#they're the ones that ask questions about our society and biases. they're the ones that discuss the challenges marginalized people face

[clangenrising]

I share your love of stories of redemption and growth (that you mentioned in another ask), and I really appreciate what you are doing with Ghost. It is never, ever too late to choose to change, regardless of the things you've done in the past. Being genuinely sorry for what you have done is not always enough for the people you have hurt. Sometimes nothing is. But if you truly regret your actions you change anyways, not because you expect to be forgiven, but because YOU want to be different. Ghost's experience feels real right now, especially his sense of uncertainty and discomfort and even reluctance at some points. Change isnt easy. Behavior and thought patterns are hard to shift, even when you can recognize they're wrong. And it is much, much easier to give up than it is to do the uncomfortable work of changing, especially when you come face to face with the people that you have hurt. Especially when you're confronted by someone who has been deeply affected by your actions. Having Fogpaw ask Ghost why he would do the things he did is such a simple but effective confrontation. She doesnt understand the complexity of the situation, but for someone like Ghost I actually think that kind of point blank question can be useful, in small doses. I think it's historically been easy for him to make lots of excuses to himself and others for his actions, but being confronted by his own (very direct) daughter puts him in a hard position where he actually has to think about it. She is someone he doesn't seem to want to lie to, but being honest with her means he needs to examine his own actions more thoroughly. Why DID he do those things? There's a lot to unpack there, and all of it is tangled up with his own personal fears and the sexist society he was raised in. To have a good relationship with his daughters, especially with those daughters living in a society that has very different views on gender and sexuality than his own, he is going to have to confront some of his own biases. So I think that knowing them is going to be a vitally important part of his growth. Whatever happens specifically, you've done a fantastic job setting up characters with complex feelings about one another who are going to be deeply affected by each other's words and actions. There are so many ways it could go, all of which would be interesting. Can't wait to see more!

I'll end this with a quote from my favorite book series (which is also about growth and redemption and change) that I wish I could share with Ghost right now: "If we stop, if we accept the person we are when we fall, the journey ends. That failure becomes our destination. To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one."

Very well said, so well said I don't have much to add. 50 RisingBucks <3

That's such a lovely quote (From Oathbringer by Brandon Sanderson, I believe, if anyone was wondering) and I think it would be comforting to Ghost. It wouldn't fix everything but it would probably make him feel less alone and that's a powerful thing.

[archivalofsins]

So, I'm filling out my mail in ballot and like... Lately I've been getting hit with the cultural differences between myself and others.

So, I'd like to talk about how that may impact how I view Milgram.

It's no secret that I'm African American. Yet, there's a great deal of people that will have assumptions on what that means, how it looks, what I must be into outside of Milgram etc. These things as we've come to know quite well through Milgram, are biases.

As we've discussed before biases aren't inherently bad. Biases in and off themselves are ideas we pick up about society based on our personal experiences. They're like a quick cheat sheet that no one can help but make in their head.

For example- Since I said I was African American. One could assume things about my,

Skin tone

Education

Social Status

Simply based on that knowledge alone. One could assume that I'm dark skinned. An assumption that a good deal of people make when that term is used despite the various skin tones throughout the African American community.

If I were to then respond to that assumption with,

"Actually I'm light skinned." (This is a fact and a example.)

Another assumption would come into play.

"Oh what are you mixed with?"

This would lead to two answers. Nothing, literally everyone in my family is black. Or, "Wow; can you take an educated guess? I did just say I'm African American is there any historical context you could possibly gleam without asking me why my skin tone is what it is. Anything, is there anything coming to mind that may explain? Might rhyme with armory. Might involve a word that sounds like shave?"

Nope damn...the answers still nothing just African American or well if we discuss the history of slavery real quick we get this very complicated non-answer of too many things to count. Including white and Native American. Yet if you ask my dad what they put on his papers when he fought in the war they put negro. Because those other two things matter relatively less than the whole black thing.

So, most of my family history is black and I was raised in the black community. Didn't really stop me from getting that question a lot growing up. Mostly from people within said community. These are the sort of biases I believe are pretty common in most cultures. People will judge others based on how they look and assume things about their background.

This is highlighted in Milgram through Mu. It's brought up multiple times that Mu has been othered because of how she looks. Because she does not look typically Japanese, she looks foreign. She has honey-blonde hair and light grey eyes.

She mentions in a minigram that she doesn't like how rain makes her hair stick up.

People headcanoning Mu's victim as half black when France has the highest black population out of Europe wild.

X X

Hmmm, wonder why that headcanon hasn't been put on her ahn who knows.

Basically, noting that humidity and water makes her hair frizzy. Probably playing a bit into the reason she doesn't portray herself as being soaked in After Pain. Because she finds this aspect of herself to be embarrassing.

This also could subtly imply that she may straighten or style her hair. Outside of that Milgram highlights how different she looks before the series even starts properly. Noting it in her character description on the website.

A beautiful prisoner with overt features that set her apart from other Japanese people. Despite her slender frame, she’s very candid, and the type to rebel against the abnormal circumstances Milgram has presented her. Due to her nature, she will be very wary of Es at first. The way she conducts herself gives a sense of her upbringing. Leading us to speculate that she was probably born into a wealthy family. Perhaps, being born into wealth is why she has such a sense of pride, bursts into tears when clashing with others, and is prone to whining.

My sorry spells must be wearing off./I am always the drama queen.

x

Why won’t you stop hurting me? My heart is all dried up. My sorry spells must be wearing off. But I guess some of it is my fault./ It’s not my fault. I told you I’m queen, and it will never be changed. I’ve got EVERYTHING, everything is as I wish.

And even having it called to attention in the portal timeline.

20/05/31 Mu: Hey, Mikoto-kun, aren’t you scared of this place……? You can’t think of any reason you ended up here, right……? Mikoto: Ahh, yeah. Of course, it’s not like I’m not scared at all. But just between you and me…… I still haven’t dropped the thought that this could all just be a TV show. I mean, I really haven’t ever murdered anyone. ……and if that is the case, we’re definitely being monitored. For like a prank setup or something. Wouldn’t it be super uncool and embarrassing to get angry or lash and have it shown on prime time? Mu: Is that what you think……? A prank, huh…… I hope that’s all it is…… Mikoto: Ah! If that is the case, then you’ll probably be super popular since you’re so cute, Mucchan! There’s a lot of girls out there who make their big break coming off reality shows like that!

Like the fact that Milgram lays all of this out from the beginning along with the way it follows through on it is really good. Because it isn't just building as it goes or adding pockets of tidbits of character information on as the trials progress. It's all been there and still is there rewarding people for going back and looking, if they feel like it.

Through bringing to the forefront how different Mu is from those around her Milgram subtly highlights another form of discrimination in Japan. Racism.

Then it does this really interesting thing when it comes to her core friend group in particular.

Milgram makes a point of having all of Mu's close friends be individuals who for one reason or another would not be considered to look stereotypically Japanese. Milgram manages to do this without even giving Mu's friends faces.

Even highlighting in their insect forms through giving them different hair colors from the rest.

Just like Mu herself.

Q.11 Who do you want to see right now? Mu: I miss my friends too but most of all, Papa and Mama.

In her second voice drama Mu says,

...Warden-san. I think you're really doing something bad. Isn't it a bad thing to act like there has to be something wrong with someone for them to get bullied? Oh? No matter the circumstances, it's always the bullies who are in the wrong! Isn't that obvious? Warden-san you're so smart but you didn't even know something like that? maybe you should take some lessons on morals or something. ... Besides even if I've done something wrong, there's nothing that can justify bullying. Warden-san I thought you were nicer than this.

Not one thing that can justify it not even others doing something wrong. Meanwhile Mu's first trial character voice line,

It's your fault....for doing horrible things to me...

Mu goes on to say this in response to Es asking why does she think she was bullied after that,

"How would I know? I mean I'm from a rich family, and I'm an eye-catcher too... It was probably out of some kind of envy or prejudice, right?"

Plus, Mu's stance on bullying quickly changes when it's brought to her attention that Es believes she may have been a bully before she bullied. As she states,

"Leaving behind all that stuff you said about me possibly having been a bully myself- not that any of that's true of course!"

Sorry it was an easy shot.

Can you believe she said this right before this mv came out? Wild. Prisoners stay lying in their voice dramas. Never incriminate yourselves, always lie to authority figures. Double down on the lies if you need to. No one owes honesty to individuals or systems putting them in terrible predicaments.

Lie like you and honesty had a falling out. Lie like being honest betrayed you worse than it did Kazui. Keep lying. Honesty sorry that's a luxury I can't afford right now. I'm in my lying arc trust me at your own expense.

Be Mikoto trial two and gaslight the audience into believing that everything Milgram uncovered was actually a dream trial three. It will work better than you think Mu.

Like naw be more dishonest actually. The realest thing all the prisoners have ever done was just blatantly lie and not back down from said lies. They're all like fucking prove it go on prove it! What do you have mystical songs where I go I did that shit and I'll do it again?! That's not substantial enough evidence.

That could have been an over-exaggeration done to better highlight my artistic vision- Fuck you and your song extractor bring in some actual proof or piss off. This machine was provided by your facility how do you know it's providing accurate unbiased information. The facility had already deemed us guilty of something on incarceration this isn't fair or trustworthy.

Meanwhile if they're innocent what a great and interesting machine you have here.

Sure. So, if I'd gotten payback for how my bullies treated me then that'd count as revenge right? And if you believe that was my only option then don't you have to forgive me? ...Uh...I'm not really sure what you're trying to say? You see~ If you think that me bullying someone back after being bullied is the natural course of action, then wouldn't it be bad to bully me back in return? ... "But if you were like. "I won't forgive you Mu revenge is bad!" Then wouldn't that imply that it's also bad for me to bully someone back after they bullied me?" I think I'm kinda...starting to get your point...maybe. Warden-san are you maybe not all that smart after all?

Since the way Mu talks is rather quick and confusing purposely Es has difficulties understanding what she's saying. Despite the fact that she is just reiterating that since she's already been forgiven it would be best if Es kept to that verdict. Because Es has already set the precedent that killing out of revenge or in response to a slight is forgivable. Changing her verdict now won't change that precedent.

Meaning Mu has every intention to bully someone for bullying her again if necessary because Es has stated that the appropriate response to being picked on is picking on that person back. In a way Mu is saying that's what trial one cemented that treating people who have caused direct harm to your or others is completely okay actually.

So, it's best not to start problems for others others at all. So, if Es wants to change their verdict and pick on Mu now that would be no different than what happened to her.

This isn't even a veiled threat. Because she's just saying since you've realized that bullying is the appropriate response to bullying then you shouldn't pick on me because the obvious response would be me picking on you and you don't want that right? Or,

"If you want to betray from jealousy. I’ve told you what’s gonna happen."

The thing is the way I view Mu's story is subjectively changed based on my experiences as and African-American.

When I view her story I don't see the simple one of bullying. I see a story about prejudice and the othering of mixed and biracial individuals in Japan. How the mistreatment these individuals face when younger can lead to them bullying others later in life.

The fact that kids like that are often exposed to discriminatory treatment from a young age by peers and adults due to their overt physical differences. Something that can lead to a great deal of bitterness and self-loathing. Even internalized othering.

Q.08 Which of the other prisoners is most like you? Mu: I don’t think there’s anyone? They’re all weirdos.

This can be done to make oneself feel less than others or to cope and convince oneself that they are more special than those around them and everyone is just jealous actually. Mu falls into the later category. However, the later category is commonly used in response to discrimination of some sort.

Because it's easier and healthier to respond to others making fun of ones immutable traits such as physical characteristics by going they're just jealous. The other option is attempting to changing how you look entirely which for a lot of people won't work anyway. From that angle it's no suprise that in high school Mu would start doing something that may just have been done to her for much longer by girls who probably resembled those who picked on her a great deal or were people who used to pick on her.

Q.02   What scares you most? Mu: Painful things, scary things. Also embarrassing things. Q.07 What is your favourite place? Mu: Mama’s hometown of Nice. The sea there is beautiful.

As someone who grew up in the states a pretty diverse country. Well Mu saying things like her favorite place is her mothers hometown has a different ring to it. Because in Nice the way Mu looks wouldn't be considered odd or draw attention. Whereas in the place she grew up she can easily tell that the way she looks gets her both positive and negative attention.

I've said this before and I'll say it again the fact that Mu stands out due to her mixed ethnicity is just as a part of her story as being a bully is. The fact that she surrounds herself with people who are similar to her (seemingly mixed as well).

Well it really puts this spin on her story. Not just making it as simple as bullying it but turning it into this story of long term accepted bullying and what that cycle can lead to. If Mu was bullied and treated as different because of her looks and families wealth at a young age. Then she gets into this high school with other people with those experiences. It wouldn't be farfetched for her to want to use the opportunity to get revenge on the people who treated her poorly before and take advantage of the system that allowed it.

In order to lessen the impact of the idea of her being a bully which she denies as ever being true she states it would be fine for her to be one under Milgram's logic if it was in response to being bullied in the first place. That it's fine as long as it's revenge. A mindset many victims of bullying who become bullies later have. That it's fine to do because no one said it was wrong when it was happening to them. It's okay if they do it because if they do then it can't happen to them.

This especially puts an interesting spin on her first cover song and trial song.

Especially these lines,

Otome Dissection

There's been a lot of analysis of this song for a long while. For now, I want to analyze it from the angle of the singer dissecting themselves. An angle that the song has been taken from before. Given the visuals in the mv near the end.

The more overt ones.

Along with when the signer is shown pretending to call someone and closing their own body bag.

All after the line "Let's see if our climax had been a let down. Ever since that night."

Now if we phrase Otome Dissection as the singer singing to themselves that would make it more interesting in the context of Mu's case and the way it can relate to ethnicity. Because I think Otome Disssection manages to perfectly encapsulate the feeling of self-loathing, dejection, and hopelessness that being a minority can make a person.

The song highlighting how the singer has found something that makes them feel good as long as it hurts. Something that's validating and invalidating all at once. A way a lot of people feel about exploring or expressing their culture/ethnicity in a place where it's marginalized or stereotyped in some way. The feeling can be just as isolating as it is liberating simply because at times even when people want to do this there's not much community around them locally.

Plus, taking an interest in it won't make discrimination stop. At the end of the day people are still going to put you on a pedestal or hate you because of how you look. Though it can still be fulfilling. Also highlighting how one will dissect themselves, cutting themselves down to be more acceptable in an environment that didn't want to accept them to begin with. Again, going back to how it only feels good when it hurts.

They only get acceptances when they're burying parts of themselves. Yet, still desiring to be loved for everything they are the good and the bad and trying to convince themselves that they love who they are despite everything around them making it feel as though it'd be better,

If I had just disappeared.

All that self-loathing and disdain turns into boisterous self-confidence. Because it's feels like the only way that person can survive. Yet they still need this constant outwards validation because they don't know if they're allowed to be here. Even though they feel like they should be it doesn't feel like they are.

I want to feel “alive”, is it ok if I breathe? Tell me./I wanna feel shame, ever since the night when I realized it's good as long as it hurts.

Yet no amount of validation is enough because the person can't validate themselves. They're always going to be afraid of being found out then hated or the other person finding someone else.

Hey, what if If I am a bad girl- Don’t hate me./I actually had a dream you fell in love with someone else. Please tell me it's not true. Come on love me please?

A problem many people who have faced racial discrimination in their environments have is believing that others can like them. Because sometimes from birth all those people are given are reasons why others wouldn't. A list of things that make them odd or different from their peers. So, it's easy to understand why it would be difficult to believe.

After Pain

"I don’t want tomorrow to come. I want to forget yesterday I was miserable, someone please help me."

"If it’s endurance, I’m used to it. It’s just having another taste of it."

When it comes to Futa we see him become the victim of what he dished out after in Bring It On. Lamenting if both sides are losers in Backdraft. Yet, Mu tries her best to hide all the things that hurt and embarrass her. The source of her pain.

Because she doesn't want people to look at it. She doesn't want to replay it. Just like her second cover song further highlights along with her second trial mv.

She even states in the second written interrogation,

Q.01 What were you like as a child? Mu: I think I was pretty normal. I had a lot of friends, and learned a lot.

Yet she also states that she gets walked up to by modelling scouts on the streets because of her looks.

Q.15 What’s your dream for the future? Mu: A model, maybe. I’ve been turning down scouts while I’m still in high school though.

Definitely sounds easy to have a normal childhood with stuff like that occurring.

It's easy to write off Mu as not going through that much and just being a spoiled brat and a bully. However, I feel like that would be ignoring some very compelling parts of her character. Plus, she's not the only prisoners for Milgram to allude to dealing with forms of discrimination.

Plus, it is kind of strange that she would jump from having her friends bully people for her to murder. Like that isn't a very natural progression. Now she could be lying about not doing any of that stuff herself like dumping water on people or beating them up. However the only time we see her actually harassing a student is when they appear to be shaking them down and none of that stuff is occurring.

Then she's only alluded to being around in After Pain after her friends do that stuff. So, I genuinely doubt she was being dishonest about that. None of these feelings on Mu I stated here are new. I always appreciated how her story subtly deals with the ethnicity. I like how it shows a victim of bullying become a bully.

I like that it highlights how cycles of harassment begin. I love how Mu's first inclination is to frame herself as a victim of bullying in this situation because on some level she really thinks this is revenge for all the mean things others may have done to her. I also like that she's unapologetic about it. Plus my own complicated relationship with stuff like that makes me sympathetic to her a bit.

Even still it's Mu we're talking about she's not one to be knocked down and stay down. That's simply just another aspect to look at her under and it's one of the ones I find the most interesting given how I grew up.

I feel like that may just be one of the many things that may go overlooked based on how one grew up. Even though Milgram highlights it in a lot of ways.

Another one that may go over some's head is poverty in general given the cases of Amane and Mikoto. Like people not really understanding why he's so focused on his job or why Amane's family lives where they live etc. It's just interesting how Milgram tries to represent varying demographics. Like there's a plethora of other examples but I've gone over them before.

At least I find it interesting.

[davekat-sucks]

"Fun fact" Anon here!

Wow you misunderstood what I was saying so much it's actually kind of impressive. No prob tho, I'd just like to clarify by explaining a bit slower, because I do think the whole thing is fun. In case it needs to be said, my initial ask was partially a response to this anon:

"Idk if this is an unpopular opinion but it annoys me when trolls use the word gay or any kind of LGBT-type language when none of the have a historical or societal context of any of those concepts or words, they think the distinction of sexualities is silly, they wouldn't understand using gay as an insult or a term of endearment, fucking stop it."

What I was saying is that this anon is both right and wrong. Because of a flaw in homestuck's writing, it ends up contradicting itself in such a way that Alternia is implied to have at least the concepts of distinct sexualities one moment, and then not have them the next. I consider that a "fun fact" because sometimes it's fun peeking behind the curtain of how things are written. Like knowing how Tolkien's misspelling of dwarfs as dwarves resulted in the ability to copyright the misspelling. Mistakes happen, and then they result in a distinct identity.

I think it'd be more useful for us to stop thinking and interacting with Alternia as a real place that's being explained to us linearly, and appreciate it as a construct of fiction that's being written linearly. Alternia is innately full of contradiction because it is written that way, sometimes by mistake and but also by purpose. From a writing perspective, if you base an alien society off of your own, it will always be skewed in weird ways informed by your own biases, our reality that we take for granted. In Homestuck's case, Alternia is alternative earth in the many ways the the writer doesn't bother to change, but also differentiated by the ways it does change. It can be intentional or unintentional, but both become canon once they're written and published each update.

Now, the flaw in the writing is because, again, Alternia is a place written, not one that exists and is being described with all factors about itself already known. I bring up the order of pages because that is the order of how the fiction is written and presented. Homestuck is a nonlinear story in which outlines are written ahead of time, so it can organize its nonlinear storytelling, but the writing in the pages themselves are written fairly linearly. In writing we call this macro (outline) and micro (the things like sentences and paragraphs). There's a joke about this in the Simpsons, where Lisa questions how a hamster can write mystery novels, and the answer is that he writes the ending first and works backwards. But that only works in the outline, which can be done in any order. Few people write micro backwards, because it's hard to write the end of sentence before you know the start, it's just not how we do grammar. That's something that the aliens from Arrival (2016) could do.

In hivebent, the micro writing of individual pages are being written with the bias that since Alternia is based on earth, they would naturally have concepts of sexuality as much as they have the concept of gender. Even though Alternia is meant to be very very different, the presence of sexuality and gender are just taken as granted because it's like Earth. Kanaya is initially written to be gay. Feferi is initially written to be straight, and her going out the way to mention same sex attraction implies that this would be in some way the more tolerant option, which wouldn't be necessary if Alternia didn't have distinct sexualities, ergo, it does (at that point). The decision to make Alternia not like Earth in that way just hasn't been made yet.

And then, by coincidence Future Arachnids Grip happens. It's not so vital a joke as to be planned out in advance, but who on earth can ignore all caps FAG when it comes up? It also raises the opportunity for a joke, an opportunity which is swiftly and mindlessly taken in the moment. To continue establishing the trolls as alien, this thing that stands out to the audience is treated as a big whatever by Karkat. The contents of pages a hundred pages ago aren't being factored in or considered. But now, so many pages after trolls having sexualities is established, we're establishing that fag isn't a slur on alternia. Because yeah that's a funny little joke, but the decision to make it retroactively changes the world building which was once just taken as being the same as earth to being one of the things different from earth.

So whoopsie, like so many writers do, you accidentally contradicted yourself. It happens, but now the writing is set in stone, and you just have to start working on the outline of the next Act. The next act being Act 5 Act 2. The Act 5 Act 2 that starts out with Karkat and John's conversation that settles the contradiction and sides with the later joke, because that is the funnier of the two options. The explanation is diegetically addressed to John, but it is exposition to the audience, in case anyone remembers the whole deal those many pages ago.

And btw, the "Not homophobic parent" is the trope of a parent trying to awkwardly indicate that they're totally cool if you're gay by, well, doing exactly as Feferi did and adding the idea of same sex attraction on at the end them asking if you have a gf/bf. Tbh, I think if you don't know what that is, or are at least able to use context clues to take a guess, it makes me question why you so often commentate on LGBTQ+ stuff. Because no offense, it seems you aren't proficient enough in the most basic of concepts to speak so critically. If you didn't know what it is, that's really the kind of thing you ought be reading the comic for, to better understand certain LGBTQ+ experiences.

It's because some of the context behind it isn't fully related to LGBT type of themes. Most of it is based on projection. Feferi's condescending (get it ha) to people like Eridan shouldn't be that read that deep. It's just reaching at this point. At best for Feferi's arc if Hussie didn't treat her like shit, is that she accepts that Sollux left her for Feferi, Eridan is shit (no duh), and none of her other friends like Karkat, Kanaya, or Terezi gave a shit about her death and only found solace in Nepeta because of their mind fused together as a kernelsprite. It's not so much about romance as it is just that Feferi had been surrounded by shitty people and needs to associated with better ones she can trust. Slurs do exist, but in the form for things like race, not sexuality. Like how Mituna called Meenah a 'chumbucket' and 'wader' in Openbound. There probably is something equivalent to the N-word in Alternia. But nobody knows what it could be and the fandom is too scared to try and come up with one. Unless Chumbucket or Wader is the actual N-word for sea dweller trolls. Cause then that means Mituna just called Meenah a damn dirty nigga Part of Alternia's messy worldbuilding is because Hussie likes to make shit up on the fly if he thinks it is funny or awesome. That's why we even have the description of the classes for the aspects being so freaking short because Andrew Hussie didn't think much through. I also would never think Alternia is an alternative Earth. That stuff from their world should never be practiced in real life. From hemospectrum and of course, quadrants. The writing makes it a point how fucked up it is and how accepting and normalized it is within the troll group. Them playing Sgrub is trying to teach them how to move on from such beliefs and move on to build a new world on their own without it. Not like twelve trolls ruling over humans would be any better, but it's not as worse as Sea Queen Hitler and the shit she did to Earth. Is there a fanventure or fanfic that explores the Beta Trolls actually reaching their goal after Sgrub and took over Earth? I wanna see that. The John and Karkat moment was also meant to be as a joke as well to tell the audiences it WAS a joke that Karkat purposely called Vriska a FAG with no remorse. John and Karkat being mouthpieces and examples to tell that whoever was angry when that joke happened pages ago, can go fuck themselves. Most of jokes in Homestuck is made to say "fuck you" to the audiences to get a reaction out of anybody.

[clocks-divorcing-ticks]

(TW: Mention of animal cruelty) Is it OK to ask about kangaroo shooting? Kangaroos do seem to be the Australian ecosystem's equivalent of deer (in the northern hemisphere), have always had nonhuman predators, and of course First Nations people traditionally hunt them, and have been doing so for ~65000 years. But what do you think of Ray Mjadwesch's work? He claims that roo shooting isn't sustainable, that kangaroos are threatened and that their populations cannot increase by more than 12% a year. But his work doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed, he's associated with the animal rights movement and claims that the roo shooting industry have bought the official science on kangaroo populations like with fossil fuels and tobacco (both *far* bigger and more powerful industries). The only peer-reviewed article I can find supporting his contention is in the Animal Studies Journal, which is seemingly animal rights-centric rather than focusing on zoology or ecology. I've seen reports on the ABC about genuine animal cruelty by roo shooters, such as leaving joeys to starve after killing their mothers, when they're supposed to kill the joeys and try not to hunt females with large joeys. This could be dealt with in a similar way to cruelty to farm animals (e.g. in abattoirs)? But there seems to be a growing taboo among some people against *ever* killing kangaroos, considering it to be inherently cruel and wrong, that could be broadly adopted by society in general/ imposed on people who don't share it, likely ultimately affecting Indigenous people. The US is considering banning kangaroo meat and leather, for instance. Could this turn out similar to the Canadian seal hunt situation?

I think you've largely answered your own question in terms of the credibility of non peer reviewed science. You can hold it against the enormous body of peer reviewed science that talks about kangaroos (specifically eastern greys and reds) being overabundant and the reasons why (clear-felling and the creation of permanent water bodies for agriculture, removal of predation, their ability to prolifically breed, harvesting rules biasing the sex ratio of populations, etc). You will also see in literature on other actually endangered native species, or in their associated Action Plans, overabundant kangaroos being listed as a key threat to their conservation. The Australian landscape pre-colonisation was never capable of producing such an abundance of kangaroos, and it certainly isn't capable of sustaining it now. The thing is, anti-culling activists will never be satisfied by it. It's a matter of ideological differences. I absolutely understand the emotional argument. I used to be a staunch advocate against culling when I was younger. I remember walking into a lecture during undergrad on the overabundance of native species absolutely adamant that nothing said in that room could make me pro-culling. The weight of scientific evidence that supports it being the most humane thing to do was overwhelming. I walked out of that room knowing two things: one that ecological culls are important in managing healthy ecosystems, and two that I was capable of changing deep-seated ideals when presented with evidence. Not everyone is capable of the latter.

I'd love to take some of the activists to our field sites and show them what an overabundant population looks like. Teach them to recognise the signs of lumpy jaw, intestinal parasites, and the many other signs of starvation and disease that runs rife through these overcrowded mobs. It's truly horrifying to witness a population of thousands of slowly dying kangaroos against the backdrop of a dying landscape.

For many people, they would rather believe that no animal has to die and will staunchly advocate against both ecological culls and hunting. Not just for kangaroos. Here in Australia we see similar very emotional arguments against culling koalas and (feral) brumbies. While they believe they are saving animal lives, the result is that many of them die slow, awful deaths. Meantime many other unseen native animals are driven to extinction from the resultant land degradation (erosion, biodiversity loss, extinction of native flora, etc).

If an export ban happens, it would not be the first time a ban has been placed on kangaroo products abroad. And probably not the last. We dance this dance constantly. All we can do is try to present the science and the evidence, try to get better at communicating with the public, and hope that the governmental bodies in charge of these decisions actually listen to the science.

The worst part of being an ecologist is that part of your job is deciding which animals get to die. Something that came as an absolute shock to this starry-eyed girl with dreams of saving every animal. The reality is that sometimes to save a species, another has to die. Maybe it's because there's not the budget or the habitat or the public willingness to save both, and other times it's because one species is causing ecological damage. In this case it's the ugly reality that removing a few million roos, joeys and all, is imperative in the fight to save the fragile ecosystems we have left.

[truly-fantastic-me]

You know what I feel like writing a PSA because I'm pissed off beyond belief about ableism and you're gonna listen. It has come to my attention that a recent psychological study confirmed that neurotypicals subconsciously display off-putting behaviors towards autistic people because they can tell there is something "off" about us. They are biased against us, no matter what we do or how we do it. And it's not because they're bad perse, it's because our ableism is one of the many bigotries deeply engrained in our society. As humans, we are naturally biased and the bigotries of the US enhances our biases by, like, 1000%, turning "I'm biased in favor of my favorite pizza" into "I don't think this oppressed demographic deserve rights because it would infringe on my livelihood somehow."

This all being said, abled neurotypicals, it is your responsibility to unlearn your ableism. If someone seems "off" to you, step back and ask yourself if it's because they're genuinely doing something harmful or if they're just acting in a way you don't personally vibe with. And then ask yourself if you are truly treating that person with the same respect you give to anyone else. If you find yourself:

Suddenly ghosting them

Not listening to anything they have to say

Making fun of them behind their back

Telling them (or just thinking it without ever questioning that thinking) they're just "making up excuses," "being lazy," "not trying hard enough." (Which is part of the not listening bit)

Believing they're genuinely trying to hurt, spite or disrespect you without tangible evidence (such as willingly and knowingly crossing your boundaries)

Otherwise assuming the worst about them

Believing rumors (if there are any) about them without tangible evidence

Not willing to admit your part in inevitable misunderstandings due to human error. (ie you worded something in a way that didn't sink into them the way you meant it to, you misheard something they said, etc)

Treating them or talking about them like you do children

Making accusatory statements towards them or dismissing their needs during a mental breakdown or meltdown

Judging the way they dress, use their accommodations, or the way they present themselves

Expecting them to act like a neurotypical

Then chances are, you're not. Autistic people (or any other neurodivergent/disabled folks), should not have to go their entire lives dealing with the trauma of being mistreated, neglected and abused by you NTAB folks. We should not have to struggle so much in our society because many of you won't deconstruct your biases. We should not have to be so terrified of misunderstandings, miscommunications and failures because you make your biases about us our problem. We deserve a support system that won't crumble just because of some petty miscommunication, we said a "bad" or "weird" thing, or used a "tone" neurotypicals didn't like. Do better. Seriously.

[bea-lele-carmen]

The Four Quadrants of Conformism

July 2020

One of the most revealing ways to classify people is by the degree and aggressiveness of their conformism. Imagine a Cartesian coordinate system whose horizontal axis runs from conventional-minded on the left to independent-minded on the right, and whose vertical axis runs from passive at the bottom to aggressive at the top. The resulting four quadrants define four types of people. Starting in the upper left and going counter-clockwise: aggressively conventional-minded, passively conventional-minded, passively independent-minded, and aggressively independent-minded.

I think that you'll find all four types in most societies, and that which quadrant people fall into depends more on their own personality than the beliefs prevalent in their society. [1]

Young children offer some of the best evidence for both points. Anyone who's been to primary school has seen the four types, and the fact that school rules are so arbitrary is strong evidence that which quadrant people fall into depends more on them than the rules.

The kids in the upper left quadrant, the aggressively conventional-minded ones, are the tattletales. They believe not only that rules must be obeyed, but that those who disobey them must be punished.

The kids in the lower left quadrant, the passively conventional-minded, are the sheep. They're careful to obey the rules, but when other kids break them, their impulse is to worry that those kids will be punished, not to ensure that they will.

The kids in the lower right quadrant, the passively independent-minded, are the dreamy ones. They don't care much about rules and probably aren't 100% sure what the rules even are.

And the kids in the upper right quadrant, the aggressively independent-minded, are the naughty ones. When they see a rule, their first impulse is to question it. Merely being told what to do makes them inclined to do the opposite.

When measuring conformism, of course, you have to say with respect to what, and this changes as kids get older. For younger kids it's the rules set by adults. But as kids get older, the source of rules becomes their peers. So a pack of teenagers who all flout school rules in the same way are not independent-minded; rather the opposite.

In adulthood we can recognize the four types by their distinctive calls, much as you could recognize four species of birds. The call of the aggressively conventional-minded is "Crush <outgroup>!" (It's rather alarming to see an exclamation point after a variable, but that's the whole problem with the aggressively conventional-minded.) The call of the passively conventional-minded is "What will the neighbors think?" The call of the passively independent-minded is "To each his own." And the call of the aggressively independent-minded is "Eppur si muove."

The four types are not equally common. There are more passive people than aggressive ones, and far more conventional-minded people than independent-minded ones. So the passively conventional-minded are the largest group, and the aggressively independent-minded the smallest.

Since one's quadrant depends more on one's personality than the nature of the rules, most people would occupy the same quadrant even if they'd grown up in a quite different society.

Princeton professor Robert George recently wrote:

I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it.

He's too polite to say so, but of course they wouldn't. And indeed, our default assumption should not merely be that his students would, on average, have behaved the same way people did at the time, In other words , that they'd have been among its staunchest defenders.

I'm biased, I admit, but it seems to me that aggressively conventional-minded people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the trouble in the world, and that a lot of the customs we've evolved since the Enlightenment have been designed to protect the rest of us from them. In particular, the retirement of the concept of heresy and its replacement by the principle of freely debating all sorts of different ideas, even ones that are currently considered unacceptable, without any punishment for those who try them out to see if they work. [2]

Why do the independent-minded need to be protected, though? Because they have all the new ideas. To be a successful scientist, for example, it's not enough just to be right. You have to be right when everyone else is wrong. Conventional-minded people can't do that. For similar reasons, all successful startup CEOs are not merely independent-minded, but aggressively so. So it's no coincidence that societies prosper only to the extent that they have customs for keeping the conventional-minded at bay. [3]

In the last few years, many of us have noticed that the customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened. Some say we're overreacting — that they haven't been weakened very much, or that they've been weakened in the service of a greater good. The latter I'll dispose of immediately. When the conventional-minded get the upper hand, they always say it's in the service of a greater good. It just happens to be a different, incompatible greater good each time.

As for the former worry, that the independent-minded are being oversensitive, and that free inquiry hasn't been shut down that much, you can't judge that unless you are yourself independent-minded. You can't know how much of the space of ideas is being lopped off unless you have them, and only the independent-minded have the ones at the edges. Precisely because of this, they tend to be very sensitive to changes in how freely one can explore ideas. They're the canaries in this coalmine.

The conventional-minded say, as they always do, that they don't want to shut down the discussion of all ideas, just the bad ones.

You'd think it would be obvious just from that sentence what a dangerous game they're playing. But I'll spell it out. There are two reasons why we need to be able to discuss even "bad" ideas.

The first is that any process for deciding which ideas to ban is bound to make mistakes. All the more so because no one intelligent wants to undertake that kind of work, so it ends up being done by the stupid. And when a process makes a lot of mistakes, you need to leave a margin for error. Which in this case means you need to ban fewer ideas than you'd like to. But that's hard for the aggressively conventional-minded to do, partly because they enjoy seeing people punished, as they have since they were children, and partly because they compete with one another. Enforcers of orthodoxy can't allow a borderline idea to exist, because that gives other enforcers an opportunity to one-up them in the moral purity department, and perhaps even to turn enforcer upon them. So instead of getting the margin for error we need, we get the opposite: a race to the bottom in which any idea that seems at all bannable ends up being banned. [4]

The second reason it's dangerous to ban the discussion of ideas is that ideas are more closely related than they look. Which means if you restrict the discussion of some topics, it doesn't only affect those topics. The restrictions propagate back into any topic that yields implications in the forbidden ones. And that is not an edge case. The best ideas do exactly that: they have consequences in fields far removed from their origins. Having ideas in a world where some ideas are banned is like playing soccer on a pitch that has a minefield in one corner. You don't just play the same game you would have, but on a different shaped pitch. You play a much more subdued game even on the ground that's safe.

In the past, the way the independent-minded protected themselves was to congregate in a handful of places — first in courts, and later in communities — where they could to some extent make their own rules. Places where people work with ideas tend to have customs protecting free inquiry, for the same reason wafer fabs have powerful air filters, or recording studios good sound insulation. For the last couple centuries at least, when the aggressively conventional-minded were on the rampage for whatever reason, communities were the safest places to be.

That may not work this time though, due to the unfortunate fact that the latest wave of intolerance began in universities. It began in the mid 1980s, and by 2000 seemed to have died down, but it has recently flared up again with the arrival of social media. This seems, unfortunately, to have been an own goal by Silicon Valley. Though the people who run Silicon Valley are almost all independent-minded, they've handed the aggressively conventional-minded a tool such as they could only have dreamed of.

On the other hand, perhaps the decline in the spirit of free inquiry within universities is as much the symptom of the departure of the independent-minded as the cause. People who would have become professors 50 years ago have other options now. Now they can become quants or start startups. You have to be independent-minded to succeed at either of those. If these people had been professors, they'd have put up a stiffer resistance on behalf of academic freedom. So perhaps the picture of the independent-minded fleeing declining universities is too gloomy. Perhaps the universities are declining because so many have already left. [5]

Though I've spent a lot of time thinking about this situation, I can't predict how it plays out. Could some reverse the current trend and remain places where the independent-minded want to congregate? Or will the independent-minded gradually abandon them? I worry a lot about what we might lose if that happened.

But I'm hopeful long term. The independent-minded are good at protecting themselves. If existing institutions are compromised, they'll create new ones. That may require some imagination. But imagination is, after all, their specialty.

[wack-ashimself]

 Our justice system is FUCKED. First time I had to go in for jury duty in....15 years?

First time I had to go in for jury duty in....15 years? They asked WAY WAY more questions of the jury (one of the NEWEST ones: do you watch justice/cop dramas/shows/movies, and believe them to be accurate? I KNOW that was not asked of us 15 years ago). To the point I heard about a murdering child, sexual abuse on KIDS, and that was just the JURY. They asked very detailed private questions and potential jurors had to answer in front of a room full of strangers. And the topic at hand was not a criminal case, but a FUCKED up topic regardless TWO YEARS after the accused thing happened. It took THAT fucking long to hear something involving kids?

Not to mention, it disgusted me how 'buddy buddy' the judge, the typer person, the prosecutor, and the 3rd party unbiased guy who decided the outcome to a degree all were. Add in the cops as witnesses later on, and this is already a stacked case. There were multiple laughs over these serious questions. Like, if I did not KNOW they all were working together, I could fucking see it plain as day. It also threw me off how everyone was...charismatic. Even talking about shitty things, having a few laughs, they still charmed the jurors. Most there liked both the prosecutor AND defense attorneys. It's an aspect I kinda ignored: CHARMING the jurors. Not winning thru truth, but making them feel...validated. And EVERYONE shared some mundane unimportant side story of how they knew someone, directly or indirectly.

And they can cut out jurors on a WHIM? How is that a 'jury of your peers' if it is highly fucking filtered from both sides? The thing that drove me the most insane besides the word 'honorable' actually being next to the judge's name (seriously, you EARN that title by doing your job right, not by fucking default. Let's see your track record, and see how honorable it is)?

They SPECIFICALLY ALL said many many times 'Do you agree to follow the law as the JUDGE defines it to be?'

I DO NOT KNOW HER DEFINITION. Let's hear it....

Ugh.

I got out of it, at least for the day. How? I rambled my fucking truth. I was kinda everywhere, but I said:

'Largest prison population in the world. We are not the good guys.'

'With epstein's island, I believe anybody can get away with anything if it wasn't recorded.'

'I have friends lose kids to our system. And it broke my friend. He didn't deserve that.'

I actually said, and it was the god's honest truth: I am biased both ways. I have seen the system do bad, but, I, by default, would trust a kid's allegations over an adult's denial on average (I didn't sound THIS smart when I said it so paraphrasing).

Pay is shit, treat you like you owe them, it's hardly justice when 2/3 are plea deals. I learned a lot, but none of it good.

<worst part is everyone working SEEMS like good people, but they're endorsing a known corrupt flawed system, so even tho they were civil, they're destroying society, just politely.>

Fav part? The 2 times I was called, I said outloud 'god damn it', made people laugh both times, and when I was excused, I said 'thank god' and made even more laugh. NO ONE WANTED TO BE THERE.

ps-EVERYONE in that room has a DECENT chair, EXCEPT for the vast majority of jurors who were being waited on in the back. It was like an old hard church pew. TERRIBLE. Judge: you're semi rich. I'm being paid $15. Give me your chair. Fairly, she did say sorry for them. But...not like she's gonna petition to change it. It's to say something to look good, not actually do something about it. Politics: words, not actions.

[bardicious]

Spirk, other OTPs, and the Holy Canon.

Not so hot take (on tumblr), but canonizing Spock and Kirk as lovers would ACTUALLY make SO many queer people happy and the few stinkers that are against it (who I may remind you, are homophobic assholes, and possibly sexist too) are actually not even worth a glimmer of our acknowledgment. These people don't deserve to be pandered to. They're malicious and boring.

No. Not everyone has to be gay. Not every ship has to be canon. But you know what? Considering there's LOADS of in universe scenes that can and do easily suggest to their deeper fonder relationship, much like Aziraphale and Crowley of Good Omens, I and many people believe they are basically canon.

A few questions to be asked. Why would making either Spock or Kirk bi or gay ruin their character? Because you're a homophobe. Why is making Kirk or Spock queer out of the blue considered a retcon and not a more natural - they found out later in life? Because you're not aware of the queer experience. Why do some people think not shipping them is a hot take? Because they feel offended by "fangirls" and instead support the biases of a broken ass system, a system that treats queer people like they don't exist. They're an anomaly.

The big question. Why are people so offended, worried about their "Faves" getting "retconned" into another sexuality? Because society has told them it's the straight way or the high way. In cinema, homosexuality is an impossibility. It's something to be frowned on, or made fun of. It's a side character, it's a small scene in the next big budget movie that no one will care about. It's an after thought, or it's an awkward scene where the characters themselves seem to feel embarrassed for what they are. (Which can be fine, granted the right character).

I am truly begging society here to start questioning your biases. Why do two dudes kissing irk you? Why does it ruin your favorite character? Why is it impossible to be? These thoughts don't come out of no where. And if you're toting yourself as an ally, you must question this. If you're a homophobe and proud of it. Well... there's nothing I can do for you other than block you and go about my day.

This has been a PSA on, Why does everything have to be GAY??

Because we're not ALLOWED anything else.

[weebsinstash]

This is gonna sound stupid but I like that you think critically about the stuff you’re really into. A lot of bnha blogs are really bad about that. Like they’ll like one character or one group of characters and if someone says something like “this character did something shitty, and I don’t know if they’ll get/if they deserve a redemption arc” their response will deadass just be like “OKAY triggered ANTI.” and it’s like, look homie, you can be horny for whoever you want, I myself am horny for all the bad boys from endeavor, to hawks, to AFO, but like, you have to at least acknowledge that the other person might have a point about the actions of one character and the way they’ve affected the story and other characters. And then the conversation shifts to “its FICTIONAL LMAO it doesn’t matter” which. Is just a shitty argument all around, because yeah no shit something happening in a story isn’t the same as it happening irl but we can do this neato thing where we analyze the writer’s choices and the message they push, especially for a show that is literally centered around asking bigger more profound questions about the story’s universe and ours because fiction doesn’t come from a vacuum. Like i’m not asking everyone to 4D analyze every little detail, I know fandoms are an escape for a lot of people, I just wish more fandom blogs (this really can apply to all fandoms, but especially anime and bnha) could consume literally anything critically. N e weighzzzz I love you and your blog, have a nice morning and i hope your coffee stays hot ❤️

Well, I'll be perfectly honest, I have plenty of personally-biased takes myself. I'm definitely not like, good at looking at this series critically 24/7, especially because it's actually starting to piss me off. I actually really, like, without a doubt absolutely HATE this plot line of "societal corruption" because I don't actually expect the problem to be addressed in any way whatsoever and like. It's boring to me. I don't fucking care about a story based on the moralities of good vs evil (especially when they're being preached to me by literal children, Deku) because that's all extremely subjective. This is all especially frustrating in My Hero Academia, because it's trying to tackle issues that are cemented in culture and society and law which, I'm going to be honest, are kind of... fundamentally impossible to change? Like not to be a Debbie Downer but this entire plot line of "reforming hero society, the system is broken" is completely pointless because it is not actually something that can be changed. Just like in our world, the societal injustice is deliberate, and changing it would require a level of lawmaking and overturning that just isn't going to happen. That's why I made the comparison to Naruto: at the very end of the series it brought up the inherent corruption in turning children into ninjas, showed you how gritty and violent it was for children to fight in wars and said "there is something wrong here" and then did not change anything about that problem whatsoever and then actually released a sequel where the problem is arguably even worse.

You get what I mean? This entire thing about "Hero Society bad" is all bullshit because uh it isn't actually going to change so to even address it, let alone make it a focal argument in the series, is actually a pretty bad decision, and you could argue it was childishly naive.

Like deadass, spoiler warning for the newest chapter leaks that were released today, but [[spoiler starts here]] Deku literally made some dumbass comment to the effect of "Endeavor is different than he used to be and he's trying to be a better person, the person who was an abuser is no longer here" should honestly tell you everything you need to know. I know this is ultimately a manga for children but the idea that intentions alone make everything ok or just the insinuation that Endeavor doesn't need to face consequences at all is. Dumb. Like Jesus fuck, all this talk about being a better person and helping others and we're told "yeah this guy is blatantly a criminal for multiple reasons but he's on the Good Guy Side so as long as he says he's sorry he doesn't have to go to jail" like literally just Endeavor himself undermines the entire discussion altogether.[[end spoiler]]

Horikoshi created a story about Heroes vs Villains, then said "actually what makes Heroes and Villains different? Heroes can be pretty scummy and some Villains can do pretty good things" and then he turned around again and said "actually nevermind, even though there may be just a few bad faith actors, the Heroes are always righteous and just :)" and honestly I'm sick of it

Dkfkfkfkf anyways thank you! I've tried not to nag too much over here cause I don't want to you know, ruin anyone's good time or anything, but I've been having uh. A lot of issues with the decisions being made for this series so I've been occasionally just... throwing my opinion out there and seeing what people think

[fedonciadale]

Rowling doesn't hate ambition or resourcefulness. She has several of the good guys compliment those qualities, including McGonagall, Dumbledore, and Harry himself, and she even praised Slytherin users on Pottermore for being clever. She's also publicly criticized Gryffindor. The problem with Slytherin isn't that it's members are ambitious etc. It's that the house was founded on blood purity and that belief has, unfortunately, been promoted more strongly in that house than others. 1/2

I agree JKR should have done a better job in showing shades of grey, and it's unfortunate the good guys aren't called out more on their morally grey actions (tho I think they're called out more often than you let on), but asking why she supposedly hates certain qualities is silly. I've seen plenty of fans criticize Gryffindor pretty harshly or be very dismissive of them; should I be asking them why they're so biased against Gryffindor and why they hate qualities like bravery and chivalry? 2/2 

Hi there!

I must admit that I am not entirely sure, what your point is or where do you think I disagree with you.

When I criticise what JKR did in the HP books it is entirely irrelevant what she said afterwards in her awkward attempts to fix some of her mistakes in canon. And in the books the Slytherins are bad.

I honestly don’t remember ambition ever being praised? I might be wrong about that, it has been some time since I read the books. But as far as I remember it is a depicted as a negative trait as well as the survival instinct.

And the thing is: she tells us from the very first moment that Slytherin is the house with classism issues and blood purity ideas and arrogance, but she shows the everyday classism that is everywhere in the society. So, she ends up telling her readers that the problem goes away when the Slytherins learn to abandon their ideas (which is of course true, Slytherins must learn to distance themselves from their founder in that regard). But she stops there.

I would say that the tendency to call out questionable behaviour only in the ‘bad characters’ is obviously there, and the fact that the good characters are chided once in a while is not enough to balance that. I remember Lupin calling out Harry for going to Hogsmeade in his invisibility cloak and risking his life and I always thought that this was a very powerful scene. Because we also know why Harry wanted to be in Hogsmeade with his friends. But it is the odd one out.

I don’t really know what you mean by your last sentences. I would say that I can of course ask why JKR thinks ambition is so bad? And I can ask why someone would think bravery is bad?

To me, it’s about context. Ambition as a driving force is fairly neutral, but it definitely can have very positive results. Ambitious research has done much good in our history (bad as well), Bravery is usually seen as good, but it can be fairly stupid when one does not think about the consequences. Harry rushing head on into the Department of Mysteries is such a case (and before someone comes screaming in my ask box again that I attack Harry, I think it is absolutely relatable),

Thanks for the ask!

[bigskydreaming]

Continuing on that observation because I forgot to add this part, as a gen z I'm glad you understand that we or young people don't invent new ways to be evil, but it's not completely true. You aren't seeing new forms of online abuse in every platform, I doubt second hand information is going into details as well. Also the fact that you are a white man, there are things being said and done to poc in various online communities that I don't expect you to be privy to. Harassing fans of color and poc media has become a lot more common and normalized which parts of the fandom at large will never see. I don't know if anon did all of the thinking before saying "gen z bad" but they're not completely wrong looking at the kind of mass bullying behavior literal kids are exhibiting. They are learning from or being encouraged by older people but that shouldn't take the focus away from them to blame only the older people.

And my ask regarding Barbara, you assumed I hadn't thought about if my disdain for the character could have come from ableism. I had tho, granted you couldn't have known that and it was surely a possibility, so I'm not saying I'm mad about it, I was at that time a little bit. But you could perhaps give your anons a little more credit sometimes. Sometimes people know what they're talking about, you don't need to explain other possibilities to them each time.

Once again, sorry if this came off as very rude I just needed to share that observation and among many other instances these two were really highlights and kept bothering me. My issue with Barbara goes in a different direction than anything to do with her appearance and I've personally faced online abuse from people younger than me in ways that technologically, even politically, wasn't possible or as easy a few years ago, so you can maybe see why...

Please keep in mind that whatever context you have for yourself or your ask when you come into my inbox on anon......I have none of that. You have an awareness of yourself relative to whatever you asked me. I literally only know an anon by the words they put into my inbox and nothing else.

Also please keep in mind that every anon I answer, I do so in the larger context of my own interactions with tumblr overall. I have a lot of precedent with things I say being taken out of context, misrepresented or even just me not conveying myself as well as I like.

So the combination of those two things is that a) I literally just don't KNOW what any anon does or doesn't know and b) If I'm going to answer an anon, I tend to want to answer as fully and clearly as possible.

I can understand it coming across as being talked down to, so I'll work on that, but I would ask people to remember the above and keep that in context too when weighing my responses.....am I actually being condescending in every case, or does it simply feel that way because I'm including stuff you already know in my response? And if its the latter, is THAT something I COULD know about you without knowing who you are or you as a person and not just a paragraph sent in anonymously?

I'd rather be safe than sorry, and so from my POV since there's no harm in somebody seeing someone cover information they already know as PART of their overall answer or response, like, there's no reason for me not to include whatever I think is relevant and just expect readers to decide for themselves what about my response, if anything, is helpful, and like....just ignore the rest, y'know?

Also, just for the record, I am ADHD and I save my medication for when I'm working or writing or have stuff I absolutely need to get done, which doesn't include my usual blogging. So I'm usually posting while not on my ADHD meds at all, hence the rambling tendencies and the length. Another aspect of ADHD that doesn't get talked about much ime is we tend to over-explain, part out of just excitement/interest in whatever it is that has our attention, and also in part because we're used to people not necessarily following the leaps our minds take when jumping around rather than proceeding in an orderly thought pattern.....so, part of why I break things down so incrementally is I literally just don't know where my way of looking at things diverges from the way neurotypical thinking views things, so I want to draw as detailed a map as possible in order to ensure the most people possible can follow my thought process, just in case.

(And again see, this is something you might already know, and hell, you could have ADHD yourself, I just literally have no way of knowing that so rather than just mention it and be like "oh and also I have ADHD and so that's something to keep in mind" I'd rather explain WHY I feel that's particularly relevant to your question, since I'm kinda like, why not answer as fully as I have the spoons for? People can stop reading at any time if I go on too long. Its fine).

As for the specific asks you're referencing - my response to the gen z anon was not meant to convey that the sort of things you're describing don't occur among gen z, so sorry for giving that impression. Its actually the opposite of my point, which was simply that I don't think its a generational thing, or that anything is gained by treating it as a generational thing. This kind of behavior exists in gen z, yes, but it also existed before gen z. Its not gen z SPECIFIC, or limited to just that generation. That's all.

And the other ask, the one you made about Barbara - to be honest, I don't have anyway of knowing for sure which one you meant, and there are a couple it could have been, but if its the one I THINK you're referencing, I believe you asked how to stop people from assuming you dislike Barbara for reasons rooted in ableism when its because of other things? If that's the one, then I mean, the thing is....I DID answer your question, in as much as anyone could. I addressed the perceptions other people might have of your stance there, but basically - there IS no way to ever ensure people take you at your word or any kind of guarantee you can present your POV in a way that won't be misrepresented or misunderstood. So ultimately, I just had no real useful advice for that?

And so I expanded into the only thing I think anyone CAN control, aka their own thoughts and words, and suggested that you just double check to be sure of your own possible biases that others might read into your words without you being aware you were putting them in there. That wasn't meant as an insult or to suggest you hadn't already examined yourself for possible ableism - it was simply saying it never hurts to check again, y'know? We don't always catch everything every time we do a self-review, and internal biases are inherently tricky to pick up on ourselves. And it just loops back into the fact that I really had no way to know what you had and hadn't already considered, you're essentially a blank cipher to me....and in my experience, a lot of people are a lot more ableist than they realize.

And this isn't an insult either! It applies to me and I'M physically disabled! I'm constantly to this day unpacking new realizations about how I still have more ableist views and opinions than even I realize, even after about five years of living with chronic pain, vertigo, nerve issues and associated problems stemming from only half a working mouth lol. I'm not trying to insult people by asking them to just do what I do every day and just like....make sure I'm not the problem when other people have a problem with me. Because sometimes, even after reflecting as fully and genuinely as I can, I think they're still wrong! I don't have to agree with their conclusions! But that doesn't mean that they're never right.

And for the record, I do think its still worth examining on your end, because I don't love that you said your issues with Barbara have nothing to do with her appearance, when we're talking about ableism specifically. It very well could be just a poor word choice on your part and not a reflection of your actual views, but it could also be a suggestion that you tend to think of physical disability as something that's limited to there being a visual sign of, and there's a lot of invisible symptoms and changes to the ways a disabled person interacts with society and society with them that don't alter a disabled person's appearance in anyway...and many of these things are the exact stuff a lot of unacknowledged ableism revolves around.

So I'd like to give you and other anons more credit and the benefit of the doubt and assume you know what you're talking about and don't need things broken down as much as I tend to break them down to - but keep in mind I don't OWE you that, and its a lot to ask someone to take you on faith when you've already made the conscious choice to present yourself to them anonymously, and deliberately limit how much a person even CAN know about you before answering, when you have an equal opportunity to present yourself by name, allowing someone the full context afforded by your blog, that they can use to familiarize themselves with you and what you likely do or don't know before answering. I don't think its entirely reasonable to anonymize YOURSELF and then expect people to still give you the benefit of the doubt.

Especially when not giving you the benefit of the doubt only really results in me over-explaining something you don't think you need explained in certain ways or in as much depth. Its not hurting anyone, and you're not going to be the only one reading this response and maybe that over-explanation ISN'T something other people know and it could still be of use to someone else, y'know?

But lastly, please keep in mind that you came to me, and I just answered in the way that made the most sense to me. If that didn't work for you or wasn't what you're looking for, that's fine, but like. You knew way more about me going into this interaction than I could possibly know about you, and assuming good faith of you and your interest in my response and giving you as much of a response as I did in the first place, let alone now, IS giving you the benefit of the doubt in the sense that I'm assuming you can find some way in which these responses are of use to you.

And if not, like....just don't send me more asks? LOL. I kinda feel like you just didn't expect the answer you got, and that's sitting weirdly with you. Which I get, to be honest, but I don't particularly think that's a me problem, because that has nothing to do with anything I can control.

I can only give the answer that occurs to me when I read and think about an ask. I can't guarantee it'll ever be the answer the asker actually WANTS.

[yaz-the-spaz]

There's a track record of celebs coming out as bi and then like a year later as gay. Example: George Shelly. And even going all the way back to Elton John. For whatever reasons management now thinks bi is the new gay. They may let someone come out as "bi" who's actually 100 % gay to save face on all the het stunting done and protect former beards . That's all my point was. Many fans in fandom are fake bi. They're really straight but pretend to be bi so that the fetishising isn't as creepy?Or?

yes that is true not only in the celebrity community but in the queer community as a whole. lots of people use coming out as bi as a gateway to coming out as gay/lesbian and that’s not at all a new trend or new track record or a new thing at all (for managements nor celebs nor any of those in the entertainment industry nor queer people at large) and while i understand it from a coming out perspective b/c for some they may feel that’s the safer/safest option as a stepping stone to coming out fully b/c they feel they may be more ‘accepted’ by society/straights/homophobic family or friends, etc. that way, it unfortunately does also inadvertently hurt the bi community b/c many people (both straight and queer) have come to view bisexuality as just a halfway point to (and/or point of confusion leading up to) coming out as gay/lesbian (or on the flipside just an ‘experimental phase’) which coincidentally enough is exactly what amandla addresses in the video of question, which again is precisely why i reblogged it. it’s something that bi/pan people need to see and hear b/c unlike others we are in a unique position b/c we have a history of being excluded and/or looked down upon by both straight and queer communities and often face discrimination from our own community in a way that gay/lesbian people generally do not and just because amandla no longer identifies as bi doesn’t make the message any less relevant or important for people to hear if only so that they don’t feel quite so alone or confused or rejected or wrong for being the way they are.

to the point of whether it’s the celebrity’s decision to adopt the bi label or their team’s decision i can’t speak on b/c in my opinion there’s no real way to tell that. whether someone for a period of time felt they identified as bi or not before realizing it was not the case or was simply using it as a stepping stone can only be known by that individual and/or those closest to them and so i don’t feel it’s fair to assume that certain celebrities coming out as bi before later coming out as gay/lesbian was simply a ploy to ‘save face’ or ‘protect former beards’ b/c they and/or their teams think ‘bi is the new gay.’ i also don’t know how you can possibly know whether someone is a ‘fake bi’ or not as you (most likely) don’t know/have never met these people you’re referring to in real life. unless you’re somehow hunting down and stalking these people to see whether or not they exhibit attraction to more than one gender (which still wouldn’t prove anything anyway tbh) or unless they’ve explicitly stated on blog ‘hey guys so just wanted to let you know that this whole time i was just pretending to be bi online, but i’m actually straight, soz’ then i don’t know how you can make that assumption.

all that said, if that was in fact your point in the first ask (assuming you are indeed the same anon from earlier) you might wanna work on your communication skills b/c if you are the same anon your ask came off as extremely accusatory and rude not only to me but to all bi/pan people in the ziam fandom as a whole. to accuse not just one person (me) but a whole community of being ‘lesphobic’ simply b/c i/they didn’t reblog a particular post is extremely inconsiderate and disrespectful and, like i said before, i have a feeling you already know that or you wouldn’t be on anon. i would also recommend doing a bit of self-reflecting b/c a lot of things you’ve expressed in your ask here and the previous one reflect a lot of highly-problematic views of bisexuality and bi people and also judgement of people in general, especially people you don’t know in real life and know next to nothing about. i would never go so far as to say you’re biphobic b/c like i said earlier calling someone something like that (especially without knowing them personally) is extremely disrespectful of them and their experiences as a queer person but you definitely do have some problematic (and quite biased imo) views that you may wanna re-evaluate.

some helpful things to keep in mind: 

try to remember that what you see on someone’s blog does not reflect their entire lives nor necessarily who they are irl, how they identify, what they do or don’t do irl, what they believe, who and what they support, what they’ve experienced, or might be going through currently, etc.

try to remember that just b/c someone didn’t reblog/blog about something in particular doesn’t mean they didn’t like it or don’t know about it or didn’t see it or don’t support it, a blog is not reflective of a person’s every thought or experience or beliefs (and even if it were those could all change in a millisecond b/c we’re people not robots and we grow and learn and make mistakes and change)

try to remember that not everything a celebrity does or says is a stunt/stunt-related, especially something as delicate as coming out and that changing their identity/label later on down the road does not mean that they didn’t identify with that previous identity/label in the past or never will again (this goes for non-celebrities too), sexuality is fluid and can be very confusing to figure out and sometimes people may change their label or go back and forth between labels, this does not make their identity at any particular point in time any less true or valid nor does it make them a ‘fake’ gay/lesbian/bi/pan/trans/ace etc.

and most importantly:

try to remember that just b/c someone doesn’t present (or say/do/act/etc.) how you think they should as a gay/lesbian/bi/pan/trans/etc. person does not negate their identity as such

try to remember that when talking to people online you’re still talking to an actual person that has emotions and can be hurt or upset just as easily as you can

try to refrain from making assumptions about people based on limited information, and especially try to refrain from insulting people or calling people names based on assumptions made from that limited information

if you ever need any resources or advice or wanna talk further (whether about ziam/the ziam fandom or lgbtq+ issues or anything at all) i’m always here and i hope this post finds you well

[knightbrienne]

Hey, I think the question should rather be if racism is free speech. Free speech is the right to have an opinion, so is racism an opinion? If I tell you that I'm better than you cuz you're white and I'm not, would you consider that an opinion? You call it damaging rhetoric. Can opinions be damaging? If your father thinks that white supremacists shouldn't be stuck under one label, why should people of colour? Isn't that saying that they have more rights cuz they're white? (1/2)

I’m sorry to say this so bluntly but if your father gets in such a bad argument with you that you cry cuz you simply disagree with him he’s a fuckin abusive asshole. You did nothing wrong. It’s incredible that you don’t just blindly accept what he says. There so many people whose entire opinions are based on ‘same’. It’s okay if you need time to figure yours out and you can always change it. I’m not white and not neutral even though I tried to be to not influence you (2/2)

I want to start off by thanking you, anon, for sending a thoughtful response to a very charged topic. And I want to try my best to answer the ethical and political dilemmas that you have brought up.

I think anything can be free speech, including and especially opinion. For example, you can make a nonspecific (and possibly hyperbolic) statement about wanting to kill the president, and while it is damaging/hateful/treasonous, you cannot be punished for it. So in the same vein, racism exists under the umbrella of free speech. I believe that racism damages the safety of minorities, is fueled by hatred and ignorance, and violates American values, but racists are ultimately protected by the law when it comes to saying racist things. It doesn’t mean that racists are right. In fact, every inch of me believes that racism is wrong. But it is defensible with regards to free speech.

I also think I oversimplified my argument with my dad, who I was not intending to portray as abusive in any way. My family is a minority and immigrant family, and while my dad suffers from implicit racial biases like all of us do, he does not harbor any supremacist ideologies. Like me, he views the vast majority of white supremacists as disadvantaged white people who want a scapegoat for their own suffering. Like me, he sees them as spineless losers who lack any meaningful skills. Like me, he condemned the domestic terrorist who drove a car into a protesting crowd in Charlottesville. 

I personally got upset because I had trouble understanding how he could even defend people that could have stepped foot on my college campus and threatened my life and my friends’ lives. He was taking an infuriatingly impartial view and mentioned that if I wanted to limit the free speech of white supremacists, then I was no better than them politically. If I supported employers firing white supremacists, then I might as well have supported Hollywood firing communists during the Cold War. To summarize our point of conflict, my dad believes that citizens should keep their political, professional, and personal lives separate; what people say or do in the political sphere shouldn’t affect their livelihoods or their families. But for me, I spend nearly every day of my life on a college campus or in a scientific laboratory; both of these places feel personal and professional, and both of these places openly discuss politics. I think our political, professional, and personal lives are inevitably intertwined. I agree with this xkcd comic; my dad disagrees with it.

Last night, I also messaged a liberal friend of mine about this issue, and we both agreed that protecting the right to free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. She made an excellent point:

Leftist does not mean open-minded, and regardless of what side you’re on, there’s people everywhere who are intolerant of diversity in thought.

Intolerance toward anyone is still intolerance. Whether it’s not tolerating white supremacists, not tolerating communists, or not tolerating moderates, it is intolerance. People are entitled to their political ideologies and opinions, and we have to give them that right. But when we do want to change their worldview, when we want to show them that they are wrong and we are right, what do we do? I asked her:

How do you change somebody who refuses to humanize an entire race?

Do we ignore them? (My original post asked myself, at what point does simply ignoring them turn from being democratic / universally kind to being apathetic / enabling.)  Do we educate them? (How do you force somebody else to learn history that they deny and to befriend the people that they hate?) Do we continue to counter-protest? (What if counter-protesting simply increases their media audience and encourages more people to become radicalized?) Her reply:

I have no idea what solution would be, but I’m just getting increasingly frustrated with how we view what’s happening in our country and how people throw blame around everywhere. I’m so thankful that we live in a time/place where we can express our opinions and thoughts freely and without persecution, but I feel like when so much of this takes place over social media, it’s so hard to send a unified message in any way. It just ends up being people being grouped together as Neo-Nazis or social justice warriors or Antifa radicals, and it really doesn’t help.

I’ve learned from my dad and my friends that it is worth the time to question what we think we know. When we exist in an echo chamber where posts about violence against white supremacists are receiving thousands of notes, how do we expect them to change their views? If we’re shouting at them while they’re shouting at us, who will choose to be the first to listen? We all need to step back, reevaluate, and envision a future for ourselves and the people we despise. Like it or not, those white supremacists will stay around. But we know stories of white supremacists who have changed, who have come to understand our side, so what’s to say there can’t be others? Like you said, anon:

There so many people whose entire opinions are based on ‘same’. It’s okay if you need time to figure yours out and you can always change it.

We can pose difficult, conflicting questions to ourselves without compromising our values. We can’t continue to answer with “obviously,” “of course,” and “absolutely.” In fact, we must pose difficult, conflicting questions if we seek a society where peaceful and productive discourse can shape our future.

[themomsandthecity]

The Infuriating Reason Young Girls Stop Believing They're Super Smart at Age 6

Young girls are starting to feel less intelligent by age 6. Our friends at YourTango are here to tell us how to fix this terrible misconception. . . . and what we NEED to do to fix the confidence gap for girls. There's a depressing new study that argues that girls start doubting their own intelligence by age six. Age SIX - isn't that crazy? According to the research, published in Science Magazine, when boys and girls are age 4 and 5, both groups are equally apt to say their own genders are "really, really smart" (approximately 70% of each group). However, by age six, boys' confidence in the intelligence of their own gender remains fairly constant, while girls' confidence starts to plummet. Only 48% of six-year-old girls identified their own gender as "really, really smart." That's a huge drop. In the words of the researchers, "the present results suggest a sobering conclusion: Many children assimilate the idea that brilliance is a male quality at a young age. This stereotype begins to shape children's interests as soon as it is acquired and is thus likely to narrow the range of careers they will one day contemplate." As the parent of a young girl, I can tell you that I've seen evidence of this trend firsthand and it really, really sucks. "Dad, I'm terrible at math." I hear this a lot from my fifth-grade daughter, despite all evidence to the contrary on her report card. (Her math scores are totally in-line with the rest of her grades.) I don't remember exactly when it started. She used to be equally enthusiastic about all of her subjects in school. Reading, science, history, even math. In the beginning, she was just a sponge for knowledge. She'd often talk about how she was going to be an astronaut/movie star when she grew up. But then, as school progressed, something subtly shifted. You could see her moving herself away from the hard sciences and aligning herself more towards the humanities. If it was just a matter of talent or personal preference, that would be one thing, but her performance in math and science has never wavered in her school work. There has never been a performance gap between her work in math or science and her work in any other subject. However, a confidence gap is readily apparent. A self-esteem gap. No matter what I (or her teacher) tell her, my daughter does not think that she's "smart" when it comes to math. At some point in her education career, my daughter - and many daughters I know - began doubting their abilities. They started demurring. They became self-depreciating. They began shaking their heads and saying "I don't know. I'm not good at this" WAY more than their male classmates, even though, at this age, girls perform stronger academically than boys do. One of the interesting aspects of this new study is that the researchers found that, when they asked six-year-old girls if they wanted to play a game for children who are "really, really smart" or for children who "work really, really hard," girls were much more likely to opt for the game for "hard workers." So girls know they get good grades and they know they work hard, and yet they are still apprehensive to regard themselves as smart. This gets back to the researchers' conclusion that I mentioned earlier - When children are young, they assume that brilliance is a male quality. Which, once again, sucks. And I'm saying that as the father of a daughter and as a man. Men are NOT inherently smarter than women. My often-oblivious gender has just been given less reason to doubt itself over the years. Why? That's the big question at the end of the Science Magazine study. How did this happen? How do we fix it? In a NPR story about the research, Sapna Cheryan, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Washington, suggests that various environmental factors probably play a role in the confidence gap - things like stereotypes, media exposure, and "parental beliefs." I think you can sum all that up under one word - REPRESENTATION. In society, we are much more apt to cite brilliance in men than we are in women. There is vast evidence that women are underrepresented in STEM careers (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). When we see geniuses and scientists in movie and TV roles, they are largely played by men. When kids learn history in school, they heard a lot about figures like Thomas Edison, but female scientists don't get the same attention. (There are a lot of historical and social reasons for this - including the fact that many early female scientists were either discouraged from pursuing their academic careers or had men take credit for their work.) ALL of these reasons point to why representation MATTERS. Not too along ago, Lego introduced their first-ever playset featuring female scientists. That MATTERS. The movie Hidden Figures, the true story about the incredible contributions of female African-American mathematicians to the U.S. space program, was a massive success. That MATTERS. If we want girls to start trusting their academic abilities as much as boys do - which doesn't take anything away from boys at all - we have to start showing girls MORE examples of women who are out-and-proud about their technical brilliance. We need to give them role models. We need to stop stereotyping. When we teach science and math to our children, we need to make sure that all of the important figures referenced in those studies aren't just men. There are easy ways to do this. Definitely take your girls to see Hidden Figures, and buy them the Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur comic books (about a highly intelligent little girl scientist and inventor, recently named the smartest superhero ever). Seek out as much media as you can about very smart girls and women. Point them out when you see them on TV or in movies. But also, watch your own language. Do you subconsciously refer to doctors, scientists, and astronauts as "he"? Do you refer to little girls as "pretty" or "cute" and boys as "clever" and "smart" (or "tough")? You might be shocked at how much language biases like this creeps into our lives. We need to show girls that their gender holds a place in STEM subjects and that no one - their teachers, their parents, their society - doubts that they are "really, really smart." Because brilliance ISN'T just a male quality. But, regrettably, confidence can be. Check out more great stories from YourTango: * If You Use The Term "Opposite Sex," It's Time For a Wake-Up Call * 17 Happiness Truths From Love and Relationship Experts * 55 Inspiring Quotes That Capture Your Wacky, Wonderful Friendships * 50 Absolutely Perfect "I Love You" Quotes That Nail True Love http://bit.ly/2lp4TGa