#like i mean i do kind of judge people for using far right social media

[wewontbesleeping]

damn the more time goes on, the more it really is obvious that there is nothing in the world that will stop some people from using twitter/x lmfao

[qqueenofhades]

what gets me is whenever any of these people says not to vote, and you ask them what the alternative is, they usually throw some tantrum about how it shouldn't be their job to fix this country and they're not expected to know (or start calling you a neoliberal or a bootlicker lmao) and i just. i don't get that? not voting, especially in the current climate, is a big deal. i don't think it's unreasonable to ask anyone who advocates for that what the alternative is. i'm not expecting you, online leftist, to magically know how to fix everything. i am expecting something from you if you're gonna tell me not to vote, especially when we both know that helps the gop. like, how dare we ask them to defend this big choice they're telling us to make?

their position boils down to helping trump and the republicans but any time you remind them of that they get upset. what is the alternative? what plan do they have? it would be one thing if there was another option that they'd come up with, but they haven't and don't seem interested in doing so. mutual aid and organizing is only going to take us so far and it'll be a hell of a lot easier to do it with biden in office than trump

The whole "it doesn't matter who's president/in charge of the government because mutual aid and organizing is the only valid way to do community engagement" is the leftist version of the Brexit nutcases who, and I swear I am not making this up, argued that it was fine if the UK left the EU trading sphere/single market/customs union with nothing to replace it, because "Britain is a nation of farmers and can grow food in our back gardens!!!!" Yes, because you're so devoted to your stupid ideology that you think the large-scale collapse of society, a major world power, a western democracy, and everything else will have no effect, and you can just do your little Facebook mutual aid groups and happily shout on Twitter at anyone who disagrees with you. Never mind the fact that this would obviously and immediately harm vulnerable people the most and that nobody, not even the Online Leftists themselves, actually wants to live in the Violent Revolution Total Anarchy World they masturbate to. Maybe this makes me a neoliberal corporate shill, but I'd rather that the world got better, instead of worse. I would actually prefer that myself, my friends, my family, my whole life, the whole country, and the rest of the world wasn't sacrificed on the Great Revolution Altar, but I shouldn't worry. We have mutual aid. At least as long as a) you have never said anything the Online Leftists even slightly disagree with, since they're sure as hell not the kind of people I would trust to have my back in any large-scale societal collapse, and b) I guess they'll all be growing food in their back gardens too, rather than using any of those dirty "government" or "society" things to supply their basic needs. We're saved! No need to worry. Bring on the anarchy.

Aside from the fact that Online Leftists, as I have said before, think that moral action begins and ends with posting the Right Opinions on social media at the correct timeframe and any other action or engagement with a flawed system or basic reality is heresy, they don't like being challenged -- i.e. "if we don't vote, then what do we do?" -- because a) it questions their authority as supreme arbiters of morality, and b) it means that there should actually be an action in place of cutting out something so consequential as voting, which likewise clashes with their "everything will be fixed by Magical Thinking" viewpoint. They don't want to be asked what to do in place of voting, or in anything at all; they want to think their correct thoughts and judge anyone who doesn't, regardless of how logically incoherent these things are or the inevitable outcome of those decisions, because nothing bad is ever their fault, or even the Republicans' fault, or anyone else at all except for the Democrats and/or "the West." I mean, yeah, if they're going around to preach the Don't Vote Because It's Actually Evil gospel, it's the bare fucking minimum to expect that they have something to offer in return besides Ye Olde Bolshevik cosplay fantasies. Since they don't, they get tetchy when you point that out.

Also, while I know it's the social media fashion that everything has to be the worst thing ever and we have plenty of the "Biden is also a genocidal fascist but I guess vote for him or something" utterly-minimum-standard posts going around, I will point out why that rhetoric is a) wrong and b) unhelpful. (Not that I expect it will make a single difference to anyone who has to get their internet cred by yelling about how Biden is a fascist, but still.) No, Biden is not a fascist by any logical definition of the word, you would have to do a lot of work to convince me that he is personally genocidal beyond what is demanded of any post-1948 American president who exists in an extremely complicated international sphere with long-standing alliances (such as, yes, with Israel) and indeed not quite a bit more progressive than literally every one of his predecessors, and it makes those actual words useless. If you claim that "Biden and Trump are both genocidal fascists," you are utterly effacing those categories as any kind of critical or useful distinction. You can't argue for any difference, you can't point out policy essentials or nuances, you can't make the most basic of empirical observances or come to a judgment on whether any part of that statement is true, because language has been deliberately stripped of meaning and used to score Cool Internet Leftist points. How can we explain what fascism or genocide actually are and what to do about them, if it's just what you call everyone as a matter of course whenever they disagree with you? You can't. That's the point.

Once again: I strongly disagree with the idea of just giving Israel/Netanyahu a blank check to keep committing atrocities, but I also need to repeatedly point out that Biden isn't doing that. His initial unconditional support of Israel after October 7 (which at the time was the correct response) has shifted to a much more measured and conditional approach where he has muted the overtly pro-Israel statements and started talking about a two-state solution and the need to protect the lives of civilians and trying to keep a lid on what could become a REALLY bad situation with all kinds of war-hungry powers eager to jump into the Middle East and blow it completely to hell. As I have said in my other posts, Trump will not do this. Trump will do the exact opposite. Which is why Netanyahu, who doesn't like having his hands tied precisely in the way Biden is doing, is trying so hard to get Trump back in. This also extends to the people who think that the West/the U.S. is the source of all evil in the world, but they're somehow the only people that can make actual choices or have real agency. Everyone else is just an American puppet; everyone is being lied to or manipulated by America/the West; nobody ever chose anything of their own free will; America/the West could roll in and put a stop to everything bad if they "really wanted to," but choose not to because etc. etc., Evil. As such, this completely fact-free belief is basically the central starting point for Online Leftism, which as I have also said, is now beyond useless and verging on just as deranged and actively dangerous as the fascists, especially since they are 100% willing to enable far-right fascism however and whenever they can because something something, That Will Show Us.

Anyway. Yes. Whew.

[teoft]

It's like Tumblr has become almost a diary for me, thanks to no character limit and a read more button. This atmosphere of acceptance and understanding helps a lot too.

I'll get back to posting actual art, juggling with Twitter and Bluesky along with commissions is taking up a lot of my time.

Anyway, thoughts about art community and being social

For the longest time I've had this feeling of being an outsider in this vague community of artists that see as colleagues of sorts. Like I meet all the "criteria" of being in the group, and yet don't really feel like I'm part of it. Well, it seems I am right in some way, and the reason is that they interact with each other, while I sit here drawing alone.

Unfortunately I've always been prone to isolate myself from others. I grew up feeling like I should be ashamed of loving to draw, since it was always fanart monsters, creatures and cool guys instead of "proper art" like animals and portraits. Before social media, I only drew for myself and never showed anything to anybody. I hid my art from my family, from the world, so that I wouldn't be judged. I think it is one of the biggest reasons why I have trouble interacting with people in the context of art (tbh I'm shit at being social anyway but that's a whole another problem).

Even when I had a scanner and means to post my art online, I never did, due to the whole "if you put something online it'll be there forever" mindset. My first actual account anywhere online must've been Facebook in 2010ish, where I only had a few friends. It was the perfect place for me to finally post anything online, and so I did: I used to post pretty much everything I drew on there. Slowly gaining courage, I eventually made my original Tumblr account, then Deviantart, Twitter, etc.

Still, all I did was throw my art out there in hopes of somebody liking it. I didn't really know how to interact with the people who commented on my posts, so instead I mostly just... made more art. I did have some friend groups here and there, but either they ended up falling apart or my social battery drained in such a way that I slowly drifted away. I had gotten used to just being by myself and relying only on myself in the online art world.

During my design studies, I started putting more thought and work on promoting myself, so that it could be one career path for me to take. My mindset was that I'll work hard and become "big", even if it meant that one post gained me just one follower. In 2020 I ended up going viral with a meme and suddenly getting tens of thousands of followers. It was great and a welcome boost of morale, but unfortunately 2020 was otherwise one of the worst years in my life.

Throughout the years people have come and gone, so the only constant for me has been myself, and my drive to develop my skills. Thus it's been too easy for me to just isolate myself. In a way it has been my strength with regards to art, but sometimes I wish I knew how to make lasting connections. I think/know I might be autistic to some degree, which adds to the difficulty of being social. Though, to be honest, I don't know if I'd gotten this far without my autistic hyperfixations.

I guess the thing I need to do now to fix this problem of loneliness and isolation is to just... slowly try and be more social. To reply to comments and talk to people. All of which is easier said than done. Still, just gotta take that first step and then keep going.

Despite lacking the kind of community I yearn for, it seems I've made a name for myself, enough so that people seem to take pride in knowing me. Or at least that's the impression I've gotten a few times. But still, I am happy that I've had a positive effect on people. After all, my two main motivators in art are that I like doing it, and I like when people enjoy my art.

[python333]

task force 141 reacting to [reader] having excessively watery eyes — python333

— — — —

synopsis just as the title says once again! tf141 and their reactions to [reader] having excessively watery eyes. if you want to get a bit more medical, the term for it would just be 'high tear drainage capacity'! it's basically just something some people have where they naturally just produce more tears and as a result their eyes water excessively at (as far as i know) random times!

relationships platonic!taskforce 141 & reader.

characters cap. john price, soap, ghost, gaz.

warnings 2nd person pov [you/yours/yourself], usage of c/n [code name/call sign], might be ooc. :{

note i was watching super 8 when i got this idea, because my eyes got watery all of a sudden while watching it and i was like 'omg i should post this on tumblr' because i'm a writing whore so here i am again. my fingers hurt from typing all the things in html to make the text small and shit but we still up!!

JOHN “BRAVO SIX” PRICE

➥ he thinks you’re crying at first.

➥ it’s not his fault! he had no idea your eyes just water up randomly.

➥ when he sees your eyes well up with tears, depending on how close y’all are, his fatherly instincts—which he, obviously, developed after meeting gaz—kick in immediately.

➥ “Are you okay, [c/n]?” “Why are you crying?” “Did something happen? What happened?” “... What do you mean?” “This is normal?”

➥ he’s kind of embarrassed for worrying so much after you reassure him that you were okay and that your eyes just excessively water, to be honest.

➥ he’s glad that you’re okay though, obviously.

➥ he never really gets used to seeing you tear up randomly? even though you told him it was normal?

➥ like he knows that 99% of the time you tear up it’s just because you do that, but he still likes to be sure that you’re okay, so he always makes sure to ask if you’re okay.

➥ he’s such!! a father!! i’m crying!! and it's not just my excessive eye watering!!

—

You both had just been hanging out in the recreation center, Price on the couch and you sitting on a chair right by that couch. You were scrolling through your phone, while Price was reading the newspaper—usual old man activities. While scrolling through your social media feed, you didn’t even notice the way tears started to well up in your eyes until your vision got blurry and you felt a small, wet trail of a single tear roll down your cheek.

You’d sighed and pulled a pocket-sized tissue pack out out your pocket, pulling out a tissue and dabbing at your eyes, ridding them of the tears. Of course, the tears didn’t just stop there, they kept coming, so you kept wiping and dabbing at your eyes, hoping that they would go away soon. This was a fairly regular occurrence— for you.

Price caught sight of this and immediately looked worried. He stared at you for a moment as you wiped your eyes, wondering if he should speak up, and eventually had tentatively asked, “Are you okay, [c/n]?”

You looked over at him and pulled the tissue away from your face for a moment, “Yeah, why?” Your voice didn’t sound strained or hoarse like Price had expected, seeing as you were practically crying.

“You’re crying,” Price had pointed out, pointing to your eyes as if you couldn’t notice it, “Did something happen?”

You sat there, a bit dumbfounded, and Price took your silence as hesitation to tell him what was going on. “You can tell me what’s going on, [c/n]. I won’t judge you,” He’d reassured you softly, setting down his book and putting all of his attention on you.

Oh God. “Nothing happened,” You’d quickly assured him, “This is normal, don’t worry about it.”

“... What do you mean, ‘this is normal’?” Price asked, now confused as well as concerned, “You cry often, mate?”

“I mean, kind of?” You had replied, before sighing and clarifying, “My eyes just water up a lot. It’s not really crying.”

“Oh,” Price said dumbly, before nodding and giving you one last concerned look, “Right, then. Uh… sorry about that.”

“It’s okay,” You smiled at him, going back to dabbing at your eyes with a tissue, while he reluctantly went back to his book.

—

JOHN “SOAP” MACTAVISH

➥ can’t mind his own business for the life of him.

➥ similar to price, he thinks you’re crying at first.

➥ but he doesn’t hesitate at all, the moment he sees you tearing up he’s like ‘woah what the fuck are you okay??’

➥ you have to firmly tell him that yes, you’re okay, you just have very watery eyes.

➥ he still offers to get you tissues and some water, worried by the amount of tears you’re producing, thinking you’re gonna get really dehydrated.

➥ makes sure you’re completely okay and that you’re not just making this all up to hide the fact that you’re actually crying.

➥ after that whole interaction, he doesn’t get as worried when your eyes randomly water up, and instead teases you about it.

➥ learns to know when you’re actually crying, just so that he can offer comfort when it’s appropriate, and tease you when it’s appropriate.

—

The two of you were hanging out in Ghost’s room, since his was cleaner than the both of your’s combined, and he was away on a mission. Soap laid down on Ghost’s bed while you were sitting on the edge of the same bed, the sheets and blankets wrinkled from you both moving around on the bed. Soap was scrolling through his phone while you sat opposite of him and read a book Price had recommended to you—in his usual old man pseudo-father fashion, he’d told you to spend less time on your phone and ‘read a damn book’—so you were doing just that.

It was when you’d just reached chapter six when your vision got blurry and you sighed, knowing what was happening already. It was just annoying, honestly, having to pull out your tissues every ten minutes because your stupid tear ducts couldn’t function properly. When you went to pull out the mini tissue pack you always carried with you—or so you thought—you were surprised to find that the familiar plastic rectangle of tissues were nowhere to be found in your pockets. You checked your back pockets, front pockets, and yet they weren’t in either.

You let out a small, frustrated sigh through your nose and got up from the bed, the movement making Soap look up and over at you.

“Hey, where are ye—blimey, are ye cryin’?” Soap questioned, his questioning tone quickly becoming concerned, “Are ye alright? It wasnae the book that made ye cry, aye?”

You looked back at Soap, sighing, wiping at your eyes with the sleeve of your shirt, “Yeah, I’m fine. Don’t even worry about it, it’s normal, I just need to go get some tissues.”

“What dae ye mean this is normal?” Soap asked, sitting up. I just want to grab tissues, man, You think, miserably before short explanation that yes, you’re okay, no, you’re not crying, your eyes are just watery—basically the same answer you give every who eventually asks about your little ‘quirk’.

“Ye sure ye’re alright?” Soap asked, just making sure you’re actually okay, “Ye’re definitely no’ crying?”

“Definitely not crying,” You confirmed, “Just watery eyes.”

“Alright, then,” Soap breathed out, relieved that you were okay, before getting up and asking, “Dae ye need some tissues, water, anythin’?”

“Just tissues,” You answered, walking towards the door, “I can get them—”

“Nah, nah, ye stay richt there!” Soap quickly said, somehow getting to the door before you despite him having been right in front of the bed moments earlier, “I’ll get it!”

You watched him run out the door at a speed comparable to the usain bolt and stayed there for a moment, just staring at the now opened door, before huffing out a small laugh and heading back to the bed and sitting down.

—

SIMON “GHOST” RILEY

➥ he doesn’t notice until you’re wiping at your eyes and huffing in frustration when tears keep coming.

➥ the first time it happened, he didn’t ask if you were alright verbally, but did shoulder nudge you and gave you a look that asks ‘are you okay?’

➥ when you nodded and continued wiping at your eyes, ghost gave you one last look before trusting that you were okay and continuing on with his day.

➥ he pretended he didn’t care but thought about it for a bit afterwards, especially if you guys are really close.

➥ he asked price if you tearing up is just a normal thing or if you were actually crying, and let himself relax when he was told that yes, your eyes just water up randomly.

➥ he’s naturally a very observant person and will be able to tell when you’re actually crying fairly quickly.

➥ he’ll still look you over to make sure you’re okay, of course, just to double check, but once he’s confirmed that your eyes are just getting watery again he’ll let himself relax.

➥ depending on how close you both are, he’ll carry around a pack of tissues for you.

—

You and Ghost were in a helicopter, another mission successful. It wasn’t the worst one you’d had—but it was far from easy to accomplish. You were reasonably tired after this mission, all the leftover adrenaline wearing off, making you slump a bit in your seat.

You were just about to close your eyes to rest them, when suddenly you realized how blurry your vision had gotten. You were confused for a moment before realizing—oh, right, that happens.

You sighed, knowing you didn’t bring your usual pack of tissues with you, thinking it would just take up useless space in the pockets of your tactical gear. You wiped your eyes with the gloves you’d been wearing, albeit they weren’t the best option but the sleeves of your shirt were far too short for you to use, the hem of your shirt was dirty, and while your gloves were dirty as well, the back of them weren’t nearly as filthy as the hem of your shirt.

As you wiped away with the back of your glove, Ghost noticed your watery eyes and nudged your shoulder with his own. You paused and pulled your hand away from your eye, giving him a questioning look. He didn’t say anything, but instead gave you a questioning look back, a look you assumed to be one that asked, ‘are you okay?’, judging by the way his eyes darted to your own very watery ones. You nodded, mouthing the words ‘I’m okay’, and he nodded back, going back to staring ahead of him.

Hours after you had gotten off the helicopter, you were walking by Price’s office, and couldn’t help but hear Ghost’s voice. Being the nosy person you are, you cautiously pressed your ear to the door.

“—don’t worry, it’s normal,” You heard Price reassuring Ghost, “I doubt they’d cry after a mission like that, anyway.”

“And they’ve told you it’s normal?” Ghost asked, just to confirm, “You know this for a fact?”

You didn’t stay long enough to hear the rest of the conversation, instead walking away and suppressing a smile at Ghost’s mildly worried tone.

—

KYLE “GAZ” GARRICK

➥ he notices pretty quickly.

➥ no matter how many times he’s caught you tearing up, he’ll still ask you if you’re okay.

➥ he makes sure to bring a clean handkerchief with him, just incase you forget your tissues.

➥ he’ll even bring it with him on missions, knowing you don’t want to bring your small pack of tissues with you.

➥ the first time he catches your eyes watering up, he gets pretty worried.

➥ he makes sure not to make a big deal out of it though, trying to be as considerate as possible, and instead quietly asks you if you’re okay.

➥ when you reassure him that you are and tell him your eyes are just naturally watery, he’s pretty relieved, and lets it go.

➥ he trusts that you told him the truth, and doesn’t question you again after that.

➥ around the fifth time it’d happened, he’d grown pretty used to it, so when you started tearing up walking back to the rendezvous point with him after a mission, he had a handkerchief ready for you.

—

You panted while you walked, trying to get your breathing under control. You’d done a lot of running today—while you were pretty fit, and could run perfectly fine, you didn’t particularly like running as fast as you can away from enemy soldiers while your teammates shot them down, leaving you praying that the bullets that tailed your feet didn’t hit you.

Eventually, you got your breath under control, but immediately afterwards, your eyes had started to water.

You sighed and were about to wipe at your eyes with your hands, before your hand was stopped mid air. You looked over at Gaz, who had caught your hand by the wrist and offered you a handkerchief with his free hand.

The handkerchief was fairly clean, and you grabbed it, muttering a small ‘thank you’ as you did. Gaz smiled at you and gave you a simple pat on the shoulder.

Once the two of you reached the rendezvous point, you handed him back the handkerchief, hoping that your grateful smile was enough to express your full gratitude.

[wisteria-lodge]

badger primary + rapid fire/actor bird secondary

Hi! I’ve passively loved this system for a couple of years now but it’s only now that I’ve discovered that you actually do real people sorts! Anyway, I am pretty sure of being a Snake primary, but I’ll have you be the judge of that.

My Dad is a double Snake, however, my Mum I think is a Badger/Lion and this obviously creates a lot of conflict between them. I really care about both of them and though me & dad understand each other better on a fundamental level, he can also be quite a harsh and manipulative person (he has the typical Snake secondary thing where he tells you whatever you want to hear until you get close to him or he’s exhausted enough  to let the masks drop, and at that point he becomes quite harsh, which my Badger/Lion mum does NOT like, and she especially doesn’t like how “fake” he is), and my Mum always reacted very negatively to my behaving like him. 

A Double Snake and and Badger Lion could easily have periods of looking very similar, and very in sync, and then just… circumstances change and they couldn’t be more different. That’s a tricky one to navigate. So you’ve got a bit of cultural negativity surrounding Snake secondary, noted. 

So I kind of spent most of my life feeling torn because the two people I cared about the most had very opposing expectations of my personality

Definitely getting inklings of a Loyalist primary (Badger or Snake.) 

my Mum’s love in particular felt very conditional even though she was always very supportive of all my intellectual endeavors.

I spent the first 18-ish years of my life with “saying whatever I need to get what I want” as my primary strategy in life 

Definitely sounds quite Snake secondary (sounds a lot like your Dad’s Snake.) 

 and constructing a “cool, popular girl” personality that would give me enough social capital to get whatever I want.

Oooh, have we got some Bird secondary going on? Because this sounds like it could be Actor Bird. The very conscious way you went about building “Cool, Popular Girl” (even using words like “constructing”) and fact that this persona has a name, probably had a costume, and is purpose-built for a specific environment, not a specific person... sounds very Bird.

What I wanted, though, wasn’t anything particularly ambitious: I’m very conflict averse so I made shit up to avoid conflict. 

I associate this with Snake and Bird, the two “I move” secondaries. They’re water, flowing around obstacles. Lions and oddly Badgers are far more likely to pick fights. 

I wanted to be have strong “ride or die” friendships with people I could protect and who could protect me in turn (I first wrote “group of friends” but I now realize that I kind of struggle with groups of people - I just never have the feeling of being part of a group, just having ties with individual people, so I guess I want to be part of a group in the sense of having ties of affection and loyalty with several people who also have them with each other).

This is such heavily Snake primary-coded language, that I’m kinda wondering if that’s on purpose, and you’re looking for a specific answer from me… :) 

However, because what I got from my mum and, quite honestly, the media I liked was basically “my personality=villain.” I tended to seek out other people perceived as “villains” as some way because I felt that they would accept me more easily. 

I wish it weren’t the case, but you’re right, that’s a common thing. Especially if you’re a Double Snake or a Snake Bird, which I think are your two most likely sortings right now. 

I also really hated people who treated their friends badly or arrogantly and tended to bully them 

I mean that’s the human thing, but it’s definitely something that would bother a Loyalist (Snake or Badger primary) a LOT. 

there was this one swotty girl who was constantly looking down at her friends and treating them badly, and I just decided to make her life living hell because I was so morally affronted by it. 

I’d love to know exactly what your strategies were, because that would tell me a lot about your secondary. But there does seem to be a suggestion that there was a Mean-Girls-stye *plan* here, which kind of makes me think Bird. 

Another friend also abandoned us and found another friend group where everyone was basically in love with him and he was using them for attention seeking purposes and I also reacted to this quite harshly.

“Abandon” is a very dramatic word to describe a friend [entering a slight fuckboy phase?] and switching friend groups. 

The thing is, I also tended to abandon some people, which doesn’t clash well a Snake primary, I guess? One of my HS friend groups were really quite asshole-ish, and I ended up ditching them, but that was because I felt like they were treating other close people (of theirs, not mine) badly? 

Okay. So here’s what I think is going on. You’re a Badger. Hear me out. 

Yes, I think that your Badger looked like a Snake for a good long while. But you’re close to your Dad, and your Dad’s a Snake, and young Badgers will do that, look like authority figures or beloved people in their community. It really hurts you that your parents are not a united unit, not a community. A Snake would have an easier time just having separate relationships with each of them, even if they didn’t get along. Same thing with your friend that switched friend groups. That’s a very Badger way of looking at the situation. The Snake thing would be, well - he’s your friend, and it doesn’t really matter what group he’s him. But a Badger would want him to stay in the better group, the group that was better for him. 

You hate it when people mistreat their group. You hate bullies (Captain America style.) That’s all Badger. You also talk about multiple, conflicting groups of friends, and that whole “Cool Popular Girl” - I mean, it’s not exclusive to Badger primaries, bit it is definitely a very common way for High School Badger primaries to present. 

I had also decided to start taking school and stuff more seriously and I just kind of felt like their affection would be conditional on my bad bitch persona, got scared and ran? It was a long time ago, I don’t really remember.

This is Bird secondary thing. Getting “suck” in a persona, and worrying that people only like you / you only have value because of it. 

The turnpoint came when I met my first serious boyfriend, who is definitely a Snake secondary but I’m honestly not sure if he’s a Snake or a Bird primary.

The so far elaborately constructed web of lies and reputation building that was my life led to the downfall of our relationship, because it combined with some external circumstances made trust difficult

You have a complicated relationship with Snake secondaries, but you yourself are a Bird. “Construction,” “reputation building,” the web metaphor… it sounds like a Bird. That’s just not how Snake secondaries think. 

what I somehow got out of it was a deep fear of betrayal and abandonment 

and possibly Burned your primary a little bit (probably another reason you’re picking Snake for yourself, Burnt Badgers look like Snakes. 

and the impression that if I wanted people to love me and stay by my side, I should be very open about who I am (so that I’m sure that it’s me that they’re loyal to and not their personal image of me), and just try to be the kind of kind, morally upstanding person that people couldn’t fault for anything.

These are two mutually exclusive goals. If you’re totally honest and open about who you are (the Lion secondary thing) - then you will absolutely ruffle some feathers and rub people the wrong way. It’s a totally different approach than being the “kind [person] that people couldn’t fault for anything.” (Which is more of a badger thing.)

Forcing myself to act like this led to a plethora of mental health issues because being very open about who I am is just… not who I am? 

You also just set yourself for failure. There is literally no way you could have achieved what you set out to achieve. And how is “forcing” yourself to act a certain way more open and genuine? It sounds like you built a Badger secondary model out of fear, and just sat in it for a while.

And it was very anxiety-inducing for me. Even now, when my mental health is much better and I’ve settled into who I am, I like showing off my playfulness and wit and keeping the rest of my personality behind a neutrally charming mask.

And that’s… good? Normal? That’s also very Bird. Just have a charming, Badger-flavored ‘customer service’ face that you wear as you go through the world. Go into Neutral when you feel comfortable. (Birds go into Neutral very much like Snakes do, but the change usually isn’t as dramatic.) 

Also, my success until that point was based on a lot of improvisation and quick thinking, and while I kept that to a point, it also always led to a bunch of moral panic because in my head, being this kind of person is what gets you abandoned.

Rapid-Fire Bird. There’s a little bit of your Bird coming through here, in that you want a foundation, you don’t want to just do the Snake thing. 

Anyway, I was a psychology major (I always liked understanding how people tick and how to get them to see or do what  you want them to without having to explicitly argue with them or convince them)

Very Bird. 

but I felt alienated with the “bleeding heart helping profession!!” people around me.

I am not at all surprised that the profession skews Badger secondary, and that it did not feel at all good being around all those Badger secondaries... when you’ve got such a messy relationship with your Badger model. 

I eventually settled for doing research on children growing up in harsh circumstances who develop externalizing symptoms, but it was just because throughout my life I met a lot of people like that and a lot of my close people are “misunderstood” because they sometimes behave harshly due to their harsh upbringings, so I wanted to vindicate them in a way, as well as vindicate myself because I cared about explaining why people sometimes act less than morally and yet can still be loyal and worthy of love and not automatically “bad people”.

I love this for you. It seems like this would just fit into your primary so nicely. You’ve got a category of people, who are your people and you’re going to vindicate them, and protect them - especially from other people seeking to dehumanize them. It’s so Badger, but in that lovely universal way. 

In the meanwhile, I kind of developed a Badger primary model, I guess, in that I do dedicate a lot of my time to helping people

… or you were a Badger all along…

 and being kind and open and inviting

yeah, that has absolutely nothing to do with being a Badger primary. I’m serious. That’s just your neutrally-charming mask. 

but whenever this is put to the test my Snake loyalties always always come first. 

I honestly haven’t seen this so far. The only individuals you’ve talked about are your parents (who bothered you by not being a group, your fuckboy friend (who left the group) and your first boyfriend, who you broke up with. 

And I also still always get morally outraged when people are disloyal to their close ones or treat them badly, 

This your primary talking. (your why, what gets you out of bed in the morning)

whereas the general kindness and the work I put in towards making sure the world is a kinder, fairer place is just something that I do, no emotional attachment to it, and I don’t expect other people to do it at all.

This is your badger secondary model talking. (how you go about doing things, how you present to the world.) Both Badger, yes. EXTREMELY different. 

I honestly don’t think a lot about morality, aside from the generic “be kind and try not to fuck people over unless you really have to”

I mean, you did just say. “I also still always get morally outraged when people are disloyal to their close ones or treat them badly.” I think you just must not consider that sort of thing… really morality, in some way. But Badgers get their morality from their group. Their highest moral good is to make sure the group is doing okay. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that. 

rationally constructing a system of morality or trying to arrive at some kind of internal hunch both feel kind of empty to me? 

Because you’re not a Bird or Lion primary? Of course it does. 

Now, as for the secondary, my knee jerk reaction is to say Bird because I’m in research, and ever since childhood I’ve always been a very logical person. I’ve eventually learned to be quite systemic in my problem solving process because I need it for research, but what I like about this career is the problem solving aspect of it, like you have a goal (for example, an effective psychosocial information or the acquisition of a certain kind of information) and you have to figure out how to get to that information. Basically the most efficient way of getting from A to B.

 I make sure to be systemic and thorough and analytical because it’s the most surefire way to get things right in my line of work, but I also take pleasure in kind of categorizing and putting information in order, and connecting it along different lines. I also really care about proper methodology and not half-assing things to get the results that you want, because I think that the results that you want are the results that are accurate and useful in the real world, not the ones that make you look better.

Wait, am I a double Snake?

Okay, now you’ve got ME worried - I must have really screwed up explaining something, because how can you write something THAT bird secondary, love systems as much as you do… and arrive at the conclusion that you’re a Snake? 

What I know for sure is that I absolutely do not identify with “knowledge for knowledge’s sake”, but I do have a really broad criteria for what “useful knowledge” is because I’m capable of thinking quite abstractly, so I can see the utility of almost anything.

That is very, very, very Bird. I’m starting to see the problem though. “Knowledge for knowledge’s sake” is an older phrase that owes more to the parent system than I would like, but it does essentially mean “no knowledge is wasted, the most useful way to solve problems is to preemptively hoard knowledge.” 

What I am really also passionate about is presenting things in the right way. I love writing, and I love public speaking, because I get to put myself in the other person’s shoes, imagine how they will “receive” what I’m saying and then tailor my presentation or short story or whatever to lead them to the conclusion that I want them to reach. But I dislike manipulating people with this: the conclusions that I want them to reach are the ones that I personally consider accurate, not the ones that benefit me.

First thing, you sound like an absolutely incredible person, and by pretty much any metric you want to use, a *good* person. (And no, that’s not because the way you’ve written this is manipulating me. This is my little game, I’m good at it.) 

What I can tell you that tailoring a presentation to an audience - that’s just a Rapid-Fire Bird who knows their stuff doing trick-shots, and I bet it’s beautiful to see. You are delivering information in a way that the audience can properly take in, because you know both your audience and your information well enough to do that, and that is incredible. 

My knee-jerk reaction is always to improvise, but I feel like this makes me come off as a “fake” person if I change my mind on what I said later (I change my mind A LOT), so I try not to say what sounds good in the moment because it will bite me in the ass later and lead to a reputation of a flaky, fake person, I guess?

Not 100% sure what you mean here. Changing your mind… is just a personality trait, it doesn’t really have to do with why you do things or how you do them. I think you would call tailoring your presentations improvisation, and I really wouldn’t. It’s not improvisation, it’s just looks like improvisation because you’ve come up with a hundred different ways to say this thing, and then on the day you can pick the one that works the best. If you had to do the same thing, but not in your preferred subject matter/environment, it would be basically impossible.

But I also really pride myself on my logical and thorough assessments of situations, and I tend to like thinking things through when I get the chance for it, often postponing decisions until I’ve thought about all the eventual longterm consequences of all the courses of action I might take. 

Bird. 

What trips me up is my trauma-induced fixation with being “honest” and avoiding “lies”, which are more about their eventual inefficacy and worthlessness and less about their moral rightness or wrongness (and also because manipulative=bad, as my Mum spent all of my life saying). My line of thinking is, “Things built on lies or self-delusion always crash down and burn, and it is right that they do so that more stable and honest things can take place”

What are you building on lies? If anyone’s work has a solid foundation, it’s yours. And as we’ve previously discussed, even IF you were doing your mom’s brash Lion secondary thing, wouldn’t that be in a lie in itself, because it’s not your natural presentation, it’s something you need to force yourself to do? 

but I also kind of use it to do shady shit - like I don’t feel morally wrong in hitting up a man in a relationship, because if he really cares about his woman the only person who’ll get burned is me and if he doesn’t I saved her the trouble of wasting more of her time on him?

This is actually a really interesting aside, because it’s you telling me how you handle a moral issue (that makes it a Primary thing.) 

Is it wrong to hit on a married man? Your answer is No: either you get turned down because he’s staying faithful, and that’s your own personal risk, or he cheats, in which case he’s kind of … dehumanizing himself? And therefore you are doing his partner a favor because she can now get rid of this unhealthy member of her community. There’s a logic there, and it’s a kind of ruthless Badger primary logic. 

So not sure if Snake or Badger secondary?

Bird. 

P.S. After some self-reflection, I realized that I’m probably not a Bird secondary

I’m listening. 

because I really hate following plans and situations where I have to rely on concrete skills and not abstract problem solving terrify me. OTOH I am very proud of my general ability to assess a situation and act appropriately.

Not sure how you’re distinguishing between ���concrete skills” and “abstract problem solving.” From what you’ve been telling me, it sounds like you need the concrete skills before you can do the abstract problem solving, as in they work together. 

I’m also known as the person who changes PowerPoint slides in the middle of a conference based on whoever’s speaking before her and adapting her speech accordingly, which freaks the shit out of my coworkers, so I guess any “planning” type is probably out for old me 

That’s the most Rapid Fire Bird thing I ever heard. You made a plan. The PowerPoint and the speech exist. You’re just adapting them on the fly, based on previously-existing knowledge. I’m starting to think that you’re one of those Bird secondaries who is SUCH a loud Bird secondary, that it can be hard to get your head the idea that your skills are skills, and not sort of neutral abilities that everyone has. 

my latent distaste towards being a Snake secondary is my burny oppressive bullshit against anything that’s not “stalwart honesty and consistency” that I’ve been imposing on myself for years.

which I really wish you didn’t feel like you had to. 

Because I do love winging it and just saying whatever’s the most situationally appropriate thing regardless of how much it reflects me and I’ve just been treating any kind of play acting like a recovering alcoholic treats drink so I no longer even remember how it feels anymore lol.

I hope you find a way to play with your Actor Bird, at some point. One more little thing before I sign off though - thinking of actions as “situationally appropriate” is a very Actor Bird secondary thing to do. Snakes don’t go that big. Snakes think - what response do I want from this person, in this moment, and how do I get it? They also constantly reset. Snake secondaries have this “seducer” reputation because they generally are better one-on-one, or in small groups. Even Snake secondary actors will talk about the way they perceive the whole audience as one “person” … it’s all very interesting, but a very different way of approaching the world than the way you do.

[tardistimeladyyeah]

I will try to make this my last post about politics but no promises (I'm anxious and a political science student).

(P.S. If you don't read this whole long post, read the last chunk).

This will make sense at the end of this post, but it deserves to go up here: We can't help people overseas if we're burning, and we're holding a match over a vat of gasoline. The voters are holding the match, the reelection of Trump is the match, and the United States is the gasoline. The ensuing flame is the Civil War they want so badly. We will have nobody to blame but ourselves if we drop that match.

Is there a genocide in Palestine? Yes. Does the United States need to separate themselves from Israel until they stop and align ourselves with stopping it? Yes. Is it worth destroying our lives at home over just because you couldn't vote for Biden? No (LET ME EXPLAIN BEFORE YOU LOSE YOUR MIND).

People protesting against the genocide will not be heard if Trump is reelected. Have you heard of Project 2025? Essentially, it is the plan to dismantle the current system that we have in the United States. This is not a good thing because it was created by the Hertiage Foundation, a far-right group that supports Donald Trump and his ambition to become a dictator (he is connected to 2025. He is lying when he says he's not connected).

What would a second Trump presidency mean? It will take away rights that most Americans have enjoyed for decades (and centuries if you're a white man). You would not be able protest against the genocide because the insurrection act may be invoked, which would deploy the military to quash protests. Trump may force social media companies to promote far-right views (meaning no more talking about Palestine and helping people by providing information) (Source: ACLU link below). A second Trump presidency would bring a lot of other things listed on both Project 2025 AND Agenda 47 (basically diet Project 2025). It would make abortion difficult to access NATIONWIDE (ban mifepristone and Plan B (the morning after pill) via the Comstock Act, it would ban birth control, it would disband federal agencies such as NOAA (and the NWS by proxy) and the Department of Education (and severely restrict other agencies), put loyalists into integral positions, fire 150,000 federal employees (and probably more), and so much more involving the LGBTQ+ community and immigrants, among other things.

Yes, you should be upset about Palestine. Yes, you should be advocating against the genocide. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MAKE CALLING THE ELECTION A DISTRACTION OR MINIMIZING IT OKAY.

This election has the capability of determining the next steps forward for this country. Yes, both options aren't very appealing, but it's worth noting that, as much as you might not want to admit it, Biden has done good things. Those don't overpower helping fund a genocide, but it's also worth noting that Congress has the power of the purse (power to spend money) and the president doesn't. Do they approve the proposal? Yes. Did Biden threaten to stop funding if Israel continued? Yes. I believe he hasn't because he's worried about losing support (this election has serious consequences and I think he knows that) from people who are only voting for him because he's not Trump (a wannabe Hitler) and he doesn't have that kind of power. Executive orders can only go so far and can be thrown out by a judge in minutes.

So, what am I trying to say here? This election has consequences. Project 2025 is real and the Supreme Court gave Trump the okay to start implementing the more egregious parts of it under the guise of "official acts." We may not even know what those "official acts" will be. They likely involve nukes everywhere, including Palestine. Remember when Nikki Haley wrote something to the effect of "kill them all" on a missile being sent to Israel (or something)? Trump will do that. He will blow that entire continent up and say he stopped the tension in the middle east when really all he did was kill a bunch of people. Sure, you can say the same about Biden because of weapons and resources sent to Israel on his approval. But, he won't use America's nukes to do that. In fact, he wants to negotiate the end of the war.

If your single issue is Palestine, you shouldn't vote for a third party. You shouldn't vote for Trump. You should vote for Biden because he'll preserve your right to free speech and non violent protest. Trump won't.

Call him Genocide Joe or whatever all you want. Just know that Trump is worse and you're letting him win if you're in a swing state and vote third party. That's how he won in 2016. Enough people voted for Jill Stein in swing states to give Trump an electoral college victory. Look at the numbers (all of which came from Ballotpedia, a great resource).

Michigan gave their electoral college votes to Trump, but only by 0.2%. Who got more votes that, if they voted for Clinton, would've flipped the state for her? The other votes (including Jill Stein). Those votes were 5.2%, which may have flipped the state blue (Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_battleground_states,_2016) .

Wisconsin gave their votes to Trump in 2016, with 47.2% of voters voting for him, 46.5% voting for Clinton. How many people voted for third parties? 6.3%. Once again, enough votes to flip the state for Clinton if voters decided to go with her instead. (Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_battleground_states,_2016)

Pennsylvania gave their votes to Trump in 2016, with 48.6% voting for him and 47.9% voting for Clinton. How many people voted third party? 3.6%. It was close, but it wouldn't have been if people didn't vote third party. (Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_battleground_states,_2016)

I'm not against third parties, HOWEVER, our government is structured as a two party system and now is not the time to test a three party system out when we're on the brink of fascism. Don't not vote either. Not voting is just as bad in this situation. In fact, not voting (unless you literally can't) is not good. I don't care if you don't think your vote won't matter. It does. Look back at the 2016 swing state numbers. It makes a massive difference.

This is not a time to tell people not to vote or to vote third party. This is a time to say that there will never be a perfect candidate and that you have to make sacrifices on policy to preserve or create new policy that is beneficial. This is a time to defeat fascism by coming together and voting for the lesser of two evils. Everyone in the United States will lose rights, some more than others. But, Project 2025 will impact everybody, especially those fighting for Palestine. Don't believe Republicans when they say they're stepping away from it. They're not. If they're voted in, they will do it. Remember, they said the same thing about Roe and look at what they did! Heck, I'm writing this from a state where abortion is illegal, surrounded by other states where abortion is illegal. It's already a crisis and it will continue to be one until we fix things at the federal level because it will stay illegal until a state question goes through (I often say that good things only happen where I live because of state questions and that is unfortunately true).

We can't help people overseas if we're burning, and we're holding a match over a vat of gasoline. The reelection of Trump is the match and the United States is the gasoline. The ensuing flame is the Civil War they want. We will have nobody to blame but ourselves.

All I can do is hope that this got to some people and made you change your mind. But know that they'll keep rebranding 2025 if they lose. You have to vote consistently against Republican presidential administration until they abandon the idea or until it blows up in their faces. Call me a Biden apologist all you want, I don't care. I'm on your side, but you don't realize how bad another Trump presidency would be. You wouldn't be able to advocate for causes like Palestine anymore. You may have to join the military. You may have to detransition. You may have to stop doing a lot of things that you took for granted if Trump wins again. Sure, some of us survived the first one, but a lot of us didn't and significantly more of us won't the second time around (oh, also, he wants to be President forever. They're going to throw out term limits if they try hard enough. They're going to fudge voting results to make elections look like something out of Russia). Nobody wants this (save for the people who advocate for it and support it) and I don't think you do, either.

Look at the breakdowns of Project 2025. If you don't want that, don't be complacent. Don't feel defeated (even though it's hard sometimes. Trust me, my state would vote for Trump even if he was a bag of rocks and it's hard to not feel an impending sense of doom until my passport gets here). Register to vote at vote.org and check your registration status if you think you're registered.

Don't vote against your own interests this election cycle. You might not get to vote for your interests ever again if the wrong person wins.

Some more important links:

https://www.vote.org/

https://www.vox.com/politics/360318/project-2025-trump-policies-abortion-divorce

https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do.amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17212721431126&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2Fc977njnvq2do

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/07/noaa-project-2025-weather/678987/

Some of these articles may mention Republicans stepping back from these views. DON'T. BELIEVE. THEM. Take it from me, a person who lives in a Republican trifecta (A.K.A. one of Dante's circles of hell. I haven't decided which one, yet). Republicans lie. They lie and lie and lie so much I'm shocked their noses haven't suffocated most of the state.

[antigonewinchester]

hiya, since you said you were watching You... what do you think of it? i'm a big fan of the books, but haven't seen the show. not sure i trust them to adapt it with any kind of nuance, but i was intrigued to see that sera is involved. how is it?

Thanks for asking anon! :)

You're the opposite of me, in that I've only seen the show (just finished season 1; I'm a slow watcher) and never read the books. I found S1 to be pretty good overall, with a few minor quibbles.

I'm fond of stories picking apart The Ideals of Romance, so Gamble describing S1 as needing to be both a love and a horror story in every scene rang true. It's a cliche but a ton of romantic tropes are, if taken more realistically, pretty creepy, and I'm right there with the show in terms of noble fairy-tale princes hiding secret horrors underneath. The use of voice-over for what Joe says versus what he was actually thinks worked very well, could've been cheesy but it's not. Joe's voice is very strong thru the whole season. The show walks a tough line with Joe as the main character, because he's such an unreliable narrator, but imo they did a great job. In the last ep, Beck screams at Joe and calls him a sociopath but, at least in S1, he really didn't read that way to me; it's much more than Joe's understanding of love and what love means is very very messed up. He's an incredibly self-deluding character with very warped perceptions, so while I never bought into his charm, he and that dissonance remained compelling to me throughout the show, who Joe thinks he is vs. what he actually does (and then how much he judges other people too, like he's so much better). It's also his humor, and the show's humor, that's the final ingredient, I think. The show can be quite funny! Then quite horrifying, and sometimes funnily horrifying. The writing uses bathos particularly well, which is a form of humor I don't always like (thanks Marvel movies...) but the undercutting of Joe's obsessions or idealizations or the romantic moments really works. Overall, its balancing of tones from lighthearted to horrifying to funny is quite deft, and I enjoyed its range.

For what worked less well, I found some of the social media stuff a bit dated (altho Facebook stalking and all that was more relevant at the time). While I think the writing of the various female characters was better than what I've seen of Gamble's past shows (particularly SPN), her bias towards male characters was definitely still at play. Say, it took me a bit to figure out what the writing was doing with Peach, but eventually Peach as Joe's female foil -- the woman who's secretly in love and obsessed with Beck, who will manipulate and gaslight her, and who's implied to also have grown up in an emotionally abusive and homophobic household -- worked... except it felt like it came pretty late in the season, and I would've liked more hints earlier on. Maybe it’s more obvious on rewatch, tho.

The other part is a bit tricky, because I'm still not quite sure how I feel about it. As far as I can tell, both of these elements are unique to the TV show: first, Mr. Mooney being physically abusive in raising Joe; and second, Claudia and her son Paco as Joe's neighbors and her boyfriend, Ron, being emotionally and physically abusive. Thru flashbacks over the season, we see Mooney abuse Joe, including locking him in the book cage as a kid and manipulating him into thinking he was doing it for Joe’s own good, out of love, and Joe then reenacting that hurt on later people, most obviously Beck: in the last ep, there's literally a match cut from Joe as a kid in the book cage to Beck as an adult. We also see Ron's abuse of Claudia and Paco thru the season, with Joe's care for Paco clearly connected to his own hurt and trauma, and ultimately leading up to Joe killing Ron to protect Paco. If, as I understand, none of this is in the books, I could see someone not liking these additions, or seeing them as a way to humanize Joe and make him more sympathetic in light his stalking, kidnapping, murder, etc.

In terms of Gamble as a creator, it was striking to see her return to such distinct ideas around men, masculinity, and violence -- she's talked about how she likes writing male characters because she can get into their heads and figure out what makes them tick, but it seems to me she's particularly interested in men who've been abused/traumatized (esp by fathers/father figures) and how they react to, and reenact, that violence. Do Gamble & her writers use nuance and thoughtfulness in dealing with abuse & its consequences? That's a tougher question to answer, and depends on the person watching, tbh. I've read some pretty harsh critiques of Gamble’s writing around this topic, and understand where it's coming from, but what makes me a little more generous with Gamble is how it feels she wants to understand, and that she's working through something in continually returning to these ideas in her work.

[protemporescitor]

Spoilers Begone

With Rebirth's release mere hours away, and the increasing risk of spoilers seeping into even the most well-curated social media feed as a result, it's time to batten down the hatches. Going radio silence until March. I may visit mutuals or reply to the occasional message, but no more idle scrolling for me until well after the 29th. With that in mind, I'll leave you with some final thoughts and predictions…

On shipping vs. respecting the narrative

The shipping wars have been done to death. We all know this. Nearly three decades of pointless bickering about whether CloTi or Clerith is canon, as if that's the only thing that matters about FFVII's story.

Judging by its promotional materials, Rebirth seems to be leaning very heavily towards Clerith. However, this may yet turn out to be a red herring. We just don't know, and won't know until Square finally unveil their true intentions regarding the remake trilogy as a whole. As much as they've revealed of the game thus far, they've been equally careful to conceal their ultimate goals in creating it. In other words, right now they are playing us harder than Kojima did back when Metal Gear Solid 2 was still in development.

My own bias is towards Clerith, obviously, but… to be perfectly honest, at this point I don't give a damn whether they canonize it or not, or even if they end up going completely in the other direction. So long as these characters find some kind of happiness and closure at the end of the road, (and so long as it all makes sense for the story) I'll be satisfied. People get so caught up in all this shipping nonsense that they often forget that, at the end of the day, this element is intended to be in service of the STORY, not the other way around. I'm no exception to this.

That all being said, I'm not particularly worried about Clerith being sunk at this point. I mean, have you seen the trailers? That, plus two separate theme songs about Cloud and Aerith expressing their longing to be together? It's not hard to see where all this is going. (Also, canon or not, I'm not going to stop liking Clerith just because it gets sunk by the narrative. The fuck were you expecting?)

Obviously, I want to see as many Clerith moments as possible in Rebirth, but I don't want Square to leave CloTi fans out in the cold. I'm not that petty. That interpretation of the story clearly means a lot to a great many fans, and I believe they deserve to get their fair share, too.

To be honest, I've always thought that the remake trilogy was an opportunity to undo some of the damage that the ambiguity regarding Cloud, Tifa, and Aerith's relationships has wrought. And the simplest way to do that would be to let individual fans control how that part of the story plays out, similar to something like Mass Effect. It might not be a perfect solution (and some fans might quibble that doing so would be a cop-out from Square's "true" intentions), but at least that way, everybody gets something.

But even that, I suspect, ultimately won't fix the fandom. Which leads me to my next point…

Rebirth won't settle the love triangle debate (and neither will the trilogy's concluding act).

This is admittedly a somewhat pessimistic prediction on my part. I'm hoping that with the conclusion of the remake trilogy, maybe the fandom can grow up somewhat and that CloTi and Clerith shippers can finally bury the hatchet. But even if Square were to go so far as to include a full-blown romance, wedding, etc. for one pair or the other, even that probably won't end the debate. My suspicion is that the topic of discussion will simply shift over to arguing about what the developers' ORIGINAL intentions were, before the remake trilogy or even the compilation came to be.

Here we may observe a pair of goalposts, endlessly shifting.

Aerith will (probably) die.

Much as I would like to see Aerith survive and flourish, I find it highly doubtful that Square would leave out one of the most iconic scenes in video game history. So, at the very least, Aerith will probably "die" in some way, and her funeral scene will undoubtedly be in Rebirth in some form. I can't imagine Square retelling FFVII's story and leaving out this moment entirely. It'd be like removing the baptism scene from the Godfather.

However, something tells me Aerith won't stay gone this time around. Whether she ends up in the afterlife, or in a state of limbo, there's little doubt in my mind that she'll return for the grand finale. Furthermore, I would argue that she's already been resurrected in a meta sense. Fans who insist that Aerith needs to stay dead in order to uphold the original title's themes of loss and grieving (the ones who aren't being disingenuous and insisting on this point merely to promote CloTi, that is) are forgetting that it isn't 1997 anymore. The rules aren't the same.

That said, I do expect that Aerith will die at the end of Rebirth. "No Promises to Keep" seems to be foreshadowing as much, and it would make sense for the song to play over the end credits (intended to soften the blow, perhaps, or to tide us over until part 3), reaffirming once again that Cloud and Aerith's bond is stronger than death.

As Vera Lynn once sang: "We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when. But I know we'll meet again some sunny day."

In closing

The wait has been excruciating, but it's nearly at an end. We all have strong opinions on this story and these characters, so the occasional dust-up is inevitable. (I'm as guilty of that as anyone else. I can be an absolute gremlin online, I'll admit it.) But with Square's aim being to deliver a maximalist reading of FFVII's story, jam-packed with every beloved moment and quirky element of the original title dialled up to eleven, there should be plenty of content for everyone to enjoy.

So whatever differences we might have, whatever characters you choose to ship together, etc., I want to take the opportunity to wish you all well, and I sincerely hope that everyone has a great time playing Rebirth.

Signing off until March.

Cheers, -Scitor

[metvmorqhoses]

i'm curious how you reconcile your deep dives into voldemort/death eaters' psyches with the fact that they are, more or less, wizard nazis. i have read your statements about jkr, this isn't about her; rather, the two facts that 1) voldemort's purebloods-only ideology maps pretty squarely onto hitler's rhetoric (clearly a result of jkr's mediocre worldbuilding skills), and 2) with the newer lore, it's clear that the harry potter world is, as a whole, deeply antisemitic. does that matter to you?

So, there are at least a hundred ways I could answer this question (the more effective one being probably ignoring it altogether), yet I find that none would really convey the utter sense of sadness the mere existence of such reasonings ultimately gives me.

I find it disturbing, worrying, claustrophobic, depressing - you name it. This is really not what I want to see the world turning into. And yet, this is exactly the kind of pit we are collectively falling into without anyone trying to interfere. So I'm answering you now as openly as I can in the hope you could hear me out with the same kind of good disposition, because this is really going too far.

I already stated my opinion on the matter on many occasions, but this time I'd like to leave aside the fact that I find asks like this, with this attitude and tone and meaning, beyond unacceptable, that there's nothing noble or valid in judging people, especially strangers on the internet you really know nothing about, for the art they supposedly enjoy, for the sake of telling you, with all my heart and without a trace of sarcasm, that if a normally intelligent and educated person, as I'm sure you are, is reaching the point of really believing what you just wrote to me without being able to first analyze it and immediately grasp the utter... absurdity of it, then I'm afraid this matter is reaching far beyond justified or unjustified activism, and hurt and indignation are making you and countless others vulnerable to a really dangerous herd mentality that is tragically robbing you of that precious gift that is your own uninfluenced critical skills and basic empathy, and I really hope someday you could muster the strength to realize it and seize it back, for your own sake before that of others.

With all my heart anon, the internet is not what life is. This is not how real life works or should work. Policing and intruding into other people's hobbies and interests and tastes is not acceptable, ever. This crusade, as right as I'm sure it fundamentally is, has become a disproportionate and hurtful witch hunt against people who are not doing anything harmful or wrong. I'm seeing people terrified their playing the new Harry Potter game could show up on their social media for fear of being harassed or judged. I'm seeing people online constantly questioned because they are still enjoying a children's book they have liked since they were six. I'm seeing posts trying to manifest JKR's death, along with countless insults, one more disgusting than the other. The list goes sadly on.

I understand her opinion was harmful, especially because so many of those she ideologically hurt used to idolize her and think her world an unadulterated safe space, but this is, regardless, not how civil people behave. This still means being morally way worse than her. You can disagree with someone, feel betrayed and disgusted by them, but this doesn't turn decent people disgusting in turn. What the internet society is currently considering acceptable (just look at how everyone behaved when the Queen died) is disgusting and the fact that everyone is congratulating each other for it doesn't make it any less so.

Not only no one has the right to do any of this, but the most disturbing thing is that it's generally believed behaving like this is doing society a service, that this is what nobility of heart and activism are. This single thought is appalling, utterly dangerous, and could translate disturbingly easily to many other fields of life, with terrible consequences.

You started this ask saying that this is not about the author or her opinion, but it is. Before she made her unfortunate remarks, for more than two decades no one ever found anything problematic in those books. If, as you say, that children's saga is but a disgusting caldron of crimes against humanity, praising of Nazis and antisemitism and racism everywhere, why did no one notice before now? Why have the minorities of the world found for decades a safe space in it? No one had critical skills before 2019?

I don't appreciate hypocrisy as much as I don't appreciate inquisitions.

As much as people saw everything Harry Potter-related through exaggerated lenses of greatness before that unfortunate statement, they are now finding any sort of filth in those books to justify their agenda of cancellation, their anger and disdain.

This is sad to witness, and it isn't the author who is paying the greatest price for this, but normal innocent people that refuse to be ideological weathervanes about their own personal tastes.

Now, leaving aside the fact that I'm quite tired of having to spend so many words regarding something I've such little interest in (I've never been a huge Harry Potter fan, I never liked the fandom, I've always found the author somewhat unpleasant even recognizing her great achievements, and other than being fond of the books and movies as dear childhood memories, I've only ever really liked Voldemort and Bellatrix as villains - or better, my own vision of them), but, as I was saying, let me address your concerns about my own morality as a single individual - because this is what you were questioning me about, isn't it?

You know, I actually found your first argument quite funny, since not only I obviously think Voldemort's character very interesting, but I've actually always found World War II and the Nazi ideology quite interesting as well. I've even read many books about it, watched countless documentaries. Passionate as I am about anthropology too, just the other day I bought Otto Rhan's diaries. Not only this, but I'm quite fond of watching true crime as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your ask was suggesting that I shouldn't be able to reconcile those things I find interesting, psychological dives you quite fittingly called them, with being a... decent human being? With having a conscience? With caring about humanity? With not being a Nazi or a murderer myself? You pick the one you like best.

I suppose that, following your reasoning, I and every single Nazi/Hitler/World World II/psychopathology passionate scholar of the world should be considered amoral monsters and put away forever. Or perhaps what people find fascinating has nothing to do with their sense of morality or disposition. I wonder which one it might be.

The thing that worries me is, I consider this logical conclusion ten years olds material. Seeing people with a developed brain failing to grasp this is... genuinely disturbing.

This said, I actually find the Voldemort/Nazi parallel the lazy, uninteresting interpretation of his movement and ideology. No doubt the author drew inspiration from it, but I think that what everyone is failing to grasp is that JKR probably did it more out of what I like to call literary sloth, then out of a malevolent intent to further the National Socialist ideology. JKR stole left and right, from real life, from history, from other books - I can name you countless instances of it. This is because being creative is extremely hard work. Thinking about something original is painful and most of the time impossible. Authors like to take inspiration from something that already exists, it makes the work less gargantuan. This doesn't really mean they are seconding malevolently the said source of inspiration, at least not without a solid proof. And in Harry Potter there's really nothing that promotes Nazism or antisemitism or racism whatsoever. At the very worst, we are dealing with banal worldbuilding. A turban is hiding Voldemort, that's racism! The goblins have big noses and are only interested in gold, that's antisemitism! Please. Jumping to such conclusions is just stupid and futile. I can name a hundred mythological sources that describe goblins and dwarfs as ugly, with big noses and incredibly lustful for gold (Wagner, Tolkien, Norse mythology, everyone?). I can name a dozen fantasy books questioned about their standing in World War II - The Lord of the Rings included.

Again, finding all sorts of unsupported faults now in this saga is nothing but embarrassing hypocrisy. How can people convincingly preach those things is beyond me.

And finally as for Voldemort, since you asked, I actually don't particularly care to reduce his figure and ideology to the source of inspiration of the author. It's uninteresting, and being uninteresting is the most damnable fault in art. I talked about it many times, you can go check it out, but while Nazism had a pretty absurd reason to be "blood-purity" obsessed (Hitler was obsessed with myth and magic, but myth and magic aren't real), I like to argue that, as monstrous as it was nonetheless, the Wizarding World's pureblood ideology was more justified and therefore more complex and nuanced - magic existed, wizards were a meagre minority reduced into hiding, many bloodlines were producing squibs, etc etc. The blood purists had a very real reason to fear and act (unlike the Nazis who had just fanatism and economic reasons), even if they probably were the very source of the problem, since I like to think it was their inbreeding, and not the mingling with muggles, the thing that was weakening magic more and more. Voldemort's pathological relationship with magic was though, in my opinion, his reason to marry the ideology and use it to further his plans. I wrote about it extensively, I think you might have missed it.

I hope I could give you food for thought.

[edvinception]

i am so baffled at all the asks and stuff on here today 💀 people truly are rude and have nothing better to do and only are brave enough behind a screen and anon. i just cant understand what the point is to send all these asks just degrading and judging edvin?? and discussing his future career as if they know all his goals & plans? and like their opinion is standard fact? like i’m not AS info edvin as i am omar, but all i’ve ever thought of him is that he’s sweet, charming, fun, determined & hardworking, and a dreamer in his own way. he just has different goals than omar which makes sense given their careers & i feel like people cannot stop comparing them when that just doesn’t make sense. and i agree that we need to stop having “success” in the movie/tv/film/music world being equated to only hollywood. i’m sure edvin has had all kinds of offers, auditions, opportunities, etc. etc. that he has thought through and tried for and things are going how he wants. he has seemed quite happy & joyful about the projects he has going that he’s announced so far…aka 2 major movies and YRS3…yes it’s swedish productions bc….HE’S SWEDISH. he’s so incredible to watch on screen and off. i love his interviews. he was so fun on twt when he used to interact and he has every reason to boycott social media ffs. artists like omar cant exactly afford that bc a music career is v different, but these anons are making me just pissed and mainly sad bc wtf did edvin do to them?? why can we not just put good vibes and manifestations out there for him and for the things that will bring him happiness with whatever success he desires?? even if he’s “basic”, god how refreshing to see somebody being themselves. to be honest about his youth and entry into the industry and to offer kind words to other young people entering it. he’s a beautiful person, he has kind eyes and a cute smile and lovely hair no matter the style and he’s loving and engaging and intelligent. he speaks about important things like mental health. he knows how to have fun!! and i have nothing but great feelings about where his career is gonna go and the kind of roles and films he could end up in. i have a feeling something in english or more international is on the horizon…he has traveled and talked with people and definitely more than we’ve seen. it’s just so sad to see these trolls and constant negative discussion. he’s such a cutie and has always been so sweet to fans and open about his struggles and is putting himself first as he should. idk what more you could want from someone who appreciates their job and success and gives their all and stays humble. just because omar is “busier” doesn’t mean edvin isn’t doing things and happy with his career. they’re just different and it’s so telling that people are unhappy with their own lives to be already discussing the downfall of edvin’s career when he’s really just starting. he’s doing what he’s passionate about, what speaks to him, not what just gives him the “best” career numbers and fame wise. people’s priorities and sources of happiness can look very different and it’s quite easy sometimes to see who has it right.

Both Omar and Edvin are hardworking, passionate and very driven.

They have different personalities and of course career paths. This will of course influence how they are and how they act.

It doesn't mean one is more successful or interesting than the other but some people will be mote drawn to Omar and some to Edvin.

It's just pointless to compare or bring the one of them down to hype the other.

Regardless, thank you for your lovely words, anon. Such a positive ask to wake up to.

[alarrytale]

What i meant when i said that history won't treat him kindly is that i think in the near or far future, PR relationships will be a tried and tired method of promotion. It's so overdone and some go overboard. At some point the you can’t fool the gp with fake relationships anymore. ///

I don't think the public cares as long as the music is exceptional. MJ had PR marriages and kids who obviously weren't his own but he said they were, like Paris Jackson. He had more PR relationships than anyone else in the industry, plus he had pedophile rumors, and he is still revered as an icon.

It isn't enough to be record breaking or be talented, you need to have worldwide notoriety, be a trailblaizer, be on the right side of history, and generelly be revered by everyone.///

I don't think this is true. Michael Jackson is loathed by millions of people who think he was a pedophile.

Hi, anons!

I still don't think you're understanding what i'm trying to say. You are using examples of an icon who became an icon years ago. The criteria of becoming an icon has changed since then and will change in the future. What it means to be a celebrity has changed, and people's tolerance for mistakes and lies are different.

We are living in a post-"me too" world, in the social media era, in a cancel culture, in a world where everyone can become an icon, talented or not. We're in the middle of an Epstein revelation where huge stars and icons are being implicated in crimes and seedy stuff. If Michael were reigning the charts now, but then did the things he did back then now, he'd be cancelled and never would have become an icon, no matter how good and popular his music were. You saw how big Lizzo got. She was body positive (zeitgeist), original, relatable and funny. She had good songs too. Then the lawsuit came and with it her cancellation, and now she'll never return to her former glory.

Icons are judged by both their conteporaries and the future cultural and societal standards. You can be an icon of your time, but be judged and cancelled in the future. I do think part of why Michael is still an icon in some people's eyes is because his music stood the test of time. In addition he was himself a victim of abuse in several ways. With him it's complicated. There is also not a guarantee that the next generation will view him as an icon still. Information may come to light to change that. No one would think the icon Stephen Hawking would be problematic. Alas, here we are.

I think the icons of today and tomorrow needs to be relatively unproblematic to be universally revered. People are only given one chance, because there is always someone next in line to supersede you if you stumble. If you are talented enough, popular enough, alone in doing your specific thing, and you're generally unproblematic, you can probably survive a minor scandal or two (tax evasion kind of things). You can’t dangle a baby out of the window of a four story building. Then you're out.

[my-mt-heart]

Wanted to add on to the JDM discussion, but need to do so anonymously, for a few reasons. First off, much thanks to anon and yourself for being open to healthy debate on this. Maybe I won’t be accused of forcing opinions on people this time, lol.

It took me months to properly unpack the ramifications of his choice. When this all started, I first found those tweets kind of relieving of the emotional turmoil and confusion we were all being bombarded with. And AMC’s statement felt condescending. So in the moment I appreciated that a key voice was just talking to us like people, and was willing to address the elephant in the room. I made a post about it sharing my personal feelings, and was heckled a lot for it. I think there are people in the fandom who still dislike me on that basis, which is funny because after 11 months my opinion has evolved from there.

Evidently, he was not aware of what really happened. I don’t think his intent was to spread falsehoods or cause harm, but unfortunately those tweets did a tremendous amount of irreparable damage. People are too willing to look at a woman in her 50s in this industry and believe that she really fought her way out of a contract and jeopardized all her future work opportunities, because she was tired. (Sidenote: I don’t think the selfish ‘fans’ who want Melissa far away from RTD for their own personal reasons, realize how difficult it will be for her to find other work at her age. Or that potential employers will take into account what kind of SM PR an actor will bring to their project). Anyway there are countless people who believe she really needed a break and there is no changing that in their minds because of where it came from. We’ll never know what Norman would have said on Fallon if the script hadn’t been changed.

Jeffrey sadly created a huge PR mess, which I can undoubtedly say was met with consequences. An old set photo of Melissa and Jeffrey doesn’t depict what their relationship might be like currently. AMC neglected to send him (and by proxy LC) to SDCC (filming was just a convenient excuse)—possibly a punishment for going off script, but more likely, to entice Melissa to be there.

I was at the finale event, and the interactions I personally witnessed when the cameras weren’t rolling were very telling, to say the least. They painted a clearer picture of how Mel really feels about Jeffrey, about Norman, and about Gimple. And I’m really content to leave it at that. It’s really everything that’s already been said multiple times on this account.

Thank you for sharing your perspective and you're right that your opinion should be allowed to evolve. I don't think anyone was sure what to make of the situation a year ago, and I include myself in that as well. Whether through a fans' POV or someone with industry experience, it was all so weird. It's sad that we're still seeing the collateral damage and maybe some of that can never be fixed, though I would hope AMC are well on their way to fixing what's in their power for Melissa's sake and for her fans. I was going to get into the challenges of Melissa finding other work a little later, but since you brought it up, I should probably just do it now. I can already visualize people foaming at the mouth lol

We know Melissa has plenty of talent and a stellar reputation. That's beside the point. In an industry where sexism and ageism are still running rampant, there's going to be less leading roles available for women over 35, let alone 50. Even less for women who don't dye their hair and therefore won't appeal to men 18-49. Other considerations include an actress' social media footprint and where they're based. Melissa isn't active on SM and she's not on either coast. None of these are "faults" of hers. This is all just to say, I can understand if she chose not to go down that path and judging by all the buzz about her joining the Caryl spinoff, it seems like maybe she did not. That doesn't mean she's settling for anything less than she deserves. She'll get to be the leading lady, playing a character we know she loves, and she'll likely have the leverage to create a better work environment for herself, where she'll be respected and valued.

[qqueenofhades]

you can tell you work in academia with how much patience you have for some of these asks...."I don't know what is and isn't true anymore" is such an indefensible cop out of a way to exist in the modern world. morally clean "Leftists" could at least have the decency to learn the history of the people and places they pretend to care about for internet points, but hey, it's way easier to take the Opressor Approved route and give into despair and recycle repurposed right wing propaganda like the TERF version of geopolitics. a lot of people need to ask themselves, if there were no internet asspats involved, would you actually still care?? anyway thank you for your patience and willingness to engage, you're a better person than me :')

So far as the other anon goes, they have apologized and taken responsibility that it was a dumb thing to do, I have accepted that apology, and I think that matter is now closed. And yes, I do actually appreciate (as discussed in many other posts and asks) that it is difficult to always and automatically find reliable information, that it has been made deliberately even more difficult to do so by various bad actors, and that this results in a big ol' Bad Take Sea even by people who are genuinely otherwise well-meaning or want to make a positive contribution. So I really do have sympathy for that. Perhaps the previous anon did not put that sentiment across in the best of ways, but as I said, we should all have a bit more grace in remembering that we are real people behind the computer/phone screen and are dealing with different stressful things, and therefore sometimes make mistakes and do or say things we don't mean. (You know, for those of us who aren't pornbots. Oh tumblr.)

Where you and I absolutely agree, however, is that just because it is sometimes difficult to acquire that information, or that systemic and deliberate barriers/misinformation has been put in place to increase the difficulty, it does not excuse people from the responsibility of doing so, especially if they want to put themselves in the position of being the Perfectly Correct Social Media Oracle who will judge and criticize everyone else's responses and act as if that has some real-world impact or is a real marker of someone's "personal morality." And there are for sure plenty of people who are doing that with literally no self-awareness or other critical tools, because as you say, they want the Internet Asspats for being seen as a "Good Person" according to a very narrow and limited definition. But they can't think about what that entails, how to challenge it or correct it, or otherwise apply it carefully, so, yeah.

As I said, I am generally willing to answer asks that are made in good faith and show a real willingness to learn, because (as noted and which is doubtless visible again here) I am an academic and I enjoy having these kinds of discussions. But this topic in particular, and modern social media in general, is really not made for it, and it's easy to get sucked down the Discourse Black Hole that doesn't do anything for anyone, and I try to avoid that. So I answer only when I think I can contribute something useful to the discussion, which results in those kinds of long and careful responses where I do always worry that I haven't said enough or said it the right way, especially with the bad-faith reading police eager to leap on any small misstatement or sentence taken out of context. That is of course a hazard of being a person on the Internet in 2024, and since I am still here and still answering questions generally, I have clearly decided to accept it. But I also don't have an obligation to respond to *everything,* and I don't. It is a fine line to walk and again, I am a middle-aged tired academic and ordinary person doing my best. I appreciate your support. :)

[michaelgogins]

Artificial Intelligence and What's to Come...

This is my current working summary of thoughts regarding artificial intelligence and its potential dangers.

What controls what ultimately happens is not "intelligence" or "consciousness" (both of which I take to be both very real and very important), but evolutionary theory.

In other words, what's important is whether AIs are reproducing in the biological sense and, if so, what if any is their selective advantage over human beings. The best summary that I know of how natural selection actually works is John Baez' work on the Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection. It implies that a high variance of fitness and high speed of reproduction in AIs could give them a serious selective advantage -- but only if they reproduce autonomously. Right now, the only way AIs can reproduce is if people copy them. Right now, this is far from autonomous -- we can just shut them down if we don't like them! And right now, AI fitness is simply how well AIs do what we want.

In the future we might get "smart computer viruses" that fool us into copying them. This is one of the main things the doomsters worry about, and I agree with them that at some point that could be a real threat. Until such time as there are literally self-reproducing machines, von Neumann machines with replicators (this is the other main thing doomsters worry about), any AIs will need to keep us around in order to reproduce themselves, and their fitness will simply be how well they serve us. But that might be cold comfort, because how well AIs serve us (in terms of our Darwinian fitness) might be quite different from what we think it is. After all, we've improved the Darwinian fitness of cattle quite a bit by keeping them and breeding them so that we can milk and eat them, kind of like in the Matrix films. I repeat, none of this requires AIs to be conscious or to have goals.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing in any current AI architectures involves any knowledge of external reality, any consciousness, or any means of judging truth that is not encoded in high-dimensional correlations between tokens (words, phrases, and meaningful fragments of words) on the Internet. However, the huge discovery of AI is that these correlations can be exploited in AMAZINGLY POWERFUL WAYS.

As long as there is no truth-testing by AIs, everything produced from them has to be truth-tested by some, hopefully expert, human individual or group. Probably because of this, there's no indication of any ability of AIs to produce what scientists call "major results" or artists call "great works." If there were, I'm sure it would be big news, and if there hasn't been, I'm sure it's not for lack of trying.

So, what are some of the potential dangers of AIs?

Nation states, with the help of experts, will probably try to weaponize AIs. I do not know how to estimate this risk. But, if I were responsible for my nation's defense, the precautionary principle would make me assign high priority, big funds, and major talents to it. I sure wouldn't want to wake up one day and find all the computers in all my weapon systems had been taken over by an enemy sending out super-smart computer viruses!

Human subcultures, political parties, businesses, and even individuals will use AIs to make propaganda. This has already started happening, and I have no idea of how far it will go, or what the consequences might be.

Individual human beings may find it increasingly difficult to know what is true. This is already hard enough. Social media have injured democracy around the world, and AI could kill it.

Individuals may find their screens even more addictive than they already are. One wonders, for example, about the impact of sexbots run by AIs.

I've been fooling around online with ChatGPT and DALL-e, and I plan to do more of that. At first, I could trip ChatGPT up in a few minutes, by asking it to prove theorems, or by getting it to contradict itself. But this has definitely gotten harder.

[astropithecus]

The (only) great thing about America trailing behind most of the rest of the industrialized world on social policies is we don't have to guess anymore. We can know with empirical certainty exactly what would happen if policies like free college were implemented, because other countries have already implemented them, sometimes decades ago so we even get long-term data. In a lot of cases, we've even already run trials and done studies right here in the US, so even arguments like "just because it worked somewhere else doesn't mean it would work here" are spurious.

The right loves to bring up Soviet Communism and failed South American states like they're the only historic examples of progressive economic policies. This is ironic, considering those regimes weren't actually very economically progressive at all, but I think that argument starts at the politician/media level as a calculated choice to stymie discussion by focusing on the irrelevant. It's then accepted as fact and parroted by people that lack the media literacy and critical thinking skills to judge the validity of those statements.

"USSR!" works to derail discussion, because by acting like nobody's ever really implemented effective progressive economic policies, they sweep all the scientific evidence under the rug. By implying "nobody can really know what would happen because we only tried it a few times and it didn't work, so we just have to guess" they obscure the truth - that we don't have to guess, we already know, with the same degree of certainty we know anything about economics and human behavior.

Unfortunately for Boomer Dads everywhere, the objective reality is that when college is affordable, more poor people really do go to college, and they do just as well in school as people that had to pay tuition. When people's livelihood doesn't depend on their work, they value their career more and advance further. "Handouts" don't make people lazy, if anything strong social safety nets make people work harder. Crime and drug use decrease when you give people free healthcare - suggesting the way to turn "criminals" and "addicts" into productive members of society isn't more cops or more jails, it's better access to healthcare. In short - handouts make people better people. If someone "doesn't deserve" help, then the best thing for society as a whole is to help them. These aren't opinions, these are facts. Unlike opinions, facts aren't subjective, it doesn't actually matter if you disagree - because the word for a disagreement with objective reality is "delusion."

I realize that link-dump looks like something to bookmark for Thanksgiving dinner with the family this year, but remember when dealing with people suffering from delusion, it's not usually productive to dispute their delusions with them. This seems counterintuitive, but providing a delusional person with conflicting evidence would generally make them cling to the delusion more tightly, and sometimes cause them to create even more elaborate paranoid fantasies to protect it (those studies aren't real science, fact checking is a liberal conspiracy, peer-reviewed journals are fake news, everyone is lying to me, I can't trust anything I read, you're working for the bad guys, etc). Any attempts to reason with them - even kind, well-intentioned ones - are only likely to reinforce the delusion. Instead (from the link)

one approach that may be effective is to validate the fear associated with the delusion while calmly explaining you see the situation differently. One way my sister did this was by adopting a calm demeanor, looking me in the eyes and listening to my paranoid statements without judgment. She listened without insisting on disproving my delusions, while at the same time not going so far as to legitimize them. I recall one such interaction as I was walking around my neighborhood with my sister. I began pointing out all the houses with their blinds closed tightly and told her, “Those blinds are closed for a reason. It’s part of the investigation. The people inside are trying to make it appear as though they’re not home.” My sister thought over what I had said, then offered, “It’s interesting you see it that way, because I see it a little differently. I see that the sun is shining pretty intensely on those windows right now, so maybe the people have shut the blinds tightly to block out the sun.” As I reflect on how my sister handled that situation and many others, what I appreciate most is that she remained calm and offered another way of looking at the situation without insisting it was more rational. This technique enabled me to consider other explanations without leaving me feeling as though I was being dismissed as irrational. My sister’s approach allowed me to challenge my delusions myself, to consider that my theories weren’t the only possible explanations for what was happening around me.

You've got to give them the space to recognize on their own that maybe they're not the financial and psychological experts that they think they are. They have to make the connection for themselves that they don't have enough evidence to warrant their faith in their delusion. They have to sort of accidentally stumble upon the self-awareness that they don't have any relevant educational or occupational experience to refute the conclusions of an entire worldwide community of economists and social scientists. You can't force it on them (even if you could, can you imagine how condescending you'd have to be?) but by gently raising alternate explanations to their delusional reasoning, without invalidating them or making a judgement about who's "right" (you know you are, but remember a delusional person is just as convinced that they are) you'll usually have a less contentious relationship. You may actually be a positive influence on their mental health, as well, but at least you won't make things worse.

[adventurepaige]

Refraining from Judgement in the Christian Church

There's a topic that I have been thinking of in recent months surrounding the judgment in the church, especially within the Christian faith. What I have concluded so far, is that we often forget about the basic benefits that God laid out for us from the very beginning. The church has neglected the ultimate truth in approaching others who think differently from us, meaning that we have become so immersed in judgment that we have seemingly forgot about what we are called to do in these cases. At the end of the day, I know in my heart that I should strive to live a life like Jesus did.

What bothers me most about all of this, is the quote circulating around social media along the lines of "there's no hate like Christian love." This is not how it should be, and as a church and group of people who should be promoting the love and compassion of Christ, we have instead resorted to relentless judgment that is cast throughout our communities. It is gross, it is toxic, and it has pushed me and plenty of others away from the churches who promote this kind of mindset. As someone who did not grow up in the church, I know from personal experience that this is ultimately what drives others from seeking the purest of love that God has placed upon us. I often see people who act as if their sin is less than others, but in reality, sin is sin. In God's eyes, we have all sinned in one way or another, and to place judgment on others for what their sins are and taking up the mindset that yours is less than theirs is simply not what Jesus sought to teach us. Now, I'm not an expert, and as I said earlier in this piece I am not too far along on my journey in my faith, but I know for a fact that Jesus tells us to love our neighbors, and refrain from judgement. God loves others just as much as he loves you, and the only one who can judge is God himself.

I have struggled to grasp how the simplicity of this message has been forgotten when we approach and talk to others about Jesus, especially in the modern-day Christian church. I recognize that not all are like this, but I've noticed that as the more we talk about social debates surrounding the LGBT+ community and those who practice other spiritual lifestyles, the Christian church has resorted to hate and preconceived judgement rather than love and compassion DESPITE these different point of views. Who are you as a Christian to damn someone to hell? You have no right, God is the only who can make that decision.

When I am asked whether others will go to heaven based on where they are in their life journeys or personal walks of faith, I struggle with providing an answer to this. In my eyes, who am I to judge whether someone is going to heaven? Who am I to look at someone and cast judgement upon them when I truly have no idea who they are and what they have gone through? I have been judged, hated, and cast aside numerous times because I think differently in terms of my faith, and because I do not fit the traditional mold of a Christian woman. Despite all of this, I have taken these remarks and actions of those who claim to be followers of Christ and turned it into compassion and grace for others (even those who wrong me). To me, I am called to love and put my judgment aside, and the church (in my opinion) has neglected this crucial part of the Word of God.

I’ve had countless encounters with Christians and those similar who will automatically place judgment upon someone who they don’t know on a personal level. Even more so, I have witnessed Christians decided that someone is not worth saving or bringing closer to God because they feel that they do not belong in God’s house as one of his children. Even the people who grew up in the church have been shunned and pushed away from those that they have loved and looked up to their entire lives because the church has deemed them as unworthy. The church itself has no power to deem someone as unworthy, but they do have the power to influence others in their congregation to think that they do unfortunately, even if it's against what the Bible teaches us. This is what drove me away from pursuing a relationship with God for countless years and seasons of my life and has made me question whether I am truly worthy of his love more than once. This is backwards, and quite frankly very toxic. I am under the impression that everyone can reap the benefits of God’s love if they turn to him, no matter what their backgrounds are because at the end of it all, we are mere humans in a world full of hate and unknowns whose sin is all the same. God is the light that shines over all of that, and the church is dimming that light for outsiders and followers of Christ alike.

So, I encourage anyone who reads this to take a moment to reflect upon yourself and how you treat others who are different from you. How would Jesus treat them if he were still walking the earth today? What does God think about the judgment you cast upon others? Jesus did not turn sinners away, he welcomed them with open arms with the hopes of revealing to them what God has in store for them. Who are we to judge someone for where they are in their lives? We have no place, and we should not be making room for this in the Christian church because it is not what God calls us to do. We as followers of Jesus have a responsibility to uphold and it is, to me (in simple terms), to live like Jesus.