#it is just that one cannot blame the public for not understanding while simultaneously desiring a public that understands.

[elodieunderglass]

Ok so going out to a bigger context and a massive bugbear of mine: this is tumblr, so you’ve probably seen a lot of posts from ✨humanities✨ people that go like this.

Dumb uneducated masses: hurr durr historians lied to us! I never learned about this in school! Historians say dumb things like “we don’t know if gay people ever existed” but I saw a TikTok about gay people in history. A conspiracy I think from the Man

Buff victimised wojack historians: we are not hiding things from you! We are doing important work on these topics in our theses! A tiny amount of intensive educated research would bring you the knowledge you crave! I’m a gay history PhD with gay history book ACTUALLY. You are all illiterate, and blaming us only shows your lack of education.

Another historian: god it’s so frustrating how stupid the public is when our academic publications are RIGHT THERE.

Another historian: smh it’s the way they’d prefer to get misinformation on tumblr and TikTok.

Historians in particular do this a lot. I could link you to a few distinct posts that do exactly this with 40k+ notes. and lots of sanctimonious people complaining about how the public have NO information literacy, and ALL of these complaints are PERFECTLY addressed in Ratbin and Huguenot (2001) “Gender and Ungender in Mesopotamia” which these morons would KNOW if they only (paywall)(paywall)(paywall). You have seen multiple popular posts on tumblr where extremely intelligent, kind, smart, educated people are not realising that in their complaints about their discipline’s massive communications issue, they are repeatedly demonstrating why they have a comms issue. You have possibly even reblogged it, without realising the massive flaw at the heart of the rhetoric. We usually trust historians to have good rhetoric! If they don’t, who does?

But surely this is common across academic disciplines? Well, we note that sciences have an entire professional field called “science communication.” When someone asks a science question on social media, scientists usually sprint to be the first to give the clearest answer.Scientists consider it a personal failing if the public don’t understand a key update in modern science, and will often go out of their way on social media to spread correct content in accessible ways. Science grants and funding bodies and journals require that scientists have plans to communicate, and make accessible and publicly serviceable, pretty much every piece of funded research and increasing amounts of published research. Scientists go into schools and talk to little kids and have festivals -for free- they don’t get paid for this and yet you can call up any ambassador association and ask for a lecture and get one. Science communicators pound the pavement, working as park rangers and forest school leaders, comedians and podcasters; an ENTIRE LINE OF WORK involves getting paid by researchers to translate, communicate and promote their science. There are companies and people for whom this is their paid, actual factual salaried career.

And I cannot stress enough how easy it is to get any given science PhD student to come and do any form of science communication for free. They will do it for free , and they will thank you for the opportunity.

The attitude in the sciences is “if the public don’t understand, then we’ve failed to communicate, and need to do better.” There is an entire professional field dedicated to doing this; as OP says, science museums do not scorn to stoop to the level of children.

Now I return to the image of the science PhD student, who is quivering with anticipation at being asked to talk about sea turtle conservation to small children, who will objectively never give them funding, in the true belief that it is good for society and sea turtles to do such things. We can intuit, from pop culture, the scientist personality: the belief that you can save the world. if you just get the work done and the words right and people believe you, you can save the world. We instantly see the fears and hopes of scientists from this; we can study the psychology and history of the Mad Scientist trope, exploring what happens when the motivations of this personality become no longer socially acceptable. We can see this belief that science, like a key, could open the lock that saves the world; this explains the franticness of the personality that gladly spends its free time forging different keys. The hope here is the beautiful perfect Argument, a shining radiant Key, that one presents to The Public, and suddenly they cry out and fall down and say “Of COURSE! we care about ocean acidification so much now! We will immediately overthrow everyone who doesn’t care, and fix it at once.” To this personality, knowledge sharing is survival. The more people who are educated enough to appreciate and admire and pay the scientist, the better the scientist has of realising their hopes (saving the world) and avoiding their fear (getting it wrong and failing forever.)

Now we turn to the graduate student in fine arts, and contrary to what we would think of progressive bohemian artists, we often see a different set of fears and hopes that are conservative. Conservative, fundamentally and etymologically, means to hold; to grasp; to keep; to spend small amounts very cautiously. perhaps they are seeking to curate and preserve previous works, like OP’s curators: or perhaps hoping to create valuable works of their own, to sell for a living to a special population of discerning rich people. Either way, if Just Anyone could create a work that appeals to rich collectors; if Just Anyone could declare what is art; if Just Any Object could be found to have value; if Just Anyone could look at curated objects and understand them with context and appreciation: it rather undermines the idea that collecting this education is inherently valuable. And thus we see the response: the public should educate themselves. An arts education is good to have, and probably makes more customers, but people should go and get one, rather than being given it for free; we know that most people won’t, but that’s okay, because it’s important that the Knowledge itself is curated. The best people to understand and interpret these works have won the right to do so through proper curation of the Knowledge. In a sense knowledge should be hoarded or handed out sparingly because that is how it simultaneously retains value, and ensures the good quality of the most knowledgeable people.

Similarly, history does not attract the “save the world” nerds in the same way that science does. And that’s honestly fine. It’s a burnout personality - kind of a psychological complex - too dependent on externals. The Locked Tomb does not feature the apocalypse of a mad historian.

But you can’t desire the fruits of the hard work that the science community reaps (public appreciation, attention, funding, pop culture) without doing some reflection about why you want all fruit and no work. And no, it isn’t that Nobody Cares (And Should Get An Education So That They Care More, Which They Won’t, Because Nobody Cares About Humanities Anymore, Because The Sciences Are Luring Them Away with their Wiles.) nobody cared about pretty much any part of science until someone found the key to the comms. Plastic straws in sea turtle noses, save the bees, plant more trees, feathered dinosaurs, genes that cure cancer - all images, all stories that made people care. If the sciences are better storytellers, then don’t sulk; tell a better story! Maybe more people would care about the humanities if you secured their passions as children! Maybe the fact that nobody is reading your book is giving clues about accessibility. Maybe the public don’t really read that many paywalled papers, and you should be doing podcasts and press releases and tumblr essays about them. Maybe the fact that people prefer TikTok means that YOU SHOULD MAKE A BETTER TIKTOK.

Science communication says: you don’t understand the results of my science education? No problem! Let me show you! Don’t worry - even a kid can learn it. We’ll make it fun! Where did we lose you?

While the humanities are spending far too much time saying: you don’t understand the results of my arts education? Well you should get an arts degree, and then you would. If you weren’t so stupid and easily misled by TikTok, you would have simply gone to a university library and placed a hold on my book - what do you mean you’re twelve.

If you read all this and it makes you feel defensive: good! The storytelling arts shouldn’t rest on their laurels. It should be a challenge, a provocation, the red gleam of the other racehorse’s eye as it pulls away from you. You should be champing at the bit to prove me wrong - to tell a better story at ONCE - to change the world.

I would be very interested in hearing the museum design rant

by popular demand: Guy That Took One (1) Museum Studies Class Focused On Science Museums Rants About Art Museums. thank u for coming please have a seat

so. background. the concept of the "science museum" grew out of 1) the wunderkammer (cabinet of curiosities), also known as "hey check out all this weird cool shit i have", and 2) academic collections of natural history specimens (usually taxidermied) -- pre-photography these were super important for biological research (see also). early science museums usually grew out of university collections or bequests of some guy's Weird Shit Collection or both, and were focused on utility to researchers rather than educational value to the layperson (picture a room just, full of taxidermy birds with little labels on them and not a lot of curation outside that). eventually i guess they figured they could make more on admission by aiming for a mass audience? or maybe it was the cultural influence of all the world's fairs and shit (many of which also caused science museums to exist), which were aimed at a mass audience. or maybe it was because the research function became much more divorced from the museum function over time. i dunno. ANYWAY, science and technology museums nowadays have basically zero research function; the exhibits are designed more or less solely for educating the layperson (and very frequently the layperson is assumed to be a child, which does honestly irritate me, as an adult who likes to go to science museums). the collections are still there in case someone does need some DNA from one of the preserved bird skins, but items from the collections that are exhibited typically exist in service of the exhibit's conceptual message, rather than the other way around.

meanwhile at art museums they kind of haven't moved on from the "here is my pile of weird shit" paradigm, except it's "here is my pile of Fine Art". as far as i can tell, the thing that curators (and donors!) care about above all is The Collection. what artists are represented in The Collection? rich fucks derive personal prestige from donating their shit to The Collection. in big art museums usually something like 3-5% of the collection is ever on exhibit -- and sometimes they rotate stuff from the vault in and out, but let's be real, only a fraction of an art museum's square footage is temporary exhibits. they're not going to take the scream off display when it's like the only reason anyone who's not a giant nerd ever visits the norwegian national museum of art. most of the stuff in the vault just sits in the vault forever. like -- art museum curators, my dudes, do you think the general public gives a SINGLE FUCK what's in The Collection that isn't on display? no!! but i guarantee you it will never occur, ever, to an art museum curator that they could print-to-scale high-res images of artworks that are NOT in The Collection in order to contextualize the art in an exhibit, because items that are not in The Collection functionally do not exist to them. (and of course there's the deaccessioning discourse -- tumblr collectively has some level of awareness that repatriation is A Whole Kettle of Worms but even just garden-variety selling off parts of The Collection is a huge hairy fucking deal. check out deaccessioning and its discontents; it's a banger read if you're into This Kind Of Thing.)

with the contents of The Collection foregrounded like this, what you wind up with is art museum exhibits where the exhibit's message is kind of downstream of what shit you've got in the collection. often the message is just "here is some art from [century] [location]", or, if someone felt like doing a little exhibit design one fine morning, "here is some art from [century] [location] which is interesting for [reason]". the displays are SOOOOO bad by science museum standards -- if you're lucky you get a little explanatory placard in tiny font relating the art to an art movement or to its historical context or to the artist's career. if you're unlucky you get artist name, date, and medium. fucker most of the people who visit your museum know Jack Shit about art history why are you doing them dirty like this

(if you don't get it you're just not Cultured enough. fuck you, we're the art museum!)

i think i've talked about this before on this blog but the best-exhibited art exhibit i've ever been to was actually at the boston museum of science, in this traveling leonardo da vinci exhibit where they'd done a bunch of historical reconstructions of inventions out of his notebooks, and that was the main Thing, but also they had a whole little exhibit devoted to the mona lisa. obviously they didn't even have the real fucking mona lisa, but they went into a lot of detail on like -- here's some X-ray and UV photos of it, and here's how art experts interpret them. here's a (photo of a) contemporary study of the finished painting, which we've cleaned the yellowed varnish off of, so you can see what the colors looked like before the varnish yellowed. here's why we can't clean the varnish off the actual painting (da vinci used multiple varnish layers and thinned paints to translucency with varnish to create the illusion of depth, which means we now can't remove the yellowed varnish without stripping paint).

even if you don't go into that level of depth about every painting (and how could you? there absolutely wouldn't be space), you could at least talk a little about, like, pigment availability -- pigment availability is an INCREDIBLY useful lens for looking at historical paintings and, unbelievably, never once have i seen an art museum exhibit discuss it (and i've been to a lot of art museums). you know how medieval european religious paintings often have funky skin tones? THEY HADN'T INVENTED CADMIUM PIGMENTS YET. for red pigments you had like... red ochre (a muted earth-based pigment, like all ochres and umbers), vermilion (ESPENSIVE), alizarin crimson (aka madder -- this is one of my favorite reds, but it's cool-toned and NOT good for mixing most skintones), carmine/cochineal (ALSO ESPENSIVE, and purple-ish so you wouldn't want to use it for skintones anyway), red lead/minium (cheaper than vermilion), indian red/various other iron oxide reds, and apparently fucking realgar? sure. whatever. what the hell was i talking about.

oh yeah -- anyway, i'd kill for an art exhibit that's just, like, one or two oil paintings from each century for six centuries, with sample palettes of the pigments they used. but no! if an art museum curator has to put in any level of effort beyond writing up a little placard and maybe a room-level text block, they'll literally keel over and die. dude, every piece of art was made in a material context for a social purpose! it's completely deranged to divorce it from its material context and only mention the social purpose insofar as it matters to art history the field. for god's sake half the time the placard doesn't even tell you if the thing was a commission or not. there's a lot to be said about edo period woodblock prints and mass culture driven by the growing merchant class! the met has a fuckton of edo period prints; they could get a hell of an exhibit out of that!

or, tying back to an earlier thread -- the detroit institute of arts has got a solid like eight picasso paintings. when i went, they were kind of just... hanging out in a room. fuck it, let's make this an exhibit! picasso's an artist who pretty famously had Periods, right? why don't you group the paintings by period, and if you've only got one or two (or even zero!) from a particular period, pad it out with some decent life-size prints so i can compare them and get a better sense for the overarching similarities? and then arrange them all in a timeline, with little summaries of what each Period was ~about~? that'd teach me a hell of a lot more about picasso -- but you'd have to admit you don't have Every Cool Painting Ever in The Collection, which is illegalé.

also thinking about the mit museum temporary exhibit i saw briefly (sorry, i was only there for like 10 minutes because i arrived early for a meeting and didn't get a chance to go through it super thoroughly) of a bunch of ship technical drawings from the Hart nautical collection. if you handed this shit to an art museum curator they'd just stick it on the wall and tell you to stand around and look at it until you Understood. so anyway the mit museum had this enormous room-sized diorama of various hull shapes and how they sat in the water and their benefits and drawbacks, placed below the relevant technical drawings.

tbh i think the main problem is that art museum people and science museum people are completely different sets of people, trained in completely different curatorial traditions. it would not occur to an art museum curator to do anything like this because they're probably from the ~art world~ -- maybe they have experience working at an art gallery, or working as an art buyer for a rich collector, neither of which is in any way pedagogical. nobody thinks an exhibit of historical clothing should work like a clothing store but it's fine when it's art, i guess?

also the experience of going to an art museum is pretty user-hostile, i have to say. there's never enough benches, and if you want a backrest, fuck you. fuck you if going up stairs is painful; use our shitty elevator in the corner that we begrudgingly have for wheelchair accessibility, if you can find it. fuck you if you can't see very well, and need to be closer to the art. fuck you if you need to hydrate or eat food regularly; go to our stupid little overpriced cafeteria, and fuck you if we don't actually sell any food you can eat. (obviously you don't want someone accidentally spilling a smoothie on the art, but there's no reason you couldn't provide little Safe For Eating Rooms where people could just duck in and monch a protein bar, except that then you couldn't sell them a $30 salad at the cafe.) fuck you if you're overwhelmed by noise in echoing rooms with hard surfaces and a lot of people in them. fuck you if you are TOO SHORT and so our overhead illumination generates BRIGHT REFLECTIONS ON THE SHINY VARNISH. we're the art museum! we don't give a shit!!!

[throwaway-yandere]

𝗦𝗖𝗣-███: “𝗗𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗨𝗦”

[Artistic depictions of Researcher "Ansy"'s deceased husband]

“𝐼 𝑚𝑎�� ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑎 𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑛, 𝑎 𝑟𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑙— 𝐼 𝑚𝑎𝑦 𝑏𝑒 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑛𝑜𝑤, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝐼 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑒. 𝐼 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢. 𝐸𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑, 𝐼 𝑤𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐼 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒.”

— Junior Researcher Astrilde "Ansy" ███████-█████

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀: See the addendum below for more details.

𝗖𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀: Euclid.

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀: SCP-███ are conscious and sentient beings produced by Dr. Ansy using water and other confidential matters that cannot be disclosed for researchers below Level 2 Clearance. They are known as "mimics" in Fodlan & Valentia and "hydro eidolons" in Teyvat. They take form in any shape the creators (and rarely, the SCP themselves) desire.

𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺 𝟬.𝟭: Researcher Ansy confirmed they had mostly forgotten Demetrius' face and only retained information in regards to their deceased spouse's most basic details, which were "blonde and blue eyes."

𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗽𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝗿. 𝗠𝗮𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗼'𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗻 "𝗟𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗶𝘁𝗲-𝟳𝟬𝟬'𝘀 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗸𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀"

The "End of Year Blues" Tragedy Play is the simultaneously the best and worst way to understand SCP-███ and Dr. Ansy's relationship. It is a crude and sentimental way of expressing what went wrong in their "love story" while continuously painting Dr. Ansy, the author themselves, as the villain.

(𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗺: all male leading roles in this play are meant to represent Dr. Ansy, which they themselves confirmed in Log AL-43)

It is public knowledge that the junior researcher was a Nabatean Sea Dragon who was entrusted by their divine ruler to pair mortals into loving relationships. The name "Astrilde", in some Norwegian dossiers, was claimed to be their localized version of Cupid, God of Desire. Act I depicts a draconic judge who had placed his lover on a miserable position of forced marriage.

Act II stars a tyrannical royal, which is a title not far off the role Dr. Ansy masqueraded themselves in one of their many lifetimes. It is common for long life species such as the researcher to fake identities and play various roles. One of their many "lives" involved becoming of grave importance to the imperial throne. The second act follows that the prince killed the lector's child, which does not reflect true history. True historical records dictates that the "country destroyer" did everything in their power to save the lector's family.

Hence, we cannot discern that what occured in the play is Dr. Ansy's definitive history word-for-word since it is likely a distorted interpretation of what transpired. Another junior researcher, Dr. Yemon, asserts that their husband truly adored and worship them, and that Dr. Ansy wrote this story as a belated self-punishment for not being able to save him in several reincarnations.

"This was their weird way of handling grief," Dr. Yemon stated. "They'd rather take the blame for his death every time rather than just accept that fate always wants him to die at such an early age. Astrilde never killed Demetrius and his reincarnations or led him to die— they love him too much, and I know they're too scared to acknowledge that he does love them back. Because if he did, it would hurt them more."

As for the last two Acts, III and IV, I'm inclined to believe it is currently ongoing. Dr. Ansy is currently stationed to handle SCP-██████'s (registered name: Kamisato Ayato) matters as his retainer while simultaneously working for the Foundation as our hydro researcher. In Act III, we follow Ansy's slow descent to madness as they fail to save SCP-███ incessantly, and in Act IV we follow how they fail to clone him as well. A rather tall order, for someone who can't remember what their husband looked like.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗿. 𝗔𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗲 "𝗔𝗻𝘀𝘆" ███████-█████'𝘀 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗦𝗖𝗣-███.

𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 #𝟬: "𝗞𝗢𝗣𝗜"

𝗜𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁: Dr. Ansy's tears.

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀: KOPI currently resides in an alternate universe, serving as a moderator for "Lumine". He is the first and last test subject that have been made using Dr. Ansy's DNA. The SCP interestingly does not show major similarities with the researcher and many speculate this as a clear sign that "nurture" triumphs over "nature" in child rearing. See Log-ACG for further details.

[ʜᴇʏ ʜᴏᴡ ᴅᴀʀᴇ ʏᴏᴜ!!! ɪ ᴛᴀᴋᴇ ɢʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴏғғᴇɴsᴇ ɪɴ ᴛʜᴀᴛ!!! ᴡʜᴇɴ ɪ ғɪɴᴅ ʏᴏᴜ ᴅʀ. ᴄʀᴇᴍ, ɪ'ʟʟ sᴛʀ��ᴋᴇ ʏᴏᴜ ᴅᴏᴡɴ. — ᴀ]

𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 #𝟭: “𝗗█████𝗶”

𝗜𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁: Demetrius' hair.

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀: Unknown. Likely exterminated. Known to be the closest replica to "Demetrius" Dr. Ansy had created, but his vital organs had allegedly failed under a month. Seemed to have shown signs of affection for them. See files LOG-JM to know more about his platonic relationship with (Person of Interest) Joachim.

𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 #𝟮: “𝗗𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗹𝗲𝗶𝗳 — 𝗕𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗞𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗿”

𝗜𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁: Demetrius' hair.

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀: Alive(?) Currently being used as a "bargaining chip" by the Geo Archon, Morax (Alias: Zhongli). Does not seem to be aware that they are a "hydro eidolon", and not the true Dainsleif. Longest surviving SCP-███ to date.

𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 #𝟯: “𝗗𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗹𝗲𝗶𝗳 — 𝗛𝗶𝘁𝗺𝗮𝗻”

𝗜𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁: Demetrius' hair.

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀: Dead from gunshot wound. See Log-IYT for further details.

𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 #𝟰: “𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗱”

𝗜𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁: Demetrius' right eye.

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀: Unknown. Test subject was lost in the "back alleys" near the Belobog theater. See Log-1010 for further details.

𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹 #𝟰: “𝗟𝗮𝘄𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲”

𝗜𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁: Demetrius' blood sample.

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀: Dead upon Test Subject #2's demands. Speculated to have been TS #1's lover. See Log-LW for further details.

[bi-dazai]

honestly i think i have a weird anger or cultural confusion where other gay and trans ppl are like much happier and comfortable to come out and shit and be open, but I've always had an extremely complicated relationship with it because it's always made me feel so isolated and lonely, even with other gay ppl around. and younger ppl especially will like go around coming out so frequently and meanwhile if I'm going to even tell you that I'm attracted to women I have to trust you 110% and that isn't something that comes easy.

I'm terrified of like. Wearing even rainbow goddamn socks because I'm scared shitless of getting bullied, or harassed, or even assaulted. Which is ironic considering I try to be quite fashionable in public but with being openly bi (let alone being openly TRANS) it's a complete no-no.

Like I think as much as I love being bi and nb at the same time I still despise it, I still think it's ruined my life. I have gender dysphoria about my chest whereas if I was cis I would be so happy with how feminine my body is. My first ever relationship with another girl at the moment being cut short by abusive homophobia fucked me up in innumerous ways, leading me to like...severe issues with the way i feel about sex and emotional attachment and touch.

And ofc there's the homophobia, like at this moment I'm probably leaning towards getting a fuckbuddy or smth over tinder but like a romantic relationship with another person is terrifying, like I'm insanely private w relationships even w men, I won't let us hold hands if I think too many people might see bc i have this stupid complex

There's more and more but my relationship with being Out is one where it's something that I simultaneously desire and despise, being Out is one of the most terrifying concepts I can think of and to me having someone refer to me as "they" and not as a woman is simply not as important as being safe, as not living in even more fear of assault.

And then all around me ppl my age (although usually younger) are all coming out to anyone and everyone like it's just casual, saying their pronouns like it's nothing. And first it's disbelief and shock because holy fuck, has everyone gone fucking mad?? Are we all so fucking stupid that we just forget the everloving fear homophobia strikes into you?? And then it's the jealousy, that these people have this comfortable relationship with their own gay/transness and enough trust to actually open up and tell a room full of strangers "please call me they not she". It's disappointment and anger in myself that almost 7 years after forcing myself to whisper "I'm bisexual" to the bathroom mirror in the middle of the night and then cry my eyes out because it felt like I'd been cursed, and probably over a decade since I'd started having sexual feelings about all genders, and an entire lifetime of having feelings for men women and others, after so long I'm still just a coward who sits and hates it all, who fears it all.

But then recently I've come to the realisation that the way I realised I was gay was a way that's kind of...dying out. That being the mostly offline way.

Don't take this the wrong way but I've found a lot of people go online and find this overwhelming amount of support and representation for gay and trans identity. You can argue validly this statement, but the context I use this in is comparing it to like. 2013. People were way less online. Being an online celebrity was a novelty.

At school there were dyke, faggot, tranny, etc, thrown around as if they were confetti. Jokes about "lesbos" and "lesbihonest" humiliated any girl who was too close to another girl. I grew up not just in Brisbane Queensland but in a town that was connected to the mainland only by two bridges - a landbridge and a humanmade bridge. The school was overwhelmingly anglo. Overwhelmingly right wing.

I realised I was bi with minimal help from Tumblr. I realised I was bi because I fell, hard, for my best friend. And then she liked me back, and our relationship was amazing. But the school found out. We held hands under the table, we found a quiet moment to kiss and everyone pointed and stared. We made out in the shadow of a building and turned to find twenty people watching gawkeyed, pointing, fascinated.

The entire time her mum was abusive, and massively homophobic. She blamed me for turning her daughter gay. She forced us multiple times to break up at the threat of violence. Eventually we did. We never talked about it. Our friendship never returned like it used to. It was awkward, tinged with sadness, regret, yearning and young love cut short.

It was traumatic, to say the least.

Tumblr in 2014, despite the cringe screenshots, wasn't actually mostly about LGBT positivity or whatever. I first saw the term bisexual on, if you can believe me, a quotev story in 2011 about a cheerleader and an emo girl who get together in a secret relationship. You were either gay or straight, or you had an exception. Bisexual felt right, though, for me, felt accurate, was accurate.

It was years of confusion and secrecy and guilt, peeks at other girls in the changing room that I couldn't help and I didn't understand why. Then it was months and months of anger and frustration at myself that I was feeling this way and confused about myself, and then when I said those words it felt like I was being torn apart. It felt like my life had fallen apart. I cried every goddamn night, I felt awful all the time.

At school the kids noticed. They noticed before I started dating my friend, they noticed the way I looked at her and they interrogated me about it. I'd claim up and down I had a crush on another boy - true perhaps, but it was a passing interest - and then they said they told him and analysed how I reacted. And then the interrogations continued for months because the gay girl was entertainment for them. Around me, as I walked between classes, had lunch, walked home, dyke dyke dyke faggot hahaha.

And then the relationship happened and then leelah alcorn happened and I learned what a trans person is. And sometime when I was fifteen I saw nonbinary begin to pop up, terms like genderfluid and nonbinary and they rang true like bisexual did, but the last time I went down a rabbit hole like that it ended in trauma, and another person got hurt. I didn't throw homophobia at her, but I felt and still feel responsible for it. I didn't turn her gay, but I made it obvious. I don't quite know how to say it.

I knew I was nonbinary, deep down. One day I decided to add that to my tumblr bio. Nobody gave a shit, just like nobody gave a shit when I said I was bi. But that was because I wasn't open about it even online. I couldn't talk about that stuff or I'd curse myself.

Time went on, I got more comfortable, collected fresh new traumas. My brother came out as trans. Around me, friends came out as gay and trans. But they kept coming out. They didn't stop at close friends and trusted family, they told teachers, their entire class. I didn't understand. Why the fuck would you put yourself at risk like that?? And I still don't. I said it was jealousy and anger at myself before, and maybe it is still a little bit, but now, it's just concern.

As I said, the way I realised I was gay is the rather old fashioned way - offline, through trauma, and almost entirely unenjoyable and traumatic. A lot of kids still go through that for sure. But the ones I see telling everyone over that they're gay or trans are, in my experience, not those ones. As the internet began to become more of a general use thing and less of a "only recluse weirdos" space, the online LGBT safe space began to expand into an audience bigger than before. Online, you were safe. Nobody knew your name, you were behind a screen. Homophobia was veiled, you could just delete a hateful anon, could just log off. You could put up your pronouns and people would use them because, well, ppl didn't really have any other identifier someone might use for your gender. So this positive uplifting atmosphere spawned for the most part. And instead of learning through confusion and rare chance encounters with random words and crying into the sink every night that you're gay, you much easier come across this content that tells you indepth what this is and that it's okay. And you think, well wow, that's me, and then...you know, I guess. Not denying there's some of the classic self hatred etc but...you have this safe space online to fall back on, and I cannot emphasise how much that has pushed the acceptance and widespread knowledge of lgbt people in the past 5 years. I didn't exactly have that space, and my realisation was through mostly real life channels, which were swamped at all sides by homophobia, at worst, abusive, at kindest, it would treat you like a sideshow attraction.

Being someone who arguably isn't old enough to brush this difference away with being an "older gay" but still having had a gay experience quite different to the majority in my generation (applying this to area as well) I have to say I'm confronted with this comfortableness other days have a lot and it's always jarring. I think also that while it's important and I'm happy that "younger" gays and transes have at least one good support network/space to fall back onto online, I do think it creates this kind of...dangerous other side, especially for those who go to schools that are LGBT positive and have families who are also friendly to that sort of stuff. I find that young gay teens are totally unprepared and unhardened for the fact that most people you run into in real life despise your guts for existing as who you are. And while we can make as many soppy gay narratives as possible about being honest about who you are and losing shame, we need to face the fact and teach young lgbt kids that being Out isn't just something you do as a ritual in being gay or trans, it's a brave thing and it's completely optional. And furthermore, most importantly, it's insanely dangerous.

I don't think that teenage, raw fear of the consequences of even the very concept of being Out has ever left me. Perhaps I have to thank the homophobic 14 yr olds who swamped me in slurs and trauma, because it's given me a survival sense that's kept me closeted so far you'd never get in.

But occasionally I'm tempted, particularly with my transness which I am only out to perhaps 3 people about, to venture into the world of telling people about yourself. I started a new uni semester and in a tutorial, the teacher handed out cards. We were to use it as a placard to write our names on it so the teacher would learn our names over the next few classes. And, if we chose...our pronouns.

I stared at that card for what felt like a million years. This has always been an ordeal. People don't know how to pronounce my name, even though it's a rather simple one. But pronouns? I'd never really told anyone those. Online, yes, and once when I was asked by a friend i was brave enough to say "any will do" but this - this wasn't the curated safe online space, this wasn't a one-time phrase to a friend. This was an open, permanent thing that would sit below me every class, declaring me to 18 other people. I wrote down "NATALYA", then beneath "she/". And then I stared some more. I felt like I was going to die. I felt like I was the biggest fool, because before I could stop myself I wrote "she/they". No "he", not yet. But...it was there.

At the end of the class the teacher collected the placards. I wanted to run back screaming, wanted to ask her for a new card so I could be safe again. But I didn't because I would look like a freak and a coward.

I still think it's stupid. I still think I've put some petty gesture that no one will ever respect (if they can call you she they won't ever call you they) above my own safety. The thing that really struck me was that it didn't feel good. The reason I wrote it like that, I believe in hindsight, is that I was curious what those other kids feel like, because it must feel good to declare that you're a tr*nny d*ke in front of the entire class, good enough to beat the stomach-lurching dread that precedes such an action. But it didn't. It just felt like an unnecessary risk. And it made me feel worse, like there was a target on the back of my head.

I think I could talk about this forever, about how so many kids believe coming out is this thing you're required to do to be a good gay, but it's not. It's stupid stupid reckless, and in my case it ends with you getting fucked over.

But Ive written for ages and gotten prosaic halfway through so I'm gonna shut up. Basically why the fuck do you guys come out to everyone like please stay safe instead of this it isn't worth it.

[astrosexologist]

this is an open letter/public apology to whom it may concern, please do not reblog. it is not a callout post and i will not be answering questions about anyone involved. 

---------------------------------------

i don’t know who needs to read this but i hate that sav and noodles’ unresolved problems had to bleed into my real life relationships. it’s like the worst game of telephone in existence. i hate that it has to be this back-and-forth with my PERSONAL IN REAL LIFE FRIENDS to see who is the more problematic or who did worse things or who is worse for associating with the other person or who jacked off to the worse porn. i don’t fucking care about that anymore. they both have problems and are not innocent and i hate that it had to impact my REAL LIFE relationships like this. i hate that chris had to be dragged into this endless shit-flinging war that shouldn’t even concern him in the first place and somehow put against me. everyone is behaving like an elementary schooler about it. 

on the alice situation, because it’s critical for the conflict at hand: for literal years i gave alice the benefit of the doubt on her questionable personality, ESPECIALLY since we met on a facebook group made to poke fun at a pedophile who had beef with me because he failed to groom my ex-partner when they were a minor. from the moment i found out that alice had been grooming chris, it was my mistake to not come forward sooner, because alice and i had too many friends in common at that point and i wasn’t ready to find out how everyone would react, but these last few weeks were the straws that broke the camel’s back. i had to find out that alice had been grooming and masturbating on cam with *****, another fucking 17-year-old, and sending unsolicited dick pics to my sex-repulsed friends. for months i wanted to believe that she was getting better, because she told me she would be better. i had been hesitant for a long time about confronting anyone for their questionable behaviors cuz i have a habit of not facing my problems and bottling up my concerns about people. i blocked alice everywhere and i am ready to move past it. i am ready to stop giving people the benefit of the doubt for so long. if she wants to think i’m stupid for not wanting to associate with someone that gets sexual with my underage friends, so be it.

i also think it’s incredibly disingenuous of noodles to try and hold sav’s past actions against him whenever it is guaranteed to garner them pity points as if they weren’t the number one person insisting on “sav being different now” when the callout came out. you are splitting on me for no reason at all but your hate for sav, noodles. and simultaneously take advantage of chris’ vulnerable state from a misunderstanding BETWEEN US to lie to him about me sending you anon hate (we’ll get to that) and sav being the pervert he was before. 

likewise, i want everyone involved in this to stop believing that sav somehow gets “better treatment” from us because it is not true. sav is not a saint and he still says and does stupid shit and me and jude are always the first ones to criticize his behavior when something gets out of hand. it is sav’s turn to demonstrate that he can learn from his mistakes and i am ready and adamant in cutting him off if things escalate to callout-worthy levels ever again. we are not sav’s babysitters and there are things that we cannot be the judges of because they are unresolved issues he has with noodles. i may be many things, but a couples’ counselor is not one of them.

chris, i apologize for making you believe like anything was your fault. to the moment i am writing this, i do not understand what you think i am blaming you for. i should’ve spoken my mind sooner so you didn’t have to believe that i was ever “okay” with alice’s pedophilia. i unfollowed you because i was upset and simply didn’t want to see you for a while, my intention was not cutting you off for good. if you believe i snapped at you, i recognize that i did and i am sorry. it was too much bottled up anxiety from a long time coming out at once. nothing i have ever done in your presence, from the moment we met, has been done out of a desire to hurt or belittle or patronize you. my kindness is not insincere. my concern for your safety is not insincere, as isn’t tofu’s. you no longer have to turn to self-harm to believe you are cared for. you said that it was not my job to “fix” you and, even though that has never been my intention, you are right. only you can “fix” yourself, but owning up to your repetitive harmful behavior is part of the process.   

noodles, i have never hated you nor have i ever sent you anon hate as you so firmly believe. i have been upset at you for situations sav told us about and i did send you an anon that one time you broke up for an entire hour telling you that trying to garner pity from your followers was an awful look and that you needed serious help. if you choose to process constructive criticism as “hate” that is a problem that you need to work on but i have just about had it with chris being fed lies about me because everyone is too afraid to be held responsible for their actions so they can keep hiding behind a personality disorder or whatever. chris is my personal friend, i didn’t want things to be like this. i didn’t want anyone to “pick sides” because there are no sides to be picked. this is not about who defends who or who is/was shittier or who deserves to be abandoned by their friends. this is a misunderstanding that got out of hand and that i am partly guilty of. no one i have mentioned in this post is my enemy and i want to make that DAMN clear. i will never conspire against you, and if you prefer it, i will not even do as much as look in your direction ever again.

if i end up never making up with chris again because of this, i hope that this is the definitive proof that you, sav and noodles, both needed to realize that there are drastic changes to be made in your behaviors and how your actions have ripple effects on the people you associate with. we said this then when the callout came out, and im saying it now that it is having real tangible effects in my personal life. reflect. reflect on your actions and the way you communicate with other people and change, please.

[scenes-in-between]

Empedocles (1/3)

“They’re telling us not to worry. They’re running some tests.”

Agent Mulder looks just about as comforted by those words as Doggett feels (which is to say, not comforted in the slightest), but there’s nothing more they can do right now except wait.

It’s still weird as hell, Mulder up and walking around after being dead and buried for months. Not that Doggett has much room to talk; he still doesn’t know what to believe about what may or may not have happened to him in Squamash, but there’s something different and undeniable about seeing with his own eyes what happened with Mulder.

It’s clear, also, that Mulder still doesn’t trust him, let alone like him. They seemed to come to a tentative understanding after the whole debacle at the FSC, but in the couple of weeks since then, they’ve hardly spoken. What few interactions they have had have been civil at best, if not more than a little chilly. Mulder’s not exactly made himself an easy guy to like. He’s cocky and abrasive, and yeah, AD Skinner has asked Doggett to keep in mind what Mulder’s been through, but at a certain point, he has to wonder how much blame can be put on the trauma and how much is just down to personality. Truth be told, he’s still not convinced the guy deserves the unfailing loyalty of someone as genuinely good-hearted as Agent Scully, but he supposes it’s not really his place to say.

“You gentlemen are going to have to clear the hallway,” pipes up a nurse at the desk behind Mulder. “There are chairs down that way where you can wait. The doctor will let you know when there are updates on your friend’s condition.”

Mulder’s jaw muscle bulges and his eyes narrow, and he looks for all the world like he’s going to make them physically drag him away. Doggett gets it -- he’s worried about Agent Scully, too, and has no intention of leaving until he knows she’s going to be okay -- but causing a big scene is only going to end up getting them both kicked out of the hospital altogether.

He is surprised, then, when Mulder turns on his heel without a word and walks in the direction that the nurse pointed.

Doggett hesitates. A month ago, he would’ve been the one anxiously standing guard over Agent Scully’s room; now he can’t help feeling like an intruder, and it stinks. Technically, he’s still her partner, and even if he weren’t, he’s no less her friend than he was before Mulder came back. He’s got every right to be here, to be worried about her, to want to stay and make sure she’s going to be all right.

He very much doubts Mulder will see it that way, though, and he’s got no desire to get into another confrontation with the guy. No way in hell is he leaving, but he’ll find someplace else to sit.

***

Walking into the hospital would have set him on edge even if he weren’t scared to death about Scully and the baby. (Their baby.) But he is scared to death, and between that and the sounds and the smells of this place, the physiological impulse to run away as fast as he can is both undeniable and deeply unhelpful. It’s a flight response held in check by an even stronger unwillingness to leave Scully’s side. Even being this far away from her, just down the hall, makes him anxious.

He leans forward in the chair, resting his elbows on his knees. The phone call from that agent in New Orleans comes to mind, and he seizes it as a momentary source of distraction.

Agent Reyes said she needed his help on a case that somehow involves Agent Doggett. If she had said almost literally anything else, he would have told her no, but this… this may well be the one thing that could possibly grab his attention.

Mulder doesn’t know what Doggett’s story is, but the man is definitely hiding something; of that he’s certain. It’s more than a little suspicious that Doggett ended up getting to the hospital right behind the ambulance. His supposed explanation requires a hell of a coincidence in timing, and what would he have been dropping off at Scully’s in the middle of the day, anyway? It’s not hard to imagine he was surveilling her apartment instead, keeping tabs on her, or maybe even that he’s been tailing Mulder. So if helping Agent Reyes with this case will allow him to find out more about Doggett or where his allegiances lie, it’s worth doing.

But only after the doctors tell him that Scully’s going to be okay.

He glances down the hall toward her room. What if she’s not okay? Before he can stop it, his mind tumbles down a rabbit hole of every possible negative scenario -- Scully pulling through but losing the baby, Scully and the baby both dying, an emergency delivery that she doesn’t survive and leaves him walking out of this hospital a single father. Fuck, he’s barely got a grip on caring for himself right now; how in the hell would he even begin to take care of an infant, all on his own?

He sits up and wipes his damp palms against his thighs, shaking his head and breathing out, hard. He absolutely cannot afford to think like that. She’s going to be okay. She has to be okay.

“Sir?”

Mulder jumps at the nurse’s voice; Jesus, she’s standing right in front of him and he didn’t even see her walk up. He starts to get to his feet.

“What’s happening, is she okay? What did the doctor say?”

The nurse holds out a hand. “They’re still running tests. We don’t know anything yet. I came to ask for your help filling out some forms, since you’re the one who brought her in.”

He wilts back into the chair. “Right, yeah. Okay.”

They’re the same standard intake questions he’s answered a thousand times before. (They really do end up in the hospital way too goddamned often.) Most of Scully’s information is already on file here anyway, so there isn’t much to add, but his heart starts pounding harder as he recounts the symptoms she was having in her apartment and on the ambulance ride. His mouth goes dry recalling how she went quiet and still on the gurney, overwhelmed by the pain or maybe the blood loss; he doesn’t know. God, there was so much blood. In what world is that not a terrible sign?

“We should know more before too long,” the nurse tells him, and he can’t help noticing how she didn’t actually answer the question. “Now, we have a Margaret Scully listed as the emergency contact on file, but we haven’t been able to reach her. Do you know if there’s another number we can try?”

Used to be my name and number on those forms. Guess she hasn’t updated things since I came back to life. If I hadn’t been with her when this happened, would I even know she was in trouble?

“Mrs. Scully is probably still on an airplane right now.” He already asked if Scully wanted him to call her mom while they were waiting for the ambulance, and she told him Maggie left this morning to go visit Bill and Tara out in California. “I don’t know when she’ll be available.”

“And there’s no husband?”

“No, but I’m the f--” he starts to say, and then hesitates. Scully has kept the paternity of this baby pretty close to the vest. The Gunmen obviously know, or guessed, but beyond them, he’s not sure who else is even in the loop. Unless, god forbid, something happens to her, it should probably be Scully’s decision whether to make his involvement in all of this a matter of public record.

“I’m her friend,” he finishes lamely. “But please, if you know anything--”

“As I’ve already told you, I will update you as soon as I have some answers. Okay? Now just sit tight, and I’ll be back with you in a bit.”

He watches her go and resists the urge to get up and pace.

***

Hours pass.

If there’s any word on Scully’s condition, Doggett hasn’t heard it. He wonders if the nurses have forgotten about him.

He’s about to get up and go find someone to ask when Mulder comes walking down the hall. Doggett jumps to his feet.

“How is she, did they let you in to see her?”

Mulder looks startled. “Agent Doggett, you… you’re still here.”

“Of course I’m still here.” Doggett frowns. If Mulder wasn’t coming to give him an update, then where the hell is he going? “Have they told you anything?”

“Yeah, they, uh… Doctor Speake said she’s stable, they got the contractions and the bleeding stopped, but they’re still working on figuring out for sure what happened. They wouldn’t let me see her, but… yeah, it seems like she’s gonna be okay, at least for now.”

“Well, that’s good news, right? I mean, ‘stable’ is always better than the alternative.”

“Yeah, I guess so. Listen, I, um, there’s something I need to do. Are you gonna stick around here, or--?”

“I can stay, sure. I’ll let you know if anything changes.”

Mulder nods, glancing distractedly over Doggett’s shoulder toward the door. He shifts his weight back and forth a few times, like he might change his mind about leaving. Like he can’t trust Doggett to hold down the fort here for however long it takes him to do what he’s got to do.

Doggett sighs. “Look, Mulder, I’m just as worried about her as you are. I promise I’ll call you if her condition changes in any way, all right?”

For a second it looks like Mulder’s about to argue, but he just nods again instead. He throws a curt, “I’ll be back as soon as I can,” over his shoulder as he continues on down the hall.

It’s a weird feeling, being simultaneously judgemental about the fact that Mulder apparently has more important things to do than wait around at the hospital and also profoundly relieved that he’s getting out of here for a little while. On one hand, it feels like things are back to normal, like Doggett’s no longer shoved to the periphery, his friendship and partnership with Agent Scully treated like an afterthought. On the other hand, “back to normal” also means he’s left picking up the pieces while Mulder’s off somewhere else.

Grimacing, he shakes his head. That’s unfair, and he knows it. For all he knows, the guy’s gone back to Scully’s place to bring a bag of her things. Doggett saw his face; he wasn’t thrilled about leaving, and he damn sure wasn’t just assuming Doggett would be there to take up the slack. If anything, his leaving is actually a good sign, an indication that he is willing to trust Doggett at least a little.

And Doggett won’t betray that trust. He turns to head toward the nurses’ station; better make sure they know where to find him in case there’s any news.

[tulpacest]

Repost, don’t reblog.

Tagged by: @ahogedetective​ , thank you so much!

Tagging: @luminaryblood​ if u haven’t! And if u have... pls link me this is my fav kind of quiz. Otherwise!! Please steal! 

Name: K/orekiyo Shing.uuji. (Sorry but,,, I’m going to be talking about some uncomfy stuff and I’d really rather it not go in the tag riuguir). 

Nicknames: Sweet/Gentle Korekiyo, Kiyo, Korey (Hagakure why...), Shitguuji, ‘shit eating worm’, ‘slug’, ‘creep show’ (I love you Miu). 

Orientation: Pansexual Panromantic (No preference.) 

Preferred pet names: I think Korekiyo would find petnames to be interesting. I... actually like that he offers the name ‘Kiyo’ on first meeting, it creates a sense of immediate familiarity between himself and his peers - exactly what he wants as an anthropologist, after all. Additionally, it means ‘Korekiyo’ is a name reserved only for his Sister - which we’ll get into later. Obviously, he doesn’t particularly like being compared to an insect or dung, and would prefer only beautiful things be associated with him. 

Relationship status: He’s currently in a fully committed romantic relationship with his own tulpa. He truly believes that his dead Sister’s spirit rests inside of him and they are continuing the loving partnership they had in life - but she does not. This is a coping mechanism born out  of impossible grief, and he does have brief moments of self-awareness. In those moments, the world feels sterile and empty. This is his reality.   

Favorite canon ship:  H E  I S  T H E  C A N O N  S H I P.   In all seriousness, I do find the relationship he has with the tulpa to be incredibly fascinating, fucked up and inherently unhealthy. The tulpa is simultaneously the only thing keeping him alive, and simultaneously destroying any development he could possibly have. He cannot overcome grief without it, he cannot overcome grief with it.  And if he just didn’t ... you know... kill people because of it, I feel that the tulpa perfectly embodies the theme of the game. A lie can sometimes be good, can sometimes even save lives - and that is what his coping mechanism is -  simply an incredibly well-fabricated lie. He’s such a fascinating and... oddly tragic character because of it. 

Favorite non-canon ships: I really like Korekiyo/Rantaro! Their interactions in the board game were incredibly sweet... Korekiyo is actually concerned with his health! He asks after him! They visit each other inbetween trips! K O R E K I Y O  H A S  A  F R I E N D ??? And I know you could read that he’s just getting close to him in order to kill his sisters... but? He was doing all of those things before he even knew Amami had sisters! 

I really... really feel like Amami is one of the very few people who would have the patience and the kindness to help Korekiyo work through the whole tulpacest situation. I... Idk, I just have this really profound image of Kiyo finally asking Rantaro if he wants to meet his Sister, and Amami is hesitant at first - like, he knows by now that... something weird is going on, but it’s okay, he trusts his friend enough to see where this is going...  And then Kiyo takes the mask down, and Amami’s heart just. Breaks as Sister says ‘hello’ to him, her lip trembling - and he finally clicks it all together and he understands. And then he rushes forwards and just wraps her in the tightest embrace, and her eyes immediately turn to glass and she just sobs because this is the first time he’s been hugged properly in years, and suddenly all that time spent hugging himself is... not enough. Bluuhhh and that’s my sickly-sweet power fantasy, eventually Amami helps Korekiyo get over the tulpa and accept death (or he supports his friend’s coping mechanism and they enter into a more complicated relationship) - either way, GOD. That’s the healthiest Kiyo ship I can think of and I Am Here For It. 

A quick note on shipping: Korekiyo is really... really difficult to ship. He firmly believes his one true love is inside of him, and he has sacrificed everything to fulfil that delusion. Unpicking it would be a long and hard process, and cheating on her is not going to be an option unless it’s like. a very very very clear one-time affair. Even then, he’s... unlikely to get completely physical with you - and falling in love is simply not an option........ at least, not right away. Any shipping I did with Kiyo would have to be delicately paced and involve a lot of plotting/threading. 

Opinion on true love: He firmly believes in it, and it is one of the only matters (asides from death) where he will suddenly start acting illogical. Anything concerning love makes him highly emotional, but he would also expose that ‘real’ love is not a physical connection, it is something that is worked on and reshaped and kneaded over time. He is extremely romantic,  to say the least, and believes that you should do anything for the one you love. 

Opinion on love at first sight: Although this is something ever present in folklore, fiction and fantasy - he believes that love takes more than a mere moment. It’s something that requires tending to - even if it begins like a hot-flash in the pan. 

How ‘romantic’ are they: Very.... Korekiyo’s appearance may imply anything but, but he is a highly romantic person. He enjoys affection, soft touches, hugs, being squeezed, giving gifts, huge gestures, romcoms, holding hands, dates... I could go on. He adores the saccharine and can be incredibly gentle when it comes to matters of love.  

Ideal physical traits: Korekiyo would struggle with this question - after all, his pet theory is that all humanity is beautiful. Beauty is alluring, and beauty is born from the soul - less so the body. However... He has an aesthetic appreciation for features similar to his own - archaic beauty, ink-brush strokes for hair, well-kept and slender. But! Tbh, radiant love overcomes any physical imperfections, his tastes bent to his heart’s desires. 

Ideal personality traits: He is particularly drawn to bright, effervescent people. Those who possess a deep, unending curiosity - who possess wit and good humour, intelligence and grace. There are many traits that he admires - just as there are many roles in this great kabuki play of life. However, above all else... A thirst for life. If your character displays a drive to survive against all odds, a ‘fuck you’ attitude to death - then his heart sings. Bravery in the face of impossible odds, an unwavering heart, hope blossoming amongst  the tangled thorns of despair... cliche, yes, but traits he finds incredibly attractive.  Additionally, he really enjoys being approached by someone else. His love hotel scene begins with Saihara taking an interest in him, after all. 

Unattractive physical traits: Hmm, again... there really aren’t many. 

Unattractive personality traits: He is not fond of people who are loud-mouthed and quick to interrupt him. He really dislikes those who shut down intelligent conversation, or think of him as boring, or refuse to pay attention. He hates promises being broken, and he will blame himself for being a poor teacher if someone shows even the slightest disinterest in what he has to say.  He also dislikes those he cannot pin down easily. If he cannot assign you a role and you baffle him with layers of inconsistencies/lies, he’s... going to lose interest, fast. If, however, he can pick up some threads of your puzzle - he’ll have... so much fun deciphering you that he’ll get lose in it.  Overall, it can be difficult to predict what traits Korekiyo is going to find unattractive since he is forever fishing for your beauty... 

Ideal date: Travelling, discussing anthropology, consuming media and analysing it afterwards... but more romantic moments are appreciated, too. If it’s an activity that allows him to revel in your beauty... he’s down, lmao. 

Do they have a type? Immensely passionate, confident & bright people!  

Average relationship length: Forever...

Preferred nonsexual intimacy: Being held/holding. I mean. The boy literally hugs himself bc no one else will... he’s honestly so desperate for this kind of physical affection that it breaks my heart on some level. Please.. someone... anyone.... hug him,,,,  Outside of this, while sexual intimacy can be incredibly loving and important in a relationship, I think he values nonsexual intimacy more. I know! This sounds! Really weird! Coming from! The self-declared rope man! But! He constantly reiterates that love does not have to be ‘a physical connection’. So... honestly - beyond cuddling, his favourite thing to do to express intimacy is probably  just to talk. Talk and talk and talk. Enjoy doing things together, be in one another’s company, revel in the beautiful connection between you both  - the real meat of a relationship, you know? 

Commitment level: He’ll literally destroy himself and give up his flesh in order to let you inhabit his body if u go and die on him. And although he indulges his curiosity  in the love hotel scene... we have to remember that that is his fantasy. In the dating sim mode, he repeatedly shies away from sexual topics/intimacy (though he expresses they are normal human behaviours and he respects/is intrigued by Saihara because of them), because it would be ‘cheating’. Then again, he does claim that he tied up a whole village of women, so....

The thing is, Korekiyo’s. Well. What counts as ‘cheating’ might be a little fluid - can he indulge in Kinbaku because he’s doing it for ‘anthropological’ reasons? How far does that card stretch? He seemed to be aware that he actions with Saihara were dodgy given how much he emphasised it was a one-time affair... so, idk. GENERALLY THO I’d argue he is more committed than most, lmao. 

Opinion of public affection: He wants it, but it makes him incredibly uncomfortable. Like. Ideally he could be physical with his partner near constantly - but he’s learned that matters of love are best kept private, and with good reason. 

Past relationships: My personal headcanon is that his Sister is around a year & a half older than him, and they have been engaging in taboo acts since he was around 13. It’s... highly uncomfortable to think about, but. Yeah, so. Considering he still thinks he is in this relationship, they’ve been ‘together’ for 4-5 years. 

[dieselpunk-progressive-blog]

Coming of Rage

Several publications in the last few days have been been making hay about the Progressive movement in these United States, especially as many of its leaders, organizers, luminaries are currently gathered in the nation’s capital to discuss the movement, its issues and the prospect of trying to draft Senator Bernie Sanders to be their candidate and leader. The formation of a Third Party, at the National level, has been talked to death. I am 100% on board with the idea, but until it can been shown to have legs, by actually getting a sufficient number of registered voters to sign on in all the States, there's nothing gained by having Sanders join the debate just now.

The man is a registered Independent, and while he may not necessarily owe the Democrats any special loyalty, his current efforts to advance the objective of universal healthcare is best served by using them. And I use that phrase advisedly; Sanders is using the DNC to move his signature issue forward, and the strategy is working. Look at how the senior leadership in that Party is fracturing around the issue. Even the obvious shills like Kamala Harris are coming around and supporting him. They've realized that the issue of healthcare has become (thanks to Sanders' tireless efforts) the single most important, and effectively only, issue for 2018.If this strategy succeed, as it is increasingly looking like it will, in allowing Democrats to recapture a significant number of seats in Congress and in the various State and Local contests next November, that will leave Sanders as the architect and mastermind of the most important issue-oriented political sweep in the last eighty years. That gives him sufficient political capital to write the agenda for the Democratic Party, if he chooses. That may include another run at the White House in 2020, but it also may not.

Sanders tried to make it plain in 2015 that he was running a campaign for the purpose of reframing the discussion about Progressive issues. Nobody took it seriously until he was shown to have legs as a presidential candidate, and even then the focus was on the candidate, rather than his agenda. This is changing and it seems that some people are starting to recognize that the man is playing a very different game than anything seen in the national forum in recent, and possibly living, memory.

Although the “official” campaign season for the 2018 midterms hasn’t opened yet, Democrats have been licking their wounds, organizing their agenda and, in the case of one Hillary Clinton (remember her?) throwing as much blame as possible at anyone but themselves. Sanders, however, quietly shed the ‘D’ he’d adopted for the 2016 election and continued his campaign for the issues that brought him to prominence in the first place: healthcare, education, the minimum wage and an end to the endless military conflicts that our young men and women die in, seemingly every day. The fact that the voters who’d been energized by the Sanders Presidential campaign have remained energized by the Sanders Political Revolution has taken the political class by surprise. Some Democrats have sought to capitalize on this outpouring of energy, while others have resisted the insurgency as entrenched political establishments always do.

The irony of Boomer Democrats struggling to maintain the status quo in the face of a popular political movement primarily motivated by the nation’s young people should be lost on noone. And it is a movement, not (as some Democrats and their allies seem to believe) an organization. Sanders is the leading figure, the most instantly recognizable and vociferous proponent of Progressivism in these times, but he is not it’s leader, chairman or president. Those in the neoliberal Democratic salons and boardrooms keep calling out for the Senator from vermont to “reign in”, “moderate” and “calm” the millions of Independent and nominally Democratic men and women who support Bernie Sanders, or his agenda, or both. What these self-appointed judges of reason and experience fail to grasp though, is that Sanders isn’t maneuvering for their backing, he’s maneuvering them back.

The conversation about the causes that Sanders champions has changed drastically in the last eighteen months. at the beginning of 2015, the basic assumption by all-but-all of office-holding Democrats was a patronizing, “pie-in-the-sky” view of universal healthcare. Today there are a myriad of leading Democrats either backing Senator Sanders’ Medicare bill, or else proposing their own. Even among the most powerful and influential of policy crafters (looking at you, Jon Gruber) are calling single-payer the coming thing. What happened to create this sudden warmness towards something that former candidate Hillary Clinton called “a free pony”?

Bernie Sanders started a movement, nationwide, which has made itself heard, and loudly, by the Democratic establishment. Yes, they had to get their ears cleaned out (along with their clocks) by the humiliating loss to Donald Trump. Clearly though, have come to understand that they cannot continue to embraced Wall Street economics while paying lip service to middle-class, blue-collar needs and championing token social justice. They are hemorrhaging voters, members, and most painfully, money. As such they are salivating at the prospect of tapping Bernie’s movement. Where the difficulty for the establishment Democrats lies, however, is in their desperate desire to capitalize on the economic populism while simultaneously retaining their vast pools of corporate campaign finance. Since the ascension of the Clinton-established, Koch-funded Democratic Leadership Council, the Democrats have been largely dependent on Wall Street for their funding. Should they actually embrace the economic causes of the current generation, however, they will lose that income stream all but overnight, and the idea of relying on the actual voters is terrifying to a generation that lived through the Reagan Revolution. Sanders demonstrated that small donations can fuel a national election, but the very real question have how reliable that funding will be, over the long term and for literally thousands of candidates at the Local, State and Federal levels.

As we have seen, though, the national conversation about politics and government is changing, and Sanders’ movement, his Political Revolution, is largely responsible for that. There are plenty of people who want the man to declare for 2020 right now, and a fair number of Clinton holdouts who will continue to blame him for Clinton’s catastrophic failure to win against the most unpopular political candidate of all time. The only thing which is absolutely clear is that Sanders himself isn’t going to telegraph his plans for 2020, and he is going to use the enormous influence he’s developed to force the Democratic establishment to make a public choice about where their interests lie. If they break for the neoliberal status quo of the last thirty-five years, then the voters and funding and agenda of Progressives and Independents will likely coalesce around a new leadership, probably in orbit around Senator Sanders himself. If, on the other hand, they break left and follow the populist economic movement, the Sanders’ has proven that his agenda of issues-driven campaigning is what will speak to the next generation of American voters.

No matter which way the DNC ultimately breaks, Sanders and the electorate should win, and big.

[shirlleycoyle]

Coronavirus Is Not a Good Reason to Abandon Cities

Last weekend, the New York Times ran a feature story about the people bailing on cities due to coronavirus, such as a twentysomething consultant at a global accounting firm who decamped for her parent’s house in Pittsburgh and now questions why she’s spending $1,860 a month in rent to live in Manhattan with two roommates.

Leaving New York only to wonder why the hell we live in New York is a national pastime. Traditionally, this ultimately results in returning to New York and having some quintessentially New York experience like overhearing a comically deranged conversation on the subway that reminds us why we put up with the rent. That, or we move away for good and write a harmless if dull “Why I’m Leaving New York” Medium post.

But the Why I’m Leaving New York genre has taken a twist and new sense of urgency with the onset of coronavirus. Virtually everything that makes cities worth living in has disappeared. The vibrant streets, libraries, museums, restaurants, bars, theaters, cafes, bookshops, and all the countless activities that wouldn’t sound impressive on a long list but mean an awful lot to the people who partake in them are gone.

As a result, there has been much speculation about what cities will look and feel like when this is all over. Will they be worth staying in (or, for the people who have decamped to their second or parents’ homes, worth coming back to)? The great urban anxiety is how many of these great city things will come back, and, for that matter, what a comeback even looks like.

Much of this debate has centered on the question of “density;” to what degree it is responsible for the coronavirus outbreak and if people will be predisposed to seek a house with a protective yard out of coronavirus-related anxieties. As the Times story mentions, big cities were already losing population before the coronavirus hit, so these questions are nothing new. But, since it is the center of the national coronavirus epidemic, so too is New York City the center of the debate of the future of cities. Some epidemiologists have claimed the city’s density contributed to the virus’s spread. Other features of dense urban living like mass transportation or lack of automobile have also been blamed for why New York City has such a severe coronavirus outbreak.

But, as far as the future of cities is concerned, this density debate is a red herring largely stemming from a difference of how each side is defining the word “density.” One, advanced by the anti-density folks, is simply a synonym for crowds. The other, used by the pro-density people, is a statistical measure of how many people live in a given geographic area. A full house at Madison Square Garden is crowded, but the population density is near zero because no one lives there. Likewise, a 1,000-unit 50-story luxury apartment complex has a high population density, but it is not especially crowded.

The evidence for population density as the driver of coronavirus is quite slim. As Henry Grabar argued at Slate, New York City’s own COVID-19 case map shows the outbreaks are the worst in the least dense areas of the city like Staten Island and the north Bronx. Meanwhile, some rural areas like pockets of South Dakota have even higher infection rates. And Noah Smith at Bloomberg points out Asian cities in particular are both much more dense, have much higher public transportation crowding, and much lower coronavirus infection rates. Something else, both conclude, must be more important.

In the context of coronavirus, both sides of the density argument have a point. Of course contagious viruses spread faster in more crowded areas. But, crowds are different from population density. Areas with very low population density but only one grocery store or major employer and no protocols in place to protect people from the virus are vulnerable. New Orleans, which has a population density about one-tenth that of New York City, experienced its own coronavirus outbreak after not cancelling Mardis Gras, a very crowded tourist event.

The common thread here is not how many people live within a given area, but which governments acted quickly and decisively. There are measures competent governments can take to stop that spread, even in areas with high population densities, mainly by severely limiting crowds and implementing robust, comprehensive testing programs.

As a result, the debate ought not to be about density, but about whether our politicians, both on a local and national level, can handle the crisis and its aftermath competently so as to resuscitate our comatose local economies and make cities worth living in again.

If past actions predict future results, cities are in trouble. In terms of containing the virus to begin with, New York City was days late to shutting down schools and issuing stay-at-home orders compared to other American cities with better outcomes, days that researchers are increasingly identifying as critical in the virus’s spread. And, thanks in large part to profound failures on the federal level, Americans simply cannot access accurate coronavirus testing, dooming us to languid and troublesome returns to normalcy.

There are some bright spots around the country when it comes to handling quality-of-life concerns during the lockdown—the kinds that signal strong, adaptive leadership—but many dim ones, too. A small but telling example is what cities are opting to do with a finite resource—its public space—so people can still live quality lives with plenty of fresh air and outdoor time. Some, like Oakland and Denver, have opened dozens of miles of its roads for people instead of vehicles, giving people more space to exercise and travel with adequate social distance. Milan, which was also a global epicenter of coronavirus, announced it will transform 22 miles of streets to promote bicycling and walking in an attempt to promote social distancing and climate-friendly transportation.

Others, most prominently New York, steadfastly refuse to do anything like this, while simultaneously closing playgrounds and basketball courts, giving residents few options for fresh air.

Such choices are just one of many that will follow in the coming months. As John Juech, Assistant City Manager for the City of Cincinnati wrote for CityLab, local governments of all sizes are facing financial crises due to plummeting tax revenues. The main remedy must come from the federal government, which has the power to print money while local governments do not.

The last time American cities faced a similar crisis was in the 1960s through 1980s, culminating in the New York City bankruptcy when President Gerald Ford infamously refused to bail it out. The urban crisis of that period was much more gradual, but the fundamentals were not so different. People of means and wealth left American cities by the tens of millions for suburbs because of decades of federal and state policies that heavily subsidized suburban infrastructure and home ownership while investing comparatively little in urban centers. It was also similarly misinterpreted by the mass media as a bottom-up, vote-with-your-feet affirmation of the suburban way of life in lieu of urban decay. Rarely did such reports mention that it was often cheaper to pay a monthly mortgage in the suburbs, subsidized by Uncle Sam, than unsubsidized rent in the city.

Thanks to decades of scholarship on the subject, we now have a fuller understanding of the 1970s urban crisis that makes clear it was not a democratic process, but a massive government-subsidized social re-engineering that drove people out of cities. As historian Kenneth Jackson documented in his masterful work Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States, the Federal Housing Administration determined who could or couldn’t live in suburbs (whites-only was official government policy until the 1950s), what size private lots must be in order to be eligible for federal mortgage protection, and how people who moved to these houses could get to work (by paying for every cent of highway construction but resisting public transportation investments).

“The system works in such a way,” Jackson wrote in 1985, “that a $20,000-a-year bank teller living in a private apartment earns no housing subsidy. But the $250,000-per-year bank president living in a $400,000 home in the suburbs has a veritable laundry list of deductions.”

Just as the widespread abandonment of American cities in the 20th century was the result of very clear policy choices made at all levels of government that incentivized people on nearly every level to buy a house in the suburbs, so too will whatever happens with American cities next be the result of people responding to incentives put before them, not a vast array of individual choices about how they feel about density. Much of this rests on the federal government’s shoulders, but cities and states have leeway to determine their own futures.

And so we return to many of the same questions that faced cities before the coronavirus hit. Do cities and their partners on the federal level have any interest in making cities desirable and sustainable for people? Do they fund the public services that make cities wonderful, like libraries and parks, that have been struggling financially for years and make up a rounding error of most city budgets? Will they help out the small businesses that make our communities worth living in? Will they devise any creative schemes to help out the millions of people who worked in those businesses but are struggling to pay rent? Or will they try and go back to the old normal, the one with rising rents and a frustrating commitment to the status quo? Will they get creative about how to make our lives better or keep applying the same formula to different times and lament the inevitable failures that result? Those are the decisions, not esoteric debates about “density,” that are going to determine whether cities are worth staying in.

Coronavirus Is Not a Good Reason to Abandon Cities syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

[christplays]

A Different Kind of Company

In my last post, I detailed the precise events that led to my departure from Starbucks.  I always have mixed feelings about speaking out on this subject.  When I first wrote that particular post, I had in mind that I would likely make it my last public post about Starbucks for awhile.  There was a degree to which I was getting tired of hearing myself talk about it, so I was sure that others must have been as well.

 Then the responses came…

 Friend after friend—some current Starbucks employees, some former employees, some who simply related from similar situations in their own careers—reached out to me to say they appreciated the candor and vulnerability.  I did not expect that because in my own mind, I sounded whiny and bitter.  I still perceive myself that way when I indulge my urge to speak out about how I feel, and I don’t like it.  That’s not me and never has been.  In previous jobs, and even in my first 3 years or so with Starbucks, I never even felt the urge to talk about it publicly, even when I was very dissatisfied or upset about something.  

 But I do have, and have often had, a deep desire to speak up when I know that I am able to articulate things that others want to, but either cannot or will not. When I realized how many people related to my situation, and found encouragement of some sort in what I wrote, I decided to proceed, albeit with caution.  I’m okay being vulnerable, but I will not be bitter.  Besides just not wanting that to be part of who I am, it also wouldn’t be honest.  As I try to make clear, in the totality of my experiences at Starbucks, beginning to end, 95% of it was positive.  

 In addition to all of that, there are many people that I care about greatly, who still work for Starbucks, and who love their jobs and are very loyal to the company.  I have never wanted to be a cause of hurt or disheartening to any of them.  Had I gotten that sort of feedback from any one of them, it would weigh even more heavily on my decisions to post or not post.  But thus far, I have not received any such feedback.  In fact, there is only one person, of all the current and former employees that I have worked with, who reached out to me following my departure, and it was for no other reason than to offer encouragement and support. I take this as a hard lesson in the true nature of “work relationships,” that whatever career decisions you ultimately make, those decisions should be made for no one else but yourself and your family because in the end, you alone will be left to deal with the outcome.  

 With my last post detailing the circumstances of my resignation, I want to follow up by writing about my general view of the company, and in what ways my experiences have or have not changed my perspective.  Even though on the surface it may appear that my views made a complete 180, there’s actually a continuity to the story that has helped me makes sense of it all.  As it turns out, I think that the thing that was once the company’s greatest strength, is the very thing slowly becoming its greatest flaw.

 You could almost say it was inevitable that I would be disillusioned.  That favorite refrain of Howard Schultz, “A different kind of company,” echoes repeatedly when you work for Starbucks, and many of us buy into it. At the beginning of his 2011 book Onward, Schultz addresses his employees with these words:  “Dear Partners,  For forty years Starbucks has striven to create a different kind of company, one that achieves the fragile balance between profitability and a social conscience.”  He previews the premise of the book:  an accounting of how the company transformed itself to recover from a sudden and unexpected downturn, and then goes on to say:  “Now, with the foundation of the company on solid ground, we are able to focus on creating an even better partner experience, one that builds off our heritage, prepares us for our future, and includes your ideas and feedback.  In short, we hear you, and today we are committed to providing a working environment where you can be your personal best, opportunities to be part of something bigger, skills and experiences that will enhance your life, and meaningful recognition for your ongoing contributions.”

 Starbucks has always been a company that takes great pride in how it treats its employees, and I would argue that that pride has always been justified.  Howard Schultz accomplished precisely what he set out to do; he created a “different kind of company.”  The central problem, as I see it, is that the well-earned reputation of how Starbucks treats its employees has outpaced the reality on the ground. “A different kind of company” is still the refrain.  The partner experience is still touted as second to none.  You still hear talk about the unique bond among partners, and how the work environment is akin to a second family.  There is still a deep sense of pride and loyalty.  But everyday that sense is undercut by the company’s persistent move towards leaner labor models.  Everyday that sense is undercut by tenured employees who make little more than new hires, with few prospects for bettering their position.  Everyday that sense is undercut by employees who feel that more responsibilities and higher expectations are outpacing support from upper management.  Everyday that sense is undercut by employees who feel the strain of being asked to be all things to all people:  fast as a vending machine, warm as an old friend, knowledgeable and craft-oriented as a proud chef.  They must find ways to put coffee front and center while still catering to a customer-base that turns out in droves for color-changing sugar-milk named for mythical beings.  

 This is how the strength is becoming the flaw.  The company has set such high aspirations for so long now, and the obstacles to living up to them are becoming more and more insuperable.  Schultz has never been the type to settle for the mindset, “Well, we’re still better than most employers.”  But that mindset has steadily become the norm, as real investments in partners become less attainable. The investments they do make are often financially-lean (dress code changes) or short-term (one-time bonuses). Understandably, a publicly-traded company has to grow, has to be profitable, and has to placate investors. That’s the nature of the beast.  But they have been stuck in a position for several years now where they cannot feasibly do both.  As of this moment, I believe that Starbucks is in the unfortunate position of being financially unable to deliver for both its investors and its employees simultaneously. They are relying on reputation and overselling the partner experience, which ultimately leads to disappointed employees.  There has been a trend now of employee demands reaching a groundswell, and the company responding with a bare modicum of addressing what was asked for. Strictly speaking in terms of the partner experience, I believe that Starbucks best days are behind it.

 To be clear, I would love nothing more than to be wrong about this.  Part of the reason I don’t see this trend reversing is the very words of the company’s top-level executives.  Based on last summer, everyone knows that the company is willing to take drastic measures when needed to save on payroll.  Not only that, but they are willing to forego transparency with their employees and shift blame to store managers.  They did things with payroll last year that they have yet to even acknowledge, must less own up to.  Furthermore, if you take a look at the recent earnings call, the prominent notes are all centered around expansion in China and digital innovation.  A few ambiguous statements about partner investments play softly in the background.  When Starbucks executives were asked specifically about partner retention, this was the response:

 In terms of partner retention, obviously we continue to make investments in our people, both in terms of wage and in terms of benefits. We continue to see retention increase. In the most recent quarter, our retention sequentially increased versus the previous quarter as well as versus last year's same quarter.

We feel good about the partner engagement that we have in our stores. When you look at how we measure partner engagement, those scores on a year-over-year basis exceeded last year. So, we feel good about the engagement that we're having from our partners, and then more importantly, how that translates into the customer experience. And we all know that our partners bring the experience to life for our customers, and, as part of that high level of engagement that they have, our customer experience scores are sitting at record highs right now, so we feel good about what we're seeing there.

A few things to note here: 1) a Starbucks executive stating outright that the customer experience is “more important” than the partner experience.  2) No specifics given about the investments in wage and benefits.  3) Nothing mentioned about staffing levels, which is the number one complaint Starbucks employees have been making for years now.  4) Though I obviously don’t have access to the numbers, I suspect a bit of spin in the statement about the retention going up.  He was careful to speak strictly in terms of comparison to last year, which this same quarter last year was the quarter of the infamous labor cuts.  Thus, hitting that target may not be much of an accomplishment. There is no mention of longer-term trends.  

As in the example above, most of the talk in the call about partners is tied up with talk of the customer experience and the centrality of store partners in creating customer loyalty. Starbucks has attempted to re-energize partners with a 2-year plan called the Northstar Agenda.  What they are now calling “Northstar” used to simply be known as the Starbucks Experience, and it arose organically from employees who were happy to deliver it.  The way it is treated now by executives on the top, and the way it is perceived by many store partners, is that it’s one more task on top of many others. Another strategy to execute, to use some corporate jargon.  Not to mention, the statement in the Northstar Agenda training that claims that Starbucks is in a “fight for the heart and soul of the company” maybe belies the words to investors about partner morale and customer experience being satisfactory at current levels.   http://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-north-star-agenda-causes-barista-backlash-2017-5

It just doesn’t appear to me that the partner experience is front and center on the company’s radar right now. Admittedly, I am now making these remarks as an outside observer.  I could be very wrong, and I would love nothing more.  But based on my experiences towards the tail end of my Starbucks career, and based on what I hear from friends who still work there, I reiterate my belief that, at least for the foreseeable future, there is no turnaround forthcoming.  Traffic has flatlined for at least the past year, as the company is just breaking even in total customer visits, even with nearly 1,000 new store openings each year in the U.S. alone.  Sales comps, which sit around 4-5% currently, are projected to fall more, and they are driven entirely by price hikes and average-ticket increases, which is not sustainable.  If the company is currently unable to afford the kinds of investments partners are asking for, it doesn’t seem like they will be able to anytime soon.  

By Howard Schultz’s own words, being a “different kind of company” has always been the driving force of Starbucks’ success.  My opinion is that it is losing that edge, and that it won’t begin to turn around until it at least acknowledges the problems.  On September 7th, 1982, in Seattle, Washington, Schultz started his first day at Starbucks.  That very next day, in Morgan City, Louisiana, I came into the world!  I feel an emotional connection with Starbucks that I am unable to fully shake. My experiences there have shaped who I am and will continue to shape who I become.  I sincerely hope that they can avoid what happened in 2007, described by Schultz in Onward:

As the years passed, enthusiasm morphed into a sense of entitlement, at least from my perspective.  Confidence became arrogance and, at some point, confusion as some of our people stepped back and began to scratch their heads, wondering what Starbucks stood for. Music? Movies? Comps?  And while our people worked hard to meet our goals, it was not always with the joy or innovation or pride that had once defined us . . . I liked to say that a partner’s job at Starbucks was to “deliver on the unexpected” for customers.  Now many partners’ energies seemed to be focused on trying to deliver the expected, mostly for Wall Street.

[global-justice-blog]

Ridding the U.S. of Injustice: Platonic and Socratic Premises

By Andrew Oravecz

Photo by Michael Vadon, Wikimedia Commons

Editor’s note: Andrew Oravecz worked closely with me in the Office of the President when we were both at Freedom House.  We are both committed to equity at home in order for the U.S. to play a much-needed role catalyzing global justice.  He has interned on Capitol Hill for Representative Elizabeth Esty (CT-5), taught introductory human rights classes to homeless and unstably housed individuals through Charter Oak Cultural Center's Beat of the Street Center for Creative Learning, and worked with underserved urban youth in realizing their academic and professional aspirations.  He graduated the University of Connecticut with a Bachelors of Arts in Political Science and Human Rights—Summa Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa.

In his guest blog below, he explores the implications of pressure on a free press and an independent judiciary in America – offering guideposts for concerned citizens drawing on Plato’s conception of justice.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author.

How to Unify Resistance

With the United States mired by “alternative facts” and “fake news” produced by an executive branch actively willing to gaslight its own electorate, concerned parties have turned towards literature to answer some of their most vexing concerns about the condition of our country. Dystopian novels from Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 to Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 have skyrocketed among best-seller lists nationwide. Diving deeper into philosophy also provides productive, forward-looking, and—frankly—refreshing discourse about what type of society we would like to collectively inhabit.

Damning descriptors of President Trump have included terms such as sexist, fascist, racist, demagogue, oligarch, Islamophobe, nativist, plutocrat, xenophobe—the list goes on. If broadening resistance is desirable, though, linguistic utility ought to be prioritized. I personally believe Trump has earned these labels, but perhaps apt accusations are the least effective mode to speedily counter him. Have we learned nothing from this past election? The resistance’s vocabulary is problematic in appealing to wide audiences needed to upend Trump.

Presently, much of the resistance aims for the President’s eventual impeachment. If one believes in the need for Trump’s removal from public office, expediting it must entail a distancing of D.C. speak, think tank jargon, and social justice catchphrases that aren’t immediately accessible to middle America or moderate Republicans— especially with a Republican-controlled Congress. An alternative approach could incorporate members of both party caucuses and enact concrete action. Plato’s Republic illustrates a path forward. This piece is particularly helpful because of Plato’s dedication to understanding the essence of a term in its most fundamental form. Boiling narratives down to their foundational elements offers room for common ground and clarity.

What is Justice?

In Book II of Republic, Socrates sought to convince Glaucon that justice ought to be categorized as a good to be pursued, not only for its consequences, but also for its own merits—what he deemed the “highest class.”

Through argumentation, Socrates debunked the “common view” of justice, articulated by Thrasymachus, which conceived justice as “troubled.” Justice was a compromise between doing injustice without consequence (most desirable) and suffering injustice without recourse (least desirable), a circumstance which encouraged societies to agree upon laws. Therefore, justice itself--present in covenants--was neutrally oriented on this continuum.

In contrast, Socrates views perfectly just states and individuals as being harmonious with nature, which is inherently good, not a neutral compromise. He goes on to describe the virtues needed to achieve this: to be wise, valiant, and temperate. In cooperation with one another and through repetitive action, a person embodies justice, becoming, “his own master… and at peace with himself,” and nature. Additionally, “that which at any time impairs this condition, he will call unjust action; and the opinion which presides over it, ignorance.” Objectively speaking, Donald Trump cannot be categorized as wise, valiant, or temperate. Further, he is incapable of countering unjust action or recognizing, in many instances, his own ignorance.

Wisdom, Valiance, and Temperance

Per Socrates, wise guardians “advise(s), not about any particular thing in the state, but about the whole, and consider[s] how a state can best deal with itself and with other states.” The Trump administration has been domestically and internationally dysfunctional since it began. Even after attempting to revise parameters, his immigration executive orders have been blocked by numerous judicial bodies. In his first attempt at Obamacare repeal-and-replacement, Trump’s inability to broker a deal between moderate Republicans and the House Freedom Caucus revealed that Capitol Hill negotiations are not executive office ultimatums. The American Health Care Act’s (AHCA) current legislative limbo, low approval numbers among constituents, and fiery town hall meetings still pose political and human challenges.

Internationally, Trump himself has picked fights with historically friendly nations including Mexico, Australia, and Germany, in addition to NATO allies he portrays as security free riders, rudely offering invoices to strategic allies.

As it pertains to valiance, Socrates alludes to military courage when he introduced this criterion. An argument can be made that Trump’s escalation of war in Syria, willingness to talk tough on North Korea and Iran, and sustained intervention in Yemen indicate courage. But, to be truly valiant, shouldn’t individuals analyze potential negative outcomes, before taking action? Attacks on Senator John McCain related to his status as a prisoner of war and Representative John Lewis regarding his “all talk, no action” tweet demonstrate Trump’s inability to separate tantrum from real courage, which is more than bluster, bragging, and violence.

Socrates’ third quality of justice, temperance, is “the ordering or controlling of certain pleasures and desires.” Socrates says that, “owing to evil education or association, the better principle… is overwhelmed by the greater mass of the worse—in this case he is blamed and is called the slave of self and unprincipled.” Steve Bannon, former executive chair of Breitbart News and White House Chief Strategist, is the epitome of “evil education.” Breitbart promotes white nationalism, Islamophobia, and a host of other hateful narratives that govern the “Alt-Right” wing of the Republican Party. From 2 a.m. tweet storms targeting media outlets to Trump’s complicity in “Lock her up!” chants at his rallies, he clearly cannot help but indulge these urges, however destructive they might be to his legitimacy.

Moving Forward

The strongest rebuttals of Trump ought to be framed in simple, tangible terms that moderate Republicans and Democrats can simultaneously identify. Questioning the president’s wisdom, valiance, and temperance is a way to do so. The opposition’s epithets do not build bridges to Republicans seeking election in 2018. While inside the Beltway or social justice language is accurate politically, historically, and socially, it alienates vast swaths of the country. With Republicans controlling all branches of government and a majority of state houses, the country’s ability to put this disastrous presidency behind us will hinge on broadening the resistance. We must continue education efforts within a social justice framework long term. Right now, however, word choice must be based on efficiently confronting the greatest threat to post-World War II order and American democracy; time is of the essence.

[resistancepapers-blog]

The Resistance Papers III

A tipping point is coming that will destroy our republic–or save it.

As this is written, we are only one month into the reign of President Donald Trump. While he and his administration paint the past four weeks as productive and trouble-free, anyone even halfway paying attention can see that it has been, in truth, the most tumultuous, chaotic transition of power our nation has seen in a century. From deeply controversial cabinet picks to apparent collusion with Russia to the disastrous and unconstitutional Muslim travel ban, the White House is a roiling cesspool of power-hungry opportunists who care about serving their own self interests far more than serving the American people.

And they’re only getting started.

Make no mistake, an unprecedented tipping point is on the horizon. This point will come in one of two forms—one that will destroy our nation or one that might possibly save it.

To understand the former I encourage you to read the short but eye-opening essay by Boston College professor of Economic and Political American History, Heather Richardson. You can find it here.

Professor Richardson points out that American history is accented by “shock events,” that is, unexpected and unimaginable events that threw society into chaos and allowed savvy players to seize power that was otherwise unattainable.

One such event was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that ostensibly started the first World War. A more recent example is the September 11 terrorist attacks. That event, in addition to radically shaking American belief that we are untouchable in our own country, saw the creation of The Patriot Act. This set of laws authorized indefinite detention of immigrants, the search and seizure of private property without consent or knowledge and broad latitude for the FBI to search telephone and email records without a warrant, among other actions. The Patriot Act passed with wide bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate—something that would have been unthinkable for such a dramatic increase in governmental powers under any other circumstance.

This brings us to the Muslim travel ban architected by shadow president Steve Bannon and gleefully put into action via executive order by the President. By any measure the executive order was poorly crafted and hastily executed, sowing confusion and frustration among TSA, Border Patrol agents and Homeland Security—not to mention the thousands of travelers, green card holders and refugees that were inconvenienced, detained or turned away altogether.

There are few that agree that this executive order will actually make Americans safer; certainly not the 1,000 diplomats and State Department officials who signed a dissent memo speaking out against the ban. The memo reads, in part, that the ban “will not achieve its stated aim of protecting the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States given the near absence of terror attacks committed in recent years by Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan, Somalia, Sudanese, and Yemeni citizens who are in the US after entering on a visa. This ban will have little practical effect in improving public safety.”

Then why put it into action at all?

As Professor Richardson wrote, “[a shock event] is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won’t like.”

During the campaign Trump said explicitly that he wished for “a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” As president, this desire was confirmed on live television as presidential lackey Rudi Giuliani said in no uncertain terms that he was working with the administration to establish a travel ban, even though they had to go through the annoying fuss and bother of doing it “legally.”

Here is where I depart from Professor Richardson’s analysis of the travel ban. Because I don’t believe this is the Trump administration’s shock event. That is yet to come.

At best, the Muslim ban was a ham-handed attempt to appease Trump’s base. At worse, it was a trial balloon to test how far the administration can push the extremes of executive order powers to set the stage for future actions.

The actual shock event, when it come, will be much, much worse.

It appears that the Trump administration is doing everything possible to ferment mistrust and hatred of our nation, especially among the Arab world. It is my belief that they truly hope for a horrible attack to happen on American soil, the more loss of innocent life the better.

When this shock event occurs the Trump administration will immediately call for a vast and all-encompassing consolidation of power within the executive branch. Simultaneously they will attack the judicial branch for challenging the original executive order in an attempt to limit the checks and balances on this consultation. Trump has already set the groundwork for this after the 9th Circuit Court put a national hold on the ban, tweeting “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system!”

And that moment—God forbid that it ever comes—will dramatically define the future of our republic.

Granted, it will be tempting to react in anger to another attack on our homeland, to wish violence upon those who did violence against us. This is what happened on September 11, 2001. In our rush to seize an eye for an eye we gladly gave away freedoms for the false promise of additional security. We are fortunate that George W. Bush power hungry or deranged enough to use this event to fashion himself Ultimate Honorable Leader. I firmly believe that Donald Trump would and will take this step if given half the chance.

This moment, if and when it comes, will test our resolve in a way it has never been tested before. It will require us as a nation to set aside pure furious retribution in favor of something more profound. It will require us to resist our baser instincts so that we may safeguard the future of democracy in our nation.

This will be our ultimate act of resistance. Because we won’t be fighting against the clearly incompetent and buffoonish Trump, we’ll be fighting against ourselves. Americans are innately violent and vengeful people—after all we took our country by violence (against both the British and Native Americans), protected the world through violence in two world wars, and engaged in violent actions in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, to name a few. This tendency toward violence is written into our very constitution as the right to keep and bear arms.

Some of this violence has been justified, even necessary. And despite our violent natures we are, of course, also capable of great acts of science, peace and empathy. But when we are threatened or injured, it is not to our better angels that we automatically look.

When this shock event occurs, we must redouble our efforts. We must demand that our lawmakers act with conscience and forethought. We must make it clear that it is our singular demand that our nation does not become incontrovertibly hardened by hate. This is not to say that we should not protect ourselves or retaliate against our aggressors. We are still the United States of America and we will not quietly suffer the death and destruction of our people or property. But our retaliation must be tempered with wisdom and justice.

We must fight the undeniable desire to settle the score at any cost. We must defy the breaking down of checks and balances and frightening consolidation of power. We must oppose Emperor Trump.

We must RESIST.

Yours in resistance,

~ Veritas Pugna Publicola