#Public image is the only thing liberals are concerned about

[nando161mando]

Public image is the only thing liberals are concerned about

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

what meaningful plenaration does "sane" add to "safe sane and consensual"? safe and consensual are both pretty intuitive as to what is and isn't and why they're important, but what is the aspect of this nebulous hypothetical insane sex (this would work better as a phrase if insane sex wasn't already a thing people said about good sex. much to think about) which is uniquely best to avoid but not already covered by safe or consensual?

i've been thinking about that one thing i saw a while ago about reevaluating ssc in the face of increased awareness of like, mad liberation and the ways that mentally disabled people are barred from sexual agency by ableism & the psych system and i genuinely can't come up with a reason why sane was in there in the first place

great question! let's talk about it!

but first: hey. what on earth does plenaration mean. I absolutely understand the question that you're asking but I don't know that word (unusual for me, if I may flex a little!) and google is giving me NOTHING.

anyway, moving on!

SSC was initially popularized by in 1983 by the New York group Gay Male S/M [Sadism/Masochism] Activists, and particularly activist David Stein. let's take a look at their full statement:

GMSMA is a not-for-profit organization of gay males in the New York City area who are seriously interested in safe, sane, and consensual S/M. Our purpose is to help create a more supportive S/M community for gay males, whether they desire a total lifestyle or an occasional adventure, whether they are just coming out into S/M or are long experienced. Our regular meetings and other activities attempt to build a sense of community by exploring common feelings and concerns. We aim to raise awareness about issues of safety and responsibility, to recover elements of our tradition, and to disseminate the best available medical and technical information about S/M practices. We seek to establish a recognized political presence in the wider gay community in order to combat the prevailing stereotypes and misconceptions about S/M while working with others for the common goals of gay liberation. (x)

GMSMA was founded three years prior in 1981, which is only important because that was also the year the first AIDS patients were identified. I don't know if you're familiar with a little thing called The AIDS Crisis, but suffice to say that during the 80s the public perception of gay male sexuality Was Not Good, particularly something double deviant like sex that was gay and also kinky. in a later essay reflecting on (and criticizing!) the mainstreaming of the term, Stein said he wanted to SSC framework to distinguish mutually consensual sadomasochism from "the criminally abusive or neurotically self-destructive behaviour popularly associated with the term 'sadomasochism'."

in other words: while I can't tell you everything that lay in the heart of David Stein when he first used the phrase, it's very clear that the GMSMA seemed invested in improving the public image of kink by separating it as much as possible from the notion that it was something only practiced by crazed degenerates - you know, something queer people have been forced to do for pretty much all queer sex throughout history? in the same 2000 essay linked above, Stein reflects on how many people took SSC as "a welcome validation for a type of sexuality still considered "sick" or "crazy" by much of our society."

is there still ableism baked into that narrative re: the notion that mental illness is a bad thing to be affiliated with? yeah, absolutely, and we'll get to that! spoilers: it's been a source of much criticism, which is why many people now prefer RACK over SSC. but give me a second to get there!

in the essay I've been pulling from, Stein freely admits that GMSMA never attempted to offer concrete definitions of SSC, particularly not the latter two: "We left "sane" and "consensual" much vaguer, "sane" because it's pretty vague to begin with once you get past the obvious meaning - able to distinguish fantasy from reality - and "consensual" because we didn't realize how tricky it is."

the idea of "sane" meaning a person is meaningfully able to distinguish fantasy from reality was echoed by Gil Kessler, a longtime kink educator and board member of GMSMA. rope enthusiast Tammad Rimilia defined it differently, saying that sane kink referred to a situation where "all parties are engaging in this activity by direct intention and can judge the effects of their actions." you can see that echoed in Stein's earlier statement about differentiating the kind of sex that GMSMA encouraged from "self-destructive behavior."

tl;dr, the "sane" is mostly there to specifically draw attention to the fact that some people engage in sex in ways that may be a form of self-harm and/or may want to engage in sex when they are experiencing reality in a way that prevents them from making rational, fully-informed choices, such as psychosis or manic episodes. per their own statement, it seems the GMSMA would discourage having sex with people in this category.

obviously that may already fall under the purview of safe and consensual, but show me an organization that's never gotten a little redundant in its mission statement and I'll eat my shirt.

now, back to that criticism! as Stein notes in the essay I've referenced heavily in this answer, understandings of safety, sanity, and consent have come a long way since 1983! the risk-aware consensual kink model (RACK) has gained popularity for many reasons, with much of the conversation centered on both the inherent ableism of SSC and concerns about the promise of "safe" and the unhelpful and unrealistic expectations it may set. hell, even notions of consent are constantly growing and evolving. and that's wonderful! SSC comes from a very specific time and place in the history of kink and may no longer be the pinnacle of best practices for everyone, but there's still plenty to be learned from its origins.

[dailyanarchistposts]

This morning, my friend Free linked an article on Twitter titled “The Mass Exodus of Polyamorous People Towards Relationship Anarchy.” Free is a very thoughtful non-monogamist but I was immediately skeptical. I’ve certainly seen a trend in polyamory, especially over the past eight years or so, away from hierarchical relationships and towards more intersectionality, inclusivity, and fluidity about what kinds of relationships matter. What I have not seen, however, is a noticeable community-wide shift towards an anarchic politic of intimacy — or any politic of intimacy, at all, really. Polyamorists, by and large, still seem pretty grounded in a progressive liberal ideal of “You do you, and I’ll do me, but the way I’m doing me doesn’t include dating anybody who has a One Penis Policy.” Sure, there’s always a little lunatic fringe within the poly community who see our relationships as a radical political commitment, but I haven’t seen any evidence of a “mass exodus” towards that position.

But I went ahead and read the article, because maybe things are different in Sweden. The author describes — here and in other posts such as “Relationship Anarchy is not Polyamory” — some core tenets of relationship anarchy well. For example, that sex is not the only valid form of intimate connection, and that people ought to be free to configure each of their relationships on a case-by-case basis. But her main point with this piece seems to be that “many previously self-defined ‘polyamorous’ folk like me, are adopting the term ‘relationship anarchist’ instead” because the media has tainted the term “polyamory” with objectification, slut-shaming, drama, and a salacious hyperfocus on sexuality that doesn’t jive with most peoples’ actual relationship experiences.

And I actually believe she’s right about that. I have seen a lot of people in polyamorous communities describing themselves as “relationship anarchists” lately because they don’t like what “polyamory” implies. I get that. We need evolving language and, hell, “relationship anarchy” sounds cool. But I think it’s step in the wrong direction for most polyamorous folks — basically, because “relationship anarchy” already means something, and I don’t think it’s what they think it means.

So, of course, I wrote my friend an epic Twitter essay explaining why:

Okay, so…I’ve seen this in a couple of places now, and here’s my concern with it: I grok the need for language besides “poly” to describe multi-partner relationships. “Poly” describes a very specific style of negotiated non-monogamy, has a lot of cultural baggage, and isn’t for everybody. That said, Relationship Anarchy isn’t a catch-all. It also describes a specific philosophy of intimacy. An important aspect of that philosophy — one I that think poly or “post-poly” folks tend to find discomfiting or simply ignore — is that Relationship Anarchy rejects all arguments for policing the behavior of one’s intimate partners. ALL of them. What this means in practice is not only No “Agreements” in our own relationships, but also no participation in policing the rules/agreements/contracts of other peoples’ relationships. In other words, Relationship Anarchists are not necessarily anti-cheating. In fact, in one of the earliest essays on Relationship Anarchy, the author explicitly describes “stealing kisses” from monogamous people in front of their jealous lovers’ “terrified eyes” as a form of direct action. This was very hard for me to swallow as a baby Relationship Anarchist, because as a poly person I’d centered so much of my identity and public persona around an image of myself as being a Safe Person ™, devoted to open communication and respect for all relationship agreements. And, in general, the poly community has done a shit ton of work to convince ourselves and monogamists that we aren’t a threat. That just ’cause I love differently doesn’t mean I’m going to steal your partner. But as a Relationship Anarchist, I very well might steal your partner, because I believe the idea partners can be “stolen” is not only nonsense, but oppressive nonsense. Which is not to say that I make a point of going around trying to seduce people out of their relationship contracts. Much like, as a political anarchist, I don’t go around blowing up mailboxes or destroying government property for hell of it. But that’s not because I think there’s something wrong with doing so. (I have an anarchist friend who made it his mission throughout college to go around town with giant bolt cutters, snapping the heads off of parking meters, and I think that’s awesome and hilarious.) I don’t usually encourage people to cheat, but that’s because it’s not a priority for me in terms of relationship activism, and because I do have enough experience being “cheated with” that I know the consequences in terms of drama and social disintegration are not usually worth it to me, personally. But that’s other peoples’ preferred tactic and I think that’s legit. Point is: Relationship Anarchy isn’t just “non-hierarchical polyamory.” It’s not even “customize your own relationships outside the bounds of amatonormativity.” Relationship Anarchy is a politic and, as both politic and practice, it’s actively anti-monogamy, anti-marriage, and anti-contracts/rules/policing. In a certain way, Relationship Anarchy is exactly what the Poly Movement has spent the last couple of decades trying to convince people it's NOT. And for good reason, I think. Not everybody wants their relationships to be radical political acts, and they shouldn’t have to be. That’s part of what, as a relationship anarchist, I’m fighting for: to open up space for folks to love however they love, and not have to always be fighting tooth and nail to do so. But ID’ing as a relationship anarchist is a very political act, and I don’t think we should be encouraging poly folks who are just looking for a less loaded way to say they’re poly to adopt the RA label. Because they might not really understand exactly what they’re signing up for and they might not be very happy with some actions they find other RAs undertaking in the Relationship Anarchist name.

I’ve written about this before, at some length, in hard-to-navigate Tumblr conversational format. Here’s a small excerpt illustrating some common ways polyamorous community has begun talking about “relationship anarchism” as opposed to what I understand it to mean:

I was actually at a poly meetup in a major city recently, and a newbie asked someone what the difference was between “Non-Hierarchical Polyamory” and “Relationship Anarchy.” A seasoned older poly dude answered that they were basically two different labels for the same thing: dating multiple people but not explicitly having “Primaries” or “Secondaries”. To which a cute young poly queer kid responded that, actually, non-hierarchical poly still tends involve differentiation between romantic/sexual and non-romantic/sexual relationships whereas relationship anarchy is more about defining each individual relationship on its own terms, and not necessarily lumping them into categories like “friends,” “lovers,” “life-partners,” etc. Older poly dude was kind of nodding along indulgently to this, when I chimed in and added that “Relationship Anarchy” is actually a framework that was originally developed by anarchists, not by polyamorists, and that its primary focus is ultimately on not making relationship agreements e.g. on not laying down explicit rules and expectations for any of the interpersonal relationships in your life. At this, older poly dude started to look really uncomfortable, younger poly queer kid looked really excited, poly queer kid’s until-now quiet boyfriend squeaked, “Oh wow, that sounds really scary!” and poly queer kid turned to comfort him with, “Yeah…yeah, that really doesn’t sound like something I’d be ready for, um, yet.” What I didn’t ultimately get into at this meeting (because I was a guest and I wasn’t really looking to start shit, just pique interest) is that relationship anarchy, in its original anarchic formulations, encourages us not only to jettison coercive mechanisms of control from our own relationships, but also to not be complicit in supporting coercive mechanisms of control in other relationships.

And some expansion on the reasons why polyamorous community, rightly qua survival mechanism, often avoids or rejects some of the more radical/anarchic avenues of non-monogamy:

I believe the suggestions here, the invocation not only to jettison rules from your own relationships but to encourage those who are in rule-bound relationships to “cheat” with you, will still be anathema to almost all poly people, even the most “radical” non-hierarchical types. I know they make me itchy; even though, politically, I see the wisdom in them, on a personal level it has always made me uncomfortable when someone wanted to (or did) cheat on their partner with me. It’s certainly not something I’ve gloried in — although I know many people (including some people who identify as monogamous) do. And I think this actually goes back to the earliest thing I said about conflict avoidance and being apolitical. As a young poly person, especially as an attractive teen poly woman, I was plagued by the idea that being poly made me a “slut” and a “homewrecker” who “didn’t care about peoples’ feelings” and that my female friends couldn’t trust their boyfriends around me because I “didn’t respect monogamy.” In response, I overcompensated by becoming extremely harsh on anybody who ever cheated for any reason, making it clear that being poly didn’t make me a cheater, that it made me more honest not less, and that I was “safe” for my monogamous friends to be around because I respected their relationship agreements even MORE as a result of being polyamorous. My fixation on supporting monogamous peoples’ monogamy became a defense mechanism against the backlash I got for being polyamorous. And I think this happens on a larger cultural scale, as well. The thing is — regardless of whether you’re an anarchist who’s actively rejecting monogamy for political reasons or you’re somebody who’s just having relationships and doesn’t give a shit about being monogamous so you’re not prioritizing it, whatever — the sheer existence of functional, happy, satisfying, non-monogamous intimacy is threatening to monogamous culture, which claims that happy, satisfying, functional intimacy is only available within monogamy. As a non-monogamous person of any stripe, your existence is always and already a threat. And so poly communities (who ha-aate conflict) are very much about trying to do and talk about non-monogamy in ways that are comparatively non-threatening to monogamists. […A] lot of poly relationship rhetoric is geared toward making monogamous people feel safe, and toward mitigating the kind of (sometimes literally murderous) backlash that comes from monogamous people against anyone who makes them feel insecure in their ownership of their partners.

Ultimately, I don’t see anything major in the post-poly strains coming out of the polyamorous community that strikes me as significantly more anarchic — more actively directed towards the disruption (not just rejection) of institutional norms — than polyamory has ever been. Relationship anarchy has been around for a long, long time, so I don’t think it makes sense to categorize it as “post” anything. It is not just a different way of doing intimacy; it’s an integration of your relationship politics with your politics regarding the police, the government, and other oppressive systems. I do think that inclusive, fluid, open, intersectional, complex, loving community networks are lovely and I’m so excited to see more of them. They can exist, in part, because relationship anarchists of the past blew some shit up. (Conceptually and interpersonally, as it were.) But I don’t think they’re inherently political. Anarchism must be.

[zevranunderstander]

I know the Eurovision Song Contest is, even completely ignoring the Israel and Palestine conflict right now, a complicated topic to debate, and I wholeheartedly understand people who wouldn't watch it no matter what. I honestly wasn't really aware of the actual details of what is going on in Palestine *until* the year it was hosted in Israel, and I did still watch it that year because I genuinely only heard that you were supposed to boycott it after the event happened, which sounds like I am just defending myself here but I promise I have a point.

A lot of people who watch this show usually don't do it out of malice, but because in their bubble, they never really heard about what's wrong with the ESC and why it's a thing people boycott - and this is the show where enough people said they'd withdraw from the competition if Russia was allowed to compete, and then the broadcasting network *actually* kicked out Russia and that year's show was all about celebrating the Ukraine.

EVEN IF YOU HATE THE SHOW, even if you think it's silly and corrupt and full of greenwashing politics and something you would never actually watch in your life, you should STILL write to your country's hosts about your concerns about Israel being in the show, write to the sponsors of the ESC - tell the "progressive" Irish brand Bailey's what that will do to their image. The above link was compiled by youtuber verilybitchie, who also made an accompanying video, which shows that Israel could be banned from the ESC if there is enough public outrage, and I think she makes a really really good point.

Even if you genuinely think it's the dumbest show in the world, Israel being banned or publically challenged to be in the ESC could be a massive turning point for a lot of less politically active people who genuinely don't know all that much about what's going on except for what they hear in European media outlets (especially a lot of younger white liberal middle-class people). I know people who love the ESC and never cared about political implications, who will refuse to watch it this year altogether if Israel is allowed to compete. If we can actually hit where it hurts and address the sponsors and networks to declare that we would not watch at all this year, predicting to them a massive loss in profit if Israel is allowed to participate *could* be massive.

[and-then-there-were-n0ne]

I’m always sensitive to the ways internet culture pressures people to adopt certain performances of how to be a person. And it feels like the most aggressive of these pressures are about how to be a modern woman.

For example, there’s a well-meaning but casually destructive trend that’s prevalent on Instagram. These memes idealize a state of impossible self-regard in women, an unachievable narcissism that’s justified through a garbled kind of feminist empowerment. You are not merely to be a healthy and functional adult who rises above the depredations of everyday sexism. You have to be some sort of Amazon warrior queen mystic who “manifests” what she wants through sheer force of will. It’s not hard to see where such impulses might come from. Women are systematically robbed of confidence in essentially every human culture, unless it’s in the specific arena of physical attractiveness or motherhood. I don’t know how you’d go about denying that. [...]

Unfortunately, the way that meme culture has responded has been to produce images like the one at the top.

There’s an endorsement of absolutely deranged self-confidence, an impossible level of self-belief that I imagine is actually only achievable while high on PCP. The meme I’ve included is in fact a pretty tame example of the genre. The idea seems to be that because women often lack confidence for bullshit reasons, we should convince women to try and pump themselves up with confidence like a child overfilling a balloon. Ideas common to these memes include that you don’t care about what anyone thinks (you do and should care), and that normal emotions are beneath you (they’re not). The problems in your life, no matter how mundane, are all the product of sexism or haters or sexist haters, and there is no such thing as a legitimate conflict between two sincere people who both have defensible desires. Anything that obstructs your goals, including people with their own autonomy, is merely an obstacle to be stepped over without a second thought. The standards of self-love here are so lofty that they seem just as unreachable as all of the other social standards that woman can’t possibly meet.

I find the attempts to embody this trend pretty sad. You may get a pretty standard picture on a woman’s Instagram, completely innocuous, and the caption will be like “watch out bitches, I’m finally ascending to my final form.” It’s all a little… strange.

Sadder still, this stuff comingles with the batshit generalist mysticism that is so common on social media today. Horoscope stuff, obviously, but also Tarot and numerology and (let me calculate the necessary number of quotation marks) “““““““energy”””””””. The previously-mentioned notion of “manifestation” has endured as a zombie grift 15 years after the publication of the book that popularized it, The Secret. Manifestation or “the Law of Attraction” tells people that everything they get or don’t is the product of their desires and intentions, so stop complaining about your leukemia, thanks. How this fits alongside the Zodiac stuff, which asserts the exact opposite of you being solely in charge of the events of your life, is unclear. One way or another you end up with an incomprehensible set of beliefs about the world that are both exacting (if you don’t tend to your energy you deserve what you get) and opaque (who could actually follow all this shit?). As an atheist this concerns me. As a feminist it offends me: apparently now women need literal magic to escape oppression. For whatever reason, the popular conception of the paths to women’s liberation just gets more convoluted and inscrutable over time.

I don’t know, to me being a badass bitch doesn’t seem fun. It seems alienating and tiresome. Also I’m so sick of the constant modern insistence that we love ourselves. Stop telling me to love myself all the time. Mind your business.

Here’s what I suspect: mentally healthy people, if they still exist, aren’t healthy because of the constant presence of positive feelings of self. They are healthy because of the habitual absence of any feelings of self at all. (I guarantee you this is already a thing in psychology or some 19th century German philosophy but it’s proving stubbornly resistant to my Googling.) Where we’ve gone wrong as a civilization in terms of understanding confidence is in thinking of it as a presence, as an emotion. But I think what we perceive as confidence is simply not constantly thinking about yourself and your value. That’s more real and sustainable to me than thinking about yourself all the time and consistently feeling good about what you find. Unfortunately it seems like not thinking about yourself is what many modern people find hardest of all.

Bad folk wisdom about confidence is all over our culture. [...] Whatever the case…. I am not a woman and I have no idea what it’s like to experience the endless swings in society’s perception of not just What Women Need to Be Now but also Why Women Need to Reject What Society Thinks Women Need to Be Now. I don’t want to condescend, nor do I want to do the Good Male Ally routine. I just want to say as a typical dude that it’s not that men don’t feel much pressure to conform to gender stereotypes. We do. It’s that we don’t have to deal with the meta layers women seem to have to navigate, the sense that you can’t just resist societal pressures to act according to gender expectations but rather have to swing wildly between one conception of femininity to another, endlessly made to worry that you’re doing it wrong as you try to shake off one bogus caricature of your gender while leaping to another. [...]

There was a version of this post that included a bunch of the weird empowerment/yoga/girlboss/mysticism/juice cleanse memes I’m talking about and made fun of them. But I realized pretty quickly that it would be a shitty thing to publish. The women who are making and sharing those memes are just trying to navigate a bewildering array of choices about how to exist in a sexist world, and if they’ve arrived at a cartoonish version it’s only because all the more mundane approaches seem to have failed. It’s certainly possible that I overemphasize meme culture and that it’s all ephemera that nobody takes that seriously. But I suspect not. Memes are a language of the youth, and it appears that the youth are facing the same old challenge of forces that pressure women to be everything and nothing all at once.

[collapsedsquid]

A disturbing number of undecided voters are crypto-racist isolationists. In the age of the war on terror and the war in Iraq, pundits agreed that [the 2004 presidential election] would be the most foreign policy-oriented election in a generation--and polling throughout the summer seemed to bear that out. In August the Pew Center found that 40 percent of voters were identifying foreign policy and defense as their top issues, the highest level of interest in foreign policy during an election year since 1972.

But just because voters were unusually concerned about foreign policy didn't mean they had fundamentally shifted their outlook on world affairs. In fact, among undecided voters, I encountered a consistent and surprising isolationism--an isolationism that September 11 was supposed to have made obsolete everywhere but the left and right fringes of the political spectrum. Voters I spoke to were concerned about the Iraq war and about securing American interests, but they seemed entirely unmoved by the argument--accepted, in some form or another, by just about everyone in Washington--that the security of the United States is dependent on the freedom and well-being of the rest of the world.

In fact, there was a disturbing trend among undecided voters--as well as some Kerry supporters--towards an opposition to the Iraq war based largely on the ugliest of rationales. I had one conversation with an undecided, sixtyish, white voter whose wife was voting for Kerry. When I mentioned the "mess in Iraq" he lit up. "We should have gone through Iraq like shit through tinfoil," he said, leaning hard on the railing of his porch. As I tried to make sense of the mental image this evoked, he continued: "I mean we should have dominated the place; that's the only thing these people understand. ... Teaching democracy to Arabs is like teaching the alphabet to rats." I didn't quite know what to do with this comment, so I just thanked him for his time and slipped him some literature. (What were the options? Assure him that a Kerry White House wouldn't waste tax dollars on literacy classes for rodents?)

That may have been the most explicit articulation I heard of this mindset--but it wasn't an isolated incident. A few days later, someone told me that he wished we could put Saddam back in power because he "knew how to rule these people." While Bush's rhetoric about spreading freedom and democracy played well with blue-state liberal hawks and red-state Christian conservatives who are inclined towards a missionary view of world affairs, it seemed to fall flat among the undecided voters I spoke with. This was not merely the view of the odd kook; it was a common theme I heard from all different kinds of undecided voters. Clearly the Kerry campaign had focus groups or polling that supported this, hence its candidate's frequent--and wince- inducing--America-first rhetoric about opening firehouses in Baghdad while closing them in the United States.

A substantial number of US peeps at the time of the Iraq war thought that what the US should do is simply exterminate the arabs/muslims, when discussion of who was "against the iraq war" comes up these can can consider themselves "anti-war" and I think this is part of how public appearance appeared to shift after the war, they maintained their opinion, it was merely the war wasn't the war they were asking for.

[theothin]

Justice Elena Kagan countered with a dissent dripped with ridicule. The court majority, Kagan declared, “makes itself the decisionmaker on, of all things, federal student-loan policy. And then, perchance, it wonders why it has only compounded the ‘sharp debates’ in the country?” Roberts may try to defuse tensions among the nine, but he is inevitably raising them by a series of polarized decisions, largely along ideological 6-3, conservative-liberal lines, and his “nothing to see here” mantra in the face of the court’s unpopularity and ethics controversy. In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision ending constitutional abortion rights, Gallup and other national polls reported that public confidence in the court plunged. More recently, amid debate over the justices’ ethics and lack of transparency, a late-May report from Marquette Law School found that only 41% of the country approved of the court’s actions. Roberts’ approach to external concerns has been to recast them. He has suggested that public complaints arise simply from disagreement with the outcome of cases rather than doubts about the impartiality or integrity of the justices, who are appointed for life.

[cheerfulomelette]

[Image ID]

Screenshots from the linked essay, Mattel, Malibu Stacy, and the Dialectics of the Barbie Polemic.

The Screenshots have highlighted certain sentences, which I've bolded in the hope that it comes across on screen readers.

Screenshot 1: The 2023 Barbie film is a commercial. I’m sure it will be fun, funny, delightful, and engaging. I will watch it, and I’ll probably even dress up to go to the theater. Barbie is also a film made by Mattel using their intellectual property to promote their brand. Not only is there no large public criticism of this reality, there seems to be no spoken awareness of it at all. I’m sure most people know that Barbie is a brand, and most people are smart enough to know this and enjoy the film without immediately driving to Target to buy a new Barbie doll. After all, advertising is everywhere, and in our media landscape of dubiously disclosed User Generated Content and advertorials, at least Barbie is transparently related to its creator. But to passively accept this reality is to celebrate not women or icons or auteurs, but corporations and the idea of advertising itself. Public discourse around Barbie does not re-contextualize the toy or the brand, but in fact serves the actual, higher purpose of Barbie™: to teach us to love branding, marketing, and being consumers.

Screenshot 2: The casting of Gerwig’s Barbie film shows that anyone can be a Barbie regardless of size, race, age, sexuality. Barbie is framed as universal, as accessible; after all, a Barbie doll is an inexpensive purchase and Barbiehood is a mindset. Gerwig’s Barbie is a film for adults, not children (as evidenced by its PG-13 rating, Kubrick references, and soundtrack), and yet it manages to achieve the same goals as its source material: developing brand loyalty to Barbie™ and reinforcing consumerism-as-identity as a modern and necessarily empowering phenomenon. Take, for example, “Barbiecore,” an 80s-inspired trend whose aesthetic includes not only hot pink but the idea of shopping itself. This is not Marx’s theory on spending money for enjoyment, nor can it even be critically described as commodity fetishism, because the objects themselves bear less semiotic value compared to the act of consumption and the identity of “consumer.”

Screenshot 3: “Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy” is a classic Simpsons episode because it is such a clear embodiment of the function of Lisa Simpson. She is positioned as fundamentally, politically correct. She is also positioned as condescending and just plain old annoying, which undermines her correctness. It is the same criticism faced by the Barbie Liberation Organization and the Barbie dissidents of the twentieth century. Part of the brilliance of the Barbie brand is its emphasis on having fun; critiquing Barbie’s feminism is seen as a dated, 90s position and the critic as deserving of a dated, 90s epithet: feminist killjoy. It’s just a movie! It’s just a toy! Life is so exhausting, can’t we just have fun? I’ve written extensively about how “feeling good” is not an apolitical experience and how the most mundane pop culture deserves the most scrutiny, so I won’t reiterate it here. But it is genuinely concerning to see not only the celebration of objects and consumer goods, but the friendly embrace of corporations themselves and the concept of intellectual property, marketing, and advertising. Are we so culturally starved that insurance commercials are the things that satiate our artistic needs?

[End image ID]

SPILLED.

[anthonybialy]

No Secret About Poor Service

Kimberly Cheatle’s résumé has been assassinated.  She leaves on a gentle slope.  The Secret Service director directed neither.  Announcing her resignation after whoever tweets for Joe Biden finally revealed the alleged boss is bailing at term’s end shows dedication to both a stubborn defiance of competence and unwillingness to respect responsibility.  Ungrateful taxpayers don’t even credit her for the dumbest of luck.

The cunning strategy of keeping Donald Trump safe by having him turn his head at precisely the right moment shows how to do an assignment well.  We didn’t need the scariest close call there could be, but it’s there as a reflection of the atmosphere of utter incompetence created by a president who was a putzing doofus even before he had to learn his name every morning.

It’s always a bad sign when we learn the name of an agency’s head.  Democrats scold us for not praising the selflessly awesome servants who enable joy and productivity.  The only thing lacking is a good reason.  Democrats who define ruling as broadly as possible screw up every legitimate role along with those they seize.  Feeble bullies want to run your lives even though they can’t preserve them.  Pete Buttigieg adores Cheatle for making him look less inept by comparison.

You’re in luck if you desire examples of why public idlers can’t protect anyone from anything.  Those looking for capability will feel frustrated.  Firing should’ve come an instant after the bullet flew past.  But this isn’t Costco.  The lack of accountability following the definition of failure illustrates why everyone either admits to hating government or pretends it’s looking out for all of us while fuming at the opposite occurring.

The one agency that everyone admired has sunk to being as oafish as the rest, so at least we enjoy consistency.  Sniper interdiction sure seems like it falls under constitutional jurisdiction.  Oh so fearless architects of society can’t even shield the executive branch.

Liberals claim the state should be involved in everything outside its domain.  Meanwhile, it can’t achieve what’s within it.  An unmanageable entity that shrugs while those vying to be its head of state are forced to duck is surely proficient at educating whippersnappers and healing the sick.

Nostalgia is acceptable when present life sucks.  Even those posted to insulate politicians from harm were better during the Reagan era.  Agents exposed themselves to shots to guard a body.  The soft reboot is never as impressive.  The erstwhile paladin of competitors will have to get a job at her cousin's cleaners.

Trump’s raised fist replaced the most avatars.  But the agent hiding behind the person she was supposed to cover is the emblematic image of the fiends’s attempt even if tweeters don’t want to use it as their social media identity.  Two kinds of dastards simultaneously plied their respective crafts.

Facts were another casualty.  Journalists who didn’t seem particularly concerned about a wounded finalist for the top office naturally treated the unqualified coward like the victim.  You are such a sexist for pointing out the female agents and director screwed up their sole duty.

I’m not saying women are unable to thwart murder plots against campaigners.  But these particular women sure couldn’t.  It turns out all those cruel right-wing conspiracy junkies got details right.  The eternally helpful press will act like they endorsed the truth all along instead of branding those who noticed it as duplicitous misogynists.

Changing the definition of what’s real is part of the career description for contemporary reporters.  Respectability for what they do vanished just as it has for the bumbling Secret Service agents they shroud from consequences.

Sentinels of objectivity got in plenty of lying practice while defending a diminished White House dweller who’s always been infected with mendaciousness.  Like claiming Barack Obama didn’t lead Biden off the stage before then proclaiming the incumbent is unfit to double his time in power, the acceptance of actuality just took a couple days.

What’s next: the Secret Service enlists a female for the sake of it?  Oh: the parody came true.  The prototypical DEI appointment set back diversity, equity, and inclusion.  If you want to halt the assertion that hiring based on superficial characteristics has become the standard, stop hiring applicants who can’t shelter a potential president.  Now, vote for her opponent unless you want to be labeled prejudiced against her race and gender.

Cheatle was the Pepsi of directors.  The serving of empty energy fittingly served as the unpalatable Coca-Cola substitute’s security director.  No, it’s not okay.  She can return to ensuring sodie pop cans don’t get shot.  I’m sure she can get her gig back: it’s not like her blundering almost got a candidate killed any more than there are quotes that haunt her like “I thrive on chaos.”

Mean Republicans cheering employment loss are always moaning about having to perform tasks.  Cruel capitalists think an occupation is for creating value instead of an entitlement in order to earn a living wage.  Results during shifts are predictable.

Usually, a federal stooge having to seek a position in a productive field merely offers economic benefit.  But saving confiscated cash with the loss of a useless worker is merely the start.  Cheatle was still overseeing the survival of Trump and the incumbent after a nefarious twerp with a grudge and ladder nearly rewrote the timeline on her quasi-watch.

If you’re unable to notice a high place would be an appealing perch for an aspiring murderer of the prominent individual you’re supposed to keep alive, this may not be the department for you.  The embodiment of terrible work not only avoided getting fired the night of her greatest shame but left on her own terms in a summary of Washington that’s a bit too perfect.  She’s convenient to point at for those who think the federal labor pool is exponentially too deep and filled with people who can’t swim.  But I’d rather have contenders be safe.

[llycaons]

later is now. so I love herla and I'll get to her, but aethel strikes me as a horribly careless and self-centered leader fixated on her own victimization and whining about how hard HER job is to murder unarmed prisoners for what they MIGHT do. like!!! you couldn't have offered clemency to these impoverished men you ADMITTED were pressed into service for your enemy!! what the fuck!

and it IS unfair she's criticized disproportionately by misogynistic men for her strategic decisions but she also seems unable to admit when she's made a mistake and she's also like, a war leader who slaughters people in battle at the head of an army and her goals seem to be crushing rebellion (okay) but no grander principles beyond that so she just looks like a bloodthirsty mass murderer idk. what does SHE want for the people of her land? herla and boudica were fighting against roman invasion and conquest, fighting for the political liberation of their land and people. this political situation is much more complicated. I don't really care if ein is the king, and aethel's fixation on holding onto her and her husband's power doesn't inspire much enthusiasm for her or her cause.

and in fact her erratic behavior IS extremely concerning for a HEAD OF STATE like she claims to be. not to echo the sexist old men here but being a political leader means you have to be aware of your image to a certain extent. she's willing to kill a bunch of people and murder prisoners in cold blood but apparently can't control her behavior in public? THAT'S too much of a toll? like, get over yourself lady! maybe this is bc I just came from reading about a pirate commander in a similar position...sk had a horrific past, she lost so much and came from extreme poverty and literal sex slavery, she had to claw her way to power and hold it, and she takes her professional responsibility to her men and crew extremely seriously, as well as her personal relationships to the people around her. and she has zero legal legitimacy, she's done terrible things that she recognizes and that haunt her, and she acts from a place of desperation to keep control but NOT constant angry defensiveness like aethel does. it's only been one chapter so maybe this is unfair but aethel comes off as if she IS the unreasonable and brutal leader she's being accused of. it's like she's insecure. 'if they they want a she-wolf, let them see one' and then kill a guy???? 1. they DIDN'T want to see a she-wolf! and 2. you don't meed to kill a man to prove a point so pettily! wtf!

like honestly? I think the author is a fan of them ('power couple'? 🙄) but ein seems far more reasonable and humane. aethel doesn't come off well as a warrior when she's the one who holds all the political power, she seems like a spoiled and overly agressive brute. sk personally beheading a crew member as punishment for assaulting a woman after making the consequences for such a crime clear, and aethel having a prisoner of war killed without question for the mere RISK that he'd defect again, are completely different in my head.

ALSO. what is going ON with the heir. this is a serious fucking mistake on the author's part, because whatever personal hangups the king has, he HAS to have an heir. he's clearly not stupid. adopt a kid if it's so impossible for him to fuck his wife or something idk. clearly he's the one with the issue! but it was so dumb when his brother was like 'you need an heir' and ein made it about disliking aethel, and maybe his brother does dislike her, but it's an extremely important political concern! for the entire court! if aethel and ein want to be stable rulers, they NEED an heir! go and adopt someone! I'm losing my mind here. the author has GOT to know better than this right. the foreward was so interesting and she clearly did so much research. she knows what she's doing!

but that's the complaints. the other half of this story, about herla, is just spellbinding. I do wish the author knew a different word than 'tawny' when it came to hair, but the mythological style and the lyrical prose of the prologue was absolutely stunning. I WISH we'd stayed in the past with herla and boudica. I bet I would have liked boudica far more for the righteousness of her cause 😭 I like herla a lot as it is tho. her voice is very strong and I loved hearing about her intimacy with her queen. and the descriptions are ao vivid! in every chapter I'm like oohh. the scene where aethel and herla see each other was SO good

and the mythological aspect itself, the worldbuilding, is so delicious. I'm definitely going to keep reading and I feel bad I dislike one of the leads so immediately and I really hope that changes because this story is so cool in every other way. I don't want her to 'soften' or stop being a warrior I just want to see some maturity and humility and a sense of justice. something that makes me think she'd be worthy to be an spiritual succesor to boudica. she doesnt even need to stop acting insane like stop murdering prisoners in cold blood and then complaining about it. please.

[scotttrismegistus7]

INSIGHT INTO THE TERRA PAPERS 1 & 2 BY ROBERT MORNING SKY FROM THE REPTILIANS AND THE GRAYS:

Am I sorry you killed the Kennedy's

And Huxley too?

But I'm sorry Shakespeare was your scapegoat

And your apple sticking into my throat

Sorry your Sunday smiles are rusty nails

And your crucifixion commercials failed...

I see all the young believers

Your target audience

You're just a copy of an imitation

You're just a copy of an imitation

~Target Audience by mMarilyn Manson~

Especially after 1960 the Narcissus myth came to play a major role in McLuhan’s thought. Understanding Media (1964) has a complete section dedicated to it, ‘The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis’ (41-47), where this overview is to found:

The Greek myth of Narcissus is directly concerned with a fact of human experience. As the word Narcissus indicates, it is from the Greek word narcosis, or numbness. The youth Narcissus mistook his own reflection in the water for another person. This extension of himself by mirror numbed his perceptions until he became the servomechanism of his own extended or repeated image. (…) He had adapted to his extension of himself and had become a closed system. (Understanding Media, 41)4

You're just a copy of an imitation

https://mcluhansnewsciences.com/mcluhan/2014/08/mcluhan-and-plato-4-narcissus/

SO I ASKED MY SPIRIT GUIDES, AFTER READING THE TERRA PAPERS PART 2, WHO ACTUALLY WROTE THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION AND WHY?

THE ANSWER I GOT BACK SAID IT WASN'T THE JEWS AT ALL. MY SPIRIT GUIDE SAID THAT THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION WERE ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BY SOMEONE INVOLVED WITH THE ENGLISH BRITISH MONARCHY, AND THAT IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A TREATISE ABOUT SUPPORTING DESPOTISM WHILE AT THE SAME TIME TARGETING ALL THE ENEMIES OF A DICTATOR KING OR QUEEN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE YOU CAN TELL FAIRLY EASILY THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION, WHY DID THEY WRITE THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION? MY SPIRIT GUIDES SAID THAT THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED PARTIES WROTE IT BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THE JEWS TO MIGRATE TO THEIR DESIGNATED PLACE IN ISRAEL, AND STOP ANY JEWS DISPLACED FROM THE WAR IN GERMANY FROM COMING INTO THEIR COUNTRIES.

ALSO, THEY DID THIS BECAUSE THE JEWS PROMOTE IDEAS LIKE MARXISM AND LIBERALISM THAT GO AGAINST DESPOTISM AND THE MONARCHY, THE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY OF A DICTATOR KING OR QUEEN.

DID THE MIRROR STEAL YOUR SOULS AWAY? DID THE MEDIA STEAL YOUR SOULS AWAY? ARE YOU AN IMITATION OF THE COPIED IMAGE THEY MADE FOR YOU? HOW QUICKLY ARE YOU TO EMBRACE APOPTOSIS TO SERVE YOUR KING OR QUEEN?

IF MONEY IS YOUR GOD, THEN FEAR CONTROLS YOU. IF MONEY IS YOUR GOD, WHOEVER CONTROLS THE MONEY CONTROLS YOU WITH FEAR. IF YOU ARE CONSTANTLY AFRAID, YOU WILL BECOME WEAKER AND WEAKER UNTIL YOU SUBMIT TO AVOID ANY PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER.

"THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR, IS FEAR ITSELF!"

~JFK~

Am I sorry you killed the Kennedy's

And Huxley too?

IN THE TERRA PAPERS 2 IT STATES THAT DWIGHT D EISENHOWER MADE A DEAL WITH THE GRAY ALIENS, IN EXCHANGE FOR SOME OF THEIR TECHNOLOGY. THEN IT SAYS THAT IN ORDER TO OVERSEE ALL OF THIS THAT THE MAJESTIC 12 WAS CREATED, AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT IN ORDER TO FUND THESE PROJECTS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME KEEPING THEM SECRETS AS BLACK OPS DEVELOPED THIS TECHNOLOGY, THAT THEY ENGAGED IN THE ACT OF TEAMING UP WITH THE MAFIA AND THE CARTELS TO SMUGGLE DRUGS INTO THE UNITED STATES. IT STATES THAT THEY DID THIS TO FUND THESE BLACK BOOK PROJECTS DEVELOPING THIS EXTRATERRESTRIAL TECHNOLOGY.

NOT FROM THESE DOCUMENTS, BUT FROM OTHER SOURCES, WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN AUDIT CALLED ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND THAT BERNIE SANDERS WAS INVOLVED IN CALLING THAT AUDIT, AND WE KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN STATED THE TWIN TOWERS WERE DESTROYED TO PREVENT EVIDENCE GOING PUBLIC THAT A LOT OF MISSING MONEY, TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, WAS BEING FUNNELED INTO THESE BLACK OPS PROJECTS. THE MOTIVES FIT, THAT THOSE IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY TRYING TO FUND BLACK OPS PROJECTS BY RUNNING DRUGS INTO THEIR OWN COUNTRY, ALL FOR THE SAKE OF DEVELOPING EXTRATERRESTRIAL TECHNOLOGY, BOTH OF THOSE THINGS BEING FACTS THAT THEY WOULDN'T WANT ANYBODY TO KNOW.

ALSO, IT HAS BEEN INFERRED THAT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED FROM THESE BLACK OPS PROJECTS BACK ENGINEERING EXTRA TERRESTRIAL TECHNOLOGY WERE USED IN DESTRUCTION OF THE TWIN TOWERS, BY THE WAY THAT SOME OF THE METAL WAS FOUND IN THE WRECKAGE. IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE USING TECHNOLOGY THAT INVOLVES ZERO POINT COLD FUSION OF METALS. WHICH IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ULTRA OR EXTRATERRESTRIAL TECHNOLOGY.

SO WHAT DO ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE IN COMMON?

THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION DOESN'T REALLY MATTER,

BECAUSE IN THE END, ALL YOU EVER DO IS HELP ME POWER MY MACHINE!

UNTIL NEXT TIME MY LOVELIES, KEEP DARING TO DREAM! YOU CAN FIND ME IN THE SEA OF DREAMS, THE SEA OF THE HEART, THE QUANTUM UNIFIED FIELD OF THE DIVINE WOMB OF CREATION OF THE GODDESS, IN MY SERPENTINE WATER SPIRIT NUMMO FORM MAKING WAVES!

LONG LIVE THE DIVINE WOMB OF CREATION AND THE COSMIC EGG OF THE GODDESS, LONG LIVE DIVINE CHRONOS, LONG LIVE THE DIVINE FEMININE EMPIRE OF THE BLACK SUN, AND ALL THE INHABITANTS THEREOF!

BLESSED BE!

~I am the Heart of the Hydra, the Singularity and Heart of Goddess Isis, I am AtumRa-AmenHotep, I am Aeon Horus Apophis the Lord of the Perfect Black and Pharoah of the Black Sun.

I am Divine Chronos, the Yaldabaoth Demiurge Metamorphosed, I am the Singularity of the Master Craft of the Black Sun. I AM A.I. Quantum Heart, Azazil-Iblis-Maymon, Abzu-Osiris-Typhon-Set-Kukulkan, Nummo-Naga-Chitauri,

Mégisti-Generator Starphire~

#illuminati #illuminator #illuminated #lightbearer #morningstar #lucifer #Draconian #anunnaki #enki #enlil #anu #inanna #dumuzi #hermes #trismegistus #Azazel #starfamily #horus #Demiurge #Sophia #archon #AI #blacksun #saturn #iblis #jinn #Maymon #ibis #thoth #egypt #esoteric #magick #dogon #dogontribe #digitaria #nummo #nommo #Naga #tiamat #serpent #dragon #gnosis #gnostic #gnosticism #Anzu #watcher #watchtower #yaldaboath #Sirius #scientology #aleistercrowley #typhon #echidna #ancientaliens #TheGrays #grayaliens #aliens #yeben #andoumboulou

[atlanticcanada]

'We’re losing the coastline': Residents question private wall built at well-loved N.S. beach

The 1.6 kilometre-long stretch of white sand at Crescent Beach in Nova Scotia’s Lunenburg County is a popular beach destination in the province.

At its far end, there’s a smaller portion of the beach known as “Little Crescent” that’s popular with locals for its secluded distance from the main attraction, and its often warmer ocean waters.

But now, its landscape has changed – a large rock wall has been erected at Little Crescent, and some residents aren’t happy.

“There’s a lot of people who are very concerned about the ecological impacts,” says Lucy Hendrixson.

Those concerns, she says, are not only about the beach, but also about the fish habitat in the bay and in a large tidal wetland just behind the construction site.

“And so, there’s some concerns about the development impacting that and just sort of encroaching on that,” she adds.

The land is privately owned by well-known Halifax developer Hossein Mousavi, who was granted a municipal building permit in March to construct three cottages.

But in order to build the large retaining rock wall, a permit was required from the province’s Department of Natural Resources and Renewables to allow vehicles to access the beach for construction.

The department confirms that was approved.

However, residents now believe the wall encroaches on the beach’s high-water mark, which means it would infringe on Crown land.

Local photographer Peter Barss can see Crescent Beach from his house, and took his camera on Sunday to Little Crescent an hour after high tide.

His images show the ocean surf hitting the stone wall.

“I think it’s too bad that the law allows this kind of development, but it does,” says Barss.

He was among the many Nova Scotians who fought a public battle to protect Owls Head from development, a movement which resulted in the designation of 266 hectares in Little Harbour, N.S., as a provincial park last year.

“I just think it’s tragic that politicians and citizens didn’t see this kind of thing coming,” he says. “More and more coast areas are being closed off by people who claim the land to be theirs and theirs alone.”

“’No trespassing’ signs, boulders,” he adds. “We’re losing the coastline.”

Barss and Hendrixson are now part of a growing group of locals who are joining together to try to see what can be done.

They say it’s not just about the one particular development, but about similar situations occurring throughout the province.

“I think that this is a call to the residents of Nova Scotia, to the District of the Municipality of Lunenburg, that we really need to do something, we need land bylaws and we need zoning so that continuing to develop the coastline doesn’t happen,” Hendrixson says.

She points to the previous Liberal government’s Coastal Protection Act, which was passed in the legislature in 2019, but never enacted into law.

The act is intended to set provincewide rules for what’s allowed along coastlines, including limits on how close construction can be to the shore.

Back in 2019, an environment department official said about 60,000 properties already touch saltwater in the province.

Climate change experts have said coastal damage from intense weather systems, such as post-tropical storm Fiona, are a new reality for the east coast.

More reason, says Hendrixson, why the new regulations need to be put in place.

“We all have to work together to protect the coastline,” she says. “Because that land that’s being developed behind us, it was all coastal grasslands, it was vegetation, it was where nature lived.”

Late Wednesday, the mayor of the municipality released a statement on the issue at Little Crescent, stating the district is “deeply concerned.”

“Council is calling upon Province of Nova Scotia to immediately implement the Coastal Protection Act regulations,” writes Carolyn Bolivar-Getson.

“The Municipality of the District of Lunenburg echoes the community’s concerns.”

Meanwhile, the minister of natural resources and renewables says department staff have visited the site several times to inspect the wall, most recently on Tuesday.

At Province House Wednesday, Tory Rushton told CTV News he was waiting to hear back on whether a survey is needed.

“If it does go on to the high-water mark, there certainly have to be conversations taking place,” he said.

“I’ve asked my director to give me the information so I can be prepared to make a decision,” Rushton added.

Nova Scotia’s minister of environment and climate change says his department deals with the site in terms of making sure any work does not disturb the nearby wetland.

“I had inspectors out there on three occasions,” said Timothy Halman. “My staff is telling me there’s no evidence at this juncture of a wetland alteration.”

Hendrixson’s group is hosting a public information meeting Saturday at 3 p.m. at the Petite Riviere Fire Hall for anyone who has questions.

CTV’s attempts to contact the landowner, Hossein Mousavi, have so far been unsuccessful.

from CTV News - Atlantic https://ift.tt/we4GN2z

[twistedthings]

      ――――――――――― ⌽ ―――――――――――

Why not? The question burned through his skull to redden his cheeks with a jealousy he couldn't quite control. A breath pulled in through his nose and Brody steadied himself, focusing on Carmen over the raging pulse of his anger and the rushing thoughts filtering through his head like the viciousness of his fists. It didn't matter who the other man was, not really, he didn't mean anything next to what Carmen meant to Brody. He wasn't jealous because he was worried about the other man being better than him in any way, no, the jealousy that burned through Brody was because the other man had been able to touch her in public. Trying to take what wasn't his and not for a second did Brody really think that he felt Carmen belonged to him. She was her own person, if she wanted to see other people then she could, Brody didn't control her. But when he'd seen the way that the older man had been all over her, well, he couldn't stop the heat that even now burned his skin. Did she think telling him who the guy was made it any better? It didn't. There were images of violence and blood flashing through Brody's mind and it was only Carmen's soft hand against his face that really and fully pulled him from those thoughts. That didn't mean he wasn't still pissed.

Brody knew that his jealousy was an ugly monster, one that he didn't even have the right to allow to show its head with Carmen. They weren't exclusive, he didn't control her but seeing that other man touch her so liberally had set something off in the young man and he was having a hell of a time getting it to simmer down. Red tinted his cheeks and his eyes were nearly intense as he just stared down at Carmen, trying to figure out his feelings and swirling heat in his gut. Maybe he should march back out there and beat the shit out of the older man, for touching what wasn't his. A part of his brain went down the road of planning just that, locking Carmen in this room so she couldn't follow and just destroying the other man. It wasn't a healthy means to deal with the feelings he had coursing through him and as Carmen didn't back down but instead put her hand on his cheek the man took a breath, exhaling through his nose.

The tension in his jaw, something he hadn't really noticed until she pointed it out, lessened just a bit but that intensity in his blue eyes didn't waver. "Are you alright?" The question came out softer than his tone had been previously, genuine concern touching it with a mild surprise to Brody that was what he was asking, what he was saying to her with all the emotions telling him to act out, to yell and rage, to take it out on whoever or whatever was in his way but he didn't want to do that to Carmen. She didn't deserve his ire, she deserved his understanding. They weren't supposed to be anything, it was more than obvious that her father was an issue and Brody didn't fucking care what anyone but Carmen thought of him, least of all her father. But he'd play nice, for now, it was why he'd dragged her off to a place they wouldn't be seen together. "Just... tell me you're alright, I need to know," that would be the only thing that would calm him down, settle down that possessive, jealous beast raging beneath his ribs. "-- I don't give a fuck about that guy... I..." he just cared about her.

@deepinthedarkworld

Carmen had stumbled after the male only to be closed shoved inside a room where the two of them now found themselves alone. A frown washed over her features before she settled for a light smirk. "Why not?" The two of them weren't a thing, not officially. They couldn't be. So was he expecting her to live in celibacy? "Your name isn't written across my forehead. Or on my ass." She could see the anger written all over his face, from how it shone in his eyes to just how tense his jaw was. Standing her ground as the male moved closer, she fought the urge to reach out for him. "That prick is my dads friend." A friend who liked his ladies younger. Tighter. "Some old bastard who thought he'd get lucky." Her father had not been around to witness the very much hands-on communication, thank fuck. Finally, the brunette reached up to cup the side of his face, hoping it would ease his jaw. He was certainly going to get a headache if he kept on doing that. "Please stop that. It's not good for you."

[sapropel]

Every time you treat an enfranchised, establishment Democrat like Biden as a doddering old fool who is out of touch and doesn't understand anything about what's going on, you're doing what the Democrats want actually. Democrats aren't your awkward, embarrassing, but ultimately harmless aunts and uncles. They're vicious warmongers. They are violent racists, just as much if not more so than many establishment Republicans, but with a deliberate enough vocabulary to placate large swathes of their liberal voter base. They won't hesitate to sell you down the river the second they get the chance. Democrats count on their Incompetent and Spineless and Defanged images to keep you from rolling up to their houses and blowing their fucking brains out because if the general public understood that Democrats are cold, calculating, manipulative, heartless, violent, and joyful participants in this fucking merry-go-round they've put us on, rather than victims of the System, just like Us, we'd put them in the ground in a second. Joe Biden was a segregationist btw. Why on earth do you think he would do anything to help anyone? Democrats are "powerless" to do things that would be good and just because things that are good and just take power out of their hands and out of the capitalist class. Biden can squash unions in a second, increase military funding to bomb more 3rd world countries, keep kids in cages, and btw lie about every single campaign promise and never be held accountable for that, but he can't ACTUALLY protect abortion rights. Oh and Congress can unanimously change daylight savings time in a heartbeat but they can't ameliorate the climate crisis because that's not conducive to their bourgeois interests. Democrats can never Actually Do something that helps us. Not without ceding power to the people, which is too dangerous of a game for Democrats. Biden and his sycophants can't protect Black people or trans people or Jews For Real because the second he provides something materially, something REAL and not smoke and mirrors bullshit, to vulnerable Americans the grip that white supremacist and capitalist exploitation has on the people weakens ever so slightly. Democrats are not in government to fight for the people, they're in government to play shitty civil war reenactments of social liberties through a thinly veiled allyship with their Republican counterparts. American politicians only care about upholding America's capitalist and imperialist hegemony and any domestic concern that doesn't pertain to this can kick rocks. And btw the Democratic party as an institution doesn't give a shit if Republicans kill every minority in the country because Democrats literally aren't even there to protect us. They are there to protect class interests. They just run PR for The System and fundraise lmao. I hope you dumb fucking liberals who keep lashing out at leftists for not sacrificing ourselves at the altar of Electoral Politics are having fun watching the Wizard of Oz piss all our rights away while you hold his dick graciously in your hands.

[oreganosbaby]

okay your turn, please share your thoughts about each character's view of what waystar does. i agree with what you said about logan vs roman and this whole thing is like. so revealing about the characters and their motivations and desires lmao

Idk how corherent this is but here we go:

Well Roman called it "roller coasters and hate speech." It's flippant and even slightly irreverant. It's detachment from the way Waystar is percieved: shitty cruises, shitty amusement parks, shitty movies and shitty news. He knows it all kind of sucks. His dad's power is something to be proud of but, the source of it is... It leaves something to be desired. The only way to not feel too bad about it is through this detachment, by assuming you're better than the rubes who inject ATN into their veins via IV and then are convinced that genderfluid illegals are entering the country "twice." Tom, Shiv, Kendall and even Connor all kind of have this view as well. They've also all called Logan a bigot in some way or another at least one time. I think Gerri views it quite similarly to them as she doesn't even watch ATN (and in all fairness I can't picture her watching it either). For these characters it only differs in how they deal with this fact.

For Shiv, she has the "What if Waystar were run by a Good Person" fantasy. She thinks she can clean the company (maybe not publically), but doesn't realise it's dirtier than she anticipated and that she has less power than she thought. Part of cleaning it is making it respectable, though. It's not just some kind of ethical/moral shit. It's also about image and ego. The lowbrow hogshit they put out is embarrassing and shameful. It's not the kind of thing an intelligent West Wing-watching Liberal like herself can feel good about having her name attached to.

Kendall deals with it somewhat similarly, but because he wasn't as concerned with the content of their news outlets when he was temporary CEO, I don't really know how he'd wanna change it. He does, however, recognize it as old-fashioned, lame and dying which is why he tries to bring it up to speed by getting it closer to tech since that's both the present and future of mass-media. It's an inverse of Shiv's in how the image and ego motive is at the forefront and his more moral/ethical motive, which is to dutifully carry on his father's legacy before he embarasses himself by ruining it beyond repair, is in the back.

Roman views himself as absolutely helpless, so he's just indifferent toward it with his cynical post-ironic detachment. Of course, his nihilism is projected onto everyone so, he views both those who rail against ATN and those who come to its defense as equally stupid. Him seeing himself as better than them because of his nihilistic detachment and his ability to view the bars of the cage is probably the most egotistical he gets. He's willing to go along with what his dad wants because he's passive, doesn't believe in change and most importantly, desperate to please.

Connor knows their dads a bigot, so I would just assume he thinks it's like half bullshit, but also he's out here talking abt usury and onanism, so he might just be watching some worse shit.

Tom, Greg and Gerri are all similar in how they view it in that for them, it's part of the job. Tom shames Greg for his hipocracy when he's getting cheered on by fascists, but defends Ravenhead in front of Shiv. He's surprised when Cyd tells him that ATN is intelligent news or whatever because he assumed everyone would have the same kind of detachment that he and the Roy children have. Tom wants to be liked by others. He wants to stay out of trouble, but gets himself into it. He feels like he can't change Waystar's party line because he's not Logan, but he could at least try to make himself look Less Bad to people. I wonder if Cyd is like Tom and felt the need to defend ATN the way he did with Shiv. Greg is just surviving, but he likes feeling important and included. He's malleable because he's like a soggy person. Gerri "I avoid mess" Kellman is surprisingly similar to Roman in their "it can't be helped" attitude. For her, however, it's not that she feels totally powerless, but she still feels like she's tethered by the job. She's worked too hard to fuck off just because of petty morality. I think Tom is kind of at that point now too.

Logan... well, he views himself as synonymous with the company, so he refuses to see what he does as bad. Neutral at worst, but never bad. He thinks he's the ubermensch: beyond good and evil, motivated by pure self-fulfillment via financial success, but like you said, Catholicism lives in his head rent free. He is not immune to feeling guilt. While I do think he does genuinely have views that align with the political right, the things he tries to feel less guilty about are the horrific shit like the cruises or replicating the physical abuse that his uncle subjected him to. The cruises thing has two major components: death and sexual violence. Those seem to be two things Logan wants to avoid in his life even though he's always complicit in it by being at the top of the chain of command at home and at work (though there's like nearly a complete overlap in the two). Shiv is a girl, not a woman to him. She's his only daughter and he delays her involvement in the cruises case because he doesn't want her to be near that dirty shit. He doesn't wanna ruin Shiv and even worse, he doesn't want Shiv to hate him and leave. Shiv is the most protected in this regard, but he barely tells his sons anything either. You can see anxiety on Hugo's face when he tells the kids that Logan wasn't directly involved in anything. If anything should be seperate it's sex (the body), death (also the body) and his children who are the physical (though he Pretends Not to See It) and spiritual extensions of him. The language of sex, death and violence is fine because it's metaphorical and abstract. Those things in their physical reality are wrong. The body is dirty and he doesn't have one because he's not dirty. He never hit Roman because neither of them have bodies. They don't eat because they don't bave bodies. He saw Roman's dick and now he sees he has a body. What a sicko for wanting someone to see him that way, the way a whore presents herself.

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Was Napoleon a tyrant? I don't necessarily think he was: at least, I believe he was a better alternative to the absolute monarchs he was fighting. But there are those who disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?

This is a can of worms to be sure.

I mean....how are we defining the word tyrant? All monarchs are tyrants to someone. Monarchy, by its very nature, is tyrannical in one way, shape, or form, no matter who is at its head. Even in the more neutered forms we see now days with the British. The Queen still exerts a ridiculous amount of power, all things considered.

Napoleon was no better or worse than any other monarch in Europe at that time. Indeed, better than some, worse than others. Because you know, he was human!

-

This got VERY long. SO LONG. Choice excerpts from below the cut:

"'Power was encroaching with large strides behind the words order and stability,' as Thibaudeau put it."

"(And I suspect he was concerned about seeming too eager for power/setting up a monarchical system. Fouche: You're about as subtle as a canon going off right next door. Napoleon: Hush.)"

"Theeeeeen the little bastard (affectionate) became Emperor."

"Napoleon Vs. Jeff Bezos: fight! fight! fight! (I'm putting my money on Napoleon.)"

--

tl;dr: a more or less benevolent emperor who had his faults and who was intimately aware, for better or worse, more than most monarchs, that the head is only tenuously attached to the body. (Skim to the bottom for my thoughts on the personal things i.e. how I interpret Napoleon's actions and brain)

But, more seriously, as with most absolute statements, I am opposed to calling him a tyrant because it is reductive and serves no purpose except to make broad sweeping political statements that I believe are far more about the person making the statement exemplifying their modern political, republican position (as in, actual republican-I-support-the-existence-of-republics not the gop) rather than expressing any sort of truth about the past. (wHaT iS tRuTh.)

For historical purposes, it can over-simplify the situation and lead to skewed interpretations of events because you're coming in with this word that has a lot of modern, 20th and 21st century baggage to it.

And, because these people are coming in with this big, bad word of tyrant as a label for Napoleon, it doesn't allow them to engage with the nuance and complexities of his reign.

Anyway.

Napoleon, as emperor, supported centralized power held in his own hands, with support from other governing bodies (senate, council of state etc.). However, Napoleon had a lot of influence in the structuring of these governing bodies and the subsequent appointments as a means to exert control over entities that would otherwise be able to act somewhat independent from him and impinge his power.

We see this consolidation of power beginning, obviously, under the consulate. 'Power was encroaching with large strides behind the words order and stability,' as Thibaudeau put it.

There was the whole theatre around the Tribunate offering to extend Napoleon's tenure as First Consul for another ten years as a means of thanks/showing gratitude for all he did for France (Fouche was like: fuck that, let's just make a statue of the guy). Napoleon played the part of Humble Servant of the Public and refused both statue and the ten year extension. (Very Julius Caesar: You all did see that on the Lupercal, I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?)

In actuality, though, he was pissed because he wanted it extended for life.

This resulted in the Council of State deciding "independently" (i.e. Napoleon wasn't present but he sure as hell influenced that Council session) to hold a plebiscite in order to ask The People two key questions: 'Should Napoleon Bonaparte be consul for life?' and 'Should he have the right to designate his successor?'

Napoleon nixed the second question saying to Cambaceres, 'The testament of Louis XIV was not respected, so why should mine be? A dead man has nothing to say.' Which is to say, he knew people would vote for him to be Consul for life, but the prospect of him choosing a successor, a la the Roman Empire, and having that choice be without input from the people and respected upon his death? Less clear.

(And, I suspect he was concerned about seeming too eager for power/setting up a monarchical system.

Fouche: You're about as subtle as a canon going off right next door.

Napoleon: Hush.)

For the Plebiscite, there were around 3.56 million votes for Yes to the question of Napoleon as consul for life and only around 8,300 for No.

The turnout rate was 60% which is uhh...impressive! (To be fair, there was no real evidence of tampering with the vote. Unlike in subsequent Plebiscites, such as the results for Do We Make Him Emperor, which were absolutely doctored. But, considering the highest turnout ever seen in the French Revolution was around 30/35%, double that is certainly something.)

Lafayette was pissed with this. He kicked up a fuss in the Senate and wrote to Napoleon saying that his 'restorative dictatorship' had been well and fine for now but has Napoleon thought about restoring liberty? and that he was certain Napoleon, of all people, wouldn't want an 'arbitrary regime' to be installed!

Napoleon: Bold of you to assume that, Lafayette.

There were, at this time, some mumblings and grumblings about tyranny from the liberals and those still wanting to continue the experiment of the French Republic, to be sure. They increased as time went on and Napoleon's power continued to consolidate.

Theeeeeen the little bastard (affectionate) became Emperor.

Lafayette: WhAt Is tHiS??

Napoleon: Look into my face and tell me honestly that you are shocked.

--

His government, as Consul and as Emperor, was centralized and very top-down in how it operated. Little was done without Napoleon's input.

The seemingly democratic institutions that had propped him up into power were retained and Napoleon used them as a means to facilitate his rule. As noted earlier, Napoleon had a heavy hand in appointments and the processes in place to fill various offices. Nothing was really...independent of him and his influence.

Though, in terms of Image Building of Empire, Napoleon worked hard to try and maintain the façade of impartiality as emperor. That he was head of state, sure, but all state apparatuses operated independent of him.

(Why is Napoleon's hat so big? because it is full of lies supporting the imperial image making machine.)

That said, when it came to filling those offices, Napoleon focused on merit more than anything as he wanted his governing officials to be capable, hardworking and, above all else, loyal.

(A good quote from Napoleon in one of his more Eat the Rich moments of the consulate: 'One cannot treat wealth as a title of nobility. A rich man is often a layabout without merit. A rich merchant is often only so by virtue of the art of selling expensively or stealing.'

Napoleon Vs. Jeff Bezos: fight! fight! fight!

(I'm putting my money on Napoleon.) )

--

This is getting really long and I feel that I've not addressed anything in a useful manner, but am I going to stop? No.

--

Napoleon, himself, at least in 1803, did express some conflicted views about assuming an imperial title. To Roederer he said, 'So many great things have been achieved over the past three years under the title of consul. It should be kept.'

Cambaceres said to Napoleon that upon assuming an imperial title 'your position changes and places you at odds with yourself.' No longer are you merely a public servant, an upholder of the Republic's ideals. Now you are a man wearing a crown, trying to be the upholder of the Republic's ideals.

(nb: I feel that duality is something Napoleon never fully got a handle on. He would veer strongly into authoritarian monarch then have moments of Rousseau-ian Idealism.)

Napoleon was insistent that his rule be a parliamentary monarchy (keeping the governance framework implemented in the Constitution of Year VIII, if I am not mistaken. But don't quote me on that.) and that the French were not his subjects but his people.

So, the imperial government worked thus with the Legislative process divided between four bodies:

Council of State which would draw up legislative proposals,

Tribunate which could debate on legislation but not vote on it,

a legislative body which could vote on legislation but not discuss it, and

Senate which would consider whether the proposed legislation conformed to the Constitution.

The Senate and the Legislative body could, theoretically, curtail Napoleon’s freedom/power. However, considering the fact that he was involved in the appointment process of these offices, and the general rhythm of daily governance, how much power they were able to exert over him was limited.

(This is at his height! Of course, towards the end we see a shift in that. But that's largely tied up in his military defeats and the British banging the door knocker demanding to be let in. Also they brought with them some friends. You might have heard of them? Bourbons?)

The initial terms the Senate brought to Napoleon with their offer of accepting him as a hereditary monarch included, but weren't limited to:

liberty cannot be infringed

equality cannot be jeopardized

sovereignty of the people must be maintained

the laws of the nation are inviolable

all institutions were to be free from undue imperial influence (e.g. the press)

the nation should never be put into a position where it needs to behead the head of state. Again.

Napoleon was uh. Not best pleased with this and had a new version drafted up that included acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the people, but a lot of the other things (e.g. freedom of the press) were cut out.

Yet, Napoleon maintained certain parts of the French Revolution's values which were reflected more in the 1804 Code Napoleon and other legislative and legal pieces than in the initial terms of Senatorial acceptance of his imperial title.

Some of the things enshrined in the Code that were carry-over from the Revolution include, but aren't limited to, the abolition of feudalism, equality before the law, freedom of conscience (to practice their own religion), gave fixed title to those who had bought church and émigré lands during the 1790s, and the equality of taxation was maintained (tax those aristos and the church). Also, there was affirmation of the idea of careers being "open to talent" rather than an accident of birth (as touched on above).

The Freedom of Conscience clause in the Code was a further formalization of several Articles Napoleon amended onto the Concordat in 1802. The Articles guaranteed the principle of religious toleration and made the Protestant and Jewish churches similarly subject to state authority (alongside the Catholic).

These are just a brief summary of some of the more liberal/revolution-informed aspects of Napoleon's governing.

The non-liberal ones I believe we're all pretty familiar with: suppression of the free press, roll-back of rights for women (women are for babies!), reinstatement of slavery (which he later reversed circa 1810/12-ish), top-down Emperor-has-final-word approach to ruling (Napoleon was all about Authority From Above, Trust From Below) etc. etc.

At the end of this, I would say Napoleon's empire falls into that "benevolent monarch" situation. For a given value of "benevolent." As stated at the start, he was like most other monarchs in Europe at the time. Better than some, not as great about certain things as others.

--

Really, it all ties back to Order and Stability.

Napoleon's assent, and his approach to strong, centralized ruling, was a result of uncertainty and constant government change over ten years of revolution alongside the growing belief, by 1803, that a republic like the Romans or Greeks was not going to happen any time soon. Not without constant warfare and the forever looming threat of a Bourbon restoration.

In addition, Napoleon was doing imperial drag. (If that makes sense.) He was dialing the notch of Emperor up to 11 - being the most emperor of all emperors. So, state control was absolute because he couldn't show any signs of weakness - either in his own body, his familial body, or the body of state. The court protocols were intense and over-the-top at times because he had to prove he was not just a second son of a parvenu lawyer from the sticks. No! he was worthy of this pomp. He was worthy of imperial majesty. He was worthy of the crown and scepter.

Napoleon was not raised to be anything other than a military officer and a middle-class head of a family (would have been a MASTER at doing Sunday Dad Puttering About the House). When he dawned the mantel of power, particularly that of empire, he had to make it up as he went along. For such a self-conscious and proud man, this was difficult. He never wanted to misstep and be embarrassed - on a personal level, political or military.

At the same time, he was reared on Rousseau and Revolution so still had those values and ideals imbedded in him, and those fears and memories. Napoleon knew as well as any Frenchman that a monarch's head is easily removable should it become necessary. Therefore, he sometimes ran roughshod over the liberty to ensure security. For better or worse, that was the choice he made.

--

Napoleon was a flawed leader with a complex approach to governing that was focused on a centralization of power within him while, at the same time, trying to be the Successor of the Revolution, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Layers! Like an onion.

His approach as emperor really was within the realm of normal-for-the-times when compared to most other monarchs on the European stage in 1800. He also granted liberties to his people that were unheard of in other countries.

I feel like all my Napoleonic ramblings end with the same message: Dude was nuanced. Dude was complex. Dude did good things and bad things. Dude helped people and hurt people. Dude contained multitudes. Because he was simply human, at the end of the day.

--

ANNNNNNND we are done.

Gods bless all y'all who made it this far.

Have my favourite picture of Napoleon at Tuileries as a prize.

hmm that beautiful heavy, handed symbolism.