#This can't continue without them resolving background issues

[royalarchivist]

[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:

[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

[its-chelisey-stuff]

Tale of the Nine Tailed ep 11, nonsense live commentary

Oh yes, now I remember we left it here. Time to meet Yeon, Imoogi.

This whole sequence is awesome omg this fight is exquisite 🤭

"It's like getting kicked out of an exam because you got caught using your phone"😂 is it?

How is that a reasonable offer, Imoogi?

"You saw them but failed to recognize them"?? Wtf is this true?

Wooo the red eyes make a comeback!

Omfg this is terrifying! All those people dying! Shit shit shit shit this bastard is crazy

What a piece of trash. So the president gave up exactly what he was trying to save in order to serve Imoogi? His whole family?! What the actual fuck?😱

Why do I feel like this sleeping potion will appear later?

Taluipa killed her daughter in law? Yikes😅

132 people?? Shit Imoogi. Chill.

Get the fuck away from Jiah's friends, you murderous psycho😤

Don't.Ever.Harm.Children. Kill that bastard, Rang 🙄

😂 Yeon just crashed Yuri&the vet's date

New sneakers 😭

"I like you" 😭

Yuri and the vet are babysitting haha

It's funny because both of them were in TKEM, he was Yeong as a kid and she was Yeong's gf

Omg this poor kid. This is why he was all over Seoul without adult supervision

My god this is how problems get resolved. by talking. Your otp could never i know most of mine can't lmao

No Rang, don't listen to him🤦🏻‍♀️

Is Jiah allowed to be in the afterlife office? It looks like she isn't lol

They have a plan! My OTP has a plan!! I LOVE THEM🥰🥳

There has to be a third option to free Jiah!

The ground cherries! Omg those awful things are her parents?

This dude just gave Yeon worms 😂

"Do you have a tail?"😂

And the sleeping potion appears again. Don't do it, Rang

Why didn't Yeon tell Jiah that Imoogi is working with her... Unless he doesn't know? Nah, no way. He knows.

Rang 😭😭💔 why are you like this? Why?!

Why is Jiah watching Imoogi like this? Omg Does she know who he is?

WHAT??!! WHAT THE FUCK? WHEN DID THEY CHANGE?

Awwww these two. 🥰 Best bros 4eva

Jiah is stalling him. She's making time. She totally knows.

Rang is free!!🥳

Wtf with that kiss on the hand? Get away you're gross.

Well, joke's on me. The parents are alive. I really thought they weren't. I'm happy for Jiah, though. I just hope they came back like...normal

Well. Was I the only one freaked out by that hand kiss? Because honestly ewww.

Man. What an episode. Seriously, I'm in shock still trying to process everything that happened and all the things that we learned. I seriously hope Yeon and Rang have fixed their issues finally. I was sure of it last week, but Rang's insecurity does get the best of him in the most crucial moments. Thank God that Yeon was able to recognize the signs and come up with a plan on time and now his brother is free.

Yeon and Jiah continue to be a delight and like the best example of a wonderful and functional non-toxic OTP in dramaland despite the genre and plot of the drama, their backgrounds, past lives (well, it's just a very long one for Yeon) and traumas. I'm not sure they're gonna end up being my favorite OTP of the year (i know i know, don't hate me pls) but I seriously think they're the best I've seen this year in dramas, for the reasons above. And that's why they deserve their happy ending, so you better deliver that to use, drama.

[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.

[lapeaudelamemoire]

A conversation between my mother and I today:

Me, as we're standing in a bar/bistro, looking at the menu: I asked you what you would prefer between this and going down to Bridge Road to an Italian place (a 5-minute walk); can you stop deflecting the question to me.

My mother: Let me put it in simple terms - I don't mind what we eat or where we go to eat, whatever food is fine, whatever is easiest for you.

Me: ......, -staring into space, starting to dissociate because it's just too much-

Thankfully my father, finally paying enough attention for 2 minutes, cut in and said 'Let's go to the Italian place.'

What would genuinely be most helpful for me is just - people who know what they want and what they're doing. And someone who can make decisions when I leave it up to them.

I didn't know what to do with the internet problem because frankly, I'm the most layperson of laypeople when it comes to techy stuff besides a basic handle on what is probably wrong because observation skills and general sense - the real estate agent didn't know; the internet company without sending anyone down didn't know; the telecomms company also without sending anyone into my apartment didn't know; no one seemed to know. People just kept leaving it up to me; saying, 'Well what do you want to do,' or 'Let me know what you want to do,' and hell with it of course it got nowhere for so bloody long because the whole issue is pointedly that I don't know what to do and that's why I'm ringing all of you; all I know is what people tell me.

My father offered to come to Melbourne to help me with the internet issue. It ends up that the technician who does come over is one I end up arranging for anyway - bless my father, it's not his fault, the first one fell through and he kept asking me what I wanted doing when anyway, and it is entirely because he went and posted a listing on some electrician site in the first place that this one appeared and contacted us - and sorting out my dad's data roaming for him.

It's just - either way, the calling up the internet company, the sorting through what is wrong, the five hours spent on the phone and messing about with the modem and whatnot - I did myself anyhow, because in the end I knew more than he did; ending up explaining between him and everything else what else was wrong and what was happening.

I appreciate good intentions and the attempts and I don't mean to say it does nothing, but I'm tired of good intentions and no other preparatory legwork. It's not enough; it's not why I asked for help.

Because while I sat for two hours trying to work out why even after connecting the telephone line to the modem I still couldn't access the network, they hadn't even thought about what they possibly wanted to eat for dinner when I got done (it didn't happen even after those two hours anyhow) in all that time, just sitting in my living room.

I need someone to lessen the burden of having to Do Things for myself, when I'm not equipped, when I don't know what to do. Sitting with me saying 'I, too, do not know what to do, what do you think is best,' is not lessening that burden; and my ending up sorting through concerns for you whilst I continue attempting to resolve my own pre-existing issues is most certainly an addition of burden.

Whatever in the world happened to take care of oneself first and be sure that one can help before attempting to do so?

Two frail pallbearers do not one strongman make.

Tldr; it's too much; my brain is overwhelmed. The ceaseless questions to me; the unending talk (often enough about me) in the background whilst I'm on the phone so I can't hear what the technician is saying; the 'what do you want to do, I'll leave it up to you,' the run-round of circular Chinese whispers game like so much gossip - 'what's the problem? What's wrong now, what did he say, call your father mother brother -'

No, let me turn that Pixies song around - where is your mind?

[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.