#it’s just still a capitalistic business model

[mrmanbat]

So I keep on seeing these head cannons that WE would have amazing benefits and extended maternal leave, ext. And headcanons are fine and all but- it’s important to me that you realise Bruce doesn’t have that power.

If he did have that power then yeah- I can totally get behind that idea. It’s just that… he’s the face of the company. He’s the ceo.

There are other shareholders. And while yes, Bruce owns a gigantic percentage of WE and absolutely has the most sway out of anyone there… he still needs to not drive that business into bankruptcy?

That’s just my two-cents in the end it’s just a comic and he’s a philanthropist ether way. 

[autolenaphilia]

It's funny how clearly uninformed a lot of criticism of Mozilla and its browser Firefox is. Like people say "it's just another corporation, out to make profit, just like Google." And that ordinary users promoting Firefox are just giving them free advertising.

It's in basically any post criticizing Mozilla, including on this site. Like using tumblr search I quickly found a post that was largely positive, but argued that Mozilla operates "under capitalist incentives" And outside tumblr I found a blog post out on the interwebs that criticized Mozilla and outright wondered "I don't know if Mozilla's business model ever made sense, it makes a lot more sense if it's something closer to a nonprofit rather than a commercial entity."

Well, let's research the Mozilla Corporation, see what that business model actually is. Let's begin that research by going to the wikipedia article, and read the two introductory paragraphs. And it turns out that it's "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation", which is a non-profit.

"The Mozilla Foundation will ultimately control the activities of the Mozilla Corporation and will retain its 100 percent ownership of the new subsidiary. Any profits made by the Mozilla Corporation will be invested back into the Mozilla project. There will be no shareholders, no stock options will be issued and no dividends will be paid. The Mozilla Corporation will not be floating on the stock market and it will be impossible for any company to take over or buy a stake in the subsidiary."

Turns out that it is not just "closer to a non-profit", it is literally a non-profit. Turns out you only needed two paragraphs on wikipedia to learn that, the most basic online research possible, which basically every post I found criticizing Mozilla failed to do.

This is entirely different from any other entity calling itself corporation, which is all about creating profit or money for its shareholders, the "capitalist incentives" spoken about earlier.

If you read further into that article, you will learn that the Mozilla corporation literally only exists separate from the foundation for tax and legal purposes, but it's still a non-profit operation.

This makes it reasonably immune from the enshittification process I've written about before. there is no incentive to fuck over the experience for end users for the sake of shareholder profits, like what tumblr is doing right now.

It means that Firefox is an exemption to the rule that "if something is free, you are the product", because there is no product to produce profits for shareholders, it's a charitable endeavour for a free and open internet, as laid out in the Mozilla manifesto.

This doesn't mean non-profits make corruption impossible, there is plenty of corruption in non-profit foundations. But unlike actual capitalist corporations, it doesn't have the greed and corruption built in. And if you are going to criticize Mozilla and Firefox, which it does sometimes deserve, you should have your basic facts straight before doing so, if you expect me to take you seriously.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How to shatter the class solidarity of the ruling class

I'm touring my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me WEDNESDAY (Apr 11) at UCLA, then Chicago (Apr 17), Torino (Apr 21) Marin County (Apr 27), Winnipeg (May 2), Calgary (May 3), Vancouver (May 4), and beyond!

Audre Lorde counsels us that "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House," while MLK said "the law cannot make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me." Somewhere between replacing the system and using the system lies a pragmatic – if easily derailed – course.

Lorde is telling us that a rotten system can't be redeemed by using its own chosen reform mechanisms. King's telling us that unless we live, we can't fight – so anything within the system that makes it easier for your comrades to fight on can hasten the end of the system.

Take the problems of journalism. One old model of journalism funding involved wealthy newspaper families profiting handsomely by selling local appliance store owners the right to reach the townspeople who wanted to read sports-scores. These families expressed their patrician love of their town by peeling off some of those profits to pay reporters to sit through municipal council meetings or even travel overseas and get shot at.

In retrospect, this wasn't ever going to be a stable arrangement. It relied on both the inconstant generosity of newspaper barons and the absence of a superior way to show washing-machine ads to people who might want to buy washing machines. Neither of these were good long-term bets. Not only were newspaper barons easily distracted from their sense of patrician duty (especially when their own power was called into question), but there were lots of better ways to connect buyers and sellers lurking in potentia.

All of this was grossly exacerbated by tech monopolies. Tech barons aren't smarter or more evil than newspaper barons, but they have better tools, and so now they take 51 cents out of every ad dollar and 30 cents out of ever subscriber dollar and they refuse to deliver the news to users who explicitly requested it, unless the news company pays them a bribe to "boost" their posts:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/saving-news-big-tech

The news is important, and people sign up to make, digest, and discuss the news for many non-economic reasons, which means that the news continues to struggle along, despite all the economic impediments and the vulture capitalists and tech monopolists who fight one another for which one will get to take the biggest bite out of the press. We've got outstanding nonprofit news outlets like Propublica, journalist-owned outlets like 404 Media, and crowdfunded reporters like Molly White (and winner-take-all outlets like the New York Times).

But as Hamilton Nolan points out, "that pot of money…is only large enough to produce a small fraction of the journalism that was being produced in past generations":

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/what-will-replace-advertising-revenue

For Nolan, "public funding of journalism is the only way to fix this…If we accept that journalism is not just a business or a form of entertainment but a public good, then funding it with public money makes perfect sense":

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/public-funding-of-journalism-is-the

Having grown up in Canada – under the CBC – and then lived for a quarter of my life in the UK – under the BBC – I am very enthusiastic about Nolan's solution. There are obvious problems with publicly funded journalism, like the politicization of news coverage:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jan/24/panel-approving-richard-sharp-as-bbc-chair-included-tory-party-donor

And the transformation of the funding into a cheap political football:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-defund-cbc-change-law-1.6810434

But the worst version of those problems is still better than the best version of the private-equity-funded model of news production.

But Nolan notes the emergence of a new form of hedge fund news, one that is awfully promising, and also terribly fraught: Hunterbrook Media, an investigative news outlet owned by short-sellers who pay journalists to research and publish damning reports on companies they hold a short position on:

https://hntrbrk.com/

For those of you who are blissfully distant from the machinations of the financial markets, "short selling" is a wager that a company's stock price will go down. A gambler who takes a short position on a company's stock can make a lot of money if the company stumbles or fails altogether (but if the company does well, the short can suffer literally unlimited losses).

Shorts have historically paid analysts to dig into companies and uncover the sins hidden on their balance-sheets, but as Matt Levine points out, journalists work for a fraction of the price of analysts and are at least as good at uncovering dirt as MBAs are:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-04-02/a-hedge-fund-that-s-also-a-newspaper

What's more, shorts who discover dirt on a company still need to convince journalists to publicize their findings and trigger the sell-off that makes their short position pay off. Shorts who own a muckraking journalistic operation can skip this step: they are the journalists.

There's a way in which this is sheer genius. Well-funded shorts who don't care about the news per se can still be motivated into funding freely available, high-quality investigative journalism about corporate malfeasance (notoriously, one of the least attractive forms of journalism for advertisers). They can pay journalists top dollar – even bid against each other for the most talented journalists – and supply them with all the tools they need to ply their trade. A short won't ever try the kind of bullshit the owners of Vice pulled, paying themselves millions while their journalists lose access to Lexisnexis or the PACER database:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/24/anti-posse/#when-you-absolutely-positively-dont-give-a-solitary-single-fuck

The shorts whose journalists are best equipped stand to make the most money. What's not to like?

Well, the issue here is whether the ruling class's sense of solidarity is stronger than its greed. The wealthy have historically oscillated between real solidarity (think of the ultrawealthy lobbying to support bipartisan votes for tax cuts and bailouts) and "war of all against all" (as when wealthy colonizers dragged their countries into WWI after the supply of countries to steal ran out).

After all, the reason companies engage in the scams that shorts reveal is that they are profitable. "Behind every great fortune is a great crime," and that's just great. You don't win the game when you get into heaven, you win it when you get into the Forbes Rich List.

Take monopolies: investors like the upside of backing an upstart company that gobbles up some staid industry's margins – Amazon vs publishing, say, or Uber vs taxis. But while there's a lot of upside in that move, there's also a lot of risk: most companies that set out to "disrupt" an industry sink, taking their investors' capital down with them.

Contrast that with monopolies: backing a company that merges with its rivals and buys every small company that might someday grow large is a sure thing. Shriven of "wasteful competition," a company can lower quality, raise prices, capture its regulators, screw its workers and suppliers and laugh all the way to Davos. A big enough company can ignore the complaints of those workers, customers and regulators. They're not just too big to fail. They're not just too big to jail. They're too big to care:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

Would-be monopolists are stuck in a high-stakes Prisoner's Dilemma. If they cooperate, they can screw over everyone else and get unimaginably rich. But if one party defects, they can raid the monopolist's margins, short its stock, and snitch to its regulators.

It's true that there's a clear incentive for hedge-fund managers to fund investigative journalism into other hedge-fund managers' portfolio companies. But it would be even more profitable for both of those hedgies to join forces and collude to screw the rest of us over. So long as they mistrust each other, we might see some benefit from that adversarial relationship. But the point of the 0.1% is that there aren't very many of them. The Aspen Institute can rent a hall that will hold an appreciable fraction of that crowd. They buy their private jets and bespoke suits and powdered rhino horn from the same exclusive sellers. Their kids go to the same elite schools. They know each other, and they have every opportunity to get drunk together at a charity ball or a society wedding and cook up a plan to join forces.

This is the problem at the core of "mechanism design" grounded in "rational self-interest." If you try to create a system where people do the right thing because they're selfish assholes, you normalize being a selfish asshole. Eventually, the selfish assholes form a cozy little League of Selfish Assholes and turn on the rest of us.

Appeals to morality don't work on unethical people, but appeals to immorality crowds out ethics. Take the ancient split between "free software" (software that is designed to maximize the freedom of the people who use it) and "open source software" (identical to free software, but promoted as a better way to make robust code through transparency and peer review).

Over the years, open source – an appeal to your own selfish need for better code – triumphed over free software, and its appeal to the ethics of a world of "software freedom." But it turns out that while the difference between "open" and "free" was once mere semantics, it's fully possible to decouple the two. Today, we have lots of "open source": you can see the code that Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook uses, and even contribute your labor to it for free. But you can't actually decide how the software you write works, because it all takes a loop through Google, Microsoft, Apple or Facebook's servers, and only those trillion-dollar tech monopolists have the software freedom to determine how those servers work:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/05/04/which-side-are-you-on/#tivoization-and-beyond

That's ruling class solidarity. The Big Tech firms have hidden a myriad of sins beneath their bafflegab and balance-sheets. These (as yet) undiscovered scams constitute a "bezzle," which JK Galbraith defined as "the magic interval when a confidence trickster knows he has the money he has appropriated but the victim does not yet understand that he has lost it."

The purpose of Hunterbrook is to discover and destroy bezzles, hastening the moment of realization that the wealth we all feel in a world of seemingly orderly technology is really an illusion. Hunterbrook certainly has its pick of bezzles to choose from, because we are living in a Golden Age of the Bezzle.

Which is why I titled my new novel The Bezzle. It's a tale of high-tech finance scams, starring my two-fisted forensic accountant Marty Hench, and in this volume, Hench is called upon to unwind a predatory prison-tech scam that victimizes the most vulnerable people in America – our army of prisoners – and their families:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865878/thebezzle

The scheme I fictionalize in The Bezzle is very real. Prison-tech monopolists like Securus and Viapath bribe prison officials to abolish calls, in-person visits, mail and parcels, then they supply prisoners with "free" tablets where they pay hugely inflated rates to receive mail, speak to their families, and access ebooks, distance education and other electronic media:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/02/captive-customers/#guillotine-watch

But a group of activists have cornered these high-tech predators, run them to ground and driven them to the brink of extinction, and they've done it using "the master's tools" – with appeals to regulators and the finance sector itself.

Writing for The Appeal, Dana Floberg and Morgan Duckett describe the campaign they waged with Worth Rises to bankrupt the prison-tech sector:

https://theappeal.org/securus-bankruptcy-prison-telecom-industry/

Here's the headline figure: Securus is $1.8 billion in debt, and it has eight months to find a financier or it will go bust. What's more, all the creditors it might reasonably approach have rejected its overtures, and its bonds have been downrated to junk status. It's a dead duck.

Even better is how this happened. Securus's debt problems started with its acquisition, a leveraged buyout by Platinum Equity, who borrowed heavily against the firm and then looted it with bogus "management fees" that meant that the debt continued to grow, despite Securus's $700m in annual revenue from America's prisoners. Platinum was just the last in a long line of PE companies that loaded up Securus with debt and merged it with its competitors, who were also mortgaged to make profits for other private equity funds.

For years, Securus and Platinum were able to service their debt and roll it over when it came due. But after Worth Rises got NYC to pass a law making jail calls free, creditors started to back away from Securus. It's one thing for Securus to charge $18 for a local call from a prison when it's splitting the money with the city jail system. But when that $18 needs to be paid by the city, they're going to demand much lower prices. To make things worse for Securus, prison reformers got similar laws passed in San Francisco and in Connecticut.

Securus tried to outrun its problems by gobbling up one of its major rivals, Icsolutions, but Worth Rises and its coalition convinced regulators at the FCC to block the merger. Securus abandoned the deal:

https://worthrises.org/blogpost/securusmerger

Then, Worth Rises targeted Platinum Equity, going after the pension funds and other investors whose capital Platinum used to keep Securus going. The massive negative press campaign led to eight-figure disinvestments:

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-05/la-fi-tom-gores-securus-prison-phone-mass-incarceration

Now, Securus's debt became "distressed," trading at $0.47 on the dollar. A brief, covid-fueled reprieve gave Securus a temporary lifeline, as prisoners' families were barred from in-person visits and had to pay Securus's rates to talk to their incarcerated loved ones. But after lockdown, Securus's troubles picked up right where they left off.

They targeted Platinum's founder, Tom Gores, who papered over his bloody fortune by styling himself as a philanthropist and sports-team owner. After a campaign by Worth Rises and Color of Change, Gores was kicked off the Los Angeles County Museum of Art board. When Gores tried to flip Securus to a SPAC – the same scam Trump pulled with Truth Social – the negative publicity about Securus's unsound morals and financials killed the deal:

https://twitter.com/WorthRises/status/1578034977828384769

Meanwhile, more states and cities are making prisoners' communications free, further worsening Securus's finances:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/14/minnesota-nice/#shitty-technology-adoption-curve

Congress passed the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, giving the FCC the power to regulate the price of federal prisoners' communications. Securus's debt prices tumbled further:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s1541

Securus's debts were coming due: it owes $1.3b in 2024, and hundreds of millions more in 2025. Platinum has promised a $400m cash infusion, but that didn't sway S&P Global, a bond-rating agency that re-rated Securus's bonds as "CCC" (compare with "AAA"). Moody's concurred. Now, Securus is stuck selling junk-bonds:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s1541

The company's creditors have given Securus an eight-month runway to find a new lender before they force it into bankruptcy. The company's debt is trading at $0.08 on the dollar.

Securus's major competitor is Viapath (prison tech is a duopoly). Viapath is also debt-burdened and desperate, thanks to a parallel campaign by Worth Rises, and has tried all of Securus's tricks, and failed:

https://pestakeholder.org/news/american-securities-fails-to-sell-prison-telecom-company-viapath/

Viapath's debts are due next year, and if Securus tanks, no one in their right mind will give Viapath a dime. They're the walking dead.

Worth Rise's brilliant guerrilla warfare against prison-tech and its private equity backers are a master class in using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house. The finance sector isn't a friend of justice or working people, but sometimes it can be used tactically against financialization itself. To paraphrase MLK, "finance can't make a corporation love you, but it can stop a corporation from destroying you."

Yes, the ruling class finds solidarity at the most unexpected moments, and yes, it's easy for appeals to greed to institutionalize greediness. But whether it's funding unbezzling journalism through short selling, or freeing prisons by brandishing their cooked balance-sheets in the faces of bond-rating agencies, there's a lot of good we can do on the way to dismantling the system.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/08/money-talks/#bullshit-walks

Image: KMJ (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boerse_01_KMJ.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[blockgamepirate]

This is my petty complaint time, this video annoys me SO MUCH and even more so what annoys me is that the latest comment on it is this:

HE TAUGHT YOU SO MUCH BULLSHIT, PLEASE NO, DON'T LISTEN TO HIM

And yes, I've been thinking about this stream for nearly three years now, I've been meaning to go through it to critique Wilbur's arguments, I just never got around to it

Wilbur: "Tubbo, you've created an anti-state capitalist dystopia"

So all Tubbo had explained so far was that his town had a big company that owned two other big companies. Nothing about the government or anything. It's true that one company owning all the major businesses is pretty dystopian, sure, but I have no idea where Wilbur got the "anti-state" thing from, usually capitalist companies are fine with the existence of states, states do a lot of dirty work for the capitalists

Spoiler alert: Tubbo's city turns out to be pretty much a city state so Wilbur is just wrong anyway, not that he ever acknowledges it even when it does come up

Also it's not like corporate acquisitions are completely unheard of in the UK, as far as I know. Admittedly the UK is also arguably a capitalist dystopia but you know what I mean, the concept shouldn't be all that shocking to Wilbur

He's being so dramatic and trying to make it sound like he's caught Tubbo in a mistake or something. He also keeps asking questions and then not letting Tubbo answer properly before taking like one word Tubbo says and running with it

But this is the one that I find the most obnoxious:

T: "I did some research into like economics and stuff and I discovered this thing called UBI, have you heard of it?"

W: "What's it stand for?"

T: "Universal Basic Income"

W: "Yeah, I know about that"

He clearly does not know what UBI is.

It becomes very apparent very quickly:

W: "So you've got universal basic income but then also the rich exist still?"

T: "Yeah! Yeah they do."

W: "How does that come about then,"

T: "So in my mind--"

W: "is this universal basic income different for different people?"

T: "No, no, the universal basic income is better for everyone, just the people who have--"

W: "In order for there to be a 1% that means someone's earning more,"

T: "Yes, someone is earning more"

W: "but that means the universal basic income isn't universal!"

T: "No no no, not everyone's getting paid the same but everyone gets the same to begin with, okay? But then you can build on top of it."

W: "Oh no, you've got a-- Tubbo, you've got a fucking social point system!"

T: "Have I made a social point system??"

W: "Tubbo, you've made China!"

None of what Wilbur says makes ANY sense here. The only explanation I can think of is that he didn't know what UBI was, made an assumption that it just meant "everybody gets paid the same amount of money" or something like that and then just spoke fast enough that Tubbo couldn't correct him

Tubbo is correct here, Tubbo knows what he's talking about, but he can't out-speak Wilbur who is just throwing so much bullshit out of his mouth that there's no time to even respond

So, UBI means that everyone in the society gets a regular payment of a specific amount of money that's the same for everyone regardless of their life situation (and generally a requirement would be that it has to be enough to live on, altho people do like to water this down a lot...) This would be completely irrelevant to your wages or salary or capital gains. You can choose to either live on the UBI or you can just do the regular capitalist things to earn extra money on top of the UBI

Obviously I'm not one of those people who think that UBI would solve all of world's problems, I mean I am an anarchist and all (and not an ancap either), but it's literally just a very streamlined welfare system. That's all. It would probably be a lot better than the current models we have but it's not fundamentally different. There's nothing particularly weird about it, the point is just to make sure that everyone has enough money to live on, in every other regard it's just normal capitalism

Wilbur completely misunderstands the whole thing (because, again, he does not know what UBI is so he's just trying to imagine what it might mean based on what Tubbo is saying) and jumps immediately to something he apparently has heard of, which is the Chinese social credit system, which has nothing to do with UBI. In fact I'm pretty sure it also doesn't actually have anything to do with income either, or at least not directly, so I don't think Wilbur knows what the social credit system is either

He's literally just talking in buzzwords

Like if you actually wanted to make a leftist critique of Tubbo's city, you could, don't get me wrong. But instead Wilbur keeps insisting that he's made a social point system despite Tubbo trying to explain why it's not that at all

Wilbur just keeps yelling over Tubbo until his own chat turns against him and finally Tubbo himself also kinda gives up

And from there Tubbo also kinda just starts playing into the bit and just lets Wilbur direct the whole conversation, the rest of it is just them getting more and more into the roleplay. Wilbur keeps talking about the state pension plan, even though Tubbo already tried to explain that it's part of the UBI (this actually is how UBI is supposed to work, it does indeed streamline most of the welfare spending! Obviously you can still raise questions about that (I can think of a few at least) but Wilbur didn't let Tubbo explain so I have no idea what Tubbo actually had in mind)

I could try to go through all of what Wilbur says here but it's just too much, so maybe some other time. Although to be honest there are so many other streams that I probably should talk about instead that some fans unfortunately took a bit too seriously because they assumed Wilbur knew what he was talking about

My point here is mainly that just because someone sounds really confident and knows a bunch of buzzwords doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.

[justarandombrit]

Wrote all this down ages ago but forgot to post it anywhere, so here you go:

I was just thinking about how cool it'd be if every main character in TGWDLM was linked to one of the Lords In Black, and then I started properly considering it.

Pokey, Blinky and Tinky are all obvious. Paul, Bill and Ted. If you know anything about Hatchetfield lore you'll get this.

Then, I thought, “Well Nibbly doesn't really have any sort of ‘special guy’ like the others, since he just eats whoever becomes Honey Queen, without having any real attachment. I guess there's Roman Murray, but he's just a member of The Church Of The Starry Children, he's not specifically linked to Nibbly, and anyway, we're talking about TGWDLM characters.

So. Which main character of TGWDLM is most linked to Nibbly? Oh, I don't know, maybe THE ONE LITERALLY CALLED SWEETLY?!?!?!?

Yeah, I settled on Charlotte. It was mainly because of her last name, but I do think she fits Nibbly’s whole cutesy eldritch horror thing he has going on. Also pink.

That, of course, leaves one main character left for TGWDLM. Emma Perkins.

Even though this is only because I decided all the others first, I think it works pretty well. Emma, as we know, absolutely fucking despises capitalism. So, her being linked to the literal embodiment of capitalism actually makes a lot of sense.

Think how goddamn climactic it would be if Emma was the one to defeat Wiggly. Realistically speaking for the future of the series, if the Lords In Black ever do truly get defeated, it's either going to be by General MacNamara, Lex or Hannah, or, most likely, Miss Holloway or Webby, but imagine if it was Emma. Emma Perkins, who once described her business model for selling pot as “Raging against the capitalist patriarchy… in, like, a chill way. While still making tons of money”. So for Emma to ditch the “chill” part and LITERALLY FUCKING SHOOT CAPITALISM IN THE TENTACLES?!?!?!?!? That would fuck so hard

[storyteller-aprendiz]

So maybe I am wrong but I don't think you can gendered Louis & Armand, the way you do Loustat.

Because neither Louis nor Armand are really the "housewife" in the situation. In Dubai and SF is Louis' initiative and therefore his business but Armand does have an equal role on it, tho Louis is the more capitalist/investment savy, Armand is like the one to schedule talks with buyers, help fix the houses etc. It is not Armand's home, like Louis moving into Lestat's, is THEIR home, both in Dubai and SF.

And like even if the bullshit with the books (which tf) and the tree are definitely Armand, the art, the furniture even the gray are Louis' (cause he's grieving). Like for me the Dubai penthouse is like a reflection of Louis' self/soul "You are in my coffin" as much as a manifestation of Armand controlling tendencies.

I saw a post about exactly this, like how Armand & Louis relationship is a Depiction of how even in the queerest of models and types of relationships abuse can still take part if people are not willing to question the systems, dynamics or just plane different levels of power their members have.

And then we have the D/S dynamic. Kink and BDSM are already shamed upon in our heteronormative society, because they play with the power dynamics that already exist in the relationship, and they create a separte extructure through safe-words and after care and good old communication in which both member can consent to those dynamics, be safe and most important GET PLEASURE from them.

And like, Armand as the powerfull abusive partner Technically, considering our heteropatriarchal lense should be dominant, but he gladly relinquished it to Louis. Which is a role we don't expect from the patriarch of the house.

Plus all of Louis' boys, means he has a sexual freedom that is not allowed to the "housewife". Though, of course that extend of freedom is still determine/manage by Armand, but not in the sense of Louis is sexually his, ergo he can't be with x. But rather Louis might get Hurt, so I need to control him, for his sake.

Which is why Armands abuse looks more to me like care-taker abuse than like the heteropatriarcal shit Lestat does.

Which I think, is also because Armand being a racialized man with a learned helplessness ingrained to him, really can't like inhabit the same role Lestat does in a home. He will always be a step down, cause masculinity and male privilege gets further away (or like changes? I think that's a better way to put it) the more marginalization you inhabit. Which also makes a lot of men of color double down in what little power it does grant's them (sometimes going to bigger like displays of power than the subtler types of white men), which you could argue Armand also goes for/participates in with the staging of the trial.

I hope anything I wrote here makes sense. But yeah, I think that the patriarchal husband/edwardian wife comparison even if it works as a lense to analyze Loustat, it falls apart for Louis & Armand.

[thewriterowl]

I love you fics so so much. You're appreciated a lot, and we understand that you have a life and needs a break.

Take your time, your health and life is more important.

So only if you want, I would love Modern setting Mafia Din, obvious luke. I unfortunately can't find a lot of fics like this.

Thank youuuuu and have a good day

omg thank you!! This really is appreciated. Truly, it means a lot that you took time to say that. It always helps me keep working on these updates! But I also appreciate the reminder for the break; I am very bad at that lol

Modern Setting Mafia Dinluke AU

So, I have made Luke a baker (still one of my favorites) and a librarian for this AU but maybe he can be something else. Maybe a really good mechanic who does a lot of work on cars but really shines with motorcycles. He wants his own but he's currently working in a garage maybe run by Djarin's clan but it is low on the chain and has become corrupt as Pong Krell is the manager of it and is not paying Luke well (so he needs a beat up car to maybe sleep in in the future) and pocketing a lot--basically stealing from Din (not good). Krell is very arrogant and thinks he is taking enough to not cause ripples to carry up to the head of the whole clan but he is very, very wrong.

Din runs things tightly and with intense respect and fear. They do quite a bit of illegal happenings but they are a bit more anti-hero/vigilante types.

The family runs escort houses but they are actually very healthy (a little capitalistic but nothing is perfect) and no one is forced to work there. Whoever is can stop at any time and they have great health care and housing. Not to mention incredibly protected and treated with a lot of respect. Even the strip clubs are more are less legitimate and probably the cleanest and best one can find (Lando runs a BDSM house under Din). They actually take down a lot of trafficking through their work with this. He has daycares that's basically free for all who work with him. Drugs are tricky but they mostly ensure nothing tainted passes by as there is not much they can do about stopping it but you better not have anything hard around his territory. He's a "family" business, after all.

He gets his money through a lot of laundering, the escort houses, hacking, blue collar crimes where they rob the billionaires/millionaires, underground fight rings...and, ahem, a few...hits here and there. But they're very selective over who they take out.

Of course, that doesn't mean he isn't dangerous. He and his family chooses to do things through a nicer lens but he had to bury a lot of bodies to get to where he was so that whoever takes over from him wouldn't have to get their hands nearly as dirty. He will do cruel, cold, selfish things if it means he can protect those he cares about. And he won't let some greedy slug try to take more than what he's earned and cause a dent in the network he's created.

He goes when Krell isn't around, bringing in his motorcycle, maybe not removing his helmet to be safe, and Luke is on him instantly. The blond is so EXCITED to see this model and has to chat Din up about it, offering to get it all fixed for him if he wants, he'll put it back together quickly.

Din is very charmed and let's Luke have all the fun he could want as he sneaks into the office and gets all the evidence needed (the little one was very oblivious; that's no good for his own safety) and decides to just chat with this puppy.

Din and Luke probably separate a little smitten at the end.

Luke really has no idea what he's done until the next time Din comes, with his men, dressed in a (sexy as sin) suit and gets Luke in one of the super expensive, sound-proof cars as he...settles things with Krell.

Din can't spend too much time making Krell understand his mistakes.

He has a reservation after where he'll talk to Luke over some nice Italian about him moving in.

[edgyedgelord]

With Instagram suddenly diving into the AI hay wagon head first full speed I feel like people need to be reminded about something.

ofc warnings for talk about AI and AGI but this is a hopecore post because i'm tired of the fearmongering

From my own personal look into the state of things, AI is starting to look more like a scarier version of NFTs so I choose to believe it's going to fall harder than they did after this high point. NFT's died out when the markets crashed due to courts coming in and commenting on the legality issues in their economy and cryptocurrency. Once they didn't make a good enough profit anymore and the get rich quick scheme died out so did they into obscurity.

I believe AGI and AI as a whole will soon have their theft of content and data exposed to courts or some sort of more powerful folk, like what happened to NFTs after the art theft with that one artist, and we'll see the models quickly fade out and return to just being chatbot partners for the losers who live in basements and swear their ape JPEG is still relevant and profitable.

And if I'm wrong they can't legally stop us from making art nor can they stop us from making counter programs that poison their models, lil reminder that those do exist and some programs are starting to put those into their stuff so you can easily poison your art in the program. It doesn't matter how advance their models get because since the renaissance an artist's main supporter were other artist's. As long as we continue to make and do what we love to do and support one another then that's all we really need.

So, I propose a form of counter attack.

Go to your local stores and look into making a business deal with them to sell your art or offer to produce advertisement flyers, signs, whatever they need. That way you get your art out there and you're supporting other folk struggling in this capitalistic hellscape.

Using the funds you get from that, go through commission pages and support your fellow artists. If you can, try and find the younger or beginner artists to support. We often look over them and they deserve as much support and encouragement as the experts.

And of course don't forget to share around commission ads as much as you can. The only form of advertisement we get is from us reblogging each other's stuff or recommending one another to other folk.

A large reason as to why artists aren't getting support against AGI right now is because of the public eye seeing us as nothing but a bunch of nerds who draw anime all day. We need to prove that we're people with a passion in this stuff and how we're useful. We also need to speak out how most of us are neurodivergent and careers in art are what fits for us best since it plays into our interests and our skills are best equipped for this.

In summary, don't lose hope. The moment you start talking about how advanced AI is and how nobody is supporting us you're basically saying you give up and that is not how you should ever think about anything. In the theme of pride, when everyone else is against you remember that there are others like you who will continue to support and protect you no matter how long it takes for things to get better. Those who led the queer revolution didn't quit when they were being threatened or detained, they kept on leading the parades and now we have openly queer characters and people in mainstream media. Change happens, sometimes for worse, but time and time again do I see that what is right will always come back on top.

I choose to live through this artistic struggle of an era with hope that in the end human produce media with love and passion and talent will come out on top and prove it's worth over artificially generated content. Even better, I keep hope that after this obstacle for us all it will only go to show our resolve and the public eye will finally look at us with awe at the strength and determination that we have.

Art by human hand has existed since we lived in groups in caves as our first form of communication and it still is such. Stories are told through art, messages are delivered through art, and that is something a robot can never recreate no matter how much techbros want you to believe it can. We are some of the most important and strongest people to be on this planet because we are a community of people who have struggled so much that our understanding of human emotion allows us to put that into images made with ink, pencil, pixels, words, sound, voice, whatever medium you may use. We are masters at what makes us human, communication and complex thought and emotion, and that can't be taken away from us.

[shmorlock]

Arcane: Consumerism, Art, and What it Means to Create Entertainment in the Current State of The World

Yes. I wanted to write an essay about Arcane. If you don’t care, know that my short review is simply this: that was some of the coolest shit I’ve ever see.

Note there will be no spoilers. In fact, there’s very little about Arcane in this review at all, but I promise I have a point here.

…

I don’t want the world to fall apart. I really don’t. But then I look outside and I see so much of it just going to shit. And perhaps it’s the hyperbole of doomerism that gets me down, or maybe it’s the (privileged) hurt of being disappointed time and time again - or maybe it was quite simply always broken.

I used to think hope was the key to everything. But I don’t feel that way anymore.

And there’s some nights where I question where that leaves me as an artist - egotistical, I know. But let’s face the facts: art is dying, and content is its replacement. Entire business models are built on stealing your attention and filling your life with meaningless sludge that only drives you to invest in more content and more distractions until you finally don’t have any free thought left to question the cage consumerism has trapped you in. The systems of our entire world are built on consumerism, spurred by our capitalist institutions profiting off of the oppression and annihilation of others.

So welcome to being an artist. Your only path to “financial” success is to create media that is infinitely profitable. If you truly want to be a great artist, be sure to exploit the system in any ways that you can. In entertainment in particular, we highly recommend creating a cross-media franchise that can attack as many markets as possible. Then you can use those other pieces of media to help market each other in a never ending loop of content.

Oh. You did it? Shit. That’s a lot of eyes on you…

When you end up at the top of the entertainment food chain you have the option to not really care anymore about the quality of your work; quantity is all that matters.

But maybe, just maybe, you’ll remember you’re an artist, and you carry a certain responsibility to creating meaningful work…

When I was a kid I loved Bionicle. I loved Star Wars. I loved all kinds of franchises. I still do. Every franchise falls victim to becoming a never ending content machine, but deep down a small part of ourselves yearn for it to happen, because maybe a certain spark of childhood joy will reawaken in us from new material. Maybe there’s something more to be said.

I realize my own hypocrisy in calling out the problem of fanaticism towards franchises. I’m not special for doing so either. What is it that leads us to fanaticism in the first place?

See deep down, a lot of these franchises DO succeed in stirring something deep inside us, because a lot of them ARE led by true artists. Whether they’re created with greedy agendas or not doesn’t negate the fact that art continues to thrive in these spaces, albeit spaces that are shrinking as the battle against A.I. rages on now. But maybe - just maybe - real humans with real voices can shine through these cracks and show us something truly marvelous. Maybe they can show us a path towards a better future from even inside the cage.

Riot Games is a subsidiary of a multimedia conglomerate that thrives from the content machine. It is a company that has no care for you other than your wallet.

But inside that cage are hard working artists who still believe in something.

Arcane is one of the greatest pieces of media I have ever experienced. It has some of the best visual storytelling, character writing, and world building that I have ever seen. I found myself nearly teary eyed by the end of the show. It’s a masterpiece of a series that touches on just about everything, from the complexity of geopolitics and classism, to the nuances of familial love and heartbreak. Everything is intertwined not unlike life itself, and by the end, it becomes a final fight for humanity. The show’s relationship with artificial, unfeeling lifeforms is not lost upon me either.

And for so much of the shows existence, I watched it on the defense, knowing that at the end of the day it may just be nothing more than an advertisement.

But against all odds, it rises to be so much more.

League as a franchise somewhat thrives in violence and never ending conflict. With that in mind, I often viewed Arcane with a question lingering in the back of my mind: does this show *believe* in anything?

Darkness alone is not a narrative. This is a truth I believe to be the only evidence that I still hold some sense of hope for the future. Perhaps art doesn’t need to have some greater social purpose, but the best art should *believe* in something constructive.

What does Arcane believe in?

It believes in forgiveness. It believes in kindness. It believes in love. Because when there’s no hope left in the world, we find a way to keep moving on. And maybe - just maybe - that love will carry us on to that tomorrow we endlessly chase.

I hope you continue to enjoy your favorite franchise. I hope you appreciate why you fell in love with it in the first place. Because it might just help show you how to live on another day.

(small quote spoiler below)

“We build our own prisons. Bars forged of oaths, codes, commitments. Walls of self-doubt and accepted limitation. We inhabit these cells, these identities, and call them ‘us.’ I thought I could break free by eliminating those I deemed my jailors. But... I think the cycle only ends when you find the will to walk away.”

[formulatrash]

That anon acting like being a journalist in motorsport is like being an executive in a capitalist establishment. 🤡 It’s like accusing a McDonalds crew member of being pro capitalism because they work in McDonalds. Like??? As if being treated poorly and paid dirt despite working your ass off everyday is not reason enough to he a socialist. I am a socialist precisely because of my experience as a worker in these filthy corporations! Clown anon!

you're absolutely right but a very large number of people in motorsport and the media are obviously very right wing. even when it's wildly against their own interests or totally in opposition to the concept of journalism or whatever.

especially in worlds like motorsport or the car industry. a lot of people don't like actually covering things, they enjoy being there. whether that's at the Frankfurt motor show or the Miami Grand Prix. and if your goal is just being there then you're willing to work for places where you do actively bad stuff because what you make was never the goal.

that's not how it's ever worked for me and this isn't meant to sound morally superior or whatever because honestly, get what you want i guess. but for me being in paddocks or factories or literally driving cars is so that I can write better pieces and find out more. the pass is to make the media, not the pieces a bartering chip for the pass.

in retrospect, some of that is why it was often pretty lonely. because I wasn't playing the same game as quite a lot of people. and it also makes the industry all the more exploitative because people want that lanyard so much they'll do anything for it.

I was thinking the other day that there's been almost no coverage of the investigation into F1 lobbying the EU and British government on behalf of Aramco, via synthetic fuel. It's a really damning link and I'm not just saying this because I'm quoted in the article but I would absolutely be writing about it if I still had somewhere to do it. it's a really shocking scandal, that F1 is helping hold up combustion car bans by contributing (unproven) information about synthetic fuels.

it's not the kind of thing F1 like people reporting. so suddenly all the men who self-style as hard-nosed business journalists in the paddock are being awfully quiet. because it is more important to still be there.

obviously, I am not still there. I did indeed criticise FE one too many times for their liking and fell out of favour. I am not a model for holding onto your pass. but there is also no point pretending that I could have acted differently just to keep it. anyway, this all turned into a bit of a ramble but turns out there's bad people kind of everywhere and often they're holding the controls.

I think that's part of what's upset me about the Watcher thing. these are guys who deliberately set out to make their own media company so they had that control to make things they were proud of, with the production values they wanted, under their own ownership, without having to fire people all the time. and you're asking them to be more like Buzzfeed? that was the bad old days, friends.

[my-patron-saint-is-jimmy]

There are a lot of companies and people to boycott because of their support for Israel. That list gets even longer when you factor in the companies that are exploiting and oppressing the Congolese people. When I first started boycotting for Palestine, I felt it because I very rarely buy myself extras and I couldn't have a rare treat anymore.

But here's the thing.

Buy local.

You don't need to go to Starbucks or Tim Hortons or McDonald's for a coffee - there is generally always a locally owned cafe for that. If you're hungry, go to the local restaurant or food truck. If you're struggling because you can't go to McDonald's in the morning for your breakfast before work, leave a bit earlier and hit a cafe or do meal prep to make your life easier. Fuck, buying a second hand coffee maker from a local thrift store can save you time and money and most of them have a timer you can set so it'll be ready for when you wake up.

There are businesses that are really hard to avoid (like Walmart, especially for us rural folks), but there are a lot of small lifestyle changes you can make to boycott shitty corps without constantly denying yourself the things that make life worth living in this post-capitalist hellscape. Buying local is better than buying from large companies anyways and with the COVID and current economic crisis combo, most small businesses are still hurting for revenue.

Buying second hand is also a great way to avoid supporting Israel or giving a market to the exploitation in Congo. Using things until their actually fucked beyond repair is a good way too. Learn how to sew, make things from scratch, basic repairs and maintenance on important items... Finding or building a community of like-minded people is so important too because maybe you don't have the expertise or equipment to fix your fridge, but you know a guy who'll trade you fridge repairs for repairs and reinforcements on his kids' winter gear. With that trade, you no longer need a new fridge and they no longer need new winter coats or snowpants.

Especially in North America, we are very consumerist, which I think relates back to when the colonizers and immigrants first came over to find a land of such abundance when they were used to living in relative scarcity. We need to shake our consumerism for the sake of not just the exploited and occupied, but also for the environment. Corps should have never gotten so big as they have, and we can take away their ability to make massive decisions (such as lobbying govts for changes in businesses' favour and helping fund genocide) by not giving them so much power in our individual lives and funding them. By weaponizing ourselves with knowledge, community, and the desire to reject extreme consumerism, corps will need to change their business models and product catalogs to reflect our spending habits and they'll have less money to fuck us over with in the end.

[i-am-dulaman]

Okay wait now this is truly a hot take that will probably ruin my reputation as a communist and a socialist but.

I wouldn't mind if netflix and other streaming sites started showing ads

Wait I swear im going somewhere with this.

Now I'm totally against the extent to which advertising has absolutely ruined the online space, especially how much it has driven the commodification of data collection so i would NOT like to see that level of advertisement on streaming sites (i know that once you open the gates to a little advertising you get it all, but.. thats kinda a different problem).

What i wouldnt mind seeing is something equivalent to what we see on TV or in movie theatres before a film, or basically youtube. And the reason for this is that the subscription business model does not translate well into tv/film production.

The reason netflix makes so many different tv shows and then cancels them after 1 season is because they dont care about increasing viewership numbers, they only care about subscription numbers. And they've done the calculations that a new tv show brings in more subscribers than cancelling that same show loses them.

Season 2 and beyond of a tv show doesnt earn them nearly as much money as season 1, but they cost the same amount to make, and it just gets worse with each season, pretty much no matter how popular that show is with very few exceptions (stranger things). Theres a reason we dont get 10 season long tv shows anymore.

Ads would allow them to earn money from someone long after season 1 of the show they subscribed to watch, for as long as they kept making a show worth watching.

It would also allow them to make money from repeat viewings, which takes up a lot of their bandwidth, further incentivising making actual good content rather than something eye catchy to draw in new subscribers.

Its also honestly not that unreasonable when you compare them to actual tv. Streaming sites are cheaper than cable, available on demand, allows infinite repeat viewing, and is currently ad free. Compared to cable thats a pretty good deal and im a little shocked they didnt start advertising years ago. And if it lets them produce cable quality shows without an incentive to cancel them straight away, then I wouldn't mind ads.

That's all im saying really. As long as the ads actually translate to higher quality and importantly more reliable tv show production, i wouldn't mind a youtube-level of advertisements.

Now that is all being said from within our current reality of a capitalist society. i am still in favour of burning it all down 🙏

[anhed-nia]

BLOGTOBER 10/22-23/2023: SMILE (2022) and BARBARIAN (2022) - In Defense of the Tall Gangly Old Lady Monster

I've heard a lot of complaints lately (haven't we all) about the recent emergence of a new horror archetype--the tall, gangly, old lady monster--and I always get the feeling that the plaintiffs are willfully ignoring the context of this apparition. I mean sure, if you feel annoyed with the rapid proliferation of a prematurely tired cliche, that's fair; personally I'm pretty sick of scary clowns, even though some of them are still effective, if your main proposal is a scary clown then you're going to have to work harder than usual to get my attention. But vis a vis the tall scary old lady discourse, as far as I've seen, the objection is almost always the same: This monster is an expression of disdain for elderly people, and a reinforcement of the idea that women are worthy so long as they are considered sexually viable, after which point they deserve only disgust and rejection. And like there will surely be boring, misogynistic representations of this monster that are fair to roll one's eyes at, but the most visible targets of this criticism have been SMILE and BARBARIAN, and I would argue that both films are full of ambivalence and irony, and the specific morphology of the monster is thoughtful and deliberate.

I think that any time you hear a complaint that is based on the assumption that a movie is promoting real-life ideals and ethics, you need to double check that. This is the propaganda model of media analysis, and while nothing is created in a vacuum, not everything has didactic, propagandistic motivations. Certainly some movies ARE doing just that; I see quite a lot of chauvinism and bigotry in action movies, comedies, and (perhaps most of all) romantic comedies, whose content is clearly presented as aspirational. Low-hanging fruit of this kind is found in movies like SWEET HOME ALABAMA, which says that self-made independent career women are just fooling themselves and should stay home and serve whoever gets them pregnant first, or the similarly retrogressive JUNO in which a girl who gets knocked up during high school is universally worshiped and supported by everybody and truly loved by the knocker-upper and there is almost nothing really perilous or concerning about the whole situation, it's all very cute and desirable. Horror movies require a little more investigation. Sometimes the monster does embody some kind of moral mandate, or an unjust injunction against a certain demographic. Hitchcock and De Palma have been accused of transphobia, for instance, and while I don't think we should throw out their movies (which you should never have to do unless you're incapable of critical thought), the charges are fair. But other times, the monster embodies unfinished business, ambivalence, irony, insecurity. It exists not as a symbol of universal evil, but as a foil to the hero. And sometimes the hero is not a hero at all.

All of the following is extensively spoilery, so proceed with whatever caution is appropriate: Zach Cregger's BARBARIAN is a delightfully twisty, prismatic reflection on misogynistic violence and its consequences. It begins with a simple-seeming situation that prods the viewer to guess what protagonist Georgina Campbell should do about the problem of an unplanned male roommate in her Airbnb. Bill Skarsgård is sketchy and intrusive, but charming enough to create a dilemma for the savvy young woman--a dilemma which ends abruptly with the discovery of a monster in the basement. The building itself has its own polar identity: It offers appealing lodging for hip Detroit tourists in a once-desirable neighborhood devastated by racist, capitalist forces. The home's previous owner was a serial killer (the great Richard Brake!) with a penchant for forcibly breeding his female victims, and it is now the possession of Justin Long, a hot shot actor who is so poisoned by his own witless misogyny that he seems genuinely unaware of what constitutes rape. Lurking in the labyrinthine foundations of his investment property is one of Brake's victims: A tall, powerful, barely-human female who has been warped into believing that her captives are actually her babies. While BARBARIAN is willfully disorienting, and that is part of its charm, a bird's eye view shows its careful orchestration of clear spectrum of forms of abuse--from the institutional, to the constitutional, to the unconscious--alongside a polar pair of potential survivors, one final girl and one twisted victim.

Much has been made of the scene in which Justin Long is forced to suckle on the pendulous teat of the maternal morlock. The common assumption seems to be that we're supposed to share Long's disgust and pity his violation. I would question any impulse to side with Long as an innocent victim; certainly you're supposed to fear the monster, but that doesn't mean you can't share in the cathartic delight of a selfish, greedy, destructive, gentrifying rapist getting his comeuppance in the form of unwanted carnal contact with a female who shatters all of his fascist beauty standards. Yes, she is meant to be terrifying, but the all-important question is WHY, on what principle? On any close inspection, the motivation of BARBARIAN does not seem to involve reinforcing ageist, ableist, misogynistic values. And one might add that, in general, it doesn't get us very far culturally or artistically to insist that all oppressed-minority characters are always presented unambiguously as heroes or tragic victims. Sometimes we don't mind grossing you out, as long as we get our revenge.

Much like the dark mother in BARBARIAN, the monstrosity in Parker Finn's SMILE embodies the protagonist's neurotic phobias, rather than making a statement about objective good and evil. Sosie Bacon plays a therapist in an emergency psychiatric unit who makes the unfortunate acquaintance of a transient entity that perpetuates its existence by possessing the witnesses of violent suicides. As the traumatized target begins to perceive the leering entity everywhere, she descends into a self-destructive spiral that will end with her own inevitable death. Bacon makes an especially good victim because, aside from the immediate impact of the horrifying suicide she witnesses in her ward, she is haunted by the childhood memory of having passively allowed her mentally ill, substance-dependent mother to die. As an adult, Bacon has eschewed the challenge of deeper connections in favor of shallow, conditional relationships with people who will not forgive her flaws when they are exposed. The demon exploits her refusal to face herself by incarnating as a version of her mother that is at first pitiful and accusative, then powerful and terrifying. Once again, the dark mother is not here to encourage the audience's prejudices against women who are dysfunctional or physically past their supposed prime; in SMILE she is an avenging spirit who forces the protagonist, and the audience, into a direct confrontation with all that we ignore and avoid.

There is a lot more I would like to say about SMILE, and I kind of feel like I'm stealing from future me by including it in this abbreviated review! But as I have previously stated, I didn't know this was going to be a speed run of Blogtober until I was completely overwhelmed by life and it was too late to curate accordingly. To be honest, I liked BARBARIAN a lot and I think it's sort of deep in spite of itself, but SMILE scared the absolute shit out of me both times that I saw it. I probably found it even more effective the second time. It is unpredictable and beautifully articulated, with a strong visual personality that perfectly serves its psychological purposes. And like, if you happen to be a high-anxiety person with social problems who withers under too much attention or eye contact, and you have a basic daily fear that you don't really know who people are behind their er um uh smiles, THIS IS THE HORROR MOVIE FOR YOU. I got scared again just picking out images for my blog post! So, I reserve the right to revisit both of these movies on future Blogtobers. There is certainly a lot to say just about the emerging horror archetype of the giantess/ogress--other examples that immediately spring to mind include the vampire from Resident Evil: Village and the final (TERRIFYING!) monster in the original [REC], and I'm sure there are more, and I'm also pretty sure some real-deal academic will scoop me on this! Actually, I hope they do. Please holler at me when you inevitably see the relevant think piece.

[anonthefold]

Saw this on the x-bird site and it just made me think of current events on this site as well the health of games like OW with f2p models without ads. Excuse my massive morning brain fog I'm only on my 3rd cup of black coffee and 15mg of Lexapro. There are few things that make me irrationally angry and one of them is shitting on people who openly decide to support the things they love if they have the means to do so. I'm not going to link to the bird site from here because that site is just a whole bucket of fish heads.

Based. A lot of people are really out there bitching about others spending money on cosmetics for a game they support the development of because, you know, they actually like the game? Like there's this thing going on with Tumblr right now where they are struggling financially.

Tumblr is a great site to connect you with others in fandoms you like but the user base shits on every way they try to monetize the site to, y'know, keep the power on and pay people. Like the most self entitled petulant attitudes towards ANY form of monetization.

It'd be great to get something for nothing in this world but unfortunately our society is not structured for that so... Yeah. Back on topic, just because OW is part of a larger company doesn't absolve it from operational costs. General flow of business in a capitalist society:

Does the model profit? Develop it further.

Does it operate at a loss? Cut resources until it breaks even. 

Still tanking? Sell IP or liquidate or close shop. 

The Q4 P&L statement will be interesting as I think they were projecting a 10% loss from 2022.

If the cosmetics in the shop don't sell as well then the development for that business won't be the first to be pinched. That is the highest profitability model they have for the game right now. I'm afraid it will be the battle pass that goes up first.

"well, I'll just not buy the battle pass then" and that is your right to do so. However this is why I brought up Tumblr. If you find yourself using something consistently then support the creators if you have the means to.

Because if all the dominoes were to fall and suddenly the thing you enjoyed using or playing has to disappear because you're "sticking it to the man" just realize that you are the shit on the bottom of a shoe. Apply that resolve to protesting injustices or helping a community ctr

Not acting like you are entitled to everything in the world for free because it is OWED to you. 

Sorry for the rant. I honestly hate this fuck around and find out shit because I've seen it all too often happen with things I loved just ending because of piracy or *this*.

[unbossed]

Warning: This is going to ramble.

I absolutely love how much you can infer about a social order by the background “context” in its media. I’ve seen a lot of old “social guidance” and assorted industrial and sales training films in my time (thanks almost entirely to my 30+ year obsession with MST3K, I admit). At some point I started watching out for things that seemed unusual to me but which were presented as utterly unremarkable, but not such things that we are already accustomed to from the past like various prejudices and bigotries.

I’ve noticed an unmarried man in his 30′s or 40′s still living with his parents presented as nothing more than the setting for a sales manager to get advice from his retired sales manager father. I’ve noticed a grandfather, still living on the farm he’s handed over to his adult son, guiding the kids in “quality of life” activities there while their father and oldest brother are busy with the “sustainment” chores*. I’ve noticed very recent changes to the way families are expected to be structured in order to serve a capitalist social order.

I’ve mentioned it before, and I’m not likely to ever shut up about it, but the “nuclear family” is an absurd anomaly that was cultivated to increase sales of consumer goods. The fragmentation of the family into smaller entities was not the historical norm even in the places where it’s most widely endured today. Until less than a century ago multi-generational homes were typical, commonly consisting of the grandparent(s) and the family of one of their adult children. This customary arrangement arose from the agrarian origins of modern life. As I’ve mentioned before, the nuclear family was an unsustainable model before industrialization. (Personally, I think we’re seeing it proven unsustainable even now.)

In the post-WWII USA its promotion was, I believe, a campaign by capitalists to capture post-war “prosperity” by eliminating the sharing of many common household resources and coercing their purchase instead. When three generations lived under the same roof they only needed one set of household tools, for example. (I’ve also seen short films extolling the value of knowing how to do your own home and auto repairs, rather than paying someone else for them.)

A multi-generation home only needed one set of appliances, as well, and so on. Move the kids out into their own homes, though, and they’re going to buy their own tools, too. Co-housing, even with “found family,” means buying fewer durable consumer goods. The nuclear family model is meant to serve capital. (Sharing those things is still possible, obviously, but we humans seek convenience like we seek salt, fats, and sugars.)

The conditions that made this shattered form of family possible could almost certainly only have arisen in the wake of something as catastrophic as the Second World War. The post-war prosperity of a sufficient number of people in the USA to create those conditions was only the result of the USA having the only undamaged industrial capacity productive enough to sustain it. To put it plainly, when everyone else needed to rebuild their bombed out countries the USA were the only ones left who could sell them enough bricks.

As the rest of the world recovered from the war the advantage that the USA had enjoyed from their devastation steadily dwindled. The social conditioning, however, did not. Most of the USA’s populace was led to believe that economic policies were the primary driver of that advantage. Abandoning that comforting fantasy, which tells us that such “prosperity” can be turned on and off just by winning enough elections, is critical. Recognizing that it is only made possible by the immeasurable suffering of all forms of Earthling may be the only thing that will drive us to keep our habitat inhabitable.

TL;DR We need to share more, buy less, and foster the social arrangements that make those easier.

* While their dad and brother were tending the animals overwintering in the barn he took the kids out to their woodlot to cut a Christmas tree.

[animeandcatholicism]

In a leftist's perspective there is no such thing as an ethical millionaire because ultimately, the money made comes from the exploitation of labor by capital.

However, consider this hypothetical situation: a fairly skilled artist is contracted out to paint a mural by city's council, this also has unanimous public support like 95 percent in strong favor and opposition and indifference split the remaining 5 percent. After paying for expenses like food, supplies and shelter the artist will be paid 275k and the work will be completed on budget and on time. Said project is completed, the word spreads and another town wants something similar in their town. Same thing happens, artist agrees goes in and gets paid but, he also refuses to invest in something that gives him a return (stocks, bonds, commodities, ect). In this way he eventually becomes a millionaire, according to our Socialist friends or at least some of them, Mr. Artist should have his assets seized when crosses the threshold of 999,999 to one million dollars because, hoarding of wealth is always wrong. But, what if he doesn't hoard the wealth or actively uses it to do good. Or should we just confiscate the money from the investments because, he didn't actually earn that cash, even though he also pays his taxes, doesn't set up accounts on tax havens, blah blah blah.

The money for the commissions came from the public, the people and they wanted this, it wasn't imposed from by above. Or even becoming wealthy due to royalties or a steady drip of donations or commissions.

Even when you have a more traditional route like, a small business owner over the course of several years who pays his workers a fair wage, eventually becomes wealthy. The store is kept in good condition, your boots on the ground like your stockers, clerks and cashiers are both paid and treated well. Management is alright plus, logistics and accounting are quality and are listened to in the decision making process. By following this business model you eventually become wealthy and successful to the point where while you have competitors your profit margins and eventually expand your business or secure a contract where you become quite wealthy and share the wealth with your employees as well while still having enough money to be a millionaire, is it still unethical to have all that wealth?

The store owner starts the business and then divides the duties in order to expand his operation and eventually will become disconnected from the day to day going on of the store. But, if there is a major failure it's his neck on the chopping block and not the managers or those on the floor.

It also sounds wacky but, I worked for a company where the owners (two brothers) were rolling in cash as a machine shop operation, the shop itself was a small warehouse, treated its rank and file right and also made bank who took the heat when a welder or someone else dropped the ball HARD.

This problem with Socialism is that it sees all people equal in ability and that if one person can't have something then, no one can. Historically, the semi successful Socialist and Communist states like the USSR and the PRC realize that it's ultimately a pipedream and institutes some type of hierarchy even if the state itself pulls the strings. The biggest difference between them and their capitalist counter parts is that they can't be immediately be purged (and be sent to a gulag or worse)or promoted based upon the political brownie points you have with the ruling party.