#but all of this is second to the fact that they were literally legally lesser than their male couterparts

[junewongapologia]

The fact is tho that no matter how you look at it, no matter how insufferable she is, no matter how Out Of Touch, regardless of whether she’s doing herself no favours: Eloise is right about society and just about everyone else in the show is wrong.

Like, she’s not got the full picture, she’s blinkered and her political philosophy is not very in depth or well thought out. But she’s right, and I think that’s why a lot of people watching really don’t like her because she’s breaking the illusion. All in all, the 1810s were a shit time to be alive for most people, and you can “well actually” it all you like, but the Luddite movement existed for a reason, the Chartists existed for a reason, Porto-feminist writers like Wollstonecraft and de Gouges wrote what they did for a reason.

So when you keep being reminded that it was a terrible social order for women - in a show targeted mainly towards women for escapist purposes then that character is going to come across as irritating, because she’s ruining the immersion.

Really, her attitude isn’t more anachronistic than the dresses, or the hairdos, or the diamond necklaces (men and women had been advocating women’s right to vote since before Eloise was born, lads), but it’s a problem because people are watching the show for the sweeping romances and the general regency vibe, they don’t want to think about how the regency was for most people. Which inevitably leads to some incredible projection, when watchers of a show with the central conceit of only being interested in the love lives of the top one percent of the one percent of the British aristocracy acting as though Eloise is the only privileged person on the show.

And yeah, she is better off than most of the people who exist in all of Regency Britain (though if you were to take the show as read, Britain is made up of about 70% aristocracy, 1% gentry, 5% urban bourgeoisie and 24% urban workers), but she’s the only one whose privilege is harped on out of her whole family and social circle. 99% of the speaking characters in the show come from a posher background than Beau fucking Brummell.

And! Eloise is literally just about the only main character who ever has to question her privilege! And when she is in season 2 she doesn’t throw a shitfit, she’s willing to learn! She goes out of her way to hear perspectives that she wouldn’t have heard in her social circle! But the narrative punishes her for that, and that’s because for all the criticism she gets about needing her privilege checked, they don’t actually want her to learn, they just want her to shut up and enjoy the trappings of regency decadence as much as they do.

Also - I know it’s really fashionable to rag on “pick-mes” and “Not Like Other Girls” - but actually, no, “traditional femininity” has never been socially unacceptable for women the way being GNC is, and it is in fact ruthlessly socially enforced against GNC women, even more so in the 1810s. Eloise is a teenaged girl in a society that stigmatises her for her wish for more legal autonomy, the idea that she’s somehow the villain for not being able to enjoy “feminine” hobbies without seeing them as just another element of the way women’s education is trivialised as ornamental, is farcical. “Sewing is a valuable and useful skill” so is cooking, but there’s a reason my mam, and not my dad, had home economics lessons, and that reason is still misogyny, despite the fact that it set her up better for being able to operate independently as an adult.

Idk I’m just kind of uncomfortable that in a world of rising reactionary political sentiment towards women, and this seemingly increasingly re-normalised view that women need to be wives and homemakers, people feel that the person on the show who needs to do the most introspection regarding their politics is an eighteen-year-old who is vocal about the fact that she has limited legal rights, and not any of the adult men in the show (a lot of whom probably have seats in the Upper House!!!) who never mention politics at all.

And frankly, given the shower who were Having Political Opinions in the long eighteenth century, Eloise’s brand of semi-anachronistic protofeminism is infinitely preferable to Hannah “I refuse to teach the poor how to write in my schools” More, or Edmund “don’t read my big thesis on revolutions too closely it’s definitely not all lies and junk history” Burke, or even a load of prominent members of the Bluestocking Society.

[literary-illuminati]

Book Review 32 – Weavers, Scribes and Kings: A New History of the Ancient Near East by Amanda Podany

This was my second real (published by a university press, has ~100 pages of citations and bibliography at the back) history book I’ve read this year. Which I think probably explains why it took me about as long to read as the other 7 books this month put together. Which is the opposite of a complaint, just to be absolutely clear. I’ve kind of missed chewing through a history book that would double as a decent self-defence aid in a pinch.

The title explains the book well enough – this is a broad survey history of the ancient near east. Specifically, it’s a history of civilizations that recorded their records and correspondences and stories in cuneiform on clay tablets. So the narrative begins with Uruk in Sumeria, follows it through the spread of city-states throughout Mesopotamia, expands its view to include Syria, the Levant and regions of Anatolia (and to a much lesser extent Egypt) and the western Iranian plateau in the late bronze age, and keeps that frame through the iron age until reaching the Achaemenid conquests and the decline of cuneiform in favour of writing in Aramaic on paper or parchment.

Part of that is just arbitrary because you need to pick some outer borders of what your book is about, but it’s also a fact that writing everything down on (often baked, either purposefully or because they got caught in a fire) clay tablets was a truly incredible gift to future historians. Paper and parchment and cloths decays away over the course of a historical eyeblink, whereas we still have legal contracts and bureaucratic records from literally four thousand years ago that were recorded on fired clay. Combined with some incredible archaeological luck, and we can see stretches of late bronze age history in higher definition than very nearly anything until, like, the Early Modern Period.

The necessary condition of that is obviously that these cuneiform-writing civilizations actually wrote enough down for written records to really let us understand their societies. Which did very over time, and is definitely overwhelmingly biased towards the great institutions and upper classes, but actually does seem to have been true! Podany all but dedicated the book Mesopotamia’s scribal class, and they got everywhere. And the change over time in just what’s written about - the spread of written records and letters from temples and palaces to the private homes, the spread in literacy from an arcane art only trained scribes would understand to something every halfway prominent merchant would be expected to grasp the basics of for record-keeping – is illuminating enough about how these societies evolved on its own.

Aside from all the waxing poetic about clay tablets, the book does try quite hard to be an approachable historical survey. To that end, basically every chapter is split into a few different sections, each pocket biographies of individuals (or, occasionally, pieces of architecture) that we have enough visibility of to make them a useful entry point to illustrating some broader aspect or society or important process they lived through. The vast majority of them aren’t great kings or conquerors, either – scribes, merchants, weavers, farmers, priestesses, and even the occasional slave get pride of place. On balance, the book tries to be a social history, getting across how people actually lived (or Podany’s best guess of it, though she’s quite explicit about what the actual evidence we have for every given biography is and when she’s speculating) is favoured over the exact sequence of battles and kings.

I’ve mentioned it before, but prior to reading this my only real familiarity with the ancient Near East (and specifically with the development of pristine states in Mesopotamia) was from Scott’s Against the Grain. Which adds a slight sense of whiplash to the entire first third or so of this book, honestly; as opposed to Scott, Podany actually seems sympathetic to the position that civilization was a good idea. Part of that is just that she takes the actual emergence of the first city-states as a given (instead of something approaching original sin), but the book very clearly portrays the growth of a literary culture, monumental architecture, specialized labour, grand and impressive rituals and festivals, institutionalized long-distance trade, and so on as interesting and impressive things worth studying and appreciating. It’s a book about a project of state-based urban-agrarian civilization, as told through its archaeological remnants and literary corpus, and as a whole it portrays that project as admirable and sympathetic. The book doesn’t brush over slavery or warfare, but they’re not especially focused on, either. Famine and plague actually are pretty much brushed over or at least portrayed as irregular calamities. A lot of the book’s wordcount is spent sketching out lives that seem at least slightly familiar to a modern reader, and making the Mesopotamian world seem like a place you could live a happy life in. Quite a contrast to Scott’s constellation of slave societies held together by brute force and exemplary terror, forever raiding the hinterland to abduct new workers to make up the losses from constant disease outbreaks and always on the verge of collapse.

Well, that’s all only mostly true. Podany’s sympathies for pristine states and bronze age empires does not extend to the iron-age Assyrian Empire. Her disdain for their whole imperial project is pretty clear through those chapters, and from her telling they (especially during what’s called the Neo-Assyrian Empire) were responsible for a lot of the brutal innovations that are now such core parts of imperialism. The mass deportation of conquered populations to settle and work other provinces, using exemplary terror to cow subjects, and royal legitimacy established nearly entirely through glorious victories in warfare and exulting in the same. (Along with less objectionable but still important practices like appointing regional governors from the centre.)

The book makes a real point of keeping a balance between men and women in who it focuses on. This is, I get the feeling, kind of just a matter of wanting to show off that we have a historical record that actually includes women in it as more than accessories and footnotes to men for this period (unlike, say, Classical Athens), But Podany’s clearly made a secondary goal of the book to try and push back on the whole image of a primordial and unchanging ultra-patriarchal order across all of history. So there’s a lot of attention paid to how the role of women in public life changed over time, and the sort of political and economic power elite women could wield. Which was actually quite a bit, as it turned out! Obviously nowhere in the ancient world was anything like a feminist utopia (and as a general trend, seems to have grown more patriarchal over time), but compared to a lot of periods I know more about, the available space for women in public life is quite a bit larger; on the upper extreme, queens and priestesses managed and controlled massive estates in their own right, and on the lower we’ve got plenty of bureaucratic records showing women in various prestigious or managerial roles. Always paid significantly less than men doing the same of course, but still a far sight from being totally cloistered or official ideologies saying women are soulless or incapable of rational thought!

Speaking of priestesses – Podany goes into great detail trying to describe Mesopotamian religion and the place religion had in the ancient near east. Which again changes over time – in the early dynastic period the great temples seem to have been the core organizing institutions of economic and social life, but two thousand years latter they were still rich and important, but relatively speaking much less central – but is basically always incredibly important. The endowment of high priestesses and the creation of some public work then given over as the property of an important gods were common themes of year names across the region’s kingdoms, and by all accounts pretty key legitimizing activities. The idea that the gods would sanctify oaths and punish anyone who broke them was likewise a pretty core part of Mesopotamian systems of justice. The book’s a bit vague on how the actual theology and practice of religion over time, but there’s plenty of lovely, evocative descriptions of rituals and festivals, and of the architecture of temples and design of the statue-avatars that were considered to be literal bodies of the divine.

The book’s also very interested in forms of government – both day to day systems of contracts and justice and land allocation, and the high politics of royal courts and governance. Though there’s unsurprisingly quite a bit more available on the latter than the former. Still, it’s pretty fascinating to the degree that the whole ‘absolute tyrant bronze age god-king’ was...well, not not a thing, but very much an occasional aberration. The growth of centralized royal authority was a real trend over a lot of the period, but especially in the beginning arrangements that seem pretty close to what we’d call a constitutional monarchy, with power shared with councils of notables, really do seem to have predominated. Special shouout to Ashur, which before it became a militaristic empire in the late Bronze Age was actually a prosperous trading city where the king was in large part a ritual/religious figure and the balance of executive power seems to have been held by an official who was elected by the city’s merchant class for annual terms.

I’ve done a poor job getting it across in this review, but the book does an amazing job really confronting you with the sheer depth of history – bronze age kingdoms and city-states were the dominant political institutions of the near-east for millennia. The period covered by the book is literally nearly as long as the period between the end of the book and the present. It’s enough to give you a sense of vertigo.

Anyway, absolutely incredible book, that I’m very happy to have read. Now I need to go find a decent one on Achaemenid Persia.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

yeah yknow all of wde is Revealing in like okay so the way billions saw the entire potential of winston as a character (besides the overlapping "plot device for others" given to any/all roles at points) was defined & bounded as "a transgressor (should not be here) who IS here so that he can be a punching bag (for the power trip delight of other characters, but even more so for the power trip delight of viewers, since all characters apparently would be even more delighted by getting rid of him, but don't, for no reason internal to the show (it's for the delightful power trip pov voyeurism for viewers))"

but it also feels like a particular little bonus Telling element that in this episode, there's two separate & unrelated instances of "taylor says we're killing winston. sacker says not literally, for legal record. taylor says Maybe idc" and "rian says you're killing winston, not literally, & i don't want to Help unless you ask me twice, in which case, okay, idc" like. it's almost as though the show for all intents & purposes Is making the grand finale logical conclusion for "this punching bag shouldn't even be here!!!" be, in fact, to essentially let people kill him. first of all, obviously, it gets rid of him. second of all, it's Okay because billions absolutely has Us, team Selves, the Winners, versus Those guys, team Others, the Losers (as ever, with some gradation along the dichotomy)....the peak winners have motivations & feelings (wendy. wendy is the peak winner. lesser winners' motivations & feelings are determined by what preserves the priority & Fact of wendy's Good Intentions / Correctness) & the more of a loser a character is, the less interiority they have. always expecting the effort put into showing fleeting Reactions of winston being hurt / expressing this to get Any later payoff &/or at least be intended as inspiration for the audience to critically reflect on how other characters are acting towards him, but no, actually it was to voyeuristically relish the power to make your cringe annoying coworker suffer & withdraw / shut down as a result. got their ass

we have all these same characters like :o hand to face Morally Aghast that prince & scooter wouldn't write off killing an employee so that prince doesn't look bad for leveraging compounding superiority in most forms of power to use that person as he wanted, knowing it would hurt them, knowing his power constrains their autonomy, yknow, a context of abuse. (while billions thinks it can Preclude abuse(tm) so we're not Too shocked by going way too far out of its way to assure us physical force wasn't involved, don't worry about prince in fact precluding all employees' choice to show up at his house rager by making it a Work Requirement under false pretenses, it's masking the very power as everyone's mega boss he used to make people show up to be like see haha we're not talking work & it's fun pranks. & then billions is like yeah i guess if prince was like "i'm sorry you feel that way" he'd be in the clear but b/c he talked to an Inherent Winner, who just so happens to be much more vulnerable hegemonically, in a rude way as though they were an Inherent Loser who is much more vulnerable Deservedly? only now are we sure like oh he Could've been a little birthday boy who can't help being horny which means Needing to have sex with a woman & oh no the employees his kids' age are totally seducing him anyways what's he supposed to do? take responsibility for his actions? well he had the benefit of the doubt until he Confessed that he knows the victim in this scenario was not actually the only person capable of making choices & dealing with the consequences of their actions, & again, did so by suggesting they're Not as much of an inherent winner as we know they are! lord. like this said Nothing no wonder it was dropped into effective irrelevance immediately afterwards. will just hold a grudge forever it was written at all. oh & we're worried about Literal murder, so again just expecting a surface level kneejerk "well. that's bad. right" from the audience.) end parenthetical relevant segue into:

that b/c we're standing at the podium slowly trying out "uh we all agree....murder. is....bad. right" if we keep saying "not literally killing haha. not literally murder. maybe. but we're not that concerned, Caring re: winston might suggest he's too winnerly (a person) after all & start toppling things, so a) nobody cares too much about there being any particular line between winston's 'metaphorical' killing (death! it just Happened! taylor said we unalive whoever takes from us. nothing Unlike prince about this, nothing his enemies whose campaign against him is the entire point of the season & this series conclusion should have to confront or like spare a passing thought about or Not confront, where that has any relevance. see: no difference between wendy & prince? but we didn't see Her do physical violence At A Winner (didn't we enjoy the physical violence towards winston, a loser, in wde just as in times before? not like he might die, so! wahoo) & she's not talking about nukes being on the table for her presidency, so! like yeah this was truly the most thought provoking conflict between two characters that really Said Something. let's revisit our "reveal" that prince is bad b/c he talks down to a victim who, crucially, is too inherently epic to be a victim b/c that's a State Of Mind, not status based on experiences in the context of power dynamics, control, whose autonomy is restricted. in fact, this victim is so inherently epic as to, again, Also be the exact same & feel entitled to, for one, sex with whomever they want b/c they want it, as well as partners with no privacy from them, and oh yeah their good friend winston who is a victim of theirs based on his experiences (being hurt by them, repeatedly & deliberately) in a context of power dynamics (rian preferred & supported by all shared higher ups via their formal & informal power, winston autistic, last & actually least but not irrelevant, rian being aware winston likes her being another tool to leverage in Knowing he has a bonus layer of vulnerability here) & control & whose autonomy is restricted (winston's, amidst the general hostile work environment / bullying from all levels but also having the most regular/specific bully in rian, all higher ups hate him, all coworkers too (emphasized in wde. this Extra hates him!!), rian's the one who gets to tell him to shut up & go away after she's participating in / oft initiating a 1 on 1 exchange with him, jumping in to insult him, Be In Charge of the dynamic which always looks like successfully shutting him down / hurting him, while winston never has any such leverage, & his much more subdued / indirect efforts to get her to stop (e.g. even Showing he's been hurt, Withdrawing b/c he's being hurt) have no effect)

how many parentheses were open idek. wait i did an a) and not yet the b), classic. okay a) nobody Actually cares about "of course there's a fiery line b/w Not Killing For Real & Killing For Real :o" despite this being expressed so clearly 4 min ago by again basically everyone involved in wde, & b) i'm not sure what my original idea of (b) was but another thing is that even the people who "care" Do Not Care. rian's patronizing "it's wrong, but i value him at all" perspective towards winston where she's thinking of herself as his older sibling, for no reason but the show's perspective of infantilization of an autistic character as channeled through rian, next best winner after wendy perhaps b/c they didn't think of anything for rian to do but be the correct body available for a man's subplot ft. his sexual activity (with a woman. the only possibility for non losers. rip the one married gay guy) amidst the higher calling of: just channel Correctness at all times. scintillating stuff, totally doesn't make her not a character. the fact that this non character's trait involves "inevitably is absorbed into being an interchangeable bog standard axe capper totally at home amidst the other [no transcending] assholes" and "the entire time her main idiosyncrasy was abusing winston" but no criticism to be done there about Correctness seen in billions' characters! she was always Too Nice! b/c other sufficiently correct characters said so, & this was supported by the broader context of the material as a whole. rian learned So Much from taylor! b/c she said so! are you not convinced? check out: the blatant evasion of providing even One Specific Example! wendy did so much crucial copiloting for taylor even when they Thought they should fly solo! b/c they said so! It Makes Sense! why, remember the time wendy narced on what taylor confided in her to axe to enable axe's shitty treatment of them? then hurt them as much as she possibly could with legally confidential patient info b/c she Didn't succeed in enabling axe b/c taylor had known she would try? & then chastised them for reporting the hipaa violation even though it wasn't them & she violated hipaa? remember when wendy couldn't be fucked to tell axe cappers to maybe stop trying to do transphobic assaults targeting taylor & anyone else until an investor Could've seen signs of Antics & then she did so by making taylor & co be there while she said Both Sides? perhaps when taylor offered a new business partnership to wendy at 40% against their own gf's (& everyone else's) advice & wendy was like Okay Thanks, lost interest immediately, then gave her shares to axe despite taylor specifically asking her not to do that b/c of how vulnerable that made them & tmc to axe & his bullshit, from the malicious to 'i don't care but that doesn't mean i can't or won't crash this into the ground & you with it? it's an expression of my power how much i don't Have to care, And how much it hurts You despite this!'"

i'm sure you Know wendy was that crucial copilot all along. & i'm sure you Know winston is an insufferable nonperson who is The One Person With Responsibility For The Consequences Of His Actions every time he speaks & everyone around him goes sicko mode to force him to shut up now & forever. this is because!! you Know it because!!! he's so!!! he's always!!!! well anyways & did i mention that the degree to which I Don't Have To Care to dole out destructive effects b/c of my power over you & you having to care very much about said destructive effects is also the manifestation of the power context here? well. what's that have to do with winston. we aren't Really killing him for real, but we don't really care about that, someone else will say yeah the goal is his (metaphorical!) death but i care to just Not directly contribute, except, i do not care. like how i don't really care to Not treat this person with contempt & always only in ways in accordance with our Superior/Inferior Winner/Loser Person/Object dynamic, that is: doing what i want to him, the more hurtful = the more blatant the expression of power = the more rewarding! we're only killing him figuratively which isn't a sin okay. but we don't have to care & we Do have to enjoy the power trip as much as possible b/c this is the point of the episode, b/c this is billions' own logical conclusion in its idea of winston, the inferior mostly not a person who definitely shouldn't get to be here, & when that sure might extend to "in this plane of existence" like well don't worry anyways b/c we aren't just killing him metaphorically, but narratively ;) he's a fictional person who is just written out now, as he Must be, b/c he's a transgressor with mere "abilities" rather than having Inherent Value as an winner allistic True Person with those abilities. there are no consequences to winston being hurt b/c the only consequences written are [none] & it's just assumed everyone, of Team The Consummate Self vs these inferior Others whom We recognize in winston, Correctly enjoys [power trip: attack assault harass surveil violate the autist!] pov, the episode, the experience

but they did sure write in Twice an acknowledgment "so we're basically killing him? god fucking finally?" kind of as though it was Unavoidable in this escalation of like ooh teehee what is Everything We Want To Do To Winston? well it's clear he's considered wrong to exist, yeah. & by "he's considered wrong" i also mean that billions means "the actions of his Betters to 'punish' his existence, i.e. use him however they want, since that's all that can validate the sense of Superiority that just might be the core of one's identity, which can sure include enacting whatever seeming control over the situation, like ability to inflict harm/destruction & otherwise be suppressing ways for the inferior party to act autonomously. oh what's that, there's no Hard Line between this & "kill them if you want to, b/c you can?" when it's like well, Some People bring it upon themselves in being inferior & certainly in being inferior & Transgressing the "norms" of their place in the hierarchy (we were all simply Glad winston was leaving, glad to show up & throw things at him at his way out & take this last chance to punish his existence! but then he disrespected our property rights :( which needs to be answered by a show of force against Him, the person. for our image. aaand wags's ego!!! some strangers said they didn't think he was epic & Powerful :( restoring reputation of epic powerful man means killing the autistic guy) rather than an Actual universally applied rule of sputtering indignation whoa whoa of Course literal murder is ridiculous to truly consider. i mean, how could any of you sickos. just b/c an employer could look bad? are you kidding? smh! but we're still cool :)

it's kind of like a quicker version of billions trying to Just Say It Correctly walk through its attempt to invoke like "men in business/political power taking advantage of various aspects of that power to extract sex from women navigating their kingdom on their whim? i mean. that's bad, right" despite this being irreconciliable with billions' belief that if you are a winner you do in fact Deserve to have sex b/c you want it. you Are entitled to it. you see, in this fictional world where we just write that happening, sexual partners do keep cropping up voluntarily for winners! of Course everyone's down! with the counterpart of losers being unfuckable, with Incorrect sexualities that, like said losers as "people," Transgress by existing, & are treated as obtrusive, disgusting if not threatening, deviant if not pathological. winston is treated worse for "he was nice to rian after everyone knowing about her cringe comp sexploits w/like the worst person possible. b/c he's been nice to her as coworker & friend all along WRONG b/c he LIKES her i.e. ew ew ew ew god he's horny" than prince is treated for being the one who took advantage of her b/c hey he's only human, he's horny sometimes, cmon. it's not His fault he knowingly uses his superior power to ensure he gets off using much more Vulnerable people's bodies so they'll try to survive that power difference by keeping quiet & protecting his image XD it IS winston's fault that well just look at him. :/ well you just Know he has [imagine any trait you'd put in a Cringe Comp of Loser things! apply it yeah it's canon nobody cares, lol] you just Know he doesn't have a Good Dick, b/c there are Good Bodies and god gives them to Superior people, we're Telling you he doesn't, as is Deserved by him, like the show put On Screen Factual Text to virtually pants him & him alone as a joke in the burn rate episode. like the show keeps having people physically assault him & sexually harass him but haha they wouldn't literally fuck him so it's not actually that! they wouldn't literally kill him so it's Fun & Epic!! but i mean winston Is someone who like, has to Learn things about sex. who else has had to? women? queer people? disabled people? that's right, Inferiors, billions doesn't have to say, b/c billions can just present this romp through indulging the desire to punish autistic existence. wendy experiences the consequences of her actions & feels bad, & while billions doesn't suggest she Shouldn't, it also handily tempers it by being like "she's back at it again 5 min later though. & forever after that. to her inevitable ultimate reward b/c we decided from the start she's our heart & our hero b/c she's the Elite 0.01% in her interiority :) she Deserves it" & "wow, often taylor, don't you feel bad for taking action so that wendy experiences a consequence of her hurting you, like even expressing that she did as much? there will be other, more lasting consequences for you too still. you Should be at the center of the s7 Kill Prince (not literally. we don't even have to clarify! we would have no contempt if we did!) subplot but sorry :) you were not Born in this series as Best Person, wendy. stay out of her way"

anyways & it's like, yknow, same as how we could get "wow The Cost Of Business Moves, The Cost Of Power Therein, The Cost Of Emotional Hangups Behind It All...." like montage, break out a song, just have the shot of someone like damn :/ whatever whatever, over similar conflicts & breakups so long as winners were involved (winston's material here being very much like lauren's, oh you're not loyal enough (and wendy just betrayed me & to my face expressed she doesn't give a shit & will do it b/c she feels like it & i'm lashing out with that Extra motivation behind it)? sabotaged! lauren comes back like "well we can be business friendly right?" wrong, again for no apparent reason taylor cares so much about Image that ep & prince cares so much about the principle of power relations over anything else! he might be fine though. except both instances lauren gets a mini monologue to criticize / respond to taylor on her way out (even when Likewise business sabotaged in the very end too) while winston gets One frustrated remark to them that is deflected like yeah well up yours rword, and tbt the time he Did get to successfully mini monologue criticize them, mafee got to yell at him over him being a loser as everyone else watches & approves, lauren later Personally agrees ft. pranking taylor by pretending to break up with them & they still compliment her & approve, taylor only comes around between eps with no credit to winston's points. & of course, lauren gets to date taylor winner 2 winner, while the idea winston could cozy up in kompenso & make a move b/c Of Course? laughable &/or repulsive, comedy or horror At him. oh yeah honorary mention to how it was only laughable &/or repulsive he had a crush on rian but they do make sure to throw it in his face this episode, b/c just like the rest of it, winston isn't a person in his world, he is a primarily External Phenomenon & our reactions to it are what define reality. ha ha tell him his crush helped destroy him b/c nobody cares, why? b/c this is all about the power trip baby, it's Yours by proxy!!!) like again billions Kind Of realizes some problems here but a) i mean haha you get it. you get why it's nbd. & b) again hey just say it. have a character correctly go "pffft i mean that was like, quote unquote Mean lmfao but soooo fun epic i love you you're truly The Winner" just have characters be like "yeah time for him to be dead. figuratively i guess. we don't care about that. we care about Our Journey making it happen" like yes truly you reconciled it. no way would it have actually been completely set up by precedent & validated by relevance to Themes, Character Arcs, did i mention the most important Themes including stated expectations that the viewer question & criticize people like axe, gasp, in season 1, whoa, Literally killing someone???? but hurting your local autist as much as you want is fun & games & we do like that haha god fuck them so hard, figuratively! b/c lmfao gross they objectively deserve to never have sex & Transgress to want to, (WE'RE only human. them? not so much) much less have it (these aberrations will realize their sad mistake. or just get sick of dating someone with this insufferable personality! (laundry list of ways ableist ppl describe autistic ppl w/o knowing they're autistic. winston's annoying! obnoxious! a dick! etc whatever. i mean you get it. you objectively agree. he Is. don't you see, can't you just tell. We know how They are))

anyways can you imagine if everyone who is doing the same shit prince does was confronted with "despite how the episode is written, winston didn't just get here today, could expect an Unfriendly business relationship no matter what (or just be pissed off about the one he had as an employee the whole time, even in tmc's peak independent heyday. do it pettily) & be ready to counter with a bunch of actually relevant dirt on people & their business enterprises, which they have to at least think about & like decide why they're Beyond that, decide how they have to change to Become beyond it, or, yknow, Not be beyond it! themes besides that billions makes sure to execute "win for violent ableism simmering within you. and probably without, this is in fact bog standard 'every day treating winston like this b/c he dared exist' shit in reaction to someone being autistic" more than it makes sure to execute "why These characters have meaningful motivation against These characters, as the main plot of the whole series finale season, kind of pertinent to peak important themes!!" like ah fuck that. if you're not favored by the gods for your winnerness no matter you're actually doing, then yeah, billions has some problems! which it is Not willing to tackle, thanks. didn't you all enjoy seeing the Finale of finally, finally, getting to make winston stop existing? not literally, in that world, but eh not b/c anyone Cares or Wants to. for the legal record. and when, in fiction, he does just stop existing in the story, last minute reappearances to merely be Used once more barely withstanding. and all the characters forget about him, including the Weirdos who Cared Too Much, tuk who has to be punished out of actual friendliness towards winston, rian, who is the most hurtful towards him but if she went Out Of Her Way to hurt winston, Or to actually help him, soooo for no reason yeah sure she'll actually help kill him if you ask & have no followup questions for him or anyone else much less being the vessel for criticism over it, like she had to be for lauren's sake, winner 2 winner. billions would be in shambles otherwise. and that's the power of an autistic character. like taylor & their power as nonbinary character: if you don't stop holding them back by the scruff of their neck & placing others immutably above them in the billions hierarchy, it all falls apart. it would've also been Very Easy for: winston agrees to do taylor a favor, this feuding & dragging winston back into line is a stunt that gets this algorithm situated at mpc with no questions asked in the face of the satisfaction of a successful power trip, they just ask winston to sabotage things later. no changes needed. we just dare to mitigate the contempt for & ever exacerbated gulf between any winners & winston, who we Love to hate. & there'd have to be Reasoning in dialing it back. which i guess was exhausted with s3's "oh well winston is chastened. he was in the wrong for bucking the potential employers' power trip, taylor lashing out at him for lashing out at that? welcome to the double standards he doesn't like & is wrong about. b/c he's obnoxious." & the reasoning might just unveil some issues & inconsistencies in Other ideas employed & assumed around here. like the ones behind "oh haha we hate winston. we love to kill him. on sight" & ramping that up forever, maybe

anyways winston & taylor & tayston & riawin & rian (nonbinary if you're not a coward. an actual character if you're not a coward. someone who is actually against bullying, for reasons, instead of "when it's done to her. bullying's #1 fan when it's her #1 hobby b/c winston's inferior & b/c She Can" if you're not [billions can't Argue a "bullying is bad??" stance b/c it's not if it's winston]) all too much for billions. a firm anti bullying stance too much for billions. anti compulsory sexuality stance too much for billions. thinking about power dynamics, thinking about "maybe reality isn't an Objective dichotomous hierarchy of winners & losers where abuse just needs to happen by the right people against the right people," too much to actually assume a kneejerk response against "well let's just kill him. brought it upon himself." (we do not consider killing prince for a moment lmao. even as we make clear we Need to take him out b/c of all the people he Would consider killing, amidst his politics that some superiors deserve to reign over some inferiors lives). rimming is too much for billions lmao. jerking off. everyone being people. autism. transgenderism. it's shit over there

[regallibellbright]

[ID: The first image is the October Daye Wiki's image for Amandine the Liar. The second image is a screenshot of Shadow Weaver from She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. End ID]

Still not up for transcribing the propaganda under the cut and that is 100% on me given I wrote the longest one.

Okay, obviously in MOST discussions of terrible fictional mothers, Shadow Weaver winning would be 100% reasonable. But let me tell you about Amandine.

The following is a list of good things Amandine has done for her children:

Saved our protagonist, October/Toby's life. She will later say she did this because her sister-in-law's rose-cats asked her to, as opposed to, you know, Toby being her daughter.

In the process, separated Toby's death omen/adoptive sister May so that she does not die if Toby does and continues existing. (Note: May has Toby's memories up to a point and remembers Amandine as her mother, but Amandine clearly does not consider May her daughter given she barely considers TOBY her daughter.) We're not sure if this was intentional or not, actually.

Also in the process, changed Toby's blood to the half-human, half-Fae mix that it should have been all along. (... Because Amandine's the one who was trying to change her to human without Toby's knowledge or consent as a child. Which was painful!) We're at three points for one action here, folks, and you will note the caveats.

Commissioned a bunch of formal dresses when Toby was a kid that magically still fit as she aged, so she can still use them after raiding her own closet. They... probably? Hopefully? Changed designs as she aged as well, because otherwise some of them are REALLY inappropriate for a nine-year-old.

In the first book Toby fondly remembers Amandine making cookies with her (before Amandine's many many lies come out,) and Toby doesn't think about being underfed during her time with Amandine (though she is noticeably bad at feeding herself so that doesn't mean it didn't happen.) In more recent books once Toby knows she has an older sister named August and finds her, August is noted as often being at least a little underfed by Amandine and we all kinda hope it's because Amandine as a functionally-immortal Firstborn maybe forgets people need food, and not that she wanted August to have less access to her magic because she was starving. August is the daughter she liked and wanted... Honestly thinking about it, this actually makes her sound worse. Keeping it here anyway.

Yeah, that's it. That's the list. This is the best I can do. Most of this is from ONE ACTION and another is "may not have starved one of her two children," which is BELOW the minimum bar.

Toby ran away as a teenager and landed in an exploitative flophouse run by a creep. August got trapped in another dimension where she was the only inhabitant for a century. Arguably, both of these situations were better for them than being with Amandine. Toby's reaction to finding out her missing older sister's name is August is "she named me October as the human, and therefore lesser, replacement to the daughter she actually cares about." Amandine's actions back this read up.

These aren't even the primary examples in the propaganda. This is the shit we mostly forgot to mention.

(The primary examples in the propaganda: Forcibly tried to change Toby human; lied to Toby about literally everything including the fact that Amandine is Firstborn and therefore Toby's species; made her think she was weak when in reality her species isn't suited to certain types of magic; hid the existence of her Fae marriage and daughter from Toby up to and including asking her brother-in-law who did a lot of raising Toby in Amandine's stead to continue the lie; somehow manages to be both smothering and neglectful to August simultaneously and treats her as an accessory; did not let August leave her property until she was legally obligated to once she returned; some serious spoilers from the most recent books that are so awful I'm only NOT including them because the books are less than six months old; and, oh yeah, kidnapped Toby and May's partners - Toby's fiance, May's long-term cohabitating girlfriend, functionally her children-in-law if Amandine actually considered May a child, and we are actually not giving her shit for not considering May as her child mainly because saving Toby's life is her only real appearance in the first ten books before being the primary antagonist in eleven where this occurs - forced them into their animal forms, put them in tiny cages made of briars and kept them in a dark room without feeding them for days as hostages so Toby would find August. She only returned them when she realized Toby was equipped to kill her. When Amandine's husband divorced her, both children chose to stay legally related to their father over her, and not only is Toby not actually related to him, he turned her into a koi fish for fourteen years.)

Another character from this series is in the bracket, and Titania is objectively worse on a larger scale, but we all VISCERALLY hate Amandine so much as readers I'm pretty sure we all want to see them go up against each other so we can figure out who we hate more. It's an actual contest. I don't know who I'd vote for.

Please help us in allowing this question to be answered. Vote Amandine.

BRACKET 1

Round 2

TW: manipulation, child abuse, torture

Amandine propaganda

Shadow Weaver propaganda

[uesp]

Are Argonians the only sentient (black souled) beings on Nirn that aren't descendant from the Ehlnofey? Argonians have the souls of Hist trees that they get from the sap.

Not to dodge your question, but there isn't really a good answer here. Souls don't make any sense, and the rules of soul magic have never stayed the same for a single game.

For example.

Daggerfall: If an item enchanted with a bound soul breaks, the creature who you stole a soul from will return to physical form and attack you. You also don't need soul gems to enchant.

Morrowind: You can only soul trap creatures. However, since unique characters are put into this category, you can soul trap some people who really shouldn't count. So while you can't soul trap Fargoth, you can soul trap literal gods, Daedra, and people like Yagrum Bagarn.

Oblivion: Some changes make this system more logical. Now sapient creatures have their own soul category. Lesser creatures have white souls, while people have black souls. Except the strength of the strongest white souls is equal to a black soul, so why can't we hold black souls in white soul gems? What is the difference? Well I have an answer to that, and it is... ABSOLUTE MADNESS. We'll get to that shortly.

Souls are also effected by Oblivion's leveling mechanics, meaning creatures can start to have higher leveled souls as your own level raises.

Skyrim: Basically works the same, except the soul level is now based on the creature's level.

ESO: Souls used to be leveled, but that was removed. There is no division between White or Black souls... yet. BECAUSE A GUILD PROPOSAL IS STILL IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ACCEPTED.

Mages Guild Memorandum: Confidential, Magisters Only

From Vanus Galerion, Archmagister Emeritus

If you pay attention to the popular fads and fashions of spellcasting in your guildhalls, you have doubtless noticed the recent surge of interest in the discipline of "soul trapping." Unlike most of the passing fancies that come and go among the magical fraternity, I consider this particular vogue alarming and dangerous.

There are reasons why soul trapping has never been part of the core curriculum of the Mages Guild, taught to only the most experienced and dependable wizards, and then only for certain specific uses. First of all, it is technically a subset of necromancy, and on that basis alone it should be abhorred. (Except, as mentioned, for certain special cases, and then only under controlled conditions.) Second, it is a magical technology that practically invites abuse, especially when employed to trap the souls of sentient mortals. It is the sort of arcane practice that the public fears most, and is likely to result in local bans on the organized teaching of magic, and if that happens all our work in establishing the Guild will have been in vain.

The fact that soul trapping is now common knowledge among Tamriel's magery, to the point where so-called "Mystics" sell soul gems of various sizes in every market and bazaar, is a problem that can be laid squarely at the feet of the iniquitous Mannimarco and his Order of the Black Worm. It is all part of his program to make necromancy seem commonplace and almost harmless. In some parts of Tamriel, notably Cyrodiil, the vile practice of necromancy has even become accepted as a valid, and legally tolerated, magical discipline. What our old mentor Iachesis would have to say about this pernicious development I hate to think.

So what are we to do about it? I have been giving the matter some hard thought, in between rooting out cells of the ever-burgeoning Worm Cult, and I think at this point the only way to gain control over soul-trapping is to co-opt the practice. Therefore I propose the Mages Guild codify and systematize the various soul-trapping magics into a common grimoire of a few reliable spells, and then teach our members that these, and only these, are the legal and authorized methods for trapping souls.

Furthermore, I propose that for the purposes of soul trapping we categorize all souls into two classes: the legal, or "White" souls, those smaller essences that are captured from beasts and animals, and illegal, or "Black" souls, which are derived from sentient mortals. And we will teach only those spells that can capture White souls, forbidding our students to use the larger soul gems on sentients.

It will take several generations, and the suppression of the Worm Cult, for this dichotomy to become the pan-Tamrielic standard for soul trapping. But if the Mages Guild can't take the long view for the good of Tamriel, who can?

So we have trouble soul trapping because we were taught deliberately bad spells while the Mages Guild successfully suppressed all knowledge of the previously superior soul trapping methods. The differences between white and black souls are arbitrary, put into place by the Mages Guild.

So to give you a very poor quality answer: I'm not even sure if there is a real difference between white and black souls, and it isn't just magic DRM put in place by our boy Vanus. It gets even more complicated with the presence of black soul gems, which have even more confusing lore. Beyond that, we lack information on many creatures and people that I would want before answering this with any degree of certainty for Argonian souls.

[96thdayofrage]

What is Critical Race Theory?

Basically, Critical Race Theory is a way of using race as a lens through which one can critically examine social structures. While initially used to study law, like most critical theory, it emerged as a lens through which one could understand and change politics, economics and society as a whole. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, describes the movement as: “a collection of activists and scholars engaged in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power.”

Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the founding members of the movement, says Critical Race Theory is more than just a collective group. She calls it: “a practice—a way of seeing how the fiction of race has been transformed into concrete racial inequities.”

It’s much more complex than that, which is why there’s an entire book about it.

Can you put it in layman’s terms?

Sure.

Former economics professor (he prefers the term “wypipologist”) Michael Harriot, who used Critical Race Theory to teach “Race as an Economic Construct,” explained it this way:

Race is just some shit white people made up.

Nearly all biologists, geneticists and social scientists agree that there is no biological, genetic or scientific foundation for race. But, just because we recognize the lack of a scientific basis for race doesn’t mean that it is not real. Most societies are organized around agreed-upon principles and values that smart people call “social constructs.” It’s why Queen Elizabeth gets to live in a castle and why gold is more valuable than iron pyrite. Constitutions, laws, political parties, and even the value of currency are all real and they’re shit people made up.

To effectively understand anything we have to understand its history and what necessitated its existence. Becoming a lawyer requires learning about legal theory and “Constitutional Law.” A complete understanding of economics include the laws of supply and demand, why certain metals are considered “precious,” or why paper money has value. But we can’t do that without critically interrogating who made these constructs and who benefitted from them.

One can’t understand the political, economic and social structure of America without understanding the Constitution. And it is impossible to understand the Constitution without acknowledging that it was devised by 39 white men, 25 of whom were slave owners. Therefore, any reasonable understanding of America begins with the critical examination of the impact of race and slavery on the political, economic and social structure of this country.

That’s what Critical Race Theory does.

How does CRT do that?

It begins with the acknowledgment that the American society’s foundational structure serves the needs of the dominant society. Because this structure benefits the members of the dominant society, they are resistant to eradicating or changing it, and this resistance makes this structural inequality.

Critical Race Theory also insists that a neutral, “color-blind” policy is not the way to eliminate America’s racial caste system. And, unlike many other social theories, CRT is an activist movement, which means it doesn’t just seek to understand racial hierarchies, it also seeks to eliminate them.

How would CRT eliminate that? By blaming white people?

This is the crazy part. It’s not about blaming anyone.

Instead of the idiotic concept of colorblindness, CRT says that a comprehensive understanding of any aspect of American society requires an appreciation of the complex and intricate consequences of systemic inequality. And, according to CRT, this approach should inform policy decisions, legislation and every other element in society.

Take something as simple as college admission, for instance. People who “don’t see color” insist that we should only use neutral, merit-based metrics such as SAT scores and grades. However, Critical Race Theory acknowledges that SAT scores are influenced by socioeconomic status, access to resources and school quality. It suggests that colleges can’t accurately judge a student’s ability to succeed unless they consider the effects of the racial wealth gap, redlining, and race-based school inequality. Without this kind of holistic approach, admissions assessments will always favor white people.

CRT doesn’t just say this is racist, it explains why these kinds of race-neutral assessments are bad at assessing things.

What’s wrong with that?

Remember all that stuff I said the “material needs of the dominant society?” Well, “dominant society” means “white people.” And when I talked about “racial hierarchies,” that meant “racism.” So, according to Critical Race Theory, not only is racism an ordinary social construct that benefits white people, but it is so ordinary that white people can easily pretend it doesn’t exist. Furthermore, white people who refuse to acknowledge and dismantle this unremarkable, racist status quo are complicit in racism because, again, they are the beneficiaries of racism.

But, because white people believe racism means screaming the n-word or burning crosses on lawns, the idea that someone can be racist by doing absolutely nothing is very triggering. Let’s use our previous example of the college admissions system.

White people’s kids are more likely to get into college using a racist admissions system. But the system has been around so long that it has become ordinary. So ordinary, in fact, that we actually think SAT scores mean shit. And white people uphold the racist college admissions system—not because they don’t want Black kids to go to college—because they don’t want to change admission policies that benefit white kids.

Is that why they hate Critical Race Theory?

Nah. They don’t know what it is.

Whenever words “white people” or “racism” are even whispered, Caucasian Americans lose their ability to hear anything else. If America is indeed the greatest country in the world, then any criticism of their beloved nation is considered a personal attack—especially if the criticism comes from someone who is not white.

They are fine with moving toward a “more perfect union” or the charge to “make America great again.” But an entire field of Black scholarship based on the idea that their sweet land of liberty is inherently racist is too much for them to handle.

However, if someone is complicit in upholding a racist policy—for whatever reason—then they are complicit in racism. And if an entire country’s resistance to change—for whatever reason —creates more racism, then “racist” is the only way to accurately describe that society.

If they don’t know what it is, then how can they criticize it?

Have you met white people?

When has not knowing stuff ever stopped them from criticizing anything? They still think Colin Kaepernick was protesting the anthem, the military and the flag. They believe Black Lives Matter means white lives don’t. There aren’t any relevant criticisms other than they don’t like the word “racism” and “white people” anywhere near each other.

People like Ron DeSantis and Tom Cotton call it “cultural Marxism,” which is a historical dog whistle thrown at the civil rights movement, the Black Power movement and even the anti-lynching movement after World War I. They also criticize CRT’s basic use of personal narratives, insisting that a real academic analysis can’t be based on individually subjective stories.

Why wouldn’t that be a valid criticism?

Well, aren’t most social constructs centered in narrative structures? In law school, they refer to these individual stories as “legal precedent.” In psychology, examining a personal story is called “psychoanalysis.” In history, they call it...well, history. Narratives are the basis for every religious, political or social institution.

I wish there was a better example of an institution or document built around a singular narrative. It would change the entire constitution of this argument—but sadly, I can’t do it.

Jesus Christ, I wish I could think of one! That would be biblical!

Why do they say Critical Race Theory is not what Martin Luther King Jr. would have wanted?

You mean the Martin Luther King Jr. who conservatives also called divisive, race-baiting, anti-American and Marxist? The one whose work CRT is partially built upon? The King whose words the founders of Critical Race Theory warned would be “co-opted by rampant, in-your-face conservatism?” The MLK whose “content of their character” white people love to quote?

Martin Luther King Jr. literally encapsulated CRT by saying:

In their relations with Negroes, white people discovered that they had rejected the very center of their own ethical professions. They could not face the triumph of their lesser instincts and simultaneously have peace within. And so, to gain it, they rationalized—insisting that the unfortunate Negro, being less than human, deserved and even enjoyed second class status.

They argued that his inferior social, economic and political position was good for him. He was incapable of advancing beyond a fixed position and would therefore be happier if encouraged not to attempt the impossible. He is subjugated by a superior people with an advanced way of life. The “master race” will be able to civilize him to a limited degree, if only he will be true to his inferior nature and stay in his place.

White men soon came to forget that the Southern social culture and all its institutions had been organized to perpetuate this rationalization. They observed a caste system and quickly were conditioned to believe that its social results, which they had created, actually reflected the Negro’s innate and true nature.

That guy?

I have no idea.

Will white people ever accept Critical Race Theory?

Yes, one day I hope that Critical Race Theory will be totally disproven.

Wait...why?

Well, history cannot be erased. Truth can never become fiction. But there is a way for white people to disprove this notion.

Derrick Bell, who is considered to be the father of Critical Race Theory, notes that the people who benefit from racism have little incentive to eradicate it. Or, as Martin Luther King Jr. said: “We must also realize that privileged groups never give up their privileges voluntarily.”

So, if white people stopped being racist, then the whole thing falls apart!

From your lips to God’s ears.

[chibimyumi]

What do you think about OCiel and Vincent? What is their relationship? When we see Vincent he is always with RCiel and he hug him and not our earl, and when OCiel talk about Vincent he call him his predecessor and not his father!

Dear Anon,

That is a very good question because that is indeed very hard to tell. The Book of Flashbacks did last for very long in real time, but we actually only saw the interaction between Vincent and O!Ciel sporadically spread across 4 chapters.

Though it had been short, in the very least there is some level of objectivity because the flashbacks are being told by the omniscient storyteller. It could not have been O!Ciel, R!Ciel or Takana’s subjective pov, because in most scenes at least one of them was missing. However, that it was told by the omniscient storyteller doesn’t mean we have seen everything. Yana does leave things out when its unnecessary like a competent storywriter would. We don’t need to know everything. In storytelling often “less is more”.

Now with that caveat established, let us look at whatever interaction we do see. But before we do so, we must first discuss what “parental love” even is.

What is parental love?

In the flashbacks Vincent’s affection is indeed mostly for his firstborn son. Even though we want to believe all parents love all their children equally and naturally, sometimes parents just love one child a little bit more. Even if parents do love all their children equally, it is also nothing weird that they “like” one child more than the other. Not unlike any other relationship, love between parent and child is also something that grows from building and investing in. Parental love is not a magically natural element in our DNA after all, as researched by Prof. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy on the “social construct of parental love”. Don’t worry, no need for moral panic; that parental love is socially constructed doesn’t make it any less deep or real. It’s just that because parental love too needs building, the more positive interaction you have with a child, the stronger the bond often.

Because O!Ciel was so sickly from age five on it hindered him from normal participation in family activities. Therefore it is only normal that Vincent could bond less with him, making his greater closeness with his elder son quite inevitable.

Vincent’s closeness with R!Ciel is in fact more out of the ordinary for their time. At least until early 20th century fathers did not have a parental role as we know it now. They were responsible as the “legal owners” of the child, but “parenting” was not part of their duty. It is not for nothing that when we hear “mothering” most people think of “child-rearing, raising and loving”, but when we hear “fathering”, it’s just... impregnating someone. Because that had been the actual definition for centuries!

Vincent’s parental love?

In chapter 131 I would argue we get the best indication of how far Vincent’s love goes for his second son. They had a family trip planned, but due to illness O!Ciel could not participate. In the back Vincent does look appropriately concerned, but we don’t know about what exactly. Put a pin📌 in there, I will come back to this a bit later.

Rachel judged O!Ciel’s condition too ill to go, and suggested postponing the boat trip, not Vincent. (In Japanese “we can go another time” was spoken in a speech pattern Vincent doesn’t use, so it’s definitely Rachel talking.)

Vincent doesn’t say anything so we don’t know what he thought about his wife’s proposal. Meanwhile, his seven-year-old had already selflessly offered to stay behind as not to spoil the fun of others.

What really caught my attention was how there was so little attempt to include O!Ciel. Rachel only said one “but...” and then immediately gave in to a seven-year-old.

Vincent did not even attempt to not exclude his son. He was like:

That is what I meant earlier by: “we don’t know about what exactly [he is concerned about]”  where I asked you to put the pin📌. It might as well have been:

Vincent and Rachel are rich adults, they should be able to judge that them skipping one boat-trip is something they can get over with. Leaving a young child behind who is regularly excluded from everything and clearly so upset having to be excluded again was apparently a less bigger deal than skipping something they could easily afford again. O!Ciel was so used to being excluded he had normalised that for himself, and was forced to learn selfless sacrifice. That is not healthy for any child that young!

If you can’t tell that this poor child was lying about “everything being fine” you’re actively unseeing it. R!Ciel is but a seven-year-old, so he is blameless. Papa, mama, looking at you though! ( Ò_Ó💢) I mean, dear readers, would any of you have left a sick young child behind to go on a trip??? It could be that Vincent really wanted to bring his recovered wife on a trip and that’s important to him, but to sacrifice your sick child for that?

We have not seen everything to judge whether in total Rachel was more, equally, or less often ill than O!Ciel. However, from what we have seen, every time O!Ciel was excluded, Rachel in the very least was doing better. This really paints a picture that overall, Rachel misses out on stuff less often than O!Ciel had to. And again, unlike young children, as an adult you can rationalise that. In my opinion if you’re unwilling to reschedule a trip to include everyone while it is within your ability, you are selfish parents. R!Ciel wouldn’t have thrown a tantrum, but even if he did, it’s your literal job as parents to rationalise that with him. So doing it for R!Ciel is no excuse.

“Predecessor” instead of “father”?

Yes that is indeed an interesting point you bring up! After O!Ciel returned as the Earl he indeed only referred to his parents as “father and mother” at the graves one last time. Afterwards she has consistently referred to Vincent as “predecessor”.

I however would argue this has nothing to do with his bond (or lack thereof) with Vincent. He also refers to R!Ciel using the formal term for brother (兄・ani) instead of the better-known “niisan” (big bro). And we know for a fact that they did have a deep bond. I would say that O!Ciel calling Vincent “predecessor” is because he does not wish to be seen as childish because he is trying to be taken as an adult.

In Japanese “father” as used by O!Ciel is “otousama” (お父様), which is polite but a bit childish. “Otousama” is vocative, meaning it is a word you use to call your own father; like “papa”. In formal company you won’t say to someone: “my papa said...” That sounds very childish and unprofessional. People nowadays do use the common version “otousan” to refer to their own father to others, but that is generally only acceptable in casual company. To my friends I might say: “my papa (otousan) said”, but to my superiours I would NEVER.

As O!Ciel never again addresses his father (because he is dead), it is only logical that he stopped using the vocative “otousama”. For nobles when talking about their late fathers, using “predecessor” is actually standard in Japanese culture. It is just one of the things that are natural in Japanese but get clunky in translation.

Conclusion

For Victorian standards Vincent’s involvement (or lack thereof) with O!Ciel was actually entirely normal. It was his involvement with his elder son that was quite exceptional. Judging from his lack of attempt to not exclude his sick child however, I would say Vincent didn’t love O!Ciel as much as he did R!Ciel. (Or... he just hated missing out on fun more than he loved O!Ciel, which is possible too). Not saying he did not love O!Ciel, just not as much as he did others.

Vincent was raised in a male-supremacist, ableist society, and was probably unaffected by these problems being an able-bodied, smart man himself. We know Vincent is a terrible exploiter and how he treats others, and therefore it would be unsurprising if he would hold his “disabled” male child in lesser regard than his “able” male eldest child. We don’t know why Vincent married Rachel or why he liked her, but women being frail was in fact considered no problem or even “attractive” in the 19th century (as long as she could get babies). For men though? SHAME!

[chronicbatfictioner]

"Overall, it wasn't so bad..." Tim commented.

"Except for the fact that Bane roared like a constipated bear and literally lunged at Damian and Jason threw him out the window..." Barbara quipped, her face serious but her lips were still twitching. "I... am highly amused. Twice."

"You were laughing until you bent over double that if you weren't in a wheelchair, you've probably knelt on the floor laughing." Dinah deadpanned. "It was hilarious."

"Yes, it was. The fact that Jason could actually lift Bane and throw him out... Did you guys see Bruce's face, though! Oh my god! He... he looked at Jason as if he'd seen the lord savior Jésus Todd or something!" Tim crowed. "Like, the dude Bane got thrown out a bay window twice. I get the awe, I was a little star-struck myself. But I can't believe dude actually wanted to try the third time until Alfred pointed a damn shotgun to his forehead! I can't even!"

"This thus solidifies my thoughts that the Waynes may be trying to figure out a way to get rid of this... brute without... I dunno..." Barbara pondered.

"Gotten themselves broken in half?" Tim suggested. "He sure insinuated that he would do such a thing to Damian."

"Oh, gee, Tim. Which part of his speech insinuated that? 'You lying bastard!', or 'I'll break you in halves!'?"

"I'm partial to the 'bastard' remark, really. I mean, pot, kettle?" Tim replied, giggling.

"Technically," Helena Bertinelli - The Huntress - sighed as she chimed in; "and ironically, at that; the 'bastard' would be Bane since he claimed to be Thomas Wayne's son and is younger than Bruce. Which means he was 'conceived' while Dr Thomas was already married to Mrs Wayne..."

"Right? Bruce and Talia were two consenting adults, albeit under 20 years old; and were wed in a local ritual witnessed by locals, according to Jason. You should see Bane's face when Jason presented copies of the marriage's registry." Tim continued.

"Oh, we saw, all right. Harper's drones worked quite well." Dinah replied, snickering, referring to Harper Row, one of their tech 'consultants'. "Even at that height, it still delivered crystal clear pictures. I vote we use them again."

"No vote needed, the drones are on stand-by at the Wayne Manor permanently at this point. I'm more interested in his reaction when Damian offered them a DNA test." Barbara told her.

"I'm more interested in Bruce Wayne's reaction, really. He didn't seem too surprised, as if he was expecting this to happen or something." Helena pointed out.

"Maybe he did," Barbara replied absently. "Dude has been swingin' more than the roarin' 50s, there has got to be some juniors out there that even he didn't know of."

"Ugh, while I'm not a fan of Bruce Wayne's womanizing ways, I personally don't think he's that reckless. He's not a drinker or a junkie, as far as I know. He has virtually no vice other than extreme sports." Helena argued.

"I agree," Selina, who has been quietly watching from the corner, chimed in. "This is a guy who got visibly antsy when some sexy girls in bikinis come up to him - I thought he was gay. But if he'd been... wedded to Talia Al Ghul all these times, that would make sense. He knew exactly where he stood, and what would come up if he screwed it up."

"Has Jason or Dick said anything of the Doc and Mama Wayne's reaction?" Helena asked.

"They seemed truly confused, a little apprehensive, but didn't seem to be opposed to the idea that Damian is Bruce's child. Dr Wayne said that a DNA test wouldn't be necessary, but Jason insisted it." Tim replied, and added a little absently a few heartbeats later. "But why would he, a physician with more specialties than a truck stop, would not question the biology of anyone claiming to be his biological descendant?"

Barbara glared at Tim, "excellent question, Tim. If my dad has someone coming out of the boonies saying he's related to me, the first thing dad would do is draw blood."

"They... don't care?" Dinah suggested. "Maybe the Wayne men were less... chaste than they appear?"

Barbara glared at her this time. "Of all the women Bruce Wayne has dated, I've only recorded a handful who would end up in a second date. Less than a handful who were actually mentioned beyond social media photos; and you know how I feel with social media photos: generic, unverifiable, and showoff-only. Dates with Bruce Wayne generally would start with the pick-up, dinner, and then some form of jewelry. I..." she looked at Selina and Helena, "you've both dated him at one point or the other."

Selina shrugged, "I went for a gala dinner, and was honestly there to scope the homeowner's safe, really. I wasn't interested in a follow-up date." she replied. "Helena?"

"Social arrangement. My people called his people and boom, we were on a red carpet." she elaborated. Helena was a part of a mafia family, until she decided that the mafia way would not be the best way to make Gotham a happy place for all, and donned the costume of the Huntress to hunt down wrongdoers. Barbara had decided to let her join to prevent her from going over the line and murder anyone out of overzealous-ness; but also in order to get a line-in into the mafia families.

"No second dates, either, huh?"

"No, I'll have to check, though. I think his people called me again, but I wasn't interested in a vapid playboy, even if he has more money than Jesus."

"Vicky Vale," Selina reminded. "She has had a... somewhat lengthy relationship with Bruce some years ago."

"Sooo... the next answer in our mystery could probably be answered by interviewing an investigative journalist." Tim commented.

"Oh, no..." Barbara grinned mischievously. "Not this investigative journalist. I know just the journalist to talk to when it comes to gossip among themselves."

Dinah snorted a laugh. "I thought you didn't like her."

"I liked Vale less," Barbara griped. "Plus, Vale is already getting news on Bruce's probable child; why shouldn't I send Lois Lane the allegations of the Bane Conspiracy?"

"Conspiracy with who?" Dinah asked curiously.

"Oh, the Waynes, of course, to get rid of the Court of Owls," Barbara smirked. "Why should we be the only ones racking our respective and collective brains when we can have someone else on the ground doing the grunt work?"

"Babs, you can be... pretty evil sometimes," Selina remarked. "I know there's got to be a reason why I like you."

"I'm also awesome with technology and can launder your ill-gotten money and make it legal and undetected." Barbara pointed out.

"Oh no, that's why I liked you." Helena quipped smirking. "Seriously, how many mob family can say their ill-gotten money is accountable by law?"

"As long as it is within the facets of the law, and so on and so forth... Anyway! Tim, you're quiet for more than two seconds. I'm always nervous when you're quiet."

"Just thinking..." Tim said, looking a little lost in his own brain. He often does that when he has at least a dozen scenarios running through his mind. Through the time of Barbara knowing him, Tim would probably be the only person whose claims of 'just thinking' wouldn't immediately be picked on by anybody.

"Care to share with the class, kitten?" Selina prompted.

"It's not fully mapped yet... but I was thinking. What if the Waynes aren't... didn't cooperate with Bane in order to destroy the Court of Owls, and they're literally being hostages in their own home? What if Bruce Wayne has predicted something like this could happen, and has gotten himself all prepared all the way to ten years ago when he wedded Talia Al Ghul? I mean, who would have had enough firepower to defeat Bane other than the Al Ghuls? Look at Jason," Tim pointed out. "He threw Bane out the window as if he was a fly. While Jason is as solid as a rock but isn't a metahuman - Bane is. He was assigned by Talia herself - out of Gotham - to protect and guide Damian-- why? What's so special about Jason Todd? Why did Talia choose him? Why didn't Bruce Wayne - at least - act shocked when Damian said he was his son? Surprised, sure. But not shocked or in denial.

"Who's gonna win if Bane turned out to be Dr Wayne's son? Who's gonna lose? What will they lose? Who is Bane accountable to? If none, who planted the idea of him being Dr Wayne's son? Because from what I've read about him, he was born and raised in a prison with his mother - no mention of a father. His mother was an insurgent of Hasaragua, fighting against US-condoned democracy. And while there was a record of Dr Wayne being there, there was no exact date and length of stay, because he was there privately and not as a part of Médecin sans Frontieres or something like that.

"What about Mrs Wayne? She wasn't a poor or uneducated woman, since she was a Kane. Society-wise, do you think she would have tolerated her husband's indiscretion, both then and now? Yet she kept quiet for nearly two months. She has a Ph.D. in psychiatry, and would she be the ones to keep quiet about DNA testing and all that? Personally, I don't think so. If my mother - a little 'lesser' society lady compared to Martha Kane-Wayne - ever got a word of a child that 'probably' got fathered by my dad, she would have demanded a divorce right away without bothering with a paternity test, sure. But my dad, who was also a society man, would have at least attempted to convince her that it was a mistake and/or it was a lie. What best method to decide a child's paternity than DNA test?

"The criminal front in general - especially the costumed criminals - has been pretty quiet since Bane eliminated the Court of Owls. Why? That's rather stupid since we know that the Court's Talons were the ones who made moves to 'discourage' the costumed freaks. Annnd... that's where I couldn't map out things further." Tim rambled.

"Keep talking, even half sentences are better than none, Timmy." Barbara prompted. Tim might have had a brain that worked a mile a minute, but he was still very young and would often get flustered with himself. Barbara, on the other hand, has an eidetic memory, and things Tim said tend to stick to her brain and would fill the gaps in any puzzles she might be thinking about. Even half sentences.

"Right, I do the fact spreads, you do the jigsaw-puzzling." Tim nodded. "The murders of Talia and Ra's Al Ghul. Jason said they were deliberately murdered in a way that they would never be able to be resurrected through the Lazarus Pit. The perpetrators would be the League of Shadows, a rogue splinter of the League of Assassins. Lead by Lady Shiva. Why? Why were they murdered? Why now and not - say - next year or last year? Who benefited by their death? Aaand... I'm done, for now, I think..."

"I... can feel a headache brewing," Dinah admitted. "You and your conspiracy theories." she rubbed Tim's head fondly. Tim gave her a half-smile, still trying to articulate the thoughts in his head.

"That's why we need him, he takes the most random input and makes a theory out of it, and some of them would actually make sense. I'll start a search string based on some of your questions. If you have more, don't hesitate to tell me, Tim." Barbara realized belatedly that her tone sounded dismissive, and turned to Tim. "Want me to call up for Chinese and powwow a little more?" she added.

Tim shook his head, still glaring blankly. "Thanks, I gotta go... I've some... things to look into. Thanks, Babs," he replied, ending it with a genuine smile as he got up.

"Want to come home with me, Kitten?" Selina asked, worry for Tim apparent on her normally-blank face.

"No, thanks, Ma. I gotta go back to the mansion, just in case, right?" Tim pointed out.

"Then Dinah should go with you," Selina decided.

"She's coming there later, right, aunt Dinah?" Tim asked. Dinah nodded.

"I'll get home with food, so don't worry about that, kiddo." she said. Tim waved them all and then walked out.

Once he was out of the door, Selina sighed. "Ah, young love..."

"Right? Remind me to check in on him before going to the House. I don't want to walk in on something and have him traumatized." Dinah agreed.

Barbara glared at them quizzically, and then at Helena, who shrugged. "Grayson said it first, I think. Our kitten is growing up. I just hope that Jason guy is worth his firsts..."

The memory of Tim gawking at Jason when he thought Barbara wasn't watching flashed in her mind.

Oh.

And then of Jason blatantly checking Tim out just before Oracle made her appearance, and at times when her Oracle projection was turned off.

"Oh boy," she sighed.

"That's about it in a nutshell. Good thing I've told him of the birds and the birds..." Selina grinned slyly.

"Millennial parenting at best, Ms Selina Kyle." Dinah grinned. "Come on, let's go patrol and induce the fear of goddesses to Gotham's low-lives before inducing maternal fear to our little kitten."

"...or to the big tabby. We'll see," Selina added, waving as she and Dinah walked out of the room.

Suddenly Barbara felt a little sorry for Jason. Just a tiny, teensy, weensy bit of sorry.

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

The wealth of House Clegane

@thefeatherofhope had a question about the wealth of House Clegane and particularly Sandor’s access to it. So, let me see if I can clear this up at all...

The founder of House Clegane, the Casterly Rock kennelmaster who saved Tytos Lannister from a lioness (at the expense of his leg and three dogs), was granted knighthood, “lands and a towerhouse”. (Southeast of Lannisport, per GRRM.) A towerhouse is not a particularly big castle -- you can see one example of an ASOIAF towerhouse here, and this site has some great photos and plans of towerhouses especially in its Scotland section.

Notably, the Clegane towerhouse (called Clegane’s Keep, semi-canonically), has a village below it, prosperous enough to have skilled laborers such as woodcarvers. It’s unknown if there’s any other villages on the Clegane lands, nor the exact size of their lands. Southeast of Lannisport is a hilly area, per the maps, and not very far from the known silver mines at Silverhill, but it’s unknown if there’s any mines (silver or gold) within the Clegane lands. But the Westerlands are generally fertile (if not as abundant as the Reach), and the Keep’s location not far from a major city should lead to moderately wealthy estates and incomes. Definitely not great lord level or even great landed knight level, but more likely to be similar to House Webber than House Osgrey (see The Sworn Sword), even if they have a Standfast-sized castle. (I also headcanon that one source of income for House Clegane was the breeding of hunting hounds, which has fallen off a bit since Gregor became the master of the house, but you can take or leave that as you like.)

At any rate, House Clegane was likely wealthy enough from the start to afford the services of a maester (the Citadel requires payment), which the first Ser Clegane would have certainly needed as he was no doubt illiterate. (The second Ser Clegane, Sandor and Gregor’s father, may or may not have been literate, as he was taken as a Tytos’s squire probably around the age of 12, but I doubt he had much more than necessary literacy.) We definitely know they had a maester during Sandor’s childhood, and almost certainly Gregor had one on staff to help prepare the milk of the poppy that he drinks “as lesser men quaff ale” for his headaches.

Regarding tourneys -- the prize for the winner of the joust at the Hand’s Tourney was forty thousand gold dragons. At the time Sandor was captured by the Brotherhood, he had only 9000 gold dragons. While it’s technically possible that Sandor might have spent 30K in a year (Anguy managed to piss away his archery prize of 10K in a few months, spending it on fancy food and fancy girls at Chataya’s), that’s still a lot of money. @racefortheironthrone estimates a gold dragon as equal to today’s $1000, and what in the hell a man like Sandor could spend $3 million on, I don’t even know. (Like, even if he did go to Chataya's a few times, he certainly wasn't bathing in Arbor wine like Anguy did.) I headcanon that Sandor spent some of the money on buying Stranger, but it’s also possible he didn’t take all of whatever he had left with him when he left King’s Landing, as gold is really heavy. (40K dragons could weigh about 800 pounds; heck, 9000 dragons weighs 180 pounds. Sigh, GRRM cannot math.) I very much doubt Sandor is the sort to work with banks at all (though I know some people have headcanoned it: note that besides the Iron Bank of Braavos, there may be the Bank of Oldtown, if it still exists), but it’s possible he buried it somewhere secret. Though if he did, it wasn’t anywhere he had any chance of accessing once he was in the Riverlands.

As for Sandor’s access to House Clegane’s incomes now that Gregor is dead (more or less)... well, there’s a number of problems before we even get to that part. Number one, Ned (as Hand of the King) attainted Gregor for his crimes in the Riverlands. Attainder takes away someone’s lands and titles, and often their right to pass them onto their heirs. However, Littlefinger tells Ned that Sandor will inherit and Ned doesn’t dispute that, so that part doesn’t seem to apply. However however, Ned’s decree was most definitely reversed by Tywin after he was executed, so in fact that attainder is not relevant after all. (But mentioned in case anyone was wondering.) Second problem: when Sandor became a Kingsguard, he gave up all inheritance rights. (He swore no knight’s vows, but he never says he won’t swear the Kingsguard oaths.) However, he abandoned his post, and while there’s nothing exactly that says what happens when a KG does that, it’s definitely not “oh you get your lands back and everything’s fine again”. If it’s like the Night’s Watch, who Visenya modeled the KG vows on, what happens when you abandon your post is execution. (See also what happened to the KG Lucamore Strong when he broke his vows of celibacy.) Either way, what Sandor is now is an outlaw. (For his desertion, and for the Sack of Saltpans, which he didn’t actually do but is believed by the crown to have done, so it counts, alas.) Outlaws are, per their name, outside the law, which includes the laws of inheritance. Legally, if Sandor were to try to claim the Clegane lands right now, he absolutely could not. (Also, from whom? Cersei, the Lady of the Westerlands? (lol omg.) Cersei’s castellan Damion Lannister in Casterly Rock? It gets very difficult.)

So. As Gregor is legally dead, and has no legal heirs, the Clegane lands have reverted to Casterly Rock. If Sandor were to show himself alive, and IF he were somehow to be pardoned for his actual crimes and the nominal ones (how is a very good question, by some grateful king or queen perhaps for services rendered), and if the whole Kingsguard thing was made invalid (again, some royal declaring all of Joffrey’s decrees illegitimate since he was)... then, yes, Sandor might be able to claim House Clegane’s lands and incomes. (And the title too, see this post for details.) But there’s a bunch of great big ifs in there. Really really huge ones. Until they’re straightened out, if they ever are, Sandor’s got whatever’s in his pockets (zilch) and maybe whatever remains of his tourney winnings if he buried them anywhere or otherwise saved them somehow. (Note he gave away the Brotherhood’s IOU, as if they’d ever pay it back, as if especially Stoneheart’s version would.) You’ve got wiggle room with headcanons and hopeful futurefics (and author fiat in fic in general), but in practice? Sandor’s got nothin’.

Hope that helps!

[headoverjojo]

Can I ask for Buccig with a S/o that has a lot of unusual pets? Like, they thought it was cats, dogs, even fishes or birds but nooo, one day they come out with a big ass snake on their shoulders 'She thinks I'm a tree' and then a giant tarantula 'He likes to high five!', and there's more from where these two came😈😂

Hi there, honey!! Aaaaaa I had so much fun writing iiiittt 😂😂😂 I tried to variate a bit the types of pets, putting in “weird” domestic animals, two for every of them! And I already apologize for the idiotic names I gave them, lol

Bruno’s gang with a s/o who has a lot of unusual pets

(Under the cut for length!)

Bruno Bucciarati

When he was a child, Bruno always wanted a pet. Unfortunately, his family couldn’t keep one, as his mother was allergic to cat fur and a dog would have been too demanding; so, Bruno never had one, even a hamster. Growing up, he never had the chance to have a pet, as he was always busy with Passione affairs, so he’s enthusiast when his s/o tells him they want him to know their adorable pets! He can’t wait for it!

While he goes to their home, he wonders which kind of pet his s/o has: a cat? A dog? Maybe a domestic bird? He’s so curious! And he’s absolutely shocked when, the moment they open the door, they show up with a big snake wrapped on their shoulders. His shocked expression is priceless! They can’t help but laugh loud, when he asks, in a whisper, if this is the “adorable pet” they said they had. At their nod and “Be gentle with Leroy McRoy!” Bruno could just whisper their snake’s name while they guided him to the living room, still laughing their ass off seeing his reaction.

The chameleon was more bearable, for Bruno. It was small, cute, in a certain sense… even if Bruno still isn’t over Leroy McRoy, he finds to like more Frizzy, their chameleon. In particular, Frizzy seems to like to nestle on Bruno’s shoulder and observe everything from here… All in all, it’s not bad, Bruno has to admit. Leroy McRoy and Frizzy are not the pets he was expecting, but… they’re lovely, in their way. He grows fond on them, helping you more and more to take care of them, even of Leroy McRoy. He has no problems in feeding him, but he’s still a bit reluctant to let him come on his shoulders! Especially because Frizzy is basically always here. He seems to like more Bruno than his original owner!

Leone Abbacchio

When he was little, Abbacchio had a dog, but they died when he was still a little child, so he doesn’t remember a lot of them. After them, his family never had anymore a pet, but Abbacchio never felt the urge to have one at home. When, then, he started to attend the Police academy and then he became a policeman, the possible time to dedicate to a pet became lesser and lesser, so he decided to never keep one. An animal was a serious duty, it wasn’t a joke: if he couldn’t take care of it properly, it was better not to have one at all!

He’s intrigued when his s/o says they, in fact, have a couple of pets. One seems already a great deal, but two… he admires his s/o for their love for animals! It’s not a common thing, all in all. He gladly accepts to come to their house to meet their pets, hoping them to be something small, such as an hamster or a small bird… even if he had familiarity with dogs, especially German shepherds, as, when he was a policeman, he had to go with the Squadra Cinofila, a couple of times, but he generally prefers smaller animals.

Well… his s/o has small pets, yes, but they’re definitely not a hamster or a bird, or something common at all. The moment he enters their living room, a red flash hops from the top of the bookcase to his head, almost making him freak out. His s/o is fast to grab it, whatever it was… and to introduce it to Leone. Red Nut, this was his s/o’s squirrel’s name, stares at Leone with unreadable eyes, squirming to try to free himself and run again on the man’s head. Leone just stays at a safe distance from him, glaring at him all the time, to his s/o’s utter amusement. It goes better with his s/o’s other pet, a quiet and cuddly hedgehog called Pinuccio that loved to roll up on his lap and gt belly up to be cuddled. Abbacchio can’t help but to huff a laugh, every time Pinuccio does it, while gently patting his soft belly. He never knew hedgehogs could be so cute!

Guido Mista

Mista never had a pet that was “just his”, nor a proper domestic pet, for all the matter. He was used to have around stray cats and dogs; he and his family feeded them, but they then slept somewhere else, not at home. They had their routes, their places; they were free. They let themselves be cuddled for a little, before getting up and trotting away again. Mista never felt the urge to keep one of them at home: wherever he turned around, a new dog or cat was waiting for a cuddle!

He’s happy to know, however, that his s/o has few animals! He just hopes they don’t have four pets… it’s be a disaster! He’d immediately bring them a fifth one. Everything, but not four! He relaxes just when his s/o reassures him that they have two pets, so everyone is safe from the Armageddon. Guido enters their home way more serene than before, ready to face… what? A cat? Two dogs? Oh, no, his s/o’s pets are far from this, he immediately notices, as they hand him a… what? A big lizard? They say it’s a bearded dragon and their name is Lizzy. From Lizard, they say, and he can’t help but to chuckle. Of course, he had to expect it…

Between Guido and Lizzy there’s immediate tuning. They’re both pretty chill, Lizzy has found such a nice spot on Mista’s shoulder where she can relax and nap… their other pet, however, it’s totally something else. He… doesn’t even know if it can be considered a pet. Can a tarantula be considered a pet? A tarantula named Octa? They say hell yes, all while keeping her on their hand. Mista never felt so disgusted and morbidly fascinated in one time. He even tries to keep her on his hand, but he manages to do it for just few seconds, before asking them to please take Octa on them again, making them laugh while they accomplish. Guido definitely prefers to stick with Lizzy!

Narancia Ghirga

When he was a child, his family used to have a cat. His mom loved that cat; it was a beautiful orange cat and they had been around since Narancia’s birth. However, after his mother’s death, his father immediately gave away the cat, breaking Narancia’s heart. Having the cat near was like still having something that remembered him for real his mom… from that on, he never had any pet, even if he shared a makeshift shelter with some stray dogs or cats, when he lived in streets.

He’s enthusiast to know that his s/o has pets! And curious too: dogs? Cats? Or something else? In his heart he can’t help but hope it’s a big, fluffy dog! Or a fluffy cat. In any case, a fluffy pet would be wonderful! He comes to their house full of curiosity and enthusiasm and this is repaid when, the moment they open the door, Narancia is literally assaulted by a…small pig? Oh boy, he can’t believe it! It’s such a tiny, cute pig! He picks them up, chuckling when they brush their soft muzzle on his face, softly grunting. It’s so cute! And their name is Babe, his s/o says. Narancia can’t stop to cuddle Babe! It’s just so cute…!

Their other pet is a goose. Narancia is totally baffled! A goose as domestic animal?! Is it even legal?! Well, not that he cares so much about what is legal and what is not, all in all. The goose, named Guendalina, reveals to be clingy to his s/o, she’s better than a guard dog! If he comes close, she starts to quack like crazy and she even tries to separate them! Sometimes, Narancia does it on purpose, going to smooch and hug his s/o, laughing loud when Guendalina comes running, flapping her wings and quacking like crazy. It’s like a clingy baby! And, while Guendalina is basically his s/o’s guard, Babe is basically Narancia’s kid. They’re always in his arms, when he’s at his s/o’s home, and he often jokes saying that Babe has in fact adopted him! In general, Narancia loves his s/o’s pets; they’re not pets you can expect to find in a house, yes, but they’re too precious not to be loved!

Pannacotta Fugo

When he was a child, his parents never wanted to keep a pet. His mother hated the thought they could leave fur around and his father didn’t want his son to have a distraction from his precious studies. Fugo always dreamed to have a pet, first just to challenge them and their prohibition, then because he wanted to have a friend. Outside his grandma, he had no one to talk to, to hug… he wanted a friend. If this friend had or hadn’t fur, he didn’t care. He just wanted to… be loved. And to love. Taking care of a pet seemed a good solution.

Of course this didn’t happened and Fugo had to archive this desire in order to focus on more pressing matters. When his s/o tells him they want to introduce their pets to him he’s so happy! He can help them to take care of the pets, he can… cuddle them, even! He can’t wait to see them. His s/o had been pretty mysterious about their pet’s species, so Fugo is horribly curious! Cats? Dogs? Hamster? He doesn’t know? When he finally enters their home, a loud croak made him jolt. What was it?! His s/o, chuckling, whistles and, after few seconds, a splendid crow lands on their arm, staring at Fugo with black, intelligent eyes. He’s a bit puzzled when his s/o says the crow’s name is Archibald, but whatever. It fits, he thinks, gently rubbing Archibald’s beak and gaining back few gurgles of bliss.

But it’s not ended here: his s/o has another pet. This time it’s not a bird, but…. a scorpion. Fugo shivers, when they proudly show him their scorpion -names Klaus, as the singer of the band Scorpions-, and absolutely refuses to take it on his hand, as they are doing; he even pleads them to put it back in his terrarium! He doesn’t like a lot insects, spiders and such, so he absolutely stays as far as possible from Klaus, being content to just spoil Archibald. He’s such an intelligent crow… Fugo adores him! He even tries to teach him some simple word and action, and he learns it! His s/o always chuckles, seeing how proud he is of their little crow, like a proud father!

Giorno Giovanna

Giorno never had a pet, even if he always vehemently desired one. He always was a sweet and affectionate kid, even if he had to hide it all, not to be beat or bullied more than what he already was. He always took with him some biscuits and, when he met one of the many stray cats or dogs, he always made sure to give them a small treat, smiling when they, as to thank him, licked his hand or brushed on his legs.

In general, Giorno loves life in all its form, and so also in form of animals. He’s happy to know that his s/o has a couple of pets they absolutely want to present him! Giorno is thrilled, now, and can’t wait to go to their home and see them! When he finally comes, the first to welcome him is a stoat, a beautiful stoat named Mr. Muffin. Mr. Muffin is an affectionate stoat! He loves to wrap around people’s necks, Giorno’s in particular. Giorno is always warm, he seems to emanate warmth and even light…. Mr. Muffin loves it. And Giorno loves Mr. Muffin: he never loses the chance to pet him, when he’s at his s/o’s home, and he always softly smiles when Mr. Muffin rolls up on his lap, to take a warm and safe nap.

Their other pet is a toad named Tassony. Giorno was more than baffled from knowing that they named their toad after a cedrata, but, oh well, he has seen worse. Tassony does basically what all toads to: croaking, hopping around, eating bugs… Still, toads and frogs are still among his favourite animals, so, every time he can, he’s going to feed Tassony, even with Mr. Muffin wrapped around his neck. It’s such a joy to see him taking care of his s/o’s animals! He seems to be born to do this!

[bimboficationblues]

Ishay Landa, The Apprentice’s Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism:

We are accustomed to think of the liberal tradition—to the extent that we perceive it through its own, largely hegemonic, historiographic and theoretical prism—in terms of a radical opening out of political horizons, an extension of liberties, an underpinning of “toleration” and pluralism, a curtailment of diverse oppressions and absolutisms; but this is to lose sight of the irreducible moment of political enclosing that liberalism contained. For the founders of the liberal order were interested not only in outlining all that which politics should do, but also, and at least as keenly, in rigorously defining what it shouldn’t. And if this prohibitive demarcation was initially meant to deter the monarch from trespassing on property boundaries, there is no reason to think that the interference of a democratic sovereign would have been any less resisted. 

Instead, there is every reason to take Locke literally, when he insists on putting property beyond the reach of “the Supream or legislative Power of any Commonwealth.” James Tully construes Locke as “subversively populist,” a “revolutionary” who “repudiates...500 years of elite political holism and reconceptualises the origins of political power in a radically populist way.” One might almost get the impression that he is talking about one of the Levellers or the Diggers. Yet Locke was hardly a populist, still less a subversive one. It is a tad difficult, to start with, to reconcile populism with one who was “receiving annually the near astronomical remuneration of around £1,500 for his services to Government,” and who did “not hesitate to praise the prospect of the poor earning ‘a penny per diem’...i.e., a sum approximately 1,000 times lower than his own income” (Mészáros). Still less can one discern an ardent populist commitment in someone endorsing child labor starting with the age of three and who, for all his “toleration” in matters religious wished to criminalize beggars and vagabonds, advocating penal severity exceeding that of the absolutist monarchs. As István Mészáros points out: 

“...while the brutal laws of Henry VIII and Edward VI...wanted to slice off only ‘half the ear’ of the second offenders, [Locke] suggests an improvement on such laws by solemnly recommending the loss of both ears, to be administered already to first offenders. These are his words: ‘That whoever shall counterfeit a pass shall lose his ears for the forgery the first time that he is found guilty thereof, and the second time that he shall be transported to the plantations...as in case of felony.’”

Some might object that such postures, while compromising the view of Locke as a personal or a practical populist, do not affect the larger claim that he was a theoretical subversive populist, who sanctioned the right of the people to rise in revolt against the king. Yet this is to ignore the extent to which Locke’s justification of revolt was not meant to ground popular sovereignty, but rather to appeal to it in order to underscore the unassailability of property. Tully himself, strangely enough, seems to acknowledge this fact, while remaining oblivious to its implications. Characterizing Locke’s position he writes that, “once government has determined a system of ‘property’...a transgression of these rights constitutes a violation of natural law and hence a ground for legitimate revolt, just as in the state of nature.” Yet precisely from this correct observation follows the realization that what stood at the heart of Locke’s system was not populism but property rights, and terms such as “revolutionary” or “subversive” are here singularly misleading. 

To be sure, as long as the “legitimate revolt” is conducted against the monarch and in defence of property, one may with greater or lesser justification speak of a “revolution.” But what if the transgressing sovereign happens precisely to be “the people,” and it is they who, collectively, make a radical and subversive claim, legal or revolutionary, on property? In that case, the term that suggests itself to describe Locke’s legitimate revolt would more appropriately be “counter-revolution.” 

[pellicano-sanguino]

In my Long Varney the Vampire Post, I mentioned the one and only time this character has been adapted properly; in the Greta Helsing - series by Vivian Shaw. I have just finished the third (and possibly last) book. I liked it, but I’m sad that my time with this new and improved version of Francis is over, and I was a bit disappointed that the rumors I heard about this book turned out to be false.

The two rumors that hyped up my expectations for this book were: 1. Carmilla was going to appear as a character and 2. Sir Francis Varney’s dark past would be made a plot point. When writing this book, Vivian Shaw mentioned on her site that she was re-reading Feast of Blood to better understand Varney’s backstory. Sadly, she used the Gutenberg project of the book, which only has about a third of it and never gets past the Bannerworth’s part of the story (screw the Bannerworths, they are boring as fuck). The most interesting parts are at the very end of the book, where sir Francis tells about how he became a vampire, it’s also at the very end where his depression starts to get to him, he attempts suicide, fails and for the only time in the book passes the curse of vampirism to someone else. I know it’s a long book and a rather difficult read just to get some background research done, but I was hoping Vivian Shaw could use the better material in the later chapters instead of the boring stuff.

Well, Carmilla isn’t in the book. While I am disappointed not to get one more adaptation of my favourite vampire, I’m fine with this. Dracula and Carmilla have had their fair share of adaptations. Letting lesser known blood drinkers like Varney and Ruthven a chance for a comeback is refreshing. It was just a little frustrating to keep reading chapter after chapter and expecting Carmilla to show up and she didn’t. I wish I had known ahead of time that this rumor was false.

When Vivian Shaw mentioned she was doing research for Varney’s backstory for the third book, I imagined that something from his past would be an important plotpoint. That he’d run into someone who recognized him (say, Clara Crofton, who has been revived by moonlight in this universe?) or something would happen that would draw attention to the horrible things he did, forcing him to face the fact that he can’t escape his past, can’t undo anything, can’t wash the blood from his hands. And, well, nothing like that really happens. 

Varney’s depression, the choking guilt that lies heavy on his heart, is still there. It was one of the reasons I so fell in love with the first book, how accurate this version of the reluctant vampire was to the original. But it’s all inside his head. No one else knows anything about his past and he will not speak about it to anyone. Everyone knows he’s done some ethically questionable stuff, but no one seems to care. Everyone is all too happy to be all “what’s in the past doesn’t matter.” Which, yes, I understand is a very touching and encouraging message to someone who is doing his best effort to change and become a genuinely good person. We should try to help people who regret the evil they’ve done and want to try to correct the mistakes they have made.

But Varney doesn’t do anything to repair the damage he’s done. Everyone he’s ever hurt has been long dead and gone, how convenient. This was why I was hoping for vampire Clara Crofton to make an appearance. This would have forced sir Francis to reveal to Greta at least one of his crimes (the killing and turning of Clara). And he would have had to face someone he’d hurt personally. He would need to confess his regret, to apologize and offer to do whatever he can to make up for what he did. And he would have to accept the possibility that Clara might not forgive him.

Whenever sir Francis looks back at his past, it’s all just vaguely hinting at things. Clara Crofton’s murder is the only bad memory specified. I wished he would have recalled his failed suicide attempt by drowning. It would have driven home the difference between his past self and current self - now he has something worth living for, friends and a budding romance, and a purpose in life as helping Greta with her work. Remembering that there was that lowest point where he wanted to die would have more clearly explained why memories of his past are such a sore spot, why they have a tendency to drive him into depression, why he will not speak of them.

Spoilers incoming: I liked the ending, where Varney is given the chance to drink the water of Lethe, forgetting all of his miserable past so he could begin his romance with Greta without any skeletons hiding in his closet (though he might have those literally, his mansion already has some screaming skulls...). And yet, Varney decides against it. His memories are painful, but he must take responsibility for what he’s done and since he can’t undo any of it, the least he can do is pay the penalty by carrying this burden and remember it all so that he will remember never to allow it happen again. Good for you, sir Francis, for not taking the easy way out. You may deserve a second chance, but that does not come at the expense of handwaving away your past crimes as if they never happened.

There were a couple parts that made me laugh. First is when Varney proposes to Greta, who is all “well, I guess Varney’s an old fashioned type and refuses to get intimate with me outside wedlock.” Pffft. No. Greta, no. You just don’t know his past. Proposing to women he hardly knows is one his bizarre habits (well, everybody needs a hobby). Dude is more thirsty for a legal wife than he is for blood. 

And then there was a scene where shit is mildly close to getting real, and Varney feels helpless because there’s absolutely nothing he can do, and in his despair he decides to pray. Of all things, he prays, for the first time in centuries. It’s all very intense and moving, such an emotional scene, when a monster bound for Hell doesn’t know what else to do but pray. It hit me hard in the feels. And then I turn the page and read how God himself answers the vampire’s prayer. And despite all the intense feels, I just burst out laughing. 

Good job, Vivian Shaw. I know I nitpick your work (I’m a vampire nerd, nitpicking vampire fiction is what I do) but I loved the ride and I’m very sad it’s over. I wish you’d write more books about these characters, but if this was it, thankyou for making one Varney fangirl very happy.

edit: Oh, and Ruthven turned out to be gay. Which I approve of.

[quakerjoe]

In the end, not even the Progressive Bernie Base showing up for Hillary in larger numbers than her own supporters did for Obama in 2008, could prevent the inevitable. A massively flawed candidate who failed to electrify the Democratic base and make the case to Rust Belt voters- why she is the better option than the Populist candidate spraying out anti-trade rhetoric.

Blame whatever you want. The blame rests squarely on all of us. But there is so many lessons to learn from the 2016 Primary and General Election. Populism and Progressive policy became the central topic. Healthcare is a right. The ultra-rich are KING in America, and they must be reigned in. Primary process should be more fair. Flowery platitudes aren’t enough to generate excitement for the poor to turn out, etc.

Literally ZERO of these lessons were learned. Even in the face of an ACTUAL Corona-virus pandemic, with over 30 million unemployed, more and more uninsured at the time of writing this- the Democratic party has done nearly nothing to fix the problems from 2016. Actually, in all my shock- they’ve made them worse. The Democratic party pulled every string it could. Bent over backwards to not only stop Bernie Sanders, but stifle Progressives and our policy agenda. All in an orchestration to crown their nominee just years after a 2016 lawsuit said the DNC can meddle how ever they like in their own “Democratic process”. All to push a man who did next to no campaigning in any states past South Carolina. A man who didn’t actually work for your vote, but instead- coasted on “Hope and Change” establishment nostalgia, for when times weren’t so chaotic.

So for pragmatism sake, let’s push all that aside for just one moment. We can debate all day about how “fair” Joe Biden’s path to the Democratic Nomination has been. But let’s view Biden on his own merits for his candidacy’s sake. What’s the incentive for Progressives to vote for Joe? Well- unless you’re sticking to the concept of the very first paragraph of this article, the answer is: There isn’t one.

If Hillary Clinton were a flawed candidate, Biden may just be the worst nominee in history. A long history of terrible behavior including coddling racists, racist behavior, repeated threats at slashing the safety net, warmongering for a devastating Iraq war that’s helped kill endless innocent civilians all based on a lie, the nomination of Justice Thomas and controversial treatment of Anita hill, the Obama administration’s failure to even pass a Public Option with a Super Majority government, while pushing a healthcare plan that was little more than barely a small step in the right direction.

Now- Biden stands as the presumptive Democratic Nominee, and with a sizable Progressive Bernie Base up for grabs, what has Joe Biden done to earn our vote?

Answer: Nothing. Well, at least nothing significant.

Three items come immediately to mind on what Joe Biden is doing to “reach left”.

1: Joe wants to lower the Medicare age to 60. By comparison, Hillary Clinton wanted to lower it to as low as 50.

2: Joe Biden wants to eliminate student debt for those making under $125K. By comparison, Bernie Sanders wanted to eliminate it universally.

3: Nebulously- Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have created “working groups” on various policy issues focusing on education, criminal justice, climate change, immigration, the economy, and health care policy. As of yet, nothing has come of these “groups” on policy.

As the Primary was coming to a close, I as a Progressive- was completely open to Joe moving (not reaching) left on policy positions.

Overwhelmingly, if you ask Sanders supporters what they care about most, it’s Policy.

What will you do for the underprivileged working class people of America?

What will you do for my children and grand children facing a Climate Change future?

What will you do for your Mass Incarceration mess, ending the drug war, legalizing Marijuana, and freeing non-violent drug offenders?

What will you do for the upwards of 45K people who die each year because health care is not affordable?

The 67% of American bankruptcies being due to health care costs?

BUT. Sanders supporters also believe in principle. Consistency. History. Fighting for change. Decency. Human rights. We’re also majority young people (a group Joe Biden did not do well with). Perhaps these things could be talked out. But now there’s a bigger elephant in the room. One that establishment Democrats and Joe’s supporters are ignoring.

Joe Biden was credibly accused of rape.

Democrats spent months yelling about “Believing Women” during the Kavanaugh Confirmation hearings. Rightfully fighting for Christine Blasey Ford’s story to be heard- knowing it would be a fruitless task at the hands of a twisted Senate Republican majority. Now, establishment Democrats are making the media rounds with Biden campaign talking points with denials and every attempt to downplay Tara Reade as not a credible accuser, even as several corroborations of her story have surfaced, 1 of which was an archive video of who Tara Reade alleges is her mother discussing the issue with Larry King on CNN in 1993. Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s campaign has it’s surrogates and supporters on news networks shielding Biden. Nancy Pelosi downplays the accusations, Kirsten Gillibrand (who helped cancel Al Franken) is downplaying the accusations. Alyssa Milano, prominent #MeToo voice, who made a performative appearance at the Brett Kavanagh hearings, now wants to “change the rules” on the movement in favor of a sort of ‘Due Process’- a process that many perpetrators cancelled by #MeToo never got, in favor of protecting Joe Biden.

What this means to me is that Democrats think it’s perfectly fine to be selective on who and who doesn’t deserve to be heard and taken seriously, based on who’s on your team. As if it should be that easy to just shed your principles like Snake skin, hypocritically protecting one predator, while gunning for another that doesn’t fit with you politically.

In 2016, I was perfectly fine voting for the “lesser evil”. Now that the party has loudly stated that not only does my values, principles, and policy demands for the poor and sick of America, not matter- I should fall in line with a candidate that has helped endless innocent people die overseas with America’s imperial military reach, helped endless people die at home because they cant afford a doctor, said that he has “no empathy” for young people- the same young people that have to live and suffer under the conditions of Climate Change while he’s dead and gone, sexually assaulted and violated multiple women, said that nothing will fundamentally change for the same rich people who are now gaining BILLIONS under pandemic conditions while their workers get sicker, if they’re even employed at all.

Moderate establishment Democrats and voters tell me that Trump is the number one threat. That we need to “vote blue no matter who”. Just how “blue” is Joe biden? Just how dissimilar is Joe Biden and his supporters from Trump and his following? For all of the cries of the “angry Bernie Bros” online, I see countless accosting and abusive discourse examples from Biden supporters calling any dissenters “Russian Bots”, or “MAGA Hats”. Being told that I’m somehow a Trump voter by default, for not immediately supporting Biden. All this when all I’ve ever seen from “the Bernie Bros” is aggressively holding smear artists to facts and truth in a thick environment of misrepresentation of Bernie Sanders and his platform.

So- Why shouldn’t Progressives vote for Joe Biden?

This Democratic party doesn’t give a damn about you. Nor does it care about Progressive policy. The party and its supporters spend all this time, smearing Sanders and his base as “Not democrats”, angry “socialists who want free stuff”, “How are you gonna PAY for it?!” etc etc, all while claiming to support SOME form of our policy, and then dropping it the second it doesn’t feel politically advantageous. This party threw everything it could into stopping YOU. With tactics like voter suppression, using a silly app suspiciously funded and supported by shady actors in Iowa, taking WEEKS to give final results, running Super PACs against Bernie and our movement, fear-mongering about Bernie when he did win states, gas lighting the public on “elect-ability”, using a literal pandemic against Bernie to guilt him into dropping out while attempting to blame him for continued spread of COVID-19, while they sent voters to the polls and we didn’t.

And after zero policy concessions, zero good will, repeated demands we fall in line after more than a year of being slammed and disrespected, showing up for Hillary Clinton and then being blamed for her loss anyway, which is inevitable again if Joe loses? Are we just going to keep allowing that? Just how long do we have to hold our noses, voting for Moderate do-nothing lite Republicans who would sooner see you die, than provide you affordable and universal healthcare, because a Billionaire would stand to lose money. Even NOW, during a Pandemic this party has done next to NOTHING to secure the livelihoods of American citizens, as more and more die, get furloughed, and cant pay their bills. All while Trump and Republicans take credit for pitching more common sense plans (even though they want to send us all back to work/school to feed the machine).

This- is the “resistance” party? THIS is the best we can do? Performative rage against a fascist clown while propping up an accused rapist warmongering corporatist with cognitive decline and previous racist tendencies? THIS is what the party keeps telling us we better support or be shamed as somehow supporting the “bad guy”?

Listen, #NotMeUs- this will never stop. This party will NEVER stop using us as a prop for our ideas and passion, then throwing us under the bus when they think they no longer need us. They cannot continue to be allowed to drag us further to the right with guilt trips and shaming. They will NEVER take you seriously unto you take serious action. We’ve been preaching about “action” this whole campaign. Why should that “action” stop in the ballot box? Have some foresight for just a moment and envision how this plays out in future elections, unless you stand up and make them WORK for your vote.

I, for one will not vote for Joe Biden. But I wont shame you for your vote, no matter who it’s for. Why? Because the party did a terrible job at earning -your- vote. I’d maybe only criticize you if you don’t show up at all. There’s so many down-ballot candidate who need support. Even if you leave the President box unchecked, at least show up for the other races.

But consider: There are other options that have been stifled for way too long. Perhaps its time we give them a shot, no? Green Party is running Howie Hawkins and a platform that is much closer to our principles that Biden would ever try for. Justin Amash just jumped into the race if you’re a little more on the Libertarian side. Jesse Ventura is also discovering running on the Green ticket as well. Just imagine Jesse ‘The Body’ Ventura on the debate stage with Donald Trump? Popcorn for DAYS.

In order for us to be taken seriously, we must prove that we’re capable of holding the party accountable. Not voting for them is the ultimate accountability, and you get to keep your principles intact.

Now- to the ultimate argument you’d inevitably get: “You would be helping Donald Trump secure 4 more years”.

My response? You don’t have to bare the blame for that. You wont be at fault for Joe Biden losing any more than those who chose not to vote at all. It’s on the party to earn these votes. That’s how elections work. If you hate the candidate and don’t feel good about them as a person, why is it your responsibility to put them in office? To me- one of the most personal things a person has, is their vote. Not their dollars, or their Tweets. It’s checking a box for the person YOU chose to represent you. If that person doesn’t believe in hardly anything you personally believe in- why is it that they deserve your vote, again? How is it that they’re are somehow entitled to that vote? They don’t, and they aren’t. I’m looking at you too, Republicans.

In closing…

Progressives, I’m sorry to break it to you but- Medicare For All is not on the ballot. Taxing the rich is not on the ballot. Ending corruption and crooked politicians is not on the ballot.

But- ending a terrible two-party system IS on the ballot. Taking your personal vote back, IS on the ballot. In my opinion- the only wasted vote, is the one you were demanded in giving up to what you don’t believe in.

-LZ

https://medium.com/@legacyzero/why-sanders-supporters-should-not-vote-for-joe-biden-a9146bee189b

[wolfhuntsmoon]

Sarah Rogers pt 2: or, how baby!Steve imbibed a fuck-you attitude with his mother’s milk

Okay, so after looking at Sarah’s backstory, how she met Joseph and had Steve and decided to go to America, I couldn’t stop thinking about: what next? The MCU wiki is VERY thin on the ground with detail, and she’s so interesting! Plus, this is, like, one of the most criminally underdeveloped sources for Steve Rogers’ character, as I mentioned in pt 1. So, what can we reasonably source from the time to fill in the gaps?

So: I said in my previous post Sarah likely arrives in January/February of 1918. This is because in those days, travel times were long, conditions were VERY poor and you did not want to be heavily pregnant on a cheap ship to America with the conditions on board. Plus, in those days there was no guarantee a ship company would even sell you a ticket if you were visibly pregnant. It did happen, but was risky for the company, so you could never be sure. Sarah would have left asap once she made a decision. 

The journey itself would have taken about 3-4 weeks. First she would have had to travel to London, because nothing would have been leaving to America from the French or Belgian coastline, as a) most of it was too close to the war and b) the bits that weren’t wouldn’t have been profitable. Travel to London from Passchendaele would have taken a few days to a week, given the mud and absolute priority troops and military materials were given on all journeys. This map here shows it took between 7-10 days to arrive in New York from London (by ship, no flights until the late 1920s/1930s) in 1914 before the outbreak of the war. I mentioned how at this point the German U-boats were basically sinking anything they found not flying a German flag, which made this journey pretty hazardous, even with the newly introduced (and very effective) protection of the convoy system. If Sarah was travelling on a fast convoy (less likely as they were primarily for troop ships) it would have taken about a week. Slower moving convoys carrying mostly cargo might have taken 2 weeks, even 2 and a half weeks if the weather was bad. Convoys, by the way, were where groups of ships were clustered together and escorted across the Atlantic by a combination of naval ships bristling with every explosive known to man, and navy ships disguised to look like harmless merchant cargo ships but ALSO bristling with every explosive known to man, to prevent U-boats sinking them. And also attack U-boats when they turned up. Not if. When. As you may be imagining, these journeys often contained lots of Things Going Boom and people Dying in Unpleasant Ways. Sarah would have been told by literally everyone she knew that this was a stupid, near-lethal decision, and that she should just NOT. But Sarah being Sarah, ignored this in the pursuit of what she felt was right and best for her and her baby... that doesn’t sound familiar at all, does it?

Okay, so she’s made it through the journey to the iconic Ellis Island. The next problem was that Immigration to the USA was incredibly curtailed by 1918, compared to the levels of immigration to the US prior to WWI beginning. In this, Sarah was lucky. Prior to WWI, on average between 1900-1914 about 1 million immigrants arrived into the US each year. In 1918, roughly 110,000 did - Sarah being one of them. I’ve said before that she would have had an easier time getting passage on a ship in the first place because she was comparatively better off on a nurse’s wage and was a middle class professional. More than that, most travel was reserved for the military - and Sarah likely had connections, being the wife of an American soldier, which made it easier for her to gain passage on a ship. (More on this later.)

Her status and profession is also very important for explaining how Sarah gained entry to the US, because by the end of WWI, the open door policy of the 19th and early 20th century had been solidly shut. The open-door policy had essentially allowed anyone who could pass a very basic medical and legal check free entry to reside in the USA, and the Ellis Island museum has a very good description of just how cursory these checks were - they were nicknamed the ‘six second physicals’. 98% of immigrants passed straight away, and a only a very small percentage of the remainder were put on a ship back to their country of origin. But by the outbreak of WWI, politicians and the public had become uneasy about this. Mostly due to racial concerns - Chinese immigration was the first to be restricted in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Japanese immigrants were targeted in 1907 and all Asian immigrants in 1917. (I see a lot of posts on tumblr talking about how immigration restrictions in the US began by denying Jewish refugees entry in the 1930s, which... is wrong. So, so wrong. But anyway.) Here is a contemporary cartoon showing a pretty good summary of attitudes to immigration by the time Sarah would have been travelling:

(The 3% refers to immigration restrictions put in place by Congress AFTER the war, btw.)

But the US wasn’t just worried about one continent’s people! Or even ‘just’ non-whites! Oh no... they were also VERY worried about the ‘wrong sort’ of white immigrant too. Namely, anyone from southern and eastern Europe, and the Irish. 

The discrimination against the Irish is an interesting one, because on the face of it, the Irish were the kind of immigrants the US wanted - north and western Europeans. But here’s where eugenics and pseudoscience come along and fuck things up for a lot of people. Part of the reason why the US was suspicious of southern and eastern Europeans was political - that they harboured a tendency towards violent revolutions, communism and anarchy. The Irish, after the violence of the 1916 Easter Rising and the fact that a not-insignificant number of violent revolutionaries tried to facilitate a German invasion of Ireland (and then unionists ran guns during the war through Kriegsmarine U-boat dropoffs on the Irish coast in... defence???? Idk either.), came to be included in this politically radical group. That’s the first strike.

The second strike came from the fact Irish had the British working against them. In those days, British media and culture really set the tone for the rest of the world. Remember, the US was not a world superpower yet - this is when Britain is at the height of its power, ruling 20% of the world’s people and 25% of its land surface by 1924. Britannia really did rule the waves, and much of the world’s culture, at this point. Hollywood, and American ‘soft power’ had yet to develop into the behemoth it is now. British culture persistently depicted the Irish as subhuman, ape-like, feckless, uncivilised and dangerous, as you can clearly see here:

The top one is from 1866, and the second one from 1849. Both were cartoons published in Punch Magazine, which was the pre-eminent social and political publication that EVERYONE read in the Victorian and Edwardian eras. It also played a huge role in shaping social attitudes, and you can see more of its, and others, views on the Irish in these excellent galleries. The rest of the British media was the same - almost universally negative views of the Irish, which filtered across the Atlantic over time. And seemed to be vindicated by events like the 1916 Easter Rising, and before that a long running number of secret societies the British kept discovering, plotting revolution against their rule. The whole ‘kiss me I’m Irish’, dying the Hudson green on St Patrick’s day, ‘omg I love an Irish accent’ thing? Didn’t happen until the latter half, or really the last quarter, of the twentieth century. The Irish were pretty much persona non grata when Sarah was alive. Part of the explanation for this came from the idea that the Irish were a part of a lesser race, their Celtic origins leading to a lack of judgement, predisposition to alcoholism and hotheadedness, and passionate outbursts which meant you needed to treat them more like children. Conveniently enough for the British, this explanation meant you didn’t need to treat your subjects like equals, deserving of the vote, or indeed with anything except violence and condescension. Ha. Funny that.

But anyway, back to America.

Third strike: the Irish were Catholic, as Sarah would have been. Only the very richest in society were Protestant, because they were descended from British settlers. Both the British and the US governments of the time viewed Catholicism with deep suspicion, partly for historical reasons (Martin Luther, 1517 and all that jazz) but ALSO because the Catholic Church remained a vastly powerful institution which could and did command the loyalties of people more than the national government, and this represented a dangerous fifth column within the nation state. Most of north and western Europe was Protestant, unlike the south and east which was predominantly Catholic (with the exception of France. But hey, they’re the French. No big.) so the Irish being 99% Catholic was yet another reason they got lumped in with the other ‘undesireables’. 

Not a small part of this was caused by the fact that the Irish had been immigrating to America in vast numbers ever since the Great Famine (aka the Potato Famine/Blight) to the tune of and average of c450,000 Irish per decade between 1850-1900. That is... a LOT. Like, New York’s population in 1890 had only just hit 2.5 million! Ireland’s population TODAY is 5 million! So by the end of WWI, there was already a sense that Too Many Irish were here, particularly since the Irish tended, like most immigrant communities, to move into certain areas in large numbers via family groups and connections. Sarah would have been no exception to this, which I’ll explore more in pt 3 later. It was a very common practice in this period for a man to go to America and work, then bring his family and extended family over. Or for young relations to go and live with family already in America if there was no work in Ireland - which there wasn’t, the Irish economy being subsistence agriculture and not a lot else. 

All of this together means that when Sarah arrives in Jan/Feb of 1918? She’d get a pretty rough welcome at Ellis Island (still used for incoming immigrants until new legislation establishing a visa system in 1924 went through and basically made it redundant.) and beyond.

Below is a pic of an Ellis Island arrival card, just because it’s cool:

These tightened restrictions resulted in not just health checks, but intelligence tests and ‘mental fitness’ tests, which if failed, could result in the immigrant being sent back to their country of origin. However, Sarah would have made it through okay, because she had good English, her profession and likely her marriage cert and references from Joseph Rogers’ commanding officer to speed her passage. She may even have had family connections already in New York or America, but for the reasons outlined in my previous post, probably wasn’t in contact with them. Or if she did contact them, was likely to be ignored and ostracised. Because patriarchy, yay.

But ironically? Getting into America was the easy part. I know, I know, unbelievable, especially when you consider she was PREGNANT during this. I mean, can you imagine enduring morning sickness and all the other joys of pregnancy on a boat in the middle of the Atlantic in WINTER, in danger of sinking from a U-Boat torpedo at any moment? Can you? Can you??? Sarah Rogers came up against an immense set of obstacles just to get into America and just fucking ploughed through them like they were tissue paper. Which explains a LOT about Steve Rogers, that’s for sure.

Join me next time for pt 3, where I explore Sarah’s living and working situation after she arrives and we all learn to be even more in awe of how fucking metal she was.

[goldtips]

guess who is here to shit on babylon again. haha . yes that’s right its me. surprise. there is so much wrong with this anime, holy mother of god. but i specifically wanna talk about the spontaneous philosophical discussion abt morality that takes place in penultimate ep & the problems i had with it:

first of all, this is a political summit. why are we discussing philosophy in the first place.

idk dir. chose to animate the leaders overreacting . assisted suicide laws have existed for a long time and debating them wouldn’t be entirely out of the contrary. also international laws / rulings aren’t 100% binding, national courts are going to have to go through a long process of actualising their plans etc etc so they have no reason to be hasty abt this at all, they still have to face a fuckton of national barriers. 

esp lowe who is just on the side making outlandish claims like: england is going to break off ties with all these superpowers and go to war with them if they legalise suicide!! i mean, what the heck lady. you have 0 jurisdiction to be making claims like that - and its not like their national laws would affect the uk at all anyway??  (  on the plus side this is rly relevant to the current political climate ahem brexit so. i guess this is a slide in my books )

okay, so its an anime, right and it has to hype things up. sure. but explain why these leaders are now standing at diff heights against a galaxy background. fucking riveting. it really goes to shows how they wasted all their animation budget on the axe chopping scene.

okay now fr, i’m going to dive into the philo discussions they provide and explain why they don’t actually help the suicide debate uwu:

legal morality

wood makes a point about the subjective content of morality in different legal systems and expresses a desire to found a unified measure of morality for the entire world. idk why they all agreed to doing this honestly. each country has it’s own legal system, affected/shaped by its unique history and political nuances, a discussion of what the “best” moral content of law is super fucking redundant.

for some reason they all quickly agree that laws are value positive when in fact, most of our current legal systems are value neutral in practice, meaning that they don’t seek impose a particular ideal or way of life on people, but serve as a minimum form of social contract to maintain order and prevent chaos within society. for instance, the concept of informed consent in medical law: e.g. in the uk medical practitioners are advised against practising paternalism and have to give their patient all the details of an operation before they decide whether to consent. no decision is being made for them, per se, but gps are obliged to provide them with all the necessary info so that they can make a good choice. in an era where information can be found everywhere, it’s unlikely that moral norms are actually sourced from the law at all - rather, in social norms, the economy, politics, religion, international laws, etc.

it is entirely impossible to do what they’re achieving - to impose a singular ideal of morality on people. it’s something that is perpetuated through cultural identity and the transactions of society. it’s not possible. you can’t make people change their ideas about life and death overnight and it can’t be done through coercion.

also this point is so fucking stupid that i didn’t want to make it, but there is literally 0 consideration of god/religion at play in politics or the law. that would mean that our laws are governed by some ellusive prophetical standard when in fact the law is based on formal rationality, where consistent reasoning is applied to circumstances to decide on a particular judgement. lowe’s point about being virtuous via the law due to a fear or worship of god is entirely wrong. it ties into the overarching biblical theme of the anime, sure, but its so out of the blue and nonsensical that it serves to ruin the immersion (if the myspace-esque galaxy background didn’t already).

trolley problem vs the organ transplant

to compare the two thought experiments as if they’re morally equivalent is so fucked. the trolley problem is constrained by time. there are only two options which make it easy to make the right choice. there are lesser variables, and it makes sense for a decision to be made (saving one life over the five is purely utilitarian).

however, the organ transplant problem is much more complex. first of all, there are an infinite amount possibilities purely because of a lack of time constraint. it isn’t just an binary choice where you pull the lever or don’t. let me bring in some other variables: does how the person is killed matter? even if they’re dragged kicking and screaming to the operating table? even if they are a well-respected and intelligent person that can still contribute to society? what if the people requiring transplants actually receive them from someone else through a deceased donation process? these people still have a chance to be saved without incurring the loss of the donor’s life.

applying kantian theory: if we were to go about murdering healthy people to harvest their organs for the sick, it would entirely defeat the purpose of healthcare in itself. the future implications of this thought experiment are more far-reaching and complex than the split-second decision of whether to save one person’s life or five.

most importantly though, neither of these two main arguments raised during their discussion even served to explain their reasoning for supporting the suicide laws. they literally spent a whole episode talking abt some bullshit but they didn’t resolve the suicide debate at all. the gamer president’s final conclusion that “the meaning of life is the root of good and evil” makes absolute no sense.

[lunaneko14]

If they're hearing Monica Rial and Chris sabat sabotaging kamehacon, I think I want to hear your thoughts about that

I’ve been waiting a while to address this since the initial allegations have come out, mostly to wait and see how Tumblr reports about this and if they put Monica, Jamie and Chris on blast like they did with Vic but its apparent that its not gonna happen.

Let me say this: These people have harassed, threatened and downright tried to take away the platforms and voice, the very things all these people on Tumblr claimed Vic did and not one person who wasn’t already on Vic’s side has spoken out about what has come out in the spotlight and I can’t say I’m surprised but I’m still disappointed. 

With that being said, let me give my followers who may not have been keeping up with the case the rundown:

- Funimation DID NOT do a second investigation on the allegations and the first investigation came up inconclusive and this was BEFORE VIC WAS OFFICIALLY HIRED TO VOICE BROLY IN DBS: BROLY which is why he was greenlit to do it in the first place. But Monica, Chris and perhaps even Sean Schemmel (or whatever) used their influence at Funimation to fire Vic without a second investigation. 

- Despite claims, NONE of the allegations against Vic have been proven. No one has gone to the police and there is even evidence that those rumors that you guys have been “hearing about for years” were all from previous attempts by Monica, Chris Sabat, Jamie Marchi and many others (including Monica’s fiance Ron Toye and his flunkie, Shane) to ruin Vic’s career. Yes there have been MANY attempts to ruin his reputation that even predate the #MeToo movement. 

- Vic has hired a lawyer, his name is Ty Beard of the Beard & Harris law firm located in Texas where Vic lives, and where companies like Funimation and Rooster Teeth are based and many people have already been served papers (Ron Toye being the only one confirmed but if he got them, the other must’ve got them too, they’re just not saying anything).

- Since Vic hired a lawyer he has made ONE statement and that was to the FANS who kept supporting him through this and this was weeks ago. On the other hand, Monica has threatened people with the FBI, Homeland Security, and Jamie has said she wanted Vic DEAD on Twitter just because people have asked for proof on their claims and allegations. 

- Marzgurl is involved, if some of my followers don’t know who that is, she was a former employee of Channel Awesome who actually used to date a proven pedophile (Jewwario) and has even been said to have contributed to him grooming minors and protected him even after allegations (with proof) came out about him among all the other terrible shit that has come out about Channel Awesome. But its been confirmed that she was one of the main one spreading the rumors about Vic sexually assaulting people while she herself has been known to protect a proven pedophile.

- There’s a lawyer named Nick Rekieta on Youtube who has received papers regarding Ron Toye reporting him to the Minnesota bar for his “unlawful conduct” even though all he did was report on the info that he’s gotten on the case. He’s never claimed to be professionally or personally involved in Vic’s case nor is he representing Vic. 

- There is suspected evidence through texts, Twitter DMs, calls and emails, Monica, Jamie, and Chris Sabat have been on a blackmail spree with these conventions. Threatening walk outs even speaking for other VAs who have nothing to do with the situation (saying they’ll walk out too even though they never said they would) among other things. This has been going on since the “scandal” came out and gained attention. 

- In the past few days, it has come out that specifically Monica Rial, Chris Sabat along with Ron Toye and Shane have been literally threatening the owner of Kameha Con with walk outs and criminal charges if he allowed Vic to come back to the convention. They even went as far as to blow up this man’s phone for 3 HOURS STRAIGHT with various rants and threats. This is ILLEGAL.

Sorry I don’t have links for everything because they are already laid out on Nick Rekeita’s Youtube channel videos about the case among others like YellowFlash, Hero Hei and to a lesser degree, The Quartering. 

And to all the people who after knowing ALL of this still defend these people because “uwu victims must be believed!” 

And to all the people who think they can just believe and tear down people over allegations and think allegations are enough to ruin people’s lives and livelihood: 

YOU. CAN’T. DO. THAT. 

Is called a WITCH HUNT and its wrong, it was always WRONG. This is why you’re innocent until PROVEN guilty. Do you know how MORE fucked up this country would be if anyone can make up rumors and shit and get their lives ruined without proof?????

PEOPLE LIE ALL THE FUCKING TIME!!!!!

WOMEN LIE ALL THE TIME

POC LIE ALL THE TIME

LGBTQ LIE ALL THE TIME

EVERY HUMAN BEING CAN LIE.

You don’t get to be on a pedestal dressed in white because you’re a minority because minorities can be wrong too. Minorities can act in evil ways too. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen minorities steal, cheat, lie, and commit several crimes both criminally and morally. 

Vic isn’t evil for being religious, I’m religious, I believe in God, am I evil for this,or do I get a pass because I’m a black female??????

Vic isn’t homophobic, he’s supported the LGBTQ community before and he’s not homophobic if he doesn’t agree with your shitty non canon yaoi ships and he doesn’t have to sign your shitty yaoi doujins (in fact I think his contract says he can’t sign or promote non canon material). Even if he was homophobic, THAT’S NOT ILLEGAL. Its called FREEDOM OF RELIGION, EXPRESSION AND SPEECH. And you can’t silence people, as long as he’s not harming anyone physically or inciting violence against someone, he can believe what he wants and you have no legal capacity to do anything about it and if you do try to do anything about it, HE has legal cause of action just like he has with this case. 

Vic isn’t automatically evil because he’s a straight white male and Monica/Jamie aren’t angels because they’re women. 

YOU CAN’T RUIN SOMEONE’S LIFE WITHOUT PROOF. VIC COULD’VE COMMITTED SUICIDE FROM THIS BULLSHIT. ANYONE COULD’VE KILLED THEMSELVES IF THE CAREER THEY’VE BUILT FOR 20 YEARS WENT UP IN SMOKE BECAUSE SOME BITCHES DIDN’T LIKE THAT THEY COULDN’T MANIPULATE HIM. AND WHEN ALL THAT PROOF TY BEARD HAS BEEN COLLECTING FOR THE PAST FEW WEEKS COMES TO LIGHT YOU BETTER FEEL BAD FOR IMMEDIATELY BLAMING VIC BECAUSE IF HE KILLED HIMSELF, HIS BLOOD WOULD BE ON YOU TOO YOU FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT.

You can’t convince me that they didn’t want Vic DEAD. Jamie fucking admitted it on Twitter!!!! Vic DID apologize to the FANS he made uncomfortable but these harpies STILL dragged him because he didn’t bend to THEM. THAT’S how you know they don’t really care about victims. THEY DON’T CARE. 

And to all of those people who jumped on me for standing with Vic from the start: