#i don't care if you hijack this post as long as you stay respectful

[xceanlynx]

This gotta be the last time I'm talking about it.

In my humble opinion, the "Boston is/isn't being punished by the narrative for being promiscuous" discourse here on tumblr/twitter/tiktok is starting to boil down to if you believe the producers intended for us to feel pity/sympathize with Boston or not - which is just a more convoluted way to say authorial intent vs. death of the author, i.e. a never-ending discourse. Let me try to explain my train of thought:

I, for one, prefer death of the author. To me, it doesn't matter if authors had a certain intention or not: if it wasn't 100% crystal clear, any grounded (as in with evidence) interpretation is just as valid as the original intent. Once the story is public, it is ours to interpret.

This is how I choose to interpret media, that's the way I think makes more sense to my beliefs. There is no "wrong" way to do it. If someone thinks the authors opinions and intentions matters when interpreting, that's fine, that's just not the way I and other people prefer to do it.

So when it comes to Boston's development and narrative, to ***me*** (gotta be very clear again), it doesn't matter if the authors wanted us to sympathize with him. It equally does not matter if they hated Boston and wanted us to despise him. It does not matter what they wanted to do. To me, what matters is the media they put in front of us.

And, to ***me*** and many others in the audience, there was a harsher punishment for him based solely in his sexual habits. I'm sure you can find the think pieces and evidence in many posts here on Tumblr, but I'll give you my main 3 points (and 1 side point).

You can skip them if you're as tired as I am:

Boston's friends constantly judging him by his sex behaviors - while the other presumed slut Top (I say presumed because, other than Boston - arguably, since Top was practically coerced by him - he never showed interest in people other than Mew) was given praise since he wanted monogamy now;

Boston was recorded non consensually twice + having said recordings spread by others (even being threatened to have his recording shown to his presumed homophobic father);

Atom falsely accusing him of sexual assault because he didn't want a relationship with him. Side note: this one gets me the most because some people use this storyline to justify the "narrative wanting us to sympathize with him" opinion. Look, I'm sorry, but if they wanted us to do that, Boston would have had no consequences for his false assault, and Atom would have for his false claim. Instead, we got Boston choosing to not graduate (a punishment first inflicted on him by his friends for his, I repeat, false accusation of a crime) and Atom confessing his own crime to his sister and receiving a "oh, you did bad but I'm proud you're out now" as a response. We got absolutely no catharsis from this storyline;

Boston is the only character to have an absolutely miserable final scene. Yeah, it was Nick's final scene too but he wasn't miserable, he was free from that really toxic dynamic. The only promiscuous character is the only one to get absolutely nothing by the end - as in visual media, what we actually saw with our eyes. I know he is most definitely better in NY, but we never got to see it. The classic show, don't tell wasn't used (and with a miserable ending scene like that, we needed to be shown, not just told by other characters that he is doing good);

Actually, scratch that: Boston wasn't the only one shown pursuing multiple people at the same time unapologetically. Do you know who the other one is? Boeing, a non character, plot device of a villain that also got a bad ending. Do y'all see my point?

This is what I got from his character development. This is what was shown to us, Boston being constantly berated within the narrative by the fact that he is a slut. In these points I did give my personal opinions, but the core of it was based on actual scenes from the series. Don't get me wrong, I believe there was a way for the narrative to simply portray him as a villain - if they focused more on the betrayal aspect of topboston car night than on the broad aspect of Boston sleeping around. But they didn't do it. They chose a language that in the real world would be slutshamey without a doubt.

And don't fool yourself, there is real slutshaming happening in this fandom. It may be directed at a fictional character, but the behaviors criticized are real. Real people can be slutty like Boston, and they should not face criticism because of this. Wanna hate on Boston? Please hate him for being a shitty friend, or for sleeping with Top, or because he lied to Nick. Not because he sleeps around.

I still don't know the crew's intention with his character, and I don't claim to know. I do have opinions on what the directors/writers/cast actually think of a character like Boston, but again, it does not matter when it comes to us as audience and what we think of it.

Am I saying this way of ignoring the intention of the authors is the correct way? NO. I just urge you to remember that we do not have all the information on the intentions of the crew. Actually, we have more evidence of them simplifying Boston's character as just a "slutty villain" (eg. Jojo's comment in a podcast - I believe it was the LoveCast? Don't quote me) than we have evidence of them wanting us to sympathize with him. Am I saying that this is what they had in mind while producing the series? NO. And even if it was, IT DOES NOT MATTER what they had in their heads. What matters is the finished product, and the finishing product, to me and many others, was a slutshamey narrative.

You can still have your opinion, disagree and all with whatever I said here. You aren't inherently wrong for thinking the authors had the intent to make us sympathize with Boston, as I said, we don't have access to their original thoughts. What I do not think it's cool is that there are people simply dismissing valid criticism, calling them absolutely wrong, as if the very skill of interpretation is static and monochrome. If everyone understood that, I guarantee there would be way fewer condescending posts here on Tumblr, on Twitter and Tiktok.

That's it. I'm done talking, this will be my last post about it. I doubt anyone will change my mind on this, especially the last paragraph part, but feel free to share your opinion.

[santacoppelia]

Of fandom, age, and David Tennant being our own personal Time Lord

I read the fantastic post that @davidtennantgenderenvy wrote about David Tennant and aging (if you haven’t yet read it, go for it!) and, as a fan who is closer to DT's age range than to what seems to be the rest of the fan base's age (yeah, being well over 40 is A THING), I had an interesting mix of ideas and emotions. I was going to just reblog her post with some of these musings, but when this started getting longer (and I started searching for bibliography, ha), I decided that I was not going to hijack her post, but rather cite it (and reblog it on its own right, really, read it). I should say that this is a long essay, and it comes peppered with references to one of my preferred fields of study (but I make it light and fun, promise).

Becoming an “old geek”

The first time I came into the idea was when I found a thirst TikTok with that very nice audio that goes “I think I need someone older…” and clearly, the thirst was there, but also… David is 8 years older than me, and when you are 45, thirsting over someone who is 53 doesn’t feel as “edgy” (and thinking about “needing someone older” starts verging on thirsting over people well over 65, which is absolutely fine, but a very different category over all for the rest of TikTok). So yeah, it was weird. You see someone who you feel is "in your range" and everyone is calling them "old"… And you start thinking about aging, inevitably.

Of course, I "don't feel old", but most of my friends are younger than me, and I'm the oldest person in many of my "fun activities". Take, for example, my lightsaber combat team, where every sponsorship is pitched to people under 30, and you should be training at least twice a week and following a strict diet to reach the expected “competitive or exhibition” level (enter the “old lady” who is taking this training just for fun, who needs to take care of her joints and who is not going to be invested in becoming Jedi Master General or anything of the sorts in the near future). Or we can talk about the expectation about fandom in general being a “teenage phase”, and thinking about everyone who still is into it actively after certain age as “immature” or “quirky” at best (hi, mom! Hi, work colleagues! Hi, students!).

Society, aging and social constructs

Of course, this has a lot to do with societal expectations. For almost 80 years, popular culture has been built around "youth" and "young people": before rock & roll, most things (music, clothes, movies, art in general) were targeted to “adults”, and you were expected to be “a functional adult” since a younger age. There was a seismic shift in the way popular culture was built when consumer culture decided to see and cater young people: trends became shorter, being “hip” was desirable, staying younger for a longer period was a nice aspiration (a good, light reading to get a deeper view around this is “Hit Makers” by Derek Thompson. It is written for marketers, but that makes it an easy historic overview and I like that). This has a lot to do with the change of our view about old people, too: while being old 100 years ago (yup, 1924 still fits the bill) made you “a respected elder” and you were expected to be wise, to know best, to be the voice of reason and an expert, nowadays not even us older people like being seen as “old” or “older”.

Frequently, culture becomes entrenched in binary oppositions. The binary opposition between “young” and “old” is… well, old! And while the opposition is sustained, the meanings around it change over time (that’s what the past paragraph was about, really). If in the 1940’s being old meant “mature, respectable, wise, responsible” and being young meant “inexperienced, immature, foolish”, after the 1950’s those meanings shifted a lot: being young became “fun, interesting, in the now and in the know, attractive”, while being old was about being “boring, dusty, passé, uninteresting, dull”.

In reality, being young can be a mix of all of these things (inexperienced and fun and foolish and attractive), and being old can be, at the same time, being responsible and wise and a little dusty and dull, because that’s life *shrugs*, and the wonder of lived experience is that, even if we simplify it, it is complex and rich and sometimes contradictory in itself: we can be old and foolish and interesting and boring, or young and dull and inexperienced and attractive. But, as we need to make “social sense” of things, simplifying them is… easier. That’s why we build stereotypes, and why we use them! We need to have a “base” of signifiers to build upon, so we usually take what we have on our environment and run with it. If you find this idea interesting, welcome to the world of cultural semiotics! *takes her Iuri Lotman picture out of her pocket and puts it on the desk*

(Iuri Lotman, people. He is my "patron saint").

Pop culture versus “real culture”

Another cultural opposition that piques my interest in this area is the notion of “pop culture”, of course. It is opposed to “real, serious culture”, the sort of thing that everyone expects "older, mature people" to enjoy. In the sixties and seventies, there were a lot of studies and writing about "high brow" and "low brow" culture, trying to keep this distinction between "things that make you familiar with the now, but have no intrinsic value" and "eternal things that cultivate your mind, soul and spirit".

Evidently, if you ask me, this is a whole load of horse manure: probably useful to fertilize other things, but with little intrinsic value on its own. My main point is not dolphins, but the idea of culture: historically, it has used to mean a lot of things; from the notion of (exactly) fertilizing something and making it grow to make it come to fruition, to the hodgepodge of practices that a social group creates when they are together and are trying to make common sense of things.

I like the latter better (that is the one I’d ascribe to if this was The Academia TM, but this is tumblr!), but another popular definition, which comes from the Illustration and has been quite prevalent, is the notion of culture as the set of cultural practices that make you a better, more intelligent, far more educated person. For example: if you want to have real culture, you have to read Shakespeare and know what a iambic pentameter is, rather than watching “10 Things I Hate About You”. You must read real books, not listen to audiobooks, and “real books” should be written by “serious authors” like (insert old white Western European or American cis men, preferably born before 1960).

Here comes the notion of “cultural canon”, grinning widely. Yup, that set of practices becomes an expectation of what and how you should experience any area of the human experience, and they become a sort of “nucleus” of the whole experience, with people playing “defense” around them and culture shifting all around and sometimes across them. This is not exclusive to “high culture”: Have you ever heard about “gatekeeping”? Yeah, same fenomenomenon (Shadwell, of course). Whenever something gets this “shape”, it becomes a “norm”, the “common” thing, the “rule” if you participate in that set of cultural practices.

As every cultural set of practices tends to generate its own “canon”, they also have a lot of practices surrounding it, which are ever changing, shifting, learning from new and old practices, and redefining what everything means in their common/shared space. For example: Neil Gaiman, my beloved, was part of the “comics” frontier when Sandman first appeared, but as he and Alan Moore (yeah, I know he did it first, but Gaiman is my study focus right now, so let me be) and other very talented and interesting people started creating fascinating stuff that hadn’t been done, and they found people who loved it, they not only redefined the world of comics, but became part of the new canon themselves. And then, Neil’s presence in the world of literature and fantasy became widespread and recognized and then revered… And then he is doing it again by adapting his own work to a streaming platform in a serialized way… I hope this explains why I’m growing an obsession with studying Neil Gaiman as an author who crosses through different media: a transmedial auteur, an anomaly in his own right. But that is not an essay for tumblr, but a thesis, one that I don’t know if I’d ever have the time or mental resources to write (being a runaway ex academic with ADHD who works on their own is hard, people). Besides, this was about aging and David Tennant, so let’s cut this tangent short and start talking about our Time Lord and Savior: David Tennant, the king of frontiers.

David Tennant as a Frontier Lord

David Tennant is another fascinating case in this sense, mostly because he is an actor who has been able to build a whole very impressive career through crossing symbolic frontiers. Through his massive filmography (161 roles just for screens, as registered in IMDb) and his stage career (I love this gifset for this exact reason), he has acted his way through almost everything, from classical Shakespeare to improvisational comedy, from procedural police drama to wacky fantasy sci-fi. This has a lot to do with his personality (he loves acting, he decided to pursue acting as a career thanks to his love for Doctor Who, but he is also smart and inquisitive) but, as it happens with a lot of “frontier figures”, it also has a lot to do with “unpredictable” circumstances: less of a strategy, more of an instinct.

David has talked many times about how his impostor syndrome made him feel, for the longest time, that he had to keep accepting roles, because you never know if there is going to be another one after. He is talented and open and curious (this is quite a good interview about his perspective), but this… anxiety? meant that he had also lower quandaries about saying “yes” to roles and projects that were “less consistent” with a typecast (which has been, for the longest time, one of the main strategies to build an acting career). Yeah, he has some defining characteristics that make a role “tennantish” (I’m not starting that tirade here, but yeah, you know that almost fixed set of quirks and bits), but he has also worked his way through many different genres, budgets, styles and complexities. And he has usually been as committed and as professional in a big budget-high stakes-great script sort of situation, as he has been in a highly chaotic-let’s see what sticks-small scale project.

That can be correlated by the way he talks about “acting advice”. “Be on time, learn your lines, treat everyone the same, never skip the lunch queue”… Acting is a job, and he treats it as such. Yeah, he looks for interesting projects anytime he can, but the “down to earth” attitude about it is, once again, not-usual, not-common: pure frontier. Then, when David talks about his own self (specially at a young age), he is pretty clear about his “outsider” or “uncool” status (this interview is fantastic), and how strangely disruptive it was to become not only recognizable, but cool and sexy and… everything else, thanks to Doctor Who. He went from living in the frontier to being put in the canon, but he is still, at heart, a person who is more comfortable not defining himself by that “expected” set of rules.

Him being a very private person, who insists on having a family life that seems, form this distance, stable, loving and absolutely un-showbiz just makes the deal (and the parasocial love and respect) easier to sustain; as does his openness to talk about social and political issues that interest him (passionately, again; against the norm for “well liked celebrity”, again). His colleagues also talk wonders about him, mostly because he is this sort of down-to-earth but also passionate about his craft and easy to work with. Again: not the “norm”, not the “rule” of being such a celebrity.

Many of his fans (should I say that I’m one? Or is it obvious at this point?) find this not only endearing, but comforting: he is a massive star, who has acted in a lot of terrific roles in huge productions… But he feels, at heart, as “one of us”. But he is, also, a well-respected thespian, a Shakespearian powerhouse, an international talent. He lives in a very authentic, but very unstereotipical frontier. And he seems happy about that and has made a career from it. Extensive kudos and all the parasocial love and the amateur-actress mad respect for that.

I should mention, just in passing, that a “natural” archetype for this characters that traverse frontiers… are tricksters. Think again about the “tennantish” characteristics. Here goes another essay I’m not writing right now.

Aging: The Next Frontier

This takes me to the original post that inspired the essay: living in a culture where the “norm” is “being young and famous is a desirable aspiration”, we have a fantastic actor, at peak of his craft, who is in the heart of middle age (past 50, nearing 55). Not only that, but he is an actor with whom at least a couple of generations have grown older: from the ones who feel him as “our contemporary” to the ones who grew up looking at him (like Ncuti Gatwa!).

David, being the frontier person he is, has been navigating this transition in a very “unconventional” way: he came back to the role that made him iconic (The Doctor, now with more trauma!), is starring in another fantasy series about middle-aged looking ethereal beings that at times is an adventure thriller, at times is a comedy of errors and at times is a romcom (having another beautiful trickster of a man as his co-star… There goes another tangent that is an essay); he is playing one of the quintessential Shakespeare roles for middle-aged men (Macbeth), and is, seemingly, having a lot of fun doing a lot of voice acting for animation roles (if you haven’t watched Duck Tales, you’re missing a whole lot of fun, really).

Traditionally, middle aged actors navigate that period of their career trying to reinforce their “still young, thus a celebrity” status (for example, doing a lot of action-packed movies and keep doing their own stunts while seducing women 20-30 years younger than them), or strengthening their “prestige thespian, so now a real culture person” position (fighting for more serious roles, going from comedy to drama, or working their way into The Classics©). Sometimes, they face the internalized societal expectation by also becoming a shipwreck in their personal life (yeah… the stereotype of “getting divorced, having an affair with someone half their age, getting another red convertible, getting in trouble…”) because we don’t have a good “map for aging responsibly” yet as a society. We have been so focused on youth, that we have forgotten how to age.

Again, switching to the personal experience. I was raised as a female-shaped person (yeah, being queer is fun), so part of the experience of growing (and then growing old) has been closely related with that concept from the female point of view. I decided, pretty early on (but not so much, probably 25 years ago), that I wasn’t going to conform to the norm… And that included aging naturally. When I found my first white hair, it was a shock (I was 21 or 22), but I had already seen my father fighting his own hair being white since forever. I decided it was a loss of time, money and effort… And the judgement from people in my generation and in the one that preceded me (my mother, my aunts) was stern and strict: “it will age you, and it will date us. You shouldn’t do that”. Men could do it, given the right age (being over 50) but women must not. Same with wrinkles and sagging and gaining weight and getting “pudgy”. But when men grew older, they needed to make a “show off” of their ability to seduce, to “still be a man”. Aging, then, was undesirable by any standard.

As me and my peers have grown older, and my hair has gotten increasingly silver, there have been women that come to me saying that “I look great” and “they wish they were as brave as me”. I would like to state in front of this jury of my peers (hi, tumblr!) that the only bravery it took was deciding, somewhere between my twenties and my thirties, that I wanted to be as myself as I possibly could, so no bravery at all, just the same lack of understanding of social rules that took me to become interested in… you guessed it, cultural semiotics. We’ve come full circle with this. Now, let’s finish talking about what it means for an aging fan to have an aging star to look up to, shall we?

David Tennant as a cultural Time Lord

I am pretty sure that he wouldn’t have chosen this role for himself (as he wouldn’t have chosen being a massive star just by playing his favorite character and being so talented and charming), but he is, as Loki would say, burdened by glorious purpose. Being “the actor of his generation”, and him crossing so many frontiers with such ease and grace, without even thinking about it too hard, just because he is a hard worker and likes to try new things and is just so good at what he does put him in the exact cultural crossroad for it.

He is not in a sudden need to “resignify himself” as anything: he has already shown his very flexible acting muscles through his very long career. He is not bounded to “keep his public image relevant”: he likes to have his personal life clearly separated from the spotlight, and being married to the brilliant and funny Georgia, who herself grew up with a famous father, so she is no stranger to staying sane and in control in the eye of media, and who manages their social media presence with a good mix of humor and well-set boundaries.

Therefore, he is in a moment where he can (and probably will) chose to do whatever he likes. And he has the public support to do so: he is prestigious and respected, but likes to make fun of himself and is not self-important; he has a lot of awards, but he is also a very likable person with whom most people in the industry enjoy working. And he is up to do a lot of things: heroes, villains, morally grey characters; romance, drama, thriller, fantasy, sci-fi, procedurals, historical fiction, classic plays, silly parts, voice acting… We are going to see him aging on screen and stage, with no playbook: the playbooks were written for people that certainly are not him. And I have some evidence to prove it.

He is starring in a groundbreaking series (yeah, Good Omens) where the protagonists are two middle-aged looking entities, full of queer relationships, written by another trickster. This series, in an on itself, is a showcase for characters that are rule breaking in many ways: in the narrative, by being hereditary enemies who are inevitably linked to one another by a loving bond that may or may not be romantic, but that has been in the making for 6,000 years; in representation, by having the protagonists being represented by a couple of middle aged actors who are “not serious” and “not action” coded, in a role where they are delivering romance, banter, intrigue, joy and a whole other range of emotions that are “not your stereotypical” middle-aged male-lead coded.

He also delivered the baton on a relay race with Doctor Who: he came back after almost 20 years, to bring back the generation who grew up watching him in the role, and deliver us into the arms of Ncuti Gatwa’s 15th Doctor, with the promise of taking a rest and working on getting better from all the trauma The Doctor has endured in 20 years Earth-time (which, as any Doctor Who fan knows, account for centuries of trauma in Doctor’s time). Not your usual Doctor Who Anniversary cameo, but one built to deliver some zeitgeisty emotional health promises that made the specials feel… healing. At least, for some of us.

Even when it wasn’t the hit series it deserved to be, his Phileas Fogg in “Around the World in 80 Days” is also a great delivery of an unconventional middle-aged protagonist, who goes from meek and scared and too worried about societal norms, to a lovely, tender, slightly awkward and daring person, with friends half his age who look at him but are also his peers (another kind of relationship that is not very frequent in media).

And, with all fearlessness, he has played a lively old duck in Duck Tales! Scrooge McDuck has never been a middle-aged character: he is, quite openly, an old gentleman. An adventurer, quirky, with a lot of spunk… but also quite clearly an elder to Huey, Dewey and Louie, and obviously older than Donald Duck (who is also not a young adult himself!). When you watch that series, and if you have the opportunity to catch any glimpse of him behind the scenes while recording the part, you can feel the joy he got from playing the part (and he has said time and again that he IS Scrooge McDuck, so it will become his “recurring bit” for the future).

Hopefully, David (and some other actors and actresses, for sure) will dare to build that new “aging publicly without making an arse of myself” playbook, and I (and I can imagine, many other fans in our middle age, but also fans that are right now leaving behind the “young adult” stage and becoming “adults” fair and square, and others who will arrive to this place at a future time in their lives, so I hope) will be there to bear witness, support, cheer… and learn from the model. Because that’s what fandom is about, but also because that’s how culture itself gets shaped and changes, continuously. And that is exciting and a little scary, and that’s why it is better if we do this together.

And I'd love to imagine diverse (in the full sense of the word) role models for this process and this playbook, too!!!

If you read all the way through this, I'm very grateful, take a cookie, have a gold star and suggest names for our aging interestingly role models on the "non-white-male" side of things!

Class dismissed!!

[magicpony45]

Fucking hell, not to hijack your post but I had my last day of my eight months with Walmart two days ago, and I can confidently say it was utterly, tremendously awful. Walmart is a genuinely terrible work experience. Before I worked at Walmart I was a camp counselor with my town's summer day camp, and I remember thinking that was a good standard for what a starter job should look like, the town was wonderful and treated me and all of its other teenage employees with respect, patience, and dignity as their equals entering the work force. At Walmart they do not know the meaning of any of those words and customers have no hesitation to be loudly astonished when a cashier can use them in a sentence.

You are treated like dirt, Walmart does not care for you.

I was a front-end cashier, which I had chosen because I genuinely enjoy making conversation with people and asking them about their day and chatting about the weather. I enjoy cashiering, there is consistent interaction and mental stimulation, there's always something to do with your hands, most people are kind to you if you smile and make conversation. I got compliments on my smile and my good attitude, regular customers knew my name before they got far enough into the aisle to see the badge.

Cashiering is a good job. Walmart makes it hell. The invention of the self checkout makes it hell, the convoluted corporate rules make it hell, the fact that managers don't pay any attention to you when you need help makes it hell. I really wanted to go above and beyond, I enjoy being good at what I do, I want to try hard and be proud of what I've accomplished and have my supervisors tell me I've done a good job, but Walmart simply cannot make it happen. There's no rewards for hard work, no room for compliments or improvement or heaven forbid a promotion, the same peopke have been in the same positions at that store for some 15 years.

At the front end we had shock pads to stand on that my coworkers would literally shame me for using. On my first day during my "training" the assiciate I was placed with told me there was padding in one corner of the self checkout area, but that the managers dont like you to stand there. A young woman who worked the customer service desk borrowed a stool from a disabled employee that he allowed her to use during his lunch break because she's pregnant and frequently in pain, and another employee physically took it out from under her because the rules technically said she couldn't use it. We are not allowed to sit because it makes us "look lazy."

Not to even touch on their HR and ethics, which is nightmarish. When word got out that I would be leaving this month to start college, one of my team leads started to consistently question my decision to leave and try to convince me to stay, she would ask me why I was leaving and what I was going to do. Every time I called out sick she would ask me why. All this to say she was extraordinarily unprofessional. When I asked another of my team leads what I should do about it, I was helpfully informed that I could call ethics if I wanted to, but all they would do was report it to the store manager, who had a history of being unable to keep ethics reports anonymous. Both the team lead and the store manager have been reported previously for that behavior and nothing was done.

To circle somewhat back around to OP's point, Walmart would be quite a bit more tolerable if I got to actually do my job without having to put up with all the other bullshit, if there was decent pay, if my coworkers and supervisors weren't allowed to be awful to me and each other without consequence, if they hired enough people to prevent me from having to close a store with only two other cashiers, if they gave me one job to do instead of also making me do everyone else's job, but it simply doesn't work that way.

Again, sorry for the long rant, I tried to keep it a little shorter than it could have been, I've just been really angry about the way I was treated at that job for so long and it's so validating to see someone else say it too

The reason people don’t want to work is that it’s just normal for them to be in bad work environments.

My issue with working at Walmart wasn’t the work itself I was doing. It was the circumstances around it. The concrete floor, lack of places to sit, having to put up with asshole customers, not getting time off for injuries, and bad pay.

If I had been given shock pads to stand on or a few chairs to rest on sometimes, if they paid me a livable amount of money and I was allowed to yell back at asshole customers, if they had given me any amount of training, I would happily work part time folding clothes all day and telling people where the swimsuit section is.

I’m a creative type. I’m a writer. I’m pretty smart, even. But if I could make a living folding shirts and listening to podcasts in one ear and helping people find the scented candles for 30 hours a week? I would. Leaves some mental space free for me to brainstorm. Lets me catch up on my reading with audiobooks.

But instead I was treated so badly by upper management and customers that I’m like legitimately a little frightened whenever I step into a Walmart now. And I only worked there for three months a few years ago.

I’m a good lower level worker. When I’m treated well. I like finishing tasks. I like being helpful. I like having some time to talk to coworkers and some time alone with my thoughts. I’m a frickin team player. And that’s how I was at my first job. I was treated well by my supervisor. I was trained. They were patient with me. I was so good at being low on the totem pole at that job because I was valued and felt like I was being listened to. I was able to sit still when there was nothing left to do which made it feel less bad when we were on a time crunch. I didn’t mind working hard at that job because it was fun even though I was doing all the low level stuff that the supervisors didn’t want do.

But at Walmart I was like that for all of two days. Then I figured out that nobody appreciated my work and if I worked in my normal people pleasing manner I’d kill myself because their standards were high and the rewards for meeting them were low.

So I slowed down. I started avoiding customers. I started taking a lot longer to get to my breaks and to come back from them. I became worse at my job because no matter how good I was at it there would be no reward, no appreciation, and I’d just be pushed further beyond my limits.

My only level of happiness from that job came from the people who were working with me. The old ladies and my department manager who made sure I wasn’t overextending myself. The one other young man working in the clothing department who always got sent with me to unload the heavy stuff and commiserated with me about the shoulder injuries, the hurting feet we were too young to have.

But none of that was enough to make me stay. We were constantly understaffed. I was constantly abused by customers and not able to do a thing about it. I was not paid much at all. So as soon as I had enough saved up for what I was trying to do and my last semester of college was about to start I handed in my two weeks.

I would have found a way to stay if I liked that job. If I liked that job I would’ve pushed myself to my mental limits to finish college and keep that job at the same time. Heck that job could’ve been a rest from college. A place to get away from it. But I hate that job so I got out as soon as I could.

I want to work. I want enough money to live sort of comfortably. I want to have some tasks to do to give my creativity a rest. I want to be a part of something. But the way that modern corporate run work environments are set up does not give me any of the things I actually want out of a job. And I think that’s the same for millions of people right now. A lot of people would happily spend their lives as a waitress or an Uber driver or a warehouse worker or a farmhand or any other “low skill” job you can possibly think of. But with the way the world works right now those jobs are absolutely miserable. It doesn’t have to be that way. I know because I’ve had a fulfilling part time minimum wage job that I looked forward to going to every week. A job where I was listened to and allowed to sit when I needed to. I miss that job. Especially now since I’ve realized that’s not the standard. It should be. People should look forward to going to work or at the very least not get mild ptsd whenever they set foot into a Walmart.

[cerealforkart]

Y'all asked for this.

Quick clarification before I go into my thought process under the cut: This list is not "who would make me personally the saddest" because tbh, I don't think any of them would really make me sad. Instead, it is "who I think would be the most impactful to the narrative if they were to die right now" and also exists under the idea that there will somehow only be one parent death. I'm 100% ready to be proven wrong next episode.

Cassandra - I genuinely can't imagine how Freddie would handle Taylor if Cassandra died. The players have said in Teen Talk a couple times that Taylor's incredibly sweet and loving relationship with Cassandra is his big redeeming quality that keeps him from being completely insufferable. And knowing that's how the players feel about their relationship makes me believe that her death isn't something even Freddie would be able to just brush off and move on from. Also, if she died and stayed dead, what would happen to Taylor post-season? Would he move to Hell to live with Nicky? Would he just be alone? Those both feel like bad endings for him (sorry Nicky). He loves his mom so much, she's his favourite person, maybe the only person he really loves

Veronica - Those last reasonings for Cassandra also apply to Veronica. What happens to Scary if her mom is dead? Does Terry somehow need to step up from Hell to look out for her? Veronica ranks below Cassandra because Veronica isn't really a character. She's the parent we've spent the least time with, Beth hasn't really shown any interest in Scary's relationship with her, so the personal impact of her death wouldn't be there, but as the title of the tier says, the implications put her here. If she did die maybe there could be some fun parallels with Terry and post-pyramid Ron, both so scared of having to step up and being the only person their stepkid has left.

Sparrow - I will accept trading Sparrow with Grant and Marco if that's anyone's personal preference, he could go in the "Here's How We Can Still Win..." tier too, but I put him above them for one reason, which is that Link and Grant have reached some understanding and catharsis in their relationship, whereas Normal and Sparrow haven't. So much of Normal's arc has revolved around Sparrow and making him proud, to leave that storyline hanging, to have Normal never have that conversation, however it might go, to cut off their relationship here, with Normal mad and Sparrow disappointed and both of them still caring about each other so much and unable to connect. Ugh. I would have loved it.

Grant & Marco - As stated above, I can see Grant and Marco in the "You Need to Think of the Implications!" tier as well. Marco is higher in this tier than Grant is by virtue of being the better dad (lmao) and also Link hasn't had a conversation with him in so long, I think it would mess him up. But I'm not sure it would hijack Link's arc or ending the same way the characters I ranked above would. On the other hand, Link and Grant's storyline is kind of over. Link can understand him and respect his actions as a person, but as a parent, the standard is different, and he can't accept him, there's a conclusion. And maybe he will change his mind someday, but they've gone through a complete arc, nothing is getting interrupted and dropped into limbo.

Rebecca - Middle tier queen. This is what she would have wanted. This is a lot of the same thoughts I have with Marco, so I'll keep this one short, I think her death will mess Normal up and leave him sadder than he otherwise would have been, but I don't think it sends his character careening in a completely unexpected direction and shattering his ending and catharsis.

Terry - The beat of Terry being dead exists at the end of season whether he's in Hell or has vanished from all planes, it's something that happens one way or another, putting him down here on the list. It's already a part of Scary's arc, and it's something we can already see, she's going to come back from it with the love and support of her friends. I love it for her, I think it's a great part of her story, but it already happened.

Nicky - Given how Freddie plays, I think Taylor would end the season still being Taylor if Nicky were to die. I think it would become Taylor's motivation through the fight, and it would be his new anime protagonist backstory, and then Taylor would go home with his mom and live happily ever after. The season ends, and Taylor ends up in exactly the same place as he started, without a dad.

Lark - Long one because Lark is actually the reason I thought to make this tierlist, because I was running through all the options for who could have died and when I got to Lark, I came to the surprising revelation... at this point in the series, Lark doesn't really matter. The fans would be upset, because the fans love Lark, but none of the PCs really care about Lark. Think about it. In the show, Normal and Lark do not have a relationship, they don't have a dynamic, they don't want or need anything from each other. Will has never engaged in the "Lark might be Normal's real dad" storyline, Normal has always very adamantly insisted he knows who his dad is. Sparrow raised him, Sparrow loved him (as imperfectly as it might have been), Sparrow doomed a world for him, Sparrow is his dad, Normal has shown no interest in a fantasy that it might be Lark instead. Lark was an obstacle pushing against trying to redeem the Doodler, and that ended ages ago, leaving him without any threads to pull on. Lark isn't a character the story or players have shown much interest in for a while and I can't imagine his death shaking the status quo. At least Terry and Nicky do have active relationships with PCs that would be brought to an end by their deaths.

Scary's Bio Dad - Your honour, who cares? Beth's a great player, and would probably make a wonderful meal of his death should it occur, but honestly? No one cares about this man. I couldn't even be bothered to draw him an icon. Fuck 'im.

Seeing everyone upset about the end of the last episode meanwhile I’m ranking all the parents from most to least interesting/impactful if they died

[sour-peach-cider]

Hi, sorry to hijack your post but as a former homeless youth I have to say, please DO NOT donate to Covenant House. I can't speak for the one in Toronto but the one in Vancouver was a horrible experience for me and many of my friends. They are very conservatively religious, they don't deny shelter space to LGBT youth like Salvation Army does, but once you are in the shelter you will find out their real views. They confiscate all your belongings and will keep them from you, also if you get kicked out there is a good chance they will just keep your stuff and you will never get it back. (It will show up in the "donations" bins weeks later.) And you can get kicked out for a variety of things, most often for refusing to eat their homophobic and transphobic comments, but also for any perceived "disrespect" to the staff. I saw staff ridicule and bully homeless youth regularly. Most of the bullying was directed towards LGBT (specifically visibly trans) kids, but they would also make fun of fat kids, anyone who was teen pregnant or young parents, kids who were struggling with drug addiction... basically just all the people they were supposed to fucking help. They even gave me shit for my seemingly heterosexual relationship, because I made the mistake of revealing we wanted to find housing together - and mentioned something about birth control. They refused to connect me to a housing advocate after that conversation.

This got a bit long and rambling, sorry. But Covenant House makes me really angry. They seem to be well respected as a charity, they seem to be able to hide their malice and bigotry from everyone except the homeless youth that have to deal with them, and when homeless youth have tried to bring up these issues in the past they get ignored.

If you want an organization in Vancouver to support, a few places that really helped me and my friends were:

Directions Youth Services Centre - drop-in centre, BEST place to get connected to whatever resource you need (shelter, doctor, housing, detox, get your id, whatever). Also runs employment programs, media room and a bunch of other weekly programs. Serves food every day, so always looking for food donations.

Catholic Charities - runs a mens shelter where all my male friends stayed and said it was clean & safe (many shelters here are not). Also runs several drop in programs and apparently sponsors refugees (just learned about that now). & unlike Covey, these guys don't seem to shove their version of Christianity down your throat.

Street Youth Job Action (SYJA) - this program is run out of the Directions building but is a seperate thing. SYJA and the training they provided me was 100% what got me off the street and working again.

Insite - Supervised injection site where people can use drugs safely and also connect to health care and recovery services. There's a lot of controversy around these sites right now but Insite in Vancouver is the first supervised injection site in Canada and still going despite multiple efforts to shut it down. Harm reduction SAVES LIVES.

The Gathering Place Community Centre - another place to access housing & health resources, clothing room, plus a cafeteria serving very cheap food.

I haven't been to several of these places in a while now so some of the programs may have changed a bit. Also when I visited them all of these places were incredibly inclusive & accepting of all appearences.

do you know of any good charities that one could donate to that are in the vein of homeless shelters or food banks? i feel like a bad person for not donating despite my terrible financial state, but there are so many crappy organizations out there that i don't know where to start.

Followers?