#well......... in my interpretation at least

[narse-tantalus]

Since I just saw a post on the same blog about countering the spread of misinformation using the SIFT method I'm going to apply it here.

Stop

Is this post provoking an emotional response? Yes

Is it trying to? Also yes.

What do I already know about the source? Twitter screenshots on Tumblr are unreliable. I know nothing about the linked pmc19.com but it doesn't look like a government or university website url.

Investigate (The Source)

What can you find about the author/website creators?

the link to pmc19.com/data resolves, and that website does seem to be the source of these claims, although the current numbers are slightly off those reported in the tweets, likely because we're a week later.

pmc19.com links to a PDF with "Background on Dr. Hoerger and the PMC". There they discuss how Dr. Hoerger (who claims copyright of the webpage at the bottom) is trained in clinical psychology, has taught and was doing an MBA in 2019 on strategic management. It claims he's "an expert in personality, emotions, and affective decision science..." and mentions he did a masters degree wich involved a lot of stuff... And also epidemiology.

The PMC is apparently "The Pandemic Mitigation Collaborative" with unnamed members who have " led many projects to keep people safer during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic." and "The PMC dashboard is cited in grant applications, including at least two grants already funded. It has been cited by trusted organizations like the People’s CDC, news outlets, and scientific journals, including several papers published in JAMA journals."

Which really sounds like they think I should trust them at least as much as I trust people who write grants, and/or "The People's CDC" -- this makes me think they are unlikely to be an accurate source.

Here's Dr. Hoerger's bio at Louisiana Cancer research center:

https://www.louisianacancercenter.org/people/michael-hoerger-phd

It says "Dr. Hoerger conducts psychosocial research to reduce the emotional and physical burden of serious illnesses. Dr. Hoerger is an international expert in psychosocial oncology as well as pandemic mitigation." And the lists a bunch of psychology stuff. Literally never mentions pandemics again. If he's an "international expert in pandemic mitigation" a) I'd expect him to work somewhere other than a Cancer center b) I'd expect his bio to mention his pandemic mitigation work. Maybe he's new to all this pandemic stuff? He certainly doesn't claim to be an epidemiologist on the pmc website, just to have worked on a project that involves it.

When I google "The Pandemic Mitigation Collaborative" the second result is this webpage which questions their methodology and suggests that their model is incapable of making accurate predictions -- claiming it's always going to be biased towards whatever happened on the same dates last year -- both low and high. (I'm summarizing and interpreting a huge amount here,so read it yourself, and the source is just a blog post so not intrinsically more credible...) But it is note worthy that the main 3rd party discussion of this organization is someone questioning the utility of their predictions.

https://buttondown.com/abbycartus/archive/we-need-to-talk-about-the-pandemic-mitigation/

What is their mission? Do they have vested interests? Would their assessment be biased?

Their mission seems to be to "track" or predict cases of covid -- but like better than the real CDC and epidemiologists. Presumably this is born out of concern for immunocompromised individuals, or boredom, or needing a project for a Strategic Management MBA, or distrust of Official Sources.

They appear to have a vested interest in pandemic mitigation, and therefore alarmism and possibly in not agreeing with official sources. Their assessment may well be biased!

Do they have authority in the Area?

No. They mention precisely 0 epidemiologists working for or with them. I don't see a reason to trust their models more than my physics grad student friends who made pandemic models on a lark in 2020.

Find Better Coverage

The official CDC (Centers for Disease Control) webpage on Covid data is here:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home

It indicates lower numbers than last year for everything they track, numbers that are kind of ticking up in recent weeks, but numbers that are forecast (if I'm reading that right) to reach a smaller peak than in prior years.

Notably the CDC is not making any directly comparable claims about number of people infected or infectious. Or how many might be infected next month. I believe this is because these are fundamentally unknowable from the data they have, and that speculating on them would be irresponsible for public communicators of science. Sure, one could create models that predict those numbers, but publishing the results to the public without context on the uncertainties of the models would be irresponsible since people might make life or death decisions like wearing a mask or getting a vaccine based on those bad predictions. Or they might just rage at people online who disagree with them. Idk, I'm not a science communicator.

Don't trust the CDC? Tough. The New York Times ended their own covid tracking in 2023 saying:

After more than three years of daily reporting of coronavirus data in the United States, The New York Times is ending its Covid-19 data-gathering operation. The Times will continue to publish virus data from the federal government weekly on a new set of tracking pages, but this page will no longer be updated.

This change was spurred by the declining availability of virus data from state and local health officials. Since few states report more than once a week (and some no longer report data to the public at all), the weekly data reports from the C.D.C. have become the most reliable source of information on the virus’s spread.

There new webpage is here and it was last updated in March 2024, it says:

These Covid tracking pages are no longer being updated. Get the latest information from the Centers for Disease Control, or find archived data from The Times’s three year reporting effort here.

John's Hopkins University has this to say:

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit the following sources: Global: World Health Organization (WHO) U.S.: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

So yeah, reputable sources have stopped caring and link you to the CDC as the place to get your info.

Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to their Original Context

The pmc19.com website does appear to be the original context for these claims. Thank you OP for linking that.

My Verdict:

These claims are misinformation. Specifically they claim numbers that are based on a model that was not created by subject matter experts, that disagrees with the trends reported by the CDC and it's epidemiologists. Either government employed epidemiologists are wrong and no university epidemiologists want to call them out on it... Or the PMC is wrong. Since they aren't epidemiologists... They're probably wrong. Moreover: If you don't trust the CDC you shouldn't The PMC because in their technical apendix they claim to use CDC data to make their projections. The only way the PMC could be right is if all other epidemiologists are wrong about the COVID pandemic and how to interpret wastewater and hospitalization data.

The PMC and Dr. Hoerger are engaging in academic sounding BS. They have incentives to be alarmist and fear monger, and don't seem to care or understand that they're using a model that probably doesn't have predictive value.

Data source: https://pmc19.com/data/

[yuikomorii]

Shu-Yuma because their friendship is the most engaging in the series, yet idk if it still counts as mere friendship, given that in DF and LE it was sort of implied that Shu feels something more for Yuma.

I saw this interesting point you made, I’ve played both games repeatedly over the years and have honestly never thought of it as anything much what’s presented surface level. I’m intrigued by your comment and would love to see what points in routes could be used to back up such an interpretation? :)

p.s you converted me into ayato stan ;P

// Hello there, fellow aNYAto stan! >:3

In my opinion, Shu seems to have feelings for Yuma because he is overly obsessed with him and his well-being, to the extent that he does things for Yuma that he doesn’t even do for us, the players.

Of course, he does feel guilty, but even Shu admits that feeling such remorse is unusual for him, and he's right.

We know Shu is a sadist who enjoys torturing his prey in grotesque ways, so why doesn’t he regret what he did to the previous sacrificial brides? Why doesn’t he regret hurting his own brothers? He sometimes doesn’t even feel remorse when he’s hurting you/Yui. But when it comes to Yuma… Shu would sacrifice ANYONE for him.

This guy must have some kind of built-in Yuma radar, since there’s no other way to explain how he always manages to find him. He willingly goes out of his way to save him and doesn’t even care if he looks pathetic, as long as Yuma is safe, even in routes that aren’t his own, where he’s supposed to be a lazy and apathetic loser.

Not only that, but Rejet had to make him commit sui€ide and then say the “I hope we will get along in another life 🥺” part. What makes it even crazier is that he’s reincarnated as a fetus from the Tree that Yuma later decides to adopt. Basically, his wish to be on good terms with Yuma was so strong that it literally came true. When Shu dies in his own endings, he never says anything as emotional or profound, which is a bit… questionable.

Last but not least, you know how the apple is supposed to symbolize Edgar? It almost feels like Shu was trying to hint something, but when Yuma didn’t catch on, Shu was just like “Yeah… nevermind.”

All translations belong to dialovers-translations

While I understand that he might consider him a "best friend," it feels obvious that, deep down, Yuma holds a more significant place in his heart than anyone else. The way he fixates on Yuma makes it seem like their bond goes beyond mere friendship, with Yuma being someone irreplaceable and central to his world.

I know that BL themes would likely never be included in Diabolik Lovers, given the backlash such elements often receive in otome games. As a result, everything is left open to anyone’s interpretation! :3

[kyoukorpse]

Opinions on Kallamar?

ERRMMM.. well. ☝🏼 he has grown on me i can say that much.

i didn't care for him at all at first during my first playthrough, he was my least favorite bishop and just in general i didn't care for him.

BUT!!! seeing fanart and headcanons and how other ppl interpret his character has greatly changed my mind on him and i find he can be very complex and an interesting character to work with!! he's grown on me a lot for sure.

here's the cephalod man for you. <- guy who has to properly design his bishops still

[michanvalentine]

I was asked if I had any thoughts on Astarion's character development in terms of taking responsibility and making choices. And him coming to terms with that part of his past he's ashamed of. In the past I didn't dwell on it in detail, normally I write down on the keyboard what spontaneously passes through my brain. But I think they are excellent food for thought, so I will try to express what I think about it.

Here’s a little ramble, just because I love psychology and think it’s something to always keep in mind when discussing Astarion. If you’re not interested, feel free to skip ahead!

(Let’s talk a bit about the self.

The self is quite a complex concept with many facets. Briefly put, it’s shaped by various internal and external factors and reflects a conscious image of "me." In psychology, it’s key to building the Ego of an individual—the capacity to act, understand, organize, and interpret experiences. The Ego provides a sense of uniqueness, coherence, and personal continuity since the self encompasses many "faces." All this forms the personality of an individual, which naturally develops (and changes) throughout life.

Particular attention in the formation of the self is given to sensitive periods, such as early childhood. The self determines the level of self-esteem based on an individual’s assessment of their worth and competence in the characteristics they attribute to themselves (Real Self), their future aspirations (Ideal Self), and what they want to avoid (Feared Selves). The greater the discrepancy between these aspects, the lower the level of self-esteem. Social support and approval, as well as competence in domains deemed important to the self, obviously contribute to perceiving oneself as a person of value.

I’ll stop here, or this will turn into a full-blown psychology lecture, diving into every possible personality disorder! xD)

Astarion, as we know, has had his sense of self fundamentally undermined. For him, the world is divided between those who have power and those who don’t, with the former always being the "winners" in his eyes. The magistrate he once was is long dead, along with his moral compass and the life he used to live—especially after 200 years of servitude to Cazador.

As vampire spawn, akin to a newborn in some respects, Astarion learned to exist solely within Cazador’s world, revolving around Cazador, for Cazador. He was the domineering father figure, and vampire society functions under strict rules handed down by vampire lords. In this hostile context, without any room for self-expression or choice, Astarion developed a fragmented and damaged self-image. Constantly belittled by Cazador as an individual (small, weak, useless, incapable, all words he uses in the game), always pitted against his brothers and sisters, and degraded from a magistrate to a prostitute (this is important because it’s the only skill—or "talent," as he calls it himself—that Astarion believes gives him any value or power, forming the basis for his self-image). It’s easy to imagine just how high his self-esteem must be, right? Most importantly, he never developed the skills to navigate life as a free individual—at least not in a healthy way.

This is why, even if reluctantly (and despite his fear), he ends up leaning on Tav/Durge. Astarion is a follower, not a leader—not yet, at least. He needs a guiding figure to help him figure out what to do because making decisions and acting independently don’t come naturally to him; they terrify him. Especially outside of his talents, sex and survival. He needs to be rehabilitated, re-educated, and to achieve this, he requires a safe and healthy environment where he can experiment and grow, perhaps developing other faces of the self on which to base a new evaluation. Like, I'm not just a slave or a whore: but I'm also a companion, a friend, a lover, a hero and I'm able to listen, to help, to learn, to collaborate, etc. For instance, I think his lack of attention to detail reflects this to some extent—not just his tendency to be dismissive or distracted. In fact, Astarion isn’t stupid at all; his intelligence and wisdom stats in D&D terms are above average. He knows how to move in the shadows, remain unnoticed, and is highly skilled with his hands. Additionally, we shouldn’t forget that Astarion is an excellent observer of bodies, particularly body language. This is especially common when someone has lived in a stressful environment with abusive parents or partners. Recognizing the early signs of what they fear most—abuse—is crucial for trying to avoid getting hurt. The inflection of a tone, the light in someone’s eyes, the posture of their shoulders, arms, torso, etc. Body language is the most direct and primal form of communication and reveals intentions.

This is a skill Astarion has naturally refined, not only through survival but also by interacting with countless partners. It inevitably helps him sense certain things before others do, often saving him from trouble. So, he’s far from just some clueless fool, no matter how frivolous he might seem at times.

Sure, stress kills neurons, but the issue is deeper than intellect. To execute a plan, one needs to make decisions and lead a group—something he simply isn’t equipped to do yet. This also ties to accountability, an inherent part of decision-making—especially when others are involved.

Throughout the game, Astarion grows and begins to reclaim his rights as an individual. He realizes he’s more than an object to be used (he is no longer small, weak, useless, incapable), and he starts to establish boundaries and discover what he truly wants or doesn’t want to do, always alongside Tav/Durge. By the good ending, he even states that with Cazador gone, he can finally find out who he really is and what he wants from the life he’s regained. He’s still afraid—the road to healing is long, and the trauma is deep—but he’s willing to work on himself, which he couldn’t or wouldn’t do before.

A significant part of Astarion’s defense mechanism is dissociation, the ability to separate himself from the terrible things that have happened to him—or that he has done.

This, in my opinion, is how he managed to survive without completely losing his mind. In the game, there’s even a dialogue choice that highlights how Astarion simply repressed everything inside and kept going—a deeply unhealthy way of coping. And rightly so, the vampiric spawn retorts that it’s easy to judge when you haven’t lived through such a situation.

However, when Astarion comes face to face with his victims, that mechanism begins to falter. This time, he’s forced to confront what he has done directly, with all the consequences it entails. He has to look them in the eye, listen to their harsh words, and endure both their pain and his own—without filters, without excuses. The sequence is heart-wrenching, as we all know, but what I particularly love is Astarion’s comment about the Gur children and how, when he delivered them to Cazador, he felt nothing. I love it because it’s followed by an “oh” that speaks volumes more than all the discussions about ascension up until that moment. That “oh” seems to say, “How the hell is that even possible?!”

Astarion is surprised, first and foremost, because what he felt then isn’t what he’s feeling now. Before, he was numb, alienated—a ghost wandering the streets. But now, he’s not. He’s more awake and lucid than he’s been in the last 200 years. This concept is crystal clear when, upon setting foot inside Cazador’s palace, the vampiric spawn states that everything feels different, even though the place hasn’t changed. It’s not the palace that’s different; it’s Astarion!

And at this point, after speaking with Sebastian and Chessa, Astarion is torn.

On one side, there’s ascension, with all the rational explanations—or justifications for Tav/Durge and himself—about why it must be done. The vampire spawn are too many and too hungry; they’ll cause a massacre, etc., etc. On another side, there’s the need to erase the evidence of what he was, of what Astarion endured, and what he inflicted upon others—what these wretches represent as a mirror reflecting his own helplessness and pathetic state. A victim, essentially. And that, for him, is humiliating because he was, in fact, humiliated for 200 years. He’s deeply ashamed of it.

But yet another part of him holds the desire to do the right thing.

In fact, if asked about the prisoners and what he intends to do, Astarion will say he’s weighing his options. Not only that, but Astarion also gives his approval when Tav/Durge tells Sebastian that their freedom depends on whether or not they know how to control hunger. Adding immediately after that they can succeed. Anyway, at this moment, for the first time, the choice and the responsibility are entirely on Astarion's shoulders—and on his conscience. There are no orders from Cazador to carry out, no Tav/Durge acting on his behalf. The most Tav/Durge can do is help him think clearly in a moment when, between fear, the scent of blood in the air, and power within reach, Astarion might not be the most clear-headed being on the planet. But ultimately, the decision is his to make. The first of many more to come.

However, I believe Astarion truly takes responsibility for his actions when, after freeing the vampire spawn, he becomes the leader of the coven in the Underdark in the ending. In this particular case, the transformation is complete—Astarion is a leader who plans, makes tough decisions every day, manages resources, takes care of his people (his old victims, let's not forget), and continually grows in his independence.

Naturally, returning to the concept of the self, each of the endings—whether he travels across Faerûn with Tav/Durge, becomes a nocturnal vigilante in Baldur’s Gate, or even ascends—offers a perspective on how Astarion has changed and how new experiences have added positive aspects to his self-concept. These enable him to increasingly perceive himself as competent and valuable. At this point, I’m afraid I might have gotten lost in the flood of words, and I’m not sure if I’ve managed to address the proposed topics thoroughly. My apologies—I tend to lose myself in my thoughts and ramble on freely! If needed, feel free to let me know, and I’ll add a follow-up! xD Anyone who made it this far is a true hero, just so you know!

[the-iron-queen]

So. Listen.

What this scene gave to me is that what happened totally ran out of Bison's control.

At first glance, yes, it makes sense that someone threatened to be shot will take their chances by jumping into the water. However.

Bison knows Kant as someone who always has an answer to everything, even if half of them are lies.

Bison at least somewhat knows Kant as an instinctual survivor, even if Kant doesn't directly show that side of himself to Bison.

Bison is at this point very sure he knows how Kant will react in a given moment, simply because his knee-jerk mode is always the same. He always has an answer, he always tries to appease, he will in any case reassure Bison of his own feelings for him, no matter the situation.

So all of this put together, for Bison it was 100% to be expected that Kant would reassure him, and even more important react to him beyond a "please calm down".

I know people have slightly different interpretations of why Kant was checked out so hard, so I am going on my own interpretation here. I know from personal experience what having a deep-sitting trauma being triggered feels like - and i don't even know how bad it must be with flashbacks triggered, which Kant seemed to experience as well. To me, that's what I saw happening with Kant. His mind was so consumed by his trauma and fear at that moment that he wasn't able to deal with Bison, or the gun, or the questions.

And while Bison probably used his knowledge of Kant generally being afraid of the ocean to put more pressure on him while holding him at gunpoint and questioning him, he pretty sure didn't expect to have the situation go out of hand so easily. Overall he set the situation up to be able so that he would be able to interrogate Kant (even if it was only about his feelings, but he might have pressed for motives etc if he actually had gotten any answers). But Kant only asked him for Bison to please take him away from the situation at hand, and beyond that he didn't get any answers, he didn't get any reactions beyond Kant being scared to death - but the primary source of that fear was pretty obviously not himself.

Bison being already incredibly frustrated and hurt and betrayed and probably incredibly conflicted over what to do with Kant and especially the situation defaulted to threats, because that is probably how he usually gets answers.

Kant meanwhile had most of his mind being eaten by the incredible despair of being faced with the full force of his (most likely completely untreated) trauma, and in such moments it's hard to even grasp a proper thought, or follow your usual instincts. And when faced with a command at gunpoint by the person he both loves and betrayed so badly, it was probably the easiest to relent, to give in and take that step to just have things end somehow. Standing up to being shot would probably have needed resolve that he didn't have anymore at that moment. So he jumped.

I am 100% sure that Bison didn't expect that, based on every way he knows Kant. And we know that Bison is a person who needs control. This situation though that by all means should have been completely under his control spiraled out of said control so fast that Bison wasn't able to stop it.

I honestly wouldn't be the tiniest bit surprised if the first thing that Bison will do next episode is throw away the gun, dive after Kant and try to rescue him while asking him why he jumped, why he didn't fight back over and over and over.

Khaotung Thanawat as Bison (The Heart Killers, 2024-2025)

[ghost-bison]

a christopher eccleston appreciation post

i will never say this enough because i don't know enough words, nor do i think such words exist, that could even begin to summarize how much i love christopher eccleston, but... i love christopher eccleston. and, more importantly, i have a deep-rooted respect for that man.

i started doctor who as, let's be honest, a sci-fi hater, forcing myself because i was obsessed with david tennant, and i was kind of dreading the first series because of this. but i was dead wrong.

he broadened my mind, gave me so many laughs, and so many cries, and i'm not the first to say that whenever eccleston is on the screen you just can't take your eyes off him, even when he's not supposed to be the main focus of the scene.

the way he can switch from silly goose to traumatized soldier in a matter of seconds will never cease to amaze me. or how he can play with both like he's on a swing by balancing it out with sarcasm?

i think whoever doesn't give him the title role in their shows/films is either an idiot, or they know the main character just isn't always the best.

i think it's downright idiotic and shameful that he gets rejected from ever playing some shakespeare just because of his northern accent (they're just posh elitist pos). now that he's older, and that times are evolving (i mean, i hope the world of theater is vibing with this evolution, but i'm not delusional), i hope we get to see him portray a character like leontes in winter's tale cause i know he'd be absolutely perfect for the role, and who better than shakespeare (this character especially, with his nuances and highs and lows and breakdowns and breakthroughs) to match acting like his?

saw an article where eccleston talked about how the moment he really knew he wanted to be an actor was when he had to wear mascara for a play, and had enjoyed it. i think he talks about it in his autobiography too (you should read it, btw, it's frankly affordable, and he happens to be a marvelous writer as well).

eccleston knows he is mistakenly type-cast, because of his background, as macho men and tough blokes in general. he's aware that it's kind of a big part of his culture. again, he talks about it i think in the very first chapter, how for instance he used to dress up as james bond, the pinnacle of "masculinity", which i think was a disguise in the metaphorical sense of the term, to mask his delicacy and femininity (or at least, that's my interpretation of it).

in his biography, eccleston talks about the differences between him and his dad, ronnie: he was surprised, as a child, whenever his father's affection manifested as a kiss or a hug, cause that usually wasn't his father's way of doing things. he compares it to how he, in contrast, has the habit of kissing his own son, albert, and telling him he loves him.

you can find it as well in how he talks about his anorexia, his body dysmorphia and, i think we can call it that, gender dysphoria. he's from a time when those concepts didn't even exist, they weren't a thing to the public eye. my father and my step-father, both feminine men in their own way, and both around eccleston's age, both told me about the struggle that it represented, not being the stereotype of the macho tough guy, and being surrounded by boys who didn't struggle with that issue. it made my dad a junkie, my stepdad a depressive artist, and, apparently, it made eccleston an anorexic actor.

i think it takes a lot of courage for people that age (the boomer generation as we call them), especially men, from whom we expect toxic masculinity, masculinity pushed to an extreme, to be able to openly call it out and dissect it into what it is: a ridiculous standard. but to be a PUBLIC FIGURE, in his 60s, and still find the strength to express it? damn. takes guts, i think.

most of us on this website, we're babies. most of us are at most in their thirties. the millenials and the gen z, and now the gen alpha, we take that for granted. or get offended and scandalized that being able to express oneself isn't yet a basic standard.

but then, i talk to my mum, and i realize that she had to stray from her catholic, sexist education, she had to make up her own mind about things in order for me to be born a free spirit. and that's just considering my mum's a cishet.

christopher eccleston expressed in other words that he doesn't fully consider himself to be cisgendered. i have mad respect for the way he talks about it, and for even talking about it at all.

then, there's his honesty. the more interviews i watch, the more it impresses me. he knows honesty goes hand in hand with dignity. i'm sorry but i'm tired of people who are nice all the time. you never know when they're being honest, and maybe some of them are, who knows. but i'm not stupid enough to think that so many people are just pure sunshine all the time (respect for tennant for lashing out publically about transphobia, i think he passed the test).

eccleston? he knows how to be both brutally honest and yet respectful at the same time. no ukulele apology from this man and holy fuck, it feels good!

i've seen him call russel t davies out for his lack of professionalism on the set of doctor who, and then list him amongst the great writers he's worked with. which makes me want to believe eccleston's side, because, if you're always either too polite, or too full of spite about eveything, who's to say you're not the problem? i've got way less trouble believing you if you can stay unbiased about a person you're having beef with than if suddenly everything said person does turns into shit just cause you don't like them. that's just maturity and wisdom.

one last thing i love about eccleston is that he is interested in other people's lives. there's a critic by marcus berkmann in his book that perfectly expresses my point: "you know what to expect from the autobiographies of most actors, i think: anecdotes, charm, more than mild self-satisfaction and faux-modesty by the bucketload. but christopher eccleston is not most actors".

and that's it. watch him in interviews and at convention panels, where he lets his younger co-stars speak before himself, and seizes the occasion when journalists ask him questions that are meant to make him talk about himself to praise his writers and other actors instead.

read his autobiography, which is both a love letter to his dad and a big let's-be-honest about the struggles of growing up poor and his personal struggles, because he thinks raising awareness is just as important as protecting himself.

look at his instagram posts where he unabashedly disses the monarchy and stays true and loyal to his background even after getting a taste of money. and his other posts where he shares his love for acorns and spending time with his kids.

i've seen him nearly break down in shame and regret on television for having stolen a kid's crisps in primary school. and not trying to find lame excuses for his behaviour. no ukulele apology, just facts, just christopher eccleston showing us what masculinity in its purest, most beautiful form should be about

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

I know that Yuu is gender neutral in the game for many reasons so it makes me wonder if Yuu was a girl in Conan would that change the dialogues and the way the characters interact with her?

Like not a major change to the main story or turning the game into otome but some small ones like in some characters interaction with Leona when stepping on his tail he won't want to beat us (because of the respect woman thing lol) in book one or Deuce being shy in the beginning of their friendship.

Hmm... For the most part, I honestly don't really think so? Cater still calls Yuu cute, Azul is still pretty polite, etc. Rook still waxes poetic and creepily recites your sizes, etc. regardless of gender. At best, maybe some of those traits would be exaggerated a little more or expanded on to suit the scenario?? Like maybe Ace would initially tease fem!Yuu about being at an all-boys school or something, isn't she bothered by it? But I really doubt that anyone would be tripping over themselves to protect or befriend fem!Yuu or anything, especially when most at NRC are primarily concerned with their own interests. Most of the characters aren't noted to treat women particularly differently than other genders. We also don't get to see the NRC students interacting with girls around their age either, so it's hard to discern how they'd be with them. I think even the "Deuce being shy in the beginning of the friendship" headcanon comes from a perspective colored by writings in fandom; Deuce in canon doesn't really seem to demonstrate issues interacting with girls, at least not that I can recall. At best, he expresses surprise when Grim mistakes Epel for a girl and fails to romance the Ghost Bride (he just freezes up). I think if we eliminated romantic interest altogether--because, to be clear, one girl in a cast of mainly guys is NOT always meant to be romantic or a harem--most of the cast would be their usual selves, if not maybe a little more polite due to how they’ve been socialized to see women as the “fairer” sex. (For example, Riddle, Epel, and Jade underestimate Sally, though this isn’t clear if it’s gender-based or because they sympathize with her poor home life.)

The exception to this, many would point out, is Leona, who comes from a country in which women are respected. The strange thing is, whenever this point is mentioned, I always see people speaking about it in relation to Leona and Leona only, even though Ruggie and Rook also come from the Sunset Savanna (so technically those latter two would also theoretically be respectful to women). Now, there's a lot of discussion in the fandom about just how far Leona's "feminism" (a term used by fandom, never said in official materials) stretches. The most extreme of takes paint Leona as a misandrist who actively hates on or mistreats men while upholding women as superiors. And that... Well, I don't agree with this interpretation whatsoever. Yes, Leona no doubt respects women and is more likely to listen to them if they ask him to do something (for example, attending a party for a female painting in Cater's School Uniform vignette or taking a picture of himself in his robes for his sister-in-law in his own Ceremonial Robes vignettes). However, he won't just keel over and do whatever is asked of him simply because it is coming from a woman (think back to Ghost Marriage; he was still pretty pissed off when Eliza slapped him), and nor is he shown to disparage his own gender.

Rather than putting women on a pedestal, I think it would be more accurate to say that Leona doesn't underestimate women or think lesser of them because of their gender. (If you're interested my detailed breakdown of "feminist" Leona, check out this analysis.) For example, while his classmates worry for Sally's wellbeing in Lost in the Book with Nightmare Before Christmas, Leona lauds Sally's cunning and ability to save herself. We also get a pretty good look of this in the Episode of Savanaclaw manga, which features a female Yuu. (And before anyone says, "Yuuka could be hiding the fact she's a girl!", take a look at these panels. She is clearly not making an effort to hide her chest and given her nonchalant personality + ability to physically defend herself, Yuuka has no in-universe reason to be hiding her gender. The other students probably don’t bring up that she’s a girl because she’s already been around at NRC for roughly a month at this point and have likely acclimated to her presence. Besides, people don’t normally bring up “well, that’s a girl” out of the blue in everyday conversations.)

Riddle seems to treat Yuuka the same as the gender-neutral Yuu in the game; he still adjusts her tie for her without any flourishes, flinching, etc.

If you read the Episode of Savanaclaw altogether, pretty much all of the characters treat Yuuka like another fellow student and not "oh, this is a woman and a woman has to be treated differently".

Leona stops Savanaclaw mobs from beating up Yuuka and co., but this isn't significant because he does the same for gender-neutral Yuu in the game. It's not "I stopped the guys from hurting a woman" behavior. And get this: Leona still challenges Yuuka and co. to a magift/spelldrive game and he STILL kicks their asses and expects them to get up for more. He doesn't give even Yuuka special treatment or leniency because she is a woman. He wants her to play him again, the same as the other students (who are all guys). It is Jack who has to intervene and stop his dorm leader from bullying Yuuka and co.—but again, this isn’t a change from the game, as Jack always steps in anyway.

Yuuka recognizes Leona as "the garden caretaker" from back when she accidentally stepped on his tail. Unfortunately, we don't get to see if Leona attempted to attack her from this instance. It could be that the manga excluded it because he didn't try or it could be that he did (if the magift/spelldrive demands were of any indication) and the manga just didn't have time to show it in full. Buuut we should also note that Leona makes exceptions to his own... "moral code" when it is convenient for him. For example, he tells his students to not pick on outsiders but then still wails on us through sport. When Yuu steps on his tail in the garden, he says, "Well, can't say it'd be much fun to hurt someone so helpless," but then adds, "Still gonna do it, though."

My point is, this is the closest we'll get to "how would the boys treat a fem!Yuu", and that's what I'll leave you with.

[justalazytrashpanda]

Hi I was originally gonna make a post analyzing all the blackmail available in PJED but I got sidetracked and just analyzed Desmond's

Theories below the readmore! Warning for spoilers

Desmond: with weapons at his disposal, he guards the only person he trusts

So Eva told Damon that it meant he had weapons at his disposal, which he does, but I find it interesting that we never see the picture that goes along with it. We see Cassidy’s image (despite her secret being an undertale reference) so this feels intentional

Which leads me to believe that the photo attached to that secret will be revealed eventually (if it wasn’t burnt to ash when Eva died), and that it might reveal who exactly the person he trusts is. Which leaves one question: who is it?

Before I get into theorizing I'd like to preface this saying that it's very possible that the blackmail is just trying to say that Desmond only trusts himself and is able and willing to defend himself, which is how Damon and Eva interpreted the secret. 

However, they're interpretation may not be the correct interpretation. He’s notorious so far for assuming the worst of and underestimating people in this game, and Eva could've been hiding information, so it's not a stretch to say that this is another instance of that.

But anyway, I think the person Desmond trusts is Eloise, and here’s my evidence for that, loosely ordered from least to most convincing.

They’re often seen together in promotional art

At the beginning of the game they’re both in the courtyard, and they continuing to hang out throughout the game (granted this could be interpreted as Desmond trying to get closer with her, since in the FTE'S he expressed a desire to get close with everyone and Eloise expressed the exact opposite)

When Desmond is trying to explain his roommates idea Eloise helps him out, she’s also the first person to question separating the roommates by gender

When Grace is giving Eloise shit about the blackmail Desmond comes to her defense, and it's only after this that Eloise hands the blackmail over

He's also seen comforting her after Grace tackles her during the investigation, and is the first to insist challenging Grace to get into Wolfgang's room.

During the class trial Desmond backs up Eloise’s criticism of Grace, and when people start suspecting Desmond, Eloise is quick to come to his defense

And by quick I mean she reacts to it before Desmond does, and you have to agree with Eloise to progress the game

Judging by how the group tends to read people AND what's revealed about the both of them in their freetime events, I could see a situation form where people are more scared of Desmond (with the marksmen talent, involvement in case 1 via the taser, and the blackmail) even though Eloise is a much bigger threat (with her threatening Damon in her first FTE and being very wary of the cast in general)

Which could be an interesting parallel with their respective animals with sharks being over hated while swans are way more violent than people give them credit for 

Speaking of animal symbolism, it's also worth noting how several species of sharks have been seen forming friend groups, and how swans most often display violent behavior when their chicks or mates are threatened.

Now why he trusts her is still up for debate, but judging by the evidence my best bet would be that they were friends outside of the deathgame. Ingrid did mention being named an Ultimate a year before attending the academy, so it's possible they met through that.

I saw some people theorizing that he may be a bodyguard and this might be like a Peko situation, but I personally doubt that in connection with this theory. Mostly because in Eloise's freetime events it seems like she isn't in the best financial situation, meanwhile in Desmond's its confirmed his family is rather well off.

How likely do I think that this is actually the case? Idk like… 60%. I could’ve completely misread things, this was mostly just me rambling lol

[wellofdean]

Don't you think Cas should care and interact with Dean emotionally in The Trap? Dean's mother died only Days ago, and Cas thinks he should be over it already?

Well, uhm. Yes? But I don't think he can at that moment. He is in love with Dean, and Dean has shut the door on him hard, and done so exactly when he is weakest, because he is just as bereaved as Dean is. Both of them are suffering, and neither of them can meet the others' needs. It's not like one of them is being the asshole, and the other one is blameless.

Dean's mother notably referred to Cas as 'one of her boys' and Cas notably saved her from death after Dean's deal with Billie because they all mean too much to him, including Mary. Cas loved and lost Mary, too. Cas loved and lost Jack, whom Cas saw as their child. And, Cas feels like he has also lost Dean!

Why are Dean's grief and Dean's sub-optimal emotional responses in the face of grief more valid than Cas's? I can't put it better than @deangirlism101 in their tags on this post, so I am just going to share them here:

#🤔 it's interesting how differently that ''you couldn't forgive me'' line felt to me#idk if it's because I'm approaching that line with the context that narratively#at least to me#these two are for all intents and purposes#quite married#in my mind the divorce arc is genuinely A Divorce#it's not a breakup. it's not a fight. it is a ''irreconcilable differences'' divorce#and that's where I'm approaching my reading of cas in that scene#it's very much that pragmatic side of divorce#where one partner reaches a point of shutdown because they believe there is no longer any kind of conversation to be had#''you cannot forgive me and i am unable to be near you while unforgiven'' is not#in my perception#the same as ''i apologized and therefore i deserve forgiveness''#i read somewhere that a big warning sign of divorce is contempt#and in the episodes prior to cas leaving#that is all dean expressed toward cas to his face#literally#dean's panicked ’'where are you going?'' i.e. the first noncontemptuous thing dean says to cas all season#is said to his back!#it's not that cas is owed forgiveness#it's that cas NEEDS forgiveness to be able to remain In The Relationship#the way i interpret it#cas isn't ASKING for forgiveness. he is just saying he needs it to stay#which to me is a world of difference#it's not out of entitlement#which i think is important for the emotional context of the episode#and i think it's the beauty of the divorce arc being very much a depiction of Marital Strife#to me it feels like an excellent depiction of the way a healthy marriage is deeply entrenched in compromise and not keeping score#(which is not to say it's okay for cas to continue going off on his own and keeping secrets)

I agree hard with everything here. And, I also think it's not only a depiction of Marital Strife, but a depiction of marital strife after the loss of a child, which is a whole other level of understandable not coping.

They are both on the ropes, they are both emotionally compromised in ways they aren't able to overcome. They both have Things They Routinely Do that are not for the best -- Cas tries to solve everything alone and keeps secrets, and Dean masks all his vulnerable feelings with anger. I think they both forgive the other, but can't bridge the gap. I think it's possible to love and forgive someone, and not be able to be around them, and I think Cas and Dean are both doing their best, it's just that, under the circumstances, their best is not great.

And, this bears repeating: #to me it feels like an excellent depiction of the way a healthy marriage is deeply entrenched in compromise and not keeping score

Cas is not owed an apology, but the fact that Dean can give one? I love that FOR DEAN.

[misericordevn]

Hi! Really enjoyed Misericorde, thank you so much for putting something like this out into the world. My question is - (vague spoilers ahead) Hedwig seems pretty well read, visions are mentioned at length with interest, and given Catherine's "moral" stance on the girls' "closeness," how much of the plot is inspired by documented accounts of female Christian mystics? Do any of the characters have thoughts or even an awareness of what's now vaguely termed as "erotic mysticism" (nuns describing sexual accounts with Jesus or "marrying" one another in place of Jesus)? Is that something that you were thinking of at all or read of in your writing for this? Sorry if this is so specific - it's just a weird topic I've always been interested in and was thinking of while reading, especially with White Wool and Snow!

This is a great question! I'll answer the parts that I can without spoiling anything from Volume Three.

A lot of Misericorde is definitely inspired by the writings (and interpretations of/arguments about) of several mystics like Hildegard and Kempe, as well as poets like Gwerful Mechain. As for how aware or specifically opinionated any of the characters besides Catherine are/were, that's primarily a "stay tuned!" question. I can say, at least, that this is absolutely something I've thought about at length writing the story.

There's a scene very early in Two that touches on this sort of obliquely. Hedwig sees her experiences and readings as net zero, while Eustace believes that she might be the most ideologically driven person in the convent. I think it's safe to say Hedwig's excitement about and acceptance of visions, her openness to the vaguely mystical, and even her tendency toward magical thinking stem from her supplemental readings.

[oleandequill]

You know, it drives me crazy to know that technically there’s two (at least in terms of prominence cause I think there’s also a TFA one though it doesn’t seem as talked about) canonical Shattered Glass continuities: the one made by FunPub and the IDW reboot.

Cause the thing is, those two comics have vastly different Megatrons and Optimus Primes.

Like we have FunPub Megatron who is a mathematician and Optronix who was a librarian that backstabbed his way to the top.

Then we have the IDW versions where Megatron is a miner/civil activist who keeps getting tossed into jail and Orion Pax who is a senator in this version.

And what fascinates me is that in the FunPub version, Optimus actually lives (though he becomes Nova Prime). Meanwhile, in the IDW version, I think he dies (?) or well his fate is much worse in comparison to FunPub!OP.

Also what’s up with both Megatrons having a fakeout death? FunPub!Megatron does get killed by Cyclonus but he comes back as Galvatron. Meanwhile IDW!Megatron gets defeated by OP and is momentarily thought to be dead (he just went into self-exile).

There’s not actually a lot of difference between the two OPs (cause honestly they both seem insane), though I guess one could interpret FunPub!OP as much more depressing cause the only reason he’s evil is cause he saw life as meaningless unless history remembers you and when he becomes Nova Prime, he’s still a little jerk but he’s tamer so I assume that was his original personality. IDW!OP just wants total power and only initially hides behind a nice facade.

The two Megatrons are vastly different though in my opinion. Cause FunPub!Megatron really was just some guy who predicted civil war and was good enough to want to stop it (this Megatron wasn’t affected by the caste system, he just genuinely saw something wrong was happening and chose to do something about it). IDW!Megatron was someone who was affected by the caste system and was trying his best to bring attention to it. FunPub!Megatron is also very nice (like not overly nice but he’s genuinely such a nice guy and this is why he’s my favorite aside from him being a nerd lmao). IDW!Megatron is a bit more jaded (which is fair cause the caste system is horrible and his “friend” is an asshole).

Even the relationship between OP and Megatron are different in both continuities. I’m pretty sure in FunPub these two never interacted before the war, where OP gets pissed that this random mathematician is opposing him. In IDW, OP and Megatron were “friends” with OP even bailing Megatron out of jail, though their “friendship” was already toxic even before the war cause Megatron seemed to really see through OP’s BS.

All this to say, there should really be a crossover between both continuities.

SGFunPub!Megs and SGIDW!OP meeting would be kinda fun and dangerous, especially if they meet each other before the civil war broke out. Megatron wouldn’t know who OP is while OP would see another version of his Megatron who he could possibly trick. Also this has the added bonus of a hilarious scenario where Megatron predicts OP is the cause of the civil war through math and that pisses off OP cause genuinely tf you mean you computed that through math. This one is more dangerous though as OP genuinely wants power and will not be swayed by whatever Megatron says.

SGIDW!Megs and SGFunPub!OP might honestly end up the happier version ngl. Cause OP clearly has an existential crisis that Megatron can probably fix by convincing him that OP can still be remembered in history by doing the right thing… such as being a civil rights activist. Like… I’m just saying maybe FunPub!OP needs therapy (and unlike IDW!OP, he actually gets a canonical redemption arc so he’s not completely lost).

.

.

.

Anyway, will I write this? Maybe (I really shouldn’t though cause I have a series and two writing requests to finish lmao). Because I am officially employed now and thus have a fixed schedule unlike the previous weeks where my schedule was erratic (which is not good for my OCD as I need a fixed schedule or I will be very upset sksksksk) as I had nothing to do but read, play video games, and exist lmao

[mita-vittua-olivia]

this is super interesting, i’m so excited you commented on this because i love your takes, interpretations, and overall insights into the finnish language!!

obviously i’m not a native speaker myself so i can only base my perception of the song off other people’s translations and therefore interpretations, which are, from what i’ve gathered, rather “negative”, with people treating him like a circus monkey and asking things of him - without considering he is, while a star, still a Person. (but i’ll go read your post on your interpretation of takavoltti because i’m intrigued what makes you see the song differently!!)

i’m not sure how well i brought this across in my original post, but what i meant was obviously not that kärtsä/kärtsäri is used derogatorily (i know you mentioned the derogatory variations of kä + r in a different context, but still), but rather that people seem to think they understand him, see the human inside of the stage persona (therefore it’s “kärtsä” rather than käärijä), and think they mean well or are at least not as demanding of him as people who are not fans, when in fact they sort of still are. less than people who don’t mean well, but it’s still there.

(i don’t believe that much thought actually went into the use of a singular word, but i do love to theorise and interpret and thought this was very interesting)

i was listening to takavoltti the other day and i’m not sure if this has been said before, but i find the use of the nickname “kärtsä” very intriguing. it suggests a deeper emotional connection for the speaker than using “käärijä”, but it’s still far from “jere”.

i wonder if this is to showcase that while the speaker (who is asking all these things of k) feels like they’re somehow entitled to because they’re asking out of something that is, to them at least, love and admiration instead of plain “i want this guy to do stuff because he’s a circus monkey and due to his fame he owes me”.

​what i mean is that just because you ask someone to do something out of love and admiration doesn’t mean you’re better than someone who asks out of pure need to be entertained, because although your motivations are different, you’re equally failing to see the real person behind the stage persona.

the speaker doesn’t understand that calling him “kärtsä” is hardly better than “käärijä” because it’s just as far from “jere”.

[deoidesign]

Doing master studies the only way I know how: Stealing them and making them my guys.

(Barberini Faun)

(The Fallen Angel - Alexandre Cabanel)

(Covent Garden - William Bruce Ellis Rankin)

[citrusai]

taash said "they were doing it" and people ran with the interpretation of an npc that doesn't know solas or the history of the elvhenan even when bellara interjected and said, no, that's not right. that's not how it was for the elvhenan. they formed bonds before they had physical bodies. and people ran to doompost or create weird anti-solavellan shit even though mythal & solas refer to each other as old friends and when she releases him there is no tenderness or love in it. it is the act of unchaining a dog from his post, the stepping down of a general. but to each their own ig.

[hisclockworkservants]

So I found some super old art from when I was young and tried redrawing them XD

[samueldays]

You mean me, @feotakahari? I'm not part of Rationalist Tumblr.

I will accept "-adjacent" because at least one of my mutuals is a rationalist.

Fourth point to the above about data collection: data can be interpreted both ways even in a single source, like Ella Cockbain's demographic count of offenders found in British police operations against grooming gangs, from Offender and Victim Networks in Human Trafficking. High evidence threshold, but low N=55.

I saw the same study used by different people to argue for two contrary theses, briefly summarized as:

This is a native problem, because over 3/4ths of them had British citizenship

This is an immigrant problem, because over 3/4ths of them had Pakistani ethnicity

Personally, I find the second point more weighty, because the second disproportion is larger (only about 2% of people in Britain have Pakistani ethnicity), and the first point is a legal fiction. But I can see why some other people might put more weight on citizenship than on ethnic background.

I think it is hard to move people with data here. This is veering into being a values question of which personal attributes one prefers to emphasise.

feotakahari wrote:

“We’re not punishing sex offenders as hard as the government says we are” is not a question, it’s a statement that requires evidence.

Drop the word 'we' here. My stance is more like "Britain's government* has admitted not punishing Pakistani sex offenders as hard as it should", asterisk because the government is far from unified, evidence comes from other parts of the government, sometimes there's for example an Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham commissioned by the Rotherham Council, and it says things like:

By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.

and

In two of the cases we read, fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene. In a small number of cases (which have already received media attention) the victims were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.

and

Child A (2000)6 was 12 when the risk of sexual exploitation became known. She was associating with a group of older Asian men and possibly taking drugs. She disclosed having had intercourse with 5 adults. Two of the adults received police cautions after admitting to the Police that they had intercourse with Child A.

Police cautions.

This sort of thing keeps happening. Failure, directives to not notice, non-response and mis-response, noted well after the fact.

Then a repeating pattern of the government going 'well we convicted some people and wrote about it, done now, shut up' despite the convictions being far fewer than the victims report and inquiry estimated the number of offenders at, and then another "Asian" meaning mostly-Pakistani grooming gang gets exposed, and another, and another, and ten more, and it's evidently not done. Telford:

It would in my judgment be wholly wrong, and undoubtedly racist, to equate membership of a particular racial group with propensity to commit CSE; That said, on the papers disclosed by key stakeholders, it is an undeniable fact that a high proportion of those cases involved perpetrators that were described by victims/survivors and others as being “Asian” or, often, “Pakistani”. The Inquiry has itself also heard such accounts from victims/survivors. In considering the evidence, and in particular the disclosed material, I have been cautious not to infer too much from names, which may indicate wider geographical background and indeed religious heritage, but are wholly unreliable indicators of national background and (in particular) religious belief. Even bearing that in mind, however, the evidence plainly shows that the majority of CSE suspects in Telford during my Terms of Reference were men of southern Asian heritage, including all the men convicted in Chalice, and Operations Delta and Epsilon.

More on Operation Chalice.

Ahdel Ali was found guilty of one charge of rape, 11 charges of sexual activity with a child, three charges of controlling child prostitution, one of inciting child prostitution, a charge of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and meeting a child after grooming.

He got a nominal eighteen years for that, the longest sentence of the group, and was released after serving eight years. Even when the government manages to secure a conviction, it seems half-assed.

Again, I think the data question bleeds into a values question about process and severity, and a wider epistemics question: when does one infer that a set of convictions is "got most of them" vs "tip of the iceberg"? A similar question applies to complaints against the police, as with the Independent Office for Police Conduct doing an investigation into failures at Rotherham.

An eight-year investigation and report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) identified examples of officers turning a blind eye or ignoring the plight of girls as young as 11. In one case, they failed to investigate an older man who was found undressed in a bedroom with one of his victims. In another, they did not act when a perpetrator handed over a missing girl as part of a deal not to arrest him. One victim’s father was told by a senior officer that nothing could be done to help his daughter because of “racial tensions” surrounding the investigation. In another case, a victim reported that a police officer had bought illegal steroids from her abuser. When victims tried to report cases to the police, they were often ignored or in some cases even blamed for being abused. After the scandal was exposed in 2014, the police watchdog carried out 91 investigations covering 265 separate allegations against the police, made by 44 victims of abuse and exploitation. Out of the 47 police officers investigated by the watchdog, eight were found to have a case to answer for misconduct and six for gross misconduct.

Is this a bad sign of the system having such failures, a good sign of the system noting its failures, or a false good sign of the system noting its failures without moving from "noting" to "fixing"?

But the final report, published on Wednesday, confirmed that not a single officer had lost their job or been prosecuted as a result of the scandal.

Again, [a part of] Britain's government says [another part of] it is not doing the job of punishing sex offenders properly.

My enemies are soft on child molesters.

My enemies are soft on child molesters for race reasons, according to government reports. The next question is whether this is softer on child molesters than "normal" - the British government's apologists still have the option to say that Britain is just a pedo state in general, don't let your kids out of sight.

[ @feotakahari ]

Okay, I found the point where I was confused. I didn’t realize coming down hard on sexual predators was supposed to be a change. I mean, isn’t that what courts do already?

As Americans, we keep getting reports that the UK are giving short sentences to violent criminals, letting them out early, or prosecuting "hate speech."

The problem with reduced trust is that the distance information can travel on the graph collapses. Someone will say, for instance, that "the critics are racist" because "there isn't enough data." Well, of course, the government can decide whether to create that data, can't they? And if they're still concealing the scale of the problem, they might use the bureaucratic tactic of just deliberately not creating the data, and then claiming it doesn't exist.

A defender might point to one example of an offender getting a long sentence, and that would help (it's a far sight better than just shouting "racist!"), but if someone on the outside thinks the defender would omit information about other offenders not being prosecuted or getting shorter sentences, then the defender can only establish that >0 offenders were properly prosecuted, and not that the problem has been "solved" and is no longer relevant to other politics.

Someone can demand infinite evidence as a political tactic, but this goes in both directions - someone can also say "he's just demanding infinite evidence!" (when the demands are not actually infinite) as a means not to do the work of being trustworthy.

This is a good reason not to exile people from the coalition for not being highly conformist. People who are a bit more disagreeable and independent-minded, who have a history of sound or at least reasonable criticisms of coalition leaders, can establish a path of trust to reach people who could not otherwise be reached.

Politics is about coalitions, margins, and thresholds.

If there were only one right-winger in the UK and he had 50% of the vote, then he could just refuse to cooperate. However, opposing political coalitions are composed of a large number of varying people, and not only are their personalities and life experiences not identical, but their beliefs are not perfectly inflexible.

People are human beings, not merely political units. There should be a focus on cooperating to create good policy, not merely building temporary engines of power, and where it is too difficult to cooperate, it may be necessary to first step back and see how it might be made easier.