#ethical conundrum is what Carry On is

[hunter-the-gae]

Okay, this book was top-tier, to say the least. I saw someone write a review that said, "J.K. Rowling wishes she could write this good" or something like that. I honestly agree. This book has got to be one of my favourite reads ever. It has HEA, it's lgbtqia+, and it gives the "coming of age" genre new life (in my personal view).

The book starts "in medias res" (in the middle of things). This really gives the feel of how the most epics are written, which always starts in the middle of things. But this isn't an epic. The book starts slow, and there are questions after questions. But I suggest focusing mainly on the character dynamics for the beginning. I went into this book with the knowledge that Simon and Baz eventually ended up together, so that's what really kept me going and what I latched on to first. I looked at the way Simon would describe things in great detail and, at every turn, bring up Baz. He loved The Mage like a father and talked about him a great deal, but less in comparison to Baz. The only person that he talked about more than Baz was Penelope, and that was because she was his best friend. In the first 3 chapters alone, Simon mentions Agatha (his GIRLFRIEND) a maximum of 4 times. Compared to how much he mentioned everyone else, it was kind of concerning. You can pick up on how most characters are going to be throughout the novel very easily through the first 6 or so chapters. What I really loved about the beginning of the book, though, is the fact that although it starts in medias res every POV explains things so effortlessly, although sometimes you can tell that they are going out of their way to explain these things. But at the same time, it feels natural. That makes the book so easy to read, and the writing style is phenomenal; it flows so beautifully. To me, it feels like treading water or cutting through jello. I do have a lot to say about characters and character relations, but I will save that for another post. Once you get to where everything starts to pick up, towards the end, you can clearly see the flaws on all sides. The Mage and the Old Families. They both think they are right, but each side is a little or a lot wrong. It's such a beautifully written ethical conundrum; I love it. This heavily reminds me of American politics, and that's kind of funny. This book simultaneously feels light yet heavy.

[v-ividus]

41. Confronting the Political Abyss: An Inquiry into Evil Dressed as Political Good

“Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil.” — Mary Wollstonecraft

In the now grim theater of existence, the value of human life stands as an undeniable pillar of civilization. Yet, the intellectual edifice built upon this principle seems shaky, more prone to collapse under the weight of Machiavellian cunning. The discourse around psychopathy reveals alarming insights; it illustrates how detachment from empathy allows individuals to embrace a calculating nature, often justifying heinous acts under the guise of greater goods. How many lives have been sacrificed on the altar of ambition, cloaked in a veil of righteousness?

These truths are often lost in an avalanche of digital noise—a social media landscape that distorts the essence of human connection into mere transactional interactions. Vulnerability, compassion, and authenticity are cast as weaknesses in a battleground where self-promotion reigns supreme. As users scroll through curated realities, the gravity of true human experiences mutates into a shadow, revealing a mass desensitization toward suffering. To engage in such unreflective existence is to dance with a specter of moral apathy, inching closer to the edge of ethical oblivion.

It is crucial, therefore, to confront the implications of our actions and inactions. In this conundrum of moral deficits, a disturbing irony surfaces: the more we pursue our political goods—progress, equality, and even justice—the more we confront the specter of unintended evil, as Wollstonecraft poignantly articulated. This relentless pursuit, devoid of introspection, births a culture that glorifies ambition over morality, setting a dangerous precedent for generations to come.

Moreover, the modern proclivity for 'likes' and digital approval leads to a hollow reverberation of solidarity, rendering genuine empathy into a currency devoid of value. The human cost of our digital interactions mounts, stemming from the neuropsychological fallout of superficial engagements. Machiavellianism thrives in this ecosystem, often celebrated as shrewdness rather than scrutinized for its ethical ramifications. Thus, we stand on a precipice, our collective well-being threatened by a culture that favors spectacle over substance.

The underlying question emerges: What does it mean to truly value a life? If we reduce our interactions to mere engagements of convenience, we forfeit our moral compass, leaving a void where the richness of human experience once resided. This epistemological shift toward cynicism not only destabilizes societal frameworks but also reshapes personal moral cores, challenging us to reckon with the implications of a soulless existence propelled by the very media that promises connection.

Dissecting the Nature of Evil: A Psychological Perspective

Evil, often perceived as a monolithic entity, is a construct that requires nuanced examination within the realms of psychology and sociology. The clinical understanding of psychopathy reveals that it is not merely a shadowy apparition lurking in the dark, but a psychological framework where emotional desensitivity plays a crucial role in human interactions. Psychopaths—defined by their lack of remorse, superficial charm, and insatiable ambition—are symptomatic of a broader societal decay where empathy is superseded by self-interest.

In our digitized world, the proliferation of social media facilitates a breeding ground for such traits. Individuals are bombarded with curated personas, transactional validation, and competing narratives, creating an illusion of connection while simultaneously sowing the seeds of distrust and disconnection. The irony lies in the fact that our quest for social validation often leaves us at the mercy of sociopathy, as the very tools designed to augment human interaction fracture the essence of community.

Through this lens, it becomes essential to engage with the pressing question: Is evil merely a manifestation of individual pathology, or is it a socially propagated anomaly? A deft intertwining of psychological and societal factors reveals troubling conclusions: as we disengage from the humanity of others, we normalize a culture rife with Machiavellian practices. Natural affection erodes beneath the surface, yielding to the rationalization of 'ends justify the means,' cultivating a relentless environment where ethics are but a nuisance.

Moreover, the unrelenting pace and exhaustive reach of social media further exacerbate these dynamics. The algorithms that govern our feeds act as insidious gatekeepers, dictating what we value, thereby skewing perceptions of credibility and morality. Such an environment fosters a toxic normalization of exploitation, where the limits of human decency are constantly tested. Ultimately, the soul of humanity crumbles beneath the weight of our digital aspirations, breeding self-serving acts veiled as socially acceptable.

It is critical to confront the personal responsibility woven within this moral paradox. Each engagement, each decision, and each interaction carries profound implications, beckoning us to become vigilant protectors of our ethical boundaries. By understanding the psychological underpinnings of evil, we regain agency in the reclamation of our shared humanity, urging a collective recalibration towards authenticity and empathy, even amidst the immense pressures of an increasingly fractured society.

The Machinery of Machiavellianism: Deconstructing the Politics of Power

Machiavellianism, with its roots entrenched in the manipulation and exploitation of others for personal gain, serves as an illustrative case study of how power dynamics operate in the maze of social relations. Individuals masterfully negotiate their motives within a political landscape that prizes an unscrupulous approach to achieving success. Political goods, in their extreme, become instruments of control, yielding collateral damage in the quest for authority.

In the grand chess game of our societal structure, every player seeks to maneuver strategically, often unaware or uncaring of the ramifications of their calculated moves. This incessant pursuit of dominance leads to the commodification of human relationships, where individuals are regarded as mere pawns rather than integral participants. This blurring of identities fosters a toxic environment, where respect erodes, and moral integrity becomes a relic of the past—deemed unnecessary in the relentless race for supremacy.

Simultaneously, the emergence of social media complicates these power relationships, injecting a layer of abstraction that disassociates individuals from real consequences. The phrase “cancel culture” encapsulates the paradox of accountability transformed into a frantic cycle of judgment, where reputations are swiftly shattered without the nuanced understanding they deserve. This accelerates a mechanism where moral failings abound, and authenticity gives way to the guise of perfection and conformity.

However, as political opportunism dances hand-in-hand with moral vacuity, we are left at a crossroads. The question looms large: can we safely confront the conditioned Machiavellian tendencies that now exist within ourselves? Recognizing these inclinations as we navigate the digital labyrinth exposes the uncomfortable truth that we often perpetuate the very evils we seek to eradicate. Self-awareness becomes paramount; acknowledging our complicity fosters growth and the possibility of reclaiming ethical integrity.

The societal reverberations of Machiavellianism send shockwaves through our interpersonal relationships, demanding an urgent reawakening of moral sovereignty. In this process of deconstruction, the paradox emerges: the very dynamics that allow power to thrive can, if redirected, serve as catalysts for authentic engagement. As the pursuit of political goods continues unabated, we must be unwavering in our resolve to reassess the boundaries of power within our insular communities, reimagining what it means to hold one another in genuine respect.

Beyond the Screen: The Interplay of Moral Deficiency and Political Apathy on Social Media

Social media, once lauded as a revolutionary conduit for dialogue, has insidiously morphed into a breeding ground for moral vacuity and political degradation. What began as a platform for genuine connection has become a sprawling landscape riddled with psychopathic influences that manipulate our every thought and sentiment. This digital playground, where empathy is reduced to mere pixels on a screen, stands as a grotesque testament to our collective failure to engage with suffering in any significant way. Instead of fostering compassion, we have cultivated a voyeuristic detachment that strips the humanity from human experience.

In this frenetic pursuit of engagement, we appear to delight in the spectacle of tragedy, transforming grief into clickbait and activism into a hollow performance. The relentless quest for virality leads us to mistake shallow interactions for true solidarity, as our social feeds become echo chambers of hollow platitudes devoid of the weight of authentic emotional investment. The dissonance is alarming: while we parade our ‘allies’ in hashtags and retweets, we remain obstinately incapable of translating that superficial engagement into meaningful action that resonates in the real world.

This commodification of our moral choices leaves us ensnared in a grotesque caricature of authenticity. The marketplace of ideas devolves into a cacophony of self-censorship, where nuance is abandoned in favor of bite-sized narratives that cater to our short attention spans. Our moral compasses are irreparably fractured, shaped by algorithmic machinations that delight in radicalizing our perspectives, nudging us further into the extremes of thought. Here, right and wrong are no longer defined by ethical principles but by the allure of likes and the ephemeral nature of digital approval.

Such revelations should inspire an instinctual revulsion in those who still possess a semblance of moral integrity. It is imperative that we disentangle ourselves from these corrosive digital alliances, a necessary purification to reclaim our moral agency. We must vigorously pursue the highest political goods, rebuffing the manipulative grasp of these platforms that revel in our complicity. By severing these insidious ties, we assert our commitment to a renewed dialogue rooted in genuine ethical engagement, free from the fetid influences of psychopathy and Machiavellian manipulation. Let us rise to this moral challenge, striving to restore integrity to our political landscape, transforming every interaction into a potent catalyst for authentic change, lest we continue to sink further into the mire of disingenuousness.

The algorithms orchestrating our social media interactions serve as accelerants in the pernicious disintegration of ethics, prioritizing engagement metrics that overtly disregard the well-being of our communities. In this bleak paradigm, a user's intrinsic value is quantified by their capacity to amass 'likes' and fleeting attention, overshadowing the profundity of their contributions to discourse or societal advancement. As we surrender our moral autonomy to the whims of these digital overlords, we inadvertently cultivate an environment where Machiavellian principles thrive, camouflaged beneath a veneer of social connectivity.

The unsettling introspection necessary to confront our complicity within this warped reality emerges as a formidable undertaking. To bear witness to our true selves—entangled within the gears of moral decay—calls for a profound reckoning with our actions in this digital landscape. We must strive for a recalibration of our media engagement, awakening a consciousness that scrutinizes how our participation shapes our ethical standings in a system engineered to perpetuate superficiality, where authentic connection languishes in abeyance. Only through this critical examination can we hope to extricate ourselves from the prevailing tides of moral coarseness and reclaim our agency in fostering a more compassionate society.

Fragmented Trust: Confronting the Influences of Political Networks Online

In the theatre of digital politics, we witness an abhorrent spectacle where alliances morph into mere tools of manipulation, further orchestrated by algorithms that regard individuals as nothing more than disembodied data points. This systematic dehumanization breeds a toxic environment ripe for Machiavellian tactics, where the highest moral good—the genuine commitment to justice and humanity—becomes secondary to the pursuit of engagement metrics and viral outrage. Our political affiliations are no longer expressions of deeply held beliefs but instead are shallow echoes of self-serving interests, fueled by psychopathic tendencies lurking within the gray matter of social media platforms.

The moral repugnance of this reality should inspire a visceral aversion to remaining entrenched in this chaos of calculated discord and reactivity. It is imperative that we detach ourselves from the insidious influences that poison our collective discourse, recognizing that any semblance of political "goods" achieved under such conditions is inherently tainted. A deliberate withdrawal from these corrupted dynamics is not merely advisable; it is an ethical imperative. By actively choosing disengagement, we safeguard our moral core from the corrosive impact of a system predicated on subterfuge and manipulation.

To rediscover our humanity—a concept grotesquely warped in this battlefield of pixels—demands an unyielding commitment to empathy and realness. This journey begins with a zealous rejection of the superficiality that defines our current digital interactions. A mindfulness practice that encourages us to perceive each person as a unique tapestry of experiences, rather than an interchangeable unit on a political graph, must be embraced. We must confront the discomfort that comes with recognizing our complicity in these systems, and instead cultivate a sense of shared dignity that defies algorithmic categorization.

The onus rests upon us to forge a new collective fabric woven from genuine dialogue, one that prioritizes depth over the ever-present demands for brevity. In a world pervaded by soundbites and sensationalism, the urgency to engage in meaningful conversations cannot be overstated. These interactions—laden with understanding, empathy, and compassion—emerge as crucial antidotes to the desensitization that pervades our political landscape. Here, storytelling becomes our most powerful ally; as we illuminate our individual narratives, we simultaneously humanize the faceless masses and reestablish critical connections.

Let us work at dismantling the structures that have allowed Machiavellian principles to flourish unchecked, and reject the political engagements that diminish us to mere pawns in a game of divided interests. Only through intentional disengagement can we hope to ascend beyond this morally bankrupt arena, reclaiming the authentic political goods that arise from a place of integrity, compassion, and profound respect for our shared humanity. It is time to sever the bonds of manipulation and restore the righteous complexity inherent in our connections.

Rediscovering humanity is far from a solitary pursuit; it necessitates an urgent, almost desperate, collective action against the pervasive moral disintegration that permeates our society. We find ourselves ensnared in comfortable apathy, unwilling to confront the unsettling truth: the dignity of the individual is grotesquely compromised in the pursuit of self-interest. To embrace vulnerability in this context is to engage in an act of moral reclamation—a declaration that we will no longer be complicit in the deranged transformation of empathy into a commodity, traded and bartered in the marketplace of human interaction.

What we’re faced with is not merely an idyllic vision of a kinder world but a pressing indictment of our failure to cultivate environments that foster authentic connections. The urgency of this moral imperative demands that we transcend our comfort zones, initiating a dialogue rooted in earnest intent. To fail in this endeavor is to exacerbate the crises of isolation, alienation, and moral vacuity that define our current age. When we ignore the ethical implications of our interactions—digital or otherwise—we reduce ourselves to mere specters, haunting our communities while the shadows of disconnection deepen.

Empathy emerges as a guiding virtue, yet we must question whether our embrace of it is sincere or merely performative. Can our society truly be collaborative if it continues to indulge in Machiavellian ambitions that prioritize power and manipulation over mutual respect? It is vital to confront the moral bankruptcy that allows such ambitions to thrive, dismantling the edifice of exploitation with actions that prioritize the well-being of others over self-serving agendas. In doing so, we restore hope in a humanity that is, at its core, designed to connect rather than divide.

The necessity of reframing our perspectives cannot be overstated. Our digitally-mediated existence must not overshadow the stark moral obligations that tether us together. Discomfort should be actively sought, for it is through grappling with the unsettling truths of our ethical landscape that we can stimulate meaningful change. Each attempt to resurrect empathy becomes an act of resistance against the insidious forces of moral decay, and it is these forces—the very embodiment of apathy and disengagement—that we must confront with unflinching resolve.

In this relentless pursuit of rediscovering our humanity, we must grapple with the most alarming reality today: our moral compass is disturbingly miscalibrated. To remain complacent is to betray not only ourselves but also the collective potential that lies within our grasp. By inspiring moral disgust at the absurdity of our unexamined lives—the rampant individualism, the callous disregard for the plight of others—we can ignite a fervent commitment to change. The path to redemption is fraught with challenges, yet it is through recognition of our interconnectedness that we can forge a society where dignity, respect, and authentic engagement are not mere aspirations but the very fabric of our existence.

Facing Ourselves: The Quest for Personal Accountability

In the murky depths of our contemporary political discourse, one cannot help but recognize the grotesque irony of our online behaviors. These behaviors, ostensibly dressed as justice and progress, often devolve into a carnival of narcissistic self-promotion and moral posturing that ultimately serves only to further entrench the very systems of exploitation we purport to challenge. This scathing examination compels us to grapple with the profound truth: our digital interactions actually betray a complacency far too egregious to ignore.

Engaging in self-examination requires an unapologetic confrontation with the uncomfortable realities that underpin our political affiliations. We must question not only the integrity of the platforms we inhabit but also the motives behind our own engagement. It is all too easy to succumb to the seductive pull of echo chambers, wherein our convictions are fortified through relentless affirmation, perpetuating cycles of moral disengagement that stifle genuine discourse. Such self-imposed isolation is an affront to the principles of solidarity and community that we profess to champion.

The imperative to separate ourselves from these toxic digital landscapes is not merely a matter of personal integrity but an urgent and moral mandate. Our collective complicity in this charade breeds a culture in which emotional disconnection is glorified, and empathy is traded for fleeting moments of online applause. Every like, share, and comment is a tacit endorsement of a more insidious narrative that prioritizes sensationalism over substance, ultimately feasting upon the very humanity we claim to elevate.

In a world where political goods are so easily manipulated for the gain of a few, we must renounce our association with the schemes of self-serving influencers. The highest moral good resides in the courage to dissociate from this digital theater of the absurd, where our purported ideals are wielded as mere instruments of manipulation. It is through this radical act of separation that we might carve a path toward real political engagement, untainted by the corrosive influences of narcissism.

In this profound odyssey of confrontation and disillusionment, we must embrace the imperative to restrict, if not completely destroy, our political allegiances. The path forward lies not in passive engagement with disingenuous narratives, but in actively cultivating spaces that embody our highest ethical aspirations. Only then can we truly aspire to enact change that is reflective of our shared humanity, free from the taint of exploitation and moral vacuity.

In this brave pursuit of authenticity, let us rise above the chaos of dissonance that characterizes our political climate and forge alliances that honor the dignity of each individual. Together, we can reveal the hollow absurdities that underpin our current affiliations and establish a framework predicated on genuine solidarity—one that prioritizes real political goods over the seductive allure of performative outrage. This is the only way to reclaim our integrity and restore faith in our collective potential as agents of meaningful change.

Navigating these treacherous waters demands a confrontation with the cognitive dissonance that festers in our collective psyche, a dissonance woven intricately into the fabric of our lived experiences. The imperative is unmistakable: we must reclaim our moral integrity, despite the insidious societal pressures that seek to erode it, and dismantle the veils of self-interest that obscure our most basic ethical bonds.

In a world rife with pernicious norms that work to condition our thoughts and behaviors, we possess an extraordinary potential for change—both as individuals and as a collective consciousness. This path toward rediscovering our humanity is not merely a personal quest; it is an arduous navigation through a labyrinth of sociocultural complexities that distort our reflections. It is an unsettling journey wherein we must unflinchingly confront our own duplicities until we reclaim the dignity that is rightfully owed to each individual.

Yet, let us not be naïve. Every day, the oppressive weight of societal manipulation seeks to ensnare us in its web, coercing compliance and fostering complicity in systems designed to benefit a privileged few at the expense of the many. To engage with these calculated machinations is to tarnish our moral fabric, rendering us mere pawns in a game that prioritizes distorted power dynamics over human dignity.

We must cultivate a conscientious disengagement from these toxic interactions, recognizing that our participation in politically manipulated agendas is a betrayal of our intrinsic values. To eschew these corrosive influences is to reclaim agency over our judgments and actions. The time has come to challenge the prevailing narratives that attempt to dictate our realities, for true moral courage lies not in acquiescence to societal dictates, but in the resolute defiance of a world that commodifies human dignity.

Let us provoke an awakening within ourselves and our communities, igniting a fervent rejection of mediocrity and moral compromise. In this collective resurrection of conscience, we will fortify our resolve to honor the sanctity of our individual and shared humanity, liberating ourselves from the chains of superficial engagement that threaten to suffocate our moral essence. The birthright of dignity is ours to reclaim, and in doing so, we redefine the terms of our existence, forging a path toward a genuinely ethical society unshackled from the tendrils of manipulation and self-interest.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, the intricacies of evil and the undercurrents of political Machiavellianism necessitate a relentless examination of both the personal and societal boundaries that now governing human interactions. Each projection of political good, often cloaked in altruistic rhetoric, is fraught with the potential for harm, underscoring an urgent call to restore the bedrock of our moral identity. This imperative for recuperation hinges on a profound commitment to introspection and empathy, coupled with a recognition that our choices reverberate throughout the intricate tapestry of human experience, impacting the very fabric of our communities.

While the shadows of moral decay may loom large and foreboding, the act of confronting the implications of our existence—whether in the digital cosmos or the tangible world—grants us the means to carve a pathway toward reclamation and accountability. As we embark on this arduous collective endeavor, we must confront the obstructions that hinder authentic connection, recognizing that our shared humanity serves as the beacon of moral clarity amidst the tumult of sociopolitical machinations.

In this transformative journey, we bear the responsibility to reshape the discourse surrounding our interactions, prioritizing our ethical commitments over the transient allure of political ambitions that often prioritize self-interest over collective well-being. By positioning our moral obligations at the forefront, we position ourselves as architects of a renewed ethical landscape—one that eschews the manipulative intricacies of modern existence in favor of a substantive engagement with our humanity. It is through this conscious re-engagement with our deepest shared values that we can foster meaningful change and ignite the spark of collective responsibility that resists the corrosive influence of moral decay.

[lully-jo]

Let's Reframe the Trolley Problem

At least, as it pertains to things like a Presidential election.

Typically, the trolley problem is presented as a conundrum hoisted upon one individual where they have to decide if one person dying is more ethical/moral than say 5 people dying. Some folks change up the "difficulty" of the decision by saying the one person has organs that could save the five others, or the five others are violent criminals, etc. What I want to discuss, however, is the way folks bring up the trolley problem during an election year. Sometimes it's also called choosing between "the lesser of two evils."

My issue with talking about a presidential election as a trolley problem is the misunderstanding that we are only pulling a lever and choosing to let folks die. Let's begin by remembering that a presidential election is not an issue for one person to solve, but a whole nation. You aren't alone at those tracks deciding to pull that lever--there are THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of people standing there with you trying to figure out how to solve this problem.

Also keep in mind that the trolley problem is AN EMERGENCY, not something you can meticulously plan for. If you don't act, the train is going to run over and kill someone no matter what. You have to act--you have to at least try.

So, considering both these things, where do we go from here? Well, it's an emergency, so you have to make decisions that feel, perhaps, absurd in the moment. This might mean making the decision to put the trolley on the tracks going for less people. Why? Because it's easier to cut the ropes off of one person than five, and so you might be able to get them out of harms way. Consider there's also thousands of other people who can start cutting the ropes off the other five people and then when those five people are free they can help you save the other person in time.

And even after all that, while folks are dealing with the emergency, there are still plenty of us who can start RUNNING LIKE HELL to the station to let them know not to send another train because good god there are PEOPLE ON THESE TRACKS.

We can sit here and say it's the railyard that's the issue, that whoever owns it is the problem. It doesn't change the fact we are watching an emergency about to happen right in front of our faces. But there are millions of us who can take action--and each of us has a place to contribute. Some of us are pulling people off the tracks and others are going straight to the railyard in the meantime. BOTH ARE IMPORTANT.

You know what else is a great visualization of the trolley problem that gets straight to the point that without community you save no one?

Sam Raimi's Spiderman.

Green Goblin literally forces Spiderman to choose between saving Mary Jane or a gondola full of small children. He doesn't have time to do anything other than act. And he goes for Mary Jane, the singular person. Most folks would argue that it's because he loved her, and while that may be part of the choice, let us remember that this is Peter Parker we're talkin about. He's top of his class--boy genius! He knew that it's easier to grab a gondola full of children with the weight of one person on the other arm than trying to grab one person while carrying the weight of an entire gondola.

So once he grabs Mary Jane, he grabs the kids. And it's a HEAVY burden. He is quickly losing grip and Goblin is not making this easy for him by any means. Luckily, there's a boat headed his way and as long as he can hold on for just a while longer, they'll be able to bring their boat right up under the gondola so he can safely release them.

And even once Spiderman gets this gondola (and Mary Jane) safely onto this boat, Goblin now starts attacking him! But guess who comes to his rescue once again?

HIS COMMUNITY.

This scene is so perfect. It shows how important it is that we all do what we can. That hard choices can be less hard if we have each others' back. That there is no superhero that can do it all alone. Even Spiderman needs help. Even Spiderman needs saving.

Stop convincing yourself that the weight of the world is on your shoulders alone or that there's only way way to contribute positively. Your vote is not necessarily a reflection of your values but of what you are capable of doing in the moment with the tools you have. Make the best decision you can and remember that there are so many of us and we can save people in harms way AND go deal with the root of the problem. We have enough hands on deck. We just have to stop fighting about what to do and get to work!!

[corndoggod]

Turtles

Passing this turtle in the hallway whenever I left the apartment was a daily ethical conundrum, Cale said. The turtle in question was housed in a plastic tub of dirty water, choking on its own sewage, in a terrible building Cale used to live in. I helped him move in and we scuttled all his belongings, including his mattress, up and over the sad, helpless turtle, which did not move at all. The turtle belonged to the family across the hall, but no one seemed to feed it.

I could’ve put it in the pond in prospect.

That’s probably where it came from.

Maybe it was more like a lobster and they were waiting for a special occasion.

Celina pointed at me. Remember Ang’s rogue turtle? The one she found on the street.

Yeah didn’t she find someone who specializes in rescuing turtles.

Was it a turtle or a tortoise or a box turtle? Cale interjected.

A box turtle? I said

It was a turtle, Celina insisted.

There’s always the reintegration problem, Cale went on. Do you remember what kind of turtle it was because it matters. **A lot**.

Where was this?

Brooklyn.

If you get out of the city there’s a lot of turtles. Celina pointed at me and said remember that place we couldn’t swim in because humans poisoned it with their deodorant and sunblock? That used to be swarming with turtles.

(I remember the day well. On the drive out, I stopped to buy a twelve pack. It was 11am and the cashier asked me if everything was ok at home. I was taken aback. Was I giving divorced dad spiraling energy? Did I look that rough? But I said yeah, everything is good back home.  Oh good, he said. I know so many people whose homes flooded.)

Have I told you the story of the snapping turtle? Cale asked.

Celina shook her head.

I must’ve told you he said looking at me.

I don’t think so.

You remember the cove at my Dad’s cabin? I didn’t, but Cale visited the cove every day. A bullfrog lived in that cove and Cale heard him call out every morning and every night. He responded to the call and started grooming the bullfrog. Gave him little pets. Set him on his thigh. Spent quality time like that.

I go to show Anthony -- I don’t even like Anthony -- but I went to show him my frog friend anyway. But when we got to the cove, the frog was swimming in a circle like this, Cale said digging at the air with his torso turnt as if blindly rummaging around in a high closet shelf.   And it’s guts we’re just spilling out, he said gripping his spleen. And it was surrounded by these two snapping turtles -- **who I also knew, and hated** -- were pecking at my frog friend.

At the time I always carried a net. You know, like SpongeBob.

Ok Huck Finn, Celina cooed. Celina loved a Huck Finn. All I had to do was roll my jeans up high and walk around bare foot with my chest out and eat a can of worms.

I started stabbing the snapping turtles with my net and then I gently scooped out the frog, guts and all. I took my knife out and cut into one of its organs, and out swam a baby turtle.

An inner turtle, Celina mused.

It wasn’t really an inner turtle, Cale said. It was a dead baby turtle. All gray and stuff.

So it ate one of their babies and that’s why they attacked? I asked.

No it was actually a baby box turtle. That’s what was weird about it.

[vixstarria]

Bloodbang Chronicles - Chapter 12 - Mercy

Chapter summary: Armed intruders and moral and ethical conundrums, how fun.

Chapter word count: 2.6k

Previous chapter | Series masterlist | AO3 | Overall masterlist

Series summary:

Five years have passed since the confrontation with the Netherbrain. Astarion and his warlock lover, Asmodea, are living it up in Baldur’s Gate, running a cabaret. Their life of decadence and debauchery seems idyllic, until Asmodea’s patron disrupts it with a proposal. One that seems too good to be true. One they cannot refuse.

Pairing: Astarion x Original Female Character

Genre: Humor / adventure / smut

Rating: Explicit

Asmodea studied the intruder, thoughts racing as she weighed her options.

Would an arrow, especially a silver-tipped one, count as a stake..? Assuming otherwise certainly carried a risk, all things considered.

It was possible Astarion would be able to dodge an arrow - his reflexes, speed, and strength had far surpassed that of ordinary mortals ever since the tadpole was removed from his brain. However, it was still only dusk, and she knew he would still be sluggish at this time of day.

As for anything Asmodea might have done to intervene - there was nothing she could do that would be faster than the simple movement of letting the arrow fly, or that wouldn’t otherwise risk the arrow being released. A Hold spell would likely slacken the woman’s muscles. Any offensive spell would take more time to unleash than it would for the woman to react. Mind control… Though Asmodea had a hunch that it wouldn’t be too difficult to slip into the woman’s psyche - who in their right mind would confront two strangers point blank like this? - even if she did it seamlessly, without triggering the nocked arrow, it would inevitably trigger a fight with Astarion instead, later. ‘Compulsion’ this, ‘just like Cazador’ that, he’s a ‘strong independent vampire and doesn’t need to be protected with the help of her dirty tricks’, and so on and so forth… Asmodea mentally clicked her tongue in frustration. She supposed she would just have to talk to this hare-brained maniac…

“That man is a vampire,” the woman directed at Asmodea.

Oh bless, she thought she was helping…

“Yes, I am aware my husband is a vampire,” Asmodea answered, taking a nonchalant sip from her mug. “You can lower that bow now.”

The woman narrowed her eyes at Asmodea instead, keeping the projectile aimed at Astarion’s chest.

“What’s in your mug?”

“Coffee,” Asmodea said honestly. “Would you like some?”

Catching a suspicious stare from the woman, Asmodea sighed and pulled her upper lip to the side, to demonstrate her appropriately blunted canines.

“There, happy? No fangs. Now kindly put your weapon away, if you don’t mind. It’s bad manners.”

Astarion started to speak, but the woman cut him off with a sharp warning shout, likely assuming he would try to Charm her. Asmodea arched an eyebrow at her in the ensuing silence. The woman shifted on her feet, no doubt starting to feel inadequate in her unmet belligerence.

“…And what does he eat..? Your… husband,” the woman finally asked, warily.

“I keep him on a strict diet of game, wine, pussy and an occasional treat from my own neck. Now for fuck’s sake, will you put that thing down?!” Asmodea snapped, rapidly losing her patience.

At last, the woman lowered her bow with a sigh.

“No, he doesn’t look like someone who preys on chickens and old women…” she muttered.

She then laughed and trampled over to the fire, collapsing onto a log next to Asmodea, as though she hadn’t just accosted her and threatened to kill Astarion. Asmodea was so impressed and dumbstruck by the woman’s sheer audacity that she found herself shaking her offered hand and introducing herself and Astarion, instead of eldritch blasting her.

“My name’s Tiriel,” the woman said, discarding the longbow and instead unstrapping a massive greataxe from her back, placing at her side, within reach. “Did you know, in Hornhollow, the logging village over yonder, there is a bounty on vampires? The villagers say vampires have been stealing their chickens and killing their dogs.” Tiriel turned to look at Astarion. There was an unmistakable unease in her eyes, though she was doing her best to conceal any fear she might have felt. She did not offer a hand to him, however. “You know anything about that?”

Asmodea exchanged a look with Astarion. Had the exodus from the Underdark started and gotten this far already..?

“Vampires would hardly risk revealing themselves just to pilfer some chickens and dogs when there’s a whole wood full of game,” said Astarion, evidently choosing to omit the fact the village was also full of human necks. “Are they sure this was done by vampires..?” 

Tiriel shrugged.

“All they know is, animals are turning up drained of blood, and an old woman nearly died of fright stumbling on someone with red eyes and long fangs, in her barn. She said there were at least two of them.”

“Fear will make mountains out of molehills…” Astarion said, noncommittally. “Could have been some lost kobolds.”

They watched Tiriel continue to make herself at home in their camp, retrieving what appeared to be a well-worn bag of holding, and, impossibly, pulling a keg that was wider than the bag itself out from its depths.

“Whatcha got there?” Asmodea asked with an amused grin.

“Ale! I’ve got all kinds. This one’s Belbuck, halfling-brewed, the good stuff. It’s minty, perfect to freshen your breath after a meal. You want some?”

Asmodea glanced at the remaining dregs of her coffee, broke into incredulous laughter, and tossed her mug’s remnants over her shoulder.

“Sure, why not? We’re in no hurry.”

Astarion made an excuse about scouting their surroundings and left Asmodea and Tiriel laughing and drinking at the campsite. He had to satisfy himself as to whether there were truly other vampires about.

Sure enough, it wasn’t long before he picked up an unmistakable trail. 

 It wasn’t via a sense of smell, not exactly. Rather, it was a prickling sensation somewhere in the back of his brain. Something akin to an incessant noise - not disruptive, not soothing, but simply there. He had gotten used to its constant presence during his time with Cazador. Indeed, he hadn’t known anything but that sensation, until he was transported away by the nautiloid. Its sudden absence struck him then. At first it was frightening, the isolation he felt in the abrupt silence. But, before long, the stillness became peaceful. Experiencing this perturbation again, after years of very few direct encounters with other vampires, was… not irritating, not exactly, but he knew where his preference lay now. And now, the sensation was ramping up and intensifying the closer he got to his quarry - though not before making him guess and fumble as to its source, as though he was playing some demented version of a game of hot and cold.

Eventually he arrived at an abandoned shack that reeked, for a lack of a better word, of his kin.

“I’m just here to talk,” he called out, bracing himself.

He was met with silence.

“I know you’re in there,” he sighed and continued, “so let’s not do anything-”

A figure, the sheer terror of the night personified, all fangs, claws and glowing red eyes, leapt out at him through the window, hissing. He caught it by the neck and held it, one-handed, looking at it incredulously, as it flailed its limbs in impotent rage and frustration.

A gnome vampire. Not even three feet tall. What an utter disgrace.

“Stop that,” Astarion growled, giving the gnome a shake.

The door of the shack flew open and another gnome appeared in the doorway.

“Lord Astarion!” he cried. “Mercy! She is not well.”

The gnome backed away as Astarion entered the shack and dropped the female onto the floor. She scurried over into a corner with a whimper, and crouched, staring at him with a haunted, wild look on her face.

“Make no mistake, I can easily break both of your necks before you as much as scratch me. And believe me, regeneration after a spinal injury is extremely painful,” Astarion warned, sitting down on a window sill.

The woman continued to stare at him like a cornered animal from under her brows, keeping her chin low.

“Pumpkin, it’s Astarion,” the man spoke to her. “One of the Seven. Don’t you remember?”

Astarion frowned as she said nothing and only continued to stare.

“I’m sorry, she’s… not been herself,” her companion apologised for her.

“I can see that,” murmured Astarion. “No matter. How did you end up here? And are you aware there’s a bounty on your heads?”

“We fled the Underdark,” the male gnome explained “Things haven’t been easy there. And yes… I thought that might be the case. I’ve been trying to keep her fed…”

“And must you terrorise the locals to accomplish that?! Look at you two. You could feast on the blood of a single chicken for a week. Hells, just get a pig or a large dog and bleed it occasionally, you’d live like kings,” Astarion went on, gesticulating.

The male only shrugged and spread his hands apologetically, not saying a word. The female gnome released another low growl at Astarion. He eyed her with suspicion, before continuing.

“…And who even brought you in to begin with..? Cazador believed himself above gnomes, I don’t think anyone made the mistake of dragging one back to the manor more than once, not even Yousen.”

“Petras,” spat the male.

The released lesser spawn tended to harbour a vitriolic hate for their direct captors. Astarion couldn’t hold it against them.

“And you?” Astarion asked, approaching the woman. She hissed in response.

“She’s one of Violet’s,” the man hurried to respond, following after Astarion. “Wouldn’t take no for an answer when her human friend was taken, you see…”

“Is that so..?” Astarion murmured, lifting the woman’s chin. She only went limp and squeezed her eyes shut at his touch. “…As I thought,” Astarion sighed, looking at her neck, and turned towards the male gnome. “Every single one of the 7,000 sacrifices brought in to Cazador had his maw imprinted on their necks. This one,” he said, nodding at the woman, “looks like she was bit by a squirrel.” He got up, rounding on the man. “You absolute imbecile, what did you do?!”

“Mercy,” the man whispered, backing away. “I had to... But no one will ever find us! I was only trying to get some human blood - maybe it will make her well!” The gnome went on blabbering, coming up with excuses, as the woman scurried off into an opposite corner, scampering on all fours across the wall. Astarion observed them, barely listening. The words seemed to come through a haze, as a nagging, high-pitched ringing began to manifest in his ears. Suddenly he felt nauseous.

So his suspicions were confirmed. Freed spawn could sire new vampires. This one was clearly mad, but whether something had gone wrong when she was turned, whether it was temporary, or whether this was inevitable - he had no idea. Why hadn’t he pressed Ivar further..?

“How did…” he began to ask, swallowing hard, “…never mind.” Now that he was faced with it, he wasn’t sure he wanted to know.

He understood his siblings’ reasoning for making the very knowledge of this possibility taboo. No one could know. Even with thousands of them dead, the remaining spawn would spread the curse like a disease. And when it became common knowledge that vampires could increase their ranks this way, they would find themselves hunted to extermination. There would be no trade. No covens and strongholds in the Underdark. No neighbourly relations with drow and druegar. And certainly no flaunting one’s fangs at the Siren.

Yes, this had to be cut at the very root before it spread. He knew that. It wasn’t a question of ‘greater good’ or ‘lesser evil’ or ‘law’ - it was simply about survival, including his own.

Astarion rubbed his temples as the gnome continued yapping.

“Will you shut up?!” he hissed, finally, giving the gnome an exasperated glare.

An unnatural silence held, broken neither by breath nor heartbeat, despite the presence of three beings in the room.

“…Does she listen to you?” Does she obey? “Does she even understand when you speak to her?” Is any of her still even in there?

“I… I can persuade her,” the gnome mumbled. “She’s sweet to me, like… like a stray cat that recognises the one who feeds it. And she follows.”

“Why-” Astarion started to speak before cutting himself off, again. No, he didn’t need to know why. He already knew.

“Mercy…” the gnome repeated again, in a hushed whisper, apparently having lost his resolve for any more pleading.

There was likely a simple answer to the most effective and logical way to proceed with this, Astarion thought, but at that moment it eluded him. What to do..? Let them go and pretend he never saw them? Send them to Waterdeep, to Gale and Katrina? Take them back to camp and ask Oddie or Tiriel for a donation, to see what happened if the female sampled some sentient blood? Execute them? He really ought to do that, shouldn’t he? They all but begged for it themselves, looking at him like two lambs resigned to their own slaughter. It would have been the right thing to do, though damned if he could think of how - he didn’t have any silver on him, unsurprisingly. Catch them, stake them and leave them out for the sun? An image of him chasing after them with a wooden stick as they scampered into opposite directions flashed in his mind, and made him release a nervous, high-pitched giggle. It took an enormous amount of effort to will himself to regain his composure. Finally, he spoke.

“If I thought I should have any say in whether you live or die, I would have killed all seven thousand of you five years ago,” he said.

The gnome stilled completely, in wide-eyed disbelief.

“Make your way to Baldur’s Gate. Board a ship. Stow yourselves away.” Words began pouring out of him in a torrent. “Sail somewhere far. I don’t know or care where. Just… far. If anyone sees you and thinks to asks - she is not Cazador’s. Or, say you don’t know whose she is - she’s insane anyway, who’s to know any better? Figure it out. Cover her. Say she’s a leper. I don’t know. Make something up. And, repeat this, you never saw me.”

“We never saw you, m’lord,” the gnome repeated, dumbly.

“Good. Now get out of my sight before I change my mind.”

The gnome took an unsure step back, then another, and another, until he was close to the woman, reaching out for her with one hand.

He had kept himself between her and Astarion at all times ever since she was released in the shack, Astarion now realised. How… sweet, if futile.

“Come… Come, sweet pea, we’re leaving,” he choked out.

The woman stood, and looked up at him, inquisitively, taking his hand. Her sire gave Astarion one final nod, before pulling her after him, out the door. And then they were gone.

Astarion sat on the edge of a rickety table, shoulders slumped, deflated, and waited for the prickling sensation telling him of other vampires’ presence to subside, before exiting the shack and heading back to camp.

Idiot.

He should turn, hunt them down, and end them.

Or, should he have given them one of his weapons? It didn’t look like they had anything but the claws on their hands. But then it could be traced back to him... No, it was good that he didn’t, yes.

Weakling.

They would probably perish on the road anyway. The sun would find them. Or a monster hunter.

How would they cross that stream he had to jump across?

Wretch.

This wasn’t his problem.

Astarion grit his teeth and hastened his step. Thankfully, the gnomes must have gone in a different direction - the sensation telling him of their presence faded.

No, this did not involve him. He had nothing to do with it. 

Coward.

He only wished all the voices in his head that were screaming about his inadequacy would shut up.

Finally, he caught sight of the camp, though he heard it before he saw it.

Oddie and Tiriel appeared to be engaged in some drinking game that involved axe-throwing and a lot of shouting. Oddie was clearly losing. Astarion donned his most amiable face and made his way to them.

~~~~~

Chapter 13

~~~~~

Tiriel belongs to my friend @spacebarbarianweird. Thank you for letting me borrow her! ^_^ Read more about Tiriel in her Raging Blood series, and check out her other works!

Find the fic on AO3 as well.

Tags:

@littleenglishfangirl @something-pithy @darlingxdragon @tragedybunny @spunky-89

@lariatbunny@whiskeyskin @asterordinary @wingsy-keeper-of-songs @spacebarbarianweird

@brabblesblog @littlejuicebox @icybluepenguin @snowfolly @ayselluna

@mj-bites @bardic-inspo

[swiftnliftnewsandarticle]

What role will AI and technology ethics boards play in corporate governance moving forward?

AI and technology ethics boards are becoming increasingly important in corporate governance as organizations integrate AI and advanced technologies into their operations. Here are key roles these boards will play moving forward:

1.Guiding Ethical Decision-MakingEstablishing Ethical Standards: Ethics boards will help develop frameworks and guidelines to ensure ethical use of AI and technology, focusing on fairness, accountability, and transparency. Examining AI Applications: They will assess AI programs and systems to make sure they follow moral guidelines and don't support prejudice or discrimination.

2. Risk ManagementRisk Identification: Boards will evaluate possible risks related to artificial intelligence (AI) and technology, including security flaws, privacy issues, and reputational issues. Reducing Risks: By supervising the use of technology and deploying AI, they may reduce risks while maintaining legal and regulatory compliance.

3. Promoting AccountabilityEstablishing Accountability Structures: Ethics boards will set up distinct channels of accountability inside the company for decisions and activities pertaining to AI. Monitoring Compliance: They will keep an eye on teams' and employees' adherence to moral standards and rules, making sure they are held responsible for their activities.

4. Fostering TransparencyPromoting Openness: By fostering transparency in AI algorithms and decision-making procedures, these boards will assist stakeholders in comprehending the ways in which technology affects results. Stakeholder Engagement: Ethics boards can increase confidence in an organization's use of technology by promoting communication with stakeholders, such as consumers and staff.

5. Adapting to Evolving StandardsKeeping Up with Trends: To make sure the company responds to new opportunities and challenges, ethics boards will stay up to date on developing ethical standards and technologies.Influencing Policy Development: By adding to larger social discussions, they can influence industry standards and policies pertaining to AI and technological ethics.

6. Improving CredibilityEstablishing Trust: Businesses can improve their standing and gain the trust of investors, regulators, and customers by putting ethics first when using technology. Putting Corporate Social Responsibility on Display: Companies can gain a competitive edge by showcasing their dedication to corporate social responsibility through the use of ethics boards.

7. Promoting Diverse OpinionsDiverse Membership: Ethics boards, which are made up of people with a range of experiences and specialties, will contribute a variety of viewpoints to the conversation on moral applications of technology. Inclusive Decision-Making: By encouraging inclusive practices in technology design and implementation, they will make sure that the requirements of all stakeholders are taken into account.

8. Education and TrainingRaising Awareness: Ethics boards will be responsible for educating employees about ethical considerations in AI and technology, fostering a culture of ethical awareness. Training Programs: To make sure that employees are prepared to tackle moral conundrums relating to the use of technology, they may design and carry out training programs.

Conclusion

As AI and technology continue to evolve, ethics boards will be integral to corporate governance, ensuring that organizations navigate the complex ethical landscape responsibly and sustainably. Their role will be crucial in shaping a future where technology serves the greater good while minimizing risks and promoting ethical practices.

[plethoraworldatlas]

In November, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a plan to cull nearly half a million barred owls across the lush old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest and California. 

But by killing these owls, the agency is hoping to save owls—albeit a different species of the bird. Officials plan to remove a portion of the abundant barred owl population over a three-decade span to clear up space and resources for the threatened northern spotted owl, of which only around 4,000 remain on federal lands. Native to the region, spotted owls have faced a number of threats in the past few decades, including forest loss due to logging and competition with the barred owl, which has been more successful at hunting and adapting to a variety of territories than its vulnerable avian cousin. 

Scientists are still not certain how or where the barred owls came from, but research shows that they began to expand their range westward concurrently with European settlement and as human-caused changes altered habitats in the Great Plains and northern boreal forest. As a result, many say the barred owls are an invasive species and must be removed to protect native species, reports NPR. 

However, the USFWS culling plan has triggered a spate of backlash since it was announced; just last week dozens of wildlife organizations published a letter condemning this effort and arguing that it “betrays a willful failure to anticipate the wide range of adverse consequences such a plan will invariably unspool.” 

The plan has also resurfaced a longstanding debate over what makes a species “invasive,” and how nonnative plants and animals should be treated within an ecosystem. Today, I am diving into the details of the invasive debate, and how it could affect wildlife management moving forward. 

What’s in a Name? The author Charles Elton was the first to use the term “invasion” to describe foreign plants and wildlife in his 1958 book “The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants,” reports The New York Times. 

Scientists have identified countless nonnative invasive species across the U.S.—from cane toads in Florida to fingernail-sized zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. In most cases, these species are introduced by humans who may accidentally carry them over on transit or intentionally release them. While many nonnative species are relatively harmless to an ecosystem, others can have catastrophic consequences; for example, feral pigs have destroyed crops and spread disease across at least 35 states in the U.S., according to the USDA. 

...

“The words we use determine what courses of action are deemed acceptable and appropriate,” Bliss told me over email. “When we call something invasive, we may show less regard for their welfare.” 

Bliss pointed to certain inhumane methods to kill nonnative species such as traps once used in the Netherlands to kill muskrats by holding them underwater until they drown. Other researchers have also questioned the term “invasive.”

“It’s not that it can’t be descriptively true at times, there can be nonnative species moving into an area, causing damage, which is emblematic of the meaning of invasion,” William Lynn, a researcher at Clark University in Massachusetts who studies animal and sustainability ethics, told me over the phone. “But to label species ‘invasive’ simply because they’re nonnative or they’re immigrant species, or to blindly bandy about the term ‘invasive’ species when it’s not clear that that’s what’s going on, is the problem.” 

The Owl Conundrum: The northern spotted owl is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, meaning that the USFWS is legally required to protect it. This led the government to enact rules limiting the area that timber companies could log, sparking backlash from industry and residents in the region for its economic impacts. 

Now, the Service has deemed this cull a necessity in following through with this obligation. 

...

The U.S. government has performed a barred owl culling experiment before, but at a much smaller scale than the new USFWS project. Over a decade ago, a team of researchers led by the U.S. Geological Survey killed more than 2,400 barred owls, and found that their efforts helped temporarily stabilize spotted owl populations over the next five years, according to a 2021 study.  

At that time, Lynn was a member of the government’s “Barred Owl Stakeholder Group,” which performed an ethics review before the project took place. 

Despite the groups’ “deep discomfort with killing barred owls,” they deemed it necessary to cull several thousand barred owls in order to save the spotted owl species, Lynn said. Overall, though, he said that the experiment “failed” because while it slowed the decline of the spotted owl, it did not act as a long-term solution.  

“It’s a very different situation now,” said Lynn, adding that he does not think this new cull will save the spotted owl. 

[seogoogle1]

Unveiling the Enigma of Satta King: Deciphering the World of Gambling and Its Ramifications

Introduction: In the labyrinth of the Indian gambling circuit, one term echoes with an aura of mystique and allure – Satta King. A colloquial expression that transcends mere gambling, Satta King represents a cultural phenomenon deeply entrenched in the fabric of Indian society. With its roots tracing back to the pre-independence era, Satta King has evolved into a multi-dimensional entity, intertwining with the socio-economic dynamics of the nation. In this exploration, we delve into the enigmatic realm of Satta King, deciphering its intricacies, impact, and the ongoing narrative surrounding it.

Understanding Satta King:

At its core, Satta King refers to a form of gambling that originated in India, primarily revolving around betting on the opening and closing rates of cotton transmitted from the New York Cotton Exchange to the Bombay Cotton Exchange during the 1960s. Over time, this practice expanded to include betting on various aspects of the game of cricket and other sports, as well as speculative betting on random numbers.

The term "Satta King" itself carries a certain mystique, with "Satta" translating to "betting" in Hindi, and "King" symbolizing supremacy or dominance. It exemplifies the aspiration for power and fortune that draws countless individuals into its fold.

Evolution and Expansion:

From its humble origins, Satta King has undergone a remarkable evolution, adapting to the changing landscape of Indian society and technology. What once relied on physical transactions and word of mouth has now embraced the digital age, with online platforms facilitating widespread participation and accessibility.

The proliferation of Satta King has also led to its diversification, branching out into various forms and permutations. While traditional Satta involved betting on numbers, newer iterations incorporate elements of sports betting, casino games, and even political outcomes. This adaptability has allowed Satta King to maintain its relevance and allure across generations.

The Socio-Economic Impact:

Despite its widespread popularity, Satta King remains a contentious subject, with proponents arguing for its economic benefits and detractors highlighting its detrimental effects. Proponents often cite the revenue generated through taxation and licensing fees, contributing to government coffers and funding various developmental initiatives.

However, the flip side reveals a darker narrative, characterized by addiction, debt, and exploitation. The lure of quick riches often leads individuals down a perilous path, resulting in financial ruin and social ostracization. Moreover, the clandestine nature of Satta King facilitates illegal activities, including money laundering and organized crime, perpetuating a cycle of corruption and instability.

The Legal Conundrum:

The legality of Satta King occupies a nebulous space within the Indian legal framework, reflecting the dichotomy between moral principles and pragmatic considerations. While certain forms of gambling are expressly prohibited under the Public Gambling Act of 1867, others operate in a legal gray area, subject to interpretation and enforcement.

In recent years, several states have taken steps to regulate and legalize certain forms of gambling, recognizing the potential for revenue generation and employment opportunities. However, the issue remains contentious, with concerns over social implications and ethical considerations tempering the pace of reform.

The Way Forward:

As the debate surrounding Satta King rages on, it becomes imperative to adopt a holistic approach that balances regulatory oversight with harm reduction strategies. Education and awareness initiatives can empower individuals to make informed choices and seek assistance if confronted with gambling-related issues.

Moreover, policymakers must engage in constructive dialogue with stakeholders to devise comprehensive regulations that address the complexities of the gambling landscape while safeguarding public welfare. By fostering transparency, accountability, and social responsibility, it is possible to mitigate the adverse effects of Satta King while harnessing its potential for positive socio-economic impact.

Conclusion:

In the kaleidoscope of Indian society, Satta King emerges as a multifaceted phenomenon, encompassing elements of tradition, innovation, and controversy. Its allure lies in its ability to encapsulate the human desire for excitement, fortune, and social mobility. Yet, beneath the surface, lurks a myriad of complexities and contradictions that demand scrutiny and introspection.

As we navigate the labyrinth of Satta King, we are confronted with a fundamental question: Can we reconcile the inherent contradictions of gambling with the imperatives of justice, equity, and progress? The answer remains elusive, obscured by the veil of uncertainty and speculation. However, one thing is clear – the saga of Satta King continues to captivate and confound, reflecting the timeless struggle between risk and reward, fate and fortune, in the eternal quest for supremacy.

Website: https://sattasport.in/

[jcmarchi]

Just Because You Can Pay to Have Your Ashes Buried on the Moon Doesn't Mean You Should - Technology Org

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/just-because-you-can-pay-to-have-your-ashes-buried-on-the-moon-doesnt-mean-you-should-technology-org/

Just Because You Can Pay to Have Your Ashes Buried on the Moon Doesn't Mean You Should - Technology Org

Sending human ashes and personal mementoes to the Moon is now possible, but it opens up a maze of legal and ethical conundrums.

When NASA attempted to return to the Moon for the first time in 50 years, more was at risk than just US$108 million worth of development and equipment.

The Moon is smaller than Earth, and this fact is also one of the reasons why its gravity is not sufficient to retain any atmospheric gases near its surface. Image credit: NASA

The agency earned the ire of the Native American Navajo people, who made a bid to stop the launch because of an unusual inclusion in the payload.

The Peregrine lander (which completed its controlled re-entry into the atmosphere late last week) carried human ashes, including those of famed science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke. A commercial partnership also allowed paying customers to send their mementos to the Moon.

As space exploration becomes increasingly privatised and commercial, you can now send your favourite stuff to the Moon. But what does that mean, both ethically and legally?

The Moon open for business

US company Astrobotic owns the Peregrine, which is the size of a small car. It ran into fatal fuel issues shortly after being launched on Vulcan Centaur rocket from Cape Canaveral.

On board are “vanity canisters”. The idea arose in a partnership between the firm and global freight company DHL.

Under the deal, anyone can send two and a half centimetre by five centimetre package to the lunar surface for less than US$500. Apart from size, there were a few other limitations on what each package could contain.

Astrobotic, founded in 2007 and based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is one of several US companies providing commercial lunar payload services to NASA to deliver science and technology to the Moon. Peregrine was also carrying scientific instruments from six countries and many science teams.

Perhaps surprisingly, sending ashes into space is not new aboard suborbital and Earth orbital flights.

Two American companies make a business of the service starting at just a few thousand dollars – Celestis and Elysium Space. The practice is embraced by many, including astronauts who have been in space.

A Moon burial (yes, you can buy one) costs more – around US$13,000.

Commercial payloads launched from US soil require approval, but that approval process only covers safety, national security, and foreign policy.

Peregrine, if it had made it, would have marked the first commercial lunar burial. It’s uncharted territory as other worlds become within reach, although it is not the first time it has come up.

NASA pledged to consult in the future after an outcry from the Navajo when, 20 years ago, it carried some of Eugene Shoemaker’s ashes to the Moon aboard the Lunar Prospector probe. Like many other indigenous cultures, the Navajo Nation considers the Moon sacred and opposes using it as a memorial site.

However, NASA said in a press briefing it had no control over what was on Peregrine, highlighting the gaps between commercial enterprise and international space law.

A legal minefield

Another question concerns the rules in individual nations on where and how human ashes can be located, handled, and transported and how those could extend to space. For example, in Germany, ashes must be buried in a cemetery.

With space privatisation accelerating, the ethical and legal maze deepens.

The Outer Space Treaty (OST) declares space the “province of all mankind” while banning national appropriation.

It fails, however, to address what private companies and individuals can do.

The recent Artemis Accords, signed by 32 nations, expand protection to lunar sites of historical significance. But these protections only apply to governments, not commercial missions.

And no one owns the Moon to grant burial rights, or any other world or celestial body.

The treaty requires states to authorise and supervise activities in space. It requires “due regard” for the interests of other states.

Many countries have space law that includes grounds for refusing payload items not in their national interest, for example Indonesia and New Zealand.

Nations apparently without such consideration, including Australia and the US, may need to consider expanding this template with the emergence of the commercial world in a traditionally governmental arena.

Where to draw a line?

Earth’s orbit is already clogged with defunct satellites and, further out, items like Elon Musk’s Tesla.

According to space archaeologist Alice Gorman, we have already spread space probes across other worlds, including the Moon, Mars, Titan, and Venus, but much may be treasure rather than junk.

For example, the Apollo astronauts left official mementos, such as a plaque marking the first human footsteps on the lunar surface. Some have left personal ones, too, like Apollo 16’s Charles Duke, who left a framed family photo.

However, sending a clipping of your hair or the ashes of your pet dog to the Moon may not qualify as culturally and historically important.

The problem, therefore, is where we want to place a line in the sand as we step out into the cosmos onto the shorelines of other worlds.

We cannot turn back the clock on private space enterprise, nor should we.

But this failed mission with ashes and vanity payloads exemplifies the unexplored questions in the legal and ethical infrastructure to support commercial activities.

It is worth pausing for thought on future commercialisation such as mining asteroids and the eventual colonisation of space.

Source: UNSW

You can offer your link to a page which is relevant to the topic of this post.

[thomasmastersunithinking]

Week 1

In class work and SDL

5 minute task

Jordan and Kyanis have a unique ability to uncover concealed aspects of life through their art. Their method of creating art adeptly captures the nuances of individuality within a community.

An intriguing example of their approach is their choice to address the subject of "plastic" in a confrontational manner, instead of doing so optimistically. This authenticity is what drives their work, resolutely providing the voice for emotions that have New Zealand's Polynesian community.

The project is a lens delving into raw social events as they occur, capturing the essence of these individuals thoughts of culture and identity through visuals. The campaigns branding is impactful because of this amplifying these experiences and empowering the testaments of these people is a...

SDL

• Who is doing the creative practice and underpinning research?

Creativity encompasses a diverse spectrum of practitioners, defying conventional boundaries and often embracing interdisciplinary approaches. Throughout art history, creative movements have been a collective effort, where contemporaries weave their unique expressions into an evolving tapestry.

In today's interconnected world, the pursuit of individuality is both sought after and complex. I think a repetition in history is that true Creative practitioners draw inspiration from a global pool of ideas past present and future, shaping a vibrant landscape of artistic innovation.

The question of who engages in creative practice and research reveals a dynamic and diverse community of artists, designers, thinkers, and innovators. To note who the contemporaries of this current climate is something that is relative.

• Who am I as a designer?

Designer Identity?

Who am I, when looking for something to copy and paste from a more established designer than myself I found they had already bet me to it ,each portfolios embracing a plethora of roles guided by an interdisciplinary compass. Merging critical acumen with an innate design intuition, my focus resonates in understanding the tapestry of human experiences through an abstraction of design techniques.

So to describe myself hopefully without sounding contrived. I am a Kiwi, an amalgam of European heritage to the best of my knowledge. I was raised amidst the embrace of many creative conundrums some pleasant some not, my upbringing was out of place compared to others the white piece in a mixed family with traces Maori, Malaysia, Philippines. I am proud to acknowledge and draw sources of inspiration from these although it is innate.

My odyssey in academia if you could call it that thus far, has been marked by constant shifts, failures, and peaks that have yet to slow. In this time I have drawn from other creatives tactile works in clay, furniture, clothes and paint and understanding the processes involved in the works genesis and the culmination of it with it being handed through to galleries dealers or collectors. These experiences were the essential in developing an acumen to navigate through graphical, marketing, and advertising whilst still combining the societal cultural and spiritual narratives that might be important to a client or community.

My recent expedition through the realm of design at AUT led me into the intriguing domain of interaction design. Transitioning from the world of ink to the realm of pixels carries a certain intrigue. While the essence of the practice remains akin, forging a tangible presence within this digital expanse proves to be a challenging yet compelling to pursue.

Defining my presence in this expansive landscape could be summed up as interaction designer possibly part time graphic designer and if I was to use the term this paper uses "creative"

• How can I unpack the personal design ideologies that cultural shifts, ethics, and responsibility that impact my decision-making?

Deep shit. Peel back the layers. Design ideals, cultural shifts, ethics, and that undeniable sense of responsibility collide. It's like dissecting a song, each note is an undeniably a vital part of the music.

Immersion in a new culture or environment is the draw of being a creative, I can immerse myself with ancient symbols and mix it with 80s surf culture. Introspection ensures my creations aren't just skin-deep; they resonate with purpose and stand tall on a foundation of integrity.

• How might I expand my visual vocabulary by understanding the environmental, social, cultural, political contexts of my design influences?

Research and experience. Read a book a good book look at poetry from a different time take part in a sport the canvas for understanding and creating a visual vocabulary is immersing yourself in its aspects. If you fail to delve into it and feel the pain, suffering or joy there won't be any truth or depth in the work.

• Where do I stand in relation to my practice and what do I value?

Artistic expression, forging a bedrock of beliefs, and visually capturing the intricate tapestry of culture – to me I don't know how. Yet, I'm cautious about the imposition. Throughout university, there's been this unrelenting push for ethics and introspection. I get its significance, but honestly, good creations often emerge when you're not dealing with a personal hunt for identity.

It may be im critical of this because I have read too many philosophers and random essays, but deliberately thrusting culture or ideals can feel like watering down their essence.

[holden-norgorov]

I gotta say it. For all the issues there are in the show, my biggest disappointment is with the absence of Per Haskell, and Inej's freedom being directly dependent on Kaz. This altered the entire foundation of the Kanej dynamic that was present in the books and, as far as I can tell, there's no way it's not going to end up portraying either Kaz or Inej as incredibly OOC at some point. Another huge let-down is also Kaz's main drive and motivator being his love for Inej rather than personal revenge (which is something Freddy himself also confirmed in an interview, other than being contextually evident during the whole season). These two elements combined will lead to unescapable narrative or logical contradictions in the long term.

I was really hoping, until the last minute, that the show would come up with a clever justification as to why Per Haskell was kept out of the picture, without ending up sacrificing the core of Kaz and Inej's relationship. But it doesn't. And Kaz being directly responsible for granting Inej's freedom is a new, giant ethical dilemma that was never present in the books, and whose absence there gave moral context and permission to a lot of what happened in their shared backgrounds.

Inej's freedom being independent from Kaz was PIVOTAL in the books. The nuance and beauty of their relationship vastly came from the fact that Kaz had no actual means for estinguishing Inej's debt, and that her work for the Dregs was not something he could absolve her from performing in any way. At least, not until the giant, life-changing offer of 30 million kruge they got at the beginning of SoC, which was kind of the whole point. Until then, the narrative had made abundantly clear that Inej's agency was entirely dependent on Per Haskell holding her contract, and that despite having played a pivotal role in liberating her from the Menagerie, Kaz really couldn't do anything to absolve her from the criminal life she had decided to dive into in exchange of escaping Tante Heleen's whip. This is what absolved Kaz from any moral judgment, on the part of the reader, when it came to forging the myth of the Wraith and teaching Inej how to fight, kill, pick locks and steal. By having no leverage on her freedom, turning her into a weapon meant helping her staying alive and providing her with a better chance at solving her debts. It was not something he could spare her, only something he could help her master.

But in the show, with Kaz becoming the one and only obstacle standing between Inej and her freedom, the ethical dimension of their dynamic entirely shifted, loosing breadth, depth and complexity. They couldn't afford to make this shift and still keep Dirtyhands' main decision/action motivator being his own revenge against Pekka Rollins without turning Kanej into an abusive relationship. This is why Kaz was softened and why his own motivator became his love for Inej. They just couldn't portray Inej being in love with the one person who was directly holding her back from her freedom and whose character was also mainly fueled by personal revenge, completely utilitarian and without conscience, and perfectly willing to strip agency from his investments as soon as they proved to be useful to his cause, without for the relationship to become morally corrupt and abusive (and kind of Stockholm Syndrome-y). Pre-SoC Kaz not being burdened by the responsibility of Inej's agency and freedom in the books absolved him from moral condemnations on our part when it came to viewing Inej as a mere investment, or naively wishing for her to be tied to him and become Kings and Queens together, because he could not liberate her in any way. Inej was the only one responsible for paying her own debt, and none of the things she had to do to achieve that end were ever optional. This gave Kaz plenty of ethical turf to navigate that enriched their dynamic a lot without stripping Inej of her own agency (whose beholder was Per Haskell), and without having to compromise his own vengeful objectives.

So, what are we left with here? We are left with Kaz inevitably having as a character-defining motivator his love for Inej in order to avoid the glamorization of abuse (which is what this version of Kanej would be otherwise), which is not something workable for the integrity of the characters in the long run.

One of the things I loved the most about Kanej in the books was that the narrative established that they would do anything for each other, without for them to even need to (or arguably, be able to) talk out loud about it. That their bond was almost entirely fueled by introspection and internal monologues, and most importantly, that what they felt for each other never defined them as individuals. Inej's main decision drive was never her love for Kaz, but her own freedom and the newborn purpose of hunting slavers (which is, in its own way, a form of revenge for what was done to her). Kaz's main decision drive was never his love for Inej, but his own vendetta against Pekka Rollins that could silence Jordie's voice inside him and strip him of that feeling of shame that had been slowly eating him whole for years (which is, in its own way, a form of revenge for what was done to him). And they help each other out in achieving those ends by the end of CK (Kaz by bying her a ship, Inej by threatening Pekka's life), but their individual backgrounds still bear too much trauma to lead either of them to be comfortable enough in defining themselves according to what they feel for each other. Still, at the same time, it's established by the end of the duology that both of them are willing to try again, and that gives a hopeful note to their ending.

In the show, instead, Kaz ends up doing everything having Inej's freedom as a main motivator, because it's entirely dependent on him, and the romantic tension between the two would be toxic if this was not the case. But pre-SoC Kaz, Dirtyhands in the making, would spend 0.2 seconds in indulging Inej's complaints, would find himself another spider, kidnap Alina with no remorse or second thought and cash in the million kruge prize to build up his name and reputation, with the downfall of Pekka Rollins in mind.

In S01E02, when Inej is about to kill Arken to be freed from the Menagerie, she turns to Kaz and asks "so you choose him over my freedom?" and he replies "you assume it's one or the other". But this narrative doesn't add up. If Kaz is truly in need of Inej's skills but at the same time is motivated by his feelings for her and is willing to bet the entire Crow Club on her liberation from Tante Heleen, while Inej's main desire is to be reunited with her own family, find her brother (whose addition was completely pointless) and gain her old life back... how can the show make Inej stay with the Crows to, you know, carry out the plot of SoC and CK, in any convincing way? Why would we believe that she would give up her independence and newly-gained freedom to remain a criminal out of personal will?

As far as I can tell, the ending of season 1 left us with two alternatives. Either Kaz keeps his promise to her, gives her her own freedom back, and Inej decides to keep working for him instead of looking out for her family, or Kaz betrays her trust and keeps her under his own authority as the ultimate beholder of her contract, thereby making her own involvement in the Ice Court heist mandatory.

And I'm sorry, but both of these alternatives are deeply OOC and absurd for both characters, whose relationship has been taken into an entirely new direction thanks to the absence of Per Haskell and its narrative implications.

I just can't see how the writers can find their way out of this conundrum without utterly cheapening or entirely deforming the core of what Kanej is in the books.

[hlupdate]

The relationship between A-list muse and lauded designer is nothing new. But few have been as serendipitous that of Harry Styles and Alessandro Michele: the pop star’s solo career coincided neatly with the designer hitting his stride as the game-changing creative director of Gucci. Theirs is a mutually beneficial partnership that has elevated the former to new echelons of style, while the latter has become something of an icon to an unexpected fandom.

Unlike the large-scale productions of recent show seasons, Michele first presented his vision for Gucci with a quietly confident collection on 19 January 2015 — reportedly pulled together in just five turbo-charged days. The collection had all the signifiers of the retro-inspired aesthetic that has since become Michele’s beat, introducing the fur-lined loafers, pussy-bow blouses and florals that still form the backbone of his work today. A 20-year-old Harry, meanwhile, was still a long-haired One Direction member set to embark on the band’s biggest ever — and as it turned out last— tour. Just as One Direction’s days were winding down, Michele was picking up speed. Gucci reported a five per cent rise in sales in the last three months of 2015, amounting to 1.1 billion Euro in the final quarter.

Stylist Harry Lambert, who had been working with Harry for a few years by then, decided it was time for the boy-bander to try something new. A floral suit – that floral suit – from Michele’s spring/summer 2016 collection would be just the ’fit for the American Music Awards in November 2015, they decided.

Looking back it was a “very bold move,” Lambert admits. Styles was the first to take one of Michele’s full menswear looks from the Gucci catwalk and wear it on the red carpet. “It was very exciting to see everyone’s responses, but also how great he looked in it,’’ Lambert told Miss Vogueof what he still views as a turning point in his client’s fashion journey. This winning suit encouraged Styles and Lambert to pull more Gucci, and Harry gave his final performance as a member of One Direction wearing a suit in the retro petal print that defined Michele’s early collections.

In fact, Gucci was just about the only thing that the 1D alum carried over to his solo career. Even his shoulder-length curls were shorn. The music videos that accompanied Styles’s eponymous number one album, released in April 2017, all incorporated Gucci, as did his appearances on the promo trail. A navy tailored coat floats through the sky in the video for “Sign Of The Times”, and he wears floral tailoring in the clip for “Kiwi”. When the time came for Harry to take his record on the road, he wore countless bespoke Gucci suits on stage. Most were floral brocade with flared trousers, and paired with pussy-bow shirting.

By June 2018, the relationship had been formalised. Styles was revealed – in a series of photos taken by Glen Luchford in the suitably English setting of a chip shop – as the face of Gucci’s tailoring campaign. Two more campaigns followed, in which Styles models the most exuberant of Michele’s creations without ever sacrificing his schoolboy cheekiness, not even with a lamb slung around his shoulders. The campaigns, two by Luchford, a third by Harmony Karine, helped to usher in a new dawn in menswear advertising.

A year later Harry was unveiled as part of a diverse line-up in the campaign for Gucci’s Mèmoire D’une Odeur — the near century-old house’s first gender-neutral scent. Yes, he was the main event, but Styles shared the spotlight with other creatives in what became an unavoidable campaign, covering buildings, beauty counters, column inches and iPhone wallpapers across the globe. Styles has since quipped that he wears it to bed,making a bottle a necessary purchase for even half-dedicated Harry fans.

That Harry’s work with Gucci has proved so popular with his dedicated fanbase is a key component in the success of their collaborations. Though — and again, this is likely owing to Harry’s own allegiances — his followers do tend to have a keen interest in fashion compared to other fandoms, it’s down to their idol that Harries know the artistic director by his first name alone. “It is really exciting for us fans to see another facet of Harry as a creative individual, and his Gucci partnership cultivates that and gives us an even more in-depth perspective of who he is,” Nadhila, a 26-year-old fan in Indonesia told Miss Vogue.

Nadhila, who has been a part of the team behind the Twitter account @HSNewsUpdate since 2011, believes that the fluid nature of Michele’s vision has contributed to the interest in Harry’s Gucci looks. “There are no boundaries on what he might come up with, so fans are always excited to see what look [Harry] might step out in next,” she says. Styles’s efforts to be a fan-focused, ethical pop star – his motto is “treat people with kindness” – are relevant, too. “He has inspired us to be bold, unique and unafraid to experiment when it comes to fashion,” she adds. “He has shown us that there is no such thing as too feminine or too masculine, we can be both and we can be ourselves.”

Another of Harry’s biggest fan accounts, @TheHarryNews, is run by four women in their mid-twenties: Annie, Océane, Lena and Rachel. “You can really see the confidence he’s gotten from working with Gucci,” they share collectively over email. “[He’s] taking more risks and letting more of himself show… In a lot of ways we’ve seen Harry really come into his own. I think that really resonates with people, especially his fans, who get tiny pieces of [who he really is] through fashion.”

Two fans who have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of this fashion partnership are the transatlantic duo behind @HSFashionArchive. Since April 2016, London-based Lu and Washington DC-based Alex have documented every look worn by Harry in meticulous detail, all to act as “a resource for fans”. Its posts lets his followers know how they might go about procuring these items, but also sheds light on key house codes – thus enabling fans to quickly identify which of Harry’s looks are Gucci, and which aren’t. “We have noticed that fans buy the Gucci pieces that Harry has worn,” 29-year-old Alex explained. “Though some pieces are pricey, we’ve seen people buy the loafers, boots, and bags that Harry has sported over the years. Lots of our followers bought the £34 Gucci lipsticks he wore in Beauty Papers.”

The pair believes that the relationship works because Gucci is able to offer Harry such a broad spectrum of looks to choose from. “Gucci’s looks range from wearable to outrageous, so Harry’s continued partnership with Gucci guarantees both attainable style and flashy moments. There’s nothing like seeing him in a wild new outfit that we couldn’t have anticipated.” And though one might assume the scene-stealing suits are most popular with fans, according to Nadhila, they like his low-key looks best, given that “they show a more casual and intimate look into who he is as a ‘normal’ person”.

Of course, there is a notable exception: the 2019 Met Gala. For the opening evening of the “Camp: Notes On Fashion” exhibition Michele and Harry acted as co-hosts, and arrived on the pink carpet together. “After such a colourful tour wardrobe it was nice to do something a little unexpected,” Lambert told Miss Vogue of the black blouse Styles wore. “[It was about] taking traditionally feminine elements like the frills, heeled boots, sheer fabric and the pearl earring, but then rephrasing them as masculine pieces set against the high-waisted tailored trousers and his tattoos. Camp, but still Harry.” Lambert explained at the time: “We met up earlier this year to share mood boards with the Gucci team. We had pages of printed references all on the table from Alessandro, myself and Harry, then we edited them down.” Today, the @HSFashionArchive duo agree the night “was a massive deal amongst fans”.

There was the now pearl earring-wearing fashion darling of the music world, standing alongside the closest thing to a rockstar the fashion industry has at present. “I love dressing up and he loves dressing up,” Michele told The Face in 2019. “The moment I met him, I immediately understood there was something strong around him. I realised he was much more than a young singer. He was a young man, dressed in a thoughtful way, with uncombed hair and a beautiful voice. I thought he gathered within himself the feminine and the masculine.”

Since the Met, the relationship has continued to go from strength to strength. Styles wore a custom look on the cover of his second record, Fine Line, shot by Tim Walker, and Michele and Styles collaborated on a T-shirt to coincide with it, with a percentage of the sales going to the Global Fund For Women. Gucci’s high-waisted trousers, cropped blazers and dazzling shirting now takes up even more space in Styles’s wardrobe, and bring as much attention to the star as his sophomore record’s commercial and critical success.

Sightings of Styles in Gucci have become a source of comfort for fans in a turbulent 2020. From his Mary-Janes at the Brits to his oversized turquoise blazer and crochet gloves in the “Golden” video, by way of outré sunglasses and floral sunglasses in the clip for “Watermelon Sugar”, Harry’s recent sartorial choices have managed to be pleasingly familiar, while simultaneously keeping his followers on their toes.

A bit like the chicken and the egg conundrum, the question remains: is Harry very Gucci, or is Gucci very Harry? The verdict is out. But without each other, both might be missing a little something.

[ghostbustermelanieking]

soo considering the conundrum in 197, i absolutely think carrying out annabelle's plan is the right way to go. speaking ethically -- and i should clarify, i don't study ethics or anything, i'm mostly riding an "i just finished rewatching the good place" high so this might all be bullshit -- but speaking ethically, this is obviously dicey, but! i absolutely think it's the right way to go for 2 reasons.

1. assuming annabelle wasn't lying (and i don't think she is), doing this will guarantee that everyone in TMA World who is suffering will stop being tormented

2. while it definitely isn't right to doom other worlds, i don't know that they're necessarily doomed in the way that jon is thinking. sure, its possible, and even probable, that someone would eventually figure out a ritual, but consider this: if the fears have been in TMA World since the dawn of time, that means centuries upon centuries passed before a successful ritual was completed. and these worlds have never even encountered the fears before. which means it could be hundreds upon thousands of years before anyone figures out what the fears even are, much less figure out what jonah magnus does. and who knows if anyone ever would? people are gonna respond differently to different things. maybe no one ever figures it out. maybe there's never another archivist set up perfectly to end the world and then turn it back.

and here's another thing to consider -- this was all orchestrated by the web. the escape, yes, but also the apocalypse itself -- annabelle says the web chose jon and sent him on his path, which means jonah was right and wrong when he thought the web mightve approved of his plan (because it was always meant to be a doomed plan). so would the web really oversee the orchestration of another ritual after they've enacted this whole plan to enter other worlds? what's their plan -- to ping-pong back and forth between dimensions every time someone blows it up? there's a larger discussion as to how much free will was involved in jonah's apocalypse/how much of jon's manipulation was from the web alongside jonah, but: my point is, i think the web would actively take steps to prevent another apocalypse in this world.

this is a long-winded way of saying: yeah, i think they've got to do this. it isn't a great decision, and it's morally all over the place, but it's the only decision that doesn't guarantee an entire population is tortured. these are just my thoughts, but from my perspective, this makes sense. they've gotta do it.

tl;dr: annabelle's plan is the best possible plan because it guarantees people in TMA World won't be tormented, but it doesn't guarantee that other worlds will suffer the same fate

[crstapor]

Terror White

“You’re either with us or against us.” - George W. Bush


1.

On January 6th, 2021, domestic terrorists invaded the Capital Building in an act of political insurrection. Their intent was to overthrow the will of the people by preventing certification of a free and fair democratic election. They did so at the behest of their political leader (who was impeached a second time for inciting this gross transgression of his oath of office), other voices in their party - the so-called GOP - and talking head agitators inhabiting the far-right media echo chamber. Nearly to a man, a woman, a they, each of these terrorists were white.

Images of ‘good old boys’ traipsing down the halls of the people’s house waving confederate battle flags, kicking feet up on the Speaker’s desk, walking off with public property or smearing their shit on the floors pervaded the internet. These images provided by the villains themselves, posted shamelessly to social media profiles.

As a result of this treasonous, insulting, juvenile, despicable, and ultimately futile effort five people died. Even still, hours after the fact, a majority of members of the so-called GOP voted in accordance with the will of these terrorists. They voted to overturn the results of a free and fair election in the world’s oldest modern democracy. They did so because they believed there were serious ‘concerns’ (‘concerns’, let’s be clear, that started with them and like the Ouroboros, ended up with the confusing, if unhygienic, phenomenon of not knowing where their mouths or assholes ended or began) with the 2020 presidential election. After over 60 court cases arguing that point only one was ruled in their favor. None of the 50 States comprising our union found any evidence of wide-spread fraud. Indeed, a federal agency tasked with monitoring election security stated unequivocally that the presidential election of 2020 was one of the most secure in a generation.

And yet? There they were. Spouting conspiracy theories, assaulting police officers (those stalwart stewards of the ‘law & order’ they otherwise claim to love), brandishing spears and bearskins, stealing mail, leaving death threats to the Vice President, fundamentally acting the fool. A bunch of bullies let out of detention with rage and rebellion on their minds.

Let me be clear: each and every one of these terrorists should be hunted down by law enforcement and charged to the fullest extent of the law. They should then be prosecuted and the judges in each and every case should show or allow no mercy. These barbarians must never be allowed to storm the gates again.

Fine.

But that’s not the really interesting question here. The far-right has been producing assholes forever (one of the few things the ‘right’ is truly consistent at). What’s actually interesting is how these insurrectionists arrived at the conclusions they did. Which is to say; how did their ‘thinking’ bring them to this point.

2.

While it might be tempting for some on the left to see that last sentence as a joke, let’s remember we’re sitting at the adult table. These terrorists, being human, sharing our genetic code, are people - real, live, eating, shitting, fucking, anxious, sleeping, scared, afraid, terrified people - just like you and me. As much as it would be easier if we could see them as Uruk-hai instead of our brothers and sisters, sadly? That’s what they are. Family. Part of the Human Condition.

Though humans that are clearly very, very, very sick. My diagnosis? Mind Cancer. Let me explain, under the assumption my readers understand the difference between mind and brain. As such, I am not asserting that the terrorists are physically sick. From their pics and videos it’s clear many are - obesity, hypertension, anal retention - though that isn’t the point. It’s their mental programming, their minds, that have been infected. Infected with what?

Put simply? A disjointed ontological phenomenology obscured, obfuscated, and accelerated by persistently chaotic epistemological aberrations. Said plainly? Their ability to process reality has been impaired.

Why? Racial resentment, poor economic opportunities, an aversion to books and learning? Yes. All that. Plus? The internet, which has created a new Dark Ages.

Paradoxically, one built on light.

3.

Look. Self-interested demagogues intent on self-aggrandizement are nothing new. Nor are their ability to rally or rile a downtrodden populace. Sadly, demonizing the ‘other’ is also pretty par for the course in these scenarios. An old story, all told. What’s new this time is how it happens.

In a single second - count it out! One Mississippi - a beam, or photon of light moves 186,000 miles. Roughly seven times the circumference of the Earth. The new speed of hate. The internet, that modern marvel ushering in Humanity’s first truly post-scarcity resource, is built on light. Philosophers have for millennia wed knowledge with light. And now we all (well, those of us in the post-industrial world) carry a terminal connected to this internet in our pockets. A stunning marvel of human ingenuity. One would imagine that access to such a wellspring of knowledge and information would have a truly edifying affect on the Human Condition. Perhaps, in aggregate, or retrospect, it will. At the moment?

Yeah ...

At the moment it seems that the more access to information humans have the more they double down on tribal identities, wish fulfillment, instant gratification (read: porn), perceived slights, fantasy lands, Rick Astley videos, or the jibbering incoherent rantings of simple capitalists fomenting the fragile emotional states of low information individuals who feel they have no place in this world. This is a fundamentally devastating epistemological conundrum. Why? For centuries the barrier to the future was the amount of information, knowledge, you could access or process. Yet here and now? Here and now there might be too much access. Too much information. More so, the striking fact that our ability, as a species, writ large, to process or parse this information has not kept pace with the information at hand. A sad equation that inevitably leads to moments like 01/06/21.

4.

The Trump Terrorists of January 6th, 2021, weaponized the internet to facilitate their attempted coup. As did their ‘dear leader’ throughout his humiliating single term in office. In fact, it was the geometrical acceleration of connectivity and interconnectedness enabled via the web and its insanely capitalist platforms that allowed for their ‘movement’ to incubate and evolve. While it is true that neo-liberal policies advocating globalist economics and monetary policy are at the current root cause of most ills genuinely affecting rural, or poor, or uneducated MAGA-heads, it’s also true that apart from an Independent from Vermont no one in the political economy of the last couple decades gave much of a shit about these poor and dispossessed inheritors of old racial mythemes and toxic narratives of self-reliance. No one that is, other than their ‘dear leader’. Never mind he didn’t intend to ease their suffering in any material, or structural way. He talked about it. He tweeted about it. And then he gave them a little song and dance at the rallies. Breathtaking stuff.

However, it wasn’t just the performative act of playing ‘authoritarian’ that got them hot and bothered. No, it was at the same time the eternal need to belong to a group, the legitimate feeling of economic obsolescence, coupled with these new tools of information transmission. Tools that at once gave them powers unheralded and seemingly ensconced them in a protective shell, a perpetually larval manifestation of all their baser inclinations. A reactionary ‘safe space’ from which they could launch a thousand ships of intolerance and hate. What good is truth if you can’t weaponize it? What good are facts if you share them with everyone else?

And so we find ourselves revising Plato. There isn’t just one cave in which we are chained, kept from reality. There are multiple tunnels, alcoves, deeper caverns in which we might dwell. Furthermore, if lucky, there are different days, vistas, egresses in which we can escape from the confines of ignorance. Much like the lucky Mormons, it would seem the far-right believes there are plenty of planets in which ‘Truth’ can dwell. Never mind that multiplying ‘Truth’ in such a way doesn’t actually produce more truth.

In fact, it reduces ‘Truth’. Impoverishes it. Hollows it out.

Which is sad, really. For the major harm caused by these rebels isn’t to our democratic institutions, nor our mythological vision of our nature, nor that ever-loving economy - but to the very fabric that binds the social contract on which all the preceding rely.

That fabric being, specifically, a shared objective reality.

5.

How can we survive if we can’t agree on basic facts? Can a multi-racial, multi-cultural, representative democracy exist when a large percentage of the comprising citizens don’t believe in, or even acknowledge, that that’s actually what’s happening? Is White Supremacy so fundamentally a part of our nation’s DNA that the country can’t exist without it? If so, for those of us who vehemently oppose White Supremacy, the question might then be: is the country worth saving?

Most versions of Western Ethics indicate that violence is not the cure. Nor do I advocate such a position. At the same time I’m deeply troubled, because due their illness these actors are neither rational or coherent. Ergo, we can’t reason with them either. So what next?

To corral the revolutionary, if inchoate, spirit of these sick, fringe minds diseased as they are by hate, grievance, and digital oubliettes would any policy proposals be acceptable? Perhaps as fantastic an idea as the images from 01/06/21, what if the Federal Government decided to halt its obsequious sycophantry to corporate America and ‘elites’ and instead actually, seriously, emphatically reinvested in the heartland, in Main Street, in the working class? Wouldn’t it be ironic if a little more socialism was truly the cure these hatemongers require?

6.

Maybe we should step back and listen to the wisdom of George W. Bush.

Confronting what was at the time the most disheartening terror attack on the homeland, Bush made clear not all who could otherwise be lumped in with the terrorists were terrorists. In the same way that, yes, not all Trump voters are Trump Terrorists.

Even so. Bush made it clear you needed to pick a side.

With us - toward a diverse future in which the promise of the Founders is emboldened and expanded for all who live between our shores. Or against us - back to your stunted hovels and holes with all the other low information troglodytes you like to cosplay revolution with.  

Choose.

It’s your call. But choose quickly, because history is watching, and only one path moves toward the future.

C. R. Stapor Longmont, CO 01/16/21

[pemmanuel]

Joker: Inevitably Misunderstood

What happens when sickness finds itself in a world without physicians? Joker is a film that asks this question in three images: the individual, how he's treated, and money, in the city. From the outset, Arthur Fleck is presented as a mentally ill individual whose therapist doesn't really listen to him. This is the film's first theme, what are the sciences of the mind supposed to carry out? If there are two kinds of mentally ill subjects: those born sick, and those sickened by our hand, clearly Arthur Fleck is an example of the latter. For those who are born ill, there is admittedly little that can be done. Surely it's a task suited for a scientist. But those corrupted by us, by our idea of education or lack thereof, are creditors to our debt. Precisely in this conundrum lies the heart of the problem in Joker. Can the sick cure the sick? Unlikely. Can the ignorant cure the sick? Still less. The film begs the question, what is psychology and psychiatry? A science that purports to cure the mind, no less. There was once an art that aspired to this end, the ancient Greeks did their best to perfect it; albeit they didn't call their subject the "mind" but the "soul". They felt in their bones that to cure the mind is to cure its education, and to cure education is to cure politics, and vice-versa. Keenly aware that the individual depends on the city and the city on the individual, they identified Politics - the art of creating and applying the best laws - as the true means to a healthy city, and Justice (or duty, or ethics) - the art of paying all of one's debts - as the true means to a healthy individual. If we were to ask if the many can be effective at turning unhygienic minds or behaviors into healthy minds and behaviors, we might as well ask if the many can be effective philosophers. Does Arthur Fleck, then, deserve our sympathy? Not our full sympathy, mainly because in his sorry state he commits matricide. But why did he do this? Anyone watching the film up to that point would agree that he loved his mother dearly. As a famous Genevan philosopher would say: "Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of things, everything degenerates in the hands of man." Arthur committed this crime because he couldn't reconcile two things he knew to be true: that he was good, and that people had treated him quite badly. Deep down, he knew he was good. He knew he was warm, caring, and decent. His upbringing, a house of horrors thanks to his mother's abusive partner, which he apparently erased from memory, corrupted him. Even if Penny Fleck was lying about Thomas Wayne being Arthur's father, the fact remains that Arthur - a victim - killed in his madness she who was a victim along with him. It's an image not meant to be right, it's meant to be a mirror. What can't be expected from the Joker, or any incurable like him, is healthy behavior, as he himself writes in his journal. How could he be expected to understand what sane people barely do? That the solution to the problem is not violence but adequate understanding, speech, and legitimate means. Then there is the possibility that Penny was telling the truth about Thomas Wayne; that he did make her sign a non-disclosure agreement; that his power and money swept her case under the rug. In order to understand the film's imagery on money and power, perhaps the best question to start off with is the following. Why did Penny believe Thomas Wayne was the hero of the city? Was he an eminent speaker? Evidently not. It's because what the city values most, what it holds in highest esteem is money. Therefore, a rich man must be city's sage. Trampled and traumatized by this barbarity, it's no surprise that Penny and the rest of the city would conceive of the hero not as he who cultivates reason but he who is rich. The brutality of the city's values shows itself in Arthur's condition - incongruence between what he felt and what he expressed. He was desperate to express himself but was too maimed and mutilated to do so, hence the dancing. The one moment in the film in which he laughs at the laughable, his mother tells him it's not funny. But it's the climax of the film that contains the desperate expression of this idea, he reproaches people for believing that whatever they think is right is what's right. His aesthetic is indeed classic. He doesn't understand why people would think that the truth can be whatever they want it to be. What Arthur would have said if he were healthy is that money unhinged engenders incongruence. When excellence and virtue aren't held in the highest esteem, when they do not inform aesthetics, money will determine values and aesthetic. If any of this seems exaggerated, remember that since 2010 money is considered speech in the United States. The New York Times, the premier newspaper of the city Gotham is based on, published their star critic's review of the film. In it, A.O. Scott writes: "To be worth arguing about, a movie must first of all be interesting: it must have, if not a coherent point of view, at least a worked-out, thought-provoking set of themes, some kind of imaginative contact with the world as we know it. Joker, an empty, foggy exercise in second-hand style and second-rate philosophizing, has none of that." I would like to know, what does Mr. Scott know about philosophy? It's not a mean question; rather, one that must be asked because it's an important subject, and important subjects must be treated with utmost care; in some cases, life-long dedication. After all, in order to know what a second-rate version of something is, acquaintance with its first-rate version is required. That Arthur may be undeserving of our sympathy does not mean Joker is not one of the finest films of our time. It is. It's polarizing effect, how it is so misunderstood, only lends credence to its message. The reason we don't understand Joker, or at least don't know what to do with it, is the very same reason why the Joker was born, the same reason this character is an image of what's wrong in the modern city. Ignorance cannot cure ignorance, and nobody can cure a city that doesn't want to be cured.

[son-of-alderaan]

Spark of the Resistance, part of the Journey to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker publishing program, arrives on Triple Force Friday, October 4, and finds our heroes investigating a distress signal on the isolated world known as Minfar. “They go out and what they find is this indigenous population on this very far off planet that’s so far away from everything else. There’s no reason the First Order should be there,” Ireland says. “Except there are these secret laboratories and a legendary weapon that may or may not be there.” The whole situation presents moral conundrums for Rey and company. Do they interfere in any way with the local populace? If there is a weapon, do they try to secure it for the Resistance? “It’s a nice lead-in to the bigness of Episode IX,” Ireland says. “Because it’s kind of a smaller slice of ordinary Resistance life.”

A military veteran, Ireland cites the gritty Rogue One as her favorite Star Wars movie, and took care to ensure that the losses suffered by the Resistance in The Last Jedi, and the lessons learned, will impact its members going forward. “I wanted to continue that trajectory,” she says. “The idea that, to be a hero and to fight the First Order means more than just getting in a ship and shooting at them. There’s a whole ethical construct that goes on behind that identity.”

Still, this is a Star Wars story. So readers can expect certain other hallmarks of the saga.

“You’re going to this very undeveloped planet on the edge of Wild Space,” Ireland says. “So there’s obviously giant monsters, because that’s how I roll.”