#if only because the long-term consequences don't seem to be as horrific

[alasarys]

15. which athlete was your favourite growing up? why? 🧡

I didn't watch a lot of sport growing up. Rugby a bit, unavoidably. Tennis, when it was the Australian Open or Wimbledon. I did spend a solid year watching Aussie League when I was about 16, convinced it was superior to rugby. Even had the Men of League calendar, which contained exactly as many half-naked photos as the title would suggest.

But to answer your question: Zinzan Brooke, Stefan Edberg and Gary Freeman.

[aihoshiino]

chapter 147 thoughts

you guys ever hear the tale of the monkey's paw. grants your wish but you suffer dire consequences as a result? just felt relevant to this chapter for some reason. anyway.

Chapters Since The 143 Kiss Happened And Went Completely Unacknowledged And Unaddressed Count: 4

I'm gonna be up front and say that while I really wanted to like this chapter and it has the bones of interesting ideas, so many of the existing issues with the Movie Arc just bring it crashing back down. I probably dislike it more than I necessarily should because knowing that this definitely is the end and seeing concretely in hindsight just how much time was wasted and how much excellent material has been squandered or flat out skipped over entirely just makes me want to put my head through a brick wall. And it just sucks because, like… man, I don't want to dislike Oshi no Ko! I really don't enjoy feeling like I'm just putting negativity out each chapter because when the story hits, it hits so fucking good!! The Movie Arc has been clunky but it's had some truly breathtaking individual moments and character beats that make me remember why I fell in love with the series so deeply but then chapters like this come along and I wonder why I'm even bothering to keep reading.

anyway. Anyway.

To my genuine shock and surprise, the RBHK conversation happens entirely onscreen and isn't needlessly dragged out which I will take as a W at this point. What is less of a W is how just… underwhelming this ended up being? This is Hikaru's first meeting (that we know of) with the child he fathered and then essentially orphaned… at least as far as Ruby is concerned. So her total lack of reaction to him is baffling. The question currently seems to be whether Ruby is only pretending not to recognize him in order to try and pry the answer she's looking for out of him or whether Akasaka really, genuinely wants me to believe that Ruby does not recognize her father, when Akane recognized him on sight, he looks identical to her twin brother she spent 18 years growing up with and she is in the middle of MAKING A MOVIE THAT STARS HIM. If the latter is the intent then all I can say is that I feel genuinely fucking insulted on Ruby's behalf at her being dumbed down this badly and for myself as a reader that Akasaka thinks I'm stupid enough to buy this. So I am very much hoping it's the former.

The talk they go onto have is also………………………….. man. I want to like it. I really want to pull it apart and analyze it because it is fascinating. It's a really important look into Ruby's feelings and I even myself said this was something I really wanted to see Ruby dealing with - being faced with the realization that the person who killed her mother isn't some ephemeral faceless force of uncomplicated evil, but a fucked up human being who was hurt and suffering and who faced horrific and monstrous abuse just like Ai did. The idea of Ruby wrestling with her conflicting feelings of empathy and resentment, similar to Kana trying to reconcile her lingering hurt with her love for Ruby as her friend, is super compelling.

But like… she didn't! Akasaka having Ruby look into the camera and having her say "uhhh i was totally having all these deep and complicated feelings this whole time trust me bro" is the first we have heard Ruby struggle with literally any of this. It's yet another example of what I've been saying this whole time of Akasaka both lacking enough respect for Ruby to seriously interrogate her as a character and rushing her to the endpoint of what should have been long term characterization in lieu of showing us the work it takes to get there. Rather than organically weaving any of this into the prior story and letting us actually see Ruby work through this, she just starts awkwardly monologing about it to a conveniently placed guy who is, depending on your interpretation of the chapter, either some rando with an umbrella or the guy she's pretty sure killed her mom.

There is no reason her struggling to reconcile these contrasting feelings of resentment and empathy couldn't have been explored as the movie was being filmed. There were countless opportunities for this to have come up while the movie was filming the scenes dealing with Hikaru's abuse - we even get this set up in 139 during the filming of their first meeting but it gets derailed by a dumb brocon joke because I guess that was more important to spend pagetime on than the arc Akasaka is trying to suddenly pretend Ruby was having.

And it's not like it even matters! Unless the next arc is also going to be about 15 Year Lie where we interrogate the content of the movie not shown to us, Ruby's struggle here comes to nothing. That overhanging question of "Will Ai('s actress) forgive her killer or not?" is cut short and goes unanswered. So what was the point of this?

I also just really can't get my head around this continued thread of Ruby wanting to be an idol who 'surpasses' Ai. I had a whole rant about it here I ended up deleting lol but the long and the short of it is it feels entirely incongruous with the series' broader portrayal and Ruby's own attitude about chasing Ai's light and what being an idol did to Ai but at this point I've given up.

The exchange with Kamiki that follows is like, the one part of this chapter I think is just uncomplicatedly interesting and worth interrogation. He actually gives Ruby a lot of genuinely good advice here - that she can only find an answer to that question by interrogating it herself and an answer from someone else won't solve the issue. Does she actually want suffering and revenge? Are those really at the core of who she is as a person?

The framing here is obviously and overtly sinister and suspicious and we're pretty clearly supposed to think he was about to shove Ruby down the stairs, but a few things jumped out to me. The first is that if you pay attention to the backgrounds, they seem to have actually already been close to if not at ground level by the time Akane caught up to them, so… what exactly was a push from that height going to do if he did, in fact, push her?

Not only that but uh… holy shit! His white hoshigan!!!!

Like, am I misremembering, or is this not the one and only time we have ever seen adult Hikaru - maybe even the real Hikaru full stop - without black hoshigans??? Given what we've seen of him so far and how the black hoshigans have been used as a symbol, if he really was about to kill Ruby… where did THAT come from?

Added together with the deeply sympathetic portrayal of his younger self in the movie, it continues to raise a lot of questions for me as to exactly what we're supposed to be thinking of Hikaru and how we're supposed to feel about him that I am finding very compelling. ambiguity enjoyers when the

NINO IS HERE!!!! MISS NINO I'M FREE THURSDAY NIGHT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HANG OUT

Joking aside, I'm really glad Nino is here because it implies her whatever the fuck is going on situationship with Kamiki is going to continue into the final arc(s?) of the series and that we'll get to see more of her as a result. Nino's been one of my favourite OnK characters since I first read 45510 so any more content of her in the main story is a treat.

Kamiki's words about the movie killing him via public opinion also lines up with what I was expecting to happen more or less… I'm curious to see how this is all going to play out and what this means for Aqua given that, if last chapter is anything to go by, he's still very much struggling with suicidal ideation. can someone PLEASE give my son a bone crushing hug.

akane stalking kamiki is up there as one of the funniest things ever in this manga btw. what is wrong w her <3

This is unfortunately where me having nice things to say about this chapter ends because the chapter - and therefore the Movie Arc as a whole - ends with this transparently rushed sequence absolutely mach speech blasting through the remaining material of the movie in one and a half's pages worth of silent single panels. Honestly, I really can't properly articulate how mad and frustrated I am about this lmao. It really just feels like Akasaka admitting to the reader that he's stopped giving a shit about what the movie was supposed to be about. The HKAI breakup that was given a huge amount of setup and weight at the start of filming? Ai's pregnancy? AI'S DEATH???? It's all skipped over and brushed aside as if it never mattered in the first place. Never mind any of the interesting characterization we could've gotten out of it. Never mind that the Movie Arc was promised to be about Ai and untangling her past. Never fucking mind Ruby having literally any interiority about having to act out the death of her beloved mother and reliving the event that destroyed her and her brother's lives. If Akasaka doesn't care, why should I?

It feels like a slap in the face for getting invested in the story's promises and trying to engage with it. But of course, I'm going to be back like a clown doing just that when the next chapter drops anyway.

at least we're finally moving on to a new arc but by god. at what fucking cost.

break next week……………………………………………..

[monsterfucker-lisa-swallows]

this is going to be a very uncomfortable and potentially triggering conversation so i suggest you scroll past if you have a lot of empathy because this isn't fun at all

also wanna preface this by saying i'm not interested in spreading conspiracy theories or "truther" claims because i feel that's incredibly disrespectful and potentially harmful to the people that need the most help. any allusions to unverified rumors will be presented as uncorroborated, not as fact (only bringing them up because i know that's the kind of rumor floating around and i don't want to seem like i'm participating somehow in dismissing concerns). because we simply don't know. and it's not our business.

i've had this bad feeling about amanda bynes for the past decade. it's the same pattern we've seen with child stars over and over again. the drugs, the mental breakdown, the conservatorship. but i pushed those nagging thoughts away. i didn't have the bandwidth at the time because i was living in an abusive household when her most public battles were happening. i didn't have the time or the emotional understanding to put towards what was happening to her even as i felt it mirrored what i was going through or what my mom was going through. then i found out about dan schneider a few years ago. i didn't really engage with the rumor and speculation about him - i was in my early 20s when this all broke and i didn't know most of the shows he'd been involved with except by the fact that my younger siblings watched them. i'd been an amanda bynes fan - hugely into the amanda show and what i like about you. my siblings watched drake and josh, icarly, and victorious. i didn't have the emotional bandwidth at the time to look into what people were saying. i knew it would upset me if i learned too much. but i couldn't stop thinking about amanda.

i heard about quiet on set from news websites. i saw the headlines about drake bell. it shook me to my core. the things i was reading were horrific and immediately put me in mind of what my sister went through as a teenage survivor of repeated sexual abuse by a man who was trusted with our care. she'd had a huge crush on drake when we were growing up. i wonder if she's heard about this.

this immediately made me think about amanda again. this time i couldn't push the thought away. i guess i'm finally ready to process the way this whole situation has felt to me.

the way people talk about amanda reminds me of how people in the 50s talked about judy garland. child star with incredible talent, far beyond her years, with incredible charm and personality and the whole world at her fingertips. everyone loved working with her. until she became erratic and had a mental breakdown fueled by drugs. (you could even argue there were parallels because both women were frequently typecast as the wholesome girl next door and not really allowed to break out of that infantilizing box.) and no one could ever think why. why does this happen.

i've come to believe that mental illness always has a cause. brain chemistry fucked up by trauma, whether that's long-term stress or a singular event or repeated traumas stacking on top of each other. the mind can't cope. i really, truly believe something horrific happened to amanda bynes. and i know people will say, well, maybe it wasn't dan schneider. she was doing fine for years after she stopped working with him. i want to make one thing very clear. trauma doesn't always manifest symptoms immediately. not everyone comes out of a trauma looking shell shocked. i know from my experience because i didn't have my breakdown until a year after my abuser was exposed and i'm still feeling the consequences to my psyche to this day. and i think it must be difficult for child stars to process this trauma. the pattern i've seen is the child star endures something terrible, gets incredible fame and begins taking on more and more pressure, then when this isn't enough to make them happy they turn to drugs. you think because they got out that it would all just go away? no. they were raised to play characters so they played those characters. there was incredible pressure to just play those characters because that's what the fans want. having struggles isn't part of the brand. it had to be especially rough on nick stars because there wasn't much separation between them and the characters they played. it was the amanda show. drake and josh used their real first names. the separation between who they were and who the character was was probably a very blurred line.

i wonder how long this documentary has been in production. tracking down these people and petitioning courts had to have taken ages. amanda was supposed to be at 90s con last year but cancelled due to illness and had another psychotic episode. 90s con itself may have been a trigger for her, but if someone had reached out to her or if she'd heard about this production...i could see that triggering her and making her relive the horror she went through. there are so many unsubstantiated rumors floating around. i can't speak to whether she was high on adderall during that interview when she was 12 (she could've just been a hyper child but they could've been pulling a judy garland on her and i don't trust these people plus she's said she got hooked on adderall when she was a teenager for weight loss but she may not feel comfortable disclosing if the studio has her under NDA). i can't verify if that side twitter actually belonged to amanda. it could be some sicko thought it was funny to accuse her boss of knocking her up and forcing her to get an abortion at 13 or accusing her father of various things.

but i get why she wouldn't speak up because people won't believe her no matter what she says. i went through something and people in my hometown still debate whether i'm crazy or lying for attention. my family did everything they could to put me under control and get me diagnosed as paranoid or delusional so they wouldn't face justice. (really don't get me started on how the mental healthcare system is used by abusers to cover up their sins.) i wouldn't put it past her parents to do that, especially considering amanda had a bad relationship with them as a teenager which sent her further into that groomer's clutches. she doesn't owe us anything because it'll start a firestorm that could retrigger her as people debate if she's delusional or scrutinize her past mistakes to determine if she's a perfect enough victim to deserve sympathy.

which brings me to drake bell. i knew he was the victim before i watched the doc but it still gave me chills when he sat down in that chair. like it felt like the air drained from the room. it was so obvious that what he went through has affected him so deeply and that he had no one to turn to. my abuser had so much community support, so many people making us out to be lying opportunistic bitches. i can't imagine having to carry that secret. i wonder if the people around him can pinpoint it in retrospect when he started being different. i want the other kids on set to know that it's not their fault they didn't know and that they had a bad opinion of him at some point. my sister and i were pitted against each other by the man who assaulted her and it's only with context later that i can see what was going on. i have no doubt that schneider employed these tactics so no one would feel comfortable disclosing what happened to them.

i admit that i cried watching the drake bell episode. that had to be incredibly difficult for him to open up about it after all these years and i hope he can get some closure and that someone starts a support group for these former nick stars.

and to drake bell himself. you were a child. you had no idea what grooming looks like. most grown people don't seem to know what grooming looks like based on how they talk about these issues. you are not at fault for what that man did to you or not knowing how to handle it. you didn't do anything to encourage this and you're not at fault.

and to his father. i appreciate that you did what you could to try to protect him. my mother had a similar experience trying to protect us from my abuser but everyone assumed she was psychotic and had her put away. try not to blame yourself when you were the lone voice of reason and everyone else insisted you were in the wrong. i do have fault to throw on amanda bynes' parents to some degree depending on what part of all this is true, but i can't find fault with drake bell's father who did try when he saw something wrong.

and i'm sorry but dan being super nice to drake afterwards seems like an attempt to make himself look better and get another hit show. i don't believe for a second that dan didn't know anything or that he had any motives beyond making his own star rise. he wanted to churn out product, and couldn't have that product if drake bell was visibly distraught.

i want to know how many people have known it was drake for 20 years and said nothing. how many people were in peck's side of the courtroom and yet still had the audacity to think this child was at fault in some way. that's vile and utterly unforgivable.

i just want to end this by saying to leave these people alone. don't harass anyone who hasn't spoken up because they may not be in a headspace where it's healthy of them to say anything. they don't owe us any explanation of why.

[mugiwara-lucy]

Listen, it’s not about letting Trump win, it’s about letting the Democratic Party know that they still have to earn your vote in order to affect their policy and their current stance on Palestine. Once they’re elected you can’t make them earn your vote anymore, so it’s important to hold that over their head before the elections.

Also, Kamala Harris is NOT “pro-Palestine” as long as she keeps repeating the “Israel has a right to defend itself” truism, and as along as she continues to talk of a ceasefire without doing anything to enforce it. This is not simply a matter of opinion or stance in the matter, the current United States government is a perpetrator of the violence and they need to be addressed as such.

Part of the reason why drawing a line on the sand with this issue is so important is that American liberalism has a history of elevating their own rights as worthy of pursuit while disregarding the way they themselves are complicit in the erosion of those said rights abroad. Leaders of the Civil Rights movement and the Black Panthers back in the sixties and seventies understood, for example, openly challenged and fought the Democrat Vietnam policy because they understood the hypocrisy of letting their rights come at the expense of people dying elsewhere.

“Vote blue no matter who” mentality creates complacency in officials seeking to be elected, it tells them they do not have to earn your vote. Living in a democracy is about making your voice heard and organizing accordingly, so please stop disparaging any efforts made to effectively challenge current policy and use that democratic power for an actual change.

First of all, I'd like to say thank you for being more respectful to me that some of these other Anons.

I will admit I lost my patience on them but when you've been getting harassed for months, it gets to you.

Now look, if we lived in a parallel universe where Project 2025 wasn't a thing and the person running against Kamala was an idiot like RFK Jr who doesn't seem to want to be a dictator, I'd probably agree more with the Non-Voting stance you all want to take although I'd never do it since I want to exercise my right to vote whenever I can but the reality is we don't. We have an unapologetic, lying, hateful evil RAPIST running for president. And I'm not sure if you're American or not but there's some people who downplay just how HORRIFIC his term was and the lasting ramifications of it. Here's the main consequences of him being in office:

Roe v Wade, Affirmative Action and the Chevron was overturned (stuff which was 50 years old that got lost after EIGHT YEARS).

I'm sorry but i am NOT INTERESTED in seeing what's next to go because of a Supreme Court Justice that he appointed. Especially since there'll be vacancies in the next couple of years and if he appoints MORE YOUNGER MAGA TYPE justices, the Supreme Court will be locked hard right for AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS.

Do you KNOW what will happen to this country at that point??

Now Trump has said when he gets back into office he wants to "restrict" the First Amendment:

And one of his Supreme Court dickriders Clarence Thomas was talking about getting rid of Loving V Virginia (the law that made Interracial dating LEGAL):

So that's why I'm putting as MUCH of my effort into making sure Trump does NOT get back into office as much as I can. It's not that I don't care about Palestine (quite the contrary actually) but if we DON'T HAVE OUR RIGHTS HOW CAN WE HELP ANYONE ELSE?? I ask this and get crickets in response.

And Kamala IS Pro-Palestine. Don't forget this:

And having her in office is WAY BETTER for Palestine that this clown that NOT ONLY SAID THIS:

And LITERALLY TRIED to SABOTAGE Kamala's chances at winning the election by conspiring with Natanyahu to HAVE NO ceasefires made:

Which I'd like to point out is in violation of the LOGAN ACT since normal people can NOT interfere in domestic affairs in other countries.

To say they're the similar is uninformed ignorance at best or just willful lying at worse.

They're NOWHERE in the SAME BALLPARK.

It's not disparaging your efforts as it is just saying if we don't get Kamala, we get the rapist back in office who has talked NUMEROUS TIMES about a third term so I wouldn't be surprised if the ONLY way he leaves is in a bodybag.

(ASSUMING THE MILITARY STEPS IN AND DEALS WITH THEM AS THEY HAVE A MANDATE).

[fondwand]

the more I think about it the more angry I become.

it's just taken such an illogical position simply because of how people over a certain age, who are unfortunately running the country etc, have this terrifyingly rigid idea of gender and transness. they can't seem to understand that being trans isn't something horrifying-' that the only horrifying thing about transness is transphobia faced. being trans is hard because we make it hard as a society, not because there's this horrific wrongness about it that all of the UK terfs cling to when they scream 'think of the children!!!!'. gender questioning children would be much, much safer and happier and healthier if the hate and externally directed fear was fucking extinguished.

and this is all a point to say: I hate the argument of 'it's so scary to give children medical treatments that we're not 100 percent sure of the long term risks of' because, you know what?, that's a lot of fucking medical treatments baby. they don't know the long term risks of anti depressants, not really. they don't even really know WHY THEY WORK. but I was prescribed them at 15 by an NHS gp even though they're not supposed to be prescribed to children, and although my prescription went correctly with the proper amount of counselling and continuing care-- I know first and second hand that thousands of other underage teens were just handed SSRIs as soon as they went to their first gp appointment. why is that not getting outrage? because the outrage around trans children is about hatred and bigotry towards transness, not about the medical safety of children.

what about the long term risks of: topical steroids, birth control (which are most certainly prescribed to children, especially female children, without any discussion of whether it might effect their long term health. this isn't to fearmonger bc, but to use it as an example of another under researched medical intervention), the fact that the NHS uses cbt because its cheap even though there's lots of research that suggests it's not that helpful.... I'm not going to go into a long list here even though I want to

but what I'm trying to ramble towards as a vague point is that this report is being presented as if it's neutral, as if all it cares about is 'evidence based treatment' which, ya know, I would love! except that there isn't research funded for trans healthcare because of transphobia and transmisogyny. and there are lots of other aspects of healthcare that are also underresearched, and so have to simply do their best other aspects that are researched, but the treatment still isnt completely harm free. so, no, the solution can't be yanking out any health care for trans kids bc 'think of the children!!' because what we do have evidence based research on is the very real and active harm that happens to trans individuals without any sort of gender affirmation or support. that is real, current harm-- not nebulous future harm that, honestly?, even if it does get proven lots of trans people would probably just take the knock. you know. the way that we do for millions of other medications and medical treatments. like I said, I've been on various antidepressants since I was 15 and I'm constantly reading all of the scary suppositions on what the long term health consequence might be-- but I'm not coming off them because they make me better. I'm making that decision over my body. and if I was allowed to make that decision at 15, and if loads of other kids are being given that decision (uninformed), then why do trans kids and young adults not have the same autonomy over their bodies to decide their health care? the way that they would be and are for many, many other medications and medical treatments.

they present it as logical and ask you to forget the reality of the world that we actually live in. medicine isn't perfect, but people still need help. they present it 'logically' and they play on your fear of transness. on the British publics fear of transness.

and day by day, clinic by clinic, treatment by treatment, right by right.... trans children will suffer because transphobes and people susceptible to their manipulative dogma think that their irrational fear and hatred is more important and real than these children. and the whole time they'll look you in the eye and tell you that they're doing it all for them.

fucking bullshit.

I'm really panicked about the Cass Report sitch in the UK right now. I just have this horrible, sickened feeling. the articles proclaiming about the 'puberty blocker scandal' as if the report said that puberty blockers had been proven harmful, and not just that the report reoghtfully claimed that there hadn't been enough research.... which is basically the exact same situation as such medications as SSRIs, birth control in the NHS and yet those situations won't be used to bolster and reaffirm a hateful congregation of idiotic transphobes with too much power into dragging trans rights and healthcare in the UK through subsequent decades of incredibly harmful stagnation, fearmongering, and outright harm.

the Cass Report seems to me only to confirm what we know about almost every other sector of the NHS: that it's broken, underfunded, bogged down in failing beurocracy and not interested in preventative care as its mainline strategy. that's a position where the blame should be laid at the feet of the Conservative party, not at the feet of people who believe trans people should have adequate care which as at least a first line BELIEVES THEM

calling this a 'watershed' moment as if giving trans individuals gender affirming care is evil, while everyday within the NHS racism, medical misogyny, regional disparities between the North (edited add wales also) and Souths standards of healthcare which cause life expectancy to be lower, a mental health sector which is so utterly broken it can't actually help anyone. ..... etc etc etc are happening. its transphobia. its just hateful transphobia. transphobia which is now seen to be validated by idiots

I feel so sick and scared

[hamliet]

Do you think the changes they made in HOTD were positive changes? The dynamic between Rhaenyra and Alicent was really great in HOTD. So much so that I wish it was that way in canon. Thoughts?

That one was a very positive change, but the way it was executed--substituting Laena and Rhaenyra's canon relationship for Alicent and Rhaenyra's--was not. LET THERE BE BOTH. Ahem. I actually think the story benefits from Rhaenyra/Laena then getting together because it only adds conflict and drama.

Aging up the characters was a good change. Laenor and Rhaenyra's friendship portrayed was also good, and I like that Laenor lives for now, but I am doubtful that this will work out well within the story. It might have ramifications later on that are a bit questionable.

Aemma's birth scene was actually good itself for the story, but again, my issue with Aemma's birth scene is the same as my issues with the scenes below: it's very hard to give any HBO Game of Thrones franchise the benefit of the doubt when it comes to how it treats women and women's pain given 1) how GoT ended, and 2) knowing this story ends the same way it began: with the butchering of a woman. That said, Rhaenyra's story is very, very clearly framed tragically so far, which is necessary. The problem is that with GoT's ending the way it is, it just gives a "lol women's pain, ain't it a shame" message. The story will have a much harder time succeeding after their failure with Dany's story, because I have argued Dany's story ending differently is necessary.

Daemon grabbing Rhaenyra by the throat? Not so much. Aegon r*ping a girl? Again, I'm not sure it was really necessary, but at least they focused on her pain and Alicent's perspective, which is like... the bar is underwater but they at least cleared it there? I guess? Aegon is a philanderer and is implied to sexually harass/assault in terms of touching servants in the books, which is kind of important to his character given the sexist themes of the story and Gaemon Palehair later on, but I don't know how they could portray that in a way that wouldn't raise eyebrows given GoT's history of horrific treatment of women. Ditto for Joffrey's death--it makes sense for the medium for it to be a quick thing on screen rather than long and drawn out like in the book. However, GoT didn't treat its queer characters with respect, so... not many will want to give HotD the benefit of the doubt. Plus, the manner in which Joffrey died--basically, Criston getting 0 consequences--breaks the worldbuilding a bit.

But my biggest complaint is the handling of Aemond killing Luke, which I've written about ad nauseum, and the general way they tried to remove character agency. It seems like an overreaction/misunderstanding of what the issue with GoT actually was, which wasn't "oh they're so unlikable" but instead the sheer removal of humanity. Stark humanity even in its cruelest characters had been the show's appeal.

My biggest fear going forward is that they might cut Sara Snow. If they cut Sara Snow, I will go full dracarys.

[crossdressingdeath]

I feel like people don't get that Jgy really did have a point about JC changing the course of the other sect's feelings towards wwx. Ultimately, Jc is the sect leader, his word would have been law. Lwj's action and subsequent punishment at CR is actually a perfect parallel to Wwx's. Only the outcomes are different in terms of reputation. Because Lwj did do the same things Wwx was accused of. He went against (and actually hurt with intent) his sect to protect his sect's enemy. (1/?)

(2/?) Wwx felt similarly. The only difference is ironically, he didn't help enemies, he felt clearly that the Jiangs owed a debt (and no it's not about the core) and Jc himself agrees. But Wwx agrees that to the world it's no different and his punishment is to leave the sect. And unlike Lwj, who actually hurt the elders, his fight with JC was staged. But despite these similarities, one person has a different outcome. Because ultimately the Lans stood by Lwj, his brother stood by him.

(3/?) This is not to minimize the horrific (and to me undeserving) punishment that Lwj gets. But he's still second master Lan after. No one seems to know about how he's gone against his sect. The Juniors love him (and don't seem to really anything about his 'crimes'). He's still seen as someone of status in the cultivation world, as the second young master of Lan. Infact, no rumours seem to reach them. Lxc, ultimately blames wwx more than Lwj for his actions. And this changes things.

(4/?) It means that whatever the Lans think of Lwj, because they closed around him his reputation recovers and is considered peerless. The others (even if the legitimate complaint, wnd they do) can't move against him. Because the Lans were like, this is our problem, you can't interfere. This isn't the first time either. Think of Qhj too. This is what Jgy meant when he was talking about standing by wwx. Ultimately the irony is that both Lwj and Wwx committed similar actions against their sect.

(5/5) In fact, I would argue Lwj is the more legitimate crime, as Wwx's rebellion was staged and his actions made to also protect the Jiang sect. But they had completely different results in terms of how the public sees them. All because, even when they disagree and punish him, they still grudgingly stand by him. So the world does. I am not saying this is more moral or not. Only that Jgy had a point about JC.

Here’s what I think is the other major difference between what JC does to WWX and what LXC and LQR do to LWJ: in LWJ’s case, he knowingly committed treason. The Lans didn’t know the full story, they didn’t know that WWX was acting out of righteousness or that the Wens were innocent. Why they didn’t know is a little unclear given LWJ did, but it is what it is and I never saw anything that would suggest the Lans knew anything beyond what the Jins and Jiangs told them. And also, LWJ himself acknowledges that when he defended WWX from his elders he wasn’t acting out of righteousness or a sense of justice; he defended WWX because he loves him, whether WWX was at that point in the right or not was immaterial. So while LWJ’s punishment was brutal, given the circumstances I’m not sure it was excessive, at least not by the standards of the setting. And yeah, the Lans very much keep it in-house as it were; the other sects don’t even seem to know that LWJ was punished or that he defended WWX (which probably plays just as much a part in his unblemished reputation as the Lans closing ranks and taking no shit on the topic, if not more). LWJ was just “in seclusion”, and no one would dare to gossip openly about Hanguang-jun or speculate about why exactly he was secluded for so long.

Meanwhile JC knew WWX was acting righteously and he knew the Wens were innocent, but he actively worked to turn the sects against WWX anyway. Despite knowing that WWX was upholding the debt that JC knew the two of them had towards the Wen sibs, he still abandons WWX to stand alone. He destroys WWX’s reputation as (or more) thoroughly as JGS and JGY ever did out of his own jealousy and possessiveness. So it’s like... with the Lans it’s an at least semi-justifiable punishment with them doing their best to shield LWJ from any consequences in the wider world of the sects. With JC, it was a childish lashing-out at his brother for doing something he didn’t agree with that very neatly destroyed WWX’s life despite acknowledging that WWX was in the right and also that JC himself did technically have a debt to pay there. So yeah, JGY was very right to call JC out on his shit.

[headlesssamurai]

Your review for blade runner was wellworded but you don't talk about the central problematic issue with that movie's antifeminism overtones.

Oh, that? How’s this [caution, the following is all satire]:

The film showcases a decaying future Earth dominated by trite universalist ideals and exceptionalist philosophies leading to the triumph of capitalism and consumerism, having clearly disastrous consequences on the biosphere and the financial status of lower-class citizens. The central protagonist, K, is a  cliché one-note “strong silent type” with nary a hint of actual personality, whose entire existence is predicated on doling out violence against helpless renegades to the oppressive status quo. Further galling is the fact that the primary antagonist, Luv, whose demeaning name sounds like that of a cheap stripper, is tasked with hunting him down and relieving him of his manhood by any means necessary. Luv is cast in a negative light from the start, having been raised to believe she is an angel, and the best thing to ever exist, yet she fails to accomplish what K somehow manages with relative ease, causing Luv to become more and more unhinged as the film goes on. Additionally, K’s innate relevance in the overall plotline seems to frustrate Luv who is merely doing a job for her very masculine and patriarchal employer Niander Wallace, by which the film’s male writer Hampton Fancher casts her as not only a footnote but also a unilateral hypocrite. K is not perfect however, he has a fake, computerized girlfriend, a very symbolic representation of modern man’s demeaning beauty standards on females the world over, and he also has a clear case of Oedipus complex for his superior officer Lieutenant Joshi. Luv properly executes the treacherous Lieutenant Joshi for her role in assisting the patriarchy, but in the end despite mortally wounding K in battle, is overcome by his stereotypical masculine strength and literally drowned to death. This blatant, horrific display of male power over women is one of the most criminal elements of this already very problematic screenplay. One would think, in our more enlightened world today, the MPAA would hardly endorse this terrifying exemplar of patriarchal propaganda which thumbs its nose so brazenly at the post-structuralist terrain of today’s modern artistic scene. Yet, it seems as a society our blizzard of ignorance has a very long way to go.

[satire now ends]

And there you go. Boring, life-sucking political and social commentary of the most egregious sort. It’s not even that difficult, but fuck me in the ear if I don’t feel exhausted from just writing that short bit. I’m amazed some people are so blind with anger and outrage they actually enjoy reading, never mind writing, garbage like this. Sorry man, but I don’t look at movies through those lenses. I actually possess the ability to remove myself from my passions and prejudices long enough to approach fiction on its own terms. I see films and other forms of media and artistic expressions as constructs capable of uniting people in our appreciation of them, rather than dividing us like every-fucking-thing else.

Why, just last week I was approached by a young barista who excitedly started to chat with me about the X-Men shirt I was wearing. I later learned she is from a place called Cho Vam in Vietnam, and we had a nice chat about different comic books and anime that helped shape our lives which we both grew up watching. I don’t remember politics or social ideologies coming up at any point in the conversation, despite the fact that my nation once lost a very long and costly war to hers.

To start with what divides us, when you could start with what we share and have in common, doesn’t seem like a very productive outlook, dude. Because, you know, I’m sure Blade Runner 2049′s McGuffin being a woman, who happens to be the central driving factor of the plot because of her miraculous lineage, and her potential to completely alter the landscape of her world by merely existing, is just the most offensive thing one could imagine, right?

 “The most pathetic person in the world is some one who has sight but no vision.”        ��� Helen Keller  

                侍    headless                                        

[lillotte17]

*appears from the center of the Solas Meta Summoning Circle holding a popsicle*

Hi yes hello, I am sorry in advance but I LOVE thinking about this part of his story arc!

My favorite analogy for Solas' situation is comparing it to Shepard's choice at the end of ME3. (which I know 90% of the fandom hated, but bear with me). Even full-renegade aggressive Shepard is considered a hero! Their job is to Stop The Reapers, and they do! But when they are given choices to end the war for good, none of them are perfect, and all of them have potentially horrific long-term consequences that Shepard doesn't have a lot of time to stop and mull over before flipping a switch. Does it make them less of a hero? Will future generations revile them and curse their name for the switch they chose? We don't know (yet!) because that is where their story ends.

Solas is the story of what comes after that kind of choice.

I don't think he was surprised about most of the things that happened when the Veil went up. He knew people would die. He knew the places connected to the Fade would be torn asunder. He knew most spirits would be trapped in the Fade, and that magic as a whole would be weakened.

And he flipped the switch anyway, because the Evanuris were (allegedly) trying to tear the world apart.

(My theory is that the Evanuris killed a bunch of titans, got hopped up on lyrium and either found or created the Blight and the Darkspawn and had plans on using them to quash Solas' rebellion and anything else that got in their way. So, he stopped the world from ending for thousands of years by raising the Veil, but even that could only be a delaying tactic, because the Evanuris could still reach people through dreams.)

What I DON'T think he expected was elves becoming mortal. Or that most of the world wold lose it's connection to magic entirely. Or that his entire civilization would fall apart when both he and the Evanuris were down for the count. I mean, even with all the chaos, how could he predict the rise of Tevinter and the enslavement of pretty much his entire race the minute he stops and takes a nap? Human were hardly a blip on his radar.

He wasn't dumb (in this instance), but there were just too many variables to anticipate all of the things the Veil would effect and change and destroy. Even the smartest person alive couldn't foresee the every one of the consequences from a change so big it reshaped the entire world. But there's no way he didn't think there would be ANY problems when the Veil went up. He knew. Was there a better option? Who knows? Maybe he was standing in a room with three switches, and the Veil just seemed like the least terrible one at the time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Despite my love for him, Solas is so stupid that it's painful. Smart and Stupid, as impossible as it sounds.

Why he's so surprised things went to shit when he created the Veil? The entire world functioned with the Veil, especially Elvhenan that had integrated it into every single aspect of their lives. Even if he hadn't slept and he had taken it down right back, the floating cities would've fallen, other cities would have no import/export completely isolated for who knows how long it could take him to restore things, the library would've collapsed, and the Evanuris would've still be a problem. So, what was he thinking? Did he even truly considered the consequences? And if he did, did he create the Veil even knowing that things would go to shit? Was there really no other way?

It's like putting a Veil to oxygen or water and hope things will be okay.

If someone has an explanation for his reasoning, or knows more about this topic, please explain it to me because I can't understand how he thought it was a good idea to do it.

(I know why he wants to take it down currently, despite also been a stupid decision as he again hasn't considered all consequences, but I understand it at least. )

[jadagul]

I've read two pieces about this in the past day or so that I've been thinking about.

The better one is Noah Millman's. He cycles through all the obvious suggestions, but also makes a few that I hadn't heard or thought of before.

The first is about pandemic hangover stuff:

People got a lot of free money during the pandemic and had little to spend it on; household savings went through the roof. Intellectually, people surely knew this was temporary, but nonetheless I’m sure people feel shitty about pandemic assistance ending, the rise in prices now that they can actually buy stuff, and the drawdown of their savings. Even if wages are rising, they feel poorer because of irrationally rising expectations.... That combination suggests that consumers may have established unsustainable consumption patterns in the wake of the pandemic, through a combination of pent-up demand from a period when there was no way to spend money and a fuzzy notion of how long pandemic savings would actually last—or, better, a fuzzy expectation that after the pandemic a recovery would mean earned income would completely make up for the funds previously provided by government assistance. That isn’t what happened, and that failure is not only a negative shock to expectations, it’s a very real pressure for retrenchment and cutting personal spending.

A second is an obvious-in-retrospect point about inflation: unemployment hurts a few people very badly, but inflation hurts everyone a little.

the pain of inflation is more spread out than the pain of unemployment. From a utilitarian perspective, that’s arguably a reason to prefer inflation to unemployment, all else being equal; the long-term social and economic consequences of unemployment are horrific, far worse than what we’re now experiencing from inflation. But even if spreading the pain out means avoiding those horrific consequences, it still means a whole lot more people experiencing pain.

And the third point, maybe the most common, is that our fiscal situation is deteriorating in a way that (1) hasn't mattered in the past twenty years but (2) could start mattering now, and people might be understandably nervous about that.

Which brings me to the other article, from Timothy Burke. I like a lot of Burke's writing (and I've been reading him for nearly twenty years now), but he really does seem to have a genuinely-depressive streak, especially when talking about politics.

None of that in any way reckons with how older Americans have felt that the basic social contracts that governed work were unilaterally broken by employers while younger Americans have never had any expectation that their employers would have even the remotest sense of responsibility towards employees.... Most people have the completely legitimate and well-founded feeling that they’re being ripped off—that public services are being hollowed out, that things are being taken away from them for no real reason, that one person’s getting insanely rich while everybody else is every day poorer. That your dollars buy less, but also that the world is shabbier. The money that bought museums and libraries and parks and civil servants and road maintenance and buildings that employed thousands is now buying a skyscraper that has 25 apartments for foreign billionaires who don’t actually live there most of the time anyway.

And I read that and my reaction is just... I don't think any of that is true! Or maybe better, I don't think 90% of that is true.

The university education that put you on a steady path to a well-lived life is now a gateway to uncertainty while also being far more expensive than it was, while also being run by people who have very little interest in education as such.... If you’re looking to rent, you’re uneasy: rents are hard to find, they feel they’re hard to keep. Things keep changing. You might have expected to buy a home or a condo only to find that despite earning in the top 5% you can afford nothing nearby, nothing where you’d like to live.... Whatever you make, whether it’s $18/hour or $200,000 a year, it doesn’t feel like you can count on making it a year from now, whatever the data shows. Whatever you look forward to as possibilities, it feels like they could melt like a sno-cone under a broiler.... I look profoundly economically secure on paper but I don’t feel it. I felt far better about my economic future twenty years ago when I had less money on hand, was making much less and had more debt. And that does affect my economic decisions. I hesitate to travel. I worry about buying anything really expensive. I certainly don’t want to buy a house or condo again, not yet; the last experience was bad enough. I am terrified when I think about investments—even mutual funds keep me up at night if I let my mind wander to them. I splurge on books and food and media content and that’s about it. Not all my fears are economic even by my own reckoning, but they’re keeping company with my thoughts about money and spending and risk.

And as a description of how Timothy Burke feels, I'm sure that's accurate. (And makes me feel bad for him.) I don't think any of that is objectively true! Like, I can see an argument for some amount of systemic risk, but more than in the 80s? More than in the middle of the cold war? Really?

On the other hand, maybe that's the answer. This is the most uncertain time in my experience, because I was born in 1986 and the Berlin Wall fell before my first memory. Maybe it's just that returning to a bipolar world has everyone anxious!

But at any rate, Burke is expressing a feeling that I'm sure is shared by a lot of people in his generic social class, and probably/possibly by a lot of others. I don't think that feeling is accurate but that's probably what people are responding to.

the divergence between consumer sentiment on the U.S. economy and the actual performance of the U.S. economy according to available metrics is wild.