Library -  Jess Allen , 2023.

British , b. 1966 -

Oil on linen, 91 x 122 cm.

Here's a couple of photos of Nadine Hwang, a queer woman, airforce colonel, diplomat, concentration camp survivor, amateur photographer, and much more!

Nadine is pictured on the left in her airforce uniform with a dog (name sadly unknown), and on the right with her life partner Nelly Mousset-Vos, an opera singer and member of the Belgian resistance, who she met while both were imprisoned in Ravensbruck Concentration Camp during WWII.

Check out our podcast on Nadine to learn more about her!

[Image sources: ThinkChina; Nelly & Nadine (2022)]

died and came back right. there was definitely something wrong with me before? resurrection fixed me i think

died & came back & it's creeping people out how well-adjusted I am now? everyone's on eggshells waiting for something terrible to happen. honestly i feel terrific

wait. gender transition

Everyone's on eggshells because you covered the floor with them when you hatched

this has me cracking up

FYI iPhone users!

Oh... oh that's disgusting.

For emphasis - YOU HAVE TO TURN THIS OFF FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL APP

As a shortcut - you can go into the Siri tab and access each app there to toggle this off. It’s still obnoxiously granular; I can’t find a way to turn the feature off universally, but doing it this way will save extra clicks, which adds up if you have a lot of apps (who doesn’t have a lot of apps).

this isn't new, this has been there for years, but also bear in mind EVERY time you download an app, this setting will be on by default

I thought I was the one obsessed with potatoes but it turns out that when you point it out people come with 82493 justifications about why potatoes (and it's always just them, even in my other posts few people wanted to talk about say, coffee in space) are always justified actually and you don't need to think about them

noooooooooooooo I don't wanna think about the thousands of years of civilization and culture in the Andes please please please don't make me think about other cultures pleaaaaaase just let me have my knights and wizards noooooooooo

I'm trying to be reasonable here but when you really think about it it's funny, I'm just pointing out that potatoes aren't from Europe and people instead of saying "huh, you're right, maybe I should consider that fact for my future writing" are like NOOOOOOOOOOO BUT WHAT IF A WIZARD BROUGHT THEM, there's a whole other post about how "we can't deny our fantasy characters the potato" fair, I love them too, but why don't you want to learn where your stuff came from, why do you want for "wizards" to make appear them out of nowhere instead of learning there are real people with thousands of years of history who domesticated and created those things you take from granted

are you so scared of learning some of your things actually came from other cultures that were actually not Europeans who live in castles?

does this scare you?

Weird potato fact is also that they were domesticated in the Andes but then spread to other areas like the Chilean lowlands and THOSE are the progenitor of the varieties most non-Andeans consume. The varieties from the Andes are actually genetically somewhat distinct from USAmerican/etc varieties (and taste better lbr they just tend to be smaller and id guess lower yielding). Sorry this isn't even that related to your post but I just like potato facts

Oh yes, one of the theories is that the origin of the main varieties of potatoes consumed worldwide is an hybridization between Andean (Solanum tuberosum andigena) and Chilean (Solanum tuberosum tuberosum) stocks. Domesticated plants are rather complex like that.

Andean potatoes are smaller yes, but they are used in traditional ways of eating them such as chuño. They also have an incredible variety of shapes, colors and flavor:

But let's go one step at a time. Some people still can't grasp the fact there are people outside Europe, talking about this might be too much.

today there still stands early agricultural labs where the incans would test out new plant/crop species at different simulated altitudes, to see which plants could be grown on which parts of the mountains. literally bioengineering our most beloved carb thousands of years ago with little else besides stones and soil.

About that Scientology connection...

One of the details that came to light this week in the latest article detailing the horrific allegations against Neil Gaiman (which I believe are true, to be clear, but not the primary focus of what I'm writing about here) is the extent of his ties to the Church of Scientology. I was most engaged with Neil's work as a teenager and in my early 20s, and I didn't recall seeing mention of the connection at the time (granted, that was more than few years ago!). I couldn't let it go after reading the Vulture article, so I started to dig a bit and found a lot of information being shared on Reddit and even further digging uncovered archived forum posts from over a decade ago by former CoS members.

There are a lot of details in this article by Mikey Crotty, who appears to be an independent comics journalist, which was published by Mike Rinder on his blog in 2023. Rinder was famously an executive in the "church" in Australia and ran SeaOrg (the elite force of CoS, essentially, and responsible for internal discipline within the broader org) before ultimately leaving the organization and speaking out as loudly as he could about the abuses he had been complicit in as a member (at great personal risk, as anyone who is familiar with the tactics used against former CoS members will know).

The piece was written as an exposé about Gaiman's then recently published novel, The Ocean at the End of the Lane, which was semi-autobiographical. Crotty discusses details about Gaiman's family, Gaiman's participation in CoS, and the coverup his father orchestrated for an apparent suicide of a student of Scientology who had immigrated to the UK and was living with the Gaimans at the time. This suicide is written into The Ocean at the End of the Lane.

Neil's father, David Gaiman, was head of worldwide communications for the Church of Scientology in the 60s, and was leading the PR spin to protect the organization from increasing legal scrutiny in the UK at the time. Around the same time, a suicide occurred while a young man, Johannes Scheepers, was living with them (the Gaiman's took in CoS students as lodgers at their home on a regular basis, apparently). The Gaiman family launched a campaign to depict him as a broken down gambler to avoid further scandal for the organization. The logic doesn't quite add up, and it's more likely that Johannes was a new adherent who had been badly taken advantage of. You can read more details in the article I linked. Crotty makes the case that not only were the Gaimans lying about the death of the student, even going so far as to claim he wasn't actually lodging with them, but that Neil then went further to spread these lies in the form of fiction decades later (we now know this book was written as a result of the prompting of Amanda Palmer, who was encouraging him to confront his childhood experiences with CoS per the article in Vulture).

The article also points out evidence of Neil's continued involvement with Scientology:

I want to note that based on what I've read, being a Class VIII auditor is the highest level you can go as an auditor in CoS without becoming a member of SeaOrg. Auditors are individuals who are key to the brainwashing process members of CoS undergo; they utilize the org's "technology" to identify past sins by doing intensive interrogation sessions with members. This means Neil was well trained in how to psychologically interrogate org members and held a position of relative power over them as he documented their dearest secrets for the org (primarily to blackmail them with should they ever want to leave, based on CoS records and former members' experiences).

I found forum posts where others reviewed public records that confirmed the majority of these claims, although unable to confirm the PO Box in Wisconsin. His sister, Lizzy Calcioli, is the current company director of G&G, which supplies pseudoscientific vitamin treatments to drug rehabilitation seekers that are horribly abused by Narconon (CoS does not allow actual medical intervention or medical practices in its org). According to public filings, Neil still owns shares in G&G.

There is also this interview from 2010 with the New Yorker, in which Neil claims he is no longer a member of CoS, but expresses sympathy to them:

It is also well known that celebrity members of CoS are encouraged/allowed to lie about their connection to it in order to support their monetary success. Because of course they're going to contribute back to the organization through that success, which it appears Neil has done.

Additionally, we know from public accounts of CoS's practices and leaked documents that once someone "goes clear" and leaves the organization, they are not allowed to continue to associate with anyone within the cult. Isolation of former victims is one of the many tools used against them. The fact that Neil maintained a marriage for decades to an active member who still works for CoS, as well as relationships with his family members who are leaders in CoS, indicates he is either still on the books as a member or is contributing to CoS in order to avoid alienation from his family. Any sympathy a desire to remain connected with his family might conjure is misguided in my opinion, because we know that he's likely profiting off of shares in a company that takes advantage of and contributes to the traumatization of vulnerable patients as a CoS affiliated business.

Had I known Neil Gaiman was so closely connected to the "church" sooner (one degree away from L. Ron Hubbard himself as a child!), I would not have supported his work in the way that I did in the past. And I think he knew that a significant portion of his audience would respond the same way, which is why he obfuscated and downplayed those connections.

His alleged ongoing involvement also changes the way I perceive his actions - Deception and manipulation is, by former member's accounts, standard procedure for leaders within Scientology. It should come as no surprise that he will continue to deny any evidence, attempt to blame his victims, and lie lie lie to avoid potential consequences. It is, after all, the example he was given and trained in as an active participant in a destructive cult that he has never publicly disavowed and that he appears to continue to support.

I think this information should be taken into account in how former (hopefully) fans react to his responses to these accusations. I wish for peace for the victims who are now speaking out, and I hope they are able to reach the resolution they deserve.

i was going to do a rant about this before seeing this tweet but imma just leave this here

#been saying for years#rainbow capitalism isn't a movement but it sure is a fucking canary (via @runawaymarbles)

This goes hand in hand with pushing for only queer people to play queer roles. Which in theory sounds like a good thing to push for authentic representation when so much of the past stuff was bad.

Except the actual real world outcome has become queer leftists abusively dog piling any actor they deem "inauthentic" leading to actors being forcefully outed against their will before they were ready in an attempt to make the abuse stop. Including children. People have been justifying psychologically tormenting literal children for not publicly disclosing (and being firm and set in) their gender and sexuality in order to work.

In many wants it's set back queer media and made people just as afraid of queer roles ruining their careers and their lives as they were when bigots were doing it. Which is not an improvement to the situation! It's really only giving cover to people who want none of this to exist.

We could have just praised the process we wanted to see. Personally I love seeing Jim Parsons take that big normative sitcom money and fucking off to make emotionally powerful queer films with it casting queer actors whenever he can. But praising that will always be more constructive than bullying Kit Connor. If Daniel Craig wants to spend the rest of his career making charming gay detective movies about helping marginalized woman get revenge on abusive rich assholes, then I don't care what his sexuality is because it's still pushing queer media far forward.

We could have positively addressed rainbow capitalism by supporting queer-owed business. We could have accepted that mainstreaming queer iconography at Target (much of it designed by queer people who got to pay their bills making it) would make space for people buying that small batch t-shirt at Pride. It's not like people only ever buy one t-shirt in their life.

A closeted-for-safety trans boy buying his first binder at Target could have created an opening for the next one to be from Shapeshifters. Instead he may never get the chance to know what it would feel feel like to take the first step because the wrong packaging could endanger him and the (fair) price mightbe unaffordable.

We can't built perils into doing better. We can't keep calling nigh-impossible next steps"the bare minimum" and tearing into them for every imperfection if we want people to do them at all. At minimum that's a burnout machine. At worst it gives bigots leverage to maker sure we have nothing. Kindness and enthuses support of what we want to see happen makes way more progress.

Unfortunately many leftists are still so stuck in the purity-sin-redemption mentality, even when they surface-level reject Christianity, that instead of growth and change everything keeps getting treated as blasphemy unless it's perfect. Even though perfection is impossible. So the whole well is primed to be poisoned by the people who genuinely hate us.

I’m not naming names because I’m not trying to start anything but I’m seeing several mutuals claiming they always knew Gaiman was a bad egg and it was so obvious, as though they didn’t make me stand in line with them to get his signature and kept their signed copies of his books on a special shelf akin to a shrine.

And like, listen, you don’t need to pretend.

This isn’t the devil’s sacrament. You’re not tainted by association. You’re not morally bad for not immediately knowing when someone is being charming and persuasive to hide something they don’t want you to know.

Abusers don’t just groom their victims. They groom their witnesses too. You were never supposed to know something was wrong because it was intentionally hidden. It’s okay you didn’t know. You don’t need to act like you never liked him or his work. You don’t need to pretend. But you do need to stop being shitty to other people who also didn’t know because it reeks of victim blaming.

“Well I knew, so how come others didn’t?”

His victims were fans. Are you blaming them for not knowing?

Christ alive, I hope not.

Now feels like a good time to remind people that the foundation of BDSM is consent. If there’s no consent, it’s not BDSM.

Rough sex can be done consensually.

Sadism can be done consensually.

Impact play can be done consensually.

Emetophilia can be satisfied consensually.

Even consensual non-consent is a thing.

Neil Gaiman had the money and the means to find willing partners for his sexual preferences. There are countless people out there who would be more than happy to perform the acts he wanted. If he wanted, he could have had exactly what he desired with the consent of the other party. But he didn’t look for that because, fundamentally, his interest was in assault, not BDSM.

Don’t let him trick you into thinking what he did was BDSM. It lacked the core element of all BDSM: consent. It was assault that he wanted and that’s what he did to those women.

— Mikhail Tal, The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal.

I need your help with a hypothesis!

For context: My linguistics professor and I got into a discussion after a test she did with us, and I was of the opinion that the reason for the results was different from the one she offered, so she encouraged me to test my theory.

What I need

All you need to do is draw a coffee cup (with a handle, not the disposable stuff) and then answer three questions.

I don't need to see the coffee cup. You can draw it wherever you like; on a piece of paper, digitally, in the sand, on a foggy window. Anything works. It does not have to be good. A doodle is fine.

You have to draw the coffee cup before you see the questions. This is very important. If you decide to help me with this, please doodle the coffee cup before you keep reading.

i know a lot of people dont like bugs but they are animals. theyre just as essential as the rabbits and foxes and deer and bears. they all play an important role keeping the ecosystem in order. they pollinate and hunt and get hunted. theyre a part of a balance. their purpose on earth isnt just to be an inconvenience to you personally. bugs dont care about you. i asked them about it and they said they never even heard of you

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP RSTUVWXY

24/26

Oh wow who woulda thunk

Here's an article about it, but there isn't much more of interest in there. What I will point out is that there's an existing model for high-value, easily stealable products: putting them behind the counter. There's an employee right there who can manage retrieving the product and ring it up immediately so you don't need to track down an employee and manage moving stuff around. It also centralizes all the locked-up products, instead of having a dozen cases scattered around the store. Like, this is a model already in place for cigarettes, cold medicine with decongestant, and so on. If you want shelf space for the items, put tags on the shelf that can be taken to checkout. This is a solved problem.

Now, if your response is that this puts half the store behind the checkout counter, well, maybe you have a different problem than the one you think you do.

I posted this back in July but it is still relevant if not more so today.

One of the things that I think many people are finding difficult to process is that these assaults aren't about sex, they're about power and control. With gaslighting, coercive control, and predatory behaviour, Neil Gaiman made the deliberate choices to do harm over and over again across decades.

Worse than that, he took all of those stories away from fans like Katherine ('Claire'), fans like all of us. He gave them to the world and then selectively chose who got to keep them. He gave his friendship to some women, and used that same friendship as a weapon to hurt others. And he has put his friends and peers in the horrible position of being complicit after the fact.

The women who have come forward deserve not just to be believed, but to be shielded from harassment for sharing their experiences.

Amplifying the voices of the survivors and clearly and calmly saying the quiet parts out loud is something we can all do, to help dismantle the tools he used to deliberately cause harm.

Coining a phrase: Period atypical homophobia.

Definition: When the writer of a piece of historical fiction hasn't really bothered to research how gay people existed in a period of time or what terms would have been used to discuss homosexuality positively or negatively. So instead they put the most modern, likely religious terms into the mouth of a historical character to establish that a character is homophobic.

e.g. Having every Victorian character be a religious homophobe instead of having them talk about "public decency" and "discretion"

(massively simplifying here, but some historical homophobia angles to consider~)

A talking point you got in the 1600s-1700s was "selfishness." Homosexual behavior is taking time away from your family/expected legacy. Like it's a vice hobby equivalent to maybe... gambling. A little isn't *good,* but so long as it doesn't effect your wife/family... it's whatever.

And for the Romans, it wasn't so much homophobia as *bottom* phobia, which mostly manifested as a dislike of couples where both members were too obviously masc, or too obviously femme. Also, a belief that men did and should age out of being femme, and therefore age-gap couples were significantly less problematic.

the fact that we are firmly in a time where conservatives are like "the actual founding fathers, who were slaveowners, were not racist enough for my taste" is wild

@umberto-ecchi to be fair, currently there are like 6 common English spellings of M[u/o/ou]ham[m][a/u/o]d

A) Yes, the Founding Fathers were ecumenical deists who could at least get along with other monotheistic/monolatrists/monotremes.

B) The Arabic language and "alphabet," actually an abjad, have one vowel somewhere between /o/ and /u/ and a separate h-sound that's closer to German ich-laut, and spell doubled letters with one letter with a little w guy over it. So either transcribing or transliterating that name into English/the Roman alphabet is kind of a grab bag of possibilities.

im going to be honest the travis mcelroy amongus breakdown is honestly a fucking nightmare scenario for me. i've had meltdowns and freakouts before, i've come very close in gaming situations to Taking Things Too Seriously and esp. social games. in those situations i'm fortunate enough that I'm able to remove myself from the situation and to not have it be so incredibly publicized.

one time i was frustrated by a card game and i loudly swore, shouted, and slammed my cards on the table. my friend left immediately and gave me a long angry lecture on how i should be able to control myself better. and like... yes, ideally i should have removed myself from the situation first, but like. this is my autism. sometimes i'm gonna have a strong emotional reaction.

so back to travis, like... okay he's unfunny and he annoys you but. idk. the fact that someone getting upset and frustrated at a game and having a freakout makes me think about how you see freakouts and how understanding you'd be if you witnessed me shouting or getting frustrated or just having a bad moment.

one of the really horrifying things about this is how no one watching and glorying in this freakout moment was ever for a second being threatened by him. all the mcelroy's videos and stuff are opt-in, you can just skip the ones that don't amuse you. so for you to develop this hatred of his sense of humor or to hold up the moments he has normal human emotions-- of frustration, or stubborness, or anger, or WHATEVER-- as proof that he's a worthless and awful human being, what you're doing is demonstrating that you never saw him as a person in the first place.

people have a right to be annoying. or frustrating. or disappoint you. or not handle a mental illness with perfect charming grace! but somehow performers are only ever the vehicle for their performance, and you have every right to punish them for failing to entertain you to your exact specifications.

i just find it pretty contemptible for people to get their kicks hating on a guy they don't have to interact with, specifically because they feel entitled to constant, perfect, fulfilling entertainment from clowns that exist only to perform. like okay so you don't find one of the mcelroys as amusing as the other ones! deeply fucked up you consider a whole real human family to be worth nothing more than the enjoyment you personally derive from them, second by second.