#discuss credentialed media

[pyrosomatic-metamorphosis]

OH. okay so normally i dont touch discourse with a 20 ft pole, but this has been niggling at my brain tonight and i finally realized why

the people who are mad at qbbh for the memory loss and “dodging consequences” dont understand that he doesnt want to dodge consequences. Like they cant know that, they werent focused on him when he was literally feeding himself to the soul vultures and planning his eventual imprisonment and also. The Many Many Many hints he made towards suicide/sacrifice/Just Fucking Dying.

ccbbh is a subtle roleplayer, he’s been building this shit up for two whole months- it was day FIVE of the eggs going missing that he resolved to do whatever it took (hurting his friends) to get the eggs back. It was day three that he followed in dapper’s footsteps and started feeding himself to the soul vultures (and gaining a Massive headwound beneath his hood in the process- you can only see it if you go on namemc and remove the layers). He’s got impaired judgement. Even the memory issues arent a new thing- i cant remember exactly when they started, but one of the first big moments i remmeber was september 30th where he spent an hour falling into a delusional frenzy searching his base for cameras that he forgot he asked aypierre to plant.

The super murder of purgatory and the memory loss afterwards probably all feels very sudden for people who havent been following his story, but as someone who has been- all of this has been true to character. The only cheap swings he’s made have been combat-based in purgatory, and even the motive for those was built up in rp.

People are calling for consequences, but he has alrwady been experiencing self-inflicted consequences for months. The blue on his usual outfit is blood. This recent memory loss isnt a restart to get away with the atrocities - it is yet another consequence of his egg-protecting complexes and the ways he punishes himself for failing them.

he is NOT a moral character. he’s a demon hiding in plain site. he has eaten people. he has killed people. he understands the cruelty of his actions, and the consequences of them for the loved ones of his victims. but it matters when that harm is being done to his loved ones. he’ll still do it, because he will do anything for the eggs, but it matters, and that means that he has already started the process of self-inflicting those much-demanded consequences

[simply-ivanka]

Kamala Harris: Mystery Commander in Chief

How would the Vice President keep America safe in a dangerous world? The voters deserve some answers.

The Editorial Board --- Wall Street Journal

Kamala Harris is all but telling Americans they’ll have to elect her to find out what she really believes, as the Vice President ducks interviews and the media give her a free ride. This is bad enough on domestic issues, but on foreign policy it could be perilous. The world is more dangerous than it’s been in decades, and Americans deserve to know how the woman aiming to be Commander in Chief Harris would confront these threats.

Ms. Harris this week tweeted a photo of her sitting next to President Biden in the White House situation room discussing the Middle East. The point is to suggest she’s a co-pilot on Biden foreign policy.

This isn’t the credential the Harris campaign thinks it is, and the voters should hear directly from her what she thinks about the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, the failure to deter Russia in Ukraine, the Iranian nuclear program, China’s island grabs in the South China Sea, and more. The matter is all the more important because Ms. Harris conspicuously declined to choose a running mate who might lend foreign policy experience to the ticket.

Ms. Harris has given a few hints about her own views on the Middle East, and those aren’t encouraging. Her team spent much of Thursday walking back whether she told an anti-Israel group she’d be willing to ponder an arms embargo against Israel. She skipped Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress when our main Middle East ally is under siege. Did she pass over Josh Shapiro as her running mate because he would have enraged the anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party?

To the extent she has revealed a larger instinct on national security, it’s been wrong. She told the Council on Foreign Relations in 2019 that she’d rejoin the Iran nuclear deal as long as “Iran also returned to verifiable compliance.” But Iran didn’t comply and is now on the brink of a nuclear breakout.

Her 2018 Senate vote to “end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen,” as Ms. Harris put it in a tweet, also hasn’t aged well. The Houthis the Saudis were fighting are now targeting commercial ships in the Red Sea almost daily and putting U.S. naval assets at risk. Does she think this status quo can persist—and what would she do differently?

Ms. Harris will surely argue that she and Mr. Biden reinvigorated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization after Vladimir Putin’s invasion in Ukraine. But absent a change in U.S. political will, the war in Ukraine isn’t on track to end on terms favorable to American interests. Her past enthusiasm for banning fracking—which her campaign is trying to walk back—also suggests she isn’t serious about checking Mr. Putin’s main source of war financing.

Ms. Harris would no doubt also tout the diplomatic progress the Biden Administration has made in Asia with Japan, the Philippines and others. Yet she whiffed on one of the single most important diplomatic questions in Asia: She opposed Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that would have excluded China and boosted America as the region’s premiere trading partner.

Most important, will Ms. Harris build up the hard military assets required to deter China’s Xi Jinping and a consolidating axis of U.S. adversaries? “I unequivocally agree with the goal of reducing the defense budget,” Ms. Harris said as a Senator in 2020 after voting against a Bernie Sanders proposal to slash the Pentagon by 10%. That vote needed no explanation, but Ms. Harris wanted to make sure the left knew she was sympathetic. Does she still want to slash the defense budget?

Donald Trump often shoots from the hip on these subjects, and his favorable comments about dictators are witless. But his first-term record, especially on Iran and the Middle East, is far stronger than the Biden-Harris performance.

Americans shouldn’t have to read tea leaves to figure out if Ms. Harris would keep the country safe in a treacherous world.

[disastergay]

one extremely underrated media literacy/reading comprehension exercise is simply "try to look for clues about what emotion the writer of this piece was feeling about its contents when they wrote it."

I'll give you an example - let me write a headline for the same interview story in three different ways:

"child psychologist allison jenkins says respecting preferred pronouns 'crucial' to alleviating dysphoria for transgender youth"

"trans ally claims there could be 'drastic repercussions' for using the wrong pronouns for your child"

"radical transgender activist slams traditional parenting and gender roles, demanding respect"

what differences do you see between the above sentences?

did you notice that, even though the second example is less aggressive in tone than the third, neither of them mention the interviewee's name or credentials?

how about the way the main topic shifts from a medical professional's concerns about the treatment of trans minors and young adults to supposedly challenging traditional parenting styles in the second version, and outright attacking it in the third? did you spot how the headline progressively went from stating information to addressing the reader?

did you catch how the third version muddies the water when it comes to allison jenkins's personal gender identity, implying that there's no meaningful difference between a pro-trans activist and an actual transgender person?

if you were a trans person, would you feel as safe and comfortable discussing your identity with the writer of the second headline as the writer of the first?

my point here is that there's really no such thing as true objectivity when it comes to writing of any kind, including journalism. your feelings about a particular issue will inevitably bleed through and color your writing. your choice of words says a LOT about how you think and feel, which issues you feel are legitimate and which ones you resent having to even talk about, so on and so forth. it's important to be able to read between the lines, especially in this age of rage-inducing clickbait.

[kaleido-write]

Leasebound: artsyle or art choices

I've seen the latest comment and wanted to add information and context my credentials on the matter are being a multidisciplinary art student , I've done pretty much any type of art you can think about going from glass painting to kabuki theater.

Leo here this absolute king was eloquent and very nice in his questions wich i absolutely love , he showed a level of respect rusty isn't capable of

And here is rusty reply

1.

We start terribly wrong here , clothing *is* about personality, it is about someone preferences , likes , dislikes ect . Its here to tell us about the characters

Such as , well any characters in media their fashion style is representation of who they are , and the same goes irl .

Let's use the howl house as an exemple because it's a really great dos and donts made by a women so hopefully rusty will swallow better the criticism ! Dana uses fashion to show the evolution of her character and their personality , reducing fashion as unnecessary is a tell that rusty doesn't know anything about character design nor how to make a story that matters and make sense

And what do i mean by matters ? Because it can sound harsh and mean I admit it , i mean something that tell us something, not just a place holder to say she is relevant nor good because she made a comic . Because you can do something for a long time and still be bad at it . Time isn't always an indicator of something value

2.

Color schemes are completely natural in artwork ??? What is she talking about ??

Color schemes are so so important to ensure the color coordination of your panels , to ensure everything fits together without being such different color it will give a headache , color schemes are there to tell stories to and her complete lack of acknowledgement towards it tells me everything i need to know about her as an artist

She doesnt know anything about the theories nor is her limited art knowledge truly worked on , she simply started drawing one day and never bothered to study anything art related

3.

Its actually quite simple to do , all that work you find monstrous rusty is actually the before work you do , its the work you do to get to know your own characters and how you will tell your story , and it's quite easy to do , you simply lack the imagination and understanding of the importance of forework

4.

No rusty nobody is insulting your skills , Leo was simply asking about your stylistic choices , yk what you claim is an art style? Because there's a difference between the 2 if you didn't knew wich i know you don't.

5.

Rusty , you made a comic on the basis that lesbians don't have enough representation. How can you in your right mind complain over people asking if you will represent them too , how stuck up do you have to be really .

Also many many 1 person comics have theses little details , details that are not concise , like Jaden tattoo !! But apparently that tattoo and shez tattoo aren't too annoying to draw uh ?

You can pick and chose what you want to represent but don't belittle people for asking why you're representation is a very selective way of portraying lesbians , representation that at its core is the lesbians you would be attracted to nobody is blind enough to not realize you do that , especially with how much every main character slowly start to look like each other .

6.

Actually rusty you did break art design rules and comic making rules to actually make the comic go better and faster . You just don't know them so obviously you can't know that you broke them because you're too ignorant to actually study art properly

In conclusion no one (again) discussed rusty actual artstyle wich involve the way she draws , that's the artstyle

The art choices are wich color to use , the design choices ect , so thank you for anyone to actually take the time to learn what an artstyle is and maybe yall will stop bitching and moaning about a fight that doesn't exist .

Also special shout out to Sarah 🫶 hope you doing good too

Unfortunately yet again rusty and her over inflated ego took over any sense she may have and decided to just be absolutely mean and awful once more

Sarah only showed to you that a color palette is used *everywhere* (i will use neutral pronouns but if Sarah wish for me to correct the text with the appropriate pronouns I will) they came forward to show her and she had the audacity to complain ??? They didn't latch onto it they simply wanted to help you improve

It is a mistake rusty , you're actively making art mistakes because you don't know shit about art . You keep having the sheer audacity when many people who actually study art tell you you're wrong and making mistakes .

Yikes since you can't insult him you decided to misgender him ? You're right rusty you're not stupid you're pathetic cruel and mean and can't differentiate hate from genuine comments for wich reason ? Oh wait I know ! Because everyone that came forward with good tips and advice you see it as hate , you have no distinction of it because if someone doesn't comfort you into your self idealized version of yourself you feel too challenged and the idea of growing to be better is terrifying to grown ass women like you .

You seem to be incredibly bitter over making your comic for free , and to think of the hatedom as genuine interest when no rusty, me personally I simply take great joy in dissecting your work and seeing every mistakes you make , because you're a terribly mean person that has no idea what respect is and can't be respectful to people if they're not your bootlicker , i pity your friends and fans , they must live in fear of saying the wrong thing and make you mad

Cola we all blocked you because you too have no idea what you're talking about you too can't even tell us what is an artstyle from art choices

A great exemple of representation and simplified artwork is "high class homo" on webtoon with the main lesbian princess having a prosthetic leg or again "the cursed princess club" wich is amazing and has a simplified artstyle

What we are critiquing are art choices , please you all should go take art classes and learn a fraction of what I know

But rusty , Leo was good faith , Sarah was good faith , we are all good faith you simply chose to see it as attacks because of your over inflated ego , please go to therapy you need it more than me , learn that other people have feelings ok ?

No , it is a hatedom rusty , I do not in the slightest enjoy your work riddled with mistakes and hatred for anyone that doesn't conform to your narrow definition of how people should be.

If you're losing money then..stop it ? Stop complaining about losing money , if you have health issues too you should put that all first instead of a comic .

[mbti-notes]

What is your opinion on the site Personality Database? It's a website where people comment and vote (by majority) on a fictional character or celebrity's MBTI type. I notice people use different theories in their arguments, such as the 8 function stack one, that conflict with with 4 function stack, which isn't very conductive for a debate. This, and the majority vote system, means that many profiles get mistyped. Would you say debating there is of any use to study type theory?

You're asking two separate questions. The first is what I think about the website. I know about it because it pops up in searches but I don't use it myself, so I don't really have a strong opinion. With the voting system, the results are only as good as the people who've voted. Generally speaking, if you understand and accept the limitations of a system, then you're in a better position to get something useful from it.

The second question is whether it is of any use for studying type theory. This is a more complicated question to answer because it depends on several factors:

(1) Different people have different learning preferences. When your study materials match up well with your learning preferences, it helps you stay engaged and motivated to keep learning. So, the more important question is: What are your learning preferences and does the website align with them?

I was a philosophy major and worked as a debate coach, so debate is basically my second language. I'm fine with debate but I much prefer to learn through dialogue and discussion. I've known plenty of students who hated debate and couldn't engage because they found the atmosphere too antagonistic or polarizing.

The problem is that most people don't really know how to debate. A lot of "debates" are really just people shouting over each other and putting forth mere opinion as fact. Ideally, debate should be about bringing to light all the relevant points, evaluating them fairly, and determining where the truth lies by exposing falsehoods and fallacies.

However, since debate has a performance element, it's all too easy for ego and emotions to take over and derail noble intentions. If you're the kind of person who has a hard time concentrating only on the merits of ideas and keeping them separate from the people doing the speaking, then debate is probably not your ideal form of learning.

(2) The quality of the information provided in a debate can only be trusted to the extent that the debaters are knowledgeable people.

Beware that a lot of people are good at speaking confidently despite not really knowing what they're talking about. The problem with communicating anonymously on the internet is you don't immediately know who you're talking to and what level of education they have. An open comment section could easily include anyone, from 10-year-olds to college professors.

In order to benefit from the comments, you'd have to be able to judge their quality. But this implies that you already possess a certain level of foundational knowledge in order to judge well. But... if you already had that knowledge, how much more could you gain from a comments section?

As a general rule, when I'm a total noob at something, the first thing I do is seek out experts to learn from, people who've spent a significant chunk of their life devoted to the subject. I never want to risk being misled by inexperienced/ignorant people. I'd much rather slog through a dense book written by a well-respected person in the field than listen to a smooth-talking social media influencer with questionable credentials. I value my time and this is one way I protect myself from making costly learning mistakes or wasting my efforts.

(3) A debate is only educational to the extent that the information presented is representative of the subject as a whole.

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of debaters you ought to avoid when learning is your main goal: "egoists" and "dogmatists". These people don't take learning seriously and the way they present information can seriously bias your view of the subject.

- Egoists are skilled at "framing" a debate to make themselves look good. They believe that debating is about winning and they'll do anything to win, even if it means obfuscating the truth. They mainly care about getting attention, obtaining rewards, and/or feeling superior, so they only learn what is minimally necessary to achieve those ends. To them, knowledge is relative rather than objective, all smoke and mirrors.

- Yes, there are a variety of theories, so it can be difficult to reconcile them, or it can lead to people talking past each other. This can also produce tribal mentality as people pick sides. Dogmatic people usually start out as insecure or directionless students, so they're unconsciously looking for ways to compensate for their lack of confidence. By picking what they believe is a "winning team", they gain a more solid identity and feel more emboldened to debate and argue from a place of "authority". Unfortunately, dogmatic people end up having glaring blind spots because they're not willing to consider counterevidence and alternative viewpoints. Their learning is incomplete, and they like it that way.

This isn't to say that egoists and dogmatists can't be right about anything; it is to say that they only grasp a tiny sliver of the bigger picture. Have you ever flipped through introductory college textbooks? You'll notice that they all share a similar structure. They break the entire field up into subfields and then provide a review of the most important research for each. When you're new to a subject, getting a full and objective view of the entire subject is important for structuring your learning process logically. You won't get that breadth from egoists and dogmatists.

.

I'm a "holistic" learner, whether I like it or not. This means I have to be able to visualize the bigger picture or the final outcome in order to learn smoothly. For me, learning is like trying to put together a giant jigsaw puzzle, so it really helps to have the box with the picture on it as a guide. As a holistic learner, I welcome rather than decry the existence of many different and conflicting theories. I'm always looking to fill in the missing pieces of the grand puzzle, and one theory alone usually doesn't cut it.

If you've ever studied the history of science, psychology, or philosophy, you'll realize that there's a running narrative behind the development of major theories. New theories arise because people are responding to deficits in the theory that came before. Each new theory tackles the subject from a slightly different angle that was previously missed. I love when theories conflict with each other because that reveals the most important aspects of the subject to examine.

I don't subscribe completely to any one theory because I believe every theory has something valuable to contribute to the ongoing development of a subject. Observing a debate, I'm open to different theoretical viewpoints because I want to hear things I haven't considered yet or wasn't able to think of on my own. This fast tracks my learning. Thus, I only find debate useful to the extent that it adds something new to my understanding.

With my training in philosophical debate, it's easy for me to organize information quickly and ignore everything but the key points. I take key points from different theories and then assemble them into a framework that I can personally use and apply (this is how the study guides on my blog came into being). Similarly, if I want to type a person/character, I appreciate people bringing up details that I forgot/missed and then add them to my analysis. Also, different people perceive human behavior differently and divergences in perception often reveal important information, so I'm all about seeing exactly where people disagree.

However, not everyone learns well this way. Some people are easily overwhelmed because debates often present too much information too fast, in a messy, nonlinear format. It can be hard to pick out the key points and it's easy to get distracted by the "tone" of voice or the "dynamics" between the speakers. Whether the format will work for you, I don't know. Your mileage may vary.

[filmnoirfoundation]

ASK EDDIE returns Thursday, January 9, 7:00 PM PT to our Facebook page.

FNF prez Eddie Muller responds to film noir fan questions fielded by the foundation's director of communications Anne Hockens. In this edition, we discuss Le Trou, The Killers, I Walk Alone, as well as the noir credentials of “The Whistler” film series and Man in the Net. We also answer the question, “Who do you think was the best overall film noir actor?” We wrap up the show discussing what we’ve been reading and watching including the Ripley novels, Lars von Trier’s The Kingdom, Joker: Folie à Deux, and  revisit The Substance from Eddie’s P.O.V.

Want your question answered in a future episode? We solicit questions from our email subscribers in our monthly newsletters. Sign up for free   

Everyone who signs up on our email list and contributes $20 or more to the Film Noir Foundation receives the digital version of NOIR CITY Magazine for a year.   

Can’t join us on Thursday? No problem! A recording will be up on our YouTube channel, @NoirCity, on Friday, January 10.

Note: Eddie will not be able to answer questions posted during the livestream nor ones left on our social media accounts

[reachartwork]

On the "is glaze snake oil/does glaze replicate" discussion: (quora.com style bullshit credentialism statement: I'm using neural networks for my PhD in a top 10 university)

Supervisor of the author on the glaze paper has almost 36,000 citations so very unlikely any information in the paper is faked or large issues being swept under the rug.

Results are replicated in "IMPRESS: Evaluating the Resilience of Imperceptible Perturbations Against Unauthorized Data Usage in Diffusion-Based Generative AI", supervisor of the author has 2000 citations, which is very high for an assistant professor.

Programs written by academics rarely work outside of the very specific environment they're designed in, but the author seems like an asshole based on media presentation, so its fully possible he's trying to hide (when talking about it, not in the publication) that it only works on the style replicator he trained it against.

The 'impress' paper also mitigates the impact quite strongly.

Tl;dr: these perturbations do seem to exist and have the reported impact, but they seem to be reversible and highly tailored to specific encoders.

posted without comment

[ambiencowboy]

Misinformation spreads on tumblr so fast!!! Please remember, just because an article is saying something that appeals to your politics, doesn’t mean it is coming from a trustworthy source. It is possible to promote a good cause badly, or to use false information to promote a message that’s truthful overall.

Here are some tips for things to ask yourself before reblogging any article:

1. Who is this written by, and who are they writing for

2. What are the credentials of the author and the website/newspaper they are writing for

3. What are their agendas and political affiliations?

4. What sources do they reference?

5. Has their story been covered by other sources?

6. Does the headline accurately represent the information contained in the article?

Please stop posting articles from tabloids and websites that look like they’ll give me twenty viruses. The daily mail is a conservative tabloid and I see articles from it posted on here constantly. It’s important to note that misinformation is bipartisan, both left wing and right wing media can contain misinformation and/or propaganda.

Also here are some tips for any “studies”, as I see some dubious ones posted on here all the time:

1. Who conducted this study and what are their credentials?

2. Was it publicly funded or privately funded?

3. How many times was the experiment in the study conducted? If it was just once, it’s not strong evidence of anything, the results may be due to coincidence or unknown variables, running the experiment multiple times is the only way to verify results

3. How was the study conducted? Like how many subjects were involved and were the subjects of a specific demographic? Was it conducted ethically? Was there a control group in place?

4. What was the hypothesis of the study/experiment and how do the results compare to the hypothesis?

5. Have any other scientists responded to the study with criticism, or conducted a different study that had results which challenge the original?

6. Was it a survey? The results of surveys should be taken in with the largest pinch of salt ever. Like a whole cup of salt.

Please be mindful of this stuff, I think a lot of political discussion on tumblr but also on every other social media site would be a million times less toxic if everyone was hyper vigilant about this stuff. Myself included, I can def stand to be more vigilant, I don’t wanna sound condescending or like I’m above accidentally spreading misinfo, I definitely have before.

[emblemxeno]

I find it very frustrating how some Americans refuse to consider the possibility that they might be misinformed about what someone from another culture might be saying

They'll take any translation at face value if it validates their opinion and don't think to verify or double-check the translators' credentials

And they won't even hear out someone actually from that foreign culture who's discussing the situation from their perspective

Sorry, but not everything needs to be seen from the American perspective

Valid! There is a TON of things in media centralized on the American perspective, and while it's understandable (economic and entertainment superpower) it's still... not good?

There are billions of people on the Earth that can and should offer their views on things, and that's why as you said, it's important to double, triple or even quadruple check your work instead of running with your confirmation bias Google Search and going "See! See! I knew my American brain was correct!"

[interiordecorationideas]

How to Choose the Right Interior Designer in Ranchi for Your Home

Ranchi, the capital city of Jharkhand, is a blend of traditional charm and modern living. As more people in Ranchi aspire to create beautiful and functional homes, the demand for skilled interior designers has grown significantly.

Choosing the right interior designer can make all the difference in transforming your house into your dream home.

Here's a comprehensive guide to help you select the perfect interior designer in Ranchi for your home.

10 Reasons to Hire an Interior Designer in Ranchi

1. Define Your Style and Needs

Before starting your search, it’s essential to have a clear idea of your style preferences and requirements. Are you leaning towards a contemporary design, a traditional look, or a fusion of both? Do you have specific functional needs for your home? Having a well-defined vision will help you communicate effectively with potential designers and ensure they align with your expectations.

Tips:

Browse design magazines, websites, or platforms like Pinterest for inspiration.

Make a list of your must-haves, such as storage solutions, color schemes, or specific materials.

2. Research Local Designers

Ranchi boasts a growing community of talented interior designers who cater to a range of styles and budgets. Start by compiling a list of potential designers through online searches, social media platforms, and recommendations from friends or family. Look for designers with a strong portfolio and positive client reviews.

Where to Look:

Google searches for “interior designers in Ranchi.”

Social media platforms like Instagram and Facebook.

Local design exhibitions or events.

Recommendations from your network.

3. Evaluate Portfolios and Experience

Once you have a list of potential designers, delve into their portfolios. This will give you a glimpse of their style, creativity, and versatility. Check if they have experience handling projects similar to yours, whether it’s a small apartment, a luxury villa, or a renovation project.

Questions to Ask:

Do they have experience with homes in Ranchi’s climate and culture?

Are their designs functional and aesthetically pleasing?

Have they worked with projects similar in size and scope to yours?

4. Set a Budget

Interior design services can range from affordable to high-end, depending on the designer’s expertise and the complexity of the project. Establishing a budget upfront will help you narrow down your options and avoid unexpected expenses.

Budgeting Tips:

Discuss fees and payment structures early on.

Ask for a detailed estimate, including design, materials, and labor costs.

Be transparent about your budget constraints.

5. Meet and Communicate

Schedule consultations with shortlisted designers to understand their approach, personality, and working style. Effective communication is key to a successful partnership. A good designer should be open to your ideas, provide constructive feedback, and adapt their plans to meet your needs.

Key Points to Discuss:

Your vision and preferences.

Their design process and timeline.

Potential challenges and solutions.

6. Check References and Reviews

Speak with previous clients to gain insights into the designer’s reliability, professionalism, and ability to meet deadlines. Online reviews and testimonials can also provide valuable information about their reputation.

Questions for References:

Were you satisfied with the final design?

Did the designer stay within budget and timeline?

How was their problem-solving ability?

7. Verify Credentials and Licenses

While creativity is crucial, professional qualifications and credentials also matter. Ensure the designer you choose is licensed and follows ethical practices. Membership in professional organizations like the Indian Institute of Interior Designers (IIID) can be a plus.

8. Consider Compatibility

Your interior designer will be a part of your home journey for weeks or even months. It’s important to choose someone you feel comfortable working with and who understands your lifestyle and personality.

Traits to Look For:

Good listener.

Adaptability and flexibility.

Strong problem-solving skills.

9. Focus on Sustainability

As sustainability becomes increasingly important, consider designers who incorporate eco-friendly practices and materials. Many designers in Ranchi now offer solutions that are both stylish and environmentally responsible.

Sustainable Options:

Use of local materials to reduce carbon footprint.

Energy-efficient lighting and appliances.

Designs that maximize natural light and ventilation.

10. Finalize a Contract

Before starting the project, ensure all terms are documented in a detailed contract. This should include the scope of work, timeline, payment schedule, and any other agreed-upon terms. A clear contract helps prevent misunderstandings and ensures a smooth collaboration.

Conclusion:

Choosing the right interior designer in Ranchi is a crucial step in turning your house into a home. By following these tips, you can find a professional who shares your vision, respects your budget, and delivers a design that perfectly reflects your personality and lifestyle. Take your time, do thorough research, and trust your instincts to make the best choice. Your dream home awaits!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Katherine Stewart at TNR (08.10.2023):

Earlier this year, nearly 1,000 supporters of “National Conservatism” gathered at the semicircular auditorium of the Emmanuel Centre, an elegant London meeting hall a couple of blocks south of Westminster Abbey, to hear from a range of scholars, commentators, politicians, and public servants. NatCon conferences, as they are often called, have been held in Italy, Belgium, and Florida and are broadly associated with what is increasingly called the “New Right.” In London, speakers denounced “woke politics,” blamed immigration for the rising cost of housing, and said modern ills could be solved with more religion and more (nonimmigrant) babies. The break room was lined with booths from organizations such as the Viktor Orbán–affiliated Danube Institute, the U.K.-based conservative think tank the Bow Group, the Heritage Foundation, and the legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, which is headquartered in Arizona but has expanded to include offices in nearly a half-dozen European cities. When I attended NatCon London in May, I heard a number of American accents in the crowd, and I was not surprised to see Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank, on the lineup. These days, Anton and other key representatives of the Claremont Institute seem to be everywhere: onstage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC); at the epicenter of Ron DeSantis’s “war on woke”; and on speed-dial with GOP allies including Josh Hawley, J.D. Vance, and Donald Trump.

Most of us are familiar with the theocrats of the religious right and the anti-government extremists, groups that overlap a bit but remain distinct. The Claremont Institute folks aren’t quite either of those things, and yet they’re both and more. In embodying a kind of nihilistic yearning to destroy modernity, they have become an indispensable part of right-wing America’s evolution toward authoritarianism. Extremism of the right-wing variety has always figured on the sidelines of American culture, and it has enjoyed a renaissance with the rise of social media. But Claremont represents something new in modern American politics: a group of people, not internet conspiracy freaks but credentialed and influential leaders, who are openly contemptuous of democracy. And they stand a reasonable chance of being seated at the highest levels of government—at the right hand of a President Trump or a President DeSantis, for example.

[...]

Founded in 1979 in the city of Claremont, California (but not associated in an official way with any of the five colleges there), the Claremont Institute provided enthusiastic support for Donald Trump in 2016. Individuals associated with Claremont now fund and help run the National Conservativism gatherings; Claremont Institute chairman and funder Thomas D. Klingenstein also funds the Edmund Burke Foundation, which has held those National Conservatism conferences across the globe. Claremont is deeply involved in DeSantis’s effort to remake Florida’s state universities in the model of Hillsdale College—a private, right-wing, conservative Christian academy in Michigan whose president, Larry Arnn, happens to be one of the institute’s founders and former presidents. Claremont honored DeSantis at an annual gala with its 2021 “Statesmanship Award,” and the governor returned the favor by organizing a discussion with a “brain trust” that included figures associated with the Claremont Institute. If either Trump or DeSantis becomes president in 2024, Claremont and its associates are likely to be integral to the “brain trust” of the new administration. Indeed, some of them are certain to become appointees in the administrative state that they wish (or so they say) to destroy.

The Claremont Institute in the Trump era has become a clearinghouse for far-right and fascistic ideas.  

[polarisbibliotheque]

About the time a guy was being creepy to me on a professional setting and my gut feeling told me "GET OUT NOW"

Ok, so hi! This post has to do with a reblog recently here in my blog, on one of my fics regarding Dante and Vergil with an s/o suffering from being hit on without their consent. I write Devil May Cry fanfiction and that was my way of coping with a CREEP being, well, a creep.

Who would've known, fanfic is therapeutical

My answer got so big, I decided to make a separate post about it - and I'm talking like this because, if this gets out the DMC sphere and other people read it, they'll understand the fandom talk a little bit. This is not just for the fandom, but everyone out there.

Including men. All of us are prone to being targets of creeps - even if I'll be telling about my experience as a woman, take this advice to your heart NO MATTER your gender.

When this episode happened in my life, I was 27 y/o, I think...? I got pushed into such a stupid corner by this guy who kept messaging me with "work related" stuff... And my family wasn't validating my "this is weird" feeling.

So... What happened?

(TW: I mention the words "rape" and "sexual abuse" but none of that has happened. It was a red flag and I want to talk about avoiding it like the plague and how people might dismiss your gut feeling when something is wrong. I write with brutal honesty, curse words and don't censor anything, because I'm here to tell people how it is not curating content to go viral on clean ~family friendly~ social media. This is honest advice I'd give someone else, so it's just a heads up. I'm a little jaded with all the censoring of "forbidden words" when you have to discuss serious subjects like this nowadays hahahaha)

First context, I'm a Lawyer. Hi. I know it doesn't sound like it Second context, I'm from Latin America. Hi again!

Well, in my country, we have to vote every couple of years for the National Lawyer Association President and Vice-President (for my USA people, it's like the BAR association for Lawyers - meaning only lawyers who have passed the BAR and are, indeed, full-fledged to the association and with a lawyer permit can vote). I hate it, but it is what it is, I have to vote every time for one of those posh speaking clowns or else.

This much older guy stopped me at the entrance to the voting building to do some political propaganda of one of the candidates. Expected. They weren't the ones I was gonna vote 'cause their agenda didn't fit what I wanted for the Association - nevertheless, I smiled and was polite. Guy wouldn't shut up, but that's a lawyer thing. Kept being polite, dismissed him kindly and went inside to vote.

As I came back, guy is there and stops me. I had called my mom to give me a ride home - by that time, I had been broke and without a job for 2 years up until that point, trying to get back into the ~lawyer business~ and recover from a very bad burnout, so paying a ride back home was a big no. I had my phone on my hand and kept chatting because, you know, networking. You never know.

Now, mind you. I'm about to celebrate my 30th birthday this year, but people seriously think I'm underage wherever I go. I have to literally show them my credentials and ID so they can believe a single word I say. This guy, must've been around his 50s or something - and I look like a teen or, at best, 20 years old. I graduated when I was 22, so that's the most he could've imagined I was.

As we're talking, dude is flexing his career so hard I start to do the same. He says he has known the President and influential people in politics (back then, far-right government, so red flag already waving in the horizon), he has an office both here and in New York and Miami, he has worked with the FBI (we're in Latin America, the USA stuff is a flex for far-right people). I say I have worked as the Labor Lawyer in a huge worldwide known multinational company, coordinated with people in the USA and UK, had around 100 cases to manage monthly and keep the company in order when the directors were not around.

Guy is impressed and asks for my contact on LinkedIn. I'm down for it, I'm looking for a job and he could be one hell of a way to get back on business. Dude mentions he's in digital law and, heck, I wanted so bad to get into digital law! It was like he was put in my way by the angels to help me get back on my feet!

He asks for my resumé and my cellphone number, so he can have me in his office to have a cup of coffee. I am soaring by now. "That's it!!" I think "That's my ticket back to being a lawyer, to having my own money, to breaking the cycle of unemployment and having my career back!" - so I do it! I give him my number!

hello, workaholic aunt here speaking, my career was everything to me, I'd do everything for it

After I got back home, told my mom everything, and everyone was so happy. That's when he started sending me messages - asking for my address so he could send me some lawyer magazines and such... Even though he had asked when we were talking before and I changed the subject. I didn't give him of course, but instead sent him my resumé.

So, next day he asks me about that coffee and I said we can make it happen... Even if he got my name wrong. I have a pretty exotic name in whatever country I go, so it's a common mistake, known to happen, no one can pronounce my name right if I don't teach them how to, so yeah. I'm willing to gloss over that.

I'm assuming he read my resumé, saw how smart, capable and hardworking I am, and wants to talk business. Wants to offer me a job. I'm super ready. I'm taking my business clothes out of the closet, I'm cleaning my high heel black boots, I'm checking my references and vocabulary so I don't screw up. Guy sends a message saying he wants to take me out for lunch.

Red flag. My instincts flare up and I'm just staring at the screen. I start reviewing everything. I mean... Business lunches are ok, right? I had lunches with my manager and director plenty of times back in the day and it never got weird. So... Why was I feeling weird now...?

Guy says we can go out for lunch and then back at his office so he can show me around. I was like "hmmm... ok? shouldn't be weird. this is normal." but nevertheless I went to check with my mom and my sister.

Both said it was fine. I was feeling weird because it's a guy and me and I shouldn't be feeling uneasy - it's my social anxiety/workplace trauma talking. It's the opportunity of a lifetime. I shouldn't screw up.

I keep talking to him. I ask where we should meet up for this lunch and he tells me to give him my address, so he could pick me up and we can go to "a nice place to have lunch" (his words, not mine).

Red flags are dancing around my head. I keep thinking "have I lead him on something????" and going mad. What was I wearing? Only work clothes, that's all - suit pants, black high heel boots, dark silk shirt and only a nude lipstick so my lips wouldn't get chapped. My shirt didn't even show cleavage.

It's ridiculous how I feel this is a thing I should add 'cause heaven forbid the cleavage

What about what I've said? Did I accidentally flirt?? 'Cause that's been known to happen - I'm a clueless ace who can't for the life of me notice when people are flirting or not or notice when people think I'm flirting with them. And usually when they are not flirting or being attractive, that's when the magic happens for me! So... What gives?! Did I do something wrong, that sent the wrong message?

I mean, I was nice, yes. But you're supposed to be nice to people. I'm not gonna be rude just because most guys can't keep it in their pants.

I go over the messages. I didn't do anything strictly not business like. I'm very good at that. I have only worked responding to men as bosses in my life, had four male bosses before him, all different ages, marital status, star signs, backgrounds, lives. The best colleagues and co-workers I used to spend hours having coffee and laughing with were men. So I know how to keep professional and not mixing things up. It wasn't a slip up from my side.

Well, then there's always the chance I was going crazy and overreacting, soooo... I go over to my mom and sister. They think it's weird, yes, but they do think that's exactly what's going on: I'm overreacting and my social anxiety/workplace trauma is blocking me from pursuing this opportunity that can help my career - and make me have a salary again so I can help at home.

Ok. I though up and go back to talking to him. I tell him fine but I'll go to the place myself, so he can tell me where he's thinking about having lunch. Guy tells me nothing and keeps insisting I give him my address and he will give me a ride so we can "get to know each other better".

My GODS I've never felt so uncomfortable. Not even when I had to stay ONLY with my boss working until 1 am, only the two of us in the company building, every light out except the one in the room we were in, him being around 15 years older than me and very confident, with the two of us having one of the best work chemistry I had in my LIFE.

He could've done ANYTHING to me, but we only talked strictly work. We were tired, he waited for my mom to pick me up at 1 am outside so nothing bad would happen to me, both of us under an umbrella, he apologized to my mom for having me stay at work so late and then went back home to his wife and kid. I NEVER, at ANY moment felt unsafe around him. He was my mentor, he was my boss, he was a good colleague and even somewhat of a friend.

So why on EARTH was I feeling SO UNCOMFORTABLE with this guy I had only met ONCE face to face in my life?

I start to voice my concerns. My mom and my sister think I'm only saying that because I don't want to go back to work. That I want to throw my career away because I can't control my anxiety and my feelings. We fight a couple of times and a couple of days. My mom tells my aunt about it. My aunt goes full FBI and does a background check on this dude.

That's when she told my mom some things weren't adding up. His LinkedIn profile was a little too weird and he had no ties whatsoever with the elected President of the Lawyer Association - was he really someone in their team for propaganda? Nevertheless, he did have an office and did work with digital law, both here and in the USA. I shouldn't let this opportunity slip.

I got so mad. SO MAD. To the point my sister decided to ask her boyfriend for his opinion on all of it and he was like "hey... your sister is kinda right. guy wouldn't offer to take ME to a nice restaurant to have lunch and go to his office later for a coffee, would he...? I mean, this never happened to me" - and sis' boyfriend is on the business meetings and negotiations/selling part of the spectrum. He knows what he's talking about.

So now I finally have a man validating my concerns.

I take the decision to shut the whole thing down. I go "very well, I will NOT meet him, I will NOT maintain contact with him, he's treating me like a whore he picked up on the street". At this point, I am FUCKING FUMING. But still, my sister and mom gave him the benefit of the doubt and made me feel like I was doing something wrong.

So I decided to marinate him for a while.

I should note that all his messages were sent close or around midnight, not at working hours. And I only answered at working hours. Since I was taking a while to respond, my dude just goes like, and I kid you not, "ooooh she's not answering, she's ignoring me, I don't like that *sad emoji*" LIKE A FUCKING 13 YEAR OLD (no offense, 13 y/o peoples, but this dude is a FULL GROWN ASS MAN).

I am offended, I am flabbergasted and I wish I could suplex him to oblivion.

I show my mom the message. She just stares at me in awe. She FINALLY is like "yeah, ok, this isn't very professional". ALL THIS TIME, I never really told her what I was thinking and what was really worrying me. And then I break her the news that, what I'm really afraid of, is that this guy is going to rape me in his car. Or he's going to drive me somewhere I can't fight or scream and then he'll rape me. Whatever the scenario, it ended up with me being raped and I was scared. SO. FUCKING. SCARED.

My mom goes into Sphinx mode - that's when she doesn't answer and doesn't even look at me and just ~thinks~. It's a brutal reality she doesn't like and I don't like it either, I mean, it's my safety we're talking about here.

I shut down the guy completely. I tell him there's a family emergency and I couldn't continue to give him any attention nor I could go out for that lunch and I couldn't talk anymore. He SUDDENLY goes cold and "I am sorry if any of my messages seemed inconvenient. Do answer when you have the time so we can make an appointment." And that's it. No more messages. He's done in my book.

My mom tells my aunt. Aunt goes Sherlock Holmes mode this time and, lo and behold, they find an website of this guy's office. My mom is shocked at how 90's internet it looks for a guy who works with digital law. She then recognizes the address of the office but the doesn't remember of any office building in that street - so she Googles it.

His "office" is actually a residential building - meaning, it was his home address. She shows it to me and I want to cry - out of rage, shame, fear, sadness. I go like "yeah, this is the place he wanted me to go, to his home. What was he going to do to me there, huh?" - and I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Later, speaking to my sister, she's like "I dunno why you're so mad" and I'm like "WELL MISS I just got PICKED UP LIKE A WHORE outside of an OFFICIAL EVENT for the NATIONAL LAWYER ASSOCIATION while I was DRESSED UP PROFESSIONALLY and looking for PROFESSIONAL opportunities and I COULD HAVE BEEN RAPED. I think I have all the right in the FUCKING WORLD to be FUMING."

That's when we diverged some more. She just said like "hey that's how the world works: women are treated like whores - you weren't the first one to have this happen to you and you won't be the last. What are you gonna do about it? Get over it."

Oh. Boy. I looked at my sister's eyes. I saw her just staring at me weirdly. A storm was approaching. The skies darkened. Bury the Light started playing in the background. Vergil's doppelgänger was standing behind me like an angel of death. (All DMC references for my non-DMC peoples)

"Well. I wanna have power. So much fucking power in this world that no one ever even thinks about treating me like that again. So much power they will fear standing in front of me and saying those words - they will look into my eyes and shut up. So much power I will never be afraid to walk on my own again and I will never have to doubt my feelings when I'm feeling unsafe because some lowlife pitiful little shit decided I should be a whore to satisfy him. I want to have power so I will never be this helpless again."

Cue in my sister just sitting there with butter in the slice of bread in her hand, staring at me like "wtf man... do you need a hug...?" and me doing a dramatic exit back to my room to, well... Write the fanfic in question.

(For my DMC creatures: I never even thought of Vergil when I said all of this, I just noted that thought later in my diary and reading it a couple of days later I was like "omg I have become my worst enemy, fuck you Verge" because I kid you not, I used to hate this man with all the fibers of my being - hence where my longfic Nemesis came from. I realized I lived long enough to become my worst enemy - and maybe I hated him because Vergil made me look at the part of myself I didn't like and didn't want to admit existed *I'm laughing while writing this, I do find it weirdly amusing*)

DMC things aside, this WHOLE episode made me feel so frustrated. I never had anyone to validate me, only people doubting me or asking me if I lead him on, or what was I wearing, or if I smiled too much, if I was being too nice, if I said something inappropriate, and so on. I had to get it all off my chest and I thought maybe, juuuust maybe, Dante and Vergil would've been more supportive regarding that.

Because, you know, they know trauma and they are protective as fuck. They can have all the red flags and mental issues in this world, but I don't think they would EVER dismiss their partner - especially a woman - feeling unsafe and fearing being abused or raped. In order to trust, you have to give the person and opportunity and room to open up to you without judgements - and I do think they aren't very judgy people.

I mean, they are demons, for fuck's sake. They can't judge anything especially Vergil

Also, I don't blame my mom nor my sister (even if I got really mad at her). In the end, both of them wanted what was best for me, they thought it was an opportunity and wanted me to get my career back. Truth is, no woman knows how to act when this happens. And they didn't know how to act as well. They didn't want to think of the worst: just like I was doubting myself and my own feelings, they were doubting theirs as well. We ALL had to be validated by a man to admit something was wrong and we weren't hysterical.

Ok, ok, storytime over. But I felt like sharing this because people, you are ALWAYS valid in your concerns - and there's no clothing, no smile, no attitude, no NOTHING that JUSTIFIES abuse. If you're abused or feeling like someone wants to take advantage of you, especially sexually, YOUR FEELINGS AND FEARS ARE VALID. Don't shrug it off or water it down just because people are saying you're overreacting - if I had listened to everyone around me instead of my gut feeling that something was REALLY wrong, only the gods know what would've happened. But I'll tell ya, it probably wouldn't have been good for me.

At best, I'd be mad this guy would want to pick me up like a whore and I'd have to turn him down and take a ride home. At worst, he would've raped me - in his car, at the "restaurant", at his "office". We don't know, but I didn't want to "give luck to bad luck" as we say where I live.

I didn't have support, so I wrote a story to feel supported by the fictional characters I look up to - I wished SO bad I was dating someone, especially a man, who'd tell me he'd go through hell and back to keep me safe and wouldn't allow anyone to hurt me and validate my feelings. Someone who would make me feel safe and I wouldn't have to only rely on myself.

cue in V saying he too wanted to be loved and protected, I tell you, all this time I thought I hated Vergil when I had only found my nemesis in a mirror

So, don't ever doubt yourselves. Don't ever doubt your gut feelings. We might want validation and someone to keep us safe, but sometimes we don't have that and have to rely on our survival mode. It sucks, but there's a reason why that thing is called "survival": it keeps you alive. It keeps you going.

And no one, NO ONE has the right to say you're overreacting, you're being hysterical, you're reading too much into it, you're just trying to find the easy way out, you just don't want an opportunity because you're lazy, you're crazy and deranged, etc, etc.

If your gut is flapping red flags all around, then overreact. Be hysterical. Read too much into it, find the easy way out, be lazy, be crazy and deranged. Be the villain. Be the bad person. You're not perfect. You're not a princess. Be comfortable with people telling you you're bad - but never NEVER let go of your gut feeling when your safety is on the line.

That fucking thing WILL save your life. Being too nice, though, might not. Listen to yourself, be TRUE to yourself, and, again, don't be afraid to be bad.

Someday you might just find your half-demon man who will support you, protect you and treat you as an equal powerhouse, but until that day, keep on conquering your self-esteem and unwavering will.

I'm just saying all of this now because:

1 - I was too scared to talk about this for a looong time afraid the guy in question would find this, know it's me and my safety would be on the line again

2 - Just now I'm getting comfortable with the concept of being "seen as the villain" and being "seen as bad". My whole life I have been dancing around this because people always said I had a "difficult" personality. I watched Cruella recently and it hit home so hard. We do have things to learn from villainous characters and maybe this is just who I am. People are going to see me as bad so, who cares. Even if I'm not, it would do me good getting used to that idea - I can be more assertive to my boundaries and not allow any of this to happen again. So, there you go. It's an exercise everyone should do. Are you comfortable defending your ideas, your boundaries and your integrity even if people are mad you're not being a pushover/perfectly polite?

It's something I think all of us should think about ;)

Also

thanks for coming to my TED Talk :')

[lacewise]

There’s an existing but increasing trend of people moderating comment sections by leaving up actual bigotry but taking down critical thoughts (even if the criticism is building onto the discussion and not insulting it) and blunt discussion of deeper topics (even, again, when they’re directly relevant to the conversation being had). I don’t like it and what’s more I don’t like propaganda and bigotry being left up because the assumption is that readers will reject it. If you leave enough of it up, even if challenged, eventually people will only remember the bigotry and its justifications.

There’s a proper way to regard lies and half-truths: you say it’s not true, you repeat the lie in a context indicating it’s not true, and then you repeat that it’s a lie. Otherwise you can invoke the illusory truth effect. There is no way, that I know of, to use this process against throwaway comments and threads online if you’re not the original poster.

In some cases, the moderator doesn’t know enough to know the original comment is hate speech, even when it’s overt.

I had a run-in with a person commenting on a popular social media account, and the comment said that talking about your disability online is equivalent to scamming (yes, that’s what they said and yes, the person they were policing is disabled). I confronted them about it, as did several other people.

The comments calling a disabled person talking about their disability a grifter (yes, the word was used) stayed up. The replies condemning this were taken down.

Why? Because calling him a grifter was in line with the original content (which I otherwise have no problems with. Disabled people can be scammers too). The comments defending his humanity, however? Clouded the discussion bashing him. Added nuance where it wasn’t wanted.

What I’m saying is a lot of these “moderators” don’t have the skills, time, resources, credentials, or background to be monitoring discussions. And it’s really hurting community dialogue considering how ubiquitous these platforms are and how difficult it is to find other places online for these conversations.

Some of these comment sections are engaged in toxic positivity and either or thinking. Some in critical thinking bashing and anti-intellectualism (yes, really). Some of them are engaged in misinformation and some are pits of chaos and hate.

But nearly all of them have one thing in common: if you say something unpopular or controversial (so it can be completely factual, just less well-known) your contribution will be taken down, while comments literally calling people slurs will be left up. Leaving many conversations stuck in a surface-level loop.

This is a good way to cement false information but a bad way to encourage learning. It feels like respectability-politics lite. Pretty soon, bluntness (and here I mean informative, and not blunt for bluntness’s sake) will be regarded as bullying but trying to get the point across politely will be regarded as duplicity. I can already see it happening. I do not want to go back. We cannot go back.

People are engaging in potentially devastating long-term harm for short-term engagement. And I’d rather not find out what the cost will be.

[moriganstrongheart]

Wicked: Part I – Review

Directed by Jon M. Chu

2024, Universal Pictures

160 minutes

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Good: Music, character interactions, spectacle

Bad: Narrative, worldbuilding, problematic elements

As the credits rolled on Wicked: Part I, my wife turned to me and asked what I thought. Surprised by the sudden question, my writer brain kicked into high gear and I answered: “It was alright.” She met the answer with slight disappointment, and I realized I had approached the question incorrectly. The question wasn’t: “Did you find the story of this film compelling and narratively satisfying?”, but “Was that a good musical?” The answer to that question is “Yes, definitely”, while my answer to my unasked, writer question remains unchanged.

“It was alright.” in the same way I would say an action blockbuster—like Edge of Tomorrow or Die Hard—is “alright”. It may be strange to compare the two genres, but they both rely on spectacle, an aspect of filmmaking which myself, and I think many other storytellers, find fun, but ultimately not worth deep analysis. Where action blockbusters blast eyeballs and eardrums with explosions, fast cars and sexy encounters, modern movie musicals overwhelm their audiences with impressive dance choreography, catchy tunes and sexy encounters.

I could discuss how action blockbusters are traditionally targeted towards masculine audiences, and movie musicals are largely targeted towards women and the queer community, but while that topic is important, I’m not going to take the time to discuss society’s obsession with gendered media beyond pointing out that I’m leveraging this same artificial gender divide for contrast.

No, my point here is that as a spectacle, Wicked: Part I is fantastic, in the same way that the spectacle of something like Avengers: Infinity War is fantastic, but is disappointing narratively, in the same way that Avengers: Infinity War is disappointing narratively. There are also some other issues with the movie beyond its spectacle and narrative, but I first want to lay out my credentials, since I believe my experience was affected by metatext more than I expected. I also want to discuss some of what I enjoyed before sharing my thoughts on the movie’s more problematic elements.

I have watched Victor Fleming’s The Wizard of Oz a few times, most recently within the last year or so. I have also watched Sam Raimi’s Oz the Great and Powerful at least once, but I can’t recall anything about it, except that it reinforced Oscar Diggs’ con artist persona—which The Wizard of Oz hints at, and Wicked: Part I restates through text and subtext. I have not read any of the books, nor watched the Wicked stage play—nor any of the stage plays—nor have I engaged with any metatext beyond what I’ve absorbed through Tumblr and cultural osmosis.

I think it’s important to point this out, because I think others may get more out of this movie than I did because they have engaged with the metatext, and the spectacle and recognition will more than make up for what the narrative lacks. I got the feeling going into Wicked: Part I that there’s an entire universe of lore and metatext boiling right below the surface, waiting to be discovered. It’s a similar feeling I get when I watch comic book movies—the major difference being that I have some familiarity with the source material, and so I get additional satisfaction from recognition that I don’t necessarily get from Oz media.

Is that fair? I can’t say. I just know I didn’t grow up with Oz, and never got into it as an adult. As speculative fiction, Oz occupies the same space in my mind as literary nonsense works, like Alice in Wonderland and Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy—worth knowing, but not worth deep analysis. Wicked: Part I does little to change my mind on it, as I’m as unlikely now to get into Oz as I ever was.

But I do have some positive things to say about the movie. What Is This Feeling? is a great musical number, sung beautifully by Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, and made me excited to see where the movie would go from there, sensing an enemies-to-lovers storyline brewing below the surface. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t come to pass, and I’ll have to be satisfied with the #gelphie tag on Tumblr for the time being. But this was a highpoint of the film for me, so I can’t complain too much. Defying Gravity was also a bop, giving me chills and goosebumps despite the lackluster ending.

In terms of dance choreography, I found most of it competent, if shallow—though Dancing Through Life was seriously impressive. There’s just something about those rotating libraries and Jonathan Bailey’s bisexual book desecration that just did it for me. I also found Ariana Grande to be genuinely funny throughout. Her vacant stare and mean girl attitude, the physical comedy—I didn’t expect it, but I had a good time with it.

What I didn’t have a good time with are what I consider to be the film’s problematic elements, centered around its use of metaphor.

First, though, I want to discuss the choice to cast Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba. There’s a pervasive issue in Hollywood, where people of colour are often cast as aliens or fantasy creatures in science-fiction and fantasy, covering them in prosthetics and makeup so they become green or covered in tentacles. It’s not uncommon for most of the main cast be white, with one alien, robot or fantasy creature who happens to be played by a person of colour. Suffice it to say, I think this comes from a place of seeing people of colour as inherently “other”, and so they are cast more often as non-human by Hollywood.

I can’t help but feel like the choice to cast Cynthia as Elphaba may be informed by these racist ideologies. In a vacuum, I don’t think casting her as Elphaba would matter, and I think casting a black woman in a starring role is great representation. But we live in a society, a racist society, and her blackness is literally erased by covering her skin in green paint, allowing the movie to amplify her otherness, while also leaning on her racialized physical features to further mark her apart from her white co-star, Ariana.

However, her blackness is also metaphorically erased, to be replaced by a condition specific to her, rather than something she shares with others around her—except perhaps the animals.

Which means I must discuss the animals in Wicked: Part I earlier than I wanted to, because my problems with the animals are intricately tied to the film’s other problematic elements. Firstly, I think the movie’s use of animals as a metaphor for systemic oppression to be uninteresting. It could be the hyper-realistic, yet somehow uncanny CGI, or the fact that all of the characters except Elphaba involved with the animal oppression subplot seem emotionless and bored with the subject, from the human characters to the animals themselves. This could be intentional, but I don’t believe so, as I think the narrative sequesters the main plot from the animal subplot, placing them in two different genres of movies. It just doesn’t feel like I should care about these animals beyond the basic empathy I would otherwise have for animals, which is ruined by the CGI models and the lack of character development on these creatures.

Secondly, humanity has a long history of comparing racialized people to animals, most prominently when it comes to Black and Asian people. Making the only source of racism and oppression in your world a metaphor involving animals is a bad take, in my opinion, one which could and should have been caught during the film’s development. This may be something that has always been part of Wicked’s story; I don’t know enough about the book or musical to know if that’s the case. Regardless, I think it would have been something worth revisiting. I think even making the animals anthropomorphic may have been enough; it’s difficult to know for sure, as they may have suffered the same fate as Elphaba and be cast entirely by racialized actors. It’s also possible using animatronics or stylized animation would have worked. Again, difficult to know for sure.

I also think attaching such a serious topic to whimsical talking animals feels laughable, losing the gravitas they’re obviously going for. It could be that the film was hoping that same basic empathy for animals would be enough to bridge the gap, and it was also trying to advocate for the fair and ethical treatment of animals. But I don’t think the message comes across at all when placed next to the bombastic whimsy of Elphaba and Galinda.

To be clear, there are other Black people in the movie besides Elaphaba: her sister, her mother and some other background characters. There are also other people of colour, such as Michelle Yeoh as Madame Morrible and Bowen Yang as Pfannee. As far as I can tell, these people do not experience systemic racism in the film, and so we must conclude that racism doesn’t exist in the world of Oz. Speciesism definitely exists, because of the aforementioned oppression of animals, but racism itself doesn’t seem to exist.

The question of racism—or any kind of bigotry—is a common problem in speculative fiction. There are generally three approaches to how science-fiction and fantasy handle racism, each with their own pros and cons, their adherents and detractors.

The first and most common method of dealing with racism is to use metaphor—often as a way to circumvent censors or bigoted producers—in the hopes the message will come across and the audience will make connections to real world issues. The problem with this approach is that people who have not examined their racist biases, or who actively endorse racist ideals, will be ignorant of the metaphor, or willingly feign ignorance, if it serves their purposes. Metaphor racism also tends to ignore or supplant the real-world struggles of marginalized people, especially for stories set in something close to the modern day. Finally, this portrayal of racism often inadvertently justifies racism within the narrative, leading to a misunderstanding of how racism works in the real world.

I think Wicked: Part I was going for this approach with the animal oppression subplot, but I’d argue they failed in that regard, for the reasons I previously mentioned—namely, the fact that what Elphaba is experiencing is not systemic racism, and the animals are a poor metaphor for oppression.

Instead, what I think ends up happening is the erasure of racism altogether. This is something that science fiction and fantasy often do to present an idealized version of our current society: a world without racism, sexism or bigotry of any kind, a world in which black people have never faced slavery, where all genders are equal or homosexuality is as normal as breathing. In some cases, it can work, especially if the world is so far future as not to have ties to our current history, or is an alternate universe in which humans just happen to exist—as is the case with Oz, as far as I know.

The problem with this approach is when the fictional world is closely tied to our current reality, such as near future or modern speculative fiction, or the historical setting is somehow tied to our own past. With this approach, the author is trying to have it both ways; they want to include representation, but don't want to touch on why representation is necessary in the first place, effectively erasing the lived experiences of marginalized people.

The third and most difficult approach is including racism in your story, in a way that acknowledges the real world implications of systemic oppression without metaphor or erasure. I don’t know if this is always the best approach—if we’re speaking solely about crafting an interesting narrative—but it does feel like the most inclusive approach. Then again, it can backfire if the racism veers so far off from social commentary that it becomes fetishization. It can also be difficult to pull off, though I think it’s best to attempt it and take criticism, then to not do it at all.

If we accept that Wicked: Part I ultimately chooses to exclude racism from its narrative, then what Elphaba is experiencing ends up being morally reprehensible at a personal level, but morally ambiguous when viewed from afar.

Othering someone because of their appearance or capabilities is never justified. However, there is no evidence in the narrative—beyond the treatment of the animals—that someone with green skin would be immediately rejected as other. There may or may not have been green-skinned people before Elphaba; it’s never addressed in the film. So it doesn’t make sense they would outright reject Elphaba at birth. In actuality, I would expect the people of Oz to welcome her with curiosity and whimsy, if anything.

The fact that she’s so completely ostracized only makes sense if you associate her treatment with that of the animals, which, at best, is a wild connection to make, and at worst makes the narrative morally reprehensible and a racist insult when the movie is critically examined as a piece of art.

Her magical powers are an entirely different manner, as I’d argue that the denizens of Oz have reason to fear her for her magical powers. It’s heavily implied that magic once existed in Oz, but it has all but disappeared for some unknown reason. It’s possible that the slow erasure of magic is tied to the arrogance of humanity, but it’s unclear if that’s the case, and I’m unwilling to meet the movie halfway until it’s made explicit. While performative illusion and misdirection is used by Oscar Diggs and Madame Morrible to enamour and terrify Ozians, real magic is an oddity, a chaotic force which is unusual and dangerous.

Elphaba having magical powers, with no way to control that power, in a world which does not have real magic, is genuinely terrifying to think about. Do I think that justifies the complete ostracization she is subjected to? No. But I do think the fear is justified, even if the resulting actions are not. I think this is what makes Elphaba’s treatment by society morally ambiguous, though I wonder if it’s worth moralizing the actions of the Ozians at all. If I take a second to think about how magic is celebrated in Oz, and yet the only true example of magic is shunned based entirely on the colour of her skin—none of it makes any sense.

I share my opinions on this movie, both good and bad, because I genuinely enjoyed it as a musical. Most of what I discussed in this critical analysis used Wicked: Part I as a jumping off point to discuss topics which are problems across Hollywood, media and storytelling, not just this movie. The fact that I’m writing this at all—after years of not sharing my thoughts about a movie on paper—is evidence that this film sparked something in me and became a core memory of sorts. I can see myself revisiting it again in the future, when the second part comes out, or just whenever the mood strikes.

I say this because, by sharing my unsolicited thoughts on the movie, I am knowingly contributing to the over critique of media aimed at women and the queer community, while seemingly leaving male-centered media unexamined. I’d like to think that, for me, it comes from a place of love and a desire for things to be better, but I know I need to be aware of my own biases. I also want to make it clear that when I criticize media like this, I am directing that criticism at the producers and studio executives in charge, not the writers, directors or audience.

My hope is that by criticizing media that is already trying to be inclusive, diverse and equitable, we’ll get more of the same, with even more diversity and inclusion. As for those action blockbusters which don’t even try to be better, well—let’s just say, I don’t think there’s any hope for them at all.

As for the film’s narrative, the beginning was strong, the middle dragged, and the ending was unsatisfying. The story is stretched thin to cover the film’s over two hour runtime, satisfying the sense of unease I had felt upon seeing Part I in the movie’s title card after the introductory number, No One Mourns The Wicked. As mentioned, the animal subplot, divorced from its problematic issues, isn’t that interesting and doesn’t make much sense in terms of worldbuilding. The narrative also suffers from the problems which necessarily afflict all musicals, wherein the motivations and inner worlds of the characters are said out loud, even in between numbers.

In short: “It was alright.”

But also: “It was a fantastic musical.”

[teacuppuck]

Writing my capstone partially concerning a media that has very little academic presence yet, but strong fandom presence is testing me. I have to work around different adaptations, or just using another book to show the same thing, when I just want to engage someone else's ideas about the show against my own, to build on that argument, like I'm supposed to do. All the while, there is lots of good analysis on the exact themes I am discussing in tumblr meta, but I can't use it because of lack of peer review, or academic credentials, or just for the fact that I can't cite some tumblr user called lestat's vampussy or whatever in my final paper. Which all makes sense but still contributes to the continued disconnect between academia and casual spaces but it doesn't always need to be there, academia could benefit from the well thought out analysis that can be found here. Also, academia is a snake eating it's own tail. To talk about something and it be taken seriously, you have to engage it in context with others' writing on the topic, which, if it's a new idea, doesn't exist. I wish that gap could be bridged and I wish I could quote such good analysis on my paper

[quitefair]

From Sea to Shore: A Josephine Montilyet lore/meta project

Start reading here!

Hi, hello. I suppose introductions are in order.  

My name is Meera and I am a fan (derogatory) of Dragon Age. Have been since 2014, the moment my ears heard the Dragon Age Inquisition theme. (I’m a sucker for soundtracks, I can count on my hand the number of interests I’ve dived into solely because of the soundtrack.)

The reason I’m so fascinated with Dragon Age, as with many people on this site and beyond are, is because of the rich and complex lore that is contained within the world of Thedas. Whether it be within the games themselves, or the massive catalogue of supplemental media – books, comics, short stories published online, the massive hardcover bible of The World of Thedas, etc.

I think you can see where I’m going with this.

Dragon Age is known for… well. Not putting shit into their game. Which is arguably, the most important part of Dragon Age. Yknow. The games? Couple this with the fact that the writers are known to retcon things left right and centre… leaving fans with a, if you don’t mind my language, piss poor understanding of anything beyond surface level.

Now I’m not going to argue semantics about topics that I am clearly not qualified to talk about. I’m still learning things. So while I do read some absolutely delightful discussions on the Mage-Templar war, Tranquility, the Dalish, the Qun… I’m not qualified enough to write proper discussions on these serious and interesting topics.

Instead, I’m armed with having read too many books and watched too many shows. So, what I can do is to look at characters within Dragon Age that I have an unhealthy obsession with, and try to make sense of their stories.

And guess who I’ve decided to start talking about first?

[source]

I’m gonna start off by mentioning that I haven’t done anything like this before. My only credentials are having been unhealthily obsessed with this game franchise for coming onto 9 years now, and owning The World of Thedas 2. Which I haven’t read in its entirety. (Bioware please… put your motherfucking lore in your games, im beggin…) But I have been researching a lot of things recently while planning a frankly quite complicated Dragon Age fic, and after reading a lot of very well written meta on tumblr, and also realizing I enjoy writing my own, I thought I’d take a stab at it myself.

One of the main things I’ve been researching is Josephine and her backstory. On a surface level, it is easy to love her. She’s kind and sweet and absolutely adorable. Her romance fuels my entire existence. She is my Wife and I love her character to the ends of the earth.

But as with a lot of the characters newly introduced in Inquisition, she suffers from a scattered plot, a very superficial stance in the political scheme of things (despite being the political ambassador of Inquisition??? hello???), and is often reduced to several one-dimensional tropes that grate on my nerves.

I’m not discrediting people who enjoy her character as it is. Hell, I spent years loving her story as it is. But I am doing this as an aspiring writer and lover of stories, and a lover of complex, nuanced characters. I see Josephine as a character, much like many others in Dragon Age, who has so much potential to be more. I also see her story in the base game as being quite solid in itself, but is presented in a very scattered, messy way, that you as a player character, might not understand the full impact of.

This series is going to be equal parts laying down the lore of Josephine and the Montilyet family, in a way that people can easily understand and build their own meta and headcanons off, and also for me to speculate and build on my own meta that I’ve been working on. I’m not sure how many parts it’s going to be, we’ll take things as they come.

If you’ve made it this far, kudos for listening to this dude ramble for a thousand words. The real shit comes in a bit. Hope you enjoy.

(Josie in this picture is so me coded when I’m ranting in my Word document so I had to leave this here.)