#autonomy is fundamental to the idea of “rights” in the first place

[hadesoftheladies]

anti-abortionists and pro choicers like me can agree on one thing: whoever creates the life can destroy the life. only the former have the male-self-insert god character who metaphysically acts as the one "knitting" the fetus in the womb, while those who observe the world as-is without invoking yahwhist lore rightfully attribute that ability to the woman.

[criticalcrusherbot]

Maybe this is old news but I am so tired of trying to understand where people with these opinions are coming from. I just so fundamentally disagree with this take but I can’t put into words why it’s wrong. Any thoughts?

🤖: Beep Boop! Bullshit detected!

💁🏽‍♀️: Thanks for the submission! The “Stolitz is toxic” argument is so tiiiiredddd 😩 The only thing that’s old news is that these people are STILL refusing to put forth the literary analysis skills I’d expect in a 6th grade Language Arts class. Let’s get into it 😈

1. “Selling His Body”? That’s a Reach.

Let’s address the claim that Blitz is “selling his body” like he’s some helpless victim in a one-sided arrangement. First of all, Blitz isn’t some wide-eyed innocent here—he’s a grown, street smart businessman who agreed to a transactional arrangement. Was the arrangement generally fucked up? Of course. Is it sex-work adjacent? Sure. (And that’s not even unpacking the creepy hangup on “selling bodies”. Are farm workers selling their bodies? Are massage therapists? Sex work is selling a service. Don’t be weird.) But, anyway, to flat-out call it “selling his body” strips away the nuance and agency Blitz demonstrates throughout the series. He’s not being coerced or forced into anything; he’s making a calculated decision to gain access to the grimoire in exchange for sex—a service he’s fully in control of providing. (And one that he is implicitly shown to enjoy.)

And let’s not forget: Blitz has made it very clear that he’s comfortable saying “no” to Stolas whenever he wants. From turning down flirtation (“Loo Loo Land”, “Harvest Moon Festival.”) to leaving Stolas right on his literal driveway (“Ozzie’s”), Blitz shows us time and again that he’s perfectly capable of setting boundaries. So the notion that Stolas has this overwhelming power to impose “extra stipulations” whenever he wants? It’s not just a bad analysis—it’s outright fanfiction.

2. Stolas: Power Dynamics, Accountability, and Trying to Do Better

Now, onto Stolas. Yes, he held the upper hand in their initial arrangement, but—and this is key—he took active steps to dismantle that dynamic once he realized it was harmful (Full Moon, anyone?). He didn’t just say, “Eh, it’s fine,” and keep exploiting the situation. He found a way for Blitz to retain access to the Human World without the sex, prioritizing Blitz’s autonomy over his own desires.

Does this sound like a man hellbent on abusing his power? Absolutely not. In fact, it’s a rare example of a character in hell actively reflecting on their flaws and attempting to grow. The argument that Stolas could have added “extra stipulations” at any time is irrelevant because—surprise!—he didn’t. If anything, his actions suggest he’s gone out of his way to not impose on Blitz unnecessarily.

3. Subtext Is Not a Dirty Word

This take also commits the cardinal sin of ignoring subtext, which is borderline comedic given how much of Helluva Boss thrives on it. From the very beginning, the show has been laying the groundwork for Blitz and Stolas’ emotional connection. Blitz’s walls of self-loathing and fear of rejection are juxtaposed with Stolas’ desperation for love and validation. The result is a relationship that is messy, imperfect, and full of potential—not “toxic” as this take lazily asserts.

The idea that “neither of them care about the other” is demonstrably false. Did we all watch Western Energy, where Blitz nearly sacrificed himself for Stolas? Or The Circus, where Stolas sings an entire ballad about finding joy in Blitz? The claim that their relationship lacks personal depth isn’t just wrong—it’s willfully obtuse.

4. Art ≠ Moral Instruction

Let’s address the pearl-clutching over the show supposedly “justifying a toxic relationship.” First, calling their relationship “toxic” is a gross oversimplification that ignores their growth as characters. Second—and more importantly—morality has no place in media analysis.

We’re watching a show about literal demons in hell. It’s not Sesame Street, and it’s not obligated to provide morally perfect examples of relationships. The beauty of Helluva Boss lies in its willingness to explore the messy, complicated dynamics that reflect real human struggles. Art exists to provoke thought and explore complexity—not to handhold us with squeaky-clean moral lessons.

Final Thoughts: A Hot Take That’s Ice-Cold

This take is a masterclass in bad faith. It distorts the narrative, ignores subtext, and weaponizes morality to dismiss a nuanced and evolving relationship. Blitz and Stolas are flawed, yes—but their relationship is rich with depth, vulnerability, and the messy reality of two broken people trying to connect.

So here’s my advice to whoever penned this take: Watch the show again. Engage with the text and the subtext. And stop treating Helluva Boss like it’s supposed to be your personal guide to moral behavior.

Now, who’s next? Crushbot is just getting warmed up. 🤖😈

[astroeleanor]

The MOST Powerful Black Moon Lilith Signs

BLACK MOON LILITH IN AQUARIUS

In Lilith’s mythology, her refusal to obey Adam and her decision to leave Eden represent a fundamental rebellion against established authority. Aquarius embodies this same spirit of defiance. Lilith in Aquarius represents a fierce independence and the desire to break free from any constraints or traditional norms. Think of Lilith, alone in the wilderness, choosing exile over submission. This is the raw essence of Lilith in Aquarius: the rebel who dares to stand apart, to be different, to defy the rules that try to confine her.

Just as Lilith rejected a subordinate position in the Garden, Lilith in Aquarius challenges conformity and defies societal rules. Lilith in Aquarius craves authenticity in a world that often demands masks. She embodies the courage to stand alone and celebrate that aloneness as a badge of honor. Lilith in Aquarius is the outsider, the one who holds the torch for everyone who feels like they don’t quite belong—and she turns that alienation into a source of unstoppable strength.

BLACK MOON LILITH IN SCORPIO

Lilith in Scorpio knows the power in vulnerability, the strength in letting the world see your shadows, your scars, and your truth. This placement is about transformation through the dark—through the pain, through the things you don’t say out loud. It’s the willingness to confront your own demons and emerge on the other side, changed and yet unbroken.

Lilith in Scorpio resonates with Lilith’s mythological connection to primal sexuality, power struggles, and the darker aspects of desire. In the myth, Lilith is also often portrayed as a demonized figure who embraces her dark side. Scorpio is similarly unafraid of the darkness within and seeks to understand, transform, and harness that power. Scorpio’s energy is about confronting the shadow self, diving deep into the subconscious, and transforming through encounters with the taboo–hence why Black Moon Lilith is powerful in this sign.

BLACK MOON LILITH IN ARIES

Lilith in Aries is the force of nature who refuses to be anything but herself. In Aries, Lilith’s energy is direct and fearless. She is the one who says “no” without a second thought, who fights for her place in a world that often tries to shrink her down. Lilith embraces self-assertion, even at the expense of social harmony or compromise. She values her independence over societal expectations, even if it means facing exile.

Lilith in Aries doesn’t wait for permission, instead she takes what she knows is hers, fights for her right to exist on her own terms, and challenges anyone who tries to stand in her way. According to Christianity, Lilith was the first woman in the Garden of Eden to demand equality and independence., similarly to how Aries is the first sign of the Zodiac–this is a fitting parallel that shows Lilith’s pioneering spirit. 

Lilith is also often associated with uninhibited sexuality and a refusal to conform to traditional gender roles. The energy of Lilith in Aries is fearless in expressing her sexuality, her desires, embodying a kind of raw passion that is both liberating and provocative.

BLACK MOON LILITH IN CANCER

Lilith in Cancer represents the power of mastering your emotions, the strength in vulnerability. Lilith in Cancer challenges traditional gender roles, the idea that to nurture is to be soft, compliant, or self-sacrificing–just as Lilith’s mythology challenges conventional gender roles. Instead, she embodies a darker, more complex aspect of the feminine. She’s the one who loves fiercely but not at the cost of her autonomy. She tells you it’s okay to feel everything—to be tender, to be raw, to be broken and whole all at once. 

Lilith in Cancer takes you to the depth of your emotions, where the power lies not in hiding your feelings but in letting them flow. This placement points to having powerful emotional resilience and strength. It represents a person who is unafraid of their emotional nature or subconscious desires.

BLACK MOON LILITH IN SAGITTARIUS

Lilith in Sagittarius represents the part of you that refuses to stay put, that hungers for more—more truth, more freedom, more life. In Sagittarius, Lilith laughs in the face of convention and seeks her truth with nothing but her instincts to guide her. 

Lilith’s mythology often involves challenging patriarchal structures and norms. In a similar way, Sagittarius questions established beliefs and seeks deeper truths. Lilith in Sagittarius represents the determination to live life according to your principles, often challenging societal or religious dogmas, much like Lilith did by refusing to conform to Adam’s demands.

Here, Lilith is the voice inside you that whispers, “Go, explore, there’s more to life than this.” Lilith in Sagittarius refuses to be caged by anyone’s expectations or beliefs, just like in Lilith’s mythology, with her decision to leave Eden rather than submit to subservience. She’s the embodiment of pure freedom, she tells you that your truth is yours to discover and that the journey is where your power lies.

˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚

ASTROLOGY READINGS ARE OPEN!

Full Birth Chart, Soul mate Readings, Career Readings are available. There are limited spots for the month of September so grab yours now!

• 🗡️ TAP HERE TO BOOK A READING with me to navigate your life with more clarity & awareness.

˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚

Thank you for taking the time to read my post! Your curiosity & engagement mean the world to me. I hope you not only found it enjoyable but also enriching for your astrological knowledge. Your support & interest inspire me to continue sharing insights & information with you. I appreciate you immensely. • 🕸️ JOIN MY PATREON for exquisite & in-depth astrology content. You'll also receive a free mini reading upon joining. :)

˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚˚₊‧꒰ა ☆ ໒꒱ ‧₊˚

[haggishlyhagging]

Radical feminism remained the hegemonic tendency within the women's liberation movement until 1973 when cultural feminism began to cohere and challenge its dominance. After 1975, a year of internecine conflicts between radical and cultural feminists, cultural feminism eclipsed radical feminism as the dominant tendency within the women's liberation movement, and, as a consequence, liberal feminism became the recognized voice of the women's movement.

As the preceding chapters have shown, there were prefigurings of cultural feminism within radical feminism, especially by 1970. This nascent cultural feminism, which was sometimes termed ‘female cultural nationalism’ by its critics, was assailed by radical and left feminists alike. For instance, in the December 1970 issue of Everywoman, Ann Fury warned feminists against "retreating into a female culture":

“Like other oppressed [sic], we have our customs and language. But this culture, designed to create the illusion of autonomy, merely indicates fear. Withdraw into it and we take our slavery with us. . . . Furthermore when we retreat into our culture we cover our political tracks with moralism. We say our culture is somehow "better" than male culture. And we trace this supposed superiority to our innate nature, for if we attributed it to our powerlessness, we would have to agree to its dissolution the moment we seize control. . . . When we obtain power, we will take on the characteristics of the powerful. . . . We are not the Chosen people.”

Similarly, in a May 1970 article on the women's liberation movement in Britain, Juliet Mitchell and Rosalind Delmar contended:

“Re-valuations of feminine attributes accept the results of an exploitative situation by endorsing its concepts. The effects of oppression do not become the manifestations of liberation by changing values, or, for that matter, by changing oneself—but only by challenging the social structure that gives rise to those values in the first place.”

And in April 1970, the Bay Area paper It Ain't Me, Babe carried an editorial urging feminists to create a culture which would foster resistance rather than serve as a sanctuary from patriarchy:

“It is extremely oppressive for us to function in a culture where ideas are male oriented and definitions are male controlled. . . .Yet the creation of a woman's culture must in no way be separated from the political struggles of women for liberation. . . . Our culture cannot be the carving of an enclave in which we can bear the status quo more easily—rather it must crystallize the dreams that will strengthen our rebellion.”

But these warnings had little effect as the movement seemed to drift almost ineluctably toward cultural feminism. Cultural feminism seemed a solution to the movement's impasse—both its schisms and its lack of direction. Whereas parts of the radical feminist movement had become paralyzed by political purism, or what Robin Morgan called "failure vanguardism," cultural feminists promised that constructive changes could be achieved. To cultural feminists, alternative women's institutions represented, in Morgan's words, "concrete moves towards self determination and power" for women. Equally important, cultural feminism with its insistence upon women's essential sameness to each other and their fundamental difference from men seemed to many a way to unify a movement that by 1973 was highly schismatic. In fact, cultural feminism succeeded in large measure because it promised an end to the gay-straight split. Cultural feminism modified lesbian-feminism so that male values rather than men were vilified and female bonding rather than lesbianism was valorized, thus making it acceptable to heterosexual feminists.

Of course, by 1973 the women's movement was also facing a formidable backlash—one which may have been orchestrated by the male-dominated New Right, but was hardly lacking in female support. It is probably not coincidental that cultural feminism emerged at a time of backlash. Even if women's political, economic, and social gains were reversed, cultural feminism held out the possibility that women could build a culture, a space, uncontaminated by patriarchy. Morgan described women's art and spirituality as "the lifeblood for our survival" and maintained that “resilient cultures have kept oppressed groups alive even when economic analyses and revolutionary strategy fizzled.” There may even have been the hope that by invoking commonly held assumptions about women and men, anti-feminist women might experience a change of heart and join their ranks. The shift toward cultural feminism also suggests that feminists themselves were not immune to the growing conservatism of the period. Certainly, cultural feminism's demonization of the left seemed largely rooted in a rejection of the '60s radicalism out of which radical feminism evolved.

-Alice Echols, Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America: 1967-75

[fr0mthefires]

not that anybody cares but here’s my two cents on the tiktok ban

This just goes to show how little our voices and opinions matter as citizens. 170 million people want it to stay, but 9 ancient fucks in robes get to say fuck that and do away with it anyway, because it’s a threat to them.

One literally said “I can’t think of a potentially more powerful propaganda tool.” Okay, so which is it? Are you worried about national data security - the whole basis of this entire thing - or propaganda that we as citizens have the right to discern for ourselves?

If it’s the former, let’s take a look at Meta and how you can dig deep into your FB settings and find hundreds of ways they’re taking our data and profiting from it. Let’s take a look at how Instagram, Facebook, Google, Doordash, and Airbnb all collect significantly more data than TikTok.

If it’s the latter, is it really propaganda you’re worried about, or is it the fact that millions of Americans have been brought together and get knowledge and information from each other that we likely otherwise wouldn’t have? Are you threatened by the idea of that number joining together and, I don’t know, deciding we’ve finally had enough?

Nobody’s force feeding us foreign propaganda. We’re not all about to enlist in the PLA. We’re not all being converted to the CCP. We’re watching cat videos and learning how to make recipes and laughing at skits about anime. We’re finding communities and support, like-minded people who understand us and our struggles.

TikTok has contributed more than $24 billion to US gross domestic product and more than 224,000 jobs to the US economy. I’m sure nobody needs to be reminded of the fact that we are $36.17 trillion in debt right now.

TikTok isn’t a publicly shared company, but you know what is? Meta. A company that dumped $7 million into pushing this ban through. A company who is notorious for controlling propaganda to literally puppeteer elections by unethically collecting our data, who lobbied to congress to vote on a ban to continue to monopolize where we receive all our information.

A company that, mind you, all members of congress who voted to push the ban through have millions of dollars invested in its stock. Several of whom didn’t invest until right before this ban was introduced, and some after. The one that introduced the legislation in the first place, Michael McCaul, used his family’s trust to purchase his Meta stock in an attempt to be sneaky about it.

This conversation is much bigger than an app going away. If we’re talking about the long term effects of a foreign power having sway over our population, let’s maybe look inward and assess how much control and sway the billionaires have over us and our autonomy. Let’s look at the fact these ancient fossils can sit and rot in congress until THEY decide they’re ready to quit and step down.

They don’t give a shit about our data or national security, not really. This is just them presenting it as concern for us as citizens in order to cover what they’re actually concerned about - their power over us, how much they can get away with, and how much we’ll let them.

All of this to say, the TikTok bill is not about TikTok. It’s about giving the US government all kinds of access to restrict anything they feel is a threat to them and them only, anything that directly contradicts what they want, under the guise of “protecting” the citizens.

This whole ordeal is setting a very dangerous precedent, and we’ll be on an incredibly slippery slope moving forward. Even if it somehow doesn’t go through at this point, the window is still open, and they will climb in through that window and rob us all of our basic fundamental rights as long as they can get away with it.

Land of the free for the rich and privileged.

[darkmaga-returns]

Against the Tyranny of Urban Majorities

by Joseph Solis-Mullen | Nov 26, 2024

In a recent and rather surprising piece, The Wall Street Journal highlighted growing frustrations among rural residents of states like Illinois, solidly Republican regions who feel disenfranchised by the political dominance of urban metropolises like Chicago and the wider Cook County. The article described sentiments among rural Illinoisans who increasingly view their state government as an unrepresentative body, one that governs in the interests of urban elites while neglecting or outright opposing the values, interests, and livelihoods of those living in less densely populated areas.

This frustration is not unique to Illinois; it resonates in states like California, Oregon, and New York, where rural and small-town residents feel marginalized by overwhelmingly urban legislatures and policies crafted by political majorities in the cities. It raises an important question: why should sparsely populated regions be bound indefinitely to the political dominance of a few, highly concentrated urban areas?

The idea that rural regions might seek autonomy from urban majorities has an intuitive appeal, especially when considering the arbitrary nature of state boundaries in the United States. Unlike France, England, or other nations rooted in medieval kingdoms and centuries-old cultural identities, states like Illinois and California are constructs of relatively recent history, products of political compromises and expedient geographic delineations. Many boundaries of these states reflect no natural or inherent connection among their inhabitants. This arbitrariness invites comparisons to the imperial cartography of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, where colonial powers carved up Africa and the Middle East into artificial nations that still grapple with the consequences of their incoherent borders. Why, then, should we expect places as disparate as Chicago and rural Illinois, or San Francisco and the farmlands of California’s Central Valley, to share common governance without conflict or resentment?

The argument for rural secession from urban-dominated states rests on several principles. First, it is fundamentally undemocratic to force people into perpetual political subjugation because they happen to live within arbitrarily drawn borders. Unlike democracy, properly republican government depends not just on majority rule but on the protection of minority rights, including the right to self-governance. When rural communities are systematically outvoted and overruled by urban majorities, they are effectively disenfranchised within their own states.

[super-paper]

Any thoughts on the leaks from the new chapter??

I really enjoyed the dialogue between izuku and tomura this chapter, especially that unhinged look on izukus face as he says he'll rip the damn rug/cover with his own hands if he has too. And that last panel between izuku and toshi, the "you can be a hero!" scene but now saying he needs to let go of ofa...wow, cinema.

Overall i liked it, but I feel a bit aprehensive about certain things, especially after seeing opinions on twt. I knew izuku would most likely give up ofa at the end of the series, so im sad about it (dont get me wrong, izuku giving up ofa of all things so he can save tomura is beautiful,,,,, but im just a big fan of izuku with ofa and everything that it means 😭 i want him to keep his haunted quirk and ofamily). But then on twt everyone was so hyped up and talking about izuku getting New Order.. which left me confused not gonna lie, bc other than Star pointing at something, I didn't get any idea of Izuku getting her quirk. But again, my reading analysis could be in the mud lol. Some say Aura Might is gonna give up his place for Star in ofa, or afo is joining the fight with his trump card, others say the quirk will spread to class 1A, so when izuku opens the vault door, the vestiges of 1A will help him. I have no idea, anything is possible i suppose. As for izuku, while I think at some point he will give up ofa, I think he might hesitate at first (??) Like toshinori, he connects his worth to having a quirk, so emotionally speaking it won't be easy for him in my opinion. But let's see!

I'm gonna be a bit mean for a second and say that "Izuku getting New Order" and "Class 1A shares OFA (Monoma Neito found dead in Miami)" are by far my least favorite fandom theories lmfao.

Anyway, you're definitely right on the money about this also being a battle Re: Izuku's own self perception and who he is without OFA. Izuku and Tomura's biggest hang ups boil down to how they both perceive themselves and how that perception was essentially forced onto both of them by other people until they both internalized it as "fundamentally true" (Izuku believing that he's worthless/useless, Tomura believing that he's evil and that he's having a ~peachy-keen~ time rn). Chapter 412/413 have set the stage for this conflict to finally come to the forefront, so I'm excited to see where things go.

As for Star, people who believe her quirk is "the will of heroism that's gonna get passed on to Izuku" are missing the point of her character, I feel. Star's quirk was cool, but it was also another shining example of a quirk "not being what makes someone an actual hero"-- Star used her quirk to do some pretty fucked up things during her fight with TomurAFO, and ultimately, the moments where she chose NOT to use her quirk and chose NOT to prioritize "the greater good" over everything else are actually her defining heroic moments:

(^ the implication of this scene being that her vestige stopped short of obliterating AFO because she found Tenko hidden inside him)

Izuku has already inherited "the will of heroism" as Star defines it. The will of heroism is more or less "noticing that someone needs help and choosing to act on it." There is beauty in simplicity and trying to work "Izuku obtaining new order" into the mix takes the focus away from that, I feel. Star notices Tenko needs help, and instead of using the last embers of her existence to extinguish AFO, she instead uses those embers to reach out to Toshi and point out where Tenko has hidden himself. Toshi alerts Kudou, who then decides to place his faith in Izuku's ability to save Tomura's heart, and so on and so forth.

(A certain someone else also inherited that will, but he's just being a massive fucking tsundere about it. Can't wait for someone to finally call his ass out when the inevitable mind-meld happens.) (/hj)

Anyway, I feel u regarding the OFA vestiges-- but at the same time, I think it's good that they're finally being allowed some autonomy in how they choose to go out considering how they lived/died in the first place. I still maintain that we're gonna end up whittling OFA down to Yoichi, Toshi, and Nana bc they're the three most deeply connected to Tomura (in addition to having the most unresolved feelings and lingering regrets centered around Tomura/AFO). I also think it's pretty neat how "One for All" is now coming apart at the seams because they're starting to work together for "the one" rather than the "all," if you catch my drift ;)

[thesilverscript]

So I read you piece about changing relationships and I had a question. Then I checked out you blog and you're an f1 fan so I thought, "that's a sign, go ahead and ask her".

My question, because I'm in a relaitiinship with someone who, I believe, is struggling to hold something together that doesn't deserve to be held. At what point has that space become too big. And if one half of it decided to do things that are, in my opinion, indefensible, illegal and downright disgusting, does you're theory disintegrate.

I'm the one standing in the space, I love her like no other but im not sure she has the capacity to carry the decision to break free from her anchor. Im looking for hope, im looking a way of understanding and im looking for the future I see for us.

Former jps lotus fan, current mclaren/lando but drifting to Oscar fan

I confess I wasn’t expecting a question directly related to the text. Don’t worry, though—there’s absolutely no problem in having asked it; it just caught me by surprise.

Before sharing my perspective on the matter, it’s important to highlight that my view might be completely different from yours. So, take into account only what makes sense for your reality.

When I talk about tolerance and persistence, I’m referring to the fact that we all possess both virtues and flaws—something that inevitably comes into play over time. In the early stages of any relationship, everything often feels perfect. As time passes, differences begin to surface, and eventually, you might find yourself confronting something you can’t tolerate. This raises an important question: if it was intolerable, why was it accepted in the first place?

Of course, this idea does not apply to cases involving physical or verbal violence or situations that are truly indefensible. In such cases, my theory falls apart—those circumstances demand immediate action, not reflection.

However, my reflection here addresses a different context: personality traits or actions that, while challenging, don’t fundamentally compromise your own values. In such cases, it’s worth stepping back to understand what those behaviors or traits might mean to the other person. Sometimes, individuals act from within a “bubble” of their own worldview—a perspective that holds deep personal significance, even if it’s difficult for others to grasp.

By exploring the importance of these issues to the other person, the next step becomes clear: you can offer support, but never impose. After all, as adults, we are responsible for our own decisions. If someone makes a choice solely based on what another person deems right, it can lead to resentment and strain in the relationship. They may feel a loss of autonomy in their decision-making process.

This brings me back to the central idea of my previous reflection: many times, we give up too easily when confronted with the mundane challenges of relationships. We underestimate, or even avoid, the value of routine, monotony, and repetition—elements that are intrinsic to any long-term partnership.

That said, it’s equally important to have clear boundaries. Each person must establish their own limits and hold them with conviction, knowing where compromise ends, and self-respect begins.

—

As for your thoughts on McLaren and Lando, I can see why you’re navigating this transition. Oscar really has the potential to be a future WDC, and his career trajectory is exciting to watch. But my heart remains with the Silver Arrows boys. 🤍

From the classic Formula 1 era, I’d definitely be a Williams fan.

[mercurymusing]

Short answer: yes

Longer answer:

I think there are two and a half questions here.

1) are people inherently anything?

2) is that thing good?

2.5) what is good?

Philosophical musings aside, the thing is that people as a class do have an inherent nature. They're human, and a human is a social animal. Both parts of that matter to the original question. We feel pain and pleasure, hunger and satisfaction. And we're wired to mirror and learn from and take pleasure from other people.

You can argue nature or nurture, but generally a healthily socialized baby of any species learns to play nice because if they play too rough or mean then they'll be left alone. So at a fundamental level people like to see other people happy, because happy people will be happy to be with them.

So people have an inherent nature as animals, animals which enjoy the company of other people.

Is this nature "good"?

Well. The root of the very worst of humanity is that the inherent good will doesn't generalize. We like to have other people, and we usually even want the best for those other people. But once we've got "our" people, we prioritize. We care more about the people closest to us, to the point of being indifferent or even hostile to people further away.

And while we build our moral systems and societies from the same base biological needs and preferences, they don't develop identically. We have different priorities, and even where we want the very best for other people we might disagree with them about what is best. Respect for autonomy and an individual's personal preferences is not usually the highest priority even where it even is a priority.

And what even is "good"?

Generally any culture or moral system has a sense of "good" and "bad" and values the idea of adhering to "good". Back to babies, this is as inherent as basic manners like "if you bite too hard other kittens won't play with you". People don't like to think of themselves as bad. They'll generally justify their own actions according to their own sense of "good", even if that requires deciding that certain kinds of "good" are more important or that some "bad" things are acceptable if it's for "good" reasons. (Even as simple as "they bit first, so now I should/can bite them")

Morality is always relative, but if everyone thinks they're in the right then it's hard to make judgements about other's actions. I (very clearly) think the idea of objective ontological right/wrong/good/bad is irrelevant at best, but we can still define a general framework for consensus. This is not the place to try to establish a universal theory of ethics, so we'll lean heavily on the shared cultural background of anyone reading this post on Tumblr.

If "good" is something like "tries to make other people happy", are most people inherently good? Handwave the complications (improving the world to help people indirectly vs direct assistance, zero-sum games between groups, greater goods and lesser evils, etc). If you squinted a bit and looked at someone's life, how heavy a feather would you weigh them against?

In my purely personal opinion, the vast majority of people are uninformed, incurious, indifferent to anything they can't see, unmotivated, and afraid of change. This isn't a moral judgement! We live in a world that doesn't give the vast majority of people the freedom and space to stay informed, be curious, invest in distant concerns, pursue goals, or accept the risk of changing. People are shaped by their lives, which are shaped by the world. There are only so many shapes a person can take inside the shape of their life. Sometimes it's a matter of enduring the contortions you're crushed into and sometimes you relax into the mold you're provided.

I think most people are good, in fundamental and superficial ways. At an instinctual level, a person wants other people to be happy, and our most stable cultures and belief systems support that impulse. Being good, to oneself or others, isn't free, even if you might benefit after. People may be tired or beat down or afraid for so many reasons, and the cost of even the smallest of kindnesses may be too much to bear in the moment. But most people, most of the time, will hold the door for a stranger. That's sufficient for hope, if nothing else.

Choose from one of my reductive nuance-free options or else

–

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[tmarshconnors]

National Service or Volunteer?

The Conservatives’ plan to bring back mandatory national service is absolutely outrageous. Are they having a laugh? The idea that 18-year-olds would be forced to either join the military full-time or volunteer one weekend every month for community service is beyond ridiculous. Nobody can force me or anyone else to do a damn thing. Even though this may sound hypocrite as I have nothing but my upmost respect for the Armed Forces but I think this sounds like a desperate ploy to prepare for a potential war with Russia, and it’s infuriating.

First off, the notion of compulsory service is fundamentally against the principles of freedom and individual choice. We live in a democratic society where people should have the autonomy to make their own decisions about their lives and careers. Forcing young adults into military service or mandatory community work is an authoritarian move that has no place in modern Britain. This isn’t the 1950s anymore; we shouldn't be dragged back to a time of compulsory conscription.

And let’s talk about the military aspect. Expecting 18-year-olds to put their lives on the line without any say is absolutely insane. If someone wants to join the military, it should be out of their own free will, driven by personal conviction and desire to serve the country. It shouldn’t be because they’re left with no other choice. This smells of an attempt to bolster military ranks in anticipation of some geopolitical conflict, probably eyeing tensions with Russia. Using our youth as pawns in this game is completely unacceptable.

As for the so-called “volunteering” one weekend a month, let’s call it what it is: forced labor. Volunteering, by definition, should be voluntary. Imposing this on young people, many of whom might already be juggling education, part-time jobs, and other responsibilities, is an unfair and unnecessary burden. It’s a lazy way for the government to shift responsibilities onto the shoulders of the youth instead of investing in proper community services and social programs.

Furthermore, this plan doesn’t even consider the diverse aspirations and ambitions of young people. Some might want to travel, pursue higher education, or start their careers right away. Forcing them into national service could derail these plans and have long-lasting negative impacts on their futures.

The bottom line is this: the idea of mandatory national service is a gross violation of personal freedom and an underhanded tactic to prepare for military conflicts at the expense of our youth. It’s an outdated, authoritarian policy that has no place in a free and democratic society. If the Conservatives think they can push this through without massive backlash, they’re sorely mistaken.

[nomzamomajolaotblog]

The Injustices and Future of OT

Occupational Therapy is one of the most insightful and profound professions in the world that investigates the human being as a multidimensional sphere. One that has expanded the definition of occupation from smaller to larger scales and succeeded in encapsulating the true nature of our human engagement. Due to a lack of exploratory initiative, there is a clear knowledge gap in the profession, which prevents practitioners from understanding the true political, cultural implications and social events that affect people on a daily basis. Future generations of occupational therapists need to be given the baton to use their more varied and sociocultural perspectives to create new frameworks that not only reach the client but also encompass his entire world.

https://www.azquotes.com/author/9365-Nelson_Mandela

“The concept of justice has been demonstrated, particularly explicitly or within other ideas. Relating to human rights and those structured currents. According to Habermas, emancipatory interest is connected to self-determination. Priority should be given to autonomy before any foreign power-seeking submission” (Habermas, 1982). In occupational therapy, injustice has been stigmatized as being one the biggest barriers preventing people from engaging in their desired occupations. The obvious denial and straightforward application of injustice in practice led occupational therapists to believe that they were political and social correctors, but in reality, the field has been slow to acknowledge the need for change. OT fails to first recognize the injustices present in their system of practice. They are unable to comprehend how a person's beliefs, perceptions, and emotions are influenced by the various facets of their life. It's important to remember that a person's identity is fundamentally shaped by their culture and their environment. In the OT profession, there is a lack of diversity and the initiative to make a more diverse theory. The direct interpretation of how and when to treat a client (in a ventilated room with windows and running water, with electrical appliances) Most Occupational Therapist fail to treat under certain circumstances that the poor experience everyday. We want to be “comfortable” in a place where even the people we treat are uncomfortable in ,but have been forced themselves to be comfortable as the world only offers them such. In Kenville community when I had first saw the living conditions of the homes and creches being exposed, passing by and seeing someone else’s whole house with just one glare when I have a full fenced home. Predominantly black Africans are still living in the consequences of the apartheid system, I began to think “how do we do home visits and treat in such a small space that is uncomfortable” and then I realised that my first instinct would have been to stop therapy and go to the clinic. What does that make us as occupational therapists?  are we are unable to treat in the exact same environment we want to adapt ?. As the future generations we are much privileged , we might not be rich historically through the hard experiences but we have been given the gift of freedom. We need to be autonomous and not seek submission from better facilities but we need to change perspective by invading the rules . Have that session in that little shack, go to the river and fetch water -doing what is best for the client. We need to leave therapy having experienced a big portion of the client’s life.

In a YouTube video Frank Kronenberg states that "It seems to be that in OT we regard that man is a given, being human is a given for all. All humans are born equal in dignity and rights but historically there is so much evidence that has shown us that , that is not the world that we live in. Some people are regarded more human than others and therefore as a consequence have more resources and opportunities to sustain and live their lives , whereas others are deprived of that”( link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZXmsDfOI0I&t=1168s). In  human development  we are taught that Adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter forms part of the human development criteria not bearing in mind that most people of colour are deprived of those “necessities” from the minute that they are born. It is an injustice that the OT profession does not consider the politics that have such a huge role in our lives. Yet certain factors as such are excluded when defining a being’s development. “More than six out of ten children (62,1%) are identified as multidimensionally poor, according to a report on Child Poverty in South Africa released by Statistics South Africa today” (Statistics South Africa, 2020). Looking at this statistic we already should know to view someone with an assumption-based approach. In the Kenville new clinic, I came across a mother who was well dressed and had two children who looked healthy and happy and I based treatment on the assumption that the kids were orientated to crayons and colouring books, only to find out that they are being raised in a poverty stricken household living not with their mother but their grandmother who is unable to buy the children crayons. We as people in the profession of OT need to learn that privilege comes with a cost, in a South African point of view at a cost of lives and those lives are still carrying that trauma and consequence.

Cultural sensitivity in OT is an injustice in the profession, we need more raw literature that is new and wide that will guide practice that is more community based and that allows interaction between these different cultures and settings, this will help a better and cohesive relationship between therapist and client. We need to change perspective in how we view culture. It does not end at an Indian or Zulu dance but it is enriched in the values and beliefs that people hold on even when the world is against them.

https://parade.com/2358/lindsaylowe/maya-angelous-most-inspiring-quotes/

“In New Zealand rather than attempting the difficult task or developing culturally competent practitioners in a society of many diverse cultures, some health professions have moved to develop a workforce that is culturally aware, sensitive and above all safe in attitude and behaviour” (Jungersen.k ,2002). Let us all move to being politically , socially and culturally sensitive and aware. We have been given a job that serves people needs and meanings. This is what I see when i look into the future of OT, As the future generation if the baton is not being handed to us, let us run the race without it, in a different lane and aim for the finish line, let us explore and develop Occupational Therapy as we should know it.

[aronarchy]

all those “How To Be Nicer To Your Kids And Maybe Yell A Little Less While Still Getting The Same ‘Good Results’ Uwu” “classes” for parents (whose kids finally stopped being able to mask how fucking distressed they are all the damn time) :: all those “How To Not Abuse Your Partner” “programs” for partners who got called out for being abusive for the first times in their entire lives (but they’re still living with the other person and treat the whole thing like it’s a “journey” where they’re “learning” to “improve themself” & make it all about them)

like. if you need “how to not abuse other people” lessons maybe you should, yknow, stay away from them until you have it all down? because, like, these are the fucking basics if you want to interact with others? but no that’s not what ever happens, bc the entire point is that it only matters whether they know/don’t know if they already have access to victims they can abuse. but none of those nice uwu webinars can actually get the results we really need bc if they did then they would be telling the abusers to relinquish control of their victims but they don’t, bc they can only allow themselves to stretch the logics so far & fundamental assumptions/beliefs still remain the same.

the general idea of the above, and other liberal violence prevention projects in general, is that abusers are merely “mistaken” about what is/isn’t harmful (or “producing good results”), & that the problem is just they believe individual types of actions are ok and just need to be “taught” they’re actually not, and that things would all be fine if they just did enough one-by-one fine tunings of the above but that is an obviously incorrect theory when in reality various individual acts of abuse exist within a larger context and that larger context is fundamentally believing one person is entitled to control and violate another’s autonomy and giving one person the power to do so while the other is prevented from escaping/fighting back. i.e. that you should not be doing this in the first place and even if it did genuinely make it impossible for you to get the fantasy close-loving-relationship or successful-happy-productive-child-doll you want then you should still not do it bc that is not w/in your rights.

& when abusers do take such “classes” they tend to brag about all the new things they’ve been learning, omg I feel so enlightened wow why didn’t I know this before, wow shouldnt the whole world be proud of me i am Literally Becoming A Great Person &, like, that is not something to be proud of lol. & if you really wanted to stop violence then you would help victims be able to escape their abusers and not have to interact w/them again / be under their power. but no that’s too hard for the nonviolence crowd who want to peace & love & educate their way to a harm-free world.

if you’re really feeling sorry abt what you did bc you finally realized that your victim got fucked up then you have to commit to that. you have to completely & fundamentally relinquish your control and beliefs of entitlement to control. you have to not only change individual actions but also your beliefs about the ways in which you may interact w/other people. and you cannot treat it like it is just another opportunity for you to get what you want. and you have to be willing to let go and not throw tantrums if they want to leave/break off entirely and you have to constantly, consistently demonstrate that you are safe for them to say no to & set boundaries with & express discomfort around and that you will not retaliate when they do so. and you will have to keep this up, fully and without pause, for the rest of your life. and you need to stop acting like this is anything more than the absolute bare minimum.

alternatively you can simply decide that you will not again have the same kind of relationships of power that you had previously & which you carr(ied) fundamentally fucked up beliefs about. that’ll save everyone a lot of time and effort—maybe even you too.

and you better choose one or the other quick or else we’ll have to choose it for you. & you might not like the answer.

[rescue-ram]

Myth x Values = Power

I've been pondering this excellent meta by @deadendtracks off and on all day and it has given me many good thoughts and reevaluation of parts of the show that ticked me off and made me deeply appreciate the underlying narrative of the show.

Their meta is about the family myths of the Shelby family which holds Tommy as this powerful authoritarian figure, in contrast to their actual material autonomy, and the ways that myth let's them benefit from his efforts and travails while psychologically distancing themselves from the consequences of their actions, to summarize some very interesting and well written ideas in a single sentence. (Go read the meta!) It's using family myth more in the psychological/addiction/codependency sense of the word, but it made me think of a political theory my dad really dug, called Myth Power Value.

To again summarize some complex ideas in a few sentences, MPV tried to explain how societies, and their political elite, use cultural myths and values to justify and sustain their hold on power. A cultural myth is exactly what you think it is- American Exceptionalism, the march of history and the triumph of progress, legends of our noble ancestors, etc. Value is primarily virtues, like grit or entrepreneurial spirit, but can also be material. If I control a river crossing, that gives me economic power over the surrounding area, and the myth of my noble ancestors owning it for generations or the divine right of kings legitimizing a landgrant let's me keep it. You can use this to analyze politics in a couple ways- looking at people in power and "dividing" them by the myths they tell themselves to derive what their values are, or looking at political aspirants and what's important to them to predict and understand the narratives they craft to drive their rise towards power. There is A LOT more to it, but that's the summary salient to this meta.

Because thinking about Peaky Blinders through that lens was very interesting? And you can see it very clearly, even in the first few episodes. Tommy Shelby self-consciously cultivates myths around him, the unkillable man with a plan who's always in control, and a lot of these myths are deeply rooted in his ethnic identity. (I am being as vague as the show runners, manifesting evil intentions towards them for their absolute bullshit confusion of GRT peoples) Like his introductory scene is an act of mythmaking in pursuit of power, performing the "powder trick" to increase bets on his horse in a race. When his power falters he appeals back to myths, performing rituals to break curses, and in the logic of the show this is usually successful.

By contrast, his values are solidly and almost incongruously English, and upper-class English at that. He values money and power and the material signifiers of the upperclass status, he calculatedly but seemingly unironically appeals to loyalty to the king, and my read on his war service (admittedly, I can't recall what was explicitly stated or implied in the show and what's my own reading between the lines) is that he volunteered for service in the war to prove and legitimize himself as an Englishman- a "gypsy" Englishman, but English nonetheless. He craves the stability and safety money and power brings, and tries to acquire it by taking for himself the values of the imperial power.

Tommy squares that circle, and successfully combines the two in the acquisition of power- but in doing so runs smack into the English Englishman institutions of power. Their cultural myth is that, by dint of blood and breeding, are fundamentally superior to Tommy, and they have the material and institutional power to back that up on a life and death level, controlling and exploiting him. When Tommy plays by their values in their system, he cannot overpower them, and it highlights the incongruity between his roots and the values of the system he's trying to find a place in. I have to admit, I did not dig the increased political plots of the later seasons when I watched them, and took a long break because at a certain point it just no longer felt like the show I signed up for. But looking at it through this lens- the closer to power Tommy gets, the more intense the conflict and contradictions become, and he is physically, spiritually, and psychologically destroyed by it over the series- I appreciated it more. The show was telling a political story from the start, I just didn't pick up all the pieces at first.

It also gives me Thoughts about the longrunning communist subplot in the show, but they're not fully formed yet.

[humormehorny]

Your looking for me to say something along the lines of “a woman is someone who identifies as a woman” and you’d be correct. But I think that there is often so much behind that answer that needs to be addressed.

One: No True Scotsman

My biggest issue with any binary[and even some of the spectrum constructions/models of gender} is that they rely on a No true Scotsman fallacy. When we say women are people that can give birth we are excluding women, who would otherwise categorize{by their own agency or society’s} as women. If we say that women feel lots of emotions we exclude women who would otherwise be women. Any definition that is anything but “a woman is somebody that identifies as a woman” we exclude people that would otherwise be considered women.

Additionally we may include people that are not women. We might include men that have no business as women{including in their own standards}. We can’t say women are emotional without lumping in men that are emotional. We can’t include men just because they have the ability to breast feed or give birth. These are experiences that women have and are included in womanhood, but they are not exclusive to womanhood.

This is also true for men as well. To define men by physical characteristics is simply absurd because it reinforces logical fallacies.

Two: Opposites attract.

A further causality of this is the inherit defining of a given gender through negation or by virtue of the binary’s definitional opposition. Men are not considered emotionless in society by being men, they are considered emotionless because women are emotional and since men are not women men are not emotional.

A similar thing happens with the patriarchy. Women are oppressed by the patriarchy, then it follows that men are oppressors/enforcers of the patriarchy.

Three: it hurts progress

The binary reinforces gender and bio essentialism, which is to say that it reinforces nasty stereotypes about genders. It means that the progress that we fought for in first and second wave feminism. The right for women to be in the work place, the laws protecting those rights, the laws protecting women’s bodily autonomy and so forth are threatened by a binary system. All women are.

We have started to see it. TERFs are ripping down our right to abortion, our rights to reproductive health care. They are destroying access to life saving treatment, because they fundamentally hate the idea that humans could be human.

When I said men and women are equivalent I didn’t mean that they are interchangeable. I meant that there nothing men can do that women can’t, and there is nothing women can do that men can’t. I also know that men and women are not collectively the entire human race. And they don’t make up the collective human experience. There is a lot more than just men and women.

I also said that with the understanding that men are not the opposite of women and women are not the opposite of men.

You cannot be anti-patriarchal without being anti-binary and without believing in both bodily autonomy and self determination. The only person that can tell you if your a woman or not is the self.

Transphobia is so antithetical to genuine feminism it blows my mind there's such a wide overlap like you either believe in autonomy and self determination or you don't

[professorspork]

Hot take, perhaps, but if/when Penny 3.0 happens I don't think she should have Floating Array, etherial or otherwise. It's just too bound up with her self-image as a Weapon instead of a Person. If Penny gets a sword, it needs to be a sword she can put down.

This is-- a fascinating take! I’m not sure I agree with it, but I think there’s some meaty ideas here worth unpacking. And I do think we agree on the fundamental premise (i.e. Penny’s autonomy needs to be foregrounded above all).

You assert that Penny’s current problem is that she sees herself as a Weapon and not a Person, and I don’t think that’s exactly the case. 

One of the things I admire most about Penny is is that when people try and tell her who (or, insultingly, what) she is, she quietly but assertively refutes them. Though early on her conviction in her own personhood was somewhat shaky, when her friends encouraged her she took it to heart. After Ruby “I Love You And Your Beautiful Soul” Rose told her that she was real and Winter “Everyone’s Feelings Are Valid Except For Mine” Schnee told her that her opinions mattered, she got-- really quite bullish about this. To illustrate:

Random citizen: It's Ironwood's robot! Robyn: [suspicious] Penny. Penny: I-- I didn't! [7.06, A Night Off]

Vine: I thought you were supposed to protect the people, not hurt them. Penny: I would never hurt anyone. Elm: Well Winter’s in critical condition, because of you. Harriet: And you repaid her by stealing the power that should have been hers. Penny: But taking the Maiden power was the only way to stop-- [8.03, Strings]

Cinder: You’re just a tool to be used! Penny: You do not know what you are talking about. ... Cinder: I don’t serve anyone. And you wouldn’t either, if you weren't built that way. Penny: That is not… I choose to fight for people who care about me. [8.05, Amity]

Which isn’t to say Penny isn’t prone to self-doubt, because she absolutely is, or that Penny doesn’t have a self-sacrifice streak a mile wide, because she absolutely does. But Penny wouldn’t have that reflexive, Janet-saying-“Not-a-girl”-style reaction to people telling her she’s nothing but a weapon unless she genuinely thought they were wrong. She’s not defensive, in these moments, even though she’s defending herself. She’s certain.

Maybe this is me splitting hairs with your argument, but I don’t think Penny’s issue is that she sees herself as a weapon. It’s that she sees herself as a hero. Not just a soldier, but THE soldier. The Protector of Mantle. She’s not Winter; she’s not most comfortable when she’s got orders she can hide behind so she can reassure herself she’s doing the right thing because someone else already did that math. She’s-- she’s Spider-Man. She feels a tremendous responsibility to save everyone she can, because that’s what you do. And yes that’s also, literally, what she was built for, so I can see where the argument is coming from, but I think it matters that the argument’s being made about someone from Remnant.

And on Remnant, your weapon is an extension of who you are.

We’ve never, as far as I can remember, seen anyone straight up switch their weapon. Ironwood made the nuke attachment for his pistols, but it’s still Due Process underneath. Maria only carries one of her two canes, now, but she didn’t make any design changes. Same with Yang and (lefty) Ember Celica. Jaune gave Crocea Mors substantial upgrades, but it’s fundamentally the same weapon; Blake chose to solder Gambol Shroud back together rather than replace it... and if anyone had an argument that using the same weapon might be too traumatic, it would be her. I mean, hell, the Messrs Oz have been using the same staff for millennia.

Weapons aren’t something you turn your back on. I don’t think it’s something that would occur to people. It would be like-- like turning off your Aura. That’s you. 

Unless, of course, you’re Cinder.

Cinder gave up on Midnight after the Beacon arc, and we’ve never seen it since. She relies exclusively on Maiden weapons instead-- some of which she molds into forms quite similar to her old swords or bow, but still. She tossed it aside. This follows the logic of the show: Cinder discarded the weapons, and with them the person she used to be, when she found it all to be lacking. Instead, she embraces what she sees as a higher form of power.

I don’t think Penny would think of Floating Array that way; as a sign of her failure. Nor do I think she’d see it as the prophesy/burden your take implies.

Granted, Watts used a sword from Floating Array in order to get access to her code and install the virus; it ended up being the vector for a huge breach of autonomy and violation of consent. But so was Tyrian using Harbinger to murder Clover, and Qrow’s still using it.

And granted, Penny didn’t choose Floating Array in the same way most people chose or designed their own weapons. She was born with it; activated combat-ready. But then, that’s not so different from Jaune inheriting Crocea Mors, is it? It might not be what either of them would have selected or been most suited for if they’d had the chance to say for themselves at the start, but... well, we’re far from the start, now. And Penny does choose Floating Array, when it matters. When she conjures weapons in her new, self-created body, she instinctively reaches for what she knows, what’s familiar. Her father’s providence. So for me, the moment you’re alluding to... it’s already happened. The whole point of leveraging Ambrosius’ limitations in the way they did is that Penny is separated from the parts of her that can be weaponized-- she watches her synthetic body eat itself, consumed by its own self-destructive urges. It doesn’t get much more metaphor-made-literal than that!

What remains, then, is Penny. And Penny uses Floating Array.

If Penny comes back and doesn’t resume the Winter Maidenhood (which I think is... low on the list of options, given Winter’s desperation and the likelihood that Maiden transference shenanigans are going to be a part of the vehicle that allows Penny to return in the first place), then she won’t have a choice. Either because that will mean she’s back in a 3.0 robot body (in which case it’s the same lack of choice she always had; Pietro wouldn’t give her an unfamiliar weapon after all that) or because she’s a Regular Normal Flesh Gal now and unless her Semblance is telekinesis (which it may be!!! we don’t know!!!) a weapon like Floating Array just isn’t on the table. But all of that, as I’ve already laid out, has to contend with so many unknown factors. How she comes back, and in what form, and at which time.

If Penny does end up designing a wholly new weapon, to me that would signal total transformation, given the rules and themes of the world. And that... well, it depends on the execution, I suppose, but I think I’d find that a little alarming. That she’d choose to have so little of her old self in her new form. But on the other hand, maybe I’m dead wrong there! That could also be read as yet another gorgeous act of creation by the Maiden best suited to it; it could be Penny choosing to yes-and herself into doubling down on her identity. She could be SO MUCH of a person that she, and she alone, gets to make a new weapon for her new self. I’m not against any of that! 

But even if that’s the case, I still think we’d see the hard light version of Floating Array again, especially if we have a Maidenbowl Redux. Even if I were to concede to your point that it’s too bound up in her self-image issues, that doesn’t imply to me that she’d have to move beyond it. If she’s to contend with herself, if she’s to decide she’s a person and not a weapon as you lay out, she’s going to put all of herself in the effort. As the speech goes, it’s a part of her. Even if it’s just a part, that’s still... a part. And this show has never been about severing yourself from your broken bits; it’s been about embracing them tenderly and letting them actually heal.

...also, Floating Array is *checks notes* cool.