Does anyone have recommendations for a router for a 1 bedroom apartment for use by one person with occasional guests?
I want at least Wifi 6, but 6E would be nice, as both my laptop and phone are capable of it, though the increased expense is iffy. I don't need Wifi 7, I'm not planning on replacing anything in the near future. Network speed is 300 MBPS symmetric, and all 2.4 and non-DFS 5 GHz channels are congested, though none of the airports nearby use DFS-band radar, and there doesn't appear to be much interference there. 6 GHz channels are completely unused. Advanced interface is a must; ideally I'd just be running OpenWRT. Budget is around $100–$150ish, though I could be convinced to go higher if necessary.
As yet I've tried both a Mikrotik hAP ax^2, and a Unifi Express. The Mikrotik was great, but the bugs in the wireless driver made it unusable (for one, whether the 5 GHz radio would work or not was extremely inconsistent). The Unifi functioned well enough, but the options it gave were scarcely better than I had on the ISP-provided router at my parents house, and the vendor-lock in/cloud features are sketchy, so I ended up returning it.
I have seen OpenWRT's List of supported 802.11ax routers, but there's too many options for me to decide on one.

Going off of the style of the song and the date that it was recorded, I have a really hard time believing that this song was never published online to Youtube. The production value is way too high IMO to not have any kind of archival online somewhere by the artist/publisher. As well as this, it is very trendy music for the time so it only makes sense to publish it online.
If you look up "Belarusian indie pop" or "Belrusian indie rock", and sort by playlist, there are hundreds and thousands of videos dumped in private collections that average 20-5000 views with no exposure. Many with high production value that just aren't circulating and most are in the 2008-2012 time frame.
It might seem dumb to search without leads but hear me out. These are playlists made by the local people who listen to the music and local radio, and I think these playlists with niche recordings and videos are the best bet at the moment to either find new leads or just a straight up recording of the song.
It's been 14 years since the song was recorded so asking the stations themselves doesn't seem like it would yield many results since the companies and management has been most likely passed around.
For example: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6dL-YNasDg1iCpcUo2m-0h2AusecPkuV
This playlist has over 2000 songs uploaded to it that vary from pop and rock music videos to home recordings. Whether or not Waste My Time is on here, I think that it opens up the door to what bands were active during specific times as well as their sound.
EDIT: There are also alot of Publisher owned Channels in this playlist. It may be worth looking into their specific libraries as well.

In the fast-paced world of online entertainment, Chaturbate stands out as a prominent platform for creators to showcase their talents, connect with audiences, and earn a substantial income. Whether you're intrigued by the prospect of becoming a chaturbate affiliate, exploring how to get started on Chaturbate, or envisioning yourself as a successful Chaturbate creator, this comprehensive guide is tailored to help you navigate your journey into the world of adult entertainment.
Understanding Chaturbate:
Before delving into the intricacies of becoming a Chaturbate affiliate or creator, it's essential to grasp the fundamentals of the platform. Chaturbate is a leading webcam site that allows individuals to broadcast live performances, interact with viewers through chat, and earn money from tips and private shows.
Getting Started on Chaturbate:
The first step in embarking on your Chaturbate journey is to create an account. Navigate to the Chaturbate website and follow the straightforward registration process. Once your account is set up, familiarize yourself with the platform's features and guidelines to ensure a smooth experience.
Now, let's delve into the key aspects of becoming a Chaturbate affiliate. As a Chaturbate affiliate, you have the opportunity to earn a commission by promoting the platform and referring new users. Utilize your online presence, such as social media channels or personal websites, to attract potential users to Chaturbate using your unique affiliate link. With each new sign-up or purchase made through your link, you'll earn a percentage of the revenue generated.
Becoming a Chaturbate Creator:
For those aspiring to take center stage as a Chaturbate creator, it's essential to cultivate your unique persona and niche. Whether you're interested in performing solo, with a partner, or in a group setting, authenticity and creativity are key to captivating your audience. Experiment with different formats, themes, and interaction styles to find what resonates best with your viewers.
As a Chaturbate creator, engaging with your audience is paramount. Interact with viewers through chat, respond to their requests, and create a welcoming environment that fosters connection and loyalty. Additionally, explore monetization strategies such as offering private shows, selling exclusive content, or setting goals for tips and rewards.
Embracing the Chaturbate Job Opportunity:
In conclusion, embarking on a become a model on chaturbate offers a plethora of opportunities for individuals seeking to explore their creativity, connect with audiences, and earn a lucrative income. Whether you're interested in becoming a Chaturbate affiliate, learning how to get started on chaturbate, or envisioning yourself as a successful Chaturbate creator, the key lies in embracing your uniqueness, engaging with your audience, and continually evolving your craft. So, what are you waiting for? Join the Chaturbate community today and unleash your potential!

/LonghornNation Daily Off Topic Free Talk Thread

Today: 5/14/2024

Last Thread

Current Austin Weather: 69° and Clear

Seven Day Forecast:

5/14	5/15	5/16	5/17	5/18	5/19	5/20
91°, Clear	90°, Clear	87°, Rain	87°, Rain	97°, Clear	96°, Clear	97°, Clear

Your go-to place to talk about whatever you want. From the dumb shit aggies do on a near daily basis, to the latest whatever happening wherever. What ya got?

Here's a look at upcoming Longhorn Sporting Event(s):

Trending on Reddit

/All

/CFB

/LonghornNation

LonghornBot: you can get a list of commands you can give for the bot by commenting ".help". You will receive a private message with the commands.
This thread was programmatically generated and posted on 5/14/2024 12:00 AM. If you have any questions or comments, please contact brihoang or chrislabeard

Trip report for 2 weeks husband and I spent in Belize - April 20 to May 4
Breaking this down into 3 parts, this post is about our time in San Ignacio. Ask away if you want any details.
Day 1 - Land in Belize City -> San Ignacio

Used Mayawalk Tours for private shuttle from airport to San Ignacio
Checked in to Midas Belize. We had one of the private huts. Cozy, clean, comfortable. AC was great. Pool was a nice amenity, the pool bar would open around 4pm I think. The Midas is about a 10 minute walk to downtown.
Dinner at the Burnz restaurant, would recommend.

Day 2 - San Ignacio

ATM Tour with Mayawalk Tours.
Hugh was our guide and he was great, very knowledgeable. At points this tour was more physically challenging than I thought it was going to be, but doable. If you are into local history of places you visit, the ATM is a must visit. The stewed chicken lunch we were served was great.
Dinner at Ko-Ox Han Nah, was ok but my least favorite restaurant in SI. I know this is a top recommendation from a lot of people.

Day 3 - San Ignacio

Walked downtown. Checked out the Market, it was a Monday so it seemed a lot of places were not open. Got a watermelon juice from one of the vendors.
Got some snacks & beers. Back to the market for more watermelon juice. Went back to the Midas, relaxed at the pool for the afternoon.
Dinner at Hode’s Place. We stopped there because it was convenient and next to MIdas. Would definitely recommend. The fried chicken was good.

Day 4 - San Ignacio

Tikal with Mayawalk Tours.
Can’t remember our guides name, but he was also very knowledgeable about Tikal and Guatemala in general. The restaurant we stopped at on the way home was good. My only, meh, about this trip was the stop at a money grab type souvenir shop on the way to Tikal. Everything else was seamless, Mayawalk handled all of the shuttling / fees etc.
Dinner at Branches and Booze, very cute restaurant about a 5 minute walk from Midas, good food.

Day 5 - San Ignacio -> Placencia

Walked back to town market to get one more watermelon juice and a small bite to eat before heading out.
Used Mayawalk Tours for private shuttle to Placencia. Yes, we used Mayawalk for everything related to San Ignacio. I researched a bunch of different companies for both tours and shuttles and decided to keep with one company for simplicity. I highly recommend them. They are very organized, their shuttles are clean and every employee we interacted with was friendly and knowledgeable.

We loved San Ignacio. I listed the places we had for dinner, but we stopped at other places to grab small bites, ice cream, drinks etc. The food was all good. Belize in general has the best chicken I have ever had.
Since we opted against renting a car for this trip, the location of the Midas was perfect to walk everywhere we needed including the Mayawalk Tours office. When researching this trip I compared costs of different transportation to get around Belize and decided on shuttles. The cost was comparable, but hiring a shuttle took away the stress of driving in an unknown country. In the future, we would be comfortable driving there.
Total Spent in Belize for 2 weeks - $6,175.24 (does not include travel expenses to / from US)
San Ignacio Breakdown: $1,656,17

Transportation - $412.75
Accommodations - $274.04
Eating & Drinking - $278.00
Excursions - $691.38

*edit - amounts above are in US dollars.

I have an idea for a new kind of westmarch. Some of this will be hard to grasp. I am not trying to argue its points. If you are interested let me know.
Everyone is their own dm. This is the main point. You paid for the content, use it as you wish.
Since you are your own dm. You approve your own characters. This means you decide what content is allowed on dndbeyond.
You can solo or form a group. A dm will be decided upon by the group. Usually this is the person advertising. When forming a group players will just br upfront about what they want.
Homebrew. Go for it. When you post in LFG you will list what rule set is being used. 5e will be the most common. This also goes for optional rules. Homebrew will get tricky but I think its doable. Communication will be important. Their are some tricks to this. Like having your custom things be documented in a way that its explained upon use. Avrae custom attacks allow for this. Whatever the homebrew it should ideally be setup through custom commands.
I understand why servers set common rules and standards. Players should be allowed to decide this for themselves on an adhoc basis as they form groups.
There is no content to balance against. There will be narratives and example combat created. But players will be encouraged to add to it and run with it.
Primarily I need some staff to work put the details of our shared vision. Dms and players for sure. It feels like an exciting opportunity to really put d&d to good use.
At its core its to facilitate roleplaying. This is what I want to emphasize on the server. Not arbitrary rules dictacted by server staff. Not saying that wm servers are wrong. I am just burnt out on them. Having to start the grind to 20 again. It makes no sense. It is a game of imagination and creativity. I feel that arbitrary rules are prohibit that.
I very much do not want to involve any kind of gacha mechanics. The server should just be fun. This is all we need to encourage growth and activity. Mechanics designed to reward players for logging in, forcing them through grinds that have a cap with daily and weekly resets or limiting character respecs. I just don't understand why we do it to ourselves.
Since every player is their own dm. They can respec whenever they want outside combat. They can level up freely in town. Rest as often as they want. Award themselves anything. Even determining how a rule is to be applied when concerning their own characters.
Erp and nsfw. We just need to follow discord rules. I understand that allowing it prevents having a permalink. This will ultimately need to be discussed with other staff. Allowing it will quickly push away some players and draw in others.
Player owned channels for things like homes, shops, taverns. I'm in favor of it all. With something about no use in x days leading to removing them to make room for new ones. There is a channel limit after all.
I think I covered enough to get started.

Hermitcraft-inspired Minecraft Server
We are kickstarting a brand new Minecraft server on Aternos inspired by the popular Hermitcraft series, mainly private, so as soon as we start, we're who we are, can make some exceptions. It's so new we have currently two on the list only, if you're down, read below. I'm starting as soon as we're a reasonable number.

Server Launch: TBA
Gameplay Style: Vanilla with Minor Mods "Double shulker, mob/player heads and voice mod
Server Focus: Community-driven, Creativity Encouraged

What will it be?

we are looking for a vibrant community of mature players aged 20-60, who share our love for Minecraft and creativity.
Exciting adventures, collaborate on projects, and engage in friendly competitions within a supportive environment.
Explore a unique shopping system using diamonds as currency in a centralized shopping district.

Rules:

We're looking for an inclusive community that values respect, collaboration, and creativity.
Your typical basic server rules ensuring a fair and enjoyable gaming experience for everyone.
A dedicated Discord server where players can strategize, plan events, and stay updated on server news.

Join Us and Let's Craft Together!

Stay tuned for updates on our server launch in the Discord. Interested? DM me to list you, send some of your builds/worlds! Can't wait to see you all in-game!

Promoting a Shopify store involves several strategies to increase visibility, attract traffic, and drive sales. Here are some effective ways to promote your Shopify store:

Search Engine Optimization (SEO):
- Optimize your website for search engines by using relevant keywords, creating high-quality content, optimizing meta tags and descriptions, improving site speed, and obtaining backlinks from reputable sources.
Content Marketing:
- Create valuable and engaging content such as blog posts, product guides, tutorials, and videos to attract and educate your target audience. Share content on social media, email newsletters, and other channels to drive traffic to your Shopify store.
Social Media Marketing:
- Utilize social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, and LinkedIn to promote your products, engage with customers, run targeted ads, showcase user-generated content, and drive traffic to your Shopify store.
Email Marketing:
- Build and segment email lists of subscribers, customers, and leads. Send personalized and relevant email campaigns, newsletters, promotions, and product updates to nurture relationships, drive repeat purchases, and increase sales.
Paid Advertising:
- Run paid advertising campaigns using platforms like Google Ads, Facebook Ads, Instagram Ads, and Pinterest Ads. Use targeted keywords, audience demographics, retargeting strategies, and compelling ad creatives to reach potential customers and drive conversions.
Influencer Marketing:
- Collaborate with influencers, bloggers, and industry experts to promote your products and brand. Partner with influencers whose audience aligns with your target market to increase brand visibility, credibility, and customer trust.
Affiliate Marketing:
- Set up an affiliate program to partner with bloggers, influencers, and affiliates who promote your products in exchange for commissions on sales. Use affiliate tracking software to monitor performance and reward affiliates for driving conversions.
Promotions and Discounts:
- Offer promotions, discounts, flash sales, limited-time offers, and exclusive deals to incentivize purchases, attract new customers, and encourage repeat business. Use urgency and scarcity tactics to create a sense of FOMO (fear of missing out) among shoppers.
Customer Reviews and Testimonials:
- Encourage satisfied customers to leave positive reviews, testimonials, and ratings on your Shopify store. Display social proof, trust badges, and endorsements to build credibility, trust, and confidence among potential buyers.
Partnerships and Collaborations:
- Collaborate with complementary businesses, influencers, bloggers, and local organizations for cross-promotions, joint ventures, giveaways, sponsorships, and co-marketing initiatives. Leverage their audiences and networks to reach new customers and expand your brand reach.

Implementing a combination of these promotion strategies can help you effectively market your Shopify store, increase brand awareness, drive targeted traffic, and ultimately boost sales and revenue.

I have an idea for a new kind of westmarch. Some of this will be hard to grasp. I am not trying to argue its points. If you are interested let me know.
Everyone is their own dm. This is the main point. You paid for the content, use it as you wish.
Since you are your own dm. You approve your own characters. This means you decide what content is allowed on dndbeyond.
You can solo or form a group. A dm will be decided upon by the group. Usually this is the person advertising. When forming a group players will just br upfront about what they want.
Homebrew. Go for it. When you post in LFG you will list what rule set is being used. 5e will be the most common. This also goes for optional rules. Homebrew will get tricky but I think its doable. Communication will be important. Their are some tricks to this. Like having your custom things be documented in a way that its explained upon use. Avrae custom attacks allow for this. Whatever the homebrew it should ideally be setup through custom commands.
I understand why servers set common rules and standards. Players should be allowed to decide this for themselves on an adhoc basis as they form groups.
There is no content to balance against. There will be narratives and example combat created. But players will be encouraged to add to it and run with it.
Primarily I need some staff to work put the details of our shared vision. Dms and players for sure. It feels like an exciting opportunity to really put d&d to good use.
At its core its to facilitate roleplaying. This is what I want to emphasize on the server. Not arbitrary rules dictacted by server staff. Not saying that wm servers are wrong. I am just burnt out on them. Having to start the grind to 20 again. It makes no sense. It is a game of imagination and creativity. I feel that arbitrary rules are prohibit that.
I very much do not want to involve any kind of gacha mechanics. The server should just be fun. This is all we need to encourage growth and activity. Mechanics designed to reward players for logging in, forcing them through grinds that have a cap with daily and weekly resets or limiting character respecs. I just don't understand why we do it to ourselves.
Since every player is their own dm. They can respec whenever they want outside combat. They can level up freely in town. Rest as often as they want. Award themselves anything. Even determining how a rule is to be applied when concerning their own characters.
Erp and nsfw. We just need to follow discord rules. I understand that allowing it prevents having a permalink. This will ultimately need to be discussed with other staff. Allowing it will quickly push away some players and draw in others.
Player owned channels for things like homes, shops, taverns. I'm in favor of it all. With something about no use in x days leading to removing them to make room for new ones. There is a channel limit after all.
I think I covered enough to get started.

Short and sweet: Want a clean and fair Rust experience? Want the same vanilla feel with slightly less grind and unaltered loot tables? Want a centered outpost that has merged with bandit camp's vendors? We've locked out VPN's (Can be white listed if over 100H), region locking is in place and private profiles and too many game bans will not be able to connect.
Does this interest you? Give us a go and join in. Keen to build a community and we'd love to have you.
Discord: https://discord.gg/rjDK6ZqN
client.connect 51.161.198.212:28005

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.]

If you've been trying to find a SFH, duplex, townhome, or condo to rent in recent years instead of an apartment, you've probably noticed a suspicious trend that it seems like huge corporations are buying up as much property as they can. THEY ARE!
If you really want to be depressed read This article from the AJC.
They estimate there's at least 65,000 homes in Metro Atlanta owned by these groups!
I personally tried really hard over the last 2 years to find a privately owned home to rent and I finally lucked out this time. I move in on June 1st.
My advice to anyone looking to find the same would be this:

Notice a trend of companies that keep showing up in listings? Make a list, check their reviews on Google, then start avoiding them! Invitation Homes (formerly Excalibur Homes), Progress Residential, Main Street Renewal, Tricon Residential, and a few other players have thousands of houses. They notoriously avoid processing applications for homes (like 5-6 week wait for an approval or rejection!) and if you somehow do manage to get approved communication and maintenance work follow through is terrible. Avoid companies like this at all costs.
Check Trulia, Zillow, GeorgiaMls, Apartments, and Homes .com websites regularly. I spent a lot of time on Trulia because besides saving homes on their once I made an account I could also "Hide" properties from companies like the above mentioned. I also crosschecked RentingGA frequently because it was tied to MLS listings and it also showed the listing company in the preview. I could quickly see if it was an offender like Invitation and avoid wasting my time on that house.
Cross-check listings!!!! Find a good one on one site but it just lists a name and number but now company for the listing agent? Google it. Chances are the address will give you a search result of a listing with 3 or 4 other credible websites like those mentioned above. The first place you find the listing may not say who the listing agent is affiliated with, but the 2nd one might.
Still don't find that an agency tied to that name? You might be in luck!!! That could be a private owner. Next, try and find the property owner through county ownership and tax records. Go to this website to look up Cobb County Tax Assessor Records You can look up Fulton County Assessor Records here You can look up Dekalb County Tax Assessor Records here. Enter the address on these sites to search, and see who shows up on the ownership record. Does the company name or personal name match their contact info on the listing? BINGO!!! this might be a private owner! To go a step further, you can click on the name or company name and it will tell you how many properties are associated to this person or company. I verified my soon to be landlord this way, and it showed that he owns 2 other properties in Cobb County.
DO target listings by local or known national real estate agencies. Keller Williams, ReMax, and Home Smart appear to list homes for clients, and they may manage them too, but they are not nearly on the same scale of property management as Invitation or Progress for example. Twice I talked to Home Smart RE agents that were listing homes they actually owned and were renting out themselves.
Take a chance on listings that show LESS information. Find the ones that don't look like a bad buzzword stuffed sales pitch. Find ones that don't name a company with the listing agent name. Check out listings with vague info or pics further. It might not look like a polished real estate ad because they aren't a polished real estate agent or property management company.

I hope this helps the OP or anyone else reading this, I've been meaning to type up these tips for awhile.

Hi All,
I am a photographer bucket listing all 30 stadiums and hitting up Detroit for MDW. I am looking for any inside information on cool things to check out in the stadium, oddities and quirks, or anything else I wouldn't know. Below is my list of places to look at and take photos of:
Food Court- 119
Carousel- 119
Tigers den lounge- 131…is it private?
Beer hall- 133
Fountain- 131
Ferris wheel- 131
HR Chevy Fountain- CF
Walk of fame- concourse
Bluemoon Brewhouse- 330
Comerica Landing- RF
Tiger statues outside
Sensory room- 210
Are there special between inning things like salute a soldier, mascot races, etc? Or Super Fans that always decked out who attend every game? Or hardcore fan sections or fan clubs like in Oakland or Philly or NYY?

I am NOT OOP. OOP is u/justathrowaway282641
Originally posted to TwoHotTakes + her own page
Previous BoRU #1, BoRU #2, BoRU #3, BoRU #4, BoRU #5, BoRU 6
Editor’s Note: removed all relevant comments from older posts to make space for new updates. To see all older relevant comments, check out the previous BoRUs above
NEW UPDATE MARKED WITH ----
[New Update]: My family forgot to invite me to my grandparents funeral, but they are convinced I was there.
Trigger Warnings: death of loved ones, emotional manipulation, gaslighting, harassment
RECAP
Original Post: November 14, 2023**
I’m 30s F and caused a major blowup in my family and now none of them are talking to me. For background, my hometown is tiny (500pop) and when I went 2 hrs away to “the city” (15,000pop) for college, I loved it. I ended up staying after graduation, got married, and am happy here for a decade. I visit my home town every few weeks or so, call/text my family near daily, and thought we were all good. My family’s pretty small. Just my brother, mom, step dad, dad, step mom, and an aunt and uncle (mom’s siblings, never married, no kids). My mother's grandparents moved to my home town when I was in high school and were just down the street from us. My family has always been pretty drama free (aside from my parent’s divorce when I was a kid) and we’ve been happy. The step-parents were blended in perfectly and we share holidays and celebrations together. We’re all super close and just the perfect little group.
Ever since I moved away, the topic of “when am I moving back?” is constant, and I’ve always laughed it off. My home town has nothing. You have to drive 30 minutes for milk and bread. 60-90 minute one-way commutes to work. And floods shut down the main road every Easter. I love the town, but I love here more. I have parks, stores, community events, a library! The “city” is great. My family grumbles that I need to move back, but I refuse. I've been trying to encourage them to come here, especially since it's not an hour drive to the nearest medical facility.
Now to the meat and potatoes: both my grandparents passed over COVID times. They were both old and their health had been failing for a while so it was only a matter of time. Thankfully they didn’t catch it, but it made visiting them impossible and we survived mostly through FaceTime. They both passed in their sleep months apart. Both were cremated and kept securely under the kitchen sink for safe keeping while the pandemic blew over. That was 2021.
Well, I just found out my family held a funeral for them and scattered the ashes in my uncle’s maple grove over the summer. No one said a word to me about it. I’ve visited numerous times before and after and not one word. I only found out because my great uncle from California posted on Facebook a few weeks ago that he is entering hospice and was so thankful his health stayed strong enough for him to see his little sister (my grandma) to her final resting place. I was confused and called my mom. She was all “Yeah, the funeral we had in July, remember?” Ya’ll, I visited them for the 4th of July. They did the funeral the 8th. Not a word about it to me. They had planned this for months. Long enough to arrange for my infirm great uncle to be brought over from the other side of the country. Apparently, they talked about it “all the time”.
Everyone is convinced I was at the funeral. They SWEAR I was there. I can prove I wasn’t because Google’s got my location history. My hubby is baffled because he was supposedly there, too, but he had to work every weekend in June and July. Time clock doesn’t lie. My family straight up forgot about me. I’m hurt. I’m sad. And they’re pissed at me “for lying”. They think I’m causing drama over nothing. Nothing I say can convince them I wasn’t there. My family is united in this. And they’ve all put me “on read” until I admit I’m wrong. They think I’ve gone nuts. Either there’s a doppelganger of me attending events, or my family doesn’t want to admit they screwed up. I’m not backing down.
Thanksgiving is coming up, and my family’s been vague posting on Facebook about “forgetful kids” and mental health. It’s so freaking weird and I don’t know if I’m in bizzaro world or what’s going on. My mom’s best friend reached out and said I should just admit I was wrong and apologize, that I’m causing my mom so much unnecessary stress. I asked her if she’s checked everyone’s home for CO2. She hung up on me. (We checked our CO2, and our testers are running just fine.) I have reached out to a few people in my home town to check in on my folks, and they all say they're fine. I even spoke with the local volunteer fire fighter group to see if they could check for gas leaks. Not sure if they were able to.
I don’t know what to do. I’ve shown them the proof I wasn’t there, but they know I’m tech savvy and just assume I’ve Photoshopped it. Hubby says we need a break, and we’re going to be staying home this holiday season.
Edit: I don't know the update rules, so I'll post updates to my profile should anyone want them.
Update #1: November 27, 2023
Not sure how to do updates on posts, so figured I'd post anything on my profile. Folks have private messaged me and this will be easier I think?
It's 11/27 and Thanksgiving just happened. Hubby and I stayed home. We got a small turkey and made our own little thanksgiving. It was nice. We ate around noon, then watched a movie, and later sat outside with a bottle of wine to watch the sun set behind the trees and neighbor houses.
We usually take the day before off, drive to my folks, stay the night, and help with the Thanksgiving Day cooking. So it wasn't until Wednesday night that my mom broke the silence. Mom called and asked when I was showing up, and I told her we were staying home this year, but for them to have a happy Thanksgiving, and to give the rest of the family my love. She was quiet for a long time after I said that, and I think she eventually mumbled an "okay", or something, and hung up. It wasn't an angry hang up. Just a hang up. On Thanksgiving day, I sent a group "Happy Thanksgiving!" gif to our family group chat. I received a few "happy Thanksgiving"'s back. No one's said anything else. There's been no posts on Facebook.
Update #2: December 12, 2023
So, I think I mentioned in one of my comments that my dad and I usually talk on the phone every Sunday morning. We're both early risers so we'd chat over our morning coffees and watch the sunrise. Him and I haven't really spoken since this all went down and it's been tough. I'm used to talking to him, you know?
Well, I was sitting outside in my usual spot, watching the sun rise and freezing my butt off, and he called me. I'm not entirely sure how to describe the emotions I felt. It was a mix of panic, hope, terror, happiness, and dread. I ended up answering because I just had to know what he wanted. It was an awkward conversation. He didn't address the current "drama", but instead tiptoed around the situation with all the grace of an cow on stilts. For instance, a simple "How are you doing?" Type question was answered with a "Not good." And the whole conversation would stall out for a bit because he knew why I wasn't doing well. So we ended up talking about the weather, the various winter birds we'd seen in our feeders, and the Christmas decorations around town. Things like that.
Eventually he asked if we were coming out for Christmas, and sounded sad when I told him we weren't. He asked if him and step mom could come visit us instead, and I told him it wasn't a good idea this year. That hubby and I were going to spend a quiet holiday together. I let him know he should be receiving some gifts at his PO Box any day now, so to please pick them up from the post office and put them under the family tree for everyone. He said he'd ship ours to us as well.
And that was pretty much it. No crazy drama to report. The only posts on Facebook have been the usual Christmas excitement ones, countdowns, photos of Santa, silly gift ideas, photos of company Christmas parties.
On a personal note: Hubby and I are doing alright. Our health is good, our spirits high, and we're as solid as ever. We each got Christmas bonus' at our jobs, so we're excited about that. They're not large, but we're happy to have them. We have also done advent calendars for the first time ever. I got him a Lego one, and he got me a hot chocolate one. We're going to do the calendars again next year. Maybe make a tradition out of it.
Everyone please have a safe and happy holidays.
Inheritance: December 16, 2023
I've received a lot - A LOT - of messages and private DMs urging me to check into inheritance and such. I'm really touched a lot of Internet strangers are worried about me and I wanted to ensure everyone that inheritance is most likely not an issue here. I'd almost be relieved if it was, because then it would at least make some sense. Money does weird things to people, you know?
No one in my family is wealthy by any means. After my grandparents' passed, their small estate was used to pay for their end of life expenses and remaining assets split up. Everyone directly related got an equal split (so excluded my dad and the step parents). I don't remember the exact amount I received, but it was around $5k if I recall. My brother gave me his share, too, so I could finish paying off my college debt while the interest freeze was active.
The great uncle from California has kids and grand kids, and great grandkids of his own, and also isn't wealthy. I think one of his kids makes good money doing something in finance, but I'm not entirely sure. I can't imagine he left us anything, as we hardly knew him. My mom, aunt, and uncle only met him a few times in their lives, and my brother and I even less. Grandma and him were close, but I don't think he liked my grandpa much.
Christmas: December 25, 2023
I hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas. I've received a lot of support through my posts and I'm really grateful. Writing these updates have had a therapeutic effect.
Yesterday was Sunday, but I didn't answer my dad when he called. I just really didn't feel up to a pointless chat, so let it go to voicemail. He tried to reach me a few times throughout the day, but I didn't answer.
Our bestie last minute invited us over to his house for Christmas day lunch (today), so husband and I were busy all Christmas Eve making cookies, peanut brittle, and homemade suckers/hard candies for his kids. Mom tried to reach out as well, but I also ignored her calls.
We had a BLAST at lunch! Our friend's kids are a lot of fun to be around. They got some techy presents from their grandparents (Quest vr headset and steam decks, lucky little rascals) Friend and his wife aren't good with tech, while hubby and I are, so we helped get them set up while our friend played a good host to his folks and inlaws. The grandparents didn't realize that a Steam deck required a Steam account, so we got the kids all their own accounts set up, added them to our steam friends lists, and gifted them some games. We also bought them a few VR games for their headset, and they were off to the races with Beat Saber in no time.
As for my folks: My brother texted and asked if we could talk sometime tomorrow. I think me ignoring mom and dad has caused some kind of upset. Which they deserve.
Brother’s call: December 26, 2023
Spoke with my brother over the phone this morning.
For starters, he apologized for everything. Him and I are good (for now). For a bit of background, my brother and I are only 2 years apart. There weren't a lot of kids around growing up, so the two of us were often stuck doing stuff together. So we have a lot of shared interests and passions. He's been pretty silent on this whole matter, but still "part of the group", if you know what I mean. I think the thought of losing him out of my life was probably the most painful, because he's always been there. He was my rock until I met my husband. He's definitely a Mama's boy, though, so anything mom wanted, he made sure she got. I'm happy to have him back.
Without further ado, here's the story from the horse's mouth:
Mom apparently had a cancer scare late last year (which no one told me about, go figure), and dad had a stint put in his heart back in January (which I did know about). This "sense of mortality" has apparently lit a fire under Mom's ass to get me back home. But since I wasn't reacting to her passive aggressive hinting, she and step mom decided to go full crazy. My great uncle's health was bad, and he'd been asking about funeral arrangements for his sister (my grandma) for a while, so the moms decided to plan it. And use the event as a giant middle finger to me. They kept all the planning pretty hush-hush between the two of them, so no one on our side of the family actually knew about the funeral until like 2 weeks before. The moms said they'd invited hubby and I. No one thought anything about it. No one thought to mention, confirm, or check with me.
The plan was to scatter the ashes, say a few words, and maybe head to town for lunch. It was a small affair. The mom's didn't even tell the family that our great uncle was coming for it. Like I said, it was a small thing. Barely a footnote. No one thought it was odd because we're pretty chill people.
4th of July happens. Hubby and I are out. No one thought to mention it, as we were all busy celebrating and having a great time. Any time the topic of "this weekend" would start, the conversation would be quickly shifted by one of the moms. We went back home.
8th of July happens. Great uncle rolls into town with a few of his kids, grandkids, and great grandkids, and it's a surprise to everyone (but the moms). Everyone drives to the maple grove and the moms have brought a ton of food and stuff. It's a full blown party. No one on my side noticed I wasn't there, because there were so many extra faces outside the usual group. They did the spreading of the ashes, they said their words, they ate, they had a great time. It wasn't until our great uncle left, and all his side left with him, that they realized I wasn't there. And hadn't been there.
And this is where the crazy went up a notch. My brother says the moms were happy no one noticed I wasn't there. And that this was proof to everyone that I needed to move back because I was so easily forgotten about. Because none of them thought to reach out, right? They basically did a ton of guilt tripping manipulation bullshit and it made everyone upset at me for not showing up. Somehow it was my fault for being excluded. So suddenly everyone was on their side with "sticking it to me".
But then a few months went by, and tempers cooled, and then I guess the horror of it set in. Followed by the shame, but by then they were "in too deep". How do you undo something like this? And since I hadn't brought it up, I guess they figured they would all just stay quiet about it and hope I never asked about a funeral.
That's when I discovered the situation from my great uncle's Facebook and called my mom, who panicked and went with the stupidest solution. Claiming I was there. Don't I remember?
I ended up talking with a few friends from high school, mentioning the situation, and word got back to those in town. So suddenly town gossip and little old church ladies got involved. Was I, or wasn't I at the funeral? Did my family forget to invite me to the funeral of the only grandparents I'd ever know? Or am I just causing a ruckus? My brother said they all just went with mom's answer. Of course they wouldn't forget me. Of course I was there. Of course they're good people. And it just snowballed.
The family expected me to eventually fold. I'm usually a nonconfrontational person, so me sticking to my guns was unexpected. And then I missed Thanksgiving. And now Christmas. With no sign of backing down. And I guess the realization that I could just stop being part of their lives is setting in and my parents are panicking. He's tried just getting them to apologize and explain, but stubbornness prevails. They want to rug sweep, but I'm not letting them.
My brother is upset with everything that's happened. He's realized just how crappy it all has been and he wants nothing to do with it anymore. But since he lives with my mom, he can't "get away from it".
He has asked if he can come stay with us for a little bit. I spoke with hubby, and he's in agreement with me that my brother can come crash in our spare bedroom for as long as he wants. Brother works remotely, so it's no trouble for him to pick up and go. I believe he's making the trip today or tomorrow. Not entirely sure, but I expect crap to hit the fan when he arrives.
On a side note, hubby's stoked that my brother and I made up. The two usually game together, but haven't due to "the situation". He's downstairs right now setting up his man cave in preparation for my brother's arrival. I'm happy to see him so excited.
Brother's Here: December 27, 2023
My brother rolled in late last night. He'd obviously been crying and when I opened the door, he just held me and sobbed. I'd never seen him like that before and soon both of us were just standing in the doorway crying into one another. He kept apologizing. Over and over again. Said he wasn't sure why he went with it. Just kept saying sorry. Hubby got him all set up in the spare bedroom while brother and I talked. My brother's a wreck. He's always been a big guy, but he's lost a lot of weight and his clothes just hang off him. If I didn't know better, I'd think he was on drugs. We talked for a little bit before bed and he re-explained everything for my husband. I'd told hubby the story, but it was just so weird that hearing it again helped.
This morning my brother was up at dawn making some coffee and getting his work day going. Hubby's off all week (lucky) so hubby made us working folk some pancakes and bacon. So far everything's peaceful. We've decided not to answer any calls from our family. They've been made aware that he arrived safely, and that we are going to spend the New Years together, and that we're not answering any calls until January 1st. They may text if they wish. I'm sure they're losing their minds. Serves them right.
Everyone, have a safe and happy new years! Don't drink and drive!
Happy 2024!: January 2, 2024
I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable holidays, and may the new year be full of joy and happiness!
Not too much of an update. Things here have been quiet. My brother's settled in nicely and he's a great housemate. Our place isn't very big, but we have full basement and a nice outside patio/porch area so it doesn't feel crowded at all with the extra addition. He's a quiet and clean guy. No hassle at all. He got some fresh clothes from the Walmart, a haircut, and trimmed his beard, so he's more "presentable" now. He's a lady killer when he gets cleaned up. He's made nice with the (very nosy, but kind) retired couple next door and is adapting to "city living" nicely.
Folks back home have been mostly well behaved. There's been a few texts back and forth, as we're not answering calls. Mom mainly wants to know when brother's coming back, but he's keen on staying here for a while. Mom said I can't "keep him" and I told her he's a grown ass man and can do what he wants. Brother says he has her blocked after she ORDERED him to return home.
Brother has tentatively asked if he could stay long term, should he decide to, or at least longer than a usual visitor would stay. Which we're fine with. He has a good paying job and could afford an apartment, but he's never lived on his own and I would guess he has some anxiety about it. Should that be the case, he'll start paying us some rent and we'd probably adjust to give him the basement as his own space.
Had to change the locks: January 17, 2024
My brother is officially staying with us for the long haul. Hubby and him spent all Sunday organizing the basement and shifting things around so he now has his own area to be comfortable in. He's pretty handy and has also started fixing little things around our house. Our windows and doors have never closed and locked/unlocked smoother. He even fixed one of the closets we never use because we can never get the darn door open. Sadly, he also had to change the locks on our house and get us all new keys.
This is because while hubby and I were out this Saturday, the moms showed up. They'd been calling and texting us all week, but we weren't really answering them, so I guess the two decided to drive over and hash it out in person. They have emergency keys to my place, and just let themselves in. Brother told them to leave, they argued, and my nosy (but kind) neighbors called the police when they noticed the commotion. So, we get a call from neighbor's wife, return home to some cops in our yard, all the neighbors out "vacuuming their trees", and my nosy (but kind) neighbors standing on my porch with my brother behind them, doing their best Gandalf "You shall not pass" impression.
Had to talk with the cops, explain that we were having a family dispute and word vomited. I don't really remember what all I said, and was shaking a lot. Our local cops are really great. Fantastic guys and gals in blue, and took it all in stride. It's really cold here, so one had me join him in his cruiser with the heat on, and gave me a bottle of water to calm down while we talked. They asked if we wanted the moms trespassed but I wasn't sure if that counted as a criminal charge so just asked the cops if they could just make them leave, which the cops did with no fuss. I think the moms were shocked we were taking this so seriously. They didn't fight or scream at us. Just left quietly.
My dad promised me he'd make sure his wife left us alone. "Or else". He said he'd also have a stern talk with my mom. Him and I talked Sunday morning, and he seemed absolutely at the end of his rope. Husband jokingly told my dad he could move in, too. To which he declined.
Not sure where to go from here, but we're getting some ring cameras installed once they arrive. And everyone but my dad is blocked. Hopefully they all just leave us alone.
Nothing New To Report: February 2, 2024
Had a lot of DMs for updates, but don't have much anything to report on. The moms are behaving themselves. All's quiet on the western front. Felt weird ignoring or copy/pasting "no updates" to everyone, so here's what we've been doing, should anyone care.
Dad got a new bird/squirrel feeder from Amazon (looks like a little picnic table for a child's dolly but has a mesh top for the bird seed. I think it's supposed to be for chickens?) It's totes adorbs. To his horror, it also works as a Cooper hawk feeder, so now he's "fortifying his defenses" and putting up some trellises around it. He'll have to wait till warmer weather before planting anything to grow on them.
We had some ring cameras installed and put in a motion-activated camera that double functions as a light bulb. It goes in the light fixture outside the front door and is pretty cool. Video quality isn't all that great, but it's a nice addition I guess. It does overlook the bird feeders, so I've been watching it on my lunch breaks on the days I have to go into the office.
Hubby and brother are feuding. They started a coop farm in Stardew Valley a few days ago and they both want to romance Leah. My husband confided in me that he's also been romancing Sebastian as a backup. I'm not sure why he's keeping this a secret, but he's pretty smug about it.
RELEVANT COMMENTS
fractal_frog I hope your dad can outsmart the hawks!

OOP: He'll be able to, I just know it. He's used to dealing with the wildlife and having hawks about, but he just wasn't expecting one to snag a meal right from his new feeder.
I told him it was "technically" still a bird feeder. Just....for bigger birds. Which he thought was funny. He said he might make a little "no hawks allowed" sign to put up next to it.

MissOP: keep the updates coming. the moms are so close to folding it's just a little bit more. LMAO also, the bro mance between your husband and brother is so cute. lol Honestly, I think your husband making sure he has a side piece of Sebastian is absolutely the play.

OOP: So far still no word from the moms, but I hope you're right. I would love an apology and for us to begin moving past this. But I NEED that apology. I feel selfish saying that, but I refuse to "be the bigger person" on this. I just won't.
As for my brother and husband, yeah, they're basically soul mates. The two hit it off immediately when they first met, and they've been thick as thieves for years.

Update: February 27, 2024
My dad came out for a visit over the weekend. We had a good time and the weather was lovely for some grilling and beers. It was really nice to see him again and he seemed healthy and in good spirits.
Here's his report from back home: Step mom (dad's wife) has started to realize she's screwed up. I credit her change of mindset to the fact that my dad sat her down and laid it out for her: she leaves his kids alone, or she's getting divorce papers. That apparently shut her up right quick, because they had a prenup done when they married and I'm not sure the details of it, but it wouldn't end favorably for her. She hasn't worked in years, so I imagine she'd be eligible for alimony? But I'm not versed in any of that legal mumbojumbo. Dad didn't seem too worried about it, so I'm not gonna worry about it.
Step dad was pissed the police were involved in the last "mom visit" (despite no one getting arrested or anything) and was in a "the kids are out of control and need to be reigned back in" mindset. When my dad pointed out that "the kids" in question were all in their mid-30s, it took some of the steam out of stepdad's sails. According to my dad, even my mom looked a little surprised when he said that. So, part of me is wondering if a good chunk of this whole thing is my mom not truly realizing that her kids were grown, and no longer children she could make demands of. Both of the moms have left us alone. I expected my mom to continue to kick up a fuss, but I think the cops spooked her.
There was a wonderful suggestion by a comment or to get their pastor involved, which I passed along to my dad. Dad has since spoken to their pastor about everything. He's a young guy, relatively new to their church, and joked that his first month on the job he had to do 3 funerals in a row and his new "flock" were just dying to get away from him, so he's got a sense of humor which is nice. The new pastor agreed to sit down with everyone and help the family hash it all out in a true "Come to Jesus" type moment next month, so that maybe we could celebrate Easter together as our first holiday as a family. Dad said the pastor was aware our family was having some troubles, but unsure of exactly what was going on, and since he was new, the pastor didn't want to pry. He has also agreed to do a small service down at my uncle's maple grove later in the summer, as it usually floods and is a muddy mess all spring. According to my dad, my aunt and uncle are so over all the drama and just ready to move on, so I expect hugs and apologies from them when we next meet.
Stardew Valley Update: My brother was victorious in the grand fight for Leah. It was a hard battle. Well fought. When my husband exposed his plans to woo Sebastian all this time, it was quite the betrayal. Dramatics aside, their farm is really cute and I'm so happy they're enjoying the game!
Update 4/1 - Final one I think - April 1, 2024
Happy April Fools everyone! I hope you all check your caramel apples for stray onions before taking a bite! I also hope your Easter weekend was a delightful one.
It is with great joy that I tell you all about our most recent update! Possibly even a conclusion to this whole ordeal.
The entire family (aunt, uncle, moms, dads, brother, me, husband) and pastor met at my dad's house and we all sat down to hash the situation out. As expected from what my dad said, my aunt and uncle greeted us all with apologies and hugs, which was nice. My uncle usually helps host the Easter egg hunts with the church and he brought our Easter baskets to give to us in case us kids weren't sticking around the for the weekend. I'm not sure why but seeing it made me tear up and feel stupid, because it was just a basket of candy but it meant a lot to me for some reason.
The pastor led us in a prayer and talked about forgiveness and such. He then asked us all to talk one at a time about how we're feeling and what we want the end result of today to be. No one was allowed to interrupt so everyone got to talk. It was nice. The consensus for the group was that most everyone wanted things to go back to "normal". The only ones who had any variance off this was my mom and step dad. They both wanted all us kids to move back to the area.
The pastor asked them why they wanted us back, and neither could give a good reason other than "because family", and the pastor asked us if we were thriving where we were. And we said we were. He asked if we were happy there. Which we were. He then asked my mom and step dad if they wanted us to give up our happiness to make them happy.
And Mom broke down and said no. We all had a good cry. The pastor then asked about the funeral and lies that led up to it and followed it and how it made us all feel and what we wished we'd done differently if we had the chance. It was all very emotional, but in a good way, you know? Everyone apologized and admitted they f-ed up and did a really crappy thing.
We all talked for a long, long time and the pastor was a great mediator. Eventually we all reached some sort of resolution and I think we're good now. Emotions are still high and a little raw in areas, but we stayed for Easter weekend and had a nice time. We're going to keep moving forward slowly and try to repair the relationship, but I believe we're well and truly out of the woods.
As for my brother, he's still staying with us, and mom will stop trying to guilt trip him back home. He's thinking about renting a small apartment in our area but we're not pushing him to make a decision. He knows he's welcome to stay as long as he wants. I think he wants to try dating (he's had a few girlfriends but never anything serious) and is embarrassed to bring any girls around our place, lol. He's been going to a few random classes/bookclubs at the local library for something free to do and hitting it off with all the little old ladies who attend, and they keep trying to hook him up with girls his age who they know. He has been on a few lunches/coffee dates with a couple girls, but I think he's too embarrassed by the attention to give it a real try at "dating" any of them. He's happy, though, which is all I could ask for.
I'm not sure if there will be any more updates, as I think it's all be resolved about as much as it can be at the moment. I wanted to thank you all for your words of advice and giving me a place to vent and scream into the void. Please be kind to one another and to yourselves. Thank you.
Relevant Comments
emjkr: What a nice and hopeful update, I’m really glad you stuck to your guns when everyone threw sanity out the window!
But, could your mother explain how she thought this would work out in her favour?

OOP: I don't think mom thought too far ahead. I believe she assumed it would all just magically work out the way she wanted it to. She said she wasn't sure what she was expecting to happen (which I think was a lie, but I wasn't going to push it).

mak_zaddy: This was a great update! But ummmmmm no stardew valley update? What gives? Has Sebastian been woo’ed? How’s Leah? What’s happening?

OOP: Sebastian has indeed been wooed (and whoohooed) There's kids and cows and chickens. The two are still having a wonderful time at the game. They're working on completing the community center but it's slow going as they aren't trying to speedrun and just doing things as they want. I believe they're thinking about going into the desert mines once they complete that bundle, but they're both super chicken shit about it!

-my-cabbages: I don't really understand what you had to apologize for ... but I'm glad you're happy and the situation seems to be settling down

OOP: There wasn't much of an apology on my end, as everyone agreed I had done nothing wrong. Mine was more of a "I'm sorry you didn't feel as though I would listen." Type apology, which I don't really believe is a proper apology because apologies like that push the blame back on another. I mostly expressed my feelings and the shock of it all, and how betrayed I felt.

----NEW UPDATE----

Small, happy update: May 7, 2024 (1 month later)
Things as wonderful as the moment. Still doing baby steps with The Moms. We're texting and talking on the phones more, which is nice. Very civil.
Dad "accidentally" bought a bunch of hand crafted bird feeders at a craft fair. By accidentally, I mean: he had a little too much fun in the beer tent, went for a stroll while step mom wasn't looking, and stumbled upon a guy's booth and bought "one of each". He wouldn't tell me how MANY "one of each" was, but he cackled like a witch when I asked. Step mom said she's forcing him to give a few to me, so I'm expecting a delivery or a Dad-visit any day now.
My brother is officially "going steady" with a girl. We've met her a few times and she seems like a real sweetheart. She's our age and has a little boy (5-6 years old, I haven't asked) from a previous relationship (The dad's not in the picture from what I can gather). She's the granddaughter of one of his Book Club members, so the old ladies made good match makers in the end. The relationship is still very new and I'm routing for them.
No new Stardew Valley updates. Work has been a little crazy lately and I haven't been able to play much of anything, and brother has been distracted by his new lady friend. So, husband finally started Baldur's Gate 3, and fell for Gale's "magic trick" so now those two are a thing. I expect him to be sufficiently distracted from reality for the next few weeks.

DO NOT COMMENT IN LINKED POSTS OR MESSAGE OOPs – BoRU Rule #7

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT OOP

Explore the depths of dark fantasy writing with our all-inclusive guide on enhancing your themes and drawing readers in with symbolism. Discover key strategies, delve into the background of dark fantasy literature, and let your imagination run wild with an enjoyable writing assignment. Regardless of your level of experience as a writer or your level of interest, this guide will assist you in creating dark fantasy stories that are memorable and impactful.
Writing in the dark fantasy genre is a journey into the depths of the human psyche, where symbolism and imagery rule supreme, and it goes beyond simple stories of magic and monsters. We'll look at how to use symbolism to enhance your themes, draw in readers, and craft worlds of dark fantasy that will stick with you in this extensive guide.

Understanding Symbolism in Dark Fantasy Writing

Let's examine the history and development of symbolism in dark fantasy literature before delving into its specific applications. Gothic literature is the source of dark fantasy literature; early works such as Bram Stoker's "Dracula" and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" established the themes of terror, mystery, and the paranormal. Dark fantasy has evolved over time as authors like H.P. Lovecraft, Anne Rice, and Clive Barker have explored themes of power, corruption, and the human psyche.

The Power of Symbolism in Dark Fantasy Writing

A powerful tool in the dark fantasy writer's toolbox, symbolism enables you to give your works a deeper resonance and meaning. You can add layers of intricacy and depth that captivate readers and hold their interest throughout by employing symbols and imagery to symbolise abstract ideas, feelings, and themes.

Essential Techniques for Using Symbolism in Dark Fantasy Writing

Let's now examine some crucial methods for enhancing themes in your dark fantasy writing with symbolism:
Pick Your Symbols Wisely: Whether it's a menacing raven perched atop a gravestone, a mysterious amulet with dark powers, or a sinister castle shrouded in mist, pick symbols that speak to your themes and characters.
Establish Symbolic Motifs: To reaffirm themes and provide a feeling of coherence and unity, incorporate reoccurring symbols and motifs into your narrative. Including symbolic elements in your story can enhance its depth and richness. Some examples of such elements are the moon, which denotes mystery and transformation, or a colour like red, which stands for blood and passion.
Employ Symbolic Imagery: To evoke mood and atmosphere, use rich descriptive language to paint vivid pictures with your words. Use imagery to draw readers into the dark fantasy world you've created, whether you're describing a haunted forest shrouded in shadows or a dilapidated mansion full of secrets.
Investigate Archetypes and Myths: Use mythological motifs and archetypal characters as inspiration to give your narrative enduring themes and universal lessons. Using these classic themes, such as the hero's journey, the underworld's descent, or the conflict between light and darkness, can give your dark fantasy story more depth and resonance.

Fun Writing Exercise: Unleash Your Imagination

Select a Theme: Choose a theme or idea that you wish to explore in your dark fantasy story to begin with. Select a theme that appeals to you and piques your interest, such as the nature of power, the duality of human nature, or the quest for salvation.
Determine Your Symbols: The next step is to make a list of images and symbols that are connected to the theme you have selected. These could be places with symbolic meaning, animals, colours, or even objects. For example, you could use symbols like a decaying city, a black rose, or a serpent if you're examining the theme of corruption.
Create Your Story: After deciding on a theme and symbols, begin creating your story by incorporating these components into it to give it depth and resonance. Employ evocative language to create a sense of atmosphere and mood, and allow your symbols to direct the course of your story and the character development.
After writing your story, consider how the symbolism you employed enriched your themes and make any necessary revisions. Seek chances to hone your imagery or add more nuance to your symbolism in order to produce a more compelling and meaningful reading experience. And don't be scared to edit and polish your narrative until the power of symbolism shines through!

Famous Writers and Works in Dark Fantasy Literature

Dark fantasy literature boasts a rich history and a wealth of influential writers and works. From classic tales of Gothic horror to modern masterpieces of dark fantasy, here are a few notable examples:
The Cthulhu Mythos of H.P. Lovecraft: Lovecraft is recognised as one of the pioneers of contemporary horror literature, and the dark fantasy subgenre has been greatly impacted by his Cthulhu Mythos. Lovecraft's stories, replete with cosmic horror.), ancient gods, and secret knowledge, tackle existential dread and humanity's smallness in the face of cosmic forces that are beyond our comprehension.
Neil Gaiman's "The Sandman": This graphic novel series is a masterwork of dark fantasy that masterfully combines dream sequences, mythology, and folklore. With its sophisticated storyline, nuanced characters, and rich, vivid imagery, "The Sandman" has won both praise from critics and a devoted readership, solidifying Gaiman's place as one of the leading authors of contemporary dark fantasy literature.
George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire": George R.R. Martin's epic fantasy series "A Song of Ice and Fire" is a sprawling saga of political intrigue, war, and magic set in the fictional continent of Westeros. With its morally ambiguous characters, intricate plot twists, and gritty, realistic world-building, "A Song of Ice and Fire" has redefined the boundaries of the dark fantasy genre and inspired a cultural phenomenon with its adaptation into the hit HBO series "Game of Thrones".

Embrace the Power of Symbolism

To sum up, symbolism is a powerful tool that can enhance your themes, draw readers in, and help you write darker fantasy fiction to new heights. You can write dark fantasy stories that stick in the reader's mind long after the last page is turned by carefully selecting your symbols, coming up with symbolic motifs, employing vivid imagery, and taking inspiration from myths and archetypes.
So embrace the power of symbolism, let your imagination run wild, and set out on an amazing adventure into the shadowy depths of fantasy literature. Your readers are just waiting to be enthralled with the wonders of your writing!

Elevating Your Writing Experience

With pen and paper in hand, set off on your dark adventure, reflect on the deep experience that the GC Luxury Quill Set provides. Each stroke of the quill seems like a fall into the depths of darkness, capturing the essence of your darkest fantasies with unmatched precision thanks to its superb craftsmanship and timeless elegance.
The GC Luxury Quill Set transforms writing into an art form, drawing you into the intricate web of your own invention whether you're creating suspenseful dialogue or narrative twists. It becomes an extension of your will, channelling the raw emotion and atmosphere necessary to creating a genuinely unforgettable dark fantasy tale thanks to its ergonomic form and fluid ink flow.

My Own Dark Fantasy Realm

Hi there, fellow fans of dark fantasy! Thanks to your unflinching support, our blog—which is packed with tales and inspirations of dark fantasy—is making waves on TikTok, Pinterest, and YouTube. Even more thrilling is the fact that we're creating a captivating Trading Card Game to further engross you in Twilight Citadel's eerie mysteries. Explore the depths of the shadows with our website, where you can get eerie yet lovely phone wallpapers and posters. Furthermore, we've got you covered with free resources like desktop wallpapers and profile pictures to make sure your gadgets are brimming with eerie fantasy atmosphere. Come along with us on this surreal adventure, where fears come true and shadows dance. Are you prepared to welcome the gloom?

michael since you like to read in here and go on tiktok/youtube playing victim id like to remind you why you have a snark page dedicated to you!
let’s point out the obvious, the porn. we do not judge ones who do only fans… its the incest, child look, and posting as a trans but getting offended for being misgendered. its one thing to keep your private life away from social media but the problem is you had your private life plastered all over your socials AND you chose to get on certain social medias during work replying with suggestive responses in the presence of children (also claiming to be hard at work… around children) this is not normal and could’ve put you on the list so be thankful that person only brought that to the attention of the daycare and not the police.
you are self centered, another word could be narcissistic but sometimes we don’t understand to the full capacity what that word means so let me put it in small boy terms! you only think about you and you cling on to being the center of attention in perfect lighting (meaning when someone sees you a little differently you’ll get frustrated and attempt to make sure no one gets the drift and feels the same as they do) perfect example is you deleting comments, switching the narrative by making a tiktok with not even partially the truth, and portraying yourself as someone else to get someone to like you. this is all toxic behavior especially to yourself because you lose who you are. it’s easy to lie and kick dust over it than to tell the truth and let the rocks hit the glass house you’ve built from being honest and transparent.
this one is rough to even talk about because of how disgusting and disrespectful it is, acting like a woman but getting mad because misgendering occurred. we’ve put it together that you hate women because your ex cheated on you with one but let me be very clear, you are obsessed. the way you act like us is crazy and calling us bitches is even crazier because how are you going to hate when you can’t even get on our level? you’ve made it clear that you think it’s okay to mock trans women as well so tell me michael how are you going to hate when you can’t even get in? your “fans” which i won’t say anything rude because i was one before i did some research but they haven’t yet and they’re only hearing one side. you treat them like a typical man that tries manipulate women and i’m going to end this topic on that because i could say so much more.
you need help because constantly posting about your ex and how he cheated, going shopping 24/7, and isolating yourself isn’t healthy. learn to love and appreciate women because yes one had your ex but it doesn’t sound or even look like he was yours from the beginning and it still doesn’t make all women bad. discipline yourself as well because this victim facade is annoying, learn to take accountability. i’ve noticed on every snark page ive seen half the members want to see accountability taken and the person to seek help. we just state what bothers us, things we see as offensive or just rude in manner wise. things always come to light and no one is perfect but some things shouldn’t be done and it’s definitely a common sense thing.
that’s all for now but id love to hear from other members on this!

Hey guys. Do you know an effective way to block links in chat messages. But allowing links related to channels within the server and some allow-listed servers?
Currently I set up the automod in order to block some links, usually used for spam messages. I used a regex like this:

onlyfans\.\w+
steamcommunity\.\w+
sumdexa\.\w+
discord\.(?:ggcom)\/\w+

4 different patterns. As you can see, discord.gg and discord.com are deny-listed, but some users try to share links to channels inside the server and the automod falsely accuse it to be a spam message.

This is the algorithm my teacher wanted me to use/apply to the program:
* Selection sort algorithm
For PassNumber = 0 to ListSize - 2 ‘loop from beginning to last but one element (1st nested loop)
‘ find the smallest element in the unsorted range
SmallestPos = PassNumber ‘ initialise the smallest found so far as the element at the beginning of this range
For position = PassNumber + 1 to ListSize - 1 (2nd nested loop)
SmallestPos = Position
Next Position
‘ if element at PassNumber isn’t the smallest, move it there and swap
If PassNumber <> SmallestPos then (1st Selection)
‘ Swap
Temp = List(SmallestPos)
List(SmallestPos) = List(PassNumber)
List(PassNumber) = Temp
End If
‘ At this point, list from 0 to passnumber is sorted
Next PassNumber
And this is the programming code I did:
* The scenario is to generate random numbers from 1 to 100 and then sort them in ascending order.
Public Class Form1
'Declare the variables
Public MAXSIZE As Integer = 19
Public ItemCount As Integer = 0
Public arrnumbers(MAXSIZE) As Integer
Public bigpos As Integer
Public smallpos As Integer
'generate random numbers from 1 to 100
Private Sub btnGenerate_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles btnGenerate.Click
Dim loops As Integer
Randomize()
lstDisplay.Items.Clear()
For loops = 0 To MAXSIZE - 1
arrnumbers(loops) = Int(100 * Rnd() + 1)
lstDisplay.Items.Add(arrnumbers(loops))
ItemCount = ItemCount + 1
Next
End Sub
' Select biggest number
Private Sub btnBig_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles btnBig.Click
Dim biggest As Integer = arrnumbers(0)
Dim bigpos As Integer
For i As Integer = 0 To ItemCount - 1
If arrnumbers(i) > biggest Then
biggest = arrnumbers(i)
bigpos = i
End If
Next
MsgBox("The biggest number is " & biggest.ToString)
End Sub
' Select smallest number
Private Sub btnSmall_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles btnSmall.Click
Dim smallest As Integer = arrnumbers(0)
Dim smallpos As Integer
For i As Integer = 0 To ItemCount - 1
If arrnumbers(i) < smallest Then
smallest = arrnumbers(i)
smallpos = i
End If
Next
MsgBox("The smallest number is " & smallest.ToString)
End Sub
'Sort the randomized numbers << THIS ONE
Private Sub btnSort_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles btnSort.Click
' Sort the array
Array.Sort(arrnumbers, 0, ItemCount)
' Clear the list box
lstDisplay.Items.Clear()
' Add sorted numbers to the list box
For loops = 0 To ItemCount - 1
lstDisplay.Items.Add(arrnumbers(loops))
Next
End Sub

The sort Button

https://preview.redd.it/6f4ioe2pbb0d1.png?width=427&format=png&auto=webp&s=7435aa7d05eeda54330b97900f7e9a4494a7d45c
This leads to the question that I have put in the title... the code that I wrote still sorts the numbers correctly, but that's probably not the one that my teacher wants me to use.
Maybe I'm not understanding the purpose of sorting..?

I am a 61 year old white male, divorced, with two grown kids who live in other states. There are records on file of me having registered Democrat. So that is of course a huge strike against me. I taught for 20+ years in public schools and in non-religious private schools. Possibly another strike, as viewed through MAGA eyes. I have always enjoyed plays and theater, and have participated in community theater in onstage and backstage capacities. In my time in community theater, I have performed in drag twice. I imagine my theater work, especially the Edna Turnblad and Lady Bracknell roles, will be viewed as treason or grooming by the incoming administration next year. Strike three in the eyes of 80+ million of my fellow Americans.
Here is my concern: I am becoming more and more convinced that Trump will win the Presidency. I am also concerned that Congress, in one way or another, will be turned into a Republican (Trump) majority, via actions by state legislatures, or other means. Fareed Zakaria had a very cogent piece on CNN in the last couple of days, raising very valid points about the possibility of Trump winning.
Not to be selfish, but I am hoping not to be sent to a camp somewhere when Trump, Bannon, and Stephen Miller take power. I mean, I hope NOBODY is sent to a camp. I’m hoping that I am such small potatoes that I may be way down on the list.
So anyway… I am kind of still figuring I’m probably going to be imprisoned, deported, or something in 2025… any thoughts?

Roku private channel list youporn

Roku Private Non-Certified Channel Development

Here’s just SOME of what you will learn in this training: