Ozempic is a diabetes drug with a side effect of weight loss that is now rarely able to be prescribed for diabetes because of the value it possesses to the medical weight loss market, leading to the development of Mounjaro, a diabetes drug that has a less effective weight loss side effect, which is now under restricted prescription in the uk because it has become valuable to the medical weight loss market, driving the price up.
I am diabetic, I am on Mounjaro, and it’s done better for my HbA1c (blood sugar average) than any medication in the previous ten years of treatment, and would likely push me back into effectively “remission” on a higher dose, which I cannot be prescribed because of market conditions; and if I weren’t already on it from the NHS trial period, I would likely not get it now.
This kind of misinformation OP complains about above kills people.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
"trans inclusive radical misogynist" jokes aren't funny and literally never have been. if a cis woman got treated this way people would be upset but when it's misogyny against a trans woman all of a sudden everybody is laughing.
These types of jokes rely on a belief that trans women should be grateful to experience misogyny. That misogyny is not something we already deal with every single day. And that misogyny is a mostly harmless if mean activity and not a massive systemic force that gets us raped and murdered. Calling women bitches is not funny and it doesn't become silly just because you're talking about a minority of women, that's ridiculous.
“People should pass a test before being allowed to have kids.” “Isn’t it scary how white people have this inborn capacity for evil?” “I’ll never pass because males and females have different skull shapes.” “Autistic people have a stronger sense of justice than anyone else.” “I don’t want AMABs in my space because they’re dangerous.” “You shouldn’t have access to hormones if you dress like THAT.” “Anyone who does something that awful isn’t human.” “Some people really shouldn’t be allowed to vote.”
This is eugenics. This is phrenology. THIS IS NAZI SHIT, YOU ARE A LEFTIST BUYING INTO NAZI SHIT. YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO NAZI SHIT.
Every time you go in a public place and something ISN’T disgusting it’s because somebody cleaned it. Every time you feel comfortable using a public bathroom or sitting at a restaurant table or setting something on a gas station counter or playing on a playground it’s because somebody cleaned it.
Thank you to everyone who cleans the world, especially those who are underpaid and under appreciated.
I was in a long-term relationship that fell apart partially because I was ace and my partner was very much not, and every time we looked for relationship help we got told that I was the problem. Not just that a significant mismatch in sexual desire could be a problem in a relationship, but that it was My Fault, Specifically, for not being willing to suck it up and have a bunch of sex I didn't want. To my ex's credit, he cared about consent much more than any of the professionals we talked to and refused to pressure me even when my (lesbian, billed as progressive and pro-LGBT) therapist was actively telling him to.
But it meant that we had absolutely no help or support when we were trying to work on the relationship in ways that *did* value my autonomy. There's basically no advice for people who want to try to make a relationship where there's a big desire gap work that isn't "well you should just have sex anyway" or "just break up lol". And that sucks!
Sometimes breaking up is necessary, and that's what ended up happening with us because there were other reasons we worked better as friends, but there *should* be better frameworks for discussing what people want and need that don't automatically assume that one partner's feelings are automatically more important or valuable than the other's.
I was dating someone who wanted to be accommodating and work with me to figure things out but lacked the EQ to do so in any effective way. It was my first relationship and I was still figuring out what being ace meant for me. It’s been eight or nine years, but I still remember very clearly the moment I realized we’d been approaching the entire discussion as if my orientation was the problem to be solved, and that it would be equally as valid to say that hers was.
She was significantly less impressed with this revelation than I was, but I tried to hold on to it ever since (although obviously the real problem wasn’t either one of us, but the mismatch and the lack of tools to deal with it). I think it’s super important to remember that we aren’t the ones in the wrong while our theoretical partners are the ones in the right. I was surprised by how much I’d internalized the assumption and I don’t think I’m the only one.
The other frustrating aspect of this is allo relationships will often have periods of time where libido does not match (I'm not derailing and this will swing back to asexual people)
Just after giving birth, during a family crisis, during a mental health episode, during health problems, during stressful periods at work
There are a lot of times when one person is horned up and raring to go and the other has no interest
And the solution often presented is that the person who is going through something should just put out because they are the problem instead of like...finding ways to engage in non sexual intimacy to reaffirm closeness
An asexual person is going to get 10x the amount of pressure and blame put on them and no advice on how non-sexual intimacy can help their relationships and if they get that at all it will only be to sell it as a bridge to sex they don't want.
I really hate the selling of intimacy as only equaling or facilitating sex. Intimacy comes in many forms and should be explored more by every couple as a non sexual act. And it the given importance it deserves. In fact I would argue if we as a society put more value on non sexual intimacy more relationships would be happier and healthier
And asexual people would stop getting shit for being themselves.
All of this, in ace AND allo relationships alike, is toxic as fuck. If someone is trying to pressure you into sex you don't want: that is wrong. That is sexual harassment at best and potentially sexual assault.
As an asexual, there are a lot of things I wish allos would learn from us. Right now I want you all to understand we ALL deserve better than this. Consent fucking matters, and sexual assault or harassment within a relationship is NOT okay!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Text of tweet under the cut because it is loooong.
But... Stochastic Parrots.
Timnit Gebru was fired from Google in December 2020 for refusing to retract a research paper, and every single warning that paper made about large language models has now happened at a scale the industry spent 4 years trying to make people forget about.
Her name is Timnit Gebru.
She co-led the Ethical AI team at Google. She co-wrote a paper called "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" with Emily Bender at the University of Washington and two other researchers. The paper was 14 pages long. It was submitted to a top AI ethics conference. And it was the reason Google decided that one of the most senior Black women in AI research could no longer work there.
The story Google told publicly was that she resigned. The story she told, confirmed by 2,695 of her colleagues in an open letter, was that she was fired by email while on vacation because she refused to either retract the paper or remove her name from it.
The paper had not even been published yet.
Here is what she actually wrote, and why every prediction inside it has now come true.
The first warning was about scale itself. Bender and Gebru argued that training ever-larger models on ever-larger scrapes of the internet would produce systems that appeared fluent but had no actual understanding of language. They called these systems stochastic parrots because they would repeat patterns from training data with statistical confidence and zero comprehension. The paper predicted that this apparent intelligence would fool both users and developers into trusting outputs that were structurally incapable of being reliable.
This was 2020. GPT-3 had just come out. The paper predicted the hallucination problem before anyone had a word for it.
The second warning was about bias amplification. The paper documented in detail that internet-scale training data contains systematic overrepresentation of dominant viewpoints and underrepresentation of marginalized ones. The models would not just absorb this bias. They would amplify it, because the optimization process rewards confident outputs, and confidence in language patterns tracks frequency in the training set.
The prediction was that hiring tools built on these models would discriminate against women. That healthcare triage tools would underperform on Black patients. That loan approval systems would entrench inequality while presenting their decisions as neutral algorithmic judgment.
Every one of those things has now been documented in deployment.
Amazon's hiring algorithm penalized resumes that contained the word "women" in any context. Healthcare risk scoring algorithms used by major US hospitals were found to systematically underestimate the medical needs of Black patients. Apple Card's credit algorithm gave wives credit lines 10x lower than their husbands for the same financial profile.
The third warning was about environmental cost. The paper calculated that training a single large language model produced emissions equivalent to the lifetime output of 5 cars. The prediction was that the race to scale would create an environmental footprint that would eventually rival entire industries.
In 2024, Google's emissions were up 48% from 2019, and the company explicitly blamed AI infrastructure. Microsoft's were up 29%, same reason. Both companies have now quietly abandoned the climate commitments they were publicly celebrating the year Gebru was fired.
The fourth warning was about documentation. The paper argued that the training datasets being assembled were too large for anyone to actually audit. Nobody at Google, OpenAI, Meta, or any other lab could tell you with confidence what was in the data their models were trained on. This was not a temporary problem to be solved later. It was a permanent feature of the approach.
In 2023, researchers discovered that the LAION-5B dataset, used to train Stable Diffusion and other major image models, contained thousands of images of child sexual abuse material. The companies that had trained on the dataset had no way of knowing. The paper predicted that category of failure 3 years before it was found.
The fifth warning was the one Google cared about most.
Bender and Gebru argued that the deployment of these systems would centralize linguistic and cultural power in the hands of the small number of companies that could afford to train them. The internet would become a place where the dominant voice was a statistical average of dominant voices, presented as a neutral assistant. Languages underrepresented in the training data would degrade over time as more web content was generated by these systems and fed back into the next training run.
This is now happening in real time. A 2024 study found that 57% of new web content in English is AI-generated or AI-assisted. Researchers studying low-resource languages have documented active degradation in translation quality, because the synthetic content fed back into training is itself worse in those languages.
The paper Google fired her for predicted the model collapse problem before model collapse had a name.
The mechanism behind why this all happened is the part of her work that nobody quotes.
Gebru's argument was not that AI is dangerous in some abstract sci-fi sense. Her argument was that AI is dangerous in a very specific structural sense. The technology was being built by a small group of researchers who shared similar backgrounds, worked at similar companies, and were rewarded for shipping products faster than competitors. The incentive structure made it impossible for safety, ethics, and bias concerns to slow anything down. Anyone inside the system who raised those concerns was either ignored, sidelined, or removed.
She was making that argument from inside Google.
Then Google proved her right by removing her.
The team Google had built to make sure their AI was safe was dismantled in 90 days because they did the job they had been hired to do. Margaret Mitchell, the other co-lead of the Ethical AI team, was fired two months after Gebru for searching through her own emails for evidence of how Gebru had been treated.
Gebru did not stop. She founded DAIR, the Distributed AI Research Institute, in 2021. The mission is to do AI research outside the control of the companies that have a financial interest in not hearing the answers.
Every prediction in the Stochastic Parrots paper has now been validated by deployment. Hallucinations are an industry-wide problem the largest labs cannot solve. Bias amplification has been documented in hiring, healthcare, lending, and criminal justice. Environmental costs are larger than entire small countries. Training data audits remain impossible. Model collapse is an active research crisis at every major lab.
The question worth sitting with is the one almost no one in the industry will say out loud.
Every researcher with the technical credibility to call out these problems watched what happened to her in December 2020 and made a calculation about their own career. The number of people willing to speak publicly about safety and ethics issues inside the major AI labs collapsed after that firing and has not recovered.
The researcher Google fired for warning about exactly what is now happening was right.
The company that fired her is now the second-largest deployer of the technology she warned about.
And the people inside that company who agree with her are not allowed to say so.
I just went looking for the post on X and got a message that it didn't exist
I searched for Guri Singh and got search results showing his account existed, but when I clicked on it I got a message his account did not exist
Does anyone know if he made his account private or if he got nuked by Elon? Or do I just suck at X (because I never go there)?
The degree to which modern fans deliberately project their personal psychological issues onto fictional characters is alarming.
You are expected to "relate" to some characters and stories. Yes. That is not the same thing I keep witnessing, where people will decide a given character is literally everything they are the very instant they have anything in common, or an antagonist is exactly like a real person who hurt them, and emotionally invest SO much into this that they can feel actually betrayed when the events deviate from exactly the catharsis they hoped for.
This seems so normalized by some people, I suspect they assume by default that this is basically what fiction is "for" and it never even crossed their minds that you're supposed to enjoy most stories as an outside observer rather than as some sort of guided roleplay session.
This is why creators get harassed and abused more than ever by entitled fandoms.
No, it's not normal, you are not supposed to think of it that way, fictional characters are separate beings from you.
joining the war on kids reading any book they want on the side of kids reading any book they want. simply you will be fine. it's even good to be confronted with things you don't understand and even find upsetting, uncomfortable and difficult. it's a surprise tool that will help you later.
literally ok so not a funny story but kind of funny? when I was nine I encountered rape in a book and I was like hey mom what’s this mean and she explained it and I was like oh. gross. and then like two weeks later a girl on the bus abruptly disclosed her csa and we were all like ????? what ???? but I was like wait hang on there’s a word for that ☝️🤓 and explained what it meant and that it was illegal and that you could talk to a teacher or my mom if it had happened to you and everyone was like ohhhhh I see I see and very somberly comforted the girl (she was safe she was removed from her home and living with my neighbor at the time so it wasn’t Urgent)
like this sentence from the introduction alone is fucking crazy. “approximately half of adults in the united states think that torture can be acceptable in counterterrorism.” what!
not to make this important post about my brain worms but this paper actually discusses captain america: the winter soldier at some length
in the appendix (which you can find by scrolling down) CA:TWS is listed as having one torture scene, which immediately made me wonder because there are two that I can think of.
further on in the appendix when the authors are discussing the criteria for including torture, they give the vault scene in CA:TWS as an example of a scene that isn't torture, with the justification that Bucky seems to comply with his captors, and given the information shown on screen we can't conclude whether or not Bucky is a willing participant in the "wipe." Willing participants cannot be tortured, therefore the vault scene is not counted as torture
That is a WILD take on that scene. "doesn't fight back" does not equal "not being tortured" come on now
now, I could see disqualifying the vault scene as being a torture scene on the basis that the purpose of the "wipe" is not to inflict pain, it just happens to be an extremely painful process.
That's an interesting take. Is doing something incredibly painful or distressing to a person torture when there is ostensibly a secondary purpose to the painful thing, even though it also clearly doubles as a way of inflicting suffering and asserting power? This is a really important question to answer, since a lot of instances of torture and mistreatment in prisons and military situations etc. seem to fall under this. e.g. a strip search is nominally for "security" purposes, but it is also forced nudity which is a common form of sexual violence inflicted as part of torture.
But disqualifying the scene because there is not enough evidence that Bucky is being coerced to do it is nuts, since immediately prior Bucky gets slapped in the face for not answering a question and doesn't retaliate, and immediately before that Bucky gets a bunch of guns pointed at him when he acts up
That's another important question. Does being forced to comply with or participate in your own torture disqualify it from being torture?
The answer is, to me, obviously no, and in fact this seems like a relatively common feature of torture: e.g. forcing prisoners to dig their own graves requires a good amount of compliance from the victim and that's a major reason why it's so distressing
anyways the vault scene was what got me thinking about torture in media and got me to rewatching jacob geller's fantastic video essay "analyzing every torture scene in call of duty" which actually cites this paper.
okay, for one thing, he doesn't "lean back," he is pushed by the scientists. also! the chair restrains him. but even apart from that, how do you watch that scene and get "active and willing participant." Pierce literally hits him when he doesn't answer a question quickly enough.
could Bucky have called a halt to the scene, for any reason or none? because if the answer is anything other than "yes he could have", then this is not a kinky funtimes scene for Bucky
it for sure hits the kinky funtimes buttons for many audience members, which is enough reason in itself to put such a scene in the movie, and I refuse to speculate on whether it hit the kinky funtimes buttons for the actor; actors in such scenes, however, (had better) have, and the movie audience most certainly has, options this character was denied: in particular, the ability to nope out of there
Okay but can we also talk about how fraternity pledge hazing—which has actually fucking killed people—is not considered torture. I would argue that not everyone is a willing participant. I mean how many of them are actually able to revoke consent? Does not seem safe sane or consensual to me. And we’re just gonna pretend that’s not torture?
I also thought about this. Hazing in many different contexts includes all sorts of violence, including sexual violence. (I read the Wikipedia a while back for list of hazing deaths. It is very brutal!) I thought to myself, "I think I can understand why they would exclude it for the purposes of this study, but I'm not sure why...I need to think about it more."
This study made a lot of assumptions about torture I don't know if I agree with, and the more I think about it the more disagreeing I am. For example, It also split torture up into punitive torture vs. torture for information, but I think that misses some significant motivations behind torture, which are torture out of sheer hatred or contempt, or torture to enforce power and dominance over a person.
It seems similar to the way rape is discussed: it is assumed to be motivated by a certain thing (sexual desire) and to have a certain context, which narrows the ability to recognize sexual violence in the world when it has the pretext of some other motivation, or when it happens in a situation that isn't expected.
When doing some academic reading on torture (inspired by Jacob Geller's video essay) I came across a quote that was like, "All rape is torture and all torture is rape." I think there's a reason those are different words and it's useful to have them both, but it gave me something to think about.
I think I don't quite wrap my head around why hazing happens yet, but it seems on an intuitive level very connected to other forms of mob violence/ violence perpetrated by a group. It is inherently connected to the idea of in-group and out-group, and by experiencing the violence you become part of the in-group, which means you get a turn at perpetrating it.
But this seems the same as a lot of abusive dynamics, except it manifests in a clearer and more dramatic way.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
see this is exactly what I'm talking about. this labour is so incredibly invisibilised that there are real human beings, walking about amongst us, leading normal lives, etc., who earnestly believe that machines can make an item of clothing from start to finish.
Hey just in case someone on here doesn’t quite understand how labor intensive making a garment is, here is a list of things that (to the best of my knowledge) cannot be done by machine alone, from a costumer/tailor in training
Cutting - in my opinion, the most labor intensive part of the process. The amount of time/effort needed varies depending on the pattern and if seam allowance is included or marked separately, but no matter what this process can not be done by machine. Each and every panel and piece of fabric that goes into a garment must be cut by hand by a person.
Pinning/clipping - pinning (or clipping) is the stage at which you align the pieces you are going to be stitching together and hold them together with — you guessed it! — either pins or clips. This can not be done by machine.
Stitching - the actual sewing. This can be done by a sewing machine, but that machine still needs to be operated by a human being.
Ironing/pressing - two words that mean the same thing. The iron itself is a machine, but once again, it needs to be operated by a human being.
Finishing - depending on the technique you use, there are certain finishing techniques that can only be done by hand. But, let’s assume we’re talking about fast fashion, which is usually just finished with a simple overlock/serger. Once again: these machines need to be operated by people.
These are just the basic steps to making a garment, and don’t include textile arts that I am not as knowledgeable about, such as weaving, knitting, and crochet. Also, it is important to note that there are a lot of things that can only be done by hand, such as certain stitches and decorative techniques.
Also, the machinery being operated in textile factories is not equivalent to a domestic sewing machine. We’re talking about one of these guys:
See that gray cylinder under the table, behind the knee pedal? That’s the motor. These machines can sew through your fingers bones and all and not even stop. The people in these factories and sweatshops are operating heavy machinery, and are subject to all the risk that comes with that in addition to all of the work I mentioned above.
Please respect textile workers and continue the fight to eliminate the use of sweatshops and exploited labor in the fashion industry!
A thing I see happen a lot when we get into discussions of natural fibers vs synthetics on this hellsite and elsewhere is a conflation of when the topic is about Fiber Properties and when the topic is about Environmental Impact.
Like more than once I’ve seen posts be like, “you should buy one $200 Real Wool Sweater instead of 4 $50 acrylic ones, trust me it’s worth it.”
And what the post means is, the wool sweater will feel nicer to wear, keep you warmer, and last longer than the 4 $50 ones combined.
(vimes boots theory obligatory mention)
And then someone comes on and replies, “yes this is probably a good idea but we must remember that industrially produced wool yarn has complex chemical treatment in the process, so the wool sweater is still not perfect environmentally speaking.“
And it’s like. That’s not factually wrong. But it has no bearing on what OP was saying because even without it being outright spelled out it’s pretty obvious OP was recommending real wool for properties, not impact. This is also where I’ve seen several different posts about rayon go off the rails, for obvious reasons.
Anyway it’s a good thing to keep in mind when fiber posts go past. Most of the best reasons to wear linen/wool/silk instead of synthetic fibers have more to do with post-production interaction with the world and with your body than with environmental impact during production.
also there are places in the world where introducing merino sheep husbandry would be more destructive to the existing wilderness or the current sustainable agricultural practices than introducing linen or hemp or something into the crop-rotation. That doesn't mean people who live in those places should only ever wear plant fibres when they NEED wool for its properties. There are ALSO places where sheep husbandry is already practiced and introducing a slightly different breed/hybrid, or even just continuing to keep the Same animals but changing Something about the wool-processing practices,i s decidedly less destructive than introducing ANY fiber-plant. That what Trade is FOR.
Most clothing materials have a pretty negative environmental impact. According to some classes I took recently, hemp is by far the most environmentally sustainable fiber by a long shot. however, in the USA we have to import it from Eastern Europe because hemp, being the same plant as the Devil's Lettuce (ooooo scarey!) is regulated to the point where you can't really grow it here.
I don't think there's any intense industrial chemicals involved with wool production except if OP is thinking about Superwash wool, which is its own thing and involves dissolving off the outer texture of the wool fibers so they don't felt.
In terms of natural fibers could diversify quite a bit. There is also alpaca, llama, rabbit, goat, and camel in terms of natural animal fibers, and in the plant realm there's nettle, kudzu, dogbane, and a lot of others...
The UK is banning people under 16 from sver social media sites, including Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. While I certainly agree that the modern internet causes a lot of health and development problems in young children, this ban is not about protection, it is about control.
The internet represents one of the few ways young people can escape the totalizing power their parents have over them. That these apps have been crafted to control their attention does not mean children should be banned from them, it means they should actually be regulated. If the internet is like "junk food" in their analogy, then the government needs to make the food safe to eat, not ban children from eating them.
Of course, British Prime Minister Kid Starver doesn't really care about protecting kids. His policy on Gaza is evidence enough for that. The real point of the law is to provide the state with the means necessary to control the internet and monitor citizens' activity on it. Children are the targets not because they are the only group which the internet is negatively affecting, but because they are the softest target.
Genuinely feel like a really useful tumblr function would be the ability of average users to be like “This post is not Mature” when it gets marked by the algorithm.
The review process is crazy long and my constellation art is Still marked like that for god only knows why almost a year later. But if enough people are like hey this is wrong I think the auto marking should be banished to the nether realm.
honestly tho if joanne eats it in the next five to ten years the cultural reaction is going to be insufferable. everyone who has barely been able to hide their rabid obsession with the racist dogshit books is going to go “oh cool i can openly be into h*rry p*tter again” and any criticism of this stance will become grounds for mass harassment.
so i’m gonna put it out there ahead of time.
hp should be eradicated from cultural significance forever. everything that woman has done completely tarnishes whatever legacy may exist for them and the tangible damage she has done to trans people both legally and in cultural discussions enormously outweighs whatever joy the books might have personally given someone. we are not waiting for her to no longer profit from the ip or for her direct ability to cause harm to cease. that shit is done forever. if you go back to openly celebrating those works, you have less moral backbone than pudding.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
like this sentence from the introduction alone is fucking crazy. “approximately half of adults in the united states think that torture can be acceptable in counterterrorism.” what!
not to make this important post about my brain worms but this paper actually discusses captain america: the winter soldier at some length
in the appendix (which you can find by scrolling down) CA:TWS is listed as having one torture scene, which immediately made me wonder because there are two that I can think of.
further on in the appendix when the authors are discussing the criteria for including torture, they give the vault scene in CA:TWS as an example of a scene that isn't torture, with the justification that Bucky seems to comply with his captors, and given the information shown on screen we can't conclude whether or not Bucky is a willing participant in the "wipe." Willing participants cannot be tortured, therefore the vault scene is not counted as torture
That is a WILD take on that scene. "doesn't fight back" does not equal "not being tortured" come on now
now, I could see disqualifying the vault scene as being a torture scene on the basis that the purpose of the "wipe" is not to inflict pain, it just happens to be an extremely painful process.
That's an interesting take. Is doing something incredibly painful or distressing to a person torture when there is ostensibly a secondary purpose to the painful thing, even though it also clearly doubles as a way of inflicting suffering and asserting power? This is a really important question to answer, since a lot of instances of torture and mistreatment in prisons and military situations etc. seem to fall under this. e.g. a strip search is nominally for "security" purposes, but it is also forced nudity which is a common form of sexual violence inflicted as part of torture.
But disqualifying the scene because there is not enough evidence that Bucky is being coerced to do it is nuts, since immediately prior Bucky gets slapped in the face for not answering a question and doesn't retaliate, and immediately before that Bucky gets a bunch of guns pointed at him when he acts up
That's another important question. Does being forced to comply with or participate in your own torture disqualify it from being torture?
The answer is, to me, obviously no, and in fact this seems like a relatively common feature of torture: e.g. forcing prisoners to dig their own graves requires a good amount of compliance from the victim and that's a major reason why it's so distressing
anyways the vault scene was what got me thinking about torture in media and got me to rewatching jacob geller's fantastic video essay "analyzing every torture scene in call of duty" which actually cites this paper.
did you know literally *everyone* is raised racist. like by society at minumum, if not specifically by their parents. if you aren't constantly questioning the prejucides around and inside of YOU, yes even you, then you aren't taking enough action in your daily life to be a traitor to the state of white supremacy.
