#also a good amount of those “facts” are analysis posts so they don't count

[project-sekai-facts]

Tsukasa is the only character to have been portrayed in live action. He was played by actor Sora Fujiki in the Romeo ~ The Battle Royale stage play at the real-life Kamiyama High School Festival event.

[milevenstancyendgame]

i NEED to hear your thoughts on this:

Yeah, it seems like sending links isn't allowed in asks, which sucks.:/

I'm flattered you're asking for my opinion.🙃 I chose not to check out the post you described (turns out I already have that blog blocked, for good reasons I think.😂), because I really don't want to waste my energy on B/ler bs. I see red every now and then, but it's best for my mental health to ignore them as much as possible. Thankfully blocking tags/content/blogs works quite well here (though sadly there are loop holes of course). Not allowing anonymous questions helps too.

BUT I can offer a *little psychological analysis of the dominant B/ler culture on here. *Sits down by the fire place and plucks lyre*

*This got waaaay longer than planned, so get comfy, lol.😆 Turned into my manifesto or something. So might as well give it a fancy title.✨

B/ler Shippers And Narcissism

As we know, every Tumblr fandom has its fanon ships, and sometimes those ships become a mass phenomenon (usually it's m/m ships, though sometimes it's also other ships that become huge, like Zutara from ATLA for example). Sociologists, where are you? It's such an interesting phenomenon, especially the demographics of it.

ANY way, I never was as directly involved in and impacted by a ship war as much as in the ST fandom, so I can't compare. But one very disturbing thing I noticed within the B/ler fandom, is the amount of narcissism I see.

Now this is the moment for my disclaimer, because I don't want to generalise. I'm sure there are normal, nice B/ler shippers, but those stay out of the Mileven tag. I don't know how the algorithm of the "For you" suggestions works, but in my experience (and from what I heard also of others), engaging with ANY ST-content will fill it with B/ler posts. Which is why I stay out of there, and the same counts for any ST tag, tbh. And the vast majority of all those B/ler posts were full of Mileven hate, Mike hate, and even Eleven hate.

That's why I want to be clear that I'm talking about the B/ler fandom as I've experienced it. Take that with a grain of salt and don't come "Not ALL B/lers!"-ing at me.😂

Okay, with that out of the way, let's start. The way I see it, there are two ways of shipping B/ler:

1) You start watching the show. You like Will and Mike. You see that they are close friends. You romanticise their relationship (encouraged by Will's hinted at homosexuality in early seasons, or not). You create your fanon version of Mike, who loves Will back. You enjoy your fanon and prefer it over canon. The end.

There's obviously nothing wrong with that and that's the blueprint for most of fanon. I have my fanon ships too, or characters that I like, while I dislike canon or the whole franchise. But the thing with B/ler is that the majority of fans seem to have caught rabies. For them, it's more like this:

2) You start watching the show. You like Will. You see that Will is close friends with Mike. You romanticise their relationship (encouraged by Will's hinted at homosexuality in early seasons, or not). You create your fanon version of Mike, who loves Will back. You think your fanon is canon. You preach it and call yourself a "truther". You try to convert other people. You bully Mileven shippers. You hate Mike, but want him to be together with Will. You drag the actors into your fanon.

This type of B/ler shipper is remarkably like a narcissist (in an abusive relationship, or a cult leader, or megalomaniac politician. The world is full of them.)

We got:

Delusion

"Mike is gay and in love with Will 100%." Fact remains that there is not even a hint for this in the show, nor writer/actor/director hints. To claim that the exact opposite is true, is a complete rejection of canon and replacing it with fanon.

Inability to doubt and self-reflect

When someone refuses to admit an external reality, it's because they can't deal with their internal reality. Like for many of us, their ship has a deep personal meaning to them and they are attached to it. But they are incapable of even entertaining the thought that Will and Mike might not end up together in s5. Let alone that Mike is actually not in love with Will, nor ever was. Letting in that doubt would be too painful. It would mean that they were wrong. They would feel ashamed. They would feel betrayed.

Now I would say that I'm 99% sure that Mileven will be endgame, but I leave room for that 1% of doubt, because I simply don't know. I haven't read the script of s5. I haven't written it. I don't control the writers and runners of the show. I am human and I can err in my expectations and assumptions about others and their actions. We all do, but some people just can't deal with this truth, so they completely disconnect from it, and just act like they can't be wrong.

Hostility/Polarisation

Since upholding the delusion of a B/ler reality is EVERYTHING, people who doubt or negate it, are a menace. They need to be controlled. How do we do this? By shaming them, of course. B/lers mostly draw from the scapegoating palette of the universal abuser's tool box:

-Name calling (M/lkvan, and I've seen others) -Accusations/Gaslighting -Provocation -Criticism -Slander/gossip -Mockery/humiliation -Personal attacks -Invasion/hijacking of personal space (coughthemileventagcough)

By doing that, they have achieved to drive a great amount of Mileven shippers from Tumblr (I don't blame those who left at all). That way, the voices who are opposing their delusion become less and less, which is how they think things should be.

Contradictions/Making No Sense

Another thing that is true for all narcissists, is that they create an Upside Down version of reality (pun not intended, but it's fitting).

Since they believe in a delusion, they obviously don't have logic on their side. They have to change the goal posts all the time (classic narcissist behaviour) and will argue that blue is red. We got a ton of examples for this:

-Some say they love Eleven. They say they are feminist. Contradiction: They use Eleven to "prove" their point. They say she's ugly and looks like a boy. They say she needs to be independent, which means to break up with Mike (???). They say she's stupid/other ableist insults. They patronise/infantilise her.

-The above-mentioned user said Mileven shippers don't appreciate Mike. Contradiction: B/lers make up the vast majority of Mike haters. They say he abuses Eleven. They say he abuses Will. They say he abuses Lucas and Dustin. They say he abuses Max. They make everything he ever said and did about how he secretly loves Will or how he secretly doesn't love Eleven. They aren't even able to see the character Mike as he exists in the show.

-Some say Mike babies Eleven. Contradiction: They also say Mike puts her on a pedestal.

-Some say to ship Mileven is homophobic. Contradiction: They fetishise Will and Mike. They objectify Mike and turn him into a trophy for Will.

-And of course: They say Mike loves Will. Contradiction: There's no evidence for this.

And then there is just plain insanity, like:

-The "When blue and yellow meet in the west"-part of the Russian code is actually about B/ler

-The colours of Mike's s5 sweater represent the bisexuality flag

-The light!!!!

-Once I saw a B/ler claim that a riddle from ST promo contained a hint about B/ler. I asked them for more info and checked it out. But when I told them that I thought there were other possible solutions to that riddle, they shut down and simply insisted that their interpretation was the only truth and they were being queerbaited.🫡

💩

What I also find noteworthy is how above-mentioned user said that it's not just Mileven shippers who don't appreciate Mike, but also the GA - which I think stands for general audience? Because that's another classic narcissistic move to puff up their ego - claiming that they are the only one who has some sort of deeper insight into something or someone. It's not just arrogant, it's another wonderful upside down example, because the truth is that they don't even have a basic, superficial understanding of reality (like I said, that can't see Mike).

Projection/Gaslighting

Everyone does a bit of this, especially insecure people. But since this type of B/ler shipper we're talking about, is extremely insecure AND isn't capable of self-awareness, it runs rampant.

To project onto someone means to place feelings, behaviours, or attitudes onto them which you hold yourself (good, bad, neutral). Gaslighting is a form of projecting, which means to accuse someone of your own flaws and wrongdoings, in order to undermine their status/credibility and make them question their own perception/reality.

I already listed this among the shaming tactics, but wanted to point it out in particular, because it's so fitting to what you described. Saying that Mileven shippers and the GA don't appreciate Mike (probably because they don't understand him?) is such a perfect example of projecting AND gaslighting. Because, like I said, no one hates Mike Wheeler like the majority of B/ler shippers, lol.

So saying this serves so many purposes:

-Distracting from B/ler hate of Mike -Discrediting Mileven shippers to other B/ler shippers and possibly non-shippers -Shaming Mileven shippers who read the post -Possibly converting non-shippers and Mileven shippers (haven't read the post, but this definitely happens too) -Setting up B/ler shippers as some sort of "chosen group" that has exclusive insight into Mike's character (the irony!).🤣😂🤣

I mean, again, I didn't read the post, but to me it sounds quite like a little dictator right there.😆 Yes, it's "only" shipping, but it's definitely toxic and purposefully hateful as hell. And after all a fandom is like a mini-society. A group of people who inhabit the same social space.

So, in conclusion - the more I see and hear of B/ler shippers, the more I become convinced that this ship attracts mainly narcissistic and otherwise toxic people, who need a delusion to cling to and an excuse to abuse others. I didn't want to say it before, because it seems incredible for something as harmless as a fictional ship, and like I said, I don't want to generalise or demonise people. But the glass is full and this was the last drop.😬 My experience of 95% of B/ler shippers is as described above, and it is what it is. Someone needed to say it.

[borom1r]

2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18, 20, 22 for lotr from the violence ask meme 😈

OK i have answered 2 already but lets do this thing fuck yea (thank uuuuuuuuuu!!!!!)

3) screenshot or description of the worst take you’ve seen on tumblr

look its not really a "take" but the amount of people who just post variations of "I don't like Boromir, he's the worst" IN THE BOROMIR TAG is genuinely insane to me. like have ur (incorrect) opinion but keep it out of the tag worstie

7) what character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because how how the fandom acts about them?

uhhhh no one thank the gods. ive always disliked Denethor Because of canon. but i will say stumbling across the file index of an old LotR fansite + clicking on files w/ no preview only to find graphics thirsting over Denethor did cause massive psychic damage lmao

8) common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

idk 😭 i dont interact w/ the broader fandom really. i do find the way ppl reduce Pippin to Just a joke character in fanon insufferable tho

9) worst part of canon

BOOK!FARAMIR + HIS MIDDLEMEN SHTICK MY WORSTIE.

also ngl i do find the Aragorn/Arwen romance....... Weird. like I'm far from averse to "love at first sight" so long as it comes with the recognition that it's really more infatuation + true love takes work. and there's the fact Aragorn fell head over heels for an image of Lúthien, and Arwen's heart did not turn towards him until Galadriel dressed him up in elven finery. not to mention she was "not yet weary of her days" when Aragorn dies + has to die "whether I will or I nill" like she. wastes away? slowly alone in Lothlórien.

like idk [Aragorn kinnie voice] that's my sister, man but all that aside I do think.. Arwen deserved better? I like that the movies made her more active + I do wish she'd actually been there at Helm's Deep bc it would've been fun to see her and Éowyn bond but yeah. the vibes were off with that whole situation imho

12) the unpopular character that you actually like and why more people should like them

huh. does Théodred count? i feel like he's kind of a blank slate so fandom can just kinda run wild with him but i do genuinely enjoy writing him + find that there are solid implications for at least a friendship between him + Boromir (if not more). i mean, Boromir got a Rohirric shield from someone

14) that one thing you see in fics all the time

ok th implication here bein its sth that bothers me which thankfully i pretty much only read Aramir or Faramir/Éomer fics soooo theres not much??

i think the only things that RLLY get to me + they aren't THAT popular trope-wise (or ive been rlly good at avoiding them lmao) are fics that 1) make Boromir overly aggressive or 2) completely woobify Faramir

+ tbh the Faramir one bothers me more actually. that is a grown ass man and captain of the rangers of Ithilien.....................

18) it’s absolutely criminal that the fandom has been sleeping on…

HRM. again idk :3 <- blissfully not interacting w the broader fandom + only interacting w/ ppl w correct takes on Boromir + Rohan

(tentatively i need to start following more ppl i see some of yall in my notes + i shld follow. sorry im like a nervous dog u need to coax out from under the porch lol)

20) part of canon you found tedious or boring

side-eyeing my copies of the Histories. i need to finish those. eventually.............

22) your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

ignores?????? nothing i think (thankfully lmao) but i will say there is SO much detail in the films that it makes me INSANE. ik we literally just talked abt this in DMs lmao but i could sit n talk abt LotR costuming for fucking HOURS the films were SO stunning and the clothing alone reveals sooooooo much abt the characters i think its a super underrated vehicle for character analysis :3

[bucklemonster2]

Weird Letter I Got Rare Brief die ik kreeg

I found this letter in my mailbox a few days ago. I don't agree 100%, but I support free speech. Letters and opinions may always be posted. Does anyone know who/what the context is? (I also translated it into English using google translate, so there might be translation errors)

- Dutch -

Deze brief vond ik een paar dagen geleden in mijn brievenbus. Ik ben het er niet 100% mee eens, maar ik steun de vrije meningsuiting. Brieven en meningen mogen altijd gepost worden. Weet iemand meer wie/wat de context is? (Ik heb het ook in het Engels vertaalt)

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

World War 3 The course L 1. Definitions: a. From a philosophical point of view or level: WW 3 = the anomaly of humanity b. Sociological; conflict = the political fault line: the individual versus world government c. WW3 the last war on earth 2. The beginning of World War III defined as the Individual versus World Government started on December 21, 2010, after 26 year old Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire after police confiscated the market vendor's goods. In Sidi Bouzid (Tunisia). 3. From a military point of view, 1109 is not the start of WWIII, but rather the attack on the American embassy in Nairobi. Although these actions were announced earlier and the announcement actually counts as the starting date, i.e. February 22 or 23, 1998 (battle on a global scale). The fault line we use for this is Alguida versus a world government. 4. September 11th could be considered the starting date of the world government vs. individual rift, because it provoked a statement and policies that directly contradict Universal Human Rights. Bush introduced it openly for the first time on international media, with the term war on terror and going to smoke them out, or something like that. Now, from a historical perspective, this historical statement is terribly short-sighted. The oppression of the individual, especially the communist, or by extension the non-capitalist or politically dissenter, has run its course for generations. It is possible that the assassination of JFK and Franz Ferdinand of Austria and WWII can also be placed under the strategies and practices of the ruling power (the 1%), applied in order not to lose power. Please note: What we call the cold war has continued even after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the meantime, however, it is clear that people can no longer be kept stupid. As they mobilize hundreds of millions worldwide and rapidly increase their political impact, creating violence and chaos on a large scale is the last sick straw for the 1%. We should also note that we can already find this fault line: world government vs. individual. at the time of Moses and Jesus. We know that the Romans had manuals with instructions on pack management. Giving them bread, drink and games is a known consequence of this. This is to say, in addition to military supremacy. Those Romans are no more, but their manuals have remained and have been extensively expanded, partly due to psychology. Other families took their place. 5. classification of terroristic groups (powerpoint model) the prototype terrorist unit (Al-quida) knows 3 motives: - Nationalistic -Religious - Ecological Each one again to be subcategorised, respectively according: - geographical location - religion or belief amount of damage Once again to be subcategorised through time and space, until all attacks can be seen as, or reduced to, an individual political action.

6. Assuming that the operational terrorist cell is just about the only objective data from which you can start, first to enable an analysis and then to arrive at a problem solution, the PowerPoint model must be taken into account: Although 'respectively' would be a better choice of word in this context than 'respectively', this does not alter the fact that multiple motives may be present in one terrorist cell when characterizing the sub-categorization. That ideology is by definition a matter of faith, but therefore not a religion (false faith?). The difference in definition is a delicate exercise on a sensitive issue. (An ideology is always linked to the discussion about the organization of the state). The type of terror in which the state itself organizes the murders of its own citizens can also be placed under ideological - nationalist motives. The lack in the social fabric of well-founded and therefore reasonable counter-argumentation to doctrines based on prejudices is one of the biggest sore points in contemporary society (colonial capitalism). Partly due to the lack of expertise and position of the responsible services. Filling these shortcomings is a key point for solving the problem (WWIII) in the long term. In a parliamentary democracy, logical dialogues should lead to one well-defined final model. Although the normal functioning of the democratic process is thwarted, these negotiations can theoretically be simulated. The result is the elaborated version of the Organic Holan. (ref: Koestler + Nada). The problem with terrorism is that the perpetrator(s) usually only become known as a terrorist when he or she commits the terrorist act, often when it is too late. Beforehand, she or he is innocent until proven guilty. This problem is the cause of the paranoia among security services, which according to their responsibility and good intentions, can actually do little concretely, except optimize their organization, which emphasizes their former incompetence, and spy on citizens under legal standards. This is mainly because neutralizing the motivation, which in the long term gives rise to the terrorist act, falls under the responsibility of the politicians. It is inadmissible to adjust our legal model with regard to the question of guilt, as it is essential that guilt is proven before man imposes punishment on his fellow man. - Now it comes, apparently no one dares to say this. The announcement of the international jihad that several imams have called for is indeed a religious issue and therefore not ideological. The argumentation (of several imams, who also act as judges of their religious community), which I fail to provide here, is mainly based on a logical analytical criticism of the PAGE 2

international law and case law. This means that if the law is not applied to, for example, Israel, and others are obliged to comply with international law, the survival of an entire religious community is jeopardized. Genocide cannot be tolerated. The fact that these agreements were drawn up, among other things, to avoid violence and war only emphasizes the need to implement them. If these laws to which the various Nations have agreed are violated, these countries should have the righteousness to communicate the annulment of this right to their people, or, those countries which do not cooperate as required, to close down and impose economic sanctions. This is causally the result of their obstruction, as international law is also the basis for international action and the associated prerequisite, namely legal certainty. - Now, the argumentation of those Imams, among others, gives rise to acts of terror, because they, on their responsibility, guarantee that the sin of this act or acts (terror), as it were, will be remitted, as they state that these acts are committed against "the guilty" are not sinful. In other words that military law becomes applicable as a result of a provocation. Now, this argumentative can (theoretically) be undone in three ways, by: a- To organize our society differently, in respect for orthodoxy and international law. b- To allow geographical zones where coexistence can be organized on a different basis. c. Ask the imams concerned to withdraw their fatwa. (which is no longer possible because they have been liquidated by the Americans) - Del.R.A. as an example. Although there is clearly a religious component to this conflict that remains unresolved, colonialism is primarily ideologically motivated by nationalists. - Ockham says you could define everything under one heading. 7.The 1% is trying to convince you that WWIII will start when some major powers will start firing nuclear bombs at each other (or by other devious mechanisms to distract you from the truth). To clarify: Frequent use of nuclear bombs means the end of man on earth. An unexpected event like the one mentioned above can therefore better be captured under a different concept than WWIII. Because the end of humanity would also mean the end of war. Under that condition, WWIII would be more of a moment, and therefore not a war, since the definition of war involves at least two warring parties and a longer period of time. Moreover, if the use of atomic weapons were necessary to speak of a world war, then WW1 would never have happened.

8.Another line of reasoning that punctures the intrigue of the 1% goes as follows: If, according to the elite, it is the use of atomic bombs that defines the beginning of WWIII, which they claim is about to happen... then WWIII starts just as WWII ended (August 1945), and theoretically speaking, WWIII is already underway. No. In short. The definition of WWIII as used in some mainstream media is completely inconsistent and cannot be logically justified as a consistent sequence following WWI and WWII. A rhetorical trick is classically applied here, which equates the definition of one word (an apocalypse) with the content of the other concept (WWIII), as if they were synonyms, with the intention of thus distorting the pure concept of WWIII. Just as an aside, reducing the definition of WWIII to an imminent nuclear war really doesn't make sense. From a scientific point of view it is best to follow my definition. World War III as the anomaly of humanity, can be clearly analyzed along the political fault line: World Government vs Individual. 9. Ergo; In those cases the army is permanent and structurally operative in the public domain and/or semi-public domain; military law applies. Military law may apply in cases of emergency. (e.g. Existential threat to the state) May the situation of emergency be activated; then it is impossible - within democratic consensus - to organize elections. 10. Another interesting fact! If you have never served in the army, under this circumstance - in addition to the civil law that has expired - you do not have to answer to the military courts at all. Natural law as defined, among others, by de Groot Hugo (Grotius) then applies to you! 11. Further. If military law comes into force, which happens from the moment that soldiers are permanently active in the (semi-) public domain, which is in concrete terms the case (for Belgium), you as an "ordinary" citizen should not forget that this, among other things, This means that the ownership rights to, for example, your houses, cars, land, etc., lapse. This partly explains the half-hearted attitude of our governments. You can imagine that this knowledge could cost the traditional parties quite a few votes. The current result is that in many countries that belong to the U.S.A. military support through thick and thin, the emergency situation applies, without giving too much explanation and without telling you that WWIII is underway. 12. Chronological classification of the historical development of war: Vendetta or tribal war - Armies in alliance (see, among others, WWI and WW2) - The Third World War. Typical: a. Cold War: . War for knowledge .Economic war b. Guerrilla

[xtrablak674]

But Is It Vanity?

[This is my job right here, to get the children to think about the things they say and the assumptions they make. And to do it in a way that isn't humiliating, shameful or generally off-putting. I do think its the one quality as an Uncle, Titi, Titi or not-parent that I am very good at, if I do say so myself.]

M: You have a high opinion of yourself and your appearance. That is a big sign of vanity, especially your worth. Vanity refers to appearance, opinion and self worth. You have large amounts of pride in all of those. Dressing nice isn’t a sign of vanity, talking about it and showing it off is.

A person that dresses like you but doesn’t take photos or never brings it up would not be considered vain. Your extensive photos can count as showing off. It’s not a bad thing to be vain. You have a high opinion of yourself. Good for you, be confident!

T: Buenos tardes sobrino, you're analysis is very curious to me, because I'm un-partnered, all my parents are dead, and I don't have children of my own. So, who is necessarily supposed to document my existence, or the fact that I was even here? Now do I share photos with maybe less than six people, its probably like five, yes I do.

Let me tell you where I don't share photos anymore, not on Facebook, I shut that down. I've used Instagram stories to post my different looks in the past, but I'm not doing that anymore. I'm not really here to perform for folks or allow them to live vicariously through me. #LiveYourOwnLife

I dress nicely because I like to look nice, I could actually go without sharing the photos because I'm documenting myself primarily for myself, because at the end of the day I don't think anyone really cares.

If there's no documentation, did it really happen? Did I exist, did I leave a mark, did my life have value? Is thats self-absorbed, or vain, or full of myself, to want to be remembered or recalled, or is that human?

M: I don’t view you as self absorbed or anything nasty like that. You’re handsome and you’re happy with that, which I think is awesome. I’m sorry if I came off as rude, to myself the term vain isn’t something negative, as so I just viewed it as a trait like any other. The documentation of yourself is fair, at the end of the day I know very little of whom you communicate with or what so I could only comment on how it came off from my perspective.

T: Which is fair.

I used to broadcast wider, but that no longer felt authentic, many of those folks couldn't care less if I took another breath. And those who were vicariously living through my life were also leeches in my opinion, so I cut them off. Now I share with less than five folks, those rare moments when I actually leave the house.

I also share with my microblog, with its three followers, which will be my personal eulogy about my life in my own words after I am gone, well for as long as Tumblr is online which may be less than ten years, you never know.

I remember being jealous of this girlfriend who always had photographers around her documenting her life and accomplishments and I said to myself, I will be my own historian documenting my own life, because no one else is. No one may ultimately look or care, but maybe one image may survive beyond me, and maybe it will bring a smile to someone, or inspire them to become their own fashion icon.

I am a pariah in my life, the last one left behind with few still alive who are even concerned about my well-being. Documenting good moments is a way to say, hey I still matter, and I have something to offer even if no one is partaking. I find happiness in the unadulterated celebration of myself. #💌

M: That was really well written. Thank you for sharing that with me Titi❤️

Sometimes the young people forget that their elders have as much below the surface life as they do, we are full human beings with depth, doubts and concerns about our mortality. Approaching the challenge with love is all we can do in reminding them or teaching them who we are.

[Photo by Brown Estate]

[bookofmirth]

I haven't read ACOSF yet, and tbh I'm rather rusty with the characters but it was really interesting to read your opinion on Elain! I feel there's a lot of complexity to her. And how she presents herself as well because as you said we literally have no chapters from hers or Lucien's POV and I think that's the important point to note because right now we're all just guessing and assuming her to be like Feyre, but she's not. People deal/show their traumas in different way and l think people expect Elain to deal with it as Feyre did. But, Feyres trauma and Elains are very different!

I don't really know what I'm saying. But I read your answer and it made me go 'oh... Huh!' in a good way, it sparked my curiosity! So thank you! But I think Elain perhaps is the most complex person with their trauma. I know people say 'oh Nesta is so different' but (I specialised in drama therapy so I love psycho analysis) and what Nesta did is self destructive to prevent relationships to avoid hurt or more emotions that she doesn't want to acknowledge (in my opinion!)

Elain just shuts down. She doesn't drink, she doesn't screw, she just remains in her garden which in itself says a lot! That's a very grounding way to handle trauma and not a lot of people are aware of that side!

So yeah I don't know what I'm saying but I think it's a really interesting discussion!

I have so many thoughts about Elain! This took me a few days to get to because i knew I had a crapton of thoughts. So this is basically me using this ask to explain the way I see Elain post-acosf!

There are three important scenes in acosf off the top of my head: when Elain talks with Nesta and they fight, and then with Nesta and Feyre and she gets mad and leaves, and then Feyre and Rhys talk about her in their chapter. We’re getting a lot more information about her, and for me, it wasn’t so much about who she is, but why we don’t know who she is.

So far, what we’ve had is Feyre’s and Nesta’s POV. Even when Feyre and Lucien tried to help her in acowar, they were unable. So we’ve never had anything about Elain from someone who didn’t grow up with her and experience the same trauma (such as becoming destitute, their mother’s death, their father being beaten, the Cauldron, etc.)

The sisters do handle it very, very differently. And I think that at this point the fandom consensus is that Elain runs away from her problems, but I actually disagree, and partly because of what you mentioned - that she isn’t using those self-harming, destructive coping mechanisms. Nesta was avoiding her problems, hardcore. It’s absolutely possible that Elain avoids things, but I don’t think that she just runs from all of her problems because:

Elain grieves her father. Openly. She tries to accept the fact that it wasn’t her fault and that she couldn’t do anything about it. (See: her going to his grave in acofas, her first talk with Nesta in acosf.) Elain does not run from her grief, she doesn’t pretend it doesn’t exist, and she doesn’t hide it from others. As one of the most defining events we’ve seen her go through in the series, that’s a pretty big deal.

Elain does not cling to unhealthy coping mechanisms. There could be ways that she does this that we are unaware of. She does seem like the type who would be really, really good at making people think she’s okay, all while she’s silently imploding. But we don’t know that yet?

Elain does not isolate herself. 

However, Elain definitely needs to deal with some stuff! She definitely needs to deal with Lucien, and she needs to have an actual talk with Nesta because I don’t remember a single satisfying resolution between those two in acosf. Not like Nesta had with Feyre. 

I have this idea that is purely based on Elain’s line in acosf:

“I went into the Cauldron, too, you know. And it captured me. And yet somehow, all you think of is what my trauma did to you.” (pg. 233)

And then Feyre tells Nesta that yes, Elain was right. 

This is so so so sossosososos important. I cannot emphasize it enough. Elain is used to putting on a fake, smiling face because she doesn’t want the weight of her sisters’ concern. She has been pretending to cope for so long - and tbf, she seems to have been doing better than Nesta - that people not only forget that she has suffered, but she doesn’t feel like she can even express that suffering.

Emotional labor often means negating one’s own feelings in order to acknowledge or tend to someone else’s. And that is Elain’s major role, in the series. Feyre has been caring for everyone’s physical wellbeing (hunting), while Elain’s role has been to care for everyone’s emotional wellbeing. But, like with most emotional labor, it has gone unnoticed.

I’ve made posts about emotional labor in the past (four years ago!!!!) but I’m gonna spare you the link because a lot of it was about a ship that’s no longer a ship, so here is the relevant content:

What I am talking about is the regulation of emotion - any time that you give comfort, are especially attentive to someone’s needs, stop thinking about how you feel in order to focus on how someone else feels, try to cheer someone up, make sure that they are taking care of themselves, try to allay their insecurities, etc. Basically, helping them with any sort of emotional distress.

You know those posts you’ve seen, about women protecting men’s egos constantly? Or about making time for self-care? Or about recognizing toxic relationships? That tell you “if X is being demanded of you in a relationship, get out”? Those are ALL about emotional labor, broadly speaking. They are warning you not to do more than you can handle, more than you need to do, because it can be harmful to you.

If you have ever been expected to make a person or people feel better any time you are around each other (including when they are angry, upset, anxious, ill, frustrated, insecure, etc.), you have performed emotional labor. Pretty much everyone has done this at some point, unless you are a completely insensitive jerk.

Notice, though, that I said expected to and any time you are around them – this is where the problem comes in for YOU. This is not about just being there for a friend.

Making loved ones feel better is fantastic. Seeing people be polite and kind to one another makes my heart shine. That is not a problem in and of itself. That can be seen as emotional labor, but there are no requirements on you in those circumstances. This is something you are doing of your own free will.

The problem, again, is when this is expected, constantly, over time. Now, in my experience, the expectation is not necessarily coming from the other person. One of the problems with this type of labor is that not only do others expect women to perform these tasks, but women expect it of themselves.

It’s super easy to see this – who is expected to take care of a child when they fall? Who is expected to baby-sit? Who did you want when you were sick as a child, mom or dad? Who is expected to be sensitive and pay attention to others’ emotions?

For more info on this idea specifically, read Of Woman Born by Adrienne Rich. As a woman, I realized how much work I had been performing and how much it was harming me and I just… got real upset. She comes at this mostly from what a woman’s role is expected to be within the family, and might actually be a bit outdated in that respect because I feel like family structures and dynamics are shifting (that is a totally un-academic evaluation of the situation, don’t quote me on that), but still, it’s really informative.

While I was doing some research for this post I came across a peer-reviewed article about nursing and basically, high amounts of emotional labor led to anxiety and burn-out in those performing it. It literally will cost your mental health – not to mention your time, energy, attention, and it often requires you to ignore your own needs (this last part came from me, not the article). On the other hand, high levels of emotional intelligence (being able to recognize your own and others’ emotional states) meant less emotional labor (and therefore less anxiety & burn-out). One of the most important things to realize is that while you are taking care of someone else’s emotional needs, your own are frequently unmet. That is why it’s important to recognize this in yourself, not just in these characters.

So where does Elain fit in? Elain is the #1 emotional labor provider of the family, and she is about to freaking SNAP. I know, because once I realized how my trauma was hidden in order to spare someone else its consequences, I fucking SNAPPEd. I’ll also spare you the personal details, but Elain hasn’t been “okay”. She hasn’t been “boring”, or “nice”, or “chosen” Feyre over Nesta. She has literally been unable to express herself because (and I am NOT blaming Nesta or Feyre or her father one bit) her family’s emotional state has been so fragile, there hasn’t been room for Elain to feel or express her emotions in years. 

In the feysand short, Rhys says:

I wonder if everyone has spent so long assuming Elain is sweet and innocent that she felt she had to be that way or else she’d disappoint you all.

And that completely tracks. Everyone has gotten used to Elain being not just “nice”, but being the emotionally predictable one. The one they know they can go to for a smile. The one they can count on for never, ever making them realize that she has been through Some Shit Too. And being that person is exhausting.

When Feyre thinks about Elain not using Lucien’s gloves, 1) she still has them, otherwise she couldn’t think about Elain not using them, and 2) I like to see the gloves as something that she will come to use, once she realizes that she can feel and express those emotions without it causing a breakdown in the family. Right now, she just wants to feel. And she can’t do that emotionally, so she’s doing it physically. Once she heals and finds a better balance, she won’t need to resort to physical pain. (Which, lowkey has me thinking some other thoughts, but.... maybe later.) But anyway, once Elain does go through her very own special journey, I fully expect her to welcome those gloves. She won’t need physical pain to feel anymore.

Not to mention my completely unacademic and non-professional opinion that people will judge a nice women harshly for being rude once, but accept a woman with a history of rudeness for just “being that way”. It’s another way that Elain may feel trapped in her “nice girl” persona. I think she started out that way - kindness and light and generosity is 100% in Elain’s character in the first place. It’s not as if she went into the Court of Nightmares and suddenly Cassian thought, “wait, she fits right in to this shithole of depravity”. No, he still thought the literal opposite. It’s just that once people get used to you doing all their emotional labor, they will continue to take advantage of it, even if they don’t realize its cost.

[call4party]

Tips For Organizing The Best Corporate Events

Corporate event management entails maximising the value of each event by bringing people together in memorable ways on behalf of a company. From start to finish, an event organization company takes care of every tiny (and major!) detail to guarantee that the event provides the best return on investment for their firm.

Today, we'll look at how the finest corporate event management make their events come to life, as well as some of the top corporate event management ideas.

Take a look at some of the best corporate event management advice.

Make a multi-year reservation for the venue.

Try to book your venue as soon as possible and sign a multi-year contract. It can not only make some of your theme decisions easier and make it easier to bring back vendors who worked out last week, but it can also save you money by guaranteeing the venue a large amount of revenue up front.

Connect on LinkedIn to keep your digital rolodex full.

You can put together a group playbook that you can perform time and time again once you've found exceptional providers. Make connections with corporate event management who work in venues, design event swag, manage catering, assist with AV, are familiar with outstanding musicians, have exceptional event furnishings, and so on. The greatest way to meet these people is through your existing network's suggestions. Check out folks you share connections with, and if necessary, ask your initial connection if they'd recommend working with the new person.

For small gatherings, send invitations at least three weeks in advance.

Notify guests of the date a year in advance for large events, especially B2B events. When you offer them three weeks' notice, it's long enough to ensure that they aren't already booked, but short enough to ensure that they don't completely forget about your event. If it's a holiday or you know your chosen date will be in high demand, send your event invitation a few months in advance.

When it comes to major B2B events, it's even more vital to pick a date months in advance, if not a year. This is due to the fact that firms often have extensive procurement cycles, and employees' travel and education budgets can take several months to be approved.

Include an easy-to-read RSVP.

People these days are busier than ever, so making it simple to RSVP is crucial. Especially since you'll need a precise visitor count to make budget judgments. Include one-click button calls-to-action in your emails, and include a pre-addressed and stamped envelope if you're mailing invites. As mobile phone usage continues to rise, you might want to consider allowing individuals to text you a YES or NO response.

Include impact evaluation in your sponsorship packages.

Treat your sponsors as though they're worth their weight in gold! In addition to receiving feedback after the show, provide your sponsors a report detailing the influence they had at your event ahead of time. Help them track and capture leads at the show, demonstrate brand awareness growth by reporting any social media coverage they received, interview some show attendees for quotes about the sponsors and include them in the analysis report you send them, and share post-event survey responses that are relevant to your sponsors in the analysis report you send them. A professional event organization company can take good care of it.

Have a contingency plan in place for your "must-haves." You'll probably have to resort to Plan B more often than not. Make a list of your event's five most important aspects. Then, if something goes wrong with one of those factors, make a backup plan ahead of time for how you'll react on the fly. While the precise situation may not occur, it should help you relax and practise problem solving rapidly.

[gefiltefishwhereareweonthis]

Hi! I read your analysis of the political situation in Poland and I wanted to ask you: since Poland has lived under communism, could you maybe paint a picture of pros and cons of that for our Bernie-bros "friends"?! Because I don't think they ever read a description of an actual socialist or communist regime (not the manifesto, but an actual historical, real life representation). Thank you so much in advance and please take your time with the answer, doesn't have to be today, no rush

Pros… well they weren’t many, but cons were! this is gonna be a very long post. 

Pos��

1. Everybody had a job. Everybody. If you were an adult wandering down the streets during the work hours, the police had the right to stop you and ask why you aren’t at work. The fact that there was basically no unemployment, gave people the financial security they needed. The fact that due to the shortage of products people were unable to spend their money in a way they wanted is another story. 

2. Everything was state owned, (that actually also classifies as a con, but I’ll get to that later), so institutions like universities too. That implied that you didn’t have to pay to go to uni and actually that allowed to even out the chances for people from the rural areas to climb the social ladder. The motion that universities should be free of tuition fees prevailed to this day. Some time ago, the government was thinking about introducing tuition fees for the most popular and prestigious faculties, like law or medicine but the idea received so much backslash that the government retracted from introducing them, which is I think fair in a way, since I pay taxes that go to sustain roads and prisons, I don’t mind that some of the amount goes to unis. In fact, I’d pay even more if I knew that more of my tax money were allocated to unis. 

3. Things like universal health care were a given. Everybody had the access to a hospital or a doctor and that notion is very deeply rooted in the society to this day. The outcome is that today in Poland, nobody dies because they can’t afford health care or medicine. Some of the meds are even refunded by the state now. 

Cons. 

1. Everybody had a job. That means, that people were forcefully employed even if their job position was not necessarily lucrative or contributing to the finances of the company. So it resulted in people going to work and doing nothing for 8 hours, standing around the whole day, or drinking on the job. Yes. You didn’t have to have any qualifications to get a job, so when the system changed those unqualified people who were not able to land a job, because suddenly the state owned companies where they worked collapsed and they didn’t even have any real skills needed in a new economic system.

2. Everything was state owned. So, everything was either over-funded and they were wasting money or underfunded and they were not developing the branches that should be developed in order for the country to thrive. This brings us to the third point of the…

3. …centrally planned economy. And that implied a few things: First, the lack of the financial discipline within the companies - that negligence actually left us with huge debts. At some point, to give the economy a kick, we had to borrow money from the Western countries, which we didn’t pay off until 2012 (SIC!). What is more, people running the companies were thinking along the lines of “the state will give me money anyway, so why should I care about optimizing the production to save some, right?”. Then, a centrally planned economy makes the economic system not flexible and adaptable to the changing factors, but still we mostly exported to USSR, which was also a centrally planned economy back then, so those guys could work things out between themselves if the production levels needed to be adjusted. Another effect of this, was the fading away of entrepreneurship as people were actually unable to set up their own companies with their own capital, that’s why when we transitioned in 1989, some “businessmen” even when they set up their own companies, actually did a very poor job of managing their companies, because they were not used to functioning in an open market economy with the state that actually requires you to pay taxes. 

4. The lack of a sense of responsibility for a country as a shared good or value in its own right. It was always someone else’s responsibility, so I could vandalize the bus stop, because it didn’t belong to me. It was state owned. I didn’t  have to care about not throwing litter to the ground because why should I care about a space that I share with other citizens? For example, facilities like sewage plant didn’t even existed, the whole country was just dumping their waste into the rivers, because who would think about the environment??  This country was not ours anyway, so… That approach actually transposed to this day, and while there are more and more people who feel that shared responsibility, and we definitely have more sewage plants now, there are still many ,many people who think that they don’t have to care, because for many many years it was like that, and that left them with the sense of powerlessness that does not necessarily motivate them to do something for the community they live in and change their lives for the better. or idk, manifest their need for change by going to the polls for example? 

5. When we were under the communist rule, we were under the wings of USSR and while we did not succumb fully to them, still their presence in Poland was palpable. For example, most of the produced goods were exported to Russia so at some point the shops looked like that: 

and people were living off the food stamps, like these: 

These are the food stamps for meat. In the middle, you have the space to fill in your name and address, but that didn’t really mean that you’d get the meat if you went to the shop. Because it simply wasn’t delivered to the shop or if it was you had to queue for long hours with no guarantee that  they had enough and when you finally make it to the counter, you’d get your portion: 

This is actually a pic of a queue to the shop with alcoholic beverages, but it’s just to get you an idea of how long the queues were. Fun fact: people queued for days, for example my mum was taking shifts with her mum and her sister while my grandpa was at work. Sometimes people queued because the rumor had it that they would deliver “something” to the shop. Oftentimes, people didn’t know what that “something” was, but there was such a huge shortage of goods that they queued anyway because they could later sell it or exchange it for something else. 

Another mechanism of the same vain functioned:

Now, people working in the companies that were producing goods at some point started to create the second “black market” meaning that they would “bring” some of the goods produced in their companies home, to either exchange it for something else or sell it on the black market. A lot of luxury goods like meat for example or a tv set, were sold under the counter illegally. If you had an aunt who had her own farm in the countryside, you were able to make a lot of money on selling meat and eggs alone, as such basic products were on shortage. Same when you owned a shop. For example if you owned a shop, and let’s say 4 tv sets were delivered from the production line, you put 2 on the counter and 2 under the counter to sell it on the black market, for example to your aunt or a friend of a friend who “ordered” it from you.  These were very strange times, there was apparently a huge shortage of all the goods, and yet people had all the stuff they needed at home. Pretty neat, yeah? Well, apart from the toilet paper, but that was sometimes just not being produced. AT ALL. 

Everybody was doing it and everybody knew that everyone else were doing it. Tell me, how a system that allows stealing the state owned goods is good for a society as a whole and useful in building the sense of respect towards the state institutions? People back then were thinking “well, the government is screwing us over, so why should we feel bad about us screwing the government over, too?”. It is visible to this day, when you still hear people of the oldest generation whining about paying taxes and generally contributing to the society as a whole. They think that the government is crap, and nothing’s gonna change anyway, so why should they care, why should they go vote… They still have their heads in the 80ties. 

6. Lack of personal freedom, freedom of speech and well, being basically fed with propaganda from all places. We had Russian spies of KGB working in Poland, some people, in exchange of some goods or connections, colluded with the communist government and were spying on their neighbors and ratting on them to the government, if they thought that there was a chance that somebody could be a oppositionist.  That really helps to build social trusts, doesn’t it? You could be thrown in jail and beaten to death for thinking differently. Well, Orwell really did a great job at explaining the communist mechanisms in his book ‘1984′. Sure, he paints an exaggerated picture, but the whole notion of The Party being always right and being very vehement about people who dared to say no, while oppressing people in the name of a mission to fulfill, which was constantly fulled by propaganda, and painting the reality in bright colors though the reality was so much different, is right on point. To this day, people are really distrusting towards each other, especially people who grew up in the communist times. Sayings like “You can count? Count on yourself” are still prevalent in the public discourse. What is more, you could not leave a country without the government knowing about it. Your passport was closed in a drawer in the governmental office, so if you wanted to go abroad you’d have to ask to have it, and still you could only travel within the borders of the Eastern Block.Things like vacations in Paris? It was very hard to get a permission to leave just like that, so many people just stayed in their own country - that created the xenophobia - in order to discourage people from fleeing or going away (because they didn’t really want to see people realize how screwed they are), they fed people with propaganda saying that the other countries are bad and that communism is superior, but people knew how bad they have it and that everywhere else, especially in the western countries, people’s lives are better, so the government, in order to retain people  did everything possible to make people stay, ergo they made it extra hard for people to move around. At some point, they allowed people to go to Bulgaria on vacations and this was for many, the only chance to go abroad. (Bulgaria was a communist country, too back then). 

7. They were elections held, but the candidates were elected by the Party so, it didn’t matter on who you voted, things would not change anyway. Some people think it’s the same under democracy, so that’s why the turnout for the elections in Poland is so low. 

Pretty crazy, isn’t it? And it is just my common knowledge I acquired by talking to my parents and grandparents, and I’m pretty sure, it’s actually the tip of an iceberg and, have I investigated the matter further, I’d be able to give you even more crazy, inconceivable now for a citizen of a democratic country, details. Actually, I’ve recently bought a book entitled “Women, Communism and Industrialization in the post-war Poland” and once I’ve read it, I’ll probably add more to this post.