#like the logic and science supports the arguments I'm making

[missdrummond]

Album 77 Initial Reactions

*SPOILERS*

????? Of course Renee said no??? She is not a woman of faith she would be a terrible choice for this project????

Like defending someone else's beliefs is the kind of thing I would do for fun but I acknowledge that most people wouldn't want/be good at doing that. Including you Mr. Whittaker. Imagine if one of the kids came up to you and said they needed help on a paper which demonstrates how evolution is compatible with Christianity or that evolution disproves Christianity. You know perfectly well you wouldn't help them.

I don't like this new portrait gallery it's just imagination station and it's lost it's charm.

So, the sciencentist is referring to the beginning of Romans and I'd just like to point out that Paul is talking about Judaism as well as Christianity since they hadn't properly separated at that point.

I like the faith and science are compatible argument. However the claim that Christianity "invented" science is a gross simplification. Yes, Christains founded a lot of old universities. You know who else did? Muslims. Which would actually support the faith and science compatibility argument as well but we're not going to talk about that are we?

Also how does any of this help Camila the assignment was for how faith is BETTER than science. Which is an awful assignment but the AiO world is so strange I'll believe it. I mean I technically don't actually know what goes on in public schools maybe this kind of objectionable nonsense happens all the time. (It doesn't)

This misses the entire point of the portrait gallery.

Huh, didn't know God not being IN the universe was this widespread a doctrine. Cool.

That was actually a nice speech there Mr. Whittaker. *polite applause*

No, Galileo's problem wasn't that he contradicted the Bible (that is also a part of it) it was that he contradicted a specific Church doctrine and metaphor about Jesus. Actually I should fact check myself, I can't remember reading that from a reliable source so I probably just heard it somewhere my apologies to myself if I'm wrong.

Funny if I remember right exiling people is frequently what you did to heretics. Isn't that what happened after the council of Nicea?(Which I know is an unrelated event its just the first exiling I thought of) Renée's point still stands regardless of how well he's been treated.

Are you.... Tousen doing a bad italian accent?

Oh no. This is about evolution again.

Ok they made it subtle. And yeah this story most definitely sounds more like the kind of thing that was happening in this era. Would have been a good opportunity to point out that even pre reformation "the church" wasn't one entity with completely unanimous beliefs because if everyone hated his theory then there wouldn't be controversy really.

No! This wasn't a portrait gallery episode.

I need to read up on Galileo.

Bouns reaction:

First not everyone is here because the Mona Lisa is captivating. But I'm just bitter because I want people to talk about other paintings.

Second you can't destroy the painting then say why do people like it. That's like saying tell me why people like cake but you only get four, eggs, sugar, etc.

Third Renee loves math if she doesn't start going off about the golden rectangle or something I'm going to be sad.

She didn't that's a bummer. Like I know art theories are not full proof methodological tools for making good art, however it would be logical for someone in Renee's position to try and argue that perspective.

Ultimately I give this episode a thumbs up 👍 overall I like that the episode exists.

[cinoman]

the idea of "authentically black"

while im still on my tiktok rant grind i've been thinking about this for ages and i need to write it down so i can stop having this swimming around my head forever

i don't have receipts but blackness is categorized as a spectrum for a good number of people, but not in the way you think(?).

i remember this guy was being made fun of on tiktok because his nose was quite broad (same shit joke about how he takes up all the air in the room) and he basically made a video insinuating he's what the "original" and "most authentic" black person looks like

(he actually said something like "i was what your ancestors looked like, i look like a true african, i look like an ancient african statue" etcetc.)

i had a lot of mixed emotions about that post. it was painted as being very pro-black, and i supported his message for the simple fact he's up against the most intolerable type of black ppl (the one's who think it's appropriate to make fun of other black ppl's features). but i hated it as a stand alone video.

for a brief moment, there was a feud about the usage of afro wigs by black women who do not have type 4 hair. it started because of a well-known black tiktoker, who happened to be lightskin and have type 3 hair, wore an afro wig to some kind of event.

well, another semi well-known black tiktoker, who happened to be darkskin and have type 4 hair, made a very telling slip up when addressing the issue. if i remember correctly she asked her audience how they felt about "lightskin women with type 3 hair using our hair."

and to be completely fair, i think the argument originally was completely valid and interesting. the basis of the feud was that people put on afro-wigs but demean and look down upon people with 4c hair (who have the most accommodating texture for a nice afro). we see afros as a symbol of pro-blackness but tear down the people in our community for their afros by telling them to "get their hair done" and other demeaning shit like that. up until people feel pro-black again.

anyways, as you can imagine, lightskin women with 4c hair basically told her off. the issue was because of the term "our hair" and the link of "lightskin and 3c hair." the whole incident kind of reminded me of the guy i mentioned earlier. and then it clicked for me: people (no matter how conscious they are) think of blackness as a spectrum of features. and it's dumb as hell.

for example in the nose incident, broader noses are considered more "authentically" black. so wouldn't the logical conclusion to this be that if you're black with a nose that's any less broader, you're not as "authentically" black. your nose is a product of something non-black, and a broader nose can only be the product of something only black.

with hair/skin, darker skin is viewed as more authentically black. so is having 4c hair. therefore, it makes sense that someone who is "authentically" black by means of darker skin would also have 4c hair.

i'm not so sure why the link between hair and skin is so close in this case, but moving on.

so therefore, lighter skin people are automatically not "authentically" black and therefore "should" have features that match that: looser hair.

the conclusions to these statements is that anything not in complete opposite direction to the eurocentric beauty standard is "diluted," and "less black." there must be something there that is causing those things other than blackness.

i shouldnt have to explain why this dichotomy is asinine, and unhelpful to the way we view blackness. this dichotomy is what generates comments like "Oh, what are you mixed with?" when a black person has anything outside of "authentically black" features.

the actual answer here is all of it is black. all it is is caused by "authentic blackness." Hair that comes in looser textures is a product of? black people. no, not referring to the stupid anti-science eve gene stuff, it's simply a feature black people who are full black can have without there being some underlying "unauthentic" blackness in them. Same with lighter skin, etc.

brain dump over lol

[mayaisstillusingthebraincell]

Turnabout Corner

You got through the intro case! Now we can really get back into the swing of things. This is a fun case, with some great back and forth in court along with entertaining witnesses. We'll meet the rest of the cast for this game here, so get ready for some familiar faces and brand new goofballs. There's a lot of threads in this case, but they're all part of the same tapestry.

Major Highlights: -The rest of our regular cast is introduced! We've got our assistant, our prosecutor, and our detective all lined up. -There is a noodle man. -A kitty is hiding in the investigation segments. -There's some goofy yakuza characters who are simply delightful. -Check the trash cans. (Yes, this IS a highlight to me) -Klavier's air guitar

Investigation-Day 1 We open with you, our extremely unemployed defense attorney washes up on the doorstep of the Wright and Co. No-Longer-Law Offices. And we immediately meet Trucy Wright, Magician Extraordinaire! She's our adorable little assistant for the forseeable future, complete with lie-detection skills and enough stage magic to make Franziska dizzy. Trucy delivers the tragic news that Phoenix has been hit by a freaking car and is in the hospital. He's somehow completely fine, but would like you to track down who hit him so he can sue. (I'm so proud of your growth, Phoenix. You've never pressed charges against an assailant before!)

Wait, what's that? Apollo's not a detective, he's a defense attorney? What games have you been playing this whole time? Besides, we also have a missing noodle stand and a panty-snatcher case to take care of too. Hop to it!

Investigation flow is pretty straightforward in this first chapter. Investigate the different incidents and you'll run into who you need to. Keep the Rise from the Ashes case in mind while you're looking for clues. Click on the ladder. The argument is reborn. Trial-Day 1

Here comes Justice! Even though you only saw your client for about two seconds and half your evidence doesn't seem to relate directly to the case! But you've got Trucy and Phoenix is never wrong when it comes to his little girl.

And we get the proper introduction of our new prosecutor! Klavier Gavin is ready to rock, your Honor. He may resemble his brother in appearance, but there's a lot more to Klavier than meets the eye. What's his angle? Does he even have one? Time will tell.

But this case progresses as smoothly as investigation, at least for me. The chain of logic flowed decently, though you're going to have to press a lot. This section also introduces Apollo's lie-detecting mechanic, so don't panic when it looks like you've hit a dead end. Apollo will panic, but we're used to fake-outs in this series.

Oh, and the witness is full of shit. It is not fake science jargon to communicate that he's smart. It's just fake. Krypton particles exist in comics and not Japanifornia. Investigation- Day 2

With some new revelations under our belt, it's time to hit the pavement and get scientific! This section is easy to get lost in with far less clear telegraphing about where to go next. If you've exhausted a character's dialogue and can't present them with anything to get new information, just leave and check all the other locations until the time stamp. You'll want to start at the Detention Center. And don't forget that piece of evidence you couldn't carry back in Day 1! If you get stumped on clues, don't cry to Phoenix because he's out most of the time. Cry to Ema instead! And no one will get angry if you chuck all of your evidence at them. Trial- Day 2

From the evidence we gathered in yesterday's investigation, I think you have a pretty good idea who our culprit is. Klavier may have called his witness to support the case against Wocky, but he's also walked right into our web of evidence. Take the openings you see to turn the case in a new direction. I quickly hit the AA tipping point of fully understanding what happened, but not knowing the path to prove it in the court. Your pieces of evidence are your guideposts. Some of it may seem irrelevant to this murder case, but remember we started with three mysteries that led to this trial. All three of them are still relevant. And if you feel you've painted yourself into a corner, remember you're a phoenix.

[13thpythagoras]

Cute fascist propaganda, my goodness, this has been debunked by Yale and I'll paste that below my personal debunking--

Nuclear power makes so much sense until the next Fukushima event

Comparing nuclear power's waste to solar power's waste is worse than comparing apples to oranges, when e-waste is 10x what you see from solar panels and both are growing at the same pace, with both having potential for recycling solutions that DO NOT EXIST for nuclear waste. Apples to amulets

waste from cell phones and computers is 10x the waste from solar panels; and guess what, waste from coal is about 10x the size of e-waste. And when you actually account for the YEARS of waste you get from nuclear, that's the most wasteful of all

I'm not able to fathom the difference of something that can and should be recycled like solar waste being compared in the same ballpark to spent nuclear rods that cannot be recycled and kill anyone who goes near them for the next 10,000 years

Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and conscious hydro are the 5-fold system advocated by many, including Lester Brown and myself advocate for, and we also need energy storage. The monopoly fossil fuel has on energy storage needs to end, we know sugar batteries are 10x more efficient than lithium ion batteries, and sugar batteries are theoretically recyclable as well; we absolutely need political gains so that we can focus on long-term profitable enterprises like recycling rather than short term profit...

and now for that Yale debunking-

"Myth: “Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.”

Fact check:

Misinformation about the purported toxicity of solar panels is widespread, but this dubious variation of the myth stood out as one that warranted further investigation.

A non-peer reviewed article arrived at this conclusion with a problematic leap of logic. The authors measured quantities of toxic waste in cubic meters, and “the study defines as toxic waste the spent fuel assemblies from nuclear plants, and the solar panels themselves.”

In other words, the article equates a cubic meter of used solar panels to a cubic meter of spent nuclear fuel. One needn’t have much of a science background to realize that a used solar panel offers a completely different type of hazard compared to a bundle of uranium and plutonium.

Perhaps a more useful unit of measure would consider the type of toxin, the degree of hazard it poses, how long it lasts, and, critically, exposure – that is, how easily it’s transported through the environment and absorbed by humans and other organisms. Volume alone is not a useful measure of toxicity, particularly when it comes to nuclear waste.

As clean energy ramps up, the latest wave of fossil fuel dark money seeks to undermine its benefits. Fellow Yale Climate Connections writer Dana Nuccitelli in June 2018 described this situation in the attacks on electric vehicles and solar panels for the Guardian newspaper.

That said, of course we want solar panels to be as clean and green as possible. They do contain heavy metals and toxins similar to the materials found in smartphones and laptops. Unlike a smartphone, however, a solar panel has a 25-year lifespan.

Solar panels are mostly made of glass, which is easily recycled. The remaining components are plastic, aluminum, silicone, and metals, each with its own pathway for recycling and disposal. The recycling efforts of solar panel manufacturers can be compared using the Solar Scorecard. It’s also worth noting that solar-thermal plants don’t use solar panels at all, they use mirrors.

People who make this argument tend to fall into two camps. In some cases, concern for the environmental footprint of solar panels is genuine. But in other cases the underlying motivation is simply to rally support for more polluting forms of energy.

Either way, it’s easier to take the comment at face value and point out the environmental virtues of solar energy. As always, start by building off of common ground and aim for a response that appeals rather than offends or repels.

A friendly response: “I share your concern about the toxicity of our energy production, and I agree that we should pursue the types of energy that involve the smallest possible amounts of pollution. You are correct, too, in pointing out that every source of energy has some environmental drawbacks. If reducing pollution is your priority, then we surely need to steer clear of fossil fuels. While no form of electricity generation is entirely free from impacts, solar and wind are far cleaner options for us all.”

[eeveelutionsforequality]

I don’t get why you guys support MAPs. It’s bone-chillingly obvious to me that most MAPs want their attraction to people who have no conscious ability to consent validated and supported, and I’m sorry but I cannot give that any amount of support and it bothers me that it’s the hill you guys are willing to collectively die on

Please don't group us together like that or blame Flareon for my opinions on certain topics, we differ on this one and Flareon often pops in to reaffirm that fact - I've actually been considering making a separate blog for this discourse (obviously I wouldn't leave this blog) because I don't want people to make assumptions about the other mods' opinions based on mine, but at the same time this blog enables me to dip in and out of any discourse I choose to, while a more focused blog on top of this would take up even more time and effort, and would likely mean that I had to follow people who engage in that kind of discourse regularly, which could be triggering on my bad days. I'm bouncing the thought around, because as much as I'm happy hanging myself from a tree on any given hill, I don't want this blog to die whatsoever.

Onto my opinions:

"I don’t get why you guys support MAPs"

Firstly, I suffer from severe intrusive thoughts and I've been presumed violent in the past - I can empathize greatly with how it feels to have unwanted and unchosen thoughts and to be treated awfully because of them. Once you've been locked up and essentially tortured for months on end, because everybody believes that you're a monster and you start to believe that yourself, it's very hard not to read post after post of a group going through judgement so strikingly similar and not feel like you should say something about it - they're thoughts, they can't help them, they haven't done anything, and the more I see antis throwing intrusive thoughts under the bus the more I start to worry that if I don't take a stand now the suffering I endured will be justified against me again.

Secondly, because I think that, if done right, the anti-contact ideals are going to pan out as an effective path towards prevention of crimes - again, from experience, I know how utterly terrible being abused as a kid is, and I don't want that to happen to anybody else. If there's a way for people to be able to safely open up about these thoughts, seek therapy, and live their lives without ever harming anybody, I think that's incredible and important, and I want to do my best to ensure that becomes a reality.

Thirdly, they're not bad people, not the ones I've met anyway. I personally know a few people, irl and online, not all maps, who have had pretty disturbing fantasies, attractions and thoughts, who have come to me for help and advice - all wonderful and kind people who were scared and hurting. I've gone to those people for advice myself, with things that I felt I couldn't talk to anybody about and that I was struggling through alone, stuff that made me feel suicidal and brought back memories of being treated awfully because of my mental health, and they've always been compassionate and understanding - that empathy I mentioned goes both ways, while most people freak out if you open up about the content of intrusive thoughts or other disturbing symptoms. I can't speak for all of the ones on tumblr, I've no doubt that there are terrible people on here, but the people that I've spoken to who happen to have intrusive thoughts, sexual thoughts, unwanted attractions, they're not demons, they're not bad people.

"It’s bone-chillingly obvious to me that most MAPs want their attraction to people who have no conscious ability to consent validated and supported"

In my experience, they don't have any ill intentions - they're just human beings. They want people to stop calling them monsters, they kinda want to be told that they're not monsters, they want to be able to reach out and get the same help and support that all of us need from time to time, they want to keep kids safe, they want to live a normal life that makes them happy, they don't want to act on their thoughts or hurt anybody.

Imagine you were thrown into this world with these thoughts and feelings that you didn't ask for, and you didn't understand them at first or what they meant but as you got older you realized that it was a thought that you could never act on because the action would cause unimaginable harm, harm that you quite possibly endured yourself and couldn't imagine inflicting upon another. You didn't ask for it, you don't want it, but it can't go away, no matter how much you suppress it and try to pretend it's not there, it crops up in the back of your head all the time - and everybody tells you that you're a monster for it, that you deserve to die, that you should lock yourself away and suffer in silence. You start to believe it and you feel awful about yourself, depressed, alone, inhuman, unwanted, monstrous, all because of something that's entirely beyond your control, something that was forced upon you. You just want to talk it through with someone occasionally, keep on top of it, be a good person, but everywhere you go everybody is conflating the fact that you have these thoughts with you actively causing that harm, and other people in your position are suffering and killing themselves because of it, and other people are talking about how they want people in your position to suffer and kill themselves.

I just want to find a way to help these people and to prevent kids from getting hurt - help doesn't just mean positive vibes, sometimes it means being the person who warns somebody when their symptoms are getting worse or tells them to man up and take their meds.

It's fine if you can't empathize with them or support that, it's fine if their community stresses you or triggers you and you don't want to see it, it's fine if you think that there are risks that need bringing up and addressing (I do too), and it's fine if you disagree with me, I'm not forcing you to think how I think. I'll tag any future map posts with "maps tw" and you can blacklist that to avoid the topic if you still wish to follow, all of my posts are tagged "Mod Vaporeon" so you can blacklist that too if you don't want to interact with me personally or see my posts any more. I understand if you don't want to support me, I even understand if you find it hard to follow this blog, but please don't hold our disagreement over the other mods, they aren't at all accountable for what I think or say.

[bonesgadh]

My opinion on what I think is going to happen to Max (more like a compilation of every rant and thought I've had for the last 4 days).

The "Max is brain dead" statement (a.k.a no, she is not)

In a recent interview with Josh Horowitz for his "Happy Sad Confused" show, the Duffers referred to Max as being brain dead and blind (here's the link to the part of the interview in which they said it). Now, the reason why I have an issue with this is that there's no way Max is brain dead. Why do I say this? Let me explain:

Over the years, there has been some controversy over the definition of brain death and its criteria. I won't get too much into it because I'm not a doctor, but I did my research and this is what the NHS says (the first screenshot is from this website and the second is from this one):

According to the National Library of Medicine, apnea (slowed or stopped breathing) is an essential finding in brain death. An apnea test is a mandatory examination for determining brain death, it provides an essential sign of definitive loss of brainstem function. In short, a brain dead person cannot breathe without a ventilator.

Let me ask you something: do you see a ventilator? (The machine on the right is a patient monitor btw).

There's none, which means Max is not, in any way, on life support. Therefore, she is not brain dead. Easy as that. While it's true that people who are unconscious for a longer time might transition to brain death, it's not Max's case (not yet, at least). So either the Duffers don't know the criteria for brain death, or they randomly threw the term in an attempt to explain Max's state, or they confused it with being in a coma due to cardiac arrest (which seems to be her case), or all of the above.

Why couldn't Eleven find her in the void?

There are 3 reasonable explanations (within the show's logic) as to why this happened:

A coma is a state of unconsciousness and minimal brain activity with no signs of awareness. So it could be that due to the nature of her condition, her mind appears to be empty even if it's not; it's simply... absent. This is the option I like the most because it's backed by science.

Vecna somehow kidnapped/absorbed her mind. This is the most plausible one because of the context that has been given within the show.

Her mind is stuck somewhere else, possibly hiding from Vecna.

Gonna elaborate on the first two in a bit.

The original pairings/groups issue

In the same interview with Josh Horowitz, the Duffers said they are looking forward to returning to the original pairings/groups from S1. I recovered the information from this EW article.

The original groupings and pairings are:

The core 4 kids: Lucas, Dustin, Mike & Eleven (and Will to some degree because he is an original character, but he was in the Upside Down for almost the entire season and had very little interaction with the rest of the group).

The teenagers: Jonathan, Nancy & Steve.

The adults: Joyce & Hopper.

This leaves a few characters in an unknown position, particularly Erica, Robin, and Max (the Duffers said S5 will be set entirely in Hawkins, so I'm not considering the characters from other locations: Murray, Suzie, Argyle, Yuri, and Dmitri "Enzo"). Putting Max into a coma was probably the easiest scenario they could come up with to set her aside, reduce the number of characters as much as possible, and focus more on the original ones.

If the Duffers wanted to kill Max, they would have done it already

This is probably the strongest argument against the "Max won't survive" theory: it simply makes no sense from a narrative POV.

I come from the Game of Thrones fandom. GoT was a show built on the premise that any character could die, no matter how important they were (and even D&D didn't have the guts to kill many of them). Stranger Things has never been like that, the characters who have died have almost always been recently introduced ones: Barb, Bob, Alexei, Chrissy, Eddie, and Jason (except for Papa but fuck him). So far the Duffers haven't messed up with any main character, and I doubt they'll start doing it now.

They had a great opportunity (for lack of a better word) to kill Eleven and Will in S1, Hopper in S3, and pretty much everyone in S4. If they wanted to kill Max, they had at least two "perfect" moments to do so: the first one when she actually died in Lucas' arms, and the second one in a scene that didn't happen but for a hot moment I swore it would:

When I saw Eleven had restarted Max's heart but she was unconscious, my first thought (and fear) was they were setting the ground for a scene in which everyone said their goodbyes. Given Max's arc during the season and what she said about feeling depressed and alone, it made sense in my head to have her die surrounded by her friends telling her how much they loved her. And to have a final montage of everyone reading the letters she wrote for them.

But then, when it didn't happen, I realized it would have been pretty stupid of the Duffers to kill Max, revive her and get everyone's hopes up, only to kill her again. So yeah, if they made such a big deal of Eleven saving her, it will make absolutely zero sense to kill her for real. Just sayin'.

Sadie doesn't know Max's fate

Yesterday, Sadie gave an interview to Deadline and said she has no idea what will happen to Max. She could be lying, of course, but I find it unlikely.

The Star Wars inspiration

In this interview with Collider, the Duffers mention getting inspiration from Empire Strikes Back to write the ending for ST4. The article even points out the parallel between Han Solo ending the movie frozen in carbonite and Max's coma.

As the massive Star Wars fan that I am, I was surprised at the parallel. Almost all of the Stranger Things fandom is convinced that, if Max wakes up, she will be blind, which could also be a reference to Han Solo's blindness after awakening from his carbonite hybernation (although Han's condition was established to be temporary from the start, while Max's seems pretty definite to me). Of course, the fact that the Duffers drew inspiration from ESB does not necessarily mean S5 will be like Return of the Jedi. But if Han being frozen in carbonite is what inspired them to write Max's coma, it would make sense they have her wake up early in the season (just like Han).

What I think all of the above means for Max

The most popular theory so far says that Max's mind was taken by Vecna and is trapped somewhere else, and that's why Eleven couldn't find her. If this is true, the most logical answer is that when Vecna dies and Max's mind is recovered, she will wake up.

Yesterday I stumbled upon this user's (renaissancemeetsworld) post about The Void, a card from D&D, and it pretty much convinced me that the theory might be correct:

Now, I think it's interesting to point out that Max didn't die like the rest of Vecna's victims. Technically speaking, Vecna didn't get to finish her off because he was interrupted by Eleven, so the process wasn't completed. Even if Max did die, she was brought back, which weirdly makes her both a victim and a survivor of Vecna's curse.

Vecna is said to take everything from his victims. Not only does he kill their minds, he also destroys their physical bodies. This is why if the theory of Max's mind being held hostage by Vecna is true, Eleven resuscitating her (a.k.a saving her physical body) is the key to her survival. The other victims are basically fucked because even if Vecna is defeated and releases their minds, they won't have a physical body to return to. But Max would, and that's why the Duffers made Eleven restart her heart.

However, I have a major issue with this theory, even if it seems like the most plausible:

Vecna is the main villain of Stranger Things, which means he should be defeated right at the end or near the end of the show, based on the traditional storytelling structure in which the big bad is defeated in the end. If this happens and Max's mind is finally free once he dies, then it would be safe to assume Max will stay in a coma for the entirety of ST5. This scenario holds a significant inconvenience: Max being kept in the penalty box for the entire season would be very lackluster and anticlimatic after everything that happened in S4. Max is a well-beloved character and Sadie is, in my opinion, the best actor in the show; therefore, setting her aside would be a terrible waste (even if Max continues to appear but we only see her inside her mind or something).

What would I like to happen?

We know there will be a time jump in S5, although we don't know how far into the future the Duffers will take the story. However, given the sense of urgency of the S4 finale (the Upside Down/Hawkins barrier is gone and they are one-and-the-same now), it can't be that big of a time jump. Like, there's no way the characters are going to carry on with their lives when everything is literally collapsing around them.

People can be in a coma for days or weeks, even longer in more uncommon cases. So I would like for Max to begin S5 still in a coma but wake up early in the season, either because the group finds a way to retrieve her mind without having to kill Vecna first, or because her body recovers enough for her to regain consciousness, or something along those lines.

Oh and I wouldn't be too mad if they give us some scenes of her adjusting to being blind and waking up with some awesome ability that will be crucial to killing Vecna ✌🏼

[underthehedge]

Who is Elena Lusi?

When reading fringe science that you're uncertain of, one good thing to check sometimes is who the researchers are. Is the off-the-wall evolutionary-genetics paper you're reading from a well respected evolutionary geneticist with decades of experience who's uncovered something deep and amazing? Or is the author a physicist who's Dunning-Kruger ignorance of evolutionary genetics leading them down the garden path while their scientific background makes them sound convincing?

Well, to quote her ResearchGate page:

Elena Angela Lusi is an M.D., PhD. Clinical Immunologist. In 2015, she was the first author to describe that food high in Nickel were linked to obesity in women. She also discovered previously unknown infectious agents that are transmissible and start cancer. These agents are potent carcinogenic biological entities that affect humans and animals in the wild. Immunological strategies aiming at their neutralization will be the key drivers of cancer eradication.

She's a medical doctor (clinical immunologist), as well as having a PhD, who works for a private hospital group. I'm not sure what her PhD was on, as I can't find any records of it, but most of her early work appears to be regarding T-cells and HIV. So far so...well it's a little bit of a branching out for someone working as clinical immunologist but y'know, it's not like she has a completely inappropriate background. Kinda.

But if you go through her research history, something happens around 2018. She's been studying the effect of nickel on weight in women but she's started publishing about finding giant viruses in humans in the journal F1000 Research. A paper titled Discovery and description of the first human Retro-Giant virus, which much like the CTVT work, big if true.

F1000 Research is an interesting journal in that it's not the standard submission > peer-review > publication format. Instead, authors submit a manuscript, which is checked over by the editorial team and then published online, where it can be commented on and openly peer reviewed, and then revised by the authors, with prior versions retained and publicly visible.

So far, one person has positively peer reviewed the aforementioned, the now disgraced scientists Didier Raoult. But what's more interesting to me is the comments section, which, uh...whelp they don't paint a great picture of Lusi's scientific approach. It's linked and I encourage you to go read it but I'm going to copy-paste the exchange under a cut here for those who don't want to go link hopping.

Suffice to say it starts off with a very reasonable question from someone with knowledge of the field and research methods involved. Her response, however, starts of seeming reasonable before descending into all caps and putting the very concept of bioinformatics on blast.

My favourite, extremely scientific part was

BOTTOM LINE > THE HUMAN GIANT INFECT AND CAUSE CANCER> FULL STOP. 

Very science, much logical argument.

To be clear, this isn't meant to be a character assassination of her. I'm very much trying to assess the science but the actions of a person around their research can still be valuable in situations like this. Being an arsehole doesn't make your data invalid. But it may help eludicate how objective someone's work is vs. glory hunting or irrational emotional attachment to a pet theory.

Reader Comment 29 Jul 2019 Daniel Elleder, Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic The interpretations of the sequences obtained in this work are quite confusing and I think incomplete. E.g., the main 150-bp amplicon does not seem to be related to retrovirus sequences. The tree in Fig4 also does not prove any relatedness, the position of the 150-bp sequence is an outer branch without any support. However, this sequence has very close hit in human genome (chromosome 4), which I do not see mentioned. The long contig (first position in supplementary tabe, contig 1) has basically identity to E Coli chromosome. The hit described as gag-akt fusion (contig 1432), and probably used to argue about relatedness to retroviruses,  has similarity to gag-akt fusion in GenBank, but in the akt protein region. So it is probably of human origin, no retrovirus sequence involved. D. Elleder

Author Response 05 Aug 2019 Elena Angela Lusi, St Vincent Health Care Group, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Dear  Daniel Elleder  Thank you for your comment. A version 3 of my manuscript, with updates, will be released shortly. In this new version, I will present further experiments including the isolation of the giant particles from human cells, their purification on a sucrose gradient, whole genome sequence (this time repeated in duplicate),  additional EM analyses, transformation assay on NIH 3T3 cells after giant particles infection and tumours formation in mice.

The giants induced peritoneal metastatic disease after three weeks post infection. Please, See  links below. Unfortunately, especially in the light of the new data and metastatic disease in mice, your comment is neither here nor there.

In this letter, I will anticipate some of my results to address fundamental concepts that seem to be missing.

1. The giants are not typical viruses, but microbial cell-like entities. They have genes in common with the three domains of life: eukarya, bacteria and archaea. Like bacteria, they retain the Gram stain. 

2. The reported particles have been extracted and purified through a sucrose gradient, https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ai8MpZ0eat5a7LT7b43NPXNRWy0McJwo

3. These human giants infect and transform NIH-3T3 cells in vitro, https://drive.google.com/open?id=1a6ofZQNpxaZElAtCbX5SVpPdQxGAo1h2

4. The giants induce tumours formation in mice, https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Xbxtf1ximI3oTJsA3I8-1dq8CdO8I8XX

5. The tumours formation in  mice is REAL and NOT a bioinformatics score.

6. Why do my Giants cause cancer?  Simple : they have oncogenes INSIDE their mega-genome!

7. The giants fulfil the Koch’s postulates. I have re-extracted the giant particles from cells that became cancerous.

8.The giant have RT activity. Again this is a REALITY, a real biochemical reaction and not ONLY a bioinformatics annotation.

9.Bioinformatics are prediction and they CANNOT replace the biological reality. Metagenomics does not replace the need to cultivate and isolate microbes.

10. The function of bioinformatics is predicting, not explaining. Koch or Pasteur discovered their microbes without any software. Rous discovered RSV in 1911.  ....And the databases grew, and everyone annotated their data by searching the databases, then submitted in turn. No one seems to have pointed out that this makes your database a reflection of your database, not a reflection of reality.

 At this stage, with the striking evidence of tumours formation in mice,  your  debate on the 150 bp fragment is trivial . Honestly, I don’t base the discovery of this magnitude on a single 150 bp fragment. This was just a preliminary RT–PCR following an old protocol commonly used in retrovirology. Please refer to the  new data and whole genome sequence.  If the tagmentase enzyme disturb you with some background noise,  just take the E. Coli sequence off . The results doesn’t  change: a mega-genome is confirmed (https://mega.nz/#F!7dID0aSa!8bA-4qVdPeiY0tsSbd8G7g).

The predominant archaea features coexist with the presence of an anchoring system typical of viruses and gag-pol proteins of oncogenic retroviruses complete their chimeric essence.   The most valid bioinformatics tool was achieved through Blast2GO.  This simulation went really close to the real life scenario (example of realist and desirable bioinformatics). The annotations  of the  many oncogenes in the mega-genome proved to be true, since the giants induced cancer in mice (please see the cancer in my mice). In addition, the predicted transforming gag-pol genes matched with the retroviral antigenicity, documented at EM immunogold and RTactivity .

Note that , in my experiments, a filter supernatant DOES NOT transform. 

 These human  giants was missing because of our definition of viruses and some people seem to struggle (new concepts , new paradigms, dynamics) . 

After inspecting my data in the provided links, I would like you to answer, just with a YES/NO,  my questions:

What are the purified structures depicted at EM? Are they something human? If yes, explain why .

 Do these Giants  INFECT and transform NIH 3T3 cells?

Do they induce peritoneal metastasis in mice?

Do they reverse transcribe in a real biochemical reaction?

Do  they retain the Gram stain?

Do they have a mega-genome?

Can they be isolated every single time just with a routine sucrose gradient by independent operators?

At each extraction , do the EM reveal the same dimension and structures?

Do they have multiple cell based oncogenes? (BISHOP)

Do they have a capside?

Does a filtered supernatant do the same?

 Is the anti-Felv gag antigenicity of the particles  in line to the PREDICTED akt-gag  and the documented RT activity?  

Does bioinformatics replace biology?

 Are you familiar with the concept of TRUC and cell like entity with genes in common to the three domain of life?

 Is it true that viruses carry also  fragments of human sequences?

Is it true that the transforming gene product, P70gag-actin-fgr, of Gardner-Rasheed feline sarcoma virus (GR-FeSV) is a single polypeptide composed of regions derived from cellular and viral genes?

What is MPGNL?

 Did you see cancer in my mice?

Would you like to be treated for a physiological illness by a physician who is not sure that there are human bodies, and who uses information systems that lack real referents? 

BOTTOM LINE > THE HUMAN GIANT INFECT AND CAUSE CANCER> FULL STOP. 

The retroviral nature is peculiar, but it is just a detail. The giants are much more: an entire cancer factory that transform in few days.    Try with your bioinformatics skills to discover a new sequence. Not a variant or a subtype of something already known, but something  like a TRUC that induces cancer in your chicken in three weeks.  Without  having your skills, I was able to  achieve this in mice.   My  giants might open the door to a preventive vaccine against cancer, since they give possibility to target an entire shuttling system of oncogenes and not just a solitary molecule involved in carcinogenesis.  It is like discovering  HPV for the first time, or EBV for the first time, just to mention few.  

This time is not a virus, but a TRUC : Not an oncogenic virus, or a slow virus, with few proteins  that you can count on the fingers of one hand, but an infectious oncogenic CELL-LIKE MICROBIAL  ENTITY  that looks like a bacteria, with hundreds of proteins, carrying in its large mega-genome a transforming arsenal. A sort of small autonomous infectious cell, a simplified version of its eukaryotic counterparts, specialized in carcinogenesis.

The discovery of this microbial entity with an acute transformation mechanism and infecting humans suggests that the number of cancer of infectious origin would be even greater than what is supposed.

In my discovery there are no shadows, no quarrels, no misconducts and no thefts. I feel blessed and the Retro-giants is a gift. 

 Suggested references

"Anti-realist bioinformaticians work with data handed over to them by realist biologists. Some features of some information systems can be improved if bioinformaticians became realists as well. Still another thing makes it desirable that bioinformaticians become realists: they could then possibly provide feedback to biologists". https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S153204640500078X Elena

CTVT and a weird niche theory I fell down the rabbit hole about - giant transforming retroviruses???

This is a story about how a single line on a wikipedia page sent me down a rabbit hole of finding one scientist's fringe theory that's juuuust plausible enough to make me question everything while almost certainly being absolute fucking bunk.

Some background

So, on parts of tumblr at least we all know about Canine Transmissible Venereal Tumour, aka The Immortal Cancer Dog. For those who don't know, it's a cancer dogs get, usually on their junk, that unlike most other cancers, isn't made up of their own cells. The cells are actually all descended from this one dog or wolf that lived like 11,000 years ago and are, arguably, all technically that one dog. A dog that became a single-celled infectious disease.

We have a wealth of genetic, histological and observational evidence for this. As in, we know it what population of canids it came from, we know it's got a weird chromosomal structure compared to normal dogs, we know it's genetically distinct from the hosts. We also know it's not the only one out there: There's a similar thing in Syrian hamsters and also the famous Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD).

Which made me pause when I was reading something on wikipedia about the devil facial tumour and saw a line mentioning that it was now known to be caused by a giant virus, much like CTVT. Which...huh? Oh I hadn't heard that afore.

Giant viruses

Ok so giant viruses are a thing and they're fuckin cool. They're a relatively recent discovery and comparatively huge, i.e. bigger than a bunch of bacteria. They were only discovered in 1981 and we still don't know an enormous amount about them but they're big and have large genomes and because of the way viruses are they're not easy to detect unless you're specifically looking for them.

They show up under microscopy (sometimes) and you can find them with genetic probes but you gotta already be looking for them to see that really. Current research though basically says they're more common than we think, just overlooked, and there's software out there that scans through genomic data to find sequences that might indicate their presence. There's even a possibility that one group might be involved in some cases of pneumonia in humans, though I need to stress that that's extremely not confirmed right now.

The "wait, what?" moment

So I mentioned that it was a line in the wiki article for DFTD that had me going "wait, really?", the line in question was this:

A study found evidence for an infectious agent resembling a giant virus that was capable of turning heathy cells into cancer cells. It was found to be a huge retrovirus with similar viruses being found in human and canine cancer cells.

Big If True.

So of course I check the source, which was a 2020 paper by Lusi et al. titled "A transforming giant virus discovered in Canine Transmissible Venereal Tumour: Stray dogs and Tasmanian devils opening the door to a preventive cancer vaccine".

Hang on, CTVT not DFTD? This is where some alarm bells went off because uh, as mentioned at the start, we know a shit ton about CTVT. Including the fact that it's all one specific dog. Which doesn't fit at all with the idea that it's caused by a virus transforming host cells into cancer cells.

So what fucking gives? What is this research that fully overturns decades of pretty conclusive research to the contrary?

Is this another case of Dr Barbara McClintock? Who spent decades being ridiculed by the scientific community over her wild theory that was, in fact, 100% right even if it seemed to fly in the fact of all prior evidence?

Or is this a Dr Donald I. Williamson situation wherein a scientist with appropriate training is just wildly but extremely vehemently wrong?

[system-of-a-feather]

Also, I am going to let all my followers in on my spicy insider opinion as someone young in the field of psych researchers, but the field of research, being a researcher, and all that - at least in psychology - is very much glorified professional discourse as a job.

It's like literally just professional discourse. You spend your life having your opinion and ideas on how things are and spend years and years developing the most reliable and "valid" numbers and statistics that support or deny your claim and compare it to people who both agree, disagree, and partially agree with yours to prove your direction. There is a whole different layer and level of complaining about how others are making bad arguments or how their logic is flawed and yada yada that I'm not gonna go into

But like, one of the reasons I don't bother with most online discourse at this point is most online discourse boils down to "WELL I FOUND A PAPER SAYING THIS SO ITS SCIENTIFIC FACTS" and not actually scrutenizing the paper and the methods and everything to get a non-black and white understanding of how strong that evidence is and at this point I just find it kind of funny seeing internet discourse pulling up "papers" as "facts" which just feels like posting a link to someone else's blog as "evidence" of "facts" with how people discuss it.

Like to everyone who participates in discourse, do what makes you happy and matters to you, but I have yet to really see anyone on here discuss research papers in any way that is like... academically right and respectful to the way psychological research works save for the old @/this-is-not-dissociative that has been on a possibly indefinite hiatus; and thats cause the person running that blog actually is a PhD candidate themselves.

But like... if you look at research papers as facts and proof to your claims and just that, then I'm sorry but you Dunning Kruger. I honestly don't blame 99% of the internet for being like this cause a lot of English classes (at least American) teach people to argue and use "science" like this and so a lot of people are raised with abysmal scientific literacy and never really get confronted with it if they don't go into college and take several research courses / participate in research, but its just a pain.

I don't complain about it a lot cause I really really don't blame people for the school system failing them, but like... its really sad how much of a disservice English classes, AP Rhetoric and other debate / persuasion centered highschool classes has taught people how to "get their point across and win / convince the opponent no matter what" and not "how to have a functionable conversation discussing the nature of how things exist."

[awed-frog]

"‘Portland Gender Theory 1987 to 1991: An Intersectional Look at Ferret Owners’ Self-Identification Through Chakra Reading’" I am convulsing with laughter despite the depressing subject matter, thank you. I'm your resident trainee teacher (training to teach languages) and the number of times I had to write think-pieces on "why learn languages" at the start of my course was stupid. This was for widely-spoken languages too, I dread to think what colleagues teaching classics have to contend with.

Yeah I wish I was making that up! If you don't know about the 'Grievance Studies Affair', please give it a read. Back in 2017, a group of left-wing academics submitted a series of idiotic made-up papers and about half of them were actually published. Titles included "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon", "Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding" and "Going in Through the Back Door: Challenging Straight Male Homohysteria and Transphobia through Receptive Penetrative Sex Toy Use".

Their goal was to denounce the fact academia lowered its standards when it comes to 'woke' subjects, which inevitably cheapens the value of studying and researching such things. I mean obviously there's a lot there that deserves to be looked at, but university research should remain university research. If you do a bad job, ignore facts you don't agree with, and generally write papers and books because you have something to say or an argument to support (instead of researching stuff to understand how things work or whether something is actually true), then the whole thing is useless and has zero academic value. And that's mostly what's going on now - we are either saying that people of colour are too stupid to do proper research (also maths, precision, science, and even reading and writing are white supremacy according to some) or we say that our thesis is so inherently good that we shouldn't need facts to support it. I mean, this is literally what the author of the 1619 Project said when confronted by historians about the glaring mistakes she made, and that thing got a Pulitzer, is now taught in schools, and keeps getting hailed in major newspapers like the Second Coming. And - even more worrying - we're already seeing younger MPs trying to use that same logic when writing laws - saying that if something 'feels' right, wrong or unsafe, then it should be legislated accordingly because facts, research and statistics don't reflect 'people's lived truths' or whatever.

I don't know, it's all very worrying. Tbh I hope the left snaps out of it before the right starts using the same arguments to its own advantage (like if people of colour have no innate sense of logic or rationality and can't be trusted to understand what they read, then why should they vote?).

[fjordfolk]

TL;DR: I tried to look into it and didn't get ANY wiser so don't listen to me.

@dober-demon So I haven't looked into the canine bit for a while, and last time I did, there didn't seem to be that much actual science-based info or sourcing. There are a lot of well-sourced articles debunking 'food combination' diets for humans though, which is a fad that use a lot of the same arguments as the raw feeding communtities. Even though it's not 1-1 comparable, it made for some very interesting reading.

What I came to in the end was that anti-mixing arguments seemed unbased and oversimplified at best, and downright misinformative at worst. There just doesn't seem to be any factual basis for either upset digestion rates or pH issues. And for an animal that's been selected for a few thousand years to thrive on a diet of whatevers around, it seems like a pretty odd Achilles' heel to have. 🤷‍♂️ In the end I settled with getting thumbs up from my vet and gave up trying to make sense of online discussions. Happy to correct that stance if anyone can throw in some contrary sources!

I do have some vague memories of reading about balanced meals mased on foods with different digestion rates possibly boosting bioavailability, and I'm fairly sure there is quite a bit of research in humans supporting this, but I'm not going to go digging to see if I can find it. I remember it though, because Sparta and Troja both seem to have higher rates of absorption and more regular bowel movements when fed 50/50 mixed meals vs one-or-the-other. This is just my own experience though!

Edit: (again with the edits. i should think before i type) iirc there was also a study a couple of years back dealing with the nutritional uptake from carbs? grains? in dog food. i'll have to go back and look for it, but i'm fairly sure the results showed quite a bit of variation between breeds, which is logical but interesting and i wonder if that would affect this at all.

[coffeeman777]

It is hard to turn to someone I cannot see, hear, touch or even smell. I am not understanding how you Christians can genuinely ask people to trust a being that may not even exist. Do you understand what it means to trust? If you did, you would realize how ridiculous it sounds to put ones faith in an invisible being. Reading scripture makes me feel nothing, because those words could have been written by anyone. I really don't mean to sound so negative but it's just difficult to believe.

Believing is hard, I agree.  Believing is especially difficult in the modern world we live in, where so many people erroneously think that if a thing can't be verified with the scientific method, it doesn't exist.  

God has established a certain epistemic distance between us and Himself, and for good reason:  the Lord wants us to choose Him when we could choose otherwise.  If He were to be obvious to all people all the time, everyone would be forced to acknowledge Him.  Instead, the Lord has given us enough light to find Him if we look for Him, but not so much that we can't ignore Him if we choose to.  

As for why Christians trust God and teach others to do likewise, well, we trust Him because we've experienced Him.  I certainly have.  We don't think He's real; we know He is.

Now, there are clear and conclusive evidences for the truth of Christianity and the existence of the God of Israel that don't depend on subjective experience; there are several solid, logically air-tight rational arguments that lead to the conclusion that Christianity is true; there are archeological and other historical evidences that support the claims of Scripture; there are prophecies in Scripture that have come true, providing supernatural evidence that Christianity is true; all of these are excellent objective reasons to conclude that the God of Israel exists, and that Jesus Christ is exactly who He claimed to be.  These may form a foundation for a person's initial investigation into the Christian way, but it is the personal experience with God that solidifies a Christian's faith.  

I've experienced God's presence; He's answered my prayers; He's spoken to me in dreams, and through other Christians with a prophetic gift.  I have the unmistakable inner witness of the Holy Spirit.  You would have an easier time convincing me that the sun doesn't exist than you would convincing me that Christianity isn't true. 

Trusting in God, who is invisible, only seems ridiculous to people who think they have to be able to see something for it to exist.  I'm sure you're not actually one of those people.  I'm sure you believe in things like black holes and quantum particles without ever seeing them.  You believe in them because men of science say they exist, and you trust them.  And those men say these things exist because they can see the effects those things have on the things they can see.  God is no different to those who are willing to look for Him. 

I encourage you to lay aside your preconceived notions about reality, and go ahead and investigate the arguments I mentioned.  Here's a very helpful YouTube playlist to get you started.  After considering those arguments, I encourage you to pray and ask the Lord to reveal Himself to.  Be patient, be open, and be willing to believe.  I'm sure God will answer you. 

Be blessed friend, I'll be praying for you. 

[aridara]

@quicklyseverebird​

Surprise! I’ve just decided to put everything you wrote in a public post. You’re welcome.

Quickly is bolded, I am not.

QUICKLYSEVEREDBIRD (while talking to Fandoom-strikes): So as a disabled person living in germany, you apparently are ignorant of what is happening here in the US. Let me tell you, in NYC, if you are unable to take the vaccine for medical reasons, you can't go to work. You can't buy food. You can't enter the city. Unless you have a card showing you have received this governmentally-mandated, big pharma product.

Note of interest: Mussolini's definition of facism: "the lucrative merger between the corporation and government." Sound familiar? The nazi's didn't start off killing jews. They worked their way up to it, starting with making them a separate, lower class, sterilizing the disabled, the undesirables, etc, limiting their ability to function in society. Sound familiar?

Study history some time, don't just tour camps, and learn how authoritarian governments rise to power. Oh what's that? Australia has already made holding/concentration camps? Who could have predicted? Come back when you have learned something. news flash, people like you making excuses have always enabled the fascists.

ARIDARA: Nazis were anti-vaxx.

Q: So what? Hitler was a vegetarian. Does that mean all vegans are fascists? The point is fascism (and socialism) is about an authoritarian government taking away individual/personal rights. When you are in support of such acts by your government, especially when they benefit big business working with them, you are more in line with fascistic behavior than than those that oppose it.

Also, I'm not anti-vax ;)  I'm very PRO vax, in fact. Left alone, I probably would have gotten this vaccine already, though maybe not this one, as there are some seriously sketchy things about it compared to the other ones I've gotten. I'm just anti-authoritarian.

A: Nazis were also anti-science, too.

In fact, literally every single anti-Nazi organization that existed in Nazi Germany, including the anti-authoritarian White Rose Movement, were pro-vaxx. The ONLY ones who were against mandatory vaccinations? Nazists. Because they thought: "smallpox primarily targets old and ill people, and we want to kill those people."

Q: Way to prove you didn't actually read anything I wrote or you would know that I already dealt with this above, pointing out its irrelevant to the argument at hand.  Also wrong in the case in point of me, personally. Good to know you're not debating in good faith.

A: You compared the COVID vaccine mandates to fascism, and declared that, since you're anti-authoritarian, you are against them. Is that correct?

Q: I said mandating that everyone be forcibly required to recieve a medical treatment (thereby financially benefitting a corporation) is an act of authoritarianism and a literal description of classical fascism. Therefore I am against them.

The nazis were against vaccines in general because they were eugenesists. Social darwinists. Survival of the fittest. I'm against a government forcing medical treatments on people and restricting their rights unless they comply.

I hope you can see the distinction.

A: Care to explain why German anti-authoritarians - including the White Rose movement, which was against the Nazis and is basically the Bible of every anti-authoritarian - had 0 problems with mandatory vaccinations?

And yes, before the Nazis, Germany forced vaccinations (medical treatment) on people, and restricted their righta until they complied. No anti-authoritarian objected. And keep in mind that they KNEW what authoritarianism was. The only people opposed to the vaccines were authoritarians.

Q: I'm trying to determine if you are trolling me, or are really this insane. You are making the leap of logic that "because this group favored this" then "anyone who holds to this view is the same as that group."  That is a logical fallacy of the first order. Again see above comment that Hitler supported vegetarianism, yet that doesn't make vegans nazis.

And the fact that you even admit that a government that knew what authoritarianism was, did authoritarian things before the nazis, but it wasn't authoritarian because the nazis didn't do it is just... Are you trolling me or are you seriously going with this line of reasoning? Are you unaware that the ruling party before the Nazis was...an authoritarian government?

This is called nuance and complex thinking. Not everything a bad group does is bad, and not everything a good group does is good. Nor does cherry-picking certain acts of either group and pointing out similarities to other groups create a A=B=C situation. That's not how logic works.

A: Your word goes actively against several anti-authoritarian organizations who were EXPERTS of what is and isn't authoritarianism. Methinks that YOU are the ignorant outlier.

Q: Riiigggghht.  So explain to me how the PRUSSIAN EMPIRE ruled by the GERMAN EMPEROR (Kaiser), who enacted those vaccine mandates was somehow not authoritarian? Who are these "anti-authoritarian organizations/experts" pray tell? I would love to see how they cherry-pick their definition of such. I'll lay odds that they are actually pro-authoritarian, just with them in control.

Just to include reference: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/german-vaccination-law

A: We're talking about vaccine mandates. Not the German Reich. Stay on topic.

I’m pausing here to note that what I meant was that we were discussing wether or not vaccine mandates are authoritarian. Not wether or not the German Reich was authoritarian. Also, have you noticed how much Quickly writes?

Q: Then re-read what you wrote. You said only authoritarians were against vaccine mandates. I pointed out an authoritarian government enacted those mandates, proving you wrong. Still waiting for your response. Stop deflecting. This was your point that you made. About vaccine mandates.

Summary so far:

m: Mandates are authoritarian

y: the Reich was anti-vaccination, their opponents weren't, ergo anyone against mandates, even if they are against governmental overreach is authoritarian for...unnamed reasons. Cause magic.

m: a literal authoritarian government was the one that enacted the vaccine mandate

y: stop! we're talking about something that doesn't disprove my point!

A: More like:

QUICKLYSEVEREDBIRD: Vaccine mandates are authoritarian.

ARIDARA: Pretty much every anti-authoritarian organization said that vaccine mandates aren't "authoritarianism". And they fought against several regimes including Nazis - they KNOW what authoritarianism is.

Q: Well, everyone except me is wrong.

Q: So you're still going to pretend that I didn't show you you were wrong by pointing out that an actual authoritarian governments, by anyone's definition of the word, a literal EMPIRE, were the ones that mandated the german vaccine, because your awareness of history is limited to the 1930's and because the unmentioned "experts" have the same tunnel vision. b/c "only nazis are authoritarian"

Serious question here. What is your definition of "authoritarian?" Maybe we are working from different a priori starting points. Mine is Websters: "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." fascism is one form of this, so is socialism, so are all totalitarian states.

Therefore, if a government is going to require me to get a medical treatment against my will with restrictions of my rights and liberties and wellbeing at stake, that is, by my definition, literal authoritarianism. Be it vaccines or forced sterilization. And again, I AM vaccinated for everything except covid.

A: Quick question: if an architect tells you that building a building in a certain way will make it crumble, and forced you to not build buildings in that way,  is that authoritarianism?

Because by your logic, that absolutely fits your definition of "authoritarianism". It enforces strict obedience to authority (the arcitect) at the expense of your personal freedom to build buildings in the way you want. It requires you to follow regulations against your will, with restrictions to your liberty. Literal. Authoritarianism.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WrFL-GnYEKk

Q: As I consider your response, I will point out...again...that you have failed repeatedly to recognize or respond to the fact that a literal totalitarian, authoritarian government enacted the german vaccine mandate, when you said only anti-authoritarians did such things. I see no point in responding to your points if you won't reciprocate.

And again.  To be sure we are talking about the same thing.  What is your definition of authoritarianism?

Because right now, you're just using the term to define anything you don't like.

3 min into your video, he backs my historical point up. 4 min into video, he says no white rose document ever mentioned vaccination, which disproves your point that this was something they cared about.

And I guess you ignored his reccomendation to stop bringing up WWII imagry when discussing this, as you were the one seemingly focused on this period of time and the original one who brought it into play. Was this video supposed to help your position?  Did you actually watch it?

A: No, what I DID say was that the only people who refused the vaccine mandates were authoritarians. And yeah, it's pretty clear that you didn't watch the video. Beau pointed out that, despite the fact that the White Rose Movement was very anti-authoritarian (and this is not debatable), they never spoke against vaccinations. Which, if we follow your assumption that "vaccine mandates are authoritarian", makes no sense.

He also told ANTI-VAXXERS to stop bringing up WW2 imagery and to stop comparing themselves to anti-authoritarian and anti-dictatorship movements like the White Rose. Because, when they do that, anti-vaxxers look historically ignorant dumbasses.

Q: Still failing to respond to historical evidence disproving your point. You're just moving the goalpost. Still failing to submit your definition of "authoritarian." It seems as if you are arguing in bad faith. I even watched your video. You keep ignoring my questions of you.

The nazi's were against vaccinations. not because they were authoritarians, but because they were social darwinists. That's just common sense.  Even if you argue that "only A's were against Vax mandates," doesn't negate the fact that other A's mandated them. You can't hold your position on this, logically. You have nothing to stand on. Again. Give me your definition of an authoritarian.

A: Historical precedent says that anti-authoritarian associations considered the German Empire as authoritarian, but not vaccine mandates.

Q: give. me. your. definition. of. authoritarian. A definition other than "whatever view I am against."

A: A political ideology that prioritizes the preservation of the ruling government class (the "authority") and its power, at the expense of the people's needs and rights. It favors a us-versus-them mentality, the suppression of political pluralism, and an obsession with laws.

Now explain why my architect example doesn't fit your definition of "authoritarianism".

Q: THANK YOU! While I think you felt it necessary to add a whole bunch of qualifiers to your definition to close up as many loopholes as you could, since you know this will come back to bite you, I can work with this and leaving any quibbles to mental eyerolling. At least I can see where you are coming from. Now then... explain how forcing medical treatments on people against their will...?

Now, to return to your architect. In the specific case of your architect, I think you hurt your argument as stated. You should have gone for the building codes instead of an architect's opinion. If its just the word of the architect, then it's not A because he's just a guy hired for a job. If you want to ignore the expert, that's on you. It's your money and hide in a lawsuit.

Now if you want to go the route of, "if you ignore the building code laws the building will collapse" then yes, actually, that is A.  It's your money and your hide in a lawsuit if someone is hurt. A corollary. Seat belt laws. They are A. I'd never drive without one b/c that's dumb. But making a law for that? Over-reach. nanny state A. The State has no right to pass such laws.

I will go even further and point out, by your OWN DEFINITION of A, that such laws are authoritarian. Places emphasis on gov's authority to mandate behavior at the expense of people's rights (however dumb), us-vs-them, suppression of political pluralism and AN OBSESSION WITH LAWS.

A: No. I specifically talked about an architect saying "If you build your building in this way, it will crumble", and then FORCING YOU TO NOT BUILD IT IN THAT PARTICULAR WAY. Force you. Force you. Force you.

Oh, and also congrats for being wrong yet again. Let's REALLY look if vaccine mandates fit my definition of "authoritarianism". Are they done to preserve the ruling class? No. Is "preserving the ruling class" their effect? No. Do they put the ruling class above people's rights? Not really, because the ruling class is also affected by vaccine mandates - they aren't exempt.

Do they put the ruling class above people's needs? No, it's the exact opposites: vaccine mandates are done to preserve the people's health (need). Do they favor an us-versus-them mentality? No. Sure, if you completely ignore science people will think that you're a dumbass, but that's just life. Do they suppress political pluralism? No. Republicans keep being anti-vaxx as if nothing happened.

Are they a result of an obsession with laws? That wholly depends on what you think counts as "obsession with laws". Judging by what you wrote, I'm pretty sure that, like so many pseudo-antiauthoritarians, you think that "authoritarian" means "law that I don't like".

Q: re: architect.  Okay, let me correct my response (the original post is waaaayyyy up there) If the architect "forced" the builder not to build that way in this hypothetical situation that would mean he had institutional, authoritative power to do so. That would be authoritarian then, yes. Again, nanny state has no right to protect people from stupid decisions.

congrats for being wrong yet again. All those loopholes you tried to plug your definition with, don't hold water. I note that you didn't address the obsession with laws. Because you know that does fit. Now the rest. Preserve the ruling class? Yup! Because it implies that the ruling class has the right to force people to obey these laws when they don't. It places more power in  their hand

Do they put the ruling class above people's rights? Yep! See above. Just use your imagination to see the slippery slope that creates. As for being exempt...you really haven't been paying attention these past 18 months have you? In perfect world, then you would be right. In this one, we saw the authorities ignore the mandates and rules they forced on other people. Want lists/links/pics?

Needs? Same as above. us vs them and pluralism? You mean, like creating gaps between races and disabled people? restricting their ability to work/buy food/engage in business? Demonizing anyone who doesn't bend the knee as fascists/terrorists/etc? How big is the bubble you're living in?

Oops, you were still writing when I started. You do address the law part. By...just using an ad hominin argument. That falls flat. Let's think about this simply. Authoritarian = more laws or less laws? Stricter laws or looser laws? More or less suppression of individual rights? Which camp are you in?

Like many "pseudo-anti-authoritarians" you are trying to impose your will on other people and trying to say that that isn't A because YOU are the one doing it. You are delusional. I'm not trying to force you to do anything. I'm not keeping you from working or getting the shot. I'm imposing nothing on you. You are. That literally makes you an authoritarian. Congratz.

Until you can show me how I'm trying to impose my laws/will on you, that puts you further down the scale of liberalism--authoritarianism than me. I'm not the one backing governmental institutional power. That's all you.

me=smaller government, less control and oversight. Stay out of my life choices.

you="the government needs to be all up in our business regulating our very lives, medical decisions, speech and actions. why are you saying I'm an authoritarian?"

A: So, we've conformed that you think that ANY authority is "authoritarian" because it tells you what to do. Glad we cleaned that up.

Q: No, re-read what I said. I even explained in detail what would have made your architect scenario better to get this point across. What makes something A isn't "someone telling me what to do." You are oversimplifying to be disingenuous. And you know that. laws=good 1st someone has to actually HAVE institutional authority over me. Some Joe off the street or someone I hire doesn't count.

2nd, again, we need laws. But they can only go so far. Saying I can't buy food unless I get a medical treatment I don't want is beyond the pale. Destroying my life if I don't get it is wrong. Determining my life choices "for my own good" to "protect me from the consequences" is wrong.

Let me ask you a series of questions now to see if I can help you understand. #1) What gives the government the right to force me to get a medical treatment, like a vaccine, if I don't want to? What is the justification? I think I know what you will say but I want to walk you through this.

A: I DID read what you wrote. According to you: ALL laws "preserve the ruling class" because they imply that said class has the right to force people to obey. It places more power in their hand. ALL laws put the ruling class above people's rights, because... Just use your imagination to see the slippery slope that laws generate.

As for being exempt... You really haven't been paying attention these past 18 months, have you? Needs? Same as the above. us vs them and pluralism? You mean, like creating  gaps between races and disabled people? restricting their ability to  work/buy food/engage in business? Demonizing anyone who doesn't bend the  knee as fascists/terrorists/etc?

I’m pausing again to explain my position here. Quickly declared that vaccine mandates fit my definition of “authoritarianism”. The problem is that, if we use Quickly’s own arguments and my definition of “authoritarianism”... which is pretty much all taken from Wikipedia... then we have no choice but to classify EVERY LAW IN THE WORLD as “authoritarian”.

As you can see, Quickly is being ridiculous. He uses bullshit arguments to declare laws that they don’t like “authoritarian”, while submerging me with tons of derailing and of strawmans.

A: So, in short: your definition of "authoritarianism" is any kind of authority or government besides "I get to do whatever the fuck I want".

Q: You can try and twist my words however you like but you're still stuck with the fact that even by your own words, your own interpretations of my views, you are more authoritarian than me. How does that make you feel, knowing that even by your own admission, you are closer to fascism and authoritarianism than I am?

More food for thought. If you had answered my last question you would probably have given an answer along the line of "these laws are being enacted and enforced for the public good/health/etc." Do a google search for any of those phrases and see what pops up as the first results. Wonder what your mysterious, nameless "experts" would say about that.

And no, not all laws enforce the power of the ruling class. Many laws are enacted to RESTRICT them, and are voted for by the people and their representatives. Problems start when said reps start enacting their own laws that benefit them and their  interests and cronies, and therefore deliver increased power into their hands that the existing laws do not grant them.

Good luck blindly trusting the government to serve your interests.  See how that works out for you. Here's a hint. Watch the news. Oh wait, you can't, because they have become  the propoganda arm of the party in power. Hmm, what could go wrong?

I hope you're polishing your jackboots to a nice bright shine. You're a good little party member.

A: I didn't distort anything. By YOUR words, you think that every kind of law whatsoever is authoritarian. And yes, ALL laws enforce the power of the ruling class. Why? Because ALL laws imply that the ruling class - the class that made those laws - has the right to make people obey those laws.

Q: You say you didn't distort anything, and then repeat the idea that "every kind of law whatsoever is authoritarian" even after I spent multiple posts pointing out the opposite. You just don't want to hear anything that disagrees with your pre-determined view and just keep repeating the same nonsense, ignoring anything that disagrees with you or has any nuance. It's all black and white 2 u.

Let me make it simple for you with a line from your own text. "My body my choice."

A: Except that, again, you DID use that argument against me. So you can't whine when I use your same arguments against you. "But I spent multiple posts pointing out the opposite" - then you're just being inconsistent. Also, cool answer. Here's mine: I'm gonna infect the rest of your family with Covid.

Q: And I rebutted your multiple posts, usually point by point. You just did the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'nahnahnahyoubelievealllawsbadnananah!' I used so many, in fact, that I don't even know which you are referring to here. But nice dodge attempt.

Let's sum up.

Me: governmental overreach bad and reeks of authoritarianism.

you: so you believe any laws you dont like are A.

me: not at all, and here's why and where I make distinctions.

you: so you believe any laws you don't like are A. ...

as for your final 'gotcha' I just have to laugh. It's another sign of your mental inability to understand complex thinking and nuance demonstrated through your writing. I want to be left alone, and I even use your own slogan against you and your response to that is to basically go, "so you want to be alone, so I'm going to try and harm you, because those are the only options I understand"

I'm going to stoop real low here and summarize your position in the same way you responded to mine so you can see how absurd it is. Based on what you've said, using your own reasoning, any law the gov makes is good since they always have your best interest at heart. So that means you're a fascist and an authoritarian. And you  believe in Santa Claus.

Charming. So here’s my rebuttals to this dipshit:

You displayed several examples of dishonesty and hysteria throughout the entire conversation, starting with throwing around the Nazi accusations and never stopping.

For example: I pointed out that anti-authoritarians in Nazi and pre-Nazi Germany were fine with vaccine mandates - because they knew what is and isn’t authoritarianism, and vaccine mandates aren’t it. I also pointed out that the only people against the vaccines (the Nazis) were authoritarians. You, instead, creatively reinterpreted it as “the German Kingdom’s government wasn’t authoritarian, and all authoritarians were anti-vaxx”.

You’re so deranged, you actively oppose safety building laws. According to you, we should let architects build bullshit buildings that will crumble making dozens if not hundreds of deaths, and THEN go punish them. Because putting regulations on how to build buildings is “over-reach” and “nanny state”. This is absolute horseshit.

The way you distorted my definition of “authoritarianism” to the point where you could’ve used to make ANY law fit said definition is another clue that you have a habit of stretching your definition of “authoritarianism” to reject any authority you don’t like. From safety belts, to vaccine mandates, to safety building laws.

You want the freedom to not get vaccinated - which will increase the chances that you’ll catch Covid and end up infecting others. But when I declare that, in retaliation, I will infect your family through the exact same method, you get mad. I wonder why.

No, according to my reasoning, not ALL laws the governments makes are made with my best interest at heart. I never declared anything even remotely close to that.

Fuck off.

[firefl1es]

The problem with the "Sapiosexuality is ableist" argument:

To assume that expecting intelligence is ableist is to assume that disabled people cannot be intelligent.

So, I'm pretty sure this one sentence speaks for itself. But I'm going to elaborate anyways. People who call Sapiosexuality "ableist" are creating a paradox in which they are trying to point out something as ableist by being ableist. People who believe that Sapiosexuality is ableist are, whether they realize it or not, inherently saying that disabled people cannot be smart. And that is not true at all. Many disabled people can be very smart (just look at Stephen Hawking), and plenty of able-bodied, neurotypical people are not smart. "Smart" is not an exclusive term for people who are "normal," can afford a college degree, and happen to have a high IQ (because really, IQ measures one of many types of intelligences). In fact, according to developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, there are nine types of intelligences (and no, this isn't one of those fake science thing like vaccines causing autism). Those nine are: Naturalist, musical, logical-mathematical, existential, interpersonal, body-kinesthetic, linguistic, intra-personal, and spatial. No one person is actually good with all of these intelligences. People have their strengths and weaknesses, regardless of sex/gender, race, class, disability, etc. Also, even Albert Einstein would agree that there are many ways to be intelligent and to express intelligence. There is a quote from Einstein that says that "creativity is intelligence having fun." And creativity can be art, music, comedy, acting, poetry, DIY projects, makeup art, etc. And, in my opinion (and the opinions of most Sapiosexual people), "smart" also includes humor and knowing miscellaneous knowledge, which isn't hard, regardless of who you are, really. Also, even if it was about the traditional idea of intelligence (which, again, it isn't), 11% of undergraduate college students have a disability (National Center for Education Statistics), and more than 25% have a mental illness (National Alliance on Mental Illness). But anyways, there are so many ways to be intelligent, and people assume that being Sapiosexual automatically puts intelligence into one very specific, exclusive box, but that's not at all true. We just want someone who we can have intelligent conversations of any kind with, and preferably who we can learn something from. We don't have one standard definition for intelligence. And by assuming that "intelligence" has to fit a certain mold, you're the one perpetuating ableism, elitism, classism and exclusivity. So please, next time you want to argue against something, find out more about it, and think very in-depth about the implications of your argument, and maybe you'll learn a thing or two in the process.

-----

Also, before someone comments something along the lines of "but Sapiosexuality is still not a real thing. Everyone likes intelligent people," if you think that, you have a misunderstanding of what Sapiosexuality is. For a Sapiosexual person, intelligence is the absolute number one factor; real attraction is impossible without it, and an attractive mind can make a Sapiosexual person ignore physical appearance entirely. Also, there is scientific evidence supporting the legitimacy of Sapiosexuality:

http://www.psypost.org/2018/01/study-sapiosexuality-suggests-people-really-sexually-attracted-intelligence-50526

http://iheartintelligence.com/2015/05/23/sapiosexuality-why-some-of-us-are-attracted-purely-by-intelligence/

And, all that said, regardless of facts and science and logic, all of you, as members of the LGBTQ+ community, should understand that sexuality is about what you feel and what you identify with. And to try to shut down someone's identity when yours was once unaccepted as well is not what this community is about. The LGBTQ+ community is about love and acceptance, but at times, it seems like it breeds more hate than love. Everyone's identity is what they feel is right, and love is love.

-----

P.S. Sapiosexuality becoming accepted is not going to make your identity seem less legitimate/valid. The only people who will try to say your identity is less valid because of someone else's are the people who are never going to accept any part of the LGBTQ+ community regardless of what is or isn't considered a part of it. So, screw them, don't worry about what they'll think, and just spread love and acceptance for all of the sexualities, gender identities, etc. You're going to be okay, I promise. A little bit of change and more diversity in the LGBTQ+ community isn't going to hurt anyone~ 💚

P.P.S. If any of you still want to say that Sapiosexuality isn't real, even after I provided links to scientific evidence and explained that, even with that scientific evidence, an identity is really just about what feels right for each individual person: Really, if you think about it, no sexuality (including straight) is technically "real." None of these things really need a label. But we put labels on these things so we can feel a sense of identity and a sense of community with other people who identify the same way. You can love whoever you want and have sex with whoever you want without putting a label on it or without it even being a concrete thing, regardless of labels, but we use labels anyways, because the human race loves to name everything. So, with labels being as arbitrary as they are, why complain about a label that someone else has given themself? If people feel like they identify with this, why shouldn't they identify with it? Does this label hurt anyone?

[seancekitsch]

Could I have a matchup for Star Wars and Game of Thrones? I'm a bisexual female, INTJ and Aries. I'm very introverted and not really a "people person". I have a hard time trusting people. I come off as intimidating. I love animals and could spend all my time with them. I am also polite, logical and like science and computers. Love to read and workout. I'm stubborn and headstrong and also feminine. I do have anxiety and anger issues and suffer from depression. Thank you darling x

Star Wars: I ship you with Jyn. She's just as headstrong as you and used to being on her own. Warming up to each other will take a long time, but once it happens your devotion to each other spreads like wild fire. You're passionate and loving for each other. Your fights are just as explosive but after introspection and reflection the two of you know how each of you did or didn't do wrong and things are solved in healthy ways that help the two of you grow stronger. That being said fights aren't so common and the two of you are usually a powerhouse and are hard to say no to.Game of Thrones:I ship you with Theon. He's not the most extroverted and has the hardest time trusting, but once you earn each other's trust, it's a relationship as solid as steel. He loves your femininity and stubbornness, he thinks they are the perfect combination and make you uniquely his favorite person. He understands your anger and anxiety as he has his own, and wants to help you understand and work through your anxiety and anger together. You're a supportive couple; not without your own arguments and issues; but wholly supportive and loving and wanting of the best for each other.(8/40) ships are open!

[sleeptight-grimrite]

I really don't know you, but what if she'd posted pic of someone who was important to you, like Muhammad ( `alayhi wa sallam) or even a person who means something important for your culture, like Harriet Tubman or Rosa Parks, etc. What did she gain from posting it? All she did was single out a group and insult them. I'm not arguing with you but I see really no reason for the list except attention and maybe she's trying to be edgy. Other than that, it was just hurtful and picking a fight.

I’m just…I stared at this for a long time, trying to think of a way to respond without losing my temper or sounding like a dick, but that’s just…I can’t. I don’ want to and I don’t have to. I just..hope that you read back what you wrote before you sent it to me and if you actually stand by it, you won’t be offended when I tell you that’s f*cking crazy.

Attention? She needs attention from you people now? Okay…yea, that makes sense. She didn’t have a life or career or attention before this, so she’s gotta pick out groups to intentionally offend for attention.

I’VE been consistent – I’ve called her out when she’s wrong and I’ve called out the fandom when it’s wrong. 

Calling the virgin mary a skank may not have been classy, but SO?? HOW does that offend a culture? You’re conflating things, btw. Though Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks are important historical figures in general, their significance to the black community is visceral and integral to the black experience as a whole…in particular. Is there only ONE culture who revere the Virgin Mary? By that logic, everyone who is an atheist is offensive to…religious cultures? WHAT GROUP did she single out? Specifically? Please. Tell me. What culture did she offend?  Does only one culture revere the virgin mary? NO. They DON’T. It’s religion, she’s atheist. Doesn’t your reverence to your religion override whatever Taylor has to say? I’ve at least always said I could drop AM or any of them if they portrayed intentional and malicious racism. I just..based on some of these ridiculous ‘arguments’ I’ve heard, I don’t believe many of you would. You just need to hate this girl ‘cause she likes trolling the fandom. She doesn’t pass messages between us and Alex like people are always screaming for her to and she doesn’t post pictures of him just because people are mean to her if she doesn’t. Don’t ya’ll know what the f*ck he look like? You ain’t got google images?

What does she gain from posting it? Oh mY GOOOOSH. What does ANYONE gain from posting ANYTHING?? What do you gain from posting sh*t you want to? Its her IG? Are you kidding me? 

With regards to how I’d react if she did, I’VE never been the one sitting up here acting like what Taylor Bagley posts and says means so much to me – YOU people are. I’VE been consistent – I’ve called her out when she’s wrong and I’ve called out the fandom when it’s wrong. And again, this is less about me defending her and more about me calling out people who are trying to be all for civil rights and race equality political correctness and you’re just so horrified when she says “boo” but you ain’t had shit to say when AM dressed up like this 

Is that not racial appropriation? I know many people who think so and accuse Matt of being racist..and by extension, all of them, really. Don’t tell me if Taylor did ANYTHING like this, you people would’t skin her alive. 

Or when people refer to Alex Turner as God? Or when Alexa Chung refers to fashion as her religion? 

Like…I’m not trying to sound like some pretentious asshole or anything, but I did go to school for political science and civil rights and this shit means a lot to me and I'm especially sensitive to it. People DON’T know what they're talking about when they call her a Neo Nazi when a Neo Nazi couldn’t support Obama or date someone who looks like Alex Turner or even have some of the friends she has. She simply could not. Have any of you even ever been in the presence of Neo Nazis? It really irritates me when people throw that sh*t around. White people are racist, yes, but they aren’t all Nazis.

With regards to the ‘picking a fight’ nonsense – I’d say it’s more the other way around. She’ll say something silly that COULD be taken a certain way and you all just go 1000% and tear her to pieces. She’s a troll, but ya’ll are assholes. And that’s real talk.

Now come up on MY IG comments or MY inbox and talk some shit. I WANT you to. Cuz we can have a REAL and SERIOUS conversation about racism and religion if ya’ll want to…when you’re ready to be actual serious people. 

[iteratedextras]

[ @arcticdementor ]

Yes, and they agree that was bad… but not for the reason you do. You argue that these “Nazi tactics” are inherently bad, but they — as per “no bad tactics, only bad targets” — argue that discrimination against “overrepresented” Jews was bad then because it was done against Jews, but is not necessarily still bad when done against a different group. And you keep ignoring that distinction — even if you don’t think it’s a morally relevant distinction, what is your argument to convince those who do think it’s a morally relevant distinction?

Any Jewish person who thinks that the people pushing this stuff are going to make a distinction between "Jewish people" and "whites" is bullshitting themselves.

The people who support this sort of thinking view the Holocaust as 'white-on-white crime' and Jewish people as 'white people with funny hats.'

According to a certain Jewish blogger, the race quotas in Hollywood don't make a distinction between "white" and "Jewish."

Of course they don't. The thing this has in common with the race-limited Yoga class that didn't consider Asians to be "BIPOC" is that it's organizing against any group that does average or better. Logically that's because they have material resources, and the alleged moral and spiritual reasoning is mostly bullshit that exists to act as a cover.

Oh, I'm sure some supporters of this ideology feel outraged (in general) and want to go on a multi-generation rampage of revenge, but those emotions are also constructed and informed by propaganda; little different from irredentist ethnic nationalism.

It doesn't matter whether Asians got BTFO'd by opium or whether Jewish people were literally massacred; the people who support this content will invent some reason, no matter how tenuous, to conclude that they're an acceptable target.

After all, if Asians are "white-adjacent," then opium wars are just 'white-on-white crime' as well. Did the Japanese not commit to industrial colonial imperialism? Did not the Asians (largely) come to the country only after 1965, thereby benefiting from everything built before then without having to endure the discrimination from before?

You will find, I am sure, Jewish men who owned slaves, or financial institutions at which Jewish people worked who funded voyages to obtain them, or who sold them arms, or iron, or ships, or who kept their books. The world is vast and only one such person is enough for the supporters of this ideology to declare all Jewish people "beneficiaries of white supremacy" who 'just happened to get hurt in the process' by their fellow 'white criminals'.

Even the Native Americans are not free from such accusations, and they lost essentially an entire continent.

You say that they are making a moral argument, that it's about 'righting the past wrongs' and 'moral luck', but you know that that's obviously not the real reasoning on their part, because the alleged "moral" reasoning will immediately warp to accommodate the material resource claims and the desire to hurt random people.

Collective Intergenerational Ethnic Justice is not useful because it is a moral rectification; it is useful precise because it is essentially arbitrary and can be used to attack essentially any group that one would like to attack.

You say I'm talking past them, but of course my actual point in calling it race science is that it's not even race science. It's worse than contemporary elite scientific racists, who the supporters think are "evil" for their "desire to harm."

I'm building a claim against them. I'm establishing a standard (the level of epistemic scrutiny), and showing that it falls short. I know you of all people will reject this as impossible, on the grounds that they have unlimited power and blah blah blah - I don't care, I'm required to keep fighting no matter how hopeless you think it is - but as they sputter incoherently in response, the claim goes essentially uncontested.

And if I manage to eventually deliver the claim into the right hands, we may use it to form consensus/coalition to punish them and remove their immoral power.

And of course, as I said, it's not "different from the Nazis, because the Nazis targeted Jewish people," because these guys also target and will target Jewish people.