#(and why should they it's deliberately misleading)

[pharawee]

🇹🇭🏳️‍🌈 But it is now confirmed!! https://x.com/saksithcna/status/1772884245981123020?s=46&t=mvTAw9jWfh8OZn8f86CleA

Thank you, anon. I've been excited for this the whole day. 🥳

I just hope they ultimately decide on the best possible version of the equal marriage act with full gender equality and equal rights when it comes to adoption and parenthood. 🙏

[venomous-qwille]

A NOTE REGARDING WIKIS AND LORE DOCS

I've mentioned this in Misutamojis before, but just realised there was nothing about it here so:

Please don't create public lore docs or wikis for GITM.

I totally understand that the story is already sprawling and there are a lot of characters to keep track of, but here is my reasoning behind this request:

GITM is still in its very early stages, there is so little that you concretely know about any of the characters/story that it is likely that any character bios people write will be fundamentally incorrect. Same goes for lore about the worldbuilding and the Sight. It's much easier to spread misinfo than fact, and certain stuff in fic is kept deliberately misleading/vague for fun story purposes.

GITM is not a TV show and I am not a showrunner. I am just another DCA fan on the internet who wants to chat about their OCs, I should be allowed to do that without having my every word indexed. To be clear, as I have said many many many many times in the past: people quoting what I say in discord, analysing my casual art/magmas/drabbles, or screencapping casual convos and jokes to pull them apart to dissect details from it makes me really really uncomfortable. If people started screencapping what I say to stick it on a doc for proof of XYZ thing about a character you guys haven't even met yet... I would probably stop interacting on this server point blank. Please imagine how you would feel if people were screenshotting your desktop background to read your filenames so they could theorycraft. That has happened in this server. More than once. Please stop. Your FOMO is not more important than my boundaries.

The intended reading experience for GITM is... reading GITM. Yes sometimes I share my personal headcanons and tidbits for characters, but I promise that all of this stuff will be discovered in fic. I don't want people to learn about Fool's favourite songs from a google doc. I want you to learn about it from GITM. That is why I am writing GITM: to tell you about these characters.

I would like the opportunity to make a GITM wiki myself at some point in the future.

I understand this might be frustrating, I know the lore is overwhelming as it stands. As always, if you have questions about the characters, you are welcome to ask in one of the discussion channels- I don't mind people @ ing me for that- I love talking about GITM! I am always happy to answer new FAQs at length.

[winniethewife]

For the lost and mislead

(Percival de Rolo X F!reader) 

Prompt: Gun play

Words:1513

Warnings: Bondage, hate fucking, No Mercy Percy, Dub-con, On the wall, Bleeding, edging, Unprotected sex, 

A/N: For my Event Nine weeks in hell, and Kinktober, Thank you @midgardian-witch for beta reading

When she came to she felt her hands bound behind her with rope, a strip of fabric covered her eyes. Where was she? What was going on? She tried to feel something around her but found nothing but a cold damp floor. Just then there was the sound of a heavy door opening and closing, the hair on the back of her neck standing up as an intimidating presence entered the room.  

“Who are you? What do you want from me?” She asked,her voice sounded far away from her as it echoes around the room. She heard the sound of deliberate footsteps approaching her. 

“Who I am doesn’t matter, what I want is information.” The man’s voice was cold and filled with malice. Her mind started to race, what kind of information could she have? She was only a guard for a noble family, what could she possibly know that this mysterious man wants? He took another step towards her and she felt a cold metallic weapon pressed to her forehead, although she didn’t know what it was, she could sense that she was mere moments from death if she said the wrong thing. “Tell me where the Briarwoods are.” The man whispered, the threat on her life obvious with every syllable. She stiffened, ah she did actually know something that the mysterious man wanted. 

“I don’t know who they are.” She lied through her teeth. She felt the sting of a gloved hand across her face.

“Liar, I know you work for them, Now tell me what I want to know.” She heard in his voice how desperate he was to find out this information. Who in all of Exandria would want to know this so badly? She couldn’t fathom which of the Briarwoods’ enemies would take the time to kidnap one of their guards and subject them to an interrogation of this kind. 

“I…I don’t know where they are.” This at least was relatively honest, she knew they had left on a journey some days ago but she couldn’t possibly know where along the road to their destination they were at this time. The man scoffed and the feeling of the cold metal pressed against her skull vanished. He knelt down in front of her, she could feel the warmth of his body as he loomed over her. She felt his hands on her face, then the blindfold came off. In the low light of the basement she could just barely see him. Bright white hair, striking blue eyes, he looked familiar… She couldn’t quite place why. He looked at her, scanning her eyes like he was trying to analyze the information that lay there. 

“But you know something. Something I want to know.” He said darkly, his eyes narrowed as he took her chin in his hand and tilted her face up to look at him, she felt his breath on her face as he kept pulling her closer. His eyes darkened, and an odd look crossed his face, something between disgust and desire. She felt something she didn’t expect to feel in this moment, a need to feel this man against her, someone she should despise or fear but in that second, she wanted him, no, needed him. 

“Who are you?” She asked suddenly, she wanted to know more than that but for now a name would suffice. The man blinked twice like he was surprised she asked. 

“My name is Percival Fredrickstein von Musel Klossowski de Rolo The Third.” He said with a rehearsed tone, the air of nobility and pride that should come with such a name long gone. As someone who grew up in Whitestone she immediately understood who was in front of her. He watched the recognition in her eyes as her brows raised in subtle surprise. She didn’t respond, she didn’t have to, he already knew every thought that could possibly cross her mind with this information. He decided to move on, he held the pepperbox up to where she could see it clearly. “You see this? You see these names on my gun? Each name is someone who wronged me, someone who did something unforgivable, you don’t want to be on this list, you want to walk out of here alive with nothing to worry about.” With one swift movement the gun was pressed back to her temple. “If you don’t want to be another name on my barrel, I suggest you tell me what I want to know.”  

“I don’t have the information you want.” She reiterated, albeit much more nervously. He growls and a flash of shadow blinded her for a moment, in the darkness her mouth was wrenched open and there was cold metal shoved between her teeth. As Percy looked down on her and although he mostly felt the rage from the apparent deception, he couldn't help the rise of arousal that filled his chest as he looked down at the sight of her lips around his gun. She looked up at him, her heart thudding in her ears, she was sure she was seconds from death, a single tear rolled down her cheek as she closed her eyes, silently praying for it to end swiftly and painlessly. 

“Fuck.” He hissed, she opened her eyes again and watched as he held his hardening bulge over his pants looking at her with his eyes clouded with lust. He pressed the gun further into her mouth, rubbing himself as he did so. “Maybe, I can persuade you to tell me, in other ways.” He growled low, he reached down and grabbed her by the collar of her shirt, lifted her up to her feet and pushed her against the stone wall, removed the gun from her mouth and replaced it with his lips, kissing her hard like he wanted to devour her whole. His teeth grazed against her bottom lip, breaking it open as the metallic taste of blood filled their impassioned kiss. She couldn’t even pretend to resist, she kissed him back with the same fervor as he put into the moment, clenching her fists in the binding behind her back wishing she could just put her hands on him. 

He managed to slide his gun back into its holster before using his newly freed hand to pull down her trousers tearing at the fabric of her undergarments to clear the way. He hoisted her up by her thighs before finally pulling open his own pants and unveiling his hardened cock that he then slid through her wet folds and into her entrance with not a care if she was ready or not. The stretch of his cock stung, the pain was so overwhelmingly good her mind went blank, the only thing that she could focus on was him, he was all over her, his harsh touch, his taste in her mouth, his scent filling her senses as he relentlessly used her cunt like it was crafted specifically for him. 

“Is this what it takes for you to tell me what I want to know? You just needed to get fucked like a cheap whore in a tavern basement? That’s what you needed to betray your master?” Percy growled in her ear as he snapped his hips into her again and again, his gloved hands held her thighs with a bruising force. She let out a high pitched whine and her eyes rolled back in her head as she felt the steady approach of her climax, and she could tell by the inconsistent rhythm of his thrusts that he was also close to his own release. Just as she noticed this he started to slow his pace, purposefully teasing her at the edge, anything to get her to talk even at his own torment.  

“Mgh…Fuck, fine I’ll tell you what I know, just…don’t stop please.” She pleaded. a whisper of a smile crossed his face as he picked up the pace, burying his face in the crook of her neck, sucking gently on the soft skin there as he continued to push himself deep into her again and again. She finally felt the wave of pleasure crashing over her, her cunt clenching down around him as he groaned against her skin, his own release coating the inside of her. His hips started to still as he kept her pressed to the wall. Although her mind was scrambled she managed to say the name of the city that the Briarwoods had been en-route to as he helped her back down to the ground. He gently undid her bindings and helped her put her clothes back on, his entire demeanor changed from moments ago. 

“Percival de Rolo…” she muttered his name as she leaned back against the wall. She was absolutely spent, but she couldn’t help but be curious. “What do you plan to do now?”

“Now? I hope to catch up to the Briarwoods and finally take justice for what they did to my family....” He said calmly, he looked at her again, his eyes softened. “And please…Call me Percy.”

~

Masterlist

Taglist: : @silvernight-m @queerponcho @boredzillenial

[ohara-n-brown]

Hey everyone,

'The New ThoughtCrime' is an anti-trans community detransitioner essay

Just wanted to give a heads up to the FTM community on here that a user named @mewthoughtcrime is trying to repost the 'New ThoughtCrime' think piece from 2017 - tagging it with this such as 'trans man', 'nonbinary' and 'transandrophobia'.

However this blog fails to mention that the main author of said piece is a lesbian who considers herself a detransitioner. While there is nothing at all wrong with that -

the problem more comes from the fact that said author also believes the trans community is a cult.

This quote comes from the author's interview with Genspec - an organization that pretends to be trans supportive, while also believing trans kids are a myth, trans men are just confused teen girls, and pushing the book Irreversible Damage.

The author also believe in the idea of 'cotton-cieling' - a terf dog whistle that implies trans women intend to force lesbians to sleep with 'males who identify as lesbians'.

The think piece is NOT at all about trans men or transandrophobia.

It's about detransitioning from a woman who believes the trans community engages in 'thought reform' - in a way akin to cults.

The piece reads largely inspired by 'Irreversible Damage' - an anti-FTM shred-piece. This is basically J.K Rowling ideology.

They're in their right to repost whatever they want, especially if that piece of writing specifically spoke to them and other detransitioning folk.

However I do think it's incredibly disingenuous and sneaky to not include this information - or the true nature and intention of the work - in the Tumblr post, as the original author was very clear in stating so.

To post such a piece without tagging the detrans community is a disservice to them and a deliberate choice towards us.

The piece is not at all about transandrophobia - the OP is simply mistagging it to target particular groups - mainly, actively transitioning FTM who are looking for community.

This isn't to say you can't read and enjoy the piece, or connect to it. You absolutely can, it's about someones valid personal experience (well - some parts.) that's eloquently written.

What I do not support however is posting such material, purposely and vaguely mistagging it, while not explaining the contents, the context, and the intent of the author clearly.

I believe readers should always be informed about the source and intention of the writers of the information they received.

People should be allowed to make informed choices about what they read and involve themselves in - whether that be trans politics, or reading think pieces online.

That's why I am making this post.

'The New ThoughtCrime' is an Anti-Trans Community think-piece that targets trans men and lesbians by supporting TERF ideology.

Read with that information in mind. With the situation going on now with staff, I think it's important to be on high alert for indoctrination or misleading literature like this.

By all means, read if you like. I was just not at all impressed with the lack of transparency from @mewthoughtcrime when it comes to detailing the actual contents and source of that information.

It's one thing to call the trans community a cult - before turning around and releasing anonymous faceless think-pieces that you spread around without sources or actively informing others of its contents, in order to purposely get a demographic of people who do not wish to interact with you to unwillingly engage in your rhetoric.

As a essay that calls for 'transparency in the trans community' we can first start by lending some transparency to THIS essay.

Stay safe and stay informed y'all ✌🏾

[cinnamonest]

hnnnnnggg omg the 'you know what """"watching movies"""" is supposed to truly mean' got me good. Just thinking of boys with their cryptic language and masking their words and invitations with them -- and attacking the shit outta any girl that makes the mistake of accepting and agreeing. Like what do u want us to do??? Ahhhh please I need more victim blaming and slutshaming

I feel like Childe/Kaeya would be SO into doing this but you can go with any yan you want <33

Yessss pushy entitled horndog boyfriends >>>>

Ever since the last post I've been considering the alternative — no drugging, just flat-out force. You just drove the poor boy insane with repeated denial and rejection and basically forced him to do this to you.

He's a very nice and sweet boyfriend (many others would be very grateful to have him, but he chose you, you ought to be grateful), who wants nothing more than to give you the world and love you and do anything for you, and all he asks for in exchange is getting to stuff himself inside you.

But you just keep refusing.

At first, it's acceptable, you just need some time. But then a few weeks pass and you still haven't let him cum inside you.

And you seem to think nothing of it either. You act like nothing is wrong, like this is acceptable to you.

Which is baffling, because it's supposed to be a universally understood exchange. He spends money on you in various ways and is nice to you and loves you, and in return you love him back and you let him get between your legs.

It's not as if he hasn't tried to collect on his end of the (mutually understood, of course) deal. But you keep putting your hands up, grabbing at his wrist, saying not right now, not yet, or whatever.

It's basically a scam at this point. He paid for DATES. He bought you STUFF. What more do you WANT.

He's even tried being noticeably upset. Petulantly sulking and sighing and ignoring you. And it still didn't work, and he relies on your attention too much to keep that up for too long.

But you tease. You're aware of it too. You know what you're doing.

So he starts to think it's unfair, that it's cruel, that he's being wronged, that you're basically abusing him via neglect of his needs (and it IS a need, you wouldn't understand because you're not a guy, you could never ever understand the psychological agony of being blue-balled or even just being horny as a guy, it's literally worse than anything you could ever go through). Not to mention, it's mean. He has feelings, you know.

He starts to feel like you're basically cheating in this whole deal. Trying to get out of your end, when you basically signed up to be a steady supply of pussy, and he's gotten literally nothing so far, not even a crumb. Only a few kisses that don't last long enough. It's ridiculous. You're not fulfilling your role here.

So if you're not going to give him what he's earned, what he's entitled to, he has every right to take it. Even if he has to hold you down by your wrists the whole time, feel you writhe. There's a certain appeal to that, honestly — the fact that it makes you suffer a bit feels cathartic to the resentment and vindictiveness that's built up over time. He loves you, but you deserve to be a little humiliated, a little scared, for how you made him feel.

But it's not really that big of a deal. You like it anyway, even if you don't admit that.

And it's also absurd to get mad at him —YOU made a choice to be alone with him. You should know that that's just how guys are, and that what you were doing by inviting him in was not only deliberately misleading (since you clearly didn't plan on going through with what you're supposed to do), but also basically enticing him on purpose, willfully being vulnerable and so easy to overpower.

Therefore, you consented to the possibility of this. He's just reacting like any man would. Why don't you have some accountability for knowingly giving him the opportunity, bringing a guy into your home, putting yourself in this situation. Trying to make him be responsible for your decisions is very unfair.

[the-punforgiven]

I mentioned at some point I was gonna talk about how Gideon Ofnir's helmet is probably one of my favourite pieces of Fromsoft character design a little while ago, so I figured I should talk about it before I forget to again

I really like this helmet because it serves as an excellent crystallization of Gideon as a character, so I figured I'd break it down and go step by step as to why I like it so much

Firstly, its design is clearly based off the Greek Corinthian helm, which sticks out a fair amount when compared to Elden Ring's generally 13-16th century European fantasy aesthetic, doing a good job communicating that he is, effectively, much older than most of the other characters present, and conveys a sense of seniority that even he himself comments on when you first visit the Roundtable Hold. (There is an argument that it could also be based off a barbute helm, but I feel like the sharper shape language and closer-to-bronze coloration swing it more towards the Corinthian helm for me)

Secondly, and quite possibly more obviously, the ears. Viewed from a distance they give a vibe closer to a sort of scholarly beard almost reminiscent of greek philosopher statues, again tying in to his aged academic vibe, but being ears instead of a beard also hints at his deceptive nature as even his character design is somewhat misleading, but also hints at his more insidious habit of watching and especially listening to everything you do. He is called the All-Hearing for a reason, after all

The spikes on his helm mirror the shape of a crown, symbolizing both his lordship over the Roundtable Hold, but also his desire to become Elden Lord. Given how simplistic the points are, as well as how some of them (in the icon at least) appear almost bent or dented, I feel could also demonstrate how worthy of a lord one like Gideon may actually be, worn, out-of-shape, thin to the point of frail-looking and remarkably plain compared to the meticulous engravings and stalwart construction of a crown like Godfrey's, but that might be a bit of a stretch so take it with a grain of salt lmao

The eyes across the forehead lock in the crown aesthetic for him (as well as touching slightly on the double helix pattern that is literally everywhere in this game), while also further punctuating his motif of eyes and ears; always watching, always listening to what you do. Curious that the eyes are notably less detailed than his ears though, I wonder if that's relevant

Lastly, the "face". It's a fairly common trope out there that people tend to use masks in character design to portray an air of distrust about a character, in a sort of "If they were trustworthy why would they conceal their face" sort of way. This feels incredibly deliberate on Gideon's part, since a helm like that by all accounts should let you see a good portion of the wearer's face, and is indeed why barbute helms have been a staple of good guy knights throughout the fantasy genre for years, Gideon's quite clearly does not, preferring to cast his face in impenetrable shadow. and That, I think, is a pretty blatant and in-your-face indicator that you definitely should not trust him

Anyway character design is really cool have fun out there 👍

[utilitycaster]

Ok I'm probably going to regret reinventing 17th century European religious philosophy here but:

Ludinus's issue with the gods as stated to Imogen and Fearne (and I will state right now that we know he was lying or deliberately misleading at points in that conversation so I don't exactly take him at his word, but let's assume he does mean this) is that they did not prevent the Calamity. I have the following questions.

Does he have any loyalty/feelings about the Titans given that they would have killed all the people in the era of the Schism, ie, the gods averted that Calamity? My guess is no, which means that whole avenue of discussing the Titans was something of a dead end.

How should Calamity have been averted? The Prime Deities during the Age of Arcanum largely let people do what they wanted, which is what led to one of those mortals releasing the Betrayer Gods. Should the gods have struck down Vespin Chloras before he actually did anything, Minority Report style? Can the gods even predict based on the actions of a single individual or small group, because my guess is they can't, particularly since within the current stream of gameplay they absolutely cannot [ie, the reason the Changebringer can't tell FCG to stay or run is because Matt Mercer is the Changebringer and he doesn't know how people will roll; you do need to consider the medium here]. But if they could: so you think they should strike down mortals on the basis of thoughtcrimes? Or control them? In that case, why is Aeor a problem? There's a lot you can argue is justified once you permit the gods to override free will and kill people over mere potential for catastrophe.

On that note, Laerryn both was an unwitting architect of the Calamity (shorted on energy and then killed the Tree of Names, which served as a core planar defense system) but also averted the worst of it. Did the lives she saved by preventing the rise of Rau'shan and Ka'Mort outweigh the lives she took by destroying the Tree of Names? How should the gods have reacted?

Should, perhaps, the gods have all sealed themselves away earlier - perhaps post-Schism? If so, then the issue isn't the Divine Gate, now is it? Should the gods intervene or not intervene? Should they remove themselves or no? It feels like the issue isn't that they distanced themselves so that they can do less in the world, particularly if you wish to kill them, but that you really want to fucking kill them and they made that somewhat more difficult.

How do we know the gods (for example) didn't save Laudna? She was hanged and she's still alive; Morri would probably count this as saving her and I don't see the same desire to wipe out all Archfey. [real talk I find most discussion of Laudna specifically to be...incomprehensibly ignorant in its refusal to acknowledge that everything about it is player agency related, whether it's the story that the cast played out for Vox Machina or the decisions Marisha specifically made in creating the character, ie, do you think Matt should have said "well you can't play a Hollow One because that would mean the gods didn't save you" not to mention the fact that again, we are playing this within a game system where the existence Deus Ex Machina would in fact fucking suck ass; but even setting aside those reasons why this argument is stupid, it's still stupid. It's like a layer cake of stupid.] Again: do you want more intervention or less? Killing them guarantees less.

I'm assuming the problem with the Calamity is the vast loss of life, in which case, what's the math on how many people have been killed by the Vanguard or Imperium in the pursuit of unleashing Predathos? How many more will die?

If the release of Predathos doesn't result in the immediate demise of all the gods, and the Divine Gate is down, why isn't this a recipe for Calamity 2? What was the motivation for killing the gods again?

Should we kill mortal diviners who do not do all within their power to stop terrible things that may come to pass? If the issue is that some people have power without working for it, why haven't we killed all the sorcerers?

Should we be listening to a single word from someone who consumes random fey to live longer, and that's just the start of the CVS receipt of atrocities?

Is there a point where one's deeply held beliefs due to one's own personal trauma become invalidated due to one's actions as a result of that trauma? If so, why is the limit for Orym "is okay with killing people who are trying, directly, to kill you (which, frankly, isn't even a trauma response, that's just called not wanting to die, which I highly recommend as a personal philosophy), and gets upset when people defend those knowingly collaborating with his family's murderers" and the limit for Vanguard generals "family abandonment/just. buckets of murder of innocents./child soldier recruitment in multiple different contexts/eating fey as biohacking/destroying an entire city and the surrounding forest for hundreds of years (ongoing)/imperialism in multiple different contexts/I was going to make a gallows humor joke about how while neither exist in-world they've violated the Geneva Convention AND the IRB for testing on human subjects multiple times over but actually those both are in fact written in a lot of the same blood/probably some others that I'm forgetting"

[purpleminte]

Man it’s so weird to me that a pokemon like the bonsly line is such a one-off concept. Like the idea that a pokemon has a very deliberately misleading type kinda makes a ton of sense. Like if bro is weak to water then why *wouldn’t* he try to look like something that would discourage water types from engaging? Real animals do that kinda shit all the time. There are brightly colored bugs that are poisonous, and then there are brightly colored bugs that *look* like they’re the poisonous kind, but it’s literally just so other things leave it alone even if it’s not even poisonous.

I’m just saying there should be more confusingly typed pokemon, it makes sense.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/747721307928559616/re-747330342209404928-every-time-a-discussion?source=share

I wouldn't even make this purely about oversensitivity - I've seen fic writers refuse to tag, say, breakup because they think it would be a Good Experience (tm) for fans of the ship in question to read it (because they often think it's Problematic in some brain-wormed way), or they just think their writing is so good or so "socially important" that people who would normally avoid this commonly tagged trope should have to experience it anyway, "it's good for you" etc. and then melt down when people have the predictable reaction that something that seemed to be billed as a fluffy romance was anything but, and of course, these people's social statements are never as deep and sophisticated as they think they are. These people are weirdly, often very outspoken about the need for Content Warnings in basically any other context.

Obviously, I don't want to say that anything other than major archive warnings are a requirement to tag (and I mean, even those aren't required, you can use CNTW), or that you're required to indicate a breakup will happen if it's a big spoiler or something.... but this wasn't just that, it was deliberately false advertising the fic as something it wasn't bc they thought it would be morally edifying or something for people who dislike that trope to read it.

I like fanfiction and I'm not going to say it can never be effectively used to convey Important Ideas (tm) .... but I do think if you are going to take this attitude and especially if you're over the age of 15 or so, and especially if you're then going to have a meltdown and accuse people of "harassment" for disagreeing with you when the readers are predictably not happy, you need to consider that perhaps fanfiction is not the medium for you. Maybe write original fiction instead.

I don't know why it's so hard for some to understand that people tend to be more allowing for a story not being as happy or fluffy as they expected when the story isn't about characters they're already attached to, especially when they're in a space that's often about seeking out specific outcomes that the original work didn't give them. Like I'm sorry there's often a double standard between fanfic and original fic in this way, but it exists for a way.

But also, none of these fanfic writers I've seen do this (and this sounds niche I know but I've seen it several times in different fandom) ever actually have Takes that are remotely original or startling or groundbreaking, lol, such that it's worth misleading people because they "need to hear." It's always like.... cool, I saw this take for the first time on a Tumblr post in 2017/from someone in my women's studies class in 2010, and I thought it was a bad shallow take then and still do.

Interestingly, the people who genuinely have really interesting and unusual and thought-provoking takes that they use fanfic to express feel no need to tag it inaccurately, feel no desire to force it on people who don't want to read it. Wonder why.

--

Hah. I too have seen this silly behavior many times.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 16, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 17, 2024

Two Fox News Channel interviews bracketed today: one this morning with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in front of an audience of hand-picked Republican women in Georgia, the other by Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris with host Bret Baier. Together, the two were a performance of dominance. 

FNC billed Trump’s so-called town hall as a chance for female voters, a demographic that is swinging heavily to Harris, to ask Trump about issues they care about. But Hadas Gold and Liam Reilly of CNN reported that FNC had packed the audience with Trump supporters. The first question came from the president of the Fulton County Republican Women, though she was not identified as such. FNC then edited the broadcast to cut out remarks in which the attendees expressed support for Trump. 

It seems unlikely that Trump attracted any new voters by speaking to an audience of loyalists audibly cheering him on.

After Trump refused to debate her again, Harris voluntarily moved into his right-wing territory, agreeing to an interview with FNC host Bret Baier. In that interview, Baier reframed right-wing talking points as questions, essentially giving Trump a second shot at a debate. Baier kept talking over the vice president’s attempts to answer—even putting out a hand to interrupt her—in a stark contrast to FNC’s deference to Trump. Harris asked him to let her reply, and then answered his questions, sometimes testily, usually turning them into opportunities to contrast her own candidacy and record with Trump’s. 

Control of the interview changed abruptly when Harris called out Trump for referring to the “enemy within” and talking about using the American military against those he considers enemies. Baier used that opportunity to show a clip of Trump saying he wasn’t threatening anyone, but the clip was edited to remove his threats against “sick,” “evil,” “dangerous” “Marxists and communists and fascists” including Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and “the Pelosis”—presumably former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her husband, who was attacked by a man with a hammer in 2022 by a man who wanted to force Nancy Pelosi to renounce the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. 

Harris had had enough propaganda.

“Bret, I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip was not what he has been saying about the enemy within that he has repeated when he’s speaking about the American people. That's not what you just showed…. You and I both know that he’s talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him. This is a democracy. And in a democracy, the president of the United States in the United States of America should be… able to handle criticism without saying he’d lock people up for doing it. And this is what is at stake, which is why you have someone like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying what Mark Milley has said about Donald Trump being a threat to the United States of America.” 

Simply by going on the right-wing network, Harris was demonstrating dominance. Then, by answering as thoroughly as she did, she undercut the right-wing narrative that she is stupid and inarticulate. By calling out the FNC for deliberately misleading its viewers, she took command. Baier, rather than Harris, was the one doing the post-interview spinning.

Writer Peter Wehner, who worked for presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, wrote: “Bret Baier has rarely looked as bad (or tendentious) as he did in his interview with Kamala Harris. On the flip side, this was one of her best interviews. She dominated Bret. All in all it was quite a bad day for MAGA world's most important media outlet.”

In between the two FNC events were two others that also told a story, this one about how the Republican Party’s descent into MAGA is creating a new political coalition to defend American principles.

Trump held a town hall with undecided Latino voters moderated by Mexican journalist Enrique Acevedo for Univision. Members of the audience asked excellent questions: how would he bring down household costs, who would take the jobs left behind by undocumented workers if Trump deported them and how much would that drive up food costs, why Trump took so long to stop the January 6 rioters, if he had caused deaths during the pandemic by misleading Americans, and if he agrees with his wife, Melania, about protecting abortion rights. 

But Trump did not answer the questions, instead regurgitating his usual talking points. He promised to produce more oil and gas, called undocumented immigrants criminals, repeated the lie about Haitian migrants eating pets, and, after notably referring to the January 6 rioters as ���we” and law enforcement officers as “the others,” called January 6 “a day of love.” The audience did not appear convinced.

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris joined more than 100 Republicans in Pennsylvania, near the spot where George Washington and more than 2,000 Continental soldiers crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776 to surprise a garrison of British soldiers at Trenton, New Jersey, where they won a strategic victory. 

Harris noted that those gathered were also near Philadelphia, where in 1787 delegates from across the country gathered to write and sign the U.S. Constitution. 

“That work was not easy. The founders often disagreed. Often quite passionately. But in the end, the Constitution of the United States laid out the foundations of our democracy, including the rule of law, that there would be checks and balances, that we would have free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power. And these principles and traditions have sustained our nation for over two centuries, sustained because generations of Americans, from all backgrounds, from all beliefs, have cherished them, upheld them, and defended them. 

“And now, the baton is in our hands,” she said. [A]t stake in this race are the democratic ideals that our founders and generations of Americans before us have fought for. At stake in this election is the Constitution of the United States…its very self.” 

Harris welcomed the Republicans in the crowd, saying that everyone there shared a core belief: “That we must put country before party.” The crowd chanted, “USA, USA, USA.” 

Harris noted that many of the Republicans on stage had taken the same oath to the Constitution that she had. “We here know the Constitution is not a relic from our past, but determines whether we are a country where the people can speak freely, and even criticize the president, without fear of being thrown in jail, or targeted by the military. Where the people can worship as they choose without the government interfering. Where you can vote without fear that your vote will be thrown away. All this and more depends on whether or not our leaders honor their oath to the Constitution.”

Trump, she pointed out, tried to overturn the will of the people expressed in a free and fair election, has vowed to use the military to go after any American who doesn’t support him, and has called for the “termination” of the Constitution. “It is clear,” she said, “Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged, and he is seeking unchecked power.” Trump, she said, “must never again stand behind the seal of the President of the United States.”

“And to those who are watching,” she said, “if you share that view, no matter your party, no matter who you voted for last time: There is a place for you in this campaign. The coalition we have built has room for everyone who is ready to turn the page on the chaos and instability of Donald Trump.”

“I pledge to you to be a President for all Americans. And I take that pledge seriously.”

She reiterated her promise to appoint a Republican to her cabinet and to establish a Council on Bipartisan Solutions to strengthen the middle class, secure the border, defend our freedoms, and maintain the nation’s leadership in the world. She noted that the country needs a healthy two-party system, and described how the Senate Intelligence Committee left partisanship at the door. It “was “country over party in action,” when she sat on the committee, she said, “[s]o I know it can be done.”

“[O]ur campaign is not a fight against something,” she said. “It is a fight for something. It is a fight for the fundamental principles upon which we were founded, It is a fight for a new generation of leadership that is optimistic about what we can achieve together—Republicans, Democrats, and independents who want to move past the politics of division and blame and get things done on behalf of the American people.

“[W]e are all here together this beautiful afternoon because we love our country…and we know the deep privilege and pride that comes with being an American and the duty that comes along with it…. Imperfect though we may be, America is still that ‘shining city upon a hill’ that inspires people around the world. And I do believe it is one of the highest forms of patriotism to fight for the ideals of our country.”

“So, to people from across Pennsylvania, and across our nation, let us together stand up for the rule of law, for our democratic ideals, and for the Constitution of the United States. And in twenty days, we have the power to chart a New Way Forward, one that is worthy of this magnificent country that we are all blessed to call home.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[tired-fandom-ndn]

I hope you don’t mind me asking, but I’m curious about what your take is on the claim that ao3 promotes/doesn’t properly regulate racist content. What are your thoughts on that?

Well, to start, the claim that ao3 promotes anything is false. There is no algorithm on ao3; everything is found and filtered by the users, not recommended or promoted. So I tend to see any claims about ao3 "promoting" fics as ignorant of the site's functions at best, deliberately misleading at worst.

In regards to regulation/moderation. . . who is the one deciding what fics are racist and should be removed?

Is it fics where a person of color is assaulted or killed in the story? What about ones that use racial slurs? Would a fic that plays into racist beliefs about a culture or ethnicity be removed and if not, why are those acceptable but other forms of racism aren't? Would fics about historical events be removed? What about general explorations of racism? Stories about racialized violence and hate crimes that are darker than other exploration fics? Where do depictions of racism in a fantasy or scifi setting fit into this?

Would the author be consulted for their opinion and the context over the accusations of racism? Would it make a difference if the author is a person of color? Would they have to prove that they're "allowed" to explore racism in their works?

And again, who is deciding this? Because people of color and other non-white people aren't a monolith and for every single person saying that a trope or story or whatever is racist, there's another person who thinks it's totally fine. People in the same cultures and communities can't even agree on what counts as appropriation when it comes to the use of our sacred cultural artifacts, why would I trust any tiny number of people to decide which fics deserve to exist and which don't? And that's not even getting into how there's so many kinds of racism and so many groups people can and are racist to, we would end up having to depend on people making decisions about what qualifies as racist for communities that they absolutely are not part of and have no authority over.

In terms of things like just adding an archive warnings tag for racism, the only actual purpose that would have is maybe making an author think about whether something in their fic qualifies as a depiction of racism. Otherwise, we have plenty of tags relating to racism that authors already use.

At the end of the day, racism is not going to be solved or curtailed by censoring fucking fanfiction. Racism on ao3 is a reflection of racism irl and the only way to combat it is by fighting racism in our everyday lives, including in fandoms. Fiction will continue to be racist as long as there's racism in society and fanfiction isn't the exception to that.

[strawberryjamsara]

The hands and the shadow: why did we have that flash forward at the beginning?

The Shadow Sou scene is iconic to yttd fans. It’s the games first introduction to Shin Tsukimi, meant to deliberately mislead the player about his intentions and allegiance. But hardly any discussion is seen about what comes next. Large arms reach out for the protagonist, another sight meant to mislead, but these belong to the character of Keiji Shinogi in a scene that gets recontexualized as empowering later on.

In reality however, the actual scene is thematically the opposite of the Shadsou scene. In the latter we see Shin at his lowest moment, the moment where he breaks and chooses survival over kindness, while in the former, Keiji embraces his role as protector and goes to comfort Sara.

We should also look at what Shadow Sou represents. He represents a will to survive. All of Sou’s worst traits fully voiced and going off in his head. All the things Shin doesn’t dare speak aloud given a voice.

So why does this matter? Well, there’s also someone else featured in this scene: Sara.

Sara has also had intrusive thoughts about her own survival sometimes. Despite her peers view of her, she is capable of giving into temptation in a very similar way to Shin.

And there’s someone else in this scene who she has clear connections drawn to…

Part of Keiji’s care for Sara emerges from fear she will end up like he is. He watches a well-behaved if uptight kid lose someone she cares about and succumb to hallucinations, and he understands better than anyone the road that can start someone down.

In the end, both of these characters have something that connects them to Sara and the possible “worst case scenario” for her.

Something I wasn’t too sure of is why Sou is very clearly made out from his sillouhette while Keiji is not easily identified from the sprite of his arms. The only interpretation I have to offer is that Keiji is better at hiding bad intentions from others than Shin. We’re made to suspect Shin because of this opening, but while Keiji is certainly suspicious from the beginning, this cutscene doesn’t do it.

My last thing I want to point out with this is how these scenes signify abandoning yourself. It’s Shin deciding he has to ‘abandon himself’ for the death game, and it’s Keiji deciding to abandon his past self that left Sara to die at the main game as he tries to sacrifice himself. It is both of them leaving the old them behind.

[horseslur]

Someone else can link the tumblr post/reddit link in the replies under this, I'm mostly here to elaborate on uh. How SSE Fucked Up This Time (possibly illegal version).

Disclaimer: Not an actual expert on this stuff, but i am an economics major. and i literally took a class on this sort of thing this semester.

What is SSE doing?

TLDR: as of roughly today (dec 21st 2023) but possibly earlier, you have a chance of, when trying to buy starrider, getting not just the "regular" discount packages that we know, where you pay once and get a bunch of seasonal goodies and the weekly sc, but also a "special" "Discounted" option where you get the goodies and starrider and *no weekly sc*. Meaning you will have to manually buy starcoins if you ever want any beyond the initial 2k or whatever.

Why is this possibly illegal?

I'm not diving too deep into A/B testing, because I know the least amount about it, but essentially it is literally up to chance which option you get, the regular set or the "cheap" option.

Combined with the fact that they sneakily removed the "receive a weekly starcoin allowance" from the starrider page from one day to another, and the fact that a slight graphical change (that being the +100sc not being in the image of the cheap option) are the only acknowledgements of this change, it basically sets them up for a lawsuit in any location they roll out these options.

Trade, market and consumer authorities (the FTC in the US, the European Commission in Europe, Konsumentverket in Sweden for example) have as one of their main and foremost goals the protection of consumers in the country where a product is sold. They're the reason why you can get your money back if you order something online and it doesn't arrive, or something distinctly different from what you ordered arrives instead. Rule number 1 for any company or seller is do not mislead your consumers.

Does removing the sc allowance directly break said rule? No. But doing so in a shady, hidden way that leads people to believe they should be receiving starcoins onto to be told by customer support to suck it up, they bought the wrong thing, and to do so unannounced and randomly throughout multiple regions, Definitely sets up a case against them.

It can absolutely be argued that after a decade of having a premium currency allowance as the Standard in their starrider subscriptions, to remove it unannounced and present it to customers as a regular discount is deliberately misleading consumers to buy a product that is not what they intended to buy. Both new customers and returning customers buying alternate accounts step into this process expecting to pay once for a starrider bundle that, given the ongoing seasonal festival, includes the seasonal cosmetic options, in addition to the "regular" premium currency allowance. This is especially more obvious once you realise that (presumably since implementing this system), you have to have created an account on their site and logged into it to even see which starrider bundles are available to you, which makes people unlikely to ever realise that the offers they are getting might be different from other people in their same region, with one version being significantly worse/different from what they might expect.

TLDR: it's really fucking shady of them to just Suddenly shove a bundle without the weekly allowance in people's faces when people are expecting to have them, especially because they're clearly trying to hide the fact that it's an option at all or different from the regular bundle.

What now?

If you or someone you know is getting this bundle or has bought it and felt surprised/betrayed by the fact that it lacks the allowance, take it to your local consumer protection authority (after you've contacted customer support). If you're uncertain what to tell them, try and add the following points:

You bought an online product to be used inside the game, which turned out to be something different from what you thought it was.

When you contacted customer support over this, they told you that the version you bought does not contain the allowance, but offer no way to correct this mistake. (Unless the customer support script ends up changing. In that case simply add what they did tell you.)

The discounted bundle did not clearly state that it lacks the allowance, nor is it distinctly different from other bundles, and is in fact the first option you were given.

To see what bundles are offered to you at all requires logging into an account on their website, making it difficult for you to compare offers to what other people might be getting, and making it unlikely for you to realise that you got something different from others at all until after you have bought it.

At worst, SSE will be reprimanded and made to add more clearly on their website what the bundle contains and what you're missing out on.

At best they actually go to court and go bankrupt over said costs and we'll finally be truly free

[dailyanarchistposts]

E.5 Can ethical consumerism stop the ecological crisis?

No. At best, it can have a limited impact in reducing environmental degradation and so postpone the ecological crisis. At worse, it could accelerate that crisis by creating new markets and thus increasing growth.

Before discussing why and just so there is no misunderstanding, we must stress that anarchists fully recognise that using recycled or renewable raw materials, reducing consumption and buying “ecologically friendly” products and technologies are very important. As such, we would be the last to denounce such a thing. But such measures are of very limited use as solutions to the ecological problems we face. At best they can only delay, not prevent, capitalism’s ultimate destruction of the planet’s ecological base.

Green consumerism is often the only thing capitalism has to offer in the face of mounting ecological destruction. Usually it boils down to nothing more than slick advertising campaigns by big corporate polluters to hype band-aid measures such as using a few recycled materials or contributing money to a wildlife fund, which are showcased as “concern for the environment” while off camera the pollution and devouring of non-renewable resources goes on. They also engage in “greenwashing”, in which companies lavishly fund PR campaigns to paint themselves “green” without altering their current polluting practices!

This means that apparently “green” companies and products actually are not. Many firms hire expensive Public Relations firms and produce advertisements to paint a false image of themselves as being ecologically friendly (i.e. perform “greenwashing”). This indicates a weakness of market economies — they hinder (even distort) the flow of information required for consumers to make informed decisions. The market does not provide enough information for consumers to determine whether a product is actually green or not — it just gives them a price supplemented by (often deliberately misleading) advertising designed to manipulate the consumer and present an appropriate corporate image. Consumers have to rely on other sources, many of which are minority journals and organisations and so difficult to find, to provide them with the accurate information required to countermand the power and persuasion of advertising and the work of PR experts. This helps explain why, for example, “large agribusiness firms are now attempting, like Soviet commissars, to stifle criticism of their policies” by means of “veggie libel laws.” These laws, which in 2001 had been passed in 13 American states (“backed by agribusiness”) “make it illegal to criticise agricultural commodities in a manner inconsistent with ‘reasonable’ scientific evidence. The whole concept of ‘veggie libel’ laws is probably unconstitutional; nevertheless, these laws remain on the books.” [Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation, p. 266]

We should not discount the impact of PR experts in shaping the way people see the world or decide to consume. A lot of resources are poured into corporate Public Relations in order to present a green image. “In the perverse world of corporate public relations,” note critics John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, “propagandising and lobbying against environmental protection is called ‘environmental��� or ‘green’ PR. ‘Greenwashing’ is a more accurate pejorative now commonly used to describe the ways that polluters employ deceptive PR to falsely paint themselves an environmentally responsible public image … Today a virulent, pro-industry, anti-environmentalism is on the rise … PR experts … are waging and winning a war against environmentalists on behalf of corporate clients in the chemical, energy, food, automobile, forestry and mining industries.” A significant amount of cash is spent (an estimated $1 billion a year by the mid-1990s) “on the services of anti-environmental PR professionals and on ‘greenwashing’ their corporate image.” [Toxic Sludge is Good for You!, p. 125] See the chapter called “Silencing Spring” in Stauber’s and Rampton’s book Toxic Sludge is Good for You! for a good summary of this use of PR firms.

Even apparently ecologically friendly firms like “The Body Shop” can present a false image of what they do. For example, journalist Jon Entine investigated that company in 1994 and discovered that only a minuscule fraction of its ingredients came from Trade Not Aid (a program claimed to aid developing countries). Entine also discovered that the company also used many outdated, off-the-shelf product formulas filled with non-renewable petrochemicals as well as animal tested ingredients. When Entine contacted the company he received libel threats and it hired a PR company to combat his story. [Stauber and Rampton, Op. Cit., pp. 74–5] This highlights the dangers of looking to consumerism to solve ecological problems. As Entine argued:

“The Body Shop is a corporation with the privileges and power in society as all others. Like other corporations it makes products that are unsustainable, encourages consumerism, uses non-renewable materials, hires giant PR and law firms, and exaggerates its environment policies. If we are to become a sustainable society, it is crucial that we have institutions … that are truly sustainable. The Body Shop has deceived the public by trying to make us think that they are a lot further down the road to sustainability than they really are. We should … no longer … lionise the Body Shop and others who claim to be something they are not.” [quoted by Stauber and Rampton, Op. Cit., p. 76]

Even ignoring the distorting influence of advertising and corporate-paid PR, the fundamental issue remains of whether consumerism can actually fundamentally influence how business works. One environmental journalist puts the arguments well in his excellent book on “Fast Food” (from the industrialisation of farming, to the monopolisation of food processing, to the standardisation of food consumption it). As he puts corporations will “sell free-range, organic, grass-fed hamburgers if you demand it. They will sell whatever sells at a profit.” [Eric Schlosser, Op. Cit., p. 269] He complements this position by suggesting various regulations and some role for trade unions.

Which, of course, is true. It is equally true that we are not forced to buy any specific product, which is why companies spend so much in convincing us to buy their products. Yet even ignoring the influence of advertising, it is unlikely that using the market will make capitalism nicer. Sadly, the market rewards the anti-social activities that Schlosser and other environmentalists chronicle. As he himself notes, the “low price of a fast food hamburger does not reflect its real cost … The profits of the fast food chains have been made possible by the losses imposed on the rest of society.” [Op. Cit., p. 261] This means that the idea that by using the market we can “reform” capitalism is flawed simply because even “good” companies have to make a profit and so will be tempted to cut costs, inflict them on third parties (such as workers, consumers and the planet). The most obvious form of such externalities is pollution. Such anti-social and anti-ecological behaviour makes perfect business sense as prices fall when costs are passed on to others in the form of externalities. Thus firms which employ debt-slaves in sweatshops while polluting the atmosphere in a third-world dictatorship will have lower costs and so prices than those employing unionised workers under eco-friendly regulations.

The amazing thing is that being concerned about such issues is considered as a flaw in economics. In fact, seeking the lowest price and ignoring the social and ecological impact of a product is “considered virtuousness” by the market and by economists for, as green economist E. F. Schumacher, pointed out ”[i]f a buyer refused a good bargain because he suspected that the cheapness of the goods in question stemmed from exploitation or other despicable practices (except theft), he would be open to criticism of behaving ‘uneconomically’ which is viewed as nothing less than a fall from grace. Economists and others are wont to treat such eccentric behaviour with derision if not indignation. The religion of economics has its own code of ethics, and the First Commandment is to behave ‘economically.’” [Small is Beautiful, p. 30] And, of course, such a consumer would face numerous competitors who will happily take advantage of such activities.

Then there is the issue of how the market system hides much more information than it gives (a factor we will return to in section I.1.2). Under the price system, customers have no way of knowing the ecological (or social) impact of the products they buy. All they have is a price and that simply does not indicate how the product was produced and what costs were internalised in the final price and which were externalised. Such information, unsurprisingly, is usually supplied outside the market by ecological activists, unions, customer groups and so on. Then there is the misinformation provided by the companies themselves in their adverts and PR campaigns. The skilfully created media images of advertising can easily swamp the efforts of these voluntary groups to inform the public of the facts of the social and environmental costs of certain products. Besides, any company has the threat of court action to silence their critics as the cost in money, resources, energy and time to fight for free speech in court is an effective means to keep the public ignorant about the dark side of capitalism.

This works the other way too. Simply put, a company has no idea whether you not buying a product is based on ethical consumption decisions or whether it is due to simple dislike of the product. Unless there is an organised consumer boycott, i.e. a collective campaign, then the company really has no idea that it is being penalised for its anti-ecological and/or anti-social actions. Equally, corporations are so interlinked that it can make boycotts ineffective. For example, unless you happened to read the business section on the day McDonalds bought a sizeable share in Pret-a-Manger you would have no idea that going there instead of McDonalds would be swelling the formers profits.

Ultimately, the price mechanism does not provide enough information for the customer to make an informed decision about the impact of their purchase and, by reducing prices, actively rewards the behaviour Schlosser condemns. After all, what is now “organic” production was just the normal means of doing it. The pressures of the market, the price mechanism so often suggested as a tool for change, ensured the industrialisation of farming which so many now rightly condemn. By reducing costs, market demand increased for the cheaper products and these drove the other, more ecologically and socially sound, practices out of business.

Which feeds into the issue of effective demand and income limitations. The most obvious problem is that the market is not a consumer democracy as some people have more votes than others (in fact, the world’s richest people have more “votes” than the poorest billions, combined!). Those with the most “votes” (i.e. money) will hardly be interested in changing the economic system which placed them in that position. Similarly, those with the least “votes” will be more willing to buy ecologically destructive products simply to make ends meet rather than any real desire to do so. In addition, one individual’s decision not to buy something will easily be swamped by others seeking the best deal, i.e. the lowest prices, due to economic necessity or ignorance. Money (quantity) counts in the market, not values (quality).

Then there is the matter of sourcing of secondary products. After all, most products we consume are made up of a multitude of other goods and it is difficult, if not impossible, to know where these component parts come from. Thus we have no real way of knowing whether your latest computer has parts produced in sweatshops in third-world countries nor would a decision not to buy it be communicated that far back down the market chain (in fact, the company would not even know that you were even thinking about buying a product unless you used non-market means to inform them and then they may simply dismiss an individual as a crank).

So the notion that consumerism can be turned to pressurising companies is deeply flawed. This is not to suggest that we become unconcerned about how we spend our money. Far from it. Buying greener products rather than the standard one does have an impact. It just means being aware of the limitations of green consumerism, particularly as a means of changing the world. Rather, we must look to changing how goods are produced. This applies, of course, to shareholder democracy as well. Buying shares in a firm rarely results in an majority at the annual meetings nor, even if it did, does it allow an effective say in the day-to-day decisions management makes.

Thus green consumerism is hindered by the nature of the market — how the market reduces everything to price and so hides the information required to make truly informed decisions on what to consume. Moreover, it is capable of being used to further ecological damage by the use of PR to paint a false picture of the companies and their environmental activities. In this way, the general public think things are improving while the underlying problems remain (and, perhaps, get worse). Even assuming companies are honest and do minimise their environmental damage they cannot face the fundamental cause of the ecological crisis in the “grow-or-die” principle of capitalism (“green” firms need to make profits, accumulate capital and grow bigger), nor do they address the pernicious role of advertising or the lack of public control over production and investment under capitalism. Hence it is a totally inadequate solution.

As green Sharon Beder notes, green marketing aims at “increasing consumption, not reducing it. Many firms [seek] to capitalise on new markets created by rising environmental consciousness” with such trends prompting “a surge of advertisements and labels claiming environmental benefits. Green imagery was used to sell products, and caring for the environment became a marketing strategy” and was a “way of redirecting a willingness to spend less into a willingness to buy green products.” This means that firms can “expand their market share to include consumers that want green products. Since manufacturers still make environmentally damaging products and retailers still sell non-green products on shelves next to green ones, it is evident that green marketing is merely a way of expanding sales. If they were genuinely concerned to protect the environment they would replace the unsound products with sound ones, not just augment their existing lines.” Moreover, green marketing “does not necessarily mean green products, but false and misleading claims can be hard for consumers to detect” while the “most cynical marketers simply use environmental imagery to conjure up the impression that a product is good for the environment without making any real claims at all.” Ultimately, green consumerism “reduces people to consumers. Their power to influence society is reduced to their purchasing power.” It “does not deal with issues such as economic growth on a finite planet, the power of transnational corporations, and the way power is structured in our society.” [Global Spin, pp. 176–80]

Andrew Watson sums up green consumerism very eloquently as follows:

“green consumerism, which is largely a cynical attempt to maintain profit margins, does not challenge capital’s eco-cidal accumulation, but actually facilitates it by opening a new market. All products, no matter how ‘green’, cause some pollution, use some resources and energy, and cause some ecological disturbance. This would not matter in a society in which production was rationally planned, but in an exponentially expanding economy, production, however ‘green’, would eventually destroy the Earth’s environment. Ozone-friendly aerosols, for example, still use other harmful chemicals; create pollution in their manufacture, use and disposal; and use large amounts of resources and energy. Of course, up to now, the green pretensions of most companies have been exposed largely as presenting an acceptably green image, with little or no substance. The market is presented as the saviour of the environment. Environmental concern is commodified and transformed into ideological support for capitalism. Instead of raising awareness of the causes of the ecological crisis, green consumerism mystifies them. The solution is presented as an individual act rather than as the collective action of individuals struggling for social change. The corporations laugh all the way to the bank.” [From Green to Red, pp. 9–10]

“Ethical” consumerism, like “ethical” investment, is still based on profit making, the extraction of surplus value from others. This is hardly “ethical,” as it cannot challenge the inequality in exchange and power that lies at the heart of capitalism nor the authoritarian social relationships it creates. Therefore it cannot really undermine the ecologically destructive nature of capitalism.

In addition, since capitalism is a world system, companies can produce and sell their non-green and dangerous goods elsewhere. Many of the products and practices banned or boycotted in developed countries are sold and used in developing ones. For example, Agent Orange (used as to defoliate forests during the Vietnam War by the US) is used as an herbicide in the Third World, as is DDT. Agent Orange contains one of the most toxic compounds known to humanity and was responsible for thousands of deformed children in Vietnam. Ciba-Geigy continued to sell Enterovioform (a drug which caused blindness and paralysis in at least 10,000 Japanese users of it) in those countries that permitted it to do so. Many companies have moved to developing countries to escape the stricter pollution and labour laws in the developed countries.

Neither does green consumerism question why it should be the ruling elites within capitalism that decide what to produce and how to produce it. Since these elites are driven by profit considerations, if it is profitable to pollute, pollution will occur. Moreover, green consumerism does not challenge the (essential) capitalist principle of consumption for the sake of consumption, nor can it come to terms with the fact that “demand” is created, to a large degree, by “suppliers,” specifically by advertising agencies that use a host of techniques to manipulate public tastes, as well as using their financial clout to ensure that “negative” (i.e. truthful) stories about companies’ environmental records do not surface in the mainstream media.

Because ethical consumerism is based wholly on market solutions to the ecological crisis, it is incapable even of recognising a key root cause of that crisis, namely the atomising nature of capitalism and the social relationships it creates. Atomised individuals (“soloists”) cannot change the world, and “voting” on the market hardly reduces their atomisation. As Murray Bookchin argues, ”[t]ragically, these millions [of “soloists”] have surrendered their social power, indeed, their very personalities, to politicians and bureaucrats who live in a nexus of obedience and command in which they are normally expected to play subordinate roles. Yet this is precisely the immediate cause of the ecological crisis of our time — a cause that has its historic roots in the market society that engulfs us.” [Toward an Ecological Society, p. 81] This means that fighting ecological destruction today must be a social movement rather than one of individual consumption decisions or personalistic transformation. These can go on without questioning the ecocidal drive of capitalism which “will insidiously simplify the biosphere (making due allowances for ‘wilderness’ reserves and theme parks), steadily reduce the organic to the inorganic and the complex to the simple, and convert soil into sand — all at the expense of the biosphere’s integrity and viability. The state will still be an ever-present means for keeping oppressed people at bay and will ‘manage’ whatever crises emerge as best it can. Ultimately, society will tend to become more and more authoritarian, public life will atrophy.” [Bookchin, “The Future of the Ecology Movement,” pp. 1–20, Which Way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 14]

All this is not to suggest that individual decisions on what to consume are irrelevant, far from it. Nor are consumer boycotts a waste of time. If organised into mass movements and linked to workplace struggle they can be very effective. It is simply to point out that individual actions, important as they are, are no solution to social problems. Thus Bookchin:

“The fact is that we are confronted by a thoroughly irrational social system, not simply by predatory individuals who can be won over to ecological ideas by moral arguments, psychotherapy, or even the challenges of a troubled public to their products and behaviour … One can only commend the individuals who by virtue of their consumption habits, recycling activities. and appeals for a new sensibility undertake public activities to stop ecological degradation. Each surely does his or her part. But it will require a much greater effort — and organised, clearly conscious, and forward-looking political movement — to meet the basic challenges posed by our aggressively anti-ecological society. “Yes, we as individuals should change our lifestyles as much as possible, but it is the utmost short-sightedness to believe that that is all or even primarily what we have to do. We need to restructure the entire society, even as we engage in lifestyle changes and single-issue struggles against pollution, nuclear power plants, the excessive use of fossil fuels, the destruction of soil, and so forth. We must have a coherent analysis of the deep-seated hierarchical relationships and systems of domination, as well as class relationships and economic exploitation, that degrade people as well as the environment.” [“The Ecological Crisis, Socialism, and the need to remake society,” pp. 1–10, Society and Nature, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 4]

Using the capitalist market to combat the effects produced by that same market is no alternative. Until capitalism and the state are dismantled, solutions like ethical consumerism will be about as effective as fighting a forest fire with a water pistol. Such solutions are doomed to failure because they promote individual responses to social problems, problems that by their very nature require collective action, and deal only with the symptoms, rather than focusing on the cause of the problem in the first place. Real change comes from collective struggle, not individual decisions within the market place which cannot combat the cancerous growth principle of the capitalist economy. As such, ethical consumerism does not break from the logic of capitalism and so is doomed to failure.

[catgirl-catboy]

Mastermind Whit Essay

Okay, I'm really unsure of how to begin this post. I know most people in the DRDT fandom suspect Teruko as the mastermind due to her secret, but are we perhaps playing right into the masterminds hands?

I feel like if Teruko was genuinely the mastermind, she wouldn't give David of all people a note confirming she is. Due to how misleading the secrets have been with other people, it makes far more sense to read this as a frame by the true mastermind.

Maybe Teruko would deliberately make herself suspicious if it were chapter 5 or 6, but in chapter 2??? I'm not buying it.

I feel like this red herring of Teruko is hiding another, far more suspicious character.

Before we get into our theory, the mastermind should match up with the killing game's mascot.

Monokuma and Junko are the obvious pair, since Junko herself chooses to look like Monokuma. There are also hints in Monokuma theater about her true identity.

Monomi and Izuru also have some parallels, especially since Usami's transformation into Monomi could be considered a nod to Hajime's transformation into Izuru.

Monokubs are cheap ripoffs of Monokuma. Tsumugi is a cheap ripoff of Junko.

This trend also tends to apply to fangans, but I'd rather not spoil any for you.

So what does Monotv say about our mysterious mastermind? Monotv's personality tends to focus on one thing: ratings. He will also fake ineptitude on occasion to make things more interesting.

What if I told you that there was a DRDT character whose every action happens to increase ratings?

That's right, ladies and gentlemen (and Nico!), I'm talking about Whit.

Whit is one of the few characters we see before we get an introduction for him. And what do we see him doing? Turning Hu against the group.

Hu is one of the few characters that isn't willing to trust the group with her secret in chapter 2, and this could very well be because of the bad first impression Whit helped make. This has a side effect of having her emotionally dependent on David by trial 2, which I'm positive will have bad results when the hiatus ends.

When we get to his introduction proper, he spends most of it trying to force Teruko and Xander closer together. This isn't his only notable interaction with Teruko either, since he's the only one that prods her to talk about her past pre-trial 1.

It's hard to say for certain about Whit's intentions, but most of his actions appear to have negative concequences later on in the game.

When it comes to Whit, he claims most of his actions are guided by his intuition, like Sayaka before him.

But when you look at things from an objective point of view, his intuition might not hold up. This is the person that hid David's secret from the class for as long as practical.

Why?

In-universe, Whit claims its to help David's career.

But if you look at it closely, does this claim make any sense? This killing game is televised, so it'd be reasonable to suspect that the in-universe DRDT audience knows all the secrets before the characters do.

Besides, how good can Whit's intuition be if he believed in the good of someone as suspicious as David.

So, if Whit's stated motive for keeping that secret doesn't hold up (to me.), what would? Why, MonoTV's motive! Everything Whit does intentionally or unintentionally ups ratings.

Teruko distrusting and being isolated from the group? Is good for ratings.

(Whit didn't bring her back into the group like he did with Charles, which reads as OOC behavior to me. But do you know who canonically doesn't want Teruko talking with the group? MonoTV.)

Hu and David getting close and having a falling out? Is good for ratings.

You could even argue his relationship with Charles is good for ratings.

Speaking of David, I find it interesting that Whit used the same tactic as David to avoid sharing his secret, but did it better.

Unlike David, Whit dropped multiple possible secrets, and admitted the possibility that it could be none of them upfront. This makes him dodge the suspicion David got when his stated secret wasn't on the list.

Whit's secret wasn't even given much attention in the trial itself.

I also feel like Whit's secret was worded a lot more plainly than most of the other secrets. Compare "your mother is dead, you always omit that truth" to "Your older brother died, but you don't remember him at all." or "Your younger sister killed herself because of you. You should have never left."

It could just be because the secret isn't plot-relevant this chapter, or it could be because Whit's secret isn't what it seems.

Another thing, Whit is pretty strange around corpses. He made a dark joke about Min's execution, and under reacts to every corpse in the game so far. Many people think this has something to do with his mom, but I have one question for those people. Would that really explain why he's worse than Veronika, who canonically enjoys the game?

This concludes the main part of my analysis, but here are some details that could be questionable with Mastermind!Whit in mind. (Or maybe I just think everything he does is suspicious, who knows!)

In chapter 1, he deliberately threw the arm wrestling contest to Teruko. Could be hiding his true strength?

He chooses NOT to break up fights that were going nowhere. This seems contrary to what an ideal matchmaker should do in this context.

His name. Whit is one letter away from Wit, meaning intelligence. That could be an example of some very clever foreshadowing. But... its a reach.

He was one of the 3 to get redesigns, along with the protagonist. However, he got specific attention done to his eyes. Every Mastermind in canon does something cool to their eyes upon the reveal.

Out of all of the canon Danganronpa characters, Whits talent is the closest to Toko's. Charwit could be an inversion of Togafuwa, with feelings being one-sided on Toko's (Whit's) end this time.

[kellyvela]

Hello! I didn't fully understand what was going on, but one thing is for sure, I hate joe. As far as I understood, on January 11, they completed the custody case, but the divorce was suspended and was supposed to resume when the guardianship was completed, this did not happen, and that is why Sophie's lawyers are now asking for the reopening of the divorce. Is it that joe is deliberately delaying the divorce? And will we learn the details of custody? Although it is so obvious that a larger percentage of Sophie and her children live with her in England, still wanted to know this for sure. And interesting article:

https://www.etonline.com/sophie-turner-and-joe-jonas-divorce-case-reopened-in-miami-a-timeline-of-their-split-211872 I didn't know some things before that.

joe is so horrible, he cheated on her twice, first when he refused to move to UK, and the second time with some 20 year old girl. And I also like that Sophie and her lawyers have documents and letters and everything has dates and facts, while joe has only empty words. And there is also confirmation that the children lived with Sophie in UK and only at the end of July they decided that the children would go with joe, which again confirms the position of Sophie, not joe. I hope you can explain more about their affairs to me now. And I'm glad that soon all the horror with joe will end and Sophie will live peacefully with her children in England. And I hope that justice and karma will punish joe and even his fans will see what a piece of shit and a rat he is.

Hello, anon!

What I really hated was the shady and misleading tmz headline, they implied that Sophie said that the negotiation collapses so she requested the Miami judge to rule the divorce and decide the custody. But I think this is wrong.

I believe the rat was thinking about filling divorce for a long time, that's why he convinced Sophie to let the girls come back to US with him while she was very busy filming Joan.

So, having the girls with him in the US, the first days of September, the rat leaked rumors that he was looking for divorce lawyers in LA (California) area, but few days later he filled divorce in Miami (Florida). In the end, despite leaking LA rumors, he chose Miami, a red state, that favored fathers in custody battles, this is what a lot of people told me so far. So, this was an evident legal strategy, designed by lawyers, to take advantage over the other part.

And at that point, the PR strategy also started, with him implying Sophie was a bad mother, always patying and drinking while he was basically a single dad caring for the girls alone all the time. And this is the reason why I call him a 🐀

But it was evident that the rat lied to the Miami court by saying the girls and him were Miami residents for the past six months, because the girls were living in England most of the year. Sophie was very detailed when she filled her lawsuit to the New York Federal court.

Indeed, Sophie was right when she filled an international lawsuit to the New York Federal court, claiming that the girls main residence was England, so the custody should be determined or approved by a UK court. The New York Federal court then ordered the Miami State court to stop the case regarding the custody of the girls.

The New York court also ordered the parties to start mediation and during the mediation they stablished a temporary custody agreement and decided to bring the case (custody) to a UK court.

So, since the custody was out of its jurisdiction, the Miami court approved an abatement, which is basically a suspension of the divorce case, until they reached a permanent custody agreement.

So, I think they already reached a permanent custody agreement in the UK court, which was approved on January 11, 2024, and that's why Sophie dropped the international lawsuit at the New York court, and requested to the Miami court to "reactivate" the divorce case on January 14, 2024, but this was only recently made public.

We don't know the details of the permanent custody agreement. But I hope she has primary custody, and the rat has visitation rights.

Things are really coming to an end, anon. I bet there are basically just a few details left to be determined, or at least I hope I'm right.

This is what I think is happening. But the press love the click bait . . . .

Again, I hope I'm right!