Made from Truth and Lies

She is not that.

She is Elon Musk. She is Trump. She is a powerful monster with the money to end lives.

Giving her money and creating a demand for her books by engaging in fandom should be seen the same way owning a cybertruck is seen. Harry Potter gear is in the same category as MAGA gear.

I need to see the same disgust and outright hatred of her that I see about all the evil men in her category. I don't know if people see her as less dangerous because she's a woman or if people are worried that hating on a woman will get their feminist card revoked, but she needs to be taken more seriously by a lot of people. She's a big name heavy hitter with more money than anyone should be allowed to have.

PBS and NPR were never beholden to the US government.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created so that the US government could fund public media without public media being influenced by the government. It was a private non-profit funded by the government, not a part of the government itself. This is by design. This was a good thing. It meant that even small local TV and radio stations, could afford to create media for the public good, without government influence.

This meant TV and radio stations for poor communities. For non-english speaking communities. For rural communities. For minorities. It meant that free and accessible media could be created for everyone, even if the government didn't like it.

That's why conservatives defunded it.

Because if they couldn't control it, and if it helped the people they hated, then they would have to destroy it. Do you really think that a fascist government would defund their own propaganda machine?

Not only is the idea that PBS before being defunded was propaganda wrong, but ignores the fact that defunding it is going to have long-term negative effects on vulnerable communities.

Viktor Lyapkalo Artwork: 'Blowing bubbles' & 'Evening' Painted 9 years apart.

Somewhere along the line, we decided that any repeated behavior, any source of pleasure, any coping mechanism, any habit that isn’t monk-like and productivity-optimized must be labeled an addiction. You like scrolling art before you create? Addiction. You watch comfort shows after work? Addiction. You check your phone in line at the grocery store? Addiction. You drink coffee with breakfast? Addiction. The word has been stretched so thin it barely means anything anymore, except “a behavior I personally disapprove of.”

Addiction is not “I enjoy stimulation.” It is not “I have habits.” It is not “I seek input before I produce output.” Addiction is a specific, devastating pattern of compulsion, harm, loss of control, and often self-destruction. It dismantles relationships. It corrodes trust. It hijacks the reward system so thoroughly that survival itself becomes secondary. It is not equivalent to liking Pinterest boards or needing music to focus.

When everything becomes addiction, nothing is. The language gets diluted, and with it, the gravity of what actual addiction is. People who have clawed their way out of substance abuse know the difference between compulsion and preference, between destructive dependence and deliberate engagement. Collapsing those distinctions into a trendy moral panic about “dopamine” is not enlightened. It’s sloppy. Unserious, even.

There’s also something deeply puritanical about it. The 2020s seem obsessed with pathologizing pleasure. If something feels good, it must be suspect. If it captures your attention, it must be hijacking your brain. If it isn’t explicitly productive, it must be rot. We’ve replaced older moral frameworks with neuroscience-flavored shame, but the tone is the same: you are wrong for enjoying things.

What bothers me most is how casually the word is thrown around in creative spaces. If you gather inspiration through music, images, movement, conversation, suddenly you’re “stimulus addicted.” If you can’t brute-force a novel in a silent white room with no input, you lack discipline. Never mind that many artists throughout history have relied on immersion, community, environment, and cross-media inspiration. Now it’s framed as weakness, as though the only legitimate art is produced under self-imposed sensory austerity.

This framing flattens nuance. There is a difference between avoidance and incubation. There is a difference between doomscrolling to numb out and deliberately engaging with material that fuels your imagination. There is a difference between compulsively chasing a hit and consciously choosing input that enriches your work. But nuance doesn’t trend. Alarmism does.

There’s also a strange individualizing move happening here. Instead of asking why people are exhausted, overstimulated, underpaid, isolated, or burnt out, we zoom in on their coping mechanisms and label them addictions. Instead of examining structural monotony, economic precarity, and social fragmentation, we scold individuals for having “bad dopamine habits.” It’s easier to diagnose people’s scrolling than to confront the conditions that make endless scrolling appealing.

Calling everything an addiction also erases agency. It suggests that people are perpetually hijacked by their brains, incapable of intentional choice unless they purge all sources of easy stimulation. That’s not empowering. It’s infantilizing. Adults are capable of enjoying things without being enslaved by them. Adults can have rituals, comforts, and creative processes without it being pathology.

When I hear the word “addiction” tossed around to describe normal human behavior, it doesn’t sound like insight. It sounds like moral grandstanding dressed up in pop psychology. And for those of us who have actually lived through the wreckage of substance abuse and fought to reclaim control, it feels like watching something serious get turned into a meme.

okay see i don't want to be a dick because i'm not saying you're entirely wrong- showing abusive relationships and clarifying that they're abusive in media does help people recognize abuse in real life. it's probably a really good thing to include in media aimed at kids or 'family viewing'. but that's not what my post is about and it's not the only reason to write abusive fucked up relationships, and acting like it is flattens stories in a way that is ultimately really bad. and you're completely misinterpreting my post if you think the point of it was sometimes we should include Bad Relationships so Kids At Home Will Know Its Bad.

my point was that sometimes it is interesting to read about or write about really weird unhealthy relationships. not educational.

I don't think an author should have to preface their gothic horror with "and of course, fucking a guy whos secretly your cousin and maybe killed your mom is bad and i disavow". i don't think every fanfic that decides to make the love interest a rapist should end with "and he goes to jail, because that was a Bad Thing to Do, and the victim of his behavior went to therapy and got help dealing with the ramifications".

It's fictional. It's not real. It's not a PSA. sometimes the point is to deconstruct the viewpoint of a rapist who doesn't know they're a rapist. sometimes it's exploring how codependent two characters can get if you put them in a jigsaw trap and tie their legs together. sometimes the point is the author thinks it's sexy to imagine getting fucked at knifepoint. sometimes its literally just this: