#it seems inequitable

[ecoterrorist-katara]

Katara would’ve been such a good diplomat (it’s canon)

everyone rightfully hates on the ATLA comics because the politics are baffling and the characterization is even more so…but if there’s one thing we can take away from the dumpster fire that is The Promise, it’s that Katara was BORN to be a diplomat and an international force for peace, okay? Especially since her besties, the Avatar and the Fire Lord, aren’t actually very good at this.

If you haven’t read The Promise, the Wikipedia summary is pretty good. The TL;DR is that Zuko and Kuei agree that the Fire Nation colonies need to be returned to the Earth Kingdom. The colony of Yu Dao is not happy about this because the people of the Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom have been mixing together (under inequitable conditions) for more than a hundred years and “just kick out the Fire Nation” is not as straightforward as it seems, since there are blended families now. Zuko refuses to kick out the Fire Nation people from Yu Dao, Kuei wants to play hardball, and they almost launch another war. Oh and there’s a weird plot about Aang debating whether to put Zuko down like a rabid dog

For all that the Wiki page does a good job of summarizing the events, it forgets some key facts: 

It’s Katara who first starts thinking about new solutions after witnessing the situation on the ground, and then comes up with the idea that Zuko and Kuei should meet and talk about the colonies:

It’s Katara who tells Kuei that Zuko has legitimate concerns (without saying that Zuko is right), when Aang tries to hedge and sugarcoat the truth: 

And it’s Katara who says to Kuei, wait, what the hell do you mean that you have no idea what your people want, that Yu Dao is just a dot on the map for you? We’re getting you out of this stupid blimp and you’re gonna talk to people before you make a decision that affects their lives, you coward

To recap, Katara demonstrates some pretty freaking key political skills, like: 

finding out what people want before making a decision for them 

seeing people as people first and foremost, not as fire nation or earth kingdom 

encouraging her loved ones, the Avatar and the Fire Lord, to resolve a conflict by beginning negotiations instead of brawling like a couple of drunks at a bar / kids on the playground (both analogies fit btw, 13-17 is a weird combination of ages)  

realistically reporting tricky disagreements without sweeping them under the rug

kidnapping a king to the middle of a battlefield to give him a reality check about listening to the people he’s trying to rule

Anyway, Katara is hyper competent at both war AND peace! We see this in the show, with her compassion for the prisoners of the Earth Kingdom (by inciting a prison riot) and the suffering people of the Fire Nation (by committing ecoterrorism), only now that compassion is backed up not only by her fighting prowess and speeches about hope, but actual ability to manipulate the levers of power. 

And have I mentioned that she has the ears of both the Avatar and the Fire Lord and her dad is Chief of the Southern Water Tribe? Even if Katara didn’t get a diplomat position based on her skills, or her status as a war hero, she could nepo baby her way in. The fact that she does not pick up a career in international diplomacy is a crime & a colossal oversight from the creators. At minimum you know Katara would’ve established Healers Without Borders or something. She deserves to be yelling at people at ATLA UN and then drafting world-changing resolutions. 

And as a bonus, Katara demonstrates her gift for diplomacy by not smacking Zuko up the head for attempting to legitimize colonization through the argument of economic progress…

…and by not smacking Aang up the head for seriously considering anti-miscegenation as a viable political solution: 

This patience is a new development because show!Katara did not have this in her, but maybe this is what growing up is all about and not just yet another strike on the “comics are wildly OOC” tally

TL;DR: ATLA boys lost their brain cells post-canon. All hail Katara, Sugar Queen of international diplomacy. 

[thesiltverses]

How would you describe the level of technology present in the world of the Silt Verses, and what was the rationale (in-world or writerly) behind it being such? It's something I've found interesting to look back on re-listening to the how.

I think of it as 90s tech or degraded, inequitable modernity (the internet exists, airplanes exist, computers exist...but they're not universally accessible) - it seemed like a fitting state for a world where any advancement or new technology is likely to be accompanied by an explosion of divine collateral, and where people are as likely to be consumed as the consumer.

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

Weird question but do you think its possible to become a zookeeper without a degree? I'm 29 and don't have the time, energy, or money to go back to college and fear I've missed my chance at my dream career. I'm not sure how to get experience or what I could possibly do to help my resume.

It’s definitely possible! Not super common, but possible - and much more so than it would have been a couple of years ago.

When I was in college (early 2010s) and wanting to enter the field, there was a pretty clear pipeline: four year degree, unpaid summer internships, then apply for a part-time or temp position somewhere, and volunteer somewhere until you get a first job. This is still somewhat of the way it’s done at bigger AZA facilities.

But, interestingly enough, things are changing. There’s two things really driving that. The first is the massive push for increased DEAI efforts in the zoo industry. After the big commitments AZA and many individual zoos made during the BLM protests in 2020, one of the big conversations that started was how inequitable zoo hiring and especially internship programs are. Requiring four years degrees and large amounts of unpaid labor before getting a job - and paying poverty wages once someone gets that job - biases success entering and staying in the zoo field towards people with generational wealth. I honestly didn’t think the advocacy that stemmed from those discussions would do much, and I’ve been very pleasantly surprised to see that I was wrong! There’s a been a lot of real movement towards creating paid internships and making hiring requirements more equitable. It isn’t happening everywhere, but I know it’s becoming more and more common (and last year there was a ton of presentations about this on the AZA annual meeting schedule, which is a huge deal). The other thing that’s happening is less formal, but equally fascinating. I’ve been present for a lot of discussions about how there’s a disconnect between what zoos are hiring for (formal education, complex resumes) and what skills the job actually requires. It seems like it’s easier to train people to work with animals and learn their behavior than it is to teach people practical skills like how to do manual labor without hurting themselves and operate heavy machinery. I’ve seen some discussions of how some of their most successful new staff have come from adjacent industries or even just other “blue-collar” jobs that involve similar types of work, regardless of what their academic background is. Which is great! Because that adds to equity and diversity of staff across the industry.

To start off the rest of my answer, there has to be a disclaimer that I’m not in hiring, so I can’t say for sure what will get you a job (and while I’ve volunteered and interned, I have never been formally hired as staff by a zoological facility). So my advice for the rest of this comes from watching and listening to a whole ton of industry folk for the past decade or so, and from what I’ve seen my friends do that’s been successful to get jobs in the field.

In terms of experience, the best thing you can do - and I hate to say this, because it does require a level of privilege to be able to do - is volunteer somewhere. It doesn’t have to be at a zoo. Anything that will give you some animal experience for a resume and references will be valuable: shelters, vet offices, riding barns, farms, even 4H. You need to be able to demonstrate that you’ve worked around a variety of species (even if they’re all domestic) and have people who can speak to the fact that you’re diligent, attentive to detail, and have common sense about things like safety protocols. If you can’t volunteer, try to find a job in any of these areas with similar skills. Or where you can learn them! Say you can’t get an animal care job, but you’re good at phones and people - you could get a desk job at an animal shelter, and help out with cleaning and animal enrichment when possible. Boom! Experience!

It’s also important to learn how to shape your current job experience to an application, which is something I can talk more about and maybe pull in advice from folk actually in hiring for. There’s a ton that can be applicable to animal jobs. Office work? You can probably speak to experience with proprietary software systems and record-keeping (which is a bigger deal than you’d think). Construction / landscaping / similar physical labor jobs? You know how to work hard in a range of weather conditions, keep a project on spec, have experience with complex project planning, and probably know a thing or two about basic safety stuff (don’t store heavy things above your head, lift with your legs, etc). You’re basically looking to communicate “I haven’t worked in this field, but here’s all the skills I have that will translate to this job.”

Realistically, if you’re coming in without a degree or a ton of animal experience, you’re much more likely to be able to get a job at smaller, non-AZA facilities to start (they might not even be zoos - there’s sanctuaries and petting zoos and all sorts of other professional animal care gigs). And this is fine and good! There’s lots of good ones out there. You can always use experience gained there to move up in the field, if it’s your dream to work at an AZA facility specifically. And a lot of people do that - you’ll hear some places talk about how they know they’re training zoos, because their staff get a foot in the door and then consistently leave for other facilities after a couple years. But there’s also a lot of reasons to stay with some of the smaller facilities. They’re often in areas with cheaper cost of living, and so a zookeeping salary will go farther. I’ve also seen that a lot of the smaller facilities - ones where like, staff know and interact with the zoo director frequently - tend to take better care of their staff. They may not be able to increase salary, but I’ve seen some of those facilities go the extra mile for their people in other ways when it’s possible. It’s a very different experience than being a small cog in the giant machines that are many AZA zoos. It’s the sort of thing you have to vet carefully, but when you find a small facility that really invests in it’s people, it can be very worthwhile.

You also have to think about the fact that you don’t have to start in zookeeping to get an animal care job! I’ve seen a lot of people start in education or in summer camp staff, and then use the relationship with the facility and their track record in those jobs to transition into animal care. Especially education, if you’ve got the skill-set, because you’re often working with ambassador animals or in collaboration with the teams that care for them. I’ve seen some people start in facilities or ground crew, too, but I think that’s less common. Getting your foot in the door somehow and building relationships is one of the biggest parts of getting a job in the field if you’re not following the traditional pipeline.

If you’re near enough to a smaller facility that you can visit regularly, do. Learn as much as you can about the zoo and what they do and what they’re involved in, to show that you’re interested and invested, and then go talk to someone there. Tell them exactly what you told me: this is a dream, and you’re really interested in their facility specifically, and you’re wondering what you should do to build a resume to apply for a job there. At worst, you’ll get some advice. At best, they might take a chance on you. I’ve heard of it happening. (The hardest part of this is, honestly, figuring out who to talk to - it’s not the sort of thing where you can just ask a keeper while they’re cleaning. But you can find opportunities, and then ask if there’s someone in management who might have time to answer a couple questions.)

So in short: yes. It’ll take some work and time, and probably some free labor, but it’s doable. More so now than any other time recently. Good luck!

[forthegothicheroine]

I'm rereading Joanna Russ's How to Suppress Women's Writing, at the part where she talks about how even more so than today, an inequitable distribution of household labor in centuries past left married women, especially those with children with less time to devote to writing, more so if they were middle class or lower and had to do all the work personally. I'm thinking about this in regards to Mina, both in and out of universe. Mina is not a radical; her joke about the "New Woman" is gentle, but she evidently doesn't consider herself one. Nevertheless, she expresses admiration for lady journalists and very clearly enjoys writing- but always with an emphasis on how this will help Jonathan. Van Helsing and Seward admire her at her typewriter, but once again, this is for a group effort rather than her personal endeavors. Thanks to a stroke of plot convenience with Mr. Hawkins's will, she and Jonathan were left with more money than they ever expected to have, and will likely go forward with more servants, governesses, and other domestic staff than they would have had otherwise. Will Mina use this unforeseen leisure time to write?

From a Doylist perspective, Bram Stoker (hardly a feminist but not necessarily a misogynist either) can set his heroine up as clever and determined without risking her being seen as selfish or frivolous; she's not neglecting her wifely duties by writing, she's performing them! Still, even in an epistolary novel where everyone has to write at least sometimes, the three characters who seem to write the most for their own pleasure- Jonathan, Mina and Jack- are all shown as adorable intellectuals. It does seem to be a deliberate character trait.

From a Watsonian perspective, Mina probably bonded with Jonathan over their shared love of diaries and plays and train schedules. They each keep their journals, looking forward with excitement to showing them to each other. Their marriage, while unlikely to be fully egalitarian, is one they are planning to enter as partners. It's possible to imagine, years later, editing each other's writing like Mary and Percy Shelley.

It's a nice thought. For fictional characters, I can at least hope.

[qqueenofhades]

Do you have any idea where all the money in education IS going? People talk about administrators, but their percentage of the overall budget seems lowish? Facilities are expensive, but often paid for with bequests, no? Where the hell is all the money going?

The same place it's going in every other capitalistic American enterprise: to senior executives, endowments, and other places that decidedly do not "trickle down" (because you know, it never does). See my many previous posts about how college costs skyrocketed starting in the 1980s and post-secondary higher education was transformed from something in which most of the costs were governmentally subsidized to something expected to be paid (at higher and higher levels) either privately out of the consumer's pocket or from thousands of dollars in student loans. Because you guessed it, Reaganomics.

I can tell you one place it absolutely is NOT going, i.e. salaries of faculty and staff, at least in the less capitalistically sexy fields of study. The university where I work never hurts for money in the business and law schools, but because I am in the humanities/education/history, yeah, our department's budget is not in great shape. Of course, yes, COVID hit the higher-education sector like crazy (as it did everywhere else) and universities haven't figured how to recover from that, but just as with the rest of America, it's a model that is designed to funnel the vast majority of profits, i.e. from skyrocketing student tuition rates and other increased fees, to the highly compensated senior leadership and very little to the academics who do the work that makes the place, you know, RUN.

This is a bugaboo for both me and every other academic I know, because (again, just as with the rest of capitalism) it doesn't HAVE to be this way. I shouldn't be trying to manage a department that has to rely heavily on adjunct faculty every quarter and doesn't have a sustainable long-term scheduling or research model, because we're so badly understaffed with core tenure-track faculty and they won't let us hire any more, while constantly cutting our budget and giving us laughable raises (mine, after getting sterling performance reviews across the board, was a whole... 72 extra cents an hour. I wish I was joking). There is money tied up in the institution and the establishment (and as noted, I work at a well-regarded and highly-ranked private university, so it's not a matter of not having enough), but the system distributes it in a way that is inequitable and results in enforced scarcity, especially in the humanities. It's not that there isn't money to pay us fairly, it's just that they have chosen not to, because they exist in the same capitalist system as the rest of the west.

This is why there have been strikes by graduate and early-career academics in both the UK and US (I have worked/studied/taught in both places, and they're both BAD for paying lower-level academics and even established-career academics), because they simply do not pay us enough to live on or build a career on (by a long shot, ESPECIALLY if you're the only person in your household and don't have shared expenses with a partner/roommate/several roommates). This is after most of us have several advanced degrees and the debt resulting from such. We get burned out, we can't make a living in this field, we leave, and it's hollowed out even further. So. Yeah.

[transmutationisms]

@amarocit yes i would love to hear your analysis of the french context here! so i'm borrowing a lot from dorothy roberts, who talks about this in chapter 7 of 'killing the black body'—roberts makes a distinction between the american liberal's demands for "reproductive liberty" (a guarantee of freedom from specific forms of government intervention) and what she calls "reproductive equality", which would be a more expansive guarantee of reproductive choice that takes into account the background factors of social inequality restricting eg black women and poor women from accessing the full range of options in reproductive care / decision-making.

part of what's at stake here, obviously, is the simple fact that the right to abortion in roe v wade operated on the background assumption that health care is essentially income-restricted. but there is also a whole web of legislation of government action that perpetuates the inferior status of black women, and that prevents them from making all manner of choices about having / raising children. so, a negatively conceived right to abortion is simply insufficient to eliminate the subordination of black women. it's a right that was basically designed around the desires and needs of (wealthy) white women for whom "reproductive choice" had become very highly focussed on a right to abortion rather than, say, a right to the kind of overall economic stability that would allow them to actually access that procedure, or indeed a right to avoid the kinds of state coercive measures that sought to control black women's reproduction in other ways (eg, welfare policies that seek to discourage black women from having children, or punish them for doing so; forced sterilisation; various other means of trying to discourage them from having children). wealthy white women's desire to access abortion has basically come up against natalist pressures for them to reproduce; this is simply not the case for all demographics in the us. as long as demands for abortion rights assume (tacitly or explicitly) that everyone seeking an abortion is fighting against the pressure to HAVE children, it's impossible to adequately address the needs of those who are actually being coerced by various state policy in the opposite direction.

people have also made a lot of the fact that the roe decision hinged on a 'right to privacy' rather than an affirmation of bodily autonomy—obviously i don't think that was good, but i am honestly not convinced that even the best-written supreme court decision would have made much difference in this respect lol. as we've seen in the past few years regarding the court, and the past few decades regarding abortion specifically, what the court says is not really set in stone any more than any legislation is. i think abortion opponents would have been pretty determined to chip away at any legal conception of a right to abortion. it seems to me that the underlying issue here is, again, that the right to abortion was basically grafted onto larger structures of inequality and the subordination of black women; i don't think 'liberty' (if we want to use that word) can really exist so long as the underlying oppressive structures are still there. obviously the supreme court is not designed to be capable of challenging those structures because it exists within them and upholds them as an arm of the state.

in any case i guess my main point here is: a right to abortion was always going to be shaky and inequitable in the us so long as it was configured as a very limited freedom from specific forms of government intervention, rather than being placed in context with the larger social forces that act to constrain people's ability to make free choices about their bodies / reproduction. abortion needs to be available freely and on-demand, along with things like contraception, but also along with actual freedom from government coercion NOT to reproduce, which is something that the state directs primarily at black and poor women. abortion framed as a negative right has no redress for this type of issue because again, the us abortion rights movement has been so driven by wealthy white women who were in a position where their main concern was getting access to the procedure, rather than fearing being forced to have it (or being forcibly sterilised and so forth).

when we flip it around and start thinking about what's required to actually achieve equality and reproductive freedom, it's clear that just guaranteeing legal access to abortion is wildly insufficient for those subjugated by legal and systemic antiblackness, living in poverty, &c. and it's pretty depressing that the mainstream us abortion rights movement has never been able to grapple with eg, the very real and ongoing legacy of eugenics in welfare policy, white women's feminism, and yes the efforts to provide access to contraception and abortion. as long as these things are excluded from advocacy of abortion rights, and abortion is conceived as a freedom-from (a specific manner of state intervention), we're not actually able to discuss the broader factors that constrain people's ability to make free choices about their bodies and reproduction: poverty, racism, policies in response to these factors that may take either pro- or anti-natalist stances, depending on the state's goals and the specific population it's trying to control or manage.

anyway yeah: would be very interested in hearing what you have to say about the french context!

[ludiharambasha]

I think I can finally put my finger on what I find wrong about Hazbin Hotel and why I think it is neoliberal dribble that fails at its social commentary.

I am definitely going to write about redemption arcs more (a post about a different show is coming), but it should not come as a surprise that I am not a fan of them-they are a rather cheap narrative tool that breeds uncreative, stale, mediocre storylines. However, when the central theme of a work of fiction is redemption in the context of heaven and its righteousness, that could be written in an interesting way, especially if the very concept of redemption is deconstructed. And, for some time, the show seemed to be upping the game in terms of the seriousness of its narrative as it went on, yet failed to deliver on this.

There is a serious issue I have with the author's idea of what redemption means in the context of heaven's hegemony and how it reflects our world. There is a critique of this inequitable system in which "hell is forever", and so is heaven- once fallen there are no second chances, no turning back, and those graced can never do enough wrong to be punished for their misdeeds. And this critique is utterly toothless in my opinion, not in and of itself, but because the author tries to couple it with the possibility of getting redeemed. If redemption did not exist in the world of Hazbin Hotel, then the story's theme about Heaven and hell would make sense- there is a brutal system that punishes some for their misdeeds but does not punish mass murder and terror. A hypocritical and arbitrary system in which the powerful make sure that those in power stay in power through that false morality. They quite literally live in a gated community oblivious to the fact that they live in such bliss because there is an army in their midst that goes to commit purges onto the underclass, the sinful. But if you make redemption an actual thing, something a sinner can achieve, then all the fault is shifted onto the sinner. The problem is no longer the segregation, the mass murdering of the underclass, and the fact that eternal torment exists in the first place. No, the problem is that more people don't get their ticket to the Pearly Gates, the problem is that there is not enough social mobility, not the unjust system itself. Does this not remind you of the American dream? That if one just works hard enough they may be getting their seat at the table?

No one seems to be attacking Charlie's dream on this front-eternal torment itself is unjust, not just the annual exterminations- they are a culmination of this problem. Charlie's dream ultimately does not challenge the status quo-it affirms heaven and works within its confines. Who gets to say who gets to be redeemed, especially an entity that allows genocidal maniacs into their ranks?

And I don't think the show lacks merit entirely, but this tendency in Western fiction to use ideas of revolutionaries and then water them down so it is more palatable to a neolib audience is tiring and should be criticized more often.

[rhinexstone]

Thinking about how the cannibal cultists ultimate demise wasn’t just the fact that their social structure literally devoured itself, but their location.

The people of Jackson chose a town, not just that, but a town that used green energy via hydrology and was highly inequitable but was a small, isolated town before a rich getaway.

Jackson was first built out of utility for those who lived there year round, facilities like waste management, gas, electric, etc were built to last a while and year round. This can be found all the way down to what kind of piping a house is fitted with. Then with the gentrification of the community, more luxurious, spacious, and recreational buildings were made. But only after a strong base.

The cultists chose a resort that only ever was a resort. A resort by a lake, and judging by the equipment and lack of pointed roofs, only used in the summer/spring. This results in the region having a brutal lake effect since they’re also in a valley with the mountains around them. The buildings didn’t have practical architecture, the main hall had a fireplace that couldn’t be used due to the damn building being logs. Even if Jackson swapped places with the cultists, they wouldn’t have that comfortable of a winter.

This just feels so much like something the cultists would do; pick a place that seems so easy and isolated to live in, it’s built with a small community and organization in mind, but with assumed luxury. That there will be staff able to shuttle in labor, food, resources, etc. the buildings are picturesque more so than utilitarian.

The preacher is a man who wants the luxury of power, the luxury of control over others, what the people that lived there used to have. In reality, he has to literally devour those around him to stay standing. The people who stayed at the resort had to rely and drain on the resources of those who lived far outside their community to survive, and that’s something the preacher doesn’t take issue with until it bites him in the ass.

Idk I just found it interesting how Jackson could thrive even further north than the cultists, then it just kinda cracked itself open like an oyster

[jimin-bangtan]

Jimin's MUSE EP - 1 billion Spotify streams! 🥳

Congratulations to Jimin...AGAIN!⭐🌟

I also want to congratulate and thank the fans who supported MUSE and Jimin. Everyone who purchased albums and songs, participated in streaming parties, streamed on your own, requested radio play, sent positive comments to Jimin and each other, sent reminders for voting and streaming, you are so appreciated. Even if you couldn't buy a CD packet or songs, or even stream songs due to your circumstances, your positive energy and comments are part of the teamwork that makes the dream work.

The above words are the same thanks I posted when Jimin's 1st solo album, FACE, reached 1 billion streams. With his 2nd solo album, MUSE, just reaching 1 billion streams too, the exact same sentiments still apply and then some. Among other tremendous accomplishments, Jimin is the first KPop soloist to have TWO albums achieve this goal, with his 2nd being the fastest to do so. Once again, congratulations to Jimin's fans for all of their perseverance, organization, and energy.

What is different this time is that because of Jimin's hardworking and devoted fans, the company finally realized that Jimin should receive a company-backed promotion. The hard work you all did allowed new fans to find Jimin and his talent. The hard work allowed the company to be shamed by the public appearance of neglecting their very own successful, popular, and talented artist - not to mention perhaps finally realizing or admitting that they were losing out on potential, untapped profits. In addition, the hard work allowed Jimin's 2nd solo album, MUSE, to soar to even greater heights.

In hindsight, the company is now pulling out Jimin-focused pop-ups and exhibitions that even look as though some time and attention were paid to them. The exhibition sounds like an expansion of his small (but quality) documentary that they put solely on Weverse and was filmed mainly by Jimin and the small SGMB production team. Among other items, it is said that evidence of his writing contributions, as well as awards & recognition, will be on display at the event.

I hope what we are seeing is that the company realizes that they miscalculated and underestimated Jimin's popularity, talent, potential, power - and fanbase. Sadly, they did much of the same to most of the remaining members as well. I hope we are seeing them in the process of reassessing their plans to what seemed like inequitable distribution of support and that we're seeing them begin to fairly invest in all 7 members who invested their bodies and lives believing in a company that they built with their own blood, sweat, & tears.

Jimin proved once again that his hard work, versatility, and creative instincts are the driving force of his success as well as the motivation of his fans' who put forth tremendous energy & effort for him. While the company makes our job difficult, Jimin makes it oh, so easy. He produces quality material and is a quality human being who inspires people to love and appreciate him and his work.

Please keep up the great work, and continue to support Jimin as earnestly as you have, so he can truly feel the full appreciation and love many people feel for him and his projects.

I REPEAT from the last 1 Billion celebration post: Park Jimin rocks! 🌟 And so do his fans! ✨

cr2: @akookminsupporter

[randomnameless]

why don't you want jurgdral remakes? are you afraid they will be localised like fodlan games or modified like shadows of valentia?

Mmh...

Lolcalisation aside, I'd say the biggest thing I'm dreading with those remakes is IS' (if FEH is any indication) willingness to retcon those older games to, I suppose, make them more "trendy" or approchable for a "modern audience".

Sure, FEH might goof here and there, but take the "Miccy founded the DB" take - it's present at least in more than one unit so imo, it's no goof at all, what is it supposed to mean? That a Miccy who is only a person who joins an existing group because she embraces their ideals and thus puts them above her own "need" to hide her existence, as a Branded, is not as... bankable as a Miccy who forms her own ragtag group of randoms to fight against Daein, giving hints at her later role as the leader of the Daein army?

I've ranted enough about IS retconning Lyon and Magvel in general (tfw Eph was caught by Grado lel) but it follows the same pattern, OG!Lyon (and FE8 in general) falls because of his very human and earthly desires - he might have ideals and all, but at the end of the day, he falls because of his love and adoration/obsession for the twins and that is something he cannot fight against - FEH!Lyon sassing Fomortiis is just, no. Fomortiis always has the last laugh in FE8 (at least with Lyon and even, I'd say with the playable cast because, again, his soul isn't erased, he is stuck again in a shiny rock, just like what happened in the lore, and led to Lyon's possession. Who can be sure that in 800 years after Ephraim's adventures, L'Arachel's descendant won't be seduced by Fomortiis' power and free him from his shiny rock, like Lyon did?).

FE15 is its own thing lol - but there is a possibility for Jugdral to be pissed on like Magvel and Tellius were in FEH, and I guess, for any Jugdral fan that's terrible.

Sure, FEH seems to treat Jugdral verse with, uh, careful consideration but hey - if the Ayra wanking is any indication, even Jugdral isn't immune to retcons to make a popular character even more #badass, plot be damned.

Add some eggtivation here'n'there, and I wouldn't be surprised if we had some NPCs or even characters in support dialogues explaining how major holy blooded people aren't always better in the domain corresponding to their holy blood than non HB people because non HB people can bypass their lack of dragon blood with hard work - completely pissing on this core Jugdralian mechanic that was translated in FE4's gameplay by weapon rank.

Is it gatekeeping? idk.

For me, it's just that I fell in Jugdral Hell some years ago (nearly a decade!) and despite its defaults, I still like this verse very much so I'd like a remake that is as faithful as possible to that thing I came to know all those years ago, maybe to exchange with new (and non new lol) fans about that verse!

But if we get, idk, a very #badass Deedee who doesn't, idk, mind killing a kid or two to show how #girlboss she is, well, for me, that wouldn't be Jugdral at all, but some sort of adaptation using those characters but writing them OOC.

Of course I can't say I have a better reading and take on those characters as IS themselves, but after seeing A!Mareeta's FB where she is supposed to be at her best/peak performance, and IS still wrote her to be "below" Ayra in terms of ability when Mareeta's Major Holy Blood means her skills with the blade are naturally superior to her "great aunt" 's skills I still think there's something that's missing.

It's as if we had Reinhardt throw better spells/be stronger at Thunder Magic than Peak!Ishtar, or worse, Azelle on a pony teaching FE5!Saias how to throw fire spells.

It's just, not possible in the Jugdral verse, because Jugdral verse is pretty inequitable and major HB people are cheat codes compared to minor HB people or non HB people. Now with that being said, the story is about what those people with magic blood that are cheat codes do and if they use their powers for good or stupid things. It's not about Midayle finally showing Aidean that his skills with a bow are superior to her sister's so now, he is finally strong enough to protect her from Verdane ruffians.

But after Fodlan's false "yeah but crests aren't the alpha and omega and yet i'm never going to tell you what they do because otherwise my excuse for worldbuildling falls apart", I wouldn't be surprised if Jamke, in a support, would teach Bridget how to use a bow.

:/

So yeah, it's better not to have any remakes.

[sophfandoms53]

I like most of this cast so far in the same way I liked most of bb25’s cast last year where they had SO MUCH potential but stupid fucking twists and powers kept getting in the way of REAL gameplay (not to mention the inequitable comps and the bias fucking episode edits) that the BB25 cast never TRULY got to play the Big Brother game yk.

I just hope all this ai shit this year doesn’t ruin the genuine potential the bb26 cast has because this group seems solid and I’d hate to see that wasted bc the producers wanna milk tf out of their stupid twists

[flagellant]

[Establishing shot of rising skyline of Las Vegas, and several flash shots of people in the city--cabaret strippers laughing, business executives downing a line of shotglasses, a homeless man huddled in a shadow alleyway off the strip]

Pope Francis: This city...it is an inequitable den of sin and blasphemy...an affront against God and the commandments He set to us as His sheep...

[Music begins to tense up. The sound of the city is being replaced by screams, swerving cars, weeping, and inhuman shrieks]

Pope Francis: It is no wonder, then, that God has seen fit to punish such a place.

[Flash shots: A bulbous mass of flesh digesting a whimpering Elvis impersonator. A lady in heels fleeing down the sidewalk is grabbed by a gargoyle with flames for a head and pulled into the air crying for help. A mangy and stabbed hyena-like dog lifts its muzzle up from a bass pro shop employee's gored chest and hisses like a snake, revealing circles of teeth like a lamprey.]

Pope Francis: And yet. I must believe God is merciful. For with such fear he has given mankind hope in turn. The power to turn back this tide of sin and demonic suffering.

[A sound like if sunlight fired a gun; a flash; the hyena demon falls to the ground, its face blackened and turning to ash. Pan away and up to reveal a figure holding a pure white and golden revolver, with several other weapons holstered--a crossbow, a blade, a flail. Each weapon seems divine in nature--the flail smokes like an incense censer, and the crossbow shaped like two wings appears to flutter as they're folded. The face of the figure is hidden by a streetlight behind it mimicking the appearance of a halo.]

Pope Francis: Because through Him...

[The figure steps forward. The light adjusts to show the face of Pope Francis, battlescarred and hardened.]

Pope Francis: All things are possible.

THE REVELATIONS OF JOB

Coming Summer 2024.

[chronicallycouchbound]

What’s So Wrong With Having Heroes?

When I was a little kid, I wanted to be a doctor or a veterinarian. I wanted to help heal. And even as a small child, it felt like my calling.

Most kids dream of becoming a hero. The firefighters, the builders, the astronauts. The one’s who get medals and standing ovations. There’s many very monetarily successful movies and comics about all the superheroes we dream of. The people we want to save us. At one point, I thought I could be a hero. I wanted to be.

Being a hero wasn’t an issue for me though. People started to notice acts of kindness in me, and when they held that in high regard, I did too. I did everything I could to help others. It came naturally.

I bandaged my siblings and pets and strangers up. I gave advice like a wise old man, my aunt thanked me for helping her to leave her abusive husband when I was 8. I saved two people from drowning when I was 10. I talked friends out of suicide a dozen times. I became a street medic. I have saved dozens of lives, often under extraordinary circumstances. By definition, I fit the one for ‘hero’.

And I have so many issues with it. This isn’t a humble brag.

I genuinely think that we, as a society, put certain people on pedestals that shouldn’t be. I don’t think anyone should be. The hierarchy of heroes is inequitable and unrealistic. I think we should do the right thing because it’s the right thing, not to win an award or a badge of honor.

I see headlines all the time that are just ‘hero firefighter does their job!’. They’re paid to do this, of course they’re going to do it. As an abolitionist, I see cops hailed as heroes, usually for doing the objectively right thing, and it seems to magically erase the realities of what they do, the systemic harm they perpetuate. It’s the entirety of the ‘there’s some good cops’ narrative. And it causes great detriment to our communities because it makes it seem like the police do more good than bad.

Society particularly loves to paint white, cishet, abled, rich, educated, affluent men as heroes. The ones who can save us. Our hero.

And yet we ignore the people who are saving lives left and right, like people who use drugs who Narcan their friends. Or trans youth who stay up all night with their suicidal friends. Or the street medics who set up civilian ambulances for their under-served and neglected communities.

No one’s giving them medals.

Beyond that, people aren’t checking in on heroes. I’ve heard “you’re incredible!” and “thank you” a million times, but rarely do people genuinely check in on me after I’ve rescued someone.

And I usually need it. I’m at my worst mentally and usually physically after a rescue. It often takes months or years to process those events— they are traumatic for the rescuer too. Especially those of us without formal training or those of us who have attempted to rescue someone and lost them. We’re left to drift among all of these confusing and conflicting emotions, sometimes never understanding why.

The worst thing I hear: “I could NEVER do what you did”. It breaks me apart every time.

I don’t want to be doing this alone. I don’t want to have to save people over and over. I can’t save everyone.

I have to repeat that last one like a mantra sometimes.

I can’t save everyone. And so often, I still try to. I jump in without thinking. I throw myself into danger and worry about myself last, or, never. And it usually ends with me being seriously injured.

When I’d bandage up my siblings and pets it was after our parents hit us. I stepped in front of them as often as I could. I swallowed so much water while trying to save someone from drowning because they kept pulling me under that I puked. My 20-something-year-old boyfriend I dated when I was 16 stabbed me with the knife I had just talked him out of cutting himself with. He went on to keep caving my face in and choking me until I was blue. And of course, I’ve been seriously injured dozens of times during rescues. My body physically hurts so much afterwards, let alone the emotional toll.

I have to wonder: What would happen if I didn’t step in? Would it be so bad?

But of course, my brain always answers with a thousand of the worst case scenarios— or, just with what happened anyways. Sometimes people die no matter how much you try to fight to save them. And that has to just be what it is.

I think sometimes people live, and that just has to be what it is too.

But when we ascribe people as heroes, the message we send is that some people are heroes, some people aren’t. And I feel so strongly that this isn’t true. I believe that everyone has the capacity to help others, and so often, they do so in seemingly insignificant ways, and their deeds are not recognized.

Small acts of kindness are never small.

Life saving happens in everyday, ordinary ways. Sometimes what has saved my life has been something the other person will never remember or know. The Christmas cards from the elementary schoolers sent to the homeless shelter I lived at. The partners and friends who sat with me until I was safe on my own. My friends who held my hand as my heart beat dangerously fast, their presence being all I could feel, replacing the tightness in my chest. My cat cuddling me, purring until she snores. Strangers holding doors, strangers carrying my groceries, strangers checking on me. The dozens of items from my Amazon wishlists that have kept me alive.

I wish I could say how thankful I am to the community that’s kept me alive. How every time they’ve called me a hero, it’s because they made me possible. That they’re a hero just as much as I am.

I read ‘Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (And The Next)’ by Dean Spade recently. In it, Dean describes “leader-less and leader-full” movements. It’s exactly what we need in the world. Hero-less and hero-full communities. We don’t need a select few— we need communities and societies structured around giving care. We need it to be standard, not extraordinary.

Personal responsibility can lead to community responsibility. We could have thriving, beautiful communities where we all care for each other so fully that no one single person is a savior, because we are all uplifted equitably.

I urge everyone I know to be more like the heroes they uplift. To think about what values they hold in high regard in others and to apply them to their own actions. To be what they already are, and acknowledge it.

You’re included.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Robert F. Graboyes

Published: May 9, 2023

There’s a move afoot to replace America’s aspirational goal of equality (equal opportunity and equality under the law) with “equity” (equal outcomes designed and implemented by elite experts). A sprawling industry has arisen to spread the gospel of equity across American life. Its catechism has been greatly assisted by an internet-wide burst of colorful little visual parables, all purporting to show the difference between the sins of equality and the blessings of equity. Google “equity,” and your screen will explode with cartoons involving baseball games, apple orchards, blackboards, bike races, street crossings, bookshelves, and more. All of these myriad representations share one identical message.

A web page at the George Washington University’s School of Public Health uses an apple tree metaphor whose lesson seems to be that if you don’t have the sense to move your ladder to the side where the apples are, it’s “inequitable” and someone should install scaffolding and cables to bend the tree toward wherever you stuck your ladder. The website then conjures up a “Magic Benefactor” to explain equality and equity. It’s magic because deserving people are “given” and “allocated” resources, apparently without anyone else required to give up those resources:

“Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.” 

As anyone with a knowledge of history and political philosophy knows, a sizable number of countries spent much of the 20th century trying to allocate the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach equal outcomes. The results were far less than equitable. However, as any Swiss banker can tell you, the rulers of these countries did accumulate considerable equity while impoverishing their countries.

Equity folks have another visual homily, the Stadium & Fence meme, that is brilliantly clever. It’s simple, intuitive, and heartwarming. It is also naïve, misleading, and hubristic. Let’s explore this meme and nine ways in which it fails.

The Basic Stadium & Fence Meme

Three people—Mr. Tall, Ms. Medium, and Mr. Short are all trying to watch a baseball game over a fence. On the left, we see the odious world of equality. Mr. Tall has a clear view. Ms. Medium can barely see the field over the fence. Mr. Short cannot see over the fence at all. On the right, in the putatively just world of equity, some Magic Benefactor has allocated a small pedestal to Ms. Medium and a large pedestal to Mr. Short so all three now have equally clear views of the game. To put it another way, “To each according to his needs.”

Problem #1: “Inequality” is labeled “Equality.”

The left-hand picture doesn’t represent “equality.” An egalitarian would say that the left-hand picture represents inequality—an unfortunate but universal aspect of the human condition. The right-hand picture represents equality—a condition to which an egalitarian aspires, fully cognizant that it will never be fully realized. Bad luck, injustice, one’s starting point in life, and one’s own personal choices inevitably lead to some measure of inequality. Siblings of equal intelligence, from the same household, with identical opportunities often end up in vastly different levels of well-being. The Magic Benefactor can allocate all the resources it wants to Fredo, but he’s never going to be Michael.

Problem #2: The meme assumes an omniscient, omnipotent planner.

With the Magic Benefactor, individuals are helpless, passive beings, devoid of agency. Under equality, an individual is “given” resources and opportunities. Under equity, some unspecified being “allocates” resources and opportunities. In fact, these unnamed allocators are so perceptive and so powerful that they can allocate “the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.” This is no Book of Job or Leibniz theodicy problem—where bad things happen to good people. Rather, it is Candide, where Dr. Pangloss always proclaims this to be the best of all possible worlds.

Problem #3: Redistribution can fail or make things worse.

The past century was littered with redistributive schemes designed to achieve equality of outcomes and which ended in failures. There are monstrous cases, like China’s Cultural Revolution. But also benign cases, like America’s well-intended, but frustratingly ineffective War on Poverty. Central planning (i.e., allocating “the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome”) has a remarkable history of ineffectiveness and counterproductivity—where sincere effort to improve the lot of those at the bottom ensnares them in a poverty trap.

Problem #4: Maybe the tall guy sinks or leaves.

The Stadium & Fence and the Magic Benefactor ignore the fact that with redistribution, the reallocated resources come not like manna from Heaven, but rather from the pockets of living, breathing humans. A more realistic version of this metaphor would show Mr. Tall sinking as Ms. Medium and Mr. Short rise. Or perhaps Mr. Tall just packs up and moves away—leaving no one to pay for the pedestals for Ms. Medium and Mr. Short. This is known in governance as “eroding the tax base” and in folklore as “killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.” In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson’s top economic advisor, Arthur Okun, explained this phenomenon beautifully in terms of a leaky bucket.

Problem #5: Maybe those in charge have their own bigotries.

Unlike expert allocators in the Stadium & Fence and the Magic Benefactor, people in charge of real-world redistribution programs are not saintly, unbiased individuals. They come with their own collections of bigotries and deficits of introspection, all reflected in the policies they impose on others. You are disadvantaged only if the elite experts declare that you are disadvantaged. In recent years, for example, Asian-Americans, who suffered terrible discrimination over the course of U.S. history, have been declared by equity “experts” to be “white-adjacent” and, hence, on the losing side of redistribution programs. This reclassification is entirely arbitrary. Coincidentally, the apartheid regime in South Africa implemented a nearly identical redefinition of Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese people as “honorary whites”—for entirely cynical reasons.

Problem #6: Maybe the privileged experts in charge just use equity as a pretext to seize more privilege.

One of the more intriguing aspects of the equity agenda is that its proponents effectively say, “Governments, corporations, and educational institutions are hellholes of bigotry and discrimination—so let’s empower governments, corporations, and educational institutions to redistribute resources.” This is popularly known as, “Asking the fox to guard the chicken coop.” It is informative to note the rapidly rising salaries and numbers of equity experts employed by governments, corporations, and educational institutions.

Problem #7: Redistribution focuses on group averages, not individuals.

The Stadium & Fence and Magic Benefactor are both stated in terms of individuals, whereas, in reality, policies are applied to broad demographic groups. In this picture, the Talls are taller on average��than the Mediums, who are taller on average than the Shorts. But there wide ranges within each category. Equity policies do not aspire to equalize individuals, but, rather, to equalize group averages. So, for example, when the pedestals are “given/allocated” to the Mediums and Shorts, the shortest member of each group, Talls, Mediums, and Shorts, is still unable to see over the fence, whereas the tallest member of the Shorts—who already had a good view of the game—now has an even better view of the game.

Problem #8: Maybe the problem is the fence, not the people.

The Stadium & Fence meme never bothers to ask how the obstructive fence got there in the first place. A likely explanation is that the fence was erected by the very people with whom equity experts are entrusting with the task of reallocating resources. Access to healthcare, for example, is often impeded by government regulations that limit the number of doctors, that arbitrarily limit the scope of practice of nurse practitioners, that require hospitals to beg for permission to build new neonatal intensive care units—and enrich established insiders. Rather than obsessing over group averages on health, income, education, etc., perhaps the better approach is to rip down the obstacles that self-interested or misinformed bureaucrats and politicians and others have imposed on others.

Problem #9: Maybe the whole fence analogy is deceptive and elitist.

Finally, few, if any, have asked an obvious question that the Stadium & Fence metaphor begs: ”Why are we obsessing over equalizing viewing by three people trying to watch the game from outside the stadium?” There are two possible reasons why these three are where they are, struggling with the fence, rather than enjoying hot dogs in the bleachers with tens of thousands of other people. First, they may be victims of discrimination—excluded somehow from the stadium. If that’s the case, then equity experts are effectively saying, “It’s fine that these three can’t come into the stadium and sit next to us, but let’s make sure these second-class citizens all get the exact same inferior view of the game from the other side of the fence.” Second, perhaps these three are fully capable of buying tickets to the game but choose, instead, to peer over the fence for free. In which, case, why should anyone worry about how well any of them can steal a view of the game?

==

Unequal outcomes are not inherently unfair.

If the over-the-fence is a medical license, and height is ability to meet the requirements, then those who can't reach the top of the fence shouldn't get to see over it.

If the over-the-fence is entry to Harvard and height is test scores, then those who can't reach the top of the fence shouldn't get into Harvard. And yet, that's exactly what happened.

[warwickroyals]

🖋️AUTHOR'S NOTES

READ THE POST + RELEVANT STORY POSTS: PHILLIP

For the first time, we're seeing how Phillip and Jean's relationship is being received by the royal family: Not Well. Phillip had the good sense to prevent Jean from becoming mixed up with the royal family because they correctly predicted that they wouldn't approve of her. We the readers know the positive impact Jean has had on Phillip's life, but the rest of his family are unaware of that and have jumped to many conclusions just based on their prejudices. There's some dialogue spoken by Princess Mary (Louis's cousin) that I cut because it was pretty on the nose, but it involved Mary caring more about Jean's well-publicized thirst traps rather than her being Asian. "I didn't even know she was Asian until the media reported on it," Mary says, an assertion so laughable that even Shelby is confused by it. I cut these lines out because, on top of being blatant, they add nothing. The lines that really matter aren't part of an unhinged sexist rant. In particular, it's this line right here:

"Not everyone is meant to be a princess."

Yes, that's true not everyone is meant to be a princess, and it's the exclusivity that causes these toxic beliefs to come out. In order to become a princess all Jean would have to do is marry Phillip, nothing about her character would prevent her from that rank. However, those already within the system have a lot today about her character regardless. It's almost as if royalty is an inequitable system at its core and those with power will do anything to maintain that inequity so as to keep themselves superior.

This calls to Shelby in particular who, unlike the old blood princesses, has no coherent reason that explains her dislike of Jean. Jean is both uninteresting enough for her to not warrant any media attention, but at the same time is a homewrecking monster destroying the royal family and preventing Phillip from being a good father. It makes no fucking sense.

Below is a screenshot I really wish I could have included, but it's still canon. Shelby's lack of compassion hasn't had an effect on Imogen, it seems. While Shelby seeks to exclude outsiders, here's her six-year-old daughter openly spending time with Margaux, an outsider from birth, blissfully unaware of her mother's illogical prejudice.

READ THE POST + RELEVANT STORY POSTS: NICHOLAS, SCHUYLER, SCHUYLER II

I've stated before that I want to get into the power behind the crown: the palace staff. The staff are the people who really get things done within the royal family. They control how the media reports on the family, government affairs, and liaise with external stakeholders and potential business partners. Obviously, this comes with a lot of power, but on top of this, certain members of staff are not above manipulating their relationships with their bosses in order to get what they want.

Enter Jennifer Ware, Nicholas's shrewd communications secretary. Jennifer and Nicholas have a shared interest in the sense that they're not all that fond of Alex. Both believe he's a huge liability that compromises the monarchy's image. Here we're seeing them work together to control the narrative surrounding Alex. Nicholas relies on Jennifer to get his side of the story out in the press, and Jennifer is happy to oblige as if it further alienates Alex from the main fold.

However, I think there are some underlying tensions there. Nicholas has previously rejected offers to brief the press about family members, mainly Louis, in the past. With Alex however, Nicholas seems to throw away all his standards and seems almost guilty as a result. He insults the quality of the article and states several times that no one will believe it. Jennifer's the one who has to twist his arm a little to insure him "Truth is subjective".

Translation? "If I push this lie hard enough, people will believe it regardless." And, boy, is Jen pushing this story. We're introduced to Nasty Women a talk show meant be a spoof of The View and L0ose Women. Here we see one of the hosts, Blainley, parroting Jennifer's spin on things in a far more aggressive manner. Blainley will become a recurring character and she serves as an example of the corruption that flourishes when the media sells out to these huge institutions. The more we see of her, the more galvanized she becomes.

Poor Tatiana, I'd like to imagine she was trying to take her mind off things by watching one of her favourite talk shows during a painful dress fitting (she is Nasty Woman's main demographic, after all). Instead, she's treated to the hosts shit-talking her child. She was probably so preoccupied, she didn't even hear the insults coming from her dressmakers. Palace staff at Chester Palace are a little too comfortable, it seems.

READ THE POST + RELEVANT STORY POSTS: TATIANA, SCHUYLER, TATIANA

Ah, devoted mother Tatiana, how I'm going to love deconstructing your character. We've seen Tatiana's grief be self-sacrificing and, let's be honest, slightly annoying. Now we're actually getting into the negative side-effects of her being so damn lonely all the time: her affair with her private secretary. Suddenly it makes sense as to why Schuyler hasn't resigned from his position. We also get glimpses of Schuyler's personal life, he has a single daughter who 1) lives away from home despite being quite young and 2) doesn't get along with him very much. We also get glimpses into just how close the Schuyler family is with the Danforths:

"Saoirse likes me. I’ve been giving her hand-me-downs since she was fifteen."

There are several reasons that Tatiana is having an affair with Schuyler in particular, most of them emotional, but the main one being more calculating. Schuyler's position allows him a great deal of power and Tatiana's closeness to him allows her to easily sway him into doing things. We see that at the end of this post, she's getting Schuyler to do her dirty work and "handle" the mess that is Alex's personal life. She's very good at it, she calls him "David" (the first time we've heard Sky's given name) and lays it on thick for him without coming off desperate (which, is what most people see her as). That's a pretty big dick move from Tatiana, considering Jennifer explicitly told her not to get involved. Maybe there is a little bit of defiance in her after all? She did promise to help Kamryn out.

Plus, I love the location of NYC (Putting the Empire State Building in the background such a fun little detail). I'd like to imagine that Tatiana and Schuyler don't actually "see" each other that much, but when they do it's never on Sunderlandian soil. Schuyler in particular seems paranoid about the press finding out and why shouldn't he? Between the two he's the married party.

Also, Tatiana genuinely isn't an alcoholic. But she loves her Merlot.

[deulleya]

"people don't seem like people."

the twelfth instalment of my musical translation series — a gathering of scholars, in an inequitable world, and the political conflicts that ensue.

the videos are not mine, but all translations are my own.

musical: deungdeunggok (등등곡) (登登曲)

cast: [kim yeongwoon] kim jaebeom, yoo seunghyun, kim zychul • [choi yoon] kim bada, jeong jaehwan, ahn jeehwan • [cho] kang chan, park junhwi, kim seohwan • [jeong jinmyeong] park sunyeong, kim kyungrok • [yi gyeongshin] hwang doohyun, lim taehyun

synopsis: 1591, joseon. in the capital city of hanyang, young scholars gather unbeknownst to others. wearing strange masks, they begin a pastime of song and dance, termed deungdeunggok. "people are not people. since there is no meaning after death, let us play while we live!" and so the four noblemen's sons and one serf play, each of them concealing secrets and ambitions that may soon fracture them along political factions...

production: ninestory (twitter / youtube)

- ☽ -

- ☽ -

등등곡 (登登曲) – deungdeunggok

yoo seunghyun as kim yeongwoon, jeong jaehwan as choi yoon, park junhwi as cho, kim kyungrok as jeong jinmyeong, lim taehyun as yi gyeongshin

[Jeong Jinmyeong] Today, too, you’ve worked hard acting like scholars!

[Yi Gyeongshin] Commence the scene! The eodukshini has arrived

[Cho] Open the gates! The revered ghosts have come

[Choi Yoon] Lay down your lives! The phantoms are watching

[Kim Yeongwoon] Play the music! The dokkaebi are dancing

[All] People don’t seem like people People don’t seem like people People don’t seem like people

[GS] Once you’re dead, what use is it all!

[JM] While you’re alive, enjoy it to the fullest!

[GS] Commence the scene! The eodukshini has arrived [C] Open the gates! The revered ghosts have come [Y] Lay down your lives! The phantoms are watching [YW] Play the music! The dokkaebi are dancing

[GS] Dance, with excitement [C] Sing, till your throat rips [Y] Eat, till your stomach bursts [JM] Get drunk on wine [YW] Till you die

[GS] Dance, with excitement [C] Sing, till your throat rips [Y] Eat, till your stomach bursts [JM] Get drunk on wine [YW] Till you die

[All] A reign of peace, a reign of peace Peace in the world, peace in the world

People don’t seem like people People don’t seem like people People don’t seem like people

[YW] Once you’re dead, what use is it all Enjoy it now!

[ in korean folklore, the eodukshini is a spectre that dwells in the darkness and grows larger when perceived. the dokkaebi is a goblin-like ghoul that enjoys both tricking and helping humans. ]

- ☽ -

- ☽ -

그런 세상 – a world like that

jeong jaehwan as choi yoon, kim seohwan as cho

[Choi Yoon] A world without sorrowful acts, or sorrowful ones A world without wrongful acts, or wronged ones Where anyone can laugh and chatter And dance and sing to their heart’s content A world like that; if such a world comes If it could truly change Could we live in such a world?

[Cho] In such a world Where a son can call his mother’s name aloud In such a world Where one can live on, not hating one’s father, but loving him without holding back

[C (Y)] Like that (like that) Freely (freely)

[Y/C] A world like that A vast world that embraces all its people Such a world, that we dream of together

[Choi Yoon] That is the path toward your convictions. Do not apologise, and till the very end, do not falter. …Let us meet again on a better day.

[Choi Yoon] A world without forlorn acts, or forlorn ones A world without woeful acts, or woeful ones Where anyone can laugh and chatter And dance and sing to their heart’s content

[Y/C] A world like that; if such a world comes

[Cho] Could we become friends, then?

[Choi Yoon] I shall live, simply, without holding back

[Cho] If such a world comes

[Y] A world that we wish for [C] That we wish for

[Y/C] A world like that

[ original korean lyrics here. ]

- ☽ -

- ☽ -

그래도 가겠다 – even so, i will go

kim jaebeom as kim yeongwoon, jeong jaehwan as choi yoon, kang chan as cho

[Kim Yeongwoon] The night deepens, and the path is erased The wind stops, and the cloud halts in its tracks What was I hoping for, that I came all the way here? In this darkness, I wander, lost

[Choi Yoon] I held fast to my will, but the path disappeared I harboured a dream, but I stood facing a wall Was what I hoped for all an illusion? Within this darkness, I am trapped

[YW] I cannot see, even an inch ahead

[Y] I cannot go, even a step forward

[YW, Y] A world in which we are born as people Then live and die as people Can I not go to such a world?

[Cho] Even so, I will go I will go to you Even if this fate has already diverged Even if this fate’s end is already set in stone Ah, I will go to you For you are someone who came to me I will go to you

[YW] Even if I cannot see

[Y] Even if I cannot go

[All] Even if there is no path I will go where my will leads me A world in which we are born as people Then live and die as people Towards such a world, I

[YW / Y / C] Even so, I will go Till the end / To tomorrow / I will go to you

[YW] Even if this fate has already diverged Even if this fate’s end is already set in stone

[YW / Y / C] Till the end / To tomorrow / I will go to you

[All] For it is a destiny that came to me I will go

I will go, through this darkness Putting my all on the line Even so, I will go

[ jeong jaehwan focus cam here, kim jaebeom focus cam here ]

- ☽ -

- ☽ -

영운 (嶺雲) – yeongwoon

yoo seunghyun as kim yeongwoon

That cloud, above the mountain ridges, which embroidered the midday The sun sets; to where is it bound? It seems that cloud, which embraced the azure skies Failed to rise fully above the sky

Is this Heaven’s will? A purpose unable to be fulfilled? Perhaps the destiny bestowed upon me Is a forlorn, preordained fate Had it been an ending written in stone?

Come, cloud, rise above the skies Rise further, rise beyond the skies The pledge I swore, to establish A world where all stand beneath the sky And all are equal

Come, cloud, rise above the skies Rise further, rise beyond the skies Come, unfurl a new sky And unfold a new era I bury this vow in my chest So that I may remember it in my next life Shame on you! I shall watch what will become of you

With these hands, I opened this chapter And so, with these hands, I shall close it

[ kim zychul's version here, studio version here. ninestory please give us kim jaebeom's version too ]