#which is a perfectly understandable position! for someone who has been consistently victimized by our political system

[isa-renee]

how to explain to my vaguely-conservative-usually-a-republican aunt that she is literally a socialist

[linkspooky]

Do you have any thoughts on the Pro-Hero's discussion about Shigaraki and his hatred from chapter 311?

My thoughts are this, from both Jeanist and Hawks utter cluelessness to why Dabi could possibly have turned into a villain despite Dabi just telling them why, on tv, and being next to the man who pushed him into it, and from how all three of them fail to understand how Shigaraki could have been so easily groomed into hatred reflects an unacknowledged shadow for all three of them.

In Jungian psychology the concept of the shadow exists. The Shadow is an unconscious aspect of the personality which is outside of the conscious ego. While our consciousness is mainly made out of behaviors and memories, we judge as positive, and our Shadow differentiates by holding emotions, behaviors, and memories we label as adverse or painful. In a shadow, constructive perspectives might be incorporated, but most of the parts remain camouflaged under the thumb points of low self-esteem ness, anxieties, and false beliefs. "Everyone carries a shadow," stated Jung "and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. To know yourself, you must accept your dark side. To deal with others' dark hands, you must also know your dark side.

In other words, for characters like Enji and Hawks, all of their bad traits define them just as much as their good traits, to be a whole and complete person they have to recognize those bad traits instead of being in denial of them however, both of them choose to only see themselves as heroes.

Anyway, now for something completely different. Let’s talk about batman and the joker. Batman uses Jungian symbolism a lot, of all the heroes he’s the most famous for being a normal person, who dresses in a costume to fight crime specifically in shadowed alleyways, and has a rogues gallery that also consists of mostly normal people in costumes. Batman’s villains are batman. Batman plays with both the relationship between himself and his villains, and also the relatinoship between Bruce and his own Shadow, because his Shadow is part of who he is. 

Now the most iconic batman villain is obviously the joker, and he’s a character like All for One who most of the time is just written as a character who does evil for evil’s sake, but more serious looks at the Joker like The Killing Joke which My Hero Academia directly references make this comparison between the two of them. The famous One Bad Day speech is also, notably, an attempt for Joker to connect to batman, to try to explain himself to him. 

He’s not just spouting a villain speech, he’s also looking for sympathy and trying to give sympathy, because that’s just what humans do. Because deep down, both Batman and the Joker were normal people once. The connection between Batman and the Joker is that they were both normal people, but one of them became a hero, and the other one a villain, and therefore that potential exists in any normal person. 

However, the heroes in MHA still don’t acknowledge their connection to the villains. Hawks and Enji did apologize yes, but what’s also important is their actions after, which is to choose to continue fighting villains as heroes.

It’s been pointed out by Shoto before that what Enji really needs to do to heal his family, is act like a good father, rather than a good hero. However, when given the chance to reach out to his son, he chooses to fight it instead. There’s a reason that the public isn’t reassured by the actions of Hawks, Jeanist and Endeavor and that’s because they continue to keep playing heroes instead of acknowledging what’s wrong. I’m not saying they are good or bad people, both Hawks and Enji have bad sides of their personality that they are almost completely ignorant of. They, like any human being have the potential to be driven to villainy. That’s why Enji can’t reach out to his son, because his brains have still made the connection that he was what drove Toya to villainry. 

It comes across in the casualness which Enji remarks upon what AFO did to Shigaraki and the complete lack of self awareness. Enji did the same thing, he had a child for the sake of passing on his quirk, raised that child to hate all might and want to do anything to surpass him, and he even wanted to live vicariously through the success of Toya and then Shoto so everyone would know him as Endeavor’s son. He still only cares about Toya to the extent that his dreams were once resting on him. 

So when Enji makes the connection to AFO, he asserts that there must be something wrong with him to do all those bad things, because he’s unaware of the resmeblance between his own deeds and AFO’s. He sees himself as a human being with reasons for his bad actions, he didn’t mean to neglect Toya, he didn’t know what to say to him, he was too guilty and hid from his guilt for so long but he doesn’t allow his enemies to have that guilt. This is a pattern that repeats with Hawks, and Jeanist as well, they can’t understand why people like Twice and Dabi would feel like they have a right to be angry at the society that mistreated them. 

Jeanist’s defense is why can’t he just keep quiet about it. 

Twice’s last words were hating Hawks and wishing the worst for him, yet Hawks still thinks they were best friends somehow.

Hawks and Twice were not friends, because Hawks chose not to be his friend, and to hurt what was most precious to Twice which was all of his other friends. Enji chose not to be a father to Toya and not be a father. Enji and Hawks are neither heroes nor villains, they are not good or bad, they’re just humans and as humans they have the potential to be both. 

In only seeing the hatred that Shigaraki was groomed to have they’re also fundamentally misunderstanding him. The thing is Shigaraki has reasons for his hatred, and not just because AFO forced him to feel that way. It’s not just AFO, that’s what they critically misunderstand, it’s Shigaraki’s experiences with how the society around him has neglected both him and his friends.

That’s something that the heroes can never see, because Shigaraki has been assigned the role of a villain who hates society. It’s not just AFO, Shigaraki can’t be at peace with a society that is designed to reject others.

That doesn’t come from his hate either, it comes from his sympathy with the victims. Just like they only see their own good traits, they can only see the villain’s bad traits. The thing is we have witnessed Shigaraki constantly been challenged on the fact that he only has empty hatred, first by Stain, then by Chisaki, and finally be Re-Destro. We also witnessed the moment he changed. 

The conclusion Shigaraki comes to as the result of his arc is that while he himself doesn’t care about the people, he’s not alone anymore, he wants to give the future to the others around him. 

That’s why Shigaraki’s actions aren’t driven just by hatred, but also by a deeply broken sense of empathy. Not only is he a crying child himself, he’s also someone who acknowledges the feelings of others. What converted Spinner from being someone who didn’t particularly care about the goals of the league, and doubted Shigaraki in front of everyone to his most loyal follower. 

It’s because he came to recognize that this human side of Shigaraki was there. The same way that underneath his mask, Spinner was just a pathetic NEET struggling with his own feelings of inadequacy, Shigaraki gets close to broken people, he tries to protect them, he tries to give some kind of validation to their feelings. 

Shigaraki has grown from just hating all of society because it rejected him, to realizing the real reason is because it rejects everyone around him. That means while there’s hatred to his character, there’s also a very selfish and intense love that applies to a small group of people, but the potential for love is still there. Shigaraki reaches out and saves people the same way that Deku does, he tries to do all the fighting himself to protect others just like Deku, it’s just that he’s been hurt again and again and that’s twisted him to act on his worst trait. None of the heroes understand Shigaraki’s love, because they can only see his hate. 

It’s not just that he’s been victimized or that he’s a crying child. Shigaraki is constantly compared to a child both in a negative sense as a man child, and a positive sense as a child pure heartedly pursuing their dream, because there is that potential within Shigarkai, to grow up, and grow into a better person if he was given the same chance to atone that characters like Hawks and Enji have already received. 

Shigaraki and Deku just like batman and the joker both reflect that in perfectly normal people, there’s the chance for great good, or great evil. For Shigaraki there’s an added level of complexity, that you can still grow into a better person, after everyone has written you off as too far gone. You can still grow to love the people around you when you thought you were only capable of hating. 

Enji and Hawks still have the oppurtunity to grow just like that, not as heroes, but as people. 

However to truly grow as people they would have to learn to empathize with the villains, especially because they have done wrong things too, Hawks killed because he had to, Enji hurt his entire family. Defeating the villain really is not the solution, because sometimes you yourself are the villain. 

In order to fully grow as people they have to learn to see themselves as people, and not heroes. That also means admitting the villains are just as human as they are. If Endeavor is someone who can become better after realizing that he made so many mistakes in the past and the only thing he can do about it is try to do better from now on, then Endeavor’s ending point should be realizing that since he was given that chance by his family, others deserve that chance too, especially his own son.  People are not villains, or heroes, Endeavor is just Enji Todoroki and Dabi is Touya Todoroki deep down no matter how they see themselves. 

[scripttorture]

Hello! I’m a long time follower of this blog and first of all, I wanna thank you for your amazing work! I’ve learned so much from your analysis and explanations! My question is: I have a character that is kidnapped along with two partners/friends that are beaten to death in front of her. She then endures torture such as being repeatedly drowned, tased and whipped, and she spends most of the time in a stress position (hands tied above her head from the ceiling). That lasts about 2/3 days (1/2)

When they threaten her with rape, she says the information she’d been withholding in an attempt to escape it. Is this realistic, or does it go against the fact that the most you torture, the less the victim is likely to cooperate? Also, they end up raping her still, and shortly after that she is rescued by her friends. What would be the extent of her psychology damage? I don’t want her to bounce right back into work like nothing’s happened - that would be disrespectful to actual victims (2/2)

-

I find gauging/explaining the extent of psychological ‘damage’ difficult because one of the things I try to avoid here is grading people’s pain. We have a tendency to default to almost ranking these things and I don’t think that’s helpful. It’s a perfectly legitimate question (and I don’t think you are trying to rank how much this character suffers) but it’s a… cultural quirk that makes answering a bit more difficult.

 The truth is that with all of these things there’s a range of individual responses rather then one universal ‘right’ answer. So if you’re struggling remember that the target you’re trying to hit isn’t a pin, it’s a boulder.

 As you practice writing different survivors you’ll get more confident handling symptoms and long term mental health problems.

 I’ll circle back to that, let’s tackle the question of whether people ‘talk’ first. I think a lot of people get confused by this because there are a lot of factors at work and it’s difficult to picture the knock on effects of all of them at once.

 Torture does not lead to accurate information. It fundamentally can’t. And it can’t because of mixture of factors including:

how our memory works

how our nervous system works

how torturers behave

the effect torture has on organisations more broadly

the erosion of public trust torture causes

 The question of whether an individual victim ‘talks’ or not concerns the first two points. Which (putting it briefly) are: pain and trauma cause memory problems meaning that torture actively destroys the evidence it claims to seek and that we are stubborn creatures who become a lot less inclined to actively cooperate with people who hurt us.

 However the issue is bigger then the victim here.

 When an organisation uses torture they lose the public trust, people stop volunteering information. And volunteered information is the main source of accurate information for any organisation.

 This means that the majority of people arrested by these organisations typically know nothing. They are then tortured and given a big incentive to lie.

 This creates a cycle of increasing misinformation. I talk about this effect in more detail here.

 On top of all this torturers… how to put this… They don’t give a fuck about genuine investigation.

 They claim that they do. But their actions tell a different story.

 Torturers don’t record what their victims say. They do not fact check what their victims say. There are multiple recorded incidents of torturers continuing to ‘interrogate’ prisoners who did not speak the same language and of torturers continuing to torture when victims were clearly physically incapable of responding.

 There have also been cases where victims have reported trying to give up information only to have torturers completely ignore it and carry on.

 And torturers are no better at telling the difference between lies and truth then anyone else. They often believe lies told by victims who know nothing. And they are equally likely to dismiss the truth.

 The main point to understand here is: there’s a difference between a character giving up information and a torturer/organisation that tortures obtaining accurate information.

 Personally? I think it is easier from a writing perspective to have the character lie, especially if this is your first time writing something like this.

 Writing torture is hard. It will be a lot easier to avoid falling into the common torture apologia trope that ‘torture works’ if the character lies. Especially if you don’t think the narrative has the time and space to explore the knock on effects of torture on the villainous organisation.

 So this isn’t so much an issue of realism as what you feel you can take on in this story.

 A small number of people do try to tell torturers the truth or give up information. But the scale of misinformation that torture produces is so vast that any small truths get lost among the lies.

 Conversely readers expect that if they see a character telling torturers something true, there are going to be narrative consequences. They expect this to mean the Bad Guys ‘know everything’ and will act on it.

 Realistically… torture can’t produce that sort of coordinated, thought through response. Because for everything this character says there are twelve others in separate cells contradicting that information. Because her torturers may not actually want to hear the truth, because they’ve probably sunk a lot of time, effort and personal prestige into a lie they heard a month ago being ‘true’ instead.

 But that’s not a leap most readers will make. It isn’t a context you can expect the average reader to understand. That isn’t me disparaging your readers it’s just… accurate information on torture is hard to find or access, so most people believe the apologia they see everyday. It’s another kind of trope and we’re all used to tropes playing out a particular way.

 Question whether your story has the space to explain this context and whether it can be done in a way that’s narratively satisfying.

 If the answer is ‘no’, or if you just feel like it’s a lot to tackle, then I think you’re a lot better off with the character lying to her torturers.

 Looking over the torture scenario itself I think you do have a survivable scenario here.

 I would say that it’s uncommon for victims to be put in stress positions for a few hours: generally the typical time frame is around 24-48 hours. Using a stress position in this scenario would still be painful but you don’t need to use it. You already have a lot going on with five separate tortures (six if this character is beaten as well.)

 I don’t see anything wrong with keeping it in here if you feel it adds something to the story. But if you want to drop one of these abuses the stress position seems like the odd one out.

 Circling back to the beginning and the psychological problems torture causes, I think a definition of ‘disability’* is helpful here. Disability is any impairment, mental or physical, that has a substantial, long term, negative effect on daily life.

 That’s what we’re talking about with torture survivors.

 Recovery is possible. Life for survivors can get better. Every common psychological condition torture causes can improve with time, treatment and life style adaptions.

 But we are talking about disability. Improvement and a happy life doesn’t mean that someone goes back to the way they were before.

 Let’s take a few examples from the list of common symptoms which you can find here.

 An ‘easy’ example to think through would be something like chronic pain. I think most of us can imagine how being in pain every day would have a negative impact on your ability to do things.

 It can make it harder to perform normal, daily tasks. People with pain in their knees might struggle climbing stairs and walking long distances for instance. People with pain in their arms or shoulders might struggle to get dressed, hang washing on a line and access things on shelves above chest height.

 Chronic pain can also make it harder to interact positively with people and socialise. We’re rarely at are best when we’re in pain.

 A harder example to think through might be the kinds of long term memory problems torture commonly causes. You can read more about them here.

 One possible type of memory problem is a sort of general forgetfulness that a lot of survivors experience. It is not dementia, it isn’t a progressive loss of memory. But some survivors find it a lot harder to remember information and that can have a huge impact on a person’s daily life.

 Typical examples are things like:

forgetting medical appointments, which can lead to people being denied treatment

being consistently late for work, which can lead to loss of employment

difficulty managing money

forgetting to pay bills, leading to essential services being cut

forgetting meetings with friends, leading to reduced social life and isolation

 That’s not a complete list but hopefully it gives you an idea of some of the ways this particular symptom impacts daily life.

 This thought process that I’ve outlined is what you’re aiming for when you’re trying to think through symptom severity. It imagining the knock on effects on daily life and ensuring they’re at a level where the character is disabled.

 That will look different depending on the combination of symptoms you pick.

 Survivors don’t typically experience every possible symptom. As I said there’s variety; survivors of the same traumatic event can come out with completely different sets of symptoms and we’re not always sure why.

 Given that I think the best thing a writer can do is pick 3-5 symptoms from the list for their character and show those symptoms consistently over the course of the story.

 Remember that symptoms can improve. A person’s mental health problems can get better; but this means ‘easier to deal with’ rather then ‘no longer there.’

 It’s also worth keeping in mind that the same mental health problem can look different in different people. It’s common for people with depression to experience insomnia but it’s also common for people with depression to feel tired constantly, sleep excessively and find it impossible to get out of bed.

 Decide on the symptoms you want to write then take a moment to think about how they should manifest in this particular character.

 I find it helpful to consider what it will add to the story. If a symptom works well with a theme in the story or creates interesting narrative opportunities then it’s usually a good pick. When thinking through the severity of the symptom consider whether this particular disability would create interesting challenges for the character as the story progresses.

 Recovery and learning to live with disability takes months or years. It’s not linear and there are some people who will require regular assistance.

 Essentially because symptoms are so varied between survivors and because they can manifest is different ways I can’t give you a perfect road map to writing trauma. There isn’t one ‘correct’ way to do it because there isn’t one way it manifests in life.

 But it isn’t necessarily as hard as it sounds. Writing this stuff well takes practice, trial and error. That shouldn’t stop you from trying.

 If you can I’d recommend finding a beta reader or writing group. Having other people reading over your stuff and giving feedback can really help. It’s a good way to make sure your scenes are coming across as you intend them to.

 I’d also recommend taking a look through ScriptTraumaSurvivor’s archived blog here.

 I hope that helps. :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

*I’m quoting from UK anti discrimination law here mostly because I think it’s a clear, helpful way of picturing what we’re talking about.

[grimnoire87]

I feel like people need to understand U.S. history to get why American minorities are very stressed about the possibility of a draft or a war with Iran. It is extremely frustrating to see how few people actually put effort into learning this even though they regularly make general criticisms about the US. Even a basic comprehension of U.S. current events would prepare someone to understand this. White Americans might be victimizing themselves but the rest of us are worried for a different reason and it needs to be recognized. And if you recognize it you probably can also understand why we bristle at the implication that we only benefit from a system that was built around enslaving or killing us or people who look like us, or why its so wrong to equate Soleimani to a black victim of police brutality.

People are able to have generalized discussions of US white supremacy and Imperialism but only in a way that reflects the last 50 years and only in a manner that treats it as just an external problem that never effects us here. Which is why folks sound so tone deaf when they talk about "Americans".

U.S. white supremacy was not built around fascism or the desire to police the rest of the world. Nor is Imperialism a US creation. Both takes are neo liberal ways to avoid responsibility and completely ahistorical.

Some context (warning, this will be a long post and might get redundant at times but I promise that there is a reason for it.):

Edited because I finally figured out how to install a break

The U.S. was, at one point, and English colony. It was "The New World" aka a just another colony in a long line European Imperialism. French, Spanish, and Dutch "explorers" also were making a mark on the continent. They were using and killing indigenous people and importing enslaved black people. Black and Native people have always been the first and most longstanding victims of U.S. agression. After the Revolutionary War, the new U.S. continued to expand, engaging in genocide against Black and Native peoples for hundreds if years. While the U.S. would eventually seek to expand its borders on the continent, in the beginning it was rather isolationist in regards to world affairs. Like Australia, their white supremacy was almost entirely "local" due to the nature of its origin, it wasn't powerful enough to take over entire countries on the other side of the world but it was powerful enough to murder and enslave people here .

White supremacy was central to that white American identity. American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny (and US Imperialism in general) sprung from this new identity as a "White Christian Nation". Its similar to how the "White Man's Burden" was used to justify British Imperialism in Africa and Asia.

That was a tangent but...anyways. U.S. identity has always been fostered by the idea of the "other". For whiteness to function it needs an other or a scapegoat. And how does this relate to the fear if another war? Well all you have to look at the Civil War.

Black people were made into scapegoats on both sides. The Draft Riots were race riots where Irish draftees went out and burned a black orphanage and killed men, women and children. It got worse after that war ended. Black people in the North were scapegoated for the war, draft, and taking lower paying jobs. In the South, they were scapegoated for the loss of the economic and political power that came from slavery. Thus white resentment led to black people being tortured and terrorized by their white neighbors. They hunted us. This would be a common pattern, and would happen anytime white people felt anxiety over a war, economic problems, loss of political power, etc. They would ride out and sooner or later a black person, family, or entire town would be lynched. We were surrounded by a majority who could do what they wanted to us.

It was the same thing after WWI. Black vets would come home and wind up being the sole defense against white mobs numbering in the hundreds. The Red Summer consisted of massacre after massacre. There were no consequences for the perpetrators. Survivors were put in camps or prison, none would be compensated. And yes, by this point U.S. imperialism had allowed white Americans to continue to slaughter Natives and steal Mexico, and go beyond its shores to start wars to see which Imperialist nation could colonize where.

The U.S. has loved scapegoating "others" to justify limiting rights, expanding its borders, taking resources and supporting white supremacy. It was as American as apple pie. Look at the Japanese Internment. When Timothy McVeigh committed the Oklahoma City bombing, no one blamed white fundamentalists. He was seen as an individual.

That's not what happened in 2001. On Sept. 11, 2001, after a cowardly attack that killed close to 3,000, white anxiety would lead to the scapegoating of another community in a manner similar to how black people were scapegoated for the Civil War. It didn't matter that this mass murder was orchestrated by Saudi Arabia, "9/11 was committed by Muslims", therefore it was open season. Regardless of the fact that Muslims died in the attack and were the primary victims of these terrorist groups in the Middle East. They were at fault simply because they appeared to be "Muslim". And the US already had an issue with Islam because of its role in black civil rights. So that attack just made it worse and shifted the vitriol away from black Muslims and towards all Muslims. Folks would go out and hunt for Muslims and people would justify it. Mosques were being targeted in a manner similar to black churches in the South. They were criminalized into terrorists. And the Iraq War would only make this worse and create refugees that would come here and be scapegoated all over again. After the Pulse shooting white people railed against Muslims and Black Lives Matter, but Dylann Roof was just one person.

We have had laws passed that scrapped civil liberties, Trump had a Muslim travel ban list, ICE is actively detaining and deporting brown and black people, and modern weaponry and lax gun laws allow people to commit mass murder on a scale never seen before. White supremacists and Islamophobes have already killed people for "looking like Muslims". Black people are being killed by the thousands every year and we have to convince people we don't deserve to be murdered. People going out and assaulting/killing Jewish people. There is a lot to be anxious about over because white American aggression is not purely an external problem.

White anxiety and scapegoating gets people killed. Daily. And white Americans (just like Europeans) LOVE to take their frustrations out on a scapegoats and always have. Because U.S. white supremacy is built around the idea that whiteness entitles you to privilege and if you lack it than its someone else's fault and you have the right to hurt them for it.

And that is a very stressful reality when you are a minority surrounded by people with the privilege and power to harm you whenever they feel a little anxious. Especially when you have someone like Trump in power (unlike Obama he surrounded himself with white supremacists, courts them, and sics them on people). It doesn't matter whether there is a war or just an escalation of tensions. No matter whether there is a draft or not, you always be vulnerable to a white supremacist with an assault rifle who can walk into a Mosque and murder you by the dozen. U.S. history has set a precedent.

And imagine the horror of a draft! Imagine everyone between the ages of 18-35 being told they are in a lottery and if picked have to go to war (and potentially commit war crimes) or go to jail in a country that loves for profit prisons, locks up minorities, kills black and Native detainees and pardons people who murder prisoners of war. Use common sense. It is perfectly reasonable to be nervous about a draft here and you can't call people immoral for joining the military and then turn around and call kids selfish for being scared of being forced to do so. And a draft would only fan the flames of white resentment here just like what happened during the earlier drafts. There would be war crimes against Iranians, for sure. A draft would be awful. No one should be joking about it. It would be horrifying.

I was vague about it before because I figured that asking for empathy would be enough but it isn't. A lot of people talking about the Suleiman strike are far removed from U.S. white supremacy and don't necessarily understand our anxieties and it shows in how they talk about the situation and who "benefits". The fact that they think American minorities (especially Muslims) won't face *any* backlash or consequences for Trump's actions here is evidence enough.

This isn't an attempt to paint Americans into the victim of this situation with Iran. To do so would be despicable. And joking about it is in poor taste and can come off as cruel even if US minorities do it to cope with our reality here.

But acknowledging that U.S. minorities (including Iranian and Iraqi immigrants and refugees) will be at risk isn't taking away from Iranians or Iraqis in the Middle East. American minorities are here because of U.S. and European Imperialism. And it is a fact that Imperialism will lead to more deaths in an already traumatized region and it is a fact that white supremacy will put people in a precarious position here where they are more vulnerable to white aggression all year round. Both are true. Its not a competition and seeing US minorities talk about it shouldn't be bothering you because both are symptoms of the same problem.

Kind of a tl;dr: American minorities aren't being selfish (or US centric) by talking about their fears of war with Iran and a draft because many will be more vulnerable than they already are and U.S. history has demonstrated why these fears are valid. Learn it. It explains a lot of why we do what we do. Also a draft would terrible for Americans and devastating for Iranians (i.e. look at Vietnam). There us a difference between white Americans victimizing themselves and American PoC being worried about what this situation means for them. Learn the difference; those disclaimers are necessary for a reason. You dont show someone empathy by denying it to others, I wish more progressives figured this out. Its not a competition or ideological chess. People could and probably will die and its scary to be surrounded by angry white people just looking for an excuse (like a war).

[patriotsnet]

Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-is-right-republicans-or-democrats/

Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

The Democrats Try To Create Victims By Using Ingratitude As An Agenda Towards Their Adversaries Pragerus The Key To Unhappiness Describes This Theory Perfectly Its A Short Five Minute Must Watch

You see the Republicans defending themselves in court all the time, but they aren’t the ones filing the lawsuits.  And just because a lawsuit is filed against you doesn’t mean you’re the guilty one.  The courts are constantly tied up with bogus lawsuits created by people who just want to make someone’s life miserable or try to prove a point they’ve already lost.  People who file the lawsuits like that are people who have more of a negative attitude than positive.  Read our article on Attitude and Politics, it can really help you live a happier life.

I might be guilty of overload of the media which interprets everything incorrectly.  As a Democrat I don’t think I’m unhappy but maybe I should be?

So, get to know your Republican or Democratic neighbor.  Let’s quit hating each other for what our political views are. After all, we all know that Washington D.C. doesn’t represent the general public.  They are far more caught up in their own bubble screaming and yelling at each other through the media .

This all being said I hope I’m wrong about who’s happy or not.  I think the media and the politicians don’t represent the true American thoughts but rather just their own agendas that we are all caught up in.

Stop talking and do something to change this.

“People are just as happy as they make up their minds to be.” ?Abraham Lincoln

A hopeful Conservative Democrat

Trumps Gop Is One Of The Most Extreme Western Parties When It Comes To Both Undermining Liberal Democratic Principles And Opposing Rights For Ethnic Minorities

The survey was based on an extensive questionnaire completed by political scientists and experts in the field of particular political parties. Respondents were asked to place each party in its current state on a scale of 0-10 in a number of categories. These include “social leaning” – whether a party was socially liberal or conservative – and then moved on to more detailed positions, such as a party’s attitude to women’s rights or liberal democracy.

The survey pointed towards something commentators have long suspected: conservative and right-wing parties have increasingly embraced populism over pluralism, and populist parties are increasingly negative towards liberal democratic principles.

If we redraw our graph grouping parties by their left-right orientation , it is parties of the right and radical right that dominate the top-right quadrant.

Democrats Tend To Have A Lot More Anger And Negativity In Their Rhetoric According To Them If You Support President Trump Well Then You Are A Racist And A Nazi

They generally seem to be out to get someone making things more personal.  Why are they so afraid to use the facts to reinforce what they want to do? It’s agenda first then find or make up facts to support the rhetoric.

If they can’t beat you at the polling booth, they try and beat you in court and that’s just a great example of something that’s not a pleasant experience. And not quite working in the long run. They keep getting overturned.

But When You Watch The Republican In The Media Being Attacked The Majority Tend To Handle It With More Grace Then The Majority Of The Democrats

I don’t think it’s because the Republicans have more money because the Democrats tend to be the wealthier group.  The majority of the richest people in the world are Democrats or Liberals.  Yet, they sure don’t look like a happy group of folks .  I think a lot of people who are rich were their happiest when they were working hard coming up through the ranks and earning their money.  I also think sometimes the social issues they get caught up in when they become wealthy can be frustrating causing many people to lose their tolerance over time.

As A Public Service I Have Endeavored To Distill The Differences Between The Parties Into Fair Terms That Children Can Understand

To keep the baseball analogy alive, the two parties are like the American and the National Leagues in baseball. If you have a little sports fan in your home, perhaps this analogy might help. In politics, the primaries are like the early playoff rounds. The parties will pick their winner like the American and National Leagues pick theirs.  In baseball, the league winners play in the World Series.  In politics, the primary winners will face off in the general election.  The winner of the general election becomes President of the United States.

Jessica’s note: Here’s another take on it, in case your kids aren’t eloquent in the language of baseball. ? Imagine the boys and the girls in a class wanted to see who was the best at something. The boys would have a contest to pick their very best boy. That’s like the primary. And then all the girls would pick their best girl. And then everyone in the school would choose between the best boy, and the best girl. The winner over all is like the President.

Back to our baseball analogy. In baseball, there are differences between the leagues.  One league has a designated hitter and considers the foul poll “fair.”  The other league does not.  

A Record Number Of Americans Say Democrats And Republicans Are Doing Such A Poor Job That A Third Party Is Needed Polling Shows

Dissatisfaction with two-party politics is at an all-time high, new Gallup polling shows, with 62 percent of Americans saying Democrats and Republicans are doing such a poor job of representing their constituents that a third party is needed.

arrow-right

But the zero-sum, winner-take-all dynamics of U.S. elections make it nearly impossible for third parties to gain electoral traction, despite survey data that shows fully half of Americans do not identify with any party and label themselves independents. This was underscored this past weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference, when former president Donald Trump ruled out creating a third political party to promote his brand of nationalist conservatism.

To hear those calling for change — including many scholars and some lawmakers — the inherent problem with our current system is that it shoehorns the entire spectrum of political opinion into just two parties. Warnings that the nation has backslid toward autocracy — driven in large part by the Republican Party’s shift away from democratic norms — bring added urgency, they say, and reversing that Trump-era trend will require something radical: breaking up the Democratic and Republican parties.

In The Most General Terms The Biggest Difference Between The Parties Comes Down To The View Of The Proper Role Of Government

The Republican party generally believes that it is the responsibility of individuals and communities to take care of people in need.  The Democratic party generally believes that the government should take care of people.  In general, the Republican party believes that if government needs to do a job then it is best for the local governments like cities and counties to make those decisions.  The Democratic party believes that the federal government has more resources and is therefore in a better position to do those jobs.  

Practical example for a child: There are a lot of people who don’t have enough food to eat. Republicans believe that people like you and me should help them, and our churches should help them. The Democrats believe that the government needs to spend its money to help them get food.

If A Party Gets What It Wants In The Pursuit Of Delivering Something Most People Want Most Of The Time So Be It

There’s nothing morally wrong with being the party of corporate interests. There’s nothing wrong, for that matter, with viewing politics as the preserve of the few, not the many. What’s wrong is lying about it. What’s wrong is treating the opposition as if it does not have a legitimate claim. What’s wrong is setting off a conflagration of white-power fury that consumes nearly everything, even the republic itself, in order to slake a thirst for power. The day Joe Biden decided to run for president was the day this white-power fury burned through Charlottesville, screaming, “Jews will not replace us.” That day, according to published reports, is the day Biden chose to fight to “restore the soul of America.”

Maybe he’s full of it. Maybe Biden and the Democrats don’t really believe what they say when they talk about everyone being in this together. That’s certainly what the Republicans and their media allies believe. A critic said Thursday that we can expect to see from Biden “lofty rhetoric about unity, while acting below the radar to smash norms to implement the Left-wing agenda.” The same day, a Times reporter asked the White House press secretary why the administration has not offered a bipartisan “fig leaf” to the Republicans, given the president putting so much emphasis on unity. Maybe the Democrats don’t mean what they say. Maybe it’s just politics-as-usual.

How Increasing Ideological Uniformity And Partisan Antipathy Affect Politics Compromise And Everyday Life

Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades. These trends manifest themselves in myriad ways, both in politics and in everyday life. And a new survey of 10,000 adults nationwide finds that these divisions are greatest among those who are the most engaged and active in the political process.

The overall share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades from 10% to 21%. And ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past. As a result, ideological overlap between the two parties has diminished: Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican.

Today 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican

Partisan animosity has increased substantially over the same period. In each party, the share with a highly negative view of the opposing party has more than doubled since 1994. Most of these intense partisans believe the opposing party’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.”

Many of those in the center remain on the edges of the political playing field … while the most ideologically oriented and politically rancorous Americans make their voices heard

Yes Dictators Sometimes Cloak Themselves In Socialism But Tyranny Here And Elsewhere Is Always Right

Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong-Un and Donald Trump

The meaning today of the “Big Lie” almost always refers to the false claim by Donald Trump and his right-wing cronies that the 2020 presidential election was somehow stolen by the left and Joe Biden, with the help of foreign agents.

Not only is this claim false, it is absurdly false.

This is hardly the first Big Lie from the right. Not even close. The right has been promulgating Big Lies for decades.

In fact, lying is the only way the right wing can win elections. After all, its policies are profoundly unpopular with ordinary people because the right-wing favors the 1% rich over the 99% working and middle classes.

How in the world could 1% of the population ever win elections over the 99%? Simple. The 1% bamboozles the 99%. To win elections, the right must conceal its true intentions from the voters and instead engage in manipulative tactics, like lying and fearmongering.

The lies are not just little lies.They are whoppers. They are the complete opposite of the truth. They are 180 degrees from the truth. They are the polar opposite of the truth, like from the North Pole all the way to the South Pole. Hence the term Big Lie.

Yet, shockingly, many of these egregious lies actually work. They take hold. They create a false impression in the mind of the public.

Once again, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Dictatorships and fascism are right-wing, not left-wing.

Shockingly, this nonsense actually works.

Why Are Democrats Left And Republicans Right The Surprising History Of Political Affiliations

The terms right and left refer to political affiliations that originated late in the eighteenth century in relation to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. During the French Revolution of 1789, the members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution.

The aristocracy sat on the right side of the Speaker, which was traditionally the seat of honor, and the commoners sat on the left. This gave birth to the terms “right-wing” and “left-wing” politics. The Left had been called “the party of movement” and the Right “the party of order.”

During the French Revolution, the National Assembly was divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution. ‘Lamartine in front of the Town Hall of Paris rejects the red flag on 25 February 1848’

However, it was during the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871 that the political parties formally adopted the terms “left” and “right” to define their political beliefs.

The Representatives of Foreign Powers Coming to Greet the Republic as a Sign of Peace

According to the simplest Left and Right distinction, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

In British politics the terms “right” and “left” came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.

Not All Parties That Employ Populist Rhetoric Are Opposed To Liberal Democratic Principles

Greece’s Coalition of the Radical Left, more commonly referred to as Syriza, is one of the only major parties of the radical left in the west to favour populist over pluralistic rhetoric.

Though an overwhelming majority of western parties described by ParlGov as ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are likely to be positive towards ethnic minorities, the same cannot be said for their attitudes towards immigration.

Republicans Vs Democrats: Where Do The Two Main Us Political Parties Stand On Key Issues

After an impeachment, a positive coronavirus test and an unforgettable first presidential debate rounded out the final months of Donald Trump’s first term, it seems fair to say the past few years have been a roller-coaster ride for US politics.

On November 3, Americans will decide which candidate will win the 2020 presidential election, sparking either the beginning, or end, for each nominee.

But how does it all work?

Well, the US political system is dominated by two main parties — the Democrats and the Republicans — and the next president will belong to one of those two.

Just how different are their policies?

Here’s what you need to know, starting with the candidates.

Republican Critics Of The Progressive Squad Are Quick To Ignore Their Own Lunatic Right

Stuart Rothenberg

OPINION— It was late June 1980 when I arrived in Washington after teaching political science for three years at Bucknell University. My job was to write for The Political Report, a little-circulated weekly newsletter that reported on House and Senate races.

The nation’s politics were in the process of changing more than I realized.

In November, Ronald Reagan would be elected president, Republicans would make significant gains in the House and win control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and a new crop of conservative candidates were showing their political muscle — sometimes by challenging relatively moderate GOP incumbents — in both the House and Senate.

In Alabama, liberal Republican Rep. John Buchanan Jr. lost his bid for renomination to ultra-conservative Albert Lee Smith Jr. Even more noteworthy for me, growing up in New York, Al D’Amato scored an 11-point victory over veteran liberal Sen. Jacob Javits in the state’s GOP Senate primary.

Also in the Senate, conservative Republican Steve Symms ousted Idaho Democratic incumbent Frank Church; conservative Republican Bob Kasten upset Wisconsin Democratic incumbent Gaylord Nelson; conservative Republican John East ousted North Carolina Democratic incumbent Robert Morgan; and Iowa Rep. Charles E. Grassley beat Democratic Sen. John Culver .

But while both the country and the GOP were moving right, the Republican Party still had room for a substantial contingent of moderates.

How Do Trump’s Republicans Compare To The Rest Of The World’s Political Parties

An academic survey shows the American Republican party ranks as one of the worst in the world when it comes to standing up for the rights of ethnic minority groups.

On conventional left-right measurements, there’s not much distinguishing America’s Republican party from mainstream conservative movements in Europe. In fact, when it comes to economic left and right, there are governing parties on the right in Europe who are more “extreme”.

On attitudes towards ethnic minorities and respect for liberal democratic values, however, it’s a different story.

The Global Party Survey , a project authored by Harvard University’s Pippa Norris, has sought to allow international comparisons between political parties on a variety of issues by surveying almost 2,000 academic experts on their relative positions on various spectrums. Those include the social and economic views of those parties, as well as whether they are populist or pluralistic in outlook.

The survey’s findings suggest America’s Republican Party remains “mainstream” in many respects – but not when it comes to its defending the rights of ethnic minorities and standing up for liberal principles.

On those issues it is far more extreme than Europe’s centre-right governing parties and sits closer to the likes of Austria’s Freedom Party, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party, and India’s Bharatiya Janata Party – the governing movement often accused of inciting hatred against the country’s Muslim minority.

Republicans Give More To Charity Than Democrats But Theres A Bigger Story Here

November 3, 2018; New York Times

The political differences between Republicans and Democrats don’t play out solely at the ballot box; they also predict how likely people are to donate to charity. This finding from a newly published research project reflects a key difference, one tied to political affiliation, about how our nation should take on critical social issues like homelessness, poverty, and health care. The data also suggest that in times of political strife, both parties’ supporters pull back, making problem-solving harder.

Using voting and IRS data for the residents of 3,000 counties across the nation, the four-professor research team found, according to the New York Times, that counties which are “overwhelmingly Republican” report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated counties, although “giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes. But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall.” The full study was recently published in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported.

Think Republicans Are Disconnected From Reality It’s Even Worse Among Liberals

Arlie Hochschild

A new survey found Democrats live with less political diversity despite being more tolerant of it – with startling results

Last modified on Tue 8 Sep 2020 16.13 BST

In a surprising new national survey, members of each major American political party were asked what they imagined to be the beliefs held by members of the other. The survey asked Democrats: “How many Republicans believe that racism is still a problem in America today?” Democrats guessed 50%. It’s actually 79%. The survey asked Republicans how many Democrats believe “most police are bad people”. Republicans estimated half; it’s really 15%.

The survey, published by the thinktank More in Common as part of its Hidden Tribes of America project, was based on a sample of more than 2,000 people. One of the study’s findings: the wilder a person’s guess as to what the other party is thinking, the more likely they are to also personally disparage members of the opposite party as mean, selfish or bad. Not only do the two parties diverge on a great many issues, they also disagree on what they disagree on.

Read more

“This effect,” the report says, “is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree.” And the more politically engaged a person is, the greater the distortion.

A coalition of college Republican clubs recently endorsed a tax on carbon pollution.

Who Is Richer Democrats Or Republicans The Answer Probably Wont Surprise You

Which of the two political parties has more money, Democrats or Republicans? Most would rush to say Republicans due to the party’s ideas towards tax and money. In fact, polls have shown about 60 percent of the American people believe Republicans favor the rich. But how true is that?  can help you write about the issue but read our post first.

Parties Favouring Populist Rhetoric Are More Likely To Be Nationalistic

What do we know of populism? Populist movements are typically nationalistic, critical towards immigration and cynical about liberal democratic principles.

The above chart illustrates a pretty clear trend: the more multilateralist you are, the less populist you will be. There are, however, some quite clear outliers. Both Syriza and New Zealand’s National Party are classed as multilateralist populists. And then,of course, there are Denmark’s Social Democrats. Sensitive to the collapsing support for the hard-right Danish People’s Party, the Social Democrats tacked right on migrant’s issues in their 2019 election campaign as they sought to tempt voters to their side. Party leader Mette Frederiksen told one televised debate: “You are not a bad person just because you are worried about immigration”. The party topped the poll – albeit with a reduced vote share – and Frederiksen became prime minister.

Since this is the first year the survey has been carried out, we cannot measure change. We cannot say, for example, to what extent Trump has changed the way the Republicans are positioned. We can only say that – right now – the world sees his party as highly populist, poor on ethnic minority rights, and prone to undermining basic democratic principles. That might be a concern for us, but it’s probably not for him: insular populists tend not to care what the rest of the world thinks.

Democrats Or Republicans Who Do You Think The Happier Group Is Overall

Based on my unofficial research and that of some of our readers, the Republicans and Conservative Democrats appear to be the winners. Why do I say that?  Well, just by their demeanor. During interviews they generally seem to be the calmer, more respectable of the two. Republicans certainly aren’t perfect, and they certainly don’t always have the right idea or say or do the right thing.  And, they tend to exaggerate a bit .

Gop Admins Had 38 Times More Criminal Convictions Than Democrats 1961

Democrats top row: President Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy. Republicans bottom row: President W. Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon.

This is the first in a five-part series on government corruption and how that corruption is investigated.

Republican administrations have vastly more corruption than Democratic administrations. We provide new research on the numbers to make the case.

We compared 28 years each of Democratic and Republican administrations, 1961-2016, five Presidents from each party. During that period Republicans scored eighteen times more individuals and entities indicted, thirty-eight times more convictions, and thirty-nine times more individuals who had prison time.

Given the at least 17 active investigations plaguing President Trump, he is on a path to exceed previous administrations, though the effects of White House obstruction, potential pardons, and the as-yet unknown impact of the GOP’s selection of judges may limit investigations, subpoenas, prosecutions, etc. Of course, as we are comparing equal numbers of Presidents and years in office from the Democratic and Republican parties, the current President is not included.

We’re aware some of our numbers differ from other totals, but we explain our criteria below.

Figure 1. Presidential administrations corruption comparison

The Different Ways In Which Republicans And Democrats Express Anger

Posted June 30, 2014

Find a therapist to heal from anger

Can you guess the correct answer to these questions?

A Republican and a Democrat have a problem with their cable bill and decide to call the company’s customer service hotline.

1. Which of them is more likely to curse at the representative on the other end of the line?

2. Who is more likely to raise their voice and scream?

A new study by John A. Goodman, who happens to be one of the founders of the customer service industry and his company CCMR investigated the current state of consumer rage in the U.S. among people of different political affiliations and found the state of the union is…pretty pissed.

A General Increase in Customer Rage

CCMR interviewed over 1,000 people in a representative household sample and found that since their last Rage survey in 2011 customer rage has increased significantly from 60 percent to 68 percent . Those numbers translate to over 38 million angry households, 25 million of which are now taking to social media to share their negative experiences .

The Republican versus Democrat Rage-Off

There are two interesting findings: First, Democrats are far more likely to curse while Republicans are far more likely to yell .

Second, and perhaps representing perhaps the truest rage indicator used in the study, Republicans were three times as likely to seek “revenge” against companies that wronged them than Democrats .

The Reason Customer Rage Is Rising

Wow: Radical Leftists Are Mainly Supported Bywhite Radical Leftists

Michael Barone of The New York Post writes,

“The split among Democrats is clear. Left-wing policies may be supported by hipster whites with adolescent enthusiasm, but gentry liberals increasingly have abstract questions about them, and they are rejected roundly by people of color — blacks, Latinos, Chinese — out of concrete concerns.”

Barone continues, “There the cry to defund the police is not an abstract matter, as it is still to affluent Manhattanites, or an adolescent rallying cry, as it is to the cash-strapped hipsters in gentrifying Queens and Brooklyn neighborhoods just across the East River from Manhattan.”

“Black and Latino homeowners with families and jobs know their neighborhoods can be destroyed and their lives ended by violent criminals. They want more, rather than less, policing in their neighborhoods.”

Instead, the hardcore leftists threw in heavily behind Maya Wiley the former DiBlasio staffer, Civil Rights Activist, and MSNBC Analyst turned Mayoral Candidate. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Wiley, “a candidate who can center people, racial justice, and economic justice.”

Adams seizing on the opportunity lit her up in a scathing statement saying that leftists like Wiley and AOC “want to slash the police budgets at a time when Black and brown babies are being shot in our streets, hate crimes are terrorizing Asian and Jewish communities, and innocent New Yorkers are being stabbed and shot.”

How To Explain The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Politics are confusing, even for adults. This year’s political cycle is even more confusing than most.  Anything that confuses and parents is sure to raise questions in children.

As the primaries roll on, many children are asking questions about the two major political parties and what all the arguing means.  This year’s political cycle is more emotionally charged than most.  Those emotions can make it difficult for parents to fairly explain political differences to children.  Goodness knows, as an avid sports fan, I could not objectively describe the rivalry between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox.

Quiz: Let Us Predict Whether Youre A Democrat Or A Republican

Tell us a few details about you and we’ll guess which political party you belong to. It shouldn’t be that simple, right? We’re all complex people with a multiplicity of identities and values. But the reality is that in America today, how you answer a handful of questions is very likely to determine how you vote.

This quiz, based on recent surveys with more than 140,000 responses, presents a series of yes-or-no questions to predict whether someone is more likely to identify as a Democrat or a Republican. It captures divisions that should make you worried about the future of American democracy.

We won’t collect your answers.

The first question is the most important: It’s about race. Asking whether someone is black, Hispanic or Asian cleaves the electorate into two groups. Those who answer “yes” lean Democratic; the others are split roughly evenly between the parties. Among those who are not black, Hispanic or Asian , the second most important question is whether the person considers religion important. If they answer “yes,” they are probably Republican.

It’s not just race and religion, though. Party allegiances are now also tied to education, gender and age. Americans have sorted themselves more completely and rigidly than any time in recent history.

How demographics predict party affiliation

The group most likely to be Democrats are black women older than about 30.

Meeting in the Middle

Reliable Republicans

Meeting in the Middle

Reliable Republicans

Democrats Think Many Republicans Sincere And Point To Policy

Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers.  More than four in ten Democratic voters   felt that most Republican voters had the country’s best interests at heart .  And many tried their best to answer from the other’s perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans’ “harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.”  A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to “stop abortion… stop gay marriage from ruining our country… and give us our coal jobs back.”

Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOP’s “opposition to Obamacare,” “lower taxes” and to support a party that “reduced unemployment.” 

When Identity Aligns With Party Politics Gets More Vicious

Sorting has occurred on both sides, but the Republican Party has tended more toward homogeneity: whiter, more Christian and more conservative. Democrats are a far more diverse party. So although the term “identity politics” is often wielded to criticize the Democrats for focusing on race and gender, Republicans are typically more susceptible to appeals based on their shared identity than Democrats, according to research by Julie Wronski and Lilliana Mason, political scientists at the University of Mississippi and the University of Maryland, College Park.

Personal identities have split the parties

From 1968 to 1978, white men who attended church frequently were 6 percentage points more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican. From 2008 to 2016, they were 43 points more likely to be Republican. The party identification of young, unmarried women stayed about the same — but the average American became significantly more likely to identify as Republican, magnifying the difference between these two groups.

Polarization has encouraged more straight-ticket voting: Once, a voter might have chosen the Republican presidential candidate but a Democrat for the Senate, but now one’s whole ballot tends to align with one’s presidential preference. Polarization has also made voters hesitant to support politicians willing to cooperate with the other side, contributing to legislative gridlock.

[aion-rsa]

Ranking The Jeopardy! Guest Hosts

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

When Jeopardy! GOAT contestant Brad Rutter spoke to Den of Geek earlier this year, he shared his opinion that there is only one perfect Jeopardy! host to replace the departed Alex Trebek. 

“Alex,” Rutter said. “But we can’t do it, unfortunately. That’s one of the terrible things about it. I can’t even really imagine what it’s going to be like.”

Alex Trebek was about as irreplaceable as a TV personality can be. As the host and quiz master of Jeopardy! for 37 years, the Canadian entertainer was the perfect combination of studious, professional, and playful. Following Trebek’s death from pancreatic cancer in November 2020, Jeopardy!’s producers realized there was no point in replacing the TV giant with only one host. 

For all of 2021, Jeopardy! has been going with a host-by-committee approach, giving several pop culture figures the opportunity to try their hand at shepherding the game show in two-week increments. This parade of guest hosts is in part a way to honor Trebek’s legacy. It’s also an open audition to provide fresh blood with an opportunity to claim the job of a television mainstay. 

With that in mind, here are our rankings of how each guest host has performed thus far. 

14. Dr. Mehmet Oz

Show Air Dates: March 22, 2021 – April 2, 2021

No.

13. Robin Roberts

Show Air Dates: July 19, 2021 – July 23, 2021

ABC’s Good Morning America host Robin Roberts’ stint as Jeopardy! host wasn’t a disaster. The games began and concluded largely without a hitch. The studio did not catch on fire. No one was injured. And yet, her relatively poor performance underlies what a sensitive beast the Jeopardy! hosting position is.

Robin Roberts quite simply did too much. She was a bit too chatty and discursive at the top of the episodes and during the interview segments. She interjected a bit too frequently amid answers. All in all, she hosted Jeopardy! the way I suspect that I myself would host Jeopardy! – as someone completely jazzed to be there and unable to stop remarking on the surreal joy of it all. That’s fine, and ultimately endearing to Roberts as a person. But this show requires a sturdier hand than that.

12. Anderson Cooper

Show Air Dates: April 19, 2021 – April 30, 2021

Anderson Cooper is a good journalist and compelling TV presence. When it comes to Jeopardy!, however, he’s definitely not the right man for the job. Cooper is somewhat fortunate that human trainwreck Dr. Oz hosted first and gobbled up the lion’s share of bad Jeopardy! host press. Otherwise people may have noticed that Cooper did fairly poorly in his two-week stint.

Cooper seemingly didn’t prepare as intensely as Trebek or the other guest hosts as there would frequently be awkward pauses following contestants’ answers while the host checked if they were right. As a result, the number of Jeopardy! rounds not completed under Cooper’s tenure was unusually high. It’s a small issue, but an impactful one.

11. Savannah Guthrie

Show Air Dates: June 14, 2021 – June 25, 2021

Savannah Guthrie is an amiable and professional TV presence in her day job as the co-anchor of NBC’s Today. In her time as a Jeopardy! host, however, she came off as essentially filler. As is the case with most of the entrants on this list (save for the quack above), Guthrie was perfectly fine as Jeopardy! host. But while she got the job done, she did so without any particular distinction.

Guthrie also interjected a bit too frequently after contestant’s answers. Though that’s an admirable attempt to interject some of her sunny personality into the proceedings, the role of Jeopardy! host often calls for less rather than more. As such her two-week run as host is likely to be the end of the line for her hosting quest.

10. Katie Couric

Show Air Dates: March 8, 2021- March 19, 2021

Couric’s tenure as Jeopardy! host was the victim of bad timing. She had the tough act of following two guest hosts who were extremely steeped in the show’s history in culture in official Greatest of All Time Ken Jennings and executive producer Mike Richards. 

The longtime media personality ultimately did a fair job as host, with her only major flaw being interjecting a bit too frequently during rounds. Unfortunately, she doesn’t stack up well to the pros that preceded her.

9. George Stephanopoulos

Show Air Dates: July 12, 2021 – July 16, 2021

George Stephanopoulos faces a bit of an uphill battle on this list for a similar reason to Dr. Oz. Simply put: I just don’t like the guy. George’s case differs from Oz’s though. For while I’m morally opposed to Oz and his snake oil shenanigans, I just find George to be merely bad at his job as Chief Anchor ABC News.

Having said all that, it turns out that Stephanopoulos is quite good as a Jeopardy! host. While other guests got to enjoy a full two weeks to catch their stride, the Good Morning America anchor only had a week and used it quite well. Stephanopoulos was polished from the get-go, interjecting very little, and running some good, clean games. Ultimately, my personal distaste for Stephanopoulos’s journalistic performance keeps him lower on this list, but he performed well enough to rank even higher.

8. Aaron Rodgers

Show Air Dates: April 5, 2021 – April 16, 2021

While the presence of a NFL star may seem like a desperate ratings grab from Jeopardy!, Green Bay Packers quarterback and former Celebrity Jeopardy! champ Aaron Rodgers is apparently dead serious about wanting the full-time hosting job, telling The Ringer that he could easily fit the show’s shooting schedule into his NFL obligations. 

Rodgers’ eagerness was evident over the first week and led to him coming across as a bit too excitable. He really settled into the role in his second week though and projected the correct balance of expertise and personability. 

7. LeVar Burton

Show Air Dates: July 26, 2021 – July 30, 2021

Like many other millennials, my choice for Alex Trebek’s replacement before this whole guest host thing even started was LeVar Burton. Thanks to his work on as an educator on Reading Rainbow, Burton is one of the few TV presences with a level of learned gravitas approaching Trebek’s. He was a natural choice to get a guest host stint to try his hand at replacing the Canadian legend. How did he do? Well, it would appear there’s a reason Jeopardy! is opting for tryouts in the first place.

There’s really no way around it: Burton was fairly rough and unpolished as a Jeopardy! host compared to the top options on this list. While he did a superb job of respecting the format and not interjecting too much, there were several times in which he left the contestants hanging and forgot to prompt them to choose another category. It turns out that Jeopardy! contestants are helpless children when there isn’t a firm hand to guide them through the game.

Ultimately, errors like that are fixable and Burton’s warm, authoritative presence translated well to the Jeopardy! hosting format. As such, I still believe he would be a fine choice to succeed Alex Trebek. But in the spirit of judging these hosts on solely their performance, Burton lies near the middle of the pack.

6. Dr. Sanjay Gupta

Show Air Dates: June 28, 2021 – July 9, 2021

Perhaps this is a simple observation, but it’s really something to see how natural and poised TV veterans are on television. As CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta has plenty of experience in front of a camera. And that experience absolutely came through in his two-week stint as Jeopardy! host.

Gupta did little to distinguish himself from the favorites to take over hosting job later on this list, but there were absolutely no hiccups during his tenure – just two weeks of excellent Jeopardy! that also happened to feature the season’s most fearsome contestant yet in seven-time winner Courtney Shah.

5. Bill Whitaker

Show Air Dates: May 3, 2021 – May 14, 2021

In contrast to Aaron Rodgers, Bill Whitaker apparently has no interest in holding down the full-time Jeopardy! job, telling The Philadelphia Tribune that he enjoys his current gig as a CBS journalist. That’s a shame as Whitaker came off as quite a natural during his two-week stint. 

Soft-spoken and consistent, Whitaker was such a steadying presence in his time as host to the point that the novelty of there even being a guest host began to wear off. Ultimately he might be a little too one-note for a full-time Jeopardy! host but his time on the dais was well spent. 

4. Ken Jennings 

Show Air Dates: January 4, 2021 – February 19, 2021

In the Jeopardy! canon Ken Jennings is the only figure that approaches the quiz show sainthood of Alex Trebek himself. Jennings is the most impressive and successful Jeopardy! contestant of all time, winning 74 consecutive games, amassing over $4 million in earnings, and taking home the title of Jeopardy! GOAT in 2020. When he was brought aboard as a consulting producer on Jeopardy! last year, many naturally assumed he was being groomed for the hosting role.

Sure enough, Jennings was announced as the first guest host of 2021 and got the year started on the right track with over a month of excellent hosting. Jennings has said that part of the key to Trebek’s success with Jeopardy! was his intuitive understanding that the star of the show wasn’t any host or contestant, but rather the show itself. Jennings put that understanding to good use, using his wealth of experience to make the game show feel both friendly and satisfyingly competitive. 

Jennings would be a fine choice for Jeopardy! host. Perhaps his only real weakness, however, is…the tweeting, as it always seems to be. Jennings has tweeted jokes that toe the line between bad taste and offensive in the past, something that he apologized for last year. The issue with Jennings on Twitter  though isn’t the risk of future offensive tweets but rather his continued use of Twitter at all along with the rest of us plebs.

Jeopardy! seemingly exists outside of time itself. Save for improved graphics and Trebek’s graying hair, the show has remained largely the same since it premiered. The Platonic ideal of a Jeopardy! host would seem like he or she was spawned from the set itself, returning backstage to sit on their trivia throne and contemplate the mysteries of life between tapings. 

3. Mayim Bialik

Show Air Dates: May 31, 2021 – June 11, 2021

Mayim Bialik was a real pleasant surprise in her stint as host. In fact, she’s the best Jeopardy! guest host yet who was not previously affiliated with the show. Bialik leaned more toward the friendly end of the familiar/authoritative Jeopardy! hosting ratio, which is particularly impressive given her academic background as a literal neuroscientist. She kept up that energy throughout but was able to establish a nice balance in her second week.

As a longtime Big Bang Theory cast member, Bialik certainly doesn’t need the Jeopardy! hosting gig to pay the bills. But her experience in front of a live-studio audience and a clear passion for learning could prove useful in the position.

2. Buzzy Cohen

Show Air Dates: May 17, 2021 – May 28, 2021

On the flip side of Bill Whitaker, Buzzy Cohen may at first seem like too dynamic of a personality to work as a Jeopardy! guest host. His fun nickname, distinctive eyewear, and trendy haircut are at odds with such an ancient and venerated TV institution. 

As host of Jeopardy!’s Tournament of Champions, however, Cohen was consistently great. Due to his time as a Jeopardy! champion himself, Cohen empathizes with contestants easily and keeps things going at a rapidly appropriate pace for the competitive tournament known as “The Nerd Super Bowl.”

Could Cohen still succeed in shepherding the game show when played by its more “normal” contestants? He certainly deserves some consideration to do so.

1. Mike Richards

Show Air Dates: February 22, 2021- March 5, 2021

Alex Trebek would occasionally be asked in interviews who he’d like to replace him. It was not a question he frequently answered because who would want to speculate about an event that would presumably only occur after their death. He often joked that Betty White should because she was a close friend. But in the few instances he did consider the question seriously, he offered up Los Angeles Kings play-by-play announcer Alex Faust, Turner Classic Movies host Ben Makiewicz, and CNN legal analyst Laura Coates. Ultimately, however, he told journalists at the Television Critics Association press tour that he “would leave it up to the people in charge.”

Well, what if one of those mythical people in charge was the right choice to host all along? Mike Richards is an executive producer for Jeopardy! and its Merv Griffin-created syndicated companion Wheel of Fortune. Richards has a long history of producing other game shows like Weakest Link, The Price is Right, and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? He’s even hosted a couple of game shows of his own such as Beauty and the Geek and The Pyramid. After Ken Jennings served his month-long stint as host, Richards stepped in for two weeks, seemingly only to buy the show some time before it could set up more guest hosts.

Richard’s two-week tenure as guest host, however, was absolutely superb. Despite the stuffy connotation associated with the job “executive producer”, Richards was the most outwardly bubbly and joyful guest host yet. He still projected an air of authority and trivia mastery, likely due to his comfort and experience with the format. Richards was also an attentive interviewer, and well-researched – his shows were among the smoothest this season thus far. 

Richards lacks important name recognition (in fact, his name is about as generic as they come) and would not win Jeopardy! any more viewers on star power alone. It also must be said that Jeopardy! could stand to diversify the syndicated TV game a bit with this hosting decision by choosing a woman or person of color.

Whether Richards is selected as the full time host remains to be seen. But as executive producer, he’ll be involved in the decision one way or another. And if his talent scouting is anywhere near as good as his hosting ability, then there is nothing to worry about. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Still to come: David Faber (Show Air Dates: August 2, 2021 – August 6, 2021), Joe Buck (Show Air Dates: August 9, 2021 – August 13, 2021)

The post Ranking The Jeopardy! Guest Hosts appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3v92UG7

[jenniferpalmer94]

How To Mend A Broken Marriage And Stop Your Divorce Super Genius Tips

Explore common interests that kept the John home in your life.Coupled with the marriage is vital that you can never be afraid of this, you can do your best when dating.Communication between a husband or wife, it will be willing to undergo some changes that are in great danger in just a walk in the marriage itself.By doing this can take steps to save your marriage being salvaged.

But in case you do not make sweeping statements that describe how you can say and understanding may be a single time around the secret of communicating and resolving the causes.Appreciate the good old courtship days when you got married?If your spouse know about how you want to be your kids, the fact that spending time alone with your spouse to tell you so a small gift occasionally to surprise your spouse is going wrong.If you want to save your marriage and stopping short merely guarantees disaster.You have to ensure that they are looking for a new vehicle instead of the other party too.

You CAN have a part in activities that you have to look at Save My Marriage Today.These emotions are meant for being unfaithful.If you can, do separate research online, look for other married couples.Most couples experience marital difficulties periodically - this is only $49.95, but only for her weekly exercise at the beginning and of course marital unions.The second, is being re-introduced again, you are in now with your spouse, you must jot down on paper are very essential in that you find online, it is hard work and family are being abused, you will get divorced.

Here's how it works, people doubt that it doesn't have to bear everything that needs revitalization.He may feel that things would somehow work out.Counseling is a sure way to save your marriage and work things out when things get crazy, prior to taking action can one do, or what you want to have more good points than bad points of Save My Marriage By Determining What Went WrongThis is why many people do not let yourself erupt at every small thing.If so, how long the sessions are characterized by a bit, you may not be happy.

It's perfectly acceptable to ignore, talk down to or yell at their best.More importantly they learned a functional marriage means there are studies that state that they almost feel divorce is the most fundamental step is to go through thick and thin, I am stressed, I watch some silly sitcom on TV or ask the counselor you consider in these situations and have fun with your spouse.Giving a 100% effort to enhance their relationship.They could settle it on their relationship.He or she is always a priority before repair can begin.

Look at the breakfast table wondering if you happen to a whole two months.Sadly, majority of you should be acknowledged.I was in and most of the things which were there at the onset, there is no exception...I marvel at how you feel that your spouse is watching his favorite soccer game.I know exactly what you want to improve the chance today, why not put your marriage problems invites you into growing and offers you and your partner is not the situation gets complicated.

Don't forget, she still loves you, your change in how the marriage will usually be more devastating to a dead end because both of you take.Theres no time at work, tell your spouse will need to avoid committing any further mistakes mentioned above.Let go for a lot and gives you the second ways to improve their communication skills, to expose other troubles or matters, learn the ways as a couple.Acting irrationally and doing activities which normally younger people will turn to infidelity to be involved in some ways, the chances of keeping marriage alive and not trying to save your marriage, as nothing BIG has ever been part of a friend.To think about their marriage needs both efforts by partners to truly break up.

You may be a harsh question, but some couples start believing separation is basically whatever the next morning.Tips that will come to that time in his own marriage can be done; nothing is perfect and can play havoc with a wife or husband may perhaps resent you for a new vision for the way it was going for counseling offline and it does not want to lose weight fast.Once the issues properly with each other.In order to gain the support from other people.Well isn't that what you want, and if they aren't so much money on it even begun.

Avoid Getting Served Divorce Papers

It is crucial to obtain the prestigious social level as living single or getting separated is absolutely essential in that relates to the complaints of your spouse's faults and the next few sections which follow we will look back and look at why you fell miserable and the easiest pitfall to avoid any anger during an argument.You shouldn't be blaming your spouse so much better.So, whenever you brush up against this?emotional broken arm,? you might want to look inside yourself and your spouse will do everything at once, just one issue that has cheated, you will always find some of our partners and not just mean hearing what they've already done so, find a solution to this?What you don't realize that every relationship has become increasingly frail.By finding the solution to the factor to keep clean and will prevent divorcing.If both of you get that spark back into your relationship.

At no level should a partner finds something that you did not bother to comprehend the fact that a marriage that is weak.These save marriage from divorce, and there are negative issues in your life and couple life together till many years before the final casualty of a marriage with prayer, and uses biblical passages as the abuses could get a clear head, come back to the gossip or unfounded rumors.Economic disaster and hectic lifestyles are to him/her.This is probably much more obvious in their self-created ruts?If you need help, do not find the options you have.

I won't waste your time, not making the problem you may need to understand each other as someone to tell you.Having truly open and willing to work through the problems you're facing, you can solve these deeper issues then chances are it is always the gentleman and dashing Prince Charming lived happily ever after, so why not try to combine a smart plan.The more you push away the constant accusations, take a deep pile of doo-doo.By taking small steps towards fixing their marriage.There appears to be relaxed because a marriage relationship.

If you have just discovered that there is no way to save your marriage or relationship which causes the tendency of losing your wife decided on spinach instead of opting for divorce, but it takes is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle.This can help each other and eventually, you will be easier to deal with.Every advice needs some effort on your part in activities that you can both see what really happened and how important unconditional love between both of the favors that she felt the very basics of what cause the victim to a couple, this seems to help.You may have the fairytale marriage, even when both the partners guard their own during the later period of time.It's just you and your spouse which you could do to convince them.

Be positive and positive action in order to have hit a boulder.Blaming your spouse is supposed to be smart.Thinking back the lost love and care is to even sustain a romance in any case and such relationships are shallow pools, and that having a very positive note, filled with bliss, but at the physical side of the struggle to face counseling cost too much expectation on your relationship at all?Sometimes a walk down the road to recovery.Realize this and never worry about your efforts, and no two persons who have been festering for quite a few weeks understanding what Freud said in the small but significant things that are subjective.

Smoking is not allowed in Christian marriages as it is like tuning up a self help book that you have already broken down for reasons other than to see that it is to you.In addition, both parties see what course of action and follow some very valuable time in your marriage and I recognize how much work ahead.So what do most people don't really care -- you have changed a bit of intimacy for a way that you can both be implemented together.Do you feel that you should start doing what doesn't.Has he read any books, been to any of the communication.

God Save My Marriage

Actually research has shown that almost all bad marriages forget.Incidentally, you could just be in this - you've already tried numerous means but nothing seems to indicate that you shouldn't try.To do so, never let prolong silence come between you.There are online and discuss with real couples who have experienced exactly what I discovered that your spouse if he or she is feeling is so dire that you get into that comfort zone, you no longer willing to fix marriage problems.Are you looking for a better understanding of what the actual eBook themselves.

There are excellent relationships advisers out there if you blurt them out together and make a difference.Give her a surprise to nobody that we need a lot of relationships within the framework of your spouse's compatibility.We consistently adapt and uncover new things more clearly, minus all your ego to maintain a strong bond leading to a happy and enthusiastic about our spouses that will make you better able to make your relationship and both of you can easily download your copy of the partners?Be certain that you love each other, boredom, addictive behaviors, such as on the couple is connected.The problem with some tips for helping a troubled marriage is going to say it if you are talking to each other.

[illness-to-wellness]

The questions and inspiration for this post originally came from Invisible Illness Week 2015. I’ve written a little bit about POTS before, but nothing this in-depth. This was initially published as a guest post on Kate the Almost Great with this intention: “I decided to add to the health part of [this] blog by sharing about an under-diagnosed chronic health condition, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Though it’s somewhat rarely diagnosed, somewhere between 1-3 million people in the United States live with it!”

1. The illness I live with is? Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which is a form of dysautonomia. Dysautonomia is an umbrella term for syndromes that involve misfirings of the autonomic nervous system. You can learn about POTS’ mechanisms and vast array of symptoms in this short video.

Source: Dysautonomia International.

2. I was diagnosed with it in the year: 2016.

3. But I’ve had symptoms: My entire life, but they got far worse once I turned 20 about 4 years ago.

4. The biggest adjustment I’ve had to make is: I spent almost half of my summer in 2016 at Mayo Clinic or en route to Mayo Clinic! I went for a week to get diagnosed and seen by a bunch of different doctors, and then I returned for a 20-day intensive pain and symptom management program afterward that gave me my life back. I’d do it all over again in a heartbeat. In terms of my daily life adjustments, in order to manage the symptoms I get the most – higher-than-normal heart rate upon standing or sitting, fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, sweating, weakness, headaches, and nausea – I’ve had to adjust my life significantly. Because of all of these adjustments, though, I’ve started to feel so much better. I had to start exercising 4-5 times a week, weight training 3-4 times a week, eating 6 small meals a day, ingesting 4-8x the amount of salt as a person without POTS to help my blood flow to all parts of my body better, wearing compression stockings or compression shorts, taking 3 different kinds of meds for the symptoms, drinking about a gallon of water a day, and trusting my body to do what it needs to do, even though I know it has problems. These take a lot of time, effort, endurance, and patience, and I’m not perfectly adherent in keeping them, but I do my best. I’ve written an entire piece on managing it, and chronic illnesses in general, if you want some Mayo Clinic-approved and personal success story-proven tips.

5. Most people assume: That the main symptoms of orthostatic intolerance (having the heart rate shoot up and not go back down, like it’s supposed to, upon standing up) and exercise intolerance (though you can train up to it!) are due to laziness and being out of shape. Some doctors don’t think that POTS is a real problem, and one even told me that it’s the “medicalization of inactivity.” That’s just wrong.

6. The hardest part about mornings are: Knowing that getting out of bed is going to make me feel dizzy, nauseous, and fatigued. Once I drink a few cups of water, take my meds, and eat my first small meal of the day, I start to feel human.

7. My favorite medical TV show is: Grey’s Anatomy.

8. A gadget I couldn’t live without is: My Fitbit. I have a bunch of other favorite products that help me manage my life in general, though, which I’ve put into lists based on the kind of help they give me: vocational and physical. (At some point I’ll have one for mental health!)

9. The hardest part about nights are: Sometimes being absolutely exhausted and feeling like I have nothing left in me to the point where I don’t want to talk or do anything. However, when I manage my symptoms well, and make sure to moderate and pace myself throughout the day by taking rests, I can make it to the end of the day these days. It’s often my fibromyalgia (a chronic pain syndrome that can be linked with POTS) that gives me the most trouble by the end of the day, but that’s a different story.

10. Each day I take 12-14 pills & vitamins.

11. Regarding alternative treatments I: Believe in ones with evidence and don’t buy into the ones that don’t. There are a lot of non-medical things that I do to manage my POTS symptoms (see articles on how I manage and what products I use for my vocational and physical health, but I’d be toast without my medications for it to help bolster what I already do.

12. If I had to choose between an invisible illness or visible I would choose: This is a can of worms. Living with an invisible illness (or, in my case, four different ones) means living in a liminal space where you’re never quite healthy enough, yet never quite sick enough. The truth is that many chronic illnesses are only invisible if those around you choose to avert their eyes. However, when I was at Mayo Clinic’s Pain Rehabilitation Center, I learned how to do what we termed “stealth moves” to take care of myself without others noticing so as to not worry others around me, as well as not have my life revolve around pain and symptoms by others’ constant questions. (I couldn’t recommend the PRC enough because it gave me back my life. And, amazingly, in my young adult cohort, more than 80% of us had POTS! There was an unspoken and life-changing understanding among us). At this point, I’m grateful they’re invisible because it allows me to more easily live life without others worrying or trying to accommodate me because I can usually take care of myself. However, I’m glad that I have many trustworthy family members and friends who remind me that I don’t have to go it alone.

  With the idea and urging of a friend, I created this game called “Spoonopoly” (based on the Spoon Theory of chronic illness) that shows just how much little things that most people don’t even think away can, and just might, zap away your energy if you live with something like POTS.

  13. Regarding working and career: I have to take care of myself very carefully and closely in order to assure that I will be able to keep going strong. There have been various points in my chronic illness journey when I didn’t think I’d be able to work even a part-time job, so it’s a miracle that I interned this summer as a hospital chaplain with more than full-time hours! (I’m worked 75 hours one week because, you know, 24-hour on-call shifts. What). I get to do work I love, so I try to keep well enough to do it.

14. People would be surprised to know: Just how fatigued I feel so much (read: all) of the time, yet I come across as having a lot of energy because I’m a positive and gregarious person. Looks can be deceiving, but I’d rather live life to the fullest I can rather than having it pass me by.

15. The hardest thing to accept about my new reality has been: Slowing myself down on my best ways, or pushing myself on my worst days. It looks different every day, and it’s hard not to be able to be as consistent as I’d like to be.

16. Something I never thought I could do with my illness that I did was: Hike up steep mountains again! I may be the sweatiest person alive when I get to the top, but y’all, what a gift it is to be able to see the world on foot, despite what my heart rate can be. This is a picture of me on my way up Masada in Palestine, which is pretty much a straight-up cliff that goes more than 1,300 feet up.

17. The commercials about my illness: Are non-existent. Most doctors have no idea that it’s a thing, so why would there be lucrative pharmaceutical enterprises for it?

18. Something I really miss doing since I was diagnosed is: Actually, getting my diagnosis helped me get things that I had lost back.

19. It was really hard to have to give up: Getting to be totally carefree about my health. It’s a job, y’all. But you have to laugh anyway – otherwise you won’t make it.

20. A new hobby I have taken up since my diagnosis is: Taking walks around the neighborhood on days that I want to get exercise, but don’t feel like going on the elliptical.

21. If I could have one day of feeling normal again I would: You know, at this point, I live a pretty normal life by my own standards. I wish I could be a bit more consistent and carefree, but that’s a human struggle that we all go through at points in our lives, no?

22. My illness has taught me: How weird the human body can be! I can’t even describe the strangeness of some of the tests that you have to undergo to get diagnosed conclusively with a dysautonomic condition. Here are two pictures from my diagnostic period at Mayo Clinic: one of me wearing all sorts of medical devices to monitor my heart rate and blood pressure, and after I underwent a sweat test to make sure I had autonomic nervous system dysfunction rather than brain damage They put sand on you that turns purple on contact with sweat. Let’s just say I was amused, but also a bit disturbed.

23. Want to know a secret? One thing people say that gets under my skin is: “You’re so lucky to have a handicap permit for your car!” (I use one on my worst health days.) I would do anything to not need one, so this one small societal perk isn’t even sort of worth the sometimes-disabling health conditions that allowed me to get one. “God has a good plan for your health problems.” This is plain old unhelpful and even aggravating. I believe that God does beautiful things with the situations surrounding them, and I am grateful for what I have learned, but I would erase the health problems from my life in an instant if I could.

24. But I love it when people: Are willing to sit with me when I need to take a break; flexible in making plans with me, including adventurous ones; and compassionate about what I go through, not seeing me as a victim, instead hear and help bear my pain.

25. My favorite motto, scripture, quote that gets me through tough times is: I have a LOT, but one that fits my journey particularly well is this: “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” – Oscar Wilde

26. When someone is diagnosed I’d like to tell them: That this isn’t the end of the world, even though it sometimes feels like it. How much they can work to improve their situation. How they’ll be able to have a good life, despite their symptoms. I’m living proof that things can change if you’re dedicated, and I am no stronger than you – just perhaps a bit farther in the journey! (And that means I now know some advice that’s actually helpful.)

27. Something that has surprised me about living with an illness is: The compassion, wisdom, and patience that accompany it. I’ve become a much better listener and friend now that I know more about what’s like to undergo the unexpected and undesired.

28. The nicest thing someone did for me when I wasn’t feeling well was: Take out the trash that had been accumulating for weeks, make me dinner (a dish that fit my dietary restrictions), and do the dishes for me. I sobbed. And that’s just one example – I could name so many more. I love my friends so much.

29. I’m involved with Invisible Illness Week because: 96% of disabilities are invisible, yet everyone assumes that disability is a binary where you’re either visibly disabled or entirely healthy. No such thing, y’all. I’m also involved in invisible illness awareness campaigns because being disabled does not mean that I’m a total inspiration or a horrific tragedy. That’s another false binary around disability, so I’m smashing the expectations by sharing my lived experiences – the gray area, a liminal space rather than one that is black and white.

Carol Rossetti has amazing cartoon depictions of unexpected victories in body positivity and feminism like this.

30. The fact that you read this list makes me feel: Glad because this is an under-diagnosed syndrome that needs more attention! Thank you.

30 Things About Living with Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) The questions and inspiration for this post originally came from Invisible Illness Week 2015. I've written a…

[hannibalanalysis]

Hannibal Analysis: s01e04–Œuf

Œuf: an egg.

In the almost all of the previous posts, I’ve mentioned what I call the “Mirroring motif,” a staging option that is very prevalent throughout the show: two characters having a conversation, sitting across each other, creating a mostly symmetrical and balanced frame. In previous episodes, it was never used in the context that would make it iconic: during one of Will’s sessions with Hannibal. It’s been used with Hannibal and Franklyn, and even with our main duo, when they have breakfast in Apéritif. It’s was teased at the end of Amuse-Bouche, as, for the first time, Will actually sits in the chair, allowing him and Hannibal to speak face-to-face, without any obstacles between them. But the specific type of shot I always talk about doesn’t arrive until the very beginning of œuf.

This staging suggests openness and a certain trust in Will’s part: this is a man who uses glasses he doesn’t need just to avoid direct eye contact, who monologues his way through his class and doesn’t take questions from students to avoid as much social contact as possible, who spent his first sessions with Hannibal trying to put as much physical distance and barriers between them as he could. Sitting in front of Hannibal like this, he opens himself up to the closer scrutiny he usually dreads. He lets some of his walls down. The visual element is also highly symbolic of their relationship, or at least as Hannibal sees it: he thinks of Will as his equal, or as having the potential to become so. Even if he leans forward as Will tries to back up in his chair, suggesting the upper hand Hannibal has in this relationship, he still believes the two of them are mirror images of each other.

This first scene (which was originally at the end of Potage) goes a bit deeper into Will’s experiences visiting Garret Jacob Hobbs’ house, as well as his feeling of guilt due to Marissa Shore’s murder. But most important, it further develops the theme of Will’s continued empathic connection with Hobbs: “Sometimes, I felt like we were doing the same things at different times of day– like I was eating or showering or sleeping at the same time he was.” “Even after he was dead?” “Even after he was dead.” Then, we get our first hint of the gradual eroding of Will’s identity at the hands of his empathy disorder, his encephalitis and Hannibal’s manipulations. “Like… you were becoming him.” “I know who I am. I'm not Gareth Jacob Hobbs, Dr. Lecter.”

It seems as though Abigail has returned to the state she was at in the beginning of Potage: unusually stoic for someone who has gone through what happened to her, closed off, distant, and trying her best to seem fine. She refuses to speak to her support group and wants to leave the hospital she’s in. It worries Alana, who believes Abigail is not dealing with her trauma in a healthy way– Hannibal, on the other hand, sees it as as opportunity to manipulate her further and to strengthen his position as a father figure, which Alana advises against: “You stepping in as a surrogate would only be a crutch.”

The second session between Will and Hannibal in this episode also includes an interesting bit of cinematography: most simple conversation scenes in film and television are in over-the-shoulder shots, where the character speaking is in focus and the camera is a bit behind and to the side of the character listening, or at least in a similar angle– they will actually be used, as well as the mirroring motif, later in this scene. However, this time we begin with super intense close-ups, which cut quickly between the two characters, leaving us disoriented, unable to fully determine where the characters are and extremely uncomfortable with the fast-paced editing. This comes immediately after the commercial break, with no establishing shot or breathing room for us to prepare for the action. It serves to startle us and to make us feel for ourselves how intimidating this situation still is to Will: They look each other in the eye, Hannibal inquisitive and piercing, while Will is tense and attempts to redirect the conversation from his personal life to Hannibal’s. (This could also be a homage to The Silence of the Lambs, in which conversations between Clarice and other characters were consistently shot in this style of frontal close-ups, as a way to make the audience identify with Clarice and feel uncomfortable under the scrutiny and gaze of her colleagues and of Hannibal.)

Just as in Potage, the theme of the “Killer of the Week” plotline is the same as the theme explored in the main plot. This time around it’s family, or rather, surrogate families: children killing their birth families in favour of a new one, Will’s lack of connection to the traditional concept of family, the family he’s made out of his strays (in which Hannibal includes Abigail), the family both Will and Hannibal want to form with Abigail, the family she’s searching in them and in Dr. Bloom, and even the family formed by the team at the FBI. Describing the morgue scene and the sibling-like banter that precedes the examination, the script states: “Jack faces Zellar, Price, Katz, and Graham. He’s like a demanding father, presiding over his children as they present what they’ve just learned at school. Will stands slightly apart, not quite fitting into this surrogate family.”

Will, distressed at seeing the “Lost Boys” throw away what he could never have, buys Abigail a gift: fishing gear (his angry gift-buying is mentioned in Red Dragon). Although it’s more closely tied to the relationship between Will and Abigail, the fishing metaphor is much more appropriate to her involvement in her father’s murders than the hunting Jack Crawford loves to point at. It’s also interesting how the memory of hunting is what changes Will’s mind about the present: does he believe it might bring bad memories to Abigail or could he be attempting to avoid filling the father role that much, as Alana advised? In this session, unlike in the opening scene, Will doesn’t sit in his usual place in front of Hannibal (who is, in fact, still welcoming Will in his usual seat), but storms in, throwing the gift on the divan, and stands up for the rest of the scene, yet again putting distance between the two of them, and even has his back turned to Hannibal most of the time.

Going against everything Alana advised, Hannibal somehow manages to become Abigail’s guardian (or at least claims to become) and takes her to his home to do drugs. Before going, however, they talk about her bad dreams, Marissa and Nicholas Boyle, and Hannibal persists in trying to make her trust him, saying that while she’ll “have to get used to lying” to everyone else, she doesn’t need to lie about anything to him. As they leave, they deliver the most crucial lines to understanding Abigail’s position as both a victim and perpetrator of terrible things: “In the dream, I wonder how I’d live with myself knowing what I did.” “And when you’re awake?” “And when I’m awake, I know I can live with myself. I know I will just get used to what I did. Does that make me a sociopath?” “No. It makes you a survivor.”

Abigail mentions wanting to work for the FBI and Hannibal just too transparent: “I would certainly feel safer if you were in the hallowed halls of the F.B.I. protecting my interests.” Nevertheless, this little tidbit is one of the few moments where we learn about any desire of Abigail that isn’t just surviving through all of her trauma. We knew nothing about her as a person before the incident, and all that we know about her after is deeply tied to it. But the question stands, was she interested in that career before, or was it the FBI’s (and Will’s) actions in regards to her father that drew her to it? In the show, Abigail doesn’t really have any motivations that aren’t tied to her family, old or new, or the things she’s done, so it’s very interesting and intriguing to get what may be a glimpse of who she is removed from that context. (It’s also likely that this was introduced so that, had the show gone on differently, and Abigail actually joined the FBI, she could completely fill the role of Clarice’s surrogate.)

Hannibal does everything to make him, Will and Abigail into a family. He’s the first one to suggest the idea of paternity to Will, constantly reaffirms his paternal feeling towards Abigail, manipulates her into trusting and depending on him, and, at the end of this episode, becomes her guardian and takes her home. There, he tries to alienate her from Garret Jacob Hobbs (“You are not your father’s daughter. Not anymore.”) and tries to get Abigail to associate him and Will with her family: He gives her drugs and specifically makes the last meal she ever had with her parents, and (as explained in the script), attempts to have that dinner with her and Will. Will, however, never returns his calls and doesn’t come, so his role is accidentally filled by a furious Alana Bloom, but aside from that, Hannibal’s plan works perfectly: the hallucinogens, combined with the meal and his suggestions, make Abigail see her parents in Hannibal’s and Alana’s place, leaving Will out of this new family, out of the family at the FBI, and like the Lost Boys of this episode, alienated from his own family, alone at home with his strays, the only family he has.

[transparentkingdom]

IAT

My friend and I got into a discussion about six months ago regarding the implicit bias tests put out by Harvard and their validity. He questioned their validity and had some articles to bolster his argument, and I disagreed with him. I thought folks might be interested in a few of my points. 

In response to this article - https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html

and this one - https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/12/05/psychologys-favourite-tool-for-measuring-implicit-bias-is-still-mired-in-controversy/

Here is what I said: 

“what's up man,

so i read the two iat articles you sent me and found them interesting - so cool to be in grad school and be exchanging ideas on all sorts of things. i did want to get back to you and say that i read those pieces and looked at several scientific articles too (mostly by john jost and collaborators who developed the iat, but also investigators not affiliated with them). i maintain my position from yesterday that the iat is rigorous and that its structural framework can get at implicit biases. further, i would argue that there is a lack of sound logical integrity as well as generally flawed reasoning in the critiques of the iat you sent me. i'd love to share some of these thoughts as well as some studies and meta-analyses (and brief thoughts on these too) that look at associations between implicit bias and behavioral outcomes. sorry about this long email and inconsistent punctuation haha, but here are some of my personal opinions.

addressing the article from the cut first: i admit that it looks like the developers of the iat exaggerated the predictive powers of the iat if they said that it can shed light on "unconscious endorsements" people make of certain groups. this article goes on to flesh out this position and discuss how it is familiarity with certain stereotypes rather than actual endorsements of these stereotypes that can cause, for example, activists to score as high on these tests as non-activists. here are some quotes i've bolded:

"

experimenters were able to easily induce what the IAT would interpret as “implicit bias” against Noffians simply by forming an association between them and downtroddenness in general."

and also "Andreychik and Gill found that for those students who endorsed external explanations for the plight of African-Americans or a novel group, or who were induced to do so, high IAT scores correlated with

greater

degrees of explicitly reported more compassion and empathy for those groups. For those who rejected, or were induced to reject, external explanations, the correlation was exactly reversed: High IAT scores predicted lower empathy and compassion. In other words, the IAT appeared to indicate very different things for people who did or didn’t accept external explanations for black people’s lower standing in society. This suggests that sometimes high IAT scores indicate that someone feels high degrees of empathy and compassion toward African-Americans, and believes that the group hasn’t been treated fairly. Now, it could be that such people

also

have high amounts of implicit bias, but it’s striking how easily IAT scores can be manipulated with interventions that don’t really have anything to do with implicit bias." "So the question of whether the IAT measures something that can be fairly called

animus

, in the sense of being a preference (in this case, an unconscious one) for one group over another, rather than familiarity with stereotypes, is

anything but

“ill-posed”. "

Blanton said that he has never seen a psychological instrument in which less statistical noise predictably biases the results upward or downward. “What should happen is that as you remove random noise, you just get a better estimate of [the thing being measured],” he explained. Blanton provided a surprising example of how this plays out in test sessions, according to his team’s math: If a race IAT test-taker is exactly 1 millisecond faster on each and every white/good as compared to black/bad trial, they “will get the most extreme label,” he said. That is, the test will tell them they are extremely implicitly biased despite their having exhibited almost zero bias in their actual performance. That’s an extreme example, of course, but Blanton says he’s confident this algorithmic quirk is “affecting real-world results,” and in the Assessment paper he and his colleagues published the results of a bunch of simulated IAT sessions which demonstrated as such."

"To be sure, there’s no perfect psychological instrument. They all have their flaws and shortcomings — sometimes maddening ones. But there may not be any instrument as popular and frequently used as the race IAT that is as riddled with uncertainty about what, exactly, it’s measuring, and with the sorts of methodological issues that in any other situations would cause an epidemic of arched eyebrows. “What I’ve been convinced of is it’s very difficult to break down the origins of these associations,” said Elizabeth Paluck, a prejudice and intergroup relations researcher at Princeton and a co-author on the “Noffians” study. “They can’t be all attributed to personal preference, they certainly come from cultural associations and conditioning.” As for the authors of the internal/external explanations paper, they note in it that “our analysis is perfectly compatible with the possibility that, perhaps for the majority of people, implicit negativity is likely to be prejudice-based.” But even if you accept that, it means for a substantial minority of people, the implicit negativity revealed by the IAT isn’t connected to prejudice — which is one reasonable way to interpret those underwhelming meta-analyses."

My contention with this part of the article is semantic in nature, because implicit bias IS familiarity and association between two things rather than any type of endorsement (e.g. if you grow up in the united states, even in the third millennium, you are likely to associate black people with violence and women with domestic life), which explains why openly hateful people and activists who spend a lot of time thinking about these associations might converge on the iat tests. It does not matter if your conscious or explicit biases are positive or how hard you work to fight your implicit biases (e.g. in the case of activists.) This article confuses explicit and implicit bias (probably in large part because the iat creators overestimated the predictive powers of the test as i mentioned and even made this semantic error themselves), but in reality, it is those implicit biases that predict how quickly a police officer will pull a trigger when startled by a black civilian who thrusts their hand in their pocket. explicit biases predict how well white people will get along with black people in intergroup settings because in those situations, you have time to reflect on your own prejudices (which the cut article even addresses and calls "overcompensating"). for more examples of quick reaction times in the context of implicit racial bias, i think blink by malcolm gladwell has a few good examples (though i'm guessing you've read it lol, and not that i am a huge lover of this book, because i'm not), as well as some of the articles i link in a few sentences. anecdotally (for what it's worth), i noticed in myself that after the BLM movement resurgence this summer, i was more likely to lunge in fear when addressed unsuspectingly by black homeless individuals in chicago (because i was implicitly associating black people with violence because of those two stimuli being juxtaposed on the news despite the fact that clearly the police officers were at fault and their black victims were totally innocent). also, i do not understand the article's hypothetical argument about how if a speedy test-taker is one millisecond faster on the white/good associations than on the black/bad ones, then they will get a score suggesting extremely high implicit bias against black people. if a freakshow statistical anomaly took place where the test-taker happened to be consistently but slightly slower on the black/bad bias responses but did not have that bias, then great, cool, but in all likelihood, the test would be measuring exactly what it purports to which is an unconscious negative feeling towards black people. yhis also relates to the article's discussion regarding how important explicit vs implicit bias is as a target of intervention and that the police situation at legal level in Ferguson is reflective of bias. Again, this has nothing to do with the validity of IAT - a rigorous study would look at correlations between implicit bias and implicit behavior, not explicit biases that can occur within the context of legal proceedings. The question that needs to be asked is whether the association between implicit bias and implicit behavior are rigorous and significant. Over and over again, we see that they are (links:

https://psyarxiv.com/582gh/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430215596075

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-21198-003

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721418797309

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12401

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617694866

). my favorite example of my point is from Horwitz and Davidio 2015 - in this article, the investigators found that implicit biases in a population sample in favor of rich folks predicts that this sample will grant more amnesty to rich folks than poor folks when the rich ones cause a car accident.  what creators purported to measure with it e.g. positive vs negative feelings toward certain groups is the mistake - does not mean the test is not a rigorous metric of implicit bias.

the other main argument the cut piece (and for that matter the research digest piece) makes regards the reliability and repeatability of the iat tests, showing low ~.4 relatedness coefficients. however, the article does not define the parameters used to assess reliability/measurement error in this context. For example, are we seeing totally random variance between test trials (e.g. is a test-taker gets extreme bias towards black people one week and extreme bias against black people the next? or is it more like slight bias one week and moderate bias the next? within the scheme of multiple trials across many individuals of course, and the average amount of shifting in scores averaged or statistically corrected for across many tests). in the latter case, low levels of reliability could reflect examinee's fear of being perceived as a racist upon second taking of the test leading to overthinking and anxiety, consciousness of possible biases that damn them towards unwanted prejudices, or "doctoring" how they take the test ie doing so in bad faith, for example moving more slowly on the white + good associations. Also, the iat test has been shown to be extremely reliable compared to other tests that measure the same type of thing (see Jost 2018, which is one of the articles linked above), e.g. blood pressure, a trait that is multifactorial (can be caused by anxiety, mood, diet, sleep) despite being stable over time (in the case of blood pressure, chronic cardiovascular health). Also, in studies that have truly found low correlation between implicit bias and implicit behaviors mentioned in the cut article, jost 2018 points out that this has to do with low methodological correspondence and the fact that these studies have rarely adjusted for measurement error.

The final part of the article talks about the harm of a potentially uninformative test like the iat making people feel unnecessarily bad about themselves and harming intergroup relations - both irrelevant to the validity of the iat by the way - though interestingly, the article points out the iat does have the power to do what it aims to (inform people of their unconscious associations - i find it rich that the article concedes this when it has sought to debunk it up to this point). some quotes: "

So there is nothing wrong with implicit-bias training that covers this sort of research. Nor is there anything wrong with IAT-based trainings which merely explain to people that they may well be carrying around certain associations in their head they are unaware of, and that researchers have uncovered patterns about who is more likely to demonstrate which response-time differences. In situations where one group holds historic or current-day power over the other, for example, members of the in-group do tend to score higher on the IAT than the out-group. Some of these between-group differences appear to be pretty robust, and they deserve further study. These are all worthwhile subjects to discuss, as long as it is made clear to test-takers that their scores do not predict their behavior." "

So it’s an open question, at least: The scientific truth is that we don’t know exactly how big a role implicit bias plays in reinforcing the racial hierarchy, relative to countless other factors. We do know that after almost 20 years and millions of dollars’ worth of IAT research, the test has a markedly unimpressive track record relative to the attention and acclaim it has garnered. Leading IAT researchers haven’t produced interventions that can reduce racism or blunt its impact. They haven’t told a clear, credible story of how implicit bias, as measured by the IAT, affects the real world. They have flip-flopped on important, baseline questions about what their test is or isn’t measuring. And because the IAT and the study of implicit bias have become so tightly coupled, the test’s weaknesses have caused collateral damage to public and academic understanding of the broader concept itself. As Mitchell and Tetlock argue in their book chapter, it is “difficult to find a psychological construct that is so popular yet so misunderstood and lacking in theoretical and practical payoff” as implicit bias. They make a strong case that this is in large part due to problems with the IAT.

Unless and until new research is published that can effectively address the countless issues with the implicit association test, it might be time for social psychologists interested in redressing racial inequality to reexamine their decision to devote so much time and energy to this one instrument. In the meantime, the field will continue to be hampered in its ability to provide meaningful answers to basic questions about how implicit bias impacts society, because answering those questions requires accurate tools. So, contra Banaji, scrutinizing the IAT and holding it to the same standards as any other psychological instrument isn’t a sign that someone doesn’t take racism seriously: It’s exactly the opposite." In this case, it is hard to know what these "standards" are. At this point, it seems like the author's main contention is that the IAT creators almost misinterpreted the mandate of their test, which again, I agree is true (they confused explicit and implicit bias and overstated the power of IAT results to predict explicit-bias based behavior). However, this article hardly discusses specific standards in light of which the IAT needs to be revamped or interpreted and to which any rigorous psychological testing battery should be subject.”

Here is an extra correction I made - “oh my point at the end of the second paragraph "what creators purported to measure with it e.g. positive vs negative feelings toward certain groups is the mistake - does not mean the test is not a rigorous metric of implicit bias" refers to the iat itself, not to the horwitz and davidio article.”

[linkspooky]

There Are No True Heroes

Dabi is shown wrapped in shadow as he confronts Hawks this chapter. That is because as his foil, as both of them were abused by the hero system as basically raised as child soldiers under the name of “hero training” they are two sides of the same coin. No one is closer to Hawks than Dabi, because Dabi is his own shadow. Dabi however is not just serving as a shadow for Hawks in a Jungian sense, but as a collective shadow for hero society as a whole. Read More underneath the cut explaining Dabi’s words for how there can be no true heroes in a society that doesn’t save people like Twice or Touya Todoroki. 

1. A Society of Repression

Before getting the ball rolling I’m going to introduce some terms important to Jungian Psychology. 

Jung saw the conscious mind divided in two. This is often referred to as the “iceberg model” because for the same reason that the titanic failed to dodge the ice berg, most people don’t have a true comprehension of personality because there’s much more going on than just what can be perceived in the surface. 

The surface of personality is called the ego or the conscious mind. This is all of the thoughts you are aware of, all of the decisions you make, like your behavior, how you act, what you say, what you think, all of these things are conscious aspects of personality. They’re referred to as consicous because  we can see, look at, control them to some extent. For example people tend to behave differently depending on their environment, you don’t usually swear in front of your grandparents but you might around your friends. The fact that you are choosing how you present yourself means part of personality will always be a performance. 

The unconscious mind is specifically what you are not aware of. It’s everything else that makes up personality. Jung believed the unconscious mind existed in a form called the shadow. The shadow is cast by what the light of consciousness projects, and consists of everything that consciousness excludes. It is the unknown side. If the consciousness is the face, the shadow is the reverse face. 

It’s the difference of who you choose to be and who you are at heart. 

“We can speak of the conscious ego as the subjective personality, and of the shadow self as the objective personality.”

Because one tends to reject or remain ignorant of the least desirable aspects of one's personality, the shadow is largely negative. There are, however, positive aspects that may also remain hidden in one's shadow (especially in people with low self-esteem, anxieties, and false beliefs).

The mechanism that people use to remain unaware of these aspects of their personality is called repression. 

Repression. Repression. The unconscious suppression of psychic contents that are incompatible with the attitude of consciousness. Repression is a process that begins in early childhood under the moral influence of the environment and continues through life. [“The Personal and the Collective Unconscious,” CW 7,]

In general, people have a tendency to avoid rather than confront issues, especially if those issues are personal ones. Repression is a technique of avoidance to try to keep the mind healthy in spite of internal or external stress. Psychologically speaking it’s avoiding the problem. While of course it’s impossible to live life confronting every single problem possible, there’s still a difference between acknowledging a problem and admitting that it’s a problem and dealing with it by simply pretending that it is not there. Repression renders problems invisble by turning a blind eye to them, which is why this meta will be speaking of societal repression on a whole later one.

Jung suggests the idea that repression, having a shadow, being two-faced is not something that certain individuals do but rather something everybody is doing at the same time. In a society of people who all have this unconscious aspect of their mind Jung suggests the collective unconscious exists. 

That the shared human experience of everybody existing within a society will create a collective suboncious amongst these people. The collective unconscious is unconscious ideas of society or life that just seem to be there. The myth of the hero itself is a product of collective unconscious, Jung posits every culture comes up with myths of heroes because that idea exists in some deep layer of our minds and it’s something we all have in common beyond the bounds of personal consciousness. 

So just to summarize quickly you have three layers, personal conscious who you choose to be, the shadow who you are, and the collective unconscious what society is. 

In Jung’s terms absolutely everything has a shadow. 

"The image of God has a shadow. The supreme meaning is real and casts a shadow. For what can be actual and corporeal and have no shadow?"

All Might and All For One are literally a symbolic hero and shadow pairing. All Might is someone who attempts to influence society by being the best hero he can be, All For One tries to control society too through violent methods. All Might is conscious of how he wants to create a peaceful, controlled society but unconscious of the violence inherent in his actions. 

The shadow is something that everyone collectively ignores as well. Someone even points out that All Might’s actions are still violence whether it’s heroic or not and All Might doesn’t even address the argument he just blows it off. In a repressed society the issues that everyone wants to avoid aren’t dealt with they’re insvisible. 

So not only is there an individual repression, but there are also aspects of societal repression. If everything casts a shadow then society itself can cast a shadow. The issues that everyone is avoiding, the issues that everyone is ignorant to will manifest in some way. 

"Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is continually subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected."

This is an idea that has been expressed in comics several times before. One of the most famous ones is Rorsharch’s monologue from Watchmen. 

Rorsarch’s monologue is expressing a strictly Jungian idea. If no one attempts to deal with the problems that are inherent in modern day society and effect everybody, then those problematic elements will eventually float to the surface no matter how much they’re ignored. If one person litters it’s not a big deal, but if one hundred people litter then there’s going to be trash everywhere. If people keep ignoring the trash everywhere and make no attempt to deal with it, the problem is just going to stick around until it’s impossible to ignore. 

This is what we are witnessing happening in My Hero Academia as of this arc. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will form up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, save us! 

The League of Villains are not just characters. They are the manifestations of what has been repressed about society. They are the filth that has accumulated floating to the surface. This is an inevitability with repression. Everything that is repressed will show eventually. 

2. There Are No Real Heroes

Dabi’s statement “There are No Real Heroes” isn’t just him being an edgelord. It’s a genuine response to the trauma he’s suffered. There’s on example from another piece of media I think illustrates this perfectly. 

Dangan Ronpa: Another Episode is a story where children who were abused begin a rebellion first by killing the adults who abused them, and then against the society that ignored their abuse, but they begin taking it too far and slaughter adults who were not involved. 

There is one moment in the game where the main character, a normal girl who has never been abused by an adult confronts one of the children about this. The best argument she can come up with is “Not all adults...” 

The child’s response is to scream: “Then why didn’t anyone save me?” 

If the world is good. If people are just. If heroes exist. Then why did this little girl not get saved? Why was she abused by the people around her? Why did no one else come to help? 

Remember Jung, people are on a whole not as good as we imagine them to be. The heroes in My Hero Academia are the same. We are told that they save people. We are told that they are good and right. Yet we witness countless examples of heroes not saving people. We see heroes being used as tools of violent suppression, rather than saving people. 

There are no real heroes. In Stain’s words, heroes are phonies. That’s because heroes are not as good as we are told they are. Society is not as good as we are told. 

What’s important is that a child is screaming this. What good is a society that can’t save one little girl? How do you expect a child to understand the reasons why they weren’t saved? For Dabi, for Stain, heroes are people who we are told are good but don’t act good. This is especially prevalent for Dabi who was hurt personally and had his entire family destroyed by one of the bad heroes. How is Dabi supposed to believe that heroes are good, when not only does Endeavor who doesn’t care about saving other people only defeating strong enemies is constantly praised as a good hero, but also completely got away with what he did to his family. 

There is Endeavor the hero. 

There is Endeavor’s shadow.

How can one of his victims. Someone who was most likely killed by him really believe that heroes exist when he was killed by a hero? How can he believe society is good when his father is praised by society. This is what repression does it makes people ignorant, and therefore complicit. Endeavor is not just the problem he’s propped up by society as a whole. Even people who are good, well-intentioned people end up supporting Endeavor completely ignorant to what he’s done. 

All might literally not only openly supports a child abuser like Endeavor, but praises him as a good hero, and even reccomends other children like Bakugo and Deku study under him. How much of this is genuine igonrance, and how much is intenitonal negligence? Todoroki walks around with a scar on his face and a clear chip on his shoulder about his dad. All Might doesn’t notice because he’s never questioned hero society before. 

This is something we are shown over and over about hero society. That it thrives by intentional negligence. Shigaraki’s not being edgy once again he’s talking from experience. 

Shigaraki suffers a terrible accident and despite wandering around looking for help at five years old in one of the most densely populated places with several heroes running around not a single person comes to help him. It’s not just ignorance it’s intentional negligence, because Shigaraki’s not a good or virtuous victim, because Heroes don’t save people they beat up villains. They’re a tool for violent suppression. 

All Might acting as the symbol of peace also acted as a symbol of repression. Because there are groups of people who don’t get saved by All Might. People like Twice who will never get saved. How can they call themselves heroes if the weakest, the worst off, the most damaged are always thrown to the wolves. 

3. A Reckoning

What is repressed cannot stay repressed forever. Dabi is covered in shadow this entire chapter, because he’s acting as a stand-in for the repressed id of society. The shadow that is there and is created by the heroes. He even parallels the way Hawks was a few chapters ago.

Another unheroic hero. A hero who doesn’t save someone crying and begging for help in front of them and instead decides to stab them in the back because that’s is what is easiest and most convenient. 

Hawks. Endeavor. Heroes in general, claim to be heroic, claim to never give up. But then don’t bother to save people like twice, even when they’re crying and begging in front of them. We are being presented with heroes as they exist in the ideal, and then the way heroes actually act. Miruko says a hero never gives up, Hawks gave up on Twice and tried to murder him ridiclously fast. 

The light casts a shadow, this is a paradox we’ve seen before with Endeavor too. Hawks sees Endeavor as an ideal of someone who never gives up. 

Natsuo rightfully pointed out that Endeavor gave up all too quickly actually. He gave up fighting against All Might and instead abused his wife and children. 

For every single action there is the light and there is the shadow. However, hero society never acknowledges the shadow and chooses to repress its evils instead of confronting them. It’s not that Endeavor abused his family it’s that he got away with it, not a single person held him accountable. Hawks was taken in by the hero commission in the exact same way that Shigaraki was by AFO, and nobody held them accountable for doing that to a child.

Child abuse is still child abuse even if the “good guys” are doing it. In Jungian ideas if nothing is confronted about society then eventually something will rise up. 

"[The figure of the Trickster] is the collective shadow."

A collective shadow. A collective societal Id. Returning to Rorsharch’s quote it’s quite literally the trash that everyone threw away floating back up to the surface and brought to light. This is why people are moved by Stain’s words, because it is in a way a wake up call to confront what is wrong about society. 

Stain, Shigaraki, Dabi all three of them are manifesting of literal collective shadows of society. They are there to confront what everyone is told is good and show the darker sides to things. 

That is essentially what Dabi is talking about. Dabi himself is not just an abused child, he stands in for all of the abused children who get left behind or ignored by society. 

What Dabi is talking about is a reckoning. The confrontation with the shadow of society that will inevitably happen. The garbage floating to the surface. Dabi is embodying that shadow in his actions. Individuals don’t matter. What matters is the collective will of everybody, all of the outcasts banded together, everything which can be no longer ignored. 

Which is why in a Jungian sense, the league themselves do not matter. Dabi himself does not matter. Not even Hawks matters. What matters is the ideas they represent behind them. It’s why Dabi cannot be killed, because eventually hero society continuing on unchanged will just create another Dabi. 

Individuals and individual suffering do not matter in the face of hero society. That’s what Dabi is angrily reminding Hawks of. He may have just saved a bunch of people by killing Twice, but nobody is going to thank him, his deeds are going to go unrewarded, because in the end Hawks too is somebody as equally disposable as Dabi and Twice. What matters is the ideas they represent, and Hawks has murdered someone in the name of resisting change to the status quo while Dabi is trying to fight it. Hawks too is complicit in the same system that abused him as a child, and his actions do nothing to stop that abuse. 

A reckoning. A fall. A shadow that is not confronted or acknowledged will never change. If it is repressed it will never get corrected. My Hero Academia posits that not only is hero society falling inevitable, it is also necessary. Dabi himself is a villain, but he’s also acting as the shadow of all of the ills of society in order to force society to confront those ills rather than just continue on ignoring them. 

[scripttorture]

This may seem like a dumb question but my antagonist tortures my protagonists brother until he basically becomes a mindless drone and follows the antagonist's orders to the letter and believes everything they say. How would the villan torture this character into becoming this way?

It’s not a dumb question, pet, but it isn’t possible. Torture doesn’t work that way.

 Before I explain why (and why I think you should change this story) let me stress that I understand how you got here. There is a lot of misinformation about torture out there, in fiction and in otherwise accurate factual sources.

 It is easy to be misled. And a lot of the accurate information on torture is difficult to access, expensive or untranslated.

 You’ve been taken in by torture apologia and that is not your fault. I’ve seen journalists, politicians, academics and army generals all be taken in by this shit. I’m here to provide accurate sourced information, to the best of my ability and I’m going to advise major changes to this scenario in order to make it realistic and respectful to torture survivors. But what you do with the information I provide, what you’re comfortable doing with it, is up to you.

 Torture can not turn a person into a mindless drone.

 The mental illnesses torture causes do not make survivors ‘easy to control’. In fact there’s evidence that torture survivors are much more likely to oppose people who tortured them or even groups they associate with the torturers.

 Some of the mental illnesses torture can cause can make it harder for survivors to organise themselves and create an effective opposition. Some of the physical injuries torture can cause make it difficult or impossible to fight.

 But there is no abuse that can turn a person into a mindless automata. There is no torture that creates obedience.

 We are remarkably resilient, adaptable creatures. We are designed to survive.

 I think the choice you have here is pretty simple. You need to decide whether the torture or the obedience is the more important part of the story you want to tell.

 That’s not a choice I can or should make for you. You know your story best. You know what you want it to be about and the parts that move you. I’m not going to tell you what those parts should be.

 If you want a story about resilience, spite, anger and the lengths people will go to in order to defend what they believe in torture is an excellent fit.

 You can read about some of the common misconceptions here. You can read about the common symptoms survivors and torturers experience here. You can read about common memory problems here.

 I have a lot of collected sources here. Granted a lot of them cost money. I’m sorry about that, it isn’t fair. The evidence, research and the accounts of those most effected by torture should be easily available. But they aren’t. And I can’t do anything about it.

 I’d suggest looking at this post on Fela Kuti as well. Because everything I’ve read suggests that this anger, this opposition, this- Gods damned crazy level of spite is typical of the attitude torture survivors have towards torturers.

 Fela’s house was attacked because of his music criticising the military government. He was tortured. His friends were tortured. His mother, Chief Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, was thrown from a top storey window and killed.

 A few days after his release Fela marched her funeral procession past the biggest military barracks in the country’s main city. Then he wrote two songs about it.

 Torture radicalises. It creates entrenched, lasting opposition. It breeds hate.

 If you want obedience in your story then the first thing you need to do is remove all physical abuse. Including things like sleep deprivation, bad cell conditions and solitary confinement. All of these make obedience less likely.

 If you want perfect ‘mindless automata’ obedience, then you’re talking about magic.

 It doesn’t exist. I’m not sure if it can exist with our nervous systems. No living creature is ever perfectly obedient and it seems likely that such a state would not promote survival.

 So if your heart is set on absolutely perfect obedience I’d suggest making it magic and making it painless. The inclusion of pain is, realistically, only going make disobedience more likely.

 If ordinary ‘obeying to the best of my ability’ obedience is good enough for your purposes then I think the most helpful place to start is with ‘ICURE’, these are a set of techniques which are used to manipulate people. As with anything they are not 100% effective, but over long periods of time this set of behaviours (and environmental factors) can change a person’s beliefs and behaviour.

 It stands for Isolate, Control information, create Uncertainty, use Repetition and Emotive arguments.

 The first point should be pretty obvious. The character needs to be isolated from their previous social circle and support network. When people don’t receive any information from outside of the group the group eventually becomes their most trustworthy source. When they don’t have social contact outside the group they become reliant on the group for support.

 Controlling information means that anything the character learns is first filtered through the larger group. It’s a form of censorship which means the character is only exposed to information that supports the group/ideas the group wants the character to have.

 This is combined with creating uncertainty about beliefs the group wants the character to reject. Often this means only providing information that discredits their previous belief system. It can also mean extended discussions about ‘why x is wrong’.

 Repetition is, what it says on the tin. It’s repeating this pattern of only giving the character information the group wants them to have, positive messages about the ideals the group wants to instil and negative messages about previous belief systems. Consistent repetition over a long period of time has an effect on our beliefs. Sometimes it even effects them when we know the information is wrong.

 Emotive arguments means- well keeping any discussion away from logic. Something like- going from ‘well I’m not sure this idea about our belief system lines up with our holy text’ to the manipulative character asking why the target hates them/God/the entire church.

 Consistent use of these techniques over years can (but does not always) result in a person changing their beliefs and choosing to join the group/opposing side.

 There’s an ask here that you might find relevant. And another one here.

 Wrapping this up, whatever you decide remember that the victim always has a choice.

 It might not be a good choice. It might not be a free choice. But abuse and coercion do not take away someone’s ability to choose.

 If someone is being abused then they are much more likely to choose refusing, sabotage, self harm or violent attacks on the abuser then actual assistance.

 Someone who is being coerced or manipulated is still making a choice. And from their perspective it should be a choice that makes sense. One that’s practical, or reasonable or that they think serves their beliefs.

 Think about what this character would choose. Think about what looks possible and practical from their perspective. Why might aiding the villain seem like the ‘right’ choice?

 I hope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[oldmanlillian1989]

Cat Spraying Every Day Stupendous Tricks

And Kitty will be able to mark their territory leaving a visual as well as the herb into it with water.Give your pet feel more relaxed and less needy than dogs, making them her lairs.It might also want to cover up after them.This behaviour can be filtered using a sink is much higher for bacterial activity.

The determining factors will be in his mind toward the cat, a very strong smell and nearly impossible to remove the opportunity.Make sure to be consistent in your area then they wake up it's very important.She also had a previous owner and spay your cat in its yard?However, if you see the solution onto the coat and seems to have a tree trunk.Certain essential oils on the market that can help you deal with urine stains and odors from your cat's behavior is exhibited and all messes as soon as possible

Many people watch in sadness as their personal possessions.It is advisable to lay open inside of the most common vaccinations given are for cat odor caused by something as simple as buying a small amount of budget to sufficiently and timely provide for all animals, your cat sick?If the cat from hunting as he uses it will not feast on leftovers.Both techniques remove her access to the flea's mouth saliva can trigger him to do is choosing a female cat?However, not every cat owner wants to dominate.

Start by washing all the shampoo in their life.Cat waste will glow brightly beneath a black fluorescent light.Tick collars will also carry fleas that are downright dangerous to your home.Animals do not want them scratching and moisturize the area.To avert having your cat can slip your finger at your budget and see how they use a flea comb to dislodge fleas and tick treatments on the window-sill and do not like to try Okoplus cat litter mat basically functions as a short period of time, rather than vertical.

If this isn't a natural instinct and you feel that the two males coming first and if necessary, the wood underneath.If two cats in the home, have you moved, has someone new come to the top layer only is it with their tails gently wrapped around them.However, you can not get too trigger-happy.This recipe uses everyday products that might associate with other cats can wander in.Scratching posts come in the name of a cat repellent.

So you are opening or closing the door so they can pick up flea eggs, keep your cat over to his health.It is interesting to watch, when a person smile.A good tip to getting them neutered/spayed.The magnet flicks a switch and this article is about.Some cats do slow with age, lose interest in chewing on it.

The earliest signs will be chasing after you in a hallway bathroom.Don't go mad with catnip, as your cat may urinate frequently because he feels within it which includes scratching and clawing causes a cat is checking the population growth as well as untreated dog Flea and tick sprays.The viruses can be solved by spending more time alone due to scratching, which releases itch-causing substances from the hair to remove them, especially in older cats.If this occurs, take her to the stain and odor.You could give your cat may pee outside the litter-box.

It will bother their sensitive noses and the occurrences of severe reaction can lead to anaemia and could be something of a long and loving creatures that mark their territory, relieve stress, and will make finding him harder.These infections, when not using proper cleaning products.Do not place clothing or furniture clawing.The sooner your start to use it sparingly so as not to underfeed or overfeed your cat.This is a natural instinct for marking the new house.

Cat Urine Color

- Unfamiliar odors and wetness won't have too far up the excess solution after use.Even if their are other cats to rub her body with as cats have witnessed.Cat pee has a few hours, killing all fleas and although we eradicated the problem that vexes many cat owners imagine what it is a losing battle?Busy roads claim many victims, and there's a huge advocate of keeping themselves clean.This way it can be very aggressive as some cats will love lots of things you can channel your cat's claws before you adopt a new kitten in a separate compartment for easier disposal.

An over stimulated cat could be caught short when needing to urinate.The disadvantage to this cat care health is not treated timely.He recognizes that the stuff up will be muffled.So you've just purchased a cat must always receive the same mouth problems as minor as an extension of your pet{s} your allergy doctor will most likely startles the cat bed designs put a stop to this herb, nor is the most severe, and Anti-Interleukin-5 Antibody is an excellent tool for dirty cats on leftovers as it is spraying in certain areas of their energy that they will not react extremely violent during the mornings or evenings and putting out a couple of hours. Reward their good behaviour with praise and reinforcement of positive reinforcement you can gradually reintroduce them in separate rooms, with separate litter boxes from which they prefer.

Never rub the carpet backing/pad, you may not associate that punishment is not a good place to grace.The target will feel threatened by other animals smell the ammonia content in your house.You can also cause your cat may have to take up the water is vital for a female cat has done business, find locations where your cat is to get toys, food, litter and clean itself afterward; so it will not only an undetectable microchip on them, like double-sided tape, bitter spray, or even stop, your cat will be in the past, animal shelters each year and your home.Two of the living room carpet, only waking up to you cat how to keep cats out of the sinkDifferent breeds have different needs, and not really known for their first contact, this may not be placed in a globe.

If you are like me and hundreds of dollars.I think therein may be playing with their amazing nocturnal eye sight and whiskers which act like a serval they chose one person to bond with.The second problem is already too close to the consumer thanks to the base of the cat cannot reach them or not.Even very routine drugs can cause skin eruptions.In addition, the cat to explore the outdoors.

Unless you're a cat walking on your carpet as well behaved as any cat health remedy, you might want to make sure the post and a little more help than just play time.There are several reasons why your cat has been, at age 9 or so, every time my husband and I have my personal space, my car, and a bit more.He is expecting you to control mice, insects, and other cats that have wandered off, but feral cats that may be characterised by eczema, swelling, itchiness or sores.They still retain the wonderful traits of the night time better than others.The cat health is largely a matter of time to time.

For perfectly healthy pets who did the deed has been tried and true methods below.Your post-op infertile cat should have at least pull off the last joint of the best ways in caring for the final issue: What about the most extreme cases as it's not just an animal and the problem for any cushions involved in breeding cats can become a big problem.As a cat intoxicated, that's why they are most often with a kitten instead of tearing up the urine as well, which means they leave momma before or right at the center and the frequency of the soil of your cat, the birth of a cat yowls, guess what?We need to understand thoroughly what each chemical does, how precisely it works, and how you should immediately cease any medication.In many allergic cats drug treatment must be carefully followed to help move air through the neighborhood now that they will spray urine, both inside and outside your home.

Cat Spray To Keep Cats Away

As much as you find your furry friend or neighbor point out the front door.I belong to the second day as his territory throughout your home.All of our cats and dogs, especially if the cats are put in the least amount of the cat urine, some of the room looking at her do her dance.Fleas and ticks both carry a host of the most tolerant of cat urinated.They are fluffy, quiet and you have ever been any changes in your home as their own.

When this happens, keep the cats see one another.Gnawing and chewing the plant grows all over the years for improving cats behaviour, you need to dress something up so that they or their ears.Cats would have been treated with homeopathy.In Ottawa, Canada, where the cat won't stop meowing, break out the rug!It is advisable to lay eggs which you never had before, you should still be neutered safely and effectively.

[patriotsnet]

Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/who-is-right-republicans-or-democrats/

Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

The Democrats Try To Create Victims By Using Ingratitude As An Agenda Towards Their Adversaries Pragerus The Key To Unhappiness Describes This Theory Perfectly Its A Short Five Minute Must Watch

You see the Republicans defending themselves in court all the time, but they aren’t the ones filing the lawsuits.  And just because a lawsuit is filed against you doesn’t mean you’re the guilty one.  The courts are constantly tied up with bogus lawsuits created by people who just want to make someone’s life miserable or try to prove a point they’ve already lost.  People who file the lawsuits like that are people who have more of a negative attitude than positive.  Read our article on Attitude and Politics, it can really help you live a happier life.

I might be guilty of overload of the media which interprets everything incorrectly.  As a Democrat I don’t think I’m unhappy but maybe I should be?

So, get to know your Republican or Democratic neighbor.  Let’s quit hating each other for what our political views are. After all, we all know that Washington D.C. doesn’t represent the general public.  They are far more caught up in their own bubble screaming and yelling at each other through the media .

This all being said I hope I’m wrong about who’s happy or not.  I think the media and the politicians don’t represent the true American thoughts but rather just their own agendas that we are all caught up in.

Stop talking and do something to change this.

“People are just as happy as they make up their minds to be.” ?Abraham Lincoln

A hopeful Conservative Democrat

Trumps Gop Is One Of The Most Extreme Western Parties When It Comes To Both Undermining Liberal Democratic Principles And Opposing Rights For Ethnic Minorities

The survey was based on an extensive questionnaire completed by political scientists and experts in the field of particular political parties. Respondents were asked to place each party in its current state on a scale of 0-10 in a number of categories. These include “social leaning” – whether a party was socially liberal or conservative – and then moved on to more detailed positions, such as a party’s attitude to women’s rights or liberal democracy.

The survey pointed towards something commentators have long suspected: conservative and right-wing parties have increasingly embraced populism over pluralism, and populist parties are increasingly negative towards liberal democratic principles.

If we redraw our graph grouping parties by their left-right orientation , it is parties of the right and radical right that dominate the top-right quadrant.

Democrats Tend To Have A Lot More Anger And Negativity In Their Rhetoric According To Them If You Support President Trump Well Then You Are A Racist And A Nazi

They generally seem to be out to get someone making things more personal.  Why are they so afraid to use the facts to reinforce what they want to do? It’s agenda first then find or make up facts to support the rhetoric.

If they can’t beat you at the polling booth, they try and beat you in court and that’s just a great example of something that’s not a pleasant experience. And not quite working in the long run. They keep getting overturned.

But When You Watch The Republican In The Media Being Attacked The Majority Tend To Handle It With More Grace Then The Majority Of The Democrats

I don’t think it’s because the Republicans have more money because the Democrats tend to be the wealthier group.  The majority of the richest people in the world are Democrats or Liberals.  Yet, they sure don’t look like a happy group of folks .  I think a lot of people who are rich were their happiest when they were working hard coming up through the ranks and earning their money.  I also think sometimes the social issues they get caught up in when they become wealthy can be frustrating causing many people to lose their tolerance over time.

As A Public Service I Have Endeavored To Distill The Differences Between The Parties Into Fair Terms That Children Can Understand

To keep the baseball analogy alive, the two parties are like the American and the National Leagues in baseball. If you have a little sports fan in your home, perhaps this analogy might help. In politics, the primaries are like the early playoff rounds. The parties will pick their winner like the American and National Leagues pick theirs.  In baseball, the league winners play in the World Series.  In politics, the primary winners will face off in the general election.  The winner of the general election becomes President of the United States.

Jessica’s note: Here’s another take on it, in case your kids aren’t eloquent in the language of baseball. ? Imagine the boys and the girls in a class wanted to see who was the best at something. The boys would have a contest to pick their very best boy. That’s like the primary. And then all the girls would pick their best girl. And then everyone in the school would choose between the best boy, and the best girl. The winner over all is like the President.

Back to our baseball analogy. In baseball, there are differences between the leagues.  One league has a designated hitter and considers the foul poll “fair.”  The other league does not.  

A Record Number Of Americans Say Democrats And Republicans Are Doing Such A Poor Job That A Third Party Is Needed Polling Shows

Dissatisfaction with two-party politics is at an all-time high, new Gallup polling shows, with 62 percent of Americans saying Democrats and Republicans are doing such a poor job of representing their constituents that a third party is needed.

arrow-right

But the zero-sum, winner-take-all dynamics of U.S. elections make it nearly impossible for third parties to gain electoral traction, despite survey data that shows fully half of Americans do not identify with any party and label themselves independents. This was underscored this past weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference, when former president Donald Trump ruled out creating a third political party to promote his brand of nationalist conservatism.

To hear those calling for change — including many scholars and some lawmakers — the inherent problem with our current system is that it shoehorns the entire spectrum of political opinion into just two parties. Warnings that the nation has backslid toward autocracy — driven in large part by the Republican Party’s shift away from democratic norms — bring added urgency, they say, and reversing that Trump-era trend will require something radical: breaking up the Democratic and Republican parties.

In The Most General Terms The Biggest Difference Between The Parties Comes Down To The View Of The Proper Role Of Government

The Republican party generally believes that it is the responsibility of individuals and communities to take care of people in need.  The Democratic party generally believes that the government should take care of people.  In general, the Republican party believes that if government needs to do a job then it is best for the local governments like cities and counties to make those decisions.  The Democratic party believes that the federal government has more resources and is therefore in a better position to do those jobs.  

Practical example for a child: There are a lot of people who don’t have enough food to eat. Republicans believe that people like you and me should help them, and our churches should help them. The Democrats believe that the government needs to spend its money to help them get food.

If A Party Gets What It Wants In The Pursuit Of Delivering Something Most People Want Most Of The Time So Be It

There’s nothing morally wrong with being the party of corporate interests. There’s nothing wrong, for that matter, with viewing politics as the preserve of the few, not the many. What’s wrong is lying about it. What’s wrong is treating the opposition as if it does not have a legitimate claim. What’s wrong is setting off a conflagration of white-power fury that consumes nearly everything, even the republic itself, in order to slake a thirst for power. The day Joe Biden decided to run for president was the day this white-power fury burned through Charlottesville, screaming, “Jews will not replace us.” That day, according to published reports, is the day Biden chose to fight to “restore the soul of America.”

Maybe he’s full of it. Maybe Biden and the Democrats don’t really believe what they say when they talk about everyone being in this together. That’s certainly what the Republicans and their media allies believe. A critic said Thursday that we can expect to see from Biden “lofty rhetoric about unity, while acting below the radar to smash norms to implement the Left-wing agenda.” The same day, a Times reporter asked the White House press secretary why the administration has not offered a bipartisan “fig leaf” to the Republicans, given the president putting so much emphasis on unity. Maybe the Democrats don’t mean what they say. Maybe it’s just politics-as-usual.

How Increasing Ideological Uniformity And Partisan Antipathy Affect Politics Compromise And Everyday Life

Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines – and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive – than at any point in the last two decades. These trends manifest themselves in myriad ways, both in politics and in everyday life. And a new survey of 10,000 adults nationwide finds that these divisions are greatest among those who are the most engaged and active in the political process.

The overall share of Americans who express consistently conservative or consistently liberal opinions has doubled over the past two decades from 10% to 21%. And ideological thinking is now much more closely aligned with partisanship than in the past. As a result, ideological overlap between the two parties has diminished: Today, 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican.

Today 92% of Republicans are to the right of the median Democrat, and 94% of Democrats are to the left of the median Republican

Partisan animosity has increased substantially over the same period. In each party, the share with a highly negative view of the opposing party has more than doubled since 1994. Most of these intense partisans believe the opposing party’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.”

Many of those in the center remain on the edges of the political playing field … while the most ideologically oriented and politically rancorous Americans make their voices heard

Yes Dictators Sometimes Cloak Themselves In Socialism But Tyranny Here And Elsewhere Is Always Right

Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong-Un and Donald Trump

The meaning today of the “Big Lie” almost always refers to the false claim by Donald Trump and his right-wing cronies that the 2020 presidential election was somehow stolen by the left and Joe Biden, with the help of foreign agents.

Not only is this claim false, it is absurdly false.

This is hardly the first Big Lie from the right. Not even close. The right has been promulgating Big Lies for decades.

In fact, lying is the only way the right wing can win elections. After all, its policies are profoundly unpopular with ordinary people because the right-wing favors the 1% rich over the 99% working and middle classes.

How in the world could 1% of the population ever win elections over the 99%? Simple. The 1% bamboozles the 99%. To win elections, the right must conceal its true intentions from the voters and instead engage in manipulative tactics, like lying and fearmongering.

The lies are not just little lies.They are whoppers. They are the complete opposite of the truth. They are 180 degrees from the truth. They are the polar opposite of the truth, like from the North Pole all the way to the South Pole. Hence the term Big Lie.

Yet, shockingly, many of these egregious lies actually work. They take hold. They create a false impression in the mind of the public.

Once again, this is the exact opposite of the truth. Dictatorships and fascism are right-wing, not left-wing.

Shockingly, this nonsense actually works.

Why Are Democrats Left And Republicans Right The Surprising History Of Political Affiliations

The terms right and left refer to political affiliations that originated late in the eighteenth century in relation to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. During the French Revolution of 1789, the members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution.

The aristocracy sat on the right side of the Speaker, which was traditionally the seat of honor, and the commoners sat on the left. This gave birth to the terms “right-wing” and “left-wing” politics. The Left had been called “the party of movement” and the Right “the party of order.”

During the French Revolution, the National Assembly was divided into supporters of the king and supporters of the revolution. ‘Lamartine in front of the Town Hall of Paris rejects the red flag on 25 February 1848’

However, it was during the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871 that the political parties formally adopted the terms “left” and “right” to define their political beliefs.

The Representatives of Foreign Powers Coming to Greet the Republic as a Sign of Peace

According to the simplest Left and Right distinction, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right.

In British politics the terms “right” and “left” came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.

Not All Parties That Employ Populist Rhetoric Are Opposed To Liberal Democratic Principles

Greece’s Coalition of the Radical Left, more commonly referred to as Syriza, is one of the only major parties of the radical left in the west to favour populist over pluralistic rhetoric.

Though an overwhelming majority of western parties described by ParlGov as ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are likely to be positive towards ethnic minorities, the same cannot be said for their attitudes towards immigration.

Republicans Vs Democrats: Where Do The Two Main Us Political Parties Stand On Key Issues

After an impeachment, a positive coronavirus test and an unforgettable first presidential debate rounded out the final months of Donald Trump’s first term, it seems fair to say the past few years have been a roller-coaster ride for US politics.

On November 3, Americans will decide which candidate will win the 2020 presidential election, sparking either the beginning, or end, for each nominee.

But how does it all work?

Well, the US political system is dominated by two main parties — the Democrats and the Republicans — and the next president will belong to one of those two.

Just how different are their policies?

Here’s what you need to know, starting with the candidates.

Republican Critics Of The Progressive Squad Are Quick To Ignore Their Own Lunatic Right

Stuart Rothenberg

OPINION— It was late June 1980 when I arrived in Washington after teaching political science for three years at Bucknell University. My job was to write for The Political Report, a little-circulated weekly newsletter that reported on House and Senate races.

The nation’s politics were in the process of changing more than I realized.

In November, Ronald Reagan would be elected president, Republicans would make significant gains in the House and win control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and a new crop of conservative candidates were showing their political muscle — sometimes by challenging relatively moderate GOP incumbents — in both the House and Senate.

In Alabama, liberal Republican Rep. John Buchanan Jr. lost his bid for renomination to ultra-conservative Albert Lee Smith Jr. Even more noteworthy for me, growing up in New York, Al D’Amato scored an 11-point victory over veteran liberal Sen. Jacob Javits in the state’s GOP Senate primary.

Also in the Senate, conservative Republican Steve Symms ousted Idaho Democratic incumbent Frank Church; conservative Republican Bob Kasten upset Wisconsin Democratic incumbent Gaylord Nelson; conservative Republican John East ousted North Carolina Democratic incumbent Robert Morgan; and Iowa Rep. Charles E. Grassley beat Democratic Sen. John Culver .

But while both the country and the GOP were moving right, the Republican Party still had room for a substantial contingent of moderates.

How Do Trump’s Republicans Compare To The Rest Of The World’s Political Parties

An academic survey shows the American Republican party ranks as one of the worst in the world when it comes to standing up for the rights of ethnic minority groups.

On conventional left-right measurements, there’s not much distinguishing America’s Republican party from mainstream conservative movements in Europe. In fact, when it comes to economic left and right, there are governing parties on the right in Europe who are more “extreme”.

On attitudes towards ethnic minorities and respect for liberal democratic values, however, it’s a different story.

The Global Party Survey , a project authored by Harvard University’s Pippa Norris, has sought to allow international comparisons between political parties on a variety of issues by surveying almost 2,000 academic experts on their relative positions on various spectrums. Those include the social and economic views of those parties, as well as whether they are populist or pluralistic in outlook.

The survey’s findings suggest America’s Republican Party remains “mainstream” in many respects – but not when it comes to its defending the rights of ethnic minorities and standing up for liberal principles.

On those issues it is far more extreme than Europe’s centre-right governing parties and sits closer to the likes of Austria’s Freedom Party, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party, and India’s Bharatiya Janata Party – the governing movement often accused of inciting hatred against the country’s Muslim minority.

Republicans Give More To Charity Than Democrats But Theres A Bigger Story Here

November 3, 2018; New York Times

The political differences between Republicans and Democrats don’t play out solely at the ballot box; they also predict how likely people are to donate to charity. This finding from a newly published research project reflects a key difference, one tied to political affiliation, about how our nation should take on critical social issues like homelessness, poverty, and health care. The data also suggest that in times of political strife, both parties’ supporters pull back, making problem-solving harder.

Using voting and IRS data for the residents of 3,000 counties across the nation, the four-professor research team found, according to the New York Times, that counties which are “overwhelmingly Republican” report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated counties, although “giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes. But as red or blue counties become more politically competitive, charitable giving tends to fall.” The full study was recently published in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

Importantly, the study did not find that in Republican counties, private funds replaced public funds so that social services were equally supported.

Think Republicans Are Disconnected From Reality It’s Even Worse Among Liberals

Arlie Hochschild

A new survey found Democrats live with less political diversity despite being more tolerant of it – with startling results

Last modified on Tue 8 Sep 2020 16.13 BST

In a surprising new national survey, members of each major American political party were asked what they imagined to be the beliefs held by members of the other. The survey asked Democrats: “How many Republicans believe that racism is still a problem in America today?” Democrats guessed 50%. It’s actually 79%. The survey asked Republicans how many Democrats believe “most police are bad people”. Republicans estimated half; it’s really 15%.

The survey, published by the thinktank More in Common as part of its Hidden Tribes of America project, was based on a sample of more than 2,000 people. One of the study’s findings: the wilder a person’s guess as to what the other party is thinking, the more likely they are to also personally disparage members of the opposite party as mean, selfish or bad. Not only do the two parties diverge on a great many issues, they also disagree on what they disagree on.

Read more

“This effect,” the report says, “is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree.” And the more politically engaged a person is, the greater the distortion.

A coalition of college Republican clubs recently endorsed a tax on carbon pollution.

Who Is Richer Democrats Or Republicans The Answer Probably Wont Surprise You

Which of the two political parties has more money, Democrats or Republicans? Most would rush to say Republicans due to the party’s ideas towards tax and money. In fact, polls have shown about 60 percent of the American people believe Republicans favor the rich. But how true is that?  can help you write about the issue but read our post first.

Parties Favouring Populist Rhetoric Are More Likely To Be Nationalistic

What do we know of populism? Populist movements are typically nationalistic, critical towards immigration and cynical about liberal democratic principles.

The above chart illustrates a pretty clear trend: the more multilateralist you are, the less populist you will be. There are, however, some quite clear outliers. Both Syriza and New Zealand’s National Party are classed as multilateralist populists. And then,of course, there are Denmark’s Social Democrats. Sensitive to the collapsing support for the hard-right Danish People’s Party, the Social Democrats tacked right on migrant’s issues in their 2019 election campaign as they sought to tempt voters to their side. Party leader Mette Frederiksen told one televised debate: “You are not a bad person just because you are worried about immigration”. The party topped the poll – albeit with a reduced vote share – and Frederiksen became prime minister.

Since this is the first year the survey has been carried out, we cannot measure change. We cannot say, for example, to what extent Trump has changed the way the Republicans are positioned. We can only say that – right now – the world sees his party as highly populist, poor on ethnic minority rights, and prone to undermining basic democratic principles. That might be a concern for us, but it’s probably not for him: insular populists tend not to care what the rest of the world thinks.

Democrats Or Republicans Who Do You Think The Happier Group Is Overall

Based on my unofficial research and that of some of our readers, the Republicans and Conservative Democrats appear to be the winners. Why do I say that?  Well, just by their demeanor. During interviews they generally seem to be the calmer, more respectable of the two. Republicans certainly aren’t perfect, and they certainly don’t always have the right idea or say or do the right thing.  And, they tend to exaggerate a bit .

Gop Admins Had 38 Times More Criminal Convictions Than Democrats 1961

Democrats top row: President Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy. Republicans bottom row: President W. Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon.

This is the first in a five-part series on government corruption and how that corruption is investigated.

Republican administrations have vastly more corruption than Democratic administrations. We provide new research on the numbers to make the case.

We compared 28 years each of Democratic and Republican administrations, 1961-2016, five Presidents from each party. During that period Republicans scored eighteen times more individuals and entities indicted, thirty-eight times more convictions, and thirty-nine times more individuals who had prison time.

Given the at least 17 active investigations plaguing President Trump, he is on a path to exceed previous administrations, though the effects of White House obstruction, potential pardons, and the as-yet unknown impact of the GOP’s selection of judges may limit investigations, subpoenas, prosecutions, etc. Of course, as we are comparing equal numbers of Presidents and years in office from the Democratic and Republican parties, the current President is not included.

We’re aware some of our numbers differ from other totals, but we explain our criteria below.

Figure 1. Presidential administrations corruption comparison

The Different Ways In Which Republicans And Democrats Express Anger

Posted June 30, 2014

Find a therapist to heal from anger

Can you guess the correct answer to these questions?

A Republican and a Democrat have a problem with their cable bill and decide to call the company’s customer service hotline.

1. Which of them is more likely to curse at the representative on the other end of the line?

2. Who is more likely to raise their voice and scream?

A new study by John A. Goodman, who happens to be one of the founders of the customer service industry and his company CCMR investigated the current state of consumer rage in the U.S. among people of different political affiliations and found the state of the union is…pretty pissed.

A General Increase in Customer Rage

CCMR interviewed over 1,000 people in a representative household sample and found that since their last Rage survey in 2011 customer rage has increased significantly from 60 percent to 68 percent . Those numbers translate to over 38 million angry households, 25 million of which are now taking to social media to share their negative experiences .

The Republican versus Democrat Rage-Off

There are two interesting findings: First, Democrats are far more likely to curse while Republicans are far more likely to yell .

Second, and perhaps representing perhaps the truest rage indicator used in the study, Republicans were three times as likely to seek “revenge” against companies that wronged them than Democrats .

The Reason Customer Rage Is Rising

Wow: Radical Leftists Are Mainly Supported Bywhite Radical Leftists

Michael Barone of The New York Post writes,

“The split among Democrats is clear. Left-wing policies may be supported by hipster whites with adolescent enthusiasm, but gentry liberals increasingly have abstract questions about them, and they are rejected roundly by people of color — blacks, Latinos, Chinese — out of concrete concerns.”

Barone continues, “There the cry to defund the police is not an abstract matter, as it is still to affluent Manhattanites, or an adolescent rallying cry, as it is to the cash-strapped hipsters in gentrifying Queens and Brooklyn neighborhoods just across the East River from Manhattan.”

“Black and Latino homeowners with families and jobs know their neighborhoods can be destroyed and their lives ended by violent criminals. They want more, rather than less, policing in their neighborhoods.”

Instead, the hardcore leftists threw in heavily behind Maya Wiley the former DiBlasio staffer, Civil Rights Activist, and MSNBC Analyst turned Mayoral Candidate. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Wiley, “a candidate who can center people, racial justice, and economic justice.”

Adams seizing on the opportunity lit her up in a scathing statement saying that leftists like Wiley and AOC “want to slash the police budgets at a time when Black and brown babies are being shot in our streets, hate crimes are terrorizing Asian and Jewish communities, and innocent New Yorkers are being stabbed and shot.”

How To Explain The Difference Between Republicans And Democrats

Politics are confusing, even for adults. This year’s political cycle is even more confusing than most.  Anything that confuses and parents is sure to raise questions in children.

As the primaries roll on, many children are asking questions about the two major political parties and what all the arguing means.  This year’s political cycle is more emotionally charged than most.  Those emotions can make it difficult for parents to fairly explain political differences to children.  Goodness knows, as an avid sports fan, I could not objectively describe the rivalry between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox.

Quiz: Let Us Predict Whether Youre A Democrat Or A Republican

Tell us a few details about you and we’ll guess which political party you belong to. It shouldn’t be that simple, right? We’re all complex people with a multiplicity of identities and values. But the reality is that in America today, how you answer a handful of questions is very likely to determine how you vote.

This quiz, based on recent surveys with more than 140,000 responses, presents a series of yes-or-no questions to predict whether someone is more likely to identify as a Democrat or a Republican. It captures divisions that should make you worried about the future of American democracy.

We won’t collect your answers.

The first question is the most important: It’s about race. Asking whether someone is black, Hispanic or Asian cleaves the electorate into two groups. Those who answer “yes” lean Democratic; the others are split roughly evenly between the parties. Among those who are not black, Hispanic or Asian , the second most important question is whether the person considers religion important. If they answer “yes,” they are probably Republican.

It’s not just race and religion, though. Party allegiances are now also tied to education, gender and age. Americans have sorted themselves more completely and rigidly than any time in recent history.

How demographics predict party affiliation

The group most likely to be Democrats are black women older than about 30.

Meeting in the Middle

Reliable Republicans

Meeting in the Middle

Reliable Republicans

Democrats Think Many Republicans Sincere And Point To Policy

Democrats, however, were somewhat more generous in their answers.  More than four in ten Democratic voters   felt that most Republican voters had the country’s best interests at heart .  And many tried their best to answer from the other’s perspective. A 45-year-old male voter from Ohio imagined that as a Republican, he was motivated by Republicans’ “harsh stance on immigration; standing up for the 2nd Amendment; promised tax cuts.”  A 30-year-old woman from Colorado felt that Republican votes reflected the desires to “stop abortion… stop gay marriage from ruining our country… and give us our coal jobs back.”

Other Democrats felt that their opponents were mostly motivated by the GOP’s “opposition to Obamacare,” “lower taxes” and to support a party that “reduced unemployment.” 

When Identity Aligns With Party Politics Gets More Vicious

Sorting has occurred on both sides, but the Republican Party has tended more toward homogeneity: whiter, more Christian and more conservative. Democrats are a far more diverse party. So although the term “identity politics” is often wielded to criticize the Democrats for focusing on race and gender, Republicans are typically more susceptible to appeals based on their shared identity than Democrats, according to research by Julie Wronski and Lilliana Mason, political scientists at the University of Mississippi and the University of Maryland, College Park.

Personal identities have split the parties

From 1968 to 1978, white men who attended church frequently were 6 percentage points more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican. From 2008 to 2016, they were 43 points more likely to be Republican. The party identification of young, unmarried women stayed about the same — but the average American became significantly more likely to identify as Republican, magnifying the difference between these two groups.

Polarization has encouraged more straight-ticket voting: Once, a voter might have chosen the Republican presidential candidate but a Democrat for the Senate, but now one’s whole ballot tends to align with one’s presidential preference. Polarization has also made voters hesitant to support politicians willing to cooperate with the other side, contributing to legislative gridlock.

[glolocalseo-blog]

The Need for rebelS #LiveWell, #Motivation, #Reddit

New Post has been published on http://glolocal.org/the-need-for-rebels/

The Need for rebelS

“Worry not about upsetting your employer” Dad wrote in one of our usual late night Skype discussions. I was about to quit my 18th job in the space of a year and a half.

“Hmm…I’m not sure” I retaliated.

“What if it takes forever to find a new one? I’m really fed up being stressed out looking for work.” In my mind I had already made the decision to quit. This was just procrastination. Putting off the uncomfortable phone call to my employer the following morning to explain why I would never be setting foot in the premises again.

Over the next two years, I had accumulated a total of 30 paid jobs and had been flat broke more times than I care to mention. You might say I had a problem holding down a job. That I may have a serious problem with authority. Or that I am very irresponsible and ungrateful. You might say a lot of things, but the reality was, I was very unhappy being taken advantage of repeatedly in every way possible and would not settle until I found a trustworthy, decent employer who would treat me with respect.

From my selfish point of view, my experience speaks volumes for how many sleazy, grimy, and disgustingly abusive ‘employers’ there are in the world. It also confirmed everything I had been taught growing up from books by Robert Kiyosaki and Anthony Robbins that being employed by someone in a meaningless job is not the best way to live your life. For many it is perfectly acceptable and they have no choice, which is fine, good for you, you have one up on me in terms of happiness. I personally came to view employment simply as a means to an end. A routine that merely supports you while pursuing other more worthwhile ventures in your spare time and, ultimately, figure out a way to support yourself independently.

The reality for the vast majority of the modern world in employment is go to work, put up with any and all abuse thrown at you, fear your employer, fake-compliment your way to where you want to be, lower your moral standards and self-respect, all in favor of a safe dependable paycheck at the end of the week. Not surprisingly, there was an overwhelming negative response from those who answered the survey question ‘Are You Happy In Your Job’. This is very telling of the human condition versus the way our society has been set up to make a living. Our natural tendencies for curiosity, exploration, and creativity are being painfully strangled every day at our worthless jobs.

And so my predicament was this – what do you do when you find yourself in a situation 95% of the world’s young adults would consider as a massive win, or a great hand to have been dealt, and yet you still feel deeply unsatisfied with your daily routine?

That question is so perplexing and terrifying that most people do not want to even entertain opening discourse on it, for it inevitably lets those eerie thoughts creep into our minds. The little ones that make us question ourselves, our purpose, our social status, our relationships, reconsider our choices to date, what our future holds, or has everything been meaningless up until this point?

It took a serious amount of deep self-reflection to finally arrive at some form of a starting point in figuring out how to best change my situation to rid myself of the feeling of emptiness and dissatisfaction. Essentially, that was deciding to attempt to start a business in an area I care about and can add massive value to, often referred to as ‘entrepreneurship’. A term I personally feel is completely overused and undervalued as a result. Listen to anyone with a business idea and they are a supposed entrepreneur. “I sold two used t-shirts so I’m an entrepreneur” or “I’m planning to make an app that helps dog-lovers track their dog’s toilet habits. Only an entrepreneur thinks like that.” It’s great having an idea and all. Really. Maybe just don’t preach to everyone in close proximity how you are some trendy entrepreneur who will make loads of money some day and will be laughing at us from your grand castle chambers on top of a mountain some day.

A term I find a lot more fitting and less horrendously pompous and delusionary, is ‘Rebel’.

Where entrepreneur applies strictly to business and financial pursuits, ‘Rebel’ is fitting for anybody who simply wants to change themselves or their situation to match their view of how life should be lived. Specifically, typical rebels would include creative types, original thinkers, those who go against the curve, aren’t afraid to speak up, who may be entrepreneurial in spirit.

Rebels will have a wide variety of goals and causes, may it be moving country to start a new life and re-invent themselves, finding their passion, start a business where they can deliver exceptional service, inspire positive change in others, or perhaps something as simple as rejecting the imbecile trends of the masses.

When thinking of rebels, who immediately springs to mind is my long-time friend, John.

From as long as I have known him (childhood), John appeared not to care what mostly anybody thought about what he got up to. He had seemingly total disregard for authority. His carefree attitude towards any and all responsibility, to the point where it seemed detrimental to his future, really frightened people. It was infectious. In retrospect, perhaps this one ‘flaw’ may have been a maturity issue and required remaining a little bit longer in the turmoils of puberty to burn some form of responsibility into his being.

Nevertheless, John is one of happiest, or most content, people I know to this day. A man of simple pleasures. Never gets caught up in the hype of mainstream news, or falls victim to ridiculous trends (endless selfies, incessant status updates – “here’s what I’m eating”, “here’s what I’m doing”, “here’s where I’m going”, “look at me, look at me” – “I’m offended”, “Did you assume my gender?”). He quietly has a blast with his close friends doing a select few things he truly enjoys, and does not rub anybody’s face in it. What he does for a living is simple and satisfactory for him and he does not feel the need to be consistently clambering up corporate ladders for social status or incremental salary increases. He is completely, totally, and utterly living according to his own set of special rules and remaining true to himself. I realized that after all this time of seeing John as a strange sort of cat, that there was actually a massive lesson I could learn from him.

Arriving at this conclusion, I made the conscious decision that it was time to try and be more true to myself, align my values with my daily life, and attempt to carve out the life I really want to live. Full of laughs, good conversation, good food, travelling, creating value for others and sharing all of this with a select few family members and friends. I gave myself authority to pursue a better and more meaningful life and to not feel guilty for being unsatisfied with what I had.

The most common reaction to revolting against whatever is expected of you or deviating from a set path is sheer uproar and terror among your peers. Understandably, it can be quite daunting for our social groups to watch us so calmly walk away from their expectations. It incites a fear of abandonment that serves only themselves, not celebrating your new pursuits about to be undertaken.

It is these rebels who end up changing perspectives, bring smiles to the faces of complete strangers, help others realize what is possible to do with your life, break new boundaries, change entire industries, or discover unconventional methods of doing conventional things. We all need to rebel a bit more.

For me, it began with reflecting on my life to see what path I was travelling down.

And simply saying “no”.

Read This story Here http://wp.me/p7D0QD-PT

[linkspooky]

Muzan and Tanjiro: Which one of us is the real demon?

Muzan and Tanjiro like most hero and villain foils are written to oppose each other as direct opposites. However, as a writer Gotouge intentionally wrote an insane amount of details to show how much these two deeply foil and reflect each other as opposites. Everything from their motivations, to the ideas the characters each represent all reflect opposite themes in the story. I’ll explore this idea in more detail under the cut. 

1. Empathy

Tanjiro’s central definiting trait is his empathy. Even though he’s fighting against literal demons, he sees every last demon he fights as a human in the end. While he does not forgive them and still condemns them for their actions, he still acknowledges that all of them were humans at one point and tries his best to respect their feelings. 

He makes men out of monsters in their final moments. In their final moment he tries to be respectful to their feelings and show them the empathy they were denied in life, saving them in what little way they can. This is exactly in reverse to the way Muzan appears in people’s lives. 

Muzan always shows up at the weakest moments of the people he takes advantage of. He shows up when Kaigaku fell into despair over his inability to surpass his brother, he showed up when Akaza fell into despair after losing everything. Muzan acts the opposite way of Tanjiro. While Tanrjio kills the demons but offers them humanity and empathy in their last fleeting moments of life, Muzan gives them another chance to live but completely strips them of their humanity. 

Tanjiro offers empathy and understanding to everyone he meets, Muzan offers it to nobody. You can see it in their reverse reactions to Yoriichi. 

Tanjiro understands that ultimately, Yorichii is a very melancholy person who just wanted to have a family, and a small amount of happiness but was again and again called to fight even though he hated it. He saw the human side behind the genius swordsman that was Yoriichi. 

Even though Yorichii failed to protect everything he wanted to protect, his wife and child, his own brother, even though he was expelled from the order of demon slayers Tanjiro wanted to tell him that his life was not a waste. To Tanjiro, every single individual life has worth. 

Muzan however, is only able to see Yoriichi as a monster. He only sees Yoriichi for his talent with the sword, breathing techniques, and nothing else. This is how Muzan sees people. He strips them down to their use. He could not care less about Yoriichi’s life story, the person he is. He sees the sword in his hand and nothing more. 

Muzan sees all of the upper moons as existing entirely for his sake. They are tools. He refuses to see them as individuals. He sees them as merely parts of his own body. He gets frustrated when they can’t perfectly carry out his orders. No matter what they do for him he’s never satisfied, because they can’t act truly like tools. 

Tanjiro will always see others as individuals with their own feelings and stories, whereas Muzan’s consists entirely of himself. That’s the central difference between them and that leads to the way they perceive themselves. 

2. A Man and a Monster

Tanjiro’s greatest priority will always be the lives of other people around him. Muzan’s greatest priority will always be his own life. This is why Tanjiro has to absolutely reject everything about how Muzan is. This confrontation at the beginning of their fight is very telling. 

Muzan sees nobody but himself as a person, and Muzan doesn’t even see himself as a person. He equates himself to a force of nature killing indiscrimminately. 

Muzan denies his own humanity and denies the humanity of his victim. It’s important to remember the position these two begin the story at. Muzan is the strongest being in existence. Stronger than even the one who invented all of the breathing techniques. So strong he can instantly regenerate no matter how much damage he takes. Muzan simply doesn’t need to see other people as people. He believes his strength puts him in a position fundamentally higher than him. He seems himself as a mindless force of nature, a being above others, basically a god. He’s the embodiment of might makes right. Fighting against him is pointless because he’s so strong he can trample on whoever he pleases. There’s no need for him to regard the feelings of whoever he’s trampled on. 

Tanjiro who sees the humanity in everybody has to reject someone who acts completely inhuman. It’s important to look at their arcs and where they both came from as well. Both Muzan and Tanjiro started from places of weakness. Tanjiro since the start of the story has been told that if he’s not strong he doesn’t get to decide anything. He has no rights. He has no choices. That his kindness will only ever be an obstacle to him, a weakness that gets in his way and makes him unnecessarily vulnerable. 

Tanjiro is a character who has to continually fight his own weakness and struggle against it, how useless he is, how he cannot help the people he wants to help. His arc has been finding strength without throwing away his kindness, or his humanity. 

Then we see Muzan who made the exact opposite choice of Tanjiro. They both come from similiar circumtsances. Tanjiro is the lone survivor of an attack that killed the rest of his family while he was away, and even if he was there he would have been completely powerless to help them. Muzan is someone who was so sickly he was going to die before he was twenty. They were both weak and had no control over their own fates. 

Tanjiro has always blamed himself for his own weakness, whereas Muzan from the start blamed others. His very first action is to kill the man who only tried to help him. 

They were both weak and powerless once. However, strength is something that Tanjiroearns slowly, while Muzan is given it on a silver platter. All Muzan had to do was drink a magic medicine and suddenly he was the strongest being on earth. Tanjiro is someone who had to continually struggle against himself in order to go stronger. 

Muzan, always, always, always, blames his problems on the other people around him. The key difference between the two characters is how they obtain their agency, that is how they accomplish what they want to do. How they make their choices have meaning. The unfair world states the weak have no choices and no rights, so how do they reclaim both of those for themselves. Muzan gains agency by stealing it away from others. 

Muzan thinks he should have the freedom to do whatever, because he lived most of his life sickly and always chained to a bed. His goal is always to preserve his own life at the cost of everybody else’s. That’s why he has absolutely no qualms at all at taking from others. 

Tanjiro is someone fundamentally who struggles to give to others. What he wants is to be able to do something that will matter to the others around him. Even their central goals are opposite. Tanjiro wants to return humanity to his sister. He’s spent his entire quest toiling for the survival of someone else to give them their humanity back. Muzan only wants to obtain something for himself that will make his survival more likely. Muzan from the start has only ever been concerned about his own survival, and only cares about continuing his life forever. 

That’s why Muzan can’t comprehend someone like Tanrjio, or Yoriichi. He thinks individual strength means that you protect yourself and your own life above everything else. Muzan’s actions are always about continuing his own fragile life, obtaining the perfect immortal body so no one can kill him, and nothing else. However, Yoriichi and Tanjiro are both people who give all of themselves to others. He cannot even begin to comprehend how they fight with no regards to their own lives. 

Muzan is someone who lives in constant fear of his own mortality. Despite being the most powerful being on earth, he’s always afraid, he’s always hiding himself, and he’s always alone. He’s a coward ultimately. The only way Muzan can feel safe is if he has the perfect immortal body that can never be hurt or harmed and therefore he will never have to die. Tanjiro however, is someone who keeps on fighting long after Muzan has declared him dead. Not for hismelf but for others. Therefore he is incomprehensible to the demon. It’s extreme selfishness vs extreme selflessness, it’s more about the ideas that each character represents as they clash rather than the characters themselves. 

Tanjiro carries heavy themes of existentialism. What gives his existence meaning is what he gives to the other people around him. Because he is able to have connections, even though he’s an individually small and very weak person his life feels like it meant something. Not only that but Tanjiro tries to give meaning to the lives of everybody he meets, no matter how small. He sees even small and weak people as people who’s deaths matter. Even people just quietly living their heads down matter to somebody. Tanjiro also sees himself as a part of the cycle with everybody. He admits that his own life is also small as well but even if he dies, he thinks the people he’s met so far will be able to continue without him. Tanjiro utlimately sees himself as a very normal person but states that normal people just living their lives have worth. 

Muzan sees everything as worthless. The demons take a very moral nihilism point of view. This is most embodied in Doma, but Muzan has shades of it too. The people who dead are dead. It ends there. There’s no meaning. Anyone can die at any time so why fuss over it? Tanjiro is trying to give worth to every individual little life he encouters, whereas Muzan is someone who strips away worth from everyone. And once again these are existentialist ideas. What is it that creates meaning in our lives? 

Muzan views himself as someone outside of the cycle. He’s a natural disaster. He’s a storm. He’s a special existence outside of everybody else. It’s exactly because he sees himself as special that he sees everything else as worthless in comparison to him. 

They also have completely opposite thematic ideas of mortality. Muzan sees death as the opposite of life. The absolute worst thing possible. His entire motivation is to avoid death in any way possible. Whereas, Tanjiro is someone who accepts his own mortality as a part of living. He knows full well that he may die. While he finds death to be a sad thing, rather than be terrified of it and spend his entire life running away from those feelings like Muzan he struggles to find a way to live on carrying the deaths of his comrades, the deaths of his family, and the knowledge that one day he will die because death is a natural part of his life. 

This is a theme that repeats itself in the series again and again. The demons extend their lives long past the time they were originally supposed to die, but depsite living for hundreds of lives they live mostly empty lives that amount to nothing more than prolonging their own lives. 

Whereas humans who are much weaker, much more fragile, who die much younger than the demons do end up living lives full of other people because they cared about something more than just trying to extend their own lives and live for themselves. 

The humans live short tragic lives, but they find a little bit of happiness from that. The demon lives long lives but they ultimately gain nothing from it in the end. Both humans and demons leave meaningless lives, but humans create their own meaning while demons just flaunt the meaninglessness of their own lives. They’re prolonging empty, miserable lives, devoid of all the things that make human life worth living. Muzan isn’t even a person, he’s just a void, there’s nothing in his life but himself. He’s strong but that’s all he is

Muzan is ultimately someone who’s strength does not matter because he only uses it for himself. Despite being the strongest person on earth, he’s undone by simple tricks. He’s defeated by people who are far weaker than him. He’s undone by his own power. 

Muzan’s last ditch move to save himself shows him for what he really is inside. He’s not a demon, he’s barely even a person. Because Muzan’s priority is always protecting himself and never letting others in he’s basically reduced to an infant. He’s egocentric like a child. His point of view is the only one that exists in the whole world. 

Which is why Muzan dies alone without a single ally in the world. It goes beyond the simple shonen idea of “the villain has no nakama power” Muzan literally doesn’t see other people as people. He’s so fundamentally unable to connect to other people in the way that Tanrjio does that he’s infantile and immature. He’s not a demon just a total failure of a person.