Why do people argue against Neil being demi, saying that Nora’s confirmation wasn’t in the book, so it’s therefore not canon…. As if this entire time, Neil didn’t constantly repeat that he doesn’t swing and that he doesn’t feel attraction towards anyone but Andrew.
He doesn’t look at anyone else twice and he’s not interested in any other male advances towards him. He’s not just ‘closeted’. It’s fine to see him with a preference for guys, because same, but that doesn’t erase the fact that he’s demi. He can be both.
How can you read an entire series from a character’s POV and still interpret them wrong?
Below the cut is my stance and interpretation of everything Nesta and surrounding Nesta in ACOFAS. I’ve been as exhaustive as possible in my answer because I’m only making this one post to go through it all.
It is broken up into 5 sections (with subcategories):
How the trauma built
How it manifests
Rhys & Feyre’s responses (with some overall references to the IC here)
The TL;DR of what follows is that I support the direction SJM is taking these characters and it is completely logical as they have been presented to us.
It’s time for the angsty haunted house idea no one asked for
Neil’s second Halloween at PSU the Foxes go to a haunted house
Neil is sure it is going to be boring and super lame and fake
But the whole team wants to go and has their whole Halloween obsession so he says nothing against the plan
Neil never really got Halloween anyways because a bunch of lame costumes and decorations have never been scary to Neil who grew up with every day being horrifying
Plus, he was told from a really young age that he was too old for the immature holiday, so he is still surprised that the others are so into it
So, they go to a haunted house and they go through a bunch of rooms that Neil thinks are laughable
This is really supposed to scare him?
He is not afraid of werewolves or vampires or witches or clowns or things that jump out of fake graves
Except then they get to a room covered in fake blood and fake limbs with a man in a doctor’s outfit covered in fake blood the wrong shade of red and he is laughing hysterically while holding an axe that is somehow mysteriously blood free
And instead of shrugging it off as super fake and pointing out all the things wrong with the display, Neil freezes and goes rigid in the doorway
Later he will find this strange and wonder why something so obviously fake impacted him so much, but at the moment his brain is hardly functioning
It feels like all the air has left the room as the room of fake horror triggers memories of real horror for Neil
He needs something to hold onto but his foggy mind is just barely aware enough to not grab onto Andrew without permission, so he reaches out with his right hand instead and grabs onto Kevin’s hand
Allison turns like she is going to comment on the hand-holding, but stops with her mouth open when she sees their faces and body language
that when most people think about
interpreters, they either confuse them with translators or just imagine them as boring people who sit in a box all day and repeat the boring speeches politicians give at
conferences. Somehow I doubt that most people have ever thought about how
important interpreters have been for the way we communicate and how the world
today would not be the same without them. And I also doubt that people have
ever viewed interpreters as badass or as heroes. Therefore, I’d like to tell you about:
at the Nuremberg Trials
most of you already know what the Nuremberg Trials were, but here’s a short
explanation for those who don’t: The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military
tribunals, held by the Allied forces after the Second World War. They took
place in the city of Nuremberg and they were most notable for the prosecution
of prominent members of the Nazi leadership. As the people involved with the
trial were American, British, French, German and Russian, it had to be
conducted in four different languages. Which is why they needed interpreters.
I recently went
to an exhibition about those interpreters and even though it was a really small
one, it was super impressive-
because of what I learned about them.
Here are some of the most
interesting and impressive facts:
Before the Nuremberg Trials,
simultaneous interpreting did not exist. Before the trials, people believed that the human brain was not
capable of something like that. The simultaneous interpreting equipment used
for the trials was the very first of its kind.
In this video you can see a
demonstration of the simultaneous interpreting system. Later you can also hear some of the
None of the interpreters had ever
worked as a simultaneous interpreter before. (The reason was, of course, that this
profession had not existed before the trials.) Some were translators,
consecutive interpreters or linguists, and others were ordinary people who had
grown up bilingually, or people who had fled from Germany before the war and
lived abroad for a while. The bar was set very high and they had to pass
difficult and complex tests, including mock trials, before they were allowed to
interpret at the tribunals. Since none of them had any kind of experience with
simultaneous interpreting, they had to train themselves in a very short time.
Without simultaneous interpreting,
the Nuremberg Trials would have taken much longer or might not even have been
possible at all. Before
the trials, only consecutive interpretation was used. (With consecutive
interpretation, the speaker stops every few minutes and the interpreter repeats
what he said in the target language.) Since there were four court languages
(English, German, French and Russian), using this interpreting technique would
have prolonged the trials significantly. As the Cold War started soon after the
end of the tribunals, it is unclear whether they could have been finished, had
they taken any longer.
Simultaneous interpreters were not
the only language professionals working at the trials. If a witness spoke neither of the
four court languages, consecutive interpreters were brought in to interpret
their testimony- which was then interpreted again by the simultaneous
interpreters. There were also interpreters sitting behind the judges to help
them communicate. The American and the British judge were seated next to each
other, so they could exchange their thoughts, but if they wanted to talk to the
French and Russian judge, they needed the help of their interpreters. Translators
also worked at the trials. They translated the notes taken by the court reporters in
shorthand. These translations were then compared to recordings of the
simultaneous interpreters’ interpretations, to make sure that they hadn’t made
any mistakes which could influence the outcome of the trials.
In total, the team consisted
of approximately 50 interpreters, 200 translators and 100 people who compared the
interpretations with the court reporters’ shorthand. Of course, this generated a lot of paperwork.
One photo taken by the American military photographer Ray D’Addario shows
employees in the court’s document room standing literally ankle-deep in
Interpreters at the trials worked 85
minute shifts on their own. (In contrast, simultaneous interpreters today work in teams of two and
take turns in shifts of up to 30 minutes.)
interpreters were not able to finish their shift- not because of exhaustion,
but because they could no longer handle the psychological strain and could no
longer force themselves to listen to what was being said. The trials dealt
with the worst atrocities committed by the Nazis- war crimes, genocide, mass
murder and crimes against humanity. Many interpreters had to be replaced
-either because they left or because they returned to the translation department-
and later many said that they had nightmares because of those trials. One interpreter, however, also said that he didn’t really catch all the details of what was being said, because he was always way too focused on getting the grammar and the vocabulary right. (And yes, that happens. A lot.)
One of the most famous photos of an
interpreter at the Nuremberg Trials does not actually depict an interpreter. The photo in question shows a young
woman in a red suit wearing headphones and explaining the simultaneous interpreting
system to the press. However, she was not actually an interpreter, but a
lawyer’s secretary. The reason she was chosen as a model for this photo was
that she always had the most fashionable suits, because her mother was a tailor.
Interpretations and Translations
could influence the outcome of the trials. The fact that recordings of simultaneous interpretations were checked
against the translations of the court reporters’ shorthand limited the risk of communication mistakes, but could
not eliminate it completely. Many Nazis, like Göring for instance, tried to use
this to their advantage- which, of course, put the interpreters under immense pressure to get everything exactly right. Richard W. Sonnenfeldt, the lead interpreter for the
prosecution, remembered Göring asking him: “Could you find me a good lawyer?
Although I might need a good interpreter even more than a lawyer.” After the
trials, some defendants claimed that they had only been found guilty because of
translation or interpretation mistakes. Interpretation or translation
mishaps could also negatively affect the prosecution, though. A mistranslation
of the word “Freimachung” (translated with “liberation” instead of “clearing”)
caused a big problem for chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson during his
first confrontation with Göring in court. Of course, some words also have more than one meaning. And sometimes, one meaning was more incriminating than the other. Those words quickly became bones of contention.
More about the equipment
interpreters today, the interpreters at the Nuremberg Trials did not have
soundproof booths. Therefore, they had to be careful to not be distracted by ambient noise all the time. Their booths were nicknamed “the aquarium” because they were
made of glass. However, those booths were not even closed glass boxes. There
was one big glass panel in front of them, and smaller glass panels were used to
separate the booths. The headphones were not soundproof either, and probably
also not very comfortable.
Everyone had to wear headphones, except for
the guards. There were more than 300 headphones in the court room at all times.
interpreter had a sign which said “slow”. They would hold it up if they wanted
the speaker to talk more slowly. If a speaker did not see this (or ignored it),
either the interpreters or a technician could push buttons which would light up
differently coloured lights on the speaker’s table. The orange light told the
speaker to slow down and the red light was a signal that there was a technical
problem and the session had to be suspended until this problem was fixed.
What influence did those interpreters have on the future?
Together with other interpreters who
worked at the trials, Colonel Léon Dostert, the head of the interpreters at the
tribunals, founded the United Nations Interpretation Service. The technology used in Nuremberg
became the basis of modern interpreting technology and ever since the Nuremberg Trials, simultaneous interpreting has become an integral part of
international politics and diplomacy. Without simultaneous interpreting,
international institutions like the UN, NATO, the EU or the WTO would look
completely different today.
These interpreters did something that was
considered to be impossible before the Nuremberg Trials. People believed that
the human brain was not capable of simultaneous interpretation and yet those
interpreters did it. In a short time, they taught themselves how to do it. They
worked with newly developed equipment that was far from perfect: Uncomfortable
headphones, people tripping over cables and no soundproof booths. They worked
shifts which were nearly three times as long as shifts today, and all the time
they had to listen to descriptions of the horrific atrocities committed by the
Nazis. But even though they were constantly faced with these horrors, even
though they were under immense pressure- the interpreters, translators, and
other language professionals involved with the trials still did their job. They
all put themselves through immense stress, psychological strain and possibly
trauma, to make the trials happen and to make sure that Nazi war criminals received
the punishment they deserved. Without those interpreters and translators, it would not have been possible. The simultaneous interpreters in
particular were pioneers of their profession. Without them, simultaneous
interpreting might not even exist. And without simultaneous interpreting,
international institutions like the UN or the EU would look completely
different today. The world might look completely different, too. After all, during the Cold War, fast communication with people who spoke different languages was essential. Who knows what might have happened without interpreters?
So, yeah, I don’t want to hear people calling
interpreters boring ever again.
Just in case you’re interested in
hearing more about this topic from someone who has actually lived through all
this; here’s a speech by Siegfried Ramler, one of the interpreters who worked at
the Nuremberg Trials:
[Finally, I’m not a historian or anything like that; I’m just telling you what I learned at the exhibition and from a few articles about it, because i found it interesting and super impressive. So if there’s anything that’s not correct, I apologize. Please let me know and I’ll correct it at once!]
@snappleeducated said: if you’re not too overloaded with prompts and feel inclined to do this one, i’d love to see andreil + 19?? if you’re busy or this isn’t sparking any ideas though, don’t worry about it! :) thank you for all the amazing writing you create either way
19: “You won’t scare
Andrew doesn’t lie. It’s core to how he sees and interacts with the world. He gives half-truths sometimes, or talks around the truth, or says things he believes to be true that he later discovers aren’t really, but he doesn’t lie.
He doesn’t expect as much from everyone else. Kevin is an awful liar unless he’s lying to the public. Nicky lies about being happy all the time. Aaron isn’t even worth mentioning.
Even Neil is a liar by habit, the standard “I’m fine” dropping out of his mouth before he can control it and staying there unless Kevin or Wymack or Andrew gives him a dirty enough look. He’s not as good at lying to Andrew now as he was before, not that Andrew ever believed him, but when it happens now it alerts Andrew to something being seriously wrong, which isn’t something Neil would ever admit to anyway. So in a way, maybe it’s good to hear Neil’s pathetic attempts at lying to him.
U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Civil Rights Act Protects LGBTQ Workers
The Supreme Court of The United State announced on Monday, April 22 that they would hear three cases regarding protections for LGBTQ+ peoples against workplace discrimination. The impact of these cases will determine if Article VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees protections for gay and transgender employees. These will be the first LGBTQ rights cases heard under the current Supreme Court which, since the retiring of moderate Justice Kennedy last year and appointment of Justice Kavanaugh, is now majority conservative.
Article VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees based on “sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.” The three cases that the Supreme Court will rule on whether the “sex” part of the act can apply to prohibit LGBTQ discrimination. Views of this interpretation at the federal level are split, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (a federal agency) saying that the act does grant protection but the Trump administration taking the view that it does not.
On this day in 1803, in the case Marbury v. Madison the
US Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review and gave
the Court the power to declare laws ‘unconstitutional’. The principle
was outlined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, the
words of which are inscribed on the wall of the Supreme Court building.
The case arose when Justice of the Peace for District of Columbia
William Marbury was not delivered his commission documents which
officially granted his title. The Court would not force the then
Secretary of State James Madison to deliver them, but held that the
provision of the 1789 Judiciary Act allowing Marbury to bring his claim
to the Court was itself unconstitutional as it extended the Court’s
constitutional jurisdiction. On February 24th, the Court ruled
unanimously to this effect. The decision gave the Supreme Court the
power to interpret the constitution and strike down laws as
‘unconstitutional’. Since then, the Court have made many high-profile
rulings branding things unconstitutional, including school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), school prayer in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and teaching creationism in science lessons in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).
ok we all know and love demisexual neil but what if in addition he’s aromantic
he’s never experienced romantic love at all and maybe that’s what he wanted to find kissing that girl but all he felt was lipstick and fear, so he accepts what his mother told him and it’s not for him
so when he meets andrew he never considers relationships because it’s dangerous, because he doesn’t do that, he doesn’t swing but that doesn’t matter.
andrew becomes (over time, mostly post-tkm) comfort, he holds neil up always and he’s always a secure place, a safe bet. they love each other very much, but there’s no romantic love tying neil to andrew; he doesn’t need that, he just needs andrew to be there.
(andrew probably isn’t aro but rejects the notion of love from far too much trauma and lack of trust and generally shitty people. through months and years of neil’s yes and understanding and trust, he comes to terms with what he feels for neil, but it doesn’t change the nature of their relationship because there’s so much else in the relationship that it’s not necessary to change the terms. neil knows, anyway. he knows the way andrew looks at him and he knows that it’s more love than he’s ever had before and he’s grateful every time.)
This dreaded interview question can sound like a trap. Your answer could be used to set your salary below someone else who is doing the same job.
And, critics say, the question can be used by employers to discriminate against women and minorities who earn less.
Employers are allowed to ask this salary question in most parts of the country. But, hoping to narrow racial and gender pay gaps, seven states and several cities and counties have banned employers from asking about prior pay.
Making matters more complex, courts have issued varying interpretations of what’s legal.
This week, for example, a federal district court struck down a Philadelphia law banning questions about prior pay, saying it impinged on free speech. But last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Aileen Rizo, who sued her employer for paying her less than her male colleague because of her previous salary. (Still other circuits have ruled in different ways, allowing employers to ask the question.)