#as the basis for their argument because it's not representative and often an example of the most vocal not being the most reflective

[mariacallous]

[pastorfutureletthembe]

Down into the VORTEX: the Curve Theory

I mentioned the Curve theory in a meta before but I wanted to dive even deeper into the fuckery of it.

I'll remind you what I call a Curve so you're all up to speed (cf: Rick and Morty):

The curve basically walls off the infinite number of universes, in which INSERT CANONICAL NODE happens, from the rest of the infinite multiverse. A model often used to explain is that the definition of a Finite Curve has no set parameters; it's just wholly random and infinite therefore can be represented as a repeating, immeasurable shape modeled with a circle. A Finite Curve would then present a finite collection of dimensions.

How is it relevant to Link Click? Well, I'm glad you asked.

I argued in the past that cakes on promotional artworks could represent curves and each curve would have hypothetically 12 repeats to offer. This is a conclusion I came to after my treasure hunt for the 5th timeline (for which I keep finding daily proofs of, by the way).

For the sake of understanding exactly how it can apply to Link Click lore, let me walk you through the basis.

Rick&Morty season 6 // Link Click BREAK! PV Note: I'm using this analogy because it is the most accurate way to bring you where I want.

By the way, we kinda already saw what resembles a curve according to the LCverse

BREAK!

If you count the circles, you'll find that five different rings turn around Saturn in BREAK! PV.

This being established, since the purpose of a Curve is to put a set of timelines sharing the same parameters together, I will argue the LINK here is a canonical unchangeable node. You guessed it:

Cheng Xiaoshi's death.

But honeslty, I don't believe that CXS is supposed to die in every possible universe - and for the sake of the argument, let's assume he isn't.

Actually, when we see flashes of him dying in LG's arms, my first thought was the first one to change the timeline and die doing it was probably CXS; that's why LG freaked out when his friend took a shot for Qiao Ling.

But let's review LG's side of everything first, shall we?

LG used up 4 pictures to save his friend

LG's ultimate goal is to save Cheng Xiaoshi's life and he failed four times. Death is supposed to be an unchangeable node and LG knows that by trying to keep it from happening, he will destroy time itself. Does he care? (/rethorical)

We know little about his previous dives, except that either he never made it this far or Li Tianchen and Li Tianxi weren't part of the timelines he knew. And, CXS died in his arms at some point, giving him access to his Back In Time power, alike what happened between Li Tianxi and Qiao Ling.

Here are some theories about them though:

If the Live Action reveals itself to be canon, it could be the Prime Timeline for Lu Guang. (We'll know for sure by the end of the month, I guess.)

In the Manhua, LG is protective and affectionate around CXS, in a very melancolic way. I'm not kidding, he's so soft it hurts.

The Daily Life in Lightime happens in another timeline and we can actually point out the moment Lu Guang dives in.

This time around, LG went and met CXS earlier than in the original timeline. (//Live Action)

It could be a coincidence that Lu Guang's character is more and more bored as we go through these examples. Keep an open mind here.

Lu Guang from the LCLA has dark hair but the promotional poster show one photograph of him with white hair. Why? There are so many jokes on LG's age in the donghua but mostly: he is so frail and remains in a sitting position if he can help it. Just like in Dive Back In Time, where he's the only one not standing. The man is exhausted. I'm just saying, perhaps his white hair isn't supposed to be white and the fact we see him with dark hair only in LCLA, played by a man of flesh, could be THE clue hidden in plain sight that this version is the original.

Note: I purposefully didn't include the musical here. The repetition of the media itself is quite interesting. Every performance is unique but the script itself is the same. It could very well be a curve on its own. Just a idea, nothing consistent.

What tells us LG isn't at his first dive is the music! Now, I won't go too deep into it because I really want to craft ONE post about this particular topic. Dive Back in Time and VORTEX are the most obvious because most of us probably never skip the intro, aaaand we get it: they are doomed by the narrative.

So yeah, this is basically why I call those "chances":

Overthink

3 more to go

Qiao Ling's birthday // Dive Back In Time

If you pay attention to the titlescreen, you'll notice free spaces in the center of the circle. By the end of the opening, one is filled, hinting that this picture has been used.

There are other winks on the number 3:

Cause I'm about to lose my- Cause I'm about to lose my- Cause I'm about to lose my mind >> Dive Back in Time When my friend are holding hands, heading into abyss I ran my lungs out so I wouldn't have missed But I missed, I missed, I missed >> Keep in Mind So what's that sound sound sound Spinning all night long long long Temperature goes down down down Got my mind feelin' drown drown drown >> The Tides

Let's assume that there are three chances left at the begining of the show. We still don't know when the inner monologue at the end of season 2 happens on the timeline, but LG mentioned his "last chance" to save CXS. The synopsis for Yingdu Chapter announced CXS died, as if it was common knowlegde (I love them for their audacity).

Are those the three last chances? To be continued.

The One True Curve

All these timelines happened inside the same Curve. Now, why do I think there ARE other curves to begin with when we already had to work so hard to get this far?

The camera isn't the same depending on who, Lu Guang or Cheng Xiaoshi, is taking the picture. The reflection changing is a way to show alternative timelines, which is different from repeats. It is a common visual clue, FOX used this technique to promote their show FRINGE for example (2 different universes crashing into each other).

There are some visuals with several clocks (I'll make a post per PV one day eventually). The first one shows a lot of different broken clocks and two merged ones as the biggest, central. This is our current curve. Our three protagonists and the antagonists are fighting over it; Light against the Shadows, as bilibili's accounts often dub the artworks. This could be our time paradox. On the second screenshot, the word LEAVE is over distorded clocks, fracturing space. Also a hint on several other realities, which have probably been left behind.

Train Trail // XETROVerthink

About that, the Vortex concept can be associated with a way to travel from one curve to another. Lots of science-fiction tvshows use this tool (Star Gate or SLIDERS).

The general idea is that, in the center of another curve the unchangeable node is different: Cheng Xiaoshi is the one trying to save Lu Guang's life.

There is of course, another explanation, just as valid as the Curve Theory: they are repeating this cycle of saving their friend over and over again. Once they run out of repeats, they die and the other go back in time to save them, completely unaware of the repeats; turning the hourglass over once again. The biggest clue for this one is... Well, the hourglass, for obvious reasons.

Link Click BREAK! PV // XETROVerthink

In XETROVerthink, we have LG appearing in the hourglass, probably in a bad shape, drowning perhaps, and CXS is swimming to him to save him; it's his turn. They are both unaware of their predicament.

By the end of BREAK! CXS's hair also turns white. It implies that he, too, went through many repeats to change their fate.

~

That's all folks! Of course I'm not close to other theories. I find the Curve Theory pretty cool. I would like to see them fight to actually get out of this canonical node, and find a place for themselves when they live their best idiots life.

I also have many additional thoughts about all of it: (Edit: you can find the meta here)

Some character presentations also hint at more than five repeats. Five repeats would be the current score for Lu Guang but Cheng Xiaoshi would have a higher number.

Some PVs enlight V for Lu Guang but X for Cheng Xiaoshi.

Some promotional posters or even VORTEX show LG and CXS as each other's reflection, as if separated by glass or water.

I'll will post more about it but 'nough said for now haha

[collegetennisoriginstory]

Calling Hogwarts houses one-dimentional is simply incorrect. The four houses represent the strongest trait of each individual, not that they only have one personality.

Harry is brave but also cunning & resourceful.

Hermione is known as both smart and brave.

Ron always looks out for his friends on top of being brave.

Neville, most notable example, is widely believed that he suits Hufflepuff more but that's not true, because he's brave first and foremost.

You might have beef with JK (I do too, same as many HP fans) but you're just wrong about the one dimension thingy. That ask wants to know ROs' strongest trait but you combine the houses so it's two traits instead of one.

NOTE: I absolutely do not condone Rowling as a person/author/her transphobic stance and the antisemitic caricatures rampant in her works. As for continuing to engage and, in fact, critique the work / the world she has created, while also prefacing deep disagreement and disappointment on her personal views, I feel there is space for this as explanation of why we disagree with a person is always more useful and constructive than simple erasure. See more on this here.

Heya! I totally agree and can get behind the idea that the houses take the strongest trait of an individual.

My main beef(s):

The Hogwarts houses would be much better representations of character if they represented the "why" (WHY is someone brave, why is someone ambitious) instead of the "what"

Another thing—if I were to choose, I'd choose 4 traits that are: (a) as distinguishable from each other as possible, and also (b) when combined, cover most of the major ways of viewing and interacting with the world. I don't think Hogwarts houses adequately meet either of those criteria. For me, the Hogwarts house traits picked are kind of... boring. They do not satisfyingly explain / do justice to the characters. I'd pick other traits. I've tried to explain this under the cut a bit more.

Btw, it's been a while since I've read the books and I was a kid then, so i could be WILDLY wrong and would welcome a discussion about this, I'm a huge personality nerd and I love character analyses, so pleease take this as friendly happy discussion (I'm a G in this sense) rather than an argument :)

Argument 1: Traits picked are iffy and weird

What is Ravenclaw's main defining characteristic, exactly? 😂 Like, alright, the rest I get. But I think the main issue with ALL of Rowling's Ravenclaws feeling like "oh smart nerdy" is because the house itself and how it's defined / the trait that is 'headlining' the house is pretty weak in the first place.

Argument 2: Traits picked get at the "what" but not the "why" and hence are less interesting to me on a character-defining/representation basis

Bravery is often inflected with so many other impulses—are you being brave because you care about your tribe/your loved ones more than your own life? Or are you brave because of your ideals, because forging a 'better world' or the 'greater good' (however you define this) matters more to you than individual lives? The former is very close to the 'sense of loyalty' that so defines Hufflepuff. The latter is very close to the ambition that defines Slytherin.

More on ambition:

Before we start, ambition, or Slytherin's main trait, is defined in my brain as: willingness to sacrifice people/things for what they see to be the 'overarching thing'. Whether we think of the particular person as redeemable or evil is dependent on what the 'overarching thing' is:

Themselves / their own wellbeing = evil

Their loved ones (e.g. like Malfoy) = redeemable, rather gryffindor-ian in nature

An even a bigger dream ('the greater good') = redeemable

Herein lies my beef: the reason behind someone's willingness to sacrifice the 'small' thing for the overarching thing (see above) is more interesting and telling of a person's character to me than the choice to sacrifice the small thing or be ambitious or whatever. Hence, I'd do the sorting by the "why" rather than the resulting action "what/how", if that makes sense. That would better capture some of the nuances that you mentioned in your post re: Harry, Hermione, Ron, and also the Hufflepuffs and Slytherins.

Example using the CT:OS character houses I picked

Rayyan's "Gryfferin"-ness is rooted in a willingness to ruthlessly but also bravely, unflinchingly, sacrifice other things for the things they think matter (e.g. people they love, their dreams etc.) which differs from Tobin's "Gryffinpuff"-ness, where their bravery and loyalty is more outward-facing and expansive.

Rayyan seeks to protect their own, while Tobin seeks to make the entire space / world around them better through their actions).

Contrast this to G's ambition and willingness to sacrifice the 'small detail' for the 'overall/big picture'—G's impulse is more objective, impersonal, abstract (it's based on utilitarian principle) and the desire to seek the best outcome in a very... logical way (hence the inflection of the Ravenclaw), rather than the fiery emotion/subjectivity/loyalty-based nature of Rayyan's willingness to sacrifice 'other things' for what they know to be right/true/important to them.

Hope that provides some elaboration on why I griped about Rowling's houses in my previous post haha, and thanks for the message. The length and detail clearly got out of hand HAHA but more because I'm interested in the question and less because I think you're wrong! :)

[dailyanarchistposts]

The Path Forward

The human rights discourse that has hijacked the political left in recent decades has drawn us away from a framework of liberation and effective action. It is now clear that we must track back from liberal thinking in order to reestablish strategies that disarm and deconstruct power. The moral complicity with Israel’s crimes that is represented by the ICJ’s refusal to order an immediate cease fire forces us to do this. It offers a convincing argument that we all need to break with the current failed system.

On the other hand, reality will not wait for us to figure things out. We cannot simply take our time and wait to take action until we have developed and popularized new narratives and conceptual frameworks. We have to use whatever means are available to us to act right now.

Does the ICJ offer us any tools we can use? the ICJ is considered the highest instance of international law. Although it has no independent enforcement mechanisms aside from the United Nations Security Council, its rulings and case law are considered the bedrock of international law jurisprudence, and they are often incorporated into the rulings of national courts on these matters. Despite having ordered very few measures against Israel or the ongoing genocide being carried out, the court did determine that there is considerable cause to believe that genocide is taking place.

Because the court did not take any real measures against Israel, it should be evident that the responsibility to act falls upon us and our movements. Fortunately, the ruling might also give us some tools to use in the here and now while we are developing new frameworks of liberation. One such example is a recent lawsuit at a California federal court aimed at ordering the US administration to halt military support to Israel. The case was dismissed on the grounds that US foreign policy is outside the court’s jurisdiction, but it did determine that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza on the basis of the ICJ ruling.

The legal case that governments must refrain from complicity in genocide is not unsubstantiated in US law, as well as in many other countries. A Dutch court recently ordered the government of the Netherlands to halt the delivery of parts for F-35 fighter jets that Israel is using to bombard the Gaza Strip. It might be plausible now to force more governments to impose arms embargos, sanctions, or other measures through national courts.

However, such strategies still reduce us to relying on so-called experts; they will not help us build movements. The genocide will not be stopped from within Israeli society. Pressure to do so must come from outside. It is now time for direct action and bottom-up efforts, like community-driven boycotts on Israeli goods, vendors who trade in them, Israeli cultural and propaganda exports, and anything else that feeds into the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement. The blockading of the port of Tacoma or the actions of dock workers around the world who refuse to load Israeli ships and cargo and transport arms to Israel are examples of how we might be able to move forward, building towards a proactive grassroots movement.

We must do everything within our power to stop the genocide that is taking place now, but it is important that we approach doing so as a step towards promoting Palestinian liberation and the dismantling of Israeli settler-colonialism. The portrayal of Palestinians as little more than victims at the mercy of Israeli repression is sometimes well intentioned, but it erases their personhood and agency. While we strive to bring Israel’s war machine to a halt, we must articulate that this is part of the struggle to end Israeli colonialism, and center Palestinians as the protagonists of that story.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Christopher F. Rufo and Jenin Younes

Published: May 4, 2024

What should be done about the turmoil, violence, and explicit antisemitism that have engulfed college campuses over the past months? Political leaders in Washington have reacted to the escalating chaos with an understandable and predictable instinct: do something. 

In this case, the student protests have motivated a bipartisan coalition of legislators in the House of Representatives to compose the Antisemitism Awareness Act. It passed on May 1 with 320 votes (and 91 against). 

The goal of the Act is noble: to prohibit discrimination against Jewish students and employees on campus. As is often the case, however, the impulse to “do something,” even when supported by a bipartisan majority, does not always mean the resulting actions are wise or productive.

We come from two sides of the political spectrum. One of us (Christopher) is a conservative, the other (Jenin) is on the left. We also take very different positions on Israel—one of us believes that Israel deserves America’s support in its fight against Hamas; one of us believes that the denial of Palestinians’ right to self-determination is the primary impediment to peace. But both of us agree that the Antisemitism Awareness Act is profoundly misguided.

First, the main purpose of the legislation is to codify a definition of “antisemitism” as a point of reference for civil rights enforcement on college campuses. Legislators outsourced this definition to a nonprofit, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which defines antisemitic conduct and speech in a broad manner. Under this standard, “claiming the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” and “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel” will be deemed antisemitism. 

It’s important to note, despite the hysteria of many online, that the Antisemitism Awareness Act does not, in itself, criminalize such speech. What it does is instruct bureaucrats to apply what could be, in effect, “hate speech” analysis to civil rights complaints. The Department of Education would gain the authority to withhold funding to institutions of higher education that do not punish violators.

This is a move in the wrong direction. 

Existing laws against trespassing, violence, and property destruction are sufficient to deal with unlawful expressions of antisemitism on campus. And campus codes of conduct, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and ethnicity, cover much else. 

“Hate speech” provisions, on the other hand, are unnecessary, ill-defined, and often in conflict with fundamental First Amendment rights. Contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” in part precisely because of the difficulty defining the term, and also because such determinations are subjective. Under this new legislation, certain phrases and arguments, some of which are subject to reasonable contestation, could be treated as de facto evidence of discriminatory intent. (For example, arguing in favor of a one-state solution to the Israeli-Hamas conflict could be deemed violative on the grounds it denies the Jewish people a right to a state.)

Rather than enacting dubious legislation, the proper approach is to protect the rights of protesters to express their opinions, even when those opinions are abhorrent, while enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit tent encampments, campus disruption, and acts of violence. 

The second problem with the Antisemitism Awareness Act, especially for conservatives and civil libertarians, is that it operates using the same coercive and corrosive principles as DEI. The legislation codifies an ideologically charged definition of antisemitism into law, provides special protections based on group identity, and expands anti-discrimination enforcement to include constitutionally protected speech. 

This is precisely how existing DEI bureaucracies operate on campus, with disastrous results. 

From a political perspective, this legislation is also a failure. While the left has embraced special protections for their favored minorities, it now appears to many that the political right is doing the same, only now for Jewish Americans. Similar bills are passing through numerous state legislatures from New York to Georgia.

Anyone who worries about pitting identity groups against one another, or is repelled at the idea that some Americans deserve more protections than others, should oppose all of this proposed legislation. It violates our country’s most fundamental principles, including the letter and spirit of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee Americans the rights to free speech and equal treatment under the law, regardless of their racial, ethnic, or religious identity.

The only constitutional and moral approach is to establish a single, color-blind standard applicable to all individuals, regardless of their background. Any policies which, by definition, subordinate the individual to the group and suppress our speech will harm our nation in the long run and exacerbate, rather than resolve, racial and ethnic prejudice. 

In this heated moment, we must return to the principles that have made this country exceptional: the rule of law, equality under it, free speech, and the protection of our individual, natural rights.

==

The protestors' speech isn't the problem. It's unsettling and it reveals a dark, ugly, murderous authoritarian streak emanating out of the academy. We should take seriously what they tell us they want to do.

The real problem is action. What these activists have done is already illegal.

https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-penal-code/part-1-of-crimes-and-punishments/title-15-miscellaneous-crimes/chapter-2-of-other-and-miscellaneous-offenses/section-647c-unlawful-obstruction-of-free-movement-of-person-on-street-sidewalk-or-other-public-place

Section 647c - Unlawful obstruction of free movement of person on street, sidewalk, or other public place

Every person who willfully and maliciously obstructs the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk, or other public place or on or in any place open to the public is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Nothing in this section affects the power of a county or a city to regulate conduct upon a street, sidewalk, or other public place or on or in a place open to the public.

So, when you see them getting in the way of, blocking and intimidating people who are entitled to walk around campuses unobstructed, or setting up encampments to illegally take over a property that isn't theirs, that's a crime. Never mind all the vandalism and destruction they've wrought.

The solution isn't new crimes or expanding existing ones. It's actually enforcing the laws we already have, consistently, and without regard to the crocodile tears of fanatics pretending their criminal activities are justified by their higher moral calling. We don't allow that for the (traditionally) religious, so why would we allow it for woke lunatics who are hell-bent on tearing down western civilization?

[clinically-obssessed]

Are Logan & Janus Two Sides of the Same Coin?

In "Dealing With Intrusive Thoughts," it is revealed that Remus is Roman's "dark" counterpart. But who is Janus' "light" counterpart? It is certainly possible that he doesn't have one. But given how much emphasis is put into the symmetry between the "dark" & "light" sides (same number in each, black vs white clothing, etc), as well as the similarities within these groups (the naming conventions, for instance), it seems likely that Janus is somehow connected to one of the others. Following the example of Roman and Remus, both brothers are responsible for creativity, but Roman's creativity is deemed to be good and pure, whereas Remus' creativity is deemed dark and disturbing. Therefore, Janus and his counterpart would likely share the same fundamental trait as well, though their manifestations of it would be different. On this basis, I will argue that Logan and Janus are connected by the trait of reason, and that Janus is a "dark side" because he uses reason in a way that is cynical and self-interested.

First, let us compare Logan and Janus' style of argumentation. Logan typically references scientific studies and concepts, such as the Yerkes-Dodson Curve and the statistic about Christmas decorations that appears in "Putting Others First" to name only a few. This demonstrates his highly empirical world view, and from these empirical observations he draws normative conclusions about what Thomas ought to do. One of Logan's biggest emphases is on Thomas's health, as demonstrated in "Why Do We Get Out Of Bed In The Morning?"

On the other hand, Janus focuses on philosophical arguments, referencing Kant, Stirner, and Nietzsche to make his points. Though Janus is less interested in scientific facts, he still demonstrates logic in his own way, as these philosophers all used rational arguments to support their conclusions (note: whether or not you agree with them, what I mean by "rational" is that they applied the rules of logic to their premises to construct their philosophies). Janus has also been described as representing self-preservation, an aim not too dissimilar to Logan's goal of promoting Thomas' health. After all, Janus explicitly argued in favor of Thomas's mental health in "Putting Others First."

With all of this being said, it is worth noting that the flexibility and ambiguity of philosophy allows Janus to use logic as a tool to suit his needs in the moment. To put it in the words of Renee Descartes, "there is nothing so strange and little believable that it has not been said by one of the philosophers." Furthermore, "Selfishness vs Selflessness" draws attention to the contradictions between Stirner's belief in equality and his racism, suggesting that philosophers are often hypocritical and cannot necessarily be trusted. This is what makes Janus a "dark" side - he too has the capability to reason, but rather than pursuing the noble goal of truth, he uses his powers to manipulate others and further his own ends.

Given this reading, it is significant that in "Selfishness vs Selflessness," Logan is the one to mention Peter Singer, a contemporary philosopher. This further reinforces the hidden similarities between the two. Throughout the entire series, the only other side to use philosophical arguments is Janus, so for Logan to reference a philosopher in support of one of his own arguments suggests that he recognizes a certain logic to them as well (even if it is not his default method of logic). Moreover, Janus' adoption of the more science-based mental health rhetoric in the same episode shows that this parallel goes both ways.

This opens up a new avenue for speculation: who is Patton's "dark" counterpart? There are two possibilities: Virgil and the yet-to-be-revealed Orange Side. I will now discuss the evidence and implications of both:

Virgil: It is undeniable that Virgil and Patton share a unique bond. This can be seen throughout the episodes, and it would feed into the idea that Virgil is Patton's (formerly) "dark" counterpart. The trait that both share in common is feelings - while Patton's feelings are generally quite positive with some negative ones slipping through (see Moving on), Virgil is largely negative with a few positive emotions occasionally showing. However, if Virgil is the "dark" side of Patton, it is not clear what it means for him to have joined the "light" sides or what makes him special in that regard. Perhaps it can be explained as a result of Patton's morality -- he is ultimately who dictates which sides are good or bad, so if he took a personal liking to Virgil, he would see Virgil as good and thus Virgil would "become light."

Orange: Fans have speculated rather plausibly that the orange side will represent rage/anger, which would work well with this theory. This would be another instance of emotions "gone wrong" so to speak, as one emotion that Patton (and by extension Thomas) never seems to show is anger. Anger has a certain capacity for destructiveness, so this could be why the orange side is considered "dark." If orange was Patton's counterpart, this would leave Virgil without any counterpart, suggesting that he occupies an unusual role within Thomas' psyche and is perhaps the sole "neutral" side.

There is, of course, a third possibility: that orange & Virgil are counterparts, and that Patton is the one who is exceptional. Maybe Patton's role as the arbiter of morality means that he occupies a privileged position in Thomas's psyche which cannot easily be inverted (after all, what would be the purpose in a side that makes Thomas evil for no reason?)

Anyway, what do you guys think?

[beardedmrbean]

FIRST ON FOX: A report from the Heritage Foundation shows that homicide rates have been higher in Democrat-run "blue counties" than they have been in "red counties" since 2002 – contradicting a popular talking point recited by prominent liberals like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and billionaire George Soros.

Newsom has publicly stated that "8 of the top 10 murder states are red" while liberal mega-donor Soros wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year that "violent crime in recent years has generally been increasing more quickly in jurisdictions without reform-minded prosecutors" and "murder rates have been rising fastest in some Republican states led by tough-on-crime politicians."

The problem, according to Heritage Foundation’s Kevin Dayaratna, who authored the report along with former research assistant Alexander Gage, is that studies cited by Democrats to make that argument – including a recent study from Third Way titled "The Two-Decade Red State Murder Problem" – use a "flawed" methodology because crime is a local issue and, therefore, crime analysis must be undertaken at the local level.

"It is true that red states have higher homicide rates than blue states, but the problem with this is that crime is a hyper-localized phenomenon," Dayaratna told Fox News Digital. "It doesn't make sense to talk about at the state level. It makes sense to talk about at the local level because that's where the prosecutions occur. The local level crime is handled at the local level by local police, so when you look at this question on a local basis, namely the county level, you'll see that the trend is reversed."

"If you look at the analysis on a state-by-state level, it's 34% higher in red states and blue states, according to the most recent data we analyzed, but then when you look at it as a county-by-county level, it is 60% higher in blue counties than red counties."

The study says that "drawing conclusions from state-level homicide data in such a manner is flawed, as each state consists of a combination of federal, state, county, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as prosecutors with different approaches to law enforcement often based on highly divergent political beliefs."

"Violations of state law are prosecuted largely at the county or city level and, thus, amalgamating data across such units neglects important variation in these different approaches," the study continues.

"Looking at homicide rates by county, states show skewed distributions with many counties having little or no homicides, and a handful of counties with excessively high homicide rates. Thus, state homicide rates can be heavily influenced by a few counties. When those counties have different politics from the rest of the state, it can flip the conclusion about the association between political identifications and homicides."

Dayaratna also told Fox News Digital that Third Way’s conclusion that homicide rates are higher in red states is flawed because it did not update the changes in red states and blue states, in terms of how they shifted in presidential elections over the past 20 years, when compiling the data.

ANDREW CUOMO BLASTS FAR LEFT DEMS FOR BEING SOFT ON CRIME, HARMING MINORITIES THEY CLAIM TO REPRESENT

"Third Way held ‘red’ states and ‘blue’ states constant in terms of how they voted in the 2020 presidential election. This approach is fundamentally flawed because electoral sentiment changed across the time period used for the study," the report states.

"For example, although President Biden won Arizona in 2020, the previous Democrat who won the state was Bill Clinton in 1996. Similarly, Donald Trump won Florida in both 2016 and 2020, despite the fact that Barack Obama had won the state in 2008 and 2012."

Dayaratna said that between 2002 and 2008, there was an 88% higher rate of homicide in blue counties than red counties and between 2014 and 2022 there was a 62% increase.

"It is undoubtable that this blue county murder problem has been persisting for quite some time," Dayaratna told Fox News Digital. "And it is quite disingenuous for the Third Way to just present the data as they did. We analyze it from a variety of perspectives at the Heritage Foundation. And we wanted to make sure we put out the proper story."

Last year, Dayaratna partnered with fellow Heritage scholars Cully Stimson and Zack Smith and released a study showing that of the 30 American cities with the highest murder rates, 27 have Democratic mayors, and at least 14 Soros-backed prosecutors.

A spokesperson for Third Way told Fox News Digital that "data is missing or suppressed for many suburban and rural counties, making a complete county-level analysis impossible. But to test a prevalent narrative, we removed the county containing the largest city from only the red states and we found that even after removing the murders from the biggest cities in red states, red state murder rates were still significantly higher than in blue states, which were given no similar advantage."

In response to not updating the electoral map, the spokesperson said they "chose an approach that categorized states consistently across all 21 years" and that "including electoral changes would only increase red state murder rates."

A spokesperson for Newsom's office told Fox News Digital that Newsom has cited more localized crime studies in the past and pointed to a specific interview where he did so in September. 

[statisticshelpdesk]

5 Simple Steps to Do Time Series Analysis in Python for Homework Help

 Python is considered to be the most widely-used programming language for data analysis because of its simplicity, versatility, and robust libraries. In the 2023 Stack Overflow Developer Survey, Python has occupied the third place with 43% of developers declaring its regular usage. Python’s popularity is not exclusive to developers only, but also students and academicians who find the language equipped with extensive libraries such as Pandas, NumPy and Matplotlib very useful for tasks such as data manipulation, analysis and visualization. Specifically in statistics, the robust capabilities of Python have revolutionized the way time series data (stock prices, weather trends or the spread of a disease) is analyzed to find startling insights. Time series analysis using python has benefit the students not only in upskilling their profile but also in grabbing lucrative jobs as a data analyst. Modern day data analytics courses have incorporated highly demanded python programming as a part of the curriculum. But it is often challenging for students to master python due to other academic pressures and commitment.  This is where Python homework help comes for rescue to extend a helping hand to complete assignments based on time series data.

  Step 1: Understanding the Basics of Time Series Data 

Before diving into the technical aspects, it’s essential to understand what time series data is and why it’s different from other types of data.

Time series data is data which is collected or recorded at regular intervals of time. Such intervals may be in terms of seconds, minutes, hours, days, months or even years. One of the primary properties of time series data is the order of data points, which tells us how these datapoints are changing over a given period.

To illustrate this, let us take the daily closing prices of a stock as an example. Prices recorded at different instances represent its performance at different time points and studying this sequence is an effective way of identifying hidden performance patterns.

  Key Concepts in Time Series Analysis: 

● Trend: The long-term movement in the data.

● Seasonality: The repeating short-term cycle in the data.

● Noise: The random variation in the data.

● Stationarity: A time series whose statistical properties do not change over time.

  Step 2: Loading and Visualizing Time Series Data 

After getting acquainted with the fundamentals, the next logical step is to import your time series data into Python. Pandas’ library is one of the convenient options to load data.

Example: 

import pandas as pd 

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt 

# Load data 

data = pd.readcsv('your_time_series_data.csv', index_col='Date', parse_dates=True) 

# Visualize the data 

plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6)) 

plt.plot(data) 

plt.title('Time Series Data') 

plt.xlabel('Date') 

plt.ylabel('Values') 

plt.show() 

In this example, we load the time series data from a CSV file and set the date column as the index. The parse_dates=True argument ensures that the date column is interpreted as a date object. Visualizing the data is the first step to understanding its structure, identifying trends, and spotting any outliers.

  Step 3: Preprocessing the Data 

Data cleaning and preprocessing is one of the most important steps that must be done before any analysis is done on the data. When working with time series data, it is important to find and handle the cases of missing values, outliers, or irregular time intervals.

  Handling Missing Values:

# Fill missing values using forward fill 

data_filled = data.fillna(method='ffill') 

  Resampling the Data: 

In some cases, the data may not be in the frequency that is required for the analysis. For instance, you may have daily data but you wish to analyze it on a monthly basis.

# Resample data to monthly frequency 

data_monthly = data.resample('M').mean() 

Preprocessing is a critical step in ensuring that your analysis is accurate and reliable. Poorly preprocessed data can lead to wrong conclusions and inaccurate results.

  Step 4: Decomposing the Time Series 

Decomposing a time series involves breaking it down into its fundamental components: trend, seasonality, and residuals (noise). It is useful in understanding the underlying patterns in the data.

from statsmodels.tsa.seasonal import seasonal_decompose 

# Decompose the time series 

decomposition = seasonaldecompose(data_monthly, model='additive') 

decomposition.plot() 

plt.show() 

The seasonal_decompose function from the statsmodels library helps in visualizing the trend, seasonality, and residuals for a time series dataset. This decomposition can be used for subsequent patterns analysis or for application in different forecasting models.

Step 5: Building a Forecasting Model 

The last but the most important operation in time series analysis is the building of a model to forecast future values. Among all the available models the most widely used one for this purpose is the ARIMA (AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average) model.

Example: 

from statsmodels.tsa.arima.model import ARIMA 

# Fit an ARIMA model 

model = ARIMA(data_monthly, order=(5, 1, 0)) 

model_fit = model.fit() 

# Make a forecast 

forecast = model_fit.forecast(steps=10) 

print(forecast) 

In this example, the ARIMA model is used to forecast the next 10 time periods. The order parameter specifies the lag, difference, and moving average terms for the model. Fine-tuning these parameters can improve the accuracy of your forecasts.

Elevate Your Grades with Our Python Homework Help Services 

The Python Homework Help service is precisely tailored to meet your needs and ensure that not only the homework solutions are delivered on time, but also you gain the necessary understanding of the solution through post-delivery doubt clearing sessions. The Python assignment help is not only limited to answering the python problems, but also providing detailed step-by-step self-explanatory solutions, software steps and python codes that enhances your learning experience. Python codes along with comments explain each step of the coding process. Students can follow the software steps and run the python codes on their computer to generate the results.

  Comprehensive Support Across Multiple Software Platforms 

In addition to Python, our team of experts is proficient in a wide range of statistical and data analysis software, including:

 SPSS: Ideal for social sciences and market research.

 Excel: Widely used for data manipulation and visualization.

SAS: Powerful for advanced analytics and predictive modeling.

Eviews: Perfect for time series econometrics.

JMP: User-friendly for interactive data analysis.

Stata: Great for statistical data analysis and visualization.

Jamovi: An open-source alternative for easy statistical analysis.

Rstudio: The go-to for statistical computing and graphics.

Minitab: Simplifies quality improvement and statistical analysis.

  Why Choose Our Services? 

Expert Guidance: All our team members have years of experience in providing students custom assignment help using Python and other statistical software. 

Tailored Solutions: Each work is individual, and our solutions are always aimed at addressing each assignment’s requirements.

Learning-Oriented: We go beyond just solving problems by providing explanations that help you understand the "how" and "why" behind each solution.

Timely Delivery: We understand how important deadlines are in the academic curriculum. Our services are fast and ensures that you never miss your deadline.

Affordable Pricing: Our prices are affordable for every student without compromising on quality parameters.

  Conclusion: Mastering Python for Data Analysis  Learning Python is advantageous for students for analyzing data and using it for data-driven decision-making, especially in time series analysis. However, the pressure to achieve good academic performance often creates an atmosphere of stress and anxiety amongst students. When you engage with our python homework help experts, you do not feel the burden of dealing with challenging python tasks involving advanced concepts and modeling. Besides better grade, you gain practical knowledge that boosts confidence in dealing with similar tasks in the future on your own. If you are having problems with Python or any other software, we stand ready to provide you with all round support. Do not let the academic pressure put you in a state of depression. Grab the benefits out of our services and achieve the best of results!

  Resources for Further Learning: 

"Python for Data Analysis" by Wes McKinney: This book is a great resource for learning data manipulation with Pandas.

"Time Series Analysis with Python" by Ben Auffarth: A comprehensive guide to mastering time series analysis using Python.

  FAQs 

Why should I use Python for Time Series Analysis? 

Python is more suitable for time series analysis because of Pandas, NumPy, and Matplotlib libraries, which simplify the handling of data and visualization. Moreover, the Python programming language is also popular among the user community due to its flexibility and ability to be used by both novice and expert analysts for statistical computation.

How can your Python Homework Help service assist me with my assignments? 

We offer help with your homework in Python, especially in conducting time series analysis through our python homework help service. We don’t just solve your assignments but also provide self-explanatory solutions so that the understanding of the concepts is easy.

What other software support do you offer besides Python? 

Apart from Python, we provide support in statistical and data analysis software like SPSS, Excel, SAS, EViews, JMP, Stata, Jamovi, RStudio, and Minitab. Our tutors are well acquainted with these tools and would be pleased to assist you with any type of assignment, data analysis, or interpretations. 

How do you ensure the quality and accuracy of the solutions provided? 

Our team of experienced professionals pays attention to every detail that goes into developing an assignment to ensure that when completed, it is accurate and relevant. We employ data analysis tools and techniques that aligns with the best practices in the field of data analysis and choose appropriate statistical methods for accurate results.

Can I get help with urgent assignments or last-minute homework? 

Yes, we do provide solutions to assignments having tight deadlines. Our team ensures that the solution is prepared as per the instructions and rubric without any quality deficit. Our team is aware of the role of the due dates in academics and we believe in efficient working and timely completion.

How do I get started with your homework help services? 

Getting started is easy! All you need to do is submit your assignment details on our website www.statisticshelpdesk.com, and our experts will give an estimate of how much it would cost and how long it would take to complete. Once the price is finalized, we shall proceed to work on your assignment and prepare the solution in the time frame agreed.

Are your services affordable for students? 

Absolutely! Students always have a tight budget, and that is why we set reasonable prices for our services while maintaining high quality. We always aim to offer easy to understand solutions and free post delivery support to clarify all the doubts.

[kataraslove]

i’ve never been that big on the main canon ships in media, particularly because so many of them shove the relationship in your face before you get any real chance to decide for yourself on whether you enjoy these two characters in a relationship. before we get any real friendship between the main male and female lead, we’re expected to root for the two to end up together in a relationship. why? because they’re the male and female leads, of course. why else? and this type of mentality among showrunners leads to the creation of two characters that spend a good chunk of their time initially bickering and getting on each other’s nerves, finally developing mutual understanding and some common ground of respect, before the showrunners decide to shove them into a romantic bond somewhere in the midst of that underdeveloped friendship just a couple of episodes later. this causes the pair to go through a nauseating amount of ups and downs that you as the audience have no choice but to suffer alongside with; only for the pairing to finally, finally have resolved all of their tension and bitterness and jealousy by the last episode, and can finally receive their happy ending, with the writers handwaving and pretending that everything was completely fine & healthy with these characters throughout the series run.

having witnessed a good chunk of these types of relationships in media, i tended to stray far from main canon ships. avatar the last airbender, however, truly offered a breath of fresh air. while aang’s crush on katara was introduced as early as the first episode (“oh, i was smiling?”) it never came as a hindrance to their friendship. avatar the last airbender went out of its way to demonstrate to you in careful detail that katara and aang were best friends. they cared about each other, they communicated with one another, they made decisions with each other that not only impacted themselves, but the rest of team avatar, too. they cheered each other on, they helped each other with their shared element, they greatly worried when something happened to the other, often to the point of tears. they protected each other and defended one another. they openly shared hugs and other forms of affection (katara instigating the affection much more than aang). and even in the finale before they shared the kiss that sealed the deal, they have one last hug to represent how friendship will always come first in their relationship.

that is what drew me to katara and aang’s dynamic in ways that no canon ship has ever done prior. as you mentioned, even in their more shippy episodes, the narrative isn’t forcing you to root for kataang. we obviously assess canon and endgame ships on the basis of how convincing their romance is; how romantic did the moments feel to the audience. and we obviously enjoy fanon ships on the basis of their romantic potential. we use scenes of friendship that can be interpreted as romantic when demonstrating the appeal of a fanon ship. but i think avatar the last airbender provides a really good blend of the two within their main canon ship. through katara and aang’s bond, we’re offered an example of how friendship serves so well as a core element in romance. of course, katara and aang didn’t have to develop a romance; they had an excellent friendship as is. but doesn’t their incredible friendship of mutual love, support, and understanding offer a good enough argument as to why they should be in a romantic relationship? and why they work so well?

Honestly even before I shipped Kataang I never felt like the narrative was harassing me to ship Kataang.

I think that speaks volumes.

Yeah, I had the unfortunate luck of watching a bunch of great shows that were made less good because the writers would cross the line between "This is the relationship we are gonna make endgame and this won't change" and "If you don't enjoy this ship and don't want every little thing about the story to suddenly be about it, you're not a real fan."

Avatar The Last Airbender NEVER did that. There are episodes were Kataang is the main focus, episodes where it comes up but isn't front and center, and episodes that have it not come up at all.

I have problems with the way Bryke treats/treated some fans, but at least in the show itself the most they did was a parody episode that, yes, did make fun of things like Zutara. But also made fun of the fact that Zuko says "honor" a lot and his hair is focused on a lot, that Toph was originally going to be a dude, that Azula wears make up and had really long nails in her first episodes in the show, that Katara had a thing for Jet, that Sokka technically dated the moon, that Jet died but Nickelodeon wouldn't let them outright say it, and even that The Great Divide has the reputation of being the worst episode of the series.

It didn't feel like cheap insults against Zutara fans, it was just a recap episode that made fun of EVERY aspect of the show - the fandom included.

[mariacallous]

I put these in the tags of that one post but I'm putting it in the main body of this post:

At this point, I'm skeptical of journalists talking about employment challenges and using media and journalism employment as the basis for their argument because it's not representative. It's often an example of the most vocal not being the most reflective or even relevant.

Are there issues with employment and people getting jobs and retaining jobs? Of course - that's not been eliminated, but we are in historically and incredibly positive employment conditions.

[humanwheatleyslefttoenail]

why do you ship chell and glados if glados is basically her mom

Okay this is actually a pretty common misconception in the fandom that unfortunately a lot of people have taken as canon, but I’m feeling nice so I’ll answer your question.

Basically, anon is referencing a theory from around 2012 that Caroline is Chell’s mom. The evidence for the theory is as follows:

- The turret opera calls Chell “bambina”, which means “little girl” in Italian

- Chell’s name can be found on a Bring Your Daughter To Work Day science project

- GLaDOS references the possibility of Chell being adopted multiple times

- GLaDOS is significantly nicer to Chell after discovering she’s Caroline 

And, anon, you’re right, it does sound like a pretty good argument at first glance. The problem is that a lot of these points don’t actually hold up to scrutiny.

For example, although “bambina” literally translates to “little girl,” it’s often used in the same way “baby girl” is used in English - it can mean child, but contextually it’s usually a flirtatious term. (Source: Cambridge Dictionary)

For Chell’s science project, it doesn’t work as evidence for the theory because GLaDOS killed the scientists around 1998-ish, when Caroline had presumably been uploaded several years earlier and Cave was already dead. Also, Chell’s in her 20′s, and since we know from Lab Rat/Portal 2 that people don’t age in stasis, and that Doug put Chell at the top of the test subject list only weeks after the takeover, Chell was 28 at the time of the takeover. The science project is really only an Easter egg and doesn’t actually fit into the canon timeline let alone prove anything about Caroline and Cave. 

GLaDOS talking about Chell being adopted is a pretty strong point, I’ll admit, but also it’s important to remember that maybe half of what GLaDOS says is true. And even if we take what she says at face value, she also says there’s a man and a woman in stasis with Chell’s last name, which could not have been Cave and Caroline because they were already dead at that point. And the official book Final Hours Of Portal 2 confirms Cave and Caroline were not married and could not have shared the same name anyway. It was also the 50′s, an an unmarried couple of two likely famous people having a child would’ve been scandalous, and yet we see no hint of something like this affecting their company. 

Also, although GLaDOS is nicer to Chell after the Caroline reveal, that’s not necessarily indicative of a mother-daughter relationship, and neither is any of their interactions. It’s just. GLaDOS being friendlier. 

Finally, when this theory was made (and let’s be honest - it still is happening) Chell was constantly whitewashed to hell and back. 

Chell is Japanese-Brazilian, and Cave and Caroline are white, so it would be a near impossibility for her to be their biological child (and insisting otherwise is kinda. just. whitewashing). And although people will cry “adoption!”, based on what I’ve previously proven, that’s pretty much impossible. This theory that somehow she’s Cave and Caroline’s daughter erases an important part of her identity. [Disclaimer, I am white, but this is what I’ve heard from around the fandom]

With all that said, the idea that she’s the daughter of Cave and Caroline really doesn’t hold weight when you really analyze the canon. It’s surface level analysis that doesn’t hold up. And honestly? The idea kinda cheapens the story. It’s much more powerful that GLaDOS learns to care about Chell and becomes kinder than just. Oh, she remembered she’s related to Chell. 

But to actually answer your ask. 

Why do I ship them?

Well, they aren’t mother and daughter, I think that’s pretty obvious now. But if you actually look at a lot of subtext in Portal 2, without the lens of the mother theory, it’s actually pretty romantic! 

I know that sounds ridiculous, but bear with me!

Now - it’s totally okay if you don’t ship them. I get it. Their interactions in Portal 1 and the first half of Portal 2 are toxic if not outright well. Y’know. Murderous. I completely understand why that turns people off from shipping them, and ultimately, shipping is a personal thing. To each his own. 

But before you judge me, let me present my case.

Exhibit A: Portal 

Portal is kinda gay. No, really. Chell and GLaDOS are enemies in this game, but the entire focus is on their relationship (good or not) and the power struggle between them. They are opposites, two sides of the same coin, different representations of opposite ideologies. People have analyzed Portal as a relationship metaphor, or as a metaphor about women’s role in society - either way, the heart of Portal is the complicated dynamic between Chell and GLaDOS. 

That’s not necessarily enough to code a romance, but a lot of popular (and especially popular queer ones) ships begin with opposite ideologies, symbolic powers colliding. Portal cements their relationship as a toxic one, something on the verge of falling apart and hurting both parties in the end. The ending image, of Chell and GLaDOS side by side after the battle, reinforces the symbolic parallels between the two. 

The companion cube is also pretty symbolically important to this interpretation. It’s literally a representation of someone’s heart, and you are told to protect it and preserve it under GLaDOS’ orders, and then you have to destroy it regardless of how you actually feel about doing that. You are destroying GLaDOS’ heart, so to speak. 

There’s also the ending song, Still Alive. The lyrics speak for themselves.

They hint that GLaDOS’ feelings about Chell are more complicated than they may appear (if she’s not being sarcastic...) and she literally talks about Chell breaking her heart (also, think back to the companion cube. Yeah.). The entire song is structurally similar to many a breakup number, with the laments of “I’m glad it happened, but also leave.” 

At the end, we also see that the long promised cake GLaDOS was supposedly lying about was real the whole time. Before Portal 2 came out, it was mostly interpreted as a stinger ending (along with the nicer lyrics of Still Alive) to make you question GLaDOS’ true motives and intentions.

She actually did have a real cake waiting for you. (Side note - not really evidence, but in Argentina, “torta” means cake in Spanish. It’s also a slang term for lesbians. So. Do with that what you will). The cake is what GLaDOS offers you to lull you into the sense that she cares about you, so discovering that “the cake is a lie” wakes you up to the realization that she doesn’t. Except then the idea is subverted one last time, at the very end, showing that the cake is real and at least some of what she said she meant. 

You also see the companion cube. You know, GLaDOS’ symbolic heart?

Now, okay, you might be thinking I’m extrapolating a bit too much. And you might be right. But Portal is not the only game in the series, and if you’re asking me about Cave and Caroline you obviously know about Portal 2.

Exhibit B: Portal 2

If you thought Portal was gay, Portal 2 turns that up to 11.

Even before GLaDOS wakes up, you’re treated to some visual subtext. A few of Rattmann’s drawings representing the events of Portal 2 focus a lot on the relationship between GLaDOS and Chell, with more of the cake symbolism.

In this, you can see a face layered on top of GLaDOS. This could be foreshadowing about Caroline, and likely is, but also resembles his other drawing of Chell. It insists that Chell is a part of GLaDOS, or reinforces parallels between Chell and Caroline, hinting at something either way. 

In this picture, we also see Chell standing on top of GLaDOS, in the same position where the overlay of the feminine face was, again referencing the parallel. It also presents them as opposites, fundamental parts of the same thing and both connected to the same basis, but on opposing sides. 

When GLaDOS wakes up, she returns to her antagonistic role, but there are more hints to something deeper just like in Portal. 

Here, in her awakening lines, she references Chell not unlike an estranged ex. Also worth noting that GLaDOS is pretty much the personification of testing (in a sense, she is testing since she can control all of Aperture like an extension of her body), and insinuates that Chell loves to test. And that she reciprocates that feeling.

In test chamber 10, she says this:

It’s supposed to be threatening, but it does read as almost... sentimental. 

There’s also another chamber with companion cubes in Portal 2. I already talked about their symbolism in Portal, and the same pretty much applies to them here. However, GLaDOS says something interesting about them during this level:

Once again, meant to be intimidating, ends up coming off as “well, GLaDOS, why were you going to give Chell a heart shaped representation of yourself that says ‘I love you?’” And you might think I’m stretching the GLaDOS’ heart metaphor thing a little far here, and I might agree, if the companion cubes didn’t literally sing Cara Mia for you. 

Cara Mia is the turret opera from the end of the game, which is all about how much GLaDOS cares about Chell. More on that later. But the companion cubes play a song called Love as A Construct, and when you get close to them, they sing a specific part of the song that has the tune of Cara Mia. These things literally exist to sing about GLaDOS’ feelings. 

Which makes this line a lot more. For lack of a better term. Tsundere-ish.

Then, right before the escape, she starts talking about the confetti from her fake surprise. 

I really don’t have to explain this one. What else does GLaDOS consider an inconvenience but might miss anyway? Or, more aptly, who else?

Then, during the escape, she teases a (fake) final test chamber in front of you, and forms the panels in the shape of a heart. No, really. 

Up to this point, a lot of the points I’ve presented are interspersed with a fair amount of antagonization on GLaDOS’ behalf, more Foe Yay than anything actually hinting at something deeper than GLaDOS being conflicted about whether she loves or hates Chell. But things really ramp up after Wheatley’s betrayal, when the two of them are forced to team up. (I should also note here that “enemies to lovers” is a pretty classic queer romance trope.)

Here, GLaDOS is put on an equal level with Chell and they have to rely on each other if they want to survive. For the rest of the singleplayer campaign, GLaDOS becomes a lot nicer and even friendly to Chell. There comes a point where she starts referring to Chell as a teammate, calling them “we.” She begins to consider them one unit, two opposites unified. Here’s what she says after the lemon rant:

You can not only see her using we, but actively talking about how her and Chell are going to fight Wheatley together. There’s also that last line - “let’s explode with some dignity.” GLaDOS has fully accepted the very likely possibility that she and Chell might die together. That she might die on the same level, and the same team as Chell. And she seems... surprisingly okay with that, as long as she and Chell go together. 

It’s during the Old Aperture levels that Chell and GLaDOS also discover that they have a lot in common. This is the part of the game where GLaDOS figures out she’s Caroline, that she’s human. Or, that she’s like Chell. And Chell discovers (from what we can tell anyway) that Caroline is kind, that she’s funny and smart and so many of these things she never noticed about GLaDOS before. Now also with the knowledge she is fighting alongside another human being. 

You can also draw parallels between Chell and Caroline, both intelligent women ultimately betrayed by their seemingly innocuous male friends before being trapped in Aperture and forced to team up with one another in a way that will free both of them. We see that really, GLaDOS isn’t that different from Chell - she too has been imprisoned in this place against her will, but in a completely different way. Once again, the idea of two sides of the same coin applies here. 

I’ve written another meta about this before, but I also think the whole idea of repressing a part of your identity and hating it, before bonding with another woman and then realizing that it’s okay to be like her and to be on her side. It’s okay to be yourself and meeting her is what helps you discover this new part of yourself. Is kinda inherently gay. GLaDOS’ discovery of her own humanity just fits so well into a queer realization narrative, to me at least.

Then, Chell and GLaDOS escape Old Aperture and have to get through Wheatley’s tests. 

Here, GLaDOS isn’t just begrudgingly on Chell’s team. She’s actively helpful. She wants to help Chell solve tests, defends her from Wheatley’s insults, and makes jokes to lighten the mood. Things that can really only be explained by her caring about Chell, especially the part about the insults. See below.

After the two escape Wheatley’s testing track, right before the boss fight GLaDOS has a few other things to say.

GLaDOS is not going to betray Chell, because of some kind of conscience. But she could easily ignore that back in her body, and yet? Here she’s deciding not to, and for no good reason. She didn’t have to say that to Chell, but she did, because she cares and she wants Chell to live.

And then, moments before the fight:

The final lines imply that GLaDOS does not think of Chell as an enemy anymore, and that it doesn’t matter what Chell thinks because they are in this together and they are getting revenge together. It’s pretty heartwarming to be honest, to know that even in a fight that will almost certainly kill you, she is there rooting for you and caring about you, even if you don’t feel the same way about her. It no longer matters to GLaDOS whether you even reciprocate - you staying alive, you making it through is enough for her.

So Chell fights Wheatley and sends him into space, all well and good, and at this point, GLaDOS has the option to kill Chell. But not only does she not, she actively saves Chell, and holds her hand in the process. If you don’t believe me:

And not only that, but when Chell goes unconscious from her injuries, GLaDOS sits and waits for her to wake up. It’s also implied that GLaDOS carries her to the elevator, since it’s where she wakes up but not where she passed out. In the scene where Chell blacks out, you can also hear the part of Love As A Construct that sounds like Cara Mia. Yeah. Yeah.

If you think that this cannot possibly get any gayer, you are wrong again, because then GLaDOS makes her final speech. Which is really just a love confession, let’s be honest.

The “surge of emotion?” Do you mean love, GLaDOS? And the idea of GLaDOS considering Chell her best friend, despite everything these two have done to each other? The idea that GLaDOS, out of all people, forgives someone?

Except this isn’t even Chell’s final send-off. GLaDOS writes her an entire opera of turrets, that sing a literal love song. (Note what I said earlier about the use of the word “bambina”).

It really can’t get any more obvious than that. “My (affectionate romantic term here), my dear, I adore you.” How. Is. That. Heterosexual. In. Any. Way.

So Chell goes to the surface, set free by GLaDOS (think of the saying “if you love something, set it free), and you think that’s the end. Until GLaDOS gives you a companion cube so you aren’t alone on the journey, and from the burn marks, you know it’s your first companion cube. Her original heart, her first gift to you, a piece of her that she wants you to carry with you to remind you that she does care about you after everything. It also gives the lyrics to Still Alive a much more genuine meaning. 

Portal 2 ends, and then the ending song, another GLaDOS number plays. Just like Still Alive, Want You Gone is structurally a break up song and very obviously about GLaDOS missing Chell and “counting on” (read: caring about/loving) Chell’s tendencies and quirks. 

She’s accepted Chell completely, and yet also given Chell the one thing she wants most. Only wanting Chell gone can mean GLaDOS not wanting Chell in her life anymore, but can also mean she wants to give Chell the freedom she’s wanted for so, so long. It’s the best thing she can give.

In the co-op campaign, GLaDOS also references still caring about Chell.

And that’s the end of the Portal series. Except. Brace yourself. Despite the games being over, there is STILL more subtext somehow. It gets. Even gayer.

Exhibit C: Supplemental Evidence

Valve has made a lot of extra/cut content for the Portal series, and I’ll be looking at some of it below.

This official valentine from Valve shows GLaDOS offering a romantic partner cake, which as we’ve established before, is very symbolic of GLaDOS’ feelings about and/or relationship with Chell. 

There’s a lot of other concept art and official art that emphasizes their relationship too. See below.

There’s also some cut GLaDOS lines that are even gayer than the source material and again, sound like confessions or references to a breakup:

The idea of “discovering things about someone”... how much more obvious can it get?

The developers have even confirmed a lot of my commentary on Chell and GLaDOS’ relationship in The Final Hours Of Portal 2. See these quotes from the book/this post:

The devs literally describe it as a romance. They use terms like “cheating,” they wanted to write a romantic duet, JoCo purposefully wrote the endings like love songs. It is literally, blatantly said by the creators of the game that their relationship is interpreted romantically. By the creators of the game. 

And if Word of God confirmation isn’t enough for you, have a song written for a cut alternate ending by GLaDOS’ voice actress, Ellen McClain. The song is literally nothing but GLaDOS talking about caring about Chell, about not wanting her to die/leave GLaDOS alone, about wanting to bake a cake with Chell, about waiting for Chell to wake her up. It’s so genuinely sweet and sad, and really, really romantic in the most heartwrenching way possible. 

JoCo also came back for the Portal levels in Lego Dimensions, writing one final breakup song for GLaDOS to sing about Chell. It comes off as GLaDOS not wanting to admit she misses Chell even though she obviously does, trying to replace their relationship but failing, and even explicitly forgiving Chell/wanting her to come back.

Also, the “finally I understand,” as if only now GLaDOS understands just how deep her feelings for Chell are... What else can I say?

In Lego Dimensions, GLaDOS also outright rejects anyone who isn’t Chell.

In Conclusion:

Why do I ship Chell and GLaDOS? 

Well, ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether I ship them. 

Because I think it’s glaringly obvious Portal does.

[prokopetz]

I’m not going to deny that the overreach of copyright is a big culprit behind the notion that it’s not “real” art unless you’re writing about totally original characters, but I have to wonder to what degree the countervailing claim that most authors throughout history only wrote about pre-existing characters and rarely or never invented their own characters is the product of overgeneralisation and survivorship bias.

Taking the Arthurian romances as an example, since that’s one I’m familiar with, frequently re-used characters definitely make up the greater part of the surviving corpus. However, there are also a lot of knights who show up in exactly one known source, and while many of them do have conspicuous similarities with better known figures, claiming that they’re really just variants of the same handful of better known characters on that basis often feels like a stretch, particularly when classifying them that way is used to support the assertion that the creation of original characters was exceptional – after all, most original characters today follow the same principle! There’s a point where that argument starts to smell like circular reasoning.

The problem gets worse when you add survivorship into the mix. We’d naturally expect frequently re-used characters to be over-represented in the extant corpus because frequent re-use correlates with popularity, and characters whose stories were more popular are more likely to have left surviving material behind. It’s entirely possible that the authors of the Arthurian romances were inventing OC knights constantly, and we simply don’t know about 95% of them because they never got popular enough for written copies of the stories about them to have survived.

Like, yes, it’s absolutely true that contemporary writers are often forced to write about original characters whether they want to or not thanks to the excesses of modern copyright, but I don’t find the argument that the desire to write about original characters is somehow ahistorical terribly persuasive, is what I mean to say.

[wordsfahan]

hi sorry this is my first time doing discourse on this website and it's also super late where I live but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in if that's okay.

I think, while the specifics are off, @alyanas-little-hideout is right in pointing out that tension. i can't speak about other places but in Canada the massively expanding public education of the 30s 40s and 50s, whose structure formed the basis of the haphazard system we have now, was very much designed with the interests of employers (esp industry) in mind. they were given a seat at the table when writing curriculum! the extent varies between provinces ofc but is broadly true. so there's an employer-interest represented in the design of the system, and you'll regularly hear people (students, parents, and others) talk about how schools should be teaching "life skills" (usually they mean how to do your taxes) or skills that help you get a job. so not literature analysis.

on the other hand, we often also talk about school and education being valuable in itself. that has a longer history than school-as-job-training. if you press educators to defend the system, or ask them what the purpose is, they'll often point to this as an example. I don't think the system is very good at this because, in my experience, kids don't really retain much of the content they're taught. to go back to taxes, people often complain kids don't learn how to do them in school—they do! it's part of the curriculum here! I have gotten into arguments with old high school classmates who insisted we were never taught what compound interest was, except I was in that class with them when we learned! but students just forget. the other problem ofc is that curricula and educators are not very good at keeping up with new findings or talking about things with complexity, so some classes have a lot of bullshit in them (I think history classes are the premier example of this—most of the content is so general and outdated as to be basically false and students don't remember any of it anyway).

I would like to propose a third perspective: k-12 education is a form of advanced daycare. cultural shifts, and increasing legal pressure on child labour, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led to a rising (primarily middle class) concern about youth morality and deviancy. youth became a category increasingly separate from adult, and the latter had to supervise the former. ofc adults have to also work, so school supervises the kids, who cannot anymore be left unsupervised, so that adults can work.

anyway sorry if this post is long. I agree with you that the whole system ends up being very arbitrary and it's hard to come up with ways to make the system better, but that's also compounded by the fact that people (including educators and policymakers) have wildly differing opinions on what the system is supposed to do. is it job training, enrichment, or daycare? who knows. I think it's probably a mix, with different elements emphasized at different times.

idk i am probably coming off as a hater, which isn't really my intention. i mean school kind of sucks, a lot of kids hate school etc etc, but the question of how to do education is a really hard one and i don't think it's obvious how to make it all better (and i think the current system could be a lot worse)

i think the main thrust of my take here is that school is kind of arbitrary - the idea that there's an intelligent design here that determines what kids learn and why seems very untrue, it's all just a grab bag of stuff that doesn't make much sense but tends to work out okayish. and i don't really have my own intelligent design here either so it's kind of an empty criticism

[dingle42069]

I don't rlly like this but I said I'd elaborate so here I am elaborating.

When lies come up in any ST relationship it’s used to drift the characters apart (best example I can think of atm being Jonathan and Nancy in S4 with the whole college thing). It’s a common theme between Mike and El, but the opposite when it comes to Will and Mike. As we know, Will’s honesty is a prominent part of his character, especially in regards to Mike. (Ex: The first one on one interaction we see between Will and Mike being Will telling him the truth about the dice roll that he, Lucas, and Dustin had agreed to not tell Mike about.) Throughout the show they often have meaningful and truthful conversations with each other, either to explain themselves or to ask for forgiveness- or to just be honest about how they feel in that moment. It happens often (S2 basement, S3 garage/rain, S4 bedroom, you get it) But with Mike and El- we never get these conversations. Any time distance has been forced between the two it’s been due to a lie. Hopper lying to Mike about El being alive in S2 and the basis of their whole argument and breakup in S3. And, of course, season 4, in which their whole conflict is, once again, based on lies. Mike goes to Lenora dressed and acting like an entirely different person in order to appear normal and mature in El’s eyes. El lies about her bullying and overall happiness so Mike doesn’t worry or, even worse, begins to think that everyone else is right- that she is different and will no longer want to be with her. Furthering this conflict even more, we have Mike and his inability to say the words I love you. Which, of course, isn’t a lie within itself- but what is are the circumstances under which he finally does say them. 

The whole van scene is about how Mike wants to be needed and Will tells Mike his true feelings disguised as something coming from El. Will’s confessed feelings happen to be exactly what Mike needs to hear. They need each other but there seems to be some kind of miscommunication going on where they target the truth towards the wrong person. Mike hears what he needs, thinking it’s about El. Once again their relationship is tangled up with lies and it does nothing but push the other away (in the eyes of the viewer) and display the lack of romance between the two. Will’s confession is him “ripping off the bandaid” (as we know) and his attempt to push Mike closer to El, furthering the gap between himself and Mike. But Will’s wrong, because this “lie” that he’s just told is going to result in the opposite of his intentions. Why? Because it leads to Mike’s speech in the pizza place, where (how many times can I use the word lie in one analysis) the entire thing is based off of Will’s lie that Mike simply reiterates back to El. His first “I love you” that he’s able to say to her directly is completely built off of a lie- Will’s speech.

All of these occurrences allow the viewer to understand the clear dynamic regarding Mike’s interactions with these two characters. It lets us take note of what each of his relationships represent. Honesty and insincerity, two opposing forces that manifest themselves into the relationships of Michael Middlename Wheeler. Which one forms a stronger bond? 

[dailyanarchistposts]

I.4.7 What will stop producers ignoring consumers?

It is often claimed that without a market producers would ignore the needs of consumers. Without the threat (and fear) of unemployment and destitution and the promise of higher profits, producers would turn out shoddy goods. The holders of this argument point to the example of the Soviet Union which was notorious for terrible goods and a lack of consumer commodities.

Capitalism, in comparison to the old Soviet block, does, to some degree, make the producers accountable to the consumers. If the producer ignores the desires of the consumer then they will loose business to those who do not and be forced, perhaps, out of business (large companies, of course, due to their resources can hold out far longer than smaller ones). Thus we have the carrot (profits) and the stick (fear of poverty) — although, of course, the carrot can be used as a stick against the consumer (no profit, no sale, no matter how much the consumer may need it). Ignoring the obvious objection to this analogy (namely we are human beings, not donkeys!) it does have contain an important point. What will ensure that consumer needs are meet in an anarchist society?

In an Individualist or Mutualist anarchist system, as it is based on a market, producers would be subject to market forces and so have to meet consumers needs. Collectivist-anarchism meets consumer needs in a similar way, as producers would be accountable to consumers by the process of buying and selling between co-operatives. As James Guillaume put it, the workers associations would “deposit their unconsumed commodities in the facilities provided by the [communal] Bank of Exchange … The Bank of Exchange would remit to the producers negotiable vouchers representing the value of their products” (this value “having been established in advance by a contractual agreement between the regional co-operative federations and the various communes”). [“On Building the New Social Order”, pp. 356–79, Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 366] If the goods are not in demand then the producer associations would not be able to sell the product of their labour to the Bank of Exchange (or directly to other syndicates or communes) and so they would adjust their output accordingly. Of course, there are problems with these systems due to their basis in the market (as discussed in section I.1.3), although these problems were recognised by Proudhon who argued for an agro-industrial federation to protect self-management from the negative effects of market forces (as noted in section I.3.5).

While mutualist and collectivist anarchists can argue that producers would respond to consumer needs otherwise they would not get an income, communist-anarchists (as they seek a moneyless society) cannot argue their system would reward producers in this way. So what mechanism exists to ensure that “the wants of all” are, in fact, met? How does anarcho-communism ensure that production becomes “the mere servant of consumption” and “mould itself on the wants of the consumer, not dictate to him conditions”? [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 57] Libertarian communists argue that in a free communist society consumers’ needs would be met. This is because of the decentralised and federal nature of such a society.

So what is the mechanism which makes producers accountable to consumers in a libertarian communist society? Firstly, communes would practice their power of “exit” in the distributive network. If a syndicate was producing sub-standard goods or refusing to change their output in the face of changing consumer needs, then the communal stores would turn to those syndicates which were producing the goods desired. The original syndicates would then be producing for their own stocks, a pointless task and one few, if any, would do. After all, people generally desire their work to have meaning, to be useful. To just work, producing something no-one wanted would be such a demoralising task that few, if any, sane people would do it (under capitalism people put up with spirit destroying work as some income is better than none, such an “incentive” would not exist in a free society).

As can be seen, “exit” would still exist in libertarian communism. However, it could be argued that unresponsive or inefficient syndicates would still exist, exploiting the rest of society by producing rubbish (or goods which are of less than average quality) and consuming the products of other people’s labour, confident that without the fear of poverty and unemployment they can continue to do this indefinitely. Without the market, it is argued, some form of bureaucracy would be required (or develop) which would have the power to punish such syndicates. Thus the state would continue in “libertarian” communism, with the “higher” bodies using coercion against the lower ones to ensure they meet consumer needs or produced enough.

While, at first glance, this appears to be a possible problem on closer inspection it is flawed. This is because anarchism is based not only on “exit” but also “voice”. Unlike capitalism, libertarian communism is based on association and communication. Each syndicate and commune is in free agreement and confederation with all the others. Thus, is a specific syndicate was producing bad goods or not pulling its weight, then those in contact with them would soon realise this. First, those unhappy with a syndicate’s work would appeal to them directly to get their act together. If this did not work, then they would notify their disapproval by refusing to associate with them in the future (i.e. they would use their power of “exit” as well as refusing to provide the syndicate with any goods it requires). They would also let society as a whole know (via the media) as well as contacting consumer groups and co-operatives and the relevant producer and communal confederations which they and the other syndicate are members of, who would, in turn, inform their members of the problems (the relevant confederations could include local and regional communal confederations, the general cross-industry confederation, its own industrial/communal confederation and the confederation of the syndicate not pulling its weight). In today’s society, a similar process of “word of mouth” warnings and recommendations goes on, along with consumer groups and media. Our suggestions here are an extension of this common practice (that this process exists suggests that the price mechanism does not, in fact, provide consumers with all the relevant information they need to make decisions, but this is an aside).

If the syndicate in question, after a certain number of complaints had been lodged against it, still did not change its ways, then it would suffer non-violent direct action. This would involve the boycotting of the syndicate and (perhaps) its local commune (such as denying it products and investment), so resulting in the syndicate being excluded from the benefits of association. The syndicate would face the fact that no one else wanted to associate with it and suffer a drop in the goods coming its way, including consumption products for its members. In effect, a similar process would occur to that of a firm under capitalism that looses its customers and so its income. However, we doubt that a free society would subject any person to the evils of destitution or starvation (as capitalism does). Rather, a bare minimum of goods required for survival would still be available.

In the unlikely event this general boycott did not result in a change of heart, then two options are left available. These are either the break-up of the syndicate and the finding of its members new work places or the giving/selling of the syndicate to its current users (i.e. to exclude them from the society they obviously do not want to be part off). The decision of which option to go for would depend on the importance of the workplace in question and the desires of the syndicates’ members. If the syndicate refused to disband, then option two would be the most logical choice (unless the syndicate controlled a scare resource). The second option would, perhaps, be best as this would drive home the benefits of association as the expelled syndicate would have to survive on its own, subject to survival by selling the product of its labour and would soon return to the fold.

Kropotkin argued in these terms over 100 years ago:

“When a railway company, federated with other companies, fails to fulfil its engagements, when its trains are late and goods lie neglected at the stations, the other companies threaten to cancel the contract, and that threat usually suffices. “It is generally believed … that commerce only keeps to its engagements from fear of lawsuits. Nothing of the sort; nine times in ten the trader who has not kept his word will not appear before a judge … the sole fact of having driven a creditor to bring a lawsuit suffices for the vast majority of merchants to refuse for good to have any dealings with a man who has compelled one of them to go to law. “This being so, why should means that are used today among … traders in the trade, and railway companies in the organisation of transport, not be made use of in a society based on voluntary work?” [The Conquest of Bread, p. 153]

Thus, to ensure producer accountability of production to consumption, no bureaucratic body is required in libertarian communism (or any other form of anarchism). Rather, communication and direct action by those affected by unresponsive producers would be an effective and efficient means of ensuring the accountability of production to consumption.

[liquidstar]

I feel as if many people, myself included, have been having problems with the way “critical thinking” is conducted in fandom circles more and more. Which I’d say is a good thing, because it means we’re thinking critically. But still the issues with the faux-critical mentality and with the way we consume media through that fandom group mentality are incredibly widespread at this point, despite being very flawed, and there are still plenty of people who follow it blindly, ironically.

I sort of felt like I had to examine my personal feelings on it and I ended up writing a whole novel, which I’ll put under the cut, and I do welcome other people’s voices in the matter, because while I’m being as nuanced as I can here I obviously am still writing from personal experience and may overlook some things from my limited perspective. But by and large I think I’ve dissected the phenomena as best I can from what I’ve been seeing going on in fandom circles from a safe but observable distance.

Right off the bat I want to say, I think it's incredibly good and necessary to be critical of media and understand when you should stop consuming it, but that line can be a bit circumstantial sometimes for different people. There are a lot of anime that I used to watch as a teenager that I can’t enjoy anymore, because I got more and more uncomfortable overtime with the sexualization of young characters, partly because as I was getting older I was really starting to realize how big of an issue it was, and I certainly think more critically now than I did when I was 14. Of course I don’t assume everyone who still watches certain series is a pedophile, and I do think there are plenty of fans that understand this. However I still stay away from those circles and that’s a personal choice.

I don’t think a person is morally superior based on where they draw the line and their own boundaries with this type of stuff, what’s more important is your understanding of the problem and response to it. There are series I watch that have a lot of the same issues around sexualization of the young characters in the cast, but they’re relatively toned down and I can still enjoy the aspects of the series I actually like without it feeling as uncomfortable and extreme. Others will not be able to, and their issues with it are legitimate and ones that I still ultimately agree with, but they’re still free to dislike the series for it, after all our stance on the issue itself is the same so why would I resent them for it?

Different people are bound to have different lines they draw for how far certain things can go in media before they’re uncomfortable watching it and it doesn’t make it a moral failing of the person who can put up with more if they’re still capable of understanding why it’s bad to begin with and able to not let it effect them. But I don’t think that sentiment necessarily contradicts the idea that some things really are too far gone for this to apply, the above examples aren’t the same thing as a series centered solely around lolicon ecchi and it doesn’t take a lot of deep analysis to understand why. It’s not about a personal line anymore when it comes to things that are outright propaganda or predatory with harmful ideals woven into the message of the story itself. Critical thinking means knowing the difference between these, and no one can hold your hand through it. And simply slapping “I’m critical of my interests” on your bio isn’t a get out of jail free card, it’s always evident when someone isn’t truly thinking about the impact of the media they consume through the way they consume it.

I think the issue is that when people apply “Critical thinking” they don’t actually analyze the story and its intent, messages, themes, morals, and all that. Instead they approach it completely diegetically, it’s basically the thermian argument, the issue stems from thinking about the story and characters as if they’re real people and judging their actions through that perspective, rather than something from a writer trying to deliver a narrative by using the story and characters as tools. Like how people get upset about characters behaving “problematically” without realizing that it’s an intentional aspect of the story, that the character needs to cause problems for there to be conflict. What they should be looking at instead is what their behavior represents in the real world.

You do not need to apply real-world morals to fictional characters, you need to apply them to the narrative. The story exists in the real world, the characters and events within it do not. Fictional murderers themselves do not hurt anyone, no one is actually dying at their hands, but their actions hold weight in the narrative which itself can harm real people. If the character only murders gay people then it reflects on whatever the themes and messages of the story are, and it’s a major issue if it's framed as if they’re morally justified, or as if this is a noble action. And it’s a huge red flag if people stan this character, even if the story itself actually presents their actions as reprehensible. Or cases where the murderers themselves are some kind of awful stereotype, like Buffalo Bill who presents a violent and dangerous stereotype of trans women, making the character a transmisogynistic caricature (Intentional or otherwise) that has caused a lot of harm to the perception of trans women. When people say “Fiction affects reality” this is what they mean. They do not mean “People will see a pretend bad guy and become bad” they mean “Ideals represented in fiction will be pulled from the real world and reflected back onto it.”

However, stories shouldn’t have to spoon-feed you the lesson as if you’re watching a children’s cartoon, stories often have nuances and you have to actively analyze the themes of it all to understand it’s core messages. Oftentimes it can be intentionally murky and hard to parse especially if the subject matter itself is complicated. But you can’t simply read things on the surface and think you understand everything about them, without understanding the symbolism or subtext you can leave a series like Revolutionary Girl Utena thinking the titular Utena is heterosexual and was only ever in love with her prince. Things won’t always be face-value or clear-cut and you will be forced to come to your own conclusions sometimes too.

That’s why the whole fandom-based groupthink mentality about “critical thinking” doesn’t work, because it’s not critical. It’s simply looking into the crowd, seeing people say a show is problematic, and then dropping it without truly understanding why. It’s performative, consuming the best media isn’t activism and it doesn’t make you a better person. Listening to the voices of people whom the issues directly concerns will help you form an opinion, and to understand the issues from a more knowledgeable perspective beyond your own. All that means nothing if you just sweep it under the rug because you want to look infallible in your morality. That’s not being critical, it’s just being scared to analyze yourself, as well as what you engage with. You just don’t want to think about those things and you’re afraid of being less than perfect so you pretend it never happened.

And though I’m making this post, it’s not mine or anyone else’s job to hold your hand through all this and tell you “Oh this show is okay, but this show isn't, and this book is bad etc etc etc”. Because you actually have to think for yourself, you know, critically. Examples I’ve listed aren’t rules of thumb, they’re just examples and things will vary depending on the story and circumstance. You have to look at shit on a case-by-case basis instead of relying on spotting tropes without thinking about how they’re implemented and what they mean. That’s why it’s analysis, you have to use it to understand what the narrative is communicating to its audience, explicitly or implicitly, intentionally or incidentally, and understand how this reflects the real world and what kind of impact it can have on it. 

A big problem with fandom is it has made interests synonymous with personality traits, as if every series we consume is a core part of our being, and everything we see in it reflects our viewpoints as well. So when people are told that a show they watched is problematic, they react very extremely, because they see it as basically the same thing as saying they themselves are problematic (It’s not). Everyone sees themselves as good people, they don’t want to be bad people, so this scares them and they either start hiding any evidence that they ever liked it, or they double down and start defending it despite all its flaws, often providing those aforementioned thermian arguments (“She dresses that way because of her powers!”).

That’s how you get people who call children’s cartoons “irredeemable media” and people who plaster “fiction=/= reality!” all over their blogs, both are basically trying to save face either by denying that they could ever consume anything problematic or denying that the problematic aspects exist all together. And absolutely no one is actually addressing the core issues anymore, save for those affected by them who pointed them out to begin with, only for their original point to become muffled in the discourse. No one is thinking critically because they’re more concerned with us-vs-them group mentality, both sides try to out-perform the other while the actual issue gets ignored or is used as nothing more than a gacha with no true understanding or sympathy behind it.

One of the other issues that comes from this is the fact that pretty much everyone thinks they’re the only person capable of being critical of their interests. That’s how you get those interactions where one person goes “OK [Media] fan” and another person replies “Bro you literally like [Other Media]”, because both parties think they��re the only ones capable of consuming a problematic piece of media and not becoming problematic themselves, anyone else who enjoys it is clearly incapable of being as big brained as them. It’s understandable because we know ourselves and trust ourselves more than strangers, and I’m not saying there can’t be certain fandoms who’s fans you don’t wanna interact with, but when we presume that we know better than everyone else we stop listening to other people all together. It’s good to trust your own judgement, it’s bad to assume no one else has the capacity to think for themselves either though.

The insistence that all media that you personally like is without moral failing and completely pure comes with the belief that all media that you personally dislike has to be morally bad in some way. As if you can’t just dislike a series because you find it annoying or it just doesn’t appeal to you, it has to be problematic, and you have to justify your dislike of it through that perspective. You have to believe that your view on whatever media it is is the objectively correct one, so you’ll likely pick apart all it’s flaws to prove you’re on the right side, but there’s no analysis of context or intent. Keep in mind this doesn’t necessarily mean those critiques are unfounded or invalid, but in cases like this they’re often skewed in one direction based on personal opinion. It’s just as flawed as ignoring all the faults in the stuff you like, it’s biased and subjective analysis that misses a lot of context in both cases, it’s not a good mindset to have about consuming media. It’s just another result of tying media consumption with identity and personal morals. The faux-critical mentality is an attempt to separate the two in a way that implies they’re a packaged deal to begin with, making it sort of impossible to truly do so in any meaningful way.

As far as I know this whole phenomena started with “Steven Universe Critical” in, like, 2016, and that’s where this mentality around “critical thinking” originated. It started out with just a few people correctly pointing out very legitimate issues with the series, but over time it grew into just a trend where people would make cutesy kin blogs with urls like critical-[character] or [character]crit to go with the fad as it divulged into Nostalgia Critic level critique. Of course there was backlash to this and criticism of the criticism, but no actual conversation to be had. Just people trying to out-do each other by acting as the most virtuous one in the room, and soon enough the fad became a huge echo-chamber that encouraged more and more outrageous takes for every little thing. The series itself was a children’s cartoon so it stands to reason that a lot of the fans were young teens, so this behavior isn’t too surprising and I do believe a lot of them did think they were doing the right thing, especially since it was encouraged. But that doesn’t erase the fact that there were actual real issues and concerns brought up about the series that got treated with very little sympathy and were instead drowning out people’s voices. Though those from a few years back may have grown up since and know better (Hopefully), the mentality stuck around and influenced the norm for how fandoms and fandom people conduct any sort of critique on media. 

That’s a shame to me, because the pedestal people place fandom onto has completely disrupted our perception on how to engage with media in a normal way. Not everything should be consumed with fandom in mind, not everything is a coffee-shop au with no conflict, not everything is a children’s cartoon with the morals spoon-fed to you. Fandom has grown past the years of uncritical praise of a series, it’s much more mainstream now with a lot more voices in it beyond your small community on some forum, and people are allowed to use those voices. Just because it may not be as pleasant for you now because you don’t get to just turn your brain off and ignore all the flaws doesn’t mean you can put on your rose-tinted nostalgia goggles and pretend that fandom is actually all that is good in the world, to the point where you place it above the comfort and safety of others (Oftentimes children). Being uncritical of fandom itself is just as bad as being uncritical of what you consume to begin with. 

At the end of the day it all just boils down to the ability to truly think for yourself but with sympathy and compassion for other people in mind, while also understanding that not everyone will come to the same conclusion as you and people are allowed to resent your interests. That doesn’t necessarily mean they hate you personally, you should be acknowledging the same issues after all. You can’t ignore aspects of it that aren’t convenient to your conclusion, you have to actually be critical and understand the issues to be able to form it. 

I think that all we need is to not rely on fandom to tell us what to do, but still listen to the voices of others, take them into account to form our opinion too, boost their voices instead of drowning them out in the minutiae of internet discourse about which character is too much of an asshole to like. Think about what the characters and story represent non-diegetically instead of treating them like real people and events, rather a story with an intent and message to share through its story and characters, and whatever those reflect from the real world. That’s how fiction affects reality, because it exists in reality and reflects reality through its own lens. The story itself is real, with a real impact on you and many others, so think about the impact and why it all matters. Just… Think. Listen to others but think for yourself, that’s all.