In many psychopathy related online debates, there is this pseudo-scientific distinction between Sociopathy (environment) and Psychopathy (born with) and all associated misconceptions about how neurology works. Here a quick overview about how the misconception of these beliefs are classified in academic literature, followed by a quick criticism on their own classification, followed by the consequences. Bypassly, a bunch of information I share with you between the lines:

"Genetic determinism is linked to essentialist reasoning, which can be understood as the view that every entity, including biological traits, contains an immutable underlying essence that predicts similarities between members of a group (Gelman, 2003). Genetic determinism can be regarded as the biological component of essentialism (Keller, 2005), but it is generally considered to be a lay concept deserving independent and focused attention. As Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2011) argue, essentialist thinking can be reinforced by a superficial understanding of genetics, in which genes take the role of concrete placeholders for essentialist ideas. Such an understanding of genetics tends to inaccurately attribute an overactive, primary, or even exclusive determining power to the gene. However, recent developments in genomics and epigenetics have reinforced the notion of gene action as probabilistic and mutually interdependent with the environment, (...)" (Genetics Education p. 108)

In contrast, is the view that humans are born as a blank sheet of paper, a view held by popular philosophers essential to contemporary views on personal identity and personhood in general.

"The empiricist philosopher John Locke expressed the idea that humans acquire all or almost all of their behavioral traits from nurture, claiming that the human mind is a tabula rasa, and that mental functions and behaviors develop solely from environmental influences" (p. 109)

Since biological determinism is considered a "layman's belief", where does this idea come from? There have been studies looking at the distribution of said theory across cultures and is considered a universal concept (p. 112) The study looked into how much genetic-influence is overestimated across Europe, North America, and South America on traits.

"Gericke et al. (2017) reported that bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, alcoholism and, to a lesser degree, intelligence, severe depression, attention defcit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and violent behavior scored lower for genetic deterministic beliefs among the participants of the study, when compared to heritability scores from the literature, whereas only two traits—related to the biological component (diabetes and breast cancer)—scored higher, indicating genetic overattribution. Hence, there was, among the Brazilian students involved in the study, a tendency to attribute less power to genes for social and mental traits, compared to biological traits." (p. 113)

Without going into further detail, the results show that the opposite of the hypothesis is true. Most people underestimate genetical influence. Another striking result is that there is still a strong underlying belief in mind-body dualism; with phenotypical traits associated with "genetics" and mental traits to be considered "environmental". For example, ADHD's is indeed strongly linked to genetics.
This is also indicative that people are willing to blame for mental disabilities, believed to have control over, but not to external forms of disability, even when the risk factor is increased by one's actions (for example, in the case of breast cancer).
Interestingly, genetic determinism is not that popular among layman as thought, despite being mistakenly proposed in much literature.

"While some traits—the same fve in each country—showed elevated rates of genetic overattribution, rarely did a majority of respondents endorse a deterministic response. To conclude, this large study in three countries from three different continents did not support the idea that genetic determinism is a general and widespread belief. This general finding of low overall genetic overattribution was also reported by Gericke et al. (2017) in the same sample of Brazilian undergraduates (using a distinct analytical approach), as well as by Willoughby et al. (2019) for laypeople in the United States. However, it is at odds with other prior literature (e.g., Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011; Keller, 2005; Nelkin & Lindee, 2004). Several authors have previously reported BGD to be a widespread phenomenon in common discourse (Keller, 2000; Nelkin & Lindee, 2004), in the media (Condit et al., 2001), and in school textbooks (Gericke et al., 2014)." (p. 118 [this quote is probably the most interesting one])

For those who got curious now about "what to belief then everything thought before turns out to be wrong", here comes salvation:

"Although the topic is complex, there is consensus that the interplay between genes and environment is a core idea of genetic literacy (Boerwinkel et al., 2017). Fifty-seven experts participating in a delphi study brought to light the genetics knowledge that is relevant for laypeople in the twenty-frst century. Nine knowledge categories of genetic literacy emerged. One of them addressed understanding M. Hammann (*) · J. C. S. Zang Zentrum für Didaktik der Biologie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Münster, T. Heemann Kardinal-von-Galen-Gesamtschule Nordwalde, Nordwalde, Germany 128 multiple and interactive causation of genetic phenomena: “Multiple genes and multiple environmental factors interact in the development of most traits.” Some experts even argued that gene-environment interaction was the most relevant category of all." (p. 128)

In regards to psychopathy and the resurfacing debate about heritable traits, it is important to note that "teach that the environment can influence cell functioning through changes at the protein level" and " that environmental factors can cause mutations in genes, or alter gene expression". In other words, genes are not hard-coded stones flowing through our bodies like gears, but mutable and flexible, soft and alterable molecules-compounds.
Unfortunately, however,

"educational standards inadequately address the impact of the environment on genes and their products (Dougherty et al., 2011), high-school textbooks provide only limited discussions on genetic and environmental influences on multi-factorial diseases (Hicks et al., 2014) and omit the impact of the environment on gene expression altogether (Aivelo & Uitto, 2015; Martínez-Gracia et al., 2006), trait-formation tasks in high-school textbooks hardly ever address the role of the environment in trait formation (Heemann & Hammann, 2020), internet websites fail to address gene–environment interactions (Cheng et al., 2008), and media portrayals emphasize genetic infuences and diminish environmental on"

The educational services' attempt to combat biological determinism and racism kinda backed-fired, when this led to many students largely adopting Locke's view, as seen in the following pages of the quoted paper, which is that people are a product of their environment and education, neglecting the genetic influence. On the other hand, people who are "self-taught", are probably mostly confronted with a pseudo-intellectual oversimplification of biological determinism, leading to "self-taught people", to accept "the harsh reality" in contrast to "liberal educational systems in which everything is soft switching environmental factors". This could also explain the phenomena of LARPerpathy.
If we want to get political, this also explains why a lot of younger people are "left-leaning".
Hopefully, this helps to understand why the nurture vs nature debate itself, is outdated and arguably a layman debate in itself.

Yes, you read it right. I got a few admits and I will not be joining any of the colleges. Will be dropping MBA in general, as I have other plans. But, as I bid this community goodbye, wanted to give back in any tiny way possible.
P.S. Do not expect to see anything new here, and feel free to ignore!
Profile; GEM 9/9/9 - T10 Engg college, Work ex: 3yrs, CAT: 99.5X, XAT: 99.2X
I had registered for CAT on the very last day, with absolutely no idea of what the exam is, or if I am even planning for an MBA. As November came closer, I decided to give it a shot as an MBA would be something that suits me. I looked around to ask friends in IIMs on how to prepare with 15-20 days to go. Everyone had different strategies so I sat down to find some material. Everything seemed vague until I started checking out previous-year papers. (I personally have given 2 mocks, and solved all slots '19-'22). The patterns that evolved over the past decade, the most likely pattern for this year, and figured how I have around 1.5 mins per question to reach a rough score of 100. (I decided upon this as the fair average to be in the top 0.1/0.2 percentile based on results from '21-'24) While I state this simply, I did go through a lot of videos from creators, to Quora, to this very subreddit to get my information. And I must say that the first-hand accounts from here helped me all along.
Remember; CAT is strategy first, ability second kind of exam. I will keep different disparities out of this post, but would ask everyone to see this being based on bucketing. Yes, your gender, category, school-marks, UG field, all matter, but then don't think the entire pool is your competition. The percentile system makes one think like that, but it isn't the case. The competition is WITHIN your own bucket, find the scoring needed there. That math will go a long way and will keep you away from unnecessary excuses and debates.
General strategies:

- set an ideal score in mind, everyone would want highest possible but set a realistic number in mind. Aim should be to score equal in all section. Give mocks/prev year papers, find weakest section, compensate for loss there by gain elsewhere. - if strong in VARC, practice completing whole thing in 40mins (whatever the section time is), else tackle in order of strongest module first (RC/ordering/summarising/fill sentence). - in QA, put a hard limit of 1.5-2 mins per question when practicing. Choose only the sections/problems you are comfortable with, learn to solve them in the exam constraints first. There is no need to know everything, this isn't boards. - in DILR, know that 1/4 is enough, 2/4 is good, 3/4 and you can afford huge mistakes in VA/QA, but being able to solve 3/4 probably means you are very strong at reading and math, so no need to think here. 

I went on to give my CAT, and post that is when I got involved here the most. I was active when this community had 14k~ members, so it has grown significantly, in ways good and bad. But that's not the point. There are all kinds of people here, and therefore you should be able to find whatever you need amidst all the noise.
I had applied for top 10ish colleges based on my personal suitability (+All checkboxes in CAT form ). Adding links to their interview experiences/transcripts here;
IIM A, C, FMS - NO call [A and B have non-public criteria, but generally B has more weightage to experience, while A has for diversity. C and especially FMS need raw marks in CAT]
SPJIMR - my first interview experience, got kicked out of round 1 IIM K - admit XLRI BM - admit IIM B - PGP + PGPBA admit IIM I - admit IIT B - waitlist in 20s but opted out to not block seat IIM L - admit IIFT - will probably get IIM Mumbai, IIM Shillong, XLRI HM, IIT Delhi - filled interview forms but didn't attend All other IIMs - skipped entirely
I cannot give any specific advice on interviews as things to work upon vary greatly from person to person. You can go through the above links, and ask questions if any, I will try to answer them.
I hope this post is of help, And all the best for your plans!
Edit: Since a lot of you are asking about my plans; I left it out to not deviate from the context. But here goes nothing, So I was never interested in the monetary aspect of MBA, placements/corporate life etc, since I earned enough. I wanted to enter business/entrepreneurship so incubators and possible networking with similar people were my criteria, but as you see these gains are subjective, unlike objective goals like others would have. And, to cough up that much money and time seemed unfavourable at the moment. So chose an alternative that was available to me, join a pre-seed startup and learn through practical experience. There is nothing to say what's better tbh, and its been hard convincing myself or close people, but there's always the option of coming back to MBA if needed. Hope that quenches your curiosity!

Hey docs and other practicioners,
I'm 27 yo M from continental Western-Europe. In DSM/ICD categorical terms, I suffer from GAD, MDD (multiple episodes, too many to count, started around 19, 1 suicide attempt, active and passive suicidal ideation typical during episodes), ADHD, nicotine dependecy (+possibly ASD/social anxiety/sleep apnea/convergence insufficiency but they're all things we've yet to explore).
Psycho-socially speaking I've had a very difficult childhood to say the least (though I do not feel traumatized by it, it'd be a suprise if it didn't impact my nervous system's development), dysfunctional family, in the closet as an atheist and gay man from an Arab/Muslim family, poverty, live alone on social security, never had a job, been trying to get a higher education degree since forever etc. All a complicated mess.
Mental health issues have wrecked my life and destroyed all of my dreams and ambitions, even though on paper I have the intellectual abilities to achieve them.
I thought initially that how I felt was normal, just some "shit life syndrome", so for years I've tried on my own with no success. It was only when I talked to all these people with similar backgrounds, who didn't have the same devastating mental experience as me, that I realized there was something fundamentally different about my experience of my shit life. These folks had very difficult lives and were doing ok and managed to actively work in spite of all determinisms to make it better one day, without losing hope and persevering. Some of them are already succeeding, other are still working and not giving up. Other are ok with where they are and not that pressed about their issues.
Anyway, saw a bunch of psychiatrists over the years who all ended up with the same basic diagnoses (ADHD, GAD, MDD), tried a bunch of meds with little success. Sticking with the current one because we have a good therapeutic relationship,we started everything from scratch after almost a year with no meds.
Anyway, I'm on 50mg Vyvanse, 20mg escitalopram, current psych encouraged me recently to start psychotherapy which I did, the psychologist seems good too.
It's been months now. Mentally I'm nowhere near my worst, though far far away from well, functionally there doesn't seem to be much improvement. Plus after 4 weeks on 20mg escitalopram where it felt like I was getting better, the last 3 days that uncomfortable depression/anxiety feeling is starting to creep back in out of nowhere. I'm hoping it's an anomaly.
I'm not suicidal rn but I don't know if I'll be able to spend a lifetime like this. My life is passing me by. I just want to live, move on and instead I'm this dysfunctional mess. Even if I were to stabilize, how long before tolerance/poop-out kicks in, and then back on the medication trial-and-error carousel, back on the "try this psychotherapy modality" carousel.
I don't miss a single appointment with the psychiatrist (and since recently psychologist), never miss taking meds, stopped (chain-)smoking tobacco, stopped my precious coffee. I know vaping isn't healthy but working on it. Trying to fix my sleep schedule (I have heavy "bedtime resistance") etc. I don't know what else I'm supposed to do.
My only hope is future psychiatry/psychology managing to give me at least a couple of years of mental peace. If not, I'm thinking of discussing euthanasia with my doctor cause I can't spend a lifetime like this. I'd rather stop suffering now.
TLDR: little solid mental and functional advancements made for now in my mental health journey, afraid I'll spend my life trying, current options seem limited and unsustainable, thinking of opening the discussion on euthanasia if I won't ever manage to live a productive life I can be at least a little proud of.

stealing u/epiccabbage123 idea, feel free to ask any questions!!
FALL 2020
Adam Kane- WR120, first year writing, nonsense fiction. very fun class honestly with a lot of interesting discussions, and super interesting and thought provoking material with very interesting perspectives. recommend
Laura Brusetti- LI111, first sem italian, fun professor but tbh i was just in the class for lang requirement, but made learning the language easy and didn’t put a ton of pressure. recommend
Dan Dill- CH101, gen chem 1, i mean everyone knows dill what do i say, took it online which made it a lil easier tbh but i guess that may depend who you talk to. talks really slow and i felt like the book explained concepts better than he did
Mark Howe- NE101, intro to neuroscience, this class moves pretty fast and is very content packed, also took it online. i really enjoyed this class since i was super interested, but could be tough if you’re not. don’t think he teaches this class anymore tho (take it with gobrogge in the summer if he still does that!)
SPRING 2021
Walter Hopp- PH248, existentialism, idk this is where i found out academic philosophy wasnt for me, but jf you’re interested in the subject you’d probably like it, remember doing some kant and nietzche but i stopped reading the material halfway through the class tbh
Rita Cote- LI112 (2nd sem italian), LI211 (3rd sem), more difficult professor people say but tbh if you pay attention to the questions she asks they are the same she puts on oral exams and paper tests so just write them down in class and prepare an answer (if she hasn’t changed how she teaches)
Lucia Pastorino- NE102, Intro to cell and molecular bio, really great professor but i didn’t get to take her courses outside of this one and it was online, so i didn’t get to know her that well. class was great tho and she is a great lecturer, neuro department is great here. recommend
Binyomin Abrams- CH102, gen chem 2, explained things better than dill but still found the best help was reading the textbook, honestly just taught myself that one
Kyle Gobrogge- NE102 Lab, NE203 Lab (Principles of Neuro), NE456, the absolute goat, i love him to death. probably my favorite professor i’ve had and a huge part of what makes the neuro department great. truly cares about all his students and is willing to talk about anything and everything. will push you to reach your potential and it feels like he truly believes in you. he will open doors for you if you really want, and you can get anywhere you want if you want to work for it, he will offer paths to publish papers, undertake whatever experiment you can come up with that he has the facilities to support. they run a lab as well called the gobrogge teaching lab where he gave me access to whatever resources he could to come up with experiments and do whatever i wanted with them. very low pressure on the research as well, it truly felt like a perfect learning experience and through him i was able to start learning how to actually undertake research. take their sex and aggression class, it’s something everyone should be exposed to at some level and gives you an opportunity to talk about topics on human sexuality, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anything and everything freely and openly. i could go on for a while about them. highly highly recommend take any classes they’re teaching
FALL 2021
Cote, 3rd sem Italian, above
Rebecca Kinraide- WR152, Medical debates, seemed like a class but i wasn’t super engaged tbh. she was super nice though from what i remember and i don’t have any bad things to say about her
Jeff Gavornik- NE203, principles of neuro lecture, moves quick but i found it interesting, explains basic functions of the brain and builds a good foundation for future classes, he specialized in the electrical side of things so the class was slightly heavier in that aspect. felt like he explained things well though, didn’t go to office hours much so i don’t know him very well
huge shoutout to Caroline Dugan, think she is currently teaching NE203 lab which was easily my favorite lab class at BU. got to design our own experiment on fruit flies and this class has only improved since. you get access to some really powerful tools that you can do some really interesting things with. caroline was a LA when i took the class and she was always a great help, great at explaining concepts from lecture or lab and i highly recommend.
also huge shoutout to John Tullai, i didn’t have the pleasure of taking one of his classes directly since i did 203 lab under gobrogge, but every interaction I’ve had with tullai all the way through graduation has been great. another huge part of what makes the neuro department great, great person and great teacher. highly recommend.
Tracy Dunne- PS101, intro to psych, she was good but i wasn’t always super engaged and honestly wish i did a different minor. great professor though with interesting lectures and funny stories, i’d recommend if you are looking at this class
SPRING 2022
Zeynep Demiragli- PY105, physics 1, honestly felt like she went over some concepts a little too quick and found reading textbook to be really helpful to supplement, but was super nice and seemed to care about her students a lot.
David Somers- NE202, Intro to Cognitive neuro, this class was also interesting and he brought up a lot of interesting experiments, definitely have to study for this one. his lectures were engaging enough imo but not standout. recommend
Arash Yazdanbakhsh- NE212 (Intro to Matlab), NE204 (Intro to Computational Neuroscience), both classes are matlab, expects his students to do well and put in effort but is also more than willing to explain things to the most minute detail and repeat whenever you’re confused. go to office hours and ask questions, exams are open note and open internet as well so take notes and use them. his lecturing style is a bit different than most, instead of directly telling you information he tries to lead you there with questions and student input. he wants you to try to make the steps that people discovering these things did and think about everything is presented, he will give you all the information you need. recommend
FALL 2022
Paul Trunfio- PY106, physics 2, loved this man honestly, he wants his students to do well and will explain and answer any questions you have. gave great lectures and very accessible but also felt textbook material/assigned work pretty helpful. recommend
Brett DiBenedictis- NE333, drugs and behavior, really interesting class and he is a great lecturer, but the professors for this class change all the time. he gives a lot of detail and a very wide perspective outside of just how drugs work, but also touches on how they’ve impacted society. recommend if you get the chance
Steve Ramirez- NE337, Memory Systems, this man is incredible and i wish i got to interact with him more. leads a really interesting lab as well doing sick memory research. learned a ton in this class about how human memory works, things that can apply outside of just neuro knowledge but you can apply to your life. engaging lectures, funny professor with great stories and is great at explaining concepts. highly recommend.
Alice Cronin-Golomb- NE338, neuropsychology, learned some really interesting information in this class and she brought in some interesting guest lecturers. great lecturer herself, can expect a lot but is very informative. recommend.
SPRING 2023
Andrey Vyshedskiy, MET BI366, Neurobiology of Consciousness and Imagination, this guy is a genius, like seriously. go read his book, titled on the origin of the human mind, especially if you are interested in neuro and human evolution. he proposes a super interesting theory on what makes humans unique and is doing some really interesting research trying to examine his theory. unfortunately idk if you can get into this class anhmore unless you are in MET, and i took this class with 4 other people. super super interesting though and really pushed my understanding of the brain but also began to build a much more holistic overview of how the cortex works and how humans can do what we do. highly highly recommend and seriously read his book if you’re interested in this kind of thing.
Rachel Denison- PS222, perception, she seemed like a super sweet woman but i didn’t enjoy the class much, felt very surface level and memorization based honestly and i wasn’t engaged. also didn’t let students leave the classroom after finishing midterm/final until the whole allotted time was up even if you finished early so idk what that was about?
Michael Lyons- PS371, psychopathology, again i wish i did a different minor but old psych white guy vibes, seemed fine enough but lectures weren’t very engaging and felt like they consisted of either some random story that was only slightly related or reading off entries in the DSM
Stephen Prothero- RN106, Death and Immortality, this was the last class that he taught but i would recommend if i could. didn’t read much of the material but lectures were interesting and discussion based, even with a large class. impressed how they managed that tbh. recommend this class for more than just hub recs even tho we all know that’s what you’re taking it for
FALL 2023
Kyle Gobrogge, NE456, above
Kevin Barents/Jeremy Yudkin MH408/AM336, bob dylan: music and words, love these guys, lowkey penn and teller vibes but very interesting professors. class is super fun, listen to bob dylan and discuss his music, influence, life, ideas, whatever. recommend
Meg Younger- NE520, Sensory Neurobiology, great class and great professor. not only do you get to look at the groundbreaking discoveries in sensory neurobio, she teaches you how to read and digest scientific articles and prepares you to move into a lab. runs her discussion sections like a lab would run a journal club which i found super helpful. also will always engage with student feedback and is willing to challenge students if she doesn’t feel like we are putting in enough effort. really enjoyed her class and teaching style, this was a smaller class that allowed for open discussion and lots of perspectives. she also runs a really interesting mosquito lab investigating olfaction, so she has some really interesting insights there. highly highly recommend.
Kevin Gold, DS110, intro to Data Science with Python, good professor and chill dude, didn’t go to office hours so i didn’t know him much. cool class tho, helpful information to know and a good beginyning exposition to python and data science. recommend.
SPRING 2024
Arash Yazdanbakhsh, NE204, above
Leonidas Kontothanasis, DS210, Programming for Data Science, difficult and demanding class but good professor, gives some interesting stories in office hours and fun to talk to. good lectures but definitely need to do some reading outside of lecture as well. his class began to spark my interest in programming. recommend.
Tanima Chatterjee- DS120, Foundations of Data Science, seemed like a great professor but honestly i didn’t attend lecture much, seemed super nice from her recordings and didn’t actually require lecture attendance, gave really detailed lecture notes that were super easy to teach myself from. class itself was just basic topics in probability, proofs and logic, calculus, and linear algebra, i didn’t find it too difficult. she’s good at explaining concepts and if i didn’t take this class as a second semester senior i probably would have been more engaged. recommend.

I remember he had a heated debate with Krystal on jury duty...he regularly debated Krystal on various topics such as jan6 sentences, vapes, co-ops, desantis vs Trump etc
Now he pretty much avoids debating her 😭😂😂...
I think he humbled himself after Krystal being spot-on with desantis prediction on he's just a paper 🐯 vs trump
Not a complaint just an observation

🪞
Welcome back to the Asylum write-up, where we explore the decade-long slow-motion car crash that is the Emilie Autumn fandom.
Sorry this installment took so long to upload! Just a heads-up, I may take some time to deliver the last one too – these posts take forever to format on Reddit's finicky-ass editor, and my dumb real life is currently keeping me from precious Internet time. Thank you for your patience! You have my word that everyone who pre-ordered the final installment will receive a PERSONAL, HANDWRITTEN letter autographed and illustrated by me, a list of the snacks I consumed while composing this write-up, some exclusive behind-the-scenes secrets, and a pony.
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4.1 – Part 4.2 Part 5

Places, everyone This is a test Throw your stones Do your damage Your worst, and your best (...) And if I had a dollar For every time I repented the sin And commit the same crime I'd be sitting on top of the world today (“God Help Me”, 2006🎵)

Quick recap of where we left off. First, there were five to ten halcyon years of pleasant and meaningful interactions between EA and her blossoming fanbase, prominently by way of her official forum. Then, circa 2009-2010, EA's online presence shifted towards sudden anger outbursts, ban-hammering, and an increasingly top-down communication style.
This created a sort of primordial rift within the fanbase, between those who supported EA's right to speak her mind and regulate her own fan spaces however she pleased – and those who thought that her reactions were rude and inappropriate (at best), and that even fan spaces should allow for reasonable, non-abusive criticism of the artist.
Between a poorly-handled book release (see Part 3), the controversial (Part 2) or dubiously true (Part 4) contents of said book, and serious shade from various former collaborators (Part 5), more and more fans had pressing thoughts about EA's work ethic and choices. EA attempted damage control through drastic forum rules that made it virtually impossible to voice any “serious” critical opinion. It didn't work, of course: instead of squashing the mutiny, she created a schism.
Critical fans and active haters started congregating on unofficial platforms.

“WITH MUFFINS LIKE THIS, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?”: TROLL LIKE A GIRL

So here we were, the early 2010s. The official forum (which had about 700 members in 2006, if you recall) was now thousands-strong, reaching just over 12,000 registered users in 2012 – not all of them active, but still. In terms of sheer numbers and content creation, the party was POPPIN'... but increasingly in parts of the Asylum that escaped EA's jurisdiction, such as Tumblr, where they could speak their mind freely.

You play the victim very well You've built your self-indulgent hell You wanted someone to understand you Well, be careful what you wish for, because I do (“I Know Where You Sleep”, 2006🎵)

In one wing of Asylum Tumblr, a smattering of call-out blogs emerged, which laid out EA's various lies, faux pas, shitty takes, and general deep-seated terribleness in detailed timelines and screenshots (or, short of that, long-winded bullet points). While many such blogs framed it as “serious” whistleblowing and did their best to remain as fact-based and neutral as they could, there was some genuine disgust, animosity and creepiness towards EA on that side of Tumblr; for some ex-fans, “exposing the truth” was mostly justify obsessive hatred, prying and verbal abuse. Some, for instance, felt the bizarre need to side with EA's mother in their estrangement. (One user, with the URL “emilyautumnfischkopf”, argued in a serious and down-to-earth tone - but with zero sources - that EA's upbringing had been nothing but peaceful and supportive until she ungratefully kicked her loving family to the curb for no reason at all. They were later revealed 🔍 to have an alternate handle as “eaisalyingcunt”.)
Either way, through these blogs, a number of potential drama bombs that had mostly flown under the radar were dredged up from over the years – some of which were hard to ignore, even for supportive fans. Where to begin?
There was that nonsense in-joke song, captured twice on camera during the 2009 tour (to very little outrage, at the time), crassly called “Manatee Retard”📺. Or EA's scathing response, in print, to a wheelchair user who found it insensitive that she used a bedazzled wheelchair as a prop to do sexy acrobatics on stage. (“Your offence taken at my hard-won self-acceptance proves that I indeed have something to fight against”, she wrote). Spoken word tracks where she made trivializing knock-knock jokes about serious mental illnesses she didn't have, like schizophrenia and OCD. Multiple instances of calling Britney Spears a “bimbo” and a “Hollywood fucked-up”, resentfully claiming that she only shaved her head because she was “hopped up on drugs” and certainly not because she was “bipolar”, a word the press liked to wield as an insult anyway. (“That's almost like calling someone a retard!” Yeah, heaven forbid.) The meanest, most distasteful paragraphs in the book. Basically everything problematic EA had ever said or written.📝 In retrospect, it had been a long time coming, but it was a lot to take in – and certainly more off-putting, even to less emotionally invested fans, than silly lies about her age and last name.
In another wing of Asylum Tumblr, some fans had had it up to here and just wanted to have fun. 🎵 If Plague Rats had learned one valuable lesson from EA, it was how to crack a joke in the face of absurd tragedy – and the general state of the EA fandom certainly warranted a few.
In 2012, Fight Like a Girl was released. After six long years, three of which had been peaceful, the Opheliac era was officially over. The new album and ensuing tour confirmed that the Asylum had entered a process of glamorous Broadway-style militarization. 🎵📺
The mood board was “Roman general meets Vegas showgirl meets Victorian street urchin”.🪞 The color palette was, to naysayers, “musty pink and rotten, stale piss yellow”. 🐀 The keyword was “REVENGE” (through the power of... self-expression! sorority! brutal assault with rusty medical implements!). The chorus of the title song had an intriguing run-on line about getting “revenge on the world, or at least 49% of the people in it” 🎵 – which seemed like an awful lot, and was widely interpreted (to cheers, boos, or uncomfortable sighs) as a misandrist jab at literally all men on Earth.
The show was essentially a demo version of the musical, in that the setlist vaguely reflected the order of events in the story – but prior reading was essential in order to get what the hell was going on on stage. This one Broadway reviewer had not perused the literature before seeing the show 🔍, and hated: the set, the choreography, the skits, the plot, the lyrics, the music, the concept. (Seriously, you should read the review. It's not even my show and I feel like quitting show business.)
Pre-show VIP encounters, now violin-free, were lorded over by EA's new manager🐀, whose official title was “Asylum Headmistress”. (Interesting choice – she sounds fun!) The swag bags were less substantial than before, and the “greet” part of the meet-and-greet was rarely more than a quick hug and photo op.
On Twitter, EA continued to embrace her “I am very badass” fronting attitude...

Often wonder if cyberbullies r aware they’re fucking w/ a girl who’s BFs w/ maker of the SAW films & is marrying a knife-throwing scorpion. (🐀📝)

...and her taste for needlessly inflammatory statements. About an aisle sign in a supermarket:

If this does not infuriate you, then you're a fucking potato.

(Again with the confounding crypto-ableism, EA! 🔍) She also went through a phase of raging against Lady Gaga 📝, who had stolen her idea of using a wheelchair on stage as an able-bodied woman. 🔍 That failed to convince anyone that she wasn't the histrionic diva that haters made her out to be.
Spurred on by EA's rallying cries and “us vs them” mentality, loyalists turned the white-knighting up to 11. On Twitter, some Plague Rats got into cat fights with Lady Gaga's Little Monsters (what a time to be alive). Others tried to balance out the Tumblr negativity with initiatives like “Spreading a Plague of Love” – a “positive-only” confession blog, whose extreme fangirling, comically drastic rules and hyper-defensive tone📝 did not debunk the increasingly popular notion that “true Plague Rats” were a bunch of authoritarian and hopelessly brainwashed fanatics.
EA truthers and other anti-fans started lashing out at anyone who dared express any positive opinion of EA, solidifying claims that the backlash against EA was just a conspiracy of bitter, hysterical bullies.
All this to say: every passing day brought new reasons for fans to get mad at EA and each other, and everyone in the Asylum was in need of a laugh. It's not easy having a good time.🦠
Leading up to Fight Like a Girl and in the years that followed, user-submission-based meme blogs took off, most notably “Spreading a Plague of Lulz / Troll Like a Girl”. A lot of the early submissions were absurdist humor and toothless, cheezburger-Impact memes (a style that was, oddly, already dated at the time). Those often originated in good fun, and from loyal fans, on the official forum. But there was also true snark, satirizing EA's questionable ethics, outrageous claims, and easily spoofed artistic gimmicks. A new slang of Asylumspeak emerged: Glittertits (slight NSFW), GAGA!!, EA Gusta and all its memeface variants, Get outta mah house!, Are You Suffering?, Fight Like A Goat, [Random celebrity] copied EA (a subgenre in its own right), ...
Most of the “trolling” was directed at unrepentant bootlickers and, to a lesser extent, red-in-the-face haters and creeps. Meme blogs would post joke comments under “serious” or gushing submissions on Wayward Victorian Confessions, and taunt loyalist accounts by tagging them in their posts. When a few people complained on WVC that almost all of the Bloody Crumpets to date had been thin white able-bodied women, and a few fans responded by sharing their dream-casts for a more diverse line-up, the blog was flooded for days with confessions that “X should be a Crumpet” (candidates included RuPaul, Mitt Romney, Nicki Minaj, EA's therapist, and the WVC admins). Farcical shenanigans like that.
Ah, but some people will always cross the line, won't they. EA threads popped up on merciless, bully-friendly snark platforms like Lolcow, Pretty Ugly Little Liar, and Encyclopedia Dramatica. Snarkers with a mean streak and obsessive haters mingled in some of the more aggressive, 4-chan-spirited retaliation against EA – which would be called “brigading” in modern parlance. This included flooding EA's Goodreads page with one-star reviews (see part 4), repeatedly editing her Wikipedia page to include her legal name and birth year, and ensuring that Googling said name would bring up current pictures of her.
All of this compounded agitation fragmented the once-united fandom beyond recognition.🦠 Through substantial disagreements among fans, personal bickerings, layers upon layers of inscrutable in-jokes, and cross-platform telephone games, the Asylum morphed into a booby-trapped Escher room.
Satire blogs were taken in earnest. Earnest fan blogs scanned as satire. Memes would get called out as abuse. Appreciation without attached criticism would get mocked as bootlicking. Obvious jokes made by EA would be taken at face value. One divisive confession could trigger days and days of debate, to the point that WVC eventually banned confessions in response to other confessions. New waves of infighting created a confusing web of rival sub-factions🐀, each accusing the others of being toxic, cliquish, and delusional.
The shared fantasy was broken, the collective vision had crumbled, no onez was speaking the same language anymore. Fans would jump down the throat of other fans who held almost identical views about EA, except for that one thing she said or did that one time. Everyone had differing thoughts on what should or shouldn't acceptable to discuss, question, excuse, make fun of.
War is hell.

SCORCHED EARTH SHENANIGANS: HONEY, I SHRUNK THE ASYLUM

Would you tear my castle down Stone by stone And let the wind run through my windows Till there was nothing left But a battered rose? (“Castle Down”, 2003🎵)

Haters vs sycophants is not really the kind of conflict where one side can come out on top (if you're participating, you've already lost). But in the long tug-of-war between “grassroots” and “EA-sponsored” fan spaces, the ultimate winner is obvious – in that the former is gasping in agony, a shriveled husk of its former glory, while the latter... is non-existent. This is due in no small part to EA's tendency, like the Czars of old, to settle conflicts by setting Moscow on fire.🔍)
That's not entirely fair: unlike EA, the czar only did it that once.
By early 2013, as EA was gearing up for her third Fight Like a Girl tour at the end of the year, the official forum was... not as lively as it once had been. Not just because of the stifling rules and disgruntlement towards EA, or because EA herself hadn't really posted anything on there in years; the Internet was also changing, and forums in general were fast becoming passé.
This made it difficult for EA to create a safe space where she could talk to fans, and fans could talk to and about her, in a way she deemed suitable (ie, a space she could gate-keep and regulate enough to keep it completely free from negative criticism). Social media was a minefield; she still posted regularly, but didn't interact very much. So EA and the Headmistress came up with a way to filter out the unbelievers: an official fan club📝, aptly called the “Asylum Army”, with a $100 entry price.
Joining the AA came with a dog tag, a sew-on patch, and a lifetime membership certificate signed by EA and – for some reason – the Headmistress. (Unlike EA's best friend and sound engineer back in the forum's heyday, I don't think fans ever really embraced the FLAG-era manager as part of the Asylum in-group. She came across more as a coordinator / businessperson / adult chaperone, at best.🐀) So, slightly better goodies than you'd get by joining the other AA 🔍 ... but not by much. The main appeal was that members would have access to exclusive content, special merch, giveaways, early bird tickets for future shows, and regular video chats with EA.
The concept itself drew a fair amount of criticism, as you can imagine. Between the name🐀, the price, and the inherent gatekeeping of a pay-to-join fanclub, many balked at the monetizing of a concept that had once (like, three years back) been significantly more DIY, grassroots, and inclusive. 📝🐀
Then again, many also longed for a positive, drama-free space where fans could just be fans. And while the creation of the AA was generally recognized as a quick cashgrab, a lot of people were surprisingly cool with it. EA was trying to finance her dream musical, after all – although a number of fans wished she had gone about raising funds in a less sketchy way.
So around 400 fans shelled out (which, according to the Headmistress📝, “basically cover[ed] the cost of running the fanclub itself – keeping the database up, website, etc.”). Enough for a close-knit, but sizable community. But already, there was a conflict of interest: a high fanclub entry fee essentially demands that you pledge loyalty to the artist over loyalty to your fellow fans, who wish to join but can't afford to. Sharing, caring, and ensuring no one felt left out were some of the more positive values cultivated in the fandom... but leaking exclusive content would surely piss off other paying members🐀, and make EA feel betrayed all over again. (And she had barely just started to mellow out on social media!)
...But then again, this is the internet. After the first month of secret AA drops (lyric sheets, some photoshoot outtakes – nothing too juicy, really), there were, yes, some leaks. EA was predictably miffed, and retaliated by... ghosting the fanclub for weeks at a time in its first few months of existence (great look!). She eventually found the “solution” to her problem, by providing something you couldn't right-click-save (and which had been part of the promised perks to begin with): live interaction.
Over webcam, she was her usual in-person bubbly, charming, funny self. Everyone seemingly had a good time during the fanclub video chat, and this gave people faith and hope.
There were a few more events, giveaways, etc. As promised, ahead of the fall 2013 tour (the last one to date, it would turn out), AA members got priority access to show tickets and VIP bundles. The latter were much pricier than before, and only included soundcheck, a photo-op, and three goodies: a tin of loose-leaf tea, a signed printer-paper setlist, and a small flag that said “F.L.A.G.”.🔍 Some stuff continued to leak – but, as some of the outlaws pointed out (scroll down to the Disqus comments), they were mostly relaying information that was relevant to the entire fanbase, such as updates about ongoing projects (the dragged-out recording of the audiobook, for one).
In early 2014, lifetime memberships were closed, and replaced with monthly, quarterly and yearly subscription tiers. Bizarrely, you ended up paying $3 more per month if you bought a $99 yearly subscription📝 – but it did include the patch, dog tag, and piece of paper!

Sometimes I kind of want to be part of the cool kids and register to the Asylum Army. Then I remember how it came about, what you could get for the same price a couple years ago, how the whole thing was and is handled, and that I won’t support any of this bullshit. (And then I roll around naked in all the money I’m saving.) (🐀)

Still, a number of fans rejoiced at the affordable monthly option, and joined – if not for the exclusive content and merch (which were... okay, but not much to write home about), then for the friendly, drama-free exchanges with an artist they actually did love, in spite of all the frustration.
For the still-too-poor or still-undecided, there was always the forum! It wasn't as active as it used to be, but a few die-hards still managed to keep the lights on... until, inevitably, Someone Did Something and Ruined Everything. (Once again: EA's wrath is spectacular, but rarely completely unprovoked.) The incident features one notable figure in the Asylum community. Let's call him the Collector.
OK, so maybe you remember the meme I linked to in Part 4, with Christian Grey and the ginormous EA hoard. Well, that's the Collector's collection. The “Violin” promo that I called the "Holy Grail of the fandom" in the same paragraph? Also his. The handwritten lyrics that went for $940? Guess who won that auction. Over the years, the Collector had probably spent five figures on EA merch and shows, and although that fact was a little unsettling, he was a very active, easy-going, and generally well-liked fixture of the fandom.
One day in 2012, shortly after the Headmistress had replaced EA's old Chicago BFF as main forum admin, the Collector's account got banned or restricted over something dumb. When the ban wasn't lifted as quickly as he hoped, he took it... the way one takes things when one is unhealthily invested: he started spamming Headmistress and the mod team with increasingly rambling and abusive emails (lost to time, probably for the best). When that didn't work quickly enough, he tried a different route.
One of the many auctions that the Collector had won, some years prior, was EA's old iPod Touch📝 – which contained all of her favorite tunes and, buried somewhere in the data cache... a phone number. Which the Collector tried calling. And wouldn't you know it: EA picked up. She congratulated him on his sleuthing skills, listened patiently as he made his case, apologized for any distress caused by the unfair account restriction, and then they got married.
Kidding! She freaked the fuck out, hung up, and banned him for life from the forum and all EA shows and events.
After his ban, the Collector allegedly still tried to attend at least one VIP pre-show (one source in the comments says he was allowed to buy some merch, refunded for his ticket, and escorted out). He joined the Reform forum to bitch about EA and try to rally people to his cause, possibly made revenge posts about her on darker snark forums, and continued to hound the Asylum mod team. So in June 2014, EA came up with a radical and unexpected fix to the Collector problem.

The official Asylum Fan Forum has been shut down permanently. I have personally paid thousands of dollars each year to keep the forum safe and secure for you ... Unfortunately, the forum has not been kept safe and secure for me, a truth which disappoints me greatly, instead becoming a place where people who have physically threatened myself and my staff prey upon forum members, pressuring them to contact me and my staff on their behalf. If the gullible wish to humor my stalkers (who live in their parent’s basement at age 30 something) and thus put me in danger, they may do it on their own dime. They may also fuck off, because stupidity can kill, and I won’t be your victim. To those who enjoyed the forum, you know who to thank for its closure. (“On the closing of the Asylum Forum”)

Voilà! This is how a decade-long archive of shared history ends: not with a bang, but with a dirty delete and a sod-off communiqué.
The obliteration of the forum took everyone by surprise...

I was actually on the forum when it was taken down. I was navigating between posts and when I went to click on a different board, an error message came up. I honestly cried a little, I'm not ashamed to say. (WVC admin on Reddit, 2024)

...and I do mean everyone:

Chicago BFF / ex-admin, the next morning: Whoa, EA forum shut down? Ex-mod: It turns out that if someone spends enough years actively “waging war” to destroy what they can’t have, eventually they’ll be successful. * eye roll * Not even mods got prior warning. Just all the sudden, poof, gone. BFF: Really? She did not let the moderators know?! This is sounding worse and worse. Uggh. I’m so sorry. Such a loss. (...) Ok, threats are serious, but why not just put it in archive mode so no one can post? (...) Sad. I shall light a candle in the forum's honor. (Facebook posts; scroll down for screenshots)

It was a gut punch, especially for people who had poured countless hours into the community, or could have used some prior warning to save years of their own writing from the role-playing threads. One last chance to take a look around the place that had meant so much to so many.

From the wording of the announcement of closing the forum and a number of other things, it sometimes seems like EA doesn't like her fans much. :/ (🐀)

Three months after the forum was nuked, Battered Rose (a venerable EA fansite, which had been around since the Enchant era and had one of the most complete EA galleries online) announced that it was shutting down too.📝 The admin, who had also been a long-time forum mod, cited a lack of “time, energy, passion, or money” to keep the website going... and being upset at the sudden disappearance of the forum. It was, truly, the end of an era for the Asylum.
...Well, no point in living in the past. For those who could afford it, and still wanted to talk to/about EA after that (not everyone did 🐀), there was always the Asylum Army fanclub!
Over the summer of 2014, EA held regular live chats and Q&A's, and... many attendees really enjoyed them, and thought the AA was well worth the money after all. She also quietly parted ways with the much poo-pooed Headmistress around that time.

Just spent over 4 hours giggling, drinking tea and playing guessing games in chat with EA and other Asylum Army members ... No griping, no downers, just lots of fun. I think I like the way the ‘new fandom’ is going and now I’m really glad I finally decided to join the Army. (September 4, 2014🐀; Battered Rose had closed the day before)

The forum was lost forever, but perhaps that was a chance for a fresh start. Could this fanclub thing really be the Asylum Renaissance that fans had been longing for?

...I have come today to a very difficult but necessary decision, and that is to discontinue the Emilie Autumn Official Fanclub. The site itself, and the community chatroom, will remain open to you indefinitely, but I will no longer be making updates to the site. (Newsletter, September 8, 2014📝)

...Never mind, then.
Turns out the fanclub had been the Headmistress' idea all along. EA had been reluctant from the start, and although she really enjoyed the live chats with a safe community of people “who are there for the right reasons”, she couldn't overcome her fundamental discomfort with the concept. Lifetime and regular members would receive a bunch of digital downloads and a -35% coupon on the Asylum Emporium for their troubles. EA said she would definitely pop back once in a while for live chats, for free, just for fun, but to my knowledge, she never did.
And so the most devoted fans were left standing in the rain...

She is happy, she made it. She is fulfilling her dreams, found love and happiness after all the pain. I understand that she now doesn’t need “us” anymore ... That doesn’t change the fact she broke my heart with taking the Asylum Army and the forum from me. Yet, I am happy for her. (🐀)

...while naysayers pointed and laughed, Nelson-style.🦠

I don’t feel sorry at all for the people that paid for the Asylum Army fan club. Most of them knew that EA is an atrocious business woman and has broken many promises before. In fact, I laugh at them. They seriously thought that EA would actually stay consistent with this? (🐀)

EVERYTHING MUST GO: THE ASYLUM WHOLESALE

EA fans were left without an “official” home for about three years. This gave them plenty of time to be annoyed at EA for: not releasing the audiobook on time, not materializing any new project for a while... and the new sin of peddling random, ridiculously marked-up AliBaba jewelry as “merch” on her official store. Think faux-antique cameo pendants and $30 Big Ben rings (...because the Asylum story is set in London, get it?).

The whole accessories section looks like a tacky overpriced English souvenir shop. (🐀)

The fanbase lost a lost of steam in those in-between years, because there wasn't much to stick around for. As evidenced by the positive reception of the AA live chats, even in the midst of unresolved drama, out-loud interactions in a friendly environment have always been EA's saving grace. Considering the amount of online hate, there are shockingly few accounts of bad IRL encounters with EA: most people say that in live conversation, she comes across as a fun, warm, and genuinely sweet person. Some report that their negative opinion shifted after meeting her.
But there were no chats or live shows anymore. There was only social media, where she ignored questions and vague-posted about overdue projects – and the newsletter📝, which was all saccharine love-bombing to promote bland dropshipped trinkets. For fans who remembered the handcrafted merch (and two-way communication) of the early years, it was a bitter pill to swallow.

CONTINUED IN COMMENTS

​

Nuance is wonderful in theory, I looked at both sides and come out with the best opinion! Debate and conversation has won the day!
However recently people just use it to defend or water down horrible ideas, for example: ''I am not transphobic. I just think trans issues are very complex and nuanced. We definitely shouldn't give kids puberty blockers, that would be awful. Read this neutral paper called the Cass report!''.
Now of course listening to both sides or being ''nuanced'' aren't bad on paper but a lot of the people who come in here, screaming about ''nuance'' have already chosen their side. But they want to make it look like they are ''just asking questions''.
tl:dr: look out for trolls using ''nuance'' as a shield for their bigotry

Ministers apologise and return £7,000 in benefits to woman, 93, with dementia
Government ministers have formally apologised and repaid £7,000 to a 93-year-old woman whom they held responsible for running up benefits overpayment debts even though they were told she had dementia and was unable to manage her affairs.
The case, which the minister for disability, Mims Davies, admitted was “disturbing”, was brought to light by the Guardian as part of its investigation into carer's allowance overpayments.
The agreement to write off the debt of the 93-year-old, whom the Guardian has chosen not to name, comes as ministers have promised to try new ways of sharing information with carers to try to prevent them building up months and years of overpayments.
Read the full article on theguardian.com
​
​
​
DWP confirmed that it is developing an ‘enhanced notification strategy’ to alert carer’s allowance claimants to possible overpayments
Notifications designed to encourage claimants to report changes in income and so reduce the risk of being overpaid.
As part of its policy paper, Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further, that was published earlier this week, the Department says (at paragraph 78) -

'In carer’s allowance we are progressing an enhanced notification strategy as part of our existing commitment to improve customer engagement, building on our existing communications with customers. As part of this notification strategy we are considering all forms of targeted contact to find the most effective and efficient solution, such as exploring the use of targeted text messages or emails to alert claimants and encourage them to contact the Department when the DWP is made aware of a potential overpayment.'

The Department added -

'The new strategy will help claimants understand when they may have received an earnings-related overpayment or are at risk of doing so, and will encourage claimants to contact the DWP to meet their obligation to inform the Department of changes in their income and other relevant circumstances. This will reduce the risk of those customers being overpaid.'

Note: having expressed concern that the DWP had 'done nothing' to stop carers building up huge overpayments of benefit despite knowing what people are earning, Work and Pensions Committee Chair Stephen Timms called on the National Audit Office to investigate problems with the carer's allowance system and, in particular, its failure to prevent or rectify overpayments.
Stephen Timms has also written to Secretary for State for Work and Pensions Mel Stride highlighting concerns about the DWP's lack of progress with overpayments since the previous committee's report in 2019. Mr Timms' letter repeats the committee's recommendation that the DWP increase the rate of carer's allowance and goes on to call for the DWP to review both the amount and the cliff-edge nature of the earnings limit and for the removal of the 21-hour study rule.
For more information, see Policy paper: Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further from gov.uk
​
​
​
Carers UK has welcomed the DWP's plans, noting this is the 'minimum' they've been calling for to tackle carers' overpayments. However, Director of Policy and Public Affairs Emily Holzhausen also highlights that implementing the strategy is 'urgent', asks that the whole issue be moved out of being branded benefits fraud, and that carer's allowance be reviewed as it should be 'modernised to reflect the realities of caring'.
​
​
​
DWP-commissioned research highlights how the carer’s allowance earnings threshold influences decisions about how many hours carers work
Report also makes clear that the Department was made aware three years ago that there was room to improve claimant understanding and possibly reduce mistakes leading to overpayments by improving its communications.
The research, Experiences of claiming and receiving carer’s allowance, explores how and why people claim carer's allowance; their caring roles; experiences of combining paid work and care; and how well claimants understand the rules associated with the benefit. While carried out in 2020/2021, the research has been published today against a backdrop of calls for the wholescale reform of carer's allowance as a result of evidence that claimants who have earned above the carer's allowance earnings limit have been left with large overpayments and, in some cases, prosecuted for fraud.
While the research found that many claimants in employment felt there was a practical limit to the hours they could work, with many saying it was only feasible to be working part-time due to their caring responsibilities, it also found that -

• the earnings threshold appeared to influence decisions about how many hours some people worked. Even though claimants often denied that the threshold influenced their choices, they acknowledged being mindful to stay below the threshold. One claimant felt he had to refuse shifts at work that would take him over the threshold;
• in another example, the earnings limit led a claimant to reduce her hours as her wages increased, and eventually she was working so few hours that her employer felt it was not worth employing her due to her limited availability; and
• some claimants in paid work felt they might work more hours if not for the earnings threshold, and even suggested tapering the carer’s allowance earnings rule to encourage claimants to work more.

Published on the same day that the Work and Pensions Select Committee said that there has been insufficient progress in addressing the problems with carer's allowance that it highlighted five years ago, the research makes clear that the Department has been aware of the issues for some time. For example, it highlights confusion relating to the complexity of the earnings calculation, including how deductions such as childcare expenses and pension contributions are taken account of, and whether wages can be averaged if you earn more in a particular week.
In addition, with the Chair of the Select Committee Stephen Timms having said recently that the DWP has done nothing to stop carers building up huge overpayments despite knowing what people are earning, and the Committee having called on the National Audit Office to investigate the problems with the system, the research found that -

• poor communication on the part of the DWP meant that not all of those that had been overpaid benefit were clear on the reason for the overpayment;
• some said that while they were initially notified or questioned about an overpayment there was then no follow-up from the Department; and
• when the overpayment was initially raised, several claimants felt that they were spoken to or treated by DWP as though they had intentionally committed fraud when the overpayment had been a misunderstanding.

As a result, the research says -

'... there is room to improve claimant understanding and possibly reduce mistakes leading to overpayments by improving communications around eligibility criteria. Since claimants did not engage with the detail of their benefit regularly, possibly only considering it once a year when they received their annual letter, more frequent communications may improve clarity of knowledge around carer’s allowance.'

Other key findings include that -

• most claimants cared for close relatives, with two in five caring for a child (39 per cent), a quarter caring for a spouse or partner (25 per cent), and one in five (22 per cent) caring for a parent;
• caring was a long-term and high-intensity commitment, with half of claimants (52 per cent) spending 65 or more hours caring per week and more than half (54 per cent) caring for between 5 and 20 years;
• only 16 per cent of carer's allowance claimants were currently in paid work, tending to work part- time in lower paid jobs that they were able to fit around their caring responsibilities, with most (81 per cent) working 20 hours or less a week;
• of those not currently in paid work, seven in ten (69 per cent) said this was due to their responsibilities as a carer, with other barriers including a lack of flexible working options, claimants’ own health and confidence issues; and
• there was a lag between starting caring and claiming carer's allowance, with seven in ten claimants (70 per cent) caring for 5+ years, but only 3 in 10 (34 per cent) having claimed carer's allowance for that length of time.

For more information, see Experiences of claiming and receiving carer’s allowance from gov.uk
​
​
​
Almost 135,000 people currently have an outstanding carer's allowance debt, with more than £250 million owed in total, according to figures supplied by DWP Minister Paul Maynard
DWP Minister also confirms that women represent 68 per cent of those with an outstanding debt.
Responding to a written question in Parliament from Work and Pensions Committee Chair Stephen Timms, Mr Maynard said -

'As of 14 May 2024, the volume of people who have an outstanding carers allowance debt is 134,800 with a total value of £251 million. This figure represents the total stock and as such the total monetary amount may have been accrued over multiple years. Those who have an outstanding carers allowance debt may no longer be in receipt of the benefit.'

Mr Maynard added that -

'Women make up the majority of carer’s allowance claims, and this is reflected in the proportion of those with an outstanding carer’s allowance debt. As of 14 May 2024, there were 42,800 (32 per cent) males, 91,900 (68 per cent) females and 100 (less than 1 per cent) not identified, with an outstanding carer's allowance debt.'

The Minister also confirmed that, as of November 2023, there were more than 991,000 people in receipt of carer's allowance, consisting of around 271,000 (27 per cent) males and 720,000 (73 per cent) females.
Mr Maynard's written answer is available from parliament.uk
​
​
​
​
Total value of benefit overpayments in 2023/2024 increased to almost £10 billion, representing 3.7 per cent of benefit expenditure for the year
New DWP figures also show that official error underpayments remained at around £1 billion, and that people could have claimed more than £3 billion more 'if they had provided accurate information about their circumstances'.
In Fraud and error in the benefit system: financial year 2023 to 2024 estimates, the DWP calculates how much money it overpaid or underpaid as a percentage of total benefit expenditure for the year (£266.2bn) - for benefits including universal credit, housing benefit, personal independence payment, employment and support allowance and pension credit - and how many claims were paid an incorrect amount.
Note: the statistics no longer include estimates of claimant error underpayments as these are now published separately, as confirmed in recent DWP guidance.
In relation to incorrect payment rates across all benefits for the financial year ending (FYE) 2024, the figures show that the total rate of benefit expenditure overpaid was 3.7 per cent (£9.7bn), compared with 3.6 per cent (£8.3bn) in 2022/2023. In addition, the total rate of benefit expenditure underpaid was 0.4 per cent (£1.1bn), compared with 0.5 per cent (£1.2bn) in FYE 2023.
Looking in more detail at the figures for individual benefits, the statistics include data showing that -

• for universal credit, expenditure increased to £51.9bn in 2024 with an overpayment rate of 12.4 per cent (£6.5bn) and underpayment rate of 0.3 per cent (£180m), compared to expenditure of £43.4 bn, overpayments at 12.7 per cent (£5.5bn) and underpayments at 0.6 per cent (£240m) in FYE 2023;
• for personal independence payment (PIP), the overpayment rate was at the lowest recorded level of 0.4 per cent (£90m), compared with 1.1 per cent (£200m) in FYE 2023. However, the underpayment rate went up to 0.4 per cent (£80m), from 0.3 per cent (£60m) the previous year;
• for pension credit, the overpayment rate was 9.7 per cent (£520m) in FYE 2024, compared with 6.8 per cent (£330m) in the previous year, with underpayments remaining unchanged at 0.3 per cent (£50m) for both years; and
• for housing benefit, almost £1bn (£980m) was overpaid in FYE 2024 (6.3 per cent of expenditure), compared with £860m (5.7 per cent) in 2023. Underpayments remained stable at 0.4 per cent of spending (£50m in FYE 2024 and £60m in FYE 2023).

In addition to the fraud and error statistics, the DWP has also issued Unfulfilled eligibility in the benefit system: Financial Year Ending (FYE) 2024, in line with its decision to remove claimant underpayments from its main fraud and error estimates. The new statistics set out the percentage of benefit expenditure that could have been paid to people with unfulfilled eligibility 'if they had provided the correct information', and show key findings that include -

• the unfulfilled eligibility rate for 2024 is 1.2 per cent of expenditure (£3.1bn), compared with 1.0 per cent (£2.3bn) in the previous year; and
• universal credit, PIP and disability living allowance (DLA) account for around three-quarters of the total value of unfulfilled eligibility (at £730m, £870m and £750m respectively in FYE 2024).

The DWP highlighted that -

'PIP has the second highest unfulfilled eligibility rate [4 per cent] of all benefits and fairly high expenditure [£21.6bn], so due to this combination, PIP accounts for around one-quarter of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024. DLA has the highest unfulfilled eligibility rate [11.1 per cent] but relatively low expenditure [£6.8m], so even though its rate is higher than PIP, it accounts for a similar amount of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024. Universal credit has a lower unfulfilled eligibility rate than DLA and PIP [1.4 per cent] but its high expenditure means that it also accounts for a similar amount of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024.'

For more information, see Fraud and error in the benefit system: financial year 2023 to 2024 estimates and Unfulfilled eligibility in the benefit system: financial year 2023 to 2024 estimates from gov.uk
​
​
​
Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride has set out the DWP's plans to scale up its 'fight against fraudsters'
New measures include using machine learning to detect and prevent fraudulent claims, as well as introducing a new Bill to enable benefit fraud to be treated like tax fraud.
Issuing a written statement in the House of Commons on 13th May, Mr Stride said -

'In the continued fight against fraud, today the Government will publish a new paper setting out the progress we have made in tackling fraud and error in the welfare system - Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further. The paper sets out the progress we have made in delivering the commitments in the Government's 2022 command paper Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System and it demonstrates where we are going further to protect taxpayers’ money from fraudsters.'

Highlighting that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, currently before Parliament, will enable the Department to work with third parties such as banks to identify claims that signal potential fraud and error, Mr Stride says that the new measures being introduced include -

• bringing forward a new Fraud Bill in the next parliament to treat benefit fraud like tax fraud, by providing for the ability to make arrests and conduct searches and seizures by warrant;
• exploring a new civil penalty to punish fraudsters, potentially broadening the scope of cases that can receive a penalty when the courts are not prosecuting, and increasing the value of the civil penalty;
• tripling the size of the Targeted Case Review programme to reach almost 6,000 staff with the aim of saving £6.6 billion by 2027/2028; and
• making changes to universal credit including new partly automated checks on self-employed income, new online prompts for claimants to re-declare their circumstances (such as if they have moved in with a partner), and increasing checks on capital when people claim the benefit to ensure they are eligible.

Note: the Department confirms that final decisions on accepting or stopping a claim will, however, continue to be made by a member of DWP staff.
For more information, see DWP updates Fraud Plan from gov.uk
In response to the above article the Disability News Service reported that the government's fraud policy paper ignores coroner’s concerns over review of disabled woman’s universal credit claim. Read the DNS article on disabilitynewsservice.com
​
​
​
Less than half of legacy benefit claimants who were sent a migration notice between July 2022 and March 2024 have made a claim for universal credit, according to new figures from the DWP
However, new DWP statistics also show that 60 per cent of households that claimed universal credit have been awarded transitional protection.
In Completing the move to Universal Credit: statistics related to the move of households claiming Tax Credits and DWP benefits to Universal Credit: data to end of March 2024, the DWP sets out figures for the period since July 2022, noting that -

'In the period covered by this bulletin, the vast majority of migration notices have been sent to tax credit households whose likelihood of claiming universal credit and receiving transitional protection may be different from DWP legacy benefit claimants, the majority of whom had not yet been sent a migration notice in the period covered in this bulletin.'

The statistics include that -

• a total of 824,050 individuals (in 540,070 households) were sent migration notices up to March 2024 - up by around 300,000 and 200,000 respectively compared to the totals for December 2023;
• a total of 400,940 individuals (49 per cent of those sent migration notices), living in 275,980 households, have made a claim for universal credit;
• of households that have claimed universal credit, 166,860 (60 per cent) have been awarded transitional protection;
• a total of 238,990 individuals who were sent migration notices are still going through the managed migration process; and
• a total of 184,120 individuals who were sent migration notices have had their legacy benefit claims closed.

Move to Universal Credit statistics, July 2022 to March 2024 is available from gov.uk
Note: the DWP has also published Universal Credit statistics, 29 April 2013 to 11 April 2024­ which show that there were 6.7 million people on universal credit in April 2024 (300,000 more than the 6.4 million in January 2024) and that half of households on universal credit that received a payment in February 2024 included children.
​
​
Department for Communities also confirms that claimants in receipt of other legacy benefits will be issued with migration notices 'in the coming months'
The Department for Communities (DfC) has confirmed that the 'Move to UC' rollout in Northern Ireland has expanded this week to include people receiving tax credits along with housing benefit.
Announcing the expansion of the process, Deputy Secretary of Work and Health at the DfC Paddy Rooney said -

'We continue to take a measured and carefully managed approach to migrating legacy benefit recipients to universal credit. We have already successfully completed issuing migration notices to tax credit only recipients and we will continue to take every step possible to ensure that everyone receives the help and support they need during this next phase of Move to UC.'

The Department also confirmed that once it has issued migration notices to all those receiving tax credits with housing benefit, the following groups will be contacted in this order -

• people claiming income support;
• people claiming housing benefit only, and those claiming child tax credit with income-related employment and support allowance (ESA); and
• people claiming income-based jobseeker's allowance.

In relation to the bringing forward of managed migration for ESA and ESA/housing benefit claimants in Great Britain, announced by the Prime Minister on 19 April 2024, the DfC says that it is working to assess the impact of this on the region. It also confirms that it will align with the DWP's aim to complete the migration of legacy benefit claimants to universal credit by March 2025.
For more information, see Tax credit with housing benefit recipients next to 'Move to UC' and Rollout of Universal Credit for Tax Credit and Legacy Benefit customers - screening from ni.gov.uk
​
​
​
57,000 adverse universal credit sanction decisions were made in January 2024, according to new DWP statistics
DWP statistics also highlight that around 95 per cent of decisions are as a result of failure to attend or participate in a mandatory interview.
In Benefit sanctions statistics to February 2024, the DWP reports on both the rate and duration of sanctions for universal credit claimants who are in conditionality regimes where they be applied.
Key findings include that -

• in February 2024, 30.1 per cent of claimants were in conditionality regimes that were subject to sanctions and, of these, 6.52 per cent were sanctioned - down 0.64 percentage points from the previous quarter;
• over the last year, 94.9 per cent of adverse sanction decisions were for failure to attend or participate in a mandatory interview; and
• in February 2024, there were 20,000 completed sanctions in the 4 weeks to 13 weeks sanction duration band, 4,800 in the over 13 weeks to 26 weeks duration band, and 4,000 of over 26 weeks duration.

In addition, while the total number of claimants in conditionality regimes where sanctions can be applied has remained largely stable since May 2022 (currently at 1.95 million), the total number of adverse sanction decisions stood at 57,000 in January 2024, the highest since March 2022.
The DWP notes that -

'Comparisons with universal credit prior to February 2024 ... should not be made. This is because the data sources, methodology and rules of the benefits differ from those used for universal credit currently.'

However, it adds that, following the reinstated duration measures and rate methodology improvements, the data is now determined stable and fit for purpose and, as of May 2024, it is published under the 'Official Statistics' label as opposed to 'in development'.
For more information, see Benefit sanctions statistics to February 2024 from gov.uk
​
​
​
DWP has admitted missing multiple opportunities to record the 'vulnerability' of a disabled woman whose death was later linked by a coroner to failings at the heart of its UC system
The Disability News Service reported on the case of Nazerine (known as Naz) Anderson, from Melton Mowbray, who died of an overdose in June last year, after receiving a UC review notice.
According to a prevention of future deaths (PFD) report sent to the department by coroner Fiona Butler, the DWP missed six opportunities to record Anderson’s “vulnerability” on its IT system while it was reviewing her universal credit claim, and had failed to act on the mental distress she showed in phone calls about her claim. It also repeatedly failed to act on requests to direct its telephone calls and letters to her daughter.
The DWP admits multiple universal credit failures before disabled woman’s death article is available on disabilitynewsservice.com
​
​
​
Number of emergency food parcels distributed across the UK by the Trussell Trust has increased by 90 per cent over the past five years
Food charity reports that it distributed more than three million parcels last year, with more than a million of them going to children.
In Emergency food parcel distribution in the UK: April 2023 - March 2024, the Trust says that it distributed 3,121,404 food parcels, the most parcels that it has ever distributed in a financial year, representing a four per cent increase on last year's record-breaking numbers for 2022/2023 and a 94 per cent increase since 2018/2019.
The charity also highlights that the number of parcels provided to children has continued to rise, exceeding 1.1 million in 2023/2024, and that food bank support is provided disproportionately to children, compared to the proportion of children in the UK population. In addition, it notes that pension age households are increasingly likely to need to use a food bank, with food bank support for these households having more than quadrupled between 2018/2019 and 2023/2024 (an increase of 345 per cent), compared to an 81 per cent rise amongst households without someone of pension age.
Also sharing statistics on the reason for referral for an emergency food parcel - which include health, benefit issues, work hour changes, insecure housing, changes in personal circumstances, immigration status and domestic abuse, as well as income and debt levels - the Trussell Trust says -

'Across all households the most common reason for referral was due to issues with income and debt levels. The vital role of the social security system in driving these trends is clear from the fact that the majority (78 per cent) of people referred to food banks were reported to solely have income from the social security system, with a further 8 per cent having earned income as well as income from social security.'

Trussell Trust Chief Executive Emma Revie said -

'It’s 2024 and we’re facing historically high levels of food bank need. As a society, we cannot allow this to continue. We must not let food banks become the new norm ... A supportive social security system is the bedrock on which we end hunger for good. Building on this, we need much more effective employment and financial support for parents, carers and disabled people, and action to ensure everyone can have the security we all need to access opportunities and have hope for the future, through more secure and flexible jobs and investment in social housing. Food banks are not the answer. They will be there to support people as long as they are needed, but our political leaders must take bold action to build a future where everyone has enough money to afford the life’s essentials. The time to act is now.'

For more information, see End of Year Stats from trusselltrust.org
​
​
​
Employment Minister Jo Churchill has provided a House of Lords Select Committee with an undertaking that the administrative earnings threshold (AET) in universal credit will not be increased again without a 'sound evidence base'
However, Minister's evidence to Lords Committee fails to address its dissatisfaction with DWP's explanation for not publishing robust evidence to support previous increases in the threshold.
Further to the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee's report on new regulations that implemented a further increase in the AET from 13 May 2024 - that criticised the ‘inexplicable’ lack of data evaluating previous increases in the threshold in September 2022 and January 2023 - the Committee held a one-off evidence session yesterday to question the Minister and DWP officials.
Introducing the session, Committee Chair Lord Hunt acknowledged that the DWP had agreed to share its informal findings supporting its AET policy. However Lord Hunt added that -

'... similar, no doubt to the material that the Social Security Advisory Committee saw but correctly declined, if information is not available to the House and the public, then we feel unable to consider it either.'

The Committee then questioned the Minister about the Department's failure to publish evidence providing an assessment of the impact of increasing the AET either before or after implementing the change.
In response, Ms Churchill highlighted that the Department did publish a randomised controlled trial evaluation in 2018 providing the highest level of evidence on the impacts of increased in-work conditionality that Ministers have had sight of. When challenged that this evidence is somewhat outdated and 'a bit threadbare' - as it has been relied on for three increases in the AET - Ms Churchill indicated that Ministers also had early sight of unpublished research (a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) study) that compares the experiences of claimants who are just below and just above the AET.
When pressed on the expected publication dates for this and further evidence, Mr Churchill said -

'I have asked for [the RDD study] to be available as soon as it can be, and the date I was given was spring 2024 ... I would like it out the door as soon as possible, so you have more data ... RDD is the next piece, the next building block and then, the longitudinal study will come through in 2025.'

Concluding the session with a final question, Lord Hunt, speaking on behalf of the whole Committee, said -

'... we're looking for an undertaking from you, not to further expand the cohort until the Department can publish robust evidence of its effects. Are you able to give us that undertaking?

Ms Churchill responded -

'So are you alluding to us holding 15 hours or with this latest laying at 18? Because I could certainly say to you, I think with all confidence that at 18, we want to understand the iterations and make sure that we've got a sound evidence base from there.'

NB - the increase in the AET in January 2023 was based, for individuals, on the equivalent of them working 15 hours per week at the National Living Wage, and this week's increase to the equivalent of them working 18 hours per week.
Despite welcoming the Minister's reply, Lord Hunt went on to say -

'... we accept your undertaking, except we are still as dissatisfied as we were because you haven't provided, in the view of the Committee, sufficient explanation yet. We are awaiting this robust evidence, which I think that we now expect in June 2024.'

The evidence session Regulations to increase the Administrative Earnings Threshold (Legislative scrutiny) is available from parliament.tv
​
​
Work and Pensions Select Committee has called on the government to bring forward proposals to compensate women born in the 1950s who suffered as a result of the DWP's communication failures when their pension age was increased, and asks that it does so in the current parliamentary session
Committee chair highlights lengthy delay and urgency for affected women and calls on government to act on Parliamentary Ombudsman recommendations before summer recess.
Writing to Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Mel Stride, Committee Chair Stephen Timms requests government support for 'urgent action' following the Parliamentary Ombudsman's final report in March 2024 which recommended a remedy based on level 4 of its severity of injustice scale, putting awards at between £1,000 and £2,950.
Mr Timms says that the Committee does not seek to question the Ombudsman's proposal for compensation at level 4, but instead has focused on what a remedy may look like -

'The evidence we received indicated support for a rules-based system. This would be a system where payments would be adjusted within a range (based on the PHSO’s severity of injustice scale) to reflect the extent of change in the individual’s State Pension age and the notice of the change which the individual received. This would mean that the less notice you had of the change and the bigger the change in your SPA, the higher the payment you would receive. While not perfect, the advantages of such a system are that it would be: quick to administer; applying known data to a formula to determine the amount due; and relatively inexpensive (compared to a more bespoke system).'

The Committee's recommendation also includes some flexibility for individuals to make the case for further compensation in the event that they have experienced direct financial loss, for example where a woman whose divorce settlement was less than it would have been because it was based on the expectation that she would receive her state pension at 60.
Mr Timms also asks the government to consider -

'... the need for urgent action, given that the Ombudsman started to look at this issue in 2018 and that every 13 minutes a woman born in the 1950s dies ... Implementing a remedy will need parliamentary time, financial resources, and the data and technical systems only available to your department. It cannot happen without government support. We would ask you to bring forward proposals for a remedy by the summer recess.'

Mr Timms' letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is available from parliament.uk
​
​

Researchers from Columbia University and Databricks Mosaic AI have explored various methods to address this issue, including full finetuning and parameter-efficient finetuning techniques like Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). Full finetuning involves adjusting all model parameters, which is computationally expensive. In contrast, LoRA aims to save memory by only modifying a small subset of parameters, thereby reducing the computational load. Despite its popularity, the effectiveness of LoRA compared to full finetuning has been a topic of debate, especially in challenging domains such as programming and mathematics, where precise performance improvements are critical.
The research compared the performance of LoRA and full finetuning across two target domains:
✅ Programming
✅ Mathematics
They considered instruction finetuning, involving approximately 100,000 prompt-response pairs, and continued pretraining with around 10 billion unstructured tokens. The comparison aimed to evaluate how well LoRA and full finetuning adapted to these specific domains, given the different data regimes and the complexity of the tasks. This comprehensive comparison provided a detailed understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each method under various conditions.
The researchers discovered that LoRA generally underperformed compared to full finetuning in programming and mathematics tasks. For example, in the programming domain, full finetuning achieved a peak HumanEval score of 0.263 at 20 billion tokens, while the best LoRA configuration reached only 0.175 at 16 billion tokens. Similarly, in the mathematics domain, full finetuning achieved a peak GSM8K score of 0.642 at 4 epochs, whereas the best LoRA configuration achieved 0.622 at the same point. Despite this underperformance, LoRA provided a beneficial form of regularization, which helped maintain the base model’s performance on tasks outside the target domain. This regularization effect was stronger than common techniques like weight decay and dropout, making LoRA advantageous when retaining base model performance, which is crucial.
Quick read: https://www.marktechpost.com/2024/05/18/researchers-from-columbia-university-and-databricks-conducted-a-comparative-study-of-lora-and-full-finetuning-in-large-language-models/
Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.09673

Hello! Welcome to our daily discussion thread.
Please share the latest Polygon product news & announcement speculations or discuss anything related to Polygon and $Matic in this thread.
Must Read
· Polygon
· Getting Started
· Papers
Read 0xPolygon rules before posting.
Thread and Discussion Rules
· Be respectful. No personal attacks.
· Refrain from baseless speculation, shilling, concern trolling, and referral spamming.
· Repetitive spam about price and price speculation is not permitted.
· Debate is encouraged, fighting is not. Fighting includes name-calling, assumptions of intent, and character assassination.
· If you suspect a problem, please just use the report button. Announcing reports or predicting bans may result in a ban.
If you see any post or comment that violates one or more sub rules, use this link to contact the mod team on Reddit.
Disclaimer
Polygon (Previously Matic Network) does not endorse any third party organizations that are named in this and/or any other communication(s). Please conduct due diligence and interact with these organizations at your discretion.

This is likely one of the weirdest posts I've ever felt compelled to make on Reddit. Additionally, please understand that I am Autistic, so the way I communicate this may seem a bit off or discombobulated in places.
I (25M) recently just finished the spring semester at my local university and have moved out of the dormitory and back into my mother's home for the summer (still looking for jobs, no luck so far), and I got into a disagreement with my mother and her boyfriend surrounding my placing a bunch of lewd anime lady stickers all over the left shell of my PS5. It wasn't heated by any means, but more of an interesting and slightly humorous debate.
It started out with me laying in bed, nearly falling asleep after clearing out and organizing my sizable closet, which was filled to the brim with English papers (English major) from my previous semesters as well as plenty of books and bags and several loose articles of clothing (this isn't pertinent to the main point, but let's just say living in the dorms gave me a very strong reality check of the importance of cleanliness - when I came back, I was like "oh my god I've been LIVING in this???"), but I digress. My mom walked into my room, while I was near passed out, saying "what are you doing?" because I was laying on my stomach with my head dangling over the side of the bed. I shot my head up, and said "huh? I was resting my eyes after cleaning out my closet", and she tells me that she made some waffles and proceeds to set them down at my work desk. Before she leaves, though, she says "gross" quietly to herself before walking out of the room. At first I was too groggy to think about it, but when I overheard the word "stickers" in her conversation with her boyfriend my mind was like "oh no". Embarassed and nervous much like a child is when they've been caught doing something they shouldn't be, I peek my head out into the kitchen where my mom and her guy are talking and inquire as to why she thought the stickers were gross.
My mom smiled humorously, before saying that it was "just kind of weird" that I had so many risque anime girls on my PS5. I felt compelled to defend the two-dimensional pieces of paper (likely because they came from anime conventions, and were not cheap as far as stickers go), so I asked what made them gross.
My mom went on to say that it potentially implied that I was the kind of guy who was addicted to wacking it, but also said she understood it because I'm a young adult who hasn't dated in a while. For the record, my mother is a very down to earth woman - she's the kind of mom who humorously asked me if I needed condoms when a girl delivered apple pie to our house during my sophomore year in high school, so this use of language was normal between us. She then said to me that it wasn't "wrong", but just gross from "her own personal perspective", saying that when I get a girlfriend, she'll likely not want to see those stickers.
Now, I'm not interested in relationships right now, primarily because, as I said, I'm Autistic. My ability to communicate and my overall social skills in comprehending and deciphering social cues is almost non-existent, so I tend to just keep everyone around me in the friendzone. However, I understand that, so long as I keep socializing as normal, I'm eventually going to run into a woman that clicks with me. My mother and her boyfriend went on to tell me that societal expectations placed on women can lead to women viewing such stickers to feel inadequte, but I said that any women who looks at a lewd Japanese cartoon character and finds themselves inadequate is insecure - and I didn't want to date insecure. They then said that most women are insecure, and that the potential girlfriend that I get together with will likely want the stickers to be done away with.
I told them I'm attracted to women who, put simply, don't give a fuck. They are confident in themselves, know what they want, and don't let something as trivial as anime girl stickers make them feel inadequate. I'm a chunky guy, I don't fit the description of the lean, mean, and proteined muscle men out there, and I don't feel inadequate as a result, so what's the harm? Are these stickers potentially harmful to future relationships I get into? Am I the asshole for keeping them around as I am now? Would I be the asshole for keeping them when I start dating?

Tier List: https://imgur.com/a/SPm0Fjl
This one hits different. Right from the start, with those ominous vocals giving the whole thing a feeling of foreboding and momentousness. Donald Trump lurking around the stage for his titlecard, even staying onscreen as his titlecard goes away is hilarious and a great visual touch. Then we get Hillary sitting in her debate chair; this battle committing so hard to a location both rappers are present in is pretty unique.
"I've been in this game too long; I'm a public servant! Have been since I met MLK in person!" Serviceable opening on paper, but the guest actor, Kimmy Gatewood, makes it stick out with her performance. Love the intensity of her voice and facial expressions. "I'm a woman of the people; that's for certain. You're a man of the people who don't like turbans!" This is a great line, very accurate, and I love the look on Hillary's face. "I was living in the West Wing while you were professional wrestling. Got skin like Russian dressing from too much Russian investing!" Good lines, in particular I really dig the Russian dressing/Russian investing parallel. Also, while I don't think Kimmy bears a super strong resemblance to Hillary Clinton(the guest actress from Clinton v. Henry VIII was much more on-point) she does look a lot like her as she does the Russian dance in the background. Something about her wide-open smile. "You been going bankrupt since the 90s; if I was in Iran you couldn't find me." Very true on both counts, very solid line. I don't know what more there is to say. Is it gonna be controversial to acknowledge the reality that Trump's gone bankrupt lots of times and probably couldn't point to Iran on a map, even now that he's been president? "You don't care about the job, Trump, you just think the desk is shiny." I think it's accurate that Trump really only cares about the prestige, but this still seems like a pretty weak attack. Hell, you could argue the vast majority of presidential candidates care more about the prestige than actually doing anything. "I said that I respect your children but that wasn't quite right, yo! Looking like some extras on American Psycho!" This line is pretty fucking great. I didn't get it when this battle first released, but I've seen American Psycho more recently, and comparing the Trump kids to the useless trust fund posers surrounding Patrick Bateman is hilarious. The hyper-aggressive hip thrusting Hillary's doing is also a great visual. For the most part this portrayal doesn't resemble Hillary much, but I think there's some truth in how she's portrayed as being very try-hard here. "First name is Hillary, middle name Rodham, last name is Clinton, and lyrics I got 'em! You fire celebrities on The Apprentice, motha fucka I fire Bin Laden! (Crack!) cough" Being tryhard again. The lines are pretty good, the flow is pretty good. The reference to her coughing is a fun touch. "How do I say this? You're racist! Ooh, you must get so pissed that your hands are too small to stop and frisk!" The asking/answering of that question at the beginning is really funny, and I like the way they worked Trump's small hands into this attack on him for being racist. "So you use your fingers to touch chicks. (She's only 12 years old.) That's enough, shit! (But she's married, sir.) Just gotta get pushy. (That's your daughter.) Well, grab her by the pussy!" One of the highlights of the battle, love the way they worked in the secret service agent here. Pointing out Trump being a creep at child beauty pageants and towards Ivanka are great lines of attack. "That's assault, brotha! Don't tell me the victim's at fault, sucka! You don't know shit about steaks! Yucka! But the ones on the 8th are great! Motha fucka!" Really fun delivery, good attacks, I like that they threw the Trump Steaks jab in between the more serious sentiments. I don't know what the fuck is going on with the background in this section, though they're really going hard on the tryhardness of Hillary. "Better save the date; I'm gonna rock the vote! Bad bitch on the scene like Murder, She Wrote!" Hillary trying to compare herself to that character is pretty cringe, as is highlighted by her attempting to dab with the biggest "look, aren't I cool, kids?!" look on her face. Real "Pokemon Go to the polls" moment. "So go ahead, Donald, let me see you flow. I brought Michelle's speech; borrow some quotes!" It's a pretty great line, though this line is moreso an attack at Melania than Trump himself; she should have ended with a more Trump-focused attack.
"Let me just say I respect all females. But your rhymes are trash; put 'em next to your emails." The first line is funny in how flagrantly untrue it is, the second line is just plain funny. Good opener. "Our country's in crisis. Who wants to vote for the mother of ISIS? That might not be exactly true, but I don't do politeness." Trump talks out of his ass and lies a lot, yes. "(Believe me!) You wanna talk about misogyny? Your Bill's worse than Cosby! He left a mess on that dress like you left in Benghazi!" The comparison of the rapist Bills is a great line, and I'm not sure whether the whole Benghazi thing was actually something that was Hillary's fault or just a Fox News talking head talking point, but it's a good line regardless. Also by this point it's clear that Lloid's Trump impression is on-point, much better than Peter's. "(Terrible!) You wanna break the glass ceiling, Hillary, I sense it. But the only crack you'll find is my ass pressed against it." The gesturing Lloid is doing during the "I sense it" line is fucking hilarious. The second line is also pretty funny, and did turn out to be true. "The numbers are in and I'm right on your tail. You don't have the stamina, baby, you're frail! This will be just like '08 when you fail! But Trump will appoint you to jail!" Fun parallel to Hillary's "First name is Hillary" segment from before going on here. The lines themselves are fine, nothing amazing. The second-to-last one turned out to be true, the last one did not. "How do I say this? You're a 2. And you almost lost the primary to a socialist Jew!" It's pretty funny how Trump mimics Hillary's "How do I say this?" bit, and "you're a 2" is such a simple but funny jab. He's got a point that Hillary was so weak a candidate that Bernie Sanders came outta nowhere and was able to put up a serious competition in a race that was supposed to have no real competition for her. "What do the American people gotta yankee doodle doo, to get it through your fat face, that they're just not that into you?!" The use of 'yankee doodle doo' is funny and he's got a real point that Hillary needs to accept she's very unpopular, though that 'fat face' line is such a pot calling the kettle black moment. No doubt intended as such. "They want a strong male leader who can stand up to China! Not a crooked, little, wishy-washy bleeding heart vagina!" These lines, of course, exist purely to point out that Trump is a giant sexist. The "China, China, China... bloody vagina!" in the background is a very funny touch. Little bits like that just add so much to this battle. "I'm gonna run these streets like I run my casinos; more police and less Latinos!" These lines, of course, exist purely to point out that Trump is a giant racist. "While you bury us in debt buying poor people socks, I'll create jobs, tearing down mosques!" Trump is against programs that help the impoverished and hates Muslims. "Then I'll use all the best rocks from the site to build a wall, dip it in gold and make Mexico pay for it all!" The thing Lloid does with his eyes as he smiles when he says "build a wall" is just... SO Trumpian. This really is one of the greatest Trump impressions I've ever seen, Lloid did an amazing job. As for the line... Trump says he's gonna build a wall. He built a partial wall. A partial, really unimpressive wall. "I'll make this country great again! We'll all be living large! And I'll tell Congress you're fired, and put Charles in charge!" Trump's slogan is MAGA and Charles in Charge was a TV show whose main actor is a Trump supporter. Also apparently there was a Supreme Court judge named Charles Trump once wanted nominated. Alright. "'Cause this whole system's rigged! And we all know the riggers! For the last eight years this country's been run by- (CAW!)" The point of this line is that Trump is a giant racist. I like the touch that the crowd is cheering wildly for Trump while Hillary looks disturbed in the background.
Then Lincoln comes soaring in on an eagle, as he did in Obama v. Romney. "Are you fucking kidding me with this blah blah blah? I've half a mind to feed you both to my oversized - (CAW!)" The use of 'CAW!' as a censor is amusing. "I've heard more thoughtful discussion up in TMZ! You two got brother blocking brother on their Facebook feed!" This isn't fun anymore, it's just real. "I'm so sick and tired of this ridiculous shit! If this is the best my party gets, then my party should quit!" The Republican Party is a nightmare and Lincoln would be ashamed of it today, is what is being said. "I'm sorry, did I say something that you found funny? Wipe that creepy-ass smile off your face and beat this dummy!" Clinton is a shitty politician who didn't take Trump seriously enough, and she comes across as cold and inhuman. And in case you somehow failed to pick up on it before, ERB makes clear here their endorsement for which candidate to vote for. "And if she does win the White House, be a man and hold the door. Don't get your fans stirred up in some sorta Twitter civil war!" Too real, especially after January 6th. "Here's an equal opportunity smack down in the sequel! That's of the people, by the people, for the people, eagle!" Some people have debated whether Lincoln slapped Trump twice in place of slapping Clinton at all because he's a gentleman and wouldn't hit a woman, or because ERB favors Clinton over Trump. The latter is definitely true, but the former is also probably true. So... both! Then Lincoln yells "Eagle!" and fucks off.
Let's talk about bias. There's two camps of people I've seen in discussions about certain ERB battles, especially this one, and they both irk me. So let's address both of them.
First off: YES, ERB is biased against Trump. And are biased against Republicans generally, and much more sympathetic to the Democrats. They've made that completely obvious from the beginning. And you know what? That's totally fine! They're right to be biased against them! But for some reason, some people in the fanbase can't just admit that. For some reason, there's a lot of people in the fanbase who will bend over backwards trying to explain how it's actually totally unbiased(false) and they attack both sides equally(false) and people complaining are being salty(true). But if you think ERB is unbiased, then society has failed you, because you are a woeful media illiterate. They're screaming Vote for Hillary, Don't Let Trump Win! at you and somehow you haven't managed to decipher what they're saying. I hope for your sake you're, like, twelve years old if you actually think they're unbiased. Here's an important lesson for you to learn as you grow up: 'biased' does not equate to 'bad'! For example, you SHOULD be 'biased' against Hitler! If you look at someone like Hitler and compare him to someone like MLK and treat them as equally valid figures whose ideas are both worthy of consideration, then you're at best a useful idiot and at worst a Nazi apologist! Stop feeling like you have to defend ERB's honor by feverishly denying any claims of bias!
But even worse than those jokers are the fuckers who love to bitch about how ERB has gotten "too political" or "too woke" nowadays. NEWSFLASH, DUMBASS: the very FIRST battle was John Lennon vs Bill O'Reilly, and Bill O'Reilly literally says "Because I'm evil! Heart blacker than Don Cheadle!" Their very foundation as a series is shitting on Republicans! They didn't suddenly 'go woke' just because they stopped doing gay jokes and shat on Trump even more explicitly than they already did to Romney.
Anyway, I've got mixed feelings about this battle. The 'mixed' part of those feelings come from how heavy it is; I have to be in a certain mood to want to listen to this, and most times I see this pop up in my playlist I just skip on to the next one. It's uncomfortable. It's real. Maybe a little too real. But then again, maybe they were right to take it so seriously. It's still a great battle, even if it can be a little hard to come back to. The only big flaw I think is present is that Lincoln coming in at the end is kind of a drag. It was funny the first time; this doesn't recapture the magic. He doesn't really have any great lines either. I tend to stop listening by the time he comes in. But besides that, this battle has an amazing instrumental track, great visuals, peak performances from both Lloid and Kimmy, and good, sometimes great, writing.
I used to think Trump won this battle despite always having been anti-Trump. Revisiting it now, I'm not sure why I thought that. Maybe it was because his part was just so entertaining, even moreso than Hillary's. Maybe it's because I, like many others, harbor a strong resentment and bitterness towards Hillary Clinton(muh Bernie) that would lead me to not be entirely honest about her performance here. Maybe it's just because that hardly anybody said Clinton won back in the day; Trump had either a majority or a clear plural majority of votes in polls, then Lincoln with a fair amount, then Clinton with a small fraction. Now I see that that is utter bullshit. The only reason anybody votes for Lincoln is either because of the Last Word Effect or because they want to be centrists about it and not side with either candidate; even if you could argue he was the best part of Obama v. Romney, here his verse falls well short of both Clinton and Trump's. On the question of Clinton v. Trump... I can kind of see how someone might think Trump won on account of how hilarious he was, but the joke is often on him with those lines. And if we're being honest I think Clinton had better burns and more substantive lines of attack. I say Clinton>Trump>Lincoln.
inb4 someone says I got "too political" in my presidential election battle analysis

Exploration of an Innovative K-12 School Curriculum and Pedagogical Approaches
Before going over the curriculum we must first discuss how to best teach. All of the following methods outlined below are what would I would suggest be use to teach the students trying to use just one or even just two of these would not be enough and would compromise the students learning and education
Teaching Methods
Project-Based Learning (PBL): In PBL, students work on a project over an extended period, which could be a week or a month, to respond to a complex question, problem, or challenge. The projects are usually multi-disciplinary and require students to apply what they've learned in a practical manner. This allows them to see the immediate applicability of their learning.
Inquiry-Based Learning: This is a form of active learning that starts by posing questions, problems, or scenarios—rather than simply presenting established facts or portraying a smooth path to knowledge. Students are involved in the construction of their learning. They engage with the material, participate in the class, and collaborate with each other.
Gamification: Incorporating elements of game design in education can make learning fun and engaging. This can involve point systems, leaderboards, badges, or other game mechanics.
Experiential Learning: This method involves learning by doing and reflecting on the experience. It can include internships, study abroad programs, field trips, laboratory experiments, or any other hands-on learning experiences.
Flipped Classroom: In a flipped classroom, students review lecture materials at home and do their 'homework' in class, where they can ask for help as they practice new skills and apply new knowledge. This allows teachers to spend class time helping students apply what they've learned and coaching them as they work through challenges.
Cross-Disciplinary Projects: By integrating different disciplines into a single project, you can make the learning experience more holistic and interconnected, much like how the knowledge of different magical disciplines would combine in a fantasy setting.
Competency-Based Learning: In this educational model, students advance upon mastering a skill or a competency. This encourages active utilization of knowledge and immediate feedback, similar to how a magic student might advance only after successfully casting a particular spell.
Now that we have given a basic outline of the teaching styles we can go over the curriculum for K-12 the idea would be to Have an A/B day schedule and some classes would meet less frequently because they don't take much time to cover everything, all of this will be done in order to create well rounded students, people and citizens. They are not only creative in nature, but leaders in their own right as well as capable of doing whatever they desire and succeeding wildly
Core Curriculum Classes:
STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, Mathematics): must Ensure these subjects are covered both within the integrated curriculum (like coding in math, cooking in science, history in art, etc.) and as standalone classes to develop depth of knowledge.
Memory Techniques & Knowledge Management Techniques: Using an Integrated code based system with AI tools to help teacher track progress and provide more targeted assistance as well as help students with how to effectively organize and manage knowledge, covering basic note-taking, the PARA/CODE system. Using AI to provide semi interactive sessions that not only explain how memory works but also actively encourage the practice of using the note taking method & memory techniques
Project-Based Learning: Encourage practical application of knowledge through project-based learning. Gamification & Experiential Learning: Use these techniques to make learning more engaging and fun.
Flipped Classroom & Inquiry-Based Learning: Encourage independent learning and critical thinking through these teaching methods.
Elementary School: Coding & Digital Literacy: Introduce basic coding principles using visual coding platforms. Begin teaching about online safety and basic cybersecurity. Financial Literacy: Teach basic concepts like the value of money, saving, and spending. Potential to introduce the use of real currency and creating student based economy Community Service: Arrange class-based community projects and encourage involvement in community service outside of school. Gardening & Cooking: Teach students about plants, nutrition, and basic cooking skills through a school garden. Literacy & Reading: Develop a reading program that exposes students to a variety of genres. Writing can begin with simple sentences. History: Teach history from a holistic and critical perspective, exploring different cultures and perspectives. Basic Medicine & First Aid: Introduce simple health, hygiene, and basic first aid skills. Physical Education: Encourage a love for physical activity through a variety of engaging games. Emotional Regulation & Healthy Relationships with Technology: Incorporate social-emotional learning and healthy technology use. Leadership: Begin fostering leadership qualities through group activities and responsibility sharing. Self-Defense: Introduce basic safety rules and personal boundaries. Spanish: Introduce basic Spanish vocabulary and phrases, along with exposure to the culture of Spanish-speaking countries. Songs, games, and interactive activities can be used to make learning enjoyable.
Middle School: Coding, Digital Literacy & Practical Engineering: Continue coding education and introduce robotics and basic electronics. Financial Literacy: Start teaching about budgeting, banking, and simple concepts of earning. Potential to introduce the use of real currency and creating student based economy Community Service: Encourage students to plan and lead community service projects, either in groups or individually. Gardening & Cooking: Progress in gardening and cooking skills, introducing sustainability issues. Literacy, Reading, & Writing Skills: Increase complexity of reading and writing assignments. History: Provide more in-depth history education using primary sources and interpretations. Basic Medicine & First Aid: Offer a more detailed course on first aid and health. Physical Education: Introduce a range of physical activities, sports, and body awareness topics. Emotional Regulation & Healthy Relationships with Technology: Develop emotional intelligence skills, mindfulness practices, and education about responsible technology use. Leadership: Teach various leadership styles and emphasize group projects requiring delegation and decision-making. Self-Defense: Continue with more practical self-defense techniques. Study of Government: Begin a foundational study of the local and national government. Teach students about the branches of government, their roles, and how laws are made. Spanish: Continue to build on vocabulary and grammar learned in elementary school. Introduce simple written exercises and encourage basic conversation in Spanish.
High School: Coding, Digital Literacy & Practical Engineering: Offer advanced coding and practical engineering classes, including topics like 3D modeling and advanced electronics.Teach more advanced cybersecurity concepts and ethics of digital communication Gardening & Cooking: As elective courses, delve into advanced topics like food science or agricultural technology. Literacy, Reading, & Writing Skills: Offer a variety of literature courses, creative writing classes, and research-based writing. History: Teach history as a dynamic and interpretive subject, encouraging critical thinking. Basic Medicine & First Aid: Include more advanced first aid, mental health awareness, and basic human anatomy and physiology. Physical Education: Offer a range of athletic options, and include education about exercise science and long-term health benefits. Emotional Regulation & Healthy Relationships with Technology: Provide resources for emotional regulation, advanced mindfulness techniques, and in-depth discussions about technology's role in society. Leadership: Delve deeper into conflict resolution, strategic planning, and ethical leadership, often through real-world applications. Financial Literacy: Start teaching about budgeting, banking, and simple concepts of earning. Potential to encourage student to start their own business or get a job and have students buy things from each other Self-Defense/Mixed Martial Arts: For interested students, offer elective classes in mixed martial arts, fostering physical and mental skills. Study of Government: Expand on knowledge from middle school and introduce international government systems. Discuss the concepts of democracy, socialism, and other forms of government. Involve students in mock debates and simulations, like Model United Nations or Mock Parliament. Study of Politics: Begin a course on political science, covering key political ideologies, parties, and political processes. Discuss current events and involve students in debates and discussions to encourage critical thinking. Creating Change: Introduce a course on social activism and creating change. This can involve studying historical movements for change, understanding how to effect change within a legal framework, learning about peaceful protest, and planning and implementing a small-scale change project within the school or community. Spanish: Continue to deepen knowledge of Spanish. Encourage advanced conversation and written exercises. Students could read Spanish literature or news and discuss in class, fostering language skills and cultural understanding.
This kind of curriculum would be nearly the best, being interdisciplinary, hands-on, and centered around the interests and needs of the students. It would aim to not only equip students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the world, but also ignite their passion for learning and encourage them to continue learning throughout their lives.
But before we’re done one last thing must be covered. How to assess a student's growth because science shows that paper tests are not suited for the task. There are many innovative ways to assess student understanding and skills without relying solely on traditional exams. The methods that could be used include Assessment Methods
Portfolios: Students could compile portfolios of their work, which could include code they've written, projects they've completed, or essays they've written. A portfolio allows students to demonstrate their learning process, their progress over time, and their ability to apply what they've learned in different contexts.
Presentations: Students can demonstrate their understanding of a topic by presenting on it. This could involve presenting a project they've completed, explaining a concept to the class, or debating a topic with classmates.
Peer and Self-Assessment: Students can learn a lot from assessing each other's work or their own work. This can help them develop a better understanding of the assessment criteria and improve their ability to critically evaluate work.
Performance Assessment: In subjects like self-defense, physical education, cooking, or gardening, students could be assessed based on their performance. This could involve demonstrating a technique, completing a task, or participating in a game or competition.
Reflective Journals: Students could maintain journals where they reflect on what they've learned, how they've applied it, and what they still want to understand better. This can give teachers insight into a student's thought process and their understanding of the subject.
Project-Based Assessment: Students can be assessed on the projects they complete, whether individually or in groups. This allows students to demonstrate a range of skills, including knowledge of the subject, problem-solving, creativity, and teamwork.
Community Service Assessment: In addition to the other assessments, teachers can assess students' community service involvement, their planning and leadership skills, as well as their reflections on their experiences.
The emphasis of Knowledge Management Techniques and Memory Techniques in core classes as a standalone session every day would ideally give students a break from traditional instruction and allow them to process and manage their learnings. This can be in the form of group discussions, independent reflection time, or guided activities for planning and organizing their work.

The View from Oregon – 289
Re: Scientia sub specie illuminatatis
Friday 17 May 2024
Dear Friends,
In the past several newsletters I have discussed the lack of a science of science, and some of the ramifications of this absence. Another consequence of the absence of a science of science is the selective way in which science develops, and this in turn leads to Danilevsky’s philosophy of science, which acknowledges that science can be different in different social milieux. In other words, science is relative to the scientific community that practices science. Kuhn comes to an analogous conclusion, though for Kuhn it is the diachronic relativity of science that emerges from a history of scientific revolutions triggered by model crises and paradigm shifts. Kuhn’s work continues to be debated, are there are significant differences of interpretation that keep alive the controversy as to whether paradigm shifts are rational or irrational. (Why not both by turns?)
Danilevsky presents us with the prospect of the synchronic relativity of science, in which paradigms differ not down through historical time, but across ethnic communities. This strikes at the heart of Enlightenment universalism, but, as I have tried to argue in these newsletters, Enlightenment ideology is not intrinsically scientific, but for a time Enlightenment thinkers made common cause with the sciences as a way both to advance their interests and to fight the common enemy of traditionalism. But scientists themselves have so completely internalized Enlightenment ideology that, even if the Enlightenment can abandon science, scientists cannot abandon the Enlightenment. That science is the same, that it must be the same, for all who practice it, seems to be an unspoken presupposition of science practised sub specie illuminatatis.
I don’t know of any analytical philosophers who have taken up Danilevsky’s argument, even if only to refute it. Nor do I know of any analogous arguments, though my knowledge of contemporary philosophy of science is far from exhaustive. The closest we come to Danilevsky in the mainstream of Anglo-American analytical philosophy of science is the debate over Kuhn’s philosophy of science, which evades some of the most troubling aspects of Danilevsky’s account. But in the absence of a science of science, we cannot definitively exclude Danilevsky’s account, just as we cannot exclude the role of personalities in the development of science (the focus of last week’s newsletter), nor can we exclude the possibility of alternative sciences that explain as much of the world as our familiar sciences, but which are largely disjoint from the familiar sciences. This latter possibility is related as an anecdote in Eugene Wigner’s “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” which I have quoted many times (though, strangely, apparently not in these newsletters, as I searched back several years just now and didn’t find this quoted, though I could have sworn that I have referenced this so many times my readers may be tired to hearing of it).
Another problem potentially soluble by a science of science: every special science undergoes its own crisis in its turn as it is forced to recognize that it cannot define either the object of its research or the fundamental theoretical terms it employs. There was the crisis in the foundations of mathematics, the crisis in physics, the crisis in psychology, the replication crisis (which falls hardest on social psychology, but which leaves few disciplines unscathed), the crisis in cosmology, and no doubt further crises yet to come. Some of these crises resemble each other, suggesting analogous structural problems within the sciences, while other crises seem to be highly specific to a particular subject matter (as with the crisis in cosmology generated by diverging measures of the Hubble constant). Further research into crises may reveal a deeper commonality, or may reveal each crisis to uniquely supervene on the objects of knowledge distinctive to each science.
The above assumes that a science of science would foreclose upon these troubling scenarios we would prefer not to contemplate. I think we can safely say that we have excluded some unwelcome scenarios for science, and this implies some rudimentary foundations of a science of science, and I think that if the project of a science of science ever came about, i.e., if it ever became a scientific research program on its own—or perhaps a meta-scientific research program—it would gradually foreclose upon the paradoxes of science, excluding them one by one, first taking care of the relatively simple problems, and then moving on to the more difficult ones. We don’t yet even know what the hardest problems are, or what they will be, when we earnestly turn toward formulating a science of science. It is all terra incognita to us.
In the absence of a science of science, however, we do have something to go on, and that is the record of the most successful special sciences, which, through their utility and fruitfulness, have provided a model for the other sciences to follow. And follow they do. A successful scientific discipline spurs imitation in the other special sciences, with the methods and the research program and theoretical structures copied. Science, then, has recourse to analogy. Later sciences are constructed along the lines of earlier successful sciences, and with good reason. The successful sciences have resolved many or most of their problems, and their methods have proved to be a successful way to derive knowledge from the empirical world.
But analogy itself is a theoretical problem. It has no standing as a formal principle of reasoning, and empirically it forces us into the kind of metaphysical speculation that most scientists hate—reflections on the uniformity of nature and such like. If nature is uniform, then a scientific methodology for the investigation of nature can be uniform, and we can know that it is (or will be) as effective in one region of experience as in another region of experience. Proof of this, however, is a metaphysical proof, and not anything scientific in the usual sense.
I should not belabor this idea of the absence of a science of science without acknowledging that it was, of course, the traditional idea that philosophy was the science of science, or, more narrowly, philosophical logic as it was elaborated prior to the mathematization of logic, that was understood to be the science of science, or, as it was also commonly known, the theory of science. Many logical works were called the theory of science, as, for example, Bernard Bolzano’s four volume Theory of Science—Wissenschaftslehre—which was completed in 1837, but the first complete English translation of which did not appear until 2014. In the meantime, between 1837 and 2014, logic, philosophy, and science all underwent rapid growth, and even, we could say, directional growth, that took them in a developmental direction of elaboration that was not anticipated prior to this time.
We can imagine a counterfactual history of logic (and of science) in which logic developed linearly, and did not experience a sudden growth along with a sudden realignment, gradually converging upon the ideal of a theory of science imagined by logicians like Bolzano. While mathematical logic transformed both logic and mathematics both, what was lost in the elaboration of mathematical logic was its connection to this traditional function of logic as the science of science. Moreover, the internal integration of logic was lost, though, it must be observed, other forms of integration appeared as logic was reconstructed analogously to mathematics.
Lately I have been thinking how, with the advent of mathematical logic and analytical philosophy, theory of meaning and theory of reference bifurcated, and with this bifurcation the inverse relationship between the two, explicitly recognized in traditional logic, was lost. Traditional logic asserts that as intension expands, extension narrows, and as extension expands, intension narrows. Intuitively it is easy to see that this is the case: a highly definite meaning applies only to a very few referents, while a generic meaning applies to a great many more referents. But with the development of mathematical logic and analytical philosophy, the theory of meaning and the theory of reference developed in different directions.
What happened? The whole of Western civilization was redirected and realigned by the industrial revolution. Some years ago I wrote about how the industrial revolution essentially hijacked other developments that were already taking place, and which therefore did not have the opportunity to come to a natural fruition because industrial change was so rapid and so catastrophic. I called this the preemption hypothesis (and gave it a further application in Late-Adopter Spacefaring Civilization: The Preemption that Didn’t Happen). We can understand preemption as a more generic historical process in which one historical process that is aggressively expansive overtakes another historical process that is slower and more gradual. An invasive weedy species of cognition expands universally and crowds out endemic species of cognition, driving them to extinction, and leaving us with a philosophical monoculture and its attendant disadvantages.
The kind of industrial civilization we might have gotten had the industrial revolution been an industrial evolution instead of a revolution, unfolding over millennia, as it is likely that the development of agriculture developed, would have been dramatically different. And the industrial revolution spawned revolutions in every adjacent sphere of life and thought. The preemption that was the industrial revolution can also be seen at work in intellectual history, and even in aesthetic and spiritual history. Science and philosophy began to transform early, more or less defining by themselves the advent of modernity when science and philosophy were modern but economics and industry were not. However, with the industrial revolution, science and philosophy were given a new and more violent spur to further growth and realignment.
These redirections and realignments of science, philosophy, and logic are vivid illustrations of the kind of selective development of science that Danilevsky imagined, though he thought of these selective developments in terms of their being embedded in cultural-historical traditions. Western science was embedded in the Western cultural-historical tradition (though Danilevsky called this the Romano-Germanic cultural-historical type), and when this tradition changed due to the industrial revolution, the science (and philosophy and logic) changed along with the tradition. Had the change been given an impetus in a different direction, or had the change not happened at all, science and its adjacent intellectual activities would look rather different today. I will not deny that change would have been much slower, but qualitatively different change might have had unprecedented impacts on history. Obviously, in the present context, what I am thinking of is a tradition like the logic of Bolzano being developed gradually, perhaps over hundreds of years, until it becomes the genuine science of science the want of which we feel at present.
It is ironically reflexive that we cannot exclude the possibility of a counterfactual science, based on a counterfactual logical tradition that grew into a mature theory of science, precisely because we lack this same theory of science. We also cannot prove that our rapid progress in science since the industrial revolution might stagnate for want of a proper theory of science, and due to the cognitive monoculture favored by rapid progress, nor that a counterfactual science, based on a counterfactual logic, might ultimately overtake and outstrip the rapid progress of science after an industrial revolution. It may be the case that, when a civilization experiences a rapid and violent industrial revolution, the accelerated rate of change cripples the other institutions of that civilization, and inevitably leads to both industrial and scientific progress eventually grinding to a halt, because the rate of progress was unsustainable. We could call the two implied scenarios of scientific and industrial development the tortoise scenario and the hare scenario, where slow and steady wins the race.
Best wishes,
Nick
PS—Last Wednesday I hiked up Dog Mountain again (previously in a PS to newsletter 239 I mentioned hiking Dog Mountain on 31 May 2023, almost exactly a year ago). This time I didn’t go all the way to the top, but I went as far as the Dog Mountain Lookout, which is a viewpoint over the Columbia Gorge just short of the top. Spring is one of the best times to do the Dog Mountain walk because of all the wildflowers.
PPS— The new number of Isonomia Quarterly, Volume 2 Issue 2, is now available, which includes a new essay by me, “The Coming Coeval Age” (a PDF version is also available). I plan to also record a video about this for my Today in Philosophy of History series. As with my recent big history paper, “A Complexity Ladder for Big History,” this essay for the Isonomia Quarterly isn’t specifically about philosophy of history, but it does have some interesting implications for history that I will explore and elaborate.
PPPS—I have finished listening to the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. This is a classic I have skimmed many times but have not previously read through word-for-word. It always feels good to have the experience of the whole of a classic to better understand the references generated by said classic. Often we think of stoics as being distant and even possessed of an inhuman degree of self-control, but I was surprised by the repeated references to sociability in the Meditations. There is a pervasive sense in Marcus Aurelius of going along to get along.
Immediately upon finishing the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius I started listening to How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius by Donald J. Robertson. This is not exactly a commentary on the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, but a kind of exposition, both filling in the backstory to the life of Marcus Aurelius, as well as the life of the author, and showing the relevance of Stoic philosophy in the present. This book is about twice as long as the Meditations themselves.

Newsletter link:

https://mailchi.mp/9c0106fe7105/the-view-from-oregon-289
​

weird lawyers

"This Eighth Circuit opinion teaches two lessons. First, sovereign citizens' legal-mumbo-jumbo-filled parallel universe is a wild place. Second, criminal defendants have a constitutional right to "go down in flames if they wish" by representing themselves, and the mere fact that a defendant is politely pressing his "wacky" arguments before trial is not the kind of disruptive behavior that loses him his right to self-representation." Many courts and places are so conformist they falsely claim it's a crime to be weird. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/05/17/short-circuit-a-roundup-of-recent-federal-court-decisions-263/

rehab mostly doesn't work

india, "Over 90% of de-addiction & rehabilitation centres operate illegally in city, jeopardising the well-being of patients." https://punemirror.com/pune/health/are-the-addicts-in-safe-hands/cid1715927040.htm

antipsychotics don't work

new york, "NYC Council Calls for Budget Restorations and Greater Investments in Programs That Address Recidivism and Mental Health." https://council.nyc.gov/press/2024/05/17/2610/

royally screwed

"King Charles III retains patronage of Royal College of Psychiatrists." https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2024/05/17/king-charles-iii-retains-patronage-of-royal-college-of-psychiatrists

judges

pakistan, "judges are no angels. If angels, they too are bald (Saadt Hasan Manto, Ganjey Farishtey)" Judges should not have immunity against lawsuits such as for 2022 believing perjury that I smelled when I had just showered and that there are gang members in the psych ward who openly admitted it. https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2024/05/17/who-will-guard-the-guardians/

Bill of Rights

illinois, "Weiner announced the state is drafting a “Mental Health Bill of Rights” – also without a timeline." https://ipmnewsroom.org/pritzker-pledges-to-expand-access-to-mental-health-care-in-illinois/

metabolism

"A Review on the Possible Therapeutic Intervention by Herbal Remedies on Antipsychotic Drugs Induced Metabolic Disorder." https://typeset.io/papers/a-review-on-the-possible-therapeutic-intervention-by-herbal-36hll20u

bones

"Osteoporosis management in adults with schizophrenia following index hip fracture event: a 10-year population-based retrospective cohort study, Ontario, Canada...associated with a lower incidence of testing or treatment." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38760503/

personal experiences

May 18 6 PM mother harassed my religious beard. felon delusionally called herself the best mother. she's a closed minded serial swatter instead of debating, poisoner of food, jealously ruined 11 years of dates, incest groper, threatened me with a blade twice, and other stress-inducing liar crimes.
mother said I'm "not an incompetent person." she was immediately offended by the Lifetime movie The Bad Guardian. https://youtu.be/XDjvs8u-TBM Character said "they're a bunch of fascists...drug us into submission...(on medical record) Lies!...lazy bunch of bastards."
X-rays of my neck and lower spine prove I have a (L4) hernia slipped disc, arthritis, scoliosis/curvature lordosis, retrolisthesis, "narrowing of the intervertebral disc space at L5-S1." she told me since 2003 to somehow exercise on intoxicating garbage pills instead of painkillers when I can't even sleep comfortably.

Hi there,
I’ve been quietly reading on this sub for about a month now, thinking about posting. Finally have a good reason to, I think.
Backstory: I’m 24F. I’m the oldest child - my sister is 18 and my brother is 10. I can’t remember ever having liked my ndad, and we “butted heads” a lot when I was growing up, increasingly about me wanting independence especially when he would promise to do something (that I felt I could do myself) and wouldn’t come back to it for a long time. He wanted control. He was always sensitive about lying. When I was starting my senior year of high school (good grades, committed to extracurriculars, aiming for top schools like Harvard, Stanford, John’s Hopkins), he found out that I was experimenting with drugs and lost it. He went through all my texts, found out I’m queer, saw all the bad stuff I wrote about him, and decided he can’t trust me anymore. He strip searched me, sent me to a psychoanalyst that he wouldn’t listen to anyway, took away a lot of my belongings, set up surveillance cameras around the house, moved me to his office and put a lock on the door and window. A mattress and a notebook to write in. Months of interrogations followed. I was not allowed to close the bathroom door, and later, I was allowed to close, but not lock it. No phone, no seeing friends. I wasn’t allowed to be alone for months. Or to go upstairs. Listen to music. It was real bad. He told me he wanted to break me down and rebuild who I am from scratch… my mom was devastated and was on his side, despite having previously stood up for me now and then.
I was able to apply to my state school ONLY and got in. The deal was that they would pay for it basically and I would help with the family. I was never allowed to have a job, despite wanting to work since high school. The first year of college my mom drove me. They didn’t trust me to take the bus. Partway through the second year, I found the resources at the college to put together a backup plan in case I needed to leave. It did come to a point (ndad found out about it bc I was carrying around a business card in the waistband of my underwear and dropped it in the bathroom one day) and I decided to leave.
I was allowed to leave with the clothes on my back - no shoes, no coat, nothing else except some documents. And even then he didn’t give me my passports (foreign), saying they don’t exist when I named the document (likely I used the name they used, and not the official document name). Had to sign a handwritten paper that said I refuse their help.
Friends helped me get back on my feet and I’m surrounded with loving people now.
The period of severe abuse lasted 2 years and 5 months. I saw a couple friends a couple times throughout. More details take too long to write.
Since then (4 yrs 3 months), I’ve not seen my immediate family. I call my mom more frequently now, that relationship is stable, but she won’t share information with me. I can talk to her about my life. Have only been able to talk to my sister 2 times over the phone - her last 2 birthdays. Talking to dad never ends well. Last time I tried to call and talk to my sister he wouldn’t let me.
I found out what school she goes to and found out when her graduation is by the powers of the internet. I want to go - to see her and show up for her. I’m debating if I want her to see me or not. And I’m worried about running into ndad. I had a stress dream about it last night. I’m both scared that she won’t want to see me and I’m scared of making things bad for her. To the extent of my knowledge, she may be going out of state for school (know that through a family friend). We were rather different kids growing up and idk how she feels.
Should I go incognito? Or call attention to myself?
(Also wanna write a memoir one day if I ever get the time.)

Batman is always stated to win because of his contingency plans. But any casual reader would know Batman's contingency plans have a healthy history of either not working or backfiring. Like Batman getting his butt kicked by clayface in a suit built to fight clayface, his contingency for Swamp-Thing not working because ST got stronger than last time, and how he tried to perform a kind... "Ritual" to get Wonder Woman to not fight him by LITERALLY kissing her boots and still messed it up. Even contingencies like the Justice Buster was torn apart like tissue paper by a Jokerized Superman.
That is because all of his contingencies are built on three things; being prepared (obviously), the person holding back, and them being the same power level they were the last time.
So really, Batman being at the backfoot and unable to put a decent dent in the Regime for years on end, and having to drag other heroes into his timeline to stop a Superman who is very much in control, can account for Batman's plots, and is not holding back, because his Insurgency is all but dead at the beginning of Injustice 1... Is honestly he accurate thing I've seen regarding the Batman vs Superman debate.
Because no matter how you put it, when Superman can literally punch holes in their universes, sneeze solar system to dust, and "bursts the very bonds of infinity", there really is nothing a mortal man like Batman can do if he just woke up and chose violence one day.

There seem to be a large number of people who believe that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to grant and guarantee rights to the American people. Furthermore, I have heard many people claim that the Bill of Rights is entirely a list of specifically individual rights of American citizens. It puzzles me why these beliefs continue to persist, because the historical record indicates that there is no reason to believe these descriptions of the Bill of Rights. There is a more than adequate amount of historical evidence to corroborate my conclusion. The first and most direct evidence is the very preamble to the Bill of Rights itself. The original preamble of the Bill of Rights begins with a paragraph explaining the document’s purpose; it goes as follows:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think the three most important phrases in this paragraph are “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”, “declaratory and restrictive clauses”, and “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government”. These three phrases seem to best sum up what the Bill of Rights was originally meant to accomplish: it is a list of declaratory and restrictive clauses whose purpose is to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution’s powers, and to increase public confidence in the federal government. And if one were to look at the Bill of Rights, its text would seem to be in harmony with this statement of purpose. The Bill of Rights consists mostly of negative clauses which put restrictions on the federal government; it states what shall not happen or what shall not be done by Congress, such as prohibiting freedom of religion, abridging freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, violating the right to be secure in property, etc. And the ninth and tenth amendments do not mention any particular rights whatsoever, and clearly just serve the purpose of preventing the Constitution from being misconstrued or abused to diminish the rights of the states and the people, and to prevent granting the federal government more power than the Constitution meant for it to have. The phrase “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government” further indicates that the Bill of Rights was not really meant to add rights not already stipulated in the Constitution, but was only meant to reinforce trust in the federal government at the time of the Founding. The Bill of Rights was not meant to add any substantive articles to the Constitution, but rather it consisted of articles whose purpose was to reinforce the articles that had already been established, and prevent them from being misinterpreted in the future by any unscrupulous members of the federal government. Also notice that there is nothing written here in the preamble about granting rights to the American people, let alone granting specifically individual rights to the American people: you would think if the framers of the Bill of Rights had meant for this to be the document’s effect, they would have stated so clearly in the preamble.
Another piece of evidence for my conclusion comes in an address given by James Madison -- the author of the Bill of Rights -- in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. This address involved an early proposal of amendments to the Constitution. Before listing his various propositions for amending the Constitution, Madison said this:

There have been objections of various kinds made against the Constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.

The part I've put in italics indicates that the major purpose of the amendments to the Constitution was to reassure citizens that effective protections were put in place to prevent the “magistrate who exercises the sovereign power” from encroaching upon their rights. Notice there is nothing written here about granting rights to the people, only protecting the people's pre-existing rights from the federal government.
Following the above statement, Madison begins to list a variety of proposed additions to the Constitution, and he proposes the additions be inserted into the body of the Constitution itself, at various sections. Ultimately, he begins to propose a certain list of amendments to be inserted within article 1, section 9; and this particular list happens to correspond to most of the articles which comprise the Bill of Rights as it exists today:

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

It is notable to consider that Madison initially proposed the Bill of Rights to be integrated into the Constitution itself, rather than to be a separate document. But what is even more notable is the specific location it was proposed to be inserted in. Article 1, section 9 is specifically the location of the Constitution dedicated to enumerating the prohibitions upon the power of Congress. What this means is that the original plan for the amendments currently appearing in the Bill of Rights was for them to merely be a list of stipulations regarding what Congress was not allowed to do. Thus, it would make no sense for those same clauses today to be construed as being themselves grants of rights to individual American citizens, anymore than other articles within this same section -- such as Congress being prohibited from abolishing the slave trade before 1808, or laying taxes on state exports -- could themselves be considered grants of individual rights to American citizens.
Another piece of evidence can be found in the 1833 Supreme Court case Barron v Baltimore. This case essentially makes explicit that which was originally understood about the Bill of Rights -- that it was meant only as a list of prohibitions upon Congress. The following excerpt makes this clear:

Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

And then the aforementioned case was subsequently referenced by the 1875 Supreme Court case US v Cruikshank, which further reinforced the same conclusion while addressing the first and second amendments of the Bill of Rights:

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. [. . .] It is now too late to question the correctness of this construction. As was said by the late Chief Justice, in Twitchell v. The Commonwealth (#325), 7 Wall. 325, "the scope and application of these amendments are no longer subjects of discussion here." They left the authority of the States just where they found it, and added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States.
The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln (#139), 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

So as you can see, it was well-established from the time of the country’s founding that the Bill of Rights was never meant to itself be a grant or guarantee of rights to the American people. The official function of the Bill of Rights was always prohibitive rather than affirmative: the purpose was to restrain the federal government, rather than to endow something to American citizens. So what I don’t understand is: how has the Bill of Rights become so misunderstood and misapplied? Why is it that, from the layman even to the level of the modern-day Supreme Court, it is believed that the Bill of Rights is meant to grant or guarantee rights to individual American citizens, when this conclusion is unequivocally unsupported by the historical record? And not only is this conclusion not supported by the historical evidence, but I would argue that it contradicts the very purpose of the Bill of Rights; the whole point of the document was to limit the power of Congress, but interpreting the document to be a federal guarantee of rights to the people is, in effect, a transference of power to the federal government never stipulated in the Constitution, and is in violation of the tenth amendment.
The Bill of Rights, according to its original design, is essentially superfluous; effectively declaring nothing in itself, and only serving to clarify the intent of the Constitution, prevent it from being adversely misinterpreted, and to make explicit what was implicitly acknowledged regarding the boundaries of congressional power. There had been much debate among the Founders regarding whether the Bill of Rights should even exist at all. So how is it that a document whose original purpose was to be nothing more than a protection of civil rights has now become interpreted effectively as the source of the people's civil rights?

Tissue
Polysemous title- Tissue • Tissue- paper + skin (human life is fragile [criticises arrogance, encourages us to protect]) • Also paper (not alive) + skin (alive)- criticises monotony of life, not really living • Tissue paper- found in bibles and holy texts, but fragile (overinflated importance of identity causing wars and discrimination, really it’s very fragile and identity isn’t real, we’re all just people (tissue as in skin)) • Tissue- used to wipe away tears, togetherness can reduce suffering • Tissue- medical term for deep skin- poem shows deeper nature of humans and our potential for goodness, can be wounded and damaged by outside influences but can always heal
"Paper that lets the light shine through, this is what could alter things" - reference to religious texts paper, light as Jesus and Allah (power of religion) - or coexistence with nature (Dharker is a Muslim Calvinist)
Enjambment- freedom, lack of control of humans, rejecting constraints
Free verse- same thing
"Let the daylight break through capitals and monoliths" - power of nature, criticism of authority, weakness of humans- “break” violent personification, destroying authority, daylight + break = sunrise + hope
"The sun shines through their borderlines" - nature overcomes human segregation identity, criticism of war, power of nature) sibilance shows power, “their” still shows separation, criticise that
"fly our lives like paper kites" - childish metaphor, mocking control of money over life (criticism of authority)
"the back of the Koran" - “the” repetition shows importance, “back” shows it is hidden/shunned by society, still holding onto identity
"Transparent" - repetition, criticism of dishonesty of authority
Exposure
"Merciless iced east winds that knive us" - personification of wind shanking people (first line not about war but nature- more significant) (power of nature)- subtle sibilance (just as dangerous as bullets but most people don’t realise)- Germans were in the east, but the only thing from there is wind
ABBAC rhyme, structure is built only to be taken down (tension of soldiers expecting fight but let down)
Pararhyme- unsatisfying for reader, reflects how the soldiers are always nervous but never get to chill
“What are we doing here?” Rhetorical question to criticise authority, or actual question to show PTSD confusion, can be asking what they are DOING or why they are HERE
"For love of God seems dying" ok 1. The soldier's love of God is dying 2. God's love for the soldiers is dying 3. To show love of God, you should die
"forgotten dreams" - juxtaposition, loss of hope, forgotten dreams on purpose to be less sad? war made them forget? “forgotten” disassociated from PTSD, “dreams” as happiness from the past that seems unreal
“a dull rumour of some other war" reference to the Bible and Armageddon, metaphorical end of the world for the soldiers be suffering "sudden successive flights of bullets streak the silence" - sibilance represents sound of bullets, jolting reader out of relative lack of noises, feel like soldiers
Epistrophe "but nothing happens" cyclical structure, stuck in suffering
“we” “us” “our” collective pronouns, shared experience, comradeship, loss of identity, relatable to all soldiers
Kamikaze
Title- single word, only military rank- only seen as a kamikaze pilot by others
Structure- 6 lines per stanza but free verse and lots of enjambment- conflict between control and freedom (military/social expectations/duty vs love for family/nature/memories/life)
Constant shifts between first person and third person- disconnect from family due to shame
“Her father embarked at sunrise” -sunrise as power of nature + Japan’s military flag- conflict
“a shaven head full of powerful incantations” -incantations are deliberately vague- orders from military? prayers? inner conscience against it? It’s “powerful” tho and influences him, and it’s “full” showing his distress, shaved head like most kamikaze pilots
“green-blue translucent sea” beautiful imagery, “translucent” shows how things are unclear but getting clearer- nature helps him decide what to do
Describes fishes “like a huge flag”- patriotic semantic field shows brainwashing, but reduces as the poem goes on, simile shows how he is starting to disconnect and change his mind,
also as “a figure of eight”- shows thoughts of pride and prosperity-
“The dark shoals of fishes/flashing silver as their bellies/swivelled towards the sun” - • sibilance shows ocean noises and beauty, “dark” -> “flashing silver” things get brighter and easier to see- knows what to do thanks to nature • “Silver”- medals he would have gotten for being a kamikaze pilot, but true reward is in nature • “Sun”- represents beauty of nature and also Japanese flag- conflict but now there’s also nature in the mix • Belly up- death on his mind
“bringing their father’s home safe/-yes, grandfather’s boat- safe” repetition of “safe” shows reason to come back- wants to return to family, memories
“a tuna, the dark prince, muscular, dangerous.” • first mention of danger = power in the whole poem, danger to the mission as it causes the pilot to have doubts, true power is in nature and memory • First full stop in the poem and lots of commas- makes us stop and think like the pilot about what he’s abt to do
“laughed” “loved” at the end of the poem- all in past tense- nothing left for the soldier
“we too learned to be silent”- “learned” should be positive but contrasts with what they learnt- criticises how they were taught shame by the older generations- but it’s said in first person, the daughter is criticising this and teaching her children not to think that way
Poppies
Title- honours and grieves dead soldiers, short single word title shows full intent of the poem and how the mother’s life is consumed by grief
Dramatic monologue- emphasis on the domestic impact and how the soldier isn’t present in the poem
Free verse, enjambment- chaotic, lack of control over the son, distressed
Domestic + military semantic fields- life has been ruined by war
“Spasms of paper red, disrupting a blockade of yellow bias”- mix between war + domestic • “spasms” and “red” is injury and pain- mother is worried or is hurt by letting go (spasms is involuntary muscle action- involuntary letting go), • “paper” is the fragility of the son • “blockade” is military language showing her worry abt the conflict, how she wants to “block” her son from going into the military • “disrupting” the fabric - the son becoming a soldier disrupts the peace or she is trying to disrupt him from going to war
“The dove pulled freely against the sky, / an ornamental stitch”- dove represents peace and grief- she and her son is at peace with death, “pulled freely” is an oxymoron- inner conflict with grief or letting her son go, the comma shows a pause to reflect on the grief, the “ornamental stitch” metaphor for the mother (pretends to hold it together)
“I was brave”- takes down ideas of just the soldier’s bravery but also the mother’s, but past tense shows current weakness from grief
“Sellotape bandaged around my hand” • Bandage shows wounds • Sticks them together one last time- cat hairs are removed, no more reason to stay • Claustrophobic feeling- stuck in the domestic role, can’t go and protect the son
“Blackthorns of your hair”- religious connotations of Jesus on the cross, sacrificed for the country- metaphor for the son
History Boys
"Enemy of education" war metaphor and alliteration, opposition between true understanding of literature and grades only used shallowly “Cheat’s Visa”
"a fact of life" indisputable and unchangable, in opposition with Irwin's views on history (truth does not matter to him until now?)
Drummer Hodge: Intertextuality, Tom Hardy (the poet) represents Hector, sympathising with the ordeal of the youth, Drummer Hodge represents the Boys, thrown into the chaos of life without proper guidance
"She's my western front" war metaphor objectifies Fiona, personal pronoun further expresses how women were seen as objects to be owned
“... all the other shrunken violets you people line up" [you people] segregates gay people, [shrunken violets] derogatory language
"Some of the literature says it will pass" looking to literature for solace and comfort during a sexuality crisis
"All literature is consolation" Dakin changes his mind on literature symbolising him changing to Irwin's side. No need to look for solace in literature when he can pursue Irwin
Parallels with "all knowledge is precious" from Hector - A.E. Housman, one of the first intertextualities and used in the intro to establish his character
“cunt-struck” “a cunt”- Mrs Lintott repeats the colloquialism “cunt” twice, to describe Dakin as “cunt-struck” and Headmaster as “a cunt”. This is the hardest swear in the play and is used show that it wasn’t a slip of the tongue, and to break down stereotypes of women being gentle and passive
“history is women following behind with the bucket” - her big scene about women in history at the end of the play (which is typical for Alan Benett’s plays such as “Kafka’s Dick”) so it would be recent and stay in the audience’s mind when the show ended
Irwin intro as politician in the future "etc., etc." while talking abt freedom- that man gives no fucks about freedom really, just waffling on (first impression for the audience too!!)
Parallel with Holocaust debate- Lockwood uses the SAME EXACT PHRASE while talking abt how the holocaust was bad, (dismissiveness of mass genocide? in this education system? it’s more likely than you think) then goes on to argue that they should be unique with their arguments- Irwin passed on thr mindset even on such an important subject
Hector is set up to be looking cool and all (motorcycle scene dramaticness, greek name connotations, fav teacher) but is absolutely uncool when we get to know him- purposeful? "studied eccentricity" and all. clinging onto youth?
Posner is actually rather helpful as the "dictionary person" bc i doubt the audiences know what "otiose" means
SCRIPPS IS THE MOST RELIGIOUS ONE AND CLOSEST TO POSNER it can dismantle the idea that religion is against queerness
Irwin didnt know how nietzche was pronounced bc from what we know of him he would call Dakin out on that

There seem to be a large number of people who believe that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to grant and guarantee rights to the American people. Furthermore, I have heard many people claim that the Bill of Rights is entirely a list of specifically individual rights of American citizens. It puzzles me why these beliefs continue to persist, because the historical record indicates that there is no reason to believe these descriptions of the Bill of Rights. There is a more than adequate amount of historical evidence to corroborate my conclusion. The first and most direct evidence is the very preamble to the Bill of Rights itself. The original preamble of the Bill of Rights begins with a paragraph explaining the document’s purpose; it goes as follows:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think the three most important phrases in this paragraph are “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”, “declaratory and restrictive clauses”, and “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government”. These three phrases seem to best sum up what the Bill of Rights was originally meant to accomplish: it is a list of declaratory and restrictive clauses whose purpose is to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution’s powers, and to increase public confidence in the federal government. And if one were to look at the Bill of Rights, its text would seem to be in harmony with this statement of purpose. The Bill of Rights consists mostly of negative clauses which put restrictions on the federal government; it states what shall not happen or what shall not be done by Congress, such as prohibiting freedom of religion, abridging freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, violating the right to be secure in property, etc. And the ninth and tenth amendments do not mention any particular rights whatsoever, and clearly just serve the purpose of preventing the Constitution from being misconstrued or abused to diminish the rights of the states and the people, and to prevent granting the federal government more power than the Constitution meant for it to have. The phrase “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government” further indicates that the Bill of Rights was not really meant to add rights not already stipulated in the Constitution, but was only meant to reinforce trust in the federal government at the time of the Founding. The Bill of Rights was not meant to add any substantive articles to the Constitution, but rather it consisted of articles whose purpose was to reinforce the articles that had already been established, and prevent them from being misinterpreted in the future by any unscrupulous members of the federal government. Also notice that there is nothing written here in the preamble about granting rights to the American people, let alone granting specifically individual rights to the American people: you would think if the framers of the Bill of Rights had meant for this to be the document’s effect, they would have stated so clearly in the preamble.
Another piece of evidence for my conclusion comes in an address given by James Madison -- the author of the Bill of Rights -- in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. This address involved an early proposal of amendments to the Constitution. Before listing his various propositions for amending the Constitution, Madison said this:

There have been objections of various kinds made against the Constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.

The part I've put in italics indicates that the major purpose of the amendments to the Constitution was to reassure citizens that effective protections were put in place to prevent the “magistrate who exercises the sovereign power” from encroaching upon their rights. Notice there is nothing written here about granting rights to the people, only protecting the people's pre-existing rights from the federal government.
Following the above statement, Madison begins to list a variety of proposed additions to the Constitution, and he proposes the additions be inserted into the body of the Constitution itself, at various sections. Ultimately, he begins to propose a certain list of amendments to be inserted within article 1, section 9; and this particular list happens to correspond to most of the articles which comprise the Bill of Rights as it exists today:

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

It is notable to consider that Madison initially proposed the Bill of Rights to be integrated into the Constitution itself, rather than to be a separate document. But what is even more notable is the specific location it was proposed to be inserted in. Article 1, section 9 is specifically the location of the Constitution dedicated to enumerating the prohibitions upon the power of Congress. What this means is that the original plan for the amendments currently appearing in the Bill of Rights was for them to merely be a list of stipulations regarding what Congress was not allowed to do. Thus, it would make no sense for those same clauses today to be construed as being themselves grants of rights to individual American citizens, anymore than other articles within this same section -- such as Congress being prohibited from abolishing the slave trade before 1808, or laying taxes on state exports -- could themselves be considered grants of individual rights to American citizens.
Another piece of evidence can be found in the 1833 Supreme Court case Barron v Baltimore. This case essentially makes explicit that which was originally understood about the Bill of Rights -- that it was meant only as a list of prohibitions upon Congress. The following excerpt makes this clear:

Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

And then the aforementioned case was subsequently referenced by the 1875 Supreme Court case US v Cruikshank, which further reinforced the same conclusion while addressing the first and second amendments of the Bill of Rights:

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. [. . .] It is now too late to question the correctness of this construction. As was said by the late Chief Justice, in Twitchell v. The Commonwealth (#325), 7 Wall. 325, "the scope and application of these amendments are no longer subjects of discussion here." They left the authority of the States just where they found it, and added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States.
The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln (#139), 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

So as you can see, it was well-established from the time of the country’s founding that the Bill of Rights was never meant to itself be a grant or guarantee of rights to the American people. The official function of the Bill of Rights was always prohibitive rather than affirmative: the purpose was to restrain the federal government, rather than to endow something to American citizens. So what I don’t understand is: how has the Bill of Rights become so misunderstood and misapplied? Why is it that, from the layman even to the level of the modern-day Supreme Court, it is believed that the Bill of Rights is meant to grant or guarantee rights to individual American citizens, when this conclusion is unequivocally unsupported by the historical record? And not only is this conclusion not supported by the historical evidence, but I would argue that it contradicts the very purpose of the Bill of Rights; the whole point of the document was to limit the power of Congress, but interpreting the document to be a federal guarantee of rights to the people is, in effect, a transference of power to the federal government never stipulated in the Constitution, and is in violation of the tenth amendment.
The Bill of Rights, according to its original design, is essentially superfluous; effectively declaring nothing in itself, and only serving to clarify the intent of the Constitution, prevent it from being adversely misinterpreted, and to make explicit what was implicitly acknowledged regarding the boundaries of congressional power. There had been much debate among the Founders regarding whether the Bill of Rights should even exist at all. So how is it that a document whose original purpose was to be nothing more than a protection of civil rights has now become interpreted effectively as the source of the people's civil rights?

What makes something a Must-Watch game? It's a must-watch because it either makes a statement about the team or it has extremely big predictable implications.
These four matches on Sunday for the Manchester Major are a must-watch. Why? Well, I'll explain.

Talon vs Bleed

• Fabian vs Julio. Thats it! Just a battle of great coaching minds. Not the players, but the minds/ideology of these teams in the historically awful APAC region.

For Talon, Fabian/Pengu transformed this APAC team to play a better style of siege through sheer grinding. Like, this team just copied FaZe's strats without knowing the meaning/benefits of their strats before Fabian came along and reformed everything. This is their first international game with Fabian/Pengu coaching, so this is an ABSOLUTE statement game for them.
For Bleed, Julio made Bleed reach new heights and perform much better internationally with much closer and more competitive games. If Bleed can't win against Talon, it means they probably aren't going to make a deep run at this major, ESPECIALLY after getting 14-0'd by SSG.
1 EU world champ coaching vs 1 BR world champ coaching. It's just gonna be fun to see strategical differences. Especially with both APAC teams bootcamping. KR vs SEA. A certified APAC banger with big implications. I know this is a hot take since it's APAC vs APAC but it still is going to be VERY fun to watch this match.

Furia vs BDS

• World Champs vs EU Superteam

BDS, after a blazing hot start with thier new and improved roster with ZERO weakspots, are trying to & expected to be the best team in the entire world/Grand Finalists
Furia (Ex-W7M) are the world champions and are the established Dynasty of R6 Esports. There is a debate between which Dynasty is better, Penta/G2 or W7M/Furia's, the reason is because while Penta/G2 had a longer Dynasty in old siege, it's much harder to create a Dynasty in modern siege due to much more competitive teams.
THIS is a BANGER match. Is Furia's Dynasty going to continue? Is BDS a contender to become winners with their new and PACKED roster full of talent? This is DEFINITELY a must-watch game. Rising Power vs Established Power vibes.

M80 vs Liquid

• The "NA" Superteam vs BR "Super(ass)team"

After M80's ASS performance internationally (they only won 1-2 international games last year iirc), they made massive roster changes and rebuilt around Spoit, despite having good results Domestically last year. This new roster was built from the ground up to be a roster capable of performing internationally (on-paper).
Liquid made a sidegrade roster change replacing Volpz with LOS-1's Hyper-Carry, Maia. I guess you could consider this team a BR Superteam. Liquid does look extremely weak, due to their near loss to Geekay/G2, despite having alot of talent. (Liquid have been the dark horse favorites for so long at events just to come up short that they're no longer favorites to make deep runs anymore 😭😭😭)
This is M80's first international match is against Liquid to PROVE that they are capable of performing international. If Liquid beat the NA superteam, it will prove that they're an actual contender for international success and not to be taken lightly.

E1 vs Bliss

• Promising APAC team vs New Up-and-coming Brazilian roster

E1's first international game for a majority of their roster and it's against an APAC team. E1 are one of the "new regional top 4" alongside Beastcoast/ITB so it's going to be fun seeing them play.
Bliss is the APAC favorite for this event. Everyone expects them to make the deepest run out of every other APAC roster at this event because they knocked out Wolves at last S.I and took a map from FaZe internationally before.
Do Bliss have what it takes to make another deep run at this major? Is E1 going to make a deep run or are they just a fluke? This is like an international upper-mid off between 2 teams in a way. Best APAC team vs 3rd best BR team, who wins? Idk yet, but I know it's gonna be a banger match!

The Predictions:

Furia vs BDS goes to Club. Tossup/Within 1-2 rounds + a Jv92/BriD 1v1 clutch happens.
M80 vs Liquid goes to Oregon. M80 wins dominantly.
E1 vs Bliss goes to Kafe. Bliss wins. Idk by how much but they will.
Talon vs Bleed goes to Nighthaven. Bleed wins by 3-4 rounds