#unethical behaviour examples

[digi-pro-experts]

Unethical Behavior in Digital Marketing: A Closer Look

Because the information stream is so rapid in the current environment, unethical behavior are especially important for digital marketing organizations. Unfortunately, the allure of quick wins and short-term gains can sometimes lead to unethical practices that can have severe consequences for brands and their reputations. Common Unethical Behaviors in Digital Marketing Misleading…

[witchthewriter]

Can you write about what would’ve happened if aegon (third son of baelon and alyssa) survived?

𝐎𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐈 𝐜𝐚𝐧!

In this scenario, Daemon wouldn't have been too much older. Mere months apart, so I think they would bond really closely as brothers. And yes, there would be a hint of jealousy from Viserys when he was younger.

Personality-wise Viserys is a lot like Baelon & Daemon is a lot like Alyssa. Therefore, I think Aegon would be straight bang in the middle. Not overly sensitive, but has emotional intelligence and will-power. He also would love a bit of danger and risky behaviour - but there'd always be a limit.

With Aegon surviving, I think he would have a cradle-egg. As Alyssa was one of Alysanne & Jaehaerys only fertile daughters; the clutch that would be found - would reflect that.

And the clutch would be from Meleys herself.

The egg chosen (by Viserys) would be a golden red with swirls and flecks of silver and burgundy. Viserys too would be given an egg, and Daemon - but neither would come to live.

As time went by and the three brothers aged, Aegon would be known by the smallfolk as Aegon the True King. This would be when Viserys 'claims' Balerion (flies him once around the city) and 'shows everyone he is the true heir.'

Aegon doesn't want the throne. But the 'signs of him being 'The Real Aegon, Come Again,' are shown in his birth and throughout his childhood. For example, surviving childbirth, having a cradle-egg that hatched, not being a push over/not being arrogant. Is what the smallfolk talk about.

Because Viserys really doesn't have a backbone.

And Daemon is constantly pushing boundaries.

However, I think that Aegon would be the mediator between the two brothers and balance them out really well. He's able to see both sides of the argument and calm them both down.

𝑵𝒐𝒘, 𝒍𝒆𝒕𝒔 𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒐𝒏…

The cradle-egg, born from Meleys (Alyssa, his mothers dragon) is his whole world. Everywhere Aegon went, so did Vhalorys (VAHL-or-iss). Simplified, the name means 'shadow of fire.'

While Meleys' has a crimson colouring, her offspring is more of a golden red, verging on copper, with accents of silver, gold and burgundy. Signifying the duality of his nature.

His eyes are a deep silver with hints of purple. While his dragon-fire is pure silver; a burning heat that can melt even stone if he tried long enough.

Vhalorys has a similar shaped head as Meleys, but he has sharp horns running down his neck as well as four on his head; two on either side. They will grown to be large and one day may curve into rounded horns.

𝑬𝒙𝒂𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆: (artist unknown)

Aegon, being the youngest, could very well be sent off to become a maester - but as he has a dragon, that wouldn't work.

So, he would be used as a way to strengthen alliances. His marriage options would be a high born woman from:

House Baratheon

House Hightower

House Stark

House Arryn

One option could have been to marry Rhaenys, but as she is older than him - she would have already been arranged to marry Corlys. And he would be too old to marry Laena (he would find it weird).

I think he might fall in love with someone low-born, and when it was time to marry, he would be heartbroken. Or maybe he's asexual and doesn't have much sexual desire. However, I think he would have had a secret crush on Aemma, and he would have 100% treated her better. The way Viserys pushed for a son was unethical...

I have a feeling that Otto would invite Aegon to stay at Oldtown, keeping him away from court so that he could bring Alicent to woo Viserys after Aemma's passing.

He would love Rhaenyra, but in the proper family way. He'd constantly make her laugh, and would often take her up flying with him. He'd be someone she could rely on. Steadfast and always there for her and the people he cares about. Loyalty would mean a lot to him.

art credit: jota.saraiva

image credit: @molinerova.

[zedecksiew]

(Don't) Incentivise Ethical Behaviour

In the ongoing project of rescuing useful thoughts off Xwitter, here's another hot take of mine, reheated:

"Being good for a reward isn’t being good---it’s just optimal play."

The quote comes from Luke Gearing and his excellent post "Against Incentive", to which I had been reacting.

My thread was mainly intended as a fulsome nodding along to one of Luke's points. It was posted in 2021, and extended in 2023 after Sidney Icarus posed a question to it. So it is two threads.

Here they are, properly paragraphed, hopefully more cleanly expressed:

+++

(Don't) Incentivise Ethical Behaviour

This is my main problem with mechanically rewarding pro-social play: a character's ethical choice is rendered mercenary.

As Luke Gearing puts it:

"Being good for a reward isn’t being good---it’s just optimal play."

Bear in mind that I'm not saying that pro-social play can't have rewarding outcomes for players. Any decision should have consequences in the fiction. It serves the ideal of portraying a living, world to have these consequences rendered diegetic:

The townsfolk are thankful; the goblins remember your mercy; pamphlets appear, quoting from your revolutionary speech.

What I am saying is that rewarding abstract mechanical benefits (XP tickets, metacurrency points, etc) for ethical decisions stinks.

+

A subtle but absolutely essential distinction, when it comes to portraying and exploring ethics / morality, in roleplaying games.

Say you reward bonus XP for sparing goblins.

Are your players making a decisions based on how much they value life / the personhood of goblins? Or are they making a decision based on how much they want XP?

Say you declare: "If you help the villagers, the party receives a +1 attitude modifier in this village."

Are your players assisting the community because it is the right thing to do, or are they playing optimally, for a +1 effect?

+

XP As Currency

XP is the ur-example of incentive in TTRPGs. It began with D&D's gold-for-XP, and has never strayed far from that logic.

XP is still currency. Do things the GM / game designer wants you to do? Get paid.

Players use XP to buy better mechanical tools (levels, skills, abilities)---which they can then in turn use to better perform the actions that will net them XP.

Like using gold you stole from goblins to buy a sword, so you can now rob orcs.

I genuinely feel that such systems are valuable. They are models that illuminate the drives fuelling amoral / unethical behaviour.

Material gain is the drive of land-grabbing and colonialism. Logger-barons and empires do get wealthier and more privileged, as a reward for their terrible actions.

+

If you want to present an ethical choice in play, congruent to our real-life dilemmas, there is value in asking:

"Hey, if you kill the goblins you can grab their treasure, and you will get richer. There's no reward for sparing their lives, except that they are thankful."

Which is another way of asking:

"Does your commitment to the ideal of preserving life outweigh the guaranteed material incentives for taking life?"

The ethical choice is the difficult choice, precisely because it involves---as it often does, in real life---sacrificing personal growth and gain. Doling out an XP bounty for doing the right thing makes the ethical choice moot.

"I as the player am making a mechanically optimal choice, but my character is making an ethical choice!"

A cop-out. Owning your cake and eating it too. The fictional fig-leaf of empathy over a calculated a decision to make profit.

+

Sidney Icarus asks a question which I will quote here:

"... those who hold to their beliefs of good behaviour don't feel rewarded, and therefore feel punished. And that's not a good feeling. It's an unpleasant experience to play a game where the righteous players are in rags, and the mercenary fucks have crowns and sceptres. So, what's the design opportunity? How do we make doing the right thing feel pleasant without making it mercenary? Or, like reality, do we acknowledge that ethical acts are valuable only intrinsically and philosophically? I have no idea how to reconcile this."

I would suggest that the above dichotomy---"righteous players in rags, mercs in crowns"---is true if property is recognised as the only true incentive.

+

Friends As Property

Modern games try to solve the righteous-players-in-rags "problem" in various ways. Virtue might not net you treasure or XP, but may give you:

Contact or ally slots, which you can fill in;

Relationship meters you can watch tick up;

Favour points you can cash in later;

etc.

How different are these mechanical incentives from treasure or XP, really?

Your relationships with supposedly living, breathing beings are transformed into abilities for your character: skills you can train; powers you can reliably proc. Pump your relationship score with the orc tribe until calling on them for reinforcements becomes a once-per-month ability.

Relationships become contracts. Regard becomes debt. Put your friend in an ally slot, so they become a tool.

If this is what you want play to be---totally fine! As stated previously, games say powerful things when they portray the engines of profit and property.

But I personally don't think game designers should design employer-employee relationships and disguise these as instances of mutual aid.

+

Friends As Friends

In the OSR campaigns I'm part of, I keep forgetting to record money. Which is usually a big deal in such games, seeing as they are in the grand tradition of gold-for-XP?

In both games, my characters are still 1st-Level pukes, though it's been months.

I'm having a blast, anyway.

My GMs, by virtue of running organic, reactive worlds, have made play rewarding for me. NPCs / geographies remember the party's previous actions, and respond accordingly.

I've been given gills from a river god, after constant prayer;

I've befriended a village of monsters, where we now live;

I've parleyed with the witch of a whole forest, where we may now tread;

I've a boon from the touch of wood wose, after answering his summons.

I cannot count on the wood wose showing up. He is a character in the world, not a power I control. Calling on the wood wose might become a whole adventure.

Little of this stuff is codified my stats or abilities or equipment list. They are mostly all under "misc notes".

Diegetic growth. Narrative change that spirals into more play.

This is the design opportunity, to me:

How do we shape TTRPG play culture in such a way that the "misc notes" gaps in our games are as fun as the systemised bits? What kinds of orientation tools must we provide? What should we say, in our advice sections?

+

A Note About Trust

The reason why it is so hard to imagine play beyond conventional incentive structures has a lot to do with trust.

Sidney again:

One of the core issues is the "low trust table". I'm not designing just for myself but for my audience. For a product. How much can I ask purchasers and their friends to codesign this part with me?

Nerds love numbers and things we can write down in inventories or slots because they are sureties. We've learned to fear fiat or player discretion, traumatised as we are by Problem GMs or That Guys.

The reason why the poverty in Sidney's hypothetical ("righteous players are in rags") sounds so bad is because in truth it represents risk at the game table. If you don't participate in the mechanics legible to your ruleset (the XP and gear to do more game things), you risk gradually being excluded from play.

You have no assurance your fellow players will know how hold space for you; be considerate; work together to portray a living world where NPCs react in meaningful ways---in ways that will be fun and rewarding for everybody playing.

You are giving up the guarantee of mechanical relevance for the possibility of fun interactions and creative social play.

+

The "low trust table" is learned behaviour--the cruft of gamer culture and trauma.

When I game with folks new to TTRPGs, they tend to be decent, considerate. I think there's enough anecdotal evidence from folks playing with school kids / newcomers / etc to suggest my experience is not unique.

If the "low trust table" is indeed learned behaviour, it can be unlearned.

Which rules conventions, now part of the hobby mainstream, were the result of designers designing defensively---shadowboxing against terrible players and the spectre of "unfairness"?

How can we "undesign" such conventions?

Lack of trust is a problem that we have to address in play culture, not rulesets. You cannot cook a dish so good it forces diners to have good table manners.

+

This is too long already. I'll end with an observation:

Elfgames are not praxis, but doesn't this specific dilemma in the microcosm of our silly elfgames ultimately mirror real-world ethics?

To be moral is to trust in a better world; to be amoral / immoral is to hedge against the guarantee of a worse one.

+++

Further Reading

Some words from around the TTRPG community about incentive and advancement in games:

+

However, the reason there is a big debate about this is that behavioural incentives in games clearly do work, either entirely or at various levels. This applies outside gaming, as well. Why do advertising companies and retail business use "rewards" structures to convince people to buy more of their products? Why do people chase after "Likes" on social media?

A comment by Paul_T to "A Hypothesis on Behavioral Incentives" from a discussion on Story-Games.com

+

the structure and symbolism of the D&D game align with certain structures and values of patriarchy. The game is designed to last infinitely by shifting goalposts of character experience in terms of increasing amounts of gold pieces acquired; this resembles the modus operandi of phallic desire which seeks out object after object (most typically, women) in order to quench a lack which always reasserts itself.

D&D's Obsession With Phallic Desire from Traverse Fantasy

+

In short, my feeling is that rewarding players with character improvement in return for achieving goals in a specific way impedes some of the key strengths of TTRPGs for little or no benefit in return. 

Incentives from Bastionland

+

When good deeds arise naturally out of the players choices, especially when players rejected other options that were more beneficial to them, it is immensely satisfying. Far more than if players are just assumed to be heroic by default. It gives agency and meaning to player choice.

Make Players Choose To Be Kind from Cosmic Orrery

+

Much has been made about 1 GP = 1 XP as the core gameplay loop driver of TSR D+D. But XP for gold retrieved also winds up being something of a de facto capitalistic outlook as well. Success is driven by accumulation of individual wealth -- by an adventuring company, even! So what's a new framework that can be used for underpinning a leftist OSR campaign?

A Spectre (7+3 HD) Is Haunting the Flaeness: Towards a Leftist OSR from Legacy of the Bieth

+

Growth should be tied to a specific experience occurring in the fiction. It is more important for a PC to grow more interesting than more skilled or capable. PCs experience growth not necessarily because they’ve gotten more skill and experience, but because they are changed in a significant way.

Cairn FAQ from Cairn RPG / Yochai Gal

+++

Thank you Ram for the Story-Games.com deep cut!

( Image sources: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/neuron-activation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majesty:_The_Fantasy_Kingdom_Sim https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/special-reports-pdfs/10490978.pdf https://varnam.my/34311/untold-tales-of-indian-labourers-from-rubber-plantations-during-pre-independence-malaya/ https://nobonzo.com/ )

+

PS: used with permission from Sandro, art by Maxa', a reminder to self:

[spacerockfloater]

Yet another example of Team Black ass lickers playing victim

I’d really appreciate it if y’all could take some time out of your day and check this blogger out for this particular post they made about me.

I already replied but I felt the need to make a post of my own because they are out of their fucking mind!

This cockroach came into my post and called me a sick fuck for saying that Aemond taking revenge on Lucerys is not equal to Daemon ordering the execution of an infant in its crib, the latter being obviously way more unethical, and they absolutely lost their shit when I paid them back with the same coin. Like, the fuck did you think was going to happen?

Hey skank @mikasaerens , is this you?

Not only does your psychotic self come into my post and instead of sharing your opinion in a polite and civil manner, you choose to verbally assault me by calling me a “sick fuck who needs to be put into an asylum and a watchlist” over my opinion on a fictional character, but your lying ass has the audacity to paint me as the villain when I come swinging at you for being an offensive little twat? And claiming that you are the victim for sharing your opinion about said character?

Who the fuck are you trying to fool? Look at the rest of your replies, lunatic:

Own the shit you say. This all happened because of the language you used against me unprovoked, not because you shared an opinion! This all starts with you. You absolutely deserve every fucking thing I said about you. Crying “wolf” when you initiated this shitshow by having no manners is batshit insane behaviour. But I shouldn’t be surprised though, you are a Lucerys apologist after all. Sickening!

Try reaching out to public mental health facilities if you can because starting a fight and then thinking you and your friends are gonna make me feel bad for defending myself must be a whole new level of mass hysteria. I walk the talk, dickhead. Can’t say the same about you.

Tell your meatriders that have blocked me because they don’t have the balls to say whatever they want face to face I said hi! I’m always keeping it real. I’ll say whatever the fuck I want with my full chest. And it’s always somehow you lowlifes jumping into my posts, sending anon hate and being vile as shit, because never once in my life have I bothered to reply to you losers’ opinions or reach out to you! Seek help!

It’s such a fucking shame because I know plenty of Team Black fans that don’t act in the disgusting way you do, insect.

[haveyoureadthisdcfic]

Putting both hands over my mouth, I can only hope nothing's gonna come out

Authour: @hmslusitania

Subfandom: Batman, Superman

Media: Comics

Relationships: Shippy, Other (Tim Drake ~ Jon Kent, Tim Drake/Kon-El, Jon Kent/Damian Wayne)

Year: 2024

Summary:

“How unethical would it be to let him keep thinking we’re dating just to try and figure out what the hell is wrong with him?” The raised-eyebrow look Jon shoots Tim across the table is 100% Lois Lane. “On a scale from ‘this is completely hinged behaviour and not weird at all’ to ‘cloning him unsuccessfully ninety-nine times’?” Tim nods. “I don’t know,” Jon says. He thinks about it. “Probably like a four.” “So I probably shouldn’t do that,” Tim says. “Yeah, okay.” He reaches for his phone to start trying to undo the rumour Duke has inadvertently started, but Jon clears his throat. “On the other hand,” he says with an uncertain smile. “That would probably piss Damian off enough that he’d actually talk to me.” OR Tim and Jon pretend to date, mostly by accident, and no one is well about it. Because being in your early 20s is all about making the worst decisions of your life.

Submitted by anon

Submitter's comments:

You ever read a fic and every time the characters do something you're like "oh. Oh no. Do literally anything else." but also those terrible choices are sooooo tasty so you race on ahead to see what other bad choices they can make? I love characters who are allergic to talking about their feelings especially when like 2 sentences would solve the whole plot, and this fic is a shining example. 10/10 premise, 11/10 execution

MOD'S comments:

Fascinating trainwreck. Beautiful disaster. All about love, but the type of love that I can relate to - devotion, fondness, enjoyment, commitment. Also, they're all dumb, and it's SO in character!

[transmutationisms]

In regards to full bodily autonomy, how do you relate that in regards to anti vaxxers? Or other such cases where the line between harming oneself and harming others seems to become blurred

first of all i've already said i think the bodily autonomy defence of anti vaxx actions is a bit of a smokescreen. there are a lot of different things going on here: first and foremost ableism (both the flagrant disregard for the lives of disabled people---which is really just a reproduction of capitalist valorisation of human lives exclusively on the basis of the profit they can generate via working---and the fear of vaccine injury that leads people to actually place themselves at more risk from the diseases themselves because they think they're avoiding adverse effects, whether real or of the wakefield autism conspiracy variety). this is also an issue that we should expect to see given the relationship between public health authorities and the state, as well as the ongoing legacy of deeply unethical and harmful behaviour from physicians, medical guilds, and so forth. reluctance to trust medical authorities is not irrational or even unwise, even though in the case of vaccines it can lead to pretty tragic and harmful outcomes. i also think that sometimes low vaccination rates are automatically assumed to be the result of vaccine hesitancy, but this isn't always true. for example, in a country without paid time off or universal health care, accessing a vaccine (and recovering from any mild symptoms it may cause) is not always simple; all the messaging in the world doesn't fix this type of materialist access issue.

but to answer your question within the framework proffered: it is generally understood that bodily autonomy does not entitle you to harm other people. if someone wanted to remain unvaccinated and literally never interact with another human being, i truly would not care. the issue is that in the case of vaccination, simply being around others when you are unvaccinated is the action that carries a risk of harm to them. the same way that living in society with others places limits on my ability to swing a loaded handgun in any direction i please, or to shout "fire" in public places, it also means i can no longer walk around unvaccinated with impunity. we accept in other cases that if we want to be around other people, we must sometimes live by certain codes of conduct. i think the framing of vaccine refusal as an autonomy issue is hiding the fact that people who genuinely refuse to get vaccinated either don't care about spreading infections or don't think that refusing vaccines will actually affect the spread of such infections. which, again, circles back to issues of ableism (disregard for vulnerable people they're around) or misunderstanding (sometimes wilful) of epidemiological claims made by experts and institutions.

[dailyanarchistposts]

Stance on egoism (rational/ethical) vs. altruism?

Do you think altruism is possible? If it’s not, and everything everybody does revolves around self-interest (i.e. what they will get out of it), then why not choose Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (I fucking hate it and her with a burning passion) and laissez-faire capitalism (equally hated)? As according to egoist thought, it’s unethical/immoral to put others before the self. The way it is argued seems to make it impossible to disprove or even deny. Thoughts on this?

ipc

Your question isn’t taking into an account other egoisms that exist, especially Stirner’s egoism, which is quite different that Rand’s. You are right to say that Rand’s stance was that it is unethical/immoral to be altruistic or do anything altruistic, but ethics and morality would be of no concern to Stirner in deciding what sort of action to take. So Stirner’s stance would be that one could do something altruistic if they wanted to, or they could do something non-altruistic instead, it all comes down to what that individual decides to do and this decision is made with no consideration of what is considered “good” or “bad”, “Moral”or “immoral”, “ethical” or “unethical”, etc.

ing

Let’s leave aside philosophy for a moment and go to the behaviour of animals and humans. Science have shown that animals and humans both engage in war and collaborate.

Peter Kropotkin in his book “Mutual Aid: A factor of Evolution” showed that the not so visible side of success in species survival is collaboration inside the species against others or in mere self-survival.

Egoism can be said to be the direct logical linguistic opposite of altruism yet like every binary operation it is not that simple. Max Stirner himself said: “Who, then, is “self-sacrificing?”[Literally, “sacrificing”; the German word has not the prefix “self.”] In the full sense, surely, he who ventures everything else for one thing, one object, one will, one passion. Is not the lover self-sacrificing who forsakes father and mother, endures all dangers and privations, to reach his goal? Or the ambitious man, who offers up all his desires, wishes, and satisfactions to the single passion, or the avaricious man who denies himself everything to gather treasures, or the pleasure-seeker, etc.? He is ruled by a passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices.

And are these self-sacrificing people perchance not selfish, not egoist? As they have only one ruling passion, so they provide for only one satisfaction, but for this the more strenuously, they are wholly absorbed in it. Their entire activity is egoistic, but it is a one-sided, unopened, narrow egoism; it is possessedness.”

So one can be egoistic and also be altruistic at the same time if this things outside me is of my love or desire. It is clear “egoism” and “self interest” is involved here but of course it is also altruistic. And so for example gift economies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy) could be superficially identified and mostly altruistic relationships but this is not exactly the case. Anarchist antropologist David Graeber when speaking about french antropologist Marcel Mauss says:

Instead, what anthropologists were discovering were societies where economic life was based on utterly different principles, and most objects moved back and forth as gifts and almost everything we would call ‘economic’ behavior was based on a pretense of pure generosity and a refusal to calculate exactly who had given what to whom. Such ‘gift economies’ could on occasion become highly competitive, but when they did it was in exactly the opposite way from our own: Instead of vying to see who could accumulate the most, the winners were the ones who managed to give the most away. In some notorious cases, such as the Kwakiutl of British Columbia, this could lead to dramatic contests of liberality, where ambitious chiefs would try to outdo one another by distributing thousands of silver brace-lets, Hudson Bay blankets or Singer sewing ma-chines, and even by destroying wealth sinking famous heirlooms in the ocean, or setting huge piles of wealth on fire and daring their rivals to do the same...In gift economies, Mauss argued, exchanges do not have the impersonal qualities of the capitalist marketplace: In fact, even when objects of great value change hands, what really matters is the relations between the people; exchange is about creating friendships, or working out rivalries, or obligations, and only incidentally about moving around valuable goods. As a result everything becomes personally charged, even property: In gift economies, the most famous objects of wealth heirloom necklaces, weapons, feather cloaks always seem to develop personalities of their own.

So gift economies include motivations that don’t appear out of something similar to “christian love” but of other “egoistic” tendencies such as the desire of prestige and recognition as well as keeping good relations with those who can help me in the future.

Hakim Bey thus establishes this bridge in this way:

The essence of the party: face-to-face, a group of humans synergize their efforts to realize mutual desires, whether for good food and cheer, dance, conversation, the arts of life; perhaps even for erotic pleasure, or to create a communal artwork, or to attain the very transport of bliss—in short, a ‘union of egoists’ (as Stirner put it) in its simplest form—or else, in Kropotkin’s terms, a basic biological drive to ‘mutual aid.’ (Here we should also mention Bataille’s ‘economy of excess’ and his theory of potlatch culture.)

So a union of egoists is a form of mutual aid. Mutual Aid is not the same as “christian love”. Mutual aid is something done in the self-interest of both sides.

squ

I am not satisfied with the paradoxical assumptions of subjectivity that support the concept of altruism. But, I am also not satisfied with a constrained concept of subjectivity/self/ego/”I” (from now on just “ego”). This is all tied up in the way that I understand subjectivity to begin with.

That what we recognize as the ego is an expression of complicated cognitive processes which make it possible for the boundaries of ego to fluctuate: that the ego is capable of identifying with, appropriating, connecting, or otherwise expanding to include other minds, bodies, objects, and images. From the studies in developmental psychology that I’ve read, it appears that the ego shrinks through development as theory of mind develops, as a sense of self recedes from an undifferentiated identification with all that is perceived. And from other studies of subjectivity the ego appears capable of redefining its boundaries to various extents: whether as a transcendental experience, a psychotic break, consummate love (sometimes), empathy, and/or less powerful experiences of identification with others.

So, if the ego is more of this sort of concept, then egoism is also less bound. If my sense of self can expand to include you (or at the very least, my self-image and the image of you are intricately bound up with each other), then my behavior is no longer towards you... but towards myself. At the same time, if my sense of self doesn’t expand to include you and I regard you as an other, I would enter into a self-other relationship and be more or less consider-ate. I could reason that my self-interests include the happiness of those around me and wind up with an ‘enlightened self-interest’ or I could reason that it’s better to be calloused towards the conditions of others and wind up with a ethic like Ayn Rand’s.

If the ego is fairly amorphous and an ethics rooted in a static ego is embraced, is that being true to the ego? Even worse, if the ego is the expression of more fundamental psychological patterns that use it for their unknown fulfillment... is it really the ego that can be the grounds for an ethics? What if ego and environment are so intricately entangled that it would make more sense to comprehend them as shades of a common experience and not actually separate beings?

Why not choose Ayn Rand’s Objectivism? Who the fuck wants to live in a world filled with miserable people?

Why put others before the self? Interdependence... my existence depends upon some others to such an extent that there is no clean cut in our reciprocal relations.

Is altruism possible? Only to the extent that it includes the ego, even if that inclusion is through some sort of identification.

[imissthembutitwasntadisaster]

See idk man but the thing about anthropology was that it was originally conceived way back as a way to study non-western cultures and as an outcome of that, explain why western cultures were inherently better, it existed in large part to defend imperialism. And obviously that changed and it changed because a lot of anthropologists said this is wrong, but that was the discipline! The discipline WAS imperialist to its core. You didn't say there were the real anthropologists who didn't do that and the fake ones who did, the fake ones were real anthropologists too because the very fabric of the academic field existed for this purpose. Right? And if you called yourself an anthropologist but you disagreed with this idea you still had to understand you were in a field with its very core rooted in this idea and that idea will affect your behaviour in subtle ways you might hardly recognise (it still does today! Anthropologists of colour tend to be the ones assumed to study their "own people" while white anthropologists are sent off to study "the other" just to name one example)

So part of my struggle with wtrk is that archaeology, not exactly the same but like, the grave-robbing aspect wasn't something separate from the western concept of archaeology, it was rooted in it, it was woven into it. So the idea that Inez's parents were like no we're the real archaeologists and they're the evil fake ones, that's not how it could have worked! And Inez and her family do not seem to be addressing that in participating in this field without publically taking a stand against this approach (rather just hiding their finds) they are passively condoning it AND acting in a way shaped by it (they think they have a right to control what is done with and who sees the artefacts) without acknowledging their complicity. They can't claim that they're archaeologists and the British archaeolgists are "nothing more than grave-robbers" because they have to understand that the very discipline of archaeology comes with that unethical behaviour alongside and within it during the time period.

[boreal-sea]

Hey, about your 'fictional characters can't be disrespectful, they aren't real and can't be objected etc' post. By saying this you're saying that there is no such problem as female objectivization in games and other products which is not right. It's like you justify tons of tons of bad fanservice designes and, for example, hentai artworks or writing including rapes. You are a feminist, right? You should have been giving a thought about it, because such things done to the fictional characters WILL hurt real women around the world because they form men's opinions about women and I mean sexist opinions. You may also add here a homophobic/transphobic and racist problems, when some people change fandom characters gender or orientation or paint them with a different skin tone (note that I'm also about white characters who suddenly turn to others colours). All of this caused by objectivization because people think they can change character they like and this is just unacceptable. Next, you wrote that you can't disrespectful fictional characters, but doing such bad things to characters that don't belong to you is a disrespectful towards their creators, like you said you can write a tentacle porn with some characters, this doesn't make you a bad man but if those characters don't belong to you, then sorry, but you'll show your luck of respect to their creator especially if that person is against such things. Like, you objectivizate and make fanservice things with their characters. Also saying that fictional characters aren't real (which is true of course) and they are just things is also very unethical towards those who create them. Try to say such things to any who made some characters and world where they live. Many people add some of their own traits, habits or behaviour patterns and spend a lot of their time dedicating to their characters so you may think a little better. And I think, you can't just say to people they don't have a right to treat their characters as living persons or kids, in any case let people to chose their own treatment

So, I was approaching this seriously until I got to the bottom where you being hand-wringing about how treating characters badly disrespects the creators of those characters, and then I realised you are a person with some extremely internalized Christian guilt and puritanism and a huge heaping of sexual oppression.

Please stop applying your morals and your hangups about sex and sexuality onto other people.

Below is everything I wrote addressing your points up until I hit the fandom nonsense.

---

You are doing what everyone else on that post is doing: you are conflating how a character is treated/depicted and whether or not that harms the character with how that can theoretically affect real people in the real world.

Real people and characters are not the same thing. The inability to separate these two concepts is causing endless problems.

The female character being sexualized is not hurt by sexualization for the same reason she is not "empowered" by it: she does not have agency because she is not a person. I bring up empowerment because a lot of the guys who try to claim this kind of sexualization is fine do so by claiming the sexualization is "empowering" the female character. She is not actually making the choice to dress in a flimsy skin-tight outfit, the artist is making that choice. Therefore, she cannot be harmed or empowered by it.

As many feminists involved in this debate have noted, it is not the existence of a sexualized female character that is the problem, it is the ubiquitous nature of this type of representation. It is in fact fine to draw a sexualized female character. It becomes a reflection on society as a whole when every depiction of a female character is sexualized - when every female superhero wears skin-tight latex, for example. This is especially true when she is sexualized in ways that reveal the patriarchy's ideal picture of what a woman should look like, namely thin and white.

The existence of material that sexualizes women is not the problem. I am an explicitly sex-positive and kink-positive feminist. I enjoy all the things you listed as problematic. I like noncon, I like rape fantasies, I've even enjoyed some hentai and porn in my day. I am the wrong feminist to fearmonger about "bad kink" to.

As for your hand wringing about how fanfic is "disrespecting the creators" - No, it's not. I'm not even going to go into a big long discussion on this one. You're being silly. Nothing a fan does to a character can affect the canon character in any way, shape or form.

[thenightfolknetwork]

Hello!!

I don't know how to explain so I will probably ramble a bit, before, yk, actually explaining.

So, I have this friend, they are of this analogue-to-god species. They look like sapio enough I guess, I'm no expert on this subject and sapios are kind of basic.

Of course, unlike sapios, they have the typical symbols of a deity: hands with wounds, an eye on the tongue and the most beautiful horns, intertwined around the entire skull like a crown and yeah, I also think they're super badass, even without the miracles and powers and everything.

The fact is that they are having problems at university. We don't know who, but someone is filling their dorm room with these most horrible notes about them being a freak or a demon (which isn't bad, but it's said in such an offensive way) and someone just shoved all their books in one of the university lakes and now they are banned from borrowing any more books and I helped them make a formal complaint and still no one will do anything about it! My friend is incredibly sweet and kind, they can't hurt a fly, even though they definitely damaged space time when he was born, but who hasn't?

The thing is, we recently discovered who was behind it and we've come to an agreement: maybe it's time to teach them why they called us monsters in the first place. A little payback? Installing a bit of fear of god on their souls? Nothing permanent of course. Nothing that could be tracked back to us either. But if these bastards think we are freaks, well we can behave like ones.

Still, I don't know. They don't know either. When is it revenge and when is it simply survival? I don't believe that if you break a nazi's arm you're equal to one. I do believe that a Nazi with one arm has one arm less to make Nazi stuff. Anyway, we need advice.

This is an extremely difficult situation, reader, and I'm so sorry you and your friend have been put in this position. I agree, it is a ridiculous bit of rhetorical nonsense to say that anyone acting against bigoted behaviour is “just as bad” as their aggressor. It is one thing to take violent objection to a person's (violent) behaviour. It is another thing entirely to object to a person's mere existence.

All this said, I am simply not in a position to condone violence towards this person, much less encourage you to any particular act. This blog is not a private conversation, and it would be highly irresponsible of me to say anything about your situation which might be construed as encouraging violence.

I must say, I am frankly appalled at your institution's lack of response. Please do double check your university's harassment policy. You have every right to demand action in accordance to that policy, especially if you have evidence of who it is behind these attacks.

If they continue to drag their feet, you might explore other ways of putting pressure on them to act. Peaceful protests, letter-writing campaigns, or going to the press with the story of their failure to protect vulnerable students are just some of the ways you can press the issue.

I also feel obliged to mention the possibility of getting the police involved. This seems to me a rather clear-cut case of harassment, but I understand if your friend does not consider this a viable option. Goodness knows the police have done little enough to earn the trust of the liminal community over the years, and you must be led by your own personal politics.

All of this to say that there are other options here, and I encourage you to explore all of them before resorting to violence. As I said, I cannot possibly condone violence on this platform – no matter how extremely tempting it might be to do so. Besides, if this person were, for example, to suffer some kind of extremely painful and humiliating accident, you and your friend would be the most obvious suspects.

Besides, it would be extremely unethical of you to curse this person to within an inch of their life, causing them never to know a moment's peace, plagued as they are by visions of a world more horrible than they ever imagined. Under no circumstances should you and your friend stand your ground, bare your teeth, and show this revolting excuse for a human being the true meaning of monstrosity. Certainly not.

[For more creaturely advice, check out Monstrous Agonies on your podcast platform of choice, or visit monstrousproductions.org for more info]

[greenbirdtrash]

hey Kers, Im so sorry for your loss. You loved her so much and she loved you, waiting to spend her last moments with you. Im about to go through this too, and while this isnt a message about me, I wanted to tell you that all your love and hard work isnt in vain. Even if you couldnt stop the inevitable, you gave your little ratty such a good and comfortable life. Please, let yourself cry, smash something, howl in pain, let the whole world know.

what were some of Flea’s favorite things to do? what are the little moments that will stay with you forever? can you share some of them when you’re ready to?

Thank you mutual, i appreciate you reaching out with support *sobs*

I'm still reflecting on everything, of course all the good memories will remain, but i can tell that my pain is slowly subsiding as the time goes. I really did the the best i could, even if it feels so, so short, it was a whole life for her..

Her favourite things tho..She always was the first one to hop outside and explore new things and places, Fly was mostly following her lead with things, being a bit more cautious, and unlike her sister watching her feels like she's always calculating something in that tiny head before taking any action, and sometimes she refuses to do stuff if she doesn't feel like it. They had such different personalities and even tastes (for example, Flea despised strawberries and some greens, but went completely crazy for dried corn and cucumbers, and her sister will eat just about anything i offer), but Fly's behaviour has changed completely now...Less active and willing to explore/be social with me, I know it's rather unethical to keep a single rat knowing they're highly social animals, but I'm slowly warming up to the idea of finding her a cagemate of around the same age in a few months or so...I don't know yet nor i feel ready for it. So many things are to be considered

Flea also loved our training sessions as far as i coud tell, being so eager to try new tricks and get rewards, insnely quick learner, energetic and very people-oriented, she generally wasn't afraid of anything till the very end..Even her daily shots (some of which were rather painful even when diluted), she never bit me or refused to come to me for a treat when called after enduring all that.

I miss her so much.

[stranger-in-glasses]

TL;DR: Communication is actually the least of Crowley and Aziraphale’s problems. And working on communication alone would not have changed the outcome of Crowley’s confession.

I am saddened (but not really surprised) that so many people see communication as a “magic pill” that will solve all the problems in the world. The fan reaction to the Good Omens’ second season is a perfect example of that.

Yes, Aziraphale and Crowley do have a communication problem. But they also have genuine differences in their experiences and behavioural patterns, and they both have their own deep traumas. They cannot just “communicate their way out of” them.

And they do communicate. Crowley did tell Aziraphale what Heaven tried to do (when Crowley says “This is Archangel Gabriel, who tried to cast you into hellfire” in the first episode, Aziraphale is not surprised; they had this discussion before). Granted, he might have spared Aziraphale the more horrible details because he cares about his feelings, but the truth is: even if he did tell him about everything in detail, it would not have changed anything. Aziraphale would either not have believed him (“Would I lie to you?” — “Obviously, you’re a demon”) or he might have found countless excuses for Heaven to do what they did (“I’m a fallen angel! I lied to thwart the will of God!”). Aziraphale may not look like one might imagine a typical cult victim, but there are enough parallels between his behaviour and how people involved in cults behave (black and white thinking, ignoring the unethical behaviour of cult leaders, the idea that “we (members of the cult) are holy, everybody else is fallen”… the list can go on and on). Have you tried to talk to somebody who is in a cult about the horrible things that their cult leaders do? Even if you tell them that their cult violates children, it will have no effect. They will either think that you are lying (and they might stop talking to you completely after that) or they will find some excuses or some “greater meaning” in this (remember how Aziraphale reacted to the Flood?). Because that’s how being in a cult works. It’s a psychological defence mechanism. Aziraphale’s mind cannot handle the cognitive dissonance between “we are the good guys” and “Heaven does terrible things”, so it just shuts down the very possibility. Crowley DOES communicate, time and time again, he just cannot get through. And it’s not Aziraphale’s fault, either. He has been manipulated, gaslit and guilt-tripped for so long that his mind had to develop defence mechanisms to survive. It’s not that he doesn’t want to listen to Crowley, he just cannot hear the truth at the moment. And this is something that cannot be solved with communication. Many loved ones of people who are in a cult make the mistake of thinking that “If I just tell them how horrible these people are, they will see the truth” and only end up alienating the person, which leaves the person even more lonely and vulnerable to the cult’s manipulation, and their loved ones burn out trying to get the person out of the cult. It is a difficult task even for professionals. It is NOT a “communication problem”, you cannot simply talk the person out of it (well, maybe in early stages, but not after 6000+ years of being in a cult). I am not an expert, so I am not entirely certain about it, but I assume that what could help the rehabilitation is putting as much distance between the person and the cult as possible, integrating them into the life outside of the cult by participating in its activities (both of which Crowley has been trying to do with Aziraphale), and giving the person a community outside of the cult to give them a sense of belonging. But I assume it only works if the person has already left the cult. And since Heaven can literally be omnipresent, the danger of relapse is always there. I guess what can get Aziraphale out at this point is witnessing the atrocities firsthand, from the inside. And no, simply hearing Crowley talk about them will not help. Crowley can give Aziraphale a three-month-long PowerPoint presentation about everything that Heaven did, and it will not get through. They have vastly different experiences with Heaven. Aziraphale needs to see things with his own eyes to really understand. The fact is that all of us process what we are being told through the prism of our own experiences. And this difference in experiences is not something one can just “communicate away”. Sometimes to understand each other’s points and change perspectives, people need to acquire different experiences than they had before. In the most practical, hands-on way. Just talking about it will not help.

Crowley also has his own problem, a very strong “flight” part of the “fight-or-flight” response. Of course, he tried to “fight”, long ago, when he fought in the “glorious revolution”. And he was hurt, badly, as a result (going to Hell, where “his lot does not send rude notes” but rips out tongues and throws people into pits on daily basis). Understandably, nowadays when he feels a threat, he immediately switches into the “flight” mode (he is fixated on the idea of running away to Alpha Centauri). Which also probably means that he will always keep running and will never feel entirely safe or at home anywhere, until he learns, again, other ways to react. At the moment he is unable to admit that he cares about Earth enough to stick around. He probably tells himself that he only stayed because of Aziraphale. Now he has a chance to go anywhere he pleases. So he might find himself going to Alpha Centauri (or another place in the universe far from Earth) and finding out that he misses Earth. Or he might find out that, even without Aziraphale, he is not ready to leave the Earth. But he needs to discover that for himself, in practice. This is not something that Aziraphale can “communicate” him into understanding. Some things one needs to find out in reality, by trying things and seeing the outcomes. Also, Crowley has been very fixated on Aziraphale: rescuing him, being there for him even when Aziraphale seemingly rejected him (“We are not friends! We are an angel and a demon! I don’t even like you”, “There is no our side, not anymore”), risking his own complete destruction for Aziraphale’s safety. Crowley needs to learn how to exist on his own and find something else that matters to him. Otherwise their relationship is unbalanced. Aziraphale can do anything to Crowley and Crowley will just take it and come back no matter what. Of course, Aziraphale would never hurt Crowley on purpose, but he can, and has, hurt him unintentionally plenty of times, without even realising it. They both have to change their behaviour in this respect. Crowley needs to learn to establish his personal boundaries with Aziraphale, and the angel needs to learn to respect them. Meanwhile, Crowley needs to learn how to let go of control when it comes to Aziraphale’s safety and trust that the angel is able to handle things on his own, without Crowley rescuing him. And Aziraphale needs to learn to trust himself and his own capabilities as well. And all of this, again, cannot be solved with communication alone. Sure, communication would help in this instance. But it would only be the first step: for them to talk and figure out what they need to change. However, it is only around 10% if solution. After that comes the actual work of both of them changing their behavioural patterns, their long-term habits and automatic responses. And that work is long and tedious, full of missteps, relapses, trial and error, where many things need to be figured out in practice, by actually doing them and not simply talking about them.

In other words, the idea that “Crowley’s confession would have a different outcome if they just talked to each other” is very naive. Yes, there was miscommunication, but they did talk, a lot. And they could have talked and listened even more. But none of that would have changed the ending. Crowley and Aziraphale have very different experiences with Heaven, and they both have their own traumatic responses. None of that can be solved through communication alone. Real, actual actions and experiences, on the other hand, may change things for them. Communication is important, yes, but it is not a “magic pill” (take it from someone who has been to couple’s therapy). It will not solve real differences, it can only highlight them, make them visible. And then one actually needs to work on them, in practice. Problems don’t automatically solve themselves “if you just talk about them”. Communication is necessary but not sufficient.

That being said, I believe that both characters right now are exactly where they need to be to work on their problems. Aziraphale has a chance to see how Heaven really is with his own eyes, and Crowley has a chance to stop running away on his own and find something (like Earth and humanity) to stick around and care for aside from Aziraphale. Without this, they would probably never stand a chance of building a future together.

[hussyknee]

Def a good idea to delete theculturedmarxist’s stuff, he’s also a big-time propagandist/genocide denier type. It sucks that some tankies have gotten bigger platforms recently by strike blogging.

But yeah the banana thing is insane, I *think* the original poster was using it as an example of the fact that a more just society in the US is necessarily going to be a less convenient one because convenience often comes at the expense of (domestic and international) labor exploitation, and “non-domestic crops being available year-round” is an example of a luxury that came out of said exploitation, which is A Point (though I might’ve picked something like Amazon same-day delivery to argue it…)

But then people ran with it and made it about either How Do We Stop Big Banana Through Socialism or Here’s How Bananas Can Still Win. Both at the dehumanizing expense of now-theoretical Latin American laborers of course 🙃

Oh shit that's what's happening? Tankies coasting in on strike blogging?? Gdi.

Yeah I think that was the original point too. The thing is, that US leftists keep centering US consumer demand in everything, like the entire system of global labour and resource exploitation by multinational conglomerates, aided and abetted by the IMF and World Bank and the entire colonial power matrix, can be solved by yelling at enough people about their consumption. For people who are so obsessed with class, it seems to consistently escape them that Global North consumers are also exploited and disempowered by the same oligopolies and monopolies that pay producers pennies on the dollar and sell for prices that smaller and entry-level companies can't compete with. Even as an example, bananas in the US are priced way lower than what's profitable, just to keep a monopoly of consumers. And because so many companies in the West don't pay working class people a fair wage, they have to consume the cheapest, most convenient food stuffs. So when you talk about people reducing consumption of bananas, you're asking people dependent on the cheapest nutrient sources to bear the biggest loss.

This is exactly what we mean by "no ethical consumption under capitalism". It doesn't mean we give up on the entire issue, it means that the systems of production cannot be manipulated by consumer boycotts and individual ethics. Even if one product was taken off the shelves, whatever supplanted it would be just as unethical for some group of people. It means that the solutions need to be implemented top-down, not bottom up. Global North governments need to better regulate corporate behaviour, prioritise the well-being of workers and ecological chains involving production and transport, prevent monopolies by regulating prices, and encourage and incentivize local food supply networks. And also, as some from Colombia said in a reblog about the cocaine industry, economic stress must be taken off developing nations by forgiving their IMF and World Bank loans so that they can invest the profits from their export industries in reforming agriculture and social welfare systems.

I literally do not understand why, when people directly impacted by these conditions have clear and cohesive demands and action plans, Western liberals and leftists need to come up with these completely abstract, impractical, ego-centric bullshit to create endless discourse over. They don't actually care about engaging with activists, grassroots organizations and unions in the Global South, because that involves interrogating their own paternalism, privilege and bias, and narrows the scope for the clout-chasing dunk economy.

[opiatemasses]

Is fandom bigger than football?

Football fandom has its highs and lows. Conversely, excessive fandom can tarnish the sport. This issue came to the fore recently at a European fixture at Villa Park.

30th November 2023, Aston Villa versus Legia Warsaw - a night of history building for the ‘Villans’. Yet the immoral behaviours of a select group of opposing fans, dimmed the light on proceedings. Pre-game planned and targeted Violence struck fear and uncertainty to the safety of those involved.

This season alone, there has been similar issues seen at the Newcastle versus PSG fixture as well as AC Milan in their home Champions League game. This pattern of behaviour is cause for concern in the running of European competitions.

In this intense environment, I’ve learnt to appreciate that acting critically as a fan is the idyllic way to express emotions. A critical fan is one who exercises their loyalty to a team or individual, it can involve ‘attempting to change your team or fellow fans for the better.’

Some fans act critically in a space of passion and unity, binding individuals together. However, not all as seen with the examples above. This raises the question – where is the change in their behaviours going to come from?

A catalyst for resulting actions

Current unruly behaviour in sports stadia is a catalyst for so many contemporary issues within football such as hooliganism, misogyny and violence. This, I believe, is why the microscope should be targeted towards addressing excessive spectatorship in the hope resulting issues can be tempered.

Integrity: a guide to follow

Individual integrity is a fundamental cog in a progressive society. Yet the actions we saw at Villa Park suggest there’s a negligence by some to act morally in a shared space. This shared space or  Imagined community of horizontal unity, is a great way to depict how actions in a public setting should take into consideration of those around.

Can fandom exist without getting out of control? It is in my contention that until there’s widespread awareness of the issues outlined, there won’t be any significant change.

A deep-rooted matter

We know that examples of unrestrained fandom are not just of present times. The impact of traditions and role models has only seemed to expose and encourage younger generations to express negative behaviours. This is why I call for change and action to limit the future impact of unethical behaviour within football.

Spectatorship is intense due to its embedded interest. However, the Villa Park example fails to accept that affiliation and devotion is an acceptable reason to act un-morally.

It seems as the stage grows, as the stakes increase, the acts of loyalty by fans are in danger of taking over the sporting event itself. Without digesting into more examples, I take you back to the England Euros Final where the actions of individuals eclipsed this event.  I ask, will excessive fandom always have a damning societal effect?

Sportswashing

Football is commonly characterised as being about passion, togetherness and community. These are the values that should be upheld and celebrated, rather than the unruly behaviours that shine a negative light onto the game.

Minimising and normalising unjust fans' actions turns the shoulder on fronting this current issue within football. This ‘glossing’ over of repetitive negative actions, begs the question – can there ever be a complete control of unmoral behaviours within the sport?

A fan’s perspective

Camaraderie. inclusion. Escape. Passion. These words encapsulate what it means to be a supporter. Spectatorship brings a sense of belonging, it’s a form of escapism.

However, this escapism has its dangers - the excessive loyalties manifest at Villa Park, resulted in violence and the re-emergence of the negative fan stereotypes that exist within football, such as: misogyny, aggression and abuse. How would you feel knowing your safety is uncertain when attending these matches, especially European ones?

Why now and where next?

The recent examples of excessive fandom re-iterates the notion that this is a current and ongoing issue that needs widespread attention. By increasing awareness of this issue, my hope is that we can help put the focus on what it means to be a critical fan. By doing this I believe there can be a greater emphasis on enjoying the game and appreciating those around us to bind fandom and football in a more progressive society.

Do you agree that tackling excessive fandom, could stimulate a positive response for other current issues within football such as sexism, racism, and violence?

N0981409

[quantumnori]

My opinions on controversial shifting topics

Disclaimer - Regardless of what anyone says, if people want to shift to do problematic things, they will regardless. I think it’s appropriate to have conversations to hold people accountable for promoting others to shift for the same unruly behaviour. Telling others what they can and cannot do with their own Desired realities only creates divide here, it won’t change their actions unless they themselves chooses to.

Without further ado, let’s start

Race Changing - I think purely shifting for the pheno-asethetic of a race/ethnicity is weird, no cultural background or reasoning attached. I think shifting with a sensitivity around how complex racism and fetishisation is possible in a respectful way. You already exist in your desired realities, so if you really do want to be Asian for example because you think they’re “pretty”, theoretically you can, it’s just a bit strange and you will receive commentary and criticism if you share that information publicly.

Aging yourself up/down controversy - Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, the people who have expressed their concern around the topics are valid. In saying that, I would like to bring a new perspective to specifically the “Adults Shifting for Minors as a Minor” discussion. As an adult, going b-line shifting as a minor for a minor even if it’s in your favourite piece of media is unethical to me. What I would suggest instead is, shifting for the purpose of experiencing your DR as a child, not scripting any romantic related scripts for the minor in question and instead naturally trying to build a relationship with them naturally. I think that approach is more fair, there’s more autonomy for the minor in question, as in if they aren’t interested then they aren’t. Don’t shift around the minor, shift around being a minor and branching out from there in that desired reality, in my opinion shifting with the minor as the focus in your adult mind in your current reality is pedophelia. Now, for the concern around “Minors shifting as adults, then coming back to a reality where they’re a child having potentially harmful adult memories/experiences”. This topic is more complex, I think the best thing we can do about that is not encourage it. Minors who have had unsupervised internet access or have been exposed to things that aren’t age appropriate are going to shift to things that may not be safe for them if they want to. The best that we as a community can do is advise against it, try our best to provide guidance, then embrace those who are affected by their experiences unbiasedly. We can’t stop people from shifting wherever they want, so there’s no point in shaming/berating them to attempt to stop what they’re doing, in this case.

No matter how much we disagree with something, we should still always try to approach it respectfully.

We can’t control anyone but ourselves, but we can still set an example for others. Getting overtly mad over the actions of others, trying to ruin their lives for the rest of eternity because of something they said online, unless their actions could actively harm someone in real life the behaviour is unnecessary. You can generally tell if someone’s actions are from a place of genuine intent to harm or from a place of being misinformed.

I hope this provides some kind of insight, happy shifting!.

[adj4mp]

An Ethical Framework

I realised that we kind of need an ethics code for all industries law. So I outlined this in a discussion with a friend

Any industry or job title where any individual receives pay in excess of twice the median income is required to have a public ethics code to which all people with that job title or role are contractually bound.

Those ethics standards must include at least the following items

To not commit crimes as part of your job

To report up the chain, to the OfEWP and relevant law enforcement when crimes are committed

Looking out for the well-being of subordinates

Ensuring the actions taken are in the long-term interest of the organisation

etc etc (I am sure there are hundreds of suggestions that could be made please comment your own)

And may include additional items depending on the job role, responsibilities and public perception.

We are creating the Office for Ethical Working Practices OfEWP, who will be responsible for providing the guidance and moderation for the various codes of ethics proposed by industries and taking public feedback on both the practicality and reasonable expectations of the various Ethical Codes that may be produced by industry bodies, unions or other organisations empowered to produce an ethical framework.

Where some job title or job role exists that doesn't have a professional body to help with the production of an ethical framework the OfEWP will be able to maintain and provide on request the currently agreed ethical standards.

Example roles at the time of publication include:

CEO

COO

CFO

Director

Executive

Senior Manager

Board Member

This is not an extensive list

Where creative naming of job titles is used to avoid a particular ethical framework the OfEWP is empowered to determine all the appropriate Ethical Frameworks based on a list of job responsibilities, where more than one is necessary to cover all responsibilities the person would be bound by law to all those frameworks.

Where Ethics codes are violated we give the courts power to enforce earnings restrictions and job role restrictions for those who use unethical practices, violations of these restrictions will incur fines starting at the total earned above the restrictions and jail time.

Where the OfEWP and an industry body cannot agree on an ethical framework the OfEWP can require the withholding/garnishment of 10% of salary for each person with that job role, this money is to be retained by the government/OfEWP until the ethical framework is agreed, sanctioned money will be returned after no more than 12 months without any accrued interest and only after the resolution of the ethical framework dispute.

However I feel I'd need to dress it up in legalese and address some of the gaping omissions in how it's written above

This idea is roughly in line with Wylie's suggestion about industry ethics law in the Cambridge Analytica book I read not too long ago

Twice the median income seems like a reasonable cut-off at ~£70k currently in the UK. I'd imagine most industries with anyone over £50k would come together, establish an industry body and agree an ethical framework aspirationally

I think that having an 'independent' body responsible for the maintenance of ethical standards is necessary or you face easy corruption through parliament. The development of ethical frameworks is kind of beyond the scope of parliament anyway.

I think the sanctions need to be real not simply a vanishingly small fine.

If someone was limited to "a median salary equivalent annual income" by the courts and they lie and get paid millions then they should be fined all the money they should never have been able to earn.

If someone is limited from certain job roles or jobs that require certain ethical requirements for 5-10 years that would also be reasonable as a way of discouraging unethical behaviour individually.

There might need to be costs for companies that have unethical employees too.

The withholding of pay forces in some ways the industry to come together and actually produce a reasonable ethics code and/or provide reasonable assurances as to why a particular ethical practice should be excluded from their code.

Anyone subject to these sanctions would have a year of sanctions returned on resolution (if it dragged out)

After a set up period, the interest on withheld funds might pay for the OfEWP's work without additional cost to the treasury, long term that might not hold true because industries would want to create and abide by the ethical standards.

Any expired sanctioned funds should get added to the treasury to make a dent in the national debt, as it cannot be a reliable income stream by definition I think this is the best use of those funds rather than earmarking them for other parts of the budget.

Lastly, if an industry wants to be unethical it technically could by effectively increasing the tax rate of people with that job by a flat 10% (no matter their tax bracket) and they get shamed as an industry that can't produce or agree to an ethical framework. That would be an option within law if an industry wanted to do that.

I think as written right now this needs a lot of work and polish, but I think it provides an interesting baseline to consider going forward