#glaeser

[nextwavefutures]

The future of cities and the future of work

The future of cities and the future of work. New (long) post on The Next Wave.

I spoke last week at a conference in Cardiff on the future of work. It was organised by the law firm Dawson Gray. You can’t talk about the the future of work without thinking about the future city, since the shape and structure of work is bound up more or less completely with the shape and structure of cities. Edward Glaeser’s book The Triumph of the City (2012) gets a lot of love in these…

[cinnamaya]

Debunking Rent Control Naysayers

I was recently sent this Brookings Institute article from 2018 entitled 'What does economic evidence tell us about the effects of rent control?' written by Rebecca Diamond as a counter argument to rent control advocacy. This article is one of many published by increasingly desperate economic think tanks. I've debunked many articles like this before in various places (and probably this one, they're all pretty indistinguishable), but I thought I'd put it together in one place as succinctly as possible. In my writing I treat the quoted piece with exactly the amount of respect and formality it deserves, which is to say, very little. So, let's take a look at what Rebecca Diamond tells us about what economic evidence tells us about rent control!

"Steadily rising housing rents in many of the US’s large, productive cities have reignited the discussion whether to expand or enact rent control provisions. Under pressure to fight rising rents, state lawmakers in Illinois, Oregon, and California are considering repealing laws that limit cities’ abilities to pass or expand rent control. While rules and regulations of rent control vary from place to place, most rent control consists of caps on price increases within the duration of a tenancy, and sometimes beyond the duration of a tenancy, as well as restrictions on eviction."

So far so good.

"New research examining how rent control affects tenants and housing markets offers insight into how rent control affects markets. While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood."

Because this is the Brookings Institute, this will all be very selectively chosen, pro financial capital research. Anyone expecting an actually objective article from an economic think-tank is clearly looking in the wrong place. These people's one job is to legitimize capitalism. Still, it's worth looking at their points because in this case, both their arguments and the underlying studies are both morally and logically shoddy.

"A substantial body of economic research has used theoretical arguments to highlight the potential negative efficiency consequences to keeping rents below market rates, going back to Friedman[!!!] and Stigler (1946). They argued that a cap on rents would lead landlords to sell their rental properties to owner occupants so that landlords could still earn the market price for their real estate. Rent control can also lead to “mis-match” between tenants and rental units. Once a tenant has secured a rent-controlled apartment, he may not choose to move in the future and give up his rent control, even if his housing needs change (Suen 1980, Glaeser and Luttmer 2003, Sims 2011, Bulow and Klemperer 2012). This mis-allocation can lead to empty-nest households living in family-sized apartments and young families crammed into small studios, clearly an inefficient allocation. Similarly, if rental rates are below market rates, renters may choose to consume excessive quantities of housing (Olsen 1972, Gyourko and Linneman 1989). Rent control can also lead to decay of the rental housing stock; landlords may not invest in maintenance because they can’t recoup these investment by raising rents. (Downs 1988, Sims 2007).

First of all, any article that quotes Milton Friedman is immediately suspect. He is irrelevant to economics and his ideas have had disastrous consequences for our economic system. But let's take a look at the arguments and their basic logical flaws:

Rent control leads landlords to sell their properties - This is a good thing. Landlords are an unnecessary middleman in the housing market and a drain on the economy.

Rent controls lead to "Inefficient Allocation" - A completely irrelevant argument considering a lack of rent control does nothing to increase this efficiency. Rather than people who already lived in "inefficiently allocated" apartments, however, they just go to the highest bidder.

"if rental rates are below market rates, renters may choose to consume excessive quantities of housing" - please.

Landlords wont invest in maintenance - In what world do landlords maintain their apartments anyway? Landlords will always do the bare minimum. The free market forces them to. That's market efficiency at work.

"Of course, rent control also offered potential benefits for tenants. For example, rent control provides insurance against rent increases, potentially limiting displacement. Affordable housing advocates argue that these insurance benefits are valuable to tenants. For instance, if long-term tenants have developed neighborhood-specific capital, such as a network of friends and family, proximity to a job, or children enrolled in local schools, then tenants face large risks from rent appreciation. In contrast, individuals who have little connection to any specific area can easily insure themselves against local rental price appreciation by moving to a cheaper location. Those invested in the local community are not able to use this type of “self-insurance” as easily, since they must give up some or all of their neighborhood specific capital. Rent control can provide these tenants with this type of insurance."

Yep. This is all fine.

"Until recently, there was little data or natural experiments with which to assess the importance of these competing arguments, and to assess how rent controls affects tenants, landlords, or the broader housing market. But newly-available housing-market data spanning periods of dramatic change in rent control laws in Cambridge, MA and in San Francisco, CA have allowed economists to examine these questions empirically. While these studies do find support for the idea that existing tenants benefit from the insurance provided by rent control, they also find the overall cost of providing that insurance is very large."

This is blatantly false. Rent controls have been around far longer than the USA. There is plenty of data and literally years of economic analysis on this stuff.

"From December 1970 through 1994, all rental units in Cambridge built prior to 1969 were regulated by a rent control ordinance that placed strict caps on rent increases and tightly restricted the removal of units from the rental stock. The legislative intent of the rent control ordinance was to provide affordable rental housing, and at the eve of rent control’s elimination in 1994, controlled units typically rented at 40-plus percent below the price of nearby non-controlled properties. In November 1994, the Massachusetts electorate passed a referendum to eliminate rent control by a narrow 51–49 percent margin, with nearly 60 percent of Cambridge residents voting to retain the rent control ordinance. This law change directly impacted properties previously subject to rent control, enabling landlords to begin to charge market rents."

Tragic. Let's see what the effects were.

"Autor, Palmer, and Pathak (2014) (APP), studies the impact of this unexpected change and find that newly decontrolled properties’ market values increased by 45 percent."

It inflated housing prices. Good for people to whom housing is an asset. Bad for people to whom housing is a… house.

"In addition to these direct effects of rent decontrol, APP find removing rent control has substantial indirect effects on neighboring properties, boosting their values too. Post-decontrol price appreciation was significantly greater at properties that had a larger fraction of formerly controlled neighbors: residential properties at the 75th percentile of rent control exposure gained approximately 13 percent more in property value following decontrol than did properties at the 25th percentile of exposure."

It made it more expensive to buy, not only in those houses, but the surrounding areas? Doesn't sound like it was making housing more accessible so far.

"This differential appreciation of properties in rent control–intensive locations was equally pronounced among decontrolled and never-controlled units, suggesting that the effect of rent control had been to reduce the whole neighborhood’s desirability."

Didn't they say earlier that rent controlled units were so desirable that people wouldn't move? Perhaps they mean desirability to outside landlords.

"The economic magnitude of the effect of rent control removal on the value of Cambridge’s housing stock is large, boosting property values by $2.0 billion between 1994 and 2004. Of this total effect, only $300 million is accounted for by the direct effect of decontrol on formerly controlled units, while $1.7 billion is due to the indirect effect. These estimates imply that more than half of the capitalized cost of rent control was borne by owners of never-controlled properties. Rent controlled properties create substantial negative externalities on the nearby housing market, lowering the amenity value of these neighborhoods and making them less desirable places to live.  In short, the policy imposed $2.0 billion in costs to local property owners, but only $300 million of that cost was transferred to renters in rent-controlled apartments."

"Capitalized cost" being the keyword here. Their investments weren't as profitable. This does NOT translate to actual cost like the article suggests, much less for the tenants. None of the renters were maintaining the asset prices of their rentals on balance sheets because they are tenants not owners. "But the owners have to pay the costs!" you might say. True, but if it weren't profitable, then the landlords wouldn't be renting the buildings.

"Diamond, McQuade, and Qian (2018) (DMQ) examine the consequences of an expansion of rent control on renters, landlords, and the housing market that resulted from a unique 1994 local San Francisco ballot initiative. In 1979, San Francisco imposed rent control on all standing buildings with five or more apartments. Rent control in San Francisco consists of regulated rent increases, linked to the CPI, within a tenancy, but no price regulation between tenants. New construction was exempt from rent control, since legislators did not want to discourage new development. Smaller multi-family buildings were exempt from this 1979 law change since they were viewed as more “mom and pop” ventures, and did not have market power over rents. This exemption was lifted by a 1994 San Francisco ballot initiative. Proponents of the initiative argued that small multi-family housing was now primarily owned by large businesses and should face the same rent control of large multi-family housing. Since the initial 1979 rent control law only impacted properties built from 1979 and earlier, the removal of the small multi-family exemption also only affected properties built 1979 and earlier. This led to a differential expansion in rent control in 1994 based on whether the small multi-family housing was built prior to or post 1980—a policy experiment where otherwise similar housing was treated differently by the law."

Well, the last example wasn't too convincing. Let's see if this one is any better.

"To examine rent control’s effects on tenant migration and neighborhood choices, DMQ examine panel data that provides address-level migration decisions and housing characteristics for the majority of adults living in San Francisco in the early 1990s. This allows them to define a treatment group of renters who lived in small multi-family apartment buildings built prior to 1980 and a control group of renters living in small multi-family housing built between 1980 and 1990. Their data allows them to follow each of these groups over time up until the present, regardless of where they migrate."

So, before getting into it, what would be the ideal outcome here? If the rent control laws were effective, we would see tenants in the rent controlled buildings experiencing:

more economic freedom due to decreased housing costs

less displacement of rent controlled tenants.

The first point is pretty unambiguously clear, and supported by mountains of evidence. The real question pertains to the second point: Can the tenants benefiting from these cost reductions stay in their apartments and continue to see these benefits?

Let's see what happened.

"Between five and ten years after the law change, the beneficiaries of rent control are 19 percent less likely to have moved to a new address, relative to the control group’s migration rate. Further, impact on the likelihood of remaining in San Francisco as whole was the same, indicating a large share of the renters that rent control caused to remain at their 1994 address would have left San Francisco had they not been covered by rent control."

Holy moly.

"These effects are significantly stronger among older households and among households that have already spent a number of years at their address prior to treatment. This is consistent with the fact that both of these populations are likely to be less mobile."

So older people more integrated with their neighborhood didn't have to move? This rent control thing sounds great!

"Renters who don’t need to move very often are more likely to find it worthwhile to remain in their rent controlled apartment for a long time, enabling them to accrue larger rent savings. Finally, DMQ find these effects are especially large for racial minorities, likely indicating that minorities faced greater displacement pressures in San Francisco than whites."

Less displacement ✓

"While expansion of rent control did prevent some displacement among tenants living in San Francisco in 1994, the landlords of these properties responded to mitigate their rental losses in a number of ways."

"Rent control made me do it," - landlords.

"In practice, landlords have a few possible ways of removing tenants. First, landlords could move into the property themselves, known as move-in eviction. Second, the Ellis Act allows landlords to evict tenants if they intend to remove the property from the rental market, for instance, in order to convert the units to condos. Finally, landlords are legally allowed to offer their tenants monetary compensation for leaving. In practice, these transfer payments from landlords are common and can be quite large."

All valid points.

"DMQ find that rent-controlled buildings were 8 percentage points more likely to convert to a condo than buildings in the control group. Consistent with these findings, they find that rent control led to a 15 percentage point decline in the number of renters living in treated buildings and a 25 percentage point reduction in the number of renters living in rent-controlled units, relative to 1994 levels. This large reduction in rental housing supply was driven by converting existing structures to owner-occupied condominium housing and by replacing existing structures with new construction."

An unfortunate side effect, but there are a few things to note:

Landlords moving into their own units works exactly once.

While some renters being pushed out is bad, at least the housing is owned by individual people rather than one landlord. If anything this increases the stability of housing in the area.

"This 15 percentage point reduction in the rental supply of small multi-family housing likely led to rent increases in the long-run, consistent with standard economic theory. In this sense, rent control operated as a transfer between the future renters of San Francisco (who would pay these higher rents due to lower supply) to the renters living in San Francisco in 1994 (who benefited directly from lower rents). "

If only there were a way to control those rent increases.

"Furthermore, since many of the existing rental properties were converted to higher-end, owner-occupied condominium housing and new construction rentals, the passage of rent control ultimately led to a housing stock that caters to higher income individuals."

Except we already know people in rent controlled units experience greater overall stability even considering the housing converted into condos, so this less important movement is more than offset by the benefits.

"DMQ find that this high-end housing, developed in response to rent control, attracted residents with at least 18 percent higher income."

This is an INCREDIBLY dubious causal claim. This housing was developed after rent control, but we can look at any other city to see this isn't some unique trend. In fact, the original study cited here finds that, if anything, the displacement in rent controlled units is contingent on gentrification and not vice versa. They argue, "This evidence is consistent with the idea that landlords undertake efforts to remove their tenants or convince them to leave in improving, gentrifying areas. In addition, the rent control tenants are more likely to remain at their address within the less gentrifying areas[…]These combined effects lead tenants treated by rent control to live in lower quality areas." (Diamond, McQuade & Qian, 2019) An argument against rent controls that seems reasonable on the surface level, but is absurd upon closer inspection. These tenants remain in neighborhoods which are less desirable by choice. The argument here depends on the idea that displacement is ever acceptable, justifying it with the data suggesting some tenants on average might have been displaced into slightly higher income neighborhoods. It's a justification which I'm sure will bring great comfort to those being pushed out of their homes due to increasing rents.

Hidden deeper in this argument, however, is another flaw. The entire point is tautological. Gentrification IS the displacement of lower income tenants, so to argue that rent control pushed people out of gentrified neighborhoods and kept people in non-gentrified neighborhoods is like saying gentrified neighborhoods gentrified and non gentrified neighborhoods didn't gentrify. This isn't to suggest that this point is lost on Diamond, McQuade & Qian. I'm quite sure they understand what gentrification is and would never unintentionally make such an error.

"Taking all of these points together, it appears rent control has actually contributed to the gentrification of San Francisco, the exact opposite of the policy’s intended goal. Indeed, by simultaneously bringing in higher income residents and preventing displacement of minorities, rent control has contributed to widening income inequality of the city."

As said above, this supposed contribution to gentrification seems to actually be the reverse. Neighborhoods which were able to push out rent controlled tenants were more gentrified. It's not a particularly salient point, but to claim any more would be to make unsubstantiated causal claims. I would also like to note that this is not the policy's intended goal. Rent control is meant to keep rents cheaper in rent controlled units. Of course if you expect rent control to be a silver bullet to every problem of gentrification and urbanization, then it will be a failure in your eyes. This is doubly true in cases where the rent control is not universal.

Additionally, the fact that "preventing displacement of minorities" is a point against rent control here shows exactly who the author's sympathies are really for.

"It may seem surprising that the expansion of rent control in San Francisco led to an upgraded housing stock, catering to high-income tastes, while the removal of rent control in Cambridge also lead to upgrading and value appreciation. To reconcile these effects, it is useful to think about which types of landlords would respond to a rent control expansion versus a rent control removal. In the case of rent control expansion, some landlords will choose to recoup some of their losses by converting to condo or redeveloping their building to exempt it from rent control. However, other landlords may choose to accept the rent control regulation, and no longer perform maintenance on the building and allow it to decay."

Finally a great point! Landlords ARE bad, Rebecca, keep going…

"In the rent control expansion case, one would see an increase in condo conversions and upgrades, driven by the landlords that chose to respond in this way. However, when rent control is removed, the landlords who own the rent controlled buildings are the ones who didn’t choose to convert to condo or redevelop in response to the initial passage of rent control. Indeed, one would expect this subset of landlords to choose to upgrade and invest in their properties once the rent control regulation is removed."

This whole section is meant as some sort of justification for the fact that getting rid of rent controls leads to the same exact results that counted against rent controls in the main argument. The only point it really makes is that we shouldn't get rid of rent controls. Anyone who can't see the absurdity at this point has ulterior motives. Ultimately, one should only expect landlords to do the bare minimum, rent control or no rent control. That is why we need legal protections, and most importantly tenant organizing to make sure landlords actually keep these places livable.

"Rent control appears to help affordability in the short run for current tenants, but in the long-run decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood."

Decreases affordability?? You have to wonder how the author came to that conclusion so contrary to the very first point in the article (housing prices decreased). This alone shows how deceitful this Diamond is being.

We've already seen why the gentrification point is moot. As for those "negative externalities," I fail to see how increased rents in non-rent controlled apartments is a satisfactory argument for anything but an expansion of rent control.

"These results highlight that forcing landlords to provide insurance to tenants against rent increases can ultimately be counterproductive. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords’ incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire. A point of future research would be to design an optimal social insurance program to insure renters against large rent increases."

What in this hypothetical is stopping the landlords from just increasing the rent in the long run to counteract the subsidies and tax credits?

Additionally, we see a hint of another popular anti rent control fallacy here. "Decrease housing supply" is misleading because housing supply is not decreasing. In fact, housing for sale temporarily increases. There are however two factors which lead to a decrease in the rental supply. The first is the conversion into condos, which does push rents up. This is irrelevant to the problem, however, considering that rent controls directly counteract that and any other supply based fluctuations. The other decrease of supply in the rental market, ironically, is exactly what rent controls are intended to do. This decrease is due to people renting apartments and not being forced to move. This decrease in supply also roughly coincides with a corresponding decrease in demand because people can be confident and secure staying in the rentals they choose to rent.

"The authors did not receive any financial support from any firm or person for this article or from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this article. They are currently not an officer, director, or board member of any organization with an interest in this article."

This you?

[sunnydaleherald]

The Sunnydale Herald Newsletter, Saturday, February 17th

LINDSEY: So this place works for you? DRUSILLA: Oh, yeah. (She moves one hand in a circular motion above Darla's body) Grandmother is very pleased with it. - I can tell. - Aren't you, Grandmother? (Leans down over Darla) My daughter. LINDSEY: Can she hear you? DRUSILLA: (turns to him) She's dead. LINDSEY: Oh - of course.

~~Reunion~~

[Drabbles & Short Fiction]

Weekly Drabbles #84 — Compromise by veronyxk84 (Buffy/Spike, PG-13)

The Very Sinister Sewing Circle by Mayalaen (Angel, Lindsey, multiple crossovers, G)

Des fleurs pour la St Valentin by Miss Kitty (G, in French)

[Chaptered Fiction]

In the Know, Chapter 3 (complete!) by fifthhollow (Willow, Rizzoli & Isles crossover, T)

Sunnydale Serenade, Chapter 10 by TheRealJeanGenie (Buffy/Spike, T)

Thirty-ish Days (and Thirty-ish Years), Chapter 25 by Dynapink (Buffy/Giles, T)

A Reincarnation in Sunnydale, Chapter 29 by DracoRim98 (Buffy/Angel, M)

Spidey Does Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Chapter 28 by megamatt09 (Buffy/ Peter Parker, Spiderman crossover, E)

Les deux Phénix, Chapter 11 (complete!) FridayQueen (Buffy/Faith, M, in French)

They Know Exactly What We're Here For, Chapter 8 by MadeInGold (Angel/Riley/Spike, E)

Raven, Chapter 3 by sparrow2000 (Xander & Spike, G)

You knew, Chapter 2 (complete!) by DancingAngel0013 (Buffy/Giles, E)

The Boring Stuff: Some Assembly Required, Chapter 1 by missfiggy (Buffy/Angel, T)

Worth Fighting For, Chapter 10 by melodys_muse (Buffy/Angel, T)

A Vampire and a Slayer Walk Into a Park... Chapter 15 by holetoledo (Buffy/Spike, Adult Only)

Afterburn, Chapter 14 by Melme1325 (Buffy/Spike, NC-17)

Beg, Chapter 4 by Maxineeden (Buffy/Spike, NC-17)

One Prince In Sunnydale, Chapter 13 by DrThothEvans (Xander, the Chronicles of Amber crossover, FR18)

Xander Harris and the Little Pink Pill, Chapter 6 by KyliaQuilor (Xander/Cordelia, FR21)

Easy Street, Chapter 15 by Arke (Faith, The Walking Dead crossover, FR18)

The Ring Talks, Chapter 38 by myrabeth (Buffy/Spike, 13+)

What the Drabble? Chapter 84 by VeroNyxK84 (Buffy/Spike, R)

Early One Morning, Chapter 16 by all choseny (Buffy/Spike, NC-17)

Love Lives Here, Chapter 24 by Passion4Spike (Buffy/Spike, NC-17)

Coming Through, Chapters 30-34 by hulettwyo (Buffy/Spike, Adult Only)

[Images, Audio & Video]

Artwork: Drusilla/Spike by genericaces (Warning: blood and mild gore)

Banner: Buffy/Spike by veronyxk84 (worksafe)

Artwork: ats characters as animals by artsying-ifer (worksafe)

Artwork: Coloring page of Anya and Buffy in "Entropy" by amazzyblaze (colouring) and amazzyblaze's husband (line art) (worksafe)

Cartoon: Angel and Cordelia by genericaces (worksafe)

Icons: Dawn Summers by pridewishes (worksafe)

Fanvid: Wanna Be Your Slave by Nina When it Rains (Buffy/Spike)

Fanvid: Bad Touch by Nina When it Rains (Buffy/Spike, age-restricted)

Fanvid: Buffy and Angel - Slut by juliaroxs241

Fanvid: Buffy & Spike || BTVS || Animals by Marialeluligsr

Fanvid: Buffy: The Vampire Slayer! The greatest hunter in the world! The world will never forget! by Old TV Show

Fanvid: BTVS || Spuffy || Take Me To Hell || HD by Narcia Lily

Fanvid: Willow + Tara All I wanted was you by arfidev

Fanvid: [Buffy & Spike] it goes on and on and on by Sari Glaeser

Fanvid: Faith Lehane - You’re On Your Own Kid (Taylor Swift) by Minute Long T Swift Edits

Fanvid: Buffyverse - A World Without Danger by juliaroxs241

Fanvid: Buffyverse - You Don't Own Me by juliaroxs241

Fanvid: Klaus Being a Pain in Buffy's Ass (for the most part) by Bobblehead89 (The Vampire Diaries crossover)

Vidlet: "How You Try..." by Shannon Rey (Buffy/Spike)

Vidlet: buffy 🔛🔝 by Demi sadler

Vidlet: Buffy x Spike ❤️Valentines Day Edit❤️ by Shannon Rey

Cosplay video: Hi, I’m Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. And you are? by Valeria Sweet

Video: Buffy the Vampire Slayer Revival Season 10 Episode 11: Ripper by Buffy the Vampire Slayer Chosen

Music: Buffy theme & "I've Got A Theory" - Halloween Covers Night - 2006 by TheBonkers

Music: Soundtrack Cover: Buffy the Vampire Slayer theme by Revan Varen

[Reviews & Recaps]

Video: Buffy the Vampire Slayer • The Next Reel by TruStory FM

Video: All the Way-Slayer Sunday by Jane Talks Buffy

Video: Sunnydale Live #8: Buffy S1E7: Angel by The Uncanny Fans

[Search]

Any fuffy fic recs? by dob-the-destroyer

[Fandom Discussions]

One thing I do appreciate about Buffy season 12 by oveliagirlhaditright

Faith Lehane by sharpestasp

LMPTM - Interogation or Therapy by NoShip

Should Buffy have put those bitcas in their places? continued by NoShip

Songs that fit different verse relationships continued by multiple posters

Best surprise plot twists on Buffy and Angel? by American Aurora

Buffy TV Show - reboot or continuation? by American Aurora

Why is season 4 [of Angel] so bad? by Perfect-Resist5478

Charisma always did fantastic at doing the vision pain by dabzandjabz

I fucking love this show [Angel] so far by Bamf102

why would tptb send cordelia back if they knew she was possessed by jasmine by HaileeSteinfeldbf

How would it have been like if Buffy appeared in "You're Welcome" as originally intended? (2) by Night-Caelum

Anyanka Voice Actress by Ecstatic_Speaker7473

Worst episode [of Buffy]? by poopsmcbuttington

Your unpopular opinion by triryche4

Dr. Riley Mengele over here by alrtight

This is how a normal person would react to Drusilla. Spike is (dare I say it) saint-like for how he puts up with her by SpoonFullOfStupid

Let’s talk about Darla!! by Sweet-Siren

Drusilla's visions/part demon by kevco185

has anyone watched buffy dubbed? by likeshinythings

This line [Spike about Woodstock] lives rent free in my head by Significant_Sky6386

What line or event gave you the cringe? by WanderlingInker

Anne [Ken] by Neat-Biscotti-2962

I love that Buffy has to continue to train to keep up her skills by The_ZombyWoof

Say something nice about the Buffy movie (1992) by ginime_

Buffy The Vampire Slayer and/or Angel Events Swapped? by Big-Restaurant-2766

How would it have been like if Buffy appeared in "You're Welcome" as originally intended? by Night-Caelum

Who Had The Worst Performance in the Entire Series? by Jaxsonj01

Treatment of Faith vs Willow by rad619

Anya by IsaystoImIsays

Submit a link to be included in the newsletter!

Join the editor team :)

[transgriffin]

The German Student Union went by a list of roughly 4000 titles that were considered forbidden books and collected any and every volume of those that could be found, in an attempt to destroy their contents and take them away from humanity forever.

Magnus Hirschfeld's studies on sexology (gender and sexuality) were among the targets, with Hirschfeld being both Jewish and a sexologist. The Magnus Hirschfeld Institute of Sex Research (Sexualwissenschaft) was deliberately raided by the Students and members of the SS and the library plundered on May 6, 1933, its stolen contents surrendered to the fire on May 10 of the same year.

Decades of groundbreaking research on gender and sexuality fell victim to the fires of Nazism that sought to "cleanse" the world of Jewish writings and enforce a rigid, oppressive, and anti-scientific system of perisex-, cis-, and heteronormativity, misogyny and lethal ableism.

Over 25000 books were burned as students marched against the "Un-German Spirit" (der undeutsche Geist) through the streets of Germany and Austria, while Joseph Goebbels held a speech in Berlin as the works of Erich Kästner, Heinrich Mann, and Ernst Glaeser, among others, were destroyed by fire in a ritual ceremony.

The bookburnings were instrumental in establishing a total and merciless state censorship that in itself alone would cost countless human lives.

Always remember that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings?wprov=sfla1

Don’t kid yourself: they’re coming for us all …

[quotejungle]

Glaeser ら (2004) は、ヨーロッパ人が定住できた場所には、彼らは単に財産権やその他の制度をもたらしたのではなく、彼ら自身ももたらしたと指摘しました。Glaeser らは、制度の成長効果と人的資本の成長効果、つまり、単に自国にヨーロッパ系の人々が大勢いることによる効果を経験的に切り離すことは不可能であると指摘しています。 AJR の有名な結果に対するこの代替説明はこれまで一度も否定されたことがなく、非常に重要であるため、ノーベル委員会は賞の発表時にこれに関する免責事項を発表する必要があると判断しました。 「この結果は研究者の仮説を証明するものではなく、実際のところ仮説は証明できないかもしれませんが、強い示唆を与えるものであるため、とにかくノーベル賞を授与します」と言っているようなものです。経済学を哲学の一分野ではなく科学として捉えたいのであれば、このようなことは書きたくありません！ ノーベル委員会は、2002 年の AJR の 2 番目の有名な論文「運命の逆転: 現代世界の所得分配の形成における地理と制度」を引用して、この動きを擁護しています。その論文で AJR は、植民地化前に豊かだったヨーロッパの植民地は植民地化後に貧しくなり、植民地化前に貧しかった植民地は植民地化後に豊かになったことを示しています。そして富と貧困の尺度として、彼らは都市化を使用しています。 AJR の主張は、1500 年から 1995 年の間に富裕な場所と貧困な場所が逆転したため、地理では富と貧困を説明できないということであり、むしろ制度が原因に違いないというものである。 しかし、これは他の有名な論文と同じ問題を抱えています。米国、カナダ、オーストラリアのような場所、つまり後に豊かになった「貧しい」植民地は、ヨーロッパ人とその子孫でいっぱいになった場所です。 1500年に都市化が進み、後に貧しくなった場所、エジプト、メキシコ、ベトナムなどは、おそらくすでに多くの人が住んでいた（または熱帯病が多かった、など）ため、大量のヨーロッパ人が移住しなかった場所です。

大きな大きな疑問に対するノーベル賞 - ノア・スミス

[yespat49]

Un nouvel âge des ténèbres ou le réveil de l’Occident aveuli ?

Bernard Plouvier 1 – La décadence des vieux peuples civilisés… Dans son roman Classe 22 (publié en Allemagne en 1928 et en français l’année suivante), l’excellent romancier Ernst Glaeser, ni marxiste, ni national-socialiste, décrivait l’ambiance fin de civilisation régnant dans le Reich en 1918, vaincu par le blocus ennemi et par la révolution judéo-bolchevique davantage que par les victoires…

[pazodetrasalba]

A Taste of Freedom

Dear Caroline:

Just one day late, here are some considerations on the last of my Carolingian reads and recommendations (and also making progress with Too Like the Lightning). I concur that the book is delightful to read: the author shows a very seductive, somewhat baroque and leisurely language in each and every page which makes it a little work of art - in view of that fact that we're in the 18th century, perhaps a metaphor for those antique pocket watches I so very much love, their tiny gears embracing metallic cogs and wheels, and the occasional semi-precious stone, a melding of quaint, industrial and lovely which seldom pair well together. But I digress: the language was nice and the plot was artistically done. Alas, for all the joy it has given me, I would happily exchange it for a glance at your delight, and at your hands gesticulating excitedly.

That old New York long ago ceased to exist, and yet I imagine that more than once you treaded on its shadows, when you yourself were working in the Big Apple. I don't know if Jane Street's offices are in Manhattan, but it would be apt, with your footsteps running from time to time upon the unseen cobbles of long-disappeared Golden Hill street.

I am tempted to take a look at Digital Gold -gold always tempts, doesn't it-, although I have already gone through some books on cryptocurrencies, and I would not be able to pool the synergies of the double bind you suggest. But I do love cities -generally, from a distance- and my next digital foray is likely to be Glaeser's Triumph of the City, a pean to the spaces where, since not so long ago, live more than half of the planet's residents.

Talking of shadows, I tend to see them behind every intelligent and engaging woman I read about, and Tabitha isn't going to be an exception. I see her as a mirror of yourself in those words that Mr. Smith exchanges with her in their last meeting:

Quote:

“And I am trying to tell you that I like you. ‘Despite all the flaws I have, according to you?’ ‘Despite them; because of them; who knows? I like all of you. I like the bird and I like the cage. I like the polished mind and the rough tongue. I like the tearing claws and the warm hands. I like the monster and I like the girl.’ ‘I do not like myself very much,’ said Tabitha painfully. ‘I know.”

Francis Spufford, Golden Hill

[sneezemonster15]

This is such a problematic understanding of both Sasuke’s and Naruto’s characters. At least within the sane part of the fandom, which I will agree is not very big, I haven’t seen this switching that the OP is talking about. Naruto’s character is about love, so is Sasuke’s. That's why they were the two fated chosen ones to change the course of their world’s history, the true saviors of this world. As Hagoromo proclaims, it is because these two are who they are, that they are different from all their chakras’ predecessors, because they both know how to love, they are different from Ashura and Indra, they are different from Hagoromo and his mother, that’s what qualifies them to be the chosen ones to save the fate of this world as they know it. Yes, it is true that most fans misinterpret their characters but I think that's what’s happening in this post as well.

If Naruto’s character gives someone the impression of being a character about hate, they have obviously misinterpreted his character and read the story wrong. Like what a failure of both narrative and Naruto's character building if the takeaway is that Naruto is guided by hate. Lol.

Naruto and Sasuke are supposed to be yin and yang, this is a very consistent visual imagery for these two characters and in the manga in general. Which means they have both love and hate inside of them, except in the plotline, Naruto generally operates from a place of love and Sasuke generally operates with hate and a sense of justice, except when it comes to Naruto, that's where his determination gets compromised. While Sasuke’s reasons for his hate are justified, we need to understand this whole concept of hate and love from an angle that Kishi wants us to understand. They are two sides of the same coin. Hate is not the opposite of love, apathy is. As per Kishi, when this love is forcibly taken away, that's when the love transforms into hate. Which is the case for Sasuke (when his family and clan is murdered brutally), Naruto (when Jiraiya dies), Neji (when his father has to sacrifice his life as the lower Hyyuga ie slave Hyyuga), Obito (when Rin dies in such an unfortunate manner), Nagato (when Yahiko dies in an unfortunate manner), Haku (his whole past history is tragic where he had to lose his whole family and then is thrown out of his home and village), Gaara (as a jinchuuriki and someone whose father tried to assassinate him several times), etc etc. Point is, Naruto and Sasuke aren't the only characters for whom the concept of love turned hate is used in this manga. It is elaborately interlinked with the manga’s narrative, the worldbuilding of this dystopian, unjust, ruthless shinobi universe that creates these wretched outliers who eventually become the villain incarnate that wants revenge upon the world for how they were treated, how their friends and families were treated. For the love that was snatched away from them to be returned with resultant loss and hate and resentment and grief and ultimately revenge. This is a pretty common understanding worldwide, naturally so. “What causes hatred? Charles Darwin pinpointed the roots of hatred in self-defense and vengeance: “if we have suffered or expect to suffer some willful injury from a man, or if he is any way offensive to us, we dislike him; and dislike easily rises into hatred” - The political economy of hatred, Edward L. Glaeser, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

This is the point of the story, that true love is the true motivator for a better world to happen, not hate. Revenge won’t give one the peace of mind one wants, like we saw in the case of Itachi and Sasuke. Even before Sasuke came to know the truth about Itachi’s true involvement in the Uchiha massacre, it is clear that Itachis’ death gave him no resolution, no matter how much Sasuke wanted it and prepared for it. It is much more complex than that.

It is very simplistic to say Naruto operates with hate while Sasuke operates with love. No. It depends. It is wrong to say that “I see too many people infer Naruto is made of happiness and love while Sasuke of hate and anger but I have always seen Naruto as a character that is full of hatred and anger and he has to let go of that with the love of others..”

Naruto is certainly a character full of grief and in the course of the manga, has a burgeoning sense of injustice at the beginning of the manga, he is constantly kept out of social circles, he is institutionally discriminated against, so he is full of rage, and resentment, justifiably. He is utterly lonely in a world where no one even attempts to understand him. So Mizuki attempts to manipulate this boy and he falls for it. But then, he gets his break, finally, he gets it. With? Iruka. The highest emotional beat in chapter two is where Naruto realizes that there IS someone who cares for him, who loves him, he was about to leave this village, the only place this orphan has ever known, but he stays because he is finally valued by Iruka, who sacrifices his own life for him. Naruto might not understand a lot of other complex things but he is not an idiot, he understands what it means to sacrifice your life for someone. That’s why he cries like a baby and that is why this crying and snotting panel is made TO STAND OUT. He has his first break, in his life, He, who was this destructive little troublemaking rascal, got his break when he saw that Iruka loved him. That's when his resolve is made. When he feels acknowledged by Iruka, seen by Iruka. And he decides to become hokage, after he finally got the taste of being accepted, valued, by Iruka. He defeated Mizuki OUT OF LOVE and GRATITUDE, not hate. This is basic visual language and narrative. Thats the import of this scene. This is what ‘love’ does to you. Love is about care and devotion, as Yashamaru tells Gaara, this is how Kishi sees love.

I don’t see how Naruto’s character projects Hatred. Absolutely not. Yes, there’s hate in his heart for how he was treated. He repressed it for a long time. But everything he did for Sasuke, Gaara, Neji, Haku, came out of love and empathy, not hate. Again, this visual language is pretty self explanatory. When Naruto’s kyuubi chakra leaks out and he unleashes a new power in land of eaves arc when Sasuke dies, it happens because of the love he feels for Sasuke and how that love was taken away by the hands of Haku, that is when he unleashes the beast. It happened not because he hated Haku, it happened because he loved Sasuke, the nuance needs to be acknowledged. Love transformed into hate. None of the characters in this manga is so black and white. None of the characters operate only on love or only on hate. Just like IRL, this is a very realistic world building and character development. Even when Nagato kills Jiraiya, Naruto forgives Nagato and learns from him, he learns from his life, his experience. He grows as a person, he understands the complexity of war and human nature. Even though he is seething with hate at Jiraiya’s death, he has the werewithal to not only understand Nagato’s POV, he empathizes with Nagato and absorbs his life lessons. What part of this projects hate? Naruto doesn’t even kill people dead, he only shows a emphatically willing desire to ‘KILL’ someone when they indicate a desire or plan to hurt Sasuke, that’s when Naruto breaks character and goes all berserk. He breaks character only for Sasuke, just like Sasuke breaks character only for Naruto. Sasuke is otherwise so calm and composed and is focused af but bring out Naruto and he gets distracted like a toddler with a lollipop lol. That’s why he wants to cut off Naruto.

With Gaara, Naruto shows empathy and understanding, so much so that it changes the antagonist ie Gaara’s lifepath. Same goes for Neji. Same goes for Obito. Same goes for Nagato. Naruto is justifiably angry for things everyone is angry at. None of it projects him as a person guided by hatred. He is led by love and loyalty. It projects him as a person who has hatred but is actually guided by the empathy and big heart to look beyond his own nose and connect with others. This makes him different from others, this is what sets him apart. He sees people’s worth where no one else does. Like he did for Neji and Gaara and Nagato and Obito and Sasuke. If he gets triggered whenever Sasuke is in danger, like when he threatens to kill Oro when he utters Sasuke’s name, it is because of his love for Sasuke, not for his hate for Oro. One thing leads to another, not the other way round. Cause and effect are not interchangeable like that.

"naruto never really had the heaviness of love in his heart until he went through the process of controlling kuramas chakra and had to confront the hatred inside him. frankly it says it blatantly that he had always held hatred in his heart for the situation he was forced into and the way the village treated him because of it, until he was able to accept and move past that hatred and have love for kurama and his dad and the people of his village. so i genuinely don’t understand where this notion that naruto is just pure sunshine and happiness came from"

Wrong. Naruto always had the heaviness of ABSENCE of family that he had been experiencing since he was a kid. He always had love inside of him, he just had no one to give it to. Until Iruka and Sasuke. He realized this in chapter 2. He had always known he admired and liked Sasuke, he felt a connection with him from the beginning, since before the timeline if the manga’s beginning. But he could never say it to Sasuke out of a fear of rejection, and Naruto’s own insecurity. This he reveals in VOTE 1. But he always felt love for Sasuke, even if he didn’t realize it at the time. If he didn’t feel this lack of family, why would he do this wish fulfilment thing by telling Sasuke he wondered if Iruka was his dad and Sasuke as his brother, where is this feeling coming from if not a deeply cherished and desired wish for family? Trauma doesn’t only come from what happened to a person, or kids in this case, but also from what didn’t happen, what was dismissed, denied and not nurtured. Sasuke lost his family and that became his origin story, Naruto never had one and was treated as the village reject, that was his origin story. Sasuke got his break when he joined team seven. Naruto got his break when he got Iruka intervening on his behalf by sacrificing his life. Naruto very much felt love and its absence. He had been seeing other kids with their parents and families, since he was a kid and he could imagine what that felt like. That is why he could relate it with how he felt for Iruka and Sasuke. Having no one to love doesn’t mean one doesn’t feel the lack of it. It is true that various characters taught him to confront his fears and insecurities and solidify determination in his beliefs. But Naruto already has a inner compass, an inner moral code, an inner humanistic code that comes from LOVE. An emotion. Just like Sasuke. Both their belief systems come from an emotional place, not institutional, like it is for most others, the others that didn’t suffer like the antagonists did. Like Kakashi, Sakura, Hiruzen, Danzo, the elders, Itachi etc.

Yes, Naruto understands these emotions better, especially Sasuke’s predicament, when Jiraiya dies, and Naruto finally gets to experience what it means to lose family. And this makes his connection with Sasuke even stronger. After he learns about the truth of the massacre, he tells Sasuke something that no one else does, that he understands why Sasuke did what he did in Kage arc. Naruto even tells Sasuke that he could have very well been in his place if their roles were reversed. What this means is that Naruto understands what happened with Sasuke drove him to do what he did. Naruto understands what love turned hate, loss and grief can make people do. Because Naruto has felt the pull himself in the past, to give way to revenge. It is true that he feels resentment in his heart for how the villagers treated him but we also saw how he wasn’t able to be rude to that person in his face. If his character was such that was guided by anger, he would have said what was on his mind, but he didn’t. Action and inaction, both matter. Obviously, this is a story after all. He hesitates, he keeps it inside, he represses it. Dark Naruto says it later. In fact, if Naruto were guided by hate, I would probably have liked it because it would have meant Dark Naruto would get more footage and Naruto’s repression would be taken seriously and not conveniently fast tracked so as to push the plot to the next chapter. Naruto is consistently portrayed as the hero, the fated saviour, the empath, the loving and mischievous imp, whose chakra is golden and shining like the sun itself. This is all deliberate messaging. He is written and drawn expressly to drive the point home that he is a sun in the dark world of the shinobi, he is positioned as the sun that rids this world of darkness and fills it with hope for a brighter future. That's why everyone is ready to have him put at the helm and drive the world. If fans can’t see he is the SUN, maybe they should see an optometrist. Sorry, couldn’t resist cracking poor joke, lol. He IS supposed to be the sunshine boy, the lighthearted goof who brightens everyone’s day with his antics and good disposition and the positivity and happiness he brings in everyone’s lives. He brings people their resolution, this is metaphorical, what is meant here is that he is the light in people’s lives, he brings them hope, when everything else has failed. Storytelling can be layered, but Naruto’s character is not that difficult to understand, at least it shouldn’t be for SNSers, but well. Lol, what a thing to say that Naruto’s character is guided by hate and seeing 400 notes on it, lol, like SNS fandom certainly leaves a lot to be desired, phew…

And Sasuke is consistently portrayed as someone who is in the darkness. This is not to be debated, this is the truth. As in someone whose past is full of obfuscation, mystery, whose own feelings and emotions are kept obfuscated, mysterious, this is shown in the introductory chapter itself. If you pay attention, you will see that writers would generally establish the core qualities and core motivation of the main characters right away. Like we saw in chapter 3, Sasuke is right away established as the mysterious, lone dark avenger, we only get a sense of something tragic that has happened in Sasuke's past but we don’t know what it is, however the impression we get is that it is something dark and sinister and kept mysterious for a reason and Kishi obviously makes the audience anticipate the revealment and eventual resolution of this dark mystery and we discover it as we go through Sasuke’s character arc. As for Naruto, he begins his introduction saying in the most innocent and childlike manner that is his trademark, that his favourite thing in the world is to eat ramen and he finds it very tough to wait while they are steeping and that he wants to become the hokage!! Lol, what part of this portrays hate? In fact, the contrast between the two, which is most definitely drawn out by Kishi, we as audience feel the darkness coming from Sasuke’s character in this scene, not the naughty imp Naruto. Both their characteristics are complementary of each other. Their features, physical and emotional, what one lacks can be found in another. They complete each other. Sasuke says at the end that Naruto had something he didn’t. Just like Naruto was always aware of the difference in strength/skills between Sasuke and Naruto in the beginning and Naruto felt like he would need to train more if he wanted to be at Sasuke’s side. Naruto admits Sasuke acknowledged him more than any other person. Naruto’s whole arc in Shippuden is inspired by his LOVE for Sasuke. He threatens Oro because of his love for Sasuke, he rages at Akatsuki because he feels a deep connection and empathy for Gaara. He threatens Raikage in kage arc that he would let the cycle of revenge continue if Sasuke is hurt, because of his love for Sasuke. He does everything for his love for Sasuke. What kind of reading gives the impression that Naruto is about hate, idk, that’s some mental gymnastics lol.

"sasukes whole story starts out with wanting revenge on his brother because he loves his family and his clan so much. it’s a constant clear notion that he hurts so bad from his brother’s betrayal because he loved his brother, and that his rage against konoha is because he loved his clan that konoha sanctioned a genocide of. it’s constantly stated that the uchiha hold intense love in their hearts."

Yes it is true that Sasuke’s character is defined and led by love after a fashion. But one simply cannot deny that his character is consistently portrayed as a person who carries a lot of hatred in his heart for how him and his clan and family were treated. Let us not understand hate in absence of an understanding of love. Hate cannot be truly understood unless one understands the nature of love and vice versa. That is one of the themes of this manga, the concept of and relationship between love and hate. As for Sasuke, his hate is a necessary force to carry out his avenging plans, and then later, his revolution. Hate is the necessary force to carry out any revolution, that is simply a given. Hate in this context, cannot be quantified or qualified as an emotion devoid of love. That’s not how it works. Kishi understands this very well, his whole magnum opus is a meditation on war and love and hate and human emotions navigating in the midst of all of it. Sasuke goes through so much, his relationship with itachi is certainly complex. After he learns about the truth of the massacre in Kage arc, he is seething with hatred for Danzo and the village. What is anger but a manifestation of hurt and grief? He is bent on destroying Kakashi and Sakura, once his team mates. /even Karin and Sakura notice that his chakra has turned dark and sinister, Karin notices that it is very unlike Sasuke, Sasuke who was about to have her killed without compunction. This boy who refused to kill fodder ninjas Oro brought him was ready to kill his team mate that he saved earlier on multiple occasions. Yes, he is grieving and his anger is justified but it would be wrong to say his actions to kill Karin or Sakura or Kakashi were guided by love. Regardless, he calms down when Naruto attempts to understand Sasuke, and makes a decision keeping Sasuke as his priority. So Sasuke gives in, he accepts his proposal to fight Naruto. He was bent on killing Naruto in vote one out of resentment, jealousy and his motivation to get MS. But after Naruto is incapacitated and at Sasuke’s mercy, Sasuke hangs over him Spiderman style, pours all the love and regret he feels for Naruto with his eyes, and makes his decision and what is his decision? To let Naruto live. Why? Love of course. He gives up his life for Naruto in land of waves arc, for love. Even if he doesn’t wanna acknowledge it.

"narutos hatred makes him want to finally receive the love that the village never gave him, but sasukes love makes him want the village to experience the pain that they inflicted upon him and his clan… maybe sasuke expresses his love more negatively and maybe naruto expresses his hate more positively, but that doesn’t change the fact that sasukes actions came from a place of love and narutos actions came from hate. they just needed each other to balance the other out…"

No. It’s not Naruto’s hatred that makes him want to finally receive the love that the village never gave him. It is the love that he experiences at the hands of Iruka and Sasuke that makes him commit the action he commits. It was Iruka’s love that made him decide he wanted to be hokage. It was Jiraiya’s love that made him seek revenge from Pein, but he forgave him eventually. Out of Love and Empathy and Understanding, not Hate. Fuck, his LOVE is so larger than life, he forgives Obito, the man who basically was the reason his parents died, he was the reason Naruto had to go through such tragedy as a kid.

“but that doesn’t change the fact that sasuke's actions came from a place of love and narutos actions came from hate.”

Naruto’s actions came from hate? Lol, what nonsense and what a counterintuitive and absolutely farcical interpretation of Naruto’s character. The whole action of Naruto forgiving Sasuke, despite the fact that Sasuke did hurt Naruto by abandoning him, and the fact that Naruto tells Sasuke in chapter 698, that he will fight for Sasuke no matter what it takes, and that he wouldn’t even entertain Sasuke’s intent of killing himself, Sasuke is so touched, he finally admits his defeat. He accepts Naruto’s love. Because Kishi made sure that Naruto’s love for Sasuke had to be commensurate with Sasuke’s hatred for the world. Naruto’s love for Sasuke is bigger than his dream and Konoha combined, and Sasuke can see that, he can feel it. That's why Sasuke admitted defeat.

Love is bigger than hate at the end of the day, love conquers all, that's the lesson this manga teaches us with Naruto and Sasuke cast as its lovers. While Naruto is purposefully positioned as the sunshiny hero that injects hope and liveliness and light in people’s lives, Sasuke is positioned as the avenger and the revolutionary who sees the dark side of the world, living and breathing in darkness, learning from it. His interaction with the kages comes from a meditation on the dark world of the shinobi world, that is not taught in history lessons. After Sasuke learns about Itachi from Itachi’s own mouth, he knows that if someone like Itachi, someone he once admired and worshipped, can be manipulated to do something heinous such as the massacre of his entire clan, does that gel with the village’s philosophy of will of fire? How is he supposed to understand this world and the belief systems it is founded on? So he directly goes to the source to hear it from the horses’ mouth.

He and Naruto certainly have their difference in opinion when it comes to the village, but they both understand what it means to be lonely. They both experience love, they both experience hatred. But Naruto is guided by his love, love for Sasuke and Konoha on occasion. And Sasuke is guided by love turned hate, in a situation where he was forced to kill all the love inside of him to be able to carry his goals. That's why he wanted to kill Naruto, so that love would not be a hindrance in reaching his goals anymore. He revels in his hate for Konoha and Danzo in Kage arc, all justified, and then proceeds to kill Naruto in vote 2, for the sake of his goals amd sanity. Regardless he isn’t able to do it. He is never able to do it. He simply cannot, not to Naruto. And he regrets his decision later, he admits in 699 no matter how much he tried, Naruto never left his side, never let him down. What part of this projects Naruto’s hatred for God’s sake?

Naruto certainly shows his rage at a world that is so cruel, like he does with Zabuza when Haku is killed, like he does to Chiyo when Gaara is abducted, and he understands that Gaara’s predicament is even worse than his. But it comes out of his empathy for Haku and Gaara. Cause and effect. Hate doesn’t precede his feelings, love does. He comes of age at the end of the manga, he understands what the world is like and he understands his own emotions.

Naruto surpassed every obstacle, passed all the tests when he confronted the antagonists in this manga, learnt major lessons from them, imbibed them in his own life but his greatest test was Sasuke. To win him with his love, to convince him of his love. Which he did. All due to LOVE that constantly guided him. And this is not up for debate, this is simply the story. And Naruto is the protagonist, the hero of this story.

To say Naruto’s actions come from hate is like saying chocolate milk comes from the brown coloured cow. And apparently a lot of SNSers believe it. Lol. But sad. Writing pseudo intellectual shit isn't enough to theorize, you gotta prove it through narrative and visual language otherwise it's just a worthless and empty claim.

i feel that so many people seem to take the basis of naruto and sasukes characterization and switch them…. i see too many people infer naruto is made of happiness and love while sasuke of hate and anger but i have always seen naruto as a character that is full of hatred and anger and he has to let go of that with the love of others. sasuke as a character is so full of love yet he has to follow that through with grief and anger and learn to bear others hatred.

naruto never really had the heaviness of love in his heart until he went through the process of controlling kuramas chakra and had to confront the hatred inside him. frankly it says it blatantly that he had always held hatred in his heart for the situation he was forced into and the way the village treated him because of it, until he was able to accept and move past that hatred and have love for kurama and his dad and the people of his village. so i genuinely don’t understand where this notion that naruto is just pure sunshine and happiness came from. sasukes whole story starts out with wanting revenge on his brother because he loves his family and his clan so much. it’s a constant clear notion that he hurts so bad from his brother’s betrayal because he loved his brother, and that his rage against konoha is because he loved his clan that konoha sanctioned a genocide of. it’s constantly stated that the uchiha hold intense love in their hearts.

it’s sasukes connection with the people around him that formed his love where it’s the lack of that connection that formed narutos hate…. the way they expressed their emotions is very different because they’re both in insanely different scenarios no matter how much they understand the others pain. narutos hatred makes him want to finally receive the love that the village never gave him, but sasukes love makes him want the village to experience the pain that they inflicted upon him and his clan… maybe sasuke expresses his love more negatively and maybe naruto expresses his hate more positively, but that doesn’t change the fact that sasukes actions came from a place of love and narutos actions came from hate. they just needed each other to balance the other out….

[mirandamckenni1]

Why We Can’t Build Better Cities (ft.Not Just Bikes) See Dracula's Ex-Girlfriend here when it comes out! https://ift.tt/ergxQqK Support the show on Patreon - https://ift.tt/UoIVS2u Subscribe! https://ift.tt/n9vTryk Twitter: @PhilosophyTube Instagram, TikTok, Tumblr, BlueSky: @theabigailthorn Facebook: https://ift.tt/ceOBXRm MUSIC: ‘Cold in amarillo’ by Luke Levenson https://ift.tt/gClvPbd BIBLIOGRAPHY Esther Addley, “‘This is political expediency’: how the Tories turned on 15-minute cities,” in The Guardian Sara Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion Bernadette Atuahene, “Predatory Cities,” in California Law Review Bernadette Atuahene, “The Scandal of the Predatory City,” in The Washington Post David Banks, The City Authentic Adam Barnett, Michaele Herrmann, and Christopher Deane, “Revealed: the Science Denial Network Behind Oxford’s ‘Climate Lockdown’ Backlash,” in DeSmog BBC News, ‘How 15 Minutes Cities Became a Lockdown Conspiracy’ Judith Butler, Who’s Afraid of Gender? Alice Capelle, “The Anti 15 Minute City Conspiracy is Ridiculous” Alice Capelle, “The manosphere meets the climate movement” Lisa Chamberlain, “The Surprising Stickiness of the “15 Minute City”,” in World Economic Forum Steven Conn, The Lies of the Land: Seeing Rural America for What It Is (And Isn’t) Samuel R. Delaney, Times Square Red, Times Square Blue Gareth Fearn et al., “Planning For the Public: Why Labour Should Support A Public Planning System” Hannah Fry, “A ‘failure to launch’: Why young people are having less sex,” in Los Angeles Times Edward Glaeser, “The 15-minute city is a dead end - cities must be places of opportunity for everyone” David Harvey, “The Art of Rent” David Harvey, “The Political Economy of Public Spaces” David Harvey, “The Right to the City” Tiffany Hsu, “He Wanted to Unclog Cities. Now He’s ‘Public Enemy No. 1.’,” in The New York Times Frank Laundry, “The USA Will Never Build Walkable Cities” David Lawler, “A World of Boomtowns,” in Axios Eisha Maharasingham-Shah and Pierre Vaux, “‘Climate Lockdown’ and the Culture Wars: How COVID-19 Sparked A New Narrative Against Climate Action,” in Institute for Strategic Dialogue Michael Naas, “Comme si, comme ca” in Derrida From Now On NotJustBikes, Designing Urban Places that Don’t Suck (A Sense of Place) NotJustBikes, How Suburban Development Makes American Cities Poorer NotJustBikes, Suburbia is Subsidized: Here’s the Math NotJustBikes, The Great Places Erased by Suburbia (the Third Place) Oh the Urbanity! “15-Minute City Conspiracies Have It Backwards” Feargus O’Sullivan, “Where the ‘15-Minute City’ Falls Short,” in Bloomberg Feargus O’Sullivan and Daniel Zuidijk, “The 15 Minute City Freakout is A Case Study in Conspiracy Paranoia,” in Bloomberg QAnon Anonymous, “Attending the 15 Minute Cities Oxford Protest with Annie Kelly” Elliot Sang, “Nowhere To Go: the Loss of the Third Place” Chris Stanford, “The 15-Minute City: Where Urban Planning Meets Conspiracy Theories,” in The New York Times Darin Tenev, “La Déconstruction en enfant: the Concept of Phantasm in the Work of Derrida” Trashfuture, “Cell Block IPA” Trashfuture, Honk if You’re Honu ft. Dr Gareth Fearn Joy White, Terraformed: Young Black Lives in the Inner City Kim Willsher, “Paris Mayor Unveils ‘15-minute city’ plan in re-election campaign,” in The Guardian #philosophy #education via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lHNkUjR9nM

[reportafrique]

Governor Fubara Pursues Increased German Investment in Rivers State

Governor Siminalayi Fubara of Rivers State engaged in closed-door discussions with Mr Jochen Schindelarz, the Vice Consul-General of Germany to Nigeria, alongside a German business delegation at the Government House in Port Harcourt. Following the meeting, Mr Schindelarz, speaking to reporters, expressed satisfaction with Governor Fubara's commitment to maintaining a safe climate for investments within the state, emphasizing the pivotal role security plays in fostering economic growth. Mr Sebastian Glaeser, the leader of the German Industry and Commerce delegation in Nigeria, revealed plans for reciprocal business ventures, including sponsoring representatives from Rivers State to Europe to showcase investment opportunities. Governor Fubara with the German delegation Both the Port Harcourt Chamber of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (PHACCIMA) and the German chamber have been tasked with facilitating these visits, aimed at attracting increased direct foreign investments to the state. Highlighting existing investment successes in the oil and gas sector, Mr Glaeser underscored the importance of diversifying investments into areas such as hydrogen, agriculture, and industrial products. He emphasized the significance of industry leaders' visits to Europe for trade fairs, road shows, conferences, and business forums to explore potential partnerships and synergies between Rivers State's resources and European markets. The collaborative efforts between Governor Fubara's administration and the German delegation signify a strategic move towards enhancing economic opportunities and fostering sustainable growth in Rivers State. This was contained in a statement released by the governor on Friday. Read the full article

[westestshop]

Vintage Willi Glaeser for TMP Rectangular Chrome Wire Magazine Rack. SOLD

[crybabycunt]

Swans on a lake, scenic beaded purse from the collection of Kathy Glaeser.

[stuartbramhall]

New York and San Francisco Office Buildings Are Absolute Ghost Towns

Posted BY: | NwoReport It’s no secret that commercial real estate is in bad shape across the globe… Things are so bad, in fact, that 26 Empire State Buildings could fit into New York City’s empty office space, as occupancy in the city is hovering around 50% of pre-pandemic levels, according to the chair of Harvard Economics Department, Edward Glaeser, and MIT’s Carlo Ratti. The cause? Thanks to…

[bunkerblogwebradio]

Queima de livros durante o Nacional-Socialismo

A queima de livros ocorrida em 1933 foi um ato simbólico realizado pela União dos Estudantes Alemães e recebeu o título de “Ação contra o espírito anti-alemão“.

Introdução

A 10 de maio de 1933 na Opernplatz em Berlim, e também em algumas outras cidades alemãs, diversos exemplares de livros e escritos judaicos e de autores marxistas foram jogados simbolicamente às chamas, os quais haviam sido avaliados como “imorais e destrutivos”. Ao contrário do consenso atual moldado pela Rede Globo e pela propaganda de guerra aliada, não se tratou aqui de uma iniciativa estatal!

No geral, os alunos fizeram nove demandas, cada uma associada a uma pequena seleção de autores possivelmente representativos. O romance imoral e na época considerado pornográfico de Erich Kästner – “Fabian” – também foi atirado ao fogo. No entanto, seu livro para crianças – “Emil e os detetives” – não foi queimado, como frequentemente é afirmado. Este livro foi inclusive expressamente excluído da “lista negra”, que supostamente era a base da campanha de incineração (“Kaestner, Erich: tudo, exceto: Emil”).[1][2]

As doze teses contra o espírito anti-alemão

O gatilho da ação aconteceu a 12 de abril de 1933, através das “12 teses contra o espírito anti-alemão”, as quais resumiam as posições e os objetivos da “ação” e denunciavam as ideias judaicas, social-democratas e liberais, assim como seus representantes. Elas foram fixadas em letras góticas vermelhas nas universidades alemãs e publicadas por muitos jornais:

1. Língua e literatura estão enraizadas nas pessoas. O povo alemão é responsável pelo fato de que sua língua e sua literatura são a expressão pura e inalterada de sua nacionalidade.

2. Hoje existe uma contradição entre literatura e folclore alemão. Essa condição é uma vergonha.

3. A pureza da linguagem e da literatura depende de você! Seu povo lhe deu a linguagem para sua fiel preservação.

4. Nosso adversário mais perigoso é o judeu e aquele que é obediente a ele.

5. O judeu só pode pensar judaicamente. Se ele escreve alemão, então ele mente. O alemão que escreve alemão, mas que pensa de forma anti-alemã, é um traidor. O aluno que fala e escreve de forma anti-alemã, também é desprovido da razão e infiel à sua tarefa.

6. Queremos erradicar a mentira, queremos marcar a traição, queremos para o aluno não lugares desprovidos de pensamento, mas de multiplicação e educação política.

7. Queremos respeitar o judeu como estrangeiro e queremos levar a sério as tradições do povo. Por isso, exigimos da censura: as obras judaicas aparecem em hebraico. Se aparecerem em alemão, deverão ser marcadas como tradução. Intervenção mais severa contra o uso indevido da escrita alemã. A escrita em alemão está disponível apenas para alemães. O espírito anti-alemão é erradicado das bibliotecas públicas.

8. Exigimos do estudante alemão vontade e capacidade de reconhecimento e decisão independentes.

9. Exigimos do estudante alemão vontade e capacidade para preservar a língua alemã.

10. Exigimos do estudante alemão vontade e capacidade de superação do intelectualismo judaico e os consequentes fenômenos liberais associados à decadência na vida intelectual alemã.

11. Exigimos a seleção de estudantes e professores para a segurança do pensamento no espírito alemão.

12. Exigimos que a universidade alemã seja um refúgio da nacionalidade alemã e um campo de batalha do poder do espírito alemão.

Percebam que não é a pessoa do judeu como ser humano que está em jogo – como claramente expresso no item 7 – mas sim a “ideia judaica”, que para os nacional-socialistas era considerada nociva à cultura e identidade alemã – NR.

Exigências

1. Contra a luta de classes e o materialismo, a favor da comunidade do povo e modo de vida idealista! Eu entrego às chamas os escritos de Marx e Kautsky.

2. Contra decadência e bancarrota moral! Pela procriação e bons costumes dentro da família e do Estado! Eu entrego às chamas os escritos de Heinrich Mann, Ernst Glaeser e Erich Kästner.

3. Contra a indolência e traição política, pela devoção ao Povo e ao Estado! Eu entrego às chamas os escritos de Friedrich Wilhelm Förster.

4. Contra a supervalorização dos instintos corrosivos da alma, pela nobreza da alma humana! Eu entrego às chamas os escritos de Sigmund Freud.

5. Contra a falsificação da História e diminuição de seus grandes personagens, pela admiração de nosso passado! Eu entrego às chamas os escritos de Emil Ludwig e Werner Hegemann.

6. Contra o jornalismo estrangeiro de matiz democrático-judaica, pela colaboração responsável em prol da reconstrução nacional! Eu entrego às chamas os escritos de Theodor Wolff e Georg Bernhard.

7. Contra a traição literária junto aos soldados da Primeira Guerra Mundial, pela educação do Povo dentro de um espírito de resistência! Eu entrego às chamas os escritos de Erich Maria Remarque.

8. Contra a corrupção teimosa da língua alemã, pela atenção ao bem mais precioso de nosso Povo! Eu entrego às chamas os escritos de Alfred Kerr.

9. Contra insolência e presunção, pelo respeito e reverência diante do imortal espírito do Povo alemão! Devore, chamas, também os escritos de Tucholsky e Ossietzky!

Avaliação

Tratou-se de uma ação dos estudantes que queriam que suas reivindicações seguissem a tradição do Festival de Wartburg, e não tem coisa alguma a ver com uma posição hostil generalizada contra os autores mencionados. As obras selecionadas deveriam representar as exigências da União dos Estudantes Alemães em prol da renovação da Alemanha. Claramente a escolha das obras não aconteceu segundo a alegada Lista Negra. Os estudantes tinham pois sua própria lista. Isso é comprovado pelo fato dos livros de Sigmund Freud, Theodor Wolff, Georg Bernhard e Carl von Ossietzky terem sido atacadas, mas não figuravam na Lista. [3][4]

Joseph Goebbels disse em seu discurso na Opernplatz, em Berlim:

“Caros colegas estudantes! Homens e mulheres alemães! A era do intelectualismo judaico exagerado terminou agora, e o avanço da revolução alemã também liberou o caminho para o modo de vida alemão. […] Mas nós, seres espirituais, estamos cientes disso: as revoluções políticas pelo poder devem ser preparadas espiritualmente. No começo existe a ideia, e somente quando a ideia se une ao poder, então floresce aqui o milagre histórico da transformação. Vocês, jovens estudantes, são os portadores, guerreiros e defensores da ideia jovem e revolucionária deste Estado.

[…] Tudo deve ser possível a um revolucionário: ele deve ser tão bom em destruir a indignidade quanto em construir os valores! Se vocês, estudantes, se dão ao trabalho de jogar a sujeira espiritual às chamas, vocês também devem assumir o dever de substituir o lixo para libertar o caminho de um verdadeiro valor alemão. O espírito aprende durante a vida e nas salas de aula, e o próximo alemão não será apenas um homem do livro, mas também uma pessoa de caráter. […]

E assim vocês fazem bem em confiar o espírito da meia-noite do passado às chamas. Trata-se de uma ação simbólica forte, grande e […] , uma ação que deve documentar diante de todo o mundo: aqui a base espiritual da República de novembro afunda, mas a partir dessas ruínas subirá a fênix vitoriosa de um novo espírito – um espírito que carregamos, que promovemos e que damos o peso decisivo e imprimimos as características decisivas! […]

Nunca houve um jovem estudante com esse direito, orgulhoso da vida, orgulhoso de sua missão e orgulhoso de seu dever. E nunca houve jovens como agora o direito de chamar Ulrich von Hutten: Ó século! Ó ciências! É um prazer viver! […]

O velho está nas chamas, o novo ressurgirá da chama de nossos próprios corações! Onde permanecermos juntos e onde estivermos juntos, lá sentiremos comprometidos com o Reich e seu futuro.”

Em contraste com a “ação contra o espírito anti-alemão”, que tinha como único objetivo a limpeza cultural na política interna da Alemanha após a notória decadência durante o período de Weimar, seu simbolismo por nada pode ser comparável à destruição de livros por parte dos Aliados desde 1945. O objetivo desta destruição de livros após o término da Segunda Guerra foi a total anulação cultural do seu concorrente em política externa, a Alemanha. Nenhum alemão jamais ousou atacar a herança cultural de outro país ou mesmo destruí-la deliberadamente de uma maneira como foi realizada contra a Alemanha. Durante o bombardeio terrorista anglo-americano contra cidades alemãs, milhões de livros foram queimados, incluindo tesouros culturais irrecuperáveis.

Em contraste à versão atualmente propagada, fruta da reeducação imposta pelos aliados aos alemães, a queima dos livros em 1933 não foi um ato de barbárie cultural, mas sim um alerta para preservar a cultura alemã.

Citação

Sobre a queima de livros, Thomas Mann escreveu em seu diário a 12 de maio de 1933:

“Mas devemos estar cientes de que, dentro de uma perspectiva histórica das nações, os acontecimentos alemães devem ser avaliados positivamente.” [5]

Referências

[1] “Emil und die Detektive”, como o próprio Kästner afirmou mais tarde, foi uma exceção; ele escreveu o livro em tempo recorde. Seu trabalho principal foi, no entanto, em obras obscenas, às vezes imorais (artigos para jornais, romances, poemas etc).

[2] Veja o Índice dos Livros Classificados da Faculdade de Braunschweig, pág. 4

[3] Anselm Faust: As universidades e o “espírito anti-alemão” – A Queima de Livros a 10 de maio de 1933 e seus antecedentes, em: Academia das Artes: Foi apenas um ato simbólico… a queima de livros na Alemanha em 1933 – Requisitos e consequências, Berlim 1983, Pág. 31–50, página 38

[4] Gerhard Sauder: Preparativos da “Ação contra o espírito anti-alemão”, em: Gerhard Sauder (Hg.): A Queima de Livros, Hanser, Munique 1983, Pág. 69–102

[5] Thomas Mann: Diário 1933–1934

[fuojbe-beowgi]

"26 Empire State Buildings Could Fit Into New York’s Empty Office Space. That’s a Sign." by Edward L. Glaeser and Carlo Ratti via NYT Opinion https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/10/opinion/nyc-office-vacancy-playground-city.html?partner=IFTTT