Dignity. Always Dignity.

So, let's talk about this. This is one of the things I feel is the biggest problems with our system as any response to sexual or domestic violence.

As a system, we do not center the experiences of victims. Victims are not a part of any kind of negotiations; furthermore, the incentives of an adversarial system of justice essentially require a defendant to clam up and avoid taking responsibility in order to avoid getting completely slammed. Victims are often cut out of the process entirely except for brief phone calls with prosecutors or victim/witness "advocates" (who seem to do more advocating for the prosecutors to the victims than they do advocating for the victims to the prosecutors, and again, this is structural). And then at trial they are interrogated, put through some bullshit, and finally have the privilege at the end, if they "won," of having their pain displayed for the prosecutor's purposes and trotted out to score an emotional victory or two... as an excuse to inflict state-originated violence on the perpetrator.

I think all this is fucking garbage.

But let's focus on defense attorneys in particular.

The way our system works, the way it poses the mountainous power of the state against the individual defendant and sidelines the victim, requires that, for any pretense of fairness, the defendant have a right to put their accuser to questioning under oath.

And what are the available defenses to something like rape? If the only evidence is her word, the only defense is that her word is wrong. Then it's only that she's mistaken or lying. If sexual contact took place, the only defense is consent.

As a defense attorney, this fucking sucks! I want to be able to defend my client and do it cleanly and ethically. I don't want to be complicit in the revictimization of anyone. (And, for what it's worth, I think bullying an victim, alleged or not, on the stand plays badly and is bad tactics too, in this era, so I only do it when there's a real paper trail of overt lying. And that does happen: courtrooms may only see a vanishingly small percentage of victims but it sees all the balls-to-the-wall liars.)

But this is my only ethical choice in that situation. If my client wants a jury trial, it's my duty to do it, regardless of who they are and what they're accused of. That's the point of a public defender. If "she's lying" is the only available defense, that has to be the defense. I will do it as clean as I can, because of the aforementioned reasons, and honestly I think having an ethical and calm and direct attorney in my position is worth a lot.

How much does that help you, though? Not a whole fucking lot! I bet it actually kind of sucks to hear me say that "actually, we can't help it even when we want to."

And why is it this way?

Crime is viewed as something an individual does against the order of the state. Not theoretically -- it's actually viewed like that, in a way that gets real-world consequences every day. That's why in many places the prosecutors represent "the people" (allegedly). That's why judges make the decisions. Here's the fucking problem: you're a human person and the crime was committed against you.

If anything, with sexual violence, the way the state is set up and the structures of power it reinforces have probably enabled that sexual violence. It certainly does nothing to prevent it.

This is one of the biggest reasons I think the current system utterly and completely fails victims of sexual and domestic violence. It needs a different system from jump, one that centers protection and healing. This way is wrong, and it boggles me that people can't see that and keep trying to force this retributive system where the victims are just shoved out of the case as much as possible.

however

there are certain choices which have definitely been made for non-diegetic convenience which make for fascinating unintentional worldbuilding. especially in regards to the "Pacific States" (i.e. the parts of America occupied by Imperial Japan in the alternate history)

the biggest thing is language. the show has the same allergy that most american (and, to be fair, most anglophone) media has to subtitling significant portions, which means that both the imperial Japanese and the Nazis in Berlin are visibly speaking English. they speak English to Americans, they speak English to each other, the trade minister for Japan speaks English to the Japanese crown prince and princess.

"oh," you might be saying, "but surely we are intended to understand that, diegetically, they are speaking their own languages?" well, you might think so, except that not only do they scatter German and Japanese words and phrases into their English, there are other scenes where they speak subtitled German and Japanese. so the only conclusion to be drawn is that they are actually, in-universe, speaking English. in this world, imperial Japan conquered the western US with their allies the Germans, and the European language they decided to learn was not German.

the other way I know this is not diegetic is that the show makes a big deal out of any gaijin who learn Japanese. in, I have to emphasise, a reality where they have been living in a Japanese colony for around 20 years. learning Japanese is seen as a treason to America and not, idk, a basic survival requirement in a country under Japanese law and Japanese administration.

(this also applies to the Nazi bits, but for some reason the show views the Nazis as less inherently foreign than the Japanese)

and then, like, this leads me to continue thinking about the world design in the Pacific States, and. god. it could have been so fun for the costume designers to actually conceptualise what 1960s fashion would look like if Japan was the dominant power - if America was Japanised rather than Japan being Americanised. like, you would probably still have suits and dresses and some other aspects of Western fashion, holdovers from the Meiji period and crossovers from an alliance with the Nazis. Americans probably wouldn't wholesale give up their own clothing traditions without a fight, either. but you could really enjoy getting into a Japan-first version of 1960s fashion, drawing from Japanese cultural elements to create a distinctly 1960s American style but with visible signifiers of the different history.

(which i know they could have done, because the stupid amazon prime notes that come up when you move the mouse will not shut up about how in the american reich, they intentionally combined traditional Nazi German clothing motifs - like aprons and dirndls - with 1960s American fashion to subtly emphasise the meeting of cultures. wow. if only you had an entire other cultural framework you could have done that in. nobody is even wearing silk or traditional japanese prints.)

and architecture! you could show me the architecture of a 1960s imperial japan superimposed on prewar america! but instead every new building in the pacific states seems to be vaguely brutalist and very much... well, american.

ALL OF WHICH TO SAY

the intent of the show - the intent it states clearly and repeatedly - is to show America at the mercy of imperial invaders, both european and asian, who hold absolute despotic power and are draconian in their use of it.

the other intent of the show, which muddies this, is to present a recognisable America (but with swastikas!) so that the presumed American audience can dicaprio point at it and go THAT'S LIKE THE THING WE HAVE! BUT DIFFERENT! THAT'S US BUT NAZIS! and have their minds blown by the idea that america could so easily slide into fascism (and i do appreciate the occasions where the show is like "anyway here's how america was always kind of fashy")

but the conflict between those two things (and, I think, the creators' own unexamined assumptions) build a different world. they show a remarkably weak fascist dictatorship on the part of both the japanese and the nazis. in the pacific states especially, they show an imperial power that not only does not subjugate its colonies, but actively assimilates to their culture, speaking their language in private and wearing their clothes by choice.

and yet. in season two it is confirmed that the japanese, in japan, still developed their noted love of baseball.

which they developed because they were colonised by the americans after the second world war, and while surrounded by cultural imperialism people tend to find the fun things in that culture... fun.

moving away from the japanese side of things: it is confirmed that europe and africa are wholly under nazi control (somehow) (this worldbuilding is Very Questionable), and yet the only implication of non-american resistance to nazi ideology as of season 2 is, like... some german yuppies being vaguely counter-cultural? this would make sense to me if the whole story took place in america, but it doesn't, it spends substantial time in and around berlin. you're telling me the french, the russians, the norwegians, the british, the irish, the egyptians, the congolese... they all just rolled over? america is the only danger on the fuhrer's radar? buddy this story takes place two years later than the actual irl mau mau uprising against a brutal eugenicist imperial regime and you want me to believe that the kenyans are pushing back less against the nazis than they did against the british in real life?

but it's america. because in this world, americans have retained their identity. because americans have exported their identity. because americans don't just fly nazi flags, they fly american nazi flags, with the swastika neatly embedded in the stars and stripes. they have american nazi celebrations, which are just the fourth of july but nazi. they play bridge. they dress in baggy suits. they all speak fucking english.

of COURSE what won the war for both japan and germany was dropping nukes on America Specifically.

maybe they will address this later but i have yet to see any explanation of how they won the war in the places where the war was primarily taking place. the entire AU seems to be "germany developed the a-bomb and nuked america, now the world is ruled by the axis powers"

And not just in the novel: After all, Melville had asked Nathaniel Hawthorne to his cottage. In 1851, while composing Moby-Dick, he wrote Hawthorne a series of letters as heated by mid-19th-century standards as any scene in Heated Rivalry. In inviting his own possible situationship to come to his home—in his first known letter to Hawthorne—Melville, like a doped-up, concussed Shane, affects a lightness that doesn’t disguise its own feverishness: 'I am not to be charmed out of my promised pleasure […]. Your bed is already made, & the wood marked for your fire. […] I keep the word ‘Welcome’ all the time in my mouth, so as to be ready on the instant when you cross the threshold.' This 'welcome,' pleasurably effervescent on the tongue but freighted with the unsaid, is Melville’s version of the Canada Dry ginger ale and Coca-Cola that Ilya and Shane stock for each other."

-- Hester Blum in Public Books

I have a friend I know from when we were both 6. She is the only person living nearby and so she saw me go from walking through limping to wheelchair on a daily basis. I keep her updated on my health even tho we rarely hang out anymore. She was gonna come over yesterday and I had to cancel. She asked if I can’t hang out later that day. When I said i won’t feel better later, that if I feel that bad in the morning later will only get worse she got annoyed and “joked” that I’m just finding excuses. And I was surprised, she knows all about me being disabled after all? So, a bit taken aback, I told her it’s a normal thing for me.

“But you got the diagnosis now, aren’t you better?? I thought you’ll get better now”

a commissioned trivet!

one thing I’ve learned from this kind of sgraffito is to start with the foreground

here I start with the collar and chain, then the unicorn, before carving the fence. the shape of whatever is in the foreground should follow the lines of my sketch

This has been a common method for a long time in some states

(drumroll, please)

This photo is known as The Pale Blue Dot. It was taken by Voyager 1, a space probe meant to explore the outer reaches of the solar system. Far from dying, she's still out there doing her job and is the furthest human made object from Earth.

In the mid 80's, they knew Voyager 1 would soon pass beyond where her cameras would matter and she needed to save power, so the question became: what's the last thing she should take a picture of?

Carl Sagan and Carolyn Porco both independently had the same thought: take a picture of Earth. Us. Yes, it would be essentially just one pixel. It wouldn't be scientifically useful. It might even damage the camera because of how intense the sun is, even forty times as far from Earth as Earth is from the Sun. But they got it sorted because it's NASA.

3.7 million (not billion) miles away, that's Earth. Caught in bands of light, artifacts of the Sun's incredible power even 4 million miles away. We are an island in a sea of radiation and vacuum and it's all we have.

I can't say it better than Sagan did, so I'll let you alone with his words:

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar", every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

— Carl Sagan