#unpersuasion | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eee-lordy · 4 months

Note

4 for the prompts! with felix??? thanks!

Thanks nonny! Would love more Felix requests if you have any up your sleeve 😍

"Not what I came for."

───※ ·❆· ※───

He tried to get you to come home with him for the summer.

But you'd watched this cycle from afar, across campus. You'd watch Felix charm people closer into his orbit. And they would flock toward him like flies to sticky paper. Felix ate it up every time. And then he'd get bored. And a new summer would roll in, and Felix would parade around a new placeholder for a handful of months.

"I'm not particularly interested in a fling, lover boy." You half joked. The people Jacob attached too every summer weren't always romantically linked. But regardless of intentions, you rose your point.

"Is that what you think of me really?" Felix held a hand to his chest in appallment.

"Not entirely. I am just as infatuated with you as everyone else. I just don't want to be buttered up to be abandoned when winter comes you know?" You sat across from Felix, not taking for granted how he leaned in to listen to you speak. There was no use in fighting off how entranced he'd been with you. There was no fighting the way Felix trailed beside you this semester. You were his next victim. And you'd let it last as long as the school year played out. But you knew better than to follow him home.

"Then I've got a challenge ahead of me. How can I prove that I'm determined to spend longer than a summer with you, love?" Felix flicked out a wrist, letting his long fingers fall to your face and rest on your cheek.

You smiled despite your hard stance. You shrugged because you really didn't have an answer. You let him go on persuading you a while longer to join him at Saltburn. Then you insisted he head back to his own dorm, it was getting late.

The rest of that month, each day ticked by with anticipation of summer break approaching. Felix asked once in a while if you'd reconsider his offer. He droned on about how he'd miss you. He'd mentioned wanting you to meet his family. He even begged once. You stuck out a sorry lip, pouting a decline. It just wasn't going to happen. If Felix liked you as much as he said he did, he'd come running back to campus, more tan, less educated, and just as enamored with you. If he did, you'd be delighted. If he didn't, you'd be assured you'd decided correctly to stay away for the summer.

When the day came for Felix to pack up and head home, he didn't ask you along. He didn't say much of anything at all. You'd never seen him so desolate, so unpersuasive. He flung his arms around your shoulders for a hug that he wouldn't let go from for a long time. Neither of you spoke. Neither of you said goodbye.

And then the days felt empty. You'd made plans and enjoyed the sun and filled your days with fun best you could. Not one passed without thoughts of Felix in mind, though. You wondered how he'd been doing, what he'd been up too, if he was thinking about you even half as much as he said he would.

You even turned down a new date, feeling a little ray of hope left that Felix would come running back to you once the new semester started.

Each second of those free as can be days passed by excruciatingly. You were kidding yourself when you tried to pretend you didn't miss him. You were frustrated when you realized he'd become your favorite ear to talk off, favorite set of eyes to look for across the halls. You told yourself to stop caring when you glanced at your calendar and saw too many days left to pass before summer was over.

And then there was a knock on your dorm room door.

Felix had returned, cutting his break short. He didn't even unpack the bags he'd taken home. He headed right to your door and hoped you'd still open it with a smile like before. And when you did, he flung himself toward you in an embrace you hadn't expected.

"Back so soon? Missed the lunch hall food that much?" You joked, hugging Felix back in utter shock and awe.

"Not what I came here for." Felix cooed, clinging to you with all his might. "Told you I'd miss you. I didn't just want to bring you home for the summer. I wanted you."

"And I believe you now." You beamed, relishing the way his hands stayed clutching your sides. Stunned by the way Felix was looking at you now, with a desperation in those eyes you didn't have to miss any longer. You couldn't believe Felix broke his cycle. He went home without a companion, and he came back here much sooner than you knew he always used to. Felix broke his cycle for you. You broke his cycle.

"Let's make up for lost time, yeah?" You grinned, insisting he leave his bags on the floor and follow your every lead. As Felix bended to your will, you asked what his plans for next summer were. He told you to start making them. It was his turn to be strung along. And it was your turn to watch as Felix wrapped himself right around your finger.

───※ ·❆· ※───

#jacob elordi #felix catton #felix catton x reader #felix catton fanfic #jacob elordi fanfic #jacob elordi x reader

228 notes · View notes

loving-n0t-heyting · 4 months

Text

I do find it kinda unpersuasive as an argument that tumblr specifically has it out for [demographic] thst you can point to both all these public instances of [demographic] getting banned and yr own collection of reports you filed that you never heard back from about [other demographic]. Real tell here is that te rfs and nazis say the exact same thing, if you ever make the mistake of reading them at any length. Theres an obvious skew to ones own knowledge here

That said, matt is clearly being a very publicly thin skinned ass about this situation in particular particular, which you cant chalk up to sampling bias

76 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 1 year

Text

I know there's a lot to unpack in James' new interview but I am feral, FERAL I SAY, over this fucking line right here:

"His need was to be loved, and his tragic flaw was the belief that he was unlovable."

Back before Season 3 hit and Tedependent became ~trendy~ (not actually lol) I was heacanoning and writing Trent as a pretty anxious individual, someone with a ton of internalized self-loathing whose "whole vibe" was more of a mask than legitimate self-confidence. At the time I worried about him coming across as too OOC because really, what did we have to support this? Ted Lasso's prevailing theme of men discovering love and support when they previously had none? The lovely parallel of Trent struggling with many of Ted's own flaws, but presenting in opposite ways (cutting cynicism vs. endless optimism)? The then—far less developed—comments from James that Trent might have a rough relationship with his father? It felt unsubstantiated, unpersuasive, built more on my own interest in those kinds of characters and the occasional awkward moment from Trent than actual canon. Even into Season 3 I questioned whether my reading of him as struggling, significantly, with the care Ted offers wasn't just a result of my own, imagined inner life for him.

But NOW.

I'm sorry, hold up, can I just re-confirm that TRENT'S TRAGIC FLAW IS HIS BELIEF THAT HE'S UNLOVABLE? Unlovable??? Thank you, James Lance, for validating every reading I've had of this character since he first appeared on screen. Do people realize the depth this adds to every interaction Trent has? Particularly with Ted? Unlovable Trent Crimm starts off this relationship with a sincere compliment on his style ("I like your glasses"), something that Season 3 will present as a core part of his personality, something he's largely hidden away. Unlovable Trent Crimm grappling with the fact that yes, Ted enjoyed spending time with him. Him. WHILE he was playing the part of the asshole journalist. Unlovable Trent not being rejected when he admits, in moments of vulnerability, that he "Loves [their] chats." Unlovable Trent having his father's (likely snide) "Independent" comment reframed as a fun pun + advice to follow his "bliss": you have support, Trent, no matter what you choose to do. I don't care if you're successful covering a masculine-coded sport, I care if you're happy. Unlovable Trent committing the ultimate betrayal and being forgiven for it, immediately. Unlovable Trent being forcibly integrated into the Richmond family; actively accepted rather than passively tolerated: yes you should work here, yes you're a Diamond Dog, sit your butt down, Trenthouse Magazine, you will never be excluded again.

I'm sorry for the rambling post but I'm just so!! Insane about this!!! So much of Trent's hesitance could have been written off as a result of his career. That is, it might have been merely a learned reaction after decades of deliberately pissing people off. Of course they dislike him, but take him out of that environment and everything's fixed. Yet James has confirmed that he played Trent as intrinsically believing this. The career was a result of that unfounded fear—Might as well keep people at a distance before they hurt me first—as well as, simultaneously, a desire to somehow achieve the love that should have been unconditional from the start—Maybe my father will like me if I can be that "alpha male man's man" in print. Because this isn't just a flaw, it's a tragic flaw, a literary term that denotes a deficiency that leads to the character's downfall. This belief is so entrenched that it has led to Trent actively self-sabotaging his chances of being loved in the first place; a horrible self-fulfilling prophecy. He NEEDED someone like Ted—a fucking love sledgehammer that forces people to accept his care in the least subtle ways possible, even when they're acting as their own worst enemy—and by god, he got him!

Aside from Nate, Trent has always felt like the most isolated character to me at the start of the series (and even Nate has a good relationship with his mother and sister). What we've learned in Season 3 and James' interviews has only reinforced that reading for me: he was closeted in his marriage, unintentionally hurting his daughter, he's suffering under his father's expectations, he hates the press persona he's created to survive, he's bored at his job, footballers and other potential interviewees despise him—and not without reason (Roy). He has no friends that we see pre-Richmond and he's reached a point where the simple act of someone saying that they liked spending the day with him—again, while he's actively TRYING to piss them off and keep his distance—has him in such a state of shock he runs for the door, pens an uncharacteristically hopeful write-up, and is well on his way to upending his entire life for that man.

Because of course he is!!! From Trent's perspective Ted is a fucking impossibility shaped into human form. This is a man in his 40s whose greatest lifelong fear—now all but a certainty at his age—has been dismantled in a matter of hours. I'd write a book-length love letter to him too! And RIP to finale!Trent, but I would have run fucking Rom-Com style after the man who not only changed my life, but my entire sense of self-worth. (Ah fuck, but there's that tragic flaw again, keeping Trent hesitant. I now stand by my reading of the "I'll leave you be" scene as an unrequited goodbye.)

But finale aside, the man who'd convinced himself he was unlovable fell for the man who was love incarnate.

If that's not the most romantic shit you've ever heard idk what is!!!

#Ted Lasso #Trent Crimm #Tedependent #mymetas #don't worry everyone I'm SO normal about this🙃

247 notes · View notes

supersoftly · 2 years

Text

some people talk about fascism as if it's heretical Chaos from wh40k, like the mere act of speaking it, learning about it or reading it invites the warp to fuck with you, and uh... it's very unpersuasive when you ask 'why is this fascist' and the most common response can be dumbed down to 'because I said so'

#ive noticed this over the years that people seem less interested in finding out why or what makes someone fascist #it seems like they just want to call people fascist and be done with it without understanding i dont really get it

502 notes · View notes

togglessymposium · 6 months

Text

I feel like theodicy is the place that (post-Plato? post-Zoroaster?) Abrahamic religions tend to really fail as systems of thought.

Like, spiritualism in general tends to be unpersuasive as a question of fact- there's simply no real empirical support for it, even though the construction itself is often powerfully evocative and beautiful. But the matter of evil in Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc. is something else, a place where this subset of religious doctrines just has visible and painful problems on its own merits. It's not just that I don't accept the factual claims- it's that the arguments don't add up at all. Theodicy is the crux where you have to fundamentally choose between doctrinal fidelity and the pursuit of truth, because it's where the doctrine is facially, deductively inconsistent and wrong.

At the end of the day, you just can't propose a flawless and omnipotent designer of the cosmos while simultaneously making evil a centerpiece of your analysis. You can be Manichean, and have evil arise from not-God or from some limit God has. You can assert that evil doesn't exist, though that can be tricky: Plato's evil-as-absence thing was largely unsuccessful as an attempt, both because positive evils like pain are regular features of human experience, and because pure deprivation as an ontology of evil still doesn't solve the theodicy problem. But what you cannot do is assert that the foundation of the cosmos is a perfect and all powerful entity incapable of error, and also that evil exists. The toddler's hand is well and truly caught in the cookie jar.

Most forms of modern Christianity and Mormonism try to use free will to thread the needle; mainstream Islam I think is a bit more Leibnizean, though it still leans hard on human culpability. But you can't actually do this! The claim, of course, is to say that the setting of the cosmos is perfectly good, that human volition itself is also perfectly good, but that volition has the special quality of sometimes (though not intrinsically) producing evil, which we all then have to deal with. But there's nothing in free will that actually makes it a suitable solution to this problem. The deity is necessarily extratemporal, and in that frame, volition lacks the special properties it would need to hold this weight; when you can flip to the end of the book any time you like, there's no such thing as indeterminism. Every human choice has one and exactly one result, just as with any other domain of reality; free will, like gravity and electromagnetism, is a process with wholly knowable outcomes. Hence, 'free will' is (in the context of monotheism) a purely linguistic construction that means only 'the consequences of this process are not God's fault.' It has no properties other than the shift in culpability itself, no proposed mechanism or relationship to other phenomena, no inherent virtues that can be explained in terms of any moral system. It's an entirely circular argument, a way to credit God for very tall apple trees but blame somebody else for the invention of applesauce.

#Not saying that free will itself isn't real in some sense #but I am saying that if the God Of Abraham is real #or even ontologically possible #then free will is not a form of indeterminacy #there is only one future #and it is singular #the counterfactual futures are as irrelevant to morality as they are to physics #because there is no such thing as 'might have been'#only the necessary and inevitable attributes of a known cosmos

37 notes · View notes

onecornerface · 6 months

Text

Almost all arguments for theism are problematically sectarian

Why do atheists and agnostics not find the arguments for theism persuasive? According to some less-charitable theists, this is due to emotional resistance to theism. According to other more-charitable theists, this is due to some nebulous conception of reasonable disagreement, or because God does not reveal his existence to everyone. According to some atheists and agnostics, it is because the arguments for theism are weak. I suggest an explanation which overlaps with some albeit not all of the above.

Many defenses of traditional theism (including positive arguments for theism and rebuttals to arguments for atheism) hinge upon controversial principles in metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics. These tend to be principles which many atheists and agnostics reject or do not see reason to accept. This makes such defenses of classical theism unpersuasive—even if such arguments are sound *and* atheists & agnostics are reasonable.

In fact, I think this problem applies to nearly every popular argument for theism. They ALL hinge on controversial premises in metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics—ALL principles which are disproportionately rejected, or not accepted, by atheists and agnostics. For brief illustration, I will below give several representative examples.

Many versions of the cosmological (or first-cause) argument for theism are successful only if the first-cause needs to be personal (or person-like), which seems to require something in the ballpark of mind-body dualism or libertarian free will, which atheists tend to reject. This is in addition to how the Kalam cosmological argument requires controversial views in philosophy of infinity. However, I am here assuming that such views in philosophy of infinity are true and thus that there must be a temporal first cause. The temporal first cause is shown to be God (in a traditional sense) only if it must be personal rather than nonpersonal. And this requires controversial premises from philosophy of personhood, agency, mind, or free will—which atheists and agnostics tend to reject or not accept. Otherwise, it cannot be shown that the first cause can’t be an impersonal quantum vacuum state or suchlike.

Similarly, many versions of the argument from design (such the fine-tuned universe argument, which is by far the most credible such argument) are successful only if a personal designer is a superior explanation than an impersonal (non-) designer. But a personal designer only has greater explanatory value if we make controversial assumptions in fields such as philosophy of personhood, agency, mind, or free will—which again atheists and agnostics tend to reject or not accept. Notably, my observation here is entirely independent of controversies around multiverse hypotheses. Even if multiverse hypotheses are false, scientifically poor, or philosophically unsound, this gives very little comfort to fine-tuning arguments for theism—unless theism offers superior explanations, via appeal to controversial metaphysical theories, which atheists and agnostics tend not to accept.

Moral arguments for theism overwhelmingly rely on non-naturalist moral realism, which many atheists and agnostics (especially among non-philosophers) reject. If moral naturalism or moral anti-realism or moral weak realism is true or justified (either in general, or to atheists and agnostics), then atheists and agnostics have no reason to see moral arguments as providing any grounds for theism. I leave open the question of whether atheist moral non-naturalists should find theism compelling.

Arguments from consciousness only succeed if some kind of mind-body dualism (or something in this ballpark) is true, which many atheists and agnostics reject.

Some logic-based transcendental arguments for theism succeed only if something in the ballpark of Mathematical-Logical Platonism is true, which many atheists reject. Here I’m inclined to make a disjunction: I’m too unfamiliar with the arguments on this topic, so for now to me it is not clear whether Platonism is true, but *if* Platonism is true then it probably does not require theism.

The problem of divine hiddenness is an argument for atheism which claims (roughly) that God has not revealed his existence to atheists & agnostics, and that the best explanation for this datum is God’s nonexistence. One common theistic response is that God has revealed God’s existence to everyone. However, this response is parasitic on the assumption that at least some of the arguments for theism are persuasive enough that they ought to persuade atheists and agnostics—which I argue they need not do (since they rely on sectarian theories), even if they are sound arguments.

There are a variety of non-evidentialist defenses of theism. Atheists and agnostics tend to either be evidentialists or to hold mild non-evidentialist theories which do not lend significant support to theism, and which likely lend even less support to particular sectarian theistic positions such as the traditional forms of Christianity and Islam. Appealing to non-evidentialist epistemological theories (as a persuasive maneuver, at least) is thus likely to be a non-starter.

I think on commonsense ethics and on nearly all secular ethical views, it is pretty clear that when we can prevent horrific evils, then we should. Hence, the fact that God does not prevent horrific evils provides a powerful piece of commonsensical and secular-theoretical ethical evidence that God (as construed as perfectly good & all-powerful) does not exist. Theistic attempts to explain away the problem of evil may be successful—but *only* when assuming highly sectarian ethical principles, which nearly all atheists and agnostics see as wildly implausible. A very good person wouldn’t allow children to starve to death if he or she can easily prevent it. If you think God would do so, then either you think God has a really good reason to allow children to starve (which is a highly revisionist ethical theory), OR you think God is very good despite not needing a reason to allow children to starve (which is also a highly revisionist ethical theory). (Alternatively, God may be morally imperfect or not all-powerful—these nonstandard versions of theism are not targeted by the argument.)

A big final question: Are arguments for atheism, and/or responses to arguments for theism, also highly sectarian? I think less so, but arguing for this claim is beyond the scope of this post.

#theism #atheism #apologetics

22 notes · View notes

and-then-there-were-n0ne · 1 year

Link

“Why do authoritarian governments engage in propaganda when citizens often know that their governments are propagandizing and therefore resist, ignore, or deride the messages?”

This is from a fascinating paper titled Propaganda as Signaling by the political scientist Haifeng Huang. The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. People get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense the authoritarian regime wants them to believe.

And yet regimes often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda. Huang observes that propaganda might actually be counterproductive, because the official messages often contradict reality. Why display public messages that everyone knows are lies, and that are easily verifiable as lies?

He gives us an answer: Instilling pro-regime values and attitudes is one aim of authoritarian regimes. But it’s not their only aim.

Alongside the desire to brainwash people, the regime also wants to remind people of their power. When citizens are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime. The vast amount of resources authoritarian regimes spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power.

Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them. The message is: You might not hold pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.

Huang describes how China’s primetime news program, Xinwen Lianbo, is stilted, archaic, and is “a constant target of mockery among ordinary citizens.” Yet the Chinese government airs it every night at 7 pm sharp. The continuing existence of this program is intended to remind citizens of the strength and capacity of the communist party.

The willingness of the government to continue to undertake costly endeavors to broadcast unpersuasive messages is a credible signal of just how strong and all-powerful it is. In fact, Huang compares this to political campaigns in democratic countries. Political ads rarely contain new information. They almost never change anyone’s mind. The function of political ads, though, isn’t to persuade. It’s to “burn money” in a public way. They are costly signals of the political campaign’s willingness to expend resources which shows their commitment.

Huang goes on to report the results of his empirical research. He asked Chinese citizens how familiar they were with the Chinese government’s propaganda messages. He found that people who were more knowledgeable about these messages were not more satisfied with the government. But they were more likely to say that the government is strong, and were less willing to express dissent. Authoritarian regimes aren’t necessarily trying to convince you of anything. They’re trying to remind you of their power.

Interestingly, Huang even says that the overt insipidness of regime messaging is part of the point. He writes:

“For this demonstration of strength to be well taken, propaganda may sometimes need to be dull and unpersuasive, so as to make sure that most citizens will know precisely that it is propaganda when they see it and hence get the implicit message.”

The regime is saying: Yes, we know this message is tiresome and obviously false. But we are showing this to you to tell you that you are helpless to do anything about it.

People are more likely to rebel against a regime when they sense that it is vulnerable. By broadcasting a consistent message repeatedly, the regime is attempting to bolster its power.

A weak organization can’t produce such messages. They can’t expend the resources. A strong organization can play the same program every night on all networks. They can broadcast the same message on every website and advertisement and television series. As Huang puts it,

“Citizens can make inferences about the type of government by observing whether it is willing to produce a high level of propaganda, even if the propaganda itself is not believed by citizens.”

That is, even if everyone knows what they are seeing is nonsense, the fact that everyone is seeing it means that the regime is strong enough to broadcast bullshit.

People are deterred from dissenting against the regime not because they believe in their dull messages but because they believe the regime has more power than themselves. Moreover, these official messages dictate the terms of acceptable public discourse and drive alternative ideas underground. They habituate citizens into acting “as if” they believe in the official doctrine, if for no other reason than that they do not publicly question it.

The political scientist Lisa Weeden, in her study on the cult of Hafiz al-Assad in Syria, discusses why authoritarian regimes coerce their citizens to engage in preposterous rituals. She notes that,

“The greater the absurdity of the required performance, the more clearly it demonstrates that the regime can make most people obey most of the time.”

If the regime can make the people around you partake in absurdities, you are less likely to challenge it. You will be more likely to obey it. Of course, this doesn’t mean regimes are not interested in indoctrination. They would prefer if people really did hold pro-regime attitudes and values.

But the purpose of propaganda is not limited just to instilling desired beliefs. Often, demonstrating the regime’s strength, capacity, and resources to intimidate people is a more important goal.

#henderson #propaganda #rob henderson

43 notes · View notes

psychic-refugee · 1 year

Text

The accusers chose the Court of Public Opinion, in the District of Social Media as their venue. It is a bench trial with me, the Honorable Psychic Refugee presiding, at the Psychic-Refugee Tumblr Courthouse.

Judgement

The accusers have walked back their most heinous accusations and the current ones do not meet the standard for criminal behavior. This is a de facto retraction.

Therefore, the accusations for rape and sexual assault are dismissed.

For the accusations against his character, I do not find the evidence to be compelling or persuasive. Therefore, I find the accusations, both explicit and implied, to be unsubstantiated.

PHW has not been proven guilty by preponderance of the evidence, on all counts.

Opinion

The accusers’ story got bogged down and confusing through their own words and actions. Their “evidence” as-is would never hold up in a real court. In the Court of Public Opinion, however, where I can accept the evidence for the sake of argument, I still find it confusing and unpersuasive. There is no crime alleged nor facts established, only alluded to. A majority of the crimes aren't even lobbed at PHW, only that he was a bystander and they felt he should have done something more. What he could have done more than the others who were also at these parties, I don’t know. They don’t say. I don’t think it’s fair to single him out as “he should have been my hero.” If he was a minor at these parties, he’s not liable as he doesn’t own the home, nor is he responsible for others' actions.

If he was not a witness to the crimes, then his testimony would be hearsay and there was nothing he could have done besides encourage the accuser to go to the police.

His alleged assault on others is hearsay. It’s a rumor of a rumor on Twitter. I’m never inclined to believe a rumor. To date, these alleged victims have not stepped forward.

His alleged assault on one of the accusers was clarified and fails to meet the standard of criminal assault, if it happened at all.

The accusers have failed or refuse to even establish the fact they were ever at the same party as PHW during the time frames they proffered. There is legitimate doubt that one of the accusers has even MET PHW.

They all have failed to establish any facts at all.

The burden of proof is on the accusers, and they’ve literally said they have none.

The “evidence” they do have, isn’t evidence of PHW doing anything, much less anything criminal. They’re all just screenshots of conversations, the accusers themselves vaguely alluding to supposed crimes via tweets. None of that together or separately proves any wrongdoing, even if the screenshots are all real.

It is alarming these Twitter posts are being taken as gospel that PHW is guilty of anything.

"Believing women" means that I don’t presume their motivation or assume bad faith in their accusations. Given that the situation involves trauma, I try to also look at the evidence through a nuanced lens. That means that I try to give some grace in the story not having 100% exacting details. I try to give grace to their mindset and behavior. I don’t expect those experiencing trauma to make the most prudent legal or logical decisions.

"Believing women" DOES NOT mean that I take their story as fact, and also harshly condemn the accused without hearing their side and seeing their own evidence to refute the accusations. It DOES NOT mean that if someone brings up a good point contrary to the accuser’s story with publicly known facts or circumstantial evidence, that the person is a monster for daring to scrutinize an alleged victim at all.

"She's a victim" cannot be used ad infinitum, nor can it be used as blinders to facts.

"She's a victim" is not a panacea for deficits in evidence or behaviour that suggests malice.

I still have a duty to scrutinize the evidence either side puts forth and make a decision. My decision has no bearing on anything consequential, other than what I choose to watch and content I create. So, take my opinion with a grain of salt.

While I try to give grace and nuance to the accusers’ behaviour through the lens of trauma, I still find their behaviour troubling and even malicious. I don’t judge the fact they went to social media if they felt it was their only avenue to be heard. I don’t judge the timing because trauma can take a while to process.

Calling the situation “canceling” and looking rather flippant and gleefully vindictive to said canceling on MULTIPLE social medias, it does put doubt in my mind of their motivations. I did not presume a motive, but I can’t ignore a possible motive if they make their opinions known and broadcast their own actions. No one told them to post on tiktok and Twitter, they chose to and therefore opened those posts up to scrutiny.

I looked at their behaviour and came to a well thought out and reasoned conclusion.

At some point, grace has to run out if they give more reasons to doubt them than not.

The phrase “You know how to make this stop,” is very concerning to me and I would like more context.

The accusers did themselves no favors by continuing to post after the accusations broke. By choosing to post and not seek legal counsel, the story got chaotic and muddled. They poisoned their own well. Further, they implicitly admitted to using hyperbolic language when they walked back the allegations to lesser offenses or no offenses at all.

What’s worse, is that they may have turned their alleged assaulter into a victim. Given how we saw things in real time, their victimization of him has more evidence than his alleged victimization of them. Intimate photos of him have been circling and the accusers may have leaked them or at the least encouraged them to spread.

“my god am I happy these [leaked nudes] r on the internet.”

This was the death knell of any pity I might have had for accusers. My grace has run out.

It is abhorrent that the accusers went on a character assassination campaign, rather than reinforce their evidence of their alleged assaults, fix the deficits in what they had already proffered, or go to the police/seek legal help.

It is suspicious when they stoop to attacking the character of the accused rather than prove actual wrongdoing. This "scorched earth" tactic to assassinate character is the exact playbook of misogynists and what MeToo and Believe Women was trying to fight against. They are the monsters they accuse "rape apologists" of being.

The two worst assertions of his character were that he’s racist and a paedophile, neither of which have anything to do with the alleged assault.

In this instance and at this point, I am compelled to seriously question their motives.

For the sake of argument, I’m assuming all pics I saw were authentic.

For the accusations of racism: The two “exhibits” referred to were insta post likes and a video of him saying the racial slur “coon.”

The insta posts in question are pictures without captions and no context. I did see these for myself on the insta profile before the account was locked. Only two pictures had me wanting more explanation. One was the word “Supremist” against a yellow background, and another was an Iron Cross. The Supremist pics were either right next to or very close to the Iron Cross.

The word has a lot of connotations, and I want more context. I don’t automatically presume it’s racist as a standalone word. It does give me more pause, however, when it’s close to an Iron Cross.

The Iron Cross itself has a long history and there is some evidence it’s used for other things than Nazism now. The question is: what was it used for in THIS context AND what was PHW’s understanding of it at the time of his “like?”

The insta user’s name was found to be in an article that explained their photos were political art. https://curate.la/event.php?id=17301 So, it’s possible that yes, the photos do refer to racist ideology, but within the context of political art. Did PHW know it was political art?

The burden of proof is on the accusers, they have failed to meet that burden.

The video is allegedly him quoting lines from a movie that he was ultimately cut from, that happened to have a slur in it. He is an actor. CONTEXT MATTERS. Is Leonardo DiCaprio a racist for being Calvin Candie in Django Unchained? There is circumstantial evidence that connects the video to a movie with racial themes. Them (2021) Them (TV Series 2021– ) - IMDb.

Allegedly he was cut from this movie and is not listed on IMDB, but he is shown as a cast member in google. google.com>Them 2021 cast (last visited 13 February 2023)

I find this evidence to be persuasive. In the video he had an odd accent along with clothes and hairstyle not typical of his personal style. There was no one else in the video and was speaking directly into the camera. He wasn’t hurling a slur towards anyone specific. It also explains the use of the outdated slur, the movie takes place in the 1950's. He was playing an upsetting character, so I get why people are upset. That does not, however, make him racist.

I would also like to point out that we haven't seen the original post for this video. There could be tags or a caption to give it context. All I've been able to find are reposts of this video with no original tags.

Even with the haircut, clothes, lack of victim the slur was directed at, and the lack of any context, people jumped to conclusions.

PHW has not been proven guilty of being racist by preponderance of the evidence.

For the accusation of paedophilia: None of the pics were of children. None of the child-like art was of children. None of the art had naked or sexualized drawn children. None of the pictures were sexual at all. The closest picture to a child was a caricature/anime style of a small being that might have been a child, but it wasn’t naked nor was it sexualized. The only captions were in a different language that I am not fluent in. PHW liked these photos with no comment.

Again, I have no context for these photos and nothing even at face value suggests to me that they have anything to do with paedophila.

PHW has not been proven guilty of paedophilia by preponderance of the evidence.

His alleged kinks were brought up and I definitely am not going to give that any judicial notice. Kinks are personal and frankly never anyone’s business.

These kinks are not relevant, and I do not give them any judicial notice and are struck from the record.

All pithy court jokes aside, my opinions and judgement might be disappointing to some. I can live with that. I’ve been articulate and impartial, I was WILLING to believe the accusers.

Through the accusers' own petty, malicious, and feckless words and actions, they convinced me not to trust their word.

There's nothing more for me to do and I don’t expect more of myself than I would expect from others.

I can only consider the evidence I have before me when making a decision. That means, I give myself grace to be proven wrong later on. Maybe there is more, substantiated evidence that will come to light. Maybe he'll surprise me and come out with a full confession and apology. I will consider that evidence when it’s brought before me, and I can change my mind.

I will not punish someone for hypothetical evidence that may never manifest.

There is no pride or prize in jumping to conclusions under the guise of feminism.

/s/ Psychic-Refugee Hon. Judge Psychic-Refugee Court of Public Opinion District of Social Media - Tumblr

****

Any further posts on PHW and this situation will be put under #Percy Found Not Guilty, I hope to help cleanse the main tag of this situation.

#percy hynes white #Percy Found Not Guilty #the legal format is for lolz

57 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 8 days

Text

RENO, Nev. — U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2001, died Wednesday after being struck by a vehicle in Nevada. He was 80.

The Reno Police Department was called to a vehicle-pedestrian crash near the federal courthouse in downtown Reno at about 2:15 p.m. Hicks was transported to the hospital but died just after, authorities said.

The driver involved in the crash remained on the scene and is cooperating with the investigation, authorities added. Impairment does not appear to be a factor in the crash.

Officials paid tribute to Hick, who was remembered for his love of his family and Reno community.

"Today’s news regarding the Honorable Judge Larry R. Hicks who served Nevada for over 53 years is tragic," Washoe County Sheriff Darin Balaam said on X. "Despite his notable accomplishments, Judge Hicks once stated, 'My greatest thrill in life is my family.' His life philosophy was based on a balance of family, work, and self."

“Larry Hicks was a one-of-a-kind man, revered in our community and, most importantly, beloved by his family. On behalf of my family and the men and women of the Sheriff’s Office, we extend our deepest condolences to Larry’s son Chris, the current District Attorney, and all of Larry’s family. Judge Hicks’ legacy will forever be noted in Washoe County.”

On Wednesday night, the District Attorney's Office released a statement on behalf of the Hicks family:

"Today, our community lost an extraordinary man. Judge Larry Hicks was a deeply admired lawyer and judge, a devoted friend, mentor, and a committed servant to the administration of justice. To us, he was first and foremost a man who put nothing before family. He was a hero in all manners, a loving husband of nearly 59 years, a doting dad, an adoring Papa, and brother. His loss is beyond comprehension."

District attorney, judge, family man

Hicks was a former Washoe County district attorney and the father of Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks.

In a video interview with his son in 2022, the judge talked about the quality he was most proud of that he got from his parents: "Devotion to family above and beyond all other qualities. My mother and father were totally dedicated to their children."

In the interview, Hicks said he and his wife, with whom he also had two daughters, would be celebrating their 57th anniversary.

Hicks was born in Evanston, Ohio, and his family moved to Reno from Los Angeles when he was 13. He graduated from Reno High School and became the first person in his family to attend college when he entered the University of Nevada, where he joined Sigma Nu fraternity, according to the interview.

In 2020, Chris Hicks posted a tribute to his father after he won an award.

"Recently, the State Bar of Nevada honored my dad, Judge Larry Hicks, with the Presidential Award recognizing his illustrious career," Chris Hicks wrote. "The prestigious award is presented to those whose conduct, honesty, and integrity represent the highest standards of the legal profession.

"Congratulations Dad. There is no one more deserving! Thank you for being the father, mentor, and lawyer you are."

Earlier this month, Hicks presided over a private investigator's lawsuit that claimed Sparks police detectives violated his rights by naming him as the person who put a tracking device on Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve's vehicle.

Hicks called David McNeely's argument "unpersuasive and unsupported" and dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning a similar lawsuit cannot be refiled.

The U.S. District Court said flags over the federal courthouses in Nevada will be flown at half-staff in honor of Hicks.

#nunyas news

4 notes · View notes