Spoiler Vision in the neurodiverse community is when you can predict what is going to happen in books, TV, or movies. (Generally from pattern recognition.)

Do you have it? Do you enjoy it or does it bother you?

I haven't used Grammarly in quite a long while, but I knew from media reports that they'd been adding GenAI into the product. It looks like one of the features (which they just deactivated) purported to give "Expert Review" as though one were receiving it from real authors, journalists, and academics, including Stephen King and Neil deGrasse Tyson, none of whom consented to having their names used in connection with the product. According to investigative journalist Julia Angwin, who filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in New York, the product wasn't even good but sometimes made the writing actively worse.

Anyway...if you use Grammarly, keep their foray into GenAI in mind. I'm not sure who at that company thought this was a good idea, but WOW!

After learning it took Ganga three days to come into human form, I’m officially struck by the Hindu/Christian parallels. It’s fascinating how the same iconography and symbolism shows up across cultures and religions, would be very curious if anyone else knows if these patterns show up in other traditions as well!

• Ganga takes 3 days to transform -> Jesus rose on the 3rd day (transformation)
• Vishnu takes mortal form as a commoner baby -> God becoming human as a commoner baby
• all the gods so far becoming human -> Christian God becoming human
• the river parting to allow safe passage -> Moses parting the red sea

Hello all!

I’m looking for books both in favor or against American police because I’m super interested in this topic right now and I feel ignorant to it.

Thank you in advanced!

Update: Thank you all for the wonderful recommendations! I can’t say I’ll read them all, but I’m definitely going to look into them!

I’ve been reading Fourth Wing and posting my thoughts about it, and something I keep hearing, both here and in real life, is that I’m “thinking about it too much.” People often tell me that to enjoy it I need to “turn my brain off,” or just read it in a more “smooth-brain” way.

Sometimes this advice is meant kindly, but it still leaves me feeling confused. Why would I ever want to turn my brain off while reading? That’s the opposite of what I enjoy about books.

For me, reading is engaging my brain. Thinking about the story, the characters, the themes, the structure. That’s where the fun is. If I have to actively stop thinking in order to enjoy something, that just doesn’t make sense to me.

And I don’t mean that as an attack on people who enjoy the book. Plenty of things can be flawed and still fun, I think the movie The Room is a perfect example of something that’s objectively messy but enjoyable for many people. But when I’m repeatedly told that the solution is for me to stop thinking about the book, it starts to feel like the problem is being placed on me rather than the book simply not working for me.

I don’t like being overly negative about a book, and I definitely don’t want to be the person raining on everyone else’s parade. But I also don’t really understand the mindset of “turn your brain off to enjoy it.”

My brain is honestly the part of me I like most. I read because I want it engaged. I read to think, to analyze, to imagine, and to stretch my mind beyond everyday life. That’s what makes reading fun for me.

So when people say “just turn your brain off,” I’m always a little baffled because for me, if my brain isn’t involved, the magic of reading disappears.

i’ve been reflecting a lot on how positive of an influence pagebound’s been for me. not only has this app encouraged me to read more books and read more intentionally, i’ve also really enjoyed what a welcoming community everyone’s made here. instead of spending time of social media i spend time on here, and i feel my mental health improving, i just! feel so happy and grateful all the time for everyone i’ve ever interacted with on here!

in the spirit of my reflecting on pagebound and its myriad wonders! i wanted to open the floor to anyone who wanted to share a positive memory or moment they’ve had on here, or a special interaction that’s meant a lot to them, or any other bit of positivity you feel like sharing about our community here!!

thank you everyone for making this space so wonderful and safe and one of the best corners of the internet i’ve yet to find!! <33

Now this last chapter absolutely had me sitting up in my seat because I am SO glad this topic of what constitutes violence received attention in this book, and from so many different angles. If I had a physical copy you better believe practically the entire chapter would be highlighted yellow. Really, the chapter should be printed into pamphlets and handed around. Since I can't do that, I consolidated the parts that had me snapping and that I wish every single person would read and reflect on.

p. 141:

Popular definitions of violence tend to include property destruction. But under these definitions, the destruction of property is usually viewed as violent only if it disrupts profit or the maintenance of wealth. If food is destroyed because it cannot be sold while people go hungry, that is not considered violent under the norms of capitalism. If a person's belongings are tossed on a sidewalk during an eviction and consequently destroyed, that is likewise not considered violent according to the norms of this society. Those destructive acts are part of the "order of things."

p. 144:

Conditions that the state characterizes as "peaceful" are, in reality, quite violent. ... When state actors refer to "peace," they are really talking about order. And when they refer to "peaceful protest," they are talking about cooperative protest that obediently stays within the lines drawn by the state. The more uncooperative you are, the more you will be accused of aggression and violence. It is therefore imperative that the state not be the arbiter of what violence means among people seeking justice.

p. 145:

The violence of the state and response to protest is rarely scrutinized to the degree that protesters are scrutinized. ... Protesters are expected to remain "nonviolent" at all times, regardless of the circumstances, while the state is assumed to be justified, at least sometimes, in inflicting violence to quell "unrest."

p. 147:

By forwarding these [antiprotest] bills, Republicans are telling white people who are angry at Black protesters that even if it isn't legal to hit them with cars, it should be, and that people who commit these acts have the backing of some government officials. ... There's always been a reciprocal relationship between racist elected officials and white vigilante violence, and we are witnessing a moment of intensification of both sides. This kind of order making, through the state sanctioning of outright racist violence, is deeply embedded in the United States as a political project.

p. 149:

The elasticity of violence as a concept allows vigilante violence to be legitimized by the state or even attributed to its victims, if they are protesting the white supremacist order. The conceptual elasticity of violence also allows police to commit casual acts of brutality and gender violence and kill three people per day in the US, while robbing countless others of life and dignity, without being viewed as inordinately violent.

p. 150:

Under capitalism, "peace" is the maintenance of violence on the state's terms. Organized efforts to disrupt those harms will always be characterized, by any necessary stretch of the imagination, as violent.

p. 152:

For decades, oil executives have knowingly contributed to catastrophic climate change while suppressing knowledge about the severity and trajectory of the problem, endangering all of humanity and many other species. These executives' actions have already contributed to the death and displacement of millions of people. Meanwhile, activists who challenge those executives' acts are designated "violent" terrorists deserving of lengthy prison sentences.

p. 160:

State violence around the world is routinely dealt out in such a manner: the state reserves the right to overstep its own laws, and even when it subsequently acknowledges it's mistakes, it has already subjected people to the indignity of arrest, deprived them of their liberty, or subjected them to other violence. Such abuse is intentionally crafted to discourage others from expressing themselves or taking action, because it sends a message: even if the government is in the wrong and is ultimately forced to acknowledge as much, it can make you suffer and ruin your life in the meantime.

p. 162:

The maintenance of global capitalism necessitates mass death, just as the maintenance of capitalism in the United States requires the violence of the carceral system. If these systems function without interruption, you will be told you are experiencing "peace." ... If you choose to disrupt the systems, passively, destructively, or by way of extending mutual aid, the concept of violence may be stretched and manipulated by the powerful to encompass your work. That is why we must not allow the frameworks of the powerful to define the bounds of morality in our politics and our action. The elastic concepts of criminality and violence, as controlled by the powerful, will always be bent against us.

Hello everyone, I'm looking for cute covers for the Kobo Libra Colour. I currently have the clear plastic case, and I want something else to protect the front. I've been seeing people use their Hobonichi covers with their Kobo. I don't know where to look, haha.

related to this post link from Masters of Death (@ 8%, lil to no spoilers), i must consult our vampire experts 🙂‍↕️

theories: is donated blood different than straight from the source? (i.e., temp) does blood type change the flavor? is blood taste different species to species (i.e., vanilla coke vs. vanilla dr pepper) would meds affect enhancement (i.e., blood with adhd meds)

is there canon blood/taste lore i'm missing?

Towards the end of this chapter, I have about 11 minutes left in it, the discussion is about not fully relying on technology, our phones, apps, etc

It has me thinking about emergency/ essential workers, such as nurses, doctors, firefighters, emts. All of them have to know how to do things without the tech that is so widely available to them. You've got to know how to take b/p without a cuff in case a system goes down. You have to learn how to chart on paper as well as in a system. You have to learn the streets because in an emergency you need to get to where you're going quickly. Even police officers have to know streets- so in learning the streets of our city, or at the very least our neighborhood, is an act of resistance.

Often times we joke about needing landmarks for directions but in reality that was created to further complicate things for us. Just like roads, bridges, etc in suburban areas were created to keep us in an area and needing a vehicle to actually get to places. Not knowing our geography is probably intentional. Even the 24 hr clock that is used by police isn't something we're taught. We have to learn it ourselves if we want to and if we have the time. Especially with time because it is a very western thing, 1pm, 3pm vs 1300, or 1500.

Even the way we refer to it in the United States as military time, as if the 24hr clock is a luxury for people in the military and not simply the time we all live within. In other parts of the world it's not called that. It's simply time. Just ruminating about how even that is something we can take back.