#less a discourse post and more like you are breaking the law please stop

[qtubbo]

All users on that list can sue btw, false accusations of stalking is serious and all evidence you provided and called “stalking” is not and will never be considered that. My recommendation is to delete or edit your posts before someone’s parents decide you hurt their kid too much to leave it.

[kdtheghostwriter]

The Dust Up in Jaku

You sure are!

Okay, housekeeping first. I don’t often go here. In fact, this is my first proper visit. I’m caught up with the manga entirely to be clear. I just don’t always go looking for feedback. This blog is miscellaneous, tailored mostly to my whims at the time, but it’s known primarily for its monthly posts on Shingeki no Kyojin. That series is ending soon. These posts have been for practice primarily. A way for me to keep my writing chops warm for other projects. They’ve been incredibly helpful in that regard. I’m not sure yet what I’ll do to supplement that practice after the series conclusion. I don’t see myself doing monthly meta posts anymore. I started doing One Punch Man write ups a couple years ago and doing the occasional meta for big plot developments is probably the ticket. But then there’s BNHA.

My Hero Academia is a bit more…shall we say ‘aggressive’ in its storytelling. That’s what I’ve seen in this latest arc anyway. I’m a fan. And I figured, hey, I can dip a pinky toe in the fandom for a bit. So, before reading any further, please note that this will read as the perspective of a reader that has one eye on the story and doesn’t spend a great amount of time in the discourse.

Okay so let’s start with the obvious or what should be the obvious. Bakugo isn’t dead just yet. If for no other reason than Gran Torino getting spiked by Shigaraki only to supply a sassy quip moments later. You don’t die in a shonen series without permission. Besides that, though, no one I’ve seen seems to be asking the important question here.

What is All For One’s idea?

We saw him reach out to Tomura who was himself on the verge of death and took full control of his body. Those telltale black tendrils have seldom caused bodily harm on their own and there’s little evidence to believe they’d start now. We then can make one of two assumptions.

Quirk theft: AFO has the ability to steal and redistribute quirks and Shigaraki made clear that stealing One For All was his main goal in this fight outside of surviving. Bakugo is one of the few people who know about this secret war and he more than anyone there would recognize that losing OFA to Tomura would be in the nicest terms a disaster.

Forced Quirk Activation: Considering that Kacchan is a walking napalm bomb, this is another possible disaster. Using a massive explosion to escape the battlefield at this moment has some very “I’ll get you next time, Gadget!” energy.

And Tomura has to escape this. I’ll explain that later. But first I must laugh.

No, that’s not Garou after his first hour in the Monster Association. Tomura has been annihilated over the course of this fight. He’d probably be dead two or three times over if it weren’t for his fancy Deadpool Healing Factor which itself wouldn’t be working if Eraser Head wasn’t out of commission.

Shout-outs to Aizawa by the way. There’s a reason Tomura stopped in the middle of the battle to tell him how cool he was.

Anyway, more to the point: Shigaraki can’t beef it here. Don’t get me wrong, as tragic as his story is, there really is no other option currently than to destroy him. The only other course of action is to say, “Please, Tomura, don’t make this entire city and the innocent people living there disappear into dust.” Which…yea. On top of that, he’s the series antagonist and the clear foil for our hero Deku. Narratively it just wouldn’t make sense to have him climb that mountain before he’s ready. And he’s still not ready. His arms are thrashed yet again from his current onslaught.

For anyone having trouble visualizing this, imagine Shiggy as a red rubber ball and Deku is a paddle, smacking him repeatedly. I have this great picture in my head of the news chopper zoomed in on Deku as he calls out every state and major city in the contiguous United States. Jokes aside, the art is phenomenal. This panel in particular really hammers home the aforementioned duality like so many haymakers to the face. The damage is stacking up faster than his regeneration can supply but All For One has stepped in to take the reins, surely saving his neck but that isn’t the only reason Shiggy will see his way out of this spot.

Yeah! Remember him? This big fucker is still on his way. And he’s got the League of Villains in tow. Why is that detail important?

The only thing more important than a major plot event like this is the aftermath. You can easily develop your characters through the way they react to the events that occur to them. Somebody has to break it to Tomura that Twice is gone and I don’t envy the one who gets that job.

Also…lol okay, I don’t wanna do the trolly thing of “oooh Dabi’s a Todoroki!” but c’mon man Dabi’s a Todoroki. I’ve barely paid attention to this subplot and even I know that. Shonen series are by their nature very melodramatic and it would only make sense for such a massive bombshell to be dropped now, in the midst of life-or-death struggle, with direct implications for the Number One Hero and his children – one on each side of the law. Point is! None of that can happen if Shigaraki bites the big one so I’d expect the dusty lad to keep kicking for now.

The same goes for Bakugo, although, he may have early retirement in his future. The main reason Kacchan can’t die here is because, despite what you may think of him as a character – and I’ve seen enough discourse to know that many many people are not fans, such is your right – having a teenaged bully redeem himself by sacrificing his life is a bit much. Especially when you consider this little nugget.

All Might has him pegged here. I would never endorse someone telling another person to kill themselves even when done ironically but Katsuki was a child and children say any manner of dumb, reckless things. More than that, children lash out when they’re scared, and nothing scared him more than being surpassed by Midoriya. All Might goes on to point out that Bakugo earnestly helping with Izuku’s training is his way of atoning for his past behavior. I agree with that stance and I think it’s more than enough. He knows he was wrong and more recently he’s discovered that he knows he wants no harm to come to Deku. Bakugo learned a big lesson in this chapter; by extension, Deku must learn a lesson as well.

Then there’s this geek.

Disclaimer: I don’t hate Endeavor so much as I’m apathetic towards him. He’s the Number One hero by default and it shows throughout this arc. Even here, we see the rookie Kacchan barking orders at him and Shoto and coming up with a pretty solid plan to finally end this damn fight. It didn’t work, but that has more to do with outside interference than inexperience, and it’s not like Endeavor was rapt with ideas to begin with.

I will defend him slightly, however. Some people have gone so far as to call him useless in this fight and I wouldn’t. Shigaraki got a massive buff even if he’s only at 75% capacity. Enhanced speed and strength, plus a healing factor means he has a threshold that Endeavor just can’t overcome. The days of one guy taking on the Final Boss is long past gone. Even so, this must be pretty mortifying for a guy so obsessed with climbing the ladder. His second real test as the top hero and he gets his ass kicked for an hour or more by a shaggy kid who forgot his lip balm at home. LOL is what I’m saying.

Thanks for indulging that aside. Back to Deku. The very first panel of this chapter is a nurse warning him that repeated injuries could result in him losing the use of his arms. Naturally, this follows with Deku smashing Shigaraki in the face five or six times in a row. The combination of Float and Black Whip is keeping the villain suspended in the air where his disintegration    quirk can’t reach the support team below. A fact that Deku points out when Bakugo shouts at him to disengage. This is a great bit of dramatic tension, because neither one is wrong. Izuku’s body is falling apart. I mean, Tomura’s is too, but Tomura can lowkey ignore that and if he reaches the ground, everyone is screwed anyway.

This plays into Bakugo forming the plan with the Todorokis in the first place and then intercepting AFO’s attack on behalf of the helpless Deku. He sees One For All as a cursed power, but he’s smart enough to know that this power is the only chance they have of winning. He then saves his friend to help them win.

Now we come to the bit that has me more interested than even Kacchan’s fate. That being Izuku’s reaction, both in the moment and after the battle is done. As previously noted, Deku is not in less danger now. He’s emptying the tank right here despite possible long-term damage to his body.

The implications of that statement are terrifying. More so coming from a teenaged boy that hasn’t even made it through a third of his life yet. The legacy of OFA is dark and bloody. It was Bakugo who pointed out that the previous holders of the super strength quirk all died young – all murdered at the hands of Tall, Dark and Faceless. Toshinori would have suffered the same fate if it weren’t for a time sensitive cocktail of rage, survival instinct and adrenaline. Deku is sipping from that same cocktail right now and he’s in better shape than All Might was (barely) but it’s clear that he cannot 1v1 a boss with a replenishing health bar. Perhaps if he could sustain an attack without his limbs exploding like Squidward after too many Krabby Patties? Oh well.

My Hero Academia is an origin story. The story of the hero Deku and his journey to number one. With that in mind, we know he can’t lose but he doesn’t necessarily have to win. Not here at the very least. I have no clue how this arc resolves itself but finding out is going to be much fun.

[sambinnie]

1. On bank holiday Monday I woke two of the housemates at 4.15am, and we made a pan of hot chocolate and opened the door to hear the dawn chorus. One of them sensibly remained on a chair in the garden, insulated against the early May morning with a duvet and blanket and thick onesie; the other walked out with me, into the dark, and we tramped the streets together, along the silent pavements, towards the river and fields.

We discovered that a large ivy-covered tree is home to a bat colony, members of which flapped silently about our heads in their haste to return before full dawn. A cuckoo was audible across the water. A starling clicked its beak and jittered up and down the branch. The housemate called me a boomer.

Of all the odd things I miss from last year, it’s the silence of the roads that is the greatest loss. At 6 o’clock in the morning there would be almost no traffic at all; now the birds are almost drowned out by the constant roar, even some distance away. Whether it’s hormones or poor emotional processing or a rational reaction to a damaged world, I feel angry at the traffic. I’m not saying it would necessarily be a 100% smooth process, but I do wish the world could be run by peri-menopausal, menopausal and post-menopausal women for a year or two. Just to see.

2. I am still obsessed with Orlando Wood’s short book Lemon (I was banging on about it back in February), and am so grateful to have so many people in my life who care about those same ideas. We’re in a left-brain cycle of culture at the moment, he explains: the left brain has a tendency to “isolate parts from the whole and to see them in the abstract… It likes to break things up into smaller parts, to categorise, and therefore favours the familiar, consistency, repeatability and predictability”. It also “prefers to see things in terms of simple and linear cause and effect. It prizes utility, power and control, and its ability to abstract and isolate things from their context enables it to manipulate the world”. What’s that you say? Wider cultural discourse and rights of individual groups, inability to have dialogues about, you say? Mmm. 

My favourite part of the book is when Wood breaks down two adverts: Heineken’s ‘Water in Majorca’ from 1985, and GoDaddy’s 2018 ‘Make Your Own Way’ ad. Remember that? No, me neither. ‘Make Your Own Way’ is full of colourful images, isolated people, or tiled with images of themselves to make a ‘conveyer belt’ effect, and clean-face words which could be applied to almost any product or company (watch it to cure your insomnia/trigger a panic attack); everything is buzzword-y, inspirational, keynote, statement, unilateral, and utterly, utterly devoid of humour, humanity, or engagement. 

One of the most striking things about Wood’s ad breakdown is that, once you’ve read it, you can’t stop noticing how in, say, three ad breaks within an hour-long programme, there might be one advert at most which doesn’t fit this left-brain pattern. Adverts for products as diverse as cars, period reusables, white goods, clothing catalogues, insurance, snack food, and supermarkets all, to some extent or another, fit the mould: bright images, little human connection, bland Instagram visuals, large slogans, spoken-wordlessness (better for the global market), a vague puff of do-gooding, and absolutely no wit at all. The only one I’ve seen recently attempting anything different is Maltesers, about a breastfeeding mother and her mother-in-law, which I admired for the milk-leak and loathed for the Hahahaha, aren’t women awful to each other?.

It’s draining to imagine the flat meetings and endless audience segmentation that enabled this ad trend: this sector engages on social media in the evenings and this demographic prefers a friendly looking home and our audience here is more about food as a pleasure. I’m loathe to break it to them, but for all that laser-focused research you are all making the same ads. And as Wood exposes so brilliantly, those ad campaigns are costing more and more to receive less and less engagement. Congrats, lads. 

3. Speaking of left- and right-brain world views, as so often happens this episode of Hidden Brain popped up serendipitously, with the wonderful host Shankar Vedantam interviewing Iain McGilchrist about his 2010 book The Master and His Emissary. It’s just over 45 minutes and is worth every second — McGilchrist is so clear and insightful about how to tell what type of brain is leading at any given time, what we lose in a left-brain society, and what we need to do about it. (I went back and checked and only then saw the book is in Lemon’s bibliography. Bliss.) 

4. For various reasons, a small toilet room here has been stuffed with balloons for the last week. It’s absolutely staggering both how not one of us thought to remove the balloons, instead bobbling through them to reach the facilities at any given hour of night or day, and also how immensely relaxing it is to go in there since they’ve been removed and humanely destroyed (I assume). It’s A Squash and a Squeeze in action, a life philosophy I cling to pretty robustly and find pays dividends. A housemate pointed out recently that whenever they are travelling in my car, they play a game to see if they can ever see another car in worse condition, and they say they never, ever can. It’s the Squash and a Squeeze philosophy that, in part, enables me to drive the dented, rusting, bubbled, scratched, lichen-furred, beloved piece of garbage I do, having previously had no driving license for almost two years after my seizure. It’s such a delight to drive any car at all. 

5. We’re rewatching Ghosts, which of course I recommend, and I suddenly realised that the Captain (Ben Willbond) is the speaker of possibly my favourite newspaper-based gag in the entire run of The Thick of It. Please watch all of Ghosts and all of The Thick of It, then perhaps The Death of Stalin? All thoroughly excellent, and the latter two contain my favourite kind of Muriel’s Wedding-type comedy, where I am tearfully wheezing with laughter one moment, then gaping with discomfited horror the next. 

6. I made Nigel Slater’s cardamom-spiced rice pudding this weekend, (although I times everything by 1.5 except the rice, which I up to 200g) and it was as good as always, if I say so myself. Cardamom, like capers, coriander, and pistachios, is an ingredient I’ve only come to love as an adult — I often long to make cardamom buns but am in such an emotionally entangled relationship with my sourdough starter that I never have yeast in the house, so have to rely on my favourite local coffee shop for a hit every now and again. If someone wedges themselves against the fridge door this weekend, I might attempt these. 

[queernuck]

Op can you clarify/elaborate on that last post a little bit please?

so, Beto O’Rourke said that he has talked to cops wrt rifles like AKs and ARs, two common “assault weapons”, and said that they are afraid of them, that they do not want to be facing them. the right, at least, some parts of it, have seized upon that remark (understandably so, given the easiest reading of it) as being the exact point of the 2nd Amendment and evidence that Dems are looking to establish a police state and want to disarm them because they pose a genuine threat to cops.

and the thing is, if someone wants to shoot a cop? an AK or an AR is a good way to do it, all things considered!! 5.56x45 has a lot of shit talked about it but is a round with a pretty good amount of energy and low recoil in a long enough barrel and has a wound profile that will really ruin your day, regardless of if you are wearing armor or not. even the highest-rated body armor will only do so much against 5.56, and that’s not even what you would find an average cop wearing a vest for, and a cop will most of the time only be wearing a vest at best so torso, pelvic area, sides, arms, legs, head? all unprotected, and what armor they do have is going to stop 5.56 only if theyre lucky.

and 7.62x39? that round is not perfect, but it hits real hard, it can get through body armor, it’ll fuck up a car if need be. GIGN, a well-known French “counterterror” unit, has procured CZ BREN rifles chambered in 7.62x39, specifically because of the ballistics of such a round are good enough to warrant purchasing an entirely new weapon system, albeit one with a form factor relatively close to most other Western European/American designs. The Sig MCX, an AR-pattern rifle, has shown up in at least one police armory with a stock design intended to go on the shoulder while the shooter has a riot helmet with the mask lowered, chambered in 7.62x39. It’s a good round, and while there are reasons that a customer looking for new rifles would go American or Czech over Russian or Bulgarian or Polish or whatever, a Yugo AK or an SKS or any other rifle shooting it is going to fuck shit up.

to make that kinda short? an “assault weapon” is indeed a threat to police, and i honestly think thats kinda a good thing lol

the features that make an “assault weapon” what it is are not simply the round it fires: the Mini-14, M14/M1A, and SKS are great demonstrations of this principle, as are things like Saiga or Vepr or other AK-pattern rifles that had thumbhole/“sporter”/Dragunov-esque stocks for import reasons which are still capable of fucking your day up. there are rifles popular in states like NY, CA, and so on which have similar ballistics while not having the same features that would make them “assault weapons” while there are also weapons with weaker ballistics than the ones Beto is evoking that look more or less the same, like AR-pattern rifles in .22 LR.

Also, just generally the whole thing with AR and AK rifles is that there are a lot of them. They are incredibly common, ARs especially, and most will never be pointed at a person. the share of gun ownership in this country is relatively small in a lot of places, and includes a lot of people who own a whole lot of guns just because they have the money to and they enjoy having guns. overwhelmingly, this leads to gun culture being white and rich and full of “law-abiding citizens” who are fucking fascists in ideological position, but who are on the good side of law enforcement, on the good side of most conventional standards of citizenship, and as a result are given a pass for the most part. And theyre the ones who run gun stores, start gun companies, who manufacture more and more of these ARs every day for their other well-off gun-loving friends.

So, there are a lot of guns out there that fit the square peg into the round hole of what Beto is trying to get at, and if aimed at a cop they can indeed kill said cop. i know that, the people who own these guns know that, and while some of them are owned by people involved in crimes like dealing drugs or other things that are going to get them in trouble with the cops, the thing is? a lot of these guns are owned by the right-wing, who notably pointed out that the idea of a cop being scared of a gun being pointed at them for imposing unjust rule is something that appeals to them.

However, it carries a very...Ruby Ridge feeling, if you will. Fuck the FBI, fuck the Marshals, but damn if it isn’t a bad taste in your mouth when you have to say that while talking about a white supremacist. The militarized, oppressive, awful cops that are talked about by “right-anarchists” on here are ones that act on behalf of their own fascist desires, are the ones who enforce the War on Drugs, who are disappearing refugees at the border, who are killing black activists in the South, who are responsible for protecting the careers of cops that kill. The same is true of Veterans who join the “intelligence community” and end up in the CIA or as Private Military Contractors doing the dirty work of the US that is a bit too boring, distasteful, or too bad of a look for even the US Military to be doing. They’re the ones who want to topple Maduro and who think the sanctions and politicization of aid are justified, who joke about Pinochet’s helicopter rides, who call things “based” and post memes about Israel while being raging antisemites and ALSO raging islamophobes. theyre the ones driving a lot of public discourses about pedophilia away from, say, the Catholic Church and toward “billionaire satanists” that they will or will not name as Jewish depending on the approach you come at them with. Theyre the ones who talk about “black-on-black” crime while ignoring that the guns involved in most crimes are entirely legally manufactured and were then either sold illegally or stolen in a break-in, who are collectively talking about the spectre of black-on-white crime while ignoring that across just about every sort of crime both people involved usually share the same skin color. 

you know, FASCISTS.

Beto gave them an incredibly juicy talking point on gun violence, and they get to use it to superficially stand against police while they also lick those very same boots, talk about Blue Lives Mattering, when if they really want to be as edgy and cool and revolutionary as they say, they’d probably try to start running some of the guns they buy or something.

[lepus-the-bun]

Fascism in FF14, and the post no one ever asked me to make.

Hello and welcome, it is I, the Garlean Scum, here to come way to late to the actual discourse, with a post no sane person asked me to do. That being said, I wished to make this, with the intent to help explain some things, give a little insight into some stuff, and maybe help people see things a different way. Now importantly, this is not a post of ‘excusing’ violent beliefs, or fascist activities. Those who know me, know I hold a strong distaste for fascism in the real world, for reasons I will make evident. Now, maybe this isn’t your cup of tea, which is no problem! I’ll be starting in earnest below the read more line, so I don’t fill up feeds. Please, look over, read, comment with your own observations and beliefs, and share your stories! 

WHY DO PEOPLE ACCEPT FASCISM?

Lets start off right at the hardest point. What drives people to accept Fascist ideologies? Now, I’m not putting this all on the Nazi branch of Fascism as there are many types, including american fascism, and they all have their unique takes on certain things. But one main key point for fascism, is that it usually involves a form of radical Authoritarian Ultra-nationalism. Most commonly, this is helped and reinforced by racist world views. But okay, we know the basic key point of fascism... Why would people choose to so heavily join into a radically Authoritarian state?

Well, the first reason is simple. Safety. Fascist organizations, hold the firm belief that liberal democracy is a failure. They want a single party to hold control of the state, and for it to completely mobilize society in a party to -serve- the state. Now, this ideal became really prominent in the post WW1 state of our world, and it’s not an unheard of reasoning. They wanted a strong government that can respond to -all- threats, be they another nation, or a group that is disturbing the status norm. 

Which, brings us into the second point. Fascism most commonly, keeps the norms of society, save the dismantling of liberalism. In example, if being a white man was good for you before, it’s still good now. This makes it seem an attractive alternative to radical liberalism or activists. After all, if they are on top of the social ladder, they want to -stay- on top, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are all super racist, but they can feel that losing their ‘spot’ means not just no longer being number one, but having to accept ramifications for it.

Finally, Fascism often holds heavily to the belief of ‘merit based’ social progression. Which, in essence isn’t incorrect. In an ideal fascist state, someone’s sex/gender/ethnicity doesn’t matter. What matters is their -success-, which when you have a culture that is actively oppressing individuals, can drive some to cling onto this as their way to progress up the social ladder. After all, there is no truer equality to them, then everyone suffering the same BS and having to work up on their own.

WHY DON’T THOSE OPPRESSED BY FASCISTS RISE UP?

Now, this is an interesting question, and one that’s actually been shown commonly in our own history. Simply put... Rising up in revolution isn’t as easy as we display it in media. For every single successful revolution in history, there are countless bloody revolutions that were put down to the core. Even those revolutions that succeed, are often filled with death and destruction, which even if it’s to improve the world... It can be a daunting thing for people to accept. So people hold onto the hope, that the longer they hold on, eventually the world will change for them. They’ll have the equality they wanted, without war. 

In short, when everything around you belongs to the state, including yourself, it’s hard to imagine you can stop it.

DON’T THEY REALIZE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS WRONG?

Perhaps. But, there’s one simple thing that hurts the most in realizing that -you’re- the bad guy... You’re just doing what you have to, for the good of everyone else. Fascism doesn’t hold violence or imperialism as a strictly negative experience. Again, it’s about results, not ethics. 

Secondly, if they were to say ‘yes I’ve been the bad guy, and need to stop’, something hard to grasp for anyone comes into play... Namely that everything you did, was for nothing. If you live by the ends justifying the means, then it’s even harder to accept that.

Thirdly, they fear the retaliation. Why would people forgive them? It’s better to burn standing by those who are wrong, than standing alone. It’s a hard choice for people to make.

WHERE DOES THIS COME INTO FF14?

Well, more often then you’d think really. If we look at the three city states, they all have a heavy hint of Fascism in them. In Limsa, the Admiral has her own secret police essentially, and what she says is law. If you think she’s wrong, you better bend the knee, or get the hell out or die. However, she’s more dedicated to a free market, and appears to be trying to change her nation... However, they are also heavily dependent on stealing land from the indigenous populations in order to expand as necessary, which is a nice little story point to explore.

Ishgard was a fanatical state, that used religion to help reinforce ultra-nationalism, and had a foe that could ‘not be negotiated with’, that threatened them to the core, for a cause that was their fault but information was hidden from the public. Granted, they have since shifted governmental styles, and this process alone is just fascinating, as it is a perilous point in a society... But luckily they have another large nonnegotiable foe to take the public’s attention.

Gridania. Man. Okay, so they have many conflicting things about them. On one hand, I view them as the most liberal of city states within their borders. Their government seems less likely to police most things, save the things that anger the elementals the most. In short, a high rate of personal freedom, but if you disobey the elementals, death or exile is almost certain. However, this isn’t due to a persons interest, but rather a force that already flooded the world once. So... It’s weird, and the most unique one I can see. 

Ul’dah. Now, this was obviously meant as a city with the most capitalism possible, and honestly, I’d say has the least fascist tendencies to them. However, there are... Implications. That the sultanate, was going to dissolve the government, is a curious amount of power for one person to have. The syndicate, seems like so long as it doesn’t hurt their profits, most of them would assist fascist ideology. Then we follow with the banning of beastmen. It’s another unique case, as usually in a heavily capitalist society like this, you would have more of a ‘puppet’ ruler, than one with the power to dissolve the government.

Garlemald. Man. Oh man. Ya’ll already know this one. It’s Magitech rome during the latter portion of the roman empire during the decline. It’s basically ‘worlds first great fascist enterprise’. 

OKAY, SO SOME OF THE CITY STATES HAVE FASCIST HINTS, AND GARLEMALD IS PURE FASCISM. WHY BRING THIS UP?

Well, I feel that if we don’t incorporate this into our RP, or even acknowledge this... We are not just doing the lore a disservice, but ourselves as well. We as people have a tendency to make characters who base their beliefs and values on our societies. It’s not bad to do so, but that’s not always an appropriate thing to do. RP can teach us new things, and help us understand why people do things.

THE FUCK YOU MEAN?

Well, let me put it like this. Aedwen, is a Gridanian Native, whom left her homeland in secret to join the Garlean Empire. Why? Well, because she felt betrayed by the elementals, and felt her people were less living in harmony, and more as slaves. No matter how good you were, the seedseer, padjal, and the hearers would always be above you. No matter what, unless you were one of these groups, in her opinion you were second class. She was young, angry, and trying to figure things out. Then she gets told by someone, how the empire is harsh, but they are -fair- and everyone can advance. How they don’t want to destroy, but to unite everyone. How the empire could be the one thing, that could help free her people from her perceived subjugation.

Right there, I can explore the feelings of a character who isn’t -evil- by nature, but who took the path of the unjust.

WELL DON’T THEY KNOW NOW?

Yes. They are well aware of the reality now. But, here comes to the hardest part of someone who accepted fascism, and violence as their path for so long. Namely, if she accepts that it’s all for naught, then she’s a traitor, a liar, and a monster. In her eyes, she couldn’t accept that. To admit that, would break her.

SO WHAT NOW?

Well, she explores her morality more and more... And one day, will have to choose between standing by her morals, or by the actions she has committed... And honestly, I enjoy it. Because it helps me to figure out what would happen if I were in similar straights.

CLOSING THOUGHTS!

Don’t reject certain character types out of the blue, and don’t think people are playing them because that’s their ‘ideal’. If you have the desire to explore the thought process of people you oppose, or those that you do not understand, then roleplay can be the most invaluable tool available. So few have the capability of actually putting you in their shoes.

[memelordandsavior]

Klance Shippers Are Hypocrites And Romantic Sheith is Valid.

So let’s just dive right in and this is going to be long but bear with me. I’m covering all the bases. By now you’ve all heard about the nasty discourse surrounding Sheith due to season 6 and that scene.

“You’re my brother, I love you.”

This scene is huge because we finally understand what Shiro really means to Keith. Sheith fans have a lot to celebrate this season and they are, some fans have even joined the Sheith fandom due to season 6. But a lot of people also argue that Sheith is strictly platonic and familial due to “You’re my brother.” Some other’s have even gone to extremes with “it’s incest.” “Shiro adopted and raised him.” All of which are false. Keith is Krolia and Papa Keith’s only child and if there was a blood family relation, Shiro would’ve shown up in flashbacks with his family. Also let go of your hatred and look at baby Keith he’s so cute.

“It’s incest” is false.

Now to the “adopted and raised” thing. Listen. I’m 20 years old, I’m going to college and trying to get a job. NO ONE around my age, especially not younger, wants the responsibility of adopting and raising a kid and I doubt a 19-21 year old Shiro would either. It’s pretty clear what happened with Shiro and Keith’s backstory.

Shiro was a recruiter. Shiro did not adopt Keith. He recruited him.

Shiro came to Keith’s high school. By now Keith is already in a foster home being taken care of since his dad died when he was a lot younger than a teenager.

Shiro recruited Keith, probably because he saw the hidden potential in Keith that no one else could. He vouched for him to go to the Garrison which is a military organization. I’m assuming the Garrison is in the U.S. and the timeline is years into the future. By law you have to be at least 17 years old to enlist in a military organization. Keith was more than likely 16 in the Garrison flashback where he’s seated next to a kid who looks older than him, and when Shiro tells him he won’t give up on him. He was probably being tested to see if he was good enough for the Garrison (and being Keith he got into a fight).

I think people were confused when Keith said “just take me back to the home already” and automatically assumed Shiro took him in. That’s not what happened.

People who say this forget that the Garrison has dorms and housing.Otherwise Lance and Hunk wouldn’t be snooping around the faculty lounge at night and Pidge wouldn’t be seen leaving her dorm room in the first episode, they would be in their own homes. They literally live at the Garrison. Keith definitely also moved into the dorms and it’s very likely he got in on a flight scholarship (considering he was their best pilot) that Shiro vouched for.

So yeah. Keith was 16-17 when he got into the Garrison and also kind of a late bloomer. But he didn’t stay that way.

Keith is likely 18 here. The same age he was when the show began. And the crew confirmed Shiro wasn’t a faculty member before for long Kerberos, he was a student. He must’ve recently gotten promoted to one right before but Sam Holt was the designated adult faculty on the mission. Keith and Shiro knew each other as students at a military COLLEGE. Shiro never raised him.

“But Krolia said-“

This isn’t literal. What Krolia most likely meant by this line is “Thank you for being there for my son when no one else was, if it wasn’t for you his life would be different.” Which it would be as Keith himself has mentioned.

If Shiro hadn’t been there for him, hadn’t believed in him, hadn’t gave him advice when things got tough. Keith would have no one. Keith could’ve ended up the way Lotor did. When you don’t have a source of love in your life… things go sour quickly… Krolia’s words aren’t meant to be taken literally as if Shiro was a replacement for Keith’s dad. They simply mean she’s grateful for all he’s done for him.

Now that those points are covered. I’d like to address “you’re my brother.” The argument I keep seeing thrown at me constantly which is getting tiring and unnecessary at this point.

I’d like to remind these people, most if not all of whom are klantis or klance shippers (i know good ones exist though so please don’t go there), that klance has been called brotherly before as well.

This was literally the second episode. Hunk refers to Keith and Lance as “brothers” along with himself.

Even their supposed Klance savior Jeremy Shada himself has compared Klance’s relationship to being brotherly.

Yet NEVER has this been a problem for Klance shippers. They never stopped shipping it and no one has harassed them for it.

But suddenly it’s a major problem for Sheith. Give me a goddamn break. Sheith (as a romantic relationship) has been supported by the cast and crew of this show since the day it began and it continues to be supported by them. They have been less vocal about it but that’s likely because of the horrible harassment they were receiving. But If the creators intended Sheith to be a “brotherly” relationship, they’d also be grossed out by supporting it in a romantic light which is clearly not the case so that’s that.

NOW TO THE SCENE THAT SHOOK THE ENTIRE FANDOM.

STILL GETS ME TBH. This scene is so unbelievably telling and important to the evolution of Keith’s relationship with Shiro. However, if you choose to see Sheith as platonic and brotherly for your own personal reasons or heck just because that’s how you see it, THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE, but this post is explaining a different point of view and as long as you’re not an anti and are being respectful to all interpretations, you’re fine. I’m going to explain what this scene means to me personally as a bisexual girl, and many others in the LGBT+ community. 

As a bisexual woman who’s had romantic feelings for other women, I understand Keith calling Shiro a brother because I’ve called those women sisters. I’ve said “you’re like a sister to me” or “you are my sister” and realized later that those feelings were something more. I’ve seen this kind of thing happen often even in m|f relationships and ESPECIALLY in the LGBT+ community. Referring to a person you love in a romantic way as a brother or a sister is simply a way of expressing 1.) You trust them as much as you would trust family. 2.) A way of figuring out why you feel so close to this person in the first place and understanding your feelings. Or 3.) Expressing the romantic love you feel for the person in a safe way should they not reciprocate.

This scene is telling because we know how Keith saw Shiro throughout the show, the brother thing isn’t exactly new.

“Shiro, you’re like a brother to me.” - Season 2, Episode 8, The Blade of Marmora.

You all remember that, We can see that’s how Keith viewed the connection he had with Shiro because possibly, it was the ONLY way he could put a word to what he was feeling. Especially as an orphan with no one, surely the thing he wanted most was a family or someone he could call family. Shiro definitely was that person for him in the beginning stages of their relationship, but just like the weather, and the world, and age, and almost everything in the universe, relationships, people, and dynamics can change. To deny that theirs could’ve as well is frankly a bit ridiculous.

Keith has had time to grow, he’s had time to have his own little family with a dog and to get to know his mother better. Two years is more than enough time to make up for their lost time and lost familial relationship and now he’s got a new family dynamic that’s separate from how he viewed Shiro. Keith has also gotten older. He was 19 last season and now he’s 21 making him a mature adult and he’s gained a lot of self assurance in speaking to his mother, figuring out why she left, and understanding his family didn’t abandon him. MANY things about Keith have changed since he last called Shiro his brother. He goes into the fight with clone Shiro with determination and resolve, one that would waver once before with the thought of Shiro abandoning him. (I’VE ALMOST HIT IMAGE LIMIT SO BEAR WITH ME.)

His relationship with Shiro has also changed and I think Keith himself realized it. Keith realized as the clone was attacking him once he said “You’re my brother” that it simply wasn’t enough. It wasn’t enough to express what Keith felt for Shiro. Keith also would never use Shiro’s feelings against him as a manipulation tactic. Keith knew he was going to die, he knew he was losing, and he simply just wanted Shiro to know what he meant to him. If Shiro was familiar with Keith saying “I love you” in a brotherly context, it would not have made him stop attacking and pause in shock. The “you’re my brother” line wasn’t what got through to Shiro, It was the “I love you.” because it was new to both of them and showed a change in their relationship.

I could go on about how Sheith was likely the LGBT+ rep the crew has been fighting for but that’s not what this post is about so I’ll end it here.

Sheith has evolved, it’s grown and changed along with Shiro and Keith as individual characters. It’s a beautiful relationship however way you choose to interpret it and the people who see it romantic deserve to be able to because that interpretation is just as valid.

[teafortwo29]

Gloria Steinem says black women have always been more feminist than white women

 WRITTEN BY Leah Fessler @LeahFessler  December 08, 2017

Gloria Steinem sets the record straight on black women's leadership. (Marla Aufmuth/Getty Images)

Gloria Steinem has been at the forefront of American feminism for a half century. But she’s never seen activism quite like today’s #MeToo movement.

“Clearly, at this moment in time we are gaining our voices in a way that has never happened before,” said Steinem, the co-founder of Ms.magazine and Women’s Media Center, at the Massachusetts Women’s Conference in Boston on Dec. 8.

Many women have found a sense of unity and purpose in #MeToo—a movement launched ten years ago by Tarana Burke, a black activist, and energized this year in the aftermath of sexual harassment and assault allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. But while Steinem is heartened by this moment, she believes the quest for gender equality will not succeed if the mainstream movement ignores an essential reality: Black women have always been at the heart of feminist activism.

Speaking with American comedian and writer Phoebe Robinson, Steinem outlined the #MeToo movement’s blindspots, the importance of intersectional feminism, and how to continue dismantling sexual harassment and misogyny in the months and years to come.

Remember black women’s legacy

“We are kind of at a tidal wave point right now. But we need to remember that this all started over 40 years ago with defining the word sexual harassment,” Steinem told Robinson. In 1975, the term “sexual harassment” was coined by feminists at Cornell University. A few years later, feminist activist and lawyer Catharine MacKinnon developed the legal framework arguing that sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination.

Then, Steinem continued, three black women filed successful sexual harassment lawsuits: two against the US government, filed by Paulette Barnes and Diane Williams, and one against a bank, filed by Mechelle Vinson. Vinson’s case, accusing her former supervisor of repeated harassment and rape, eventually led to the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1986 decision that sexual harassment was a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

“All three of these women were black. And these black women now symbolize the fact that [sexual harassment] is certainly is more likely to happen to people with less power in society than to people with more power,” said Steinem. She went on to note that law professor Anita Hill, also a black woman, brought sexual harassment to the forefront of public discourse with her 1991 testimony against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

Yet more often than not, white feminism and mainstream American culture have overlooked the invaluable contributions of women of color. This injustice has led many, including Quartz’s Corinne Purtill, to rightfully charge that #MeToo hijacked black women’s work on race and gender equality.

Foreground intersectionality

“Women of color fought the battles that brought society to this point, where even the faint hope of change seems possible,” writes Purtill in Quartz. “To use that work without ensuring that this broken system is replaced with one inclusive of race, in addition to gender, is not partial victory. It’s complete failure.”

Steinem echoed the same message when Robinson asked whether today’s feminists fail to uphold the importance of intersectionality—a feminist theory introduced by civil rights advocate and law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, also a black woman. Intersectional feminism examines the overlapping systems of oppression and discrimination that women face, based not just on gender, but on race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, physical ability, and other marginalized identities.

“The problem and what [many feminists today] are not saying,” said Steinem, “is that women of color in general—and especially black women—have always been more likely to be feminist than white women. And the problem I have with the idea that the women’s movement or the feminist movement is somehow a white thing is that it renders invisible the people who have always been there.”

If you don’t believe her, consult statistics, says Steinem: In the early 1970s, when Ms. Magazine published its first national poll, over 60% of black women said they supported the women’s movement and feminist issues. Just 30% of white women voiced support, says Steinem.

Things aren’t so different today, Steinem explained, pointing out that black women voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, while a majority of white women voted for Trump. Steinem attributed part of the split to the way that married white women vote “in the interests of their husbands’ income and identity because that’s what they’re dependent on.”

Women of color, by contrast, are necessarily aware of systemic biases in their everyday lives; they are far more likely to actively oppose oppression. Said simply: We are not born sexist or racist. Rather, systemic racism and misogyny socializes us, in Steinem’s words, “to believe that we are ranked, when in fact we are linked.”

Raise our girls to be more like cats

Given the pervasiveness of sexism, sexual harassment, and misogyny, Steinem says we must actively shift the way we socialize young girls and women. Her solution: Raise them to be more like cats.

“Have you ever tried to touch a cat,” Steinem asked me, when I inquired how we should raise the next generation of feminists. I nodded, and she made a swatting motion with her hands. “Cats don’t let you touch them. Cats tell you what they’re going to do, and that’s that.”

What’s phenomenal, says Steinem, is that before children are fully socialized to fulfill traditional gender roles, they instinctively act like cats. “Babies are not born as ‘girls’ or ‘boys.’ Babies are born human, period,” Steinem explained. “And little kids say it so wonderfully when they say things like, ‘It’s not fair,’ and ‘You are not the boss of me.’ Those statements are the basis of every social justice movement. We need to hang on to that.”

Such cat-like instincts were quite literal for Steinem, who did not attend school much until she was 12 years old because her father moved frequently. Subsequently, she says, when someone attempted to kiss her on the cheek as a young girl, she literally bit him, breaking his skin and making him bleed.

But sustaining this attitude is nearly impossible when we constantly teach little girls to be pleasing. “We dress girls in dresses that button up the back, in clothes they can’t even dress themselves in. There’s so much training to be passive, and to wait for somebody else,” Steinem explained. “So we need to look for and demand internal changes in the way we act, and the way we treat our family and friends, in addition to demanding external changes.”

Fight for bodily integrity

The patriarchy will not tumble overnight. Steinem believes that many people still misunderstand what drives sexual harassment. “I think we still have not quite got it out there that sexual harassment and assault are about power, not sex,” she said. Understanding that sexual harassment is about the drive to dominate, humiliate, and demean other people can help provide clarity about what constitutes inappropriate behavior, especially for men who ask questions like, “Can we not hug women anymore?“

“The fact that our bodies belong to us, that’s the beginning of democracy in my view,” said Steinem. “Women have a harder time with democracy because we happen to have wombs, and patriarchy wants to control reproduction. And racial cast systems only make democracy harder for women of color. But the fact is for both men and women, our right to govern our own bodies, and use our own voices is fundamental to democracy. So if we can carry it forward in that way it’s very helpful.”

One of the most important ways to carry forward this bodily integrity, says Steinem, is to acknowledge that not everything is sexual harassment, and that we all are responsible for calling out behavior that feels inappropriate so to ensure lines do not blur.

“If a guy is commenting on our appearance in a flattering but uncomfortable way, if we comment back, they’re shocked, because we’ve taken the ability to define our boundaries and our desires,” said Steinem. “So we need to keep talking to each other—we can’t have men take this moment and say, ‘now I can never interact with women,’ or vice-versa.”

Activism doesn’t stop with social media

Among the many lessons to learn from black women’s leadership in the fight against sexual harassment, says Steinem, is that activism requires real-life, consequence-ridden work. Social media posts followed by complacency does not count.

“Obviously it’s a great gift to be able to communicate [on social media] and know you’re not alone. This is huge. But we also have to remember that pressing send isn’t actually doing anything,” said Steinem. “So we need to focus on the practical steps we take in the world. The obvious ones are how we spend our money, who we reward and who we don’t, and who we vote for.”

This is not to say that tweets and Facebook posts are meaningless. When it comes to real-life and social media activism, Steinem says it’s not an “either-or” situation, because activism is “an arc.” “Consciousness always comes first, before action,” she said. “And consciousness can come from typing #MeToo, and knowing that you’re not alone—knowing that the system is crazy, not you. It’s not about making a value judgment, it’s about seeing a full circle of consciousness, to activism, to change.”

Remember the simple rules of democracy

If you’re not exhausted by today’s political climate, Godspeed. For the rest of us, it’s okay to acknowledge that we’re overwhelmed, and probably craving hibernation, says Steinem. Waves of exhaustion and even hopelessness are inevitable in the fight for social justice, she assures.

However, to prevent ourselves from normalizing sexual harassment, we need to ground our activism in two fundamental values: intersectionality and democracy. Steinem explains:

“If you have more power, remember to listen as much as you talk. And if you have less power remember, to talk as much as you listen. That can be hard when you’re used to hiding. Keep yourself in the present, and don’t obsess over what you should be doing, or could have done differently. Talk to people, don’t get isolated, and remember to empathize, because almost everybody can be changed and transformed.”

https://qz.com/1150028

[jaymebyers1971]

Public Discourse and Conversation

So I have a childhood friend (well I was closer with his younger sister who was a year behind us) who runs an organization called Less Government.org.  He is of course an arch-conservative. I disagree with a lot of what he supports.  But I do agree with some.  And I enjoy, at times, interacting on his thread.  And because I don’t wear blinders and I am not close minded, I am more than willing to listen to opposing views.  But the following exchange has me somewhat frustrated.  Is this really what discourse and debate has come to in this country among presumably somewhat intelligent and educated people?  It’s disappointing and honestly somewhat scary.  It’s scary because of what it portends for the future if this trend continues.  I know I am not crazy.  I know I showed no hate in my responses.  I know that I was not arrogant or condescending.  I know that my initial comment was thoughtful and reasoned as were all of my responses. The responses I got, the reactions, and the accusations make no rational sense. The blindness, the rationalizations and justifications that these two women display in their willingness to block out anything that doesn’t agree with them is stunning.  And staggeringly disturbing.  And the saddest part is they miss the fact that I am actually supportive of the issue being discussed.  

Am I crazy to feel that a point should be able to stand on its own without name-calling or fact-twisting? Am I wrong to feel that being inflammatory, accusatory or negative simply detracts from your point, making people feel like you are trying to distract them from the fact that the point is not valid or supportable – even if it actually is? Is it wrong to be scared about this sickening trend in our public discourse?

"Trump's immigration ban is unconstituional."

"Actually, it isn't. But while we're here - where in the Constitution is the federal government expressly empowered to create Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid or the Departments of Education or Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency?"

"........Racist."

LikeShow more reactions

CommentShare

40 40

Comments

Cassedy Stien they don't get it!

 Like · Reply · 1 · 5 hrs

Cassedy Stien I just wrote this on a drone's wall. You liberals want to break our laws and let everyone into our country then you take them in, house them, buy their drugs and get their diseases. You American haters want socialism because you want your freebies like Anthony. He wants to get his teeth fixed so bring down America, open up the flood gates, destroy our constitutional rights and have a ONE WORLD GOVT where NO ONE HAS RIGHTS but we all get to be fed in the food lines, get our free shots and healthcare and be cradled from BIRTH TO DEATH! No thank you!

Like · Reply · 1 · 5 hrs

Hide 13 Replies

 James Byers I don't paint all conservatives with the same brush. I am neither naive enough, arrogant enough, condescending enough or for that matter stupid enough to do so. I do not and never have used the words Republican, conservative, or even "tea party" as pejoratives. I do not assume that all conservatives (of any flavor) are stupid, ignorant or naive. I am a proud Democrat, a moderate but yes still a liberal. And painting me with the same brush as the far left is as self-defeating for your side as my side painting all conservatives with the same brush I (or we) apply to the alt-right. You want to change someone’s mind, you want them to listen to your arguments, then present those arguments with factual support and do so in a way that does not make you look like or come across as a deluded psycho, out of touch with reality, operating in a world of blinders and simply spewing one more rant. I have never felt marginalized by anything Seton Motley himself has posted and I can't think of a single post of his I was not able to fact check his claims and find them valid - even when I disagreed with him. I cannot say the same for many of the people who comment on his posts. I am someone who wants to be convinced by legitimate arguments. Rants will not do it. And I am sick and tired of narrow minded people unable to engage in reasoned discussion without trashing their opponents. I am thoroughly sick of being opposed by people who use the words Democrat or Liberal as pejoratives and who refuse to understand that neither party nor side is monolithic. Both represent a wide range of thoughts, beliefs opinions and ideas. We work best when we work to build on our common ground not work to drive the wedge and schism deeper and wider. (That being said, Cassedy Stien, I love your Dumbass post above - pointed and accurate.)

Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Cassedy Stien James Byers Guess what the thread started with? Name calling and f bombs so whatever you say. Good luck with that. Most of these idiots are hopeless. Just like George Washington during the revolutionary war. 1/3 joined the British, 1/3 did nothing and our greatest 1/3 fought and gave their lives, homes and families for our freedoms.

Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

James Byers Cassedy Stien Can you please give me your sources for your 1/3 quotes. I don't like numbers without facts behind them. As someone who grew up the son of a professional historian, an assistant director of the National Archives who specialized in American History I find your numbers somewhat questionable.

Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs

James Byers Cassedy Stien And furthermore I am sure you have heard the saying two wrongs don't make a right. It doesn't matter what the "other" side lowers themselves to, don't ever go down in the gutter to play - you've already lost once you have.

Like · Reply · 2 hrs

James Byers Cassedy Stien Also for the record I am a combat veteran who did put his life on the line for this country. Still a liberal.

Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Helen Jeck Cassedy Stien So we know James is a liberal but keeps quiet so he can think he is so thoughtful. Your name calling gave you away immediately....that is all you had to do....

Helen Jeck James Byers Most of us stopped listening when you showed your hate.

 Cassedy Stien James thanks for ur service! Bye who's side were u fighting for? Our constitutional republic or for NWO??? Just curious?

Cassedy Stien Btw sorry iPhone auto correct

Cassedy Stien Btw save ur little condescending speech for someone who cares!! Lol

 James Byers Helen Jeck How in God's name is pointing out that name calling simply turns people off and therefore defeats the purpose of convincing them of your point in any way hate? How is asking for factual support of a point in anyway showing hate? How is the fact that I told Ms. Stein that I liked her Dumbass pic/post? Which obviously shows that I do in fact support this executive order and believe it is legal. How is the fact that I have posted multiple times in this comment tread and respond to and post multiple times in many of Seton Motley's posts in any way indicative of me choosing to be or actually being quiet? I think dear lady that you and I have different definitions of hate and quiet.

Helen Jeck James Byers Never allow myself to have a REAL conversation with anyone who is childish....get it.

James Byers So when someone in an intelligent and reasoned manner challenges your preconceived worldview they are childish? That's amusing to say the least. I am very open to listening to the other side. I have voted and supported both Republicans and Democrats. Disagreeing with someone does not make me right or they wrong - it simply means we have a difference of opinion. It also doesn't make them or I childish, hateful, ignorant, stupid, and condescending or any number of adjectives that get thrown around by both sides these days. And rants and name calling should never be necessary to make a point. A good point will always stand on its own merits and facts. You should try it sometime - it's very refreshing. And it is also the practice of the person Seton Motley whose thread you are commenting on.