sad boy scholar

yeah. maybe that would be fair to say about say, discrete viruses. but about syndromes?

like. the conditions of the human body don't know that they're taxonomically discrete. they don't know that they have different names or lists of symptoms. if a human body has a consistent issue with say, its heart rhythm, or its inflammatory response, or its glandular response, or immune system

the reason that ehlers-danlos syndrome (EDS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), postural tachycardia syndrome (PoTS), IBS (irritable bowel), autism, and even shit like coeliac and PMDD or endometriosis overlap is bc like. these are largely inflammatory issues or issues with the fascia

It's not "what the fuck, how can this person have all these different things wrong with them", bc these are largely like. syndromic definitions of how x bodily issue manifests in different systems, structures, or organs of the body

many of these conditions change in definition over time

and that's bc they're studied and understood more over time where people more meaningfully understand underlying causes and issues, such as through hormone or genetic profiles, or largely like. immune response

it's also how "rare" conditions become understood as more common over time

It starts with Peter chewing out Diana

Which is right on theme with s5, and its overarching thesis for Peter, that: Neal makes you bad, watch your step with him or you won't recognize yourself, he's the apple the spoils the bunch.

Diana lets Peter's tone slide right off her, and she answers only the content, the same way she answered Hughes in Payback when he was chewing her out over letting Neal contact Keller, except with even less deference:

Peter is literally wide-eyed at her lack of apology.

But Peter rallies, and he really goes in for his second-best weapon, the kill, the legal argument.

And Diana effortlessly parries with common sense. Oh, your way? Did that yield results?

And he tries again, but she cuts him off. she won't even let him finish his moralizing, and just moves in with the very glaring flaw in his reprimand.

She explains why she couldn't let Dybek use the algorithm, and proceeds with a very clear explanation of why she has no moral ambiguity over what she's done.

And then he goes with the last, most powerful arrow in his quiver: trust me.

And Diana goes in with hers: No. I trust me.

The first half of the season was about "making peace with what Neal's done" and the second half of the season was tainted by all that vitriol between them, and then Diana slides in for the penultimate episode with "that's so fucking dumb, I did it and I am at peace with it. Think through the alternative ffs."

She has this clarity of vision that Peter has been struggling with all season, and she will voice to Peter when he's being wrong, and not in a I'm sorry but or you're right but kind of way, just flat out—you're wrong. I won't even let you finish your insipid argument.

Apparently juries in Texas are now issuing life sentences for possessing information ?? There was no terrorism involved, no assassination plot; the couple mentioned in the article did not do or plan to do any violence. They literally just got sentenced to life in prison for being associated with anti-fascism (aka... a pro-democracy movement).

So just to be clear:

Attack the US government and attempt a coup = Pardoned and free to go!

Be present at a protest or in possession of leftist information = Life sentence.

Last year on the Fourth of July, a small group from Dallas-Fort Worth held a night-time noise demonstration, setting off fireworks outside the Prairieland Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility south of the cities, in solidarity with the detainees. A few protesters broke away and spray-painted graffiti on employees’ cars and a security post, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. The facility’s guards ordered the protesters to disperse, and most of them did. When a police officer arrived at the scene, drawing his gun, an armed protester shot her rifle, hitting the officer in the shoulder. The officer survived.

After a three-week trial, a jury found eight of nine protesters guilty of “providing material support to terrorists”, among other crimes.

For the Sotos, this “material support” included owning a “printing press” used to print anarchist zines and being part of a leftist book club, the federal government argued. The couple had already left the scene by the time guns were drawn. All eight of the defendants sentenced so far have received unusually harsh sentences – 30 to 100 years – essentially life in prison.

Their attorneys announced their intention to appeal, but many supporters are doubtful that anything short of a presidential pardon from a future administration would free them.

The Prairieland case was the first tried and convicted under the Trump Department of Justice’s “counter-terrorism” initiatives targeting “antifa” – short for antifascist – a decentralized movement the administration has officially categorized as a “domestic terrorist organization”. The federal government argued the Prairieland defendants, what they called a “North Texas Antifa cell”, had planned the demonstration as an assassination attempt against a law enforcement officer. The government alleged this conspiracy even though the defendants were loosely connected, and some who attended the protest did not even know each other.

So being anti-fascist is llegal and worthy of going to prison for life in the United States.

And they got. Life. In. Prison.