap.

It’s a project that’s clearly benefiting from the maturity of the smartphone market. While, on the cellular front, the transformative claims being made for 5G are clearly many years out — so there’s no issue with asking buyers to stick with a 4G phone for years to come.

Given where the market has now marched to, a ‘fairer’ smartphone that offers benchmark basics at a perfectly acceptable median but with the promise of reduced costs over the longer term — individual, societal and environmental — does seem like a proposition that could expand from what has so far been an exceptional niche into something rather larger and more mainstream.

Zooming out for a second, the Fairphone certainly makes an interesting contrast with some of the expensive chimeras struggling to be unfolded at the top end of the smartphone market right now.

Foldables like the Samsung Galaxy Fold — which clocks in at around 4x the price of a Fairphone and offers ~2x the screen real estate (when unfolded), plus a power bump. Whether the Fold’s lux package translates into mobile utility squared is a whole other question, though.

And where foldables will need to demonstrate a compelling use-case that goes above and beyond the Swiss Army utility of a normal smartphone to justify such a whopping price bump, Fairphone need only prick the consumer conscience — as it asks you pay a bit more and settle for a little less.

Neither of these sales pitches is challenge free, of course. And, for now, both foldables and fairer electronics remain curious niches.

But with the Fairphone 3 demonstrating that ethical can feel so normal it doesn’t seem beyond the pale to imagine demand for electronics that are average in performance yet pack an ethical punch scaling up to challenge the mainstream parade of copycat gadgets.

Android – TechCrunch

Fairphone 3 is a normal smartphone with ethical shine How long have you been using your current smartphone? The answer for an increasing number of consumers is years, …

[howlingheartdemigod]

Fantasy U. What are the Bad Kids like in college?

@kickmuncher3 oh god i’m sorry this is so late my buddy but here it is i hope it’s okay

oh my god okay so. first, yall should know i dropped out. true story, had a mental breakdown, didn’t show up to a final, called my mom and my sister came and drove me home, SO

all my knowledge here is based on one year where i was VERY depressed/generally mentally ill, and a lifetime of college movies.

Let’s just. I can absolutely will do a post campaign college version, but also let me just tell you about them sans campaign college first. I’m AUing. watch out world, I’m making a new one.

Kristen, sweet, sweet Kristen, is the Clerical/pastoral Studies major (who was homeschooled (probably in the Helioic version of that ‘to raise up a child’ cult,)) and knows that she’s there to find a good husband and bring her friends into the faith, and become a wife.

Needless to say she loses her goddamn mind. The only thing that can break faith faster than your God refusing to answer your questions to your face, is a freshman year ethics class. She full on has a breakdown in the stairwell heading out of the psych building. That’s where Fig finds her, actually.

Fig is… bless her, but, Fig is the girl who you want to deck because she constantly derails class conversations with her bullshit. She found out her dad wasn’t her dad and her parents got divorced the summer after her senior year. She doesn’t even see the point of being in school because she’s just going to go become a hard rock musician anyway, but she got a full ride bard scholarship for piano so FINE MOM I’LL GO BUT I’M NOT GONNA LIKE IT.

She meets Kristen when Kristen is having a breakdown in the hallway and offers her a cigarette, which Kristen takes with no idea how to smoke. They talk for a while, most Fig going, “yeah man, it’s bullshit,” every time Kristen looks to her for assurance. the Fig rants about how you should never believe in anything, because even your family turns their back on you because OF COURSE THEY DO THEY’RE ALL TRAITORS AND LIARS. Kristen doesn’t know what to do with that exactly, but she decides to factor it in as she’s figuring stuff out just in case. Kristen and Fig become friends because nothing makes you become friends with someone faster than having a breakdown in front of them. I speak from experience.

Adaine, sweet sweet Adaine, is at Aguefort, a small liberal arts college, instead of the DnD version of Oxford or Cambridge (whichever rings more pretentious) and it is a SCANDAL. Like her sister is there, but she couldn’t get in! what! what!! but, honestly, she’s happy where she is. She is. She really is. She had a cry her first night in her dorm (a single, which, I’m jealous) but she’s happy. because she’s away from her parents and away from her sister, and wow, her first day on campus, when she walked out on the quad (grassy area? some kind of gathering place? I don’t know we didn’t have anything called a quad we just had lots of sidewalks because of how old our school was you couldn’t walk on the same sidewalk as someone as the opposite gender. so i don’t know what it would be called.) So she walks out on the quad and takes this deep breath and feels a little relieved, and very excited.

Adaine meets Kristen in the Cafe when (surprise surprise) Someone knocks her books out of her hand. It’s not the bullying of high school, but it wasn’t totally an accident because assholes are assholes. It was probably a pseudo intention ‘bump into’ which makes Kristen drop what she was holding. Adaine helps her. Kristen asks if she wants to join her at her table, where Fig already is, and Adaine, half a world away from anyone she knows, agrees without question.

They become friends when Fig gets Adaine to crack and say something nasty, and Kristen gets to act a little scandalized, but she’s not, she’s excited. it’s great. Quality shit, man, quality shit.

Fabian is a legacy on his mom’s side and he is there to make is dad proud, and get laid, in that order. his mom tells him lots of stories of her time there and he thinks it sounds LIT. she also somehow got a fucking degree in between shenanigans. Fabian… it’s kinda up in the air. he forgets about class for a minute? he gets cornered by his advisor in the Cafe and is assigned a student buddy essentially who’s whole job is to make sure he goes it class. It’s Gorgug.

Gorgug, my son, is just trying to make friends, honestly. He joins like six clubs on the first day to try and do that. Accidently offers to his Advisor to be a student counselor. He’s also there on a Blood Rush Scholarship. Just. you know. Because he’s good at it. he’s also taking band for fun, and that’s how he and Fig meet. 

Gorgug and Fabian are walking from the one class they share into the Cafe when Fig sees Gorgug, and invites them over. Fabian is certain he will not be cool if seen with these people but, there is a cute Elf girl sitting there, who looks with in his standards, so they join the girls at the table. 

Riz is there to hone his detective skills, and because his mom said so. She saved for years, and years, and years to make sure he got to go to college. He is NOT fucking that up for her. He has to be 21 (or the goblin equivalent I guess?) to go to the police academy anyway. So he gets to go get a criminal justice degree, gotdamnit. 

Riz becomes friends with them fully by accident. They’re all leaving the Cafe and Riz, being Riz, is pretty sure he’s hot on a case. He thinks one of the department is a vampire who’s slowly picking off his students, including his former baby sitter. (The professor isn’t a vampire. He’s just a really bad professor and people are dropping either that major or out of school all together.)

Fig notices him ducking behind a trashcan, and they call out to him, and he ropes them into the search. They’re all mostly in it because, hey, this is something to do that will make a good story. they love Riz though, all of them. Fabian especially tbh. Riz is pretty sure they’re just contacts, not friends. 

It’s like that comic page 

Superman; “This is a love story” 

Batman; “This is a detective story”

or the accompanying text grab of 

“baby”

                      “Fellow Associate”

It’s high quality. It takes Fig inviting him for ice cream after it is all over for him to realize that he made friends. He calls his mom on the way home. she’s very proud of him. She should be. 

[arcanalogue]

On the subject of accepting uncanny advice (solicited or otherwise) from psychics, friends, Psychic Friends, and the total randos that skid through our lives, I present this handy guide for ranking the credibility of patently incredible sources. Behold, Arcanalogue’s UNCANNY ADVICE CREDIBILITY SCALE!

Here’s how this scale works: when you find yourself presented with input, anecdotes, or interpretations of uncanny phenomena, consider the source. (Note that even fairly credible sources can still lead you astray, and consider the lengths certain people will go to manipulate your perception of their credibility! Even so, this should help.)

Let’s start at the bottom and work our way up:

BRUSH WITH MADNESS

This is a category for those who confound us with the suddenness and randomness of their approach -- the person who shouts bizarre exhortations from across the street, the random lady at the bar who clutches your sleeve and claims to have a message from your grandmother, the grifter who’s not even established enough to have a storefront, handing you a psychic hotline business card through the passenger window of her car after tricking you into putting some gas in her tank. 

This kind of input preys on our superstitions about the relevance of random messages from the universe (”Beware the Ides of March!”) but is honestly at the absolute lowest rung of credibility, regardless of what happened to Julius Caesar.

CHARLATAN AND/OR INSANE

This is your run-of-the-mill storefront psychic who lives by their wits, who cynically offers “authentic” psychic advice with deadpan sincerity. 

It’s also the disordered person whose identity has come to revolve around sharing all their uncanny feelings and unsolicited hunches -- the unconscious “cold reader” who truly believes everything they tell you. 

Sometimes they’re the same person! In either case, they’ll overload you with details in the hopes that some of them touch a nerve, and will usually do everything in their power to hold your attention for as long as possible. 

Credibility-wise, they’re in “even a stopped clock is right twice a day“ territory.

CHARLATAN AND/OR INSANE, WITH GIFT

This is a sub-category for those who really do seem to possess a certain amount of uncanny awareness, but have no real control over it, nor any scruples in terms of administering it usefully. 

Even if they sincerely want to help, they’re still likely to do just as much harm as good, or prove unreliable when you could really use the help. Still, a tad less harmful than someone who is truly using you as a bit player in their own paranormal psychodrama. 

WELL-MEANING AMATEUR

This person has a sincere interest in learning about the uncanny -- and hey, we all have to start somewhere! They are learning how to read tarot cards, studying up on astrology, practicing mindfulness, and probing their sensitivity to “vibrations,” and they need people to practice on. That’s you, patient friend!

They usually prove to be just a dabbler, but what makes this person safe to consult is they don’t take themselves very seriously -- they know they’re green, and still have lots more questions than answers. Whatever input they offer is likely to be colored by the latest book they read, or the last consultation they received from a professional (who hopefully isn’t someone from one of the previous categories). 

The reading you get from them not be terribly illuminating, but it’s still interesting and potentially helpful, especially when you can tell they truly do have your best interests at heart. (Anyone who’s not sincerely well-meaning automatically gets filed under Charlatan and/or Insane.)

INTELLECTUAL THEORIST

These are your philosophers, your academics, your poets and psychology-buffs. They’ve read a lot and experienced a lot, probably experimented with some awareness-enhancing substances, and pride themselves on being open-minded. Conversations about uncanny phenomena will revolve around archetypes, symbolism, anthropology, and how no one really knows the answers to life’s big questions.

These people are usually agnostics or atheists themselves, but unlike your hard-line rationalists, they’ll totally enjoy picking over the details of a bizarre occurrence, asking trenchant questions, offering support and wisdom even if they don’t really believe anything supernatural is at work. They give super-Jungian tarot readings which are honestly pretty satisfying. They want to believe, and may refer you to someone they know on the tier just above them, which is...

WELL-MEANING EXPERT

This person has devoted serious time and attention to subjects that most people consider decidedly unserious, such as divination, religious gnosticism, shamanism, ceremonial magick, you name it. They hold themselves to a high ethical standard, they know their limits and are up front about them, and are well on their way to mastery.

Perhaps they have a teacher or mentor, or perhaps they’re a self-initiated autodidact. Either way, they’re more inherently trustworthy and much better at delicately navigating personal boundaries than anyone below them on this list: they’re able to impart constructive advice with relatively little ego, and have invested enough in their own practice that they don’t need to be shored up by attention from others.

Their input is sought after often. They may do a bit of this professionally, or aspire to, but by no means is it their main gig. 

TOTAL PRO

This is your author, your lecturer, your sought-after expert who has staked their professional reputation on their credibility. They’re harder to book one-on-one time with, but tend to be worth whatever they ask for these services. They’re also good at maintaining a modest emotional distance and a purely professional demeanor, usually as a result of being consulted so often by people who are extremely desperate for their services. 

Usually you will have read or seen samples of this person’s work before you come into contact with them. While everyone makes mistakes -- and certain personality types are obsessed with attaining Total Pro status, regardless of whether they can back up any of their claims -- whatever they tell you is likely worth listening to. 

HOLY MASTER

At the very top of this scale, credibility-wise, sits the Holy Master. This person appears to be plugged into a major power source, transcending matters related to respectability or professionalism. Interacting with the uncanny i second nature to them, like breathing. These are your hermits, your ascetics, your backwoods brujas, your brutally-honest adepts who seem to see right through us. Encounters with them are rare, and often not entirely pleasant, but their ability and raw power are undeniable, and their counsel is generally valuable.

DISCLAIMER: The Holy Master is often indistinguishable from Brush With Madness. To complicate things further, Holy Masters do actually go mad, or end up behaving carelessly and unethically. The overlap between these categories often misleads people into giving credibility to those who cloak their madness in an air of holy mastery -- or even discounting valuable advice given from a true master who seems out of touch with reality. 

So, credibility-wise, aiming for the top of the scale is basically how you end up back at the bottom. Nor are perceptions uniform: One person’s Holy Master is someone else’s Charlatan and/or Insane, and vice versa.

I hope this chart will prove useful the next time you receive input that’s difficult to interpret. Question everything, especially the source! Once you have someone properly pegged, you can decide whether or not they’re worth listening to. Ain’t life grand?

Yours in perpetual uncertainty,

A R C A N A L O G U E

[lastsonlost]

Update 2: We’ve been watching the comments, of course, and have seen a better solution that for some reason didn’t come to mind in our discussion. Some have mentioned we could put an editor’s note on each of the past articles we wanted to remove previously. We think that this is a fantastic idea and we will do this moving forward. So, we are NOT removing all of the articles, but each of the remaining articles (which constitutes the vast majority of those affected) will have an editor’s note explaining that this is not content that would meet our editorial standards today. Some articles will indeed still be removed due to the nature of their content, such as accusing people with little to no evidence. That is 100% against our ethical practices and that sort of content is not redeemable. The redirects will remain until the process is complete.

Update 3: All of the affected articles have been moved to an archive category and given an Editor’s Note at the beginning of the article. The redirects have been removed. Of those affected, three of them will be unpublished. All three have factual inaccuracies or accusations that have far less than sufficient evidence to back them up. These three have been removed (archived):

http://archive.is/pSmwh

http://archive.is/2Ly0i

http://archive.is/OJZwc

We’ve covered Gaming and Technology since the site’s inception but have now come to the decision that we need to step back from Technology coverage for the time being. We could never keep up the staff interested in writing on the subject and having a severely lacking section of our site was not something we wanted to take up space. You may see the odd technology article or two, particularly if it pertains to gaming, otherwise, we’re not focusing on it. We will be updating our menus and site navigation in the future to be more gaming focused. We’ll let you know when that takes place.

We are making some more changes to make TechRaptor more gaming focused. We will be removing some articles from the site.

If you were to compare TechRaptor late 2017 to late 2014, there would be more differences than similarities. Our knowledge, while still significantly lacking as we continue to learn, has increased by a considerable amount in areas like reporting, gaming, writing, editing, and everything else it takes to run a site like this. We’ve been more selective with staff and have our best group of writers working right now.

The recent events regarding the Steam Curator update obviously caught our attention. We were completely surprised and did not realize that so many still held us in such low regard for articles written about a certain subject years ago. We have moved on and had assumed that other parties had as well. Apparently, that is not the case.

For what it’s worth to those concerned, we’re not entirely happy with many articles we have written in the past. Particularly, there are many from late 2014 and early 2015 that are of such poor quality we will be removing them. If any of those articles had been submitted to our editorial process today, they would have not been published.

Frankly, many of the articles from a few years ago are embarrassing to be associated with. It’s not necessarily the values they espouse or beliefs they argue for but the quality of writing and choice of topic. We strayed from the path of just talking about games and have no intentions of doing it again. Nobody that has stuck with TechRaptor, or has been hired since, writes here for the intentions of arguing their political beliefs, and we have made a conscious effort to ensure that does not happen again.

For that reason and more we don’t think some articles reflect TechRaptor accurately. The quality is abysmal and something we’d prefer people not stumble on to get the wrong impression. Many of the articles we are removing associate us with something we, as an outlet, never really wanted to be a part of, except to report on it. Certain writers went beyond that, and they should never have been allowed to.

January 1st of 2015 I took over as Editor in Chief. Not only had I not had any sort of editing experience, outside of what I did in college, I’d never really had to manage people before. I was, however, willing to put in the work to learn and to try to create a process editorially that made sense. That process has changed more times than I can count as we continue to learn and grow.

With our prior Editor in Chief, there was no editorial process to be heard of. Articles not only did not receive critique or editing, they likely saw no review at all. New hires on the site during what was a turbulent time in gaming—to put it mildly—had a lot of leniency in their content. Aside from completely obvious topics or ideas that were vetoed, likely on title alone, there was no review, no arguments challenged, no critique given.

As I’ve said, that has completely changed. Then there was one sole editor to look at, critique, and schedule articles. Now we have a whole team, each of which I find incredibly valuable. We all regularly speak about articles and ask for one another’s opinion. The editorial review has improved immensely and will only grow the more we learn.

We’re not falling back on the excuse of “we didn’t know” or “give us a break we’re learning.” We welcome any and all criticism that is valuable to us. Those that want to just spew their dislike for us instead of showing us why they think we are in the wrong in some way aren’t all that useful to us. We’re glad to take in criticism to grow. We’ve set a high bar for ourselves and good criticism can help us reach and exceed it.

All I ask is to compare the TechRaptor then and the now. It’s telling to me that those who want to attack us can only bring up articles from years ago written by those no longer on staff.

Those concerned that TechRaptor has changed radically or has changed its core values, don’t worry. The same principles and guidelines we created for ourselves guide our every action as we think of ways to better inform our readership and grow TechRaptor in the future. We’ve only changed the higher standards we now hold our writers to and we aren’t allowing them to use TechRaptor to preach their politics. The only time we’ll get political is when we feel an issue is demonstrably false and damaging to the gaming community, like the video games cause violence nonsense. We’ll continue to call out bogus claims that harm the community, to expose and discuss harmful practices by the industry, and of course, we will continue to cover the games we love.

So to those that haven’t read TechRaptor in a while, please look around. If you weren’t a fan in the past, or just outright disliked us, I think you’ll see a great change, and those that were a part of our audience long ago will be pleasantly surprised as well. We’re here to talk about something we all deeply love and want to continue sharing it with you all as best we can.

And to close, if you think I have been avoiding saying “GamerGate,” I’m not, and I want to make something explicitly clear. TechRaptor has never supported GamerGate. We have never participated in GamerGate. We reported on, talked to, and were interested in the movement years ago when it began and for a decent while after it continued. We have had staff that were unequivocally supporters of GamerGate as well as involved in the various things the group has done. We have also had staff against GamerGate’s actions thinking they did more harm than good, as well as those that didn’t care, and those that saw it as a funny or sad joke. As an outlet, we have not and will not choose “sides.” We are not interested in being known as “that GamerGate site” or involving ourselves as either for or against it, whatever that may mean these days. We just want to continue to cover games as best we can and remove the political nonsense surrounding the outlet. We’ve moved on and grown into something we think is much better: celebrating gaming in all its forms.

Update 1: I wanted to add a bit of clarity here, as I think some people are misunderstanding what I meant in the above paragraph. TechRaptor has not and has no plans to remove all content related to GamerGate. This is about removing poorly written and poorly argued content that covered topics we really had no business talking about in the first place. It inserted us into a debate we did not want, but we are still proud of our GamerGate coverage and for offering a voice to those that otherwise would not have spoken at all during that time. There are still plenty of GamerGate related articles on the site that do meet our editorial standards.

If you have any questions at all, please ask them in the comments below. You can also send an email to aotton@techraptor.netor rutledge@techraptor.net if you would like to speak that way.

Thanks for reading.

@gamergate-news