#international violent hate crimes research

[antifainternational]

10 Years Of Antifa International!!!!!!!!!!

This month, the Antifa International collective celebrates our 10th anniversary! Back in 2014, we saw a need for a crew dedicated to reporting on different anti-fascist actions around the world, who could also come up with ways to support anti-fascists around the globe and promote the tenets of anti-fascism.

We started with two people and a Tumblr blog and have since grown to a collective of ten members in eight different countries, posting on nine social media platforms, where we've put up over 20,000 posts over the last ten years for our 110,000+ followers to have a look at.  

Since 2014, we've also initiated a number of projects we're quite proud of! 

The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund: it was not too long after we started our collective that we saw an increasing number of anti-fascists around the world calling out for support after encountering an emergency situation resulting from their work. Whether it was court costs, legal defence fees, emergency relocations, or medical expenses - anti-fascists were facing dire consequences for standing up to hate and then would have to do whatever they could to get help dealing with those consequences. Our solution was to start a standing fund that would be devoted to providing emergency aid to anti-fascists facing problems related to their anti-fascist work. We would do whatever we could to fundraise for it on an ongoing basis, and then use the funds to help antifa in trouble. All decisions about how the Defence Fund runs and is used would be made by the people who've contributed a minimum of $20USD to it, via consensus wherever possible and majority vote where consensus was not forthcoming.   Nine years later, the International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund has provided nearly $250,000USD to more than 750 anti-fascists in 28 different countries. More than 1500 anti-fascists from around the world have been invited to participate in the Defence Fund by helping to make the decisions about how it is run and what it is used for. To our knowledge, the Defence Fund remains the only project of its kind, devoted to providing emergency support to anti-fascists around the world, but it has inspired similar defence funds.   THIS IS A PROJECT YOU COULD BE INVOLVED IN!  A minimum donation of $20USD will get you invited to participate!   

International Violent Hate Crimes Research Project: from 2017-2022 we tracked media accounts of violent acts motivated by hate or committed by far-right extremists around the world. Over the course of those six years, we documented over 3000 such attacks, in which more than 1800 people were killed and a further 5254 were injured. The Project allowed us to examine trends in the types of attacks being committed; who was being targeted; and where the attacks were taking place, among other things that we wrote about in our annual reports.  Unfortunately, a lack of resources compelled us to discontinue the project in 2023.   

25 July: The International Day of Solidarity with Anti-Fascist Prisoners: July 25th is a day when all anti-fascists are called upon to demonstrate their solidarity with those of us who are locked up behind bars. Taking the baton from NYC Antifa, who started this project, we've set up a website with information and resources about the day, including translations into several different languages and a list of current anti-fascist prisoners. We also maintain a donation page and sell this t-shirt designed by a former anti-fascist prisoner; every July 25th, we pool what was raised and send it directly to current antia prisoners/their families/their support teams.  WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO SOMETHING TO MARK JULY 25TH! You'll find some ideas and resources here. If you put anything about the Day on social media, please use the hashtag #j25antifa so others kind find your posts!  

Training for Anti-Fascists: Beginning in 2020, we organized a series of online training and skillshare workshops for anti-fascists on a number of topics, including digital security practices, de-escalation tactics, open source intelligence gathering, intelligence sharing, first aid, self-defence, and far-right radicalization warning signs & intervention strategies. Each session was attended by anti-fascists from around the world, who were able to take what they learned and put it to use in their own communities.  

Anti-Fascist Flags, Shirts, & Stickers: Although these were originally intended as fundraising items for the Defence Fund, the anti-fascist flags, shirts, stickers, and other items we produced soon took on a life of their own. To date, we've distributed hundreds of anti-fascist shirts & flags and nearly 90,000 anti-fascist stickers around the world.  Our Antifa International flags have been spotted in Afrin, Boston, Brooklyn, Kiev, London, the Hauge, the Scottish Highlands, Kobane, L.A., Melbourne, Oakland, Philly, Standing Rock, and Toronto, among other places.  

deathtofascism.com: is the site we've set up as a repository of free, downloadable anti-fascist flyers, reports, and 'zines that anyone can read, print out and give away. If you're tabling an event or show, there is probably a few things there that you'll want to hand out!   

Antifa Shirt of the Month: from 2021 to 2024, we produced a new anti-fascist t-shirt each month as a fundraiser for a different antifa crew somewhere in the world, raising nearly $20,000USD for those crews. You'll find most of those shirts still available at our online store.

We're not telling you all of this to brag (well, OK, we might be bragging a little bit!); rather, we're hoping some of what we've done over the past ten years, as volunteers, without any funding or resources to speak of, will inspire you & your friends to think about what you can do where you are! 

[ausetkmt]

Donald Trump is a very violent man. He is the leader of an increasingly violent political movement.

Last week, Trump threatened Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley with death. Trump's death threat is part of a much larger pattern where he has made similar threats, directly or implied, against President Biden, Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Special Counsel Jack Smith, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and his other "enemies."

Trump's MAGA cultists have been radicalized by him. Several MAGA people have gone so far as to have attempted or publicly threatened to assassinate President Obama and President Biden, respectively. And of course, Trump's followers launched a lethal attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 as part of the ex-president and dictator in waiting's coup attempt.

Trump and his allies and other spokespeople and influentials in the Republican fascist party and larger neofascist movement and white right are at the epicenter of a social environment in America were hate crimes and other political violence against Black and brown people, the LGBTQI community, Muslims, Jews, and other targeted groups is at historic levels.

New research by Rachel Kleinfeld, who is Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, provides much-needed insight(s) into the growing danger(s) that political violence and polarization poses to American democracy and the future of the country. In this conversation, Kleinfeld provides context for the relationship between extremism, polarization and violence in America. She also explains why right-wing political violence is a much greater threat to the country than political violence by "the left". Kleinfeld highlights the news media's continued failure(s) to understand the realities of the country's democracy crisis in the Age of Trump.

At the end of this conversation, Kleinfeld warns that whatever the outcome of the 2024 Election, that America's democracy crisis is likely to get worse not better.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

How are you feeling given the state of American politics and society and the country's democracy crisis and other great troubles?

I'm feeling sad. I want to give my daughters – and other kids – a better country than the one I grew up in. I don't feel like we are doing that, and I want all of us adults to start acting like adults and to do better.

What are you "seeing" as you survey American politics and society right now? What gives you the most concern?

Americans remain rhetorically attached to democracy, but when you ask them what they mean, large majorities are quick to give up basic rights, oversight, and even non-violence when their side holds power. And the idea of a loyal opposition is disintegrating. I'm deeply concerned by that impulse towards unchecked majoritarianism, and also worried about hypocritical alterations of those feelings when the other side is in power.

What are some of the blind spots, misconceptions, and outright ignorance that the mainstream media, the political class, and everyday Americans have about the realities of political violence in this country?  

People seem to underestimate how much political violence has risen, and how lopsided it is. There are vastly more incidents on the right, and they are targeting people. That is the major political violence problem faced by the country. That said, on the left, too many partisans are loathe to acknowledge that their side's violence, though largely against property, has also doubled since 2016. It has just grown from a much lower point.

I get constant calls from reporters asking if Donald Trump is going to start another January 6 style riot – and when I speak about political violence, my mail fills with people asking why I don't speak more about the overwhelmingly (but not entirely) peaceful Black Lives Matter protests.

But Trump is not currently able to draw out large crowds – his followers are afraid of the FBI and believe people who goad them to violence on list serves are false flag operations. Instead, we are seeing people kill neighbors over politics or murder business owners who display a pride flag. In other countries, when someone runs a car into a peaceful crowd, it's almost always a rare international terrorist event. In America, that has happened over 150 times since Heather Heyer was killed at the Unite the Right rally. Political violence and credible threats have become small scale, hyperlocal, across the nation, and extremely frequent

Premeditated political violence against people has skyrocketed on the right, and premeditated political violence on the left has also grown - though from a much lower point, and more often targeting property. Hate crimes are at their highest point in the 21st century, even higher than the spike after 9/11. Local officials who were barely targeted before are now receiving significant numbers of threats – in San Diego, 75% of county officials report threats or harassment, for instance. Threats against Members of Congress rose tenfold from 2016 to 2021, though they fell slightly last year.  In the 1960s and 1970s we faced high levels of political violence, but it was largely against property, or involved foreign terrorists. We haven't seen Americans targeting other Americans politically like this since Confederates reversed Reconstruction and used violence and threats to return to power after the Civil War.

The news media and the political class tend to have a crisis frame that is very immediate and focused on the now. What would the news media – and by extension the political class and public — better understand and see in terms of political polarization and violence if they had a longer view and more time to digest what is happening or not?

America has faced political violence at many points in its history. It is usually used as a method alongside elections to try to win power by intimidating people. That is how it was used by the Know Nothing Party in the early 1800s, by Confederates after Reconstruction, and by Southern Democrats under Jim Crow to maintain single party dominance in eleven Southern States.

Right now, the threat of violence is being used to destroy pro-democracy Republicans and allow a non-majority faction to take over the Republican Party. While there are more threats overall against Democratic constituencies, women, and minorities, those threats are a spill-over from attempts to build Republican base intensity through highlighting a white Christian male dominant identity. The targeted threats are occurring largely to win power and are often targeted very intentionally – against certain election officials who will matter in swing states, or against the judges and DAs involved in cases against former President Trump. 

The spike in violence is helping an anti-democratic faction of the Republican Party overcome a pro-democratic faction. The media framing violence as largely about Republicans versus Democrats misses that crucial part of the story.

What does the actual data tell us about political violence and extremism in the Age of Trump and where we are potentially going as a country?

Political violence and criminal violence are highly connected.

The best study of murder in America back to our Revolution found that the strongest variables predicting a rise in the murder rate was trust in fellow Americans and trust in government – especially among young men (the demographic that commits most violence everywhere). In the 1960s when political violence rose, America also saw a doubling of the murder rate, and homicide kept rising until the 1990s. When people normalize violence and lesser forms of anti-social behavior, such as Lauren Boebert's obnoxious vaping and groping at a theater, oafishness on airplanes, or "rolling coal" – blowing car exhaust in the faces of bicyclists – it reduces the sense of social propriety and impulse control. Society and civilization are actually very fragile things – as anti-social behavior gets normalized and people "let it all hang out", as it were, all forms of violence tend to rise. We are probably on the verge of that again, and this MAGA political faction and left-wing illiberalism pushing people towards it will be to blame for the deaths and dystopian cities we are going to have for the next few decades.

When I write articles or interview experts who are trying to sound the alarm about right-wing political violence by Trump followers and other such malign actors, one of the common responses in emails and comments is that this is all so much hysterics. The MAGA movement threat is exaggerated. These right-wing extremists and others who are violent are being put in jail. The danger is also so much talk as there won't be a second civil war, etc. How would you intervene and push back?

I just provide the numbers. It's not that these levels of political violence are unprecedented – America is an unusually violent democracy compared to countries with similar levels of wealth and democratic history. The United States has seen violence at these levels before. But New York in the 1970s, or the post-Reconstruction South which had a lynching every 36 hours at its height, would not be the periods of our past I most want our country to revisit.

Is the American public "polarized" or are they "sorted"? That distinction is very important.

American politicians are highly ideologically polarized – members of Congress now hold virtually no policy beliefs in common across the aisle. Regular Americans, on the other hand, are not very ideologically polarized – they hold a lot of policy beliefs in common, although Republicans and Democrats care more intensely about different issues. But regular Americans do really dislike partisans from the other party – which is known as affective, or emotional, polarization. That level of affective polarization is likely to be caused, at least partially, because we are highly sorted as a country. When multiple identity characteristics, such as religiosity, geography, gender, and race, are the same for members of the same party, it is easier to feel that any of one's many identities are threatened by members of the other party, and when people are geographically separated so that they don't socialize, those misunderstandings get even larger. However, sorting alone just sets the kindling - politicians are lighting the flames by using that latent affective polarization to further inflame sentiment, in order to use that voter intensity to win power. So, it is unlikely to be possible to reduce Americans' polarization until we change the incentives that are allowing politicians to win seats by furthering polarization.

Most journalists and reporters assume that the public follows politics closely, is ideological, and has a real understanding of the details and facts. Decades of political science research shows that mostly to not be true. Unfortunately, the mainstream media, for a variety of reasons including intellectual laziness and careerism, is clinging desperately onto those fictions of folk democracy even when the evidence is abundant and obvious to the contrary. This translates into a news media that still does not fully appreciate — and is in willful denial about — the realities and the depths of the country's democracy crisis in this moment of ascendant neofascism and illiberalism.

Americans share a large number of policy beliefs in common. But they also, by and large, really, really don't care about politics. They don't want to think about politics, they don't want to talk about politics, they want it all to go away. That means that Americans also hold a very tenuous understanding of the basics of what it takes to maintain a democracy – such as the importance of a free press, or the role of a civil service. In America, as in many countries where democracy has slipped away in recent years, we see significant pluralities willing to support anti-democratic behavior when their party is in power. Fear of the other side doing just that is one of the main forces that empowers a party to act first to undermine democracy in order to, in their minds, prevent the other side from doing it first.

Is "consensus" and "bipartisanship" across lines of political difference just a type of fetish for the political class and news media? The public generally does not care.

I have my own strong policy beliefs – but I understand that as a country, we have about half the voting population who are conservative, and about half who are more liberal. Both sides need politicians who can represent them in a pro-democratic way, where we disagree on policy, not on whether we will allow the system of peacefully settling our disputes to disintegrate. Liberals need to give some support to pro-democracy Republicans or both will be overrun by the anti-democracy faction that is gaining control over that party. Liberals should also pay more attention to how their own illiberal wing in cultural and academic institutions is driving more conservatives, independents, and minorities to support their own anti-democratic faction. The problem in the political realm is clearly a faction of the Republican Party – but it has not grown on its own, there is a call and response with cultural forces on the left.

What are some interventions that can be made to make the country's political institutions and culture more durable and healthier in the face of the type of extreme polarization – which is asymmetrical and more on the right— that we are now seeing in the Age of Trump and the decades that got us to this crisis?

America should give serious thought to voting reforms that would allow the anti-democratic faction to have representation without letting them take over one of our two major parties. Proportional representation is the best way to achieve that, though ranked choice voting and primary reform might be less radical and cause fewer governing headaches. Both would likely allow MAGA Republicans to have control in some states and localities (which, of course, they do now), while still allowing the majority of Republicans to support a pro-democracy party. Campaign finance reforms that empower small dollar donors also empower extremists, who are better at raising anger that gets those small dollar donations flowing. Big money in politics is also problematic, of course, but the problem of small dollar donors pushing our politics towards extremes has not been recognized or discussed. Finally, we need better anti-trust enforcement to break business monopolies. Part of the distrust in America since 2008 has as much to do with the way elites keep making money, and is economic as much as political in origin. There is a reason Aristotle and Jefferson both recognized the dangers to democracy of large concentrations of wealth.

As Trump's criminal trials and the 2024 Election approach, how do you think that will impact the dynamics of violence and polarization?

There is no good way out of the 2024 Election. No matter how the election turns out, it will harm faith in democracy – but the worst future damage is likely to be inflicted if Trump wins and takes power, given the signals he has already given about how he will misuse his department of justice against his enemies, attack the civil service, and otherwise damage the institutions that keep our democracy tethered to the rule of law.

[xxxjarchiexxx]

the amount that life has been almost the same even not looking at international borders just in day to day life under biden vs under trump is insane actually. there are some things that genuinely are better under biden but they're like. Teenie parts of bigger issues where the bigger issue has stayed the same or gotten worse.

like, while ICE deportations have dipped like A LOT (like, seriously, so much, way more than expected and , in 2021, the lowest it had been in almost 20 years) the border wall has also extended. or like, while biden signed in a huge act to subsidize green energy, carbon emissions raised 8% from the end of 2020 to the end of 2022. or like how while the unemployment rate is around the pre-covid numbers as of 2022, but also in 2022 inflation peaked and is projected to stay above trump-era numbers for a couple more years while the rate of wage increase has stayed the same. biden introduced the save program to student loan repayments, but also unpaused them and didn't cancel them as promised (allegedly, he tried, but he could just sign an executive order, right?). he introduced stimulus checks and increased unemployment insurance during the pandemic, but also dropped all other policies to help protect the immunocompromised.

that doesnt even touch on stuff that only got worse. police brutality didn't change rates at all and in fact peaked in 2022 for the decade, including officers with MULTIPLE MURDERS UNDER THEIR BELT. trans conversion therapy laws passed nationally and it seems all we got was a tweet. 14 pipelines were built in 2021 alone, including one through a graveyard. hate crimes have increased since 2019, with them breaking 5 figures consistently since 2021.

and all of that is just domestic issues, not looking at how his international policy is using ukranian civilians to fight a proxy war by funding zelensky with little aid to civilians. and sending billions of dollars and bombs to israel to let it continue to serve as a genocidal us middle east military base with a kippah on. and funding the violent egyptian government who have am abysmal human right record. and deporting haitian refugees. and deciding the ethiopian government is no longer committing human rights violations despite their continuing ethnic cleansing.

so people can't say im focusing on the bad, i think his bill to extend power and internet and clean water infrastructure to rural communities was good. i also think introducing a cap on the maximum amount spent on meds under medicare was good. i also read that the percentage of people without health insurance hit a record low in 2022. violent crime levels also are somewhat lower than they were in 2020, though still higher than pre-2020 by a LOT. one goodish international thing was withdrawing from afghanistan (though it was. Poorly done, but it happened!).

i do genuinely mean that the good things that also got worse in the first part of this post are good too, the reduced ice deportations and stimulus checks and the save plan have legit made my life better and safer. but all the bad is there too and is bigger and more material than the good, if we're honest (aside from the ice deportations, honestly, because a lot of undocumented immigrants don't enter illegally so the wall is largely a disgusting a symbol, i think? i could be misinformed there, though).

i just. Idk if all that, even if you don't care about all the international human rights violations, don't make you want to at least threaten to not vote OR AT LEAST UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEONE MIGHT NOT i am not sure what to tell you, genuinely.

THIS ISNT SUPER WELL RESEARCHED, MY SOURCES ARE MAINLY FBI WEBSITE, STATISTICA, AND HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

[mariacallous]

Bellingcat has been overwhelmed with messages from concerned people around the world who want to help us identify and analyse images of potential war crimes taking place in Ukraine. While this increased interest in open source research is encouraging, it comes with costs of which new researchers may not be aware. Those wishing to conduct open source research into this invasion will be exposed to images that are extremely graphic: they show the painful, disfiguring effects that war has on human bodies, cities and nature. Many of these images can be highly distressing, especially if viewed repeatedly and intensely. But their effect can also be cumulative: you may feel alright for a long time until one day, you don’t. What’s more, even non-graphic images can have a negative impact on you in ways that you may not expect, as I outlined on Twitter. 

All this means that we have to be all the more guarded when we conduct research online.  Practicing good mental hygiene is a continuous process that requires active input at all times. The small steps you take today to minimise and mitigate your exposure to distressing content may in a few years’ time save you from burnout or worse. Your future self will thank you.

On Vicarious Trauma and Other Terms

Terminology can make it more difficult to talk about the distress that you might feel when researching content online. Sometimes we don’t have the right words to describe why we’re feeling a certain way, especially when those feelings are having a negative impact on our lives. The concept of vicarious trauma can be a useful one. In its “Style Guide for Trauma Informed Journalism”, the Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma defines the term as:

…psychological challenges resulting from cumulative, empathetic engagement with trauma survivors in a professional context.

Vicarious trauma initially referred to a psychological risk from prolonged work with traumatised individuals. However, the term has since been used by media professionals to refer specifically to the negative responses that journalists may experience through prolonged viewing online of “violent and distressing images… hundreds of thousands of miles away from where the actual horrors occur.” Even if you are sitting thousands of miles away, these negative responses can be all the more pronounced if you are researching a topic or region with which you have a personal connection. With that in mind, we’ve become acutely aware of the risks of vicarious trauma in our work.

Back in October 2018, Hannah Ellis published an article for Bellingcat outlining some steps that you can take to minimise your exposure to vicarious trauma, which she defined as “mental distress [as a result of] interacting with graphic online media.” A 2022 guide for journalists by Headlines, a foundation to promote mental health in the media and Mind, a leading UK mental health charity, defines the term as “exposure to someone else’s trauma”, and warns that it can affect researchers who “are exposed frequently or repeatedly to traumatic material.”

It’s important to point out that, as you’ll see below, vicarious trauma from exposure to graphic images is not the only potential source of distress to an open source researcher. Exposure to certain sounds, hateful text, or far-right imagery can also have a negative impact on your mental health. Recently, Bellingcat has worked with the Dart Centre for Journalism and Trauma to help our researchers build resilience when working with traumatic materials. That means adapting positively to the challenges and stresses of working with distressing content (the American Psychological Association has a more thorough definition of ‘resilience’ here). At Bellingcat, we also receive psychological support from professionals at Trauma Treatment International. This support includes one-one-one sessions with clinical psychologists who are experts in trauma that is caused by exposure to distressing content online, and is meant to help us avoid burnout, depression, and other negative effects on our mental health.”

Tips for Building Resilience

Below are some tips that I use and have found helpful to build resilience so that I am able to work with potentially distressing content effectively without sacrificing your mental health and well-being. While it may not be practically possible to always implement all of these into your workflow, hopefully the list will at least make you aware of some methods available to you. Please bear in mind that these tips are in no way a substitute for professional medical advice, which you should seek if your work appears to be taking a toll on your mental health.

Realise that once you put something in your head, it will be there for the rest of your life There’s simply no way to get a disturbing image or sound out once it’s in there. This is the single most important piece of advice that I can give to someone who is looking to get into the field of open source research and expects to work with potentially distressing content. If you stumble across a link to a graphic video online, take a minute and ask yourself: “Do I absolutely have to watch this video?” While the human desire to bear witness to the suffering of others is strong, many times, you’ll find out that the answer is “No”, and you’ll save yourself needless exposure to graphic content. Engaging with such content ought to be a deliberate act taken with the same thoughtfulness and care as a police detective about to walk into a crime scene. Unfortunately, the way that content is delivered on the internet is seldom thoughtful or careful, and neither are our browsing habits. By carelessly clicking on Twitter links or scrolling through a Telegram channel, you are bound to eventually come across distressing content. Without the proper mental preparation, the distress you experience may intensify. 

Always mute videos and fast-forward through them first Sound can leave as vivid an imprint on your mind as imagery. That’s why you should ensure that any video that you are about to watch for the first time is muted before hitting “play”. Fast-forward the video to gain a sense of what you’re about to watch, or scroll through it quickly and watch the small preview box. Once you’re familiar with the visual content, you can make a decision as to whether or not you need to listen to the sound. A graphic video is an assault on the senses; I’ve found that by watching it first without sound and only later listening to its audio, I can dampen its negative effects on my mental health.  If you want to take muting videos a step further, try Smart Mute. This extension to your browser has a “Silent Mode” that prevents it from playing sound. 

Blur images and only view them if absolutely necessary Several apps available for Chrome and Firefox allow you to blur all images on your browser. For example, Blurry and Blur can ensure that you don’t inadvertently view a graphic image as you’re doing research. Depending on the website that you’re viewing, there may be accompanying text that will allow you to make an informed decision as to whether you really need to view the image or not.

Create healthy work-life boundaries By creating boundaries and really sticking to them, you can distance yourself from the content you’re working on. When you finish your work for the day, stop checking your email, Twitter feed, or any other work-related activities which you may associate with disturbing content. Creating these boundaries is all the more important if you’re working from home. In this case, changing into “outdoor” clothes can help create a separation between work and off-work hours, as can going for a walk around the block at the end of the work day. Of course, for the large community of volunteer open source researchers, their engagement with such material starts at the end of the work day. If that’s you, try to keep in mind that you are able to stop doing this work at any moment.

Advice from Bellingcat Staff and GAP Members

I asked my colleagues at Bellingcat as well as members of our Global Authentication Project (GAP), Bellingcat’s volunteer network, for further advice. GAP members work on open source research projects on a volunteer basis, making their perspective and input valuable as it represents that of those who do not do this work full-time.

Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins stressed the concept of “moral injury”, which the Dart Centre defines as a complex set of emotions that can occur when one witnesses or experiences behaviours that “go against an individual’s values or moral beliefs”. Eliot has experienced negative emotions that he associates with moral injury after he “spent hours looking at harrowing footage” online only to find out that conspiracist communities on Twitter are saying “it’s all fake”. 

This is also a risk of regular exposure to extremist content, as my colleague Michael Colborne has found. Michael explained that most of his work on far-right activities online involves reading “terrorist manifestos” and extremist posts, most of which do not include graphic imagery. 

Michael says that constant exposure to this hateful content “can and does add up”, recounting that once during the course of a research project on Neo-Nazi graffiti, he became so fixated on far-right imagery that he “literally [saw] swastikas” whenever he closed his eyes. He then recognised that it was “time to step back” from research for a while.  For Youri van der Weide, taking regular breaks is also key to building resilience. He also pointed to sound — rather than images — as a potential source of distress when conducting research. Youri said:

Similarly, Nick Waters pointed out that a “healthy work-life balance” is important to maintaining good mental health as an open source researcher. Annique Mossou agrees: for her, rituals like changing your clothes when you’re working from home to separate off time from work time is important. Nick also suggested that researchers not expose themselves to potentially harmful content “unless it’s necessary” and that having a support network is key. Creating a support network for people who do not do this kind of work professionally is one of the main reasons why we created the Global Authentication Project (GAP). There, members like Teemuhave been volunteering during their free time to help Bellingcat staff with their projects. For Teemu, this is an important distinction that results in a division of labour, meaning that he is happy to “let the professionals” work with the more graphic content. A GAP volunteer who goes by the username Jl made a similar point, saying:

For Jl, this is part of having a “healthy attitude” to volunteer work. Knowing that you can avoid exposing yourself to distressing content as a volunteer is especially important when you’re having an “emotional or an angry or sad day”, Jl added, saying that the “no obligation” nature of the volunteer work was especially clear on those days.

Timothy, another GAP member, stressed the importance of separating their volunteer work from their personal life, saying “don’t listen to your favourite music” while doing open source research. Timothy also called attention to the fact that it’s not just graphic images that can cause an open source researcher distress: 

Final Thoughts

One of the most novel and exciting aspects of digital open source research also presents one of its biggest challenges. Anybody with a computer, time, and dedication can contribute to open source research. However, those looking to get into this field  — especially as volunteers or hobbyists  —  need to be aware of the potential risks to mental health and well-being that come with working with potentially distressing material online. As my colleagues have pointed out, that distress can come from unexpected sources. That’s why keeping our guard up while conducting research is all the more important.  Helpfully, several other organisations have produced free guides which contain further useful tips. The Dart Centre’s Resources page is one good example. The media project First Draft News has published a guide on vicarious trauma in journalism that is packed with practical advice for journalists, managers, students, and others who may be coming into contact with distressing content online as part of their work. It includes a list of signs of vicarious trauma to watch out for, techniques for self-management, as well as other resources meant to help you build and maintain resilience. Finally, remember that everybody has very different thresholds for working with this kind of material. Speaking with others about graphic material can be helpful, but be aware of the need to respect boundaries and the risk of “moving your furniture into somebody else’s apartment” — that is, making your problem theirs. The same caution must be exercised when sharing potentially traumatic material online from a sense of outrage, without a clear professional or analytical need. This goes to show that while a supportive network of peers is hugely important, but it has limits. Our work can take a real toll — while I hope that the advice in this article is helpful, please be aware that it is not meant in any way to replace professional help.

[plan-d-to-i]

wwx as war criminal is tiring take to see. What’s a war criminal Karen? In fact, wwx’s actions aligned with the treatment of prisoners of war/civilians Geneva Conventions (you can research it on icrc.org). Don’t get me wrong, I like cold characters who are ruthless and kill indiscriminately on the war without much concern for civilians and the like and where they violated the international laws of war. Wwx is doing a service by actually being the only person who is respecting the Geneva rules.

I have no problem liking characters who do fucked up shit IN FICTION. Personally there are world views that I wouldn't vibe with that would turn me off a character more quickly than them doing some violent shit to some assholes. Ex: john wick's death toll killing dudes bc they killed his dog 👍 sweet. All of the former but let's say jw made weird homophobic comments along the way 👎 I'm out.

The reason I'm banging on about jc being shitty isn't bc I think it's morally!wrong to like a shitty character, and think jc stans should feel bad about their morality for stanning him-lol. It's in direct reaction to how they try to change canon, to absurdly argue that his motivations were good and righteous ,that he's the real mc/an asexual icon. I don't judge them on liking jc, I judge them on their apologist rhetoric, and the way they flip their shit at ppl who discuss jc as the story intend him to be seen. If someone tells me they like jc, I'm like: cool whatevs, to each their own. If someone tells me: they like jc, "he's an ace king, it was actually totally acceptable of him to move to kill a hilltop of war refugees including a granny and a kid, and that his homophobic rant in the ancestral hall is actually super relatable bc who wouldn't want to hate crime WangXian 🤪🥴" I'm gonna draw some conclusions about them directly. Bc they're either telling me something about their world views and priorities or they're willing to look that delusional over a fictional character.

Gotta say tho I think it's immensely ironic that they ignore the way things are framed within the story to go on about spatiotemporal/ historical context/culturally correct -to excuse jc's/yzy's shitty behavior and then bring up the Geneva Convention (1949*) 🤔.

[ameliaashdale]

Ohohoho, I have yearned for this specific opportunity!

Below the cut, in no particular order:

1) Medical Stuff! I used to be obsessed with diseases as a teen to the point where i was planning on studying pathology in college (until I realized that math and science are married and, no, you cannot avoid math when researching statistics and/or measuring out biosamples or chemicals for a cure.) Polio, Cholera, Yellow Fever, and Smallpox are the illnesses I fixate on, specifically because of the symptoms, treatments and responses. For example, the polio epidemic paralyzed countless people in the 1950s: being in leg braces was the least of your worries compared to an iron lung. The polio vaccine was never patented, so it could be readily accessible to people who needed it (but couldn't afford it).

2)Fucked Up History! World War 2 has a lot of these moments. Hitler took a lot of inspiration from the USA in terms of how Nazis would subjugate victims of their racial and ethnic crimes. One of the Americans who spread hate towards the Jewish population in particular? Henry Ford, the entrepreneur who supposedly perfected the art of running assembly line based manufacturing (at the cost of fair wages), helped his employees get better schooling (Learning English basically, not just for effective communication but because he advocated for american assimilation) and kept people in the know of world events when he acquired The Dearborn Independent newspaper, with a regular but notoriously reprehensible section being titled The International Jew: The World's Problems. (I will not be offering a counter fact here because he influenced anti-Semitic views and violent world events through this outlet. Free from censorship and judgment at the cost of over 6 million lives.)

3) Psychology! As an autistic individual with crippling OCD, I'm curious as to how and why I think the way I do. Only to find out that my family history has had the same problems I have, albeit handled a bit differently based on time periods. When my great grandma was institutionalized for postpartum depression (and possibly schizophrenia and manic depression/BPD) in the 1930s, it led to my grandma and her 5 siblings being placed in an orphanage at the height of the Great Depression. Having to steal to survive after losing everything she loved led to my grandma becoming a compulsive hoarder. She continued to steal from everyone--even her husband and seven kids. (But the money she robbed was usually relegated to bingo games. Spend money to make money.) My mom grew up in poverty. She's always been anxious, but growing up as baby number six of the Token Peasants changes you. I was born in 1998, so I have been around to see the rise of the internet (including the indie horror games gold rush of the 2010s). That leads me to my next point:

4) Horror/Scary media! Amnesia:Justine. Return of the Living Dead (1985). Pumpkin Eater (by Thugzilla, Steam). All these things give me joy and nightmares.

5)1950's Alien Invasion Aesthetics! Planet 51 was a movie I watched during my 6th grade sci-fi phase (Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Metroid Prime, and Stark Trek: TNG are all side-eyeing me) but the movie itself is awful. Like, the reversed alien invasion trope is good in concept (It appeared in Buzz Lightyear of Star Command and Miles from Tomorrowland), but the execution in Planet 51 was dull. It doesn't do much except a buddy comedy with 2000s humors tainting the town of Glipford. I actually have been toying with the idea of Planet 51's premise myself for almost 15 years, though my own life has been in the way for that exact amount of time and thus I'm still struggling to finish this reblog even after two months.

What if the aliens got invaded by humans, but What if it was actually like the 1950s with a global scale war or other major conflict beforehand, Mccarthyism-fueled paranoia about the invading forces, the main character has his life upended by this (ex., overly obsessed science intern runs into the alien at the observatory?) Throw in the love interest (who is dating the town golden boy football jock but secretly loved the MC but because of societal pressures and all that...)

That is all for now. Thanks for letting me infodump (two months later.)

what’s everyone’s weird/fucked up interest/special interest/hyperfixation

(doesn’t have to be a special interest but bonus points if it is your special interest)

[96thdayofrage]

"If I don't stop doing this, I could burn out and be no good to anybody, or I could die," Picciolini said, explaining that it's not just his own psyche he is trying to save, but also multiracial democracy in the United States. "There is a greater danger on the horizon, and I'm going to focus on that full time," he said.

As former leader of Chicago Area Skinheads (CASH) and lead singer of the hate-rock band the Final Solution, Picciolini has devoted the past 21 years of his life to anti-racism advocacy and outreach young extremists. He makes no excuses for the brutal reality of his past. "I hurt many people, and the music I made as a teenager influenced people like Dylann Roof" — the young white man who murdered nine Black worshipers at a South Carolina church in 2015.

"I'll have to live with that," Picciolini said. What began more than two decades ago with asking for forgiveness directly from the people he had harassed or assaulted, along with their communities, eventually grew into the world's most successful effort at disengagement or "deradicalization" — a word Picciolini avoids — effort in the world. That work has given him an up-close view of how the political and legal institutions of the United States are failing, he says, to adequately address the rising tide of white hate. Democratic politicians and most mainstream media reporters and commentators, he believes, are also frozen in denial regarding the escalation of fascist politics in the Republican Party.

Citing his experience, observations and research, Picciolini offers a devastating rebuttal to those who believe American democracy is indestructible.

I recently sat down with him for an interview in a quiet restaurant in suburban Chicago, where we both grew up. I asked how he feels about America's future, particularly Donald Trump's apparent consolidation of power within the increasingly autocratic Republican Party, and Trump's likely candidacy for the presidency in 2024. He said, "I'm terrified."

In 2017, Picciolini spoke to an audience in Hungary: "I told them, 'Based on everything I know and everything I've seen throughout my life, you are in big trouble." Three years later, the international nonprofit House of Freedom demoted Hungary from a "semi-consolidated democracy" to a "hybrid regime," reflecting Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's autocratic assault against the nation's remaining democratic institutions.

Picciolini recently spoke with the House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, and sounded the same theme he has repeated to American officials and voters for decades. There is perhaps a painful irony here: In some ways, American society has gone the opposite direction from the trajectory of Picciolini's life.

At age of 14, in the late 1980s, Picciolini met a charismatic neo-Nazi recruiter in a dark alleyway of Blue Island, Illinois, a working-class Chicago suburb. Within a few years, he would rise to the top of his recruiter's violent, white supremacist organization, recruiting other members, committing hate crimes and even exporting "white power" propaganda on a trip to Europe. Picciolini tells the fascinating details of his redemption story, and how he renounced the white power movement, becoming both antiracist and anti-capitalist, in his memoir, "White American Youth: My Descent Into America's Most Violent Hate Movement — and How I Got Out."

The most heartbreaking element in Piccioini's chronicle of transformation is the murder of his younger brother. They were 10 years apart in age, but Picciolini says when they were young, they were inseparable: "We were each other's entire world." he said. Then Picciolini's world became the white hate movement, and his brother's world fell apart. Two of his close friends became members of the Latin Kings, a criminal street gang on the South Side of Chicago. Picciolini, having left his own violent gang, tried to warn his brother what lay ahead. "I told him, 'I've been on the road you're on, and it is going to end badly,'" he recalled. But his brother's anger over Picciolini's earlier abandonment of the family undermined any advice he could offer.

In 2004, at the age of 20, Picciolini's brother, riding in a car with his friends to an apparent drug transaction, was killed by members of a rival gang. "For a long time, I felt like my brother got the bullet that was meant for me," Picciolini said. "I've tried to be the guy for other young men that my brother needed before he died. I've tried to be the guy who can help people like my brother. When everyone else sees the monster, I can still see the child, and I try bringing that child back."

Since Picciolini's disavowal of white supremacy, he has worked as an advocate for hate crime prevention, racial equity and progressive politics, through books, speaking tours and a three-episode documentary series for MSNBC, which shares the title of his second book, "Breaking Hate: Confronting the New Culture of Extremism." Picciolini now describes himself as a "white nationalist translator," saying, "I still understand their language, symbols and movements. That enables me to go to law enforcement, policymakers and journalists and explain what is happening."

As Picciolini has transitioned from hate leader to democratic healer, he has watched significant sectors of American society, including a major political parties, defend, excuse and sometimes embrace the ideology of white supremacy.

"Everything happening right now is the skinhead's dream of the 1990s coming true," Picciolini told me. "Donald Trump's ideas are not new, but he has made people in influential positions comfortable in expressing racism. In a relatively short time, we've gone from not talking about these things, even if they were always there, to no longer feeling shame about it. Tucker Carlson, other right-wing pundits, congressional representatives like Paul Gosar and Mo Brooks, are saying exactly what I was saying when I was a Nazi. They are using softer terms, but the message is the same."

Picciolini says he understands how this strategy has played out. "We advised infiltration," he said, "infiltration of law enforcement, the military and political offices with low barrier of entry, like the school board, town council, county election positions. And that's exactly what we are seeing now: a widespread, coordinated effort for the far right to take power at the local level."

He specifically means the use of racial paranoia and panic, through invented culture-war issues like "critical race theory" and "voter fraud," as a pretext for far-right political victories.

[victorianwhitechapel]

International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers is observed annually on December 17 by sex workers, their advocates, friends, families and allies. Originally conceived as a memorial and vigil for the victims of the Green River Killer in Seattle Washington, United States (US), it has evolved into an annual international event. The day calls attention to hate crimes committed against sex workers worldwide, as well as the need to remove the social stigma and discrimination that have contributed to violence against sex workers and indifference from the communities they are part of. Sex worker activists also state that custom and prohibitionist laws perpetuate such violence.

First observed in 2003, the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers was founded by Dr. Annie Sprinkle and the Sex Workers Outreach Project USA (SWOP-USA), an American sex worker rights organization. In a public letter, Sprinkle states:

"Violent crimes against sex workers go underreported, unaddressed and unpunished. There really are people who don't care when prostitutes are victims of hate crimes, beaten, raped, and murdered. No matter what you think about sex workers and the politics surrounding them, sex workers are a part of our neighborhoods, communities and families."

Between 1873 and 1891 eleven poor and working class women (pictured, Ada Wilson, Emma Elizabeth Smith, Martha Tabram, Annie Chapman, Mary Ann Nichols, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly, Rose Mylett, Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles) were attacked and murdered in London’s East End by a killer(s) who was never caught, and other 7 (including Annie Millwood and Elizabeth Jackson, and 5 unidentified ones) suffered a similar fate. They were murdered just because they were women and their murderer(s) was a misogynistic psycho.

While the killer(s) went onto have a large amount of tours and walks, studies and published works (regarding who he might was, different theories as why he did it), the victims were divided in categories and some of them completely forgotten. So here you find a list of research/non-fiction books about these women if you are interested to know more about them (the list is going to be updated when new books are published, thanks).

·         BEGG, Paul & BENNETT, John (2014): The forgotten victims.

·         CHAUVET, Didier (2002): Mary Jane Kelly: La dernière victime.

·         FROST, Rebecca (2018): The Ripper’s Victims in Print. The Rethoric Portrayals Since 1929.

·         HUME, Robert (2019): The hidden lives of Jack the Ripper’s victims.

·         KEEFE, John. E. (2010, revisited 2012): Carroty Nell. The last victim of Jack the Ripper.

·         RANDALL, Anthony J. (2013): Jack the Ripper. Blood lines.

·         RUBENHOLD, Hallie (2019): The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women killed by Jack the Ripper / The Five: The Lives of Jack the Ripper’s Women.

·         SCOTT, Chris (2005): Will the real Mary Kelly…?.

·         SHELDEN, Neal E. (2013): Mary Jane Kelly and the Victims of Jack the Ripper: The 125th Anniversary.

·         SHELDEN STUBBINGS, Neal (2007): The Victims of Jack the Ripper.

·         WHITTINGTON-EGAN, Richard (2015): Mr Atherstone Leaves the Stage. The Battersea Murder Mystery: A Twisting and Tragic Tale of Love, Jealousy and Violence in the age of Vaudeville.

·         YOST, Dave (2008): Elizabeth Stride and Jack The Ripper.

**

You may be interested in the “A Hidden History of Women in the East End: The Alternative Jack the Ripper tour” to know how these women lived in Victorian Whitechapel.

May they never be forgotten.

**

NOTE: It is still widely but wrongly believed that all the Whitechapel murder victims were prostitutes. Only 4 of them (Elizabeth Stride, Frances Coles, Rose Mylett and Mary Kelly) have been documented as prostitutes at some stages of their lives, usually for a short time and a very casual and occasional way to support themselves. Nevertheless, we include them all if anyone wants to find out more about all of them - including their documented professions. Saying that all of them were prostitutes was a common thing in Victorian times, a way to justify why poor and single women were out alone on the streets at those times in the evening/night, even why they were even murdered.

**

Please note, if you have/know about more books about these women’s LIVES, you may contact me here. Thank you very much.

[ambersky0319]

Idea: Intrulogical fusion, completely in sync despite being a fusion of Remus and Logan. But Virgil and Patton didn't like it. Virgil because, It's Remus. He shouldn't be with a lightside. Patton because it makes him feel like he failed Logan, after all, hes eith Remus. So they force them apart. But, their roles are switched. Logan looks like King George III, but he has shackles & broken crown. Remus looks like your stereotypical mad scientist. They have no memory of who they once were. -Rayne

I had a lot of fun with this- also I decided to draw Macabre! It also ended up being longer than I intended. I hope y’all enjoy this!

Pairings : Intrulogical, Background Roceit

Warnings : Unsympathetic Patton, Morally gray but also pretty Unsympathetic Virgil (I mean, he feels somewhat regretful of what he does at the end-), Fusion, blood and pain mentions, if I need to add anything else please let me know!

Masterpost 

—————————–

It started off as something small- an idea that Remus had, which Logan was more than happy to try. They were just figments of imagination, after all, it’s not like it was an impossibility. And it took a lot longer than either side believed it should have taken, but they got there.

Logan and Remus fused.

When they first fused, they cried. Tears streamed down their cheeks as they hugged themselves because it just felt so incredible, so loving. They hadn’t even looked in a mirror yet, but it felt right, being together like this. They fell to the ground just hugging themselves, rocking back and forth. He wasn’t them, though, and both Logan and Remus knew that. They could feel that. And when he looked in the mirror, that’s when they fell apart.

Logan and Remus were choking back tears of their own as they held one another, crumpled on the floor of Logan’s room. Remus buried his face into Logan’s neck, grinning wide as he laughed almost hysterically.

“I can’t believe that worked!”

“I can’t believe how that felt.”

The silence stretched on for a moment as they collected themselves until Remus broke it, pulling away from Logan slightly. “I want to do it again.” He said, reaching up to play with Logan’s hair. “Can we do it again, Lolo?”

Logan smiled the softest Remus had ever seen him smile, and he nodded. “Yes, whoever that was, it felt great. I would do it a hundred times or more.”

Remus giggled before leaning in, pressing a gentle kiss to Logan’s lips before they fused once again.

And so, Morbidity was created.

Morbidity stayed hidden for a long while, and Remus and Logan felt strange each time they unfused. They felt lonely, more so than they had before fusing. Remus had correlated it to how Ruby felt when she and Sapphire unfused and Ruby had gone on that adventure. And Logan couldn’t agree more. Being Morbidity was intoxicating, because when he formed, neither felt lonely or unloved anymore. And Morbidity felt more love than when Logan and Remus spent time together unfused.

Morbidity just felt right.

Morbidity didn’t want to unfuse anymore. Logan and Remus didn’t want to be apart, not when they were constantly torn down and ignored. So they stopped unfusing, and Morbidity stayed in his room. His own room! He had been shocked when it had formed but felt overjoyed nonetheless. Because it meant he was a part of Thomas, a true part of him! But with the new room, that meant that the others would start to notice. And they did.

Macabre, the name Morbidity found he liked most when brainstorming, was peacefully watching a documentary about some of the worst crimes ever committed to date. He was fascinated with how the killers had gotten away with it for so long, and how all the evidence from the buckets of blood that had needed cleaning up to the finest of hairs left behind all played a roll in solving the cases. He was writing a novel, a murder mystery, and wanted it to be as exciting and puzzling as possible. So research was needed.

That’s when his door was opened, no one knocking as it slammed against the wall. Macabre flinched at the sound, finally looking away from his television and notebook littered with notes and random, horrific doodles.

Standing there was Roman, stunned when he saw Macabre, dual-colored eyes staring into his green ones. “Um…”

Then Patton peered over his shoulder, confusion flashing across his face. “A new side?”

Macabre laughed, and it sounded like glass shattering. “Not a new side, Patty-cake. Merely an experiment gone extremely well!” Macabre stood, stretching and hearing his bones pop and feeling the pins and needles in his feet creeping up his legs. How long had it been since he last got up? He made a mental note to set a timer so that his limbs wouldn’t fall asleep like this again.

“…. Experiment?”

“Who are you?”

“What are you?”

Macabre frowned only slightly, fixing his glasses. “I’m Morbidity! I would say it’s great to finally introduce myself, but I believe your facial expressions aren’t the proper reactions one would want.

"And I was an experiment. Not one any longer, though! Remus and Logan sure enjoyed doing them. Maybe I should try it out too!”

“You’re behind Logan disappearing?!” Virgil’s voice raised a few octaves as he started on at the fusion. Macabre crossed his arms, now frowning completely.

“I’m not behind anything. And Logan didn’t disappear. Not completely.”

“What does that even mean?”

It seemed Roman knew the answer to Patton’s question, though, because he broke from his daze to answer. “Correct me if I’m wrong, Morbidity, but you’re a fusion.”

Macabre smiled. “Right you are, Roman! Oh, I knew you would remember. Remus didn’t think you would, but I knew you would.” He clapped his hands together, once.

“What’s he talking about Roman?” Virgil asked.

Roman only briefly looked at Virgil, offering a small, half-hearted shrug. “Remus brought up the idea one time that maybe sides could fuse. I just brushed it off, but it was definitely one of his good ideas.” He turned back to Macabre. “So… You’re a fusion of Remus and Logan?”

“Morbid Creativity and Logic sure go quite well together, don’t you think? Both always ignored, finding that they are the outcasts of their supposed families, and finding love in one another. It really shouldn’t be a surprise that they got along so well.”

“Wait wait wait, Logan fused with… With Remus?” Patton looked absolutely horrified.

“Well, they were dating for a year before they made me. But yes.”

“They were together?!”

“It really isn’t hard to believe, Patton.” Macabre glanced at his nails, painted as though they were dipped into blood. “Now, unless you three are interested in watching this documentary with me, can I get back to work?”

“We still have-”

“What are you working on?” Roman cut off Virgil, approaching Macabre. He shot Virgil and Patton a slight glare when they tried to protest. Because he could feel the anger and frustration, and even the panic radiating off the pair. “If you two even think of pushing Morbidity to talk, by the way, I’ll let Thomas know why I actually chose to go to the wedding.”

That sent the pair off, and Roman sat down with Macabre, the door closing. If this is what Remus and Logan wanted, to be together like this, then Roman would support it. He wasn’t in any place to judge though, considering just this morning he and Deceit had attempted to do the same.

It suddenly became very different around the Mind Palace, what with Macabre (or Copypasta’ as Roman and Deceit had taken to calling him after seeing Macabre’s love of creepypasta) having introduced himself to Thomas not long after the others had ventured into his room.

Thomas didn’t really mind Macabre, while he sometimes felt uncomfortable by the insane amount of violent knowledge he had, knowing about certain chemicals and their reactions to drinks was definitely helpful when attending bars. Especially when his drink shifted in color just slightly, and Thomas knew not to drink, because Macabre had remembered a case where someone had drugged their date. And Macabre got along with Deceit and Roman just fine(though the two still hadn’t come out yet).

Patton and Virgil, though? They were furious. They were absolutely livid that Logan would even agree to ever fuse with Remus. Logan deserved better than Remus, in their eyes.

They fueled one another, Virgil and Patton. They fueled the negative thoughts towards Macabre. He shouldn’t exist. He should have never existed in the first place. Logan was too good for Remus. What could Remus possibly offer that Logan would want, anyway, that Logan didn’t already have? The others had been working on showing their appreciation of Logan. Virgil and Patton had worked on not cutting him off, and Virgil had tried listening to him a bit more. Patton had stopped laughing at a few jokes Roman made about Logan.

And then there was Remus. The imbalance of negative and positive ideas was weird. Because Macabre wasn’t intrusive, not to the extent Remus had been. Now, Remus’s gruesome ideas were rationalized or internalized, suppressed in Macabre until he could jot down the idea and either write or draw the thought. Everything just felt wrong.

So they devised a plan, about three weeks after Macabre had been found by them.

Virgil had been horrified by Patton’s idea at first, listening reluctantly as Patton explained to him how to split a side. Because even if Virgil hated Macabre being together, and didn’t like Remus, he still remembered what the split had done to the twins. And he worried how that would affect Remus, going through another split. But Patton persuaded him, claiming that if all the facts that Thomas knew were tainted, were bad, then Thomas was a bad person. And Thomas couldn’t be a bad person, he just couldn’t. So Virgil agreed.

He doesn’t remember it much, though. He purposely forgot Macabre’s scream as he was quite literally torn apart. Virgil blocked the image of Macabre’s agonized face from his mind, keeping it a blurred memory that could have been a dream. He felt sick at the thought that he did it, but the idea that Logan would come back was enough to keep him from stopping.

Patton though was completely unfazed.

However, they didn’t get the outcome they had wanted.

Remus and Logan had indeed been split, that much was clear. But they weren’t Remus and Logan, not the ones that Patton and Virgil wanted.

They were pushed out of the way by Roman and Deceit, who had finally broken into the room that Virgil and Patton had sealed off. It looked so incredibly wrong, and to say Deceit and Roman were angry would be an understatement. They were bursting with rage as Logan and Remus finally stopped whimpering, the pain no longer overwhelming them. They cradled the two sides, all the while having a shouting match with Patton, Virgil making no attempt to defend his actions.

Roman held his brother tightly, though Remus only blinked at him in confusion, and once Deceit and Roman had stopped arguing with Virgil and Patton, they had turned their attention to the two sides, taking them in. The guilty pair sunk out to their own rooms, leaving Roman and Deceit with the new Logan and Remus.

Though they didn’t even know Logan and Remus were their names.

—————————–

Taglists

Just ask if you wish to be added, removed, or tagged/not tagged in certain content!

TS Taglist

@treasureofpriam @theloveliestsweetspongy @tacochippy @anderswrites @romanknite @0beansprout0 @random-fandom-dragon @daflangstlairde @princerhubarb @that-one-ts-artist @heyitsmeimjustkindahere @aromanticandaromatic @deliciouslycrookedme @batpinkstudentpersona @avocados26 @fandomloverangel @red-eyes88 @adarkgreensoul @analogicallythinking @thatreallyawkwardpotato @insanegoldie2 @gothams-lil-sweet-potato-pie @alexkittycat1 @len-art-trash @faithyfander @an-absolute-failure @lexilucacia @o-hello-its-me @fearthesmolpotato @moxiety-my-love @thatonenerdphotographer @diadems-arewornon-capita @morrogirl9024 @thefandomnerd15 @sulphur-and-honey @aroaceagenderfluid @yalltookmyurlideas @sidesareathing @surohsopsisofclouds @dissappropriation @demigodbookdragon @too-many-fandoms89 @a-soul-among-the-stars @croftersgamer @thenaiads @theyluna-womoon  

Intrulogical Taglist

@cress-the-fander @worm-does-shit @enby-ralsei @jadedmidnight @virgilisacinnamonroll @ohgeneralmygeneral @asthmatic-trash-bastard @remusownsmyuwus @alexinthebathroomataparty  @diadems-arewornon-capita @the-bethanista @yalltookmyurlideas @demigodbookdragon @theunknoen @theyluna-womoon  

[antifainternational]

This June is the 9th anniversary of Antifa International. Back in 2014, we decided to start an anti-fascist social media collective to spread news about antifa actions from around the world; to support antifa crews from all over; and to promote and spread the tenets of anti-fascism. Since then, we've expanded our collective to ten members in eight different countries and grown our social media reach to more than 103,000 people across seven platforms. We've also worked on some very key antifa projects over the last nine years, including The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund, The International Day of Solidarity with Anti-Fascist Prisoners (July 25), and The International Violent Hate Crimes Research Project. We're especially proud this month welcome the 9th member of our collective - Three Way Fight - a veteran group of anti-fascists providing much-needed analysis and insight about the movement from a revolutionary perspective. We will be rolling out special events, suprises, and treats to celebrate our 9th anniversary all month long, so keep it on lock!

[cryptidsandcatacombs]

What If I Killed Someone For You

Rating: absolutely postively adult for violent yandere content. Anyone under the age of 18 better go away. No reading allowed for anyone under the age of 18. Plus there's like one adult joke in here so no one under the age of 18 allowed for that reason either.

Summary: This is literally fueled by my love of yandere content #nojudgingcringecultureisdeadandikilledit. Noe better watch himself because he's been my muse lately. Anyways uuuu idk yandere stuff here so you know someone's getting stabbed. We should probably do something about that, but we're not gonna. Thems the rules chief. No, you can't stop it either you total fucking killjoy. I'll start stealing toes if you do. What will I do with said toes? Black markets are a lucrative business and I need the money cause I'm broke fam. So really it's the economy's fault that I'm chopping toes. Say thanks late stage capitalism. This is brought to you by idk the monster under your bed who chops off the toes for me. He gets paid by the hour so try no to run too much ok.

Oh and this fic contains lyrics from If I killed someone for you by Alec Benjamin. Yes I'm inserting song lyrics into a fic like it's the early 2000s.

I'm packing up my things and I'm wiping down the walls I'm rinsing off my clothes and I'm walking through the halls I did it all for her So I felt nothing at all I don't know what she'll say So I'll ask her when she calls

Would you love me more? If I killed someone for you

Oz was considered by most a laid back sort of guy. Never angered easily. He can get frustrated like every other person, but not so easily angered.

However, despite his laid back nature, he had a vice. Jealousy. One that he was very self aware of. He often tried not to let it get the better of him, but there it was. A beast clad in green with eyes of emerald staring him directly in the fact tempting him with its siren song.

The siren song came in the form of Noe Archiviste and....whoever this girl was that was hanging all over Noe right now. She had a voice as sweet as molasses and brown curls that fell down her shoulders like waterfalls. She would run her hands over Noe and look at him with her doe eyes. She was a cute on overall. Couldn't blame Noe for taking interest if it was there.

He seemed to not the mind the attention he received from the lady...nor the frivolous compliments....nor the blatantly flirty way she seems to be touching him with every caress of his hands into hers and the way she wraps her arms around his neck.

Oz's eye twitched. Oz could have stuffed down all this rage and envy that suddenly sprouted from the ether, but jealousy was truly Oz's vice. One he wasn't planning to fix any time soon. He wanted to sit there and be happy for his dearest Noe. Stay to the sidelines and be happy for his good fortune for love is one of the greatest things you can find.

However, there was another urge. One just as strong.

"I want her to die," cried Oz's thoughts. "I want her gone. She can't take Noe away from me. She can't. I know him and I aren't together in a romantic sense, but...I don't want her taking away my chance either. She has to go"

"Now now Oz," said another voice in Oz's head, "You know that's wrong. You can't go around getting rid of anyone you see as a competition or obstacle towards someone you care about."

Oz was prone to scolding himself at times like these. He always held himself to high moral standards. Sometimes too high. To the point of self-loathing. Impressive if you ask the writer. Self awareness? Bitch please for shame. This isn't a call out post for myself. What is it you may ask? Hey, we're getting off topic you little trickster. You're supposed to be a reader. Not breaking the fourth wall.

"Yes yes I know I can't do that. I'm not going to. That still doesn't save me from any form of feral urge to wring her neck and ship her body down the river and hope and have her loved ones pray she can be identified by her dental records. Fuck does she even love him. What if she's out to hurt him or worse just wants him for his body? Look at him! He's gorgeous. Who can blame her? What if she doesn't love him like I do," said Oz's internal thoughts.

"Oz you're being dumb. She might love him unconditionally too and he deserves that for himself," Oz argued internally with himself back.

"I know I know, but I'm just saying what if. I just don't like the idea of him getting hurt nor the idea of her taking him away from me. I'm entitled to that feeling aren't I," Oz continued to debate with his voice of reason.

"Fair, but lets just wait and see. He's a big boy and can handle himself," Oz's voice of reason stated.

"Yeah a big boy in more ways than one I bet," said the third internal Oz voice of being horny and all around slutty that constantly lives there.

"This is getting us nowhere," Oz himself decided to just cut the internal argument off before it turns into a blood match to the death. This was disturbing his routine of stalking Noe for ...research purposes.

Oz looked over to now see them sitting down at the nearby cafe. They were seated across from each other. Oz noted Noe might be enjoying his usual coffee or tea. He liked it extra sweet either way. The man has one hell of a sweet tooth.

"Yeah I bet that brown haired hussie doesn't know that, but I do," Oz thought to himself smugly.

Oz looked back at Noe's companion to see her touching his arm and doing the egregious crime of looking into his magnificent purple eyes. Wait....was she now touching his face?

"You lucky bitch," Oz thought to himself this time with anger brows drawn on the words for dramatic emphasis.

Oz ran his fingers through his hair in frustration. "Damn it! How long is this date going to last? I hope it stops before I puke up a lung," Oz thought to himself this time internally rolling in pain.

Hours passed and Oz with surprising tenacity had stayed there all day following Noe around with the clever disguise of wearing a hat and ya know some shabby clothes. Truly no way he could be recognized. Yep, he's got it all figured out.

Oz decided to follow them home from a fair distance. Oz looked up to see the sunset. It was starting to get dark and Oz hated the dark, but he hated certain people who might harm those he loves even more. A little nyctophobia isn't gonna hurt.

Oz followed quietly until he noticed they stopped in front of a flat. It was her flat. Noe escorted her to the door like the gentleman he is and waved her good night. Oz had found a nice dark alleyway to hide in so he wouldn't be spotted.

Noe headed towards Oz's direction which caused Oz to hide deeper into the darkness. Oz bit his lip from the anxiety of being found and having some explaining to do. Like who was he kidding? This disguise was paper thin!

Noe looked like he was passing by Oz, then stopped. Oz froze. Oh god had he spotted him?

Before Oz could register what happened next, Noe had gone in a flash. Oz knew he was fast, but he couldn't see where he went.

It was then a grunt and the sound of what seemed to be something getting bashed against the wall behind Oz. Oz slowly turned to find Noe whose hand was pressing something against the wall.

It was then he grabbed whatever he was holding and slammed it again. Oz stared into the darkness to see his eyes glowing red to match the blood on his gloves.

After another slam, the clear sound of bone cracking from the impact could be heard. Noe dropped, what Oz could assume, the now lifeless body of the person he just killed.

Noe turned to see Oz and Oz froze. "Ok ok maybe he doesn't know it's you," Oz thought to himself. "Oh I know."

"Aye top of the morning to you," Oz did in his best Irish accent that he could muster.

Noe leaned down and inspected Oz. Oz could only look at Noe confused as Noe lifted Oz's arms and looked over Oz's face and the rest of his person.

Noe then gave a sigh of relief. "Good, I was afraid he had hurt you Oz," Noe said putting a hand on Oz's shoulder.

"Wait, you knew it was me," Oz said face turning hot.

"I mean, I'd recognize you from anywhere. You're not hard to miss," Noe pointed out.

"Oh uuu so what happened exactly," Oz asked now curious about the now lifeless elephant in the room.

Oz went to look at the supposed body only for Noe to yank him back and shook his head no.

"You're squeamish," Noe said taking his bloody glove off, putting his now bare hand on Oz's face,"I wouldn't look."

Oz shuddered taking Noe's advice.

"The man had been following you. I know of him. That vampire right there would have killed you where you stood if I hadn't done something," Noe said honestly.

Oz batted his lashes in shock taken aback. "I...almost died," Oz asked.

Noe nodded. "Fortunately, he doesn't kill in broad daylight, so I had to wait til night. I had just noticed him following you today. I don't know how long he's been doing it for, but if I had noticed earlier, he would have been dead on the first day," Noe nearly growled out. "I'd rather not have killed him in broad daylight either,ut if I had to, I would have," Noe wanted to point out. "If he had attacked you, I absolutely would have."(edited)

Oz turned pale. "W-wait, when did you notice I was...," Oz said not knowing how to word his next question.

"Following me," Noe asked for him, "Since I left the house. You're not exactly subtle."

Oz blushed. "Oh uh sorry I was just curious as to what your daily routine was like and then I noticed you had a female companion, so I was trying to see if you were safe," Oz said nervously.

"Her? She was lonely and needed company, so I obliged. She's a bit friendly, but so am I," Noe pointed out.

"So are you...interested in her? Dating her even," Oz asked getting to the point.

Noe shook his head. "Not in the slightest," Noe said heading towards the body making effort to cover it up. "I'll dispose of the body in a minute. Let's take the back ways so I'm not caught soaked in blood. I need to get you home," Noe said quickly leading him back.

"Wait what if someone finds it," Oz asked fearfully.

"This will be quick," Noe said picking up Oz and speeding off.

Oz could often forget how fast this unstoppable force of a man was.

A few minutes later, Oz was back on his doorstep. Oz rubbed the back of his neck looking towards Noe wondering what Noe was going to do now.

"Now, go inside and don't come check on me. I don't want to have to hide more bodies this evening should more make the fatal mistake of coming after you," Noe said waiting til Oz got to his door.

"Ok ok," Oz said opening his door.

Oz waved Noe off as he sped away to do the dirty work.

Later that night, Oz flopped over into the bed still registering the fact he just saw Noe Archiviste straight up body a man. The sweet, gentle lamb of a man just increased the body count this evening. The man was now a statistic in vampire based deaths. Truly mystifying.

Oz wanted to stay up and see if Noe was going to be ok. However, sleep took Oz before Oz could make any quick decisions. It had been a long day.

As Oz slept, Noe crept in with any blood soaked clothes supposedly disposed of. Noe bent down and ran his fingers through Oz's hair.

Noe's fingers drifted to Oz's pulse on his neck. Long has Noe fantasized about marking Oz's neck. The thought made him shiver, but he couldn't. He couldn't bare to do it with him possibly not consent as marking someone like that is a big deal.

Noe pressed a little more of the pulse of Oz's neck. The beat made Noe's heart race and what Noe could swear was drool. To be so intimate with Oz to the point he trusts Noe to drink his blood. It was enough to make him shiver.

Noe shook himself from these thoughts. He couldn't give in. Not without Oz's permission.

Noe got up quietly and shut Oz's door bedroom door behind him as he left. He couldn't bare to kiss Oz's face good night as he was afraid it would trigger something in him.

Noe fled out the door into the dead of night towards his place. He wouldn't let any harm come to Oz. Even if that danger was himself.

[creepingsharia]

Muslim cleric extradited from Jamaica to NYC, held without bail for ‘trying to recruit NYPD cop’ to ISIS

Pictured: A still image from one of the defendant’s online lectures, in which the defendant declares, “The way forward is not the ballot. The way forward is the bullet.”

Designated Global Terrorist Shaikh Faisal Arraigned on Conspiracy and Terrorism Charges Following Extradition from Jamaica

Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr., and New York City Police Commissioner Dermot Shea today announced the extradition from Jamaica and arraignment of TREVOR WILLIAM FORREST, a/k/a “SHAIKH ABDULLAH FAISAL,” a/k/a “SHAIKH FAISAL,” 56, a citizen of Jamaica, for using his public profile and personal network to recruit and provide support to those seeking to commit acts of violence and terrorism against others. FAISAL, who in 2017 was named a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, was previously convicted in the United Kingdom of crimes related to inciting murder and using racially charged, hateful rhetoric in furtherance of terrorist ideologies. FAISAL has publicly supported the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State, a/k/a “ISIS” or “ISIL,” and called for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate through violent acts encouraged by the defendant’s online lectures and militant propaganda. FAISAL is charged in a New York State Supreme Court indictment with Soliciting or Providing Support for an Act of Terrorism in the First Degree as a Crime of Terrorism, among other charges.

“The indictment and arrest of Shaikh Faisal nearly three years ago put a stop to the prolific, radical Islamic propaganda and terror recruitment alleged in this case – delivering a major blow to ISIS’ overall recruitment capabilities,” said District Attorney Vance. “Now, Shaikh Faisal has finally appeared in a Manhattan courtroom to face justice under due process for the crimes of terrorism he is charged with in our indictment. In addition to shutting down Faisal’s dangerous rhetoric and his recruitment of new terrorists, the effects of his arrest have been felt across the counterterrorism community worldwide, which has gained actionable intelligence thanks to our seizure of numerous electronics from his home.

...

Police Commissioner Dermot Shea said: “Abdullah El Faisal has spent two decades inspiring the terrorists behind plots and attacks in London, New York, and onboard airplanes in flight. As outlined in these charges, Faisal actively encouraged and facilitated the recruitment of an NYPD undercover officer into ISIS, a terrorist organization behind murder and bloodshed in this city. I want to thank District Attorney Cy Vance and his team for their relentless support of this case and the prosecution of Sheikh Faisal.”

On August 25, 2017, FAISAL was arrested outside his home in St. James, Jamaica by Jamaican authorities based on a provisional arrest warrant issued at the request of the United States. Arresting officers seized numerous cell phones, laptops, thumb drives, external hard drives, cameras, and other electronics from his home during the arrest. Officers also recovered $524,000 in Jamaican currency (approximately $3,500 USD) and £1,850 pounds (approximately $2,400 USD) from the defendant’s home. On August 13, 2020 FAISAL was extradited from Jamaica to New York City and he was arraigned on August 14, 2020.

...

District Attorney Vance thanked the following individuals and agencies for their assistance with the investigation: the NYPD, and in particular, Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism John Miller, Chief of Intelligence Thomas Galati, Assistant Commissioner of Intelligence Analysis Rebecca Weiner, Inspector Robert Rios, Deputy Chief Paul Ciorra, Inspector Paul Mauro, Deputy Inspector Joseph Seminara, Lieutenant Robert Nicholson, Sergeant Kevin Thacke, Detective Sherif Moussa, Detective Newaz Mohammad, Deputy Director of Intelligence Analysis Ravi Satkalmi, Intelligence Research Specialist Krisztina Johnson, and former Intelligence Research Specialist Jacques Singer-Emery; the U.S. Department of Justice Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division; the United States Marshals Service in particular, Henry Geberth and Christopher Felix; and the Jamaica Constabulatory Force.

Defendant Information:

TREVOR WILLIAM FORREST, a/k/a “SHAIKH ABDULLAH FAISAL”, a/k/a “SHAIKH FAISAL”, D.O.B. 9/10/1963

St. James, Jamaica

Charged:

Soliciting or Providing Support for an Act of Terrorism in the First Degree as a Crime of Terrorism, a class B violent felony, 1 count

Soliciting or Providing Support for an Act of Terrorism in the First Degree, a class C violent felony, 1 count

Attempted Soliciting or Providing Support for an Act of Terrorism in the First Degree as a Crime of Terrorism, a class C violent felony, 1 count

Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree as a Crime of Terrorism, a class D violent felony, 1 count

Attempted Soliciting or Providing Support for an Act of Terrorism in the Frist Degree, a class D violent felony, 1 count

--------------------------------------------------

More via NY Post: Radical cleric held without bail in Manhattan for ‘trying to recruit NYPD cop’

Shaikh Abdullah Faisal, 56, pleaded not guilty to five counts — including conspiracy as a crime of terrorism, soliciting or providing support for an act of terrorism and other raps.

At the prosecution’s request, Justice Maxwell Wiley ordered Faisal held in custody without bail.

Faisal was previously convicted of similar charges in England for inciting murder and using inflammatory language “in furtherance of terrorist ideologies,” according to prosecutors.

He’s due back in Manhattan Supreme Court on Oct. 7.

[humanrightsupdates]

Social Media Platforms Remove War Crimes Evidence

Social media platforms are taking down online content they consider terrorist, violently extremist, or hateful in a way that prevents its potential use to investigate serious crimes, including war crimes, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. While it is understandable that these platforms remove content that incites or promotes violence, they should ensure that this material is archived so it can possibly be used to hold those responsible to account. The 42-page report, “‘Video Unavailable’: Social Media Platforms Remove Evidence of War Crimes,” urges all stakeholders, including social media platforms, to come together to develop an independent mechanism to preserve potential evidence of serious crimes. They should ensure that the content is available to support national and international investigations, as well as research by nongovernmental organizations, journalists, and academics. Rights groups have been urging social media companies since 2017 to improve transparency and accountability around content takedowns. “Some of the content that Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms are taking down has crucial and irreplaceable value as evidence of human rights atrocities,” said Belkis Wille, senior crisis and conflict researcher at Human Rights Watch. “With prosecutors, researchers, and journalists increasingly relying on photographs and videos posted publicly on social media, these platforms should be doing more to ensure that they can get access to potential evidence of serious crimes.” Social media content, particularly photographs and videos, posted by perpetrators, victims, and witnesses to abuses, has become increasingly central to some prosecutions of war crimes and other serious crimes, including at the International Criminal Court (ICC) and national proceedings in Europe. This content also helps the media and civil society document atrocities and other abuses, such as a chemical weapons attacks in Syria, a security force crackdown in Sudan, and police abuse in the United States. - Human Rights Watch

[bloody-cute-yandere]

Hello I have written a dissertation about a phrase I hate

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right?

 So I guess to start off this train of thought, I should explain what started it. I love listening to commentary channels on YouTube. They ARE my reality TV, except they seem to cover more important topics. One of the commentary channels I follow is CreepShow Art. I have listened to her videos for quite some time, and while she doesn’t show as much by way of scientific or empirical evidence in her videos, I do feel she is a pretty credible source because she does reference public posts as evidence for her claims, and a lot of what she talks about is readily fact-checkable. Over the past few weeks Creepshow has made a few videos about another youtuber Without A Crystal Ball (who I will abbreviate to WACB for brevity), who is another commentary channel that allegedly has questionable research tactics and reporting skills. She also is prone to being defensive and seems to have the mindset of “any criticism is hate”. Creepshow made a video first about how WACB had dug around in an inappropriate way to gain information about Tati Westbrook and then reported her findings in a more skewed way, which ended up painting Tati in potentially an unfairly negative light. WACB responded….. badly to the criticism she received from Creepshow and other channels that criticized her. She, among other things, went onto a livestream of another channel and doxed Creepshow in the chat. Also, potentially unrelated but someone has allegedly been repeatedly attempting to hack Creepshow’s social media platforms, along with several others that criticized WACB’s behavior. WACB also sent an email to Creepshow where she insinuated that Youtube itself was pushing the entire conflict between the two of them to be handled privately, but were watching the issue at hand. Creepshow responded by showing the email to her audience, which did include showing the email WACB used to reach out to Creepshow. WACB became upset that she had been “doxed” by Creepshow (though it is worth noting that the exposed email address in question happens to be attached to all of her social medias, and not any private information).

               During WACB’s most recent response to being “doxed” she used the idiom “Two wrongs don’t make a right”, and I have been stewing on that particular idiom ever since. I’m sure that isn’t an unfamiliar phrase for most people reading this, but for those that haven’t heard it before, it runs akin to the idea of not stooping to someone else’s level when in an argument. The idea is that if someone hurts you then you should be the bigger person and not react in a bad way, because that won’t help the situation become resolved. To a certain extent I believe this idea is absolutely correct; if you want to resolve a situation with another person, you don’t want to make the situation worse by lashing out if they’ve done something to you that is hurtful, because then you just have more hurt feelings you have to resolve in the process of moving forward. However, this idea also hinges upon two crucial truths that must exist in order for it to apply. One: that the two people involved in a disagreement must or want to resolve the conflict at all, and two: that the first offense is not an act done with malicious or cold-hearted intent. It also depends on a moral compass that is entirely determined by outside influences as opposed to an internal value system.

               The first assumption “two wrongs don’t make a right” depends on is the idea that both party members do actually want to resolve their current disagreement. If the two people in the middle of an argument are emotionally close (or tied together in other ways) and no one in the situation wants to (or can’t) cut ties with the other person, I would say that this assumption is valid. In the case of Creepshow and WACB, however, this is not the case. According to Creepshow they don’t know eachother. Speaking frankly, this means that there is no relationship that needs to be protected. One could argue a necessity for professional courtesy seeing as how they share the same platform and roughly the same content ideas, however the Youtube platform is so vast already that two single small to moderately sized channels having a feud shouldn’t in any real sense have any effect on the other’s job. In a more general sense, if person A cases a fight with a person they don’t know very well or don’t interact with much, there is no social consequence if person B stoops down to person A’s level (whether or not there are legal repercussions is a separate issue). Neither person A nor person B will have any sort of ripples in their own separate circles as a direct result of the negative exchange because their individual social groups will be biased to agree with their persons’ interpretation of the events. The social distance will also save person A and person B from any future unpleasantness through the mere virtue of anonymity.

A similar argument can be made for people who have no interest in maintaining a relationship they had previously had with each other; even people who had been previously close to eachother can decide to break contact with each other over egregious offenses. In these cases, there is less care about whether you’re behaving in a “good” way because you have no investment in the relationship progressing. In either scenario, it doesn’t matter if you stoop low in an argument if you’re willing to accept the consequences of that behavior, or if there won’t be any appreciable consequences for that behavior.

               The second truth that “two wrongs don’t make a right” depends on is that the first offense is not a heinous vindictive one. For example, Doxing. Doxing is the illegal spread of personal information to the public. The act of doxing can leave the victim severely vulnerable to more violent crimes such as stalking, theft/ mugging, rape and murder because their location or other personal information is now known to people that may be willing to cause them physical harm. It’s a dangerous and illegal act. Other potential heinous actions from person A include any other illegal activity (such as assault or other forms of violence, theft) or can be something that technically isn’t illegal but is a severe breaching of boundaries or someone’s own comfort level. If you know someone personally you probably know things that would really upset them, and the act of going through and performing those actions KNOWING that they will be upsetting to your victim is cold-hearted and cruel. At that point in a disagreement, person A isn’t trying to resolve a problem, they are simply lashing out with the sole purpose of destruction. That is not constructive, nor is it ok. In these cases such as these there’s a high likelihood that person B will no longer want to associate with person A if they originally did. example: I knew a person a long time ago that was TERRIFIED of gnomes. They hated them. So, what would happen if at some point this person and I got into a disagreement and I decided to give her a garden gnome as a present? It wouldn’t be illegal by any stretch; it’s a gift. However, it’s a gift that the person would have HATED, and I would have known that. Between them and I it would have been a declaration of war, not a peace-making offer. Furthermore, it would have been proof that I was willing to use this person’s personal deep fears that they confided in me out of trust against them; even if our relationship survived the original disagreement it would probably never be the same. Who, in that case, could really blame this person if they responded in kind? It would be a human response and, in a way, I would absolutely have deserved it because I had breached her trust in an unforgivable way.

               At risk of this becoming a dissertation, I happen to especially dislike the idea of the person who committed sleight A being the person to scream “two wrongs don’t make a right” after person B responds to them in the way that WACB responded to Creepshow. To me, that seems like person A is trying to put themselves on a pedestal of superiority, despite the fact that they hurt person B first. “I know what I did was wrong, but you’re not supposed to hurt me back! Two wrongs don’t make a right!” Person A is just trying to avoid consequences for their actions at that point. Because really, what happened to “treat others the way you want to be treated?” I know this begins to sound victim-blamey, but what right does a person have to be upset for (not really) being doxed after they knowingly decided to dox someone else? They’ve already shown that doxing is definitely something they’re ok with, so if they’re going to argue that the original doxing wasn’t a big deal, why is it suddenly a big enough deal to them now that they are the victim of it? I hate hypocrisy like that.

My final note on “two wrongs don’t make a right” is that the entire phrase depends on each person in the disagreement depending on an external source for their moral compass as opposed to having their own internal value system. Morality is, overall, an incredibly gray concept in any society. It is informed by each person’s individual moral ideals which can come from religion, family values, upbringing, influences from social idols and more. Even universal truths like “murder is wrong” become smudged quickly when ideas about self-defense are considered (which becomes even murkier when you begin to question what sorts of actions require “self-defense”). This means that there can be vastly different views about what is and is not ok about any particular topic within one society. There will also be some people that have a very strong internal moral compass within that society, and some people that depend more on the community to act as their compass. If a person who uses an internal moral compass to guide themselves, then they will behave in a manner that falls in line with that compass regardless of how their peers may respond. If, however, a person does not have a strong internal moral compass, their behavior will be largely influenced by those around them because they depend on that social structure to guide their behavior. For someone that has a strong internal compass that they rely on, the idea that “two wrongs don’t make a right” probably won’t have much value to them, because their morality is already determined regardless of what the people around them may say. If person A does x to them, then person B’s moral sense will determine what is and is not ok to respond with, and whether others say that response is right or wrong is irrelevant because they already believed they are justified in whatever response they had. For a person that relies more heavily on their peers for their moral compass, however, “two wrongs don’t make a right” might sort of work as an appropriate guide because it comes from an external place to encourage what socially would be considered “good” behavior, though that itself then depends on what is considered “right” and “wrong” by the surrounding populace, which has already been established to be a bit of a crap shoot.

Overall (and I cannot stress this enough), I don’t believe that a disagreement of any sort should come with responses like doxing or assault or theft or a breach of trust like the examples I gave above. I believe that all people should strive to be better and act with dignity. I always try to act as though everything I do will be posted online for the world to see, and if I wouldn’t want to receive the backlash I could get for a particular action then I tend to not do that thing in the first place. I also believe that hypocrisy is one of the more disgusting personality traits someone can have. If someone doxes another person, clearly they believe that doxing is a justifiable action, and to then have that person be upset when someone behaved in the same “correct” way (As far as person A has shown of their moral values), that is just plain gross. Don’t do to other people what you wouldn’t want done to you, and also don’t be surprised if you’re not the only person willing and capable of lashing out at your level if you decide to stoop low. If you don’t want to give someone else a pass, then don’t deign to believe that you deserve some kind of special allowance to stomp all over others.

[damagedsmile]

here is how I choose to write my Arkham verse & using actual institutional laws, I design the world which has played such a part in forming Joker’s opinions on said instituitions

Like many (if not all) institutions for the criminally insane, Arkham segregates genders (mainly due to the fact that no one wants a rape or murder /assault to be committed, particularly by the cons who prefer female victims) but the exercise yard is split down the middle by a wire fence where the male wing can see the female wing (this fence is, like all the fences, manned by armed guards in their towers).

Arkham is a place for the criminally insane; therefore a serious crime must have been committed for someone to be placed there (plus a court order stating this in trial along with a given period) & a rigorous psychological investigation will occur before sentencing. Occasionally a felon will be point-blank certified insane, thus beginning the investigation etc, even if they do not choose to plead insanity.

You do not get to commit yourself to these places for help nor does your family (if they deem it best for you), &  you do not get to walk free when you decide, as you would in a general institution if you have voluntary committed yourself. These places are not in use to give aid to people suffering with general mental health issues, they are specifically for the criminally insane, a different class altogether.

Usually how these sort of institutions work is that a felon is sent there to receive therapy & if (a big if in some cases) a felon proves to be ‘rehabilitated’ just enough during their sentence, they will undergo an intense assessment (like a parole hearing); if they happen to be deemed fit & able enough, they will then be re-allocated in to an actual state prison to serve out their sentence.

So basically the running of an asylum for the criminally insane is like that of a prison: there is a scheduled routine in place for every inmate that runs like clockwork. You have a set time for waking up, being let out of your cell, & being put back for ‘lights out’, having a shower, eating meals, recreation, smoke breaks, therapy sessions, everything. Here are some titbits from research I choose to play by:

Showers are communal & supervised, as is grooming (things like shaving)

There are classes in place so to keep inmates ‘calm’, like art classes for example (art therapy) & lush grounds, or a botanical garden like Arkham has, where they can help upkeep the environment

Inmates deemed fit are given duties in the cafeteria serving meals or cleaning, or doing the laundry

Jewelry, make-up, perfume, dye, etc are not permitted

Medication is given daily with meals & often inmates are forced to take them if they refuse to

There are guards, doctors (those who give therapy, those who work with medications, & those within the infirmary), interns, orderlies, & nurses; all of them have different roles to perform

Inmates are thoroughly frisked after meals or working in the kitchens to ensure they have not hidden cutlery on their person but some violent inmates are often given plastic cutlery

Therapy is designated in to one-on-one sessions & also group sessions. They are always supervised (either by guards /orderlies within the room, outside the door, or watching through a two-way mirror) & occasionally a panic button is allocated to the acting doctor in charge of the session

There are different wings on the grounds which are designated according to the level of treatment an inmate needs - violent inmates (max. security), less violent inmates, inmates who are beyond rehabilitation, etc - & a portion designated to housing the infirmary, offices, the visitors’ centre, etc

Inmates are allowed visits on usually a monthly basis (orchestrated between loved ones & a person in charge of overseeing appointments) &also visits from lawyers & local law enforcement working on tying up the inmate’s crime. I don’t think there are conjugal visits allowed though. It is illegal to remove an inmate’s visitation rights.

Inmates are allowed to send & receive mail, although it is read before being posted/given to the inmate just in case of plans of escape etc

Padded cells are in-house as are straitjackets & other uses of restraint for violent inmates; an inmate sent to a padded cell is being sent for a period of ‘solitary confinement’ as punishment, usually for being extremely violent or having broken a major rule. When this happens, their privileges (mail, visits, smoke breaks & recreation time, etc) are suspended until both the assigned doctor, the Asylum Director, & the Warden are in agreement that they can be reinstated once an inmate has shown enough good behavior

If necessary, & deemed so by the asylum authorities & the legal system, an inmate can be ‘doped up’ on medication to keep them docile

Some modern asylums do still practice electroshock therapy & Arkham is one of them; some of them (Arkham included) allow for interns or famed doctors of psychology to conduct research for papers by permitting them one-on-one interviews. They do not permit anyone but the staff (doctors & asylum authorities) access to inmate records or therapy session notes/filmed footage

Recreation time is made up of access to the rec. room (where inmates can converse, watch TV, read, play games, etc) & access to the exercise yard where they may walk, converse, play baseball or other sports, work out, smoke as much as they like outside of smoke breaks

Specifically, Joker is a much detested regular inmate for the staff &authorities of Arkham (alongside his fellow inmates) for these reasons:

He costs the asylum a lot of money in repairing broken furniture & lawsuits for staff / doctors / inmates assaulted

He is often the one criminal people think of when they think of Arkham’s publicity as being a system that actually ‘works’ for rehabilitation (due to the shit he’s done over the years); aka he’s bad publicity for them

He treats most people like absolute dirt & makes their jobs harder than they need to be

He’s both hated & feared by everyone because of his reputation but concerning fellow inmates, he often makes them jittery & harder to ‘keep calm’ just by his name / arrival being mentioned, while also purposely starting fights or goading them in to bad behaviour

The only reason why Joker is allowed walk free of Arkham every time is that they are legally obliged to release him in to penitentiary care when he passes the ‘parole hearing’ previously mentioned & of course, they do look for reasons to get rid of him this way (such as having him legally declared sane once upon a time). After that, it’s up to the court if he is to be released in to prison, & much of the time they are easily convinced to allow it by Joker, his lawyer, & the desperate authorities in Arkham who want him gone. That is, if he hasn’t already escaped by the time such hearings are organised.

Joker’s long-standing tirade upon Gotham City is allowed go on because Gotham does not have the death penalty in their legal system otherwise he’d be long dead by now.