#punctuation is fundamental | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

confessedlyfannish · 7 months

Text

DP x DC Prompt #4

When they all convene at the cave, Alfred is silently wrapping Dick's knuckles. Damian hovers beside him. Tim and Barbara are hunched over the batcomputer, not even sparing Bruce a glance as he strides over.

"Report," Batman grunts. No one reacts.

"Report!"

"Hood pushed his panic button at 2:34 AM," Barbara says shortly, straightening.

The button had been a joke, mostly because Jason would never use it and everyone knew it.

"I patched into his comm at 2:35. This is what I heard initially." At her nod, Tim presses play. What occurs next is a garble. There is the sound of high winds, as if Hood is rushing through the air, even though the comms are designed to filter out any ambiance otherwise the Bats would never hear each other. Interspersed is a mixture of static punctuated by high, inhuman screeches of metal and something else unknown.

"This goes on," Barbara says after thirty long seconds, switching it off. "Red Hood failed to respond to any attempts at contact. I dispatched Nightwing to Hood's location at 2:36 AM. He was approximately two miles away." She pulls up a GPS map of their respective locations, their beacons blinking.

"At 2:41 AM, Red Hood's comm goes off, as does his GPS," Barbara says, swallowing softly as the red beacon indicating Jason disappears. "Nightwing arrives at 2:42 AM."

Dick doesn't say anything, head hanging low as he grips the metal table he sits on. Damian glances between the two of them, expression flat but fists clenched.

"Nightwing, report."

"..."

"Scene was empty, B," Tim speaks up. "No trace of Hood, no sign of a struggle. No cameras in the alley. We've been checking the ones nearby but so far there's no sign of anyone but Hood heading in that direction...and no one, Hood included, caught in the cams heading out, not within that time frame."

"So he's still in the area," Batman concludes. "The local buildings?"

"All the entrances have cameras, which showed no evidence of Hood nor any evidence of being tampered with," Barbara says. "Nightwing, Red Robin and Robin canvased within a half mile radius to check for any signs of disturbances in any of the windows or rooftops but found no evidence to support Hood being taken. A scan confirmed several serial offenders, but when interviewed and searched there was no sign of Hood. Several in the area reported an unusual quiet for Crime Alley."

Batman forces the next question out. "Did you check the dumpsters?"

"Yes," Nightwing grits out. "Empty."

Barbara clears her throat. "I have attempted to reconnect to Jason's GPS and comm as well as restart both remotely but there's no signal at all. The thing is, when there's a disruption like that it usually leaves some sort of sign" she pulls up the audio waves, pointing at the end where the spikes conform into a straight line that makes everyone deeply uncomfortable. Upon playing, the noise from before plays before going abruptly silent. "But there is no large spike, this is clean. It just ends. His GPS is much the same. It's not off, it's just gone."

"I know you don't like to hypothesize this early on, B, but we think this involves a meta," Tim says, rewinding the audio. "We've been running the audio from Jason's comm through different filters, playing with the levels and isolating what we can and, well, take a listen--"

The screeching drops to a sort of muffle and in the background, distantly, they can hear bits of Jason's voice.

"No, I'm not---"

"--don't need--"

"get AWAY from--"

a particularly desperate yell that makes Tim flinch, "I am NOT--!"

and almost a whimper that makes Batman's blood run cold, "please..."

And then, unfairly clear even through the faint garble, Jason says "I don't have a choice, do I."

And a minute later, quietly: "Ok."

The audio cuts off.

The defeat in Jason's last words is palpable, and fundamentally wrong. Jason has never sounded defeated a day in his life, and no one knows how to process Red Hood all but giving his hands over for the cuffs. Nightwing pushes himself off the table.

"I'm going back out there," he growls. No one tries to stop him as he stalks out the cave, not even Alfred.

"I will accompany Nightwing, make sure he does not punch any more walls." Damian says, nodding tightly.

"B?" Barbara asks.

"Keep working on it. See if you can identify what could be making those noises if Hood was standing still in an alley," Batman says, walking towards the zeta tube. "I'm going to make a few calls."

#batman #danny: how do i take this incredibly volatile vigilante that shoots first talks later and scares the crap outta me to a doctor #danny: I scaRE HIM HARDER #danny phantom #red hood #nightwing #red robin #dp x dc #oracle #dp x dc au #batfam #dp x dc prompt #dp x dc crossover

4K notes · View notes

iridescentscarecrow · 5 months

Text

what frustrates me about fandom interpretations of makima as a one note Source of evil, apart from the fact that the manga itself refutes this, is that her character haunts and ties together so much of part two that it's impossible to fully understand without understanding her.

makima isn't ever a unilateral antagonistic force. she's an agent of the institutional evil that looms over all of CSM. she's in as much a commentary on gender and performance of gender as denji is.

and fjmt in part two enacts the "haunting the narrative" trope in such an interesting manner because you see flashes of makima in every female character. you see elements of her diluted into, most visibly, the characters of asa, nayuta and fumiko.

in asa, i see makima in that yearning for connection. i see her in the way that asa herself is fundamentally unable to approach the relationship of equals that she so desperately desires, partly due to her own social awkwardness but also because of yoru's threat: everyone she gets close to turns into a weapon. the fundamental inequality to human relationships that makima is unable to overcome.

during the aquarium date, you see asa echo makima again and again in lines that evoke makima's purposing of denji. that weaponising. "i'll grant you any request / save me chainsaw man! / you don't have to think about a thing."

and her connection with denji also founds itself upon this. yoshida talks to asa about parasocial relationships -- rerendering makima's idealisation of the CSM in how asa sees denji as a love interest. asa and denji parallel each other so organically in their gendered suppression and portrusion of desire. it's a punctuation of denji's search for intimacy that's mirrored by makima's in part one. exploring how asa is different from makima is perhaps the most intriguing part of this reflection though: an example being the way asa overthinks her outfit for her date with denji while makima seamlessly models herself into an Effortless woman.

[it's not like asa borrows just from makima. for example, there are things to be said about the way she views her Body (as compared with reze and quanxi) but examining how mkm's character bleeds into asaden is quite compelling.]

nayuta being the most visible remnant of what makima was is also interesting because makima herself appears so little in nayuta beyond the surface. nayuta's role as the control devil is hinted at frequently as is her appearance resembling makima's

but her and denji's dynamic more often echoes the hayakawa family and pochita than anything else. consider: aki giving up his goal (his 'easy revenge' that he finally sees for what it is) for the sake of his family, that warmth of blood and platonic bodily intimacy that power embodies--

it's all referenced to again with nayuta and denji, in direct panel callbacks and the plot itself! nayuta is The Family that makima constructs for denji in part one to pull him along the plot she prepares. i'm thinking about how makima is an allegory for capitalism. and what the family unit means in a capitalistic structure. the propagation of an ideal that hinges on birth and descendancy, about narrative and reproduction of narrative, about how nayuta births herself from makima and denji's relationship.

and this is also why nayuta herself exerts so much control over denji in the plot, as well as why she's used as a piece to control him. in part one, family was used to create the Chainsaw Man from denji. in part two, it's used to make denji abandon the Chainsaw Man, this icon that the church and the public now take possession of. [something something alienation of the worker from the product. from the collective. from the self.]

fumiko is perhaps the hardest to pin down here because her role evolves as the fandomisation of the Chainsaw Man evolves too. in fact, as a denji fan, she represents not just makima but multiple people who see something in and want something from denji! (think of how she references reze in her highlighting how denji is just a child; how reze uses her commentary on denji to engage with her Self. it's fandomisation,,, and what is makima but Chainsaw Man's fan?)

fumiko most obviously calls back to these wants and their conceptualisation of denji in the raw sexual violence that the events in the theater scene moving into the karaoke scene embody. the undercurrent of sa that runs through p1 and p2 is brought to the forefront in this scene -- denji falling back into these cycles of abuse, him slipping into habitating the wants of others (his initial horrified expression and then his grin during the fight. his initial inner monologue and then the cut to him licking the tentacle.)

so much of CSM rests on this fandom of denji, this theme of what production and idealisation means, one you can trace through fjmt's body of work. and this fandom reaches its crescendo in p2. what's even more interesting about fumiko is her pathos under this layer. her seeing denji as denji at some level but in the end, her handling of him is so selfish. her echoing makima's uninhibited laughter at the horror of denji's situation, her predatory cruelty. denji simultaneously humanised and dehumanised through her fandom.

fjmt's characters exist as foils, as parallels and ideas. makima's character has such a stranglehold over part one and these ideas run over into part two naturally -- as a consequence of denji being a reciever of these themes, but also deliberately in fjmt evoking the Thing that is makima repetitively -- to underscore the forever re emerging structure that denji and now asa are trapped in. the same structure that makima produced and was simultaneously caged by.

#csm #also ahaha this was written pre csm 150 and then they drop those lines on family. okay. sooo good #chainsaw man #denji #makima #asa mitaka #csm part 2 #huuge thanks to my friend wingdings banger thoughts on fumiko #crow.txt #csm meta #csm 150

492 notes · View notes

verynearherequeer · 9 months

Text

Why I love the Good Omens 2 ending

Alright, this is going to be a very unpopular opinion at the moment (or maybe it won’t, I don’t know), but I thought the ending to GO2 was perfect and I loved it.

My favourite part being, Crowley finally putting his foot down and telling Aziraphale no.

We’ve seen him disagree with Aziraphale a million times: holy water fight, bandstand, soho street quarrel, you get it. But without fail, every single time, Crowley has been the one to chase his angel and apologise. When they fight they dont talk and without Aziraphale there is no point to anything: see post bookshop fire pub breakdown.

Does this mean Crowley was always in the wrong? No. Not even close.

But they exist together, one intrinsically good, the other supposedly bad. That is their dynamic, has been for 6000 years. Aziraphale is always right (he isn't) and therefore Crowley must always be wrong.

So, what do I love about this scene? Yes, its gut wrenching, I was an absolute wreck while watching it. But I love it.

Crowley is right, Aziraphale doesn’t seem to understand exactly what he is offering, but Aziraphale has good intentions and is clearly devastated that Crowley doesn’t seem to get it. That isn’t enough though.

Aziraphale has taken Crowley’s loyalty for granted (not on purpose, obviously), but again that dynamic is highlighted: ‘I am an angel, you are a demon.’ In this scene even, it becomes clear that to some degree Aziraphale still associates Crowley with Hell: ‘You’re the bad guys.’

On top of that, Aziraphale is asking Crowley to change a fundamental part of himself. Crowley is a demon, the being that has come to know and love Aziraphale, he is a demon. From Crowley’s point of view, Aziraphale is asking him to turn a blind eye to everything he’s had to learn after being cast out, become again, part of what they both (as a group of the two of them) fought so hard to be free of.

Crowley has always loved Aziraphale because Aziraphale saw through Heaven, knew deep down that drowning the entire population and justifying it by calling it ineffable was really fucking weird. He loves Aziraphale because his angel loves books and food, has his own thoughts, is funny and a bastard.

Aziraphale wants them to leave Earth together, but Earth is what made Aziraphale and Crowley who they are, defined how they exist and interact together.

To Crowley, Aziraphale going back to Heaven is like going back to square one.

So, he tells him no, and means it, punctuating his answer with an emotional (and very rough) kiss that really seemed to be saying ‘this is what you’re choosing to leave behind.’

If Aziraphale chose Heaven over him again, Crowley was not going to make it easy.

#good omens #goodomens #good omens 2 #go2 #aziracrow #ineffable husbands #neil gaiman #good omens season 2

758 notes · View notes

neo-my-geo · 6 months

Text

Hey gang, it’s your old pal Neo here. If you know me, it’s probably from one of the several very stupid TF2 comics I’ve posted to Tumblr.

However! I am also an English major (unfortunately). One who has read millions of words worth of fanfiction in their life. I have been part of the Sherlock, BNHA, Disco Elysium, and, of course, TF2 fandoms; I’ve been around the block.

The further I’ve progressed into my English education, the more I’ve noticed which mistakes are the most common in fanfiction. Many of them are easily fixable; writers just need to be pointed in the right direction.

“Neo! Does this mean you think people shouldn’t be allowed to post their works online without a background in formal English education?”

Of course not! I can explain why if you’d care to venture below the cut with me!

Yes, I will explain how to use commas.

It’s important to note that this is NOT a post about formal writing. You aren’t writing an essay. Please, for the love of god, do not write fiction like you’re writing an essay.

There are no stakes to writing fanfic. No one is going to get hurt if an author doesn’t know what a dangling participle is. One of my favourite things about fanfiction is that it’s one of the only art forms left that’s done exclusively for fun! You should write what you enjoy, and share what you make with like-minded people.

What I want to do is provide assistance as best I can to writers who want to improve their fundamentals without having to take the same university courses I did. Nobody is going to be getting a formal education to write fanfiction unless they’re ridiculously dedicated, and I’m not expecting that of anyone.

The point I need to stress is that knowing these grammar fundamentals can instantly improve the flow of your writing. Punctuation is a ridiculously important tool for writers, ESPECIALLY in fiction. Commas, semicolons, and full stops (including periods, exclamation points, and question marks) steer the pacing in the reader’s mind; did you notice how your brain stopped for a second after that semicolon? I can show you how to do that.

You may be wondering why I’m going through so much effort to teach all of this to strangers on the internet. The answer is that I enjoy sharing this knowledge with others and helping them grow. By seeing this, my goal is to help you become more proficient at self-editing. Showing this to people who actually want to learn will, hopefully, benefit the community as a whole, and I think that’s very worth it.

Also, while this post is obviously themed around TF2, the points I’m making can be applied to any fiction. Grammar is for everyone, and the church of the semicolon always has room for more initiates.

Also also, as an edit, I should clarify that this is meant to cover the more objective facets of self-editing, which is why I'm mostly covering punctuation. Maybe I'll do another post about using adjectives someday.

With that out of the way, let’s get going!

I’ve teamed up with several English teachers (real ones! One of which may or may not be my mom!) and an editor to gather a list of the most common problems we see in amateur fiction. This post is going to be split into three broad sections: apostrophes, commas/semicolons, and other common problems.

The apostrophe

This section is short, but it holds weight. Other than commas, apostrophes are the most typoed grammatical tool in any fanfiction I’ve edited. This is because, much like the rest of English, the rules surrounding them can be annoying and inconsistent.

Apostrophes have two main uses: possessives and conjunctions.

A possessive is a word that denotes the ownership of one thing over another. The vast majority of the time, this is done using an apostrophe and an S.

There is, however, one glaring exception to this rule, and it’s the bane of my existence.

When denoting possession of an object over something else while using the pronoun ‘it,’ you do NOT add an apostrophe before the S.

A conjunction, on the other hand, is when a writer uses an apostrophe to combine two words. The following are examples of common conjunctions:

What’s (what is)

They’re (they are)

It’s (it is)

Conjunctions are not often used in formal writing. Thankfully, we aren’t dealing in formal writing. Go crazy.

Time for a lightning round of the most commonly mistaken for each other possessives and conjunctions!

Your is possessive. You’re is a conjunction of ‘you’ and ‘are.’ When you can’t decide which one to use, imagine replacing it with ‘you are’ and seeing if it makes sense. If it doesn’t, use your.

Their is possessive. There indicates a location. They’re is a conjunction of ‘they’ and ‘are.’

The comma and the semicolon

You knew it was coming. I knew it was coming. It’s time to talk about commas.

Commas and semicolons are far and away the biggest grammatical hole in the toolset of fanfiction writers everywhere. They’re often treated like the rules surrounding them are complicated and difficult to understand, but the exact opposite is true!

The big issue I’ve heard time and time again is that the rules of commas are often explained through metaphor instead of example; this means that writers everywhere have slightly different ideas of how you’re supposed to use them. The fact of the matter is that, yes, there are correct and incorrect ways to use commas. Knowing when they’re appropriate and when they aren’t is easily the fastest way to bring your writing from looking amateurish to sounding professional and experienced.

In order to know how to use a comma, you must first understand the difference between a dependent and an independent clause.

An independent clause is a section of writing that functions perfectly well as its own sentence. It MUST have both a subject and an action/verb.

A sentence without an independent clause is known as a fragment, and they’re the bane of English teachers with highlighters everywhere.

A dependent clause is a section of writing that does not have both a subject and an action; it does not function as its own sentence.

Now, let’s say you want to combine the two. When joining a dependent clause to an independent clause, the order in which they are placed is crucial to whether you use a comma or not.

When joining a dependent to an independent with the independent clause first, you do not need to use a comma.

When joining a dependent to an independent with the dependent clause first, you MUST use a comma.

Keep in mind that, if one strives for total grammatical perfection, all narrative sentences MUST have an independent clause. This, however, does not apply to dialogue. Human beings do not think about whether what they’re saying is a dependent clause, and neither would the vast majority of fictional characters. Don’t be afraid to break the rules of grammar as long as it’s contained within quotation marks.

Alright, that’s the easy part. Time to learn about joining two independent clauses. It’s semicolon time, baby!

If you join two independent clauses without properly using a comma or a semicolon, it is a run-on sentence. You do not want these in your writing. They’re awkward to read and mess up the flow.

When joining two independent clauses, you can use EITHER a comma or a semicolon. You just need to follow these rules:

If you’re joining two independent clauses with a comma, you MUST use a joining word (and, but, so, etc.) AFTER the comma.

If you’re joining two independent clauses with a semicolon, you do NOT need to use a joining word.

Did you know that a sentence with a comma counts as its own independent clause? This means that you can make a sentence that includes a mix of both without it being a run-on! Just make sure that, no matter what, the semicolon is between two independent clauses.

Still, try not to write more than two clauses in a sentence too often. Sentences with a lot of punctuation are very attention-grabbing, but shouldn’t be overused. Full stops aren’t your enemy and variety is the spice of life.

It’s also important to remember that you should avoid using more than one comma in a clause (with the exception of the rule below). That part loops back to the 'avoiding run-ons' bit.

It’s really that easy!

Commas are also used in informal writing to inject a separate thought or descriptor mid-sentence without breaking the flow by adding a period. This is often used when describing the perspective of a character experiencing something in a story, but not (usually) when using omniscient perspectives.

The final issue I frequently see with commas in fanfiction is in regards to dialogue. Sometimes you end it with them, and sometimes you don’t. What gives?

Well, my friend, the answer is, thankfully, much simpler than the previous section.

When following dialogue with a dialogue tag, use a comma instead of a full stop. If you’re continuing the previous sentence after the tag, use a comma after it as well.

Note that a dialogue tag is a short phrase that identifies the speaker. It isn’t a complete sentence on its own.

When following dialogue with an action that does not serve as a dialogue tag, use a full stop instead of a comma.

Other common problems

This section is dedicated to putting specific grammatical errors into words, along with how to solve them.

Not sticking to the chosen point of view

Always choose your point of view before you start. Is it in the first, second, or third person? Is it omniscient or limited? Does the point of view switch during the story?

First person perspective is told as if the POV character is directly describing their experience to the reader. The character uses I and we to describe their own actions.

Second person perspective is told as if the reader is a character in the story and their actions are being described to them. This is the rarest, and the most difficult to write.

Third person perspective is the most common and the simplest to write. The events of the story are a separate entity from the reader altogether and the narrator uses they/he/she/it pronouns for characters.

Omniscient perspective means the narrator of the story knows all, including the thoughts and feelings of each character.

Limited perspective means the narrator of the story only knows what the POV character knows.

Past and present tense

When you decide between writing a story in past or present tense, it is crucial that you do not switch between them unless it is narratively intentional. Reading a past tense story that mistakenly switches to the present tense is like being pulled out of the room someone is telling a story in and suddenly taking part in it yourself. It’s disorienting and gives the reader unwanted pause.

Overly-long paragraphs

A common adage spread by English teachers is that most paragraphs should be at least eight sentences long. This is great advice for beginner essays. You’re writing fiction.

If you have a new thought, start a new paragraph! A concise and well-read single-sentence paragraph is infinitely better than one that drags a thought for too long. Aim to have a blend of paragraph lengths when you write, alternating between the descriptive and the punctual.

Dangling participles

A dangling participle is when a word is used to describe a noun that isn’t actually present in the sentence. Much like how a sentence without an action isn’t grammatically correct, neither is a sentence without a subject.

Malapropisms

A malapropism is when an author mistakenly uses one word or phrase instead of another similar-sounding one. I’m not about to list every single malapropism ever made, but these are the ones I notice most often:

To comprehend is to understand something, to apprehend is to arrest someone, and to be apprehensive is to be anxious or fearful of something bad happening.

Could care less means you do care. Couldn’t care less means you don’t.

A lot means a large amount of something. Alot isn’t a word and you shouldn’t use it.

The only real solution to using malapropisms is to make sure you fully understand any words you use in your writing. Never guess, and make sure you always google it. Having beta readers also helps.

If you made it this far, congratulations! You now know the most common errors in amateur fiction and how to solve them! Thank you for listening to me complain for two thousand words.

The most important thing to remember is that it’s okay to make mistakes. First drafts are always gonna be a little bad. The real key to success is knowing what your end goal is, and how you plan on achieving it. Here’s hoping this was a helpful tool for that!

Shoutout to @salmonandsoup for helping me think of the list of issues to address! You're a real one. Also shoutout to my mom, who doesn't have Tumblr. Also the third person. You know who you are.

#grammarposting #tf2 #grammar #educational shitpost #writing #fanfic #fanfiction #writing advice #fanfiction writing advice #team fortress 2 #tf2 fanfiction #bro your participle is dangling

224 notes · View notes

vampkaashis-wife · 1 year

Text

Osamu’s latest fidgety habit is twisting his wedding band around his finger - an expensive piece of jewelry he bought for himself alongside a matching piece for you. He still can’t believe it. The simple band of metal is a testament to a life he spent years building. While he would never call it perfect, he’s fairly certain that he would do it the same if he ever had the chance.

Even with the Olympics several years behind him, he sometimes thinks about what it would be like, playing on the global stage with Atsumu. He thinks about what it would be like if he had joined MSBY too, or if he’d joined the Adlers. He wonders if he’d choose to play with Sunarin or Aran instead.

Today, though, he’s thinking about a different possibility.

The possibility of you saying no to his marriage proposal and walking away entirely.

It was a very near thing, he remembers. He remembers staring at the wall, day after day, the reflections of the ring scattered along the walls. Disappearing when he closed the box again.

“Babe?” he calls into the kitchen where you’re doing dishes. The TV is on in the living room, and you glance up every now and then to keep up with the plot, yelling What happened? every time a commotion occurs and you missed it. He never knows why you do this. He said he could wait until all chores were done to start the movie, but you insist.

“What? Did I miss something?” you call, both soapy hands busy with a pot. Your sleeves are slipping down your arms again, and Osamu pauses the movie. “Samu, no! Don’t pause it.”

He laughs. “Your sleeves,” he says simply, coming up behind you to pull them back up your arms. The motion is punctuated with a kiss to your cheek. “Are you happy?”

“You know I hate doing dishes.”

“And yet, you do them anyway.”

“Would you rather I create a beacon for the roaches? That’s unsanitary. I need to call whoever does the inspections at the shop; clearly, we’re all missing something here.”

The shop. You say it so simply, as if Onigiri Miya isn’t one of the biggest parts of your lives now and for the last few years. “You’re the roach,” he says. “Can’t get rid of you if I tried.”

“Don’t lie, Samu. You wouldn’t ever try to get rid of me, therefore, I cannot possibly be a roach.” After a pause, you add, “And Akaashi-san likes me, so I also can’t be a roach. He hates those. Now get off me, you’re in the way.”

He knows you’ve missed the question, but he’s sure he knows the answer all the same. A year ago, you shared a kitchen in tense silence, a fundamental unhappiness permeating the air. A year ago, you tried to throw all this away - through no fault of your own. It had been an awful time for you both as you transitioned out of student life and into the next thing, and yet…

“Babe?”

“Yes?”

“I love you.”

In quick motions, you put up the final bowl you washed, rinsing around the sink before dangling your wet hands in it to keep the floor dry. You twist a little to look at the man next to you. “I know. I love you too.”

Before he can say anything even more pathetic and lovestruck, your phone rings. Shaking your hands off, you locate your phone. Samu watches you frown before drying your hands and picking it up. He knows who it is before you even say it. “Hey, Dad.”

There it is, another one of the winds you always summon. They’re less of a hurricane than they used to be, though. More of a strong beach wind. He finishes cleaning up the kitchen while you’re on the phone, although there’s not much left to clean.

He’s proud of you, he thinks. Proud of himself, too, but mostly of you. The first year of marriage isn’t easy, but after planning and executing such a large scale event with and emotionally drained you and your tense family, he thinks you’ll be alright. You smile more now, he realizes. You have more to say about, well, everything.

Then his phone rings. Atsumu. “What do you want?” he calmly asks his phone.

Atsumu immediately starts chattering into his phone. It’s hard to hear him over the crowd in the background. “Oi! Pick me up.”

“Where? Why?”

“Afterparty after we beat EJP. Sunarin forgot about me and went home first.”

“Shitty of him.”

“Yeah, well. He’s a shithead.”

“Couldn’t you ask someone else?”

“Samu!” he whines in a truly atrocious voice. Osamu pinches the bridge of his nose as his twin keeps talking. “You hate me!”

“I don’t hate you.” Osamu sighs. “I’m not anywhere near Osaka, idiot. I wouldn’t be able to make it there for a few hours. I don’t want you to wait that long, not if you’re drunk enough to be calling for a ride home.”

A pause.

“Oh yeah. I meant to call Omi. I’m not drunk, by the way.”

“How do you make that mistake and not notice? You literally said my name.”

“I never claimed to be smart.”

“No one would believe you if you did.”

Another pause.

“Fuck you!”

“That’s the best thing you could come up with?” Osamu knows his brother can hear the raised eyebrows, even at this distance. “Call literally anyone else; I’m off duty.”

“What does that even mean?”

“It means that after dinner is Wife Time, and you’ve lost priority.”

“Piece of shit,” Atsumu mutters. Soon after though, he says in a voice too soft to be anything but loving, “Samu? I’m proud of you. You’re not making it easy for me to be the happier of us.”

For a moment, Osamu feels tears prickling behind his eyes. He blinks them away, instead watching you scribble something down, phone pressed between your shoulder and ear. Such a simple thing, but everything he’s ever wanted. “Thanks, Atsumu.”

#miya osamu x reader #miya osamu fluff #haikyuu x reader #haikyuu fluff #miya osamu scenario #haikyuu scenario #sequel to a thing i wrote almost a year ago #iykyk

783 notes · View notes

dragoneyes618 · 4 months

Text

"Last week, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania were called to testify before Congress about the alarming rise of anti-Semitism on their campuses, and their tepid responses to it, in the wake of October 7.

By now, you have probably heard about the trio’s horrendous overall performance, punctuated by their smug inability to respond to the simple question of whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their schools’ codes of conduct. Since that time, the president of UPenn has stepped down, and support for the other two is wavering.

In case you are wondering, their answer should have been an unequivocal “yes, it violates our polices.” The right to free speech is fundamental, but it does have limits: The First Amendment is not a pass to threaten, harass, intimidate or otherwise violate the rights of others.

For the record, even those pundits who (incorrectly) defended the university presidents’ testimony as being legally correct, if morally tone deaf, had to admit that it did represent a glaring double standard. Each of these universities has in recent years protected other minority groups from even “micro-aggressions” by effectively and ruthlessly shutting down speech that their leaders find offensive.

Struggling to answer whether calls for genocide against Jews constitutes bullying, after you have already officially labeled “fatphobia” as “violence” and “using the wrong pronoun” as a form of “abuse,” is pathetic, and to see these schools pretending that they are genuinely concerned about free speech all of a sudden is nothing short of laughable. In the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2024 College Free Speech Rankings, for example, out of 248 US campuses, Penn and Harvard were ranked 247th and 248th, respectively. If you are only concerned about shutting down speech when that speech targets Jews, well, there is a word for that.

How Free Is Free Speech?

The First Amendment does not protect trespassing, vandalism, harassment, assault, or the destruction of property. Nor does it protect speech that is not meant to inform or persuade, but to disrupt lawful endeavors —activities like going to the kosher dining hall or studying in a library. The First Amendment does not protect someone who is making true threats, nor does it protect intimidation — “a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.”

Just a few months ago, in Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the United States Supreme Court clarified that this does not necessarily mean that the person speaking actually intended to threaten the victim. Rather, the Court imposed a recklessness standard — i.e., the First Amendment does not protect a person who consciously disregards a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. To be clear, calling for the genocide of Jews, as the pro-Hamas student groups on campus have consistently been doing, does create a hostile environment for Jewish people on campus, violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is not protected by the First Amendment.

It was obvious that all three university presidents were reading off scripts written by their respective attorneys (several of whom were sitting behind them and nodding throughout the hearing). The question then becomes: What now? What is the critical error that their lawyers (and the general counsels at other universities where Jewish students are being targeted) have made in failing to stand up for Jewish people, and how should they immediately correct it?

The answer is simple, and it is exactly what students, parents, donors, and the government alike should all be demanding from these institutions: They should continue to respect the First Amendment, but they should apply the appropriate standard for speech on a campus.

From a legal perspective, it is easy to see where the university legal counsels’ confusion specifically arose. Those horrible answers were written under the assumption that the only limits a university can put on student speech are the limits contemplated in the foundational Supreme Court First Amendment case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

In that case, regarding speech at a KKK rally, the Court held that a state could only punish speech that “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg is famously a very high standard, and that is precisely where the universities are hiding: Despite the hundreds of anecdotal incidents from the last two months, and notwithstanding all of the well-known studies confirming that inflammatory discriminatory anti-Semitic rhetoric leads directly to anti-Semitic violence, officials are telling students and parents and now Congress that their hands are tied because, in most cases, there has not been direct enough incitement.

Campus Standards Are Different

Now, the truth is that even under the Brandenburg standard, schools can still impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. As the Court in Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972) explained: “The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.”

So even under that paradigm, any activities that disrupt the educational enterprise and functioning of a school may be restricted. Common sense dictates that rallies celebrating calls for anti-Semitic genocide disrupt the educational enterprise and functioning of a school because they leave some students genuinely fearful for their lives.

But that argument is also unnecessary, because Brandenburg is absolutely the wrong standard for schools to be using, and university presidents and lawyers need to correct that mistake as soon as possible.

In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Supreme Court explained that the Constitution does allow for schools to shut down speech that will “materially and substantially interfere” with the “requirements of appropriate discipline” in the operation of the school” or that “invad[es] the rights of others.” That is the standard that these schools must now vigilantly enforce.

Of course, private colleges and universities, like Harvard, Penn, and MIT, can restrict certain speech, conduct, and demonstrations, in most cases, without triggering any constitutional issues. But even a public university is not a public street, and the rules for what speech must be allowed on each are very different.

The Supreme Court in Healy v. James (1972) cited Tinker to hold that university officials do not have to tolerate student activities that breach reasonable campus rules; interrupt the educational process; or interfere with other students’ rights to receive an education. (This is especially true when the student speech is happening in school-sponsored forums, or is reasonably perceived as somehow bearing the school’s imprimatur.)

The Court has also repeatedly held (in Bethel v. Fraser [1986] and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier [1988]) that schools have even greater latitude to limit student expression if they can establish a “legitimate pedagogical concern.” Ensuring that all students — including Jewish students — have a safe and harassment-free environment in which to learn should be an overwhelmingly legitimate pedagogical concern.

Under the Tinker line of cases, schools do not even have to wait for a breach to actually occur; administrators can act if they can “reasonably forecast” that the expression in question would disrupt school discipline or operation, or violate the rights of other students. In Melton v. Young, for example, the Court ruled that schools could prohibit the wearing of a Confederate flag jacket because it was reasonable to assume that it would be disruptive in an environment of heightened racial tension.

Waving a Hamas flag and cheering on slaughter, as bodies are still being identified and hostages are still being held, announcing solidarity with the “resistance” and that “armed struggle” — i.e., murder —“is “legitimate,” and yes, calling for the genocide of Jews, are all behaviors that are no less likely to cause a disruption than a jacket.

Tinkering with Free Speech

Under Tinker, it is more than reasonable to forecast that there will be substantial disruptions that would violate the right of Jewish students to a non-hostile educational environment if groups are allowed to host events that glorify and celebrate the murder of Jews.

Schools can and must act now to prevent that from continuing to happen, using both common sense and the relevant case law to draw the appropriate line. The limits on the First Amendment are there to help the government with its primary responsibility —to protect all of its citizens from harm —and authorities must be constantly vigilant to enforce the law correctly.

Regardless, the answer to “what now?” then, is this: Everyone calling for change should articulate what that change is, and institutions fixing their policies should clearly explain how they will “tinker” with their free speech formulas so that the next time their leaders are asked if calling for a Jewish genocide is problematic, the answer can just be “yes.”

-Goldfeder, M. (2023g, December 13). Poison Ivies - Mishpacha Magazine. Mishpacha Magazine - The premier Magazine for the Jewish World. https://mishpacha.com/poison-ivies/

#antisemtism #colleges #campus #antisemitism on campus #harvard #mit #university of pennsylvania #jumblr

78 notes · View notes

spiritofjustice · 2 years

Text

it’s so funny to me that the first villager story i wrote for ACOH was a chapter of Bob and Donna getting divorced and then getting back together and having the possibility of being happier in the future but the more time that went on, and the more i thought about it, the more i realized they’ll always be extremely unhealthy no matter how much they love each other. like they’ll put out one fire for their relationship and immediately start another. they cause such mental damage to each other especially because neither of them have any access to mental health resources because Nowhere doesn’t have any. these people need to divorce and stay divorced. they can be good friends though. they’re much better off as friends.

#Psy's no punctuation posts #ACOH tag #to be clear i am not describing abuse. they are not abusive towards each other they're just toxic #and they'rej ust kind of. fundamentally incompatible #problem is i don't think Bob and Donna will ever get over each other #even if they moved on to other S/Os it'd still be a struggle bcs of how attached they are to each other #they are so unhealthy. god bless

2 notes · View notes

glasskey · 7 months

Text

The Boston Globe Episodes

Today I’m going to talk about The Boston Globe episode and how it paved the way for Nick, June and Holly’s journey. The Boston Globe episode is a powerful statement about the break down of truth in the face of dictatorships, and the threat of it in current political climates. In regards to the future of these characters, the episodes featuring the Boston Globe are extremely pivotal.

It’s telling that Nick and June spend the first 3 months of their babies life together at the now haunted and abandoned Boston Globe. Its the place where knowledge and truth once flowed and it’s where we truly begin to see how Holly is used as a vehicle to tell a larger tale. Here the printing presses are all painted in handmaids red, nooses hand from the rafters and bullet holes punctuate the walls like the final word in the resistance. It’s no coincidence that Holly undergoes her most formative months in this broken down home of free knowledge and information, as she will be fundamental to the restoration of democracy to her country.

It’s also the place where Nick and June begin to truly fall in love with one another. Nick and June have sex, at last unrestrained by the boundaries of the Waterford household, and there’s a lustful abandonment to it bred by years of captivity. We’re finally given a glimpse into their somewhat free life away from Gilead. Blaine’s always been somewhat of an enigma, stoic, dutiful and domesticated. But here in the semi free world we see the layers are almost instantly stripped away, he becomes immediately emotional and vulnerable….years of service have suffocated him.

These are their child’s most developmental months and it is the most formative moments of their relationship, where their feelings grow into a lasting bond. By the time she returns to the Waterfords, their child is well on its way to being fully formed, just as is her relationship with Nick. By the time their child is born, their bond will be forged and they will love each other entirely. It’s no coincidence that when Nick is married off to Eden, June almost miscarries.

June wanders around the secret location dressed in Blaine’s clothes, she’s in her first trimester, she’s wearing the t shirt she took off him the first night they were together and very possibly the night they conceived Holly. His clothes act like some kind of personal shield, it’s the best he can do in his absence. Later as she makes the Globe her home, she jogs between the small cities of presses to a shrine she has erected, an assortment of mementos and photographs from the surrounding desks. Just like the Handmaids letters, she intends to keep their stories alive, their voices heard.

Upstairs she gathers old editions and pieces together the story of the The Sons of Jacob and their rise to power. As Holly grows in her womb, rebellion grows in her heart and June returns to the Waterfords with a crystalized intent to destroy Gilead. Nick looks at the wall of clippings reconstructing his past and begins to truly understand, this is the moment when Blaine’s loyalties truly turned. He tries to convince her to go, he’s understandably worried about her future and the future of his unborn child….he should be, it’s a girl.

The two share a morning cup of coffee and there’s the facade of a normalcy as we get a glimpse of Nick and June as a couple in the real world. “If I wake you then you leave, how is that a win for me?” She asks him. Atwood’s text describes June as no longer wanting to leave Nick, June’s caught in a dream from which she no longer wishes to wake. The rare moment of domesticity in this moment is so brief, but overflowing with contentment. Just a flash and then it’s gone, like all the other precious moments of peace these two get.

#june osborne #hulu streaming #june x nick #max minghella #nick x june #nick blaine #osblaine #elisabeth moss #bruce miller #the handmaid's tale #handmaid's tale #handmaid's on hulu #hulu tv #s2 #margaret atwood #tv series

63 notes · View notes

journeytothewestresearch · 10 months

Note

Ty! On that note, what is the most accurate translation when describing the Four Monkeys? The Red-Buttocked Monkey in particular because you’ve got translations like horse monkey, baboon, and possibly mandrill? I’m also interested in their abilities and would please like a reliable source on what each is capable of.

Your best source for the abilities of the four primates is JTTW. I have altered Anthony C. Yu's translation of the names to make them more accurate:

“The first,” said Tathagata, “is the Stone-Monkey of Numinous Wisdom [Lingming shihou, 靈明石猴], [1] who Knows transformations, Recognizes the seasons, Discerns the advantages of earth, And is able to alter the course of planets and stars. The second is the Red-Buttocked Horse-Monkey [Chikao mahou, 赤尻馬猴], who Has knowledge of yin and yang, Understands human affairs, Is adept in its daily life And able to avoid death and lengthen its life. The third is the Long-Armed Gibbon [Tongbi yuanhou, 通臂猿猴], who can Seize the sun and the moon, Shorten a thousand mountains, Distinguish the auspicious from the inauspicious, And manipulate planets and stars. The fourth is the Six-Eared Macaque [Liu’er mihou, 六耳獼猴] who has A sensitive ear, Discernment of fundamental principles, Knowledge of past and future, And comprehension of all things. These four kinds of monkeys are not classified in the ten categories [of life], nor are they contained in the names between Heaven and Earth” (based on Wu & Yu, 2012, vol. 3, p. 115). 如來道：「第一是靈明石猴，通變化，識天時，知地利，移星換斗；第二是赤尻馬猴，曉陰陽，會人事，善出入，避死延生；第三是通臂猿猴，拿日月，縮千山，辨休咎，乾坤摩弄；第四是六耳獼猴，善聆音，能察理，知前後，萬物皆明。此四猴者，不入十類之種，不達兩間之名。

One late-Qing source, New Dialect (Xinfangyan, 新方言, early-20th-c.), associates “horse-monkey” (mahou, 馬猴) with various iterations of Chinese terms for macaque monkeys:

"Bathing-monkey” (muhou): “mother-monkey” (muhou); mother-monkey (muhou): “full-monkey” (mihou) – these are called “horse-monkey” (mahou), the sound of each one changing [in turn]. 沐猴：母猴；母猴：彌猴，令人謂之馬猴，皆一音之轉。(the original doesn’t have punctuation)

And since the stone-monkey is Sun Wukong, the celestial primates consist of three macaques and one gibbon.

Here is my article on the four celestial primates:

#Four Monkeys #Sun Wukong #Monkey King #Journey to the West #JTTW #Six Ears #Six-Eared Macaque #lego monkie kid #LMK #four celestial primates

74 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 months

Text

Two grim milestones just passed for Ukraine: the two-year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion and a decade since the seizure of Crimea. Ukrainians commemorated and grieved. They did so in the midst of mounting uncertainty over the trajectory of the war, the solidarity of their leadership, and the continuance of international support.

Beneath the headlines, however, Ukrainian resistance adapts and evolves. Among Ukrainians, cease-fires and territorial concessions remain broadly anathema. The question is not if resistance should continue, but how.

From the very beginning of Russia’s war, the Ukrainian people self-mobilized en masse. Their proactive agency has been fundamental to Ukraine’s ability to stave off Russian aggression, and it has been lauded as the gold standard in whole-of-society resistance. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, for example, volunteer organizations and civil society groups leapt into action, buying vital time for the military to regroup. In the years that followed, nongovernmental organizations and private interests were integral to sustaining Ukraine’s position in a so-called frozen conflict.

In 2022, as Russian armor surged across the border, ordinary civilians flooded the ranks of the Territorial Defense Forces. These units waged impromptu and ultimately successful localized campaigns to defend cities such as Sumy and Chernihiv, which were fundamental to the disruption of Russia’s invasion plan.

Ukrainian citizens stepped forward to take nonviolent action as well. At times, this occurred in coordination with government entities. Far more often, it was the result of independent initiative. Actions included large-scale street protests, the blocking of roads, and the protection of critical infrastructure. The broader endeavor was punctuated by exceptionally well-amplified face-to-face confrontations and social media campaigns.

Within government-held areas of Ukraine, civil society remains engaged. Key efforts include adapting of drones and other civilian technologies for military use, providing support for displaced families, and raising funds for veteran care. Behind Russian lines, meanwhile, resistance networks have blossomed as well. Some are engaged in sabotage and other guerrilla warfare tactics.

More prevalent, however, have been those engaged in nonviolent resistance. Independent civilian networks have grown dramatically in size and scope, despite limited media attention from the West and negligible external support.

What is their place in Ukraine’s resistance strategy, and how can their achievements inform broader debates over concepts such as “total defense” and the realities of whole-of-society resistance?

As Russia consolidated its hold over areas of southern and eastern Ukraine in the spring of 2022, Ukrainian resistance endured devastating initial setbacks behind the front lines. Most of the “stay behind” partisan groups established by the Ukrainian government were promptly betrayed by pro-Russian collaborators and annihilated. Surviving networks were thereafter culled by Russian intelligence agencies, using surveillance, torture, and collective punishment.

Russia’s occupying administration also enforced a brutal crackdown on civil disobedience and open protest. The result was an utter stifling of overt action. This, combined with Russia’s success in unraveling and destroying clandestine guerrilla networks, created profound unease within the Ukrainian government at the prospect of orchestrating resistance actions (particularly by civilians) behind enemy lines.

Instead, the preference shifted toward hit-and-run raids by Ukrainian special operations forces, launched from government-held terrain.

Despite the Ukrainian government’s uncertain, hands-off approach to civil resistance and the dangers posed under Russian occupation, nonviolent resistance has flourished. Critically, it has done so without the sort of government direction and support envisaged within the total defense paradigm that is increasingly popular within the NATO alliance, and without reliance upon “pre-existing ties and networks” similar to those that have been fundamental to classic resistance movements around the world.

Over the past two years, tens of thousands of Ukrainians have participated in nonviolent resistance activities. Women have been front and center, and new technologies have been pivotal to the scaling, de-risking, and amplification of the enterprise. The actions and outcomes of nonviolent civil resistance have focused overwhelmingly on target audiences within occupied Ukraine, however, and so they remain inadequately understood and appreciated.

Nonviolent resistance has been orchestrated by a decentralized amalgamation of independent groups that reach deep behind the front lines. Rather than building on existing social connections, they have coalesced digitally and anonymously in response to Russian aggression. Maintaining only occasional and informal communication with the Ukrainian government, they have pursued independently conceived courses of action in the furtherance of Ukraine’s national interests.

One of the best-known groups, the Yellow Ribbon Group (YRG), provides an example of this paradigm in practice. The YRG, one of the only resistance groups to garner attention from Western media, originated in Kherson Oblast after the area’s conquest by Russia in the first days of the war. Cut off from Ukraine and unable to take up arms, young people came together to find ways to resist.

“We wanted to be a part of something,” recalls the YRG’s founder, who is not named here to protect their safety. The founder went on to say that they also wished to exert agency in the face of oppression.

Initial resistance activities were predominantly one-off actions by lone individuals. They ranged from tagging pro-Ukrainian graffiti to attaching Ukrainian flags to balloons in order to raise them into the sky. Photos of these actions circulated widely via Telegram channels and on social media, prompting a surge of interest from Luhansk to Crimea.

After Russia’s withdrawal from the right bank of Kherson in November 2022, the YRG expanded its work. Operating from the relative safety of government-held areas, members reached digitally across the front lines to support their fellow Ukrainians enduring occupation. The continued growth and security of practitioners were enabled thereafter by high-tech innovation.

This came in the form of a custom-developed secure messaging platform that allows the practitioners of nonviolent resistance in occupied areas to access an artificial intelligence-enabled chatbot, which provides access to a breadth of information and resources that are automatically customized in response to a user’s prompts.

Examples include instructions on how to print fliers, best practice recommendations for the conduct of certain actions, inspiration for messages and themes. (The latter are often related to current events, such as Elon Musk’s October 2023 assertion that there is no “significant insurgency” in occupied Ukraine, and that Ukraine should cede land for peace.)

Within this system, the YRG has established the digital backbone of a resistance network unlike any other in history: one with a single hub run via artificial intelligence (as opposed to an identifiable leadership team) and an unlimited series of anonymous, untraceable, individual spokes. The entire application can be deleted from the user’s phone at the push of a button, and full anonymity means that members of the network cannot be compromised by Russia.

YRG practitioners have also produced posters exposing the identities and activities of administrators within the occupation bureaucracy. At times, these efforts target high-profile public figures—such as the infamous pro-Russian politician and former Kherson Mayor Vladimir Saldo—but primary focus goes toward midlevel officials imported from Russia to prove that the resistance knows who they are. In a number of instances, these exposés have compelled the individuals in question to relocate, which in turn adds an additional burden on the occupation and heightens the sense of insecurity.

In a pattern evident throughout the nonviolent resistance movement in occupied Ukraine, the more active that YRG becomes, the more that it grows in numbers. The structure of its digital platform is such that it can accommodate any and all new entrants, while its architecture mitigates any damage that might accrue through Russian penetration.

According to internal system metrics, the YRG’s platform has approximately 10,000 registered users, with an average of 3,000 active users within a given week. Sources within the YRG note that numbers fluctuate dramatically at any given moment, since users will delete the application on a regular basis when approaching checkpoints and other high-risk areas.

Another prominent nonviolent resistance network leveraging technology, anonymity, and female agency is the Angry Mavkas. The group is comprised exclusively of Ukrainian women, and it draws its name from a siren-like creature in Ukrainian folklore that lures men to their deaths.

The Mavkas began in Melitopol among a small group of women who wanted to push back against Russian aggression and sexual assault, which has been systemic under occupation. The Mavkas’ reputation spread quickly, and the group’s founders were inundated with requests from women and girls across the occupied territories to contribute to their cause.

As with the YRG, the Mavkas utilize their own anonymous communication platform to share resources and stories, coordinate activities, and present digital evidence of their actions. The result creates an interesting duality: It is a forum that provides Ukrainian women the opportunity to connect with one another and vent their fears and frustrations under occupation, but it is also a space of anonymous, digital strangers.

Discussions with participants in Ukraine’s nonviolent resistance movement emphasize the value of both the act of practicing resistance as well as the outcomes that it generates. Taking action has been a powerful means of asserting agency and “speaking freely” under occupation. Practitioners noted what they called the “self-imposed schizophrenia” that is required of Ukrainian patriots, wherein one must publicly acquiesce to Russian rule in order to survive. For example, accepting a Russian passport is now a precondition for access to basic medical care, pensions, and permission to leave one’s city in the occupied territories.

As Russian surveillance and counterintelligence capabilities grow increasingly robust, there is little opportunity for respite or self-expression. As such, public trust has been badly degraded in occupied territories—a further constraint to the practice of resistance via traditional social groups. In the view of a senior figure within the Mavkas, the ensuing “social atomization” evokes the communist era. In the words of another practitioner, “our lives have become compartmentalized.”

Trapped in a world where one must say and do things that run counter to one’s core beliefs, and where one cannot express true feelings outside of extremely narrow circles of trust, even the smallest acts of resistance imbue powerful psychological impacts for the practitioner—and also for their fellow Ukrainians enduring occupation, who witness the results.

The successes of the nonviolent resistance movement have catalyzed shifts in Russian messaging as well. Initially, Russian officials ignored such acts of resistance. As activity grew to the point that it could not be ignored, the Russians sought to dismiss and discredit the endeavor. According to sources in the YRG, nonviolent resistance is said by the Russians to be the work of “a duped, intellectually deficient few.” They say that the YRG has been cast as “a band of degenerates” and “while the Mavkas are alleged to be “a psyop [psychological operations] run from Kyiv” as well as tools of the U.S.

In contrast to the devastating early losses suffered within traditional partisan networks established and run by the Ukrainian government, the decentralized and anonymous digital networks established by civil society are thriving. The YRG and the Mavkas continue to expand while other groups are still emerging. The Combat Seagulls blend violent and nonviolent practices in Crimea, while Atesh (meaning “fire” in Crimean Tartar) is a network of saboteurs and informants drawn primarily from Tartars forcibly conscripted by Russia.

Resistance is growing in occupied Ukraine, both in scale and sophistication. Armed partisan networks are making their presence felt behind the front lines while nonviolent resistance groups continue to expand. Critically, the Ukrainian government is recognizing integrated resistance as a strategic lever.

This two-pronged approach to resistance—violent and nonviolent actions synchronized in support of a shared objective—offers a compelling paradigm. This is particularly true as nonviolent civil networks have shown the ability to move beyond small-scale symbolic actions and toward more ambitious campaigns.

In early 2023, for example, the Mavkas orchestrated the large-scale production of counterfeit 50-ruble notes, with a twist. With several details changed—only noticeable after close inspection—the notes were designed to grab the attention of Russians and others when left in public places, for example, at ATMs.

Activists were able to print and disseminate bills in Crimea, Melitopol, and parts of Kherson. Entering broadly into circulation, the notes initiated a flurry of official condemnation from Russian authorities.

The second campaign, conducted by a partisan network that has not yet taken public credit, was launched during the elections conducted by Russian authorities across occupied Ukraine in September 2023. In the run-up to the vote, aspiring local politicians put up posters to advertise their candidacy.

In the midst of this activity, a partisan network produced realistic posters of its own for fictitious candidates in the occupied territories, complete with scannable QR codes similar to those used by the official politicians These QR codes led in different directions: Some links went to videos of Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny, others to resources describing human rights violations within Russia, and others to spoof voter registration websites. These resources were hosted on secure platforms that had been paid for with cryptocurrency, which the Russian government could neither hack nor trace.

On the contrary, this subtle but effective campaign not only disrupted the so-called elections in occupied Ukraine, but also exposed the futility of Russia’s attempt to use democracy as a weapon.

Russia reacted sharply, and in ways that subverted narratives with which they have sought to legitimize conquest and occupation. First, high-level figures from Russia’s Central Election Commission publicly and aggressively condemned the effort and Rostelcom, the Russian state-owned digital services provider, pressed the relevant hosting services to take the websites down. Second, Russian media entities such as the news agency TASS, the website “War on Fakes” (widely understood to be linked to the Russian Ministry of Defense), and the popular show Solovyov Live alleged that the campaign was the work of scammers or Ukrainian psyops units. The net effect was official acknowledgement of substantive local opposition within the occupied territories, and the amplification of Ukrainian resistance to audiences across Russia.

As Ukraine explores the potential of nonviolent resistance—potentially aligned with a wider campaign of guerrilla activity in the occupied territories—the government must find a way to harness civilian networks without subsuming them. Civil society under government control is no longer civil society, irrespective of the statist assumptions baked into total defense and resistance paradigms proffered within NATO. Leaders in Kyiv need only to look across their northern and eastern borders to witness the toxic fallout of an instrumentalized populace.

There is ample room to coordinate and support the work of civilian resistance networks. Critically, that effort relies on mutual trust: for practitioners to be supported and empowered, and for the government to establish constructive strategic dialogue with the networks in question.

Nonviolent resistance has been a spontaneous expression of national will. It has been the civilian counterpart to the formidable Ukrainian “will to fight” evident on the battlefield, and its potency comes from the legacy of a decadeslong progress through which civil society has stepped forward, time and again, to shape Ukraine’s political future.

In the wake of two somber anniversaries, facing an interminable war of national survival with uncertain support from abroad, the Ukrainian people remain Ukraine’s most potent strategic asset. Within the occupied territories, civil resistance is vital to subverting Russian propaganda and framing the terms of any future negotiations. On the global stage, the sustained commitment and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people remains the most potent argument for continued international support. Re-establishing their place as the face and voice of resistance—a status that they achieved to extraordinary effect during the initial moments of the full-scale invasion—offers Ukraine its best opportunity to endure the challenges to come.

36 notes · View notes