#sociological crime theorys

[ineffablewhovianholmes]

How am I meant to focus on criminology work when they're talking about panopticons ?

[ammg-old2]

When I arrived in Moscow in February, the initial media circus had passed. Bryan Kohberger had been arrested six weeks earlier for the murders of four students—Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin—and the judge had placed a gag order on everyone involved in the case. The news trucks would return once the trial got under way, but for now things were relatively quiet. (Kohberger chose not to enter a plea last month, in effect pleading not guilty.)

I’d been drawn to the town, like everyone else, by the eerie facts of the murders and the still-eerier profile of the suspect, a former criminology student at nearby Washington State University. The details already in circulation were chilling. A car resembling Kohberger’s white Hyundai Elantra could be seen on surveillance videos driving by the house several times shortly before the attacks. Police linked his DNA to a leather knife sheath left on a bed, and his phone history suggested that he’d been near the house 12 times in the preceding months. Once I got to Moscow, however, I found myself fixating less on the crime than on its aftermath—the wreckage left behind when the media and the sleuths had cleared out.

Located on Idaho’s eastern border, Moscow is known around the state for a certain mountain-hippie vibe. Students joke that the town is permanently “stuck in the ’70s.” It has a lively folk-dance scene and an independent theater that shows classic horror films. Main Street is lined with brown-brick buildings that house quirky small businesses including Ampersand, a purveyor of boutique olive oil, and the Breakfast Club, known for its “world-famous cinnamon roll pancakes.”

But even months after the murders, the town seemed traumatized. No one wanted to talk about the case, on the record or off. When I introduced myself as a reporter, people recoiled. My efforts to talk with the victims’ neighbors were met with exasperation and anger. At one door, I found a sign that read simply, WE HAVE NO STATEMENT. LEAVE US ALONE. Eventually I resorted to writing apologetic notes with my phone number and leaving them on windshields and doorsteps. Nobody called.

At the offices of the University of Idaho campus paper, The Argonaut, I found a masthead’s worth of student journalists glumly disillusioned with journalism. Months of unseemly behavior by a scoop-desperate press corps had dimmed their view of the profession. They’d seen cameramen hide in bushes on campus, and reporters try to sneak into dorms. They’d seen TV correspondents shout hostile questions at teenagers still processing their classmates’ deaths as if the kids were prevaricating politicians. In one notably unsavory episode, a tabloid photographer tracked down one of the roommates who’d survived the attack that night and took paparazzi-like photos at her parents’ house for the Daily Mail.

Abigail Spencer, a reporter for The Argonaut, told me that she was struggling to square the heroic stories she’d learned in journalism classes with the reporters who’d invaded her campus. “We’re taught they’re all Cronkite,” she said. “They’re not.”

Haadiya Tariq, who was the paper’s editor, told me the rude behavior had helped her understand the wider antipathy toward the press. “No wonder people hate you,” she sometimes found herself thinking. She was alarmed by the extent to which professional news outlets appeared to deliberately stoke the online ecosystem of conspiracy theories about the case. The TV-news bookers always seemed so nice and thoughtful when they were asking for interviews. But once the cameras turned on, Tariq told me, the questions were invariably aimed at getting her to theorize about the murders in a way that might get traction in the true-crime forums. Experiencing this had helped her understand why so much of the coverage felt “weird or inaccurate or sensational”: “It is 100 percent trying to feed the audience, which is the internet sleuths,” she told me. “That’s kind of the dirty secret I’m starting to realize.” Perhaps more disturbing than the vulturous reporters or the vortex of TikTok speculation was the way the media and the sleuths seemed to encourage and sustain each other—their priorities converging in a vicious ouroboros.

Meanwhile, some unlucky Moscow residents were still struggling to reassemble their lives after becoming main characters in murder-related conspiracy theories. Rebecca Scofield, a history professor at the University of Idaho, was suing the TikToker who’d accused her of plotting the students’ murders because of a (completely fabricated) love affair with Kaylee Goncalves. (The TikToker denied any wrongdoing, and police have said that Scofield was not a suspect.) Friends of a recently deceased Afghanistan veteran were fending off ghoulish speculation on social media that he was involved in the crime.

Jeremy Reagan, a law student who lived in the victims’ neighborhood, became a target when he gave a handful of TV interviews about the murders. Sleuths studied his body language and parsed his facial expressions.

“It reminds me of Ted Bundy when he would talk about murders,” one observed.

“Very disconcerting,” another said.

Soon, they started mining Reagan’s Facebook profile for clues. A bandage on his right hand was treated as especially incriminating—how did he cut himself? Same with a four-year-old Facebook post that mentioned a rave. “Guys at raves ‘chase women’ and ‘do drugs,’ many things to note,” one sleuth deduced. “The girls partied, he mentioned that. Did he try to party with them? Did he actually party with them? Was he turned down by them?’”

Reagan, hoping to clear his name, volunteered to take a DNA test. The police never named him as a suspect. But the online sleuths kept digging—even contacting his friends for intel—and the menacing messages from strangers kept piling up. Reagan started carrying a gun.

“Just having it on me gives that extra sense of security,” he said in a cable-news interview. “Especially now, where the cybersleuths may or may not come.”

[pieisnotreal]

You'd think my LSD phase coinciding with my true crime interest deciding to show up again would make me one of those true crime people. But instead I just got really into how serial killers and cult leaders use language to shape perception.

[jewish-sideblog]

Honestly we should stop calling them leftists. They’re rebranding conservative evangelical christianity as a neo-liberal evangelical atheism. They have created a cult of performative activism. The Revolution is their rapture, always to be anticipated but never to be truly worked towards. A public declaration of dedication to Jesus has been replaced with posting a tiktok with a filter for the newest cause.

Their gospel is propaganda, and blind faith is mandatory— G-d help you if you check the source on a Twitter post. Anyone who does not post for the Righteous Cause must be working against it, because you can either be with them or against them. They refuse to read and engage with leftist theory, political science, or even the basics of sociology, though they treat the misinterpretation of those texts and tenants as something sacred. The destruction of designated enemies, heretics, and non-believers is the only result actually worth fighting for. Destruction is more valuable to them than peace, voting, or true solutions to problems.

What is leftist about any of that? What is leftist about hate criming Jews and desecrating Holocaust memorials? They could be volunteering at homeless shelters or needle exchanges or libraries. What is leftist about valuing child murderers and disinformation when you could easily value peace and shared self-determination for native peoples?

We should call them what they are. They are evangelicals, forcing the gospel of a new age down the throats of everyone they come across. They are making a poor attempt at cosplaying leftism, the same as “Messianic Jews” hosting “Christian Seders” make a poor attempt at cosplaying real Jewish people.

[liketwoswansinbalance]

@discjude Yes! I'm so glad you agree with the Rafal-Latin interpretation. In my mind, Evil follows him around like a toxic contagion, like a contaminant, visible fog that everyone breathes and goes insane over. Meanwhile, Rhian's Evil is more insidious. I don't think it would be airborne in that same sense. Rhian's Evil, while dormant, would probably just mark him as a "carrier" of the symbolic disease. And, of course, Rafal (or Rhian) poisoned the entire bloodline.

Also, the Latin-relevance-to-modern-English thought sort of made me think: what if it were forcibly relevant, like at times when it wouldn't occur "naturally"? That could relate to the spirit of Rafal being beaten alive again and again and it never becoming irrelevant to the plot at any point, like you said, ingrained in everything. At some point, after the plot's undergone various cycles of the same after the same, it could probably seem like it's beating a dead horse.

And yet, Rafal himself would probably demand to be brought up again and again anyway, given his ego, so the plot thread never dies since it's not allowed to, in a kind of willful, conscious way possibly? Because, of course, he always has to be relevant. I can just picture him thinking, stubbornly deciding: fine, if I must be dead, I'll do it my way, on my terms, and still remain in the shadows, puppeteering everyone from beyond the grave. End of story, except it's not. The story is still mine. It always was. No matter how far the story gets from me, there's no getting rid of me.

⸻

If you're interested, here's a second Rafal connection. Disclaimer: I barely know anything about this since I just heard about it the other week and most of my sources are Wikipedia:

There is a particular school of thought in literary theory called the "hermeneutics of suspicion," which is actually just a way of saying appearances belie reality, as usual.

hermeneutic (adj.) = "Of, relating to, or concerning interpretation or theories of interpretation."

"The hermeneutics of suspicion is a style of literary interpretation in which texts are read with skepticism in order to expose their purported repressed or hidden meanings. [...]"

"[...] a similar view of consciousness as false. [...] This school is defined by a belief that the straightforward appearances of texts are deceptive or self-deceptive and that explicit content hides deeper meanings or implications."

"According to literary theorist Rita Felski, hermeneutics of suspicion is 'a distinctively modern style of interpretation that circumvents obvious or self-evident meanings in order to draw out less visible and less flattering truths.'"

"Felski also notes that the 'hermeneutics of suspicion' is the name usually bestowed on [a] technique of reading texts against the grain and between the lines, of cataloging their omissions and laying bare their contradictions, of rubbing in what they fail to know and cannot represent."

In contrast, we have:

"[...] a hermeneutics of faith, which aims to restore meaning to a text, [...]"

And then, when it's applied to things like religion or philosophy, not just literature:

"It contends that a hermeneutic of doubt reduces religious experiences (and the believers committed to them) to something distant and 'other,' while a hermeneutic of trust enables scholars to reconstruct religious worldviews."

It vaguely echoes Rafal versus Pen. Or rather, Rafal's literary 'man versus society,' 'man versus self,' and 'man versus fate' conflicts.

"Sometimes a hermeneutic of suspicion may be important for more negative reasons, as when we suspect that texts are not telling us the whole truth."

This negative side to the concept can also somehow extend to fit typically skeptical Evil Rafal and repressed "Good" Rafal. (Sorry. After all this time, I refuse to call him strictly Good because his actions negate his soul's supposed Good status. I would love it if both brothers could each just consciously acknowledge their own capacity for Evil. Messy greyness like that would've been nice to see. But no! Rafal is/has to be "Good." [sigh.])

It's as if all this applied skepticism, this belief that there is something beneath the surface even when something/someone presents itself as trustworthy, (and probably, to some degree, it's also projecting your own untrustworthiness onto others as potential "traitors") is simply characteristic of Rafal. By my subjective interpretation, he probably mentally says: what reason have you given me to trust you? Or, vice versa: what reason have I given you to trust me? Or, at least, I tend to view him as paranoid, which could very well be exaggerating canon.

"The expression 'hermeneutic of suspicion' is a tautological way of saying what thoughtful people have always known, that words may not always mean what they seem to mean. Some forms of expression, such as allegory and irony, depend on this fact."

I do wonder if it's only because of sequential order that Rhian and Japeth feel more, idk, allegorical or "representational" (aside from just the Lion and the Snake roles, Japeth's mimicry of the first fratricide, and so forth) than Rhian and Rafal do? I think, partly, it could be because we get less page time of them overall, and partly because they're not quite "whole" entities, as in, the tale still technically belongs to Tedros and company. And the narrative doesn't always pin its focus on them.

And then, there's the argument against this school of thought:

"In sum, it is sometimes useful to 'see through' things, and suspicion has its place. If we insist, however, on 'seeing through' everything, we end up seeing nothing."

Ergo, Rafal's lack of self-awareness (and moments of misusing trust, like how he never reveals himself as the perceived threat of Fala) are probably part of his very own version of "seeing nothing" as he actively searches for "something" to find fault with (usually Rhian, let's face it) or it could be a case of seeing nothing wrong with his actions.

He starts to distance himself from Evil and turn to Good, doing too little, too late, while also being blind to Rhian's earlier losses and point of view. He thinks he himself is entirely deserving of what's coming to him, and at his most extreme, he's blind or rather, is caught in a sort of one-track mind, self-contained feedback loop? As if he has tunnel vision but in an upwards-ambition direction, that he reinforces with the total excess of pride embedded in the self-image he started out with.

And, this state of mind comes over him every single time he's sought out power above all and/or control over his immediate surroundings, without fail.

⸻

I had a Rhian and Rafal thought since I thought of a way to elaborate on something old. (Not sure if this one can apply to the second set of twins because I've no examples for it currently, but if you've got any thoughts, go right ahead!)

Originally, I assigned Rhian death of the author due to how he interferes with or foils the Storian's will (as the "author") in Fall by murdering Rafal so abruptly. Because, Rhian, especially in TLEA, in trying to rewrite the past and reshape the world, decides to interpret the texts of his world apart from the "author's" intention, imposing his own interpretations onto the texts (tales).

For comparison, return of the author or authorial intent could be seen as Rafal ceding to the Storian in the end, or considering the author as inseparable from his work, and seeing works in the original contexts they once inhabited, as products of their time.

Plus, Rafal would've been the Storian's intent, the One. And, the Storian had been drawing him, not Rhian, initially—well, assuming it had decided on Rafal and wasn't in on the twist, until the eye color change in the illustration, which seemingly could've signaled it knew the One was Rhian all along. Depends on how we interpret the scene, I suppose.

Or, perhaps, less sinisterly than the Pen just knowing and being complicit in the twist Rhian chose for the tale in taking Rafal's face and identity, the Pen could have conceded to Rhian's "interpretation," as a sort of "reader" of its tales over itself as the prime "author." Because, well, Rhian is called the "author of his own misfortune" by the narrative. Maybe, the Pen was handing over the authorship to him, in complying with what Rhian wanted, in that moment, so Rhian could bend the story to his own designs and ends.

⸻

I could see chivalry theory happening in the Endless Woods—that's an interesting one! Though, does Evelyn actually get a lenient sentence? She does die, and the "no longer useful" judgment Rafal barely passes over her is harsh.

Enjambment and caesura fit TCY twins well. If the plot and his plan didn't force him to be conscious of what he said, could Rhian have been as sociable as Sophie was? Do we ever see a side of him like that, like in the Beauty and the Feast chapter of QFG, for instance?

Ooh, the self-fulfilling prophecy and Becker's labeling theory remind me of the Pygmalion Effect (expectations shape behavior and self-image/people return what you invest in them) in psychology. I wonder if they're, by any chance, directly related, with one on a larger societal scale and the other on a smaller individual scale? Though, the Pygmalion Effect is more psychology than sociology, so maybe it wouldn't apply on a wider level? I don't know much at all about sociology, so thank you for the terms though!

The labeling happens to remind me of the concept of our subconscious "thin-slicing" stimuli, when we intuitively parse out new situations in split-second, snap judgments, with how the phenomenon is explained in a book, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell. It's not a terminology heavy book though, so maybe some things described in it were more colloquial than truly sociological.

Also, I love the term folk devil! It fits so well and it's in line with the Gavaldon assumptions! In fact, it fits Rafal even better than "scapegoat" ever could, or general moral panics/witch hunts/persecution, so thank you!!! I didn't really call him a "scapegoat" before because it sounded too "innocent" for him, and to be fair, in his case, he is more guilty/disruptive, and wasn't persecuted without reason, honestly. And, he can, unlike other actual victims, be compared to a literal demon beyond just how he's viewed.

Also, I think Japeth at certain points deserves to go into that same media circus kind of category too, considering how Rhian's plan initially forced him to take the blame for all the terrorism publicly as the Snake.

⸻

Ooh, you're absolutely right about the edgework angle being a part of the series, I'd say, and I think I might know how to fit it in!

It could apply to nontraditional villainy, to those who deliberately seek out a type of personal, "selfish" freedom from societal/structural constraints, like the Never kingdom of Akgul's entire philosophy to live by does, iirc, with its endless hedonism.

Of course, this kind of villainy would be the kind that Rafal sometimes appreciates and sometimes looks down on. For instance, he doesn't see as much Evil value/potential in the communal piracy or more social tendencies of the pirates, unlike true villains who work alone, while, at the same time, he does see the point to the revelry at The Black Rabbit—that's the thrill-seeking side of "Evil." (It's also a bit present in the 'No Ball.')

And, the Nevers in the main series are sort of known for their intrepidness, their recklessness, their raucousness. It's actually just their general "culture" of not allowing for cowardice, to the extreme, even at the expense of personal safety, all for the sake of reputation, even when "cowardice" is the smarter option. So, naturally, they have got a lot of grandstanding and brashness. They're all about putting on bravado! (And they also seem to be a dark mirror of the Everboys, in my opinion. They just take things further. Though, I guess they owe it to Rafal's deprivation early on, which must've reinforced the idea that they could do without a lot of the time because they're better than the "namby-pamby" Evers could ever be.)

Lastly, the best in-narrative example I think we have of this type of behavior is probably the cost of entry to The Black Rabbit: reporting sins, and how that practice is likely perpetuated by the very drinks they serve there, so the attendees can party all night long and do Storian knows what that's probably worse!

The Snake Venom drinks contain literal, real-world psychoactive ingredients (i.e., kola nuts and nutmeg/mace(?)). And these hallucinogens really do alter a person's state of mind. So, it's no wonder the Nevers are collectively predisposed to doing crime—just look at what they're being glutted with at mass public events! It's all built into a societal level other than soul.

⸻

By the way, if anyone had wanted to know about the updates to this post above and in all the reblogs, I'll tag everyone who seems to have shown interest:

@ciieli @horizonsandbeginnings @books-and-tears @loverofbooksandhistory @joeykeehl256

@heya-there-friends @2xraequalstorara @arcanaisarcana

@wisteriaum

SGE Characters as Literary Things

(Not all of these are actual literary or rhetorical devices; some are just writing techniques, forms, genres, mediums, etc.)

This is a bit abstract, so I’m curious about how subjective these might be. Does anyone agree or disagree? And feel free to make additions if you think I left anything out, or request another character that isn’t here.

Hopefully this makes (intuitive?) sense. As always, I'm willing to explain my thought process behind any of the things I've listed.

Also, anyone can treat this like a “Tag Yourself” meme, if you want. Whose list do you most relate to, use, or encounter?

⸻

LANCELOT (I know—how odd that I’m starting with a minor character and not Rafal, but wait. There’s a method to my madness. Also, watch out for overlap!):

Metonymy, synecdoche (no, literally, to me, these are him.)

Zeugma

Analogy

Figures of speech

Slang, argot

Colloquialisms

Idioms

TEDROS:

Simile

Metaphor

Rhyming couplets

Rhyme schemes

Sonnets

Commercial fiction

Coming-of-age genre

Line enjambment

Overuse of commas

Cadence, prose speech

Waxing poetic, verse (not prose)

Alliteration

Kinesthetic imagery

Phallic imagery/sword sexual innuendos (sorry)

The chivalric romance genre

AGATHA:

Anaphora, repetition

Semicolon, periods

Line breaks

Terse, dry prose

Semantics (not syntax)

Elegy

Resonance

Consonance, alliteration

Pseudonym

Narrative parallels

Realism

Satire

SOPHIE:

Sophistry (yes, there is a word for it!)

Imagery

Italics, emphasis

Em dash

Aphrodisiac imagery

Unreliable narrator, bias

Rashomon effect

Syntax (not semantics)

Diction

Chiasmus (think: “Fair is foul and foul is fair.”)

Rhetorical purpose

Provocation, calls to action

Voice, writing style

Rhetorical modes: pathos, logos, ethos

Metaphor

Hyperbole, exaggeration

Sensationalism, journalism

Surrealism

Verisimilitude

Egocentrism

Callbacks (but not foreshadowing or call-forwards)

Narrative parallels

Paralepsis, occultatio, apophasis, denial

Hypothetical dialogue

Monologue

JAPETH:

Sibilance

Lacuna

Villanelle (an obsessive, repetitive form of poetry)

Soliloquy

ARIC:

Sentence fragments

RHIAN (TCY):

Unreliable narrator

Setup, payoff

Chekhov’s gun

Epistolary novel

RHIAN (prequels):

Multiple povs

Perspective

Dramatic irony

Situational irony

Chiaroscuro (in imagery)

Endpapers

Frontispiece

Deckled edges

Narrative parallels

Foreshadowing

Call-forwards

Foil

Death of the author

RAFAL:

Omniscient narrator

Perspective

Surrealism

Etymology

Word families or 'linguistic ecosystems'

Latin

Verbal irony

Gallows humor

Narrative parallels

Call-forwards

Circular endings

Parallel sentences or balanced sentence structure

Narrative parallels

Foil

Juxtaposition

Authorial intent (“return of the author”)

HESTER:

Protagonist

Allusions

Gothic imagery

ANADIL:

Defamiliarization

Deuteragonist (second most important character in relation to the protagonist)

Psychic distance

Sterile prose

Forewords, prologues

Works cited pages

DOT:

Tone

Gustatory imagery

Tritagonist (third most important character in relation to the protagonist)

KIKO:

Sidekick

Falling action

Dedications, author's notes, epigraph, acknowledgements

Epitaph (Tristan)

BEATRIX:

Pacing

Rising Action

Climax

HORT:

Unrequited love

Falling resolution

Anticlimax

Malapropism

Innuendo

Asides

Brackets, parentheses

Cliché

EVELYN SADER:

Synesthetic imagery

Villanelle

Foreshadowing

AUGUST SADER:

Stream of consciousness style

Imagery

Foreshadowing

Coming-of-age genre

Elegy

Omniscience

Rhetorical questions

Time skips, non-linear narratives

Epilogues

MARIALENA:

Diabolus ex machina

Malapropism

Malaphors, mixed metaphors

Slant rhyme

Caveat

Parentheses

Footnotes

MERLIN:

Deus ex machina

Iambic pentameter

Filler words

BETTINA:

Screenwriting

Shock value

[starlostlix]

It's my first post on here but I recently made a powerpoint as part of my A-level sociology revision relating crime and deviance theories to Moriarty the Patriot. it was so fun to make and I was wondering if anyone was interested in seeing it too, if there's any other MTP fans especially those who are doing sociology a-level (AQA exams specifically) who would want to read it.

[silvermoon424]

I'm WAY overthinking this but

It kind of just occurred to me that the Team Rocket Trio are like, a perfect example of many of the more progressive sociological theories of crime?

Jessie, James, and Meowth really don't seem like very bad people. Yeah, they do bad things sometimes, but time and time again we see them put others' needs before their own, care for the Pokemon they work with, and they even showed up at Ash Ketchum's final battle to cheer him on. In one of the Pokemon manga (the Electric Tale of Pikachu) they literally give up a life of crime to settle down together as a family.

So why join Team Rocket? Because they had basically no other choice.

Jessie grew up as a poor foster kid. James was a runaway. And Meowth was a literal alley cat. It's been forever since I watched the anime, but I think I remember there being episodes about how the trio did try to go on the straight and narrow when they were younger but it just didn't work out. So they turned to a life of organized crime.

This is actually the background of Team Skull in Sun and Moon; the team is made up of disaffected youth who failed their Island Challenges and have been rejected by society, so they decided to band together for safety and companionship. Much like actual, real-life gangs.

Wow, yeah, it's almost like, when given no alternative options and largely shunned by society, poor people often turn to crime huh

[deadrobinthoughts]

Bat Kids & Their College Degrees.

Dick Grayson - Criminology and Law. - Dick has always been involved in crime fighting. A major in crime and law would easily fit in and deepen his understanding, which only aids in combatting criminal behavior.

+ definitely a performing arts major. he would love being able to explore and express himself through dance and theatre.

Jason Todd - Criminal Justice and Psychology. - during his time as the Red Hood would instill an understanding of crime from a pov that could easily be etched in a psychological perspective. This would be able to aid in his navigation of the darker corners of his vigilante methods. ( Ignore him when he says it's to get answers, with a smirk. )

+ literature and philosophy. it's never been a secret that jason loves to read and study things. he would also get to explore complex composition and moral questions.

Barbara Gordon - Library Sciences & Information Technology - Barbara's initial career in the librarian field would be a dead give away for library science. Her expertise lies within collecting, organizing and checking information, along with hacking, which would be helped by a strong IT background.

+ creative writing. i'm not sure why, i just feel like her level of knowledge and intellect would lead her to enjoy writing and creating new worlds.

Tim Drake - Computer Science & Detective Minor. - Tim is very much known for his computer and detective skills already, majors and minors in these areas would definitely pair with where his interests already align.

+ i feel like regardless of the universe, he's got something to do with computers. even if it's graphic design. i feel like he'd enjoy creating things, too. or, he could go the way of being an agent of some sort but i'm not sure, outside of everything, if he'd be okay knowing the things that agents do. because that's beyond even what the batfam sees.

Stephanie Brown - Forensic Science & Journalism. - considering the time she's spent uncovering the truth and mystery solving, it would be easy to stick her with forensic science. plus, her determination to bring justice to light could easily be an end with journalism.

+ sociology. she'd probably enjoy studying the structure of society and understanding issues better. ( i don't like steph, i'm sorry otl so this isn't great. )

Cassandra Cain - Martial Arts & Linguistics. - her background is already deeply rooted in martial arts, so a major focusing on that area would make sense and be a breeze for her. her communication barriers are what would lead her to want to learn to read, speak and write on an effective level.

+ going the same route as dick, i feel like she'd major somewhere in dance and performing. it would be something expressive.

Damian Wayne - International Relations & Strategics. - damian would be very interested in global affairs and strategic combat. his upbringing would aid in his international relations, while other studies would align with his intellect and training. ( let's not pass up the fact he would have a minor relation to animals, medicine or plants. )

+ fine arts ( still with a double major or minor with something involving animals or plants. ) but, damian does have talent with art and i think he would enjoy the silence and time to delve into that outlet.

Duke Thomas - Electrical Engineering & Urban Studies. - duke's abilities would make it easy to work with concepts of engineering. his focus on protecting and improving, during daylight, aligns well with urban studies.

+ environmental science and, hear me out, music theory. i think duke deserves the ability to explore his creative side, as well.

[losergames]

Since we are technically getting blackmailed into joining the crew, does that mean MC will canonically learn to love this whole business and join the crew at the end, or can they go "This has been horrible and absolutely not an honour, gentlepeople. Peace out. ✌️" once all is said and done? 'Cause let me tell you, I'm a grudge-holding bitch, and I wouldn't be able to get over that shit anytime soon, even if I keep quiet and fake about it.

that's a good question! and it's something i've been thinking about a lot re the game as a whole.

i've been asked this before, and had other similar feedback along the lines of 'my mc wouldnt do this - they wouldn't commit a crime!', and my gut reaction is always why are you playing a crime game in the first place haha.

i don't want to deep your question TOO much but honestly you've sparked something i'm always thinking about. crime is a really interesting to write about, especially in IF, because of course crimes can be influenced by social status, environment etc but a lot of criminology includes rational choice theory and how people weigh up things before engaging in illegal acts. and of course we all know IF is all about choices, so it's interesting to see how the subject of crime battles with this format. (also not every one in the world is a rational thinker, and i am in no way a criminology or sociology expert so this is a discussion for another day - highly recommend reading about it though!)

canonically i'm trying my best to give the pc options on how they feel about the whole thing, but again it bangs on the idea of 'if the mc hates it here so much why not just leave'. this gets discussed a lot in episode three, which i am working on right now! but, at the end of the day it's a crime game and we're here to steal some cool cars teehee.

i've actually weighed a lot on the idea of mc peacing out at the end and i always end up in this loop of questions like was the story not worth it? was the mc's experiences not worth it? were the relationships not worth it?? but i think that the mc's time with the gang can mean something even if it's decided they don't want to continue with that life. it might even be bittersweet to leave if they find a connection with someone in the crew and still decide to leave.

this being said, it also messes with the idea of a sequel hahaha, which is no way set in stone, but there's always possibilities! plus i can always make it that the sequel only applies to mcs who wanted to continue. i think it'd be really fun to play as an established criminal rather than someone learning the ropes.

[crimson-and-clover-1717]

The inn - it is a bit of a shit-hole.

We all know the shack is a symbol of their relationship. Stede, ever the optimist, says it has good bones. He’s right. There’s a core strength to their relationship despite other concerns.

There are though some issues in their would-be inn that do need attention.

Broken Windows Theory - within the sociology of crime, broken windows are a metonym for wider issues. One broken window on a house often leads to more broken windows.

There are two broken windows within the shack. One Ed, the other Stede. Both must be fixed, and they are both responsible for both windows. If one is fixed and the other isn’t, the house isn’t secure. And if one is whole and the other broken, the other too will break in time. Windows are often representative of eyes as well. If windows are broken, reality is distorted, the picture unclear. Windows communicate ideas, and broken communication is no good to anyone. Mend your windows, boys.

The Madwoman in the Attic - Female Romantic writers made attics all about the health of the mind (I’m suggesting that has to be a potential attic else they’re living in a toolshed). Stede is a work-in-progress like any human being, though I do feel he needs to open up his attic secrets a bit more. Ed is still in recovery on a bigger scale, still working out what’s in his attic. He needs to learn not to jump at shadows. They’ve both got to sort that space out within themselves: keep it clean, sweep out the dirt, not store too much junk.

Either way, there’s two great holes in that roof that need fixing. If they don’t, they won’t weather life’s difficulties. A fixed roof helps create a warm, comfortable home just as healthy minds help sustain healthier relationships.

They will fix and mend the shack. They have to. And as they fix their home, they will fix their minds and communication. Because they have to.

And it will be a home, with an inglenook fireplace and chintzy furniture. They’ll add a new-build and a patio. Ed will grow vegetables for the inn, and Stede will grow a flower-garden for Ed.

And Ed will have a small petting-zoo out back. And Stede will talk Ed easily into letting him get a pony with kind eyes.

[sapphia]

From my post about how NZ’s far right wanted to abolish the human rights commission but instead installed a gay racist transphobe instead.

…The more [TERF] beliefs became incompatible with core feminism, and the more core feminism became interested in exploring gender, scientifically and sociologically, as an ever-changing construct informed by but not limited to base biology, and the more radfems became consumed with their “cause” of getting trans women out of their spaces and away from “LGB resources” (actual argument that used to get propagated), the further away TERFs pushed themselves from mainstream feminism until they found themselves on the same side as the groups to which they were once fundamentally opposed: anti-feminists, homophobes, conservative religious groups, anti-abortionists, and neo nazis. Thus, radical feminism is perhaps one of the few true demonstrations of the horseshoe theory, where a group became so radicalised it jumped the iron gap and travelled all around to the other end of the horseshoe.

TERFs were great boons to the cause, and came with a huge inbuilt advantage for the right: many of them are lesbians, giving them a rare LGBT ally and a demonstration of the ‘harm’ trans people were causing.

The reason why so many TERFs are lesbians is partly because of queer intracommunity politics, and partly because the academic and social roots of TERFism originate in the UK and from UK academic feminism, led by their universities and which was always particularly ‘anti-men’ in its approach, producing student movements back in the 80s and 90s that discouraged women from dating men, encouraging them to remain celibate or to date women instead, and it’s this separatist ideology where radical feminism finds its roots. If the concept sounds familiar, that’s because there is currently a South Korean feminist trend based on similar ideals making waves in the West.

In fundamental ways, radical feminists and the far right are well matched: they’ve always shared a particular lack of complex understanding of varying structures of oppression, as I remember very vividly from online discourse back before radical feminism devolved so much it fully segregated itself from the mainstream.

Radical feminists were obsessed with working out who had privilege over others, or who were less privileged, and this resulted in complicated and very flawed calculations of compounding oppressions. For example, does a gay black man have more or less privilege than a straight white woman?

Boiling this down to its essential premise of how much is a marginalisation “worth” is what aligns the mindset of radical feminists with that of the far right. Neither group truly includes a full variety of perspectives to contribute to demonstrating and explaining the complexities in the ways our society treats marginalised groups. Such transgressive thinking is antithetical to their worldview and contrary to the norms they are invested in enforcing.

You don’t have to be highly educated or culturally engaged to see the inherent issues of trying to so distinctly define people into categories. Common sense would also tell you different groups have different privileges, different concerns, and that these would reveal themselves in different ways and need addressing with different solutions. Both a black man and a woman may be disadvantaged in finding a job vs your average white man, but one would have more reason to be worried accepting a drink from a stranger in a bar while the other might be more worried being pulled over by the cops. These real-life concerns can’t be differentiated down into a finite value.

(Not that either of these situations aren’t a threat to the other individual — women have plenty of reasons to fear the power of cops, and gay men who are victims of hate crimes are regularly picked up in gay bars.)

Common sense also would make you wonder how much it matters. If you want to add up all the different ways people can be disenfranchised, you’ll soon end up with a checklist of -isms too long to be of any use and able to find ways to fit anyone inside at least one of them, which is sort of the whole point. And in checklisting everything you’ll still be managing to ignore any nuance and the entire concept of classism, probably.

This was roughly the outcome of discourse between the left and radical feminists: “Your math doesn’t work out.” And like a true ally of the right, the TERFs said, “Doesn’t matter, we believe it anyway.”

Comment

Like the right, radical feminists struggle to conceptualise and explain the effects of compounding marginalisation, usually because they themselves tend to be quite privileged. Radical feminism was born from those first generations of women able to attend universities, and their demographic reflects that. Most radical feminists (actual radical feminists and not just people jumping on the transphobia bandwagon) were white women, able-bodied, on the richer side of the poverty line — and in fact, the exclusion of black women in the UK from feminist studies in universities has become a recent subject of criticism from black feminists, as Western concepts of norms have been drastically affected by the narrowness of the perspective of the field, and so in this way, defining ‘male’ and ‘female’ as distinct categories with distinct traits particularly disenfranchises Black people and other people and cultures of colour who maintain different ideals and norms, who have different physical features, and who resultantly find themselves alienated from a conversation dominated by the white voice.

Although their views on how gender should be divided in society are transformative, TERF positions on gender themselves are regressive and conservative, leaning into anti-scientific understandings of sex, gender, and the wider world that have steadily put the movement more and more at odds with academia and also, sometimes, with reality. TERFs, both women and lesbians, are members of marginalised groups who feel their space is being encroached upon by people who, by their own rubric, are evaluated as more ‘privileged’ than they are, yet are seen as ‘more harshly oppressed’ by others within their community, threatening their status and position within established movements. Having quite literally been the subgroup of feminists attempting put a value on oppression in order to determine who is “most oppressed” or navigate oppression dynamics, anti-trans feminists were women who found their position threatened by new groups and by their transformative ideas around the structures upon which their shared oppression was based.

Thus, the response of TERFs became to deny trans people, and particularly trans women, a position within the rubric in an attempt to stymie the growth of a group and ideology who threatened their position, authority and, they felt, their identities.

Conservative branches of movements formed by attempting to uphold outdated, unscientific ideals were ever-branching offshoots in leftism at this time. In the 2010s, within the LGBT community, radical feminist lesbians found allyship with ‘Truscum’ — trans people who believed that only people who experience clinical levels of dysphoria can be transgender. This movement almost entirely died by the end of the decade, but those sparse people and ideals remaining from the movement too have become very valuable allies to the far right. Like detransitioners, these rare examples of trans people holding non-normative subversive beliefs around gender and transness are frequently referenced, presented and paraded by anti-science fringe groups like the Free Speech Union as examples that prove their points and that some minorities support their ideas.

Truscum groups too were a response to new ideas of gender and sex threatening established science, identities, and ‘power structures’. Truscum-identifying trans people were generally individuals with a personal belief in the gender binary, were deeply affected by self-directed transphobia, and invested in the medical model. Truscums upheld the medical model of transitioning (that would eventually leave them behind), the gender binary, and then positioned themselves as scientifically-verified “outsiders” relative to that binary, a position that became threatened by the growing self-identification of non-binary individuals who signified a shift in thinking within the trans community away from gender as immutable and based in science, and instead used science to further question the sociological underpinnings of our concepts of sex.

I explain this to give you a cause-and-effect, psychosocial explanation of how these reactionary movements and beliefs spring up within movements in an attempt to demonstrate where positions like Stephen Rainbow’s come from — people in a marginalised community who turn on what many of us would see as a fellow marginalised group and what some of us (and many more bigoted or distant perspectives) would see as the same marginalised group.

Lesbians and feminists were not the only groups to have conservative social elements that felt threatened by encroachments of new marginalised identities within their community of marginalisation; it was demonstrated by gay men as well, just more bluntly and without them really forming an identity or body of academia or psuedoscience around their discomfort. But it’s through this ostracisation from their own communities caused by their unfavourable perception of, and then bigotry towards, new-entrant groups threatening the status quo, that groups like TERFs and gay men like Stephen Rainbow are pushed towards the radical right.

I also explain this to so you can get a sense for the categorical thinking that underpins these shared philosophies, and the way both groups put ‘value’ on these distinct categories of marginalisation. Radical feminists do put value on oppression in pretty much the exact way the right believe the mainstream left put such value on oppressions, and this has morphed into TERF ideas of status that the right think dominate left-wing thought.

The right count the monetary value of affirmative action initiatives and reparations, note the attentiveness of the public to marginalised issues, confuse the raising of diverse voices with the raising of status, and hold that the effects of these actions are a sort of ‘privilege’. The actual reasons behind these groups getting different levels of money and attention at different times is complex and much more to do with equity or recompense than value, but in dismissing this complexity, the right are attempting to ‘solve’ an unsolvable equation asking which marginalisation is worth what value to the left, while using entirely the wrong variables.

Because the far right are very strong believers in the value these marginalised identities must hold, ACT see appointing a gay human rights commissioner as “justifying” itself through marginalisation “points”, expecting him to be more acceptable or palatable to the left and to the public. They believe his oppressions qualify him or make him suitable, or somehow shield him from scrutiny, and they believe they can select by marginalisation in the same way Clarence Thomas was a Black Republican placed on the Supreme Court. They fail to recognise the way the majority of the LGBT community has embraced and incorporated the social, scientific, and gender theory behind current demographics and understandings of trans people and that, for the vast majority of the LGBT community, this is a point of unity and understanding between groups and identities.

Right now, gay men are frequently targeted by homophobic hate crimes, but that is not necessarily going to make them any more grateful to see an anti-trans gay man as Human Rights Commissioner because while it doesn’t affect his ability to advocate for gay men per se, his advocacy for queer rights ad a whole is likely to be compromised due to not truly sharing the same perspective as the community he supposedly serves.

This will not stop some conservative, privileged gay men from viewing any attempts at Rainbow’s removal as further alienation from their own community by “the left”. Rainbow’s placement in this position is a victory for the right either way.

In appointing Rainbow, ACT entirely miss the irony of what they are doing; they are the ones appointing people to positions entirely because of identity. The left, the wider population even, genuinely see the value and perspective different relevant minority groups can bring to these positions, and that is the basis for which minority identities can “favour” applicants for such roles. It is the right who have themselves boiled someone down to what “label” they can bring the role in order to better disguise their corrupt, bigoted appointment implicitly placed to further their race war.

Who’s playing identity politics NOW, Seymour?

[miwhotep]

MILVERTON AND DEVIANCY SOCIOLOGY

This was originally an additional reblog meta I did half a year ago to this amazing post regarding Moriarty the Patriot and deviancy sociology but I decided to post it on my own too (because I am way too obsessed with the topic and I wanted to link the analysis about it among my pinned posts.)

I am a master's degree sociologist and my specialization is deviancy sociology. Deviancy sociology studies deviant behaviours - for example, alcoholism, drug use, crimes - and the reasons behind them. Why people turn into criminals is a big part of the field so Milverton is obviously especially intriguing to me. I actually chose my specialization because I found Milverton's speech on society and evil to be really interesting and decided to get into the topic more. Milverton in Chapter 37 talks about how crimes are entirely defined by the values/morals/laws of society which means what is considered to be a crime is different for the different cultures. This is basically the main thought behind deviancy sociology.

If we want to talk about why and how people gets criminalized in society Moriarty the Patriot-wise, Milverton can easily end up in focus as a villain whose main villainous activity is blackmailing people into committing crimes. We can see it three different times how he tempted people to sin - all during the White Knight arc. I will analyze these occassions by the theories of deviancy sociology.

OFFICER BART FOWLER

The first occasion was blackmailing one of the police guards, Officer Bart Fowler into killing the man who tried to assassinate Whiteley. It was a really easy blackmail: Fowler's mother was ill and he didn't have enough money to cover the medical bills - Milverton offered him 500 pounds for killing the assassin. Fowler agreed to the deal (and ended up getting murdered, too, after it).

This situation is a clear case of Merton's strain theory deriving from Durkheim's anomie theory - anomie is a state where the norms of society are weak/unclear. Merton developed this theory further as his own strain theory: anomie is a state where you don't have the means to achieve the goals of society and this causes strain what leads to deviancy. Phrasing it easier, you lack something what would be necessary to lead a - by society's view - standard life. For example, money.

Officer Fowler didn't have enough money to cover his mother's bills and was surely frustrated (the strain is already there) and Milverton took advantage of his frustration, conflicting his morals with the high amount of money he offered - and the officer murdered the assassin.

STURRIDGE

The second occassion was another officer, Sturridge who got appointed to be Whiteley's bodyguard by Whiteley himself. Whiteley had a good grasp about the people's personalities and morals (he called it a hunch) - he chose Sturridge because he was clearly a trustworthy and reliable person. To corrupt him, Milverton needed to drag him into a situation first what could make him extremely frustrated, what could make him panic and unable to think his situation through - he used Sturridge's weak point, his family and he kidnapped and blackmailed Sturridge with them: he either kills Whiteley's family or his family will get killed. Sturridge fell for the blackmail and murdered Whiteley's family.

This is the strain theory once again but instead of Merton's theory where the criminal activity involved with financial gain, let's move to the general strain theory of Robert Agnew. In Agnew's opinion, strain causes negative emotional responses and if people doesn't have a non-criminal way to cope with these negative emotions, they will cope with crime. Agnew's strain theory lists three causes of strain: loss of positive stimuli (pl. family's death), presentation of negative stimuli (assaults) or the inability to reach the desired goal.

In Sturridge's case, we can talk about option two: presentation of negative stimuli. Milverton needed to create the strain first - Sturridge was shown to be a morally good person at the start of the story - with kidnapping Sturridge's family and Sturridge was unable to cope with the negative emotions coming from this: the extremity of the situation dragged him into an extreme action - murdering an entire family in hope that he can get his own family back.

ADAM WHITELEY

The third occassion was Whiteley himself and turning him into a criminal was Milverton's goal the entire time - he was hired by the House of Lords to get Whiteley out of the way and due to how much he enjoys making the good-hearted into evil and ruining people's reputation, he chose to make him a criminal (a method which came in handy after Whiteley getting hold of documents he tried to blackmail the House of Lords with - to neutralize this threat, Milverton needed to make Whiteley to be a person the public wouldn't trust anymore). Important to note, based on what his bodyguard and what his secretary, Ruskin said, the way Milverton made Whiteley to commit a crime is Milverton's usual method of tempting people to sin so he was sure about the outcome. He blackmailed Sturridge to murder Whiteley's family and confess his crime to Whiteley with offering him a knife he can kill him with. Whiteley first refused to kill Sturridge... then, remembering his brother, he couldn't hold back anymore and murdered him.

This is another example of Agnew's strain theory and the cause of the strain is option one - loss of positive stimuli, aka the death of Whiteley's family. Whiteley was a selfless man, a true hero at the start - the pure good in the contrary to Milverton's pure evil. Making Whiteley commit a murder and creating the strain what led to it was Milverton's most complicate plan with first investigating Whiteley's circumstances, finding his weak point and the way how that weak point can get exploited (through another person' Sturridge's weak point). Milverton knew that Whiteley was already stressed after the assassination and he chose bodyguards for himself. The articles in the newspapers were another mean to increase Whiteley's stress. (The Moriarties' test in the park could also cause Whiteley frustration - and they were the ones who started conflicting his morals with handing him blackmail material about the House of Lords.) Milverton talked about putting suspicion into Whiteley before making him murdering someone - this was why the murdered Officer Fowler's body was placed where the police could find it. First, to put some distrust into Whiteley againts the police - at this point, Whiteley knew that Fowler was the one who got blackmailed into murdering the assassin, so even the police can be bribed he got his bodyguards from. Second, to let Whiteley know someone as well-versed in psychology as him is after him to stress Whiteley even more and get him to act inmediately - this happens, since after this event, Whiteley chose to start negotiations with the blackmail materials. When Whiteley found that Sturridge murdered his family, the suspicion what Milverton planted into him, awakened: he started doubting Sturridge's reasons for the murder and it undeniably made committing the murder for him easier - but the main reason behind his crime was that he was unable to cope with his family being murdered otherwise.

A THEORY REGARDING MILVERTON'S EVIL

At the end of this analysis, I really want to add the deviancy sociology of Milverton as a criminal himself. We don't know how he became evil - but he has white hair despite not being old enough to it and a strong trauma can turn someone's hair white. The only thing we know about his background that he is not a noble and he mentions that he built up his companies himself (most likely with blackmail). Another reason why Milverton is so sure about his method of making people commit a crime with getting them through a trauma first can be because this happened to him as well. The cause of Milverton's evil might be found in Agnew's strain theory as well: unable to cope with the negative emotions otherwise. Dragging here addiction theories, too - like alcohol functions as a substitution for those who are not satisfied with their lives (this connects to Merton's theory on the means and goals of society), tempting people to sin can be Milverton's very own substitution what can give him the pleasure he lacks in his life. I'm sure Milverton is actually really unhappy - but he is so damaged that he is unable to realize it anymore.

[beckiboos]

I feel like tumblr is like a sociological experiment

Like in theory it should be the worst place in the internet for trolling, hates crimes and worst possible takes possible and wild WILD misinformation. We all have complete anonymity here so should be the most consequence free place to be toxic as all hell (sure we do have some we aren’t immune) yet compared to sites with algorithms and your name and face plastered next to your hates crimes we have… regulated ourselves? Compared to others sites that are regulated for them we are somehow less toxic? Theres unwritten rules in chatting, topics of conversation on this site on the daily is how to be considerate to others and being open minded. Also trying to teach each other to site your sources, not spread misinformation. We are always talking about how to make this community better for everyone. All the time.

Like… the most anonymous social media site is the one learning the self control and consideration for others? In this economy?

It’s almost as if the algorithms is creating more intolerance and hate because it’s stopping what’s people do naturally in large groups

Form and be a part of a community

[so-what-then]

Video essays like this about the Depp-Heard case are why I don't neatly align with "leftists": they are more interested in pigeon-holing every little thing into their pat sociological theories than they are in just acknowledging the messy truth. Hence the reason folks like this always talk about the social media reaction to the Depp-Heard trial and/or generalized statistics about domestic violence. Anything but the empirical facts.

Same thing happened during covid. Instead of acknowledging violent anti-Asian crimes and working through the complexity of those facts, leftists just outright denied it was happening because it would've inconvenienced their prison abolition beliefs.

Social science theories are a necessary supplement/counterweight to things that raw data can't tell us. Where leftists shoot themselves in the foot is when they overextend those theories to make empirical claims about very specific things that simply aren't true.

[techramonic]

haiiiii i just discovered your blog and i think you have an amazing grasp on human psychology and i really admire that :D . i wanted to ask if theres any reading you would recommend to someone; any articles or poems or books or essays in particular that you think give a deeper understanding of humanity?

Hello! Thank you, I appreciate this compliment so much. Yes, of course. Most of the books I read tackle sociology, but they do have psychological aspects that allow better understanding of humanity. I haven't fully finished the books below but so far, these are the ones that impacted me the most. I also included some theories that I studied last year for my sociology class that gave me a better understanding of some topics that fall under humanities.

BOOKS

Suicide by Émile Durkheim

The Sociological Imagination by C. Wright Mills

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Games People Play Eric Bern

Why Kids Kill by Peter Langman

Some People Need Killing by Patricia Evangelista 

The Social Construction of Reality by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann

THEORIES

Sigmund Freud's 3 Levels of Consciousness and ID, Ego, and Superego

Patriacia Hill Collins and Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw's Intersectionality

Martin Heidegger's hermeneutic phenomenology

Slavoj Žižek's philosophy on Ideology

[sunderedandundone]

In which UrSkeks are actually very dramatic

So fam, I’ve been working really hard on the Twice-Nine, and it’s winding up being less of a survey of their crimes against UrSkekdom than it is a survey of UrSkekdom’s crimes against them. XD

SoSu the Philosopher: Was an incredibly psychically-strong and headstrong (probably not unrelated) young UrSkek whose passions often got the better of them, and while this was generally more disruptive than harmful, as we know, UrSkek society tends to consider disruption itself a form of harm. So at an unconscionably young age, they were forced to choose between Exile and Purgation (the editing of their personality and erasure of ‘problem’ memories), and while the therapy certainly seemed to have took, it must not’ve took that well, because they continued over their career (which was in all other aspects illustrious) to maintain a suspect interest in the reconciliation of their society with its discontents, which theories eventually developed into their infamous Heresy…and the Heresy itself committed the incredibly awful crime of proving attractive to a number of UrSkeks, particularly the young ones. Whom SoSu was accused of deliberately corrupting. Oops.

ZokZah the Presbyter: Their ‘crime’ was coming out of the Chorion (the UrSkek-spawning chamber, basically) with a natural tendency toward sadism [with a touch of masochism included] -- which a more tolerant society might have been able to help them better sublimate into their spiritual work, and/or channel into safe/sane/consensual activities; but Homeworld was not that society. As a result, their entire life story was one of ice-cold self-repression and flawless hypocrisy. They thought the Heresy might be their compassionate answer at long last. And it might have been, but obviously we can’t have that.

SilSol the Musician: Wasn’t spawned with anything especially wrong with them, except for being astonishingly talented which arguably is a bit of a flaw; but somewhere along the way they twigged to the fact that their perfect classless harmonious society that totally didn’t have power relations, totally DID have them. So they started studying this interestingly contradictory phenomenon the way most very intelligent people would have, with comparative sociology, which unfortunately involved a lot of consumption of ::whispers:: foreign cultural material from more primitive societies. And while yes we do study primitive societies, we’re not supposed to do it like THAT, and we’re definitely not supposed to put stuff we’re learning from them about how to influence and persuade other people into PRACTICE. And Crystal itself help you if you turn out to be good at it…even when you’re doing it for what you consider the best cause ever, like OH SAY A REVOLUTIONARY HERESY. (SilSol also had quite a fan base as a composer and performing artist, which did kind of the opposite of helping their case when trial time rolled around.)

GraGoh the Explorer: Was an unfortunate case of incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and Crystal knows the Eldest did what they could. When the young former Rigger from the outer colonies proved to be too rough-hewn and jostling for the refined precincts of Homeworld (they thought practical jokes were actually funny, for one thing), the Council decided to spare the rod and try to educate them in the graces by sending them to the Academy, where they were supposed to finally learn to be a proper UrSkek. And what did they learn instead? Heresy! Honestly. They didn’t even try to resist the slide into depravity; indeed, quite the contrary, they decided to become one of SoSu’s most prominent and enthusiastic disciples. So really, what else was there to do?

AyukAmaj and EktUtt: Fell in love. This may seem fearfully pedestrian to the savage likes of the Gelfling (and let’s not even talk humans), but in UrSkek society this is both an incredibly alien, hard-to-imagine aberration, and a crime against the ironclad obligation to love all one’s fellow UrSkeks fairly and equally. Like…absolutely fairly and equally. No matter what. No playing favorites. Yes OF COURSE love and friendship are high virtues among UrSkek, but again -- just not like -- that. What do you two think you’re doing, seriously, you don’t even have physical bodies to conventionally sin with but I guess where there’s a will, etc?

NaNol the Botanist: Was a spy. Not that they knew they were a spy, mind: UrSkeks don’t have spies, and if they did have them, what they were doing would not be spying. In fact the Botanist’s whole problem was they didn’t have any actual name or conceptual box to put the thing in that a few naughty Eldest were making them do -- especially to the plant-stored planetary-memory records they were supposed to be nurturing and protecting. I mean, it must be all right somehow, because it was Eldest asking; but then why did it have to be such a secret; but then why was it even their business, since it was records about stuff that happened eons before anyone they knew was spawned; but then if it didn’t really matter because it was all so long ago, why were they still being asked to -- **melts into quiet gibbering noises** But in any case…such a pity that it was their fellow Heretics that they eventually decided to confess their nameless burning sins to. More normal UrSkeks would have known enough to just shut up and do what they were told.

HakHom the Architect and YiYa the Builder: Didn’t know that the technical term for what they were was frenemies; they thought they were just friends. Who competed for the same non-virtual architectural gigs, which HakHom just happened to win more often than YiYa, which was also why HakHom ended up outranking YiYa. But of course there was never any trouble putting that behind them when it came time for them to work together hand-in-glove on the winning projects; Homeworld is a place of harmony after all, with architecture being one of a very, very few fields where there even was still anything resembling competition. Nor did YiYa carry any grudges against HakHom for dragging them out to these crazy salons and forums this weird Professor SoSu kept holding. As a friend, they were simply looking out for their friend’s mental and spiritual cultivation, and after all these were merely dialogues about how everyone, even the most erring UrSkek, could better be brought back to the bosom of the Crystal and the collective soul of their people through the transforming power of compassion and honesty. What was there to object to? And later, when the Eldest were investigating because apparently there was something to object to -- and they needed someone to infiltrate and report on the increasingly worryingly Heretical gatherings -- who would blame YiYa for assisting them with that high-minded work? Certainly not HakHom, who understood and deeply regretted their grievous sin in doing…well, there must have been something terribly wrong with the whole thing. Even if Professor SoSu did have both a sterling reputation and the high permissions as a Councilmember needed to access the Crystal for experimental rites if they deemed fit! And just because even after giving the Council all that help, YiYa still found themselves exiled right alongside all the unrepentant criminals, that was no reason to take out any frustrations on their old partner, who hadn’t exactly been in control of the proceedings either after all. Surely the Eldest had their good reasons…so…yeah. Definitely nothing there for either the Architect or the Builder to hold against one another in the immediate aftermath of their souls being torn asunder to set all the Twice-Nine’s ids free.

LachSen the Gnostic: Was an ex-cultist. No, I’m not joking. Although they’re scattered and vanishingly few, there are places even yet on Homeworld where some UrSkeks practice Heresies in the much more old-fashioned sense -- that is to say, disapproved spiritual rites and disciplines, which are generally holdovers from pre-Ascension cultures. Young LachSen’s group was no exception: indeed, it dated from that supremely turbulent era just pre-Ascension, when some UrSkeks fervently believed that through the practice of radical enough asceticism and self-lessness, their kind could attain a permanent ecstatic group consciousness, such as they had heard group minds from other worlds speak of with such reverence and serenity. (No wonder SkekLach wasn’t so keen on the Ascendancy…) This belief turned out to be more a denial of the UrSkeks’ own nature than even the ancestors of the Council of Eldest could tolerate. But LachSen’s group still stubbornly clung to this more-or-less impossible ideal, and to an ancient sub-Crystal of their own which gave barely enough energy for them to subsist on; but since privation was what they craved, that was fine. As they matured, LachSen found themselves questioning the group’s ways and eventually ran far away to Crystalgate City on the great peninsula, blending in with the other UrSkeks as best they could. But it was more difficult than they could ever have imagined, blending in with people from so different a worldview -- and they remained always torn in their feelings toward their old kin, their penitent, self-denying monkish side and their newly-discovered love of plenty and peace among the Crystalgaters. Thus, they were prime and easy ‘prey’ for a new Heresy, particularly one that claimed to embrace the lost and lonely, even the strangest of Deviancies…

ShodYod the Mathematician: TBD

SaSan the Marine Biologist: TBD. I’m not sure that Heresy was something she came into in the course of her work. She’s just such a strong personality at base. I expect her to be tricky.

VarMa the Seal-Bearer: TBD, but however they came to it, they definitely they would have been SoSu’s #1 fan and most loyal acolyte.

MalVa the Guide: TBD, although they would have been exposed to a lot of ‘foreign ideas’ in the course of their work, so that may be how they first got into trouble. :-) I have a tiny inkling they may even have been a bit of an anti-colonialist, which would be a problem for other UrSkeks even though other UrSkeks will swear up and down that they’re not even sort of colonialists. ;oP

TekTih the Inventor: TBD. TekTih was an Inventor, which kind of by definition meant they were a bit more ‘interferey’ than the average UrSkek, but that in itself isn’t quite enough to push a sib into Heresy, so I’m going to have to think about it some more.

UngIm the Restorer: TBD. However, there wouldn’t be much call for actual restoring work on other UrSkeks on Homeworld, the species having long since left death, disease and war behind. Therefore, they were likely either more of a veterinarian, or else had a history of traveling around on colony worlds, where again as noted, an UrSkek can run not only into disturbing concepts, but into disturbing events of the sort that flesh-and-blood beings are all too easily prey to. Which provides restoring work, of course, but not only that.

OkAc the Scholar: TBD, though it’s harder to think of places a Scholar couldn’t get themselves into doctrinal trouble than places they could. XD

LiLii: TBD. But – yanno – I mean, it’s LiLii. I have a feeling that like GraGoh, they may just have an unfortunate habit of annoying others, particularly with blurted-out inconvenient truths, and certainly they had a mischievous turn for an UrSkek.