#i think its important that some people refuse to publicly identify one way or another

[fizzysbathtub]

If you ascribe to the theory of structural dissociation (I don't, but there are some parts that sound perhaps correct, like this one), then you think that all brains start out with no integrated "self" (i.e. plural) and DID happens when childhood trauma prevents the early headmates from fusing into one person. Sooooooo... genuine question. Wouldnt that make all systems that formed this way technically endogenic?? Maybe a lot of alters were formed due to trauma, but the system as a whole wasnt, it was just affected by it.

Just to be abundantly clear in case the plural tags weren't already, I am not looking to hear from anti endos.

[shihalyfie]

Out of curiosity, I’ve noticed you don’t touch on tri, any particular reason? I know a lot of fans myself included don’t care for it but I don’t wanna assume that’s the case

I had a feeling I was going to get this question eventually, and I tussled with myself for quite a while on whether I should answer it publicly or privately, since this is a blog I’d like to mostly dedicate to appreciating the nuances and themes within Adventure and 02 and how carefully they handled all of the topics within, and I’d like to hold back on negativity for the most part (just because I talk about there being a meaningful reason behind most creative decisions in Adventure and 02 doesn’t mean I necessarily like all of them, I just don’t feel like this is the place to be adding those kinds of personal sentiments, because this is meant to be an analysis blog, not a review blog). That said, my meta has been getting a lot of traction lately (thank you so much! I really appreciate it!) and I do feel like this question must have crossed people’s minds at some point since it is a bit of an elephant in the room, so I think people have the right to know the answer.

To those of you reading this who are fans of tri., I sincerely apologize, since some less than kind things are going to be in this answer (although I do hope that maybe the tag would have successfully caught in some blacklists for those trying to avoid this kind of negativity).

The short version of the answer is that “I couldn’t get it to work, and I don’t have the energy to do it.” The long version of the answer is that I did actually try to analyze and pick apart tri. in detail a year ago, but unlike with Adventure and 02, where looking at it deeply and trying to extract details out of it revealed that a lot of it did make sense or at least have a reason behind it, looking at tri. with this level of depth made it fall apart even more. The contradictions and things that don’t make sense aren’t just one or two things you could safely ignore like with, say, Armor Evolution to the Unknown or Tag Tamers or Hurricane Touchdown, but practically permeate the entire text of it (and this is especially the case when you bring 02 into play, but even if you were to isolate Adventure into a vacuum, there are too many things that still don’t make sense), and it’s on every level as well; not just plot and worldbuilding, but also meaningful theme.

In the end, I don’t think this is just something that can be chalked up to mere happenstance, and I think the core of the problem is something that can be accurately summarized in the story of the two tri. scriptwriters who were fans of the original series, but kept getting their scripts rejected because it wasn’t “mature” enough. It’s not limited to just this incident, and it permeates a lot of the sentiments behind what you hear in tri. staff testimony -- a constant sentiment that the original series was a “kids’ show” that didn’t go into any kind of meaningful depth, and that the new series was meant to be “mature” in comparison. This is very, very painful for me to read, as someone who adores the original series because it had a significant level of depth and nuance that so many kids’ shows at the time wouldn’t even dare (and sometimes even to its detriment, since I’ve often complained how the series was too subtle for its own good, or kept going into things that would go over its target audience’s heads) -- contrast the statement about 02 that they wanted it to be a lighter series at first, but felt that it would be wrong to shy away from important things they wanted to say.

The entire premise of the series doesn’t work if you take even a single Adventure episode into account (45, which singlehandedly dismantles most of how tri. is even supposed to work), and there’s this thread of acting like the morality of killing/the morality of friendly fire was somehow new to this series when it comprised a whole quarter of Adventure and nearly the entirety of 02, and with so many other sentiments like this, the only conclusion I can reach is that they cared so much about that “maturity” that actually paying any mind to the series it was meant to be a sequel to was that low on the priority list. For me, who's mainly here to pay respect to the level of detail and thought and depth that the original Adventure and 02 staff put into their series, it just feels unfair to expect me to bend over backwards and compromise the integrity of the analysis just to make it “comply” with a series that never intended to be consistent or make sense in the first place.

Even if you do selectively include tri. elements, the more you try to involve, the more all of the contradictory facts and themes between Adventure/02 and tri. come into conflict like two magnets with the wrong sides facing each other, and you are repeatedly going to come into crossroads where you will have to commit to one over the other. At that point, the sheer level of speculation and workarounds to make it happen, and the things you'd have to toss out or modify from what was originally meant to be a comprehensive analysis, make it into less of an analysis and more headcanon and fanfiction. Which is perfectly fine if you want to go that route, I mean -- it's just that this isn't what this blog is for, because I'm trying to analyze and inspect what (the very uniformly consistent) Adventure and 02 were trying to say before another series (one that clearly had zero fundamental interest in maintaining any of that) came around fifteen years later. I include Kizuna mainly because it is incredibly easy to fit in comparison, given that it not only had original staff, but also is clearly made with just as much attention to detail and focus on meaningful theme as the original series was, and so it’s fairly easy to integrate it into an Adventure/02 analysis without much trouble -- in fact, Kizuna additions conversely often enhance and further elaborate on things that were already in the original series, so the helpful additions it adds far outweigh the work it takes to include it -- but that’s not the case for tri. at all.

Nevertheless, as I said, this is not a blog meant to focus on negativity. There are people who found something in tri. that spoke to them, or don’t really put so much weight into what the staff said or thought, and would like to see it in a way that works for them. I personally encourage this sentiment; just because I happen to be someone who treasures Adventure and 02′s integrity so much that I refuse to compromise does not mean I should inflict these feelings on others who don’t see it the same way. Because of that, I personally felt it was better to simply not cover it, rather than derailing every single analysis to make an aside about everything about tri. that doesn’t make sense, because that’s also going to be hurtful to anyone who does like one or more of the series and wants to make it work. But, after all, this blog is my personal analysis and way of seeing the series, and I cannot see it in a way that makes it work (and especially don’t have the energy to make an attempt for something I do in my free time), and so I would rather just pass the baton to those who feel more up to it instead; in other words, I’m not trying to invalidate tri.’s existence for those who want to make it work, and rather my stance is “I can’t figure out a way to make it work myself, so I will leave the reasoning to you.” Moreover, I’ve implied this a few times, but a lot of the ideas on this blog or in any of my analyses are not things I came up with on my own, but from sharing ideas and having discussions with friends in my private time, and I feel like I would be doing them a disservice by weaponizing all of the insightful things they’ve given me to dunk on something else. I love 02 a lot, and one of its major themes was trying to make the most positively productive thing you can out of what you have, and advocating for people to maybe appreciate something they may not have thought about before feels like a better use of my time.

If you are interested in my analysis of tri. from last year, I still keep it on hand mainly because -- well, to be frank about it, nearly every tri. diehard fan I’ve had a personal encounter with has said some very nasty things to me about how I’m not “smart” enough to appreciate the series, or how I’m being “unfair” about it, or how I’m not a “real fan��� for not singing its praises, and so I mainly put this together as a collected document and proof of how I (and the few others who helped me put it together) did actually make due diligence and put proper scrutiny into trying to make it work (and couldn’t). (If you happen to identify as a tri. diehard fan and have not said this kind of thing to people, I sincerely apologize and want to make clear that I don’t want to pin the entire tri. fanbase as this kind of person; this was just my personal experience.) I wrote it mainly as catharsis and for the sake of other people who were interested in a detailed analysis, and also for the sake of other people who might have gotten these kinds of dismissive insults and wanted confirmation that their feelings weren’t baseless, or for bridging the gap between people who did like the series but want to understand why there are people who don’t (this apparently was a testimony from a few people who read it). That’s also why I’m linking it right now, since I imagine that there might be people curious about said aforementioned analysis after I’d just brought it up. However, I do warn that there is a lot of frustrated negativity, and that there is a sense of bias in that I wrote this “going in with doubt” instead of the more positive attitude I have with Adventure or 02 in that I assume there was a good reason for everything, and, frankly, if you like tri., I don’t actually suggest reading it or bringing that kind of negativity about something you like into your view. I also ask that people understand that the linked document is where I dumped all of my feelings cathartically and I do not enjoy dwelling on it further, nor bringing up this document when it doesn’t feel necessary, so I apologize, and I hope the stance I just expressed won’t taint anyone’s opinion of me too much...^^

[thenamesblurrito]

Another ask dump

y'all like talking to me and i appreciate it, have some answers, feat. voices of the Matrix, accidental references, photonic crystals, Underbite, types of relics, robot scuba gear, and pineapple pizza

(the post this is referring to)

FHFHGFHSJF an unintentional reference but i'll take it!

(the post this is referring to)

oh huh, yet another unintentional reference, totally forgot about that. there is cyberflora up in the city proper too, i realize i didn't phrase that well. but the stuff that junkers would be able to scavenge from would be the leylines, the wellsprings, the cyberflora growing in odd deep places where no one else has noticed them.

fshfshhsgdf thank you, he IS adorable! i even gave him a little schoolboy tie

you've found a neat little oddity here, actually, which is that it isn't Optimus who hears the former Matrix bearers, it's Orion! when he powers up into Optimus, he essentially absorbs-becomes-assimilates his relic, like shrugging on a selkie skin and becoming more than the sum of both parts. the former Matrix bearers are an aspect of what goes into creating Optimus, but it isn't exactly distinct, not ghosts or voices or guiding hands to direct his actions. no, it's Orion the youngling who hears them speak, or heckle really, gets a sense of who they are/were and what they want and feel and urge him to do. the Matrix is, fortunately, not a very autonomous relic, unlike some other ones with annoyingly strong, uh, personalities. it's not difficult to tune them out if he doesn't want to listen, but it can get irritating when he's trying to pay attention in class.

there are rare exceptions, however, occasions where Optimus encounters what lives within the depths of his relic...

not really, yeah. they EXIST, they're a form of information storage for Cybertronian neural networks and spark scans, as well as being integral material in medical life support systems and hotspot harvesting infrastructure. it's not the Matrix that produces them, however, and there isn't anything particularly supernatural about them. they're in the same general category of resources as sentio metallico, innermost, and rarified or super energon.

nope! that is definitely in the realm of "special talents"/outlier abilities that don't show up naturally in SNAP's storyline. at least, for the normal people. those with relics have plenty of weird abilities, and if Underbite was supernatural, that kind of power would practically be tame in comparison to some of the stuff the heroes do.

that said, there are some random one-off things people can do, just because sparks and thus frames have unique coding with sometimes unpredictable results. Swerve, for instance, discovers in Maccadam's class that he can identify different chemical compounds and materials by taste, with far more accuracy and nuance than the average mech. just a random thing! but hardly supernatural, which is def what increased strength and healing would be.

but perhaps... if things were different... Underbite would have that ability naturally? (side note but can you imagine trying to wrangle an ENTIRE ACADEMY of TEENAGERS with inbuilt abilities like eating anything or forcefields or freakin invisibility like. someone would die on day one just from a hallway fight.)

(the post this is referring to)

i mention it just a little bit here! the difference is more of a meta category than an in-universe term. in short, major relics are major pieces of power consolidated into a usable form, a relic, that will create such a strong bond with the user that they get an entire array of upgrades and powers, with the downside of being totally beholden to this one major relic and incapable of using another major relic (unless you are a loadbearer). minor relics are smaller pieces of power consolidated into a usable form, creating a less all-consuming bond with their users which means a very small set of minor powers and little to no upgrades, but capable of being used alongside other relics, even major ones.

the swords of the Elite Guard, for example, are all minor relics that came linked inside the major relic of the Enigma of Combination. the distinction between major and minor is a little more blurry than that, and some relics are right in the middling area of power that means they might behave as if in either category.

people in-universe don't really have this distinction aside from the mythology and tall tales about the magical tools wielded by the Knights of Cybertron. the Star Saber, for example, is so famous and well recorded that it's actually found a place as a name, like Star Saber the Academy teacher!

(the post this is referring to)

yknow what, you're right! there's definitely some sort of insertable/wearable seals. they wouldn't be permanent, and they'd certainly be bulky and uncomfortable, and some may actually require a medic to insert. they'd get in the way of ventilation, cramp joints, and rub against important lines and protoform. just sticking things into seams and under armor is actually incredibly uncomfortable to the point of triggering something called entrapment protocols, a panicked paralyzed state that can be debilitating if the physical intrusion causing it isn't removed.

because of how diverse and unique frames are, there's no standard seals, and some frames just have too much open space to actually seal, making swimming impossible. so, it comes down to 1) is your frame capable of being sealed, 2) is the discomfort worth it, and 3) can you actually get the seals put in place and removed afterward.

not so easy as putting on a bathing suit, huh.

as for murder via water, yeah! that's definitely a thing, that murderers do! but combat... there's not really combat, not like i believe you're thinking of. there's no war going on, there's no standing army so no drills or training, in fact combat and violence and weaponry in general are very much frowned upon under functionism. i'll quote the relevant part of that post here:

in stark contrast with the severe consequences the state carries out against those it deems wrong, society as a whole is kept very docile. Cybertron is a unified territory, so all of its citizens answer to the government of the Grand Architect. There is no standing army, nor indeed really any army at all, aside from the Enforcers. Violence is frowned upon, to the point where the most violent activity still tolerated is sports like boxing, and even that is considered barbaric. There is no weaponry, especially since mecha aren’t forged with inbuilt weaponry. Enforcers carry state-owned equipment with occasional access to genuine weaponry if facing a bigger target, but those are closely monitored to remain in their stations once their shift is over. Personal use is completely forbidden. More violent or pugilistic folks end up Enforcers, perpetuating the brutality and heavy control of the corps over the populace.

and as for Octopunch, not a clue! i don't remember him, and i don't have him on my character list, so while he might end up as a random background filler cameo, i don't have anything for him right now

afsgsjdjshwoisegf WHAT A QUESTION

Makeshift. Makeshift would adore pineapple pizza. Frenzy would like it, Rumble would HATE it. Predaking would tolerate it and Blackarachnia would pick off the pineapple but still eat the pizza.

Starscream would refuse to touch any pizza with pineapple on it, and Skywarp would eat some just to annoy him, even though he's not a particular fan of it. Thundercracker doesn't really care either way. Megatron likes it okay but avoids it so Starscream doesn't make a giant fuss about it. Blitzwing is disgusted but doesn't make a show of it. Nightracer will eat anything she can get her hands on, good or not, but she picks off the pineapple because Red Alert likes pineapple, and she wants to give them to her.

Ariel likes strawberry pizza better. Moonracer likes chocolate pizza better. Firestar thinks the both of them are heathens and won't eat pineapple pizza. Chromia doesn't like pineapple anyway. Arcee eats it just for the Experience.

Minimus doesn't personally care for it but maintains that anybody can eat whatever they'd like. Windblade doesn't like it and will publicly decry it. The two of them have probably debated over this a few times. Orion doesn't mind it and doesn't have any opinion about it, and is mostly baffled by the arguments over it. Hot Rod is a living vacuum and will c o n s u m e regardless of pineapple or not. Deadlock likes to gross anti-pineapple people out by messily eating it in front of them. Blurr doesn't like pizza very much, it's the tomato sauce.

[a-room-of-my-own]

Hi! Did you see the NewStasteman interview with Judith Butler? The way she framed the whole debate about gender is so depressing, I cannot believe it... And that's without going into the Rowling debate, the more I read about it on Twitter and tumblr and the most depressed I get. How can womanhood be reduced to a feeling anyone can claim?

https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times

I had not seen it so thank you for giving me the opportunity to read it. She’s really manipulative and that’s pretty scary honestly. I picked up a few examples to show you 

“I want to first question whether trans-exclusionary feminists are really the same as mainstream feminists. (…) I want to first question whether trans-exclusionary feminists are really the same as mainstream feminists. (…)I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen.  

It’s “our” responsibility to act on something she cannot prove? It’s quite easy to observe that trans-activists are an active minority within the feminist movement. On the other hand, it’s much harder to prove than most people support modern trans-activism in all its implications. She doesn’t give any source, proof or figures to support her claim but ask people to fight for it, nevertheless. That’s faith, not fact. 

If we look closely at the example that you characterise as “mainstream” [the problem of men claiming to be trans to access women’s space] we can see that a domain of fantasy is at work, one which reflects more about the feminist who has such a fear than any actually existing situation in trans life. 

Then again, no proof, when many gender critical bloggers have lists of dozens of examples of men using self-ID to access bathrooms, women’s shelters, women’s prisons, some of them sex offenders.  

The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality. 

That’s a lot of words to call women who are afraid of men “hysterical”. #sorority 

Trans women are often discriminated against in men’s bathrooms, and their modes of self-identification are ways of describing a lived reality, one that cannot be captured or regulated by the fantasies brought to bear upon them. The fact that such fantasies pass as public argument is itself cause for worry. 

Word salad that could be translated like this: our priority shouldn’t be protecting women from men, it should be accommodating men, because #notallmen are predators, so it would be very unfair to them, uwu. Men’s concerns should always be considered while women who are afraid are irrational. 

I am not aware that terf is used as a slur.  

I’m 99% sure that’s a lie, but okay. 

I wonder what name self-declared feminists who wish to exclude trans women from women's spaces would be called? If they do favour exclusion, why not call them exclusionary? 

Women who want to have spaces without men should be called exclusionary, because we define women based on their relationship with men and how they include them. Suuuuure. 

If they understand themselves as belonging to that strain of radical feminism that opposes gender reassignment, why not call them radical feminists? My only regret is that there was a movement of radical sexual freedom that once travelled under the name of radical feminism, but it has sadly morphed into a campaign to pathologise trans and gender non-conforming peoples. 

We’re not the ones telling you can cure a psychological problem with cross-sex hormones and amputations, but we are the one pathologizing trans and GNC people. That’s hi-la-rious.  

My sense is that we have to renew the feminist commitment to gender equality and gender freedom in order to affirm the complexity of gendered lives as they are currently being lived. 

Meaningless word salad > "women should let men redefine the word woman as they please"

Let us be clear that the debate here [between people who support JKR and others] is not between feminists and trans activists. There are trans-affirmative feminists, and many trans people are also committed feminists. So one clear problem is the framing that acts as if the debate is between feminists and trans people. It is not. One reason to militate against this framing is because trans activism is linked to queer activism and to feminist legacies that remain very alive today. 

TLDR: Real feminist can only be trans-supporters. 

Feminism has always been committed to the proposition that the social meanings of what it is to be a man or a woman are not yet settled. We tell histories about what it meant to be a woman at a certain time and place, and we track the transformation of those categories over time.  

That’s gender for you Judith, not biological sex. Social identities vary, biological sex is a constant. Saying that isn't essentialism.

We depend on gender as a historical category, and that means we do not yet know all the ways it may come to signify, and we are open to new understandings of its social meanings. It would be a disaster for feminism to return either to a strictly biological understanding of gender or to reduce social conduct to a body part or to impose fearful fantasies, their own anxieties, on trans women...  

“Women who are afraid of men are irrational” third instalment.  

Their abiding and very real sense of gender ought to be recognised socially and publicly as a relatively simple matter of according another human dignity. The trans-exclusionary radical feminist position attacks the dignity of trans people.   

Men are whoever they say they are, women are whoever men say they are.  

One does not have to be a woman to be a feminist, and we should not confuse the categories. Men who are feminists, non-binary and trans people who are feminists, are part of the movement if they hold to the basic propositions of freedom and equality that are part of any feminist political struggle.  

Many feminists consider that men can only be feminist allies, so the debate is clearly not settled.  

When laws and social policies represent women, they make tacit decisions about who counts as a woman, and very often make presuppositions about what a woman is. We have seen this in the domain of reproductive rights. So the question I was asking then is: do we need to have a settled idea of women, or of any gender, in order to advance feminist goals?   

Does “woman” need to have a *gasp* definition? Judith is saying it doesn’t. You’ll notice that she doesn’t say that anything about “man” not having a stable definition. She believes it’s possible to fight against misogyny while having no stable definition for what a woman is. Laughable. 

I put the question that way… to remind us that feminists are committed to thinking about the diverse and historically shifting meanings of gender, and to the ideals of gender freedom. By gender freedom, I do not mean we all get to choose our gender. Rather, we get to make a political claim to live freely and without fear of discrimination and violence against the genders that we are. 

Word salad > “we don’t get to choose our gender but we get to choose it I am very smart"

Many people who were assigned “female” at birth never felt at home with that assignment, and those people (including me) tell all of us something important about the constraints of traditional gender norms for many who fall outside its terms.   

Many women have internalized misogyny and homophobia, which in turn had a huge impact on their sense of self and self-esteem, but that doesn’t mean they’re not women Judith. And I don’t think any woman who was forcefully married, who had her vulva mutilated for religious reasons, had to wear a veil since she was a toddler, or was sold as a child into prostitution ever “felt at home” with having been born a girl, you absolute unit.  

Feminists know that women with ambition are called “monstrous” or that women who are not heterosexual are pathologised. We fight those misrepresentations because they are false and because they reflect more about the misogyny of those who make demeaning caricatures than they do about the complex social diversity of women. Women should not engage in the forms of phobic caricature by which they have been traditionally demeaned. And by “women” I mean all those who identify in that way. 

That was going so well until the last sentence 

I think we are living in anti-intellectual times, and that this is evident across the political spectrum. 

JB, darling, just read your own word salad and get some self-awareness. 

The quickness of social media allows for forms of vitriol that do not exactly support thoughtful debate. We need to cherish the longer forms. 

Tell that to your supporters Miss I Wasn't Aware TERF Were A Slur.

I am against online abuse of all kinds. I confess to being perplexed by the fact that you point out the abuse levelled against JK Rowling, but you do not cite the abuse against trans people and their allies that happens online and in person. 

Kindergarten argument, but sure. Also, yet again, no proof. 

I disagree with JK Rowling's view on trans people, but I do not think she should suffer harassment and threats. Let us also remember, though, the threats against trans people in places like Brazil, the harassment of trans people in the streets and on the job in places like Poland and Romania – or indeed right here in the US.  

“Threats against JKR are bad BUT have you seen what’s happening in Brazil?”. I’m sorry what? Also, could trans-activist please stop instrumentalizing Brazilian stats, since they reflect the situation of prostituted homosexual transsexuals ?  

 So if we are going to object to harassment and threats, as we surely should, we should also make sure we have a large picture of where that is happening, who is most profoundly affected, and whether it is tolerated by those who should be opposing it. It won’t do to say that threats against some people are tolerable but against others are intolerable. 

NO ONE, literally NO ONE said that threats against trans people were acceptable. In fact, most, if not pretty much all threats, especially physical threats, don’t come from radical feminists, but from men. Basically, what she’s saying is “who cares about threats against JKR, trans people (men) matter more”.  

If trans-exclusionary radical feminists understood themselves as sharing a world with trans people, in a common struggle for equality, freedom from violence, and for social recognition, there would be no more trans-exclusionary radical feminists.  

♫ Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya ♪ 

It is a sad day when some feminists promote the anti-gender ideology position of the most reactionary forces in our society. 

All radical feminists are right wingers, sure. 

Anyway, it's terrible that this kind of article is taken seriously when it could be summed up as "women are irrational and hysterical, men can be women and redefine the word woman if they so wish"...

[newstfionline]

Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Difficult Times for Flight Attendants (NYT) One flight attendant needed medical attention for a crippling migraine brought on by confronting a passenger who refused to wear a mask. Aviation safety officials have received dozens of confidential complaints in the past year from attendants trying to enforce mask safety rules. The reports, filed in the Aviation Safety Reporting System database, at times describe a chaotic, unhinged workplace where passengers regularly abuse airline employees. The coronavirus pandemic and political divisions of the past year have caused fear, economic pain, and social and family rifts around the country, but for airline workers, and flight attendants in particular, the unease and tension have often converged in a tiny cabin space. The tension is at a level flight attendants have not seen before, said Paul Hartshorn Jr., a veteran attendant and a spokesman for the Association of Professional Flight Attendants union. “I think we’re pretty well trained on how to handle a disruptive passenger,” said Mr. Hartshorn, 46. “What we’re not trained to do and what we shouldn’t be dealing with is large groups of passengers inciting a riot with another group of passengers [over political differences].” “It’s insane,” he added.

Fight The Man: What GameStop’s surge says about online mobs (AP) It’s a fable for our times: Small-time investors band together to take down greedy Wall Street hedge funds using the stock of a troubled video-game store. But the revolt of online stock-traders suggests much more. The internet is shifting society’s balance of power in unanticipated ways. In the world of pseudonymous internet message boards, pranks-gone-wild and logic turned upside down amid a global pandemic, revolts come in all shapes, sizes and aims. Last week they gave us the Great GameStop Stock Uprising. Who knows what this week will bring. “The internet can democratize access, upsetting power dynamics between the people and traditional institutions,” tweeted Tiffany C. Li, a law professor and tech attorney focusing on privacy and technology platform governance. With GameStop, she added in an interview Friday, the goal was to upset the interests of a few large hedge funds. “But in other places the goal can be more nefarious. Online spaces are being used to radicalize people toward extremism, to plan hate crimes and attacks,” she said. “The internet isn’t really the villain or the hero.”

Pandemic Pushes More Parents to Go All-In for Home Schooling (WSJ) As parents grow increasingly frustrated with remote learning during the pandemic, some are deciding to pull their children out of school and try teaching on their own. In North Carolina, the state’s home-school monitoring website crashed on the first day of enrollment, and more than 18,800 families filed to operate a home-school from July 1 to Jan. 22—more than double the school-year before, according to the state Division of Non-Public Education. In Connecticut, the number of students who left public schools to be home-schooled jumped fivefold this school year, to 3,500. In Nebraska, the number of home-schooled students jumped 56%, to 13,426, according to state education officials. “The vast majority [of parents] are saying, ‘We’ve been really trying to do what the schools are asking us to do, but we just can’t do this anymore,’ “ said J. Allen Weston, executive director of the National Home School Association, which has been fielding inquiries on the topic. Vanderbilt University’s Joseph Murphy, who studies home schooling, said “We are in a major shift from how we thought about teaching children and running schools for 100 years. Parents have shifted to the place where they feel they need more direct involvement and greater responsibility for what happens with their children.”

Vaccine skepticism lurks in town famous for syphilis study (AP) Lucenia Dunn spent the early days of the coronavirus pandemic encouraging people to wear masks and keep a safe distance from each other in Tuskegee, a mostly Black city where the government once used unsuspecting African American men as guinea pigs in a study of a sexually transmitted disease. Now, the onetime mayor of the town immortalized as the home of the infamous “Tuskegee syphilis study” is wary of getting inoculated against COVID-19. Among other things, she’s suspicious of the government promoting a vaccine that was developed in record time when it can’t seem to conduct adequate virus testing or consistently provide quality rural health care. “I’m not doing this vaccine right now. That doesn’t mean I’m never going to do it. But I know enough to withhold getting it until we see all that is involved,” said Dunn, who is Black. The coronavirus immunization campaign is off to a shaky start in Tuskegee and other parts of Macon County. Area leaders point to a resistance among residents spurred by a distrust of government promises and decades of failed health programs. Tuskegee is not a complete outlier. A recent survey conducted by the communications firm Edelman revealed that as of November, only 59% of people in the U.S. were willing to get vaccinated within a year with just 33% happy to do so as soon as possible. Health experts have stressed both the vaccines’ safety and efficacy.

As Biden prays for healing, Catholics clash over president’s faith (GMA) On his quest to heal a divided America, Joe Biden may first have to confront bitter division over his presidency from within his own church. Since his inauguration two weeks ago as the nation’s second Catholic president, Biden’s devout Christian faith has become a new flashpoint within the church. While millions of Catholics have celebrated the ascension of one of their own to the White House, some have been publicly questioning whether Biden should be considered a model of their faith. Many Catholic clergy and faithful are passionately fixated on Biden’s support for abortion rights, which the church staunchly opposes and considers an issue of “preeminent” importance. Biden opposes abortion as a personal matter, but wrote in his 2007 memoir that he doesn’t “have a right to impose my view on the rest of society.” One in five Americans identifies as Roman Catholic, the largest Christian denomination in the U.S., according to Pew Research Center. While the faithful have long been divided in matters of theology and politics, Catholic values aren’t exclusively red or blue.

Russia Protesters Defy Vast Police Operation as Signs of Kremlin Anxiety Mount (NYT) The Kremlin mounted Russia’s most fearsome nationwide police operation in recent memory on Sunday, seeking to overwhelm a protest movement backing the jailed opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny that swept across the country for a second weekend in a row. But the show of force—including closed subway stations, thousands of arrests and often brutal tactics—failed to smother the unrest. By late Sunday evening in Moscow, more than 5,000 people had been detained in at least 85 cities across Russia, an activist group reported, though many were later released. Previously unseen numbers of riot police officers in black helmets, camouflage and body armor essentially locked down the center of the metropolis of 13 million people, stopping passers-by miles from the protest to check their documents and ask what they were doing outside. “I don’t understand what they’re afraid of,” a protester named Anastasia Kuzmina, a 25-year-old account manager at an advertising agency, said of the police. Referring to the peak year of Stalin’s mass repression, she added, “It’s like we’re slipping into 1937.” The large-scale police response signaled anxiety in the Kremlin over Mr. Navalny’s ability to unite Russia’s disparate critics of President Vladimir V. Putin, from nationalists to liberals to many with no particular ideology at all.

In Myanmar coup, Suu Kyi’s ouster heralds return to military rule (Washington Post) Aung San Suu Kyi defended Myanmar’s generals against genocide charges at The Hague. She praised soldiers as they unleashed artillery against ethnic minority settlements. She took only modest steps toward democratic changes that would chip away at the army’s political power. It wasn’t enough. On Monday, Myanmar’s military seized power in a coup, detaining Suu Kyi, elected ministers from her National League for Democracy (NLD) party and others in a predawn raid. Though condemned internationally for defending the military and its campaign against the Rohingya minority, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who spent 15 years under house arrest until 2010 now finds herself again at the generals’ mercy. The coup underscored the fragility of Myanmar’s decade-old, quasi-democratic transition that many assumed, despite imperfections, would continue with Suu Kyi as head of the civilian government and still-entrenched powers for the military, led by Min Aung Hlaing. But the military was never comfortable with its enduring unpopularity and Suu Kyi’s godlike status among ordinary Burmese, analysts said, despite its role in engineering the country’s opening after half a century of isolationist rule.

Survivors of Beirut’s explosion endure psychological scars (AP) Joana Dagher lay unconscious and hemorrhaging under a pile of rubble in her apartment after the massive Beirut port blast in August, on the brink of death. She survived because of the courage of her husband who got her out, the kindness of a stranger who transported her in his damaged car and the help of her sisters during the chaos at the overwhelmed hospital. But Dagher doesn’t remember any of that: The 33-year-old mother of two lost her memory for two full months from the trauma she suffered in the explosion, including a cerebral contusion and brain lesions. “I lost my life on August 4,” Dagher said. “I lost my house, I lost my memory, I lost two friends,” she added, referring to neighbors killed in the explosion. “I lost my mental health, and so I lost everything.”       The Beirut explosion, which killed more than 200 people and injured more than 6,000, caused wounds on an even wider scale on the mental health of those who lived through it. Even in a country that has seen many wars and bombings, never had so many people—tens of thousands—directly experienced the same traumatizing event at the same time. It came on top of the stress that Lebanese were already feeling from multiple crises, including an unprecedented economic meltdown, the coronavirus pandemic and a feeling of helplessness after nationwide protests against corruption that failed to achieve their goals. “There are very high levels of anxiety and worry across the population,” said Mia Atwi, psychologist and president of Embrace, an organization working on mental health awareness and support. “There is a low mood bordering on clinical depression for the majority of the population.”

[dramallamadingdang]

Speaking of religion, I saw in a lot of MTS off-topic discussions that you identified yourself as a Christian and defended it a lot. I think you even said once that you were waiting for your husband to die so you can remarry? IDK. What made you switch to our side?

Ooooooh, deconversion testimony. Let’s do this thing, man!

Yes, I was a quite fundamentalist Christian, in certain respects, for a long time. I was part of a non-denominational church that had strong Pentecostal leanings.  The theology was very much of the “hellfire and brimstone” variety, and to this day I can still speak in tongues with the best of them. *laugh* Thankfully, I had not been indoctrinated into any religion as a child, but rather did the “Save me, Jesus!” prayer at the age of 15, after attending my friend’s Assembly of God church for a while off and on, mostly when I’d stay over at her place on Saturday nights. Initially, my conversion was mostly an act of rebellion against my nominally-Catholic but spiritually lackadaisical mother. (By that I mean that she’s probably always been atheist but she never wanted to use the “A” word to describe herself because of its negative connotations, particularly amongst her very Catholic family.) But, even though I didn’t really take it seriously at first, Fundie Christianity got its hooks into me pretty good.

That being said, I always had some beliefs that did not toe the party line, as it were, precisely because I had not suffered childhood indoctrination. The primary things that I had to keep more on the down-low were that I could never be anti-gay, nor could I ever accept creationism as true. (I saw the latter as utterly idiotic even when I was at my Christian-est, although for a while I was convinced of intelligent design.) However, I was very convinced of God’s existence, and I swallowed the hell thing whole, and I believed that the Bible, aside from its creation fairy tale, was all true but that it needed to be read in historical context in order to understand what it “really meant.” That last bit was how I got around thorny things like, for instance, the Bible’s denouncement of homosexuality in both of its Testaments as well as its balls-out endorsement of slavery in both Testaments. But, I did love me some Jesus, yes. I was one of those who focused more on on the happy-lovey verses in the New Testament while deliberately not addressing the far more numerous horrifying bits in both Testaments. I coasted along in my faith just fine. I was even good at winning converts for the church because, having been raised by lawyers who wanted me to be a lawyer, too, I was indoctrinated into bull-headed logic and rhetoric and argument as a child. :)

Problems began, though, when I married my first husband. We married in 1992, so I’d been Christian ~15 years by that time. About a year after we married, he began to buy into the Duggar-esque “the man is the head of the household and the woman must be submissive” bullshit. Thankfully, he didn’t want to have two dozen kids, at least. It was bad enough, from my point of view, that he wanted a wife who did what she was told and waited on him hand and foot, with bonus sex toy functions on demand, all in the name of the Lord. I, as a dominant female raised by very strong 60s-era feminists – as in, both my mother and father – had…hmmm, difficulty with the whole submission thing, though I did try really, really hard, much to the detriment of my mental well-being. 

Secretly, though? Well, secretly, I deliberately took off my “God glasses” and began to do some extremely intense (and, notably, objective) Bible study that incorporated non-religious academic study materials along with the standard apologetic stuff. I spent hours at the library (since the interwebs were in their infancy at the time *laugh*) researching and studying because I refused to accept the notion that the God whom I loved and who I knew I loved me really just wanted me to be chattel, not much different from the livestock that people also weren’t supposed to covet. I was confident that this could not really be the case, and the lawyers’ kid in me wanted to be able to present a solid, well-argued, airtight case to my husband (and to the church as a whole) that would make him see that he was wrong about what God wanted, and then everything would be just fine.

Of course, my husband wasn’t wrong, as it turned out, and thus began my disillusion. I started studying other topics that nagged at my conscience in the same way and…Well, as they say, the easiest way to become an atheist is to be a Christian and objectively read the Bible. (There’s a reason that laypeople reading the Bible is discouraged, if not outright disallowed, in the Catholic church.) So, from the early 90s on, I began a long, slow slide down the slippery slope to apostasy. I didn’t recognize that that was what it was, of course. I thought I was discovering the “real Christianity” that all the people in the church pews, with dogma up to their eyeballs, were missing. Turns out, what I was really discovering was…Well, not to put too fine a point on it or anything, that the Bible is BS and so is Christianity in general. And, after expanding my self-education to include other theistic religions, thinking that maybe one of them was right, that, alas, there is not a single sliver of evidence for any god. I could no longer in good conscience believe in any god, not unless/until I had evidence of he/she/it/them. Which, to date, I do not have. (And frankly, if one day I do have evidence of Yahweh’s existence, at least, and if he is what he says he is in the Bible, then I will no longer be an atheist, but I will deem Yahweh unworthy of worship. I’ll be spitting “How dare you?!” at him, all Stephen Fry-esque. I would rather burn in hell than eternally worship such an abhorrent creature.)

Anyway, by the time I was participating in threads on MTS about religion, my husband and I had divorced, and I was probably ¾ of the way down the apostasy slope. At that point, I was still calling myself a Christian but a heretical one, and until about a year ago or so I called myself a Deist because while I could no longer in good conscience call myself a Christian, even a heretical one, there were things that I clung to that I did not want to let go of. Mostly because of “personal experiences” that made me want to think there was a God of some kind. But about a year ago or so, I finally let it all go, to make a long story short, and it was an enormous weight off my shoulders. I’m now comfortable with being publicly truthful about what I am, no longer fearing the “A” word.

That being said, although I have great antipathy for Yahweh himself, I don’t hate Christians or people of any religion. Nor will I “preach atheism.” At least, not here. ;) So, if you’re a Christian or other theist, fear not. I will probably be no more or less of a godless heathen on this particular blog than I have been before. I am, however, considering making an atheist-themed personal sideblog or something, which I would use to occasionally wax anti-apologetic and whatnot. In general, I think it’s important for American atheists, especially, to be “out” if they can be, because America is highly religious, particularly in certain areas, and people who are not with that program need community, especially if they’ve been ostracized by friends/family over their lack of belief. Not to mention the creeping fingers of Christian dominionism in our current government, with things like “religious freedom” bills and the Congressional “Freedom Caucus” and Project Blitz and such, all of which needs to be fought tooth and nail. But…I don’t know that I have the energy for another blog. We’ll see, I guess.

Oh! One last thing. Yes, I did indeed keep my marriage vows post-divorce. Christianity aside, I take serious vows…well, seriously. :) So, although we divorced, I did not sleep with anyone else until my first husband died. I almost didn’t even date anyone else, though current husband and I started dating about 4 months before my first husband died of pancreatic cancer, which at least was after I knew he was terminal and in hospice care. So, yeah, I was celibate for ~17 years. Call me weird, if you wish, but…Well, I take vows seriously. It’s just how I am.

[proiida]

“plus ultra, go beyond.” it’s one of the core themes of bnha, and it’s a common theme in a lot of stories. after all, trying your hardest is typically a good thing. with the way that bnha writes it, though, often trying your hardest means pushing yourself past a reasonable limit. while there are certainly situations where this is necessary to ensure the survival of others, such as the number of times when all might pushes past the limit of one for all in order to ensure the safety of others, there are some situations where it’s just ridiculous to apply the mantra of “plus ultra”. doing so means sacrificing your physical or mental health in order to succeed in something that shouldn’t matter as much as life or death.

one of the best situations in which characters’ application of “plus ultra” is excessive is during the sports festival, a school event that pushes students to extreme actions to win, despite the relatively little harm that failing would cause. sure, failing would mean they lose a chance to show their skills to pro hero agencies, but it is no life or death situation. no two characters juxtapose each other quite so neatly in their approach to the sports festival as monoma neito and bakugou katsuki. the contrast between the two provides a great way to understand how bnha’s narrative promotes the idea of “plus ultra”.

now, why am i mentioning monoma, a character who is, in the grand scheme of the story, a pretty minor character? well, his introduction in the sports festival arc was likely very intentional and for greater purposes increasing class tension and comedic value. he plays a pretty important, yet subtle role in it. yes, he is mostly just seen starting shit with class 1-a and getting wrecked by bakugou’s intense ambition, but he gives us a way to compare the attitudes of the main characters with an “inappropriate” attitude. he is, to put it simply, the anti-“plus ultra”.

now, i am not saying that monoma’s approach to the sports festival was incorrect. hell, were the primary purpose of the sports festival not to put yourself out there for pro heroes to see, then the plan to make other classes underestimate class 1-b would have its merits. the primary purpose of the sports festival is what it is for the sake of advancing the narrative, though, and the narrative intends to portray monoma’s approach to the sports festiva as incorrect. he is in a story where one of the core messages is “plus ultra, go beyond,” meaning that he was doomed to fail from the beginning. that’s the point. we’re supposed to look at monoma and go, “well that didn’t work, which further proves that plus ultra is the way to go.”

but what exactly is monoma’s approach? well, let’s see a few of the actions he takes in the sports festival. i am going to include what monoma says was class 1-b’s approach to the sports festival, because it was likely driven by monoma, and monoma strongly identifies with class 1-b. first, class 1-b decides to throw the race and hang back so that they can scout class 1-a’s quirks. then, when monoma’s team in the cavalry battle goes from 2nd place to 4th place, he’s resigned to taking 4th place (only for bakugou to refuse to let monoma slide by without trying). in short, he lacks the “plus ultra” spirit that bnha so frequently refers to.

i believe the moment that most portrays monoma’s approach as incorrect is in the cavalry battle, with his team’s various clashes with team bakugou. now, you won’t hear me saying that bakugou’s character does something better than another character in bnha very often, but within the scope of the sports festival, he acts as the best example for “plus ultra”. midoriya, you say? jesus christ, no. i loathe to imagine how terrifying it would be to see a kid break that many bones on live television. unless “plus ultra” means “let’s all get seriously injured, thank god we have recovery girl here to allow us to do that!”, then. yeah. bakugou is the one we want to talk about here. (although, as i will discuss later, even bakugou’s practice of “plus ultra” ends up causing harm to him.)

so how does monoma foil bakugou, and by extension, the school’s motto of “plus ultra”? well, obviously, we’ve got to talk about bakugou’s actions during the sports festival to understand that. for starters, bakugou very clearly tries during the obstacle race, landing an impressive 3rd place. is he satisfied? no. in the obstacle race, bakugou, unlike monoma, refuses to settle for a place that will only get him to the next round. no, he wants an undisputable 1st, and he’s damn ready to take the million point headband from todoroki, even when his team has enough points to secure 2nd place. then, in the tournament, bakugou treats each of his opponents with a necessary respect by battling the best he can, expecting the same out of them. it’s his chance to prove that he’s the best on a level playing field, where he’s surrounded by peers who could actually give him a run for his money for the first time in his life. with the way he grew to see the world around him, he does not see any option outside of “plus ultra”. he would never even consider the strategy class 1-b took, because in his mind, to win, you just win. you don’t lose to win.

this idea of not losing to win. “plus ultra”, or if you’re really fancy, “ne plus ultra,” which quite so literally means “no further beyond”. the top is the top, and you just keep on going until you can’t possibly go any further. what all might says when rewarding bakugou with the first place medal (a scene i have a number of issues with, but that’s besides the point) really highlights the mindset bakugou takes. “in this world where people are constantly being compared publicly, there are not many who can keep aiming for the top of an unchanging scale.” unchanging is the keyword, this idea that personal achievement is not defined relative to others or to yourself, but rather defined by a position on an absolute scale. sure, there’s first place, which bakugou does end up getting in the sports festival, but then there’s “ne plus ultra”, the point where he isn’t just winning in comparison to others, but reaching the highest point of possible achievement.

being the absolute best that you can possible be sounds good and all, but when you consider the scope of human capability, it plays out pretty unhealthily. bakugou is basically that kid who sets the curve on a test, but breaks down in class because he didn’t get every question right. and as annoying as those kids may seem, especially when you aren’t considering what’s going on inside their minds, it is genuinely sad to think about the kind of perspective you have to have of the world to believe that first place isn’t good enough. you can’t relish the small victories, because for you, winning is the expectation. “plus ultra” becomes driving yourself to a standard that is simply unrealistic to reach every single time. by taking out the sense of relativity, it becomes less about doing the best you can do, and more about doing the best anyone can do, which are two very different concepts with two very different impacts on a person.

now, to bring things back to what i really wanted to talk about, one of the frequently repeated phrases in bnha. is “plus ultra” really the best way to go? i mean, at the end of the day, it is just a sports festival. it’s one thing for all might to push himself past the limit in a situation where failing to means putting his students in grave danger. it’s another thing to consider the physical and mental strain put on midoriya and bakugou because of a school event. and yes, i include midoriya, because this is the arc when he starts feeling the pressure to becoming the next symbol of peace (and again, the arc where he breaks way too many bones on live television). these are kids almost fresh out of middle school, being told, “yep, this event pretty much determines your future, and you’ve only got three chances at it.” i mean, from a purely narrative point of view, it does up the stakes of things, but jesus christ, the things it does to some of these kids is sad. it shouldn’t have to be something you get that torn up over, whether physically or mentally.

while i understand that bnha is a shounen manga and that it’s difficult to just scrap the high-pressure stakes of the sports festival, i do believe more could have been done to address the consequences of these extreme “plus ultra” attitudes. you can’t present the idea that “plus ultra is the way to go”, while simultaneously showing that there are serious effects to this attitude. so far, we’ve seen so many instances within bnha of how trying too hard causes more harm than good, and yet there has been no direct commentary made on the motto’s negative impacts on the characters. “plus ultra” is still a motto that is portrayed as inspirational, which sends some pretty conflicting messages. i can understand that it’s probably hard to tackle the issue. “try your hardest!” seems like an innocent enough message, and you don’t want to necessarily say you shouldn’t try. there has to be a way to go about promoting trying your hardest without saying, “work yourself to the point of breaking”, though.

[esmeiolanthe]

Spy Challenge rules

I’ve made up a challenge, because making up challenges is fun. It has to do with spies, because spies are cool. The rules are pretty hefty, because I like making lists and challenge rules are all about lists. You can read the rules below the cut or at my Dreamwidth.

The challenge is to play a successful spy. There are a few Dos, a few Don’ts, and lots of flavor.

 DO

Max Body skill (Spies need to be able to climb things, swim away from things, ski down mountains after jumping out of airplanes, and fight big thugs with metal teeth – or at least James Bond does in the movies…)

Max Logic skill (Spies need to know how to figure things out from little hints and scraps of information, and know what information is important and what isn’t)

Max Charisma skill (Spies often have to recruit others to find things out for them, so they need to be charming)

If your sim was a playable with a family, you have two options.

1.       Easy Mode: You can have contact with your family as normal – unless your cover is blown

2.       Hard Mode: You can have contact with one relative of your choice, once per week +200 points for voluntarily completing the challenge on Hard Mode

 DON’T

Do NOT take a job in the Intelligence career, if it’s available in your game set up (Successful spies don’t go around saying “Hi, I’m a spy!”)

Do NOT use strawberry juice (If someone gets mad at a spy and somehow blows their cover, their life is on the line, after all)

 FLAVOR SKILLS

Spies have lots of skills they need to know. I freely admit that I picked up a lot of these from a BBC reality show called Spy that came out in the early 2000s. I’ll list the skill and then how to incorporate it into your game.

 Go gray/Go undercover: Spies need to be able to blend in with everyone else and not stand out in any way at all. Get a job in any career (except Intelligence), but make sure you do NOT pass Level 5. If you pass Level 5, your cover is blown. You may not ignore chance cards.

Withstand torture: Spies need to be able to keep their heads at all times, even under adverse conditions. Keep your sim with all meters in orange/red for at least 24 hours without any critical failures or death. “Critical failures” are the Shrink, the Social Bunny, or any of the Aspiration desperation actions. If your sim wets their pants, that’s okay – just have them drink three glasses of water right away afterwards. +15 for every time you complete this. You can only choose to do this once. It may trigger additional times based on other circumstances.

Talk their way into someone’s home: Spies need to be personable and able to talk their way into places. Build a relationship with another sim such that they invite you to a community lot/on a date. When you get the invitation, accept it, and have the outing/date be at least a Good Time if not better. Bonus points if this sim is a townie or a safe NPC. +5 for every time you complete this.

Follow someone: Spies need to be able to follow people without being caught. Go to from one community lot to another and see the same sim 5 times in a row. (This is somewhat random due to game mechanisms, but theoretically possible.) +20 for every time you accomplish this.

Get someone to do iffy things for them: The first step for a spy to recruit an informant is to get them to do something a little bit iffy but not actually illegal. If that works, they ask for a bit more and a bit more and all of a sudden, the spy has another unwitting spy working for them. Use Influence 5 times in a row without being rejected. Refusal to perform the task resets the counter to 0 and means that you can never try Influence on that particular sim again. Bonus points if you manage this on 5 different people. +5 for every time you complete this. +25 bonus points for completing this with 5 different people.

Be good at languages: Spies need to be able to talk to people from other countries. In some cases, they even need to pass as people from other countries. Travel to all three vacation destinations and learn the vacation greetings. Do not stay at expensive hotels, and do not stay a long time, as both of these will make your sim stand out. +10 for every vacation destination greeting mastered.

Evade pursuers: Spies need to be able to get away when an enemy is following or actively chasing them. Learn to teleport, either from the ninja or from meditation once your Logic skill gets high enough. +10 for learning via meditation, +20 for learning from the ninja. You can only learn to teleport via one method, not both.

Have covert contacts with allies, informers, double agents, and so forth: Sometimes spies need to meet with contacts that they can’t really be seen with, so these meetings need to be brief, casual, and apparently accidental. In Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman stated that this was usually done by feeding the ducks, but there aren’t any ducks to feed in TS2. Fish in public and chat with other sims fishing. +5 per event.

Romance/seduce people: Spies sometimes have to use their sex appeal to get information from the enemy. Get Mr. Big/The Diva to fall in love with you. Bonus points if the love is one-sided (them to you only). Double bonus points if the one you seduce is the one that’s opposite your autonomous gender preference. +50 for successful completion. +25 for a one-sided love. +50 for a successful romance with the opposite of your autonomous gender preference.

Take covert pictures/plant cameras: Spies often need to get footage of an enemy doing something, or need to photograph important documents. Take pictures on four separate, busy community lots without having any other sims looking in your direction when you take the picture. If you do not have Bon Voyage, see if you can figure out a way to use the University career reward. +15 for every time you manage this.

Send hidden messages in innocuous things: Spies sometimes send messages in otherwise ordinary items rather than on secret thumb drives or microdots or similar. (For instance, sending a contact a perfectly ordinary book where the message is conveyed by the book chosen.) Paint a picture or write a novel.  The painting cannot be a masterpiece, and the novel cannot be a best-seller, since this will make your sim stand out. +10 for every time you complete this.

Drive well: As anyone who has ever watched a spy movie knows, car chases are inevitable. Buy a car, install an alarm, and “Go for a spin” 3 times a week to practice driving – and to learn the lay of the land. +10 at the end of the challenge if you have completed this faithfully. If you have not completed it faithfully, -10 points.

Hack into systems: Spies often need to get into protected databases. Have a LAN party 2 times a week and chat online 3 times a week. +10 at the end of the challenge if you have completed this faithfully. If you have not completed it faithfully, -10 points.

Courier items from one place to another: Spies often need to transport secret documents, packages, or messages. (Fun Fact: Josephine Baker once smuggled important documents past an enemy checkpoint in her underwear.) Take something from one lot to another lot and leave it at the second lot. The second lot must be a community lot. You can hand the item off to a secret contact identified with the appropriate code phrase (see below). Bonus points if you somehow manage to leave the item on a community lot without handing it off to a contact. Extra bonus points if the item in question didn’t belong to your sim in the first place – for example, a gnome stolen from a different sim’s house. +10 for each successful courier mission. +20 if you manage to leave the couriered item on a community lot without handing it off to a contact. +10 if the item in question didn’t belong to you in the first place.

Use code phrases: Spies often have to identify allies they have never met to get help in difficult or emergency situations. To be sure that you are working with an ally, first pick an area of Interest. There are 18 of these in TS2. Each area of Interest has 5 icons that represent it. For example, for Sci-Fi, the icons are rocket ship, astronaut, robot, planet, gray alien. (You can find a full list here: http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Interest) Before you go to a meeting, pick a sequence of icons. This sequence can be as few as two icons, or as many as you like. (The higher the number, the more unlikely it is that you be able to use it.) When you arrive at the meeting, go up to the sim you think might be your contact and initiate a conversation about the chosen Interest. When your first chosen icon starts off the conversation, this is bringing in the code phrase. If the other sim replies with the next icon in your chosen sequence, they are an allied agent. (If your chosen sequence is longer than two icons, then matching icons need to continue until the correct sequence is reached.) In English, this exchange might go something like “The pelican flies at midnight” answered with “Crickets chirp in the rain.” In TS2, the exchange might go “Rocket ship” answered with “Gray alien.” Feel free to make up your own fancy code phrases to go along with the icons; making up silly code phrases is fun! +25 for every successful pair of code phrases exchanged. -10 every time the initial code phrase is not met with the return code phrase. -25 if the entire topic of conversation is rejected.

Use dead drops: Spies often communicate with or leave things for allies who they never meet. They do this by leaving things in a public place to be picked up later, leaving things visible in an area they control, or doing specific things that are publicly visible. This way, their ally can get the message without ever having to come in contact with the spy. Every day, flip a coin or roll a die to see if you need to do one of the “dead drop” type tasks listed below. Heads/evens= yes, tails/odds=no. If you get an assignment, roll a d20 or use a different randomizer of your choice to choose what your assignment is for the day.

1.       Put red flowers out in front of your house (in a vase or a pot or something, not on a bush)

2.       Mail something (this can be paying a bill or using the custom mail system of your choice)

3.       Wear a blue shirt

4.       Read the newspaper in your front lawn

5.       Wear a hat

6.       Play fetch

7.       Go jogging

8.       Buy a magazine

9.       Walk to work/drive to work (whichever is not usual for you). If it is your day off, walk/drive to a community lot, again doing whichever is not usual for you.

10.   Order groceries

11.   Have coffee on a community lot between 4-6 pm

12.   Comb/style your hair differently (do not cut or dye it – just a different part, an updo, something like that)

13.   Sunbathe (either on a towel or in a recliner – if it is currently winter, this will be quite cold)

14.   Water your plants between 2-3 pm

15.   Dig for treasure and leave the hole for 24 hours

16.   Make and play with a paper airplane, then leave it on the lawn

17.   Buy and display a new lawn ornament (you can leave it on the lawn after – it won’t be new anymore, so it’s okay)

18.   Leave trash on the lawn while you are at work

19.   Wear sunglasses

20.   Hang out in the yard with a radio playing salsa music in the yard with you

If you do not have the specific EP needed to perform one of these actions, do something similar given your particular game set up. +1 for every dead drop completed

 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

These are special circumstances that may or may not come up in your game, depending on your set up and play style.

Friend or Foe?: When you identify an allied agent using a code phrase, spend 3 hours cultivating a relationship with them. If you end up with a positive relationship, you earn points. If you end up with a negative relationship, as enemies, and/or with the other sim furious at you, they will betray you. You lose points when they betray you. If you are Enemies, this blows your cover. +15 for a positive relationship. -25 points for a negative relationship.

Take a Chance on Me: If a stranger calls you up and asks you to go out (either date or outing), always accept. Flip a coin before you head out. Heads=the person is an ally, tails=the person is an enemy agent. If the person is an ally, nothing further happens – have an ordinary outing. If the person is an enemy agent, try to befriend them. If you max out the outing/date meter, you turn them into a double agent who is now secretly on your side. If you have a positive (but not maxed) or a neutral outing/date, you and your enemy go your separate ways with a new respect for each other, but without interference. If you have a negative (but not bottomed out) outing/date, this triggers the torture scenario above. If you bottom out the outing/date meter, you become the double agent who is now secretly on the enemy’s side. If you become a double agent, adjust your relationship with the enemy spy to 75/75, and change your relationships with your former allies to no more than 30/30. For all scoring purposes, your former allies are now your enemies and your former enemies are now your allies. Every time you complete a mission for your former allies, call your friendly enemy spy and chat on the phone for one game hour. +25 for a maxed outing/date meter, 0 for a neutral meter, -20 for a negative meter, -100 for a bottomed out meter.

Sim of a Thousand Faces: If you are contacted by a hobby leader, you must put on a disguise – in fact, a whole new identity (see below) – go to a community lot (or even the hobby lot), and pick a sim you don’t know to interact with in keeping with the disguise for 3 hours. At the end of the time, if your relationship with the sim is positive, your mission was a success. If your relationship is negative, this triggers the torture scenario above. If you end up as enemies/furious, your cover has been blown. +25 for a successful mission, -20 for a failure triggering torture.

 Identity Elements (Choose all 20 elements randomly via whatever randomizing method you prefer)

1.       Male/Female

2.       Young Adult/Adult/Elder

3.       Hair: Red/Blonde/Brown/Black/Custom

4.       Fit/Average/Fat

5.       Eyes: Brown/Dark blue/Green/Gray/Light blue/custom

6.       Supernatural/Not supernatural

a.       If supernatural: combination supernatural/just one type of supernatural

b.       Vampire/Alien/Zombie/Witch/Bigfoot/Genie/Servo/Plantsim/Werewolf

c.       If witch: Good/Neutral/Evil

7.       Employed/Not employed

8.       Rich/Not rich

9.       Hobby: Cuisine/Film & Literature/Tinkering/Sports/Music & Dance/Fitness/Arts & Crafts/Science/Games/Nature

10.   Turn On: Hair Color/Clothing/Accessories/Makeup/Fitness/Smell/Life State/Employment

a.       Hair color: Red/blonde/brown/black/grey/custom/facial hair

b.       Clothing: Swim wear/formal wear/underwear

c.       Accessories: Glasses/hats/jewelry

d.       Makeup: Makeup/full face makeup

e.       Fitness: Fat/fit/average

f.        Smell: Cologne/stink

g.       Supernatural state: As in #6b above

h.       Employment: Unemployed, employed, hard worker (Level 6+ in career)

11.   Turn Off: As in #10 above. Remove the Turn On you chose from consideration.

12.   Primary Interest: Environment/Food/Weather/Culture/Money/Politics/Paranormal/Health/ Fashion/Travel/Crime/Sports/Entertainment/Animals/Work/School/Toys/Sci-Fi

13.   Career: Adventurer/Architecture/Artist/Athlete/Business/Culinary/Criminal/Dance/Education/ Entertainment/Show Business/Journalism/Law/Law Enforcement/Medicine/ Military/Music/Natural Scientist/Oceanographer/Paranormal/Politics/Science/Slacker          (Note that Intelligence is NOT an option!)

14.   Successful/Not successful

15.   Pet/No pet

a.       If pet: cat/dog/bird/fish

16.   Taken/Available (for romantic purposes)

17.   Kids/No kids

18.   Favorite color: Red/Orange/Yellow/Green/Blue/Purple/Pink/Black/White/Gray/Brown

19.   Conservative/Rebellious/Quirky/Sporty/Elegant/Geeky/Ordinary

20.   Social group: None/Gearhead/Bohemian/Jock/Tech/Socialite

Some of these things may require custom content to pull off. (For example, if a male sim has to pass himself off as a female sim, you will probably need some form of custom content for his clothing.) Some of the things you choose will not show (such as social group), but can inform your interactions. For example, if your sim is supposed to be a Socialite, they should greet people with the Kiss Kiss Darling interaction. If your sim is supposed to have a Turn Off for red hair, they should not flirt with any redheads. If your sim has kids, they might turn the conversation topic to School or Toys. If your sim is a geeky sim with a pet fish and with the favorite color of pink, they might wear a pink shirt with a picture of a fish on it. Some of the Turn On options listed above are not available in game, or are broken. That’s okay – you’re not really changing your sim’s preferences, just having them pretend. (It’s harder that way.)

Maintain a Legend: Have a pretend relationship with another sim, preferably an allied agent. This pretend relationship has all the trappings of marriage/romance, including living together and sleeping in the same bed, but without romantic attachment. This sim may NOT be Mr. Big or The Diva. Bonus points if, when you’re playing a different household and invite the spy over, this pretend partner comes along when the spy asks “Can my friend come too?” +100 for a cover identity, +50 if the pretend partner your sim’s friend brought to a different household.

 END OF THE CHALLENGE

This challenge can end in one of two ways: Either you are successful enough to eventually be brought in from the cold, or you mess up badly and can never work as a spy again.

If you make it to Elder without having your cover blown, you can come in from the cold. You can drop your cover identity, and even take a job in Intelligence if you like. (This represents getting a nice desk job or training new recruits.) Alternatively, you can relax and enjoy retirement without any fear of anyone torturing or killing you. You do have to move to a completely different house. +500 for honorably coming in from the cold.

If your cover is blown once, you lose all your points, lose your job, and lose any Rewards or inventory you may have earned. You have to move to a new house with a new cover identity (use the Sim of a Thousand Faces chart to help pick this) and start a new job. Your new job cannot be in your old career track. You are immediately placed in Hard Mode, if you weren’t already there. -200 points for being forced to complete the challenge on Hard Mode because your cover was blown (Yes, this means you might start over with negative points.)

 If your cover is blown a second time, you are not cut out for the spy life. Flip a coin or roll a die to decide what happens to you.

1.       Heads/evens=You are forcibly retired. You move to a new house with a new identity. You can never see your family again (if you had one), and you have to get a new job that is not in any prior career path, in Intelligence, or in Law Enforcement.

2.       Tails/odds=You are found out and killed by the enemy. You lose all your points. Kill your sim via the method of your choice. Hey, being a spy is dangerous!

 SCORING

+1 for every dead drop completed

+5 for every time your sim is invited on an outing/date with a known sim

+5 per covert contact

+5 for every successful completion of the “iffy things” requirement above.

+25 bonus points for completion of the “iffy things” requirement with five different sims

+10 for every vacation destination greeting mastered

+10 for learning to teleport via meditation

You can only learn to teleport via one method, not both.

+10 for every time you send a message via an innocuous object

+10 if you faithfully complete the driving requirements

-10 If you have not completed it faithfully

+10 if you faithfully complete the hacking requirements

-10 If you have not completed it faithfully

+10 for each successful courier mission

+20 if you leave the couriered item on a community lot without handing it off to a contact.

+10 if the item in question didn’t belong to you in the first place.

+15 for every time your sim is invited on an outing/date with an unknown sim

+15 for every time you successfully take covert pictures

+15 for every time your sim withstands torture

+20 for every time your sim successfully follows someone

+20 for learning to teleport from the ninja

You can only learn to teleport via one method, not both.

+25 for every successful pair of code phrases exchanged

-10 every time the initial code phrase is not met with the return code phrase

-25 if the entire topic of conversation is rejected

+50 for successful romance/seduction of Mr. Big/The Diva

+25 bonus points for a one-sided love

+50 bonus points for a romance with the opposite of your autonomous gender preference.

+200 points for voluntarily completing the challenge on Hard Mode

-200 points for being forced to complete the challenge on Hard Mode because your cover was blown

+500 for honorably coming in from the cold

Friend or Foe? scenario

+15 for a positive relationship

-25 points for a negative relationship

Take a Chance On Me scenario

+25 for a maxed outing/date meter

0 for a neutral meter or a positive but not maxed meter

-20 for a negative meter

-100 for a bottomed out meter

Sim of a Thousand Faces  scenario

+25 for a successful mission

-20 for a failure triggering torture

Maintain a Legend scenario

+100 for a cover identity

+50 if the pretend partner is the “bring a friend” at a different household when your sim goes to visit

[breakingdownsu]

Chorus Chapter Eight

Note: After the silliness of last chapter, it's back to your regularly scheduled gut punches and general meanness from yours truly. While I'm here, I'd like to thank the people who have reviewed recently, a good review always motivates me to work faster.

…..

Steven passed a thankfully dreamless sleep in the rest pod, even inadvertently catching Ginger in the middle of a crying fit couldn't keep him awake. He was concerned, sure, but all he could really afford to be worried about was that their pace was so slow it felt like time was running out for Pearl, wherever she was. Not to mention every 'cycle' he spent on Homeworld was approximately one day he spent away from his loved ones on Earth. They were probably frantic by now.

Murder Pearl wasn't there when he woke up, but Ginger was. She pushed a glass of that murky liquid towards him without a word and went back to what she was doing; scanning a screen full of long lines of data that looked pretty incomprehensible.

“Where's Orthoclase?” he asked, daring a sip of the liquid. It tasted kind of good this time.

“She is making arrangements to see a Jade in the west quarter,” Ginger replied, eyes still on those rapidly scrolling lines. “The Jade's operations are invite only, she's trying to secure us a place for middle quadrant.”

“Is it another pearl?” Steven asked, though he sort of knew the answer already.

“Yes. Jade has a pearl that sings publicly on a regular basis. It would improve the anchor to borrow her.”

“Okay,” Steven said, fidgeting. “Where's Murder Pearl?”

It was the first time he'd spoken the nickname out loud, and he watched Ginger carefully for a sign that she disapproved. Nothing.

“She released her form,” Ginger replied. “She has a hairline fracture at the base of her gem, she releases when she's not on call.”

That made a lot of sense, and it also made Steven feel really, really bad for Murder Pearl. He didn't doubt all those knocks she took in the arena made the fracture worse, and she'd also been saddled with a really awful nickname. She seemed like a good gem; she had saved Ginger, after all.

I could have used my healing spit to fix her fracture. I'll use it next time I see her.

That next time would be a while; Orthoclase burst through the door a moment later.

“I got two tickets,” she announced. “They're not great seats but I can put you on a box if you want, pebble.”

“What about Ginger?” Steven asked.

“She doesn't need a ticket. Pearls don't count.”

…..

They passed a couple of hours with Orthoclase doing what she called a 'standard rejigging' on a pearl that seemed to be asleep. Steven was in the next room and Orthoclase had blocked off the operating table by a curtain, but from what he could see it looked pretty brutal. By the time she was finished the sleeping pearl was nearly a foot shorter and a completely different colour.

“I have to ask,” Steven said quietly as they were preparing to leave. “It seems like we're going a bit....slow with gathering the pearls. Is there any way we can get them faster?”

“I hear you, pebble,” Orthoclase told him, helping Ginger out of the culvert entrance and locking the door. “This thing is complex, more complex than even I thought. We need to get the important components together first, and we have almost all of them. After that, any pearl will do. Once we have this pearl, it'll speed us up.”

That was such a relief to hear Steven felt faint.

“How complex is it?” he asked, genuinely curious now.

“Lapis' pearl made a diagram,” Orthoclase said. “The anchor is important, and there's a radiating pattern that has to be matched. Anchor in the centre, three pearls forming the column, and six around them to fan it out. Then the rest of the pearls make it grow.”

“Oh.” He was already confused.

“Not only that, but they all have to be in a particular position, they all have to move at the same time and to the same beat, otherwise it all falls apart. Lapis' pearl seems to think we've got a good chance though.”

“It will work,” Ginger assured him. “We won't let her down.”

Strange, even though she said it in that airy, vague way she had of speaking, something about Ginger's words held a steely determination.

They weren't heading for the bad area of town, which was why Orthoclase seemed happy to let Ginger walk with them. They hit two checkpoints on the way in and Ginger's jaw was once again cracked. No matter how many times he saw it, Steven couldn't get used to seeing it. It looked horrifically painful.

“When was the last time you cleaned that thing?” Orthoclase growled at the Topaz performing the check.

“It's iodine washed every cycle,” the Topaz replied smoothly, not even looking at Orthoclase.

“Yeah right,” Orthoclase snorted.

Their destination was a set of buildings stacked in, on and around each other so tightly that they had to pass through single file to get to the place they were going. They stopped at a tall building at the top of a long escalator; to Steven's eye it looked like a nightclub of some sort but did gems have clubbing on Homeworld?

On the inside, it was fancy. Red and gold interior, mirrored floors and ceilings, and full of gems in formal wear. He, Orthoclase and to a lesser extent Ginger looked very out of place. A glamorous-looking gem with orange skin and a flicker of flame-like red hair was singing on a small stage, cheered on by a number of drunken-looking tall gems.

“You should have taken the back entrance,” a voice informed them snidely. They all looked down.

Aquamarine?

It wasn't the one he'd met before, this one was just as tiny but her hair was pulled back in a tight bun and she looked merely irritated and not furious by their presence.

“Sorry,” Orthoclase shrugged, clearly not sorry at all. “First time here and all. You wanna show us where to go?”

The aquamarine sighed heavily, turned sharply on her heel and beckoned for them to follow her.

“Have your tickets ready,” she said. “You can leave your pearl in the holding pen...”

“I'd rather keep her with us, thanks.”

“Of course you would,” Aquamarine sighed again. “Any weapons or sharp objects?”

“No,” Orthoclase answered, and Steven shook his head.

“You'll be going through the scanner, if you are found to be lying we'll be calling the authorities to report intoxication and general assault.”

“We've got nothing on us,” Orthoclase told her.

“Good. There is a general ban on manifesting weapons, if you manifest a weapon...”

“Intoxication and assault, we get it,” Orthoclase grumbled.

There was a scanner like the one Steven had seen once at the airport in front of a large set of double doors. Several gems were already proceeding through it; they were a mix of clearly well-heeled gems along with a number of rougher types, including himself and Orthoclase.

“The nanobytes won't set off the scanner, will they?” Steven whispered to Ginger.

“Not while I'm within ten pelmetres of you,” she whispered back.

Sure enough, they got through the scanner with no problems and were filtered into some seats in a coliseum-type arrangement. The seats were shabby, foam-covered and covered in little holes but even the clearly rich gems didn't seem to care. As the seats filled, two young-looking short gems handed out objects from a black box.

Are those...knives?

When the box was brought around to them (Orthoclase took three, offered one to Ginger, who refused) he got a closer look and they were, in fact, knives. Specifically, they looked like the kind of knives he'd seen ninjas use in movies before. Small, thick, balanced. A red-coloured band was wrapped around the hilt. He held the one given to him by Orthoclase gingerly. What kind of show was this?

The lights dimmed, and into the centre of the room walked a pale green gem dressed in flowing robes. She smiled and waved at the cheering audience, then called for silence.

“Do we have any new-hatches in the audience?”

A number of gems hooted and waved their arms.

“My reputation precedes me,” the green gem laughed. “Well, I'll keep it simple so we can get on with the show. You're holding a tenner blade in your hands. When you see the colour on the band pop up on the screen, you throw it into the ring. Simple, right?”

The audience laughed indulgently.

“But that's not much fun on its own,” the green gem continued. “We need something to aim at. Come on out!”

A crawling feeling had been building in Steven's stomach since being handed the blade, he knew it would be something like this. Sure enough, a pearl stepped lightly into the ring. Draped in some sort of silky trailing fabric, her hair elaborately pinned up....

Her eyes are closed. Why are her eyes closed?

…shimmer dust coating her exposed arms, legs and face, right down to the furrows under her closed eyes.

“Throw from anywhere in the audience, pearl here will hear it and dodge. As you can see, she lacks eyes to see what's coming, but there's nothing wrong with her hearing. It's has been specially tailored to allow for super-sensitive hearing...but we can't make it too easy on her, can we?”

The audience roared that no, they couldn't.

The curtain fell on an enormous drum overlooking the arena. A large hulking gem that Steven couldn't identify stood with a gong, ready to strike. The Jade took her bow and scurried away to cheering, and the pearl took her position in the centre.

“Did you remodel her?” Steven whispered to Orthoclase.

Orthoclase snorted, annoyed.

“Not me,” she hissed. “That's Spinel's work. If I'd done it, I wouldn't have left those marks under her eyes.”

“Is she really blind?” Steven asked.

“Of course. Standard eye removal, one of the easiest jobs there is,” Orthoclase answered. “'Course, when I do it I usually replace the eyes instead of just leaving them out...”

“Ssh!” a gem from behind them hissed, and although she made what was probably a rude gesture Orthoclase went silent.

The overhead screen went blue, and the burly gem hammered the drum. A flurry of sharp metal objects flew into the arena, but the pearl spun, dipped and cartwheeled until the last one hit the ground. None had hit her.

The screen turned purple, and another flurry descended on the arena. The blind pearl somersaulted gracefully out of the path of most of them, sank to the floor on her knees to avoid the others, and leaped over one that had been kept back and thrown at the last minute. She landed neatly on the hilt of one of the previously thrown blades, stood there on tiptoe with one leg stretched out behind her. She gave the audience the tiniest of smiles as they roared their approval.

When the red screen came up, Steven couldn't bear to throw his blade so he just dropped it over the side. The pearl dodged these blades as easily as the others, rolling out of their path and nimbly side-stepping the ones stuck into the floor. She finished each throw with a beautifully-cut balletic pose and a raucous applause from the watching gems.

A little too raucous, at least for one gem.

Steven's attention had been turned to Ginger, when he noticed she wasn't watching the blind pearl perform but watching another gem in the audience. He turned to look at this gem himself.

It was a dark green gem, not particularly big but intimidating all the same. She seemed drunk, or whatever the gem equivalent was. The pale blue gem beside her looked mortified to be in her company.

Out of the corner of his eye, Steven saw Ginger's fingers go to her mouth. Her lips moved, but he couldn't hear any sound come out of them. Her fingers flickered, as though she was breathing something into them. With one audible exhale, she dropped her hands and looked to the blind pearl.

The blind pearl's head tilted slightly. The drumming hadn't started, the screen was waiting for a new colour to be picked, but her body seemed poised to move...

There was a rush of wind as a blade, far too large to be one of the handed-out blades, rocketed right towards the blind pearl. It should have been moving too fast for her to dodge it...

...and yet she did, throwing herself backwards into the air just above where the blade should have skewered her. It missed her by a hair, just catching her cheek and slicing a long cut there. The blade clattered to the arena floor and the blind pearl landed just behind it. A green bloodlike substance trickled from her face to soak her robes.

“You!” the Jade screamed as she suddenly reappeared, pointing at the intoxicated gem. “You've been warned, for Core's sake! Who let you in here?”

“I'm sorry, Jade,” the pale blue gem moaned. “She promised me she'd be on her best behavior!”

“This performance is canceled,” Jade hissed. “Everyone out before the Amethyst squad gets here!”

The gems moaned and bitched, but they left. The two young gems collected the blades and Jade ushered the pearl out of the arena, oblivious to Orthoclase, Steven and Ginger following them.

“That was quite a show,” Orthoclase drawled, catching Jade as she dabbed at the blind pearl's face muttering darkly to herself.

“Oh...this is all I need,” she groaned. “What in Core's name do you want?”

“Relax, I can help you,” Orthoclase told her. “I need to borrow your pearl for a while.”

“Borrow?” Jade snorted. “What for?”

“Top secret,” Orthoclase shrugged. “I need her voice. You'll get her back in one piece...actually, you'll get her back in better condition. I can fix that cut....and I'll even get rid of those marks under her eyes, and all for free.”

Jade looked from Orthoclase to the blind pearl, and touched the blind pearl's facial markings gingerly with her thumb.

“I suppose,” she groaned. “Show's canceled for a while anyway. I got your word on this?”

“On my honour as a remodeler.”

Jade snorted derisively, but she handed over the blind pearl in the end.

…..

They dropped Steven off at the workshop, but Orthoclase and Ginger went off somewhere together because apparently fixing the blind pearl was going to take some special equipment. He was a little taken aback to find Murder Pearl sitting on the couch, not really doing anything besides staring into space.

“Uh, hi,” he said awkwardly.

“Hello,” she replied, unblinking and utterly still.

“I'm....I'm actually glad you're here,” he continued. “I wanted to thank you for what you did for Ginger...and for me, I guess. I would've been in big trouble if they found me, right? But mostly for Ginger.”

“I did what I was supposed to,” Murder Pearl said in that same airy, vague way Ginger had of speaking.

“I guess, but I still owe you. So I was thinking...Ginger said you had a fracture in your gem somewhere?”

She stared at him, not nodding or shaking her head. Just staring.

“I've got healing powers. Like, I have healing spit, and I already used it to fix some pearls...I can fix you, if you want?”

It seemed like the air suddenly turned thick, heavy. Murder Pearl didn't say a word.

“So, do you want to be fixed?” he asked, wishing she would say something.

“Do you want to fix me?” she asked instead.

“Well, sure I do!” he answered. “You deserve it!”

“Then I will accept.”

Relieved, and thinking that once she was fixed he stood a better chance of having an actual conversation with her, Steven licked his hand and pressed it over her gem. He didn't know what to expect. Maybe a smile, maybe even some tears...

Nothing.

No, there was something. Her face didn't change but something about the way she held herself was different.

“Thank you,” she said to him. “I will be back soon.”

Before he could ask what that meant, she had taken the hook she'd used to attack that Amethyst back at the old workshop and scaled the wall with uncanny ease. She pulled the grate off of the upper vent and disappeared into it.

Oh no.

The next hour or however long it took was unbearably tense. He'd messed up badly, and he didn't even know why. When somebody did come back, it was Ginger and she noticed straight away that something was wrong.

“Where is Murder Pearl?” she asked, still airy and vague but with a note of tension undercutting it.

“I'm sorry,” Steven said through gritted teeth, trying hard not to cry. “I just wanted to thank her for saving us, so I healed her...then she said she'd be back and she went out the vent!”

He didn't think it was possible for a pearl to go paler than they already were. Ginger proved him wrong.

“That was a mistake,” she told him, not scolding but matter-of-fact, which only made him feel worse.

“What's going to happen?” he asked, dreading the answer.

“Normally, a pearl's spike keeps her under control,” Ginger explained, as she pulled out a tablet and started furiously typing. “Murder Pearl's is no longer effective, but her damaged gem kept her from attacking other gems outside of the arena. She has nothing to hold her back now.”

That sounded really bad, even when said in Ginger's soft smooth tone. It sounded disastrous.

“I've messaged Orthoclase to tell her to stay away from the workshop,” Ginger continued. “We should wait until Murder Pearl returns. When she does, stay behind me and don't move. Understand?”

Gulping, Steven nodded.

[trailerparkk]

ranting about transmed/truscum shit under the cut; I just feel like I need to say this but I don’t want to annoy everyone with some long ass text post

Okay, so I’m am a transmed. I’ve probably lost followers just by saying that due to many misconceptions. But let me explain.

I do not hate nb people. I do believe there could be nb genders (such as agender or androgyne) but there hasn’t been enough evidence to prove it in science. That being said, I do not purposely misgender people just because I feel their gender doesn’t exist. But I am very uncomfortable with it/neo/nounself pronouns due to pass experiences and bullying, so I won’t use them but I will opt for they if there is not other aux pronouns. I do believe actual nb people do experience their own form of gender dysphoria, and it is required for someone to be nb. But I refuse to publicly make fun or mock someone who claims to be non-dysphoric, instead I would probably dm them to find out why they identify as such.

I hate the word “transtrender”, it is extremely out of date and comes from a time where people probably did say they were trans or nb just to be trendy, but i dont think thats the case now. Nowadays, “transtrenders” fall into 2 groups; those who do have dysphoria but because they dont always want to die they are told by this website they dont have it, and those who don’t have dysphoria but are told by this website that their gnc-ness and body dysmorphic disorders makes them trans. The first of which tends to be the majority and why i question people who call themselves “non-dysphoric” but they tend to actually be dysphoric.

Now onto dysphoria, IT IS NOT HATING YOURSELF. It is not wanting to kill yourself all the time. It is simply the uncomfortableness to distress someone experiences due to their gender and sex not aligning. There are multiple form of gender dysphoria and they can manifest in multiple ways. Body dysphoria is always present in a trans person, even if it is very low. Mild and flucuating dysphoria seem to be almost non-existent on this website, with people saying its because you’re “just genderfluid, not dysphoric!” or mogai-madeup-gender and ignoring the fact it is actually dysphoria.

And I hate when people treat medicalizing trans-issues as a bad thing. Because demedicalizing it is literally the worst thing that could ever happen to trans people. In some countries, if trans-issues are demedicalized, stuff such as hrt and srs will be illegal and citizens could get into big trouble with the law for going to other countries to have it done. Poorer trans people across the world wouldn’t be able to afford help that is already pretty expensive, even with health insurance. Demedicalization will kill transgender people. And anyone spreading the message of demedicalization, dysphoric or not, is adding to the problem.

This demedicalization is why there is not research on actual nb genders apart from “social science”, because people are being told there is nothing medical about it so there should be no reason to do medical research on something that isn’t medical.

Also, cis people cannot experience gender dysphoria. They can experience body dysmorphic disorders and eating disorders, however this is not a cis-only thing. Many trans men and trans women suffer from eating disorders which tend to be caused by their gender dysphoria, and it is important to bring light to this. However, body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria are NOT interchangable. One is something both cis and trans people can experience, the other is a trans only experience. The only “cis” people that experience dysphoria are those who decided to transition and got dysphoria or those who try to resent the fact they are trans and hide from it.

I am against mogai identities. They hurt people more than they help. Well actually, they help from your 14 but as you get older and you change even more it can cause more distress and confusion than help. Many microindenties and personality genders (or even mental health genders??) which may seem helpful on the surface can cause many problems down the line, take it from me. 

I am fully supportive of gnc trans men and gnc trans women. I am against people or even other truscum that decide to misgender and call someone nondysphoric and a transtrender just because a trans guy wears make up and doesn’t pass. News flash, most gnc trans men who wear make up (especially pre-t) know they don’t pass and would be misgendered in public. They don’t need you to erase their dysphoria.

Now, I am a trans guy. I wouldn’t exactly call myself gnc, though some of the things I like can be seen as more “girly”. I present as either a man or as neutral, but usually as a man. I am not less trans or another gender on the days I present as more neutral.

And some little things. Masculinity and Femininity aren’t genders, pronouns are gendered, gender is the sex of your brain and thus is in your brain.

[maxwellyjordan]

“We’ll just have to keep doing the work”: Ginsburg’s clerks remember her example in a tumultuous term

The members of the 2016-17 clerk class for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg started their clerkship amid great uncertainty and a grieving court. In the second in a two-part series of interviews with former Ginsburg clerks, SCOTUStalk host Amy Howe talked with all four of the justice’s clerks from that term: Subash Iyer, Hajin Kim, Beth Neitzel and Parker Rider-Longmaid. Between the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a contentious election, and two nominations for one seat, they describe the year as “a slow-motion train wreck.” But amid the chaos, they remember Ginsburg’s commitment to doing the work, notable cases that advanced justice, and the few special times they made her laugh.

Listen on Acast | Spotify

The full transcript is below.

[00:00:00] Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!

Amy Howe: [00:00:03] This is SCOTUStalk, a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog.

AH: [00:00:13] Welcome to SCOTUStalk. I’m Amy Howe. Four years ago, the law clerks for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg started the new term amid a lot of uncertainty.

[00:00:22] Justice Antonin Scalia had passed away in February 2016, so the court was operating with just eight members. Then-sPresident Barack Obama had nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia, but Senate Republicans had refused to hold hearings or a vote. In January 2017, the new president, Donald Trump, nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy. He was confirmed and took the bench a few months later. We’re delighted to have those four law clerks with us today to discuss that unusual term and how Justice Ginsburg responded. Joining me are Subash Iyer, Hajin Kim, Beth Neitzel, and Parker Rider-Longmaid.

Justice Ginsburg with her 2016-17 clerks and their partners.

[00:01:02] So you all were clerks in the October Term of 2016, and it was an unusual term. The term started with eight justices and a stalled nominee, and then there was a hotly contested election. How did this shape your experience? Did it shape your experience?

Parker Rider-Longmaid: [00:01:21] You know, you mentioned it was an eight-justice court. And so it you always had the potential for the court disagreeing, but being unable to resolve cases. And by the end of the term, we did see some of that. But there, of course, was a lot going on, as you mentioned, that year. And it was the year of a presidential election. And, in fact, that vote, when we when we learn the result was right before a major argument. I think that that was happening that term and in Sessions v. Morales-Santana. And actually the case at that time was called Lynch v. Morales-Santana. And it was an interesting sensation going from having learned the results of this election into an argument where the court had the potential to address this very important disparity between the way men and women were being treated and having to, at least for me personally, balance feelings that I was having at that time about what was going on in the world and what was going on before the court.

Beth Neitzel: I think it did shape the year in a number of important respects.

[00:02:34] I think that all of us started the clerkship anticipating that our boss, Justice Ginsburg, would perhaps be the most influential justice on the court, before long, right, she was the senior-most justice in the liberal bloc. I certainly believed that ultimately the Senate would indeed carry out their constitutional duty to put forth the president’s nominee. With the election, of course, everything changed. And I think any hopes that the Senate would indeed carry out its duty was lost, and everything slowly started to change. I sort of think back to that year like a slow motion train wreck, certainly after the election dynamics on the court started to change and it was publicly known that a lot of cases started to be relisted continuously for a very long period of time until that ninth justice was confirmed. So, know, I think the expectations we had for the year were very different from how the year turned out, and watching all of that unfold during the term was really hard and was pretty discouraging, to be honest. I mean, I think by the end of the year, there were times that we were struggling as clerks. The justice, I mean, that was the most remarkable thing. The justice never seemed to. She always was calm, determined, unflappable. And so we tried our best to be that way. We were never as good at it as she was. And I think that’s what we’re all striving for right now.

AH: Subash?

Subash Iyer: [00:04:29] I mean, I think one of the interesting dynamics of the year, from my perspective, was that it sort of preceded as three separate phases. There was the phase leading up to the election where we really did think that there would be a ninth justice filled relatively soon.

[00:04:46] And then there was a long period between November and roughly April when Justice Gorsuch was finally seated. And in that six-month window, the court was still operating as an eight-member court. But the dynamics had changed. And then at the end of our term, I find it to be a very interesting experience, to have a whole new set of clerks and a new justice come into the building, especially when you have a fairly cohesive clerk class. And for just one month of cases, there is a new set of clerks in the building and a new justice in the building. But I think we all, as a group of existing clerks, navigated that transition as smoothly as we could. But there were some very important cases in April. And in particular, one of the things that was notable about that term was that there were relatively few capital cases. But in the month of April, there was a stretch of eight capital cases that were scheduled in the last two weeks of that month. And that, I think, was a particularly challenging period for all of us, because the work that the court does on its capital docket is among the most emotionally exhausting and draining work that any clerk does. And to have that much in rapid succession and a brand new court with nine justices at the end of a term that was very exhausting, was very difficult. So that last three-month stretch from April until we got the opinions out, it felt like a very different year.

[00:06:19] And I think the dynamics have changed.

AH: Hajin, do you have anything you want to add?

Hajin Kim: I just really want to echo what Beth said, which is that we started the term with really a lot of hope and then it was November with a shock. And the fact that, you know, Judge Garland wasn’t seated, that was also a shock, although more of the slow, slow moving train wreck that Beth was saying than the election. One question you asked in the set of questions was if we had any advice for OT20 justices’ clerks. And I really tried to think like, you know, what advice do I have aside from sort of what Beth was saying earlier about how the justice would just keep soldiering on and do the work. And I think it’s really hard to say because I really think that people to ask are actually the OT15 clerks because they dealt with Justice Scalia’s passing. And I think that’s really hard for everybody in the building. It’s especially hard for the clerks of the justice who passed.

PRL: [00:07:16] I think it had one thing, which is that Justice Ginsburg really set an example for us even during this hard time. And when Justice Gorsuch started on the court, and I’m sure this is known because we’ve seen it in the media as well.

[00:07:29] But she turned around and offered Justice Gorsuch her law clerk manuals as a way that he could begin his time on the court with something to work with. And it’s very interesting. You look at the long history of these institutions. That manual, I guess, had its inception in one way or another in the manual that Justice Byron White had passed on to Justice Ginsburg. And Justice Gorsuch, of course, was a clerk at that time, having been hired by Justice White and served with Justice Kennedy. So there’s a long respect that the justices have for each other. And I think Justice Ginsburg taking the long view of all this. And we certainly spent time talking with her and working through our feelings on what was going on in politics, in the world and at least to me personally, and I’m sure you get different answers from other people. But one of the comforting things for me was that she had been through so much in her life and she had seen she had seen the Second World War and she had seen all these cases she argued as an advocate before the court and all the change she had made. And she had been through many different elections and very hotly contested times and seen the pendulum swing back and forth. And she had a different perspective on it, I think than we might be able to have in our short lifetimes. And so I continue to think of that when I think about what’s coming next and what we can expect and what we might be able to do in our own lives.

AH: [00:08:58] So, Subash mentioned the capital cases that term. What else do you remember in terms of the work? But is there a dissent or something about Justice Ginsburg at oral argument, in any of the cases that sticks out to you see what I mean?

SI: [00:09:15] I think one of the one of one of the cases that term that I think had an impact was Moore v. Texas, which was the case that we heard early in the term. And it was a capital case. And the question before the court was whether Texas’s approach towards identifying whether a capital defendant had an intellectual disability that would prevent them from being executed, whether that approach was rooted in modern scientific and psychiatric principles. And they ultimately upheld the idea that the evolving standards of decency that we all know to be central to the Eighth Amendment, that those standards do depend on and do reflect changes in science. And so it was an opinion that Justice Ginsburg wrote that term and she held a narrow majority. I think it was a 5-4 decision where she had Justice Kennedy and along with the four more traditionally liberal justices. So that was that was an important case, I think, for establishing that there are still scientific standards that also govern the Eighth Amendment.

BN: [00:10:36] I was just going to say I’m going to share a memory of the justice. That’s a little bit more in general. It’s not it’s not unique to a case, but it’s something I think of whenever I think of working on cases with her, working on opinions, something that I think that a lot of people may not know about the justice, I mean, a lot of people know that the justice with a law professor at some point in her career, but just how much of a teacher the justice always was through and through, I’m not sure is widely known. And that really came through when we worked on opinions with her. She would have us draft opinions in triple-spaced Courier fonts like that old typewriter font, but with large gaps between each line so that she could edit it very carefully by hand. And then she would call us in and you would sit down at this little table with her. She would walk you through every one of her edits and explain why she did that. Or she would ask you sometimes, sometimes with the expression…

AH: In all seriousness, how long does that take? It must take hours, right?

BN: [00:11:47] So, I mean, depending on how early. Yeah.

[00:11:49] How long the draft was, how extensive her edits were, et cetera.

[00:11:56] But she would also ask you sometimes why this word, sort of like why in the world would you put it that way?

[00:12:06] But often she may understand why you chose the tack you did, but then she would explain why her way was better. And it was. And it was it was really an extraordinary experience to say, it was pretty amazing that she took the time to do that. Right, to walk us through it all to as I said, I mean, to me, it just felt like she cared deeply about teaching. And that was the same way that she had approached her litigation prior to being appointed to the federal bench. She talks a lot about approaching her work on sex discrimination as educating these often quite elderly, usually white men. She said that the way she would think about it was, I just need to explain this to them because they don’t get it.

[00:13:00] And I just need to help them understand that the damage caused by stereotypes is all of this and it harms all of us. That was an approach she took with her work always, whether with her clerks in her opinions when she was a litigator, etc. and it was something that you saw till the end.

HK: just that just to add to that.

[00:13:25] So I always thought it was striking that because she cared so much about teaching, she would always say that she had been a law teacher, not a law professor, I think to emphasize the teaching and how important that was. And it is, you know, she just had, Beth mentioned that she really thought her view, her her job was to educate these judges who didn’t recognize the harms from discrimination. And it’s such. It’s such a beautiful and wise view in many ways, in ways I didn’t appreciate before, because instead of saying, oh, look at these terrible people who are like just, you know, being so bad to women, she said, oh, they just don’t understand. With reasoned dialogue, I can get them to understand. They just don’t see it. And so I just have to help them see it. And so she really to give everybody the benefit of the doubt and said we can we can get through this, we can make the world a better place. We just need to, you know, understand it better and like have a better perspective. And I think that’s really that’s you know, she had this famously wonderful and beautiful friendship with Justice Scalia. And I think it’s because she really, truly saw the good in other people, even though she was seemingly on these, like, partisan lines, she never really thought of it that way. It wasn’t partisan for her.

PRL: [00:14:44] We actually, there was a case our year that I think illustrates some of what Beth and Hajin have said. I mentioned it before. The Sessions v. Morales-Santana case. And it was a gender discrimination case, which, you know, will be huge with Justice Ginsburg on the court. And she did end up getting the opinion. The issue in that case was how federal law treats the children who are born to citizen mothers or fathers who are married or unmarried abroad. In this particular case, you had the son of a citizen father who was born out of wedlock, and his father actually had been born in Puerto Rico and had had spent most of his time in Puerto Rico up until about 20 days before he was 19. And at the time that disabled him from being covered by the federal law that would allow him to pass citizenship to his son. His son was here in this litigation at risk of being deported from the country because he wasn’t a citizen. So he was he invoked, he claimed,  a right to citizenship based on his father’s right to citizenship. And at that time, the unwed citizen father had to have 10 years of physical presence in the United States.

[00:16:00] An unwed citizen mother only had one year. It was a little bit more complicated than that in terms of how it was calibrated. That’s essentially the picture. And so unwed citizen mothers had in some ways were able to pass citizenship much more easily than any other type of parent. And what Justice Ginsburg is able to explain in the opinion for the court, much like Beth and Hajin said is a teacher, if you go read that opinion, you’ll see how she approaches it and she goes through all the cases that that she had litigated as an advocate. And she says, you know when these laws are based on these stereotypes that in marriage, the man is the head of the household and he is the leader of the family. But that out of wedlock, the mother is the sole and natural guardian of the child. And she said it’s the only way to understand what’s going on here. And ultimately, the court’s decision is somewhat unsatisfying because they’re unable to provide any relief for Luis Morales Santana in that case, ultimately concluding that Congress would have wanted the longer period to apply to everyone.

[00:17:06] And the interesting thing is you’ll see the separate opinion from Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, saying we don’t know why you’re addressing this discrimination question if the litigant here doesn’t get a remedy. Why are you doing this? And it’s very interesting. I think it’s one of the footnotes in the Justice Ginsburg opinion where she talks about the importance of rooting out discrimination even when you can’t necessarily afford a remedy for the litigant in that case and really doing something. This opinion that exposes, I think, again, for the world, the constraining effect stereotypes can have on everyone. And just one other example I would give and this goes to the point my colleagues have made about Justice Ginsburg’s relentless drive to continue having dialogue with colleagues she disagreed with. I don’t think there’s, I think you just point out that the same issue had come before the court several years before. I think it was in 2009 in the court. Justice Kagan recused and the court divided 4-4 on the question and was unable to resolve it. Well, you look at this opinion in Sessions v. Morales-Santana and has a 6-2 opinion. So if you think about the power that that changing hearts and minds and different ways of looking at the law can have over time. And I think we at least were able to spend some time with her when she was working through with the court on issues like this.

AH: [00:18:26] The traditional Jewish message of condolence is “may her memory be a blessing.” What blessings did Justice Ginsburg leave for you or has she inspired you in your life, your work, how you get along with your family and friends?

BN: [00:18:40] She has inspired me to pursue two feats that I will probably never attain. The first is to choose my words very carefully and to listen more than I talk, and that’s probably going to be a lifelong journey. And the other that I think is even more difficult is that she as the most gracious person I think I’ve ever known. She believed very strongly that you will not persuade others to join you if you demonstrate frustration or impatience or anger. She is often quoted as saying something along the lines of, you know, go out there and fight passionately for what you believe in, but do it in a way that makes others want to join you. And I think I’m pretty good on the first half of that.

[00:19:40] And I’m not always as good on the second half.

[00:19:43] And I think that will also be sort of a lifelong undertaking. But I really I thought that those two characteristics were quite remarkable. And it’s, even though I will probably never manage to do what she did, I think it’s worth striving to emulate it in any event.

HK: [00:20:10] I think she was the ultimate role model, I agree, I think she, I mean, everybody says, OK, she was that ultimate role model because she was so successful professionally and had this beautiful full life of family and friends and, you know, things that she cared about and was able to make it all work. But it’s I think it’s beyond that she you know, so before gratitude was this popular, in thing to exercise and like do a gratitude journal, she lived her life with gratitude, even though objectively like if we were thrust back into her era, we would probably just be really angry about a lot of things. So, you know, she had to, she went to law school, had a baby. Her husband gets very sick. And instead of saying, oh, woe is me, she goes, every part of my life gives respite to the other. I get to study. And when I study, I get to enjoy that. And then I, I go and take care of Jane, her daughter in law school. And then I get to sort of enjoy that part of my life as well. Whereas I think especially now in Covid times, it’s really hard for working parents and we’re all just kind of like, oh my gosh, I have so many things to do. This is awful. And she just really saw the bright side of all of that and appreciated it, and she even in her, she did so much to advance to advance women in the law. And instead of saying like, oh, ha ha, how great am I? Which she totally had the right to do. She is she was amazing. She instead said that she thinks it was her great, good fortune to have been able to participate in in the movement, like she just appreciates that she got to be part of that. That type of mindset, I think is incredible. And I would love to be able to adopt that. So. So, yeah, I think she’s an inspiration in every facet of life.

SI: [00:22:03] I think another blessing that the justice gave me.

[00:22:07] And I think that as the four of us talk over the past couple of days, the blessing is that she sort of gave us the tools to take this moment of incredible grief and try to channel it towards something good ,and in particular, I think the moment that all of us gravitated to when we heard about her passing and we’re feeling the grief was this conversation that we had the morning after the last presidential election. We went into the office and it was a really important oral argument, which Parker talked about earlier. And after the argument, we sat down with the justice and we talked about the cases because that’s what we always do. And after that.

[00:23:07] I think we were all just really struggling and so we asked her. Do you have any advice for us? We’re having a hard time today. And what she said was.

[00:23:23] Things will get better. We’ll just have to keep doing the work. And I think there’s something so powerful in the idea that you just keep doing the work and I think it’s what animated her whole life, she wasn’t in it for the glory. She didn’t even know when she started that she would be able to succeed in breaking all the barriers that she did and crafting the law that she did and making this world a better place. But I think her mindset always including after that election, which I think hit us harder than it hit her, was to just keep doing the work, and so, I mean, I think we’ve all been reflecting back on that moment. And it was it was incredible that all four of us that we all sort of centered on that moment. It’s such an important piece of our time with her. And I think it’s a lesson for all of us as we’re processing, because I think nationally we all are processing this grief that that’s probably what she would want us to do.

PRL: [00:24:22] I agree with everything my colleagues have said. I think I would add that in terms of the freedom I was talking about, Justice Ginsburg giving us some opinions like Sessions v. Morales-Santana. As I started into private practice after my time with Justice Ginsburg, I thought about how am I going to find time to be a father?

[00:24:48] And my son came probably about a week after I started and is now just has turned three.

[00:24:56] We all have very small children, all four of us. And I was able to look at the example Justice Ginsburg set as she was doing what goes without saying was incredibly important work and still finding time to spend with her kids.

[00:25:11] And for me, it was about making sure as much as I could getting home in time for dinner to see my son. And then as Covid struck and we all have been in our own ways trying to cope with that and all of us with working spouses. My wife is a pediatrician. And so in some ways made us more paranoid, I think, than a lot of people. And we’ve been doing our own child care and just finding ways to make that work and looking. I say this knowing my privilege, but being able to look at the justice’s example to say, I know what I’m going to be comfortable and telling people at work that I need to take this morning and take that afternoon. And I’m just not going to be available then, even though we have very demanding jobs. And I think she in many ways by saying, look, stereotypes should not govern our lives. They shouldn’t be written into our law. I think she gave us the freedom to look and say we can be strong people. We can be people in bonds with each other, and we can trust each other to do good work. And we don’t need to have these rules that really at the end of the day, just constrain us. I mean, if I can just for a moment, selfishly say I’m very, very grateful to her for that kind of thing and what she’s, I think, given to all Americans, there’s this hope and potential that we can look forward and say, what else do we need to look at in our law that we can that we can say this is holding us back, is preventing us from achieving our individual and collective potential.

[00:26:38] And I think she really thought about it and the whole bigger picture, and that’s why she was able to be so effective.

HK: [00:26:45] Should I tell the Star Athletica story?

BN: [00:26:49] Sure.

PRL: Yes, I do.

BN: [00:26:52] And I think one of the things I’m sorry, can I just say before Hajin says this. It’s like one of the things that has helped us over the past few days. And, you know, you may not want to use any of this material, but we have very much enjoyed sharing stories with each other of times that the justice sort of demonstrated the justice’s sense of humor, like she was very funny. And also the times that we got to see her laugh, which were like the most gratifying thing ever.

[00:27:20] But anyway, so with that now.

HK: I feel like we should check we should share some of the other things that we’ve talked about. So what did that at, say, one case, that term was Star Athletica. It’s a copyright case about cheerleading uniforms. And we actually had no idea she was going to do this, and we only heard about it from other clerks around the building. She went to conference with pompoms. I think we are all coming back from something. And some of the clerks were like, oh, my gosh, did you hear what your boss did? And we were like, what? It was so great. But, yeah, she just she always had, like, a good sense of humor.

AH: [00:27:58] I love hearing those because they really, you know, her public persona… There was there was the Notorious RBG, but then her public persona, you know, she was kind of quiet and reserved. And so it’s so much fun to hear these stories.

HK: [00:28:16] Oh, my gosh, somebody has to tell the story because I’m terrible at stories. But somebody needs to tell the Duchess of Krakenthorp story because that was right after the election. We were like in the worst of spirits.

SI: [00:28:28] All right, so so relatively early in our term, probably in October, we got wind of the fact that the justice would be performing that season at the Kennedy Center and we were very excited, we didn’t think we’d really have the opportunity to go, and then the justice invited us one day to come see her at the dress rehearsal, which did not feel like a dress rehearsal at all because the Kennedy Center was packed. She played the role. I honestly could tell you so little about any other aspect of that performance except that she was the Duchess of Krakenthorp.

[00:29:15] All right. So she comes out and proceeds to deliver a monologue. It was not a singing part. I think she herself is very grateful for that, and it contained in it all of these subtle or not so subtle digs that the political world—and the performance was in the same week as Election Day was—so I think for that entire audience, it was this moment of incredible comedic relief. I know that our spirits were definitely lifted.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: [00:29:48] Dropping traditions that have worked and continue to work is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

[00:30:02] We will resume when you, Marie, and the birth certificate are all here.

[applause]

PRL: [00:30:28] Can’t follow that. Certainly, I remember one other time in this kind of goes to the theatrical element and Justice Ginsburg’s ability to find humor, even in the small things. And this goes to what you were saying, Amy, in terms of the perception publicly that she was very reserved and serious. And you may remember there after President Trump had fired James Comey and it was a surprise to many people and Sean Spicer among them. And then he was accosted, I think, on the grounds of the White House lawn and he hid in the bushes. Well, this was this was one image that I guess had not made it to Justice Ginsburg. So we just we thought the image was theatrical and funny and we shared it with her and some of the memes that had been posted online. And it just the sheer imagery of it. She just thought it was hilarious. And it was one of the times that we saw her laugh quite hard. And there was a moment of levity, I think, in an otherwise rather serious term at times.

SI: [00:31:34] There were quite a few times I think that we successfully made her laugh. We’ve gone through the chronicle of this, though, and I think that’s the only story that we can actually share. But we did every once in a while to get her to laugh. And it was it was always a big victory for the clerk who got her to crack up, because, I mean, when she when she started laughing, she would laugh for a little while. It was great.

BN: [00:31:58] It was the best thing ever to hear her laugh. It was it was so wonderful. They are among my favorite memories. One night when I was working late, perhaps on an opinion or something with her, I was in a different part of chambers, but I could hear her laughing down the hall in her office, and the door was open. So, I quietly walked down the hall to see what she was up to and peeked in her office to see her giggling while watching an SNL skit of herself. Of them doing RBG. It was great. It’s like one o’clock in the morning, and she was enjoying, I think, you know, a bit of comedic relief herself, undoubtedly after a long day of work, although, let’s face it, one o’clock in the morning, it’s pretty early for her.

[00:32:50] She was probably heading home to put another three or four hours in.

AH: [00:32:53] Amazing. All right, Beth Parker, Hajin, Subash, thanks so much for sharing your memories with us. That’s another episode of SCOTUStalk.

[00:33:02] Thanks for joining us. Thanks to Casetext, our sponsor, and to our production team Katie Barlow, Katie Bart, Kal Golde, and James Romoser.

  The post “We’ll just have to keep doing the work”: Ginsburg’s clerks remember her example in a tumultuous term appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/scotustalk-keep-doing-the-work/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[andranikolayi]

Gxrls Can’t Mix - misogyny and discrimination in the electronic music world

originally appeared online in Romanian for Revista Cutra

A brief note about this translation

I initially wrote this text in July for Romanian intersectional feminist mag CUTRA and they published it mid September. The focus was supposed to be on events that did take place locally, however, this summer there’s been a constant stream of tweets from female-identified and enby djs/producers about their horrendous Boiler Room experiences.

I wanted to shine a light on that and the endemic kind of sexism that boiler room is constantly facilitating and refuses to take any responsibility towards, as well as share some of the horrors from the Romania scene that nobody wants to talk about because we still live in a very homophobic, racist and sexist environment. As a local queer artist myself, I do believe it is our duty to speak up on these issues even if it may negatively affect our social/professional life. The local community leaders do know what they need to do in order to create safer, more inclusive spaces yet prefer to use a superficially woke discourse that looks good online, yet they would never take direct action or present an unpopular opinion.

Having spoken to Ceci after their Boiler Room and their scary bad experience (including receiving multiple death threats), it became increasingly clear that this text needed to exist in the world. Also running into Lakuti last week in Berlin and hearing how traumatized she still is after her experience playing in Romania, I was all the more motivated to translate it into English and make this available for everyone.

It may be sprawling at times, but I think it’s important to present a translation of the original published material, as it appears on the CUTRA website. Please keep in mind that CUTRA is not a music/dj-specific publication so certain aspects of the industry come with very ELI5 explanations.

First I thought she was just messing with us, but now i m starting to think that this girl doesn’t know what she’s doing

This is boring room not boiler room

Are they trying to put us to bed and broadcasting Schumann resonances?

She would have been better at spinning pizzas than records

Go back to the kitchen!

 These are just a select few from the over 2000 comments of the very first Boiler Room live stream taking place in Romania. Said comments appeared on the initial Facebook live post. The event took place in July 2016. At the time of writing this article [na – july 2019], all the comments are still publicly visible on their page.

I could probably write a thesis on misogyny in electronic music, but for this particular piece I’d like to focus on the following question: why do we saying that gxrls can’t mix?

I would also like to ask the follow up questions: should we be surprised that colleagues from the Romanian club industry would say that a female-identified person is a sick DJ but „a little too homely” to play a certain club? Or that another person I used to consider a close friend would tell me during a b2b set that because he just took some MDMA I looked like „a juicy piece of meat” to him? Or how when Electronic Beats Romania did their first feature on local producer Admina and they didn’t even know who to contact from the magazine to moderate the deluge of hateful comments? Or how nobody even bats an eye at the way industry men here always tend to grab you by the lower waist when talking to you in the club as if it were the most natural thing in the world? Try to explicitly say something and you would be instantly labelled an „unchill bitch”.

The answer is a resounding yes. We should be surprised, as well as angry and concerned enough to start actively doing something about this.

Miss I’s Boiler Room

 On July 6th, 2016, the promoters behind the Interval event and festival series put together the very first Boiler Room in Romania. For those of you less familiar with the club world, Boiler Room is a platform that organizes events specifically designed to broadcast a live video stream of the club experience. Think DJs mixing or musicians doing live sets, while also making a point in filming the audience and their reactions to the music. Since its inception in 2010, Boiler Room has become a global phenomenon, with immense pull in the industry. The project is equally revered and reviled to the point that there are parody YouTube channels (see People of Boiler Room). For most artists, being on Boiler Room is a make or break moment, sort of like a calling card highlighting your skill as a DJ.

Promoters, fellow DJs, agents and ravers all follow Boiler Room religiously. The platform’s increased popularity and growing volume of videos produced per week may have slightly decreased its influence due to sheer oversaturation, being on BR is still the highlight of many up-and-coming artists’ career. Unlike a mix, the BR videos don’t just physically show off your mixing skills, but they also document the audience’s reaction in real time. Oh, and as a DJ you only get 60 minutes to give it your best. Or, as with Miss I in the following example, you’ve just been asked to open the very first BR broadcast ever from your country. Miss I is one of the most beloved local female DJs, also responsible for opening the first vinyl only record store in Romania and highly appreciated in the minimal/deep house scene, so you know there’s gonna be eyeballs. But no pressure, u do u grrrrl.

For every Boiler Room event, the broadcast is livestreaming on their website and Facebook page. Reading the live reactions on the chatroom and Facebook comments is intricately related to the experience. On that humid summer afternoon in a rooftop garden in Rahova, the comments that started pouring just a few minutes into her set were absolutely shocking. The level and volume of vitriol had greatly surpassed the BR staff’s expectations. About 40 minutes in, the host publicly posted a call out comment.

However, while researching this article, I was surprised to discover that most of said harmful and sexist comments were still up online. There were no attempts on behalf of the BR team to warn or ban users. Hell, there was no moderation. But maybe there should have been.

The Boiler Room Effect

Part I - San Francisco Pride, 2019

This story took place in 2016. We could easily justify what had happened by claiming we don’t like to talk about gender politics at the club or how, generally speaking, the Eurominimal/tech-house scene the event was catering to is notoriously populated by aggro cishet bros who worship Villalobos. Unfortunately (surprise surprise!), this has not been the first, nor the last online scandal Boiler Room has been responsible for.

During the writing process for this material, initially meant to focus mainly on Romanian issues, I started paying attention to the comments on recent BR livestreams. This process, coupled with the increased number of artist friends talking about the backlash in the comments following their BR streams I was seeing on Twitter lead me to believe in the dire necessity of live moderators for the entire BR social media. These comments are not just mean spirited or unfunny trolling, they can be incredibly harmful and have a lasting negative effect.

On June 1st 2019, Boiler Room organized a Pride-related event in San Francisco where an artist I not only appreciate but happen to occasionally work with made their debut. Ceci aka CCL is a DJ, producer, co-founder of queer collective TUF and [at the time of publishing] agent working for Discwoman, an NYC-based talent agency created to boost womxn and non-binary artists. CCL identifies as non-binary and uses only they/them pronouns. Being AFAB and feminine presenting, they are often misgendered due to their presentation, even after clearly stating their preferences.

In the beginning of the video, the host does use their correct pronouns, but most people in the comments were still referring to them by using she/her pronouns. This might seem like a minor inconvenience compared to the bulk of the discourse happening below the stream, mostly comprised of people complaining about the music, ranging from how weird the selection is, whether or not that sound is a faulty cable and how bad their technical skills were. Later Ceci confessed they even received actual death threats. All this was happening at a Pride-related event in one of the gayest cities in the world and with a line-up specifically tailored for the occasion.

Being misgendered is always a bad experience, but when it happens during what is supposed to be a career-defining moment, the effect is even more traumatic. Besides, a torrent of sexist and negative comments cannot have a positive effect on anyone, regardless of their gender or sexual identity. Especially with BR, this only seems to happen when female-identified or non-binary artists are concerned. In CCL’s case, the misgendering may have not been the most atrocious part of the online response, however we do need to start implementing such habits as not assuming one’s gender or choice of pronouns. It may seem like a small step, but it does make a world of difference.

What Boiler Room continuously refuse to do is acknowledge the influence it carries in the industry and the responsibility that comes with that. BR could have avoided causing a lot of damage by simply adding a little blurb about the artist’s preferred pronouns in the description of the Facebook live video, for the users tuning in later or not familiar with their work.

It’s this kind of thoughtfulness and concern for the actual scenes they feature that is consistently lacking from their approach.

Part II - The Sherelle Incident

 In March 2019, a different incident took over both the online and offline music discourse – for approximately two whole weeks, all you could see on Techno Twitter were reactions to Sherelle’s Boiler Room. In short, there was clip of a POC female-identified DJ from the UK playing bass and jungle to a packed room going totally berserk until someone from the audience touches the CDJs and the music stops. This unwanted intervention coming from an unidentified hand created a meme-worthy WTF reaction. To nobody’s surprise, this snipped was the one Boiler Room chose to use as their preview advertising her set online. All of a sudden, her startled face in the clip was all anyone could think of, not the incredible atmosphere she created. Yewande Adeniran  wrote a thoughtful piece on the implications and how said “accident” took the discourse away from a moment that was supposed to be just about Sherelle and her skills as a DJ.

Following the incident, the Twitter community managed to ID the person who caused the hubbub, who turned out to be infamous UK DJ Riz la Teef, who was also playing the event. Online, he’s been bombarded with accusations of racism and misogyny to the point of having to delete his account. However, a wave of reputed DJs and producers jumped to his defense and justified his action. Keeping in mind that most of what we call Techno Twitter is comprised of people from/who live in North American, their argument was that his unwarranted intrusion was in fact a very common practice from the UK grime/bass culture. 

Known as a wheel up or to turn up, it consists on moving the jog (the little CDJ wheelie thingie) to rewind the track playing and increase the hype. It’s traditionally considered a sign of appreciation and supposed to be very flattering when your friends/fellow DJs perform it. Think of it as a hands-on rewind. Only in this case his attempt failed and the only thing he managed to accomplish was create a whole lot of confusion. Plus, they were friends and earlier in the clip you can see him come say hi and hug her. In true Internet fashion, think pieces from major publications followed, educating the poor American kids on the wheel up, as well as photos with the two hugging and making peace, telling everyone it’s time to chill out. As for Sherelle’s part, I’m actually curious what else was she supposed to do than say something along the lines of “OK, fine, let’s move on”? It’s already hard enough to break through in the industry as a queer black woman, the last thing you want to do is be that unchill bitch who can’t take a joke.

Our Daily Misogyny

Going back the shitty things that happened in Romania chapter, I want to talk about an incident that happened in October 2016 at a Queer Night party in Guesthouse. To give you a little context, Queer Night is a series of queer parties, the first of its kind, co-run by local choreographer/dancer Paul Dunca and DJ/singer Cosima von Bulowe for over a decade. Guesthouse is a club mainly associated with the Rominimal/tech-house cult, with a pretty cishet, homophobic audience. However, they occasionally host the odd underground event, like DJ Stingray or Lena Willikens. This particular event was a collaborative effort between Queer Night and the Interval (the people responsible for the Romanian Boiler Rooms – na) curatorial teams, who invited queer womxn DJ couple Lakuti and Tama Sumo to do an extended back to back set. Lerato Khathi aka Lakuti is an incredibly talented DJ from South Africa, who also runs the label and talent agency Uzuri and Tama Sumo has an extensive DJ career and also books for Panoramabar.

As Lerato was mixing, a guy standing in front of the booth reaches towards the turntables and touches the record that was playing and the music glitches. Lerato simply froze for a second but continues to carry on mixing. A few minutes later, said guy suddenly appears behind the booth (access to the booth and the backstage area requires a separate bracelet) and tries to get her attention and starts touching her. In that moment, Tama rushes in and extracts the person from the booth. In spite of his highly inappropriate conduct at event that promotes safe spaces, the security staff refused to kick him out of the club for a fuzzy array of reasons – friends with the owner, being a “house regulars” and my favorite “he didn’t beat up anyone” line. Considering the organizers’ credo and position as community leaders, they could have done more than simply trying to minimize the incident.

The rest of the night went well and their set was lovely, but talking to them the next morning, the entire experience didn’t sound like just a minor incident of a someone being an asshole: Lerato confessed that even though she traveled and played all across the globe, she’s never experienced anything remotely similar.

I’d love to be able to say that these stories are just rare occurrences. Unfortunately, being in the music industry reflects a much more grim reality of endemic sexism. Let me suggest a little exercise – take for example any Boiler Room video on Youtube where there are female-identified performers and within the first dozen comments you might something along the lines of “she can’t mix”, “great selection but her technique is lacking” or “X guy did this so much better in the ‘90s”.

Perhaps we all know by now that commenting on a womxn’s appearance is a no-no. Yet I still constantly hear various industry men making comments that womxn like Peggy Gou or Jayda G only got where they are now just because they’re hot. (How come nobody calls out Marcel Dettman for looking like a model I ask you?). Unlike jabs at someone’s looks which are easy to dismiss as harmful, commenting on someone’s “skill” and “technique” are seemly OK because they refer to an objective (they say) variable, easy to judge and quantify. I ask you this – doesn’t this all sound terribly familiar? Perhaps using the same arguments as those right wing Youtube personalities that post videos with titles such as „X DESTROYS feminists with FACTS and LOGIC”?

Consequences of the systemic sexism are starting to pop up everywhere, from Resident Advisor closing down their comments section due to the amount of harassment related to their recent focus on female artists to the petition against Giegling’s Konstantin. For a quick reminder, German DJ Konstantin used a bunch of “biological determinism” arguments in an interview trying to explain why he believes women don’t have the right kind of brain for mixing. In 2018, Konstantin was booked to perform at three major parties during Amsterdam Dance Event (ADE), a key annual gathering for the electronic music industry. A petition signed by thousands of fellow DJs, music journalists and electronic music artists circulated online to have him blackballed due to his comments and half-assed apology that followed. Unfortunately, the only result was the ADE organizers offering him even more exposure by inviting him to talk about his actions on a live panel.

This kind of discourse is very dangerous, as by accepting and normalizing it we’re offering it unwarranted legitimacy to the point that opinions such as Konstantin’s start being reiterated by the press. After this year’s Movement festival in Detroit (the birthplace of techno), a journalist in a local newspaper writing a piece on the women’s rising visibility in electronic music, cited a “veteran DJ” who claimed women lack the technical capabilities to mix and rely on laptops and software in order to do their job. Despite this not being the author’s argument, he chose to offer a platform to a blatantly misogynistic opinion. These positions are not just wrong and should be called out for their obvious sexism, but perpetuating them in the press further increases their destructive power. The more we will continue to validate them, the more present they will become.

And still, why do we keep saying gxrls can’t mix?

Are girls really all lacking in the rhythm department? Commenting on one’s ability to mix is still one of the most widespread forms of criticism that AFAB and female-identified persons get. Why is it so widespread?

Through mixing, the art that defines the modern dance music DJ, most people understand creating a story through a continuous body of variegated music but particularly having no pause between the tracks. When industry people talk about mixing, they usually refer to beatmatching, which is usually means blending two or more tracks, often of different tempos or keys. The overall tempo of the DJ’s mix can remain constant or experience subtle increases across their set. This style of mixing, using long transitions, no tempo changes and working within the same musical subgenre throughout is particularly appreciated in Eurominimal and tech-house, which is also the most lucrative part of the industry in places like France, Germany and Romania. As many talented DJs have proven over the years, from legends like Larry Lavan or David Mancuso and their cosmic or loft deeply personal, eclectic styles, the perfect blends same tempo school is by no means the only “right” way to think about a dancefloor.

At a time when dance music has exploded into a multi-billion dollar industry, the “perfect mix” paradigm became the dominant style. In this climate, to be a DJ is synonymous with knowing how to mix, otherwise you don’t exist. Or at least that’s the androcentric perspective. And once you frame things like this, the comments on womxn’s “technical skills” stem from the same sexist pool as saying womxn are not good at math/science/driving or other “men’s” activities. After all, they’re just being objective, right? “Oh my god it’s not like I said she was fat or something!”

Mixing is a learned skill that requires practice to be perfected. The portion of the population who is encouraged to learn skills that involve music and technology, who is not discriminated against and has access to often costly equipment (be it controllers, CDJs or turntables) is overwhelmingly cis, straight and male. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the “I don’t have a mix online/nowhere to practice because my ex bf had all the equipment” story. Or gxrls saying they never learned how to mix because they didn’t have access to equipment. Or the supportive “nice guy” story who invites you over to “teach you how to mix” but quickly loses his interest once you reject his sexual advances.

It’s refreshing to see groups like Room 4 Resistance, No Shade or Discwoman not only organizing events, but also putting together free mixing workshops for womxn and non-binary people. People are also trying to change things in Romania, with groups like Corp. or Queer Night trying to tilt the gender imbalance locally, only unfortunately their efforts are lacking the infrastructure, institutional support and ideological consistency.

 Where to Now?

 We’re in 2019. DJs like The Black Madona, Josey Rebelle or Octo Octa and Eris Drew are some of the most in-demand people in the circuit. They all approach the dancefloor differently and bring unique views of what a DJ set can be. Yet straight white boys are feeling threatened by their success and are constantly looking for arguments to delegitimize their success. “Yeah, but this person is getting booked everywhere just because it’s cool to be trans now” – as if anyone would go through the intense process of forever altering your body just because queer is “in”! “Oh if I had tits I would get more gigs” – another male DJ I used to call a friend told me when I started playing more in Bucharest. I’ve heard phrases like “but why do women only book other women?” or “how can the super talented boys ever breakthrough in this environment if women are getting all the attention?” more times than I can recount.

Straight white boys need to shut the fuck up! For decades, the vast majority of people in charge of running/booking clubs were straight white men who would only book other straight white men. Yes, there we certainly do see more womxn in line ups, but just as female:pressure cares to remind us periodically, the percentage is still predominantly male. The healthiest path towards building a more diverse and inclusive music world is not having the old gatekeepers trying to educate themselves and perform acts of tokenism, but make space for marginalized people in decision-making positions, because nobody could make more informed, coherent and inspired choices than a person who is deeply involved in the community. Just see Discwoman’s Frankie miracle work over at Bossa Nova Civic in NYC. And it is very likely that with the right people running the show, incidents of abuse and harassment will diminish as well.

Womxn have been so used to be touched without consent and constantly harassed that we’ve been programmed to dismiss such indiscretions as minor inconveniences, something that “comes with the territory”. In order to see an improvement of this state of affairs we have to become more radical in our attitudes against sexism and discrimination. We absolutely need to learn to speak up whenever we encounter misogyny, racism, homo and transphobia and, most importantly, believe womxn when they come forward with a story of abuse of boundaries crossing because whenever we brush it off with things like “he was drunk”, “it was just a joke” or “there are two sides to every story”, we become complicit and contribute to this toxic culture.

The good news is that we can all contribute to changing things. And no, you don’t have to go to a march or join an organization if you want to help out. Change starts in your own immediate community by simply calling out your friends when they say something sexist, not supporting the known abusers and problematic people in the industry and just coming out to see one of the local womxn artists.

We will continue to play, to defend the DJ booth as sometimes the only safe space we might have at the club, to record our music however we can and become ten times better than all male DJs who told us we don’t know, we can’t or we “don’t have the necessary biological conformation”. But, most importantly, we’ll keep making people dance.

images, in order of appearance

queer night at apollo 111, 2017

miss i boiler room, 2016

edited screengrab from comments in the miss i boiler room facebook stream

crowd at miss i boiler room, 2016

ccl at rewire, 2019

all photos courtesy of the author

[theelasilonews]

THE NIGHMARE THING

By Destiny Flynn (via The Vortex)

((CW: Murder/death, serial killers, inhumane medical experimentation))

I was really pretty dubious when Parker messaged me asking me to do this piece for the Vortex. Frankly, I've spent so long working in an audio/visual medium that I'm not sure I can still accurately convey genuine thoughts or feelings without the piles of seemingly irrelevant visual assets slapped on top, but hey. We all have to push our comfort zones sometimes, right?

I guess before I get into it I should warn Parker's regular audience that I'm going to get into some pretty heavy shit in this one about real people who've been murdered or disappeared. My tone, if you're not familiar with my work, is a little bit flip, and I don't want to make anyone think that I'm making light of these situations. Humor is how I cope with bullshit, but if you'd rather not subject yourself to that, maybe give this one a miss.

That said: The Nightmare Thing.

So, for those of you who are neither regular viewers of my channel, nor longtime followers of the Vortex, there's a fairly well-supported theory in the underground El Asilo community that Vantage Corp. has something to do with El Asilo, CA's astronomical rate of missing persons cases. Parker has written on this on his twitter feed and this blog before, and I have a few videos on the topic on my channel as well. However, as you might have noticed, this theory is difficult to substantiate. Well, Destiny; why's that?

For one, people who disappear in El Asilo tend not to be very high profile, and oftentimes few people really notice them missing Families and friends make a stink about it, of course, but what can a few people really do against the full force of Vantage's insidious legion of public relations personnel? Not a whole fucking lot, turns out.

The second reason for this is that El Asilo also has the largest number of serial killers per capita of any city in the United States. Serial killers aren't exactly the most predictable group of criminals in the world, but most of the ones here don't exactly have a vested interest in leaving...how shall we say? Identifiable bodies. This makes them REMARKABLY good scapegoats. There's nothing we can do to PROVE that any given missing person didn't just fall victim to Joe the Slasher 'round the block, even if when taken as a whole, the numbers don't come close to lining up.

This is not to say that the only victims of the fucking...void monster that I suppose we're supposed to believe is eating all of El Asilo's missing people are obscure nobodies. I point you to Atlas, Junesong, and Eraser, the heroes implicated in the Vantage Day parade bombing, whose case never went to trial. Or to Slightgeist, Miss Miracle, Deaddrop, or Nebulara, all heroes who disappeared without a trace within the last ten years. But with the public approval rating for heroes and vigilantes declining at a steady rate over that same time period driving heroic fan-followings directly into the Earth's core, not many people have paid attention to a few heroes dropping off the map.

Enter Nightmare.

Nightmare, civilian name Christina Karim, was a supervillain and serial killer active in El Asilo between December 2015 and February 2016, when she was famously turned in to the police by fellow criminal Penny Dreadful on Valentine's day. For those of you living under a rock (or outside the city, where I understand news does not often reach) at that time, Nightmare was a rather unartistic career criminal who worked with her partner and sometime girlfriend Cupid, occasionally killing people for shits and giggles. The pair famously killed an El Asilo University pre-law student, shoved her body into a swimming pool locker, and waited for student and police to recover the body.

The circumstances of Nightmare's arrest are largely inconsequential to the funtimes journey I'm taking y'all on, but seem to be mainly tied to Nightmare and Cupid carving out territory which began to infringe one that of Dreadful's gang. The actually important part here is that Nightmare and Cupid were phenomenally well-known and almost universally reviled, in part due to their large social media presence. Both villains blogged regularly about their exploits on social media, and Nightmare's blog is still publicly accessible through the archive on ap3nnyforyourthoughts, Penny Dreadful's public blog. Nightmare's powers (the ability to sense and manipulate fear) were also fairly striking, which brought her quite a bit of villain cred. Because of these and the attention-grabbing nature of their crimes, Nightmare and Cupid received plenty of media attention, and were still well in the midst of their fifteen minutes of fame when Nightmare was abruptly kidnapped and turned over to the EAPD.

"Well, Destiny," I imagine you're thinking at this point, "If Nightmare was so damn infamous at that point in time, her trial should have been a pretty big deal, right? How come I've never heard anything about it?"

And that's a REALLY REALLY GOOD QUESTION, hypothetical strawman reader upon whomst I am projecting the next point of this lengthy and indecipherable diatribe.

The answer is that by all means, this should have been a huge deal. At a time before Smilin' Milo or Chiron reached much public recognition, where the only other serial killer with that level of public caché was Goodknight, this should have been the trial of the god damn CENTURY. Instead?

Nothing.

No hearings. No trial. No plea bargains, no lawyers, no records, no nothing. Just like Atlas, Junesong, and Eraser before her, Nightmare seemed to essentially evaporate into thin air. But why? How does a well-known serial killer just disappear out of jail without a bat of an eye? Well, there are a few theories.

The first, and in my opinion least plausible, theory is that Nightmare is just dead. The theory goes that Vantage took her out in prison before any momentum could build surrounding her trial, for some unknown reason. But I really don't find this one very compelling. First off, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest its' veracity. I know that's a common thread when it comes to your friendly neighborhood megacorp's misdeeds, but this one is especially shaky. What reason would Vantage have for this not to go to trial? Putting Nightmare on display and basking in the glory for putting an end to her terror ought to have been a FANTASTIC photo op. And, as far as Vantage is concerned, losing someone with her powers would have been an enormous waste of resources. Why? Stay tuned, listeners.

The second theory holds that Nightmare, like many criminals before her, was recruited out of her jail cell for Vantage's worst-kept secret; their covert assassination division. It's not as though this hasn't happened before (check my video on the subject for more info,) but Nightmare's circumstances cast some doubt on this theory as well. Readers. I've, like, READ Nightmare's blog. Evidence makes it clear that she was something of an egomaniac. She moved in on Greenback territory because other people having power threatened her. She displayed her crimes publicly because she needed the acknowledgement, often to the detriment of her crime career. It may be just me, but I don't think that's the kind of personality that particularly lends itself to a line of work where one's every move would be controlled by someone else.

And then there's the fact that, since her arrest, Nightmare has clearly not been in touch with her girlfriend, who has been publicly grieving for over a year. One would think that, were Nightmare able to act freely, she would have at least contacted the only person who seemed to matter to her. (NOTE: I attempted to reach Cupid for comment on this article. I was, uh. Not successful. So the possibility remains that something happened behind the scenes.)

Which brings us to the third and most compelling theory. This theory holds that Nightmare IS in Vantage's custody, but not their employ. Remember how, before, I mentioned that she had some incredibly interesting powers? I'm sure Vantage does. I know this theory is probably going to be the most wildly out there for folks who aren't chin-deep in esoteric real-world conspiracy theorist refuse the way I am, but hang on for me here.

There's another theory, a theory that's been around almost as long as Vantage's hold on the city itself. A theory that beyond all the shady Vantage-sponsored legislation, beyond their trapping an ENTIRE CITY in a snowglobe, beyond their sinister anti-hero agenda or even their poorly disguised assassination department, there lie even deeper and more vile atrocities. This theory is that Vantage is running sinister human experimentation somewhere on their premises, largely on supers. Parker has covered some of the evidence for this concept in his post on the El Asilo Monorail Project, and I have a broader video upcoming, but the evidence is there when you know where to look. From employee social media accounts sneaking secrets out into limited follower groups to anecdotes from those claiming to be escapees, there's a lot to sift through, and I'm promising here to go though it later in a way that y'all can actually digest.

But for now...it does sort of explain the circumstances, doesn't it? Frankly, it's the only explanation for the disappearance anyone has posited so far that lines both Nightmare's motivations and Vantage's up with the facts.

As it is, right now the Nightmare Defense is one of the most common arguments for the idea that Vantage is, at least in part, behind a portion of the missing people in El Asilo. After all, if not that, then where the FUCK is Christina Karim?

Anyway, that's all they wrote. If you found this useful or entertaining, you'll probably like Parker's stuff, so please follow The Vortex. And if you want to support what I do, try following me and giving me money so I don't starve and can afford to keep making videos of my inane ranting layered over visuals designed to entrap your attention and distract from the fact that I'm going on for fifteen full minutes about something you don't and will not ever believe because Vantage's agenda is so deeply ingrained in the collective subconscious that it actively discourages resistance and most of you don't even know it's happening.

[PATREON LINK] [KO-FI LINK] [YOUTUBE CHANNEL LINK]

[eendacott-blog]

[Wk7] Lectures

Mid-Sem Exam: - Q5. President of country - think about perspective [F] Type I or Type II Error - Q10. What are the properties of Merkle Puzzles? -> easy for good, hard for bad - Proof of liveness (Challenge/Responsibility) -> stops against replay attacks, someone on the other end not just a message

Diffie Hellman: - How to do things without a pre-shared secret? Solution: not for encryption a message but for sharing a secret (5^3)^7 = ...125                        (a^b)^c = a^(bcc)                       (5^7)^3 = ...125 - Conversation:

“Let’s use 5 as the base” “You think of a number S (e.g. 3) and I’ll pick a number R (e.g. 7)” “The base of my number is 78125 (5^7)″ “The base of your number is 125 (5^3)” “I’m going to raise your number to mine (125^7)” “You raise your number to my base (78125^3)” Others can see a^b and a^c but can’t figure out (a^b)^c or (a^c)^b.

- Kras Des Chavelier -> defence in depth. Social engineering -> posed as leader and told them to surrender

1. Cyber Literacy - Vulnerability

Vulnerability - something you can exploit Software Bug - sometimes a vulnerability

TYPES: - Memory corruption (as a user should not be able to change) - Buffer Overflow - Stack “first in, last out” all your frozen programs - Heap when the amount of space you need isn’t known at compile time e.g. opening multiple tabs - Function in C ends and has a return address which tells the system where to jump to next function - Format String:

- Integer Overflow -> wraps around and tricks the system any code was vulnerable but then patched it. -> Googling Hacking Analogy - Format sting vulnerabilities are making a comeback    - e.g. printf(”%s\n”, “Hello World!”);             printf(”Hello World!\n”);    name -> printer input name, printf(name);    - prints from the stack          - printf (”Richard %s”); OR          - name = “%x%x%x%x%x...%x”    - %n -> writes to memory - Swiss cheese analogy of the holes lining up

EXPLOIT: - Shell code -> private shell with commands (remote shell) -> can do privilege escalation in the shell - NOP sled -> Before you’re code do a whole lot of do nothings (nop) and then it will eventually get to your malware -> Protectors started looking for nops so did other random instructions such as adding one to a register and then minus one from the same register

Responsible Disclosure -> Vendor -> CERT (e.g. CERT Australia) -> Most common vulnerabilities but every year the Top 10 are the same because no one fixes them. Web: OWASPTop10 Book: Mark Dowd - AOSSA

2. Security Engineering - Assets

-> Work out what all the things you should be protecting and their relative value to you. Strategies for Identifying Assets (Enumerating): - Regularly surveying the values of people of the involved in what you are protecting    -> Multiple pairs of eyes is a good asset, limiting the blindspots - Develop a sensible plan - well designed to tease this information out of them. Humans are generally poor at regurgitating everything they know, however they are generally very good critics - Periodically revise current list of assets    -> Don’t set and forget. Values and assets of an organisation can drift Examples: 1. Team America 2. Richard’s Wallet vs Richard with AIDS 3. Car doorbell 4. Leaving window open? - Because the asset is the window not the money inside the car 5. Share registry - no more paper trails, everything is recorded electronically 6. HOMEWORK: read up about the NSWLPI and think about what assets they have and what risks arise from them having been privatised 7. Coke 8. Parliament - a collection of people that hold particular importance together.

VALUING THE ASSETS

Categorising Types of Assets - Tangible Assets: Those that are easily given a value      - A gold chain valued at some relatively static amount     - The jewellery in a jewellery store - Intangible Assets: These cannot be easily and objectively be valued.     - Employee morale and security     - Customer information     - Company secrets     - Availability of services - Monetary + psychological/emotional costs - Difficult <> Don’t Do Examples: - Company secret - what is at stake? - QOS Guarantees

Strategies for Assigning Values to Assets: -> Survey what many people think - No single person/group should be solely evaluating the assets - Examples of the information that should be gathered are as follows:    - “How much money would you lose where this data centre to go down for 24       hours?”    - “How much will you lose if your company is disconnected from the internet       for 3 hours?” - Examples:    - In assessing the value of a park    - Picasso

Bug Bounty

- Crowd source Bug Bounty Websites (e.g. Hacker101) - Tips:     - Stay in scope     - Look for assets that have changed recently     - Look for publicly disclosed reports Process:    1. Find a program    2. Review scope    3. Find target via recon    4. Hit and find vulnerabilities    5. Write a report    6. Submit it Bug Puzzles  - Example 1: length is unsigned  - Example 2: lack of brackets so always does the memcpy Fuzzing is a quality assurance technique used to discover coding errors and security loopholes in software, operating systems or networks. Different types of fixers:    1. A fuzzer can be generation-based or mutation-based depending on whether inputs are generated from scratch or by modifying existing inputs,     2. A fuzzer can be dumb or smart depending on whether it is aware of input structure, and    3. A fuzzer can be white-, grey-, or black-box, depending on whether it is aware of program structure. Why is fuzzing effective? -> capable of generating many test Heart-bleed Bug -> handshake.cc

Pen Testing

-> Authorised stimulated cyberattack on a computer system to evaluate security risks. Repercussions:    - Data breach    - Ransomware Why?    - Allows to discover vulnerabilities before malicious attackers do    - Think like an attacker Practical    - Predict future attacks    - Provides coverage Steps:    1. Recon    2. Planning    3. Exploitation    4. Post-Exploitation Additional certification -> see slide Tools:    - Metasploit -> Antivirus will go nuts!    - NMAP -> beginners guide YouTube video    - Burp    - WireShark    - Kali -> A lot of tools available (download link)    - GoBuster CTF Websites:    - pwnable    - hackthebox    - root-me    - overthewire

Evening Lecture

Homework: - Work out the current state of Biometrics as an authentication strategy - Read about Transport for NSW idea of using facial recognition rather than opal cards - Read about the San Francisco ban on biometrics - Read about the uni research allegedly helping Chinese security forces use to track and detain Muslim Uyghur citizens in Xinjiang https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-16/australian-unis-to-review-links-to-chinese-surveillance-tech/11309598 - Think about: https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1003400/five-ways-china-used-facial-recognition-in-2018

Diffie Hellman -> Confidentiality and Integrity sort of authentication    -> Problem of Authentication Solution? - Asymmetric ciphers RSA -> What about the man in the middle? Try and detect the man in the middle

PGP -> web of trust -> establish the authenticity of the binding between a public key and its owner

Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) -> Solves the man in the middle problem - SSL/TLS (handshake) -> standard security technology for establishing an encrypted link between a web server and a browser - Bruce Schneir’s paper https://www.schneier.com/academic/paperfiles/paper-pki.pdf - Similar to a passport (links photo with name, certified by office) - Using x509 certificates links public key with domain (and maybe some other information) -> information is “signed” - Padlock in the https:// bar - Certificate authorities tie the certificate to the domain - Root certificate, RAs (registration authority), pay money to browser manufacturer - Conflicts of interest - Most pages on SSL written by vendors - Self-signed, domain verification, organisational verification, extended verification - Safety vs identity - Session keys - the TLS handshake (4 keys) - Three main authorities:    1. Symantec    2. Gomodo    3. GoDaddy

TLS Handshake Example: 1. A client contacts the server. 2. The client and server exchange information about the communications they intend to perform, such as the ciphers to use (SSL handshake) 3. The server transmits its certificate to the client 4. The client checks that is trusts the certification authority that issued the certificate. If it does not recognise the CA and does not get an override, the communication ends. 5. The client checks for revocation information on the certificate. If the certificate is revoked or revocation information is unavailable, then the client might attempt to obtain an override. Implementations vary on how they deal with null or unreachable CRL information, but almost all will refuse to communicate with any entity using a revoked certificate. 6. Both client and server send each other random data, which they use to make calculations separately and the derive the same session keys. Three kinds of randomly generated data are sent from one side to another:

- The “client random”: This is a random string of bytes that the client sends to the server - The “server random”: This is similar to the client random, except that the server sends it to the client - The “premaster secret”: This is yet another string of data. In some versions of the TSL handshake, the client generates this and sends it to the server encrypted with the public key; in other versions, the client and server generate the premaster secret on their own, using agreed-upon algorithm parameters to arrive at the same result.

7. Both parties generate 4 session keys using this data 8. All communications in the same conversation are encrypted with that set of keys.

[faithfacts-blog1]

A Good General Identifies Dangerous Enemies by their Lies

And when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done unto Jericho and to Ai,

They did work wilily, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles, old, and rent, and bound up;

And old shoes and clouted upon their feet, and old garments upon them; and all the bread of their provision was dry and mouldy.

And they went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and said unto him, and to the men of Israel, we be come from a far country: now therefore make ye a league with us.

And the men of Israel said unto the Hivites, Peradventure ye dwell among us; and how shall we make a league with you?

Joshua 9:3-7

Joshua’s Greatest Mistake

The greatest mistake of Joshua, the General was made when he fell for the lies and deception of his enemy.  He was dealing with his enemy, someone he should have destroyed.  But they deceived him into thinking they were friends.  Joshua was deceived because he did not investigate whether the people were liars or not.  You must investigate whether people around you are liars or not.  Many people around leaders do not tell the truth.  Everyone wants to rise up and be favoured by the leader.  Because of this, leaders are often surrounded by clever deceivers.  This is why heads of state often do the wrong thing.  There are liars around the leader.  But you must not accept deceivers in your cabinet.  Identify them and stop them.  The deception will eventually feed back against you.  

A dangerous enemy is identified by his lies and deception.  

Your deadly enemy must be noticed by his lies and deception.  The liar in your life is the person you must learn to mark as your deadly enemy.  

Although most people tell lies effortlessly, lies remain the significant sign of the presence of Satan.  Jesus said, “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44).  This Scripture reveals that Satan is actually a killer and a murderer who tells lies.  Satan wants to kill you and destroy you.  The sign of the presence of the devil is always some kind of deception, lying or covering up of something.  A pastor and a Christian must be very wary of telling lies because it is a step into demonic territory.  

It is sad to see how lying and deception has become a part of the ministry.  It is a sign of the presence of the devil in the ministry.  If you are a man of God, do not tell lies or say things, which are not true.  Do not make promises that you will not fulfil.  Each time you do that, you reveal that there is some infiltration of demons in your life.   Satan is a part of your life and ministry when lying and deception are a part of your life and ministry.  

As a leader, you must watch out for signs of deception and traces of lies in those around you.  Do not be deceived by innocent faces and nice presentations of people.  Do not be deceived by the looks of a good liar.  Be more conscious of whether someone has told the truth and whether he always tells the truth.  A good general identifies enemies and marks them out by their lying and deceiving ways!  The Bible has no kind remarks for deceivers of any sort.  King David prayed that he would be rescued from liars!    

Rescue me, O Lord, from liars and from all deceitful people.  O deceptive tongue, what will God do to you?  How will he increase your punishment? You will be pierced with sharp arrows and burned with glowing coals.

Psalm 120:2-4 (NLT)

Mind you, good liars are impressive!  That is why it is difficult to believe that they are lying.  Do not think that a liar cannot look you straight in the eye and tell a lie.  Expert liars can lie to you without blinking.  They can act the part and pretend to be anything they are not.  Expert liars can undergo interrogation and even torture without ever changing their story.  Years will pass by as they maintain their lying stories.  Always remember; when you are dealing with a liar, you are dealing with a dangerous person.  Apart from everything else, many politicians are liars.  Adolf Hitler lied to the German people and led them to Hell.   Through his lies he caused the deaths of fifty million people.  

The Lies of a Head of State

The lies of Adolf Hitler were the greatest revelation of whom he really was.  The lies he told in his speeches revealed the presence of a strong satanic force.  Wherever there are lies and deception, you can be assured you are dealing with an evil presence.  It is worth investigating, asking questions, searching and querying until you are sure you are not being told any kind of lies.  

In this section, I want you to notice the many different lies that Adolf Hitler told.  He said one thing in public and a completely different thing in private.  He was lying all the time and the lies he told revealed that a great evil was preparing to manifest itself to the world. If you are sensitive to lying and deception you may save yourself from accepting the wrong people in your life.  

Great liars are also great murderers.  Adolf Hitler is a classic example of the fact that, “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it.”

How Hitler Lied about Invading Poland

Publicly Adolf Hitler lied and said: “Poland is about to invade Germany.  The Polish state has refused a peaceful settlement.  Germans in Poland are treated with bloodied terror and driven from their homes.  A series of violations along the German-Polish border has proved that Poland is not longer willing to respect the frontiers of the Reich.  Does anyone really believe that the German nation will stand for that act from such a ridiculous state:  To put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to meet force with force.”  

To the German military he said, “Close your heart to pity.  Act brutally. Eighteen million people must obtain what is their right. The strongest man is always right.”

After destroying Poland in eighteen days of fighting, eighteen days of fire and killing 50,000 Poles, Hitler invited foreign journalists to view the destruction of Poland.  Adolf Hitler then said:

“A great crime has been committed here.  The Polish military went mad and look at the crime against their own people.  They were drunk with power and talked of marching on Berlin.  Then they barricaded themselves in the city, and look at Warsaw now!  Sheer sympathy for women and children caused me to make an offer to those in command in Warsaw to, at least, let the civilian inhabitants leave the city.”  

In truth, Hitler ordered a special SS unit to follow the army across the city.  It was their job to murder any living Pole they could find.  Doctors, police, the clergy, Jews, landlords and the nobility were all butchered.  Less than three percent of the Polish upper class remained alive after the attack.    

How Adolf Hitler Lied about France

Publicly Adolf Hitler lied and said:  “I have declared that the frontier between Germany and France is a final one. I have repeatedly offered friendship and the closest cooperation with Britain. Germany has no interest in the West and we have no aims there for the future. With this assurance we are in solemn earnest. As long as others do not violate the neutrality of Holland and Belgium, we will take every care to respect it.”

But in private Hitler said:  

“My decision is unchangeable. I shall attack France and England at the earliest favourable moment. The neutrality of Holland and Belgium is of no importance. If France and England strike, let them do so.  It is a matter of complete indifference to me. Today is Tuesday.  By Monday, we may be at war with someone.”

How Adolf Hitler Lied about Russia

Since the beginning of his political career, Hitler had considered communism one of the world’s greatest evils and frequently insisted that any cooperation with Russia was out of the question.  

Publicly Adolf Hitler lied and said:  “The government of the Reich is ready to cultivate with the Soviet Union friendly relations profitable to both parties.  Given the fact that Soviet Russia has no intention of exporting its doctrine to Germany, I no longer see any reason why we should still oppose one another.”  

But privately, Adolf Hitler said:  

“We will crush Soviet Russia. The German Armed Forces must be prepared, even before the conclusion of the war against England, to crush Soviet Russia in a rapid campaign. We need only kick in the front door and the whole rotten edifice of communism will come crashing down.  What matters is that Bolshevism be exterminated. Moscow, as the centre of the doctrine must disappear from the earth’s surface.  No organized Russian state must be allowed to exist.”

How Adolf Hitler Lied about England

Publicly Adolf Hitler lied and said:  “I shall arrange an interview with foreign journalists of the British attempting to land on the coast of Europe.  I will treat the subject in a manner that will come as a cold douche to the British. I will say that I do not believe in the possibility of an invasion.”  

But privately, he began preparing for the inevitable invasion.  “We must aim at securing a defensive line on Dutch soil because the war with England will be a life and death struggle. The idea that we can get off cheaply is dangerous. There is no such possibility.  When the enemy invades in the West, it will be the moment of decision in this war and that moment we must turn to our advantage.  I will emphasize the German military precision and thoroughness and ensure that we are prepared for every eventuality.”

by Dag Heward-Mills

[thepedanticslightsaber]

Metaphors

Metaphors are common in online debate and when we seek to give advice on a variety of issues. However, the use of metaphors can be dangerous or harmful in our advice and our arguments when we do not properly think them through. In this rant I shall try to explain why metaphors, being viewed as useful tools, can be harmful when they do not properly describe the situation they attempt to, are taken too far, or aren’t taken far enough.

People love coming up with metaphors to prove their point in an argument, and why shouldn’t they? Used as an analogy, they can help relate complex sentiments in clearer terms that help people understand. This strength makes them popular, but it doesn’t mean every metaphor is helping your argument.

One metaphor I see commonly is the one used in the male birth control vs female birth control debate. The metaphor used here is “it is safer to shoot a blank gun then it is to shoot a loaded gun into a bulletproof vest” which could be a decent metaphor depending on the analogy it presents, but more often than not it does not help your argument. A good use of this metaphor is if unloading the gun (100% effective, almost no consequences) is representing an efficient, unharmful solution to unwanted pregnancy, and wearing the bulletproof vest (maybe 80% effective, high consequences) represents a second, less efficient, highly harmful solution to unwanted pregnancy. This supports an argument that we should choose the lower risk, less harmful action in our lives. What keeps this as a decent metaphor as opposed to a good one is because it suggests that the person is assuming that disabling the penis is the more efficient, lower consequence action, which is unproven.

That assumption is usually the desired stance the person using the metaphor is presenting, and makes this a bad metaphor for your argument. It is used so that the gun unquestionably represents a penis as they are both things that “shoot” and the result of that shooting is a potentially negative consequence. Unloading the gun represents changing the nature of the penis to make it less effective (like hormonal male birth control) while wearing a bulletproof vest represents using some protection on the receiving end of the “bullet” (like female hormonal birth control). I don’t think many would argue against the point “we should choose the lower risk, low harm actions in our lives” as it pertains to birth control, so we will assume that is true here. To find out what that is, we must compare the effectiveness of the proposed solutions of hormonal birth control.

The effectiveness number we are trying to beat is 99.9% with an IUD. Even condoms don’t reach that level at 98% theoretical effectiveness and estimates around 85% actual effectiveness. And condoms aren’t unloading the gun anyway, being physically closer to someone wearing a bulletproof vest. The only situation I see where unloading the gun is at play is a vasectomy or hormonal male birth control. A vasectomy is very effective, but it comes with its own set of side effects not seen in the gun metaphor. The cost of getting it done is comparable to the cost of an IUD, but the cost of getting it undone is much more and undoing a vasectomy only has a 40%-90% chance of success, so using it as a temporary form of birth control is very far from ideal (it does beat out any other solutions for permanent birth control as it is cheaper, easier, and suffers far less consequences than a female getting their tubes tied). Male hormonal birth control must beat or meet 99.9% effectiveness to be a superior solution, or it must be close enough to 99.9% and low enough in consequences. From the data I’ve seen it is only 96% effective, or about the same effectiveness of the pull-out method properly executed. For me, this is too low (40 times as likely for pregnancy to occur) unless it truly carries far less common, and less intense consequences. In determining that, we can only say that we do not know the full side effects because studies were cut short. Even if they weren’t cut short, to say the studies would identify all side effects is naïve. We are just discovering some of the potential side effects of some female birth controls years after they have been publicly implemented. Because of these issues, we cannot at present conclude that removing male fertility is the best practice for birth control and the metaphor fails. This doesn’t mean that it should be taken off the table, just that further research is needed to determine which solution is best.

This is an example of where a metaphor was seeking to provide greater clarity, but because it doesn’t describe the situation it attempts to, the solution may not work in the real world. The above metaphor is not useful because of this reason.

Another simpler, badly used metaphor is the key and lock are men and women in sex metaphor. It goes that it’s a shitty lock that accepts many different keys, whereas it’s a useful key that can unlock many locks. However, men are not keys, and women are not locks. Any similarity in genitalia does not remove the fact that both participants desire the action of “unlocking”.  A lock that opens easily is bad because it puts someone off. A woman who enjoys sex is not being put off by having sex, ergo the similarity is not there and this is a bad metaphor.

Next, we shall look at metaphors becoming bad by being taken too far. We shall start with a good, sensible metaphor to show this. One of the metaphors I like is used to demonstrate the rules of consent. It is the “tea is like sex” metaphor. It draws a connection about how tea and sex are similar in that they are both things people can enjoy, that another person can have a hand in administering. If you offer a person tea and they accept, you can make them some tea and give it to them! If a person is asleep, you shouldn’t give them tea because they can’t say whether they want it or not and you would be harming them if you applied it anyway. Great! This is a good metaphor! And that metaphor continues with many other examples of the rules of consent explained with tea.

However, when engaging in metaphors it is important to note that sex is not tea, and forcing the metaphor beyond their similarities leads to a bad argument. If someone asks for tea and you have the simple ability to make it for them, it would generally be quite rude to deny them their request. This is not the case with sex, where it is fine to deny a person if you have no interest in “making the tea” for them. The metaphor only works if the person presenting sex is the one asking if the other wants tea. A more extreme example of this metaphor being pushed too far is if a child were to offer me a tea and I wanted it, I would certainly be okay to accept as an adult! I would also be allowed to ask them if they wanted some tea. This is EXTREMELY not the case with sex! If we are fighting for survival in a cold environment and I try and get you to drink some tea and you refuse which will lead to your death, I feel I should apply a great deal of pressure to get you to drink the tea. There are many ways in which tea is not sex and we can’t treat them as the same. That last example might actually still fall under the tea sex metaphor, as I still probably shouldn’t force tea down the throat of a person at risk of dying and should only try and convince them to take the tea. I don’t even know how a similar situation would exist with sex where one person is going to die without it and refuses anyway. I didn’t think that one through fully, further illustrating my point that we need to always be thinking about the examples we give. I shall leave it here to showcase that.

I have never encountered someone pushing this metaphor to these places, but clearly if someone were to, that metaphor would no longer work because tea, which once paralleled sex, has diverged in its context. I could not remember any examples I have seen recently with enough clarity to track them down and analyze them, but I assure you they exist. This happens too often when people employ metaphors, especially in chain format additions where the original poster may have scoped it correctly and some person wanting to chime in and be included expands upon it without considering if it’s still relevant to the metaphor. It is fairly simple to come up with a connection between two things. As a great poet once said, something something, things are like other things. Just because we can think of a metaphor doesn’t mean it is true. If we are to employ metaphors in debate and discussion, it is important that we analyze them throughout their use to make sure the parallel is there throughout our point, or it makes us look ridiculous and weakens our argument.

Even if we don’t push the metaphor beyond its boundaries, there remains the possibility that the other person will push the metaphor beyond its intent and use it against the argument, like a strawman fallacy. This is not to say that pushing a metaphor to the extreme IS a strawman. We already have extreme examples of how sex is not tea, and by showing that these exist someone can conclude that there are ways in which the metaphor fails. Since they have refuted at least one example of sex being like tea, it stands to reason that there could be other situations where the rules around sex are not like the rules of tea, including ways that the person that created the metaphor may have asserted. This does not mean the point made by the person using the metaphor has been refuted but the door has opened to the possibility they have made a mistake. To strengthen the argument being supported by the metaphor, it would be sensible to put the onus on the opposition to showcase where they think the metaphor failed in the scope you presented it in. If they can do that as we did on the gun metaphor, then you may need to rethink your thoughts on the matter. If they fail to do so you may have successfully defended your argument.

We shall now look at how using a metaphor with limited scope can hurt an argument. If someone can think of ways in which the metaphor doesn’t hold and can show that those cases happen at a substantial rate, then it seems that the scope of the metaphor may be too limited to be useful in the general case. Once again using the tea is sex metaphor, this metaphor works because it describes the majority of sexual interaction and as such provides a good guideline to follow. However, if the “children asking for tea” occurred more commonly than not, this metaphor would fail on account that it is now describing a niche occurrence and should not be used for the general case. Because the creator of the metaphor didn’t take it far enough, it is now giving bad advice to the most general of cases. The metaphor should then be rescoped to be giving advice only on these niche occurrences, and not be used in the general case. Failure to not use it in the general case weakens your stance, promotes harmful behavior, and makes it a bad metaphor.

Metaphors can be very useful tools for communication and have a wonderful role in poetry, but to rely on them for our understanding of the world and in proving points in logical debate can be a hindrance and dangerous as shown above. As such we should think very carefully before employing them carelessly.