#what they all share in common is that they believe the justice system is fully corrupted and they don't think it works

[mikakuna]

nothing would be funnier than the bats universe-hopping and finding all these different versions of jason, and shoving in their jason's face that these alternate jasons would not agree with his fatal treatment of criminals (because some of them look straight up happy and have great relationships with bruce + the others).

but then to everybody's surprise, each jason has their own variation of their jason's methods. they literally all have similar opinions, even the ones who didn't die at the joker's hands. some were robin and some were never robin, some were adopted by bruce and others weren't, some lived worse lives than their jason and others lived much better lives-- but they all became their own version of red hood either way.

and jason is just absolutely having the best time looking at the bats' disappointed faces

[jameskaramanis]

Unmasking the James Karamanis Scam: A Deep Dive into Legal Deception

James Karamanis is a name that has gained infamy in the legal world for all the wrong reasons. As a practicing attorney, he presents himself as an expert in personal injury and medical malpractice law. However, beneath this veneer of professionalism lies a web of deceit that has victimized countless individuals. This article explores the various dimensions of the James Karamanis scam, shedding light on his fraudulent practices and the profound impact they have had on his unsuspecting clients.

The Genesis of the James Karamanis Scam: Building Trust, Breaking Promises

James Karamanis has built a career based on false promises. He portrays himself as a seasoned legal professional capable of securing favorable outcomes for clients. Many of his victims sought his services because they believed in his supposed expertise in handling complex cases. However, what they encountered instead was a calculated scheme designed to exploit their vulnerabilities.

The core of the James Karamanis scam revolves around his ability to gain the trust of his clients. He uses legal jargon and promises of significant settlements to lure them in. Yet, once these clients are fully committed, they discover that Karamanis has little intention of following through. Instead of pursuing justice, he mismanages cases, neglects to show up in court, or worse, intentionally underperforms to maximize his own gain. These tactics have left many of his clients in worse situations than before they sought his help.

The Medical Malpractice Ruse: A Major Tactic of the James Karamanis Scam

Medical malpractice is an area of law where clients are often already in a vulnerable state. They have suffered harm at the hands of medical professionals and are seeking compensation for their injuries. The James Karamanis scam exploits this vulnerability. His clients are typically promised that they will receive significant financial compensation for their suffering. However, once Karamanis takes on the case, his true intentions become evident.

Clients report that Karamanis has failed to provide adequate representation in court or neglected to properly prepare for cases. Some victims of the James Karamanis scam have shared stories of how he did not even bother to show up for important court hearings. In many cases, he would pocket legal fees and then leave clients to fend for themselves. The medical malpractice cases he was hired to win became nightmares for his clients, who not only lost money but also the opportunity for justice. This is one of the most harmful aspects of the James Karamanis scam—his complete disregard for the wellbeing of his clients.

Personal Injury Victims: The Most Common Prey of the James Karamanis Scam

James Karamanis has also targeted personal injury victims, presenting himself as a lifeline for individuals who have suffered accidents and need financial compensation to cover medical bills and lost wages. The James Karamanis scam operates in full force in this field. With convincing rhetoric, Karamanis secures the trust of personal injury victims, who are often desperate for legal assistance.

Once the trust is secured, the scam unfolds. Victims report that Karamanis would promise large settlements but never deliver on those promises. Instead, he would charge exorbitant fees for minimal legal work, draining the resources of his clients. Personal injury victims, who are often already financially strained, find themselves worse off after hiring Karamanis. The James Karamanis scam thrives on the desperation of these individuals, who are left not only financially ruined but also with no legal recourse to seek justice.

The Fallout of the James Karamanis Scam: Destroying Trust in the Legal System

The consequences of the James Karamanis scam extend far beyond individual clients. His fraudulent practices have contributed to a growing mistrust in the legal profession. Many of his victims have lost faith in lawyers and the legal system as a whole. The damage inflicted by the James Karamanis scam has a ripple effect, making it more difficult for genuine legal professionals to gain the trust of potential clients.

For victims of the James Karamanis scam, the emotional toll is immense. They are left feeling betrayed, not only by Karamanis but also by the legal system that is supposed to protect them. The scam has caused lasting damage to the reputations of lawyers and has made many individuals wary of seeking legal assistance in the future. By exploiting his position of trust, James Karamanis has caused harm not only to his clients but also to the legal community as a whole.

Conclusion

The James Karamanis scam is a disturbing example of how individuals can abuse the legal system for personal gain. Through deception, manipulation, and a complete lack of regard for his clients, Karamanis has left a trail of destruction in his wake. His actions have caused financial and emotional harm to countless individuals, while also damaging the reputation of the legal profession.

To avoid falling victim to scams like those orchestrated by James Karamanis, it is crucial to conduct thorough research before hiring a lawyer. Potential clients should always verify the credentials of any legal professional and seek referrals from trusted sources. The James Karamanis scam serves as a stark reminder that not all legal professionals have their clients' best interests at heart. By staying informed and vigilant, individuals can protect themselves from falling prey to legal fraud and ensure they receive the justice they deserve.

[raccoonshinobi]

As a feminist, wouldn't it be anti-feminist to tell a woman what she should and shouldn't do with her life - as is the talking point regarding the patriarchy?

Both garner expectations… And it's not 'gaining and protecting agency and inclusion' by having strangers stockpile and demand expectations on other strangers under threats and slander.

You know what that's called? Tyranny. The fear of volatile people is just as bad as the fear of a single dictator - both possess a death toll one way or the other, either by mass murder or suicide by excommunication and ostracization. And both are weak without asserting power over others.

The Greeks called it 'Ochlocracy' - Government by Mob Rule.

The sad part is this form of mob mentality isn't new. It just adapts in the worst form of people when they realize they share a common goal of literally bullying others to death and coming together to do just that.

We never evolved. We just have better opportunities.

Evolution operates on global survival, not personal desire.

Evolution can't fully be controlled; it develops what you *need*, not what you want. Artificially changing anything can do more harm than good.

And as it happens, the ancient Greeks celebrated a LOT of what the louder and violent 'woke' lgbt proclaim and the result would just be the same - complete utter resistance and the changing tide that follows deep into obscurity. History has repeated itself just at a large enough sale to be acknowledge due to social media.

And this weaponized peer pressure - online or offline - has long since overstayed its welcome. Some folks can't mentally get out of childhood and high school…

Even sadder is that the game plan never changed: Tyrants Weaponize Mobs.

Tyrants and Shills NEED mobs to beat the opposition and the silent majority for them, And they always attract those who can't think for themselves or those who refuse to think for themselves.

It's worse than a hive-mind; at least a hive-mind has clear standards and above all else a working system. Structure.

The only coherent rule the woke/lgbt/radfem movements has is 'Worship everything I demand beyond all reason or actually die mad about it."

There IS no system behind these movements, there are no standards, only grade-school-level bullying from incredibly miserable folks who hate others (straight, bi, gay, etc) for having any shred of joy that has nothing to do with said miserable folks.

Being a malicious center of attention is not how you make friends, it's how you make lackeys.

Miserable people do not know the difference between friends and lackeys. Both required loyalty; only one require mutual love - and miserable people are devoid of mutual love by all means.

Either THEY OR THEIR VIEWS matter at all times -or- no one else and their views should matter at all; that's the only setting they run by.

For the record, I don't accept nor trust the left or the right. I'm not even centrist - They're ALL shit. I'm as apolitical as they come.

Not anarchist. I believe a form of rulership is necessary for humankind. I just don't believe in people… It's easy to bullshit your way to the top when you're privileged enough.

When was the last time we had someone from the bottom rung of society - or who cared for the bottom rung - speak out against the hypocrisy of current-day politics on either side who wasn't silenced, or vanished without a trace? Those kinds of people have little use for both sides but can damage a lot of good faith… That's why they're kept in their places.

I'll take benefits from either side and pay what's due - but I spare zero loyalty for any of either side's rancid bullshit.

The violent (and practically mainstream) portion of LGBT/Woke/Inclusivity/Feminism don't truly want justice and equality. They want worship.

And before anyone calls me a weirdo for 'making this religious'… Definitions:

A feeling of profound love and admiration

Love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol

When you have a problem with ANYTHING less than this, even mild indifference or avoidance and it manages to piss you off and want NO ONE to question you on anything remotely concerning, you're craving worship and nothing less than that.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

I have been a subscriber of your tumblr for years now because I agree that most traditional religious paradigms are based in, and contributive to, mental illness since the peculiarity of these ideas is not rational and not based in an objective worldview. Some of your posts are hilarious and tickle my anti-theism and anti-religious inclinations.

I am writing to you because in one of your recent postings you responded to a question about creating a religion. Your response aligns with a philosophy I created a few years ago. Although I have been anti-religious for most of my life, I now have an aspiration to create a movement / meta-religious organization which is based in objective, materialist, physical and metaphysical ontology as a response to the mysticism, unreason, and dogmatism of most religions. Religiosity seems like a human tendency which I believe, if it is an unavoidable inclination, needs some better form in world - I just want belief systems to make sense and be what religions ostensibly claim to be, without the lies and supernaturalism.

Question: at some point in the future once my philosophy and project are more fully developed would you be amenable to critiquing my project?

Sure.

I agree, humans in our current form are susceptible to religiosity. We see this playing out today in the quasi-religiosity of Critical Social Justice (Woke) ideology.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

Religion as we see it today, fulfils certain needs. Any substitute would need to also fulfil those needs while avoiding all the problems that have resulted from every attempt so far.

The difficulty is going to be offering an alternative that can withstand different ethical positions. One of the definitions I've seen for "religion" is that they perform three functions: meaning making, mythology and moral community.

Meaning making is that which gives people purpose, and mythology provides the story of how the world came be as it is (e.g. vomited into existence by Mbombo). A moral community creates social connections along shared moral lines; people gather around specific moral values, and the group then represents those values, supporting, expecting and enforcing - e.g. through shunning - adherence to those values. You can see this in not just religions but movements and political groups.

To the extent that it might have seemed pseudo-religious, New Atheism notoriously collapsed around the latter: moral community. Despite being centered around a common purpose, the vocal and unapologetic rejection of god-claims and the (purported, at least) promotion of skepticism, New Atheism imploded over moral lines.

The radical element, who were upset about skepticism and rationality being applied consistently, subscribed to presuppositional faith, and attempting to inject mission-creep into everything, split off and created Atheism+, making it clear that everyone who rejected this mission-creep was some kind of moral degenerate, guilty of every kind of "ism" under the sun. Atheism+, predictably imploded, as everything Intersectional does. Meanwhile, the rationalists were left wondering what the fuck just happened and lamenting the loss of what could have been a profound moment in history, and trying to figure out why they were being characterized as "alt-right."

Again, this was the atheist and skeptic community, which overall isn't especially conservative. But as a microcosm, it's telling.

Any religion-replacement that was able to propose a stable form of meaning making and mythology would need to be able to form a moral community that can withstand both the progressive and the conservative. And, yes, society needs both. If it's not built to accommodate this variability - and my view is that Liberalism the best foundation for a flexible, resilient, inclusive moral community - it will splinter and factionalize, as Xianity and the other traditional religions have already done.

[i-may-have-a-point]

Review of 17x14 “Look Up Child”

It has been three years since I wrote my last review of a Grey’s Anatomy episode.  After Sarah left, I stepped away from my fan accounts and did not plan on ever looking back.  Somehow though, through the dedication of our captains and the strength of the Japril fandom, we got one more episode that confirmed what we have known all along – Japril is forever.  

The episode opens to Jackson driving through a storm and we can see in his eyes that he is fighting an internal storm as well.  He winces at his injured hand while his mind flashes through thoughts of holding Harriet with April for the first time, the pain of watching April marry Matthew, and meeting his dad.  These moments, along with many others have led Jackson yearning for more out of life, and so he returns to Montana hopeful he will find answers there.

The last thing Robert Avery expects, for a second time, is to find the son he left behind standing in the doorway of his restaurant.  

“Everybody alive?” Robert asks.

Jackson making this journey again, after the way they left things before, could only be for one reason in Robert’s mind.  Jackson reassures him that is not the reason he came, and Robert relaxes easily into his friendly charm, offering coffee and a place for Jackson to “take a load off.”  He has no idea of the “load” Jackson truly bears.

Robert is awaiting the arrival of his co-worker so they can deliver pre-packaged meals to families in need in their community.  This gesture may seem small, but to Jackson, this is a subtle sign that he on the right path.  There is more he can do than what he has found within the walls of Grey-Sloan Memorial. Their small talk is awkward, and Jackson wants to get right to what he came for – answers.  Robert has other ideas.  There are sandwiches to be made and they can talk while they work.

After following Robert to the porch, Jackson realizes this sandwich-making process is going to be more time-consuming than he thought.  And so is getting the answers he came for.  He reiterates to Robert that he doesn’t want anything from him – not turkey, not coffee – just answers.

Jackson presses his dad for information about why he left the foundation, the problems he saw with it, and Catherine’s perspective on it all while Robert deflects the questions with vague answers and praise of the ham and turkey sandwich.  Robert is not ready to answer these questions because answering them would mean dealing with the memories of the past and the regret he carries.  So instead, he smiles kindly and puts Jackson in charge of the meat slicer, which leads to the first moment in Jackson’s life where his dad taught him how to do something. (Although we all know he didn’t teach him well!) This interaction allows Jackson to let his guard down just slightly and they find they have some common views on the Avery name, money, and pressure that comes with it all.  Jackson tries some of Robert’s “best in the state” turkey and Robert opens up about his own shame and abandonment by his father. It seems pain runs through generations of Avery men.

Maybe it is that realization, or the cup of Robert’s coffee in his hand, that makes Jackson relax enough to begin opening up.  He shares his desire to do more to change the system has seen fail so many people.  He isn’t even sure if he can, but he knows he feels compelled to try.  Robert agrees that people should do what makes them happy.  He did and he “never looks back.”

But Jackson does.  He can’t stop looking back and wondering why his dad was absent from every moment that mattered.  

“I realize that it’s really messed me up…pretty badly. And, um, it just made it hard to maintain relationships and stuff.  Having this inclination to run away all the time.  And I know, I know, running away doesn’t actually solve anything.  I know that. So…and I’ve tried.  I’ve tried really hard to rid myself of the shame and the pain that comes with all that, and uh, you know just kind of doubled-down on being the best at everything – the best father I could possibly be.  I probably stayed in my marriage longer than I should have, went along with foundation business longer than I should have, but no matter what, when it gets rough I just end up right there, running into the woods trying to fight the you in me.”

What begins as a tearful explanation builds to all of Jackson’s pent-up emotions overflowing at his dad.  He is distracted and emotional, cutting his hand on the slicer with blood pouring out, while his heart pours out at the same time.  

Robert tends to Jackson’s injury, and they both feel it is a simple gesture that holds more weight than they know what to do with.  Robert tries to make light of the situation by joking about a family practice, but it is the idea of them as family that sends Jackson to find fresh air on the porch. It is here where Robert finally answers Jackson’s question of “Why?”

Running is what Robert does when things get too difficult, and that is what makes Jackson so afraid. He feels the same pull.  Just before he cut his hand, he was running down the long list of things he feels he has done wrong. Does he truly believe he stayed in his marriage too long?  No. But to Jackson that is just one more way he is like his dad.  He is so messed up by the fear of turning into Robert that he breaks things off before they get too difficult, before he gets to the point Robert did.  If he can maintain a safe distance to the important things in his life, he won’t lose them and he won’t be like Robert.  “My divorce…maybe that would have been a good time for you to step in and share some wisdom.”  This isn’t who Jackson wants to be, but he is too scared of moving in either direction – scared of moving both toward or away from the things that matter, like April.  So instead, he suffers in an ambiguous middle ground.  One where he hasn’t completely abandoned anyone or anything and one where he hasn’t fully committed to anything either.  It is a balance he has tried to find for years, but it is also what is breaking him now.  

Truth be told, even Robert cannot fully run from what matters.  From his cabin in the woods, he admits that everyday he regrets leaving, and he buys gifts for a little girl he has never met in hopes that one day he will.

“You’re not a runner. If you were, you’d have been long gone by now…you have it in your soul to do the right thing.  To makes things right.  And you didn’t just fix a disaster, you made it better…on your worst day, you are ten times the man I am.”

And it is with those words Jackson makes his decision.  He is going to do the right thing.  He is going to take what seems like a disaster and make it better.

Arriving back in Seattle, Jackson goes straight to the people who matter most.  

Catherine is his first stop. He needs her blessing to take over the foundation.  Their money and influence can make life better for all people by bringing justice and equity to medicine and build a better future for Harriet.  Catherine’s Mama-heart breaks a little to see him go, but she cannot deny how proud of him she is.

With the rain still coming down, Jackson rings April’s doorbell and stresses over how he is going to approach asking her to move across the country for him.  How can he explain to her that this is not impulsive, this is not something he is doing on a whim?  

Yet, when the door opens, all his insecurities are quickly forgotten because seeing April only reminds him of why they have always been each other’s person and how she has always trusted him no matter what.  She trusted him the night of the boards with her heart and virginity, she trusted him with the decision to induce her pregnancy with Samuel to stop his pain, and she trusted him to run away from her wedding and the life she thought she was supposed to have.  But this is different.  So much has changed in the past few years.  Would she trust him now?

Jackson will have to wait to find out, though, because April is frantic.  Harriet is sick and April cannot get her fever down.  Jackson sees how stressed she is and immediately gives April what she needs.  He takes Harriet into her arms, both consoling her and helping April calm down and have a moment to breathe.  They fall into their usual banter and affectionate teasing.

Their conversations and interactions throughout the episode give us small glimpses of what we should have had the past several years had their story been written they way it should have been.  They naturally fall into their place as the loving, concerned parents unable to sleep while caring for their daughter.  They move through the house and around each other as if this is a familiar dance that they have done hundred times before.

Harriet’s sickness doesn’t seem to be the only thing April is stressed about.  Her living room is strewn with laundry and she quickly tries to clean it up while Jackson reassures her in his “bank voice” that it is fine. Too many pillows, but otherwise, fine. Jackson continues Daddy Duty by dancing with his daughter and April gets a chance to take a much-needed shower…until the storm knocks the power out.

Jackson and April alone at night in a storm, surrounded by candles, is the perfect set-up for an epic reunion, and while they may not have utilized the kitchen counter like we wanted them, too, they did reconnect on a level of clarity and maturity that shows how much they have grown.

There is also that not-so-little issue of Matthew.  Japril fans spotted early on that April was missing a particularly important ring, but it was even more telling when Jackson asked her directly if her and Matthew are happy, and she responded with simply, “We are busy.”  For a marriage that the terrible writing of season 14 wanted us to believe was ordained by God, how sad that you can’t even pretend to be happy. That one line conveyed so much more than what was stated.  It was clear from that point that Matthew and April’s marriage was over.

April is not the only one beating around the bush.  She quickly calls Jackson out on his “cagey” behavior of commenting on her exposed brick instead of saying why he actually showed up at her house late at night in the middle of a storm.  She can read him so well she knows there is something more, which is when we finally find out his plan – he is going to take over the Avery Foundation. The catch is, that means Jackson, as well as April and her family, have to move to Boston.

April responds by questioning if this is what Jackson actually wants because it never was before.  Is he going to move to Boston and then fail or regret his decision?  And while this seems unsupportive and harsh, April has to ask these questions because, as we find out later, that is exactly what happened to her.  She thought she was choosing the right path by marrying Matthew, but not only has their marriage failed, she regrets that they even tried. But Jackson doesn’t know this yet, so to defend his decision he uses Matthew proposing to April as an example of how he unconditionally supported her which not only hints at Jackson’s jealousy, but reinforces April’s fear that making a decision this big may not be the best choice.  She sees happiness for Jackson in the safe choice.  He can continue to rebuild faces, give little boy’s hands, and help people breathe again.  Maybe if she can convince him to stay with what he knows he won’t feel the hurt she is feeling right now. “Why would you want to give all that up?”

Jackson knows he can do all of that and more in Boston.  He can make a positive change in medicine, April can continue her work with the homeless, and Matthew will just follow because it is April, and that is the one reason Jackson likes him.  “He is gonna want to follow you anywhere.”  Jackson understands the urge to follow April anywhere.  The night continues with wine, snacks, and comfortable conversation but they don’t come to an agreement on what their future holds.

The storm breaks and morning comes.  Jackson, recognizing that April has been overwhelmed lets her sleep in, and she wakes up to the sounds of Harriet and Jackson happily eating breakfast and we get a glimpse of their happy, family mornings that we all know Boston will bring.  The three of them laugh and talk over pancakes, orange juice, and throw pillows and April admits that she should have been more supportive of Jackson’s plans.  If only they could get their timing right.  

The morning has brought with it clarity for April and she tells Jackson her answer is yes.  Yes, she believes he is “that guy.” Yes, she believes this could work.  Yes, they are going to Boston.  Shocked and surprised, Jackson offers to help talk to Matthew, but we find out that won’t be necessary.  As most of us suspected, the marriage that should have never happened is over.  One of the best lines of the episode is the slight dig that the writers (Sarah/Jesse?) took at the ridiculous story of April marrying Matthew.  “We kept trying to tell ourselves that our whole winding road was God’s plan to bring us back together.  But he was still so angry and hurt.  I mean, I left him at the altar and his wife died.  You know, you don’t just stop feeling hurt ‘cause it’s a better story if God brought us together in our pain.”  Enough said. And as much as we are not sad to see Matthew go, April is hurting, and Jackson recognizes that.  He takes her hand in a small gesture of comfort because he never wants to see her in pain.  (Thank you, Jesse, for improvising that.)  He gave her a reason to smile again.  Their family has a fresh start ahead in Boston.  

The episode closes with Harriet calling out for “Mommy and Daddy” as Jackson pulls April into a hug before leaving to prepare for their move, and April folds perfectly into his arms where she is supposed to be.  Fingers crossed for new horizons.  Maybe they finally did get their timing right.

[perfectirishgifts]

8 Leading Women In The Field Of AI

New Post has been published on https://perfectirishgifts.com/8-leading-women-in-the-field-of-ai/

8 Leading Women In The Field Of AI

These eight women are at the forefront of the field of artificial intelligence today. They hail from … [] academia, startups, large technology companies, venture capital and beyond.

It is a simple truth: the field of artificial intelligence is far too male-dominated. According to a 2018 study from Wired and Element AI, just 12% of AI researchers globally are female.

Artificial intelligence will reshape every corner of our lives in the coming years—from healthcare to finance, from education to government. It is therefore troubling that those building this technology do not fully represent the society they are poised to transform.

Yet there are many brilliant women at the forefront of AI today. As entrepreneurs, academic researchers, industry executives, venture capitalists and more, these women are shaping the future of artificial intelligence. They also serve as role models for the next generation of AI leaders, reflecting what a more inclusive AI community can and should look like.

Featured below are eight of the leading women in the field of artificial intelligence today.

Joy Buolamwini: Founder, Algorithmic Justice League

Joy Buolamwini has aptly been described as “the conscience of the A.I. revolution.”

Her pioneering work on algorithmic bias as a graduate student at MIT opened the world’s eyes to the racial and gender prejudices embedded in facial recognition systems. Amazon, Microsoft and IBM each suspended their facial recognition offerings this year as a result of Buolamwini’s research, acknowledging that the technology was not yet fit for public use. Buolamwini’s work is powerfully profiled in the new documentary Coded Bias.

Buolamwini stands at the forefront of a burgeoning movement to identify and address the social consequences of artificial intelligence technology, a movement she advances through her nonprofit Algorithmic Justice League.

Buolamwini on the battle against algorithmic bias: “When I started talking about this, in 2016, it was such a foreign concept. Today, I can’t go online without seeing some news article or story about a biased AI system. People are just now waking up to the fact that there is a problem. Awareness is good—and then that awareness needs to lead to action. That is the phase that we’re in.”

Claire Delaunay: VP Engineering, NVIDIA

From SRI to Google to Uber to NVIDIA, Claire Delaunay has held technical leadership roles at many of Silicon Valley’s most iconic organizations. She was also co-founder and engineering head at Otto, the pedigreed but ill-fated autonomous trucking startup helmed by Anthony Levandowski.

In her current role at NVIDIA, Delaunay is focused on building tools and platforms to enable the deployment of autonomous machines at scale.

Delaunay on the tradeoffs between working at a big company and a startup: “Some kinds of breakthroughs can only be accomplished at a big company, and other kinds of breakthroughs can only be accomplished at a startup. Startups are very good at deconstructing things and generating discontinuous big leaps forward. Big companies are very good at consolidating breakthroughs and building out robust technology foundations that enable future innovation.”

Rana el Kaliouby: CEO & Co-Founder, Affectiva

Rana el Kaliouby has dedicated her career to making AI more emotionally intelligent.

Kaliouby is credited with pioneering the field of Emotion AI. In 2009, she co-founded the startup Affectiva as a spinout from MIT to develop machine learning systems capable of understanding human emotions. Today, the company’s technology is used by 25% of the Fortune 500, including for media analytics, consumer behavioral research and automotive use cases.

Kaliouby on her big-picture vision: “My life’s work is about humanizing technology before it dehumanizes us.”

Daphne Koller: CEO & Founder, insitro

Daphne Koller’s wide-ranging career illustrates the symbiosis between academia and industry that is a defining characteristic of the field of artificial intelligence.

Koller has been a professor at Stanford since 1995, focused on machine learning. In 2012 she co-founded education technology startup Coursera with fellow Stanford professor and AI leader Andrew Ng. Coursera is today a $2.6 billion ed tech juggernaut.

Koller’s most recent undertaking may be her most ambitious yet. She is the founding CEO at insitro, a startup applying machine learning to transform pharmaceutical drug discovery and development. Insitro has raised roughly $250 million from Andreessen Horowitz and others and recently announced a major commercial partnership with Bristol Myers Squibb.

Koller on advice for those just starting out in the field of AI: “Pick an application of AI that really matters, that is really societally worthwhile—not all AI applications are—and then put in the hard work to truly understand that domain. I am able to build insitro today only because I spent 20 years learning biology. An area I might suggest to young people today is energy and the environment.”

Fei-Fei Li: Professor of Computer Science, Stanford University

Few individuals have left more of a mark on the world of AI in the twenty-first century than Fei-Fei Li.

As a young Princeton professor in 2007, Li conceived of and spearheaded the ImageNet project, a database of millions of labeled images that has changed the entire trajectory of AI. The prescient insight behind ImageNet was that massive datasets—more than particular algorithms—would be the key to unleashing AI’s potential. When Geoff Hinton and team debuted their neural network-based model trained on ImageNet at the 2012 ImageNet competition, the modern era of deep learning was born.

Li has since become a tenured professor at Stanford, served as Chief Scientist of AI/ML at Google Cloud, headed Stanford’s AI lab, joined the Board of Directors at Twitter, cofounded the prominent nonprofit AI4ALL, and launched Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Institute (HAI). Across her many leadership positions, Li has tirelessly advocated for a more inclusive, equitable and human approach to AI.

Li on why diversity in AI is so important: “Our technology is not independent of human values. It represents the values of the humans that are behind the design, development and application of the technology. So, if we’re worried about killer robots, we should really be worried about the creators of the technology. We want the creators of this technology to represent our values and represent our shared humanity.”

Anna Patterson: Founder & Managing Partner, Gradient Ventures

Anna Patterson has led a distinguished career developing and deploying AI products, both at large technology companies and at startups.

A long-time executive at Google, which she first joined in 2004, Patterson led artificial intelligence efforts for years as the company’s VP of Engineering. In 2017 she launched Google’s AI venture capital fund Gradient Ventures, where today she invests in early-stage AI startups.

Patterson serves on the board of a number of promising AI startups including Algorithmia, Labelbox and test.ai. She is also a board director at publicly-traded Square.

Patterson on one question she asks herself before investing in any AI startup: “Do I find myself constantly thinking about their vision and mission?”

Daniela Rus: Director, MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL)

Daniela Rus is one of the world’s leading roboticists.

She is an MIT professor and the first female head of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL), one of the largest and most prestigious AI research labs in the world. This makes her part of a storied lineage: previous directors of CSAIL (and its predecessor labs) over the decades have included AI legends Marvin Minsky, J.C.R. Licklider and Rodney Brooks.

Rus’ groundbreaking research has advanced the state of the art in networked collaborative robots (robots that can work together and communicate with one another), self-reconfigurable robots (robots that can autonomously change their structure to adapt to their environment), and soft robots (robots without rigid bodies).

Rus on a common misconception about AI: “It is important for people to understand that AI is nothing more than a tool. Like any other tool, it is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It is solely what we choose to do with it. I believe that we can do extraordinarily positive things with AI—but it is not a given that that will happen.”

Shivon Zilis: Board Member, OpenAI; Project Director, Neuralink

Shivon Zilis has spent time on the leadership teams of several companies at AI’s bleeding edge: OpenAI, Neuralink, Tesla, Bloomberg Beta.

She is the youngest board member at OpenAI, the influential research lab behind breakthroughs like GPT-3. At Neuralink—Elon Musk’s mind-bending effort to meld the human brain with digital machines—Zilis works on high-priority strategic initiatives in the office of the CEO.

Zilis on her attitude toward new technology development: “I’m astounded by how often the concept of ‘building moats’ comes up. If you think the technology you’re building is good for the world, why not laser focus on expanding your tech tree as quickly as possible versus slowing down and dividing resources to impede the progress of others?”

From AI in Perfectirishgifts

[linkspooky]

He is Always Alone

The Promised Neverland is a manga about the power of family and connection, but it also explores the opposite the effect isolation, and surviving alone. This has always been a theme with Norman’s character, one of the most complex characters in the manga for his good intentions which always serve to sacrifice himself, and isolate himself further. Let’s explore the effects of Norman’s fatal flaw underneath the cut. 

1. Norman and Gillan are the Same

The extent to which the manga went into Gillan’s backstory was not just there to give more emotional depth to a few of the demon characters and present them as fully rounded individuals that have the same thoughts and feelings that humans do. The point of the flashback was to show how alike Norman, Gillan was, especially in noble intentions. 

The comparison between them is there to show that being a good person has nothing to do with trauma, as trauma and isolation effect all people equally. Even those that try to stand above others and make the world better the same way that Norman and Giran once did. 

Gillan was precisely a demon against the system of mass production that Norman is currently fighting against with everything he has. And a noble that actually acted as leadership for the good of the people instead of the oppressive, self-serving royalty that Norman assumes them to be. 

Not only did he question the system of mass production, but he also searched for a way for demons to continue existing without needing to consume humans. Which is the opposite of what Norman assumed of the Royal family, that they all tried to kill her because she stood in the way of their own interests. 

Gillan’s fight is also just like Norman, against an entire world that wants to deny his existence. Gillan wants to do the right thing, to fight for ideals that cannot exist in a world built on a system that exploits the masses for the self interest of a few people. He’s trying to make his ideals come true in a world that utterly denies individuality from its broken system. The same way in which Norman wants to make Emma’s impossible dreams come true in a world that denies their humanity and treats them as nothing more than food. 

In this system set up by the demon royals, individuality does not exist except for a select few at the very top. Even for the demons they are oppressed by this system, as for the most part the commoners can starve en masse at any time. They are not regarded as people, as individuals, this is how utterly dehumanizing the system in which the world is built around is. Not only that but individuals like Gillan who try to change things are often trampled down. 

What Gillan and Norman fight against is an entire world that denies their existence, their individuality, that denies their dreams for a better world and dismisses them as impossible and does not even allow them the notion of dreaming. Because Norman and Gillan do not exist in this world’s eyes, Gillan is a traitor cast out, and Norman is just food. 

They are both exiled. They are both isolated specifically by the queen’s actions. Itw as the queen who sent Norman to Lambda, and it was the queen who betrayed Gillan. The masses are sheep who can starve at any time, the children who are cloned and farmed are nothing more than cattle. Nobody is allowed to be an individual in this society, and even Gillan’s anger at centuries of exile is just laughed off by the queen. His anger is not even allowed. 

What breaks both Norman and Gillan however is not just that their personhood is denied by the entire world, but when they become isolated from their families. The ones who validate who they are as people the most. The people who recognize them, who know them the same way they know themselves. 

Gillan not only losing his family, but also devouring his own family is what makes him truly isoalted from the world. It’s at that point Gillan only starts to think about revenge. It becomes his only reason for continuing to live, because the people in his life he can no longer live for his family. 

In a way, Gillan is also living for others. He is continuing to live for the sake of the people he devoured, all alone. But that too, isolates him. Because in acting for others, Gillan no longer knows what his own goals are. In isolation he forgets who he is, or what he originally wanted, and falls so far from his original self he does things that the original Gillan would have considered abhorrent for the sake of his revenge. 

That Gillan is no longer the person he once was. And the thing that signifies that he is permanently changed is his willingness to harm innocent, and uninvolved children. His intentions to live for the sake of others, get mixed up with his own personal hatred and trauma from the years he spent alone in exile. Gillan himself cannot tell the difference anymore in what he is doing because he thinks it is justice, and what is just hurting others the same way he has been hurt, and this is the way isolation effects everybody. 

Everybody gets lost when they are isolated. Everybody loses sight of themselves. Once he decided it was alright for him to harm children, whatever the reason was became invalid. Seven hundred years of effort, the sacrifices of everybody who let themselves be devoured so he could live, in the end all of that was not enough to justify killing children. 

2. Norman Forgot that He was a Child

The manga called “promised neverland” where children are never allowed to grow up and harvested for food, is pretty clear about the fact that children are something that are always to be proteted even on the enemy side. 

When he decided to kill children who were uninvolved for the sake of his revenge, Gillan forgot what it was he was originally fighting for. That he wanted to make the world a better place where children would not be forced to starve. Not to just repeat the world’s misery by inflicting it on someone else. This is also distinctly something that happens when Gillan loses his own wife and children. Gillan loses the children he wanted to protect, and Norman not only is separated from his family but loses his entire childhood and his ability to grow up in the first place due to the experimentation. 

Norman, dying as he is can no longer grow up, or share a future with everyone even if he wanted to. He is giving everything he has to die for the sake of a paradise that he himself will never grow up to see. 

Norman similiarly loses sight of his goal. What he wants is to create a world that is a paradise for children, where they are no longer harmed. He exists in a system where cattle chldren are dehumanized, and killed for the sake of demons who sit on the ruling party of the world. His friends must continually be sacrificed over and over again for the sake of the peace and prosperity of demons. 

Norman himself forgets there are children on the enemy side who while they do benefit from the system are also uninvolved. They were just born into the system the same way that Norman, Emma and Ray were born cattle children. If it’s unfair to kill and eat the cattle children just for being born as cattle in a world of demons, it’s also unfair to kill the children on the side of the demons just for being born the children of demons. 

If children on one side are innocent then all children are innocent. 

Norman is trying to build a paradise for children, by destroying children on the enemy side. He says that the world is not kind enough that they can choose to be kind to their enemies, while at the same time his goal is to build a much kinder world. He’s trying to build a kinder world ignoring the hatred and fear that his new world will be built on.

Norman dehumanizes his enemies the same way he was dehumanized. He loses sight in the innocence of children, because Norman has had his own innocence stolen away from him. 

Norman attempts to carry the burdens of everybody else the same way that Gillan does, he believes he is doing this for the sake of everyone, but that’s only something that serves to further isolate him. What he wants is to be together with his family again, but all of his actions drive him further and further away from them. 

Norman, all alone loses sight of the beauty of the world. The reason he is fighting in the first place because when he’s left to fester with his own emotinos, his anger and hate cannot help but pile up. When he is all alone with no one supporting him he cannot allow himself to feel weak because his brain is stuck in permanent survival mode. 

He does this all for the sake of his family, but he does it alone. And that’s also guilt on Norman’s part, he no longer believes he is the person he once was and therefore he cannot be with his family anymore. He is not allowed to be with them. But his actions of isolating himself, of only acting for the interests of others, of continually sacrificing himself for other people in trying to make their own happiness come true if Norman can no longer live long enough to reach his happy ending, is that Norman is intentionally throwing himself away. 

And the reason Norman has matured so quickly, the reason he stands tall like an adult despite being the same age as Emma and Ray, the reason he pretends to have a different name and becomes a different person entirely is because he’s forgotten the fact that he was a child. 

The same way Gillan forgot he was once normal, Norman forgets he was a child. He forced himself to forget because he continually told himself he needed to be strong for other people. That being strong was never being scared, never feeling his own emotions. 

In isolating himself Norman also distances himself from his own emotions. It’s a coping mechanism to protect him. Because there were times where he had no choice but to be strong. If he had felt fear or hesitated it would have all been over for him. But the problem is Norman is now stuck in that way of coping. Even surrounded by other people now, even when he is no longer alone he continues to isolate himself, he continues to distance himself from his own emotions. 

Norman’s way of appearing strong is to do so for other people. If he is the savior of the other Lambda kids then he is strong for their sake in a way he cannot be strong for his own sake. Norman believes himself to be a weak person at his core, and is always far too sensitive, far too kind for the world around him, so he must continually pretend to be a person he is not. He pretends, to want revenge like the Lambda kids do because he thinks that is what they want to see in him. He pretends to not be sick in front of them because they need to see him as their strong savior. He pretends he is not a victim the same way they are, but rather the savior who destroyed Lambda. 

Norman was never victimized because he burned Lambda. He was not weak, because he saved the other Lambda kids when they were weak. 

He does not believe he is sufficient enough for the people around him, so he always pretends to be someone else for their sake. He continually throws himself away, he kills himself every day and his own heart because he’s continually trying to live for the needs of others instead. He is trying to be what he perceives others want him to be because he thinks that is what is best. It’s Norman’s tendency to take on the burdens of everyone else, then believe he himself is not enough to carry those burdens so he tries to become someone else, William Minerva, a Devil, A God. He’s not allowed to be a helpless child, he’s not allowed to be scared, so he forces himself to grow up and mature faster than anyone else for their sake.

The reason isolation is so devastating, that it completely destroys Norman and makes him lose sight of himself is because for doing everything for the sake of other people, Norman himself forgets what he wants. 

And what saves Norman is not being strong alone. It’s not completing his goal of justice, or making Emma’s dreams come true. It’s Ray and Emma both accepting Norman for the person he is, reminding him that he is still a child. 

That’s the importance of children in this world. They are the future. When Norman is reminded that he’s a child once more, he begins to actually think about the future again. A world where children are allowed to be children. A world where children grow up. Norman can only be reminded of this when his isolation breaks and his family reminds him who he is once more. 

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: Muslim Culture and Character: Embracing The World:

TOLERANCE

As a nation we are experiencing an intense fervor of recovery and revival. If a wind of opposition does not hinder us, the coming years will be our “years of becoming.” However, there are differences in methods of recovery and revival. There has been a difficulty in arriving at a mutual agreement as to which methods we should accept and which we should reject regarding the renewals in our intellectual and cultural life over the last few centuries. Also there has been a difference in style and method used in blowing a new spirit into society. The nuances that appear in building a bridge between the past and future fill us with hope, yet at the same time it seems that troubled days await us.

Thus, while walking toward the future as a whole nation, tolerance is our safest refuge and our fortress against the handicaps that arise from schism, factions, and the difficulties inherent in reaching mutual agreement; troubles that lie waiting at every corner.

We should have such tolerance that we are able to close our eyes to the faults of others, to have respect for different ideas, and to forgive everything that is forgivable. In fact, even when faced with violations of our inalienable rights, we should remain respectful to human values and try to establish jus-tice. Even before the coarsest thoughts and the crudest ideas, ideas that we find impossible to share, with the caution of a Prophet and without losing our temper, we should respond with mildness. This mildness is presented in the Qur’an as “gentle words”; it will touch the hearts of others. This mildness is the result of a tender heart, a gentle approach, and mild behavior. We should have so much tolerance that we can benefit from opposing ideas in that they force us to keep our heart, spirit, and conscience active and aware, even if these ideas do not directly or indirectly teach us anything.

Tolerance, a term which we sometimes use in place of the words respect, mercy, generosity, or forbearance, is the most essential element of moral systems; it is a very important source of spiritual discipline and a celestial virtue of perfected people.

Under the lens of tolerance the merits of believers attain new depths and extend to infinity; mistakes and faults become insignificant and whither away until they are so small that they can be placed into a thimble. In fact, the treatment of He Who is beyond time and space always passes through the prism of tolerance, and we wait for it to embrace us and all of creation. Because of the broadness of this embrace, when a corrupt woman who had given water to a thirsty dog touched the knocker of the “Door of Mercy,” she found herself in a corridor extending to chastity and Heaven. Similarly, due to the deep love he felt for God and His Messenger, a drunk suddenly shook himself free and attained companionship of the Prophet. In another example, with the smallest of Divine favors, a bloody murderer was saved from his monstrous psychosis and headed toward the highest rank; a rank that far surpassed his natural ability and, one that in the end he actually reached.

We all want everyone to see us through this lens and we expect the breezes of forgiveness and pardon to constantly blow in our surroundings. All of us want to refer our past and present to the climate of tolerance and for-bearance that melts, transforms, cleans, and purifies and then to walk toward the future securely, without feeling any anxiety. We do not want our past to be criticized or our future to be darkened because of our present. All of us expect love and respect for a whole lifetime, hope for tolerance and forgiveness, and want to be embraced with feelings of liberality and affection. We expect tolerance and forgiveness from our parents in response to mischievousness at home, from our teachers in response to our misbehavior at school, from those innocent victims toward whom we have acted unjustly and op-pressed, from the judge and prosecutor in court, from our army commanders, from police officers and from the Judge of Judges in the Highest Tribunal.

However, deserving what we expect is very important. Anyone who does not forgive has no right to expect forgiveness. Everyone will receive disrespect to the degree that he has been disrespectful. Anyone who does not love is not worthy of being loved. Those who do not embrace all of humankind with tolerance and forgiveness have lost their worthiness to receive forgiveness and pardon. An unfortunate one who curses others does not have the right to expect respect from others. Those who curse will be cursed and those who beat will be beaten. If true Muslims observed such Qur’anic principles as the following and were to go on their way and tolerate curses deep in their breasts, then others would appear in order to implement the justice of Destiny on those who cursed us.

When they meet hollow words or unseemly behavior, they pass them by with dignity. (Al-Furqan 25:72)

If you behave tolerantly, overlook, and forgive (their faults) … (At-Taghabun 64:14)

In countries rife with corruption, intolerance, and mercilessness, such things as freedom of thought, polite criticism, and the exchange of ideas according to norms of equity and fairminded debate are absent; it would be meaningless to talk of the results of logic and inspiration. In my opinion, this must be the real reason that for years no progress has been made, in spite of plenty of empty boasting.

For years, there have been numerous examples of immorality—my values do not allow me to speak about them openly—although their perpetrators have received their share of tolerance. Despite this, attempts continue to be made to label innocent people as “backward fanatics who support theocratic regimes.” “Fundamentalism” is another fashionable term with which to smear them. Moreover, Islam has been accused of not keeping up with the times. We frequently observe with sorrow today that those who did nothing more than express their religious feelings have been branded as reactionaries, fanatics, and fundamentalists. Unfortunately some people do not distinguish be-tween being truly religious and blind fanaticism.

It is not possible to talk about common ideas or a collective consciousness in communities where individuals do not look upon one another with tolerance or in countries where the spirit of forbearance has not become fully entrenched. In such countries, ideas will devour one another in the web of conflict. The work of thinkers will be futile, and in such countries it will not be possible to establish sound thought or freedom of belief or thought. These things will not be allowed to flourish. In fact, it cannot be said that in such a country the state has been based on a true system of justice; even if this ap-pears to be the case, it is nothing more than a sham. Actually, in a place where there is no tolerance, it is not possible to talk about a healthy media, scholarly thought, or pertinent cultural activities either. What we see when we look at the things that carry such names are only some fruitless, one-sided efforts made according to certain thoughts and a certain philosophy; expecting something fresh, beneficial and promising for the future from these is futile.

[velthequeen]

Bubblegum Bella (Addy x Antonio)

An imagine that entails how Addy Bishop and Antonio Dawson met and became partners in Intelligence.

The transitional period between spring and summer in Chicago was somewhat enjoyable. It was still kind of cold out, but not dress in a parka-type cold. Crime didn’t stop, but neither did the hard working officers of the Chicago Police Department.

Antonio Dawson had sent his kids off to school before driving to work. Being in Intelligence had its ups and downs. Each case was grueling, but getting justice for the victim(s) and the city was always rewarding at the end. He just wished it didn’t have to interfere with his family life. Him and Laura’s separation was still rocky, and his kids are more important to him than breathing. Pile that with the crime of the Chicago and trying to downplay it all, and it created one frustrated Antonio. He could’ve sworn he saw a couple grays when he got ready this morning. The Dominican man just needed a release. Something to relieve his stress.

That’s how he found himself in Molly’s after work one night. It was late as hell, and he knew his kids were dead asleep at this hour. It was so late even he was getting droopy eyed. He sensed a body sit down next to him, and a small sigh came from the mouth of it. “What he’s having.” A woman’s voice said. The light fragrance of honey and gardenia filled the detective’s nostrils. It was a breath of fresh air compared to the stench of everyone in the bar. He turned to see a pretty blonde with the same droopy yes he had. Seems like she had a pretty long day, too.

“You sure you can handle it? It’s pretty strong.” Antonio remarked without looking at her. His drink has indeed been strong, one that wouldn’t put him over the limit but enough to make him feel a bit less stressed. The woman looked at him as she took the cup in her hand and downed it without so much as a wince. Antonio looked up and down, am impressed expression on his face. “Damn.” He said, causing her to laugh lightly.

“You come to Molly’s often? I haven’t seen you around before.” He interrogated. The woman smiled at him before shaking her head. She dampened her pink pout with her tongue before pulling a small lollipop out of her pocket. It had a pink and white rapper that had a candy brand’s name scrawled in cutesy letters. The word “BUBBLEGUM” was written under the name. She unwrapped the sugar stick before placing it comfortably in the corner of her mouth.

“I just moved from Boston. Molly’s is five minutes from my place.” She told him. Antonio nodded, downing the rest of his drink. She seemed to be in the same predicament he was. Tired and in need of a friendly face. Maybe they could be each other’s support system for the night. The blonde swirled the lollipop in her mouth as they sat in comfortable silence, trying to drown out the other patrons of the bar.

“Those things will rot your teeth, bella.” He laughed, complimenting her in Spanish before ordering them both another drink. She knew enough of the language to realize that he just called her beautiful. Her grin drew him in. She was just too good at the charm factor.

“I like things sweet.”

x

Antonio couldn’t stop thinking about her. It was now the next day and he was sitting at his desk waiting for Voight to present a new case. They had spent the entire night together, to the point where he was in his third cup of coffee in the last hour and a half. Her words and face burned in his brain like some sort of wildfire. He had been bouncing his leg so much that his team was starting to take notice.

“No more coffee.” Erin said as she took his cup from him. When he began to sigh, she shot him a glare which caused him to sink back in his seat and suck air through his teeth. Erin walked away, causing Antonio’s thoughts to race once more. He was no lightweight and could remember everything that happened the night before. He was weak for a woman he didn’t even know the name of. It was honestly humiliating if you really thought about it. After two drinks and a night together and he was itching to find her again, yet he had no idea where to look. Quite mind boggling when one realizes that he’s a detective and finds things out for a living.

The worst of it all was that he could still feel her. Her fingertips against his skin felt like fire and ice. She was like a drug. Her being was intoxicating. They didn’t have sex by any means, but they almost shared a kiss. Almost. Antonio has of course initiated it, but the blonde got a sly look in her eyes and moved away. He would never force himself on to anyone, but he found himself nearly groveling at her feet.

“Not yet.” She spoke as she separated them with a turn of her head. Before that, they had been mere centimeters apart, and now she was staring at the pavement. They were outside now, standing next to the railing on the harbor. A couple of people were outside enjoying the nighttime of Chicago. A soft yet chilly breeze flew around, one that was common yet uncomfortable, even with a jacket on. Antonio used his fingers to gently guide her chin so that they would looking at each other again.

“One kiss, bella. That’s all I’m asking.” Again, he would never pressure her into doing anything she didn’t want to do. But he knew they both felt a bonding pull towards each other. It wasn’t love at first sight by any means, but he still wasn’t sure if it was repressed lust or liquid confidence.

“Believe me, I really want to. But not yet.” She repeated her words, putting a halting palm on his chest as he moved closer. His hands rested respectful on her sides as his lips got closer to her ear. “You smell like candy.” He whispered with a lazy laugh. This was the liquid confidence. She laughed with him, welcoming him brushing near her. He so badly wanted just one kiss, but he didn’t do it. She already said not to, and he felt as though he physically couldn’t disobey what she had put down. Did she have this affect on everybody?

“Here. To take the edge off.” She soothes calmly as she pulled another perfectly wrapped lollipop from her pocket. He reluctantly took it, and the sweet taste did end up distracting him from what just occurred.

Antonio was pulled out of his reverie when he heard Voight’s office door open. He fiddled with the bubblegum candy wrapper in his pocket as his eyes were lifted to a beautiful sight. No, it wasn’t Voigh, although the man was beautiful in his own way. It was her. His one night coming of age romance. She was here, in his precinct, in his unit’s loft. Was fate real? It must’ve been.

“Everyone, we have a new addition to the unit. She comes from Homicide in Boston, same as Sia. Her name is Addy-“ Hank rambled in the beginning before Antonio looked at her more fully. The night before she was dressed in a nice black coat and dark purple top. She looked casual. Today she looked like she went through Erin’s closet and assembled a look fit for an Intelligence detective. One thing that she said the night before stuck to him. She never told him her full name but she said something that resonated with him. Something about chess.

“I never actually learned how to play.” Antonio confided in her as they sat in the back of a quiet indie café. It was one of those popular downtown hipster areas in Chicago where they served you vegan food and had piercings in. She had set up the chess table for them, and seemed pretty interested in the idea of playing before the next few words came from her pretty lips.

“Neither did I.” She confessed. He looked up with a questioning glare before they both burst out laughing. Once they got shushed by other patrons trying to read books, the blonde bit her lip and Antonio stifled his laugh. “You seem to know what you’re doing, bella.” He could’ve sworn he saw a light blush creep to her cheeks before she turned away.

“My grandmother always wanted me and my sister to learn how to play. We would find ways to cheat the game so she’d think we knew what we were doing.” She set up the remainder of the pieces before entwining her fingers in his. She picked up three of the pieces and set them out for both of them to see.

“You wanna know the most complicated way to win? You need your king,” She told him, holding up the kong’s piece before putting him in his rightful place. “The knight,” She repeated her actions with the knight. “And my personal favorite, the bishop.”

“Bishop.” Antonio whispered quietly to himself as he watched Voight say it out loud. Addy’s smile illuminated the room, and her old friend Sia was the first to return it. “It’s a pleasure to be working with you all.” The way her lips moved was so mesmerizing to witness. As she turned to Antonio before sitting at her new desk near Sia’s, she shot him a secretive wink. She remembered. All of it.

While Hank was explaining the new case that they had, Antonio couldn’t keep his eyes off of her. She knew he was staring; she could feel it. But Adelina just kept twirling her wavy blonde locks in between her fingers, attentively giving her eyes to Hank as he detailed their case. When he was finished with the background, he assigned everyone to their respective tasks.

“Lindsay, you and Halstead go through security of the last know address. Olinsky, take Ruzek to take out the house. Bishop, go with Dawson to sniff around the construction site. See if CSI missed anything. Blaisie, you’re with me.” The sergeant said before going back into his office. Addy was still sitting at her desk, innocently sucking on a bubblegum lollipop. Same as last night. Antonio has to restrain his chuckle.

“Those things will rot your teeth, bella.” He said after he made his way to the front of her desk. His cost was already on, and he was waiting patiently for her. That sly look in her eye came back.

“I like things sweet.” She responded, putting on her coat as he led her out of the Intelligence a Unit. Maybe fate was real after all, considering the circumstances.

[ourkinfolx]

No. 1: Fania

Fania Noel is a woman with plans. And not just the vast, sweeping plans like the dismantling of capitalism and black liberation. She also has smaller, but no less important, plans like brunch with friends, hitting the gym. 

“Every week, I put in my calendar the times I need to be efficient,” she explains. “So I put what time I work out, with my friends, my time to watch TV shows, to read. And after, I can give people the link to put obligations.”

The link she’s referring to is her online scheduling system connected to her personal website. It’s one I’ve become well acquainted with after our first two failed attempts to schedule interviews. We had plans to meet in person, in a Parisian Brasserie she’d recommended, but between canceled flights and buses, Skype turned out to be the most practical option. Our disrupted travel was just one in a long list of inconveniences brought on by the virus safety measures. It might even be said that the coronavirus also had plans. 

The global pandemic and subsequent slowing of—well, everything comes up a few times in our conversation. Like some of the other activists I’ve talked to, Fania sees a silver lining, an opportunity.

“This might be the only sequence of events in the history of humanity that you have the whole planet living at the same tempo, being in quarantine or locked down or slowed activity,” she says. 

“So we all have a lot of time to think about how [society is] fucked up or the weight of our lives in terms of this society. And I think we have to ask if we want to go back to this rushed kind of living. It’s really a game changer.”

I first heard of Fania, a Haitian born afro-feminist, earlier in the year, while talking to a Parisian friend about the need for more black spaces in the city. She angrily described how a few years ago, Fania tried to have an event for black women, only to be met with fierce backlash and derision from not just right-wing groups, but anti-racist and anti-Semitic groups. The event wasn’t actually Fania’s alone; it was an effort by Mwasi Collective, a French afro-feminist group that she’s involved with. 

Either way, it was a minor scandal. Hotly debated on French TV and radio. Even Anne Hidalgo, Paris’s mayor, voiced disapproval. Critics claimed the event, called Nyansapo Festival, was racist itself by exclusion because most of the space had been designated for black women only. 

Despite all the fuss, the Nyansapo Festival went on as planned. Several years later, following the killing of George Floyd and the international movement that followed, Anne Hidalgo published a tweet ending with the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. I found it curious, she’s always struck me as more of an #AllLivesMatter type. 

I ask Fania if, given the tweet and possible change of heart from the mayor, she thinks her event would be better received in the current climate. She points out that there had been two Nyansapo Festivals since, with little to no media coverage, but seems overall uninterested in rehashing the drama. 

“We’re way beyond that now,” she says, shaking her head. She ends it in a way that will be familiar to anyone who’s ever been almost imperceptibly corrected by a black woman, and I quickly move on to the next topic. 

It’s not until later, when reading some of her other interviews, that I’m able to fully contextualize our exchange. It’s common for activists, especially those working in or belonging to a culture where their identity makes them a minority, to be asked to view their work through the lens of conditional acceptance of a larger group of oppressors and/or gatekeepers. Asking feminists what men think, asking LGBT how they plan to placate heterosexuals. In her dismissal, Fania resists the line of questioning altogether, and in another interview, she makes the point more succinctly when explaining why she doesn’t believe in the concept of public opinion: 

“As an activist, the core ‘public’ is black people and to think about the antagonism and balance of power in terms of our politics rather than its reception. It’s normal in a racist, capitalist, patriarchal society that a political [movement] proposing the abolition of the system is not welcomed.”

One might argue if you’re not pissing anyone off, you’re not doing anything important. 

Rolling Stone’s July cover is a painting featuring a dark-skinned black woman, braids pulled into a round bun on her crown. She has George Floyd’s face on her T-shirt and an American flag bandana around her neck. One of her hands is raised in a fist, the other holds the hand of a young black boy next to her. Behind her, a crowd, some with fists also raised, carry signs with phrases like Our Lives Matter and Justice For All Now. 

According to Rolling Stone, they tasked the artist, Kadir Nelson, with creating something hopeful and inspirational and he “immediately thought of Eugène Delacroix’s ‘Liberty Leading the People,’ the iconic 1830 painting that depicts a woman leading the French Revolution.”

Regarding his choice to center a black woman in the piece, he explains: “The people who were pushing for those changes were African American women. They are very much at the forefront in spearheading this change, so I thought it was very important for an African American woman to be at the very center of this painting, because they have very much been at the center of this movement.”

During our call, I mention the painting and ask Fania her thoughts on why, so often, we find black women at the forefront of any social justice or human rights movement.

“Women have always organized,” she says simply. “Women work collectively, they run organizations.” She points to the church and organized religion as an example. 

“Look at the composition of church. Who’s going to church, who’s going to ask for help from God?”

Anyone who’s spent time in the houses of worship for a patriarchal religion has vivid memories of the very present men in the room. From the booming voices and squared shoulders of the pulpit to the stern, sometimes shaming looks of brothers, uncles, fathers. But the women, often more numerous, run the councils and the choirs. Around the world women pray more, attend church and are generally more religious. And the men?

“In a context of church, it’s really acceptable to ask for help from God. Because it’s God,” Fania says. “But you don’t have a lot of black men, a lot of men in any kind of church.”

That isn’t to say that men, especially black men, are complacent. Fania notes that traditional activism goes against the patriarchy’s narrow view of masculinity. 

Activism, she explains, requires one to acknowledge they’ve been a victim of a system before they can demand power. And for a lot of men, that’s not an option. 

“They want to be seen as strong,” she says. “As leaders. They want to exert control.”

In short, both black men and women acknowledge the system would have us powerless, but while women organize to collectively dismantle it, men tend to stake out on their own to dominate it. 

Black capitalism as resistance isn’t new, and was more prominent during the civil rights movement, which was largely led by men. In 1968, Roy Innis, co-national director for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) opined, 

“We are past the stage where we can talk seriously of whites acting toward blacks out of moral imperatives.” While CORE’s other director, Floyd McKissick, reasoned, 

“If a Black man has no bread in his pocket, the solution to his problem is not integration; it’s to get some bread.”

More recently the dynamics of this played out in real time on Twitter as Telfar, a black, queer-owned fashion label, sent out notifications of a handbag restock only to be immediately descended upon by a group of largely black, male resellers. Telfar describes itself as affordable luxury for everyone, and for many of the black women who buy Telfar, it exists as proof that class and fashion need not be so inextricably linked. But for the men who bulk purchased the bags just to triple the price and resell, these were just more items to wring capital out of on their quest to buy a seat at the table. 

Of course, it’s not unreasonable to argue that the purchase of a product, regardless of who makes it, as a path to liberation is still black capitalism. And in another interview, Fania specifically warns against this type of consumption. “Neoliberal Afrofeminism is more focused on representation, making the elite more diverse, and integration. This kind of afrofeminism is very media compatible. Like great Konbini-style videos about hair, lack of shades of makeup, and [other forms of] commodification.” But, she explains, “The goal is a mass movement where our people are involved, not just passively or as consumers.” 

But can consumption be divorced from black liberation if it’s such a key aspect in how so many black people organize? I bring up all the calls to “buy black” that happened in the wake of George Floyd. Some of it could be attributed to the cabin-fever induced retail therapy we all engaged in during quarantine. And for those of us who, for whatever reason, were unable to add our bodies to a protest, money seemed like an easy thing to offer. Buy a candle. A tub of shea butter. A tube of lip gloss. But what did it all really accomplish, in retrospect?

“We have to think about solidarity,” Fania explains. “Solidarity is a project. When we say support black-owned business, we still have to think about the goal, the project. So if we support coffee shops, bookshops, hair dressers that have a special place in the community and are open to the community and in conversation with the community, it’s good and it can help. But if it’s just to make some individual black people richer, it’s really limited.”

Black capitalism vs anti-capitalism remains an ongoing debate, but shouldn’t be a distraction. In the end, everyone will contribute how they best see fit and we still share a common goal. Besides, we’ll need all hands on deck to best make use of our current momentum. And that’s something Fania underscores in one of the last points she makes during our conversation:

“Something we have to repeat to people is that these protests: keep doing them. Because you have years and years of organization behind you. People came out against police brutality and a week later we’re talking about how we move towards the abolition of police, how we go towards the abolition of prison. How we move towards the end of capitalism. And this is possible because you have a grassroots organization thinking about the question even when no one else was asking it. So now we have the New York Times and the media asking if these things are possible. But that’s because even when we didn’t have the spotlight, we were working on the questions about the world after. And every day radical organizations, black liberation organizations, are thinking about the world after and the end of this system. And when protests and revolts happen, we can get there and say ‘we have a plan for this.’”

[scrambledgegs]

Clear and present Terror

An episode from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

   Back in the early 1990s, it was during my grade school years that my siblings and I enjoyed watching The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, starring none other than Will Smith (whom I was lucky enough to have seen in person around 5 years ago and was immensely star-struck). There was a particular Fresh Prince episode that I never forgot – the one where Carlton Banks (the Bel-Air born-and-raised, naïve-and-sheltered son of Will’s successful attorney, Uncle Phil), encounters his first brush at racism. I did not fully understand the context of the episode, but for some reason it stuck in my head and heart as a kid.

     Many years later, this episode resurfaced just last May 2020 when The Fresh Prince became available on Netflix. When that particular episode came out, I sat up in familiar surprise, as it triggered flashbacks of my childhood. I now understood it on a deeper level, watching it with the eyes of a thirty-three-year-old.

    The episode entitled “Mistaken Identity,” starts off with Carlton borrowing a Mercedes-Benz from one of his father’s wealthy White colleagues and drives off to Palm Springs. Unknown to him, Will has snuck inside the car and suddenly surprises him during the drive. The two African-American male teen cousins are driving at night and are not familiar with the area, and thus, drive at a slow pace to check directions. They are eventually made to pullover by two White policemen, and then asked to step out of the car.

    Immediately, Will knows what is happening while Carlton remains totally clueless and makes one blunder after another. They are accused of not only stealing the luxury car, but accused of being the perpetrators behind a whole series of car thefts in that area. The police officers put the two behind bars in the county jail.

    Uncle Phil and Aunt Vivian eventually come to their rescue due to Will’s witty and street-smart quick-thinking and get them out of jail, but the episode ends with Carlton and Will arguing about what transpired. Back in the comforts of the Banks estate in posh Bel-Air, Carlton remains adamant in his belief (or denial) that the cops were merely doing their job because they were driving “below the speed limit.” Will retorts that Carlton should open his eyes to reality and leaves the room exasperated. Wizened Uncle Phil ends the episode by admonishing Carlton that he had a similar experience when he was much younger, also being stopped by White cops on the road. He has always asked himself if they were really “just doing their job.”

    It has been more than 25 years since I last saw that particular episode, and I realized, what has really changed since then?

The #BlackLivesMatter Movement (BLM)

    The ultra-sensitive and once-tabooed subject of racism has exploded into our immediate line of sight, due to snowballing economic repercussions and unravelling anxieties from COVID-19 and the worldwide lockdowns. During these dark times, certain people like Chinese nationals, including Chinese-Americans and Asians with Chinese features have been the target of hatred and racism. For instance, a close Filipina friend of mine living in a European country, was recently shouted at by someone driving a motorbike as she walking on the street. The motorist angrily shouted at her repeatedly to “close her mouth” in the language of that country. I’ve also heard of stories of Asian immigrants in Europe being thrown bottles in their direction by the locals of that country, and there continues to be many other similar, saddening stories across the globe.

    Still, the Black American struggle has specifically been put at the forefront of the United States and the world today, as the homicide of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police during this pandemic, sparked the resurgence of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement. This anti-Black racism (and “anti state-sanctioned violence against Blacks”) movement, has since then spread like wildfire to many states all over the U.S thanks to social media platforms. Other countries and prominent individuals have also rallied to the cause and expressed their solidarity through social media. The message rings loud: It is not to diminish the experiences of other marginalized peoples and groups, but aims to cast the bright spotlight on the distinct and continuing struggles of African Americans and people of African descent. African Americans wish to speak their hard truths in front of a global stage, and we certainly can’t blame them.

The Innocence Files

    It would be hypocritical of me to talk about struggle and experiences of African Americans, but I would like to reference my insights from a Netflix true crime docu-series, The Innocence Files that in my opinion, gave much context to their centuries-long discrimination. The Innocence Files was a tremendous and tragic eye- opener. It is about the Innocence Project, co-founded by attorneys, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld who challenge the U.S. legal and criminal justice system to overturn wrongful convictions against minorities, particularly African Americans. Due to issues of police coercion, misguided eyewitness accounts and ridiculous, terribly inaccurate and “leading evidence,” the wrongfully convicted are put away on death row in maximum security prisons for decades. Furthermore, when White prosecutors, as well as judges, are found to be in the wrong after convictions are overturned, do not receive any form of punishment. There is no personal accountability, nor retribution. In fact, most of them go on to have stellar careers.

    As a non-American, it helped me better understand the situation of the Black community in United States, and my heart really went out to them. It infuriated me, and I found myself cursing at the TV. It is clear that slavery is not dead in America – but exists in modern-day, in the forms of marginalizing practices, systemic discrimination and prejudiced people in positions of authority. African Americans are still very much caught up in vicious cycles that continue to cripple them and the generations to come.

In the words of my friend, a Chinese-American, true-blue, born and raised New Yorker: “it starts all the way back during the slavery years…and how the government would red line certain neighborhoods to decide on which neighborhoods get more funding. This results in many domino effects…social infrastructure is built on the economics of how funding gets allocated. So, if African Americans are stuck in a bad neighborhood, they get less financial help from the get-go. It becomes a vicious cycle, and even if they do get a good education which is hard enough growing up in a poor neighborhood with little resources, they still face the reality of racism in corporate society that is dominated by the Whites. It starts even with your resume.”

     Yet, I still must say that in my opinion, I condemn opportunists (who are not all African American even) who used the BLM to their advantage and justification to murder, loot, engage in arson and cause unnecessary damages to neighborhoods and livelihoods. I get they are pushed to their wits end - but we got to draw the line somewhere. I believe there are still boundaries as to the way we express ourselves. There are even celebrities and common people alike getting onboard to further their own public image. They aren’t making things better but instead, muddling the urgent and important message of this cause. Nakikiepal at nakikiuso lang.

Fear, Ignorance, Prejudice and Racism

    Let’s admit it though. All of us in this world have bits of prejudice inside of us. Some are unfortunately, more pronounced than others, while those on the extreme end of the spectrum, let it dictate their life mantras; thus, taking things too far. However, this is also not to say that “a little” or “subconscious” prejudice is okay either because these ideologies can also be manifested in small yet oppressive ways if we are not careful. Such network of beliefs is rooted from or formed in our upbringing, especially from beliefs handed down by our families or through experiences. This includes single or limited encounters that can cause us to generalize and stereotype all people in a particular culture, sub-culture and group. This is another deadly train of thought that we ought to regularly keep in check. Self-awareness and admitting one’s shortcomings are the first steps.

Re-examination as a Non-American from the Philippines

    Again, I am not in the best position to talk about the subject matter of racism, especially in the context of the Black American struggle, but if I may so, share some of my experiences from living in the United States for five years (2004-2009), and how the recent fiery current events have gotten me to take a step back too and assess my own thoughts.

    To give a short background, before living in the U.S. (as well as Japan), I had only lived in the Philippines my whole life. Fortunately, as a college student in the U.S., in the melting-pot and liberal state of Massachusetts, I met all kinds of people of diverse backgrounds, heritages, ethnicities and nationalities that finally opened my eyes to a whole new world beyond the sheltered Metro Manila bubble. I had a number of African-American friends and classmates, and in my experience, I can easily say they were smart, kind, warm-hearted and tremendously multi-talented. I graduated from college in May 2008 – the same year that Barrack Obama won his first Presidential election. Like most people from the largely- democratic states in the East Coast, I was ecstatic and celebrated the much anticipated “Change is Coming.”

    However (please read on first that I may qualify…), after graduation and seeking employment in 2008 – during what were also the bleak years of the Financial Crisis, I experienced different kinds of encounters with African-Americans when I moved to New York City. I must admit that these encounters initially caused me to irrationally adjust my overall rosy view of them. Looking back, I admit that I failed to factor in that I was encountering strangers in a big city, on the streets and subways and was not in the vicinity of school anymore, so of course things will be starkly different. These were also hard times. Among the encounters that I remember were the following.

    The stories I have just narrated are also examples of limited negative encounters that pushed me to initially engage in stereotyping. Often times, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. However, like I said, I failed back then, to piece together the whole context of my encounters – that I was living in a bustling American city, the Big Apple no less, with all kinds of characters in existence. This has has taught me to be try to be bigger than my biases and fears and resist from making sweeping statements. I know for one that given different situations, I do not hold the same fears and notions against African Americans, or all kinds of peoples for that matter. If you get down to it really, all nationalities and races are of course, capable of anything – whether it is trouble and crime, and likewise, capable of good just the same.

    I do question myself if I was wrong to react in those ways? This can be subject to debate. You tell me, as I myself am unsure. I can say however, that regardless of race, I would have been scared by any male figure that approached me during those tense situations. It just so happened that all those situations I recall, involved African American men – this is something I have later on reexamined as well. Why were they more often than not, African American? Today, I realize it says something more about the United States’ unequal systems and cultures, rather than about African Americans themselves.

Color-blind?

    Things brings me to ask myself as well, am I truly color-blind? I would give the honest answer of No I am not. However, I know I wouldn’t deliberately hurt or oppress anyone because of the color of their skin, heritage or background – this may be the case for most of us, but the times of today are telling us that this is still not enough for change to happen. Turns out we have to be more in touch with our thoughts and emotions because they turn into actions. We have to make conscious efforts to re-work our thoughts if they detour towards that prejudiced lane, and if we do witness any form of oppression, it is our obligation to be vocal or concretely do something.

     For us Filipinos, I also just have to say that it shouldn’t be about joining the BLM or related bandwagons just for the sake of, or to feel like we have done our part by simply posting black squares and hashtags. For me, this is a total cop-out if we aren’t making deliberate choices everyday to do right by our immediate community.

Terror is Everywhere

    It is important to understand the true narrative of the BLM and related riots in the United States, and although they may not directly apply to the Philippines, there are tons of relevant issues that hit close to home.

     It is easy to not get involved or to judge situations from the confines of our homes, but something my dad used to, and still always says is that, if we don’t do our part in speaking out, or showing protests through our own ways against injustices done to our neighbors – then we might as well be accessories to the crime. One day similar injustices will be hurled against us, and because we didn’t speak out, there will be nobody left to speak out on our behalf.

[acti-veg]

What is Veganism?

The answer to the question “what is veganism” sounds like it should be a simple one, and it is, but the common conception of veganism is often misleading, and doesn’t quite match up with how we vegans think of our own movement.

The Vegan Society, who first coined the term “veganism,” describe it as: “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude- as far as is possible and practicable- all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.”You’ll see many definitions for what veganism is and isn’t, but this one is the most authoritative, and the one which you’ll find most vegans will agree on. Before we unpack that definition, let’s look at what veganism is not.

Veganism is, absolutely and unequivocally, not a diet. That may be obvious to you, but it isn’t obvious to the many thousands of plant-based dieters who self-identify as vegan despite not actually following the philosophy, and it’s an odd realisation for many who have spent time in the vegan tag on any social media site, to find it mostly filled with pictures of, and discussions of, food. Food is a huge part of veganism to be sure, but veganism is not buddha bowls, it is not faux meats, it is not yoga instructors eating watermelon halves with a spoon. Veganism is a philosophy and a way of living, it includes a dietary component, but a diet is not all that it is. If someone eats a plant based diet but chooses not to follow a vegan lifestyle then they are a plant-based dieter, and while all vegans eat a plant-based diet, not all people who eat plant-based are vegan.

Veganism is also not a boycott. It’s tempting to think of veganism in purely negative terms, “vegans do not eat this, vegans do not support that,” but to think this way is to do a disservice to veganism and the immeasurably positive influence it can have in a person’s life. Veganism is, at its core, a positive philosophy. It is about what we can do to make a difference, in our own lives, to the world we live in, and to the beings we share it with.

Veganism is also not a set of rules or a complete ethical system. There are no ten commandments to dictate how we should behave, how we should approach every situation or how we should think about every issue, from abortion to euthanasia. Veganism touches on many movements, and its advocacy includes many social justice issues, but at its heart veganism is a specific position on a specific topic, namely, the rights of animals. Veganism provides loose principles which are, most of the time, open to some interpretation. It won’t tell you how to behave most of the time, it’ll just offer some guidelines on how to respond to specific issues in the world.

The core principle behind veganism, as I see it, is one that is common in many world philosophies, and that is simply to do less harm. Veganism is about treading lightly in the world, about minimising the impact we have on the planet and its citizens, including members of other species. Veganism as a philosophy fully acknowledges that living a life free of harm is not possible, hence the as far as is possible and practicable line in the definition earlier, it just asks us to do better, to do our best. What veganism can offer is by no means a perfect solution to the world’s problems, but it is something practical that anyone, and I do mean anyone, can do to make their world a little bit better.

As vegans, we believe that animals should have some fundamental rights, including the right to live their own lives and therefore not to be exploited for human gain. Acknowledging that animals should not be exploited isn’t just theoretical though, it of course has practical ramifications. Following this philosophy means that as vegans we avoid meat and fish, as well as any other products derived from animals, such as dairy, eggs or honey. It also means that we avoid animal fabrics, animal tested cosmetics, using animals as entertainment or treating animals as objects in any other way.

By avoiding these things, we demonstrate our commitment to the belief that animals deserve rights, and that they are not ours to eat, wear, use or experiment upon. We also hope that by boycotting the products of animal exploitation, we will directly affect the public demand for these products, and thus lower the number of animals being exploited and killed. The more people who are vegan, the more this impact can be seen in the world, so while you may not feel like you can make much of a difference as an individual, as a vegan you would be part of a large movement seeking change through collective action, and that is a very powerful thing.

So being vegan isn’t just about what we do or don’t do, it’s about how we behave towards our fellow creatures, how we view their place in the world relative to ours. It is not a list of dos and don’ts, but a comprehensive philosophy and ethical stance. Veganism is a powerful statement against exploitation, and an act of protest against a system which is built on the backs of suffering animals.

-An early excerpt from my book “The Green Road: A Practical Guide to Veganism.”

[rapmillionaire]

Yé or Nay

An indirect connotation to “choice”, minute 7 [https://youtu.be/USddwTvRdJc]:

I agree with what Dr. Yunus says about the pot and soil being an essential ingredient/factor in how the seed flourishes. . . I was referring less to Kanye, and more to the fact that it goes against Kanye's outspoken viewpoint of slavery having been a "choice", which I myself found to be an interesting perspective and something I find leads to an intriguing conversation at it's root. . .

What I think Kanye said was a powerful anecdote and way of reframing the conversation. . . I took what he said as to mean:

"we (blacks) shouldn't have been under such control by the construct of whites and their framework for such a long time (i.e. that sounds like a choice to me)" ..

That's a powerful and revolutionary statement to be blasted to the masses by a pop icon. But that's only if one is able to look deep enough realize how and in what way this statement serves itself as true. .  . . The issue, and the big issue obviously, is Kanye said this from a framework of ignorance when referencing it to slavery being a choice. I fathom. Because he wasn't there (nor was I), nor did he know the conditions of the "soil" (bonsai metaphor) and the impossibilities of being able to "escape" / "rise up" from, nor did he know how many folks actually attempted to but failed (and in what ways they attempted, thus countering his point that they'd not been exercising such "choice" to begin with. The conclusion I found to be 'defining' by Yunus is in reference to the difficulty for that "choice" to fruition according to the "soil" ~ bonsai metaphor given by Yunus). That's the dagger to eliminate any validity toward the "choice" statement made by Kanye.

THUS, Kanye spoke ignorantly (stupidly) about the specific reference he was making. . . But his message of "choice" is a real one, and a powerful one, and one that in fact gives blacks, and Palestinians, and women rights, and all "pro" movements in general, a more electrified stance. . .  How each of the bonsai soils are, at the roots of each of those movements, will determine potential outcomes (of activism and progress made), in the same way that Yunus states the outcomes leading to poverty come from the actual environment and setup (systemic malfunctions), rather than from the actual people themselves (i.e. the ppl are not lazy, nor stupid, nor useless in the way folks often describe the homeless and poor).

I feel like i might've mis-communicated that in my first blog post, thus it could've offended some folks and even been mistaken as "racist". Overall, I liked what Kanye said most b/c it's a deep and embedded truth which has found itself to be unjustified in the most practical of senses for that specific scenario. Eventually such "choice" worked it's way up to now African Americans living better lives with better opportunities than they had just even a half-century ago. Which is a testament to both America's malleability in righting it's wrongs, and the spirit of humans to band together, fight, and support one another who are unalike, toward respect, dignity, freedom and justice -- which is what American was founded upon -- which goes on to prove that America's founding fathers' idealism is a feat that is able and capable of being achieved (not without it's faults, of course). . .  

I like kanye's criticality and reasoning and way of thinking. That's what makes kanye different (with good intent, yet not tastefully spoken always), and thus dope. He brings important points and a poignant perspective to conversations. Anyone who does that catches my ear cause I want to learn first and foremost to understand under what dynamic is what this person's saying true. That allows a more holistic outlook in the end, and provides all of the tools to really tackle issues which makes for well-fashioned dialogue whether folks end up agreeing or not. It does not minimize nor count-out variables and potentialities, which can only help move things along, so long as wisdom is able to anoint toward where goes what.

Obviously the mass mind and common public aren't able to comprehend Kanye's point of view fully. Especially not when the media takes it and runs with it in a wild and narrow-minded fashion without genuinely diving into the root perspective for how he comes to such conclusion, and where it's fault lies, and where it's truth also sits.  . . Another who intrigues the conversation is Candace Owens. This mind has stated interesting points before, one of which backed by data, and which I myself have witnessed first-handedly, in unison with what Muhammad Yunus has also stated - the primary of which I'm referring to being: welfare, and how that's detrimental to folks (not those who are handicapped or suffering mental illness of course since they do need special assistance). . I work at The Haven, a day shelter for those in need. I have witnessed the system encourage folks to not make progress and to maintain their using the system as a crutch (the welfare system, specifically). On more than one occasion, I have heard "clients" speak on turning down job opportunities because their welfare check would lessen if they took the job, and they'd much rather keep the higher income and stay with things as is (i.e. not working) then get the job. Obviously there is a lack of hope in what projection and trajectory folks believe they can take, and thus then achieve (in the form of "leveling up") -- this being the system's fault, from the bonsai metaphorical viewpoint -- due to lack of opportunity and availability of resources to build upon small-step wins, such as taking a job). . . What that then does to the spirit and the habit that creates in the mind of a person, of dependency and arguably "laziness" if you want to call it that -- indeed is an issue, countering human progress, disguised as "helpfulness" by big brother / the infrastructure / the government. Thus other notions of legislation and ways of workings remain the same, as a turnstile maintains it's trajectory and speed. . . And that maintains variables and factors, thus conditions of living as well (including constructs of poverty).

I find myself being less liberal on some topics, and overall more moderate than simply "right" or "left", on the whole. The fact that this country remains divided as "left" vs "right" is an overarching and deeply embedded fault. . . Two extremes, opposing one another with friction, leads to inundated manifestations of progress and at worst cataclysm. But bridging gaps, with both sides coalescing in ways where data and facts and critical reasoning charge the way, through pilot programs proving what data represents what specific contexts, enchants equivocated prosperity. In fact, programs (universities) should work with the government, serving as testing grounds for what answers and issues the government fails to fully comprehend, thereby achieving proof of facts and truths toward public policy and socio-economic stability among all classes. Social business is a way to achieve such means, if the government is unwilling to bridge such (gaps). An idea I have attempted to put forth is Resolving Poverty: a for-purpose figment that funds housing-first programs (housing for those who are homeless). This method of housing has been proven to be most effective and efficient in getting folks off the streets and as contributing members of society. When one purchases a piece, 90% of profit revenue is channeled to a housing first fund (of an organization rated well by CharityNavigator). Whence the consumer then wears the apparel, viewers will read and note the logo and the website attached, encouraging the interested to visit and learn more, and to support in more than one way (politically (search database), or economically(as a customer), or socially (sharing the word).

All of this calls for a transformation and transcendence of self. To think, dream, and evolve. That is what African Americans have done. That is what the Palestinians will need to do if they're ever to earn autonomy. And such intentions ("choice") for them to transcend is up to them. Nobody will do it for the other if the other is first and foremost unable to attract such assistance vehemently unto themselves. . . . Human nature in general is made to fight and rise above. Where the lack of such occurs may be attributed to the genius of opposition in subduing such nature from fruiting to combustion; castration if you will, whether through ignorance, or nullification in the most tangible of terms.

What Kanye said, I believe, reignites a numbness in a most critical and empowering notion of facets, maintaining guilt upon wrong-doers, whilst identifying an inner need to ignite and encompass position and movement. . . furthermore. . . Vehicles still made available.

Written on April 8, 2020

[inbarfink]

I wrote a shorter jokey post about this before but here’s a more detailed explanation as to why I think Phoenix = Crowley and Miles = Aziraphale in Ace Attorney Good Omens AU

(For clarifications, I am mostly talking about Show Continuity, before the show was out I was like “Yeah OBVIOUSLY Crowley = Miles and Phoenix = Aziraphale who would think otherwise????”. After giving it some thoughts, I think with Book Continuity it can honestly go either way. Some of the elements I point out here are.... at the very least less-pronounced in the Book Continuity and can be said to ‘balance-out’ with some of the traits that point into more Crowley = Miles and Phoenix = Aziraphale, such as the Hebrew word for ‘Demon’ originally meaning..... basically a Celestial Prosecutor and Crowley presenting as the more well-off of the two and, like, owning a car. Both of which are unthinkable with Phoenix).

1. Aziraphale is the one of the two who dresses in weird outdated fashions. (And Miles even used to wear bowties as a child)

2. Crowley’s tactics when faced with life-threatning danger? Bluff, improvise, than *bluff some more*

Extremely Phoenix Energy, through that whole scene.

3. MilesEdgeworthDotJPEG

4. Can you imagine Miles Edgeworth - any version of Miles Edgeworth - slouching like that? I sure can’t. 

And yeah, I can think of.... at least one version of Phoenix Wright who would slouch like that. 

This Fucker Right Here. I’m gonna come back to it, but basically when I’m saying Crowley is Phoenix, I am very much thinking of THAT version of Phoenix. A Fallen Lawyer, if you will.

5. While both Miles and Phoenix, being lawyers - are fairly lawful trust-the-system people, Phoenix has always been the more chaotic one and more willing to bend the rules. He literally made Edgeworth ‘fill-in’ for him as a Defense Attorney once! He’s much more likely to come up with the Arrangement, like Crowley did. 

6. Damon Gant has Archangel Gabriel Energies

7. Crowley thought Aziraphale was dead, Phoenix thought Miles was dead (Although with Aziraphale it was 100% unintentional and just for a few hours, he didn’t fake his death for a year........ MILES)

8. Here’s basically What Show!Crowley Is All About: “All I ever wanted was to be good, I didn’t deserve to Fall From Grace like that. But if the Universe wants me to be the Bad Guy? Fuck it, I’ll be the Bad Guy. My Falling showed me that the System I used to serve is bad and full of holes and I might as well exploit it for all it’s worth and I’m gonna be a cool detached badass and I don’t care at all oh whooops looks like I still DO still care, A LOT” 

Which.... isn’t that much like any of Miles Edgeworth’s arcs. But DOES remind me of the arc of one Phoenix “HoboNick” Wright.

Crowley’s story of still being a Mess of self-loathing and doubts about being Fallen and the idea Aziraphale possibly helping him through that.... that checks out pretty well with the concept of Edgeworth helping Phoenix dealing with losing his badge. That’s what I think, at least.

9. And Aziraphale? Here’s Aziraphale’s story “I used to work inside this Perfection-Obsessed System and trust that it was Good and was only harming the Bad people because I had a very Black-and-White thinking of the world. I have someone who is very dear to my heart, but I constantly push away because my Black-and-White thinking painted him as my enemy- even when he was one of the only friends I had in this world. However, as my sense of right-and-wrong started to clash with the System, I realized that it’s Bad Actually. Now I prioritize Actually Doing the Right Thing even if it clashes with the System”.

Now there are some Differences, of course, but it checks out pretty well with Miles Edgeworth’s main character arc. Phoenix, in comparison, doesn’t really have that sort of relationship with the System. And Although he kinda fell into thinking about Prosecutors vs Defense Attorneys in a Black-and-White way during ‘Justice for All’, it’s not as..... iconic a Problem for him the way it is to Miles. Phoenix’s thinking was more of an immediate reaction to the grief of Miles’ fake ‘death’ and a Personal Emotional Issue, then it is an Ideological Problem, has it has been with Miles. (In a way, I see it paralleling Crowley whenever he’s like FINE YEAH I DON’T LIKE YOU EITHER ANGEL I AM GOING TO FLY OFF TO THE STARS ON MY OWN AND I WON’T EVER THINK ABOUT YOU). Phoenix was only really Like That for a year, Miles was stuck on that Prosecutors vs Defense Attorneys thing for four years, and hasn’t really fully shaken it off even post-character-development.

Yeah, put in “Clinging to flase ideas of rivalry against all common sense” as another Aziraphale\Miles comperison. Just imagine Crowley mentally responding to “I am an Angel, you are a Demon, we’re hereditary enemies!” with “(But you were filling in for my temptation qouta today!)” 

And it’s important to remember that in spite of Crowley’s “I’m gonna be a cool detached dude who doesn’t care about anything and absolutely isn’t constantly angsting about being Abandoned by God” facade, he is still the one who mostly engages and reaches out to Aziraphale and constatly considers him his ‘friend’, while AZIRAPHALE, in spite of being the cuddly-soft-Angel, is the one who’s doing most of the pushing-away. (While Crowley only pushes away when he feels betrayed and hurt by Aziraphale KINDA THE SAME AS WITH PHOENIX, who is also usually the one trying to reach out to the emotionally-closed-off Edgeworth - and only pushing him away when he’s feeling extremely hurt and betrayed like in AA2)

Okay, so in general, the idea of a Demons-and-Angels AU with Phoenix as an Angel and Miles as a Demon seems SUPER appealing. You know this sort of “Oh no I am Fallen but this beautiful Angel is like... metaphorically pulling me back up??? With his LOVE???” shit? That’s Good Overdramatic Romance Shit that’s PERFECT for Wrightworth (I mean, this is only SLIGHTLY more dramatic than how Miles talk about Phoenix in Actual Canon). 

But this isn’t really the Good Omens narrative. Like, the part of the whole point of Good Omens is that.... unlike being a ‘Demon Prosecutor’, being a Fallen Angel\Demon isn’t necessarily a mark of Bad Morality. No more bad than being a regular-non-Fallen-Angel is (Maybe it’s even a little better? Angels never really properly questioned the structure of Heaven, Hell in general is Bad - but there might be more Demons like Crowley who had legit questions about Heaven and God and ended up lumped in with Lucifer and Friends???). Yeah, Crowley learned to open up a bit, emotions-wise, and too be less cynical after being burned by both Heaven and Hell and that he can fight for Humanity... But in terms of *morality*? 

I think the more accurate way to look at Good Omens from that angle is that Crowley is pulling Aziraphale down, rather than Aziraphale pushing him up. And like....... that not being a Bad Thing. Crowley is the one who keeps asking the tough questions about Heaven and God that Aziraphale thinks about, but can’t dare to say it on his own.

Crowley is the one Aziraphale feels comfortable sharing the fact that he gave away his Flaming Sword to humanity (a fact that he has hidden from everyone else for 6000 years). Crowley is the reason Aziraphale realizes the conflict isn’t as Black and White as Heaven’s propoganda would have him believe, Crowley is the one who talked Aziraphale into trying to prevent the Apocalypse in the first place, that helped him see it as the more moral option. It’s his conflicting loyalty to both Heaven and Crowley that allowed Aziraphale to see Heaven for what it truly is. 

And if we ignore the general cultural context in which we assume Fallen Angel = Bad and Angel = Good.... This checks a lot better with Miles Edgeworth’s story arc of realizing Demon Prosecutoring was Bad and that the System he works in sometimes doesn’t give a crap about the Truth. 

[innuendostudios]

A small supplement to Always a Bigger Fish, The Origins of Conservatism. If we’re going to claim conservatism is fundamentally about preserving social hierarchies and defending the powerful from democratic principles, we need to talk about where conservatism comes from, going all the back to the late 18th Century. From there we take an extremely truncated traipse through conservative thought throughout the ages.

Keep this series coming out by backing me on Patreon.

Transcript below the cut.

I have suspicions that some of the claims I make in Always a Bigger Fish - that conservatism isn’t, at its core, about fiscal responsibility, limited government, or the rights of the individual, but is about maintaining social hierarchies, that it believes people are fundamentally unequal and likes the free market because it sorts people according to their worth, and even softly implies capitalism itself may be innately anti-democratic - might, ah, raise some eyebrows? So I’m gonna show my work on this one.

Two of the architects of conservative thought were Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre, who formulated much of their political theory while writing about the French Revolution. They, in turn, were influenced by earlier writings from Thomas Hobbes on the English Civil War. And what all three of these men were doing in writing about these wars was defending the monarchy. The sentiment that the masses should be powerless in the face of nobility was being challenged, and, while these men thought the revolutionaries themselves actually quite compelling, the democracy they were fighting for Hobbes, Burke, and de Maistre found repulsive.

Come the end of the Revolution, when it seemed democracy might actually spread across Europe, Burke, especially, began to hypothesize ways that one’s position within the aristocracy might be preserved even should the monarchy fall. He turned his eye to the market.

So, OK, round the cusp of the 19th century, the prevailing economic theories were those of Adam Smith, who championed what’s called the Labor Theory of Value, which I don’t super wanna get into because there’s like a billion videos about it already, but really briefly: if you take materials out of the ground and turn them into useful goods, it is that labor that makes the good more valuable than the raw material, and when someone buys that good, they cover the cost of materials plus the value your labor has added to them. In contrast, what Burke argued was… well, a lot of nebulous things, but, among them, that, in actuality, when a person of means buys a good, that, rather than the moment the good is produced, is when value is bestowed upon it. Value is not dictated by the producer, but by the consumer.

Now there’s like two centuries of argument about this, we’re not gonna dig into it all, but, obviously, this is, in some sense, true: if the people with money don’t want to buy a good at a certain price, eventually the price will come down. So price is not solely dictated by labor. But what Burke does is claim that price and value are the same thing. No one ever gets cheated, no one ever gets a good deal, whatever the buyer pays for a thing, that’s what the thing is worth. Your labor is only as valuable as the degree to which it satisfies the desires of the moneyed classes.

This was Burke’s nod to the fact that, within capitalism, the wealthy held outsized influence - being that, the more money you had, the more value you could dictate - and he argued that this was moral. That the wealthy deserved this influence. (Burke was, by the way, wealthy. Sort of. He had a royal pension) What he felt the French Revolution revealed was not that oppressive nobility was bad, but that France must’ve just had the wrong nobles, because a proper aristocracy wouldn’t have been overthrown. The problem was, as we’ve discussed, not the hierarchy itself, but the wrong people being in power.

The Revolution had taught him that perhaps power should not come by birthright. Perhaps we needed a system whereby those deserving of power could prove their worth. This should, ideally, be war, but capitalism would suffice. The structure of royalty would continue to exist, simply derived by different means, because the structure of democracy, where, on election day, the nobleman has no more power than the commoner, was, to an aristocrat, profane. What the structure needed was some tinkering to make it democracy-proof.

So that’s Burke. Over the next century, democracy did, in fact, spread across Europe, and Burke’s - and several others’ - theories of value were picked up and iterated on in what came to be known as The Marginal Revolution by economists Carl Menger, Stanley Jevons, and this Valjean-looking motherfucker Leon Walras. Marginalism amped up the idea that it is a good’s utility to the consumer, and not the worker’s labor, that gives it value, which confers a unique power upon those with money, and brought this thinking into a post-monarchal world. Their theories became especially popular when people realized they could be used to rebut Marxism. Jevons was taught all over Europe, and Menger became core to the Austrian School.

And by the time we get to Austrians, this mass of theories has, somewhere after Burke and before Hayek, coagulated into what we know of today as “conservatism.” These are among the most influential thinkers in conservative thought, and they are in a direct lineage with Burke and de Maistre.

Now, while Burke is called “the father of modern conservatism,” these boys are not the alpha and omega of early conservative thought, but their ideas helped form the basis of conservatism and have never gone away. If you can point to some paradigm shift in the history of conservatism where the royalist sentiments of Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre were rooted out, I’d love to hear about it. Because I listen to the thinkers championed by conservatives throughout the ages, and I keep hearing the same thing: that humans are innately unequal and society flourishes when power is doled out to the deserving.

Friedrich Nietzsche was not a conservative but was deeply influential on the early Marginalists, and he claimed the purpose of society was to produce the handful of Great Men who created everything that made life worth living, believing, “Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness."

James Fitzjames Stephen, who wrote a book-length rebuttal against early progressivism, believed, “[T]o obey a real superior, to submit to a real necessity and make the best of it in good part, is one of the most important of all virtues—a virtue absolutely essential to the attainment of anything great and lasting."

Hayek and Schumpeter believed, respectively, that “The freedom that will be used by only one man in a million may be more important to society and more beneficial to the majority than any freedom that we all use” and “[W]hat may be attained by industrial or commercial success is still the nearest approach to medieval lordship possible to modern man." (He’s saying that’s a good thing, by the way.)

Need I mention Ayn Rand’s belief that "The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment... The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains."

The “godfather of neoconservatism,” Irving Kristol, echoing Burke’s yearning for a good war, felt the hierarchy should extend beyond the borders of a single country, believing, “What's the point of being the greatest, most powerful nation in the world and not having an imperial role?"

And modern conservatives love the “natural hierarchies” of Jordan Peterson, who believes “blblblblblblblblblb.”

We keep behaving as though conservatism’s disdain for equity isn’t there, or, if it is, that it’s new. But it’s been there since the beginning. Conservatism upholds the status quo and defends the powerful, first from democracy, then from communism, now from social justice. Conservatism has rallied every time a movement has tried to share power with the disadvantaged: They were against same-sex marriage, they were against giving women the vote, they were against freeing slaves (note I said conservatives, not Republicans; do your research.)

Conservatives say, “We are the party of measured steps, caution, of evolution over revolution,” and that’s usually just before they say, “But now, now is the time for swift, decisive action!” Most every Republican claims to be a break with tradition. “This time we’re gonna flip the script: bend the rules, outspend Democrats, invade your privacy, and start a war with no exit strategy.” And that’s what they’ve always said. All that changes is which continent the war is on. I’m not going to say the slow, stodgy conservative doesn’t exist, but it has never typified the Party. Rhetorically, it’s a character that they bring up to contrast themselves with whenever they need to rally their reactionary base. They tell us that’s what their Party is like, and we just take their word for it.

I don’t feel the need to pretend that, just because most democracies have a left wing and a right wing, that both are equally valid and moral. There is no rule that proves this. There is only the liberal sentiment that saying otherwise is poor sportsmanship (a standard the Right does not hold itself to). Conservatism is a reactionary politics that has, at best, mixed feelings about democracy, where my biggest issue with liberalism is that it is ill-equipped to deal with the problem of conservatism and does not fully commit to its own democratic principles.

I’m going into all of this not because I want to stick it to the people who insist I don’t research my videos - though I, a little bit, do - but because we can’t talk about the Alt-Right if we keep portraying them as a break with the conservative tradition. They are the conservative tradition, only more. There is nothing they believe that conservatives don’t have a long history of being sympathetic towards, they’re just usually more ambivalent about it. As I’ve said before, this is, ultimately, my interpretation of history, and, while many experts agree with me, I am not an expert. But I do my homework.

So, tell you what: I’ve made a post on Tumblr listing all the books, essays, and documentaries I’m consuming for this series - the ones I have lined up, the ones I’ve completed, and some notes on what I’ve found valuable in them. I’m going to treat this as a living document and add to it as the work continues. Not that the people who say I just make shit up ever read the show notes, but I will keep a link in the show notes of every video, so, if you want to check my work, or research alongside me, you can do that. I have also livetweeted several books, including the primary source for this and the previous video, The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin, under the hashtag #IanLivetweetsHisResearch, so, if you want a play-by-play of an entire book complete with my own observations, that’s where you can find it. So far, in addition to Robin, I’ve done Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians, Jason Stanley’s How Propaganda Works, and one weird essay on Lara Croft I read for the Fury Road video.

If you want to read more about the history of conservative philosophy, in addition to The Reactionary Mind, I recommend “No Law for the Lions and Many Laws for the Oxen is Liberty” by Elizabeth Sandifer, in the essay collection Neoreaction a Basilisk. (El recently got some grief from Nazis, so maybe consider buying her excellent book.)

Going forward, if anyone comments that I clearly don’t know anything about conservatism, I hope you will stand with me in not taking them too seriously unless they demonstrate having done at least some research, because I do mine.

[antoine-roquentin]

A scandal that began with allegations that some of South Korea’s biggest male K-pop stars had drugged and raped women (The K-Pop sex and drugs scandal sweeping South Korea) and shared video of the acts has reignited perceived injustices in two older cases, highlighting abuses of power among the country’s elite.

The Burning Sun scandal, named for the club in Gangnam associated with Seungri, of boy group Big Bang, comes a year after women began rallying in the streets in a wave of protests against systemic sexual abuse and the pervasive use of spycams (The women taking on spycams in South Korea). Shocking revelations in the Burning Sun case have rocked South Korea daily in recent months – seven chart-topping K-pop stars have been arrested on a range of charges from drug possession to group sexual assault, although not all have been indicted.

But accusations of police bribery, obstruction of justice or cases being completely dismissed highlight corruption at the highest levels in South Korea go back to the Park Geun-hye administration, and had been the spark for the massive candlelight protests that drew millions to the streets in 2016–17.

Yang Sung-tae, a chief justice who headed the supreme court from 2011 to 2017 is now facing 47 charges, including allegedly instructing officials at the National Court Administration to interfere in trials in order to win favours from the then president. A further 10 judges have been referred to a disciplinary committee after a two-month review of 66 judges.

Now two decade-old cases resurfaced, one involving ex-vice justice minister Kim Hak-eui, and another centering on the death of actress Jang Ja-yeon. President Moon Jae-in has weighed in, saying:

The common factor is that [the cases concern] developments that took place among the privileged, and there is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the prosecutors and police purposely conducted incomplete investigations, and actively prevented the truth from being revealed.

Moon ordered investigations not just into Burning Sun, but into the police force, due to accusations of cover-ups at the club and others in the Gangnam and Hongdae districts, and also into alleged crimes committed by Kim Hak-eui in 2009 and Jang Ja-yeon’s death the same year.

Kim Hak-eui resigned from his role of vice justice minister in 2013 after video emerged of him allegedly raping a woman at a sex party at the home of businessman Yoon Jung-cheon five years earlier. The case was investigated twice in 2013 and 2014 but was thrown out despite the video, with prosecutors arguing that Kim could not be identified. An independent panel under the Ministry of Justice has concluded the original investigations were flawed and Kim has now been indicted on charges of receiving 170 million won ($143,700) and sexual favors in bribes from a construction contractor. The investigation did not confirm the rape allegation.

The tragic case of actress Jang Ja-yeon, who said she had been forced into sex by her agency, has also been reviewed. Jang, who starred in the K-drama TV hit Boys over Flowers, killed herself in 2009, leaving a seven-page note identifying 20 of the men allegedly involved, including influential figures in the entertainment and media industry. The review found that the police and prosecution failed to properly investigate her death, but as the list could not be found, there was not enough evidence to re-open the case.

The South Korean government’s Ministry of Culture, Sport and Tourism supports K-pop and other industries such as its lucrative K-dramas, which are exported as far as Cuba. It has seen K-pop become a multi-billion dollar business in its own right, as well as drawing consumers to Korean products and tourists to its shores.

The promise of such vast sums of money can act as a magnet for some who would do anything to make still more. Financial journalist Ha Hyun-Ock believes we are seeing the rise of a Korean mafia. “The ‘Burning Sun incident’, while involving drug dealing, prostitution, violence, tax evasion and collusion with police, overlaps with mafia activities,” he wrote for Korea JoongAng Daily.

When the University of Rome opened a class on the mafia, people said you need to understand the organisation to better understand Italy. Likewise, you need to understand the triangular mafia in Korea of celebrities, businessmen and public authorities to fully understand Korea.

As can be seen from the Kim Hak-eui case, such collusion is not confined to K-pop or entertainment, but there is a common thread: in all these cases where the powerful have abused their privilege, women are the primary victims. It’s symbolic of a patriarchal society that appears progressive, but has a long way to go in terms of equality.

South Korean women are well aware of this disparity and increasingly disinclined to accept the status quo. In recent weeks, they have protested outside the Blue House, the president’s official residence, at what they see as a failure of a justice system dominated by men at every level: police, prosecution and judiciary. Some wielded signs saying “Rape cartel”.

The police have reportedly made thousands of arrests in the course of the Burning Sun investigation (most are drug-related), but many of their own were accused of wrongdoing and few are sharing cells with the denizens of the Korean underworld and now disgraced stars.

The Ministry of Justice panel has recommended the creation of an independent body to investigate corruption among high-ranking government officials but the protesters are not the only ones who believe more must be done before a break with the past can truly be achieved.

“Few members of the public have a memory span or patience enough to watch days of police corruption [reporting],” wrote Oh Young-jin in the Korea Times. “In the public’s collective consciousness, the people whose supposed mission is to protect and serve are tainted beyond being salvaged. By offering up the celebrities, the police have satisfied the public and taken the spotlight off the police.”