#he's upset b/c he's a bigot and has now been made to hate himself by a bigoted society

[ssaalexblake]

I always find thirteen’s first meeting with the ux lady in stupidly named s11 finale that will henceforth be known as Ransk, the most gripping part of the episode? 

13 is Angry that this woman was just killed in front of her, is irritated because blue tooth fairy is still alive and causing trouble when she thought she was through with him, and now she’s here, and this lady is pointing a huge gun at her, and... 13 i the one slowly stalking this other person down. 

The power balance is so beautifully physically acted here, as is the way the dialogue is delivered, from line to line 13 goes from her usual chipper tone to deadpan sardonic, honestly she kind of reminds me how certain kind of assholes treat children whom they view as small and stupid and just there to deliver thinly veiled jibes at to feel superior. 

She is Angry. She is Angry like she was in witchfinders at Becka, except she’s not being held back by either Literally being tied up or having to fake that Graham’s in charge, and she’s Stalking up to this lady, who is by the way, still holding that huge ass killer gun, like a predator gets close to its prey before it strikes. 

It’s just. By all accounts 13 is absolutely on the back foot here, she does not know what is going on, she is being held at gun point, the complex they are in is full of killer robots, an old enemy is there  (who ok, she disdains, but he can still kill people), hell, even the Planet they are on is trying to attack their brain tissue just because they’re standing there, and yet she Still like, physically showing her neck in this performance. 

It’s so Arrogant to bare your throat in a dangerous situation and her head has that indignant jut upwards that slightly shows her throat. The power balance in this scene, Everything about it says that 13 should be on the back foot, but everything about Jodie’s performance Shows Thirteen is the farthest thing from being the one without the power here. 

She approaches and Demands. She judges and scowls. And to top it off, she finds out this lady is an ux and Totally Forgets everything else like it’s inconsequential and goes back to her excited bouncing mode!! I mean, if you’re holding somebody at gunpoint trying to get them to back off and suddenly they decide to entirely ignore the danger and be stupidly excited about something and jump towards you, what would You think? 

She’s being such a Jerk in this scene. Not even purposefully probably, aside from the verbal digs, but Such An Arrogant Jerk completely unintentionally. 

I actually think this interaction with the ux lady is the closest her interactions with another character gets to that of hers with the master’s??? Everything is so Loaded. She Hates what the ux are doing, thinks them naively stupid, is frustrated they won’t listen and will not stop their destruction, but she... Wants to like them because they’re cool and unique and an amazing species!!! It’s the tension mixed with an actual genuine desire to like this person. 

Except like, the Biggest difference is 13 is super burnt out with master bullshit and has, evidently, currently given up on the whole ‘stop being an evil bag and be nicer’ thing after the massive effort put into and then burnout over Missy, hell hath no fury like potentially immortal skin changing eldritch horror being doctor... With the Ux she’s still trying to get them to see the light, which is an interesting contrast in behaviour we see over and over with 13, she Does try to give people chances and give them space to be better, but when they Don’t... She is super extra ruthless, like a switch flips. 

Again, I think she took the perceived missy betrayal very personally and i think that might be Why she reacts to strongly to this type of thing to start with, i think it started there. Just ask the queen of the scorpion aliens, she found That doctor characteristic out herself. And evil tooth fairy. 

I just think her reaction to the master isn’t an isolated emotional response in her in terms of personality, except with Him the failure to act up to moral standards and take their last chance happened their last regenerations, we meet these two After 13 has already given the master their last chance at being better and come in Right at the ruthless combative stage, it’s not that she’s not willing to give This Master a chance, it’s that she sees the master as a whole, not as their separate regenerations and sees that they’ve already Had that chance, it’s kind of like how Missy said it didn’t matter to her which Doctor it was, they’re the same to Her.  They see each other as a whole, not as separate versions of each other. 

But, anyway, i Love how Jodie and this lady ux actress play off each other, the acting is So Good. And 13 really is Very pleased when the ux do see the light, take the chance, and she doesn’t appear to hold anything against them despite that they spent thousands of years doing horrible things in the service of a corrupt leader who was willing to portray themselves as something they were not to add to their power even though it turns out they had none of their own, they’d just stolen somebody else’s... 

wait.... that sounds familiar 

[deniscollins]

Outraged in Private, Many C.E.O.s Fear the Wrath of the President

What would you do if you were a CEO appointed to a Presidential Advisory Committee and you were upset with a series of presidential reactions, but also aware that resigning from the advisory committee may result in President Trump criticizing you on Twitter: (1) resign and clearly state your reasons, (2) resign but don’t say anything in public criticizing the President, or (3) not resign? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

At what point do the C.E.O.s of the largest companies in the United States tell President Trump that enough is enough?

Not yet, apparently.

On Monday morning, President Trump went on a tirade against Kenneth C. Frazier, chief executive of Merck, the pharmaceuticals giant. Mr. Frazier, one of the nation’s most prominent African-American chief executives, had announced through his company’s Twitter account that he was resigning from the president’s American Manufacturing Council in response to Mr. Trump’s refusal over the weekend to immediately and directly condemn the white supremacists and neo-Nazis carrying swastika flags in Charlottesville, Va. Mr. Trump had pinned the blame for the bigotry and violence — which left one anti-bigotry protester dead — on “many sides.”

“America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal,” Mr. Frazier said.

Within minutes on Monday, Mr. Trump, in far less time than it took him to react to the violence in Charlottesville, was on Twitter criticizing Mr. Frazier. “Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President’s Manufacturing Council, he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!”

Later, Mr. Trump renewed his criticism of Merck, tweeting: “@MerckPharma is a leader in higher & higher drug prices while at the same time taking jobs out of the U.S. Bring jobs back & LOWER PRICES!”

The silence from the larger C.E.O. community about Mr. Trump’s reaction to the situation in Charlottesville has been remarkably conspicuous, even as one of their own has now been attacked online by the president.

By Monday evening, at least two other C.E.O.s had stepped forward. Kevin Plank, the founder of Under Armour, announced on Twitter that he was resigning from the American Manufacturing Council, saying, among other things, that his company “engages in innovation and sports, not politics.” He did not refer to the president, though.

Mr. Plank was followed shortly after by Brian Krzanich, the Intel chief executive, who announced on the company’s website that he would step down from the council as well. “I resigned because I want to make progress, while many in Washington seem more concerned with attacking anyone who disagrees with them,” he said.

A few big-name corporate leaders released innocuous statements over the weekend condemning the violence by white supremacists in Charlottesville. But with the exception of Mr. Frazier, none appear to have directly condemned the president’s choice of words, which have been a lightning rod for Americans from many quarters, even among many Republican lawmakers and Trump supporters.

At a news conference on Monday, after a barrage of blistering criticism, the president said that “racism is evil.”

As the day wore on, several executives, including Meg Whitman of Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, made statements in support of Mr. Frazier, while others — including Tim Cook of Apple, and the Business Roundtable, which represents some 200 C.E.O.s — condemned the racism on display in Charlottesville.

But notably, not one executive on any of the president’s various councils said anything directly about the president.

The statements from American chief executives that came closest to criticizing Mr. Trump’s language came from Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Mr. Krzanich of Intel.

Mr. Blankfein tweeted on Monday morning: “Lincoln: ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ Isolate those who try to separate us. No equivalence w/ those who bring us together.” (Mr. Blankfein is not on any of the president’s councils, which may make it easier for him to be critical.)

Mr. Krzanich put it this way: “There should be no hesitation in condemning hate speech or white supremacy by name. #Intel asks all our countries leadership to do the same.”

Marc Benioff of Salesforce aimed at Mr. Trump with a sarcastic post, saying: “Thank you @realDonaldTrump for calling to Love thy neighbor, value equality, & calling evil by name.”

But how can so many other American business leaders and senior executives remain quiet about the president’s reaction? Where is the moral courage to stand up?

After all, most companies these days spend countless hours talking about their culture and values. Just last week, Google publicly fired one of its engineers within days of his writing a memo that questioned whether “personality differences” between men and women led to there being fewer female engineers in the technology industry.

How can people like Adebayo O. Ogunlesi, a lead director of Goldman Sachs and an infrastructure investor, remain a member of Mr. Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum — a role highlighted on Mr. Ogunlesi’s company biography? How could Mr. Ogunlesi, an immigrant from Nigeria who was a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court, stay silent?

As Justice Marshall himself famously said, “Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy.”

Mr. Ogunlesi declined to comment, through a spokesman.

What about Indra Nooyi, the Indian-born chief executive of PepsiCo? She is a member of the president’s business council and has long been a vocal advocate for minorities. The company said this year that it “does not tolerate bigotry or hate in any form.”

When I contacted her about Mr. Trump’s remarks over the weekend, a spokesman directed me to a tweet that clearly didn’t mention the president: “Heartbroken by the violence in #Charlottesville. Hate and intolerance are a betrayal of what we stand for as Americans.”

In truth, it should not fall to C.E.O.s who are members of minority groups to speak up. They face enough pressure already.

Some people who have less at stake are going on the record to support Mr. Frazier’s stance against the president. Tom Glocer, the former chief executive of Thomson Reuters, wrote on Twitter on Monday: “Ken has stood up for true American values. I call on all other members of Trump’s image-burnishing committees to do the same.”

Privately, many chief executives say they are fuming, outraged by the president. (This after many of them campaigned to get on Mr. Trump’s committees.) But many are too scared to say anything publicly that could make them or their company a target of Mr. Trump’s wrath.

Indeed, Mr. Trump’s vitriol against Mr. Frazier and Merck — a company that depends on the government as a buyer for many of its drugs — will perhaps have an even greater chilling effect on other C.E.O.s who may consider speaking out. (The potential for economic retribution against Merck also demonstrates just how brave Mr. Frazier was in taking a stand.)

When I asked one chief executive Monday morning why he had remained publicly silent, he told me: “Just look at what he did to Ken. I’m not sticking my head up.” Which, of course, is the reason he said I could not quote him by name.

The same trepidation may explain why people like Mr. Ogunlesi don’t say anything. He runs an infrastructure fund that will most likely have to do business with the federal government. And Ms. Nooyi’s PepsiCo, for example, was briefly boycotted by Trump supporters when she made some comments that were construed as critical of him.

Other C.E.O.s, like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, have contended that they consider it part of their patriotic duty to remain on the president’s business council, even when they disagree with things Mr. Trump says or does.

“It is very hard if you say, I’m going to go off an advisory group or not do A-B-C, because you disagree on one issue,” Mr. Dimon said in early June after Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, a move that Mr. Dimon was against. Elon Musk of Tesla and Robert Iger of Disney resigned from the council in protest.

“Honestly, no one is going to agree with every president or prime minister on every issue, so I don’t want to overreact to it,” Mr. Dimon said.

Lawrence Summers, who has served as Treasury secretary and president of Harvard, said in response to Mr. Dimon’s rationale at the time to Bloomberg News: “At what point as a patriot is your allegiance to your country rather to your president? I’ve always thought of my allegiance as a patriot as being to my country.”

On Monday, Mr. Dimon, who is the chairman of the Business Roundtable, put out his own statement about the violence in Charlottesville, but nothing about the president.

C.E.O.s have faced the question of how to address the president when they disagree with him before — over immigration, say, or the Paris climate accord. Each time, the executives have justified their silence by saying it is more valuable to be at the table than not.

That’s a valid argument — to a point. If the president isn’t following your advice or the values you espouse, when should you get up? Of course, big policy decisions like tax reform remain just around the corner, so many executives are desperate to keep a line open to the president even if it is only one-way.

It is a fair critique of the president that he didn’t immediately and directly condemn the bigoted actions over the weekend and call them out for what they were — remarks that tacitly helped normalize such hate.

While C.E.O.s may call out the hate, will they have the fortitude to call out the president?