It Means Apricot

How did you know that was exactly what I wanted??

something about barry trying to do what fuches did to him by manipulating hank but failing when hank didn’t fall for it

something about how both of them have been absolutely ravaged by the abusive people in their lives and how neither of them can take responsibility when they start perpetuating these cycles and despite the fact that neither of them are even good at imitating the people that made them who they are, they’re both hurtling at top speed toward becoming “the ugliest versions of themselves”

Anybody will make mistakes when investigating claims and everybody has biases. But Facebook is probably worse than "anybody."

Fact checking isn't a pregnancy test. It's not about getting a Yes or No. The most dangerous misinfo is at least partly true, and requires an explanation of how and why it's wrong.

Suppression of the "truth" is absolutely fundamental to all conspiracy theories. That's the "conspiracy." When a conspiracy theorist perceives that they are being "silenced" or censored, their belief in the conspiracy theory gets stronger. Perceived or real suppression by organized entities makes conspiracy theories much more powerful and convincing, because people see suppression as evidence that the conspiracy theory is true. Conspiracy theorists love to say, "If there wasn't some truth to it, why would they silence it?"

I had a realization earlier that, instead of actually "dealing with" antivaccine sentiment in any way, banning antivaxxers from social media has basically mainstreamed being antivax overnight.

The problem is first that these groups were allowed to get a foothold on mainstream social media sites. You're right that when they get banned, they double down on the conspiratorial thinking, but before they get banned they get hundreds of new converts to be then convinced there's something real by the banning. If social media sites took them seriously at the outset, many fewer people would go through this process, and would now be happily engaging in non-conspiratorial recipe-sharing or whatever.

The second problem is that they don't use human moderators, or they hedge in their (already unhappy and unmotivated because they have to look at shit all day and don't get paid nearly enough for it) human moderators with stupidly strict rules to make sure that they're only banning the minimum of content that could be considered part of the conspiracy, e.g. removing posts that say vaccines cause autism but allowing people to talk about ivermectin as much as they want.

Fact checking isn't a pregnancy test. It's not about getting a Yes or No. The most dangerous misinfo is at least partly true, and requires an explanation of how and why it's wrong.

they come (obviously) from the sherlock holmes fandom, and they are two different ways of explaining something in a story. say I’m a fan and I notice that, in the original books, watson’s war wound is sometimes in his leg and sometimes in his shoulder. the watsonian explanation is how watson (that is, a person within the story) might explain it; the doylist explanation is how sir arthur conan doyle (a person in real life) would have explained it. 

sherlock explains the migrating war wound by making the shoulder wound real and the limp psychosomatic. the guy ritchie films explain it by having the leg wound sustained in battle before the events of the film and the shoulder wound happen onscreen. the doylist explanation, of course, is that acd forgot where the wound was.

this is very important when we’re discussing stuff like headcanons and word-of-god. I see this when people offer watsonian explanations for something, and then a doylist will say something like “it’s just because the author wrote it that way,” and I see it when a person is criticizing bad writing/storytelling (for example, the fact that quiet in metal gear solid v is running around the whole game in a bikini and ripped tights) and someone comes back with “but there’s an in-story reason why that happens!” (that reason being she breathes through her skin).

there’s nothing wrong with either explanation, and really I think you need both to understand and analyze a text. a person coming up with a watsonian explanation has likely not forgotten that the author had real-life reasons for writing something that way, and a person with a doylist interpretation is likely not ignoring the in-universe justification for that thing. 

watsonian: the enchantress cursed the eleven-year-old prince from beauty and the beast and all of his servants because fairies don’t understand why humans would think that’s insane and unfair. I am using in-universe evidence to explain why the character might think or act a certain way, as if belle and the prince and the enchantress are real people.

on the Watsonian level, John Watson wrote the Sherlock Holmes stories, about people Watson met.

Named for the aliens in the movie Galaxy Quest who don’t understand what fiction is, this refers to making a Watonian defense to a Doylist criticism. To use the Quiet from Metal Gear Solid example, it is an absurdist argument to try to claim her design wasn’t sexualized for the male gaze (Doylist) because of the in-universe explanation the writers made up that she breathes through her skin (Watsonian). That’s the Fermian Defense, and it makes it sound like you don’t understand what fiction is.

See also “Zelda can’t be a playable protagonist because something something curse something something”.

What if

What if

At the start of Season 2

Stede is at fucking death's door AGAIN

when they reuinte

and Ed has to sit at his fucking bedside AGAIN

even though he's fucking furious

but instead of "Mary"

Stede is calling for "Ed"

AND THEN ALL OF US DIE

INCLUDING ED