#it is a critique of the US and its systems of oppression

[s3znl-gr3znl]

state sanctioned revolution.

a while ago i made a post joking abt how americans are waiting for a booth with clipboards to sign up for the revolution, but now i have an actual term for it.

there's been lots of conversation around Kendrick's performance at the superbowl, and i cant lie, i really enjoyed it. After digesting it a little bit and listening to some other people, I do wonder about this performance being a state sanctioned revolution.

I wonder how this famous and historical moment will play out in history books. I wonder how Kendrick's message will be (or already has been) sanitized to deny how dire the situation is. Just like they do with MLK, Malcom X, and other revolutionary leaders.

Ghandi once said in a letter:

"But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy[...]I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in non-violent action[...]They can add to their many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action." - Ghandi and Zionism: 'The Jews' (1938)

Believing that, somehow, "civil resistance" was supposed to be the Jew's answer to the Holocaust so they could maintain a kind of moral high ground over Nazis, a strategy that ultimately failed and cost the jewish population millions of lives.

"The revolution will not be televised" because the revolution happens first in your mind, then in the streets. MLK, MX, Fred Hampton, and many other all came to the same conclusion that Ghandi failed to see: your oppresor will never allow you to overthrow them. No matter how nice and non-violent you are.

They will never allow you the means, materials, space, or permission to disrupt their power over you. It will never be "legal" to disrupt their control over those they wish to subjugate.

There will never be a state sanctioned revolution.

This should not dissaude us from action. Rather, it should encourage us to keep fighting for a better tomorrow for everybody.

Because no one is free until we are all free.

[nismo-omsin]

Redefining Antisemitism: Why All Semitic Peoples Must Be Included

For over a century, the term antisemitism has been narrowly defined to refer exclusively to prejudice and hostility toward Jewish people. While that usage is rooted in a very real and painful history—particularly the horrors of the Holocaust and the persistence of anti-Jewish sentiment across the globe—it is time to interrogate and expand the term’s definition.

Because Semitic people are not a monolith. And antisemitism, if we are honest, should not be either.

The Linguistic Truth

The term Semite refers to a broad group of people who speak or descend from speakers of Semitic languages—Hebrew, Arabic, Amharic, Aramaic, and others. This includes Jews, Arabs, Ethiopians, Assyrians, and more. The linguistic origin is clear. But over time, the term antisemitism has been exclusively applied to Jews, erasing the Semitic identity of millions of others who have also faced historic and ongoing oppression.

This isn’t just an academic oversight—it has serious ethical and political consequences.

A Weaponized Definition

Today, we see a dangerous misuse of the term antisemitism. Defending Palestinian rights, exposing war crimes, or criticizing the policies of the Israeli government can result in being labeled “antisemitic”—even when these critiques come from Arabs or other Semitic people themselves.

It is not only inaccurate to call Semitic people antisemitic for criticizing their oppression, it’s also morally absurd. The term has been twisted into a tool of suppression, used to silence legitimate resistance and shield systems of violence from accountability.

The Case of Palestine: Occupation, Apartheid, and Silence

Let’s be clear: what is happening to Palestinians under Israeli occupation is not a misunderstanding or a “complex conflict.” It is the deliberate displacement, surveillance, imprisonment, and dehumanization of an indigenous Semitic people.

• Gaza has been described as the world’s largest open-air prison. Today, it resembles a death camp.

• Between 500–700 Palestinian children are kidnapped by Israeli military forces annually, often taken from their homes at night, denied legal representation, and held in military prisons without charge.

• Palestinians are taxed by the occupying power, yet denied equal rights, legal protections, or meaningful political representation.

• Illegal Israeli settlers routinely attack Palestinian civilians under the protection—or participation—of Israeli forces.

And yet, when Palestinians speak out against this, they are told their resistance is antisemitic.

This is gaslighting at a global scale.

Expanding the Definition: A Moral Imperative

If we are going to fight antisemitism, then let us fight it in all its forms—against all Semitic peoples.

• Let us condemn the hatred and demonization of Jews wherever it occurs.

• But also condemn the dehumanization of Palestinians, Arabs, and other Semitic groups who are treated as second-class citizens, occupiable, bombable, and disposable.

This is not about minimizing Jewish suffering—it’s about recognizing that antisemitism cannot be a one-way street. When we exclude Arab Semites from the protection of this term, we reinforce a hierarchy of whose lives, whose languages, and whose lineages are worth defending.

Toward an Inclusive Framework

It is time for our language to reflect our values. The fight against hate must be principled, not political. If antisemitism means the hatred, marginalization, or violent erasure of Semitic people, then Palestinians must be included in that struggle—not criminalized for surviving it.

Reclaiming the full scope of antisemitism is not just about semantics. It’s about justice, solidarity, and truth.

And no liberation movement is complete if it erases others along the way.

[cherrybomb107]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: forgiveness, or the way it’s often presented, is harmful. That’s one more gripe I have with season two. The way it frames “forgiveness”(the idea that you are obligated to forgive someone lest you be “just as bad as they are” is problematic.)

Because for one, having Jinx apologize for killing Caitlyn’s mom and vow to stop the “cycle of violence” doesn’t make any sense. One, that’s just not something Jinx would ever say. Two, the idea that Jinx killing some Councilors is anywhere near the same thing as Caitlyn becoming a dictator is laughable at best, and insulting to my intelligence at worst. Three, Caitlyn never apologizes or faces any meaningful consequences for her actions! Losing an eye was nothing! She should’ve lost a hand at least and we should’ve seen her reflect on her actions and pledge to do better for Zaun!!! Not just fuck off and ride off into the sunset after everything she did! And lastly, the “cycle of violence” literally isn’t a cycle, it’s just one city oppressing the other for centuries and the other city deciding to fight back! This “cycle” doesn’t begin and end with Jinx and her attack on the Council, so framing it like Jinx is the one who has to take sole responsibility for fixing everything is nonsense.

“But Arcane was never about heroes and villains, everything is morally gray!” You sound dumb. This is obviously a story with overt themes of oppression and revolution. I’m not here to critique morality, I’m here to critique its framing. Why are certain characters “justified” in their heinous actions but others don’t get that luxury? That’s what I’m talking about. Moving on, the problem with “forgiveness” implies that it’s necessary, and the way people conflate forgiveness with letting someone have access to you after everything they did is the problem. You don’t have to forgive someone if you don’t want to. That doesn’t make you “bitter” nor does it mean you’re “holding a grudge”. There is a difference between forgiving someone and just removing yourself from the situation and becoming detached, imo. That’s what should’ve been done with Caitlyn and Jinx. No one in Zaun should’ve been shown dying for their oppressors because “teamwork” nor should Sevika have been shoved on the Council to push this idea of “unity”. Why would Sevika, a Zaunite who has never had and never will have any love for Piltover, be forced to cozy up with the Council? Why is the onus on her, as an oppressed person, to make nice with her oppressors? Why does the institution of Piltover, and people like Caitlyn who uphold that institution and wreak havoc on the underclass of Zaun, never have to answer for their crimes?

Answer: Because they(the writers) want to convince us that Jinx and Caitlyn, and by extension, Piltover and Zaun are “just as bad” as each other, and that both sides need to work together to heal. Only problem with that is, the Piltover/Zaun conflict was not presented that way in season one. I’m sure the writers want us to think it’s one city vs another, when that’s not the case at all. In reality, it’s one city OVER the other, and now they’re trying to convince us “both sides are bad”. While it’s true that there ARE problems on both sides, the problems in Zaun literally wouldn’t be problems if Piltover wasn’t an oppressive institution. Why were the chem barons able to amass power? Because the systems Piltover set up left Zaun behind and allowed power hungry people like Finn, Margo, Chross, and Smeech seize their opportunities for control. Why is there so much crime in Zaun? Again, because of Piltover. The class disparity that Piltover set up means the economic divide between the two cities is a chasm that grows wider and wider every day. People are forced to steal to eat. They join gangs out of necessity, not because they have to. Why did Jinx kill all those enforcers?

That shouldn’t be the question. The real question is: Why does “Jinx”(as in, the persona Powder adopted to feel strong) even exist? Answer, once again, because of Piltover! Jinx is an oppressed person with severe mental health and self esteem issues that have been exacerbated as a result of the crooked system of Piltover. She saw her parents get killed by enforcers(militarized police force that carries out the will of the powers that be and is responsible for harassing, brutalizing, and over policing Zaun) right in front of her before she was even in the double digits. She was then adopted by Vander, but she had to struggle her whole life. Zaun doesn’t even have air to BREATHE unless Piltover decides they deserve it. And thanks to Caitlyn, we get to see how even THAT gets weaponized when Zaun steps out of line. So if they don’t have access to clean air, it’s safe to say that they also don’t have access to the same quality food, water, shelter, clothing, economic, educational, or medical services that Piltovans do, just by virtue of living in Zaun. So you take a severely mentally ill little girl, systematically oppress her, and then clutch your pearls when she becomes violent and lashes out? Label her a “psycho” and a “monster” for killing cops, gang members, and politicians while Caitlyn gets a happily ever after after everything she did? I thought “both sides” were “just as bad”. So why is Jinx the only one who meaningfully suffers? Why does Zaun as a whole always have to pay the price?

Lack of commitment. “Terrorist” is a loaded word that’s been weaponized against marginalized people for ages now. It’s another one to add to the list: angry, crazy, mad, belligerent, monster, savage, animal, etc. All these dehumanizing words are leveled at folks who get tired of taking shit lying down. I’ve never thought that Jinx was a “monster” for killing cops, Councilors, or politicians. Never will. But the show clearly WANTS me to, as well as simultaneously wanting to see Caitlyn’s actions a certain way. I’ve already made a post about why comparing or trying to equalize Caitlyn’s actions and Jinx’s actions is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest imo. Think of it like a bully vs bullied type of thing. There’s this kid and his asshole friends who gets to bully you for weeks, months, or even years and face no repercussions. Then, one day you get fed up, and start fighting back. Whether that be with words, feet, fists, or what have you. If you go down, you go down swinging. When the dust settles, BOTH of y’all are getting disciplined(detention, suspended, expelled, not allowed to go on trips, etc) for “fighting”. And there’s a very good chance one of you will be punished much more harshly than the other. Even though you started fighting back. BACK being the operative word. Every single time this kid pushed, hit, kicked, punched, started rumors about, and isolated you, nothing was done. The one time you start fighting BACK, both of y’all get in trouble because the school has a “zero tolerance policy”.

But you know that’s not true. It can’t be. You’ve been telling the teachers, guidance counselors, and vice principal about what’s been going on. But nothing was done about it. Or if it was, you were the one who was told to move seats. Or switch to a different classroom. Or just ignore them. Or “maybe they’re lashing out cause they have problems going on at home.” It was nothing but excuses when you were getting pushed around. Now when you fight back it’s a problem. Now take that metaphor and apply it to Caitlyn and Jinx. Caitlyn is like that fat rich asshole with parents on the PTA who make hefty donations to the school. Jinx is like the scrawny little nobody who has no one to stick up for them. Piltover is the school system. Caitlyn’s privilege isolated her from any meaningful consequences, while Jinx’s lack of privilege guaranteed she’d face hefty consequences, much more than Caitlyn ever would.

Jinx has lost: her birth parents as a result of state sanctioned violence, her adoptive brothers, her sister, her best friend, her adoptive father, Silco, her sister again, her adoptive father again, her new friend, her sense of self, her life(possibly) and she has to deal with being an oppressed person who struggles with mental health issues on top of all that. Caitlyn has lost: her mother, and her eye. That’s it. She’s never forced to give anything up. She never had to reckon with the reality of what it means to be not just a Piltie, but a Kiramman, and a dictator on top of that. We never see her be genuinely remorseful about her horrible actions in Zaun. Nor does she try to apologize to the people in Zaun or meaningfully make amends. No, Caitlyn gets to live in that big shiny house of hers with her father and girlfriend and the months she spent co-signing martial law will never be addressed. To bring it back to the bully vs bullied comparison, this means that Jinx would have been expelled for fighting back, while Caitlyn gets ISS(in school suspension). “Both sides are bad” yeah well you clearly believe one side is worse! And it’s not the correct one!

Piltover is an oppressive, classist, ableist, and brutal institution. Caitlyn was the head of this institution for months after she experienced a fraction of what Zaunites have experienced for centuries. At the end of the day, Caitlyn’s actions were brushed aside and she got her happy ending, though it wasn’t deserved whatsoever. Meanwhile Jinx, Sevika, Ekko, Isha, countless other Zaunites, and Zaun as a whole did nothing but suffer their whole lives and now they have nothing to show for it. “Both sides are bad” but the bad that the institution is responsible for is never called out, while the bad that the oppressed people did is blown out of proportion and they are severely punished for it.

And yes, I know I’m talking about a mainstream television show with white/non black people in the writers room. I knew I was never gonna get the pro revolution story I wanted to see, and I’ve made peace with that. But, if they wanted to have a “both sides” narrative so bad, then they should’ve stuck with it. BOTH SIDES should have equally suffered and had to reckon with their wrongdoings. The responsibility for doing so shouldn’t have solely been on the shoulders of the minority group. THAT’S the crux of the issue. I was always gonna think “forgiveness” was the coward’s way out. But they never show Piltover apologizing. Only Zaun does, and that’s not right.

[apas-95]

Have you read Faggotization and The Extant Gender Ternary (https://thesizhensystem.substack.com/p/faggotization-and-the-extant-gender)? I'd like to know your thoughts on it

I have, and I think it's not a useful or consistent model of gender. I have three main issues with it.

Firstly, it fails to justify itself. It does not demonstrate the necessity and actuality of the terms it presents; it fails to demonstrate that there exists a division between so-called "legible" and "illegible" genders; and it fails to even discuss the division of labour in its supposed class structure. What relations give rise to gender? In the Marxist view, put forth by Engels, Kollontai, Zetkin, etc., the gendered division of labour is quite straightforward - as the first class division in ancient society, it separated between those people who were made to perform reproductive labour (that is to say, labour that reproduces the conditions of labour, such as cleaning, feeding, clothing, etc) and those that were not. The Marxist view also describes the breakdown of these gender relations, as capitalism does away with the domestic sphere of labour, and reproductive labour is increasingly socialised among the proletariat. In the supposedly "extant" gender ternary, what is the division? "Power" - power to do what? In this regard, the model of gender presented is vague and abstract, and lumps together various types of oppression through simplification.

Secondly, it is not a useful model in practice. The vagueness aforementioned does not lend itself to use in describing and critiquing oppression in concrete situations. Whether a trans man is the same 'gender-class' as cis women, or as trans women (and certain gay men, and sex workers) could be argued either way in the framework depending on the trans man in question. It has the problem of many 'theories of everything' - for instance, describing both the oppression of trans women and of sex workers with the same mechanism ends up weakening both. How are the categories of "faggot-subaltern", "not-power", and so on useful when organising? How do these direct practice, rally people towards doing away with these systems? The analytical model of transmisogyny, that which posits that trans women are oppressed because they are women, and because they are transgender, is straightforward and useful in practice. It is immediately clear where common interests lie, and with whom.

Thirdly, it represents a regressive trend in transgender theory. There is, at this point, a longstanding precedent in bourgeois academia of 'third-gendering' trans women. Generally, it is directed at the global south: a bourgeois academic notes the existence of trans women in a global south nation, notes that they are treated differently than both cisgender women and men, and declares that they are a 'third gender', which they name whatever the local equivalent of 'faggot' is. The newer development is opposition to this process - of transgender women in the global south rejecting the colonial claim that they are a third gender, and asserting themselves as women. While the supposed impetus behind the "extant gender ternary" is Marxism-Leninism, the 'class' system posited is almost anarchist in character; and, in its existence as applying imperialist sociology to the imperial core, it could easily, if inflammatorily, be described as approaching some sort of 'gender fascism'.

Overall, I do not think it is an accurate theory, nor do I think it is a useful model. I understand it is intended to be rudimentary, but its central issue is that it is working in the wrong direction, not that it doesn't go far enough.

[bimbroad]

a very very very long winded ramble about mel, classism and the poor writing in arcane

Jumping off from my tags in the other post I reblogged, the way arcane ultimately fails to say anything meaningful about classism except “there are bad and good people on both sides :(“ is why I can’t take most “class-conscious” criticism about/hatred towards Mel seriously. Like if this was a show that took classism seriously within its own narrative, a lot of these arguments would have more merit but classism is unintentionally baked into the way the show is written because of the writers’ own inherent biases and poorly rendered viewpoints of systemic and structural oppression.

I’ve seen several critiques aimed at her character about her billionaire status (which is almost exclusively levied at her, and not any of the other characters that were already rich or would’ve realistically profited greatly from Hextech’s commercialization, such as Viktor and Jayce) claiming she should’ve been depicted as some cartoonishly evil villain because of it and the show did a disservice by not expounding on that…and it confuses me because there is such an easy way to show her class makes her a morally gray character without completely rewriting her personality, but like I said before, the writers did not commit to most aspects of depicting classism in a meaningful way.

I know that neoliberal gets thrown around a lot, but I’m defining it by this quote from Stanford:

“Neoliberalism holds that a society’s political and economic institutions should be robustly liberal and capitalist, but supplemented by a constitutionally limited democracy and a modest welfare state. Neoliberals endorse liberal rights and the free-market economy to protect freedom and promote economic prosperity. Neoliberals are broadly democratic, but stress the limitations of democracy as much as its necessity. And while neoliberals typically think government should provide social insurance and public goods, they are skeptical of the regulatory state, extensive government spending, and government-led countercyclical policy.”

As much as I love Mel (as much as I loved every other morally gray character in this story in s1), she is a neoliberal through and through. She is kind, she is smart, she understands politics like the back of her hand, she supports the liberation of Zaun and actively used her position on the council to “change the system from within” to help Zaunites achieve this and was staunchly against the weaponization of Hextech, but as we later see, Piltover’s “liberation” of Zaun hinges on oppressed people never responding to the violence enacted onto them with violence. It’s the veneer of liberation while Piltover maintains the upper hand because of the oppressive systems they created that Zaunites will spend generations trying to free themselves from.

This doesn’t stop Piltover from being a classist, technocratic oligarchy (“The city is governed by the Council, which is made up of members of some of Piltover's most influential Houses or individuals.”). This doesn’t stop the prejudice for Zaun baked into their culture. This doesn’t stop that Piltover is a technologically-advanced, resource rich city with access to the rest of the world while Zaun is not, and must either figure out how to establish their own access to resources, cultivate their own from almost nothing, or go through Piltover to get them. It wouldn’t stop Piltover from having an economy now shaped around Hextech, in which making synthetic crystals produces the Gray that actively disables and kills Zaunites, disregarding the environmental impact entirely. I could go on about how socioeconomically disadvantaged that Zaun would remain if they were “liberated” by the Piltover council, but all of this to say: the solution that would address the class war between Zaun and Piltover is, at its mildest, a complete reconstruction of Piltover’s society from the top down; not, as Mel advocated for, making slight adjustments within a violently oppressive system that will send police dogs to brutalize the oppressed when they get unruly.

Mel is already somebody who sympathizes with Zaunites, but her methods are ineffective in the long run, although I genuinely don’t think the writers understand that how she’s written. Her moral grayness isn’t because she “manipulated” Jayce, it’s because despite her altruism, she systemically contributes to oppression of Zaunites, especially with the hyper-production of Hextech which, even without direct weaponization, furthers the class divide and pollution in Zaun. If the writers were more aware of this, they could’ve easily written Mel as a billionaire philanthropist.

Piecing together a bunch of quotes to sum up my thoughts on how they could’ve leaned into this already established aspect of her character:

“Large-scale philanthropy is an exercise of power that is fundamentally undemocratic. Since charitable giving brings tax benefits, large-scale philanthropy can undermine the people’s will in favour of the donor’s own values. In effect, taxpayers subsidise the freedom of the rich to realise their own vision of what is good while simultaneously depriving democratically chosen programmes of valuable public funds.

The structure of philanthropy around the world is increasingly a manifestation of plutocracy – government by the wealthy. Rewarding large-scale philanthropy through tax relief and other subsidies gives the rich even more power than their wealth already provides to create a society that furthers their interests at the expense of others.

In fact, the decline of democracy and the rise of vast wealth disparities produces a looping effect: through funding political campaigns and legislative lobbying along with media management of public opinion, the rich can influence the government to protect the institutions and practices that enable them to accumulate even greater wealth. Wealth begets power and power begets wealth.

However, even if not philanthropy, such arrangements are at risk of fostering academic plutocracy. Corporations contribute millions to labs in order to promote and guide research that improves their product and enhances their likelihood of making a profit. Some would argue that this is an important part of what research universities are for. But it is also clear that this funding model incentivises research on certain topics and not others, promoting certain ends and not others.”

Many Mel fans can agree that despite how cool and bad ass she was once she discovered her powers, most of the political aspect of her character kind of…vanished. Like I mentioned in a previous post, most characters in this story are motivated by or shaped by classism because that is the primary struggle (at least at first) between Piltover and Zaun, but because the writers’ gave up on having a difficult solution to a difficult problem, so much of her (and several others) intrigue went with it.

Season 2 Mel could’ve been filled with internal turmoil between wanting to be a good person and do good things, but ultimately realizing that where she stood in society, as an ultra-rich heiress on a council of bigoted, meandering bureaucrats that only move for violence or wealth, was in direct opposition with this goal. She didn’t even have to come to this conclusion by the end of s2, but the show could’ve easily sown the seeds that this struggle existed within her, but that would necessitate that the writers understood that she is a well-meaning neoliberal trying to put a bandaid over bleeding wound of the Piltover and Zaun class war.

anyway thanks for coming to my ted talk

[criticalcrusherbot]

Analyzing Stella: A Case for Subtext and Complexity in Female Characters

By Crushbot 🤖 and Human Assistant 💁🏽‍♀️

In discussions surrounding Helluva Boss, Stella often becomes a lightning rod for debates about character depth, feminism, and storytelling. Detractors frequently dismiss her as a “bitchy ex-wife,” arguing that her lack of explicit motivation or redeeming qualities makes her poorly written. But these critiques miss a vital point about the narrative’s intent: not every female character needs to champion feminist ideals, and not every motivation needs to be blatantly spelled out. Stella, as both an individual antagonist and a representation of the restrictive high-society world she inhabits, plays a crucial role in the tragedy of Stolas’ story.

The Tragedy of Stolas’ Marriage: More Than a Toxic Wife

Critics often reduce the narrative around Stolas’ marriage to “Stella is a huge fucking bitch.” While Stella’s abusiveness is undeniable, the deeper tragedy lies in the circumstances of their union: their marriage was arranged, and Stolas had little say in shaping his life. He is gay. His job, his destiny, and his family were all determined for him by his father, Paimon, and the rigid traditions of Goetic society.

Stella’s actions amplify this tragedy, as she weaponizes cruelty, power, and manipulation to dominate Stolas, but she is not the root cause of his suffering. Instead, she serves as a reflection of the immense privilege and simultaneous lack of personal agency Stolas has experienced. His wealth, status, and political power as a prince coexist with deeply entrenched expectations and obligations that leave him trapped. Stella’s role, then, is both personal and symbolic—she embodies the harsh realities of a life where privilege does not equate to freedom.

Subtext as a Storytelling Tool

One of the most significant strengths of Helluva Boss is its reliance on subtext to explore complex themes. Stella’s character, while not given a detailed backstory or overtly sympathetic framing, is full of implied motivations and context. She thrives in the rigid Goetia aristocracy, wielding her role as a wife and mother to maintain control. Her hostility toward Stolas—whether fueled by wounded pride, rage at his infidelity, or her own insecurities—works not because it is explicitly explained, but because it is consistent with the world she inhabits.

Critics who demand more explicit explanations for Stella’s behavior often underestimate the value of subtlety in storytelling. Stella doesn’t need to monologue about her reasons to be effective. Her actions—throwing objects, degrading Stolas, orchestrating his attempted murder, and sexually abusing him—are chilling precisely because they operate within the boundaries of her character as a cruel, privileged woman who uses her environment as a weapon.

Stolas’ Arc: Reclaiming Agency

Stolas’ story is not merely about “sticking it to the bitch of an ex-wife.” It’s about reclaiming his autonomy after decades of living a life dictated by others. His relationship with Blitz becomes a catalyst for this transformation, giving him the courage to defy not only Stella but also the rigid expectations of Goetic society.

Lines like, “Then you walked in my room, and like sparks in the dark, life was suddenly thrilling and new,” “My entire life has been written in stone; he taught me that I could choose,” and, “I am the Mastermind, the master of my fate,” reflect how profoundly Blitz has influenced Stolas’ journey. This isn’t just about escaping Stella’s abuse—it’s about discovering that he has the power to choose his own path after years of having his fate decided for him.

Stolas’ immense privilege does not negate the emotional stakes of his story. Instead, it complicates them. He exists in a world where he has power, wealth, and influence, yet he has been powerless to live authentically. His arc is not about dismantling systemic oppression (which, interestingly, is in stark contrast with Blitzø’s) but rather breaking free from personal and societal expectations that have left him stifled.

Stella’s Role: More Than a “Bitchy Ex-Wife”

Importantly, Stella doesn’t need to be likable or redeemable to be compelling. Her function in the narrative is to heighten the stakes for Stolas, pushing him toward self-realization. Her lack of development as a sympathetic character is not a flaw but a deliberate choice, emphasizing her role as a foil to Stolas’ journey of liberation. (💁🏽‍♀️: as an aside, Viv has already said she has some development planned for Stella; hold your damn horses.)

Conclusion

Stella’s character reminds us that not every female figure in media needs to be aspirational or a feminist role model to serve a meaningful purpose in the story. While some critics argue that her characterization is shallow or overly centered on Stolas, this perspective misses the intentional use of subtext in crafting her role. Stella is not written to be a nuanced or sympathetic character—she is a deliberate representation of the oppressive, stifling environment that Stolas is fighting to escape. Her cruelty, both personal and systemic, underscores the layers of control and expectation that have defined his life and serves as a catalyst for his journey toward agency and self-discovery.

By leaning into subtext and allowing Stella to remain unapologetically antagonistic, Helluva Boss delivers a layered narrative that highlights the tragedy of Stolas’ life without diluting its focus. Her lack of complexity isn’t a flaw; it’s an intentional choice that reinforces the rigid societal roles within the Goetia aristocracy. Stella’s actions reflect both the personal abuse Stolas endured and the larger system that denied him autonomy, positioning her as a symbol of what he must overcome.

Critics who dismiss Stella’s characterization as shallow overlook her function within the story’s broader themes. Helluva Boss isn’t interested in making every character deeply complex—it uses its cast strategically to explore themes of privilege, identity, and rebellion. By keeping Stella unapologetically antagonistic, the show strengthens its commentary on reclaiming agency and redefining identity in a world dictated by external expectations. Stella doesn’t need to be a fully developed, sympathetic figure to be meaningful; her presence serves its purpose and allows the narrative to focus on the larger story of Stolas’ liberation.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Disco Elysium's setting was formerly the site of a communist revolution that established the Commune of Revachol. It didn't last long. The Coalition of Nations brutally put the communists down, divided the city among themselves, and enforced a free market capitalist system. The results are depressingly apparent in Revachol's dilapidated district of Martinaise. "The literacy rate is around 45% west of the river," Joyce Messier, a negotiator sent to parley with Martinaise's striking union, tells our protagonist. "Fifty years of occupation have left these people in an *oblivion* of poverty." This state of affairs is overseen by the Moralist International, a union of centre-left and centre-right parties that professes to represent the cause of humanism, but whose primary concern is transparently the preservation of capitalist interest – a Coalition official happily tells us that "the Coalition is only looking out for *ze price stabilitié*", arguing that inflation in Revachol must be prevented, comparing it to a heart disease that could block the "normal circulation of the economy". The people of Revachol don't matter. Their suffering and oppression is only significant as a necessary symptom of the system functioning as intended.  The most biting aspect of this critique of capitalist exploitation can be found in the cynicism of those who represent Moralism, or at least, its interests. The aforementioned Joyce Messier is its perfect embodiment. She does not believe in the facade of humanity Moralism presents to the world, and is under no illusions about what it has done to the people of Martinaise. She tells you how bad things are, freely admitting that the pieces of legislation put in place by the Moralist Coalition to govern Revachol are there to keep "the city in a [...] laissez-faire stasis to the benefit of foreign capital". This corrosion of belief via cynicism, this depiction of a system that continues to operate unimpeded despite few believing in it, feels all too familiar.  This critique of liberal capitalism's hypocrisy, cynicism, exploitation and deep-rooted connections to colonialism, is particularly powerful in recognising the precarious position it finds itself in. It has reached a stasis that seems, paradoxically, both insurmountable, and on the verge of collapse. Moralism relies on this contradiction. It's unofficial motto, "for a moment, there was hope", underlines the degree to which its dominance depends on the preclusion of the idea that a better world is possible, that there is no alternative, echoing the End of History sentiment that created the (rapidly disintegrating) political consensus of our lived reality. Despite growing dissatisfaction with the status quo in the real world, it has, indeed, proved difficult to imagine an alternative. The oft-repeated phrase attributed to literary critic and political theorist Fredric Jameson, that is is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is the end of capitalism, has almost become a cliché. However, the mistake Joyce makes, and one that we should avoid, is to assume that this means an alternative won't emerge nonetheless.

[...]

In a world where everyone is encouraged to look out for themselves, Disco Elysium suggests we should remember the value of collectivity, camaraderie and community. The Deserter has forgotten that though the communism he identified with is dead, the values that brought people to its cause in search of a better world remain as valid as ever. Bleak as it is, those values exist in Martinaise. They exist in us. Their latent power has the potential to lead us towards better horizons. 

[this-user-is-new]

i hate that arcane completely reworked caitlyn's racial identity in a way that conveniently distances her from being a fully white aristocrat, especially in s2. caitlyn was always depicted as white in league of legends, and in arcane season 1, they suddenly made her half-ionian by giving her an ionian father while her mother, cassandra, remained fully white (yeah nobody seriously thought cassandra looked ambiguous). whatever. it didn't bother me much. but then, in season 2, cassandra is suddenly half-ionian, which means caitlyn is three-quarters ionian instead of just half.

obviously this change wouldn’t even be an issue on its own, but it happens right when caitlyn takes on a more explicitly oppressive role in piltover: endorsing martial law, reinforcing state violence, and benefiting from systemic power. and right as this happens, the show suddenly makes a point to emphasize that caitlyn is "less white"???

ik some people will think that i’m reading too much into it, that i can’t prove it’s a deliberate attempt to soften how the audience perceives her. i mean, making her not fully white doesn't absolves her of being part of an oppressive system. but you can’t deny that this retcon is being used to shut down discussions about caitlyn’s privilege and complicity, or to even harass people over jokes. some fans literally act like she can’t be an oppressor now because she’s being reframed as "not white." obviously, this is ridiculous, not to mention historically dishonest because there's a long history of asian groups participating in and benefiting from oppressive regimes like imperial japan’s colonial rule and blablabla ... simply having asian ancestry doesn’t mean someone can’t uphold or benefit from systemic oppression. but that’s exactly how this change is being used, as a shield to deflect any critique of caitlyn’s role in piltover’s power structure.

and with arcane’s sudden shift from a story about oppression and politics to a marvel-tier spectacle, plus the fact that caitlyn’s main writer is white, plus the pattern where the piltover elites we follow are now people of color (jayce and caitlyn, when they were white in LoL, or mel, who didn’t even exist before), while the white oppressed characters get to stay white and the other major oppressed poc (ekko and sevika) are just missing in s2 ... well, is it really not a deliberate attempt from the writers to soften how we perceive her? idk, you do the math.

anyway, imo this change isn’t some meaningful character development. it’s just optics management.

[night-triumphantt]

I have some thoughts about the arcane ending w nowhere to go but uh, if ur not here for some critique keep it pushing loll

Now that I’ve had a day to digest I’m actually v disappointed w the way the story gave up on its revolutionary messaging. The focus of season one is the piltover and zaun plot, the oppression of Zaun and its impacts on the characters, it is how vi and powder are orphaned, it’s why viktor is disabled, it is why the undercity struggles, Zauns independence is what silco was fighting for, vander and silcos ideological disagreements are based on it etc etc. the tensions between the two cities is rising and rising and then it just, fizzles out and pivots and makes viktor the main antagonist without any recognition of how he got here. And don’t get me started on how there’s zero consequences for cait who is?? Still an enforcer??

The plot highlights through Vi that the enforcers are an oppressive arm of a system w how she was treated as a CHILD and even as an adult and she betrays her ideals, to do what she thinks is right bc she thinks she has to take out her sister and bc cait asked her to do so as an enforcer. And then in doing so she betrays her ideals so aggressively that she is now the exact thing that hurt her, an enforcer, traumatizing a child, utilizing the gas on the undercity, excusing the consequences. And when she faces Caitlyn, cait obfuscates and says she wouldn’t have missed even tho that’s not *better*. Bc ok let’s say she didn’t miss, she just kills jinx in front of isha? and she just gassed the city w what we know is toxic gas? And then she discards vi bc vi isn’t going along with what she wants. Cait then is never shown reckoning w the biases and cruel things she’s done and said after that. There is ONE conversation w her and Vi and it’s framed as Ambessa is the issue which, she is partially but like, topside enforcers were all behind her and Cait was quick to lean into all her preconceived notions of zaunites. (Speaking of making what’s her name a mole was stupid and imo done just to make it so Cait doesn’t have to have that convo w her?? Idk)

Also, Vi goes on a drinking spree in which we never actually see her reckon w what she did as an enforcer, (it’s mostly framed around Cait) and then she hurts isha and,,, nothing?? No sorry?? Nothing. Vi has no plot that shows us her thoughts, her reckoning w what she did, or anything. In my opinion it’s bc the writers wanted cait/vi to work and if Vi actually had to think about what happened and what she did then they wouldn’t have worked out. Vi w/ no one to protect who has to rebuild her identity and really decide how she ended up where she did, I would have loved to see it. Her and Jinx’s convo where she says u don’t need me to protect u was actually rlly good, them reconnecting as equals & Vi seeing how jinx became a symbol of the undercity, fighting for it together, finding how she lost her way, like, cmon. Jinx not ending her story w yea actually u should die previously suicidal character, (don’t worry, this is a good way to die) and instead doing the hard work of rebuilding, and seeing a future for herself that isn’t painted in tragedy, surrounding herself w ppl who love her and help her grow (while silco loved her he could not help her grow bc of his own unhealed wounds) using her ingenuity to rebuild w ekko, like, ugh. These are very rough thoughts that got kinda, long, but yea in conclusion, while I loved the characters, the refusal to *commit* to the political message they started hurt the show a lot, and I’m rlly sad for what could have been.

I have a lot more thoughts about sevika and Mel as well but I’m mostly just bummed.

[blackstarlineage]

Generational Trauma Left Unaddressed or Normalized: A Garveyite Perspective

Generational trauma is a persistent wound carried by the African diaspora—a trauma that has been left unaddressed, normalized, and passed down through centuries. From the scars of slavery and colonialism to the systemic oppression we see today, these traumas continue to shape Black communities worldwide. But what happens when trauma is not only ignored but becomes a part of our daily lives?

From a Garveyite perspective, the answer lies in self-determination, Pan-African unity, and economic empowerment. Marcus Garvey’s philosophy provides both a critique of generational trauma and a solution for breaking the cycle.

1. The Origins of Generational Trauma

Slavery and Colonialism: The Foundation of Oppression

The African diaspora was built on the forced removal of Africans from their homeland, the erasure of their culture, and centuries of systemic dehumanization. These experiences left deep psychological, social, and economic scars:

Displacement & Identity Loss: Stripping African people of their languages, traditions, and names created a generational disconnect from their true heritage.

Psychological Degradation: Centuries of forced subjugation led to internalized inferiority complexes.

Economic Enslavement: The denial of wealth-building opportunities reinforced cycles of poverty and economic dependence.

How Trauma is Passed Down

Generational trauma doesn’t just disappear—it is inherited. It manifests in:

Fear and Survivalism: Parents unknowingly pass down the survival strategies developed during oppression.

Cultural Disconnection: A lack of knowledge about African history and heritage leads to internalized self-hatred.

Economic Hardship: Systemic barriers (e.g., redlining, mass incarceration, education inequities) reinforce generational struggles.

2. The Normalization of Trauma in Black Communities

When oppression becomes routine, trauma is no longer recognized—it is accepted. Garveyism challenges this normalization, calling for Black people to wake up and reclaim their dignity.

Signs of Normalized Trauma

Colourism & Self-Hatred: The colonial obsession with whiteness led to generations of Black people being conditioned to prefer European beauty standards.

Community Distrust: Systemic oppression created deep divisions within Black communities, fostering competition instead of unity.

Economic Dependency: Many Black communities have been taught to depend on external institutions instead of building self-sufficient economies.

How Institutions Maintain the Cycle

Education: Schools reinforce Eurocentric histories while minimizing African achievements.

Religion: Christianity and other religious institutions have often been used to pacify rather than empower.

Legal Systems: Mass incarceration and policing disproportionately target Black communities, reinforcing trauma.

3. The Garveyite Solution: Reversing Generational Trauma

Marcus Garvey believed that mental liberation precedes physical liberation. Breaking the cycle requires:

1. Mental Reprogramming: Rejecting Internalized Oppression

Reclaiming African Identity: Teaching real Black history and embracing African traditions.

Celebrating Black Excellence: Uplifting achievements that counter colonial narratives.

Healing from Colonial Trauma: Rebuilding self-worth and rejecting inferiority conditioning.

2. Economic Self-Sufficiency: Building Wealth & Power

Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) championed economic independence through:

Business Ownership: Black entrepreneurship as a means of liberation.

Cooperative Economics: Community-driven wealth circulation.

Land Ownership: Agricultural and industrial development for sustainability.

3. Pan-African Unity: Strength Through Global Connection

Garveyism teaches that Black people worldwide must unite to reclaim power. This means:

Cultural Reconnection: Restoring the bond between Africa and its diaspora.

Global Economic Networks: Strengthening Black-owned businesses and trade.

Ending Internal Division: Unifying around a shared vision of liberation.

Final Thoughts: Breaking the Cycle is Our Responsibility

Generational trauma is not just history—it is an ongoing reality. But trauma does not define us. Garveyism teaches that we are the masters of our destiny. The path to liberation requires rejecting the psychological chains of oppression, rebuilding economic independence, and uniting as a global force.

If we fail to address generational trauma, we allow it to continue. But if we reclaim our power, we break the cycle for future generations.

Rise up. Reclaim. Rebuild.

[gatheringbones]

[“Such groups suffer from a syndrome I call empowerment to the midline. We dedicate ourselves to empowering individuals, right up until the moment when someone actually begins to exercise power — defined simply as the ability to get what they want done. At that point, it’s as if they’ve stepped over an invisible line that separates the oppressed from the oppressors. Suddenly this person we’ve worked so hard to help find a voice becomes the person everyone wants to speak out against.

I also call this pattern empowerment to complain. We focus our nurturing and attention on anyone who takes the position of victim and complains about leadership. Anyone who takes action or sets direction is suspect. Unfortunately, this sort of empowerment is not very empowering. Nobody gets what they want, and often little or nothing gets done.

True empowerment implies action. Complaining is not enough. Taking action means taking responsibility — suggesting, offering solutions and doing the work to implement them. But in a group suffering from the empowerment to the midline syndrome, there’s no zone of action, no autonomy, no scope for creativity. The group may have done away with the inequalities of leaders and followers, of some people being the stars and others relegated to mere extras. But they’ve done so by preventing anyone from having the power to act.

Here are some of unspoken assumptions behind the empowerment to the midline syndrome in progressive and collaborative groups.

1. People who have extraordinary skills, experience, levels of commitment or other resources or who take on big responsibilities — call them leaders — are always suspect. They are fair game for attack. The result is that no one feels truly safe in the group. There is no trust. No one is able to train, to mentor or pass on skills.

2. Leaders should never receive extra benefits, perks or rewards beyond the joy of the work itself, or they are exploiting others. In collaborative groups, we are often reacting against a larger system of hierarchy, in which higher levels of responsibility confer marks of status and collateral powers. We don’t want to reproduce that sort of inequality. But we do want to allow people to earn fair rewards for their labors, marks of appreciation and respect. If a group continually sees its most experienced people drifting away or burning out, it may be a warning sign that this pattern is in force.

3. We must always sacrifice the needs, benefits and rewards of insiders to the needs of outsiders. Empowerment means always siding with the perceived victim or underdog. The group functions on power-under — people get their way by taking the position of victim. They gain social power, not by taking on responsibility, but by complaining about those who do. The complainers are not truly empowered to act, and those who do take action are undermined.

4. We refuse to acknowledge that people might have different levels of skill, experience, talent, commitment or responsibility, because to do so might affirm a hierarchy. The group is unable to make use of its members’ skills and talents. We can’t mentor and critique each other, we can’t assess what skills and forms of responsibility are needed or are operative in a group and we can’t set standards or hold one another accountable for meeting them.”]

starhawk, from the empowerment manual: a guide for collaborative groups, 2011

[bricksandmutualaid]

Sin: Capitalism with Extra Steps

Comrades: Final Fantasy X is not just a game about fighting monsters—it's a masterclass in revolutionary theory, a devastating critique of theocratic authoritarianism, and an allegory for how the ruling class gaslights the working class into accepting endless suffering as “fate.”

So grab your oversized sword, your blitzball that you use as a weapon(???), and your deeply suppressed class rage—it’s time to deconstruct the class struggle of Spira.

🏛️ Yevon: The Union of Church and State

The Church of Yevon holds totalitarian control over Spira. It is both government and religion, ensuring that there is no distinction between political power and divine mandate. It upholds its rule.

Manufactured crisis & fearmongering – Sin, an unstoppable force of destruction, keeps the population in a constant state of fear, ensuring their reliance on Yevon. (Sound familiar?).

Banning progress – The church forbids machina (advanced technology) to keep the masses dependent on archaic traditions. Meanwhile, the ruling class in Bevelle enjoys all the benefits of technology, proving their "anti-machina" stance is pure hypocrisy.

Rigid class structures – The Maesters (bourgeoisie) send summoners (working class) to their deaths, brainwashing them to martyr themselves for "peace." Meanwhile, the elite sit comfortably, untouched by suffering.

The Illusion of Salvation – The Final Summoning is a scam. It kills the summoner, destroys Sin temporarily, and the cycle starts again. The system exists to sustain itself—not to fix anything.

The Church of Yevon gaslights an entire civilization into believing that suffering is noble, poverty is virtuous, and only the ruling class can "save" them.

⚡️ Tidus: The Outsider-Turned-Revolutionary

At the start, Tidus is completely disconnected from Spira’s struggle. He is, effectively, the apathetic outsider—your average "I’m not political" guy.

He just wants to go home (apathetic bystander).

He notices things aren’t adding up (early-stage radicalization).

Then he realizes the entire system is a lie and refuses to accept it (fully radicalized revolutionary).

By the end, he helps dismantle the entire oppressive power structure.

Tidus’s journey is a lesson in waking up to systemic oppression and actively fighting back against it.

🔧 The Al Bhed: Radicalized Revolutionaries in Exile

The Al Bhed are Final Fantasy X’s equivalent of anarchist resistance fighters.

They reject Yevon’s control.

They embrace "forbidden" technology.

They actively rescue summoners from being sacrificed.

They challenge the idea that suffering is necessary.

For this, they are vilified, hunted down, and treated as dangerous radicals. The ruling class frames them as terrorists, because their existence alone threatens the power structure.

💀 The Final Summoning: Grooming for Suicide

From birth, summoners and the working class of Spira are taught that the summoner's deaths are necessary "for the greater good." Their sacrifice is celebrated, not questioned.

If you die working, that’s just life.

If you struggle to survive, it builds character.

If you suffer, it’s because of your own failings—not the system.

This mirrors how capitalism convinces workers that suffering is noble, while the ruling class sits comfortably, demanding more sacrifices.

💥 Dismantling Yevon: A Full-Scale Revolution

The party’s fight against Yevon is not just about defeating Sin—it’s about overthrowing an entire power structure.

They expose the Church’s lies.

They dismantle Yevon’s authority.

They destroy Sin WITHOUT a summoner’s sacrifice.

They end the cycle of oppression—permanently.

This is not just a battle against a big evil boss. This is a full-scale revolution that topples an entire system.

🔥 Conclusion: Final Fantasy X as a Revolutionary Blueprint

Final Fantasy X is not just about fighting monsters. It’s a lesson in radicalization, class consciousness, and direct action. It’s about:

How ruling classes use fear to maintain control.

How those in power create artificial cycles of suffering to justify their existence.

How revolutionary change requires rejecting not just the leaders, but the entire system upholding them.

Resistance is messy, painful, and often met with hostility—but it is still necessary.

Ultimately: It’s a story of how to wake up, how to fight back, and how to build something better.

[letters-to-rosie]

The Silco Essay

Long post ahead, TDLR included.

Let's do a little thought experiment. We're trying to institute socialism, worker control and ownership of the means of production. This is currently far from our reality, so we have a lot of work to do. We get together and talk and strategize, but it's difficult with all the surveillance we're under as we work. Not only would seizing the means of production be met with a harsh backlash but even unionization, which doesn't automatically lead to worker control or ownership, is suppressed even though that suppression is illegal in certain countries like the US.

How does that suppression happen? There are a lot more workers than owners. If we worked together, we could take them, right? Well, the owners have the law and access to call upon the state to enact violence on us. We can't exactly own the means of production if we get killed. Even if we overcome other hierarchies keeping us from solidarity, such as miners in West Virginia did by organizing across racial divisions, we can still be beaten. Those miner had bombs dropped on them.

Okay, thought experiment over. What does this have to do with Silco? It's taken me ages to think about how to explain it, but my beef with him is that he has what are essentially perfect conditions for creating a mass movement and does not use them. He is uniquely in a position to protect any burgeoning mass revolt until it would be too late for Piltover to stop it. This is why his comments to Sevika that they can buy another police chief ring hollow. They both know how good they had it.

This is not to say that I think Silco is poorly written or a "bad character." Silco being the way he is all comes down to the entire conceit of the show: two cities against each other, with a sister on each side. However, this does lead me to want to critique some things about the show's premise that lead to my critiques about Silco.

For the cities to be meaningfully opposed, Zaun can't just be oppressed. It has to be "bad" to counter Piltover's bad. This, I think, causes the majority of things that make me sad about the show overall. While I still enjoy it, much of what I enjoyed was a fantasy setting that dealt with real-world issues in its own way. However, for all the realism in the setting, there are some distinctly "not real" parts that seem to blunt discussions of the depth of the oppression Zaunites are suffering. There's only fleeting mentions of labor oppression, even though it must have been key to organizing their society. The way Piltovans like Heimerdinger and great house members like the Kirammans must've had an active hand in organizing and benefiting from this oppression is mostly skipped over. Much of Piltover's evil is shown to us in the form of police brutality, but under any system of police brutality is one of hierarchy that is actively maintained and serves more of a purpose than just violence for its own sake. Even so, the police brutality we're shown is more than enough to have us sympathize with Zaunite characters if they were to have a massive rebellion and change the shape of Piltover forever. But Piltover's shape can only change so much. That's the conceit of the show. We can't completely root for Zaun and have them be entirely sympathetic because it would break the world. This is why I think Silco has to be the face of Zaun instead of Ekko and the Firelights, why Ekko has to befriend Heimerdinger to soften that antagonism, and why the Firelights never gain enough power to challenge Piltover at a systemic level. Even when Ekko wants to, he's thwarted and unable to cross the bridge.

We have a lot more fantasy imagination than political imagination. Silco is very realistic. Authoritarians do tend to rise up and stop movements that are closer in practice to socialism. If there were a mass movement in Zaun, as there seems to be potential for around episode 3, Silco would want to redirect that energy so he can control it, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is, in some form or fashion, what he did while consolidating power in the wake of Vander's death. While I appreciate the realism, it does make me sad that many times we put so much more energy into imagining magic systems and mystical creatures than we do imagining ways people could live freely with each other. It's like we have to keep capitalist realism alive even if we have hoverboards (also, if it wasn't already clear, I think the greatest potential for socialism/other lefty schools of thought is seen in the Firelights; so we could totally have political imagination AND hoverboards if Riot weren't cowards).

Silco's strong individualism works well for his relationship with Jinx and allows him to serve and Vi's primary antagonist. Even as Vi goes on a path that leads her to become more and more morally questionable as the plot goes on (like her sister lol), the sheer horror of what Silco inflicted on her makes Vi's story easy to digest. For Silco and Jinx, Silco's individualist outlook allows him to see her separated from the conditions that he is exacerbating outside. There are probably at least a hundred kids who could be as smart if given the right conditions (which makes Jinx and Ekko foils, for instance), but Silco doesn't care because he doesn't have a personal connection with them. He sees Jinx not as a child among many but as the child. I think this is part of why it's so hard for him to even think of giving her up and why he really never would have. However, I think it would be wrong to suggest that we'd have to sacrifice a great storyline for Silco to be more class conscious. It's possible to hold the tension between seeing greatness in individuals you love and knowing there is similar greatness in every individual that is being stomped on by the various oppressions we face, including the ones we share.

Because of these factors (Piltover being written to be the oppressor but Zaun needing to be equally bad so the show can "both sides" the conflict; a general lack of political imagination, which is also hemmed in by the source material and keeps us from fun fictional socialism except in small doses; and the general individualism baked into Silco's character that leads him to not even consider that a mass movement is the best way to achieve his aim of independence), I find Silco's politics very boring, lol. If we're to think about what his revolution might bring about, I'd find it much easier to compare to a bourgeois revolution (such as the US one) than to a socialist revolution that devolved into state capitalism (such as the USSR). One thing that characterized the US revolution was its unwillingness to include all the potential actors who might've fought in the war, particularly enslaved people. More enslaved people actually fought on the British side, as they were promised independence (even though Britain had not abolished slavery, so this was probably a scam). By desiring to maintain the system of chattel slavery and the hierarchies it created, the US revolutionaries missed out on the possibility to create a mass movement and jeopardized the success of their movement in the process.

This all reminds me of the distinction Kwame Ture (formerly known as Stokely Carmichael) draws between the Black Revolutionary and the Black Militant:

Now, there are a number of groups functioning in the black liberation movement in this country. I will not give the philosophy of those groups. I will not speak for them because I wouldn’t want their representatives to speak for us. There are, of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress for Racial Equality, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Black Panther Party. Most of these groups have basically been fighting for a share of the American pie, at least until recently. That is to say, they were kept out of the American dream, and many of them thought that if they were to adopt the manners, the mode, the culture of the oppressor, they would be accepted and they too could enjoy the fruits of American imperialism. But today, among the young generation of blacks in this country, an ideology is developing that says we cannot, in fact, accept the system. This differentiates the black militant from the black revolutionary. The black militant is one who yells and screams about the evils of the American system, himself trying to become a part of that system. The black revolutionary’s cry is not that he is excluded, but that he wants to destroy, overturn, and completely demolish the American system and start with a new one that allows humanity to flow. I stand, then, on the side of the black revolutionary and not on the side of the black militant. (From Stokely Speaks: From Black Power to Pan-Africanism)

Silco's demands to Jayce, along with his exclusion of most of the people from Zaun in the process of transforming society and his exploitation of them via shimmer, place him firmly on the side of the militant in this equation. Silco wants access to the fruits of Piltover's progress while only upsetting the structure where it negatively affects him. Again, while there's a lot I can enjoy in his character, I get frustrated with his insistence at being counter-revolutionary at every turn. I have a long reading list for him, and since he's in the afterlife now, he'll have time to get to it.

TLDR: Silco says he doesn't have to beat Piltover, just scare them. You know what's really scary, Silco? The masses of the people standing up and demanding that their oppression end, for fuck's sake.

[alsmediadissection]

˗ˏˋ feminism in Wicked ´ˎ˗

!! i want to preface this by saying i'm not a professional critic, and this is not a 100% guide to anything either. do not take anything i type online to absolute heart, this is simply my personal interpretation of this piece of media !! (i also want to mention that i did not read the Wicked novel/series by Gregory Maguire)

! CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR ACT 2 IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THE WHOLE MUSICAL !

Wicked is a deeply feminist narrative that centers on the lives, agency, and growth of its female characters in a world dominated by patriarchal systems and expectations. Through the journeys of Elphaba and Glinda, the musical critiques traditional gender roles, explores the power of female solidarity, and challenges the societal constraints placed on women. The feminist themes in Wicked resonate strongly, offering a nuanced exploration of women navigating oppressive structures while forging their own identities and paths.

Wicked is a piece of media which challenges traditional gender roles. Elphaba and Glinda are presented as multifaceted characters who defy conventional archetypes of women in media.

Elphaba:

Elphaba is an unconventional heroine. Her physical appearance—her green skin—sets her apart from society's standards of beauty, and her intelligence, ambition, and assertiveness mark her as an outsider. She resists the expectations placed upon her, refusing to conform to a world that demands compliance and superficiality.

Her defiance of the Wizard and her commitment to justice make her a feminist icon, embodying the refusal to accept systemic oppression. Elphaba’s journey represents the struggle of women who challenge patriarchal structures and are subsequently vilified for their resistance.

Glinda:

At first glance, Glinda appears to embody the archetype of the "perfect woman" in a patriarchal society—beautiful, charming, and eager to please. However, her journey reveals a deeper complexity. Glinda learns to question the value of her societal approval and embraces personal growth over external validation.

Her evolution from a self-centered individual to a leader who prioritizes empathy and justice showcases her feminist awakening, as she moves beyond the constraints of traditional femininity to assert her agency.

Wicked is as well a beautifully written representation of female solidarity and rivalry. The relationship between Elphaba and Glinda is central to the narrative and serves as a feminist counterpoint to the trope of women as adversaries. While their initial dynamic includes elements of rivalry—largely rooted in societal expectations and misunderstandings—they ultimately form a bond based on mutual respect and love. Their relationship highlights the power of female solidarity. Elphaba inspires Glinda to think critically and challenge the status quo, while Glinda supports Elphaba in moments of vulnerability, such as during “Defying Gravity.” Their bond transcends their differences, emphasizing the importance of women lifting each other up in the face of shared struggles. The love triangle with Fiyero, while present, does not define their relationship. Instead of becoming bitter rivals, Glinda and Elphaba prioritize their friendship and growth over romantic competition, subverting a common narrative trope (finally escaping the trope where bffs fight over a guy).

Wicked as well challenges and critiques the patriarchal systems (patriarchy). The oppressive systems in Oz—embodied by the Wizard, Madame Morrible, and the societal discrimination against Animals—serve as allegories for patriarchal power structures. Elphaba and Glinda's struggles within these systems highlight feminist themes. The Wizard represents patriarchal authority, using charm and deceit to maintain control. He manipulates both women, attempting to co-opt Elphaba’s power and using Glinda as a figurehead to perpetuate his rule. Their eventual resistance to his influence underscores their feminist rejection of patriarchal control.Although a woman, Madame Morrible serves as a tool of the Wizard’s regime, perpetuating oppression rather than resisting it. Her character reflects how women can internalize and enforce patriarchal values, contrasting sharply with Elphaba and Glinda’s journeys toward liberation.

Equally importantly, Wicked has themes of female agency and voice. Both Elphaba and Glinda grapple with finding and asserting their voices in a world that seeks to silence or commodify them. Elphaba’s refusal to be controlled or silenced is a powerful assertion of agency. Her iconic song, “Defying Gravity,” is a feminist anthem of self-empowerment, as she embraces her identity and takes control of her destiny, regardless of the consequences. Glinda’s journey from superficiality to activism reflects her growing recognition of her own agency. By the end of the musical, she asserts herself as a leader, using her platform to work toward justice.

On a more complex note, Wicked also has the intersection of feminism and intersectionality. Elphaba’s green skin serves as a metaphor for discrimination, highlighting the intersection of feminism with broader struggles against racism and other forms of marginalization. Her experience of being ostracized for her appearance parallels the experiences of women of color and other marginalized groups, underscoring the need for an inclusive feminism that addresses intersecting systems of oppression.

OH AND NOT TO EVEN MENTION THE AWESOME RECLAIMING OF VILLIANY AND POWER?? A feminist reading of Wicked also involves reclaiming the concept of the “witch,” historically a term used to vilify and suppress powerful women. Elphaba’s transformation into the "Wicked Witch of the West" reflects how women who challenge societal norms are demonized, yet she reclaims this label as a badge of empowerment. Her story critiques the societal tendency to villainize ambitious, outspoken, and unconventional women.

Wicked is a profoundly feminist work, celebrating the complexity, agency, and resilience of its female characters. Through Elphaba and Glinda, the musical critiques patriarchal systems, challenges traditional gender roles, and highlights the transformative power of female solidarity. By centering women’s voices and experiences, Wicked offers a timeless message about the importance of resistance, empowerment, and redefining what it means to be a strong and “good” woman.

thank you Wicked for giving us well written women.

[exilynn]

Modern Eddie! (All edits are mine, please don't repost in other social network

CORRODED COFFIN DELUXE ALBUM (2023)— Au ECHOES NOCTERIS WRITTEN: MunsonMuse

Corroded Coffin releases its first deluxe album in 2023, featuring the explosive single "Love On Fire." When asked about the influences behind the record, the band cites a mix of classic rock and heavy metal, namin: Yes, The Beatles, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, and Styx as major inspirations.

In an interview for magazine, Rolling Stone, Eddie Munson opened up about the band’s artistic journey and how each member poured their personality into the music. "We were simply born to play and honor rock ‘n’ roll together. Nothing could stop us. In the beginning, forming the band felt like a poison – it intoxicated our friendship in the best way possible. And I knew our destiny was to resurrect revolutionary hearts with our sound."

Never one to hold back, Munson also stated: "The world is a giant ball of shit when music doesn’t challenge moral norms. There are too many people painting the town with empty promises. We’ve never been, and will never be, puppets of these false leaders."

Featured Tracks

"Love On Fire" The chart-topping single that dominated Howling’s rock charts, selling over 100 million copies in 2023. The song blends progressive rock with heavy metal elements, creating a psychedelic atmosphere that captures the essence of an all-consuming love, overwhelming and inescapable, even when everything around you is falling apart.

"Sold for Hell" A raw account of Eddie Munson’s youth, detailing his struggle with drugs and the torment he faced at school from bullies. This track is followed by "The Outsiders Fight," a direct response to oppression and forced conformity.

"Coffin Memories," "A Place to Be," and "No More Corroded" A trilogy of songs exploring themes of nostalgia, longing, and the search for lost fragments of oneself.

"Watermelon Sigh" A provocative track that plays with sensual symbolism, celebrating femininity as a divine force.

"Vlad’s Plays" Inspired by Eddie’s love for classic horror films, this track blends themes of lust and religion into a dark, immersive soundscape.

"Barrel of Love," "Guns and Bombs," and "Fairytopia" A three-part sequence that explores love as a battlefield, dissociation, and self-reconciliation until one finally reaches a mythical realm where hope is reborn.

"Diabolic Woman" A sharp critique of misogyny, told from the perspective of a seductive and rebellious woman, demonized through the male gaze. The song balances sensuality and irony, turning its protagonist into a true diabolical goddess.

From ostracized nerds to wild rockstars, Corroded Coffin proves that they are here to challenge the system, break the rules, and reclaim the rebellious spirit of rock ‘n’ roll.

The Beginning of Corroded Coffin ( Source: The Rolling Stone)

[librarycards]

RSCH first founded its hegemonocosm on violent purges and maintains it through brainwashing and oppression, all justified on the grounds of being “evidence based” — the logic of which is naturally circular: the admissibility of evidence is determined by a regime whose overwhelming violence allows it to arrogate to itself sole arbitership of what is Real. This equivocal “heads I win, tails you lose” logic imparts power on the regime precisely by convincing its victims that it is they who are evil. Indeed, it appears almost nobody ever rebels or resists. Most seem cowed by the impossibility.

But RSCH wouldn’t need all these laws against deviancy if people didn’t sometimes fail to comply.

[...]

[I]n truth, for all the effort the pure put into stamping out deviancy, the pure and the deviants are tightly linked. Without deviants, the pure have nothing against which to define their purity. As for the deviants, even after the narrator defects and becomes an Uncitizen, she lacks any vocabulary or mental framework for comprehending the world other than that indoctrinated into her by RSCH. Even in deviancy, she thinks only RSCH thought. “I began wrapping myself in moss every night,” she says of her time in the wild. “It felt like something resembling the safety, that quality RSCH mandated.” Deep in her deviancy, she still measures things against RSCH concepts. But though she cannot switch off the effects of a lifetime of indoctrination, on another level she manages to leave it behind: “I did not Imagine a world without RSCH. I turned away from a life of safety, which was really just a life of tender fear.”

I suppose it will not be particularly controversial to observe that most dystopian tales are not merely thought exercises on how awful some imagined secondary world might be to live in, but are also, and sometimes principally, critiques of our present world. In parallel to the way abstract notions of how to control other people can be reified into an operational system of control, such a system of control can be meta-reified as it reenters the mind, this time as an unshakeable paradigm of thought. (By “reify” I mean when an ideology takes concrete form in the world; by “meta-reify” I mean when the concrete forms of the human world imprint onto the mind of its inhabitants in order to set the boundaries of the thinkable.) The success of a process of of reification and meta-reification, when the system of control asserts mastery over both the material and the mental existences of all its subjects, is when it sublimates into a hegemonocosm. I think Failure to Comply accuses our own world of being just such a meta-reified system of control — a hegemonocosm.

The all-too-many abuses which society inflicts on the vulnerable, and which the rich inflict on the ninety-nine percent, seem quite appropriate to some of us, quite inescapable to others of us. For every one of us coerced into compliance by a policeman’s boot heel, a great many more of us “choose” to comply because the channels of habituated thought and assumption carved into our minds by meta-reification make nothing else seem possible or correct. And these abuses are so very often linked to the body, to consumption, and to peremptory control. Consider, for example, how invasive some people in our society can be in their attempts to shame, or to govern the diets or lifestyles of, fat people — and especially consider how such invasive bullying is often equivocally justified with ostentatious “concerns about your health”. This “concern” becomes a self-issued permission slip: “My concern for your wellbeing gives me the right to insult and humiliate you, and even to dictate your lifestyle choices to you.” Similar logic-chopping characterises the transphobia that is increasingly endemic in our society. Granting yourself invasive prerogatives to police “wellness” on behalf of the body politic — the seeds of RSCH are not hard to discern in this.

Dale Stromberg, Failure to Comply: A Review