#but only because this is the extent of the idea

[arcticdementor]

A few points:

If you attempt to do racial discrimination as government policy [Reuters], then naturally people will react to that by shifting to the party that doesn't plan to discriminate against them.

Just because something is a natural reaction doesn't make it a moral one. Just because it's natural for Dracula to resist Van Helsing's attempts to stake him, the moral thing for Dracula to do would be to let Van Helsing stop him from killing more people; and that Dracula instead chooses to try to preserve his predatory existence, however natural that choice may be, only reinforces how much of a monster he is, and thus the need to slay him.

Similarly, in the view in which "corrective" racial discrimination is necessary for "racial equity" and justice, then whatever the natural reaction may be, the moral reaction is to accept being discriminated against, and the rightness thereof. To instead choose the natural reaction, however natural it is, is only to confirm your lack of morality on matters of race, further underlining exactly why the government needs to erect policy against you.

there was no one actually meaningfully in charge of the Democratic party who could say "no" to racial activists

I know you tend to see this as being due to a leadership void — that to a great extent, there's "no one actually meaningfully in charge of the Democratic party" at all, really. But have you considered that there are people in charge, and it's not that they can't say "no" to racial activists, it's that they don't want to? That perhaps "people in charge of the Democratic party" and "racial activists" are significantly overlapping sets?

What is your proposal to do about it if it turns out that the leadership on the left (and Western elites in general) are "racial activists" and actually want these policies?

Someone needs to take control of the Democratic party, impose discipline on activists, NGOs, and lobbyists, and overhaul permitting and so on so that infrastructure and housing actually get built.

First, why? So what if they don't? Can't they just keep their hold on the meaningful institutions and power (outside the clown show for rubes that is "democracy" and merely-elected offices) without having to deliver on any physical infrastructure?

And secondly, what makes you think this "someone" even exists? I get you think they're just some sort of fringe who've been unreasonably and inexplicably indulged, but what you call "activists, NGOs, and lobbyists" here, I call the ruling elite of the West. And the idea that the powerless peasant masses can meaningfully fight the elite themselves — rather than as the footsoldiers of a rival elite — is the "populist delusion," and needs to be discarded. Your 'someone who needs to take control' is a rival elite… but there isn't one. Not one powerful enough to take on the current one.

The people pushing the policies you decry are simply too powerful to be defeated. No matter how much you hate it, no matter what you do to fight it, these policies are going to continue, and even intensify. There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, and you need to accept that already.

things we need to address:

gen z men getting pulled into alt-right pipelines through andrew tate, joe rogan, elon musk, jordan peterson etc

the gullibility and stupidity of half the country voting against our collective best interests

the broad effect social media has on public and common good

lazy minds and lack of empathy

outside-country interference (trump and elon’s connections to russia and the amount of bots from other countries spreading misinformation)

the long-term effects of AI and rampant disinformation

[petermorwood]

Hi there I have an arms question for you that I'm hoping you might be able to help me with. So it is commonly accepted that swords should not be kept in their scabbards long term, especially wood and leather ones as they absorb moisture and can end up trapping moisture on the blade and cause it to corrode. Which makes sense and is why most museums seem to try and store their swords out of the scabbard. My issue is I haven't been able to find any hard sources about if this is true or not. Whenever I try to find any sources I just find forum posts and nothing with research to back it up. Are you aware of any sources on the proper care and storage of historic swords?

Storing any carbon-steel blade - kitchen knife or antique sword - for a long time in a possibly damp container - drawer or scabbard - is not a good idea, and the kitchen knife is far more likely to be taken out for use and any incipient corrosion dealt with.

The sword is likely to just hang there, being admired from a distance, until one fine day it's brought down, drawn and OMG Look At The State Of It...!

But, am I aware of any (reliable) sources for care and storage of historic swords?

Unfortunately, no. :-<

*****

What I know is the care and maintenance of modern reproductions, so rather than give incorrect information which might potentially cause irreparable damage to some genuine artefact, I recommend that you send this same question to:

The Royal Armouries, Leeds, England (enquiries@armouries.org.uk).

The Wallace Collection, London, England (enquiries@wallacecollection.org).

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, USA (enquiries@metmuseum.org).

Conservation advice from any of those sources will be reliable and, based on past experience, they'll all respond.

*****

NB - I've seen "how to restore..." info on-line which is destructive to both historic and monetary value, and I can't shake the feeling that some - though not all, though THEY often require fully equipped workshops - YouTube channels deliberately create "aged items" which they then "restore".

*****

Japanese shirasaya ("white", i.e. undecorated) scabbards are used for storage and transport, though blades stored that way would certainly be inspected on a regular basis.

Blades in museums are frequently displayed "bare", with neither scabbard nor hilt furnishings, though that's as much to exhibit tang / blade inscriptions and hamon (edge pattern) detail as to avoid corrosion, like so:

AFAIK most "complete" swords alongside bare blades exhibited like this...

...are the blade's hilt and scabbard mounted on an insert to hold them together and show what the weapon looks like when fully assembled.

*****

A scabbard's function is threefold:

To carry the sword in a convenient manner.

To protect the blade from adverse conditions.

To prevent the blade from doing accidental harm.

Re-enactment back-carry scabbards which work by having big slots in one side or being hardly there at all ignore (2) and (3) in exclusive favour of (1). They never existed IRL.

*****

I've read a few articles by museum staff about conservation of old swords and when to stop - how much cleaning is enough, how much would be too much, preservation rather than removal of patina etc. - but nothing about the whys and wherefores of scabbard storage.

This may be because as history goes further back, original scabbards become much rarer than original swords, and often when a sword and scabbard ARE found together, they've corroded into one another to such an extent as to be inseparable.

This Etruscan bronze sword and its bronze scabbard are very unusual, not just two separate items but almost completely intact, with only the organic (horn or wooden) parts of the grip missing:

It helps that the Etruscan example is bronze, which doesn't degrade in the same way as iron or steel.

This iron or steel Iberian falcata shows the more usual fate - organic material like its hilt scales are gone, as is the wood and leather of its scabbard, leaving only metalwork behind. Despite that, the blade is in remarkably good condition.

Here's a repro showing how it would have looked when complete. A small utility knife mounted on the main scabbard wasn't unusual, and was also done in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance.

The same happened to this Roman gladius: its blade and scabbard frame remain, but the leather, wood and horn of the rest have vanished, taking most of the tang and deep bites of blade with them.

Again, a repro showing how it would have looked when new.

*****

However, sometimes scabbards survive.

This sword was found a few years ago (2020) in the Oder / Odra River in Poland, and though the grip - wood, probably bound with cord then covered in leather - has rotted away, its scabbard is in a remarkable state of preservation.

What the blade's like, and whether it will ever see the light of day without destroying the scabbard, is another matter entirely up to the museum staff dealing with it.

I suspect non-invasive methods such as X-rays or ultrasound will be used: intact period blades are (reasonably) common, intact period scabbards are not.

Scabbards for Important Swords owned by Important People, including - supposedly - saints are another thing, often far fancier than what originally went with the sword, and tend to be looked after appropriately...

...although a couple of these (centre and right below) have survived remarkably well despite just being entombed with their owners.

The non-metal parts of any working sword were, of necessity, replaceable.

If used in battle they would get stained, sticky and smelly. Over the passage of time they might get chipped, torn or broken. Or they might just be "great-grandad's old clunker", not thrown out yet but not maintained any more, because the style of swords has changed since his day so why bother?

Take a look at this drawing by Albrecht Dürer. That's a one-handed arming sword at least a century out of date and maybe two, while the state of the scabbard speaks for itself.

However though definitely not an elegant hand-and-a-half longsword as seen in other Dürer illustrations...

...that old clunker will still work as intended if sharp enough, and the tatty scabbard means bumping into its uncovered point will not be fun.

Been there, done that, Ouch!

*****

Storing / displaying swords out of their scabbards is sound, for the reasons you mention in your Ask.

However this recalls scabbard purpose (1) as listed near the top, since it exposes the bared metal to other risks such as humidity or inquisitive fingers, so some sort of coating is a good idea.

Oil or grease is messy and wipes off too easily, frequently on things better left without it such as clothing, cats etc., so try "Renaissance Wax" which I believe is used on original pieces by actual museums.

I've even read that it was developed by the British Museum though have no solid proof of that so YMMV, but I've been using it on my own repro swords for years, and can confirm that when properly applied (rub on, let dry, buff lightly with soft cloth) it adds a near-invisible layer of protection and does no harm.

*****

Hope This Helps!

*****

ETA (1) - Thanks to @librarianmouse and @pagecommando for reposting this with links to, respectively, the American Institute for Conservation and Forde Military Antiques Sword Cleaning Guide, links I've added here for completeness and my own convenience.

NB that the Forde Guide is very rightly peppered with warnings about what restoration can do to an antique, and that the swords it deals with are (mostly) mass-produced army-issue sidearms rather than one-of-a-kind weapons.

ETA (2) - @dduane asked "Why didn't you mention Blood Rust Guy?" I mentioned him very thoroughly Right Here. If you want an example of sword "care" not to follow, that's a good one.

[centrally-unplanned]

Anyway I wanted to write something a little more serious about the politics of the day - a trend many noticed in the 2024 election, and its aftermath, is all of these notable non-politicians jumping onto the Trump ship. You have certainly noticed the big ones doing it, the Musk-types. What I have also seen is the middle-road types - the podcasts slotting the admin into their current healthcare fad, the policy bloggers being like "Dear Trump, this is how to truly reform the government - my pet idea" and offering support. A sort of opportunistic bandwagoning. This does happen every election to some extent, but it is notable that it happened way, way less when Biden was elected.

Some view this through the lens of fear, of Trump's open willingness to tax or prosecute those who don't bend the knee. That is part of it, for sure. But the other part is that Trump doesn't really believe in all that much - and that is actually a pretty big asset in politics. If you are a "Progress Studies" blogger or a union rep or a tech CEO, does Trump disagree with any of your key issues? He might not! You can just "convince" him, that is actually on the table, and he might take up your cause. And the Republican Party - not always, absolutely not always, but sometimes - will be browbeaten into going along with his whims even if they contradict their previous ideology. If you are ambitious and play your cards right, the structure of the Trump admin can very much reward people along the lines of these pet issues.

This is something the Democratic party could not do. All policy from the Biden admin came from a decade+ process of being discussed within the party. There were absolutely, 100%, "factions" jockeying for influence, but it was insiders, pre-established orgs along known lines, who were doing that jockeying. Is there any big policy that the Biden admin pursued that truly surprised you? That you were like, "woah, where the fuck did Biden get this idea from?" Not really, right? Because the admin was in so many ways an extension of the party.

Now this can be a real strength when your political parties are strong. When the locus of politics is within parties, then naturally they should be informing directions, and your goal as an admin is to court them. But that is pretty much the opposite of the current US political landscape - political parties have never been weaker. Voters hate political insiders, primaries are completely open and people who openly oppose the party sometimes sweep them, voters don't get their political opinion or w/e from politicians or party orgs. Parties are downstream of where more and more political influence comes from (though ofc they are by no means powerless, this is all trendlines). If you are one of these political outsider types, the Joe Rogans or Progress Studies bloggers or crypto coalitions or whatever, the Democratic party is just not going to work with you? You will be "heard", but if you want influence you gotta put your decade+ into the party first.

But Trump? You just gotta show up and kiss the ring. For talented people, this is actually a much better deal. It probably won't work, but the odds are still better than the alternative. And the biggest looming wrinkle is that this strategy is being hamstrung by Trump being a total idiot and backstabbing asshole - imagine how effective these strategies would be if someone competent was doing it. His left-field ideas are not only "annexing Greenland", but also doing it in the most hamfisted way imaginable. The core idea here isn't that crazy btw! Greenland is pushing for greater independence from Denmark, but gets a ton of subsidies so is loath to lose them if they go solo. You can see how an intelligent operator charting some soft power politics here could maybe make something happen, but Trump is a fucking nob and can't do that. So he is often a bad vessel for your niche ideas. But at least he shows up to the game!

People sometimes really want politics to be ideological. They want a coherent political party with a unitary philosophy to implement a cohesive agenda. I get this appeal, but this just isn't how US politics, or democratic politics more widely, works. It is an endless process of factional recruitment for one-off reforms, and otherwise managerial policy (in)competence. Ideology is not elected, a "mandate" does not run for office. Some individual people win and then they invent a mandate afterwards. Democracy does not reveal consensus, it manufactures it. And the US is moving more towards that direction, not less.

My fear is Democrats, in "widening the tent", will focus too much on that internal party process, on trying to make the Democratic Party "coherently" something that is more appealing to the median voter. Valuable work, to be sure, but the other side is you need to make it more appealing to people of influence or talent. As others have commented, it is kind of baffling how the Biden administration committed itself to a policy of green electrification and banning foreign car imports, and somehow made an enemy of America's biggest domestic green electric car manufacturer. You need to be, on the margins, less committed to any specific ideology at all, and instead open to actually winning support from diverse factions. Otherwise the other side will always be more appealing to anyone not of your ideology, because they kind of don't care about ideology. The Dems are already the "bigger tent" party, this should be their wheelhouse. They just need to update their tactics for the modern era.

[joejhang]

my unasked-for input in the jeremy discourse

been seeing a lot of jeremy knox discussion as of late while mindlessly scrolling thru the aftg tag so i've decided it's time to step in. spoilers ahead continue at ur own risk.

the main criticism of jeremy i've seen in the fandom is the way he treats/deals with jean's situation. a lot of people think he's just not doing a good job and can be insensitive or thoughtless at times. i'd like to counter this by saying: he's doing his best, and he's actually doing pretty well.

the aftg fandom at large has this superiority issue where they seem to always know the right thing and the right way to go. i'm gonna remind y'all that we are very used to the foxes and andreil, and the trojans are a totally different environment to the one we've been acclimatised to. the foxes are not well-adjusted AT ALL and to an outsider's eye the way they deal with each other is probably really cruel and rude at times. it works for them because they're in similar positions in life and have no time for politeness and courtesy, and the only way for them to work together is to work out all the fights and issues head-on, with little concern for hurt feelings. it works for them, but that doesn't mean it's the best or only way to go for anyone else.

jeremy may have an untold backstory of his own, but i think we can all agree that he's much more well-adjusted than jean, who has been living in an abusive cult environment for years. the trojans and jeremy are completely unfamiliar to jean, but so is jean to jeremy. jeremy has no idea the full extent of jean's past and history of abuse, so you can imagine his shock and horror when he finally begins to realise the ugly details of what happened to him.

there's a lot of emphasis on action and reaction in the way the fandom sees characters and relationships, but not a lot on intention. i think, no matter the mistakes jeremy makes, his intentions are good. he wants to support jean and help him in his healing journey. was it wrong of him to tell cat and laila what happened in jean's freshman year without his permission? yes, of course. but i think people need to consider that jeremy is literally only human. he's a 22 year old boy who has unresolved issues of his own that's just trying to do the best he can with what he has. he shouldn't have talked about jean's past without his consent, but it's important to know that he didn't do it with malicious intent or just to gossip. he probably genuinely thought it was the right way to go to let cat and laila know, so they can help jean better by knowing what happened. it wasn't the right thing to do, but honestly i think people in the fandom are more pressed about it than jean is. jean remarks on it and seems a bit annoyed, both with himself for telling jeremy and jeremy for telling the girls, but he doesn't hold it against jeremy and clearly still trusts him. jean knows that jeremy wants the best for him, and is doing his best, and the fandom should remember that too.

i think a lot of the issues the fandom has w jeremy and also jerejean is that they seem to think jeremy is going to "heal" jean. i cannot explain how much this take boils my blood because people can't "heal" other people. healing is a complicated and long process that requires, yes, help from others, but also changes in perspective, environment and core belief. jeremy alone is not going to fix jean and make him good as new, and that attitude towards them is unhelpful when analysing the narrative. jean's slow journey of healing comes from the combination of: a huge change in environment (the mob mindset of the raven's nest -> the sunshine court), a support network (jeremy, cat, laila, wymack, the trojans, occasionally kevin and neil), a change in mindset (both towards exy as a sport and towards relationships with others and a relationship with himself) and simply time. no one person can heal another, and no matter how large a role jeremy plays in jean's healing, he knows he can't do it on his own. so do the other people around jean. it's why cat takes him on a motorbike ride, just to let him relax and see the world. it's why renee doesn't get jean to stay with her, because she knows how good the trojans will be for him. jeremy is not going to heal jean, but he can definitely help him with it.

the last and arguably most important thing is this: jean trusts jeremy. y'all can talk about how jean is traumatised and unfamiliar with the world outside the nest but i swear to god this fandom babies and uwufies him to unbelievable extents. jean may be unspeakably traumatised and at the end of his rope, but he is an adult, and he does have agency. he understands that jeremy cares about him and his wellbeing, and he trusts jeremy. jeremy isn't perfect. he's inevitably going to make mistakes and do questionable things along the way, but i don't think he's at all impeding jean's healing or growth, and he is doing everything with genuine good intentions. one person's definition of the "right" thing to do is not objective and all-encompassing. jeremy may do things that offend you, and that you would hate, but everyone has a different opinion on these things. do you guys remember the conversation between andreil after dr*ke's attack, when neil pushes andrew just to see him crack? if u think about it on an objective level, it was wrong, even cruel, to press someone about their history of trauma after a horribly traumatic event has just happened to them. but andrew doesn't hold it against neil, and doesn't even seem all that bothered by it. i think the aftg fandom would do well to look at things and events that happen in the books in context and stop thinking that there is only one right answer to every question and only one correct solution in every situation. just because something would be a no-go for you, doesn't mean it would be for everyone, and that goes for fictional characters as much as it goes for real life.

anyway i just find it so interesting how critical and quick to judge people are when it comes to jeremy, when, objectively, the foxes and even andreil have done probably more pressing and objectively "wrong" things to each other. if u read the series back, there are a lot of times when they push and challenge each other's boundaries, but there's an understanding that that is the best way for them to engage with each other. it would do everyone a lot of good to apply the same attitude to the sunshine court, considering how vastly different of a context this new series is in.

[bugcatcherkit]

My favourite way to view Ritsu’s psychic power awakening is through a lens where he could have awakened them a lot sooner had he not convinced himself so hard that he was Normal and Average. Where the reason he awakened them as late as he did was because he had been unintentionally and subconsciously been repressing his own powers the whole time. And it’s only when he starts abandoning the idea of perfection and powerlessness in the big cleanup arc that he finally awakens. And it’s only when, in confession arc, he confronts the fear and inferiority and helplessness that fuelled a lot of his repression in the first place that he can be 100% himself and use his powers to their fullest extent 👍

[mesetacadre]

@mithrifer Only party members in party elections. In non-ruling parties, it's easy to understand why I think. For ruling ones, it's first a question of how democracy is expressed and carried out in the worker's daily life. Democracy in a worker's state cannot be simplified down to the election of a leader. Even if the party Congress is an extremely democratic organ, a vanguard party by definition cannot include everyone as a member. Rather, the democracy in which everyone participates in is one that's simply lacking in any capitalist state, which is self-determination in the economic and political day-to-day life. Taking decisions on how your workplace is run, how resources are administered and to whom, who should be in the local and regional government, and even who should be in the local party organs, are what's extended to every single worker in a socialist state. I think, like with most things, Anna Louise Strong makes this point much better than I can:

The entire pamphlet is a great read for understanding democracy under a democratic-centralist party. Of course this is only the example of the USSR, but ALS' ample accounts of Soviet democracy are unparalleled in similarly influential instances of socialism, and keep in mind communists parties that have taken power have, to varying extents, used the Soviet model, taking into account its advantages and disadvantages, to instate their own democracies.

Besides this, in every socialist state with a democratic-centralist party, there have been from local to country-wide elections for public positions, usually with additional mechanisms such as recalls to have full accountability. This is especially visible in countries where the state and party are more separate, which wasn't really the case in the Soviet Union. Cuba is increasing this division and I believe Vietnam also has a significant separation. The DPRK's WPK doesn't even rule alone, there are a few other parties that represent specific social groups, such as The Chondoist Chongu Party, which represents a religious movement in Korea, Chondoism. Talking of the DPRK, ALS also has an account of their elections, before the Korean War.

Once again I recommend reading the whole thing.

One assumption I find permeating a lot of questions along these lines (not saying you specifically, mithrifer), is a presumption of bad intentions on a party's part to misrepresent and mislead the workers once they achieve power. Countless discussions and campaigns have been produced within these parties at all times to drive a higher participation of the masses in every possible aspect, to produce a mass of workers who are un-still, who want to concern themselves with the future of their class as a whole, and who want to actively participate in reaching that future. It's this generalized participation in every aspect of a worker's life that the party listens to and from which it learns.

The election of a leader is not the placing of trust on an individual's ideas, it's the placing of trust on someone who is able to, along with the Central Committee and its associated organs, synthesize feedback from every aspect of a society into a single will. By participating in everyday decisions and administration, the masses themselves are making of the communist party a more democratic organ because it amplifies the amount and quality of perspectives and experiences from which to draw from. It's not simply the rule of the majority, it's the synthesis of the entire working class. For a healthy democratic-centralist system, the election of a general secretary should not mean a radical change in direction per se, it should mean a superficial change for a system that at all times takes in, as best as it can, the will of an entire class of people, and produces a political and organizational leadership capable of sharpening and conducing that will.

I told the incident [of a non-party candidate being unanimously favored over a party candidate] to Andrei Zhdanov, Leningrad party chief and one of Stalin’s closest friends. I added that it would be hard to explain to Americans an election in which the local Party leaders congratulated the people on throwing out the Party candidate. He hardly got my point, but said, “What we build cannot be built by passive people.”

The Soviets Expected It, Anna Louise Strong (1941)

hey! this is a dumb question, but why are general secretaries elected for life?

They aren't. The procedure in democratic centralism is that a Congress is called periodically, typically every 4-5 years though that might vary, where a new Central Committee and its associated organs are elected, including the General Secretary. The Congress is the most powerful organ in a communist party, above the CC and gensec. Members of the party are chosen as delegates from their local cells, and they each have one vote, as well as having the duty to participate in the debates.

In the USSR, Lenin was actually never the general secretary, then Stalin was elected repeatedly despite him asking to step down multiple times. He died whole being gensec. Khruschev was replaced by Brezhnev in 1964. Brezhnev did die in 1982, and afterwards there were two quick successions both ended with the person holding the position dying, Andropov in 1984 and Chernenko in 1985. Gorbachev of course died 2 years ago, as he was overthrown. It is true that after Stalin the USSR had a very aged leadership, that's why Brezhnev, and especially Andropov and Chernenko died in the position.

In Cuba, before the revolution, only José Peña Vilaboa died while being first secretary and he only held it for a year or two. Fidel left office in 2011 and he died in 2016. Raúl Castro succeeded him and he left office in 2021, he's still alive. Now it's Miguel Díaz Canel who is 64.

In Vietnam, Trần Phú died while in office in 1935, then it wasn't until 6 general secretaries/first secretaries, including Hồ Chí Minh who died 9 years after leaving the position, Lê Duẩn died while in charge in 1986. No other general secretaries have died except for Nguyễn Phú Trọng who died last year.

In China, there is more of a marked difference between the state and party, but it's honestly not that hard to research. Most have not died in office.

The DPRK is a big exception, the Worker's Party of Korea, which to be clear isn't even the only party in the DPRK, has had 3 previous general secretaries (Kim Tu-Bong, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il) who have all died in office. I'm sure someone can explain this in more depth, but the Kim family was so well-regarded and initially chose as general secretaries because they were almost legendary guerilla fighters against Japanese occupation, especially Kim Il Sung. Anna Louise Strong talks about this more here in chapter 3 Government and Elections. Whatever the case, each member of the Kim family has been very involved in the WPK, and due to the accumulated experience elected.

Whichever country you were thinking of when you sent this ask, which is probably the USSR or the DPRK, nobody is chosen until death. These positions are regularly and democratically renewed or reconfirmed, and I don't think that someone being elected multiple times is undemocratic. If people are happy with how something is run, why would they change it? and besides, let me remind you the General Secretary is not that supremely powerful. All decisions in a democratic-centralism system are taken collectively, taking into account previous debates and the constant feedback from the base. Many, many people are involved who the Central Committee rely on, and the CC itself often changes members even more between congresses. Idk, the USamericans chose FDR for almost 4 terms an nobody talks about the FDR dictatorship. It's not hard to believe maybe FDR was simply a good president most people liked, and who was in charge during a crucial time. The DPRK has been under constant siege since its very creation, under sanctions and with some of the largest military bases and exercises on its border, run by the people who killed around a fifth of your people. Changing leadership often might also be conducive to instability and a rapidly-changing course, which the Korean people would understandibly not want.

Same with Stalin. He was the general secretary during a crucial time, the collectivization of work and industrialization on par with the US and western Europe, followed by the Nazi-fascist invasion, and then the very costly reconstruction.

Non-ruling democratic-centralist parties typically have a much faster rotation of general/first secretaries, you can look at a list on Wikipedia for most parties out there and you can compare with their death dates.

[everytimeigetmoody]

okay so i just wanna talk about an idea i had that had to do with a post i made about a detailed scene where fadel strips and props style up for the interrogation scene because i just know it would be so emotional for fadel. i keep going back to the fact that right before this style was trying to take care of fadel. it was very dramatic. a broken arm does not warrant a wheel chair. and to a certain extent you wonder if this just for show, but knowing how annoying style is about his affection and how earnest he was about wanting to support fadel during this time (although it made me mad as fuck he wasn't supporting him about staying with bison. i'll put that on the fact he's an only child) it makes sense. like, fadel's last memory of style before he kidnaps him is style wanting to help him. and i think that changes the way he handles style in the moments where style is unconcious. in some fucked up way, fadel is also taking care of style in this moment. like, style can't help himself so fadel has to do everything for him. and i just wonder about how affectionate fadel would be in those last moments. because that would be the very last opportunity to be affectionate. after he starts threatening to kill him, presumably style wouldn't ever want to be with him. we know style's crazy and would still be with him, but i think fadel is working under the assumption that style is a little sane. i really want to write a scene where fadel is relishing in what he believes is his last moment to express his love toward style.

[rowenllyn]

Batfam meets Carrie Kelley

Ok, I need the main timeline Batfam to meet Carrie Kelley.

And not in a writers just throw all the different timeline robins into one family, or a crack social media fic. I need proper post-Dark Knight Returns Carrie to universe travel or something and meet this Bruce Wayne and his family. Like, her life is wild. She is a pre-Tim Robin. She got introduced before Jason died?! Her characterisation is built up off Dick, off the original concept of Robin, as a symbol and nothing more, not really a mantle, but an idea. She is a whole different kettle of fish from the modern Batfam and modern interpretation and retconning and rewriting of the Robins, the Robin mantle and the Batfam, not even getting into the fact she's from the 80s. She actively lives in the 80s, like Reagan is president, modern technology is non existent and all that.

Like, from an outside perspective, Carrie's Robin is the leader of a guerrilla paramilitary Batman cult and vigilante organisation, with hundreds of "Sons of Batman". And sure, Bruce is behind the scenes, teaching and truly organising, being supported by pirate-coded, one-armed Oliver, but no one else knows that. To the outside world? Carrie's the big boss. And she's this tiny little pipsqueak in scaly shorts who just so happens to swear like a sailor or a goon on Gotham Docks. It's hilarious. The Batfam would be so confused and concerned about this girl. She has almost no training before going out, she literally got boot-camped in the like 2 weeks Bruce had between meeting her for the first time, where she proceeded to jump in the batmobile, set his arm and sass him, and him then having to go fight Superman and have a heart attack and fake his death.

And that's the other part! They would lose their mind about what the hell is going on in her world?? Vigilantism got outlawed?! People got forced to retire, leave the planet/country or face consequences. Oliver lost an arm?? Clark is an arm of the United States forces, acting as an attack dog pointed wherever Reagan wants?? They fought and Bruce had a heart attack and died?! Well he didn't stay dead, which is actually in character, but what the fuck Carrie?? And I just need her to be so nonchalant about everything that happened to her but also absolutely amazed by the technology and how many family members Bruce has. Also, seeing Bruce young is wild. She only knows old man grump Bruce, the true I work alone Batman. Seeing this Bruce and his family would be wild to her.

Also, the way that she would react to Bruce would be so interesting. Cause all of his kids are in fact his kids, yeah, even Steph to some extent, but Carrie? She's his Robin first, his student second. And his child never. Can you imagine the "good soldier" conversation? Whether that be her mentioning him saying it to her or her finding Jason's plaque (which by the way was Alfred's doing, which adds so many more layers to it) and being all like, awww it's lovely. And everyone else is horrified, including Bruce, cause he's realised that that is not how he should compliment his children and that is not a healthy means of declaration of care. But for Carrie that is true and it is what she is and she appreciates it. Because she is not his kid, and I don't think she really wants to be, she has parents, though they clearly don't pay too close attention to her if she's able to jump out windows and fight crime regularly, but she still has existing parents that fill that position in her life and Bruce is much more a martial arts sensei or a favourite strict teacher to her.

Like, she cares about the dude and all, but when they're sat around and Dick or one of the family members starts prodding Bruce about feelings and his personal life or whatever, she gets awkward, cause that's not her business. That's like seeing your teacher at the supermarket. She sees Bruce in the cave, during training and when he's giving advice, he's not a real person with a life, he's an NPC in her life, she jokes that he already fulfilled his dead sensei anime plot device when he faked his death for Superman, so now she sometimes ignores him when he's being pigheaded and pretends he's a ghost. BUT! That would be so confusing for the Batfam, cause yeah, he's their teacher too, their trainer and mentor, but he's also a parental figure in their lives, there's more to him and how they perceive him and having one without the other would confuse them so much. So when they see she's awkward about him being emotionally open they take it as a sign that they need to try hard and bring her into the fold, teach her how to get her Bruce to open up and she's just fully like, nuh huh, absolutely not, I don't wanna know any of that.

I just really want Carrie to be explored more in canon and in the fandom, beyond just an easter egg appearance, she's so interesting and so underexplored.

[sideaccount2025]

Why does pre shimmer season 1 Jinx look like fcking AUPowder😭 (Im about to go on a rant)

I got rid of Jinx's eyebags as best as my inexperienced ass could and tweaked her expression a bit, bro in a different lightening that is literally Powder, makes me realize why Ekko couldn't tell them apart initially😭 When he left she still looked like that to his memory(With the eyebags tho) and then he comes back and she looks like a train wreck with chopped hair, a missing finger, eyebags twice as bad, pale as a corpse and PINK eyes, bro what i would give to see the 60 minute cut is almost listed as a warcrime

But aside from that, is interesting (to me) how Jinx has a face model for when she acts like Powder where her expression becomes more innocent/harmless/childish like, meanwhile Powder always looks like Jinx, she only has one face model, perhaps because she is not fragmented by 'two identities' , doesn't have the Powder childhood trauma that would make her age regress unconsciously to such an extent that it would be shown even in her facial expressions and facial proportions. She isn't haunted by a much younger version of herself she's trying to hide and protect, because she actually lived her childhood and grew out of it, Jinx is sort of partially stuck in limbo there imo.

Idk bro is just interesting, i might be stupid for pointing this out when they are the same person, just ignore me if u think so pls.

Anyways, also, season 2 post Ekko boysaving- Jinx meeting AU!Powder would be wholesome asf imo?

Rant incoming

Maybe not season 1!Jinx or even post blowing up the council!Jinx but Jinx after rekindling with her one and only best friend and building shit together and painting on each other when she physically recoiled at touch before, i feel like with no Silco around to enable her and manipulate her, what happened with Isha plus Ekko who was once her only savior and friend seeking her out again at the edge of the abyss made a very important difference in her behavior and sanity, she's not as well adjusted as Powder is but she certainly isn't gonna like try to commit terrorism if she sees her.

I just feel like nobody can understand Jinx's struggle and mind like HERSELF, Powder has had the hallucinations too, she might still have them actually, she experienced grief to a degree aswell and over the same person too, because Jinx thought Vi was dead didn't she?. Not only that but Jinx's confidence and 'ideas that change the world' would be good for Powder who is holding herself back and staying on the sidelines even though she's smarter than anyone.

As Amanda said 'there is some Jinx in Powder and some Powder in Jinx' and in my opinion they both struggle with accepting the Powder/Jinx within them. Anyways imma stfu now, if anybody read this far is a miracle Xd

[kathleenkatmary]

I will say it over and over again until I have no voice to say it with... FRAMING. MATTERS.

EDIT: Okay, I'm going to expand on this because I remembered that there have been multiple times when I've said this that someone truly did not know what I'm talking about.

Framing matters. The way a narrative frames a character and their actions matters. In so many different ways. It matters to the message the writers are trying to send. It matter to the message that is actually sent. It matter to what the character and their actions end up meaning or representing with in the narrative. And it matters to how the audience perceives and feels about the character.

Obviously, that last bit is what matters here. The way a character and their actions are framed within the narrative can be consistent with the things they do and say, or it can be inconsistent with the things they do and say. And Spike and Xander actually serve as a really good demonstration of this. As has already been pointed out, when Spike does something bad and toxic and fucked up, more often than not it's framed as such. Yes, from pretty early on he was written to be far more complex than just the unambiguous bad guy, and from season 4 on in particular he's given an arc that gives him more and more chances to do good things and to do the right thing, and for increasingly less selfish reasons. But the narrative never treats those things as some sort of get out of jail free card that frames everything he does as good and not selfish. His toxic bullshit is still framed as toxic bullshit. Are there a few moments here and there where things he does aren't appropriately framed? Sure, probably. But you're going to find that in a pretty much any show, because no show is perfect.

Xander, on the other hand, is pretty regularly (as the poster above says, at least 50% of the time) framed in a way that is not consistent with the way he behaves. Not only is he framed as the loveable loser harmless best friend, he's also more than once framed in ways that treat him doing the literal bare minimum of not being a horrible person as though he's some kind of ultimate good guy hero (him not taking advantage of Buffy when she was under the love spell and the way he's treated for that is a great example) or that treat his really gross and toxic ideas and attitudes as being completely correct (the bullshit he spouted when Riley gave Buffy the ultimatum). Even when his attitudes or behavior is framed appropriately, it's usually stuff that's brushed off pretty easily, even when it has dire consequences (like him not telling Buffy that Willow was going to do the spell to give Angel his soul back).

Now, of course, framing isn't the only thing that determines how an audience will react to characters. For one thing, there are plenty of instances of fans just going crazy over characters who are framed as being heroes or desirable romantic leads even though that framing is inconsistent with how they actually behave and the things they actually do. And there are plenty of other things that go into how an audience reacts to a character. There are certain character traits, from aspects of their personality to just bits of their design, that will make a character more appealing. Especially when it comes to online audiences.

So yeah, Spike as a character hitting a lot of those "fandom favorite" boxes almost certainly contributes to people favoring him to at least some extent. But I think the framing really is the big thing here that makes people so much more likely to favor Spike, and so much more likely to call out Xander. The narrative is pretty regularly calling out Spike. His behavior is weird and creepy and the narrative points that out regularly. So it's not really something the fandom needs to do. Going online and being like "so, Spike kidnapping Buffy, tying her up, and telling her he's going to kill his ex girlfriend in front of her to prove his love is so creepy and toxic, right?" isn't really necessary because... yeah. The narrative knows it, and therefor so does the vast majority of the audience. But with Xander that is not something the narrative usually does. When he, for example, condescendingly corrects Anya, the narrative doesn't treat that critically, it treats it as a funny thing that Xander is probably right to do. When he agrees with everything Riley said when he gave Buffy that ultimatum and treats Buffy like she's the problem in that relationship, it doesn't frame him as wrong, or as projecting so many of his own issues with women and with Buffy in particular onto the situation. He's framed as the man talking sense into Buffy. So it does fall on the audience to call it out, and to call the show out for not doing it.

Like I said, inconsistent framing isn't something that an audience always notices, but with a show like Buffy, where a lot of - really, I would even say most of - the characters are usually appropriately framed, and where you do have an instance of a guy's creepy, toxic behavior appropriately framed, I think that makes it easier for viewers to clock it when there's a character that isn't being appropriately framed. Even if viewers doing consciously realize it's why they're reacting negatively to a character. Personally, I think that's also at least part of the reason a lot of people don't react well to Riley. It's not because he's 'boring' or because they ship Buffy with someone else and he 'gets in the way', or whatever. At least, not completely. I really think the way his character was framed, especially in season 5, was often not really in line with what was actually happening with the character, and people could feel that.

Are there Spike fans who just completely ignore it all, ignore the framing and all the shitty, creepy, toxic shit Spike has done so that they can feel like they're allowed to like him 'guilt free', or so they can engage with the character completely uncritically? Sure. Of course. Any character with any amount of fanbase is going to have people who do that. It's just a part of fandom. And I'm not going to act like Spike doesn't check a lot of boxes of typical "fandom favorite" types, and that is going to make people more likely to be drawn to him as a character. But there's a lot of critical analysis of Buffy that happens, even just in online fandom spaces, analysis that goes far deeper than just that kind of more surface level fandom engagement. And even then, so much of what you see is incredibly critical of Xander and the way he's written while being much more favorable to Spike and the way he's written. That's not just fangirls ignoring the bad stuff their fav does while dogpiling on another character. That's people recognizing the problems with Xander's writing and the very stark difference in the framing between Xander and Spike.

At the end of the day, fictional characters are not real people. The way they're written and how audiences react to them is about a lot more than just the way a character behaves and the things they say and do. There's a lot more that goes into it, and framing is a big part of it.

ok I’m only on season 5 but can someone explain to me how Xander is the universally hated one for, from what I can tell, some bad choices and worse jokes, while Spike, the fandom’s babygirl and beloved heartthrob, literally stalks Buffy, holds her captive, and then commissions a robot version of her when it’s made clear he’ll never have her. like someone please explain it because the math is not mathing.

[tokiro07]

Ichi the Witch ch.17 thoughts

[Lemme Get That Neck]

(Topics: character analysis - World Hater, speculation - narrative progression)

Hoo boy, this was a good chapter for both of our guys!

I was really worried about how Ichi was going to deal with the backlash of using Ultra Amplification since he hasn't had an opportunity for resistance training, but to think he'd find a way to use it to his advantage!

Playing Possum

By making of a show of passing out from exhaustion, Ichi deliberately gave World Hater an opening to get in close, which in reality created an opening for Ichi to strike. An extremely risky move, since not only did Ichi have to fall out of the air for it, he also had to rely on a) stabbing himself in the leg to actually keep him conscious, and b) for World Hater to care enough to check on him afterwards

Fortunately, Ichi's read was spot on: even World Hater has a sense of pride, and having his Lancemen stopped in their tracks was enough of a slight on him that he had to make a point of telling Ichi his efforts were wasted. Ironically, in trying to chastise Ichi for his hubris, World Hater showed his own, believing himself to be so far above Ichi that he didn't even consider the possibility that Ichi was luring him into a trap

But being overconfident comes with the territory of being a villain with godly powers. The part that really interests me is what comes after Ichi stabs him

A Crack in the Facade

I've spent the last two reviews going over how dispassionate World Hater looks to be, his complete lack of expression or interest in what anyone says or does, but this chapter adds a whole new dimension to it!

After Ichi gets a good hit on World Hater, he passes out for real, and misses World Hater's face finally showing an expression: he smiles. Not a huge toothy grin or a sinister smirk, but his lips undeniably curl and, though subtle, his eyes flash, not unlike the sparkle we frequently see in Ichi's eyes

For the first time, there's passion on World Hater's face, intrigue even, like he's finally found something he's been looking for

But it doesn't stop there, or rather, it does stop there - the smile doesn't simply fade once the moment passes, World Hater covers it up. He brings his hand to his mouth, like he's either trying to hide his feelings from the world or like he's trying to suppress them from himself. He either doesn't want anyone to see him feeling, or he doesn't want to feel at all

The next panel focuses on the return of his scowl, his lips once again turning downward as he returns to business. Whether he's taken a liking to Ichi or sees potential in him, World Hater ignores his feelings and proceeds to dole out Ichi's punishment: by specifically warping him out first

But again, World Hater is taken by surprise! Whether he was distracted by Ichi or simply not concerned with the possibility of a sneak attack, World Hater is stabbed through the back and subsequently blown up by none other than Desscaras!

Ceiling Battle

I don't know about the rest of you, but this is the moment I've been waiting for! I've said before that Desscaras vs. Uroro was a ceiling battle because it was billed as the strongest Witch vs. the strongest Magik, but it didn't really accomplish what a ceiling battle should because we didn't actually get to see the extent of what either of them could actually do

This time though, there doesn't seem to be any restrictions like "only men can hurt me," so while there is almost certainly some hidden mechanic to this fight, both parties should be lobbying a good portion of their best moves at each other. Even if World Hater barely breaks a sweat, all that matters is that we get to see what it really means for Desscaras to be the strongest Witch and get an idea of how she earned that title

My guess is that we'll get some narration from Shirabedonna and Monegold about how many Magiks she's acquired and some discussion about one of her most impressive feats, similar to what we saw for Togeice a few chapters back, culminating in her using her strongest ability to force World Hater back in a way that even Ichi couldn't manage

We'll also likely hear about Desscaras' backstory with World Hater, though it's hard to say how much detail we'll get right now. It could be an entire chapter dedicated to the full event from her perspective, or it could just be a vague description with some inconsistencies to be elaborated on later. Either way, Desscaras is undoubtedly about to get a lot more interesting

Now that we have an established antagonist, I expect we can say the same for the plot as well

The Aftermath

Once Desscaras saves the town from World Hater (though possibly not without some casualties), the question of what to do about Ichi will remain. His actions will ultimately be what allowed Desscaras the time to break into the dome and fight World Hater, but technically World Hater's point stands - Ichi could have guaranteed saving some lives if he'd focused on doing so, but instead he focused on his own gratification and went for an attack that, by all logic, was destined to fail. He prioritized his own bloodlust over helping people, and thus put more people at risk than he needed to, so even if things turned out "for the best," his decision-making is still highly questionable

The introduction of Togeice and her concern for Ichi's personality always struck me as kind of oddly timed. Not only was Ichi's reveal being proposed after one mission, but an ice-themed Witch was being introduced immediately after Ichi acquired an ice-themed Magik. It felt kind of...redundant, in a way, to pit Ichi's most recent acquisition against someone who specialized in that very field without doing anything to draw comparison between them. I thought maybe Togeice was just mad that he beat her to Uruwashi, but no, it was never brought up

I think with this week's chapter, though, my question has been answered, and all the pieces are falling into place. The world doesn't know about Ichi, but you know who they do know about?

The Silver Snow Witch

The townsfolk didn't see Ichi squaring off against World Hater, they saw an army of giant monsters approaching them only to suddenly be encased in ice. Moreover, those same townsfolk already know that Togeice is present, and saw her summoning an ice dragon to destroy the giant mushrooms that were previously threatening their town. For all they know, Togeice is doing all the work

Ichi's acquisition of Uruwashi was merely a convenient setup for Nishi to cover up his battle with World Hater, allowing Ichi to fight his hardest without revealing himself to the world as a whole and undermining Togeice's concerns and challenge

If I'm right, then I'm pleasantly surprised how elegantly this allows Nishi to transition into the training arc phase without compromising the logical progression of the story. Ichi's nature is still a worthwhile concern while also being more nuanced than Togeice anticipated, Ichi has the opportunity to see and accept how he needs to grow, and the fight that facilitates both is executed in a way that neither point is invalidated! My assertion from early on that Ichi the Witch is a masterclass in story structure seems to once again be relevant!

Assuming I'm right, of course

Until next time, let's enjoy life!

[ghcstao3]

hold on…… fashion designer!ghost and runway model!soap who ghost will only ever let wear his best work……. his most beautiful and creative pieces…….. hold on…….

[worstloki]

there is a difference between being born to a throne, maliciously vying for a throne, stealing a throne, and having a throne thrust upon you when you are already in the midst of an identity crisis. And I fear Loki's place in the line of succession has people unable to differentiate between any of these

[bunni-v1]

You’re so right ughhh, okay I’m not gonna ramble too much more buttttt he’s so unsubtle about how much he loves you. It’s like having a puppy follow you around it’s so cute. He’ll buy you whatever you want, take you across the whole of Teyvat if you’d like, just so long as you stay with him a moment longer.

His feelings are very obvious in his letters. He uses very flowery words and terms of endearment, boldened by the fact that you can’t see how red his face gets writing them on the page. He only wishes he could see what you looked like reading them. A sacrifice he must make to put his feelings into words.

He certainly sends you gifts frequently with his letters, he’s just a gift giver in general. Each one is thoughtful and personal, though. It’s like he’s proving to you that he knows what you like, he can take care of you, won’t you let him?

Unfortunately he does have… hang ups regarding his occupation. Being that he’s busy all the time, constantly running around for the Tsaritsa like the good weapon he is. And, well, you wouldn’t exactly be safe from harm being with him. No matter how much he separates you from work, there will be a target on your back just by association. Most wouldn’t be stupid enough to fuck around with a Harbinger, but there are those that are, and you are not a soldier like he is. If something happened to you because of him? Archons above he would rather die than think about it. (Does this mean he’ll teach you self defense… idk maybe. That’s another idea for another day).

It’s not as if you wouldn’t know the danger, but you wouldn’t know the extent to which you would be at risk. He’s carefully sheltered that fact from you and your family. Harbingers are dangerous and they do terrible thing, but he’s still your Ajax to you. How could he shatter that? When you’re one of the only things left in the world that look at him like he’s human still, and not some horrible monster.

thinkin abt childe since im visiting my like entire family in poland bc yknow. big family vibes n snezhnaya being slavic-based (+its been snowing like crazy here the last couple days). like, childhood friends to lovers w him where u were absolute besties as kids but then u moved away from snezhnaya and he joined the fatui and ur visits never seemed to coincide with his and suddenly its been fifteen years and you haven't seen him once. he surprises his family when he's back early from a mission and walks in to find u at his kitchen table having coffee with his mother and sister (your families are friends, of course you always visit them when you're in the country), and it should be awkward but you're honestly both so happy to see each other, it's been so long that teucer wasn't even born yet last time you saw each other! and then they bring out the old albums and you're poring over photos of the two of you at age five playing in the snow and he invites you out for a drink to catch up properly and his parents are nudging each other and not-so-quietly whispering about how they "knew those two would get married one day". idk. is that anything?

[hollypies]

Zonai Link au ref sheets!!!!

Basically when Link was placed in the Shrine of Resurrection the shrine's settings were set to Zonai! The Sheikah had built over the original shrine, improving upon the ancient technology left behind. Unfortunately when most of the technology was buried so was the knowledge of the shrines true capabilities.

So basically the Shrine is given an injured Hylian, but since it's settings are set to Zonai the Shrine freaks out like "Oh my goddess this zonai is absolutely fucked up 💀" and spends the next 100 years 'fixing' Link.

[quietwingsinthesky]

the doctor is emotionally manipulative. he’s very good at it, and even better at justifying it both to himself and the people he’s doing it to. he can see when his approval, his affection, is valuable enough to someone that withholding it will be an effective way of getting them to do what he wants. this is one of his best flaws, that he’ll do this to people and do it to them for his own definition of what’s good for them.

(gestures vaguely) twissy.