#i paraphrased the quotes in this don't @ me

[nachosncheezies]

In defense of late-canon x files (including the revivals)

I was thinking about this poll after I commented on it, and I kinda want to be brave and say more.

Short answer to the poll's question before I go any further: If you're a new fan and a sensitive sort who thinks you'll struggle with your blorbos Really Going Through It and you really need a happy ending, I suggest you stop at the end of season 8. Do not pass go, do not look at spoilers. Disregard this post entirely, close the internet, and go look at something that makes you happy. (Also fuck every part of society that characterizes sensitivity as inherently weak and bad and some kind of personal failing, you are valid.)

That said, "quality" as a concept is entirely subjective, and the question of whether or not there's a decline in quality for any story is wholly subjective, too. In the case of x files? I'm not convinced there is a decline. I am going to be upfront that I haven't yet watched past season 8, though I am almost completely spoiled on events after that - and the reason I haven't watched yet is not because of how I know events are going to unfold, but simply because I don't want it to end!!! Ohh, the tension between "I CAN'T WAIT!!!" and "Nooo don't be over D:"

When I first came to txf fandom on tumblr and gradually became spoiled about what happens in late canon though, I was often left uncomfortable and tbh kinda queasy about it. As I said in my comment on the poll, the hate for especially the revival and IWTB, or to a lesser extent even seasons 8 & 9, is very well documented. But! There are other takes to be found here on tumblr if you figure out where to look, and my feelings have changed!

The thing is, I have yet to find myself in any fandom where there isn't a vocal subset of fans who dislike the story after a certain point. I am not joking when I say that no one hates the things they love as passionately as sci-fi and fantasy fans. In my experience, it often hinges on the extent to which a viewer has strong notions on where they would like the characters to end up. In particular with series where shipping is a dominant component for the bulk of a fandom, I have almost universally found that there comes some turning point in the story where "let them be happy you cowards" is the dominant view, and things that compromise the attainment of a degree of romantic stability and/or domesticity are, to many fans, annoying at best and despicable at worst. But! As one tagset on the linked poll said:

and I think for any fandom, that last tag especially is so so so important. (I think that's harder for people watching a weekly series live, bc you have so much time to analyze and speculate and dream before the next breadcrumb drops, but I digress.)

So why am I saying this and how do I apply it to x files? Well, I eventually found that there are also a subset of fans who find redeeming things right up to the very end and actually quite like the whole thing! The things that I had seen people rage and ventpost so much about honestly never quite sounded to me as "out of character" or "untrue to the story" etc as those same ventposts made them sound. And I've discovered I'm not the only one who felt that way. Do I love that the spooky squad had to go through all of those things? No, those poor guys D: Life is hard and they have been through so much trauma. But do those events and their choices make sense to me in light of everything that came before? Yes! And I honestly can't wait to see them fight to overcome those things, breaking, healing, always learning, always growing, always getting better.

So if you're wondering "where does it go wrong"... well, I'm a completionist, as many people who've answered that post are, but also my personal opinion is that I don't think it does go wrong. If you're new and interested in exploring why I've gone from "vaguely queasy" to "excited" about the whole thing, or want to maybe balance out the impressions you're getting about the later seasons before deciding whether or not you want to see the whole thing, I'll put a few blog names in the comments.

Final admission: even once I started feeling a little more confident in the possibility that "actually ok maybe I'm not crazy, maybe this all kind of is in character and does make sense", there was one big plot point that I was NOT looking forward to and I thought I would never be comfortable about. In hindsight, I think my discomfort came from the negative responses being SO seemingly universal that I hadn't stopped to let myself truly consider other possible interpretations on that point. (I mean my initial instinct when I first read about it was, why are we mad about this?? CSM is literally the most unreliable narrator in history???? it's obviously fake news?????? this must be either a fever dream someone's having or it's a misdirection ploy against whatever shadowy forces might still be lurking?????????????? but for whatever reason I guess I had halfway written that off.) Happily, just last month there's a new post-s11 novel out, and although reviews for the book as a whole are mixed, it seems to have laid the groundwork for resolving that plot issue in a way I think most fans would be broadly happy with. If you're interested in being spoiled about that and seeing how, I recommend searching #perihelion on @agent-troi who liveblogged reading it with receipts, scroll back chronological-style to the first post on the subject and see how it unfolded. (And never forget that Dana Katherine Scully is the queen of denial as a coping mechanism lol)

Everyone's mileage will vary. Each person can feel however they want! But for anyone new, I wanted you to know that the very many ventposts you might be seeing are not all there is to this show or its fandom. Some of us love it despite - or even because of - all the things that went "wrong". I think we just don't talk about it as much.

[softichill]

Attempted to throw together a bingo card for the first part of the finale? I'm not super great at these fjsbgksng

[kiingleoturtles]

Best thing to come out of Apology Tour had to be

"I've been listening to love ballads all morning but that's the GAYEST thing I've heard all day!

[grewlikefancyflowers]

a key aspect of wwx as an inventor is his resourcefulness. he rarely invents wholly new things, he repurposes things that already exist.

the primary example is obviously ghostly cultivation, in which he repurposes the resentful energy of ghosts for his own means. wwx notes this himself, saying 'why waste it when it can be useful'.

and there is the yin hufu. the sword had been in the xuanwu for years, absorbing centuries of resentful energy from those who'd died, it even harmed wwx at the time. but he still thought 'this can be made into something useful' months later, he even remembered it and went back for it.

his evil-attraction talismans were made directly from evil-repelling talismans. he wasn't just inspired by them, he literally added a few strokes in his own blood to the evil-repelling talismans the wens had set up, reversing their function.

this is a constant of wwx's characterisation, he remembers the protective embroidery in the lan's robes and uses it to shield sizhui at mo manor, he needed a flute and so carved one directly from a nearby bamboo tree, in yi city he immediately knows to find a building with a living(ish) resident so he can have access to a stocked kitchen to make healing congee, and he repurposes the funeral paper effigies to fight for him. in any scenario, he instinctively notes and uses the resources around him, often repurposing them in a unique way.

this is fundamental to wwx—he innately thinks outside the box, is never confined by norms and expectations and is unafraid to directly challenge them. these traits are the source of his genius as well as his defiance of his society.

[nixnmatch]

Ordis. Need I say more?

Cannot decide what line is my fave from him. Cause like-

"I am Ordis, ship cephalon. I make new memories." is such a banger buT ALSO:

"Operator, I am just a bug addled cephalon, but if you ever need someone to talk to... Ordis would be happy to hear about how depressed you are!"

[bisonofyesterday]

I've been reading a lot of conspiracy theories lately for fun and it's wild, sure, a glimpse into the mind of an insane person, but honestly it does kinda get boring after a while once you recognize all of the tropes

It's a real thing that happens and it was a fear for me at first but now? I genuinely don't get how "conspiracy reading for fun" could act as a pipeline to being a conspiracy theorist, like are you stupid?? Were you already susceptible to this brand of thought??? Literally all of these are either odd interpretations of economics, wishful thinking, reboots of antisemitism, or just plain regular bullshit, and like it's really easy to see that, like all of this is dumb, people who believe this are dumb, it's absurd

Fantastic fiction though, these could be good books or games or movies, and like that's what they are and that's their primary audience, people who want to pretend they're the protagonist of a movie, of a grand plot, every bad thing doesn't just happen or are perpetrated some random disturbed people! It's an organized movement at the top of everything responsible for every bad thing ever to keep us in line! It can be a kind of anti-religion in that sense, malevolent gods are better than none

There HAS to be gods at the top of it all, who put ridiculous references to themselves in everything and monolithically control the entire world, because if no one is in control, then that'd be terrifying

[brittlebutch]

Elementary!Holmes talking about his somewhat abrasive personality / social skills using phrasing that could have been pulled Directly from popular autism acceptance essays, like ok man. i see you.

[anthrokiaera]

you ever just Some character you love: “AVAST YE MATEYS. YA SCALAWAGS.” “Ya ain’t go- a roIGHT booone in ya, ah joost knoow et” I’m talking about @konnorhasapen‘s Redacted pirate!AU btw. great. now I absolutely HAVE to picture David sounding like a scot (...or at the very least someone from Pirates of the Caribbean.)

[mozart-the-meerkitten]

Leeli’s interactions with Peet are the CUTEST THINGS and they kill me every time she doesn’t even KNOW HIM YET but she trusts him and cares about him so much already I’m dead, I’m dead

“He just needs some friends!” indeed, Leeli, indeed

[humanmorph]

Good lird even just vaguely browsing looking for a place to rent is depressing

[circular-bircular]

Hooooo boy okay.

I want to preface this with something big: I do not disagree with many of your points. Plural, as a term, was coined for inclusive systems -- it was coined with any and all types of systems in mind, with a leaning toward endogenic systems. Plurality includes but is not the same as DID, and people who are harassing endogenic systems for using the term plural are clearly in the wrong.

With that being said... Be warned, there is a hefty rant under the cut. Because OP, this was horrifically offensive.

We do not need to invalidate DID or anything related to it in order to boost up plurality.

One: we do not need to demonize the DSM to boost up plurality. The DSM does not have anything to do with endogenic systems, beyond if you want to twist the exclusion clause to be retroactively about that community. Want to? Go for it, I don’t care. But calling it “the Bible of Psychiatry” is really fucking starting to piss me off, both as a medicalized system and as a Christian. I’m so fucking tired of people dragging the DSM under the bus entirely, simply to argue about endogenic plurality online. It is a flawed diagnostic manual, and that is all. Please stop bringing it up unless you’re discussing activism for disordered systems.

Two: The source you provide on the change from MPD to DID does not state that it was a response to moral panic; it coincided with a few different panics as abuse became more widely known and sensationalized in both public and media, and you’ve inserted your own correlation to causation based on Lee’s (frankly unsettling, I really have such a strong distaste for this author’s views on survivors) take. Just took my nebulizer, so I'm a little too shaky to find all the sources, but thankfully, someone has debunked this claim hard already. It was not done out of moral panic, nor out of a single man's disbelief in DID. It was done because the task force for the DSM saw fit to make the diagnosis more accurate to what was actually being presented in the brains of those with the disorder. The most recent DSM (in which the single man often quoted for that moral panic you described was no longer part of the task force) removed many of the thresholds to diagnosis, reworded things more, and still kept the disorder name changed because it's more accurate. Just like all dissociative disorders at the time, which ALL had their names changed. I doubt anyone diagnosed with Dissociative Amnesia are particularly eager to return to Psychogenic Amnesia anytime soon (particularly with the -genic labels prominent in sys spaces).

Three: No, trauma is not a part of the diagnostic criteria. This is because of systems like me -- LIKE MANY OF US -- who could not recall our trauma at time of diagnosis. There has never been a case studied in all the decades of DID research where it came to pass that a DID system did not have trauma. Furthermore, it doesn't fucking matter because endogenic systems do not have DID*. There is literally absolutely no reason to mention the lack of a trauma requirement in the DSM. FURTHER furthermore, the DSM is not the end all be all of DID research. It is simply and has always been diagnostic criteria. It's literal only purpose is to help people diagnose disorders. However, there is a WEALTH of research into the trauma-based origins of DID. It's literally everywhere. Meanwhile, I find no sources on non-trauma DID existing despite nearly a decade now of searching (unless we count anything the False Memory folks have tried to say! Which has been linked to me. A lot.) Please, again, stop punching sideways at DID systems to validate endogenic plurality.

Four: Here's what actually led to me responding, because HOO my blood boiled at this part.

Community historian LB Lee gives several good reasons why-- as trauma-surviving plurals-- they choose not to call themselves "traumagenic" or divide the community by origins. If I may briefly paraphrase a couple of these: If you see suffering as your whole foundation of who you are, then you have a more difficult time envisioning a better situation. If you want others to respect you, a losing strategy is to put down people who are seen as similar to you.

Digging into this horrendous essay has not endeared me to Lee anymore than the first you provided. Here's some highlights, for those curious in more than a paraphrase (I'll color it red so it POPS):

Despite being generally looked down on by singlet culture, plurals have nonetheless created an internal pecking order so as to feel superior to each other.

Oh, lovely, yet another person who insists that the "internal pecking order" is for people to feel superior. This internal pecking order, mind you, being the delineations between traumagenic and endogenic. As if to say that "plurals" created "traumagenic" to feel superior to "endogenic." If that isn't how you initially read that sentence, I envy you -- maybe I've just had to read the words "traumatic embitterment" too many times in the past few years and I'm a little jaded.

These folks called themselves “traumagenic,” while everyone else was lumped into the category “endogenic,” which is a false binary, one the term “endogenic” was created specifically to avoid

The term endogenic was coined "lovingly" in 30 minutes, utilizing a term unfortunately originally used to fakeclaim traumagenic origins, as an alternative to Natural / Healthy Multiplicity. I don't think "endogenic" was coined speicfically to avoid a false binary; it was coined because Natural Multiplicity was really fucking offensive. Like atrociously offensive. Now, I could believe that Lunastus has stated it was intended to avoid this binary, and I believe that's what the community stands for now. But when it's being written like this to inherently display a binary between traumagenic systems (seeing themselves as better) than endogenic systems, uuuuuuuuuugh!

This is a problem I’ve seen a lot—taking ableist arguments (“disabled people have no right to privacy”) and dressing them in the clothes of the opposite (“by not publicly stating trauma, you must have no trauma, and thus be trying to sneak into my clubhouse and steal my culture, and you are oppressing me”). It is a convoluted little piece of anti-logic, hard to explain and refute. But let’s try.

I've got one for you:

"By joining this space, you attest you're a CDD system, because this is a space dedicated to only CDD systems, because we need a space to heal and grow in our own way due to the severe and repeated childhood trauma we faced."

This is what got me labeled as a sysmed for goddamn years. Because everyone assumed that a single barrier of entry to a space = exclusion, never pausing to wonder why the exclusion existed.**

I'm not saying that what Lee states here doesn't exist. I'm just saying, pot, meet kettle -- I have seen many endogenic and pro-endogenic systems use this line of thinking as an excuse for their ableism toward completely chill traumagenic systems. Almost like what I saw in this post, hmm.

Plenty of people put doctors on pedestals, but medicalized multiples in particular have a culture of overly deferring to their healthcare team: never making a move without asking the doc’s opinion, treating therapists as their parent replacements, relying on their shrinks for things they should really learn to do themselves, such as taking care of their internal children.

I'm so sorry that Lee has met only those "medicalized multiples." Meanwhile, I got harassed by a pro-endo system for discussing how I had to teach my therapist how to fucking care for me due to his flawed beliefs, in a discussion with a lot of fucking other medicalized multiples. Furthermore -- wasn't this discussion about traumagenic VS endogenic? Beautiful to see that traumagenic inherently means medicalized.

I met multiples who had been in care for decades, never improving, never seeming to learn any skills, but still absolutely enamored of their brilliant therapist (who they apparently couldn’t function without). These weren’t children either; these were people old enough to be my parents or grandparents!

This from the same individual who said "But when it comes to my personal experience, nobody can replace me." I'm sorry, but I find it incredibly offensive to see someone talk behind disabled people's backs about how they "never improve" and "never seem to learn any skills." Does nobody else find this REALLY fucking offensive? I pray to god that the people who went to these conferences that Lee is talking about never see this goddamn essay.

Traumagenic multiples have the same problem with this culture as any other medicalized multi subgroup. But they are the first I’ve seen who claim that not mindlessly deferring to medical authority is ableist.

Again. Not traumagenic multiples. Anti-endos. Not every traumagenic system is an anti-endo, not every traumagenic system is a 'morally outraged ableist,'*** not every traumagenic system even gives a solitary fuck about syscourse. I am sooo fucking tired of, yet again, traumagenic systems being thrown under the bus for syscourse.

Given that Lee wrote this in 2019, I have to assume he had the words "anti-endo." Yknow. Given the fact that I was part of syscourse at that time and had already been harassed by pro-endos for being a DID system. I wonder where they got the idea that DID systems are inherently medicalizing scum.

The only way to actually overcome these problems is through active engagement, awareness, and change. And I have seen no indication that traumagenic multiples, actually want to do those things, despite all their blathering about ableism.

I really wonder where that idea that all traumagenic systems are ableist scum came from...

But traumagenic is not treated as descriptor, as far as I’ve seen. It’s an identity, and as far as I can tell, it’s mostly based around medicalization, trauma, and suffering.

Source?

No, really, I need a source on that claim. Because as a system who is in traumagenic spaces, who THRIVED in those spaces... I have genuinely no idea what Lee is smoking here. And I could fucking use a hit by this point.

Many traumagenic systems discuss their suffering. That is because they are traumatized people talking about their trauma. That does not mean they BASE their ENTIRE IDENTITY on THEIR FUCKING TRAUMA.

As a system who used to use the label traumagenic, I used it to deliniate myself from endogenic systems because I was so often told I was endogenic... by other endogenic systems. I was taught to deny my trauma, taught I couldn't be traumatized due to numerous factors (such as growing up wealthy or "being so clearly loved" by my abusers). I used the label to claim my trauma as my own, to understand it, to process it.

I now no longer use the label, because people like Lee -- and I suppose, like you -- used it to suggest I was an ableist looking to put myself "above" endogenic systems. And don't worry, you're certainly not alone. I have been told numerous times that I'm lucky. Because I'm traumatized. It makes me "more legit."

(Again. Always by endogenic systems.)

Now... again... if Lee were to say anti-endos... yeah no it's still not correct, but at least I wouldn't be personally offended. I would just be offended for my friends who accept endogenic plurality but call themselves anti-endo so they can focus on overcoming their disorders in peace.

And since traumagenic is falsely equated with “disabled” and “oppressed,” it begs the question, what happens if we stop being disabled or oppressed? What happens if we achieve all our most utopian dreams? That should be cause for jubilation, not existential crisis!

It begs the question, why suggest this entirely hypothetical thing that cannot happen? DID may go into remission, but that doesn't mean someone stops being disordered, or stops being oppressed. You can't change the trauma history. WHY the fuck was this part of this article?

At least the survivor communities, for all their problems, are ostensibly about hoping for healing and recovery someday: folks might be traumatized now, but one day maybe they won’t be. The traumagenic identity, though, reframes the focus from “this is where I am for the moment,” to “this created me.” That is a static, unchanging identity. A creation can not be undone.

IDK fam, for me, I said, "Trauma led to my disorder, and I cannot change my past, but I can grow from this trauma and claim it as my own AND STILL BE A BOSS ASS BITCH." Something something how MOTHER FUCKING ABLEIST ARE YOU???

It’s one thing to show a respect for our origins, to accept their role in our lives. But I don’t want to have my identity forever framed as a horrific conception story. And I certainly don’t want my community and sense of self to hinge on my suffering, because that means I am incentivized to suffer. If the whole point of disability activism is to make disabled lives better, I sure as hell ain’t picking an identity that encourages the reverse!

"Well, at least Lee said it was their identity! Right? Clearly this is all just about HIS interpretation of traumagenic as a label for himself!"

Which is what I WOULD say, if this wasn't one entire article slandering traumagenic systems, period.

And every trauma-based community I’ve been in, or researched, has had the problem of equating suffering as identity, even if they didn’t codify it like traumagenics have.

Gee... I wonder why the trauma-based communities identify with their trauma and suffering... It really is a fucking mystery, ain't it? And does that mean EVERYONE in those communities EVERY TIME, Lee? Or are you overgeneralizing for the shock value?

I want my identity and community to be founded on more than pain or oppression. I want to build on the good things my plurality brings me—my friends, my partners, my inner family, my art. Those, I hope, will prove to be a more solid, long-lived foundation than suffering.

Then I've got news for you, Lee -- the plural community isn't for you, either. Because while I'm trashing on this, I have seen cases where people make their suffering and oppression their entire personality -- regardless of origin label.

Need we forget "the future should be singlet"? Need we forget "pluralphobia"? Need we forget "traumagenic embitterment"? (Yes, we should forget all of those things, I'm still trying to find that bleach for my brain...)

GOD FUCK HOW AM I NOT EVEN HALFWAY DONE SCROLLING THIS FUCKING ABLEIST WEBPAGE?

God, okay, FOR MY ENERGY AND SANITY, the rest will be bullet points and just summarizing some of my ideas and thoughts, I can't:

Many endogenic systems do appropriate or have supported the appropriation other cultures (particularly tulpamancers) but the claims that all endogenic systems are appropriating multiplicity are just stupid and show a distinct lack of knowledge for the history of these communities.

The cultural experiences of plurals would differ somewhat from the cultural experiences of strictly DID systems, I feel. For instance, plurals don't have to deal with, oh, IDK, decades of people trying to prove your existence is made up by therapists. Only the last year or so of syscourse seems to be accusing endogenic systems of being made up by therapists.

"Footnote 2: Explaining the full twisted history of the social pressures that spawned “endogenic” is beyond the scope of this essay; for more details, see the Lunastus Collective, 2014; and Lee, 2019." And, yknow, a literal decade of syscourse about it, including traumagenic systems once again being told they're faking their distress and frustrations over something. Super casual folks. (Side note, sounds like Lee fucking hates endogenic as a term. Shoutout to the one thing we agree on****)

UGH. OKAY.

So... my conclusion about that little tidbit is that it was horrifically fucking ableist toward traumagenic systems, encourages the idea that all traumagenic systems are ableist anti-endos, and I am thoroughly fucking disgusted to have read that whole thing.

And, last but not least:

Five: "Neither psychiatry nor the greater community of plurals see trauma history as an important distinction in determining whether someone is plural."

Believe it or not, I want to try to just... try to end this on a happier note. Something I might be able to hold onto hope with.

I firmly believe that plurality exists, and that trauma histories are not important in the grand scheme of "if someone is plural." However, someone's trauma history can also be vital to their plurality, and this should never be ignored.

For instance: me. I am... someone who frankly refuses to use the term plural now, and refuses to identify with that label, due to the harassment that I have received for being a DID system. But, nonetheless, I am still multiple beings within one body, and I can acknowledge I fit the label in spirit, if not in truth.

My trauma is vital to my plurality. If I was not traumatized, I wouldn't be plural. No ifs, ands, or buts.

I find that a joyful thing. Maybe other folks don't get it -- I highly doubt Lee does, based on what he wrote. I KNOW a large portion of the #pluralgang community doesn't, or at least, didn't in the years 2015-2019 when I was participating in system spaces originally.

But it is my truth. And I shouldn't be barred from it simply because I am someone who is traumagenic and has suffered*****.

If I wanted to be Publicly Plural(tm), then I would be doing that trauma history included. And I would be offended by those who implied that my trauma wasn't important to that identity. Because it is, to me -- it's something I have BUSTED MY ASS to accept. To reconcile. To grow with -- not through.

And everything written in that goddamn horrendous essay invalidated that.

and that, OP, is why I just wrote this essay.

Hope you have a good timezone, wherever you are. Me, I'm heading to bed and praying the trauma-induced amnesia takes this god-forsaken post out of my mind soon.

Some fact checks about plurality

The "Bible of psychiatry" is the DSM. In 1994, the DSM changed the name of Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) to Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). This was in response to a moral panic where critics claimed that the condition was fake.

The original and current diagnostic criteria do not require trauma for DID (or MPD) (DSM-III, p. 259; DSM-III-R, p. 272; DSM-5-TR, p. 331).

The international counterpart of the DSM is the ICD-11. Its essential features for DID do not require trauma, either.

Both books say that not all cases of multiple personalities are a disorder or a severe impairment. Psychiatry recognizes that medicalizing them is not always appropriate.

Plurality (or multiplicity) is a community umbrella term for many ways of being more than one person in a body. Psychiatrists who know enough about DID are aware of it. Plurality includes but is not the same as DID.

The community has always included plurals who formed for reasons other than trauma. Dividing the community by excluding non-traumagenic plurals and calling them fake is new. That only started in August 2014 on Tumblr, unheard of elsewhere.

When that started, a trauma-caused DID system created the word "endogenic." This means plurals who formed naturally rather than from trauma. The Lunastus Collective coined it in solidarity with them.

(Similarly, the coiner of another umbrella term, "alterhuman," is a member of a traumagenic OSDD system who supports endogenic plurals. The purpose of that word is for plural systems to unite with other sorts who differ from usual definitions of human individual, valuing what we do and do not have in common, instead of in-fighting about who is more legitimate.)

Community historian LB Lee gives several good reasons why-- as trauma-surviving plurals-- they choose not to call themselves "traumagenic" or divide the community by origins. If I may briefly paraphrase a couple of these: If you see suffering as your whole foundation of who you are, then you have a more difficult time envisioning a better situation. If you want others to respect you, a losing strategy is to put down people who are seen as similar to you.

Neither psychiatry nor the greater community of plurals see trauma history as an important distinction in determining whether someone is plural.

[starpros-sunshine]

Nothing like the feeling when you feel like you're supposed to be productive but there's not really much you can do so you just sit back and simmer in your inferiority complex and contemplate the fact that grades really are more of an arbitrary method of judgement in a way certainly influenced by personal bias and the teachers mood and opinions and the students day and overall mental state and that they really say nothing about a students abilities and capabilities and even if my teacher told me i produce a slodge of unhelpful wordmaterial that doesn't mean I suck at the english language and am incapable if bringing things to the, to put it in her words, " 'points' which are often repetitive" with my limited analytic vocabulary. As if the grasp I have on the english language isn't at least native level. As if I'm not perfectly capable of being short and concise. Just because I'm not the best at interpreting short stories and mark my quotations wrong which, I might add! wouldn't be a bloody issue if they actually told you what to do different when they correct their blasted rigged exams. But yeah sure me not revising is the issue.

[lesbianjudasiscariot]

you're really cool & i want to interact more. but i'm terrible at interacting :')

hehe tyty ♡

[songofwizardry]

r/ukvisa is a treasure trove of useful info and experience and has saved me so many times by digging up home office policies buried on the website that could get a visa rejected but boy does it not take a lot for several people on that sub to throw disabled people/"illegal" immigrants/asylum seekers/the entire concept of taxation and socialised healthcare/etc under the bus

[czolgosz]

sorry to be nitpicky but the quote in that screenshot is completely made up (from "the assassin makes a full confession")

I don't know a great deal about pre-20th Century American history, so when I was wondering what William McKinley did to deserve getting shot, I hit his Wikipedia page as my first stop, and

At this point I'm thinking two things:

Surely no actual human person would phrase it that way.

Yeah, that'll do it.

[autolenaphilia]

God, this is so weak. Sarah McBride just caving immediately to Republican transmisogyny with this bathroom law. Like we knew she was pro-Israel, but that didn't surprise me, most democrats elected to congress are, but i expected her at least to defend her own human dignity. Like, to paraphrase The Big Lebowski, "I mean, say what you want about the tenets of zionism, at least it's an ethos.", this is just spineless cowardice.

To be fair, I doubt this was entirely McBride's decision, i'm sure she spoke with the Democratic Party bigwigs and got told to just cave, because they wouldn't back her in resisting this. But that just further implicates the Democratic Party.

Like someone with a backbone would see this as an opportunity to do some civil disobedience and disobey this rule. Make a statement, resist. But, no, the Democratic Party is so tied to law and order that they see no room for even peaceful civil disobedience.

At least not in the case of trans women's rights. The Democratic Party elite already has been talking this past november that the reason Harris lost the election was because she wasn't transphobic enough. So the democrats might have decided to just let this outrage slide in the hopes of getting more votes.

Violating transmisogynistic bathroom laws is something ordinary trans women do everyday to survive, entirely without the privileges Sarah Mcbride has as a congresswoman.

In fact, that's exactly the women she is screwing over by not using that privilege to fight. As quoted in Erin Reed's article linked above: "Transgender advocate and Harvard Clinical Instructor Alejandra Caraballo emphasized the broader implications: “This isn't just about her. These rules apply to trans staffers and interns who do not have the protections and privilege that she has.”

Women who unlike Mcbride, don't have a private toilet connected to their office to use (every congressperson has their own office with its own toilet).

And as Erin Reed quotes in her article:

"Ash Orr, a transgender organizer in West Virginia, was equally critical: “Rep. McBride’s messaging essentially suggests that if a federal ban is enacted, trans people should simply comply. While I understand the difficult position she is in, she holds a position of immense power and privilege. She should be using that power to defend and protect her community, not falling in line. Trans lives are at stake.”

Clearly the #resistance against the coming second Trump adminstration is off to a great start /s