#simply because one has a piece of personal information does not entitle one to use it how one pleases

[alianoralacanta]

Alpine, Ocon, and a GPDR Park

According to Marcin Budkowski, who was an Alpine executive until 2002 and is now an analyst for Viaplay Poland (translated by Nischay Rathore at The Sportsrush), Esteban Ocon's attempt to join Williams mid-season was allegedly thwarted (at least in part) by use of the GPS system on his company car. Specifically, Marcin stated that an Alpine employee spotted the GPS tracker for his company car was in the Williams car park for 5 hours. The implications of this are interesting.

Despite Brexit, GPDR remains law in the UK, via the Data Protection Act 2018. This controls how personal data is used. Under this law, the data becomes personal if anyone can be individually identified by it. If Alpine had a pool of company cars and the system was to lend each one out ad hoc at need, the fact a given car has GPS, along with all the data it collects, is not personal information and thus not protected. GPDR would only become involved in that example once Alpine added the information about who had borrowed which car to the dataset. Since racing drivers generally need their company car across the season, and company cars themselves are most often a consistent perk rather than provided at need in the UK, it is more likely that Alpine provided a specific car to each staff member requiring one. This would mean the personal element was there from the beginning. If one receives anything from an employer, even if it is as trivial as a pen, one should be aware that a UK employer can record information connected with it provided GPDR principles are followed. GPDR requires that all personal information kept by a third party must have a lawful reason. The most common reasons this is done for a GPS tracker are insurance and helping staff who get lost. Lots of UK employers provide a discount to people who are willing to add a dashcam to their cars. Some won't insure certain people without a dashcam. The insurer does this to make it easier to gather evidence if there is a claim, as well as to attempt predictive risk assessment (this is not always to the customer's advantage, but is helpful often enough that it is specifically legal for an insurer). Employers who accept such insurance are in turn permitted to collect employee information relevant to insurance requirements. However, the insurance company would not be authorised to pass on the location information to Alpine - unless a claim had arisen from being parked in the Williams car park. Given that such would have made the story more interesting, and was not mentioned, we can reasonably assume this didn't happen. I believe we can rule out insurance as the reason this information went through this process. Helping staff who get lost initially doesn't look promising. We can probably assume that Esteban was not in the Williams car park to ask for directions. However, it would give Alpine itself a reason to have the GPS information in a non-crisis situation. After all, this would allow it to check on people who are expected somewhere and ask proactively if they need assistance. It would also fold into another purpose - checking if the car has been stolen. (No, nobody is going to believe that a thief would be so incompetent as to take a car belonging to one team and dump it in a different team's car park. That would run too much risk of being caught for too little reward. It does, however, establish the basic framework that would legally permit Alpine to discover Esteban's whereabouts).

In a legal framework which only controlled acquisition of personal information, an unscrupulous employer would be able to use this as an excuse to interfere with people's personal lives. Partially in an attempt to curb this, GPDR also controls the use and revelation of legally-acquired personal information. In summary: - One cannot use information for a purpose that was not originally cleared, without the informed consent of the individual whose information is at issue, unless it is in a limited range of exceptions - One cannot reveal personal information unless the individual specifically consents or it is in the limited range of exceptions - One must secure personal information against unlawful revelation I am not convinced that all 3 of these were satisfied. GPS trackers would not normally be used to track people's movements in their personal lives. Had Esteban been "on the clock" (within working hours), then it would have made sense that finding out he was within the Williams car park would be actionable (this would be a disciplinary offence under "wasting company time" or "not available to work", which are a part of employment contracts across the UK and thus an exception). However, a contract that allows someone to spend half a working shift not working without prior authorisation would be quite strange (and with that authorisation, the only possible check would be to establish the reason given could have been true). It is unlikely that Alpine would have told the journalists this way had there been an actual employment infraction. Either it would have kept silent and handled discipline behind the scenes, or presented an official press release about it. Not provided a rumour to a specific analyst who works for a media outlet and hope news percolated through in the form it desired. Thus, at some point I suspect it would have become clear that Alpine did not have the right to process the information further by law. It is vitally important for people who handle personal information not to reveal it unless and until it is legally appropriate to do so. This is why all those Not Always Right stories are anonymised - many of them were revealed to the website administrators against GPDR and similar laws, so information has to be redacted in order to make the published versions compliant. Rumours cannot be guaranteed to be provided with reference to the source's requirements for information security. Part of the reason many companies provide information security training to staff handling personal information is to control the risk of rumours acting as a leak source. One reason journalists don't always reveal their sources is to avoid getting their sources into disciplinary or legal trouble for GPDR breaches. This is why I don't think everyone at Alpine was complying with GPDR on this matter. In this instance, it probably isn't going to have much effect - but it is a good time to remind everyone that GPDR is a thing.

[sketching-shark]

LMK fandom: Oh, what do we do about this guy who has nothing but hurt Xiaotian, tried to replace Sun Wukong and his crew, hurt Tripitaka and ordered servants to cannibalize a monkey? Oh I know! We’ll turn him into our little meow meow~ he’s so innocent and Sun Wukong is obviously the villain!

What doesn’t help is this idea is perpetuated by multiple fan fic writers and artists for some reason. Especially some aus they make that turn SWK into a bastard for the sake of the story rather than considering cultural context and thinking they should be respectful.

And almost everyone lets them get away with it just because the art or fanfic is good and they get so popular that no one can point what is actually wrong without feeling like they’re going to get attacked.

I'm starting to feel like my blog is the one anons go to specifically to vent their frustrations about the Six Eared Macaque in his lego monkey show form & the associated fandom lmao. But I guess this makes sense, as I’ve had fun quasi-dragging him before & will in fact use this anon submission as an opportunity to have my own, to put it academically, bitch fest about not just this fandom's favorite protagonist-traumatizing meow meow, but about the way villains are often treated in not just fanon, but increasingly in canon works as well. But same policy as with the last anon; I'll post my opinions below the cut, and as fandoms love to say, don’t like don't read if you don't want to see me dunking on the six eared simian & common fandom tendencies towards villains.

Oh man I would say where would you even begin with this but anon you’ve pretty much started yourself with my main gripe with a lot of ways that the Six-Eared Macaque is portrayed in fandom; there seems to be this unspoken agreement that his acts of violence towards Sun Wukong, Qi Xioatian, and Qi Xioatian’s loved ones are either to be framed as somewhat or totally justified, to be immediately forgiven/excused, or to simply & completely be ignored. Like friends maybe this is just me not seeing the proper posts but while the fandom is inundated with art and fanfics of Macaque as a generally decent individual & a true member of team good guy, I have yet to see one person address the fact that this monkey literally kidnapped & mind-controlled Xiaotian’s best friend and father figures & forced them to brutalize Xiaotian while ol’ Six Ear looked on and laughed (X_X). Like this kind of fandom villain treatment is definitely not something that’s solely at work for Monkie Kid, but it is kind of nutty how fandoms will swing between yelling that people should be allowed to like villains without even mild critique, and then will just flat-out not address the villainous behavior, and will even bend over backwards to frame even characters who committed genocide as just poor innocent widdle victims who need a hug. At its worst, I’ve even seen tons of people in a fandom get really angry at other people who don’t like a villain, and will even start accusing those people of hating real-life mentally disabled or abused individuals all because they don’t like the fandom’s favorite literal war criminal. The Monkie Kid fandom is FAR more chill & better than a lot of other fandoms I’ve come across in that regard, but that is an exceedingly low bar, & the tendency to woobify certain kinds of villains-- as with Macaque and the extreme emphasis on his bad boy/sad boy thing--is very much at work.  

 I’ve also talked before about a kind of monoculturalization of certain character interpretations and story beats in fandoms, and one of the more popular ones that seems to be applied to Macaque a lot is the “hero actually bad, villain actually good” cliche, as observable from the general fandom assumption that Mr. Six-Ears he wasn’t even slightly lying or remembering things through a rose-tinted or skewed lens when he gave his version of his and Sun Wukong’s past. Like at this point it seems the possibility that people WILL NOT even consider is that Sun Wukong never did & still doesn't care that much about the Six Eared Macaque (in JTTW they weren’t sworn brothers & in Monkie Kid the only thing the monkey king really said to Macaque before attacking him was a pretty contemptuous "Aren't you ever going to get sick of living under my shadow?," & responds to his "beloved friend" getting blown up with "You did good, bud" to Qi Xiaotian, who did the exploding), or that their original fight may in fact have mostly been instigated by Macaque. After all, to repeat what this anon summarized & what I've said before about their original JTTW context (& in an example of the things that do feel like it's often lost in translation) is that the Six Ear Macaque was a villain not just because he beat up the Tang Monk, but because he wanted to take over Sun Wukong's entire life and identity so he could have all that glory, prestige, and power for himself. To quote the macaque himself from the Anthony C. Yu translation, "I struck the T'ang monk and I took the luggage...precisely because I want to go to the West all by myself to ask Buddha for the scriptures. When I deliver them to the Land of the East, it will be my success and no one else's. Those people of the South Jambudvipa Continent will honor me then as their patriarch and my fame will last for all posterity." And in order to do this, the Six Eared Macaque had apparently made Sun Wukong's "little ones," his monkey family, his captives through either trickery or force, and gotten a number of them to take on the appearance of Tang Sanzang and the other pilgrims. It's also made clear that in very direct contrast to Sun Wukong, he doesn't care about these monkeys beyond how they might serve him. In fact, after Sha Wujing kills the monkey posing as him the Six Eared Macaque not only all but immediately replaces him with another, but also "told his little ones to have the dead monkey skinned. Then his meat was taken to be fried and served as food along with coconut and grape wines." So this monkey is not only willing to risk the lives of a lot of other monkeys for his own personal benefit, but is also a literal cannibal. And yes yes, I know a lot of people have argued that Monkie Kid shouldn't be considered a direct sequel to JTTW & that's fair enough (for example, Sun Wukong probably shouldn't be smashing anyone into a meat patty in a children's cartoon lol). And of course, it needs to be noted that there are a buttload of really out there & really cursed pieces of media based on JTTW & that were created in China. Yet the above description is the oft-ignored in the west original facet of the Six Eared Macaque's character. And it is this selfishness, entitlement, and treatment of other individuals as tools for his own self-serving ends  that is, from where I’m standing, still very much present in Monkie Kid. Like besides repeatedly going out of his way to physically and psychologically traumatize Xioatian, with the last episode Macaque seemed to be going right back to his manipulative ways. I’ve seen people frame their last conversation as Macaque softening to Xioatian a little bit, but personally that read a lot more like that common tactic among abusers where even after they’ve hurt you they’ll dangle something you want or need over your head (in Macaque’s case, the promise of desperately needed training and information about a serious looming threat), with the implication that you’ll only get it if you do what they want you to, such as, in this case, Xioatian going back to Macaque as his student even after having been so terribly hurt by this monkey, which would give Macaque power over Xiaotian and probably Sun Wukong as a result. And it is this violence and manipulation that it seems the fandom at large has tacitly decided shouldn’t even be addressed, instead leaning more towards a (and this is an exaggeration) “Six-Eared Macaque my poor meow meow Sun Wukong has always been bad & has always been wrong about literally everything” reading. 

And while it is the case that I am not Chinese and feel that as such it would be best left to someone who actually comes from that background to provide more context into how common interpretations of the Six Eared Macaque from China may clash really badly with the stuff the western fandom creates, it also must be noted that, as much as we all want to have fun in fandom & in spite of all the out-there versions of JTTW from China, we westerners should recognize that there is a very long and very ugly history of western countries stripping other cultures’ important religious and literary works for parts & mashing them into their own thing while implying or even insisting that what they present provides a true understanding of the original piece. And while I trust most individuals in regards to Monkie Kid are able to step back and think “this is a lego cartoon and not a set guide for how I should understand JTTW” (especially given the insistence that JTTW and Monkie Kid should be considered there own separate works) there does nevertheless seem to be something of a tendency to take the conclusions people come to, for example, about Sun Wukong’s characteristic in his lego form & then assume that’s just reflective to Sun Wukong as a totality. I imagine a good portion of this is due to people not reading JTTW & especially to not having easy access to solid information or answers about JTTW’s many different facets (like geez awhile ago I was trying to get a clear answer on what is considered the most accurate translation of the names of Sun Wukong’s six sworn brothers & got like 5 different responses lmao), but that tendency to take a western fandom interpretation & run with it instead of doing any background research or questioning said interpretation is still very much at play. As such, & as made prominent in the way people have been interpreting the dynamic between Sun Wukong and the Six Eared Macaque in the lego monkey show, tbh it does seem kind of shitty for western creators & audience to sometimes go really out of their way to ignore all of this original cultural & narrative context for the sake of Angst (TM) in Macaque's favor, demonizing Sun Wukong, and shipping the monkey king with his evil twin (X_X).

And speaking of which, even beyond the potential inherent creepiness & revulsion that can be inspired by this specific ship given common interpretations of the og classic's original meaning (again, it's my understanding, given both summaries of translated Chinese academic texts I've been kindly provided with, my own reading of the Anthony C. Yu translation of JTTW, & vents from a number of Chinese people I've seen on this site, that the Six-Eared Macaque is commonly interpreted in China as having originated from Sun Wukong himself as a living embodiment of his worst traits, hence why only Buddha can tell the difference between them & why the monkey king is much more slow to violence after he kills the macaque), I'd argue that in the face of all the uwu poor widdle meow meow portrayals lego show Macaque is, especially if you include JTTW's events, still in the role of “Sun Wukong but worse” as he is very much a violent & selfish creep. Like he was basically running around in JTTW wearing a Sun Wukong fursuit, but there he had the sole reason of wanting to replace Sun Wukong wholesale so he could have all the good things in the monkey king's life without actually having to work as hard for them. But if you combine that with Macaque now claiming that he used to be best friend with Sun Wukong in his pre-journey days (something that's made funny from a JTTW context given that that status actually belongs to the Demon Bull King lol), his original violence has now blown into this centuries long and really unhealthy obsession with the monkey king. Like he's apparently gone from wanting to literally be Sun Wukong to being so obsessed with getting revenge on Sun Wukong that he's got basically nothing else going on in his life. Like he's only appeared in two episodes but...does he have any friends? Any family? A career or even a hobby that DOESN'T center the monkey king? Anything at all outside of his "get revenge on and/or kill Sun Wukong/use his successor as my personal punching bag” thing? Like dude! That is extremely creepy and extremely bad for everyone all around! As I’ve said before, this seeming refusal to see beyond the past or to do something that doesn’t involve Sun Wukong in some capacity is a trait that makes Macaque an interesting and somewhat tragic villain--he even seems to be working as Sun Wukong’s reflection in a mirror darkly, with lego show Sun Wukong pretty clearly not being able to heal from his own past which is hinted to be defined by one loss after another, and with Monkie Kid even kind of having these two characters somewhat follow their JTTW characterizations in that in the latter half of the journey Sun Wukong often gets sad & starts crying in the face of what seems insurmountable odds (& Monkie Kid Sun Wukong does seem to be hiding some serious depression behind a cheerful facade), whereas the Six-Eared Macaque retains a worse version of Sun Wukong’s pre-journey characteristic of getting pissed and lashing out if things don’t go his way--but it’s also what would make any current friendship or romantic relationship between these monkeys horrific. Although to be fair even the fandom seems to recognize this in an unconscious way, in that a lot of the art & fanfic seems to swing erratically between them kissing & screaming at each other in yet another example of bog-standard fandom adulation of romanticized toxic relationships lol.  

At the end of the day, of course, this is nothing new. You'll find versions of this dynamic across a ton of fandoms and now even canonical work. And as such, I can only look at this kind of popularized relationship dynamic with a kind of resigned weariness whenever it pops up, & my frustrated question with the popularity of this kind of pairing is the exact same one that I have for a multitude of blatantly toxic villain/hero ships, given common fandom discourse & the tendency to either ignore or justify the villain's actions & demonize the hero: if you're THAT convinced that everything is the hero's fault, if you believe THAT much that the hero is the one in the wrong for the villain's pain and their subsequent actions, then why are you so set on them not only becoming a romantic pair, but framing this get-together as a good thing? Like I know we contain multitudes but that's waaay too many contradictions for me to wrap my head around. And it definitely doesn’t help that one branch of underlying reasoning behind this kind of pairing seems to be the ever-present “you break it, you fix it” mentality, where the assumption is that if you’re in a failing, abusive, and/or generally toxic relationship (platonically or romantically), if you put in enough time and effort & attempts to compromise, you’ll be able to restore/have the relationship you dreamed of, even with someone who hurt you really badly. And this assumption isn’t limited to fandom: I’d even argue that it’s everywhere in the culture, hence why a lot of people feel like they “failed” if they have to get a divorce or make the choice to leave an unhealthy friendship. Personally, I feel like people could really benefit from more stories about how it is not only the case that the people you hurt don’t owe you their forgiveness & you can still become a better and happier person without the one you hurt in your life, & that while it can be really hard it can also be a good thing to leave a relationship, even if it’s one that once meant a lot to you. 

  But in all honestly, from my own perspective this kind of pairing is starting to read far less like enemies to lovers and far more like a horrible fantasy where you can pull whatever shit you want, even on the people you "love," & never be held accountable for your terrible behavior or even have to consider that maybe you were in the wrong. It's another facet that makes me larf every time I see people insist that fandom is an inherently "transformative" or "progressive" form of storytelling like friends you are literally just taking status quo toxic monogamy & rebranding it as somehow beneficial & romantic (X_X).

But as to anon’s last frustration, it is hard to know what is the appropriate response with this kind of thing...like for my own part I’m keeping my frustrations to my blog & now increasingly to posts that you would have to click on the “read more” button to see what I have to say, but I totally get the hesitation to give even a mild critique to big names in a fandom. Like I've now seen it happen repeatedly where someone who has a big name in a fandom will make something that's kind of shitty for one reason or another, someone will message them with some version of "hey, that's kind of shitty, you shouldn't do that," and the typical response is either to blatantly ignore the issue completely, or more popularly to make a giant crying circus that seems deliberately geared towards stoking emotions on both sides of the, for example, fiction does/doesn't affect reality issue so that something that didn't even have to be that big a deal gets blown out of all proportion, with the big name often framing what often started out as a very mild critique into a long crying jag about how the initial response to their kind of shitty thing was so mean/cruel and they're just a poor innocent & that YOU'RE the true racist/sexist/bigot etc. if you don't agree with their opinion. It must of course be noted that there have also been numerous instances of people taking it too far the other way & sending not just big names but smaller creators literal deaths threats over stuff like innocuous ships which like holy hell bells people that’s a horrible thing to do. But for the big names at least, the end result of all this fighting is usually that once the dust has settled they have more attention/fame/money/power in the fandom than before, and with anyone who might have a problem with their stuff feeling afraid to voice their opinion lest they be swarmed by that person's fans. In that way fandom does often seem to increasingly be geared towards presenting an “official” fandom perspective about various facets of a piece of media instead of allowing for a multitude of interpretations, and with criticism, no matter its shape or form or how genuinely warranted it may be, being hounded out of existence. I feel like a lot of this could be made less bad if there wasn’t this constant assumption & even drive to think that a different interpretation of or criticism of your favorite work of fiction or your fanwork isn’t a direct claim that you are a thoroughly loathsome individual (& maybe also if people cultivated an enjoyment of learning things about important works from a culture outside their own, even if what you learn clashes with your own initial understandings), but I guess we’ll see if that ever happens. 

So these are my general thinks about the Six Eared Macaque’s current fandom meow meow status & some of my bigger gripes with fandom tendencies as a whole. I stand by my idea that the most interesting & beneficial route for Macaque moving forward would be a kind of “redemption without forgiveness from the ones you hurt” arc--as I think was done pretty excellently with the character Grace in Infinity Train--and if for no other reason than gosh dern this monkey really needs to cultivate some sort of identity beyond his “Sun Wukong but worse” persona. 

[informationsorter]

Let's talk about self diagnosing.

(This is purely a personal opinion piece.)

CW: Descriptions of hypothetical physical injury.

So I'm going to start off by immediately settling your minds - I believe self diagnosis can be both good and bad. I’m not here to judge, gatekeep, or vilify. *************************************************************

A quick overview of the sections: 3 problems/examples. 5 questions/opinions.

 *************************************************************

Determining that you have an issue, does not mean that it is the only issue.

Lets start with a hypothetical example where the self diagnosis is obviously correct:

- You've fallen down the stairs. - You can see a bone sticking out of your leg. - You deduce that you have broken your leg.

This is almost certainly accurate, as there is no healthy explanation for the visible evidence.

However, this may not be the whole story.

What we’re really doing in this situation is identifying symptoms and possible/probably causes.

The symptoms are: - Pain. - Visible evidence of a broken bone. - Visible evidence of wounded skin. - Probably experiencing shock - Pale, cold, clammy skin. Shallow, rapid breathing. Anxiety. Rapid heartbeat. Etc.

The probable diagnosis: A broken leg bone.

When you arrive at the hospital, they will do an x-ray. They may discover additional injuries, for instance the bone may be broken in several places, a tendon may have been severed.

Their treatment of your issues relies on the full knowledge that they are able to learn via their tests. If they (somehow) were to treat only your broken bone and the flesh wound, you would likely end up with further health problems as the extra broken bones were not set properly, and the severed tendon would not heal on it's own.

This is a rather ridiculous example of course, but that's why I started with it.

You may believe that you know what the issue is, but if you do not have the right equipment/training, you may not be able to identify the full extent of the issue.

Even if you know what the issue is, you may not be able to determine the full impact of it.

For example: - You notice that whenever you eat citrus, your mouth and tongue start tingling/going numb. There may be also be symptoms such as sweating, feeling faint, swelling of lips/tongue. You conclude that you are allergic to citrus. You act on this by avoiding citrus. That’s all fine and reasonable. However, with this information you only know that you have a reaction to citrus. You don’t know the full extent. Are you mildly allergic? Are you at risk of anaphylactic shock? Sometimes you do not need to know the full extent (in this example you can simply avoid lemon). But sometimes you DO need to learn everything you can about it, in order to live the best life possible. 

Especially when the issue is not something easily avoided such as a minor food allergy.

You might group all of your symptoms together, leading to you accidentally obscuring one issue by presenting it as another.

(An example using some of my own symptoms & past trauma experiences.)

You have diagnosed yourself with autism based on the following symptoms:

- Difficulty forcing eye contact with others.

- Inability to read the invisible social cues that neurotypical’s can see/read.

- Discomfort/anxiety in social settings / large groups.

- An extreme feeling of mental shutdown in response to loud noises/music.

These could indeed be symptoms of autism, however they can also be symptoms of other issues in play.

For instance, discomfort or anxiety in social settings could be due to an anxiety disorder.

The loud noises/music may mimic sounds from traumatic events - initiating flashbacks or fight/flight/freeze instincts.

You go to a therapist.

Your therapist listens to your concerns and symptoms, and looks for other explanations for these symptoms.

This is to ensure that the diagnosis they give you will be accurate, and thus the treatment you receive will be the most effective treatment possible for you.

If you did not go to the therapist with this, you may have been able to deal with the autism symptoms fairly well, but the anxiety and PTSD would go untreated. Your problems would not go away, because you weren’t treating ALL of your issues.

When do I believe it is acceptable to self diagnose without seeking professional verification of your self diagnosis?

- When the issue/symptoms do not affect your life in any substantial way;

- When the issue is self evident;

- When there is no indication that there is an unseen element;

- When the issue does not require urgent or extensive treatment.

Eg: Mild allergy to citrus, which can easily be avoided in your daily life.

In this sort of case, I believe it is important to stay aware of the symptoms and immediately seek a professional opinion if there is a change in severity, frequency, or perceived cause, of these symptoms.

Eg: One day you have a drink that had a lemon wedge on the rim, and the symptoms are far stronger, or appear far sooner, than they used to.

Or:

One day you have the same reaction, but you did not consume any citrus.

When do I believe that it is helpful to ask a professional to confirm/refute your self assessment?

Always.

There may be situations where the professional can’t offer any treatment (eg: a mild food allergy, where avoiding it is all that can be done). But if you feel anxiety over the uncertainty of it, and you want a professional assessment, diagnosis, or testing, you are of course entitled to it.

Whether it pinpoints a cause, or rules out a cause, finding out for sure will increase the chances of you receiving appropriate treatment.

Additionally, professional tests and assessments can identify previously unnoticed symptoms and/or issues.

(Such as additional injuries in example 1, or separate disorders in example 3.)

Do I believe that you should tell your health professional that you have self-diagnosed / self-assessed your symptoms?

Yes.

Especially with mental health issues, where your therapist’s assessment of you may be affected erroneously by them noticing that you are holding something back.

They may believe you are uncomfortable with them, or have some trust issues which you may not have.

If you simply tell your therapist that you have recorded your symptoms and searched for answers on your own, the therapist will be able to make a more accurate assessment of you.

It also gives them a good starting point, as they immediately know that the issue is concerning to you, and that you are ready to seek help for it.

Any health professional worth their training should be able to understand that you seeking explanations for your symptoms is natural, and should be willing to look into something that you are concerned about.

Eg: I told my GP (physical health doctor) that I was concerned about a specific lung condition which seemed to fit symptoms that I had been experiencing for over a decade. He listened, he asked further questions, he performed tests for the condition I had brought up, and he performed tests for other possible explanations.

In the end he determined that I did not have that condition, and we went from there.

Why do health professionals dislike self-diagnosis?

The issue with self diagnosis is that a patient can become convinced that they have something that they do not actually have.

This can lead to the patient: - Misinterpreting symptoms - Ignoring symptoms which do not fit their self-diagnosis - Unintentionally manifesting somatic symptoms which fit the self-diagnosis (this refers to a patient believing they have a condition, and their body beginning to show those symptoms. This is not the same as purposefully faking.) - Refusing testing for something other than their self-diagnosed issue - Refusing to accept that there may be a different issue - Refusing to accept that there may be additional issues - Resorting to self-help remedies which may be ineffective or actively dangerous to the patient

They aren’t just being difficult or elitist - they are concerned that your self-diagnosis may impact their ability to accurately diagnose and help you.

This is a particular concern when the health professional doesn’t know you well enough to be able to determine how much your belief will impact your symptoms, or whether you will be open to treatment if they determine a diagnosis which conflicts with your self-diagnosis.

Your health professional has YOUR health and safety in mind.

(If you believe this isn’t true, you should seek a second opinion.)

Should your health professional just accept your self-diagnosis?

It is your therapist’s duty to independently assess your symptoms, and possible causes for those symptoms.

It is not an attack on you, it is not a sign of distrust.

Think of it like scientists - they don’t just say “oh well that guy’s experiment showed these results, so they must be correct.” They go out and duplicate the experiment to check their results against the original results.

Yes, it’s not a perfect metaphor. No two people’s life experiences are the same. No two people’s brains will react identically to the same thing.

But the spirit is the same - in both cases, doing the extra work is to ensure that the stated result is accurate, NOT to discredit or demean the person who originally stated it.

  What if you are certain you have a certain issue, and will not be persuaded otherwise?

I urge you to rethink this, and open your mind.

You want to heal from whatever it is that is interfering with your best life.

You want answers.

You want validation that such-and-such issue isn’t a personal failing but a neuro-divergency.

Those are great goals, but the best way to find the truth is to be open to explanations that you may not like.

And the only way to know it’s the truth, is to be honest and objective about yourself.

[robininthelabyrinth]

Delight in Misery (ao3) - part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6

- Chapter 7 -

“Why are you covered in feathers?” Jiang Cheng asked, and then immediately afterward added, “On second thought, don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.”

Lan Wangji checked himself over and brushed off the few feathers that had ended up on his shoulder. “Are there any others?” he asked solemnly. “They might be evidence.”

Jiang Cheng’s eye twitched, as Lan Wangji had intended. “I don’t want to know,” he repeated, and Lan Wangji believed it about as much as he’d believed it the first time Jiang Cheng said it – which was to say, not at all. “I don’t want to…okay, fine, tell me.”

“You don’t want to know,” Lan Wangji informed him, and Jiang Cheng looked as though he was considering strangling him. “I will explain later. For the moment, it is best to pretend as if you know nothing.”

“I really don’t know anything,” Jiang Cheng said.

“That will make pretending easier.”

Jiang Cheng rolled his eyes at him, but stopped arguing, and Lan Wangji felt warmth in his belly at the instant capitulation. All of his life experiences had conspired to make Jiang Cheng an untrusting person, suspicious almost to the point of paranoia and constantly afraid of losing everything to the unknown, and yet he chose to trust Lan Wangji without question.

“Is there anything else I should know?” Jiang Cheng asked with one of his friendlier scowls, crossing his arms over his chest. “Or not know, as the case may be?”

Lan Wangji considered for a moment. “Don’t count the number of Jiang sect disciples leaving with you,” he suggested, and Jiang Cheng’s eyebrows shot up. “Consider storming out in a fury the next time someone insults you.”

“You were right,” Jiang Cheng said. “I didn’t want to know.”

Lan Wangji heard footsteps and put his hands behind his back. “Naturally, Sect Leader Jiang is entitled to change his mind. I understand it happens often.”

Jiang Cheng’s eyes narrowed. “You must be struggling with coming out of seclusion, Hanguang-jun,” he remarked. “To come mucking around with the rest of us after spending so long on - avoiding worldly matters, let’s say.”

The sect leaders passing by sped up with expressions suggesting that they were dreadfully curious but did not want to get involved in a repeat of the fight that was rather infamously had throughout the Lotus Pier, with all of the attendant property damage (that they’d paid for later, but still).

Once they’d passed, Lan Wangji gave Jiang Cheng a look that suggested he did not appreciate the joke. Jiang Cheng appeared undeterred.

He also appeared, on closer examination, somewhat tired.

Lan Wangji frowned and stepped closer, lowering his voice. “You have not slept.”

“I’m fine,” Jiang Cheng said, and realized his mistake at once – such excess vehemence meant that he was lying, and badly, too. “It’s your fault, anyway.”

“My fault?”

“Entirely your fault. I can’t eat my lunch without wondering why you’re not plucking away on your guqin the way you normally do at that hour, I can’t finish my paperwork without trying to find you to ask for your views, I can’t sleep without hearing you making noise next door…who made you fit yourself in so well at the Lotus Pier?”

“You,” Lan Wangji said dryly, ignoring the warmth he felt. Surely it was wrong to feel touched when someone’s unhealthy co-dependence with you was mentioned. “When you kidnapped me.”

“It was only technically kidnapping,” Jiang Cheng grumbled. “And only at first, anyway…really, it’s no big deal. Just had a few bad nights.”

Jiang Cheng’s nights fell on a scale between decent, mediocre, bad, and genuinely horrific, and he generally only conceded that something was ‘bad’ when it fell toward the lower end of the scale – when his thoughts kept scattering like a flock of bird being chased off their perch, returning to circle around sore subjects and drill worries into his skull, when there would be blood and bile and panic and his mind would linger on anxieties he had long ago put aside in the light of day.

He hadn’t had one of those in months – and now he had had a few?

“Because I…?”

Jiang Cheng shook his head. “A-Ling had a temper tantrum last week,” he explained, voice low and more than a little helpless. “I think he misses you and A-Yuan, and he’s at the age for pushing his boundaries, too…he told me that his Wei-jiujiu wouldn’t have made him eat his vegetables.”

He would have, of course, Lan Wangji reflected. He remembered how Wei Wuxian had been with A-Yuan, always mercilessly teasing him. Wei Wuxian had a spine when it came to children, one that wouldn’t crack into a thousand pieces at the first sob – that was Jiang Cheng, who was all bluster and bark without the slightest bit of bite.

But that wasn’t the issue, not when Jiang Cheng’s soul was a patchwork of ragged wounds and insecurity, a lifetime of being second-best and second-loved, and on his worst days he would voice doubts that he’d even been esteemed as much as that.

By his father, by his mother, by his sister, by Wei Wuxian himself –  

“Maybe he would’ve done better,” Jiang Cheng murmured, his eyes already blank with self-hatred – no doubt this was what had kept him up on those bad nights, the angry whispers of a too-fragile mind that said why did he leave me, why wasn’t I good enough, he said he’d stay by my side and then took the first chance he could to leave me behind, that said it couldn’t have been him that did all those things and betrayed me like that, no, he must have died earlier on and it was my fault for not noticing, that said if it’s all my fault then it all makes sense, it’s always because of me, no one ever stays with me.

That said if it’s my fault then it’ll happen again.

Lan Wangji did not like those nights.

“Mm,” he said mildly. “And then A-Ling would also know how to hide dirty pictures in awkward places.”

Lan Wangji had never been good at comforting people, having always been the one being comforted, and his failure to convey his feelings to Wei Wuxian during his life spoke volumes regarding his ability to communicate – but he knew Jiang Cheng.

After so long living together, he knew him.

(Jiang Cheng wasn’t the only one who had difficulty sleeping without those familiar sounds next door.)

Sure enough, Jiang Cheng choked, his eyes clearing up, and he spent the next few breaths struggling not to burst out laughing. “We’re supposed to be arguing,” he hissed at Lan Wangji, who smirked – from a distance it would certainly look as though they were arguing, Jiang Cheng’s cheeks all red and his shoulders shaking in what a stranger might mistake for rage. “You stone-faced bastard, that’s not funny.”

Lan Wangji disagreed. Jiang Cheng’s reaction was, in fact, extremely funny.

“We will need to diversify our collection of such things,” Lan Wangji said thoughtfully. “Given the inclinations of our future house guest…”

“I am not buying Mo Xuanyu pictures of – ! He can buy it himself if he wants…wait, you’re really planning to have him come with us?”

“He will die if he remains,” Lan Wangji said simply, because it was that simple. Their conversation, however brief, had been extremely informative. “And so he must not remain. We have concocted a plan.”

“We? I wasn’t involved in this.”

“Myself, and Nie Huaisang.”

Lan Wangji was expecting some sort of reaction to that – what, he wasn’t sure, possibly disbelief or ridicule or even panic that they were entrusting themselves to the most useless fop to grace the current generation of cultivators – but instead Jiang Cheng relaxed, looking pleased. “Oh, well, Nie Huaisang,” he said, as if that explained anything at all.

“You trust him?”

Jiang Cheng shrugged. “I don’t not trust him?” he hazarded, and seemed rather helplessly puzzled by his own ease with the situation. “He’s terrible at anything a sect heir ought to be good at, but he’ll come up with the wildest sort of things if it’s nonsense he’s after, and he usually gets his way in the end. He’s a pretty good judge as to how likely his chances at success are, too.”

“He’s smarter than he looks,” Lan Wangji agreed, his voice neutral.

“Don’t tell me you fell for his ‘who, me, a person capable of doing anything, surely not�� act,” Jiang Cheng said, looking vastly amused. Lan Wangji might normally object to such teasing, but if it got Jiang Cheng away from his dangerous self-hatred, he’d take it – even if the idea that Jiang Cheng, master of obliviousness, had correctly judged a person that he himself had misjudged seemed just plain wrong. “He just does that to anyone he thinks might squeal on him to his brother.”

Lan Wangji probably would have, too. Still, he felt that Jiang Cheng should have warned him better.

He glared.

“Second Young Master Lan has no grounds for complaining at his own lack of perception,” Jiang Cheng said, and Lan Wangji noted again the presence of people in their vicinity. “It’s all that navel-gazing you do in the Cloud Recesses, no doubt – should I start to worry about A-Yuan?”

“Lan Yuan,” Lan Wangji said snippily, then added, “Lan Sizhui.”

Jin Rulan, Jiang Cheng mouthed at him, and both of them were forced to briefly avert their faces in sheer amusement. Poor Jin Ling – no one would ever call him by his courtesy name, not if even his two guardians weren’t able to keep a straight face.

(Well, comparatively speaking. Lan Wangji was well aware that his own expression of deep amusement looked, to the uninitiated, exactly like his neutral expression but for a very slight narrowing of the eyes.)

The footsteps passed, and Jiang Cheng relaxed once more. Lan Wangji was pleased to see it, but acknowledged that if they were to keep up the pretense of disliking each other, deplorable political necessity that it was, they would need to do better in the future.

“Today will be a disaster,” Lan Wangji murmured, a warning. “But beneficial in the long run. Do not take what they say to heart.”

He would not have said it if Jiang Cheng was not more fragile than usual. Normally, Jiang Cheng could, after years of practice, let insults flow off his back like water from a duck, unmoving and uncaring – he was a flawed man in many ways, Lan Wangji acknowledged, but he generally only had to make a mistake once to learn from it.

For instance, he would never again allow the poisoned words of others to interfere with those he loved.

Not when he still tormented himself for not having done more for Wei Wuxian, as if there had been more Jiang Cheng could have done without losing everything else he held dear – not even Lan Wangji, who was helplessly and hopelessly in love with Wei Wuxian and couldn’t keep himself from sometimes playing Inquiry in search of him, summoned his ghost into their lives so often as Jiang Cheng did.

“Sometimes I wonder what goes through your head,” Jiang Cheng remarked, glaring at the perceived commentary about his lack of emotional resiliency no matter how accurate. “And then I realize I don’t want to know.”

“Lying is forbidden.”

“I am not a Lan. And, yes, fine, it’s a lie. If I could crack you open and crawl into your head, I probably would, but that doesn’t make you special or anything. I’d do that to most people.”

Lan Wangji believed it – Jiang Cheng was just that insecure.

He didn’t let Jiang Cheng change the subject, though, continuing to stare at him until Jiang Cheng shifted uncomfortably from one foot to the other, rolling his eyes. “Don’t worry about it. I’ll prepare for a calamity and storm out as quickly as possible. What are they possibly going to say about me now?”

They said he was like his father.

It was usually meant as a compliment, but not always. In this case, it was the latter: the implication that Jiang Cheng would, like his father, eventually forget to care for the child he already had when another, better one came along put an especially ugly expression on his face.

As Nie Huaisang had gleefully predicted, Jin Guangshan was enraged to the point of maddening by the prank they had pulled and framed Mo Xuanyu for. Nor could he be blamed, the prank was positive infantile, and highlighted Mo Xuanyu’s relative youth and immaturity, losing his father and sect face in the process. Everyone had wanted to talk about that, about how extremely obvious it was that Mo Xuanyu’s only use was to humiliate the already legitimized Jin Guangyao, but in deference to their host they turned their conversation onto past examples like Jiang Fengmian – and, of course, the more recent example of the ongoing fight between Jiang Cheng and Lan Wangji over Lan Sizhui.

Jiang Cheng had had no choice but to ignore it, no matter how his face purpled in rage at the suggestion that he might neglect either Lan Sizhui or Jin Ling in favor of the other.  Still, no one had really questioned it when he left in a huff not long after in response to an extremely unfortunate comment by the ever-feckless Nie Huaisang (of course: Lan Wangji shouldn’t have doubted him) about the ability of young men to handle child-rearing, returning to the Lotus Pier in a fury with a parting shot about how the Lotus Pier, at least, did not follow the Wen sect in encouraging the indoctrination of children – a vicious and unwarrented smear regarding the Lan sect’s lectures that made Lan Qiren almost visibly see red and Lan Xichen frown but which Lan Wangji thought was rather useful to their ultimate goal.

When later it was discovered that Mo Xuanyu had apparently run away – and based on the clues that had been left behind, that he must have pulled off his escape by disguising himself as part of Jiang Cheng’s retinue – Jin Guangshan was so angry that smoke nearly poured out of his ears, to the point that Jin Guangyao hastily came up with some excuse to briefly remove him from the scene.

Nie Huaisang winked at Lan Wangji from behind his fan, looking pleased with himself, and he looked so ridiculous that Lan Wangji had to forcefully remind himself once again of his personal revelation that the second young master of Qinghe Nie was far away from being the useless waste that he presented himself as.

Far more effective a reminder, though, was Jin Guangshan’s announcement later that day that he would indulge Mo Xuanyu’s desire for a little bit of freedom – natural in a boy of that age, he’d chuckled, playing the indulgent father – by requesting that Jiang Cheng keep him for some time at the Lotus Pier to tutor his young cousin Jin Ling in the ways of Lanling Jin.

Just as Nie Huaisang had so enthusiastically and confidently said he would.

“And with Hanguang-jun there to supervise, there will be no question of misconduct,” Chifeng-zun said, nodding in approval at the proposal. “Your son and grandson will benefit twice over! I think our younger generation is stronger for having all gathered together in one place, whether learning at the Cloud Recesses or resisting the oppression of the Wen sect…”

“That requires there to be a younger generation,” someone in the crowd interjected, as they almost always did when someone of their present generation mentioned the next. “Sect Leader Nie, don’t you think it’s time you settled down?”

“Why are you looking to me?” he demanded, looking annoyed. “Zewu-jun is equally unattached, and he ranks first on the list of women’s hearts, doesn’t he?”

“On the list of young masters, of which I no longer count,” Lan Xichen stressed hastily, holding up his hands in a vain attempt to ward off the discussion topic. “At any rate, I’m far too busy to be interested in courting at the moment – anyway, wasn’t Sandu Shengshou trying to set up a match some time back?”

“Didn’t he get blackballed?” Sect Leader Qin, ever Jin Guangshan’s faithful dog, interjected, always on the look-out for a way to denigrate the other Great Sects. “I didn’t even know that was possible –”

“At least he’s demonstrated the ability to care for a child –”

Lan Wangji decided that that was an excellent time to make his escape. This was one situation in which he especially did not want to get held up as a positive comparison.

His uncle went with him.

“Very cleverly done,” Lan Qiren remarked as they strolled into one of the many gardens that peppered Lanling City and Jinlin Tower in particular, and Lan Wangji looked at him sidelong. “Matchmaking and children are the favorite subjects of old men; by the time the noise dies down, Sect Leader Jin’s decision as to his newest son will be considered as settled and unquestionable. It was good of your brother – and Chifeng-zun, of course – to throw themselves on their swords for you.”

Lan Wangji put his hands behind his back, uncomfortable. “I did not ask them to act.”

His uncle said nothing. He didn’t need to – if perhaps Chifeng-zun was somewhat opaque to them both, his sheer straightforwardness ironically enough serving to conceal any subtle thoughts he might have, Lan Xichen was as clear as a calm lake. He had jumped into the conversation at just the right moment, saying words that would only inflame the situation rather than calm it, displaying just enough dismay to be humorous without actually appearing, to those that knew him well, to be surprised at all.

“It was Nie Huaisang’s idea,” Lan Wangji added, and that did get Lan Qiren’s eyebrows to rise up in surprise. Probably wondering, just as Lan Wangji was, when exactly Nie Huaisang had had the opportunity to rope the Venerated Triad into his scheme – as far as Lan Wangji could tell, he hadn’t had any opportunity to speak to them.

Still, however intriguing the speculation was, it wasn’t enough to dissuade his uncle from his target.  

“The motivation was yours,” he said, the question implicit.

“Mo Xuanyu requested Jiang Cheng’s assistance,” Lan Wangji explained. “He is – unhappy, in Lanling, and ill-suited to it. Jiang Cheng feared that he might one day bring harm upon himself if he remained.”

His uncle nodded slowly, looking thoughtful. “Having him at the Lotus Pier to teach Jin Ling the ways of Lanling Jin also means that there is no urgent need for Jin Ling to return to Lanling himself. He can remain with Sect Leader Jiang.”

“Yes.”

His uncle huffed out a breath and leaned down to smell one of the flowers. “I will give you some books before you return to the Lotus Pier,” he said. “Mo Xuanyu is already past thirteen; it is not at all the same as dealing with small children. You will need to be prepared.”

Lan Wangji looked at his uncle, a little surprised. He had expected more resistance to this scheming plot, which was not at all in line with Lan sect principles.

“Mo Xuanyu is old enough to make his own decisions,” his uncle said, his eyes still fixed on the flower. “If he cannot happy here, he should go to where he can be.”

Lan Wangji’s heart trembled within his chest. He’d thought – his uncle, who had led the charge at the Burial Mounds, who had been the most disappointed at all of his choices–

“I am sorry that we did not suit you, Wangji.”

Lan Wangji exhaled, hard, feeling a stinging feeling in his eyes and nose.

He had not expected an apology.

It didn’t change everything all at once, of course. He was still angry, still spiteful, still furious, fill of bile and bone-deep rage at how his own family had so thoroughly failed to trust in him that they would take away even his right to choose. His belly was heavy with his resentment at how they disapproved of him, how they were ashamed of him, and it would take more than mere words to liberate him from it.

But still, he had to admit – there was something more complicated about it now.

It had been easier, he thought, to be merely angry.

“It was not you,” he said, a small concession. “If the circumstances were different, I could have lived my whole life at the Cloud Recesses with no dissatisfaction.”

“But they aren’t,” his uncle said, bowing his head in understanding. “And you can’t. I – do not understand, and I do not like it, but that is not necessary. It is still my dearest wish for you to be happy and safe.”

Lan Wangji wasn’t sure that being truly happy was possible in a world that lacked Wei Wuxian – a world his uncle had helped bring about with his own two hands – but he knew that the life he had built with Jiang Cheng in the Lotus Pier, warm and tightly packed and full of worries as it was, was as close as he would come, and a life of solitude and distance and tranquility at the Cloud Recesses would only be worse.

“I have another month left before I return,” he pointed out, seeking to change the subject.

“Not after that conversation,” Lan Qiren said, looking reluctantly amused. “You will be sent to the Lotus Pier as soon as can be managed to make sure that everyone is being properly supervised.”

“Jiang Cheng can supervise.”

“Jiang Wanyin won’t.”

Lan Wangji bowed his head to hide a smile. His uncle wasn’t wrong.

And he had to admit - he wouldn’t miss Jiang Cheng dealing with a teenager for the world.

[thinkingisadangerouspastime]

(pt 1) i really enjoy all your atla analyses & you've done a great job breaking down the usual arguments re how eip shows that kataang shouldn't have happened. i'm curious about your take on one specific argument that i just saw today, in an analysis of the show by a zker that was otherwise quite good and respectful (i know you've already talked about eip a lot, so no problem if you don't feel like rehashing). the premise: aang didn't just pressure katara in eip, he threatened her.

(pt 2) they point to when katara joins aang & asks if he’s alright: “aang: no, i’m not! i hate this play! katara: i know it’s upsetting, but it sounds like you’re overreacting. aang: overreacting? if i hadn’t blocked my chakra, i’d probably be in the avatar state right now!” the suggestion is he’s threatening her when he says ‘i’d probably be in the avatar state right now’ to describe his anger. i think this take exaggerates and oversimplifies it, but interested in your thoughts on it.

Hello my friend!! It is true I am Old inside and don’t like rehashing dhdlksjslks BUT your comments on my posts are always incredibly kind and insightful so I am more than willing to do a bit of rehashing for you 🥰 Besides! I’ve seen this general take before a few times and it’s always irked me for the exact reason you point out - it simultaneously exaggerates and oversimplifies the situation (and honestly that’s an impressive duality since it’s seemingly contradictory, so hats off to them lmaooo) - and now is as good a time as any to address it. So, for starters, let’s go ahead and get the excerpt they love to focus on so much:

Cut to Aang standing alone on a balcony. Katara enters and walks up to him.

Katara: Are you all right?

Aang: [Angered.] No, I’m not! I hate this play! [Yanks his hat off and throws it on the ground.]

Katara: I know it’s upsetting, but it sounds like you’re overreacting.

Aang: Overreacting? If I hadn’t blocked my chakra, I’d probably be in the Avatar State right now!

Here’s the thing about so-called analyses of this excerpt: in a manner extremely convenient to the poster, they never seek to contextualize this moment. (I mean, to do so would deplatform their entire “argument” - perhaps that’s why they avoid performing a full analysis?) So let’s avoid that pitfall from the start.

Firstly, below are some links to related posts; I’m going to do my best to summarize the most relevant parts, but for anyone who desires greater detail, I gotchu 😤

This post explains why EIP (the play, lol) is imperialist propaganda and is intended to belittle the entire Gaang.

This post explains how Aang never acted “entitled” to Katara’s affections, particularly in regard to EIP.

This post breaks down the infamous EIP kiss like Snopes Fact Checker, covering common misconceptions, important perspectives to consider, etc.

Alright. With that out the way, it’s time for some context.

Aang and Katara have this conversation on the balcony after watching 95% of “The Boy in the Iceberg,” a play chock-full of Fire Nation propaganda that demeans the entire Gaang in order to prop up the Fire Nation as superior (hence why the play ends with Ozai’s victory). Here is my general breakdown of Aang and Katara’s treatment in particular from a previous post:

- katara, an indigenous woman, is highly sexualized and portrayed as overly dramatic and tearful, because the fire nation objectifies women not of their own people and views them as less intelligent and less emotionally stable

- aang, the avatar, the sole survivor of the fire nation’s genocide of the air nomads who is incredibly in-touch with his spirituality and femininity, is portrayed as an overly-airy and immature woman. the fire nation portrays him with a female actor to demean him (like, that’s classic imperialistic propagandist tactics) and furthermore writing his character as a childish airhead reinforces the fire nation sentiment that the air nomads were weak, foolish people who did not deserve to exist in their world

In other words, these kids have just watched almost an entire play that preys upon their insecurities and depicts them using racist and sexist stereotypes about their respective nations. It is completely understandable that tensions might run a little high and that their interactions would not be as balanced as usual (Katara and Aang have a great track record of communicating well with each other, as it happens!).

So we have to keep that in mind when examining the aforementioned excerpt. But there are other factors to consider, too! Namely: they are kids. Children. Teens. Aang is 12, Katara is 14.

If we want to be scientific, a person’s brain doesn’t finish developing until they are 25, lmao, and the preteen/teen years are when the prefrontal cortex that controls “rationality,” “judgement,” “forethought,” etc. is still developing. This doesn’t mean Aang and Katara are irrational and make poor decisions 24/7 (obviously not), but it does mean that in an intense, highly emotional situation, like after watching a play that intentionally demeans them and depicts them as inferior, they are more likely to overreact, more likely to be emotional, and more likely to make mistakes. Like, I’m serious, lol. “Teens process information with the amygdala.” That’s part of the brain that helps control emotions! It’s why teens sometimes struggle to articulate what we’re thinking, especially in situations that require instinct/impulse and quick decisions, because we’re really feeling whenever we make those choices. Acting more on emotion. Our brains simply haven’t finished developing the decision-making parts, lmao.

In sum: Aang and Katara are both kids, not adults, and should be interpreted as such. This doesn’t negate their intelligence, because they are both incredibly smart and Aang is arguably the wisest of the Gaang, but they are human. Young humans. They have emotions, and we should not be so cruel as to assume they’d never act on them.

So taking that all together, we can now acknowledge the high stress Aang and Katara are under, understand why they might be upset (*cough* imperialist propaganda is hurtful *cough*), and examine how their youth might play into their emotional reactions. And funny thing - all analyses that come to the conclusion of Aang “threatening” Katara here do not usually bother with this context. I can’t imagine why!

And you know what, let’s add one more piece of context: Sokka states that Aang left the theater “like, ten minutes ago,” which is what cues Katara to go look for him on the balcony. The reason I mention this line is because to me, it suggests Aang knew he was more worked up than usual! He chose to separate himself from his friends so he could process his frustration! He did not take his anger at the play out on them; instead, he purposefully took time and space to be alone.

With that in mind, I don’t understand at all how Aang’s Avatar state quote could be interpreted as a threat? Canonly, Aang is someone who was aware enough of his frustration to separate himself from the others - yet the logical next step is him threatening Katara as a result? He knew his intense emotions were because of the play (which he says himself), so the logical conclusion is that he then pinned the fault on Katara? What?? Sorry, that interpretation has no textual basis, lmao. But I digress!

Aang tells Katara, “If I hadn’t blocked my chakra, I’d probably be in the Avatar State right now!” As you said, this is the line people point to in an attempt to justify their (baseless) conclusion that Aang is “threatening” Katara. So let’s bring in the two key pieces of context: imperialist propaganda and age. Given that Aang is 12, and given that Aang has just watched almost a full play that demeans him and everything his people stood for (and let’s not forget it also mocks his and Katara’s love for each other)…

His reaction is understandable. An exaggeration and needlessly dramatic, but understandable. He feels vulnerable and insecure and Aang is human. He is human and flawed and he overreacts here and I love that A:TLA shows how even our heroes, even people who are truly good at heart and in soul, can get overly upset (especially given the aforementioned circumstances!). Would Aang actually be in the Avatar state at that moment, had it been possible? Of course not! He’s young and he’s hurt and as such he says something dramatic to convey his anxieties and frustrations. The line is not meant to be taken literally, and seeing people do so despite all the factors that should be taken into consideration when analyzing it… Cue a long, tired sigh from me and so many other A:TLA fans.

And to be honest? I cannot fathom how people watch this episode and come to the conclusion that Aang is “threatening” Katara. To me, this episode - besides being a recap episode - is one that humanizes our cast even further. Aang snaps at Katara, kisses her when he shouldn’t (which the story appropriately treats as wrong). Katara pushes down her true feelings and retreats into herself, afraid to start a relationship with the boy she loves because she’s already lost him once before and can’t bear to do so again. Zuko further confronts the hurt he’s enacted upon others, especially upon Iroh. Toph practices being vulnerable and accepting vulnerability from others by conversing with Zuko. Sokka witnesses how others have erased his contributions and labelled him as nothing more than the token nonbender in the group. Even Suki learns that she is not the only person who holds a place in Sokka’s heart and that she can never replace what he has lost.

To watch this episode where our heroes must come to terms with how the Fire Nation deems them inherently inferior, with how they have more fights to overcome in the future with the Fire Nation than a single war, and to come to the conclusion that… that what, Aang is abusive? A monster? Irredeemable? That he would threaten his best friend, someone he loves in every way?

Wow. That says more than enough about the viewer, doesn’t it?

[all-things-are-nothing-to-me]

In Defense of Smashing Cameras

We are making ourselves vulnerable to attack.

More seriously, we are making each other vulnerable. Photographers at demonstrations will soon outnumber demonstrators, those who are willing to take action. This is something we need to take a stand against. Cameras are tools of surveillance, and whether it is us or the enemy that wields them, we are participating in our own surveillance. Groups and individuals who have an interest in publicity and photo opportunities need to recognise the fact that they can make everyone else vulnerable to repression and less effective. One group’s photo op is unwanted Twitter publicity for the 100 people surrounding them.

It is not a question of the desires of the few dictating the safety of the majority; it is a question of the politics of these desires. A protest is an attack, or at least, the threat of one. Considering this is a show of our strength, we need to seriously consider: what makes us less strong, less effective, what makes the collective-in-movement less powerful and more at risk? And here it is the cameras, which are continuous with techniques of surveillance.

Stopping for photos when you are part of a big group puts everyone at risk, risks separating those you are walking with from the safety of large numbers, and risks everyone behind you also being subjected to the penetrating eye of the journalist’s lens. This not only subjects others to your desire for publicity or fifteen minutes of fame for your actions (an ideological position it should not be assumed that every member of a collective action or formation desires), but can also lead to people who are ready to do something interesting feeling hesitant, after spending an hour with their every footstep, flag wave, and expression documented and disseminated by the multitudinous horde of camera clicking parasites.

Publicity is one issue. If we are on the streets we are in public; we are surveilled. We can’t escape this. What we can control is intelligible visibility. The reason we mask up is to become opaque, to elude intelligibility. Being photographed against our will is a direct attack against our attempts of obfuscation and ought to be treated as such. Cameras are tools of the surveillance state and dominant forms of control that our very presence on the streets seeks to dismantle.

Photographs at actions of our actions weaken us and consequently weaken our ability to act. This is not paranoia; it is a fact. For every police photograph, there are ten more incriminating ones on twitter. For every official observation, every surveillance camera pointed our direction, we are doing ourselves the injustice of allowing ourselves to be recorded, disseminated and documented by our peers, in the name of free speech or journalistic impartiality, entitlement, whatever you want to call it. And it has to stop.

This isn’t an innocent game where you spot yourself on Facebook and marvel at how rebellious you look. The reality is people face jail time because of foolish Twitter posts. The other reality is that sometimes it’s not just foolishness. There are journalists at demos who aren’t just capturing their bit of riot porn to excite /Vice/ readers. Some photographers explicitly try to capture faces, try to catch you in the act. These people are scum and should not be protected simply because we believe that journalists have some kind of impartiality, some right that is above our desires to protect ourselves.

Our concern is not concerning the so-called right to take pictures in a public place. We could care less about this boring defence that photographers resort to when critiqued. Our question is not: what are your rights in public? Rather: where do you stand when it comes to social struggle? How do you act to further revolt? Simply put, journalists do not have any political right to a “spectacle”. They have the ability to participate in a moment of revolt and they forgo that capacity by consigning the event to a digital memory rather than a future possibility. While photographic evidence has been useful in the past, we maintain that by prioritizing documentation, in ignorance or indifference to its effect on an action, journalists are not comrades in the present.

Spectators do not act. Time and again, photographers actually inhibit the unfurling of events by standing right in front of an action, rushing forward, blocking your way to support your friends and documenting your attempts to do so. Eyes without bodies do not move, but they may propel enemies. When you take a photograph at a demo before anything actually happens, if something does happen, the police can use that photograph to construct a narrative and build identities. You could spotlight someone involved in something that hasn’t even happened yet, highlight that crucial piece of evidence the police will use to solidify their case against us. To inhibit possibility and limit potential is not something we should simply accept.

It’s time to fight back. This is a call out for people to stand up against those who are putting our lives in danger. People who take photographs and post them online, without blurring faces or cropping out identities, put us at risk and we should not be complacent. In other countries with much stronger movements, complacency is not so dominant; people often smash cameras they see pointed at their friends and deliberately documenting them. They destroy cameras because they recognise that these instruments can and do lead to arrests and arrests can ruin lives and destroy a movement. Why tolerate an instrument that supports and reinforces our oppression? Our surveillance? We should learn from our friends across Europe, who are so much more adept at rebellion than we are, so much less complacent.

That said, we are not luddites. To the contrary, we love a good photo and we cannot dismiss the seductive qualities of images in the age of spectacles. There’s a reason we call it riot porn. We’ve even printed and framed the memories we love best. We recognise the importance of documenting certain struggles, to spread the message, to share with our friends abroad, to help ignite the fire of rebellion. Photos move enemies, but they also move us. This is not a critique of cameras /as such/, but of a particular and dominant usage:

“Arms as inert objects do not exist. What do exist are arms in action, i.e. that are used (or waiting to be used) in a given perspective…. Behind the thing there is always the individual, the individual who acts, plans, uses means to attain ends” (Alfredo Bonanno, “The Refusal of Arms”).

We have friends who we trust to take good photos, but the key word here is trust. We consider them part of our struggles and think of them as partisans and accomplices in social war. Assuming then that you want to participate in social struggle as a friend and have committed yourself to the camera, here are some proposed guidelines:

1. Contrary to what many protest-photography tips tell you, don’t get up close.

2. If there are faces in your shot, blur them. A simple swirl in Photoshop won’t do. We’re talking scrambling such the police cannot reverse the process.

3. If there is distinctive or identifying clothing in your shot, blur them.

4. If certain identities stick out (the few black bodies in a white protest, the few visibly disabled in a seemingly able-bodied demonstration, etc. etc.), delete the photo.

5. If you choose to participate as a spectator, then realise your participation is secondary to those actively engaged in the moment of revolt. This means you should step aside, even if it means losing that ‘wining’ shot.

6. If possible—and it usually is—ask for consent or indicate that you are taking a photo so that we have an option to turn away or decline. Yes, we get it. We are in a public place and you don’t have to ask, but realise that failure to ask makes us suspicious of your motivations and provides us with added reason to assert our capacity for opacity.

7. Your camera is a weapon. Friendly fire is not acceptable.

8. You are a partisan in social war. Become involved in the struggles you choose to document. Should they be documented? If so, how should they be documented to spread their capacities? Become a comrade and earn the trust of those around you. Excepting professional activists, for the vast majority of us, this is not a career.

9. Photograph the police.

10. Infer more guidelines from the analysis above.

Until a conversation about protest photography becomes more pervasive, until guidelines like these become more common, until the burden is on photographers and not on active participants, until then…

This is a call for people to smash cameras. Time and time again we see our friends being taken away because someone chose their five moments of fame, the titillation of seeing his photo of our fucking faces making it onto the pages of Vice, the Evening Standard, the Guardian. They choose that above standing next to their friends and accomplices and fighting against the surveillance state that controls us all. Maybe the hack is on our side; maybe they think they are spreading the word, spreading the revolt. It doesn’t matter. For right now, all they are doing is contributing to a climate of inaction, of fear of action, spreading information that those who seek to bring us down will use against us. Next time you see someone thrusting their lens in someone’s face, getting a little too close and personal, blocking your path to assist your friends so they can get a winning angle, we ask you not to stand idly by.

Fight back. Protect your friends.

[neochatarra]

8 Untold Signs Of Narcissist People

Sometimes the signs of narcissism aren't so obvious and narcissists fly under our radar. Not every narcissist may be a puffed-up addict or a Mean Girl like Regina George. If they were, we could see the signs from a mile away and steer clear. No, many narcissists are sensitive, thoughtful, and generous – until the charade wears off, of course.

That's why it's so important to know the subtle signs of narcissism that you simply won't notice until it's too late and they've sucked you into their region.

What's the Difference Between an Overt and Covert Narcissist?

Many people tend to consider narcissists as having extroverted personalities. They're flamboyant and demand to be the middle of attention – how are you able to miss them?

The truth is, introverts also can be narcissists. These are those who fool us into their web of manipulation.

"They're not self-absorbed – they're just sensitive!"

"They're not a nasty friend – they're just misunderstood!"

After forming a relationship with a covert narcissist, you realize that this sensitivity and isolation were, in fact, signs of narcissism. Since the signs weren't so obvious, however, you completely misjudged things.

8 Signs of Narcissism You Can't-Miss

Since the covert narcissist is best at hiding their abusive behavior, it's important to know the subtle cues that give them away.

1. They'll Never Utter the Phrase "I Don't Know"

I once knew a narcissist who was so averse to the present phrase that he would rather give someone dangerously incorrect answers than admit to not knowing something. He was confident in his woefully wrong answers, too.

Why do this?

Answering an issue with "I don't know" deprives the narcissist of important attention. The person seeking a solution will simply advance to somebody else who might help them. That's an enormous ego hit.

That's why you'll often find narcissists rambling on about topics they need no business speaking on.

2. They Are A Nasty Friend

The narcissist is usually a nasty friend but you'll typically find them playing the victim. confirm to urge all sides of the story if you're unsure.

What are some red flag signs of narcissism that indicate the suspect may be a narcissist?

• They get irritated when their friends invite help or advice.

• They don't bother to call or text their friends on birthdays or holidays.

• They don't return borrowed items. (A sign of entitlement.)

• They owe their friends money. they'll downplay this as "not an enormous deal."

• They embarrass their friends ahead of others.

• They hunt down or entertain their friends' partners or love interests.

They also treat waitstaff or service workers poorly. This is a dead giveaway. run the hills. Anyone who disrespects waitstaff or service workers views people as "beneath" them. Soon, you'll be a part of the inferiors also.

3. They Need To Insert Themselves Into Every Story

A covert narcissist might not demand everyone's attention. They will, however, still find how to form everything about them. an outsized part of this strategy involves inserting themselves into every story.

Is a coworker talking about their experience with homelessness? The narcissist, too, features a story about being poor.

Is a lover talking about his amazing trip to Vietnam? The narcissist also had a friend who visited Vietnam. And guess what? She heard it wasn't so great.

No matter the subject, the narcissist features a remarkable skill for turning the eye their way – regardless of how innocuous it'd seem.

4. They're Sensitive

At first, you'll appreciate their ability to freely express emotions. this is often an excellent tactic narcissists use to lure empathetic people into their trap.

Maybe a fast-food worker got their order wrong and therefore the narcissist hasn't shut up about it all day. Maybe their boss asked them to prevent playing on their phone such a lot and now the narcissist is crying about it over dinner.

As time goes on, you'll realize that the narcissist isn't vulnerable and sensitive: their fragile ego can't handle honest mistakes and valid criticism. To the narcissist, these are personal attacks.

5. They Form Relationships Based On What Someone Can "Do for Them"

If you're at a celebration and therefore the suspected narcissist suggests you ask someone because they will help together with your career or financial situation, don't ignore it. They aren't trying to assist you: they're letting you in on their game.

Narcissists tend to make shallow friendships that supported what people can do for them. You'll often find narcissists make friends with horribly toxic people simply because these folks have money, own bars, or offers career opportunities.

6. Their Stories Don't Match Reality

Both the overt and covert narcissist has an inflated sense of self. The thing is, they believe their lies. As a result, you'll often find they recall stories much differently than the situations played out.

If you notice that the suspect constantly reframes stories to form themselves the hero or victim, retreat fast – this is often one among the various signs of narcissism. By changing the story to suit their narrative, the narcissist is gaslighting everyone else involved.

It's not cute or funny to constantly need to correct them. Sooner or later, they'll start gaslighting you, too.

7. They Observe and Judge

"There's no way she will be a narcissist. When we're out with friends, she barely says ten words!"

I hear it all the time. By sitting back and observing everyone, however, the covert narcissist is silently taking notes and judging. I'm sure you heard all about her observations on the car ride home.

The narcissist must feel superior to everyone around them. this is often easy to try to do once you don't open your mouth to interact in conversation and instead sit back to require notes about everyone's shortcomings.

8. They Only Hear Bits and Pieces of Your Stories

Does it desire the suspected narcissist just isn't. listening? They're probably not. And if they're, they don't care.

Maybe you spent ten minutes venting to your mother about how you didn't get that promotion at work because you showed up late one solitary time with a legitimate reason. How did she respond? "Well, maybe you'll remember to point out up on time from now on."

You can't be the victim. Only the narcissist is often the victim.

You see this ton with narcissist parents or partners who listen only enough to toss stuff back in your face later.

How to Turn the Tables on a Narcissist?

Perhaps you've gone on a couple of dates with someone or a replacement coworker joined your team. you think they'll be a narcissist but you aren't entirely sure.

After all, the covert narcissist is especially cunning at hiding the more obvious signs of narcissism. Here's the way to turn the tables on a narcissist and obtain them to show themselves.

• Play along. Don't give the suspected narcissist room to regulate their manipulation tactics – play stupid and pretend you completely believe them. Use this chance to document their behavior.

• Remain indifferent. If you want to continue handling an overt or covert narcissist for reasons out of your control, act indifferent to their behavior. The narcissist wants to use your emotions against you. If you don't give them anything to figure with, they'll seek their fix elsewhere.

• Find Support: this might only include one or two people you trust. open up to someone who will validate and believe you.

At the top of the day, the sole thanks to truly turn the tables on a narcissist are to chop them off completely. If that they had any real intentions of adjusting, they might have done so already.

The narcissist won't suddenly see things your way. If they ever do, it's – a) for a fleeting moment and b) to use against you later. Don't believe the conflicting information you would possibly see from other websites or therapists – the narcissist will never change.

With a mental disease, a chemical imbalance within the brain may cause different disturbances that manifest as depression, anxiety, and lots of others. Although complex, mental illnesses tend to reply well to medication because it targets the physical root of the problem: like a chemical imbalance. Though it's been determined that a lot of mental illnesses like depression and anxiety are frequently caused by unresolved emotional trauma, often dating as far back as childhood.

Personality disorders occur due to a repetitive stimuli-reward environment. At some point in their life, the narcissist realized they might elicit specific reactions and emotions from people – and it felt good and helped them achieve their self-fulfilling agendas.

Anything but cutting them out of your life will offer you a mental and emotional breakdown.

No Contact is that the Only Way to Packing Up A Narcissist

Many narcissists have always been this manner – whilst far back as their teenage or childhood years. If you're handling a narcissist, you can't and will not expect them to vary their behavior now or ever.

Treatment for personality disorders often involves things like cognitive behavioral therapy. In many cases, a narcissist can also suffer from other mental illnesses like depression or substance use disorder. (You've probably heard extensively about these problems, too, when the narcissist needs your sympathy or someone responsible .)

ىDespite this, there's little evidence to suggest therapy works for narcissists as personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat. the primary step to getting assistance is to admit a drag exists – the narcissist will never believe they need or are a drag.

No Contact is that the only option.

Trust in yourself and your network. Because once you get to the opposite side and stick with No Contact, you'll be amazed by all the amazing belongings you can accomplish.

[innuendostudios]

The newest installment of The Alt-Right Playbook - Endnote 4: How the Alt-Right is Like an Abusive Relationship - is a little different. This installment was presented live at Solidarity Lowell, and includes a bonus Q&A section. This video expands on the ideas put forth in How to Radicalize a Normie.

If you would like more videos like this to come out, please back me on Patreon.

Transcript below the cut.

He is intriguing, yet unpredictable. He demands unconditional loyalty. He seems to have an intuitive understanding of what people want to hear but no actual empathy; he treats others as simply bodies or objects. And he’s surrounded by a network of subordinates but the personnel is always changing.

Does it sound like I’m describing The President? Because these are, according to Alexandra Stein, qualities of a cult leader.

Hi. My name is Ian Danskin. I’m a video essayist and media artist. I run the YouTube channel Innuendo Studios, the flagship endeavor of which is currently The Alt-Right Playbook, a series on the political and rhetorical strategies the Alt-Right uses to legitimize itself and gain power. And, if that sounds interesting to you, and you haven’t already, please like share and subscribe.

The most recent episode of The Alt-Right Playbook is about how people get recruited into these largely online reactionary communities like the Alt-Right, a subject which, as it turns out, is real fuckin’ hard to research.

What I want to talk about with you today is how I go about studying a population that is incredibly hostile towards being studied. It involves finding the bits and pieces of the Alt-Right that we do have data on - the pockets of good research, the outsider observations, the stories of lived experience - as well as looking at older movements the Alt-Right grew out of, that have been extensively researched, and spotting the ways the Alt-Right is continuous with them, and trying to extrapolate how those structures might recreate themselves in the social media age.

So it’s… a lot. And, in the process of researching, I found a wealth of interesting perspectives that, by focusing the video on recruitment specifically, I barely dipped a toe in. All that stuff is what I’d like to get into with you today. But I’m trying to thread a needle here: you don’t need to have seen my video, How to Radicalize a Normie, to follow this talk, but, if you have seen it already, I will try not to be redundant. This talk is one part making my case for why I think the conclusions in that video are correct, one part repository for all the stuff I couldn’t get into, and one part how I’ve come to look at the Alt-Right as a result of this research, including some pet theories I wouldn’t feel right claiming as truth without further research, but I do think are on the right track.

This talk is called Isolation, Engulfment, and Pain: How the Alt-Right is Like an Abusive Relationship. We’re going to cover a lot of ground, from information processing to emotional development, but we’re necessarily also going to cover racism and violence and abuse dynamics. So this is an introduction and a content warning: if some of these subjects are particularly charged for you, no offense will be taken if you at any point leave the room. I have to research this stuff for a living, and it is rough, and sometimes I have to step away. We don’t judge here.

Now. Requisite dash of self-deprecation: don’t give me too much credit for all this. I am proud of the work I do and I think I’m genuinely good at it, but much of this video was compiling the work of others. Besides research I had already done and my own observations, the video had 27 sources: three books, five research papers, six articles, one leaked document, three testimonials, four videos, four pages of statistics, and one Twitter joke. I also spoke to four professional researchers who study right-wing extremism and one former Alt-Righter.

Without all their hard work, I would have nothing to compile.

OK? Let’s begin.

We’re gonna center on those three main texts: Alt-America by David Neiwert, a history of the Alt-Right’s origins; Healing from Hate by Michael Kimmel, about how young men get into (and out of) extremist groups, be they neo-Nazi or jihadist; and Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein, about how people are courted by and kept inside cults and totalitarian regimes.

I began with Kimmel. The premise of Healing from Hate is that extremist groups tend to be between 75 and 90% male, and that you cannot understand radical conservatism without looking at it through the lens of toxic masculinity. Which makes it all the more disappointing that Kimmel has been accused by multiple women of bullying and harassment. I found the book incredibly useful, and we’re still going to talk about it, I just need to caveat here that retweets are not endorsements. Also, if I spoil the book for you then you don’t need to buy it, give your money to someone who isn’t a creep.

Kimmel’s argument is that extremism begins with a pain peculiar to young men. He calls it “aggrieved entitlement.” I call it Durden Syndrome. You know that scene in Fight Club where Tyler Durden says, “We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires and movie gods and rockstars, but we won’t, we’re slowly learning that fact, and we are very, very pissed off”? Yeah, that. As men, the world promised us something, and the promise wasn’t kept.

Some men skew towards social progressivism when they realize this promise was never made to women, or men of color, or queer or trans or nonbinary people, and recognize the injustice of that. Some men skew towards economic leftism when they realize that every cishet white man being a millionaire rockstar movie god is mathematically impossible. But they skew towards reactionary conservatism when they feel the promise should have been kept. That’s the life they were supposed to have, and someone took it from them.

Hate groups appeal to that sense of emasculation. “You wanna feel like a Real Man? Shave off your hair, dance to hatecore, and let’s beat the crap out of someone.” Kimmel notes that the greatest indicator someone will join a hate group is a broken home: divorce, foster care, parents with addictions, physical or sexual abuse. The greater the distance between the life they were promised and the life they are living, the more enticing Real Masculinity becomes. Their fellow extremists are brothers, the leaders father figures.

The group does give them someone to blame for their lot in life - immigrants, feminists, the Jewish conspiracy - but that’s not why they join. They’re after empowerment. According to Kimmel, “Their embrace of neo-Nazi ideology is a consequence of their recruitment and indoctrination process, not its cause."

But once an Other has been identified as the locus of a hate group’s hate, new recruits are brought along when the group terrorizes that Other. Events like cross burnings and street fights are dangerous and morally fraught, and are often traumatic for a new recruit. And experiencing an emotional or physical trauma can create an intense bond with the people experiencing it with him, even though they’re the ones who brought him to the traumatic event in the first place. The creation of this bond is one of the reasons some hate groups usher new recruits out into the field as early as possible: the sooner they are emotionally invested in the community, the faster they will embrace the community’s politics.

This Othering also estranges recruits from the people they are supposed to hate, which makes it hard to stop hating them.

So there’s this concept that comes up a lot in my research called Contact Hypothesis. Contact Hypothesis argues that, the more contact you have with a different walk of life, the easier it is to tolerate it. It’s like exposure therapy. We talk about how big cities and college campuses tend to be liberal strongholds; the Right likes to claim this is because of professors and politicians poisoning your mind, but it’s really just because they’re diverse. When you share space with a lot of different kinds of people, a degree of liberalism becomes necessary just to get by. And we see that belief systems which rely on a strict orthodoxy get really cagey about members having contact with outsiders. We see this in all the groups we’re discussing today - extremists, cultists, totalitarians - but also religious fundamentalists; Mormons only wanna send their kids to Brigham Young. They are belief systems that can only be reliably maintained so long as no one gets exposed to other people with other beliefs.

So that’s some of what I took from Kimmel. Next I read Stein talking, primarily, about cults.

Stein’s window into all of this is applying the theory of Attachment Styles to what researchers calls totalism, which is any structure that subsumes a person’s entire life the way cults and totalitarian governments do. Attachment is a concept you may be familiar with if have, or have ever dated, a therapist. (I’ve done both.)

So, for a quick primer:

Imagine you’re walking in the park with a three-year-old. And the three-year-old sees a dog, and ask, “Can I pet the dog?” And you say yes, and the kid steps away from your side and reaches out. And the dog gets excited, and jumps up, and the kid gets scared and runs back to you. So you hold the kid and go, “Oh, no no no, don’t worry! They’re not gonna hurt you! They were just happy to see you!” And you take a few moments to calm the kid down, and then you ask, “Do you still want to pet the dog?” And the kid says “yes,” so they step away from you again and reach out. The dog jumps up again, but this time the kid doesn’t run away, and they pet the dog, and you, the kid, and the dog are all happy. Hooray!

This is a fundamental piece of a child’s emotional development. They take a risk, have a negative experience, and retreat to a point of comfort. Then, having received that comfort, feel bolstered enough to take a slightly greater risk. A healthy childhood is steadily venturing further and further from that point of comfort, and taking on greater risks, secure in the knowledge that safety is there when they need it. And, as an adult, they will form many interdependent points of comfort rather than relying on only one or two.

If all goes according to plan, that is Secure Attachment. But: sometimes things go wrong when the kid seeks comfort and doesn’t get enough. This may be because the adult is withholding or the kid doesn’t know how to express their needs or they’re just particularly fearful. But the kid may start seeking comfort more than seems reasonable, and be particularly averse to risk, and over-focus on the people who give them comfort, because they’re operating at a deficit. We call that Anxious Attachment. Alternately, the kid may give up on receiving comfort altogether, even though they still need it, and just go it alone, developing a distrust of other people and a fear of being vulnerable. We call that Avoidant Attachment.

Now, these styles are all formed in early childhood, but Stein focuses on a fourth kind of Attachment, one that can be formed at any age regardless of the Attachment Style you came in with. It’s what happens when the negative experience and the comfort come from the same place. We see it in children and adults who are mistreated by the people they trust. It’s called Disorganized Attachment.

According to Stein, cults foster Disorganized Attachment by being intensely unpredictable. In a cult, you may be praised for your commitment on Monday and have your commitment questioned on Tuesday, with no change in behavior. You may be assigned a romantic partner, who may, at any point, be taken away, assigned to someone else. Your children may be taken from you to be raised by a different family. You may be told the cult leader wants to sleep with you, which may make you incredibly happy or be terrifying, but you won’t be given a choice. And the rules you are expected to follow will be rewritten without warning.

This creates a kind of emotional chaos, where you can’t predict when you will be given good feelings and when you will be given bad ones. But you’re so enmeshed in the community you have noplace else to go for good feelings; hurting you just draws you in deeper, because they are also where you seek comfort. And your pain is always your fault: you wouldn’t feel so shitty if you were more committed. Trying to make sense of this causes so much confusion and anguish that you eventually just stop thinking for yourself. These are the rules now? OK. He’s not my brother anymore? OK. This is my life now? OK.

Hardly anyone would seek out such a dynamic, which is why cults present as religions, political activists, and therapy groups; things people in questioning phases of their lives are liable to seek out, and then they fall down the rabbit hole before they know what’s happening. The cult slowly consumes more and more of a recruit’s life, and tightly controls access to relationships outside the cult, because the biggest threat to a Disorganized Attachment relationship is having separate, Securely Attached points of comfort.

And at this point I said, “Hold up. You’re telling me cults recruit by offering people community and purpose in times of need, become the focal point of their entire lives, estrange them from all outside perspectives, and then cause emotional distress that paradoxically makes them more committed because they have nowhere else to go for support?”

Isn’t that exactly how Kimmel described joining a hate group?

Now, these are commonalities, not a one-to-one comparison. A cult is far more organized and rigidly controlled than a hate group. But Stein points out that this dynamic of isolation, engulfment, and pain is the same dynamic as an abusive relationship. The difference is just scale. A cult is functionally a single person having a very complex domestic abuse situation with a whole lot of people, #badpolyamory.

So if we posit a spectrum with domestic abuse on one end and cults and totalitarianism on the other, I started wondering, could we put extremist groups, like ISIS and Aryan Nations, around… here?

And, if so, where would we put the Alt-Right?

Now, I have to tread carefully here. There are reasons this talk is called “How the Alt-Right is Like an Abusive Relationship” and not “How the Alt-Right is Like a Cult,” because the moment you say the second thing, a lot of people stop listening to you. Our conception of cults and totalitarianism is way more controlled and structured than a pack of loud, racist assholes on the internet. But we’re not talking about organizational structure, we’re talking about a relationship, an emotional dynamic Stein calls “anxious dependency,” which fosters an irrational loyalty to people who are bad for you and gets you to adopt an ideology you would have previously rejected. (I would also love to go on a rant puncturing the idea that cultists and fascists are organized, pointing out this notion is propaganda and their systems are notoriously corrupt and mismanaged, but we don’t have time; ask me about it in the Q&A if you want me to go off.)

So I started looking through what I knew, and what I could find, about the Alt-Right to see if I could spot this same pattern of isolation, engulfment, and pain online funneling people towards the Alt-Right. And I did not come up short.

Isolation? Well, the Alt-Right traffics in all the same dehumanizing narratives about their enemies as Kimmel’s hate groups - like, the worst things you can imagine a human being saying about a group of people are said every day in these forums. They often berate and harass each other for any perceived sympathy towards The Other Side. They also regularly harass people from The Other Side off of platforms, and falsely report their tweets, posts, and videos as terrorism to get them taken down. (This has happened to me, incidentally.) I found figureheads adored by the Alt-Right who expressly tell people to cut ties with liberal family members.

We talked before about Contact Hypothesis? There’s also this idea called Parasocial Contact Hypothesis. A parasocial relationship is a strong emotional connection that only goes one way, like if you really love my videos and have started thinking of me almost as a friend even though I don’t know you exist? Yeah. Parasocial relationship. They’ve been in The Discourse lately, largely thanks to my friend Shannon Strucci making a really great video about them (check it out, I make a cameo, but… clear your schedule). Parasocial Contact Hypothesis is this phenomenon where, if people form parasocial feelings for public figures or even fictional characters, and those people happen to be Black, white audience members become less racist similar to how they would if they had Black friends. Your logical brain knows that these are strangers, but your lizard brain doesn’t know the difference between empathy for a queer friend and empathy for a queer character in a video game. So of course the Alt-Right makes a big stink about queer characters in video games, and leads boycotts against “forced diversity,” because diverse media is bad for recruitment.

Engulfment? Well, I learned way too much about how the Alt-Right will overtake your entire internet life. There was a paper made the rounds last year by Rebecca Lewis charting the interconnectedness of conservative YouTube. (Reactionaries really hated this paper because it said things they didn’t like.) Lewis argues that, once you enter what she calls the Alternative Influence Network, it tends to keep you inside it. Start with some YouTuber conservatives like but who’s branded as a moderate, or even a “classic liberal.” Take someone like Dave Rubin; call Dave Rubin Alt-Right, people yell at you, I speak from experience. Well, Dave Rubin’s had Jordan Peterson on his show, so, if you watch Rubin, Peterson ends up in your recommendations. Peterson has been on the Joe Rogan show, so, you watch Peterson, Rogan ends up in your recommendations. And Rogan has interviewed Gavin McInnes, so you watch Rogan and McInnes ends up in your recommendations.

Gavin McInnes is the head of the Proud Boys, a self-described “western chauvinist” organization that’s mostly known for beating up liberals and leftists. They have ties to neo-fascist groups like Identity Evropa and neo-fascist militias like the Oath Keepers, they run security for white nationalists, and their lawyer just went on record that he identifies as a fascist. And, if you’re one of these kids who has YouTube in the background with autoplay on, and you’re watching Dave Rubin? You might be as few as 3 videos away from watching Gavin McInnes.

There’s a lot of talk these days about algorithms funneling people towards the Right, and that’s not wrong, but it’s an oversimplification. The real problem is that the Right knows how to hijack an algorithm.

I also learned about the Curation/Search Radicalization Spiral from a piece by Mike Caulfield. Caulfiend uses the horrific example of Dylann Roof. You remember him? He shot up a church in a Black neighborhood a few years ago. Roof says he was radicalized when he googled “Black on white crime” and saw the results. Now, if you search the phrase “crime statistics by demographic,” you will find fairly nonpartisan results that show most crimes are committed against members of the perpetrator’s own race, and Black people commit crimes against white people at about the same rate as any other two demographics. But that specific phrase, “Black on white crime,” is used almost exclusively by white racists, and so Roof’s first hit wasn’t a database of crime statistics, it was the Council of Conservative Citizens. Now, the CCC is an outgrowth of the White Citizens Councils of the 50’s and 60’s which rebranded in ‘85. They publish bogus statistics that paint Black people as uniquely violent. And they introduce a number of other politically-loaded phrases - like, say, “Muslim fertility rates” - that nonpartisan sites don’t use, and so, if Roof googles them as well, he gets similarly weighted results.

I have tons more examples of this stuff. I literally don’t have time to show it all. Like, have you heard of Google bombing? That’s a thing I didn’t know existed. The point is, the same way search engines tailor your results to what they think you want, once you scratch the surface of the Alt-Right they are highly adept at making it so, whenever you go online, their version of reality is all you know and all you see.

Finally, pain. This was the difficult one. Can you create a Disorganized Attachment relationship over the internet with a largely faceless and decentralized movement? I pitched the idea to one the researchers I spoke to, and he said, “That sounds very plausible, and nearly impossible to research.” See, cults and hate groups? They don’t wanna talk to researchers anymore than the Alt-Right wants to talk to me. Stein and Kimmel get their data by speaking to formers, people who’ve exited these movements and are all too happy to share how horrible they were. But the Alt-Right is still very young, and there just aren’t that many formers yet.

I found some testimonials, and they mostly back up my hypothesis, but there’s not enough that I could call them statistically significant. So I had to look where the data was.

My fellow YouTuber ContraPoints made a video last year - in my opinion, her best one - about incels (that’s “involuntary celibate,” men who can’t get laid). Incel forums tend to be deeply misogynistic and antifeminist, and have a high overlap with the Alt-Right. If you remember Elliot Rodger, he was an incel. Contra’s observation was that these forums were incredibly fatalistic: you are too ugly and women too shallow for you to ever have sex, so you should give up. She described a certain catharsis, like picking a really painful scab, in hearing other people voice your worst fears. But there was no uplift; these communities seemed to have a zero-tolerance policy for optimism. She likened it so some deeply unhealthy trans forums she used to visit, where people wallowed in their own dysphoria.

And I remembered the forums I researched five years ago in preparation for my video on GamerGate. (If you don’t know what GamerGate was, I will not rob you of your precious innocence. But, in a lot of ways, GamerGate was the trial run for what the Alt-Right has become.) These forums were full of angry guys surrounding themselves with people saying, “You’re right to be angry.” And, yeah, if everywhere else you go treats your anger as invalid, that scratches an itch. But I never saw any of them calm down. They came in angry and they came out angrier. And most didn’t have anywhere else to vent, so they all came back.

I found a paper on Alt-Right forums that described a similar type of nihilism, and another on 8chan. What humor was on these sites was always shocking, furiously punching down, and deeply self-referential, but it didn’t seem like anyone was expected to laugh anymore, just, you know, catch the reference. I found one testimonial saying that having healthy relationships in these spaces is functionally impossible, and the one former I talked to said, yeah, when the Alt-Right isn’t winning everyone’s miserable.

So I think it might fit. The place they go for relief also makes them unhappy, so they come back to get relief again, and it just repeats. Same reason people stay with abusers. I wanna look into this further, so, I’ll just say this part to the camera: if there are any researchers watching who wanna study this, get at me.

Finally, I read Alt-America by David Neiwert, a supremely useful book that I highly recommend if you wanna know how the Alt-Right is the natural outgrowth of the militia and Patriot movements of the 90’s and early 2000’s, not to mention the Tea Party. Neiwert also does an excellent job illustrating how conspiracism serves to fill in the gap between the complexity of the modern world and the simplistic, might-makes-right worldview of fascism.

Neiwert also provides an interesting piece of the puzzle, suggesting what people are actually looking for when they get recruited. He references work done by John Bargh and Katelyn McKenna on Identity Demarginalization. Bargh and McKenna looked at the internet habits of people whose identities are both devalued in our society and invisible. By invisible, what I mean is, ok, if you’re a person of color, our society devalues your identity, but you can look around a room and, within a certain margin of error, see who else is POC, and form community with them if you wish. But, if you’re queer, you can’t see who else in a room is queer unless one of you runs up a flag. And revealing yourself always means taking on a certain amount of risk that you’ve misread the signals, that the person you reveal yourself to is not only not queer, but a homophobe.

According to Bargh and McKenna, people in this situation are much more likely to seek online spaces that self-select for that identity. A fan forum for RuPaul’s Drag Race is maybe a safer place to come out and find community. And people tend to get very emotionally tied to these online spaces where they can be themselves.

Neiwert points out that the same phenomenon happens among privileged people who have identities that are devalued even as they’re not actually oppressed. Say, nerds, or conservatives in liberal towns, or men who don’t fit traditional notions of masculinity. They are also likely to deeply invest themselves in online spaces made for them. And if the Far Right can build such a community, or get a foothold in one that already exists, it is very easy to channel that sense of marginalization into Durden Syndrome. I connected this with Rebecca Lewis’ observation that the Alternative Influence Network tends to present itself as nerd-focused life advice first and politics second, and the long history of reactionaries recruiting from fandoms.

So I can see all the pieces of the abuse dynamic being recreated here: offer you something you need, estrange you from other perspectives and healthy relationships, overtake your life, and provoke emotional distress that makes you seek comfort only your abuser is offering. And I found a lot more parallels than what I’m sharing right now, I only have half an hour! But the thing that’s missing that’s usually central to such a system is, an abusive relationship orbits around the abuser, a cult around the cult leader, a totalitarian government around a dictator. They are built to serve the whims of an individual. But I look at the ad hoc nature of the Alt-Right and I have to ask: who is the architect?

I can see a lot of people profiting off of this structure; our current President rode it to great success, but he didn’t build it. It predates him. It’s more like Kimmel’s hate groups, which don’t promote an individual so much as a class of individuals, but, even then, their structure is much more deliberate, designed, where the Alt-Right seems almost improvised.

Well… one observation I took from Stein is that cult recruiters often rely on two different kinds of propaganda: the winding diatribe and the thought-terminating cliche. The diatribe is when someone talks at length, sounds smart, and seems to know what they’re talking about but isn’t actually making sense, and the thought-terminating cliche comes from Robert Jay Lifton’s studies into brainwashing. So, I went vegetarian in middle school, and, when I would tell other kids I was vegetarian, some would get kind of defensive and say things like, “humans aren’t meant to be vegetarian, it’s the food chain.” Now, saying “it’s the food chain” isn’t meant to be a good argument, it’s meant to communicate “I have said something so axiomatically true that the argument need not continue.” That’s a thought-terminating cliche; something that may not be true, but feels true and gives you permission to think about something else.

Both these techniques rely on what’s called Peripheral-Route Processing. So, I’m up here talking about politics, and, Solidarity Lowell, you are a group of politically-engaged people, so you probably have enough context to know whether I’m talking out of my ass. That’s Direct-Route Processing, where you judge the contents of my argument. But if I were up here talking about string theory, you might not know whether I was talking out of my ass because there’s only so many people on Earth who understand string theory. So then you might look at secondary characteristics of my argument: the fact that I’ve been invited to speak on string theory implies I know what I’m talking about; maybe I put up a lot of equations and drop the names of mathematicians and say they agree with me; maybe I just sound really authoritative. All that’s Peripheral-Route Processing: judging the quality of my argument by how it’s delivered.

Every act of communication involves both, but if you’re trying to sell people on something that’s fundamentally irrational, you’re going to rely heavily on Peripheral-Route tactics, which is what the winding diatribe and the thought-terminating cliche are.

I noted that these two methods mapped pretty cleanly onto the rhetorical stylings of Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro. But here’s the question: cults use these techniques to recruit people. But can I say with any confidence that Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are trying to recruit people into the Alt-Right?

The thing is, “Alt-Right” isn’t a term like “klansman.” It’s more akin to a term like “modernism.” It’s a label applied to a trend. In the same way we debate the line between modernism and postmodernism, we debate the line between Right and Alt-Right. People don’t sign up to be in the Alt-Right, you are Alt-Right if you say you’re Alt-Right. But the nature of the Alt-Right is that 90% of them would never admit to it.

So are Peterson and Shapiro intentionally recruiting for the Alt-Right? Are they grifters merely profiting off of the Alt-Right? Are they even aware they’re recruiting for the Alt-Right? Part of my work has been accepting that you can’t know for sure. It would be naive to say they’re unaware; when they give speeches they get Nazis in their Q&A sections, and they know that. But how aware are they? I suspect Shapiro moreso than Peterson, but that’s just my gut talking and I can’t prove it. Like 90% of the Alt-Right, it’s debatable.

I don’t know if they’re trying to be part of this system, I just know they’re not trying not to be.

A final academic term before we say goodnight that’s been making the rounds among lefty YouTubers is “Stochastic Terrorism.” There’s a really great video about this by the channel NonCompete called The PewDiePipeline. Stochastic Terrorism is the myriad ways you can increase the likelihood that someone will commit violence without actually telling them to. You simply create an environment in which lone wolf violence becomes more acceptable and appealing. It mirrors the structure of terrorism without the control or culpability.

And I hear about this, and I look at this recruitment structure I see approximated in the Alt-Right, and I remember something I learned much earlier in my research, from Bob Altemeyer in his book The Authoritarians. Altemeyer has been studying authoritarianism for decades, he has a wealth of data, and one thing he observes is that authoritarianism is the few exerting power over the many, which means there are two types of authoritarians: the ones who lead and the ones who follow. Turns out those are completely different personality profiles. Followers don’t want to be in charge, they want someone to tell them what to do, to say “you’re the good guys,” and put them in charge of punishing the bad guys. They don’t even care who the bad guys are; part of the appeal is that someone else makes that judgment for them.

So if you can encourage a degree of authoritarian sentiment in people, get them wanting nothing more than to be ensconced in a totalist system that will take their agency away from them, putting them in the orbit of an authoritarian leader, but no leader presents themself… can you just kind of… appoint one?

Like, if you don’t have a leader, can you just find yourself an authoritarian and treat him like one? And, if he doesn’t give you enough directives, can you just make some up? And, if you don’t have recruiters, can you find a conservative who speaks in thought-terminating cliches just because he thinks they win arguments; find a conservative who speaks in meaningless diatribes because he thinks he’s making sense; and then maneuver those speeches and videos in front of people you want to recruit? If you’re sick of waiting for Moses to come down the mountain with the Word of God, can you just build your own god from whatever’s handy?

Every piece of this structure, you can find people, algorithms, and arguments that, put in sequence, can generate Disorganized Attachment whether they’re trying to or not, which makes every part plausibly deniable. Debatable. You just need to make it profitable enough for the ones involved that they don’t fix it. This is a system created collaboratively, on the fly, with the help of a lot of people from hate movements past, mostly by throwing a ton of shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. The Alt-Right is a rapidly-mutating virus and the web is the perfect incubator; it very quickly finds a structure that works, and it’s a structure we’ve seen before, just a little weirder this time.

I’ve started calling this Stochastic Totalism.

Now, again, I’m not a professional researcher; I do my homework but I don’t have the background. I have an art degree. This isn’t something I can prove so much as a way I’ve come to look at the Alt-Right that makes sense to me and helps me understand them. And I got a lot of comments on my last video from people who used to be Alt-Right that echoed my assumptions. But don’t take it as gospel.

Mostly I wanted to share this because, if it can help you make sense of what we’re dealing with, I think it’s worth putting out there.

Thank you.

[prongsisabadger]

TWP Chapter 21

A shuttle took us to the Negotiator once we dropped the 501st and Master Skywalker off on their ship. A report had been given to the Jedi Council already. Eleven dead, several wounded. The price for an arrogant politician's actions. I had made it a point to stay silent the entire time, coming to terms with my feelings regarding the entire situation. My disdain for Chairman Cho, my indifference for his death, my inability to set it all aside and try to come to a peaceful solution.

I had failed as a Jedi, and yet it didn't feel like it. The silent, but powerful gratitude I felt in the clones when I visited the med bay made it all worth it. In the corridors, the 501st said nothing, but every clone I walked past either saluted me or patted my shoulder. There was no need for more. But in the back of my mind, I knew my behavior had not been that of a Jedi. The real question was: was that really wrong?

All of this I considered in silence, I had to sort my emotions on my own before I asked Master Kenobi the important questions. I needed to know the source of my hatred for Cho -other than the obvious-, the reason behind my protectiveness of the clones and my attachment to them. I needed to figure out if I was truly capable of feeling all of this but not let it dictate my actions. Was I capable of accepting the death of those around me and not let my grief turn into hatred? Was I capable of processing it all and letting it go? If I was in a situation where I couldn't really take my time to process it all, how would I react?

Master Kenobi decided not to comment on my silence, at least not until we were on board the Negotiator. He had probably felt my struggle and decided to give me some time to sort it all out. Master Kenobi, I'd realized, was the type of Master to be quietly supportive. He would give you time to figure things out on your own and only interfere if things felt like they were getting out of hand. He was the kind of person who knows when to shut up and when to interfere.

Unlike Master Plo, who decided to simply wait until I came to him with my concerns because he knew I trusted him enough to do so, and he trusted me to figure things out on my own in turn. I guess it was because of the nature of each master. Kenobi might have been a good negotiator, but at the end of the day he was a Guardian, always would be. There was no way he would stand idly by when he felt turmoil within his Padawan.

"You've been awfully quiet since we left orbit." He was trying to be casual about it, asking only when the only people around were a few maintenance droids and the hangar crew. "Don't get me wrong, it is nice to have a Padawan who can stay still for a change, but the Force does not lie, Kriari. What's on your mind?"

I smiled, I'd have to ask him about that some other time.

"I don't know if Master Plo ever told you, but I'm not good with emotions -feeling them that is." I started "I'm more mentally oriented and feelings confuse me a lot. I'm trying to sort mine out and understand them. That way, if I know how I respond emotionally to certain situations, I can know what to expect of myself in the future. It makes not giving into them a bit easier."

This seemed to amuse Obi-Wan.

"Emotions are very volatile, and they are meant to be felt, not thought, young one. Analysing them will only get you so far."

We started to make our way out of the hangar and towards the elevators, we had to meet with Commander Cody for debriefing and status reports on the 212th.

"I know that, Master, but it doesn't hurt to try. It's also an excuse to reevaluate my relationships with the people around me. I might not have acted on impulse in Orto Plutonia, but I did let my feelings get the best of me. Charman Cho-"

"You did nothing wrong in Orto Plutonia, Kriari. The Chairman was a test on the resolve of all of us present. Not acting on your emotions does not mean you don't get to feel them. You are entitled to your own opinion on the man and his actions. The Force knows it was a test for all three of us to keep it together." He said as the doors to the upper level opened. "You forget you are a Padawan, this is the time for you to make mistakes and learn from them, don't be so hard on yourself."

It was at times like these that I realized just how lucky I had been when I'd been assigned both my masters. They were understanding and compassionate, but they knew where to draw the line. Master Kenobi, as a Guardian, often took a more direct approach to every situation, while Master Plo was willing to wait and let things pan out before acting. It was a good thing that I was Padawan to both. One appealed to my rational side, and the other to my intuition, but both of them knew where my priorities lied and respected that.

Cody was waiting for us at the bridge, but the Force around him wasn't calm and collected as usual, something had happened. If I'd felt it, then Master Kenobi had too, but when I looked at him all I saw was his unmoveable exterior. To me, Master Plo felt safe because he was a comforting presence, someone who would validate your fears but guide you through them. Master Kenobi -on the other hand- felt safe because he was strong, supporting, immovable like a pillar holding the ceiling above your head even in the face of an earthquake.

"You have news for us, I gather, Cody." Said my Master.

"I do, Sir," started the commander before turning on a holo map on the tactical table. "We have received a transmission from Naboo. Senator Amidala has found a Separatist lab within the system and has requested Jedi intervention."

What was the saying, again? No rest for the wicked?

...

I adjusted my new armour as I exited my quarters aboard the Negotiator. After the other set had been all but melted off my back, Master Kenobi put a few of his men to work on a new one. This one still had the original gray design of the Pack on the left arm, but the right one now sported a straight yellow line that ran from my shoulder to my wrist. The chest piece had been left its original white, and the symbol of the Jedi order had been moved to where my heart was. When I asked about it, Master Kenobi shot a side glance at Cody and grinned. The Clone Commander blushed lightly. It was so that I could blend in easier in the 212th -he said- scratching nervously at the back of his head. It was heartwarming, the fact that -even after working together for a short while- Cody was still welcoming me into the battalion as if I'd been there the entire time.

Clone loyalty was something that had baffled me from the very beginning. Even during the first assault on Geognosis, the clones had welcomed me in as one of their own, and even after that, some of them remained my closest friends. Art, Twitch, Boost, Wolffe, and even Headfirst had shown their loyalty time and time again. Not only by saving my life and having my back, but also by showing me they cared.

Wolffe tried to keep me safe at every turn, he monitored me closer than anyone else and made sure I was level headed in the field. Art made sure not to pry every time I sat down to get tattooed. He knew the weight of those names, he never asked how many names I had left, or if I was planning to stop at some point. He made sure each stroke was precise so it didn't need going over. He never asked if I was tired of it or if I didn't think I had too many already. Twitch made sure to check on my mental health even when he wasn't assigned to watch me, he would recommend books or bands or holo shows to keep my mind entertained and away from the battlefield. Headfirst made sure to spar with me every time one of us had the time, and he insisted it was so that I wouldn't lose my touch.

And the men of the 212th were starting to warm up to me quickly too. Their loyalty to their General extended to me as well, so it took little convincing for them to acknowledge me as a part of their battalion.

They had all proved to me time and time again that they would be risking their lives for me as much as I'd been doing for them, not because it was their duty, but because they wanted to keep me alive.

I double checked that I had both my lightsaber and my Kel Dor mask before finally stepping into the hangar. I decided that -since we were going to infiltrate a laboratory- it was in my best interest to have something to help filter the air around me. I did not put it past the separatists to use biological warfare when it would clearly give their droid forces an advantage over an army of life forms. Even if blowing up the entire facility would only compromise Naboo instead of the dozens of systems they were aiming for.

After receiving further information from Naboo, Masters Kenobi and Skywalker decided that a smaller taskforce was probably better in close quarters. Master Kenobi and I would be taking a single squad made up of two teams of four. The bomb diffusing team would go in with General Kenobi, and the assault team would come with me. Master Skywalker and Ahsoka would be doing the same. The aim was to capture the lab, its resident chemist and rescue both Senator Amidala and Representative Binks without setting off any of the bombs that contained an airborne version of the Blue Shadow virus. It was a delicate operation, and the stakes were higher than ever.

My master and the rest of the squad were waiting for me aboard the LAAT/i that would take us to the surface where we would have one last briefing before storming the facility. The men were doing last minute checks on their armour integrity and weapons function as the pilot closed the blast doors and carefully started the taking off sequence. In my head I went over the plan once again and did a mental checklist on everything I had on me. Mask, check; lightsaber, check; armour, check; names of the team…

I realized I had never worked closely with any of the 212th before, and there had been no time for introductions right then, rescue missions needed to be quick. I introduced myself to the four troopers that would be working with me. Waxer, Boil, T.H. and Ginger introduced themselves in turn. they had heard a lot about me from Rex, they said. Which only made me dread what the Captain might have told them. I hoped nothing about my tendency to catch fire.

But there was no time for that now. We arrived at Theed in no time, and there was a meeting to attend. The plan was simple: Ahsoka and I would be leading our teams through one of the lab's entrances and creating a distraction so that our Masters could disarm the bombs and rescue the hostages. I was confident we could make it with minimal casualties. And even if ours was the most action packed mission, I would rather face droids than try and diffuse bombs before the virus killed us all.

As it turns out, it didn't really matter what I wanted. In war, if something could go wrong, it would. And this mission was no exception.

[raven-mcbain-monkeymouse]

“People die, it’s the one thing we’re universally good at as a species.”

“Some days you just have to say...”

“say what?”

“I have no flippin clue!”

“Just because you love someone and they love you doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous for you. It certainly doesn’t mean that they can’t hurt you. In fact it usually makes it much more likely.”

“But you forgot how stubborn I can be.”

“I was actually going to use another word but it starts with the same three letters.”

“Hope is a rare thing these days and unfortunately regret isn’t.”

“It started, as many things do with a broken chair that had simply had enough.”

“We don’t cry that our time is cut short, we bless all the time we had because tomorrow is a gift not a promise.”

“Time travel stole my butt!”

“I’m too tired. You know the kind of tired you get when you’ve seen too much unseeable, known too much unknowable and tried too hard for too long to change the unchangeable.”

“You’re just embarrassed that you were rescued by the girl that used to wipe your nose.”

“I retired because the world is far too good at getting into trouble and far too bad at showing any gratitude.”

“You know it’s very rude to ask a lady her age.”

“I know that but i didn’t ask a lady I asked you.”

“I’m trying to explain that the world is in grave danger.”

“Oh I got that part. What I fail to understand is why that’s in any way my responsibility to fix.”

“Why is my cabin on fire!”

“I’ve lived too long to believe in sanitized fairy tales but I know the bloody originals are usually true.”

“Please don’t trust any information you get from drunk skeletons.”

“We keep living because they can’t anymore.”

“That was rude.”

“Well I’m very old, I’m entitled.”

“You would never accept one of us giving in like this. So why are you so different? Why do you get to give up?”

“This isn’t giving up. This is me accepting that this is the end for me. After everything I’ve done and been through this is my final call and that isn’t a bad thing. Everything ends and sometimes it’s just time to go.”

“Does saving the world mean I have to put on shoes?”

“Oh I care. My life would be so much easier if I didn’t but I do. I care so much, far too much.”

“It’s days like this that really make me wish I could get drunk!”

“Unfortunately it’s all too common that what people don’t understand they want to set on fire.”

“I’m several hundred years old and my closest friends are a werewolf, a vampire and a living skeleton, nothing you are could surprise me.”

“Since life is hell than I guess the dead are the lucky ones.”

“I figured the best person to look after you would be your younger self.”

“That’s a terrible idea! I’ve been out to get myself for the past several hundred years!”

“I’ve forgotten more life than you have lived.”

“Of course there’s a bomb! There’s always a bomb!”

“If all of life is a show than I’d like to fire the director.”

“I’d say there is a glitch in the matrix but given our luck that’s too likely to be real.”

“Please can I have just one day when no one dies.”

“Why should I believe a word that comes out of your mouth?”

“Usually you shouldn’t but today I’m in a bit of a rush.”

“There is no such thing as heroes or villains. There’s just people. People who try to do the right thing, people who make mistakes, just people. That’s what makes it so hard.”

“Who drinks mouthwash?!”

“Don’t judge me!”

“Unfortunately the people who will hurt us rarely wear neon signs proclaiming that they will do wrong.”

“I’m not going to die today because I’m not giving you that satisfaction.”

“Oh I’m so glad that you made me leave my quiet cabin in the middle of nowhere for this!”

“Admit it you missed the action.”

“Even if I did do you really think I would tell you that?”

“Why does no one just call me up for a nice game of ultimate frisbee?”

“The smaller something is the more likely that it wants to kill you.”

“If you don’t come back with every single one of them in one piece I will make you fill out so much paperwork!”

“I would have looked out for them without the threat you know!”

“Just shake the flippin teddy bear’s paw!”

“I’m not ready for you to go!”

“We rarely feel we are. However you may not feel prepared to let go but you are ready to stand on your own.”

“See, back in civilization 5 minutes and already things are in the mud.”

“How do you keep going on?”

“Spite and a cursed pendant.”

“Please be serious.”

“Oh but I am, without those two things I would have died long ago.”

“Fine! Forget it! I’m sorry I asked!”

“Because the world doesn’t stop turning just because you want it to.”

“What?”

“I keep going on because as much as it hurts the world is still going on. The sun still rises and falls. The dishes still need to be washed and the trash needs to be taken out. People still get in and out of trouble. I still have responsibilities and there are still things I need to do.”

“So you just keep going despite the hurt?”

“Yes and eventually as you keep going on, you find the hurt to be more bearable and life is eventually liveable again instead of survivable.”

“Are you drunk?”

“Oh how I wish!”

“Sometimes the only way to survive this world is to be as cold and unforgiving as it is.”

“You’re our best hope.”

“And you don’t find that incredibly depressing?!”

“The key is not to try and change the whole world but to just change one world.”

“Aren’t people supposed to get more mature as they get older?”

“Yes but eventually you reach a point where you start going backwards.”

“You do know that having children as a backup in the event you screw up is really messed up!”

“Sometimes all you can do is save one starfish.��

“Sorry, the earth only swallows you up when it’s completely inconvenient.”

“Don’t worry you will eventually find someone who will cover you with a umbrella rather than watch you stand in the rain.”

“We Just traveled over a hundred years into the past in order to stop a plot to completely change the world as we know it and you aren’t even the least bit phased!?”

“Quite frankly this isn’t even the weirdest thing to happen to me today.”

“Sometimes people surprise you. It’s rare but it does happen.“

“Why are you soaking wet?”

“I fell out of a submarine.”

“How... never mind I don’t want to know.”

“It’s not my responsibility to make you comfortable with what I am.”

“I so regret teaching you to talk.”

“You didn’t teach me to talk.”

“Well then I regret that I wasn’t there to prevent it.”

“See all those little lies you tell to get you through they all start to pile up and eventually they completely smother the truth and you look in the mirror and don’t know the person looking back.”

“Whoever has been spreading these nasty rumours that I’m a good person really needs to stop.”

“You have to forgive yourself for surviving.”

“Have you?”

“That’s different.”

“So how was it growing up with dinosaurs?”

“It was great! Had a pet triceratops named Trixie!”

“You know the joke is no fun if you go along with it.”

“Who was joking?!”

“Living isn’t always easy. Sometimes it’s all difficult choices and burying people you care about.”

“You’re really not good at this encouraging thing you know.”

“Yeah but it’s the hard days that make the good ones special. Like walking out of here and going home to the people waiting for us.”

“Don’t play cards with him he cheats.”

“So do you!”

“How do you think I know that you cheat!”

“Do you trust me?”

“Can you give me any reasons that I should?”

“Not really. Except that I will do everything in my power to make sure you get through this at least partially intact.”

[theritualofourexistence]

One challenge of white ally-ship in the age of BLM.

In the age of Black Lives Matter, how I’m hoping this chapter of life gets labeled some day, being a white ally has presented new challenges. I’m working through these challenges in the only way I can, listening and learning from Black and POC voices. There are maybe two things I’ve been hung up on consistently over the last few days and I think I had a bit of a breakthrough. Part of me wants to write this out just to write it out, but I would be lying if I implied this post was only for me. If you consider yourself a white ally, I suspect you’re meeting challenges too. And maybe some of what I’ve landed on can resonate with you as well. Most of my communication with others is happening through social media and messaging apps. This is for safety reasons, of course, and because I genuinely believe social media is a tool we can use for change. I’m not here to have that fight with you today. In my various feeds, I’ve seen a handful of white people say things like, “well, _____ is Black and he’s not out marching/he believes all lives matter/Blue lives matter/he’s a cop and he says this is all bullshit.” Etc. This is a challenge because what is happening right now in this country does indeed require white folks to listen to Black and POC voices. In a lot of cases in my feed, I don’t ever get to interact with the Black people these white people are speaking for. Maybe they don’t exist. But I don’t consider that a fair assumption. So, for the sake of the argument, let’s say they do exist. I will note here that none of the Black or POC voices in my feed have said anything remotely close to these things that I’ve heard reiterated by white folks as excuses for their silence or opposition. But, as I said, for the sake of the argument, let’s say they exist. It hasn’t seemed appropriate for me to preach listening to Black and POC voices and then shut down these white people when they do just that. So how can I, as an ally, navigate this sticking point in a conversation I believe may have some impact of value? Keep in mind, I know I’m not magically changing any minds. But I do have the tools, mostly communication skills, to share a new piece of information in a way that may be understood for the first time in another person’s life. I believe I can do this because I’ve done it before in other contexts... but again, not here to have this fight today. So, when a conversation about the protests in this country goes in this direction, how can I, as an ally, proceed? Here is a thing I know that is true of all humans, regardless of race or culture. We all experience things differently. Your experience is never exactly the same as someone else’s. This is because even if we survive the same event, our points of view differ, as do our backgrounds and philosophical/spiritual beliefs and our neural processing techniques. No two people will survive the same trauma in the exact same way. Now for the hypothetical. Let’s say ten people experience the same event. Of these ten, six eventually speak out. Though they lived it differently, each of the six experienced trauma during their shared event. Maybe some of the six seek therapy or other psychiatric treatment to overcome their trauma. Maybe some of the six find healing in telling their stories. Maybe one of the six turns to alcohol to self-medicate. In a situation like this, it will never be appropriate to say to those six individuals, “it couldn’t have been that bad, those other four people were there and they are fine, so you should be too.” First of all, we don’t know for sure that those other individuals are fine. Maybe those four are processing things differently. But yes, it is also possible that they weren’t traumatized by the shared experience. Even if they weren’t though, we don’t get to be the people that decide that the four are “right” and the six are “wrong.” In any situation that statement is true, but it’s especially true when we didn’t witness the same event those ten people did. Each perspective of those ten people deserves to be heard and valued. But it’s vital that we learn to value one without devaluing the other. 

In a situation where four people are saying, “no really, everything is fine,” and six people are saying, “I am not okay, and things are not fine.” It is our responsibility to hear them all. After we hear them, though, what must we do next? Well, if those four people really do believe that everything is fine, then maybe we don’t need to do anything else for them. If the other six people ask for help, though, we help them. 

I would never imply that I know anything at all about what it is like to be Black in this country. I do know what it’s like to be traumatized and to not be believed. Nothing in my comfortable and privileged life has been as physically and emotionally challenging as telling my story and having the people in my life refuse to hear my truth. One of the greatest and most simple gifts we can give to others is simply believing them and validating their experiences. 

If the event in the hypothetical is being Black in America, obviously not everyone will respond to that the same way. Not everyone will be presented with the same foundations, backgrounds, choices, and experiences. 

Is that metaphor clear? 

Black outrage is not hard to find right now. If you’re not seeing it, you’re choosing not to look. It’s our responsibility to look. And then it’s our responsibility to listen and change our behavior in a way that contributes to their fight. 

This metaphor is far from perfect. But it has helped me clarify my thinking and maybe it’ll do the same for you. 

Some of the most important things that are not included in this metaphor are the numbers. 

The numbers make it clear that Black outrage is justified. 

The numbers make it clear that Black people are disproportionately beaten and killed by police. 

The numbers make it clear that Black people are disproportionately incarcerated, often receiving harsher sentences than white folks for the same charges and crimes. 

The numbers make it clear that Black people are disproportionately given the death penalty and disproportionately executed. 

If there is a Black person in your life who does not seem to agree that Black outrage is justified, they’re entitled to their perspective. Being Black is an experience white people have judged and governed without understanding for far too long. That person’s perspective, however, does not eliminate the reality of Black outrage and it does not eliminate the numbers that justify Black outrage either. 

I am working hard to be an ally. I am working hard to listen to all Black and POC perspectives. As white allies, we don’t get to pick and choose which Black voices appeal the most to us. It’s our responsibility to take it all in. In this case, that has demanded that I find value in Black perspectives that oppose the movement that has been unfolding across generations and is now blooming in the streets of our cities all across the country. If I can find a way to see both points of view, however, so can you. It’s fine to align yourself with and support the Black people in your life who oppose this movement... but that does not give you the right to devalue or ignore the movement. Both perspectives have value, and both deserve our attention. 

In the effort to listen and understand, though, you, as a white ally, don’t have the right to use any Black perspectives as an excuse to look away from what is happening in this country. Even though _____ says it’s not bad, ____ and _______ and _______ and _____ say it is. And if you’re gonna listen to your friend, you’re morally responsible to hear and process those other voices as well. 

Oh, and don’t forget, in your listening and processing, that the numbers justify Black outrage. 

Note: One of the challenges I am facing in my white ally-ship is the desire to speak in a way that does not draw attention away from Black or POC voices. It is not my job to lead this fight. It is my job, however, to be a white ally and to encourage the white community around me to do the same. That is the intent behind this post. In case it was not absolutely clear, this post is in no way meant to minimize the experience of being Black in this country, which I know I cannot even begin to understand. 

Photo borrowed from The Atlantic, taken by Scott Olsen.

[sorrynotsorryforwritingthat]

I did actually write this instead of sleeping.

Today the rules in schools regarding bullying are strictly a no violence policy which in theory sounds good, but if one students feels entitled enough to inflict harm on another student they will do so regardless, and the victim of bullying (of course, this term is not necessarily referring to physical harm inflicted on others, but might also refer to verbal or emotional harm inflicted, even though this is not what I am discussing at this point) might even get expelled when push comes to shove, seeing as it will often be the pupils words against each other, sometimes even more people will back the bully simply because they’re afraid of them, or because they are genuinely friends with them (the bully and their friends might not always see themselves as the bullies, a fictional example of this is the group called the marauders in the popular series Harry Potter written by J.K. Rowling, that without a doubt traumatized and bullied one Severus Snape in the fictional piece of literature. They still saw themselves as the good guys and later drove Severus down a very dark and lonely path).

It has been proven time and time again that the current system in place isn’t working, and the only thing that will make a more accepting society is a more inclusive education in schools. It is important that everyone has the freedom of their own beliefs, but when these beliefs are challenged it should not result in harassment of fellow students. When indoctrination often starts at a young age it is the school systems responsibility to counter-act the spreading of information that might end up hurting genuine human beings in the future, after all, one of the current school systems the greatest responsibility isn’t spreading correct information to educate the next generation, but to raise us to be functioning members of this society.

It stands to argue that this is a harmful thing, when it usually tends to narrow peoples’ mindsets as well as resulting in that the same mistakes continue repeating, as well as the powerful people keep their power. People in positions of power will often do everything they can to make sure they keep that power, and that they get their way the majority of the time.

That is why the two-party-system in the United States of America, for example, is a faulty system, seeing as the party that won the election will go on to become president, and then change as much as possible just because, come next election, there’s a 50% chance their opponent will get voted in the office instead and so the cycle will repeat.

Humans are animals that appreciate patterns, as do nature, but after a while they get tiresome, when we have found every single way to squeeze every ounce of power from it, we will move on to the next shiny cycle to repeat, extort and abuse. It’s in and of itself a cycle, a pattern that will never be broken unless we learn to appreciate change as much as we appreciate safety and stability; because the earth is faulty, that much is obvious, humans take, and we take, and we take and what will happen when we have concurred everything on this planet, in this galaxy? What will happen when there’s no more land for us to colonize and rule?

Is there such a thing as a society where everyone is happy? Probably not, seeing as the thing with opinions are that they’re allowed to be different. But when said opinions directly hurt marginalized groups of people, when they are directly responsible for murder, are they still valid opinions? When you can trace the genocide of an entire group of people back to a person with an opinion, is this persons' opinion still valid? When a hundred of people die because doctors don’t give them proper medical treatment based on an opinion, can it still be regarded as valid?

An opinion formed independently from outside influence, based on what information the individual themselves has gathered, free from emotional attachments based on facts (feelings are a valid thing to take into consideration, but seeing how easily our own brain can trick us into thinking we are experiencing one thing when we’re, in fact are not, is scary and if we only rely on feelings to base our opinions on, that would be based on your own brains confirmation bias because we as humans don’t like to be wrong), is what might be called a valid opinion rooted in truth.

Then we have the question about morality, what is morally wrong and what isn’t? Seeing as this will be the guidelines for how we live our life's I fret that schools don’t teach us enough about this from a young age. What we deem morally correct are something highly personal, even though our society teaches us about some things that we generally seem to agree on; one of these examples being murder.

We as a society can in general agree that murder is wrong, immoral, but why? The active act of robbing someone of their choice, to without consent and with a single (or sometimes multiple) motion erase someone from existence (not entirely of course, seeing as the victims family and friends and every single action the victim has done will affect people, as humans tend to have an enormous influence on each other subconsciously or even concisely as the idea of random isn’t quite applicable to the humans psyche), is generally regarded as highly immoral. Does it have something to do with that people in general fear of the true nothingness that is death?

Humans are afraid of things we do not know, and we certainly don’t know death, at all. It is something mysterious, but maybe it isn’t. Death might just be the state when your brain stops processing your surroundings, when your consciousness stops existing. Why are humans obsessed with death? Maybe because we know that our days on this earth are numbered, our mortal lives will eventually come to an end. So why do we insist on hating other people?

Wouldn’t that be considered as a significant waste of time? To spend our numbered days on this planet insisting that our hate is rooted in love. In the end it will always be hate that is the root of our misery on this earth, as well as the fear of what we do not understand. Humans strive to understand the impossible, yet we seem to also resent it.

Words can hurt as much, if not more, than actions sometimes. And often the words will slowly nest itself into our brains, seeking a place to find permanent residence in, and we will let them. Because we are the only enemies we ever seem to lose to, as we are our own worst critic as well as our own best friend.

We can only see the world from our own perspective, we can’t swap minds with someone to see how they view the world, and regardless of how much we might try, we can’t ever understand all the complex threads that makes a person, but we sure as hell will try. Opinions are formed through life experience, so when we only have our own lives to base our opinions on, all of our opinions will automatically be biased in some way.

Then we have the concept of normality, that some things are normal and some things are not. What would you describe normal as? The opinion of the majority or the common trends we see in people? Why would we as a society group normal and good and safe in the same category? Normal is a synonym for common, and I would like to argue that only uncommon people have been able to contribute to change.

Is change a good thing? Or should we prioritize safety and stability? In today's world, I would like to reason that change is needed. While money and power rule the world, those without it will not be able to live as successful, or at least as influential, as the rich. What even is success? The definition of success today can be traced back to money, as humans desire to be in control of themselves and things around them. And without money, we are dependent on society to help us out, we’ll never afford everything that we want, and that’s just how it is.

The economy in the world is one of the most important topics in today's world, and that might just be because it is, in the end, the foundation of our modern society, and it’s been that way for an extended period of time.

The ones with money, if they do not go out of their way to do so, will never understand the ones without it, the privileged will do whatever it takes to stay privileged, and when the less privileged defend themselves society will, maybe to spare their own consciousness, find a way to blame them for their own misery.

In the beginning it was the church, finding ways to get as many as possible to join them, and by doing, so they gained power. With this power they evaded taxes, murdered, repressed womens' rights (in for example old Norse cultures women where regarded as, if not the stronger gender, at least equal to men), and found ways to alienate whole sexual identities, as well as justify slavery.

Today, it is still the remaining influence of the Abraham religions had on society that justifies the alienation of human beings from society. Poland and Russia are starting to draw back on their progress of rights for the LGBTQ+ community, and homosexuality is still met with the death penalty in some places, of course, even in progressive countries' homophobia is common, and insensitive people will always exist in society, I’m afraid, seeing as it was built on ignorance.

Pushing the American people to “settle” for a president is a, if I may so myself, stupid system. As of today, it’s election day in America, and now people are fearing for their own civil rights! It’s quite outrageous. Only a bit over half of the people in America vote in the normal elections (this year, it will probably be higher than that seeing the huge Trump vs. Biden situation), and if it was that way in, for example my country, the whole democracy would fall apart.

We clearly see the small amount of value that peoples own opinions against the overwhelming amount of power that politicians hold in elections, and we also see the clear desperation and willingness to do whatever it takes to keep oneselfs' power.

No one in a free nation, no less in a democracy should have to fear for their safety on the basis of anything to do with things out of their control.

[scripttorture]

Human Rights: An Introduction

The Human Rights Act is a piece of legislation most people have probably heard of but there’s a lack of understanding about what it actually says and does.

For a start there’s a difference between the Human Rights Act and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The former is a set of laws from the 1990s based around the European Convention on Human Rights. The latter is a state from the UN just after the Second World War which was envisioned as a roadmap to a better, more humane world.

This is a brief introduction, I’m not a lawyer, going into the detail is beyond me and probably only useful for a very small minority of stories. Keep in mind that I’m UK based and the content and enforcement of human rights laws varies from country to country.

Behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a rather revolutionary idea: that everyone, regardless of who they are or what they’ve done, is entitled to a basic standard of treatment simply because they’re human.

I’m going to go through the Universal Declaration as a quick, bullet point list to give an idea of what people see as essential to human rights. I’m going to go through the articles of the Human Rights Act in more detail to give an idea of how countries turn the ideals into law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

All human beings are born free and equal.

Everyone is equal regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, politics or where they were born.

Everyone has the right to life and to live in freedom and safety.

Everyone has the right to be free from slavery.

Everyone has the right to be free from torture.

Everyone has the right to be recognised before the law.

We are all equal before the law.

Everyone has the right to seek justice if their rights are violated.

Everyone has the right to be free from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial.

Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Everyone has the right to privacy and freedom from attacks on their reputation.

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and to be free to leave and return to their own country.

Everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution.

Everyone has the right to a nationality.

Everyone has the right to marry and to have a family.

Everyone has the right to own property.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Everyone has the right to take part in government and to have equal access to public service.

Everyone has the right to social security.

Everyone has the right to work, to equal pay, to protection against unemployment and the right to form and join trade unions.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure.

Everyone has the right to a decent standard of living, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and social services.

Everyone has the right to education.

Everyone has the right to participate in and enjoy culture, art and science.

Everyone has the right to a social and international order where the rights in this Declaration can be fully realised.

We have a duty to other people and we should protect their rights and freedoms.

Nobody can take away these rights and freedoms from us.

The Human Rights Act

There are 14 Articles in the Human Rights Act. I’m not covering Article 1 and Article 13 because they effectively state that countries should apply the Human Rights Act and enforce laws protecting human rights. There’ll be a sentence or two about what each Article says and a little bit of unpacking what that means.

Article 2: Right to life.

This actually has quite a broad application. It does mean that nobody has the right to end another person’s life, but it also means that states have a responsibility to protect people’s lives and consider whether any action effects life expectancy. Making a hospital inaccessible to a group of people could breach their right to life if it means their life expectancy drops.

An exception is made for authority figures using ‘proportionate force’ in the course of arrest, escape from prisons or to prevent violence against other people.

Article 3: Right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

This does what it says on the tin. It bans to use of deliberately inflicted pain (mental or physical) using the legal definition of torture. It then expands that to include the same acts in scenarios that wouldn’t legally be torture.

Article 4: Right to freedom from slavery and forced labour.

This Article defines and bans slavery. You can read more about modern slavery in this ask.

There are a couple of exceptions, the first is sentenced community service or prison labour. The next is state-sponsered relief efforts in an emergency. So if there’s an earthquake and your character is capable of taking part in relief efforts governments can require them to take part. It also doesn’t cover things that are classed as normal parts of being a citizen, such as jury duty.

Article 5: Right to liberty and security.

The idea behind this is individual protection from unreasonable imprisonment. Essentially it means that if you’re arrested you need to be told why and what the charges are. You need to be taken to court promptly, have a trial as quickly as is practical and be able to challenge your imprisonment in court if you think it’s unlawful.

It essentially means that a character can only be imprisoned by the state if there’s a clear, lawful reason for it, such as being found guilty of a crime or being sectioned under laws relating to mental health.

Article 6: Right to a fair trial.

This counts for characters charged with a crime and for characters who think state action has impacted their civil rights.

It means that cases need to be held in a reasonable time, by impartial decision makers. People involved are given all the relevant information and have access to lawyers and interpreters.

It also means that a character who is going to court should: be presumed innocent, allowed to remain silent, told what they’re charged with, provided with a lawyer, given time to prepare their case, given any relevant information, allowed to attend their trial, put forward their side of the story and question or call witnesses.

There are restrictions on Article 6. In the UK there are exceptions under immigration law, tax law and laws to do with voting rights. People can also be restricted from accessing courts if they miss a defined time limit for bringing a case to court or if they repeatedly bring cases that are judged as a waste of time.

Article 7: No punishment outside the law.

This means that a character shouldn’t be charged with a crime if their action wasn’t against the law when they did it.

There is an exception for anything that is ‘against the general law of civilised nations’. What that essentially means is that if a character commits war crimes (ie genocide) they can be charged even if there isn’t a specific law on the books.

Article 8: Right to a private and family life.

This one is pretty broad. It essentially boils down to the idea that a state can’t tell you who to form a relationship with or how valuable those relationships are. The state also can’t dictate what your lifestyle should be, so long as you’re not harming anyone else.

The simplest part of this is characters having a right to remain in contact with their families. But it also means a right to developing a personal identity, covering things like figuring out sexuality, deciding how to dress, how to live and how to participate in society. In it’s broadest sense this means a state has an obligation to make sure all groups of people can participate in social, cultural, economic and leisure activities. It also means a state should make sure no one’s personal information is shared without their consent.

Interfering with a character’s rights under this Article need to be proportionate and there needs to be a good reason, such as preventing a crime or protecting the rights and freedoms of other people.

Article 9: Freedom of thought, belief and religion.

This Article protects the right to hold beliefs, change them and, to a certain extent, put them into practice. It includes no-religious beliefs, such as atheism and pacifism. But it does need to be sincere, serious and concern important aspects of human life.

The right to hold and change beliefs is regarded as absolute but the right to put them into practice can be suspended in order to protect public safety, health or the rights and freedoms of other people. Once again, this is supposed to be proportionate.

Article 10: Freedom of expression.

This covers public protest but it also covers the media, books, art, TV and the internet. It counts for the person giving and receiving information, so it doesn’t just cover the producers of a show but the audience as well.  

It’s supposed to protect an individual if they want to criticise the government or other prominent individuals but it also covers fiction and the arts.

And once again there is an allowance for proportionate restrictions to prevent crime and protect other people. Which means that hate speech is not protected. Information can also be suppressed to prevent prejudicing judges and to prevent release of private information that was given in confidence.

Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association.

The crux of this Article is that people should be allowed to form and join peaceful groups and shouldn’t be forced to join any groups. The usual examples are political parties and trade unions.

Again, this can be suspended if it’s a proportionate response that’s necessary to prevent a crime or protect other people’s rights.

Article 12: Right to marry and start a family.

Restrictions on this right mostly come from national laws about things like the age of majority (legal adulthood) and what counts as incest.

Article 14: Protection from discrimination in respect to these rights and freedoms.

This essentially means that all the rights and freedoms defined in the act apply to everyone. It covers things like race, disability and religion but it also covers things that aren’t discussed as often, like ‘illegitimate’ births, trade union membership and linguistic minorities.

It also covers indirect discrimination. Which means that if a general rule disadvantages a particular group it’s going against Article 14.

In short-

Human rights are a powerful, levelling concept and regardless of whether your story is set in the modern era they can be relevant. Consider whether the cultures in your world have equivalent concepts and whether they prioritise the same rights. If you’re writing fantasy or sci fi consider whether these rights and broader conception of personhood are extended to any non-human groups.

The concept of human rights grew out of violations of them. This codified standard came from a background of war crimes, and that means that the factors deemed worthy of protection say something about the cultures and history which fed into them.  

Do all these factors apply to your world? Do the same kinds of discrimination exist, historically or in the present? What do people deem ‘proportionate’? Did historical trauma feed in to the concept of dignity and correct behaviour? Did it pre-date them? Is there even an attempt at defining universal rights or is everything dependent on the local law and culture?

Most stories are not going to need you to go through and define an equivalent (or not) of the Universal Declaration. But a rough idea could help you sketch out ideals about right and wrong, it can help to make a world feel more consistent, deeper and richer.

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[minaminokyoko]

A Love Letter to ‘Knives Out’

Disclaimer: This isn’t even a review. This is literally just me freaking out about what a great movie I just bloody watched and I just need to vomit words everywhere about it. Sorry in advance.

I think the best thing ever is I went into this with zero information. I remember seeing the original trailer months ago, but it wasn’t detailed. Just the short one of the premise, and to be honest, I’m not really into Whodunits. Clue is one of the exceptions and Castle is the only detective-related thing I’ve ever liked and followed religiously (up until the final godawful two seasons), so I have no predisposition to even care about murder mysteries. But then Rian Johnson dangled the juicy carrot of Chris Evans playing against type (because we all know the man is a sweetie and I can personally vouch that he’s great at hugs) and so I decided to add it to my watchlist. Then the reviews came pouring in that it was great, which surprised me, and so I decided to take a leap of faith to see if the hype was real.

Oh God, was it ever.

Y’all know me by now. I’m a hard, cynical old bitch. It’s tough to impress me, but fucking hell, I really loved Knives Out.

It’s not that it does anything new; it’s that it is a fresh, creative spin on tropes we’re used to and it’s also the strong performances that just make it a delightful film. It’s kooky and dark and offbeat. It’s charming. It’s wonderfully political. It’s irreverent. This is the niche kind of writing that I adore. It’s why I’ve loved shows like Frasier or movies like Snatch. I love the interwoven mess between the plot and the characters and everything coming to light in a big explosion.

Spoilers down below for my talking points, naturally.

I want to start with Marta, simply because I love how this movie framed the character as innocent, but not stupid, useless, or weak. I love that she had a great relationship with Harlan. I love that Harlan didn’t have any evil ulterior motives. It was simply a man who looked around and realized that he thought he was providing for his family but all he really was doing was supporting selfish, downright cruel people. That family basically just siphoned off of him and had the entitlement complex that is currently killing this country right this fucking second. It was very satisfying when he left them nothing and gave Marta the money and the choice of what to do. The final shot of the movie is genius.

Which segways into probably my second favorite thing about the movie: the commentary about the entitled upperclass versus the working class immigrant. The whole Trump debate during the party made me groan because we all just wrapped up three holidays, so I know that people were having to go home for the holidays and listen to the broken-ass logic of their Trump supporter relatives. Especially since they dragged Marta into the bullshit conversation. I LOVE the writing of having this girl who busted her ass, who listened, who was a genuinely good person, still being able to be a good person in the end after one hell of an ordeal. I loved how the movie poked all kinds of holes in the fake narrative of inheritance and immigration and patriotism. Fuck that. This country isn’t some holy land. This country was stolen from the people who were born here and then they built a fake fucking pedestal on top of the mass graves and proclaimed it theirs. Fuck that revision history and fuck the people who believe these lies. This movie is so satisfying because it’s a giant middle finger to those people and it’s a reminder that the future is these hardworking, kind people who care about society and they are the ones who have earned all the good things this country has to offer.

I also love the examples of bigotry and microaggressions that were more subtle. The WASPs in this movie don’t even realize the backhanded compliments and the truly insulting shit that they do since they’re so entitled. For example, Richard handing Marta his plate while he was arguing for Trump. That’s brilliantly done. He thinks of her as a servant while he pretends she’s on equal footing: saying one thing and yet his actions prove the opposite. There’s also Meg’s comment of “we’re his REAL family,” showing that those bastards all will smile and welcome you until the second you cease to be useful to them and then they show you just how truly ugly they are beneath those “civil” masks. When the will was read, it was the exact shitshow we all knew it would be. That was a great representation of the upper class. It’s not about being loud and racist; it’s all those subtle, hideous things they do to suppress people of color and the working class so they can stay on top where they think they belong. This narrative is powerfully woven in that regard and I really needed to hear this story in today’s climate, especially since we just started 2020 today, which could be the end of everything all over again. I applaud the writing. As a woman of color, I see this kind of shit every single day, especially now that I work in higher education, so I really hope it opens more eyes to the shit that not only immigrants but working class POC deal with on a daily basis. I likened it to Zootopia, where you came to the movie for one reason but then you were served an absolutely piping hot side dish alongside the entrée. Well done, Knives Out. Well done.

I need to give a nod to this powerhouse cast as well. I forgot Michael Shannon was in this movie so seeing him made me giddy, as I’ve always liked him since he’s so damn sinister. He’s a great antagonist actor and I almost wish he’d been given more to do. Jamie Lee Curtis did great as well.

But y’all know what’s coming. I mean, look at my profile picture. You know I have to stop and talk about my future husband’s performance.

Chris Evans as a villain.

Not only that, but Chris Evans as a GREAT villain.

Oh, God, pass me the cigarette.

We all knew from his work in the MCU that the man can act his fine America’s ass off, but boy, did I really like his role here. I compare it to Chris Hemsworth in the godawful movie Bad Times at the El Royale, because while that is one of the worst movies of the decade, it was extremely smart in casting Hemsworth in the villain role. Why? Because it sold the believable factor. Chris Hemsworth is so handsome and charismatic that he COULD in fact be a creepy ass cult leader. You take one look at that man’s chest and tell me you wouldn’t fight a smelly hippie to jump in his bed. Damn right I’d be in a Chris Hemsworth cult. Point being, Chris Evans as the handsome but cruel Hugh was phenomenal. I really enjoyed seeing everything unfold. He did such a great job. It’s all the more satisfying knowing that in real life, he’s the cutest, sweetest goofball on earth. I’m so delighted he took this role because he knocked it out of the park.

Which brings me to my next point.

I’m gonna be a basic fangirl bitch for a second here. Just hear me out.

I’d LOVE an alternate ending to this movie where Hugh didn’t do it.

I know, I know. That’s super basic and dumb and I know part of it is because I just wanted to like Hugh anyway, but it actually would be a great piece of storytelling if you changed the ending.

In this premise, Marta really did mix up the bottles and accidentally killed Harlan. Well, what I would change is that Hugh really did have a benevolent epiphany and he decides to come back to stick it to his shitass family and he figures out what Marta did and decides to help her so she’ll slip him his cut. Then the rest of the film is Hugh and Marta trying to cover the rest of their tracks so that Blanc doesn’t piece together Marta’s accidental crime. Over the course of helping her, Hugh gets to know her and they become friends, so by the time they pull it all off—mind you, I’m ambiguous in this AU, I’d be fine if the detective works it out but lets them cover it up or if they actually manage to just destroy all the evidence so he can’t convict her and he admits defeat—he’s now invested and doesn’t accept the money when she goes to pay him. Bonus points if he falls in love with her during the cover up. It’s not necessary, but I saw a couple little sparks, so I think it would be very cute if Hugh and Marta hooked up to protect each other from the horrible family and build their own empire together. But that’s me.

Trust me, this movie is brilliant as written. It doesn’t need that alternate ending. But I have to admit it got my mind churning about what a fantastic character arc it could be if Hugh hadn’t been the bad guy and he and Marta learned things about each other and formed a friendship. I’m a writer, it’s kind of a hobby, sorry. I hope I’m not the only one who thought that, but we’ll see.

I’m so glad I started 2020 with this film. It’s a rare gem. I can’t wait for it to get on DVD, because I am gonna snag it asap and watch it again. What a romp. It’s also gratifying in a petty way that J.J. Abrams went out of his way to undo Rian Johnson’s work in the Star Wars franchise and it’s backfiring majorly critically speaking meanwhile Knives Out is getting bomb ass good reviews, so good for you, Rian. Your revenge is at hand. #TEAMPETTY

I can’t recommend this hard enough. If you love murder mysteries or if you just love Clue-style quirky black comedy, please see Knives Out. It’s worth every red dime, to quote the movie.

Kyo out.

[exhumedsoul]

Columbus Georgia Personal Injury Attorney

Injury Lawyers Columbus, GA

Accidents along with the injuries and damages they are able to cause will have a major effect on the life of the injured person and their families. If you and your relative is injured or killed inside an accident, it is actually only natural to feel very helpless and angry because these are natural emotions to this sort of event.

But, also, it is important to think about the path returning to recovery. It is extremely entirely possible that your damages and injuries can be included in the party accountable for the accident. Here is where a law firm experienced in taking up accidental injuries cases can assist you deal will the negligent parties as well as their insurance adjusters to get you compensation for damages and injuries.

Our Columbus GA Law Firm Office

Kenneth S. Nugent, P.C. 1234 First Ave Suite 200 Columbus GA 31901 (706) 571-0900

This is basically the form of qualified legal experience you can find when working with the knowledgeable attorneys at Kenneth S. Nugent, P.C. Law Firm. Our legal team has extensive experience with handling accidental injury cases in Columbus, GA and might provide you with great support with this period of need.

Injury lawsuits may be especially complex as well as the aftermath of the serious accident is usually accompanied by confusion and emotional upheaval. Allow our experienced injury attorneys to manage the complexities so that you can jump on with all the process of recovery.

How Exactly Does a private Injury Case in Columbus Work?

After a car accident, it is really not uncommon to get a deal through the insurance adjuster representing the at-fault party. At this stage, many people wish to determine it is going to be worth contesting this offer once the amount may appear reasonable and won’t involve an extended legal process. But, there are a few important aspects to consider prior to this decision.

Here is what you ought to know about accidental injury cases:

The genuine worth of your case will come to the “damages” you might have sustained due to negligence of another person. The whole damages will include the financial costs, emotional distress, mental anguish and physical affected by injuries related to the accident. Additionally, punitive damages might be laid around the at-fault person if their actions were especially egregious.

Under Georgia Law, the plaintiff, or the person who received the damage, is entitled to compensation similar to the volume of damages they experienced because of the accident. These damages must be purchased from the defendant, or the at-fault person. More typically, it will probably be paid with the defendant’s insurer.

The damages awarded will probably be agreed upon by each side after negotiations. Each side will create a figure they feel is fair and can make an effort to reach a happy-medium settlement everyone can agree with. If this type of settlement can’t be reached in negotiations, the truth may be delivered to court as well as the judge will order the damage award be paid.

Who Can Be Named inside a Columbus GA Personal Injury Lawsuit?

Frequently it is easy to detect an at-fault party and commence creating a case against them. Still a knowledgeable team of experienced accidental injury attorneys will give you no end of benefits here. However, there are times how the true parties responsible are not as obviously identified and there may be many parties liable for the incident since it played out.

At Kenneth S. Nugent, P.C., we have extensive experience investigating cases of accidental injury and convey all parties responsible to terms making use of their negligence. Several of the parties we included in our lawsuits are:

A few of these entities and individuals we certainly have experience in negotiating with include:

-Individuals

-Businesses

-Government institutions or cities departments

-Manufacturers and Defective products

-Insurance carriers

Call legislation firm of Kenneth S. Nugent, P.C. if you want to know more details on the statute of limitation because it applies right here in Columbus, GA.

How much is My Own Columbus GA Personal Injury Claim Actually Worth?

There are lots of factors that take part in properly qualifying your own injury case in fact it is tough to create a general approximations without studying the information on the way it is. At Kenneth S. Nugent, P.C. Law Office we offer free consultations to individuals who have suffered injuries from negligent parties. We are going to review your case and provide you with a clearer picture of your own chances for recovering compensation. We will also inform you about the best strategy using this point.

Here are a few factors that could impact the overall importance of your personal injury case:

-Future medical cost and lost income

-How the accident happened

-Future leads to medical issues

-Medical expenses

-Wages and income lost

-Injuries suffered

The facts of all these factors will have to be thoroughly examined and their damages transformed into a cash value. Those accidents that resulted in serious damages could have far greater affect on the lifestyle of the injured person and that can add value to the case.

A few of these damages are really simple to calculate, like the expense of treatment, nevertheless the damages for suffering and pain or emotional may require professional opinions and resources to calculate. An established law practice, like our personal, may have each of the resources and connections to help make precise calculations along with a strong case for negotiations and court battles.

The Length Of Time Does It Take for My Columbus, GA Accidental Injury Case to become Settled?

There are numerous important steps that will need to be extracted from submitting the lawsuit to reaching the last settlement. Before an agreement might be reached both sides should decide on an award amount through negotiations. If this can’t be achieved, then the matter will need to be settled in courts.

There are many individual factors in every individual case which will have a role in prolonging or shortening the procedure. Naturally, those cases that are straightforward and can include only minor damages will likely be completed far faster compared to those that come with more serious physical impairment pain suffering and extensive medical treatments.

Key Elements Which affect the Duration of an individual Injury Case in Columbus

Settlements in Columbus Georgia

When you have a really specific thought of what sort of settlement you feel is acceptable, you will probably find that negotiations is going to take a bit longer. Negotiating for any top-dollar compensation requires more work than when the injured party is flexible inside their expectations. But, this doesn’t mean you should accept the initial provide you with receive.

You will discover the full case can be over rapidly if you accept the very first provide the insurance adjuster make. Of course, this might mean settling for the amount that is reduced in comparison to the true worth of your personal injury case and you can find your preferences outweigh your compensation in the long run.

The insurer working with the defendant would want to see your medical records both after and ahead of the accident before thy will anticipate to consent to a settlement. They will likely want to make sure that every one of the injuries and damages you will be describing inside the lawsuit actually are through the incident under consideration and were not conditions you have before the incident.

Insurance providers are extremely careful with regards to their work and definitely will try and do up to they are able to to lessen the pay outs they make for medical expenses. When they can prove your injuries were not actually linked to the accident, they have no responsibility to offer compensation for these people.

When the injuries are, undoubtedly, linked to the accident, they may have other ways to lessen the payouts they are required to make. As an example, they can say your injuries will not be as serious while you described them and will only need moderate health care for the near future. Of course, this is simply not completed with your full recovery at heart, but in the interests from the insurer.

These are generally just a few of the important reasons to possess a qualified personal injury lawyer in your corner to ensure every piece of information are properly included and your case is bullet proof before entering negotiations.

Personal injury lawsuits may take between a few months to several years to operate their course along with the length of time you could expect will be individual to the case. If you would like a much better thought of what to anticipate through your personal lawsuit case, contact our reputable law practice and plan a free consultation using our personal injury attorneys.

Furthermore, possessing a personal injury attorney working for you will make sure the process is carried out as smoothly and favorably as you possibly can. Perhaps the truth is strong and runs very smoothly from learn to final negotiations plus a settlement. But, in the event that the issue is not so easily resolved, it will need to be taken up court. It will probably be essential to have strong legal counsel in these an event.

If I’m Partially at Fault inside the Accident, Could It Be Still Possible to File a Personal Injury Lawsuit in Albany, GA?

There is still the opportunity to recover damages from any sort of accident if you were partially to blame for the injuries. In Georgia, what the law states of modified comparative negligence ensures that so long as one is less than 50% responsible for the accident.

Do Personal Injuries Attorney in Columbus, GA Be Expensive?

While the thought of getting a team of high-caliber lawyers is generally an extremely expensive prospect, we shall not allow financial ability to stand when it comes to getting our clients the compensation that they need for any full recovery. On the Law firm of Kenneth S. Nugent, P.C., we operate beneath a contingency plan, or even a “No Win, No Charge” arrangement.

Our extensive experience in these cases has allowed us some understanding of the plight of accident victims and their immediate needs. Something they certainly do not require is to be weighed down with financial burden of working with a good lawyer for the compensation legal requirements entitles them to.  Along with the many costs of medical expense, there will be the chance of reduced wages in the event the individual is unable to make the same kind of work effort because of the injured conditions.

Because of this, we don’t charge out clients a cent for our expert advice, professional consultations or extensive experience in injury lawsuits – until we win them the compensation they deserve and everyone goes home happy.

The contingency arrangement ensures that financial need will not be one factor in getting the legal assistance you must pursue your compensation. So, you might have nothing to lose as well as the practical information on a whole recovery to acquire. Contact us today!

To Schedule Your Free Consultation and Case Evaluation Contact Kenneth S. Nugent, P.C. Injury Lawyers Today!

There are several aspects to consider from the aftermath of your accident and there may also be many feelings of upset and frustration currently. Don’t do or say something that can place your chances for full compensation in danger. Get yourself an accomplished Columbus Injury Law Office working for you.

Kenneth S. Nugent, P.C. Accidental Injuries Law Firm has got the skill and experience you will have to get you the favorable settlement you really want for. There is absolutely no need that you can lose sleep within the legalities of the predicament. Let us be your legal support whilst you hop on together with the important business of your full recovery.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/1250423587892121609

[qedavathegrey]

Untangling The Witch

I have seen things and I have things to say. It’s generally not my policy to be inflammatory (even if doing so is justified), because this is the internet and I know some of y’all don’t listen, can’t read, and love to argue, but on this day I’m gonna say my piece. If you’re trying to start anything but constructive discussion, know that you are not worth my time, I’m am the manager and the customer is not always right. That being said — and in keeping with the (loose) topic of this blog — we need to talk about witchcraft, namely the term “witch” and its definition. That’s where we’re starting anyway. I’ll add that I’m not a scholar of witchcraft specifically (though I do have an applicable degree), I’m not infallible nor do I claim to be. But I do know some things. I’ve been around the proverbial block. And I’m familiar with some of modern witchcraft’s confusing nature. We’re not going to touch on all of that (it would merit a class, this is only a lesson), but we’re gonna broach the surface.

Let’s start with The Witch, uppercase.

Who is The Witch, you ask?

Historically and cross-culturally, The Witch is a scapegoat: the one who sows discord and misfortune. Your cows mysteriously stop producing milk, your garden withers and dies, your children fall ill with fever or seizures? That’s The Witch, up to their old tricks. In this capacity, The Witch is a (semi-)mythical figure, always defined by the culture which produces it. That being said, how The Witch is dealt with varies: sometimes charms or wards are remedy enough (as with most unsavory spirits), but some would seek The Witch amongst themselves, demand responsibility. They would root The Witch out, have them punished for their “imagined” transgressions, force personal responsibility and demand they face the appropriate consequences or make their reparations. That’s the most basic and encompassing breakdown, nonspecific because in this case it doesn’t need to be. I know what you’re thinking: “Wait a minute, so you’re saying The Witch doesn’t exist as a real flesh and blood person, only a mythical scapegoat?” A good, valid question. Yes and no. Yes, The Witch is mythical, but does that mean those who practiced magic did not engage in summoning up blights and misfortunes on their bastard neighbors? Unlikely. Was everyone accused of being a Witch engaging in malicious magic? Absolutely not. Did some? Almost certainly. To be clear, however, what we’re not discussing here is the Witch Trails. The Church complicates matters (shocking) and we’ll touch on that briefly later. Instead, we change course now so that I might make my most important point:

Any user of magic does not a Witch make.

In fact, the aforementioned process of rooting out a Witch usually employs magic in some capacity, be it shooting an effigy with a silver bullet or putting the victim’s urine in a jar (two methods that are culturally specific). The witchmaster — to use a specific term broadly; one whose function is to discover and undo witchcraft — is, obviously, not a Witch, despite his or her magical proficiency. Nor those who practice folk magic, folk medicine, etc. That is until the rise of the Catholic Church, undoubtedly the origin of the conflation we see today (then expounded by Gardner and his various successors). Why is this such an important fact? Besides erasing nuance and betraying a misunderstanding of the term historically, it can be offensive and often times racist. Someone who practices Hoodoo, Curanderismo, or any specific cultural practice is not a Witch (or “witch” lowercase, for that matter) and to deem them such erases the history which produced not only the practice itself, but those who have dedicated themselves to it. These practices are borne from folk magic, often allowing for the survival of those maligned and thus underserved by their oppressors. They are largely passed orally and as such are preserved from unwanted influence. That is not to suggest they are static or unchanging, but curated by the knowledgeable and shared with those who are invited and trusted to put in the labor required. Even those practices which borrow from the magics of Europe and folk Catholicism (popular during the colonial period amongst commoners and thus, transported to the New and Old World alike), are not Witchcraft. During the Inquisition, the distinction between magic and witchcraft was upheld (to an extent that was convenient for the Church). See the Sicilian trials, where the Church bitterly shrugged when they couldn’t place the Devil in their folk practice. In fact, the Church maintained a disbelief in magic and only when they could insert the Devil did they bother with formal prosecution. That, however, is not something I’m going to unpack. Do know that Witchcraft was and is often used to excuse persecution: it is invisible and convenient. Remember, not only The Witch is a scapegoat, but so too the one accused. This does not extend to modern witchcraft, but many of the aforementioned folk traditions are unjustly maligned because of their presumed association with Witchcraft. All the more reason not to include them in your discussions of witchcraft.

But this does bring me to another important point:

Religion is not Witchcraft.

Vodun is not Witchcraft, Santeria is not Witchcraft, just as Hinduism and Islam are not Witchcraft. They are religions, they have frameworks which define all that happens within and without, and without understanding that framework, what magic they produce is not for your consumption. Period. And reading half-baked internet breakdowns will not make you an expert, in the same way watching Jimmy Swaggart or Joel Osteen won’t make you a priest. Have some respect. And while I’m on the topic, please refrain from calling anything belonging to an extant religion “mythology.” The difference between religion and mythology is only one of assigned validity: “religion” is always valid while “mythology” has become coded to mean “interesting, but ultimately primitive ignorance.” Indigenous religions exist, are valid, and attempts to confine them to the past is insensitive, please be mindful. Additionally, the concept of “mythology” only works if you believe the myth (see what I did there) that we are somehow culturally superior to those foreign to us, separated by either space or time (or both). That’s ethnocentrism, baby. Check yourself. That goes for things like Greek, Kemetic and Mesopotamian “mythology,” as well. They were state religions and even if it is not as damaging to the living to refer to them as “mythology,” it does paint a misleading picture and is no less founded on ignorance. Not to mention many such religions have been reconstructed to varying degrees and are being practiced again with what information is at their disposal.

So then, if I can’t call anyone or anything I don’t understand a Witch or Witchcraft, who can I? This one is easy: Anyone who wants to be called a witch. And notice how I didn’t capitalize it this time. I’m distinguishing the modern definition from the historical one. As mentioned above, at this time “witch” has come to mean one who practices “witchcraft,” a sort of magical catchall consisting of traditional folk magic (predominately European, but not exclusively), ceremonial magic, New-Age rituals, etc. For this reason, further distinctions are often made, i.e. I call myself a Red Witch, but my definition varies from others who call themselves the same. In something as varied as modern witchcraft, even specific terms have little weight. Ultimately, “witch” is what we call ourselves because it captures our position well enough without requiring further definition. People understand it (and misunderstand it) universally enough. It’s there, and by looking back we can understand how it came to be the term used. That being said, simply because it has come to be a catchall does not give anyone permission to force the label on those who refuse it. Just because someone does magic does not mean they’re a witch, even if that’s how you’ve come to understand the term or even how the term has been fed to you. And given the reimagining of the definition as the result of ignorance and a series of misunderstandings, they have no responsibility to explain why they would choose to refuse the moniker. Instead, we — witches — have more a responsibility when it comes to outlining our use of the term and explaining ourselves. Or at least those of us who do not corrupt livestock, put blights on our neighbors, or sow inconvenience at our every turn. What justification have we other than its easy, familiar, subversive? Is that enough? You can decide for yourself and leave it at that. If you want to call yourself a witch, then do so, but recognize it is not your position to assign the term as you see fit to those who continue to be harmed by such insouciant associations.

And know that I write this because I have been guilty of all of the above. I’m sharing so that my own transgressions are ones you need not make. It’s called growth and I’m providing a foundation for you to learn the “easy” way. I have learned, I have resolved to be better, so can you. Life’s a journey, knowledge is power, yadda yadda, cliche cliche, don’t disappoint me.Be conscious, be mindful, recognize your privilege and check when your entitlement is showing. That’s what growth is about. It’s work, sometimes hard but rarely as hard as you think. So do it.