#such is the nature of the human condition

[unchaineddragon25]

I hated being autistic and having synesthesia when I was a kid. My synesthesia was basically treated like a shock collar built into my nervous system. Anyone could subject me to a loud noise to cause me immense pain without leaving a mark on me. People would actually keep score on who could cause me to drop to the ground in pain most often before the end of the week. And I couldn't do shit to retaliate until I was in high school. One kid screamed in my ears in ninth grade and dumped the contents of a trash can on me once. And then he thought it was messed up that I grabbed a lunch table and hit him with it. I got lunch detention for responding to an unprovoked attack. I just didn't get people.

Eventually things got so out of hand that my disability was made public knowledge by the admins just so that my retaliations could be justified as self-defense to hate crimes. I lost track of how many times I was assaulted. It just never stopped. Even when I got into the habit of throwing people around, I never felt safe. I even got followed home by people on my way back from the gym. I kept two knives concealed in the palms of my gloves for that reason. The attacks were so common that I was frequently released from school 30 minutes ahead of everyone else simply for some additional safety. And even that didn't guarantee my safety. When I was eighteen a boy at school pulled a knife on me. I disarmed him by weakening his grip with a pressure point to the base of his wrist.

I hated myself for my conditions when I was growing up. And more than that, I hated people for putting me through hell for being different. A friend's dad once threatened a group of kids who chased me across the neighborhood with his spear cane. And another time my archery teacher had to pull a crossbow on a group of kids while his daughter threatened to call the police on them for attacking me with rocks to the head when I was in junior high. My teacher had me practice in his backyard from that point onward and gave me a key to his carpentry shop for extra security where he kept a spare bow and arrow and a phone with the police department on speed dial.

I basically had to live as if my life could be ended at any moment. One of my greatest fears was to die and end up a cautionary tale. I only survived due to either dumb luck or being physically stronger than my attackers. The latter of which is why I spent so much time in the gym as a teenager. By the time I was seventeen I was regularly bench pressing my own body weight 150 reps a day. My autism caused me to overdevelop in regards to neuromuscular efficiency, prioritizing that over fine motor control. It was necessary to survive. And I could read human biomechanics like a neurotypical person could read facial expressions. I was a natural fighter. I trained at the gym in weight lifting, cardio, and martial arts for up to five hours a day. Just to deal with my anger. Just to have a place where I felt safe.

I still struggle with PTSD to this day because of the abuse and violence I suffered as a kid. One of the only things that brings me any relief is swordsmanship. The sword is one of the few weapons I didn't train with during that time. It's a clean slate for me. I used to use any number of weapons in self-defense that I'd keep on me. Knives, staves, short clubs, whips, and more. I even once had to raise an axe in self-defense when I was fifteen when I was cornered. I'd been removing a small tree for a neighbor when I was ganged up on.

It just felt like it would never end.

I mean surely we all grew up feeling like there was a wrongness inherently deep inside us that will endure for the rest of our lives

[probablyasocialecologist]

The problem with the law of climate change goes beyond simply favoring the haves over the have-nots. Global warming presents the law with a foundational crisis, as great as the crises of politics, economics, and culture. Private property rights, rules of standing, and corporate privilege all belong to a worldview born of the middle-class ascendancy of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the Industrial Revolution, a worldview in which ideas like the primacy of individual initiative and the human-natural divide are taken as given, just like the law of gravity and the supply-demand curve. Such assumptions clearly will not do in an era of massively distributed guilt and harm, of precarious ecological entanglement, and of unstable background conditions. Something more than tinkering is called for. Just as badly as we need new energy sources, we need new legal ideas.

Ted Hamilton, Beyond Fossil Law: Climate, Courts, and the Fight for the Future

[infinite--92]

At the science and development conference, Dr. Miranda Hale found herself in a rare position of being the center of attention. Her reputation in the medical community had grown, especially after the work she had done with Sophie, Emily, and their condition. The university had invited her to speak about the hormonal changes and experimental treatments that were still in the early stages, but with great potential. It was a topic that was both controversial and intriguing, drawing the interest of many in the academic world.

Miranda, though usually shy and reserved, had become more comfortable with public speaking over time. She stood at the podium, explaining the scientific principles behind her work with clarity and passion. Her hands were steady as she clicked through her slides, her voice confident, though a little quieter than some of the other speakers. As the lecture went on, she could sense the curiosity and intrigue from the audience, especially as she described the unique phenomenon that Sophie and Emily were experiencing.

The Q&A

When the lecture ended, Miranda sat down at the front of the room for the Q&A session. A few questions came from the audience, some technical, others more personal in nature, all of them eager to understand the potential implications of her work.

One student in particular—a young man in his early twenties, wearing glasses and a casual blazer—had been asking several follow-up questions. He seemed particularly focused on the details of the hormonal adjustments and the potential outcomes of the ongoing experiments. His questions were sharp and precise, showing that he had a genuine interest in the subject. His enthusiasm was almost contagious, and Miranda found herself engaged in the exchange, enjoying the intellectual challenge.

After a while, however, his questions took a more personal turn, hinting at an unusual curiosity about the human side of the research. He asked about how the women involved in the study felt about the changes, how they had coped with the rapid physical transformations, and whether any of them had formed a deeper connection to the process itself. Miranda answered carefully, always sticking to the scientific facts, but it was clear that this student was more interested in the personal implications of the research.

After the Conference

Once the conference had concluded, most of the attendees filed out of the lecture hall, eager to continue networking or head to the next session. Miranda was gathering her notes when she noticed the same male student from earlier approaching her.

"Dr. Hale," he said, his voice a bit more nervous now that the formalities of the Q&A were over, "I really appreciate your talk today. It was fascinating—so insightful."

Miranda offered a polite smile. "Thank you. I'm glad you found it interesting."

The student hesitated for a moment before continuing, his eyes searching for the right words. "I—uh, I just wanted to say... I find your work really inspiring. And, well..." He shifted uncomfortably on his feet, clearly gathering courage. "I think you're really attractive. And if you're open to it, I'd love to meet with you sometime. Maybe we could have coffee or dinner? Just to talk more, maybe—about your work, or anything else."

Miranda was momentarily taken aback. She had grown accustomed to intellectual admiration for her work, but this kind of personal compliment was new. She had been so focused on her research and the community she was building that the idea of romantic or personal attention from others had never really crossed her mind. She could tell from the student's expression that he was genuine, though perhaps a little too forward for her comfort.

Miranda smiled politely but firmly. "I appreciate the compliment, but I think it's important to maintain professional boundaries. I’m here to focus on my research and the work we’re doing, and I hope you understand that." Her tone was kind, but clear in its intention to redirect the conversation.

The student seemed slightly embarrassed but nodded quickly. "Of course, Dr. Hale. I understand. I'm sorry if I made you uncomfortable."

"No, it's fine," Miranda reassured him, her voice softening. "It's just that I prefer to keep things professional, especially in academic settings. But I do appreciate your interest in my work."

The student gave a small nod, clearly trying to hide his disappointment. "Right, of course. Well, thank you again for the talk. It was really eye-opening."

Miranda smiled again. "You're welcome. I'm glad you found it valuable."

As the student turned to leave, Miranda took a deep breath. She was used to being respected for her intellect, but this encounter felt different. It was the first time in a long while that someone had expressed personal admiration for her outside of professional or academic contexts. While she appreciated the compliment, it made her realise that she wasn’t quite sure how to navigate this new territory. She had always been so focused on her work that personal matters like this hadn’t been on her radar. But perhaps, with the changes she was experiencing in her own life, it was time to reflect on how she might want to handle relationships, both personal and professional, moving forward.

As she packed up her things and prepared to leave, Miranda couldn’t help but think about the unexpected nature of this world she was now part of. It wasn’t just about science and development anymore—it was about navigating her own journey, both professionally and personally, and figuring out where her place was in it all.

[scholarlyhobbit]

Eugenics and Social Darwinism are fantasies of population purification invented by Victorians who were certain they could breed a master race. I cannot stress that enough. They're ideas with identifiable origin points, not long-standing truths about human nature and society. Francis Galton was a statician who mathematically determined the way to make the perfect cup of tea and the way to breed for "genius" in the population, and published his ideas about heredity starting in 1869.

Eugenics as a movement explicitly endorsed purifying the population of a nation and also argued that improving social and material conditions for people was ineffective compared to ensuring good breeding stock. They believed that any improvement in housing or food or poverty was wasted on the unfit, as they could never appreciate them and it's just a waste of money on an undeserving natural underclass.

So when you hear shit about the cost of caring for the undeserving, for welfare queens (also an anti-Black racist stereotype) and benefits scroungers, when you hear people complaining about the burden of disabled people or people who fake disabilities for benefits, you're explicitly hearing eugenics. You're hearing Nazi bullshit that some people need to be executed by the state so that they stop draining resources and birthing defective, parasitic children. I cannot emphasize this enough.

Do not accept Nazi arguments because they seem like "common sense." They never are. They're just asking you to pretend that all humans everywhere are inherently cruel and that your cruelty is justified and sensible. Cruelty is not either of those things. Do not let Nazis seduce you into thinking the cruelty will only benefit you. It can and will always come home to roost and soon you're the undesirable who just needs to be eliminated for the greater good. Never lose sight of that.

DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE NEANDERTHAL CHILD WITH DOWN'S SYNDROME? Because they're all I've been thinking about when I'm sad for the past few days. Their existence makes me less sad.

[collaredsoldat]

Will there be later on a fic of Wintersoldierxreader? When he gets a bit more stable and starts to form a more human relationship with y/n?

Will he slowly transition back into who he used to be?

I get a lot of dms and asks about more romantic fics with WS, and I am not sure if I will go that far. I'm on the fence.

Bucky endured extreme conditions for 70 years and that kind of psychological dehumanization lasts for a lifetime. He does slowly get better in the films yes, but not completely, and my fics will be no different. Especially since this blog focuses on his WS era only. I haven't really explored the intimate trauma end of it a whole lot and I want to, but haven't gotten that far.

Since the nature of this side blog is mostly for hurt/comfort, and taking into consideration the hcs about WS I have, intimacy is highly unlikely, for this series at least. Aside from it, I will write more 'x reader' types of fics yes.

I'm not sure how far my series will go.

He won't go back to normal, no. He never will. But, he is in much better care with the reader and their relationship will get to a point where he's not so afraid. The entire point of the series is to show his recovery with someone who doesn't want to use or hurt him and who genuinely does care for him. This kind of thing just takes time 🖤

[heliianth]

when you say that nanika is a reflection of killua’s “worst traits”, what do you mean by that exactly? :O

genuinely asking bc i’m super interested and curious !!

ok so.... while trying my hardest not to be reductive, Killua and Nanika occupy very similar social spaces. But before we can get there, I kind of want to lay down the groundwork first.

Here's Illumi (un)helpfully expositing Killua's self-image—the one he spends his entire arc desperately running away from—for us:

Killua's narrative has a lot to do with dehumanization and questions about nature—whether somebody can choose who they are or whether their circumstances decide for them, what makes a human being, all that juicy stuff. He's almost a soft launch for what the series forces us to consider later in the CAA, which is so rife with questions about instinct, nature, humanity, and evolution that trying to navigate its character web without running into a Killua foil is like trying to walk in the rain without getting wet.

Nanika is, like the ultimate escalation of this same thing—when it comes to Killua and questions of nature, she's the final boss. Nanika (or, our initial impression of her, what we are invited via framing to think first) is almost a manifestation—a literalization—of what Killua is scared of being.

I say that because, like... what is Nanika? What do other characters see her as?

Nonhuman

Extremely dangerous by nature

Valuable due to the services she can provide

Ostracized by both the Zoldyck family (Killua is singled out as the golden child) and the outside world—meaning, not entirely belonging to any defined social group, and unable to fully fit in

A dark counterpart to a comparatively sweet, bright, and innocent personality (Alluka)

All 5 of these points hit very literally onto sore points of Killua's psyche. At least subconsciously, in some way, these are all things Killua thinks about himself; he recognizes them in Nanika because the way his family reacts to her is the way "outsiders" react to him. And he ends up dehumanizing her the exact way he dehumanizes himself—we know because he ends up unintentionally using Silva's words of being his son (positing Killua as an extension of himself, indicating similar mindsets) as an appeal during negotiations:

(Some English translations don't even use Nanika because it literally means "something")

That's what I mean when I say they occupy similar social spaces, or are part of the same social group. And Killua treats her accordingly—as in, he projects:

(elaboration on that last example here)*

Killua even ends up projecting traits onto Nanika he isn’t self-aware enough to realize he has.

For example, Killua thinks of love as a very lopsided and conditional transaction in which, due to his negative social identity group, he needs to perform something adequately in order to earn. And he assumes Nanika thinks the same way:

This aspect of the way Killua treats his sisters is consistently tricky for me to articulate because Killua doesn't end up treating her meanly or even think of Nanika poorly because of these projections—a lot of this is subconscious, Killua doesn't even realize he's doing it at first—which is what you might expect from someone who recognizes reasons for self-hatred in someone else.

I think this is simply because, at the end of the day, all of these negative assessments are still about himself—only about only his own emotions, his own internalized judgement. It’s not at all about Nanika. She's still a separate entity, someone in need of Killua's protection, so Killua can't hate her like he hates himself.

*In fact, Killua wants the best for her, wants people to love her as a part of Alluka which can be good, like he sees his own ugly traits. He even refuses to take advantage of her dangerous abilities, like he doesn’t want his own to be taken advantage of. Its projection of what he wants for himself onto Nanika—acceptance and love even if she is some Inhuman Dangerous Thing.

I can sort of infer this because Killua becomes confrontational with Illumi specifically when it comes to denying Nanika/Alluka personhood in a way he only does when Illumi is denying Killua personhood, which implies to me that Illumi doing it to Nanika/Alluka vicariously feels like another personal attack (which he can actually retaliate against now without that fuckass needle in his brain).

And just in case you weren't convinced, we do know this is projection because Killua kind of just admits it (lol):

I want to yap a little more about this but I'll put it under a readmore because it's kind of off topic. So if you just wanted answers for why I think Nanika is such a strong parallel to Killua, then you already have them lol

This scene (the one pictured above the readmore) sometimes cracks me up because of Killua’s reaction—the way he immediately slaps his cheeks and blames everything on Illumi. It’s a sort of comedic reaction to such a heartfelt (and extremely brave) ultimatum on Alluka’s end. I’ve seen some people think it’s just Killua wanting to defuse the argument, to get Alluka to listen to him so he can start to apologize correctly. But I don’t think that’s true, I think this reaction and the way he immediately brings up Illumi is a genuine realization on his end—after all, Illumi's name or presence is kind of a visual, verbal, and narrative shorthand for Killua's insecurities and the self-image he's clawing himself away from.

Up until now, Killua's never really thought about Alluka and Nanika as their own people, whether that be them separately or even just Alluka by herself. He never gave them real agency; not because he’s physically carrying them and not because he's not asking what they want, but because he’s just projecting that hard. Alluka is also tangled up in his feelings about his childhood (and Gon, as another facet of his projecting and also just as a consequence of the reason why he's rescuing them in the first place), and Nanika seemed to give her so much trouble—in the same way Killua’s own undesirable traits give him trouble—that I don’t think it literally ever occurred to him that Alluka could have a different opinion than he does.

I think Killua assumed Alluka would react to the news of Nanika needing to go away the same way he reacted to the news of him needing to leave Gon—with pained acceptance. That situation is a direct parallel to the dilemma of putting Nanika to sleep. But instead Alluka YELLS at him, and it forces him into realizing that his idea of his sister(s) was wrong. They aren’t the same person as him, his projection was unfounded, and he hurt them because of it.

Which is why he only realizes that his fear of Illumi was influencing the way he was acting then, because now he can actually look at them and see anything but his own reflection.

These pieces of dialogue: “I've been afraid of Illumi for so long... I got scared... and said some horrible things to you,” really do kind of say everything don’t they? He saw Nanika just like he sees himself, he wanted for her and thought about her this way for everything: both the good (wanting her to belong somewhere, to be safe) and the bad (the dehumanization, the deprioritization).

Killua can recognize that now, and apologize for doing that to her. For being a bad big brother.

And not only does doing this help him actually empathize with Nanika and Alluka as people whose experiences are unique from his, but Alluka’s reaction also demonstrates to Killua a self-love that isn’t reliant on the outlier model established in the Hunter Exam by Illumi and reinforced by Killua throughout the CAA (particularly echoed in the "You are light" scene, in which he directly steals 眩しすぎて out of Illumi's mouth).

As a side note, these two chapters are named Light and Darkness and Light and Shadow respectively—Gon being "light" (the novelty, the outlier) both times.

Alluka loves Nanika—her “darkness”—enough to cut off the outlier (Killua) if he doesn’t love her the same. Seeing someone he puts in the exact same ingroup as him so shamelessly love Nanika, in whom Killua recognizes things he hates about himself, actually gets through to him (whereas Gon’s previous affections couldn’t because he saw Gon as so fundamentally different).

It’s extremely important that Killua asks for this forgiveness. In the hospital, when he was talking to Gon through the window, we can see Killua knows the importance of apologies. He failed Gon, so saving him would be Killua’s apology. And Gon failed Killua too, so saying “sorry” would be his apology for that. It’s less about roles now, not about values or groups—less about Killua being useful and Gon being light—it’s more about actions.

For Alluka and Nanika, “big brother” was the role he felt guilty for not fulfilling—a catalyst for his projections onto them. Now he’s confronted with real proof of this failure and he doesn’t end up breaking over it like he might've before. Instead he apologizes because, due to Nanika, he knows Alluka loves unconditionally. And he trusts her, trusts her judgement of him, and trusts that he’s lovable enough to be accepted by her despite his failure.

—

Overall, I think it's really important that Nanika is introduced to the audience as a scary unknown, and that our first impression is slowly dissolved over time. It's a pervasive pattern in all the characters meant to ask questions of nature—Killua himself, the Chimera Ants, Palm, even the Phantom Troupe. Togashi is, like, deeply concerned with humanization and I think it's awesome because you get these narrative threads like the one with Nanika and Killua, where his doubts about himself and his own ability to love or be loved are narratively answered via giving or receiving compassion for/from someone else. In this way Hunter x Hunter tells us that proof of humanity is the capacity for connection. And isn't that something to think about?

[gertritude-art]

Evil Gertritude: I'm making a VN about NORMAL KIDS without HEAD PROBLEMS 😈😈😈

i can't even joke about this... i started picturing mordred in jeans + a t-shirt and felt ill. what is wrong sweetie. come back to us.

[handgunman]

There's a difference between "supportive, but doesn't get it" and "supportive and understanding". Smiling and nodding and avoiding hurling direct insults is trivially easy, it's the bare minimum and I'm pretty sure I meet it(citation needed, I'm not in the affected group and therefore not qualified to certify my own behavior). Actually understanding the issues is a different task that is very much _in progress_ over here.

This post was the equivalent of me saying "I'm working on the homework, but I'm having trouble with question 4" and in one respect, yeah, not understanding question 4 is no excuse to not do _the rest of the assignment_. But also, getting question 4 right _is important_, and I'm very thankful for the information that's been provided to help bridge this gulf in understanding.

To summarize some of what I've been seeing, it's mostly about acknowledging that yes, there are solutions for unwanted weight, but those solutions are nowhere as simple/easy/accessible as they might seem, and there needs to be a critical look at the social assumption that weight is something inherently unwanted, as opposed to a natural and beautiful part of the human condition.

A core feature of anti-fatness is the "you did this to yourself"-view. People are very invested in the idea that size is within everyone's control. It's soothing to believe that all fat people are a small series of good choices away from becoming thin and staying that way, and that thin people are success stories by virtue of existing.

Any time we speak up about discrimination and fatphobia, someone inevitably plays that card. Trolls will say "eat a salad, pig" and well-meaning health nuts will gently explain what calories are. In either case, we're met with a "you know, you can stop this at any time." Why, if nobody was fat, thin people wouldn't need to examine their biases! It sure would be an easier time for everyone if we weren't so Around and Bulliable!

[hisenemy]

I wanted to study others and behaviours. Now I see through everyone and everything.

Studying human nature and norms so masking isn’t as hard. (It is).

[ehhgg-art]

you ever think about the fact that laios won not by being a monster but by being human.

monsters as we’ve seen throughout the manga are predictable, they have this rhythm to them that, once someone understands, can be used to take them out. take kelpies like anne where laios states that she is just a monster and cannot be trusted. even kensuke is “just a monster after all”, running away from danger when laios needs it most. kensuke is beloved by laios not just because he is a monster, but because laios, in human fashion, anthropomorphized him in his mind (giving him a name, etc.)

but people are different. they are multifaceted, non-monolithic creatures. long lived races are not all pious and apathetic towards short lived races as we see with marcille and senshi. chilchuck actively works against the prejudice against half-foots. tallmen from every region have their cultural differences as we see with shuro and laios/falin. even “demi-humans” like orcs have depth to them, having rich culture and values despite the general idea that they are a violent pillaging race.

even laios’ family and village, the nexus point for his dislike of people, have depth to them. though their parents did not actively protect their children, they did not wish harm on them either. the exorcisms performed on falin by their mother was harmful in laios’ eyes, but helpful in his mother’s perspective.

laios himself, despite loving monsters and hating humans, is so very painfully human. he hates humans but has risked life and literal limb to save his sister and his party. he loves monsters but is aware of their dangerous nature and spares them no mercy.

(big spoilers under the cut)

the winged lion mistook laios as a one dimensional entity, one which only operates on a one track mind without paradox. it thought laios to operate like a monster, and so it approached his desires like one. it believed that laios, being so obsessed with monsters, must behave like one as well, so completely disregarded the fact that laios could have something up his sleeve.

but laios is not a monster, he is human. he has ulterior motives, overlapping beliefs, contradicting values. it is his humanness that made him explain to his party what to do when things went awry. it is his humanness that allowed him to lie. lie to the world about his true plan as well as lie to the winged lion about his intentions.

sure laios WANTS to be a monster, that much is definitely true. but what he IS is a different story. laios is an unpredictable, sporadic, messy human being. it is that fact which the winged lion overlooked, and ultimately led to its downfall and laios’ victory.

[lucidloving]

[hyperlexichypatia]

Yeah, that is definitely a more comforting and hopeful thing to believe. It's also one of the many, many, many contexts in which I, as a liberal socialist, think the dichotomy between "liberals" and "leftists" makes no goddamn sense, but that's a separate issue. Maybe. Perhaps. But sure. It is more comforting and hopeful to believe that a political movement that has all the appearances of being motivated by malice, hierarchy, and domination is actually just motivated by material conditions.

And there is undoubtedly significant truth to this. Polls absolutely show that prices and the economy were a major factor for Trump voters; they weren't looking at any policy positions other than "Biden is president and prices are high, when Trump was president prices were lower, ergo Trump." It's highly likely that if economic conditions were better under Biden, or if Biden-Harris had appeared to have a better strategy for addressing them, Harris might have won the election. That's true! I'm not disputing that!

But we're still talking about a few percentage points -- yes, a few percentage points that could've swung an election in a two-party, winner-take-all electoral system, but still, a few percentage points, not a cultural movement.

The ideological fascism represented by Trump&Co is a cultural movement that has been thriving in the U.S. for decades and is paralleled by similar right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist, and fascist movements around the world, in Europe and India and China and Japan and many, many other countries. It's happening in countries with universal healthcare, and countries without. It's happening in countries with higher GDPs and countries with lower GDPs. It is not connected solely to economic conditions.

Also, right-wing voting correlates positively with income. The people most victimized by economic problems are not making up the bulk of the shift to the right, no matter how many hand-wringing thinkpieces about "the white working class left behind by liberal elitists" get written (you'd think The Hillbilly Elegy Guy becoming Trump's VP would have permanently discredited that theory, but thinkpiece writers have never been able to read the room).

The relationship between the housing crisis and right-wing political movements is sometimes framed as though the phenomenon is "People unable to afford housing vote right-wing on the assumption that right-wing policies will improve their economic prospects," and while there are some instances of that, people who can't afford housing are not Trump's base. Trump's base are housed people who are angry that they see unhoused people panhandling outside their Nice Neighborhood and are angry that Those Damned Liberals won't round them up and put them in debtor's prisons or just shoot them.

And. Like. Again, as a liberal socialist, I think the government should, actually, be guaranteeing everyone housing and healthcare and food and education! Those are policies I support because I think they're the right thing to do anyway! So I would very much like to believe that these policies, that I already believed in for other reasons, would also have the side benefit of making people less bigoted and authoritarian and fascistic, and, I don't know, maybe it would help a little, but for how long?

Because there will always be ups and downs in material conditions, at least until we achieve full post-scarcity. I mean. I absolutely want to abolish capitalism and economic inequality, and want the effects of ups and downs in material conditions to be borne equally across the population rather than the hoarding of wealth we have now, but even in a socialist utopia, there will be shortages. There will be crises. There will be natural disasters. There will be outbreaks at the egg farms (yes even if there are regulations and proper procedures, sometimes these things just happen!), and there will be times when there are no eggs on the shelf. If humanity is going to get hold of our climate/energy crisis before we make the planet entirely unlivable, there will be gas shortages. There will be rationing. There will be reductions in energy and material resources used for leisure travel, and that is the absolute ideal, best-case scenario. And if people's response to being told "Sorry, there's no eggs today" or "Sorry, there's no gas today," or, heaven forfend but completely necessarily, "Sorry, only a limited number of people can own personal vehicles, you'll have to take the bus, oh, and the person sitting next to you on the bus might be queer or Black or Jewish or schizophrenic or another demographic you hate" is to become fascists, then humanity will flat-out not survive. As long as people's culturally ingrained default response to adversity is "Blame a despised minority group, identify as better and more deserving than someone else, divide people into in-group and out-group," fascist ideologies will continue to be a recurring social problem.

And. I mean. That doesn't mean I know the solution! I don't! Scolding does not work! There is some evidence that exposure and personal interactions with actual people one is bigoted against reduces bigotry, as does representation of counter-stereotypical examples, but these are far from foolproof! There was integration in Germany before the Holocaust. There was integration in the Balkans before the Bosnian genocide. "Integration" alone is not sufficient to prevent bigotry nor even to stop it from becoming genocidal. But neither are better material conditions or economic systems, not when Belgium kills disabled children and China is actively committing a genocide (that half the "leftists" on this site are active deniers of) and so is Turkey and I could absolutely keep going.

But not knowing the solution to the problem of authoritarian, bigoted, hierarchical ideology doesn't mean we can write that off as a problem!

I actually think the real solution has to be fundamentally changing education away from hierarchy and competition, changing the system of children beginning in toddlerhood having to "earn" a position of being "better" than other children, but I'm also aware that this is unlikely to happen unless guaranteed material living standards are established for adults, because parents will never support non-competitive education as long as they rationally believe that education must prepare their children to compete for an ever-shrinking number of possibilities for a decent quality of life, because material conditions aren't actually separate from egalitarian liberal values and framing them in opposition is false in the first place.

(I also think a more practical relevance of material conditions to combating authoritarian ideology is not in improving the material conditions of authoritarians to make them less authoritarian, but improving the material conditions of the victims of authoritarianism so that they can better free themselves from their authoritarian abusers. Less "If that domestic abuser had a guaranteed income, he wouldn't abuse his partner" and more "If his partner had a guaranteed income, she could afford to leave her abuser." But for some reason, that isn't acknowledged as much.)

So no, I don't "have the answers" for combating authoritarian, bigoted, hierarchical, fascistic cultural attitudes, but I certainly think acknowledging that they are the problem is better than assuming that bigoted authoritarianism is Just What Happens When High Grocery Prices or Just What Happens When Feminists Are Mean or whatever else. People choose, on purpose, to subscribe to bigoted, hierarchical ideologies. People choose, on purpose, to build a worldview and identity around being intrinsically superior to some other kinds of people. It's not inevitable, and I don't buy that it's unchangeable.

Source

[albertayebisackey]

“The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion.” — Paulo Coelho

[uncanny-tranny]

Trans people deserve the right to be fucked up without it being equated with if we deserve to, like, live or exist. All people, in some way or another, will be fucked up in a particular way that you might not jibe with and that is not inherently bad

[poligraf]

« An Allegory Of The Spiritual Condition Of Man » by William Blake

[alexaloraetheris]

It's the nature of humanity that every so often someone tries to invent a pomato.

But re: your proposal, it's possible, but the end result would be low quality fur and lower quality meat. Farm animals have generally been bred for one specific over-the-top trait because they put all of their energy and resources into building up that one trait. Sheep for wool, cows for milk and meat (but different individual cows at different stages of life), pigs for fat.

The SECOND you start breeding for more than one trait even if the offspring has a decent distribution of it's parents' desired traits, the end result will be inferior to what the parents already have, because they have to distribute a same(ish) amount of resources across two different fields. It's like taking on two different important tasks at once and half-assing both of them: they'll be done, but not up to standard.

As for mink-cow, you run into this problem two-fold. Mink fur is thick and fluffy because it's primary and most important goal is to retain heat. Small animals have more surface area per kilogram, so they lose heat fast, and so they need a thick, air-trapping (ergo soft) fur coat.

Cows are significantly bigger than mustelids, and are, rather importantly, herbivores. The kind of super soft fur you're thinking of is meant as protection against elements in areas where there isn't grass to eat all year: cow ancestors (Aurochs) didn't really inhabit areas where they would have had the need to grow a fur coat, so you don't really have the necessary genes in their entire genome for soft fur, even if you cross-breed some very weird combinations, simply because they can't live in those conditions anyway, regardless of fur.

The best you can get is Highland cattle, but their fur is very coarse and, afaik, tends to fall off in the summer months. Not something you want your fur to do on a jacket. So the leather and fur would have to be harvested in one very specific winter window and you'd have to kill all your cows right at the same time. I'm not a farmer, but I can't say that sounds like good animal husbandry.

There's been attempts to do that with farmed rabbits, with localized sucess, but rabbit meat is, again, vastly nutritionally inferior compared to commercial meats, and also smaller, so you get less meat per animal, which makes it pricier. If you're looking for something that can commercially replace a cow, we'd first have to make giant rabbits. And possibly figure out how to milk them.

You'd be better off getting government subsidies for fur farmers, at least until they have a decent sized operation set up, and banning plastic fur so people have a reason to buy it.

I'm against fur farming because it's pretty much impossible to produce fur in a way that would be profitable without keeping the animals in absurdly cruel conditions. I'm fine with wearing leather because if the animal in question is going to be butchered for meat anyway, it would be a disgusting waste and disrespectful to not make use of every part of the body.

Therefore I propose that we should try breeding a type of meat cattle that grows a smooth, fluffy, mink-like fur coat for peak efficiency.