#some could argue that it doesnt need to have a major impact but for that moon bastard it absolutely should | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

shkspr · 3 years ago

Note

hi. on your post where you may or may not have ended on 'moffat is either your angel or your devil' did you have maybe an elaboration on that somewhere that i could possibly hear about. i'm very much a capaldi era stan and i've never tried to defend the matt smith era even though it had delightful moments sometimes so i wonder where that puts me. i'd love to hear your perspective on moffat as a person with your political perspective. -nicole

hi ok sorry i took so long to respond to this but i dont think you know how LOADED this question is for me but i am so happy to elaborate on that for you. first a few grains of salt to flavor your understanding of the whole situation: a. im unfairly biased against moffat bc im a davies stan and a tennant stan; b. i still very much enjoy and appreciate moffat era who for many reasons; and c. i hate moffat on a personal level far more than i could ever hate his work.

the thing is that its all always gonna be a bit mixed up bc i have to say a bunch of seemingly contradictory things in a row. for instance, a few moffat episodes are some of my absolute favorites of the rtd era, AND the show went way downhill when moffat took over, AND the really good episodes he wrote during the rtd era contained the seeds of his destruction.

like i made that post about the empty child/the doctor dances and it holds true for blink and thats about it bc the girl in the fireplace and silence in the library/forest of the dead are good but not nearly on the same level, and despite the fact that i like them at least nominally, they are also great examples of everything i hate about moffat and how he approached dw as a whole.

basically. doctor who is about people. there are many things about moffats tenure as showrunner that i think are a step up from rtd era who! actual gay people, for one! but i think that can likely be attributed mostly to an evolving Society as opposed to something inherent to him and his work, seeing as rtd is literally gay, and the existence of queer characters in moffats work doesnt mean the existence of good queer characters (ill give him bill but thats it!)

i have a few Primary Grievances with moffat and how he ran dw. all of them are things that got better with capaldi, but didnt go away. they are as follows:

moffat projects his own god complex onto the doctor

rtd era who had a doctor with a god complex. you cant ever be the doctor and not have a god complex. the problem with moffats era specifically is that the god complex was constant and unrepentant and was seen as a fundamental personality trait of the doctor rather than a demon he has to fight. he has the Momence where you feel bad for him, the Momence where he shows his humility or whatever and youre reminded that he doesnt want to be the lonely god, but those are just. moments. in a story where the doctor thinks hes the main character. rtd era doctor was aware that he wasnt the main character. he had to be an authority sometimes and he had to be the loner and he had to be sad about it, but he ultimately understood that he was expendable in a narrative sense.

this is how you get lines like “were the thin fat gay married anglican marines, why would we need names as well?” from the same show that gave you the gut punch moment at the end of midnight when they realize that nobody asked the hostess for her name. and on the one hand, thats a small sticking point, but on the other hand, its just one small example of the simple disregard that moffat has for humanity.

incidentally, this is a huge part of why sherlock sucked so bad: moffats main characters are special bc theyre so much bigger and better than all the normal people, and thats his downfall as a showrunner. he thinks that his audience wants fucking sheldon cooper when what they want is people.

like, ok. think of how many fantastic rtd era eps are based in the scenario “what if the doctor wasnt there? what if he was just out of commission for a bit?” and how those eps are the heart of the show!! bc theyre about people being people!! the thing is that all of the rtd era companions would have died for the doctor but he understood and the story understood that it wasnt about him.

this is like. nine sending rose home to save her life and sacrifice his own vs clara literally metaphysically entwining her existence w the doctor. ten also sending rose with her family to save her life vs river being raised from infancy to be obsessed w the doctor and then falling in love w him. martha leaving bc she values herself enough to make that decision vs amy being treated like a piece of meat.

and this is simultaneously a great callback to when i said that moffats episodes during the rtd era sometimes had the same problems as his show running (bc girl in the fireplace reeks of this), and a great segue into the next grievance.

moffat hates women

he hates women so fucking much. g-d, does steven moffat ever hate women. holy shit, he hates women. especially normal human women who prioritize their normal human lives on an equal or higher level than the doctor. moffat hated rose bc she wasnt special by his standards. the empty child/the doctor dances is the nicest he ever treated her, and she really didnt do much in those eps beyond a fuck ton of flirting.

girl in the fireplace is another shining example of this. youve got rose (who once again has another man to keep her busy, bc moffat doesnt think shes good enough for the doctor) sidelined for no reason only to be saved by the doctor at the last second or whatever. and then youve got reinette, who is pretty and powerful and special!

its just. moffat thinks that the doctor is as shallow and selfish as he is. thats why he thinks the doctor would stay in one place with reinette and not with rose. bc moffat is shallow and sees himself in the doctor and doesnt think he should have to settle for someone boring and normal.

not to mention rose met the doctor as an adult and chose to stay with him whereas reinette is. hm. introduced to the doctor as a child and grows up obsessed with him.

does that sound familiar? it should! bc it is also true of amy and river. and all of them are treated as viable romantic pairings. bc the only women who deserve the doctor are the ones whose entire existence revolves around him. which includes clara as well.

genuinely i think that at least on some level, not even necessarily consciously, that bill was a lesbian in part bc capaldi was too old to appeal to mainstream shippers. like twelve/clara is still a thing but not as universally appealing as eleven/clara but i am just spitballing. but i think they weighed the pros and cons of appealing to the woke crowd over the het shippers and found that gay companion was more profitable. anyway the point is to segue into the next point, which is that moffat hates permanent consequences.

moffat hates permanent consequences

steven moffat does not know how to kill a character. honestly it feels like hes doing it on purpose after a certain point, like he knows he has this habit and hes trying to riff on it to meme his own shit, but it doesnt work. it isnt funny and it isnt harmless, its bad writing.

the end of the doctor dances is so poignant and so meaningful and so fucking good bc its just this once! everybody lives, just this once! and then he does p much the same thing in forest of the dead - this one i could forgive, bc i do think that preserving those peoples consciousnesses did something for the doctor as a character, it wasnt completely meaningless. but everything after that kinda was.

rory died so many times its like. get a hobby lol. amy died at least once iirc but it was all a dream or something. clara died and was erased from the doctors memory. river was in prison and also died. bill? died. all of them sugarcoated or undone or ignored by the narrative to the point of having effectively no impact on the story. the point of a major character death is that its supposed to have a point. and you could argue that a piece of art could be making a point with a pointless death, ie. to put perspective on it and remind you that bad shit just happens, but with moffat the underlying message is always “i can do whatever i want, nothing is permanent or has lasting impact ever.”

basically, with moffat, tragedy exists to be undone. and this was a really brilliant, really wonderful thing in the doctor dances specifically bc it was the doctor clearly having seen his fair share of tragedy that couldnt be helped, now looking on his One Win with pride and delight bc he doesnt get wins like this! and then moffat proceeded to give him the same win over and over and over and over. nobody is ever dead. nobody is ever unable to be saved. and if they are, really truly dead and/or gone, then thats okay bc moffat has decided that [insert mitigating factor here]*

*the mitigating factor is usually some sort of computerized database of souls.

i can hear the moffat stans falling over themselves to remind me that amy and rory definitely died, and they did - after a long and happy life together, they died of old age. i dont consider that a character death any more than any other character choosing to permanently leave the tardis.

and its not just character deaths either, its like, everything. the destruction of gallifrey? never mind lol! character development? scrapped! the same episode four times? lets give it a fifth try and hope nobody notices. bc he doesnt know how to not make the doctor either an omnipotent savior or a self-pitying failure.

it is in nature of doctor who, i believe, for the doctor to win most of the time. like, it wouldnt be a very good show if he didnt win most of the time. but it also wouldnt be a very good show if he won all of the time. my point is that moffats doctor wins too often, and when he doesnt win, it feels empty and hollow rather than genuinely humbling, and you know hes not gonna grow from it pretty much at all.

so like. again, i like all of doctor who i enjoy all of it very much. i just think that steven moffat is a bad show runner and a decent writer at times. and it is frustrating. and im not here to convince or convert anyone im just living my truth. thank you for listening.

#sorry if this is repetitive or makes no sense or if i got some details of the show wrong #i simply couldnt be bothered to put too much effort into this post #lest it become a research paper and take me several weeks to answer #anyway thats all my opinions #dw #ok to rb

210 notes · View notes

sorvns · 6 years ago

Text

daringhq i love youuuuuuuuuuuu.. step back y’all im bouta come thru with the superior intro sorry ya obvs cant relate!! jk jk wassup lads im urayai ( or ya can call me uri for short idc ), im 18, she/her, and from bumfuck nowhere usa! y’all already know a hoe cant write an intro but im here anyway so what goes on?

basic details

park jimin, cismale, he/him. — you know soren byeon, don’t you? he’s the twenty-one year old junior who’s studying kinesiology and living in thayer hall. they used to be addie’s party buddy, but now they have been ignoring the fact that she’s gone and have focused on moving forward instead of grieving.

birthday? april 1st. why? lifes a joke!

full sleeve on his right arm that ends in a rose covering his hand with a chest piece currently in progress

ears and nose pierced but he doesnt always rock the nose

emotionally stable? no. financially stable? also no.

loves the finer things in life but can barely afford the free breadsticks at olive garden no tea no shade just fax

hes a snake who loves that 5 finger discount!

selfish but also too invested in people he cares for

impatient af like.. chile

middle child ya he was dealt only the best cards in life

loves space and conspiracy theories #wow so original rite..

gets rlly obsessive over projects hes def a perfectionist

plays soccer, hockey, and baseball and is here on an athletic scholarship

bisexual / bitter / bilingual

ADAMANT — stubborn as shiiitttttt like fr.. once he sets his mind on sumn and believes hes completely right cant be wrong then theres no changin his mind! at all! even if he realizes later that he was wrong he’d rather lower himself into the grave than admit it. he’ll also argue with you til the ends of the earth until the bitch literally dont have vocal chords anymore!

CONFIDENT — i aint consider him the bellwether for no reason. he always carries himself with confidence which he gets from wearin nice clothes and accessories plus always bein well groomed ig? like his hair is always done, not a speck of dirt on his shoes, that type of shit. even when his hairs messy it was done that way he would never go outside lookin like a wreck!

IMPETUOUS — this bitch reckless af! he does things to benefit himself and only himself most of the time without taking into consideration other peoples feelings or how it might impact them. thats not to say that he doesnt regret it after but lbr he normally? doesnt? see: selfish. hes just tryna get ahead tryna get that coin tryna get him sum gucci slides!

PETULANT — sulky, bad-tempered, etc is soren thru and thru! and he aint afraid to take everyone down with him either. hes def the type to stir up drama ngl but he’ll back it up too and he aint afraid to throw hands! hes been in his fair share of fights and tbh now that hes twenty-one and his ass is allowed in bars y’all been knew hes been in more than one bar fight with tons to come!

background rundown

soren grew up in a middle class family with an older brother and younger sister in boston where his mom was a bank teller and his dad was a professor at boston u.

he has two nephews and a niece who are all children of his older brother and he rlly loves them more than ANYTHING!

he has a super strained relationship with his father.. he was hardly around when the kids were growing up and he was verbally abusive to everyone in the household besides sorens younger sister.

on the other side he has a great relationship with his mom who loves to paint and always encouraged the kids to pick up something creative as well. her husband didnt agree tho and made her quit in order to focus solely on her job and bein a housewife.

as they got older the fights started becoming worse and worse until they finally decided to divorce when soren was fifteen. by that point tho everything that his father said was ingrained in his head so he continued livin his life tryna please him.

he was def more interested in art like his mother but he pushed that desire aside to excel in athletics instead. he was really into hockey and soccer in particular so he became the best he could at both of them until he graduated and was offered numerous sports scholarships.

thats how he ended up at audeo university majoring in kinesiology which is the study of the mechanics of body movements.

its also where he fully started his life of partying, drugs, alcohol, and sex using all of them as coping mechanisms to fill the void.

hes the type of person who loves affection, loves bein the center of attention, and thats a recipe for disaster especially when it comes to actual committed relationships.

because of the stress in his life he mostly started doin cocaine to keep his energy up when he hadnt had any sleep and was runnin on zero but he does experiment with many others. that one is just his drug of choice ig.

because of his hectic schedule he doesnt have time for a job which means money is.. scarce so he started takin money from peeps in order for him to send them nudes or wtvr they wanted thru snapchat for extra money but SHUT this is one of his secrets so not everyone can know lmao!

but the truth of the matter is that while he loves playin soccer and sports in general he just.. doesnt really want to anymore and he doesnt want his world to revolve around it. he wants to move to paris and become an artist but he also still has that deep-rooted need to impress his father and prove him wrong so fuq him ig!

other shit

i dont have like a set list of plots cause i suck but i’m truly down for whatever!! throw anything at me and i’ll most likely fill it! i’m especially into angst but i’d love some ride or dies, party buddies, adventure buddies, someone who goes out to bars with him and does some drunk karaoke, fwb.. literally anything! this bitch loves to plot but shes also bad at it lmao so just smash that heart if you want me to hit ya up or feel free to come to me instead!!

#daringintro #verbal abuse tw #drug use tw #literally wtf is this lmaooooo #�� ღ —— ┊ filed under : out of character. ❞

5 notes · View notes

neonstatic · 6 years ago

Text

(transcripted convo)

i’m reposting a discussion i had w a terf. i previously posted screenshots but she messaged me and said she didn’t want her url or avatar displayed. editing the pics to post them again was hell so i’m posting a script instead (i learned my lesson tumblr: you suck). if anyone ends up finding the convo and thus the redacted speaker... idc. this is a public website and we technically had this convo in public - the notes of a post aren’t private spaces afaik. i’m posting this as proof that sometimes calmly reasoning with ppl lead to nothing. (i know anyone could say the same but lmao leave me alone.)

tw for transphobia/transmisogyny

[redacted] (speaking to a transmasc discourser about the "woman path"): Ok let me explain what I mean :) if your experience was totally different then thats fine :) im 24 and when I was little i was encouraged to play with dolls and learn 'motherly things' like playing with baby dolls while my brother played with toy trucks. There was a lot of pressure at school to wear dresses, and be sweet and polite. @[transmasc discourser] then of course, learning to deal with periods and the shame and taboo around them. Removing body hair because its considered unladylike. Etc

@[transmasc discourser] have you had none of those experiences?

neonbaebae: these are all common experiences for women bc of gender roles/stereotypes but none of that defines womanhood as an identity.

[redacted]: completely agree they are gender roles. But menstruation isnt a gender role. Its a frustrating part of being female. But that said, what IS womanhood then?

(rest under cut)

neonbaebae: menstruation is a biological function that is in no way exclusive to female bodies. remember intersex ppl, who come in all forms and shapes. women aren't all the same and it's likewise for men. there are intersex women who don't fit all the criteria for being "female" yet still identify as women. there is a distinction to make between womanhood as an experience and womanhood as an identity.

the woman experience is what you've described. the woman identity is feeling like one, e.g.: liking female-coded clothes, makeup, hairstyles, feeling comfortable in the societal role of being a woman. identity is essentially abt self perception most of the time

[redacted]: intersex is unique and I respect that not all womens bodies are the same. Intersexuality is complex but it doesnt represent the majority of biological women. I dont have a strong baclground in intersex knowledge so I'm certainly not gonna speak on behalf of intersex women. so if identity is self perception (which I completely agree with) how can a biological man self perceive his femaleness.if he's never experienced it?

neonbaebae: trans women never identify with being male and all in entails. and they can see, thru watching women counterparts and how they interact with the world around them, that they id more w the idea of womanhood and much less w the idea of manhood. it's esp why dysphoria often settles around puberty bc the dissonance manifests physically and that's harder to handle

[redacted]: but what youre talking about is what trans women see women do. If thats what someone aspires to, its a very basic and narrow understanding of what womanhood is. Its only what they see. And people are far more complex than this. Does a biological male aspire to periods stigma, beauty conformity and lesser social stance in the world? Or do they aspire to femininity? Something many biological women dont feel comfortable with

neonbaebae: womanhood as an identity is a feeling that is strengthened by a disconnection to manhood, its polar opposite. someone who completely rejects the idea of being man is likely to prefer being a woman (not always but likely!). many trans women do aspire to femininity and it has nothing to do with the cis women who are uncomfortable w it, just like there are many cis women who embrace it too.

many trans women cannot quite explain their transition in another way than "being a man felt wrong but being a woman feels right and authentic to my true self". i'd suggest to ask an actual trans woman for her pov tho since i'm not one, i'm just basing myself on what i've heard them say

[redacted]: but feeling disconnected with manhood (which is understandable and gender roles are frustrating) doesnt make someone the opposite of a man. As society we need to open our understanding of gender expression. But this isnt the same as thinking 'if I dont feel like a conventional man or connect with male social expectations, then I must be the opposite'. Theres no logic in that

we live in a world where gender stereotype binaries are considered natural, and people who dont fit this understandably feel marginalised. In fact Id argue to a greater or lesser degree, none of us truly fit the prescribed gender binary.

but i find it problematic when a man thinks they're a woman based on what they think 'woman' is.

neonbaebae: you're right in saying that a disconnection from manhood doesn't make someone a woman - a connection to womanhood does. it has v little to do with the upbringing of women which you seem to define thru misogyny and menstruation alone which is frankly a pessimistic view of womanhood. it's less not feeling like a conventional man and more not feeling like a man At All. tru it doesn't sound logical but gender is not logical it's abstract and complex

it seems problematic bc one might think men would gain smth from iding as women but stats show that trans women are at higher risk of assault for being out and open, both of bc of misogyny (not directly related to having a vagina or menstruating after all) & transphobia. it's esp telling that trans men aren't targeted as much. do you disagree w trans men as well?

[redacted]: but as a women i dont connect with womanhood. Lol i am a women. It would be nice to think we live in a world where women are equal, but that's not the world we live in. Womanhood is hard. And we do live under a patriarchal society that's cultivated female inferiority over many centuries. We're still negotiating freedoms today.

Its not about gaining or loss. Its about the male right to self define womanhood on their terms, without the biological or social conditioning. In fact, many have recieved MALE conditioning as children. This comes with its own privileges.

I think transmale is a very different experience so no I categorise them very differently to transwomen

neonbaebae: "as a woman" you say. even if the experiences and stereotypes don't fit you perfectly, even if you reject it, you still id as a woman. you feel like one and you suffer the consequences of being one. believe it or not trans women suffer from iding as a woman as well and thrice as harshly. i can provide sources if you want.

trans women don't think like men bc they feel like women. the thought patterns are different. they don't digest the social messages abt men bc their mind doesn't relate to it. male entitlement and all doesn't apply to them. and in sociology alone womanhood is often defined as more than a biological or upbringing thing. it's a social identity and trans women have a right to it if they don't id and reject manhood altogether

my question tho was do you think trans men aren't men either cus otherwise that'd be hypocritical

[redacted]: my point is its not an identity. Its a reality. Im a woman. I have xx chromosomes and the world treats me as such. Similar to my race. I dont identify as my race, i am treated as the world sees me.

male entitlement does apply. Statistically baby boys are fed for longer than baby girls. And little girls are left to cry for longer than baby boys. Little girls learn many motherly caretaker roles while many of their male counterparts are encouraged to conquer the world. Children are raised by gender. Even subconsciously. I can also provide sources :)

there are many more male leaders and men in authoritive positions in the world. Women fight very hard for the same respect, but womens voices are less valued. It takes no genius to see men have greater standing in the world

about transmen. No I dont consider them men but I'll respectfully use the pronouns anyone prefers, male or female. Its common decency.

I think society needs to get more comfortable with non confirmative gender expression

neonboobear: but it is an identity. that's why there's a distinction between sex (bio) and gender (identity & expression). if it would feel wrong for you to be called a man or nonbinary then that'd be bc you don't id as such. (also there are women with chromosomes other than xx maybe you should avoid phrasing it that way.) i id as my race but race has v different roots & impact than gender historically and it cannot be compared. let's stick with gender.

and i'm not denying gendered socialization but it doesn't shape a child more than their personal feelings on their identity, which can differ v early in life bc (some) would rather engage in activities associated with the opposite gender for example. if it were that simple trans ppl wouldn't go at lengths to "play the part"

you're right society does need to accept gender non conformance but that's v different from the trans experience. i rly think you should have a deep conversation with a trans person to try and see their pov

[redacted]: if womanhood is an identity, it totally invalidates what it means to be female. And yes its arguable that there're are women who arent xx but how about the majority of the population that are. Must we pander to the few at the expense of the majority? also what makes you assume I dont talk to trans people? Critique doesnt mean lack of empathy.

Children and gendered socialization is complex. Maybe if 'feminine' activities werent coded as female and just 'childhood play' we wouldnt have the same degree of dysphoria. It goes back to the irrational logic, 'if I like the pink toy section then I must be a girl.'

neonboobear: i'm afraid that is your pov for the ideology that womanhood is an experience but also an identity is considered a v valid theory in the science field. the fact that there are women with chromosomes other than xx is proof alone that xx chromosomes aren't what makes a woman. and i've suggested a deep conversation and an intention to Understand the Other. not just a talk. i said nothing abt empathy.

there would be less dysphoria but i'm sure it's still be there. many think the abolition of gender would solve everything but i doubt so

[redacted]: i have a close mtf friend and we have the debate constantly. We don't always agree with her but there's a lot more common ground then you might expect :) Gender roles damn us all. Hmmmm... abolition of gender is impossible but theres is a lot that can be done to challenge gender expectations. But not an easy battle! neonbaebae: i mean this with the least offense okay but i sincerely think neither of you should be friends. i’m black and i’d never befriend a racist. that’s a lack of self respect on her part and a plain lack of respect on yours.

i’d like to end this conversation here. i’ve said my point and i’d only repeat myself by continuing. and since i’m not a trans woman i don’t want to misinterpret them (so sorry if i’ve already did. trans girls feel free to bring up clarifications). might sound tedious but i strongly suggest you watch this 50-min long video essay by youtuber contrapoints. her vids are informative and entertaining and so v easy to digest despite the length. i’ve heard she’s not v liked in terf circles but it’s worth it to listen to what she has to say as a trans women.

#transphobia #transmisogyny #convo transcript #long post #anti terf

1 note · View note

olgagarmash · 3 years ago

Link

Carrie Ann Rainey, hiking in Louisiana, belongs to a body-positive outdoor group. “We’re not all the same” when it comes to obesity, one researcher says.

By Jennifer Couzin-FrankelJul. 29, 2021 , 12:00 PM

They rose to fame as the world’s fattest mice. At about 130 grams, the rodents were “the equivalent of 600 pounds in humans,” says diabetes researcher Philipp Scherer. They were born to genetically engineered mouse parents in his lab at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. One set of parents lacked the hormone leptin, an appetite suppressant that signals when it’s time to stop eating. The other parents overproduced the hormone adiponectin, churned out by fat cells, which is thought to support metabolic health, protecting against obesity-linked diseases such as type 2 diabetes.

Scherer’s mouse pups melded their parents’ traits. They ate constantly and became obese. But unlike other leptin-deficient mice (and people), the animals had healthy cholesterol and blood glucose levels and didn’t develop metabolic illnesses such as type 2 diabetes. “ They were exceptionally quote-unquote healthy,” Scherer says, though he wonders whether it’s possible to be truly well while carrying such a considerable fat burden. Despite their metabolic health, the mice didn’t live a normal life span: Their weight left them so off balance that they often flipped over and got stuck, causing dehydration and death.

Still, to Scherer, who described the animals in 2007 and continues to study them, the rodents sharpened an emerging message for people as well as mice: Weight and health can be uncoupled. Many researchers and doctors—and broader societies—take it as a given that obesity means ill health. In fact, says Ruth Loos, who studies the genetics of obesity at the University of Copenhagen, “We can be obese but remain healthy.” Scherer, Loos, and other researchers worldwide are examining genes, animal models, and humans to understand how factors such as the distribution of fat in the body and the nature of fat itself can blunt or compound any health impacts of extra weight. The researchers are also working to define metabolically healthy obesity (MHO) and examine how common it is and how long it persists.

Beyond the research lies a knotty practical question: what the science means for people with obesity and the doctors they see. Undoubtedly, “There are subtypes of obesity,” with some more harmful than others, says Sadaf Farooqi at the University of Cambridge. “You’ve got this massive variation that must be driven by other underlying factors.” At the same time, Farooqi suggests, people who qualify as overweight or obese should generally try to lose weight. “There is a clear correlation between gaining weight and increased risk of type 2 diabetes,” she says, “even if you don’t get it right now.” Furthermore, she and others say, obesity is associated with health problems well beyond metabolic abnormalities, including various cancers and wear and tear on joints.

Others, particularly advocates concerned about discrimination against fat people, make a different argument: Hammering people with advice to “lose weight!” is misguided. “It’s very clear that there are a lot of people in that category called obese [who] don’t have any signs of disease and live long, healthy lives,” says Lindo Bacon, a physiologist, author, and advocate for body positivity affiliated with the University of California, Davis. Bacon says a relentless focus on weight loss can come at the expense of vital medical care. For example, “My father and I both went to orthopedic surgeons because we were having bad knee pain.” Bacon, whose weight qualified as normal, was offered surgery after physical therapy failed, but Bacon’s father was told only to lose weight. “My father went to his death with knee problems. … He could have benefited from stretching, strengthening, knee surgery,” Bacon asserts with frustration. “He didn’t get that.”

Though agreeing that obesity and ill health can travel together, Bacon insists fat itself is not a major player in disease. Social determinants of health, such as poverty, discrimination, and access to healthy food, are likely far more important, Bacon argues. And indeed, some studies have shown that people with obesity who don’t have metabolic dysfunction are often better educated and wealthier than those with obesity-associated health problems.

Many scientists say the evidence is clear that excess fat can pose significant health risks and that losing weight can improve health. But they agree with advocates that care for people with obesity needs to shift from simply pressuring them to shed weight, which often fails. “I’ve worked with so many people who’ve gone through this cycle of losing and regaining and losing and regaining,” says Cynthia Bulik, a clinical psychologist and expert in eating disorders at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the Karolinska Institute. “It’s created mental torment, it affects their relationships, it affects their social life. It affects everything.” Scientists like Loos hope their work can move the focus away from body weight and toward measurable markers of metabolic health that can be more precisely and effectively targeted.

Rising obesity rates have set off alarm bells for years. In 2018, 42% of U.S. adults were obese, up from about 30% 2 decades earlier, and prevalence is climbing rapidly in other countries, as well. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines obesity as having a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30, a calculation made by dividing weight in kilograms by the square of height in meters. (Although the value of BMI has been questioned, it remains a common metric in medicine and scientific studies.)

Scientists have long explored links between obesity and health problems. For example, according to a 2020 study in Obesity Science and Practice of almost 3 million U.K. adults tracked for an average of 11 years, people with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a risk of type 2 diabetes five times higher than that of people whose BMI was defined as normal. For a BMI of 40 to 45, the risk was 12 times higher. Obesity is also associated with a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, sleep apnea, certain cancers, and osteoarthritis.

Location matters

Differences in where and how fat is stored can affect underlying health. Excess visceral fat, deep in the abdomen, is associated with more inflammation and fat buildup in certain organs (inset), and is more harmful than subcutaneous fat, which is stored under the skin and can promote health.

Inflammatory moleculesFat depositSubcutaneous fatVisceral fatMetabolically healthyMetabolically unhealthy0Cohort size3000ObeseOverweightNormal weightU.S. women80%56%42%20%44%58%0100,000ObeseOverweightNormal weightU.K. women53%38%25%47%62%75%0100,000ObeseOverweightNormal weightU.K. men39%24%13%61%76%87%03000ObeseOverweightNormal weightU.S. men75%55%32%25%45%68%The math of metabolic healthThere is no agreed-on definition of metabolic health, but one research team’s definition, applied to two large cohorts, showed that it becomes less common with obesity but is still present.

(GRAPHIC) N. DESAI/SCIENCE; (DATA) A. ZEMBIC ET AL, JAMA NETW OPEN, 4(5):E218505 (2021); THIRD NATIONAL HEALTH AND NUTRITION EXAMINATION SURVEY; UK BIOBANK

Yet many people with obesity have healthy cholesterol and blood glucose levels, whereas many lean people do not. “You go to an obesity clinic, [where] people weigh 120 kilograms, 140 kilograms. Some have problems and some don’t,” says Antonio Vidal-Puig, who studies and treats metabolic disease at Cambridge. Conversely, he notes, patients who weigh 70 or 80 kilograms might be insulin resistant and have diabetes. Trends also vary by ethnicity. People of South Asian ancestry “develop diabetes without the levels of obesity in other populations,” Farooqi says. “We’re not all the same.”

Scherer’s mice offered a clue to the variation: Their fat was stored under the skin rather than in muscle or in organs such as the liver. That pattern aligned with what obesity researchers and doctors have observed in people. Large population studies have shown that people with excessive visceral fat, deep in the abdomen, are at higher risk of health problems than people with high volumes of subcutaneous fat, under the skin of the thighs, arms, and backside. When someone has high visceral fat, “that’s when metabolic disease occurs,” says Bernard Zinman, an endocrinologist at the University of Toronto. Visceral fat generates inflammatory molecules, and imaging studies have shown it’s associated with fat buildup in the liver, pancreas, and muscle.

By contrast, subcutaneous fat can nurture good health, serving as a store of energy and helping cushion muscle and bones. Some evidence indicates people with ailments such as heart failure or cancer fare better if they are modestly overweight than if they are lean. In 2005, a CDC and National Cancer Institute research team reported that overall, people who were overweight but not obese had slightly lower mortality rates than people whose weight qualified as normal. “Fat is our friend, and we need it,” Scherer says. “If you don’t have adipose tissue, you really are in big trouble.”

Subcutaneous fat is also a safety valve: Without such a zone for stashing extra fat deposits, they travel to the visceral region. Rare disorders called lipodystrophy syndromes illustrate this vividly. Affected people cannot accumulate subcutaneous fat and appear thin, yet they develop diabetes and fatty liver disease.

“Do you have all these walk-in closets” for healthy fat storage, Zinman asks, “or do you live in a condo where you have just one cupboard? Some people have tremendous ability to store calories, and others don’t.”

Another clue about the value of fat storage capacity—and subcutaneous fat itself—comes from a class of diabetes drugs called thiazolidinediones introduced in the late 1990s. Intriguingly, while reducing blood glucose levels they also caused patients to gain weight. Several studies reported that the drugs help convert fat precursor cells into mature fat cells in subcutaneous regions. Patients added fat subcutaneously, which appeared to reduce inflammation and improve the body’s response to insulin.

“It’s not how fat you are, it’s what you do with it that counts,” Vidal-Puig titled a commentary he co-wrote in 2008. At the same time, Vidal-Puig expresses a quandary he and colleagues face: He is reluctant to use the term MHO, which he worries could mislead people into thinking, “it’s OK to be obese.”

“We are not saying that,” he says. Rather, some people “are healthy because they are resilient to obesity.” Vidal-Puig wants to stick to the science of that resilience by exploring how obesity can coexist with measures of health. “We are explaining how it works.”

Loos has hunted for an explanation for 10 years, ever since a strip of DNA sent her down an unexpected path. She was part of a research group searching for genes that predispose people to extra body fat, and three stretches of DNA popped up. One appeared to boost body fat in the hips and thighs—and yet it sat next to a gene called IRS1, which was known to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The discovery, the first of its kind, “set us off,” Loos says, and she began to try to tease apart fat and metabolic health.

In February, she and colleagues reported more gene variants that appear to have similar double action. Writing in Nature Metabolism, they cataloged 62 variants associated both with more fat—including higher BMI and higher body fat percentage—and a lower risk of cardiac and metabolic diseases. The DNA included areas that control inflammation, energy expenditure, and insulin signaling.

Loos used to work one floor below Vidal-Puig at Cambridge, and the two are now collaborating: He is studying some of the DNA variants she identified. Vidal-Puig is especially interested in genes that may lead to changes in fat tissue over time, such as helping improve storage capacity for subcutaneous fat or reducing inflammation. He’s also exploring the role of genes in fibrosis, a thickening or scarring of connective tissue that promotes harmful inflammation and may contribute to conditions including fatty liver disease. “We know that obese people have more fibrosis in their adipose tissue,” he says.

Meanwhile, Scherer—creator of the world’s fattest mouse—continues to probe the role of adiponectin. He notes that unhealthy fat, with lots of inflammation and fibrosis, generates less adiponectin. In the mice, in contrast, a surfeit of the hormone appears to expand their subcutaneous storage capacity. Adiponectin also seems to protect the mice from becoming metabolically unhealthy as they age, Scherer and colleagues reported in eLife this year.

A genetically engineered mouse weighed five times what’s normal but its metabolic health matched a thin mouse’s.

CHRISTINE KUSMINSKI AND PHILIPP SCHERER/UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER

On the human front, Samuel Klein, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis, runs one of the most exhaustive studies yet. Since 2016, he and colleagues have administered a battery of tests to three groups, for which he’s still recruiting: 45 metabolically healthy obese people, 45 metabolically unhealthy obese people, and 25 lean people. The researchers collect at least one muscle and fat biopsy, take blood samples, infuse insulin to measure how it regulates glucose metabolism in muscle, and more. Participants are randomized to different diets, including a Mediterranean diet and a plant-based diet, to test how each affects metabolism.

Klein says he wants to understand why some people with obesity are “resistant” to its downsides. He’s especially keen to determine whether subcutaneous fat is different in metabolically healthy and unhealthy groups with obesity. In a paper this year, his group reported greater production of fibrous tissue in the fat of a metabolically unhealthy group than in counterparts who are metabolically healthy. Of the questions to be tackled, he says, “It’s endless.”

Still, the science bolsters what plus-size athletes, including weightlifters, dancers, and marathon runners, have long declared: Being fat doesn’t have to mean being unhealthy. “There are people,” as Loos’s data show, “who are genetically predisposed to obesity [and] have low cardiac risk, and that’s pretty interesting,” Bulik says. “They might be able to survive in a larger body” without metabolic ill effects.

But just who is so fortunate isn’t clear. No agreed-on definition of MHO exists, Klein says; anywhere from about 6% to 60% of people qualify. Women, younger people, and those with BMIs under 35 are more likely to meet MHO criteria. Many studies define MHO as having two or fewer features of metabolic syndrome, a constellation of risk factors that boosts the likelihood of cardiovascular disease and diabetes and includes a large waistline, high blood pressure, low HDL (“good”) cholesterol, high triglycerides, and high blood sugar. By another definition—having at most one of six metabolic concerns—roughly 75% of people whose weight qualifies as normal and 32% of people with obesity are metabolically healthy, Klein says.

“Making these decisions isn’t easy,” agrees Matthias Schulze, an epidemiologist who studies risk factors for heart disease and diabetes at the German Institute of Human Nutrition. This year, Schulze and his colleagues proposed a new definition for MHO based on data from two existing cohorts with a range of BMIs, one including about 12,000 U.S. adults and the other, 374,000 U.K. adults. The researchers hit on three key criteria: systolic blood pressure below 130 without medication, no diabetes, and a waist-to-hip ratio of less than 0.95 for women and less than 1.03 for men.

About 40% of the U.S. cohort and 20% of the U.K. cohort met that definition, and over 14 years, those people appeared no more likely to die of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, or other causes than metabolically healthy people of normal weight. (The finding only applied to people with a BMI under 40; above that, risk of death was elevated regardless of metabolic health.) But Schulze’s work pointed to a wrinkle of MHO: In the U.S. group, in which a higher proportion qualified as metabolically healthy, the average age was 41; in the U.K. group it was 56.

The age gap may not be the only explanation for the difference, but it’s a “plausible” contributor, Schulze says—and one supported by other studies. “Most people who are metabolically healthy [and] obese at one point transition to being metabolically unhealthy,” says Frank Hu, co-director in the program of obesity epidemiology and prevention at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. In 2018, Hu, Schulze, and colleagues co-wrote a paper in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in which they examined outcomes for more than 90,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study, a decadeslong project that gathers health and other data. The pair and their colleagues found that over 20 years, 84% of women with MHO (defined as having healthy cholesterol and blood pressure levels and no diabetes) became metabolically unhealthy—which, Hu argues, suggests MHO is transient and “not benign.” But he also notes that more than two-thirds of the normal-weight women developed some sort of metabolic issue in that time, too.

Amid that complexity, some are calling for a more nuanced approach to caring for people with obesity, putting greater emphasis on multiple measures of health. “We tend to get hung up on obesity and weight in part because they’re visible,” says David Allison, a prominent obesity researcher and dean of the Indiana University, Bloomington, School of Public Health. “If we walk into a room and shake hands, you see my weight. You don’t see my cholesterol level, you don’t see how much fat is in my liver.”

Clinicians and researchers like Bulik and Vidal-Puig favor focusing less on a person’s BMI and more on cardiac and metabolic markers such as triglycerides and blood pressure. Schulze adds that waist-to-hip ratio, a component of his risk calculator, is something a doctor can measure. One way to strive for a more metabolically healthy body is with movement or exercise, which can improve response to insulin and help clear fat from the liver, even without weight loss, Vidal-Puig says. “It’s not about fat, it’s about being fit. [That’s] what I tell people.”

In Klein’s view, obesity treatments should aim for metabolic improvement as well as weight loss. “If you lose 3% of your body weight” and improve metabolic outcomes, “is that worse than losing 8%” and seeing no such improvement? he asks. “Eight percent would be rewarded, whereas 3% would be, ‘You’re not sticking with the program.’” Klein hastens to add that weight loss may pay off in other ways, by reducing the risk of various health problems. And perhaps partly because of social pressures, many individuals simply prefer to be leaner.

When someone who is fat walks into a doctor’s office for a checkup, Bacon says, “the first thing you should think about … is ‘What kind of advice would I give a thinner person?’” The guidance won’t necessarily be identical—for example, they note, a fat person may encounter stigma a thin person wouldn’t when exercising at a gym. “But I think that, to get away from weight bias, one of the first things people can do is try to take weight out of the picture,” Bacon says, “before they come to consider it.”

via Wealth Health

#IFTTT #Wealth Health

0 notes

your-dietician · 3 years ago

Text

Obesity doesn’t always mean ill health. Here’s what scientists are learning | Science

New Post has been published on https://depression-md.com/obesity-doesnt-always-mean-ill-health-heres-what-scientists-are-learning-science/

Obesity doesn’t always mean ill health. Here’s what scientists are learning | Science

Carrie Ann Rainey, hiking in Louisiana, belongs to a body-positive outdoor group. “We’re not all the same” when it comes to obesity, one researcher says.

By Jennifer Couzin-FrankelJul. 29, 2021 , 12:00 PM

Location matters

Inflammatory moleculesFat deposit

Subcutaneous fatVisceral fat

Metabolically healthyMetabolically unhealthy0Cohort size3000ObeseOverweightNormal weightU.S. women80%56%42%20%44%58%0100,000ObeseOverweightNormal weightU.K. women53%38%25%47%62%75%0100,000ObeseOverweightNormal weightU.K. men39%24%13%61%76%87%03000ObeseOverweightNormal weightU.S. men75%55%32%25%45%68%The math of metabolic healthThere is no agreed-on definition of metabolic health, but one research team’s definition, applied to two large cohorts, showed that it becomes less common with obesity but is still present.

(GRAPHIC) N. DESAI/SCIENCE; (DATA) A. ZEMBIC ET AL, JAMA NETW OPEN, 4(5):E218505 (2021); THIRD NATIONAL HEALTH AND NUTRITION EXAMINATION SURVEY; UK BIOBANK

A genetically engineered mouse weighed five times what’s normal but its metabolic health matched a thin mouse’s.

CHRISTINE KUSMINSKI AND PHILIPP SCHERER/UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER

Source link

0 notes

irregulardiaryposts · 3 years ago

Text

00:53 21/06/2021

Hello again <3

so i think im gonna write about my mental health today because i dont feel like i have anyone who understands fully apart from myself maybe so i need to Organise my Thoughts. as a kid i had a pretty normal childhood, a mum a dad and a brother - pretty nuclear right. but as a child i felt like my family maybe wasnt quite right, that this wasnt supposed to be what family is? perhaps. - i was scared of my mum a lot because she wasnt very understanding of me - and i was a great kid, never getting into trouble, very good at school, no issues whatsover. the thing that really shows how i thought of my relationship with my mum was when i was like maybe 8 or so having a parents night and at it my teacher had nothing bad to say apart from i was kinda bossy in group settings (im sure i dont need to explain how misogynistic that actually is- i was not bossy i was a natural leader) and when i got home my mum told me off for that and i felt like she was kinda cold to me and not taking all the good things about me into consideration when telling me off for that.

i feel like thats a really defining moment in my life when i realised i cant expect adults to Understand me, realised how people treat young girls, also started my defiant behaviour maybe or was kinda one of the key moments that made me dislike certain authorities in my life, that if people wont understand me regardless of how i explain myself then i wont bother trying to be understood by people who wont matter to me. anyway yes i was scared of my mum-like petrified sometimes- but my dad wasnt great either, he also had his shortcomings. i feel like he never really cared about me like he was kinda apathetic towards raising me like a parent - i feel he would be better suited as an uncle to someone rather than a dad - the funny childish guy that makes kids laugh -not the uncaring dad that cant be bothered to really learn about his kids. and i feel im sitting here complaining about my parents when the fact is that a lot of adults should never be parents, society has conditioned people into thinking the only way to be fulfilled in life is to live vicariously through your kids when life gets to such a boring and monotonous place where you feel the need to create a new life to spice things up lmao. i feel a lot of parents regret having kids but they cannot express that regret because it was their choice and they should deal with that, also saying you regret it would be pretty horrible to the kid.

so while yes i am complaing about my parents i dont think they were Bad in any way just not that great yaknow. also i just notice all these things growing up and i feel its been pretty impactful to understanding myself and my parents. also just some anecdotes from my childhood - i used to watch my dad play video games like the uncharted games i think theyre called, and whenever i got scared i used to hide behind the couch until the scary part was over (usually a lot of guns and high energy fight scenes thats too much adrenaline for a 7 yo) and sometimes when i would take out my dad/brothers game i would get them to fo the hard parts and do other stuff myself - i dont remember many games i played apart from one of the spidermen games where u could just web around the city and not progress apart from sometimes you would come across some strippers and i accidently got into a fight with them (also hot women with umbrellas they use to fight- maybe i went near them on purpose) i would yell to my dad and get him to do it for me. also on new years eve whenever my mum was working and we werent going to any family parties we would make a bunch of food and put it out in the kitchen - wed make like homemade onion rings, chips, have crisps and dips, and a bunch of junk basically and watch like austin powers or some shit and genuinely miss those times they were so simple. but a lot of thats tainted now from what happened. also my brothers always been annoying as shit but when we were kids we couldnt be in the same room without arguing which like whatever thats how kids are esp brothers and sisters for some reason.

i think thats majority of the background needed for the rest. wait this is a little addition but i meant to mention this here so ill put it in- basically sometimes on holidays i would geniunely think my parents hate each other/ were getting a divorce like once when we were in florida in 2012 my dad convinced my mum (as well as me and my brother convinced her since we liked them) we convinced her to go on a water slide thing that u had to walk up the stairs for, it was outdoors, and it was kinda tall and then we got in one of the big donut things and it swooshed from side to side a lot and was generally pretty scary i suppose for someone who doesnt like rides esp since you had to hold on to the handles there were no buckles or anything, and so when we got off the ride my mum was big mad at my dad and like wouldnt talk to him and stuff like that which was pretty uncomfortable to have to be the 8 year old mediator of that but there was also another occasion i think (maybe also at florida) where they were made at each other and i asked my mum if they were getting divorced and all she said was 'ask ur dad' like???? no sort of consolation to this child who thinks their parents hate each other nooo just petty 'ask him' and theres also been other times when they fight/ are mad and they dont feel the need to hide it from us so i felt quite anxious around my parents sometimes.

so ahnyway . yes. when i had just turned 13 my parents split up and it fucked me up in a multitude of ways. also i cant beleive i stopped being a proper kid at 13, like as soon as i turned a teenager life hit me like a fucking truck. so the context as to why they split is still kinda lost to me ngl but they didnt tell me much anyway since i was young but my mum basically said my dad didnt love her anymore and he wanted to separate. its kinda funny because leading up to this my dad had been sleeping in the living room for like a few weeks and there was on and off fighting i could hear and i basically thought they were fighting over me and that i was in trouble and it kinda used to keep me up coz i could hear loud voices when they thought i was asleep- which is probably the cause of why i get veryyyy mad and angry when i hear my mum at like 1 am downstairs when shes drinking and im trying to sleep, probably something ive internalised (is that the word?) and made me respond so strongly to those type of noises.

anywayyyyy yes i thought i was in trouble when they were actually just getting a divorce so ... yeah you can really tell i was young and didnt understand adult issues or really couldnt figure this out myself from all the arguing and him sleeping downstairs lmao. anyway my dad moved out and it was just me my mum and my brother now and at this point my brother wouldve been about to turn 18, so although still kinda shit, not really as affected my it as a 13 yo, just to keep in mind. so i was devastated obviously and my whole world was kinda shattered but i had to hold it together a bit, also i was sometimes my mothers own therapist having to say things like 'everything happens for a reason' 'itll get better' in response to her deteriorating mental health and her questions that would be really hard for me to answer like 'why did he leave' etc (bish im a child be there for me not wallow in ur own pity, u have ur whole life to sort this out youre an adult, im a 13 you and only months away from wanting to kms hun think of ur CHILD please) anyway this left me feeling like a burden if i were to share my mental state because when my mum shared her stuff she was burdening me (AGAIN i was 13 she is an adult) so that made me bottle a lot of things up also the fact that i had no one to share it with because she works as a nurse and now shes a single mother and so she works almost all hours of most days and i dont see her much, my brother was either working at this time or just didnt give enough of a shit about me to make sure i ate.

i went from being catered to for every meal because i didnt know how to cook to suddenly no one being there for me so i had to learn how to do it myself. needless to say that lead to a bunch of unhealthy eating habbits like eating the same things every day - frozen pizza, cheese toasties, i cant think of anything else probs because i didnt make anything else just ate chocolates or didnt eat breakfast coz i woke up at 2pm. just general unhealthyness both in substance and like how healthy that was for my head yk. also this is during the summer btw so it gave me the option to be incredibly depressed - im not saying that as an edgy teen thing to say im being 100% genuine i was very depressed like textbook style - not eating or overeating, not showering/ taking care of myself, extreme lack of energy and hated doing social things coz i had to put on a farce that i was okay meanwhile i couldnt wait to get into my bed and sleep the next day and a half away.

i very vividly remember at the start of the summer holiday my friend asked me if i wanted to go out and do something and i rememeber just crying at that because i had no reason to say no but i just didnt want to and felt like i couldnt do anything and so i lied and said i wasnt feeling well and then put my phone down and curled up in my bed and cried coz i was frustrated and upset and i couldnt really understand what was wrong with me and why i was Like This.

god i didnt take into account how tired i was and how late it is when i started this huh, this isnt even half of it, but i have obligations in the mornign, the last until uni or whatever so ill put this in my drafts and finsih it somethime. alrigtht it is 02:08 btw z_z. also ive just now decided im gonna re organise my tumblr so if this ends up being an actual blog thing i can navigate it easier by adding tags and such. anywau goodnight.

20:21 30/06/2021

MOTHERFOIUHIFIUDVMKCVKM V

MY LAPTOP SHUT DOWE IN THE MIDDLE OF THSAT SO ITS ALL GONE BASICALLY I WAS DEPRESSED BURTNOUT GIFTERD KID AND IT SUCKED YADDa YADDSZ ANYTWAY

23:01- well. yes earlier i wrote a little about the ages 13-16 and how they sucked but whatever it got deleted the more pertinent stuff happened in the last year or so anyway.

um yeah so i started the last year of highschool as a 16 year old with a fucked up brain and never having learned any study techniques or work ethic in the slightest. i took 3 uni-level courses only one i actually wanted to do, most people take 2 at most or even 1/0 but do other classes. honestly it fucking sucked this year for school but i scraped all passes so thank god for that. so i started the year quite optimistic, or as much as i could be and in all fairness the content of this year wasnt actually that bad considering i was doing 3 hard classes but corona really truly fucked everything up and by November i had mentally dropped out of my classes but of course i still had to go to them. i feel like im an oddly independent teen because ive never had a solid parental presence in a while, like i had to do a lot for myself and maybe i should thank myself for getting me through it all because i really did pull through.

my thoughts keep drifting from what im writing coz i wanna talk about different things and im just thinking maybe i shouldve just posted the last one then added a reblog when i could be bothered to write and not force myself because if theres ever a reoccurring theme in my life is that if i force myself to do anything i will hate it with my entire being, so maybe i should just do a short synopsis and write about something else afterwards.

so i took 3 hard classes, slowly lost all motivation because in jan it switches to online classes and i could Not deal with those it was horrible, and i became more of a "troublesome student" in one of my classes *cough* maths *cough* and almost got "kicked out" of taking the class just because the teacher was a control freak but like wanted to control all of our actions and behaviour, also i think i may have adhd and another kid in my class i think he does too and surprise surprise the teacher "dislikes" him too but its only a farce because he doesnt actually dislike him its only so that i cant call him out for singling me out when other students behave "badly" too. but anyways maybe ill come back to this in a while when i can be arsed explaining my complicated relationship with my parents.

the only reason i wanted to write this today was so that i could tag the post with like june 2021 or something and not june/july, but i might make another post later, Anyway happy end of pride month i supose, hope u figure it out me!

#why does tumblr break up the paragraphs like this #there isnt supposed to be paragraphs #maybe i should change that #anyway off to fix all my post so far and tag the all like ->#june 2021 entry #2021 the year of fun

0 notes

sonofthecarver · 4 years ago

Text

doin this trend for most of the main pcp deities i work with so heres my patron, The Carver

General Questions:

1. What is the name of the entity and what is their canon universe?

The Carver, The King of The Infernous, Emperor Hash'bor'kanibal

The Arkn Mythos

2. What drew you to this entity? What drew you to their world?

I was introduced to the Arknverse through my partner and I felt a strong pull to him.

The series is one of my favourites, and, although it took me a while, I eventually csme to him and asked if I could worship him.

3. Did you choose them or did they tap you? How?

A bit of both, as I felt a pull to worship him, and I wanted to myself either way.

4. How do you typically communicate?

I communicate with him through his designated oracle deck, or through what he likes to call "vibes".

He radiates a very distinct energy for me, so I can feel his emotions and opinions on my choices.

5. What role does this entity play in their universe?

Ooh, he plays the role of a chaotic grim reaper, in my opinion.

He has no true side, he works for himself and his own amusement.

6. What kind of relationship do you have with this entity?

He is my patron deity, and he has lovingly dubbed me his son.

7. What aspects does this entity reside over?

He is the Dekn Lord of Pain, Torment, Suffering, Torture, Cheese, and sometimes Lettuce, The King of the Infernous, the Arkn Lord of Power and Truths, and The Joy of Fear

8. What kinds of offerings do you/would you give this entity?

He's not picky, but he likes cheese, tobacco, booze (specifically whiskey or vodka), spicy foods, weed, knives, and bones.

Non physical offerings include smoking or drinking in his honor, inflicting pain, and drawing blood.

9. What kinds of animals, stones, elements, plants, etc do you associate with this entity? Why?

His symbols are knives, sickles, devil motifs, skulls, cigarettes, blood, crowns, his devil mask, cleavers, guns, and the Dekn Symbol.

His sacred animals are predators, and his element is fire.

He likes any darkly colored stones, especially red calcite and bloodstone.

10. Are there any songs, books, or quotes you associate with this entity? Why?

He enjoys Ghost and a lot of more folksy type of songs like "The Devil Wears a Suit and Tie" and "In Hell I'll Be In Good Company".

11. How and when did you first encounter them as an entity?

I don't exactly remember, but I'd have to say the first time I properly felt his presence in my room was when I was sick, and he was floating above my bed where I was whining to my boyfriend.

He was teasing me about not being able to handle sickness, but he seemed genuinely concerned about me.

12. How are they particularly involved in your life? Do they teach you anything specific? If so, what?

He's decided he's my father, so he's pretty involved, he hangs around me a lot.

Not really anything specific, more just tellinge when I fuck up or little bits of life advice.

13. Do they have any identifying symbols in canon or otherwise?

His sickle, his crown, and his mask are the three I can think of.

14. Do they have alternate versions, verses, or canons? Do you communicate with all or some of them?

I'm sure there are, but I don't speak to them.

Compare & Contrast:

15. Choose an aleady-existing deity from our world that has similar traits to this entity. How are they similar, and how are they different?

My immediate comparsion is Ares.

They're both associated with violence, and have shown affection for certain mortals that are good at just that.

The difference is that Carver is much more interested in the one on one intimacy of inflicting pain on one with your own hands, while Ares is a war god, which id the broader type of violence.

16. Choose 6 tropes this entity may or does fall under. Explain if you agree or disagree, and why.

Alas, Poor Villain - Absolutely. He's put through some shit that a regular viewer of the series has trouble watching. I know he's considered a villain, yet every time he gets hurt it hurts me.��

The Chessmaster - He succeeded in an eons long plan to trick a literal god, and he always seems to have every piece in his corner in the games he plays.

Fallen Angel - Within certain Arkn stories, he is considered a once-great Arkn who was corrupted and defected to the Dekn side.

Laughably Evil - He's absolutely fucking hilarious.

Body Horror - I've only seen his true form a few times but holy FUCK is it terrifying.

Heroic Sacrifice - I'm going to say it now, him letting his body be destroyed to create the new universe wasn't done in heroics.

17. What academic studies or professions do you associate with this entity, and would you study any of them yourself? Why or why not?

Anything with death, history, or psychology.

I would, but he's a been pushing me to persue something I would genuinely enjoy, lile tattooing or computer programming.

18. What is something surprising you have learned about this entity when working with them? Why was it surprising?

He's honestly so nice if you're nice to him, which was a little surprising because he's very much not a nice guy.

He's extremely protective of his worshippers/children: I had an issue with Ellpagg (an arkn entity) coming after me for a good while, and Ellpagg finally backed off after Carver beat him into the ground and said he'd chuck him in the Infernous again if he ever tried to lay a finger on me.

(I was in the middle of a math class while watching that happen lmao)

19. Is there a common misconception about this entity? What parts are true, and what parts are wrong?

That he's evil and only ever seeks to harm people.

Evil? Yeah basically I can't argue that away he's done some pretty henious shit.

But if you respect him and his power he won't bother you.

If you taunt him or disrespect him it will not end well for you.

Especially if you try to hurt him.

Gods help you if you're one of the people stupid enough to try and hex or curse him.

20. Has some aspect of your life, energy, emotion, or other changed since meeting the entity? What would it be like if you hadn’t?

I've gotten better at standing up to people and defending my loved ones (at the downside of my anger issues getting worse).

I've accepted my anger and rage much better now, and my energy has become more offensive because of his influence.

People tend to think that his protection his a negative or bad thing when they first sense something touched by him.

Self & Shadow

21. What are things this deity is capable of helping you with, personally? How?

He helps accept anger, rage, and violent urges as a natural thing not to be ashamed of.

He'll teach you how to stand up for yourself properly, and when to not take any shit from stupid people.

22. Has this entity ever refused something to you? If so, what and why?

I mean, he probably has but fuck me if I remember what.

23. What do you want to learn from this entity? Why?

Everything he has to teach me.

He doesn't exactly sit me down like it's a fucking school lesson, its a more in the moment teaching style.

24. Is there an end-goal with this entity, or do you plan on continuing a relationship with them?

He's my patron, he's stuck with me until I die.

25. Have you ever disagreed with this entity? Why or why not?

Oh, all the time.

Usually he's right, and if I don't agree with him he just let's me do it my way and then when i fuck it up he smacks the back of my head and says "see, dumbass, i told you so."

26. What does working with this entity reveal about you?

That I'm a raging bitch and if you fuck with me or my loved ones I'm not afraid to fuck up your whole life?

27. What do you think you should cultivate about yourself to better work with this entity? Why?

Should probably stop being so stubborn but that's not gonna happen, he likes the banter.

Also need to work on my godphone smh.

28. Do you have any fears or anxieties about working with this entity? Why?

Nope. Not a single one. I'm not afraid of him and he's made it clear I have no reason to feae anything that could come after me because of him.

29. What about this entity’s canon has impacted you the most? Why?

Just, the philosophy of it all.

30. What UPG/Headcanon do you have about this entity? Why?

This man likes FNAF songs.

I am dead fucking serious.

31. Choose 3 major differences between their world and this one. Do these differences affect how you interact?

Too tired to do this fully but no, it doesnt affect how we interact.

He understands me and why I do the shit I do and I understand him and why he does the shit he does.

(stolen from @highpriestness )

1 note · View note

diarrheaworldstarhiphop · 7 years ago

Photo

Seven years after Republicans first seized on the unruly rise of the Tea Party as a vehicle for winning elections, GOP leaders are confronting a stark reality: They have lost all control and comprehension of the populist movement they were supposed to be marshaling—and they may soon be facing a mutiny.

The volatile dynamic inside the Republican Party was thrown into sharp relief last week when Roy Moore—a fringe relic of the fading religious right—emerged victorious in Alabama’s GOP Senate primary, defeating the establishment incumbent President Trump had endorsed.

With the dust still settling, many Washington Republicans are mystified—and alarmed—by the fact that not even Donald “Drain the Swamp” Trump had enough populist cred to swing a primary race to his candidate in deep-red Alabama. While the GOP’s class of professional strategists are generally ambivalent at best when it comes to the president, they had taken a certain comfort in believing that he was fully in command of his base. The assumption allowed them to draw conclusions about what his voters wanted, how to cater to them—and how to avoid drawing their wrath.

But Alabama fully punctured the illusion that Trump was in control. For all the race’s idiosyncrasies—Trump’s endorsement of the more establishment-friendly candidate was uncharacteristic for him, and his support often seemed conflicted—it seemed to reveal that there was a limit to his supporters’ loyalty.

“Trump seems uniquely able to give voice to voters’ anger, but incapable of channeling it towards a larger purpose,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist whose firm released a client memo on Friday featuring data that suggested the president’s endorsement had no impact whatsoever in the Alabama race.

At this point, Conant said, no one can predict how the roiling anger in the conservative electorate will manifest itself during next year’s midterms—but it’s unlikely it will subside anytime soon. “We need to be honest about the fact that there are some powerful people inside the Republican Party who have no interest in governing,” he told me. “They’re focused like a laser on decapitating the party’s leadership, and have no interest in growing the party’s base into a lasting majority.” The resulting dysfunction, he said, will only further inflame voters’ frustrations.

(Prate translation note: “i ddd ont g et it w why t-the fa r arright do doesnt care abou ut ou r endurin g d centur ires long game of pissing i= in the direaction of th the democrats?>???// Why wont the y care abuot ou our pp p petty shallow goals for power?????”)

Over the past quarter-century, Republican politics have routinely been upended by angry populist outbursts of this sort—from the rise of Ross Perot to the revolt of the religious right, from the Tea Party wave to the Trump insurgency. Inevitably, these episodes set off a stampede of opportunistic politicians, pollsters, and policy wonks rushing to co-opt the phenomenon and use it to advance some ideological agenda. In just the past few years, politicians as varied as House Speaker Paul Ryan, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Trump, and Moore have tried to lay claim to the conservative movement—with each arguing that their vision is the one that mad-as-hell voters are crying out for.

(Prat note: obvious and deliberate effort to not name Ron Paul while simultaneously mentioning the astroturfed “tea party movement” to coopt libertarian fervour lmao)

But Nick Everhart, a GOP media consultant who has worked for dozens of Tea Party-aligned campaigns over the years, said there’s little use in trying to explain the unpredictable behavior of the conservative base with issues or ideology. “The idea that these movements are driven by any kind of intellectual, structured thing is ridiculous. They’re always a backlash to the moment,” he told me, adding: “Trump corralled the angry masses for himself. Other candidates with or without the president’s endorsement will also corral that mob for their needs.”

That sentiment was echoed by Reed Galen, a political consultant who served as Arizona Senator John McCain’s deputy campaign manager in the 2008 presidential race. “None of this is based on ideology or shared purpose,” he said. “The activist, angry wing of the GOP … doesn’t care about progress or making America great again. It lives and breathes on anger and resentment. That’s a difficult movement to direct and control.”

(Prat note: it is critical to note that the establishment campaign manager who refuses to acknowledge the platform of all these nascent right wing movements literally shames the populists for not caring about progress, Read this again. What true conservative fixates on progress as a core tenet of conservatism?)

Trygve Olson, a former adviser to Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, attributed the anger in the conservative movement largely to the efforts of a “right-wing outrage complex” that profits from its audience’s grievance. In the past, he said, the GOP has been able to keep populist anger in check with policy concessions and savvy messaging aimed at the base. This time, however, Olson believes there could be a much larger “fracturing” of the Republican coalition—one that extends beyond policy. “If this eruption is about differences in core values, which I believe is the case, it becomes hard for coalition members that don’t share any underlying values to stay together,” he said.

Not everyone in the Republican Party is quite so apocalyptic about the current state of affairs. Greg Mueller, a conservative media strategist who worked for Pat Buchanan’s insurgent presidential campaigns in the 1990s, told me it shouldn’t be any mystery why voters are lashing out—and added that it’s not too late to appease them.

“Since 2010, the GOP has [run] in every election promising to repeal and replace Obamacare, secure the border, provide tax reform and relief, end taxpayer funding of abortion, appoint constitutionalist judges, and grow the economy again,” Mueller said. “Other than confirming Justice [Neil] Gorsuch, the GOP so far has nothing to show for earning the majority.” The lack of progress on these campaign promises, he said, has left voters “feeling they’ve been had.”

In the wake of Moore’s victory in Alabama, many liberals have argued that GOP leaders—frantic and frightened at the prospect of more ugly primary upsets—are simply reaping the whirlwind after years of cynically stoking anger and resentment among conservative voters. But it isn’t just the denizens of the D.C. establishment who admit that they’ve lost touch with their party’s base.

I spoke with one Republican consultant who has made a career out of getting anti-establishment right-wingers elected to office. As he surveys the political landscape now, he told me (on condition of anonymity), one thing has become clear: He and his fellow Tea Party whisperers are really just guessing when they say they know what “the base” wants.

(Prat translation note: i quit my job at taco bell then showed up in washington DC one day and told someone im an expert in “tea party” and they fucking believed me, those dumb assholes)

“It’s all bullshit,” he said. “So much of [what we do] is predicated on control, and saying that we understand how it works. Nobody clearly does. Nobody’s in control.”

PRAT NOTE: Donald Trump was the brick to the GOP window and the GOP is startled that planting a flag on the brick on the carpet has made little difference on those who threw the brick

#burn baby burn #republicans #GOP

28 notes · View notes

robin-hood-for-freedom · 6 years ago

Video

youtube

Its been a LONG time since I’v done anything regarding Anita Sarkeesian. And to be honest, I wasnt going to make a response to this. But I feel like he actually raises some interesting points that are worth discussing.

to the skeptics and anti sjw's she'sseen in all ways as a force for bad adishonest critic opportunist a scamartist and ideologue a huge dick

I guess thats fair. At this point I dont think most anti-sjws really care about her though. I will say that, I, personally never got on board with the whole idea that she was a scam artist(though I can see why some people came to that conclusion). Imo, even if its true(and I doubt it), its largely a red herring.

so what I'll call the Internet left however she was broadly understood as an all-around decent critic who was unfairly maligned harassed and abused because she was a woman who spoke about feminism and about her unfair treatment on the Internet

Since you are part of the ‘internet left’ I’ll take your word for it.

I genuinely like Anita sarkeesian I agree with lots of her points and thought she was pretty cool before I knew she was somebody who everybody hated

I’m gonna be honest: Even if I was inclined to agree with anita’s criticism(I’m not), I dont know if I would really like her as a person or say she was ‘cool.’ Her videos and public appearances to me just come across as boring and uninspired.

To be fair though, my only interaction with her has been through those videos/appearances. So its possible she’s actually really nice and funny in person.

even if I didn't like her though I still wouldn't think she deserved the ire of the public you know threats and harassment from people who hated every fiber of her being

Looking back I’m actually somewhat inclined to agree with you. Aside from the obvious that nobody deserves threats and harassment(although those were grossly exaggerated), I actually think the attention given to her was unwarranted. That said, I think most of was less hatred for Anita as a person, or even as a woman, and more concerns about her potential influence and how that might affect games(and other media) we love.

Looking back that influence turned out to be ‘basically none’ but you know what they say about hindsight.

I'm gonna be looking closely at a few people mostly Thunderfoot and sargon of akkad

I’m going to point out at this point that I’m not really that interested in defending Sargon or Thunderf00t(especially not Thunderf00t). I have my quibbles with their takes on Anita.

the first big argument that Anita sarkeesian wants to make that looking at games we can see a general tendency toward centralizing narratives of male and particularly straight male empowerment and what's more that this narrative tends to place the women of video games into some pretty weird positions women are less likely to be the protagonists of games they're more likely to be presented as sexually appealing to have their bodies put on display they're more likely to take on passive or victimized positions as damsels their to be rescued by predominantly male heroes

You cold argue that there are games that do this. I could point out loads of counter-examples of games that dont.

But, more importantly, I think, is that she doesnt really make an argument for why this is bad. And even the limited attempts she does make, you explicitly reject later in this video. In other words, we’re left with no reason to accept this as a criticism, unless we’ve bought into feminist ideology prior to clicking on Anita’s videos.

If you want to argue that these videos were meant to be specifically for a feminist audience and that its silly for non-feminists to care, I guess thats fair as far as it goes. But I dont think thats what you are getting at with this video.

not being an expert in games myself I can't really go through er work fact-checking each and everyone of those examples besides that's not really something that interests me

I guess thats fair as far as it goes. I’m actually glad you acknowledge that you dont know that much about games(unlike anita). But I think you’ll miss a lot of the criticisms of her in that case, which tended to focus on how fairly she was presenting the games she looked at(not very in most cases).

He then posts and summarizes a Thunderf00t video here, I’m only gonna respond to one point then pick up later(watch the full video for context)

Jamie's girlfriend didn't need to get beaten up we didn't need to see her panties as she was taken away

I pointed this out when I responded to Anita, but compare the amount of Marion porn, to the amount of Chung-li porn, and then tell me how much men desire weak or disempowered women(granted this isnt overly relevant to anything he said, but it was something that always bugged me about anita’s arguments).

Double Dragon might be a story about heroism in some broad sense but it's also a male power fantasy it makes you feel good because you get to play as a badass

No, it IS a story about heroism. I can agree that the game sidelines and ‘damsels’ Marion(although again I’m not sold on the idea of that being inherently a bad thing). But the fantasy isnt just about beating people up for no reason, its about being able to protect and save the people you care about. I’m seriously skeptical that Double Dragon(or most other games) would resonate as much without that aspect.

I’m skipping most of the rest of the Thunderf00t stuff, because I dont think thunderf00t made the best arguments, and dont have much desire to defend them.

here's her second and much more important position that games being like that that's a problem Anita isn't just here to make a bunch of neutral statements about what video games are like she wants to say that video games have some relationship to things like sexism misogyny the patriarchy negative and pervasive stuff she sees in our culture

And since I’m not convinced that games can cause people to become sexist or other have other negative views(and neither are you as we shall see). The only problem is that the games in question offend her feminist sensibilities.

[these youtubers] nitpick small errors in her analysis see she spoke too broadly about hitman her general observations about video games must be totally off-base

Its not just hitman. That was just one of many, many examples of her misrepresenting or deliberately using game mechanics to painting games in a worse light than reality is. Also she shows no understand of how gameplay affects player attention and focus(presumably because she doesnt know as a result of not playing them)

cultivation Theory cultivation theory is an area of research and psychology that attempts to study and demonstrate the impact that media has on people the sorts of behaviors and dispositions it cultivates and when these youtubers talk about this theory it is always to point out that the research has proven it false

Not so much that its been proven false. But that the effects shown are much more subtle than is commonly portrayed, tends to reinforce previously held beliefs rather than implanting new ones, and may not even apply to games. Liana Kerzner(funny how you dont cover her despite the fact that she got a decent amount of attention for arguing with Anita), and AydenPaladin have both discussed this extensively, so I’ll just leave links to their videos.

let's say for the sake of argument that these people are absolutely right about their science every study we've done shows that video games cause no shift in behavior or disposition our research into cultivation Theory has given us nothing but a bunch of bummed out psychologists now assuming all this let's ask a question what exactly would these findings mean to Anita sarkeesian's claim that video games can be harmful

It would mean she’s wrong. Actually she’s wrong even in the real world where cultivation is a thing, just more subtle and might not apply to games.

but to me it would mean absolutely nothing and why is that well here's one big reason I don't think that science is actually capable of disproving obvious facts about the wa ypeople work media's abilities are cultivate behaviors emotions and dispositions isn't some incidental point about it that requires further proof rather it's the entire reason why media exists in the first place

You’re conflating two very different things here. Nobody denies that media has an ‘effect’ in the sense of causing an emotional reaction or giving some new information to people. But thats a VERY different thing than saying media can alter peoples long-term attitudes, beliefs or behaviors.

I agree the former is obvious. The latter isnt. And in fact the effect media has is pretty small.

let's do a little thought experiment say a film is made that is unabashed Nazi propaganda let's call it Lubin'sLubin

You obviously dont speak German, but okay.

every moment in this film conveys an anonymous and an explicit hatred of Jews let's say that this film is so horrendously racist that nobody in society can possibly be influenced by it to become Nazis the vast majority of people watch it critically tear it apart maybe even reflect on how silly and gross Nazism is

So you’re saying this film may, unintentionally, have a net positive effect on society. Go on.

now if what's argon and Thunderfoot says is true if the only way to say a work of art is toxic is to look at its literal impact on society then we would be unable to condemn Lubin sh Lubin since the film has no tangible effect on anyone's behavior

Oh we could absolutely condemn the film, say its gross or bad or stupid or whatever. What could not do is say its harmful. Because it isnt.

everybody with a brain knows that this movie is bad politically not in a way that means we should ban it but in a way that is worthy of our scorn and disgust

Sure such a film would be disgusting. But disgust isnt harm. And to conflate the two is not only disingenuous as fuck, but potentially dangerous.

By this logic, Anita Sarkeesian’s videos are harmful, because lots of people are disgusted by them.

watching Anita sarkeesian's videos she does site cultivation Theory a few times says there's a causal relationship between video games being the way they are and people being sexist and to be honest I kinda wish she hadn't said those things

Do I even need to comment?

you can see that she means something very similar to what we described in our thought experiment we can see this whenever she talks about games it's pretty obvious

Indeed. Her main reason for condemning video games is that they offend her feminist sensibilities. So non-feminists have no reason to accept her criticism.

she didn't wait for the Double Dragon studies to come in and prove that the game causes regressive behaviors and of course she didn't do that because she doesn't have to she is a person who experienced this work of art and she's claiming here that what she saw in it

Or in other words:

it stipulates that violence against women can be understood as erotic

Again, who is the bigger sex symbol: Marion or Bayonetta? hint: its NOT the one who is passive recipient of violence.

it just doesn't make sense to reserve our judgments of media to only those things that the work is actively calling for we also have to look at subtext and coding

And the subtext here is ‘kidnapping and beating up women is bad. And real manly badasses protect and care for the ones they love.’

keeping with our Nazi propaganda theme which I guess we have here let's use let's use this boy as an example:

image posted for reference.

this image obviously sucks because in the society it was used in it conveyed terrible ideas it serves to implicitly justify racial hierarchy and to normalize the idea that Jewish people were subhuman it

The difference here is the image in question was used in explicit anti-semitic propaganda. There is a history here that directly links this imagery to Nazism and anti-semitism more broadly.

Video games dont have such a history. Even the tropes anita discusses that pre-date video games, such as the damsel in distress dont really have such a history. The story of Saint George and the dragon(one of the earliest DiD stories, and the oldest anita cites) was about faith and knightly duty, not gender relations. Hell Double Dragon isnt ABOUT how helpless your grlfriend, but about being the hero who is willing and capable to protect her.

Skipping some more, because I dont care:

what he[thunderf00t] seems to have forgotten is that you can buy cigarettes under capitalism and you can buy an apple under capitalism cigarettes kill 400,000 people every year but apples they don't do nearly that much damage it's actually said that they keep the doctors away you might think that cigarettes should remain legal and I'm sympathetic to that idea but you'd have a hard time convincing me that they're not harmful to the people who use them

The difference is that we have loads of evidence that cigarettes cause real, tangible harm. The same cannot be said for media. Even cultivation theory says that media tends to reinforce existing beliefs than implant new ones. And its not always clear that those beliefs translate into tangible actions.

And I’m gonna say it again before anybody brings it up: disgust is not harm.

you may think that you can talk about the worth of art from a political or moral perspective but in fact that's just a mirage anything you say about media is just an unverified and likely unsupportable position and you should probably forget about

I would phrase it differently: You can talk about media from a moral or political perspective all you want. However, anybody who doesnt share your perspective would then be perfectly justified in simply dismissing what you have to say.

hate Anita sarkeesian not because of what she says but because of who she is and the damage she causes

More precisely the damage we thought she might potentially cause. Which admittedly in hindsight was an overreaction.

they talk about how she sucks because she released her video slowly

Usually its less about her being slow, and more about she failed to keep her kickstarter promises. I dont really go in for that because because I frankly dont think its that big a deal.

didn't like being harassed on the Internet

Look, what she has shown as harassment is no worse than what most people(men and women) experience. The vast majority of it wasnt even harassment but responses and criticisms.

I guess you could say that online harassment shouldnt be a thing at all. But I also dont think thats very realistic.

talk about how she's a fraudulent grifter who gets her lackeys to phony bomb threats so she can make more money

I dont know about the bomb threat thing specifically. I DO know that she used the harassment she received(real or not) to get attention and money.

about how she's a fake gamer and so she shouldn't be talking about games

Thats a perfectly valid criticism though. Media criticism is best done by people who actually have knowledge of the media in question.

these guys are unapologetically anti-feminist and because of that they see no reason to change media to make it more feminist

So you DO get it!

and they don't criticize and Anita sarkeesian's work because of cultivation theory I mean where are the studies that show that these videos are causing murder rates to increase

I honestly dont know what you’re getting at here. The only reason anybody ever brought up cultivation theory is because Anita did first.

And they dont criticize Anita Sarkeesian's work because she explicitly calls for immoral actions

Nobody said she did? Although I think if you read between the lines she has some really negative views towards men.

and they don't criticize Anita sarkeesian's videos because they exist outside some benevolent capitalist structure I've got some hot news for you Anita sarkeesian's work is actually facilitated by capitalism

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. But it does make Anita a massive fucking hypocrite.

no they hate Anita sarkeesian's work mostly because she says stuff they think is bad she's a feminist who wants various things about games to change and they disagree with her vehemently about it

And more importantly, that with all the attention she was getting at the time we thought the kind of changes she wants might actually start to happen. Not that her videos would turn game developers into feminists(because lets face it, theres basically zero chance of her videos turning anybody feminist). But because they might become convinced that there is an audience for the kind of games she wants.

Like I said multiple times: We were mostly mistaken about that.

Theres not really much else here. he just repeats himself. so thats all for now.

0 notes

actuallyasexual · 8 years ago

Text

Re: “Cut Riverdale Some Slack”

I found a Riverdale defense post written by unsungunbridled in the asexuality tag. I want to address the post, but the defense post is quite long. Therefore, I hope to address some of the issues I have with it here.

Whatever the case, I feel that it is critical to address some of the attitudes and assumptions made about asexuality and how within fandom spaces people need to listen to asexual voices when it involves our representation.

Before I begin, I want to make a few things clear: I am an aromantic asexual person. I am speaking about this as such. I am making no assumptions about the OP’s identity, merely I am discussing how their argument effects me.

I invite them to engage in discussion with me if they wish, though they are not required to respond to this post. I understand if they feel uncomfortable in doing so, though this post is not meant to be hostile.

Normally I would not respond separately like this. In my defense, I considered the fact that they posted their defense in our community tags as well as screenshot someone expressing discontent over erasure on twitter.

Therefore, I believe that it’s fair and justifiable to address this here in a space where I am most comfortable and able of addressing at length the issues concerning us without adding to the notes of said defense post.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s begin:

The post is called “Cut Riverdale some slack. There is no asexuality erasure going on in that show.” They screenshot a tweet stating “oh my god and you support asexual erasure too. Colour me surprised.” in order to challenge it.

They follow with:

[Caption: “Since I’ve had it with Riverdale and Bughead getting hate due to accusations of asexuality erasure, I’ve crafted a wall of argument to try and shut it down. Colour me pumped.”]

Two major implications of such a statement concern me. One, that the show (Riverdale) and the ship (“Bughead;” referring to Jughead x Betty) “getting hate” is qualitatively worse than asexual erasure. Two, that they have the power to “craft a wall” and “shut down” our concerns.

Furthermore, these two implications tell me two things. One, that our erasure doesn’t matter. Two, that it’s okay to speak over a-spec people voicing their issues with something and to create barriers that make it that much more difficult for us to fight for fair representation.

Let’s continue:

They assume two things must happen in order for asexual erasure to be valid. Those two things are: 1) Jughead is asexual and 2) Riverdale represents him as someone who is not asexual. They state:

[Caption: On the surface, the above seem to concur, and Jughead’s asexuality is indeed being erased. But when we contextualize the matter within the history of Jughead’s character over the years of the Archie franchise, we’ll see that the accusation being thrown around recently is actually just a statement made out of a set of nitpicked facts put together to present faslehood.]

Here, I have highlighted some of the more alarming statements. “On the surface” implies that we’re simply not looking at the issue deep enough. This ignores the fact that many asexuals are discontent with their asexuality constantly being shoved into the background or ignored entirely. An “on the surface” lack of representation is still a serious issue!

In addition, our dissatisfaction is being blamed on “nitpicking facts” to present a “falsehood.” As asexual people, we’re seeing a critical part of a character’s identity being ignored. That’s not “nitpicking.” Our asexuality is important to us, and defending that importance by adding nuance to past interpretations of his character is not “presenting a falsehood.” It’s an interpretation.

This is a very length post, as the defense post is also lengthy and I have a lot to address. So, I’ll be putting the rest under a read more.

They go on to list earlier interpretations of Jughead, to show the range of interpretations that have impacted his grown and reincarnation over the years. The problem with this is that it ignores how past interpretations of asexuality surfaced in popular media, how comics frequently suffer continuity issues, and how none of his past interpretations change the fact that he’s asexual now.

I’ll talk about the interpretations they’ve listed:

First, let’s talk about the first one. It isn’t just that Jughead “could be” viewed as asexual in 2016. He is. They decided to make it explicitly clear that Jughead was asexual, and they coded him as aromantic with the possibility of being demiromantic in the future. [x] It’s reasonable to argue that a modern TV version of him should be based on a modern interpretation of Jughead.

In a 1969 interpretation, Jughead's aversion to women and obsession with food is chalked up to his "fear of women." This doesn’t conflict with an asexual interpretation. It’s merely a means for writers who are not asexual to rationalize why someone would enjoy food more than romantic or sexual relationships. Even in this version, Jughead’s behavior isn’t foreign to asexual people.

It’s common for people who are not asexual or aromantic to rationalize why people like us don’t experience sexual or romantic attraction. Sometimes, that is rationalized in a somewhat comedic fashion while other times it’s personal tragedy that makes use “who we are.” Either way, there have always been people trying to figure us out. These old interpretations are rationalizations.

Yet, as asexual and aromantic people we understand that someone can come to the realization that they’re asexual and/or aromantic in a wide variety of circumstances. It can be related to “heartbreak.” My own traumatic experiences have influenced my aromanticism. It doesn’t invalidate it, and interpreting Jughead as asexual for 75 years isn’t a false statement:

[Caption: Meaning, there are more than one canon explanations for Jughead’s general aversion to women, romance, and physical intimacy. So very absolute statements like this...

[pictured here: a tweet stating “hes been asexual for 75 years. just because they announced it this past year doesnt mean it hasn’t existed for decades]

...are false.]

...because everything mentioned before falls within the realm of asexual and/or aromantic experience, with the exception of continuities that were created to explore “what if” situations (e.g. “What if Jughead liked girls?” “What if Jughead fell in love?” and so on) That’s where having an understanding of comics comes into play -- comic book writers past and present love playing with “what ifs”...

This can be a fun approach to take with fan favorites once in a while, but it can also be the bane of dedicated comic book fan’s existence. Also, favoring a continuity where writers thought it would be fun to position a character who is odd or different or even marginalized in a way that downplays or alters that experience can be pretty harmful to who that character represents.

Also, you are dealing with an older comic. Asexual people have always existed, but the language we use for our community is fairly recent (within the past twenty years.) How people viewed us in the past, impacted how they represented us in fiction. You’re not (easily) going to find someone saying they’re asexual in a comic that occurred 75 years ago.

So, while Jughead’s “recurring aversion to women, romance, and physical intimacy” could have been rationalized in different ways over 75 years. It doesn’t change the fact that his experiences have been common to asexual people for 75 years, and that the rationalizations given for his aversion to all of this don’t invalidate the possibility of him being asexual for that entire time.

This is all a very manipulative way of working around the issue, because the two issues presented do concur. Jughead is canonically confirmed as asexual in the most recent incarnation of the character. Riverdale takes inspiration from the recent incarnation of Archie comic book characters. Riverdale showrunners have expressed no intention in making Jughead’s asexuality canon for TV. [x] [x]

So, the whole “there is no asexual erasure in Riverdale” tone taken in the defense post is frankly absurd to me. Yeah, okay, there’s no erasure happening and there’s no war in Ba Sing Se, either. Hundreds of asexual people, especially aromantic asexual people, are up in arms for no reason. We’re just here to hate on a show and a ship for no apparent reason.

Now, let’s talk about critical reactions to this and the defense against these critical reactions. I’m not sure how up to date the OP is in asexual representation in popular fiction, but the fact of the matter is that our representation is practically non-existent in popular fiction. This isn’t about “sexuality politics” as much as it’s about asexual people needing representation.

We matter more than your show. We matter more than your ship. Our feelings in regards to the show are more important and should be prioritized when it comes to discussing asexual representation. It doesn’t matter if writers can “play” with identity, because we are well aware of that. It matters that they feel like they need to in order to make their stories interesting.

It’s a problem when changing or omitting Jughead’s sexual identity reinforces tropes that harm asexual people. It’s a problem when they’re responsible for how a larger audience views us and interprets our existence as living breathing asexuals and aromantics. I’m frankly not concerned with the impact my voice has on the show’s success when the show can impact my life.

So, again, to state something like the following:

[Caption: So your false accusation of sexuality erasure can do some serious damage to the show you are lambasting. Your accusation can pick up bad press. Your accusation can have outsiders -- potential fans, additional viewers -- turning down Riverdale before they even give the show a chance; hell, before the show even gets its chance. (a jughead arc where he explores his asexuality, anyone?)

...prioritizes the show over asexual and aromantic people, with the added bonus of villianizing and guilt-tripping asexual and aromantic people voicing their issues with the show. Finally, it baits asexuals suggesting that if we just behave ourselves then maybe they’ll respect our identity. OP, you’re preferencing a show over our existence and that’s not okay.

This entire defense post derails from reasons why asexual and aromantic people are fighting so hard for our representation, and undermines our value. We as a people will always be more important than the success of a TV show, and we shouldn’t have to grovel or be nice about the erasure or misrepresentation of our experiences.

It was really bold of you to step into our community to defend a TV show like this. Really. You put a lot of effort into explaining yourself, but not much of it was considerate of asexual and aromantic people. Ultimately, this really wasn’t your place, OP, and in the process you’ve presented us as nitpicking liars who need to learn how to play nice in order to avoid erasure and gain respect.

#actually asexual #jughead #riverdale #bughead #ace representation #unsungunbridled

114 notes · View notes

financingideas-blog · 6 years ago

Text

EU referendum: British exit would be 'poison', says German finance minister

New Post has been published on https://financeqia.com/must-see/eu-referendum-british-exit-would-be-poison-says-german-finance-minister/

EU referendum: British exit would be 'poison', says German finance minister

Wolfgang Schuble makes case for UKs continued membership as Boris Johnson hits out at agents of fear

A British decision to leave the European Union would be poison for the UK, European and global economies that would last for years, the German finance minister has said.

Wolfgang Schuble made the case for Britains continued membership of a reformed EU as Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, reiterated his belief that the government was using agents of fear to undermine a vote for Brexit.

Johnson reasserted his attack over the scandalous circumstances in which a senior businessman resigned from the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) for expressing a positive view of Britain outside the EU.

Their comments follow a weekend of acrimonious campaigning from senior ministers for different sides of the in/out referendum, due to be held in June.

Schuble told BBC1s Andrew Marr Show: We would have years of the most difficult negotiations, which would be very difficult for the EU as well. And for years we would have such insecurity that would be a poison to the economy in the UK, the European continent and for the global economy as well.

In response to a question about Turkey, he said the German government had major doubts about whether it should become an EU member. Negotiations would take a long time, and this was not a worry at the present time.

Johnson, who is at the forefront of the campaign to leave the EU, also appeared on the show. He questioned why John Longworth, the director general of the BCC, has stepped down from his position.

It is very sad that someone like John Longworth who shares my view, who has great experience of British business and industry, should have paid quite a heavy price it seems from what has happened today for sharing that optimistic view.

He has been asked to step down for expressing a passionate, optimistic view of this countrys chances. Can you imagine the CBI doing the same to any of its leading figures for arguing that we should stay in?.

Downing Street dismissed claims that it put pressure on the BCC to suspend its leader for claims that the country could have a brighter future outside the European Union.

No 10 said it was surprised by the views expressed by Longworth and acknowledged that it speaks to business organisations regularly. But a statement from Downing Street reiterated claims that no pressure was put on the BCC to suspend Longworth.

The mayor claimed that Longworth had become a victim of project fear the label used by leave campaigners to criticise the tactics used by David Cameron and his allies backing a vote to remain.

A Downing Street spokesman said: Given that 60% of BCC members say they want to stay in the EU, No 10 was surprised to see the director general of the organisation come out for Brexit. We are clear no pressure was put on the BCC to suspend him. Of course, No 10 talks to business organisations regularly but, to be clear, no pressure was applied. This decision is entirely a matter for the BCC.

The Sunday Telegraph said a friend of Longworth claimed Downing Street had bullied and been putting pressure on BCC board members to suspend their director general.

Liam Fox, the former defence minister and a prominent leave campaigner, said he would ask questions in the House Commons about the governments contact with the BCC.

The senior Tory told BBC Radio 5 Live: I think, quite reasonably, I want an explanation as to what happened and I want to know if any part of government not just No 10, any part of government was involved in putting pressure on the BCC to drop John Longworth because I think that is inappropriate and I think if we dont get enough explanation well have to get a better one on the floor of the House of Commons.

Speaking to Marr, Johnson said it was cobblers that Cameron would have to leave office if Britain voted to leave the EU despite speculation Tory MPs are plotting to oust him in such circumstances. The London mayor also rejected claims he had decided to back an out vote for personal ambition rather than because it matched his convictions.

He added: To the best of my knowledge there is not a single European leader who has had to step down after the referendum, whether it was on the EU or any other matter.

Johnson used a colourful metaphor to describe the arguments of some in the remain camp as being negative and small-minded in the face of an opportunity to leave and restart negotiations with the EU.

This is like the jailer has accidentally left the door of the jail open and people can see the sunlit land beyond, he said. And everybody is suddenly wrangling about the terrors of the world outside. Actually it would be wonderful. It would be a huge weight lifted from British business.

However, Johnson distanced himself from Camerons claims that article 50 would have to be triggered the day after a vote to leave the EU. I dont believe it would, he said.

During the interview, Marr criticised Johnson for failing to answer questions succinctly. This is not the Boris Johnson Show, he said. Johnson, widely seen as a possible challenger to Cameron following the EU vote, was criticised for his performance by some fellow Conservatives.

Ruth Davidson, the popular Scottish Tory leader, wrote on Twitter: Is it just me or is Boris floundering here? Not sure the bumble-bluster, kitten-smirk, tangent-bombast routine is cutting through.

In a further development, Iain Duncan Smiths attacks on the remain camp have been accused of putting off women voters, according to a cabinet colleague. The work and pensions secretary, a prominent backer of Brexit, accused the government of producing a dodgy dossier criticising the alternatives to EU membership.

The education secretary, Nicky Morgan, who is campaigning to stay in the EU, said aggression in politics doesnt appeal to women. She also dismissed the impact that Johnson would have on the referendum contest following his decision to campaign for a vote to leave the EU on 23 June.

Morgan told the Independent on Sunday: I had a conversation with some businesswomen in my constituency. They said, that bloke who talks about the dodgy dossier Iain Duncan Smith they said what kind of language is that? Thats not going to tell us anything about the debate.

Aggression always appeals to a certain type of person in politics, but my experience is it doesnt appeal to women, she said. I think, actually, saying these phrases like dodgy dossiers and asking about project fear completely misses the point.

Senior Conservative backbencher David Davis demanded a clear statement by Downing Street that the government was not involved in pressurising the BCC into suspending Mr Longworth.

We need to know there was no contact between ministers and their officials before Fridays BCC board meeting that took the decision to suspend its chief. Downing Street has form in this respect. It has already admitted it made a mistake in adding the name of Gen Sir Michael Rose, the former special forces commander, to a letter from former military leaders supporting Britains continued membership of the EU.

The row over Longworths position came as Johnson joined with fellow leave supporter, the justice secretary, Michael Gove, in an attempt to undermine the prime ministers repeated claims that EU membership made the UK stronger and safer.

Gove told the Sunday Times: I think overall our national security is strengthened if we are able to make the decisions that we need and the alliances that we believe in outside the current structures of the of the European Union.

He claimed EU judges had taken decisions against the UKs national interests by dictating what our spies can do and whether we can be kept safe.

Gove added: Our security and sovereignty stand together. I believe that there are better opportunities to keep people safe if we are outside the European Union.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us

0 notes

themoneybuff-blog · 6 years ago

Text

An index to every money book I've reviewed during the past twelve years

147 Shares I read a lot of money books. As a result, a large section of my large library is devoted to books about personal finance. (And if I hadn't purged hundreds of money books when I sold this site in 2009, I'd have even more books and no place to put them.) Last week, a GRS reader named Lindsay dropped a line with an interesting question: I'm really enjoying your work back at GRS, the email newsletter, and your most recent FB live video! I'm wondering: Do you have a list of all the money books you've reviewed? I've been poking around to try and find one)? As it happens, I've been wanting a list of reviews myself. I know I have a million billion different projects around here, but one that I'd like to pursue is a free nicely-formatted PDF download that compiles every review I've written. To answer Lindsay's question and to satisfy my own curiosity I sifted through the GRS archives yesterday to compile a list of every money book I've reviewed during my 12+ years at this site. In this post, I've linked to those reviews, plus I've included a short summary of each book. Note: I'm certain that about half of the reviews are missing from the archives. The folks who purchased this site from me unpublished hundreds of articles (including many book reviews, apparently) during the time they owned GRS. Those reviews still exist, and I'll eventually find them and list them here, but it's far too cumbersome to find them at the moment.

For each book below, I've included a link to Amazon. I've also assigned each a book a letter grade and, in some cases, a star . My letter grades might seem harsh. That's because I've tried to really think about these on a sort of curve, where the vast majority of books are average and only a few merit As or Fs. As a result, some important titles get average (or low) grades despite their contribution to the field. If I grade a book an A, I think it's excellent. It offers excellent advice with no real flaws.If I give a book a B, it's a good book with good advice, but something about it holds it back. Maybe it's poorly written or maybe it's off-base on a topic or two.If I give a grade of C, the book is average. That means it gives reasonable money advice in a typical way. There's nothing drastically wrong with the book, and it's worth reading.If I give a D grade, the book is flawed in some major way. It still has some value to it maybe a core concept that you can't find elsewhere but I'm hesitant to recommend this to average folks.If I give a book and F, I don't think it has any sort of value. I don't give many Fs because I think nearly every book has some nugget of wisdom in it. Note that all of my letter grades were assigned today. They're based on who I am and what I know now, not when I wrote the reviews. And they're based on how valuable the book's info will be to a modern reader. (Some money books that were awesome in 1978 haven't aged well because their advice is specific to that era.) When I've marked a book with a star , that indicates I believe regardless of my grade, the title should be considered part of a core personal-finance library. (I don't have a review of Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover here. If I did, it'd get a C or lower because the book's quality is mixed and it has certain drawbacks. But the book would also merit a star because it should be in any serious library of money books.) Ultimately, though, you shouldn't let the letter grades and stars guide your decision to read a book. Use my reviews instead. They're much more nuanced than an arbitrary grade. The grades are meant as a sort of quick reference. Finally, I've sorted the titles into roughly reverse-chronological order based on year of publication. I think most readers are interested in recent titles. (Because of my hiatus from money-blogging, there's a gap here between 2010 and 2016.) If, like me, you prefer older money books, you'll find them closer to the end of this list. That's enough explanation. Here then is a list of (nearly) all of the book reviews from the archives here at Get Rich Slowly!

Get Money by Kristin Wong (2018)Get Money is all about applying game-playing principles to money management. Most money books tend toward boring and stale. Not this one. Get Money is both funny and wise, packed with practical tips for how to play the game of money and win. It's a useful money manual from a favorite former GRS staff writer. [my review] BThinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts by Annie Duke (2018)For a long time, Ive argued that the best money books are often not about money at all. Thinking in Bets is an example of this. Duke says that there are exactly two things that determine how our lives turn out: The quality of our decisions and luck. She uses plenty of personal finance examples, but the book itself is about self-improvement. Its not specifically about personal finance, yet the info here could have a profound impact on your financial future. [my review] A-Meet the Frugalwoods: Achieving Financial Independence through Simple Living by Elizabeth Willard Thames (2018)Meet the Frugalwoods isnt a money manual. It isnt fiction. Its memoir. The book covers ten years in the lives of Liz and her husband Nate, from their post-college job-hunting experiences in Kansas to purchasing a 66-acre homestead in Vermont. Through their story, Liz shows readers its possible to move from a life of consumerism to a life built around frugality and purpose. My chief complaint? The Frugalwoods didn't achieve financial independence through frugality; they achieved it through a high income. [my review] CYou Need a Budget by Jesse Mecham (2017)You Need a Budget is a simple book, but its excellent. It doesnt try to throw the entire world of personal finance at you. Its laser-focused on one thing: building a better budget. Because Mecham has been reading and writing about budgets since 2004, hes learned a lot about what works and what doesnt. Hes constantly receiving feedback from the tens of thousands of people who follow his program. This book is a culmination of that experience, and it shows. If you need a budget, I highly recommend this book. [my review] A The Simple Path to Wealth by J.L. Collins (2016)The Simple Path to Wealth presents the advice from the author's blog in a coherent, unified package. Its an easy-to-understand primer on stock-market investing and financial independence. Although the book is intended to offer wide-ranging advice about the journey to financial freedom, I think its at its best when Collins covers retirement investing. [my review] B+ Early Retirement Extreme by Jacob Lund Fisker (2010)Imagine a personal-finance book written by a theoretical physicist. What would it be like? Full of formulas and figures, right? Well, thats what you get with Early Retirement Extreme. This feels like a book written by an engineer for other engineers. This isnt a bad thing, but it is unique. Some people will love it; others will hate it. Also, this book could use a professional editor. These caveats aside, ERE is packed with excellent information, and is one of the key books in the Financial Independence movement. [my review] B The Simple Dollar by Trent Hamm (2010)This book isnt really about personal finance. Theres personal finance in it, sure, but like Hamms blog, The Simple Dollar is about personal and professional transformation. This is a book about change. The information in the book is good, and its sure to be useful to many people, but the content is so jumbled that its difficult to see the Big Picture. [my review] C-Mind Over Money by Ted and Brad Klontz (2009)Mind Over Money wont teach you how to budget and it doesnt ever mention index funds. This isnt a book about the nuts-and-bolts of personal finance. Its a book about how we relate to money. The strength of the book isnt in the answers it provides, but in the questions it provokes. If you're looking for a book about the psychology of personal finance, this is worth reading. [my review] CEscape from Cubicle Nation by Pam Slim (2009)Escape from Cubicle Nation starts at the beginning of the entrepreneurial journey: deciding what to do with your life. Slim spends several chapters discussing how to get in touch with whats important to you. At times, this almost seems touchy-feely. Almost. Thankfully, the book packs in ton of practical info on how to start a successful small business that matches you and your lifestyle. [my review] B+The Happiness Project by Gretchen Rubin (2009)On paper, The Happiness Project may seem sort of lame. Rubin decided to spend one year consciously pursuing happiness. Each month, she tackled one specific aspect of life marriage, work, attitude, and so on and during that month, she attempted to meet a handful of related resolutions she hoped would make her happier. Fortunately, the book isnt lame. Rubins style is warm and engaging, and the material here is useful. [my review] BI Will Teach You to Be Rich by Ramit Sethi (2009)This book is great, but its not for everyone. First of all, its targeted almost exclusively at young adults. If youre under 25 and single, and if you make a decent living, this book is perfect. But if youre 45 and married with two children, and if you struggle to make ends meet, this book is less useful. That said, it's packed with solid advice, cites its sources, and provides scores of tactical tips for managing money. [my review] A- Spend Til the End by Scott Burns and Larry Kotlikoff (2008)Burns and Kotlikoff analyze dozens of hypothetical scenarios as they seek to discover which choices provide the greatest lifetime living standard per adult. Their aim is to find a way to balance today and tomorrow, to pursue what's known as consumption smoothing. Much of the books advice is geared toward those nearing retirement, but theres still plenty for readers of every age. [my review] C+Increase Your Financial IQ by Robert Kiyosaki (2008)The problem with the standard financial advice is that its bad advice. Youve been told to work hard, save money, get out of debt, live below your means, and invest in a well-diversified portfolio of mutual funds. But this advice is obsolete so argues Robert Kiyosaki in Increase Your Financial IQ. I'll be blunt: Kiyosaki is full of shit. I worry about his financial IQ. [my review] D-

The 4-Hour Workweek by Timothy Ferriss (2007)When I picked up The 4-Hour Workweek, I was worried it was some sort of get rich quick book. Ferriss makes a lot of bold promises, and some of the details along the way read like the confessions of an internet scammer. Ultimately, though, I found tons of value that I could apply to my own entrepreneurial ventures. In fact, this has become one of my most-bookmarked books of all time! An intelligent reader can easily extract a wealth of useful here, which is why it's become a modern classic. [my review] B- The Quiet Millionaire by Brett Wilder (2007)The Quiet Millionaire is different from most of the other money books I review. Though Wilder includes behavioral finance and life planning concepts, this is a numbers book. It's like a textbook for personal finance. It isnt really a book for beginners. Its targeted at folks who are out of debt and building wealth. I suspect many people will find this book boring. But then, smart personal finance is boring. [my review] BDebt Is Slavery by Michael Mihalik (2007)Debt is Slavery is a deceptively simple book. Its short. Its advice seems basic. And its self-published, so how good can it be? Well, I think its great. In fact, I found myself wishing that I had written it. Mihaliks advice is spot-on, and he covers a lot of topics that other authors shy away from, such as the effects of advertising, the weight of possessions, and the soul-sucking misery that comes from a bad job. This book may be short, but its sweet. Especially great for recent graduates, I think. [my review] B+Overcoming Underearning by Barbara Stanny (2007)Overcoming Underearning isn't what I expected it to be. When I read the title, I expected a book about how to stretch your dollars and how get more from what you do earn. This book is about asking for more, creating more, and working your way through the psychological pitfalls that lead to being satisfied with less in the first place. But the book contains few actionable steps that will help you make more money or invest well. If you need a how-to book, keep looking. If you need to get started, or are started, but have hit a wall and you dont know why, this might be the book for you. [my review] C-The Secret by Rhonda Byrne (2006)The Secret is all about the so-called Law of Attraction, which is not actually a law of anything. The Law of Attraction states that your life is a result of the things you think about. From a psychological perspective, this notion has some merit. But this book offers no evidence of any kind: no scientific discussion, no experimentation only scattered cherry-picked anecdotes. Its the worst kind of pseudo-scientific baloney. And its money advice is actively harmful rather than helpful. [my review] FThe Millionaire Maker by Loral Langmeier (2006)The Millionaire Maker attempts to codify Langemeiers proprietary Wealth Cycle Process. She believes there are better places to put your money than in mutual funds. This book is a mixed bag. While it preaches what ought to be preached, and Langemeier provides more specifics than some authors, her message sounds hollow. There is some good information here, but theres stuff that raises red flags, too. [my review] D+Work Less, Live More: The Way to Semi-Retirement by Bob Clyatt (2005)For years, Work Less, Live More has been my go-to book for info about early retirement. I give away copies several times a year. I recommend it when replying to email. I refer to it myself when I have questions. I like this book because it strikes a balance between the high-level Big Picture stuff and the low-level nitty-gritty numbers crunching. (See also: Bob Clyatt's guest post here at GRS about his life since writing the book.) [my review] A All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi (2005)This book was written by the mother-daughter team of Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi. (Warren is now a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts!) The authors dont get bogged down in the details of frugality and investing. Theyre more interested in changing behavior, in fixing the big stuff. They offer a framework around which the reader can build lasting financial success. The book's advice is solid, if sometimes flawed. To me, its lasting legacy is the introduction of the Balanced Money Formula (which some now call the 50-30-20 budget), a concept I promote extensively in my public speaking gigs. [my review] B- Secrets of the Millionaire Mind: Mastering the Inner Game of Wealth by T. Harv Eker (2005)Many people would dismiss Secrets of the Millionaire Mind as useless. Theres not a lot of concrete information here about how to improve the details of your financial life. (Though the scant advice presented is sound). Instead, this book encourages readers to adopt mental attitudes that facilitate wealth. Its about changing your psychological approach to money, success, and happiness. (This book is the source of my money blueprint concept.) [my review] CMoney Without Matrimony: The Unmarried Couple's Guide to Financial Security by Sheryl Garrett and Debra Neiman (2005)As difficult as marriage and money can be, things are even tougher for unmarried couples, both gay and straight. Its difficult for these folks to get good advice in a society thats geared toward married couples. Money Without Matrimony is a great book with sound suggestions. Its non-judgmental, practical, and packed with advice. If youre in a committed unmarried relationship, I highly recommend you track down a copy. [my review] AThe Automatic Millionaire by David Bach (2005)David Bach is perhaps best known for coining the term the latte factor, a phrase that has almost become a joke in personal finance circles. Thats too bad, really, because Bach has some good ideas. And the latte factor is a marvelous concept, applicable to many people who casually spend their future a few dollars at a time. This book encourages readers to eliminate debt, to live frugally, and to pay themselves first. But the core of his book is unique: rather than develop will power and self-discipline, Bach says, why not bypass the human element altogether? Why not make your path to wealth automatic? [my review] C Luck Is No Accident: Making the Most of Happenstance in Your Life and Career by John D. Krumboltz and Al S. Levin (2004)Luck Is No Accident is a short book. Nothing in it is groundbreaking or revolutionary. Yet its common-sense wisdom is a powerful motivator. Whenever I read it, I cannot help but come away inspired, ready to make more of my situation, and to try new things. If youre the sort of person who wonders why good things only happen to other people, I encourage you to read it. [my review] B+The Random Walk Guide to Investing: Ten Rules for Financial Success by Burton Malkiel (2003)Malkiels advice can be stated in a few short sentences: Eliminate debt. Establish an emergency fund. Begin making regular investments to a diversified portfolio of index funds. Be patient. But the simplicity of his message does not detract from its value. If you want to invest but dont know where to start, pick up a copy of this book. [my review] A-

The Bountiful Container by Rose Marie Nichols McGee and Maggie Stuckey (2002)The Bountiful Container beats most gardening books hands-down in several key areas. It focuses on growing plants that give a beginning gardener the most bang for the buck, plants that are both edible and decorative and can be grown with limited space. It is splendidly organized and easy to read, and has a great index, too. And the level of detail is just right for almost any skill level, and the writing is pleasant to read and easy to understand. [my ex-wife's review] B+The Four Pillars of Investing by William Bernstein (2002)In this book, Bernstein describes how to build a winning investment portfolio. He doesnt focus on the details he tries to explain fundamental concepts so that readers will be able to make smart investment decisions on their own. The Four Pillars of Investing is challenging in places, but it provides an excellent introduction to the theory, history, psychology, and business of investing. If youre able to finish, youll have a better grasp of investing than 99% of your peers. [my review] B Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping by Paco Underhill (2000)In this book, Paco Underhill an environmental psychologist describes what he learned through years of research into consumer behavior and retail marketing. Like it or not, youre manipulated all of the time while youre shopping, and in ways you dont even suspect. But by taking Underhills lessons for marketers and flipping them around, you can make yourself immune to marketers manipulations. (Well, maybe not immune, but less likely to succumb to their ploys, anyhow.) [my review] BWhy Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes (and How to Fix Them) by Gary Belsky and Thomas Gilovich (1999)In this short book, Belsky and Gilovich catalog a menagerie of mental mistakes that cause people to spend more than they should. What might have been a boring topic becomes fascinating thanks to an engaging style and plenty of anecdotes and examples. This book covers a couple dozen psychological barriers to wealth. [my review] B+ The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas Stanley and William Danko (1998)The Millionaire Next Door has earned its place in the canon of personal-finance literature. It's built on years of research, on a body of statistics and case studies. It doesnt make hollow promises. That said, the book is a flawed classic. It offers a fascinating portrait of the wealthy, but it buries this beneath mountains of detritus. The book is poorly organized, repetitive, and dull. (The section on car-buying seems to go on forever.) A patient reader will be rewarded with a glimpse at what it takes to become a millionaire, but I cant help but feel this book could have been something more. Warning: Avoid the audiobook, which suffers even more in the tedious sections. [my review] C+ Yes, You Can Achieve Financial Independence by James Stowers (1992)Yes, You Can Achieve Financial Independence is informative without being dense. Its accessible without being condescending. Its advice is solid. The book is filled with investment advice, but it gives equal time to thrift and savings. Best of all, it asks as many questions as it provides answers. It prompts the reader to think, to evaluate his priorities. Its message is that yes, you can achieve Financial Independence, but you cant get there overnight, and you cant get there without setting goals and making sacrifices. [my review] A-How to Retire Young by Edward M. Tauber (1989)How to Retire Young is one of the oldest books Ive found on the subject of early retirement. Taubers premise is that many people can retire early if they plan and remain dedicated to the plan. I wish I could say that this is a great book. Sadly, its not. Its good (dont get me wrong), but it suffers from being first. [my review] C-Cashing In on the American Dream: How to Retire at 35 by Paul Terhorst (1988)Cashing In on the American Dream is a seminal early retirement book and its advice was spot-on for 1988. But that strength is now its weakness. Some of the advice is thirty years out of date. If you dont need specific advice but are instead interested about theory (and story), then seek out this title. (The last half of the book is filled with stories from folks who made early retirement happen.) [my review] BHow to Get Out of Debt, Stay Out of Debt, and Live Prosperously by Jerrold Mundis (1988)How to Get Out of Debt is built on the principles of Debtors Anonymous, a twelve-step program founded in 1971 to help those who struggle with compulsive debt. Mundis was himself a debtor, and he based this book on his own experience. This isnt purely theoretical information from the mind of some Wall Street finance whiz who has never struggled; this book contains real tips and real stories from real people. [my review] A- You Can Negotiate Anything by Herb Cohen (1980)Whether you like it or not, your life is filled with negotiations. You negotiate your salary, for the price of a car, for the cost of a couch. You negotiate with your wife about where to spend your summer vacation, with your husband about what color to paint the babys bedroom, with your daughter about what time she should be home from the football game. Of all the books Ive recommended at Get Rich Slowly over the years, You Can Negotiate Anything is one of the best. [my review] A How to Get Rich and Stay Rich by Fred J. Young (1979)This book is built around a single principle: Spend less than you earn and invest the difference in something that you think will increase in value and make you rich. It reads like homespun advice from your favorite uncle. While theres plenty of good advice in these pages and lots of amusing anecdotes, theres very little polish. [my review] CThe Incredible Secret Money Machine by Don Lancaster (1978)Though the title smacks of get-rich-quick schemes, The Incredible Secret Money Machine is really about starting and running a small business. To Lancaster, a money machine is any venture that generates nickels. Nickels are small streams of revenue from individual customers. If your goal is simply to earn a comfortable income for yourself by doing something you love, then this book can help you explore the idea of business ownership. Its not going to help you launch the next Google or Microsoft, though. Lancaster is all about nickels, not about dollars. [my review] C+Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression by Studs Terkel (1970)In 1970, writer Studs Terkel published Hard Times: An Oral History of the Great Depression, which features excerpts from over 100 interviews he conducted with those who lived through the 1930s. Terkel spoke with all sorts of people: old and young, rich and poor, famous and not-so-famous, liberal and conservative. The book is fascinating. Its one thing to read about the Great Depression in textbooks, or to hear it used as leverage in political speeches, but its another thing entirely to read the experiences of the people who lived through it. [my review] A-

That's it! If you find any reviews I missed, let me know so that I can add them to this index. I consider this a living article. I plan to add to it with time. As I re-publish old reviews that are currently unpublished, I'll add them here. And as I write new reviews in the future, those will get added to the list too. Know of a money book that I should read and review? Drop a line to let me know! 147 Shares https://www.getrichslowly.org/money-books-index/

0 notes

viralhottopics · 8 years ago

Text

Child sex dolls are horrifyingbut some say they prevent abuse

BY TRACY CLARK-FLORY

The very idea of a child sex dolla life-size, anatomically correct figure typically modeled after a little girltends to evokeabject horror. But earlier this week, a Finnish non-profit that hasspent several decades promoting sexual well being suggested that these disturbing littledollsmight actually help to protect children from abuse.

Tommi Paalanen, executive director of the Sexpo Foundation, argued that pedophiles can be prevented from abusing kidsif given an acceptable channel for their desiresand that sex dolls are one such channel.

A person who uses a lot of money and effort to purchase the doll has already made the decision that he wants to carry out the sexual tendency, he wrote in a statement, according to a translation. Therefore, it is important that the customs authorities or others concerned about the sex dolls actors do not hamper their availability.

The statement, which quickly and inevitably garnered tabloid headlines, came following news of an uptick in Norway of imports of child sex dolls from Hong Kong. Police there have seized 21 such dolls since October and warn that the buyersmen between the ages of 18 and 60, some of whom had already been convicted of child abusemay pose a risk of committing abuses against children in the future.It isnt just Norway and Finland that are grappling with this issuemen in Canada and Australia are currently on trial or being investigated forallegedly purchasing child sex dolls.

Both Canada and Australia outlaw thedolls, but they might, theoretically, be legal in the United States. The Supreme Court hasrecognizedthe difference between actual and fake child porn and, in 2003, Congresspassed a lawthat criminalizes computer-generated kiddie porn, but only if it is, or appears to be, virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.The question, especially as technology makes it possibleto create increasingly lifelike child replicas, is whether these dolls cause harm or prevent it.

The Sexpo Foundation is hardly the first to suggest thatits the latter. Milton Diamond, a sex researcher andprofessor emeritus atthe University of Hawaii at Mnoa, has long argued that simulated child pornographymeaning pornographic content that features computer-generated images instead of footage of real childrencan prevent child abuse. In 2010, he published a study finding that during a period inthe Czech Republic when child pornography was not illegal, there was a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse. Studies have found similar evidencein Denmark and Japan.From that, he argues, we can conclude that child sex dolls would have a similar effect.

I think that what might do is encourage masturbation by the pedophile, he said. I think what they would do is substitute the dollwhatever engagement theywould have withthe doll instead of dealing with real kids.

Its similar to anargument made by Shin Takagi, a self-described pedophile based in Japanwho sells child-like sex dolls. As he told The Atlantic last year,We should accept that there is no way to change someones fetishes. I am helping people express their desires, legally and ethically. Its not worth living if you have to live with repressed desire.

But some, including criminologists and psychologists, argue that there is reason to believe that these dolls might actually fanpedophilic desires.Peter Collins, a forensic psychiatristwho is testifying inthe Canadian child sex doll case, has told officialsthatwhen it comes to child porn, high-risk pedophiles can become incited bythe imagery, satiated bythe imagery or act outwhen they are experiencing stress intheir life, and argued that the dolls areequivalent to child porn.

In otherwords, the dollscould either incite or satiate.

Most experts, however, say we simply dont know one way or the other. James Cantor, a clinical psychologistand editor-in-chief ofthe academic journalSexual Abuse,said, It is very possible that using child sex dolls could reduce someones risk of harming an actual child, but I am not aware of any such study actually having been conducted, he said. Importantly, the reverse is also true: There is no evidence that using child sex dolls causes any increase in risk of molesting a real child.

Its possible that the truth is somewhere in between. Michael Seto, aforensic psychologistwho studies pedophilia, sexual offendingand child pornography, suggests that, similar to what research is revealing to us about the impact of pornography, it might be that it dependsentirely on the person. For some individuals with pedophilia, access to child sex dolls or fictional child pornography might be a safe outlet for their sexual desires, which otherwise cannot be expressed legally. This might further reduce their likelihood of sexually offending against children, he said. For others, though, child sex dolls or fictional pornography might be an incitement, stirring up sexual feelings that lead to offending.

FredBerlin,apsychiatrist who specializes in sexual disorders at Johns Hopkins, similarly says there isa total paucity of research in this area, but is skeptical of claims that child sex dolls could act as effectivedeterrents.Its notgoing to be a cure for the problem, he said, adding that he hopes people dont turn to the dolls as analternative to psychiatric treatment.

Research has shown that the majority of those who watch child pornography, without any prior child abuseoffenses, do not go on to commit hands-on sexual crimesagainst children (or, at least, to be chargedfor it). But as Berlin points out, that doesnt mean that child porn ispreventativeit might just be that most previously non-offending people who are drawn to that material are not compelled to commit a hands-on offense. It couldbe the same with child sex dolls, but we justhave no idea.

Given the lack of evidence of child sexdolls negative impact, Cantor argues there is no reason to criminalize them. Even when a law tries to target a thought crime its because of the fear that that thought will lead to overt action, he said. But because theres no evidence that masturbation fantasies cause real-world crimes, prosecuting sex doll use is evencrazierthan is prosecuting thought-crimes.

We know so little about whether these dolls help or hurtbecause, for the most part, thetopic is radioactive. Studying the impact of child sex dolls, or even simulated child porn, not only raiseslegal and ethical issues for researchers, but perhaps most importantly, it is profoundly controversialon the level of outraged international tabloid headlines. What university wants to put its name behind something that will end up asoutrage fodder inThe Daily Mail? As Seto puts it, Imagine trying to apply for funding.

The irony is that, while all thisreticence about this topic ostensibly arises from concern forchildren, itmight actually have the effect of hurting them. We need research to figure this out, said Seto. My hope is that people can get past their emotional reactions to the idea of child sex dolls or fictional child pornography, in the hope that we might find an option that helps people with pedophilia and makes children safer.

Cantor agrees.Despite the great potential to reduce sexual offenses even before one occurs, there hasnt been anyone stepping up, he said. Peoples aversion to this topic is stopping us from improving child protection efforts.

This story originally appeared on Vocativ and has been republished with permission.