#this is also not defending people who do this just to be clear

[thewertsearch]

@hussianphilosopher submitted: Sally - longtime lurker, first time poster, big fan. I'm perpetually amazed by how thoughtful you are about Homestuck and how well you understand it for a first-time reader (you might be surprised how many people watch Cascade and don't actually understand that the Green Sun was just created, much less immediately put together everything Doc Scratch said and did that led up to it!). The high point of the liveblog for me was the whole arc of you being confused about how predestination in Homestuck worked, because, essentially, you had already figured out that the alpha timeline existed before the alpha timeline was introduced. You were confused about the story for a while because you understood it too well, too quickly! As someone who engages with the story similarly to you, on both the character level and the deep story/analysis level, I want to make what is a pretty contrarian argument these days: that the Epilogues are A. good, and B. canon. They're a tough read for sure, but I think someone who reads the story as deeply and pays as much attention as you do will really appreciate what they're trying to do. The Epilogues were also the last time that Hussie was directly involved with the story, and I think if you read them now it's very clear that the story is the culmination of ideas he was thinking about from very early in Homestuck (He said for years before the comic finished that he planned some kind of epilogue). The whole "dubiously canon" concept was part of a failed experiment on his part to try to step away and empower the fandom - the people who actually worked on the comic in that era always treated it as canon and referred to it as such. I consider the Epilogues the final canonical chapter of Homestuck - at a bare minimum I think it should be thought of as Hussie's take on a post-Homestuck fanfic, and I think it deserves attention. Of course I also think the story is good and interesting, which a lot of people don't, so, it's all a matter of opinion, but, as someone who's been following your liveblog and respects your reading of the comic a lot, I wanted to at least throw my hat into the ring on the subject. Incredibly excited to see what you make of act 6!

I really appreciate this honest, impassioned, genuine defense of the Epilogues. It's not the only one I've been sent, either - and quite a few of the others have also cited my analytical style as a reason why I might get more out of them than I realize. I can't pretend I'm not at least a little intrigued.

I've been thinking a lot about Homestuck's tie-in material while drafting my response to this message, and after some serious consideration, I've decided that I'm going to change my planned approach to the Epilogues.

I originally planned to read it in a more casual, less analytical manner, and potentially transition to a full liveblog if and only if I'm sufficiently engaged. Instead, however, I'm going to do the opposite, respecting the faith its defenders have in it by giving it the complete liveblogger's treatment from the very beginning.

I reserve the right to transition back to a casual read if I'm not enjoying myself, of course! But, rest assured, I'll only do that after giving the Epilogues a real, good-faith college try.

[aeimygdala]

I think the thing people aren't acknowledging about WWDITS is that yeah the main characters are all queer. And yet, the only established and long lasting main couple is M/F, regardless of how many jokes are made about them also being queer. im not saying bi/pan m/f rep isnt important, but it is relevant to note. most of the mentions of other characters being queer (besides Guillermo being gay) are basically "promiscuous bisexuality is funny and surprising" when you actually think about them seriously. I actually hated everything with lazlo's dad, ngl. looking back at the entire shitfest of season 6, it feels like everyone gives its "representation" too much credit when defending its shipbaiting. like you understand this was intentional, and it's obvious the intent was never to actually deliver on queer relationships long term, even if it gives us queer characters? like, it's cool that you have queer characters, but are you doing to deliver on what you've been implying regarding them?

we get heartwarming moment after heartwarming moment with Lazlo and Nadja. idk I don't think it's Evil but I think a lot.of us collectively gave it too much credit for how much it actually gave a shit. it's a sitcom, and it made it soo clear, and we're pissed at realizing it.

idk, but looking back, a lot of shipbaiting and jokes reslly feel kind of mean-spirited and mocking. like we know you CAN write meaningful relationships, everything with nandor and Guillermo this season was leading up to the extreme improvement in their relationship and interactions, soooo.

I think people who are pissed really deserve to be bc it really leaves a bad taste in your mouth bc you KNOW. the shipbaiting was deliberate. n we'd rather be funny here than actually deliver on queer relationships and happiness. and it's always been that way, and that isn't EVIL or anything , I guess, and it's fine, but it sucks that I gave it too much credit thinking otherwise because I want happy m/m relationship rep or something lol

feels like a slap in the face to people who just wanted something nice!!! I'm not a shipper, I don't exist in the wwdits Fandom, I'm just a queer fan that was eagerly hoping they'd actually have a payoff for all they were doing!!

[kari-go]

Surprise Chloleka essay, hya! XD

Seriously though I was musing on one of the things I find most fun about writing Chloleka even compared to some of my other favored ships like Chlogami and Chlonette and hit on what makes it extra fun and a lil spicy.

See, the thing with Chloe dating Kagami or even Marinette is both these options 'fit' with Chloe's preconception of herself and the world she lives in fairly well.

Kagami is rich, chivalrous and they are a match for one another's sheer force of will, its just clashing personalities and possibly bigotry that could lead to issues.

Marinette is a bit more of a leap, if one ignores the rivalry, her parents are well connected, respected, & comfortably well off & Marinette is breaking into the fashion industry which Chloe is tied to via Audrey.

These all FIT very easily.

Juleka though?

Juleka is very, very different from what Chloe is used to but the fun thing with Chloe is once she decides someone is exceptional she doesn't try to make them fit a mold but embraces their "unique brand" of exceptional. Its why she doesn't think everyone should dress like Audrey, or why she thinks its fine for Adrien to make friends with the lower classes of their school. They all have their own brands to fullfill.

This means if she decides Juleka is exceptional for some reason, and more tot he point exceptional enough to date. Then Chloe's not going to try and adjust Juleka's behavior, instead her brain will leapfrong to explanations for how X, Z, and Y are all exceptional due to being tied to Juleka and not even realize she's doing it.

This kind of rapid fire double think is how she could engage with her mother & Ladybug and circumnavigate their rejections and dislike.

Juleka lives on a houseboat? How fitting that an iconic woman like her makes her home on one of Paris's most iconic locales like the Sean!

Juleka's aesthetic style is a mix of neon-cyber and gothic punk? Exceptional, that has so many words and is such a stark style, no one can match her!

Juleka likes morbid and scary stuff? Nothing scares Chloe's amazingly bold future girlfriends, not even monsters! & morbid? I think you mean romantically zealous and hauntingly intimate!

The mental leaps are fun & seeing Chloe's spin is entertaining, but it also makes clear there's an interesting set of contrasts, vibes & aesthetics going on which makes them fun to play off one another.

At least that's part of what I lean into when writing them, the other side being that both are more than a little unhinged, Juleka by default. "Let's just kidnap her" & "Coool" being her default suggestions to a problem and response to a monster attacking her. While Chloe can easily work herself up derailing a fucking train for love. Combine the two and you have two very intense people with zero or easily broken restraints becoming enamored with one another and all the glorious chaos and passion that can bring~

ooooo!! you are so right!

I never thought about it honestly. I think for me it was kind of just "ooh what an odd combination" and "purple and yellow <3" and it went from there xd. I guess it could also be the contrast? Like Chloe who's honestly very loud and demanding combined with Juleka who's quiet and struggles to defend herself.. hmm

awesome analysis! :D

[a-dragons-journal]

you guys who are using "TikTok therians" to mean people who think being a therian is an aesthetic and not an actual nonhuman identity have forgotten the days when "tumblrkin" was the word of choice for that group, huh?

not to be salty but can we maybe say what we actually mean instead of calling an entire platform fakers for the sake of shorthand

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Kiss Kiss Fallen Tree!

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[yuripira4e]

I want to preface this post by saying that I love the cat king as a character, especially one that has such a major impact on Edwin and his relationship with his queerness and learning to be okay with it; HOWEVER, I also believe that everyone that genuinely believes he should be a love interest for Edwin should read this. (Also if you just like the cat king as a character and want to understand his character better and why his and Edwin’s relationship is not something that would be healthy or “real” for either)

[unforth]

Actually, I really wish Tumblr as a whole was less comfortable using feminizing language for gay men, especially gay East Asian men.

[elytrafemme]

i have at this point talked to at least a few of my college friends about cough syrup, only two of them knowing it by explicit name. and i find it incredibly funny because one of them was an actual committed fan who dropped after the major hiatus, and the other one only read five chapters in before giving up 😭 i have much love for the hiatus survivors because my dear close friends were NOT committing to that shit

[outoftoucherlocksholmes]

i think it’s ridiculous to expect people to make stuff for certain fandoms really consistently or to ask why they stopped making stuff for something because that’s just like, not a realistic approach to how liking things works, but since i haven’t posted any ace attorney since winter when i was playing apollo justice and i still love ace attorney, i do just kind of want to give my reasoning. there is of course the simple fact that there were other things i wanted to draw, of course, and draw them i did. but the reason there was a huge lull in ace attorney art?

i was trying to play dual destinies.

no joke. i tried to play all the games in chronological narrative order (trilogy -> aai/aai2 -> aa4 -> dd -> soj) and like. i adore the trilogy so so much, and aai was like... it had a lot of likeable elements but also a lot of problems and it dragged so hard. and then i got to aa4 and it was such a breath of fresh air returning to the good shu-takumi-directed proper ace attorney and finally meeting apollo and klavier and trucy and everyone else and i loved it.

and then i tried to play dual destinies.

guys, it’s so bad. people on here truly undersell how bad it is just because they like some of the characters (but in my opinion, i couldn’t even like, get attached to athena. i’m sorry. she’s somehow both severely overwritten and underwritten at the same time. you’d have to rework her so much to make her compelling and even then she and her story still wouldn’t fit into a sequel to aa4) but it is literally not at all worth it. i ended up dropping it a few months ago halfway through turnabout academy because i couldn’t take it anymore. and like, soj is apparently worse. the moment i made the decision to abandon it i felt better and started wanting to engage with aa again. like. god, dd is so bad.

anyway i’m now like halfway through professor layton v. phoenix wright: ace attorney and i recommend it SO SO MUCH. it’s such a blast it’s got a really strong story and excellent phoenix & maya characterisation and as always kazuya nuri’s art direction rocks and brings a really lovely cohesive and warm palette to the game (and like. the 3d models are SO much better than the ones in the yamazaki games it’s unreal. phoenix and maya look like themselves and are actually expressive and not disproportionate and not whitewashed either) and the puzzles are super fun (as are the layton characters but. i’m selling this to aa fans rn). it also introduces game mechanics that work really well but also serve as like protypes/the groundwork for mechanics for tgaac. it’s definitely longer than your standard aa game but in the good way, not in the “takeshi yamazaki can’t pace his narratives for shit and nobody in the dev team calls him out on it” way like is the case with aai2 and dd and that god forsaken final case of aai at the embassy.

be kind to yourselves and pick up plvpw and never ever touch dd or soj <3333 peace and love

[fancy-rock-dove]

today in defenses of boromir that no one asked for: tired of reading that boromir’s death was in vain because he failed to save merry & pippin from the uruk-hai.  the fact that this clearly important warrior was willing to die to protect those two is what convinced the urukhai that they had indeed captured the halfing who carried whatever important thing saruman wanted.  they took the hobbits to isengard (to isengard gard) because they thought they had the right ones!  boromir didn’t succeed in preventing their capture but he did in fact keep them alive by making them seem valuable.  furthermore, he actually also saves frodo in this way: because the orcs and uruk-hai think they have what they came for, they stop looking and turn back: if they had not, they might have ultimately found and captured frodo or at least raised the alarm that a hobbit with an Important Thing was on the loose, setting others searching.  which is the very heart of tolkien’s worldview - that you do the right thing because it is right, and doing the right thing is never in vain. 

to conclude this essay boromir died a hero and saved not just merry and pippin but also frodo and sam - and in doing so also saved himself from the ring’s attempt to twist him to its own ends

[wolfsnis]

"#I’m still like. why tf didn’t they test for rabies first thing"

there actually is no test for rabies while the animal is still alive! testing is done from brain tissue samples, ideally a full cross-section of tissue from both the brain stem and cerebellum. for humans they have to run a whole bunch of tests, including spinal fluid testing and skin biopsies and even then I don't think you can detect it before symptoms have set in (it has to spread in the body in significant amounts to be detected). by then it's too late.

the only other option for an unvaccinated cat or dog that has been suspected to have been exposed to rabies if the owner refuses to euthanize is immediate vaccination and a four month long quarantine where the animal is kept completely isolated to see if it develops rabies symptoms. if the animal has been vaccinated (which ideally all pets should be), i think the quarantine period is only a month and a half.

unfortunately, I think the whole thing was that those pups were too young for their first rabies shot they should have never been in a situation where they could come in contact with rabies

oh I know there isn't an official test for rabies while the animal is still alive! I just don't understand why these puppies weren't quarantined? Or why it seems like there was no caution taken with random rescued animals? If you rescue puppies from out-of-state you should already be conducting tests for parasites, do base vaccinations, and spay/neuter, so why were they not held onto longer for those things? Unless they aren't testing for any of this and are looking to get rid of these puppies as quickly as they came after giving them cute themed names and making instagram-worthy photoshoots.

I know its bad luck and they probably never expected something this horrific to happen, but the whole thing reeks of rescues pulling unwanted puppies out of state just to adopt them out as quickly as possible to turn a profit without doing their homework or making any attempt to test for parasites, illness etc. of course something like this was bound to happen eventually.

it doesn't really help my perception that the rescue is blatantly lying about who has came into contact with the puppies. They're saying that all of the adopters at the event were gowned and gloved when that obviously wasn't the case, implying the puppy got rabies elsewhere than the rescue because they were asymptomatic before, and also using the situation to beg for donations because surprise surprise, nobody wants to adopt from the rescue that tested positive for rabies! They're calling all the people rightfully concerned about this haters and trolls. They've also completely flipped to saying that nobody at the event was exposed to rabies when that's obviously not true if there's a state-issued warning about it.

Idk, really seems like this rescue knows they fucked up via loosening up regulations and forgoing proper testing in order to adopt out puppies as quickly as possible, and are now trying to cover their asses.

My special interest is more cats than dogs and its going to be a while before i adopt a dog (if i even ever do that) but its also weird to me that the puppies are too young to get vaccinated for rabies but its fine to separate them from their mom and siblings to go to adopter's homes? My dog was rabies vaccinated when we brought her home from her rescue. But maybe that's not normal, I'm not sure.

I linked their facebook page here for anyone to scroll through and verify what I'm saying, but it's going to take a bit of scrolling because they post every couple of hours featuring new puppies, are STILL hosting adoption events, and begging for money all the while.

Sorry, kind of went off there, your original statement is correct anon and thank you for correcting me! What I meant more specifically is the rescue failed to do a proper quarantine for random animals rescued of the street in Texas in favor of adopting out the cute babies ASAP, and if they had done things proper this could have been prevented, and are now straight up lying about the situation because according to them they can do no wrong.

[weirdly-specific-but-ok]

for whom good omens is being written

Hey maggots and the rest of the fandom, it's the Good Omens Mascot here. Today I read a post about this tweet:

The accompanying video genuinely made me cry. And I've been thinking about this for a long while, as far back as February, when I saw a lot of conflicting opinions on what people wanted from the third season. It really is true that no matter what you do, some people will be dissatisfied. But what matters is that Neil is writing this for Terry.

And I was reminded of some paragraphs from the Good Omens TV Companion, which I'd read in Amazon's sample excerpt of the book. I know this is a long post, but I really truly do think you all need to read these, I've done my best to select only the most important parts. Here you go:

'His Alzheimer's started progressing harder and faster than either of us had expected,' says Neil, referring to a period in which Terry recognized that despite everything he could no longer write. 'We had been friends for over thirty years, and during that time he had never asked me for anything. Then, out of the blue, I received an email from him with a special request. It read: “Listen, I know how busy you are. I know you don't have time to do this, but I want you to write the script for Good Omens. You are the only human being on this planet who has the passion, love and understanding for the old girl that I do. You have to do this for me so that I can see it." And I thought, “OK, if you put it like that then I'll do it."

'I had adapted my own work in the past, writing scripts for Death: The High Cost of Living and Sandman, but not a lot else was seen. I'd also written two episodes of Doctor Who, and so I felt like I knew what I was doing. Usually, having written something once I'd rather start something new, but having a very sick co-author saying I had to do this?' Neil spreads his hands as if the answer is clear to see. 'I had to step up to the plate.' A pause, then: 'All this took place in autumn 2014, around the time that the BBC radio adaptation of Good Omens was happening,' he continues, referring to the production scripted and co-directed by Dirk Maggs and starring Peter Serafinowicz and Mark Heap. ‘Terry had talked me into writing the TV adaptation, and I thought OK, I have a few years. Only I didn't have a few years,' he says. 'Terry was unconscious by December and dead by March.'

He pauses again. 'His passing took all of us by surprise,' Neil remembers. 'About a week later, I started writing, and it was very sad. The moments Terry felt closest to me were the moments I would get stuck during the writing process. In the old days, when we wrote the novel, I would send him what I'd done or phone him up. And he would say, "Aahh, the problem, Grasshopper, is in the way you phrase the question," and I would reply, "Just tell me what to do!" which somehow always started a conversation. 'In writing the script, there were times I'd really want to talk to Terry, and also places where I'd figure something out and do something really clever, and I would want to share it with him. So, instead, I would text Terry's former personal assistant, Rob Wilkins, now his representative on Earth. It was the nearest thing I had.'

(...) As Neil himself recognizes, this is an adaptation built upon the confidence that comes from three decades of writing for page and screen. But for all the wisdom of experience, he found that above all one factor guided him throughout the process. 'Terry isn't here, which leaves me as the guardian of the soul of the story,' he explains. 'It's funny because sometimes I found myself defending Terry's bits harder or more passionately than I would defend my own bits. Take Agnes Nutter,' he says, referring to what has become a key scene in the adaptation in which the seventeenth-century author of the book of prophecies foretelling the coming of the Antichrist is burned at the stake. ‘It was a huge, complicated and incredibly expensive shoot, with bonfires built and primed to explode as well as huge crowds in costume. It had to feel just like an English village in the 1640s, and of course everyone asked if there was a cheap way of doing it. 'One suggestion was that we could tell the story using old-fashioned woodcuts and have the narrator take us through what happened, but I just thought, “No”. Because I had brought aspects of the story like Crowley and the baby swap along to the mix, and Terry created Agnes Nutter. So, if I had cut out Agnes then I wouldn't be doing right by the person who gave me this job. Terry would've rolled over in his grave.'

And, finally, this paragraph:

"Once again, Neil cites the absence of his co-writer as his drive to ensure that Good Omens translated to the screen and remained true to the original vision. 'Terry's last request to me was to make this something he would be proud of. And so that has been my job.'"

I think that's so heartwrenchingly beautiful, and so I wanted you all to read this, too, just in case you (like me) don't have the Good Omens TV Companion. It adds another layer of depth and emotion to this already complex and amazing story that we all know and love.

Share this post, if you can, please, so that more people can read these excerpts :")

Tagging @neil-gaiman, @fuckyeahgoodomens and @orpiknight, even if you've definitely read these before :)

[ourladyoftheflytrap]

Honestly, the more I research into larger dog breeds, the more a rottweiler seems like the dog for me

[rainybraindays]

I don't know who needs to hear this but portia is not a parent where the relationship gets better with age, shes the parent you're low contact with by 20 and no contact with by 30

[masterhallmark]

Rant incoming

I feel like the problem with a lot of Disney's live action remakes (and arguably Wish) is they're trying to appeal to a crowd that no longer exists, namely the people who used to claim that the Disney Princesses were sexist.

All the interviews tend to include, "Well she's not chasing a MAN anymore" which...almost no one sees the princesses like that, anymore. Virtually NO ONE still believes the princesses are man-chasing sexist caricatures of women.

Cinderella is now hailed as an abuse victim who stayed strong long enough to get help to get out of her situation. Anyone who says she should have saved herself is basically regarded as a victim blamer. And it's very clear in the film she wasn't looking to marry the prince, she just wanted a night off. She was the only one who wasn't in line to meet him. She didn't find out she met the prince until he went looking for her!

Snow White is now hailed for her negotiation skills, ability to calm down after extreme stress (she had a moment of panic and had to cry for a bit, but who wouldn't after finding out The Queen hired someone to kill you?), and ability to take charge of a house of adult men. And again, she was an abuse victim, this time trying to escape ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS. While she dreamed of her prince, it was secondary to her main goal of SURVIVAL. There are also entire video essays about how Snow White gave hope to people during The Great Depression.

Everyone acknowledges that Ariel wanted to be human BEFORE meeting Eric. We all know she was a nerd hyperfixating on humans, and also standing up to her prejudiced father.

We understand Sleeping Beauty wasn't the main character, the Three Good Fairies were, AND PHILLIP WOULD NEVER HAVE BEATEN MALEFICENT WITHOUT THEM! He literally depended on them! WOMEN SAVED THE DAY! But even then, is it really such a sin for a girl to fantasize about romance and fall for someone with corny pickup lines?

We all understand Jasmine just wanted someone to treat her LIKE A PERSON. She rejected every Prince before Aladdin because they treated her like a prize. So why did they need her to want to be Sultan? How did that make her more feminist when she already wanted to be treated like an equal and have a say in her future? Is it only empowering if you want a career in politics?

We admire that Belle, despite living in a judgemental village, was kind to everyone (even though she found the village life dull), and her story teaches girls that the guy everyone else loves isn't always a good guy. What's sexist about teaching girls about red flags? And she didn't start being nice to The Beast until he started treating her with respect and kindness.

Do I really NEED to defend Mulan or Tiana? I think they speak for themselves.

Rapunzel was yet another abuse victim who just needed a little help to get out of her bad situation. In this case, she also needed to learn that she was an abuse victim, and that what Mother Gothel did WASN'T normal, much like many victims of gaslighting.

And don't get me started on the non-princess animals.

Perdita had a healthy relationship with Pongo to the point she was open to express her pregnancy fears to him, and was ready to TEAR APART Cruella's goons for daring to touch her puppies as well as adopting the other puppies. Like, she was so ferocious the goons mistook her for a hyena! She's basically that "I AM THAT GIRL'S MOTHER!" scene from SpyXFamily if Yor were a dog. She and her husband were a TEAM.....but they made a Cruella live action to turn her into a girlboss?! The literal animal abuser!? THAT'S the woman you wanted to put on a pedestal when Perdita was RIGHT THERE!?

Duchess kept her kittens calm after they had been catnapped and was classy as heck. Nice to everyone regardless of social class during a time period where that was uncommon.

Lady stood up to Tramp when she believed he had abandoned her and didn't really care about her. She found out he was a heartbreaker and was like, "Nuh uh. No. You are not doing that to me! You put me through enough."

Miss Bianca from The Rescuers was IN CHARGE the whole movie, and was willing to risk life and limb to save an innocent child. THAT TINY MOUSE TOOK ON ALLIGATORS! And she picked Bernard to accompany her because he was the only one who wasn't ogling her. And then in the sequel SHE DID IT ALL AGAIN! I wish I were as brave as her.

Like, the public haven't accused these ladies of being sexist caricatures since 2014 (Actresses and actors don't count, they're out of touch like the rest of Hollywood) yet Disney is operating under the assumption that the public still thinks that way, hence all the "sHe'S nOt AfTeR a MaN iN ThIs VeRsIOn" talk.

The live action remakes are trying to attract an audience that doesn't really exist much, anymore, and back when it did exist, was comprised mainly of people who didn't actually watch the films. The Disney princesses are no longer seen as sexist, and feminine qualities are no longer seen as weak or undesirable.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Predicting the present

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/09/radicalized/#deny-defend-depose

Back in 2018, around the time I emailed my immigration lawyer about applying for US citizenship, I started work on a short story called "Radicalized," which eventually became the title story of a collection that came out in 2019:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250228598/radicalized/

"Radicalized" is a story about America, and about guns, and about health care, and about violence. I live in Burbank, which is ranks second in gun-stores-per-capita in the USA, a dubious honor that represents a kind of regulatory arbitrage with our neighboring goliath, the City of Los Angeles, where gun store licensing is extremely tight. If you're an Angeleno in search of a firearm, you're almost certainly coming to Burbank to buy it.

Walking, cycling and driving past more gun stores than I'd ever seen in my Canadian life got me thinking about Americans and guns, a subject that many Canadians have passed comment upon. Americans kill each other, and especially themselves, at rates that baffle everyone else in the world, and they do it with guns. When we moved here, my UK born-and-raised daughter came home from her first elementary school lockdown drill perplexed and worried. Knowing what I did about US gun violence, I understood that while school shootings and other spree killings happened with dismal and terrifying regularity, they only accounted for a small percentage of the gun deaths here. If you die with a bullet in you, the chances are that the finger on the trigger was your own. The next most likely suspect is someone you know. After that, a cop. Getting shot by a stranger out of uniform is something of a rarity here – albeit a spectacular one that captures our imaginations in ways that deliberate or accidental self-slayings and related-party shootings do not.

So I told her, "Look, you can basically ignore everything they tell you during those lockdown drills, because they almost certainly have nothing to do with your future. But if a friend ever says to you, 'Hey, wanna see my dad's gun?' I want you to turn around and leave and get in touch with me right away, that instant."

Guns turn the murderous impulse – which, let's be honest, we've all felt at some time or another – into a murderous act. Same goes for suicide, which explains the high levels of non-accidental self-shootings in the USA: when you've got a gun, the distance between suicidal ideation and your death is the ten feet from the sofa to the gun in the closet.

Americans get angry at people and then, if they have a gun to hand, sometimes they shoot them. In a thread /r/Burbank about how people at our local cinemas are rude and use their phones in which someone posted, "Well, you should just ask them to stop." The reply: "That's a great way to get shot." No one chimed in to say, "Don't be ridiculous, no one would shoot you for asking them to put away their phone during a movie." Same goes for "road rage."

And while Americans shoot people they've only just gotten angry at, they also sometimes plan shooting sprees and kill a bunch of people because they're just generically angry. Being angry about the state of the world is a completely relatable emotion, of course, but the targets of these shootings are arbitrary. Sure sometimes these killings have clear, bigoted targets – mass shootings at Black supermarkets or mosques or synagogues or gay bars – more often the people who get sprayed with bullets (at country and western concerts or elementary schools or movie theaters) are almost certainly not the people the gunman (almost always a man) is angry at.

This line of thought kept surfacing as I went through the immigration process, but not just when I was dealing with immigration paperwork. I was also spending an incredible amount of time dealing with our health insurer, Cigna, who kept refusing treatments my pain doctor – one of the most-cited pain researchers in the country – thought I would benefit from. I've had chronic pain since I was a teenager, and it's only ever gotten worse. I've had decades of pain care in Canada and the UK, and while the treatments never worked for very long, it was never compounded by the kinds of bureaucratic stuff I went through with my US insurer.

The multi-hour phone calls with Cigna that went nowhere would often have me seeing red – literally, a red tinge closing in around my vision – and usually my hands would be shaking by the time I got off the call.

And I had it easy! I wasn't terminally ill, and I certainly wasn't calling in on behalf of a child or a spouse or parent who was seriously ill or dying, whose care was being denied by their insurer. Bernie's 2016 Medicare For All campaign promise had filled the air with statistics (Americans pay more for care and get worse outcomes than anyone else in the rich world), and stories. So many stories – stories that just tore your heart out, about parents who literally had to watch their children die because the insurance they paid for refused to treat their kids. As a dad, I literally couldn't imagine how I'd cope in that situation. Just thinking about it filled me with rage.

One day, as I was swimming in the community pool across the street – a critical part of my pain management strategy – I was struck with a thought: "Why don't these people murder health insurance executives?" Not that I wanted them to. I don't want anyone to kill anyone. But why do American men who murder their wives and the people who cut them off in traffic and random classrooms full of children leave the health insurance industry alone? This is an industry that is practically designed to fill the people who interact with it with uncontrollable rage. I mean, if you're watching your wife or your kid die before your eyes because some millionaire CEO decided to aim for a $10 billion stock buyback this year instead of his customary $9 billion target, wouldn't you feel that kind of murderous rage?

Around this time, my parents came out for a visit from Canada. It was a great trip, until one night, my mom woke me up after midnight: "We have to take your father to the ER. He's really sick." He was: shaking, nauseated, feverish. We raced down the street to the local hospital, part of a gigantic chain that has swallowed nearly all the doctors' practices, labs and hospitals within an hour's drive of here.

Dad had kidney stones, and they'd gone septic. When the ER docs removed the stones, all the septic gunk in his kidneys was flushed into his bloodstream, and he crashed. If he hadn't been in an ER recovery room at the time, he would have died. As it was, he was in a coma for three days and it was touch and go. My brother flew down from Toronto, not sure if this was his last chance to see our dad alive. The nurses and doctors took great care of my dad, though, and three days later, he emerged from his coma, and today, he's better than ever.

But on day two, when we thought he was probably at the end of his life, as my mother sat at his side, holding the hand of her husband of fifty years, someone from the hospital billing department came to her side and said, "Mrs Doctorow, I know this is a difficult time, but I'd like to discuss the matter of your husband's bill with you."

The bill was $176,000. Thankfully, the travel medical insurance plan offered by the Ontario Teachers' Union pension covered it all (I don't suppose anyone gets very angry with them).

How do people tolerate this? Again, not in the sense of "people should commit violent acts in the face of these provocations," but rather, "How is it that in a country filled with both assault rifles and unimaginable acts of murderous cruelty committed by fantastically wealthy corporations, people don't leap from their murderous impulses to their murderous weapons to commit murderous acts?

For me, writing fiction is an accretive process. I can tell that a story is brewing when thoughts start rattling around in my mind, resurfacing at odd times. I think of them as stray atoms, seeking molecules with available docking sites to glom onto. I process all my emotions – but especially my negative ones – through this process, by writing stories and novels. I could tell that something was cooking, but it was missing an ingredient.

Then I found it: an interview with the woman who coined the term "incel." It was on the Reply All podcast, and Alana, a queer Canadian woman explained that she had struggled all her life to find romantic and sexual partnership, and jokingly started referring to herself as "involuntarily celibate," and then, as an "incel":

https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/76h59o

Alana started a message board where other "incels" could offer each other support, and it was remarkably successful. The incels on Alana's message board helped each other work through the problems that stood between them and love, and when they did, they drifted away from the board to pursue a happier life.

That was the problem, Alana explained. If you're in a support group for people with a drinking problem, the group elders, the ones who've been around forever, are the people who've figured it out and gotten sober. When life seems impossible, those elders step in to tell you, I know it's terrible right now, but it'll get better. I was where you are and I got through it. You will, too. I'm here for you. We all are.

But on Alana's incel board, the old timers were the people who couldn't figure it out. They were the ones for whom mutual support and advice didn't help them figure out what they needed to do in order to find the love they sought. The longer the message board ran, the more it became dominated by people who were convinced that it was hopeless, that love was impossible for the likes of them. When newbies posted in rage and despair, these Great Old Ones were there to feed it: You're right. It will never get better. It only gets worse. There is no hope.

That was the missing piece. My short story Radicalized was born. It's a story about men on a message board called Fuck Cancer Right In the Fucking Face (FCKRFF, or "Fuckriff"), who are watching the people they love the most in the world be murdered by their insurance companies, who egg each other on to spectacular acts of mass violence against health insurance company employees, hospital billing offices, and other targets of their rage. As of today, anyone can read this story for free, courtesy of my publishers at Macmillan, who gave permission for the good folks at The American Prospect to post it:

https://prospect.org/culture/books/2024-12-09-radicalized-cory-doctorow-story-health-care/

I often hear from people about this story, even before an unknown (at the time of writing) man assassinated Brian Thompson, CEO of Unitedhealthcare, the murderous health insurance monopoly that is the largest medical insurer in the USA. Since then, hundreds of people have gotten in touch with me to ask me how I feel about this turn of events, how it feels to have "predicted" this.

I've been thinking about it for a few days now, and I gotta tell you, I have complicated feelings.

You've doubtless seen the outpourings of sarcastic graveyard humor about Thompson's murder. People hate Unitedhealthcare, for good reason, because he personally decided – or approved – countless policies that killed people by cheating them until they died.

Nurses and doctors hate Thompson and United. United kills people, for money. During the most acute phase of the pandemic, the company charged the US government $11,000 for each $8 covid test:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/06/137300-pct-markup/#137300-pct-markup

UHC leads the nation in claims denials, with a denial rate of 32% (!!). If you want to understand how the US can spend 20% of its GDP and get the worst health outcomes in the world, just connect the dots between those two facts: the largest health insurer in human history charges the government a 183,300% markup on covid tests and also denies a third of its claims.

UHC is a vertically integrated, murdering health profiteer. They bought Optum, the largest pharmacy benefit manager ("A spreadsheet with political power" -Matt Stoller) in the country. Then they starved Optum of IT investment in order to give more money to their shareholders. Then Optum was hacked by ransomware gang and no one could get their prescriptions for weeks. This killed people:

https://www.economicliberties.us/press-release/malicious-threat-actor-accesses-unitedhealth-groups-monopolistic-data-exchange-harming-patients-and-pharmacists/#

The irony is, Optum is terrible even when it's not hacked. The purpose of Optum is to make you pay more for pharmaceuticals. If that's more than you can afford, you die. Optum – that is, UHC – kills people:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/23/shield-of-boringness/#some-men-rob-you-with-a-fountain-pen

Optum isn't the only murderous UHC division. Take Navihealth, an algorithm that United uses to kick people out of their hospital beds even if they're so frail, sick or injured they can't stand or walk. Doctors and nurses routinely watch their gravely ill patients get thrown out of their hospitals. Many die. UHC kills them, for money:

https://prospect.org/health/2024-08-16-steward-bankruptcy-physicians-private-equity/

The patients murdered by Navihealth are on Medicare Advantage. Medicare is the public health care system the USA extends to old people. Medicare Advantage is a privatized system you can swap your Medicare coverage for, and UHC leads the country in Medicare Advantage, blitzing seniors with deceptive ads that trick them into signing up for UHC Medicare Advantage. Seniors who do this lose access to their doctors and specialists, have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for their medication, and get hit with $400 surprise bills to use the "free" ambulance service:

https://prospect.org/health/2024-12-05-manhattan-medicare-murder-mystery/

No wonder the public spends 22% more subsidizing Medicare Advantage than they spend on the care for seniors who stick with actual Medicare:

https://theconversation.com/taxpayers-spend-22-more-per-patient-to-support-medicare-advantage-the-private-alternative-to-medicare-that-promised-to-cost-less-241997

It's not just the elderly, it's also the addicted and mentally ill. UHC illegally denies coverage for mental health and substance abuse treatment. Imagine watching a family member spiral out of control, ODing, or ending up on the streets with hallucinations, and knowing that the health insurance company that takes thousands of dollars out of your paycheck refused to treat them:

https://www.startribune.com/unitedhealthcare-will-pay-15-7m-in-settlement-of-denial-of-care-charges/600087607

Unsurprising, the internal culture at UHC is callous beyond belief. How could it not be? How could you go to work at UHC and know you were killing people and not dehumanize those victims? A lawsuit by chronically ill patient whom UHC had denied care for surfaced recorded phone calls in which UHC employees laughed long and hard about the denied claims, dismissing the patient's desperate, tearful pleas as "tantrums" :

https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-insurance-denial-ulcerative-colitis

Those UHC workers are just trying to get by, of course, and the callouses they develop so they can bear to go to work were ripped off by last week's murder. UHC's executive team knows this, and has gone on a rampage to stop employees from leaking their own horror stories, or even mentioning that the internal company announcement of Thompson's death was seen by 16,000 employees, of whom only 28 left a comment:

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/unitedhealthcare-tells-employees

Doctors and nurses hate UHC on behalf of their patients, but it's also personal. UHC screws doctor's practices by refusing to pay them, making them chase payments for months or even years, and then it offers them a payday lending service that helps them keep the lights on while they wait to get paid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frr4wuvAB6U

Is it any surprise that Reddit's nursing forums are full of nurses making grim, satisfied jokes about the assassination of the $10m/year CEO who ran the $400b/year corporation that does all this?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leading-medical-subreddit-deletes-thread-on-unitedhealthcare-ceos-murder-after-users-slam-his-record/

We're not supposed to experience – much less express – schadenfreude when someone is murdered in the street, no matter who they are. We're meant to express horror at the idea of political violence, even when that violence only claims a single life, a fraction of the body count UCH produced under Thompson's direction. As Malcolm Harris put it, "'Every life is precious' stuff about a healthcare CEO whose company is noted for denying coverage is pretty silly":

https://twitter.com/BigMeanInternet/status/1864471932386623753

As Woody Guthrie wrote, "Some will rob you with a six-gun/And some with a fountain pen." The weapon is lethal when it's a pistol and when it's an insurance company. The insurance company merely serves as an accountability sink, a layer of indirection that lets a murder happen without any person being the technical murderer:

https://profilebooks.com/work/the-unaccountability-machine/

I don't want people to kill insurance executives, and I don't want insurance executives to kill people. But I am unsurprised that this happened. Indeed, I'm surprised that it took so long. It should not be controversial to note that if you run an institution that makes people furious, they will eventually become furious with you. This is the entire pitch of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century: that wealth concentration leads to corruption, which is destabilizing, and in the long run it's cheaper to run a fair society than it is to pay for the guards you'll need to keep the guillotines off your lawn:

https://memex.craphound.com/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-the-21st-century/

But we've spent the past 40 years running in the other direction, maximizing monopolies, inequality and corruption, and gaslighting the public when they insist that this is monstrous and unfair. Back in 2022, when UHC was buying Change Healthcare – the dominant payment network for hospitals, which would allow UHC to surveil all its competitors' payments – the DOJ sued to block the merger. The Trump-appointed judge in the case, Carl Nichols – who owned tens of thousands of dollars in UHC bonds – ruled against the DOJ, saying that it would all be fine thanks to United's "culture of trust and integrity":

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-antitrust-shooting-war-has-started

We don't know much about Thompson's killer yet, but he's already becoming a folk hero, with lookalike contests in NYC:

https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1865472577478553976

And gigantic graffiti murals praising him and reproducing the words he wrote on the shell casings of the bullets he used to kill Thompson, "delay, deny, depose":

https://www.tumblr.com/radicalgraff/769193188403675136/killin-fuckin-ceos-freight-graff-in-the-bay

I get why this is distasteful. Thompson is said to have been a "family man" who loved his kids, and I have no reason to disbelieve this. I can only imagine that his wife and kids are shattered by this. Every living person is the apex of a massive project involving dozens, hundreds of people who personally worked to raise, nurture and love them. I wrote about this in my novel Walkaway, as the characters consider whether to execute a mercenary sent to kill them, whom they have taken hostage:

She had parents. People who loved her. Every human was a hyper-dense node of intense emotional and material investment. Speaking meant someone had spent thousands of hours cooing to you. Those lean muscles, the ringing tone of command — their inputs were from all over the world, carefully administered. The merc was more than a person: like a spaceship launch, her existence implied thousands of skilled people, generations of experts, wars, treaties, scholarship and supply-chain management. Every one of them was all that.

But so often, the formula for "folk hero" is "killing + time." The person who terrorizes the people who terrorize you is your hero, and eventually we sanitize the deaths, and just remember them as fighters for justice. If you doubt it, consider the legend of Robin Hood:

https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/1865554985842352501

The health industry is trying to put a lid on this, palpably afraid that – as in my story "Radicalized" – this one murderer will become a folk hero who inspires others to acts of spectacular violence. They're insisting that it's unseemly to gloat about Thompson's death. They're right, but this is an obvious loser strategy. The health industry is full of people whose deaths would be deplorable, but not unsurprising. As Clarence Darrow had it:

I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.

Murder is never the answer. Murder is not a healthy response to corruption. But it is healthy for people to fear that if they kill people for greed, they will be unsafe. On December 5 – the day after Thompson's killing – the health insurer Anthem announced that it would not pay for anesthesia for medical procedures that ran long. The next day, they retracted the policy, citing "outrage":

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/05/health/anthem-blue-cross-blue-shield-anesthesia-claim-limits/index.html

Sure, maybe it was their fear of reputation damage that got them to decide to reverse this inhumane, disgusting, murderous policy. But maybe it was also someone in the C-suite thinking about what share of the profits from this policy would have to be spent on additional bodyguards for every Anthem exec if it went into effect, and decided that it was a money-loser after all.

Think about hospital exec Ralph de la Torre, who cheerfully testified to Congress that he'd killed patients in pursuit of profit. De la Torre clearly doesn't fear any kind of consequences for his actions. He owns hospitals that are filled with tens of thousands of bats (he stiffed the exterminators), where none of the elevators work (he stiffed the repair techs), where there's no medicine or blood (he stiffed the suppliers) and where the doctors and nurses can't make rent (he stiffed them too). De La Torre doesn't just own hospitals – he also owns a pair of superyachts:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/28/5000-bats/#charnel-house

It is a miracle that so many people have lost their mothers, sons, wives and husbands so Ralph de la Torre could buy himself another superyacht, and that those people live in a country where you can buy an assault rifle, and that Ralph de la Torre isn't forced to live in a bunker and travel in a tank.

It's a rather beautiful sort of miracle, to be honest. I like to think that it comes from a widespread belief by the people of this country I have since become a citizen of, that we should solve our problems politically, rather than with bullets.

But the assassination of Brian Thompson is a wake-up call, a warning that if we don't solve this problem politically, we may not have a choice about whether it's solved with violence. As a character in "Radicalized" says, "They say violence never solves anything, but to quote The Onion: that's only true so long as you ignore all of human history":

https://prospect.org/culture/books/2024-12-09-radicalized-cory-doctorow-story-health-care/