#ignore the unintended murder

[ladyseidr]

okay muses i need to write more: fn.af edition ( shocking ):

cassidy, in general. like, i already made it clear that i think she'd get along with michael ( derogatory, sorry michael ) but i also have the verse where cass's brother is killed instead of him so y'know. older stuff is a possibility too

golden fr.eddy, also in general. but honestly more stuff where cass and evan are fighting for control / both involved instead of just cassidy. i do actually ( gasp ) like the idea from the movie of like. . . cass ( and, by extension, evan ) being able to show up as an actual Human Kid Ghost and not just GF so uh. let's traumatize some af.tons ( more ). they're definitely scarier-looking than in the movie too

rory, but i knoooow i need to finish his bio BAD fkjsdhfslkdaj. bully loser who is also michael's not-really-ex-but-kind-of. guy who met michael when he was trying to harass him and michael just shoved him out of the way and told him to fuck off and rory was Instantly In Love ( oblivious )

cir.cus baby!!!!! possessed by liz ideally, but she's so funny to me if you ignore the horror. like when will i be able to bring this energy to life.

charlie and / or the p.uppet like please!! the angst is crazy!!

any and all of the anim.atronics always and forever <3

[lost-art-of-world-domination]

What are your thoughts on Winter? Especially in regards to how her dynamic with Valkyrie has changed. I dunno, some aspects of that were pretty interesting to me

What a good ask! I agree, there are some very interesting aspects to Winter! I really enjoyed her inclusion in the book. Spoilers for A Mind Full of Murder to come, in case anyone hasn’t read it.

I’m not going to pretend I immediately called Winter being Alice, and I think the surprise was very well done, but I did have my suspicions after her “Not any more” line about evil in her family.

Winter Grieving is a name that is almost laughable in its edginess, but for a jaded teen such as Winter it does suit, and I like that it’s something more complex and unique than “Malice” (even though I liked that character).

I also really appreciated Winter’s whole perspective on Valkyrie. She’s rather practical, and won’t ignore her sister at her own risk, such as asking her for help at the end of the book, but I like that, in a way that seems like she can’t even help it, some part of her hates Val.

I like that it’s not necessarily a view we can support, but one definitely understandable given the character and what’s occurred. It reminds me a bit of Auger’s doubt over his future once the prophecy was complete. It’s an interesting question of what a Chosen One does once what they’ve been Chosen for either happens or falls through- whether that’s as a hero or a world-ender.

What Val did was obviously entirely a selfless act of sacrifice and love for her sister, and I like that Landy doesn’t undercut that decision, but simply acknowledges that even an act such as that can have unintended consequences, especially with where it leaves Winter.

Also I like that Winter is jaded, but not cartoonishly evil, and instead, like a lot of teens, vulnerable to bad influences such as the anti-mortal movement in order to deal with their own issues. This is obviously only worsened by having such a famous sibling, and it makes sense for Winter to be lashing out a bit to cope with being in Val’s shadow. It’s subtle and concerning for a character we’ve seen since she was a baby, but I’m excited to see where it goes. Although one thing that didn’t really work is that final moment. Fine on its own and in the context of Winter’s story, but as the end to the whole book it fell a little flat.

One element of Winter’s story I also like is how, from Valkyrie’s side, there’s just a bit of a wall with her younger sister who she used to be so close with, which again is the kind of realistic touch that makes the magical world of Skulduggery Pleasant work so well. It’s also tragic for Melissa and Desmond, who should never have to experience anything bad ever.

One last note I like about Winter is her burgeoning magical skill. She’s not super powerful yet, as evidenced by her struggling with the classic fear vs magic problem we see lots of young sorcerers tackle, but she’s shown some elemental powers and, especially interesting, some pretty solid teleportation. Sure it was just from the ground floor through a window, but it’s been made clear how difficult a skill this is for any sorcerer.

So overall, really interesting character and story, and I can’t wait to see more of Winter and her arc and relationships in the books to come.

[mariacallous]

The brutality of Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre shocked even seasoned terrorism-watchers.  In one day, Hamas terrorists massacred more than 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians. It has indiscriminately fired thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and towns. More than 200 hostages, including many children, remain captive in what must be nightmarish conditions beneath Gaza.  Hamas has vowed to murder them if Israel continues its military response.

The initial shock of the atrocities elicited strong statements of support for Israel from President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the White House press secretary, the leaders of Germany and France, and other world leaders.

Yet media coverage of Israel’s war against Hamas has already shifted from the brutality of Hamas’s onslaught to the proportionality of Israel’s response. The number of unintended civilian casualties has risen steadily as a ground offensive, supported by airstrikes, has advanced. Major outlets have featured chyrons juxtaposing the number of deaths on each side. As Israel enters Gaza in force, comparisons will inevitably show higher counts on the Palestinian side.

Does this mean that Israel’s response is excessive or disproportionate? That Hamas’s brutality has already been repaid like-for-like and, thus, that Israel must stop?

Every innocent victim is a tragedy. But not every civilian death in war is evidence of illegal conduct by one of the parties. The law of war operates in an environment that is inherently brutal and tragic. Law cannot banish that brutality altogether. It aims, more modestly, to mitigate war’s cruelty by balancing military necessity with humanitarian aims.

International humanitarian law’s most powerful instrument for protecting innocents is separating combatants from civilians. Armed forces cannot target civilians. And they must separate their own military assets from the civilian population.

It is Hamas’s defiance of both of those rules that has made each successive phase of this war a humanitarian catastrophe.

Crimes Versus Tragedies: Unpacking Casualty Counts

On one level, casualty comparisons are intuitive: All lives have inherent worth. All innocent suffering merits sympathy.  

Yet casualty counts are a poor way to understand a conflict like this one. That is because they commingle deaths that are viewed very differently by the laws and ethics of warfare. Most of the Israeli toll thus far consists of civilians intentionally targeted by Hamas—a stark violation of the law of armed conflict.

The growing civilian toll on the Palestinian side is tragic, and all should hope that Hamas is defeated with the least possible innocent suffering. But incidental civilian casualties in strikes on lawful Hamas targets can be consistent with the laws of war. And Hamas itself is responsible for many of those civilian deaths because it cynically keeps or places civilians near military targets and uses civilian objects for military purposes.

Unintended civilian deaths and intentional murders are alike only in the very narrow sense that, in both cases, people have died from the actions of an armed force. Yet common intuition tells us that if we wish to form legal and moral judgments, then context, intentions, and legal duties matter.

Hamas’s Actions

The “cardinal,” “intransgressible” principle of the law of armed conflict is that armed forces must distinguish between combatants and civilians.

In its application to offensive operations, the principle of “distinction” holds that civilians can never be targeted, no matter how much military advantage would be gained by doing so. Hamas has ignored this principle throughout the Israel-Hamas conflict. As it always has. Not for nothing has Hamas been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and other governments for decades.

Most of the Israelis killed in Hamas’s Oct. 7 rampage were unarmed civilians killed in cold blood in Israeli towns and kibbutzim and at the temporary rave encampment. These killings and other atrocities against civilians are unequivocally illegal. They are not legitimate acts of war.

Since Oct. 7, a smaller number of Israelis have been killed by rockets fired by Hamas. For legal purposes, the key question here is: fired at what?

Hamas, like Russia, indiscriminately bombards civilian areas, which are not valid targets. Indeed, Hamas does not even claim to be aiming for military objectives. Like the massacres of civilians on Oct. 7, deaths from those indiscriminate bombardments also result from Hamas’s violations of the laws of war.

Military personnel are generally valid targets. It bears noting, however, that Hamas does not follow basic legal rules even when attacking military targets. For example, videos and photos of Oct. 7 show that its combatants rarely distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing a distinctive uniform or insignia—in legal argot, a “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.”  

The requirement that combatants (including insurgent groups and militias) wear a distinguishing uniform or mark protects civilians from being fired upon in confusion by the other side. As elaborated below, Hamas’s ignoring that rule puts Palestinian civilians in further danger.  

Hamas has also committed grave breaches of the law of armed conflict by seizing Israeli civilians as hostages. Under the law of armed conflict, combatants can be taken prisoner and held for the duration of hostilities, and enemy civilians can be interned in rare instances. In both cases, however, their humane treatment is strictly required by international law and the rationale for their detention must be purely preventive.

By contrast, hostage-taking to “compel a third party to do or to abstain from doing any act”—as Hamas continues to do—is a war crime.

Deaths of Palestinian Civilians in Israel’s Response

The first thing to be said here is that every death of a Palestinian civilian is a human tragedy.  Palestinians trapped in Gaza, in the grip of a brutal terrorist group that brooks no opposition to its unpopular misrule, had no say in whether to launch this war. Yet it is civilians who suffer most for Hamas’s choice. Indeed, Hamas cynically increases and then broadcasts civilian suffering to erode international support for Israel’s military response.

The question here is how observers should categorize those deaths, and whether it makes sense legally and morally to juxtapose them with the Israeli civilians intentionally murdered and bombarded by Hamas.

The Israel Defense Forces and Distinction

Israeli forces operating in Gaza may attack only military objectives.  Military objectives include enemy combatants, civilians directly participating in hostilities (a complex category best left aside for now), and “military objects.”

Importantly, military objects include not just overt military installations but also “objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization … offers a definite military advantage” (emphasis added).

That means that a nominally civilian building (or even a medical vehicle) can become a military object if Hamas uses it for military purposes. And Hamas regularly uses civilian areas to store weapons, to house command centers, and for other military aims.

Intentionally targeting a civilian object not being used for military purposes would, of course, violate the principle of distinction. (We’ll come to two additional legal requirements, precautions and proportionality, below.) Establishing that, however, requires granular knowledge of both the factual context—was Hamas, for example, using that building to store weapons?—and the commander’s state of mind.

Hamas and Distinction

The principle of distinction also imposes duties on the defender. Parties to a conflict must take “all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks.”

In this conflict, Hamas has an affirmative legal duty to protect Palestinian civilians by “remov[ing] them,” to the extent feasible, “from the vicinity of military objectives.”

Hamas will not do that, of course.  

Not because it is infeasible. Hamas, which has governed the Gaza Strip for years, could have designated certain places in the strip as military enclaves and concentrated its fortifications, bunkers, weapons stores, fuel depots, rocket bases, and command centers there. It could have encouraged civilians to evacuate areas around those bases, rather than forcing them to stay put. Indeed, when the Israel Defense Forces tried to encourage civilians to move away from military targets, Hamas discouraged and blocked them from doing so, according to senior White House officials.

Hamas will not separate civilians from its military activities because following the law would be disadvantageous for Hamas. Hamas uses civilian areas to hide its military assets and complicate the choices facing Israeli targeters: Israeli forces can either forgo the strike, leaving Hamas with the military asset, or Israel can launch it, whereupon Hamas publicizes the resulting civilian suffering.

Hamas is evil, but its leaders are no fools: These tactics work. A NATO report examining Hamas’s activities from 2008 to 2014 explains how Hamas’s use of human shields in Gaza has long created a dilemma for Israel:

If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions.  Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks[.]

International reactions make this kind of “lawfare” effective. Hamas knows that credulous observers will attribute these casualties to Israel—even though it was Hamas’s illegal decision to hide military assets in civilian areas that exposed the victims to harm.

Failing to place blame where it belongs—to unequivocally insist that Hamas move its military assets away from civilians, and to hold it responsible if it does not—encourages Hamas to put even more civilians in harm’s way.  

These cynical incentives for Hamas pervert the law’s humanitarian aims and put Palestinian civilians in greater danger.

How the Law of War Accounts for Unintended Civilian Casualties

Even when striking a legitimate military target, Israel must consider the potential harm to civilians. But “zero harm to civilians” is not the rule: Strikes on military targets can result in unintended civilian casualties without necessarily violating the law of armed conflict. Tragically, because Hamas intentionally commingles civilians and military assets, there have been many such deaths in this war.

The key rule here is proportionality, which requires armed forces to refrain from attacks that would inflict incidental civilian harm “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated to be gained.”

Attacking forces must also take “feasible” precautions in attack to reduce the risk to civilians.  This can include verifying the military nature of the target, assessing risk to civilians before the strike, providing advance warning to civilians, adjusting the timing of an attack, choosing more precise weapons, and so forth.

Proportionality and precautions are intensely fact-bound. Civilian harm, military advantage, and feasibility are difficult to quantify. Their application often depends on the circumstances on the ground, at a fleeting moment, during the chaos of war.  

Reasonableness, not perfect hindsight, is the standard. After-the-fact assessments of proportionality must account for “variation in how reasonable persons would apply the principle of proportionality in a given circumstance” and “the information available to that person at the time.”  

The precautions required also vary with the context. Feasibility considers “all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.” Those military considerations include risks to one’s own troops and to the mission’s success: “[A] commander,” the U.S. Law of War Manual explains, “may determine that a precaution would not be feasible because it would result in increased operational risk (i.e., a risk of failing to accomplish the mission) or an increased risk of harm to his or her forces.”

Photographs of shattered buildings and injured or dead civilians tell us that a tragedy has taken place. But without further information—without specific evidence of Israeli misconduct in assessing proportionality and taking feasible precautions—it is impossible to declare that any given tragedy was also a violation of the laws of war.

The sad reality is that many civilian deaths will result when a technologically sophisticated force confronts a terrorist group that chooses to fight from densely populated civilian areas and compels civilians to stay in anticipated battle zones. That is true even if the organized military uses precision weapons and cares deeply about the law.

Hamas knows that, of course. It stores weapons in schools and launches rockets from civilian neighborhoods fully aware that Israeli strikes on those military assets will harm civilians. Why? Because it knows that international observers will blame Israel, eroding support for Israeli military action. Here again, Hamas perversely exploits proportionality’s humanitarian aims, intentionally putting Palestinian civilians in harm’s way to generate legal pressure on Israel.

The Meta Question: Are the Laws of War the Right Rules?

This analysis rests on the premise that the laws of armed conflict are the right standard to apply to both parties’ conduct.

But are they?  

Perhaps, as some observers contend, different rules should apply to each side. For instance, a group of academics at Columbia University has suggested that “one could regard” the atrocities of Oct. 7 as “an occupied people exercising a right to resist violent and illegal occupation.” (The letter goes on to say that “armed resistance by an occupied people must conform to the laws of war,” including the rule against internationally targeting civilians. But it studiously avoids acknowledging what follows from that concession: By that standard, one cannot in fact “regard” Hamas’s massacres as legitimate resistance.)

Should Hamas be allowed to place its missiles in schoolyards and its command centers under hospitals, if it thinks that will help it prevail?

Should different rules apply to the weak and the strong?

Advocates of that idea should consider what it would do to the centuries-long humanitarian quest to humanize warfare. To the struggle for what Texas Law Dean Bobby Chesney has called the “civilizationally relevant” idea that “it’s not right to intentionally try to kill innocents to advance your political or social goals.”

Without reciprocity, that project founders. The modern law of war rests on reciprocal agreements among states aimed at reducing unnecessary suffering on both sides—among combatants themselves, but also among civilians, prisoners of war, the injured and shipwrecked, and others outside the fight

Those fundamental humanitarian prohibitions thus apply without regard to the justness of each side’s cause. In legal jargon: The jus in bello, which regulates the conduct of war, applies independently of the jus ad bellum, which governs the commencement of war. Even the controversial (in this respect) first Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which elevates in certain respects anti-colonial struggles, does not purport to grant “resistance” fighters the right to murder innocents or otherwise wage war without limits.

If modern law’s fundamental humanitarian guarantees are to endure, they must apply equally to all parties, with no exemption for “especially worthy” causes.

Which belligerent has ever admitted that its cause is unjust? Which people fighting for survival would accept that the law constrains them, but not their enemies?  

No-holds barred for one side only is not a principle that can hold for long.

Indeed, there is a perverse irony in supporters of the weaker party disputing that the laws of war should apply equally to all.  

It is the weak, not the strong, who benefit most from universal restraint. In a world where anything goes, why would the strong forbear from using their power to the utmost? The alternative to universal rules is not asymmetric justice in favor of the weak. It is a ruthless world in which “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

***

Acknowledging that the law of armed conflict is the right normative framework for both sides in this fight would benefit Palestinian civilians most of all.

If Hamas would keep civilians away from military emplacements and stop operating from within their midst, as the law requires, Hamas and the IDF could have it out with far fewer civilian casualties. In the Columbia professors’ words, Hamas could “resist” with less danger to the people on whose behalf it claims to fight.  

Any “right to resist” beyond the law’s constraints, then, is nothing more than a right to murder Israeli civilians and to use Palestinian innocents as human camouflage.

The suffering civilians of the Middle East deserve better friends than these.

[scalycat]

I love your OC Abel and am genuinely excited to see your art of him whenever it shows up on dash.  Durge x Gale is my jam, and Abel is just an amazing Durge.  I was thinking about his Bhaalist back tattoo though.  I keep picturing Gale seeing it and then choosing to ignore that glaring red flag.  Tbf, Gale is totally smart enough to pass the religion check but also have enough overconfidence/hubris to feel like he could handle the occasional unintended murder attempt.

Hello anon! I'm glad you like Abel ♥

Based on how I imagined their story, I think that the day Gale saw Abel's tattoo, he was already aware that he was a bhaalspawn.

He gazed at it for a while with a touch of concern and asked a few questions, but he wasn't surprised at all.

Now, yes, Gale's interest in Abel is pretty much summarized by his decision to "ignore the glaring red flag" lmao. We all know Gale does not back down in front of a very suspicious and dangerous opportunity. 😏

But I like to compare Abel to a rescue dog. Sometimes you don't know the depth of what they have been through so you can expect some biting, but you know it's worth it if you love them with enough heart. And I think Gale understands that, and in return, Abel has never been a more devoted lover.

[ausetkmt]

Black nurses have shared their experiences of racism in the workplace, as the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) commemorates the 75th anniversary of Windrush at its annual conference this week.

In June 2018, the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, commissioned the Windrush Lessons Learned review – a report reflecting on the causes of the Windrush injustices. The independent review was in response to mounting evidence that members of the Windrush generation were losing jobs, homes and access to benefits, as well as being denied NHS treatment, detained, and forcibly deported to countries they left as children.

The findings, alongside the testimonies of black British citizens affected by the hostile environment, are truly anguishing.

Wendy Williams, the HM inspector of constabularyappointed as the independent reviewer, has examined the key legislative, policy and operational decisions that led to the Windrush injustices, and spoken to those who suffered grave and catastrophic consequences from becoming entangled in the government’s hostile immigration policies.

Williams’ review draws a stark conclusion: the UK’s treatment of the Windrush generation, and approach to immigration more broadly, was caused by institutional failures to understand race and racism. Their failures conform to certain aspects of Lord Macpherson’s definition of institutional racism, enshrined in the Macpherson report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, published in 1999.

Macpherson defined institutional racism as: “The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.”

The Windrush Lessons Learned review pulls no punches in describing the failure of ministers and officials to understand the nature of racism in Britain. It shows how the government’s hostile environment immigration policies had devastating impacts on the lives and families of black citizens within the UK.

The fact that black British people who had spent much of their lives in Britain, working and paying taxes, were accidental victims of the government’s immigration policies, perfectly illustrates how the coalition and Conservative governments not only failed to adhere to existing race relations legislation, but also showed a complete lack of understanding about “indirect discrimination” – a concept accepted in legislation as far back as the 1976 Race Relations Act.

Neither that lesson of “unintended discrimination”, nor the definition of “institutional racism” from the Macpherson report, seem to have been learned by Britain’s policymakers and politicians. Not only is intent irrelevant for assessing whether policies are racially discriminatory, but race equality laws (including the 2000 Race Relations Amendment Act and the public sector equality duty) appear to have made little difference to immigration and citizenship policies affecting people from different ethnic groups.

This reveals a shocking lack of understanding of what racism is – namely that it’s not solely about intent. In April 2018, the dramatic apology by the then prime minister, Theresa May, showed a failure to understand this lesson, when she insisted it wasn’t her government’s intent to disproportionately affect people from the Caribbean in the operation of hostile environment immigration policy.

For policymakers and politicians to learn the profound lessons of the Windrush review, they must not only “right the wrongs” suffered by the Windrush generation (as well as those from other ethnic minority groups), but they must also understand how and why immigration and citizenship policies, and Home Office culture, have repeatedly discriminated against black and ethnic minority citizens over the decades.

The Windrush generation are owed a full apology – an apology that is based on understanding that their treatment wasn’t an accidental misfortune, but the result of institutional failure to understand the role of race and racism in Britain.

[evwritesgames]

On Ideology and Practicality in the Age of Grift

I'm probably not going to be a successful independent creator. And there's lots of reasons for this that are beyond my control. We often talk, amongst ourselves, about those reasons. External factors like what artists are paid are situations we'd like to change, but require a lot more than one person's pushing to get it done. So we can safely say it's beyond a single creator's control and we can commiserate about this when we need to, raise awareness, and write primers that tell people about these problems.

This is all good. When you go from there to factors you can control, things get dicier. Ideology, which drives the discourse about uncontrollable external shit, falls by the wayside and convictions suddenly become a lot more flexible. This is about practicality. One must be practical if one is to survive a capitalist dystopia. You won't hear any argument from me about that idea, not in the abstract. I get it. I was raised pretty poor by Canadian white people standards and I know what it's like to wonder where my next meal is coming from, where my mom disappeared off to while looking after a younger sibling, be bullied for wearing hand-me-downs, etc.

As a younger adult, poverty was a badge of honor for a certain type of person and because of economic shifts, the brunt of which are still being born by my generation, being poor in your 20s was no longer a thing you hid because you hate to be pitied, or a cynical yuppie aesthetic, but a norm. Most of my friends were paycheck to paycheck and we knew people who weren't and those were the people who usually threw the parties, hosting their legions of friends who didn't have rich parents buying them a college house in a bear market, providing an "alcohol budget" weekly (this was a common thing, believe it or not), etc. A lot of those more privileged people kept on receiving privilege and not all of them, unfortunately, stayed or became aware of it and sensitive to its absence in others as it became very clear that millennials, at least, are a semi-deliberately impoverished cohort.

Anyway. There are a lot of good reasons to be ethically flexible, ideologically practical, in today's world. But for me, there are limits and they aren't gentle.

For example, I quit Facebook when I found out about Cambridge Analytica. No one else I knew did. I quit Reddit during the Trump years when fascist, racist subreddits were front page and suddenly filled to the brim with angry idiots and the far larger number of young kids being influenced by them. I quit Twitter when Musk bought it and made it a safe space for murderers, fascists, and bigots.

I am sure that, before long, something will happen with Tumblr and I'll say "there it is, that funny feeling". I'll quit, eventually feeling less horrified and more frustrated and angry about sacrificing yet more fragile reach in this vicious online circus. After that, I'll note that my peers ignore the problem and suspend their convictions, if they have any, in favor of something else. A different priority.

Using any of these social media is, in my opinion, a moral hazard. It's worse if you make money through that use, because suddenly you've got blood on your hands. Real blood. Dead people. Unintended consequences. You're probably reading this and something deep inside you is just recoiling from this idea. You do NOT want to be responsible for the unintended consequences of your actions. Who would?

And you or someone else will be tempted to view the above as more shit you can't control. But this isn't really true, is it? You can quit social media, it's just that in doing so you have to say goodbye to what precious little control you have in an Age of Grift. You tell yourself that it's okay, that there's no ethical consumption under griftopia and you'll just consider yourself a fighter by other means.

All of that is fine, too, I guess. It's not really my business to judge the decisions of others except, of course, that's not true either. We all judge each others' decisions all the fucking time. That's what social media, deep in its black heart, really is. It's a social control mechanism that runs on judgment. We've come up with all kinds of euphemisms for this, but it's mostly claptrap that easily reduces to simple monkey logic, playground politics, etc.

So if you feel judged by what I'm saying, I guess that's too bad. Scroll on to the next thing that makes you feel judged and hope the judgment is kind, that the judgment is more like "you are cool if you get this reference" and you can say, "I get this reference" and receive a small dopamine hit for your time.

In spite of my pontificating, I get it. I ask myself every single day if I'm just kidding myself taking these ideological positions that shoot me in both feet. I have made things a lot harder for myself by quitting these spaces, by taking these positions, and by shouting this message from the rooftops -- occasionally, when I'm not busy having a mood spiral or panic attack over the state of things and how, like it or not, we need each other to make things change and when you look around and everybody's eyes are still on the capitalist prize they tweet about despising, you don't feel very revolutionary. I will probably not be a successful independent creator.

[storybounded]

Okay, so. It's a WHOLE thing. so I'm going to put it under read-more since it will get a bit long. But this is a bit of a joint headcanon between @streetslost and I, so she is more than free to re-blog this too. She added some of her own thoughts below, so it's only fair! But big tw for the usage of guns, blood, and quite a brutal death from a gun. This altercation is just a violent one, so be forewarned haha. Scott, Cat and the family are alive and okay!

Quite some time had passed since Amy and Jon took Cat off the streets. Allen, Laura, Casey, and Scott himself decided to visit one summer during a break in Hollywood's activities. But tensions ran high as Cat had to open up about her troubled past. It was encouraged by Amy, as it was important to give Scott's family some insight into her behaviors. She reluctantly shared her experiences with Copper and admitted to murders, shedding light on the severity of her crimes. She was not just a THIEF as they were being led to believe. The family, however, did not shame nor express anger towards her. Instead, they emphasized that this was a highly unfortunate circumstance she faced as a child, and one that should've never happened. However, they couldn't ignore the potential unintended harm Cat might cause due to volatile reactions. Days later, as the family prepared to return home, their plans were delayed when the car refused to start. Allen, not well versed in car repairs, quickly arranged for a handyman to fix it that day and managed to secure a late-night private plane for departure. Once fixed, they loaded up and were about to leave. However, Cat discovered a threatening drawing left by Copper in her room - a picture of a car exploding. Realizing the car wasn't properly fixed, she intervened just in time to prevent a horrendous disaster, and alerted everyone to go inside. Despite the attempt to save them, Cat's intervention triggered a series of events that lead to a confrontation with Copper, Crackshot, and Birdie. While Allen and Scott faced off Copper outside, Birdie and Crackshot held the rest of the family hostage within the house. A stray bullet, fired by Crackshot to entice fear and injured Amy’s arm in the process, prompted Cat to angrily retaliate. Jon, a licensed gun handler who had obtained his own weapon, managed to wound Crackshot in the leg, but Birdie quickly overpowered the coach and left him with a broken nose. Yet within the chaos, Cat was able to knock out Crackshot and steal his gun. Birdie took off, knowing she was no match at this point.  Elsewhere, Copper had cornered Allen and Scott within the garage, revealing his brutal nature. He was a monster. A beast who came out for the taste of blood, and he marched on a warpath to get what he wanted. Allen was briefly knocked out while trying to protect himself and his son with a pitchfork that he swiped off the wall. Copper, now wielding that very weapon, was poised and ready to bash Scott in with all the ferocity that he could muster, but Cat barreled in like a lioness on the hunt. She tripped up Copper and forced the beast to crash onto the ground. The brute tried to take out a hidden gun, but Cat still had Crackshot’s rifle.  In panic and desperation to end the haunting torment, a point blank shot took him out immediately.  Another couple shots were done just to be sure.  Not much was left of his face by the time she finished, and Scott and Allen were thankful the scene wasn’t visible from where they had taken shelter. Although facing Copper terrified Cat to death, losing her new friends and family would've terrified her more. Thus, due to working together and surviving such an incident, the family’s worries for Cat quickly lifted.

[the-real-rain-world-confessions]

For the Manslaughter anon, I genuinely do appreciate your perspective but at some point his ignorance was very much willful. Moon was open about the fact his actions were killing her, and it’s canon that both she and every other iterator in the local group flooded him with messages informing him so. Moon said she wasn’t going to send forced comms until it got absolutely dire, and seeing as that is what ended up happening he either willfully ignored them all or saw them and didn’t care. While murder might be too harsh, as I agree it wasn’t premeditated or anything, I think manslaughter also doesn’t quite fit. Yes he says it was an unintended consequence, but it was one he was very much informed WAS happening before it did. He was given the chance to stop it, many chances in fact, and decided to be selfish. And he’ll live with that guilt forever. It’s one of my favorite parts of his character. That he was given an out, a warning, a chance to stop. Many chances, in fact. And he rejected it. He rejected them all.

.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Charles Love

Published: May 3, 2023

When my family and I were planning our move to New York City, we had a list of criteria that was important to us in choosing a home. The list included things like commute time, nearby amenities, and neighborhood feel, but the quality of the neighborhood school for our son topped the list. We did Google searches, read reviews, and asked friends and associates for suggestions. We finally settled on the school he now attends. In the fall of 2020, my son started kindergarten.

But he had only been in school a few weeks when I noticed something odd in the lesson plan. They announced that, for the first time, they would be teaching STEM in kindergarten, and the first lesson was, "Women in STEM," by which they meant, women and minorities had been marginalized in STEM. This was apparently very important. My son was four.

I requested a meeting with the teacher and questioned the appropriateness of the lesson. But the teacher and principal couldn't see my point, because women have been marginalized in STEM, as they took turns patiently explaining to me. It's real, was the point they made over and over.

"So is murder and rape but you wouldn't teach that to kindergarteners!" I shot back, to little effect.

But while the lesson wasn't age-appropriate, this wasn't even my biggest concern. Lessons like these are part of the DEI program—the diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda that's been infecting institutions across the U.S. of late. This agenda is designed to eliminate racism (though racism is viewed as "structural" and thus, paradoxically, incurable), and in the school setting, it's ostensibly designed to close achievement gaps. But more often than not, these efforts don't involve raising up those impacted by real racism and real academic gaps between the wealthy and everyone else; they instead drag everyone else down, canceling achievement benchmarks or eliminating standards altogether.

Many of the concerns about DEI challenge its morality, claiming it is racist against whites or trying to force equity of outcomes, and they aren't wrong. But again, that's not the real danger. The greater risk is that this approach can be harmful to the very students it is designed to help.

And my son, the only black kid in his class, is one of them.

Teaching him STEM at an early age would of course have my blessing. It might indeed help close the race gap in these coveted positions. But instead of teaching him STEM, the school decided to teach him to see himself and the girls in his class as marginalized. How does that help him? Creating engagement and making the subject fun is far more effective than telling children that people who looked like them were excluded in the past.

And this was far from the only time I experienced the unintended consequences of DEI. After a lesson on Martin Luther King Jr., my son came home and told me he could be a slave. While in first grade, he told me that all the women and girls in Saudi Arabia get shot by the police. On a Zoom call discussing plans to roll out even more DEI initiatives, the principal told me that blacks—today, not in the past—are oppressed and are "genetically different from whites."

You can imagine what impact this can have on my son's education, being the only black student in his class, with leadership like this.

Things did improve. My son's principal retired, and the new principal had a much different approach. When the DEI agenda rears its ugly head these days, it's because it's being pushed by the Department of Education, not the teachers, and my complaints are at least heard out. I've had several meetings with the principal and teachers, and they have been positive, engaging, and effective.

But what about the rest of the district and the city at-large?

There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure that every student gets a quality education; indeed, this is an admirable goal. There is nothing wrong with focusing on students who need additional help. But it's wrong to assume all students have the same needs based on their race or gender. And it's harmful to be so focused on effecting change that you don't measure the results.

Good intentions mean nothing if the results are bad.

But though things are slightly better at my son's school these days and I have to worry less about him being taught to see himself as a disempowered victim, I worry deeply about the rest of New York City's public school kids, especially given what I see in the curriculum.

So I've decided to run for a seat on our local Community Education Council, the education policy advisory body responsible for reviewing and evaluating the district's educational programs, approving zoning lines, and holding public hearings.

I want to bring nuance to these difficult conversations. I don't want to ban anything—books, CRT, DEI, or anything else—but I also don't want any parent's concerns to be ignored. Everyone should have a voice, and things aren't as black or white as they seem.

Last week, a woman stopped me in front of my son's school. She wanted to know if I liked the school. She was considering pulling her son out of his current school because she didn't like the administration's approach to race.

I told her if that is why she's doing it, there's no use, because every school has the same directive, but if she addressed her concerns with the school and they did not listen, that was a reason to consider leaving.

She said she had and was ignored.

I want to be a voice for parents like her, who feel the school, or the DOE, isn't listening to their concerns.

In case you're wondering, like me, the mother was black.

Charles Love is the executive director of Seeking Educational Excellence, co-host of The Cut the Bull Podcast, and the author of "Race Crazy: BLM, 1619, and the Progressive Racism Movement."

==

the principal told me that blacks—today, not in the past—are oppressed and are "genetically different from whites."

Notwithstanding a 92-year old grandmother, and actual members of the KKK, most racist people are self-aware enough to try to hide their racism.

"Antiracists" don't just feel no shame, they actually feel proud and virtuous about sharing their racist views.

[lykegenia]

Like Glitter And Gold Ch. 7

Fandom: The Wayhaven Chronicles Characters/Pairings: Nate x f!Detective Rating: Teen

Read it on AO3

--

It’s not long after leaving Nate on the balcony that Leah steps through the doors of the café into bright, midday sunshine. The barista on duty has confirmed there aren’t any CCTV angles of the café itself, and there’s little more information on the wreck of the Pegasus that might tie it to the murder, but her second meeting with Samantha in the art gallery on the top floor of the museum wasn’t a total dead end, and it feels good to be making progress.

A few other patrons are sat at the scrubbed picnic benches on the patio overlooking the lake, huddled against a boisterous wind with determined fingers clasped for warmth around their mugs of coffee, eyeing the gulls that gather hopefully nearby. A figure a little further off beckons her over, tall enough that he’s easily recognisable even against the glare, and she smiles to see he’s bought her lunch already and saved a seat on a bench that looks out over the cliff edge towards the shore.

“Have you been waiting long?” she asks, cracking the lid of the juice bottle.

“For you?” He grins. “All my life.”

She shoots him a dry look. “That one was cheesy as hell.”

“I don’t think you mind all that much,” he replies.

“Of course not – you brought me food.”

For a moment, he leaves her to tuck in, watching fondly as she tries to find an angle that won’t blow stray wisps of hair into her mouth as she takes a bite. “I do recall you saying that so long as I did so, you’d stick around. I only hope you don’t change your mind.”

“Not likely soon,” she says around an undignified mouthful. “But in my defence, this is a really good sandwich.”

He smiles, turns to look over the water. “I’ve been thinking while I was out here… the curator’s surname –”

“It’s her married name,” Leah supplies. “But her husband is a descendant of the Pegasus’ captain – it’s how they met.”

“And to think I was hoping to be of help to you today,” he chuckles, stretching arm languidly along the back of the bench. There’s a sidelong glance to make sure she’s happy with the gesture, and a smile as she turns towards him with one tucked-up knee close enough to rest on his thigh. “So what now?”

Ignoring the burn in her cheeks – it’s definitely, definitely just the wind – Leah throws a cautious look over her shoulder to make sure they won’t be overheard. “We still have a few leads we can follow. Russell owned a boat, for one thing. But I can handle that… if you’d rather not.”

“I would brave anything for you, Leah,” he murmurs, an intensity to his gaze that seems to pierce through the brittle face she shows to the world.

She drops her gaze to brush away the last crumbs from her lap. “I wouldn’t ask you to, not if it was something that made you uncomfortable, or brought up such bad memories. I can manage.”

A tense silence engulfs them; even the sun is swallowed by a drifting tuft of cloud. When she peeks a glance sideways, the frown as he studies her catches her breath with all the doubts just waiting for a chance to pounce. Of course that wasn’t the right answer, it’s all she can do to mess things up, to bite at the hand offering a heart on a silver plate.

But as always, he twists from the unintended snap and reaches across the space between them, tucking a flyaway lock of hair behind her ear as he shifts closer.

“I didn’t mean to imply you aren’t capable,” he tells her. “One of your many talents seems to be the ability to tangle my thoughts into an inarticulate mess.”

“Really?” Sarcasm was always her strong suit. “But you’re always so charming.”

A smirk. “Do I charm you, Leah?”

“And you don’t even need pheromones to do it.”

The line brings a light chuckle to his lips as his touch moves from her shoulder to brush the edge of her jaw, soft as spring petals. She could stay here all afternoon, snuggled into his side to hide from the wind while they follow the movements of the seals bobbing in the waves, but it won’t help them catch their murderer. A sigh, and she squeezes her eyes shut, leans into his palm for all too brief a moment.

“I’m on the clock,” she reminds him, letting the sour note of regret sit heavy in her voice.

Nate’s smile falters, but he nods. “Next time, we’ll come when you’re not.”

The promise is made quietly, hopefully, and as they stand the movement brings him close enough to see all the varied shades of brown flecked within the depths of his eyes. A part of her still baulks at the softness she reads in his face, distrusting its sincerity like a child clinging to the steps of the swimming pool because she doesn’t believe she’ll float, but it makes her heart skip faster all the same. Perhaps, when they have a chance to be alone, without any prying eyes or Agency business to interrupt, she can find the words to expel that little black glob of fear, and perhaps he won’t hate her too much for her honesty. For now, however, there’s still the puzzle to solve, so she swallows it back down and takes his arm, focusing on the warm, solid presence at her side as they make their way back to the car park.

--

The drive to the marina is short, and Leah buries the shadows on her mind by mouthing along to the songs on the radio. Considering how much of a tourist trap the place is in the summer months, the final stretch to the car park is in poor repair, and only a delicate hand on the steering wheel keeps Nessie from losing wheels or undercarriage to one of the many potholes that line the track. By the time they reach the open chainlink gate and the unmarked patch of gravel by the waterfront, her teeth have been all but rattled out of her skull.

Lanes of moored boats stretch out in front of them, docile as a flock of grazing sheep with their masts bobbing contentedly in the breeze. Along the edge of the car park, rusted bits of junk lie in disorder next to sun-bleached buoys, chains, and thick lengths of frayed nylon rope that carry a brackish, bitter odour. Nate flashes a glance in her direction, nervous. The only sign of life is the clan of sparrows hopping like fallen leaves along the boardwalk.

Their phones buzz. Quicker off the mark, Leah pulls hers out to see a spam of photo messages from Felix, at least a dozen, all of the kittens. The poor signal at the lighthouse must have stopped them getting through before.

“You’ve created a monster,” Nate chuckles as she tilts the screen to let him see.

“Mm,” she agrees. “But you’re the one who to live with him.”

She taps out a quick response and refocuses. The yard is deserted, but the whirr of an angle grinder leads them to a large, open shed with a corrugated iron roof. As they head towards it, the sound stops and a man emerges, pushing a safety shield up from his eyes. An inch or two taller than Leah herself, he’s built broad in the shoulders, rounded about the middle by age, with a red face and thinning, mousy hair.

“Saw you pull up on the CCTV,” he calls across the space. “Can I help you?”

She nods and flashes her badge. “I’m Detective Kingston, this is Agent Sewell. We’re here about Russell Seakirk.”

The man’s eyes dart away. “Aye, I thought that might be it. Stanley Harris,” he adds, holding out a hand. “I own the marina.”

“Harris?” Nate asks. “We just came from the lighthouse museum –”

“Met Sam, have you?” Stanley flashes a weak smile. “She’s the wife. The museum’s actually how we met, you know.”

Leah nods. “She told me about it, and about the Pegasus.”

There’s a deep pause as Stanley crosses his arms over his chest and turns away.

“You must get asked about it a lot, and about the supposed treasure,” Nate suggests.

“Load of rot, all of it.” Their new person of interest blows a harsh breath through his cheeks. “Brian Harris was my great-grandpa. He saved lives cutting that cargo loose, and in thanks the liner company cut him off – gave him and his a black name so they couldn’t get work as honest hands anywhere.” He shrugs. “The only good the Pegasus ever did me was meeting Sam.”

“And the treasure?” Leah presses. “We have reason to believe Russell Seakirk was trying to find it.”

Stanley scuffs his boot at the gravel. “It’s a story, nothing more. If it existed, do you think I’d scraping by with this place? Russell wasn’t the first idiot who thought the lake was going to make him rich, but look how he ended up.”

“You didn’t like him very much, did you?”

He bristles. “Are you trying to say I killed him?”

“Did you?” she checks.

“No.”

Nate holds up placating hands. “Did he ever ask you about the Pegasus?”

“Never came up,” Stanley snaps, shrugging his shoulders higher.

For a moment, Leah lets him stew in his obvious discomfort, cataloguing the sullen body language and just how far to push it.

“We understand he had a boat here,” she says eventually, and watches as the discomfort shifts, but doesn’t quite turn into relief. “We’d like to see it.”

“Right.” He glances back to the boatshed. “Let me just put the tools away.”

The marina proper is locked behind a spiked, padlocked gate set into another chainlink fence, adorned with red signs warning of deep water and heavy equipment. As they follow along the concrete walk of the main dock, Leah passes a worried glance to Nate, who merely returns a wry smile and shoves his hands deep into his pockets. There’s tension in the line of his shoulders, but he seems to be coping.

Instead of commenting, she focuses back on getting more information out of Stanley. He seems more comfortable walking and talking, shrugging answers to her questions now that the subject of the Pegasus has been left behind. Seakirk paid his bills on time, kept to himself, ran tours and diving courses out on the lake during the summer, and like every other person with a berth, he had his own key for the gate and came and went as he pleased.

“What about in the winter months?” she asks.

Stanley shrugs again. “Not many tourists looking to swim in near-freezing lakewater. A fair number leave their boats docked in the off-season, some take them out for personal trips or for fishing.”

“And Russell?”

“I don’t keep tabs,” he answers, short. “That’s his over there. The Gillie Mhor.”

It’s easy to spot. Bigger than most of the pleasure craft around it, it’s moored to the main dock instead of one of the floating pontoons that sit lower in the water. The stern is open, with a ladder leading up to an enclosed wheelhouse and a bulkhead door into the interior. The deck must once have had quite a lot of space for tourists, but it’s been crowded out by a winch and a mechanical crane attached to some sort of lifting platform. It’s shiny, and new, and looks very expensive.

So that’s where Walter Greene’s money went.

“I don’t have keys, mind,” Stanley warns as they come up alongside it.

“No problem.” She waves the bunch of keys Tina relieved from the body before stuffing them back into a coat pocket. The dozen feet or so of water below them could become a huge problem if she develops butterfingers.

“Careful,” Nate murmurs as she tries to judge the gap.

He takes her hand to steady her – or maybe pull her back out if she falls in – and doesn’t let go until she’s stepped down safe onto the open lower deck. The movement of the boards beneath her feet take a little adjustment, but it’s subtle enough in the sheltered bay to not make her feel nauseated.

“I can look around here,” she tells him, answering the tightness at the corner of his eyes.

He nods. “Then perhaps… could I look over any logbooks you have for comings and goings, Mr Harris?”

“Uh, you want to do it now?” Stanley shifts an uneasy glance between them. “I’m not sure I’m comfortable leaving you alone, Detective – for safety. You’ll not be covered on the insurance if there’s an accident.”

“I’ll be fine,” she replies, as much to Nate as to him. “I promise not to pull the plug out.”

“If you’re sure…” He shakes his head and turns to Nate. “There’s a security camera on the gates, and as for people going on the water the boats are all fitted with GPS. Technology, eh? Everything’s automatic now.”

“I’ll be grateful to take a look,” Nate says, before glancing back to Leah. “Shout if you need help.”

She nods and waves him off, already casting her gaze over the deck as his footsteps fade away. The boards are clear, but as she reaches for the keys in her pocket she spots the damage to the cabin door that says she doesn’t need them. The lock has been smashed in.

With the unholstered Volt gun at her side, she inches closer, ears straining to catch any sounds of an intruder over the gentle lap of the water and the gulls overhead. The door swings inwards with barely a touch.

The dank, algal smell of the marina multiplies inside the cramped space of the cabin. Like the exterior, it might once have been roomy, but crates and spare parts are stacked in every inch of available floorspace, scattered in such a way it’s difficult to tell if the mess is a natural habit of the victim, or if his belongings were searched. The room beyond contains a narrow bed and a novel on the nightstand, and a tiny bathroom with a toothbrush in a mug next to the sink. Cupboard doors have been thrown open, their few contents spilled onto the floor.

At least the place is empty. Sighing, she puts away the Volt gun and pulls out her phone.

Nate picks up on the second ring. “Leah?”

“It’s alright, I’m fine,” she answers, endeared by the worry in his voice. “Can you ask Stanley if he’s had any break-ins at the yard, or anyone weird hanging about?”

“Of course.” Something muffles the audio for a moment before Nate puts the phone back to his ear. “Not that he knows of. Why – is something the matter?”

“The boat’s trashed like the chalet,” she says. “I’m going to have a look around.”

“Be careful, won’t you?”

“The worst I’m going to get here is a stubbed toe,” she chuckles. “But I will.”

As she clicks off and turns back towards the crates, her eyes catch on a corkboard screwed to the wall. Something was ripped off it with impatience enough that one of the four corner pins still clings to a scrap of blue paper. It might have been another map – or the same one she found in the journal – but it’s definitely not anywhere in the present mess.

The contents of the crates are just as baffling, a collection of junk – bits of wood, clumps of rust, pottery shards, and even a glass bottleneck with a stopper crusted over in decay – that on closer inspection have all been inked with strings of Echolian characters. After a long moment searching, she finds some that match, but without the journal and Nate to translate, there’s no telling what the labels mean. It’s probably just lucky that whoever broke in decided not to look too closely. After snapping a few quick photos for the layout of the space, she ducks back outside for cleaner air and phones Adam.

“What’s your status?”

“I found evidence that needs securing on Russell’s boat – it looks like someone came in and tried to find the journal, so I want forensics here as well in case they were careless enough to leave prints.”

“Understood.”

He cuts the call with an efficient lack of small talk, and Leah shoves her phone back in her pocket before hopping back over the side to find Nate.

[nym-wibbly]

I just skipped back to the start of Supernatural season five (from fourteen) to refresh my memory about how Nick/Lucifer's arc began. Accidentally landed on the scene in the hospital where Castiel, having picked his side at the end of S4, complains that he "killed two angels this week". Oh, bby.

The show's never delved deeply into that aspect of Castiel's storyline. He's feared and loathed by other angels but we've seen little of how he feels about that. Few characters can get a rise out of him under any provocation, so we just get occasional glimpses of his fear and anger when one of the Winchesters goes recklessly suicidal and makes Cas afraid his sacrifices are in vain and his faith misplaced. He needs to feel that it's been worth it and panics when that gets hard. He's killed so many of his own kind, both in combat and when he went nuclear at the start of S7. He's been significantly responsible for the genocide and near extinction of the angels, both through personal kills and through his epic hubris in seasons 6, 7, and 9.

He feels the guilt and shame, he undergoes atonement, and he learns to do and be better - but he keeps on killing angels when he needs to. All that slaughter, yet I truly believed him when he told Nick that it's the personal, human tragedy of Jimmy Novak and family - the unintended consequence of his ignorance and blind faith, his angelic innocence - that, metaphorically speaking, keeps Cas awake at night. That was just raw for him and Nick touched a nerve, while the fate of Heaven, in which he's taken a conscious part, is a dull burden that Cas carries and owns without outward displays of overwhelming emotion.

It ought to come over as a terrible, terrifying zealotry on Castiel's part - the kind that tips the balance from hero to antihero/villain, and the kind of cold absolutism he consciously walked away from at the end of S4 when Dean challenged him to choose between right and wrong instead of relying on blind faith, but it doesn't read that way. His self-doubt is infinitely more dangerous to bystanders - to his friends - than his righteous certainty.

When he succumbs to a dangerous anger in his private trauma, he has the insight to isolate himself, and when that fails, he has the self-awareness to stop short of beating the helpless Metatron to death because he can still draw a clear distinction between an enemy and a threat. He knows how dangerous he is and warns people when it's viable to do so. He does everything in his power to see that he's safely restrained when Rowena's slavering-killer spell overtakes him, when he knows the choice is going to be taken out of his hands. The rest of the time his self-control is epic. Even the tired, kind and caring dad!Cas of season 13/14 is first and foremost a soldier making a soldier's choices with a soldier's strategy, a defender rather than an aggressor. Somehow, even with the shocking death toll he's racked up, he's a protector figure, not something out of a nightmare. Just like the Winchesters.

It's like he's helpless to prevent his part in harming Heaven, even as he's the one stabbing and exploding his siblings all over the place. Mind you, the other angels never learn. They keep coming at him with pointy things and/or threatening the Winchesters, and when they do occasionally manage to take him off the board, Chuck puts him right back. As of S14, even Naomi seems to have grasped that making Castiel choose between his own kind and his adopted family isn't a survival strategy. I'm not optimistic that any of the angels (bar semi-angelic Jack, I guess) will be left standing by the series finale. The shape of the story seems to demand that they move over to make way for a better tomorrow - along with God. But if God's the one writing the story, it's unlikely to be that simple!

Poor (killy stabby fallen fratricidal) Castiel.

[roachliquid]

In celebration of the successful conclusion of the SAG-AFTRA strike, I found a place I could watch the FNAF movie without giving Scott Cawthon any money. And I have to say... I was pleasantly surprised.

Just to be clear, everything the critics say about it is correct. It is not a terribly good movie; it's a toned-down version of the kind of silliness you get in the FNAF books, made safer for both general audiences and its PG-13 rating. But to leave it there is to ignore what works in the movie, and that's the stuff I was surprised by.

The protagonist is, despite Cawthon's usual brand of "let's make the guy an asshole and hope people connect with him anyway", genuinely entertaining for how much of a human disaster he is. There's also a lot of comedy in the way the animatronics are depicted, and in the tonal dissonance that haunts them like a bad smell in an enclosed bathroom. Like, I understand why people criticized that aspect, but to me, they did a great job capturing the way people's - especially kids' - attitudes toward the animatronics have dramatically shifted away from their original intent, while maintaining the fact that they are able and willing to perform murder.

The cop character is written very much like an actual cop. Any time she gets close to not getting her way on something, the mask comes off and she goes straight to bullying her way into making it happen, all the while treating the protagonist like he's just being pointlessly noncompliant when he asks her for more information. It's interesting that they went with this tack, given the inconsistency with her otherwise pleasant and compassionate personality, but I find it a good reminder that even "nice" cops cannot be trusted.

...ok, I can't keep a straight face on that one. Cawthon is terrible at writing people, doubly so when it comes to women. I'm not joking when I say it worked for the protagonist, but the cop is an unbelievable asshole and an utter mess of a character. It is surprisingly realistic though.

Anyway, the last thing that really worked for me was the big reveal in the climax. There's two or potentially three twists revealed at once; one is in-universe and kinda naff, while the other two are meta-twists, and while they both require some background knowledge to appreciate, if you have that they are fantastic. So this is very much a YMMV situation, one that worked for me because I know a lot about the FNAF games and have a strong love of horror movies.

Unfortunately, though, while I really enjoyed the movie, it can be summed up in one sentence: "For people who like this sort of thing, it's exactly the sort of thing that they would like." If you enjoy the absurdity of the FNAF extended universe, unintended comedy produced by tonal dissonance and goofy character designs, and toothless horror movies that are heavier on plot than scares, this will be right up your alley. Otherwise, the combination of those issues with the atrociously written plot and Cawthon's low-simmering misogyny (he's a conservative Christian who romanticizes the 50s, to give you an idea of what you're in for) will probably make it a pretty unpleasant experience.

OH YEAH, one last note: You might have heard from somewhere that the movie "relies on" jump scares for its horror. This is horseshit. There is one good jump scare in the movie, period. That was one of the biggest letdowns for me.

[curtklingermanposts]

Dealing With Other People’s Sin (Part Five)

Where We’ve Been Getting It Wrong

 As we previously learned, when it comes to sin, our primary concern is those within the Church; not those of the world. God judges them (see 1 Corinthians 5:12-13). When it comes to Church discipline, the goal is repentance and restoration when repentance is necessary. Of course, we’ll always be repenting of things as Holy Spirit convicts us. That being said, in some ways we’ve done more harm than good in relation to those outside the Church. How so?

By judging them. How many have pointed out their sins and condemned them? Yes, we do stand against sin and injustice, but if we do not allow Holy Spirit to lead us, we can become very carnal in our approach. You might say self-righteous. Self-righteousness is a dangerous ground on which to tread, since it is based on pride.

There are times and places to expose sin, and call it out. However, condemning sinners for sinning is a different matter. You might recall, prior to receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, you were in bondage to sin. We all were. When you were lost, did you need anyone to point out your sin? If someone pointed their self-righteous finger at you, did it draw you closer to Jesus, or push you away? If the person invited you to church, did you want to go? That’s how a person can do more harm than good.

“They are going to be sent to hell for that!” “You are going to go straight to hell for what you did!” Have you ever heard people say such things? Is that biblical? There is a plethora of sins mentioned in the Bible. Some acts of sin are quite heinous; however, sin is sin. Remember, there is only one unforgiveable sin, which is the blasphemy of Holy Spirit (see Mark 3:29). Why are people condemned according to Jesus?

John 3:17-19 For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil.

Ultimately, it is the rejection of Jesus Christ. As long as people have breath in their lungs, they can still be forgiven of everything by calling on the name of the Lord. Remember, God does not send anyone to hell. They are already on their way; unless, they repent. It’s up to them, because God provided the Way of Salvation. They decide whether they will receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Stop Calling Out Individual Sins

Again, there are times we have to address sin and injustice in order to protect society. We cannot allow child predators, rapists, murderers and such like to freely roam the streets. That has devastating consequences. As previously stated, we cannot afford to allow sin to go unchecked in the Church. Nonetheless, elevating certain sins above others is non-starter as well. It can have unintended consequences for non-Christians and Christians alike.

Jesus told us to love our enemies, which means we are to be enemies to none, except the devil and demons. Segments of society have felt ostracized by the Church at large, because Christians have treated them like enemies. At best they ignored them, in other instances they alright persecuted them, and everything in between. None of these lead to repentance. It was God’s kindness and goodness that led us to repentance (see Romans 2:4). Would that be the better approach on our part? To be kind, regardless of the person’s condition?

To be clear, this does not mean celebrating ungodly lifestyles. That does more harm than good. Why would we do anything to encourage someone to go farther down the path of destruction? Part of kindness is speaking the truth in love. Clearly, some will outright reject the truth, because they prefer to continue in their sin. That means they may even reject you, but that’s should not be surprising. Love does not fear that rejection. Likewise, it does mean no-compromise. This bears repeating, allow Holy Spirit to lead you in how you interact with others.

Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Singling out particular sins can lead to self-righteousness. We can take on an attitude that says, “At least I don’t do that.” In our mind, it may dimmish our own shortcomings to the point where we fail to address them. It’s called rationalization, and it does not lead to repentance. Comparing ourselves to others is not wise. Self-righteousness makes us unapproachable. By the way, should a person be attacked for mistreating others out of self-righteousness, that would not be considered persecution for the sake of Christ. It would be considered retaliation for being a jerk.

Incidentally, elevating a particular sin above others, gives that thing a power over a person’s life that it should not have. That is another lesson in itself.

perfectfaith.org

[twentythreemillionstories]

Saturday 4th March 2023, Hong Kong, 7.55pm.

#143,474 — A totally unimportant man who ignores the purpose of his insignificant life meets a great man ready to give him all the answers. A girl leans over with tears in her eyes and a violent yearning to drown her sorrows. The murder of her half-sister troubles her deeply, a 31-year-old mother of three young children, the unintended victim of a gang shooting.

[everyday-anarchy]

“Control your body by not fucking and face the consequences of your actions.”

About thirty-six minutes into Chocolate Babies by Stephen Winter, the gay, gender-nonconforming male character Larva goes on an extremely surprising, at least to me, tirade about the fight for abortion rights. He calls abortion “murder” and women “kill[ing] their kids.” A cis female character, Jamela, argues with him when he says that “a woman gets herself pregnant” when “she opens up her legs,” and therefore pregnancy is a “consequence.” I found this moment extremely relevant to conversations and advocacy both in the time of the movie and today. 

Firstly, I was surprised that a queer character—a self-described “queer terrorist”—would present such an anti-feminist stance. The “gang of self-proclaimed raging atheist, meat eating, HIV positive colored terrorists” do not fight against Larva’s proclamations, other than Jamela, and in fact, Larva is adamant that women’s rights have nothing to do with him or his political agendas. When accosting conservative politicians, the group addresses the disproportionate number of cases of and deaths from HIV/AIDS among people of color, needle exchange programs for drug users, the city’s lack of response to poor and sick citizens, and more. However, in the aforementioned moment of the movie, Larva is actively anti-feminist. He slut-shames women, victim-blaming them for pregnancy, and is very hostile toward women’s autonomy and rights.

I found this interesting because Larva shows no solidarity with another marginalized group, women. Furthermore, as Chocolate Babies completely decenters whiteness, one cannot assume that Larva is merely being hostile towards white women, who do maintain a large amount of privilege despite their gender. Jamela, as a Black woman, has multiple intersectional reasons to want bodily autonomy and the right to an abortion, but Larva belittles her opinions and her needs.

Another fascinating aspect of this argument is that Larva completely disconnects pregnancy from HIV/AIDS, although a very close comparison can be made—and is made, by Jamela. Pregnancy can be an unintended result of sex, as can be HIV/AIDS; and in fact, Larva mentions his former partner from whom he contracted HIV/AIDS, so we know that it was (to use his own words) a “consequence” of sex. Larva calls pregnancy a consequence, but refuses to acknowledge the similarity between other concepts such as rape or AIDS, as Jamela brings up to him. He says “AIDS is not comparable to baby-making,” but does not explain why.

I find the dichotomy between gay men and women (represented in this case by Larva vs. the women’s rights movement, or perhaps Larva vs. Jamela) intriguing. Gay men and straight women can exist at similar junctions of privilege and oppression: gay men have male privilege, but not straight privilege, and sometimes not masculine privilege. Straight women have straight privilege, but not male privilege. White women, of course, have far greater amounts of privilege than women of color, and the same is true for white gay men vs. gay men of color. Despite these comparable positionalities within society, Larva proves that, at least here, gay men are not an ally of women. And, for that matter, transgender/transsexual women, such as Lady Marmalade, are also not allies of cisgender women. In this scene, Jamela is the only character who speak up against Larva, and the only one to acknowledge how discrimination between people of different kinds of marginalized groups is why “every revolution has failed.”

Within this scene, Chocolate Babies makes a powerful point about the damage that a lack of solidarity between oppressed groups can do. Although he is undoubtedly a marginalized figure, Larva sides with the oppressors when he victim-blames women for becoming pregnant, relieves men of all culpability, and demands abstinence as a “solution” for pregnancy and abortion. He not only ignores the movements of another group, but actively contributes to negative opinions about women’s rights to bodily autonomy. Later, Jamela also criticizes the group for being so stuck in their fear of their deaths from HIV/AIDS that they end up “wasting [their] life away.” Despite the radical opinions and actions of the group, they also suffer from an intensely narrow view that can not only hinder others, but actively restrict people who should be allies, not enemies.

[ladystoneboobs]

so, i don’t really care about jaime/bran ever meeting again since there’s no real personal baggage like with bran/theon. but what gets me about their connection is all the dramatic irony and peripheral connections and unintended side-effects. 

bran is perhaps the most northern-oriented of ned/cat’s children, the last hero reborn and now an apprentice greenseer beyond-the-wall becoming one with the old gods. but what fans often ignore or forget is that he started off just as enamored with southron chivalry as sansa, dreaming of true knighthood with ambitions of even being one of the mythic kingsguard. dreams and ambitions which were brutally dashed when he was thrown out a tower window by jaime, a “false knight” and member of that kingsguard. jaime, who bran already thought shouldn’t count as a knight because robb said so, has his heroic side too, but he only reenforced his bad rep by pushing bran out that fucking window. however, this crime didn’t just change bran’s whole life by crippling him, his disability is also responsible for changing his character arc with that new northern orientation. not just because bloodraven made his first appearance in bran’s coma dreams (which he could well have done at the same point in time in other circumstances) but because bran’s ultimate deciding factor in following the reeds for more training is his frustration with his paralysis, thinking the prospect of “flying” could make up for his lost chance at knighthood. knighthood is still his first choice, though, and it’s only jaime’s failed murder attempt and all its unanticipated consequences (first one being bran waking up crippled with convenient partial amnesia, instead of dying as jaime wished), which keeps him from the southron stories of sansa and jaime and instead sets him on the path of his northern destiny to prepare for the long night.

oh, and then there’s the one member of robert’s kingsguard bran was hoping to meet and never did: barristan selmy. barristan the bold, only legendary member of the baratheopn kingsguard, who gets replaced as lord commander by jaime lannister (a man barristan already looked down on just like ned and robb and bran), jaime the kingslayer, oathbreaker and attempted-murderer of bran. barristan and bran aren’t just apart because bran never made it to court with ned but because barristan fled that court and the whole country shortly after robert’s death and ned’s arrest (and he could now well die before returning to westeros). barry went into exile because he too found himself victim of lannister whims, whims not totally divorced from the secret incest bran witnessed as cersei wanted to promote her brother-lover to barristan’s position. this choice changes barristan’s entire story by orienting him with dany in essos, which is also a case of lannisters unwittingly switching someone’s setting from the more mundane to magical, as dragons are more supernatural than anything in king’s landing. 

oh, and of course there’s tyrion, fellow original disabled pov and fellow victim of house lannister, though he is also a lannister himself. tyrion, who sat and listened as jaime said that bran would be better off dead, that all cripples and “grotesques” would be, that a clean death would be his own choice, and even that bran’s own parents should want him put out of his misery, all the while insensitively forgetting who he was speaking to until tyrion reminded him that he was also a “grotesque” and he liked living. all of this talk and a meaningful look between the twins makes tyrion suspicious about their interest in bran’s condition and curious about what bran might have to say, though he reaffirms his loyalty to jaime when questioned. tyrion is a stark sympathizer but a lannister loyalist. later tyrion is the first to offer bran some compensation and accomadation for his disability by giving him plans for a saddle inspired by tyrion’s own special saddles. tyrion is not trying to pay some blood debt because jaime crippled bran (which he could only thinly suspect and would forgive jaime almost anything anyway), but because he befriended jon snow, one of bran’s big brothers, and because he has a soft spot for all “cripples, bastards, and broken things”. tyrion acts from the goodness of his heart to aid jon’s crippled brother, who just so happens to only be crippled because jaime, tyrion’s own big brother, tried to murder him. but it goes deeper than that because guess who gave tyrion his first pony and taught him to ride in the first place? also jaime. tyrion is providing a similar gift of horseback-riding-ability as his brother once gave to him, the same brother who years later just so happened to have crippled the same boy tyrion helped. jaime, who looked after tyrion and was his main source of affection in their abusive family, who did not wish tyrion dead for his grotesquesness as tywin and cersei did, is the same guy who tried to murder a little boy, leaving that boy who had beloved big brothers of his own a cripple, and then said all crippled boys and grotesques would be better off dead. 

oh, and finally, jaime ends up disabled himself, his own knighthood career damaged with the loss of his swordhand, his own story suddenly changed forever when he loses the hand he used to fling bran stark off that tower. after struggling with thoughts of death, jaime decides that maybe life as a cripple is worth living after all, even for a great knight like him. “life is full of these little ironies” as tyrion once told bran’s big brother jon snow. a quote where tyrion just so happened to be speaking of his big brother jaime in a different context.