#just saying you're trustworthy isn't actually proof of being trustworthy

[unsettlingcreature]

I personally find it a little strange that none of the four organisers for Dashcon 2 have any form of social media presence besides some LinkedIn profiles. I know we aren't owed those things but considering they are aiming for some transparency, the fact that if this goes horribly wrong they could just disappear into the ether is... hm.

[brucewaynehater101]

I have a vent fic wip that I may or may not finish so I just need to tell someone that I am...feeling so many things all the time about the consequences of the 16th birthday but...

primarily, right now, at this moment. without Robin/Bruce, Tim thought he would lose Dick and everyone else he knew through Robin. and then a little bit later when he quit for Jack, he got radio silence for Months until he became a potential victim, and even then it was just Cass stopping in to give the message and be like "I'll watch you to keep you safe 👁️👁️ ok bye" and he had actual Proof that without Robin, he would lose everyone.

and then. Dick "you're my equal (even tho I'm drastically changing your life without your knowledge or permission), you're my closest ally (even tho you don't even have a name to go out in the field to assist me as backup), I need you (even tho, as mentioned, I made a huge decision without your input because I didn't need it because I know best actually)" Grayson.

skipping over the fact that Dick didn't even have the time to say "you're fired" or anything resembling that, when Tim lost "Robin" to Damian, he felt like he lost everything else too. it didn't matter what Dick said about "equals" or "allies" or "needing". he already had Concrete Proof that it was all false. cheap words that are easily disproven do nothing in this situation, Dichard!

(disclaimer: I love and respect Dick Grayson, I just also think Dick Stopped Existing as soon as he made Damian his Robin for the most pathetic stupid illogical risky-ass excuse he could ever give for making anyone Robin (or a vigilante in general). "because he'll kill someone again". who the fuck says that?? who thinks "oh no oh god oh fuck this kid is gonna go off the rails he's gonna kill someone, I need to Put Him In A Place Of Power Over Oblivious Innocent Untrained People Who Are Expecting A Kind And Empathetic Hero To Save Them" hUH???? ok sorry, I just wanted to rant about what Tim "losing Robin" meant)

I agree with ya. Dick Grayson is fantastic, but it seems weird that he nuked his entire relationship with Tim (a very strong one that other fans have referred to them as "The Brothers") for the new kid.

Yes, Damian is a ten year old traumatized kid who just lost the dad he didn't really have the chance to get to know. Yes, Damian needed guidance, boundaries, and compassion.

But DC spent so much time and effort building up Tim and Dick's rapport only to obliterate it once the "blood son" came in (I also love Damian. This is not hate on the kid. This is confused commentary on DC's choices). It's just a strange idea, but that's also why it hurts so much when Dick does that to Tim.

Then you tie in Tim losing Robin by Dick to Tim's experiences before? Fuck. You are so right for that.

As far as the RR run, Dick could've handled Tim believing Bruce a bit better. I don't necessarily blame him for that one. I get why he wasn't supportive in the way Tim wanted, even though I would've chosen differently for my siblings.

Dick taking Robin, though? That was fucked up. I, honest to the gods, do not see how that was a justified course of action. I can understand his perspective, but it's still not okay. At all.

There's your very adequate analysis:

Robin, for Tim, is his tie to his loved ones. He has proof (twice) that without it, he does not have access to the people he cares about and his support system.

Dick said a lot of pretty words about "equals," but his actions were precisely contradictory to his "intentions."

Tim has had Robin taken from him before or had to give it up. He chose to go back despite this. He obviously feels strongly about being Robin

Damian has not proven, at this point, to be trustworthy as a vigilante (someone in power without oversight). He has instead shown use of excessive force

This isn't even going into the way he found out. That's just an extra layer.

The way Tim has repeated lost and regained Robin (even after RR) as well as his title as Red ROBIN are, to me, a sign that he's still trying to hold on. It's my belief that he would have moved onto a new title, like his predecessors, if it hadn't constantly been an unsure role.

His start was rocky as hell due to Bruce not initially wanting it. Tim had to prove himself and put himself into the costume.

He "quit" twice before it was taken from him in a traumatic way (nothing like being instilled with the fear that the position you've held for four years can suddenly be yanked out from under you without warning)

Damian and Jason both vehemently protested to him being Robin

It would make sense if all of these factors combined to Tim's unwillingness or inability to just let Robin go, especially when we factor in his reason to be Robin. Since Bruce never really gets "better" and continually falls back into bad habits, Tim needs to maintain his task of pulling Bruce back from the edge. We could also throw Jean Paul into this to further how Tim is forced to play as the barrier between a grown adult and their desire to harm others in the name of good.

So, Tim's time as Robin is marked by consistent instability while contrasted with his inherent position as Bruce's leash and the batfam fixer. While the other Robins did have times of doubt, the predecessors of Tim did not have the pervasive role insecurity with regards to Robin.

They had their big moment at the end and some smaller moments in-between, but not quite on the continous scale of Tim. Tim had three big moments and was still sucked back into Robin when Damian quit.

To be Robin is to earn Bruce's love and the ability to be part of the Wayne family. To lose Robin is the risk of losing that (at least to the perspectives of the Robins if not 100% the reality).

I'm not sure I'm articulating this accurately. Regardless, no wonder Tim clutches the title of Robin with bleeding hands no matter how much it cuts him and costs him.

[doberbutts]

Hello, I have a Dog Question.

I grew up with dogs who were rescue mutts but now that I'm an adult I'm looking at getting a dog from a breeder. All my research says "make sure the breeder is reputable" but I don't know at all how to assess a breeder's reputation. I don't even know how much is normal to pay for a dog, and when I look it up, all the websites seem AI generated. Do you have any advice on where to get more information about that kind of thing? Are there any registries that are really trustworthy, or is it better to try to find word-of-mouth networks on who has a good reputation?

If you don't have any advice, no worries, thanks for reading my question anyways.

It can really depend on what type of dog you are looking for! There isn't necessarily one right answer.

Personally I don't care about reputation (reputable) more than I care about the breeder's personal code of ethics (ethical) being relatively close to my own.

Breeding dogs should be health tested. Not just a DNA test but whatever they may be at risk for due to their size or breed or genetic mixup. These results should be made available to you as a potential buyer, and the breeder should be weeding out or making informed choices for dogs with less than steller results. You need to know what is something that just needs to be bred to a dog with better results, vs what shouldn't be bred at all. This, as said, can vary depending on what exact dogs you're looking at.

The breeder should be asking you for more than just money. Talking to you and making sure that you are the right home for their puppy, and letting you also talk to them and make sure you actually want to buy from them. Do they say things about the dogs that don't sit right with you? Are you okay with the way they keep their dogs? Are they well fed, vaccinated, and have their needs met and cared for? Can you see proof of that? People will just say whatever, but seeing is believing.

What's the average price? Different breeds cost different amounts of money. Dobermans are very expensive! Other breeds cost less. Some cost more! If they're mixing breeds, why and what are they looking to create? Does it seem successful or are they just producing a bunch of dogs just to produce a bunch of dogs? Does the high price seem justified? Dobes are expensive because the health testing is very expensive, but less health tested breeds are cheaper. Is the breeder actually doing that expensive health testing or are they charging high without justifying cost?

Registries are not proof of ethics. Being registered with a registry just means that the dog has a traceable pedigree. So we know who the parents are, great. It doesn't determine anything else about the dog though. There is no registry that I would say exclusively has ethically produced dogs. However if a dog is of a breed that can be registered and yet isn't, that is a red flag.

@molosseraptor is a good friend of mine that runs a dog breed matching service and she also knows how to help people find a breeder that works well for them. I would trust just about any recommendation I got from her! She might be able to help you narrow down the list.

[deviantartdramahub]

2 notes

I don't think you know how babysitting works anon? Imagine if you were a parent who left their child with someone bc you had to go to work or something, but then the babysitter charges to your work place just to make you change your kid. Sounds crazy and insensible, right? Eh why am I trying to reason with you. I really hope no one ever trusted you with their kid XD

5 notes

Please, tell me how in the world this blog is "racist". Bet you won't cuz it's just another buzzword for your slander.

 2 notes

Hon please, you are fucking crazy. He never said kids can consent just bc he acknowledges pedophiles exist lmao. I think you broke both your legs due to the extreme jumping to conclusions...plus, what's the harm in him censoring words? It's completely understandable he doesn't want to say the whole thing, I think you're just pissy you can't get off on the word when it's censored.

4 notes

Dumbass, you acquired personal information of his and used it to threaten him. You completely deserve to be called out for that, you idiot. THE COPS VERY MUCH SHOULD BE CALLED ON YOU. And then you still have the nerve to say he's lying after you're straight up admitting to all this?? Dear God how could you be this stupid. Dox-threatening is a very bad thing hun-bun, even if you don't act on the threat. Imagine if someone sent you a death-threat, but everyone told you it's nothing to be upset about bc "YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY MURDERED, RIGHT?" So how about you shut up and admit you did something terrible...and the added blackmail based on slander is horrible. You put Club in danger whether you admit it or not. I really do bet you take pride in that though, you sick fuck...reasonable people know you're 100% in the wrong though.

0 notes

Loveless literally just came to DA to attack Club. He did NOTHING to her and she started harassing him, then for some reason got shocked when he called her out and started crying. We all know YOU are the victim-blamers here, that's one of your favorite things to do, smh.

3 notes

Got any proof the roleplay in question was an erp? No? Aight good day.

1 note

You wish, I bet you'd wank to it. Too bad Club would never do something like that.

3 notes

What evidence? And you're the ones who try to silence anyone who doesn't agree with you, lmao.

1 note

Explain to me how this was automatically Club's fault.

2 notes

Number one, that's a screenshot sweetheart. A screenshot that could've very well been manipulated. So remember, it isn't valid proof! ^w^

Number 2, proof that you refuse to give a voice to anyone who doesn't agree with you or even questions you. One of the reasons why this blog is 100% better. You just want to tune everyone out and surround yourself with yes-men while Tri lets everyone give their story, and gives everyone a fair chance. The fact you want everyone to only listen to you shows you aren't trustworthy.

3 notes

Roleplaying with people is always grooming?? Thus the logic of DADramaNow. Apparently all RPs are automatically sexual.

1 note

Lmao Sam doesn't have friends.

1 note

An example of DADramaNow using the "fetish mining" term on Club.

2 notes

You just contradicted yourself there. If Club didn't know that fetish existed, how could you accuse him of having it?? He's innocent and you know it, just give up already.

Another long one with many call-outs in one post let's gooo babyyyy.

I remember someone commented once to say that the thing about Mod S and college was a cover for being arrested by the FBI. Meanwhile, Club still has a presence here. Flawless victory.

[thundergoodspeed]

"here's the proof" like that shit isn't hard to doctor in a screenshot anyway, and yeah i read those rules the first time i followed and don't recall seeing the "they/them" stuff. which, you know, considering I'm transmasc genderfluid and "they" is something I'm more likely to remember, but granted my brain isn't typical so my memory might not be the best.

but then there's the whole matter of the callout doc that said "my pronouns aren't she/her". that's fine. but you didn't actually say what they were in that doc, so i didn't ask anyone about it. i didn't argue it. i didn't know what they were so i avoided using pronouns altogether. I'm throwing my hat in the ring as someone who was not misgendered by the person you claim to be hurt by. that makes it fifty-fifty, if i were to admit you're not lying about being upfront about your pronouns. now until we get a third person whose pronouns she did or did not disrespect, you can't reasonably claim she is transphobic.

secondly, you claim to not want people to harass these individuals, however i seem to have seen two separate screenshots of flooded inboxes followed by a closing of the "anonymous" feature. get your own white knights in check. now i did not receive any of them myself so i don't know who's sending them or really the breadth of the messages sent, but from what I've heard they are hurtful, immature, and underresearched. oh, and if you tell someone, even anonymously, to kill themself, that is a death threat and illegal.

oh, and i thought that "goodbye letter" was supposed to be y'all's last word on the subject. you not adhering to that makes you less beholden to your own word, which by extension makes you less trustworthy.

all this proves my point that callouts are harmful to the community AT BEST. we can stop being at each other's throats. we don't have to like each other. i don't like everyone in the group you guys have lumped me with. we all just wanna stay in our corners and have fun with our friends. apart from me posting these multi-paragraph responses yelling into the ether, we've all done our best to keep to ourselves. my hits on your site have been my anxiety and impostor syndrome checking to see if you added more to the doc--kinda the callout version of me checking the fridge five times a day to check if the milks gone bad even if the expiration date is two weeks from now. it's irrational on my end, but that's the reason. you are causing me, personally, anxiety. for a group that "wants peace" you sure do seem to revel in the harm you've done.

just leave us alone.

[concerningwolves]

As someone who did blindly reblog the original version of this post, I just want to add on a bit more commentary. All the above has already done a great job of explaining why this is misinformation. I'm going to break down what made the misinformation easy (and appealing!) to swallow, because critical thinking is a great power that I definitely should have used.

The main "stumbling blocks" (so to speak) that can make people fall into believing this right away are:

TikTok user itsdrmax is wearing blue surgical scrubs

Screenshot proves that there is academic work on the subject

Instant hit of validation and/or the sense of "finding an answer" for something

The latter two are simpler to break down, I think. If you see that there is Actual Medical/Scientific Literature on a topic, you're much more likely to think "Ah, then the statement this person is making is correct!" A screenshot of a paper from The National Institutes of Health with an excerpt that corroborates what the man in the video is saying looks like proof. But titles are only titles, and excerpts are only teeny tiny fragments of a summary designed for people to scan quickly when searching the internet. They're not representative of the actual content.

Science is also, er, not an exact science. In order to get any answers at all, a lot of people do a lot of different studies and experiments. Not all of these studies and experiments are equal. Sometimes there are conflicts of interest, sometimes the methodology is flawed, sometimes there are mistakes. The existence of these studies only proves the existence of a theory, which may be disproved or improved upon in the future. This is hard to remember, because we like concrete answers! And it's appealing when someone claims to be able to give us those answers!

But appeal is an emotional reaction, as is that sense of validation. ADHD has been mischaracterised and misunderstood for such a long time, which means the people with ADHD (whether diagnosed, self-diagnosed or undiagnosed) crave that validation from medical/psychiatric quarters, or at least crave explanations for why you work the way you do. You're not stupid or gullible for latching onto something like this; you're just a human being who wants to Know Things about yourself. This is however why it's so important to shore up your critical thinking skills, so you can catch yourself before instantly believing things and then getting disappointed when they turn out to be false/misleading. (And disappointment is by far the best case scenario; misinformation can do serious harm).

All of this is compounded by TikTok user itsdrmax's outfit. The first question: why is he wearing surgical scrubs? He's making a TikTok video; he is not, I would hope, in a sterile surgical environment or on the point or entering or leaving one. There's no practical reason for it, so he must be wearing them for aesthetic purposes. This isn't an inherently bad thing – most people dress up a bit if they're making planned or scripted videos, and a lot of vloggers and vlog-adjacent content creators have signature looks. All it means is that you need to ask yourself what's the purpose of this particular look in this particular context?

The blue surgical scrubs are an instant visual identifier of A Doctor, and he's giving information about a medical matter. On social media, where people are used to scrolling and making split-second decisions about a post based on visual cues and information, having a recognisable look is a powerful tool. This is doubly true when the recognisable look has immediate connotations of trustworthiness. It makes the content seem legitimate, which means people are more likely to interact with it.

I don't know if "Doctor Max" is actually a doctor, and you don't need to find out if he is to question the video's content. People lie online all the time, and if he can buy himself recording equipment, he can buy himself scrubs and stethoscope. If he is a doctor, one has to assume that he's getting his scrubs from other sources, because I doubt any hospital would like their staff taking equipment home to make TikTok videos. Either way, this is a deliberate choice of dress designed specifically to make people think "Oh, this guy is telling me interesting stuff AND I can trust him", thereby garnering more engagement.

You don't need to go further than this. It can be enough to simply ask yourself critical questions about who is making the video to break your fall before it starts. I was curious though, so I decided to look into this guy further, and picked up a few things of note. According to the information on his website, he's a surgeon whose areas of expertise are vascular and visceral surgery. It also says he's authored articles on these topics, which checks out. So, yeah, he is a medical professional – but, he's also making content tailored for social media. In these cases, a solid rule of thumb for any social media content is that engagement and interaction are likely to be at the forefront of the creators' mind, which can negatively impact factual accuracy no matter who the creator is.

What I also found very interesting is that most of this guy's content is just... really, really simple. I don't mean that this is a bad thing, just that there's little to no room for nuance or analysis. The og video of this chain is a great example, actually! He's pretty much paraphrasing the Google search excerpt for the article about postural sway and regional cerebellar volume. And the thing about those excerpts is, they're there to A) get people to click on the website, and B) let people quickly scan results before clicking on the website to learn more. Unfortunately, with Dr Max's snazzy scrubs and his entire online persona as a medical doctor giving people easily accessible information, it sounds like he's telling viewers a concrete fact instead of the results of a single study in an area that needs more research.

(Also, the first thing that comes up on his direct.me is a link to something called Done., which is a website that claims to give therapy to people with ADHD. I don't know how legitimate it is, or what connection there is to Dr Max. I've already spent an hour on this and my dog needs feeding, so I'll save that particular investigation for another day.)

every once in a while i learn some wild new piece of information that explains years of behavior and reminds me that i will never truly understand everything about my ridiculous adhd brain

[docmothra]

There's an acquaintance of mine who's conservative, and so there's a lot of reasons I don't really agree with him, but one of the things he tends to say is 'rude'. Any situation where one person is being what he sees as impolite to someone else, he'll call it out as rude. Which is fine and dandy in concept. But his concept of rude is weirdly selective. He won't call it rude if someone is making fun of gay people, for instance, or autistic people. But he will call it rude if someone is saying 'yeah you don't know this guy but he's kind of unironically racist and just a dick for the record'. Which sorta reveals it's not really about rudeness, or politeness, because he doesn't actually oppose those in practice. It almost looks like it's about social exclusion - but he pretty much tries actively to exclude the kind of person he thinks should be excluded from society (gay, autistic, furry, trans). It's completely selective. He'll hang the groups he politically disagrees with out to dry, and he'll act as if any other instance of hostility is uncalled for. I don't even know if it's conscious malice, exactly. You could say he never crosses the line of admitting malicious intent, but I don't think that changes the severity of what he's doing. In his head he's built some kind of barrier between things it's okay to be passively hostile towards - including queer people, autistic people, atheism, furries, and left-wing politics in general - and things that it isn't okay to be hostile about - including racism and sexism. Which ties into a different opinion he has that anyone in that category that should-be-outcasts: -Are morally degenerate (due to a warped understanding of what is okay and/or good) -Do not perceive the world correctly (due to their moral degeneracy/warped worldview) -Are dangerous to listen to because they might convince you their worldview is correct -Have no basis for their beliefs at all (because they didn't actually think about them) -Need to be fixed, but don't think they need to be fixed, so they should be tricked into fixing themselves Which plays into a whole long-term disingenous dynamic of goalpost moving where he'll poke and prod at your beliefs, make you feel bad about them, and complain if you: -assert a belief without proof ('lol why would I believe that') -assert a belief with scientific proof ('academic papers are so biased against conservative views they can't be trusted') -assert a belief with theological proof ('like I would trust a non-theology major to read the bible') -assert a belief with anecdotal proof ('you need a peer-reviewed academic paper to have a sample size that's trustworthy') -assert a belief with abstract moral proof ('it isn't biblical so it's fundamentally the wrong basis') -assert a belief with conceptual logical proof (he isn't reading that) -assert a belief as an unproven but personally meaningful concept (that's unconvincing, so you're wrong and you should feel bad about having your wrong opinion) -expect him to read or remember anything you say; express memory of anything he has said in the past (he's not terminally online like you, go touch grass) -express any failure to remember any detail of anything he has said in the past (lol your memory doesn't even exist, why would he listen to you?) -respond to his comments at all (he wasn't here for a big long conversation...) -fail to respond to his comments (very rude how do you expect communication to even happen here if you don't talk???) Anyway, like, that's how this kind of stuff shows up? People are just people, and over time you realize that some of them are dicks. And you also realize that they think anyone who isn't like them is just. Bad. On an inherent level. And then you realize 'holy crap I need new friends'. End rant?

[fizzingwizard]

a rant because sometimes you gotta, or just tear your hair out (warning for incels, misogyny, and incel logic lol lol)

I just read a message that stated 1) incels harassing women online counts as a "social experiment" 2) those "social experiments" are trustworthy because there are "thousands" of them (although despite a long back-and-forth, none were ever actually presented, neither were links or sources or even any proof why I should believe the elusive women in question are even real), 3) all the women in these "social experiments" immediately agreed upon being told they're ugly bitches to meet up irl with these hot but rude men, apparently with zero of the concerns for their own safety most people online have, 3) this proves without a doubt that negging absolutely works in general on the majority of women, and that when women complain about rude behavior from men online it is because they have a victim complex and not because they want the rudeness to stop.

Now aside from the perfect "tell me you're an incel without saying you're an incel" moment, here is what is essential for all women, and really anyone with more than one brain cell, to remember when interacting with them:

When your opinion is realistic, decent, empathetic, and rational, but the other person still insists that their unfair, unreasonable, cold, self-serving, offensive opinion is the correct one, you have to know that you are right anyway. This is one of the essential skills of being an adult: how to spot when an opinion is a good one. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not all opinions are created equal. Because of human individuality it is near impossible to know anything about our nature with 100% certainty. No doubt negging does work on some people who maybe enjoy the rise of being provoked, or who have experienced too much poor treatment in their life that their boundaries are blurred. But by the same token, it is that very complexity of nature which makes any generalization that conveniently serves one's selfish purpose immediately suspect.

And if a person presents their opinion boldly and with confidence, a reasonable person will feel confused, and wonder if they're missing something. Because that person is decent and knows that information needs to be verifiable, that personal anecdotes are not by themselves a social experiment, that social experiments themselves have flaws and variables which need accounting for, and that anyone can lie with ease on the internet - but they afford the same value of honesty to the other person, whose dogged persistence throws them for a loop. That's when you simply MUST trust in your own discernment.

No sources means no validity. No proof that the participants involved are even who they say they are means no credibility (this is doubly true when - as in the case I saw today - the person makes wild claims without proof while simultaneously disbelieving screenshots and other sources given by others which say he's wrong because they can't be proven). "My friend is a 6 foot tall model type and he's never been rejected by any woman ever and went on one hundred dates in a single year" tells you absolutely nothing that can be verified, nothing that can prove this isn't an outlier if it is true. And it throws OP's opinion in such an entitled, self-serving, convenient light that even if it is true, it needs more information to justify it, not less. But you can be sure they'll never admit that and will endlessly dodge the point, and rely purely on bravado, which for some reason is better able to convince certain types of emotionally-motivated people than actual facts.

Incels are emotional vampires. They prey on each other's dissatisfaction and misery. Instead of supporting each other to lift themselves out of their hole, they are so afraid of what they'll see in the light that they use every method in their power to rationalize why the light is bad and wrong and the cave may not be everything they ever dreamed of but at least it won't hurt them. They believe PUAs because it lets them feel powerful ("even if I never have a chance to use these skills myself, now I know how to control women"). They don't believe a word real women say because it makes them feel helpless ("women lie and I know this because what they say doesn't agree with how I'm feeling. men who agree with them are chads who do it for sex or weaklings"). Everything they believe is rooted in undeveloped, uncontrolled emotionalism. No one else deserves sympathy, no one understands them. They hate women but want to date them but dating women is a horrible experience but they clamor to know how to pick them up but being with them is awful but only chads get women but their life would be so much better if they had a girlfriend but women only like guys who treat them badly but im a nice guy even though no one apparently wants that...???

The logic of the incel is always: how can I make myself the martyr? Men don't abuse women: women want to be abused (problem solved!). Women don't want to date me: women only like bad guys (I don't have to put effort into self-improvement!). I had a bad experience with a shallow and mean woman: this proves the majority of women are shallow and mean (but if a woman has a bad experience with a shallow and mean man it's because she likes bad guys instead of nice guys like me and she should have chosen someone better if she didn't want to get abused).

Not all opinions are created equal. Not all opinions are created equal. Believing something because it divests you of all responsibility for considering another person's feelings or experiences is not sensible. It is not worthy of respect. And it does not negate the need for evidence. Vague, nonspecific allusions to "social experiments" don't count. Nor do your friends joining in with their personal tales of woe (which in this case were two persuasive essays titled "Girls liked me better when I was hot" and "I saw incels talking about females they successfully negged somewhere on the Internet" lol).

Being an adult means judging for yourself. If you don't have discernment you will be lost in the mire. The problem is that these guys are fine being lost as long as they can continue to suck other people in by clouding their judgment with brags, boasts, and addictive bursts of unguarded emotion. So to anyone who ever doubts their discernment because of how fucking convinced these guys are that they're right just because: keep the tools of verifiable evidence, controls for variables, and humility always at hand and you'll never be lost. You might be wrong sometimes - happens to the best of us - but you'll be respectable even then. Don't let them trick you: it is NOT better to appear right, or have the appearance of righteousness, than it is to be open-minded. And you CAN'T be a nice guy if you choose the former, because the former DOES cause harm, both to women and to emotionally vulnerable men who get tricked as well. My dude, that is not being nice: that is literally being mean.

(By the way, since personal anecdotes :) :) count as social experiments :) :) :) evidently, here's mine: When I used online dating, I got four types of messages: detailed descriptions of graphic violence the sender would like to do to me despite our never having spoken before; conversations which began well then degenerated into him hurling insults and accusations at me because I didn't text back right away; requests for sex despite my prefs stating that I don't hop into bed without knowing someone well and was only interested in long term relationships; some genuinely good conversations with nice, non-abusive men. I met my boyfriend that way. It took a lot of patience, a lot of rejection, and a few tears (the violent messages were really creepy to me), but we're still together five years later and he has never, not even once, ever been mean to me. Go figure.)

[misshorrorotaku]

I never said the humanitarian crisis wasn't real. Just that these blogs aren't.

Look, is there a tiny fraction of these blogs that are real? Sure, but most of them aren't. the vast VAST majority of them aren't. Having pictures of good looking Arabic people, some photos of rubble and a collage of a room does not make these legitimate.

I am not going to encourage people to trust something just cuz another person on social media says they're legit. That is not a trustworthy source. There are organizations you can donate too, organizations that would do a lot more help than taking the tiniest fraction of a chance you're sending it to someone who isn't a scammer.

The fact is, GoFundMe does not operate in Gaza, and you have no tangible proof that the money being sent to gofundme's is actually getting to the people who need it, let alone that they're able to use that money to escape via Egypt. As this post explains, even paying for their spot is not a guarantee of escape.

Instead of wasting your money on maybes, there are humanitarian groups that WILL have a guarantee of help.

Scrolling through Tumblr, seeing tons of gofundme's about Gaza, and just wanna remind everyone:

Go Fund Me is not supported in Gaza. These are scams.

Here is a list of countries that GoFundMe is supported in. Gaza is not one of them.

I get wanting to help people. I do. But don't give your money to scammers, that won't help anyone. There are actual on the ground humanitarian groups you can donate to if you really wanna give monetary aid.

[satanfemme]

wish it weren't such a common punchline online to make fun of people who struggle with work, or who can't work, because of mental disorders like. idk I know those jokes (supposedly) aren't "about" people with impairments, they're about those other selfish people who "just want to avoid responsibilities" or whatever but.

idk. weird how even in leftist and anti-capitalist circles there's such a social stigma against not-working that people will just straight up Make Fun Of You publicly for not being "productive" enough. especially once they have any evidence at all that you're guilty of "choosing" not to be productive -- and are therefor, obviously, just a privileged and selfish asshole who simply acts this way because you want others to work for you. and so u deserve any ridicule you get ig. (as if this isn't the same exact shit we hear in the real world too when we struggle with work.)

& so often I've seen that damning 'evidence' be something like, "well they're only diagnosed with ADHD which isn't even that bad lol, so they must just be exaggerating and lazy"... and first of all you can't see inside their brain so it's weird to assume that's the only thing they're dealing with but ok. but also???? as if ADHD alone isn't literally a neurodevelopmental disorder that effects the way you function as a person? and literally has in the diagnosis criteria: "symptoms interfere with social, school, or work functioning"? *this criteria is shared by all disorders btw. that's what makes them "disorders". there is no such thing as a "not that bad" or "doesn't actually affect your life" disorder, especially not when accounting for human variability, hope this helps <3

like, god. this post isn't about ADHD specifically btw. it's about mental disorders in general being dismissed as not being something that could ever make it difficult -- or sometimes impossible -- for a person to work, either professionally or with "simple" tasks like chores. but honestly... if using ADHD as my main example here makes this seem "less serious" of a post, that'd just prove my point. cause I'm sorry cringy tiktok users are ruining this label for you but the frequency at which I see the label "ADHD" alone used as a punchline, or even as proof against someone's trustworthiness, is insane. if the existence of shitty social media personalities makes you forget it's a real disorder with real consequences, and that it deserves at least some level of understanding and sympathy, then you are Literally a piece of shit. and also ableist lol.

anyways. my point is if you really think someone with a mental disorder that interferes with their ability to function as a human being is actually targeting you, personally, either by saying they struggle with work, or by just not working... and you think this somehow gives you the right to publicly dismiss and mock them for having said disorder..... you're fucking stupid. and also you should be critical of which jokes and memes you spread around because there's no reason why posts mocking disorders or the symptoms of disorders, either directly or passively, should be getting as popular as they are.

cause like, the thing is if someone's lack of ability were genuinely causing a conflict for you, the solution would be communication, sympathy, and finding work-arounds or compromises. refusing to engage in that, and refusing to accommodate for their inabilities, makes you just as selfish as you're judging them to be.

[imo-chan-imagines]

『 Haikyuu!! Week 2020 | Day 7 』

· Oct. 1st → Fly! ·

Characters: (teams) Karasuno, Nekoma, Fukurodani, Aoba Johsai, Shiratorizawa, (indiv.) Miya Atsumu, Miya Osamu, Aone Takanobu

Prompts: A. free choice!

Tags/warnings: Haikyuu!! (anime), Among Us (video game), PG, fluff, crack, video games, video game violence/death, headcanons, HaikyuuWeek2020

A/N: Among Us is a bit of a hot meme at the moment (great game. Go and play it/watch other people play it if you can. Get a feel for the game if you somehow haven't already.) So I thought, 'Hey, why not?' I mean, I do need to heal my heart after my Day 6 post, so...

What an amazing week it's been! Well done, everyone! All of my Haikyuu Week 2020 posts are SFW, but there's a little treasure trove of NSFW on my blog, too. Please peruse to your heart's content. Thanks for reading! Please enjoy! ♡

Haikyuu boys / playing Among Us

☆ Karasuno ☆

Literally the loudest games you'll ever witness

You know that grainy, electronic crackle that happens when everybody yells on Discord at the same time? Yeah. That

Kageyama can't lie for shit. It's so obvious when he's lying that it's a genuine miracle if he doesn't immediately get ejected

And he stands in all the wrong places when he's faking doing his tasks 😭😭

But he sounds super suspicious when he's telling the truth, too 😅

Noya and Tanaka buddy up no matter what, and go around trying to clear or murder people together

They also end up fuelling each other's incorrect assumptions

Asahi is way too timid to murder anyone right away, so if nobody dies in the first two rounds, you know it's him or someone trying to frame him...

Daichi is the host and tries to keep order in the lobby...tries someone help him

Hinata: Guys, please stop swearing! Natsu is watching me play!! waahhh 🙈 so cute 😇

Hinata always has to be orange. Don't touch his orange

Ennoshita is the king of self-reporting and getting away with it it just be like that

Kageyama goes around called 'Milk' 🥛

Tsukki tries to big-brain the shit out of it 🤣

He's also hella manipulative as an imposter and refuses to kill Yamaguchi 😭

Suga likes to take out the oxygen/recator and lie in wait for the people who come to fix it he will giggle adorably when it ends up working, which sounds kinda pshyco, ngl 😂

But totally screams at his screen when someone he suspected sneaks up on him and kills him

Yamaguchi low-key prefers the mini games to the actual game 😭😭

And Yachi loves being pink and wearing the little flower in her hair ngl, she nearly fainted the first time she got killed

She doesn't play with them often because it's so loud 😬

☆ Nekoma ☆

Kenma streams the gaming sessions on Twitch, and now they kind of have a cult following 🤷‍♀️

These fans be thirsting hard, too like us

Check out my smut headcanons, y'all 🙌

Kuroo is the closest to a genius player you're ever going to see

He does his tasks fairly efficiently, he's good at remembering layouts and people's movements, he calculates the timings of his kills with terrifying accuracy, defends himself pretty well, whether he's lying or not, can gaslight the entire lobby into sussing an innocent person, and pieces together other people's lies with surprising ease

Do not cross Kuroo. He's scary at this game. He's not the Scheming Captain for nothing, y'all

Lev is the kind of person to vent right in front of someone by accident, which is so awkward, but so funny 😂

The entire team must wear the bear ears hat. Yes, that is a rule

It's the closest to cat ears they have right now....

Kenma is pretty quiet when he's playing. He doesn't normally play online games, but his streams took off on Twitch, sooo~

Kenma also has radar ears and can somehow detect when people are lying, but waits until he has proof to accuse them he smart 🤓

☆ Fukurodani ☆

'Whoever Talks the Loudest is Right' mentality 😂

And Bokuto will defend himself at the volume of an air raid siren

Akaashi stays as quiet as possible so he doesn't give anything away

When Bokuto starts sussing people, it turns into something out of Ace Attorney like, chill tf out, man 😂

But his guesses are normally completely wrong

Akaashi sets good parameters for the games, because he's sensible

If Bokuto is given the chance to host the lobby....he will set one task each, put everyone at 4x speed, give the imposter zero cooldown time, and sit back and watch the chaos

Whenever somebody doesn't have an absolutely airtight alibi–

Bokuto: That's hella sus, bro

Lots of childish nicknames, because...well, they're all mentally six years old

Except Akaashi, who has a higher mental age than all of them combined

Let me just say that when Bokuto and Kuroo play together, shit gets so funny

When one of them is an imposter, they will literally vent in front of the other one and trust them not to out them 😂😂

☆ Aoba Johsai ☆

Iwa-chan can always tell when Oikawa is lying, and constantly calls him out on it

Iwa: That's his lying voice. Shitty-kawa is lying. He's the imposter. Vote him off

Oikawa: IWAAA-CHAAAN D:<

Because Iwa's right about Oikawa when he is the imposter, it makes it easy to frame him when it's actually Iwa who's the imposter

And no-one believes Tooru 😭😭

Kyoutani has no chill as an imposter

He just murders everyone on sight, right in front of people, too

Kindaichi tends to accuse people with very little evidence, but his instincts are weirdly accurate

Oikawa gets killed almost immediately every game, so if he isn't dead two emergency meetings in, he's 100% an imposter 😭😭

He then goes around as a salty ghost when he's killed off, mumbling to himself about injustice as he refuses to do his tasks and watches the people who voted him off get murdered one by one

Not that anyone's holding a grudge 🙄😂

Oikawa refuses to be purple and always kills whoever is purple first because it reminds him of Ushijima 😭😭

☆ Shiratorizawa ☆

Ushijima refuses to play if he can't be purple give it back. N O W

And it takes him a long time to get used to the game and the rules

'Why are the lights off? What are these tasks? Why is that one flashing at me? Where is med bay? Why can I use this vent? What's this big, red button for?' etc.

You get the idea. Toshi = big noob

He doesn't really understand the concept of lying, either...

He keeps forgetting to mute himself and ends up saying some very incriminating stuff over the mic which has everyone in literal tears from laughter

Tendou is a sneaky S.O.B, using those vents like a pro and gaslighting perfectly innocent people he's a little bloodthirsty, too 🤫

And his initial guesses about who's the imposter are almost always 100% correct Guess Monster, y'all

Goshiki goes around trying to clear people by watching them doing their tasks, especially Ushijima

But then he gets called suspicious for hanging around people too much

The first time an emergency meeting was ever called, Ushijima literally asked "Why is my name in red?" much to everyone's amusement

Everyone's scared of Ushijima when he follows them, but it normally turns out that he just doesn't know where he's going

Shirabu tends to lose his shit when people start accusing him and he's innocent, and will never EVER trust a word that comes out of Goshiki's mouth

Speaking of, Goshiki and Shirabu – boy, do they bicker like eight year-olds, wasting entire voting rounds just arguing with each other 🙄😭

So everyone else decides to vote off one, and then the other at the next meeting 😭😭

Misc.

☆ The Miya twins ☆

Atsumu puts 100% trust in Osamu not to kill him, even if he is the imposter

How could he? He's his brother. His twin. His other half. They share a unique bond–

And then he screams in betrayal when Osamu slaughters him mercilessly 😂😂

Osamu is unaffected by the sudden outburst from his brother's room

Put them together as an imposter duo, though, and you're in for some trouble

They often win by executing a perfect double kill

And they're both pretty good at lying, but Osamu will not hesitate to throw Atsumu under the bus and vote him off if he's being too suspicious or the lobby has turned against him 😂

Ah, the bond of brotherhood 😂

☆ Aone Takanobu ☆

Aone doesn't talk very much

But when he does, his voice is so low and even that nobody ever suspects he's the imposter

I'm thinking like Corpse Husband, if you've seen him playing with Pewds and the gang

It doesn't really occur to people that he could be lying. He seems so trustworthy and honest

Finds it very hard to blame anyone else, though

Is fairly decent as doing his tasks as a crewmate, but it takes him a long time to remember the layouts of the ships

Almost never gets voted off the ship

© imo-chan-imagines 2020

[renardtrickster]

"It marked a bunch of people I follow as red!" You haven't provided screenshots so it's impossible to verify if the marks were warranted, as far as I'm concerned you haven't met the burden of proof and I am ignoring you now.

"Stop blindly trusting it." If you view it as a "shut your brain off and believe the redmark it never lies" then that says more about you than it does about it.

"You're crowdsourcing your morality!" There's a lot of baggage to address here and I'm throwing away every suitcase but one. I already have my morality, I think transphobes are bad, the extension just warns me when one shows up so I can either block them (and I usually check for proof anyways) or ignore them.

"But this person calls out transphobia all the time!" It is possible to take offense when someone on the internet calls for the death of all trans people, and to still cross the line for transphobia. You can be opposed to genocide and still think that nonbinary people are fake, or that any trans person who doesn't view their transness as some horrendous malady is a trender, or that if you don't intend to pursue medical treatment then you're faking it. The site's official guidelines say as much.

"But this one is a genuine false positive!" No system works perfectly, and instead of throwing your hands up and saying "it isn't 100% accurate therefore it's 0% trustworthy" you could instead be doing something more useful, like clearing the mark or spreading awareness of the fact/your argument that this person has been unfairly marked. I've seen trans shitpost accounts get marked red and instead of having a breakdown over the fact that a trans girl who says the t-word got marked red unfairly, I just unmarked her and moved on. I've seen people that used to be transphobes who turned over a new leaf and are still red, so instead of sobbing at the lack of redemption on the internet I just cleared them and moved on.

"You can just mark anyone as transphobic!" There's a review team staffed by actual people. If you mark someone red they're red to you, and only become red for everyone once the review passes. Goodness knows I've marked people green who have made trans advocacy half of their platform and they still haven't been given the go-ahead.

"It's essentially a tool showing you who to harass! Being marked red is like having a target painted on your back!" This doesn't happen. People mark you red to avoid you. Some transphobes do harass anyone marked green though! That's one valid criticism, and I wish an option could be implemented that lets you opt out of being marked green, or that the green option gets removed altogether! But it's not a criticism that I see anybody who hates Shinigami Eyes make really. Hmm...

"The creator is an abuser!" I never see this get backed up that isn't sourced from some site that's known to Make Shit Up for the purpose of harassment, but even if that's true what does this effect? The creator being a shit doesn't mean you stop being a shit either. Not to mention I know the people saying this line don't believe that reading a book made by some ancient racist means you're racist. Begone.

"B-" The internet is an ocean, and we live in an era where millionaires are dumping everything they have into radicalizing people into becoming sharks, making being a shark a "cool" and mainstream, making it sound like being a shark is some intellectual and subversive position to hold, even passing laws making it legal for sharks to eat and farm people. I don't know why you're so fixated on trying to convince everyone that the shark-detecting radar is actually bad and shouldn't be used. I don't think you're a shark for doing this, you're probably just misguided, but I do know a lot of sharks make the same arguments you do, and they do it because they're hungry. Having thought it out for quite a bit, and in the interest of self-preservation, I am choosing to treat words that sound like they came from a shark's mouth, as though a shark said them. I don't trust sharks.

I don't have a long post for this right now but I've seen one million arguments about why you shouldn't use or trust Shinigami Eyes and not only are all of them wrong, but they're so poorly reasoned or grounded in a faulty basis that at this point it's impossible for me to see those kinds of posts as anything but bad faith and/or someone uncharismatically attempting to persuade people not to use a genuinely useful tool for detecting transphobes that works 99% of the time if you're using it reasonably (read: aren't a strawman character that uses the redmark like a shotgun and runs in fear anytime they see a red link).