#do I have Problems of the monetary sort?

[quiltcas]

*shaking my mother by the shoulders* boundaries are good and identity theft is bad actually!

[meichenxi]

Language learning: slow learning versus toxic productivity

Or: the process in crisis

Five years ago, all of the productivity advice I read (and gave out) as a successful self-learner of many different languages had one basic premise: that I was not doing enough, and that I could always be doing more.

Several burnouts later, running headlong from one mental illness into another, I'd like to invite you to entertain the exact opposite idea: there is a limit to what you can do. I have run face-first into mine on multiple occasions, and burnt out. At many points I've stopped learning the language at all. Most importantly, I've learnt to be distrustful of the very premise that all of the so-called productivity or optimisation advice is based on.

More is not always more.

Listen to a podcast in the target language whilst you exercise. Exercise to give yourself more energy to learn your target language. Talk to yourself in the shower in your target language. Do Anki whilst eating breakfast. Listen to Glossika whilst walking to work. Change your phone settings to your target language. Bullet journal. Manage your time. Make friends in your target language. Control your time. Write a diary. There's always enough time. These are all things I have done myself and recommended others do, to increase exposure to the language, to increase productivity.

Productivity? What productivity? What, exactly, is it that we are producing? I am producing sentences and words but - for who? Who is listening? Nobody's here, in my room, at 7am on a Sunday. If productivity were just speaking or writing, I'd be productive in my native language too, by virtue of speaking out loud. Or conversely, in language learning circles, should we measure it in terms of input? How many hours did you spend listening to Chinese yesterday? What about today? Is there anything you do in your life, in your daily life, that you could optimise? You're wasting time. There's time here, for those that want it. If you want to get ahead, to be successful, to be a good language learner, you have to know how to use that time. Go online, and debate over which tools are the best; watch your videos. What exactly is it that is being produced?

Productivity is a measuring tool for concrete output: the productivity of a field means how much crop it can yield per harvest. The productivity of a factory is how many mobile phone chargers it can bring to market per year. There are direct and measurable ways to increase this sort of productivity. But what is productivity when it comes to knowledge work? Cal Newport's work, The Minimalists, Essentialism: they all run into the same problem, which is that nobody seems to know what 'productivity' for knowledge workers means at all. You can look at a factory line and see which parts need greasing up, figuratively or literally: it is very difficult, on the other hand, to look at the work of a self-contained writer and tell her where she is going 'wrong'. (And by 'wrong', I mean - slow.) And language learning is an even more particular subset of that particular subset of work.

You could judge a novelists' productivity two ways: by the 'busyness' of her daily writing routine, or the amount of novels she produces. But what exactly is being produced when we learn a language? What is the end product?

In some ways, language learning as a hobby is even more playful than traditionally thought of arts and crafts. (By 'play' I mean something which is done for its own sake, and which is pleasurable, and which may yield next to no monetary reward.) We might think of the poet as sitting on a tree and dangling his feet in the river, a vision of artful indolence, but at the end of the day there is output - a poem. A knitter has a jumper. A potter has a pot. But language learning doesn't follow this [work] + [time] = [tangible output] structure. We can't even use the second metric of 'productivity' to measure it at all. Something is being done, of course - I can learn to speak Greek, and speak it markedly better after two months than one - but my point is you can't look at a day's work and say, this is exactly how much I learnt. Learning is not memorisation in the short term - it's receiving input, and practicing how to wield and use a structure. It doesn't happen over the course of a ten-minute podcast.

Learning happens - encoding happens - when the brain is doing other things. In other words, much like every creative process, you need downtime. You need rest, and sleep, and fun, and brightness and joy in your life. You might 'remember' a bunch of words on Anki, but you need to sleep before you can review them again: that's the whole point.

There is a much wider problem here, a culture of goals and optimising your life and glowing up, and to be honest, I find it disturbing. I think that for a very long time my language learning metrics were a stand-in, a relic, for the kinds of unhealthy and obsessively perfectionist thinking that gave me an eating disorder. How many of us truly believe - genuinely, with every inch of our heart - that we are better people if we 'better' ourselves? Learn more. Exercise more. Study more. How do you feel about yourself at the end of a day, exhausted, because you've completed day 75/100? Do you feel better about yourself because you've achieved? I'm guessing that you do.

For many people - including for myself - this wider culture has spilled over into their hobbies. Hobbies like language learning in particular are a target for this because they are so easily quantifiable - and we are encouraged, if we want to succeed, to quantify them. How else will we know how to improve?

Over the last few years, after burning out, after living off grid and without wifi and doing extreme minimalism and a lot of other lifestyle experiments to try and understand why modern life is so fucking hard, it's become clear that most systems of 'productivity' measure 'optimisation' by getting the most done in a day, but they don't stop to question whether you should be doing those things at all.

They don't stop to ask: what matters? They don't stop to ask: why am I trying to write a novel, finish my dissertation, pursue a romantic relationship, get healthy, learn ice-skating, learn to cook, look after my aging parents, and learn guitar at the same time? They don't ask: how do I prioritise, and where do I find silence? They ask: how do I cram more time in the day? They don't ask: how do I slow time down? They don't ask: how can I know what matters, if I never give myself space to think?

In other words: 'productivity' in language learning is measured by 'busy-work', by how much you can see from the surface.

You can't measure how well the learning is going, exactly, but you can measure how many hours a day you show up and grind. Whether or not that struggle is the best use of your time, or whether you're spending the time on things that will truly bring you value and quality, is a different question altogether.

And it's not one most 'productivity culture' will ever ask.

There will be things in your language learning journey that, to borrow from self-help terminology, no longer serve you. Habits and relics and resources and mindsets that worked for you once, or no longer did. Those books that are too advanced that you feel like you 'should' be able to read. That textbook that's been sitting beside your bed for a year. That habit of scrolling social media in your target language that was helpful when you were at a more intermediate level, but does little for you now that you're advanced.

Take stock of these. Simplify. Do less, but do it better. Productivity culture never stops to ask: what can I do without? It always asks, instead: how can I do more? But maybe - just maybe - the way to do more is to focus on fewer things, but do them well.

Multi-tasking isn't multi-tasking, but switching quickly between different focuses of attention. The average American owns 300,000 things, and watches television for 4-5 hours a day. On average, if you are distracted, it takes you 20 minutes to reach the same level of deep focus: but the average American office worker opens an email within six seconds of receiving it. Are you any better with your phone? How much time do you spend there? If you meditate, that's wonderful, but do you have any time to let yourself think? To walk and to understand how to feel? I don't want to sound like a boomer, but: can you name the birds? Do you live in a place, not just a room?

Stop trying to be 'productive'. Do less. Do it well.

I am now facing a wall in my learning of Chinese, and I'm still not sure how to get around it. The reason for this is because so much of the advice I gave others around language learning, and so much of the advice I found online, is focused on this sort of optimisation. But I no longer want to be listening to something, to be watching something, every second of every day. I have a partner to love and a house to appreciate and I want to spend time, humming and pleasant, alone with my thoughts, and it's summer, dear diary, and I don't want to stay indoors. Routines can keep you afloat, but they can also drown you. Do something different. Do something new. Do something that is not productive, that produces nothing, idle away, walk to work without music and perhaps when you sit down to your language learning that evening, you'll be filled with a renewed vigour and love for it. Do it because you love it, not because you scheduled it in your calendar.

A lesson, related, from my martial arts teacher. He said:

If you are tired, do not train. If you do not train, rest. 'Rest' does not mean go on your phone.

The same principle applies here. If you are tired of learning, which you may well be, rest. Not going on your phone, not watching Netflix. I mean taking a walk and sitting under the tree and looking at the patterning of the sky. I mean lying with your dog and absently scratching his tummy. If you're tired, and you have the luxury to stop - stop. Let yourself be tired. Don't drink caffeine. Sleep.

Last year, I was able to write 340,000 words of fiction because I focused on one thing: writing my book. Apart from things that I literally needed to do to survive and maintain my health and relationships around me, I didn't set a single other to-do. My daily list looked like: write for three hours. Not a word limit. Not exercise, though I ended up doing that, not learning a language. I imagine that if I had tried to focus on Chinese at the same time that I wouldn't have achieved anywhere near half the result. I still learnt Chinese, a very decent amount - I went to China and Taiwan for three months in total! - but I did it because I wanted to, of a whim, on a Sunday, something fun. It wasn't a must, or anything I was forcing myself to do. Many days I didn't do any Chinese at all. It was so immensely freeing to be able to think, at 11am: I'm finished for today. Even when I was at work, because I knew I was just there to pay the rent, I felt serene. Stressed on a day-to-day level, certainly, because all work is stressful, but - there wasn't any striving. I just did the best I could. And that was enough.

I am writing this, now, as I come out of my first ever information-overload burnout. I've burnt out, but I've never experienced one of these before: even looking at a book, at a phone, physically hurt my eyes. I couldn't bear to listen to people speak and would lock myself away in my room. I physically felt I could not talk, and had to take extensive time off work. Even looking at a pen and a blank page was too much; listening to podcasts was too much; reading the instructions for dinner was too much too. The only way I could heal was by doing absolutely nothing at all. That period shocked me deeply, because it showed me how absolutely dependent I was on having some input of information all of the time. No wonder I was tired.

I know, now, that there are lots of movements built around this same idea, by frustrated learners all over the world: the growing realisation that metrics and Excel and polylogger and tracking tracking tracking can't be the only way to learn. That a list of the number of books you've read in one year is hardly indicative of how well you understood those books, and what you learned from them. You've read 20 books this year already - good job. When do you think about them? What time do you spend on reflection? Why did you choose those books? Which chapters, and which characters, hit you the hardest? Why?

Minimalism, deep work, 'monk mode', essentialism, every writer's dream to run away and write in a cabin in the woods, slow learning, Buddhism, Stoicism, Marie Kondo-ism, the art of less, project 333, my no-buy-year, slow fashion, slow food, slow travel:

What all of these philosophies have in common is the idea that doing things deliberately ('mindfully') means 1) doing things slowly, 2) doing things well, and 3) doing things one at a time.

I am now at a place in my life where I understand the value of time alone with my thoughts. I don't want to listen to podcasts every minute of the waking day, because I need time to think about them. I need time to let the ideas for my novel grow in the dark. Nothing can be heard in noise; so make space for silence. I am a member of the real, living, breathing world, and that means I cannot devote 8 hours a day to Chinese television shows like I could when I was 20. I have to call my father. I have to do the dishes. I want to flex my creative muscles in other ways. Alternatively - I no longer believe that my worth is tied up inherently with how well I do my hobbies.

You're just some guy. There's freedom in that. You, my friend - you suck <3

Let yourself be bad. Let yourself be mediocre. Let yourself 'slide backwards' or regress, because all that means is that you're putting focus somewhere else. It'll come back. It always does.

I'm no longer comfortable, therefore, with the way that the language learning community tackles productivity. Please don't misunderstand; a lot of us have time spare that we could use to do things 'better' for us. I know. But I just believe now that getting rid of things, like the time you spend on your phone, is going to be more helpful in the long run than trying to force yourself into some gruelling, achievement-centric regime that collapses from within after two months of struggle and self-flagellation.

The other realisation I have had is just how much happier I am spending more time being alive, really alive, and less time in front of a screen. For a language like German or Gaelic that's much easier, because you can study with books, but with Chinese you always have to study to some extent with audios, flashcards, computers. Especially if - like me - you can read novels without a dictionary, but cannot handwrite even your Chinese name. So where next?

I don't have any answers. I'm not sure how to pair the two things together, to be honest, because almost all of my language learning has traditionally made use of technology. It's all been goal-orientated, systems-orientated, and despite the fact that I've failed at using these systems every day for years, despite the fact that Anki has NEVER worked for me, despite the fact that I have spent hundreds if not thousands of pounds on courses here, there, a wealth of overwhelm and five thousand words saved on Pleco, did I read that right? Five thousand. No wonder I'm stressed.

Regardless of happiness, it's much easier to achieve a state of deep focus and work when you're not online. After my period of information burnout, I feel actual physical pain from the weight of choices online. It's exhausting. I'm watching a Chinese show, but I want to go on tumblr. I'm on tumblr, but I feel guilty for not watching the Chinese show. I'm constantly torn between doing this and that, never fully committing to anything, seeing a post by Lindie Botes and thinking, damn, she's good. I should be better. But I don't want to compare myself to her. Do you know what? She is good. I admire her immensely. But I don't want to judge my self-worth by some imagined scale of productivity anymore - and, the more time passes, the more I'm not sure what 'productivity' in the context of language learning even means.

Try slow, focused, deep learning. You might just find it works.

There's something refreshing, almost counter-cultural, anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, anti-rat-race, about this thought. Slow learning. I think there's an answer here, somewhere. It's a problem I've been dancing around for a while; and do you remember how you learnt your first foreign language? For me, it was on the floor, absolutely absorbed in German comic books, flicking through the dictionary furiously and scribbling things down in a notebook. I only had one book, and one dictionary, and one grammar book. I want to go back to that sort of simplicity. There was joy in that.

One again: I don't have any answers. I don't know exactly what direction this blog is going to go in, as I wrestle with these sorts of meta-problems. I'd love to hear your thoughts. And for now, if there's one thing I'd like you to take away from this long and frankly absurdly rambling post (thank you for bearing with me!) it's an alternative answer for the question I get so often, about what you can do to learn the language when you're tired, because:

Yes, you could watch reality TV shows in Chinese, or you could give yourself permission to be human. You could rest.

Thanks guys. Meichenxi out <3

[transmutationisms]

ok so i do think the "ai art isnt real art" argument sucks but what about "stealing" art? in the sense of ai being trained on other peoples work and then profiting off of it. for both visual art and written work.

(i know the bigger problem here are the abused workers doing the filtering etc but im interested in this particular problem too)

so first of all i think this argument is kind of silly (im not aiming this at you but at a certain genre of ai critic) because there's no way to distinguish, ontologically or legally, between a generative language model being trained on a certain dataset and a human having artistic influences. that's sort of just how creative production works. it would be really hellish if "having stylistic influences" was like, ethically or legally forbidden lmao. i mean certain forms of art (blackout poetry, collage) can even work explicitly by taking some already existing piece and altering it---but even when that's not happening, human creation and inspiration don't happen in a vacuum or in some kind of transcendent artistic revelation from god above lol.

anyway i do actually think it's fucked for companies to be profiting on the creations of their generative language models, but only in the same way and to the same extent that capitalist production generally is fucked. i do not think the solution here is to further reinforce copyright or monetary ownership of art. and as many people have pointed out, you actually can see a kind of trial run of how this would shake out in the music industry, where laws about sampling have gotten more and more restrictive to protect copyright/ip. it's very easy for massive labels to sue whoever they want, it's hard-to-impossible for smaller artists to fight back even if it's genuinely a case of accidental resemblance, it's legally absurd because like half of rock n roll uses the same few chord progressions anyway, and meanwhile the actual art form has basically been shrunken and restricted because sampling is so threatened and expensive.

[ukiyowi]

How Will You Be Remembered?

Note: I'm in the middle of end sem season which is why I've been so offline and like bad w posting, I hope you like this <33

Read from 1 -> 3

Find more at Masterlist

🌷 Pile 1

Hello Pile 1! I will start this off with don't take it to heart, this is not who you are, just how people may remember you or perceive you after you are gone. You may be remembered as someone who was not afraid of showing your vulnerabilities, some people may see you as weak because of this and remember you as someone who did not take enough risks or played it safe too often to the point of your own detriment. They could think you were someone who lacked confidence and had low self-esteem even though you may have "had it all" so people may remember you as someone who had a lot of potential to do great things.

People would also feel like you were the kind of person who had a lot of problems with self-victimisation or self-sabotage where even if you had resources you felt too scared or restricted, almost powerless because of your own mind. They could have thought that you faked a lot of your problems or blew them out of proportion to seem like you have it really bad, even if this is not the case in reality, (remember what I said earlier). You could also be remembered as someone who had issues with romance or in your domestic life, possibly with your partner where you may have been a little possessive or controlling, some sort of jealousy that gets in the way of you being able to completely devote yourself without even a sliver of doubt towards your partner, yeah people could remember you as someone quite ungrounded in that regard. They may also remember you as someone who had a lot of internal familial problems and disharmony possibly with your kids as well.

However! Not everything’s negative, people would also remember you as someone who celebrated their own achievements and had a lot of inner peace and harmony surrounding them. People may recall you to be a team worker and someone who is very ambitious and sincere when it comes to their work. Also someone extremely generous and willing to share their wealth not only materially but also your knowledge, wisdom, resources, time, etc. You would be remembered for being able to go through cycles of constant change and come out better and brighter on the other side, someone who is very good with leaving the past in the past and not looking back once you move forward. To top it all of you could also be remembered as someone who tries to keep the peace and mediate even if they don't want to, almost as if your hand was being forced every time because you had to carry the responsibility of keeping things civil.

If you like this and want morez buy a reading or tip, if you want at [Paid Readings] and ko-fi.com/taagen respectively.

🌷 Pile 2

Hello pile 2! You will be remembered as someone who is extremely intuitive. Maybe you are spiritual yourself and get bad vibes from people that are often correct (or good vibes), maybe you think or feel something is going to take place and let others know, and are dismissed initially before it turns out you were once again correct. So you would definitely be remembered as that, also someone who is very true to their roots and authentic, you can stay close to your culture and traditions and may even carry out conventions at the most with a twist of your own! People would also remember you as an individual who is very abundant, especially financially. Someone who has their business in different domains and tries to capitalise off of a number of ventures, also someone who starts their own ventures! Yeah, you may leave behind a huge sum of money or capital too, that may be inherited by the people around you so that would instantly have you be remembered as someone who is generous and good with their money, people would think you were the kind who never had any monetary issues that you had to face growing up or during your young adult ages even if it may not be true to reality.

You'd also be remembered as someone who is very bright, shines in whatever they do, and someone who may be the mood maker. Like the glue in friendships or workplaces, you would be remembered as someone who connects people with each other, like if you have a friend, and you introduce them to someone else, then those two people become friends even if you drift apart from them, you know what I mean? A little specific however, something that is coming through strongly. You may be remembered as a mentor figure too, like wise and knowledgeable, someone very open to helping others even if it does not benefit you in any way.

Now, some people may also remember you as indecisive, or someone who lacked commitment and that you were shrouded in self-doubt. They could also think that you may have knowingly or unknowingly indulged in gossip that could have been malicious in nature and that you may end up victimising yourself even if you have wronged someone else, you may be recalled as a figure in people's lives where you wronged them, but they had to bear the weight of all the consequences. Some could also think you were apathetic to a large extent and dispassionate about things when alive, that you did not use the resources and talents you may have had productively because of repeating negative cycles of laziness and procrastination which could lead you to not complete projects or meet deadlines.

If you like this and want morez buy a reading or tip, if you want at [Paid Readings] and ko-fi.com/taagen respectively.

🌷 Pile 3

Pile 3 you've got some goo d cards! You may have a lot of people around you and a lot of good friendships/family members and connections in your life who appreciate you because wow! People would remember you as a family person, someone who was very close to their relatives and had the kind of family that one would dream of having. Your children may carry some sort of your legacy as well where they may become very well known, and you would be remembered through them. People would also think that during the course of your life you were someone who got very lucky with marriage or finding your partner, so a lot of how you are remembered also come from your family like your relations with them, maybe your partner as well.

You could also be remembered as someone who is very active when it comes to social justice. Someone who always stands up for what they believe in even if you are in the absolute minority, but this could also come with people thinking you have a way of being forceful and pushy when it comes to wanting what you want, especially when it comes to arguments or conflicts. You may also be remembered as someone who used to challenge convention and play by your own rules.

There is so much familial stuff here, how you'd be remembered for being nurturing and playing a motherly role (regardless of gender) for the people around you as well. Also, remembered as being very confident in your own convictions and being extremely optimistic, like you could have helped people around you look at the brighter side as well.

Okay so this is a little aside, but it was a strong intuitive message that people could also remember you as someone who is accepting of new challenges no matter what, even if it is something that you may not have resources to completely pass obstacles. Also, someone who has a lot of turbulence in their life and ups and downs that may have pushed you to the edge, but this could be taken as inspirational for people, like seeing you go through so much and still make a good life for yourself could make people believe they can do the same, so you could also be remembered in a light of you being an inspiration.

Now moving on, you could lastly be remembered as someone who was not able to fulfil your true passions in your life and someone who could have passed without getting to nurture your inner child enough because of how busy you were nurturing the people around you.

If you like this and want morez buy a reading or tip, if you want at [Paid Readings] and ko-fi.com/taagen respectively.

Do not plagiarise copy or reword, all rights reserved to Ukiyowi©®

[rollinouttahere-writes]

Can i request Dark Chocolate and 20 for Zoro?

And Happy Valentines Day <333

I'm only two requests in and I've already broken my 'keep it under 1k words rule'. If anyone needs me I'm going to be putting on my clown make up for ever thinking I would be able to abide by that.

Yandere Roronoa Zoro x GN!Reader

1.4k words

Prompt:

I wanted to get something that reminded me of you. The problem is that everything reminds me of you.

At first you could explain away a missing item or two as simply forgetfulness on your part, or possibly getting swept away in the day to day chaos of being on the Thousand Sunny. As time went on and more and more things kept disappearing, those explanations seemed increasingly less likely. Someone had to be deliberately taking your belongings. 

What bothered you most was what was missing. Whoever was doing this wasn’t taking anything particularly valuable. You’d even left a wad of berry in your nightstand as a test of sorts, but it didn’t appear to have been so much as touched. They weren’t doing this for the sake of monetary gain.

For whatever reason, they were stealing more… Personal items. Clothes, mostly. Specifically clothing that had been worn like a tank top you’d worked out in or your recently slept in pajamas. It was the missing underwear that particularly disturbed you. That’s what officially escalated this from bizarre to creepy.

The most obvious culprit had been Sanji, but you doubted it was him after your confrontation. You’ve seen how he acts when he’s been caught doing something he isn’t supposed to be doing. He acts like a dog that got caught chewing on a new pair of shoes, and you’re sure that if he had a tail, it would be between his legs whenever Nami yells at him for doing something weird. But when you asked if he had anything to do with your recent bout of theft, he had been outraged. He seemed horrified and furious at the idea of someone stealing such intimate apparel from you and had vowed to pulverize whatever scum would do such a thing.

It could have been an act to throw you off, but that seemed unlikely. The reaction came off as entirely genuine, so you shelved the idea of your missing clothing being his doing. You were going to have to do something nice for him later to make up for the accusation.

With Sanji crossed off your suspects list, it was now empty. You had no idea who else could possibly be doing this to you. At this point, it was just as likely that some stray ferret had made itself at home on the ship and was stealing your clothes to make a nice den for itself. Frankly, that was the best case scenario. Anything outside of a cute, albeit mischievous, animal would be deeply concerning.

Feeling like you had no other option, you concocted a plan. While you were supposed to be training by yourself, you would instead hide in your room and wait for the perpetrator. It was typically after these training sessions that your belongings went missing, so this seemed like your best shot at catching them in the act.

Hiding yourself in your laundry hamper had proven itself to be a bit of a challenge. With how much clothing you were missing, you had to get really strategic in stuffing what was left around you to keep yourself hidden. When you were content with the placement, you lowered the lid of the hamper and waited. You couldn’t see a thing now that it was closed, but it would be easy enough to crack open the lid and peek out if your thief made an appearance. This was far from comfortable, but it was going to have to work. You couldn’t let whoever was stealing your damn underwear get away with it. Though you hoped that they would show up today because you would feel ridiculous if this effort was all in vain.

The sound of footsteps coming down the hall made you perk up. You waited with bated breath to see if they would pass the room or enter it. The steps stop in front of the door, and then the knob rattles as it’s opened. There’s a pause, then someone steps in and closes the door behind them. This has to be the person, but you decide to wait for them to do something incriminating before outing yourself. Given that your worn clothes were a favorite of theirs, they should come right to you so long as you didn’t give yourself away.

This person’s footsteps were heavy, and the sound of metal on metal accompanied their every move, like they had several things on them that kept crashing into each other. It sounded familiar, but you couldn’t narrow down which crew member it was just from that. Lots of them carried various things on them at all times.

Your nightstand’s drawer was opened, and the contents moved around as the intruder looked for who knows what. The drawer was slammed shut, and you can only assume that they didn’t find whatever they wanted in it.

Finally, you could hear them approaching your hamper. Your heart thrummed in your chest as you got ready to chew out whoever had been doing this. Them being caught attempting to rifle through your laundry was the most red-handed way to catch them, there would be no denying it.

The lid is thrown open and you make direct eye contact with…

“Zoro?!”

The swordsman stumbled back in shock, “Shit! What the hell are you doing in there, (Y/N)?!”

“What am I doing?! What the fuck are you doing going through my laundry?!” You scrambled to get out of the basket so you could confront him in a more dignified manner. As soon as you were on your feet you got up in his face, “And more importantly, why have you been stealing my shit?”

To his credit, Zoro at least had the decency to look embarrassed. His face and ears were tinted red and he couldn’t look you in the eye. “I don’t know what you’re talking about, I haven’t stolen anything.”

“Oh, bullshit! My clothes have been going missing left and right, and now I’ve caught you trying to go through my laundry when you thought I was training. Cut the crap and stop lying.” You crossed your arms over your chest and glowered at the man in contempt. How could Zoro of all people do something like this? You felt disgusted. Betrayed, even.

He sighed and dragged his hand down his face. “Alright.” He mustered up the courage to look at you again and hardened his expression. “Maybe I borrowed a couple of things.”

You scoffed, “A couple? I barely have anything left to wear. And why, praytell, have you felt the need to steal my fucking underwear? Why would you possibly want to do that?” You laughed in disbelief, “That’s something that I thought only Sanji would do, but apparently you’re more of a pervert than even him.”

His eye twitched, “Do not compare me to that damn love cook, I’m nothing like him.”

“Yeah, like I said, even HE isn’t this bad. You know what? I’m done talking to you, I don’t even want to look at you right now. I’m going to go tell everyone what you’ve been doing and they can deal with your creepy ass.” You shove past him, no longer wanting to breathe the same air as him.

Before you can make it far, his hand wraps around your wrist and yanks you back. You try to break free but he’s locked onto you like an iron shackle. Zoro pushes you up against the wall, caging you in with his arms and pressing his chest against yours to keep you from squirming away. This is closer than you would have liked to be to him even before this awful reveal. Now it felt suffocating and intimidating.

“Do you want to know why I took what I did? It’s because I wanted to get something that reminded me of you. The problem is that everything reminds me of you.” Zoro ducked his head down, his mouth was right by your ear to ensure that you would hear every word, “I wanted something that smelled like you. Everything kept losing your scent, so I needed to get more.” To emphasize this need, he pressed his nose into your hair and took a deep breath.

You writhed and tried to push him away but he wouldn’t budge. As strong as you were, even you weren’t a match for the strength of Luffy’s right hand man. You were entirely at his mercy, and you had no idea when someone else would come in and be able to help you. If they even could.

[hithertoundreamtof23]

I have a PSA concerning AI

First of all, ai has been scraping voices and using them for monetary gain.

My professor got called by his "son" because he "got arrested for running over a pregnant lady". Concerned, he called the number he was referred to which was a "lawyer" recommending paying for bail. The "lawyer" sent him the location to pay the bail money, which was 2 hours away in the middle of nowhere. There are multiple bail places around our college town, so my professor realized it was very suspicious. He called his wife and sure enough, the son was fine and not arrested.

He's not the only person this has happened to, and people think the voices come from those who respond to scam calls. Although it's fun to mess with scam callers, they can recover your voice and record it to use later in similar schemes.

Please create some sort of riddle or safe word or something in case you are unsure if it's your loved one or not calling. Also, spread the word! Many of my friends have gotten similar calls.

~~~

On another note, I did what you're not supposed to do and asked chat gpt to recreate a fic in the style of my ao3 account.

DISCLAIMER: I have never used AI and never will again. This was for curiosity and educational purposes! All my work is genuine and I do not support chat GPT.

Here are the screenshots:

(some words are cut off a bit, sorry about that! Also, ignore the time and my phone battery XD)

As you can see, ai was able to recreate my common tags, themes, and characters. It was also able to perfectly replicate my punctuation style (way too many commas and wordy descriptions) in a way you wouldn't expect a computer to do.

Those that have read my fics before know and probably recognize sentence patterns, imagery, etc. that are sort of my signature (I guess?), but ai was able to form this fic in just a few seconds.

This is obviously a problem for not only artists and creators, but also for the population as a whole, which is a whole other rant for another day.

I don't know if I'll lock my fics (which I'd hate because I get a lot of involvement from nonmembers), or what I'll do, but I do know that this is startling to know what ai is capable of.

To put things simply, AI is getting to dangerous levels of awareness and control.

[goldenpinof]

curious about your perspective – what do you think is the primary reason for the current comeback, and for the large scale of it (daily videos, new heavily marketed merch, etc)? are they trying to make up some monetary loss? is it true revitalized passion? the influence of the new management? lead-up to a major project/announcement? i'm guessing there's an element of at least the first three, but interested in your opinion as a noted non-cynical cynic (compliment btw)

under the cut because that's a lot. and it's not even all of my thoughts, unfortunately.

no one is gonna read it. but if you are, i'm sorry in advance.

ahaha. about merch. did you notice how they just continue to promote the calendar and the catboy sweater even though the initial release and promo had a deadline aka till December 1st? this is a fishy marketing right there. and i would love to know: why they did what they did (i'd assume they printed more calendars than people ordered by Dec 1st, but that's not our problem as customers. we shouldn't have been put into a framework in the 1st place if there was a chance for this shit to go south. this theory goes against the "pre-order" with a start of shipping in 2-3 weeks); why their managers allowed it (from a legal perspective); and why dnp didn't say anything. anyways.

i do think that Dan is trying to compensate for wad losses. and i know that he was "joking" about not making money or making negative money on tour. but i saw ticket sales a day before each show (only public information, not the inside official data from venues), it's still on my blog. and the sales didn't look good. so, how much of it was a joke? and compensating by making content that we and they enjoy isn't a bad thing, btw! i also think that he feels guilty for leaving us and the dnp brand behind for so long without actually giving us anything in return. thus so many comments on this 5-year hiatus and potential future ones. blame youtube originals, i know. not really his fault, but his choice of (the lack of) communication is his fault. and again, i always come back to wad. something fucking clicked in his head when he saw not as many people as he hoped for (or expected), how dedicated were some of those who still supported him during wad, and also he realised that without stronger managers he was not gonna make it solo. and he dragged Phil along because they do everything together and only then it works the best, and also dnpg's return in full force needed new energy for the amount of sponsorships they decided to do (i think, it's mainly Phil's pushing, because he is pro-sponsorships, they just need to be more careful with it on dnpg because Dan (hopefully) has principles when it comes to this. which is amazing. you go, girl!)

i'm very suspicious of dnp's new management right now. so idk. i think, again, most of it comes from Phil, because Phil thrives on their gaming channel, and that's basically the only easy way to survive on youtube and make money right now (for him). i'm glad dnp separated dnpg from their solo careers at least on the management and content levels. it gives Phil the room to use dnpg as a brand to pitch and fund his ideas/projects if it's ever needed. and now, after we survived the hiatus, they can pause dnpg for a couple of months to focus on their solo projects without losing the majority of the audience because technically we would know the reason and also we grew a thicker skin.

i do think that Dan is using dnpg to later help himself with a stand-up special or tour or some sort of series (danisnotokay). i also think he will use it to promote wad dvd (which is good. i will be disappointed if he doesn't use dnpg. like, bitch, why are we even here then? those who went through wad with him, i mean). i wonder if Inter Talent (i'm separating their name intentionally at his point because they piss me off) was smart enough to announce Dan and Phil's signings 2 weeks after UTA announced Dan to just make us pay attention to Dan's solo career again. as a hint of something coming our way. you know what i mean? i wonder if it was intentional. like UTA made a huge announcement, Dan retweeted it and posted it on instagram stories. it was a big deal. meanwhile, dnpg began thriving again and our eyes were on Dan anyway, so of course we noticed that solo career was on the maps again. Inter Talent was basically silent as another representative of Dan (and Phil), despite having them on the website for at least a month. and now 2 weeks after UTA's announcement (which was on November 22, 2023) Inter Talent was like, "hello? do you remember we signed Dan? and also Phil, and their joint channel?" Dan said wad dvd is almost cooked. wouldn't it be genius to stir our interest up step by step? (a part of me still thinks that Inter Talent's social media managers are just slow as fuck though. also they don't even care to check facts about their clients. UTA didn't fuck the announcement up like that, btw. and i doubt Inter Talent realises how nosy dnp's audience is, and that we are very likely gonna notice and spread even this stupid announcement. maybe they are dumb and it's me who is a fucking genius planning steps to present wad dvd to the masses, ugh. when will Dan pay me, like for real.)

i'm surprised you don't think it's heavily connected to new projects. i would bet my kidney it does. Dan will fuck off the moment he needs to focus on danisnotokay or someone offers to sponsor another tour (which, please, someone do. i need to see him for professional reasons). the question is, fuck off for how long and if it's gonna be communicated thoroughly or not. i'm not saying he will leave for 6 months without giving us something in return to balance things out. no, no, no. i don't think he would dare. but 3-4 weeks, maybe 2 months? sure.

is it true revitalized passion? well. *nervous laughter* i'm gonna defend Phil like i'm a phillie, even tho i'm not. he wanted it just as much as we did. so i believe it's a true revitalized passion at least on his part. i hope he fights for it if it's necessary, i hope he asks us for help if needed. i hope he threatens Dan with an actual divorce and forever home if needed. like, bitch, if there's a chance to keep dnpg alive without Dan actually losing his will to live, we should use that chance. Dan's stubbornness and delulus are not the reason to kill the most fun and profitable thing they ever created aka dnp brand. let it exist, even if alongside solo projects, even if it's 2-3 videos a month. damn, even 1 video (i don't mean during pauses made specifically for the peaks of solo projects). i do think Dan enjoys the attention, money, and possibilities their returned audience can give him. he also enjoys working with Phil. he certainly does not enjoy promoting their videos. and he is lucky he has Phil for that. is it a true passion for the gaming channel and joint branding solemnly? i genuinely don't think so. now, this dnp brand puts Dan into a framework, unfortunately. and i understand his desire to grow as a "strong independent Dan", and i wish him the best. i will root for him no matter how much of a floppy-ding-dong it can potentially be. i want him to fulfill his dreams and have a team that will fight for his interests. and i hope to god, UTA and Inter Talent are the ones. don't fucking tempt me with your unprofessionalism. but do i think Dan's head and heart belong to dnpg or dnp brand? no. i'm happy that he is at least trying. a part of me doesn't even care about the reason. i'm curious, but in hindsight, it wouldn't matter or change anything.

other thoughts, because apparently i decided to vomit on a keyboard tonight:

i'm glad dnp took back a bit of control over the editing on dnpg. i hope they will try to edit more themselves when gamingmas is over. or they will teach their editors better. because man, we need to slow down with these cuts.

i do think that dnp brand will expand, and dnpg and merch aren't the only things we should expect. (twitch, podcast or liveshows, onlyfans or its equivalent, vlogging series not limited by ditl, and other things that i forgot). reaction videos are already a thing and it's very funny because it's what youtube wants, so Dan must feel amazing right now falling for it :)) it's good thought because it's fun and torture for all parties involved.

i think by these reaction videos they are trying to rewrite their internet history a little bit for those who are new. it's not gonna work with us but at least dnp can control the narrative in new people's heads (i wonder for how long though).

with new people, the phandom will become more generic and dnp will love that. it can actually help Dan with new projects i think. Phil as well, but we don't know shit about it right now.

i wonder if Dan returns to working with charities.

if they involve more phannies, not only artists, it's gonna be interesting.

in case i'm wrong, don't step on my neck, i don't know anything for a fact. half of it is alleged, the other half is wishful thinking <3

[sickfictropes]

So. say you're writing a fantasy story and you want your characters to get injured in a fight.

You are now faced with the age-old dilemma of "why would they get injured in a fight"

The main problem is, WHAT attacks them?? especially if you don't like having your characters be attacked by monsters / wild animals because you like it better when they COEXIST with nature instead of being in conflict with it. I like creatures okay. creatures are wonderful.

so the issue now is that I can't think of anything else that would attack them, especially if it's travel whump and they're taking atypical roads. so far all I've come up with is bandits. sickfictropes I beseech your aid

oof without knowing anything about what kind of fantasy story you're writing, it's a little hard to say for sure. would it make sense for someone to try to capture one of the characters and they fight back? do they spar with one another and could get hurt by accident? are they wanted for something and could be attacked by bounty hunters? could they enter a tournament of some sort for a monetary prize and get hurt that way?

i don't write or read fantasy really, so unfortunately that's all i've got for you, but hopefully it helps a little!

[garblixdligzoog]

Msg From: SquishyLover400

Sbj: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tabalicious!

To: <UserStrngInvalid>

Heyo! I'm just sending a message to you on behalf of Squishy Play Palace #3304 that you have not paid off your tab of 300 dollars. Could you please give me a call back on this date? 12/22/24 it would be lovely please and thank you -Gregoriah

Reply from: <UserStrngInvalid>

Subj: No.

To: SquishyLover400

I am seventy trillion light years away from your universe. How are you sending me these messages?

Reply From: SquishyLover400

Subj: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tabalicious!

To: <UserStrngInvalid>

Please can I just have the money my boss is gonna be really really really mad if I don't pay off this one. I hate getting scolded at, I do! Please, just pay off this 300 dollar tab!

-Gregoriah

Reply from: <UserStrngInvalid>

Subj: ...

To: SquishyLover400

Over the past year I have had to deal with an alien feline on the brink of death, sorting several thousand people's ashes from the testing sites, people trying to steal my hammer, my employers getting mad about the problems at Two Stud Camp's Black Bone ritual, a mouse from hell that constantly tries to invite me to tea parties, a giant gray sentient wall crashing into my door, and a man owl sleeping near my friend's play room. I have no concern over monetary value.

-C.M.

P.S.

Stop trying to sell me your green squishy things, My friend has enough of them. Your burgers and fries also taste horrible.

[dailyanarchistposts]

I.1.2 Is libertarian communism impossible?

In a word, no. While the “calculation argument” (see last section) is often used by propertarians (so-called right-wing “libertarians”) as the basis for the argument that communism (a moneyless society) is impossible, it is based on certain false ideas of what prices do, the nature of the market and how a communist-anarchist society would function. This is hardly surprising, as Mises based his theory on a variation of neo-classical economics and the Marxist social-democratic (and so Leninist) ideas of what a “socialist” economy would look like. So there has been little discussion of what a true (i.e. libertarian) communist society would be like, one that utterly transformed the existing conditions of production by workers’ self-management and the abolition of both wage-labour and money. However, it is useful here to indicate exactly why communism would work and why the “calculation argument” is flawed as an objection to it.

Mises argued that without money there was no way a socialist economy would make “rational” production decisions. Not even Mises denied that a moneyless society could estimate what is likely to be needed over a given period of time (as expressed as physical quantities of definite types and sorts of objects). As he argued, “calculation in natura in an economy without exchange can embrace consumption-goods only.” His argument was that the next step, working out which productive methods to employ, would not be possible, or at least would not be able to be done “rationally,” i.e. avoiding waste and inefficiency. The evaluation of producer goods “can only be done with some kind of economic calculation. The human mind cannot orient itself properly among the bewildering mass of intermediate products and potentialities without such aid. It would simply stand perplexed before the problems of management and location.” Thus we would quickly see “the spectacle of a socialist economic order floundering in the ocean of possible and conceivable economic combinations without the compass of economic calculation.” [“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”, pp. 87–130, Collectivist Economic Planning, F.A. von Hayek (ed.), p. 104, p. 103 and p. 110] Hence the claim that monetary calculation based on market prices is the only solution.

This argument is not without its force. How can a producer be expected to know if tin is a better use of resources than iron when creating a product if all they know is that iron and tin are available and suitable for their purpose? Or, if we have a consumer good which can be made with A + 2B or 2A + B (where A and B are both input factors such as steel, oil electricity, etc.) how can we tell which method is more efficient (i.e. which one used least resources and so left the most over for other uses)? With market prices, Mises’ argued, it is simple. If A cost $10 and B $5, then clearly method one would be the most efficient ($20 versus $25). Without the market, Mises argued, such a decision would be impossible and so every decision would be “groping in the dark.” [Op. Cit., p. 110]

Mises’ argument rests on three flawed assumptions, two against communism and one for capitalism. The first two negative assumptions are that communism entails central planning and that it is impossible to make investment decisions without money values. We discuss why each is wrong in this section. Mises’ positive assumption for capitalism, namely that markets allow exact and efficient allocation of resources, is discussed in section I.1.5.

Firstly, Mises assumes a centralised planned economy. As Hayek summarised, the crux of the matter was “the impossibility of a rational calculation in a centrally directed economy from which prices are necessarily absent”, one which “involves planning on a most extensive scale — minute direction of practically all productive activity by one central authority”. Thus the “one central authority has to solve the economic problem of distributing a limited amount of resources between a practically infinite number of competing purposes” with “a reasonable degree of accuracy, with a degree of success equally or approaching the results of competitive capitalism” is what “constitutes the problem of socialism as a method.” [“The Nature and History of the Problem”, pp. 1–40, Op. Cit., p. 35, p. 19 and pp. 16–7]

While this was a common idea in Marxian social democracy (and the Leninism that came from it), centralised organisations are rejected by anarchism. As Bakunin argued, “where are the intellects powerful enough to embrace the infinite multiplicity and diversity of real interests, aspirations, wishes, and needs which sum up the collective will of the people? And to invent a social organisation that will not be a Procrustean bed upon which the violence of the State will more or less overtly force unhappy society to stretch out?” Moreover, a socialist government, “unless it were endowed with omniscience, omnipresence, and the omnipotence which the theologians attribute to God, could not possibly know and foresee the needs of its people, or satisfy with an even justice those interests which are most legitimate and pressing.” [Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 268–9 and p. 318] For Malatesta, such a system would require “immense centralisation” and would either be “an impossible thing to achieve, or, if possible, would end up as a colossal and very complex tyranny.” [At the Café, p. 65]

Kropotkin, likewise, dismissed the notion of central planning as the “economic changes that will result from the social revolution will be so immense and so profound … that it will be impossible for one or even a number of individuals to elaborate the social forms to which a further society must give birth. The elaboration of new social forms can only be the collective work of the masses.” [Words of a Rebel, p. 175] The notion that a “strongly centralised Government” could ”command that a prescribed quantity” of a good “be sent to such a place on such a day” and be “received on a given day by a specified official and stored in particular warehouses” was not only “undesirable” but also “wildly Utopian.” During his discussion of the benefits of free agreement against state tutelage, Kropotkin noted that only the former allowed the utilisation of “the co-operation, the enthusiasm, the local knowledge” of the people. [The Conquest of Bread, pp. 82–3 and p. 137]

Kropotkin’s own experience had shown how the “high functionaries” of the Tsarist bureaucracy “were simply charming in their innocent ignorance” of the areas they were meant to be administrating and how, thanks to Marxism, the socialist ideal had “lost the character of something that had to be worked out by the labour organisations themselves, and became state management of industries — in fact, state socialism; that is, state capitalism.” As an anarchist, he knew that governments become “isolated from the masses” and so “the very success of socialism” required “the ideas of no-government, of self-reliance, of free initiative of the individual” to be “preached side by side with those of socialised ownership and production.” Thus it was essential that socialism was decentralised, federal and participatory, that the “structure of the society which we longed for” was “worked out, in theory and practice, from beneath” in by “all labour unions” with “a full knowledge of local needs of each trade and each locality.” [Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 184, p. 360, p. 374–5 and p. 376]

So anarchists can agree with Mises that central planning cannot work in practice as its advocates hope. Or, more correctly, Mises agreed with the anarchists, as we had opposed central planning first. We have long recognised that no small body of people can be expected to know what happens in society and plan accordingly (“No single brain nor any bureau of brains can see to this organisation.” [Issac Puente, Libertarian Communism, p. 29]). Moreover, there is the pressing question of freedom as well, for “the despotism of [the ‘socialist’] State would be equal to the despotism of the present state, increased by the economic despotism of all the capital which would pass into the hands of the State, and the whole would be multiplied by all the centralisation necessary for this new State. And it is for this reason that we, the Anarchists, friends of liberty, we intend to fight them to the end.” [Carlo Cafiero, “Anarchy and Communism”, pp. 179–86, The Raven, No. 6, p. 179]

As John O’Neill summarises, the “argument against centralised planning is one that has been articulated within the history of socialist planning as an argument for democratic and decentralised decision making.” [The Market, p. 132] So, for good economic and political reasons, anarchists reject central planning. This central libertarian socialist position feeds directly into refuting Mises’ argument, for while a centralised system would need to compare a large (“infinite”) number of possible alternatives to a large number of possible needs, this is not the case in a decentralised system. Rather than a vast multitude of alternatives which would swamp a centralised planning agency, one workplace comparing different alternatives to meet a specific need faces a much lower number of possibilities as the objective technical requirements (use-values) of a project are known and so local knowledge will eliminate most of the options available to a small number which can be directly compared.

As such, removing the assumption of a central planning body automatically drains Mises’ critique of much of its force — rather than an “the ocean of possible and conceivable economic combinations” faced by a central body, a specific workplace or community has a more limited number of possible solutions for a limited number of requirements. Moreover, any complex machine is a product of less complex goods, meaning that the workplace is a consumer of other workplace’s goods. If, as Mises admitted, a customer can decide between consumption goods without the need for money then the user and producer of a “higher order” good can decide between consumption goods required to meet their needs.

In terms of decision making, it is true that a centralised planning agency would be swamped by the multiple options available to it. However, in a decentralised socialist system individual workplaces and communes would be deciding between a much smaller number of alternatives. Moreover, unlike a centralised system, the individual firm or commune knows exactly what is required to meet its needs, and so the number of possible alternatives is reduced as well (for example, certain materials are simply technically unsuitable for certain tasks).

Mises’ other assumption is equally flawed. This is that without the market, no information is passed between producers beyond the final outcome of production. In other words, he assumed that the final product is all that counts in evaluating its use. Needless to say, it is true that without more information than the name of a given product it is impossible to determine whether using it would be an efficient utilisation of resources. Yet more information can be provided which can be used to inform decision making. As socialists Adam Buick and John Crump point out, “at the level of the individual production unit or industry, the only calculations that would be necessary in socialism would be calculations in kind. On the one side would be recorded the resources (materials, energy, equipment, labour) used up in production and on the other the amount of good produced, together with any by-products… . Socialist production is simply the production of use values from use values, and nothing more.” [State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management, p. 137] Thus any good used as an input into a production process would require the communication of this kind of information.

The generation and communication of such information implies a decentralised, horizontal network between producers and consumers. This is because what counts as a use-value can only be determined by those directly using it. Thus the production of use-values from use-values cannot be achieved via central planning, as the central planners have no notion of the use-value of the goods being used or produced. Such knowledge lies in many hands, dispersed throughout society, and so socialist production implies decentralisation. Capitalist ideologues claim that the market allows the utilisation of such dispersed knowledge, but as John O’Neill notes, “the market may be one way in which dispersed knowledge can be put to good effect. It is not … the only way”. “The strength of the epistemological argument for the market depends in part on the implausibility of assuming that all knowledge could be centralised upon some particular planning agency” he stresses, but Mises’ “argument ignores, however, the existence of the decentralised but predominantly non-market institutions for the distribution of knowledge … The assumption that only the market can co-ordinate dispersed non-vocalisable knowledge is false.” [Op. Cit., p. 118 and p. 132]

So, in order to determine if a specific good is useful to a person, that person needs to know its “cost.” Under capitalism, the notion of cost has been so associated with price that we have to put the word “cost” in quotation marks. However, the real cost of, say, writing a book, is not a sum of money but so much paper, so much energy, so much ink, so much human labour. In order to make a rational decision on whether a given good is better for meeting a given need than another, the would-be consumer requires this information. However, under capitalism this information is hidden by the price.

Somewhat ironically, given how “Austrian” economics tends to stress that the informational limitations are at the root of its “impossibility” of socialism, the fact is that the market hides a significant amount of essential information required to make a sensible investment decision. This can be seen from an analysis of Mises’ discussion on why labour-time cannot replace money as a decision-making tool. Using labour, he argued, “leaves the employment of material factors of production out of account” and presents an example of two goods, P and Q, which take 10 hours to produce. P takes 8 hours of labour, plus 2 units of raw material A (which is produced by an hour’s socially necessary labour). Q takes 9 hours of labour and one unit of A. He asserts that in terms of labour P and Q “are equivalent, but in value terms P is more valuable than Q. The former is false, and only the later corresponds to the nature and purpose of calculation.” [“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”, Op. Cit., p. 113]

The flaw in his argument is clear. Assuming that an hour of socially necessary labour is £10 then, in price terms, P would have £80 of direct labour costs, with £20 of raw material A while Q would have £90 of direct labour and £10 of A. Both cost £100 so it hard to see how this “corresponds to the nature and purpose of calculation”! Using less of raw material A is a judgement made in addition to “calculation” in this example. The question of whether to economise on the use of A simply cannot be made using prices. If P, for example, can only be produced via a more ecologically destructive process than Q or if the work process by which P is created is marked by dull, mindless work but Q’s is more satisfying for the people involved than Q may be considered a better decision. Sadly, that kind of information is not communicated by the price mechanism.

As John O’Neill points out, “Mises’ earlier arguments against socialist planning turned on an assumption about commensurability. His central argument was that rational economic decision-making required a single measure on the basis of which the worth of alternative states of affairs could be calculated and compared.” [Ecology, Policy and Politics, p. 115] This central assumption was unchallenged by Taylor and Lange in their defence of “socialism”, meaning that from the start the debate against Mises was defensive and based on the argument that socialist planning could mimic the market and produce results which were efficient from a capitalist point of view.

Anarchists question whether using prices means basing all decision making on one criterion and ignoring all others is a rational thing to do. As O’Neill suggests, “the relative scarcity of items … hardly exhaust the full gamut of information that is distributed throughout society which might be relevant to the co-ordination of economic activities and plans.” [The Market, p. 196] Saying that a good costs £10 does not tell you much about the amount of pollution its production or use generates, under what conditions of labour it was produced, whether its price is affected by the market power of the firm producing it, whether it is produced in an ecologically sustainable way, and so forth. Similarly, saying that another, similar, good costs £9 does not tell you whether than £1 difference is due to a more efficient use of inputs or whether it is caused by imposing pollution onto the planet.

And do prices actually reflect costs? The question of profit, the reward for owning capital and allowing others to use it, is hardly a cost in the same way as labour, resources and so on (attempts to explain profits as an equivalent sacrifice as labour have always been ridiculous and quickly dropped). When looking at prices to evaluate efficient use for goods, you cannot actually tell by the price if this is so. Two goods may have the same price, but profit levels (perhaps under the influence of market power) may be such that one has a higher cost price than another. The price mechanism fails to indicate which uses least resources as it is influenced by market power. Indeed, as Takis Fotopoulos notes, ”[i]f … both central planning and the market economy inevitably lead to concentrations of power, then neither the former nor the latter can produce the sort of information flows and incentives which are necessary for the best functioning of any economic system.” [Towards an Inclusive Democracy, p. 252] Moreover, a good produced under a authoritarian state which represses its workforce could have a lower price than one produced in a country which allowed unions to organise and has basic human rights. The repression would force down the cost of labour, so making the good in question appear as a more “efficient” use of resources. In other words, the market can mask inhumanity as “efficiency” and actually reward that behaviour by market share.

In other words, market prices can be horribly distorted in that they ignore quality issues. Exchanges therefore occur in light of false information and, moreover, with anti-social motivations — to maximise short-term surplus for the capitalists regardless of losses to others. Thus they distort valuations and impose a crass, narrow and ultimately self-defeating individualism. Prices are shaped by more than costs, with, for example, market power increasing market prices far higher than actual costs. Market prices also fail to take into account public goods and so bias allocation choices against them not to mention ignoring the effects on the wider society, i.e. beyond the direct buyers and sellers. Similarly, in order to make rational decisions relating to using a good, you need to know why the price has changed for if a change is permanent or transient implies different responses. Thus the current price is not enough in itself. Has the good become more expensive temporarily, due, say, to a strike? Or is it because the supply of the resource has been exhausted? Actions that are sensible in the former situation will be wrong in the other. As O’Neill suggests, “the information [in the market] is passed back without dialogue. The market informs by ‘exit’ — some products find a market, others do not. ‘Voice’ is not exercised. This failure of dialogue … represents an informational failure of the market, not a virtue … The market … does distribute information … it also blocks a great deal.” [Op. Cit., p. 99]

So a purely market-based system leaves out information on which to base rational resource allocations (or, at the very least, hides it). The reason for this is that a market system measures, at best, preferences of individual buyers among the available options. This assumes that all the pertinent use-values that are to be outcomes of production are things that are to be consumed by the individual, rather than use-values that are collectively enjoyed (like clean air). Prices in the market do not measure social costs or externalities, meaning that such costs are not reflected in the price and so you cannot have a rational price system. Similarly, if the market measures only preferences amongst things that can be monopolised and sold to individuals, as distinguished from values that are enjoyed collectively, then it follows that information necessary for rational decision-making in production is not provided by the market. In other words, capitalist “calculation” fails because private firms are oblivious to the social cost of their labour and raw materials inputs.

Indeed, prices often mis-value goods as companies can gain a competitive advantage by passing costs onto society (in the form of pollution, for example, or de-skilling workers, increasing job insecurity, and so on). This externalisation of costs is actually rewarded in the market as consumers seek the lowest prices, unaware of the reasons why it is lower (such information cannot be gathered from looking at the price). Even if we assume that such activity is penalised by fines later, the damage is still done and cannot be undone. Indeed, the company may be able to weather the fines due to the profits it originally made by externalising costs (see section E.3). Thus the market creates a perverse incentive to subsidise their input costs through off-the-book social and environmental externalities. As Chomsky suggests:

“it is by now widely realised that the economist’s ‘externalities can no longer be consigned to footnotes. No one who gives a moment’s thought to the problems of contemporary society can fail to be aware of the social costs of consumption and production, the progressive destruction of the environment, the utter irrationality of the utilisation of contemporary technology, the inability of a system based on profit or growth-maximisation to deal with needs that can only be expressed collectively, and the enormous bias this system imposes towards maximisation of commodities for personal use in place of the general improvement of the quality of life.” [Radical Priorities, pp. 190–1]

Prices hide the actual costs that production involved for the individual, society, and the environment, and instead boils everything down into one factor, namely price. There is a lack of dialogue and information between producer and consumer.

Moreover, without using another means of cost accounting instead of prices how can supporters of capitalism know there is a correlation between actual and price costs? One can determine whether such a correlation exists by measuring one against the other. If this cannot be done, then the claim that prices measure costs is a tautology (in that a price represents a cost and we know that it is a cost because it has a price). If it can be done, then we can calculate costs in some other sense than in market prices and so the argument that only market prices represent costs falls. Equally, there may be costs (in terms of quality of life issues) which cannot be reflected in price terms.

Simply put, the market fails to distribute all relevant information and, particularly when prices are at disequilibrium, can communicate distinctly misleading information. In the words of two South African anarchists, “prices in capitalism provided at best incomplete and partial information that obscured the workings of capitalism, and would generate and reproduce economic and social inequalities. Ignoring the social character of the economy with their methodological individualism, economic liberals also ignored the social costs of particular choices and the question of externalities.” [Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt, Black Flame, p. 92] This suggests that prices cannot be taken to reflect real costs any more that they can reflect the social expression of the valuation of goods. They are the result of a conflict waged over these goods and those that acted as their inputs (including, of course, labour). Market and social power, much more than need or resource usage, decides the issue. The inequality in the means of purchasers, in the market power of firms and in the bargaining position of labour and capital all play their part, so distorting any relationship a price may have to its costs in terms of resource use. Prices are misshapen.

Little wonder Kropotkin asked whether “are we not yet bound to analyse that compound result we call price rather than to accept it as a supreme and blind ruler of our actions?” [Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 71] It is precisely these real costs, hidden by price, which need to be communicated to producers and consumers for them to make informed and rational decisions concerning their economic activity.

It is useful to remember that Mises argued that it is the complexity of a modern economy that ensures money is required: “Within the narrow confines of household economy, for instance, where the father can supervise the entire economic management, it is possible to determine the significance of changes in the processes of production, without such aids to the mind [as monetary calculation], and yet with more or less of accuracy.” However, “the mind of one man alone — be it ever so cunning, is too weak to grasp the importance of any single one among the countlessly many goods of higher order. No single man can ever master all the possibilities of production, innumerable as they are, as to be in a position to make straightway evident judgements of value without the aid of some system of computation.” [Op. Cit., p. 102]

A libertarian communist society would, it must be stressed, use various “aids to the mind” to help individuals and groups to make economic decisions. This would reduce the complexity of economic decision making, by allowing different options and resources to be compared to each other. Hence the complexity of economic decision making in an economy with a multitude of goods can be reduced by the use of rational algorithmic procedures and methods to aid the process. Such tools would aid decision making, not dominate it as these decisions affect humans and the planet and should never be made automatically.

That being the case, a libertarian communist society would quickly develop the means of comparing the real impact of specific “higher order” goods in terms of their real costs (i.e. the amount of labour, energy and raw materials used plus any social and ecological costs). Moreover, it should be remembered that production goods are made up on inputs of other goods, that is, higher goods are made up of consumption goods of a lower order. If, as Mises admits, calculation without money is possible for consumption goods then the creation of “higher order” goods can be also achieved and a record of its costs made and communicated to those who seek to use it.

While the specific “aids to the mind” as well as “costs” and their relative weight would be determined by the people of a free society, we can speculate that it would include direct and indirect labour, externalities (such as pollution), energy use and materials, and so forth. As such, it must be stressed that a libertarian communist society would seek to communicate the “costs” associated with any specific product as well as its relative scarcity. In other words, it needs a means of determining the objective or absolute costs associated with different alternatives as well as an indication of how much of a given good is available at a given it (i.e., its scarcity). Both of these can be determined without the use of money and markets.

Section I.4 discusses possible frameworks for an anarchist economy, including suggestions for libertarian communist economic decision-making processes. In terms of “aids to the mind”, these include methods to compare goods for resource allocation by indicating the absolute costs involved in producing a good and the relative scarcity of a specific good, among other things. Such a framework is necessary because “an appeal to a necessary role for practical judgements in decision making is not to deny any role to general principles. Neither … does it deny any place for the use of technical rules and algorithmic procedures … Moreover, there is a necessary role for rules of thumb, standard procedures, the default procedures and institutional arrangements that can be followed unreflectively and which reduce the scope for explicit judgements comparing different states of affairs. There are limits in time, efficient use of resources and the dispersal of knowledge which require rules and institutions. Such rules and institutions can free us for space and time for reflective judgements where they matter most.” [John O’Neill, Ecology, Policy and Politics, pp. 117–8] It is these “rules and institutions need themselves to be open to critical and reflective appraisal.” [O’Neill, The Market, p. 118]

Economic decisions, in other words, cannot be reduced down to one factor yet Mises argued that anyone “who wished to make calculations in regard to a complicated process of production will immediately notice whether he has worked more economically than others or not; if he finds, from reference to the exchange values obtaining in the market, that he will not be able to produce profitably, this shows that others understand how to make better use of the higher-order goods in question.” [Op. Cit., pp. 97–8] However, this only shows whether someone has worked more profitably than others, not whether it is more economical. Market power automatically muddles this issue, as does the possibility of reducing the monetary cost of production by recklessly exploiting natural resources and labour, polluting, or otherwise passing costs onto others. Similarly, the issue of wealth inequality is important, for if the production of luxury goods proves more profitable than basic essentials for the poor does this show that producing the former is a better use of resources? And, of course, the key issue of the relative strength of market power between workers and capitalists plays a key role in determining “profitably.”

Basing your economic decision making on a single criteria, namely profitability, can, and does, lead to perverse results. Most obviously, the tendency for capitalists to save money by not introducing safety equipment (“To save a dollar the capitalist build their railroads poorly, and along comes a train, and loads of people are killed. What are their lives to him, if by their sacrifice he has saved money?” [Emma Goldman, A Documentary History of the American Years, vol. 1, p. 157]). Similarly, it is considered a more “efficient” use of resources to condemn workers to deskilling and degrading work than “waste” resources in developing machines to eliminate or reduce it (“How many machines remain unused solely because they do not return an immediate profit to the capitalist! … How many discoveries, how many applications of science remain a dead letter solely because they don’t bring the capitalist enough!” [Carlo Cafiero, “Anarchy and Communism”, pp. 179–86, The Raven, No. 6, p. 182]). Similarly, those investments which have a higher initial cost but which, in the long run, would have, say, a smaller environmental impact would not be selected in a profit-driven system.

This has seriously irrational effects, because the managers of capitalist enterprises are obliged to choose technical means of production which produce the cheapest results. All other considerations are subordinate, in particular the health and welfare of the producers and the effects on the environment. The harmful effects resulting from “rational” capitalist production methods have long been pointed out. For example, speed-ups, pain, stress, accidents, boredom, overwork, long hours and so on all harm the physical and mental health of those involved, while pollution, the destruction of the environment, and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources all have serious effects on both the planet and those who live on it. As green economist E. F. Schumacher argued:

“But what does it mean when we say that something is uneconomic? . .. [S]omething is uneconomic when it fails to earn an adequate profit in terms of money. The method of economics does not, and cannot, produce any other meaning … The judgement of economics … is an extremely fragmentary judgement; out of the large number of aspects which in real life have to be seen and judged together before a decision can be taken, economics supplies only one — whether a money profit accrues to those who undertake it or not.” [Small is Beautiful, pp. 27–8]

Schumacher stressed that “about the fragmentary nature of the judgements of economics there can be no doubt whatever. Even with the narrow compass of the economic calculus, these judgements are necessarily and methodically narrow. For one thing, they give vastly more weight to the short than to the long term… [S]econd, they are based on a definition of cost which excludes all ‘free goods’ … [such as the] environment, except for those parts that have been privately appropriated. This means that an activity can be economic although it plays hell with the environment, and that a competing activity, if at some cost it protects and conserves the environment, will be uneconomic.” Moreover, ”[d]o not overlook the words ‘to those who undertake it.’ It is a great error to assume, for instance, that the methodology of economics is normally applied to determine whether an activity carried out by a group within society yields a profit to society as a whole.” [Op. Cit., p. 29]

To claim that prices include all these “externalities” is nonsense. If they did, we would not see capital moving to third-world countries with few or no anti-pollution or labour laws. At best, the “cost” of pollution would only be included in a price if the company was sued successfully in court for damages — in other words, once the damage is done. Ultimately, companies have a strong interest in buying inputs with the lowest prices, regardless of how they are produced. In fact, the market rewards such behaviour as a company which was socially responsible would be penalised by higher costs, and so market prices. It is reductionist accounting and its accompanying “ethics of mathematics” that produces the “irrationality of rationality” which plagues capitalism’s exclusive reliance on prices (i.e. profits) to measure “efficiency.”

Ironically enough, Mises also pointed to the irrational nature of the price mechanism. He stated (correctly) that there are “extra-economic” elements which “monetary calculation cannot embrace” because of “its very nature.” He acknowledged that these “considerations themselves can scarcely be termed irrational” and, as examples, listed ”[i]n any place where men regard as significant the beauty of a neighbourhood or a building, the health, happiness and contentment of mankind, the honour of individuals or nations.” He also noted that “they are just as much motive forces of rational conduct as are economic factors” but they “do not enter into exchange relationships.” How rational is an economic system which ignores the “health, happiness and contentment” of people? Or the beauty of their surroundings? Which, moreover, penalises those who take these factors into consideration? For anarchists, Mises comments indicate well the inverted logic of capitalism. That Mises can support a system which ignores the needs of individuals, their happiness, health, surroundings, environment and so on by “its very nature” says a lot. His suggestion that we assign monetary values to such dimensions begs the question and has plausibility only if it assumes what it is supposed to prove. [Op. Cit., p. 99–100] Indeed, the person who would put a price on friendship simply would have no friends as they simply do not understand what friendship is and are thereby excluded from much which is best in human life. Likewise for other “extra-economic” goods that individual’s value, such as beautiful places, happiness, the environment and so on.

So essential information required for sensible decision making would have to be recorded and communicated in a communist society and used to evaluate different options using agreed methods of comparison. This differs drastically from the price mechanism as it recognises that mindless, automatic calculation is impossible in social choices. Such choices have an unavoidable ethical and social dimension simply because they involve other human beings and the environment. As Mises himself acknowledged, monetary calculation does not capture such dimensions.

We, therefore, need to employ practical judgement in making choices aided by a full understanding of the real social and ecological costs involved using, of course, the appropriate “aids to the mind.” Given that an anarchist society would be complex and integrated, such aids would be essential but, due to its decentralised nature, it need not embrace the price mechanism. It can evaluate the efficiency of its decisions by looking at the real costs involved to society rather than embrace the distorted system of costing explicit in the price mechanism (as Kropotkin once put it, “if we analyse price” we must “make a distinction between its different elements”. [Op. Cit., p. 72]).

In summary, then, Mises considered only central planning as genuine socialism, meaning that a decentralised communism was not addressed. Weighting up the pros and cons of how to use millions of different goods in the millions of potential situations they could be used would be impossible in a centralised system, yet in decentralised communism this is not an issue. Each individual commune and syndicate would be choosing from the few alternatives required to meet their needs. With the needs known, the alternatives can be compared — particularly if agreed criteria (“aids to the mind”) are utilised and the appropriate agreed information communicated.

Efficient economic decision making in a moneyless “economy” is possible, assuming that sufficient information is passed between syndicates and communes to evaluate the relative and absolute costs of a good. Thus, decisions can be reached which aimed to reduce the use of goods in short supply or which take large amounts of resources to produce (or which produce large externalities to create). While a centralised system would be swamped by the large number of different uses and combinations of goods, a decentralised communist system would not be.

Thus, anarchists argue that Mises was wrong. Communism is viable, but only if it is libertarian communism. Ultimately, though, the real charge is not that socialism is “impossible” but rather that it would be inefficient, i.e., it would allocate resources such that too much is used to achieve specified goals and that there would be no way to check that the allocated resources were valued sufficiently to warrant their use in the first place. While some may portray this as a case of planning against markets (no-planning), this is false. Planning occurs in capitalism (as can be seen from any business), it is a question of whether capitalism ensures that more plans can be co-ordinated and needs meet by means of relative prices and profit-loss accounting than by communism (free access and distribution according to need). As such, the question is does the capitalist system adds additional problems to the efficient co-ordination of plans? Libertarian communists argue, yes, it does (as we discuss at length in section I.1.5).

All choices involve lost possibilities, so the efficient use of resources is required to increase the possibilities for creating other goods. At best, all you can say is that by picking options which cost the least a market economy will make more resources available for other activities. Yet this assumption crucially depends equating “efficient” with profitable, a situation which cannot be predicted beforehand and which easily leads to inefficient allocation of resources (particularly if we are looking at meeting human needs). Then there are the costs of using money for if we are talking of opportunity costs, of the freeing up of resources for other uses, then the labour and other resources used to process money related activities should be included. While these activities (banking, advertising, defending property, and so forth) are essential to a capitalist economy, they are not needed and unproductive from the standpoint of producing use values or meeting human need. This would suggest that a libertarian communist economy would have a productive advantage over a capitalist economy as the elimination of this structural waste intrinsic to capitalism will free up a vast amount of labour and materials for socially useful production. This is not to mention the so-called “costs” which are no such thing, but relate to capitalist property rights. Thus “rent” may be considered a cost under capitalism, but would disappear if those who used a resource controlled it rather than pay a tribute to gain access to it. As Kropotkin argued, “the capitalist system makes us pay for everything three or four times its labour value” thanks to rent, profit, interest and the actions of middle men. Such system specific “costs” hide the actual costs (in terms of labour and resource use) by increasing the price compared to if we “reckon our expenses in labour”. [Op. Cit., p. 68]

Moreover, somewhat ironically, this “economising” of resources which the market claims to achieve is not to conserve resources for future generations or to ensure environmental stability. Rather, it is to allow more goods to be produced in order to accumulate more capital. It could be argued that the market forces producers to minimise costs on the assumption that lower costs will be more likely to result in higher profits. However, this leaves the social impact of such cost-cutting out of the equation. For example, imposing externalities on others does reduce a firm’s prices and, as a result, is rewarded by the market however alienating and exhausting work or rising pollution levels does not seem like a wise thing to do. So, yes, it is true that a capitalist firm will seek to minimise costs in order to maximise profits. This, at first glance, could be seen as leading to an efficient use of resources until such time as the results of this become clear. Thus goods could be created which do not last as long as they could, which need constant repairing, etc. So a house produced “efficiently” under capitalism could be a worse place to live simply because costs were reduced by cutting corners (less insulation, thinner walls, less robust materials, etc.). In addition, the collective outcome of all these “efficient” decisions could be socially inefficient as they reduce the quality of life of those subject to them as well as leading to over-investment, over-production, falling profits and economic crisis. As such, it could be argued that Mises’ argument exposes more difficulties for capitalism rather than for anarchism.

Finally, it should be noted that most anarchists would question the criteria Hayek and Mises used to judge the relative merits of communism and capitalism. As the former put it, the issue was “a distribution of income independent of private property in the means of production and a volume of output which was at least approximately the same or even greater than that procured under free competition.” [“The Nature and History of the Problem”, Op. Cit., p. 37] Thus the issue is reduced to that of output (quantity), not issues of freedom (quality). If slavery or Stalinism had produced more output than free market capitalism, that would not make either system desirable This was, in fact, a common argument against Stalinism during the 1950s and 1960s when it did appear that central planning was producing more goods (and, ironically, by the propertarian right against the welfare state for, it should be remembered, that volume of output, like profitability and so “efficiency”, in the market depends on income distribution and a redistribution from rich to poor could easily result in more output becoming profitable). Similarly, that capitalism produces more alcohol and Prozac to meet the higher demand for dulling the minds of those trying to survive under it would not be an argument against libertarian communism! As we discuss in section I.4, while anarchists seek to meet material human needs we do not aim, as under capitalism, to sacrifice all other goals to that aim as capitalism does. Thus, to state the obvious, the aim for maximum volume of output only makes sense under capitalism as the maximum of human happiness and liberty may occur with a lower volume of output in a free society. The people of a society without oppression, exploitation and alienation will hardly act in identical ways, nor seek the same volume of output, as those in one, like capitalism, marked by those traits!

Moreover, the volume of output is a somewhat misleading criteria as it totally ignores its distribution. If the bulk of that volume goes to a few, then that is hardly a good use of resources. This is hardly an academic concern as can be seen from the Hayek influenced neo-liberalism of the 1980s onwards. As economist Paul Krugman notes, the value of the output of an average worker “has risen almost 50 percent since 1973. Yet the growing concentration of income in the hands of a small minority had proceeded so rapidly that we’re not sure whether the typical American has gained anything from rising productivity.” This means that wealth have flooded upwards, and “the lion’s share of economic growth in America over the past thirty years has gone to a small, wealthy minority.” [The Conscience of a Liberal, p. 124 and p. 244]

To conclude. Capitalist “efficiency” is hardly rational and for a fully human and ecological efficiency libertarian communism is required. As Buick and Crump point out, “socialist society still has to be concerned with using resources efficiently and rationally, but the criteria of ‘efficiency’ and ‘rationality’ are not the same as they are under capitalism.” [Op. Cit., p. 137] Under communist-anarchism, the decision-making system used to determine the best use of resources is not more or less “efficient” than market allocation, because it goes beyond the market-based concept of “efficiency.” It does not seek to mimic the market but to do what the market fails to do. This is important, because the market is not the rational system its defenders often claim. While reducing all decisions to one common factor is, without a doubt, an easy method of decision making, it also has serious side-effects because of its reductionistic basis. The market makes decision making simplistic and generates a host of irrationalities and dehumanising effects as a result. So, to claim that communism will be “more” efficient than capitalism or vice versa misses the point. Libertarian communism will be “efficient” in a totally different way and people will act in ways considered “irrational” only under the narrow logic of capitalism.

For another critique of Mises, see Robin Cox’s “The ‘Economic Calculation’ controversy: unravelling of a myth” [Common Voice, Issue 3]

[wardensantoineandevka]

There's something incredible and skillful on Travis' part about how little Nathaniel actually directly says about suspicions of institutional weaknesses in Candela and how in the conversation in the carriage, he doesn't really directly lodge any serious accusations against Candela—the others all do, and Marion even encourages Nathaniel to be less hesitant and hedging in his verbiage. Travis as Nathaniel bolded and italicized, just for highlighting:

BRENNAN: They told the kid she was dead? TRAVIS: Yes. BRENNAN: How sick do you got to be where you go, "Hey, we got to break it to the kid soft. Just tell them she's dead." LUIS: Right? I guess there's things worse than dead. I guess. Well, clearly we know there's things that are worse than dying, but. TRAVIS: I know there's an amount of trust we all have with this organization. We see what we're fighting against. We know what sort of evil there is in the world, not just the kind that we make. But-- LUIS: But they withhold a lot. TRAVIS: It feels that way. LUIS: It is that way. Would you have risked everything we did for what they explained was in that container? A creature that's used to get people high? That's all there is to that. ZEHRA: There-- Marion, if I may, there may be-- It's deeply disappointing to understand that money seems to move a lot of these organizations through the world. There may have been monetary gain that Candela was trying to prevent by stopping the androphage transfer. There are certain groups that would pay a great sum for it. All I'm saying is maybe Candela isn't immune to some of these capital gains. MARISHA: Well, look. Any institution, even an institution that stands up against institutions, well, I mean they're not immune from their own organizational flaws. However, I would still like to believe that out of all of the other capitalistic and governmental factions that rule our day-to-day lives that hopefully we're choosing the one lesser evil. TRAVIS: Ms. Monroe. Beatrix. You've been with the organization longer than any, and I've looped my men into this with a certain amount of trust. Have you ever seen anyone marked by bleed changed? Have you ever seen them made whole, amended? MARISHA: I tend to find sometimes the best route is to just keep your mouth shut and your eyes open. Oftentimes you'll learn far more than what people can tell you. We've all been touched by bleed, whether we want to accept that or not. No, I guess, to answer your question, not to, what it sounds, the severity of Allison's level was. But I would still like to believe that that's why we're fighting. You certainly had no problems standing up and calling out the organization to Mr. Kingsley. Which is a little bit surprising, I got to say, Nathaniel, for someone who's quite the institutional man himself. TRAVIS: Force of habit, I'm afraid. ZEHRA: Well, speaking of Mr. Kingsley, what did he mean when he said it was someone above his head who made the decision to tell Lucas, was it, the boy? TRAVIS: Lucas. ZEHRA: That his mother was dead? Someone above a Lightkeeper's head. LUIS: Everybody answers to somebody else. BRENNAN: I don't know if that's true. I guess there's got to be a few people don't answer to anybody.

Generally, the way Travis handles Nathaniel's exposition in the carriage is blisteringly efficient on an informational and emotional level without ever feeling heavy-handed, but I think this sowing seeds of doubt in an institution (which seems to be a major theme in this chapter) is very skillful in its subtlety. Given that he's emotionally close to this incident and is a character conceptualized around corruptions and abuses of power, Nathaniel is unexpectedly spare in this sequence of exchanges, most significantly only delivering a set-up and pulling Beatrix in. He interestingly takes more of a listening role in this sequence, despite the fact that he is delivering almost all information and doing most of the thematic set-up.

His accusations are few and the ones he makes are mild and hesitant. The most he directly says is an interrupted "but" that leaves a hanging implication. But that tiny crack drives everyone else to start speculating about the whys and hows and whats of what is going on, and it feels very natural and is very skillful. Nathaniel clearly has his doubts and his experiences and doubts are the center of this conversation, but by holding off on actually voicing them directly, it gives everyone else space to guess at where he's going and leaves it open for others to contribute.

It's really skillful work as a player and a scene partner, especially as someone who is setting up the episode's plot and seeding what feels like may be one of the major themes of this chapter about institutional distrust and power and capital.

[bucknastysbabe]

The Call Girl - H. Zemo

Kink Bingo - Spanking

Rating: Explicit

Tags: Call girl reader, Zemo is bb girl, Madripoor shenanigans, she wants that Bucky dick, possessive Zemo, spanking, shite bdsm etiquette, aftercare, pnv!sex, subtle audio voyeurism, That Club Scene

A/N: Sokovian is like Hungarian/Slovenian with Cyrillic lettering. So I made a Russian Slovenian nightmare.

сладкий - sweet

хорошая девочка - good girl

теплый - warm

You worked in Madripoor as a call girl. You didn’t provide ‘favors’ unless the client was handsome or particularly wealthy. The Baron, one of your favorites, had recently contacted you on accompanying him to Lowtown. You rolled your eyes, Lowtown had nothing good coming out of there.

He needed a date to fit in with the crowd at the Brass Monkey. The wire number was included in the message. You shrugged, Helmut was dearly missed since he’d been locked up. In the past he’d need you to scope out former Hydra members. Then have intense sex. Usually fun.

You idly wondered how he got out. Whatever, you accepted the request and informed Zemo that you would be there. Time to pick out a clubbing fit now. A client had recently bought you some jewelry that needed to be shown off.

You raised a brow at the two men accompanying the Baron. They seemed just as surprised. The famed Falcon barked, “Who the hell is this?” Meanwhile the stupidly handsome Winter Soldier glared you down, a mulish tilt to his jaw. Zemo swaggered forward wearing a lavish coat.

“Ah- dearest, you’re just as lovely as I last saw you. How are you сладкий?” He held his arms out, embracing you with a kiss on each cheek. He purred, “Business first, then much needed play Hm?”

You ran a manicured nail down his cheek, teasing, “I’ve been great. But we are very, very overdue.”

Clad under Zemo’s arm he turned to face the two men. They probably were here about the whole serum nonsense. Everyone knows something in Madripoor, knowledge is monetary. Helmut smoothly supplied, “Sam, James, My lovely friend here is to help us blend a bit more. She’s got connections everywhere.”

Sam frowned. “Whatever works man. Let’s get this over with.” Bucky nodded, looking at unease. Helmut palmed your ass, smirking like the cat that got the cream. You planted a kiss on his smooth cheek, inhaling the expensive cologne.

The two Avengers stuck out like sore thumbs. Your eyes flickered over to the Power Broker making deals while you danced with Zemo. You giggled at his little dance, pulling the Baron closer. You twisted to align your back to his front. The Sokovian tilted his head, a question in the air. You shouted over the music, “I know you did ballroom, but just move with me!” He nodded dutifully, hands encircling your hips.

To the thudding bass you rolled along to the music. Zemo learnt quickly, always did, serious face trained on yours. You grinded against his hips, asking, “Do you like my new sapphires? Montez bought them.” Zemo fingered at the jewels, not missing a beat. He hummed, “Good choice, meant to look ravishing with them only adorning you.”

Your lashes fluttered at his sultry tone. Helmut drove you fucking wild. You turned to capture his thin lips, lapping into his spicy taste. Zemo’s fingers clamped onto your waist, rutting roughly. The moment was interrupted by Sam and Buck, saying Sharon? was ready.

Well. Things have shifted dramatically. You just wanted to get boned. Not run from bounty hunters and practically blacklisted from Madripoor. Your very lucrative home. Also they didn’t realize their dear Sharon was the Power Broker, not your problem at the moment. You liked having a tongue.

The soldier snorted, “Bad luck huh?”

Sam added, “I’m sorry you got dragged into this. I’m sure- uh- someone can sort this out.”

You hissed, pointing at Zemo pacing, “I expect someone to find me a pardon. Hightown is where I work, live, and no one is watching my fucking cats!”

Zemo sighed, running a hand across his brow. He leveled you with a look, promising, “You will get sorted out my dear. Oeznik is already making arrangments. Why don’t you join me for a drink in the cabin, hm сладкий?”

Feeling slightly better you acquiesced by holding a prim hand out, the Baron taking it and leading you both to the back, closing a curtain and shutting the door. You could vaguely hear the two men complaining.

Once the door shut, Helmut was upon you, pushing you face first on the bed. You moaned softly, poking your ass up for him. Zemo hummed, “I would be quite upset to miss your company. Poor little James looked to be quite infatuated when you turned.”

To egg on the Baron you laughed, “He could join in, very easy on the eyes that one. Pliant.”

Helmut subtly growled, a gloved hand gripping at the meat of your ass. He ordered, “Don’t play the whore. You’re more than that. James is a pawn, a dog at our feet. Don’t even consider Wilson. сладкий, you’re all mine for the night, understand?”

You nodded, a strangled whimper of ‘yes’.

“хорошая девочка,” he said.

You heard his belt rustle, the clink of it in the air. Unable to help but squirm feeling his heavy gaze. Helmut stated flatly, “Since you dressed like a minx, brought up James, and teased me I think that earns you ten swats. Does that seem good?”

You babbled, “Yes Baron, I’ve been bad, I deserve those.”

He smirked again, flexing the belt with a crack. Zemo continued, “If you count them like my хорошая девочка then I’ll reward you. You remember the word?”

You gulped and replied, “теплый.”

Zemo closed in, and slid up your tight dress. He stopped, you turning to look. The Sokovian had his thoughtful head tilt on. He grunted, “Dress off.”

“Yes Baron.” The dress was shimmied off and you returned to your position. He made a sound of amusement, palming your smooth ass one more time. Helmut purred, “Remember to count my dear.”

Crack. One.

He struck the belt across both cheeks, zinging pain making you writhe and cry out a strained, “One sir!”

Your pussy was already achy and soaked from the build up. Zemo’s antics would have you squalling by the end. You’re a princess, not a pain slut.

Crack. Crack. Two, three.

This one was harder, definitely leaving a welt. You howled and gripped at the bedding, moaning in pleasure-pain. You gritted out, “Two and three sir.” You whimpered at the aftershocks of the intense heat.

“Doing so well.”

Crack! Across the backs of your thighs. You jolted up the bed, a leather clad hand easily yanking you back. He laughed lowly, “Easy girl.” You whimpered and stilled yourself, sulkily replying, “F-four.”

Crackcrack! Criss crossed across your ass. Your pussy convulsed around nothing, needy for his cock. You whined, “Five! Thank you Baron- fuck, six!” You clenched your sore thighs together, head foggy.

Seven and eight were a blur. Tears began to well in your eyes, ass stinging and bruising. Helmut cooed and praised you, thumb tenderly circling your ankle. You mewled, “S-s-seven, ah-eight.”

“So close.”

Crack. Crack. One final smack on each cheek. The floodgates opened, you babbling, “Fuckfuck- m’god! Baron! Shit nine ten! Fuck me Helmut, oh god fuck me!” You couldn’t hold back the sobs, presenting your sore ass.

Helmut had stripped behind you, laying over your wracked frame. He slid his palms up your waist, nipping your ear. The Baron groaned, “You bloom so gorgeous for me.” You sniveled and rutted back against his hard cock, begging brokenly for dick.

He laughed, “I have you. I have you.” The blunt tip of his cock rubbed around your swollen, wet folds before sliding in one rough stab. The pair of you gasped and shook, your ass reigniting with pain at the collision.

Zemo muttered rapid Sokovian nonsense, breathing down the nape of your neck. He urged, “Take it dear. For your Baron.” You nodded in drunken jerks, grasping the fine bedding. You were already so close from the spanking.

Helmut pounded his frustrations into your willing body, grunting and spouting Sokovian nothings. His balls slapped wetly against your cunt, filling the room with a lewd soundtrack. Meanwhile you scrabbled at the bed, sobbing his name and praising the Baron.

“So gah-goddamn good! Close- please don’t stop sir! Mmm!”

He licked and sucked at your shoulder and neck, cracking his palm down on your flank. The new sting made your eyes roll back and cunt aggressively pulse out slick. You shook under the brunt of your long awaited orgasm, howling in ecstasy. Zemo growled, “Hah- that’s it dear, let them hear, let them know what they can’t have.”

You yelled, “Youyouyou Helmut!”

His pulsing cock stretched your rolling pussy, driving deep to fill you up with a quiet grunt. He hoarsely panted, staying upright, amber eyes up at the roof. He gasped, “Divine dear.” You whispered, “Lay down, relax for a bit. I know my dear Baron is busy. Mind the ass.”

He chuckled, sliding out with a curse. Helmut got up on shaking legs, walking to a drawer. You looked up and asked, “What is it?” He didn’t turn, responding, “Crème. Helps with the ache for tomorrow.” You smiled at his sweetness.

Zemo returned to rub the cooling lotion into your worn buttocks, idly chatting about recent events. You simply listened, lulling off into a sleep. How you enjoyed your Baron so. But Oeznik better fly you back to the Power Broker to get your name restored. Insanity.

[wumblr]

i will say, it's stunning in a very "speaking it must create the truth" sort of delusional neoliberal modern monetary theory govern-by-budget-administration sort of way, to see the doe-eyed and sinclair-owned news touting the supposed coming nuclear renaissance when i know full well and in depth that it's a nearly impossible infrastructure and distribution network problem to administrate. let alone the funding like oh shit the logistics -- which we consider invisible because it's more profitable to write them off that way or perhaps it seems more humane (to ignore the suffering this necessarily causes) -- are coming back to bite us in the ass! bitch forget about the uranium, YOU FORGOT ABOUT THE DAMN CEMENT! do we even have a construction company in the contiguous US capable of making something sufficiently to spec to build one? uhhhh well DOJ says we're better off adding reactors to existing sites soooo uhhhh not looking good folks! only way we ever got this far to begin with was rickover throwing out a whole completely built nuke sub and starting over because the fucking screws were not done right. guess that's what you get for neglecting the actual details huh. who's gonna manage that? james webb fucking died, rot in peace, have we had another business administrator worth naming something after? ever? in history?

[chaotictalecomputer]

PERSONAL BELIEFS ON SW

Okay so I'm all for sex positivity and sexual liberation, It is important for there to be freedom to choose and exploration surrounding a person's own sexuality. I just don't think that requires SW to be an industry where a person's own bodily autonomy is used as a commodity.

Starting off, SW is always going to be inherently misogynistic. It has always been known that most SWers are made up of women whereas consumers of SW are men. Inherently there is always that power dynamic between genders and from what many studies can find that is part of the allure for men buying SW, the idea of the power they have over the SWer.

There is also the monetary motivation that can also pose an issue. There is a power imbalance between the SWer and the consumer due to who in this 'transaction' hold the money which equates as to whom holds the power. It causes the SW to be 'in-debt' until consent is given and the service is performed. How can we know how much the SWer consents based on the monetary value rather than of their own volition? It just begs the question of in a hypothetical utopia where money becomes meaningless how many people would still choose to be SWers?

Furthermore, the ability to boil down a human body, a person's autonomy and their consent down to a commodity to be bought and sold furthers more dangerous ideas. It boils SWers down to being commodities rather than people. When looking at SWers in this light it puts us back to square one that 'women are objects/property'. Its further not helped by also the research done that shows how men who consume exploit content such as porn will actually show signs of viewing women not as people but instead as objects for pleasure, this can lead to the problem that we go from working to seeing woman as equal people and in a means to try and liberate sexual freedom instead end up doing a 180 back to women being viewed as property again (if that makes sense sort of thing??).

Additionally, it further perpetrates negative fetishization of people based on their identities such as the fetishization of trans people, women, race, religion, sexuality etc... it just seems to do more harm than good surely? People are people, they aren't just fetishes.

Personally, I think the best way forward is not to stigmatize sex workers but instead, we should question the type of people who purchase SW. SW has always been a dangerous industry and perhaps there isn't a way to work around it to make it feminist?

anyways... thoughts?

(this isn't coming from a place of judgment, I just think it is important to look at all arguments about this and to discuss if there would ever be a way for such an industry to escape its historical context. And NO I'm not for criminalizing it as just like abortion it doesn't prevent it, just instead causes it to go underground and become much more dangerous. but deffo pro-sexual liberation, go wild!)

[theschizotypalsolilquy]

💯 agreed with you about fiction. It’s not the problem of the fiction per-say it’s the fact that people cannot separate fact from fiction, but I guess though that comes with reading about real life people in general.

I consume a lot of writing of all different kinds but I’ve always had a soft spot for fan fiction, from years gone by, but I read mostly Jikook at this point, and love being recommended works from people like yourself.

It’s interesting to me that this book has come about due to hatred of a member though,, someone so wonderful being so vilified for a ship of two people who have zero chemistry atp. Jimin doesn’t deserve that, not at all, especially bc Jikook writers mostly value all members. I know writers will take into account what they perceive to be the members personas, for example Hobi is always sunshine, Joon always intelligent, Yoongi pensive but thoughtful, Tae the goofy arty best friend and Jin the handsome charismatic charmer, but every fic I’ve read so far has been respectful of them.

There is only one darker fic I’ve ever read where Tae was the ‘bad guy’, and he was a bad guy, but again, it’s fiction, I read the tags, knew that going in, and in the end he did have some humanity and it was done well. I know though that isn’t him irl. I guess replace the name and you have something akin to Colleen Hoovers most famous book/now movie. That sort of dv. I do like mild dark romance, i think it can draw us in and takes a hold on us, twilight for example or fifty shades are the same ilk but in a way that it’s softened for public consumption, it edges darkness and allows readers to touch the surface of that world.

I’m rambling but all this to say that fiction is important and it allows us escapism, just like television or movies. It’s an important medium but people reading ff need to take that into account, that it’s fiction.

And always always read the tags!!!

This!!

READ THE TAGS

And I've been into fanfiction since Xena (I'm fucking old okay 😂😂😂😂) so like you, I've got a soft spot for it.

And I'll admit, wattpad stories tend to use the members as villains more as opposed to what I've seen on a03. And truthfully, there's bad writers in every ship, the Jikook tag included. But...when it comes to Jikook stories, at least mainly on a03, they're all close friends, and Tae and Jimin usually have an extremely close friendship. Authors like AnnieV and ChimmyxKookies always have Vmin as precious platonic soulmates. And even if they dated another member before they got together, there was nothing horrible about the person. It's usually an amicable break.

This need they have to take someone as beautiful and loving as Jimin and turn him into a monster for monetary gain baffles me. I guess I'm giving people too much credit to hope that they could separate fantasy from reality, but apparently that's asking for too much.

[voxxisms]

sorry for the absence with little notice or discussion. life update under the cut, cw for medical talk / negativity (personal / non tumblr related).

tldr; having a lot of personal struggles which means i haven't had a lot motivation to be present, write properly, etc. i am much more easily found on discord, you can look for my drop, but activity is subject to energy levels sadly. monetary support can be offered here on ko-fi but is never required by any means. i do offer small commissions there, though my art is by no means top tier professional grade. i do writing ones, too, though.

i apologise profusely for not being super active. believe me, i want to be. i love writing in this space, i love the partners i've found to write with, i love my muses and my plots. i just ... don't have it in me right now. i hope you all understand <3 thank you for your endless patience.

i started having very severe panic attacks every day that have made it nearly impossible to go to work. the move i made here was very recent, and i started school and work nearly immediately, and i think the overwhelming nature of all it is finally hitting. i have a diagnosed panic disorder that triggers very awful agoraphobia, and it becomes a pretty vicious cycle. i am lucky to have gotten hold of decent medical coverage, and later this week will be seeing both a psychiatrist and a primary care doctor, i hope. i need to sort out a plan of action sooner rather than later.

i haven't been to work in almost two weeks, and they suspended me for next week to give me stress - free time to sort myself medically. luckily my managers have been very willing to work with me. it still sucks. six months ago i wasn't struggling like this, and i find it hard reconciling that i was working six hour shifts three or four times a week no problem, and now can't even bring myself to cross the front door.

it does lead to other issues. i'm definitely super depressed, and struggling to find motivation to do much at all. i'm exhausted all the time mentally, and sleep at least twelve hours out of the day.

i am okay. i don't have concerns for my own safety, but it is all very stressful. i can't afford to not be working right now, i do have some saving graces out there if it keeps being an issue, but it's far from ideal. if folks want to support me on ko-fi, i have the link, but it is not required by me, or even in general. everything helps, knowing i have something, but i will be okay if nobody does, to be very clear. i should be getting a lump sum sometime at the end of the month or next month that will help, too.

anyways yeah, that's basically it. i'll see if i have any motivation another day to hang here.