#BUT I think the benefits way outweigh the side effects | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

butwhatifidothis · 9 months

Note

Do you think it'd be in character for Claude to fake an alliance with Edgey in GW Pt 2 so that he could undermine her while seeking an alliance with the Kingdom behind her back? I mean, that way, he could ask Rhea directly about what Edgey told him instead of blindly believing her.

It would be more in character, but not as much as it looks at first.

Because yes, Claude is very familiar with not exactly telling the truth, and he is also familiar with working around people who inherently distrust him. And something somewhat like this kinda happens in 3H, with Erwin - Claude has Nader create a distraction for the army to pass through Gloucester territory to Myrddin so that Erwin's forces don't intercept them (he does this in all the routes in fact, save for of course CF). So it's not like he isn't capable of some form of trickery, even when it comes to people he considers allies.

What becomes an issue though is that those sort of trickery means are mostly used for last-resort, fairly specific situations - Plan A wasn't to make Erwin think his lands are being attacked, it was the only option Claude had available due to the very landscape of Leicester necessitating going through Gloucester territory, and due to Erwin's stubbornness about aligning with the Empire (whether or not those reasons were self-serving or for self-preservation). Again, with Myrddin we see that he's willing to openly help the Kingdom/Church, despite the act of doing so breaking any neutrality the Alliance could have held onto. Communication with Erwin had already failed (due to, again, his stubbornness to align with the Empire), but Claude also explicitly says that he doesn't want to engage in actual combat with House Gloucester, so lies were the only way to go forward.

With the Empire, however, there was never any worry about engaging in combat with them - they invaded his lands, and he fought back. If Edelgard had started with negotiations with Claude first, that'd be one thing - if there was an attempt at an assurance for peace from Edelgard's end to start everything off, it'd make the idea of him joining her to betray her later have some ground to stand on logically. But with him doing absolutely nothing to provoke her she attacks his lands, which has two reasons for her doing so in specifically Claude's mind: taking Garreg Mach to use as a base, and getting rid of the Alliance and Kingdom at the same time.

To the first reason: while Garreg Mach is a good base, it's arguable that having to defeat the Alliance on top of fighting the Kingdom for it makes taking the base moot to begin with. Even for the symbolic nature of it, since Rhea has already been booted out at this point. The trouble would be more than its worth, essentially. And the second reason is... fairly obvious as to why that isn't gonna work out lmao.

Then there's also also the fact that Claude was handling the Empire pretty damn well - he is a young leader and is tricksty in his antics which means skepticism from his more experienced peers, the Alliance is known for its weaker military strength, and he had to deal with Shahid looming over his head, yet Claude still manages to hold off the Empire pretty effectively. So with Edelgard invading Claude's lands off rip and his shown proficiency at fighting back against her without much non-Alliance help, there's no benefit to siding with her, even falsely - none that would outweigh the benefits of siding with a party that has given him no misgivings, in any case. She's not a force that is too big to take on from the outside and so needs to be taken out from the inside, so going through the effort of getting inside is meaningless.

So, would falsely siding with Edelgard while secretly siding with the Kingdom be more in character? It certainly can be, if one plays the cards right. But given how Claude's handling of the Empire and Edelgard's actions against the Alliance are written, it'd be far more in character for him to just side with the Kingdom outright at that point

#ask #anon #clyde discourse #like at that point it's better to just cut the fat #there's no pretense of neutrality from Claude; he's already fought back against her #there's no pretense of peace from EdeIgard; she's already invaded his lands #the Empire is not an impossible force; Claude is dealing with them extraordinarily well given his circumstances #the Kingdom isn't a potential threat to Claude; it has done nothing to garner any attention (positive or negative) from the Alliance #and if the biggest issue was the Church/Rhea then Claude can just. snoop around? to find shit out? like he always did in 3H?#(hell with the war going on he - as leader of the Alliance - is the only one with fairly safe access to the ONLY SAFE WAY into Garreg Mach)#(so he could literally just like. have spies get in and snoop around? or even walk in himself if there's no one there? like hello)#and not side with the girly trying to kill him and who is responsible for the deaths of many of his people. just a thought #so there's nothing to really gain from pretending to side with Edelgard that couldn't be found in allying with the Kingdom

24 notes · View notes

aspd-culture · 2 months

Note

Just wondering but

Been having a debate w some of my friends about whether cheating in a romantic relationship could be considered okay. I was trying not to kinda out myself as having aspd, so just stayed mostly quiet ahaha. But most of them said it was wrong in all circumstances and idk if I agree (sorry if you’ve had a bad experience with it as I’m sure it’s very common).

but was just wondering yours or other peoples stance on it? thanks!

I think that there is a practical understanding of cheating that could maybe bring you over to the side of it always being wrong, although you are well within your rights to have that opinion on it.

To start, I think we need to scrap prosocials from this topic because their emotional reactions and the high value those emotions have for them makes this messy and complicated in a way that I don't think is useful.

So let's talk about two pwASPD in a relationship and assume, for argument's sake, that they have defined certain things as cheating and there is an expectation that those things are not done, maybe even to the point of ending the relationship but definitively to the point of damaging it.

Where in that situation does cheating make any good sense? To intentionally damage a relationship and the rapport you have with that person when presumably you're in this relationship for *some reason* (pwASPD very infrequently do something for literally no reason although often that reason is "so I appear normal" but that reason works for this point as well) makes no sense. If you found that reason is no longer relevant, then leave. If you feel leaving is unsafe, it is probably even more unsafe to get caught cheating. If you still believe that reason applies, then why risk losing it? If you believe the other person would effectively (maybe even moreso) fulfill that reason, then leave and get with them. But cheating risks both relationships and simply isn't useful. I don't see any practical reason to do it, but I do see many practical reasons not to, and therefore I don't engage in it and think it's kind of a stupid thing to do, to be honest, just like I would anything else that has no practical benefit but has a practical detriment.

I can't think of any situation where there would be a benefit at all honestly, but even if there is one I'm not thinking of, I can't see it outweighing the risk.

That's my non-emotional issue with cheating personally. I have been cheated on and I do feel betrayed by it and hurt by it, but I've felt this way long before that and can separate myself from that to analyze this properly as it's been many years (afaik, I don't trust almost anyone but my partner admittedly is trustworthy in that regard if I were to think about it).

Plain text below the cut:

I think that there is a practical understanding of cheating that could maybe bring you over to the side of it always being wrong, although you are well within your rights to have that opinion on it.

I can't think of any situation where there would be a benefit at all honestly, but even if there is one I'm not thinking of, I can't see it outweighing the risk.

#aspd-culture-is #aspd culture is #aspd culture #actually aspd #aspd #aspd awareness #actually antisocial #antisocial personality disorder #aspd traits #anons welcome

18 notes · View notes

moki-dokie · 11 months

Text

unfriendly reminder to folks (but especially cis men) to stop dismissing hirsutism like it's a joke or no big deal to the people who have it (especially afab people). or i'm gonna start stabbing yall with tweezers.

i mean just imagine if there was a condition for yall that very gradually changed the hair to thin out or follicles to stop producing entirely and the only way to treat it is with medications that barely do shit or have side effects that outweigh the benefits or uncomfortable medical procedures that don't always have the results you'd like and it's something almost always on your mind because it's your body and obviously you're going to notice the changes and discomforts to it much more than other people and everyone treated it like the butt of a joke or tried to constantly tell you they don't think it's that bad OH WAIT

#hirsutism #alopecia #pcos #can we just stop making negative comments about ppls appearance already #and stop treating problems YOU can't personally see or experience like they aren't problems #i am at my fucking limit here #looking at you cis women to stop doing the same shit to folks with alopecia too #UGH

22 notes · View notes

zoroara · 1 month

Note

for the khr ask game, 🗡️!

Okay first, you have now entered "things i've thought about way too much" territory, Obviously we are working under the understanding that i would not have the fragile little shit body I have because it would not matter what the weapon is my bones would die using it <3.

Anyway Read more be upon ye cause I'm going in for the long ride here.

Firstly, while the ask is specifically of "weapon" there are multiple khr characters that use more than one weapon. So I'll put my main one and then the small additions I'd make. the 3 other options are just side arms to the main one.

A bastard sword. This would be the main one. Though heavier due to it's length it is used to be both one handed and two handed. It's utility in terms of how it can be used is one of the better blades for melee combat and since this tends to be what's happening over let's say mounted combat, makes it a better choice than some other swords. It's thicker and tougher so it has an easier time deflecting and blocking than things like the rapier which may snap under the pressure.

Since it's not sharp all along the blade it can be held at different lengths which is useful in close quarters for stabbing and if you flip it around you can use the pommel as a bludgeon and the whole sword as a flail. Though uncommon in Khr this is also really really useful against armoured opponents and people with shields due to the force it sends through the body, and the different hold allows to target specific points of the body.

Now for the Side arms options:

First side arm option:

Unsurprisingly a Buckler. Now most people incorrectly identify all circular shields to be bucklers however it's only really the small kind of cap like shields that are true bucklers. Their small size meant they could be made sturdier without becoming too heavy for the user to quickly combat. Though they don't look like much protection at first glance there's a good reason for their use.

Though mainly used to protect the sword hand they also had several other functions, as they can act as a sort of floating armour point, that due to both how much more sturdy they are and their shape could deflect many weapons well. They also double as a bludgeoning weapon due to the sort of bump in the middle of it. Additionally a skilled user can actually use them to catch an opponent's weapon and trap them allowing the user to control the fight from there.

Second side arm option:

Look you are probably not quite thinking of this but a gun. It was extremely common for sword users to use guns as an off hand once they were introduced. Especially when guns were still slow and had trouble reloading. It's literally a great option to have one if you can and gives range that a sword obviously wouldn't have.

The one problem is a lot of modern handguns aren't exactly made for one handed reload, so you have to go more with some double action revolvers, or for a more modern gun probably the Smith & Wesson M&P. Of course after future arc there people don't really reload their guns anymore with the heavy use of flame so at that point the whole debate on which gun doesn't matter nearly as much.

Third and Final side arm option:

Parrying dagger, in a sword fight, which it seems if you're carrying a sword in khr that is what most of your important fights are going to be, is an extremely useful tool. Though not as effective in terms of other types of melee fights it's still usable. Parrying daggers are made to help manipulate your opponent's weapons and are sturdier for it. There's a few different shapes of them and though the "trident" and "swordbreaker" look and sound cool they were incredibly rare and not exactly easy to use, their cons outweighing their benefits.

I would choose the ones that are designed with waves in them, as their form though a little silly are actually really good at damaging the hands using the blocked blade by causing impact in several places, and these waves are more likely to catch the weapon and give you more control.

Thank you for listening to me ramble about this i really really like weapons.

#asks answered #rambling

4 notes · View notes

fairycosmos · 9 months

Note

I’m thinking of trying some medication for my depression/anxiety but I’m scared of the side effects… what do you and your followers think of that if you don’t mind me asking

hey i also had this fear and talked to my doc extensively about it and he was very clear that he would start me on the mental health meds with the least possible side effects + at the lowest dose and work me up to a higher one if needed which would also lessen any possible symptoms.....it's a completely understandable worry but there's definitely a lot of ways to go about confronting it esp if youre honest with your health professional about where youre at and what you're concerned about. you can also keep a journal tracking how youre feeling so you have some productive feedback to give your doc and you guys can measure if it's working for you or not. for me eventually it got to the point where my doctor was like i can pretty much promise that the benefits of the meds are going to outweigh any potential side effects based on what youre telling me about how debilitating your mental health is so i thought it was worth the compromise bc like my quality of life is/was already so low. another thing to keep in mind is that they have to explain all of the side effects to you as protocol, not because theyre super common or anything. anyway it's totally your call but i think it'd be good to express your worries to your doctor and see what they think would be the best course of action going forward. sending a hug. x

#anon

8 notes · View notes

ilikeyoshi · 2 months

Text

hmgh.

as much as i want to be "fuck yeah smoke weed" i can't help but see the research on its affect on the lungs and kinda err on the side of caution. like. i'm not gonna stop people from making life choices but as someone who's dad died of lung cancer even as a non-smoker of any kind, i just like. can't get behind it. the topic of friends smoking anything upsets the hell outta me lmao.

i dunno, weed gets toted in the circles i'm in as totally safe, and maybe it is in non-smoke forms? but smoke of any kind is just like. bad for you, especially if you're doing it daily. like, research is showing vaping isn't much if any better for you—the lungs are just Not Good at dealing with anything that isn't clean air, and the more Not Clean Air you pile into them, the worse off they get; it stacks too. just because you ALREADY live in an area with nasty air doesn't mean smoking can't hurt you more.

and while research into weed smoke causing lung cancer is largely inconclusive, that's a) NOT a no, and b) not the only thing smoke of any kind does to the lungs. damaged lungs can result in all kinds of things, including chronic bronchitis and fatigue, things smoking weed HAS been linked to. it's not just lung damage either; it alters the brain, and frequent usage prevents said brain from ever truly resting, which can create all sorts of problems that may or may not be reversible. (lung damage isn't reversible, btw.)

i dunno!!!! do whatever you want, if a doctor prescribes it obviously listen to him over random concerned lizards on the internet, but with my personal experiences i'm gonna be honest, i don't think it's a good idea. i think medicinal versions are probably vaguely akin to like, autoimmune medications; the risks and damage are simply outweighed by the benefits in certain cases. i'd love to be wrong or just paranoid, but like. smoke is smoke. it's hot and burnt stuff is carcinogenic so i just cannot see how it WOULDN'T hurt your lungs.

plus like. caffeine is horrendously not good for you, and the public perception on that is Fucked, so my doubts are just. through the roof. (i also admit i am in the type of neurodivergence that WOULD get the Bad Effect from smoking weed, so there's like, extra fear just because i CAN'T get the Good Effect out of it. like it would be a nightmare experience for me. and i fully understand this makes it harder for me to see it in a positive or neutral light to begin with.)

idk like i said do whatever you want, i guess i just!!! don't like the narrative i usually see around smoking weed and drinking caffeine as Totally Fine For You when research clearly shows it has all kinds of potential risks and damages that nobody like. talks about. i think because we live in a miserable fucking world that hurting ourselves for some kind of gain is basically just a necessary transaction. but like!!!! i think people should KNOW that there are risks. i don't think ignoring those risks is the right way to approach this. people should be informed in their decisions, no matter what they end up choosing. idk. idk.

#i am not a medical professional i am just intimately familiar with how lung damage works and i have concerns #yoshi talks

6 notes · View notes

liskantope · 1 year

Text

So, Herschel Walker will not wind up a Georgia Senator, and the 2022 midterms are finally complete. That was dangerously close, though -- Walker has been hopefully one of the last of these ridiculously (both intellectually and morally) unqualified Republican candidates from a trend that became fully established with the rise of Trump but arguably began 14 years ago with Sarah Palin.

I've mostly held to a posture of declaring in such contests that it's not about policy or Republican versus Democrat, it's about being fundamentally qualified versus otherwise, and so it's outrageous that these contests even come close. This is pretty much in line with what I constantly hear from other left-leaning people. And yet...

Lately I've been coming to see a different perspective on this: many voters are just really pragmatic about trying to get policies they like. And I'm not entirely sure that this is wrong, or that I wouldn't be this way myself. I've just always had the benefit of preferring the policies of the major American political party that feels no real temptation to run candidates of that fundamentally unacceptable kind. As long as the parties stay more or less in their current states, only the Republican party has enough discomfort, resentment, and/or disdain for what we might call Established Expertise to feel any attraction whatsoever to candidates who thumb their noses at it. (The closest the Democrats have come to this in my lifetime may have been Marianne Williamson for president in 2020, and she didn't win the candidacy by a long shot.)

For simplicity, let's just narrow this down to one big issue that people on both sides feel very strongly about: abortion. If you're a very pro-choice Democrat who sees restrictive abortion laws as a huge middle finger to women, as extremely detrimental to the lives of millions of women and to the development of underprivileged communities, then the practical effects of electing someone who will defend the right to choose, regardless of that candidate's personality or basic qualifications for office, might outweigh most everything else. At least, I think most voters of this description, if they're really looking at themselves honestly, would admit that they put effect on policy over every other consideration here, even if it means holding their nose while they vote. Well then, doesn't it make sense, by the same token, that an ardently pro-life Republican, who sincerely believes that millions of babies are being murdered as long as abortion is legal (or who is just dead set against women having autonomy, according to a more cynical and less theory-of-mind-ful liberal) might prioritize that goal over electing someone who seems decently earnest and fundamentally qualified? Millions of human beings are going to be murdered / have their bodily autonomy taken away, depending on our point of view: surely the priority is to put a person in power who we can trust to prevent that! (And add to this a list of other issues that many of us are passionate about, each of whose sides tend to line up and fall under the preferences of one of our two main political tribes.)

I remember in my early years on Tumblr, during the rise of Trump, that Barry Deutsch (haven't heard much from him lately, I hope he's doing all right?) wrote a post that kind of shocked me at the time, about how he would put policy over character even in the case of a candidate who was obviously a rapist. I wanted to argue back and tried, but couldn't entirely deny deep down inside that I knew he was being quite rational, reasonable, and honest in the point he was making (just tried to find this exchange in my archive but am not up for going on a long hunt for it, hopefully my memory serves correctly).

[EDIT: wouldncha know it, a few days later I just ran across it while looking through my archives for something else from around the same period. Here is Barry's post with my response. I'm sort of bemused looking back at this, particularly at my part of it and how sort-of-right but sort-of-wrong I was.]

Just the other day, one of my colleagues mentioned that he couldn't imagine what personally disqualifying characteristics a Democrat running on left-wing positions could possibly have that would make him unwilling to vote for them in an election, because what they're running on is so vitally important. He said that even if they were a known murderer, he would kind of have to vote for them or at least consider it, maybe not because voting for a murderer might degrade his own character, so it would be a real dilemma. This conversation made a real impression on me (not that my thoughts had never before skirted to that kind of dilemma and how I or typical left-wing people would handle it) and is part of is compelling me to post this. And the most interesting thing is, this same colleague, on the subject of Herschel Walker, pretty much expressed the usual outrage over the fact that such a fundamentally unqualified candidate was only narrowly losing, not losing 20-80, parties and policy positions be damned.

If we're going to criticize the American Right for running and voting for clowns and obvious criminals and otherwise horrible and completely unqualified people, then we have to seriously ask ourselves whether we'd support similarly terrible candidates if we trusted them to support the positions we find extremely important. Because if so, it's just a little too easy a rhetorical move to point at and mock the other side for this.

One caveat: the main reason, I think, why most left-leaning people don't really consider my above point, is that it's a pure and very unlikely hypothetical that doesn't easily occur to us: the Left, compared to the Right, has enough respect for Established Expertise and general seriousness that the Democratic party in its current state would never dream of putting up the kind of ridiculous candidate that the Republicans have been trying out. As long as that continues to be the case, we don't have to actually worry about the dilemma my colleague brought up.

Another caveat: leaving aside general clownishness, incompetence, unseriousness, and outwardly bad character, if a candidate blatantly disdains the democratic process which is part of the self-correcting nature of our political system (which the Right is certainly overall far more guilty of today than the Left) by deciding that elections are rigged and shouldn't be trusted if they don't come out in their favor, then since this is sort of a huge meta-issue and in my opinion really does need to come before even most very important policy issues. In the (currently but perhaps not always) unlikely hypothetical situation where the shoe is on the other foot and it's someone with policies I strongly favor acting this way, I'd like to think I know how I would reluctantly feel compelled to respond.

#midterms #herschel walker #our last president #marianne williamson #abortion

28 notes · View notes

shallowrambles · 4 months

Note

wait are you pro-ship or aren't you

I'm live and let live. Ultimately, I don't view female-predominant fandom spaces as much of a threat. If at all.

But, contrary to popular option, I don't actually think ideas and fantasies are harmless, and deep down, even with our lip serve to "killing the cop inside," we all know this.

Ideas matter, and ideas affect real life. We're almost always in the process of judging how dangerous an idea is, how much we think that idea attenuates actual behavior, and to what degree we allow them to exist and spread. Much of that involves observing the context of where and how the idea appears.

It's why I will always love the movie Quills. It's a bit of an unanswerable ethical question, really. Sociological behavior is multi-factorial. These things are notoriously hard to study. Average folks muddle our way through best we can.

Part of it too is, "do I feel like the spread of this idea affect attitudes that in turn affect behavior that in turn affects my real life in a meaningful way?"

That's just life. We're all doing it to some degree.

Lotsa folks are anti-censorship until they perceive the other side as spreading "dangerous propaganda and brainwashing." Lotsa people are "pro-free will" until the other side starts supporting the Wrong Things (TM).

It's why people are good with shutting down MAGA shit and Blood-and-Soil crap on campuses. We call the censorship the "consequences of free speech," "oh, it's just the majority rising up in dissent" etc etc. But the reality is, we have judged the idea to be harmful. Contagious. And even when people are freely choosing the trap of these ideas, we think the harms to society outweigh the benefits of the unfiltered freedom on a megaphone.

So, yeah. I'm "proship," but because I think the degree of harm is very small, not because I think some written ideas are magically harmless and insulated from having an effect on real-life behavior. That's just not what history shows. I don't find it to be based in reality.

For the record, I actually view the gleeful fetishization of incest and low-class stereotyping as actually affecting the lives of the very poor. I think it perpetuates attitudes that have immediate effects on our medical but also indirect ones on our access to jobs, education, etc. And people don't care, because the aesthetic and the belief systems of the region are too shitty to deserve respect, and there's this idea that Those People Deserve the Jokes, or Can't Help it if it's True...they're so "hateful that they deserve it." (Meanwhile, want shorthand for incest? Give 'em a hick aesthetic. Flannel! Want shorthand for stupidity, give 'em a hick accent.)

The fact is, ppl would rather bask in low-country incest jokes and toothless jokes than extend meaningful help...or even lobby for increased dental care or access to education. "Those people do it to themselves," we say. We can look at other regions in the world and see the chokehold of propaganda, zealous nationalism, and lack of resources/education, but we sometimes can't see it in our own backyard.

But THAT SAID, I don't think being proship is harmful to most people or society at large, not in the the way that structural pollution is to low-income areas, and inequitable funding for education is. Rich bitches beating off in the privacy of their own homes to the fetishization of the results of poverty and the neuroses of the downtrodden in is a dime a dozen. To them, it represents a sexy, "forbidden" release from the horror of their boring, mundane lives.

For me, it boils down to this; it annoys me, so don't put it in my inbox. In the end, that's all that really matters. My opinion is separate to my boundary.

#fandom wank #this is harsh #i'm sorry #i got mad about the incest askers again today #also the forest is burning around me and i'm mad about the gentrification and air quality where i live #i already have a lung condition #and like #i've been breathing their legal controlled burn for a whole ass month

5 notes · View notes

knighta3 · 9 months

Note

Hi, just in case you miss my reblog of your tags when I block you, you're a transphobe and I hope you get the fuck over yourself someday soon. :)

Me? Get over myself? I'm not the one going out of my way to tell someone I'm blocking them. Get off your high horse. Those drugs aren't good for animals. People like this always take the most bad-faith interpretation possible.

So I've been sitting on this for awhile trying to decide if I wanted to bother replying. Obviously, this person won't see it, unless they go out of their way to check on me for some reason. But this is a topic that I have opinions on that can be difficult to communicate the nuances of, especially with how polarized it is. So I'm using this as an opportunity to sort through my thoughts.

And I have a lot of thoughts, so buckle up.

For context, I've included screenshots of what the person is talking about. The first set of tags is mine, the rest is theirs.

The whole trans concept is a concept. There's an ideology to it. Maybe that wasn't the best way to phrase it, and I apologize for that. But everything is a concept, and that's not necessarily bad. Chill.

It's hard to explain my personal feelings. This isn't a perfect analogy, but it's similar to how I feel about doing drugs. I would never do it, I don't understand why it's appealing to anyone, and I don't recommend anyone do it. But I try not to look down on people who do, and I recognize there are exceptions for medical uses. Minors shouldn't be allowed to do it, but adults can mess themselves up however they want so long as they don't hurt anyone, and a doctor should not lie about the effects it has, or recklessly enable it.

I believe a person needs to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, go through therapy for at least a year, and rule out less drastic treatment methods before being allowed to medically transition(social transition is a different topic that I don't care to discuss right now. So mentions of transition in this post will refer to the medical variety unless otherwise stated). You might be born gender dysphoric, or more masculine/feminine than usual, idk, but being Trans is not something you innately ARE, it's something you BECOME. I don't think anyone is trans until they actually transition. Before that, they're simply gender dysphoric.

Cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers are something that we do not know all the effects of, especially on children(who are still developing and thus have more unpredictable variables in play). Minors should never be allowed to transition. There are too many variables to reliably diagnose chronic gender dysphoria vs other causes of discomfort. (To be clear, I'm using "chronic" as a way to describe a condition that won't simply go away or be grown out of, and requires treatment). People who are not gender dysphoric should not transition, as it is a completely unnecessary risk and I feel it is malpractice for a doctor to allow it. Side note, but gender-affirming surgeries are just cosmetic surgeries and body modification.

I feel the same about medications too. Especially for kids. Meds for AHDH, depression, anxiety, birth control, etc. All meds have risks associated with them. We're altering the way the body naturally functions and pretending to know and control what happens. We do not know all the ways those meds can affect the human body and mind long-term(and it can be different for every individual, doubly so for minors. Deciding whether to introduce meds is a risk vs benefit scenario, especially for kids. If the problem can be treated or sufficiently managed without making a person reliant on drugs, it should be done first. But if the problem is too severe for those less medicalizing treatments, then getting on meds and such should be considered. Because at that point, the benefit outweighs the risk. (For context, I am an adult with diagnosed anxiety and take meds for it. Before taking meds, I tried the normal stuff like exercise and meditation and whatnot, but I was still a mess. I wish meds weren't necessary for me, but they seem to be. I am also ace, so does that make me queer? Or am I disqualified for having the "wrong" opinion?)

The cause of gender dysphoria can vary greatly. This person has latched heavily onto my mention of neurodivergence and assumed I only meant autism, but it's far more multifaceted than that. Gender dysphoria is the condition, and transition is a potential treatment. But the possible underlying causes should be addressed BEFORE considering transition as a treatment.

Maybe some people are born with it, or at least develop it very early with no external causes. I don't have stats, but I feel this is a minority.

Gender Non-Conformity: Some people are simply naturally feminine men/masculine women and they feel that isn't acceptable for whatever reason. So whether or not they are conscious of the reasons for that dysphoria, they feel a societal pressure to transition because they don't fit the gender norms. Others are gay and are in denial over it and choose to "trans the gay away" instead of accept that aspect of themselves. This is common in places like the Middle East, where homosexuality is highly stigmatized and persecuted.

Paraphilia: Some people are just attracted to or aroused by exposing themselves to others, cross dressing, or perceiving themselves as the opposite gender. I'm inclined to think a "trans" woman who exposes male genitalia in woman's spaces and loudly insists that others accept it, no matter how uncomfortable or triggering is could be for others, is not actually gender dysphoric. Drag Queens are not trans, and neither are these people.

Trauma: Some kids suffer from severe trauma, and gender dysphoria can develop as a result. A child suffering from sexual abuse, for example, may rationalize that maybe if they were the opposite sex, they wouldn't have been hurt. So as they develop, they take on traits of the opposite sex to cope with their trauma and become dysphoric. It may not be the most rational of responses, but trauma responses seldom are, especially in kids. Plus, there are cases of DID(Disassociative Identity Disorder) where some alters are different genders from the system's host/body. DID is caused by trauma at a specific age which causes a level of disassociation that splinters into multiple identities(personalities) separated by amnesia walls within the mind. The individual identities carry different parts of the trauma to compartmentalize and cope in order to protect the "host"(the "main" or "primary" identity). Some of the identities develop gender or age dysphoria as a part of their coping mechanism. It's honestly fascinating to observe the variety of ways DID systems will cope with trauma.

Neurodivergence: I have various relatives on the autism spectrum. My sister is high functioning, and a few cousins were diagnosed with Asperger's when that was still considered it's own diagnosis. When people live with a mental condition like that their entire life, they absolutely cannot tell what aspects of themselves is caused by the neurodivergence, what is caused by trauma, what is "normal", or what is just normal for the individual. It would be unfair to assume they can parse out all of that when it's even a struggle for neurotypical people. And there is more to neurodivergence than just autism. Some people don't consider depression/anxiety and such as neurodivergence. But I will when it's chronic/clinical because it is a mental disorder characterized by abnormal brain function. So when I'm having trouble with anxious thoughts, it's difficult to tell what is a reasonable concern(because everyone has occasional feeling of anxiety) vs me just overreacting because of my mental condition. The same applies to depression, self harming behavior, suicidal ideation, etc. I have a friend who took a while to realize she was schizophrenic because she couldn't tell that the extra voices in her head was an abnormal experience. To reiterate, this point is about how people with neurodivergence can't always tell when their experience is abnormal because they have always had this experience and it is normal to them. Recognizing what is different about yourself is a learned skill. Gender dysphoria may or may not occur along with various different neurodivergent conditions.

Autism: One common trait of autism is a male-typical pattern of interaction. Women/girls tend to be more socially/emotionally driven while men are more object/goal driven. This does not apply to everyone, as it is just a broad pattern of typical gender traits. Autistic people tend to struggle with social and emotional relationships with others. So autistic girls in particular struggle to fit in with the other girls, and can feel they fit in better with the boys. But at the same time, the boys might feel weird about hanging with a girl(because of "cooties" behavior, which I'm using to describe the tendency for girls and boys to segregate themselves from each other). Overall, it's not that big of a leap for an autistic girl to conclude that she should actually be a boy and subsequently identify as transgender.

Social Contagion: People, particularly kids/teens, are desperate for an individual identity, but also to fit in and be part of a group. They want attention. And if they can't get "good" attention, they will absolutely settle for "bad" attention(misbehaving, lashing out, rule breaking, deviant/criminal behavior). Children do it all the time, especially with neglectful or strict parents. Dogs even do it, which is one reason they can become disobedient. Also, teens are at an age where they often place more value in their friends and social standing than in their family. So if their friends start identifying as various different LBGTQ+ identities, they will find a label to slap on themselves too so they can fit in. Siblings may follow in their footsteps and also find a label for the sake of a label. Nobody wants to be the straight cis friend these days. People crave a sense of belonging, while also being different from the larger majority for a sense of individuality. Some people choose to be theater kids, band kids, jocks, etc. to accomplish this. But if none of those appeal to them or they can't break into the group, they have to find something else. If people can get attention or validation or a sense of belonging by joining this exclusive trans club, they will. Previous generations were flappers, hippies, hipsters, emo/goth, etc. With insistence that, "it's not a phase, mom!" The biggest difference between those and this is the transgender movement has more permanent effects on the individuals within it, which are potentially harmful if we aren't careful.

Sense of Control: Some of these potentially underlying issues can overlap or cause each other. If the wrong condition is treated, it might not help. For example, anxiety can cause depression. But the depression is a symptom of the anxiety, so treating the depression doesn't solve the underlying cause. When people feel that something about their life is bad, so something about it has to change. And sometimes that something ends up being gender. They feel if they can control some aspect of themselves, things will improve. A girl might become so convinced she can't succeed because she's a girl that she instead decides her chances would be better as a boy. Or a boy is so burdened by the expectations of male gender roles that he thinks life would be easier as a girl. This would probably be coupled with other underlying factors such as depression. In a similar vein, skipping straight to a transition rather than addressing underlying conditions first won't ease the turmoil. If anything, it would make it worse. Because if you think transitioning would fix all your problems, and then it doesn't, it would make you feel more hopeless.

Puberty: First, young kids are exploring the world around them and that is often done through play. Trying on mom's shoes or messing with her makeup or playing with dolls and sparkles does not mean a young boy is a trans girl. And playing with dirt or toy trucks or wanting to play sports or hating dresses does not make a young girl a trans boy. Kids are just kids and should be left to play and explore. They observe reactions around them, and if being "trans" gets them praise, they will do it. Teens are going through a tumultuous and unstable phase of life where they are still searching for their own identity and trying things out. It is horrendously irresponsible to enable any impulsive life-altering choices. Puberty is uncomfortable and can cause temporary gender dysphoria in a lot of teens. I went through it too, before I had ever heard of the concept of transgenderism. I felt I didn't fit in with the other girls, so I wondered if I was born in the wrong body because I had a little more noticeable hair than the others. Most kids/teens will grow out of it. "Oh, puberty blockers just pause puberty to give kids a chance to decide" No, no, no. Puberty blockers were initially used as a way to chemically castrate sex offenders. I would never trust that for kids. And, ironically, if the kids don't go through their natural birth-sex puberty, they won't have enough of the needed tissue for a bottom surgery if they wanted to go that route. Which significantly increases the chances of potential complications associated with the surgery.

Side tangent, but still somewhat relevant, but I'm reminded of castrati. Castrato were men who were castrated as young boys before going through puberty(as opposed to eunuchs, who were castrated after puberty). They were stars of the opera because they retained the higher vocal range of a young boy, but with the lung capacity and power of a man. They were particularly common in areas that didn't allow women to perform, such as Italy. Because castrato were highly desired in the music industry, but had to be set on that path young, parents would have their pre-pubescent sons castrated around the ages of 8-12 to give them just the chance for this "lavish" career path. The operation wasn't legal, and considered barbaric even at the time, but parents would make up excuses such as falling off a horse or animal attack where the castration would be considered a treatment. But becoming an opera singer wasn't easy and required intense musical training. Castrati who didn't succeed in the field were relegated to a life of ridicule, poverty, and/or prostitution. The lack of testosterone could cause their bones to grow longer instead of harden, so they would be abnormally tall and have large rib cages(similar to gigantism), and be prone to conditions such as osteoporosis. Plus an increased tendency toward obesity. It was common to develop feminine features. Overall, they were seen as something of a "freak show." The practice slowly died off, but didn't really end until the early 1900's. Most castrati were forced into this lifestyle by desperate, poverty-stricken families. But the desired fortune didn't come for most, they were often ostracized for neither being a full man nor a woman, but rather something subhuman, and died in poverty and ridicule. It doesn't matter how well-meaning the family may or may not have been. The result was ruined lives.

I don't say any of this to invalidate the experience of gender dysphoria or of trans people. I say this because people are being hurt without proper safeguards. The suicide rate of trans people does not significantly change before or after transition. This suggests that transitioning itself does not treat the underlying cause of their misery. And the rate of detransitioners is rising because we are too quick to affirm feelings of transness and fail to filter out those who would end up regretting it because it was "just a phase". Then, once they become detrans, they're totally rejected by the trans community as "never trans in the first place". Even though the Detrans person transitioned in the first place because they believed they were trans and that a transition would solve their problems. It isn't fair to scorn them when it didn't work out for them. They still went through the experience of transitioning, which is still a valid trans experience.

Detrans people suffer irreversible harm that could have been totally preventable if their medical care providers had bothered to do any proper screening and pushback. If a person would truly benefit from a transition, then they could absolutely confirm that by going through the whole process. If they can't get through the process, then they shouldn't transition in the first place.

What is concerning is that suicide rates don't significantly change before/after transition, and most gender dysphoric people seem to have a some degree of trauma or mental illness in their background, which indicates to me that there is more going on than just being "born that way". And I think it is vital to the health and well-being of these people to acknowledge and explore why.

I don't think it's transphobic to believe gender dysphoria, and transgenderism by extension, can have underlying factors that should be looked into and thoroughly addressed before pursing a transition as a means to relieve distress.

#i speak #a3 speaks #a3 in the discourse #a3 replies

3 notes · View notes

bookwyrminspiration · 2 years

Note

What do you think of the Match?

I have no clue what to think of it. In the first book, it was framed as a bad as it perpetuated the segregation and classism between Talented and Talentless elves, along with the way it treated Talentless people and the stigma that came along with it. Though it was never explicitly stated, I also thought it was because of genetic health and to prevent the effects of inbreeding.

In the subsequent books however, it is suddenly framed as being bad because it prevents Sophie from being normal and having a normal life within the Lost Cities. I am very confused because has Shannon Messenger switched the reason as to why the Match is bad?

Do you think this practice must be abandoned? I do not think that it should be because the pros (ie. genetic health) outweigh the cons (ie. discrimination). I think what must be done is that Match Lists are integrated with Talented and Talentless people. Which person has what abilities would not be stated. Additionally, the personality questionnaire is removed because it is redundant. Additionally, on a societal level the two groups must also be integrated. Though there are students who end up being Talentless that go to Foxfire, once they leave they tend not to interact with Talented people because different professions are open to them. It has been shown in certain studies that people treat others more favourably if they consistently interact in their day to day life (ie. jobs, stores, get togethers). An example of an integrated society would be that the schools must allow students to continue their studies until the highest level, regardless of abilities. This would allow them to be apart of the nobility and actually have say in how Elvin society operates.

I remember you made a post about a hypothetical Talentless Stina and I must say that I agree. Her ascension to Regency would have sent shockwaves through the Elvin world and opened so many doors to people who did not have abilities.

I hope that in book nine and ten the Match plot line is addressed and laid to rest in a well thought out way.

I think some of the base concerns of the Match are sensible and are even a necessary feature of elven society, but that the rest of the reasoning and current implementation is harmful and need of reform.

This got long so I'll put my full thoughts under a cut, and there's a summary at the bottom :)

With a world where no one physically ages past early adulthood aside from their ears and everyone has an infinite lifespan, it really is all too easy to end up marrying a relative, as Edaline said. That's a reasonable thing to want to prevent and to create a system to control.

But when it gets to the genetic purity and trying to avoid the spread of certain genes, that's when I no longer agree with it. Pairing people up so they'll have the best genetic potential together for good future generations is questionable at best. It separates the Talentless from the Talented and is a system of such importance to them that anyone who goes against it is eternally scorned and shunned from their world, which is what needs redress.

I agree that the match shouldn't be completely abandoned! I think the service it provides in terms of ensuring you aren't marrying a potential family member is the primary benefit it provides and should be the focus of what they do. So I propose that instead of sticking with the Match as it currently is, there be a sort of genetic/family tree database that's readily accessible by the public so people can see how related or unrelated they are.

This would get rid of the personality questions as you suggested, and this system could integrate Talented and Talentless as well. After all, it would be a database for checking blood relations; that includes both sides. One question I've frequently had about the series is whether or not people who are Bad Matches can confirm whether or not they're related. For example, if you choose to become a bad match despite your lists, is it just accepted that the couple may be related? This way, even if you'd otherwise be a bad match (though in this system they wouldn't exist) you can access that knowledge.

You're correct; the elven world needs to work on integrating the two groups. I say work on integrating because it's going to be a slow process; just restructuring the match isn't going to be enough to shift people's views, and even the match change would only come after significant improvement and change. Consistent interaction like you mentioned would be one of those stepping stones towards things like this. Additionally, giving them an actual say in their world is important, which I think you've already provided an apt solution for. Continuation at Foxfire and entrance to the nobility would be a significant event.

I've answered this slightly out of order, but I think the Match being bad both because of the discrimination and because it doesn't let Sophie be normal are two things that can coexist and actually, I think, are related.

We're first introduced to it as something that Sophie thinks is bad but that doesn't immediately affect her; it affects her friend's parents and lives, but that's not her. So she can be more detached from the situation and view it as a social issue and something she things needs to be addressed. It others people and means they're treated as lesser, and that's what's bad about the system. But she can't do anything about it and is already incredibly out of place, so she doesn't give it much thought.

Then we learn she's unmatchable and now she hates the system for that. Now she's one of it's victims. And she doesn't want to be. Because as horrible as she knows the discrimination is, all she's ever wanted was to be normal. She wanted to stop hearing people's thoughts and stop standing out and just be a regular person. In the elven world, being a regular person means being matched. So despite how she fights back so often, a part of her desperately wants to be in on it all. She doesn't want to deal with match drama on top of everything else. She wants one part of her life that's drama-free.

So I think that Sophie being upset that she's unmatchable and isn't normal actually fits with the original introduction as to why it's bad. The Match is bad because people are discriminated against if they aren't a good match? If Sophie's unmatchable status gets out she'll be discriminated against because of it. The match prevents bad matches from living normal, accepted lives? Sophie won't have a normal, accepted life if she's unmatchable.

It connects, at least from what I can tell. There's the issue of the society at large, then the personal troubles Sophie experiences as a representation of that. But the problems appears to be the same. the way we're viewing it is what shifts.

Summary: I think the checking for relatives is a positive of the Match and should be maintained, it's the genetic purity parts that should be discarded. Talented and Talentless should be integrated, though that will take time. And I think the big criticism with it is how it alienates people and keeps them from living normal lives, something seen in both the macro and micro lenses of their world; Sophie's just one example.

I hope that answers your questions! of course I'm sure there's parts I've missed and things I haven't thought of, so I'm always open to hearing more. There may be other benefits to the match I'm forgetting to prioritize or methods that would be more efficient, etc. It's an interesting topic, to say the least

#kotlc #keeper of the lost cities #kotlc worldbuilding #quil's queries #darklit-sea #i've always thought that if the match is going to work as it is. there should at the very least be a way for those deciding to be bad #matches to at least confirm they're not related #so that's kinda the perspective I was bringing to this and prioritizing. if I overlooked something important in doing so please #feel free to bring it to my attention!#i feel like I've forgotten something which is why I'm saying this #but who knows #long post

15 notes · View notes

dearweirdme · 10 months

Note

What do you think was the overall reaction of both gp and fandoms about the taennie rumors after almost 3 months? Do you think mediaplay really worked? To whose advantage?

I think they received more negative reactions especially Jennie. I visited her IG and there were a lot of visible defamatory comments. Those are probably just trolls, but those are not really good for her image. You mentioned that they used the rumor to help Jennie with her Idol series venture, but she received even more backlash than ever after it, and everything just went downhill for her from then on- her song with Abel, Abel’s song Kpop, her lazy performances and poor attempt at redeeming herself giving excuses for her blunders, I think those were what she will be remembered of instead of being Tae’s gf.

As for Tae, he’s been so quiet apparently. Do you think being associated with Jennie would tamper his image and reputation? Is that why he’s not feeding the rumors?

Jennie seemed to be unbothered about it all, and so is Tae. I am just wondering what your perspective about this stunt is, like a conclusion or something.

Hi anon!

Mmm, a bit tricky to answer this right now.. because I'm not sure whether or not it's actually done yet. But for the sake of it, let's assume that it is.

I think it definitely brought Jennie what they wanted. It was never meant to polish her image, it was meant to bring her publicity and that it certainly did. Around Cannes all eyes were on her and The Idol. Every article that was about Tae and Jennie being spotted also mentioned The Idol. It was great publicity. The hate she got doesn't matter in that regard. Attention is attention. From Jennie's side this wasn't aimed at fandom, but it was to gather attention from a bigger audience, so that they would also watch her new series. Her fans were always going to watch it, so they didn't actually care about how they would react to it. Jennie has always gotten hate, from Blinks even. It has intensified a lot, but I think they expected that and I think they just took it in stride. The pro's heavily outweigh the con's in this case.

Jennie's real fans won't leave her for this. They will blame Tae for not standing up for her and just keep supporting her. Maybe she even gained some fans who were Teannies. And, I think this aided in her name being more widely known. Jennie was already big, but a supposed romance between a Kpop princess and a Kpop prince is bound to make you even more famous. I think that has been the aim from Jennie's side.

Jennie won't be remebered for being anyone's girlfriend, or for being the 'topic' of a song. Her legacy will be BlackPink, no matter who she dates, she is absolutely big enough for that.

For Tae I think things are a bit different, and it is possible that his side didn't like the way things were going. If nothing else happens (during his album release) he wouldn't have benefitted from this for a specific project, like Jennie has with The Idol. For him it did more for his overall image, people think he dates women because of this. It's also kept his name going around for the last few months, which might have been an intended side effect, but in general I feel this was to give him a veil of straightness. It would explain why he seems to have cooperated less than Jennie and why he has been seemingly distancing himself lately. All Tae did was show up at the Paris walk, while Jennie also fueled rumors (well, even that was only once... I think). Who knows what lyrics Tae's songs will contain? He will have a "straight" storyline for the ones who feel uncomfortable with queerness. It having been a very short stunt (not including the gurumi stuff) it won't have damaged his reputation or his image. Tae is lovely and he is loved a lot.. it would take a whole lot more for that to be destroyed. If nothing else happens, people will soon get over this and it will eventually be parked int he realm of "rumors".

So in general I think it did what it was supposed to do. It's going to be more clear after a while I think.

#taennope #pr relationships #pr stunt #media play

3 notes · View notes

black--sun · 1 year

Note

Is Ichigo actually still in his human body? does he consider that maybe he's in a gigai? or that his body has always been a gigai since birth? does he ever feel like his human body is gonna give out under the weight of his power?

@jaegersol

Is Ichigo actually still in his human body? does he consider that maybe he's in a gigai?

This is actually a really interesting concept, and I’ve heard it detailed out quite a few times. I personally do not hold to this idea, though, and I’ll tell you why.

Ichigo would have to either be ignorant of the body switch or he’d have to be okay with not being human anymore. Since Ichigo says repeatedly through the series that he’s human, I’m inclined to think that’s something that means a lot to him. He clearly does not believe he is no longer human. I mean. Maybe human is a state of mind. Which would move us on to the idea that someone replaced his body, and he’s simply ignorant of the switch. And this is squicky, but the most plausible reasoning I’ve heard. However, considering how proud Ichigo is of his humanity, this would be a rather large breech of trust. To remove his human body, effectively killing him, replace it without his knowledge, and then conceal that truth. That would be so very close to a betrayal. Which I think Ichigo would forgive. I can’t imagine it wouldn’t hurt him if he learned of it. That means to keep him ignorant, it would need to be concealed on a widespread basis. Bleach is full of a lot of smart people. I have a hard time thinking it would go unnoticed. But it’s still possible.

HOWEVER.

If he lost his humanity, the same logic that says he’s stronger for being a hybrid, would dictate that he would be weaker to lose any of those species. Ichigo is a Human, a Quincy, a Fullbringer, a Shinigami, a Hollow, and sometimes a Zanpakuto, as seen when he becomes Getsuga etc. His strength comes from being an amalgamation. His Human, Quincy, and Fullbringer sides are mortal. To become only Shinigami/Hollow would make him considerably weaker. And I know what you’re going to say, you’re going to say Ash, Ichigo’s Quincy powers go with him when he leaves his body. And that is correct, his Quincy abilities have merged with his Zanpakuto. Actually, they all end up merging into one. He is a special case. However, it doesn’t change the fact that Quincy are human and spiritual beings, they’re both.

I suppose since the body snatching and switch would’ve happened toward the beginning of the series, it could be argued that maybe he is in a gigai and he is weaker than he would’ve otherwise been, BUT that seems like quite a gamble for someone to make, and honestly, inefficient, sloppy work with no obvious benefit.

Also consider when we see him in the seventeen month time-skip, he’s still capable of awakening his Fullbring, which implies humanity. Now, a gigai can turn spirits into humans. We’ve seen it before, BUT why make him human or even imitate it when he was already human??? Inefficient. Sloppy.

I would need to see a long list of benefits for destroying his true body and replacing it with a fake body. Even a super powered gigai. Benefits that outweigh the potential loss of trust, considering he‘s basically being dehumanized at that point just so he’ll make a better weapon.

Also, while we’re speaking of the seventeen month time-skip—Ichigo was completely without his spiritual powers during that time. He would’ve been a plus soul in a gigai. I hope it’s making sense why this would be an awful, awful thing to do to him. He would be dead inside an artificial body. To be fair, he seemed as if he might feel that way. And it still wouldn’t be the worst thing that’s been done to him in the series. So. Still possible.

HOWEVER AGAIN.

It’s made clear toward the end of the arc that he’s considered a substitute Shinigami. His humanity is an important factor in this.

Umm, I could talk about how his human body, strengthened by his Quincy blood, would be ideal for what he puts it through, and might be responsible for his superhuman strength. Ishida wasn’t the only one to keep his Quincy abilities through the Auswahlen. Ichigo did as well. His Quincy blood isn’t weak or lesser than. It is an asset. Why remove it? Quincy power resonates in the soul and the body. A Quincy doesn’t need to remove their body to access their spiritual powers. His body is a benefit.

He also ages like a human. A Shinigami might age inside a gigai if it simulates humanity, but again, why bother simulating humanity? He was already human.

None of this is a definite yes or no. I could make an argument around it, because a lot of bleach lore is fluid. But there are more cons than pros to this theory.

As for what happens to Ichigo’s body when he’s outside of it, I’ve always imagined this to be something like an OBE, astral projection, and the like. The spirit leaves the body; the body is in a sleeping state. Obviously, that’s a problem if a spirit leaves long term, but if simple, un-spiritually aware humans can keep a body alive when it’s non-responsive, surely someone capable of making a fake body realistic enough to pass as a human could manage it. If not, there’s Kon. If that fails, Ichigo’s father is a literal doctor possessing literal doctor equipment. But let's be honest, these are not reliable people. They could’ve absolutely let him die. I’d believe it and someone needs to call child services.

or that his body has always been a gigai since birth?

To what purpose? Masaki was quite human. And according to Urahara, Isshin’s body was something of a shinigami-human hybrid while Masaki was alive. If Isshin couldn't work up enough DNA to pass on, Ichigo wouldn't exist.

does he ever feel like his human body is gonna give out under the weight of his power?

See above where I talked about his exceptional Quincy pedigree. He seems like he was having a harder time dealing with his exceptional power while in his spirit body. Remember Zangetsu's comments about him shaking because he couldn't handle the power of his bankai?

#jaegersol #tsp activity check #ahhh i hate answering questions #i always sound aggressive #im really not and open to counter-points #ooc #long post

2 notes · View notes

garudabluffs · 27 days

Text

youtube

Apr 18, 2024 Former top federal prosecutor, Shan Wu, debunks several misconceptions and falsehoods surrounding the Manhattan criminal case against Trump

3:07 recognize this case for what it is which

3:10 is that it's an election interference

3:11 case there are different reasons they

3:13 have trouble recognizing it for that but

3:16 let's review the basic facts there's a

3:19 plan by Trump and the national inquir to

3:22 quote catch and kill stories that could

3:24 have hurt his campaign back in

3:27 2016 Stormy Daniels the actress Andor

3:29 dor the model Karen McDougall were two

3:32 such stories that Trump's team deemed

3:35 potentially fatal to his election

3:37 because it was coming on the heels of

3:39 this Access Hollywood tape where as we

3:42 may recall he was caught bragging on

3:46 tape about being able to grab women by

3:48 the genitals without their consent

3:50 groping them kissing them now today it

3:53 may be a little bit hard to remember

3:55 just how shocking that story was back in

3:57 2016

4:00 that's because I think we've all become

4:01 so accustomed or numbed to Trump's

4:04 actions that he's normalized so much of

4:06 what used to be deemed completely

4:08 unacceptable or fatal to a politician's

4:11 chances but to give us an idea of just

4:14 how bad the tape really is the judge in

4:17 this case Juan Maran has ruled so far

4:20 that it can't even be played to the jury

4:23 the transcript can be shown but not the

4:25 actual video presumably the judge is

4:27 feeling that actually seeing and hearing

4:29 Trump in real time on the video saying

4:31 these things would be so prejudicial

4:34 about his character that would outweigh

4:35 any benefit in terms of evidence now I

4:38 don't agree with that decision but it

4:40 does convey just how bad an effect that

4:43 video can have on people and certainly

4:46 back in 2016 in the final weeks of the

4:48 election it would have and did send

4:51 Trump's team into a panic crisis control

4:54 mode now that likely motivated their

4:57 urgency behind paying stormy Daniel and

4:59 others to stay silent now remember the

5:02 crime isn't the payment of money I mean

5:05 you're allowed to pay somebody to be

5:06 quiet about something for example

5:08 through a non-disclosure agreement no

5:10 the crime is the fact that Trump

5:13 falsified business

5:15 records to conceal those payments to

5:17 disguise the real purpose of them they

5:20 were money spent obviously to further

5:22 his campaign chances but they weren't

5:24 reported that way so it's pretty

5:26 straightforward you can make a contract

5:28 with whoever you want and pay them for

5:30 confidential confidentiality and silence

5:33 but you can't then try to hide the

5:35 payments by falsifying business records

5:37 that's a crime and if the money is being

5:40 spent to help your campaign then you

5:42 need to disclose that under campaign

5:45 Finance laws because the whole point is

5:47 for there to be transparency in what's

5:49 really being spent on politicians

5:53 campaigns so let's take a look at

5:56 whether three well-known commentators

5:58 get this right

6:00 first up we have Professor Jonathan

6:02 Turley of George Washington University

6:04 law school you may remember him from the

6:06 impeachment procceedings here is what

6:09 Professor Turley had to say on Fox News

6:12 and let's take a listen I'll talk to you

6:14 on the other side in this case you're

6:16 taking this misdemeanor Reviving it

6:18 because it was dead suggesting a crime

6:21 that doesn't exist and then hitting

6:24 Trump with dozens of counts most

6:27 citizens at least outside New York see

6:30 that for what it is it's the

6:31 weaponization of the Criminal Justice

6:34 System a crime that doesn't exist what

6:37 does he talking about so first as far as

6:39 I can tell Professor Turley has never

6:41 worked in the prosecutor's office

6:43 although he did serve as an intern for

6:45 the Department of Homeland Security

6:46 before embarking upon a very

6:48 distinguished career as a law professor

6:51 but as a law professor he should know

6:54 that the crime of quote first-degree

6:55 falsifying business records under New

6:57 York law certainly exists

7:00 you might also think you would know that

7:02 it has been charged quite frequently by

7:04 the Manhattan DA's office how frequently

7:08 well in fact from 2014 to 2023 it's been

7:12 charged some 10,000 times so that's a

7:15 lot of existence if you ask me and

7:18 that's something you can look up

7:20 yourself as to just how many times it's

7:22 actually been charged then there's

7:25 Professor Robert Hassen a UCLA law

7:28 professor and he's an expert on Election

7:30 law as well as campaign Finance he

7:33 writes in the Los Angeles Times that

7:35 it's hard to muster even a me over

7:38 Trump's New York criminal trial his

7:40 words they're headline in support of

7:42 this the election law scholar says and I

7:45 quote although the New York case gets

7:48 packaged as election interference

7:50 failing to report a campaign finance

7:52 payment is small potatoes in terms of

7:55 campaign Finance crimes willfully not

7:58 reporting expenses

8:00 to cover up an affair isn't interfering

8:03 with an election along the same lines of

8:05 trying to get a secretary of state to

8:06 falsify vote totals or trying to get a

8:09 state legislature to falsely declare

8:11 there was fraud in the state and submit

8:13 an alternative State slates of the

8:16 electors so he thinks that you can draw

8:19 a distinction between the kinds of

8:21 crimes here he writes there's a fairly

8:24 bright line between attempting to change

8:26 vote totals to flip a presidential

8:29 election

8:30 and failing to disclose embarr

8:32 embarrassing information on the

8:34 government form if every campaign

8:37 Finance disclosure violation is the

8:39 election interference our system is Rife

8:41 with it end of his quote so let's think

8:44 about what this election law scholar is

8:47 implying he's saying don't bother to

8:50 prosecute election law violations

8:52 because it's done all the time that's

8:54 the kind of moral relevan ISM that buys

8:57 you corruption and dictatorships

9:00 but even the professor's own internal

9:02 logic doesn't make any sense when you

9:04 read through his full

9:06 opinion because after putting down

9:09 Trump's actions as quote Small Potatoes

9:12 he then references the charging of

9:14 former Senator John Edwards as an

9:16 example of a failed campaign Finance

9:19 violation prosecution presumably he

9:21 thinks it failed because it's not really

9:23 important to prosecute campaign Finance

9:25 violations John Edwards was not a small

9:28 potato case Edwards was a former

9:32 presidential candidate and the former

9:34 Democratic Vice Presidential

9:36 nominee I've been at a high level in the

9:39 Justice Department I served as the

9:41 council to the attorney general I can

9:42 tell you there would have been a lot of

9:45 careful consideration before bringing a

9:47 case like that now by the way do you

9:50 know who was the prosecutor who tried

9:52 the John Edwards case Jack Smith yep the

9:55 same Jack Smith who has brought charges

9:58 against Trump as a special counsel for

10:01 election interference and mishandling of

10:03 classified

10:05 documents now Professor hasson's closing

10:07 argument is the following he says quote

10:11 anything less than a felony conviction

10:13 would only embolden Trump he has already

10:15 convinced a chunk of Republican voters

10:18 that all the claims against them are a

10:19 Witch Hunt a hung jury or quiddle or

10:22 even a conviction on minor charges would

10:25 only feed the lie that all the

10:27 indictments he's racked up are bogus end

10:29 of his quote I'm sorry but the fear of

10:33 losing is not the way to dispense

10:35 Justice prosecutors should charge the

10:38 crimes that the evidence

10:42 proves now last

10:44 up the Washington Post columnist Ruth

10:47 Marcus who did go to law school although

10:49 she doesn't practice law she entitles

10:52 her piece quote why did this semi Trump

10:56 trial have to be the first unquote

11:00 in a lot of ways that headline says it

11:02 all Marcus's Pearl clutching perspective

11:05 on the case now what strikes me about

11:08 her opinion piece it's not really the

11:10 faulty legal analysis because she

11:11 doesn't really do any legal analysis she

11:14 speculates about how a jury might hang

11:17 she writes quote so the case will go

11:20 forward starting Monday but it's not

11:22 hard to imagine that jurors could B it

11:25 just takes one to produce a hung jury

11:28 had shoehorning Trump's payments to

11:30 Daniels however odious into the

11:33 tangential crime of falsifying business

11:35 records which was outlawed to ensure

11:38 that New York citizens businesses and

11:40 investors could rely on the financial

11:43 accuracy of Corporations operating in

11:45 the

11:45 state how were voters harmed by false

11:49 bookkeeping entries they never saw now

11:52 holding aside the fact that that's so

11:53 wordy she should be teaching law

11:55 actually here's the answer to the

11:57 question voters were harmed because

11:59 there is a violation of campaign Finance

12:01 laws which are meant to keep campaigns

12:04 transparent that's how they're harmed

12:07 this is hardly insightful legal analysis

12:10 any jury can hang everybody knows that

12:12 she also goes on to try to give her

12:15 expert views on Michael Cohen as a

12:17 witness that's Trump's former lawyer and

12:20 she writes moreover a key witness in the

12:23 case Cohen is a Serial admitted and

12:26 convicted liar perhaps one reason

12:28 Federal prosecutors did not pursue the

12:30 election case against Trump in early

12:33 2021 Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to

12:37 Congress and she writes when he tried to

12:39 get his sentence reduced prosecutors

12:41 resisted arguing he had lied to them in

12:43 his interviews after promising to

12:45 cooperate most recently a federal judge

12:47 denying Cohen's bid to be released from

12:49 Court supervision said Cohen had

12:52 admitted lying under oath when he plead

12:54 guilty to tax evasion unquote okay so

12:57 what is she really telling us to do we

12:58 all understand understand Cohen pled

13:00 guilty we all understand that he's going

13:02 to be cross-examined over that but she

13:05 adds quote in short Cohen is a defense

13:08 lawyer's dream

13:10 unquote as a former prosecutor I beg to

13:12 differ I've also been a defense lawyer

13:14 Cohen is not a defense lawyer's dream

13:17 even though he's talked a lot publicly

13:19 about his views on Donald Trump he has

13:22 never wavered from the basic facts that

13:25 formed the evidence of the payment to

13:27 Stormy Daniels that was covered up

13:30 no what's striking to me about Marcus's

13:33 point of view is the sense you get from

13:35 her that important cases can't involve

13:38 anything she deems to be quote SEI and

13:42 while it might be a pet peeve of mine I

13:44 don't like her throwing around the term

13:45 porn star that way for a couple reasons

13:49 it reminds me of when I prosecuted sex

13:51 crimes cases how there was a built-in

13:53 prejudice against investigating or

13:55 Prosecuting sex crimes involving victims

13:59 who were involved in any kind of sex

14:01 work or ones who might have been

14:02 trafficked think about it this way

14:05 imagine that Marcus says this beist

14:08 actor as though the fact that an actor

14:10 is a quote beist actor means that

14:12 they're going to make a lousy witness of

14:15 course using the term porn star is a lot

14:16 more pejorative but you get the idea

14:19 what should count is really whether or

14:22 not the strength of the evidence The

14:25 credibility of the person testifying is

14:27 going to be strong that's what you need

14:29 to judge them on not the kind of work

14:32 that they do you might get an idea of

14:35 where Marcus stands on these kinds of

14:37 issues when you take a listen to what

14:39 she talked about with regard to the

14:42 district attorney in Fulton County

14:44 fonnie Willis you might recall that

14:47 Willis was the victim in my opinion of

14:49 quite a smear campaign and trying to get

14:51 her disqualified let's take a listen to

14:53 what Ruth excuse me what Ruth Marcus had

14:56 to say about that fonny Willis

14:58 disqualification effort

14:59 I'll talk to you on the other side

15:00 Behavior by a prosecutor I'm sure lots

15:03 of people watched fonnie Willis and

15:05 thought you go girl I watched it and I

15:08 cringed this is not the kind of

15:11 information and behavior and

15:14 observations that we want to hear from

15:16 our prosecutors I thought um she in one

15:20 sense stood up to Donald Trump and his

15:24 allies but she really well she'll

15:27 survive this episode in terms of

15:29 disqualification I thought she really

15:31 tarnished herself so Ruth Marcus cringed

15:35 not at the racist sexist smear campaign

15:38 against fonnie Willis but about Willis

15:40 defending herself you kind of get the

15:42 sense that maybe for her the only proper

15:44 cases prosecutions or cases at all are

15:47 ones she thinks are prim and proper the

15:52 real problem with all three of these

15:54 points of view is that it reflects one

15:57 of the big sources of Injustice within

15:59 our criminal justice system and that's

16:02 the misuse of prosecutorial discretion

16:05 and the misuse of really law enforcement

16:08 discretion prosecutors get to choose

16:11 which cases they bring and too often

16:14 opinions like those being expressed by

16:16 turle Hassen and Marcus have factored

16:19 into those decisions sometimes it's

16:21 conscious sometimes it's unconscious but

16:23 the result is it Shields the powerful

16:26 from accountability oh it may come

16:29 masked as this is too novel a legal

16:31 Theory to try which really means we're

16:33 afraid of the embarrassment of losing a

16:34 high-profile case and it also can mask a

16:38 fear of losing because the person

16:40 they're going against is a celebrity

16:42 type personality interestingly the DJ

16:45 manual Express expressly flags that as

16:48 an improper reason to decline a case

16:51 prosecutors can't be afraid to take on a

16:54 popular personality or to take on a

16:57 unpopular cause

16:59 it's the justice that counts it's not a

17:02 popularity

17:03 contest whenever these kinds of excuses

17:06 materialize what it almost always means

17:09 is that the privileged and Powerful are

17:12 being protected at the expense of the

17:15 rest of

17:15 us so I'm Shan woo this has been a hot

17:18 take on underc color of law as the Trump

17:21 trial is getting underway I look forward

17:23 to hearing your comments and suggestions

17:25 keep those comments coming I really

17:27 appreciate the input see you soon enough

17:30 send him to the big house not the White

17:33 House get the new exclusive te's mugs

17:35 and stickers right now at store.us

17:38 touch.com that's store. mightest

17:40 touch.com

277 Comments

#Trump #trials #Youtube

0 notes