#This can't continue without them resolving background issues

[royalarchivist]

[acourtofthought]

Out of Elucien and Gwynriel, who do you think is more likely to have their story told next, and why?

I just want to preface this by saying Sarah could absolutely write either pairing first. Only she knows what her 5 year (10 year??) plan is for this series and whether Koschei is supposed to be a bigger bad than he currently seems or whether she's going to introduce an even worse villain that she'll tie into different crossover plots. All that could make a difference in who is getting the next book.

With that said........

I think Elucien makes the most sense. First they are both more strongly connected to the current ACOTAR plots. At the end of SF they were worried about Beron, Koschei, those on the continent not signing the peace treaty, the issues in Spring.

To date, neither Bloomsbury or Sarah has ever made the announcement that you need to read the CC series to understand the next ACOTAR book. Even if they did it wouldn't make a lot of sense because most casual readers don't follow Sarah or Bloomsbury therefore they'd have no way to know what order you needed to read the series in. To me, that logically means the events of HOFAS cannot kick off the next ACOTAR book and truth be told, the ending of HOFAS didn't actually leave us with an actual plot that needs resolved. There were hints of what might come but the characters were not left thinking, "this is a threat to our world right now and we need to deal with it." Especially not when they already have more pressing threats to their world, the ones that were introduced in ACOWAR, the novella and SF.

Second, Elain and Lucien have been waiting a very long time for the resolution to their mating bond / love story. It's not that Sarah can't dive into a Gwynriel romance but I'm not sure their romance is more of a story right now. There's no real tension between them that needs resolved, they're in the baby stages of things. It's a beautiful place for them to be of course, it's fun to see them beginning to interact but I think it would be odd for Az to go from lusting after Mor, wanting to go down on Elain then end up mated to / in love with Gwyn all within the same year. I think Az could use a bit of time where he's removed from his centuries of pining for unattainable women to focus on his issues alone so that he's the right kind of love interest for Gwyn. And where Gwyn has a little more time to explore the world outside of the library, where she's not going from leaving it for the first time in two years to being mated to Az that same year. (Girl deserves to see what else is out there and make Az sweat a bit).

But Elain and Lucien? Their will they / won't they has been a major theme in the series since book 2 and not only for them but for all the characters. Feyre and Nesta struggled with the realization of the Elucien bond then finally came around to it. Az can't stand the scent of their bond, Cassian feels sad for Lucien's longing over his bond, Rhys is worried about the ramifications of Az trying to dick Lucien over because of the Elucien bond. To me, it's not something that can really continue lingering on in the background without resolution, not when every single character is talking about it / thinking about it. Not the way Gwynriel's romance could easily take a backseat and Sarah could give it a little more time to cook, add a little more drama to their setup.

With that said, I'm not Sarah so I have no idea if her thoughts are similar to my thoughts!

[atalkingrat]

MHA MANGA FINAL BATTLE ENDING(spoilers) : thoughts continued...

I'm gonna add to my previous post because I have more ending thoughts jumping around my brain.

So I don't know if Shigaraki should die or not, but here's one way in which it makes sense to me:

So I think one of the main focuses of this manga, is how a society can unravel when it's designed to give its citizens a hollow sense of safety. Furthermore how a society like this can disregard people who don't match the ideal, and how so much suffering can go ignored for the sake of keeping up appearances.

A few instances which develop this theme:

Quirkless Izuku

Going back to the beginning, Izuku is bullied his whole life for being quirkless. He doesn't fit into the images of strength that uphold this society, so he is left on the outsides. Izuku, as our protagonist, exemplifies extraordinary resolve, and a heart so full of kindness, that he directs most of his frustration and disappointment towards himself rather than society. This motivates him to become a great hero who saves.

2. All Might

All Might's first real appearance in the manga immediately creates a sense of disillusion, as we quickly learn that All Might is hiding pain and sadness behind a smile and his muscle form. He tells Izuku he can't be a hero (which I think is valid and All Might does tell him he can be a police officer instead), and then struggles throughout the rest of the manga with his own sense of purpose after retiring.

3.Stain

Puts into question the shallow motivations for modern day heroism.

4. Shigaraki

When he is alone in the streets, everyone waits for a hero to come and leaves him to fend for himself, believing that in this safe society aid will simply come to him without them having to do anything.

5. Toga

Is labelled deviant and immoral for the only way she knows how to express love. She recognises in the end, that if anyone had shown her the love she felt for others (like Uraraka does), her life could have been more about giving than taking.

6. Shoji and Spinner

Both face harsh discrimination for their quirks, one feeling that they have to hide their pain, the other turning to terrorism.

In Chapter 389, we see how All Might attempted to address the issues of society in the past:

He witnessed the endless cycle of victims becoming perpetrators in his life, and much like Izuku, was a victim who did not resent the world for it, but chose to save it instead. His solution was to become a symbol of peace.

We see that he achieved becoming a symbol, but only that. People began living as if there was peace, because they saw the symbol and believed it. Meanwhile they ignored the real issues still taking place. All Might also diid not hold up this image of peace alone, as the shady hero commission worked in the background, assassinating possible disruptors.

So returning to Shigaraki's death: Shigaraki is a victim of his society. When he finally, in his last moments, recognised that his guiding force (AFO) was actually trying to destroy him, he takes a page out of Izuku's book. Rather than destroying the world, he chooses to save it. He breaks free of oppressive victimhood which AFO has been shoving him into his whole life (insisting he kept his hatred for his family close to him always) and kills him, making a decisive choice.

Shigaraki is not a hero like Izuku. He is not selfless, and while killing AFO helped the heroes, it was also personally cathartic. He took his vengeance, and killed many people. He puts himself first.

He did destroy to the end as he desired, and Izuku recognises that. But in doing so he achieved the destruction of a society which oppresses so many. The society which didn't allow his friends to live freely. He is their hero, and he is his own.

The symbol of peace has retired, and in his place, a new generation who have been confronted by the deep rooted issues of their society are ready to step up. Shigaraki has given them a chance to rebuild, with Izuku in the lead, pushed forward by Shigraki's prompt:

[undead-moth]

Ok ok my guess is that things have already died way down for The Bear fandom but I've made several posts defending season 3 now which I only did because I was so stunned to see that the fandom's criticisms of this season were mostly of legitimate and frankly common sense writing decisions and now that I've gone over all that - I thought I would share the few criticisms I do have for this season, starting with the one I think is the most damning:

The theme of gentrification being treated like a footnote.

In season 1 there was a very purposeful commentary on the implications of Carmy taking over The Bear, and immediately changing the culture of the kitchen to reflect his own, very high-end, culinary background. At one point there's a drive-by shooting and their front window gets shot out. Sugar asks about calling the cops and everyone but her immediately shuts it down. Sugar is a white woman currently living in what appears to be a more middle-class suburban area of Chicago, and so naturally she doesn't see any problem with calling the police. Everyone else understands why the police, under no circumstances, should be called.

Richie dwells on "the delicate ecosystem" of this specific corner of Chicago changing. He comments on how changing any tiny thing has devastating consequences. He brings up the statue without a face that was placed on top of what used to be the tallest building in Chicago and how so many buildings have become that tall since that everyone can tell she doesn't have a face. This is a very astute metaphor for the soullessness of a gentrified Chicago. Richie also mourns the loss of a pub down the street, not because he frequented it but because it was a staple. It had always been there, and now it was forced to close.

In this same episode, the people who hang out on that street have begun crowding closer to The Beef, and when Richie approaches one of them, he asks Richie, "Are you going to call the cops?" and Richie is offended, and says, "I would never." The person explains they can't hang out where they normally do because of construction - a newer, flashier institution is being built on that street and displacing the very people who occupy it. These same people who hang out on that street get in a dispute, and once again, calling the cops is not an option. Richie panics, trying to find his gun to scare them off, and Sydney resolves the issue by promising to feed them every Tuesday as long as they keep the peace. At the end of the episode, Richie steps out to smoke a cigarette, and down the street police cars roll up with their sirens flashing, and Richie shakes his head.

This episode beautifully showcases the value of community organization, as well as the harms of gentrification.

It would stand to reason that in following seasons The Bear would have continued exploring the implications of these characters opening a high-end - potentially Michelin-star no less - restaurant in the same building that was once The Beef, where regulars frequented and where employees weren't expected to provide impeccable, inhuman service. The people who worked at The Beef were allowed to yell, to swear, to be conversational with customers, and the regulars were regular entirely because they could afford the food. The atmosphere of The Beef, however unprofessional, however classless, was human, and once again a place for community.

But in the following season, the decision to keep the restaurant window open during the day so that the regulars can still buy food from the old menu is treated like a band-aid solution to the entire theme of gentrification, and there's little more said about it. The very characters who were once allowed to be imperfect and human and on equal footing with their customers now must dedicate themselves to impeccable, inhuman levels of "service."

And while I will say that "Forks" is possibly one of my favorite episodes in the whole show, maybe even my favorite, and that I get deeply emotional every time I watch it because it is just so beautiful, the way it takes a job - being a server - that most people have little regard for, and most people dread doing, and present it as something rewarding, and fulfilling, and deeply meaningful - I'm nevertheless critical of romanticizing that level of service, especially given that that level of service is functionally required because of how expensive the restaurant is, making the beauty of finding purpose in service about serving the ruling class, rather than just serving others, or serving your community.

The episode "Forks" draws attention to the idea that the reason these servers can do this is because "everyday you make someone's day" and on top of that, they show people being informed that their meal that night was "on the house." This is not the reality for most people dining in these restaurants. In real life, most people dining in these restaurants are not having a once-in-a-lifetime experience that they've saved for and dreamed about - it's Tuesday to them, because they're so filthy rich, they can do this kind of thing whenever they want. And of course, most guests aren't going to be told their meal is on the house - this can't ever be the case, because the entire purpose of everything about the restaurant that makes it such an experience is money.

I understand why this side of things wasn't explored in the episode "Forks," which needed, for the sake of Richie's character arc, to be as romanticized and inspiring as it was, and I wouldn't change it for the world. But there was more than enough room to make a more purposeful commentary about this side of "service" and this side of "high-end" restaurants in season 3 - and there's nothing. There was even more room in season 2 elsewhere - and again. Nothing. Even when Sydney is researching for The Bear menu and becoming overwhelmed with how many restaurants are closing - this is not touched on in order to continue a commentary on gentrification or capitalism. The only purpose of it is to demonstrate the stakes for The Bear.

And then on top of this, they are opening this restaurant in the wake of the height of the pandemic, which a lot of restaurants didn't survive, and there's no one talking about the fact that the last thing most people need post-pandemic is a high-end restaurant they can't afford to go to. There's no commentary on how part of the reason restaurants are dying as much as they are is because people literally just can't afford to eat out anymore.

Now...any time I'm critical of some component of a written work, I have to make the distinction: "Do I dislike this because it's bad writing, or do I simply dislike it?"

in this case, I think I would have leaned toward, "I just dislike it," except for the fact that they bothered to introduce the theme. If Storer had, from the beginning, purposefully decided that his story wasn't about gentrification, and wasn't going to explore it - I still would have disliked it. I still would have thought it was an oversight, and a missed opportunity -

But it was introduced. It was very purposefully explored in season 1, and it was explored beautifully. And then they slapped a narrative band-aid on it and moved on, as if serving sandwiches through a drive-by window during the day completely tied up that narrative thread. To me, it screams, "If I want to write about people opening a high-end restaurant in Chicago, people are going to expect me to acknowledge the implications of that, so here. I talked about it. Can I write my story now?" It's just so...tacked on. It's the narrative equivalent of a diversity-hire. Like Storer was just checking an obligation off a list. And now, the writing is worse for it, I think.

There are times when the story comes close to touching on it again, and other times when there was so much opportunity to. We see Tina struggling to find a new job after being let go from her place of employment of fifteen years. Storer took the time to show us this and then really didn't say anything with it. We understand how important this restaurant is to Tina now, how much she can't afford for it to fail - but this still doesn't really say anything about the standard of living in Chicago. The fact that it's set so far in the past begs for a modern comparison, begs for something to be said about how much worse it's gotten since, and why - and yet, nothing.

Marcus's mother needed full-time medical care. Marcus was also already employed at The Beef before Carmy arrived, and it doesn't appear that he or anyone else in his family has any other source of income. He has a roommate, which would ease living expenses, but wouldn't do anything to help with medical debt, and the fact that he has a roommate also demonstrates that he couldn't afford to live on his own. There's no way he was getting paid that well at The Beef - and did employment at The Beef come with any benefits? Health insurance? Not a chance. Yet in season three, the reason this restaurant is so important to Marcus is because his mom wanted it for him. That's a lovely sentiment - but I'm also left baffled by the decision to at no point bring up the cost of his mom's healthcare, and the debt Marcus is likely swimming in.

There were opportunities to use both Tina's and Marcus's backgrounds to contribute more to the gentrification commentary. It would have provided a juxtaposition - yes, it's unfortunate the neighborhood is being gentrified, but look at how it's potentially benefitting and providing hope to these impoverished people. But once again, Storer doesn't make any obvious effort to continue exploring this theme. He is treating it as though it's been wrapped up, as though he's said everything he needs to say, as though he ticked off the "gentrification elephant in the room" box and is now free to ignore the same setting and circumstances he purposefully chose to set his story in.

It is, in my opinion, wasted narrative potential and a huge oversight on Storer's part. Frankly, I think it's possible this story, when finished, will miss its own point, or at least part of its own point, if Storer continues to treat this theme like it's been taken care of already. I'm holding out hope that he's building toward this conversation again, that he at some point does something with Tina's and Marcus's background, that he maybe even explores Sydney's feelings about it, and possibly uses it to develop her character in an interesting way...but I'm not holding my breath.

[onenettvchannel]

DEVELOPING OVERNIGHT: Music Creation Mash-Ups are in frustration as the Canadian AI-driven platform 'Rave.DJ' faces prolonged downtime [#OneNETnewsEXCLUSIVE]

KITCHENER, CANADA -- A veteran AI-driven Canadian mashup-er company 'Rave.DJ' facing some several users worldwide, attempting to turn in either YouTube or Spotify links have now temporarily unavailable, within the first week of August 2024 (Canada local time). While the main website in general, remains operational.

In a press release from the official Discord server of 'Rave.DJ', where it was obtained by us exclusively thru OneNETnews… The global outage began unexpectedly, leaving users unable to utilize the core feature of this said AI-style mash-up creation. Users reported that attempts to input either the music-based platform links, resulted in errors preventing the AI (Artificial Intelligence) from generating mashups. This issue persisted throughout the whole month of August until the present.

Rave.DJ's administrative official 'FireryRage' awares the ongoing issue, that the YouTube and Spotify API (Application Programming Interface) coding were permanently broken. At the time of our writing, there is no resolution or to communicate from their source developers as of right now. The admin official of, this said AI-mashup refused to comment on Discord (an independent chat and gaming platform).

This has caused a great impact on the user experience for which 'Rave.DJ' was appealing, due to its seamless blending of tracks from popular music-based streaming services. People have voiced their frustration across various forums and social media platforms like Facebook and X Network (formerly Twitter), stating how that inability disrupts the whole purpose.

For those, who may not know about it… 'Rave.DJ' is an online tool that allows users to blend songs and videos from YouTube and Spotify to create unique mashups. Launched in the Fall 2018, the platform leverages AI to analyze the tracks and seamlessly combine them, producing a new, cohesive piece of music. Users attach links to audio-only songs or music videos, letting AI analyzes the tracks, finding beats-corrected or incorrectly pitched in tempo and key-to mash it all up.

Minutes away after rendering to the public, the platform creates a new mashup that users can listen to, and then share with the world online. There will be no need for purchasing expensive software or deep technical knowledge, especially like CapCut Pro, Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere, etc. It's a fun way to explore music, and share the creation with friends, free of charge with or without the user account.

The 'Rave.DJ' team addressed user concerns about the platform's status. They assured that, they have no plans to abandon the website for the foreseeable future, and are continuing to work on a solution, though they cautioned that the YouTube changes are "fairly complex, and are taking a lot of work to resolve".

Admin officials acknowledged the inconsistency in which videos can and cannot be loaded, explaining that: "Some videos we can load the data, some we have in cache, and some we can't load. The issue being inconsistent is part of the difficulty", FireryRage said in the advisory on their official server on Discord.

The server outages at Rave.DJ underscores the challenges faced by platforms, relying heavily on 3rd-party integrations and AI technology. Rave.DJ's management and developers publicly apologizes for absolute inconvenience, despite issues faced worldwide, trying to make AI-driven music mash-ups, now being turned out worse than usual. The lack of a timely resolution has left users in a lurch, eagerly awaiting updates from the source development team.

SCREENGRAB COURTESY: RaveDJ Website BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY: Tegna

-- OneNETnews Online Publication Team

[utopiaofthemind]

An analysis of Law School vs Nevertheless

Law School was (and still is!) my comfort drama, and it got me back into watching kdramas again :) but as I am still in the midst of watching Nevertheless, here are my thoughts on both dramas (seeing as to how the strengths in Law School compare to the flaws in Nevertheless)~~

* I will be referring to nevertheless as (N) and law school as (LS)

1. The main ship

Comparing solhwi vs jaebi, jaebi feels almost like an incredibly low bar. solhwi omg, literally the epitome of SOULMATES! they feel attracted to each other yes, just like jaebi, but they reach a new level of understanding each other without even having to explicitly say it. At the same time, their communication works out and they're really complementary to each others flaws and strengths, kinda like an yinyang situation. LS becomes a foil to N since it's highly contrasted to (and the opposite of) jaebi. Not too sure whether we'll ever see jaebi these heights since it doesn't look like it's coming either. they just both need to wake up and communicate with each other and truly care for each others inner needs rather than just succumbing to their desires and wants at any point of time. But eh at the rate this is going, I rather they just be toxic together than drag potato boy into this toxic triangle.

2. Their friend groups

Nabi NEEDS better friends. A constant trend in the sculpting major friend group is that they seem to care little about the well-being of their friends and that their own happiness and enjoyment takes precedence. Whereas in the LS friend group, they're highly supportive. They stand up for each other and they fight for each other despite having to deal with their own struggles. Their friend group is based on maturity and sincere bonds, while the N friend group is immature and rather superficial.

3. The characters

Not really in any professional position to comment on the beauty of character arcs but the main characters in N are really a different breed,, in ep 6 we got to see a little bit of the inner conflicts and issues that both jae eon and na bi have, but other than that, we've only seen the push and pull draggy relationship between jaebi, and from an audience's pov, that can be extremely difficult to continue watching, especially when there aren't (m)any notable and substantial side stories/content. thus, this renders that little bit of background info in a series with already 7 episodes out somewhat negligible. I wish the characters had more depth to them!! but that's pretty much the selling point of LS, is that each individual character has their own struggles that are built up and (pretty much) resolved by the end of the series. Since these struggles felt realistic and relatable, and were well-executed (+ substantial screentime for each), it made me very invested in the plot and watching the characters was a joy :D

— Conclusion

Well that's that! I guess you can really tell the love and passion I have for Law School as I'm dragging the plot of Nevertheless and questioning why I hurt myself like this :") but I do understand that there are limitations, maybe some parts are from the webtoon and the staff can't really do anything about that anymore? and the OST and cinematography is ooh chef's kiss! probably a cut above Law School when comparing the dramas on those fronts. anyway thank you for reading my thoughts, and feel free to share what you think! have a great day ahead <3

- cel x

[brittie-frog]

Haunting of Bly Manor

Right.

I love horror and after spending sometimes days watching video essays on gay history, specifically in (horror) movies and film, I now kinda understand why so with the Haunting series and its gay rep and them not being the villain of the story, I loved it.

(Quick note I have only rewatched the show twice and can only take from my own experience of media)

My phone also knows me so will suggest news stories on things I've recently watched or current murder cases. So it suggested me this story today:

I went in open minded knowing that some people were angry about the ending falling into the 'kill the gays' trope (which I will come back to).

At first it was fine, talking about the ghost story/love story comment and how it relates to the show and has good analysis that I agree with. Then it goes on to basically summarise the show.

It keeps mentioning that all the gay subtext is implied:

why Dani broke up with her fiance

why Jaimie is reluctant to be vulnerable with Dani (before the monologue)

And that there needs to be a “lot of filling in between the lines” to understand their romance despite their practically constant flirting (Jaimie's 'Poppins' for Dani is the cutest nickname) and multiple kissing scenes. However, I digress, it can be sometimes hard to understand certain attitudes to each other at the beginning.

It also states that its like they want on the pat on the back for "making them queer, without making anything about them very queer". I don't know what this means, but I took two interpretations:

That not all queer people need to stereotypically look queer to be and that is a step forward for gay rep (I prefer)

That the creator wants to be celebrated for making gay rep without truely showing their queerness (which I think is pretty false)

Then it talks about the fireside chat and Jaimie's backstory, describing the monologue as "shoehorned" into the scene and "devoid of any mention of her sexuality". This is where the first part of my 10 minute research for context comes in. This is set in 1987 in a small town in England with an American. In charge of England at the time was the famously homophobic Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that implemented Clause 28. No one in this setting and right mind - especially after being ridiculed for most of her life - would come out to any one, flirting or not, that they have known for at most a month or two. Also, this entire scene resolves around Jaimie's attitudes towards people, and why she's reluctant to get close to people, favouring taking care of her flowers over interacting with others.

Then it talks about Owen and Mrs. Grose having "more meaningful screen time and backstories that continue throughout multiple episodes".

First Hannah. We basically get Hannah's entire backstory in episode 5: how she met Owen, scenes of her working at the Manor (in non-chronological order) and how she died in the first episode. Then that continued into the final episode when she finally comes to terms with her death and her love for Owen to save everyone. We don't actually get much backstory in the way of her childhood or even how she met the family (from what I remember, correct me if I'm wrong).

Now Owen. His backstory is that he grew up in Bly, left to go to France and became a Sous Chef, only coming back because his mum got diagnosed with dementia and he needed to take care of her despite her constantly mistaking him for other people. That is also only explored through Hannah's memories of the interview and the bonfire-side chat.

Those are both sad backstories but you can't call them any more or less meaningful than Jaimie's of in depth about how her and her family were ridiculed and bullied throughout her life and even spent time in juvie. They all have points mentioned in their stories that I would love more indepth on: how Hannah met the family/met Sam, either Owen's childhood in Bly or his time in France and why Jaimie spent time in juvie. But I also realise this is a short series that has to make fleshed out characters and tell an entire story in 8 episodes.

The article then talks about how even the ghosts got an entire episode to themselves when they barely show up. If you look in the background of the majority of scenes you'll see them and personally I really enjoy getting their stories of how they died. However, that episode is about more than just finding out about the ghosts and Viola's life, it’s mainly about what led to her being the first ghost and causing other dead people to stay as ghosts and the origin of those specific words that give a ghost access to an alive person’s body, to help explain the majority of the show. If I showed my friend this show and removed that episode I would have more questions asked than when my mum finished it.

Now I don’t know what to say. I agree there is no law on art so it can be anything and I usually think that the haunting series are in a slightly different universe (it’s how sleep at night knowing that someone can’t be so stubborn they become a murdering ghost) but also yes, trans-roles should be given to trans people more often. However they are actors and their job is to play some they aren’t for entertainment so for the most part I agree with Scarlett about being able to play anything. Also yes the self-congratulatory approach after playing an LGBT+ character when you’re cishet is kinda bad unless you have the full support of the community telling you it was a good portrayal and accurate representation. It won’t be enough for minorities if our representation, that people outside the communities are calling great, are just surface level characters that are just there for tokenism but you can’t compare Bly Manor characters to those types of characters. All of them have so much development and are well done that the majority of the community that has watched the show have no problem with and love their representation.

Personally I love both Theo Crain and Jaimie and Dani because they represent different things. Theo Crain is on a basic level. as a lothario, a stereotypical butch lesbian, constantly hooking up and struggles to actually open up and love people. Dani and Jaimie are soft, domestic cottage core lesbians in a flower shop AU. This is not a bad thing and just because they have a “tepid romance” doesn’t mean it’s a step back. Also more context time:

 As said before Thatcher was in charge and heavily homophobic, creating laws to stop people from teaching children about homosexuality since gay sex had been decriminalised recently

 It was the middle of the AIDs epidemic. Dani was coming from a country that was doing nothing about the deaths of thousands and going to a country where hysteria about AIDs was rampant but they were doing more, like the ‘AIDs: don’t die of ignorance’ information leaflet despite it not being as huge with 46 deaths by 1984. (That assumes that the AIDs epidemic happened in this universe)

Dani clearly had some form of internalized homophobia before even coming to England because she spent so long with her fiance hoping to feel the way she’s supposed to (I think the ghost of him is her guilt and internalized issues personified as it constantly appears when she’s trying to move forward.)

Also in the final episode it shows that is probably at least some homophobia in America as they kiss in the shop then look outside and go to the back so no one can see. (This could be interpreted as seeing if anyone is planning on coming in so they can escape without having to stop early for customers but Jaimie had already changed the sign to closed.)

Now onto the ‘kill the gays’ trope. Yes this is a huge trope that is so damaging to the community that we’re constantly the ones killed off for views or when their tokenism is no longer important, that is fucked up! However this doesn’t mean that we should give every gay character plot armour, cause that’s also unrealistic, just to please the select few that will call it out as a damaging trope. There is huge difference between say, The 100 killing Lexa and Bly Manor killing Dani as one has plot relevance and brings the story to a close while the other enraged an entire generation so much they started a brand new convention to celebrate queer relationships/characters in media. It’s also not like she was the only one to die, it’s horror after all, Hannah, Rebecca and Peter, the parents and all those ghosts died or were already dead.

Like many of the comments on the article - If all you got from this show was it falls into kill the gays, you have completely missed the entire point of the show.

[jseltzerassociates]

#MeToo lawsuits: What a company's liability insurance can and can't do

Sexual harassment is front and center for a number of companies in light of the #MeToo movement. And while EPLI coverage can help a company defending themselves against a harassment lawsuit, it has its limitations. Clearly, the hope is that you don’t have to face these issues but if you do, understand where your policy ends and your liability begins.

#MeToo lawsuits: What a company's liability insurance can and can't do

by Brian S. Kabateck and Nicholas R. Moreno 

Following the wave of attention garnered by high-profile cases involving sexual harassment and assault allegations against supervisors, employers are seeking out whatever help they can to prevent similar conduct from occurring under their watch. Employers try to limit their risk in a number of ways including purchasing employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) or by implementing policies that include education and internal dispute resolution processes to prevent and resolve sexual harassment disputes.

The legal fallout from workplace sexual harassment cost U.S. companies an estimated $2.2 billion on insurance policies alone in 2016, according to insurance analytics firm MarketStance. Insurance giant Nationwide reported a 15 percent jump in EPLI from fall 2016 to September 2017, which coincides with the sexual harassment scandals that ousted Roger Ailes and Bill O’Reilly from Fox News.

These policies provide coverage for companies and their employees, including senior management, for claims brought by past, present or future employees claiming sexual misconduct in the workplace including quid pro quo and hostile work environment. Most policies will also extend coverage to claims brought by third parties, such as clients or customers. However, they almost certainly will exclude claims involving an employee’s intentional conduct and/or bodily injury (e.g., sexual assault). Some EPLI policies also include exclusions that distinguish between behavior that is insurable and behavior that is so egregious that to insure it would be offensive and contrary to public policy.

Employers should take note, these policies will not cover punitive damages in California and perhaps elsewhere. And, when these cases are put in front of a jury, punitive damages can be huge and devastating. Just in the last few weeks there have been two large verdicts in workplace sexual harassment cases. In New York, a sugar refinery got hit with a $13.4 million verdict with $11.7 million in punitive damages after their human resources failed to address the continued harassment of an employee by a supervisor. In the other, in California, the jury returned a $2.6 million verdict with $1.1 million in punitive damages against a fabric company who failed to take appropriate action when one employee spread rumors about another employee’s sexuality.

In both cases, the harassment was pervasive and continuous and demonstrated the complete failure by the human resources departments to assess and fully appreciate the seriousness of its employees’ misconduct.

Laws prohibiting various forms of sexual harassment have been on the books for decades. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected workers from sexual harassment in the workplace, reasoning that a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment is a form of discrimination. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). Prior to that decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defined sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances and other conduct of a sexual nature that interferes with an individual’s work performance. These principles were expanded to hold employers vicariously liable for the discriminatory conduct of their supervisors.

California, always a leader on social issues, enacted the Fair Employment and Housing Act in 1959, which made sexual harassment illegal in the workplace. Since its enactment, FEHA has been amended several times to require employers to provide their employees with sexual harassment and discrimination education and training. The most recent amendment, SB 396, is remarkable in that it required any sexual harassment training to include discussions of gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. See, e.g., Cal. Gov. Code Section 12950.1; see also Unemployment Ins. Code Section 14005(j)(14).

This progress is encouraging, but as history demonstrates, the laws prohibiting sexual harassment do not necessarily translate to different outcomes in the workplace. The laws still need to be enforced and the concepts learned in sexual harassment education still need to be implemented. This can only happen with more diverse workforces that shift the culture.

As of now, workplace culture is a culture of silence—a reluctance by a victim or witnesses to speak out against sexual harassment. To make matters worse, this reluctance is built into and encouraged by the law. For example, without fail, any action for sexual harassment will be resolved in a confidential mandatory arbitration proceeding. Then, if the claims are settled, the settlement is always subject to a nondisclosure agreement, which, if breached, would subject the victim to liability. Courts will uphold these nondisclosures if they are “reasonable” (i.e., the agreement does not violate public policy or conceal criminal conduct). This is a low standard as evidenced by the frequency of which these agreements are utilized.

As the culture has shifted towards more inclusive definitions of harassment and tolerance for such behavior continues to plummet, the time will come when nondisclosure agreements and secret settlements of claims for sexual harassment will be called into question. In the meantime, verdicts will continue to rise as juries assess punitive damages against employers who show a lack of understanding of sexual harassment as a major issue.

With the rise of the #MeToo movement, more women have come forward to share their experiences of being sexually harassed by co-workers and new surveys find the prevalence of this behavior is staggering. According to a Marketplace-Edison research poll, 46 percent of women reported experiencing such workplace harassment by a boss or co-worker that it caused them to leave their jobs or switch careers.

While employers are seeking ways to limit their own exposure to liability, they’re also turning to training programs to change the behavior of their employees. But offering crash courses on sexual harassment will only go as far as employees and supervisors feel comfortable using them. The key to combating discrimination and harassment among co-workers is by having diversity in the workplace. When there are diverse backgrounds within a workplace, the cultural competency of the entire group is elevated. This competency leads to a certain level of openness and transparency that allows employees to encounter different viewpoints including new attitudes toward sexual harassment.