Official Apologetic Form for Hans Sama, the ADC of G2 Esports
To: Hans Sama, the esteemed ADC of G2 Esports
From: A Humble Fan Who Underestimated Your Greatness
Date: 14/05/2024
Subject: Sincere Apology for Doubting Your Legendary Performance
Dear Hans Sama,
I, a humble fan of competitive League of Legends, write this letter with a heart brimming with remorse and admiration. Recent events have demonstrated a glaring truth: your skills are not just formidable but transcendent. Allow me to explain and apologize for my prior lack of faith.

Incident Description

It has come to my attention that during the recent matchup against TES, you, Hans Sama, orchestrated a spectacular display of mechanical prowess and game sense, leading G2 Esports to a resounding victory over TES and their ADC, JackeyLove. This performance followed a challenging game against T1 where he failed to purchase Lord Dominik's Regard and where things did not go as hoped. I must confess, after the T1 game, I allowed a shadow of doubt to creep into my mind regarding your abilities.

Acknowledgement of Misjudgment

I acknowledge that my fleeting doubt was not only misplaced but also a gross underestimation of your capabilities. Your resilience and skill in the game against TES have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a paragon of the ADC role, capable of extraordinary feats under immense pressure.

Specific Apologies

1. For Doubting Your Resilience: After the tough game against T1, I questioned your ability to bounce back. Your performance against TES has shown that you possess the resilience of a thousand unkillable demons.
2. For Questioning Your Skills: I momentarily doubted your mechanical skills, only to witness you outmaneuver and outplay one of the world's best ADCs, JackeyLove, with a grace that can only be described as art in motion.
3. For Underestimating Your Impact: I failed to see that even in the face of adversity, you have the ability to carry not just games but the hopes and dreams of fans who believe in the spirit of G2 Esports.

Commitment to Future Belief

I hereby commit to unwavering support and belief in your abilities from this day forward. No more shall I falter in my faith. Whether you face the mightiest of opponents or the fiercest of challenges, my trust in Hans Sama, the ADC extraordinaire, shall remain steadfast.

Conclusion

In conclusion, please accept my deepest apologies for any momentary doubts I may have harbored. Your performance has been nothing short of legendary, and I am in awe of your talent. I look forward to cheering you on in future games, knowing that with you in the bot lane, G2 Esports is always in safe hands.
With profound respect and admiration,
The League of Legends Community

The EXTREMELY detailed, mega-anxiety edition!!! Major events like consult and surgery day are labeled like this:
——— EVENT TITLE ———
Surgeon was Dr. David Whitehead and I saw him on Long Island (New Hyde)
Summarized list of major dates:
Consult: July 19 2023 Mental health letter acquired: August 9 Dates discussed: September 12 Pre-op appointment: December 18 Surgery day: January 8 2024 Post-op: January 17
November 11th 2022: Emailed northwell health for the first time, they emailed back saying to call. I was too anxious so I avoided it for a few months.
Called northwell a few months later but got too anxious talking to the person who picked up. They were being normal and talking normally, it was just personal anxiety on my part.
October 2022 - Early March 2023: Spent time talking to trans friends and family members about their timelines and processes for top surgery.
Looked into Penn medicine for a bit but wasn’t happy with the surgeons there, specifically as a nonbinary person. The patient navigational team however is lovely.
March 2: emailed Penn health patient navigation
March 3-10: correspondence and phone calls w patient navigation (absolutely wonderful people, some of the easiest phone calls I’ve ever had) Got lots of into on surgeons, things I’d need, processes etc.
Date unknown: phone call to Penn medicine asking about surgeons and possibly setting up as a patient (v long wait time on phone) Surgeon I had heard good things about only works w CHOP program and I’m was too old for that program. Other surgeons I was v iffy on.
March 23rd: Back to square 1. Called northwell again to set up an appointment. Everyone I spoke to was really nice. Could have set up an appointment within the week but decided to wait till the end of the semester. Scheduled a trans care and primary care appointment for May
Couple of calls In between for confirmations. Trans care appointment got moved around a bit and ended up being moved to a phone call.
May 8th: Trans care call: Basic preliminary questions like: Emergency contact, what you’re looking for, are you thinking of looking into hormones, experience w dysphoria or dysmorphia, mental health, and eating/nutritional concerns, things you might want doc to know, piercings or tattoos, do you do any drugs or drink often, etc. total call time was about 20 minutes. Doctor was incredibly kind, I still experienced a good deal of anxiety but the call was super easy, welcoming, and friendly. Got sent contact referrals for the surgeons, as well as trans-friendly therapists under my insurance.
May 9th: started looking at list of therapists and making respective emails and calls. Checking per session costs and double checking insurance. Most charge 100-150 per session. Got in contact w one.
May 10th: Called w first therapist talking about what I’m looking for, where I am in this process, if parents are supportive, and talking about costs. She was very friendly and affirming, wants to have a few sessions to get to know me and my situation before writing a letter. Understandable and expected, but frustrating.
May 15th: Primary care appointment: Went to northwell health primary care, parkinglot was a little scary (just a large lot with a lot of cars) but everyone working there’s is super kind. Office is incredibly affirming, pride flags and lgbtq+ art everywhere. Gave my insurance card, filled out some paper work, got called in pretty quickly. I have a needle phobia and medical trauma so I was panicking a bit in the office, nurse was good w me about it and doctor was very kind, I just requested to not have any blood work done that day and that was totally fine, so I could schedule that at a later date and go w a friend. Recommended to get blood work done before scheduling a consult w a surgeon. Also prescribed me a single dose anxiety med for the bloodwork which I was very happy about. I found over time that the anxiety meds unfortunately do little to nothing for my panic attacks personally when it comes to needles but regardless having a doctor acknowledge and respect that fear and listen to me was incredibly helpful and reassuring.
May 30th: Got blood work done in a different lab, went w a friend. Scheduling for that is super easy, I think I did it online actually I don’t entirely recall. they do take walk ins but I made an appointment to minimize complications and make sure I could prepare properly. Front desk/lobby area was a little spooky, but I think that is mainly just bc of my social anxiety. They take a urine sample, you give them your prescription, eventually they call you over for blood work. Quick and easy, tech was v nice and having a friend with me was incredibly helpful. Probably the best I’ve ever done with a needle despite the fact that I did still panic and get very lightheaded lol.
Got blood work results back within the next couple days, all looks a-okay! Neat :)
June 15th This day was incredibly difficult. I had my first session with a therapist to establish some ground knowledge around my dysphoria and the way that I view myself. Top surgery is something that I know from research and related experience Can be difficult and expensive to get and can take time, so much of my prep work has been on the understanding of taking things a step at a time and just knowing that the current way things are doesn’t have to be forever. It allowed me to be able to live with myself while prioritizing my health better. This read to the therapist as “not having the level of dysphoria [she’s] come to expect and look for in someone who is trans” and was largely based off the fact that I don’t want to go on hrt. Past that point I started to break down because now my method of learning to live with myself felt like it was actively going to work against me and prevent me from getting top surgery. I’m not good at talking about my dysphoria, I can’t imagine it’s easy for anyone, especially to a stranger I just met. It was rough, and I felt incredibly mentally drained after ending the session.
June 19th Called it quits with the first therapist, I felt incredibly disrespected and the one session we had put me in a mental spiral for days. It can feel some times in this process like the people you have to get permission from need you to be severely depressed and unable to wait another second for this procedure just in order to take you seriously.
After I left that therapist, I immediately got back to the list to find someone new. Spoke to a new therapist via email, but my insurance is kinda weird (Blue Cross Blue Shield out of state) so its off putting to some people. This therapist recommended I go through the office she started out at (Heart and Soul Counseling)
————- Time Skip ——————
IM BACK its time for some record keeping. Got super overwhelmed and lost the energy to document my process for some time so here goes.
HEART AND SOUL COUNSELING: My experience w/ this therapy office was mostly good. The person in charge, Jesse, was absolutely lovely and responsive. Never spoke in person, but any text/email interaction was prompt, respectful, and kind. The office is stellar with email/text communication, so I only ever had to call them once when I was initially inquiring about the office. This is something I wish all therapy/counseling centers did better, eliminated a ton of my anxiety and hesitation to speak to therapists.
I got set up w someone as quickly as possible and established what my goal was (to acquire letter document for my surgery team). I attended multiple session w the therapist, she was a kind lady but the sessions were unfortunately p miserable for me. We didn’t fit well, but I was willing to stick it out rather than backtrack on my process. She also did not invalidate me or accuse me of not being trans which was a major step up from my first therapy experience. Once I acquired my letter I did stop therapy there, I kindly explained to the therapist that it wasn’t a good match, but I may honestly explore my options at the office in the future. Receptionist there was also lovely and they had a cool fish tank.
———- CONSULT STARTS HERE —————
July 19th: CONSULT!!! My mama and I went to Dr. David Whiteheads office for a consult. Parking was a nightmare so I’m super glad I didn’t have to drive for this one (ty mama). Consult went really well, and the staff were all super friendly. Dr. Whitehead is cool, very chill energy and a bit intimidating, but I’m scared of everyone so that’s nothing new. First question he asked me is what I wanted/what he could do for me which caught me more off guard than it should have? I didn’t realize going into this process how many times people ask you what you’re having done even if it’s already written down, because there’s so much variety in what you can look for in the results.
We talked about the procedure, went through a slideshow n stuff, and discussed how I wanted a flat chest w/ no nipple preservation. They made sure to specify that my mental health professional letter had to include that I did not want nipple preservation because thats technically a “non-standard” appearance. Also had the first breast exam I’ve ever had in my life. Can’t say i’m a fan (not that I need to worry about that anymore!) Took pictures n measurements n such, and also discussed recovery supplies and care w me and my mom.
August 9th: After a plethora of painfully awkward therapy sessions, a decent amount of crying, and a couple breakdowns in friends cars/backyards, I got my therapist letter and sent it to the surgeons office. It ended up needing minor revisions to which I contacted Jesse from Heart and Soul and he got me the revised letter immediately. Unfortunately the surgical coordinator was out of office for the rest of the month the next day ;w;. Is how it be.
September 12th: Got a call from Surgical coordinator mid-painting class that I stepped out to take. Started discussing surgical dates!! She was kind enough to email the dates to me which was lovely because I was absolutely shaking/mind blank haha. There was an option for January 8th which felt like an absolute miracle the way it would work with my school schedule. It would give me a solid two weeks recovery time before spring semester began. Because it would be a couple months out, I was asked to contact her in the second week of October to submit documents to insurance.
(Timeline note: earliest date offered was in early December)
October 10th: Documents sent to insurance, predetermination started
October 30th: Received mail from my insurance approving my procedure as medically necessary (YAY) But! This is also where things get,,, fun! Dr Whitehead’s surgical coordinator, Alyssa, is a blessing and was very helpful and prompt with me despite the fact that I had to email her pretty constantly during this general time which I still feel bad about.
Around this time, my mom got diagnosed with breast cancer, which I reported to the surgical coordinator because it influences my family history (grandmother also had breast cancer). It was asked that I get genetic testing done because this could impact my surgical procedure. Now I’m handling the setup on this between helping my mom in her process setting up consults and considering her options because there of course is a lot of crossover to the steps I’ve already completed and am familiar with.
November 1st: Very kind person at cancer genetics calls me, sends me a family history questionnaire to fill out before I can be scheduled to see a genetic counselor. Filled out the questionnaire the same day.
November 8th: Called cancer genetics to check about scheduling, office was not open so left a message. Got a call back later in the day. I have a virtual appointment with a Genetic counselor Tuesday the 14th. Current plan is a mailed saliva genetic test but I’m going to ask if theres anything I can do to get results/materials quicker. If I can’t get results/feedback by December 8th my surgery date may get deferred.
Trying not to stress too much because there is little to nothing I can do about this, and I just don’t want to be sad. I’ve kept telling myself throughout this process to not get excited and not let myself believe anything is solid because something could happen at any time that might mess up my schedule or plan, and If I convince myself I’m in the clear, those changes will hurt a lot more. So far I think thats been a good move, because this really sucks.
My surgery date is still officially scheduled as of now as well as my first post-op. I will also ideally have pre-surgical testing done December 18th should I be cleared by genetics in time (Fingers crossed!)
ALSO! Def lean on friends if/when you can during this process. It can absolutely be challenging, and having a support system is incredibly important and helpful. I’m super lucky to have really lovely and supportive friends that are around to listen to me and send me pictures of stupid little animals.
November 9th: My mama is scheduled for her double mastectomy on December 4th
November 10th: Did some shopping with my mama for recovery supplies for double mastectomy/top surgery. Having watched a million and a half transition/top surgery videos and tiktoks and having read all the blogs and posts and tweets makes you a great support for someone suddenly faced with an upcoming double mastectomy! We might go shopping this weekend for some button ups and zip ups for her, clothes shopping is better done when you can try stuff on
November 14th: Meeting w genetic counselor: Victoria Webb, one of the loveliest medical care workers I’ve ever met. Had a virtual appointment with her to discuss and set up genetic testing. I explained to her about my situation w the proximity of my surgery and tight deadline as well as my willingness to do a blood test instead of a saliva kit to get results quicker. She was so incredibly kind and good with me, ended up being able to do a saliva kit and get results in time she deserves every good thing in life.
December 18th: pre-surgical testing: This was at the main hospital, everyone was really nice but I had a really bad panic attack despite being on Xanax.
The process is sort of like getting a physical. Measurements like weight and blood pressure get taken, lots of preliminary health questions. The people working with me were really kind and I was very open with them about my anxiety, it was visually apparent though anyway because I started crying the second we even started talking about the blood draw.
Once the equipment was actually brought into the room I started to panic. Both of the women working with me were really kind and helpful and tried to distract me and keep me talking the entire time, but I did still have a really horrible panic attack. Every muscle in my body locked up and I lost all my color, took a bit to get back to a spot where I could move and talk properly because my speech was affected too. It was a bit scary but funny to think about in post. Thanked the medical staff for being patient w me as always, a good portion of the anxiety is also guilt about making things harder for them. Got through it tho. Def eat before presurgical if allowed, I didn’t and that probably didn’t help!!
———- SURGERY DAY ————-
January 8th:
Ok so surgery day:
This day was very scary. Got my phone call the Friday prior for my surgery time which ended up being 1pm and I was asked to arrive around 11. Got there at 10 and went in at 10:30.
Called up to check in then in waiting room till someone brought me back to change. I told her right away about my anxiety with the iv bc that’s legit all I could think about. Got changed right after. I was generally shaky and a little disoriented the entire time because I was panicking but everyone was very patient with me. Clothes and belongings go in a bag in a locker and you get two gowns one that faces back and one that faces front. I was given underwear and a pad as well because lucky me I got my period a couple days before my surgery.
The pre-op area is a lot of little cubicles with curtain divider things, blue soft chairs, and medical equipment. Everyone I met and spoke to was very kind, but any time someone even suggested starting my iv I would panic. I was informed it would have to be placed in my hand and that terrified me, I’m especially anxious and sensitive about my hands and fingers. I think doctors and nurses tend to misunderstand exactly where my fear is with needles and ivs. It isn’t the pain that scares me, but the concept of veins and and anything being in them. Even writing this right now is horrible so I’m going to stop w any further detail. I spent the entire two-ish hours of pre-op absolutely terrified about this iv.
I wasn’t really keeping track of time but dr whitehead came in to do markings for surgery. They had cool rainbow socks on,big fan. Having your chest drawn on and just like, moved around n shit is such an experience. Felt bad because I kept losing my balance but doctor Whitehead is cool and I am 98% less scared about them now.
Probably my most favorite person I met during my entire hospital experience was the anesthesiologist. I know he told me what his name was but I couldn’t focus on or retain information at the time. He told me we could essentially put me to sleep with gas before putting the iv in and for the first time in probably a solid week I felt like I could calm down a little. He took a look at my hand and arm to check my veins which always does freak me out a bit but I’m more used to that kind of thing at this point and I know nothing bad is going to happen. One of the nurses came in with the iv equipment and he let her know that were going to wait till in the or which was also incredibly helpful because I absolutely panicked when I saw that little supply kit again.
V nice lady brought me into the or, I’d never been in one before it was cool. They had a little music speaker which was really cool. Took off blue jacket gown and they helped me onto the table. They put a warm blanket over my legs and my chest to help me calm down. Before long they gave me a mask w fun happy sleepy time gas, they let me keep my arms on my chest for a while which was really nice because I was still scared. I started getting loopy pretty fast but I still heard when someone mentioned where the iv equipment was and panicked a little because of that. I remember feeling them take my hand for that but never actually felt anything happen. Just some fear but the gas was v helpful obvi. Someone said they would see me in a little bit, and then I was groggily waking up in recovery.
Recovery was a little rough bc the iv was still there (fully wrapped up so I couldn’t see it though which was rad) but I was still really anxious about it until it was taken out and when it was taken out. For anyone that struggles w this i did not feel them remove it, just the tape. Everything was mentally much easier after that. After a while, going over instructions w parents, a cracker , some ginger ale and some juice, my dad helped me Get dressed and I was helped out to the car in a wheel chair. Ride was smooth bc of remaining numbness and meds except a few Bumps in the road
TOP SURGERY GOTTEN
My post op date was scheduled for Jan 17th and that’s the day I got my drains out followed by several post op check-ins. First week of recovery was miserable but things exponentially approved each day past that, and I went back to school in person two weeks post-op with driving and item-carrying assistance from friends!
Will upload recovery notes at a later date! Feel free to message me with any questions, more than happy to answer and give info! I’m a bit over four months out from surgery now and thriving 🥳

I lost my brother about half a year ago, and my dad recently found the last picture my family had with each other together, it was a mothers day picture of us all eating at the dinner table. The pain I see in his eyes, I have had a hard time accessing the emotions for what has happened, but today I felt near broken, it was tough, but at least I felt. I like to write words, call it a poem, or a journal entry, or whatever you feel, I wanted to share, maybe you too have felt, feel, or may feel similarly.
"
I saw your picture
of the last time we were together.
You look unhappy,
I wish I could change that.
I can't find the right set of words
that express the depth of sorrow
I feel right now.
Fate may
or may not exist,
if it does,
may I be fated
to apologize
for not acknowledging
your suffering,
even if
you did not want to show it,
or did not know how to,
may I be fated
to acknowledge you somehow.
"

I love this sub, and don't have anywhere else to share this, so I wanted to tell you guys that I turned in my dissertation this morning after a fuck ton of years working on it. I'm relieved to be done and to be able to sort of relax after being in crisis writing mode every day for way too long. To anyone else working on their PhD (or MA or BA) - hang in there, if you love linguistics, it's worth it.
[θeŋks, aɪ lɐv jʉ ɡaɪz]
*also now I'll have more time to make some ling memes I've been thinking of

In the competitive realm of academic pursuits, the journey towards earning an MBA, Masters, PhD, or DBA degree is nothing short of a formidable task. As scholars embark on this intellectual odyssey, the pivotal role of dissertation writing emerges as a defining factor in their academic success. At Writers.ae, we stand as a beacon of support and expertise, equipped to navigate students through the complexities of dissertation writing across various academic levels.
MBA Thesis, Dissertation Writing: Dubai-AbuDhabi-UAE The pursuit of an MBA degree demands a deep understanding of business theories and practical applications. Our team at Writers.ae specializes in crafting impeccable MBA dissertations tailored to showcase a student’s research acumen, analytical skills, and strategic thinking. From selecting a compelling topic to conducting thorough research and presenting findings with clarity, our experts ensure that every aspect of the MBA dissertation reflects academic rigor and professional finesse.
PhD Dissertation Writing: Earning a PhD is a pinnacle of scholarly achievement, culminating in a dissertation that contributes new insights to a particular field of study. Writers.ae takes pride in offering comprehensive support to PhD candidates in crafting dissertations that exemplify originality, depth of analysis, and methodological precision. Our seasoned writers and researchers collaborate closely with students to develop coherent arguments, robust methodologies, and impactful conclusions that resonate with the academic community.
PhD Research Proposal Writing Help in Dubai Abu Dhabi UAE: Embarking on a PhD journey begins with crafting a compelling research proposal that sets the stage for the dissertation ahead. Writers.ae provides expert guidance and support to students in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and across the UAE in formulating research proposals that are methodologically sound, theoretically grounded, and academically rigorous. From defining research objectives to outlining research methodologies and establishing the significance of the study, our team ensures that every research proposal encapsulates the essence of a groundbreaking scholarly inquiry.
As students navigate the intricate terrain of MBA, Masters, PhD, or DBA studies, the significance of dissertation writing looms large as a testament to their intellectual prowess and academic dedication. With Writers.ae as a trusted ally, students can transcend the challenges of dissertation writing and forge ahead towards academic excellence with confidence and competence.

DissertationWriting #MBA #PhD #DBA #MastersDegree #AcademicExcellence #ResearchProposal #ThesisWriting #AcademicSupport #ScholarlyPursuits #Dubai #AbuDhabi #UAE #Writersae #ExpertWriters #ResearchExperts #ScholarlyCommunity #IntellectualOdyssey #GraduateStudies #AcademicJourney

We’ve been together for 4 and a half years basically. We’ve know each other for 10. Liked each other in high school, life happened, I moved away, she had a kid, found our way back to each other, and ended up having a child of our own 2 years ago. To try and summarize, she feels once our daughter was born, that I got too comfortable and acted as though I knew she wasn’t going anywhere. I worked overnight construction for years, even before we got together, made it to a superintendent position, with a job where I averaged anywhere from 65-80+ hours a week. She was home with the kids, I didn’t make enough to put the kids in daycare, and couldn’t commit to any kind of permanent arrangement to assist her with taking care of the kids so she could work. The goal, since before we got together, was for me to leave my trade, but I made more money doing that, than we would have if we both started entry level jobs, not to mention then having to pay for daycares. I was offered help by my mother who lived out of state to bring me family over there with promises of help so we could make the changes necessary to restructure our life and improve our situation. I got here, worked in my same trade for a few months until the rain season began, and she immediately began her course to become a CNA, then started work as one, and makes decent money. Well she made a friend there, who I honestly can’t stand. I have NEVER told her who she can and can’t see, hang out with, talk to, nothing like that, she’s never given me a reason to doubt her, she has always been a loyal person and very honest. This friend of hers, without spending time on all the details and making this post even longer, tries encouraging my girlfriend to do things or think certain ways that I feel are detrimental to our relationship. Telling her she should start an OF, is one example, and when my girlfriend vented to her about an issue we had, told her that I am a narcissist like every guy she’s been with and to just leave me.
For some context, I forgot our anniversary. I think I’ve forgotten it almost every year, because it wasn’t really a special occasion, we talked about it a few months into our relationship basically saying “hey we’re dating right? Like this is official? What do we tell people if they ask what our anniversary is? Okay cool, sounds good, moving on.” I get it, that mindset was wrong of me. I also procrastinate on things like holidays, birthdays, whatever, and have had some instances where I really should have tried harder to make her feel special and appreciated. I used to do the hallmark movie corny stuff, I used to have a notebook I’d write in when I got home in the mornings while she was asleep about how I loved her, she’s beautiful, I appreciate her, blah blah. One time I set a path from the front door to the upstairs bath with candles, flower petals, where a bath was drawn, with red lights for ambiance and a bath bomb for her. It fell off because the honey moon phase ended, although I feel it lasted a long time, and life events happened that lead to some emotional dry spells on her part where she wasn’t ready to receive affection, her grandmother passing, having a miscarriage far along in our first pregnancy together, her step father dying, and then also the stresses of my job wearing me out, and getting comfortable subconsciously telling myself that even though I don’t always do those same things anymore, she knows I think she’s the greatest and I love her.
I have a bad habit that I’ve been working on for a few months now, where if she’d bring up things that made me nervous to think about or stress me out to plan, I would play too much and not take the situations seriously, and make her not feel heard as a result. I always teased that I don’t believe in legally getting married, that I’d take her to the courthouse and let her change her last name to mine and then we can have a ceremony after. 2 years ago I told her that wasn’t the case, and we finally talked about it where I told her that once our situation is right, in marrying her. I know in hindsight that I should have still placed it as a higher priority, but we never really talked about it further, and she clung to what I’d said before that about us never getting married. When our fighting started getting bad about 2 months ago, and we finally communicated what the underlying root of her unhappiness was, I had a huge perspective change. Some other big events happened, my step father who we lived with overdosed from fentanyl in our basement, and really changed my perspective on life and how quickly things can end and change and blah blah, to where I told her that I don’t want to fight, she is my one, and I want to marry her. She basically took it as me saying it out of fear to get her to stay. I’ve been trying to show her that I want to make the effort she is asking for. That she is as special to me as I say, but now in her mind she is taking an approach of “why did it take 4 years to get to this point.”
I never try to deny responsibility for my actions, I always try to be quick to reflect and acknowledge where I may have been wrong. But now I almost feel like my readiness to say okay I messed up by getting comfortable and not making you feel heard in these situations and everything else I’ve talked about, kind of seems like I’ve only made her feel completely validated in her idea that I have messed up for 4 years and just not appreciated her. I almost want to tell her that yes, I have slowed down and gotten comfortable, but no, there’s are so many examples of times I’ve still shown you how much I cared. I fear doing so will come off argumentative, and give her more fuel to the fire of her friend calling me a narcissist. Side note: she has since stopped getting advice from that friend, because she did come to the conclusion that her friend does not have her best interest, and has seen an uglier side to her as time has gone on, but I feel the seeds of discord have been sown.
I’m so sorry, I hope some of you with good intentions stick through all of this, and I know there’s other context that could help, but I guess I just need some ideas on what to do. 7 weeks ago we started fighting over petty day to day things, 5 weeks ago we finally established her root of unhappiness, 4 weeks ago she said she needed space, 2-3 weeks ago we said we were taking a break, and I feel her feelings of negativity have only grown. I’ve sucked at giving space admittedly, as time goes on I’ve gotten better though I fear damage has been further done by not doing great about accepting her request for space. Idk, we have a child together, I love both of the children like they’re my own blood, I’ve never felt this happy in a relationship (I know I’m young, still) and now that we’re finally hitting our goals with our lifestyle changes and career changes, now she’s finally gotten to this point of giving up.
Do I try giving her space, doing my own thing and seeing if that separation and seeing my positive activities draws her back in? Or has it gone on so long that that’s not going to work? Do I try saying finally “hey I acknowledge my mistakes, but in your attempts to focus on my wrong doings I feel like you’re ignoring all the good things I did and I’d like you to try remembering those? I don’t hit her, cuss at her, our heated fights can probably be counted on 1, maybe 2 hands, I don’t cheat, I provide, I’ve taken care of the kids just about by myself for the past 5 months to give her room to get her new profession down, I cook and clean every night, not to be crass but our intimate life is very good, I know I deliver for her on that account, and I’m someone who is always willing to apologize and adapt and adjust. Any advice that isn’t slanderous to either of us would be awesome, I get at this point that if it’s too late then I need to just start preparing for that eventuality and working on myself, but for the sake of keeping my family together, I want to exhaust all of my options to make this work.

Today, we're diving into the realm of academic help, particularly focusing on essay writing services that can truly elevate your college experience. I’ve personally tried several services over my academic career, and I want to highlight two that stood out for their exemplary services.
EssayMarket.net
EssayMarket.net operates a bit differently from your standard essay writing service. It functions as a marketplace, where you can browse through profiles of numerous writers, compare their qualifications, and read reviews left by other students. This transparency allows you to pick a writer who best matches your specific needs and budget.
The control you have over the selection process is a massive advantage. You're not just assigned a writer; you get to choose who you work with based on their expertise in your topic and their track record with previous clients. This can significantly boost your confidence in the quality of the essay you’ll receive.
Pricing on EssayMarket.net varies depending on the writer you choose, which means there’s often a range that can accommodate various budgets. The site also holds your payment in escrow until you approve the finished product, ensuring that the work meets your standards.
PaperCoach.co
PaperCoach.co is another service that has consistently impressed me with its level of professionalism and quality. They offer a wide range of writing services, from simple essays to complex research papers and even help with theses and dissertations.
What sets PaperCoach apart is their commitment to quality. Each paper is not only written by experienced academic writers but also goes through a rigorous proofreading process to ensure that it is free of errors and meets all academic standards. Their support team is available around the clock, which is incredibly helpful if you’re pulling a late-night study session and need immediate help.
The website itself is user-friendly, with a straightforward ordering process that allows you to specify every detail of your assignment, ensuring that the final product is exactly what you need. Their pricing is transparent, and they offer various discounts throughout the year, making their services more accessible to students who are tight on funds.
When choosing an essay writing service, consider what aspects are most important to you: cost, control, quality, or perhaps the availability of customer support. No matter which service you choose, remember to use these tools as aids to enhance your learning and help manage your workload.

As many people know, the 2nd Tumbleton was a giant mess of material that is nearing fanfiction levels of writing favoring the Blacks, but I wanted to break down some things that really irk or make my brain hurt thinking over them as I am re-reading the text. Hope I can make a few people laugh also, tried my best.
The battle starts in the black of night, where Addam arrives with his army of spawned in men that we are told he convinced to join him through talk-no-jutsu. We are told Addam set afire hundreds of tents full of men asleep. He then set his flames onto the town of Tumbleton, we are told the few shops, homes and Septs that were spared in the sack were engulfed in dragonfire by Addam. The book completely just glosses over how this kid just nuked a town for no reason after spending pages describing how awful the greens were for doing the same thing, anyway lol.
Ulf was knocked into a coma dream, that we are to assume he was put in by Benjicot's sharingan, nothing could wake him up. Hugh made his way to the stables, while waiting for his men to get his armor, Jon Roxton kills him to make sure he can't mount his dragon and kill Addam?????? Roxton really got hit hard by George with the brainless juice here because you can't put 2 and 2 together that maybe killing a valuable rider in the midst of an ambush is a really bad idea.
We are then told next that Daeron was killed by either two randoms or his tent. His dragon never even attempted to acknowledge its rider's death or the danger he was in. Tessarion kinda forgot about strong dragon & dragonrider bonds, feeling emotions, pain etc. So Addam's fire barrage kills Daeron. We are then told that Tessarion decides to now finally stop forgetting and kill the dragon who just killed her rider, so she attacks Seasmoke. Then George starts writing dragon pornfic about Tessarion deciding to have a mating dance with her rider's killer lol?????????
Vermithor then rose to put a stop to this cringe George was writing. The text then goes on to wank Addam more telling us how brave and awesome he is by deciding to face Vermithor, so he blindsides Vermithor, mid fight we get a Blackwood mention, George cant help himself. Vermithor beats and is about to kill Seasmoke when Tessarion decides she never really cared about Daeron in the first place, and decides to help her rider's murderer, the reason is unclear, it could have been the dragon porn? it could have been Addam's anime powers? maybe it was the Blackwood aura? Anyway Tessarion steps in saves Seasmoke's ass for some reason, then they fight for a bit, Seasmoke gets his head ripped off, Tessarion crawled away and Vermithor died from his wounds. Tessarion then gets killed by a Blackwood because George had to get one last Blackwood wank in.
The battle concludes when Benjicot grabs Addam's body and carries him away like a dramatic anime moment. We are told he got the privilege to rest at Raventree hall for a couple years till he later gets entombed in Hull with a stone engraved with the word LOYAL.
Daeron's body conveniently disappears, no body or funeral is ever held for him. His own men really gave zero shits about what happened to him. His own kin back in Oldtown forgot he existed and befriend his killer's brother. His brother Aegon was the only one who really cared that he died, ordered a giant statue made for him, that never got completed.
To conclude the breakdown of the 2nd Battle of Tumbleton, we had a 16 year old boy with anime protagonist talk-no-jutsu powers lead an army 4000 strong, of fish people I am to assume? against an army that was originally 20k, probably down to 15k by then, utterly defeated them, killed the Prince in charge, nuked the town, set the camps ablaze, participated in some dragon mating dance, attacked an angry Vermithor, befriended the dragon of the prince he killed, died from crush in the dragon 2v1, got the honor to be carried by a Blackwood. Then a Blackwood killed a dragon because this was necessary. Unwin Peake then decides to kill the last rider they have, decides he never really cared about helping his king and took the remaining thousands of men and marched home. We don't know where Daeron's body went, maybe he became the Night King? Alicent never mentions her son's death after and none of his kin do either. So we are to assume Lyonel never really cared for Daeron also. Oh yeah and the Hightowers kinda forgot they lost their Valyrian sword Vigilance @ Tumbleton when Hobert died.

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/dissecting-the-new-york-times-plea
"Story at a Glance:
•Repeatedly forcing the public (e.g., through mandates) to use unsafe and ineffective therapies (that injured millions) has created a public relations disaster for the establishment.
• Various attempts have been made to do the impossible—restore the public’s trust in our medical institutions without any of them admitting fault.
• Here, I review each of the previous attempts and how they were used to create the recent infamous article by the NYT—which while monumental for bringing attention to the COVID vaccine-injured, also repeats a variety of strategic and very harmful lies to protect the vaccine industry.
• One of the mysteries of the COVID-19 response is what could have possibly justified breaking the public’s trust in the medical institutions our society revolves around. Here I will review the most compelling explanations we’ve come across after three years of investigating this commonly asked question."
....
"Before we go any further, I'd like to focus on its title, which sadly synopsizes the entire NYT article:
Note: thousands is a very clever word to use here, since if 999,900 people were permanently disabled by the vaccine, it would still be “true” but it implies a far smaller number.
When the word “believe” is used, it can have a few different meanings. For example it could be used:
• When you think something is true but don’t have the ability to back it up (e.g., I frequently use “believe” here because I think it is important to note the claims I am making that I cannot provide strong evidence for).
• To characterize something someone thinks is true an irrational belief that only exists in their head (e.g., a common way medicine gaslights patients ds by arguing the symptoms they experienced from a pharmaceutical injury are actually just “in their head”).
• When you want to acknowledge someone’s feelings to make it seem like you are doing something but divorce the discussion from any factual or substantiative grounding (something which sadly is quite common in the modern left).
In turn, I would argue the NYT was not using “believe” in the way I believe is appropriate to do and instead doing the latter two. Thus, like all good propagandists, they are attempting to find a way to twist the situation so that they can have their cake and eat it. Similarly, if you consider the other underlined phrase, it’s clear someone spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to write something that sounded like an acceptable admission and apology to those injured by the vaccines but simultaneously suggested that those injuries aren’t really a thing and there is nothing to be concerned about with the vaccine." .... "Note: as I show throughout this article, one of the most common scripts used to defend the vaccination program has been that the injuries are rare (e.g., one in a million). The best estimate I have seen of the vaccine injury rate is 18% of recipients experiencing mild to moderate injuries, 0.9% experience significant injuries (e.g., disabilities)—which of course does not include the many who have died (which many estimate at around 1 in 1000)."

I (M28) moved in with a couple that are a friend of a friend type deal. They (M28 and F27) own a home together and have 2 other housemates living with them. We are all working professionals. Upon moving in, the dynamic was great. I'm always at work or gone from the home so I rarely interacted with them, rent is always 2 weeks early, I keep the place clean, I don't bring guests over. Additionally, they have 3 cats from the couple and 2 cats from one of the other housemates. I play with the cats and will sometimes clean their kitty litter area if it gets too messy, I don't expect anything out of it I just genuinely like their cats.
When I moved in, part of my lease agreement stated that I could have a dog. Prior to signing the lease and prior to moving in I had voiced that I intended to get to get a dog. Several months later I was out and about and saw some puppies, I went up to view them and one of them was crying and then crawled on me. I picked the puppy up, it stopped crying then peed on me.. I immediately knew that was my dog. I'm not one to get emotional and act on impulse but I knew that was my dog.
I called up my housemates (the owners) and told them that I will likely get a dog by the end of the weekend. I texted so that I could have it in writing that I was going to get a puppy, the puppy was to stay in my room away from the stay in my room to quarantine just in case it was sick. I am going to come home every day for lunch to feed the puppy, play with him, feed him etc. Additionally, I was going to limit the amount of hours I worked to put a lot of time into my pup. I also stated that if it didn't work out, it would hurt my soul but, I could easily re-home my pup and have him stay with my mom.
I f*cked up and ended up getting the dog that day but several hours later, making sure my mom was okay with possibly taking the dog if it didn't work out. I got my dog on a Saturday and that day I bought all his necessities, including a travel bag/crate to put him in so that I could keep him off the ground just in case he was sick with something and I didn't know.
That Sunday, he stayed in my room, and I quarantined myself in there as a precaution. I made an appointment with a Vet for Monday (2 days after I had got him). I took half the day off of work so that I could take him. I spent a LOT of money to get him evaluated and tested for possible transmissible diseases that could get the cats sick. I asked the vet all the right questions in terms of the do's and don'ts about puppy health. Specifically asked, "can my dog get the cats sick?" The Vet said "not unless my dog is sick and the cats get around him or specifically his poo." I followed up with, "Can the cats get my dog sick?" He said, "not unless the puppy is in direct contact with the cat's feces." I continued to quarantine my pup, got him some artificial turf, began to crate train and potty train immediately. I got his results quick, by Wednesday... he came back with a clean bill of health and had an appointment that following Saturday for his first dose of distemper (parvo vaccine). He got his first parvo vaccine and was given his first dose of topical anti-flea medicine. During this visit, I asked the vet two questions 1) Can I start taking my dog out in my backyard to potty train him? 2) Will my dog get the cats sick? Answer: 1) So long as you know that no other dogs have been back there to pee/poo and he's not in direct contact with pee/poo. 2) No, especially now that we know that he is not a carrier of anything.
At this point, in order to potty train my dog, when I catch him squatting in my room, I'm picking him up and taking him to the door, having him ring (touch a bell thing), and taking him to a specific spot in the back yard. When he's done, I carry him back in or stay outside with him to play a little since we're confined to only being in my room and the backyard. After which, I carry him and bring him back in. I'm kind of in my own world as I am really happy but I begin to notice that the owners are being passive aggressive, they aren't asking about the puppy or how he's doing or even saying "hi" to me... hell .. they haven't even made an attempt to meet him. It didn't hit me until I asked one of them if they wanted to meet the puppy and they responded with "nah, I'm good. I'm okay." I was immediately thrown back thinking to myself "who doesn't want to meet a puppy?"
I came home from work one day, put the puppy in his case and took him out to play/poo/pee. I brought him back in and I finally heard the business. The girlfriend was pissed to the point where you can hear that she wanted to cry (that cracked voice sound). "I can't believe you did this, it was impulsive. You got the dog without even asking us. He can get our cats sick. He can bring in fleas, we're very serious about fleas. You did not discuss this with us. We had a similar situation with our last roommate that didn't take care of his cat and neglected it." It went on and on and on. I calmly responded with, "Please do not equate me with another individual. I took my dog to the vet not even 2 days after I got him, since then he's been in my room and in my room only. He already has one of his shots, is on anti flea meds, gets his second dose April 20th and third May 18th." She emotionally goes on and on and effectively makes it sound like I'm incompetent... I'm an electrical engineer... I'm not stupid by any means. I got her questions answered but she still requested that I carry him in his case despite already establishing that he cannot get the cats sick, whatever, I'm still honoring that request.
We are all talking normal again but still, they have not made an attempt to meet the puppy nor ask about my puppy. They just see me taking him out to the backyard or leaving with him. The only puppy related thing they asked is that I spray water over where he pees in the backyard because it can kill the grill. My puppy is 4 - 5 lbs at 10 weeks old, he pees milliliters, we have san augustine grass, this grass is literally unkillable short of not watering it (this request I do not honor as I just found it completely irrational, when he gets bigger... sure.. right now though?).
I feel like I'm walking on egg shells here. I want to move but this place is 25 minutes (without traffic) from my job and is affordable. I have three options 1) Move out further from work and get my own place. 2) Move back in with my mom who lives 55 miles away from my job. 3) Re-home my dog. First two options mean that I will not be able to go home for lunch to take my dog out to pee/poo and play/eat. Third option, is the nuclear one and I don't want to touch it.
I don't know how to go about this, I know I jacked up by impulsively getting the dog but he's here and I'm making it work but at the same time feel like I'm keeping him prisoner in my room.
My housemates are cool, they're well educated and nice people but man, they are passive aggressive as heck. It kills me that they won't even acknowledge my puppy, he's done nothing wrong. I kills me more because he loves people and gets excited to meet new people. When I'm gone at work, he does not cry, bark, etc. He's just chill'n with his music (low volume), chewing on his toys, searching for snacks that I've hid in his play area, sleeping or waiting for me. My housemates legit do not have to do anything, I have not asked anything of them and it kills me that they won't even acknowledge him.
How do I go about this?
tldr: I got a puppy, am a responsible owner but owners are being weird about me having a dog despite it being okay on lease. I don't want to move due to proximity to work.

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

I try to cut contact with her and this is how she responds.
When I was having a psychotic episode last year (due to Covid-related brain inflammation) she manipulated me into committing myself to a psychiatric hospital (I was hallucinating so it was easy for her to do this). Upon leaving the hospital, docs onboarded me with a psychiatrist who prescribed me 20mg Prozac.
SEVERAL MONTHS LATER I tell my mom I no longer want to have a relationship with her because she has severely abused me through my life.
A few days later, she contacts my psychiatrist and feeds him a bunch of lies about how I’m “sleeping on the concrete floor in the basement” etc etc.
The psychiatrist 1) believes her fully 2) doesn’t double check with me 3) diagnoses me with schizophrenia based on my one covid-related psychotic episode (naturally he doesn’t acknowledge the existence of post Covid psychosis) and 4) he signs a form certifying that my judgement is impaired and I need to be placed in a guardianship “without limitation.”
His reasoning for why my judgment is impaired:
-I’m unemployed… which is entirely due to my long Covid health issues and depression from the reality of being stricken with long Covid + ground down by living with my parents who constantly abuse me. Plus the Prozac he prescribed made it impossible to concentrate on anything.
-I’m eating too much salt (no joke)
A few weeks ago, with no warning, I’m served papers for a guardianship hearing.
The court official “guardian ad litem” interviews me and writes a report, full of punctuation errors, endorsing the guardianship. He says the guardianship should grant my mom power over all areas of my life, including where I get to live.
As for my mom’s abuse? He casts doubt on my accusations and insinuates I’m being petty and overly critical. My mom clearly has my best interests at heart and would be an excellent guardian etc etc.
He also never mentions that it’s his job to help me find a lawyer to represent me in my hearing… I figure this out a few days before hearing is supposed to take place… I go to the hearing without a lawyer…
At the hearing, the judge listens to my objections but allows the guardianship go through, sighting the schizophrenia diagnosis provided by the psychiatrist.
I’m numb right now.
I know my mom will do everything she can to make the guardianship as invasive as possible + last as long as possible. She is currently talking with her lawyer to see how the guardianship can be expanded.
She is nothing but cruelty, hatred, hold me back as much as possible, make my life just as bad as hers etc. that’s all she does.
I guess I’m looking for Advice? Emotional support? Can anyone… relate?

I am writing up my PhD at the moment so I will be leaving this toxic cesspit soon, but god fucking damn, I've had it.
I'm part of a huge collaboration with another university. While the work should be equally split in theory, they have 3 people working on it while I am completely on my own. This means that any work we agree on is done much faster by them as they simply have more people to work with. I however started sooner with getting the project along, meaning I have more actual data samples than them. We agreed to share them as it is beneficial for our research. While I have been sharing mine consistently, I still have to see the majority of theirs even though I keep asking for them every few months or so (we agreed upon generating a set number of samples each before the project took off). My PI doesn't really care about the whole situation 'because we have to keep good relations with them'. Note that I needed that data to finish writing down my PhD, and I actually had to repivot that part because they kept delaying their promise to give over their data, past the last feasible deadline for me.
So in February 2023 I pitched an original idea to our group of four dedicated researchers via Discord. I asked them if they could research it further because I didn't have the time to do so and this as part of the larger project we are collaborating on. Not one of them responded to my message, even though we are working with patient data and me mentioning that if the idea turned out to be solid it would help our patients tremendously. This idea was quite revolutionary in the field, it hasn't been done at all and requires quite some (patient) samples to conduct. I had a good clue it would work beforehand because it is based on an existing technique yet with another data type. The only reason it hasn't been done before is (I think) because nobody had this kind of sample cohort that we built. The only reason they had those resources to conduct this research in the first place is because I shared so many of mine.
So queue today where I see a fucking Nature paper by their hand on the exact same idea I pitched to them. On the exact same fucking samples I shared with them. My name on the paper or even god forbid, in the acknowledgements? Nowhere to be seen. Not even my fucking PI is mentioned anywhere, while the grant that funded this research is in his name. The grant number is even mentioned in the paper. Meanwhile I have been including every single one of them in any paper of mine, even though they contributed literally nothing because again my PI asked for them to be included 'to keep our good relations' and 'they are still part of the larger collaboration'.
I also know for a fact that they didn't come up with this idea independently on their own and simultaneously with me. This because one of them mentioned to me once (in person), a short bit after I pitched the original idea, that they were impressed I came up with it and that their PI said there was a good chance it would work and how revolutionary it would be to be the first people ever to do so. But nothing after it, just dead silence. I thought they dropped it because they didn't get it to work. And now this. It was also around that time they started stalling their data sharing, which I think is because they just stopped all work on the actual project and instead focused on getting this research out. Even if they did come up with it completely on their own (which I highly, highly doubt), it is still a complete affront to not even include the name of my PI because he basically funded over 75% of that paper.
I am not even sure what I am more mad about. The fact they stole my idea or the fact that I have a huge cohort of patients lying around who didn't get the quality of care they so much deserve because some asshats decided playing political games was way more important. Because you don't think they actually shared any of the outcomes of that paper with us?
I am so done with this. So done.

so I'm writing a fantasy novel about a world where another humanoid species exists. in the story the other humanoid species is very inclusive and intertwined with the natural world, they are fighting a bitter war against a fascist human empire.
the story centres around a human who is initially captured during a conflict with the other species, my plan is for him to be black and within the human empire his only path to success is to rise through the ranks of the military. after living among the other species he inevitably defects, seeing that although this species is wary of humans, in little time he finds himself being treated with greater respect than amongst his fellow humans.
I'm a white trans woman so I know something of oppression but obviously don't have any first hand experience with being on the receiving end of racism, I acknowledge my privilege as a white person, I try as best I can though to educate myself on the black experience.
I hadn't initially planned on making the protagonist black, but as I continued to explore what social commentary and subtext I could include in this story, writing the character as black adds an extra layer of depth.
so the question is, am I crossing a line by writing a black character? is it ok? any advice on how I can do this respectfully?

I (26M) caught my girlfriend (23F) in a web-of-lies.
I'm extremely devasted and my mind is clouded as I write this, but I have caught my girlfriend (23F), with which we have been dating for 6 years in a web-of-lies 3 Times in our dating period.
She has left me in my lowest point.
In the beginning of our releationship I caught her deleting a messages on her Iphone. I then confronted her and she told me that she deleted those messages because I would get the wrong impression of them and would end the releationship. She told me that she was scared to lose me, as I'm jealous of other males, which in fact is true, but I think my feelings were right all along.
I forgot the content of the message.
I let it slide, since we were in the beginning of our releationship (Maybe 1-2 years into it) and I also wasn't faithful at that time. I have even shared this with her at some points of the releationship, as I'm honest. The thing is that she said that she loves me so much that she would never do such a thing to me.
Slowly - I let my guard down, as she was with me during very hard moments in my life, where she could have easily left. As I let my guard down - I started adoring her and the thought of other girls started to dissappear.
She was extremely sweet, innocent and loving. No matter what I did - she was always there for me to support me and was always on my side.
I started focusing more on work, we were seeing each other everyday and everything was flourishing, but I never stopped being envious when she came with me at a disco/bar with friends or where there were other males.
I always felt as she had an eye out for some of them and always felt like I didn't satisfy her completely, as she had previously made remarks about our sexual encounters, which were above regular.
I slowly started to trust her more, as she continiously gained my trust by her action. Meanwhile I was 100% focused on my businesses and success.
She was working in a kid's playground and selling cakes. I was always there and supporting her.
As my success progressed - we started to go out on world trips on the most beautiful places and fell deeply in love (or so I thought)
4 years had passed by. She was still good an innocent (or so I thought).
On the 4th year - I made a project that made me life-changing money. I took her in Dubai with my whole family and spent a fortune to please them. Unfortunately - she was not happy there, I felt like she didn't support me at that moment. She didn't care what I did, she didn't care about my success. She tells me 'This is your success, not mine' 'This is your money, not mine' I told her I want to buy a house for us and she said 'This will be your house'
I then fell into an emotional pit, because everything I do is to support my family and create one wit her.
I got extremely mad, this feeling didn't fade away. I wanted to end it with her, because she didn't acknowledge anything.
The summer was approaching, we got into a fight over something (I Think I caught her again) - We separated for a month, she started crying and was working the whole month. - I went on a vacation with friends, where I cheated on her (Only kissing) and started approaching other girls. But while doing all this - My girlfriend never left my mind, I was extremely sad that I ended it with her.
I opened up her Instagram Account and saw on her story how she is on vacation with two good girls from her work and one baby (She was lonely by the looks of it and extremely sad)
I got back from the vacation and started working things out with her, I took her on a vaction, we had a bonding there, but something didn't feel right... She seemed sad.
I started gambling on crypto futures... I lost 20% of my networth... I got extremely mad.
We went back in our country and then I took her on another trip. I bought her everything she wanted, I took her everywhere she wanted, I did everything to please her. My focus at that time was entirely on her.
She wanted to go in the casino - we went. I lost money, but gave her, since she wanted to stack an amount for a nose operation.
(Not because the nose was broken or something, but because she wanted to look better)
Business started getting bad, my income vanished.....
I started trading more in order to get back to my previous amounts...
I lost it almost all.. I had 1 reserve fund which was locked and I waited a couple of months to take the funds out. She was there with me even when I lost.
She finished her operation.
I got the reserve fund. I started trading, I made half the amount back. She wanted me to buy her a car - I did. I bought a land as well, on which I wanted to start building our house.
After all that - I lost all my funds again...
She had been constantly in a fight with her parents and wanted to move out.
I had one small income left - with all the funds I had, I rented an apartment for 6 months.
During those 6 months - I focused on working, but was losing due to my gambling habbit.
She got a new job. She started going out with friends. Sexual intercourse decreased by a lot.
I told her that I don't like her going out till 6 AM in the morning. This just isn't right with me, so I got suspicious.
I hacked her laptop... she saw a notification and rushed to the house... I was able to see a lot of things, but it appears - she was deleting evidence, so I asked her to give her phone. - She gave it to me.
Unfortunately - I knew how to see deleted messages on an Iphone. I saw only one message, the content was:
'Don't message me anywhere again.'
I got filled with rage and we had a fight. She was fighting with me to get her phone back. I gave it and told her I want to end it.
As he was a famous greek singer - I was able to analyze when he had concerts and saw that on those dates - she had been visitng those concerts...
3 Days later - we talked and worked it out.... I was madly in love with her at this point. She told me that she arranges stages for him. (It's related to her new job)
My gambling habits were in full force. I lost a lot of money and couldn't afford a rent of a high-cost, so I told her - Let's move out to my mother's place and in the next 1 year I will make sure that I succeed again. (My mother isn't living inside the house, but my brother is)
She agreed roughly. So we moved and I started working, but unfortunately - The money I felt I was making was not enough, not nearly enough to buy an aparatament or build our house. She was acting kind, innocent.
I went out on a birthday party and my friend created a circumstance, where I would sleep with a girl next to me. I knew she really liked me and hooked up. We were going to have intercourse, but as I did anything - my girlfriend was on my mind and I couldn't bring myself to do anything other than kisses... I just couldn't.
She started going out with friends again. She was going nightclubbing with them, but assurred me - she was doing it for her own fun.
She was meanwhile stacking money to get a boob-job done. - She did it, made her boobs bigger. She assurred me that she was doing it for her own fun.
6 months have passed. - I stopped gambling, but she told me that she doesn't like my house, doesn't like that I'm living with my brother and she doesn't see a future with me.
She told me she would leave and go in her cousin's apartament, but he doesn't want me there.
I told her that I want to break up with her, because she doesn't want to be with me at my lowest point. I told her that she probably wants to leave the house to go out nightclubbing and find someone better than me. She felt offended (Or so It seemed), but I think that was the truth. She told me that she wants to have kids with me, she loves me, etc.
The next day: She goes out of city without telling me anything about her location. At night: she goes in a nightclub with her friends + other males.
I ask her in 2 AM - 'Where are you right now'? She comes in and out of 'Online' status. and at 4 AM I notice a follower increase on her Instagram, she follows him back - I send her a video and ask who the f is that? She responds 'What do you want', 'This is an old friend', 'Stop being envious'
I get extremely angry and stop responding. The next day I check the live photos of the nightclub and pray to god to give me a sign that I'm not delusional and exactly the next photo - She is on the same table, with the same guy, with her friends and other males. She told me she was sleeping.
1 Day passes - she starts messaging me and sending me photos with the quote 'Let's promise we will never leave each other and fix everything when things go wrong.' 2 Day passes - she starts messaging me, so I show her that I don't want to talk with her. 3 Day passes - no one messages. 4th day she messages me: "Are we breaking up?" and I told her "Do you think I want to be with someone, who constantly lies to me, goes out nightclubbing and adds some r*tards in Instagram?" She told me - "First of all - I'm not lying about anyhing" Then I ask her - "Why have you added this person in 4 AM in the morning"? She replies: "I have had him for some time now, he is an old friend" I told her that I monitor her followers and know if he is old or new" I told her that she looks like trash in my eyes at this point and she got angry She told me she isn't obligated to tell me anything and she hasn't added him in 4 AM, she will not be repeating her self.
I ask her: - Can you tell me where were you at that time (The night that this happened) ? She tells me: - Like every night - at home. I sent her a photo of the live nightclub photo where she is with him, her friends and other male friends. I tell her 'I hope this is gives you an answer for everything' 'My girlfriend died a long time ago' She starts sending laughing emojis and says: "It's good, right?" "You killed her more likely and made her what she is today" I tell her "It's possible" She responds "As you can see - he is with his girlfriend, DON'T THINK WRONG THINGS OF ME" I told her: "Don't explain yourself" "This was my last question." She is now telling: "This is a driver of... and some time ago my friend hooked up with him, this is from where I added him, I haven't added him now" I told her: "I don't think anything of you." She responds "The last two years you have not thought of me anyway" WHICH IS NOT TRUE. I tell her "I wish you all the best, I hope you find what you are looking for" She responds "Me too, be happy" I respond "I have only one question left" "When did my girl die?" She reponds "You can always contact me if you need any help" I respond: "Thank you, but I don't think of searching for contacting you anymore" She asks: "Which is your girl?" I respond "The good girl that loved me and was always with me or was this just a product of my imagination? Be honest" She said: "Whatever you feel like" I respond "Okay, good night" Then I forward the message "You can always contact me for help" and I say: "I really loved you and will miss you" She reponds: "I will never stop loving you. There is no way to stop loving a person with which you have been in a releationship for 6 years" "Good night, I will not upset myself anymore" I ask her "Why would you do this to me?" She ask "What did I do to you?" I told her "It's pointless to say, I have a lot more information that on the photo" She says "We were in this town for a doctor checkup, after that we went to a nightclub and accidentially met them (The person and his male friends)" I ask her "Will you stop with the lying?" She says "I'm telling you" I respond "Good night"
Now my question is:
I'm a sucker for her love. Maybe I'm just in love with the old her. I have never loved any girl as much as I love her. I feel absolutely terrible. Maybe part of this was my fault. Maybe it was my fault that she became like this..
What do I do from here? I don't think I will ever love a person this way.. I wanted her to carry my children and raise a family with her.

In a previous thread, u/varmituofm made a good point that I thought was worthy of its own discussion:
JK Rowling's choice in her description of house elf service indicts all the wizards who make use of elf labor. Dobby and Kreacher are forced to do things that they don't want to do. Whether it is their inherent nature or whatever it is, they are enslaved.
There are two main approaches to this in fanfiction:

1. The wizarding world is archaic, backwards, and altogether pretty horrible. The good guys are going along with an evil practice, the bad guys are just more abusive.
2. Hermione is wrong. House elves draw their magic from their service (or from the families they serve) and they are broadly quite happy about this relationship. Dobby is an oddball as is Kreacher.

In stories where such injustices are a main focus of the story the first approach is useful. But not everyone wants to go that route. The problem with the 2nd route is that we know that house elves are bound to do things against their will. Even if they need to bond with a magical family to live, it's still objectionable that they can be forced to do things they don't want to do.
But, it is possible to write house elves so that the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, and everything in canon still works.
You could have an entire race of magical beings who are benevolent and just love helping others. They have all this magic and it gives them so much purpose and fulfillment to help and have no desire for reward or acknowledgment.
For most elves, the ability to serve a family for all their days is their dream arrangement. They don't care if they are acknowledged or praised (in fact, praise makes them shy and embarrassed). They look at any request (and they don't care at all if it is worded as an order) as a gift to them.
Wizards naturally become accustomed to having these beings serve them, and so tend not to even think about it, so when a witch or wizard treats them with dignity and respect it is still surprising to them. But most wizards do not actively hurt their house elves. After all, what is the point of punishing someone who gladly does everything you say anyway?
Then you have wizards like the Blacks and Malfoys who tricked/forced these kind beings into magical oaths or enslaved them through dark magic, stripping them of their free will and ability to disobey. They punish their elves for things that are not their fault, ordering them to hurt themselves, etc.
Unless there is some place in canon that says ALL elves must obey, it could simply be the case that most elves are not forced to do anything they do not wish to. They work and serve because that is all that they want to do. Only the dark families twist that into abuse and compulsion.
Thoughts?

Hi! I’m looking for general advice as someone not from this industry. I have a story to tell and am currently writing it. I acknowledge I’m not a “professional” writer. What do most people do in this situation? Do they try to write the story first then look for a co writer or a ghost writer? Ultimately, I’m interested in the story becoming a series or movie (I’m aware this is a long shot). If anybody in this community can provide some guidance or at least break down the typical trajectory of getting to a finished product, getting it to an agent, screen writer, ect I would be so grateful.

About two years ago, I was in contact with a woman who wanted to write a book titled “Strong Daughters Of Bad Mothers”. She wanted to publicize both her own story and the stories of other women who were willing to share. So she made an online post and received quite a bit of backlash. Because of the term "Bad Mothers". The thread that developed was interesting, but also quite exhausting because of the obvious tunnel vision of some of the commenters. Rather than getting caught up in this useless discussion, I decided to write an article in support of her.
My mother died a few years ago, but being estranged from her years before her death, I know all the struggles someone goes through. I thought maybe, some of you might find my article helpful as well. Sorry, if the wording is a litttle off at times, I had to translate it for this sub. So here it goes:
MEASURABLE SUCCESS / FAILURE IN PARENTING?
So far I haven’t been blessed with the task of being a mother. From my own experience, I can only say what I wouldn’t ever want my child to have to deal with. But could I ever be competent enough to provide at least everything that seems important to me? Love and appreciation without expecting anything in return? The ability to love and care for themselves? Encouragement through weaknesses and promotion of strengths?
At what point does one become "bad" at parenting? Is there a scale? A scale that goes from “total neglect” = “terrible” to “raising a child to be a superhero” = “perfect”? ​​I hardly think so. And why is that? Because of human failure. There are no special categories for that. Though we feel most comfortable when we can put everything in its drawer and label it. But does that mean that once you reach a certain level of failure, you’re not allowed to call things by their name just because they’re not obviously "measurable"?
Imagine this: You trust your dentist to do a decent job, but on almost every visit they pull the wrong tooth or drill in the wrong place - would you say to yourself, "Well, maybe they haven’t had an easy life," or would you rather conclude that you chose a lousy dentist? Too trivial? Too far-fetched? After all, you can't compare a visit to the dentist to a family life, can you? Well, sometimes you can.
Let me further illustrate why the simple adjective "bad" should be removed from the taboo when it comes to parent-child relationships: Have you ever advised a friend/family membeacquaintance to distance themselves from someone? Because you realized that their relationship (developing or existing) clearly wasn’t doing them any good? Have you ever told someone: "This person is bad for you"? If so, did you try to think of a better word? Or did “bad” just roll off the tongue - because it was the truth?
Yes, some of you may be offended when we refer to ourselves as children of "bad" parents. How disrespectful. They gave us the gift of life - or they adopted us. Either way, a total no-go! Right? But maybe you should ask yourself WHY exactly it triggers you so much.
As the daughter of a bad mother, let me tell you this: People who have had difficult, perhaps even traumatic, childhoods are rarely interested in a "revenge" or "shaming" anyone. It's about finally being seen and heard. It's about no longer hiding our scars (physical and psychological). It’s about staying true to ourselves when others lecture us about "family values".
The level of respect and compassion that is undoubtedly given to BOTH bad and good parents is equally due to their children.
If something was "not good"... what was it? Open for improvement? Probably. Not quite ideal? Possibly. Mediocre? Perhaps. But these quibbles over words do not minimize the damage done. Especially when it was just that: BAD.
Awful. Horrible. Disastrous. Traumatizing.
We can add whatever suits our case. Whatever suits OUR FEELINGS. It is primarily a judgment of "parenting", not particularly of the people who dabble in it. For the greatest harm can be done with the best of intentions. Maybe they failed because they "didn’t know better". Maybe they passed on what was given to them. They too were once children, and perhaps they themselves were victims in some way. But do any of these possibilities or facts change the outcome? Or reverse our trauma? Sadly, no.
Deep down, somewhere, there is still is a child reaching out for help because they have been hurt. Don’t shut them up or push them away. Don’t yell at them or tell them “not to be so dramatic”. Instead, just listen. For healing also means acknowledging all the wounds that have been inflicted, both visible and invisible. Don’t belittle them just because you don't like their choice of words.
So please, just take that child's hand. Even if they're already an adult. Listen closely. Watch carefully. It doesn’t matter if you can’t fully grasp the implications of what you're hearing or seeing. Just be open and compassionate. And maybe your own inner child will speak up and have a thing or two to say.
June, 2022