#i refuse to define myself by my suffering and frankly so should you !

[g0ddyke]

listen i'm gonna be real for a minute and just say that, just because You can't imagine living a fulfilling life in my position doesn't mean it isn't possible, and maybe you should keep how Unbearable you think My reality would be to your fucking self.

[softness-and-shattering]

So, firstly, I do not get the impression that you want a good-faith discussion. But I’ll give you a chance, and I will respond in good faith, and if you come back yelling and swearing at me then we’re done. This isn’t tone policing, I am not telling you what to do or how to talk, I am saying that I will make choices for myself about whether to continue engaging or not. I would like to. I think trans unity is extremely important and we all need to have each others backs and ears open to each others problems. Hence why I’m responding to your anger to begin with. I also want to note that you’re bringing in a lot of ideas that arent specific to this one situation on discord, which is broadening the discussion. And that I have limited capacity so I’ll respond as best as I can. #if we’re all in the same boat why are trans women murdered at a greater rate?#why do we experience homelessness at a greater rate?#why do we experience unemployment at a greater rate?

Trans people are not responsible for structural transphobia. We are all victims of it. We can commit lateral violence against each other, but we cannot structurally oppress each other. We’re not out here, a tiny percentage of the world’s population, denying each other housing and employment and safety. We’re not out there murdering each other. That’s frankly ludicrous. And Im not playing oppression olympics of who experiences the worse transphobia. We are all struggling with housing and employment and transition and personal safety and receiving basic dignity and respect that we all deserve. I can pull up statistics this way or that way who has what worse but I refuse to. We are all suffering, badly, in this crab bucket and we can fight each other about it or we can band together and fight the people putting us in the bucket for our collective freedom from it.

Let me think about how im going to structure this.

I think the main disagreement here is about sexism and (trans)misogyny. Id like to argue that a trans man doesn’t have structural power over trans women or vice versa, but Im guessing you dont believe that, so let’s put aside that argument for now. A woman can be sexist to other women so let’s take that out for now. Im thinking as Im typing, I hope that you’ll bear me with. I’m trying to work out what the main point of disagreement here is, how to frame it. I think it has to do with actions versus intentions. Again, please bear with me a minute. Actions and outcomes absolutely matter. No one has the right to demand misgendering of other people for their own comfort or for any other reason. No one should be kicked out of a server or made fun of for refusing to do so. I am totally in agreement with you there. Im not sure what specifically prompted you to say that trans women arent trans men’s mommies, but you’re totally correct about that too. This behaviour of this guy, and of the mods, was absurd and sexist and you have every right to be upset about it and talk about it.

I think the disagreement is one step further, that because these people took actions that were sexist, they must be miserable sexist people themselves. (A personal note for a second, Im using the word sexist because Im still in the process of working out for myself what exactly is misogyny and what is transmisogyny, where that defining line between them is, and I dont want to mislabel. So Im using sexist as an inclusive umbrella term. I hope thats acceptable to you). So to my belief, someone can do or say something sexist without being a horribly sexist person. I believe that people make mistakes and can make amends and can be forgiven. In general I dont think we should label people that way, as sexist or ableist or whatever, because it sort of locks them in, like they can never change. But thats unusual of me, so for discussions sake lets say someone gains that label when they have shown a consistent pattern of action and belief of, say sexism, then we can call them a sexist. This is important, this is not dodging around responsibility. Hurtful words or actions need to be taken responsibility for regardless of if its part of a pattern or not.

There’s a couple of possiblities I see here, of what people were thinking.

1. What I’m gathering your view is, and Im sure you’ll be unafraid to correct me if Im wrong, is that this guy and the mods all hate trans women down to their bones and dont give a shit what harm they cause because only men are important and men deserve everything to be the most comfortable they can possibly be at everyone else’s benefit. Which if true would be inexcusable. If so, this is the point of our disagreement because I see other options. 2. The guy is being (perhaps somewhat understandably) selfish. He’s hurting real bad and he goes to his community (which, yes, might be the only safe place he has. Its an assumption that he has other servers others friends, places where they could do a guys night. Though a guys night is a good suggestion imo. And yes he could have stayed away.) So he’s trying to calm down and he keeps seeing she/her she/her everywhere and its hitting him in the sore spot thats been poked at all day and he asks the mods hey can we ban an entire fucking set of pronouns for tonight. He’s not thinking about women, hes just trying to minimise his own pain. The mods say yes for sure. 2a) The mods think this is reasonable. 2b) The mods are cis, and are doing their best to be allies, and theyre being overperformative about it to the point that they just agree without thinking through the consequences, and then they stick to their guns because most people dont want to consider that they might be wrong. 3. The guy thinks his emotional needs are geniunely more important than anyone else and he is an asshole in not caring about the consequences, but also hasnt thought through the consequences. He just wants to not be in pain and thats all that matters.

I dont know how it was for you, figuring out your identity, if you’ve always known or if you came to the realisation later in life or what. For me, the first thing I realised was that I wasnt a woman. And why would I want to be a man, I was a good feminist, men are awful. I must be non-binary. I identified as non-binary, maybe was non-binary, for around two years. And at some point something clicked, and I realised I felt this warmth that was masculinity, and I kinda freaked out. Men are awful, I cant be a man. I dont want to be an asshole. I dont want to be entitled and sexist and gross. And then I noticed all my queer groups were for “non-men” only. All that changed was a sliver of self-recognition, nothing else, and I was suddenly unwelcome as I was. Id gone from being one of the girlies to being a threat. And Id barely changed at all, certainly not in a way that affected anyone else. There was no magic ceremony that night where I was bestowed with a full transitioned immaculately cis-pass body complete with mannerisms and speech patterns, cis male privilege and entitlement didnt descend from heaven and gently settle upon my brow. All the sexism and condescension and leering and every gross thing I received as a woman and as a girl weren’t washed away by a fountain of unicorns. I had just discovered this small warm thing inside myself that felt right and that I wanted to explore. And I had equally just lost almost all of my queer support network. Isnt queerness all about exploring your identity, embracing who you are, celebrating all our differences? Not when you’re a guy, not to anyone who isnt already at least somewhat a guy.

We’re not secret little devil misogynists dying to burst out the closet and spread pain and misery among women. Half a second ago we were women,with all that entails. And I couldnt immediately come out. I was still being told I shouldnt wear immodest clothing, shouldnt be wearing pants, even. As an adult. I wasnt free of sexism and I certainly wasnt eager to go inflict it on others. It fucking sucks. Obviously I can only really speak for myself in known accuracy, but Im reasonably confident that many if not most trans guys starts out in the same situation. This discord guy being misgendered by his whole family definitely hadnt had the mythical male privilege ceremomy either, certainly wasnt seen as a guy in his everyday life. Certainly didnt have this cis male fragile masculinity thats all about proving how tough and macho you are to other cis guys because therhye not confident in themselves despite having every reason to be confident amidsts piles of privilege. Hes (probably) not an asshole who’s always been an asshole because no one has ever told him to get his act together and be a decent human, who thinks women are below him. He’s still being told he’s below everyone else for being a woman. And I think its shitty to look at a trans guy whos barely out, whos being disrespected, who (probably) has barely begun to even figure out how to construct a masculinity that he’s happy with that doesnt make him an asshole, in this moment of fucking up real bad, and say that the fault lies with his fragile masculinity. It doesnt. Hes not coming from that cis fragile masculinity. Hes (probably) coming from a place of being in a lot of pain and just wanting to hurt less, and thereby accidentally being incredibly sexist with the aid of the mods. Which shouldnt have happened, and he and everyone making fun should apologise about it because they did fuck up badly.

Ive lost some clarity here rre structure of it all, I will not be responding further today because I dont have the capacity left to do so. I hope you understand, and I hope you respond in good faith. And Im genuinely sorry that your friend got kicked out of a place where she had felt safe for refusing to misgender her wife. Thats really fucking basic and Im sorry she wasnt treated respectfully.

in a queer discord server im in there was a notice today. "please refrain from using she/her for anyone today because [one specific trans guy]'s dysphoria has been really bad due to a family event". i continued to use she/her for my wife, obviously. got asked to use they/them "just this once" "for his sake"

i responded "im not gonna misgender my wife for your comfort" and swiftly got kicked out of the server. lmao

please tell me this is a joke 😭 nobody’s masculinity is that fragile. surely. surely.

[reincarnatedladywarrior]

WHAT THE SOCIETY DON’T WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT LOVE

Free encyclopedias on the web would define love as a range of strong and positive emotional and mental states, from the most sublime virtue or good habit, the deepest interpersonal affection, to the simplest pleasure. But come and think of it, love is not an instinct. Love is a skill. And when we say skill, it needs to be learned. A skill that the society refuses to consider as a skill. We are meant to always follow our feelings. And if you keep following your feelings, you will certainly always commit big mistakes in your life. Who wants that? No one wants that. No one wants to end up with the wrong person. Nobody wants to feel like they have been sentenced to life imprisonment by marrying the wrong person.

Unfortunately, it is primarily because people tend to idealize love just like what fairy tale movies try to project on our screens ─ an image of a perfect love where there’s a king and queen living in a castle that is bound to have a happily ever after. But in real life, that’s definitely not always the case. Love is more than just a feeling or a mutual chemistry. It is to love someone with charity and generosity in interpreting someone’s behavior; a constant recognition of ambivalence between the good and bad traits that exist in human nature. Hence, while growing up, we tend to associate an ideal partner to the idea of a good person we have created in our minds from an unconscious attempt of assessing our parents and separating their nice and unpleasant characteristics. Then, we’ll make a pretty long list of good traits that we’re looking for, only the good ones of course. But by doing so, we tend to neglect the mere fact that bad traits are also included in the package. The truth is, a ‘perfect person’ don’t and never exist and is more like a conceptual theory postulated by blind hopeless romantics.

None of us are perfect and we don’t need be perfect to love and be loved. The demand for perfection will lead you to only one thing ─ loneliness. So, one should not find a perfect person to be happy but a perfect person to suffered with in a familiar way that will help you define what genuine happiness really means. Because whether we like it or not, at some point in our lives, everyone will hurt us and all we need is to find someone worthy of the pain that is intertwined with loving. You cannot have perfection and company at the same time because to be in a company with another is negotiating imperfection every day.

Meanwhile, sulking seems to be a reflection of people’s desire to be understood by another individual. Because that’s how love was taught and how we think love should be ─  filled with understanding. That’s right but on its own detriment that’s also the reason why when a person doesn’t understand us, we get disappointed, sad or in rage. We shouldn’t expect someone to read our minds and do something that we wanted them to do for us then invalidate their feelings when they don’t act a certain way that we wanted them to behave. Love requires open communication and a cycle of giving and getting; not only an absolute selfless act of kindness towards another being. Because without communication only endless catastrophe awaits.

On the other hand,  it is also crucial to take note that love is not all about gifting someone all sorts of nice things that you could offer, although it’s considered as one of many love languages out there. On top of all of that, to love is to be a teacher and a learner. ‘If-you-love-me, you-should-accept-all-of-me’ line should be stigmatized as a sign of true love. True love is not just about accepting the way your lover is. It is accepting the truth that love has a role of transforming one another to become the best version of themselves to maintain a healthy relationship. Having said that, it’s a little ticklish but one should learn how to accept the fact that when someone tells you something about yourself, they’re not attacking you. They’re trying to make you a better person and we don’t normally believe that because it hurts our pride to actually take a look inside ourselves to find the truth…that the other person wants to educate us and it isn’t a criticism. Criticism is merely a wrong word to apply to a much nobler idea which is to try to make us better but we tend to reject this idea very strongly. Not unless it’s nothing but a below the belt statement or an insult in disguised of a joke, well then stand your ground. But sometimes you have to bear in mind that an angry person is not always what they see to appear, some of them are secretly and deeply sad pessimists. And this only further emphasizes someone’s need to hone behavioral interpretative skill in order to love properly.

Incompatibility, we are all incompatible but it’s the work of love to make us graciously accommodate each other and each other’s incompatibilities. Therefore, incompatibility is an achievement of love; it’s true love that make us gradually accept the need to be compatible.

We all have types. And we can’t probably change our types. Many of us might have certain types who are going to cause us real problems. They may be too distant, arrogant or going to torture us in some way. And your friends would casually say, cut him/her out of your life he\she’s not good for you. Realistically speaking, you cannot manage your type, let’s take that for granted but there’s an achievement here as well. It is to change how you characteristically respond to your tricky type. Most of us have formed how we respond to our tricky types in early childhood. For instance, we have a distant parent which matches to a distant lover…when we were very young, we respond to that distant parent by attention-seeking…we rattled and banged. And now we’re adults we rattle and bang in our own way. And we think it’s going to help but it doesn’t. It creates a vicious cycle that won’t get us anywhere. It is open to us to have a more mature response to the challenges that the types of people that you’re attracted are going to pose for us. And that’s an immense achievement. One thing that we can do is to recognize the inability to compromise ─ one of the shameful things that we have to admit… “This is my partner, I’ve compromised…in choosing them I’ve compromised.” “Why you’ve compromised?” “Well, I’m not that attractive myself. I’ve got lots of problems. I’m a bit naughty. Frankly, I can’t pull anyone better but they’re very nice…they’re okay.” Now, you would think loser, but that’s not true. Compromise is noble. We compromise in every area of life and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t compromise in our love life. Maybe some parents are just sticking around for the children…good! And we’ll say, “Oh, they’re just sticking around for the children.” That’s a wonderful reason to stick around, for what else they’re going to stick around. Let’s look benevolently in the art of compromise as a massive achievement in life.

Notably, a Danish Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard had a wonderful outburst where he basically said, of course you’re going to marry the wrong person and make the wrong decisions in a whole row of areas. And the reason why you’re going to do this is because you’re a human. Therefore, do not berate yourself for doing what humans do. This is what he said, “Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy.”

[girlwiththealligatortattoo]

Another sad day, and a stain on humanity, as Republican governor Brad Little, of Idaho, has signed a bill to allow the killing of up to 90% of Idaho's wolves. Even pro-hunting groups were against this bill, as it flies in the face of all science, promotes myths and lies, and lines the pockets of cattle ranchers.

I, for one, am SO WEARY, of animals, including wolves, wild horses, cougars, bears, coyotes, sage grouse, and many more, suffering because of the demand for cattle grazing land.

I've worked decades to pay my way daily for my education and the costs that it took to get where I am. And yet my tax dollars, against my will and ethical choice, go to pay for cattle to graze on public lands, and they pay for the murder of all of these animals. I find this to be an egregious abuse of my hard earned money. Let cattle ranchers fund their operations with their own lands and money - not mine.

Most Americans don't realize that they fund cattle grazing on public lands (because hey, that sounds harmless...in theory), but in turn, they also fund the demand of cattle ranchers to round up wild horses, the killing of wolves (as this horrible bill allows), and the removal of other species, along with the secondary deleterious environmental impacts. Most Americans that I know would be appalled to know that they pay to kill so many animals.

I'll continue to fight these horrific practices, through spreading my message of the importance of other animals, through my active writing to political leaders, and through my support of good animal conservation organizations. I think it's very important to emphasize, that we too, are an animal, and EVERY ANIMAL has limited resources. Please consider that if you have a meal tonight, and a roof, you are fortunate, not entitled.

The notion of entitlement in nature is a farce. We live behind a façade of "civilization" full of concrete and grocery stores, and we are far removed from actual survival skills. The human animal has become more of a consumer than a producer. More of a parasite.

Nearly half of our adults in America have metabolic syndrome and fatty liver disease, and the diseases of modernity such as diabetes, heart disease, and even Alzheimer's are directly tied to our consumption. I'm just not sure that our "progress" has truly been what it claims to be.

And I'm sure that an animal that practices this horrific killing for money is decidedly NOT civilized.

No animal outlasts its resources, and that will include us. Every animal is "checked" by nature. COVID should have been a wake up call, but I'm not sure that it has been. I'm very uncertain of our supposed "intelligence."

I sure hope we can turn our legacy around. Let us make our legacy not one of pathetic, greedy consumption. Let us make our legacy one in which we understand our place in this absolute MIRACLE that we call LIFE. Let us cherish, rather than destroy. Let us find balance. Let us walk in beauty upon this earth, rather than take, take, take, take, take...

There are wonderful people out there, who care about other humans, and they care about other animals. To you, I salute you. I honor you. My spirit bows to your spirit. And thank you for being who you are. You are who and what gives me hope.

Shame on you, Idaho. What a great reason for me to stay the hell away when I'm considering where I might want to spend my dollars. I'm utterly appalled. And my soul is devastated. And yet I'm fortified; I'm determined. I will fight these blatantly unethical practices tooth and nail, until my last breath.

Beautiful people. Please stop leaving choices to politicians. Can't you see the blatant corruption in every political party and every corner? The back door deals and not allowing citizens to make the call? These folks are largely bought and paid for by one industry or another. It's disgusting and shameful. But you have power, my fellow American citizen. You have the power of choice. Because it is obviously the almighty dollar that we collectively worship.

One of the absolute most effective things you can do, that would help with so many issues, is to VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS. Remember, whether consciously or not, you are making a choice every time you purchase something. If you quit buying it, the demand will drop.

It will be better for the environment, and better for your health. Every dollar you spend on food, whether it is meat or some processed packaged food, ultimately winds up, defining so much of the outcome of your metabolic health. Ultimately, that impacts our healthcare system.

And frankly, to me, a nation of unhealthy people, is a national security risk. And yet we buy their products, make ourselves sick, destroy other species and environments in the process, and then we buy their medications to treat the symptoms. We live long lives, but often not quality lives. Why not just treat the cause? Why not try to ensure your health rather than indulge your taste buds to the tune of "Oh I love this so much and I could never give this up..."

Believe me, I was raised in a family that owned steak houses and churned out good Southern food. I get it. I have a sweet tooth like nobody's business. But let me be clear: when I see, and saw, what goes on, you'd better be damn sure that I can, and will give it up. I will not allow my taste buds and preferences to remain static and override my empathy and my knowledge of healthy choices for myself, other animals, our healthcare system, and for sustainable human life on this planet.

You won't catch me purchasing cattle for consumption. Why?

Because this is no small family raising and consuming their own. Most folks wouldn't know the first thing about gardening or animal husbandry for survival. Purchase of foods in plastic from containers in grocery stores, where everything seems so abundant, has contributed to us becoming a very sick animal indeed, mentally, emotionally, and physically, because we are SO OUT OF TOUCH.

This is big business, with unethical acts involved, that is subsidized against my will, as a taxpayer. And I will take a stand by refusing to purchase their products.

Remember, this is a chain of events that brings them to your plate. The slaughterhouse is horrific, and yet it is only one step in the many, that are casualties of the demand for beef.

Please think about it.

This is a sad, sad mark on humanity.

This bill was about MONEY, not elk, and not other lies they toss at us, most of which we consume eagerly. We turn off our minds, let our eyes glaze over, and eat our Oreos, while binge-watching Netflix. We like to keep these issues out of sight and out of mind. As if they don't concern us. They don't pay our bills, so why worry. I hope we can do better than that. I know we can, if we just try. We can be an amazing and ethical animal.

Let's say no to the blue pill they like to give us. Let's red pill it, folks. Once again, our politicians fail us, while lining their pockets, and big business.

Come on, America. We can do better than this.

[pass-the-bechdel]

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Thor (2011)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test?

Yes, three times.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Three (21.42% of cast).

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Eleven.

Positive Content Rating:

Three.

General Film Quality:

The fun:boring ratio tilts considerably depending on audience mood and/or desire for originality; the majority of the story is generic in the extreme and can be tedious as a result, however those elements which are more unusual and intriguing arguably save the overall product. 

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:

Passing the Bechdel:

Darcy asks Jane if she can turn on the radio. Jane tells Darcy to drive into the anomaly. Jane tells Darcy to stop talking about her iPod.

Female characters:

Jane Foster.

Darcy Lewis.

Sif.

Male characters:

Eric Selvig.

Odin.

Loki.

Thor.

Fandral.

Hogun.

Volstagg.

Heimdall.

Laufey.

Phil Coulson.

Clint Barton.

OTHER NOTES:

“But I supported you, Sif.” Good to know that Thor supports non-traditional gender roles, despite being such a macho cliche.

I’m really very concerned by Jane’s driving. Someone revoke her licence. 

“Son of Coul.”

Heimdall does not get enough credit for being the MVP of Asgard. 

Loki’s suggestion that maybe he’ll pay Jane a visit himself is clearly intended to goad Thor into fighting him and as such need not be taken seriously, but it’s still totally uncool. Of all the goading methods he could have used, we really didn’t need to go for the implied rape threat.

I thought they might manage a Bechdel pass between someone other than Jane and Darcy for a moment there at the end of the movie, but Frigga doesn’t actually get referred to by name in this movie, and she and Sif only talk about Thor anyway. Disappoint on both counts. I kinda also thought Jane and Darcy might do some more/better passing in general; it’s better than nothing, but the three passes they got were pretty freakin’ weak.

When it comes to uninspired, generic origin stories, this movie kinda makes Iron Man look like an innovative goldmine by comparison. ‘Arrogant man takes a humble, learns to value his power and earns it back through selflessness’, it’s...been done. A lot. And while Chris Hemsworth’s Thor is watchable and not without charm, he’s not an especially charismatic actor and the predictable arc of his character doesn’t offer much scope to impress, while the typically-excellent Natalie Portman suffers a similarly bland fate with prescription-love-interest Jane Foster. The chemistry between the two is pretty nonexistent, and frankly it’s easier to believe that Jane is a slightly-amoral scientist essentially using Thor for her own gain, rather than buying that she’s becoming genuinely enamoured. If the film had leaned into the idea of Jane Foster: Amoral Scientist a little stronger, they could have built a more interesting (though less comfortable) narrative and perhaps even a more believable romance as the two bond over their shared moral learning curve. But, that would require Jane’s character to be more of a priority beyond finding excuses for her to be in Thor’s presence and develop ~feelings~, so. Not shocked they failed to deliver there.

Pretty much every person who has ever seen this movie (and probably some who’ve only read about it) agrees that Tom Hiddleston’s Loki is where the fire’s at, both as an individual character and in terms of the plot he facilitates and inhabits. It’s not hard to understand why: while Thor has his dull human journey in the desert on Earth (the majority of which is spent just going places and talking to Jane and occasionally having a comedic ‘not from around here’ moment), Loki is a trickster God with magic powers living in the mythological land of Asgard and playing out a long con to win both the throne, and his adoptive father’s approval. Anything about the film that is clever or different or interesting, visually engaging, or emotionally poignant, it’s going on in Asgard, in the part of the plot where Thor is absent for the bulk of the film. Unfortunately, Thor’s absence from that thread means that we don’t get to spend nearly as much time enjoying it, and that’s why even the film’s best qualities can’t necessarily save it from the generic trash-pile. It’s easy to reach the end of the film in frustration, wondering how the Hell the strongest elements of the story (Shakespearean tragedy on alien worlds!) wound up as background noise to an unconvincing snooze-fest romance in Nowheresville, USA.

Broken into its component parts, Loki’s story isn’t that unfamiliar either; ‘jealous younger brother vies for older brother’s birthright’ has been done a fair bit (The Lion King being the most well-known example, let’s not kid ourselves), as has the juxtaposition of entitled brat vs scrappy underdog, as has ‘driven mad by envy’ and ‘power corrupts’ and pretty much any other trope being invoked in Loki’s lane. However, it works through 1. Hiddleston’s dynamic performance, 2. any and all majesty/intrigue/gravitas supplied by the setting, and 3. the additional factor of Loki discovering his adoption and true Frost Giant heritage. While it should not be ignored that Loki’s machinations for the throne predate that revelation and therefore it is neither an influence on his overarching ploy nor an excuse for him devising that ploy, Loki’s struggle with learning that his life as he’s known it was built on falsity and the way that complicates his desire to prove himself provides him some all-important nuance and pathos that gives the audience something to latch onto and identify with, even if only as empathetic understanding (one hopes that no one is going so far as to identify with the attempted genocide or the successful patricide; most of us can identify with betrayal/abandonment/daddy issues to some extent or another). Even if his ultimate decisions are plainly reprehensible, Loki’s journey to that point is littered with appreciable miseries, and that makes it an obvious emotional narrative standout compared to Thor’s paint-by-numbers excursion.

The villain narrative being the highlight of a story isn’t entirely unusual (though films in which this is unintentionally so tend also to be poorly conceived), but what’s really unfortunate is that Thor’s character motivations are not second in complexity to Loki’s; the criminally underused Heimdall is actually the next-most nuanced character around (and look at that, he’s also on Asgard and not bore-ing it up on Earth). The thing about Thor’s arc is that it’s not just predictable, it’s not just generic: it’s also barely there. We perceive the arc because we’re so familiar with the trope, but we don’t actually watch Thor learn anything, we don’t see practical signs of the degradation of his arrogance and his transformation into a wise warrior who understands restraint. Beyond causing a ruckus when he first arrives on Earth, Thor really doesn’t display any aggressive entitlement, he settles into pleasantly-strange-fish-out-of-water mode pretty much immediately, and he seems to ‘learn his lesson’ spontaneously after being told that his father is dead. He appears to mourn the implications of his inability to lift Mjolnir more than he is bothered by being told of Odin’s demise and that he can never go home; those latter revelations instead trigger his instantaneous reformation (insofar as he says the words “my father was trying to teach me something only I was too stupid to see it”) and that’s it. Confronting the destroyer and being ‘killed’ by it prompts the return of his Godhood, but refusing to shrink from a fight isn’t a change of pace for the character we saw at the beginning of the film; all in all, there’s no actual clear-cut learning in this process, there’s just a complication-free acceptance of his apparent new state of being, and that means he’s worthy of kingship now? Were they too afraid of making him dislikeable by playing out an excess of arrogance on Earth, so they softened him up immediately and in doing so, downgraded his character arc to just the concept of one rather than an actual presence? If there were more of a distinct process to his experiences on Earth, they’d be less damn boring, because we’d be following an actual story instead of just waiting for them to hit each predictable beat, and maybe they’d also generate some real characterisation of any of the Earth characters while they’re at it (instead, we have completely-useless-to-the-plot-comic-relief Darcy, and surrogate-dad-exposition-master Selvig, comprising the whole of Jane’s illustrious company). Thor’s clutch of friends back home may be a one-dimensional quartet defined almost entirely by their most obvious single descriptors (the female, the Asian, the fat guy, and...Sir Didymus), but at least they have a clear trajectory of plot-relevant motivation, even if they do become inconsequential by the end of it. Yeah, this isn’t a very good movie.

I said at the top that audience mood may be a deciding factor in the success or failure of the film, and I mean that in the sense that this is a movie that may prompt vastly different responses in the same person over different viewings; speaking for myself, I have watched it and been basically entertained and appreciative of the visuals and at least some of the characters and story elements, but I’ve also watched it and been overwhelmingly bored by the trite predictability and the flat characterisation of most of the players, and unimpressed by the soft-focus CGI of Asgard. Caught in the right mood, Thor’s inexplicable laid-back Earth persona can hit just the right note for casual comfort viewing. Caught in the wrong mood, Loki’s Asgard shenanigans feel over-hyped and not engaging enough to save the movie. Is Jane too bland, or full of shades of untapped character potential? Is Darcy funny, or painfully annoying? Is Heimdall intriguing, or too nebulous to matter? It all comes off very conditional, little of it anchored solidly or fleshed out strongly enough in-text to be considered an absolute. The plot floats, dependent on the aura of various cliches rather than categorically declaring itself in any unequivocal ways. It’s not particularly messy, so at least it has that going for it, but even that is a conditional statement. The film is rarely subtle enough to develop any depth, and the shallow invocations of the idea of a narrative arc lack the conviction necessary to make simplicity a virtue. The end result? I guess the best word for it is ‘forgettable’. 

[zenithsys]

hold on this is actually mis-information - and absolutely one of my favorite things to talk about. endogenics should read this, as it is important to keep in mind the roots of the plurality community.

endogenic systems did not exist as a concept until the late 90's/early 2000's. when talking about endogenics it's really important to get the core origins correct, because it contextualizes the movement significantly more. in the late 90's/early 00's, a movement of anti-medical diagnosed DID systems started a campaign to de-medicalize DID. they did not want their existence to be defined by their trauma, and as such, decided to cease therapy and begin a community online which came to be called the Multiple/Plurality Community.

the whole point of this community was to create a new "narrative" - a keyword that they used extensively - to portray that DID was natural and that people could be born with DID. later, this movement expanded to include "tulpa systems" (the quite frankly disrespectful warping of a closed-practice religion that has been publicly disavowed by the religion it was stolen from) and other various "system types".

looping back around to the original reason, the Multiple/Plurality Community was originally founded to de-medicalize DID/OSDD. if that phrase is not familiar to you, let me explain: the de-medicalization of a mental health issue or illness is essentially taking it out of any diagnostic material.

to someone who identifies as endogenic, i'm sure this sounds great; to those diagnosed with DID/OSDD, this is a death sentence. in America, conditions not listed in diagnostic material are typically not covered by insurance - this means that people with DID/OSDD will be denied medical coverage. as DID/OSDD can make it hard to hold down a well-paying job, this means potentially forgoing medical treatment entirely.

if that doesn't really get across well, let me use a comparative example. would you refuse to help a suicidal person and instead tell them, "oh, well im sad too sometimes, but i chose to be sad"? would you tell someone with cancer that their disease is natural so they can't get treatment for it?

the endogenic community was not actually founded on hatred for DID/OSDD systems, it was originally founded by diagnosed DID/OSDD systems that the medical system had failed. systems who were retraumatized by their therapists, or mistreated. the problem is that they didn't consider that the path of their actions would lead to widespread suffering of others.

the continued movement of the Plurality/Multiple Community is, at best, a micro-aggression. it was, and remains, a targeted movement to end the medical coverage and, by proxy, the lives of those suffering with DID/OSDD.

(people with DID/OSDD are not the only people victimized by the Plurality Community either but that's a whole different story there)

TL;DR: endogenics/plurality was not originally founded out of hatred for DID/OSDD systems, but the purpose of the continued existence of the community is a targeted attack to end the treatment of, and potentially (by-proxy) the lives of people with DID by process of demedicalization.

.......

i also realize you've made references to empowered multiplicity (early origins of plurality, but not the earliest) on ur blog but ive also typed this whole thing up and quite frankly im too proud of myself to let it go to waste and also i do think that my addition to this really only proves that endos are worse than you're portraying them to be, which is honestly kind of impressive, in an extremely fucked up way.

also i do think it's important that the goal of endogenics does in fact line up with causing the deaths of DID/OSDD systems (if it wasn't obvious with apparent recent doxxings, and even if the doxxers only represent a small portion of the community.)

wild that its controversial these days to say "please stop trying to kill us"

Is there still doxxing goin on im very confused :( is it only anti Endos getting doxxed??

Last doxx was pretty recent. And yeah it’s only happening to anti endos. Endogenic beliefs were founded on hatred for DIDOSDD systems, so it’s not much of a surprise I guess

[peterabell]

THE OPTIMUM CONDITIONS FOR INDYREF SUCCESS

It now looks like a second referendum is set to dominate our Depute Leadership contest and I believe that is a good thing. We are at a critical juncture in how we proceed with a second referendum and it is something that we simply have to get right. The debate seems to centre round whether we should proceed with a referendum simply because we currently posses a mandate or whether we hold one when there is good evidence it can be won. 

Peter A Bell's insight:

That was hard work! I just read Pete Wishart’s latest ‘contribution’ to the ongoing debate about the timing of Scotland’s new independence referendum. Actually, I’ve read it three times now. And I’m still no clearer about the reasoning behind his determination to indefinitely postpone the vote. I find lots of things in the veteran SNP MP’s most recent blog. Reasoning is conspicuous only by its absence.

 I find contradiction and inconsistency. As when, towards the end of the article, he claims he wants to “rescue our nation from a disastrous Brexit and a UK determined to erode out [sic] national Parliament”, but only after “Brexit impacts and people actively want out of an isolated, desolated UK”. And only after giving the British political elite all the time it needs to pursue the ‘One Nation’ project that is already in progress.

 At least he acknowledges the British Nationalist threat to the Scottish Parliament; even if only in a casual aside, complete with clumsy spelling error, which suggests he doesn’t take that threat very seriously. It is possible, I suppose, to see this as progress - given that he previously appeared totally oblivious to the jeopardy facing Scotland’s democratic institutions. But I’m still finding absolutely no sense of urgency. As with Brexit, the impression is that Pete Wishart is content to let the damage be done in the hope that this will provoke a reaction which favours the independence cause.

 It seems that the ‘optimum conditions’ Pete Wishart is seeking involve Scotland suffering massive economic harm and imposed constitutional ‘reform’ that may well be irreversible. As a political strategy, this leaves something to be desired.

 Some will doubtless protest my mentioning one of several spelling errors. They will say that it is petty to point out things like ‘countries’ instead of ‘country’s’. They will insist that these are trivialities. That they are meaningless. But consider the context. Pete Wishart himself acknowledges how critical the issue of timing of the new referendum is and the importance of the debate. His interventions suggest he believes he brings something significant to this debate. So you’d think he’d at least do a basic spell-check. Perhaps get somebody to take a look over his text prior to publication.

 Even if you’re prepared to shrug off the spelling errors, you surely must have cringed as mightily as myself at Pete Wishart’s use of the term “sweet spot” in relation to the impact of Brexit on Scotland. Words matter! Especially in politics. We have to seriously question the political judgement of somebody who uses such inappropriate language when referring to potentially catastrophic impact of Scotland being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the Scottish people and without even the semblance of a plan.

 “Sweet spot”!? Really? Get a grip, Pete!

 The failure to address criticism of his argument for indefinite postponement is, perhaps, explained by the way Pete Wishart chooses to frame the discussion. He says,

 “The debate seems to centre round whether we should proceed with a referendum simply because we currently posses [sic] a mandate or whether we hold one when there is good evidence it can be won.”

 This is one of those occasions when the word ‘disingenuous’ comes in very handy. It serves us well if the aim is to avoid the bluntness of terms such as ‘self-serving’ and ‘dishonest’. We might also reach for phrases such as ‘unfortunate misapprehension’ in euphemistic preference to ‘wilful misrepresentation’. Or ‘regrettable oversimplification’ rather than ‘deliberate distortion’.

 I have been closely following the debate about timing of the new referendum. I have never seen anybody suggest that “we should proceed with a referendum simply because we currently posses a mandate”. Certainly, the fact that the Scottish Government has a mandate is among the arguments against indefinite postponement. But it is just as certainly not the sole argument.

 By framing the debate as “simply” a matter of possessing a mandate, Pete Wishart obviously hopes to evade the more complex issues and the awkward questions being asked. Such as how he proposes to justify failure to act on the mandate. In future, when the SNP goes to the people of Scotland asking for a mandate, how does he suggest party campaigners and supporters respond to those who point to evidence that the SNP cannot be trusted to use that mandate?

 Pete Wishart seems perfectly prepared to treat the existing mandate with a disdain barely distinguishable from that exhibited by British Nationalists. But he is evidently not prepared to deal with the consequences. For all he has to say on the topic, we could be forgiven for thinking he doesn’t even recognise that there shall surely be consequences.

 His framing of the debate sets this fallaciously simplistic portrayal of the mandate issue in opposition to the very rational-sounding proposition that the referendum should be held “when there is good evidence it can be won”. Excitement mounts as we anticipate long-awaited answers to questions about how those ‘optimum conditions’ are defined and how they are to be predicted an unspecified length of time in advance.

 In what appears to be a stab at a literary device to build tension, Pete then proceeds to describe, at considerable length, what does not define ‘optimum conditions’. Or is it what defines what ‘optimum conditions’ are not? It’s difficult to tell. And, frankly, by the time we’ve waded through this section it’s hard to care.

 Pete Wishart devotes well over 300 words to the matter of what ‘optimum conditions’ are not. It would be interesting if we could compare this directly with the attention he gives to explaining what ‘optimum conditions’ actually are. But I’ve searched in vain for anything resembling a clear and explicit definition.

 If I was asked to summarise Pete Wishart’s argument it would go something like this -

 OBEY THE POLLS!

 That’s it! That’s really all there is to it. Don’t do anything while the polls are saying the ‘optimum conditions’ don’t exist. Wait until the polls offer “good evidence” that those still undefined ‘optimum conditions’ are going to exist at some undefined - and almost certainly undefinable - time in the future.

 To be fair, Pete does offer some advice on “what we need to do to start to move towards ‘optimal conditions’”. At which point, those conscious of the urgency of Scotland’s situation will probably be sitting with their head in their hands sobbing in frustration and despair. I know I was.

 What then follows does nothing to alleviate that frustration and despair. Pete’s advice is to make a “new case” for independence. But what he goes on to describe is nothing more than a rerun of the first referendum campaign. There is absolutely nothing “new” in what he proposes. His great idea is to revisit the narrative dictated by Project Fear. He’s not talking about fighting a new referendum campaign. He’s talking about resuming the old one. Which probably stands to reason as he doesn’t want a new referendum.

 If we follow Pete Wishart’s advice we will engage in a campaign for a referendum, that isn’t happening because the ‘optimum conditions’ don’t exist, using the tactics and arguments that all too evidently failed to create the ‘optimum conditions’ in 2014.

 And still there is not a word about how he intends to address what the ‘One Nation’ project implies for Scotland. Not a word about how the British state is to be prevented from unilaterally ripping up the devolution settlement; emasculating the Scottish Parliament; eradicating our distinctive political culture and decimating our public services while we dither and waver at the insistence of Pete and the Postponers.

 Again, and again, and again! The consequences of attempting to save Scotland from the British Nationalist ‘One Nation’ project and failing are no different from the consequences that flow from failing to try. Pete Wishart flatly refuses to address or consider or even acknowledge the consequences of indefinitely postponing our new independence referendum.

 If I come across as exasperated and angry it’s because I am not deceived. I know that the British state is not benign. It is because I am not complacent. I know what the British state intends. It is because I am seriously afraid for what will happen to Scotland if we do not make a stand now!

[dudence-blog]

Dear Dudence for 17 October 2017

For a little spice in your life go with a Bloody Maria.  Just swap out the vodka for tequila.  And it's only day drinking if you stopped.  Can't stop! Won't Stop!  With that useful advice on to answering questions people asked of someone else!  Shoot an email to AskDearDudence@gmail.com or reach me on Facebook!

I feel like I’m going to be the downer in this group of questions… I don’t know how to deal with #MeToo as a rape survivor. I’m feeling triggered and angry. Social media is a big part of my job, so I can’t just turn it off all day, but I’m not sure what to do. I keep finding myself going to the bathroom and sobbing. My boss posted on our Facebook page about how “proud” he was of all the women who’ve been sharing their stories and I almost lost it. I haven’t talked to many people about what happened to me, including several members of my family, and I don’t want to “come out” as a survivor through a hashtag. At the same time, I really want to respond. I want to tell people that survivors don’t owe them their stories. I don’t want people to come away from this display of mutual pain and think that by posting a hashtag, they’ve done enough.

Dear Dealing with #MeToo as a Survivor, it hasn’t been reduced to a hashtag so it can trend on social media, it can also be used as a cudgel against people who don’t genuflect enough or in the correct manner.  You don’t have to out yourself as someone who has been raped to complain about the lazy nature of hashtag activism or question the sincerity of folks pretending to be surprised that sexual assault is a crime women disproportionately impacting women.  Getting furious about other people’s benign messages of support is probably not healthy, but it is what it is.  That you have suffered a traumatic experience and feel it is better for yourself to not make is public doesn’t mean it’s the same for others.  Your boss has expressed some solidarity with victims so it might be worth mentioning to him that, while this campaign is trending, it is difficult for you to work this part of your job.

I live in one of the areas of the country that was significantly affected by the recent natural disasters that hit over the past month or so. (Hurricane, flood, fire etc.) Although I used to really enjoy this column, I now find myself reading the questions and feeling extremely angry, as I don't think that the issue of whether or not someone may or may not have said something mean to a coworker qualifies as a real problem when I personally have no power, have to stand in line for hours to buy food, and had to send our son to my parents house to live so he could attend school since our home was severely damaged. I just want to tell people to get over themselves and be happy and grateful that the only problems they are facing are those. They have food, water, and a warm and dry place to sleep. Everything else is really meaningless.

Dear Who Really has a Problem, step away.  When dealing with a tragedy or a disaster some people crave any return to normalcy or an opportunity to spend some time not thinking about how tough their situation currently is.  Clearly that is not what you're getting from this.  It doesn't mean that won't return, but it's not a thing for you right now.  And while "how do I keep kids from attending my party?" is far more First World Problem than "I have no clean drinking water", it is an important question to the person asking.  Life can be hard enough without needing to turn it into a tragedy competition to determine just who has it worse.  Due to unfortunate circumstances, I’ve recently attended a number of wakes. Am I obligated to kneel before the casket and say a brief prayer? I’d been taught that this was the “polite” thing to do, but it feels disingenuous now that I no longer subscribe to any religion. I’m sure the grievers don’t notice or care either way, but should I continue to fake pray?

Dear Wake Etiquette, you're not obligated to pray.  If part of the wake involves filing by the casket to pay your respects it is polite to go with the crowd, pause at the casket, and have a moment.  Whether you spend that moment praying for the eternal salvation of the deceased, hoping the surviving family can find strength or comfort in this difficult time, or to wonder if you can make it home in time to catch the latest Game of Thrones before it gets spoiled online is up to you.  I supposed you could go up to the casket and loudly proclaim that, as an enlightened atheist, you refuse to partake in this silly superstition.  I'm sure that would go over well too.

My girlfriend recently bought a vibrator for us to use together. We're both women if that matters. However, it's been a couple months since and we haven't used it together once. We have had sex several times, but once we were in bed and I suggested we use it and she said it had dead batteries. My question is, should it upset me or worry me that she is clearly using it on her own time?

Dear Should I be Concerned, define “recently”.  If she burned through a set of fresh batteries in two months y’all need to get some better batteries.  Unless you’ve got one of those fancy-pants ones which have an internal battery, and if that’s the case make sure you check that it’s been plugged in before y’all get to your banging.  That being said let’s go ahead and slow your roll high speed; just because she’s (Googles "female equivalent to jacking off", loses 10 hours to Urban Dictionary and all faith in humanity) jilling off without you doesn’t mean she’s going to be cheating on you.  Heck, just because she didn’t want to use a certain vibrator with you doesn’t mean she’s going to be cheating on you; maybe the idea sounded better when she had it and she realized it wasn’t something she wanted to do?  That she wants to occasionally self-bang doesn’t mean she doesn’t want to have sex with you too.  Talk with her about what you want and how you’d like her to give it to you.

I am a 45 year old woman struggling with several issues. I have returned to dating as a middle aged woman. The men I meet are manipulative and tend to dump me after a few weeks. I also drink more than I should (3 to 5 glasses of wine, nightly). As if that is not bad enough, I spend a couple hours a day on dating and kink websites. I feel lost. I started seeing a therapist five months ago. This was after being "ghosted" by a man who was married. I was very hurt at the time. It felt good to vent to the therapist. However, now, after months of weekly appointments, I feel like therapy is worthless.

Dear Too Nice Therapist, you’re being dumped after a few weeks by men you via dating and kink websites?   I’m shocked.  If you’ve spent half a year seeing a therapist weekly and you’re feeling like it isn’t helping you (it’s certainly not worthless; the therapist has been well-compensated) then please, go and find another one.  But I do have to ask, have you addressed your feelings of not making progress with your therapist?  Because a therapist isn't going to be able to make you choose better men; they might help you understand why you keep picking up men who get what they want and move on, but it's still choices you're making. 

My ex husband and I split up over 5 years ago. My daughter was just turning 4 and had a difficult time, but I did everything I could to make the transition easy.  We never did anything "officially", and although her father was horrible to me, he was an excellent dad and I supported them seeing each other every chance they could. In the beginning he would only take her for a few hours some days and overnights occasionally in an effort to limit any social life I could develop. As years passed, he finally met someone and stopped using her as a means to control me. Once he started dating this person, we developed a clear schedule of when she would stay over at his house.

Dear Daughter Dislikes Stepmom, wait, you mean you had a court bless off on a divorce where the child custody agreement is “We’ll wing it”?  Seriously?  Nevermind, I’m getting wrapped around the axle on a tertiary issue.  Let’s go ahead and ignore what your mother wants in this; she’s not helping.  In the absence of a child custody agreement specifying who gets your child when (again, seriously?) I’m thinking this is something your daughter, your ex, and you need to hash out.  Your daughter is 9, she deserves some say in how her life goes; it doesn’t mean what she wants goes, but she gets a say.  It might be that she needs a temporary respite from staying with your ex and Trish.  Your daughter is getting older and just because she’s well-adjusted doesn’t mean she can be feeling some emotions about being with the woman her father prefers over her mom.  Trish might not like the reminder of a previous relationship.  It probably is frustrating to your ex that the child he loves views nights spent with him as a reason for tears.  An advantage of revisiting your custody agreement and including your daughter is it gives her some control over her life, which helps with her buying into the agreement, which helps her adjust to and accept the change.

I am a college aged woman who recently got out of an almost year long polyamorous relationship with another woman and a man (they were pre-involved for years). It was a spectacularly awful breakup. At the moment, the male partner and I are dating but the other woman is out due to attempted physical assault and anger issues (yes, she's been to therapy but stopped). Frankly, there are oodles and oodles of more backstory I could provide but the long and short is I just found out from my male partner that her mysterious internet job is in fact camming. She became a camgirl shortly before she and I met, withheld that information from me purposefully, and is now very popular and ridiculously financially successful.

Dear Unintended Revelations, does she now drive a brand new Nissan Altima?  A polyamorous relationship between a trio of college-aged people exploded in a spectacular way?  NO WAY!  Totally did not see that coming.  You were with her for less than a year, had no idea what she did, and she didn’t didn’t make an effort to see you for 25% of the time you were together?  Yeah, I think it’s fair to say she was putting more effort into being a camgirl than she was into your relationship.  To answer your question about where you go now I’d say you need to move on.  You are going to get none of the validation you think you’re owed by confronting your ex for her perceived slights.  Although. since you found out about her occupation through your boyfriend, her ex-boyfriend, I'll bet confronting her about her infidelity and demanding an explanation or apology will go swimmingly. 

[shooktim-blog]

Whether you’re in Europe, North America or elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, there’s no doubt that the summer of 2019 has already been a hot one. If heat isn’t your thing, there are plenty of places you can still visit to cool off though, which is why I decided to share a few favorites today. This year I’m working with Allianz Travel Insurance to share my thoughts about travel, what makes me happy when I explore the world and why I even travel in the first place. This post is done in partnership with them and I’m excited for the opportunity to share some amazing places to visit this summer. Remember though, no matter where you go travel insurance is always a good idea, as I discuss in this post.

Iceland

I’ve been to Iceland several times now, each trip focusing on a different region of the country. It has very quickly become one of my favorite places to visit for any number of reasons, including how much fun it is to explore. For the best experience though in Iceland, I firmly believe that visitors need to leave the capital city and venture out into the countryside, especially the somewhat-remote northern areas. The northern regions, particularly the Lake Mývatn area, are rich with natural wonders no matter the time of year, but in the summer months the landscapes are green and easy to access without being too hot. Whether you drive yourself or take a tour with a local, there are plenty of natural sights to enjoy from waterfalls and lava fields to natural baths and mountain landscapes. Spending time in the northern tier of Iceland feels like standing on the edge of the world because, well, you are.

Incredible Museums

Even if you do find yourself visiting a place that’s hot in the summer, there are plenty of ways to enjoy yourself without suffering from heat stroke. One of my favorites of course is to visit a great museum. I love museums, but I’m fairly picky about the ones I spend time visiting. My personal interests veer towards history and culture more so than art, and thanks to that natural proclivity I’ve discovered some fairly amazing museums around the world. Any museum I believe is to be treasured because it means that someone or a group of people cared so deeply about a subject that they devoted a significant portion of their lives to showcase what makes it so great. That’s to be admired I think and it makes the museum, almost no matter what the topic, worth at least a short visit. Granted, not all museums are made the same and believe me, I’ve visited some truly horrible ones over the years. But I’ve also had the great opportunity to visit smaller, quirky and off the beaten path institutions that I think are well worth anyone’s time to visit. So when you visit a new city, yes, seek out the famous museums but also do a little research to find those quirky spots that you’ll probably enjoy even more.

Melbourne, Australia

Of course if it’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere that means it’s winter in Australia and a great time to visit. One of my favorite cities in the world just after a few hours of being there – some places you just fall in love with right away and for me that was Melbourne. Still, I felt like I owed it to myself to go back and confirm whether or not this love was for real, or just a one-night stand. On one of my trips to Australia I rearranged the schedule and frankly went out of my way just to have a couple of nights in beautiful Melbourne and you know what? It was totally worth it. I don’t know if it’s the convenient downtown core or just the surprising beauty of the city, but it all clicks for me and it’s not only a place I could visit again and again, but I know I could also happily live there. I’m not alone either; Melbourne frequently makes the top list of most livable cities in the world owing to this unique combination of beautiful neighborhoods, diverse activities and just overall charm.

Cape Town, South Africa

Calling the tip of Africa home, the Mother City is one of the most popular cities in the world for a reason, it’s amazing. Routinely named to the Best in the World lists, Cape Town is unlike any other city you’ve visited before. In a quirky mix of European and African sensibilities, it’s easy to forget that you’re in southern Africa as you stroll around this colonial city. Days could be spent exploring the historical and cultural treasures of The Mother City, as well as admiring the natural beauty that is all encompassing. From the omnipresent Table Mountain to Chapman’s Peak Drive, your jaw will drop many times as you survey the beautiful landscapes that define this area of South Africa. Travel umami is something that is impossible to define, but rather the combination of all elements of a destination that culminates in a sort of perfection that has to be felt to be properly understood. That’s Cape Town and that is certainly South Africa. Long before my first trip to Southern Africa I was told that there is something in the air, something that latches onto your soul and refuses to let go. I naturally didn’t believe them until my first time experiencing it firsthand and then I understood, I got what they were talking about – this special travel umami. That’s simultaneously my top reason why everyone should visit but also the only one I can’t prove. So just trust me, plan a trip and go, go see and feel and taste South Africa and then I dare you to come back and say I was wrong.

Ireland

The Aran Islands are a group of three islands located in Galway Bay on the west coast of Ireland and even in the summer they’re not usually too hot. Largely isolated throughout the centuries, their remote location has defined culture on the islands even up to today. There’s a reason why thousands of tourists visit Inishmore every week during the high season – it’s amazing. Due to its location and history, Inishmore remains a destination that honors its past in a way that is almost unique in Ireland. This is experienced through language and culture, but also the preserved thatched roof homes and ancient stone walled farms dotting the island. Although my time in the Aran Islands was all too brief, it was a highlight of my trip to Ireland. I love visiting small, remote islands, to enjoy both unique cultures as well as gorgeous landscapes. Inishmore is one of the most impressive I’ve seen around the world and instead of satiating my curiosity, my first visit has only fueled a strong desire to return and explore even more.

New Zealand

Like Australia, once again take advantage of the winter weather in the Southern Hemisphere with a visit to New Zealand. If you visit before the snows start, then I recommend driving around to best experience the country. Tackling the Great West Coast Drive on New Zealand’s South Island was one of the most remarkable experiences of my life. State Highway 6 is massive, extending from the northeastern corner of the South Island across the top and then down the length first along the West Coast and then across the Southern Alps. To complete the entire drive would take weeks, and I only had time for the West Coast portions, but even that brief encounter was enough to convince me that this truly is one of the world’s great road trips. The beauty of New Zealand exists on a scale unheard of in other parts of the world. Starting in Greymouth and following the coastline, it seemed as if there was another “once in a lifetime” view every few minutes. Whether it’s rainforests or glaciers, Hobbit country is just as amazing as it appears on the big screen.

Seattle

Sandwiched between lakes and mountains, Seattle’s climate is famously temperate. With a moderate temperature and a vibrant atmosphere, Seattle is one of the best places in the country to escape the summer heat. The city is full of fun things to do like visiting the iconic Space Needle, towering over the city, and exploring the massive Pike Place Market where visitors and locals alike indulge their taste buds with delicious foods and shop for odd gifts. For those who would rather take advantage of the cooler temperatures of Seattle to venture into the great outdoors, the city is a good home base. Washington State has some of the most gorgeous and untouched forests in the country and are perfect for some light day hikes.

Canadian Maritimes

I have spent a fair amount of time exploring Canada and almost never have I had a bad experience. But not all parts of the country get equal attention by international tourists, which is one reason why I want to highlight the provinces that comprise the Maritimes. Specifically, over the last few years I’ve had the great opportunity to explore two Maritime provinces, Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia. Made famous by the ultra-luxury hotel on Fogo Island, Newfoundland has had its fair share of press lately, but there’s so much more to the province than a nice hotel. Whether it’s St. John’s or taking a coastal road trip, the scenery, food and people will quickly endear you to the province. Many of those qualities aren’t endemic to Newfoundland though, they’re part of the overall Maritime experience, as I learned after spending a week in Nova Scotia. Those same kind and very curious people made the trip remarkable, accentuated by natural wonders like the Bay of Fundy and a surprisingly high level of great food. So skip some of the more flashy provinces and instead plan to spend some time along the gorgeous Atlantic seaboard of Canada.

What would you add to this list?

The post Summer Loving – Great Places to Visit When Temperatures Soar appeared first on LandLopers.

[shadowporcupine]

Delegation of 'Matters'

Society treats geniuses differently. Everyone else has something tangible to contribute; to write, to sing, to in-some-abstract-way, motivate us all to work together. Because the moment we can't, "crime" is justified by the lack of any consensus of pretense necessary to call it "crime" anymore. In lieu of collapse, all the delegated thought has to go somewhere, to think on behalf of society. To work out the ultimate outcome of its values, to make sense of the intangibles that enable the abstract process known as "civilization" to (continue to) form.

It is very often the case that a "genius," (your word, not mine) or: someone who appears to be really great at thinking, is actually a very hard and earnest worker, the equal of any blue-collar workman. Just as often, probably, a genius is relegated to the realm of the "mad," (again—your words; not mine) ostracized by the same society who is actively trying to delegate so many responsibilities that even thought itself no longer becomes their possession. Needless to say—(but then again, clearly not)—this system is unsustainable. Unless and until we are conscious of this very material fact of coordinating together through delegation (rather than emergence, as an example) to form a stable civilization capable of encompassing many disparate societies, our cycle can only repeat. Civilization will have nothing to do BUT collapse if it feels that it can get along without thinking. This is very basic and I should think I'd not have to argue it.

But if I'm going to let you call me a genius, then I can't exactly afford not to. To fail to argue my case, in this case, would be equivalent to letting society sit in its blissfully unthinking state and drive itself toward a future it can neither predict nor prevent. If "thought" is thought to be too abstract a notion to run civilization, to orchestrate societies affairs, if the obvious mechanics of running a business, organization, or group of individuals are considered "too obvious" for the effort that goes into thinking about them, then society is in constant conflict with itself and wholly and entirely incapable of appreciating the efforts of its administrative layer. This disconnect is perfectly allowable, because civilization is allowed to collapse. Thoughts are allowed to be incorrect, overly idealistic, or arbitrarily unmatched to reality. You get to fail, you get to be wrong. Therefore, any group of individual is allowed to be collectively wrong. This seeds collapse.

This is good. This means that every failing society will invariably vanish from this Earth. Or not even that—from the very universe. I can't imagine there's a planet out there where life is free to blind itself to responsibility all the way up to the moment of its own technological singularity and venturing forth into space. Except, if mine does, then that is the precise norm I must assume is universal. If this is the case, then Fermi's paradox is easily resolved—the universe simply lacks the intelligence necessary to explore the stars. In this case, the only thing that can reliably occupy interstellar medium is piracy. Those who stole away from their burgeoning civilizations, took entire ships in their wake, and decided they had enough of civilization to never try it again.

One theme persists throughout our attempts at interstellar media—the conflicts of societies continuing upwards into the heavens. Across the vastness of space. Our fiction would seem to have us believe that we really are stupid, that we can't seem to do anything right—as a society. I'd be temped to agree, but in doing so I'd only be re-delegating my responsibility to think, which I will utterly refuse to do, in any situation. There is no place I can walk, where to have walked would imply I had given up my sovereign right to think. There is no place I can meet, where I would feel that my thoughts cannot become relevant. There is no place, frankly, in this universe, where I will feel like I don't have an earnest reason to think out every possibility to completion.

I could iterate this process, with every person in turn, slowly eroding the ridiculous facade of a blissfully ignorant society incapable of organic collapse and generating the world I wish to see, but this would be slow. Too slow for my tastes. Far too slow for what I consider my intellect to be qualified to achieve. I have a responsibility, to myself, to believe that society can improve faster than a piecemeal dissemination of a non-viral argument. The moment I don't, I haven't just failed society—I'll have failed myself. Because in the end, this argument is really just a long drawn out way of saying that I do have something to contribute. (For the more formal reasoners among you, consider it a proof by contradiction.) Even were I to grow mad, is that not better than "criminal" in your eyes? Or the eyes of your brother? Neighbor? Mayor? Chief?

I do see society as far beneath me; I can't help it. If there were another way for me to see it, I would entertain that argument. I see where we are lacking, I know what the solution is. I know why it spreads at the rate is does, and why hopelessness is uneconomical to resolve. But it is because I can see these things that I have to believe what has become my core mantra:

I can find a better answer.

And it comes with just as much madness as it does bear any responsibility. That much I can't deny. Madness is the risk society runs of is genius, of its talent. We can as well imagine a defecting spy, or an idealistic military leader changing sides in a moment of heatlessness between battles. Really, they can end war, but it requires compromise. A compromise they are often prevented from being allowed to make. In our society, a soldier may well be the one who punishes a general from defecting, and so all this does it cut off the head of the "snake." (Or more accurately reflective of the actual chain of command: Hydra.)

Every member of society, no matter how small or large, suffers this conflict. In my case, in the case of the genius, yes, it is with madness. But this is, at the very least in retrospect, an obvious consequence of the role delegated to me by society.

To think.

Would it not be obvious that our thoughts can drive us mad at times? Given the delegation of thought, would it not stand to reason that the very responsibility of a genius is to never stop thinking? To run the risk of being driven mad at all times? Is this capacity, the natural resistance to such madness, not what defines a great thinker, or a great mind?

It seems simple once said, and yet I've never heard it before. No argument, so concise, has ever crossed the periphery of my mind before. This is a first for me, to finally understand what my role is in this great big pretense of a society. I searched far and wide but the answer was never out there because no genius had had the gall to make this argument before. Perhaps we needed one to go just a wee bit mad before one of them would finally crack this argument.

The question now is, not how you will judge me, or whether or not my genius is true. If it has even the slightest chance of being true, you can scarcely dismiss it with something so primitive as an ad hominem attack. Society has at least reached the levels of intellect necessary to comprehend why that is not an answer. (And if it hadn't, then I'd perhaps be a bit less mad about it.) But more to the point, regardless of any social evolution, it logically follows:

The question now is whether or not I will become mad.

I will tell you now, why I have reason to be mad, and why I do not have reason to be mad.

I have reason to be mad, because society would wish to insist that its own measures were what stopped me from becoming mad in this moment. Indeed, if I bought this argument, I would become very mad.

I will prevent my own madness by not stewing in these emotions, and allowing the world to react to my thought process at the exact moment when I consider it most productive for it to react. To cycle about within myself would only create a more manic through process, something that is harder to relate to. Something that might be called "mad."

I have no reason to be mad, quite simply, because I have no reason to be called mad.

It is on this flimsiest of premises that I consider it my responsibility to totter. You may well conceive within yourself of infinitely many reasons to not want to be mad, while yet I move forward with but a single one. I am not asking your permission to drive myself mad; indeed, your permission couldn't be more powerless over the matter. Instead I am telling you, that that one reason is all you can allow yourself to hoist upon me. To burden me more, with anything more than thought, would be to elect for a mad genius. I should like to say, "And nobody wants that."

But that would be a lie.

I know where you hide your innermost taboos, and I know how to cross them. If you have no reason to, then you admit to yourself that I have no reason to. Because for it to be a taboo to begin with, you must know how to cross it.

To let you think that this battle was not being waged, would be the very image of irresponsibility. Given my beliefs.

The infinite abyss is where I make my home.

[politicalfilth-blog]

Assange Talks Brennan, CIA and the Future of Journalism

We Are Change

Imagine being asked if the Director of the CIA has a personal vendetta against you. Few could contemplate being in that boat. Yet it’s just another day in Julian Assange’s remarkable existence.

Assange answered that question and many more, in a live Periscope audio press conference last Thursday.

“The answer is I don’t know. Normally, as an analyst of political affairs we don’t look at things in terms of personal grudges, we think it has usually poor explanatory power… But John Brennan, in his testimony before Congress Thursday before last, at the John McCain put together in the Senate, he does act a little unusually when he is asked the question about me personally. In fact, he almost spits. It’s possibly related to, that we published materials allegedly from a 16-year-old hacker, up in the North Midlands of England, which was his private security clearance application form and a review from the CIA and the Auditor-General… if you’re hacked by a 16-year-old kid and you’re the head of the CIA and what is published is quite embarrassing to your prestige then perhaps you take it personally.” – Julian Assange

The size and significance of the US Department of Justice investigation into WikiLeaks is without precedent. No one really knows how many WikiLeaks journalists, supporters, funders and partners are also on the line.

Assange was asked by well-known WikiLeaks associate Renata Avila, a Human Rights lawyer from Guatemala, submitted a question in via social media on the hashtag #AskWL about this.

She asked: “How many journalists are under investigation for their collaboration in Cablegate publications and spheres?”

“It’s a very interesting question. The answer is unknown. That is part of the problem with the U.S. case against WikiLeaks and me which was erected by the Department of Justice. With the Grand Jury being in Alexandria, Virginia. The National Security Division of the Department of Justice and the Criminal Division have been running that case since the middle of 2010. They maintain, as of this year, that it continues. It’s something that has affected many people… around half a dozen individuals have gone into exile… There has been many attempts by the press in the United States and our lawyers and Chelsea Manning’s lawyers and EPIC – the Electronic Privacy and Information Centre – and EFF, to get hold of some of the status of that investigation, who its affected, what possibly illegal investigative techniques have been used… They maintain, in court filings this year, that to reveal any substantial information about that case would be to negatively effect the pending prosecution. What we have as a result is, process as punishment… It really is a large case. There’s not only that we can see this by people being pulled into the Grand Jury and so on and those other activities, but statements made by the US government officially to Australian diplomats who reported those cables back to the Australian government maintained that the United States government said that it was of unprecedented scale and nature.” – Julian Assange

Since Assange first made the public offer last November to accept extradition to the United States if Chelsea Manning received clemency, there has been a huge amount of speculation in the press on whether this would go ahead. What is stopping this occurring? Well, it turns out that the United States and the United Kingdom refuse to own up to whether or not there even is an extradition request.

“This is exactly the problem… As of this year, 2017, they maintain, the DOJ Criminal Division, National Security Division, that the case proceeds, but what is the purpose of it? It doesn’t make sense to keep it going for 7 years unless you have a sealed indictment that you’re waiting to serve on people. Now, our lawyers have asked the United Kingdom, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to tell us, have they received a US extradition request for me yet and the response by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is that they refuse to confirm or deny whether they have received such a request… just today, the L’Espresso reporter Stefania Maurizi has got a response back from the UK Crown Prosecution Service saying once again, that it refuses to confirm or deny whether there is an extradition request live in the United Kingdom from the United States.” – Julian Assange

Understandably, Assange expressed great satisfaction with the clemency of Manning and deferred to the Obama administration’s claim that they had not made the decision to free Manning based on Assange’s offer.

“We are very, very happy that Manning has received clemency. It is a major strategic victory to have achieved that, both for Chelsea Manning and everything that she has had to suffer over the last 7 years. It was a terrible case, Barack Obama should have granted her clemency at the least in his first term, there was no need to wait for such a long period to do it… Now, interestingly, the Obama White House in order to, well maybe it’s the truth but perhaps in order to look tough, has distanced itself and it says that they didn’t give Chelsea Manning clemency because of my offer in September and later on. So it’s not something that can be taken away, the clemency, politically at least, because the Obama administration says it is not dependent on anything that I do. But I’ve always been willing to go to the United States provided that my rights are respected because this is a case that should never have occurred. It is fundamentally unjust in relation to my staff, in relation to WikiLeaks as a publisher, in relation to the terrible precedents that it will set under the 1st Amendment.” – Julian Assange

Assange’s remarks on the current state of journalism and of public information systems as a whole, were fascinating. He spoke first to mass media censorship and shortsightedness, and later to the present outlook for journalism as a whole. He warned the establishment press that if they cheer his downfall, that they would inevitably be empowering or emboldening political enemies of transparency to make other journalists the targets of the future.

“In some ways right now is a golden age of journalism in English. Because it’s becoming so cheap to become a publisher so there’s a lot more variety in publishers that are cropping up. Each one has their different interests and different angles, each one has their different loyalties and this clash of voices is more likely to reveal the truth… there is a lot of bad journalists, it’s true. Not accurate and who are not loyal to protecting the basic interests of the press, the American people and people globally which is the right to speak and to publish and to communicate to each other… There’s been a type of frankly disturbing glee trying to decontextualise some of my remarks, hoping or lusting it even seems, for my extradition to the United States for an entirely bogus case which would set a very deleterious precedent for people’s rights to publish across the board. So, come on guys, what are you doing? You’re going to take yourselves out just like that if you keep carrying on jumping after every ball the administration throws.” – Julian Assange

Of course, one of the questions on everyone’s lips is whether WikiLeaks will be as critical of Trump’s administration.

“Yes! It’s a very interesting time… From a security publisher point of view who specialises a lot in national security issues, this conflict which has developed between the embryonic Trump administration and the Central Intelligence Agency… we think will lead to dissidents and sources in both camps coming forward. We’ve already seen that on the CIA side from the Obama administration… so, you know, we’re looking forward to that conflict and other conflicts to occur among this new administration. There has been Cabinet members amongst this new administration which have said appalling things in the past about the rights of the press, the bona fide rights of the press and WikiLeaks and myself personally so we are under no illusions that there are people in that Cabinet that are of significant concern to WikiLeaks and should be of significant concern to those concerned with press freedoms in general.” – Julian Assange

Apparently the DOJ persecution of WikiLeaks includes warrants for charges that effectively equate publishing with terrorism.

“There has been a 7-year long attempt to build a prosecution against WikiLeaks and… it’s active and ongoing. Now the warrants have five charge types. They have the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Section 1A which was defined by the Patriot Act as electronic terrorism. What the hell is going on trying to say that publishing is electronic terrorism?” – Julian Assange

The misnomer that WikiLeaks goes after the United States specifically was raised, and quickly debunked.

“It doesn’t. It’s absolute nonsense. In the last months we have published hundreds of thousands of documents about other countries, Germany and Turkey included, in fact in total volume, way more than we published during the US election cycle. People of a particular culture, or of a particular language group, they are interested in their culture and their language group so there is a selection bias that people read about things that are connected to them and when we publish in a different language or about a different culture, people are not aware of it.” – Julian Assange

Due to the massive growth in reach and popularity that WikiLeaks has enjoyed as a result of the DNC and Podesta emails, particularly among US citizens, in response to a query about how people could help, Assange gave fans some advice for how they can assist WikiLeaks and step up for freedom of information in general.

“Go to WikiLeaks.org and make sure we’re really cashed up for the conflict ahead… Either you have time or you have a skill or financial resources. If you have financial resources then you should give them to those organisations which seem to be quite efficient in what they are doing in promoting the freedom of the press. Obviously that’s WikiLeaks, organizations like Courage, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation in the United States, Wau Holland Foundation in Germany, Amnesty International Spain has done a really good job with the Manning case, with the Manning clemency, or if you have a skill then you can… use that skill directly to volunteer for some of these organisations or do something on your own, start your own thing. If you just have time and no skills and no money then use that time in the public debate to correct factual inaccuracies for example, or to amplify those people who are doing good work.” – Julian Assange

One person wanted to know how WikiLeaks staff keep motivated under the massive pressures on them and the trials and tribulations that they face. The answer? Empathy.

“That’s an interesting question. At different times of the year there might be different views on what the morale is like… I guess part of how I maintain morale is everyone goes well, goddamnit, if Julian can do it in that situation, then I can do it in the situation that I’m in. For myself, well I love what we’re doing. I like to think—well who wouldn’t like to do the sort of stuff that WikiLeaks does? We help understand the world in a way which was never done before, we have published more than 10 million documents that never appeared in the public record before. That’s a kind of rebel library of Alexandria, a great intellectual fruit that has contributed to justice all around the world, releasing innocent people from prison, taking their place in a variety of elections, leading to all sorts of reforms… we’re involved in the conflict of defending it, defending our rights to publish and encompassing within that the rights of others to also publish and secure information in the way that we do.” – Julian Assange

RiseUp.net, a popular ISP/email provider for activists and dissidents around the world, may have been served with a gag order by US federal authorities. Assange explained in some depth what the implications of RiseUp possibly having received such an order are and what a “warrant canary” is—the method by which organizations at risk of receiving one can get around the requirement to not disclose it.

“This concerns something interesting which is a technique developed in response to gag orders principally in the United States but also extending to other countries as well… a technique was developed called a canary which is to say, every three months, you say that you haven’t received a gag order and handed over information. That’s the normal course of business. Then if you don’t do that one month, then the effective statement is that you have received a gag order… there’s a quite well-known organisation called Rise Up… It was perhaps late with its warranted canary statement… WikiLeaks doesn’t use any particular email provider and we assume that email itself is compromised. So it’s not something that affects us. Rise Up on their behalf have said none of their information is affected. There’s clearly something like an attempted subpoena or something like that for Rise Up which is why they’re saying that they needed legal advice but can’t talk about it…” – Julian Assange

WikiLeaks have stated several times that 2017 is going to be an absolutely huge year for them, which is almost unfathomable considering the astronomical significance and impact they had in both the political and media spheres in 2016. Assange dished a few more details on what is yet to come.

“We have a lot of material to get through, it takes time… We do have a perfect record for accurate vetting of what we’ve published, going back for 10 years… But I’m very excited, it’s, you know, information that concerns everyone. Some information for some countries, big corporations, government behaviour etcetera. You know, I like doing this, I’m in love with the publications that we have coming.” – Julian Assange

There was a query about whether WikiLeaks would be doing any releases related to the upcoming 2017 election in Germany. Assange pointed out that WikiLeaks have already been pretty consistently releasing information of importance to German citizens. He also pointed out that allegations of Russian hacking had also been made by Germany in response to WikiLeaks publications, and had been disproven.

“We have published more than 60,000 pages of material about the BND NSA inquiry in the German parliament. So after the Snowden revelations in 2013 the Bundestag set up an inquiry panel to look into whether the BND had been illicitly passing information to the National Security Agency and there’s several findings out already which, the answer is yes they had. They were also engaged in a number of unlawful domestic programs, at least a dozen… So we published those and the response was interesting. The first response was that it was thought that this was probably a Parliamentary insider. The second response came out through Focus magazine and Focus magazine is a magazine that is notorious at least within WikiLeaks as having a very close relationship with the BND. In fact, we exposed them in 2009 as having met more than 54 times, just one of their journalists, with a BND handler and they were involved in hunting down the sources of other journalists. So Focus magazine put out a statement from a government security official, pretty clearly a BND official, claiming that it was likely or that they assessed that it was likely that this material that we had published from the German Parliament actually came from Russian hackers. Now, so clearly resonating with certain attacks on us by some members of the US press. And just two weeks later, the Commission of Inquiry into the leak, a formal prosecutor was appointed by the Parliament to investigate. They came out and said no, actually we think this must have come from the German Parliament. They gave a simple argument for example, they say that some Russian hack they had had back in 2015 had taken 30 megabytes or 50 megabytes of data but we had published 90. So it was literally impossible that it could have been the Russians. But there is that environment now where you can see the incentives. So whatever propaganda Russia may be putting out through RT or elsewhere, and it certainly has its angle on things, you can see the incentive for incumbents like Merkel, just as we could see with Clinton, to try and hype up an issue about potential Russian involvement… that’s something we’re going to see I assume in the German election and in the French election regardless of what the Russians are doing or not doing.” – Julian Assange

Assange was also asked if he had any insight into Obama’s high approval rating and respectively, Trump’s low one.

“Trump is not a politician. He’s a beginning politician. So he says things that are confrontational or easy to take out of context, or offend people. So that would be a prime reason and Obama’s rather slick. But similarly, it’s true that the majority of the media, perhaps with the exception of Fox News, was fully in the tank for Clinton during this election cycle and kind of whipped up a class hysteria about what they were saying was effectively that the leader of the white trash was going to take over and it would all be a terrible disaster and that everyone in their class had to rally together to prevent this from happening. I’m not defending Trump or his policies… but by the same token I don’t think I’m saying anything new by saying that there was a deeply partisinised atmosphere in this election… the behaviour in the press on both sides but the majority was on the Clinton side, was terrible, in terms of accuracy, absolutely terrible…  respect for the press is at a record low in the United States.” – Julian Assange

Yet another question about the matter of extradition was raised – that of whether he should simply go to Sweden, where there is an outstanding arrest warrant, although there are still no charges.

“…I was granted asylum at this Embassy because of the persecution involved in the US case… a lot has happened in this case in the United States, with people being hauled into the Grand Jury, forced to testify, warrants being spewed out all over the place for information, planeloads of FBI agents illicitly engaged in activities, interrogating people in other countries etcetera so there’s a lot going on. In relation to Sweden, let’s be clear, I have never been charged at any stage, I have already been previously cleared by the Chief Prosecutor in Stockholm in relation to exactly the same allegation and the United Nations twice last year has formally found that I am being illegally detained in relation to it. Despite all that, I have asked and my lawyers have asked and the state of Ecuador have asked that Sweden simply give a guarantee that I will not be extradited to the United States and they refuse to do so, absolutely refuse and instead this enormous fuss and expense and diplomatic costs.” – Julian Assange

Another predictable question was asked by a viewer, that has been the subject of much speculation. Will Trump go any easier on WikiLeaks than his predecessors?

“It remains to be seen… A publisher has the duty to publish. That’s its number one duty. That’s what its function is in society… and I’m an Australian citizen publishing from Europe. What the hell is going on with this jurisdictional overreach, trying to apply US law, which shouldn’t be applied to publishers even in the United States because of the First Amendment… This is an absurd overreach which chills the climates for publishers to scrutinise and help the public understand what is going on with the most powerful organizations in our state and why is it important for the most powerful organisations to be scrutinised? Well, because when they get it wrong, when they act badly or incompetently, it is that power, that military intelligence or governmental of the enormous corporation like Google, it is that power that can cause widespread systematic damage and loss of life, as it has done, as we have seen in Syria and Iraq and in Libya.” – Julian Assange

The Podesta emails revealed that Obama’s Cabinet was already picked prior to his inauguration and that corporate interests were right in the thick of making those decisions. Assange was asked if we can expect the same thing from Trump.

“One of my favourite emails from the Podesta emails that we published is correspondence with John Podesta and a Citibank official. Now that Citibank official seemed to be the primary person putting together the Obama cabinet back in 2008. Now, those people who remember that period will remember that Obama was big with the banks. He got a lot of cash from the banks and it seems to have translated into this senior Citibank executive being absolutely central… more than 50 percent of the people [appointed] according to an article in the New Republic which analyzed it, were on the Citibank list. It would be interesting to think what the equivalent is in the Trump Cabinet selection… we do see three ex-Goldman Sachs people in the Trump Cabinet.” – Julian Assange

One really smart question was about why none of WikiLeaks partners in printing the Afghan and Iraq War Logs and Cablegate appear to be being equally persecuted as WikiLeaks is. Assange shed a lot of light on this—it is strategy by the DOJ.

“I’d just say that of course the DOJ has a political technique, it has a theory, about how its going to separate the herd, to take WikiLeaks off to the side for a beating and perhaps leave the New York Times and the other partners alone… It’s theory seems to be, based on the warrants and some statements that it has made, that WikiLeaks is different. Why is WikiLeaks different? Because WikiLeaks dealt with the source. WikiLeaks, if you like, brought in the fish that we then published and we shared with others in the media in order to get more eyeballs and better analysis and therefore WikiLeaks is different in this way. While that may be of some salve to The Guardian and Le Monde and more than 100 other publishing partners that we have, it shouldn’t be, because it’s not just about who is swept up into this particular prosecution. This prosecution will set precedents. It will set precedents about what is tolerable behaviour by the DOJ and if it is tolerable behaviour in law and politically for the administration to go after publishers and go after their sources and say that every interaction between a national security journalist and their source is a conspiracy, in general, and a conspiracy to commit espionage, and the passing of electronic information falls under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Section 1A, electronic terrorism, if national security journalism is electronic terrorism and espionage then that is the end of national security journalism in the United States and we like to joke that if that happens, well all sources will just have to come to WikiLeaks.” – Julian Assange

There has been both curiosity and conjecture about what WikiLeaks publications for 2017 contain. Assange had previously mentioned that Google was at least one subject on which new revelations would be coming. As usual, Assange deftly avoided giving too much away. However, he did make the point that he isn’t actually in charge of the scheduling of what comes out when.

“You can expect a nice publication on Google in 2017. We have a lot of upcoming publications, I don’t want to say which one’s first. Actually, it might surprise some of you but even I don’t know which one we’re going to do first. It does depend on what’s in the news and what’s taking up the news cycle or is there a company or government department prominent for some other reason.” – Julian Assange

Some speculate that there is a growing hostility between the European Union and Trump. It is true that, like most of the world, the EU was prepared for a Clinton victory. Trump’s installation as President of the United States was, to put it mildly, a surprise.

Assange did not give a particular position on whether conflict between the parties was likely, but did point out that the intensity of the current geopolitical situation was fascinating from WikiLeaks’ perspective.

“I think, from a journalistic perspective, its very interesting. Because those kinds of conflicts, say between Merkel and Trump, allow you to examine, they create a market, they create an audience that is receptive for information about Merkel in the United States and an audience in Germany that is receptive to information about Trump. The general phenomena is quite, I’m not saying it’s good government or good diplomacy but from WikiLeaks perspective we like to see this kind of churn and invigoration and everything being reconsidered.” – Julian Assange

There has been an infinite number of breaches of due process in the handling of Assange’s case, by a variety of state parties, tracking back years. Assange gave a very enlightening description of how and why the rule of law is suspended in high profile political situations like his.

“There was a very unusual statement by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2011, to their counterparts in Sweden, which was ‘don’t worry, we’re not treating his extradition like a normal extradition case.’ Well there’s quite a lot of material actually, you should go to Justice4Assange.com, and you can read all about that. When you’re involved in a situation like this yourself, what you see is that when the politics becomes significant enough then everything becomes political. In terms of political philosophy, it makes perfect sense. Which is that various institutions within a state such as the judiciary, are functions of the state and the state is the result of two things, a political process and a security process. That is what constructs and maintains the state in the first place. So if the security aspect becomes too high or the political aspect becomes too high then the rule of law starts to become too rubbery and can eventually be swept aside. Now that’s I suppose, in a positive sense, with the Chelsea Manning clemency. But it does happen frequently in the negative sense and that’s the case for me.” – Julian Assange

Unfortunately, like many exiles, Assange has been all but outright abandoned by his own government, who have refused to advocate on his behalf or to seek redress for the breaches of his rights under international law. In fact, they have gone so far as to openly collaborate with his persecutors. Assange was philosophical about this but also hopeful that there may be some change to their stance in the future.

“Australia is… a colonial country, population just over 20 million, speaks English and is in the middle of nowhere. So the result is that it’s not near its close friends culturally. It’s in the Five Eyes alliance with the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the white, English-speaking countries and unfortunately it doesn’t have an independent foreign policy. Its foreign policy cues are taken from the United States and from the United Kingdom with which it is deeply integrated in terms of its military and intelligence services. Anyway, it’s something that’s affected not just me, it’s affected a number of Australians who have been imprisoned overseas in say the United States but also in other states that the Australian government wants to have a security relationship with. It essentially abandons them. It has done so in this case. In fact, the Australian intelligence services gave information to the United States, they looked into cancelling my passport, the then-Prime Minister said that I was engaged in illegal acts, and all of that was found to be untrue. So the Australian investigation found that I had broken no Australian law and I have won the peak journalism prize in Australia which is the Walkley. Although there’s popular support in Australia and support in the press and a lot of support in the legal community the government so far has done nothing. But there might be some change. There’s a little bit of talk in Parliament that perhaps things should change.” – Julian Assange

A question about Facebook’s involvement in creating systems to supposedly fight fake news saw Assange really open up. He talked about how the ways we share information are changing and the impacts of that, specifically from the perspective of governments and the ruling elites, who traditionally rely on the ability to control the ways in which information is communicated in order to control their populaces.

For me, this was by far the most fascinating portion of the press conference and a great note to finish on.

“You know they’re talking about the ecosystem of information flow in a modern civilisation that Facebook forms an important part of and Facebook as it became rich has integrated… with the US establishment, so other large companies who are dealing with the State Department etcetera… I guess Peter Thiel is an exception on the Facebook board, but it was more or less in the tank for Clinton, as far as Facebook ownership and management was concerned. So of course they didn’t like to see that Facebook was spreading a lot of stories critical of the candidate that they had backed. Now some of those were genuinely fake stories… but I assume the majority was true, then there was our information which was definitely true. So there’s a breaking of one of the most important control structures in a democracy and that is who controls the media and the effects that the media has on people reading it… if you don’t want to use a truncheon to keep people in line, you need to use their perceptions to keep them in line. So what is involved in managing people’s perceptions? Well, traditionally that’s who controls publishing and broadcasts and now organizations like Facebook are permitting many, many people to publish, billions, at the click of a button. So that is obviously breaking down the control structure. Now the control structure is there for bad reasons and it is there for good reasons. The bad reasons are principally to keep whatever the ruling class in any particular country in rule and the good reasons are well maybe some of those rules are for good reasons. So the control structure is breaking down and Facebook’s traditional position is of being quite frightened of being accused of manipulating the priorities of what you see for reasons other than you paying the money, has resulted in… more or less fair distribution of what people think, to each other. But when you have more or less fair distribution of what people think to each other, that is a new circumstance in a democracy. So something else must change because the structures of a democracy, the relative powers of different institutions and cultural norms exist in an equilibrium which is mediated by information flow structures. So when the information flow structures change, the other parts of society must also change to enter into a new equilibrium. But before the new equilibrium is established, there is a disequilibrium and part of the election of Donald Trump is that phenomena taking place.” – Julian Assange

The aware and the learned will find the above fascinating. But there are some people who fail to grasp philosophy or reason, who don’t care to analyze or aspire to influence great power, who can’t be reached through education or through history, or sociopolitical and geopolitical narrative.

But all is not lost. Because we can always get to them through pictures of cats!

The living proof of this is Julian Assange’s pet kitten, @EmbassyCat, who became an instant viral hit in 2016.

But there has been a “paws” in Embassy Cat’s publishing schedule.

“I’m not going to lie, it’s a tough situation to be illegally kept in an Embassy for four and a half years despite the UN saying that you’re unlawfully detained, it’s tough on me, it’s tough on my young children, I have a family under the age of 10, and so they were concerned about me and so they got me a cat. It’s a bit pathetic, it’s not a replacement for your family but interestingly, psychologically, actually it’s quite good. It’s why you give long-term prisoners cats. If they’re lifers for example and all the staff that come in the Embassy in the day, they all dote on the cat etcetera. But we have a Twitter account for the cat. With, ah, kind of publication intensity over the last few months, Ecuador cutting off the internet briefly, etcetera, there’s a lot of other stuff going on so we haven’t had the time to take and publish as many cat photos as we’d like.” – Julian Assange

We live in remarkable times of deep fluctuating change. Few could imagine what the last 10 years would have been like without WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and EmbassyCat!

If the world’s citizenry continues to unite around them, we won’t have to.

It has been said that all wars end. Even the Hundred Years War, came to its inevitable conclusion.

The sooner the War on Whistleblowers and the War on Journalism ends, the better. For all of us.

  The post Assange Talks Brennan, CIA and the Future of Journalism appeared first on We Are Change.

from We Are Change http://wearechange.org/assange-talks-brennan-cia-future-journalism/