#And then when I AM specific and AM targeted in a very particular thing I'm talking about

[guiltycorp]

Damn i really want to know tf happened in the writing room of arcane s2. Some of the downgrades were inevitable due to the show's corporate limitations (not being able to progress the class war story in a meaningful way, having to tie things back to league of legends in terms of making playable characters more appealing to well, play... rip Mel and Viktor in particular), sure. But i still feel like it's even worse than that? There are so many bad decisions that i couldn't even start listing them all... the characters, plot, pacing, themes, it's just such a mess? Even the dialogue writing, it feels much more mm Marvel at its worst i suppose. What i am most bothered by is probably just the straight up harmful messaging so um... Cycles of violence and abuse can be broken by individual decisions to become a better person! Got nothing to do with systemic oppression, living conditions, mental health issues, you can just conveniently ignore aaall the social context, live laugh love and then things get better automatically yep, oppressors famously stop oppressing you when you show them that you're harmless and won't put up a fight anymore. Literally three out of three suicidal characters dying to redeem themselves? Not even in a tragic/cathartic way but in a bittersweet 'they finally atoned for their mistakes' way? Groundbreaking lmao. Romantic relationship between Vi and Caitlyn including no communication about their biggest fight, just conveniently skipping to sex and getting back together - would have loved that if it was framed as the unhealthy fucked up thing that it is, skipping over Vi's hurt and her background to once again become a cop, her girlfriend's direct underling at that (!) due to her not having any other support systems... But nope that was our cute lesbian romance wrapped up, a good thing all around, not concerning at all. Jayce telling Viktor that what he 'always admired about him' was his disability and his deadly disease (??? from a character who spent the whole s1 and first act of s2 desperately trying to help Viktor find a cure? sure) and that those imperfections don't need fixing, just wtf truly. Magic bullshit was also weird, some implications of 'natural magic is ok, but achieving that power through other means corrupts you into a crazy robot bitch or just wilts your trees i guess', but tbh it was written in such a weird and inconsistent way that we can skip this one... Yeah actually a lot of things were just such a mess that I feel silly pointing to specific moments or lines I didn't like, I mean duh, it barely makes sense as a story at all... I am happy we have s1 which comparatively was a masterpiece, and i also really enjoyed s2 act1, i truly believed it would lead somewhere good at the time, my mind still kind of cuts off the story at that point when i think about it, that WAS the open ending of the show to me (is it possible that there were rewrites? targeting act 2 and 3? idk, wishful thinking perhaps). Despite my extremely negative feelings about this season's conclusion i remain glad that so many people appreciate the show regardless, it is clear that there was STILL a lot of love in the process of its creation (although i'd argue that even some of the visual aspects of the show suffered in quality, once again i have to wonder about behind the scenes mood of it all) and i get very upset when i see creatives online despairing over reception of their projects even when i'm absolutely in the disgruntled crowd hahaha... ...however yeah, this wasn't great In a world that increasingly grows more and more right-wing politically... we really needed something different i think.

[agoddammharpoon]

OK I'm going to keep this as spoiler free as possible BUT WARNING FOR POSSIBLE SPOILERS FROM CHAPTER 39 ONWARDS 💥💥💥💥💥 also this is all probably nonsense but I needed to share my theories because the brain rot this season is real.

I know the voice we heard wasn't obviously a character we already know but I really think it might be. I have multiple reasons for this-

This season has leant into the time travel element of the diner more than any other. The BertBert episode happening at such close proximity to the main plot compared with the length of time between Leif's timeline with Bertbert. The disparity between how long it had been for the sisters compared with Caspar. The timelines they are a broken and I think this leaves it open for anything timeywimey to happen at this point.

Why OUR diner?? Why is this the only one that seems to have been targeted in this way when we know there is a franchise out there?? Of course there might be others in other universes but this does all feel very PERSONAL

I am suspicious as hell about the sisters dad (his name has fully escaped me???) PARTICULARLY Leif's reaction to it being so suspicious as he essentially just shrugged and went 'probably not real' without much thought into what the truth would be!? Which is super unlike him...I'm really hoping we get to the bottom of this and it is some how connected to the Benefactor because this all seems to weird and unconfirmed to be a throw away thing. From the moment we heard of this guy, who jumps from planet to planet essentially doing good things but in a weird way and then sleeping with lots of people, I thought -'Heh that would be funny if it somehow ended up being Leif' and I CANNOT NOW SHAKE THIS THOUGHT and the IMPLICATIONS. I also feel like Leif is heading somewhere and this season as well as Young Leif and Welcome to the Horizon has really brought out a lot of the darker elements of his character which is INTERESTING

Then David.

And here's where i want to cry a little

But in essence. David has been described as an angry kid who is too smart for his own good. And sure we've seen some of that from him but he's all been relatively chill? But what if this didn't play out as well in an alternative universe?? What if this angry too smart kid somehow got angrier and smarter? Perhaps in a universe where is mum is also very angry and very smart and created an all poweful time-travelling dimension hopping robot designed to hunt down a very specific person at one particular diner...?

Tldr- I think the Benefactor is either Leif or David and both of these would be amazing but also heartbreaking.

I have CONCERNS about the Benefactor and possible identities and I need to scream at somebody about it...

[bonefall]

I understand being upset by the moonpaw dog post but i dont think talking about some random teen publicly (on a pretty big fandom blog) as opposed to like, dming them about it, is a very nice thing to do? Would recommend keeping that kinda gossip in dms going forward personally.

??????? "That kinda gossip???"

Saying that it's fucked up that a publicly posted incest joke about how deformed she should look went to the top of the Warrior Cats and Moonpaw tags, is gossip???

TRENDING TAGS?? GOSSIP?

I'm not talking about "some random teen," I have not even dropped a username and been VERY clear I don't want harassment of anyone. During this discussion about wider ableism against Moonpaw, I've directly answered two anons about the contents of a post that was/IS extremely popular to the tune of nearly a thousand notes.

One of those two asks was an anon who only stumbled in to say that the post was funny in a display of SHOCKING tonedeafness, while I was talking about how shitty it is to compare people who are the products of incest to unethical dog breeds, especially in the context of WC. The other was an actual XX/XY chimera who expressed that the extremely popular post hurt their feelings, and when they tried to express discomfort to someone, got told they "probably killed their twin in the womb."

It's not just one rando weenie little blog the minute half of the Tumblr space is openly laughing at a joke about deformed incest kids and hoping Moonpaw dies because she's so "gross." Not nice?? Your feelings are hurt? OTHER people's feelings were ALREADY hurt.

NOTHING about this was "nice" to begin with!

Difference is, when YOU cry me a river, you can build me a bridge, and get right the fuck over it. A person who's the product of incest cries and has to go right back to every shitty banjo-hunchback-hapsburg joke they've heard before, just feeling more unsafe about a space that PRETENDS to care about the abuse they experienced. If you feel guilty about that, maybe you should!

If you were under the impression I was ever "nice" about bigotry, you were mistaken. I don't appreciate calls for ME to be more polite when I'm at a trend of fandom ableism and calling it fucked up. I've named NO names. Sounds like what you ACTUALLY want is for people like me who have a platform to shut up.

[snapscube]

your food allergy and trigger metaphor is incredibly apt not just from your perspective but also from mine because it made me realize that the emotion when I'm told a lemonade has pineapple in it is the same emotion as when a comedy show has an incredibly upsetting murder in the first episode. and that emotion is ".................. why?" But yes. I do agree with you that ppl should assume you're smart enough to know that the japanese detective game from 2000 might have triggers in it. It's like when ppl tell me not to drink something with the word TROPICAL on it in neon. Like yeah thanks I knew that from the everything about it.

LOL yeah like, I enjoy going into games I play completely blind. But completely blind does not equal "completely without context" yknow? Like I am absolutely capable of formulating my own expectations towards something I'm about to experience just based off of either the meta info about that series (release date, studio, target audience, etc) or even just cultural osmosis. And even more importantly, I am also very capable of processing when a piece of media DEFIES those meta expectations, positively or negatively! In fact, some might say that I actually really value the experience of determining why something might put me through that experience at all and that's not something I can fully determine for myself if I'm going in with colored expectations haha.

And like... in my case specifically it's a little bit of bonus frustration cause I straight up like... don't really have triggers when I watch/play/read/etc something? Literally I can think of ONE experience off the top of my head as an adult where I had to go out of my way to pause something I was watching because it triggered an anxiety attack. It was Midnight Mass, and I still came out the other side of that experience LOVING it. Plus, it was literally such a specific and nuanced thing I don't think anyone would have even thought to warn me about LOL like I'm not getting any messages that say "hey penny just so you know this show you're about to watch has a moment that depicts a very particular form of hysteria in the middle of a church building that calls back to a few specific memories you have of your Pentecostal upbringing"

Anyway all this to say... I'M GOOD! You are correct. I do not think that media falls out of a coconut tree.

[gemsofgreece]

Hello! Do you (and other Greeks) find "Hellenic polytheism" an acceptable term for the religion worshipping the ancient Greek gods? If not, what would you want people to call it instead? I feel strongly that I would not be able to change my belief itself, but I definitely want to be respectful in what I call it and my other actions

Hellenic Polytheism should be fine. You can introduce yourself as a Hellenic Polytheist.

People have a bit of a hard time with this hell of terms (get it? he he), so I am gonna create a mini-lexicon. It's not targeted to you in specific to use all these, it's just for whoever is interested to clear this up in their minds.

A very hellenic lexicon

Hellás = 1) the official term for Greece and the only one ever used by Greeks themselves (there is no equivalent of "Greece" in Greek), 2) a historical ancient region in central mainland Greece where southeast Epirus and southwestern Thessaly meet and where a lot of Achilles' soldiers supposedly originated from, 3) the administrative region of central mainland Greece during the Byzantine Empire

Hellenic = anything Greek (like you may say "this is an american movie", that's why you can use hellenic polytheism, because it means "greek religion of many gods"). And by anything Greek, we mean ANYTHING. Care to know what the "Greek Orthodox Church" is called in Greek?

You guessed it! Hellenic Orthodox Church...! So you see, how when foreigners say some things like "i'm hellenic, hellene, hellenist" like "what hellenic are you? coffee? bank? Christian?" You know?

Hellen = the mythological progenitor of the Greeks according to Hesiod. Not to be confused with Helen.

Héllene = a Greek by descent, nationality and / or ethnicity. And if we are being totally accurate, it's a Greek male. I don't actually know how it is pronounced in English but ideally keep the last e silent. (By the way we do not pronounce that h in the beginning in all these words for the last 1500 years or so.... just saying.)

Héllenes = the Greeks, just men or mixed. The last e is NOT silent.

English does not have gendered nouns but Greek does so technically there is a seperate word for Greek women but I don't know if this is transferable to English. If we could do it in theory and by following the trasliteration style of the Hellene, it should be something like:

*Hellenís / Hellenidae or Hellenides = Greek woman / women*

Hopefully this explains why random foreigners identifying as "Hellenes" is exremely problematic.

Helladic = pertaining to the geography and territory of Hellas and whatever happens strictly within its borders

Hellenisation = spread of Greek influence and culture, it is also used for cases of Greek assimilation in ancient times

Hellenistic = 1) something being characterized by particular Greek influence, 2) referring to the era after the Classical period and before the Roman period

Hellenicá = 1) the Greek language, 2) (infrequent) Greek matters, documented topics about the Greeks

Hellenism = The complete Greek culture, civilization and nationhood, the essence of being Greek.

Hellenist = 1) a specialist in the study of Greek language, literature, culture, or history, or an admirer of the Greek culture and civilization, 2) a person who adopted the Greek customs, language and culture during the Hellenistic period, 3) now, the English Wiktionary also adds the "a follower and practitioner of Hellenic religion" <- which one of the two??? XD, clearly following the trend of western classicist circles. In the Greek Wiktionary for the same exact term (Ελληνιστής) that last interpretation does not exist and I can guarantee you it is officially rejected. Here's why: the suffixes -ist and -ism (as well as all suffixes here) are suffixes of Greek origin and they signify that someone is something or is passionate and dedicated to something on the superlative or very very earnestly, essentially. So when someone says they are a hellenist, they are supposed to be dedicated or charmed by anything that makes something hellenic, not to be professional cherry pickers. Of course, everyone is allowed their preferences, however you can't be interested in a super specific / niche thing like a religion mostly practiced 2000-3500 years ago and simultaneously show complete disregard and ignorance on literally everything else about this civilization, history and its living people and call yourself a hellenist. It tears the word apart. By the way this is not targeted at you. You are here asking about it, wanting to do the right thing. I am referring to this thing happening in this forum that @alatismeni-theitsa 's Anon was complaining about; they obsess over the ancient religion and they hate everything Greek post the AD mark. That's not being a Hellenist. That's not a Hellenism forum. That's the exact opposite in fact. Very few people can correctly claim the term "hellenist".

BONUS: Philhellene is kind of synonym to "hellenist" and it means "friend / lover of the Hellenes and all things hellenic". But again it can surely be misused. Not all self-proclaimed Philhellenes were ones indeed. Some, like Lord Byron, were Philhellenes through and through, on the other hand.

Of course, one definitely does not have to go through what Lord Byron and other great Philhellenes of the 19th century went through to prove they are a Hellenist or a Philhellene! My point is that very very few people can correctly claim the identity of a Philhellene or a Hellenist.

Therefore, "Hellenic polytheist" is just fine.

[utilitycaster]

Hi! Because I genuinely do love your take on things and every time I read through them, a new perspective that I had never even considered before makes itself known to me. So, I wanted to ask! Since Twitter (unsurprisingly) already got its hands on this discussion:

What are your feelings on the Mighty Nein being the ones to handle the Weave Mind over Bells Hells? Because for me, I always sort of knew that BH were going to be the ones to defeat Ludinus no matter what. It’s what they’ve been building up for.

However, some people say the M9 aren’t deserving of handling the Weave Mind because that was an antagonist made specifically for the Bells Hells. So, I was interested in seeing your thoughts about this (strange) discussion.

Hi anon, thanks!

I think it's great to have the Nein go after the Weave Mind, and I think, like most takes from the Twitter CR fandom, this is fucking stupid.

Given that Matt is the DM, and he's like "hey, I'm going to have a Trusted NPC call in the Mighty Nein to deal with the Weave Mind" I think the argument that the Weave Mind was made specifically for Bells Hells is not, in fact, true. The Weave Mind is an antagonist who was introduced with Bells Hells' campaign, rather like how Ludinus Da'leth is an antagonist who was introduced with the Mighty Nein's campaign and who has been the nemesis of Beau and Caleb in particular, and yet Bells Hells will be going after him in this scenario (and, to be clear, I think this is fine; I've expected Bells Hells to face off against Ludinus in the end).

I would be interested in understanding if the motivation here is "I wish the Nein were going after Ludinus and Bells Hells were going after the Weave Mind" which I think is far less interesting given that Ludinus has been such a consistent enemy of Bells Hells as well but at least I can puzzle out a not terribly intelligent but consistent sort of logic in it; or if this is a "I wish the past two parties weren't involved in this campaign at all" argument in which case, far too late for that; or if this is someone who specifically doesn't like the Mighty Nein throwing yet another tiresome and embarrassing temper tantrum on Twitter. But my opinion doesn't change; I think it's far more satisfying to see Bells Hells take on Ludinus than the Weave Mind, whom half of them haven't even met.

More generally, the idea of "doesn't deserve to fight the Weave Mind" is stupid on another level. I understand why people talk about which actual play character they wish to get the final blow on a particular enemy, even though dice will ultimately decide this. When it lines up - Vax with Thordak, Yasha with Obann - it's immensely satisfying. But you do not need to be the most wronged person to make meaning of a How Do You Want To Do This (FCG and Otohan being an obvious case here). Technically, the Volition deserves to fight the Weave Mind more! Half of Bells Hells hasn't even encountered the Weave Mind in any capacity! Braius and Dorian haven't been to the moon! Sometimes, you're fighting because it's part of, for example, a three-pronged plan that needs three separate simultaneous strike forces. Bells Hells can't do all three at once despite having claims to each of the targets unless they split up. Would you rather the parties split up in a mix of each? Because I'm not opposed per se but that could get pretty confusing all around. And if we're going to step out of the Watsonian argument that in-world, they can't do all three at once, see my next paragraph to address the Doylist "but Matt didn't need to set it up this way" one.

I am on the record as loathing the whole "it's their table and you can't criticize it because it's their game" bullshit. You can do so. You can do so even if there are very good reasons for their choices. You're always entitled to your own opinion and as long as you're not harassing people, it is morally neutral to say "this piece of fiction/art/whatever didn't do it for me," end of sentence. With that said. It's fine if people wish Campaign 3, like Campaigns 1 and 2, were more exclusively focused on one party's adventures rather than the all-hands-on-deck story that it is. But it is that story, and pretending this wasn't the result of a number of intentional choices by Matt and the cast and various collaborators is profoundly stupid at this point. I had my complaints as well, early on, but the time to get over this was episode 1, when Orym and Fearne and Dorian and Bertrand showed up with their ties to EXU and C1. Or it was episode 6, when Laudna revealed her connection to Delilah. Or episode 35, when that connection to Keyleth was leveraged. Or episode 50, when Beau and Caleb appeared; or Episode 51, when multiple past PCs were present at the solstice; or Episode 66, when we further met with Keyleth; or Episode 86, when Sending came back on and both Caleb and Jester spoke to the party; or Episode 92, when we cut back to the Crown Keepers; or Episode 94, when Essek showed up; or Episode 99, when Downfall began. If you're still holding on hope now in the endgame, I think it's too late. That's not the campaign this is, and it never was, and you can wish that you had something more self-contained like Campaign 1 or 2 but with Bells Hells, but that's all it is - a wish, unfulfilled.

[bunnakit]

my stand in ep 4 thoughts, feelings, etc

WOW WA WE WAA THAT SURE WAS AN EPISODE HUH - happy to report i went back through the episode slowly this week and took notes and really tried to gather everything i wanted to say (but i will inevitably forget something)

🌸 ok disclaimers because i have a lot of them for this particular episode 🌸

i'm just a silly guy on the internet, i'm not an expert in mental health, psychology, body language, whatever. most days i can't even take care of myself. i'm just saying things recreationally.

PLEASE do not put novel spoilers in my replies, reblogs, or tags without a warning notice. i've got an itchy blocking finger for it these days.

i am treating ming and joe and everyone involved in this show as if they were real life human beings. ming was not born some mustache twirling villain sent from hell to make joe miserable. joe is not some pure angel descended from the clouds to do no wrong. everyone in this show exhibits very human behavior and that can be distressing under certain circumstances. i'm just going to comment on them as humans. i'm not interested in a round table discussion on why a character is irredeemable, the scum of the earth, etc. i'm just putting my thoughts out there and you can take them or leave them.

🌸 alright yucky disclaimer time over 🌸

the episode really just picks us back up where everything left off - and yet joe still made ming breakfast, and ming isn't stupid (well right now at least,) he knows something is off.

i am confused why tong needs to get married on this specific day. and like bro how fast are you getting married? relax. the whole thing is just unstoppable force (trajectory of this producers career) meets immovable object (tong's fuckass stubbornness) and the collateral damage is massive.

and then there's the question of did joe ever want to play a lead? or did he let his impulsiveness and hurt put a target on his back? (only emphasized by the fact that everyone assumed joe would turn down the role)

i DO apologize for all my doubt surrounding wut. he, ja, and may are the only people in this show with any god damn sense. maybe jojo and yim. we'll see.

getting into the confrontation at joe's work, i really don't think it's that surprising when we keep in mind ming genuinely has no fucking clue what is going on. all he knows is joe woke up, was acting weird, didn't come home, and then told him to pack up his shit and leave with ZERO explanation. like, joe's completely in the right, but i'd also be confused as fuck. (i wouldn't go to someone's work about it but, y'know, we know ming acts in extremes.)

and to me this is where it really became obvious that joe has always been able to overpower ming, to get away from him, as we have seen joe's physical prowess, we've seen what he's capable of, but he never uses his body to move ming away from him - that's not who joe is, he's not someone that would put his hands on another person like that. it's just another way ming and joe are the direct antithesis of each other.

it's my thought that the argument escalates because ming is used to getting everything he wants - except for tong, and now joe. when joe begins to push him away and deny him his substitution for tong i think ming lashes out in his hurt with a thought of "it's happening again, why doesn't anyone want me?"

i will say while i do believe sol has good intentions for the most part his white knighting is getting a little irksome. while convenient, it just shows how much he's still hovering and laying in wait for a chance with joe - he, too, is not respecting joe's wishes. no is a complete sentence, sol.

and then things continue back at home and joe finally, finally throws ming's words back at him: if i'm so terrible to be with, if you're so great, why are you wasting your time with me?

and ming doesn't have an answer. what ming DOES have is another back embrace, arms wrapped around joe as he asks "don't you love me anymore?" but is he asking joe or tong?

"although i'm not as good as tong" even now joe's rampant self worth issues are still at play but at least he finally knows he's worth more than whatever this is.

then the phone rings and to me, ming looks skittish. he looks shaken. he's never seen joe so angry and he's scared and as the call progresses that fear morphs into rage when sol calls joe. and the thing is, regardless of who played the main role, ming was never going to be happy. it was either going to be joe or tong playing opposite sol and neither of those things would have been acceptable.

and then i said, out loud, in my quiet office: OH! and promptly lost my shit in the group chat.

ming doesn't look wholly present after his act of violence. his face is vacant, like he isn't completely seeing or grasping what he's just done. i get the impression that ming isn't mentally well; stress and fear and anger have a way of making people do really fucking stupid things and as these things happen you risk falling into the sunk cost fallacy - you've already gone this far, you can't stop now - which all aligns with the obsessive behavior we've seen from ming in the past.

as joe wakes up and they talk once again joe doesn't blame ming, he blames himself for not seeing the writing on the walls even though it was written in invisible ink.

"all these times we were together did you ever love me?"

"you can't tell?"

again, so much of the blame and emotional responsibility of their situationship is put on joe and ming refuses to communicate any of his feelings, perhaps because he doesn't know how to after repressing everything for so long.

WE DIDN'T GET HOT KINKY CHAINED UP SEX THOUGH, WHY DOES GOD HATE ME SPECIFICALLY

but the way joe looks at ming as they linger there in the wake of joe's request looks like a goodbye, the way his eyes soak in every detail of ming's face. despite all of this and the nightmare it has turned into he did love ming, perhaps still does, and he does have some of those good memories he was so desperate to keep.

though like.. joe.... maybe we could consider a different career path??? instead of just jumping to risking our lives? like sure food service sucks, cashiering sucks, etc. but you aren't in danger of falling off any cliffs, you know? and let's be real, he could just go into modeling with those looks.

it's my impression that when ming calls joe he looks haggard, like he's lost numerous nights of sleep (and we really don't know how much time has passed) but either way it does seem like he's at least done some amount of reflecting. his voice comes across soft, subdued, and sincere.

and after everything, back in the present, we see ming. he's still in the apartment, desperately calling joe's name all these years later, still unable to sleep and waiting for joe to come home just like he asked him to years ago.

maybe ming never wanted to enter the entertainment industry before, but he has now. perhaps it was never for the attention or the money, maybe he chose to promote those watches because it was a reminder of the gift from joe. and maybe this job, in this specific industry, is the closest he can feel to joe now. and maybe with new influence and connections ming can find out why he was never able to tell joe he loved him before he lost him.

WHO KNOWS, NOT ME, CAN'T WAIT TO FIND OUT THO

[lemotmo]

Interesting question and super interesting answer. Spot on regarding lots of people's feelings towards Lou.

Q. I want to first say thank you for taking the time to answer our questions, I know many of them have not been nice. I'm glad you've started answering more nice ones, it's good for everyone to see. You've said you liked Tommy a lot in the beginning, is it possible that your changing opinions about Tommy are actually a result of you not liking Lou? More than the show changing Tommy? Does that make sense? I am genuinely curious, please tell me this is not coming across as rude!

A. Good morning, anon. No, your question did not come across rude at all. In fact it's a good question and one I am happy to answer. Before I get into the answer about Tommy though, I will address the Lou part. I have made no secret about my dislike for LFJ. I personally find him gross. And I will fully own that, as a result, loving Tommy would be rather difficult for me. But in my real life it's my job to sell shit to people and make them think they love or need something they don't (PR) so I could make my brain get there if I really needed it to get there for the sake of the show. But fortunately for me I won't need to do that.

A couple of things happened with regards to Lou that prior to him the show had never had to deal with before. Forgive me, but my public relations nerd brain is about to take over. Lou is the first guest star the show ever had that publicly and rapidly promoted themselves as a characters' love interest. None of the others have ever done that before. But he didn't market himself to the audience at large. He targeted a very specific portion of fandom to promote himself to, engage with, and profit from. I'm going to take this opportunity to point out that the minute Tim/ABC told him he could no longer do the cameo videos, thus removing his profiting capabilities, he ended all forms of engagement completely. That tells you all you need to know. For this next part I'm going to use Megan West (Taylor Kelly) as my counterpoint. Taylor was popular with the general audience. The fandom hated Taylor (and Oliver wasn't a fan either, bless him), but the general audience liked her. It's why the show kept trying to make her work for multiple seasons. The GA liked her dynamic with Buck. The GA didn't 'turn' on Taylor until the show started her exit storyline and they weren't supposed to like her anymore. Same thing with Tommy. I think my opinion of Tommy changed exactly when the show wanted it to change. I followed the canon change. The general audience doesn't care about Tommy. Having a small, yet rabid, fan base is good for minimal short term traction, but the GA is what extends contracts. He didn't promote himself to the GA because he already knew the shelf life of his character. He knew the storyline that his character is a part of wasn't going to change. As a result he promoted himself to a particular sect of fandom to maximize his character's minimal self life. And it worked, for a little bit.

The show was not promoting him. He did a couple of interviews right after episode 4, but any actor playing that character would have been given those interviews. That had zero to do with Lou. And, unfortunately for him, and those of us who had to read them, the man's a terrible interview. He has no filter, no self editing capabilities, and zero PR training. It was a disaster. Even the people responsible for editing them into something resembling coherence struggled to make them work. They sent him on one joint interview with Oliver, an actual PR unicorn (he should teach a class), and the only thing Lou was allowed to say about the show was that Tommy and Buck were 'thriving' (interesting word choice given his one scene in the finale, btw). It also cannot be ignored that Oliver chose not to speak at all about the onscreen duo. The rest of Lou's time was spent talking about his dad, which is what the two people interviewing him clearly wanted to talk more about anyway. Oliver was who the show sent to talk about the show. They weren't promoting the ship. The interviewers would have been given very specific questions to ask if it had been about the duo. ABC didn't want Lou talking about the show. He had already proven he wasn't capable of doing so with any kind of tact. It also became apparent that he and Oliver are not comfortable with one another. Oliver tried very briefly to sell it a bit, but he didn't try very long or very hard. I know Lou's fandom thought it was perfect, but based on everything non Lou biased we saw, they were in the minority. And the show clearly didn't think it worked either because you never saw them again. The show has been doing PR since the finale. If they wanted to drum up Buck/Tommy they would have been using at least part of this time to do so, and they haven't. The release of the deleted clip was the opposite of bigging him up and the reaction from the general audience as well as his own fans proves that. The off-season PR has been entirely Ryan/Eddie centered. Which also was when Ryan's gender neutral musings also began, but I digress. The show had never encountered the game Lou played before and as a result they had no rules and regulations in place regarding guest star behavior. They have clearly established some rules now and Lou has been instructed to follow them. I'm also certain somewhere in there he was informed of his final episode count so he knows exactly when he's leaving. And while the cameo videos were great for him personally, in the short term, that rabid devotion was going to change quickly once it becomes apparent on screen that Tommy's arc is nearing its end. And I don't think he will be around longer than 3 or 4 episodes. I think his arc will conclude around the same time Gerard's arc concludes. I do not think the two will necessarily be connected but I do think they will come to a conclusion around the same time.

I'm so sorry anon but he drives my professional brain insane. And now as a result of his own hubris the show is now trying to clean up a mess he had no right to ever start.

I don't know what to write underneath these glorious posts anymore. Each and every single OP post just slay. This one isn't the exception.

Thank you OP for so eloquently putting into words what all of us have been trying to explain for weeks now.

Remember, no hate in comments or reblogs. Let's keep it civil and respectful. Thank you.

If you are interested in more of the anonymous OP’s posts, you can find all of their posts so far under the tag: anonymous blog I love.

[molsno]

one response I've seen to discussions of privacy settings on the devices and apps we use is "don't complain when these free services are worse because you disabled settings used to improve your experience", and I find the very premise of that argument flawed. my problem is not that these apps collect my data. because yes, data collection can actually be hugely beneficial, as it enables services to be more personalized for your specific needs.

my problem is with the way that my data is used. as it stands, I have to assume that any and all data collected about me is going to be transmitted to a company's servers and used to show me more targeted ads. and that's the best case scenario. I actually have no idea what else they could be using it for, as even with regulations in place, companies break the law all the time. they could be selling it to third parties, or even sharing it with the police or other government authorities.

and there's really no reason that this needs to happen, other than that I live under capitalism and thus every product and service that exists needs to be profitable first and foremost. if this wasn't the case, the developers of this software would have no need to use my data in this way. more often than not, there are ways of collecting my data to improve my user experience that don't involve invading my privacy for the profit motive, and there are even situations where my data doesn't need to be collected at all.

let me give you an example. just a few minutes ago, I opened my weather app to check the temperature outside, and it prompted me to enable precise location tracking in order to continue. there is absolutely no reason why a weather app would need to track my location to begin with. is it useful? sure, it is nice if it can tell me what the weather is like where I currently am without any input from me, but that should be an optional quality of life feature. if I don't want it to do this, which I don't, considering I have no idea who is receiving this data and what they're doing with it, then I should still be able to check the weather by simply inputting the name of the city I'm in.

in the same vein, it's not that I inherently don't want my navigation app to track where I've been in the past. I could think of some cases where that might be useful, such as if I needed proof that I was at a particular place at a particular time. but as it stands, enabling that functionality means google will track my every move, and they can do whatever they want with it, from selling it to the businesses I visited to show me ads, to informing police of my location. if I could be certain that my location data would only be stored locally on my device, and would automatically be deleted after a set amount of time, I might be fine with enabling it.

the problem is that I'm not given the option to maintain my privacy while also benefitting from these services. these apps are designed in such a way that infringing on my privacy is the mandatory default. this is an intentional decision on the part of the companies who develop these apps in order to maximize profitability, and barring you from these services altogether if you disable data collection is designed to frustrate you so that you'll enable it again. under capitalism, you have no rights. you are not respected. so even if it makes things less convenient, I will disable as much data collection as I possibly can.

[veliseraptor]

March Reading Recap

Juliet: The Life and Afterlives of Shakespeare's First Tragic Heroine by Sophie Duncan. I actually really liked this one! It was an interesting look at several different lenses that have been used over time to look at Juliet (specifically Juliet, not the play), including the relationship between fascism and Juliet in Verona, Italy and the development of West Side Story (didn't know Juliet was Jewish in an early version). I enjoy sort of niche/specific books focusing on a very particular subject, and this book scratched that itch well.

The Brilliant Abyss: Exploring the Majestic Hidden Life of the Deep Ocean, and the Looming Threat That Imperils It by Helen Scales. I read this book too soon after The Underworld by Susan Casey which, while not necessarily a better book, covered a lot of the same terrain. The trouble with a keen interest in a niche topic is, I suppose, that the books on it can start to get repetitive sometimes. It was still good, though, and this one focused a bit less on the history of human exploration than Casey did and a bit more on the ecosystems themselves, which I did welcome.

Blood of the Chosen and Emperor of Ruin by Django Wexler. The second and third books in the series that started with Ashes of the Sun - both continued the trend of "I don't know that I'd call these particularly good works of literature but they were very enjoyable and propulsive." The second book was stronger than the third - I ended up feeling like the conclusion of the trilogy was weaker and a little rushed, but I still enjoyed the experience as a whole and would offer at least a tentative, general recommendation of the series for those looking for a fantasy series that's not particularly innovative or serious but is an exciting ride.

The First Sister by Linden A. Lewis. This book reminded me a little bit of Such Desperate Glory but wasn't quite as well done, I don't think. The back compared it to Mass Effect but I don't really see that as a reasonable comparison. Possibly one of my favorite things about it was the cover design, which fucks. I still liked it, though, and I'm going to read the sequel.

The Great White Bard: How to Love Shakespeare While Talking About Race by Farah Karim-Cooper. Sometimes when I read things I feel like a snot because I go "this is interesting information but the writing feels a little amateurish" and that was my situation with this book. It was good analysis and interesting to read, though sometimes the "and this is how this is modern-ly relevant! q-anon mention" felt a little bit...ehhh, unnecessary, but the writing itself was...yeah. It felt amateurish. Which might just be a result of the book itself being targeted at a particular audience that's less academically-minded than I am, that's certainly possible, but it did affect my enjoyment of the book.

Last Days by Adam Nevill. Mostly this was good spooky fun, though it lost me with the "the ultimate bad guy is an overweight bisexual actor with AIDS" (it's a little more complicated than that, but not enough). Too bad, because conceptually and in terms of imagery it could've been very good. Between this and my last Nevill, I might have to give future books a pass. My search for horror that isn't playing on bigoted tropes apparently continues, since I'm on a bit of a streak there with this and Ring.

China: A History by John Keay. I'd call this one a solid overview despite the choice to use "bureaux" for the plural. However, I'm taking a lot of it with a grain of salt since as far as I can tell he didn't use many or possibly any Chinese secondary sources, and relied primarily for quotations/analysis on English secondary sources. I would've liked to see more of a balance. Still, as far as background information and a general broad history goes, it feels like it was worth reading for me to get a little more background/grounding in history I don't have a lot of familiarity with. (Also, holy shit did Ken Liu crib hard on Liu Bang and Xiang Yu for The Grace of Kings and now I know that.)

Remnants of Filth: vol. 3 by Rou Bao Bu Chi Rou. I continue to really enjoy this book and this volume might be my favorite yet - the flashbacks were satisfying to fill in some of the gaps in mysteries as yet unrevealed, and having Gu Mang fully "back" (more or less) is a fun development that is already having consequences changing the dynamic between him and Mo Xi in delightfully angsty ways. Of the cnovels I'm currently in the middle of this one is close to LHJC as far as my favorite.

Starter Villain by John Scalzi. This one is what I think people would call a "romp" which is all well and good and I probably should've known what I was getting into, but I think I am just not much of a "romp" reader. It was fun, I guess? But I don't know that I felt like it was good, and I'm probably not going to go around recommending it. My first Scalzi, and I don't know if that's typical of him, but I probably won't be in a hurry to pick up another one anytime soon.

Invisible Planets: Contemporary Chinese Science Fiction in Translation ed./trans. by Ken Liu. Short story collections are really hit and miss for me, but this was actually a collection that was pretty hit all the way through! Very interesting stories, a couple I'm still thinking about. I'm looking forward to reading my other collection of short stories in translation, which includes some fantasy - some of these actually felt somewhere between fantasy and science fiction in a very interesting way that I liked.

--

phew. I read a lot last month! Currently I'm reading Medea by Eilish Quin (we'll see how that goes); I have on my docket The Mountain in the Sea by Ray Nayler (recommended to me) and I think I might reread She Who Became the Sun so I can read He Who Drowned the World. I've been on more of a fiction than a nonfiction kick of late, but I am eyeing Islands of Abandonment by Cal Flyn and might make that part of my rotation. we shall see!

[soaplantro]

So there's a lot of interesting things happening here all at once.

First, and rather startling, is the phrase "…what they'll tell you on the surface to seem more benevolent." Because it's the same old "benevolent" song and dance: Trans women are the villain. And this person is so used to that narrative, so comfortable with this being the case, that even when everyone on earth becomes rhetorical pawns to advance the vilification of trans women, all they can really think about is how that affects people who are not trans women.

I question why anyone would use the phrase "goes deeper than just hating trans women" if they did not believe hating transmisogyny is the shallowest form of transphobia.

Even the fragment "what they'll tell YOU" is fascinating on its own. This person seems to believe that there is no meaningful difference in the way TERFs treat all trans people. But this phrase really gives the game away, because what TERFs tell me, a trans woman, is very consistent: that I am a rapist, a pedophile, that I deserve to be put in a prison with men, that I will never be a woman, that my gender is a fetish, and so on. Essentially, just an endless deluge of one-liners designed to hurt specifically me and nobody else.

When trans women tell you WE are the primary target, we are saying we're the picture they tape over the bullseye on their dartboard. We know their rhetoric is harmful to trans people in general. Hell, their rhetoric is even harmful to cis people. We are saying it is designed to be maximally harmful to Us In Particular. And we are saying it is suspicious as hell to act like that is not the case.

I included a tag in the screenshot because it brings me to my two final points. I'm leaving you to connect the dots between them.

Sometimes parents subject their children to at-home conversion therapy without even knowing that's what they're doing.

Transmisogyny is so entrenched, so expected, that even other trans people are willing to talk about those of us most affected by it this carelessly, as though our subjugation is merely a matter of course.

[kazoo-goddess]

So, I've wanted to make a post like this for some time, but I only just got the motivation because of an ask I got recently. I want to give a piece of advice to everyone, in general, to keep in mind when using any social media platform--advice that I wish someone had given me way back when, that I feel is important to pass on:

Not every post you see is for you. Not every post is about you.

This is not meant to be a negative thing, or a put-down! It is not meant to dismiss anyone. It's really what it says on the tin: When you see a post cross your feed, and you disagree with the post or it upsets you because you disagree with the message it has, try and keep in mind that you may not be the target audience for the post. In particular, take this into account for advice and positivity posts--The OP doesn't have anything against you personally when they share words that are meant to be uplifting that you don't agree with. A post that says "Keep going! You can do it, even if you think you can't!" probably isn't meant to put down people who are in a position where they very literally cannot do it or think their way out of their situations. Like this post, it's more likely that the OP is sharing positivity or advice that they themselves would have liked to hear.

Even this post, the one I'm writing now, might not be for you or about you! If you disagree with my viewpoint, that's okay, and there's nothing wrong with that! But I, personally, am writing this post for people who might need to hear it--people like me, who are easily upset or hurt by things they see or hear in passing, whether on the internet or real life. I'm not writing it because I want to spark an argument, I promise.

Posts aren't always meant to spread outside the OP's original circle of followers and friends. But that's a hazard of posting to public social media websites--a joke originally meant to have an audience of 12 people close to you can suddenly explode, getting thousands and thousands of views and reposts and going completely out of the OP's control overnight! It's no one's fault; it's not done maliciously. Sometimes a post or joke just resonates with others. But maybe it doesn't resonate with you--that really is okay! Just try and remember, if it gets under your skin, that it isn't for you. And if it's not for you, it's okay to just ignore it and move on! It can definitely get annoying when it's something you keep seeing over and over from friends and acquaintances reposting it, and I'd never fault anyone for losing their temper over it--but sometimes, just taking a second to remind yourself that you weren't the audience for something can really help calm you down and help you feel better and move on with your day.

While this goes for advice/positivity posts, it also goes for opinion posts! And in this case, to be completely, perfectly clear: I mean harmless opinions. A ship they like that you don't; a tv show they enjoyed that you didn't; a character they really love that you absolutely cannot stand. The kind of opinion you disagree with so much that makes you feel absolutely steaming mad. (Again: This does NOT extend to these things when they go into a genuinely harmful category. No homophobia, no pedophilia, nothing like that. I am talking about harmless, mundane disagreements.)

Maybe you see a post talking positively about a manga that makes you feel ick. The OP more than likely didn't write that post with the hopes that it would reach you specifically just to make you upset! (And if they did, that's rude, and an entirely different can of worms that this post is not about! >_>;) But the post upsets you anyway, even if it wasn't MEANT to. It's understandable, it happens! But the thing is: You don't need to engage with that post if it makes you feel bad! If you have a post blocker, you can block the post or blacklist the tag; if you don't, you may just have to scroll past. It can be so, so, so tempting to try and get in a biting comment in the replies to snap at the OP and tell them, "No, you're wrong, your opinion makes me mad and I don't want to hear it!" Trust me. I know. I get it, because I've been there! But in the grand scheme of things, it's not worth it or healthy to burn yourself out over it. It wasn't for you, and it wasn't about you! And you're better off doing what you can to take care of yourself, and preserving your health and happiness where you can.

I feel like I'm writing this with sort of childish language, and it might feel like I'm talking down to others. But really, I think I'm just writing it in a way that a younger me would have understood and taken to heart if she'd seen it. I hope that, if you read this, you can see it that way too! There's a part of me that feels scared that this post in itself could explode with notes that will be very upset with me for my thoughts on this, whatever their reasons may be, but I wouldn't be making it if I weren't prepared for that possibility. If the message I intend to get out can reach even one person who it can help, then I think that's worth writing it for. Because, I want to reiterate it one more time, because it can be so easy to forget it and get yourself furious in a self-destructive way, sometimes you have to remember:

Not every post you see is for you! Not every post is about you!

[a-mole-of-iron]

Yes, we can stop climate change - and solve ecological problems in general

In the last few years, I have seen again and again a particular social response to climate change that can leave human civilization just as devastated as denying or ignoring climate change: and that is doomism, and fellow-traveler ideas of eco-fascism and eco-austerity. Make no mistake: climate change is a very serious issue that can cause noticeable damage to Earth and a hell of a lot of damage to humanity, but people absolutely love to take it to lurid extremes, like "Mad Max hellworld" and "Earth becoming the second Venus by 2100". In this post, I'm just going to lay out numerous reasons why the situation is far from hopeless, why sensationalized narratives of climate change are just a petty excuse for inaction, why "we'd better start taking mud baths to get used to being in the ground" rhetoric is incredibly dangerous (not to mention a betrayal of the weak and vulnerable by the strong and well-off), and why, ultimately, things aren't as dire as "the common wisdom" proclaims - so that people can stop feeling crushed by hopelessness, and start solving all of the very, very real environmental problems the way they're already being solved. All my examples will be sourced from the IPCC reports and real-world accomplishments in eco-restoration, via an extremely helpful blog called Doomsday Debunked, which just reprints all the IPCC and IPBES findings that doomist media and activism deliberately omits.

Most of this post is adapted from one I already made before elsewhere - but perhaps on Tumblr it's going to become more popular and widespread. I'm going to split it into three different sections: climate change mitigation, biodiversity recovery, and why "green austerity" is not a brilliant idea, will not save anything, and is ultimately an outdated falsehood that emerged from a place of insufficient knowledge and understanding. Almost all paragraphs contain links to sources/more info, but they may be hard to see in some custom Tumblr themes - be sure to mouse over if you want to find the links.

CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND YOU: how renewable energy really can save the world!

Here's the biggest thing first: Climate Action Tracker, which is a pretty damn respectable source, has slashed off 1.1 to 1.5 degrees Celsius off its average warming projections since 2010, according to their own records. Hell, in 2018, three degrees of warming was a pledge, and four degrees was the expected upper limit; now three degrees is expected if the current level of fossil fuel consumption continues without any reduction - and two degrees is the policy target, while optimistic projections are inching closer to 1.5 degrees. And to "achieve" 5 degrees Celsius of warming, which is misleadingly described by journalists as "business as usual" when by our current day it's anything but, we would need an economic mobilization from now to 2100 to burn all the coal that we can possibly burn. With coal plants shutting down in reality simply due to being unprofitable, I don't have to tell you how "realistic" and "plausible" that is. The takeaway from this is simple: the Paris Agreement and environmental activism work, and I really don't see them winding down unless we let doomism reign supreme.

A specific example of policy and technology that can seriously reduce climate change is the amazing growth of solar power over the last 10 years. I am old enough to remember the early 2000s, when solar photovoltaics (the panels that convert sunlight directly into electricity) were an unproven, esoteric, and expensive technology, and people meant solar water heaters when they said "solar power"… but nowadays? There is literally predictions that if solar energy keeps growing at current rates, and considering it already beats fossil fuels on price, it might simply price out gas, coal, and oil before 2050, rendering them entirely obsolete. Even now, investment into coal or gas power plants is seen as an incredibly stupid thing to do, because they might become "stranded assets" - too expensive to run, and unable to even recoup their initial cost.

The clathrate gun/Arctic methane bomb hypothesis has been effectively disproven at the current time. The release of methane from clathrates is endothermic, meaning it takes in more heating than it releases; a direct opposite of a gunshot/explosion, which is an exothermic reaction. More modern research also turned up the fact that methane has been seeping upwards at a constant rate for millennia now - we just didn't monitor it. Seabed disturbance could possibly upturn some of the clathrates, but ocean warming alone simply can't do it - it would take thousands of years of warming for the temperature change to propagate to the kind of depth that methane clathrates are found at.

The hypothesis of runaway greenhouse effect has effectively been disproven too: with a more powerful greenhouse effect, Earth's albedo grows just as fast as the heat-trapping capacity, meaning runaway warming is highly unlikely and the only cause are human industry CO2 emissions, which can be obsoleted by renewables and thus stopped.

The biggest threat from climate change as it is now appear to be extreme weather events; for example physically straining heatwaves, or severe floods from large amounts of rainfall. And those are serious problems. But heatwaves can be deal with by adapting our environments - the most obvious example being to plant some trees instead of layering our cities in concrete. Similarly, flood management isn't some arcane art; we know how to do it. It's just been ignored due to complacency and budgetary stinginess.

The expectations of social collapse from climate change are… overstated, let's say. The IPCC's own worst-case scenario is NOT "Earth as a lifeless desert" or "collapse of human society"; the situation IPCC associated with three-degree warming is that hundreds of millions risk being displaced by sea level rise and temperatures in the tropics getting too hot for comfortable life with no weather difficulties (NOT THE SAME as "you go out at any point during the summer, you die in ten minutes"), and the UN Sustainable Development Goals will be left in ruins. In other words, the poor people of the world will go back to starving and suffering, and the rich, especially in the West, will for the most part retain their quality of life. And so to me, as a non-Western, not-ultra-rich person, doomism is a personal affront, and doomism from solarpunks and environmentalists is a grave betrayal.

Speaking of the IPCC reports: the last one states with decent confidence that as soon as we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, temperatures will begin to drop. Just think on this for a minute.

The "1970s MIT supercomputer that predicted the collapse of civilization by 2040"? That computer was not just less powerful than a smartphone from five years ago - it modeled the world as a single pixel, primitive even by the standards of the day. (Link to article that features actual model comparisons, via browser-based Javascript emulation. 'Nuff said.)

The so-called "deep adaptation" paper that managed to put people into therapy by its sheer grimness? Junk science that was rebuffed by Michael Mann - the author of the "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures, so not a climate denier by any means - in a four-letter tweet.

Earth turning into a second Venus by 2100? Yeah. That's… not gonna happen. We literally don't have enough fossil fuels to induce a greenhouse effect this bad, at any timescale, and I don't know if we could do it even if we started importing dry ice from space and cracking carbonate minerals for their carbon content to deliberately destroy the planet for some stupid reason.

And just because I feel like mentioning it: no, Earth can't run out of oxygen for us to breathe, barring an invasion of Galactus or some other planet-devouring alien.

BIODIVERSITY + CONSERVATION: lies, damned lies, and statistics

The infamous notion that we are heading for a world without insects was based on a study where half the map was blank, and some countries only counted the domestic honeybee (which relies on humans to thrive). Not all plants need insects to pollinate them, either. But at the same time, overuse of insecticides in agriculture is a serious issue with many adverse effects, and it has to be fought against. There is currently a campaign in Europe with this aim. Native grass lawns in cities help a lot too, more than you would think at first.

Similarly, there is a general notion that we are "in the middle of a sixth mass extinction", except we're not "in the middle". We're in the beginning of one. Now, if we all start/keep behaving like the Glukkons from the Oddworld series of games, or the Blargs from the first Ratchet & Clank game, for a few hundred more years - then we're totally going to face an impoverished biosphere with half or more known species dead. But if we do that, I'd say extinction of species would be far from our only problem.

The number one agricultural land use that drives deforestation is grazing cattle and growing crops to feed them; cropland and cities simply don't compare. Ergo, just by shifting to plant-based diets supplemented by lab-grown meat cultures and sustainable fish, we can rewild nearly 30% of Earth. And climate impacts there can be reduced too, if you simply buy local.

For a reforestation success story on a massive scale, look no further than the Loess Plateau.

Conservation success stories are actually plentiful; however, they do not get aired on the news because good news does not draw in views, clicks, and outrage. You can just go through this article on Doomsday Debunked to see how successful nature conservation can actually be.

The only two biomes that are most endangered by climate change are coral reefs (which would be replaced by the more resilient sponge reefs at 3 degrees of warming or around that), and the mountain glaciers, which will take thousands of years to recover, unlike the polar ice caps that'll be back in a couple of decades. But even corals have shown more resilience than expected before, so the scale of devastation is not nearly as huge as people might imagine.

GREEN AUSTERITY: "Friendly fire! Stop shooting, you pointy-eared leaf lover!"

A common, in fact extremely common, idea is that the only way to save the planet is accepting massive reductions to our quality of life - and by "massive" I mean "living in dugouts and doing subsistence agriculture while literally billions of people die for lack of warmth and medicine". Not only is this unacceptable, it's also a complete lie. The best way for someone living in the car-dependent, fossil-fuel-hungry sprawl of North America to reduce their carbon footprint is actually moving to a country with walkable, bikeable cities and good public transportation, like the Netherlands… or preferably, reforming and rebuilding their own local environment to this standard that used to exist in NA before its suburbanization that included zero public transport due to auto industry lobbying. NotJustBikes is an entire YouTube channel that explains this better than I ever could.

Another common idea is that building enough renewable generation capacity is just not possible with existing resources here on Earth. But consider this for a moment: when we mine metals and make them into electric engines or batteries, they don't go anywhere, with the only possible exception being metal flaking off due to corrosion. The metals composing wind turbine generators, electric vehicle motors, and batteries, or silicon composing the solar panels, remain in place and can be recycled several times, if not infinitely. Oil and coal that our current civilization burns for fuel EMPHATICALLY CANNOT be recycled - the entire problem we have is that they turn into carbon dioxide and clog our atmosphere, while soot and other exhaust fumes damage the health of people living in cities. Getting rid of 99% or more of fossil fuel infrastructure doesn't seem like that hard of a choice when you remember that feeding a renewables-based infrastructure requires a far more modest production capacity.

The issue of soil depletion from intensive agriculture is not only exaggerated by the negative/doomist framing (no, we are NOT going to run out of topsoil in 60 years!) - it's also a problem of mismanagement rather than an inherent agricultural problem. Stop oversaturating fields with fertilizer, introduce polyculture and crop rotation, and you'll see how much better things can get.

Similar to the above: the production of fertilizer does not require fossil fuels, no matter what some people might be saying. The three types of fertilizer are nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium. All of those are abundant chemical elements on Earth, and circulate through the biosphere freely; nitrogen is the 70% of our atmosphere and cannot possibly run out, and phosphate with potassium are abundant in the Earth's crust. The only direct use of fossil fuels in fertilizer production is the Haber-Bosch process that condenses nitrogen from the air into ammonia, and guess what molecule it needs for that? Hydrogen, which is the stronger half of the elements composing hydrocarbon fuels and which we could have in abundance by simple electrolysis of water!

Related to the above: it is beyond ridiculous how cow manure is dumped into rivers or similar by most modern farmers, when with right subsidies it could be transformed into cheap-as-free fertilizer to be used in agriculture. Someone should go create subsidies for large-scale composting...

Surprisingly enough, even consistent economic growth - which I am not a fan of by any means - can be achieved on a finite planet, because economic growth is all in what you count and how you count it. If we calculate economic growth not by production, but by improvements in human condition and condition of ecosystems (i.e. an economy that grows with the growth of trees), then we'll see that right now some world regions (like, again, North America) are failing as much as countries poor in money, but also that there is an enormous space for growth measured in sustainable prosperity.

The much-touted problem of water wars is an actual problem only for regions way, way inland. Any coastal countries have access to efficient desalination; it's not 1850 anymore. Water doesn't disappear from the world after people use it in cities and industries, it goes right back into the soil/atmosphere/rivers and oceans, so we can't "run out of water".

Interesting fact: we don't actually require any particularly specialized carbon capture technology to remove all the excess CO2 from the atmosphere, and will not require us to divert society's resources to expensive machinery. The old adage about the best carbon capture technology that's called "planting trees" still holds - and what's even more interesting is that there actually are even better methods that are not much more complex… and produce other things for the environment and for civilization in the process.

CONCLUSION

To sum things up: yes, the situation is serious, and "already bad enough" as Michael Mann put it (admittedly, he's been leaning into negative framing himself… but it can't be all positive, the problems of climate change really are dangerous, especially to the world's poor), and there's been a lot of environmental damage due to industries and rich consumers deliberately ignoring the externalities/knock-on effects of their resource use - but it's not nearly as horrifically bleak as some people presume. Right now there is great momentum behind climate action - which, yes, is partially propelled by increasingly hostile weather, but also by an understanding that social progress, democracy, and collective action are vital to build any form of a decent society, as well as by seeing new opportunities rise from cheaper renewable energy, better cities, and other innovations that will both stop climate change and make life actually worth living no matter where you might be. And in these conditions, throwing in the towel or surrendering to eco-austerity or even eco-fascist thinking is the worst possible action any one person can take. The green, sustainable, egalitarian future is not merely a dream or flight of fancy - it's eminently attainable if only we keep pushing for it and help eachother achieve it. But of course, there are people who stay up nights thinking how to take that future away from us, and now that climate change denial is no longer tenable, with more and more people believing their own eyes, the doomism and inactivism have become their primary, perhaps only, means of holding onto their power…

I hope this post will be helpful to people here who find themselves in the grip of doomism and hopelessness. I expect some people to disagree, but I prefer to believe the sources like the IPCC, IPBES, Climate Action Tracker, and all the climatologists behind these organizations' reporting - who've been closely watching both the worsening extreme weather from climate change, and the emergence of all the simple, usable, life-improving technologies and social practices to combat it. If we don't believe these people, then really, who can we believe? And if you do trust their reports on all the positive things being done and planned for environmental needs, it is not simply an idea that we can deal with climate change and restore, then protect our environment - it's objective reality, it's respectable science, and thus, it's good hard common sense.

More information: Doomsday Debunked (layman explanations and positive framing, also covering a ton of other "not actually the end of the world" topics for scared people), Carbon Brief (more technical and a bit less brazenly optimistic, but showing things like the absolutely crazy speed of renewable energy development), Not Just Bikes (an urbanist YouTube channel showing how cities can be improved, not made poorer, in the process of reducing fossil fuel use and car dependency).

[bigcats-birds-and-books]

Books of 2024: July Wrap-Up.

This month, I picked my knitting back up with a vengeance, started a Three Sentences Writing Challenge, AND participated in several work-adjacent Social Events (who am I, even), On Top Of accidentally nerfing myself with several brick-like books, so! This little stack isn't half bad. Photos and/or reviews linked below:

ORDINARY MONSTERS - ★★ This was a miss for me, y'all, AND it was a brick, so it took a hot minute to read. I wanted it to be better than it was, but it rambled and wandered Too Much (which, coming from me, you KNOW is bad). Salty also-rambly 1.5k review linked.

IF FOUND, RETURN TO HELL - ★★★½ Way cuter than I was expecting!! I had a good time with the second person. Hugely relatable (which. wild. all things considered.).

THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE - ★★★½ Funnier than anticipated, and very readable for something out of the '50s! I see why it's a cornerstone of the (sub)genre. Glad I have a copy on hand now.

THE ACTOR AND THE TARGET - ★★★★★ This Rewired My Brain. It took me three (3) weeks to get through. It was so good. If you're a writer, definitely check this out, 10/10 recommend.

WHEN AMONG CROWS - ★★★½ I checked this out from the library because hardback novellas are Expensive if you're not sure you vibe with the author's style, but I had a good time! Witcher fans should descend on this, I think.

ALWAYS COMING HOME - 76*/618 pages read; will report back later. I asked the People about this one, and the People have Spoken (read: this won my What Do I Read Next Poll), but I may or may not have miscalcuated how many brain cells I have available lately between work and writing, so I may or may not be cutting this with library books. I'll finish it. Eventually. (*asterisk because she keeps referencing Other Pages In Line, and every time she does I jump ahead to read those pages instead and then come back to where I was. I'm dual wielding bookmarks through this tome, it's an Experience™ so far!)

Under the Cut: A Note About ~*★Stars★*~

Historically, I have been Very Bad™ about assigning things Star Ratings, because it's so Vibes Heavy for me and therefore Contingent Upon my Whims. I am refining this as I figure out my wrap up posts (epiphany of this month: I don't like that stars are Odd, because that makes three the midpoint and things are rarely so truly mid for me)(I have hacked my way around this with a ½). Here is, generally, how I conceptualize stars:

★ - This was Bad. I would actively recommend that you do NOT read this one, no redeeming qualities whatsoever, not worth the slog. Save Yourself, It's Too Late For Me. Book goes in the garbage (donate bin).

★★ - This was Not Good. I would not recommend it, but it wasn't a total waste or wash--something in here held my interest/kept my attention/sparked some joy. I will not be rereading this ever. Save Yourself (Or Join Me In Suffering, That Seems Like A Cool Bonding Activity).

★★★ - This was Good/Fine/Okay/Meh. I don't care about this enough to recommend it one way or another. Perfectly serviceable book, held my interest, I probably enjoyed myself (or at least didn't actively loathe the reading). I don't have especially strong feelings. You probably don't need to save yourself from this one--if it sounds like your jam, give it a shot! Just didn't resonate with me particularly powerfully. I probably won't reread this unless I'm after something in particular.

★★★½ - I liked this! I'll probably recommend it if I know it matches someone's vibes or specific requests, but I didn't commit to a star rating on Goodreads. More likely to reread, but not guaranteed.

★★★★ - I really enjoyed this!! I would recommend it (sometimes with caveats about content warnings or such--I tend to like weird fucked up funny shit, and I don't have many hard readerly NO's). Not a perfect book for me by any means, but Very Good. This is something I would reread! Join me!!

★★★★★ - I LOVED THE SHIT OUT OF THIS, IT REWIRED MY BRAIN, WILL RECOMMEND TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE AT THE SLIGHTEST PROVOCATION (content warning caveats still apply--see 4-star disclaimer). Excellent book, I'll reread it regularly, I'll buy copies for all my friends, I'll try to convince all of Booklr to read it, PLEASE join me!!

[dracomort]

Whom among Draco, Tom and Harry do you find the most difficult to write and capture? I would say Tom...but I am actually not sure about others.

It's really fic and ship dependent for me. They're all difficult in their own ways.

For me, Tom is a very difficult character to write in 1) romance, 2) happy endings (for anyone other than him). My taco fics tend to be pretty open-ended because I struggle to see how things play out with him in the long term. I think he's a bit of a kamikaze... in the sense that he blows up not only his own life, but everyone else's too. He's incredibly self-destructive.

Draco is mostly difficult because book Draco is witty af and I'm just not as funny as he is. It's also difficult to stoop to his level of nastiness ahaha. With a lot of my fics I had a weird paranoia about losing audience sympathy for Draco if he was too mean. For some bizarre reason I always forget that my target audience is majority Draco fans.

Harry isn't difficult for me to write, per se. There's less flexibility with him because he's the Canon POV character, but there's enough room for artistic license—e.g. writing a pathologically oblivious Harry or a Harry with razor-sharp intuition. Both are somehow true at the same time. It's actually Drarry that I struggle with more than Harry specifically. And I shall take this as an opportunity to segue into answering this anon:

I think a big part of this for me is that I just don't feel like I have anything to 'say' about Drarry. I don't tend to write fics unless there's a particular aspect of character that I want to explore, or a particular convention in fic that I want to respond to/subvert. There's just not much I'm interested in writing for Drarry that hasn't already been written. Part of why I like writing Taco is because it allows me to explore Draco and Tom from different angles than what Drarry and Tomarry typically allow. It also just never... flows when I'm writing them. Not sure why. Honestly bizarre considering how much Drarry I read.

[perdvivly]

What’s appealing to you about virtue ethics? What advantages do you see for it, whether conceptual, emotional, or of any other kind? What do you consider most plausible about it, or the strongest thing it has going for it?

I should preface that my thinking about this is still somewhat incohate. I don't have anything resembling a complete virtue theory. I agree with you that virtue theories in general engage in ought-smuggling. Whether that's through eudaimonia, exemplary targets or whathaveyou, there's a clear passing of the value buck. And that's important. I think there might be a response along the lines of claiming that the objects of moral intuition are dispositive qualities of multi-agent interaction. But I'd need to think about that more before presenting it with any confidence. So, in response to your actual ask, prior caveats aside. There are a few specific things that appeal to me about virtue ethics.

A significant advantage in my mind is the vocabulary. There's something very straightforward about the primary objects under consideration being virtues. It allows me to say I value kindness (if I do) in a way that doesn't defer that value. And moreover, I feel clearer in what I value when I can talk about it directly.

I think it also allows for a clearer path of moral development than I see elsewhere. I can recognise situations where I'm behaving poorly by reference to the particular traits I should cultivate in order to not behave poorly in the future. In that sense, it offers a sort of granularity that makes thinking about situations more lucid rather than less. If I'm overly concerned about utility or even duty, I find that hinders moral reflection just by virtue of those things being particularly difficult to think about clearly for me in ways that virtues are not. Which is of course, not to say that moral progress is easy. But it's certainly easier to attain when I can think about its contents with clarity. I can ask myself, "how can I be more honest in future?" "how can I be more kind in future?" "how can I be more straightforward in future?" and work on these questions separately. Whereas, with duty I'm to understand that I'm legislating for myself--which I take to be a metaphor because there's no higher legislator--and so as long as I can rationally square my behaviour in some sense, it's definitionally in accord with the moral law. And it's that rational squaring criterion that suggests a path for moral progress. That's what you need to reflect on to decide whether any given behaviour is moral. But that seems... Really hard to iterate on? Or at least like I'd need a full account of rationality before I committed myself to it. Which, to be clear, I do not feel like I have access to.

I guess what I'm saying with that is, I know what it feels like to spend time in the virtue-gym in a way I don't know what a duty-gym would feel like.

And emotionally... I feel a strong sense of "this is my hole. It was made for me" about virtue ethics in a way I do not feel about consequentialist ethics. It's agent-oriented. I'm not a consequence, I am not a creatus, I wasn't manufactured for a purpose. It (virtue ethics) is fit for a process ethics--something that engages with being as a process rather than a state. Something that recognises that people are fundamentally agentic. You know?