#this is part of it! educating people who don't understand is part of the solution that YOU can do from the comfort of your home!

[moffnat]

hot take but i can't stand the "look it up on google before you ask dumb questions" crowd. discussions are so important. sharing info by word of mouth is more powerful than any search engine, any youtube video or dissertation. if someone approaches you online with genuine questions like "what is decolonization" or "what is genderqueer" in response to a post you made, saying shit like "just look it up moron" is alienating someone who wanted to be taught and you shut them down.

"but nat it's not my job to educate people--" actually, it is. if you believe in a better future for everyone, it is 100% your responsibility to educate someone who asks you for help. we are a collective human species and if we're ever going to move toward worldwide harmony we must be willing to have calm and open conversations with people who don't understand.

when you say things like "just look it up online" you're closing a door of humanity in someone's face.

[homunculus-argument]

Fascinating things that people on Tumblr seem to be unaware of/confused by:

If someone gives advice that's worded as "when no better options are available, [solution] is the best option", it means that doing that particular solution is better than not doing anything. It does not mean that this solution is better than all other options, best choice at all times. All the better options that you can think of that a person should do instead are already implied to be unavailable in the "when no better options are available"-part.

When something is stated in past tense, that implies that this thing is no longer this way at the current moment. "Past tense" means that it happens in the past, which implies that it has stopped happening. If someone says "I thought myself well-educated on the subject", the past tense implies that they are now aware that they were not, in fact, well-educated on the subject. You do not need to tell them this.

A person saying something in passive tense is not stating that they personally do or believe whatever the statement is. Saying "at one point, it was thought", means that there has been, at some point, unnamed other people, who thought this thing, and therefore this has a distinct nuance difference to "I think", which means that the person saying this is also the one thinking it.

The words "common", "most" and "the average" refer to a majority of a population, but not the whole population. That is a different thing than "all" and "everything". If someone says "most dogs have four legs", but you know two dogs who have three legs each, saying so does not disprove the previous person's point, as "most" is a different word than "all". It's a different word that changes what the sentence means.

When someone says a sentence, you should always assume that every word in it is important for the context. If you don't know what a word means, you should look it up to find out what it means, instead of skipping over it and assuming that it isn't important. "Strict and irreconcilable parenting styles are inherently traumatic" means a different thing than "strict parenting styles are inherently traumatic". Adding or removing one word can sometimes change the whole sentence, and you can't just skip the ones that you don't know.

If you are the type of a person who has a hard time understanding concepts like this, and jumps at peoples' throats over things you thought they said, I hope that everyone who fucks you insists on using a condom.

[rationaliity]

gonna just drop a bulletpoint story out there because this aint a lot to go off of but you're soooo right, speak your truth i love you. you're putting two of my favorite things together, ratio and kitsune / foxes

♡ kitsune! ratio who got eight tails, some joke its one tail for each subject that he's graduated college with a master's degree for

♡ he's really is far more playful than people give him credit for, although in his own deadpan kind of way

♡ like, no, he doesn't outright make jokes, but he'll say stuff that goes over people's heads and then loudly exclaim " why do i even bother ?! " with a feigned annoyance, but it's okay because its ratio and it's cute

♡ he really takes the ' sly fox ' thing to heart. i mean, he already works in the shadows, sly is just a part of who he is

♡ but he is still a good person !! people may often assume that he's not because of how he acts and they attribute that to being a kitsune, but he really does care about humans

♡ especially one stupid little human who likes to visit the shrine he lives at a lot

♡ yeah, you caught his attention, but he would much rather die than admit that to you

♡ he doesn't say anything when you offer him the good tuna while he's in his fox form, even though it irks him a little bit because he's a fox, you moron, not a wild cat

♡ shouldn't you be trying to run away from him anyways ? why are you so brazen about walking up to a fox ? don't you know that they're wild animals and they can hurt you if they wanted to ?

♡ you're so lucky that he doesn't want to, otherwise it would be a problem on your side

♡ he eats the tuna every time you bring it for an offering, enjoying it even though he bites back a snarky comment every single time

♡ he's smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds him. his shrine is so far out into the woods that you're really the only one who comes to visit him from time to time, something that he was silently grateful for

♡ he's not tied to the shrine, he can leave if he wanted to, and he's often out and about doing whatever he wanted to, usually finding a hapless human like you and quietly guiding them towards a better solution

♡ but you liked to visit the shrine every wednesday, so he made sure he was there every wednesday

♡ why ? because he wanted to

♡ when he finally revealed his true form to you, it was purely to educate you on something stupid that you had done, at least that's what he told himself

♡ you'd gotten cut by the bramble out in the forest while making the trip to him, and so of course he had to show his true form to bandage your wounds, that was only proper of him

♡ while biting your ear off about not even worrying about the wound until you were at the shrine. what if it got infected, or worse ? you truly were a foolish human

♡ all eight of his tails are angrily flicking the ground below him as he patches you up the best he can, meanwhile berating you for your idiocy, something that he cant stand

♡ and you're just smiling like a moron, too, despite being injured ! he can't wrap his head around you !

♡ finally, once youre all taken care of, he has to ask why you offer him food, when he just looked like a regular fox to you at the shrine

♡ possibly the most annoying thing ever, you don't have a good answer. no profound understanding, just because you want to

♡ he's so frustrated with you he's sure he may pop a blood vessel, and you offer to leave, but he tells you to stay. it would've made the trip and your injury meaningless if you left so suddenly without staying for anything

♡ and when the sun begins to set, you find him... following you away from the shrine ?

♡ ask him what he's doing and he's just going to give you a simple answer, and if this should've been common knowledge to you all along, and you were an idiot for asking

♡ " of course, someone has to watch over you to make sure you don't accidentally get yourself killed. "

— ♡ rationaliity 2024

[tainbocuailnge]

it's easy to dunk on people with poor reading comprehension or to look down on them (consciously or not) even if you're not actively shaming them for "not getting it" or "being stupid" but it's not actually helpful. it's a worrying development that many people (particularly many young people) are becoming resistant to the idea that complex and/or challenging books have value but it's also an understandable development, because in many cases it's a reaction to being shamed for their struggles with literacy and not given the help they would've needed to develop an adequate level of literacy.

that's not even going into what should even be considered an "adequate" level of literacy to begin with, because the truth is that a lot of people will simply never be able to read better than absolutely necessary to navigate their daily life, and this shouldn't be treated as some kind of failure on their part. the goal of literacy education should be to give people the tools for self-sufficiency.

what's worrying is not that there are a lot of people who don't engage with complex texts, but that there are a lot of people who refuse to believe that there is something to be gained from engaging with complex texts. someone doesn't have to read or understand shakespeare or kafka or what-have-you in order to live a fulfilling life, but when they become resistant to the idea that a text can have something going on beyond what's immediately apparent on the surface, they become easy targets for deception. this hinders the self-sufficiency that literacy is supposed to provide them with.

the goal of you high school language class is not just to get you to analyze texts, but to introduce you to the idea that texts can be analyzed in the first place, even if you don't go on to be particularly good at actually analyzing them yourself. you don't need to be able to read between the lines to understand that it is possible to read between the lines, and that therefore a text that seems nonsensical to you at first may simply be written for an audience of a different skill level - this is only a problem if there is a mismatch between the complexity of the text and the literacy of its target audience. an inability to read for subtext is not a personal failure, nor does the ability to read for subtext make you a better person than someone who can't. literacy is a skill, and like any skill there are people to whom it comes more easily than others.

calling people who are drawn to anti-intellectual rhetoric due to their struggles with literacy stupid is not going to encourage them to change their mind. developing media literacy and reading comprehension is something that is very difficult to do on your own, and doubly so if any attempt at trying to learn is met with derision for not already being able to do it. the problem is not people who only engage with easy texts, the problem is people growing hostile towards the idea that there is worth in engaging with more complex texts

if reading comprehension has always come naturally to you, it can be difficult to grasp how someone can fail to understand a text that you thought was easy enough to follow. I myself am guilty of snapping at people for misinterpreting me so wildly it seemed like they were doing it on purpose. you need to learn to suppress this kneejerk reaction, and instead see this frustration as common ground: you are both facing a situation where your communication skills are insufficient. what can you do to bridge this gap? how can you present this information in different ways that better suit how the other party processes information? keep in mind that this does not necessarily mean to simplify the information, because nobody likes being condescended to, and being condescended to is in many cases exactly what made these people hostile towards more complex ideas to begin with.

I don't have an easy solution, because this is a complex problem, and what helps some people will inevitably be useless to many others. but I believe fostering a culture where you won't be met with derision or ridicule for not understanding something or needing more explanation will go a long way. next time someone comments on your post with an absolutely baffling take that makes you wonder if they even read what you said, consider that maybe they are trying to engage with a text that is above their reading level, and they genuinely lack the ability to parse and retain the information you presented in the way you presented it. if you're going to respond, try to do so in good faith.

[thebreakfastgenie]

I think Democrats are inherently out of touch with swing voters in an unavoidable way, because people who work in Democratic politics are, by nature of what their jobs are, educated people who for the most part have consistent political beliefs based on facts moral and ethical principles. A lot of voters do not work that way. They have opinions based on emotions and vibes and none of it is consistent or held together by any unifying principles. That's why you always get people saying "how can they support X and also Y?" Of course it makes no sense, but why are you surprised?

Republicans don't have this problem because at this point most people who work in Republican politics are these people, or more consistently right wing versions of them. They think the same way. They're speaking the same language.

Democrats have overcome this in the past by running people like Bill Clinton, who despite being Ivy league Rhodes scholar, has an uncanny ability to understand, connect, and communicate with the type of people who are swing voters. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are similar. The problem is I don't see this as a sustainable solution because you can't count on political talent like that being available all the time. And I genuinely don't know what the answer is.

[earlgreytea68]

I listened to this podcast episode today on my way to work and it was very interesting. You should listen to her, because I am no economist, but the tl;dr is that the main reason the gender pay gap exists is because women often choose jobs for their greater flexibility because they often have caregiving responsibilities (either with children or with their own parents, because that also falls disproportionately on women) and so they value the flexibility more than men do, who can select jobs based on things like pay, not flexibility. That is simplified but basically the issue, and then there are all kinds of repercussions around that, like, people who value work flexibility so that they can tend to other responsibilities tend to be perceived as not dedicated enough to their jobs, so they don't get the most important assignments, don't get the most important promotions, etc.

Anyway, I was struck by the fact that toward the end the host asks the Nobel laureate what can be done to address this ongoing inequity, and she proposes sending children to school year-round and until 6pm every day.

......

Okay, look, #1 - I COMPLETELY understand, which is the Nobel laureate's point, that finding that childcare to fill in the gap around when school is out of session but the mom is still at work is a major problem that is part of the reason why women desire more flexibility; and also #2 - I also do not intend this to be about educational theory, but----

I was really struck that the solution to the problem would be TO MAKE CHILDREN WORK JUST AS HARD AS GROWN-UPS. Like, I can't help but think that the REAL problem here is that the expectations of jobs for the level of dedication they want from employees is UNREALISTIC AND UNSUSTAINABLE and can only be supported if one-half of the workforce is abandoned to DO THE ACTUAL WORK OF BEING HUMAN, and the solution to that is not MAKE EVEN THE TINIEST OF HUMANS LEARN HOW TO WORK HARDER AND LONGER. Idk, that just really rubbed me the wrong way, the idea that we solve this problem we created by making kids work forty-hour work weeks with no vacations the way the rest of us do. Like, the problem is the forty-hour work week with no vacations, let's not compound that problem.

To be fair to the Nobel laureate, she says she's trying to find a realistic solution, and that overhauling societal expectations around caregiving responsibilities and flexible workers is probably not going to happen but she thinks expanding the school day and year is attainable. But.....no, I think we should work on overhauling societal expectations so that none of us are expected to work so much at the sacrifice of the rest of our lives. Idk, I don't think we should entertain any solution other than that, because I'm tired of giving in on that point.

END RANT OF A THING I KNOW BASICALLY NOTHING ABOUT

[tirfpikachu]

whats a tirf

a tirf is a trans-inclusive/nuanced radical feminist!

many of us tirfs have been harmed by both normie tra spaces and normie radfem spaces, so we want our own corner. many of us are detrans, trans, or have a lot of trans friends we cherish, and we're building a corner of the radfem community dedicated to figuring out the increasingly bothersome issues between the feminist community & the lgbt community and boosting all misogyny-affected voices.

nuancefems - radfems who are often shamed for their nuanced takes, especially but not exclusively on tra/lgbt topics - in general might agree with us on a lot of things, but tirfs are those who focus a significant part of their activism on tra-radfem relations and actively fixing all the rampant issues between the two communities. we deeply care about all misogyny-affected people, homophobia-affected people, exclusive same-sex attracted folks and all gnc people. we are against the rampant misogyny & homophobia of tra spaces, while also not believing in the typical terf rhetoric and demonization of dysphoric people & trans/nonbinary-identified gnc people. we believe that despite what mainstream lgbtq/tra spaces may have forced on us, it'll always be essential to discuss sex-based ("agab" based, anti-ofab/female) oppression, and homosexual (what you may call exclusive afab4afab & amab4amab) rights in feminism. we also believe that in our tirfy corner of radical feminism, it's important to discuss the complex experiences that trans people may have under the heteropatriarchy and support dysphoric people and try to find productive solutions to all these struggles. we also try to educate more tras on what radical feminism actually is.

for us, we use male to mean what you'd call amab or tma, but we'd call male people omab as sex is observed, not assigned, unless it was done so wrongly in intersex/dsd cases. and ofc female = afab/ofab. while trans men might be ofab, or female, they are still men in the gender category or strongly align with it due to dysphoria. even if they aren't transitioned, we as tirfs see their dysphoric experience as often being different than normie female experiences and deserving proper gendering and accommodations. the same of course goes for trans women who are omab/male yet also often transition into facing misogyny, thus very much needing feminism & deserving their voices heard as well; and even if they don't transition, they still have dysphoric gnc experiences that can have them face horrific harm, and by existing as gnc, as transfems, they are going against the patriarchy by aligning with the "lower" class. transmascs who haven't transitioned yet or never plan to are also still deviating from the path set ahead for female/ofab people as well, and the experience of dysphoria - social and/or physical - is still often very debilitating and deserving of analysis and compassion from the tirfy side of radblr.

we tirfs may talk a lot about gnc and trans topics, but we care first and foremost about misogyny-affected individuals in our radical feminism. we still deeply care about gnc, trans & detrans people as well though, and believe that hearing them out can often provides us valuable information that may help us better understand the patriarchy. we believe in tangible experience: whoever faces the blunt of gncphobia - including transmisogyny - should speak on it the loudest, and whoever is born into facing misogyny from a young age due to their female body, or who has experienced tangible misogyny in their day-to-day life, should have their voices boosted on those specific issues in tirf spaces. others should learn to be good allies. if someone is marginalized one way and not the other, they still need to put in the work and become a strong ally, not just idly stand by.

sex-based oppression is something only ofab/female people face (and intersex ppl in some cases). by this i mean misogyny from birth or even before birth, facing childhood misogyny, and misogyny related to female bodies such as genital mutilation, reproductive misogyny, medical misogyny against female people specifically, historical misogyny and its long-lasting effects on female folks, sexual abuse and slavery meant specifically towards female-bodied people, and all abuse involving the person's femaleness in ways that don't include non-intersex male people; transfems might face related misogyny if they're assumed to be female, but if it refers to female functions they do not have this is misdirected misogyny. in the same vein as how transmasc people who transition and are still feminine might face horrific transmisogyny if assumed to have a gnc male body, they usually know it is misdirected, conditional transmisogyny. it can obviously still be incredibly harmful, but in this case you are still not the intended target. and for example with abortion rights it would be highly inappropriate for transfems to center themselves in the discussion when they cannot truly face this form of misogyny.

tirfs believe that while cis/bio women and transmasc people should actively learn to be good allies to transfems, be respectful, and moderate the rampant transmisogyny in their spaces, transfems also need to learn to be good allies to us and recognize their privilege from not facing misogyny in childhood and not having female-unique issues. they also need to moderate their own spaces for the awful "cotton ceiling" rhetoric, threats and sexual violence from transfems with a penis, guilt-tripping into male/female sex especially with homosexual female/ofab people, misogynistic views of female bodies, openly agp creeps positioning themselves as transfems, and anything involving transfems who did not do the work to unlearn their omab upbringing. it's unfortunate that this even needs to be moderated, and i don't believe most transfems are like this, but it is a huge issue that is going unaddressed and it's a big reason why cis/bio women and transmasc people are flocking to radblr right now.

for those who do not agree with terf rhetoric, tirfism is carving out a space for those tras to find shelter and recover from the misogyny & homophobia they faced in tra spaces. we also take in transfems who are tired of their nuanced voices getting shut down or being called bootlickers for speaking up for female/ofab rights and being a good ally. tirfs at the end of the day want equal allyship between female people, homosexual ppl, transfems, transmascs and all gnc people, as we are all affected by the heteropatriarchy. we also want proper care for trans people and preventative measures within healthcare and in tra communities to prevent more heartbreaking detransitions, which harm not just detrans people but also add to trans stigma.

people might say we're not radfem enough for radblr, or too radfem for lgbt or queer spaces, but we're too tired of the bullshit to give up.

side note - not all tirfs are as nuanced. there have been waves in the past of self-proclaimed tirfs that were decidedly not radical, and constantly downplayed female (and homosexual) rights. my kind of radfeminism includes misogyny-affected transfems, but my fellow tirfs and i do not just want to water down radical feminism or enable people to cause more harm to female folks. as a detrans lesbian i know firsthand how much harm libfem tras can cause. tirfism is about including misogyny-affected dysphoric voices into the conversation, and exploring diverse experiences. some issues are unique to female people and homosexuals, and that's alright! some issues are also unique to transfems, to transmascs, or to all trans ppl. we want to put an end to all misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia/stigma.

that's tirfism to me, anyways!

[bruhduck]

Why are all Slytherins "evil"?

I was re-reading Harry Potter in the last period. Awesome experience, as always. I mean, HP is literally my favourite book series: it helped me to grow up and find my own identity, it made me feel less alone, it taught me how to dream and it introduced me to the world of fandoms in the internet.

Despite many problems of the series (narrative and ideological), I love Harry Potter with all my heart and I will never stop to recommend it to young readers.

But, you know, there's always something that really, really bothers me with Harry Potter. Well, yes, we could discuss about the problematic aparth- uhm, separation between Wizards and Muggles, or about the fact that Elves slavery is pratically... justified (?), and there's no solution for the Elves question in the final book.

But these topics are too much complicated for a random tumblr post, and we are on the internet, I don't want to start a war about politics, etc. :)

No, I want to complain about a certain thing that I really can't understand and it bothers me everytime that I read the books or watch the movies.

WHY ARE ALL SLYTHERINS EVIL? JOANNE, I NEED AN ANSWER, BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Why they have to be so mean everytime? Being ambitious and shrewd doesn't mean "bad person".

Also, why are they all racist? And why it seems that all of them are sons or daughters of Death Eaters, or in any case their parents share Voldemort's ideology?

Are you saying that ALL SLYTHERINS are pureblood and racist? ALL OF THEM came from a family of Death Eaters? So there are not cunning, ambitious and shrewd people between halfbloods, Muggle-Borns and healthy pureblood families. That's weird.

Oh, yes, and in the first book Slytherins are described as all ugly. Literally.

So, yes, Slytherins are evil and ALSO ugly. Again... why?

Yes, there are some exceptions.

The first one is Severus Snape: now, I love Snape, he's such an interesting character and I feel sorry for his past; the scene in which he gets bullied is so hurting to me (I was bullied myself so I can understand the anger and that feeling of weakness), but... he was not a good person. He has been dominated by hate for his entire life and he never overcomed his past. He was a Death Eater for a period. He bullied Harry, Hermione and Neville for no reason. And sometimes he was so cruel that I think his behaviour is a part of the "All Slytherins are evil" mentality.

Like, Snape has deceived the Dark Lord for years, he is a genius in Potions, DADA and Occlumancy, he's supposed to be one of the smartest characters in the series. So... why has he never understand that Harry is not like James?

"Because he was blinded by hate", you can say.

Ok, but when he saw Harry's memories in the fifth book, why didn't he change his mind?

"He had to act cold because he was pretending to be still loyal to Voldemort."

OK, but there's a difference between being cold to someone and being openly cruel. Snape's behaviours are often illogical and contradictory with the idea of his character, and I can only think that the author depicted him in that way not only to write a "grey character", but also to be loyal to the tradition of "Slytherins are evil".

Next? Oh, Regulus Arcturus Black, one of my favourites. Yes, he was a Slytherin, he was a hero who betrayed the Dark Lord for the sake of Wizarding World. However, his character still has many negative traits: he was a Death Eater, and he shared the racist ideology of his family for years. Again, not bad, but not a good example.

Narcissa Black. She saved Harry, but she is still a racist woman who is married to a Death Eater, and she failed complitely to educate her son.

Her sister, Andromeda Black. Yes, she is the only example of "good Slyhterins" who is not racist or who has not connections with Death Eaters. So, yes, she is good, but there's another problem in this case: she appears once in the whole series, she is barely a character!

Horace Slughorn, my love, he is good, yes. BUT the main trait of his character is negative: he loves to collect the best students like they were trophies.

Draco Malfoy. He is a useless bully for five books, then he changes but even when his character became deeper and more interesting he remains a coward.

Sorry Draco's fans: I like Draco too, but it's true.

I often see people talk about "Draco's redemption", but honestly I don't see this redeption. Simply he becomes a decent person, but he don't go through an actual process of change. He is mean, but he has never wanted to kill, he has never wanted war, so he tries to not get in the way of Harry and his allies, that's it. This is not a redeption, this is an awareness.

There are also Albus Severus, Scorpius and Leta, but they are not characters from the original series, and they were created AFTER all the criticism about the fact that all Slytherins are depicted as bad, so I won't consider them.

It's a shame, you know? Because one of the most important themes in HP is supposed to be INCLUSION. So, why, WHY, nobody, even the "good characters", try to understand or socialize with Slytherins?

Why, in the SIXTH BOOK, I have to read about Harry and Neville who don't greet their Slytherin schoolmates because "Gryffindors and Slytherins don't talk, that's it." Yes, Harry says that.

This is the reason why I love those fanfiction in which we can see Harry and other characters interact with Slytherins. Because this is what I want to see at Hogwarts: inclusion, no prejudice, brotherhood between the four Houses.

I don't know why, but nowdays I still see some "fans" of HP criticize or have prejudice about Slytherin house and I'm like: "After all this time?"

Don't answer "Always" this time, Slytherism (?) has to finish, once and for all.

So... Yes, peace and love between the Houses, thay are all great in their own way!

[I also hope that my English was comprehensible, I'm not that good, but I'm trying my best.]

[daz4i]

i think the most annoying part of how mainstream media and public perception handles npd (and cluster b personality disorders in general, but yknow how ppl are with narcissists) is treating it as if the person who has the disorder is unaffected. i think ppl genuinely don't understand that personality disorders affect the person who has them first (yknow, like any other disorder) and any outside effect is just the way its symptoms may express themselves as behavior, and not what the disorder itself actually is

which i think is why they fall for this thought process of "anyone who's a dick/abuser/selfish is a narcissist". it's genuinely a lack of knowledge on the matter and thinking this is what the symptoms of npd are, when in reality they have nothing to do with the actual disorder except maybe this is a type of behavior one could fall into a bit more easily when having these symptoms

(i think it's obvious in general that this whole phenomenon is created by people being ignorant about personality disorders, but like. i think this is the process that leads to it. the solution is to educate yourself on what the disorder actually is and then maybe you'll stop accusing people you barely know as having it while simultaneously throwing actual pwnpd under the bus to feel a 5 second sense of superiority)

[heretichromia]

Have you read Kakania’s side story in r99 yet(or if you plan to). Would be interested in hearing your thoughts!! (Though no pressure of course)

They are addicted to twisting the knife. They can't help themselves.

I'm usually not a fan of the trope of examining a character's psychiatric condition by having a psychiatrist literally just explicitly lay it out. Though it can be used in more elegant and subtle ways, it's usually just a shorthand for letting an omniscient third party just...say what's wrong with a character in an expedient fashion, or summarize what was said more eloquently before in a clinical way less likely to be misunderstood, and that's...boring.

In this case...I still don't like the exact way they did it, but I think the framing device sort of works as a nail in the coffin for Kakania's self-image. Her faith in her psychiatric ability was already in the gutter, since she utterly failed to understand Isolde at all, but now it's completely dust. Her incomplete psychiatric education is now a century outdated, and the theories she clung to as a beacon of a brighter future are now considered defunct. This obviously isn't the only reason, but I'm sure it's a contributing factor for why she doesn't even take up work as a psychiatrist at the Foundation.

I'm...kind of surprised by how little we actually got from it? In many of these stories, we get new insights on the POV characters that we don't really have time for in the plots they come from, insights that occasionally change the way we see them (Isolde comes to mind), but a lot of what was directly spelled out for us here were things we could have already inferred from the MSQ. It didn't give us nothing—we got some more context behind her relationship with her brother, for instance, which makes that scene in the MSQ a little more painful—so I guess my expectations should have been tempered for a personal story about a character who already experienced more or less a full character arc. It's less of a deeper dive into Kakania than it is a necessary point of "closure" for her story, tying up some of the hanging threads to...varying degrees of satisfaction. I did like seeing her express in words that she wished she were more honest about her feelings to the people she cared about—or that she understood herself well enough to know her feelings well enough to put them into words.

I also think parts of it were good for showing how the character development landed. Her decision to join the History...Preservation, I want to say? Division is consistent and a pretty nice ribbon on her growth. The decision to reject joining Vertin's task force is a particularly noteworthy one, to eschew becoming part of a new glamorous and idealistic vanguard searching for a solution to the world's sickness to become instead one of the expendable people in the background putting in necessary lifesaving work. I think that's a nice choice.

I'm not so much of a fan of what they've done with Isolde, but. C'est la vie, I guess. For Kakania to just be able to fix her would have destroyed the whole-ass point of their story, but some of the knife-twisting really feels excessive. I'd have preferred to see them interact instead of Bluepoch concocting some dubious brew to explain how we can never see closure between them because it would annihilate Isolde's mental state, even if this situation ends up being temporary.

It was...fine, I guess. They could have done a lot worse.

[clarabosswald]

Hi!

If you aren't a Zionist wouldn't it be better for you to have a duel citizenship and just leve Israel, if you are oppose to its existance?

Do you have any more good, balanced sources about this conflict?

I am still struggling to understand what Zionism is. It seems like there are a lot of different definitions for it but the main one seems to be that this piece of land should be called the land of Israel and it should belong to Israeli-Jews.

I am not trying yo offened I'm just curious as a dumb ass American who is trying to educate hereself on this conflict through books and movies. Interviews/news from both sides got propeganda same as The States news or World news.

hi anon, thanks for the good faith ask.

i wish getting dual citizenship and just leaving was just as easy as quick as writing those ideas is. i've explained before why leaving is nearly impossible for me (at least currently so). as for dual citizenship - there's actually a good chance that i won't be able to get one anyway. from my paternal grandparents' side, their birthplace is currently a dictatorship so that's an obvious dead end. from my maternal grandparents' side, from what my mom told me (they both died long before i was born), they've lost their documents overtime so she thinks it might be impossible to prove their link to their birthplace in order to get citizenship. she's also really reluctant to expand on that, she says that they'd have hated for their grandchildren to return to the place where they've narrowly survived the holocaust.

by the way, i'm not opposed to israel's existence. i'm opposed to some of its aspects, for instance the occupation, and the government. but i've mentioned how i think the best possible solution* to the current situation is the two state solution, and naturally that means israel's continued existence, in different form. (*not the ultimate best dream/utopia solution, but the most likely one, and even that'd be hard to achieve.)

as for sources - i'm afraid i don't really know any, if only because i think there's really no such thing as a truly balanced source - all media sources come with agendas, and that fact has been driven to an extreme with the current war. the best i can offer is never relying on a single source - or even a couple of sources - to learn about a story or an event; try and learn how to identify biases and deliberate wordings in articles/stories; and completely ignore media outlets that are known to be extremely biased. for instance, israeli channel 14 is a complete joke of an far right outright propaganda outlet.

"what is zionism" is the million dollar question since the term got appropriated and bastardized into oblivion. my first advice in researching that is only relying on jewish sources. but remember that even then you're likely to come across varying definitions, since jewish people themselves have varying feelings towards the subject. it's a spectrum, really. like most ideologies, i suppose. "this piece of land should be called the land of Israel" - i wouldn't say that's part of zionism, for many reasons. for instance, historically, the land has known several names. for a long time, it was the kingdom or israel and kingdom of yehuda (judea). i don't think even herzl called it israel. and when the jewish leadership decided to declare independence, they've debated what to call the new state, with some of the other options being "yehuda" and "zion". i think that, possibly, what you might be referring to is a combination of two things: 1. "the land of israel" being a common biblical name for the land and therefore deeply integrated into jewish culture and religion; 2. the disdain some jews hold for "palestine", since the name's etymology is connected to peoples who were historically antagonistic to the jews of israel and yehuda; and as a name for the land itself, it first appeared after rome had suppressed the jewish revolt for independence back in 135ce, after which it renamed the province "syria-palestina". this is really the very tip of the iceberg, there's a ton of history to this, i'd definitely recommend reading on it. "it should belong to Israeli-Jews" - there's a spectrum to this too. some think it should "belong" to jews, no doubt; some think it's a place where jews should be safe from discrimination and antisemitism. the basis of it, in any case, is that 1. the land has been culturally integral to the jewish people for millennia and 2. the jewish people have faced suffering in the diaspora and sorely needed an independent jewish state in order to survive. (that didn't necessarily even mean the land of israel, there were ideas for creating such a state elsewhere, but they fell through for various reasons). honestly, even after very shallowly covering all that, there's still a difference between religious zionism (with the subset of messianic zionism), to "modern" secular zionism (pre-1948), to israeli post-1948 zionism (which in itself is also far from being one uniform idea). and all of that's without even touching the different forms and history of ANTI-zionism. (and there's also non-zionism, obviously; but i don't think there's really any coherent history or ideology to that; i think that it's mostly just individuals who, like me, have independently come to decide that they don't subscribe to either zionism nor anti zionism, for their own personal reasons.) but at the end of the day zionism is so deeply rooted in the culture and history and experience of the jewish people which brings me back to my first advice: rely on jewish sources only.

it's really good that you're seriously researching the subject! i feel like too many people watch a couple of tiktoks and a youtube essay and call it a day. and it's good that you've noticed how media covering of the issue is full of propaganda (not only "organic" propaganda from actual israel and actual palestine, but also a TON of russian and iranian propaganda which really just aims at sowing chaos and division and often not "rooting" for a specific "side"). remember that movies and books are biased too, just to different degrees; it's the nature of everything created by a person - it reflects their intent on one degree or another. usually i'd recommend books over movies but naturally they're a lot more time consuming... there's no quick and easy way to study issues that have been spanning anywhere between decades and centuries.

[claraameliapond]

The Indigenous Voice Referendum Australia 2023

Floored and devastated

repulsed at the racist selfishness of the no voters

It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.

This is NOT who we are

Although it's a comforting narrative that no voters and conservatives are dying out - and will gradually have less and less pull

Firstly - It's too gradual to just wait it out

And Secondly- It's foolish to think that's only where these no votes are coming from

Younger less educated people are part of this too

Ignorant and arrogant - and selfish- that's what less education translates to.

This highlights, more than ever, how important it is to have strict policies in place legally for managing misinformation, fear mongering and propaganda spreading

We need laws about media monopolies and restricting or banning them altogether

Because one agenda from a multimillion dollar media monopoly cannot have majority access to inform a whole country. Especially because they were intentionally running interference with the simplest truth - they threw everything at it - spreading misinformation, blatant repulsive, violent lies - totally made up lies, not even remotely connected to what was being proposed. It's heartbreaking they could invent such lies and then spread those repulsive invented lies so fully and have people believe them.

And less educated people are always more vulnerable to propaganda: they believe hatred without a second thought. They don't fact check. They don't research. They don't make sure. Any excuse to flaunt their selfish racist self interest, against anyone else who might actually be more vulnerable, worse off.

However, That's the thing about this referendum - IT WASNT "US AGAINST THEM"

It was just : do we all agree that indigenous Australians should get to share information and advice with the government about how best to provide the care and facilities we already provide to them. So they work. Because they haven't been. So it would be a good use of money and then we can achieve permanent results and solutions for those issues and then move on, and do different things with that money. To actually move forward with this and not be stuck in stasis with things not improving.

That was literally all it was

It still is an issue now.

Don't loose hope

I'm still proud of all of the Yes voters- there were a good amount of us - and we will continue to turn the tide from ignorance and misinformation to the truth.

We've got to keep going 💪🏻 🙌🏻 👏🏻 🙏🏻

And now we have a more accurate idea of how to do that , and what needs to be fixed with people's understanding of this in our country. We can use this information to succeed

Ironically - doing exactly what the referendum was about : getting more accurate information to better help vulnerable communities of indigenous Australia.

But apparently, we've got to deal with the misinformed tantrum havers first - they make everything an "us against them" even when it literally wasn't. It doesn't affect anyone else. It could only have been positive. They make every issue an "us against them " even when it has literally nothing to do with them, because everything's a tantrum if it's not about them.

We've got accurate information now - just not about the people we were expecting : we know how to combat the racist minformation spreaders, and those who believed them.

What we need is :

Real limits and legal consequences on misinformation spreading, fear mongering and propaganda

Real limits on media monopolies and restrictions from letting them operate the way they do.

AND we do have to continue to combat this misinformation and propaganda whenever it is paraded near us. Respond with the truth, and make sure you ALWAYS RESPOND.

Don't let them think they're right.

Respond simply and calmly with the truth.

I'm sorry we have to do this but we do.

I don't want to be anywhere near those people, but if they identify themselves- we have to respond.

Respond and correct them.

Their idiocy can not and does not rewrite the truth. We are right and the truth of what this is, always was and what we need to do still exists

A few sources to begin to understand this:

A breakdown of who voted what where

Interpreting these results properly - this is well worth a read

I am looking forward to seeing the full count when it's ready. Make sure to look at those things - from Official sources.

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO VOTED YES

I stand proudly with you on the side of truth. Empathy. Morality. Justice

We have a more accurate idea of what's going on now: let's get to work

Also thank you to MC HAMMER for supporting and encouraging and campaigning for people to vote yes. That was lovely.

It really was a very simple thing - the truth is still the truth and we will succeed

Love and strength to us all

By goodness we need it

Xxxx🤍🖤🧡❤🤍🖤🧡❤💗💖💜💕💕💓💗

My heart was so full when I voted yes - it's an obvious yes

And it still is

Because YES is the truth

It is what is needed.

Still.

And we will achieve it xxxxx

[mwolf0epsilon]

Pls pls pls tell us how do you think clones react to trauma PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Full disclaimer, this is probably a lot of projection on my part in regards to coping with my own trauma and just seeing subtle things in media that helps me process a lot of thoughts I've had in regards to past negative experiences.

I am not an expert on trauma, and I am missing a lot of tcw lore because I haven't watched the full series, but I figure maybe I'm onto something on some aspects...

Anywho:

The clones are traumatized. That much is a given, considering their entire existence and undying loyalty is based on a set education/training/indoctrination regiment that's undoubtedly traumatizing.

They live and die for a government and people that don't really care for them (we've seen so many subtle and not so subtle instances of it, with the most recent additions to the roster being the clone veteran on Daiyo, and Riyo Chuchi fighting for the rights of the clones during the rise of the Empire) And the clones are essentially forced to understand and accept this wholeheartedly from an early age.

They have no basic rights, citizenship or even an actual home/lifestyle/traditions to return to once the war is done. Everything that is "theirs" is borrowed from someone else (Kamino, the Mandalorian ways they learned from their trainers, and what other bits and pieces they meshed together to to form into their own culture from the natborns they have limited contact with). Not even their lives, their bodies, are technically theirs. They are property in every sense of the word, and being forced to accept that so willingly and unquestioningly is not easy on the mind or heart. It could break a lesser being really...

But it's all they know. And that's one of the cores of certain types of trauma, and the basis of how you react to said trauma. Because is it really torment if you're born into it? If you don't know anything else? How do you want better if you don't know there IS better?

As someone who's been put through the grinder myself, I recognize reactions that are definitely born out of trauma. I'm most familiar with two very specific reactions that I do often write about: Silent complacency (which is a more passive defense mechanism in situations of stress) and outbursts of irrational anger (which is a more active defense mechanism in situations of stress). These are things I do on a daily basis that I can't help doing...

Most clones fall on the former over the latter, with just a few actually reacting in true anger when they are challenged in ways they can't really explain away, process, or deal with cleanly. Even so, silent complacency does have subcategories, so they way clones deal with their trauma is really up to which subcategory they fall into.

Rex for example, is complacent to a certain degree but not enough so that he isn't rebellious when things go sour. Even so he makes it his goal to try to fix things in the least disagreeable way possible (finding makeshift solutions to problems, trying to find the middle ground even if he doesn't entirely agree with how things are, generally trying to maintain the order of things by making himself useful in some way), even if it means sacrificing others's respect of him and risking going against his own moral compass (Krell, I'm talking about Krell here).

Echo is paradoxical in both being complacent to how things are (letting TBB do nothing for far too long, and sticking around in this sort of stupor of denial and uncertainty of how to proceed, because he honestly went through way too much and hasn't had much time to process), but also being rather obviously angry about how things currently are, and wanting to use that anger constructively (eventually leaving to fight for a cause he can believe in).

Dogma was truly complacent, submitting to the will of his superiors without question because he was taught that this was how you survive long enough to make a difference in war (I won't call it cowardice like I've seen some people do, Dogma was not a coward, far from it, but he was too blinded by his own dogmatic thinking and misplaced loyalty). He was a clear product of upbringing and trauma, and survived by the means that were provided for him since his very birth. The veil was only lifted when things got so bad that there was just no going back... And he still accepted it. He accepted his own death with open arms.

Slick was absolutely enraged by his and the others's unlucky lot in life because, for some inexplicable reason, he was able to see past everything he and the others were taught was their life's mission. Their unquestionable right. And it sucks that we don't know much about him besides what we got, so we don't really know what pushed him to rebel so furiously and so impulsively (endangering the lives of hundreds of clones and the Jedi WAS an irrational thing, but the reason behind it was not), but the fact of the matter is that Slick saw that there was something better than what he and his brothers got, and he was ultimately disgusted by how little their lives mattered in the grand scheme of things. Slick didn't want to die for the republic, didn't accept that he was going to die for the republic, and still died for the republic. There was no way around it. It NEVER mattered whether or not he fought against his set destiny.

There's others who react in different ways to their trauma as well.

We have Cody who's coping mechanism is a sort of nihilistic acceptance that clone lives don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Not 100% blind to the fact their entire existence is a bit of a sham, but also not 100% ready to accept they are now part of the problem until he stops to fully evaluate it. He can't fight the injustice so he accepts it for as long as he can manage. Even if it hurts to live with the fact there's no real better tomorrow for them, and that they're forced to make very difficult choices that are not morally correct. The best he can do is think there's a better tomorrow for the galaxy instead, that his service counts for at least those he serves and protects... He'll float along but never really want for more. At least not for himself.

We also have Wolffe, who eventually becomes so paranoid that he risked losing the one thing he still had: The respect of his brothers. He's lost everything and he's too scared to lose everything all over again, so he protects it tooth and nail without relenting. Protects others from themselves, because he's seen what's beyond the veil of lies and he's unwilling to have anyone else see the rot that has crushed his very soul. He's afraid and angry. Most of all, he's terribly tired of conflict that he'd rather run away from if it means his remaining family lives...

We have outliers like Gregor who have so many reasons to be resentful, but who instead take every given day like it's a blessing. Even if everything goes to hell tomorrow, he still smiles and jokes and deals with everything one step at a time. He is protective of others, that much is clear, and he can get a little lost in his impulsivity, but he doesn't let the trauma rule him or his emotions. Not entirely at least. He's got way too much on his plate to stop and think about existential horror and the injustice of a cruel apathetic galaxy.

We also have the entitled (TBB) who make their trauma everyone else's problem rather than deal with it like adults. Why be altruistic and mindful of your own faults when you can point the finger at your perceived enemies? They're traumatized just like every other clone, but they don't try to process it or even sympathize or empathize with others. They're even apathetic enough that they do many things that undermine one of their own (Echo). In their own eyes they have suffered more (false) and deserve to be regarded as more worthy of praise because they are different.

Just... The clones being traumatized from day one. Behaving based on their traumatization.

Instinctively striving for minimal forms of control through naming themselves, altering their appearance and the paint on their kits. Never really knowing that there's better in life than that which they all intimately know. Never even really getting to thrive because that was never in the cards. Not even when they had someone fighting for them...

There's so much to talk about...

And it might just me reaching hard and empathizing with characters that are undoubtedly tragic, but I just... I donno. I want things to end well for them. Even if I know that's not the conclusion they'll get.

[extremeower10100110]

talking abt barbie movie a bit, scroll past if u haven't seen

ok, this is a post about how the barbie movie is a metaphor for being trans.

let's see the plot.

-

Everything is Perfect in this Perfect life and Nothing is Wrong. you are Happy about who You are. You are You.

and then you start to have Thoughts. and Things that are supposed to feel Right are Wrong. things are Happening to your Body that you Do Not Like.

you tell someone about this.

turns out, you have a problem. something is wrong with you.

there is a Solution to this. you have to go on this Journey.

ok, you start the journey. cue harassment, anxiety, and these new emotions ?? what ??

you start dressing differently. you go to new places, do new things as part of this journey.

somebody finds out that perhaps should not have found out, and has an idea, to really Fix you, because you existing is Bad.

Sure That's A Great Idea Please Fix Me

actually no nevermind this is bad. Goodbye.

and finally, you meet someone who understands. someone who is the same as you, feeling the exact same way. you may come from completely different worlds, but you understand each other completely.

you help each other on your journey. you help each other grow, and educate the people around you that things are not as they seem. you can be yourself.

and then something happens.

you give up. stop the journey. just stay in your perfect life, where it's gotten a bit worse.

and then you get back up, and realize

the journey did not end

life is full of change and yes that is terrifying but it is also so beautiful like that

you don't know who you are anymore.

but maybe becoming your real self isn't something you need to ask permission for, it's something you have to discover that you are.

and maybe this is your real self. and it makes you happier than the last self.

and maybe you can't be what everyone expects you to be, because you're not.

you're leaving your old life behind.

this name makes me feel better than the last.

these clothes make me feel better than the last.

and maybe i'm okay being myself now, because i've changed.

i don't feel like my old self, i just feel like myself.

-

now i want you to tell me whether this is about the barbie movie,

or being trans. *

that's right, you can't, they're indistinguishable.

this is a transgender movie.

* ((i should say that the things mentioned above are in no way universal trans experiences, such as gender dysphoria, experiencing conversion therapy, changing names, etc. ))

[hussyknee]

Every time I think white and Western leftists can't disappoint me more, they prove me wrong.

Y'all memefied the threat of war with Iran following the assassination of Soleimani, the Australian wildfires that razed Aboriginal communities to the ground, Black Lives Matter, the fall of Afghanistan, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Putin, and the mass protests in Sri Lanka. The No Fly List has been leaked for the first time since 2014, showing that the majority of it are in there for the crime of having Muslim and Russian names, taking part in anti-war protests and being a child while Muslim. And now y'all have started merchandising the memes?

Every single time we point out that the suffering of diasporas and the Global South is not yours to joke about, we are inundated with screeching about how y'all need them to '''''cope'''' with having woken up to the fact that other people have been living in a fascist dystopia, that memes spread "awareness", that it's unfair to take the jokes to mean you don't care, and "we can be concerned about two things at once". Meanwhile, the jokes and memes and white coping drown out the voices of BIPoC and Eastern Europeans almost entirely. Then you forget all about us and eventually say that nothing we did made any difference, fighting the state is hopeless, and meme some more.

At this point I can only imagine that you wander into random people's funerals, crack jokes about the dead guy to his family and sell funeral t-shirts in exchange for telling everyone else that they're dead. "Well why can't we celebrate and uplift queer people?" – you mean white and Western queer people, because it's sure as hell not our queer people who're getting profiled and bombed and starved.

"That's not my experience of what we did" – we do not care. Your experience of your own actions, of how events unfolded for you and of our hurt and our suffering is utterly irrelevant. You do not get a say on whether you're hurting us. You don't get to police our tone and wording and anger. You don't get to weigh in with your white guilt and white defensiveness and Western and white privilege and pathological need to be the Main Character in every situation. "Why is this so guilt-tripping" that's your white guilt, Karen. The fact that you only just woke up to all the ways you've been asleep is your white privilege. Your inability to boost our voices and center us without any commentary and not speak for us is white supremacy. Your consistent focus on valorizing activists and advocates and centering white saviours is white supremacy. Your making money and fame off "raising awareness" and "educating" other people about our suffering is capitalist exploitation and white supremacy. You are not living through a "major historical event", we are. Every damn day.

Those of you who don't behave like this will never chime in and tell your racist fellows "hey stop that, that's fucked up! That's racist! Shut up!" You dont look for resources yourself, dont accept that maybe we can't provide solutions every time we raise concerns, that maybe your allyship should be about self-reflection and learning how to handle your own emotions without taking up all the air in a room.

This shit is fucking constant. Every single time. We are suffocating. Even with all of that, do you have any idea of the amount of patience and understanding and forebearance we have tried to give you?

Edit: btw the trans femme of colour who uses it/its pronouns that said "please stop memeing about our very serious issue, go read these sources, pay attention to this bill, if you care then act like it"? Y'all sent it so much racist hate that it had to deactivate. But yeah, y'all care about queer people. Lmao.

[nothorses]

How do you deal with non-discipline in the context of bullying, especially where the person/child bullying has demonstrated repeated returns to the behavior despite previous redirection and education?

(I ask because I agree with your approach in the previous post and I'm currently trying to manage a pretty complicated bullying situation, but the only solution I've been able to come up with is "revoke access.")

Unfortunately, I think "literally will not stop bullying" tends to be a symptom of a much, much deeper and more complicated problem; but you're right about the first step, imo.

It's very fair to say, "your behavior is not safe for the people you are exposing to it, therefore for safety reasons, we need to revoke your access to them until we know it's safe again". Kids will see that; they generally understand that you're you're not punishing them, you're not endangering their safety for the sake of preserving someone else's- you're just enacting natural consequences around very fundamental boundaries. (And imo, it is absolutely vital to avoid sacrificing the safety and wellbeing of other kids in these situations. Your job is to hold that line as much as it is to help the kid lashing out.)

The tricky part is the follow-up: once the safety issue is dealt with, what do you do with the kid who's sitting apart?

imo, the first step is just to ask questions and try to understand, non-judgmentally, where they're coming from. It doesn't matter how much you actually empathize with this- they just need to know that you're listening to them, and that you care what they have to say.

What they say will tell you a lot about next steps- that's also where it tends to get the most complicated.

Oftentimes their behavior is the result of trauma or abuse, or mental health issues. Often it's because the way others discipline them teaches them to act that way toward their peers. Frequently, it's also the result of just... not having the tools to deal with their emotions in a better way. It might make them self-centered, entitled, and cruel; but the point of this is that you're trying to identify the root of that issue, and try to take the first steps toward righting that wrong. Even if you want to dislike the kid over it, your whole goal here is to choose to care and fight for them anyway.

You won't know what to do after that until you get to know the kid & what's really going on with them. And there's a good chance that'll be hard, too- and a good chance they won't want to trust you or open up to you initially. I've been met with a lot of "here's why the person I'm bullying deserves it", and I'm sure you're familiar with the way some kids just embrace the messages they've been given by others about who they are, and throw them back in your face; "I'm a bully, that's just who I am." etc.

But, like, you've also probably encountered similar tactics in kids who are sad and need comfort, but don't want to ask for or accept help- among many others. And if you have experience with one, you can figure out the other, too.

Idk! It's not easy, and it's overall definitely the more complicated and drawn-out route. But I definitely believe it's more effective to try to team up with the kid against their problems, rather than making yourself the enemy of the kid in an attempt to force their problems to just... disappear.

And ultimately, this is all based on my current experience and knowledge. I'm just trying to ask some questions, throw some of my own tactics toward you, and hopefully you find some useful ideas in there. This is a conversation more than, like, a guidebook or definitive answer.