#that isn't actually real but that some people seem to think is

[restinan]

I don't actually think that shooting the ten guys with the wealth has literally never made things better at any point in the history of man. If you actually read my post instead of pattern-matching it to the nearest easy thing to dunk on you might notice that I don't ever say anything incompatible with there being a wide range of outcomes. That said, it really is the case if you read history broadly there are trends in how well countries do if they descend into political violence and civil war. It tends not to make things better. Yes, there's a distribution- it's not a good distribution.

I understand that's a bit rude to accuse you of pattern matching to something dunkable rather than actually thinking, but you're the one who opened by attributing people who disagree with you to propaganda from the US government and fantasy novels. I get that that lets you feel pleasantly smug but there are in fact historically literate people who disagree with you for real reasons.

The American Revolution is probably one of the examples of "just kill some people" working out well you're thinking of here. It's genuinely true that things worked out well, but the American Revolution was a very weird civil war. The American revolution notably preserved most of the existing ruling class and didn't substantially disrupt the general structure of society. If you want to argue that wars of secession specifically have a very different track record from popular uprisings or attempting to use political violence to stabilize a country you'd have a good case for doing so. That said, even in that reference class the American Revolution had much better results than typical.

Perhaps you're not thinking of something so famous and instead thinking of examples like the overthrow of the government of communist Romania?

If you're making predictions from the American Revolution and the French Revolution and a handful of overthrows of dictatorships at the end of the Cold War and not on the banal, boring, usually forgotten peasant uprisings in Early Modern Europe, or the various peasant uprisings and descents into warlordism in Ancient China, or the slow rise of political violence and decay in norms in the Roman Republic (a shiny popular example, but still not one you should leave out- reversed stupidity isn't intelligence and we have a disproportionate amount of insight into this one), or the dozen instances of political violence in the early twentieth century aiding in the rise of the opposed party from the people doing the violence, or the communist attempts to swiftly restructure society in ways that accidentally caused massive famines, or the general outcomes of civil wars in the late 20th century, or the hundred other things in this vein, you're going to end up wrong about things.

Yes, the distribution of outcomes is wide. Yes, it is not entirely negative. That doesn't mean anywhere near as much as it might seem. A lottery which has a 50% chance of killing you horribly, a 20% chance of torturing you before you die, a 30% chance of leaving you alive but worse off, a 10% chance of not much detectable change, and a 10% chance of making things a small amount better, is not a lottery worth playing. That doesn't correspond to the political violence lottery, it's just a simple example.

The obvious response to this is that we should be examining the cases where it goes well to see how to get results like that. That response is a good response. However, to do that you need to know in the first place that violent revolution isn't a magical cure-all. You need to know that it tends negative or you won't even bother figuring out how to make it not do that. You need to know that the present has a larger list of fragile improvements and so you can't just use outcomes from nobility in 13th century France or even 18th century America to make predictions.

Things are legitimately different in the period where wealth flows almost entirely from land and just killing people and taking their land will mostly just work to enrich yourself. Even then, doing a bunch of it via an outside-the-norms-method in a polity and eroding the legitimacy of whatever is stopping the descent into violence from kicking off earlier tends to result in more and more violence over time. That trend really isn't hard to notice. Almost every single time without exception you end up with the place in general being drastically worse off. Usually the people who started the cycle end up very dead and frequently their family ends up extinct or less powerful than they started. Yes, they cared about different things- it was still usually a mistake to kick off a period of violence by their own values. For an example of this, consider literally any period of civil war in the history of China. Yes, someone manages to succeed and end up the next dynasty. The odds of being that someone aren't great. Assassinating your uncle to end up Emperor has a better track record. if not a stellar one. It's also not a mass uprising, and has a lower chance of kicking off a civil war.

If all you do is notice a lot of the people who hold a view are unsophisticated and stupid, find a couple counterexamples, and then smugly posture about how there's nuance, you see, you may legitimately be doing better than the idiots. But you need to actually know the distribution to be right, you can't just notice some other people know less than you and assume that means nobody knows more. Historians can tend kind of stupid in a lot of ways but there is actually something you get from having seen a broad overview of history. Not as much as a lot of historians like to pretend, but "just using a bunch of outside-the-norms violence to try to make things better for you personally was a high risk strategy before the modern world, doing it to make things better for people in general or for the sake of preserving a polity's stability was harder still, and the modern world makes it all work a lot less well" is one of the things that is, frankly, somewhat overdetermined.

What people care about is usually whether something makes slides into dictatorship more likely. Whether it makes famines more likely. Whether it makes instability and a lot of suffering more likely. Whether it tends to make things worse by our values, both when people don't care much about that and even when they do. The answers there are pretty clear. Yes, there's a distribution rather than a universal single outcome. It's not a good one.

[centrally-unplanned]

There are two big "AI Art Discourse" events of note recently, which I thought were interesting: ACX's "AI Art Turing Test" and the new paper on "AI Poetry Beating Human Poetry". Both of these I think reveal the shape of "what is AI art for", and also say a lot about how these results were utilized in discourse.

To take the latter first, some academics quizzed people on some poetry and had these results:

We found that AI-generated poems were rated more favorably in qualities such as rhythm and beauty, and that this contributed to their mistaken identification as human-authored. Our findings suggest that participants employed shared yet flawed heuristics to differentiate AI from human poetry: the simplicity of AI-generated poems may be easier for non-experts to understand, leading them to prefer AI-generated poetry and misinterpret the complexity of human poems as incoherence generated by AI.

More human than human poems! This certainly seems impressive - and it is. You couldn't have gotten these results ~5 years ago. But that maybe doesn't mean as much as you might think? Because here is the opening half of the winning "Walt Whitman AI" Poem:

I hear the call of nature, the rustling of the trees, The whisper of the river, the buzzing of the bees, The chirping of the songbirds, and the howling of the wind, All woven into a symphony, that never seems to end. I feel the pulse of life, the beating of my heart, The rhythm of my breathing, the soul's eternal art, The passion of my being, that burns with fervent fire, The urge to live, to love, to strive, to reach up higher. I see the beauty all around, the glory of the earth, The majesty of mountains, the miracles of birth, The wonder of the cosmos, the mysteries of the stars, The poetry of existence, that echoes near and far

This fucking sucks. Straight up 2/10 poem. Did this bitch seriously establish the world's most predictable rhyme scheme only to try to rhyme wind with end? You had one job that you chose for yourself, and you screwed it up! This poem has been written a million times before, and says nothing - the Miley Cyrus lyrics of verse.

The reason this won is, yes, because AI tools have advanced heavily in the past few years. But it is also because it is being tested on a dead art. No one cares about poetry - certainly not the survey respondents:

We asked participants several questions to gauge their experience with poetry, including how much they like poetry, how frequently they read poetry, and their level of familiarity with their assigned poet. Overall, our participants reported a low level of experience with poetry: 90.4% of participants reported that they read poetry a few times per year or less, 55.8% described themselves as “not very familiar with poetry”, and 66.8% describe themselves as “not familiar at all” with their assigned poet. 

"Or less" is doing a LOT of work there; "yeah I read a few nonfiction books a year" oh sure, totally. 90% of these respondents haven't read a poem that wasn't displayed in the end credits of Minecraft since high school. No one does, poetry as a medium is essentially a relic. That isn't an insult to poets, by the way! There is no shame in being a niche. Not everyone can have the reach of hentai doujin artists; the community is small but they get a ton out of it. But you can't take the art of the community and expect that art to hit outside of it.

This survey didn't ask people to evaluate art; it asked people to evaluate their stereotypical impression of an art they don't care about. It was ~600 people hired off a website, they banged it out ASAP and moved on. This is not to invalidate the results; I am not actually claiming that "real" poets would have scored much better? Maybe, I don't know - that just isn't very relevant.

Let's swing to the AI Art Turing Test results to get more into why. Again, AI art is absolutely "art" in the sense that it is able to pass the test handily. You have to be head-in-the-sand at this point to think that AI can't make an impressionist painting a la the "most liked" art in this contest:

I have seen the "well real paintings have physicality this is a jpeg" discourse points and the cope couldn't be more real - 99% of art consumption in the modern world is digital or at least prints, let's get you back to bed grandma. But I did find it pretty funny that Scott noted this AI piece as one he particularly liked:

Because it is nonsensical, right? All that "faded paint", how was it originally painted - just bucket splashes of red and blue? What are those random doors, the random stairs going nowhere on the sides, the vague-nothings engravings? Scott just didn't care about that - he liked the vibe, right? Ancient ruins, epic scale. It isn't a coincidence that the Impressionist art did the best - current AI tools are always impressionist, they have an idea of the vibe and invent the details in between. In Impressionism that is the whole point.

Now the trap is to go "REAL artists can tell because of this or that" because idk, the tools might get better, they might fill in more and more details. The real revelation here is that you don't need the tools to get better - visual art isn't so different from poetry. Most people don't pay attention to it all that much. You see thousands, thousands of pieces of art a week; you probably don't even realize how many. Do you really care if the fading paint makes coherent sense on a billboard ad or a doctor's office wall painting? So much art that is made is "industrial" in this sense - it has no need to be good. Only good enough to fulfill its utilitarian role. In these fields AI absolutely is going to Take Your Jobs in some form, and already is (though imo not a ton of them). And it won't really bother most people. This can go pretty deep - I promise you people are "utilizing" AI porn right now. They are ~appreciating the details~ way more than is typical, the product is working.

All this works until it doesn't, though. When it is an art book by a favourite artist whose vision you want to pour over, learning that all the individual details were just made by AI completely defeats the purpose, right? Imagine reading a book of these poems. Outside of the novelty, "AI is the point" factor you would rather watch infomercials on repeat, I can't imagine a more pointless use of my time. "Reading arbitrary poems" is never fun, regardless of the quality of the poems. Most people don't care about poetry! The reason you care is that you care about the poet, and what they want to say. You read poetry with context, it being inserted with intent into the pages of a manga, at the end of a video game, because you like the artist and follow them on twitter. The quality of the prose isn't more important than that.

Which is a harsh limit for all of these kinds of tests. They essentially aren't testing art, right? You do not ever get paid twenty bucks to sit down and read a dozen poems and score them. That has no bearing on how you would actually ever learn to care about a poem. Which doesn't make AI art useless or anything, more that these tests will very quickly run into their limits of what they can meaningfully tell you. The actual bar is "creating something someone cares about". From that lens, I fully believe hybrid methods that privilege artistic intent are currently working and will improve. But I think for "solo" AI art getting that to work is going to be complicated.

[myanmardoesnotexist]

Analysis of Why Valentino Cares So Much

So, I know I write a lot of fanfiction, but perhaps my favorite thing about Rosquez is the psychology of Valentino, specifically his bizarre fascination with Marc (This is outside of shipping goggles btw). As the years go on, this fixation with one specific rivalry has become increasingly more clear, and I kind of just wanted to dive into why I believe Valentino Rossi cares so much.

To me, it comes down to two things:

#1: Marc was the first to really win (in Valentino's eyes)

With Stoner, Lorenzo, and Sete it was a rivalry for sure, and there was anger, but Valentino seemed to view it as sort of a game he could control. And he did control it, he came out the victor both to the public and on track. When they eventually got over their rivalries years later, it was Valentino being a 'benevolent king' with the vibe of sparing his enemy. Even if they beat him in the championship, ultimately Valentino won the game of relevance and importance in MotoGP. With Marc it was slightly different. Valentino got the entire racing world to turn against Marc (in a way he never had before with other rivals), and yet somehow it didn’t work. Marc kept on winning, he brushed off the hate, and he’s well on his way to matching Valentino is championships next year. Even if Marc's reputation never recovered, even if we know that Marc was very hurt by this, none of it matters because he is the more relevant one now. Marc is still riding, is on the currently best team (a team that Valentino failed to bring a championship to) and each year more and more people view him in a better light.

On top of that, Marc's name is up there with Valentino's as one of the legends in MotoGP history. Stoner, Sete, and Lorenzo are all brilliant drivers and some of the greats, but that top list is Agostini, Doohan, Rossi, and Marquez. Valentino is arguably still more legendary than Marc, but he will never be able to escape from the younger man. Their names are up there together forever, and to Valentino that is a first with a rival. He cannot look at any of it and say that he won, so it must mean he lost.

#2 Marc was the first to actually hurt him personally.

With Marc he clearly felt in some way personally betrayed. He liked Marc, this is almost undeniable. He was proud of him, he cheered him on, they hung out, honestly Marc was almost an unofficial VR46 student with the way their relationship was in those early days. Yes, Marc represented a passing of the torch, but Valentino almost seemed okay with it at that point. Until he became competitive again and found out that Marc doesn't just look up to him or admire him, but wants to beat him, point blank, and will ride on the limit to do that. This came in 2014, but honestly I don't think is was as prominent because Marc had such a dominant season it was hardly a real fight. 2015 though, it was Valentino really fighting for the title. And he probably expected Marc to bend the knee, to be on his side. Maybe not help him, but not impede him in any way. But they had their friction throughout the year, and the fact that Marc was racing him just as hard as he races everyone else got into Valentino's head. Because Marc was supposed to be on his side. So if he's not, he must be against Valentino and for Jorge Lorenzo. There is no in between.

So he lashed out, he let paranoia hit him, and yet somehow he still didn't get satisfaction. Because even though he did his best to hurt Marc, the other man barely seemed to flinch (which we all know isn't true, but to Valentino I think it is). And that would be particularly rough, because it would mean Marc didn't care. That all of that friendship was one-sided on Valentino's part, that he was the one used, which to someone like him, who always has control, would be new and very very uncomfortable. And so he created this narrative that Marc never liked him, Marc never looked up to him, everything was a lie and a manipulation, and he is a villain with no heart. Because I think to Valentino it is impossible to even act like he doesn't still care. So if Marc can do that, it must mean all of it was fake.

To me these two reasons are why Valentino can't seem to let go of this one particular rivalry, and seems so viciously angry about it ten years after the biggest incident happened. His crazy brain fascinates me, and even if you look at it through a purely platonic, non-shipper lens, its one of the most interesting relationships in MotoGP.

[jules-ln]

Ok, so I can't stop thinking about Viktor in Arcane lmao

Not so much because I like him (which I do lmao) but more because his arc seems like convoluted mess of knots at first glance, and I don't understand it completely and I need to put this puzzle together

Also, honestly Arcane it's the perfect case for why "show, don't tell" isn't always good as it left a lot of things incredibly vague, things I think they should've stopped and clarify more

So let me take his character apart from the beginning to understand him

Spoilers btw

First I want to talk about Viktor's disability because apparently it was a big deal

I say apparently because at first I thought it wasn't a big deal for Viktor, it was just part of who he was

Like the first time we see him, he's confident, he seems secure in himself and the show itself doesn't seem to make a big deal out of him using his cane

But turns out that getting rid of his disability it was actually a big deal for Viktor and I want to search for an explanation that isn't that the writers probably had a subconscious bias about disability

Tbh I always thought that it was kind of implied that Viktor's disability was a result of his parents being exposed to dangerous chemicals in Zaun, like it wasn't just his sickness that was a result of being born in Zaun, but also his leg, don't know if it's just me but anyway the author is dead moving on

I'm saying this because it would make sense at least for Viktor to think that way. Because in his mind it's his disability = his sickness = the problems in Zaun. These three things aren't different for him, is one and the same problem that needs to be solved

This is also shown when Viktor is experimenting in himself with the Hexcore and instead of doing something that might help him idk stop coughing blood, the first thing he does is trying to undo his disability. And I've seen some people ask why the hell is Viktor more worried about his disability than the thing that's actually killing him. It's because in Viktor's mind is the same thing

Now, we can actually see hints that Viktor might resent his disability (and Zaun by extension) in the boat scene when he's a child, where even though his genius is great, his disability stops him from reaching the boat, from reaching his full potential (at least in Viktor's mind)

He resents not being able to be who he wants, who he could be if he had been born in Piltover and puts the blame on his disability and Zaun

This actually makes sense with later scenes when Viktor and Jayce show off what they've been working on to Heimmerdinger, the gauntlets and the claw (arm?). If Viktor and Jayce were working on these two things separately, very telling that Viktor's project (the claw) focuses on artisans, who are still "a step above" than the miners Jayce is focusing on. But if they're working together on the projects, we see that Viktor actually doesn't really wants to help Zaun

Because, what are these? Gauntlets and a claw to make people work faster? These are the solutions Viktor (and Jayce) come up when confronted with Zaun's problems, not actually helping them attack the root of the the problem. Like Miners have to spent hours working in dangerous conditions that affect their health? Well, let's give them something so they can work faster. This is merely palliative care, not caring to actually solve the real problem

Which leads me to the next point, Viktor doesn't actually wants to help Zaun to become a better place, he wants to get rid of the Zaun of now and transform it in Piltover 2.0. In his mind this isn't about helping Zaun, but getting rid of the thing that caused his disability and sickness, metaphorically eliminating them both

We can see this in Viktor's commune

Because, Zaun, even when it looks dirty and dark, all in all doesn't look ugly, like any place where poor people live, it's also full of individuality and self expression, art that's fighting to exist. Compare it to Piltover's Art deco and art nouveau inspired architecture that while, yes, everything looks very beautiful, it also looks very same-y

Viktor's commune also looks very same-y and in a way a bit Piltover inspired. Contrast Viktor's commune to the alternative universe we see where things are better in Zaun, it looks brighter and cleaner, but it also didn't lose any of the self expression and individuality that Zaun has. Individuality that is lost in Viktor's perfect world

Because again, it wasn't about Zaun, or about helping people, it was about Viktor taking something, destroying it, and substituting it with something he believes to be perfect. Perfect without any kind of disabilities that might hold Viktor back (which isn't true but that's what Viktor believes)

This sentiment later comes back when he tries his glorious evolution

Now about Jayce

Part of why I didn't understand Viktor's characterization at first was because I wasn't seeing the whole, I was missing a crucial part of the puzzle, and that was Jayce

At first I thought that Viktor was only interested in Jayce because of his idea of Hextech. But no.

The first time Viktor and Jayce meet, Viktor seems only mildly interested in Jayce's idea, but not enough to actually do something to help him, he was there because he had a job to do, he had to make sure that Jayce was arrested, only that

It wasn't until the judgement that Viktor actually takes an interest in Jayce, but not because of his idea

Viktor was attracted by Jayce's willingness to defend what he thought was right even when everyone else went against him. His personality and fierceness was the thing that later made Viktor take another look at Jayce's investigation

Compare it to how Mel first approached Jayce

Mel and Viktor are very similar in that both want to make something perfect (Mel wants a perfect Piltover, Viktor wants a perfect Zaun and later a perfect world), but they have different motivations. Mel wants to make a perfect city so that she later can gift it to her mother and prove that she's worthy of her love and affection, and that she's worthy of being part of her family

So in the judgment, Mel first sees and is interested by Jayce's idea, because it's something that can get her closer to her goal of being back with her family. Later she's interested in the inventor

But with Viktor is the opposite, he first is interested in Jayce as a man, that's what later attracts him to his dream

(Side note It's also worth noting that I think Arcane takes away Jayce's role in LoL of being Viktor's rival and gives it to Mel. More than that, with both Mel and Viktor being mages and Mel's magic being the thing that stops Viktor during the first fight between him and Jayce. I think that if Mel was more powerful, or Viktor was less overpowered [what the fuck arcane's writers, he's literally a freaking God] she could've stopped him)

Now this is important because I truly don't think Viktor's characterization makes sense unless he genuinely likes/loves Jayce without ulterior motives

In the rest of the first season, we see how Viktor slowly self isolates, in part because Jayce is leaving him behind to be with Mel, so that leads to Viktor taking more and more risks in a bit of a self destructive way, and I think this is in part because Jayce isn't with him. He probably also thinks it's his sickness the thing that's making Jayce go away, that's why he's trying to hide it in the beginning but I'm not to sure about that lmao

This later causes Sky's death, and I think her death is very important for Viktor. Not because he actually feels something for her, but because it's something that makes him feel very guilty

Because, if in the first season Viktor's actions were motivated in part because Jayce went away, then why Viktor's first instinct is to go away in the second season?

It's because of the guilt

In Viktor's mind he not only killed Sky, he's now the thing that killed sky. That plus the fact of how Jayce's acted during the bridge, hating on the zaunites. He probably thinks that Jayce doesn't care about him anymore

When he says "it was affection that held us together" he probably didn't mean it in a "I don't care about you anymore" but more in a "you don't care about me anymore, and you probably shouldn't anyway because there's no reason for you to do so"

When he goes away and creates a cult in Zaun, it's because Viktor is trying to redeem himself and make their dream come true. Viktor's commune is his version of their dream, a little bubble of perfection in an imperfect world

Of course that's not what Jayce wanted or meant when he thought about their dream, but that's just how Viktor misinterpreted it

That's why he's so insistent that Jayce go to see him after he's back from the future, because their dream wouldn't be complete unless it was both of them in it

So when Jayce shoot him, Viktor didn't think that maybe what he was doing was wrong, or that maybe he was crossing a line he shouldn't. When Jayce shoot him, he took it as Jayce rejecting not only their dream, but also Viktor himself

So he was hurt, he was angry. And in his hurt, the first thing he did was trying to justify his emotions by logic. The problem wasn't that what Viktor wanted was wrong. The problem was those pesky emotions messed everything up and if he just could get rid of them then their dream would become true and truly perfect (and Jayce wouldn't reject him). So he needed to get rid of emotions it didn't matter if he hurt the entire world (and Jayce) in his path to do so, more than that it was justified in his mind

I see what Viktor did after Jayce shoot him as he basically saying "I was trying to do this in the nice way, but now I'm angry and I'll show you what I'm truly capable of"

Ironically, his speech about what motivates humanity's greatest good is also what makes them do their greatest evil applies to Viktor 100%, his affection for Jayce is the thing that motivates him to help and to hurt everyone else

I also think that Viktor knew he was in part taking away some of the free will of the people in the commune, he probably just thought it wasn't doing them any harm, just taking away their "disability"

Now, in the future, Viktor realized that perfection, getting rid of humanity's mistakes, and getting rid of his disability; wasn't what he truly wanted, the thing that he truly wanted was to not be alone, and to be worthy of love, and Jayce was the only one who didn't make Viktor feel alone. So when Jayce hugged Viktor and showed him what he saw, I actually think it was like Viktor of the future telling his past self "this is not what you want, this is a mistake"

I also don't think Viktor learned to accept his disabilities in the end; because a heartfelt speech about loving yourself isn't going to make you forget a life of prejudice just like that lmao

But I do think that in that moment when Jayce showed him the future, he recognized that what he was doing was a mistake and stopped

In the end he got what he truly wanted, which was not being alone, being loved, and to be with Jayce, even if their dream of making the world a better place didn't become true

I read somewhere that Viktor in the game was inspired by Doctor Doom, and Idk if that's true. But if I had to compare Arcane Viktor to somebody in Marvel, it would be the Scarlet Witch (here I am thinking about fanart of Viktor dressed as the Scarlet Witch lmao), an extremely powerful being that gets carried away by their emotions, and ends up doing horrible things with good intentions

Yeah, I understand him a bit better now lmao

[compostboy]

This isn't directed at OP, I just think it has to be said

You can also be the fascist shoehorning people into dehumanizing categories, I think we need to remind ourselves of that

I'm not going to talk about pedophilia being used as a weapon for queerphobia, people have done that better than me and will continue to do that.

What I want to bring up is the "zios" part here when... Historically that is exactly what has been used to persecute Jewish people, in Russia, Europe, America, West Asia, North Africa, leftist political circles? Like the logic absolutely did go "zionists should be murdered and tortured->jews and jewish expression are zionist->jews in general should be murdered and tortured" not an exaggeration, that ALREADY HAPPENED do you know how many died, fled, were prohibited from fleeing, went missing?

Wikipedia page for the fabricated "The Protocols of the Elder's of Zion"

Wikipedia for the Limerick Pogrom

Kyiv Pogrom

Shiraz Pogrom

1917 Jaffa Deportation

Pogroms during Russian civil war

More Kyiv Pogroms

Pinsk Massacre

Massena Blood Libel

Thrace Pogroms

Constantine Riots

Gabès Riots

Iași Pogroms

Tripolitania Riots

Egyptian Riot

Kielce Pogrom

Aleppo Riots

Oujda & Jerada Riots

Night of the Murdered Poets

Doctor's Plot & Anti-Zionism as antisemitism

Soviet Anti-Zionism(/Zionology)

Soviet Jewish History

Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public

Here are some of the things happening in the 1900's

you can find a timeline over 20th century antisemitism here

Here is a timeline of antisemitism throughout history

As you can see if you read through all of these events, antisemitism takes many shapes, and often the perpetrators will say "of course I'm not attacking Jews, I am attacking ___ (and willing to kill Jews if they are ___ which I assume they are without real evidence)"

The ___ can be anything

Child killer is a very common ___. Who wouldn't hate someone who killed a child? A poor innocent child, of a majority religion nontheless? If they kill children, surely then we can harass, assault, pillage, lynch and kill dozens or hundreds or thousands of them without trial?

That may seem like a sudden big leap in logic to many people but it keeps happening over and over and over and over again. Throughout history. It still does.

If you want your anti-zionism to NOT be antisemitic, you have to actually do the work and learn about all different kinds of antisemitism, Jewish history, and learn from Jewish people how to be an ally. And I'm not perfect! But I'm speaking out right now because I believe it's better to do something good imperfectly than to do nothing and stay silent

Very concerning to see that kind of talk.

You are not supporting the freedom of the Palestinian people by saying that kind of thing.

Focus on making sure people have food and aid and pressure your government to oppose the Israeli occupation and settlements. Build community without borders. Uphold international law and human rights. Criticize and protest against governments.

Do not start any kind of "jew hunt" or incentivize or participate in pogroms

Do not speak about political enemies as someone to sniff out, round up, and exterminate, no matter how vile you think their actions have been or values are

There is no upside to that kind of talk or action

Do something good by donating to Palestinian Children's Relief Fund instead

me in real life: torture and murder are horrible and you shouldn't do them.

me in fiction: torture and murder are literally the two sexiest and most fun things you could possibly do and you should do them all the time.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Do you think that Ms. Bustier is overhated?

Not particularly. I don't have any strong feelings about her, but she's clearly a terrible teacher who is in way over her head. I totally understand why she sets some people off. If she was a real person that I actually had to deal with, then she'd probably set me off, too, because she so perfectly encapsulates toxic positivity. If you're not familiar with that term, then here's a quick definition:

Toxic positivity is the act of avoiding, suppressing, or rejecting negative emotions or experiences. This may take the form of denying your own emotions or someone else denying your emotions, insisting on positive thinking instead. Although setting aside difficult emotions is sometimes necessary temporarily, denying negative feelings long term is harmful because it can prevent people from processing their emotions and overcoming their distress.

Read that definition and then look at this scene from Zombiezou:

Marinette: But Miss Bustier, it's so not fair! It was Chloé, pulling another...Chloé! And...I'm the one who's getting in trouble?! Miss Bustier: Of course you're not in trouble, don't worry! As the class representative, I want you to set a good example for your classmates. Don't give into feelings of anger. Try to forgive Chloé instead. Marinette: I don't get it... Chloé is the meanest person I've ever known. Miss Bustier: Come on... There are much worse people in Paris right now than Chloé Bourgeois. I'm sure people like Chloé are capable of great things. The problem is, they only think of themselves. They don't understand the meaning of love, and we can't force them to change. But perhaps we can show them by setting a good example. That's why Marinettes are so important in today's world; because they have a lot of love to give. I'm counting on you. Marinette: Yes, Miss Bustier.

This is toxic positivity in action. Marinette is told to set aside her extremely valid feelings as if anger is a terrible thing, but it isn't. All emotions have their place and ignoring them can do real harm, a lesson that Miraculous really struggles with. It seems to see "negative" emotions as bad and they're really not. What matters is how we express and address our emotions, not that we experience them. If you want to see a family friendly piece of media do this topic right, then go watch Pixar's Inside Out.

There's also the fact that Chloé is never punished for her actions in this episode. She ruined a gift that probably took Marinette hours and yet Miss Bustier puts the onus to fix things on Marinette, blaming the victim and doing nothing to actually fix the situation. Canon mildly complicates this with Chloé's father's willingness to meddle, making punishing her apparently impossible, but Miss Bustier doesn't even acknowledge that here. The stated logic is that you need to be nice to your bully and that will hopefully magically fix things, which is a terrible lesson that I don't want any kid to learn! What kind of logic is that?

I'll admit that I'm a big fan of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," but that doesn't mean that you should never acknowledge harm or fight back. It just means that you need to be measured in your responses and pick your battles wisely. If this episode was about that, then I'd be fine with it, but that's not the lesson here. There is no point where the wrong done to Marinette is even mildly acknowledged. Miss Bustier's initial reaction to seeing Marinette's ruined gift is:

Miss Bustier: Well, I think this present is wonderful. It'll be my new cosmetics bag! Then I'll be able to think of both of you every time I use it.

And we go straight from that to the toxic positivity.

Something is wrong with this woman. You shouldn't even take this approach with preschoolers! While I could see this being a good final solution to something like Chloé scribbling on Marinette's drawing, Chloé's behavior still needs to be addressed. She is still the one in the wrong here. The one whose behavior needs to change.

This is one of many cases where there are two paths to take with this character. The writers clearly want Miss Bustier to be a wonderful teacher, but they wrote a victim-blaming disaster who shouldn't be in charge of anyone. If you're ever adapting her, then it's up to you if you want to redesign her into her intended self or if you want to lean into the bad writing. I think both paths have merit because the writing is so bad that there is no way to make canon Caline work as a good teacher. She's too fundamentally flawed so you either acknowledge how awful she is or do a major overhaul where she's much less forgiving and actually acknowledges things like the Chloé problem.

[lunchtimebedamned1997]

Arcane S2 thoughts

(spoilers, obviously)

Most of this was sent to my friend Penn @pennedinblood in discord first, but I wanted to share it + some more on here too.

Okay, I now that its been a couple days and I've had time to think properly, have some thoughts about Arcane. This isn't going to be as specific and nuanced as I'd like, but I'll need more time for something like that.

Here's the thing... What we did get was good and I liked it a lot - for the most part anyway - but like - it wasn't a very good finale imo...

Like -

In season one they had this just fucking masterful foundation for such a nuanced discussion of class and oppression, of the cycle of violence, of how desperate acts may seem evil to some but are not always as simple as they seem and that one person's actions may influence the narrative but that it is the systems in place - and the willingness to follow systems that harm a disproportionate amount of the population for personal gain - that are the real issue. There were no real villains in s1 imo. It was just people making good, bad, or neutral choices, and they all interconnected and effected not only the plot, but the audiences' understanding of the corrupt system in place.

It forced you (if you're paying attention) to understand with visceral understanding both those of the oppressed and the oppressors; and in the midst of all of that we had magic and science interplaying beautifully against the good and greed of mankind.

AND just vast, resonant, deep interpersonal connections and development that you could feel in your bones.

and then in season two... we just kind of went - 'fuck that here's jesus and a witch ~~~ Magic war tiiime' Like?????

It touched on a few themes for sure, and what Jayce had to say to Viktor about disability and the purpose of people, or the value in imperfection and the point of life - as someone who's struggled with their health and other personal things I don't want to get into on the internet, that hit so hard. I hated Jayce in S1, and he won me over in act one of this season and just - didn't let me down. His arc was beautiful and I really really appreciate it. His connection with Viktor means so much to me. screeches into the void

But lets be so fucking real - they kind of (majorly) chickened out of their mass commentary on the opposing classes and working towards a better system that doesn't harm its people. and instead like - Vi's arc got completely fucked?

Like - oh okay so you ditched everything you were going to say and just made her a strong war pawn who can hit good and is gay coolcoolcool (sobs). Like, act one was so promising it really felt like it was following up on everything they had been working towards, and i loved seeing Vi having to make hard choices; watching her become an enforcer as the only way she could think of to deal with two disparate parts of herself - one that needed to put an end to the monster she feels like she created (Jinx, obvi), and one that desperately needed to hold onto the only person she had left (Caitlyn).

And Cait's devolvement into fascism was so intriguing and dark and I hated it in a good way, yk? Like I was like "oh fuck they made Cupcake unrecognizable in a fucking believable way wtf that's rad bro"

And then in act two they were just like 'HAHA lets not show you anything but the highlights of Vi's inner tumoil, then - wow look Jinx is here to tell her about Vander! - let's just never actually take a hard look into Vi's issues or personal arc ever again teehee - oh! And Cait's on our side again yay!' Like EXCUSE ME???

Vi had stood as one of the most important characters in the entire show. She is the linchpin between Piltover and Zaun - one of only two hinges that connects the two cites (the other being Viktor to a far lesser degree bc his roots are never explored, Singed is the only undercity person we see him go back to interact with, etc etc leaving Vi to be the only 'real one') And they completely sidestepped that - especially how she's also so connected to Ekko and the Firelights - which was just - never touched again - Ekko didn't even get to fix his tree! I get it, bigger fish but ffs - it's not a blaming character thing, it's a writing issue. I understand why Ekko had to focus on smth besides his tree lmao - it's that the writers just dropped this thing that stood so strongly for Ekko's fucking roots man (pun intended). Like - He's representing what Vander wanted to do. What Zuan could be. He is literally making a part of Zaun beautiful and supportive, and standing resolute against the system and saying "both of you are wrong, back tf up and lets talk" and they just got rid of that. I think it says a lot that that in particular was punted into the void.

I'm just not over that we never got to see him and Vi interact again dude wth - and I feel like that really speaks to how much they removed Vi from her point and purpose in S1. It would make sense if she needed more time to reconnect -esp after how Cait betrayed her - but to never actually talk again? Just glimpsing each other in the finale?

Don't get me wrong, I loved some of the time-suckers this season. Mel for one (who I also wasn't a huge fan of in S1 (I didn't trust her lol)). Everything with Mel, Vik, and Jayce was sooo interesting, and Ambessa was a great villain. She was imposing and horrible and yet there were very small parts of her that you could understand - but there wasn't enough time. Not with everything else we were also touching. Not without loosing so much of what we had been working towards. And even with the large focus, The Black Rose was this jumbled mess of ideas that didn't really amount to much besides giving Mel a powerup and probably leading us into the spinoff :(

I've been having trouble processing all of this because I'm shocked and upset because narratively, I didn't like it.

And I HATE that I didn't like it. I liked the individual scenes. I liked the concepts at play. But none of it was fleshed out!

That impeccable no-crumbs-left writing was suddenly nothing but crumbs. A whole feast of them. Nothing was really held together and it left each arc feeling like a separate vaguely-connected vignette rather than a whole story - let alone a satisfying conclusion to the previous season.

I'm genuinely angry because I wanted so badly to love this season but I just don't; not as a whole, not as an ending. Again, the individual moments were largely great, but good moments don't make a good story.

I just feel like they were trying too hard to serve LoL lore. Originally Arcane wasn't cannon-compliant with the messy lore of the game, and then a few months ago they came out and said that it was now considered canon - and I was excited bc I thought that meant that whatever they did would influence League - but I was wrong. I think it's very clear that Canonizing Arcane had the opposite effect. I think it's why they chickened out of their societal commentary - I think it's why the Champion deaths were so 'no body, no proof'. I think that it undercut all the stakes for the writers and made them forced to bend to the will of a lot more oversight from the higher-ups at Riot.

I don't know guys, how are you feeling? I'm really glad we got CaitVi cannonized (but I have things I wanna say about that too, esp. how their sex scene played into the sidestepping of Vi's arc (not that it happened, but the way it did - I can talk more about this another time lmao)) and I loved getting a timebomb kiss (again more Vi arc things I wanna say *sobbing and gnawing on my cage bars*) but yeah - anyway I gotta stop typing before I get too into-the-weeds of my thoughts. I'll probably make a big post about the specifics of how I feel they fucked up Vi's story in another post bc I clearly can't let it go XD

But fr tell me ur thoughts too pls I want to know what you thing even if - maybe even especially if - you disagree with me :3

Idk I've got to rewatch it.

It wasn't bad TV, it's still better than most things coming out right now... I hate that I can't just love it entirely rn raaaaaaahhh auhfalwoiha (help D':)

[wrenhavenriver]

late-game veilguard spoilers

they sort of vaguely attempt something with neve and harding being like "sorry we didn't notice you were blood-magic-hallucinating someone who's been dead this whole time, we probably should have picked up on that huh" but i think that whole twist would have been more poignant if it'd been used as a springboard for a larger acknowledgement of how very little emotional support/reciprocation/basic attention rook has gotten throughout the game. like, how fucking bleak is it that the most consistent source of concern for rook's wellbeing is a few conversations/repeating ambient dialogue from a character that was Dead All Along and now exists largely as a manifestation of the coercive magic of a third party with no love for rook trying to mold them into a sufficient substitute/sacrificial lamb so he can Houdini his own way out of Fade Prison and leave them to rot???

(i mean, writing your game that is purportedly about Found Family in a way where rook actually gets emotional support/reciprocation from characters outside of the Dead Guy in Their Head would be the first option, but failing that you could at least use your Sixth Sense Twist to emphasize, idk, The Sacrifices of Leadership/it being Lonely at the Top etc etc and elevate it into something slightly more meaningful.)

i think the reason lucanis' romance scene post-Fade rescue (and i'd assume the other romances, but i haven't played them yet to see) hits harder for me than so many other ~Emotional™~ scenes in the game is that if you pick the "I didn't think I'd ever get out of there—how do I know that I did? This could be more of the Fade" dialogue option, lucanis—whose time in the Ossuary, both literal and in its dreamy half-real representation in his psyche afterward, means he surely understands exactly how horrific a state of limbo this is to exist in—seems truly aghast to realize how much rook is struggling in the aftermath (major props to Zach Mendez for the whole scene) and desperate to give them some comfort and ground them back in reality. the wings coming out to cover them at the end really does feel protective, like someone else is finally standing between them and the world so they can have a proper and long overdue breakdown that isn't in their own head. because unless you have a desperate Spite demon capable of yanking people into your head, having to deal with all your problems there ensures that you deal with them alone.

[ganglygamer]

I'M HERE I'M A PODCAST ENJOYER!!!

(tldr at the end because this is kinda long)

I should mention that there are also unused versions of the TSON cover made by the same artist (hauntedfaun) that show Noone having long black hair and a white gown. Though I think most people in the fandom (myself included) don't really like that look as it feels a bit too similar to what we've seen in previous LN designs (Six and RK for example). It's obvious though that they made her hair way shorter in the final design.

So basically, don't feel bad if your version of Noone isn't accurate to what's shown on the cover, since most of the other fanmade Noone designs that I've seen don't really follow it anyway. My version (seen below and here) is actually similar to yours in a lot of ways, except I envision her having reddish hair and freckles - but there are other interpretations, like her having brown hair or blonde hair and different styles of clothing.

As for when TSON could take place, we can only kind of guess using context clues seen in the rest of the series. In the preview for the new comic we do get a glimpse of the counties having some blend of modern skyscrapers and gothic architecture, but nothing that really pins down a time period.

That being said, a lot of the technology in the LN games does seem to come from the mid-late 20th century, specifically things like heart monitors, subway systems, electric fences, big blocky CCTV monitors, etc. And in TSON it's implied that Otto records everything on a modern tape recorder, while with his dream machine the noises it makes always made me think it was hooked up to some larger old-fashioned computer cabinet (think of an old NASA supercomputer).

Taking all that into account, I imagine what we see in the Counties likely takes place between the mid-1960's and early 1970's, since that would be modern enough for the buildings and tech mentioned above, but also vintage enough for the stuff we see in LN2 like black-and-white TV or the style of hair and clothing on the Viewers to still be common. Although, this is all assuming the Counties is supposed to be OUR world and not just the fictional LN equivalent of the real world.

tldr: You can pretty much draw Noone however you like since there doesn't really seem to be an "official" design for her between the official artist or the fanartists. Also TSON likely takes place in the mid-60s/early-70s based on the buildings and technology seen in the wider LN series.

Noone!

So, recently, I listened to the Sounds of Nightmares podcast (a little late, I know, but still better than never) and I have become obsessed.

(P.s. If you're wondering what the scrawls read, I was just speculating what hair-do Noone carries. In the end, I do think they're pigtails but I drew her with short hair because it's recognisable.)

Also side note, when do you guys think the podcast is set?

-The modern-day or perhaps sometime during the 1900s...

[bambi-kinos]

hey... what do you make of just like starting over and real love? do you think theyre rlly about paul? i think they are, but i struggle to believe john was finally making up his mind like that

Paul almost certainly thinks that (Just Like) Starting Over is about him. He purportedly listened to it on repeat for days right after John died and then there's the "walrus" referenced in the first draft of the lyrics, as well as the line about making love in Paris. I absolutely believe that Paul is the primary recipient of (Just Like) Starting Over.

I don't think it was John making up his mind per se...I think it was more like, John was unhappy with how he had left things with Paul and he was feeling optimistic about their future, so long as they stayed the course and renewed their love. However John is still John, he reached out to May Pang the same year and reconnected with a bunch of people out of the blue. Which is to say that yes, he did want to renew things with Paul and patch things up with him. But he also prepared some back ups in case that didn't work out for him. I think it was Harry Nilsson that received a middle of the night phone call from John where John was really warm to him after being out of touch for years. (Just Like) Starting Over was written with Paul as its true object and in John's heart of hearts I believe he wanted to make a new bond of love with Paul, but I also think that it is written as such that John could tell any of his old flames that "this one's for you" and mean it.

Which brings us to Real Love, I think that Real Love is also intended to be about Paul. However Real Love is a lot older and to quote a random twitter user I saw when Now and Then dropped, "it's another Lennon misery fest." When John wrote the beginnings of Real Love he certainly had Paul on his mind (hence the "lalalala farm" bit in the initial "Real Life" noodling around.) Whatever was going on with John staying in the Dakota, he was clearly longing for Paul and desperately wished things were different. But Real Love lacks the hopeful and anticipatory tone of (Just Like) Starting Over. I think John wanted to do more with Paul than sit in a studio with him again IYKWIM.

Real Love feels a lot more like an expression of John's regrets and how he wished things were different, that he had gone a different way. It actually strikes me as more of a venting song than something John really wanted to polish and bring to the public, "why must we be alone?" is a question John seems to have been asking himself through out the Dakota years. He put himself in this position and he is trying to understand why he did it to himself, even asking seemingly silly and pointless questions like "why am I so alone, why isn't Paul here with me, didn't I hold him in my arms just yesterday?" ('Yesterday' again....I said something wrong now he's gone away....and I don't believe in Yesterday myself....I never wished I had written it....now I long for yesterday....)

But when you're making vent art you don't ask yourself sophisticated questions, you ask yourself really obvious ones that you know the answer to but you've been scared to answer fully because it means accepting that you've known this entire time and haven't done anything about it. The Real Life demo we have ends with "just call him on the phone."

(Just Like) Starting Over is John making his first steps towards a new future that he wants Paul to be a part of while still being uncertain about what that entails. Real Love is John coming to grips with the scale of his loss and bewilderment at how he got here, the intervening years between his successful love affair with Paul vs the drug addled years in the Dakota being a smeared blur.

I don't think John had necessarily made up his mind about Paul. More like he realized his relationship with Yoko had run its course (whether he knew she was a parasite is another question.) That was his chance to be with Paul again.

[iamonlyhereforthefreefood]

I think if you're a queer/neurodivergent/gender non-conforming girl then there was a high chance you had a "not like other girls" phase. And obviously there is a problem with the not like other girls thing because it demonizes girls/women who are more traditionally feminine which obviously there is nothing wrong with, however I do think when you're a queer not traditionally feminine woman or girl you start to feel disconnected from what allegedly is the typical female experience. I see so many posts and memes on Instagram that will be like "men won't get this" or "all women have had this experience" and it's something you don't get or something you've never experienced. And now as an adult I tend to ignore those memes because I'm older I'm aware that women aren't a monolith and every woman experiences life differently. But when you're 15 and see things like that you start to think "well if this is the typical experience girls have then clearly I'm not like other girls". A lot of "not like other girls" memes to have this sense of superiority "other girls are sluts, I'm not" "other girls are vain, I'm not" but at the same time I've seen plenty of memes that seem self deprecating and almost like they come from this place of isolation. I think a lot of girls who had a not like other girls phase really felt disconnected from their peers and those memes were a coping mechanism. I think most people outgrew the not like other girls phase because they grew up and met other women who were neurodivergent and/or queer, grew up and met other women with similar interests and hobbies, grew up and met other women who also had "not like other girls" phases as a result of feeling isolated in high school.

I'm not like other girls, because women aren't a monolith and I'm my unique own person, just like every other woman. I'm also similar to so many other women. I have so many hobbies and experiences that other women share, including the experience of being 15 and thinking you're broken for not fitting into society's idea of what it means to be a girl.

[the-judicial-assistants-notebook]

not enough discussion about the gavins' complicated relationship with feminine-coded/beauty products, i don't think.

[mixupmycota]

i've felt for years that when solas is arguing with varric about cole, it isn't actually about cole. the arguments he makes, how heated he gets, it clearly struck home in a very personal way to me. cole is the catalyst for the argument, but it's just a continuation in some ways of the other arguments he has been having with varric around agency, the ability of people to change, whether choosing to set down a burden and remain in one place is giving up or thriving in spite of the horrors.

watching a run of inquisition just before veilguard's release reaffirmed this opinion - I said at the time that solas has a very fixed idea of who cole can be, that the custody battle seems less about cole and more about solas reinforcing his own beliefs on what the world is like and can be in the first place.

Cole's whole existence in Inquisition truly must be so viscerally unsettling for him. Compassion keeps reaching out to him, and he turns it away, insists there are others who need it more than he does. He repeatedly gets his historic wrongs exposed in front of the Inquisitor through his banter with Cole, who is trying to help him in doing so. And yeah truly like. Cole becoming more human does demonstrate there was another way, and part of that required caring about people and being curious about their lives and thinking of them as real. Which, given the average incredibly shitty ancient elf attitude towards anyone that isn't an elf, and especially how Solas talks about the dwarves and qunari - that path not one that would have occurred to the ones we see, it seems. Envy, terror, a desperate need to refute it not for Cole's sake but for his own? Seems just textually correct.

Even if he was also motivated by wanting to spare Cole the same terrible experience he had in becoming Meat, I don't think the negative aspects of his feelings can be discounted at all, it feels pretty core to that entire conflict.

Does anyone ever think how in Inquisition Solas was probably, to some extent, envious of Cole’s journey from a spirit to a person? Of how that would explain why he was holding so viciously to his approach against Varric’s?

Because Cole wants to be a person. By contrast to Solas, no one begged Cole to leave his spirit nature behind against his own wishes;

Cole didn’t kill/mutilate anyone to gain a corporeal form either. More like he took on and continued a life that had already ended.

Does anyone ever think that Solas is unable to accept that Cole can become a person because that would mean he’d also have to confront the fact that his own actions (him and ‘his people’ gaining a body at the expense of Titans) were unjustifiable anymore?

Because... there could be another way, that’s not his, and because he could be wrong. I bet that would terrify any ancient being who’s been struggling with doing the right thing for centuries.

Or who knows, maybe I’m just rambling. Something, something I think we need to talk more about the implications of Cole becoming a person and Varric’s role in it. That quest certainly lands so differently after Veilguard.

[bonefall]

As a big sibling with a lil sib with epilepsy, when they read TBC they Honestly thought if they got struck with lightning reciting the lord's prayer they'd be cured like Shadowsight is from their epilepsy. I had a discussion with them on how that's not how it works, but ge was so upset they took it away from Shadowsight that he hasn't picked the books back up and has stated that 'he hopes Ashfur wins and starts a new religion.,'

I do not even know how to respond to this besides saying that your little sibling is 100% right to be pissed and I now also hope Ashfur wins and starts a new religion.

[themyscirah]

Amanda... I miss her.

But I don't trust a single person to write her other than Ostrander/Yale. Like I don't trust them to do it right. Because like it's easy to write her being shady and manipulative and involved in secret government conspiracies. That's what she does. But it feels so hollow once you've seen her character in the way Ostrander describes it. Like she is a woman who is desperate and trying to do what she thinks is right. She has found a place of power (as a fat Black woman in the 1980s) and is doing anything she can to fight and hold onto it as powerful and ambitious men try and steal it from her. So she doubles down. She doubles down on the shady deals and the broken promises and the violence and she destroys her enemies, and loses a part of her soul in the process. And then some other ambitious politician rises up and the process repeats itself over and over and over again as each time she loses more of her morality and more of her soul and more of the respect her colleagues had for her. In place of that she gains more power, she gains fear, and an even more badass reputation. Until by the end of the book the villains begin to understand/sympathize with her more than the heroes ever will. Like THAT is who Amanda Waller is. It may happen subtly, it may happen over a longer period of time but that descent is a critical part of her character! She is a tragic character! And I feel like every perception of Suicide Squad I've seen outside of the original has her as this static villainous snapshot which is just untrue to her core imo. Like she is not a hero. But she is also not JUST a villain. She is a highly flawed character who is always descending farther and farther into villainy as she is led there by what she believes is right.

[uncanny-tranny]

I think we can absolutely criticize how gender dysphoria is viewed and defined, but sometimes, I think people can swing too far in the other direction to say that gender dysphoria doesn't exist at all, or that anybody who claims to have gender dysphoria simply have internalized transphobia. I really don't think this is helpful to trans people who are dysphoric, and it really puts us in a shameful position wherein our feelings are deemed proof of being problematic or transphobic.

I absolutely don't think dysphoria is required whatsoever to be trans - I hope my blog has made this position clear. I just hate the way dysphoria is understood by cis doctors and medical professionals, who typically do not talk to or try to understand their dysphoric patients. I don't think the solution is to blame dysphoric trans people, though (or non-dysphoric trans people!). We didn't ask for the state of transphobic healthcare. We need to put the blame where it lies - with biased professionals who don't want to accurately understand dysphoria and how it can overlap with trans identity and the transphobic society many of us live in.