#can we not conflate kindness with weakness of any kind

[seadem-on]

Only my interpretation of my blorbo is right sorry

[read-marx-and-lenin]

Can you explain why 1984 is fundamentally reactionary? I remember seeing a journalistic article talking about the same thing but sadly it was paywalled

The whole premise of the book is "if we let the government do too much stuff, eventually the government will get so big it will do Everything and nobody will be able to stop it, it will grow so big it will be a self-perpetuating tyranny."

It's your typical liberal cautionary tale against "authoritarianism", conflating fascism and communism while understanding neither. Orwell had never been to the Soviet Union, and instead drew heavily from his own experience working for the British Ministry of Information. Later in his life, he would even compile a list of suspected Communists to hand over to British intelligence agents, some on the list included solely because they were gay or Jewish.

Animal Farm is another example of his reactionary sentiment, in which the peasants and workers of the Soviet Union are depicted as gullible and weak-minded animals jerked around at every turn by the pigs, a stand-in for Marxists in general and Bolsheviks specifically. Incidentally, Orwell during his time at the Ministry of Information had become acquainted with one Gertrude Elias, who shared with him her own idea for a cartoon film depicting the Nazis as tyrannical pigs ruling over the other animals in a farm. Orwell had told her the idea wasn't any good, before going on to write Animal Farm, replacing the fascists in the story with communists.

Here's a good read about Animal Farm by the way, which I feel shows very clearly the kind of reactionary Orwell was:

Compare Orwell's depiction of the mindless masses in Animal Farm to the "proles" in 1984. 1984 hardly mentions them except to say that they all live in squalor and have no agency worth considering, which allows them to live free of surveillance and control, since the State doesn't see any purpose in expending the resources to surveil them. They're all dumb, mindless addicts and gamblers whose only purpose is to provide menial labor. Meanwhile, the protagonist of the book, who is cunning and able to question the whole situation, is a middle-class white collar propagandist, just like Orwell was during his time at the Ministry of Information. Orwell clearly viewed himself as superior to the mindless masses, and he was a racist to boot, just look at what he wrote about the Burmese or the Irish. The Russian masses as depicted in Animal Farm needed little more than to be ordered around and they were willing to follow whoever was giving the orders. The English masses as depicted in 1984 needed a bureaucratic mountain of sophisticated social engineering dedicated entirely to manipulating every last minutia of information in society in order to be subject to the same level of control.

[certifiedsexed]

hey there! i don’t mean this in bad faith at all, and i’m not trying to use a term that’s a fascist dogwhistle. i promise i’m just confused😭

so i’m not a guy, nor have i ever been perceived as one, but in one of your recent posts, you said that men can’t experience oppression solely based on the fact that they’re men. which was kind of confusing to me — i don’t think you’re wrong, i think it’s me but i don’t know how to get to how you see it like that.

because in my experience, men can experience oppression because they’re men, although i don’t know if i’m saying that right or conflating the meanings of certain terms. i’m probably wrong, and would just love some clarification?

for example, my brother and i were always held to different standards growing up — it was expected of me to always cry and be emotional, and i was a ‘stone cold bitch’ if that wasn’t the case, but if my brother wanted to show negative emotions like sadness he was treated like there was something wrong with him too. and i know it wasn’t my brother — i spend a lot of time working with my high school’s diversity team, and in a lot of the events we organise, guys talk about how they feel enormous pressure to be angry and never sad, and to have stereotypically masculine interests and never deviate from that norm.

i also know men who’ve struggled to get jobs such as teaching as those are viewed as ‘female’ jobs and it’s a common view that men who want those jobs are ‘only in it to be around kids’. i’ve heard many women around me perpetuate sentiments like that, so i know they’re not making it up, even if it isn’t equal to the systematic oppression women face in almost every aspect of their careers.

i’m not providing these examples to prove you wrong, since i do think you’re right. i’m hoping that a window into the way i’ve always thought might help you clarify this in a way that can help me to change my mind, since i just think i’m lacking some clarity or context here. i think i’m conflating abuse and stereotypes with oppression, but i’m really not sure. any advice would be really appreciated!

i’m so sorry if this comes off badly, i don’t mean it that way. i’m just trying to learn, i promise i’m not trying to promote the kind of hate and close mindedness you’ve been seeing in your inbox as of late.

Hi! As always, I do not mind answering genuine questions!

The things you're talking about growing up and seeing boys around you pressured to present only certain emotions, that's part of the patriarchy!

Certain emotions are supposed to be "feminine" and thus boys shouldn't show them, while girls are often always considered "emotional" in some fashion. That's not oppression based on those boys being men that you're talking about.

It's the backlash that the patriarchy, and by addition trans/misogyny has on men. It's boys being pressured not to show certain emotions because those emotions are "feminine" and they're supposed to associate feminimity with weakness and shit.

What you're talking about there is also trans/misogyny!

The idea that men who do things perceived as feminine are predators, the idea that specific jobs are "female" jobs [while even in those specific female jobs, men are generally paid better and find it easier to get into those jobs than women trying to get into traditionally "male" jobs"]

[Though obviously this varies based on race and whether they're trans, etc, etc.]

To be a little more clear, all of the things you're talking about don't primarily affect cis men/boys. They fuck up transfems, because it's trans/misogyny.

You're right! It's not systemic oppression.

You might wonder if it's social oppression, which is also a no. Social oppression would require a historical/systemic oppression behind it. But that doesn't exist in this case.

What it is is the common issue oppressors run into. While they benefit greatly from oppression, there is also backlash they face from their own systems of oppression.

Like white people who fall into suicide cults trying to work towards white supremacy, or TERFs who fall into groups where they slowly pick each other off as they discover they're not all exactly the same and wind up accusing each other of not being "real" women, systems of bigotry simply do not work out perfectly even for the oppressors.

They never do.

To create the patriarchy, you must establish trans/misogyny, you must establish intersexism and you must push people to conform to those ideals, even if they hurt your own.

It's similar to how white supremacy can harm white people, despite white people obviously not being oppressed racially. The backlash of oppression hits even the oppressors sometimes.

Suppression, as a term, would honestly work far better to describe what you're talking about.

So yes, it's stereotyping, yes it's abusive to tell your children not to show/feel their emotions but it's not oppression based on these guys in your life being men! It's part of how trans/misogyny, transphobia and intersexism are enforced.

I understand exactly where you're coming from! It doesn't sound bad and I genuinely don't mind answering questions! Especially since you've got some good ones!

I'm not sure if I rambled too much to explain this properly but I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions and/or need me to clarify anything here. <33

[neonscandal]

"Are you the strongest because you are gojo satoru or are you gojo saturo because you are the strongest?" I never understood why geto said that to gojo, can you explain to me? Did he want to give gojo a reality check?

Obviously, just my opinion, but I think this was a really subtle way for Geto to burn the bridge between he and Gojo.

Part of what made them equals and, I think, what really endeared Geto to Gojo was the idea that they understood one another. Geto, an outsider, probably didn't know Gojo for the reputation and prestige that typically preceded him. As a normal person with a general sense of compassion, he probably never conflated Gojo with his Limitless or his Six Eyes technique. It's why we see Geto concerned that Gojo is wearing himself down in Okinawa. It's why we see Geto thank Gojo for his hard work in protecting the Star Plasma Vessel. It's why we see Geto immediately spring into action when Toji gets the jump on Gojo.

Geto is aware that even the strongest have weaknesses. Where Gojo is seen as an infallible solution to whatever the elders can't handle, Geto recognizes that even Gojo has limits.

I do think that, within the events of what inspired Geto's defection, that Geto grew bitter or resentful toward Gojo's power, in a sense. Even if he could hide his spiral, it's kind of crazy to think that Gojo with his infinite wisdom couldn't see that he was falling apart but I think we're also over assuming how much time they had together when they were sent on more and more solo missions to deal with the aggressive spawn of curses following Gojo's latent power up. Even so, the basis of their intimacy was a reciprocal understanding of one another, their shared burden in being the strongest. But Geto was struggling and Gojo wasn't there. Gojo became the strongest and Geto realized that, with the limits of his own strength, he'd never be able to meaningfully manifest change in the broken system that would allow the casualties he'd suffered.

In the scene where Geto cuts ties with Jujutsu High and, by extension Gojo, Gojo asked him to explain himself. For one, Geto had been his moral compass for so long and he couldn't reconcile this break in character. But, on a lesser note, I also think that Gojo, at any point in time, would have forgiven and accepted Geto. After all, Gojo had the strength to forge a world where Geto's transgressions could be forgiven. But when Gojo points out that Geto should not pursue something so fruitless, so impossible, Geto acknowledges that it wouldn't seem so impossible if the roles were reversed. The question challenges the notion that Geto could always see Satoru beyond his power. In that moment, he seems to abdicate his place as The Strongest, as someone who understands Satoru in favor of being just like everyone else, effectively shutting a door between them which I believe was the point.

We realize several times over that even those words, as said in anger and/or malice, never changed the way that Gojo saw Geto. But in Geto's mind, that was it, likely as intended.

[trelkez]

Me watching Ted Lasso 3.11:

I truly thought the last few episodes of the show had broken any remaining faith I had in its storytelling, but no. The second scene of this episode: that broke any remaining faith I had in Ted Lasso's storytelling. This season is NOT GOOD. And yet: are they going to make my OT3 canon? Are they?

I'm going to process Ted Lasso 3.11 (mostly) the way I did last week, by doing a rewatch and taking everything in order as it happens. The show's writing is so incoherent at this point that I'm not going to attempt to impose order on it; things just occur. This is the way.

1. Ted's Mom

I spent the entire opening credit sequence mentally reviewing every Ted/Trent fic I've ever read that had some kind of take on Ted's mom – and realizing that whatever we were about to get wasn't going to be as interesting as anything I'd read in fic, because this season is hell-bent on the idea that all conflict can be washed away in the space of a single conversation. 

Remember when I would've just been excited to finally meet Ted's mom? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

2. Jade hates working with her boyfriend

And who can blame her? This woman has one thing, and that is working at Taste of Athens. Come on, Nate, get your own thing!

3. "We want you to come back to Richmond."

So, okay.

I've already written pretty extensively on how badly handled Nate's redemption arc has been. This has been a problem all season long; before I moved back to Tumblr, I was writing small, irate tweets about it.

Let's go back and look at some of the things I said during and after season 2:

2.07: Nate - his characterization has been really consistent: he's always been a jerk to Will, he uses his power over others to belittle them to make himself feel better, he conflates being assertive with being aggressive, this stuff was in s1 too

post-s2, 1/3: the show put a lot of work into showing Nate punching down, his growing narcissism, the ways feeling underappreciated makes him cruel to others and himself; I don't think we're meant to take away that being denied a Nespresso machine justifies a heel turn

post-s2, 2/3: Nate's history with women as shown is not great - when he thinks he's fired he immediately calls Rebecca a shrew; "perhaps you'd like to give me your number, too" to Jade the hostess as soon as he feels like he can order her around; kissing Keeley at all

post-s2, 3/3: when he kissed Keeley I was like, sure, this tracks; (for him) it becoming solely about him being mad that it wasn't enough to get Roy's attention also tracks. but the rest ... and some of the media takeaway ... is weird to me. is this relatable content?? should it be?

What gets me about all of this is that sometimes, this season has almost convinced me that Nate leaking the panic attack story to Trent was just a weak moment for which an otherwise lovable guy should be forgiven – but the evidence isn't there. They were so consistent in how they built up Nate's fall; they seeded that in as far back as season one. They signaled it through hair color! They unfolded it piece by piece, in a deliberate, escalating spiral from which there ultimately was no last-minute escape.

And then we get to season three, and two seasons of careful character building immediately becomes meaningless. Season three's Nate is a different person. This entire season is taking place in an alternate universe. And there's no reason they had to do that, because they had an entire twelve-episode season of increasingly long episodes in which to slowly but surely make Nate a better person! Time for him to learn a series of important lessons that tie into past behavior; time for him to slowly reconcile with his father; time for him to grow without erasing the person he had always been. Time to build him up into a better version of himself.

Instead, this is what we have. And even then, some of the most important parts of the story of Nate's redemption have happened off-screen. Nate quitting off-screen last week was truly shocking; the team discussing Nate's situation, deciding to forgive him, and voting on whether or not to invite him back – that happening off-screen is unforgivable. The West Ham storyline has, thus far, mattered so little to this season that maybe (.......maybe) we can say that severing ties with Rupert wasn't a key part of his journey, even though that's absurd, but Nate's return to Richmond is everything. That's the whole ballgame. 

For Colin to be part of the welcoming committee is truly fucking egregious. Even this very season, Colin is still repeating his affirmation from therapy as he actively works on building up his self-confidence – something Nate deliberately tried to destroy. At no point did I imagine that a one-on-one with Colin wasn't going to be part of Nate's apology tour. But now – one sprig of lavender for Will, and that's all it takes? Nate's treatment of Colin isn't going to be addressed at all? 

This is the same team that collected red cards like candy against West Ham after Roy and Beard showed them the video of Nate ripping up the "believe" sign. Remember the power walk of fury past Nate to open the second half of that game? Why do they now suddenly want him back? Because they heard he was working in a restaurant and felt sorry for him? Because they heard he apologized to Will and decided that was enough? At this point, I genuinely think the writers didn't know how that conversation would go, so they skipped over it. If you aren't sure how to get the team back on Nate's side, just have it happen off-screen; then it doesn't matter how it happened, only that it did. If you only tell and never show, you can make anything happen without having to get from A to B. 

All of this mess, all of this time, and we don't get to be in the room as the team reaches some kind of closure on everything Nate did.

4. "Richmond have won fifteen matches in a row. With two games left, you're just four points off Manchester City for the Premier League title."

Thanks for expositing all of that, Reporter Guy. If it weren't for the occasional infodump, we'd never know what was going on in the team's season! Exposition Characters, you're the true heroes.

5. "That goal is a lie. It should be retracted from the record. I apologize to everyone, especially the kids."

If they had kept to this kind of funny-but-alarming tone without going too overboard on it, Jamie's pre-Manchester depressive episode would've been a lot more effective.

I know this show can handle depression, anxiety, and parent-induced stress in a thoughtful way and balance that with tonally appropriate comedy, but can it do that … anymore?

6. Ted's ever-increasing mom stress

To that end: the way they built up Ted being so put out his mother was in town, I thought for sure we were going to find out he had been dodging her calls about something (was Michelle getting married after all?) and this would reveal whatever it was to the audience. 

I think – I think – that the actual intended effect here is to underscore that Ted ran an entire continent away from his problems and all of his unprocessed trauma, and having all of that catch up to him without warning triggered a stress cascade resulting in the meltdown we'll get at the end. But if that's the intention, what this episode really underscores is that they simply do not know how to handle this sort of storyline anymore. Dottie Lasso is lovely and entertaining and you definitely can look at her and see where Ted comes from, but the Ted parts of this story are about as nuanced as a sledgehammer on concrete.

7. "Trent, your hair is fabulous. It really is. It's just stylin'."

I never thought that Trent would actually meet Ted's mother in the show. I can't wait to see what fic writers do with this. (Please don't get discouraged by however the show ends and walk away, fic writers! We need you now, tonight. We need you more than ever.)

8. Van Damme's mask

This is officially more follow-up on a previous episode's subplot than we have had about almost any other subplot this entire season, and it's about one of the most disposable stories they've told.

9. OT3 Watch: "Shouting is Roy's love language."

Does Trent ship it? One of us, one of us.

10. OT3 Watch: Jamie crying on Roy

There's a lot about this scene I loved, so let's take a break for positivity! That sounds nice, doesn't it?

Jamie bursting into tears and then, when asked what's wrong, saying, "I don't know, I don't know, I don't know": intensely relatable. He's already in tears as he walks into the boot room, just barely holding it in, and the second Roy pushes him to toughen up (in general), he loses it, because of course he does: he's dreading another trauma at the hands of his abusive dad, in the hometown that hates him. It makes perfect sense for Jamie to be having a serious depressive episode, and it is entirely in character for him to describe that as "I don't use any conditioner anymore, because what's the fucking point."

This is one thing this season has done well, with patience and consistency: it's believable for Jamie to break down crying on Roy because they put the time in to get these two to that point. Last season, it was a big fucking deal when Roy hugged Jamie. This season, if Jamie is going to cry on anyone, of course it's going to be Roy.

That said: I think it was a mistake to go quite so hard on playing this for laughs. Depression and trauma absolutely can be mined for comedy. "Do you think a depressed person could make this?" works because it's still Ben Wyatt, it's just Depressed Ben Wyatt. Jamie smushing Roy's face around as Phil Dunster gives it his absolute best comedy wailing sob doesn't … feel like Jamie? It just feels like comedy. If the moment isn't organic to the character, probably it needed a rewrite.

"It probably needed a rewrite," the Ted Lasso season three story. – Then again, I wonder all the time how much of this season's problems are due to the infamous production-halting Jason Sudeikis rewrites, so … maybe not? Maybe this season needed fewer rewrites and more Bill Lawrence? Who can say.

("Will, you missed a good one" is a great closing note for the series-long gag of overheard emotional scenes in the boot room. If they do another one in the finale, they'll have overshot it.)

11. "Hey, Roy, would it bother you if we brought Nate back?" / "No, I don't give a fuck."

At this point, I briefly stopped watching. 

I went back to 2.12 to see if Roy knows that Nate was the source for the panic attack story: as of that episode, as far as I can tell, he doesn't. 

I went to 3.04 to see if there was any indication during the West Ham episode that Roy had figured it out by then, but that episode focuses on the "believe" sign, which everyone but Ted seems to be finding out about for the first time.

Roy doesn't know that Nate actively tried to ruin Ted. (Does it make any sense for Roy to not have done the math when he was in the room when Ted opened up to the coaches about his panic attacks? Probably not, but that appears to be the canon.) He does know what Nate was like, particularly toward the end; he knows that Nate abandoned ship for West Ham; he knows that Nate ripped the sign, and he used that to turn the entire team against Nate for the West Ham game; and perhaps most importantly, Roy is not especially known as an easygoing, forgiving guy.

This is a man who carried a devastating news clipping around in his wallet for his entire career and beyond. A guy who couldn't hug Jamie in celebration until he headbutted him to make them even. This is Roy Kent, who is known even by people who don't watch this show as the one with the anger issues.

And he's just – fine? To bring Nate back? He holds no grudges? Roy Kent? We're really going to have Roy Kent as the voice of "yeah, whatever, I don't care" while Beard is left to fume alone?

12. "If you bring that Judas back, I will burn this place to the fucking ground."

Once again, Beard is the only one who's seen season two. And yet, this is being set up as a conflict that Beard has to set aside. 

Has Nate apologized to Ted at this point? No. Was Nate an increasingly toxic presence in the locker room last season? Yes. Do they have any knowledge of his coaching style at West Ham that we're aware of that would suggest that he's had a major personality change? No. Are they currently on a fifteen-game winning streak without Nate? Yes. Are there only two games left in the season? Yes. 

Is there any reason to bring Nate back at this point? No. And Beard, who has been the only one all season long who has retained any emotional awareness of past events, is only allowed to have that awareness so that it can be used as a justifying force for Nate's return.

I support you, Beard. This is all some bullshit. You should be allowed to be pissed about it. 

13. Nora!

Is Rebecca's aside about Nora telling her to stop using her private jet the closest we're going to get to a Nora appearance this season? There's still time for her to pop up in the finale, but that seems unlikely.

14. OT3 Watch: Keeley checking in on Jamie

I was on the fence about whether or not they were going too hard on humor with Jamie's depression until "a suitcase is a drawer without a home … wahh." This is the best they could do for depression comedy? This is a comedy series that did an entire season about depression!! Phil Dunster really is doing his best in this episode, but not even he could elevate that line.

I do like the general concept of Roy going to Keeley for help with Jamie, only for Keeley to make it all worse. Roy being better at comforting Jamie is conceptually very funny. Writing dialogue that does justice to a story outline is tricky, isn't it? Mm.

15. Sam and Rebecca???

Are they doing this, or are they just going to tease it every single episode? Are Sam and Rebecca endgame? Surely not, right. If it were endgame, wouldn't we have gotten into the meat of it a lot sooner than … the finale?

If you know a Tedbecca shipper, maybe give them a warm cookie this week, because this episode did not move that anywhere promising.

(My money is still on Houseboat Guy popping up out of nowhere.)

16. OT3 Watch: Jamie and Keeley follow Jamie home

If this is the first time Keeley is meeting Jamie's mom, that means – he never took her home when they were dating?

Roy staring in absolute slack-jawed shock at Jamie and his mom cuddling on the couch is me. Roy is me. Setting aside for a moment just how much is going on there, I never would have guessed that Jamie had a relationship like this with a mom who was still in the picture. 

In 1.06, Jamie talks about how his mom got him into football and supported him but probably wouldn't be proud of him lately; in 3.06, we hear about a trip they took to Amsterdam when he was a teenager. Is that … it? Have there been other references to his mom? In 2.08, when Richmond plays Manchester City, there is a lot about his dad but no reference to his mom that I remember. The show is so laser-focused on Jamie's dad that I assumed his mother, whether dead or estranged or somehow unwell, wasn't an active force in his life in the present day.

This is a show about dads. They've told us that in interviews all along. Ted's dad, Nate's dad, Jamie's dad, Sam's dad, Rebecca's dad, even a whiff of Trent's dad; Ted's relationship with his son, even Phoebe's relationship with her Uncle Roy. We see Nate's mom, but that is almost entirely about Nate's relationship with his dad. The only characters who get to have meaningful ongoing not-about-dads onscreen relationships with their mothers are Rebecca and Nora, which is … weirdly gendered?

But now, with the curtain about to drop on this show, they're doing a Mom Episode. We get two moms we've never met before dropped on us in one hour. We know almost nothing about these moms, because they've never been made central to the story in a way everyone's dads have been; and here, in an episode titled "Mom City," their stories are still mostly about each character's relationship with his dad. 

Even so, those stories need to fit into what we know about Ted and Jamie. "I love meeting people's moms. It's like reading an instruction manual as to why they're nuts," right? Ted and Jamie's moms, introduced here at the eleventh hour, should shine a light on things we already know about these characters and make us think, "this explains so much."

Does Jamie's mom actually explain anything we already knew about Jamie? Does it actually make sense for Jamie to have had, all this time, a sweet, supportive mom available for hugs on demand, or does this just create a lot of new questions the show doesn't have time to answer? I don't think Jamie's mom as we meet her (or his future GBBO star baker stepdad) are fully outside the realm of possibility for his character, but we could've had more time to untangle all of this if they had spent as much time on Jamie's mom as they did on his dad. Instead, I'm left with: you're telling me Jamie Tartt isn't actually touch-starved? Jamie Tartt?

You're telling me Jamie's mom watches all of his matches … but has never been to one? Jamie's mom got him into football and drove him to all of his practices, but he's playing right down the street and she's watching from home? Jamie's mom is this important to him, but never met Keeley? Jamie's mom is this important to him, and we've only ever heard about her as the reverse side of a story about Jamie's dad? There are some drop-ins you just can't make in the eleventh hour.

Also: what is going on here? I'm with Roy. Wow. Wow.

17. Jade really hates working with her boyfriend

Is this really just a way to get Nate back to Richmond? Yes. Is it nonetheless completely valid for Jade to not want to have to hear about Nate's salty nuts scheme after work hours? Also yes. You might be a girlfriend ex machina, but you are nonetheless valid, Jade.

18. OT3 Watch: Jamie's posters

*chinhands* So are they, like … are they doing this on purpose, or … no, they have to be doing it on purpose, right? Right?? Maybe it won't ever go any further than this, because even now I have a hard time imagining an OT3 becoming canon, but they are surely at least tipping their hat to it. 

19: OT3 Watch: walking off arm-in-arm

Surely they aren't going to make it canon.

20. Pep????

They actually brought on Pep Guardiola for a Ted Lasso cameo? In an episode about Manchester City leading the title race, airing in the same week City won the title irl? I'm legit impressed.

21. Jamie's injury drama

This is honestly the dumbest way to generate in-game drama. Jamie goes out on injury and Ted's coaching masterstroke is to act like they've just lost a player to a red card and now have to defend a one goal lead with ten men? Just in case the training staff can shoot Jamie up with enough painkillers to let him finish the game on an injury he couldn't walk on? 

I know Jamie is their star striker and all, but did Sam, Dani, and Colin suddenly lose their scoring abilities when Jamie hurt his ankle? We just had a major subplot last week about what a heater Sam has been on – did that suddenly disappear? Does this team have no ability to adjust to the loss of a player? They've won fifteen straight games!! In real life, that would be one of the longest win streaks in Premier League history! No team becomes that successful without quality substitutes. Just get someone on the pitch, before Manchester fucking City takes advantage of being a man up and gets the equalizer we're told they've been on the verge of for the entire second half.

Why. This is Ted Lasso, why am I getting hung up on its football strategy? This isn't about strategy, it's about Ted and Jamie. Nothing matters except the conversation they're about to have on the sideline. Everything else happens exclusively to allow that conversation to happen. The football is just set dressing. None of this matters.

It's just so dumb, though. God.

22. Jade hates working with her boyfriend so much

Truly next level of her to blackmail her boss to get Nate fired so she can have some peace in the workplace. Does she only exist in this show to advance Nate's storyline? Yes. Is she doing this to be a Good Girlfriend? Yes. Can I ignore both of those things and pretend this is just a badass move by someone who does not care to mix her relationship and her job? Also yes.

23. Ted Lasso and forgiveness

This season's insistence on total forgiveness – that the past is the past, that holding a grudge is a moral failing or a poison of the soul – is one of its biggest flaws. Everything needs to be tied up just so. Characters can't truly grow unless they let go of whatever anger they're holding onto. In the end, everything must come around to wholesomeness and healing. As the show nears its end, it is doing everything it possibly can to wash all slates clean. 

(Except, possibly, with Rupert. We'll see.)

In a void, Ted's mini-speech to Jamie about how he should forgive his dad so that he himself can heal might be – not something I would at all agree with, but fine, in that I don't have to always agree with characters on television shows and Ted is clearly doing some projecting here re: his situation with his mom. But in this broader context of what's going on with Nate, on the sideline of a game, it just feels … forced, and kind of gross. FORGIVE YOUR DAD SO YOU CAN KICK FOOTBALL. FORGIVENESS FIXES EVERYTHING. Okay, Ted Lasso. Okay.

Remember when Dr. Sharon said, "I think you [still hate your father] too, Ted, and that's okay," and they talked about the things Ted both hated and loved about his father, because it was okay for him to hold both of those things inside him at once? Where has that gone?

24. Manchester Loves Jamie

I'm not going to ask what the point of putting Jamie back on for one minute and then substituting him straight off was – do they truly have no one else who could have put them up by two? – because honestly, the City fan ovation was so unbelievable that football strategy pales in comparison. They spent an entire game booing and shit-talking him in the stands, and then he scores a goal on a wobbly foot and they suddenly realize he's Good, Actually and cheer him off? In a game that could decide the league title?

Manchester City could have won the league title right here in this game if Jamie hadn't scored that goal and the City fans cheer him off? In what universe. In what version of reality. Were there no even vaguely believable feel-good moments they could engineer for this game???

25. OT3 Watch: Roy whispering sweet nothings

They aren't going to make it canon, right??

26. Jamie's dad in rehab

This is one of the only "thing we heard nothing about and then suddenly it happens" moments where it makes sense for no one to know what's going on. It's positive growth for a shit character that I can actually get behind and believe in.

Jamie's dad is here doing the work and trying to get better. Instead of having it as an extremely brief reveal in the penultimate episode of the series, imagine if they had done this earlier and shown his dad getting out of rehab, and spent some time on Jamie deciding whether or not to forgive his dad now that his dad is sober. Emphasize the hard parts. Show them building a new relationship as different people. That would be so much more in keeping with the actual themes of this show than the magical thinking this season has engaged in.

27. Pep??????

"Don't worry about wins and losses, just help these guys be the best versions of themselves" from Pep Guardiola is THE MOST TED LASSO version of Pep Guardiola I can imagine. I cackled out loud. I threw back my head and laughed like a woman eating a salad. A+ comedy, intentional or otherwise.

28. Nate hiding under the desk

Why? Why. I mean, I get why – this humanizes everything Nate did in 2.12 and makes him seem like a pathetic guy who can't even ruin a sign right, and retcons some of the most potent parts of Nate's season two arc to make us feel empathy for him where we might not previously have; I had this issue with the rolling chair pratfall video earlier in the season, too – but it just exhausts me. They couldn't spend the time redeeming him organically, so they're rewriting what's already happened to make it seem less bad.

Going back to Ted's funeral therapy session with Dr. Sharon: remember how Ted had this deep, terrible fear of losing someone he loved because he didn't do enough to make them feel their worth, and Nate unknowingly cracked that wide open when he accused Ted of "abandoning" him? Remember how Nate could only feel important if he was the most important person in the room, so being one part of a team felt like rejection – and Nate at the absolute bottom of his spiral, having already tried to ruin Ted's life in the press, tore at him with every emotional weapon he had on hand?

Now we're going to reframe all of that as, "ahhhh, this little guy, can't even do a harm to a desk chair, look at him hide from cleaners, so sad, someone rescue him from restaurant!!"

I'm so ready for this show to end. It'll be easier to pick and choose the parts I want to hang onto once canon is closed.

29. OT3 Watch: champagne

But they aren't going to make it canon, right?????????

Honestly, get someone who looks at you the way Roy looks at Jamie here. Just incredible.

If this is the most OT3 we ever get, it'll be enough.

30. Beard's backstory

Let's pause here a moment.

As a coping mechanism for whatever the show was going to throw at me in this episode, I made myself a bingo card. Every time I got a square, I won a tiny piece of chocolate. I made some of the squares obvious hits, some of them decent possibilities, and some were wild swings at things I knew would never happen.

Earlier in this episode, I hesitated over giving myself the "Beard Backstory" square for Beard and Dottie having nicknames for each other, wondering if that qualified as our Beard backstory for the episode. And then … Beard showed up at Nate's door.

In that moment, I truly felt I had cursed myself with this bingo card. Don't invite possibilities you aren't willing to see play out on-screen, I think is the lesson here?

"Just like in Les Mis." – Nate, and all of us

I really don't know how to feel about this Beard backstory. In theory, I have no issue with Beard having a backstory about being incarcerated for meth and Ted helping him out afterward, but in practice, I'm not sure it makes any sense whatsoever. Beard has a record that no one knows about? He's been an assistant coach in the Premier League for three seasons and it's never popped up in the Daily Mail that he was in prison on a drug conviction? I know in the real world Ted wouldn't be allowed to coach Richmond to begin with, but just how far into fantasyland are we?

(I also have some questions about the "and then I stole his car" twist. What exactly are the writers trying to say here about people freshly out of prison? He had a difficult re-entry, totally understood; he found a place to land, and immediately turned back to crime? Should they maybe have spent a little more time unpacking this story before they made it canon?)

All of that aside, I'm not sure I really wanted a Beard backstory. For the entire run of this show to date, Beard has been something of a Ted-adjacent cryptid with a very clear personality but relatively opaque motivations, whose history we've learned about through wildly random drop-ins that always raise more questions than they answer. He's a guy who roams the city at night and collects subcultures like stamps. He's in an eternally tortured relationship with a manic pixie nightmare girl who somehow suits him perfectly. His devotion to Ted has never, ever been in doubt. 

I just don't think it actually rounds out the character of Beard to know exactly where he's coming from and why he's with Ted. The mystery is part of the character. Introducing an in-depth backstory in the penultimate episode of the entire show feels … kind of cheap? I would completely understand if other people felt it was long overdue and are happy to get it before the end, but to me, pulling back the curtain feels like a misunderstanding of what makes Beard a great character. We don't need to see the man behind the curtain. Being able to wildly speculate about what makes Beard Beard is a big part of his appeal. 

And to drop this in as a plot mechanism for bringing Nate back into the fold – to make this significant change to a major character as a shortcut on Nate's mismanaged path to redemption – I'm just so tired.

This whole thing where Ted emotionally manipulated Beard into forgiving Nate by invoking Ted's own past assistance to Beard – I'm not sure that comes across the way they think it does. Ted wants everyone around him to forgive Nate and the only one who isn't willing to do it is Beard, so Ted forces the issue by hitting Beard where it hurts to get Beard to project his own past trauma onto Nate's situation. Does Ted really think that Beard stealing his car is equivalent to Nate putting his mental health history on the front page of every newspaper in London? Even if he does, why does he think it's fair to Beard to pull out Beard's trauma like a trump card? 

31. Fuck you, Mom!!

What was Ted's relationship with his mother back home, that she comes to visit him in London and within 48 hours, everything he's been holding onto for years comes boiling out of him in a series of F-bombs borrowed from Jamie Tartt? What was their dynamic like in Kansas, that the minute she shows up his shoulders go up around his ears and he can't handle anyone he cares about liking her at all?

Is this happening now because Ted unlocked all of this in therapy? Is it happening now because he's been away from her for so long? Was he not visiting her on those trips to Kansas? Is it the change in setting – having her in London, in his space, meeting his people?

This whole "thank you / fuck you" speech feels overcooked at best, well-acted as it is, and it veers into some really incoherent areas. When Ted tapped his chest, I thought, "oh god, is he impotent in his soul?" Honestly, that would have made more sense than Ted saying he's afraid to get close to his son because "I know he's going to leave."

Yes, Ted is afraid of losing people, but we know because Ted has said so in therapy that his response to that fear is to pull people closer in. To try to make people feel wanted, feel valued, feel good about themselves.

In Ted and Henry's relationship, if Ted has projected his dad onto anyone, it's been himself. If there is a monster under the bed here, it is Ted's fear of turning into his dad, of having the potential for that inside him. That line would have made 110% more sense if it had been, "I'm afraid I'm going to leave," even if we would have had a lot more to unpack on-screen at that point. As it is, it's just – kind of nonsense?

Did they feel like they had to pull out some extra motivation for Ted having been in London all of this time? They didn't. The degree to which they are trying way too hard in some areas and not at all in others sure is something.

32. I've read this fic

Rebecca and Bex? Yeah, I've definitely read this fic. That "Bex divorces Rupert and takes West Ham" square on my bingo card is going to reappear next week.

33. "Do you know what time it is?"

"It's the time of the season when we do X" is a little too much meta self-awareness for me, and the "I'm going to invoke truth bombs as a concept but I don't actually have one" is clunky execution to set up Ted's cliffhanger line, but the staging: flawless. In seasons one and two, Rebecca comes into Ted's office and stands on the left of the frame, facing right. In season three, Ted is the one who comes into the office and stands on the left, reversing their positions both physically and narratively. That kind of attention to detail is A+. 

(I wish they gave that much attention to the plot, but I'll take it where I can get it.)

What's next?

One more episode left to cram in everything they could possibly want to do with this show! We're on a real run here of episodes that cram in abrupt resolutions to ongoing stories while also dropping in a ton of new elements we don't have time to explore, and I wouldn't expect the finale to be all that different.

- Before 3.11, I thought the chances of Ted going back to Kansas were 85% for, 15% against. Now … I think it might actually be closer to 75% for, 25% against?

This episode pushed so hard on sending Ted back to Kansas, and we're being set up in that cliffhanger for him telling Rebecca he's quitting after the season ends, and – there's still an entire finale to go. Will the episode just be one long goodbye, or will there be some last-minute twist to keep him in London? I think the chances of him staying in London are actually slightly better now that the "I'm going back to Kansas" twist isn't being held for the end. Still pretty unlikely, though.

I say again: if he goes back to Kansas, fine, we can fix that in post. If he goes back to Michelle, I'm turning this car around.

- Every social media feed I have has been frantic with speculation as to whether or not they're going to make the OT3 canon in the finale. My money is on Not Canon – I think a wink and a nod at it is as much as they're going to do – but I'll be happy with anything that isn't a flash-forward in which Jamie has a girlfriend. Just let us walk off arm-in-arm-in-arm with room to speculate, show.

- So Nate goes back to Richmond, Ted leaves, and Nate becomes head coach, right? Just like we could pretty easily guess was going to happen before this season even started? There's still a chance of a surprise shake-up there, but I'd put it at, like … 5%. A 5% chance of this not going in the most predictable possible direction.

- If Ted leaves, does Beard stay or does he go? He stays, right? If they try to convince us that Jane is dying to move to Kansas, I'll have to Eternal Sunshine the entire finale from my memory banks.

- I am very much hoping for a thoughtful farewell with the pub trio. They've earned it.

- It's West Ham they're going to be playing in the last game, right? If Nate's West Ham storyline is going to have any meaning, he has to go up against his old team with his old old team in the last game of the season while Rupert's drama plays out in close-up.

There should also be some simultaneous game drama happening with Manchester City. They were four points down before this game, so on the final day of league play, they'll be one point down. If City wins, they win the title. If City draws or loses and Richmond wins, Richmond wins the title. If City loses and Richmond draws, then … actually, there could be interesting last-minute drama if they're trying to break through on goal differential, but I don't think the show would go that far into technicalities. Richmond has to win, right? They aren't going to send the show off on anything less.

Five days until we're free!

[dailycharacteroption]

Corrupting Influences: Vampirism part 5

(art by Defexx on DeviantArt)

 Conclusions

 And so it is that we’ve reach an end to this special about the vampirism corruption in Pathfinder, and to our specials on corruptions in general. Truly it is an end to an era, but hopefully a start of new beginnings as well.

 Before we share our final thoughts about the corruption itself, however, let’s take a moment to re-examine what vampires were throughout history. Certainly today’s corruption mostly takes it’s cues from the Dracula novel, but vampires have existed well before that.

Indeed, looking back on the oldest stories where the word “vampire” was used, it’s pretty clear that the concept of vampires, like almost every undead in pop culture, was born out of the idea of someone who is dead deciding not to act like it and wander around being a menace. In fact, the oldest stories of vampires make them seem more akin to what we think of now as a “zombie”, far from the glamourous unearthly beautiful immortals we typically think of today.

Over time, so many folk remedies to these undead horrors and stories of their abilities congealed into a vague grab-bag of otherworldly traits and rules, may of which survive to this day, such as the garlic weakness, fear of the holy, and so on, though others like the running water thing or the even more obscure rose on the coffin thing are typically forgotten.

In fact, such an eclectic collection of traits have lead to many audiences, (particularly western ones) conflating other similarly storied shamblers from across the globe such as jiang-shi or vrylokas as also being vampires or vampire-adjascent, or perhaps different strains of the same singular unholy malice (Looking at you, Vampire the Masquerade).

It is perhaps because of this combination of history and variability which has likely helped their survivability as a concept. Well, that, and Bram Stoker’s iconic novel, which you should read if you get the chance. I hear there might be an electronic mailing list that might help with that.

Regardless, Dracula was instrumental in putting vampires on the map, and perhaps most importantly, was a rare exception in that it was a gothic horror story where the horror in question is not limited to some dreary manor of a declining family, but in fact follows the protagonist home and really gets to show what happens when you unleash an intelligent undead horror on an unsuspecting populace.

Since then, vampires have evolved a lot since then, ranging from monsters to, well… attractive partners. Like all monsters, however, people tend to use them as symbolism, and not all of them were kind symbols, such as Carmilla, a story about a young woman who finds herself attracting the attention of an older woman who later turns out to be a creature of the night. Of course, folks have a tendency to reclaim symbols used to demonize them, so you’ll find plenty of LGBT+ immortals that are straight-up heroic in nature.

 In any case, however, the vampirism corruption I find is that perfect blend of fun powers fitting the theme, while also establishing a certain level of urgency that some corruptions lack. For the victim it’s a nice bit of body and psychological horror rolled into one as their victimization weakens and then changes them, while those who don’t understand what is going on can only look on in powerless horror.

On the subject of the corruption subsystem, I suppose I ought to give my final thoughts on it as well. Horror Adventures the supplement had it’s flaws, but the corruptions were definitely a good idea, creating a way that a character can get a taste of the powers of “contagious” monsters, but giving them drawbacks not just in the direct penalties of each ability, but also in the lingering knowledge that things might go too far. It forces would-be powergamers that might deliberately try to gain a monstrous transformation to rethink doing so, or at least properly roleplay the challenges associated with it.

Overall I consider it a good subsystem, one that is both flavorful and mechanically fun.

 And with that I don’t have much to add, so I’ll conclude. It’s a bit sad saying goodbye to a subsystem and special like this, but I’m always coming up with new things to do here, so it’s fine. Have a good weekend, folks, and look forward to more archetypes next week!

[inbarfink]

So, Good Omens the book has two official translations into Hebrew.

The first one came out in 2006 and translated by Boaz Weiss. And is the first version of Good Omens I ever read!

And the second time came out in 2020, just in time for the 30th anniversary and Live Action Adaptation Synergy, and translated by Tomer Ben-Aharon.

And these two versions….

Man, I really want to say that they both have their own strengths and weaknesses - but that’s not exactly true... What’s actually going on is that, like, my nostalgia for the First Version of Good Omens I’ve ever read aside, the 2020 version is like clearly the superior version. I mean, it's not BAD by any means, but still.. Like, the 2006 translation straight-up removes a few sentences and lines of dialouge from this book, seemingly just cause they were a bit hard to translate. And there's some changes that seem to be purely a matter of 'the translator didn't know what a Word meant, made an Educated Guess from context, and guessed a bit wrong"

In comperison, the 2020 version has less errors, it doesn't remove any lines. And it also allows itself to stick less closely to the exact wording of the original English in order to make the dialouge feel more naturalistic in Hebrew and make sure each character preserves their unique dialouge quirks. And there's some real interesting and fun solutions to the book's bigger translation challanges. In general, it is both a more accurate and a more creative translation.

And the 2020 version does also has flaws and issues, but most of them are shared with the 2006 version (for example, neither version figured out what the joke is in ‘a pair of consenting bicycle repairmen’)…but…

But…

BUT

There is one Thing in Good Omens that the 2006 version translated so much better than the 2020 version. And it’s a Recurring Thing, and it’s a Thing that is SO THEMATICALLY IMPORTANT to Good Omens as a whole, and it’s handled really brilliantly in the 2006 version. And that one thing feels so important to me that it really single-handedly stopping me from definitively recommending the 2020 version over the 2006 version.

Okay, so, since Modern Hebrew is a language primary used by Jewish Folks - it doesn’t really have dedicated words for the Christian concepts of ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’. What we do have are words for close-enough concepts in Jewish Theology - that when used in these kind of contexts, can easily work as a stand in for the Christian (or at least Christian Pop Culture) concepts of Hell and Heaven.

The problem, for Good Omens at least, is that these two words are “Gehinnom” for Hell and for Heaven it’s “Gan Eden”

(Which means “Garden of Eden” in case you didn’t get it)

And usually this conflation between the theological concepts of Christian-pop-culture-Heaven and the Garden of Eden isn’t that big a deal. But, you know, in Good Omens, Eden and Heaven are distinctive different things with extremely different thematic roles!!

And the 2006 translation handled this problem really elegantly, I think. Rather than the usual “Gan Eden”, ‘Heaven’ was translated as “Shamayim”. This Hebrew word is usually used to literally just mean “sky” in Modern contexts (as is “do you like the color of…”) but it can also be used poetically to mean ‘that place God and Angels hang out at”. In Biblical contexts these two ideas are often conflated (if you were like ‘wait if there’s no Hebrew word for ‘Heaven’ what does it say in that or this Bible passage?’, the answer is almost always “Shamayim”)

It’s almost like an inverse of the word ‘Heaven/Heavens’ in it's modern use - by default it is used to mean the theological metaphysical concept of God's residance and/or the Good Afterlife and more rarely and poetically used to mean the air between the ground and outer space. “Shamayim” is ‘sky’ by default and “God Zone” more rarely. All of this, plus the original English text already having a lot of references to Heaven being ‘Above’ is enough for it’s use in the Good Omens 2006 Translation as the word for 'Heaven' to feel 100% natural and coherent.

Plus, while the word “Gehinnom” does not have the same thematic and theological problems as “Gan Eden” does in GO, it was also swapped out for “Sheol”. Which is also a rarer word for a hell-like place - making the use of “Shamyim” feels more natural and keeping the alliteration of Heaven-Hell and Gan Eden-Gehinom.

(There is one line in which ‘Heaven’ is translated as ‘Gan-Eden’ instead of ‘Shamayim’ and that is this classic passage:

Obviously the line “the sky is not found in England” wouldn’t make any sense. So ‘Gan-Eden’ was used instead and… I think that line still makes enough sense like that. Since Aziraphale was the Angel guarding the Gates of Eden and that’s how he got to Earth in the first place, you can also say that's where he's from. I think it works well enough considering the circumstances.)

So, yeah, I think that was a very wonderful solution. It’s a good reminder that despite my frustrations with the 2006 translation it was still done with a lot of Actual Effort and thinking behind it. So what did the generally-better 2020 translation do to solve that same Heaven-Eden problem?

Nothing.

In the 2020 translation, the Garden of Eden is “Gan-Eden” and Heaven is ALSO “Gan-Eden”. The earthly garden of earthly pleasures where Aziraphale and Crowley met and the place where all the Angels hang out at use the EXACT SAME WORD. And no attempt is made within the text to distinguish between the two in any way.

It really drives me nuts. There so many little interesting translation gems in the 2020 translation that I absolutely love. But I just… can’t recommend this translation to anyone wholeheartedly when it has this small-yet-huge-problem right in the middle of it.

And it's also frustrating cause I checked a bit of the official translations for GO the Show on Amazon Prime (there's dubs and subs) and those ALSO translate Heaven as 'Gan Eden'!! It's so frustrating cause yeah, that's a Translation Challange, but it's one that's been technically solved already!! Why is the only Hebrew version of Good Omens with a decent solution to the Gan Eden Problem ALSO the version where Aziraphale is really into pickles???

[stewyhosseini-bf]

do u think it’s strange that there was almost no mention of kendalls drug addiction/him using in this season? we got that one line in the first episode which implies he might be clean? maybe? and its never brought up again. i just cant help but find it weird bc kendalls drug use and addiction was such a big part of his character and really used to reflect what hes going through. but then again this season wasn’t very long in-universe and he was focused on a lot of other things so maybe there wasnt any necessity for him to do drugs? i might have answered my own question.

Okay that's a really good question. So in terms of why they didn't bring it up again, I literally just listened to a podcast ep where Jesse essentially answered this exact question so I'll just write down his answer here real quick:

Podcast Host #1: I don't think I've ever seen an addict on television without relapse being part of the story.

Jesse Armstrong: Yeah, yeah, and it was part of our story, but I wasn't especially intrigued by that dynamic.

Podcast Host #2: Why did you do it if you weren't that intrigued by it?

JA: It just felt right. It's that episode in the desert, it came after episode 6 of the first season. And it just felt like he was in a tough place and so we did it cause it felt right. But the episode isn't really about that. I don't want to be glib about addiction, but I think it's quite heavily covered in the culture. It's well covered in the culture. We've got some stuff to say about power and also I guess about the way that money can insulate you from some of the worst things that can happen to you if you don't have money and find yourself addicted.

I don't necessarily think the show (or Jesse for that matter) is saying he didn't relapse, but that, as with many things in this show, they just don't bring it back up again because there's no plot-related reason to. Like you know how there's a lot of those jokes about how 'x was true, it just wasn't relevant to [characters]'s journey so we never saw it' - I feel like if there's any show that this joke really works well on it's Succession lmao. Stuff will come up and then be dropped quite easily again later on, and they're not necessarily trying to make a statement by doing that. So them not mentioning it doesn't imply anything about whether Kendall is using again, it really just tells you that whatever the case may be, it's not really relevant to the plot and/or doesn't reveal anything we don't already know about the character, so there's no reason to mention it.

With Kendall, drugs are also mostly brought up either by Logan or Kendall's siblings, to point out his 'weaknesses' (just revisited this post on how the show conflates Kendall's drug abuse, him performing in a business-sense and his sexuality). I don't think there was necessarily anything new to be said about that. Kendall's also flying pretty high for most of the season, and those topics and Kendall's drug use mostly comes up when he's depressed and more hopeless, which he simply didn't really have time to be, with everything that was going on this season and with how little time passed.

This doesn't mean, though, that I think they don't put thought into whether he is sober or not or don't put in certain 'clues' (for lack of a better word) that point to that. At the start of the season Kendall kind of implies that The Hundred is keeping him occupied enough to keep him from drugs ('I need something super fucking absorbing in my life', which tells me he is trying to stay away from drugs and is asking them straight up to tell him if it's not gonna be this, so he can look for a different substitute). And I'm pretty sure the drink he orders in 4x2 is non-alcoholic (though I could be wrong, I'm going off what I've seen others say here) but as the season progresses we do see him drink, like in Norway and then also at the Tailgate Party and in the finale. Whether that means that he's using drugs again as well, I don't know, but he's clearly not staying sober. We also know he uses drugs when he's under a lot of pressure to perform, in the business-sense, which he obviously is this season, so there is that as well

[opinated-user]

The weird thing with Lily’s Star Wars fanfiction is that she really can make whatever she wants. If Lily did not have her laundry list of awful deeds, and she just wanted to make a fanfic where an evil Sith fucks everyone over and abused their partner while smutty stuff happens, I personally would not care. As long as there would be the acknowledgement that it’s not real and that she doesn’t condone it, it’d be okay, because you can make any fiction you want. The world is her oyster.

But, by Lily’s own standards, what she’s created is ethically and morally wrong. SHE is the one that conflates media consumption and production with a person’s morality and character. SHE has created a fanbase that judges people by those merits, therefore she can’t complain when people see her as a bad person because of the awful stuff she writes. After all, according to her, TOH writers write Luz to be “weak” because they are racist, or the SU writers made the Diamonds atone because they’re Nazis. If that’s the case, then what does that say about Lily’s morals when she creates stuff like her SW fic or Stockholm?

Is it that what you create reflects who you are, Lily? Or is that just projection, because you know that what you write reflects on you more than you’d like to publicly admit, and it’s easier to make it seem like that’s the case with everybody?

the things we do in fictio do not reflect who we are as people... but that's not the kind of reasoning or narrative LO wants you to take away from her.

if she wants to judge everyone on those standards, then it's only fair to do the same for her own fiction.

[wormbraind]

So this is definitely not where you're going with it, but after reflecting on it for a few minutes I've decided that Aisha's shard would definitely prevent anyone from grieving properly, if for no other reason than because it's cheap and easy and a nice thing to rub in her face in Shard Hell. Brian suddenly has a much darker lens on all of his past actions, as the reasons for his moral compromises now seem much flimsier, and he would likely have an even harder time getting over Taylor than he did in canon; his second trigger already conflated Taylor and Aisha, and now Aisha's been removed from the equation. Alec would be missing something, but it'd be something abstract he wouldn't really understand; his whole relationship with Aisha might as well have gotten Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Fucking Mind-ed, and the character development he got from it would be kind of left hanging, suppressed on an even deeper level than he could manage on his own. Lisa would have the best shot at retaining some understanding of what had happened, but even in the best case scenario she wouldn't really remember Aisha herself, she'd only be able to extrapolate a bit - think "any sufficiently complete description of who Aisha was quickly falls into the abyss of memory" - and she would be left in the unenviable position of having to figure out from those scraps of notes whether it would even be better for the mental health of her team to share those deductions or keep them to herself. If Aisha died fighting Behemoth, she wouldn't go on the memorial, and no one would complain; Aisha, meanwhile, would be living through a mix of her own distorted worst memories and Live Footage Of People On Earth Not Remembering You Who You Can't Interact With. All-around the timeline we got was better!

first off seeing such a long ask made me so happy. the amount of discussion my au idea is creating is what i live for. i wrote a bunch about this i got a little carried away and i feel like this might be semi-incoherent lol

secondly, i remember that aisha felt like there was some potential aspect of her power that would hide whenever she noticed it, meaning that it never really did anything. i think that could work with your idea of everyone straight up forgetting the fact that she ever existed and give a reason for why aisha would still be around to experience no one remembering her or being able to perceive her. this might happen because she was at the brink of death, actually, if she didn’t have the awareness to notice it and stop it from manifesting. there might be something in ward which explains what this might be but i haven’t read it so i don’t care

if aisha did, however, have some sort of power upgrade—whether through some mysterious aspect of her power or a second trigger—it would most definitely be hell for her. if she could reach scp-055 levels of forgettableness then there would be basically no way to stop her, as that would nullify basically all of her weaknesses except contessa and probably the endbringers, unless her shard fucks with contessa’s just for the hell of it. the only way to take her out at this point would be her getting caught in the crossfire (or her being dumb enough to get caught in an endbringer attack but would that really happen?)

aisha would definitely end up causing massive amounts of destruction in one way or another because of her frustration, which would put her on the prt’s radar. depending on the severity of her power it’d be difficult for them to even plan an attack because they’d be forgetting what the hell they were talking about every two seconds.

i can also imagine her hanging out with the undersiders during her calmer moments. she might be able to communicate to tattletale that she’s on their side and can do things for them (taking out enemies, stealing stuff, etc.). lisa would probably know that aisha has a connection to them but i doubt that she’d tell the undersiders because if they didn’t forget again, it would probably just make them feel awful and confused. however, i feel like having contact w/ the undersiders could backfire because aisha would have to watch people she was once close with not even really know she existed then go ahead and cause the aforementioned destruction

well i just wrote a lot uhh thanks for the ask

[catgirl-catboy]

My problematic headcanons? Well in that fandom I really don't know what hc count as problematic or not

But I hc Chihiro as both trans and bigender spectrum so I enjoy the discourse surrounding around it because idk it sounds fun.

And yeah, they forget that game is from Japan and their gender norms and identity revolving around gender is different than we have.

Quite nsfwish but I hc Taka as a top leaning switch yeah this is not even a problematic hc but when I see people tear eachother down for simple hc, I like to include that too

And I believe Gonta would identify as X gender if they have the knowleadge about it (x gender is ig an umbrella for genderqueer identities in Japan)

And I like the hc Gundam have skin picking disorder and his bandages comes from it, well i believe he would do that because of the way he can't healthily manage his emotions when he was a bit isolated one. Or maybe a harmful stimming behaviour, idk really know

(idk what pronouns you prefer for Chi, so I just used my own HC of she/her for this.)

Honestly, Chihiro has such a complex about others looking down on her for being weak, you could argue that any gender makes sense with canon because she simply hasn't thought about it enough.

Also, in the context of a killing game, physical strength means nothing if you have the sense to carry around a weapon. Even if you weigh a hundred pounds soaking wet, nobody will fuck with you if they know you've got a knife. Also, they won't attack anyone they percive as crazy, like Syo or Nagito.

My take about the chapter is that none of the tropes involved were transphobic (the existence of GNC characters isn't transphobic), but comments made by the characters were really squicky and not to my tastes. Since I can't play the game in original Japanese, I'm hoping Sakura's "this girl is actually a boy!" is a mistranslation. I also feel like the fact Kyoko does the same thing to Hifumi that she does with Chihiro makes it less bad.

In a perfect world, I'd also like "maybe we should still treat Chihiro how they were currently presenting, since we don't know if they wanted to live life as male after the secrets were released and might be training as self-defense" but since lives were on the line it makes sense they weren't thinking.

(context: I'm ace and will read smut, but won't read PWP works. It needs to be attached to dead dove or a longfic for me to get invested. Also porn with feelings best tag)

I headcanon all of my faves as tops simply to avoid the weird characterization that comes with them being bottoms. Its like if people took what kind of bunk bed you preferred and based your entire perceived personality based off it and as someone who has a normal bed, I just don't get it.

Yeah, Gonta in canon is so performative about masculinity, in a way that I don't think came solely from them being in the woods. I feel like in their mind, Gonta conflates fitting gender roles with approval from their family, which can't be healthy long term. Also, in Gonta's mind gentleman is "someone that can help others perfectly, even if they don't want to be helped" and if that isn't met they're failing. Even if his version of Masculinity isn't obviously toxic, its still Toxic for Gonta specifically.

Yeah, Gundam probably has a host of unhealthy coping mechanisms. It makes sense for his character, since its revealed he'll hide in the nurse's office to avoid having to be in loud physical situations. I like to belive that Sonia and/or Mikan help him move past them.

[tlag367]

Week 5: Pivoting

Project Status

As I’ve ruminated on the state of my project for weeks, I’ve started thinking about the differences between awareness, advocacy and activism. While they serve similar purposes, they are inherently different. Their definitions are as follows:

Awareness - knowledge or perception of a situation or fact

Advocacy - public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy

Activism - the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change

I think that one thing that has made me struggle with finding or ideating potential solutions for my problem is the accidental yet common conflation of these three terms. I was operating in the past few weeks with the assumption that my prototype must overturn societal constructs as a paragon of activism, when in reality, I could just create something that raises awareness for my topic. This realization has vastly changed how I see my project, which has helped me think of a few prototypal ideas.

Additionally, because of this, I have also refined my HMW statement into “How might we empower young queer talents within New Zealand's video game industry in an immersive way?”

I think that by reframing my statement in this way, it is veering more into the realm of raising awareness rather than activism, which helps me ground my ideas in reality more.

Tools

I also haven’t used any particular tools this week, however I have some ideas for the kinds of tools to use soon towards my project, such as value propositions. Value propositions help one understand the kinds of stakeholders a product, service, etc. will have and they will benefit these stakeholders. For my project, this could include (obviously) queer game designers, large game companies, indie game companies, and so on.

Its strengths lie in its versatility, as it can be applied to not only people, but groups as well. It also prompts one to think of the prototype’s effect in more than one dimension, taking into account what the stakeholder gains from the prototype as well as their problems that are being solved in the process. A weakness of this tool is that it can be a challenge to use if there isn’t context, although this doesn’t take away from the effectiveness of the tool.

Challenges

My current challenges for this project and my proposed solutions for them are as follows:

Figuring out how these ideas can work logistically

Now that I have some ideas, I’ll have to think about how they’ll work within the context of my problem. To fix this, I will research precedents for each idea and analyze them to further understand how these precedents have worked in the past, what could be improved, and how I can build upon this knowledge to ideate solutions for my project.

Concluding Thoughts

I am feeling more confident about my project now that I have an idea for what kind of prototype/s I could make. On the other hand, I am feeling quite nervous about the upcoming presentation for DES302, however I am eager to learn more from my peers as well as gain feedback from my lecturers to further improve my ideas.

Next Steps

Complete presentation for DES302

Make a table for precedent research

References

Plan A, B and C - Screenshot from Miro board

Value proposition canvas – Download the official template. (2023, August 29). Corporate Innovation Strategy, Tools & Training | Strategyzer. https://www.strategyzer.com/library/the-value-proposition-canvas

[corripuere]

Tohru “I lived in a tent out in the middle of the woods, and was fully ready to continue doing so before the Sohmas gave me a place to stay” Honda is....totally dainty and fragile.

Where do people get off on thinking our girl here is “dainty” and “always nice"...like bruh, is this the same Tohru we’re talking about, or have you been reading too many early-00′s fanfics that make her out to be the damsel in distress?  

In fact, I think a major reason people like Tohru so much is that she’s precisely not as dainty or nice as she appears to be initially.  Her being a genuinely good person is a just nice little bit of icing on the top.  They’ll praise her for her kindness, sure, but they also praise her for standing her ground and not taking shit from anybody.

[random-thought-depository]

I know this whole thing is wrestling a pig and it’s usually a bad idea to do that because it results in both of you getting dirty but the pig enjoying it, but...

That TERF: writes an entire screed where she interprets the behavior of children as sexual aggression and tells us she thinks children who interact with other people’s bodies in socially inappropriate ways should be treated more like the way we treat adult sexual harassers and rapists (including at one point talking about wanting to kill a child!).

Also that TERF: screenshots the tags on my post where I mention personal stuff so she can try to use the “look at this disgusting deviant low-status weirdo” rhetorical strategy against me (it was specifically about the tags where I said I do think I had a proto-sexuality before puberty but it was more analogous to kinky ace than anything like a conventional sexuality).

A person with a bit more basic decency might have realized that I put that stuff in the tags instead of the main body of the text because it’s personal and sensitive and I didn’t want it to get spread around as part of the internet slapfight, but then I kind of walked into that: when you wrestle a pig you have to expect things to get dirty, when you interact with a mean-spirited bigot you should assume they’ll treat any vulnerabilities you reveal as points to attack you. But more to the point...

Which is it, TERF? You just spent an essay telling us about how you think sexual aggression is common in male children and you think this is a big problem that we should fix by applying right-wing “tough on crime” logic to little boys. Compared to the stuff you’re claiming is some kind of epidemic my 10 year old self having some in retrospect kink-adjacent daydreams about executions is very tame. The “look at this deviant weirdo!” rhetorical tactic relies on the assumption that there’s some overwhelmingly powerful majority of “normal” people out there ready to render harsh judgment on a person who doesn’t conform to normative ideas about “correct” thought and feeling and behavior; that’s where it gets its emotional power; it’s an implicit threat of ostracism and crowdsourced abuse (at its ultimate logical extreme, of the lynch mob and the pogrom-type massacre). So, is sexual aggression and harassment a common and over-tolerated behavior of pre-pubescent boys, or is pre-pubescent proto-sexual feelings such an extraordinarily rare and stigmatized thing that admitting it would instantly make some vast army of “normal” people see me as some disgusting freakish abnormality? These are kind of contradictory ideas! Pick one! Which is it?

I remember Memecucker a while back mentioning this sort of implicit contradiction existing in a lot of conservative/reactionary thought: they’re in moral panic about how they think society is “degenerating,” and yet at the same time they stress the supposed abnormality of their opponents and conflate normality with virtue. If society was actually as “degenerate” as they claim it is you’d think the supposed sins and crimes and abnormalities of their opponents would be no big deal to most people as that stuff is just Tuesday now, yet they are also enamored with the idea that their opponents are an insidious but fundamentally weak minority and all that is really necessary to defeat them is to induce the overwhelmingly powerful legions of normality to raise their swords and strike. Something something Umberto Eco’s eighth point of ur-fascism (“the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak”), I guess.

It’s very “the same person can believe two mutually contradictory ideas as long as they both support the same central idea.”

[book-extravagance]

Personally, if it were just me and we lived in a social vacuum, I figure if you're going to have a monarchy then you should have a monarchy, with lots of glam and "classic" talents and throwback manners. Like wtf not. It's more honest than the weak humanitarian gestures, and much more entertaining.

From what I've gathered from the social media buzz, it seems to me that Kate pulling back from the humanitarian-royal mold in favor of the classic-lady mold (fewer engagements, more finishing-school "accomplishments" like photography, sport, and music) will shift her base of popularity. She loses some support, she wins new support.

The problem is that she begins to appeal even more strongly to people who don't even care to pretend that the monarchy can or should help anyone, and who are likely to embrace Kate as the "comeback" of their fantasy nostalgia of the past.

Which is... not a net good. Better the monarchy bases itself on a hypocritical appeal to the lukewarm center than it gives that up in favor of full-on siding with the culture war reactionaries. Personally, I prefer Will and Kate to Charles and Camilla in a lot of ways, but at least Charles tried to broaden the monarchy's appeal. He did try (we can debate how hard, but he at least somewhat tried) to make the monarchy better for the people.

Besides, it's disingenuous of me to talk about how this affects Kate's public perception. Because what she does will not just affect her. She is the most popular member of the royal family and she and Will are shaping its future with what they do now.

There seem to be two separate things going on here, aren't there? It's interesting to me that people are conflating them.

First, the glam piano playing is part of Kate's long-term strategy. She has always resisted leaning in to the humanitarian and engagement "work" of royalty in favor of a throwback style of princess-ing and lady-ing where you present your looks and your "accomplishments" as your calling card. She wants to be able to focus on photography, sport, and piano/music, and to appear to drop "releases" based around these forms of self-expression (and in a way I almost respect that, given that I cast a dim eye on modern royals' cynical and often weaksauce "humanitarian" angle. Like, do I really think it's helping society that Anne does three dozen engagements a week or whatever? No. It's busywork, just smoke and mirrors. I kind of respect Will and Kate for resisting this game. My only problem with it is that I don't think it's good for Society to cede the royal space to the kind people who don't care for the monarchy even pretending to improve the world.)

The coronation video comes from a separate Wales strand, that of wanting more "celebrity" or "glamor." It's in the long tradition of bumming around Hollywood, BAFTA stuff, the Instagram account, Will and Harry's documentary, etc. Over half the Wales-sourced disdain for Harry and Meghan's "celebrity lifestyle" is just thwarted envy (much as Will condemning Harry's beard was actually petulance that he can't get the same thing himself). They would love to out-Sussex the Sussexes, and it even predates Meghan (although I think these days they have much more fire in their belly—plus many examples to copy erm, take notes from!) Frankly, given the way the Waleses endorsed the party line that all this social-media-Hollywood-narcissism was beneath the royals when it was convenient for them (i.e., when they wanted to attack the Sussexes), they deserve to be criticized when they try it out themselves.

Overall, I agree. I really don't care whether Kate's piano appearance (any appearance, really) was "tone-deaf" or not. The monarchy is a bulwark of inequity, and to me it's silly to complain when they come across as inequitable and out-of-touch. "I want to stan the regressive institution you represent against all my own pride and self-respect, pls make it easy for me!" Okay?

(Though I take a puckish glee in the future King and Queen of England having to play the same damn stupid social-media PR "authenticity" game as exploited dancing teenage "influencers" living in a content-factory house in L.A. Great. Good. Let the monarchy have to hustle for followers, too. Ironically, I feel like they haven't been so close to sharing the struggles of The People since Buckingham Palace or whatever was being bombed by the Germans.)

There has been a bit of arguing in the Wales World about the optics of Kate's fancy piano performance. Her playing in an extravagant room in an expensive gown has been farmed as tone-deaf, "Hollywood", and not relatable to the people of the Commonwealth or the Ukraine war effort. In fact, the Wales's recent, highly-edited social media content has come under fire as manipulative and overly fawning.

What are your opinions on this? Because me? I'm not one of these people who separate royals from celebrities. I believe royals made the transition into modern celebrities back in the 20th century once they started courting mainstream media for popular support. You can't claim that these people are celebrities when they participate in many of the same activities celebrities due for the same reasons. Even more than singers and actors, royals need mass-popular support to survive, aka: celebrity.

So, I'm interested if you guys have any thoughts about what Kate's doing wrong if the performance was out of line, and why wearing a fancy glittery gown to a coronation/state banquet is wrong, but wearing one in service of charity and/or PR boost isn't. Do you think there should be a line between royalty and celebrity? I don't really have a horse in this race, but I think it's interesting that people like Sarah Vine are suddenly having an issue with Kate's branding. For the first time ever, the people who hate Vine's guts might begin to agree with her:

Nevertheless, this was his and Queen Camilla's moment, not theirs. By starring in a video produced by a man who boasts about having 'a portfolio of world-leading clients' and creating 'story-led branded content', it feels… well, a bit 'look at me'.

There is an element of Netflix-style narcissism that makes me slightly uneasy. And though the footage shows us a lot, it actually tells us very little about the Waleses. 

It's superficial, one-dimensional, like one of those adverts you see on TV in foreign hotels extolling the virtues of this or that tourist destination.

I personally think that it's ironic that people like Vine want the royals to carry on pretending to be something they're not: down to earth, but only when it suits them, at other moments they're also supposed to believe the "pomp and circumstance" literally fit for royalty. So, which one is it? Is it narcissism or is it not? Does Kate wear the tiara or does she go with the "sustainable" foral headpiece that is still . . . a tiara. Therein lies the contradiction of monarchy in the modern era. The standards are erratic and make no sense. "A down-to-earth" monarchy is just a monarchy with a better PR team.

[makeste]

I like Bakuguo but his attitude is starting to really piss me off. He's talking about Daku as if he's just ~crazy~ and as if he isn't partly to blame for Deku's toxic self-worth issues. It's infuriating to watch. If Bakuguo doesn’t admit out loud and in front of his friends that his bullying of Deku played a part in Deku's current destructive state and if he doesn’t verbally apologize and reaffirm Deku's worth then I can no longer like Bakuguo's character or Hori's writing.

tbh I don't really know why this is the discourse of choice for people all of a sudden, but this is already the second ask I've gotten about it, so I might as well address it lol.

I think fandom is conflating fanon!Deku and canon!Deku here again. fanon Deku is of course much more sensitive and woobified and has much shakier self-esteem. fanon Deku is the one that turns evil in so many AUs because of Kacchan's bullying. fanon Deku is the one that actually jumps off the roof in so many fics, as opposed to fishing his notebook back out of the pond a few minutes later grumbling about how Kacchan needs to think before he speaks or else he could land himself in serious shit one day if god forbid anyone actually does take his cruel words to heart.

and just to clarify before I get any further, I am not saying this to excuse Kacchan's actions in any way, because what he did was still completely terrible and unacceptable and WAY over the line, and what's more he knew it, too. the bullying was still shitty and horrible and awful, and definitely impacted Deku and made him miserable. I fully acknowledge that, and that Kacchan has a lot of atoning to do for it. this is not a "Kacchan did nothing wrong" post.

but that being said, I don't think canon Deku's reckless self-sacrificing nature actually has anything to do with the bullying. I think they're two completely separate things. canon Deku actually has pretty decent self-esteem in spite of everything Kacchan did to him. canon Deku doesn't think he is useless. canon Deku had a wholeass fight with Kacchan less than 10 chapters into the series in which he explicitly spelled it out for Kacchan that he had a lot of worth, and was going to prove it to him. canon Deku was persistent in wanting to become a hero and hoping and believing that he could find some way in spite of being quirkless. canon Deku never let go of that dream even when no one else supported it. I don't think he would have even given up on it after being told no by All Might, tbh -- we just never got to see how it would have played out because of everything that happened with the sludge monster shortly afterward. but he's not the type to ever give up on something that easily, and we've seen that. canon Deku never thought he was useless, but rather wanted to prove to everyone else that he wasn't.

the drive that Deku has to save and protect others even at the expense of his own safety is something entirely separate from that. he doesn't break his body for others simply because he has no self-esteem and thinks that his own life isn't important. he does it because he can't stand the thought of someone else getting hurt, and knowing that he could have done something to prevent it. it's as simple as that. like, Spider-Man has the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" thing, right? and he doesn't have low self-esteem; he simply believes that if he has the ability to help someone else, then he has a responsibility to help them. it's a personal creed. and Deku is based on Spider-Man. his philosophy is based on that philosophy, which was one of Horikoshi's core influences and is one of the core creeds in superhero fiction.

Deku is self-destructive not because he doesn't value himself, but because he is literally physically incapable of standing back and doing nothing if he knows that he can do something. he's the type of person who sees a car speeding towards someone and leaps in to push them out of the way. NOT because he wants to get himself fucking pancaked by a speeding car, but simply because he can't sit back and watch the other person get hurt without taking action. his body moves before he can think. and that's where the whole "doesn't take himself into account" thing comes in -- the fact that his thought process simply stops at "get them out of the way of the car", and never extends beyond that to "hey, and maybe I should try to find a way to do this that doesn't involve me getting hit in their place." to him, that's simply less important than the first priority, which is getting the other person out of the way.

and regarding that last part, while that may seem like a self-worth issue if he's prioritizing everyone else above himself, I think what it actually is just selflessness taken to extremes. like for instance, when a parent sacrifices themselves to save their child, them placing the child's life above their own isn't necessarily because they don't see themselves as having value. rather, it's that they love the child so much that they place their well-being even above their own. and that's what Deku is like as well. except that in his case he cares about EVERYONE, and so is willing to sacrifice himself for anyone. and that selflessness is his defining character trait, and simultaneously the most admirable and the most terrifying thing about him. it's both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness, which I think is fascinating to explore.

but anyway, so that's also why we never really see anyone thoroughly chewing him out for this behavior either. because the thing is, it is admirable how selfless he is. it's just that there's also a reason why most people are at least a little bit selfish. and that's because too much selflessness will ultimately and inevitably wind up getting you killed. at some point you either have to learn when to put the oxygen mask on yourself first, or else find yourself a loyal group of friends (or classmates) to watch your back, and make sure that mask gets on you when you need it. and maybe help you land the plane too while they're at it.

anyway so that was a lot of rambling, but basically it all boils down to three things:

when Deku berates himself for being useless (for instance at the end of the War arc), he's doing it out of frustration for not being able to push the others out of the way of the metaphorical car. that's the kind of uselessness he can't stand. the sitting-back-and-doing-nothing uselessness.

Kacchan's bullying was terrible, and it might have indeed played a part in Deku's choice of the word "useless" as a way of berating himself in these instances, but he is not the one who gave Deku this mindset of taking himself out of the equation. that's something that was already inherent to Deku from day one. (but that said, Kacchan has a lot of things to apologize to Deku for anyway, so if he wants to add this to the list I certainly won't stop him. he gets mad about Deku's suicidal attitude because it worries him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't feel responsible for it. people underestimated his feelings of atonement before 284/285, and I think they're still underestimating him now.)

and lastly, one last important note, which is that Deku's current "saving" mindset isn't wrong, just as Kacchan's "winning" mindset was not wrong either. the lesson to be learned here is NOT that being selfless and wanting to save other people is bad. rather, it's the fact that he's trying to do it alone that's got him all fucked up right now. basically when you think about it, selflessness is really just selfishness on someone else's behalf. which means that in order for Deku to be saved, it isn't necessary for him to change his outlook or his selfless attitude, even if it is pretty crazy lol. rather, all he really needs is a good group of friends who are willing to act selfishly on his behalf in return. protecting each other through mutual selflessness lol. teamwork as self-preservation. hence why the U.A. kids are here now.

anyway so yeah, I think that's everything. sorry this got so long and out of control lol. this is just a very specific nuanced thing that's hard for me to express, but which I feel is very important when it comes to Deku's character. Kacchan didn't unleash Depressed Nomad Deku on the world (or at least not in this respect). but that being said, he and the others will hopefully be the ones to nudge him back on the right course again.