#overbroad

[redysetdare]

Everytime I hear someone say "love is what makes us human"I think of that one guy who was trying to describe humanity and said humans were featherless bipedals and another guy responded to that claim by bringing in a plucked chicken saying "BEHOLD A MAN"

Like I could hold up a million animal species and say "BEHOLD A HUMAN" because they feel love. Something that isn't just a human experience.

The point being that describing a group based solely off a few features or emotions makes the definition too broad to claim that it is what makes that species said species.

Saying humans are humans cause they have no fur would include furless animals. Same with saying love is what defines humanity. Like either you think elephants don't feel love or elephants are human. Your dog doesn't actually love you or your dog is human.

You can't use vague overly broad concepts to define humans as a species. So maybe stop trying to dehumanize people for not feeling the same emotion as you in the same way you do?

[thenegoteator]

We have so much culture in SW inspired by Japanese, Irish, African, Indian, Korean, and French cultures. That makes me so happy. Now, I want to see Vietnamese, Greek, Italian, Egyptian, and Swedish culture in SW.

yeah!!

I also hope SW can continue to be more thoughtful about where they draw their inspiration from and what worldbuilding can look like for them

[amrv-5]

ouuuughhh complaining

[mourning-again-in-america]

Hart & Wechsler 4th ed., edited by Richard Fallon, Daniel Meltzer, and David Shapiro, cites to Fallon a lot, for opinions so useless & worse than the alternatives that I started thinking "Why do they keep citing Fallon? The guy seems like a real idiot!" before realizing exactly why Fallon might be frequently cited

[thoughtportal]

For those living in one of the 22 states where abortion is banned or heavily restricted, the internet can be a lifeline. It has essential information on where and how to access care, links to abortion funds, and guidance on ways to navigate potential legal risks. Activists use the internet to organize and build community, and reproductive healthcare organizations rely on it to provide valuable information and connect with people in need.

But both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are now actively pushing for federal legislation that could cut youth off from these vital healthcare resources and stifle online abortion information for adults and kids alike.

This summer, the U.S. Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a bill that would grant the federal government and state attorneys general the power to restrict online speech they find objectionable in a misguided and ineffective attempt to protect kids online. A number of organizations have already sounded the alarm on KOSA’s danger to online LGBTQ+ content, but the hazards of the bill don’t stop there.

KOSA puts abortion seekers at risk. It could easily lead to censorship of vital and potentially life-saving information about sexual and reproductive healthcare. And by age-gating the internet, it could result in websites requiring users to submit identification, undermining the ability to remain anonymous while searching for abortion information online.

Abortion Information Censored

As EFF has repeatedly warned, KOSA will stifle online speech. It gives government officials the dangerous and unconstitutional power to decide what types of content can be shared and read online. Under one of its key censorship provisions, KOSA would create what the bill calls a “duty of care.” This provision would require websites, apps, and online platforms to comply with a vague and overbroad mandate to prevent and mitigate “harm to minors” in all their “design features.”

KOSA contains a long list of harms that websites have a duty to protect against, including emotional disturbance, acts that lead to bodily harm, and online harassment, among others. The list of harms is open for interpretation. And many of the harms are so subjective that government officials could claim any number of issues fit the bill.

This opens the door for political weaponization of KOSA—including by anti-abortion officials. KOSA is ambiguous enough to allow officials to easily argue that its mandate includes sexual and reproductive healthcare information. They could, for example, claim that abortion information causes emotional disturbance or death, or could lead to “sexual exploitation and abuse.” This is especially concerning given the anti-abortion movement’s long history of justifying abortion restrictions by claiming that abortions cause mental health issues, including depression and self-harm (despite credible research to the contrary).

As a result, websites could be forced to filter and block such content for minors, despite the fact that minors can get pregnant and are part of the demographic most likely to get their news and information from social media platforms. By blocking this information, KOSA could cut off young people’s access to potentially life-saving sexual and reproductive health resources. So much for protecting kids.

KOSA’s expansive and vague censorship requirements will also affect adults. To avoid liability and the cost and hassle of litigation, websites and platforms are likely to over-censor potentially covered content, even if that content is otherwise legal. This could lead to the removal of important reproductive health information for all internet users, adults included.

A Tool For Anti-Choice Officials

It’s important to remember that KOSA’s “duty of care” provision would be defined and enforced by the presidential administration in charge, including any future administration that is hostile to reproductive rights. The bill grants the Federal Trade Commission, majority-controlled by the President’s party, the power to develop guidelines and to investigate or sue any websites or platforms that don’t comply. It also grants the Executive Branch the power to form a Kids Online Safety Council to further identify “emerging or current risks of harms to minors associated with online platforms.”

Meanwhile, KOSA gives state attorneys general, including those in abortion-restrictive states, the power to sue under its other provisions, many of which intersect with the “duty of care.” As EFF has argued, this gives state officials a back door to target and censor content they don’t like, including abortion information.

It’s also directly foreseeable that anti-abortion officials would use KOSA in this way. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), has touted KOSA as a way to censor online content on social issues, claiming that children are being “indoctrinated” online. The Heritage Foundation, a politically powerful organization that espouses anti-choice views, also has its eyes on KOSA. It has been lobbying lawmakers to pass the bill and suggesting that a future administration could fill the Kids Online Safety Council with “representatives who share pro-life values.”

This all comes at a time when efforts to censor abortion information online are at a fever pitch. In abortion-restrictive states, officials have already been eagerly attempting to erase abortion from the internet. Lawmakers in both South Carolina and Texas have introduced bills to censor online abortion information, though neither effort has yet to be successful. The National Right to Life Committee has also created a model abortion law aimed at restricting abortion rights in a variety of ways, including digital access to information.

KOSA Hurts Anonymity Online

KOSA will also push large and important parts of the internet behind age gates. In order to determine which users are minors, online services will likely impose age verification systems, which require everyone—both adults and minors—to verify their age by providing identifying information, oftentimes including government-issued ID or other personal records.

This is deeply problematic for maintaining access to reproductive care. Age verification undermines our First Amendment right to remain anonymous online by requiring users to confirm their identity before accessing webpages and information. It would chill users who do not wish to share their identity from accessing or sharing online abortion resources, and put others’ identities at increased risk of exposure.

In a post-Roe United States, in which states are increasingly banning, restricting, and prosecuting abortions, the ability to anonymously seek and share abortion information online is more important than ever. For people living in abortion-restrictive states, searching and sharing abortion information online can put you at risk. There have been multiple instances of law enforcement agencies using digital evidence, including internet history, in abortion-related criminal cases. We’ve also seen an increase in online harassment and doxxing of healthcare professionals, even in more abortion-protective states.

Because of this, many organizations, including EFF, have tried to help people take steps to protect privacy and anonymity online. KOSA would undercut those efforts. While it’s true that our online ecosystem is already rich with private surveillance, age verification adds another layer of mass data collection. Online ID checks require adults to upload data-rich, government-issued identifying documents to either the website or a third-party verifier, creating a potentially lasting record of their visit to the website.

For abortion seekers taking steps to protect their anonymity and avoid this pervasive surveillance, this would make things all the more difficult. Using a public computer or creating anonymous profiles on social networks won’t keep you safe if you have to upload ID to access the information you need.

We Can Still Stop KOSA From Passing

KOSA has not yet passed the House, so there’s still time to stop it. But the Senate vote means that the House could bring it up for a vote at any time, and the House has introduced its own similarly flawed version of KOSA. If we want to protect access to abortion information online, we must organize now to stop KOSA from passing.

[mellowwillowy]

TW: Physical and Mental Abuse, mentioned killing animals.

Yandere who is always there for you, whether you are at your highest or your lowest, he is always there to support you.

Yandere who has always been a gentleman, never doing anything that brings discomfort to you. He courts you religiously and never goes overbroad in his way, managing to worm himself into your heart.

Yandere who is so happy the moment you agree to bind yourself with him for eternity, his gloved hand slides the wedding ring onto your finger.

Yandere who treats you as usual until you start to see through his facade of a gentleman. Beyond the respected man of a Judge is a man of an inferiority complex.

And that you have always been nothing but a trophy to sate his ego. Someone who can stand on the high road but never at the same height as he does.

Yandere who one day found you snooping his diary, eyes tinted in anger, you lost your consciousness the moment one of his many thick books hit the back of your head unknowingly.

Yandere who enjoys seeing you so dependent on them, unable to even cut your own meal without breaking a sweat and a hiss.

Yandere who loves seeing blood drip out of your patched fingers, fingernails ripped by him out of love.

Yandere who treats you more as a doll and far from a spouse with each day passing.

Marlon had always enjoyed dressing you up in countless coutures. It was subtle at first but the moment you realized how ugly the root of his facade was, he no longer bothered to force you to wear what you might not like.

Contrary to his gloved hands, yours were miserable. You couldn't have a day in which your bandages wouldn't be seeping red.

Why did you even bother reading through his diary? Should you have feigned ignorance and led a peaceful life with the gentleman your husband was, you wouldn't have to bear the shame he would make you shoulder as he helped you bathe.

Oh, where had the man you once loved gone to? The man who was always there when you were at your lowest, blissfully unaware of the fact that he was the cause of your downfall, and the man who slowly guided you up into a modified throne for you.

Oh, what had happened to all those times? Ignorance is truly bliss and you regretted how your eyes and heart pried way too deep into him.

Your husband had always been referred to as a once-in-a-millennium prodigy yet his diary stated otherwise, filled with scribblings of how he still lacks a lot in comparison to someone.

You picked up on his facade from the time you started to live with him under the same roof. The way he would rub circles on his gloved fingers when he was troubled to the way he had tendencies to kill doves whenever he failed in doing something.

Would he kill you like the dead doves he had buried in the garden?

You couldn't help but bury yourself with countless thoughts of how he would dispose of you for being able to see through his secret.

But the day you would end up buried six feet underground never came.

You were alive but never unscratched. A high-collared garment that hid the bruises around your neck, ankles that were sore from the rope that dug into the skin every time you walked any faster, and gloved hands that tried their best to use the dining utensils properly while maintaining your expression, trying not to wring it with pain and tears.

Alas, you mistook his way of loving someone as a way of torturing someone until one of his many 'siblings' visited. Marlon was away when one of them walked up to you, the woman shared almost a complete resemblance to him.

"I heard that Marlon really cherishes you as his spouse and it seems to be true." Despite how stoic her face was, with no hatred nor mockery in her tone and words, her words left you thinking. You eyed the family crest that was embroidered on her shirt collar, XL.

Just how exactly does his 'family' love someone to the point even his 'Sister' acknowledge this as something normal? Perhaps you were the one who never tried to understand it?

--

Bonus: WIP Comic

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Richard Luscombe at The Guardian:

Six major book publishers have teamed up to sue the US state of Florida over an “unconstitutional” law that has seen hundreds of titles purged from school libraries following rightwing challenges. The landmark action targets the “sweeping book removal provisions” of House Bill 1069, which required school districts to set up a mechanism for parents to object to anything they considered pornographic or inappropriate. A central plank of Republican governor Ron DeSantis’s war on “woke” on Florida campuses, the law has been abused by rightwing activists who quickly realized that any book they challenged had to be immediately removed and replaced only after the exhaustion of a lengthy and cumbersome review process, if at all, the publishers say. Since it went into effect last July, countless titles have been removed from elementary, middle and high school libraries, including American classics such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain.

Contemporary novels by bestselling authors such as Margaret Atwood, Judy Blume and Stephen King have also been removed, as well as The Diary of a Young Girl, Anne Frank’s gripping account of the Holocaust, according to the publishers. “Florida HB 1069’s complex and overbroad provisions have created chaos and turmoil across the state, resulting in thousands of historic and modern classics, works we are proud to publish, being unlawfully labeled obscene and removed from shelves,” Dan Novack, vice-president and associate general counsel of Penguin Random House (PRH), said in a statement. “Students need access to books that reflect a wide range of human experiences to learn and grow. It’s imperative for the education of our young people that teachers and librarians be allowed to use their professional expertise to match our authors’ books to the right reader at the right time in their life.” PRH is joined in the action by Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishers, Simon & Schuster and Sourcebooks. The 94-page lawsuit, which also features as plaintiffs the Authors Guild and a number of individual writers, was filed in federal court in Orlando on Thursday.

The suit contends the book removal provisions violate previous supreme court decisions relating to reviewing works for their literary, artistic, political and scientific value as a whole while considering any potential obscenity; and seeks to restore the discretion “of trained educators to evaluate books holistically to avoid harm to students who will otherwise lose access to a wide range of viewpoints”. “Book bans censor authors’ voices, negating and silencing their lived experience and stories,” Mary Rasenberger, chief executive of the Authors Guild, said in the statement. “These bans have a chilling effect on what authors write about, and they damage authors’ reputations by creating the false notion that there is something unseemly about their books. “Yet these same books have edified young people for decades, expanding worlds and fostering self-esteem and empathy for others. We all lose out when authors’ truths are censored.” Separate from the publishers’ action, a group of three parents filed their own lawsuit in June, insisting that the law discriminated against parents who oppose book bans and censorship because it allowed others to dictate what their children can and cannot read.

Six major publishers sue Florida over book ban law HB1069.

[caitdrawsstuff2]

Tell us a little about Cait and Tina! What are they like? They're both adorable!

Both Cait and Tina are sister.

Cait is the older sister and works at McPreggo. She got the job after Tina told her about it. After the first day, She was hooked.

Tina is the younger sister and usually stay at home. She is lazy and doesn't do much. mess with Cait at times, After Cait started, Tina would come along everyday and order her "Usual" order and get it for free, but she has to clean the house before Cait comes back home.

They both like to compare and challenge each other of eating McPreggo food, But Tina like going overbroad.

Inspiration and Mcpreggo Menu by @greatbigbellies

[proshippers-against-censorship]

I wonder sometimes if antis are thinking racism and propaganda originate from fiction because it’s portrayed in fiction, and that overbroad censorship would end orientalism (as example) and propaganda in fiction

you know I don’t think The Turner Diaries was fan fiction but you can’t tell people with anti science beliefs that…

Perhaps. It's a good and very plausible theory.

[toolusingmammalgirl]

Speaking of Gender Takes, “TME/TMA” seems like a cousin of “women+” and such (though I doubt there’s much overlap in who uses them) in the sense of “joyless gender nationalism based on very overbroad ideas of who’s safe or a threat”

And blithe use of TME/TMA also reflects a big failure of intersectionality, like how there’s a clear transphobic tint to the shit that cis women of color get

[reasonsforhope]

Federal Judge Gregory Presnell has placed a preliminary injunction on a Florida bill banning individuals under the age of 18 from attending drag performances. 

[Note: "Preliminary injunction" means that the judge has blocked the law from going into effect. The ban is temporary, and is designed to keep the bill from being enforced or applied while the bill goes through the appeals process, where higher-level judges will rule on whether they agree with DeSantis, or with this judge.

Given how incredibly overbroad the law is, previous recent rulings on these issues, and this judge's ruling in particular, DeSantis's government will almost certainly have a difficult time convincing any not-a-total-right-wing-crony lawyer that the law is constitutional. Because, in fact, this law is a huge violation of the first amendment, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of expression.]

The law, dubbed the “Protection of Children Act,” would allow “the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to fine, suspend, or revoke the license of any public lodging, establishment, or public food service establishment if the establishment admits a child to an adult live performance.” DeSantis previously said that drag shows, which are covered by the ban, “sexualize” children.  

In his ruling, Presnell sided with Hamburger Mary’s, a restaurant that hosts drag performances and sued the DeSantis administration, claiming that the restrictions implemented by the act were too broad and not only violated their first amendment rights but unfairly harmed their business. 

In a move the DeSantis administration likely did not see coming, Presnell cited previous laws passed by the Florida governor in his reasoning for placing an injunction on the law. Presnell wrote that the Florida government had failed to sufficiently narrow the breadth of the ban to prevent its unjust application and its “inevitable clash with the Florida ‘Parents’ Bill of Rights’ and other laws.” 

The “Parental Bill of Rights” was signed into law by DeSantis in July of 2021. The law, as quoted by Presnell states that “all parental rights are reserved to the parent of a minor child in this state…including…[t]he right to direct the upbringing and the moral or religious training of his or her minor child.” 

-via Rolling Stone, June 23, 2023

[mariacallous]

To protect America’s vital infrastructure from hackers without relying on a moribund Congress, the Biden administration bet big on creative uses of existing laws. But the Supreme Court probably blew up that approach.

President Joe Biden’s strategy relied on agencies interpreting the laws that give them regulatory powers to include cybersecurity, with the expectation that courts would defer to their interpretations of those laws under a decades-old legal doctrine known as Chevron deference.

But in a landmark case decided in late June, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the United States Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority eliminated Chevron deference and ordered courts to determine for themselves what ambiguous laws say—without assigning nearly as much weight to agencies’ interpretations.

Now, that controversial ruling could completely upend multiple agencies’ plans to require better cybersecurity from critical infrastructure entities like hospitals, water systems, and power plants. It could even help corporate America overturn existing rules aimed at keeping hackers off cloud platforms, securing pipelines and airports, and improving disclosures of major breaches.

“There’s the possibility of lawsuits to test the waters in a lot of regulations,” says Harley Geiger, counsel with the Center for Cybersecurity Policy and Law. “It definitely becomes much more difficult to regulate on critical infrastructure cybersecurity in areas where there is not sound or clear statutory backing.”

Landmark Cyber Program Under Threat

Biden’s marquee cyber regulation may also be his most endangered: a pending requirement for critical infrastructure organizations to report cyberattacks within 72 hours and ransomware payments within 24 hours.

The regulation, authorized by the 2022 Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), is meant to close massive gaps in the government’s awareness of the cyberattacks plaguing US companies every day. But when the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released the proposed rule in April, the business community slammed it for going further than lawmakers intended. By the time the public comment period closed earlier this month, many companies and trade groups had urged CISA to pare back the rule—with some of them even citing the Loper Bright ruling.

The criticism mostly focused on three aspects of the rule that could represent its biggest vulnerabilities in a future lawsuit: the definition of a “covered entity” subject to the reporting requirements, the definition of a “covered incident” that needs to be disclosed, and the list of information that needs to be reported. Businesses say CISA used much broader language for these three provisions than Congress intended.

“They have gone well beyond the text,” says one cybersecurity-focused attorney, who requested anonymity because they represent clients in disputes with federal agencies. “There's a lot of vulnerable aspects to it.”

Senate Homeland Security Committee chair Gary Peters, whose panel led the drafting of CIRCIA, added to the regulation’s legal peril when he filed a public comment saying that “the proposed rule is overbroad and needs additional clarity,” including on the definitions of covered incidents and covered entities. Peters’ objections are significant, because courts analyzing unclear laws will likely lean heavily on congressional intent.

It’s unclear if CISA will back down in the face of these headwinds. A spokesperson says the agency is “still assessing” the Loper Bright ruling “and any potential impacts that this may have on the agency’s rulemaking actions.” The spokesperson says the final regulation will be “consistent with authorities given to us by Congress.”

CISA officials “seem quite committed to the scope that they're aiming for, because they really seem to view it as important to their mission,” says Stephen Lilley, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown who focuses on cyber matters. Even so, he added, “CISA now has to be thinking, have we pushed too far in light of these recent decisions, and do we need to be a bit more modest in our ambitions?”

The consequences of a government retreat are hard to predict but potentially serious. Scaled-back CIRCIA requirements could exempt more companies from reporting or reduce the amount of information they have to report, easing the burden on those organizations but weakening the government’s understanding of digital threats.

Most experts predict only modest changes. “I would expect them to try to make as limited a reaction as their lawyers say they need to make,” Lilley says.

Still, it’s clear that the officials behind the government’s biggest-ever cyber regulation—due to be finalized by October 2025—are on notice.

“There's no way that CISA takes the next [14] months to develop this rule without considering the effect of Loper Bright and the loss of Chevron deference,” Geiger says.

Planes, Trains, and Cloud Services

While CISA’s incident reporting mandate has attracted the lion’s share of post–Loper Bright attention, the ruling threatens a host of other existing and pending cyber regulations.

The Department of Health and Human Services is working on a rule that would condition hospitals’ receipt of federal Medicare and Medicaid funding on their compliance with cyber requirements. The closely watched HHS rule represents the Biden administration’s attempt to stem a massive tide of ransomware attacks on hospitals and the rest of the health care sector. But the powerful hospital industry has objected to new mandates, saying they will overly burden already struggling facilities. Few details are known about the rule—including its exact legal basis—so it’s unclear whether HHS has been rewriting it to address Loper Bright.

Corporate America’s most-loathed cyber regulation is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2023 rule requiring publicly traded companies to announce cyber incidents with a “material” impact within four business days. That rule may be safe from new lawsuits, given the SEC’s clear legal authority to require the disclosure of information that materially affects stock prices. But Geiger says companies might instead challenge the SEC’s authority to penalize companies for hacks, since the underlying law and regulation don’t mention cybersecurity. (The SEC declined to comment for this story.)

Lawsuits could also hit the Transportation Security Administration over its cyber requirements for pipeline, rail, and aviation operators. The TSA significantly modified its emergency directives to address industry criticism, but as the agency codifies those directives in more formal rules, disgruntled companies could seize the chance to sue. “There’s not a history of that agency doing cyber, and there’s not a great statutory hook to point to,” says the cyber attorney, who cited “a lot of frustration” with the TSA’s “perpetual invocation of an ongoing but undescribed emergency” to justify the requirements. (The TSA declined to comment.)

The Commerce Department could hit a legal snag with its proposal to require cloud companies to verify their customers’ identities and report on their activities. The pending rule, part of an effort to clamp down on hackers’ misuse of cloud services, has drawn industry criticism for alleged overreach. A major tech trade group warned Commerce that its “proposed regulations risk exceeding the rulemaking authority granted by Congress.” (Commerce declined to comment.)

Lawsuits could also target other regulations—including data breach reporting requirements from the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and financial regulators—that rely on laws written long before policymakers were thinking about cybersecurity.

“A lot of the challenges where the agencies are going to be most nervous [are] when they’ve been interpreting something for 20 years or they newly have interpreted something that’s 30 years old,” says the cyber attorney.

The White House has already faced one major setback. Last October, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew cyber requirements for water systems that industry groups and Republican-led states had challenged in court. Opponents said the EPA had exceeded its authority in interpreting a 1974 law to require states to add cybersecurity to their water-facility inspections, a strategy that a top White House cyber official had previously praised as “a creative approach.”

All Eyes on Congress

The government’s cyber regulation push is likely to run headlong into a judicial morass.

Federal judges could reach different conclusions about the same regulations, setting up appeals to regional circuit courts that have very different track records. “The judiciary itself is not a monolith,” says Geiger, of the Center for Cybersecurity Policy and Law. In addition, agencies understand cutting-edge tech issues much better than judges, who may struggle to parse the intricacies of cyber regulations.

There is only one real solution to this problem, according to experts: If Congress wants agencies to be able to mandate cyber improvements, it will have to pass new laws empowering them to do so.

“There is greater onus now on Congress to act decisively to help ensure protection of the critical services on which society relies,” Geiger says.

Clarity will be key, says Jamil Jaffer, the executive director of George Mason University’s National Security Institute and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. “The more specific Congress gets, the more likely I think a court is to see it the same way an agency does.”

Congress rarely passes major legislation, especially with new regulatory powers, but cybersecurity has consistently been an exception.

“Congress moves very, very slowly, but it’s not completely passive [on] this front,” Lilley says. “There's a possibility that you will see meaningful cyber legislation in particular sectors if regulators are not able to move forward.”

One major question is whether this progress will continue if Republicans seize unified control of the government in November’s elections. Lilley is optimistic, pointing to the GOP platform’s invocation of securing critical infrastructure with heightened standards as “a national priority.”

“There's a sense across both sides of the aisle at this point that, certainly in some of the sectors, there has been some measure of market failure,” Lilley says, “and that some measure of government action will be appropriate.”

Regardless of who controls Capitol Hill next January, the Supreme Court just handed lawmakers a massive amount of responsibility in the fight against hackers.

“It's not going to be easy,” Geiger says, “but it's time for Congress to act.”

[phoenixnakama]

Sokka x Zuko headcanons ep 1.

What if Zuko had an accident. His ship floated into a storm and he got overbroad, without his fire nation uniform. Hopefully, they were near the South Pole. He was able to get himself on the coast. But he is so tired, that he faints. Sokka found him and decided to help him. He carried Zuko to their village and took care of him.

(Part 1 maybe?)

[st-just]

Incredibly tiresome when people on here (and like, probably other places ig) get called on making some overbroad generalization/insulting a whole broad demographic always end up going 'oh come you know I only meant the rich/straight/cis/why/abled/male ones, who are coincidentally also all and only the ones doing what I was complaining about!'.

[lemuel-apologist]

i have a lot of problems with the psychopathy tests i've had to take. we know this. a lot of it comes down to vague questions and overbroad application; and we all know that certain conditions put me firmly in the "secondary psychopathy" category because of all the impulsivity questions; but one of my bigger gripes that nobody ever listened to me on (not that anyone ever listened to me about my disagreements) was that the question about love was fiercely amatonormative (and allonormative, for that matter, but there's a specific question im thinking of).

first and foremost, as a "diagnostic tool" (it's primarily a criminal justice system's diagnostic tool, and im not a psych person, so im not clear on whether or not it's actually diagnostic), something like the PCL-R fails to account for people like me, who do not enter into romantic relationships and therefore would not have marital relationships to speak of; would not have romantic relationships as a metric of things falling apart; may not have frequent promiscuous behaviors; and so on.

or, as with the levenson self-report:

What is this supposed to mean? What do you mean when you refer to love? because we all know you mean the romantic kind; everyone always means the romantic kind until you ask for clarification on aromantic grounds. and so when i say yes, it is, i agree, and post-hoc ask for clarification, my score is already inflated. it does nothing. your test is stupid.