#do we have to do it this way because the system is inherently faulty and a controlled rollover is better than collapse?

[ereborne]

Rejoice!  Rejoice!

I have been granted permission to do Periodic Experimental Restructuring of the Greater Database!

If I save my changes too soon I will have to redo everything coming from HR going to Payroll by hand by myself while sobbing, and if I save my changes too late IT will disarticulate all my limbs!  But within the ideal window, I can do anything I want!!

The actual literal word-for-word directive I received from the IT supervisor was “if you’re willing to put that on your head, then sure. go ham”.  I’m gonna go ham.

[rollerska8er]

On Imane Khelif

While we are right to feel joy at Imane Khelif's victory and to support her in her legal action against the people who libelled her, I fear that a lot of people are going to take the wrong lesson from the scandal.

The lesson is not "Imane Khelif is a Biological Woman™ who was mistaken for a trans woman by idiots on the internet".

There is no such thing as a "biological woman", as opposed to a "non-biological woman". all women are biologically women because women are, by necessity, alive. A cisgender woman is not a "biological woman", she is a type of woman.

The lesson is that "There exists no definite parameter which can differentiate all cisgender women from all transgender women, and attempts to assert any one indicator as a definite differentiator of the two will result in misogynist attacks on women, regardless of their assigned sex at birth."

If Imane Khelif was a trans woman, it would not make the indignity she suffered at the hands of commentators like J. K. Rowling and Logan Paul somehow right. The attacks on her were specifically transmisogynist in nature, including people looking at stills of her matches to see if they could spot her supposed external genitals, "proving" she was "really a man".

I have seen several well-meaning people talk about stupid transphobes not even knowing what Real Biological Woman™ is when they see one (implying that trans women are pretenders to womanhood, which they are not), and not the rather more salient point that it doesn't matter if you are "Born A Woman" (that is to say, assigned female at birth), because gendered perception of the sexed body has nothing to do with your birth sex or chromosomes, and everything to do with socially constructed ideas, especially around the inherent female inferiority to men in terms of strength and athletic ability, which is not at all reflected by observable reality.

The harassment inflicted upon Imane Khelif at this year's Olympics was not a case of mistaken identity so much as it was transmisogynist society working as it should. The purpose of a system is what it does.

Women of any gender assigned at birth can be victims of transmisogyny, if the way they present to others is perceived as too masculine. It is for that reason that trans liberation and bodily autonomy is, ipso facto, a feminist position.

Remember: The issue isn't that transphobes don't know a Real Woman™ when they see one. It's that the gender is not something you can determine with scientific testing. It's that many people assume their faulty observations of gender presentation and so-called "Biological Sex" can be extrapolated into a narrative of gender identity and duplicitous conduct on the part of cis female athletes whose bodies happen to produce more testosterone.

In short, transphobic culture can hurt anyone if they deviate from its precepts. This can and will happen again.

We have to be ready to counter it with better narratives than merely pointing out the fact that the target of a transmisogynist attack is a cis woman, as though it would somehow be okay if she was a trans woman.

The sustained attack on trans women is an attack on all women. What Imane Khelif has endured proves it.

[shapirobathrooms]

What Permits Do You Need for a Bathroom Remodel in New Hampshire?

You've decided that it's time to turn your New Hampshire home's tired old bathroom into a sparkling sanctuary. The vision of a luxurious spa-like retreat in the corner of your home is breathtaking; there’s just one step you absolutely cannot afford to skip — permits. When it comes to New Hampshire, the land of rugged beauty, rustic charm, and, yes, strict regulatory frameworks, it's non-negotiable. Here's why you need to know every inch of permit-required territory before your bathroom remodel turns from dream to disaster.

The very word 'permit' can send a shiver down any homeowner's spine. Sometimes, these documents hold more power than you do over your property. But that's by design. In states like New Hampshire, permits are the gatekeepers of safety, legality, and even quality. They ensure your remodel does not harm the environment, your house, or your health in the future.

Your home is your sanctuary, but anything from a wonky addition to a shoddy renovation can turn it into a potential nightmare. That's where the permit's significance lies; it acts as a safeguard against your project spiraling out of control and into violation territory.

Navigating the world of bathroom remodeling permits can be like folding a map in a gale. Each state and county often has its own set of rules, regulations, and red tape to follow. Of utmost importance in New Hampshire is knowing the difference between something that appears cosmetic, like switching out a sink, and what is structural or systemic, like installing a new shower.

In New Hampshire, your remodel crosses into 'permit required' territory if you're touching plumbing, electrical work, or altering the structure. Seemingly mundane changes can need a permit, and the consequences of skipping it could be severe. Faulty wiring can lead to a fire hazard—a situation nobody wants to find themselves in.

The bathroom, a space for daily rituals and quiet reflection, is often complex despite its size. The interplay of aesthetics and functionality is inherently tight. This also means the lines between what requires a permit and what doesn’t can be a bit blurry for newcomers.

In your New Hampshire bathroom, the spectrum of permit-required work includes major changes to water systems, electrical alterations (big or small), and those structural tweaks essential to laying and setting the new tiles or creating that spacious atmosphere you're after.

All right, you’ve accepted that a permit is not only wise but necessary for your remodel. Now, it's about finding your way through the governing bodies and paperwork involved. You're not alone; numerous homeowners have embarked on this mission before you, and their advice is gold.

Start with your local building or planning department. Personal visits often yield swifter results in a state like New Hampshire, with its abundance of small towns. Be armed with the specifics of your project and be pleasantly persistent because, in the end, it's their checklist you'll have to satisfy.

Despite every good intention to follow the rules, homeowners are confronted with the fear of the unknown. What if my contractor is shady? What if my remodel doesn't pass inspection?

Transparency and foresight are your greatest allies. Partner with a reputable contractor who understands the permitting process. They can often handle the brunt of the paperwork, leaving you feeling calm and confident that everything is done according to the book.

Your bathroom remodel in NH is more than a personal project; it's a home improvement that speaks to overall property safety, value, and well-being. Understanding New Hampshire’s permit process is crucial for residents looking to renovate their bathrooms.

Permit questions? Contact Shapiro Bathrooms & More. Our team isn't just about remodeling—we’re New Hampshire homeowners, too, and we understand that crisp mountain air calls for crisp, clear processes when you're ready to remodel. Because piles of paperwork shouldn’t stand between you and your dream bathroom, they should outline the path to making it a reality.

[gatheringbones]

[“The charity model we live with today has origins in Christian European practices of the wealthy giving alms to the poor to buy their own way into heaven. It is based on a moral hierarchy of wealth—the idea that rich people are inherently better and more moral than poor people, which is why they deserve to be on top. Not surprisingly, the charity model promotes the idea that most poverty is a result of laziness or immorality and that only the poor people who can prove their moral worth deserve help.

Contemporary charity comes with eligibility requirements such as sobriety, piety, curfews, participation in job training or parenting courses, cooperation with the police, a lawful immigration status, or identifying the paternity of children. In charity programs, social workers, health care providers, teachers, clergy, lawyers, and government workers determine which poor people deserve help. Their methods of deciding who is deserving, and even the rules they enforce, usually promote racist and sexist tropes, such as the idea that poor women of color and immigrant women have too many children, or that Black families are dysfunctional, or that Indigenous children are better off separated from their families and communities, or that people are poor because of drug use.

We can see examples in government policy, like the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families programs (TANF), which impose “family caps” in fourteen states. These laws restrict poor families from receiving additional benefits when they have a new child. For example, in Massachusetts, a single parent with two children receives a measly $578 in TANF benefits each month. But if a second child is born while the family is already receiving TANF, that child is ineligible, and the family receives $100 less per month, for a grant of $478. This policy emerges from the racist, sexist idea that poor women, especially women of color and immigrant women, should be discouraged from having children, and the faulty assumption that their poverty is somehow a result of being overly reproductive. We can also see harmful, moralizing eligibility requirements when people have to prove they are sober or under psychiatric care to qualify for housing programs.

Charity programs, both those run by the government and those run by nonprofits, are also set up in ways that make it stigmatizing and miserable to receive help. The humiliation and degradation of doing required work assignments to get benefits too small to live off of, or answering endless personal questions that treat the recipient like a fraud and a crook, are designed to make sure that people will accept any work at any exploitative wage or condition to avoid relying on public benefits. Charity makes rich people and corporations look generous while upholding and legitimizing the systems that concentrate wealth.”]

Dean Spade, Mutual Aid

[nothorses]

Yeah, people should be using tma/tme as a way to say whether or not someone experiences a specific type of oppression, but instead its used to say whether or not a person is /oppressed enough/, which is not and has never been a useful mentality. The whole "must be this oppressed to enter" thing is so harmful.

Yeah thats definitely an aspect of it. I think my issue is also that what it’s trying to say is “are you transfemme or not”, but because creating an identity term for “everyone who isn’t transfemme” is sort of convoluted and impossible and lumps over half of the trans community in with cis people in a conversation about trans oppression, it follows like... very strange logic, imo, instead.

So instead of “do you identify as this or that” like with most of these binaries (straight vs. queer, cis vs. trans, even aspec vs. allo), we get... “are you oppressed by this system or not”. And that’s not a bad question to ask; it’s a question inherent in every conversation about a system of oppression. If you’ve never experienced this kind of oppression, you probably need to listen to the experiences of those who’s lives are shaped by it.

But it is a really strange question to ask when what you mean is “do you identify as this or that”. It conflates identity with oppression, and implies that identifying as Identity means you cannot experience Oppression, or that if you have never experienced Oppression, you must not be Identity, or even that if you have ever experienced Oppression, you must be Identity.

And it’s the same faulty logic that’s caused a lot of other issues in the way we talk about oppression and identity.

It’s where we get slur discourse; “you can only reclaim Slur if you are Identity, because Slur = Oppression and Oppression = Identity.” Nevermind that lots of people who aren’t Identity have still been called Slur, and even been hurt by Oppression. Or that Slur can be Identity without necessarily being exclusive to that Oppression (like “faggot” meaning “gay man”, while also often being transphobic or transmisogynistic in use).

It’s also where we get the radfem model of womanhood/misogyny; "only women are targeted by misogyny”. TERFs argue that a woman is therefore anyone who experiences misogyny, while trans-inclusive radfems argue that misogyny is only experienced by people who identify as women. Both believe womanhood and misogyny are intrinsically tied, and that anyone else- people who aren’t women by whatever standards- can’t experience misogyny. But even this “trans inclusive” logic falls apart the moment you account for nonbinary or transmasc experiences.

The reality is that oppression is a lot more complicated than that, and so is identity. TME/TMA is getting at something we really need, but I think it’s just asking the wrong question. And it’s that discrepancy in what the term is actually asking vs. what it wants to know that’s where a lot of the harmful implications and use is coming from, imo.

(And to be clear, I know it’s not my term to come up with anyway. I disagree with the model of oppression/identity the terms rely on, not the fact that transmisogyny exists, or that we do need a way of communicating the differences in experiences between transfemmes and other folks.)

[eganantiquus]

Capitalism: Its Effects on Heaven, Hell, and a Few Others // A Good Omens Meta

I think the discussion about capitalism in Good Omens is a very interesting one to have- specifically in how it relates to Heaven and Hell. I saw a post about it recently, about the Quartermaster saying Heaven would “take the sword out of [Aziraphale’s] celestial wages,” which begs the question: does Heaven have money? A system of checks and balances on the Angels’ miracles, perhaps? Heaven is, after all, the original monopoly. But how does that affect them? Or affect Hell, for that matter? (Keep in mind, I will primarily be discussing events and dialogue from the TV show, as that’s the canon I’m most familiar and comfortable with extrapolating on.) So let’s move out a bit to take stock of the bigger picture. First of all in this discussion, let’s remember that the entire structure of Heaven and Hell blatantly showcases the shittiest parts of capitalism. As a reminder, the cons of capitalism can include: a monopoly on trade, goods, or services; social/emotional necessities ignored in the pursuit of profit; lack of concern for the environment; driving need for exponentially increased profit, allowing no space for slip-ups or less-profitable cycles; Inherited wealth, and big gaps in economic equality, which creates social divisions, which cause people to resent their fellow citizens. Let’s first take a look at something we’re all familiar with. Heaven’s and Hell’s relationship with Crowley and Aziraphale. Both Heaven and Hell have an inherent monopoly on basically everything, which is something we see both Crowley and Aziraphale struggling with in different ways throughout history. They want to exist outside of the hierarchy, but there literally isn’t any outside. In terms of social/emotional needs… do I need to go into the trauma and anxiety that Heaven and Hell instill in Crowley and Aziraphale? A post for another time. And it’s apparent, however much they try to hide it, that both of them fear authority, and would do practically anything to get away from it. So, they wiggle out from under it in whatever ways they can. (See: the “arrangement,” Crowley’s “there’s more to evil than killing people, eh?” and Aziraphale’s “Well, if you put it that way, Heaven couldn’t actually object… ”) Lack of concern for the environment can be extrapolated to Heaven and Hell’s lack of care for humanity. (See also, uh, nuclear Armageddon.) Inherited wealth/prestige is definitely a thing: see the Archangels lording their power over the lower Principalities. There’s a bit more room for mobility in Hell, where doing more evil deeds = more prestige & (...dis)honor? Anyway, this is where Hell begins to deviate. Exponential need for profit in Heaven and Hell translates to their increasing intolerance of Aziraphale’s *ahem* lies. Hell is more lenient in this area too- perhaps because of their disorganization. So Heaven and Hell are capitalistic. But in what capacity, and what is the effect on their respective denizens? In practice, who’s the winner in this capitalistic structure? Hell isn’t, no matter how inherently hellish capitalism might be. They’re clearly the losers in this situation- they’ve got terrible service, (see: Hastur having to “[wait] for maintenance to come and fix another bloody pipe,”* and the Demon Eric’s “we don’t get this view down in the basement.”) lack the organization to rise up against Heaven, (see: the frankly concerning lack of organized preparation for The Great War) and are constantly put down. They all have to fight for their positions, and are intimately familiar with what the failure to succeed in this “business” means. Not to mention that their entire hierarchy is performance driven, showing the capitalistic values they, for lack of a better term, grew up in, are still ingrained in all their practices. Heaven is at the top of an office building, has views of the entire world, is clean and obviously well organized. It’s clear what the hierarchy is there- everyone walks in lines, Gabriel always stands slightly in front of Michael and Uriel and Sandalphon, all of the higher Angels we see interact with Aziraphale treat him like he’s less than them. Heaven clearly benefits from the organization and driving force that capitalism provides, while Hell is just getting by.

To dive further into what the effects of capitalism are on Heaven and Hell, let’s go into depth more about Heaven and Hell’s respective war preparation to analyze their motivations.

Hell’s war preparations are disorganized, at best. All the Demons of Hell, gathered around two ‘generals,’ getting ready to hear a pep talk best described as being far from premeditated or sophisticated. On top of this, the second something goes wrong, Beelzebub says it. Just like that, to all the Demons. It makes me cringe every time I watch it, to see the rest of the Demons turn to each other and wonder if they’re following the right leader. The thing about this, though, is that they don’t have another option for a leader. This is the place for the people who couldn’t make it in Heaven, the outcasts and Fallen, so they don’t care. There’s nowhere else for anyone to go. Hell is far more transparent about their hate, their evil, but also about their vulnerability. Perhaps not individual vulnerability, (see: Crowley needing to be Cool and Collected at every moment) but in their overall anxieties and problems, Hell is very transparent. There is no need to hide the problems Hell has, because there’s no worse place to go. In this way, Hell has accepted their fate at the bottom of the totem pole.

Now let’s talk about Heaven’s war preparations. When Aziraphale arrives prematurely in Heaven, his “whole platoon” is “waiting” for him. So, Heaven has an organized war effort. They have uniforms. They have someone checking everyone in, putting them into place. (Where do they all line up to go to war? Where does the war Occur?? Questions for another time.) However, here is the interesting part: Heaven’s whole spiel to get everyone motivated, unlike Hell, is based on fear. While Hell brings up the actual motive for fighting, saying “we lost” and “we have had thousands of years to… get smarter,” Heaven tells Aziraphale that he’s a “coward” if he doesn’t fight, while not providing any reason besides ‘he’s supposed to.’

Here lies the beginning of the difference between Heaven and Hell: their motivators. Now let’s talk about how they carry out justice, and how that is an indicator of the effects of capitalism on them both.

Hell’s trial for Crowley is a mockery of the word, let’s be perfectly clear. They don’t provide him with a defense, and have an implicitly biased jury. However, it is a trial. A trial with evidence presented against him, a prosecutor, and a judge, and everything. What’s so interesting to me, about this, is that they don’t think for a minute that there wouldn’t be a trial. If they had thought such a thing was possible, they would have taken the opportunity. But they didn’t think of it. And that is what is so important here. Hell is the one that carries out a just trial. And I think that really speaks to their experiences as the Fallen. They know what no mercy looks like, what it is to be cut off from God’s love, with no hope for recompense. And, however evil they are, they know how much that hurts. Hell is just because they were given no justice. 

Heaven, on the other hand? There’s no preamble to Aziraphale’s “trial.” There isn’t even a trial. There’s just the characteristic fake-niceties boiled down to their basest component: a complete lack of empathy for anyone who deviates from the norm. (See Gabriel’s “into the flames,” and “don’t talk to me about the ‘greater good,’ sunshine.”). And, oh yeah by the way, what kind of good and just society uses capital punishment? Isn’t that the exact sort of thing Heaven should be above? I should sure hope so! Their believed moral code, the idea that because they’re Angels, divinely Chosen by God, that whatever they do is predestined to be right, has all the flavor of a strong dictatorship. So convinced are they of their superiority that even outright capital punishment is not below them. This is an interesting contrast to their motivation of fear that we looked at in the previous section. Perhaps higher Angels use fear to keep Angels in line, but feel exempt from the process itself. Very similar to the way big CEO's in the human business world accumulate wealth and power while their workers work paycheck to paycheck.

So Heaven is fundamentally bad, and Hell is fundamentally… good?

Not quite. 

Both Heaven and Hell are operating under the millennia of repressed trauma and baggage that came with the first war. For example, let’s look at their refusal to see nuance in the issue of war Take a look at Gabriel’s “We can fight! And we can win!” to Aziraphale and Beezlebub’s “Don’t you want to rule the world?” to Adam. They can’t comprehend that someone would want to, or, for that matter, could look at the structure of The Way Things Are and go, ‘No, this is not for me, I think I’ll just do this quietly over her instead.’ Heaven and Hell have each been indoctrinated in their own ways, by God and by Heaven and by their own inability to look past their instructions.

So, Heaven and Hell operate under the guidelines of a capitalistic system because of their respective experiences with authority and punishment.  

What does this say about Crowley and Aziraphale? That they’ve managed to dodge this system (mostly) altogether, and made one of their own… based purely on joy, mutual respect, and They still have their issues, (See: Being unable to communicate effectively. When? Oh, just for all of history) but for the most part, they’re living their own lives. It takes an especially strong will to stand up to a faulty administration, even if the standing up part consists of drinking a lot of wine, sliding around killing people, and consorting with an enemy who’s actually quite nice. It takes what a lot of Angels and Demons, simply put, don’t have. Like Hastur, who doesn’t have an “imagination.” Crowley invented one for himself. Crowley and Aziraphale practically invented free will for themselves, too. Part of their ability to so wholly reject their ‘upbringing,’ if you will, must be connected to the fact that they spend so much time around humans. If we go with TV show canon, they’re practically the only ethereal/occult entities that are on Earth for any long period of time. Of course they’re going to catch on from the humans. So Crowley and Aziraphale are the only celestial beings who have been able to get free of this terrible system, and so are able to better ‘guide’ the humans, which inevitably leads them to attempting to stop armageddon. (And of course, the apocalypse, according to Aziraphale, is something no “reasonable person would permit!”)

This brings us to the humans. Specifically, how Heaven is supposed to guide them. Heaven doesn’t, insofar as we are aware, care about the humans. Perhaps other Angels do, ones who have walked among them. But for the most part, especially with Gabriel, Michael, Sandalphon- the people in charge- the humans are an afterthought. They’re one knight on the chessboard, easily moved, taken, and discarded- perhaps with a bit of regret, but dispensable all the same. In this way, the exponential growth mindset that Heaven has goes to show just how far they’ve deviated from God’s design. Now, far be it from me to speculate on the nature of the Ineffable Plan, but as far as I’m aware, the Angels were created to love humanity, and to nurture them. Doesn’t sound like what they’re doing at all, does it?

So in this way, we can see that both Heaven and Hell have gotten the short end of the metaphorical capitalism stick. Hell, at the bottom of the ranks, desperate to climb back up and regain their glory, but unable to do so because of the weight of their Falling trauma; Heaven, in all its Jeff Bezos glory, unable to see the consequences of their actions close up because of their disassociation with “reality.” 

Capitalism and economics in general are incredibly nuanced things, and I do not at all pretend to fully understand them. However, I fully enjoy imagining how the complex dynamics of Good Omens universe Heaven and Hell deal with the repercussions of existence and their own actions through the lens of capitalism.

*side note from paragraph seven: I think maintenance work would be a more fitting job for Crowley and Aziraphale, and frankly, I would love to read a fic about that.

[hellsbellschime]

Given the immense popularity of the Harry Potter series, it's clear why every character in the franchise would develop it's own unique fanbase that is drawn to that particular person for a set of particular reasons. But one of the most curious phenomenons within the world of Harry Potter is the enduring and intense popularity of one of the most unappealing characters in the series, Draco Malfoy. In a world populated with exceptional wizards, epic heroes, and genocidal villains, why does this arrogant schoolyard bully hold so much sway with so many Harry Potter fans?

The prevailing theory of the book's author is that Tom Felton is the reason why so many fangirls and fanboys are mistakenly believing that this bad boy has a heart of gold buried underneath that steely gaze and designer suit. But it doesn't seem wildly unfair to say that the author's ability to get a good read on her audience is... not great, and that seems like a vast oversimplification of Draco as a character and the audience's reaction towards him. But if it's not because of his pretty pretty face, what exactly is it that makes Draco so intriguing to so many people? After all, the amount of attention that he gets within the books is actually pretty minimal, and the screen time that he gets is even stingier, so what is there to even get intrigued by?

Harry Potter is a series that is exceptionally skilled at creating dramatic tension within it's storyline, but that is exceptionally bad at creating dramatic tension within it's character developments. Literally every major character within the story has a pretty firmly established personality that is only refined and directed towards whatever North star is guiding them. Although the stakes are constantly being raised and the risks are getting greater, every character has always known what they had to do and why they had to do it. With only one significant and glaring exception to that rule. Draco Malfoy. 

From the moment the audience meets Draco it's clear that he is intended to be a foil for Harry, and throughout the entire series he truly does embody everything that Harry is not. He's arrogant, exclusionary, rude, entitled, and lacking in empathy. He's weak in every way that Harry is strong, he's cruel in every way that Harry is kind, and everything about his character coding is bad in contrast to Harry's good. Harry is the prime example of Gryffindor's heroism and innate goodness, while Draco is the prime example of Slytherin's elitism and cruelty. Draco was raised within a family that suffered greatly at the defeat of Voldemort, at least relatively speaking, and Harry Potter was the one who defeated him. In a philosophical sense, it's clear that Draco is meant to be Harry's inverse, but on a more practical level, Draco should also be inherently unappealing because he's just a bully, and people don't like bullies. So, why is it that so many people like him?  Well, because in certain ways Draco is the easiest character to relate to. 

Many of the main characters in the series make a lot of mistakes throughout the course of the story, but they seem to stick within a certain subset of mistakes that make them seem so heroic that they almost feel disconnected from normal humanity. Characters like Harry, Hermione, and Ron make mistakes based on faulty logic or mistakes that are driven by emotional reactions that they don't think through, but they don't really ever make ethical mistakes. They're good people who do good things with good intentions, and if anything ever goes wrong it's not because they've done anything morally wrong. 

Draco on the other hand, makes many ethical mistakes. He's raised by selfish and cruel people who spend his entire life telling him how superior he is, so he's very distinctly lacking in his ability to empathize and relate to others. And honestly, regardless of how anyone was raised, that lack of self-reflection and inability to understand how we can affect others is something that most people can relate to, especially when they're younger. Most people understand how it feels to make a moral mistake because of some kind of ethical or psychological immaturity, and that makes it easier for everyone to relate to Draco. 

And why is it that Draco is lacking this traditional moral compass? Well, because of the way that he was raised. His parents obviously loved and doted on him, but they quite literally raised him to believe in ideologies that are objectively morally wrong. From the moment he was born he was indoctrinated to very bigoted views, and because of the privilege he grew up in and his lack of contact with any other ways of thinking, he never had any reason to question those views. And that's yet another aspect of his character that is extremely easy for a lot of people to relate to. More often than not, children are raised and taught ideas and ideologies that they ultimately realize they might not agree with, even if their parents raised them to believe that those ideas were objective truth. 

What makes Draco such an interesting character is that for the vast majority of his character arc he had an extremely limited and unempathetic viewpoint, but his later actions and behaviors clearly indicate that he had an innate sense of morality. Draco behaves in such an arrogant and demeaning way because he doesn't think of the way that he's been raised as a point of view, he sees it as reality, so having other students like Harry or Hermione challenge that elicits an extremely negative response from him. But once the most brutal aspects of the ideologies that his parents raised him with become his reality, it's clear that it inspires an almost immediate change within him. 

Because Draco has an innate sense of morality and that morality is now coming into conflict with his entire familial structure and belief system, that conflict starts tearing him apart. And honestly, while conflict is not a prerequisite for a character to be interesting, creating character conflict and tension that needs to be resolved will always inspire intrigue and interest in an audience. Easy isn't often interesting, and in a fictional world where every character's motivations are well defined from start to finish, even if those motivations weren't revealed until the end of the series, it's easy to see why Draco stuck out in the crowd. 

It's clear that almost immediately after becoming a Death Eater, Draco's sense of what he should do is thrown into disarray. And of course, why wouldn't it be? A lot of Draco's fans seem to refer to him as the boy who had no choice, but that actually doesn't seem like a very accurate representation of Draco's status by the end of the series. On the contrary, it seems like he is the only character with choices. It's just that all of his options are terrible ones. 

When we see most of the other characters, there is never any question of what they should do or will do. While what they must do or will try to do is very difficult to actually accomplish, it's never a very difficult choice for them to make. They can either fight for their friends and loved ones, or let wizard Hitler overtake the world. For many of them, the only options are to either fight Voldemort or die. But the decisions that Draco has to make are actually far more complex. 

As the audience, we all know that Draco doing the right thing would mean rebelling against the Death Eaters, joining the good guys, and not killing Dumbledore. But if anyone were asked a hypothetical question about killing someone they barely knew, or possibly letting their family die or getting themselves killed, it's clearly not an easy answer. In fact, many people would choose to let a near stranger die in the place of someone they loved. Draco's character arc is compelling both because he is forced into an insanely difficult choice, and because he is arguably the most ill equipped character to handle this kind of decision. His internal moral compass is something he has literally just discovered, and he now has to make the most difficult choice that any of the characters have had to make in the series. 

And what muddies the water even further is that while the immorality of murder is a moral absolute, Draco's relative life experience is entirely diametrically opposed to the experiences of any of the other main characters. The heroes of the story understand that the Malfoys, the Death Eaters, and Dark Wizards at large are the "bad guys," and by extension the audience understands that as well. But in Draco's world, those are the people who have given him all of the love, acceptance, and admiration that he's ever experienced. And on the flip side, the "good guys" of the story have only ever offered him dismissal, derision, and rejection. 

So, even if Draco is having a crisis of conscience, he could possibly lose everything that has meaning to him and gain nothing in return. And compounding that pressure even further, he's never had any guidance or role modeling that would show him how to stand up against someone else, let alone someone as terrifying as Voldemort. For the vast majority of the characters in the series, regardless of where they land on the moral spectrum, the choices laid out before them are so drastically one sided that they're not really choices at all. But for Draco, there are legitimate options, all of which could end in cataclysmic disaster for him. 

The Harry Potter saga is the story of it's titular hero defeating the most evil wizard who ever lived, so it operates on a pretty srong dyad of good vs. evil. But, reality rarely lays things out that clearly. Everyone likes to envision themselves as the hero of their own story, but the truth is that everyone understands how it feels to experience difficulty in deciding what's right or wrong. Seeing characters who's experiences mirror our own is immediately appealing, and it explains why so many people are drawn to a character like Draco. And that's not the only thing that makes him relatable. 

While Draco spends most of the series trying to capitalize on his famous name, he's actually a pretty exceptionally skilled wizard and seems to be an excellent student, at least good enough to be made a school prefect. And while his overall position within the storyline does seem to indicate that he's popular, at least in Slytherin, it doesn't seem like very many people actually like Draco for Draco or recognize that he's good at anything. People either love him or hate him purely based on the assumptions that they make about him, many of which don't reflect his inner persona. And that's a feeling that almost everyone in the world can understand on some level. Everyone wants to feel seen, and everyone knows how it feels to work hard at something and feel like that work is unrecognized. Everyone fears rejection, so even if Draco's overly defensive posturing is unappealing, the emotion that exists behind it speaks to the heart of many Harry Potter fans. 

Draco was never going to be the hero of this story. But what he did get to be was something that is much more morally and thematically relevant to the audience at large. No, he didn't get the redemption arc that many of his fans may have been hoping for, but the end result of his character may have been something much better. 

Draco did eventually grow, change, and evolve as a person. But what makes his ultimate about face even more interesting is that he did it despite the fact that there was really nothing in it for him. He didn't do anything because he wanted the world to see him as a hero for once, or because he wanted to be liked, or even because he just wanted to show up Harry Potter. He did it because he genuinely reflected on his own behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs, and he decided that he no longer agreed with what he thought before. 

Self-reflection is one of the deepest and most profound experiences that a person can go through, but it can be extremely painful, difficult, and it isn't necessarily all that rewarding either. So the fact that a character like Malfoy made that choice and came out the other side of it as a better person is actually pretty inspiring. Deciding to be a better person just because you want to be, not because there is something to be gained from it, is an incredibly powerful message. And beyond that, the thought that someone who started off where Malfoy did would actually make that choice, even when he has a lot to potentially lose because of it, makes his character even more dynamic and complex. It's something that speaks to so many people on such a fundamental level because it demonstrates that just because mistakes have been made in the past, that doesn't mean they need to be repeated, and one doesn't have to be born good in order to become good. 

Draco Malfoy obviously wasn't a character who was created with the intention of gaining many fans, but the intention behind the character is irrelevant. Draco is an incredibly flawed individual who goes through some very serious growing pains, and who often doesn't make the right decisions. But in a fictional world filled with characters who's development seems to travel from point A to point B with nary a bump in the road, it's easy to see why the snobby rich kid with the famous name became such a fan favorite. 

[silversavant2021]

The Least Protected Group...Single Fathers!

There are several laws that protect various groups in our society, and in various areas...employment, wages, education, etc. According to the U.S Federal Law website, “these laws prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as reprisal for protected activity”. However, although they protect according to gender, there is another group within gender which needs protecting in another specific area. That area is fatherhood, and when it comes to their rights to their children after separation, and/or divorce.

If we look through the articles online, and in booklets on custody we will see a great deal of information on what is called conservatorship and in all of these documents the deciding factor is a term called, “the best interest of the child”. In looking at that statement, we would think it would be both parents but it is not.

In Texas, the Family Code gives the father the same rights as the mother as far as custody of the children however that is rarely carried out. The mother is usually granted the position of custodial parent, even if the father is in a better position of stability in order to have the child(ren).

The imbalance has gotten so great until various states are beginning to take action on behalf of the fathers. In Massachusetts, a ballot initiative was created, and approved 85 to 15 percent on protecting the rights of the father. The ballot was an initiative to approve equal legal and physical custody of the children in the case of divorce. This ballot was requesting that “the courts uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to the shared physical and legal custody of their children”. And that state is not the only one requesting this by proposition on behalf of fathers. The Washington Post had an article by Michael Allison Chandler entitled “More than 20 states in 2017 considered laws to promote shared custody of children after divorce.”

One would have to ask; why is this necessary since most custody paperwork state that either parent has the right to conservatorship, or custody? It is because Family Courts use the concept called “best interest of the child” to decide who will hold this position, and that term is wholly subjective. Over the years, this term has been used to give custody, in most cases, to the mother.

Ms. Chandler also states that, “we are led to believe that the plight of fatherless children is caused by husbands walking out on their wives, fathers abandoning their children, and “deadbeat dads” when one of the best-kept secrets in American society today is that two-thirds of divorces are now sought by wives, not husbands”. She claims that the “feminist movement has taught wives that they can seek “liberation” by walking out of their marriage contract and marital duties and still reap the benefits of marriage, i.e. their children and his money.”

In considering the background elements of this controversial topic I interviewed Baba Richard and Sri Namaste Moore, who are “The Infinite Couple” and have a combination of 30+ years of experience, (and success), in dealing with men, women, and couples regarding relationships.

Sri Namaste stated that this basically started with “Women’s Rights” movement, and explained how this played into this situation of mothers being given more rights than fathers in the case of custody.

She elaborated on what two legal rights, which were attached to this movement, brought about:

• Women’s Reproductive Rights:

• Reproductive Rights — claims having the ability to decide whether, and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health. Research suggests that being able to make decisions about one’s own reproductive life and the timing of one’s entry into parenthood is associated with greater relationship stability and satisfaction.

• AbortionRights:

• AccesstoAbortion-IntheUnitedStates,the1973SupremeCourtcaseRoev.Wade established the legal right to abortion. State legislative and executive bodies nonetheless continue to battle over legislation related to access to abortion, including parental consent and notification and mandatory waiting periods. In addition, public funding for abortion remains a contested issue in many states: federal law has banned the use of federal funds for most abortions since 1977, and currently does not allow the use of federal funds for abortion unless the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest or the woman’s life is in danger. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 reinforces these restrictions, but state Medicaid programs have the option to cover abortion in other circumstances using only state, and no federal funds.

Sri Namaste stated, “Initially, women were supposed to be given Reproductive Rights/Freedoms however a woman had that already, and had already exercised her right when she chose to have unprotected sex. That was/is her exercising her “right to reproduce” by allowing herself to get pregnant. She had a choice to prevent that from happening by several different means.

“Then giving her the sole right to decide to keep the baby, or not, is giving her sovereignty as well. Now she has the right to decide “life or death” with impunity in the case of this child. Even though the child was created by the woman and the man; the father has no rights and even if he wants the baby, (which belongs to him as well), he has no right to it.”

Also, that baby is not “her body”, it is a whole separate entity.

Sri Namaste also stated, “The “double standard” is amazing! If the pregnancy is wanted then, even at the earliest stages, the woman celebrates the pregnancy. She will call the baby “hers”, buys clothes, has a celebration, names the baby, etc. And if she should “miscarry”, (lose the baby), she mourns, has a funeral, etc. HOWEVER, if the pregnancy is unwanted...suddenly it is NOT a baby, it is a fetus – a non-thing.”

I asked her how did all that plays into child custody?

She stated, “Because the woman has already been given “sovereignty” over the baby/fetus before birth so it just carries over when the child is born...she still has those rights. However, everyone should be sovereign over their own life, and when one has a child, that is a “separate” life which belongs to the mother AND the father who made it.”

“Also, because that child is a combination of the mother and the father, she shouldn't be able to make that decision alone, and definitely not on the behalf of the father. The state should be the entity who is stepping in to ensure decisions would be neutral, but they are not.”

I was surprised at how all of this fit together.

In order to get a perspective from a man, from a father’s point of view, and from one who had gone through a divorce and custody within in the court system, I then spoke to Baba Richard, who stated:

“I think fundamentally there is something that is happening here. Once you are a parent then being a good parent is based on time passing and you being engaged in that. In talking about the role of the father, what is happening and is implicit in the whole system is that fatherhood is irrelevant. The “state” is functioning as the “father surrogate” and making decisions as to what the state and the woman are going to do about the child(ren).”

“The father is looked at as an economic contributor at maximum, or somebody that if you refuse, or are not meeting whatever standard they say, economically, then you are punished. The system is already in place that you, father, are here to provide economics so the state and the mother can decide what they are going to do with your resources in order to decide what the future of your child is going to be.”

“Once one starts from a “faulty premise” all decisions after that...none of them can be, “well this is great”, because it is a “domino effect”. Look at fatherhood and motherhood as two parallel lines...train tracks, if you will...equal parallel lines and they must be because they both have equal responsibility for the welfare of what they created. Once we say the only “line” that matters is the motherhood line when going forward, then the fatherhood line veers off...we don’t need that, don’t want that line. So, once you engage with the state those two lines are no longer parallel, and never brought back into parallel. Fatherhood gets a “dotted line” which says “you can pay money but we will decide how often you see the child.”

“Visitation is something you do for someone who is “incarcerated”. You don’t visit your “prodigy”, you don’t “visit” your children, children don’t “visit” you. What are they talking about? Either we ALL visit, or nobody visits. Shared custody by default, NOT an arrangement the father has to negotiate his way into. The presumption should be that BOTH parents will share equal responsibility for raising the child(ren) that they have created between the two of them.”

“When you go into that equation with the idea that “woman create children”, and men- we don’t know what they do...but they are engaged in some level of “malfeasance” or irresponsibility because a child has come forward so now the state needs to come in to make things fair...better...more equitable, for the women. One has to wonder, “how is the state the arbiter between these two people?”

“There is a default belief/assumption that there has been some wrong-doing on the part of the man...the scales are inherently imbalanced and “justice”, the state, is stepping in to balance this inequity. The woman has been victimized by this man through the act of pregnancy and now the state is here to make things right again.”

“You, the woman, being right, and righteous, should be supported in whatever you decide to do. It is impossible for you to not to visit your children because the presumption is that the child is at home, and home is always with YOU.”

However, in the case of the man, let’s bullet point the situation and think like this... “Imagine a world where”:

-You are guilty before the proceedings even start.

-All you will get is a decision as to what level of punishment you will endure.

-You will never be found “not guilty” because this is the nature of things.

-You will incur penalties that are overwhelming in most cases.

There is no court of appeals, the only thing, the most you can get is a lessening of the penalty/sentence but you will have it until the courts decide that you don’t.

“Now where is this? In a foreign country? Or some weird dystopian future where everything has “gone to hell in a handcart”? No, this is what a person live with every day if that person is a MAN, and happen to get divorced from a woman, and there are children involved. Or weren’t married and there are children involved.”

I said, “I don’t understand, why doesn’t the courts give joint custody”? He said...

“It is inherently unfair, and I think that there is a presumption of “guilt” with respect to men who are in court...for whatever reason. When I went for my divorce, the judge, his attitude toward me was hostile for no reason. I am not a criminal, and was not there for an assumption of any criminal activity.”

“While waiting for other people to handle their business I saw many different types of cases. There were people who came through who had committed crimes. I had committed no crime, was only there due to processing a divorce. Me, and this woman, had decided we did not want to go forward in life anymore. I couldn’t understand how I warranted all of this “ire” from the judge? I didn’t know him, personally. We both, (my spouse and I), were there at the same time, and when he talked to her, he was nice, and soft spoken...and then when he talked to me it was, “well, what's this!!!” spoken in anger.

I asked him, “But there are documented “rules” that apply to everybody, even mothers; why aren’t they enforced? He said...

“Because there is another issue as to why things go the way they go. Men are not prepared. Actually, it is almost the opposite of being prepared. They are intentionally unprepared because number one, one of the things that I saw in the four or five guys that I know, including myself when I got divorced, is that they are emotionally exhausted...there is a great deal of stress, strain, etc....and a man has to still keep up everything while all of this going on.”

“One of the things about the linear nature of men is that we, we don't do well with this kind of “stress”. We don’t maintain hatred in “perpetuity”. Even if you look at a man whose been trained as a military soldier...yes, they may be upset about the enemy...but the actual pulling of the trigger, or launching the missile is very dispassionate. This is just a job that he is doing...combatants over there...we got them all right, cool. Let's go home, you know, but they don't usually keep that “emotional charge” every day.

“But it's one of the things about the feminine, and I've seen it, they can hold a grudge. Oh my God...even if the two people haven't been together for decades, kids are grown, and gone on and whatever. And it's like, you want to set her off, mention his name in her presence, and it's just like the day that they got divorced.”

“The point being is that when they go into this court situation, number one, most people don’t have any experience with this...it’s not like buying a car, one gets to do this many times so they know what to expect. When they go into this situation, it's the first time, and they don't know what to think or how it's going to go. Also, all they want is for the pain to stop, and they think that after this, we can be “okay”, it’s official.”

“Most men are at the point where they think, “You know what, I'll start over, whatever car, house, whatever things. I don't care. I don't care about any of that because being able to sleep at night”, even if they have to sleep on a pallet. However, here’s the hinge that door swings on...the men go into this thinking that what she wants is stuff, right? What they find out is what she wants is for him to suffer, and no amount of money, no amount of stuff, all the things that he gave, the “quid to the pro quo” that he thinks is going to happen... doesn’t!” 

And so that's a double whammy because then they're shocked because they're like, wait a minute, I gave you what you said you wanted...all the stuff. I let you have whatever it is that you want up to, and including what I considered the most precious...the care of the children. But now he finds that the woman, the court, and the state are thinking, “how much worse can we make this? What else can we do?” Whatever he thought he was going to give, that's not enough, and he is thinking, “Wait a minute, I gave everything so how can that not be enough? There isn’t anything more to give.” And the courts state, “you better come up with something because now we have rules in place that where we're going from present into the future. And now as a state, we can enforce those rules and say, not only have you given all of your material possessions presently, now we are going to look into the future and you will give all your possessions in perpetuity, or until the child(ren) are 18-21 years old.”

“Suddenly, he comes into this realization that the rules that are imposed upon men in that situation are only for men. There are no equivalent rules for women. So, if he doesn't do whatever the court says, then there are penalties and it is NOT that she can’t do what the court says and “be penalized”, it is because she has no rules!”

Personally, I was shocked, and had nothing else to say.

As I began to research further for the solution(s) to this challenge for “fathers”, I decided to do some research on this topic with “Father’s Rights” organizations. I found three agencies, and interviewed the three men who had started, and/or participated in them. What I found was confirming.

The first person interviewed in this arena was Joshua Banks, who is the Founder/Facilitator of IDADS, (Involved Dads of Action Developing and Succeeding), and he is the Program Coordinator. His agency has been in operation since 2015, and his motivation was dealing with families for 7 years as a Pastor. He assisted 300+ people through online summits, and approximately 80 fathers on a weekly basis.

He states, “It is always better for the child when there is joint custody however the system seems to be in opposition to this. It seems that “best interest of the child” always translate to the Mom. A majority of the fathers I deals with want to be involved in their children’s lives, and the few who are reluctant is due to the “toxicity” of the relationship with the mothers.”

His advice to fathers seeking joint custody to:

Engage the Mom, try to get her “onboard”.

As soon as the child is born, go to child support court, (whether you live together or not), so there will be no risk of “arrears”, (even if you only put payment as $100).  This is because even if you take care of your child, pay bills in the household, etc. the “child support system” does NOT acknowledge/recognize support paid OUTSIDE of their courts. This will make it easier when you go to Family Court regarding custody.

Build Credibility - Employment, shelter, and a proper environment for his child.

Effort - It won’t be easy, and he will have to “fight”.

Involvement - No matter how difficult it is made, stay involved!

Attorney - If at all possible, get an attorney.

His agency is currently involved with the Attorney General’s Father’s Rights Division; Child Protection Services - Father’s Rights Coalition; and the University of Texas - Child and Family Research Partnership under Dr, Osborn. His agency also receives referrals from Child Protective Services.

The second person I interviewed in this area was Isaac Rowe, who is the Founder of “The Man In Me”, and he is the CEO. His agency has been in operation since 2012, and his motivation was seeing the “fatherless sons” in his arena. He was also troubled by what he saw a friend go through not being able to be with his father...saw it from a “child’s” standpoint. He decided to tell fathers to fight for their rights, and more time with their children. He assists 300+ men through conferences, and speaking engagements, and approximately 80-120 men weekly/bi-weekly.

He states, “Joint custody is always best for the child because everyone is doing their part for the sake of that child. A father’s participation beyond “court appointed visitation” is very important, and valuable to the child. The biggest hinderance I have seen is that the judges will rule against fathers, and there is definitely a double standard.”

He doesn’t have much dealings with the agencies in the area however they have helped fathers to come to his meetings. His advice to fathers seeking joint custody is to:

• Try to co-bond with child,(easier when mom is onboard). • Take care of himself,(spiritually, mentally, physically, financially). • Get in programs to better themselves • Don’t give up,or sign over rights, [you will still have to pay child support]. • Show responsibility; employment, housing, etc. • Don’t get behind in child support payment; no child support arrears.

The last person I interviewed in this area was Marcus Griggs, who is the Director of Fatherhood Services at “The Man In Me”. His motivation was having a well-adjusted dad, and see what not having one had done to youth, and men. He transitioned from working with youth to working with men. Also, he saw the “system” was not set-up for “families”, (which included fathers). He assists 30-40 men on an average.

He said, “All the men I deals with want to “father” their children. I feel that it is better for the children to have both parents, and even research has proven that there is damage to children due to a lack of fathers.”

He states the biggest hinderance to fathers is: • They are not a consideration • They have to“jump thru hoops” to qualify which is not done with mothers. 

• Laws are not enforced with mothers.

His advice to fathers seeking custody is to: • Be prepared for an“intake”,which is required of fathers, only. • Get information - know what the requirements are before you go to one. 

• Be employed, have a residence, etc. • Have a willingness to fight for their child(ren).

He also said there is a program called “NCP-Choices” which assist fathers with “back child support” however there may be a qualification that the fathers have a “good” relationship with the mother. He also receives referrals from Child Support Services.

I must say that I did note that each person stated some sort of “appeasing of the mother” as a prerequisite to any possibility of getting joint custody, and even a service. This speaks directly to the bias-ness of that system.

In my research I noted several situations, these included the:

Bias-ness of Judicial Systems in Texas, [and in most states]:

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get visitation.

-Fathers have to “appease” the mother in order to get joint custody, even when he is qualified.

There are NO rules, requirements, regulations, or qualifications for mothers

Unfairness of the “System”:

• If a woman births a baby, and is unable to take care of it, she gets free

 “Government assistance/subsidies” in the form of:

• Medical Care • Food Stamps • Finances Aid

• Housing – Section 8 vouchers/certificate • Free, or Subsidized Daycare • Earned Income Credit on tax returns

However, if a father creates a baby, and he is unable to support it he gets:

• Excessive child support payments, and if he is unable to pay then:  

-He loses his driver’s license -He is put in jail. -His income tax is garnisheed.

-He is stigmatized, and alienated from his child.

My question is, “Shouldn’t the one chosen to be the CUSTODIAL PARENT be the ONE who is most capable of, and the most responsible in caring for the child with the LEAST amount of assistance from the government”?

Then there is the case(s) of:

There are REQUIREMENTS which the fathers have to achieve, and which have to be PROVEN in order to have visitation, and/or to be “custodial” parent, when the mothers do not.

If mothers do not allow the fathers to see their child on the appointed days, the courts do not enforce his rights, or penalize her behavior.  The father’s are sent to a different court for that.

Fathers are required to take “fathering classes/counseling” and to pay for them, while this is never required of the mother.

In my reviewing the “Standard Possession Order and Parenting Time” on the TXACCESS. ORG website I found the “visitation schedule” that is given to fathers, (yearly time given to spend with their child(ren)):

The schedule of time assigned to fathers in order to see their children are “every first and third weekend, every fifth weekend, 2 hours on Weds. or Thurs. each week”, every other holiday week, and 30 days in the summer. This amount to, (yearly-2020):

Regular Weekends = 48 days

Fifth Weekends = 8 days

Thursdays - 2 hours = 4.3 days

Alternate Hours

• Sub-Total is: 60.3 days a year

Holidays Weeks - alternate between odd/even years (additional 7 days when it is his year).

Summer Vacation - 30 days • Total of 90.3 to 97.3 days a year! That is not even 1/3 of the year!!!

As I began to look at the negative impact on fathers when the mothers are the “custodial parent” I realized something. As a mother of 4 adult children, and 18 grandchildren I realize that women learn how to be “good mothers” by being with their child(ren) on consistent, daily, hands-on basis. When fathers only have “visitation rights” that is minimal access. They do not get the opportunity to properly develop “fathering abilities”, to learn and grow with their child(ren), and/or to actually experience being a “father”. Also, if they aren’t as good at it as mom, then they are penalized for not being “good” at something they were not allowed to do by the court systems, and the mothers, who didn’t allow it.

Finally, there is another challenge to this...according to the US Department of Human Services/Child Protection Resources Online, mothers were more likely to abuse their children than fathers at a percentage of 70.6% vs 29.4%.

According to Allie Morris, of the San Antonio Express-News, it is reported that in 2018, 211 children had died from child abuse in Texas. It is also noted that in half of those deaths, CPS- Child Protection Services had been investigating the cases. If the statistics are true, (from CPS), then in most of those cases the mothers had custody. I have to wonder how many of those cases were because the children were allowed to remain with the mothers, instead of being given to the fathers.

Also, why are courts, and CPS, ignoring this information instead of making it a consideration when determining who would be in the “best interest of the child”?

As you can see, there is a need for legislation to be put in place not only to “protect” fathers from the bias-ness of what is already in place, but children as well. There needs to be a revision of the Judicial System on the behalf of fathers and their children for the future.

[aleatoryalarmalligator]

What My Thoughts On Morrissey Today

In response to my writing idea someone gave me I picked this.

So basically, Morrissey’s nationalism in recent years has gotten in the way of me being able to appreciate much that he comes out with. This is wild because a few short years ago, I stood up for Morrissey and actually still feel very moved by a portion of his music. It got me through some really rough patches in my twenties.

I realize he’s human and has faults and I don’t know him completely but just eh, living in Portland and having seen the stuff going on I’m kind of not in the place in my life right now where I want to even try to dissect him. It’s not just a fact that he’s wrong, but that it seems altogether very much in rejection of the things that made his music so special. It was difficult for me to come to terms with it or fully make sense of why someone who’s unashamed expression of witty despair in the 80’s and 90’s, someone who was outcasted from the overall closed mindedness lower working class post ww2 world of northern England, unafraid to be gay and completely the antithesis of some Tory ideal could be bought by some tired nationalist agenda. It’s even more difficult to realize where his alegianced lie in a world that is starting to reject democracy, embrace anti intellectualism in the guise of some form of selective politically motivated skeptism, and I see the world move farther and farther into fascism.

Margaret Thatcher attacked The Smiths. Morrissey was taken in for questioning more than once out of fear for what he represented. Morrissey and The Smiths has some subversive element that really did threaten the establishment and cultural norms, in a way that I feel was a little more multidimensional than even a lot of bands in the English punk scene. I guess for me, even though I grew up in the Inland northwest of the US, I felt there was a lot of parallels in common. I too detest a culture based around animal consumption, was really not a part of the world I grew up in and didn’t want to work in the factories, I liked art and music and nobody around me was really into that stuff.

I still like the Smiths and most of Morrisseys old music. I read his autobiography. I know he is a dramatic self involved individual but I did feel that up till somewhat recently his heart was in the right place and he just liked to be controversial, which is somewhat true still, but now I think there was more to it, some nationalistic self preservation instinct kicking in. Its actually more prevelant than I even realized and I honestly think it’s getting the best of anyone with money or power, even those who once stood for something counter culture. It’s hard to think of him as racist in the traditional sense with his adoration for Latin America, but he might just be so self involved that his popularity in those regions gave him a bias. He probably separates the racism from the nationalism, blindly not wanting to see how the two concepts are quite inseparable. Falling right into it.

Him saying “everyone prefers their own race”, is kind of wild to me. I genuinely even try to entertain this as a possibility like a philosophical thought experiment or a deep dive of some kind into my own subconscious part of me I am avoiding somehow, and it’s not true for me or a lot of people. Who the fuck is he to say who prefers who, and how backwards and dehumanizing. It’s pretty repulsive, and being he is bisexual and felt the discrimination of homophobia growing up, I’m inclined to think he’s not able to see that he’s become the enemy he once represented the antithesis of.

The guy I’ve kinda been with is Mexican. I totally love him. I look into people’s eyes and I talk to and open up to people and if I connect with them I connect with them. Not like I’m trying to play the I gotta friend who is this or that as some kind of example of much, or that I don’t see color or some faulty implication, but I have been in situations where I’m the only white person at a party and I prefer them because they are my friends and I love them, and the idea of classifying who I prefer is to imply that the white race should be my main concern as they are the same as me and therefore superior and they aren’t. There is nothing inherently special to me or a kinship felt with other white people for either their appearance or cultural background. It’s nice to compare notes of pop culture but a lot of stuff people go through is universal. I don’t take too much issue with multiculturalism. My white skin is meaningless to me. I can’t imagine being so inept as a person that the color of my skin actually defines my identity rather than my autonomy or ideas or relationships and what I stand for and my ability to appreciate and connect with other people.

What gets me is that in his support of the far right is not even in line with his hatred of police, or the hatred he had a few years ago. I mean, he has always gone on and on about police brutality, he’s been harassed by them on multiple occasions. He shows them on giant projectors at his shows. Police are a very important staple for fascism and nationalism, and he is now on their side after all this time? What changed? The lost young man he once was in 1981 feels very very different from who he has become and piecing together that transformation has been something I’ve been trying to do for awhile. I try to embrace both but they seem like similar but different people at odds with one another, like an uncle and nephew.

Here is what I imagine happened, and I could be wrong about that but I was a Morrissey fangirl for quite awhile. I literally had his signed autograph above my bed with dried flowers around it like a shrine for a few years, and got a grasp of Morrisseys personality in some ways.

To start off, Morrissey is a very poetic and sharp guy but he’s very miopic about his interests and has always had the tendency to see the world in a black and white framework. This in and of itself is not necessarily bad, but it’s the core framework of who he is as a person. When he was young it was very much more a reflection of his hatred for authoritarianism and deceitful people and phony artists. It’s not bad and it contributed to his music and lyrics and became the thing he was loved/hated for. The way he goes about it really has always been the double edged sword of his charm and vileness all in one and something people have mocked time and time again. He likes to be the guy in the corner that looks fine and smug and believes he sees the virtues/dispicable attributes of everyone in the room and there have been times in his life where he was, and though he won’t ever attack anyone face to face he’s quick to speak his mind about it.

Morrissey is also a very vain person. It’s subtle but he is very singular on certain aesthetics. At times it made him brilliant and poetic and a visionary. The Smiths album covers are beautiful. His look is both elegant and absurd in its grasp for purity. It also makes him seem like a twat and a pretentious prince. The fact that he seems to be these two things at once is what gave him that kind of controversial star quality at times.

Those are just two natural traits he has always been obvious with. And he struggled with it and focused on his passions and dealt with depression in the 80’s. Then fame happened and the smiths ended. He kept to himself more or less in the 80’s and 90’s aside from his disdain for Margaret Thatcher, but he kinda lost his mind a bit when his drummer took him to court in the nineties. Right or wrong he fought for two years and lost a good chunk of his money from The Smiths and when that happened he kind of was forced to start again. He lost his home. He developed that early personalized sense of self preservation and victimhood. I think he lost faith in many of his more naive ideals when he was younger. When you read his autobiography and know what happened it’s like he had to step out of his old life and into something else.

Then, he’s always been a vegetarian superiority type. I liked that he calls it as he sees it but because of his need to black and white think everything he came off as deluded and smug. I mean, to be fair you can’t seem to win with people who want to eat meat and I agreed with a portion of his message, but he never questioned himself. He’s not good at that, or doesn’t appear to be. My personal interpretation of him was to agree with part of it and give him the cred for being not afraid to be a dick and say it, but to see also that he was so dramatic and self absorbed about it to also laugh at him and the way he said it.

Now to go into fascism and why it grew on Morrissey. I see the world as kind of falling into polarization and flux because of the failures of neoliberalism. It’s a long political explanation, but essentially the systems that are in place do not provide answers to a lot of catestrophic issues. Democracy, though the best thing we have, is flawed. I really like philosophy and have studied this and the various arguments that are made, and I don’t have the answer either but fuck if I will ever side with nazis.

People are seaking solace in new ideas that are actually quite old, namely socialism and fascism that provide answers that democracy fails to. Capitalism eats itself and created monopolies and unfair wealth distribution, technology is making human labor obsolete and therefore not a stable means to base our economic system on, those with wealth are hoarding it and trying to separate themselves from the world they helped ruin. We are destroying the planet, running out of natural resources, many of our leaders in the last three or for decades have been flawed, there isn’t a universal safety net for things like natural disasters and pandemics and there are still places stripped of their natural resources where human slavery is prevalent and children starve to death. Neoliberalism has promised some great answer but has actually been the contributor to this entire mess.

We are seeing the beginning of the end now, and I am sure Morrissey isn’t going to waste that without putting himself in the victim shoes, the white traditional quintessentially Englishman of wit, who sees his beautiful world he grew up in disappearing in multiculturalism and seeing himself and the culture of old England as a dying breed, that needs to be preserved at any cost. He probably was on the fence about it for some time, weighing out his disdain for authoritarianism, having a bougouis experience with the seemingly left leaning media that he never managed to win over and called him out for his every misstep. I bet he had a friend who opened him up to the idea that we don’t know about who changed his mind. I bet cuts in taxes for the rich helped him preserve his wealth that he definitely feels entitled to after losing the first portion of it in the court case. He’s rich, famous and old and often times that leads to being quite out of touch, even to the best intellectuals. He lost his mother who was dear to him and I can imagine, even though it’s not political, it created a deep sense of emptiness and dis ease. Nationalism often times gives people a sense of security and identity and purpose. And the idea of having an unpopular opinion excited him just as it always has, gave him the opportunity to be the smug poet in the corner of the party, and he sold out. Hard. And he’s probably proud of it.

He’s irrelevant now. Honestly his latest album wasn’t good, and I like later Morrissey. He doesn’t have the same energy. I just feel like he’s grasping at something that he never fully ever had. What’s weird to me is that I’m writing about him like this when honestly, I could also easily write about how beautiful and meaningful the Smiths and Morrissey has been to me. I can’t explain how it cut through the extreme isolation I’ve been in, not to mention how the Smiths really changed music for the better. There’s always going to be a part of me that wants to defend him. I’m not saying we cancel him. I kinda think he canceled himself. I’m not going to try to not enjoy the smiths or morrissey when I hear him, and I will still hear it and enjoy it but I’m not ever going to spend my own money on filling his pockets. I still nostalgically enjoy the person he was a very long time ago and what he used to represent. I realize at the end of the day he’s just a flawed person. But also fuck fascism, and fuck Morrissey for caving into it.

I mean, at the end of the day the hardest part is that I made him a part of my identity and I just had to stop doing that in a simplistic way. I tossed out a morrissey shirt I had (it’s was a cheesy shirt anyway), and I found new genres of music and while I still love the smiths it’s not like I can’t do without them every day. I break down and listen to them sometimes. I know the songs so well. I listen to Xiu Xiu which is a modern day similar equivalent in some ways but is absolutely better and the singer Jamie Stewart is fucking gold.

[roswelldetails]

RNM 2x05 - I'll Stand By You

So just a little note from me, the person behind the season 2 detailing.  I am trying really really hard to keep emotion out of these posts...which is really really hard for me because I'm an inherently emotional person. I'm a glass case of emotion, ready to shatter at any given moment. (#dramatic)  But I want to be true to the intent of this blog and keep my feelings, biases, and, you know, shipping out of this blog.

It was really really hard to do with this episode. Because I straight up ugly cried for like, 45 of the 60 minutes. 😂

So I guess, the point is, I'm proud of myself and sticking to the details here. My regular blog is where I'm doing the emotional flip out thing! 😂

EPISODE SUMMARY:

ACCEPTING REALITY — The discovery of some complications with Max’s (Nathan Dean) pod forces Liz (Jeanine Mason), Michael (Michael Vlamis) and Isobel (Lily Cowles) to confront the possibility that they may not be able to save him. Elsewhere, Maria (Heather Hemmens) and Alex (Tyler Blackburn) make amends. Kimberly McCullough directed the episode written by Alanna Bennett & Jason Gavin (#205). Original airdate 4/13/2020. 

DETAILS:

Max/Isobel/Michael reunite at age 11 according to what Michael tells Alex in 1x10.  So that would make the opening of this episode set in 2002ish.

Michael tells Max and Isobel, "I remember you. I don't know you."

"After nobody adopted me for a year they just stuck me with the name of that trucker who found us."

"I didn't ask you for anything."

This is like the thesis statement of Michael's whole history with Max in the flashbacks.

"Don't pay more than you collect, kid. Passing credit back and forth is a good way to get stuck with somebody forever."

Rosa's art. 

What I can see says: "...what they all told me, but I didn't listen" and "Stand the shelter".

Rosa on her dreams

"I have not had any freaky dreams in weeks. Okay, Max is probably off haunting Isobel now that they're strong enough for their psychic twincest weirdness."

"How long has that been happening?"

"Um, I don't know. It's an old boom box."

"Rosa, have electrical appliances been malfunctioning around you?"

"I really thought it was just a side effect of the handprint."

"If being in the pod introduced a new protein into your system it could have altered your DNA too. You could be developing abilities."

"Liz, look. The handprint is changing.  It's smaller."

"It's fading."

"Tell me this is a good thing."

"I don't think so."

Michael and Liz theorizing on why the pod shorted out:

"The pod's got a charge. It's like a battery powering the preservation process. This one's gone dead."

"Did the generator blow the electromagnetic threshold?"

"I think a surge came from the pod itself. But that pod has lasted almost a century. It shouldn't glitch out."

"Okay, well, then, this one did."

"All right, stop. It doesn't matter why the pod is broken. It just is. So how long does Max have?"

"My theory is that being tethered to Rosa through the mark is what kept Max from going brain-dead, and in turn the stasis process is what kept the mark from fading. So he could be gone by tonight."

"Okay, well, we have three more pods. So let's just put him into another pod."

"No. He's just gonna do it again. I haven't told you everything. I didn't want to scare you. I didn't want to be the one that took the hope away."

"Talk now, Rosa. Right now."

"I was seeing Max in my nightmares months before I told you about it, and he was begging me to stop you. He said that he was in a lot of pain in there."

"That's Noah's pod. Noah told us it was broken. It wasn't keeping him in stasis. He could feel time passing. None of us thought of that."

"We've been doing everything we can to make Max stronger. He pulled his own plug."

Note...as far as we know Isobel was the only one who knew about Noah's pod being broken.  In 1x12 it was before Liz arrived at the house that he told them about the broken pod, so only Max and Isobel heard that part of the story.

Alex on his training. "NSA intelligence cryptology training".

Monitor screen in the secret lab:

Noah's heart is still too weak to transplant. Kyle says it needs at least eight more weeks

"I wrote a paper for a bioethics class on patients in vegetative states who feel pain. Sometimes it's all they feel."

As a non sciencey person, I was wondering if bioethics class was a real thing. Tonight I saw an interview on the news with a UC Berkeley bioethics professor on COVID. So yes, it's a thing.

Alex on Michael that summer post-Rosa's death:

Starting fights with jocks

Broke into the drugstore

Not going to UNM

Hasn't hung out with Max all summer

Got busted for stealing hubcaps (Kyle's hubcaps, we learn later) 

Became a walking bar fight

Was in jail when Alex left to enlist

Michael on Max in 2008:

"It's more than that. And it's less than that. We were friends when we were kids, but now Max reminds me of a bunch of stuff that I'd rather forget. The only thing that we have in common anymore is Isobel."

Max's yearbook had a pencil stuck in the page with Liz and Max's photo in it. (The one we first saw in 1x03).

"Biology Club. Max hated science. He was in that club for four years just to watch your sister chew on the end of her pencil."

Max's mindscape:

First just desert, clouds, and then lightning strikes (destructive energy?)

Liz's antennae -- they disappear from Isobel's hands

Rosa describes it as broken

Crashdown special is Max's favorite "Little Green Man milkshake".

The Crashdown counter is kind of merged with biology lab equipment. 

The juke box is there

The Crashdown booths

Jeep

Neon Crashdown sign

One of those claw drop game machines (from the Crashdown) but it's filled with baked good displays.

The yearbook

Later, everything else is gone except the one Crashdown booth, the Jeep, and the neon sign.

The distorted music they follow to find Max is the Cactus Groove song in the music list...just, messed around with. See @angsty-nerd's post here:

"I'm the hothead. You are the hero. It's always been that way."

"You stole the hubcaps off Kyle Valenti's graduation present. Both his parents are cops. Do you want to end up in jail tonight?". 

👀 Tonight, specifically. 

Michael seemed excited about the job at Foster's Ranch until he found out that Max set it up for him.  Max found out about it from his dad (only like the 2nd or 3rd mention of his dad in the series so far).

"When I got back in town I asked Max why you and your brilliant mind hadn't changed the world yet. He said you didn't care about the world enough to bother changing it. He believed you could."

Max and Isobel in the mindscape:

"You're okay. I could feel something was wrong with you.  Everything felt…"

"Cold. I know."

"You can't be here. It's finally ending.  I can feel it. But I don't know what happens if you're in my head when I die."

"So it's true? You want this?"

"I could feel my connection to the outside world getting stronger, so I snapped. I couldn't take it anymore. I released a surge. You have to let me go, Iz."

"I can't take it anymore."

"Okay."

"I am so sorry."

"I just want to memorize this."

"Okay. Okay.  I need you to tell Liz something."

"You can tell her yourself.  She and Kyle are prepping for surgery.  They're going to use the faulty heart. She just wants to talk to you before you die."

"No. No."

"You won't be suffering. They're just gonna bring you back and then let you go."

"No you have to stop this.  You cannot bring me back under any circumstances."

"Max? What is really going on?"

"I am dangerous.  Whatever Liz is bringing back is not me. It's just some broken shell."

Maria on her mom's computer 

"Her nurse said that for the two weeks before she went missing, when she wasn't trying to escape, she was talking to someone online."

The 21st birthday flashback

Isobel gets Michael to help move Max after getting drunk on tequila.  He passed out in front of the tattoo parlor. It's the same tattoo parlor Michael goes to at the end of the episode.

Max's weird drunken statement.

"The thing is, there has to be there. Okay? There's always three. Until the very end.  I'll show you...What it means is you should be here…'cause it's all broken without three. So we'll figure it out.  You'll find your way back."

👀 Until the very end. Interesting.

On Max becoming a deputy:

"You know he did the whole police academy thing because of you, right? He thinks you're gonna get into the kind of trouble you can't get out of if you don't know someone."

Back in the mindscape:

"I figured it all out. She, there's an energy to suffering, there's an energy to death, and when I heal people, I absorb that energy. So when I resurrected Rosa, I took in ten years of emptiness. So if you resurrect me, you will be bringing back an infection. Don't want… I don't want to come back as a monster. I don't want to hurt anyone that I care about."

"That's what this is about? We've been hurting, Max. We don't work without you."

"You will! You will. You are stronger now than when I died. All of you are. You, Michael, Liz, you will survive this. The three of you. No, you need to stop them, Iz. Now."

"Okay. I love you."

"You too." Isobel disappears.

Max is using pretty similar wording to his drunken rambles in the 21st birthday flashback

We don't see that Max is chained down until this next exchange with Rosa. Isobel didn't see that detail as far as we know.  Didn't hear the chains clanking when they stood and hugged. Only after Isobel left.

"I'm sorry this is happening."

"Isobel is lying. She is buying time.  You know she'll never let me go. But you can feel the darkness too, right? That's why you don't like being in my head. Because you know it's real."

"I didn't want that to be true, but yes."

"I know my sister and I know your sister and they'll never give up. So you have to be the one to stop this surgery, okay? Or I will destroy everything that we love. You have to stop them to save them. Now go.  Please, Rosa. Go."

Isobel explaining to Liz

"When he saved Rosa he absorbed all of that dark energy. He's gonna have to expel it."

"And he's afraid he's gonna kill someone when he does."

"Yeah. So we just need someone stronger than Max to take that hit...if he thinks he needs to protect us he obviously doesn't know how capable we are. Bring him back, Liz. I'll handle the rest."

"I get it now. It's gotta be the three of us."

"He would never pull his plug to end his own suffering. Unless he thought he was saving us from something. And I'm a little sick of his heroic martyr crap."

In case you missed it, Michael did not know that.  At the beginning of the hospital sequence Isobel is telling Liz what she learned in Max's mindscape and says that she hasn't been able to get ahold of Michael.  Michael figured it out on his own. He finally "got it".

The pacemaker:

Isobel with Max at the end… everything is gone except the Jeep. And Bright Eyes playing (the song he and Liz danced to on their first date back in 2008). And then his eyes close and Bright Eyes fades away.

“First thing I remember is the three of us. We woke up terrified and lost. But together. And then all of the sudden I was alone. I got real good at being alone. I had given up on people entirely. And then you found me again. Hell of hero move. You showed up just in time. When you are a kid who nobody loves, kindness is a currency. Friendship doesn’t means jack. Family just lies, and hurts, and leaves. I’ve only ever known love to be temporary. So yeah, I push people away. Every time someone threatens to care about me I test their love until they have to leave. Connection is conditional. Everybody eventually gives up on the guy who refuses to be rescued. But you were the only one who I couldn’t run off. You never believed me when I tried to be something I wasn’t. So this thing in your chest, it might give your heart a pretty solid kick every once in a while. Consider it payback. It’s my hero move, Max. If you wake up, you consider us even, okay? If you wake up, we can be a family.”

Good visual parallels during Michael's speech. Alex and Kyle drinking together during the "and then you found me again". Maria walking up on "the guy who refuses to be rescued"

Max is in the coma for three weeks.  Wakes up at the secret lab (instead of his house, which is where he was previously.  I'm guessing it was a planned wake up because he's no longer plugged into all of the IVs and whatnot.

"I begged you to understand."

"Max, it's gonna be fine."

"No… I told you to let me go. I can feel it inside me."

"It's...it's symmetry, okay? It's just energy for energy.  We can deal with that. Fight it, Max. This isn't you."

"I don't want to hurt you. I need to get out. I need to get away from you, from everyone."

"I can't let you do that."

Max shoves Isobel and runs. When he shoves her there's a slight ringing like the sound they use when the aliens use their powers.  Isobel follows and stops him with her powers.

"I made a promise that if you came back and you weren't Max, and you were actually going to hurt people that I would kill you. I figure, hey, you got to play God. Make life and death decisions all on your own. Well it's my turn now."

MUSIC:

1. Letters To Cleo "Here and Now"

2. Lady Antebellum "Love Don't Live Here"

3. Cactus Groove "Fallin"

4. James Talley "Big Thunder"

8. Ross Copperman "Stars Are On Your Side"

5. Lindsey Ray "Keep You Safe"

6. Tommee Profitt feat. Sam Tinnesz "With you Til The End"

7. Bright Eyes "First Day Of My Life"

The Cactus Groove song is the first song this season that I haven’t been able to find on Spotify… let me know if any of y’all had any luck with it!

[turnleftaticela]

pronouns are really interesting to me bc it’s not like they have to exist. we invented them. it’s not like they’re a scientific indicator of some biological factor. so you gotta think, well why do they exist, then? what is the purpose we created them for?

obviously the simple answer is to refer to something without having to use its name. but why are there so many different pronouns, then? why are all unnamed objects not referred to with the same catch-all pronoun? well clearly the point is to describe the subject implicitly, in a way that differentiates it from other potential subjects, to avoid confusion. pretty common sense, right?

but what gets me is, why is that differentiative category gender? of all ways to identify someone in 4 letters or less, why is gender the most defining?

clearly it’s not just about whether you have a dick or a vagina. if you say “she went to work,” you’re not trying to convey “a breast-haver went to work.” you’re conveying the implications of breast possession — the assumptions we make about a person based on what parts we assume they have.

so already we can see gender is something more than just sex. gender is a core part of a person’s identity, if not the entirety of it. gender is, according to centuries of gendered-pronoun usage, THE defining trait of a human being. so is it any wonder people feel deep discomfort when a word meant to connotate their identity gets their identity completely wrong? is it any wonder people feel restricted when told the core of their existence must be immediately understandable as one of two categories, and nothing more?

“but there are only two sexes” so what? even if that were true, so what? pronouns don’t describe sex. pronouns describe gender. and WE invented pronouns — and in doing so, we more or less invented gender. or at least put a tangible label to a subjective perception we happened to agree upon. but collective perception doesn’t make something inherently true. to all of us, it sure looks like the sun orbits the earth. and that’s what we all believed for ages. hell, we still say it rises and sets. but now we know that’s not the truth of the matter, and over time we’ve gradually altered our collective perception to fit the facts: any person on the planet could quite easily call to mind an image of the solar system, earth running cyclical laps concentric to half a dozen other little dots in the sky, sun at the center of it all.

so why can’t we do this with gender? why can’t we realize that human identity has a much broader scope than one of two categories, and alter our perception to match? why can’t we recognize that biological sex as an indicator of identity is inaccurate, just like an earth-centric space model is?

so we got it wrong. so what? we do that all the time. it’s not anti-science to gain new information and use it to rewrite our laws of how the world works. in fact, that’s the very definition of what science is.

TL;DR gender is identity. the purpose of gendered pronouns is to differentiate the subject based on this identity. our current pronouns are faulty because they imply there are two definite human identities and nothing more. we must broaden our collective perception to recognize all identities, or maybe even that there’s no such thing as definite identity, and alter our language to match.

[derekscorner]

When relevancy goes too far

Relevancy is a bit of a complex topic the more you think about it. How far do you push it? Which parts of a story are needed to know the other? How should something define the follow up? These questions have widely different answers depending on the person and especially depending on format.

Hell, if you wish to nit pick it further, even the series in question is a factor. Some series’ thrive on whats done while others drown in their own scripts. I believe Kingdom Hearts is one of the latter.

That said, I am not someone who hates KH’s expanded stories simply for existing. The “side games” in of themselves aren’t bad nor is the idea of using such things to expand a world. The same could be said for game novels or comics in my opinon.

However, these things can be a slippery slope or a lazy exist. For example, Assassin’s Creed threw out it’s whole Juno arc into a comic just to get it out of the way which completely shattered my investment.

In turn, Nomura himself isn’t at fault for as much as we bash him for. Something he’s admitted himself as seen here;

So, the new Days is one of the three titles announced in the Autumn of 2007 as new projects in the KH series.

Nomura: Those three titles were all announced at the same time, but in reality the opportunities for the projects were raised in a disjointed way. Birth by Sleep is a project that was raised within our company, but Days is from Nintendo, and coded is from Disney, so we started by talking to each of them.

-source <--Link btw

And anyone that’s read interviews out of curiosity will know that there’s also factors like how ‘Birth By Sleep’ was shifted from PS2 to PSP or that ‘Chain of Memories’ wasn’t a planned title either. (seen here)

So if these things aren’t inherently bad or planned that begs the question of why it’s a problem here? At least in my opinion of the series.

The answer is simple and it lies solely on Nomura’s shoulders for it as a fault, relevancy. The man goes out of his way to make each and every game, concert, or otherwise is attached to the series in some meaningful way going forward.

Naturally, any expanded media is tied to the main narrative in some way. I know this, I am not that foolish. The problem is that Nomura makes them plot relevant going forward.

These titles can’t be true “side games” because they dictate the story going forward in some way. It’s for this reason the more radical fans hate to hear the terminology “side game” to begin with.

This problem was especially bad for years because of how spread out the series became among other gaming systems. And while some like to say it’s fine now due to the collection discs I dont think this will last long given the “phase 2″ images released for KH’s near future.

Hell, I’d even argue this problem isn’t even fixed in truth because the current KH story involving Foretellers, Luxu, and so on is all things spun from a mobile game. Yes, you have to sit through scenes on YT or play a mobile game to fully grasp that cat creature (Chirithy) you saw in KH3.

Naturally, it’s much easier to watch the scenes on YT these days but that also feeds into the loop of not paying for the game itself. I personally see no issue with it but companies are much worse in recent years for shutting down Youtube channels over loose definition of “piracy”.

No game series is worth several consoles. Of course, I’m just speaking from experience, with KH now on the Xbox this may be a moot point in a few years.

I am rambling, off track, lets focus. “Why is this an issue?” is what you’ve read this far for me to explain. The biggest issue with this poor decision making is how it harms the main narrative you’re telling.

For comparison, look at Sora in KH3. He’s often confused by people he doesn’t remember meeting or events he doesn’t remember nor took part in. This is roughly close to what it would be like for someone that’s only played KH1, 2, and 3.

Sora has that same level of insight including what he was told about others like Roxas or Aqua but other characters in-game. This feeds into KH’s misconceived air of complexity.

Kingdom Hearts, as a story, isn’t that complex. It has deeper themes it throws to the wayside but it is easy to follow if you play most games in some form. This ties back into how the series was handled up until the PS4/KH3.

Ever want to know who Roxas was in KH2? Well you had to play Days or you can sit through that horribly boring 3 hour movie on the Remix disc. Even then, the Roxas you see in Days wont be like the one in KH2.

Wish to know who Xehanort was? Play Birth by Sleep! All three campaigns with little variance. Then once you’re done get ready to sit on YT or download a phone app and play Kingdom Hearts Dark Road.

The Foretellers, Luxu, or the Master of Masters? That’s another set of hours, if not days, with the KH Union X Cross, KH Dark Road, and should you choose you can even watch the Back Cover movie which answers nothing at all but shows you the Foretellers in Kh3 graphical glory.

You wish to know how Namine knew who The Lingering Will was? Well dig up a fan translation of a script the Japanese voice cast read for a music concert event. (yes that happened)

You can see where this is going I assume and this is just scratching the surface by the way. You wish to know the finer details like Keyblade types, the inconsistent time traveling, “recompletion”, and so on then be prepared to read word of god interviews, in-game dictionaries/journals and always be ready for a few to change.

Whether it’s a true retcon or just an ambiguous statement, the series is ongoing, Nomura heads the ship, and he is by no means obligated to stick to previous statements if he can make a new one to alter those events.

Then again, holding too much weight in words said outside the game itself is a faulty way of doing things that most fans (like me) have fallen victim too at least once.

At the same time, all of these things are relevant by Nomura’s decision. Sure, the remixes have fixed this to a degree but it’s anyone’s guess for how long. Better yet, at what cost did the remixes fix anything?

The best example of what I mean is Coded. It was originally a game for phones. At the time, only Japan had a phone capable of playing it. Feeling that a shame the game later found it’s way to the DS for all fans to play.

At this point in time Coded was the only true example of a “side story”. It was by no means necessary. The whole datascape plot was more convoluted than it needed to be despite data!Sora being far better than the original at this point, and easy to miss.

But...well that was good. The DS version of Coded was fun as hell to play. The only version of the “command deck system” I’d consider worth any semblance of praise. It did it’s job of getting some level of fans invested such as my friend @blackosprey​ and it’s story was missable.

You did not need to play Coded to understand Dream Drop Distance or further. This was perfect. This is what games like Days, KH Chi/UX, 0.2, and DDD should’ve been.

Games that reached out to grab new people, games that played around, and games that expanded on the main narrative without dictating it’s direction. A side game is something that exists alongside or outside your main story.

However this isn’t what we got. 0.2 A Fragmentary Passage was a short sequel to BBS but also a pretty tech demo for KH3. Dream Drop Distance was there to show the real Sora that people needed help and to show us that Xehanort was back.

KH Chi was a browser game meant to show the Keyblade War and how it shaped Sora’s era. Now it’s an ongoing curse on the series with time traveling plot that affected KH3 directly.

Coded was made into a movie you needed to sit through thanks to one small newly added scene. Days lost many small interactions it’s fans loved in the transition to a movie that is hard to sit through.

I’ve also heard KHDDD and 0.2 were “shaved off” KH3 in a sense to be their own titles...this...this makes so little sense.

Nomura calls KH “Sora’s story” but this is a lie. If it truly was Sora’s story then your main narrative would be BBS, KH1, CoM, 2, and the original combined form of KH3. That’s the titles he’s relevant, those are the titles he stops Xehanort’s plans.

These other titles could’ve been so fun but none of them were truly allowed to breath and be themselves. They were weakened and limited by Nomura deciding to prop the ongoing story upon them like they’re stilts.

Then as a result you can’t close out KH3 without resolving all of these other events and characters which drags it’s own story down. KH3 feels all over the place because it is. It’s trying to tie as many knots as it can from threads created in titles that were way more relevant then they needed to be.

Kh3 can be seen as a clean break for many but I see it as a matter of time. KHUX and now KHDR are still there casting a shadow, dictating what comes next. Melody of Memory is one of several games planned for an unknown but hopefully more thought out direction.

I worry I haven’t explained what I meant well enough but moral of my story is that making things too relevant hurts not only your main story but these new stories you wish to explore.

You can’t have a story and it’s cast breath if you’re tying a knot of mythos too tightly around their necks and this is a tragedy to me. KH began life with such potential but it constantly holds itself back because so few entries into it’s story are truly just an entry.

And I am not saying games can’t follow up one another nor that they shouldn’t. What’s needed is a clear idea and some breathing room. A good example would be to save people in Days with the game DDD. DDD could’ve wiped away some clutter to focus on the final Xehanort battle in a sense.

Nomura has a huge problem with wanting connectivity without letting games be connected by the name alone. It’s like he wants to do the opposite of what Final Fantasy has done but to detrimental results.

This harms so much but worst of them it hurts development. Because Days was made so important, we had a movie made. Because Coded was elevated, a movie was made. Because the keyblade war was so popular, Union Cross was made.

The Remixes would’ve been better to consolidate lore not waste time trying to appease every whim. KH’s relevancy is a huge problem and I doubt it’ll stop any time soon.

[introvert-celeste]

With regards to Amethysts core programming, she’s always followed or copied others when she feel insecure. Before the series we know she followed Vidalia and likely Rose, in Reformed she remade herself in Pearls image, partly out of anger and partly out of a desire to be what Garnet wanted. Part of what was so impossible for her with her and Jaspers arc was that she wanted to project Jaspers physical powers onto herself, which was something she was physically unable to do.

I wonder if Jasper’s the best look at a Quartz’s core programming, given that it’s something that seems to bubble up more when a gem’s under pressure and that’s basically the only times we’ve seen her. I’d say that looking at her and Amethyst (who despite her faulty programming does seem to have a very Quartz personality) Quartz tend to be naturally loyal, hot blooded and pretty much always ready to fight, they have a very straight forward way of thinking and aren’t great with emotions.

I’m assuming these came from the same person, but I’d say that’s pretty accurate! I would, however, like to offer a couple counter points.

For Amethyst, I get the sense that she’s slightly more special (and not in a defective way) than we know. It’s subtly implied in the show, but Bismuth’s comment that “not every Quartz can make a whip like this” and the focus put on Holly’s whip in That Will Be All makes me think that Amethyst was meant to have some sort of leadership position among the Amethysts. It’s a headcanon/theory I’ve had for a very long time. Now, Bismuth could have just said that to make Amethyst feel special, but Bismuth isn’t really the type of gem to ingratiate herself. She always calls it like she sees it. And the scene with Holly could have been meant nothing beyond being mildly intimidating, but the foreshadowing in this show is insane so you never know. Whether she’s meant to be something simple, like a column leader, or something more complex, like an Agate that was accidentally made with the Amethysts, I hope this is something that’s addressed.

And for Jasper, I get the sense that Jasper isn’t normal, either. Rather than being regarded as defective, however, she’s referred to as “the ultimate Quartz.”  She appears to be bigger and stronger than most other Quartzes, judging by the silhouette of her exit hole compared to the ones around it, or the ones in Prime. Of the Quartz soldiers we’ve seen, she’s definitely the least outwardly sociable. The Famethyst played a mean prank on Steven and Greg, but Jasper is way more aggressive. All around, she’s more extreme than other Quartzes, and whether that’s an inherent trait or a product of the the situations she came from remains to be seen. It’s also worth mentioning it’s been confirmed that Jasper is also insecure:

“Jasper is a bully in the truest sense. Deep down, she's afraid there's something wrong with her, so she has to feed her ego. She has to put other Gems down to stay on top. Who she is and where she's from gnaws at her all the time. She has a fantastic reputation, she's considered the greatest Quartz soldier produced on Earth, and that might impress other Gems, but it will never be good enough for her. She will always feel held back, and she'll always feel the need to go further to get ahead.

The Gems live in a society with a very rigid social order and caste system, and Jasper has completely bought into that, and her self-worth is attached to it. Because she loves honor, fighting, making her mark, and winning the battle, she'll actually go against her programming a little bit just to be the winner. So she can be self-destructive at times. She is tragically obsessed with proving her superiority.” (From the Art and Origins book)

So, the way I see it, Jasper and Amethyst have a lot of differences, but they also have a lot in common, as well as a lot of potential commonality. They both have big insecurities and they have their own ways of dealing with that: Amethyst tries to blend in by mimicking the people around her and Jasper isolates herself by being the best. These insecurities spring from the feeling that they’re not good enough, and they’re centered on being defective. And while Jasper is certainly a very powerful Quartz, I really do believe that there’s something special about Amethyst, as well. It would be interesting to see Amethyst brought closer to Jasper’s level, or rather see Jasper brought down a couple rungs. I want to see Amethyst take charge more often and hone her abilities, and I want to see Jasper increasingly struggle in her isolation.

[faelapis]

white diamond’s morality

i think one of the reasons i like SU so much is, i feel its approach to morality is more structural than individual.

cartoons tend to be a bit... “great man history” about its conflict resolution. that is to say, entire systems hinge on their leaders, and the masses are easily led in a new direction if the old leader is dispatched. this is seen as unproblematic, and no one clings to everything they were taught under the old system. unless, of course, they’re one of the “bad seeds” (note again the individualism) and must also be dispatched, rather than understood as part of a context.

su definitely has a bit of that, namely the gems who were inspired by rose and chose to fight with her, but it’s more deconstructive about it. they all have personal reasons for joining, rather than the rejection of their old lives being the “default”. they still cling to fears of failing to be what they’re supposed to (especially pearl), and their leader doesn’t have a solution to the gem hierarchy. 

rose is against it, but she doesn’t know how to dismantle it. she carries seeds of disrespect towards those she protects. she may not even think they can truly break free, judging by her dialogue. she plays the perfect leader, because she’s become depressed enough to think that’s what they want her to be. it’s certainly what she was encouraged to think.

moreover, many on the cg side, including rose, thought that “shattering“ pink would be the end of it. that the dear leader was necessary to keep the system alive. but that thought is subverted - not just by the other diamonds, whose ties to pink are close, but by her followers. the ones whose role became their solace, rather than the thing they wanted to escape from. they don’t all become crystal gems, because that’s not what makes sense to them. what makes sense is to... keep going, as before. that’s what made sense to jasper, eyeball, nephrite.

and yes, they all suffer for it, but the worldbuilding of the show is strong enough that there’s inherent understanding that their responses make sense within their world, and that expecting them to celebrate and change sides overnight is... kind of unfair. it was certainly immature of rose, if she ever had that hope.

which brings me to white diamond.

i love the setup of the current arc. the question is never “can white be redeemed or will we just have to kill her”, because there are actual reasons they’re talking to her in the first place that aren’t merely ideological. like, ok, you defeat white, then what? the corrupted gems are still corrupted. her gems will hate you, maybe even seek revenge. i hope your individual moral purity was worth it, because that’s all you get for refusing to talk to her. by treating her as an individual evil, you’re inherently choosing to ignore structural problems at hand.

so the real questions are as following: 1. what would steven need to do to convince white to help him? 2. why does white perpetuate the system, and what does she think would happen without it?

i’m not the oracle who can tell you the former, but the latter is worth discussing. most of the reaction i’ve seen to the idea of white having genuine character motivation is very... well, as the saying goes, “cool motive, still murder”.

but people basically say that about every character before they know that motivation. they said it about jasper. they said it about blue and yellow (some still do, but others substitute that for blaming everything on white). it’s a very easy thing to say, when you assume all it could be is just “maybe they’re sad and lonely :(“... but that’s not what i imagine for white.

to be clear - i do think she’s lonely. isolating yourself in your head (figuratively and literally) for thousands of years will do that to you... and playing puppet with her pearl is kind of a brilliant commentary on what it’s like to be avoidant - you’re there, you can see and hear others, but you’re shielding yourself in such a way that they can’t really reach you. you’re not present enough to open yourself up, or ever tell anyone how you feel. “white never leaves her own head anymore”.

but this isn’t a motivation in and of itself. avoidance is tied to anxiety, so what is white so scared of happening if she lets go of her control?

honestly, i think what she fears is nothing less than the end of gemkind.

becoming a childless god.

the crystal gems are basically ok with that. they have to be, because gem production requires feeding off of planets, and fertile ones tend to be populated - hence the injectors look like irl viruses. they’re a parasitic species. they reproduce by killing their host.

moreover, gem production is highly specialized. you need kindergarteners, and then you need lapis lazulis to terraform in preparation of the injectors, then of course you need armies to conquer the next planet, and then Of Course you need agates to keep those gems in line, and then Naturally you need a court system with zircons to make sure everyone does their jobs, and Obviously guards to keep the peace, and managers, and pilots, and domestic servants, and if everyone doesn’t do these things then nothing will ever get done! there will be chaos and we’ll be defeated and we’ll all die next time we try to reproduce. what’s that, the youngest diamond thinks we should prioritize humankind over our own species? don’t be absurd!

that’s the rabbit hole of anxiety white has fallen down. and those anxieties aren’t merely hers, but everyone who follows the system - and gems seemingly burst out of the ground “already knowing what they’re supposed to be”, which is very much in line with that system. 

we tend to prescribe individuality to the diamonds, that they do things merely because they want to, but i think white is as much part of her court as her court depends on her. she doesn’t just think she’s the leader, she thinks she has to be in order to serve her society. she’s another gear in the clockwork, just like everyone else. why shouldn’t she stay in her room as a perfect queen, shining down on her court without desires of her own? why should she open up about what she wants? such irrational thoughts...

i think how pink creates life (the pebbles, lion, steven’s watermelons) terrifies white, because it’s use of resources without that structure. putting your own desires above your duty, allowing atomic chaos controlled only by each individual, knowing that those individuals could be destroyed and nothing new could be made without a diamond’s essence... feels selfish to her. like. ok, you want individuality and choice, cool, i’m kinda trying to keep everything in its place so we can live on as a species. but go off i guess.

and this is the part where i say what’s obvious but still needs to be said - white’s perspective is flawed. pink may be reckless, selfish, and naive, but white’s system is so deeply collectivist that she fails to see the clockwork as made up of individuals. why shouldn’t she harvest and replace a faulty part, if someone in the beehive isn’t doing their job perfectly? we’re all just machine parts, and we’re all replaceable. naturally. for the greater good. 

it’s fitting that what made her smile in the first place was a synchronized dance of literal machine parts. the end of that order terrifies her.

this is why her design (and homeworld’s) is so heavily inspired by the movie “metropolis” - which was in and of itself a critique of the dehumanization of workers under industrialism. white is the end point of that. that’s also where we got the quote for the configuration of the diamond ship - “the mediator between the head (white) and the hands (blue & yellow) must be the heart (steven)”. 

but it’s not just her. peridot and jasper both think this is perfectly rational, and write the crystal gems off as emotional and selfish (at first). and.. everything taken into account, it’s clear that neither the crystal gems as a collective or rose as an individual have been able to fully cast these ideas aside. rose’s answer wasn’t for gems - it was to put her faith in humanity, who “can choose”. who can reinvent themselves. and she thought right up until her last years that gems are somewhat tied to their purpose. that’s why she wanted to be human, after all.

and that’s why steven makes such a great bridge between these worlds. he’s blunt about how wrong it is, what rose and the crystal gems thought - that gems couldn’t change. of course they can, look at how far garnet, amethyst, and pearl have come! look at how they’ve blossomed, look at how they’ve worked to become their best selves! look at what gems and humans have in common! 

and what’s sometimes a flaw of his - inserting himself into other people’s lives and believing he understands what’s best for them, even before he knows them as individuals, to the point that it occasionally drives people (like lapis and lars) away... who does he have that in common with, if not the diamonds? if not the “impeccable judgement” of white herself?

i think that’s why, ultimately... flawed, biased and shortsighted as he can be (just like his mother), steven can get through to white. maybe not now, but someday. because he understands how these things fit together, how the problems of individuals have structural causes. most importantly, he knows that it’s going to take more than just him to fix things - and maybe he can help white realize that, too. there’s a secret fusion or love affair everywhere you look on homeworld, and so she could never really control a clockwork order... but that’s ok, because she can let go. everything in the world isn’t up to her.

[buzzdixonwriter]

The Love Of Money As The Root Of All Evil

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.” -- Dwight David Eisenhower

People love their money.

They love their bargains.

They’ll rush to Wal-Mart to buy a plastic bowl for $1 rather than one at a local mom & pop shop for $1.50.

Of course, very little of that $1 they spent at Wal-Mart stays in their community -- a few pennies in the form of low wages, but then we have to add our tax money going for SNAP cards because Wal-Mart’s employees often don’t make enough to live on.

Not like the mom & pop shop, where the 50-cents extra they charged pretty much stayed in the community:  They paid for their house, they bought their kids clothes, put food on their table…

Mom & pop?  Working for Wal-Mart now.

Living in a cramped apartment, not that nice house they dreamed of retiring in.

The stores and businesses that depended on them spending their income in town?

Most of them have gone under, absorbed by Wal-Mart and other big box multi-national conglomerations.

As much as the moral scolds like to tell us Rome fell because they were decadent, the truth is Rome at its gladiatorial / orgy worse was Rome at the peak of its power and influence.

It fell after it split apart.

And it split apart because the Western half didn’t want to pay for the upkeep of the Eastern half, i.e., the business end of the empire.

The Eastern half needed roads and infrastructure and sound political government and armies (oh, lordie, how they needed armies) and the fat cat landed gentry in the Western -- protected by thousands of miles of terrain and sea from those who would do them harm -- refused to pay their fair share.

So Diocletian split the empire in twain, letting the greedy bastards to the west fend for themselves while he established a new empire that would eventually become known as Byzantium to the east.

The Western empire, what we think of when we refer to the Roman Empire, fell a little less than two centuries after that, overrun by Germanic tribes (we call them “barbarians” but the kneeslapper is they were Christians.

Byzantium stayed a going concern for about a millennia after that, but eventually it fell for the same reason:  The people taking the most out of the society refused to pay anything into it, and a younger / tougher empire (the Ottomans) came a’knockin’.

Without Pax Romana the Mediterranean world became a far more violent / perilous place.  Europe split up into a plethora of kingdoms / principalities / duchies constantly jostling with one another to take more money.

Oh, sometimes there were inventions and technological breakthroughs that added coins to the coffers, but mostly it was finding a neighbor who had something you wanted, figuring out their weakness, and taking it from them.

The Enlightenment strove for a better world, but it took money to be a philosopher in those days and since that wealth typically came from peasants / serfs / slaves doing all the grunt work while the philosophers sat around thinking noble thoughts, it didn’t take long for racism -- the belief that there are different races and some are inherently superior to others (and those deemed inferior were good for nothing but common labor in order to keep the philosophers philosophizing).

Mind you, there had been prejudice and bigotry and chauvinism before, but while Hebrews and Philistines may have hated one another, they at least recognized their common humanity.

They didn’t decree the other to be doomed to perpetual servitude due to their so-called race.

The Enlightenment and Christianity did much to poison the well in Europe and later in America, but they did have some positive points.

Both, despite the cruelties their practitioners ladled out on others, held high ideals of universal rights.

Those ideals would live on, and foster generations of thinkers and ethicists and moralists to come.

But the cruel side had its fans, too.

The colonies that would eventually become the various nations of the American continents (and let’s not forget Australia and New Zealand while we’re at it) all responded with varying degrees of success to those ideals.

They also offered plenty of opportunities for those who loved wealth above all else to flourish, inevitably at the expense of huge segments of their respective populations.

As faulty and as flawed as the American Revolution was, it ended up sowing the seeds for similar movements in other countries.

In France they took root just as the clock ran out for the aristocracy.

Just as in Rome and Byzantium, the French rulers realized they were heading towards disaster.  For a century and a half before the French Revolution, the various Louis would establish a royal commission made up of the best and the brightest in the kingdom, and had them examine the problem and offer a solution.

The solution was always the same:  The ones with the wealth needed to take less and put some of what they had back.

Nobody wanted to hear that (well, nobody with money) and that’s why the guillotines were dropping day and night.

Various trade and crafts guilds had sprung up at that time; al were hammered down.

Socialist movements and parties were started; they were hammered down.

Trade unions were formed; they were hammered down.

But the thing was each movement that got hammered down created a more brilliant and far tougher phoenix to replace it.

By the late 19th / early 20th century communism looked mighty good to a lot of people.

Again, the intransigence of the greedy (call them financiers or industrialists or robber barons or whatever) pushed the world into war yet again, this time bankrupting Germany, Austria, and Hungary (as well as finishing off the Ottomans, last seen sacking Constantinople).  

Around the world people clamored for more input, more control in their daily lives.

Czarist Russia -- brutal, heavy handed, autocratic czarist Russia -- fell to the Bolsheviks (who proved to be no less brutal, heavy handed, and autocratic than the czars).

Germany threatened to go down the same path and the industrialists and financiers -- who sure as hell weren’t missing any meals -- backed a crazy little ex-corporal who promised to keep the labor unions and the socialists and the communists under control.

We know how well that worked out.

In the United States, the wealth made their money directly or indirectly off the back of slave and immigrant labor, and when much to their great dismay the legal form of slavery disappeared, they found new methods of enforcing the old ways, which we now refer to as jim crow.

Poor whites weren’t much better off than their African-American neighbors, but as Lyndon Johnson observed:   ”If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

The United States was not that much better than German when it came to race hatred.

Indeed, the Nazis -- even while condemning US segregation for propaganda purposes -- studied jim crow carefully and applied its lesson to non-Germans in their territories.

The wealthy 1% nearly destroyed the United States with the Great Depression, but the gratitude they showed to Roosevelt for saving capitalism was to undercut and fight him every step of the way.

Because, hey, if it wasn’t making money right now for them!!! then it had to be evil, right?

Right?

And just as the plantation owners in the antebellum South used propaganda to argue slavery was actually a good thing for those enslaved (because both the Bible and Darwin -- at least according to their readings -- said so), so did their spiritual / philosophical / and too damn often direct biological heirs with their anti-communist rants via the John Birch Society and other front groups.

Fred Koch, founder of the Koch family fortune, also founded the John Birch Society.

And let the record show that when the Koch family businesses operate within the law, they do nothing illegal.  They anticipate the ebb and flow of supply and demand and invest accordingly.  Nothing wrong with that -- but there’s a lot wrong with what they use the money for.

For generations Americans have been told that socialism is bad, that Marxism is a failure.

And the truth is socialism works when it’s used wisely, to put the brakes on the worst excesses of capitalism.

And Marx gets a bad rap for what he didn’t do; i.e., the spurious claim that he created the blueprints for world domination.

Marx was a brilliant diagnostician but woefully lacking as a hands on practitioner.

The thing is…Marx knew this and recognized it.

Das Kapital analyzed the problem of capitalism in the 19th century.

Marx never intended it to be the final word on the matter.

He wanted those who came after him to be constantly examining and critiquing the way politics and finance work, so that both systems could be constantly tweaked and modified.

His posthumous work, Grundrisse (short for “Fundamentals of Political Economy Criticism”) were not intended for publication but rather Marx’ own personal resource / reference notebooks for his other work.

He was never satisfied with it and put it aside, possibly because he felt the topic was too great for just one writer to expound on.

Of course, once he was dead nobody cared, and it was promoted as literally the last word on the topic when in reality it was filled with what Marx himself would acknowledge as half-baked ideas, concepts he was spitballing in an attempt to find the real, underlying truth.

Imagine somebody finds some wistful half-completed bucket list you leave behind when you die and tries to live their lives according to that.

Gives you an idea of the problem, no?

But just as the hard line communists in Russia embraced Grundrisse for their purposes, so did Fred Koch and the John Birch Society for their own purposes.

Koch was a businessman who dealt with Russia in the days before WWII.

(Most international money people are whores and will go wherever they can find a buck.)

He didn’t like what he saw -- a fair enough assessment -- but what scared him was that there was something in the underlying structure of Russian society that might be appealing to non-communists.

Remember what I said about the Enlightenment and Christianity?

Add Marxism to that.

It ain’t the solution to all the world’s ills, but damn, it ain’t wrong about the causes.

Now the way the Koch clan tells it, when Fred saw Red, he realized it was a brutal, unworkable economic system and to stop it from spreading, he needed to form the John Birch Society to keep it from taking root in America.

Hold that thought.

If a system is unworkable, just let it collapse.

In fact, as a capitalist you should be interested in propping it up as long as possible both in order to rake in as much cash off them as you can in the time they have left and to make its ultimate collapse an even bigger warning to future workers.

The Koch propaganda machine has been working for literally generations to keep Americans from examining what’s wrong with our system.

They embrace racism because it enables them to keep labor costs down by pitting one group against another.

They fund the evangelical fringe, not necessarily because they believe them, but because they can deliver large swaths of the voting population.

(And of course, many white evangelicals prove themselves to be bigots, so promising to get rid of their taxes and keep “those” kids out of their schools and neighborhoods goes hand-in-hand).

They made a couple of runs at getting their agenda pushed through -- notably with Goldwater (who failed) and Reagan (who didn’t) -- but their desire to take more money by rendering all form of socially just government regulations impotent has produced an unintended consequence.

Donald Trump.

Just as the mad little corporal tapped in on simmer racial and religious resentment in Germany, Trump has done the same here.

A lot of white people are scared that their day is O.V.E.R.

At current demographic projections, come 2048 white people will drop to only 49% of the population.

The largest minority in a nation of minorities.

That means they’ve going to have to learn to cut deals with other groups.

And those groups, because they were marginalized for literally centuries, have learned to be much more self-reliant, much more imaginative, much more focused, much more innovative.

African-American culture is going to dominate the United States in the second half of the 21st century and well into the 22nd.

I want us to walk away from the precipice.

I want us to recognize there is literally no future in burning down the house to make sure the black folks don’t get in.

I want us to recognize reasonable precautions and controls on capitalism do not make people poor but rather prevent poverty from ruining lives.

But I fear for this country.

A few other empires, as they started splintering, recognized their peril and took steps to minimize the chaos and impact.

It took ‘em a while, but England managed to learn to let go of its vast empire in peaceful / democratic / diplomatic ways that enabled them to maintain good relations with former colonies around the globe.

The Koch mentality can’t do that, I’m afraid.

It can’t abide the thought that somebody else has a say in how they do business for the simple reason that those people’s lives are adversely affected by choices the Koch empire makes.

But we as a nation need to also recognize we slit our own throats every time we place price first and foremost in our shopping.

The Trump supporters who bemoan the demise of their single industry towns never seem to realize the decline started when they began saving a few pennies by shopping at big box stores and franchise fast food restaurants.

In their desire to save a few pennies, they threw away family fortunes.

History offers some grim warnings about empires that slide into this level of oligarchy.

Rome fell.

So did Constantinople.

The guillotine blade fell again and again and again until finally people were willing to accept Napoleon in order to regain stability.

And Napoleon started wars that led to World War One…

…and World War One allowed Hitler to rise thanks to the industrialists and the financiers.

The 1% of their generation.

We have to be more informed and more insightful in our daily choices.

What profit a person if they save a few pennies, yet lose their soul?

  © Buzz Dixon

[composeregg]

Hey I mean this gently but I wish you (and everyone tbh) would clarify what you mean when you say "anti". Because the problem is it means everything from "people who get mad if you include immoral acts in your story" to "people who think, actually romanticizing pedophilia, racism, and misogyny is bad even if the story itself is fake, because you are expressing those ideas as your own true beliefs." Saying "anti" on it's own is ambiguous because it's different depending on who is talking.

(I’m answering this publicly but if you want me to take it down just let me know and I will!)

So this is going to be heavily focused on the fandom sphere and specifically the drama I’ve seen surrounding Ao3 and their refusal to ban content.

My stance is basically “I do not give a fuck what you write, you’re allowed to do whatever you want with words and I will not stop you, just properly tag it and give warnings so I can filter it out so I don’t gotta see the stuff I do not want to see.” 

Obviously the stuff you listed is bad, I don’t support it, but things like that in fiction? with regards to the author’s own views? That need to be handled case-by-case. The issue with taking a stance as an “anti” is that from what I have seen, those people want to flat-out ban content like that, they want to get rid of it all. And that’s not feasible. And the line of what can stay and what can go varies from person to person.

If someone supports pedophilia, or racism, or misogyny, then that’s an issue to take up with that person. Where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide what is romanticizing those things? How do you know if that was the author’s intent or if they were trying to do something else, a poorly executed idea? It’s subjective, it’s impossible to implement one rule to deal with it all without causing collateral damage. And you can’t figure out the author’s beliefs solely on the basis of what they’ve written.

One of the fanfics I am proudest of, Event Horizon, is all about being in a dangerous relationship that makes you stop caring about yourself and makes you self destructive, and in the end, rather than confronting this and dealing with it maturely, a non-consensual memory wipe happens, leaving both characters hurt and hollow. That’s not me attempting to glorify those types of relationships, or the crossing of those boundaries, that’s me showing how messy things can be, but it could be read as support of that stuff by some, because I never have it debunked or anything. I rely on the readers’ ability to critically think, to deduce that “wow, that was fucked up and painful, and not a good relationship in any way, and it shouldn’t have gone like that.”

That’s my best personal example. I think it’s well-executed, and not glorifying, but some others would disagree. Some people don’t want anyone to ship Josh and Neku at all, because (to avoid spoilers for anyone else who reads this post, though really, if you follow me and don’t know twewy I don’t know why lol), the things that happened in the game supposedly make it inherently toxic, and Joshua’s position creates an imbalance of power.

Who gets to decide what can stay and what must go? What topics are allowed? What is the line? What is glorifying bad things, and what is asking readers to critically think? What is a vent fic dealing with trauma someone has gone through, and is that allowed? Are authors not allowed to use fiction to explore dark and otherwise taboo topics in a safe environment where people are not actually being harmed?

Antis of all types, in my experience, want the burden of answering these questions and policing content to fall on Ao3′s team. They want wide, sweeping bans. They hate that the underage and non-con warnings exist at all, or that incestous/pedophillic/abusive ships are allowed to be tagged and have a space on the archive. The thing is, that stuff would exist either way, and the warning system, the tagging system? It lets me filter that shit out. You don’t have to see it if you don’t want to. It’s only ever faulty when people don’t use it as intended. I never have to see Hanekoma/Joshua if I don’t want to, or Reigen/Mob, or Ritsu/Mob. I can sort all that shit out, and I do. People will do what they do, and I won’t stop them as long as they make sure I don’t have to see it.

Authors can be shitty, horrible people, and they can write their own views in, but that’s an issue with the person, not with the rules of what’s allowed and what’s not. If we ban misogynistic works, do we ban people from exploring the misogyny they’ve experienced? If we ban racism, do we ban PoC from exploring those topics in fiction? If we ban incest and pedophilia, do we ban survivors from using fiction as a coping method to deal with their trauma? If we ban ableism or queerphobia from being touched on, am I no longer allowed to write autistic queer characters facing real-life issues, because we wanted to stop someone else from publishing their actual views?

Bigoted people exist, and they will also write this stuff, but we cannot ban their content without hurting the rest. What we can do is think critically, and learn how to avoid what we don’t want to see, and maybe, if you can manage it, you might be able to engage in discussion with people who believe that sorta stuff, and change their minds. But that’s not your task, and you don’t have to read or engage in fiction that carries negative views or does not appeal to you. 

There’s a few posts that really express this thing well:

1 - “Is the author  dead? Is your baby in the bathwater?” (this is one of the best posts on this topic in my opinion)

2 - It is not the author’s fault if you read their fic that has been appropriately tagged with stuff you know will trigger you

3 - Having a black and white view of morality is not the approach that should be taken here