#reblogging for this very swaying propaganda

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

MDZS Height Poll: Who is (technically) the tallest character. Please remember that these polls are for fun!

[utilitycaster]

Hot take: with the way the campaign is going, Ashton is getting dangerously close to turning into someone who has a "don't tread on me" flag. Fully "the reason I am upset by people getting stepped on by the boots of those in power is because the 'little guy' (me) doesn't have the opportunity to be the boot". Which makes all of the people at the beginning of the campaign acting like Ashton was a 'true leftist' punk instead of a bitter and angry person with no direction in life and next to no principles hilarious in retrospect. People love to forget that sometimes the ones rebelling against those in power have a busted view of what power is, does, and who is currently wielding it.

Hi anon!

So I'm broadly in agreement. I don't think this is a terribly hot take not because it's wrong but because I've just reblogged like 5 pretty popular posts that are all saying "Ashton's teetering on the edge of full manifest destiny/blood and soil/humans are the virus ideologies" which all go rather further than just a shitty libertarian flag*.

I have a post in queue somewhere to this effect but there's a weird very Tumblr/Twitter/otherwise terminally online belief that anyone who's experienced systemic oppression is automatically going to have Good Politics from it when that's simply not true. Plenty of people look for someone else to blame, and they blame another oppressed group they don't happen to belong to, or something utterly unrelated. Like, I think a lot of punks are genuinely trying to live in a world that is unkind to them, but a lot of punks do so by taking a fuckload of drugs and kicking the shit out of someone who looks weird. I made this post YEARS ago, literally, very early in the campaign; it is ahistoric to act like punk automatically equals leftist when it started as an aesthetic to sell clothes at a London boutique and when homophobic, misogynistic, and racist subcultures were rampant within it. We remember and uplift the punks who weren't like that, but something that really gets me is like. I know some metalheads and a lot of them are REALLY open about having to learn to spot the metalheads who are here to talk about Norse Superiority vs. the people who just want to scream about Satan for fun. For some reason a lot of people in the CR fandom acted like punks were exempted from this and that's a fast track to being very easily swayed into these ideologies; it's literally "you are not immune to propaganda, but I am" and like. bud. you're not.

It feels related to the weird way people treat Liliana. I am still, to be honest, low-key furious that several white southerners are like nooooooo you should be sympathetic to people in cults, because it could happen to anyone and it's like. well. you see. I am Jewish. I am not hanging around anyone who is white and southern and in a cult long enough to find out if they want to kill me, and it's appalling and indicative of how sheltered and ignorant you are of other perspectives that you would have the gall to demand this. They're entitled people who demand that people most at risk from violence do the work of dismantling it - not them, oh certainly no, they're too busy playing Elden Ring or some shit. There's a certain kind of Tumblr user that claims to be leftist and yet extends a thousand times more sympathy and understanding to their neighbor down the road who openly flies a Confederate flag and definitely voted to deny them medical care, than to people who have a cringe "childless cat lady" bumper sticker and voted to reinstate said care and will bad-faith cherrypick why this is actually very radical of them (if not outright lie) and they have rather transparently claimed Ashton as one of their own.

As I said during Downfall, some of it is people who love the taste of the boot as long as they think it might end up on their foot one day but some of it is just people who are so nihilist they'll let the world burn and ignore that perhaps other people are also living there. Like, a big reason why, even when Dorian was angry at the gods, I never felt the same way about him as I did for Ashton is because Dorian was angry about what happened to Opal and Cyrus. Dorian wanted an option that would hurt the fewest people, and his main experience was seeing a god overtake Opal and hurt people! And as he saw new perspectives and heard from others he incorporated that, and I don't agree with everything he says but he really has been thinking about people other than himself, and increasingly I can't say the same for Ashton. The moment at the end, where they say that apologizing would be for them, was promising; but it also feels like Ashton learned this lesson with the shard and completely forgot it and was like "THE GODS WILL KILL US SPECIFICALLY" and the fact that the gods they literally met in person didn't do so seems to have failed to sink in. This is a character obsessed with their own highly specific experiences, insistent that there is someone ALIVE to blame and not their shitty dead parents, and defined by refusing to hear anything that will conflict with what they already believe, and that's REALLY fucking bad for a hero and a fast track to right-wing reactionary politics.

*ngl the Don't Tread on Me flag is darkly hilarious to me because it's available as a vanity Virginia license plate, which means there's a LOT of people who are like "I shall express my distaste for the government by paying the government 25 unnecessary dollars per year solely to have a customized license plate." Deeply indicative, frankly, of this mentality. I mean I don't hang around anyone who has one because they're probably fucking shitty, but I am going to laugh about it in private.

[09lover]

HEY HEY HEY, WE’RE FINALLY REACHING THE END OF A SEASON!!!! THE FINALE WE’VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR, BEEN WANTING, BEEN NEEDING!!!!

ALRIGHT, DUE TO HOW IT IS A FINALE WITH MANY PARTICIPANTS, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SET TO A ONE WEEK DURATION BATTLE!

WITHOOOOOUTTTTT FURTHER ADO, LETS LOOK AT OUR PARTICIPANTS THAT HAVE BEEN IT THROUGH THEIR HARD BATTLES!

first contestant, well… contestants. we have a very big group that has formed to endure everything together! GIVE IT UP FOR … @tokyogruel + @amugoffandoms + @urrvw + @mulberriesandtea ! aka.. krismimugruel !!

second contestant.. CONTESTANTS!!! we have another formed group, or duo… once against each other in the semi finals, but have now formed together thanks to the cruel thing we all call fate… GIVE IT UP FOR … @mukuberry + @seariii ! AKA, NIKOSEARI !!

finally, our last contestant whos once fallen but has picked themselves back up thanks to their ability to sway the audience… one that has the chance to win again…. GIVE IT UP FOR… @swefishdish !! SWEFISH !!

so many rounds, so much suffering and joy, we can finally decide and find out who the winner is …. which is left to the audience to pick ! GO WILD GO CRAZY, MAKE SOME PROPAGANDAS WHILE YOURE AT IT BECAUSE THIS IS THE EVER LAST TIME!!! MAKE IT COUNT!!

AS ALWAYS SAID BY YOURS TRULY, BEST OF LUCK!!! VOTERS PLEASE REMEMBER TO VOTE, BUT OF COURSE I ADVICE YOU, NOT IMMEDIATELY! remember the finale is up for a week, you have plenty of time to vote so please check the reblogs for any propagandas thatll be sure to sway you if you cant vote!! and now… LET THE FINALE BEGIN!!

[doyouknowthischaracter]

Do you think the polls are inherently biased, because the well-known characters will be shared more wheras the unknown characters might never even reach their bubble where they are actually known by a lot of people?

Short answer is no.

Long answer is: well, if we want to be pedantic, an argument could be made that no method of collecting data via surveys, even self-administered surveys, is completely free of bias because that's just human nature and all you can do is minimize it by wording questions neutrally, trimming outliers, etc etc. With that out of the way, one very important thing to note here is that this isn't an opinion survey. The question being asked is very straightforward and the answer is not something that can be swayed or influenced by peer pressure, propaganda, unwillingness to disclose private information, or any other factors, be they internal or external. You either know a character or you don't. I mean, people could certainly lie, in either direction, but 1) why would you do that?? it's not even like we have winners or losers here, and 2) there's nothing I can do about it anyway.

Now, when it comes to sampling bias (which, from what I understand, is what you're actually asking about) my answer is still no, I don't think that's accurate. Popular characters will reach more people and get more votes overall precisely because they're more popular. If this were a tournament style blog or if I were asking your opinion on the character in question, then yes, I could definitely see how more well-known characters would be at an unfair advantage (or how tagging the polls with the character's name is encouraging that bias, as it's been suggested before), but this is not that! Well-known characters reaching their bubbles faster/more efficiently than obscure characters is an inherent part of being more popular. Everything is working as intended.

All that being said, there are a few factors which I think could influence results somewhat unfairly, but I wouldn't necessarily call them bias. They're more like limitations of the medium.

Firstly, the time and day of the week when a poll is published. I don't have access to this kind of data right now, but off the top of my head, I'd say Sundays around 10pm is when Tumblr users are most active. That, coupled with the fact that most users are from the United States, means that polls that come out of the queue on US Sundays during that time window have a chance to reach more people than all the others. However, this potential problem is organically circumvented by people going back to see previously posted polls, finding polls through reblogs or from tag searches, etc. So it's not really a significant difference. I haven't noticed the numbers reflecting this yet either, but in theory that's how social media works, so I thought it was worth pointing out.

Secondly, polls that were posted early on when the blog had fewer followers reached less people, on average, than polls being posted at the moment or that will be posted in the future. No argument there, that's just a fact. But, again, this is a limitation of the medium. Potentially, I could repost older polls at some point in the future and reassess characters' popularity, but how do I choose which ones? All of them? Wouldn't we just get stuck in a loop of reposting the same characters over and over then? That'd be no fun. So I don't really think there's anything to be done here, unfortunately.

Thirdly, meme-able characters will be see better engagement and consequently higher numbers of votes. Point in case, Obi-Wan Kenobi. Once again, not something that can be helped, not really. I do my best to maintain uniformity in how I format the polls and which pictures I choose (as high quality as I can find, cropped adequately, consistent size, etc.). But some characters will just have better chances of being shared around by virtue of featuring in memes or having some recognizable line or something like that.

To sum it up, overall I don't think there's an inherent bias in how the polls work at the moment. I do think there are certain factors that could marginally influence voting numbers, but not the votes themselves. (Which is why I've decided to compile two separate lists, by number of votes and by percentage-- they measure slightly different things, but that's a post for another day.) As long as every follower of this blog is delivered every poll to their dash and everyone pinky promises not to lie and screw up my numbers on purpose, then I'd say we're golden.

This is probably more than you asked for lol, but hopefully it all makes sense. And as always, feel free to share your opinion. I'm always happy to hear it!

[conhivemindcent]

I wanted to add to my previous reblog about the Times Person of the Year and it having no relation to the Isreal invasion of Palestine. Once again, hello Galtung and Ruge.

1) Continuity. In the case of 2022’s person of the year, it was Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president. Russia had been actively invading Ukraine since February that year. It had heavily dominated the news cycle in 2022, and into 2023. Meanwhile, in the case of 2023 it was Taylor Swift, who had been making news with her huge Eras tour. But with the Isreal/Palestine not-war-but-invasion-type-beat, it has only been occurring since late autumn of 2023.

2) Proximity. Swift is American. So is the Times magazine. A lot of winners are American or directly involve America.

3) Reference to elite persons. Taylor is a huge celebrity, and a recent billionaire (the last time I brought up news values was also over billionaires. I suspect tumblr will be more sympathetic towards her

4) Personalisation. A lot of people can relate to TS songs.

5) Politics. This is, in my honest opinion, the main reason why she was chosen. The Times is reflective of modern American culture, a culture which is very set against Russia but is more sympathetic towards Isreal. Who would jump to defend Ukraine, but be more hesitant towards Palestine. Taylor Swift is generally not controversial. You can dig up dirt on her, and tbh. I don’t care if you do.

But she is not a big “if you talk about this you will get death threats” issue. Isreal and Palestine is. It’s a lot more controversial, and you can manipulate the truth both ways and sway a lot of people. Lord knows I’ve been swayed to both sides, and with so much disinformation going round (especially with AI generation, god I hate AI generated propaganda for both sides), Taylor is just a safe option.

But also look at the other nominations. Hollywood strikers, Xi Jinping, Elon Musk, Sam Altman (the CEO of OpenAI), Trump Prosecutors, Barbie, Charles III. All of these people are controversial to someone. There’s also Jerome Powell, who idk what he has to do with this but that’s cause I’m not American and this is a very American list. A lot of winners are American presidents, and again: the Times is American.

But also fucking Putin is on there. Why the fuck is Putin on there?!

None of these people (afaik) have anything to do with Isreal or Palestine or the genocide going on. This list was more likely than not chosen months in advance. And honestly, Taylor Swift is well known to the average American and let’s be fair, she’s good at making frontline news because

6) Unambiguous. Taylor is a massively popular pop star who has a huge tour and a lot of people like her. That’s it. Nothing deeper. She just is.

[bl-bracket]

Info for how the brackets work:

So since there's been a lot more attention on this current competetion then the last, I thought I'd share some of my process on how the brackets get formed so y'all can understand how it works more!

Who gets put in the brackets?

Basically everyone who gets submitted at this point! I'm still starting out on here and I don't have a ton of traction yet, so every character submitted has been put in the bracket. Right now I've been doing 16-competitors brackets, so I basically take everyone's submissions and then add my own if I need more. The green flag bracket had the most amount of submissions so far (39) with 12 characters nominated. I added another 4 based on my personal choices to complete the bracket and that's how you got what we have now.

Why is X character against Y character?

The pairings for the bracket are about 80% randomized. The remaining 20% is my interference, which, in order to make the competition more interesting, is avoiding putting the real heavy hitters against each other in the first round. For this bracket (and those going forward), the "heavy hitters" were basically the characters I got the most repeated submissions for earlier. Like I said, I had 39 submissions with only 12 characters, many characters were submitted by multiple people. I took the ones with the most submissions and adjusted it so that they weren't going to face each other till later rounds. Maybe in the future I will adjust this policy but for now just keep in mind that the match ups are largely randomized.

Isn't this just a popularity contest?

I mean... yeah? Unfortunately that's how these bracket competitions seem to work and I'm not sure if there's any way to combat that. My best advice is to use as much campaigning and propaganda as you want for your desired canadite (also reblogging the poll if your follower base tends to have similar opinions on the shows can be advantageous to you ;).) I also think in future brackets I'll add the reasons people give for submitting their character to the posts to hopefully even the odds a little.

Also just some general info, I'm trying my best to be neutral as possible with these! I don't vote in the polls (originally because the very first round I ever did didn't have a lot of votes and I didn't want to sway any of them. Now it's just a fun little game of self restraint) so I'm not trying to get yall to vote for a specific character. I also haven't watched every single drama that is a part of these competitions so pls don't get too upset at a character being included that you think is inaccurate! There is a very real possibility that they were just a user submission I added! I don't want to stay which dramas I have or haven't watched (again I don't want to sway anything) so please don't ask me or interrogate me on why a character is a part of the poll! Like I said before, it's primarily user submissions and only a few are added by me, but I would really rather not say which are which (except maybe after a bracket has been completed!)

Anyways! This is just a reminder that this is all in good fun! The most popular bl is not necessarily the best bl, nor is the bl you find most enjoyable always the best bl either! It can be fun to argue and debate over fictional characters but please stay kind and remember to keep fun at the forefront!

[terrawritesbooks]

Reblogging this again because I have thoughts, having ruminated for a moment.

The idealized sigma male grind that perpetuates cishet male culture is only part of the puzzle. This point in particular got me thinking:

As we cut off the legs off future readers, “our culture closes off opportunities for boys and men,” says Professor Keen, who is also an expert in narrative empathy. “Consciously or not [we promote] a model of masculinity that is less introspective, less attuned to others, and less contemplative.”

I can't think of a demographic of people more deeply horrified by empathy, contemplation and introspection than cishet men. If you're AMAB and were raised in this culture, you likely feel this on a very deep and personal level. In this culture of toxic masculinity, it's hard to find friends who you can be vulnerable around. Opening up to others feels taboo, pondering the world is a waste of time, considering your own actions and emotions is for fags. Cishet men, in fact, are so fucking afraid of emotion that they frequently confuse their feelings for facts, simply because they could not accept or process that their opinions and worldview might be based on emotional kneejerks and not cold, calculating logic.

Compounding this, cishet men are fed absolute slop for fiction. Mostly movies glorifying western imperialism, domestic law enforcement, and bourgeoisie propaganda exalting their wealthy, exploitive cynosures to mythic heights. This is the baseline expectation of fiction for the cishet man, and to stray from this is antithesis of manhood, declared as such from a place of deep fear of their own emotions. Additionally, the powers that created this nightmare we all struggle in want it this way. By the very nature of our vastly patriarchal societies, cishet men wield the majority of power. To teach cishet to fear emotion and introspection is to teach the group with the most sway and control to keep on with the status quo. To never question if things could be better.

Good fiction invites us to consider perspectives we might not have considered before. Good fiction asks us to seriously think about the themes of the story. Good fiction asks you to be empathetic, vulnerable, and to open yourself up to the plight of the characters. Even the trashiest of bodice rippers are fundamentally stories about emotional vulnerability and human connectivity. Cishet men fear this, fear what is being asked of them. How could they pick up a book a read it? To the cishet man, what is asked of him to engage with a novel is the very nemesis of manhood.

So insightful

[maslows-pyramid-scheme]

Anon from before again - I don't think it's a bad thing to do in general (the reblogging with doubts in the tags), for most topics I agree that it's a good strategy to get a conversation going.

It's just that posts like that one seem more like active disinformation than accidental misinfo, and the point is expressed very strongly in the original post. I feel like for this level of propaganda a small 'idk tho?' disclaimer in the tags without refuting it doesn't really weaken the impact of what the original poster wanted - which is most likely to (further) radicalise. To me, it's just giving the crazies more of a platform.

Maybe it doesn't matter since tumblr as a whole is already deep into conspiracy-theory-land about it, but I'm always hella careful about i/p posts because of the definite real-life impact.

I reblogged and tagged that post because I'd already seen it a number of times - unchallenged.

When confronted with misinformation and disinformation, I think one can respond in three ways:

1. You can ignore it, but I'd argue that ignoring it doesn't do anything to halt the spread of the misinformation or disinformation. Like you said, it can radicalise people, and it has real-world consequences.

2. You can raise doubts about it in the comments section. I think this may help sway opinions or encourage people to at least inform themselves about a topic, but it would only 'hit' the people who choose to look at the comments.

3. You can raise doubts about it in the post/tags. I think this is the clearest way of challenging misinformation and disinformation, but, as you said, its effectiveness depends on how you point the misinformation/disinformation out (and maybe I'm being presumptuous to think people read the tags?).

In saying that, I really do see where you're coming from. I see/hear so much blatant misinformation/disinformation on Israel/Gaza, and I have no idea how to challenge it (and I also don't want to hint that I know more than I actually do - I understand some bits but I'm hopelessly ignorant on others).

[honesty-my-policy]

apologies for reblogging this without bringing a specific Jewish problem as I am a Goy but this entire situation has just highlighted one of modern societies biggest issues

this is the problem with EVERYTHING in modern culture today and despite the fact that i am VERY VERY VERY pro freedom for individuals, meaning - as long as you aren't hurting anyone else or encroaching on my space, do whatever.

in recent years i genuinely have come to the belief that parents are harming their kids more than helping them by letting them have social media and smart devices before the age of 16.

the genuine disconnect between the things these kids are saying and doing online is too drastic. there is also a severe lack of common sense and critical thinking skills. how quickly these kids will turn on each other over things from k-pop to Religion and then vomit out justifications they don't actually understand is disturbing.

it is very similar to the propaganda era of Nazi Germany and how easily people were swayed but the pace is far quicker than back then because of the invention of the internet.

anyway, you have one ally here ready to fight.

A situation talking about "Jewish Values" with a 16 year old (their blog said they were Jewish)

The 16 y/o blogger : You don't know what Judaism is you Zionist Scum.

Me, middle aged-ish Jew who had read Torah front to back more than their life just during adult Torah study and is partway through rabbinical school: yeah, you're right. Explain it to me please?

Them: f-ck off *blocks me*

Me: this conversation shows how many Jewish values they know/ uphold.🙄 Yup...

People you can't go to a Jew and act like this and expected to be taken seriously? Your brain is very much underdeveloped compared to a full grown adult, you have literally no real world experience, you do not uphold any values in Torah, you are siding with people who want us all dead and you aren't going to be spared because you "played along".

Seriously... The internet is horrible, turns these developing brains to mush and become jaded before they even hit the real world.

Child, sit down and take it down several notches.

[themoomoorn]

Jeralt Eisner Stinky

Related to my previous reblog, feel free to parouse as to why I agree that Jeralt is a bad dad, and the fact that the devs’ lack of a continuity checker made him look worse than the director likely intended him to.

Let’s count the ways:

- Went a very melodramatic 180 regarding Rhea when Byleth - who was resuscitated from friggin’ death - wasn’t behaving like a “normal baby.”  Now to be fair, Rhea was too mum for her own good and a baby that’s not very reactive to stimuli is very concerning in real life, but real life ties lose some of their weight due to Byleth’s wonky parentage and the reason for her lack of heartbeat.  Jeralt is also generally perturbed by Byleth not being “normal” for quite a while, which is pretty shitty of him anyway.  

- As a response to the above, it’s implied that he was the one who set the monastery on fire when absconding with Byleth in the night, a fire that was reported to have caused some serious damage and destroyed a lot of books.

- There’s also the fact that he was aware that Sitri herself suffered from a flat affect and struggled to emote more expressively at first, and he himself is pretty emotionally constipated.  It’d be more shocking if Byleth grew up suddenly acting like Alois. 

- He loved Sitri for basically being a cute little innocent nun, likely seeing her as ideal housewife material.  I know I’m using the term “housewife” in a damning fashion, but he loves her for some seriously basic, surface-level reasons.  Plus the whole “getting her to emote and smile more” bit?  Granted, Claude’s relationship with Byleth grows in a somewhat similar fashion, but Claude also easily adheres the least to 3H’s “avatar worship” and he doesn’t just become fond of Byleth due to her smiling and getting cuter because of that.  You can’t say the same of Jeralt and Sitri.

- While one can’t entirely damn someone for raising a child in the mercenary lifestyle due to the setting - We got a Lord and his sister being raised under similar circumstances - The sheer ignorance that Jeralt raised Byleth with is pretty damning if the gameplay/narrative element (Byleth being ignorant for the sake of player projection and exposition) is taken away.  It’s one thing to not necessarily be aware of the ins and outs of the major religion of an entire continent, but Byleth doesn’t even have much basic knowledge of Fodlan’s three countries, or any country outside of it, although most of Fodlan doesn’t either. There is also more damning text, including how Jeralt handled all of their job logistics and didn’t bother to put in any incentive to have Byleth possibly learn to inherit or learn the ins and outs of the company.  The quest where you get Jeralt’s old tactics primer also reveals that he didn’t bother to teach Byleth basic battle tactics either. 

- Where the heck was Byleth when Jeralt was in Sauin Village???  Not even Byleth herself remembers.  And while it’s heartwarming to see that Jeralt still cares for Leonie after reuniting with her (With people who bash Leonie for her fixation on him naturally ignoring this), he seems to put more effort in bonding with her than his own child.  She’s also the one who winds up inheriting his company, although that can also be attributed to Byleth being presumed dead when she does.

- He doesn’t really say much when it comes to Byleth’s “Ashen Demon” title, which is notably one of the very few things that genuinely upsets Byleth prior to her becoming more emotive.  And while it’s hinted that Byleth herself didn’t express interest in interacting with other people casually, Jeralt wasn’t exactly helping matters in that department either, exacerbating their isolation from others.  Heroes has the default Female Byleth note that she can’t tell a friend from an ally due to how she grew up.

- The man’s a raging alcoholic who performed some pretty stupid, deadly shit, including a trick that had a high chance of beheading Alois.  His treatment of Alois is also pretty deplorable, as is the fact that he has a slew of unpaid bar tabs that get shouldered by Alois and then forced onto Leonie.  

- Going back to meta and tying to how a lack of continuity checking affected 3H, Jeralt spent a lot of time fretting over Byleth being even remotely exposed to the church when there’s plenty of folks who, while aware of the faith, do not actively practice at all, pay lip service at best, or even show some disdain like the three Lords do.  Exploring lore also hampers the idea that the church is omnipotent and omnipresent: The Empire’s church branch was flat-out gutted for well over a century with practically no faith-based services available (this is a crux for Dorothea’s hatred of the faith and also cited with Mercedes’ history; she and her mother had to go to the Kingdom to find any kind of religious sanctuary after getting kicked out of House Bartels), the Alliance’s church branch has no political sway specifically because of how said Alliance is governed, and the Kingdom’s church branch has its own problems due to the zealotry, radicalism, differences in opinions of the faith, and eventual manipulation by the Agarthans that led it crossing blades with the Central branch.  

Plus, you know, Rhea never bothered to pursue Jeralt after he ran away.  And Alois’ contingent of knights appearing in Remire that fateful evening was pure happenstance, plus how Jeralt doesn’t even operate his company under a pseudonym or anything practical like that.  So with these in mind, it’s actually pretty reasonable to consider that Byleth can at least be somewhat unaware of the Seiros faith without Jeralt’s input.

- While it’s unrelated to Jeralt being Stinky, I find it irksome that a lot of folks will jump right on Jeralt hating Rhea and the church in wake of the man himself acknowledging that taking Byleth away from the monastery (or at least not giving them a stable place to grow up) was probably a huge mistake upon seeing them flourish as a teacher.  He also gets gutted for ultimately putting two and two together and realizing that the Empire may be involved with the group that’s been terrorizing the monastery during all of the 1180 school year, and tells off the Flame Emperor when they claim they’re not culpable for the Remire Massacre.  It’s hard to tell whether or not the man would side with Edelgard with enough persuasion or propaganda, or how he’d react to Byleth becoming one with Sothis and taking on their position as a major figure within the church for three out of four routes with some degree of fanfare and acceptance (which players naturally ignore to warp into Byleth being a shrieking harpy church-basher, or a church victim that El-chan or Claude has to ~save~ her from, naturally).  But it’s proof that people can’t really read - the guy wasn’t having the FE’s excuses, plain and simple.

- The above also ties to how Leonie is derailed in Crimson Flower, as she’s one of the few who unambiguously knows that the Fork Emperor is working with the same group that had Jeralt killed, in addition to all of the hell they caused therein.  Naturally, her excuse if recruited on Flower is - wait for it - Jeralt was pissy at Rhea for reasons Leonie never finds out about, but since Byleth-chan is siding with El-chan, it’s all well and good now.

- There’s also the profoundly depressing meta that if Byleth were allowed to be their own character, a continuity person was maybe in place, and Jeralt wasn’t a glorified plot device, then he had all the makings to be a great deconstruction of Greil from FE9.  The parallels are all there, but naturally they’re not put to good use, or blithely ignored outside of Supports.  This also ties to just how heavily players project onto Byleth, possibly even more so than Robin or Corrin.  Since they really project onto Byleth as Kusakihara and his goons intended, Jeralt is naturally tied to players’ real life father figures by osmosis, despite the fact that Jeralt himself definitely isn’t a good father figure. 

While having a consistent continuity checker wouldn’t be a fix-all to 3H’s problems (Kusakihara’s dismissive attitude towards having one and consistency in general is pretty damning in itself), it likely would’ve at least tightened the worldbuilding that the devs prided themselves on and offered some more consistency, even if the price is showing unpleasant truths such as Jeralt being stinky.

[morlock-holmes]

This anonymous article from the Washingtonian, (Which is apparently... a magazine? Of some sort?) “What Happened After My 13-Year-Old Son Joined the Alt-Right “ was being reblogged on my dash a few times and looking at some of the notes a lot of people were calling it propaganda without saying which side they thought it was propaganda for.

I think a LOT of people were so swayed by the “One Concerned Mom Speaks Out!” tone of the thing that they kind of missed the actual narrative.

I mean... If anything it’s kind of propaganda in favor of the alt-right, isn’t it?

Here’s how the author of the piece sums up the inciting incident in the story:

One morning during first period, a male friend of Sam’s [The author’s son] mentioned a meme whose suggestive name was an inside joke between the two of them. Sam laughed. A girl at the table overheard their private conversation, misconstrued it as a sexual reference, and reported it as sexual harassment. Sam’s guidance counselor pulled him out of his next class and accused him of “breaking the law.” Before long, he was in the office of a male administrator who informed him that the exchange was “illegal,” hinted that the police were coming, and delivered him into the custody of the school’s resource officer. At the administrator’s instruction, that man ushered Sam into an empty room, handed him a blank sheet of paper, and instructed him to write a “statement of guilt.”

No one called me as this unfolded, even though Sam cried for about six hours straight as staff members parked him in vacant offices to keep him away from other students. When he stepped off the bus that afternoon and I asked why his eyes were so swollen, he informed me that he would probably be suspended, but possibly also expelled and arrested.

Later there’s more, but basically the school authorities double down, Sam’s parents decided that if the authorities were that cruel and insane Sam needed to be in another school, and so they transferred him. Sam then starts getting into 4chan and reddit alt-right communities, who explain that what happened to him happened because of feminism gone crazy.

So, as a slight aside I have always thought since I was in high school myself that this kind of zero-tolerance, authoritarian crap is particularly cruel to inflict on growing children. A boy Sam’s age is trying to differentiate himself, see himself as an individual, and the authorities come in and go, “It doesn’t matter what you think, it doesn’t matter why you did what you did, we will never care about that, we see you as a type and there is nothing you can do to convince us otherwise.”

This message would be incredibly dispiriting to anybody, but particularly to children.

Contrast, meanwhile, his experience on Reddit:

Soon Sam stopped trying to convince me to join his brave new world. He was so active on his favorite subreddit that the other group leaders, unaware that he was 13, appointed him a moderator. Among his new online besties, this was a huge honor and a boost to his cratered self-esteem. He loved Reddit and its unceasing conversations about the nuances of memes—he seemed in love with the whole enterprise, as if it were an adolescent crush. 

...

Eventually, Sam had to give up moderating for the most practical of reasons: Eighth grade ended and he was packing for sleep-away camp. He would be offline for a month and would need other mods to cover for him. To ask for help, he had to out himself as a kid.

Sam and I both laughed about the absurdity of the situation, though he admitted he was nervous he’d be exiled from moderating. I asked him to read me the responses to his message. They were all of the “Dude, you’ve got to be kidding me” variety—one of their most sophisticated and reliable colleagues was a middle-schooler heading off to Jewish summer camp!

Later, it was my turn to be surprised: They all contributed to a going-away gift for Sam and mailed an emoji-themed fidget-spinner to his bunk address.

Faced with new information that Sam has broken the rules, his school imediately brands him a predator, threatens to arrest and expel him, and responds with undisguised hate.

Faced with new information about who Sam is, his alt-right buddies are shocked, but then reiterate that they still care about him and value the contributions he has made to their community, and get together to express that to Sam.

I’d like to make a little list of what Sam gets from the alt-right in the narrative:

A group of people who have shown that they will support and value him, even if they find out new things about him.

People who listen and care about what he has to say

An explanation of what, exactly, happened to him and why.

Ideas about how he can protect himself and others from having that happen again in the future.

Allies and support for enacting those ideas.

His parents, by his Mother’s own admission in the article, were only able to provide fumbling efforts to provide protection from that particular school’s administration. His parents and their politics were totally ready to say that taking all that stuff about cucks seriously was pretty weird and dumb, his mother is totally ready to counter any statistics his alt-right buddies might have, but is completely and utterly unequipped to provide any of the other stuff I listed up there. There’s a moment where Sam explains to her what he and his friends think happened:

Sam pledged fealty to the idea of men’s rights because, as he said, his former administrator had privileged girls’ words and experiences over boys’, and that’s how all of his troubles had started in the first place. I’d never in my life backed the “masculinist” cause or imagined that men needed protecting—yet I couldn’t help but agree with Sam’s analysis.

The mother’s politics didn’t actually equip her with an alternate explanation of what happened; rather, she has to concede that his explanation makes sense, and having conceded that has no idea what to do with herself.

In fact, as the article ends she is only vaguely starting to come to grips with the fact that Sam needed the kinds of support I listed above:

“All I wanted was for people to take me seriously,” [Sam] repeated matter-of-factly. “They treated me like a rational human being, and they never laughed at me. I saw the way you and Dad looked at each other and tried not to smile when I said something. I could hear you both in your room at night, laughing at me.”

I struggled for a moment because I wanted to tell him that wasn’t true. But I couldn’t deny his accusation. Behind closed doors, when my husband and I thought our children were asleep, we had often vented to each other about Sam’s off-the-wall proclamations and the bizarre situation we found ourselves in.

So I told Sam simply that I was sorry for making him feel bad.

I still think about his words a lot, especially when alt-right figures headline the news. But mostly, I wonder how I could have tried so hard to parent Sam through this crisis and yet tripped up on something as basic as not making my own kid feel small.

By the end of the article Sam is disenchanted with the Alt-right through, well, it’s not totally clear. The author of the article, by the end, seems to understand that Sam needed at least some of the things I outlined up there, but it’s not clear to me if she views the fact that her own politics were completely unable to provide them as an actual problem.

In fact, it’s not clear to me what she believes her politics are actually for. I know, I know, it’s not a philosophical article, but the question of “How much power do public school administrators have over their charges and what can parents do to counter them” is a nakedly, inarguably political question; after all, it’s about how a state-run institution should be run. And rather then turning to her own left-wing beliefs to contextualize and fight this decision, her solution is that her family has enough money to put Sam in another school.

Now, I’m not criticizing this decision, I think it was probably difficult, even brave. But it’s noticeable that her left-wing, non-culty politics don’t seem to have much to offer the next Sam, a Sam whose parents might not have private school tuition sitting around in their bank accounts. 

In fact, she seems to regard the fact that Sam’s alt-right buddies were able to offer up compelling narratives and give him hope of implementing a solution and reasserting his self-worth as, well, cheating. Isn’t that cult-like behavior? Politics aren’t actually supposed to help the Sams of the world contextualize the things that happen in their lives, and when they do, it’s awfully sinister.

This seems to be part of something that has heavily infected the American left. It’s a kind of unspoken philosophy that says, “Politics is for solving major problems, the rest should be handled elsewhere.”

Even when a question overtly connected to Mom’s politics crops up in their life, her politics have literally nothing practical to offer any of them. Her left-wing politics are correct it doesn’t matter if they’re helpful.

This is what I keep trying to get at when I say people are missing the point with Jordan Peterson. Yeah, a lot of what he says sounds factually rickety to me as well, but, well, when I spend every day wondering why I can’t seem to get my life together, simultaneously dreading it AND feeling like there’s no point in trying to change, how does having a more correct view of lobster biology help me out with that?

I mean, I’m not saying it can’t, I’m saying people won’t even connect the two. Look at the reviews of 12 rules and people will usually grudgingly admit that his self-help advice might be useful, but really, it will tend to rile up exactly the wrong kind of person, and anyway, what does any of this have to do with politics?

This is what I keep trying to get at about effective altruism, as well. It’s not that it’s wrong, it’s that by its very nature it will never be about providing me, personally, with any help, because it’s focused on stopping rogue AIs and mailing out malaria nets, fine causes but notice that, while Rationalists see “How can I stop a super-intelligent AI from destroying us” as a solvable problem “How do I make the kind of friends who will spontaneously check on me if I sound like I’m sick?” is completely insolvable.

To the extent that my existing faculties haven’t already made it happen, unfortunately there are no clarifying frameworks or advice better than, “Well, it’s hard.”

Rationalists are better about this than generic leftists but I also feel like that’s a low bar. Answers to the question “What can I do to concretely improve my life, and, for that matter, why should I even bother, what’s the point?” are becoming ever more disconnected from left-wing thought, and most of the concrete attempts to answer these questions are coming from the right.

I actually don’t think this is good, incidentally.

[chickadee-sun]

IRA Propaganda tactics that worked on me

(Note that many posts used multiple tactics, so I'll link to them multiple times.)

Stealing real content from real activists on social media

Most often this is done by screenshotting tweets, Facebook posts, etc. Or at least, those are the easiest for me to notice. Some of these posts don't directly further the IRA's objectives. They just make the pysop blogger look more like a real person and increase their popularity and influence. Other times they add snide little comments to help alienate and demoralize their readers. Stuff along the lines of "nobody is talking about this," or "nobody cares about this," designed to make people despair and give up on improving their country.

Now, screenshotting instead of linking should be a red flag. A link would make it easier to interact with the actual activist, not the person screenshotting their words. But tumblr's coding suppresses offsite links, making screenshotting seem like a completely normal and reasonable way to reference other platforms. The snide comments often fly under the radar because that attitude is sadly common among genuine users as well.

Of course I already knew that grabbing people's tweets and posts is a lazy and effective way to "write" a clickbait article without effort or creating content. Apparently it's also a lazy and effective way to supress the progressive vote and increase division.

I am pleased to note that I grew more fed up with the nihilist comments and less likely to reblog them over time. In another recent post (which as far as I know doesn't come from the IRA) I pushed back slightly against "why isn't this in the news?" So I think I've been on the right track even before this new information. https://chickadee-sun.tumblr.com/post/171839411085/thatpettyblackgirl-urgent-if-you-are-in

This appears to be what I interacted with the most. Here are some posts I reblogged that used this tactic: post/146412193105/musingsofaraven-valerie-volatile post/146757386220/verolynne-open-plan-infinity-swagintherain post/147206820005/chrisevansisbeautiful-areyoucoldflash post/152473414650/bellygangstaboo-this-is-happening-in-america post/153133340745/godzillakiryu91-reverseracism post/153147035545/thetrippytrip-i-wish-the-world-would post/153231802135/ghettablasta-this-is-a-great-story-of post/153483724025/dorowot-gogomrbrown-thread-my-moms post/153538772200/bellaxiao-2-years-ago-today-on-november-22 post/153734325290/an-gremlin-the-real-eye-to-see-and-media-is post/153736403455/mousathe14-raptorific-fromchaostocosmos post/154092886970/17mul-nevaehtyler-so-um-let-me-get-it post/154330979730/thetrippytrip-feminine-black-men-the post/154474122260/lagonegirl-because-we-can-recognize-more-than post/154807853475/ghettablasta-thats-so-annoying-that-no-one post/155697023025/nevaehtyler-this-is-important post/155719509740/fenrisesque-shepherdmoon-foxnewsfuckfest post/156425339773/snailchimera-ephitania-dukeofellington post/157571042371/gogomrbrown-exactly-what-the-whole-terrorism post/157590672069/go1ds-heartless-tony-blog-lagonegirl post/157983742239/roachpatrol-blackness-by-your-side-my-utopia post/160621066778/lagonegirl-white-people-using-their-privilege post/163641274771/blackness-by-your-side-people-need-knowledge-not post/164382771945/lazyscience-nevaehtyler-whats-next-take-away post/168358486495/aokayinspace-witwicky-down-to-venus-when

What I plan to do better: I'm just not going to engage with this sort of stolen content. If someone wants to screenshot *their own* twitter thread, that's fine, but if you just copy and paste someone else's content I'm not interested. Screenshots are inaccessible for people who use screenreaders anyway. This isn't foolproof, as nothing stops a propaganda blog from copypasting and pretending text is their own content, but it's a start. I also plan to push back harder against the "no one is talking about this" "nobody cares" narrative. Even when it's not from psyops on purpose it's still really harmful and counterproductive to activism. (Not foolproof; see "positivity and celebrating accomplishments" below.)

Fake news is not a euphemism for propaganda

A while ago there was a meme going around angry about how often the media allows the right wing to define terms and eumphemises the shit they pull. OK, but it claimed that "white nationalism" was a euphemism for "white supremacy," which is isn't. White nationalism is a specific type of white supremacy and the specificity matters. Likewise it claimed that "fake news" was a euphemism for propaganda. Nope. Fake news is stuff that's made up and factually untrue. Propaganda isn't defined as being untrue; it's defined by being heavily slanted and trying to prompt people into a particular course of action. Advertisements are propaganda even if they never say anything factually untrue about the product.

It's not that I'm completely gullible or without skepticism. But my skepticism and fact-checking were badly, badly miscalibrated to protect me from psyops. I was only looking for false statements from people who were misinformed or lying. I was checking to see if a reliable source backed up their basic fact claims. So when a post appeared to pass this test, I let down my guard. I was completely oblivious to the possibility of people deliberately using a pattern of basically true information presented in a misleading or inflammatory way to sway the public. And like many social media users, I had a tendency to merely skim the referenced article and not pay close attention to how closely it backed up the specific claims in the post.

Here are some posts I reblogged that used this tactic (reliability isn't binary; some are more reliable than others): links to Mother Jones links to Democracy Now and Al Jazeera links to CBS links to the Huffington Post, though the linked article appears to be about Standing Rock in general and doesn't mention Maori activists screenshots Boing Boing, links to The Guardian screenshots CNN, The New York Times, and Amnesty USA links to The Daily Beast gifset of Trevor Noah on The Daily Show screenshots The New York Times, gifset from Fusion TV screenshots Democracy Now and a scanned-in print article screenshots Al Jazeera OK, this one I'm very ashamed of reblogging, since it actually does fall into the fake news category. It embeds a video from the Youtube account 1 Soul Global, which describes itself as "an acronym for “One Source Of Universal Love.” We are a Spiritual Nexus for Global Transformation." I don't like watching videos in posts, but if I'd watched this one I would've figured out it's bullshit. It links to a, I don't know, blog? I've never heard of called Women In the World but it does some trick with the url so that when you hover over it it appears to include "nytimes.com". Oh my god, did I just hover over the link without checking it??? I guess I was too impressed the post having slightly more caution than I'm used to seeing in pseudoscientific woo??? Most of these I can see how I fell for them but this one I don't have a fucking clue. Am I really this stupid? screenshots The Atlantic Screenshots The Daily Mail--not that The Daily Mail is a reliable source for anything other that "what The Daily Mail is claiming," but that's what the post is about so good enough. Or was it? I took this post as "The Daily Fail is a trash rag, let's make fun of it," but the troll blog never really said that they were singling out one evil tabloid for ridicule. Were other people in the thread interpreting this as "news media in general is untrustworthy and unreliable"? That's actually a pretty subtle double meaning for a foreigner to pull off. I'm kind of impressed. gifset of Laverne Cox on CBS, links to Media Matters (Oh my god, Media Matters was created specifically to be a watchdog checking on media misinformation. And it was linked to by the IRA. Nothing is real anymore.) screenshots Quartz, links to The Guardian and MIT's Technology Review, as well as to some local sources I don't know the reliability of screenshots Mother Jones, links to the National Organization of Women

What I plan to do better: if someone claims an article backs up their claims, I will make sure to read the entire thing to confirm that it actually does, and does not just make sort-of related statements. If I don't have time or energy to do this, I won't reblog the post. But for the larger issue? True things arranged in misleading or manipulative patterns? I'm not sure what to do about that, though I suppose just being aware of the tactic might help a little. Suggestions?

Value added later in the reblog chain by non-IRA users

Because of how tumblr works, when I interact with a thread I'm not just interacting with the OP, but with everyone who has added to the reblog chain. Sometimes those are what attracted me to the post, rather than the psyop's post. This is one reason getting popular was so important to them! It allowed their posts to become part of the natural ecosystem of tumblr. I'm not sure how much this counts as a "tactic" because it's mostly passive, but it's significant.

This category overlaps a lot with "fake news is not a euphemism for propaganda" because often what the reblog chain added was sources with more information.

Here are some posts I reblogged that used this tactic:

Added a link to a Mother Jones article better explaining the issue.

Added more information and links to news sources.

Added news stories and a more positive slant. Note the IRA posters pushed their nihilist view of "why aren't we talking about this" while other users shifted the conversation a little to how the guy deserves a financial reward and how 70 lives were saved.

Added a link to a Guardian article referenced by the screenshotted boingboing article and a list of cities from said article.

Added a lot of cool true information about the history of the comics industry. Added something readers can do, a gofundme page. This would seem to run counter to the attitude of helplessness the IRA was trying to encourage. And yes, the gofundme did meet its goal. Added several paragraphs of details from the screenshotted article, including Theresa Kachindamoto's name which allowed me to easily look up the article. Added more information about Evan McMullin. Added more information about Asia Ramazan Antar, and shifted the focus a little (not fully) from how trash the Daily Fail is to how awesome Antar was. Added a lot of debunking of the psyop's anti-science attitude and a lot of information about how science works and how important it is. This one I'm proud of reblogging. Added a lot more information about Cameroon and sources. Added more information about voter suppression and link to the National Organization of Women. Added more information about comic history.

What I plan to do better: I'm... not sure I did wrong here. If I refused to reblog anything without thoroughly vetting the OP, that would be pretty bad purity shit. Some people are feeling vindicated because the threads they reblogged contain pushback against the IRA's narratives, or because they themselves added the pushback. Not so for me; only one example pushed back with any force. But several of the chains did shift the tone or focus of the conversation a little. I guess be less timid about pushing back when someone's tone or emphasis is off? Suggestions?

Positivity and celebrating accomplishments

Remember how I said above that rejecting a nihilist hopeless slant wasn't foolproof? I got exhausted with that attitude, though I didn't connect it to deliberate psyops, and instead tried to signal boost stuff that was positive and/or included a way to help. And yet.

I think some of these were just the innocuous posts used to gain popularity and influence. You can see a some "nobody is talking about this" narrative in a few of them, but not the majority.

Here are some posts I reblogged that used this tactic:

post/147206820005/chrisevansisbeautiful-areyoucoldflash post/152657046470/gogomrbrown-maori-activists-in-new-zealand post/153133340745/godzillakiryu91-reverseracism post/153231802135/ghettablasta-this-is-a-great-story-of post/154007254270/broadlybrazen-badscienceshenanigans post/154330979730/thetrippytrip-feminine-black-men-the post/154474122260/lagonegirl-because-we-can-recognize-more-than post/154505677960/himteckerjam-bitterbitchclubpresident post/154807853475/ghettablasta-thats-so-annoying-that-no-one post/155547170460/jkl-fff-lagonegirl-green-who-lost-her post/160621066778/lagonegirl-white-people-using-their-privilege

What I plan to do better: I don't know? I think boosting positivity is a good habit, even if it's exploitable? Shut down the "no one is talking about this" narrative I guess. Suggestions?

Jokes and memes

There's a reason so many "ironic" bigots hide behind, "calm down, it's just a joke!" People often let their guard down when something has a humorous lighthearted tone. This also serves to disguise English as a second language skills, as people often use deliberately bad grammar to emphasize a joke. 

Here are some posts I reblogged that used this tactic. Gonna explain some of these in more depth:

Non-IRA people are joking about the news media's habit of allowing the right to define terms and bending over backwards to be sympathetic to bigots while scrutinizing progressives. I didn't really notice that the-real-eye-to-see went beyond that and said "And Media is Nazi too". Journalism is an important foundation of a democratic society and there's a difference between critisizing it and dismissing it. Trevor Noah's humor is being used to promote blackness-by-your-side's insinuation about deaf ears. Stealing some viral humor that snarks about bigotry. I think this was one of the posts that's just to grow the troll's popularity, as I can't find anything harmful in it. Combines positivity with sarcastic humor, a twofer. The target of the sarcasm is how rare white people using their privilege to educate is. Not really false, but kind of a demoralizing thing to emphasize in a post that could and should have been just about congratulating the white student. People dragging ICE for being evil. The psyop didn't actually add anything bad, so I guess this was more about looking natural and getting popular.

What I plan to do better: Remember that hiding toxic messages in humor isn't exclusive to the libertarian right. Allow myself to be that humorless killjoy who scrutinizes jokes for harmful implications. Be less afraid to nitpick a joke I broadly agree with. It's less that I lacked this skill and more that using it tends to be socially unacceptable. That's part of what makes these "jokes" such an effective manipulation tool.

Conclusions: wow, these people are really really good at this. I've gotten used to right-wing infiltrators who suck at pretending to be progressive, but those are amateurs. These are professionals. I've seen some bad takes going around. "Oh, of course tumblr users fell for this shit, they're horrible people with purity culture who never factcheck." But no. Some of my vulnerability in fact came specifically from not being a negative stereotype of a tumblr user. I didn't worry about purity enough to vet the OP if other people added information. I did factcheck, to the point that it distracted me from other problems with a post. I didn't micro-analyze joke posts looking for imperfections in them. I made an effort to boost positive stories about good people accomplishing things.

You guys, if I were the stereotypical toxic tumblr essjew, I wouldn't have interacted with a lot of these posts, or my interaction would've been attacking them. People who think they're immune to cons and manipulation are the most vulnerable. Maybe don't just groan in disgust at "tumblr culture" while patting yourself on the back for being better?

Anyway, the psyops didn’t try to create entirely new ideas or change people’s opinions 180 degrees. They played on pre-existing weaknesses among progressives such as infighting, defeatism, disillusion with institutions, and so on. Being careful about those lines of attack is good whether the attacker is an agent of a foreign government, an agent of your own government, or a genuine activist who’s being counterproductive. So when I talk about what I plan to do better, I’m not just talking about the Internet Research Agency.

[fairybluedreams]

Very good points!! But anon, here's the propaganda for Nani I reblogged with the poll earlier!!

I haven't finished my slides yet but!!!!!! Here is one of the most important points I could make for this match specifically!!!!

Nani and Sokka are both excellent older siblings working HARD to protect their younger siblings from powers above them and forces of colonization that could tear their families apart (and HAVE).

So obviously there's going to be people torn over this round!! Here's one of points to sway you to Nani's side on this divisive round specifically::

For those who may be unaware, countries built on colonization and genocide tactics like the United States and Canada also have a long (and ONGOING) history of purposely stealing Indigenous children from their families and placing them in non-native/colonizer homes as a way of breaking the younger generation’s connection with their people and their culture. This is a form of cultural genocide, and we see these things happen as recently as the 60s Scoop in Canada and even with the current challenge of ICWA in the Supreme Court. Nani is facing off against a very real and ongoing threat meant to target her demographic specifically, with practically 0 allies or resources to aid her in this battle for her sister (aside from David who does his best to try to hook her up with a job). Nani is frequently told she is not good enough to care for Lilo despite her best efforts and is threatened with her removal. Nani is told that she is making poor choices for Lilo b/c “[Nani] needs [Lilo] a lot more than [Lilo] needs [Nani]!” And with everything going in the chaos of that moment it would seem he’s correct. But the truth is that this statement is a very harsh lie -- Lilo DOES need Nani, flaws and all, b/c Nani ensures Lilo’s connection to her culture, allows her to be her quirky little self in a safe and non-judgemental way, and is an anchor of stability amidst all the grievous changes they’ve both had to face with the death of their parents.  Many of the other contestants face outstanding odds, but they often have allies and skills that aid them in facing these things, and are never challenged on whether they’re good enough to care for or be around their younger siblings  -- there is something so much sinister in what Nani faces, government laws and standards that are actively working against and meant to be perceived as fair by the rest of society and even by the viewers.

Imagine if in Avatar the Last Airbender, the rest of the world thought the Fire Nation was completely correct and worked against Team Avatar? No allies in the Earth Kingdoms or help from places like Kiyoshi. That’s Nani having to face the foster system trying to take her sister, plus she has a young sister who doesn’t really understand what’s going on and at times (accidentally) sabotages her sister’s efforts to keep them together in front of the powers that get to decide this. 

Nani is LITERALLY parentified by her parents death and now being her sister's legal guardian -- and STILL gets scrutinized, reprimanded, and punished for not doing it up to a higher authority's standards (in this case the government/ CPS) despite doing a fairly good job under the circumstances. She's the breadwinner -- works the jobs, pays the bills, buys the food, ensures there's money for Lilo's hula dance lessons etc etc. She navigates two worlds of being Lilo's SISTER and being like her PARENT -- all of the responsibility, none of the respect. Can guarantee Lilo would NOT have locked her parents out of the house and nailed the door shut -- that's only something a little sibling would do to an older sibling. And Nani has her entire life on hold -- she had a promising future as a champion surfboarder,  or even in college for a math/chemistry related degree , but gave up on future dreams to keep what was left of her family together. She's sometimes ashamed she didn't make more of herself, but continues to prioritize her younger sister's future. Some of the most relatable Eldest Daughter Syndrome rep out there (to me ig idk how other people relate).

Anyways I'm at work rn and can't write much more but I'll be finishing those slides for later 😂

Also some Nani pics

Someone's gotta send propaganda to help me decide between sokka and nani 😭

ok so!! obviously nani is a great choice but sokka is the reason i'm on this website in the first place lmao so. here's my quick pitch for you should vote sokka.

when sokka was 9, his mother sacrificed herself in order to save sokka's 8-year-old sister, katara. since then, sokka and katara have each been trying to ensure that their mother's sacrifice was not in vain—katara by trying her best to teach herself waterbending (and eventually becoming the world's greatest waterbender), and sokka by.... protecting katara. sokka does not see himself as being a worthwhile or notable person in his own right; how could he when his little sister is the last waterbender of the southern tribe? this is all only exacerbated when their father leaves to fight in the war, and sokka becomes "the man of the tribe" at age 12. of course, their grandmother is also there, it's not like sokka is a sole parent to katara (in fact, i'd say that calling sokka and katara's love for each other 'parenting' in either direction is pretty reductive), but he internalizes the idea that he is meant to protect the tribe, and especially katara, at all costs. he does his best to be the practical one so that katara can keep as much of her idealism as possible. he shows his complete dedication to protecting her and their tribe in the first episode, standing alone as a fire nation ship approaching. he's absolutely reading to die fighting alone for a chance that katara will live.

and when the show actually gets going, sokka is constantly the one trying to ensure that they don't all get themselves killed. katara wants to start a revolution in every city she comes across, and it's sokka's job to try to make sure that they come out of that revolution alive and ready to continue on their journey. he also adopts aang and toph as little siblings, and keeps them on track too. he's a 15-year-old with three demigod younger siblings. when he gets to choose where they travel next, he chooses a library in order to better research their plan. he keeps a long color-coded detailed-down-to-the-minute schedule.......

[thesacredlife]

The Thing About Witch Hunts

So, maybe like me, you received the "Update on Russian Activity on Tumblr" email. Now generally speaking, I'm fairly suspicious of just about anything political, because there's zero objectivity to it. But as this is a new, and therefore small blog, and the e-mail contained only one supposed "propaganda" account, I thought I'd do a little exploring.

So I tracked back through my blog to see if, in fact, I had reblogged something by the suspected Russian operative. Apparently not.

Well, perhaps I liked a post these sneaky foreign bastards had cleverly disguised to trick me.

Um, nope.

Well, then surely I must have been following them. Well, they aren't in my list, but I supposed it's possible that since Tumblr "did the right thing" and deleted the accounts that it wouldn't show up in my follows.

But see I also got another one of these e-mails to my other Tumblr account, and while I can't say for certain, I don't think there were any unwitting reblogs, likes, or follows there either. I say this, because a large number of these "suspect" accounts were focused on political and socio-cultural content that I really don't give a damn about (or rather, don't give a damn about seeing on the Internet where the source is always highly suspect).

Which gets me to thinking about this message. If it is, indeed, from Tumblr management, I am greatly concerned as to their motivation.

Let's be honest, the idea that a public forum with fairly broad terms of service (I mean, just look at the quantity of pornography) suddenly decides one day that a particular group of accounts are unwelcome because they might be posting political and socio-cultural misinformation, seems just a shade hinky.

I'm not talking about hate speech here.

As I understand it, the charge is that these were phoney accounts managed by a specific group that has "close ties to the Russian Government", and that they were posting less than accurate statements on various political topics. The implication in the e-mail is that these were somehow going to sway us stupid Americans into voting wrongly in elections.

Quite frankly, there are enough less that accurate statements attempting to sway stupid Americans into voting wrongly on the Internet already without the Russians getting involved. We've got our own homegrown venom factories producing big ol' nasty petroleum drums full of it. And that goes for both "sides" in any debate. We are a nation divided and lustfully willing to go hate the "other" in the name of "cause".

So I gotta wonder why Tumblr decides this semi-sorta-Russian group is now persona non grata and finds it necessary to expunge them and warn you that maybe, perhaps, kind of, you should remove any trace of an association with them even though you are told "Don't worry, you're not in trouble."

Why would I be?

Because I may have reblogged, liked, or followed someone who has a controversial opinion? Or uses propaganda tactics to sway my viewpoint?  Am I in trouble for watching commercials on television, or listening to a political or religious leader? Because when I grew up, only them commie Russians treated people like that.

I'm also a little skeptical about the statement that they informed law enforcement. I'm trying to determine just what law telling lies on the Internet is breaking. I'm not even sure that "electronic disinformation and propaganda campaigns" are a violation of the Tumblr terms of service. If it is, we'd better watch out about following any corporate advertising accounts.

I realize this has little to nothing to do with witchcraft or magick, but it most certainly smells of the witch hunt, and that always raises my hackles.

Tumblr, as a private corporate entity has every right to determine at will which users are to be allowed and which are to be removed. And they could have done that quietly and cleanly and probably very few people would even have noticed.

But to send me an e-mail suggesting that I should "curate your own Tumblr to reflect your own personal views and perspectives" with the implication that I ought to clean it up is overreaching, unnecessary, and frankly Draconian.

Especially when it looks like I never did reblog, like or follow the supposed offender.

[grrrrrrrbarkbarkbark]

Okay this has been reblogged and tagged as propaganda. Which is true but let me sway you a little more

-she isn't stereotyped as innocent doesn't know what sex is uwuifed baby.

-she uses big ass sci-fi guns to shoot down space ships

-Canonically in show she says that she's ace.

-this isn't played off as a joke of any sort and is treated very casually

-have I mentioned she's a time traveler

-also native American ace rep! Wooooo!

DC legends of tomorrow spoilers under the cut

-she got abducted by time travelers when she was a child

-part alien. Who's also fungus. She can sense other aliens using this power.

Why do they deserve to win?

Joker

Spooner