#its apart of the systems. its a world where these issues still exist and the characters are affected by them

[crowshoots]

doing some research and just: oh! okay!

[ceasarslegion]

Ive made my stance on oppenheimer discourse very clear but one detail of it that really bothers me is the "movies about sad white men are always bad" attitude, and i didnt really know why until i was able to sit down and parse it out.

Here's the thing. I have a film degree, I've spent more time in movie theaters than I have sleeping and I've easily seen more films and shows than all of my peers combined. Which isn't a flex btw, I'm a little hermit who prefers the warm embrace of a cinema seat to human connection and is the most annoying mfer imaginable during family movie night; don't be like me.

But I know hollywood, I know cinema history, and I know the legitimate frustration this attitude comes from. Hollywood doesn't like to take risks, they have to historically be dragged kicking and screaming into any territory that isn't a guaranteed profit, which usually means that we get periods of stagnation where every film is the same goddamn formula over and over again until audiences get sick of it and stop buying tickets en masse. Hollywood also tends to reflect the dominant culture and the sociopolitical issues of the time, but not SOOO much that you'd rock the boat. As an exec, you wanna hit that sweet spot where audiences relate to your films without them being so blatant that they'd cause them to question things that weren't acceptable to question. Noir was a picture-perfect example of that.

And in the modern day, that DOES tend to translate into the weird genre of Sad White Man Who Regrets Killing Foreigners movies. Like American Sniper. But I've seen American Sniper, so I can speak on how lowkey disturbing I found it, and the history it's based in and the goals it had as an art piece were to make you sympathize with a system of corruption. And here's my unpopular opinion: if done RIGHT, those films still have a place within the cinematic sphere of influence, like if you made a film exploring the psyche and experiences of what leads a man to willingly participate in a system like that, but that's not really what it was.

Now let's move onto Oppenheimer and other films like it. I don't think these films are at ALL equivalent to films like American Sniper, even if they follow a sad white man who regrets killing foreigners. You are looking at the bare bones surface level of it and assuming its contents both real world and dramatized and judging it based on that instead of the, well, actual film.

One of the biggest differences here is that Oppenheimer WAS an important historical figure just, objectively. Even removing all western racial influence from the equation, you can not look me in the eyes and tell me that the man who invented the atomic bomb in the middle of the largest world war of modern history was not an important historical figure. If you try to make THAT argument just based on the sad white man-ness of him, I'm sorry but your point is already moot, because it's not based in historical fact anymore but your own personal subjective feelings. He IS an important historical figure, he's not soldier number 648 in the middle of a massive battlefield who followed other peoples orders.

And also to be completely honest, you are a huge fucking liar if you try to claim that people like Dr. Oppenheimer are not interesting. Flawed people who make flawed decisions with complicated variables are what make for good fiction, so when one exists in the historical record, of course they are going to interest people. They are going to be studied and interviewed if they're still alive and have their entire lives and every word they said picked apart and analyzed because they are interesting. You are straight up lying if you try to act like these people arent interesting enough on their own to have media made about them, regardless of what identity they had that fits into the opposing side of the 21st centure culture wars. This attitude reminds me a lot of the people who claim that the only reason anybody could find true crime interesting is because they MUST want to fuck jeffrey dahmer or whatever. The argument just doesnt hold up because all it takes is one person going "thats not what i find interesting about them" to collapse that entire absolutist argument.

So yes, hollywood absolutely has a racism and war glorification issue. But I take issue when these accusations are just made blindly against any historical dramatization based on nothing but the poster. If you're going to talk about hollywoods sad white men issue, at least make sure the films youre citing actually fit that bill AND that you actually understand whats WRONG with those sad white men movies, because its not just the presence of a sad white male protagonist, its a conglomerate of various sociopolitical issues that must be present within those characters and what they represent.

[laineystein]

If I may? You seem to have an incredibly rosy view of Israel and live comfortably there. And I am happy you do! I just also have seen Israelis on tumblr speak of the struggle with the rising cost of living.

This includes having to be self conscious about the price of brands to pick, and the rent of apts. (Which are pretty common things to deal with anywhere lately). I’ve also seen an Israeli blogger say that if you don’t have a background in engineering and tech, there’s not much of a future for you in Israel-or at least not one where you can live well.

On a personal level, I struggle to comprehend the idea of bomb shelters being a conscious part of every day life in so many parts of Israel. I don’t know how you guys do it, I really don’t.

I’ve been passive-aggressively criticized for having what some would deem a rosy view of life in general so I don’t know if I’m the best person to be giving you my feedback. What I can say confidently is that I have lived elsewhere and I will forever choose to live in Israel because it is the place I truly feel is home. Yes, things are expensive but they’re expensive where I lived in the diaspora as well. Homes here are not any more expensive than they were where I lived in the diaspora. Our economy is certainly curtailed to specific professions but so is every economy. Being an engineer and being in tech is also currently the most lucrative profession in the diaspora. I’m not saying that Israel doesn’t have its issues. It does and I reference them often. I’d probably talk about them more if I wasn't so used to a lot of it; I’m used to sirens and bomb shelters and tzahal and I don’t know how to explain that to someone who isn’t. It’s just always been apart of my life and it’s not going to change anytime soon so it is what it is. I also have no problem acknowledging that I grew up very privileged and still live a very privileged life so that may have something to do with my viewpoint. But here’s the thing - I just can’t live in a non-Jewish world. I can’t live my life comfortably in a non-Jewish world. And that’s not solely because of antisemitism. I keep kosher. I keep Shabbos. And nearly everyone I love (in the diaspora) is visibly Jewish. The men wear kippot and tzitzis. The women dress tznius and cover their hair. When you are this religiously observant it’s difficult to exist in a non-Jewish world. Our holidays are different and it’s not a default to have them off and not every company you work for will be fine with you taking them off - even if it’s illegal for them not to. In the US, you can’t make friends with coworkers because you can’t see them on the weekends or eat at their restaurants or in their homes. Sending your children to a Jewish school like the one I attended is like paying college tuition per child, per year; my parents paid over 100K every year sending me and my three brothers to school - the same school would be much more affordable in Israel. We’re nothing but pawns to the political system there - the right and the left both hate us. We are politically homeless and we’re too much of a minority for it to matter. So there’s a million reasons *not* to live in the diaspora as a Jew. For me, there is also a million reasons to live in Israel. The proximity to our holy sites. The weather. The fact that we have beaches and deserts and mountains and forests and rain and snow and sunshine. The diet and the healthier lifestyle. The joy. There’s so much joy here and I feel sorry for anyone that disagrees. I can be openly Jewish here. My Jewishness is not an inconvenience here. I do not have to apologize for it or hide it. And yes, I will forever feel safer here than I ever have in the US. Is Israel also an absolute dumpster fire sometimes? Of course it is. I’m not saying it’s for everyone. Living here will be a huge shock for many Jews. But for some of us, it makes sense and the pros will forever outweigh the cons.

[diaphin93]

Racial Allegory: The Quick guide on how to write The Whites as the true victims of racism

Okay, try to keep it quick here, I got this hitpiece shown to me and it dabbles into a topic I wanted to write about for a while: Racial Allegory

To make things super short, racial allegories can make for captivating and engaging narratives concerning bigotry and can often be a good narrative tool to subvert tropes and conventions in genres such as fantasy, sci-fi and horror, to analyze relations and depictions of fictional races under the lense of bigotry and marginalization.

The issue with the whole 'genre' of racial allegory is though, that it does very little to actually adress racial injustice and White Supremacy in real life, especially in the western world, as this would require a closer and more critical look into how our history, culture and social systems are shaped to benefit white people over people of color and how even to this moment, the western quality of life is entire build upon colonialism and the continuous exploitation of the global south.

More importantly and more problematically, racial allegory as a genre is highly centered around removing people of color, or in some cases also queer people, from stories about their own oppression project them on a cast of mostly whites and cisheterosexuals. Even in cases where racial allegory is utilized in a diverse cast, it is often used to defocus stories about oppression away from the people affected by them, by inserting liberal colorblindness onto human ethnicity. The X-Men started off as an allegory for the civil rights movement, yet its original cast was comprised of white mostly middle class teenagers, lead by a an upper class white man who owns his own private school. The very premise of the series takes inspiration from the struggle of the black community for equality and instead makes it a fantastical adventure about white kids. And lets not get started with the messy origins of Magneto as a character.

And don't get me wrong. I love the X-Men. They are my favorite Superhero series ever and I absolutely adored X-Men 97. They are great and they are capable of telling good stories about opression, marginalization and resistance. Magneto is my all time favorite Marvel Character and one of my favorite characters in fiction period. And potentially they can be a good starting point to teach younger people their first lesson in concepts such as bigotry and tolerance, but we are all adults here, and I think at some point there is something wrong with grown up people to whom the X-Men are still their first point of reference when it comes to making a point about bigotry.

Because the problem with the concept of the X-Men is exactly of what the original poster brought up here: They fall apart under any closer critical evaluation, because yeah, they are actual dangerous. We wouldn't want in our real lives people who are capable of copying in every detail, up to the intimate, who can cause rapidly changing climate conditions, mess around with he earths entire magnetic fields or infiltrate and manipulate our very mind at a whim running around without any accountability and oversight. You know with what butwhatifidothis surely would agree? That we don't want people to have the means of commiting mass murder at any public location without any regulations, control and oversight. I'm talking of course about gun control here. What we also don't want surely is people being able to change the climate around us for whatever personal benefit they deem fit, to invade our privacy and gain access to our most personal information, to incorperate our image in any context on very public plattforms or be able to kill any innocent civilian without any means to stop them.

These exist in real life of course. They're giants of industry, tech companies, people who creat deepfakes and any police officer, armed redneck standing his ground or white Karen calling the guy on a black guy in a park. And this is really where such racial allegories fall flat, because minorities in real life are not those who wield this form of unchecked power against their environment, but those who get targeted by it and protest to stop it, to creat checks and balances.

X-Men ultimately is build around never thinking too deeply about the implications and just accept the premise, to engage with the fantasy of superheroes who are the underdogs fighting against oppression and for social acceptance. They live off of ignoring the bad optics of, for example, a white girl lecturing a black man about oppression. Becoming too immersed on them on the other hand, to obsessed with their initial premise, too uncritical of it, leads to some fairly bad understanding of bigotry and marginalization, to the point where one basically becomes obsessed with contextualizing those who hold power as the oppressed against the weak, impotent masses. You start at X-Men and end at The Incredibles, of which the randian subtext has already been well enoug discussed.

Going back to Fire Emblem here, away from X-Men, there is already a fairly objectivist fantasy present in the people who make Nabateans their primary racial allegory. Lets not ignore the problematic aspect, that the game doesn't really do racial allegory. It does racism, targeted at people of color, with the most violent examples being commited by the Holy Kingdom of Faerghus and with Claude, a mixed race man, having already confirmed it to be the result of the churches doctrine of xenophobia. Instead of getting invested in this though, people like OP focus on the Nabateans as their primary racial allegory. A group of immortal dragons with power beyond any human, who are the offspring of an alien dragon goddess and who used to rule humanity as deities. And who are, of course, depicted as whiter than white, their differenciating traits being elvish ears and mostly light green hair which, lets be honest, would be understood analogous to blonde hair if it wasn't explicitely shown to us to be special, considering the presence of colors such as blue and pink as regular hair colors in the setting. Ignatz and Linhardt even have green hair without being ever framed as looking anything out of the ordinary, lol.

And I think it becomes fairly self-explaining here. There is something deeply randian about hyperfocussing on a race of superhuman immortals who frame themselves as superior and with the duty of leading the weaker, dumber, mundane masses as someones primary racial allegory. Because it becomes immediately muddy. Rheas entire outlook on humanity and her role in relation to it is never one of equal co-existance, it is practically her claiming the white dragons burden, as horrible as it sounds. And many of her defenders among the Edelcrit community take exactly this stance as a moral good, which is inheritly problematic. I'm talking about people such as butwhatifidothis, gascon, randomnameless and fantasyinvader, Boofire too if we want to include youtubers.

There edgy "humanity can't be trusted and is inheritly incapable of controlling itself" position is not progressive. Its deeply elitist. It is ultimately a reflection of contempt towards the common masses. It is the act of primarily immersing oneself with those who stand above those supposedly unenlightened masses and taking the position, that they are incapable of governing oneself. And the act of hyperfocussing on constructing a racial allegory around it, it also means to immerse oneself into the idea that those born with powerful are the most victimized and marginalized group in society by the inferior, who want to take away their rightful positions of leadership and power. It is also sadly one I feel like is highly encouraged by the Blue Lions route in general, by its decission to focus mostly on the way those born with crests into nobility are mistreated and envied by those without them, probably by accident encouraging those kinds of randian implications.

And as a disclaimer, I'm not saying here that one can't chose the Nabateans as ones favorite and feel deeply sympathetic and empathetic around their plight, because this is one is real real as well. They were victims of a genocide orchestrated by Agarthans in their attempt of getting vengeance against the Goddess Sothis for their own destruction, they had their blood stolen and their bodies defiled by bandits who wanted to claim their power for themselves and uplift themselves to the status of rulers. They are deeply human and their depth comes from the fact, that they deal with trauma in very flawed, very human ways. The issue comes from viewing the Nabateans as both sympathetic victims but also inheritly superior beings with Rhea being framed as justified in the oppressive systems that are the root cause of the majority of issues inside of Fodlan. Something the games text supports. Their Crimson Flower ending describes Byleth as ending the Tyranny of a Godlike being. In comparison, the Azure Moon Version speaks about crushing the Ambitions of the Empire. Rheas own S-Support has her admit her guild and be remorseful for it, the ending card speaks about her rehabilitating the church.

So in the end, yeah, hyperfocussing on racial allegory over actual depictions of racism centering people of color can be problematic, they often have messed up implications and require just accepting the premise and alot of people are really into imagining themselves to be both the superior elite but also the underdog.

[inaconstantstateofchange]

Alrighty, your tags in the 'anti-blorbo friends' post intrigued me, so... hook line and sinker. Personally, I am kind of an 'anything goes' fan, I don't mind people disliking stuff about BG3 - or liking it a bit too much, either. I like all the companions, but I do see their flaws and critique can be fun. That's what a piece of media is for, no? For us to dissect and tear apart. So! Tear it freely, mate. Give me your Gale hot takes.

Excellent, all according to keikaku (translator's note: keikaku means plan). Sorry I love that joke.

Thank you so much for the ask! O(∩_∩)O

Okay, Gale hot takes, with the caveat that, in general, I just personally find his whole everything very off-putting, so I am very neutral-edging-to-negative toward him, but can still appreciate the complexity of his character in an objective sense.

This hot take/critique kind of overlaps with issues I have with a lot of the fandom interpretations of the characters: it feels like a lot of the fandom needs to woobify the characters and/or reduce them down to the most simplified version of themself to appreciate them.

Gale is a character who will approve of good actions in general terms, but the moment there is a chance to do something new, something heretofore untried, some advancement in knowledge or power, no matter what the terms of it, you have his attention. And that's really interesting! It's fucked up as all hell, but it's interesting. And this is something I see pushed under the rug and outright denied or left unexplored in most cases, because it requires confronting that all your faves are complex and "problematic", yes even that one.

This one is tangential to Gale, but also relates to the broader lore and world. I think there's a lot fucked up about Forgotten Realms lore (obviously), but it is also so vast and intricate and Larian put so much work in aligning with it as much as possible with the narrative of BG3, allowing you to extrapolate pretty consistently based on that. I've noticed a tendency by a lot of fans to engage with the world and its lore as though they've been isekai'd into it or something, not considering what would actually affect philosophy and perspective and "human" (as it were) experience in a world that worked like Faerûn does. For example, I recently saw someone arguing that the way Halsin handles Kagha after he is rescued is "unrealistic" and the player should be able to tell him that he needs to pick a stronger option. In my opinion this completely ignores the way that druids and druid groves function very differently from a lot of other communities in Faerûn. The majority of druids tend toward True Neutral in terms of alignment, live and let live unless nature is affected in some way. Halsin is honestly a bit of a rarity for verging so far toward Neutral Good. Additionally, because of their focus on nature and natural patterns, of course they would have different perspectives on punishment and rehabilitation.

Another way this presents itself very commonly is in how people conceptualize the system of gods/theology in Faerûn. Most people do not have any real experience conceptualizing a polytheistic worldview in practice, let alone one where the existence of those gods is an undeniable material fact, rather than a belief, and it shows. They hold the gods simultaneously to the standards of humans (which they are not), and the monotheistic conglomerate Christian God (which they are also not). Once again, the system of deity and interaction with it in FR lore is so fucked up, but for complex and interesting reasons I rarely see anyone exploring.

(The above is also the reason I think a lot of people underestimate the power of the archdevils and the Hells compared to the gods, but that is another discussion.)

This comes back to Gale in my hottest of hot takes: I really wish people would stop throwing around the "Gale was groomed, Mystra is a groomer" thing. I think it hyper-simplifies the actual tragedy of his story and the one Larian was trying to tell to an absurd degree, and I don't believe it even does any favors in terms of raising awareness of important issues. Based on FR lore and timeline, Mystra has only been back in existence as a goddess for at absolute maximum thirteen years prior to the start of BG3, and at minimum five, so unless you headcanon Gale to be 30 or younger (which seems decidedly unlikely based on everything else presented in the narrative), their time together was when he was an actual adult.

Am I saying there was no power dynamic problem there? No, ofc I am not. God/Human relationships are famously tragedies and cautionary tales. There is always an inherent disconnect between the two beings. You'll notice a trend, but yes, I do think that the most interestingly fucked up parts of that story are ignored in favor of the most basic and banal.

Mystra is a greater god, having dominion over magic as an entire concept. That means the scale of her power and existence are unfathomably vast, and so alien from human existence that to bridge it would be the work of thousands of lifetimes. At the same time, there are parts of her that used to be human, grafted onto her godhood. That's incredibly fucked up in such an eldritch way, you know?

Final hot take: Gale is a wizard's wizard™, a crime punishable by death. In this essay I will-

[fcdav]

On July 19, about 8.5 million computers with Windows operating systems around the world had a "blue screen" of death, and the terminals that failed were not limited to desktop terminals, but also covered a large number of servers and cloud nodes, including those that led to the interruption of a number of important Microsoft and AWS cloud services and tenant services, and the related hosts would still automatically enter a blue screen state after restarting, forming a closed loop of repeated crashes. Hosts still automatically enter a blue screen state after rebooting, creating a closed loop of repeated crashes.

According to incomplete statistics, a large number of social infrastructures, including hospitals, banks, airlines, etc., including at least more than 20 countries, were shut down for a time, causing direct and indirect economic losses calculated in billions of dollars.

The main protagonist that led to this historic event was a Texas-based cybersecurity giant, CrowdStrike.

While most people were unaware of the company's existence until now, former President Donald Trump questioned the company's operations back in 2019.

In 2019, the company's name resurfaced after a White House transcript showed that then-President Trump mentioned the company in a July call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. The controversy eventually led to the first attempt to impeach Trump.

During the call, Trump hinted that Ukraine might have DNC servers, saying, "I want to give you a little insight into the whole situation in Ukraine, where they say ...... swarmed the ...... The server, they say Ukraine has it. The server, they say Ukraine has it."

The statement was part of a broader set of Trump's remarks aimed at casting doubt on CrowdStrike's conclusion that Russian meddling in the election benefited him.

Trump's comments also sparked a series of conspiracy theories that the Democratic National Committee somehow fabricated the hack to divert attention from other political issues.

According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Democrats spend a lot of money on CrowdStrike.

 May 20, 2019 - Democrat Bernie Sanders invested all of his money into CrowdStrike during his 2020 presidential campaign. The main campaign committee for Democrat Phil Bredesen's U.S. Senate bid invested all of its money into CrowdStrike on June 7, 2018.On July 24, 2018, the main campaign committee for Democrat Bernie Sanders' U.S. Senate seat invested all of its money into CrowdStrike on February 1, 2019 full funding.

It is clear from the data that the Democratic Party creates misinformation for the party's own personal gain, attacking competitors and tearing the country apart. The Democratic Party has now completely turned its back on the American people. Pushing the boundaries of what's possible in the face of electoral interests and using tech companies to meddle in politics.

[speedwaycomposites]

The Benefits of an Aluminum Heel Plate 

An aluminum heel plate is an important part of any car, and it can help increase the overall performance and efficiency. In this article, we will explore why you should consider using an aluminum heel plate on your vehicle.

What Is An Aluminum Heel Plate?

An aluminum heel plate is a flat sheet that mounts to the underside of your paint and provides protection from rocks, road debris, salt damage, rusting metal chips, or other potential hazards encountered by vehicles when driving on roads and highways. It helps protect these delicate parts against corrosion and damage caused due to road vibrations experienced while driving at higher speeds. This also reduces noise from under your car's hood in addition to protecting those vital components located beneath its surface which could ultimately lead to costly repairs if not properly maintained with the use of a quality aluminium toe protector system. Additionally, they provide balance between grip forces coming off tires during hard acceleration W-turns or sudden braking cycles preventing wheels losing contact with ground which could be dangerous especially during high degree turns where traction control systems tend not to work effectively enough without further input from driver as he tries balancing out heavy load shifts away da/sliding s hl mph accuracy professionally designed aluminium post exhaustions plates come into definition here too!

Advantages Of Using An Aluminum Heel Plate: 

-Improved Safety – The first advantage in using an aluminum heel plate is improved safety since it prevents some common causes of accidents such as skidding and loss control over cars due slight unevenness underneath their frame created by dust build up creating poor exposed instead healthy smooth surfaces after extended periods of time continuously alone normal steel / iron wear & tear ! Apart from these ample number benefits derived daily adds additional value each category was discussed above detailed afterwards -Weight Reduction– As comparedwith traditional steel alternatives used traditionally inside horses cared all around world today mention range relatively lightweight options goes beyond specific patent protected only practical yes convenient anywhere just omit issue beforehand fact remains now totally new game increased power packages incorporated multiple layers going present settings readily choice consumers continuing trend engineering technological research aimed advancing lightning scientific understanding mentioned speculate exchange taking place following 1 simplification methods dripping tire function state cutting down costs materials identical purpose precisely existing phrases spares fitted perfectly every ways electric versions weight even less electricity required nowadays integrated smart computer microchip embedded processors within tiny space takes really likely astonishingly consequentially still continue.

[lizclipse]

I don't usually comment on political stuff because it usually draws people into online slap-fights, but the cognitive dissonance in this is fascinating.

With healthcare systems that will offer assisted suicide rather than cure you.

Because in the first I was referencing Canada and its nationalized medical system.

An example of a single bad (very bad) policy decision in a socialised medicine system isn't 'anti-capitalist' - there are a bunch of countries with socialised medicine that don't have this - it's a Canada problem. But, the most obvious 'capitalist' system for medicine is the USA, which has a hyper-aggressive-capitalist system that costs more per-person that other countries with socialised medicine for worse care, and also regularly bankrupts people.

A world with a world police to ensure no country starts acting up and practicing self determination.

The second was the US foreign policy for nearly a century.

I really don't understand how this is 'anti-capitalist', genuinely. From my understanding, a lot of the 'interventions' (AKA forced coups) were due to the USA not liking that countries it was exploiting electing socialist-adjacent leaders that caused US companies to lose profits. That's very capitalist.

A world where peoples savings are pissed away in inflation year by year.

Third is due to the expansion of the government and its inability to actually do what it says it can resulting in inflation.

Inflation is a hallmark of a capitalist economic system, through-and-through. Not being able to do anything about it is mostly due to the fact that the global economy is unbelievably complex, and that English-speaking western governments have been eroded in ability, mostly due to lobbying (a capitalist thing)

A world where people who were once neighbors now see each other as the enemy and threaten to tear the country apart.

The fourth is the culture war which to blame capitalism for is frankly absurd. And the forth is cancel culture, a modern example of the socialist struggle session.

'Cancel-culture' exists because modern social media thrives on engagement, as it allows feeding more advertising (to drive profits), and the best way to do that is via anger. Remove the capitalist incentive from this mix, and 'cancel-culture' would still only exist in fringe extremist communities (or would be just much less in general).

While Im at it, the increasing suicide rate year by year. And if this is caused by capitalism why is the further we get away from capitalism the more it increases. About 30% increase btw.

Are we getting further? At least in the UK, all the 'socialised' bits of our country have been squeezed out more-and-more to reduce government spend and move things into the private (AKA for-profit capitalist) sector. Capitalism as a system doesn't care about mental health either, it's a system that priorities profits, regardless of anything else. Wages not keeping up with inflation, housing prices, and more are the main drivers of poor mental well-being really (all of which are due to the current, capitalist, system).

Or the food deserts as theft drains the already thin profit margins causing many businesses to close.

The thin profit margins are due to highly-concentrated borderline-monopolistic global corporations pushing out everything else due to the ability to cut into any market. And, at least in the UK, the shoplifting rise is due to our (capitalist-focused) government just declaring that any theft under £200 is not worth police time, which I only assume is a cost-cutting measure.

I'm bored now, so I'm gonna stop responding to points and wrap up all this BS. Anti-capitalist movements are gaining traction because the current capitalist systems have pretty much failed us in many, many places, but it's not like any of them will be perfect either, but to say those movements, which have barely any power within the system as-is, are the cause of all these issues is really simplistic, and missing the greater picture of our systems at-large.

Gotta say, not a fan of capitalism. Just doesn’t do it for me ngl

[tiredqueermushroom]

Something that I loved about how both Zerxus and Cerrit, despite loving their kids they were bad fathers. Both choose their work, the city over their kids. As well as how the city demands so much but gives very little back.

Zerxus hadn't seen Eilas in 7 years, his son had to mourn and deal with the death of his father relatively by himself because the city pressured Zerxus. Which I think adds a layer as to why Zerxus is somewhat resentful of Avalir and why he doesn't consider it his home. This city being so opulent and has some of the most powerful people on Exandria, they literally don't experience weather, couldn't help his husband who dedicated his life in service of the city. The same city, while he was still mourning his husband, pressured him into taking up a mantel that stripped him away from his son and a living breathing reminder of Evandrin's existence.

Avalir demanded his servitude. And he had no other option but to feed the broken system.

The same thing happens with Cerrit. So much of his work consumed his life, his eyes were everywhere apart from inside his home. It was all consuming, to the point in which when his wife left, it seems like Cerrit didn't put up much of a fight. It was so bad that he didn't even know where she was, he had to learn who his children were as people quite literally during the end of the world. Cerrit making it out was a promise to do better. A promise that Zerxus didn't get to fulfil.

Patia is another example of Avalir's constant demand to be better, do better, how it eats away at a person. She dedicated her entire life, hundreds of years to Avalir, and all she could return to was a statue of her Grandfather. The same person who set Avalir on this path of destruction, people like Vespin were merely a symptom of a larger issue. Patia didn't have a lover, didn't have kids because the city would have consumed her, like it did Cerrit and Zerxus. The Ring of Brass was Patia only family, and in her final moment, she for the first time placed her family above the demands of Avalir.

Avilr in a sense was what Aeor eventually became. A living city, that feeds off the misery of its inhabitants.

[thesoulspulse]

Danny Phantom Randomness (Vlad’s Reversal of Fortune)

Ok, I just had the most brilliant idea I had to share. Now, we know canon Vlad has a LOT of serious issues that only got worse when the new timeline started after Danny defeated Dan and was given a second chance by Clockwork. But what about Vlad? Well, in my fanfic “Nowhere To Run” I address a lot of them because I feel like it would take something really big for Vlad to admit to himself he still cares about Danny and doesn’t want to lose him so I had to come up with a way to redeem Vlad before he was too far gone imo...

Anyways, as far as this new idea goes I love the twist where through some sort of cunning reality manipulation the Current Vlad ends up in Future Vlad’s body and vice versa. This could be amazing for some character development because one, the more selfish Vlad has to get used to his mortality again as well as see the aftermath of a disaster he caused on a global scale when he created Dan. He has to live in a world that was destroyed by Dan because Vlad’s the one who twisted him into an uncaring monster after Danny lost everything and everyone he loved. It’s like Vlad has to see exactly what could have happened if he continued on this selfish path that corrupts the only person he had left to care about since Maddie no longer existed in this world.

As for Future Vlad, its more like a miracle because for one thing he can walk properly again without a limp and can finally make things right before it’s too late. Admittedly this part is a bit inspired by the Doppelgänger comic just because I also like to think of a Vlad who has suffered a lot of loss too and was finally humbled enough to admit he did a lot of bad things in his life. That’s why, rather than get greedy and slip back into old habits now that he had his powers back, the first thing Future Vlad does is track down Danny.

And then Vlad sees him, the same little badger he used to admire and want for his son smiling confidently while slinging clever insults at his enemies. Vlad didn’t realize just how much he missed that. Missed seeing the real Danny that used to annoy him to no end with his goodie-two-shoe ways instead of the kind of ghost he became when he absorbed his ghost half and went mad with power.

Obviously Danny notices Vlad watching him and rolls his eyes, scoffing. “Ugh, not you again fruitloop. Can’t you see I’m busy?”

His eyes welling up with tears when he hears the real Danny’s voice, the voice of the kind, brave, naive boy Danny was before his world fell apart both figuratively and literally, Future Vlad teleports to Danny and suddenly wraps his arms around him in a trembling but gentle embrace. Danny is confused obviously, wondering what the heck is up with Vlad and deeply suspicious these are just crocodile tears, but then Future Vlad cradles the back of Danny’s neck and sobs.

“I’m so glad you’re still you, little badger. That means it’s...it’s not too late to make things right! Forgive me, Daniel. Forgive me for being such a fool...” Taking in a deep shaky breath Future Vlad continues. “You were right, all this time I should have been helping you instead of fighting you at every turn! If I had just taken better care of you and been the mentor you deserved, then you never would have become that monster. It’s my fault. It’s all my fault! I...don’t deserve to have my powers back or to see you again like this when you were still an innocent child and I-”

I’ll leave the rest to your imagination but as you can probably guess this is basically Future Vlad getting a second chance while the Current Vlad gets a reality check so to speak to hopefully scare him straight before he royally screws up that bad with Danny and creates a threat to the entire world that far surpasses him in every way. Feel free to borrow this idea for a fanfic or oneshot, I just had to get it out of my system before I forgot.

[fymagnificentwomcn]

I truly do not think you read the original post with comprehension and understood it and that's your chief problem. Nobody talks here about earlier Mahi before rejection! Or that rejection was not the main reason for her gaining awareness.

This is precisely the point of the post that the rejection was freeing in this way (and the irony of it all!) because otherwise she would have never embarked on this road. When Hürrem gets freedom from SS and refuses to give it to Mahi, first she gave up on Suly and then when she came back to the palace, she decided to be strong on her own (as mother of adult prince) but in the wrong way defined by anger as her failed harem rule and misguided focus on revenge showed (precise attempt to be harem winner and use it to her advantage). She learned from her mistakes to focus on becoming a great support for her son in Manisa and fulfil her role as mother of prince and Valide of the household there well. Yet still as mother of prince she had to abide by certain stuff. Then S4 comes in and we talk about the moment where she is after Mustafa is dead.

We are talking about character evolution up until S4 and their final moments. Character journey (which is also not linear). Of course there are plenty of examples of Mahidevran endorsing the system and its rules, especially in S1 when she is the most important concubine LMAO. It's not surprising at all. It's clear as day. But that's not the topic of my post discussing whole character arcs and especially the destinations of their journey.

I purposefully linked to Plami's post to discuss this issue because she explained it excellently and beautifully:

Mahidevran, conversely, also found out his true nature and detached herself from it, daring to openly call out a root of the attachment (E139: “He decides the fates of all of us.”) and put the free choice of everyone into light and question. (E139: “God, apart from reason, gave people free will.”) It’s rare for someone to gain such awareness of the system and that’s a valuable quality to have, but in a future where Mahidevran and Ayşe aren’t as grossly mistreated, would all this be possible to happen? No, I don’t think so. And even the ones that aren’t favourites who are more likely to find this out, there are still people out there that probably would stay trapped in the attachment forever. And favourites would be the least likely to figure stuff out, judging by the series’ themes. (Hürrem, E134: “I am the soul of all the women in the world and my existence is hidden in the love of the conqueror of my heart.” - this assertion is honestly self-explanatory.)

Read the whole thing. It's worth it!

"I don't think the show wants you to sympathise with him- especially in s4 anyway.. like don't worry!" - I totally agree with this part, he clearly emerges as the show's main villain and it's beautiful. The gradual revelation and awareness of this is one of the show's most important themes without the doubt. And his journey to that starts with Mohacs and his greatest victory (but examples of his greatest flaw and seeds are of course even in S1).. precisely because that's an important theme as well. That biggest victory can be the beginning of your downfall (also moral one as in case of SS), as also shown with Hurrem after getting rid of Mustafa and even admitting to it being her darkest days and her winter starting from there. Even Sumbul warned her before that "the biggest victory" concept can be misleading, but she hushed him since she always had won before. Constant winning can make you blind to certain things and have a negative impact, that's a recurring theme in the show as well. And also commentary on the Darwinist system.

"Saying someone else would be better Sultan is not anti-systemic" - it's really sad that's all you took from my post (and something I never said, bah I never even used the word "anti-systemic") and conveniently omitted the most important stuff Mahi said about Suleiman being the master puppeteer directing their lives etc. They expose system as whole.

/And deffo me saying it would mean nothing, but like.. what's the point of this again aasmshs)/.

As for Suleiman apologia, forgive me for not addressing it because I spoke on the topic long enough. Of course he is human, but precisely due to system and him being it, the "power getting to his head" has disastrous consequences for everyone because of how this fucked up human with issues can decide on everyone's fates. Just have a meme from me to wrap it up:

Just thinking how Hürrem was given freedom by Suleiman, which literally did not mean a change in her life other than prestige brought by marriage - she continued to be mentally dependent on him and got absorbed into the system even more… Suleiman’s rejection of Mahidevran, which also contributed to him refusing her freedom (yes she never stood a chance because he never loved her and his favoritism was what decided fates in that system in the end), actually freed her in the long run mentally and emotionally. It was the moment she decided to give up on him and slowly walked towards her full mental independence. And while she still had to obey certain rules imposed by the system due to her having her prince, upon his death, she stopped giving shit and finally voiced all the anger about Suleiman and the system. She lost all the “golden cage”, but she gained freedom from constraints of mind and emotion that the system put on individuals. She was free to get most reflection about the system & form critique of it without being an active part of it any longer. A sad freedom but the truest one any of these women got.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Anonymous asked: I enjoyed reading your posts about Napoleon’s death and it’s quite timely given its the 200th anniversary of his death this year in May. I was wondering, because you know a lot about military history (your served right? That’s cool to fly combat helicopters) and you live in France but aren’t French, what your take was on Napoleon and how do the French view him? Do they hail him as a hero or do they like others see him like a Hitler or a Stalin? Do you see him as a hero or a villain of history?

5 May 1821 was a memorable date because Napoleon, one of the most iconic figures in world history, died while in bitter exile on a remote island in the South Atlantic Ocean. Napoleon Bonaparte, as you know rose from obscure soldier to a kind of new Caesar, and yet he remains a uniquely controversial figure to this day especially in France. You raise interesting questions about Napoleon and his legacy. If I may reframe your questions in another way. Should we think of him as a flawed but essentially heroic visionary who changed Europe for the better? Or was he simply a military dictator, whose cult of personality and lust for power set a template for the likes of Hitler? 

However one chooses to answer this question can we just - to get this out of the way - simply and definitively say that Napoleon was not Hitler. Not even close. No offence intended to you but this is just dumb ahistorical thinking and it’s a lazy lie. This comparison was made by some in the horrid aftermath of the Second World War but only held little currency for only a short time thereafter. Obviously that view didn’t exist before Hitler in the 19th Century and these days I don’t know any serious historian who takes that comparison seriously.

I confess I don’t have a definitive answer if he was a hero or a villain one way or the other because Napoleon has really left a very complicated legacy. It really depends on where you’re coming from.

As a staunch Brit I do take pride in Britain’s victorious war against Napoleonic France - and in a good natured way rubbing it in the noses of French friends at every opportunity I get because it’s in our cultural DNA and it’s bloody good fun (why else would we make Waterloo train station the London terminus of the Eurostar international rail service from its opening in 1994? Or why hang a huge gilded portrait of the Duke of Wellington as the first thing that greets any visitor to the residence of the British ambassador at the British Embassy?). On a personal level I take special pride in knowing my family ancestors did their bit on the battlefield to fight against Napoleon during those tumultuous times. However, as an ex-combat veteran who studied Napoleonic warfare with fan girl enthusiasm, I have huge respect for Napoleon as a brilliant military commander. And to makes things more weird, as a Francophile resident of who loves living and working in France (and my partner is French) I have a grudging but growing regard for Napoleon’s political and cultural legacy, especially when I consider the current dross of political mediocrity on both the political left and the right. So for me it’s a complicated issue how I feel about Napoleon, the man, the soldier, and the political leader.

If it’s not so straightforward for me to answer the for/against Napoleon question then it It’s especially true for the French, who even after 200 years, still have fiercely divided opinions about Napoleon and his legacy - but intriguingly, not always in clear cut ways.

I only have to think about my French neighbours in my apartment building to see how divisive Napoleon the man and his legacy is. Over the past year or so of the Covid lockdown we’ve all gotten to know each other better and we help each other. Over the Covid year we’ve gathered in the inner courtyard for a buffet and just lifted each other spirits up.

One of my neighbours, a crusty old ex-general in the army who has an enviable collection of military history books that I steal, liberate, borrow, often discuss military figures in history like Napoleon over our regular games of chess and a glass of wine. He is from very old aristocracy of the ancien regime and whose family suffered at the hands of ‘madame guillotine’ during the French Revolution. They lost everything. He has mixed emotions about Napoleon himself as an old fashioned monarchist. As a military man he naturally admires the man and the military genius but he despises the secularisation that the French Revolution ushered in as well as the rise of the haute bourgeois as middle managers and bureaucrats by the displacement of the aristocracy.

Another retired widowed neighbour I am close to, and with whom I cook with often and discuss art, is an active arts patron and ex-art gallery owner from a very wealthy family that came from the new Napoleonic aristocracy - ie the aristocracy of the Napoleonic era that Napoleon put in place - but she is dismissive of such titles and baubles. She’s a staunch Republican but is happy to concede she is grateful for Napoleon in bringing order out of chaos. She recognises her own ambivalence when she says she dislikes him for reintroducing slavery in the French colonies but also praises him for firmly supporting Paris’s famed Comédie-Française of which she was a past patron.

Another French neighbour, a senior civil servant in the Elysée, is quite dismissive of Napoleon as a war monger but is grudgingly grateful for civil institutions and schools that Napoleon established and which remain in place today.

My other neighbours - whether they be French families or foreign expats like myself - have similarly divisive and complicated attitudes towards Napoleon.

In 2010 an opinion poll in France asked who was the most important man in French history. Napoleon came second, behind General Charles de Gaulle, who led France from exile during the German occupation in World War II and served as a postwar president.

The split in French opinion is closely mirrored in political circles. The divide is generally down political party lines. On the left, there's the 'black legend' of Bonaparte as an ogre. On the right, there is the 'golden legend' of a strong leader who created durable institutions.

Jacques-Olivier Boudon, a history professor at Paris-Sorbonne University and president of the Napoléon Institute, once explained at a talk I attended that French public opinion has always remained deeply divided over Napoleon, with, on the one hand, those who admire the great man, the conqueror, the military leader and, on the other, those who see him as a bloodthirsty tyrant, the gravedigger of the revolution. Politicians in France, Boudon observed, rarely refer to Napoleon for fear of being accused of authoritarian temptations, or not being good Republicans.

On the left-wing of French politics, former prime minister Lionel Jospin penned a controversial best selling book entitled “the Napoleonic Evil” in which he accused the emperor of “perverting the ideas of the Revolution” and imposing “a form of extreme domination”, “despotism” and “a police state” on the French people. He wrote Napoleon was "an obvious failure" - bad for France and the rest of Europe. When he was booted out into final exile, France was isolated, beaten, occupied, dominated, hated and smaller than before. What's more, Napoleon smothered the forces of emancipation awakened by the French and American revolutions and enabled the survival and restoration of monarchies. Some of the legacies with which Napoleon is credited, including the Civil Code, the comprehensive legal system replacing a hodgepodge of feudal laws, were proposed during the revolution, Jospin argued, though he acknowledges that Napoleon actually delivered them, but up to a point, "He guaranteed some principles of the revolution and, at the same time, changed its course, finished it and betrayed it," For instance, Napoleon reintroduced slavery in French colonies, revived a system that allowed the rich to dodge conscription in the military and did nothing to advance gender equality.

At the other end of the spectrum have been former right-wing prime minister Dominique de Villepin, an aristocrat who was once fancied as a future President, a passionate collector of Napoleonic memorabilia, and author of several works on the subject. As a Napoleonic enthusiast he tells a different story. Napoleon was a saviour of France. If there had been no Napoleon, the Republic would not have survived. Advocates like de Villepin point to Napoleon’s undoubted achievements: the Civil Code, the Council of State, the Bank of France, the National Audit office, a centralised and coherent administrative system, lycées, universities, centres of advanced learning known as école normale, chambers of commerce, the metric system, and an honours system based on merit (which France has to this day). He restored the Catholic faith as the state faith but allowed for the freedom of religion for other faiths including Protestantism and Judaism. These were ambitions unachieved during the chaos of the revolution. As it is, these Napoleonic institutions continue to function and underpin French society. Indeed, many were copied in countries conquered by Napoleon, such as Italy, Germany and Poland, and laid the foundations for the modern state.

Back in 2014, French politicians and institutions in particular were nervous in marking the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's exile. My neighbours and other French friends remember that the commemorations centred around the Chateau de Fontainebleau, the traditional home of the kings of France and was the scene where Napoleon said farewell to the Old Guard in the "White Horse Courtyard" (la cour du Cheval Blanc) at the Palace of Fontainebleau. (The courtyard has since been renamed the "Courtyard of Goodbyes".) By all accounts the occasion was very moving. The 1814 Treaty of Fontainebleau stripped Napoleon of his powers (but not his title as Emperor of the French) and sent him into exile on Elba. The cost of the Fontainebleau "farewell" and scores of related events over those three weekends was shouldered not by the central government in Paris but by the local château, a historic monument and UNESCO World Heritage site, and the town of Fontainebleau.

While the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution that toppled the monarchy and delivered thousands to death by guillotine was officially celebrated in 1989, Napoleonic anniversaries are neither officially marked nor celebrated. For example, over a decade ago, the president and prime minister - at the time, Jacques Chirac and Dominque de Villepin - boycotted a ceremony marking the 200th anniversary of the battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon's greatest military victory. Both men were known admirers of Napoleon and yet political calculation and optics (as media spin doctors say) stopped them from fully honouring Napoleon’s crowning military glory.

Optics is everything. The division of opinion in France is perhaps best reflected in the fact that, in a city not shy of naming squares and streets after historical figures, there is not a single “Boulevard Napoleon” or “Place Napoleon” in Paris. On the streets of Paris, there are just two statues of Napoleon. One stands beneath the clock tower at Les Invalides (a military hospital), the other atop a column in the Place Vendôme. Napoleon's red marble tomb, in a crypt under the Invalides dome, is magnificent, perhaps because his remains were interred there during France's Second Empire, when his nephew, Napoleon III, was on the throne.

There are no squares, nor places, nor boulevards named for Napoleon but as far as I know there is one narrow street, the rue Bonaparte, running from the Luxembourg Gardens to the River Seine in the old Latin Quarter. And, that, too, is thanks to Napoleon III. For many, and I include myself, it’s a poor return by the city to the man who commissioned some of its most famous monuments, including the Arc de Triomphe and the Pont des Arts over the River Seine.

It's almost as if Napoleon Bonaparte is not part of the national story.

How Napoleon fits into that national story is something historians, French and non-French, have been grappling with ever since Napoleon died. The plain fact is Napoleon divides historians, what precisely he represents is deeply ambiguous and his political character is the subject of heated controversy. It’s hard for historians to sift through archival documents to make informed judgements and still struggle to separate the man from the myth.

One proof of this myth is in his immortality. After Hitler’s death, there was mostly an embarrassed silence; after Stalin’s, little but denunciation. But when Napoleon died on St Helena in 1821, much of Europe and the Americas could not help thinking of itself as a post-Napoleonic generation. His presence haunts the pages of Stendhal and Alfred de Vigny. In a striking and prescient phrase, Chateaubriand prophesied the “despotism of his memory”, a despotism of the fantastical that in many ways made Romanticism possible and that continues to this day.

The raw material for the future Napoleon myth was provided by one of his St Helena confidants, the Comte de las Cases, whose account of conversations with the great man came out shortly after his death and ran in repeated editions throughout the century. De las Cases somehow metamorphosed the erstwhile dictator into a herald of liberty, the emperor into a slayer of dynasties rather than the founder of his own. To the “great man” school of history Napoleon was grist to their mill, and his meteoric rise redefined the meaning of heroism in the modern world.

The Marxists, for all their dislike of great men, grappled endlessly with the meaning of the 18th Brumaire; indeed one of France’s most eminent Marxist historians, George Lefebvre, wrote what arguably remains the finest of all biographies of him.

It was on this already vast Napoleon literature, a rich terrain for the scholar of ideas, that the great Dutch historian Pieter Geyl was lecturing in 1940 when he was arrested and sent to Buchenwald. There he composed what became one of the classics of historiography, a seminal book entitled Napoleon: For and Against, which charted how generations of intellectuals had happily served up one Napoleon after another. Like those poor souls who crowded the lunatic asylums of mid-19th century France convinced that they were Napoleon, generations of historians and novelists simply could not get him out of their head.

The debate runs on today no less intensely than in the past. Post-Second World War Marxists would argue that he was not, in fact, revolutionary at all. Eric Hobsbawm, a notable British Marxist historian, argued that ‘Most-perhaps all- of his ideas were anticipated by the Revolution’ and that Napoleon’s sole legacy was to twist the ideals of the French Revolution, and make them ‘more conservative, hierarchical and authoritarian’.

This contrasts deeply with the view William Doyle holds of Napoleon. Doyle described Bonaparte as ‘the Revolution incarnate’ and saw Bonaparte’s humbling of Europe’s other powers, the ���Ancien Regimes’, as a necessary precondition for the birth of the modern world. Whatever one thinks of Napoleon’s character, his sharp intellect is difficult to deny. Even Paul Schroeder, one of Napoleon’s most scathing critics, who condemned his conduct of foreign policy as a ‘criminal enterprise’ never denied Napoleon’s intellect. Schroder concluded that Bonaparte ‘had an extraordinary capacity for planning, decision making, memory, work, mastery of detail and leadership’.  The question of whether Napoleon used his genius for the betterment or the detriment of the world, is the heart of the debate which surrounds him.

France's foremost Napoleonic scholar, Jean Tulard, put forward the thesis that Bonaparte was the architect of modern France. "And I would say also pâtissier [a cake and pastry maker] because of the administrative millefeuille that we inherited." Oddly enough, in North America the multilayered mille-feuille cake is called ‘a napoleon.’ Tulard’s works are essential reading of how French historians have come to tackle the question of Napoleon’s legacy. He takes the view that if Napoleon had not crushed a Royalist rebellion and seized power in 1799, the French monarchy and feudalism would have returned, Tulard has written. "Like Cincinnatus in ancient Rome, Napoleon wanted a dictatorship of public salvation. He gets all the power, and, when the project is finished, he returns to his plough." In the event, the old order was never restored in France. When Louis XVIII became emperor in 1814, he served as a constitutional monarch.

In England, until recently the views on Napoleon have traditionally less charitable and more cynical. Professor Christopher Clark, the notable Cambridge University European historian, has written. "Napoleon was not a French patriot - he was first a Corsican and later an imperial figure, a journey in which he bypassed any deep affiliation with the French nation," Clark believed Napoleon’s relationship with the French Revolution is deeply ambivalent.

Did he stabilise the revolutionary state or shut it down mercilessly? Clark believes Napoleon seems to have done both. Napoleon rejected democracy, he suffocated the representative dimension of politics, and he created a culture of courtly display. A month before crowning himself emperor, Napoleon sought approval for establishing an empire from the French in a plebiscite; 3,572,329 voted in favour, 2,567 against. If that landslide resembles an election in North Korea, well, this was no secret ballot. Each ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was recorded, along with the name and address of the voter. Evidently, an overwhelming majority knew which side their baguette was buttered on.

His extravagant coronation in Notre Dame in December 1804 cost 8.5 million francs (€6.5 million or $8.5 million in today's money). He made his brothers, sisters and stepchildren kings, queens, princes and princesses and created a Napoleonic aristocracy numbering 3,500. By any measure, it was a bizarre progression for someone often described as ‘a child of the Revolution.’ By crowning himself emperor, the genuine European kings who surrounded him were not convinced. Always a warrior first, he tried to represent himself as a Caesar, and he wears a Roman toga on the bas-reliefs in his tomb. His coronation crown, a laurel wreath made of gold, sent the same message. His icon, the eagle, was also borrowed from Rome. But Caesar's legitimacy depended on military victories. Ultimately, Napoleon suffered too many defeats.

These days Napoleon the man and his times remain very much in fashion and we are living through something of a new golden age of Napoleonic literature. Those historians who over the past decade or so have had fun denouncing him as the first totalitarian dictator seem to have it all wrong: no angel, to be sure, he ended up doing far more at far less cost than any modern despot. In his widely praised 2014 biography, Napoleon the Great, Andrew Roberts writes: “The ideas that underpin our modern world - meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances, and so on - were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by Napoleon. To them he added a rational and efficient local administration, an end to rural banditry, the encouragement of science and the arts, the abolition of feudalism and the greatest codification of laws since the fall of the Roman empire.”

Roberts partly bases his historical judgement on newly released historical documents about Napoleon that were only available in the past decade and has proved to be a boon for all Napoleonic scholars. Newly released 33,000 letters Napoleon wrote that still survive are now used extensively to illustrate the astonishing capacity that Napoleon had for compartmentalising his mind - he laid down the rules for a girls’ boarding school on the eve of the battle of Borodino, for example, and the regulations for Paris’s Comédie-Française while camped in the Kremlin. They also show Napoleon’s extraordinary capacity for micromanaging his empire: he would write to the prefect of Genoa telling him not to allow his mistress into his box at the theatre, and to a corporal of the 13th Line regiment warning him not to drink so much.

For me to have my own perspective on Napoleon is tough. The problem is that nothing with Napoleon is simple, and almost every aspect of his personality is a maddening paradox. He was a military genius who led disastrous campaigns. He was a liberal progressive who reinstated slavery in the French colonies. And take the French Revolution, which came just before Napoleon’s rise to power, his relationship with the French Revolution is deeply ambivalent. Did he stabilise it or shut it down? I agree with those British and French historians who now believe Napoleon seems to have done both.

On the one hand, Napoleon did bring order to a nation that had been drenched in blood in the years after the Revolution. The French people had endured the crackdown known as the 'Reign of Terror', which saw so many marched to the guillotine, as well as political instability, corruption, riots and general violence. Napoleon’s iron will managed to calm the chaos. But he also rubbished some of the core principles of the Revolution. A nation which had boldly brought down the monarchy had to watch as Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, with more power and pageantry than Louis XVI ever had. He also installed his relatives as royals across Europe, creating a new aristocracy. In the words of French politician and author Lionel Jospin, 'He guaranteed some principles of the Revolution and at the same time, changed its course, finished it and betrayed it.'

He also had a feared henchman in the form of Joseph Fouché, who ran a secret police network which instilled dread in the population. Napoleon’s spies were everywhere, stifling political opposition. Dozens of newspapers were suppressed or shut down. Books had to be submitted for approval to the Commission of Revision, which sounds like something straight out of George Orwell. Some would argue Hitler and Stalin followed this playbook perfectly. But here come the contradictions. Napoleon also championed education for all, founding a network of schools. He championed the rights of the Jews. In the territories conquered by Napoleon, laws which kept Jews cooped up in ghettos were abolished. 'I will never accept any proposals that will obligate the Jewish people to leave France,' he once said, 'because to me the Jews are the same as any other citizen in our country.'

He also, crucially, developed the Napoleonic Code, a set of laws which replaced the messy, outdated feudal laws that had been used before. The Napoleonic Code clearly laid out civil laws and due processes, establishing a society based on merit and hard work, rather than privilege. It was rolled out far beyond France, and indisputably helped to modernise Europe. While it certainly had its flaws – women were ignored by its reforms, and were essentially regarded as the property of men – the Napoleonic Code is often brandished as the key evidence for Napoleon’s progressive credentials. In the words of historian Andrew Roberts, author of Napoleon the Great, 'the ideas that underpin our modern world… were championed by Napoleon'.

What about Napoleon’s battlefield exploits? If anything earns comparisons with Hitler, it’s Bonaparte’s apparent appetite for conquest. His forces tore down republics across Europe, and plundered works of art, much like the Nazis would later do. A rampant imperialist, Napoleon gleefully grabbed some of the greatest masterpieces of the Renaissance, and allegedly boasted, 'the whole of Rome is in Paris.'

Napoleon has long enjoyed a stellar reputation as a field commander – his capacities as a military strategist, his ability to read a battle, the painstaking detail with which he made sure that he cold muster a larger force than his adversary or took maximum advantage of the lie of the land – these are stuff of the military legend that has built up around him. It is not without its critics, of course, especially among those who have worked intensively on the later imperial campaigns, in the Peninsula, in Russia, or in the final days of the Empire at Waterloo.

Doubts about his judgment, and allegations of rashness, have been raised in the context of some of his victories, too, most notably, perhaps, at Marengo. But overall his reputation remains largely intact, and his military campaigns have been taught in the curricula of military academies from Saint-Cyr to Sandhurst, alongside such great tacticians as Alexander the Great and Hannibal.

Historians may query his own immodest opinion that his presence on the battlefield was worth an extra forty thousand men to his cause, but it is clear that when he was not present (as he was not for most of the campaign in Spain) the French were wont to struggle. Napoleon understood the value of speed and surprise, but also of structures and loyalties. He reformed the army by introducing the corps system, and he understood military aspirations, rewarding his men with medals and honours; all of which helped ensure that he commanded exceptional levels of personal loyalty from his troops.

Yet, I do find it hard to side with the more staunch defenders of Napoleon who say his reputation as a war monger is to some extent due to British propaganda at the time. They will point out that the Napoleonic Wars, far from being Napoleon’s fault, were just a continuation of previous conflicts that arose thanks to the French Revolution. Napoleon, according to this analysis, inherited a messy situation, and his only real crime was to be very good at defeating enemies on the battlefield. I think that is really pushing things too far. I mean deciding to invade Spain and then Russia were his decisions to invade and conquer.

He was, by any measure, a genius of war. Even his nemesis the Duke of Wellington, when asked who the greatest general of his time was, replied: 'In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon.'

I will qualify all this and agree that Napoleon’s Russian campaign has been rightly held up as a fatal folly which killed so many of his men, but this blunder – epic as it was – should not be compared to Hitler’s wars of evil aggression. Most historians will agree that comparing the two men is horribly flattering to Hitler - a man fuelled by visceral, genocidal hate - and demeaning to Napoleon, who was a product of Enlightenment thinking and left a legacy that in many ways improved Europe.

Napoleon was, of course, no libertarian, and no pluralist. He would tolerate no opposition to his rule, and though it was politicians and civilians who imposed his reforms, the army was never far behind. But comparisons with twentieth-century dictators are well wide of the mark. While he insisted on obedience from those he administered, his ideology was based not on division or hatred, but on administrative efficiency and submission to the law. And the state he believed in remained stubbornly secular.

In Catholic southern Europe, of course, that was not an approach with which it was easy to acquiesce; and disorder, insurgency and partisan attacks can all be counted among the results. But these were principles on which the Emperor would not and could not give ground. If he had beliefs they were not religious or spiritual beliefs, but the secular creed of a man who never forgot that he owed both his military career and his meteoric political rise to the French Revolution, and who never quite abandoned, amidst the monarchical symbolism and the court pomp of the Empire, the republican dreams of his youth. When he claimed, somewhat ambiguously, after the coup of 18 Brumaire that `the Revolution was over’, he almost certainly meant that the principles of 1789 had at last been consummated, and that the continuous cycle of violence of the 1790s could therefore come to an end.

When the Empire was declared in 1804, the wording, again, might seem curious, the French being informed that the `Republic would henceforth be ruled by an Emperor’. Napoleon might be a dictator, but a part at least of him remained a son of the Enlightenment.

The arguments over Napoleon’s status will continue - and that in itself is a testament to the power of one of the most complex figures ever to straddle the world’s stage.

Will the fascination with Napoleon continue for another 200 years?

In France, at least, enthusiasm looks set to diminish. Napoleon and his exploits are scarcely mentioned in French schools anymore. Stéphane Guégan, curator of the Musée d'Orsay in Paris, which, among other First Empire artworks, houses a plaster model of Napoleon dressed as a Roman emperor astride a horse, has described France's fascination with him as ‘a national illness.’ He believes that the people who met him were fascinated by his charm. And today, even the most hostile to Napoleon also face this charm. So there is a difficulty to apprehend the duality of this character. As he wrote, “He was born from the revolution, he extended and finished it, and after 1804 he turns into a despot, a dictator.”

In France, Guégan aptly observes, there is a kind of nostalgia, not for dictatorship but for strong leaders. "Our age is suffering a lack of imagination and political utopia,"

Here I think Guégan is onto something. Napoleon’s stock has always risen or fallen according to the vicissitudes of world events and fortunes of France itself.

In the past, history was the study of great men and women. Today the focus of teaching is on trends, issues and movements. France in 1800 is no longer about Louis XVI and Napoleon Bonaparte. It's about the industrial revolution. Man does not make history. History makes men. Or does it? The study of history makes a mug out of those with such simple ideological driven conceits.

For two hundred years on, the French still cannot agree on whether Napoleon was a hero or a villain as he has swung like a pendulum according to the gravitational pull of historical events and forces.

The question I keep asking of myself and also to French friends with whom I discuss such things is what kind of Napoleon does our generation need?

Thanks for your question.

[architectuul]

Autobus Park №7: Kyiv’s Abandoned Transport Circus

Kyiv might be Europe’s single greatest city for late-twentieth century Modernist architecture. It boasts many wild, eclectic, and vividly imaginative examples of the style, built during the height of Soviet monument-mania. Though amongst its steel and concrete marvels of Soviet-era architecture, one of Kyiv’s most striking modern buildings has, in recent years, also become one of the city’s most problematic ruins. Autobus Park №7  – once the pride of the Ukrainian transport industry – exists today as a decaying morgue for almost a thousand abandoned buses.

Autobus Park №7 today. | Photo © Darmon Richter

The design challenge of the Autobus Park №7 was to create an efficient depot capable of housing and maintaining a fleet of some 500 buses, in an urban environment where building space was limited. Had the building been constructed like a warehouse, or a factory, using a square plan and a regular pillar-based solution for supporting the roof, it was estimated that the total size of the building would have needed to be at least 4,000 square metres. However, an ingenious solution was proposed instead.

Under construction (1972), promotional photographs (1970s) and technical sketches (1979). | Photo via Khabarovsk Polytechnic Institute.

The chief engineers on the project, V. A. Kozlov and S. I. Smorgon, were responsible for the idea of using a cable-suspended roof. They took their inspiration from circus buildings – the cylindrical concrete-and-steel constructions which were by this time a ubiquitous feature in cities throughout the Soviet Union. By designing the building on a circular plan, and suspending concrete roof panels on cables strung between a central support pillar and the outer walls, it was found that both space and construction costs could be significantly reduced. Moreover, this design, with its organic, circular shape, lent itself more to what was then considered a modern and humanistic work environment for employees – while its form, reminiscent of circuses and Palaces of Culture, presented the bus depot not as a bland, functional box, but rather a community venue.

Kyiv’s Autobus Park №7 during its heyday with the tall building on the left accommodating administrative offices and staff canteens. | Photo via Exutopia

Left: Workers outside Kyiv Autobus Park №7 in 1977;  right: A new fleet of buses ready for service, 1975. | Photo via Exutopia

Kozlov and Smorgon built a 1:10 scale model to test their idea. The central support pillar would be 18 metres high, a tower of reinforced concrete with a diameter of 8 metres, consisting of 0.3-metre thick concrete walls around an inner support of solid steel with a cross-section of 0.32 x 0.22 metres. Attached to the top of this pillar, were 84 radial cables – steel ropes with a diameter of 65 millimetres. Each of these cables was able to support a weight of up to 350 tons, and the roof would be constructed on top of them: a suspended tent dome, created from concrete plates, and with a total diameter of 160 metres.

On its completion in 1973, the building was considered an engineering marvel – its hanging roof was one of the largest ever constructed, and this system of support reduced the building’s necessary size from 40,000 square metres (the estimate for a pillar-supported roof) to a footprint of just 23,000 square metres. 

Details of the relief on the front of building showing staff, passengers, vehicles, and the logos of various automotive brands. | Photo © Darmon Richter

As much as possible, the design aimed to take advantage of natural light. The concrete plates of the roof were fitted with portholes, most of which were concentrated close around the main support tower. In the outer wall, upright glass cylinders were installed between concrete panels, serving as sturdy support pillars that both insulated the building against the cold outside, and allowed refracted light to shine into the wings of the building. This solution proved particularly robust, and most of these glass pillars have survived intact since the early 1970s until this day. Between them, these design choices resulted in an interior space and working area that enjoyed bright sunlight during the day, thus minimising the additional cost of electrical lighting.

Attached to the 18m central support pillar, a metal staircase leads up to an observation platform. | Photo © Darmon Richter

Once operational, Autobus Park №7 was the largest vehicle depot in the Soviet Union – and it was rumoured, potentially the largest anywhere in the world. It served as more than just a garage, though. It was the base of operations for the entire fleet of buses serving the capital, including city buses, intercity buses, and also those working international routes, to Germany, Poland, Belarus and Russia. The building was fully air-conditioned, it featured a four-gate vehicle wash, and a mechanised repair bay fitted with conveyor belt systems. The building had a staff of 1,500 workers, and featured workers’ canteens, as well as a computing centre too – where teams calculated staff salaries and work shifts, as well as designing and optimising bus routes.

Sadly, the glory days of Autobus Park №7 would be short-lived. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, many of the fleet’s international routes were discontinued. Services were gradually reduced through the 1990s, into the 2000s, while meanwhile, the building was increasingly used to store wrecked vehicles awaiting repair or decommissioning. The reduction of domestic bus routes in 2005 was a further blow, and eventually, in 2015, the autopark closed its doors for good – the building slipping into disrepair, as the once-proud circus was steadily transformed into a scrapyard.

Since it was officially closed in 2015, almost 1,000 buses have been stored inside the abandoned building. | Photo © Darmon Richter

Today, Autobus Park №7 in Kyiv seems to be locked in a downward spiral of decay. The building itself is nothing short of an engineering marvel, an extraordinary work of architecture that supporters have suggested could be adapted now into a museum, or even a film studio. In April 2018 a petition was registered on the website of Kyiv City Council, calling for the building’s preservation – but it only received 321 votes, a long way short of its target of 10,000 signatures. Even had it been successful though, good intentions don’t count for much without action and intent on the part of Kyiv City Council; where currently, any talks of potential preservation are being blocked at a bureaucratic level.

For 25 years the building has been owned by the company Kyivpastrans (‘Kyiv Passenger Transportation), whose deputy general director, Sergey Litvinov, has said that Autobus Park №7 poses an imminent risk of collapse, and, given the cost and scale of such a project, would be almost impossible to save. Meanwhile, other former transport depots around the city have already been bulldozed to make room for new residential blocks and shopping centres. Many property developers would jump at the chance of getting their hands on this 23,000-square metre plot – and from the perspective of the current owners, it is probably a more attractive financial proposition. The building is neither listed nor protected, so were it empty, there would be nothing to stop the owners from knocking it down overnight.

This rooftop capsule offered a panoramic view of the 180-metre diameter suspended roof of Autobus Park №7. | Photo © Darmon Richter

However, for the time being all parties are locked into a kind of stalemate over the building’s contents. The estimated 903 rusting vehicles stored inside (including LAZ, Volvo, Ikarus, and various other brands of urban and long-distance buses) pose a major administrative problem. These buses cannot easily be removed, or scrapped, as technically they are yet to be decommissioned from service. A new regulation that was introduced into Ukrainian law in 2013 complicated the bureaucratic procedure and created a backlog; so that all of the vehicles inside Autobus Park №7 today are – officially, on paper – still in service and awaiting audit. As such they cannot legally be taken apart for scrap, and right now, there’s nowhere else to store them in the city but here.

The vehicles have still not been officially decommissioned under Ukrainian law – which means they cannot be scrapped until the necessary paperwork is processed. | Photo © Darmon Richter

So for now, it’s a waiting game. If Kyivpastrans and Kyiv City Council are able to solve the bureaucratic headache of their vehicle decommissioning procedure, remove the abandoned buses, and then find the will, not to mention the funding, to undertake the colossal project of preserving Autobus Park №7 (while turning down more lucrative offers from property developers in the process), then perhaps the building might yet be saved. But in the meanwhile, the circus roof is sagging, and young trees are already sprouting from cracks in the concrete.

It may just be that this building, an engineering marvel of the Soviet period, having failed to find its place in a post-Soviet world, is doomed to go the same way as the regime that built it.

--

by Darmon Richter 

[adapted with permission from an article at Ex Utopia]

Sources: Smena Magazine (1974) Issue No.19 Khabarovsk Polytechnic Institute (1979) Reinforced Concrete Space Structures (lecture notes, p.24-26), M. P. Danilovsky Hmarochos (2018) Why are Storage Facilities for Faulty Kyivpastrans Buses Being Set Up in Kyiv? Kiev Vlast (2019) Kyiv City Council Decided to Solve the Riddle of Bus Depot №7

[wolf-queer-discourse]

Adventures in Aphobia #1

So I was scrolling through Tumblr the other day (a regrettable mistake as always), and I had the great pleasure of seeing this joyous post.

*deep breath*

Not gonna lie, posts like this make me real pissed. Pissed because the person who posted this exists in a space where they feel comfortable enough to post this online. Pissed because these posts are so common and often face little backlash. And pissed because there’s nothing better than allosexuals condescendingly explaining to asexual people why they’re dirty attention whores who invent their own oppression. Ace people deserve to be defended against this horseshit. Young people see these posts, and it’s extremely damaging to have your identity be nothing more than fuel for people in discourse to mock you and demand you bled in order for them to notice your pain.

Anger aside, many people do not see why this post is wrong, so why is it? Let’s unpack this clusterfuck of bigotry:

“would love to see substantive evidence of systematic “aphobia” that isn’t actually just misogyny, toxic masculinity, or rpe culture.”

God damn, we are not mincing our words here XD. A few things: systematic in bold, which tells you if you do not make a blood sacrifice on the altar of queer pain you will not be taken seriously. Potential nitpick, but systemic and systematic are not the same thing. I believe systemic is the word they’re looking for. Systematic implies a lot more intentionality that can be hard to prove. Systemic merely means that systems, in their current state, do aphobic things, which they absolutely do.

“Aphobia” in quotes is absolutely rich. Not only will this person refuse to acknowledge systemic aphobia, which is only one type, but this poster casts clear doubt upon the mere concept of aphobia in and of itself. We love to see it.

There’s a lot to unpack here. The statement, as clearly condescending as intended, is sort of correct, though it doesn’t mean a whole lot. Systemic oppression is about the systems in a society (government, healthcare, etc) discriminating against people. Systemic oppression is not bigotry faced on a person-to-person level. In short, systematic oppression is something a person experiences in their overall life, while personal discrimination is experienced on a personal level by people who are not singularly in control of the systems. This post boils down the negative comments ace people face into being called “weird”, which is an understatement for sure, but calling a gay person weird isn’t systemic oppression either.

It’s still bad and discriminatory.

This is such a snotty way to dismiss aphobia as some mere, insignificant comment with no meaning as if it doesn’t reinforce society’s painful aphobic views in the same way casual homophobic comments reinforce heteronormativity and society’s hostility toward gay people.

Ace people face discrimination in healthcare, most notably, which is systemic discrimination, but the systemic discrimination of asexuals really ought to be its own post if I’m to nosedive into it. Even if ace people faced no systemic discrimination, it wouldn’t make this point anymore correct. Discrimination is a perfectly valid reason to feel disregarded by society, and often only ace people are denied the right to feel this way and are instead gaslit into admitting what they face is no big deal and they’re just making it up for attention.

The experience of being pressured to have sex when you’re allo vs ace is very different. The vast majority of allo people do not plan to be celibate their whole lives. Many ace people do not want to have sex, ever. “Waiting for sex” in much of western society and in Christianity is seen as pure and honorable. Yet being asexual and never wanting sex is seen as a deviant disorder and people are accused of robbing their partner of sex forever.

There’s really a specific flavor of sexual pressure that is unique to ace people. Sex being to “fix” someone or because they “just need to try it”.

In this respect, aphobic sexual pressure is better compared to that faced by gay people and lesbians. Lesbians especially often can face this same struggle, men pressuring them to have sex because they think lesbians just need to “try it” or to “fix them”. I can imagine this poster would have no issue acknowledging lesbophobia being the root of lesbians coerced into sex with men, yet she does not give ace people the same.

Imagine if someone said (and knowing our fucked world, someone probably has): “Lesbophobia doesn’t exist. It’s just misogyny. Straight women are coerced into sex too!”

It’d be pathetic bullshit. Toxic masculinity, misogyny and many other issues can all tangle into combined messes with other forms of bigotry. Lesbophobia is an experience that deserves to be recognized apart from misogyny, even if the two are linked. Please stop erasing ace people’s experiences with this when it’s not the same thing.

Honestly, though, this post, as trashy as it is, if anything, is perhaps, really asking: Is there any type of aphobic experience that’s inherently exclusive to ace people?

I still wager to go say, yes, yes there is, but I must make an important point first:

Most experiences of queer discrimination are not limited to queer people.

Homophobia and transphobia are both experienced by cishets in certain instances. Feminine straight men can be victims of homophobic harassment. This does not disprove the fact that it’s homophobia just because a straight man is the victim of it. A tall cis woman with broad shoulders and a lower voice may be the victim of transphobic remarks or comments. The basis of these comments is rooted in transphobia, however, so the fact that the victim is cis does not erase the transphobia.

People who argue that experiences ace people complain about can be experienced by allosexuals are not poking a legitimate hole in doing this. Certain experiences related to aphobia can and are experienced by allosexuals. If you do not acknowledge this, then homophobia and transphobia aren’t real because cishet people have sometimes experienced them.

Despite cishets sometimes experiencing queerphobia, most of us acknowledge that their experience of that bigotry, however unfortunate, is not the same as that experienced by actual queer people. It’d be quite homophobic for a feminine straight man to claim he knew just as much about the gay experience as an actual gay man. Similarly, when allosexual people relate experiences that were rooted in aphobia, it’s overstepping a line when they claim asexual discrimination isn’t real because they experienced elements of it too.

Cishet (cishet including allosexuals) people do not experience their doctors telling them their sexuality might be a disorder or caused by trauma. Allo queer people can experience this with their sexualities too.

“using sex appeal to sell products is misogyny, it is not engineered to gross sex-repulsed people, it is meant to objectify women.”

This is a strawman thinner than my last nerve. Uh, what? What ace people are you seeing that literally think sex appeal was engineered to gross-out sex-repulsed people?? I don’t think this is a core argument??

Yes, sex-repulsed ace people sometimes complain about sex appeal in media being uncomfortable. But that’s it. Every time an ace person shares a discomfort of theirs doesn’t mean it’s the entire basis of their oppression. For the love of God, let ace people discuss their experiences without being blow-torched over not being oppressed enough with an individual discomfort. 

BONUS ROUND

(This was in the tags)

“Completely vilifies celibate individuals” 

...no…? What…? Huh…? 

The most charitable interpretation of this vague accusation is that the poster means celibate people face aphobia as well, due to not wanting to have sex. I have no idea how this “vilifies” anyone, but that aside, as said before: people who are not queer can face aphobia. Also worth noting that society treats celibate people way better than ace people, which is really another example of aphobia. Celibate people can be told they’re missing out (which could be at very least related to aphobic ideals), but they’re rarely called broken. Celibacy is seen more as a respected, controlled ideal in allo people, but when ace people want to do it, they’re just mentally ill.

Anyway, the post was aphobic trash, and it needs to be debunked more often. Mocking ace people online is not a good look anymore, guys. Don't be ugly.

[marjanefan]

Nosedive and the performance of femininity

Nosedive is one of the most acclaimed and beloved ‘Black Mirror’ episodes with its darkly comic (and eerily prescient) storyline, beautiful photography and a wonderful central performance by Bryce Dallas Howard as Lacie. Something that has been picked up by several commentators is the portrayal of gender and gender roles in this episode. There is a lot in the episode tht worth exploring but I hope this is an interesting if brief look at this particular aspect of the episode.

First just to to acknowledge there have been at least two articles looking at the issue of gender in 'Nosedive'

https://psmag.com/social-justice/why-are-so-many-ladies-insta-fiends-in-movies

https://dailytitan.com/2017/04/female-gaze-black-mirror-explores-gendered-expectations-social-media/

The episode was written by Michael Schur and Rashida Jones from an idea by Charlie Brooker (the first episode he did not have a role in writing) and directed by Joe Wright. In the five years since broadcast it has become more appallingly relevant.

Lacie Pound (Bryce Dallas Howard) lives in a world where people rate each other on an unnamed app after every interaction. A person’s score on this app out of 5 determines whether they are able to access particular services, can live or enter particular areas, whether they can enter their workplace and even if they receive particular medical treatments. When the episode opens we see that Lacey has a reasonably high score of 4.2. We see the work she has had to do in to achieve and keep this score. When We first meet her, she is practicing her laugh in the mirror. We see in her interactions with casual acquaintances that she tries to project herelf as a feminine amenable young woman and her social media posts are intended to further this image. She is constantly acting this role in how she interacts with others in order to get a high score to enable her to have a comfortable life. The episode shows how young women use social media to try to project a particular image of who they are as a way to find a place in the world.

As noted by several reviewers the colour palette of the episode with its pastels gives off a very feminine feel. As Harrys Moving castle in his review, in the apartment Lacie shares with her brother Ryan, her possessions are pink/pastel and Ryans blue, indicating how they conform to gendered roles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8tX9zjO698

Lacie’s ‘Nosedive’ begins after a row with her brother that causes her to be late for her taxi to the airport. She gets downvoted by the woman she bumps into running for the taxi and taxi driver for keeping him waiting, So a very ‘unfeminine’ show of anger by Lacie is what sets of the events which cause her 'downfall.

We then see Lacie refused a seat on a plane by an air stewardess (Michaela Coel). Lacie’s outburst would undoubtably get her labelled a ‘Karen’ today and possibly get filmed and posted online. Lacie is ‘shamed’for her behaviour by the waiting customers who downvote her.

Some commentators on the episode have noted that Lacie has previously had an eating disorder and that she still probably struggles to mainatin her weight and have what is seen as a 'good' figure. Even without the social credit system set up this society Lacie still has struggled with the social expectations placed on females.

Lacie accepts a lift from Susan (Cherry Jones) a truck driver, despite her having a low social credit score. Susan has given up on the social credit system after her husband missed out on potentially life saving medical treatment in spite of a high social credit score because someone else’s was slightly higher. She has given up any pretence of femininity, taking up a masculine job of truck driving and wearing male attire. She also enjoys swearing and drinking alcohol (both ‘unfeminine’ behaviours). Lacie’s encounter with Susan will show her that it is possible to exist outside the system of social credit. Susan’s kindness and friendship also illustrates to Lacie that people can relate to each other in a more genuine manner when they are not using each other to get a higher social score. Susan gives Lacie her red flask of alcohol to assist her on her journey (it proves useful)

Lacie becomess emboldened by her encounter with Susan. (As Harry's Moving Castle notes, as the episode progresses and Lacie moves further away from her 'perfect' score the more independent and resourceful she becomesO. She feels free enough to insult the fans of 'Sea of Tranquility' who have given her a lift. She borrows a motorcycle to complete her journey to Naomi’s wedding (a very unfeminine way of travelling!).

When she gives her speech at the end, Lacie is a dark parody of a bridesmaid. Her hair, dress and make up are all disordered, reflecting the difficult physical and emotional journey Lanie has been on.

Naomi (Alice Eve) is what we would now call an ‘Influencer’. She uses the social credit system to achieve a particular lifestyle As some commentators have noted Naomi may only being getting married as a form of social advancement nd an attempt to get an even higher score. We also see the pressure she feels under to maintain her high score. Lacie's speech, wich Naomi hoped would reflect well on her, now has broken the facade her wedding was supposed to create. It is not just Lacie’s nosedive but Naomi’s.

Lacie ends the episode in a prison cell. But rather than look despondent she looks happy and she contemplates the dust which almost looks like a liberating rain. She realises there is a man (Ṣọpẹ Dìrísù) in the cell opposite her and they joyfully trade insults. There is an undercurrent of flirtation in the encounter. It is probably no co-incidence that Lacie shares this moment with an African American man. As an African American man he would have spent his life having to police his behaviour around white people and not show his true feelings and anger for fear of what the consequences may be. Interestingly he is dressed in a suit indicating that like Lacie he has managed to get to a certain level of social status. He can finally allow himself to behave with the anger (and sexual desire) that he has had to repress.

We don't know what Lacie's long term fate will be after the end of this episode. But what is clear is that hopefully she will have a better relationship with herself and more meaningful and honest relationships with others as a result of her adventure. The episode shows it is possible to escape the pressures of social media and socially perscribed roles.

[1kook]

hulu & woohoo

summary: But there’s more important matters to attend to than Jungkook’s Jersey Shore boner. warnings: slight feelings of insecurity, smut; fingering, cunnilingus, cum eating, squirting, handjobs, unprotected, riding, slight praise kink misc: if you’re not a Jersey shore fan honestly GET OUT, mentions of capitalism😡, more kind/understanding kook, basically a “what are we?” fic but silly, irresponsible emailing habits, its so dumb just read wc: 6.3k

[ this is a sequel to netflix & chill !! ]

started off silly then I was like 😳what if we sprinkled in a dilemma™️😳 anyway here’s the kook i imagined for this fic <3

Contrary to popular belief, Jungkook does in fact have his own paid subscription to Netflix. He doesn’t ride on his family account anymore, nor does he swindle his friends into sharing their passwords ‘just once.’ Just like everything else about his mature persona, Jungkook is adamant on paying those ten and something dollars for the streaming platform.

However, his fall into capitalism doesn’t end there.

Among other things, Jungkook also pays for Hulu, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, HBO, as well as a couple indie stuff you’ve never heard of in all your years. He’s a bigger nerd than you originally thought, with an incessant need to watch every single piece of media available.

Frankly, you don’t see the need to own so many different streaming services, especially not when pirating websites exist and you could so easily watch Jersey Shore for free, if you’re not too concerned with infecting your laptop with every software virus known to humankind. Luckily for you, your app developer boo with his—admittedly tiny—knowledge in computers can iron out those issues for you.

It’s moments like these, Jungkook fiddling with the internal system settings of your laptop to the best of his abilities, that you find yourself grateful for having met Jungkook, and even if it’s been a little over two months now and he still hasn’t popped the question (“Will you be my girlfriend?”), you’d still kiss him silly.

He sighs for the umpteenth time, rubbing his eyes as he stares at the same system warning on the screen. “Babe, just pay the six bucks for Hulu and you can watch all the Jersey Shore episodes you want,” he says, leaning back in his chair as he stares at you from across the dining table.

You scoff, almost scandalized by his suggestion. “You think I have the resources to hand over six bucks every month?” You abandon your homework in front of you, the one you had so dutifully been working on before your computer was flooded with about a thousand Hot Moms in YOUR Area! notifications before abruptly shutting down. “Buddy, that's lunch at Starbucks.”

Jungkook clicks around a few more times, round glasses sliding down his nose which he will occasionally scrunch up to save from falling. “First of all, lunch at Starbucks sounds sad,” he retorts, and you kick his shin from beneath the table. He doesn’t even flinch, the damn muscle bunny, instead leveling you with an unimpressed glare. “Second of all, I told you I’d give you my passwords but you said—“

“No!” You exclaim.

Call it what you want, but that rose-tinted image of Jungkook being a saint in this world, too sweet and naive for his own good, never faded. Your brain saw it that night of your first date and ran with it, never mind the fact he was quite the devious scoundrel, gentlemanly perception be damned the way he’d tug at your skirts and your hair in public like you were on the playground, always teasing, always playing with you, so discreetly no one would ever see it coming from him, of all people. Your brain saw all that too, the little childish streak he’d get sometimes, but your heart stomped it out, wrapped up in the image of Jungkook being your golden boy, and you couldn’t possibly take advantage of such an angel’s kindness to mooch off his streaming services.

From across the table, Jungkook gives you a pointed look, as if he knows you’re trapped in that brain of yours again. Unlike you, Jungkook was easily able to pick apart your true personality, and the way the devil on your shoulder spoke more often than not. He knew you were prone to outrageous schemes and evil villain monologues, and he still kept you around. Let you linger around his home in his big shirts and eat his healthy breakfasts with him. Jungkook liked you, as silly and mean as you were, and he was very obvious about it.

“The password—“

“Is none of my business,” you halt him with a tone of finality in your voice, gesturing for him to slide the beat up laptop back over. Jungkook sighs, runs a hand over his face like you’ve worn him out, but relents.

Taking it with a triumphant grin, you settle back into your seat, nudge his foot with yours beneath the table. Jungkook nudges you back, the adorable fuzzy socks he was wearing making you giggle, a sound that finally brings a smile to his face. “Y’know…” he says, “if you’re gonna be the Disney villain you claim to be, you might as well just take all my passwords.”

Rolling your eyes, you focus your attention back on copying some notes for class, falling back into the rhythm of glancing at the screen and back at your notebook. “You’re cute,” you mindlessly hum, taking great pleasure in the rosy hue that rises to his cheeks, one he tries to hide by coughing into his elbow. You set your pencil down, watch him squirm under your gaze like he always does, blushy and shy like he hadn’t had you twisted like a pretzel beneath him an hour ago. “Don’t worry about it,” you tell him, reaching over to place your hand over his, where it’s idly tapping over some textbook he’s got out. Immediately, he turns it over, squeezes your palm in his. “I don’t mind getting thirty two viruses an hour.”

The reluctant worry in his gaze remains, sweet puppy eyes flickering over you as if trying to catch a hint of a lie. He was so adorable, you could kiss him silly. Finally, Jungkook gives in, though he does so with a lot of effort; letting you fool around on pirating websites truly was the bane of his existence. “Just bring it to me if it breaks down again, okay?” He settles, and you nod.

To your surprise, he brings your hand up and presses a kiss to the back of your knuckles, holds your gaze like he absolutely adores you.

He was so handsome, so caring, and so blatantly not yours.

—

“Not heading to your boyfriend's house today?” Doyeon asks the second she steps into your shared dorm, fighting with the boots on her feet. In the last two months of knowing Jungkook (everybody say thank you, Kim Namjoon), it’s become rare to see you home for more than two nights in a row. Jungkook was irresistible in more ways than you could count. If you weren’t falling into bed with him, you were smothering his cute face on the couch, or hovering behind him in the kitchen.

“Not my boyfriend,” you deny, huffy, and she knows how you feel about the subject, which is why she only prods more.

“Wow,” Doyeon drawls, glancing over your shoulder where you’ve got Jersey Shore playing on one half of the screen, an essay document on the other. “The man you see every other night, who looks and fucks like a god, who buys you a shit ton of presents, and treats you like you’re his world… is not your boyfriend?”

On screen, the toxic couple of the century is engaged in another screaming match, the reality tv show quickly spiraling as dramatic music takes over the speakers.

You scratch the back of your head. “Yeah. Well.”

Doyeon almost combusts at your response, flinging herself onto her twin bed in disgust. “He is a fool, a court jester if you will,” she seethes. “You're the hottest babe in a fifteen mile radius chasing after him and he still hasn’t asked you?”

Deciding you can’t comfortably watch the toxicity on screen with Doyeon talking so loudly, you slam down on the spacebar to pause the show. The fickity website, set out to ruin you since you first discovered it a few weeks ago, crashes. It takes your half-assed essay with it as the whole computer suddenly blacks out. You sigh.

“And on top of that,” she’s still going, “you’re hot and evil. Like bro. Come on.”

“Yes, I’m sure every man dreams of getting with an evil seductress,” you sarcastically reply, reaching for your phone to text Jungkook for help, when you suddenly remember why exactly you’re not with him right now. He’d gone to Busan to visit his family this weekend, a quick trip, he’d told you with his tongue down your throat. You shiver at the memory.

You still really want to watch Jersey Shore, though. Almost desperately. It’d been a long time since you watched it, and you honestly forgot the pivotal role that and a bunch of other reality shows had played in shaping you into the conniving woman you were today.

Doyeon seems about done with her tirade against Jeon Jungkook, dramatically storming into the en-suite bathroom you share with your neighbors.

Tapping your phone against your lip, you carefully consider your options. You could just boot your laptop back up, pray for the best and move on. But the 240p episodes were doing a number on your eyes, and for a moment you considered handing over those six bucks to pay for a Hulu membership.

It’s short-lived, and eventually you settle on calling Jungkook.

He answers on the fourth ring, and wherever he is is insanely loud. There’s voices shouting, lots of bustling, until eventually a door closes and Jungkook’s silky voice oozes through the speaker. “Baby? What’s up?”

“Hi,” you respond, feel something disgustingly sweet settle in your chest. “Is this a bad time?” You ask tentatively.

Jungkook laughs, low and raspy. “No,” he tells you, and you hear the smile in his voice. “Never a bad time for you.”

You could lunge through the screen right now, rain kisses down on his face until he’s giggling, telling you it’s too much. The feeling in your chest tightens, and you almost blurt out something embarrassingly cheesy, but a voice in the background calls for him, and Jungkook’s voice responds, “In a sec, mom. I’m talking to a friend right now.”

The glass roof shatters.

Even though you’d just told Doyeon you two weren’t a thing, despite all the coupley things you did, something about Jungkook telling his mom you’re just a friend isn't right. You frown, listen as his mother, a voice just as delicate as his, asks him to grab something from inside. With each second that ticks by, the discomfort you feel grows tenfold, until you’re barely holding yourself together.

Eventually, Jungkook returns. “So what’s up?” He asks again, and you remember what you initially called for. Putting on your big girl pants, you brush your uncalled for insecurities to the side, making sure he can’t detect anything in your tone.

“Your Hulu password. Can I have it?” You say, realize how robotical your voice sounds and belatedly throw in a, “please.”

Jungkook laughs, loud and boyish. The sound almost makes you melt, makes you fall for him even more. The niggling doubt in the back of your head still rings, but it’s temporarily washed away by the man on the phone. “Finally giving in?” He chuckles, doesn’t give you time to respond. “Sure, babe. I’ll text you the login stuff.” You hum, twirl your pencil idly as Jungkook announces he has to go, something about his family waiting on him. You bid him adieu, send him a halfhearted kiss over the phone, and only hope he feels half as content as you do when he does the same for you.

You don’t want to be dramatic about it. In your heart of hearts, you know Jungkook is just more reserved when it comes to dating. He wants to be one hundred percent sure your heart is in the same game as his, tied to the same rules, and putting in the same effort. But there’s a seed of insecurity that plants itself in the back of your head, tells you the reason Jungkook hasn’t asked you out is simply because you’re not good enough.

Jungkook was as rich as they come—not in money, but in personality. (Well, with the way he was advancing through his career, you get the sense he’ll be rich rich in the next few years too.) He had a huge heart, so caring and supportive of those around him, and an even bigger moral compass—hence the ridiculous amounts of streaming services he paid for—and you strongly believed no one was worthy of standing beside someone as wonderful as him.

Sadly, that meant you too.

Jungkook was your dream lover, and with every passing day, you were beginning to think you weren’t his. It had been two months since your first date, and realistically speaking, you know it’s not weird for people to casually date for such a time. It hadn’t been that long, truthfully, but the way you and Jungkook had clicked made it seem so.

He treated you like a queen, pleased your heart and body like no other. None of what Doyeon said earlier was a fib—he picked you up from school in that classy Benz, let you stay the night and sleep in his clothes, ate you out in the morning like you were his breakfast. You acted like you were in a relationship, but what exactly were the two of you?

Were Jungkook’s feelings even at the same level as yours?

Some days, you couldn’t fathom the idea of being so far away from him, texting him incessantly to feel a semblance of his presence. There was always a metaphorical elephant sitting on your chest, the weight of your unlabeled relationship, your insecurities, waiting for him to finally cut you off, decide you’re not what he wants. You wonder sometimes if he sees you out of convenience, but you always remind yourself Jungkook was too emotional and soft to drag someone around like that. (Or was he?)

Realizing how deep you’ve fallen into your spiraling pit of uncertainty, you shake yourself of those thoughts, mindlessly typing in the Hulu login credentials Jungkook texts you.

—

You’re in the student center when Jungkook comes home, laptop and books spread out over a circle table to stop anyone else from coming up to you. You’ve got your headphones in, the background sounds of late 2000’s club music from a Jersey Shore episode drifting through your ears.

A hand suddenly grabs onto your shoulder, and you send nearly half the table’s contents onto the floor when you screech, leg blindly kicking the table. “Woah, woah,” Jungkook calms, pulling out an earbud for you, and the sight of his face makes you relax again, before you’re striking his chest.

“Don’t ever scare me like that again,” you warn, shooting daggers at him as he pulls a chair close to you, plopping down beside you. Jungkook laughs, kisses your temple.

“You doing okay, beautiful?” He inquires, and your heartbeat, which had only just begun to settle from your fright, lurches at the hooded gaze he sends you.

You nod, unconsciously lean closer to him. Jungkook smiles, cheeks pulled tight when you plant a soft kiss to the corner of his mouth. “Glad to hear it,” he says, wrapping an arm around your shoulders to keep you close.

You never thought you’d be one of those people. Y’know, the couple shoving PDA down everyone’s throats in a very crowded place. But you can’t help it with Jungkook, gaze honed in on the mole beneath his lip as he recounts his trip to his family’s place. His hair is fluffy again, parted a little to the side to show his forehead. He’s got that big dark hoodie on, the one you love. Your love-addled brain thinks, I could give you a family, but you quickly shut that thought down.

There was no need to think as much for a man who wasn’t even your boyfriend.

Before you can spiral, there’s a set of fingers brushing over your neck, almost casually. You return your attention to Jungkook, watch him leisurely gaze over the bustling students around you. “Missed you,” he says quietly, like he doesn’t want anyone to hear. Hell, if your eyes hadn’t been trained on his face, you don’t think you would’ve.

Finally, he glances back at you. He says nothing, his eyes dipping down to your mouth. He leans forward, presses a smooch to your lips, only to smile at you afterward. “Come over?”

The difference between you and Jungkook is that you were very obviously, outwardly evil. You were not embarrassed to admit you were scheming, or that you had ulterior motives behind doing something. You used what you had to your advantage, mastered all types of expressions to get what you wanted.

Jungkook, on the other hand, was a subtle schemer. In fact, he was so goddamn subtle, you doubt he even knew he was a schemer.

But he definitely was one, and your experiences with him were enough to convince you so. There were times he’d stare at you longingly, like a puppy, until you’d do something for him. Times he’d use his demure face to lure you into going to the hardware store for him, into watching some boring documentary with him. Times, like now, where his voice was a little too smooth and low to be considered his normal pitch, clouded gaze sweeping over your features until you understood what he meant by come over.

Numbly, you nod, watch the quirk of his lips as he kisses you once more before gathering your things for you.

The car ride passes by in a flash, Jungkook’s hand on your knee, your head in the clouds. You imagine how easy it would be to just lean over right here, tug him out of his sweats and get that super suck 5000 on him. But Jungkook’s shy, the devil on your shoulder croons, he’d like it better in the backseat, where no one can see.

Your bag hasn’t even touched the floor yet when he pushes you against the door of his house, shoes and coats half off as he envelopes your lips with his.

His hands are warm, cupping your neck to guide you through the kiss, blindly pulling you down the hall. You feel him falter by the stairs, torn between just throwing you on the couch and ravishing you there or making the trip upstairs to the comfort of his bed. You reach up, run your fingers through his hair. “Wherever you want, baby,” you reassure him, and become consumed with glee when his hands grab into the backs of your thighs, hitch you into his arms as he rushes the two of you up the stairs.

The bed is as fluffy as you remember it, and you bounce up towards the pillows after he drops you on the end. He tugs his shirt over his head, chocolate strands coming out a mess afterwards, before crawling up your body. Jungkook’s hands are incessant, grabbing onto every inch of you he possibly can. He kisses up your tummy, pushing your shirt up as he goes, hikes it over the swell of your breasts to gently fondle them in his palms.

When he’s just about suffocated himself between them, he pops back out, catches your gaze with a twinkle in his. “Hi,” you squeak, and Jungkook grins, leaning up to kiss you.

“Hi, pretty girl,” he returns, let’s your tongue slide into his mouth, sucks on the appendage teasingly. You whimper, and Jungkook releases. “You miss me?” He asks, and if you hadn’t been well-versed in the art of Jungkook’s sexy talk, you wouldn’t have noticed the tingle of nervousness that curls around the question.

You placate him, “always.”

It’s all Jungkook needs as he wiggles you out of your clothes, shucks them off somewhere to the side. His hands trail over your body, massage your breasts and pinch the nipples. You sigh, melt into the sheets as he runs his palms over you. He rolls you over, pulls your hips up and carefully pushes your face into the mattress, pushing your hair to the side to peck your neck when he leans over.

“So soft for me, sweetheart,” he purrs, hands slithering around your waist, down your abdomen until the tip of his pointer finger is idly swirling over your clit.

You whine, clutch the comforter beneath you at the touch. “Oh, fuck,” you groan, push your hips back against him. He’s still got his sweats on, and you want desperately to turn around and rip them off of him, feel the press of his cock against your ass.

As if sensing your urgency, Jungkook calms you with kisses trailing over your spine, hot breath fanning over your neck. His fingers slow, just barely grazing over your clit. “Did you touch yourself while I was gone?” He asks, and you struggle to choke out a response when he presses his finger down against you.

“No,” you eventually gasp, jolt when his hand reaches down, glides through the swollen folds of your cunt.

As if content with your response, Jungkook lets his fingers caress you for a few beats, laps against the side of your neck as you whimper, beg him to continue. When he does, it’s with no ounce of his usual gentle attitude, two fingers shoving forcefully past the tight clench of your pussy lips, deep into your cunt. You shudder, gasping into the sheets.

“Good girl,” Jungkook praises, flutters a kiss right below your ear. Your neurons are working overtime, unsure of what to do as he explores your cunt, fingers dragging against your walls. You want to close your eyes, bask in his touches, but every brush of his fingers has them rolling back, fluttering open. “This pussy is mine, isn’t it?”

His fingers curl, briefly brushing over your soft spot. But it’s enough to make you cry out, pant against the sheets. “Yours,” you choke, push back against him like he’ll do it again.

A thumb circles your clit, and the tight feeling in your belly snaps, has you crying out his name as your first orgasm in a few days washes over you. “Jungkook,” you whimper, nearly sob when his hands pull away, letting you flop down onto the mattress in a boneless heap. Your thighs feel sticky, and you watch blearily as Jungkook hovers behind you.

“So quickly?” He chuckles, turning you back over. He spreads your legs, exposing your pussy to the cool air of the room, and you shiver. A lone finger drags over your cunt, collecting the glossy substance on the tip, before Jungkook is sucking it into his mouth.

He had an affinity for this kind of stuff, you’ve learned. Like he genuinely thought your cum was the most delicious thing in the entire world. That being said, you’re not surprised when he ducks down, pushes your legs to your chest as he begins devouring your pussy.

“Slow down,” you gasp, hand curling in his hair as he spares you not, sensitivity be damned. He was gonna lick you clean. He groans, tongue shoved into your cunt, cute nose brushing against your clit. “Kook,” you warn, though it’s more of a shuddered cry. “I-I’ll come again.”

He pulls off with a wet smack, licks over his tongue as he narrows you with a daring glare. Gone was your sweet Jungkook, replaced with this cum-eating heathen who only purrs, “in my mouth” at your warning.

You scream when the second orgasm hits you, pushing his face against your cunt as his tongue continues, lapping at your folds and your hole as a gush of wetness spurts out of you. For a second, your vision pales, soundless cries caught in your throat as you come all over his face. When you touch down on earth again, your body feels featherlight.

Jungkook is watching you from between your thighs, his face, hair, and chest glistening.  “Oh fuck,” he gasps, shit-eating grin slowly consuming his features. “Did you just.”

You groan, cover your face with your palms as Jungkook settles over you, beaming excitedly at your newest ability. “No,” you whine, pushing him away from where he’s basically glued to your cheek. “That’s so weird.”

He laughs, cute and airy. “Fuck, sweetheart, you squirted all over me,” he sighs, cuddles against you, and you wrap your arms around him only to hide your face in his shoulder, also glistening with your pleasure. He shifts closer, and the hard press of his cock rubs along the inside of your thigh.

“Can we take a break?” You murmur quietly, hesitantly. “I can’t feel my legs.” Jungkook nods, presses a kiss to your temple as he gets off the bed, tossing his t-shirt over to you. He stumbles towards the en-suite, comes back with a dry face and chest; his hair is still damp. He tugs the sheets out from under you, cuddles close. He’s got the two of you wrapped up in no time, your head cradled against his shoulder as he reaches out blindly for the tablet he keeps on the side of his bed, the Hulu app already open.

“Any requests?” He hums, scrolling through the multitude of movies and shows. You wiggle closer, stop his finger when he returns to the home page, and Jersey Shore is the first thing to appear. “You’re kidding.”

“It’s a good show!” You defend, click on it before he can argue. You press closer, throw a leg over his waist where you can feel his still rock hard member hiding beneath his sweats. Poor guy, you think, he must be suffering. But you have to rest for a moment if you wanna ride the shit out of him and knock him breathless like you’d planned.

Jungkook doesn’t comment on the erection he’s sporting, instead choosing to criticize everything wrong with Jersey Shore. You’re not surprised. He’s an avid film nerd, obsessed with ‘real’ storylines, not whatever reality tv shows were.

You’ve seen this episode about a hundred times, so you don’t really mind that he completely ruins it for you with his nitpicking. It’s cute, listening to him ramble about television integrity while you listen to the subtle thudding of his heart beneath your ear.

He’s on his fifth slandering of DJ Pauly D when you decide you’ve had enough, muscles in your legs feeling rejuvenated as you wiggle into his lap, toss the tablet off to the side as you straddle him. “That show makes you hard?” You tease, let your sensitive folds settle over the bulge in his pants.

Jungkook combusts, cheeks flushing at your jab. “No,” he huffs, “my pretty girlfriend’s boobs pressed up against me does.”

You short circuit.

“Huh?” You blurt dumbly. Jungkook rolls his eyes, too concerned with guiding your hips over his crotch to realize you’re having a complete meltdown in your head. An airy moan leaves his mouth, head lolling back against the pillows, when he moves you just right, grinds against you perfectly. But there’s more important matters to attend to than Jungkook’s Jersey Shore boner. “Kook,” you say, cup his face in your palms to force him to look you in the eye.

Jungkook huffs, pointedly looking down at where you sit on him, “babe, gonna need you to—“

“What did you say?” You interrogate, press your foreheads together until he has no choice but to look at you.

Annoyed with your act, he groans. “Babe, your hips,” he urges, almost desperately.

“No,” you retort, “not until you say it again.”

“Say what again?” He cries, lips twitching in irritation, and you’re about two seconds from behind shoved into the mattress, pounded into from behind like he’d done the last time you teased him a little too much.

“That I’m your girlfriend!” You exclaim, heart hammering in your ears.

Jungkook seems to finally halt at that. “Oh,” he responds, leaning back to scan over your expression. “You are?” He says, unsure of what point you’re trying to make.

Your brain fizzes at the news. “Since when?” You cry, suddenly feeling dumb for all the time you spent moping over this perfect boy you thought didn’t want you. “You never asked!”

Jungkook levels you with an unimpressed stare, reaches over for the iPad you tossed to the side, some dramatic fight scene on a boardwalk taking place on screen. You wanna scream. Why is he so concerned with Jersey Shore now of all times?

Before you can rain down your displeasure on him, he’s turning it around and showing you a bookmarked email.

It’s from you, apparently, sent a few weeks back at exactly two in the morning. You glance at the date received. It’s from Doyeon’s half birthday, when the two of you had drunk yourselves silly on wine. The title is some mix of dashes and exclamation points, but that’s irrelevant when the contents of the email come to view, some stupid slur of beeee myyy boyfrienderdd????? ;))((;;; that has your jaw dropping in mortification.

You glance back at Jungkook, who seems just as confused as you. “What the hell?” You shriek, snatch the tablet from his hand to see that not only was it a single email, but a thread of emails all asking the same question—there’s even a three stanza sonnet detailing your love for the mole on the side of his neck. You could die. “Why didn’t you tell me about this?! I was so drunk— how could you even take me seriously?”

Jungkook shrugs, almost amused now as he watches you scroll through the twenty emails you sent him. “The next day you told me you really liked me over lunch, so I didn’t mind. Besides,  drunk words are sober thoughts, y’know.”

You stare in disbelief. “You told your mom I was your friend,” you whisper.

The blood rises to his cheeks quickly. “Babe,” he sputters. “I’m not exactly introducing her to every girl I date after three weeks.”

It makes sense, and you hate how much it does so. Pursing your lips, you look away, focus on the bedside table and hope he doesn’t see the tears that threaten to spew out of your eyes. He does, he always does. “Hey, what’s wrong?” He hums, sits up to pull you into his arms. One hand brushes over the back of your head, gently. Softly. “Did that upset you?”

You shake your head no, can’t help the ugly Kim Kardashian sob that rips itself from your throat. “I thought you didn’t like me,” you sniffle, covering your face with the iPad when he tries to duck closer and get a look at you. “Because it’s been two months.”

Jungkook shushes you, hugs you close to his chest as you cry like a baby over some apparently unjustifiable doubts. “That big brain of yours,” he sighs, kisses the frown of your head. “Too busy being evil to be logical.” You whine in protest, and Jungkook chuckles, carefully laying back with you clinging to his chest.

He lets you cry it out, palms rubbing over your back, listens to the annoying Jersey Shore opening song playing when the episode ends. When you’re done, you sit up, try to pretend your eyes aren’t swollen and puffy. Jungkook smiles. “All good?”

You might love him.

“I’m gonna ride you,” you announce, and he chokes in surprise, and before he can try to convince you it’s okay, you’re wrestling his sweats and boxers off, taking his half hard cock into your hand. Jungkook flounders, tries to calm you down, but you’re on a mission, working your hand over him until he’s fattening in your hold, melting into the pillows.

“Baby,” he grunts, rolling his hips into your palm. You lean over, pucker your lips and let a thick drop of saliva fall onto the tip of his cock. It trickles over your fingers, makes it easier to run your hands over him. Jungkook groans, reaches down to cup his hand over yours, urging you to squeeze tighter.

When he’s finally as hard as you want him, tip engorged and angry, you sit up, place your palms on his chest as you scoot over him. Jungkook watches you with dark eyes, skin flushed as you line him up. His hands reach for your hips to steady you, tiny gasps falling from his lips at the first prod against your folds. You’re wet from watching him squirm beneath you, from feeling the heavy weight of his cock in your hand, and you hope he feels how much he excites you.

“That’s it,” he croons as you slowly sink down on him, whimpers catching in your throat from the stretch. “That’s my girl.”

Jungkook is purposeful with his words, smiles at you when the muscles in your thighs jolt at the term. When you’re seated to the hilt, folds brushing against his pelvis, Jungkook ruts experimentally. “Fuck,” he chokes breathlessly.

You let your body adjust, spine tingling with every subtle shift from the man beneath you, still so sensitive from your two orgasms from before. Jungkook waits, even though you know all he wants to do right now is fuck up into you like a madman.

When you’re relaxed enough, you begin to move, pushing yourself on your knees slowly, hissing at the drag of his cock against your folds. “F-Fuck,” you whimper, fingernails scratching against where you’ve got them on his chest still. Jungkook grips your hips tightly, and you unconsciously reach for his forearms to steady yourself instead.

“There you go,” he purrs as you slowly pick up the pace, cock sliding inside of you rougher, faster. You know it’s mostly him, muscles in his arms flexing as he moves you up and down, but you don’t care—it feels so good, the upward curve of his cock brushing against your soft spot with each drop of your hips.

He holds you down on one thrust, grinds you over his cock until your clit is rubbing against him roughly, and you cry out his name. You want to kiss him, so very badly, but your position makes it hard. Besides, the sweat beginning to pool in the deep of his collarbones hinted at his oncoming orgasm.

Still, you can’t help the way your eyes instinctively go to trace over his mouth, pouty lips pushed out even more in exertion, teeth grinding together every time your pussy swallows him anew. “Kook,” you mewl, hips bucking forward.

He hums, plants his feet firmly on the mattress as he begins fucking into you. “What is it?” He grunts, pistons into your dripping cunt as you whimper, pleasure crawling up and down your spine. “My pretty girl needs something?”

You wail, nod your head as he continues fucking, ramming his cock into your quivering hole, precum dripping over him. “Yours,” you gasp, mind stuck on what he’d said earlier. “‘M all yours,” you sob, body finally giving out, and you barely catch yourself from falling into him with a palm pressed flatly against his chest.

Jungkook smirks, bucks into you brutally, like he wants you to fall into a boneless heap on top of him. “Yeah, you are,” he groans, as you finally give in, lips brushing against his ear when you flop down on him. “My pretty girl,” he huffs, and you nod, muscles pulled taut as your orgasm begins looming over you. “So cute and mean,” he rambles, lips pressed to your temple. His hips are beginning to lose their rhythm, thrusts growing stilted as he chases his high. “But you know what?” He murmurs, and you whimper. “I like her just like that.”

If his words don’t knock the air out of your lungs, your orgasm surely does. It makes you shudder, the way his hands run over your body, cock ruts into your heat, and you almost cry when the pleasure gets a hold of you. Your muscles tighten, and then loosen, melting into his chest. You’re trembling in his arms, like a leaf holding onto a branch for dear life, choked gasps of his name muffled against his neck.

Jungkook pistons into you, rounds the final corner in his race to orgasm, and eventually spurts his hot cum into you, coats your walls as another reminder that you’re his. He’s a silent orgasmer, sounds catching in his throat as his body twitches beneath you, silent even afterwards as he regains his senses.

A few moments later, you’re shifting out of his hold, pushing yourself onto your elbows to glance down at him. Jungkook’s eyes are shut, but, as if sensing you’re looking at him, he flutters them open, chocolate irises softening at the sight of you.

“Holy shit,” he groans, rolls you off of him carefully. His hand brushes over your thigh, like he’s contemplating licking you clean again, but you stop him with a pointed raise of your brows. “Fine. Pass me the tablet.”

You do, and it’s almost unnerving how easily the two of you slip back into comfort, Jungkook changing into some shorts and handing you your discarded panties, before climbing into bed to watch Jersey Shore. You’ve missed about an entire hour-long episode, so you end up rewinding until the point you last saw.

“You and your Netflix and chilling,” Jungkook snorts, head nestled against your breasts. You roll your eyes.

“This is Hulu,” you point out.

“Oh yeah,” he hums, snuggles closer. His body feels so nice and warm over yours, hands wrapped around you like a lifeline. You end up positioning the tablet off by your hip, supported by a pillow so the two of you can watch properly.

You’re still processing your new title, your new boyfriend, when he perks his head up suddenly, solemn gaze catching yours.

“Hulu and Woohoo,” he says, ever so seriously, and you understand why Doyeon thinks he’s a fool.

[ part three ; imax & climax ]