#Other examples are a lot of shit historical customers do

[bijoumikhawal]

RE: cultural appropriation primarily being about an economic state of affairs where white people make money off of other people, a related idea I've been contemplating but haven't been able to like. Finish writing about is the idea of cultural decontextualization, which is when a cultural majority (often but not always white people) engage with another culture in a manner that erases- and may simultaneously replicate- racist histories, and is more about creating false narratives than economics.

A personal example would be white people making clothes based off of Coptic Egyptian artifacts, especially while generically referring to them as "Roman" or arguing Coptic art does not exist, which denies Copts part of Coptic history while resurrecting the French Coptomania of the 1920s, and specifically Albert Gayet's actions of taking items from Coptic graves to the point where a model was dressed in a tunic and shown off (which is also terrible from an artifact preservation perspective- this tunic would've been at minimum, 1300 years old at the time).

[puppy-wife]

(I made this it's own post so it wouldn't get too long cause I know I'm gonna yap)

so there were a lot of ways I jumped in and just started doing shit, but I think the very first thing I did was make a first draft map of like, a general landmass (I actually based the initial landmass on the shape of Spain) and then I just started adding my own features and deciding climates and weather types and biospheres and created my primary landmass first (I went into it knowing I was designing one kingdom, not the whole world)

then once I had decided what the general shape would be, I was able to figure out the most likely places for major cities to be (one at the southernmost coast, one in the lagoon/bay, one deep in the forest high on a cliff easily defensible, one built into the mountains, one on the eastern shore, one in the middle by the giant lake, etc.

I think it was around then that I took a break from geography and created a pantheon of major gods and wrote a creation myth for the world. From there I had a few major historical events I knew I wanted, so I wrote down a very vague timeline.

at this point, I had enough places to start that I was able to pick a major city or location and I just wrote out a page of information. super basic stuff at first, name of the city, city leaders/nobles, notable features, notable shops, notable NPCs, and I would usually go ahead and create a number of threads for stories based in those locations and keep those in my DM Eyes Only document lmao

Then I kind of bounced around and did that and then I found some really good resources online for like, what do major civilizations need to have? and when I did a lore sheet for Castletown I wrote down a TON of information, cause it's a big city!! the biggest in Arcanum.

honestly from there I just kept bouncing around, never staying on one topic or location too heavily or for too long, and kind of followed a (chaotic) path led by my ADHD. Now at this point I have a map of the neighboring kingdom Ilshara, a custom calendar, it's own zodiac, a fuck load of minor gods and some gods from other realms, a bunch of fics for lore and worldbuilding, I even wrote a whole psionic system for d&d 5e that i never used lmao.

my biggest piece of advice as a GM is to follow the three layers rule. for any piece of lore you need three layers of Why to explain it. you can usually get away with less, but the more layers you can add, the more depth your world will have. so for example, why are these kobolds attacking travellers? well because they work for the dragon who's cave is nearby, and they need the gold because their dragon patron is sick and wealth is the only thing that helps them, and the dragon, well, it's sick because it's cursed by a witch that it slighted in the past, etc etc. that's what I did at least. most of my world isn't super well defined, and that's on purpose! I want to flavor it to fit the story I'm telling at that moment, and because I have sort of a natural understanding of the pattern of storytelling, I just sort of create without thinking too hard. so I like to give details to the major locations, and make everything else up as I go along (mostly)

lol this is so fun to talk about, thank you @valkyr-3 and if you (or anyone else really) are interested in seeing some of my lore documents, I do have them written in such a way that my players can access them anytime and probably find the information theyre seeking

[queensabriel]

Your LOTR Boromir lives fic ALREADY sounds amazing - are you willing to share anything about it or are you just focusing on working on it for now? Also I'd like to please ask about Gondorian names and how they're constructed and how you'd go about making one up (because I've got a LOTR fic in the early wip stages and a couple Gondor OCs that I still don't have names for, and I'd like to be accurate.)

Heehee oh i'm glad you're excited for it! I am kind of giving him a Jaime Lannister character arc (minus the, you know, twin stuff) in that instead of dying he's getting injured in a way that will affect him for the rest of his life and essentially mean that he can't be a warrior anymore and is going to have to rethink some large parts of his identity, as well as having the whole firsthand knowledge of how corrupting the ring can be. Also there's going to be some epic bestie friendship with Boromir and Eowyn, some really emotional shit when he's reunited with Merry & Pippin and also when he returns to Gondor finally.

I am also pondering the idea of working a plot in relating to my headcanon that the Arkenstone is one of the Silmarils, but i have to decide if that will be too much??? idk. AND YES LETS TALK GONDORIAN NAMES I'M HAPPY TO HELP.

HOKAY SO - you have a lot of options here, and they're all going to depend on the exact background of your characters and what you want their families to be like. A lot of people in Gondor who we're introduced to in canon are named after historical figures - Boromir is an example, Denethor another, also Faramir & Éowyn's grandson Barahir. So if you don't want to make up a name, you can literally just look at the family trees (all can be found on the lotr.fandom.com wiki) and pick something that you think fits. I'd also recommend looking them over to get a good feel for what names sound like.

But if you do want to do JRRT proud and dabble in some linguistics of your own you still have a lot of options for making up names! Names of Gondorian people are most commonly of Sindarin origin, but you don't have to hold tight to that. I personally think it would be very reasonable to have people with Rohirric names, and probably at least some with roots in Adûnaic - the language spoken in Númenor. (Especially if someone's parents are history buffs. Probably it would be weird for someone to have a completely Númenorian name like 'Ar-Zimraphel' but honestly as long as the strangeness is acknowledged you could go for it.

As for actual naming customs, everyone seems to just have the one name, I haven't really seen any examples of surnames or patronymics (other than being like "Faramir son of Denethor"), sometimes there will be references to lineage if someone comes from a Known Family - like Boromir being of the House of Húrin, but that's not really part of the name.

Here are some very useful sources:

Parf Edhellan is an amazingly comprehensive online dictionary, phrasebook and general information source for Tolkien linguistics, so if you're looking for specific word meanings that's the place to go. It's got every language JRRT made up.

If you want to grab some quick and easy premade Sindarin compound names, here is a very nice list to check out

Also I am always always happy to talk Tolkien stuff so if you wanna run anything by or bounce ideas off of me i am here for that :3

[lizziestudieshistory]

Books of 2024 - May, June, and July

Going to be honest folks, I've been having a really shit year particularly with my mental health but physical too. So that means I've: A. Not been reading as much, B. Not been present online, and C. Been playing far too much Zelda to be healthy. However, here's what I have read...

I've not really been feeling a lot of what I've picked up, which probably hasn't helped, and I've been doing a lot of reflecting on how my taste is changing. (If anyone has any recommendations for historical fantasy in the style of Guy Gavriel Kay or Susanna Clarke then let me know because I'm CRAVING these kinds of books right now.)

Anyway here's the books:

May

The Shadow of the Wind by Carlos Ruiz Zafon - I wanted to love this but I ended up hating it... The atmosphere was incredible and that kept me reading, but I found it incredibly sexist and, ultimately, shallow. It felt like those annoying men in seminars... Wanting to be perceived as clever but spouting other people's opinions and secondhand observations.

Sir Orfeo by Anonymous, translated by J.R.R. Tolkien - this was a captivating little narrative poem, mainly because I love the structure - I find it slightly hypnotic to read and I just glide through it. Truly beautiful! This is a perfect example of reading for the language alone - although the tale was charming.

June

Cranford by Elizabeth Gaskell - genuinely loved this! I thought I'd hate it but I think I like quiet stories about small communities?! Between this and my unwavering devotion to Emma I might need to rethink my preferences when it comes to classics. Cranford was a delight to read and I'm very happy I finally gave it a chance.

Mrs Wickham by Sarah Page - I didn't know whether to include this because, technically, it's an audio drama, not a book... However it's listed on Goodreads, so... 🤷‍♀️ Either way I HATED this. It was so complete and utterly ridiculous that I couldn't even take it seriously. Of all the poor continuations of Jane Austen I've had the misfortune to experience this was truly the worst. It's like they forgot Pride and Prejudice is a regency novel... Lydia deserves a better defence than this! I'm also baffled by how it managed to be crass AND overly sentimental at the same time?!

The Custom of the Country by Edith Wharton - loved it! This was a stunning character study AND exploration of Western society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Truly glorious. I should write up my notes into an actual essay at some point because I have SO MUCH to say! I can't do it justice here but someone should remind me to talk about this at some point.

The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien - depression induced reread. I needed some comfort and Tolkien always delivers.

July

The Rogue Prince by George R.R. Martin - House of the Dragon was so bad I needed to soothe my heart, but I also didn't want to reread all of Fire and Blood... So this was my compromise. I had a much better time with this than the show (I still haven't bothered to finish it...)

The Ice Dragon by George R.R. Martin - I got bored at a friend's house and read her copy. I'm glad I've never bought it because this was underwhelming.

A Song for Arbonne by Guy Gavriel Kay - I had a fantastic time, a solid standalone from Kay and one I think a lot of people will like. This isn't a new favourite - I don't think anything will eclipse The Lions of Al-Rassan or the Dianora half of Tigana, but it's an excellent book that I'd highly recommend to anyone thinking about reading a Kay novel.

DNFs

I'm not sure when I abandoned these but here we go:

Inferno by Dante - this was a reread but I was struggling so much with anxiety that reading about Hell wasn't a good idea. Confession time: I'm not religious and don't believe in Christianity when I actually sit down to think about it. However, I've managed to give myself a case of 17th century protestant salvation anxiety... It fucks with my head sometimes and this was one of those moments.

Peril's Gate by Janny Wurts - I think I'm done, I've given this series so many chances because I WANT to love it. On paper it's everything I should love. But I'm so bored and the ONE character I'm reading the series for feels like wasted potential. I might come back if they continue to make audiobooks for the series, but I don't think I'll come back to reading the ebooks.

The Game of Kings by Dorothy Dunnett - on paper this book should be right up my street. However this is NOT a book for me. I also really hate rogues... Instant turn off for me.

[mellow-strain]

A Revival & New direction for my blog

I haven't posted in a while, but here I am!

I have decided to basically dump my ideas here, because I have tonnes!

I hope to write long, rambly yet entertaining posts about my opinions focusing on fashion, sustainability and finances/anti-capitalism/anti-consumerism (as it connects to my life). It'll still incorporate my other interests too of course.

Fashion

What do I mean by 'Fashion'?

I mean in the development of my personal wardrobe. Those who know me IRL know that I am a fashionable individual, however, upon recent reflection I realise there's too much mainstream ideals that I may, sadly, only be following because everyone else is doing.

However, in saying that, I love a lot of my wardrobe and I'd never let a single piece in that I didn't have an appreciation or practical application for.

I really want to take a more historically inspired approach. Drawing from the 1900's (duh) but also, the 1800's and possibly even before 👀

My biggest focuses are Victorian, Edwardian, regency and

"what did the peasants wear? Because if it was good enough for them, it's certainly good enough for me!"

In more modern/broad ways, I will be drawing from

Lolita/J-Fashion

Gothic Fashion, mainly romantic but also many other subgenres.

Mermaids (not inherently 'mermaidcore' because I think that's a bit of a diluted version of what I seek)

Princesses in fairytales

Angels

Fairy's (again, not so much Fairycore because it really isn't resonating with my current vision)

This isn't to say you'll never see me reblog a post that has a #fairycore or anything, because I understand that people use hashtags for exposure. But also, that the 'core' versions of this aren't inherently bad! Just that's not the terms I would use to reflect myself.

Sustainability & Anti-consumerism

There's too much shit in the world. I go into H&M for a browse and it's just shitter versions of things that have always existed. For example, there's surely enjoy beige trenchcoats in the world. I recently saw that viral post of some celebrity from the 90's in a fishing jumper and a modern celebrity and like many other people, the quality difference shocked and appalled me.

In saying that and in the name of transparency, I will admit, I did do a Shien order. I feel guilty about this, but I also hope that any readers know that I do about one Shien order a year and it's no more than €100 worth of things. The things I ordered are also pieces that you generally can't get second hand. For example, tights (because they usually get super gross or break.

I am a firm believer that DIY and repair is punk. I don't really like a lot of punk fashion, so I'm not putting it in my list but just know I identify with many of the ideals and that I am striving to incorporate more of it into my life. For example, I've been using invisible repair methods a lot more on my own personal clothes. My family have said that it's pointless because the items I'm repairing cost cents to replace and maybe they have a point, but I find the repair process relaxing and a sign of love.

Finances and Cost

As you'll soon discover, I am not a particularly wealthy individual. For the sake of my privacy, I'll avoid details.

It's easy to say “I want to dress Goth and Victorian” then buy a few designer or custom corsets and call it a day, but I don't quite have that financial privilege.

However, if I budget for certain items that I know I will get excellent use from, I can make it work.

I'm not very good with money. It burns a hole in my pocket, but I'm making a conscious effort to change that. I will be posting reviews of my incoming orders and possibly some of my previous purchases.

Why now?

CW mention of weight loss and some numbers (in regards to sizes) for this section

Note: I will be adding CWs above paragraphs relating to anything weight or body changes related

As it's sure to come up eventually, I'll answer the question. I've been on a weight loss journey starting at about a UK18/US12, I strongly identified as plus size and I'm currently a little more than a UK12/US8 with plans to get down to about a UK8/US4. My old reliables don't fit me, and they won't fit me in the future. So I NEED to buy more things.

I hope to write somewhere about my identity as a plus size woman no longer applying.

Currently, when I am getting dressed and exploring what my wardrobe has to offer, it saddens me. Because I know that a lot of my favourite pieces don't work. I've given many away to good homes but I still miss them.

If I have to turn over a new leaf, I may as well march into the future with ambitious ideas.

Historical fashion is generally very adjustable which as my weight continues to change, I really need.

Because of my low budget and good taste, it doesn't make sense for me to buy things that may not fit me in a few months. This means that most things I buy I either need to be

Ok with getting rid of (ie. Giving away to a good home)

Forgiving fit (eg. Stretchy or 'oversize')

Easy to take in (eg. Adding a fold to a ruffled skirt)

If anyone has any ideas on how to make various items of clothes last, please do let me know and I'll see where I can go with it.

Thanks for reading!

Hopefully, you like it! And if not, then vanish into the abyss or just block me. This blog is mostly just as an outlet for my scatter brain.

[idohistorysometimes]

Tips for tourists (for any Museum or historical site from somebody who works there)

Please do not block exhibits with your strollers, bags, or bodies.

I am not sure if this is a new problem or what: but it's something I really noticed when I was both visiting museums on vacation and working at them locally. But regardless, there has been this massive uptick of people who just plop their bags, strollers, or strategically place their families in front of exhibits so other people cannot get close to them. Do not do that.

Not only is it extremely rude but it also ruins the viewing experience for everybody else there (including any staff present if there is any). I get strollers, in general, are big and clunky and thus hard to maneuver around or that bringing a big group/family to a location will always kind of result in you just taking over the space you are in. But PLEASE be considerate of others and know how much space you are occupying. If you have already been in an area for a few minutes, read all the signs, and have seen all there is to see and other people are waiting PLEASE move on. Don't just stand there and linger. If you really need to wait for somebody or do something find an area off to the side away from the exhibits to do that. 

DO NOT FUCK WITH ANIMALS

If there are ANY animals present where you are (either wild animals or ones kept domestically) DO NOT MESS WITH THEM. I do not care if you think letting your toddler chase wild animals would make a cute Instagram post or if “you have them at home”, do not:

Chase the animals

Try to pick up the animals

Try to touch/pet the animals (unless otherwise instructed) 

Try to place yourself on the animal’s back or otherwise get in their space

Harass the animals in any way

I'm aware it might make a cute photo or how you might think whatever you are doing is funny. But I would like to stress just how injured or sick you or your child could get if you disobey common sense and decide to act a fool around animals you do not own and are not familiar with. If you harass a rooster you will get the spurs and have your hands, legs, or other various body parts shredded. If you harass a cow or horse you run the risk of getting kicked and suffering some pretty serious internal damage. And if you mess with wild animals (like bears or bison depending on where you are) you are fucked. Completely fucked. Either hospital or dead fucked. I am not joking. Its serious.

PLEASE LISTEN to any signs you might find in the area regarding any animals you might find, employees of the site you are visiting (AKA: if they ask you to stop chasing the chickens you stop), and your common sense. Not only will it put less stress on the animals and make your experience a lot more fun, but it will also save you a potential hospital visit.

Leave no trace

When visiting a historical site (especially when out visiting an old historical building or are out in a more woodsy area) please do not leave bits of yourself behind at those places. For example: do not carve your name into a 300-year-old wall or break off parts of whatever you are seeing to take home with you. By doing this you are literally destroying whatever it is you are seeing and ruining it for everybody else.  

Dont be that guy. Dont be the next “Creepytings”. Nuff said. If you are that guy you could get arrested, fined, or be the universal punching bag of whatever group you are apart of. 

Know the culture and customs of the area you are visiting 

This is more of a general thing. Like a REALLY general thing. But if you are visiting an area you might not be from or familiar with outside of popculture: do not assume what happens at home might happen where you are visiting. Do some research beyond that of watching media from the area. Actually google that shit first. 

Its going to save you a LOT of trouble and uncomfortable situations. Trust me. Just please research that shit first (and or ask natives on sites like reddit to give you pointers). 

TURN OFF THE GOD DAMN FLASH

If you are in a museum with artifacts that are quite old (or just anywhere in general) TURN OFF YOUR FLASH IF YOU WANT TO TAKE PICTURES.

Seriously, SERIOUSLY, not only is the flash extremely annoying but it will also degrade any of the artifacts you are taking pictures of with it. This article right here explains the logistics of that all well. There is a reason they ask you to turn that shit off. 

[phoenixyfriend]

👀 PLease tell us your thoughts about the Jedi babies re-growing up among different cultural contexts.

Oh fuck okay

Context: original post, chrono The specific post this ask is referencing: here

Summary of the AU: Disaster lineage got tossed back in time. Anakin stayed 21-ish, but Obi-Wan and Ahsoka got deaged, took new names for time-travel reasons (Ylliben and Sokanth, or Ben and Soka), are now staying with the True Mandalorians under Jaster Mereel because the Force said to, go back to the Temple after about a decade. They grabbed Shmi about three months after arriving.

So as far as the cultural background goes, Obi-Wan and Ahsoka had similar upbringings. She spent a few years on Shili first, but both spent the majority of their childhoods up to age 13/14 being raised in the creche. So that's the basis that they would default to, in a vacuum.

Nobody is raised in a vacuum.

Along with the Jedi cultural background, they're being raised by Tatooine natives in a Mandalorian environment.

Shmi and Anakin are both former slaves who have desert survival baked into their bones. The longer Anakin spends around her, the more his accent slips, the more he talks about old folktales, the more he uses idioms that don't exist on a cityplanet like Coruscant. All the things that he tamped down to be a Jedi come floating back to the surface, and Shmi's never known anything else. Anakin's knowledge of slave customs make her feel more comfortable, which in turn makes him feel better, and so on.

Mandalore is just... the culture they're living in. You don't grow up in a new culture with a new language without picking up on it personally. (Source: I moved to the US when I was a little under two years old.)

I think the thing I'm going to focus on as an example is the way each of these cultures approaches family, and then maybe how they approach the keeping of peace/what peace means.

Jedi: Where you come from means little, only the legacy you leave behind in your students. Mandalore: You protect your clan and your children; adoption is a major cultural value, if not actually practiced consistently. Tatooine: You can lose your family at any time, so you value what you have in all its forms. You don’t forget where and who you came from, to family of blood and family of choice alike. You cling to your memories and what little you still have of them, to what your master cannot take away.

These are all valid ways to approach family, and each of these approaches can have significant meaning to different people. But they do all, to a certain degree, conflict with one another, despite all three being fairly communal cultures.

The Jedi have a culture, one that’s built on a shared ability and religion over thousands of years. It’s not just an organization, but a continuous community with legends and traditions and art and records. But it’s one that is built on new blood coming in from the outside, volunteers who join because the religion speaks to them (near literally, given the nature of Force Sensitivity), given up by families who couldn’t or wouldn’t teach them in a way that let their talents flourish instead of pushing it all down.

For the Jedi, a culture built on people coming together due to something they have in common intrinsically that their families of blood do not, it makes sense to put emphasis on letting go of that past when they can, and to place importance on teaching lineages. It’s not just the official master-padawan pairs, either, but that’s the most obvious and easily paralleled element. Moreover, a lot of the Jedi culture is about gaining knowledge, so obviously spreading it is good, and also on supporting the galaxy to make it a better place; to view the Jedi order as a heavily communal culture would make sense, since their values are all about selfless betterment of the universe, which on a larger scale is about the galactic conflicts, but on a smaller scale is about supporting their own community, the children and the ill and elderly.

So that is the specific culture that Obi-Wan and Ahsoka grew up in, one that holds blood family as relevant but not particularly crucial to one’s identity, but is structured so people leave behind legacies through education in a manner that often becomes adoptive family (depending on your definition, I guess). Jedi are encouraged to connect to their home cultures, if not their families, with practices like the coming of age hunt for Togruta leading to the young Jedi taking a trip out to Shili to engage in that cultural milestone. This can also be viewed as a way for the Jedi to maintain personal connections to the wider universe, a (not entirely successful, but certainly attempted) way of keeping them from becoming too isolated and insular from the universe at large, and losing touch from what the galaxy actually needs of them.

They’re now growing up with two cultures that do place emphasis on blood and found family.

Mandalore, as presented in The Mandalorian, has their traditional values set as being heavily associated with their armor, battle skills, and childcare. While that’s clearly a set of values that aren’t actually followed by everyone with full sincerity, we can assume that these stated cultural values do have at least some impact on the way the society is structured, since we do see more traditional characters (Jaster, Din) adopt orphaned children and then have the Mandalorian elements of their immediate circles support that claim.

(We’ll ignore Jango and the whole clone army thing because the amount of Sith influence is up for debate and also holy trauma, Batman.)

However, we also see that a lot of Mandalorian culture is built on their family histories. On the New Mandalorian side, we see emphasis placed on the fact that Satine is House Kryze and that she’s a duchess. Her bloodline is relevant, though not the most important thing about her. On the Death Watch side, we have Pre and Tor placing emphasis on the fact that they’re Clan Vizsla, descended from Tarre, that this is important to why they deserve what the darksaber represents, this is part of why they not only deserve to lead, but should for the good of Mandalore.

Bo-Katan’s armor is a family heirloom. Boba’s armor was Jango’s, but before being Jango’s, it was Jaster’s. Armor is important enough to pass to family, but the family can be adopted. This all tracks.

The resol’nare specifies loyalty and care for the clan/tribe among the six tenets.

These two elements seem relatively well-balanced: the importance of adoption and the importance of family as a larger unit on the level of a house or clan.

And then you have Tatooine, which also balances blood and adoption, but for entirely different reasons, that being this: it can always be taken from you.

For all that a Mandalorian could historically expect their family to die in battle, and a Jedi could expect to lose their master the same way if things went poorly, those were usually choices. A Mandalorian was raised to walk into battle, and then they could make that choice to do so. It wasn’t often much of a choice, but they could feasibly turn their back and choose to be a farmer or a doctor or something, and support the people who went out to do battle instead of being the one on the field themselves. A Jedi could choose to be a healer or an archivist or join one of the Corps.

A slave does not get that choice. A slave can be killed or sold on a whim from their master. It’s not a one-time trauma, but an ever-present fear. Your parent, your child, your sibling, your spouse, all of them can be separated from you at any time. You can always lose them, and you have no choice but to grin and bear it, or try to run and die before you reach freedom.

In a context like that, I imagine Tatooine places a very heavy emphasis on family, both of blood and of choice, and on treasuring what you have while you have it. A person is always aware that they can lose whoever they have in their life, and so they make the most of their times together, have clear and consistent ways of expressing that love (I imagine primarily direct verbal confirmations and physical contact, practical gifts like water and fruit). Childcare is important, elders are venerated. Those who survived that far have valuable wisdom, and the children are to be given what happiness they can have before reality wipes that ability from them.

The family ‘networks’ among Tatooine slaves are smaller and tighter knit. There’s less trust for outsiders, but once you’re in, you’re in until you are taken away. Still, families are torn apart regularly, and often can’t contact each other after being separated if they’re sold far enough away, so families stay small because they’re always being broken up. Unlike Mandalore’s tribe/clan system, or the Jedi’s wide, loosely-structured community, Tatooine’s slaves form smaller groups that cling for as long as they can, and try to support each other. (There are selfish ones, of course, especially the newbies, but... well. Most try.)

Tatooine is also much more likely to assign a familial role (e.g. referring to an elder as ‘grandmother’). It’s not uncommon in the others (multiple Jedi refer to their masters as a parent or sibling, like Anakin’s “you’re like a father to me” line), but it’s not as baked-in that such a role should be given.

So on a structural level, we have two people from a community culture with little emphasis on blood family or formal familial roles are now being raised in a community that has them asking “what can you do for the people around you first, and then the wider world?” by people who tell them “your family, blood and found, is the most important thing you have; never let anyone take more from you than they possibly can.”

And that shit has an effect.

For all that Sokanth and Ylliben were once raised with a knowledge that their duty, their goal, was to better the galaxy as a whole, they are now being told that the community that raises them asks their loyalty back, because societies are built on support networks, and if you support the tribe, it will support you. There are parallels to that kind of thinking among Jedi, because it is basic social theory, but it’s not presented as the same kind of cultural value. It’s not given as something to strive for, just a basic fact.

This, for instance, means that once they’re back at the Temple, they have a tendency towards suggesting study groups and other ways of supporting people in their immediate circle, often structured in very unfamiliar ways. Again, this isn’t uncommon among Jedi, but it’s not done in the same way, or with the same emphasis. The Jedi also often approach problem-solving in a different order, so the step of “meditate on it and you may find your solution” often comes before “gather information from people who know more about it than you do,” while Ben and Soka have by this point learned to do it the other way around, because that’s what the Mandalorian system taught them: rely on your family first.

Meanwhile, the Tatooine element of their upbringing has them being much more willing to just... casually refer to ‘my dad’ and ‘my sister’ and so on. They use those words. It’s not just “my master is like a father to me,” but “this is my father.” They don’t hesitate to talk about the family they had and still have in Mandalorian space. None of the Jedi begrudge them it, really, but it’s always a shock to hear for the first time, and between the Tatooine refusal to pretend the connection is gone and the Mandalorian tendency to err on the side of roughhousing as affection, they’re just... odd. It’s not like none of the other Jedi know family outside the Order--some of the old books had Obi-Wan visiting his brother on Stewjon once in a while--or like none of the active Jedi are loud or boisterous, but the specific manner in which Soka and Ben interact with the Order, especially when their dad is around, is very weird.

More Soka than Ben, really, but that’s mostly just because Ben’s a very quiet person until he gets a little older, so it’s harder to notice on him.

Point is, while they still hold to their duty to the wider galaxy and will continue to keep that duty above almost anything else in their lives, the way they talk and act about the subject of family, especially in private, is heavily influenced by their new cultures.

This is already very long but I promised I’d talk about peace so let’s go:

The Jedi seek peace as an absence of war and conflict in the portion of the galaxy under their purview, in hopes that they will prevent as much suffering and death as they can.

The Mandalorians are varied, but Jaster Mereel’s group (which is the community the Skywalkers are with) is likely to view peace as unrealistic to achieve in the long term. They do not seek war, but they know the world they live in, and are prepared to protect against violence as their first resort. They always expect an attack, even if they don’t seek it.

The Slaves of Tatooine view peace as the calm in a storm. It is the status quo. Nobody has escaped tonight, for the guards aren’t searching, but neither is anyone dead. The Master you have is in a good enough mood to not sell you, to not kill you, to not beat you. Peace as an absence of suffering is impossible, so you seek for your master to be peaceful, that is to say: not raging at you.

The scope of each of these narrows significantly. From the known galaxy, to the wars that meet Mandalorian space, to the household one serves.

A community like the Jedi can choose to address peace as something to be sought on a large scale as an absence of war. They primarily function within the borders of the Republic, which has its problems but is largely structured to prevent such things from occurring until the Sith interfere. The Jedi have a structure that allows them to address peace as an ideal to be sought, at least within the borders of the territory they serve.

Mandalore, meanwhile, has been at war on and off for... ever. When they are not at war with themselves, they’re at war with someone else. ‘Peace’ is just the time between wars, and they know that if they do not attack first, they will be forced to defend. Jaster Mereel was known as the Reformer, and part of that was that instituting a code of honor, one that was intended to prevent Mandalorian warriors from acting as raiders and brigands, but rather acting as honorable hired soldiers, or taking roles such as the Journeyman Protectors. Given that, I imagine that he views war as something inevitable, but also something that can be mitigated.

War doesn’t touch Tatooine.

Oh, it might raise taxes and import rates. It might prevent visitors who come for the races. It can do a lot of things.

But to a slave, these are nothing. The only thing war does is affect the master, the person who chooses when their slaves get water, when they get beaten, when they are no longer useful enough to keep around or keep alive.

The peace of a slave’s live is dictated by how much abuse they are subjected to by the person who owns them.

What this means for Soka and Ben is... well, they are viewed as war-hungry by the people who don’t know them very well. They have armor. They focus on fighting, both with and without their sabers. They know tactics better than most masters. They claim that war is coming, and don’t seem too sad about it.

(It is a fact to them. War will come. All they can do is meet it. They’ve already done their mourning once.)

They also... well, Shmi tells them things in hidden corners. How to duck their head to hide the hate or fear in their eyes. How to watch for the anger in the tendons of a hand. The laugh of someone who enjoys the pain they’ve caused, not just the adrenaline of a fight. She is free, and so are they, but she has not forgotten how to hide in the shadows until the master’s ire has turned elsewhere. How to be small and quiet and unseen until the danger passes.

A Jedi’s first resort is words. Their second is their saber. But the Jeedai hold their heads high, and the Mandalorians do the same.

“You rely on the Force, and you have your pride,” she tells them, her hands on their own. “But there will come a time when you will not be able to remind people that you are free. You will not be able to say that you are a person, that you deserve the respect of a living sentient. Perhaps it will be a politician who treats everyone like that. Perhaps you will be captured by an enemy. Perhaps you will be undercover. You will not be able to fight, with words or with weapons, and you will have to know how to survive.”

Tatooine does not have peace. Tatooine only has survival.

And while Jedi fight for the survival and peace of the universe, they are refined and composed. Mando’ade fight like warriors of old, and Tatooine slaves fight like cornered, rabid anooba.

The galaxy comes first, but when the chips are down and the Sith come out to play, Soka and Ben do not need refinement, because they know how to toss aside their pride and live.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Facebook algorithm boosts pro-Facebook news

Facebook is a rotten company, rotten from the top down, its founder, board and top execs are sociopaths and monsters, committers of non-hyperbolic, no-fooling crimes against humanity. They lie, they cheat, they steal. They are some of history’s greatest villains. Because Facebook is a terrible company run by terrible people, it periodically erupts in ghastly scandal. Sometimes whistleblowers or reporters reveal historic crimes, including (but not limited to) deliberately helping to foment genocide.

Sometimes, the scandals are contemporary: either Facebook blithely announces it’s going to do something terrible, or we learn of some terrible thing underway from leaks or investigations.

Thanks to a history of anticompetitive mergers — Whatsapp, Instagram, Onavo and more — based on fraudulent promises to antitrust regulators, Facebook has grown to nearly three billion users — except FB doesn’t have users, really — it has hostages.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/07/dont-believe-proven-liars-absolute-minimum-standard-prudence-merger-scrutiny

As Facebook’s own internal memos show, the company doesn’t just buy up competitors so users have nowhere to flee to, it also engineers in high “switching costs” to make it more painful to leave the system.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

For example, Facebook’s internal memos show that the manager for its photo products set out to seduce users into entrusting FB with their family photos, because that way quitting Facebook would mean abandoning your memories of your kids, departed grandparents, etc.

Everybody hates Facebook, especially FB users. The point of high switching costs, after all, is to increase the pain of leaving so that FB can dole out more abuse to its users without fearing that they’ll quit the whole enterprise.

FB’s mission is to increase the size of the shit-sandwich they can force you to eat before you walk away. But they’re not mere sadists: shit-sandwiches have a business model: the more hostages they take, the more they can extract from advertisers — their true customers.

The polite term for what FB has is a “two-sided market” (selling advertisers to users and users to advertisers). The technical term is “a monopoly and a monoposony” (a monopsony is a market with a single buyer).

The colloquial term?

“A racket.”

A scam. A bezzle. A blight.

Facebook gouges advertisers on rate cards, then lies about the reach of its ads (like when it lied about the popularity of video, evincing a media-wide “pivot to video” that bankrupted dozens of news- and entertainment-sites).

Facebook didn’t set out to destroy journalism by price-fixing ads, lying to advertisers and media outlets.

FB set out to acquire a monopoly and extract monopoly rents from advertisers and publishers, with a pathological indifference to how these frauds would harm others.

Having shown a willingness to destroy journalists and media outlets to extract a few more billions for its shareholders, Facebook has attracted a lot of enemies in the media.

If you’re a whistleblower with a story to tell, there’s a journalist whose editor will allocate the resources to report your story out in depth. The combination of a rotten company and a lot of pissed off journalists produces a lot of bad ink for the company.

But the fact remains that FB has a vast pool of hostages, billions of them, and it gets to decide what they see, when and how. I used to joke with my human rights activist friends that the best use for Facebook was showing people why and how to leave Facebook.

FB’s response was predictable. As Ryan Mac and Sheera Frenkel write in the New York Times, FB’s Project Amplify is a Zuckerberg-led initiative to systematically promote positive coverage of FB and its founder — including articles that originate with FB itself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/technology/zuckerberg-facebook-project-amplify.html

That is, FB staffers are charged with writing puff pieces about how great the company is, and FB’s algorithm will push these ahead of reporting by actual journalists who present detailed, factual, multi-sourced accounts of the company’s fraudulent and depraved conduct.

Project Amplify marks a pivot from FB’s longstanding policy of issuing insincere apologies for its scandals. Company sources told the reporters that everyone figured out these don’t convince anyone, so the company turned to pushing happy-talk quackspeak instead.

One of the leaders of this project is Alex Schultz, “a 14-year company veteran who was named chief marketing officer last year,” but the major impetus comes from Zuck himself, one of the most hated men on the planet.

Amplify is just one of FB’s strategies for distorting the discourse about itself. In July, it neutered Crowdtangle, an widely used analytics tool that showed that FB’s top posts were unhinged far-right disinformation and conspiracies.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/15/three-wise-zucks-in-a-trenchcoat/#inconvenient-truth

And Facebook has declared all-out legal warfare (accompanied by a disinformation campaign) to kill Adobserver, an NYU project that tracks paid political disinformation on the platform.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/05/comprehensive-sex-ed/#quis-custodiet-ipsos-zuck

By shutting down Crowdtangle and Adobserver, FB hopes to control the academic findings about the company’s role in disinformation, hate, and harassment. The company runs its own research portal where academics are expected to access data about the platform.

But as with the journalists who report on it, FB has heaped abuse on the academics who research it.

Its portal data was bad, leaving PhD and masters’ theses are at risk of retraction. Mid-dissertation researchers have been set back to square one.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/2020-election-misinformation-distortions#facebook-sent-flawed-data-to-misinformation-researchers

In retrospect, Facebook’s decision to game its own algorithm to push pro-company quackspeak seems inevitable. It’s not just that no one believes the company’s apologies anymore (if they ever did) — it’s that the company seems incapable of hiring competent spin doctors.

Take the WSJ’s blockbuster “Facebook Files,” a series of reports detailing the company’s willingness to harm children, commit fraud, and allow millions of favored, powerful people to violate its rules with impunity.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-09-16/facebook-s-promised-to-gain-the-public-s-trust

FB’s response was genuinely pathetic. In a perfunctory blog post, its top flack — the widely despised British politician Nick Clegg, paid millions to front FB on the global stage — vilified the WSJ’s reporting without producing any factual rebuttals.

https://about.fb.com/news/2021/09/what-the-wall-street-journal-got-wrong/

It’s the kind of ham-fisted policy advocacy that Facebook is (in)famous for. Who can forget the absolute shitshow in India over its Internet Basics program, when it bribed telcos to exempt FB and the services it hand-picked from their data-caps?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg

This Net-Neutracidal maneuver, falsely billed as a way to bring the internet to poor people (something is absolutely does not do), was the subject of a consultation by India’s telco regulators.

FB pushed deceptive alerts to millions of its Indian users, tricking them into sending a flood of form-letters to the regulator urging it to leave Internet Basics intact.

But whoever drafted the form letter didn’t bother to check whether it addressed any of the questions the regulator was consulting on. That made these millions of letters non-responsive to the consultation, so the regulator ignored them.

FB lost! It’s almost as though people who are good at fighting policy battles don’t want to work for Facebook, and the only talent they can attract are the kinds of opportunistic blunderers that no one takes seriously and everyone hates.

Weird, that.

[starswallowingsea]

It's book review time! This time for a book I actually finished like a month ago and completely forgot to do my review until now!

So I read the Lost Apothecary by Sarah Penner back in August. I got it through Book of the Month because nothing in July (when I signed up) particularly called out to me and this book has been on my TBR for a while so I took a chance on it.

Overall it was... kinda meh. It reads easy enough and I finished it in a week but I wish there had just been more to it.

My overall rating was 3.5/5 stars and I'll get into the details under the cut.

So this book is one of those split historical/modern perspectives books, similar to the Paris Orphan but not done quite as well in my opinion (and a lot of other people's opinions too). The concept is there, an apothecary that helped women kill their abusive spouses or men in their lives, which certainly existed (side note: if that is what interested you about this novel, I would highly recommend the first season of the podcast Criminalia, which was all about lady poisoners and each episode includes a cocktail recipe to go with the story. Anyway,) and are important to study, but the modern perspective was lacking.

I'm in the minority that didn't really mind Caroline, but I kind of interpreted her as being raised in like an Evangelical household where the decisions she says she made with regards to her husband (such as not going to grad school, taking a job she didn't want just for the stability, etc) made more sense? But then towards the end her husband shows up and it just makes everything very, very weird. He admits to drinking some of her essential oils on purpose to get her attention because he thought she was going to leave him for cheating on her (no fucking shit dude). If she wasn't already preparing the divorce papers when you cheated on her with one of your office workers, then she definitely would after you intentionally poisoned yourself and almost died.

The past segment of the book also felt somewhat weak. I understand that it had to take place before the invention of poison detection in forensic analysis during autopsies started getting better and more accurate, but other than that it didn't feel like Penner utilized the setting to its fullest extent. Also the twelve year old character thought her vagina was haunted by the ghost of her old master and nobody explained the concept of periods to her? Why. They kinda just brushed it off as "all girls and women bleed once every lunar cycle" but never explained that it was natural to her.

Finally, my biggest gripe with the book was the absolutely insane focus on pregnancy. It feels like all the characters except the child are obsessed with having children. The old lady who runs the apothecary laments how her lover had forced her to have a miscarriage (which at first I didn't mind as a motivation for her, but then), one of her customers comes in and wants to kill her husband's lover so he'll sleep with her and get her pregnant and she can have children, and the most egregious example of all, the modern character, as her husband was being taken to the hospital, thinks that one of the emergency responder's making a remark about keeping essential oils out of reach of children is an attack on her for not having children. Girly, it's just a statement of fact. You shouldn't keep essential oils within reach of children or they will eat it and die.

I think towards the end Penner was trying to go for some sort of magical realism or just in general actual magic in the setting but it was not very well executed. The only real sign of it was the 12yo girl character believed that magic could save the little hole in the wall apothecary and brewed some "potions" to keep them alive in dire situations and she chugged it before jumping from a bridge into the Thames, which certainly the impact into the cold water should have killed her almost instantly and we have not been led to believe she knows how to swim either. At the end we see that she survived and hinted in the one piece of writing about her that survived to the 21st century that she believed the potion protected her on that day. Yeah. If she wanted to add that little hint of magic, I wish it had more of an influence on the plot and more of a presence in the book or was just left out entirely.

Anyway, it's an easy read. If you need something quick to read and get out of a slump, it'll do that. It's not awful but it's certainly odd and could have done more with the connections between modern and historical instead of just some random tourist coming across one of the old bottles in the river on a vacation away from her cheating husband. It's not the worst book I've ever read but it's also not worth writing home about because it was so good. It's average. It's so unfortunate that it has such a beautiful cover and such a mid-tier story.

[artsy-hobbitses]

I'm getting very curious about Malaysia... what's it like there?? Culture, living conditions, etc.

Pretty loaded question!

Off the top of my head, some specifics:

- Very much a melting pot. Malay, Chinese and Indian ethnicities mingle pretty freely, interracial marriages are not uncommon (I’m quarter Chinese on my mum’s side) and the modern Malaysian slang is often a mishmash of Malay, Chinese and Indian words. You have a choice between public, vernacular (usually caters to a specific race ie. Chinese/Indian as a stronghold of the language/customs, however I had Malays friends who went to Chinese Vernacular schools) international, private and religious schools (mostly for the Muslim-Majority Malays). Public holidays are designated for all three major races (big ones are Eid, Deepavali and Chinese New Year) plus more specific ones in Sabah/Sarawak for the indigenous population, and it’s normal for say, Malays to be invited to a Deepavali gathering or for Chinese to be invited to Eid open houses. We’re usually chill about it like that.

- Despite this, racism exists. It’s not loud and proud like in western nations though (except for your occasional Malay nationalist politician) it tends to be more of the passive-aggressive sort. Some parents discreetly warn their kids about not being friends with [X] race at school, some house rental listings with single out [X] race, though we’re coming to the point that we’re not bothering with Asian decorum anymore and publicly shitting on that behavior. On a historical aspect, the potential reason it takes on a more subtle, passive-aggressive tone here was that on 13 May 1969, sectarian violence broke out between urban Chinese and Malays in Kuala Lumpur due to unrest over the general election, and this resulted in the deaths of 600 people, mostly Chinese (My mum lived through this time at the heart of the incident). Basically the nation’s been scarred and has feared a similar event ever since, so those spouting open racial violence get slammed down pretty quick and “Remember 13 May” has often been used as a warning for whenever tensions flare up. Or when politicians want us to keep our grumblings down. We tend to have a don’t-rock-the-boat mentality here on the basis of trying to keep the peace for everyone—-it doesn’t always work. Malay Privilege/“Ketuanan Melayu” is a thing you’ll hear often from some sections of Malays here, who tend to argue that since they’re technically the original inhabitants if the land (don’t quiz ‘em about the Orang Asli), they should get more rights than the others.

-Living conditions vary. I live in Selangor—the state surrounding the Capital Kuala Lumpur—-which has the highest density of denizens. Here, it’s pretty modern. My husband and I rent a two-story terrace house, my parents who are a little well-off have their own bungalow. Places like Penang, Perak and Johor also tend to be more in the modern side. You’ll find more rural areas and kampungs as you go deeper into the heart of country (Pahang), the East Coast (Kelantan, Terengganu) and the country’s rice bowl (Kedah, and by extension, Perlis). This is within the Peninsula—-Sabah (I lived here for about four years) and Sarawak have a combination of modern and rural areas and tend to take life at a much slower pace than the Peninsula states (They also want none of Peninsula’s religious tension bullshit). My father’s kampung is in Pahang, and while I was never close to my paternal grandparents, I do have fond memories of cooking outdoors and plucking rambutan bunches from the trees they grew.

- Wet. Very wet. Monsoon season/‘Musim Tengkujuh’ at year end interspace with mid-year. Fucks with the income of local fishermen who are barred from going to the ocean on the account of rough waves, Flooding is an annual occurrence for rural areas, though we get flash floods in cities too. Common enough that “check for crocodiles” isn’t a weird request when you come back to clean your homes from mud and silt. (Houses near flood-prone areas will employ walls or be built on stilts to withstand the floods).

- 9 Sultans for 9 states, they take turns becoming the Agong (Chief Sultan I guess?) every five years. They’re mostly there the same way the British monarchy is. Don’t really play a big role in politics unless there is a need for them to decree something when politicians can’t work things out between themselves.

- Political leapfrog. It’s. A thing. A politician you see from one party today can be a member of another party tomorrow. It’s gotten so bad they’re considering legislation to punish it. We do call them literal frogs (Katak) when they do this (Sorry frogs, you deserve better!)

- Food. All the fucking food. Melting pot = all the deliciousness. There’s no culturally appropriating cuisine here, everyone’s eating everyone else’s stuff with great gusto. Roti Canai/Chappati (Indian) for breakfast, Nasi Campur (mixed rice, mostly with Malay dishes) for lunch and Wantan Mee (Chinese) for dinner is an example of the food culture trip you go through on any given day. You’ll have Malays who adore Chinese food, Chinese who adore Malay food, and no one fights when they’re eating, that’s all there is to it. Places like Penang are a haven for food and people will make trips just to eat there.

- Islam is the main religion. However, it’s not strictly enforced in most cases, I’d dare even say that we’re quite secular, to the teeth-gnashing of the Facebook army. I’m a Muslim who doesn’t wear a headscarf (except on special occasions), I know Muslims who rescue and keep dogs (My hunter grandfather apparently caught and kept a Dhole as a house guard way back), and I know some who’re LGBT, albeit somewhat discreet about it.

- Speaking of LGBT, the country is not friendly to the community, but neither is it as hostile as sections of the US tend to be about it. As an example, gay conversion therapy isn’t really a thing there (presumably because that would entail the govt admitting that there’s enough gay people to require it at all), workplaces generally do not have a policy targeting people based on their sexualities, like you’ll find butch ladies serving you drinks at Starbucks and gay men working with local theatre productions, and violence against LGBT members is pretty rare (though I imagine this is more because most people here mostly do not want to kick up a fuss in public, what more a fight, and just judge from a distance). Basically, the majority of the public will tolerate LGBT existence—whispering behind their back——until there starts to be a call for rights.

- Good degree of English command. English is understood, if not spoken, by a lot of us here from cab drivers to stall owners, so you won’t be hopelessly lost if you decide to visit. A big majority of us are at LEAST bilingual (In my case, I speak English and Malay, and can understand some Arabic). Quite a number who come from interracial marriages are trilingual.

- Cheap healthcare. There’s a reason we’re one of the top destinations for medical tourism. You have a choice between private and government hospitals which provide a form of universal healthcare. Govt clinics/hospitals offer subsidized healthcare and meds to all members of the public, and most doctors will start out in government hospitals before moving to private practices (like my sister-in-law). Uninsured, a trip to a normal clinic for a consultation will set you back maybe twenty to thirty bucks, fifty if you need meds or a small procedure like stitches. I do have insurance but have never used it for doctor visits since the amount is pretty trivial. I have, however, used it for a hysterectomy surgery + 1 month hospital stay at a private hospital which set me back about RM30,000-RM40,000 (USD7000-USD9500) which I managed to get covered. Ambulance Fees are like, RM200 (USD47) for private hospitals and RM50 (USD12) for govt hospitals. Consultation fees, blood tests and X-Rays go as low as RM1 (24 Cents) in govt hospitals. If you get hurt here, we got you covered.

And that’s just off my head! If there’s something specific you’d like you know, feel free to ask further ouob

[sugar-petals]

Tarot Reading Practice: Why Using Lenormand Cards Is Amazing

they’re originally from france and gorgeously vintage — what more does a card reader want?

it’s like tarot’s major arcana, but simplified and with cottagecore imagery. the nostalgia factor is off the charts, too.

the cards have an even longer tradition than the rider-waite tarot, going back to the 18th century. that means: plenty of material out there.

it is excellent to predict timing. each card is numbered and has a specific set time range, even season. you can pinpoint your prediction down to the day.

lenormand’s accuracy even has a historical anecdote. all of napoleon’s battle victories and losses were correctly predicted by madame lenormand, the inventor of the deck herself. who was looking fly as hell by the way.👌

there are only 36 cards to learn. if you buy oracle cards, it’s usually 44 cards or more to study, with tarot it’s 78 cards plus reversals. especially if you’ve already learned the tarot, this is peanuts.

and yes, no reversals in lenormand. god bless.

some decks have the meanings printed as little poems onto the cards themselves. that’s classy, that’s clever, and extremely handy for beginners. it’s brilliantly written and still open-ended enough to allow a different interpretation each session. it changes depending on what other cards it comes with, you’ll never be bored.

in other decks, they also have classic playing cards on them. 

buying lenormand cards is incredibly inexpensive. five bucks and you’re good to go, whereas other decks cost you 20 or more. and even if the price is low and the cards are a bit smaller (e.g. mine are 9 x 5.5 cm), the value you get out of those is... wow. i’ve even seen quality decks as cheap as two euros. 

there’s only one thing going on at a time on the card. no complicated symbolism, it can speak to you more instantly. the downside: with tarot, you can draw a story out of one card already. with lenormand, you need say a 2-card spread and benefit from knowing more about what card means what. 

which again is an advantage though. lenormand needs less intuition, you can squarely, shamelessly learn it by the book. whereas tarot, you know how it is. the card wants to tell you something specific that might not be the standard definition. while lenormand is like haha boom, you will travel next month! you will move in with your partner! you have beef with a colleague if you write email XYZ!

astrological signs and houses are associated with specific cards. i repeat, lenormand and the zodiac go hand in hand just like the tarot. do i even have to go on?!

the cards are petite but sturdy. you can carry them anywhere or create gigantic spreads. shuffling and storing will never be a problem. 

nothing is wishy-washy. the card is either positive, negative, or neutral. you can get a clear yes or no.

the querent has their own set card to symbolize them. let that sink in! if you have clients, they will love this. and it’s so easy for you to create spreads with that, too. if you read for yourself, same thing, the querent cards are one of lenormand’s coolest features. the ‘gentleman’ or ‘lady’ can stand in for the person who’s asking, two friends, or a couple. lenormand is THE deck for love questions. PS: not to worry, you can use it for non-heterosexual couples with ease. the querent cards can be whoever you want, the reading results will not be impacted.

because of their simple imagery, card names are easy to memorize. tarot has spreads like ‘THE HANGED MAN in reverse + THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE + THE HIGH PRIESTESS in reverse + TEN OF WANDS in reverse’. meanwhile, lenormand spreads are like ‘ship - dog - fox - fish - whip’ and that’s it. you don’t even have to know the card’s name, it’s so self-explanatory. you can learn this in one day.

the deck is not the most wide-spread among popular readers, but there are still a lot of websites with information online. simply because it’s such a strong tradition. 

solid, quick lenormand skills are the sign of a seasoned tarotist. you can recognize a trustworthy pro by it. if someone claims they are a veteran but they haven’t heard of lenormand... especially if your tarot reader is european, this is the go-to branch of cartomancy they should have heard about.

similarly, it’s a sign your cartomancy knowledge is about to climb to the next level if you got these pretty french cards on your hands and become naturally invested. it’s one of those cases where the deck finds you at the right time.

niche bonus: lenormand will be the #1 ace up your sleeve.

they’re so decorative and available for any visual taste you can think of. steampunk lenormand, fantasy lenormand, history lenormand, romantic lenormand, the list goes on. you will find whatever style is precious to you very fast. all while the classic vintage cards are a staple you can purchase very easily.

levelling up is possible to no end. you can use one, two, three, five, nine, or even all cards at once. customized spreads on top of that. you can have fast success with the helpful 9-card layout, or really get into it going big. 

lenormand’s 36-card ‘grand tableau’ (great table) reading is infamous and the one and only final boss. not one card will be redundant, their interconnection is what the interpretation is built on in the first place.

once you have the card meanings down, you learn the grand tableau principle faster than you assumed. you will be able to expound your answer by looking at the distances between cards, that’s the whole idea.

example. if the ring card is far away from the querent card, that means to wedding in sight. if the ring is next to the querent card, that means marriage. pretty simple. if the ring is surrounded by positive cards, even better. you can tell how easily you can answer a question this way.

or: if the dog (=card for friendship) is next to the child which is next to the heart, that means: possibility of falling in love with your childhood friend. it’s literally that straightforward. lenormand can’t leave you hanging, it never plays games. it gives you every concise warning (with concrete ways to prevent the outcome) and chance for a blessing.

the grand tableau is as powerful as tarot’s classic spread, the celtic cross. you have something to work towards/work on and get an impressive, highly informative spread that will leave not one question unanswered. this shit is amazing. lenormand is one of the most worthwhile essentials for card readers, i did not once regret learning about it.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Patricia Highsmith: The problem of good art made by bad people

No writer would ever betray his secret life. It would be like standing naked in public.

- Patricia Highsmith, the novelist writing to a friend in 1940

Patricia Highsmith, who died in 1995 having written a series of psychological thrillers, including The Talented Mr Ripley and Strangers on a Train and the romance The Price of Salt, left two sets of diaries hidden in a linen closet in her home in Ticino, Switzerland.

In one she recorded details about her professional life: plot ideas, philosophical musings and thoughts on writing. In the other she documented her private reflections and memories, including a single sexual encounter with the writer Arthur Koestler (a “miserable, joyless episode”) and her efforts, through psychotherapy, to “get myself into a condition to be married”.

She had no more compassion for men than she did for women. In one entry Highsmith writes that “the American male does not know what to do with a girl once he has her. He is not really depressed or inhibited by his inherited or environmentally conceived Puritan restraints: he simply has no goal within the sexual situation”.

Highsmith’s diaries, which run to more than 8,000 pages, have been pored over by biographers, but have never before been made public, or in this case interwoven into a single narrative of the life of a complex woman who thought deeply about themes of good and evil, loneliness and intimacy.

It was in her diary that she described becoming sexually obsessed with a customer at Bloomingdale’s in New York, whom she later followed to her home, provoking observations about murder and love.

She had an obsession about detailing absolutely everything in her life, very much like Sylvia Plath. And she drew on the diaries for her novels, which explore the notion of obsession, guilt and murder, and reject rationality and logic for the darker elements of human personality.” Dubbed “the poet of apprehension“ by the novelist Graham Greene, who said she “created a world without moral endings … Nothing is certain when we have crossed this frontier”, the Texas-born Highsmith was deeply influenced by European existentialists such as Albert Camus and Søren Kierkegaard, and those influences are deeply felt in her diaries.

She was a lesbian who hated women, totally politically incorrect in lots of ways, and certainly not a poster girl for the feminist movement. She hated blacks, Jews, men, and women. A sort of equal opportunities hater then. In mitigation Highsmith was self aware of her own beliefs and it mortified her and was a source of constant anxiety. She herself was fighting many demons including her mother’s rejection, an attempted seduction by her father as a child, and being sexually abused by two travelling salesmen. She had a tough life.

But there is a question over how far Highsmith can now be assimilated into contemporary culture of ‘wokeness’ and ‘MeToo’.

There is no question in person she could be a monstrous, violent and quite unpleasant woman. Knowing about her life and views could for some make it difficult to read her works. But for all that I think the diaries’ publication could help to again reveal that, contrary to popular imagination, creativity is not necessarily rooted in our best instincts.

These same highly culturally charged debates raged around the controversial French writer Celine in France. In Germany Wagner continues to be a touchy issue. Or back again in France, the recent controversy at the Césars where many people walked out as child minor rapist Roman Polanski was honoured for his latest film.

Going further back Gaugin was a pedophile. Degas was an anti-Semite. Caravaggio killed a man. Where do you draw the line? When do you draw the line?

Some argue art cannot be good or evil. Only the artist can. What he/she presents as art is a different dimension of thinking and somehow not really representative of the artist. I’m not entirely convinced by that argument. If only because great art is never transmitted through an empty vessel but is actively germinated through the life experiences of the artist. But also more importantly most artists don’t separate themselves from their art as they are convinced their art comes from the deepest depths of their being.

We don’t have to be puritans to acknowledge that some henious actions deserve more consideration than historically allotted to a consideration of the artist and his/her works.

But those who are ‘woke’ liberal left activists arguably seem to be advocating a one size that fits all approach. There is no wriggle room for discourse correction or allowing nuance to inform the conversation. And I use the word ‘conversation’ deliberately because such things are nearly always being worked out in real time and also each one of us ascribe different values to different things e.g. Picasso cheats on his lovers and so I don’t like his art, whilst others would say, so what? Grow up. There is a serious slippery slope that if you eliminate the bad artist and writer from the canon and you might as well eliminate art and literature itself. And that’s where we might well end up.

I believe that adjusting personal behaviour seems much easier than enforcing an interpretative cultural lens on a shifting audience and telling them this is how you should enjoy art.

I personally believe it’s a matter of personal conscience and conviction. If you’ve really searched your heart, and found that a piece of art is just that important to you, as many people do without admitting it out loud, then it should be fine to engage with it. But the imperative now is to privately think about why it matters to you. If I can justify that to myself then yes, I will go ahead and ‘enjoy’ that piece of art regardless of how much of a shit the artist was or is.

To me it’s not a question of compartmentalising, of ignoring or suspending my disgust with an artist's personal behaviour so as to concentrate on the art. I'm watching and reading because I expect art to be about moral dangers in a way that is less didactic than essays are. I expect art to be troubling because I expect people to be troubling. I am prepared to like and dislike something in every work. I can also appreciate the aesthetic genius of a moral monster without feeling that I am becoming inured to monstrosity.

For this reason when I for example look at  Benvenuto Cellini, creator of Perseus With the Head of Medusa, was a murderer and a rapist. He killed at least two men and was accused by a model of sexually assaulting her. This does not stop me from looking with great amazement and curiosity at the naked and sexual Perseus With the Head of the Medusa. The knowledge of the immorality of the creator does not distract from my enjoyment of his creation; indeed I am made even more curious to know how beauty is perceived by a violently troubled man.

In the end for me, and I can only speak for myself, contrary to popular imagination, creativity is not necessarily rooted in our best instincts. Nietzsche said, “One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.” I like that.

A human creature born abnormally, inhumanly sensitive. To the artist, to paraphrase Pearl S. Buck, a touch is a blow, a sound is a noise, a misfortune is a tragedy, a joy is an ecstasy, a friend is a lover, a lover is a god, and failure is death. Add to this a cruel overpowering necessity to create - so that without the creating of music or poetry or books or buildings or something of meaning, his very breath is cut off from him. He must create, must pour out creation. By some strange, unknown, inward urgency he is not really alive unless he is creating. 

In Patricia Highsmith’s case it’s revealing she said once in a sly backhanded way, “My New Year’s Eve Toast: to all the devils, lusts, passions, greeds, envies, loves, hates, strange desires, enemies ghostly and real, the army of memories, with which I do battle — may they never give me peace.” A true great artist never know really knows peace or contentment for this is the price of creation. The intensity of personal turmoil is the fuel of their creativity.

The Greeks may have believed that they had “muses” whispering ideas in their ears. Or that the Romans believed they wrote with their “genius”. But I suspect the best artists are those that are in touch with and confront their humanity, at their best and at their worst.

[aelaer]

☕ The fact that Wakanda was presented as an advanced country looking down on others from it's comfortable vibranium armchair but had a monarchist system that could place a ruler with 100% muscles and 0% brains at the head, along with other bothersome stuff like that, like Shuri being the head of the government's science department while she is a part of the royal family, or really, every single part of Wakanda that looks good on paper - a king with a council of people leading the different tribes - but that history has shown us very often ends up creating a dictatorship, which is really what happened in the movie and I'm surprised no one sees it.

Like, the movie literally shows us this country that's supposedly so advanced, with spies and people placed around the world, most likely putting their fingers in as many pies as possible, and an incredibly developed technology - which is frightening on many levels considering that UN or no Wakanda could blow up everything outside of its borders and people wouldn't know it until it happened -, but with a monarchist - and whatever other words could define it - governmental system that has revealed a lot of problems in its configuration. The tribes leader were literally being choked in the throne room and no one was doing anything, there was a destruction of a historical, scientific and cultural heritage being condoned by the new religious ceremony leader(???) just because the king ordered it. They would've literally tried taking over the entire non-black population (and where does that leave all the metis people? All the ones that are not white, but not black? Of middle eastern descendance? Of Asian one? Etc?) if the ex-monarch hadn't done something.

What I'm trying to ask if, what do you think of Wakanda being a good idea on paper but terrible in practice? True! Untrue? Something else?

Holy shit lady, you ask the tough questions. This is a difficult subject to cover - you’re asking me to look at the political structure of a fictional society within a disenfranchised continent - and I’m uncertain if it’s possible to do a decent analysis without addressing heavy topics. Basically, I don’t want to sound like a privileged dickwad. So I guess what I can say is - this comes from someone with a (mostly decent) American-based education, and no formal study of pre-colonial customs and political structures in Africa. I apologise for any misconstrued ideas and more than welcome any corrections to those who know more about these subjects!

I like Wakanda on paper, mostly due to the fact that the majority of Africa got completely screwed in terms of historical treatment and I’m rooting for the continent’s people to gain their own voices again. Wakanda being such a huge thing in international popular culture might serve as an inspiration for someone who ends up being important to at least one country there. In that sense, I really like Wakanda - the idea that it can potentially inspire historically disenfranchised cultures in the real world. How practical that thought is, I’m not sure - I might just be too idealistic.

Dictatorships can happen in non-monarchies as well, which you know -- as the most famous examples in 20th century history are not monarchies. The issue that can appear in monarchies -- or dictatorships -- is the lack of checks and balances to help keep those in power from going overboard (or the populace not having enough manpower/arms to get a dictator-like-coup out, but that’s an entirely different discussion!)

From what we got in the movie, Wakanda does seem to lack those checks and balances and no ability to overrule a king’s command. It seemed that they never had any sort of Magna Carta in their history (which is far from a perfect document, but did start the precedent of limiting monarchical power), and it doesn’t seem there’s anything resembling a representative government with veto power over the leader that you see in, what, 2/3rds of the world these days? (I legit have no idea, but I do know it’s wide-spread.)

But why wouldn’t they have such a document limiting monarchical power or some sort of democratic process? The modern mindset across many countries around the world leans towards democracy and elected, representative governments. But it can’t be denied that colonialism helped spread this, as -- at least, according to wiki -- representative democracy/liberal democracy/Western democracy all originate in Europe. So, in some way it makes sense that they didn’t transition yet because they were never colonized, and they were completely self-contained so didn’t have any of the outside world conflicts to force them to make changes. France helped fund the barons who pushed for the Magna Carta. France was also responsible for helping fund/arm the US in their fight to gain independence (lol France vs England history, it’s so great). External conflicts with other regions/countries caused *changes* to happen in those societies, at least from what I know of European history. Possibly happened in other continents, but I’m just not knowledgeable enough about their histories to give specific examples.

Wakanda had no outside conflict, and with no outside conflict, you get one major source of problems eliminated. Civil wars happen for a multitude of reasons, but perhaps one of their solutions historically for kingship changing without civil war was the fight of a representative of a tribe to try and win it over. Who knows? But when you’re enclosed like Wakanda was, there’s a lot less chance of things changing.

(On that note - their selection of a new leader is also incredibly disproportionately unfair to women. The average man is physiologically stronger and faster than the average woman. It’s just--biology. But who knows, maybe Wakanda was the same as much of the rest of the world in terms of their thoughts of women leading in politics. There’s comic canon that could be different, but the MCU did a lot of changes from comic canon.)

A *lot* of things changed across the world in the 20th century, making the world much smaller. Before the 20th century, it was likely considered completely useless and nonviable to make war on other nations because, though they were more technologically advanced, it’s incredibly unlikely they had something akin to nuclear bombs in the 19th century. They had to have their own steps of progression. And if they were only *a bit* better, they couldn’t stop the entire world if they started attacking and word spread. It’s only in the late 20th, early 21st century that things like destroying the rest of the world with Wakandan weaponry was likely actually feasible. Though honestly? I don’t think that shield could withstand a nuke. I just don’t see it. If Erik’s plan went through, he may have doomed Wakanda's capital city to being utterly annihilated because too many countries do have the ultimate kill button, and there are some who would not hesitate to use it.

It also could be cultural. Wakanda didn’t go conquering their neighbors left and right. They were happy with five tribes and it seemed to remain five tribes. That speaks of something deeply cultural, deep within the roots of how they’re raised and taught. Erik came from an entirely different culture with a violent childhood and background, and because they were in the 21st century, other Wakandans could *learn* of the rest of the world, and get new ideas - and get the same anger that stirs war and revolutions, and ultimately can affect a country’s culture.

So perhaps before the 21st century, limited power with the king wasn’t needed simply due to their isolation. Now, though that they are much more connected with the world, maybe they need something more like Botswana or Nigeria, only tied in with a monarchy (according to wiki -- Elsewhere, in Botswana, the kgosis (or chieftains) of the various tribes are constitutionally empowered to serve as advisors within the national legislature as members of the Ntlo ya Dikgosi. Meanwhile, in Nigeria, the various traditional polities that currently exist are politically defined by way of the ceding of definite authority from the provincial governments, which in turn receive their powers to do so from a series of chieftaincy laws that have been legislatively created.)

So basically what I’m trying to say is, while I’m personally super gung ho about representative democracies and individual liberties, that’s not necessarily the culture of Wakanda and it may not fit for them. But *what* the culture of Wakanda evolves into, being more open to the rest of the world -- and thus, the rest of the world’s ideas and cultures, remains to be seen. They may find that they do need to reform their political structure after the civil war we saw in the first film, though, and perhaps they do so.

[sileeeles]

1 year on...

Its been almost a year since I switched from Android to iPhone - a time in which I've been able to reason with, justify and understand various points with myself about why I made the switch - believe it or not it was just a feeling at the time I couldn't put my finger on.

My decision to move to iOS was something up until that point I'd managed to avoid. And the reasons are fairly simple, although they do sort of play into each other.

Android has, for the longest time, been slow. And I mean this in several respects, but mainly in two areas: software/security updates and hardware. Android devices tend to have a shelf life of about 2 years. Yes, you can always go further by installing custom ROMs (if you've the know how or inclination) but many people simply don't have the patience for any of that. Which is completely fair enough. Historically, I did, because I'm of that nerdy mindset, but as time went on there was less and less reason to do so. But two years isn't long. And Android is not optimised. When it just about runs on the hardware its released with, giving it two more versions of OS wont do anything good. This is why Android has such ridiculous specs on paper. It needs them to run the OS smoothly. Its nothing to do with being competitive, although it gets marketed like hell. Android, as an OS, is just ... a bit shit. People say, "yeah, well, I've got 18GB of RAM so my phone must be better." OK. Aside from literally zero applications or games needing that much space - making it utterly pointless - why is it better?

Apple build the hardware, to a point. Obviously not every component is theirs, but the silicon they make (thier A chips for example, or the M1) AND, perhaps most importantly, they make the software.

Google makes Android, sure, but they don't make it specifically for any one device. Historically they didn't even make thier own devices, it was contracted to someone else. HTC or LG or Samsung.

Apple makes the software and the hardware, so they can tailor their devices to it. So while it might seem like less on paper, in practice its extremely powerful and stable. And they provide updates 1) as soon as they are released for devices that support it and 2) for far longer than Android does.

Take the iPhone 6s/6s Plus as an example. In 2021, it is getting iOS 14 updates. It gets the beta updates too. 14.5 release candidate most recently but I happen to know the 14.6 beta just got released (ironically and somewhat hilariously before 14.5 is even publicly launched). The 6s line was released in 2015. At the time Samsung had the Galaxy S6 out. Which lasted from Android 5 to Android 7, and never got consistent monthly security updates. To this day they don't even have a consistent or solid beta program. HTC had a One model out, but same story.

Updates are important. They keep you secure. They keep you up to date. Android has always, ALWAYS been slow with updates because of one very important thing: fragmentation.

Fragmentation means that there are lots of different variations out there that are all over the place. And each one has its own "appearance" if you will. A manufacturer cant just push the latest Android, they need to update it with thier own themes and features. And then many carriers still insist on shovelling thier shit into the phones they release, so not only does the update have to go through the manufacturer, it also needs to go through the carrier, its just stupid. Its never just the OS as Google made it.

The other thing is my personal experience, but after a while it just got a bit ... annoying. And that is apps. Apps on Android, because of the aforementioned fragmentation issue (which is not just software - its hardware, a huge variety of screen sizes and densities, processors, radios, etc) apps are usually made to be "one size fits all", and in the process, often, they just ... dont. Facebook has been known to suffer from many many bugs on Android. Instagram has been proven to have better picture quality from an iPhone. They're also not always smooth and optimised as they could be ... because they can't be.

As I'm sure everyone on the planet has ever heard, stuff on Apple ... just works. Yeah, things crash occasionally, thats perfectly normal, particularly when you run on beta versions like I do. But in general, its a far more stable and clean experience.

Android may lay claim to being the most popular OS in the world but if you look a little deeper its ... not quite the case.

Yes, Android is wide spread, BUT ... the latest flagship devices? Not so much. Older versions of Android on budget cheap phones are usually what makes up the numbers here - Most of the Android users are on Android 10 (40.52%), Android 11 (8.9%) has been out for some time with a not insignificant number of devices on Android 9 and Android 8. As near as makes no difference 68 (67.76) percent of iOS users are on iOS 14.4 (14.4.2 being the current public release).

Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that Apple flagships are beating Android flagships, since the devices on that software update range from the iPhone 6s to the current line of iPhone 12's. But thats a span of 5 years - and they still run as well as the day they came out. For me, that seals the deal.

[gnostic-heretic]

I do agree. nationalism isn't any more heroic than any other belief systems and, like all other belief systems, in its most extreme forms is incredibly dangerous with plenty of real world implications. However, sometimes fics set I na historical time would also want to portray historical attitudes; do you have any suggestions or advice on how to avoid glorifying it in that case?

i am not a historian so forgive me i’m not an expert on this... so don’t take this as “advice” and especially not as striving for historical accuracy, rather as me sharing what i do personally with it as a concept.

i’ll start with something i think is rather relevant: how do we reconcile the fact that national personifications within the universe have existed among humans for so long with the fact that nations and national identity, which are inherently social constructs, have changed so much throughout history? from obvious stuff like... borders change, governments change, toponyms change a hell of a lot throughout history.   some people argue that it’s not about any of those things and only about identity (which is uh... not imo because identity is far from a fixed, immutable thing, and as a concept it has its nasty implications as well especially when paired with ethnicity. but we’ll start with the assumption that we already agree that ethnical implications are BAD because, holy shit) but i’d say it is not even consistent with the canon material.  think of a character like prussia that has “incarnated” so many things. the teutonic knights, prussia, the DDR. what did these entities have in common in terms of “national identity”? in my opinion... not much. yet (jokes about prussia is dead aside) he’s always there. i doubt many citizen of the DDR would have cited the teutonic order as a fundamental part of eastern german national identity. and i doubt that protestantism (arguably a part of prussian identity) would have gotten the seal of approval from the teutonic knights. 

so one thing i do is to have the characters themselves question what it means to be a national personification. if they have lived and changed name, and government, and customs, and culture, or have kept existing in spite of colonization over hundreds or even thousands of years, it’s only plausible that they would wonder what the hell they even are and ask themselves whether those nationalist ideas are after all just bollocks.

which brings me to a small disclaimer here: i’m not saying that nationalism has always, historically, been a force for bad. i can recognize nationalist ideas in the (ongoing) struggle for decolonization, for example. (i shouldn’t really have to say it but decolonization is a good thing)  that’s really not what i mean when i say “nationalism” tho...

what i’m referring to is like. mostly european “identitarian” nationalism. shared group identity as a general idea is probably as old as the onset of the first people who organized in groups/tribal identity. but nationalism and the concept of one national identity = one ethnically/culturally homogenous people = one nation/state to rule over them, as we know it today only really took shape in the modern era, especially in the 19th century.  so, without getting out of my lane as a very european white guy in fear of messing up, i’ll use my country (italy) as an example.  if you’re writing, say, about the italian risorgimento and how the idea of a shared (though very constructed) italian cultural identity brought people together against empires that literally colonized us (austria, spain), that’s not necessarily a bad thing, per se. (there’s problems to address, sure, but to keep things simpler we won’t get into those.)    to continue the example, speaking about the history of my country. if you’re gonna talk about how that very same nationalist ideas led to a rise in f*scism and even before that, how italy exploited those same ideas to become a colonizer itself, at this point nationalism was unequivocally a force for bad; it was not a struggle for liberation but a tool for domination; and if you glorify this kind of nationalism, YTA in my book.  but it’s important to recognize that those two things are connected and rooted in the same ideology and if you choose to include it as a theme i’d say that making the character themselves address it, with the internal contradiction that is their existence before italy even “became” a nation, and how there’s TWO italy brothers but only one italan government, and so on, is the most convenient way to do so. 

if your question was about how to approach cultural attitudes about nationalism in certain time periods where it was overwhelmingly popular, just remember that minorities and dissenters have always existed and that a character’s belief =/= their boss’ beliefs.  even in the 19th and 20th century in italy, there were revolutionaries, there were republicans (in the literal sense, not the american politics sense), there were anarchists, hell there were pope stans who hated the italian risorgimento because it was seen as fundamentally anti-catholic and the king  didn’t have the papal approval and therefore no right to reign, if you want to take it to the other, very opposite extreme of dissent. the characters are, at the end of the day, sentient people with their own opinions that don’t necessarily reflect the government, nor the “statistic majority” of people. but how you write about them can reflect a whole lot about your opinions in the way you address those themes within the work.

so yeah, TLDR the way i deal with it is: 1. question the concept of national identity 2. question the concept of national states 3. question the concept of nationalism as a whole and what you’re trying to say when you’re talking about nationalism in the context of your work-- this includes looking at how nationalism has been used, as an ideology, in the history of a given country.  4. remember the fact that low budget anime (semi) immortals would’ve had centuries to ask themselves the same questions 5. if you feel like this is too much of a head scratcher, remember that when dealing with "problematic” subjects, sometimes we have to ask uncomfortable questions. perfection is not the answer; however, they require a nuanced and sensible approach. 

[d-criss-news]

Brands like Chanel Beauty and Tom Ford Beauty have started dabbling in men’s cosmetics, releasing a series of glam goods for guys. But not all beauty products are created equal. Much like the pink tax phenomenon (whereby women’s pink razors, for example, typically cost more than men’s grey razors), foundation and skincare are often priced and marketed differently for men and women. Business leaders don’t believe men will pay as much for skincare as women do — at least, that’s what the founders of men’s grooming site The Motley were told.

Siblings Matthew and Madison Ruggieri, armed with their business partner, Emmy winner Darren Criss, set out to develop unisex skincare that is priced the same for all genders — not only to subvert the pink tax, but also to encourage men to develop skincare routines when they may be hindered by “all these kind of norms that are just downright archaic,” Criss tells The Hollywood Reporter.

“We were always told there is a cap on how much men will spend,” Madison tells THR. “So we have always had to price everything — our most expensive item right now is $44 — so basically under that, and even that is a stretch. But then you go to women’s and it’s insane. You could spend $350 on a little jar.”

Their solution is the new company Onekind, which debuts Oct. 1 with the Dream Cream Nighttime Moisturizer ($38) and Midnight Magic PM Serum ($42), available at the skin-care destination Heyday in Los Angeles and New York, as well as online.

Criss observed that a lot of modern-day, successful lifestyle businesses are non-gendered — such as SoulCycle and Barry’s Bootcamp. “It is a funny thing that we decided however many hundreds of years ago that we would divide this industry into two ‘norms,’” Criss says. “Can you imagine if there was a women’s salt and a men’s salt? I wish I was the genius that thought of that. Like if I was an evil genius 100 years ago and I convinced the market that there is a men’s one and a female one, and I just jacked up the price. … At the end of the day it’s the same fuckin’ shit in there.”

As a consumer of men’s beauty himself, the co-founder adds, “This new wave of non-gendered products is also really beneficial in the way that we think of our skin itself, that it’s not a men’s product or a woman’s product and that there is a oneness to all this stuff.” He should know: though he’s not the first star to release beauty products — Millie Bobby Brown just bowed her line Florence by Mills at Ulta and Tracee Ellis Ross debuted her natural haircare brand Pattern Beauty — he is one of the rare male stars to go this route.

The Ruggieris started working with Criss in 2013, three years after launching The Motley. In the early days, Madison says it was a lot of “101” basics, teaching men how to wash their face. Now they’ve found their customer base has “matured way beyond that” and is looking for anti-aging products, eye gels and facemasks. “So the conversation has definitely evolved over the last 10 years,” Madison says.

“The dialogue has felt like it has shifted a little bit,” Criss agrees. “The main topic then was, ‘How can we get men interested in men’s grooming?’ even as a concept. … I wouldn’t call it a stigma, but there is certainly a disparity between the popularity and more obvious nature of women’s beauty products. It’s historically not as much of a male-oriented thing. And so I think when we were starting it, we were trying to level that playing field a little bit.”

For Onekind, they surveyed friends and family about what was missing from skincare essentials and ultimately whittled down the ingredient list to only the necessities (and forgoing random additions like flakes of gold also helps cut costs for consumers).

Matthew, who heads up product development, says it was all about reducing the formula to the “bare bones” of what’s needed. “Because in beauty, you often just add a bunch of these label-claim type ingredients that don’t actually do anything. And so we’re like, 'All right, let’s strip it all back. Let’s make sure that everything in the product is actually doing something,’” he says.

They knew immediately they wanted to develop a night cream that “felt natural but luxurious.” Theirs uses plant-derived squalene to hydrate, rosehip oil to brighten and chamomile, aloe vera, essential oils and barley seed to soothe (Onekind is silicone-free, paraben-free, sulfate-free and synthetic fragrance-free). 

Criss believes the level of interest in skincare partially depends on upbringing and maybe on city of residence, saying, “I’m a metropolitan, coastal guy, so that might be just limited to my world. There is still a larger world out there where people are shifting their ways of thinking.“ 

He got into skincare from an early age, because his mom insisted that he wash his face while growing up. As he got older, he cared about the way that his skin looked, "like everybody does. "They might pretend they don’t, but the comparison I always used … again, this is speaking in very bro, hetero-normative stereotypes here, but you’re worried about your car, a nice leather jacket … these are things that you care about and you like and you want to present the best version of yourself.”

In the same way, Criss has always taken an interest in skincare and how various products and habits yield different results. “I’m the kind of guy who likes to understand how every wheel turns, how every cog moves in everything in my life. It’s a curse and a blessing,” he says. “As an artist, I always want to know how things are functioning and what I can do to have myself function better with it and help other people try and function with it better as well. So that’s just sort of a life-long obsession. … Like anybody else, I’m looking for the best version of myself. And in so doing, I’m looking for the best products, too.”

He well may have created them.