#YOU REPRESENT AN INSTITUTION SO THIS IS YOUR FAULT

[whinlatter]

That brings up an interesting point. Since you seen to be a canon girlie, do you think/feel that Hermione DOES become Minister?

What do you make of Harry being Head of Magical Law Enforcement?

thank you for this question anon! i do think it's very plausible hermione becomes minister of magic. i think it's equally plausible that harry becomes head of magical law enforcement. mostly because, well:

basically: i think both characters' career trajectories are in keeping with the politics of the series as a whole - eg. the goodies are all liberal, pro-state, non-revolutionary moderates who support a gradualist reformist agenda rather than a radical re-imagining of societal organisation. i also think both career options track with who each character is in canon (or rather, who the teenage versions of these characters might become as adults). and i think most of the reasons people are disappointed by either idea, and especially by harry coming 'a cop' then rising up the ranks to run law enforcement, is because they are putting their own more radical ambitions around social justice onto characters that would be poor vehicles for them.

on hermione - i don't know how many people have huge issue with the idea of hermione as minister of magic. i imagine the complaints with this idea come from people who a) like hermione and think hermione's politics as a teenager - identifying systemic injustice and labour exploitation of a subject people - jar with the idea of her settling within a political system that upholds and enforces that structure and others like it, or b) people don't like hermione as much and who think she would be too unpopular to get elected. to the former group, i'd trot out the arguments made far better than people other than me: that hermione's support for the house elves mostly boils down to a bit of a saviour complex and 'be nicer to your slaves', which is not especially radical position, and also point out the ministry's institutional culture seems to reward high-achieving technocrats with establishment credentials (or at least, prior records of academic and professional achievement), and i could see hermione riding that train straight to the top, especially on wave of post-war reformism with diminishing anti-muggleborn prejudice. (the wizarding world also loves a good (and bad) law and is extremely vigilant in enforcing them to a fault. hermione jean granger absolutely loves a rule. it's a match-made in heaven. it is - i fear - giving keir starmer).

to the second point, as i talked a bit about here, the wizarding world does not seem to be a democracy. so hermione wouldn't even need to be especially popular to get the top job. i personally love the idea of hermione quietly parking her commitments to representative democracy to get a bit of good labour legislation passed, or even thinking about wizarding democracy in victorian terms (as long as you're representing what you think the enlightened citizenry want, you're gucci). i mean honestly, what do the masses know! ignore em, queen. they're all kind of pureblood racists anyway!

on harry: i have a feeling it's harry's trajectory that most pisses people off. and i absolutely get it! people hate cops, and harry appears to become one, after spending a lot of the series raging against how shit senior leadership at the ministry of magic tend to be. while i do see the argument that teenage harry has strong criticisms of the ministry for its officials' self-interest, corruption and lack of accountability for their many miscarriages of justice, the truth is that a) harry never really associates being an auror with representing the ministry of magic as an institution, that b) he thinks of lots of characters who work in and around the ministry of magic, including in law enforcement, as agents of good (arthur weasley, kingsley, tonks, mad-eye, amelia bones) and c) harry at no point shows himself interested in thinking about ideology, about political systems, or about a more developed worldview beyond a deep sense of right and wrong and a need for justice. i think harry would like being head of magical law enforcement much less than hermione would like being minister, and i could see him finding the job enormously frustrating both for how much politicking it likely requires and for how little field action it would require. but i don't think that means it's out of character for him to rise up the ranks in pursuit of a more effective justice system and eventually take the top job as a means to an end.

the only other thing i'll say is that i do think there is something a bit culturally specific about imagining these two characters we think of as morally good actors taking up roles within the state to try to work for what they feel to be positive reform and progressive causes. the state appears quite neutrally in the hp series: it's a tool to be picked up and used to affect political change. this reflects its author's worldview, the political moment in which it was written (eg. under blair's new labour), and a longstanding dimension of real-life centre-left social democratic british politics usually expressed, at various times and to varying extents, by the political programme of the labour party throughout its history (to say nothing of a wider european context). it's not an inherently problematic political worldview (it is a core social democratic and socialist principle; it is also my own view of the state...), though ofc it can become so in the wrong hands. for instance, it's a consistent through-line in jkr's political evolution and a staple of her practically single-issue dangerous anti-trans politics even now - terf politics is a lot about wielding the state to remove legal protections from trans people, stop them from accessing health care etc. but the idea of the big state and of laws and government as a positive interventionist tool does colour hp as a text in lots of ways and is reflected in the worldview of many of its characters with which the reader is supposed to side. and i don't think we should overlook that.

conversely, hp is also a series devoid of political movements, and certainly of a meaningful far-left ideology or political sphere. and that's important to remember too if we're interested in canon coherence: hp is a liberal text in that it seemed plausible for its author to vacate a great deal of politics from her world-building. and i think that is, regretfully, worth remembering when we're claiming hermione should have been a trade union agitator or harry should have been an acab abolitionist organiser or whatever.

[rivetgoth]

I’m sure I’ll add more on this later but as I think on House of Leaves (finished it, loved it, listened through all of Poe’s Haunted and loved that too) I think the conclusion I’ve come to (and this isn’t a wildly novel conclusion, but ah well) is that it is at its core fundamentally an exploration of grief, and specifically grief of the loss of a family member. This is especially obvious because… Mark Danielewski has literally said that it was inspired by the death of his father. Poe’s album as well. So like, this is no secret. And I think this is invoked in the very obvious way of the fact that a house that should feel like a home but instead feels unsafe, surreal, and literally larger and emptier on the inside than it naturally should be is a very clear metaphor for grappling with the loss of a parent, right? But I think it goes deeper than that… I think House of Leaves also spends a lot of time dwelling on the weird, impossible to untangle intricacies of trauma, childhood and generational trauma especially, mental illness, and genetics… the things you carry with you and the things that loom over you from your family, especially those deceased who you no longer have direct contact with, left only with this awareness weighing down upon you.

I think Chad and Daisy are pretty clearly functionally author inserts of Mark and Poe, right? And Will Navidson then is their father? Both are even filmmakers. But I also think that Zampanò himself is Mark as well… his middle initial is literally… But complicatedly I’m not saying that Chad is Zampanò, I don’t think HoL is straightforward like that, it’s more like that’s another embodiment of the grief. The child experiencing that, the adult retelling it, grappling with it, imagining and reimagining it, and I think I believe that Tom Navidson is functionally an author insert of Zampanò into The Navidson Record, functioning kind of like a guardian angel to his childhood self, this sort of stand-in hero character who sacrifices himself to protect the innocence and life of the child self. I think the slippage of “me” within that one line, where he refers to Tom in first person, alludes to this, as well as his emotional outburst over his chapter where he tries to write about the relationship between Will and Tom. And in the very back of the book, there’s the fragment of a typed page where Zampanò considers an ending where Chad and Daisy die instead, are killed by the house, with this much more pessimistic tone (similar to when he gets upset about writing about Tom and Will), than what’s shown in the published/Johnny’s version of The Navidson Record.

And would it complicate things too much to say I think Chad, Zampanò, and Johnny represent a sort of trinity of different stages of Mark’s life—the child experiencing it in real time, the young adult trying (and failing) to cope with it all, and the elder now looking back and engaging with it from an aged perspective. I think Johnny represents that crushing weight of this impending, unknown genetic fuckery, constantly feeling the weight of this figure who died long ago but who you know lives within you, and you’re trying to figure out what’s traumagenic, what’s just this completely unavoidable tumbling towards fate—his mother died severely psychotic in an institution, is this unavoidable? Can he escape this future? How much of what he deals with is her, her influence, her fault, and how much is caused by trauma inflicted upon him. I really don’t like the theory that his mother/Pelafina “was” Johnny all along or that Johnny never existed or that he was a stillborn baby like in the story and she’s functionally created a Johnny headmate. I think it’s sort of silly, like I can see some interesting merit in it (there’s clearly a bizarre Oedipal psychosexual complex going on between Pelafina and Johnny and her writing these detailed accounts of her basically stillborn son’s sexcapades is a pretty fascinating idea), but I’m more interested in a sort of backwards-reading of that theory where the end represents Johnny kind of embracing or succumbing to his mother’s identity, for better or worse, and the idea of this baby in critical condition that maybe just maybe had a slim chance for life but dying the moment his mother asks him to revealing instead his relationship to her, the helplessness of those genetics and the control and power she exerts over him even in death. When Shilo Wallace says “You, I've mistaken for destiny / but the truth is my legacy is not up to my genes” at the end of Repo! the Genetic Opera, House of Leaves says… terrifyingly… what if it is? What if your genetics are your destiny? And then you lose that genetic lineage, it becomes just story, infamy, legend, but you’re there and alive and trying to grapple with it?

I kinda like the theory that Johnny rewrote the end of The Navidson Record to have a happy ending, or maybe Zampanò did. I think they both desperately want the story to have a happier ending. And honestly, I love the ending of The Navidson Record as published by Johnny. Though maybe cliché on paper I love the idea that there is a hopeful answer to all that emptiness and fear and a way to silence those endless inexplicable winding hallways and the answer is to replace that emptiness with genuine love. Like, to overcome that fear and embrace the ones you’ve loved for all that they are and that this love can fix all of that… It can make all of the fear and uncertainty of the empty, insurmountable, nightmare house literally dissolve... I think the end of Poe’s album (“If You Were Here”) speaks to that too.

Uh there’s obviously way more to it than that. House of Leaves is a lot of things. Duh. But I do think right now my primary takeaway is just how informed it is by the crushing helpless grief of the death of an immediate family member with which you have an extremely tenuous or strained relationship and the weight of family history.

[housekonig]

SEE SCENE NOTE HERE FOR UPDATE

Beginning | Next

AN: Starting and creating this story has been a labor of laugh but, I'm so happy to finally start sharing the story of the Vernick Royal family. A country created by my friend (@vernicksims), who has allowed be to borrow, build, and expand his country. Also a major shoutout to everyone who has served as a thought partner or inspiration--if I've forgotten you, I'm sorry! Everyone has been beyond helpful as writing partners, tumblr tutors, and creative directors. I hope to keep this going and see where this story and family take me (us). (@bridgeportbritt,@warwickroyals, @armoricaroyalty, @empiredesimparte, @nexility-sims, @wa-royal-tea, @thegrimalldis)

TRANSCRIPT BELOW:

Liam: We're back for my favorite segment, The Royal Round Up! Tonight, we focus on The Family'sFamily's relevance with our special guests, Culture Professor Dr. Lizzy Eane and self-proclaimed public intellectual Maryjane Rightway. Ladies, the top question from viewers was, ""what is the royal family's role?"" -- take it away.

Dr. Eane: Where to begin--the monarchy has passed its expiration date, and it knows it. The rising taxpayer costs, the residences, in exchange for what?

Maryjane: In exchange for culture and history, Lizzy. As long as our country exists, our oldest and most remembered founding family remains relevant... it'sit's obvious.

Christopher: Can we please watch anything else? I'mI'm sure this show rots the brain (laughs).

Jessica: No can do! It'sIt's my Guilty pleasure, and he says nice things usually...

Christopher: About you!

Jessica: Exactly! (Laughs) Now be quiet! The royal segment is starting. ''

Christopher: Great...

Liam: Many voters and viewers agree with Ms. Rightway, believing the monarchy serves as a national but powerless symbol.

Dr. Eane: And that, Liam, makes them more dangerous. The idea that they are powerless is false, dangerous, and dense. It'sIt's people'speople's belief in the institution that empowers them. The crown is merely a tribute on our and the church'schurch's behalf. And the latter lacks my consent as well.

Maryjane: (Laughs) We can debate this all night. But, if we did, it's because of King Christopher'sChristopher's 1886 decree, which granted citizens and media the right to critique The Crown. The same king went on to found our finest colleges, one of which you are employed. Again, they're irrelevant?

Maryjane: Dr. Eane, I'mI'm shocked to hear you pander to the younger crowd. They don't have to look like us; that's the point! A family of 17 cannot represent a country of nearly 200 million.

Dr. Eane: Sure...but after how long? You speak as if--

Liam: Sorry to cut you off, but that's all for the Royal Roundup. We'llWe'll have more with Dr. Eane and Ms. Rightway after the break.

Christopher: I hate that you like this show.

Jessica: And I hate that you're ruining my Sunday night. Some of us have real jobs, ya know?

Christopher: Yeah...at your family business. (Laughs)

Jessica: Hey! No fair. It's not my fault; I work hard, 9-5.

Christopher: 9-5? I'd be so lucky! This job is nonstop, and this show makes me feel like a shitty worker. 

Jessica: Aren't you, though? (Laughs)

Christopher: 9-5? I'd be so lucky! This job is nonstop, and this show makes me feel like a shitty worker. 

Your Royal Highness, I've added a mandatory meeting to your calendar. Your great-grandmother, The Queen, has requested all senior members arrive 15 mins early.

Christopher: Shit. What now?

[qqueenofhades]

May not by your wheelhouse, but regarding ever-increasing college tuition, where does the money go? Why is college so much more expensive than it was a few decades ago?

I have indeed written several posts about the college affordability crisis, which are probably to be found in my "ronald reagan burn in hell" tag. This is because, as with most of the batfuckery of the American economy since the 1980s, it is indeed Ronald Reagan's fault. The overall causes of college skyrocketing in cost include, but are not limited to:

1) Huge tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, gutting the funding that public education systems/public universities previously received from the government;

2) This in turn increased the costs at private universities, which had always been more expensive than public universities anyway, and besides, they were now free to put up their prices as far as they wanted;

3) The "unregulated free market trickle-down capitalism for everyone!!" Reagan-era mentality led to the explosion of costs in healthcare, housing, education, etc etc., and drastically widened the level of income inequality between rich and poor;

4) The replacement of grants (which you don't have to pay back) with loans (which you do), which incentivized unscrupulous loan companies to increase the burden of debt on students and for colleges to charge more and more tuition in the form of loans;

5) A bachelor's degree was once supposed to guarantee you a job, and now does nothing of the sort, and because the market has become so crowded and oversaturated with generally unsatisfactory and unstable job options, you are expected to pay for multiple degrees and go even DEEPER into debt;

6) Obviously, because of this total rejiggering of the economic landscape, everything costs a fuckton more than it used to 40 years ago, so colleges can't return to their 1970s-era fee structure;

7) As an academic, I can promise you that very little of this money is actually going to faculty salaries or the development/sustainment of new programs. Yes, obviously it costs money to run a quality educational institution, and I also obviously want all universities to be funded properly and for academics to be paid what they deserve. But the actual distribution of this money is... less clear.

8) Schools with giant well-known Division I sports programs tend to get all or most of the money that comes into their institutions, leaving relatively little for academic or faculty development;

9) For example: I work at a large, fairly prestigious, private university with very high research activity/classification, and we don’t even have a football team sucking up the money. But still, every single quarter, my department has to go through the budget with a magnifying glass, cut low-enrolled courses, argue constantly with the dean about which courses we do get to teach, etc. Our adjuncts also get paid literal peanuts for taking on a lot of work, and because we're so low on core faculty and just had to cancel another faculty search because of budget reasons, probably 50% of our schedule in the upcoming quarter is being taught by adjuncts. This is... not ideal.

10) Student debt is now such a lucrative part of the American commodities market, is so embedded in the financial system, and constitutes (at last glance) up to $1.8 trillion of outstanding debt, that when Biden tried to cancel even some of it, the Republicans immediately lost their minds and sued him to stop it. As of now, that case is still pending before SCOTUS, and because they're the literal worst, nobody hold your breath for a good outcome.

In short: college is one of the areas that has suffered the most from unregulated Reagonomics over the last 40 years, has been repeatedly incentivized to become and to stay extremely expensive and to represent a long-term burden of debt, and while you would hope that the money was being responsibly reinvested into actual faculty hiring/retention/academic program development etc, that is... not usually the case. The big Division I universities that serve as farm team training programs for the NFL, with a little academics on the side, also tend to have tons of investment in sports and not nearly as much in the classroom. But I'm sure this is fine!

[quranwithsehar]

Why is it crucial for us to speak out against injustice (zulm)? Why shouldn't we stay quiet? What happens if we stay silent when we see someone being treated unfairly? I really want to discuss this, so let's explore these questions together today.

Whoever among you sees an evil action, then let him change it with his hand [by taking action]; if he cannot, then with his tongue [by speaking out]; and if he cannot, then with his heart – and that is the weakest of faith. Sahih Bukhari

Abu Bakr RA said: I have heard Messenger of Allah SAW say: 'When people see an oppressor but do not prevent him committing sin, it is likely that Allah will punish them all. - [Ibn Maajah]

This means that if people witness someone doing wrong but don't stop them, it's possible that Allah will punish everyone. This means that not taking action against wrongdoing might lead to consequences for everyone.

A group of companions went to Abyssinia during the migration, and the Prophet SAW said, tell me the strangest thing you saw in Abyssinia. So a group of them said, Ya Rasulullah, one day we were sitting, and one of the nuns, or one of the elderly nuns, was walking by, and she had a jug of water on her head. A young man walked up to her, put his hand right on her chest, and shoved her. And so she fell to her knees, and the water jug broke. And the man laughed at her, and no one did anything about it. So they let this young man bully this elderly woman, and no one did anything about it. And the sahaba said that the woman said to him, “How will it be, O foolish young man, on the day of judgment, when Allah brings the first and the last of His creation, and Allah judges between us, you will then know of your situation and my situation. How will it be?”

So the Prophet SAW said, sadaqat, sadaqat, sadaqat, she told the truth, she told the truth, she told the truth. How can Allah honor an ummah that does not protect its vulnerable from its strong ones, from its powerful ones, that does not protect the weak from being exploited by the powerful of that society? The Prophet SAW didn't blame the young man alone. Who did he blame? The society. He blamed the society that normalized that type of behavior, which made it okay for that young man to feel like he could go up to that old woman and push her and not be held accountable. It's society's fault that allows that. It's not just the young man's fault. The young man is the product of a facilitating institution.

Aisha RA says that I asked the Prophet SAW, “Will we be destroyed and we have righteous people amongst us?” He said, Yes if filth is made rampant. Ibn Hajar says Filth is al maasi, filth refers to sins as a whole. The ones that are ugliest, the nastiest, the ones that are most base, and the ones that represent the worst of immorality. So the Prophet SAW said, “Even if you have righteous people amongst you, if those things are allowed to thrive without anyone saying anything about them, then everyone suffers as a result of them.”

Silence is considered wrong, or haram, under three specific conditions. Firstly, when you are absolutely certain that something is evil, this means having no doubt about the wrongdoing you wish to address or correct. Sometimes, you might not fully understand the situation, or you might not be in a position to know all the facts. Reflect on the example of Musa (AS), who assumed something without having all the information. So, the first condition for silence being haram is when you are certain about the facts of something.

Secondly, silence becomes haram when you are sure that the wrongdoing has occurred. In the Quran, it advises believers to verify information when a wicked person brings news to them. This means it's not about rumors, gossip, or hearsay, but about having first-hand testimony or strong evidence that the act has truly taken place.

The third condition is that there is a greater likelihood that speaking up will help eliminate or reduce the wrongdoing. If there's a good chance that your words can make a positive impact in removing or lessening the evil, then keeping silent becomes inappropriate.

So, speak the truth! Do not remain silent. In whatever capacity you can, but speak.

[thatfrenchacademic]

Sortition is actually so funny AND depressing to me, because like:

Sortition means have representatives randomly picked rather than electing them. And there is a good case to be made for sortition being better than election.

Meaning that sortition, the litteral equivalent of tossing a coin to see why is your MP, senator, député, representative, etc... can lead to better outcome than if we select them.

Our collectively ability to select people to represent us appropriately does not pass the COIN TOSS test. The most basic test to see if anything is of any use at all.

[yes yes, it is not our fault, not need to scream in my DM, if there is no good option when there is an election, then you are bound to pick a bad option, and a thousand other institutional and procedural reasons why a system is f-cked and cant, in any way shape or form, provide you with appropriate representation. But like. System so bad that we might as well toss a coin is truly the sign that things have gone to shit, my dears]

[agentoffangirling]

Apartheid is defined as “a particularly severe form of institutional discrimination and systematic oppression based on race or ethnicity.” Nowhere within Israeli borders do Palestinians face institutional discrimination. They have representation in government, access to jobs and living, and are well represented culturally and religiously. The occupied territories is a different story, but the only reason those territories are occupied in the first place is because of terror groups threatening Israeli lives. I’m not saying that this is okay, and ideally, there would be no occupation AND no terror groups but that’s not the world we live in. Security matters. That’s not Israel’s fault. It’s Hamas’ and Hezbollah and every other group that wants Israel dead.

Many of the actions of the Israeli government are atrocious and it is ignorance to pretend otherwise. But as I’ve stated before, the actions of the current government do not reflect the goals of Zionism or Israel as an idea. 

I read the sources from Human Rights Org and Amnesty International. The former talks entirely about occupied territories, specifically the West Bank (because, if you recall, Israel left the Gaza strip entirely). And while occupying a territory is not good, it’s not part of the structure of Israel’s political system. Within the state of Israel itself, there is no apartheid. Palestinians have the same rights as Israelis. 

And one could make the same case for Gaza: it is an apartheid state. There are exactly 0 Jewish people in Gaza yet nobody seems to be troubled by that and instead are so quick to point out the supposed apartheid in Israel. [1/?]

Apologies for answering so late. Just as before, I'll lump in your other responses with this one for simplicity

The West Bank and surrounding areas aren't occupied due to "security", they're occupied because Israel can. Because they want to claim the land, they want to take over and strip away any bit of Palestinian sovereignty. And Israel is apartheid. It isn't this paradise they want you to believe it is, Palestinians have to go through checkpoint through checkpoint through checkpoint and are constantly denied the same liberties an Israeli would have. There are roads specifically for Israelis that Palestinians are barred from using. Actually listen to them, don't let Israel try and convince you that everything is perfectly fine and that there is no injustice, because there is

The Israeli government is exactly what Zionism is. They don't hide it. It's not a bid to keep people safe, as there's been report after report that they knew about the attacks beforehand and didn't do anything to stop it. The true goal of Zionism is to get rid of Palestinians under the guise of "safety" for the Jewish people. That is what they're doing right now, that is what they've always been doing. It has always been political

Israel "left" the Gaza Strip, but they just replaced the more obvious occupation with policing everything that comes in or out. They burn the native olive trees and heavily tax outside goods, if there are any, to make them entirely reliant on Israeli goods. Just because a place is void of somewhere does not make it apartheid. Gaza is not apartheid because no Jewish people reside there and you are fully aware of this. There is no evidence to your claim that due to the majority of the population being Palestinian makes it apartheid. You know this

There is little evidence that suggests Hamas uses civilian shields. This is an Israeli lie used to justify the bombing of hospitals and homes and schools. The IDF is fully complicit in carrying out these orders and they are also not a source you should be using. "They warn them 24 hours in advance" and they still murder civilians. 24 hours to leave their homes, their entire livelihoods for "safe zones" that just end up being raided days later

Decolonizing Palestine means giving the land back to Palestinians. It means dismantling the state of Israel. As I've said, there is nothing about safety and peace about Zionism and is entirely about taking Palestine. When you look at DNA tests of Ashkenazi people, much of it lands in Europe. I'm not saying that you are entirely European, I'm saying that you cannot claim a place is your home when the closest tie you have to it is from thousands of years ago

How exactly do you free them? Is it by funding a terrorist group so no actual authority can be created in Palestine? Is it by murdering women, children, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and so on? If you want to talk about October 7 so bad, let's talk about 1948. Israel will not stop at a two-state solution, they will continue taking land. Why would they stop at something that benefits them so much and no one is saying anything against them? That is why I am against a two-state solution, because history has shown that Israel will not stop. That is wishful thinking

Israel is the "only democracy in the Middle East" because the West has destroyed any chances for democracy to take root in other countries. Every single time, the United States interferes. Many times Israel has interfered so they can continue keeping power. Palestine doesn't need to "exist as a nation" in order to be considered one. They are a people with their own culture that has existed through thousands of years. The culture Israel wants to destroy. Israel cannot be a legitimate state while they are occupying the land, and it is only through giving the land back to the Palestinians can they actually be left alone in peace without a certain something creeping on their borders

Oh, you mean the hostages that were gifted birthday cakes? The hostages who talked about the kindness they were dealt? The hostages who were prevented about speaking about their experiences because they weren't deemed bad enough? The hostages who were bullied by their peers for that very reason? The hostages Israel killed in their own missions? The hostages who were waving white flags yet were gunned down by their own people anyway? We can talk about them all you like. Shall we consider the thousands of Palestinian prisoners being held by Israel as well?

[theseventhoffrostfall]

Because @mtndewloyalist-xvii volunteered himself to receive my fallout 4 sperg:

I've already discussed the ways I'd do the story structure as a whole, let alone the factions different, but if we're talking about more minor changes, I'd expand on companions and how they relate to and showcase the different factions.

In general, since the game is clearly going for a morally-grey scenario where each faction has its strong points and its weaknesses, I'd give each two companions-- one hardliner, and one moderate, someone that represents either the gentler, more humane, or alternatively more flawed side of a faction, or someone with less conviction who might even be swayed to leave it.

So, obviously, you start off with Garvey as the Minuteman hardliner. Completely altruistic, untiring about helping the people of the Commonwealth and not too hung up on keeping the Minutemen cohesive or supplied--as-is in the game, totally optimistic (admirably so, despite all of the shit that's thrown at him before the game starts) but that blinds him to the realities of the situation. So, presumably after retaking the Castle, you get let's say an old Pre-War Ghoul (if we wanna go for a bit more character spiciness, it might be a guy who served alongside the male PC at Anchorage, like it's the guy he was going to meet at the veteran's hall in the opening) who served in the previous incarnation of the Minutemen. A lot more cynical about how these things go, a lot more concerned with actually getting pay and provisions from allied settlements and building a command structure for the group. Still a good guy who wants to help the people, but with his feet more firmly on the ground when it comes to the details of running a militia.

Railroad, very easy. Deacon is the moderate, since even in the base game he espouses helping the people more and cultivating better relations, and he's the soft-touch sneaky bastard type. Bring in Glory as the hardliner, being a far more militant fuck-the-institute type who'd rather just murder her way to Synth liberation.

Brotherhood, Danse is the hardliner, the unquestioning, unflinching soldier who rarely if ever admits to any faults in the organization. Keep him as-is. Bring in someone, I wanna say a Scribe or other tinkering technician type (maybe Halen herself) who can act sort of as a Verona figure (just hopefully less obnoxious) who's loyal but wishes the Brotherhood could only be dicks maybe 40% of the time instead of 80

Institute, you'd need reworks across the board; there's no way the Institute works in any scenario without overhaul, but keep X6-88 as the hardliner, who pursues in his cold machine-fashion the goals of the institute (note: give the Institute actual goals), just rewrite him to be less of a petty fucking dick. Make him an evil character by all means, but he probably shouldn't revel so much in petty cruelty that he dislikes it when you give your dog a stimpack, if you intend for him to represent a faction that's not kitten-eating evil. Bring in a scientist type (maybe a cyborg, since they had no reason whatsoever to cancel that program) as the more idealistic counterpart who genuinely thinks the Institute is the best hope for the Commonwealth and is doing good--again, maybe they leave the faction in disgust, or are persuaded to remain and change it from within.

Of the "can't end the game with them, but represented anyway" factions:

Strong remains the Super Mutant Hardliner. I actually kind of like him, since he represents the culture, such as it is, of super mutants, with their odd collectivism and somewhat hopeful optimism in their own barbaric way, and he can stay that way. Maybe just make him a little more consistent--I'm aware he's supposed to be conflicted, but he just comes off as schizophrenic. Erikson, come the DLC, is the moderate. Wants to find a way for humans and mutants to coexist. Easy peasy.

Raiders: I've mentioned before that I figure Raiders are a two-tiered profession; you've got your average, scrap-armor and scavenged guns shmuck who's raiding for a few months because he had a bad harvest this year, someone forced by desperation or simply opportunistic in outlook; then you've got the hardened, quasi-tribal professionals with real armory skills/tooling and organization, like the Nuka-World raiders. This one's easy, too: Rewrite Cait so instead of an edgy weird nonsense pit fighter, she's an outright Raider. Still a junkie, still misanthropic and bitterly cynical, but as in the base game, can be steered away from that and put on a better path. She's the moderate, because the Hardliner is simply Gage as-is: a merciless Social Darwinist who exults in loot, domination and violence

[hjellacott]

I don't know if people realise this (although I've a nagging feeling that they don't) but the issue Britain had with Meghan, the apprehension in the beginning and the realisation that yes they were right to be apprehensive and yes it wasn't a good idea for Harry to marry her, has nothing to do with Meghan's race.

From the very beginning, what people kept saying was: 'she's an actress, is she going to be able to adapt well?' 'is she going to understand the career change and be able to cope with no longer being the focus of cameras?' I also heard a lot of people fear this would be like when King Edward VIII married American socialite Wallis Warfield, having to abdicate the throne for it. The things people were talking about constantly, here in Britain, as anyone who was in Britain at the time perfectly knows, and the matters where people knew there'd be problems had nothing to do with Meghan's colour (people weren't even aware she was black) and everything to do with her being American and an actress.

And they were right. As an actress, she's been unable to accept not being a focus of attention all the time for a role, not having red carpets every day, that a royal's fame and apparitions in front of the camera are different, shy, and only done so when it's strictly necessary. She misses the red carperts, being on covers, giving interviews... so those are the things she's done as soon as she's been free.

And as an American, she hasn't understood the British culture, the British society, the British royalty. She's proven it, over and over talking about her ignorance and how little she knew about the life she was signing up for.

So it's got nothing to do with being black. Sure, racists will always take advantage and use that as well, but mainly, all along, it's been about her being an American actress. It also doesn't mean that she's a bad person, or that there's nothing wrong with her. She's got no fault for where she comes from and being unable to adapt. The feat she meant to accomplish was a hard and challenging one, after all, she should've been preparing for ages, so you can't blame her for not managing.

Meghan Markle is, in Britain, a foreigner with a whole different lifestyle, that everyone rightfully worried wouldn't be fit for a British princess. Because the truth is, unless you've grown-up here and have a deep understanding of the British culture, history and society, and respect it even if you don't love it, there's no way you'll ever have the right tools to represent the country, to be in such a major British institution. To be a British princess you have to strip yourself of everything else. To become British, to become a princess, to say goodbye to your previous life, 100%. She wasn't ready. That's all.

[zeldahime]

Transgenders, sodomites, apostates, lend me your ears I come to criticize theory, not to praise it. The good academia does is oft interred in its institutions; So let it be with sociology. The noble Zeisloft Hath told you that it is woke liberalism that hath overtaken the governance of the country, And if it were so, that were a grievous fault, And grievously hath the social sciences answered it. Here, under leave of Zeisloft in red— For Zeisloft is an honorable man, So are they all, all honorable men— Come I to speak to my tumblr followers.

Gender theory was my home, validating and just to me, But Zeisloft says it was woke liberalism, And Zeisloft is an honorable man. Race theory explained the knock-on effects of captives brought hence, Whose ransoms did the White elite's coffers fill, Did sociology, in this, seem liberal? When that the poor hath cried, Marxist economists have wept. Rampant coastal elitism should be made of sterner stuff. Yet Zeisloft says it was woke liberalism, And Zeisloft is an "honorable" man.

You all did see that from Representative AOC Social sciences have thrice been cited in the introduction of legislation, Which Congress has thrice refused: was this governance? But Zeisloft says it was elitist strong-arming, And, suuuuuure. Zeisloft is an "honorable man."

I speak not to disprove what Zeisloft spoke, But here I am to speak what I do know. You all did love the arts and letters once, and not without cause. What cause withholds you, then, to engage with them? Hath your own judgement been substituted with that of beasts? Hath you lost your reason? Bear with me; My heart is in it, both my passion and my love, And I must pause til it come back to me.

Me stepping onto the balcony to address my followers

[thatstormygeek]

The revelation to me is that supremacy is, at its very core, a system of blame management. Supremacy believes itself supreme, after all. It uses its self-declared supremacy as the justification to harm and abuse and exploit others, and credits the profit it receives for having done so as proof of its superiority. Supremacy cannot possibly accept blame for the brokenness this causes, because if it were to blame for brokenness, it would be at fault, and therefore not supreme. If something is supreme, it is perfected already; incapable of improvement. So, anyone who aligns with supremacy begins to see any suggestion of improvement as a threat and any cost of repair or maintenance as theft, and insists that any brokenness that exists is the fault of others, even while working to ensure that things that are broken stay broken, to go on reaping the unnatural benefits of that brokenness. One of my central questions, in this book as in life, is, why can't we fix what is broken? I think the answer is that many of us would rather not pay the lower cost of repair, in particular the blame of it, and the unfair advantage we receive. We'd rather stay very fine people instead. We'd rather receive the share of what supremacy offers: the profits that attend being deemed white, or Christian, or male, or cis, or able-bodied, or employed, or property owning, and so on, even if it means paying supremacy's much higher costs. What this means to me is that anyone who wants to align with repair is going to have to be willing to pay the costs. Being willing to pay the costs means being willing to see repairs done. Being willing to see repairs done means understanding what is broken. And, when I'm honest with myself, I know that not all brokenness is external. Ultimately, the answer means looking within. So this book asks: Who are the Very Fine People, anyway? And why can't we fix what is broken?  When I interrogate myself honestly, I often find the answer isn't so comfortable.

P.M.: Earlier you mentioned "new templates.” Can you elaborate on these “new templates” and how they have reshaped your understanding and actions? How have these templates influenced the way you approach your writing now compared to before? Like many people, I find myself sometimes still stuck thinking like it's the mid-2010s and wondering why things aren't just automatically, naturally progressing in society. Then, I have to snap myself out of it. I think a lot of us could use new ways of thinking. A.R.M.: I think the first thing I had to grapple with was (before November 2016) that Donald Trump might very well be president and then (after November 2016) was going to be president because people really, really liked what he represented. There were those who were disaffected by politics and bamboozled by a constant barrage of false equivalency and bad framing in media, who were not really aware of what Trump really represented, and there were those who were understandably cynical and sick of decades of Democratic triangulation and capitulation, who stayed home (or maybe even threw a protest vote Trump's way), and there were any number of other factors that could be (and have been) dissected at length, but at the root of it, there was undeniably also a deep, abiding, energizing and unmistakable enthusiasm for the very worst of what Trump promised and the very worst of what he represented. My old template accounted for this sort of sickness in society, but I assumed it would be handled by our national immune systems: our norms and institutions and laws, and so on. My new template began with a realization that we were a much sicker society than I had realized—a sickness that suddenly felt like it might be terminal. The immune systems I had counted on—norms and institutions and laws, and so on—seemed incapable of countering this it. Worse still, as the Trump presidency barreled down the bowling lane of 2017-2020, the norms and institutions and laws didn't even seem to want to counter it, or realize that they should. They seemed to treat Trump's authoritarianism and open bigotry not as a foreign object to neutralize and expunge, but as something that had been an intrinsic part of the body politic all along. Even worse still, those norms and institutions and laws seemed to behave in this way in large part because our population—or, to be more precise, the part of our population that those norms and institutions and laws regarded as worth listening to and representing—wanted them to behave in this way. As a result, we'd see that while obvious improvement and needed remedy was popular in theory, it became impossible the moment we got down to actually trying to make it happen. Even people who despised Trump only really seemed to despise the grotesqueness of him; when it came to the authoritarian abuses he proposed, they weren't only on board, they saw these abuses as necessary, even intrinsic to safety. For example, try suggesting that the answer to ongoing systemic nationwide open corruption and brutality in policing is to maybe not fund the police as if it were a wartime army. Or suggest that maybe we don't need to spend all our money on the military industrial complex. Or suggest that a country that imprisons people for profit as part of a growth industry needs to engage in prison abolition.

"The way things are" is something we all create, after all—or at least in a healthy system, we would all get to join in creating it. In a sick one, maybe the mechanisms of order would only pay attention to certain people and certain beliefs, and the beliefs might be unsustainable lies. So that's what I mean by "a spiritual sickness"—a preference within a society for lies over truths, and a preference within society's norms and institutions and laws to show preference to those who believe the lies over those who tell the truth. ... To work out what the lies were, I talked to people who seemed opposed to improvement, often without seeming to know that it was improvement they opposed. At the end what I heard expressed were three core lies, each of which rested upon the next. The first lie is that we bear no relation to one another; that society is purely individualistic—which negates any suggestion of the truth that we live in an interconnected system, and allows us to see the abuse and suffering and death of others as something that poses no threat to us. The second is that life must be earned, and profit is how you earn it—which means that some haven't earned it, and makes all abuse and suffering and death that a spiritually sick society produces the fault not of those who cause the abuse but those who suffer it. The third lie is that violence redeems the crime of having not earned life—which means that when those who are deemed to have not earned life are abused or harmed or killed, the violence is not only something that doesn't threaten our safety, but represents safety itself. And these lies seemed so intrinsic to people's beliefs as to be foundational. And indeed, these lies could be found in the very founding of our country. So I think of them as our founding lies.

[jim-fetter-illustrations]

Fact Checking ain't so good if your part of the corruption!

Did ya know there are literally hundreds of Fact-Checking agencies in the United States alone that check claims about everyone from religious leaders to what politicians tell their Constituents,.... which are the people politicians and leaders have been elected to represent,.......... YOU basically!

And no religion or political party endorses any of them,..... Yeah, hard to believe but true none-the-less!

Why is that???,.......... I mean when ya think about it you would think a fact checking agency would be a good reputable place to endorse to further the future of your candidate???

But none do, because if you endorse a fact checking agency you would have to be of irreproachable character yourself, and otherwise it would be a case of “The pot calling the kettle black”, which is an idiom that means when someone accuses another person of a fault that they also have.

So that's why no political party and no religion will endorse a fact checking agencies, ............ because they all lie to their Constituents, followers and supporters.

You'd think the news agencies would fact check everything for their viewers, but they also won't endorse any fact checking agencies and would rather persuade you to believe their so called facts so you support who they support, and they do that because of who OWNS them....... that has a political agenda not particularly yours!

But there is one news reporting agency that has their own fact checking source, and they broadcast it almost every day,.......... they are owned mostly by their listeners who support them,......... they are called N.P.R.,

National Public Radio, an American public broadcasting organization headquartered in Washington, D.C.

But both republican and democratic parties don't really endorse NPR, because they can't control what they report about, or what they say about politics, so they are frowned upon by political leaders as well as religious leaders for being a potential bad source,.... again because NPR can't be Bought like all the other news agencies are.

Thank goodness most people don't listen to NPR and are told by the powers that be,.....they are somewhat of a communist flavor of kool-aid......... so leaders can sigh a relief that most people won't get the real news and only the news they can control to the masses because fact is most of The U.S. press, like the U.S. government, are corrupt and troubled institutions,...... vicious cycles of mutual manipulation, mythmaking, and self-interest for profit agencies, .....................and welcome to capitalism folks!

These are the facts no one else will tell you, because really you don't want to know the facts if they make you feel like a dumbass, so most people prefer to remain blissful and in the dark so they can feel good about themselves and not realize that they are a pathetic human being for doing nothing to change things for the better.

That's my take on it anyway, and if your not part of the cure you might as well be cut out and disposed of just like any other biological garbage!

Like

Comment

Share

[minervas-sandwich]

I just did a research project on this! So the reason that the US has the approach it does to children's rights is because we take like 98% of our legal system from England, but we did that in like 1787 and have made very few changes over the years.

The historical context for the lack of children's rights is that it comes from the concept of coverture, which comes from the idea of metaphorically being covered by being under someone's wing, being under someone's protection. This concept was originally applied to marriage, as a woman would have no legal rights of her own and she would be spoken for and legally represented by her husband. Originally, there was no parental custody, as seven-year-olds could marry, four-year-olds could make wills, and children who owned property could vote.  It was not until the seventeenth century that England applied coverture to children, and they would also be under their fathers’ control and representation until they reached 21 years old. We have now ended coverture in marriage, as women have the right to vote, get a job, have their own bank account, etc etc, but children are now considered "covered" or legally represented by both of their parents, rather than just the father.

As of 2015, the American Law Institute released a compiled restatement of law regarding children and parental rights, which gives examples of the degree of parental control already established, including but not limited to the ability to deny their children access to other people and the right to corporal punishment. There is an unspoken belief in US culture that children are too young to make decisions for themselves, that their parents "know better," and a deeply rooted desire to never acknowledge the possibility that a parent could be making decisions that hurt their kid. There is a culture of "keeping things behind closed doors." If you and your husband are on the brink of divorce, you don't talk about it. If you hit your kids, you don't talk about it. If your child is acting out and becoming delinquent because their needs are not being met, you don't talk about it. So it creates this cumulative feeling that all parents are good parents because you don't hear about the bad parents, therefore there is no need to give children autonomy from their parents, children are young and inexperienced and stupid, and what parent would want to hurt their kids???

This is why people like Moms for Liberty are the way they are. When they don't get their way, they say things like, "I am going to be spending every minute making sure parents know they don't have control over their children anymore." The base function of US law around minors is about who has control over the minor in question, and the idea of the answer being "themselves" isn't an option.

It's also worth pointing out that because of the culture in the US, there is a very large and unfortunately valid fear of government interference in childcare.

"...it is assumed that the only alternative to parental rights is punitive state intervention into the family. Scholars and policymakers continue to embrace expansive parental rights because they fear any alternative will result in a significant transfer of power from parents to the state. This either-or mentality leads to alarming rates of state separations of children from their parents instead of state support for families." (Dailey, 2021)

In fact, the threat of termination of any kind of parent-child relationship by the state has historically been weaponized against low-income, marginalized communities. That's why you see the feelings from the reblog above, a fear that if a larger institution is given a say in what US children do or do not get then it would ruin the parent-child relationship at the core of the nuclear family. And that is an understandably scary thought for people who genuinely love their kids and are doing their best. It's not the average person's fault that they think this way, that's what being immersed in one culture your entire life inherently does, it shapes the way you think about and frame these issues.

On the bright side! There are many scholars out there who work towards finding solutions for these problems. My favorite solution that I found during my research is the model of Parental Privileges with State Support. James Dwyer is a family law professor, and he suggests that we reframe parental power from the idea of "parental rights" to "parental privileges," which would change the ability of parents from the current "I can do whatever I want to/with my child" and instead to childcare decisions made "solely on the basis of children's welfare interests" (Dwyer, 1994 as cited in Foran, 2022). It would limit parent's authority while still recognizing that, yes, children sometimes do not understand how to make good decisions and need someone to take care of them.

The other part would be to restructure the US government's approach to childcare involvement, because- as previously stated- the only work they currently do is to remove children from their parents when a household is significantly unsafe (which is a system that relies on abuse being reported, which often doesn't happen because of the culture of "behind closed doors," and when children are removed they are put into the foster system which has plenty of its own damaging problems). Instead, we need to strengthen the social safety net with better funded welfare programs and intentional support for families that are struggling, which can look like anything from providing monetary assistance to helping parents get in touch with professionals who can help them with their problems (therapy, parenting classes, nannies, etc.). This would have the added benefit of helping low-income families who are struggling to support their children, rather than punishing them for it.

I'll add some of the resources I used for my paper under the cut if you want to look into these issues some more on your own time! I really recommend it!

A Call for Action: Making Space for Religious Rhetoric by Barnhart and Olan (2022)

The New Parental Rights by Dailey and Rosenbury (2021)

Parents' Rights or Parents' Wrongs?: The Political Weaponization of Parental Rights to Control Public Education by Foran (2022)

My Body, Your Choice: The Conflict Between Children's Bodily Autonomy and Parental Rights in the Age of Vaccine Resistance by Johnson (2022)

I had access to these through my university library, so I'm not sure if these are available elsewhere, but you should absolutely watch this very good video by Zoe Bee, who is an English professor and makes lots of videos analyzing rhetoric.

I cant believe this tweet is how I find out

[kirankumar166]

Dell Boomi Basic Interview Questions

Title: Ace Your Dell Boomi Interview: A Guide to Basic Questions

Introduction

Dell Boomi is a market-leading iPaaS (Integration Platform as a Service) solution known for its flexibility, scalability, and ease of use in cloud-based integration. As its popularity grows, so does the demand for skilled Boomi developers. If interviewing for a Dell Boomi role, you must be prepared for questions designed to assess your foundational knowledge. Let’s dive into some common basic questions.

Key Concepts

What is Dell Boomi?

Be ready to define concisely: “Dell Boomi is a cloud-based integration platform that enables businesses to connect various applications, data sources, and systems seamlessly within both cloud-based and on-premises environments.”

Components of a Boomi Process

Understand the core building blocks of integration flows in Boomi:

Start Shape: Initiates the process.

Connectors: Facilitate communication with specific applications or systems.

Maps: Define how data is transformed between systems.

Shapes: Represent actions like data manipulation, decision-making, routing, and error handling.

What is an Atom?

Explain its role: “An Atom is the lightweight runtime engine of Dell Boomi. It’s responsible for executing integration processes. Atoms can be installed on-premises or in a private cloud.”

Differences between Atom, Molecule, and Atom Cloud

Atom: A single runtime engine suitable for more minor integrations.

Molecule: A Atoms cluster designed for higher data volumes and scalability.

Atom Cloud: A collection of atoms or molecules with high availability and fault tolerance.

What are Connectors?

Describe their purpose: “Connectors are pre-built components in Boomi that simplify connections to popular applications and technologies (e.g., Salesforce, SAP, NetSuite, databases, FTP, HTTP). They streamline integration by handling the complexities of communication protocols and authentication.”

Technical Questions

Error Handling in Boomi

Demonstrate your understanding of error management by Discussing approaches like try/catch blocks, exception shapes, process reporting, and notifications.

Data Mapping

Explain how you would structure a map to transform data from one format to another. Be prepared to discuss essential transformation functions.

Boomi Process Deployment

Outline the steps in deploying a process from a development to a production environment.

General Cloud Concepts

Benefits of Cloud Integration

Highlight advantages like cost-effectiveness, scalability, reduced IT overhead, accessibility, and faster updates.

Cloud Security

Address potential concerns and discuss measures cloud providers and Boomi employ to ensure data protection during integration.

Tips

Showcase Practical Knowledge: Cite examples from your past projects to solidify your answers.

Project Enthusiasm: Demonstrate your passion for integration and problem-solving with Boomi.

Be Prepared for Non-Technical Questions: These assess your communication, teamwork, and adaptability skills.

Conclusion

Mastering these basic concepts lays a solid foundation for your Dell Boomi interview. While companies may have specific technical questions, understanding these fundamentals will boost your confidence and position you for success.

You can find more information about Dell Boomi in this  Dell Boomi Link

 

Conclusion:

Unogeeks is the No.1 IT Training Institute for Dell Boomi Training. Anyone Disagree? Please drop in a comment

You can check out our other latest blogs on  Dell Boomi here – Dell Boomi Blogs

You can check out our Best In Class Dell Boomi Details here – Dell Boomi Training

Follow & Connect with us:

———————————-

For Training inquiries:

Call/Whatsapp: +91 73960 33555

Mail us at: info@unogeeks.com

Our Website ➜ https://unogeeks.com

Follow us:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/unogeeks

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UnogeeksSoftwareTrainingInstitute

Twitter: https://twitter.com/unogeek

[m3rvinjude]

Discussion Leader Presentation

Poststructuralism and Baudrillard:

A movement or theory (such as deconstruction) that views the descriptive premise of structuralism as contradicted by reliance on borrowed concepts or differential terms and categories and sees inquiry as inevitably shaped by discursive and interpretive practices. (Merriam Webster)

Baudrillard, "Simulacra and Simulation": Idea of different realities and simulations. Truth and Reality in the age of the digital world and what does language really convey and mean.

Postmodernism and Nietzche:

A late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.” (Oxford Dictionary) 

Nietzche, "On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense": Rejection of Universal Concepts, Truth is Made Up, What does language really convey and mean

Take Me to Church was released on September 13, 2013, over 10 years ago now. Hozier grew up in Ireland and as a catholic. Take Me to Church is a song meant to criticize the Catholic Church for its Homophobia. The lines in the song, “I’ll tell you my sins, and you can sharpen your knife,” speaks to the hypocrisy of the church because when you tell your sins you are meant to free yourself from any “wrongdoings” of the world, but Hozier is saying that when you are truthful about your sins you will end up getting hurt in the end.  No matter how hard you try to do your best in the eyes of God you are still a sinner and nothing is going to change that. The lyrics right before that though, “I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies,” explains how people are willing to still worship and pray even when they know what they're being fed may not be true. The absurdity of religion and the hypocrisy, specifically about homophobia within religion is what Hozier is astonished by and it is why he created this video in the first place. The video was shot in black and white, subverting our expectations as viewers because we usually think that videos now should be in color, making it out of the ordinary. The black and white also emphasizes the sad and somber feeling of the song. This song questions religion and the institution of it as a whole, why do they get all the power and say about who can love one another. 

American Teenager came out April 21, 2022 as the third single off of Ethel Cain’s debut album, Preachers Daughter. Ethel Cain is a persona that trans women, Hayden Anhedonia uses to create music and tell stories. Her identity is important to the context of the song because it deals with the idea of the American Dream, Religion, and growing up in the United States, specifically in the South. This song questions the current norms of American Life, and Religion and what that does to people and questioning what these things really means. The lyrics, “Putting too much faith in the make-believe, And another high school football team,” suggests that Ethel is struggling with the idea of christianity and questioning her beliefs in something that’s been taught her whole life. The lyrics “And another high school football team,” juxtaposed with the lines before adds to the absurdity of  her life. The lines following, “The neighbor’s brother came home in a box, But he wanted to go, so maybe it was his fault, Another red heart taken by the American dream,” is referring to the military and how people pursue a career in the military believing that they’re fighting for freedom for this country, but instead are met with the unfortunate fate of death. Cain is poking at the idea of the American Dream and what it really means to live and die for your country. In the song she is constantly questioning higher powers and authorities, which is what Nietzsche does as well. Nietzche much like Cain is in constant search of the truth and what it really means to live the human experience. 

The American Flag, football field and bleachers, and the cheerleading uniform represent this idea of the American Identity and with the subject matter of the song playing with the video, questions what being an American Teenager really means. The use of an old video camera to create the music video was an aesthetic choice meant to humanize and make people think about the current realities of our world and how it could be different that what it is now.

At minutes 2:30 and 4:37 there are shots that replicate "Christina’s World", a classic American painting, by Andrew Wyeth. This emphasizes the Americana aesthetic, but also this sense of yearning for something more than what they have in their reality, in this case, the truth of this world. This song is also an interpolation of Journey's Song, Don't Stop Believin" which is a power anthem and if you know the song you know the lyrics, Don't stop believin', Hold on to that feelin', Streetlights, people," Which is the opposite of what Ethel is trying to convey. The irony of the interpolation adds to the message of the song.

Discussion Questions:

Do you believe music can transport you into another reality?

How did the creative choices of Black and White and Old Camera footage affect the way you understood the song and message?

What is the importance of knowing the person behind the piece of work?

[septoncellardoor]

Sorry anon, maybe I’ve been desensitized by the sheer volume of disingenuous antisemitism claims that have been flying around recently that I’ve lost the ability to recognize genuine and reasonable concern, but it’s hard for me to believe that a person expressing more moral outrage over things individual protestors have said than the actual genocide continuing as we speak is operating in good faith

Like “the actual effect of the protests is taking away attention from the people suffering in Gaza” well whose fault is that? Not the protestors. The protestors are the ones talking about Gaza. Yes, you are correct that the media is using them as a distraction so they can avoid talking about it, and you are certainly helping them do that! You could choose to keep your focus on the people of Palestine and how to end their suffering, no one is making you talk about these protests, and yet, here you are!

“I think the universities’ reaction and deployment of police is a massive escalation, morally wrong, and a violation of the right to protest” Do you? Because OP has two posts on the topic. One about how to help provide bail to protestors you seemingly agree were wrongfully imprisoned, and another that’s a reblog of a series of tweets saying the universities’ violent crackdown on peaceful protestors is wrong and immoral. So then why are you here? If you believe what you say you believe, why are you in OP’s asks acting like she’s said something that needs correction?

“Hard to believe they care about ethnic cleansing…” Anon, very important question. Do YOU care about ethnic cleansing? Do you find what is happening in Palestine objectionable, and do you think people should take action to help end what is happening there? Have you taken any such action? Because, problematic instances aside, those kids are laying their bodies on the line. I have watched protestors get slammed to the ground, thrown into the backs of cop cars, tased, flashbanged, tear gassed, beaten with batons, and shot with rubber bullets. Protestors are threatened with jail time, loss of degree, loss of employment, and having their housing revoked. What have you risked, in the name of ending ethnic cleansing? From what position of moral authority do you question their commitment? For what other reason would they still be out there, if they did not truly believe in their cause?

Anyway, sorry to op for the long post. Maybe I should allow more room for nuance, but I feel the enormity of what is being talked about here requires moral clarity. There is a genocide happening, and our institutions are funding it. Those students represent the largest collective action standing against it, and they are being violently cracked down on. Do you stand with them? If the answer to that question is no, I do not find any moralizing or hand-wringing from you compelling or worth listening to

um. you do know that the uni protests are wildly antisemitic right? like. there are people there who are fully advocating for genocide of jewish people and the rest of the protesters are not only not kicking them out but actively cheering them on. not to mention that the actual effect of the protests has been to take attention away from the people actually suffering in gaza. like, to be clear: i actually agree that universities investing in weapons programs should divest - but the protesters are asking them to violate the civil rights amendment. (yeah, refusing to employ or work with someone because of their nationality or ethnicity is illegal, and rightfully so.). and also to be clear, i think that the universities' reaction and deployment of the police is a massive escalation, morally wrong, and a violation of the right to protest. but just because i don't think the protesters deserve to be killed or seriously physically harmed does not mean i think theyre in the right. hard to believe they care about ethnic cleansing when they support the regimes that have ethnically cleansed their jewish populations.

I don’t think it’s fair to talk about every single protest like they are a single unified entity. there are almost a hundred active encampments all over the country. i also do not think it is fair to say that every single protester is antisemetic or supports regimes that ethnically cleanse jews especially when a significant amount of campus organizing has been undertaken by chapters of jewish voices for peace and that at least in NYC jewish students have been a really big part of the protests.

I find myself alarmed by the media messaging that these protests are about jewish students’ safety versus pro-palestinian protestors organizing, because that narrative also characterizes Jewish people as a political monolith when there are non-token amounts of participation on both sides and equates Judaism with the state of Israel. That messaging is also what is doing the most to take attention off Gaza to me. Almost 35,000 Palestinians have been murdered by the IDF since October, and the American media’s handwringing about the tactics used by student protestors is the distractor here especially because a lot of the reporting out is in bad faith and right-wing agitprop.

Some of the encampments need way better message discipline and organization in terms of who is allowed on board because some of the things i have seen individuals saying and cheering for are genuinely repugnant and antisemetic. But the idea that they are all actively welcoming and cheering on genocidal rhetoric is an overgeneralization that has been used to justify these crackdowns and shut down any criticism of the state of Israel as antisemitic.

the police are not brutalizing students and faculty and journalists and protestors to combat antisemitism or allow jewish students to feel safe on campus, they are doing it to repress dissent. Jewish students deserve to feel safe on campuses. Sending in thousands of military police to beat up students and faculty endangers everyone on campus. I worry that using combatting antisemitism as an excuse for cops to unlawfully arrest and brutalize thousands of people in defense of a foreign country that has murdered 14,000 children in seven months is going to make Jewish students less safe, not more.