#liberty vs equality

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is just another example of how the Roberts' Supreme Court decimated campaign finance regulation in its Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon et al. v. FEC decisions.

In particular, according to Politico Magazine, in McCutcheon, SCOTUS decided that unless money is given to a candidate's campaign in exchange for favorable policy decisions/laws (i.e., "quid pro quo") it isn't technically a "bribe." Therefore, it isn't sufficiently "corrupt" to be outlawed.

(Although even the SCOTUS "gang of six" must be feeling a little anxious that Trump appears to be running around lately begging billionaires for campaign contributions with promises that he will do their bidding.😳)

An article in Quartz, comparing the U.S. and British election systems, mentions a theory by a political science professor, Justin Fisher, that the difference in how much money is allowed in both systems is largely due to different values,

Fisher says the vast differences in money spent stem from contrasting philosophical approaches: the US favors liberty—the freedom of expression, which includes financial donations—while the UK favors equality. “Most European elections, and the UK is an example of this, are based on the principle of equality, of trying to ensure that the spending does not unduly advantage one side or another,” he explained. [color/ emphasis added]

The Roberts' Court clearly values the "liberty" of the wealthy and corporations to "freely speak" by making large monetary contributions to political campaigns.

Yet, it seems that the Roberts' Court doesn't value the "liberty"/ "free speech" rights of "the little guy" as much.

For instance, if, as the Roberts' Court claims, "money = speech," then wealthy people and corporations produce such a huge amount of "speech" (through their enormous campaign donations) that it drowns out the "voices," and limits the impact of the average American's political "speech."

And given how Trump appears to be "selling" his presidency to those billionaires willing to make huge campaign donations, the Roberts' Court's overvaluation of the "liberty"/ "free speech" rights of the wealthy and corporations results in corruption and the undo influence of the wealthy/ corporations on the laws and policies that the political benefactors of their monetary largesse implement when they are in office.

I think the only way to undo the damage the Roberts' Court has done to our nation will be if we elect a Democratic president and Congress, and are able to expand the Court. Because the "gang of six" isn't going to change their minds about any of this. And as long as they are in a majority, our nation is in peril of becoming a kleptocracy.

“Billionaires buying elections is not what this country is supposed to be about,” said Sanders.

By Sharon Zhang , TRUTHOUT

Published August 9, 2024

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) have spoken out about corruption in politics following the defeat of Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri) in her primary this week by pro-Israel groups that poured millions of dollars into unseating the progressive lawmaker.

AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), spent $8.5 million on the campaign to oppose Bush, helping to make it the second-most expensive House primary in history — only beaten by Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s (D-New York) primary in June, in which UDP poured $14.5 million into electing a pro-Israel challenger to Bowman.

To many who championed the two lawmakers for speaking out against Israel, the two losses were a show of AIPAC’s outsized influence on elections and the ability for deep-pocketed interest groups to buy elections.

[littlebydigital]

I don't know what they told you but I am not yet a liberated woman

[omegaphilosophia]

Liberalism vs. Individualism

While liberalism and individualism share common ground, particularly in their emphasis on personal freedom, they can come into conflict in terms of how that freedom is understood and applied, especially regarding the role of the state, social responsibilities, and economic structures.

Key Points of Conflict:

State Role in Protecting Freedom:

Liberalism, especially in its modern form, supports the protection of individual rights through government intervention when necessary. This can include laws that ensure equality, regulate economic activity, or provide social safety nets.

Individualism tends to advocate for minimal state intervention, focusing on personal autonomy and self-determination. From an individualist perspective, even liberal efforts to protect rights through government involvement may be seen as restrictive or paternalistic.

The conflict arises when liberal policies, such as social welfare programs or regulations, are viewed by individualists as infringing on personal responsibility and freedom, while liberals see them as necessary for ensuring fair access to opportunities and rights.

Collective Responsibility vs. Personal Autonomy:

Liberalism, especially in its modern form, promotes collective responsibility for ensuring that all individuals have access to basic rights, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. This often involves redistributive policies or regulations aimed at promoting equality and reducing social inequalities.

Individualism prioritizes personal autonomy and believes individuals should be responsible for their own lives, free from collective obligations imposed by the state or society. This leads to a preference for personal freedom over state-enforced social programs.

The conflict surfaces when liberal policies require individuals to contribute to collective welfare (e.g., through taxation for social programs), which individualists may resist as an overreach that limits personal autonomy.

Equality vs. Meritocracy:

Liberalism often emphasizes equality of opportunity, seeking to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to succeed, regardless of background. This can include policies aimed at addressing social inequalities, such as affirmative action or welfare programs.

Individualism focuses on meritocracy, believing that individuals should rise or fall based on their own efforts and abilities. From this perspective, equality of outcome is not a priority, and policies that artificially level the playing field are seen as unfair or counterproductive.

The tension arises when liberal efforts to create more equitable conditions are perceived as undermining the meritocratic values that individualists hold, particularly when these efforts are seen as rewarding individuals regardless of effort.

Freedom from Government vs. Freedom through Government:

Liberalism often sees the government as a necessary tool for ensuring that individuals can enjoy their freedom (e.g., through anti-discrimination laws, regulations on monopolies, or social safety nets). This "positive liberty" approach argues that freedom is meaningful only when individuals have the real ability to exercise their rights.

Individualism champions freedom from government (also called "negative liberty"), where the absence of government interference is the highest expression of personal liberty. Individualists argue that the more government interferes in personal or economic life, the more individual freedom is constrained.

The conflict is centered on whether true freedom comes from the presence of government ensuring fair conditions or the absence of government allowing individuals to act without restriction.

Social Justice vs. Individual Freedom:

Liberalism, particularly in its modern, progressive forms, often emphasizes social justice, where laws and policies are designed to address systemic inequalities and promote fairness across society. This may involve interventions to address historical injustices, systemic discrimination, or economic disparities.

Individualism places a higher value on individual freedom, where individuals should be free to pursue their own success or failure without being obligated to correct social inequalities they did not create.

The conflict comes when individualists view liberal policies aimed at achieving social justice as imposing unfair burdens on individuals (e.g., affirmative action or progressive taxation), while liberals see such policies as necessary for creating a fairer society.

Community vs. Individual Interests:

Liberalism acknowledges the need for community interests and cooperation, where the well-being of the whole can justify limiting certain individual freedoms for the greater good (e.g., environmental regulations, public health mandates).

Individualism prioritizes the individual's interest over the collective, often resisting policies that limit personal freedom, even if those policies are meant to protect the community as a whole.

The conflict emerges when liberal policies that benefit society at large are seen by individualists as infringing on their personal liberties, such as mandatory health insurance, environmental laws, or collective bargaining.

Although liberalism and individualism both value freedom, they diverge on the role of the state, the importance of social responsibility, and the balance between individual rights and collective welfare. Liberalism often seeks to protect and promote freedom through government action and social justice, while individualism emphasizes personal autonomy and minimal interference, even if it means accepting greater social inequalities.

[dollythatdollgirl]

Why I think history is repeating itself once again with the French Revolution. So as you all remember earlier this year with the whole haleyybaylee “let them eat cake” met gala thing snd how that felt like the biggest fuck you because their were literally protesters in the back of her video and then when she started to get backlash she was like “ I’m just a normal person” no you’re not. There was a light behind her that cost over 1,000 dollars just causally there as if it was a hoodie. And now with the whole united heath care ceo getting shot and the starch difference with how the media is portraying it vs on TikTok how people are saying he had it coming and how he deserved it (he did). How “deny, defend, depose” is being written and wore by hundreds in support. Now with this Florida woman calling her heath insurance company saying “deny defend depose” and getting arrested and all of the graffiti I’ve seen first hand around where I live. This reminds me a lot of the a chant the French used during the revolution "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" (liberty, equality, fraternity). We may not have monarchs and aristocrats anymore but we sure do have billionaires, ceos, and celebrities.This post might be very ranting but I hope you get the point of what I’m trying to say. 2025 is going to be a year in the history books.

[theartisticcrow]

I so desperately want to see people getting up and protesting in the streets or outside the court where Luigi Mangione is being prosecuted because everything is being done to make sure that man doesn't get a fair trial and that shouldn't be tolerated. There's a good chance Luigi didn't even do it, but the police and government are so deeply corrupt at this point.

I want to see that seething rage in every citizen keep burning and keep growing bigger to a point that the government really can't ignore it. Either you fight for your rights to liberty and equality or you die a miserable death on the street like everyone else, regardless of who you are. Because it's not the right vs the left. It's the poor and underprivileged classes of citizens versus the wealthy elites that run that damn country.

I'd be rioting in the streets myself if I didn't live on the other side of the continent and not even within the country. But even I'm doing what I can. I'm talking about and spreading news by word of mouth and I'm already writing a few different things about the situation (essay, thesis, analysis, who gives a shit what it's called)

Everyone here has a chance to do something. More people need to realise that this goes beyond just a class war. America is showing all the signs of an oncoming revolution and I'll be laughing when it finally happens wondering what took so long.

[nightsunecilpse]

Mars is sensible and understanding.

But... When Luna asked him for his help, he ignored him.

He needed help saving Astrodude from Titan and he denied him. Because he refused to help, he is just at fault for letting things get as bad as they did. He said Titan wouldn't do such a thing, refusing to believe Luna. When he found out what moons were capable of, it was too late. It may not have been Titan's original intention or his idea to attack the rocky planets, but he allowed it to continue. Just as Mars was allowed to believe a moon's plead shouldn't be taken seriously.

As soon as Mars figured out that moons were willing to overthrow the planets to earn their rights and liberty, he heeded them a threat. His behavior toward them wasn't of respect or understanding, no matter how convincing he wanted to appear. Hearing the names of the moons that led the revolution, Ganymede and Europa are associated with a secret plan; Mars had the right to be cautious. Yet, he ignored their surrender of violence and genocide towards the Earth and Earthlings. He was still undermining the cause they were fighting for. They planned to go to the Sun to ask him to make the planets view the moons as equals. Their main goal was always to level for equality, and that was never a secret. Yet, Mars must've forgotten that, assuming Titan and the moons were planning to go against them. Enabling fault at the moons for their attack on the planets when he saw them approach the Sun. Mars had become frantic and assumed the worst ready to place the blame on Titan for starting the whole mess.

... Heh...

Titan wouldn't do something like that. Mars got it all wrong. Earth is the one who said moons should know their place. Mars even stopped talking to Earth until he apologized to Titan for saying that. He knew what he said was awful and left him never expecting Earth to ever apologize. It may be that he just didn't trust the moon's intentions. Ganymede and Europa did give them a bad impression and the moons left them unconscious in the asteroid belt. But, Earth, the initial offender and target, apologized. While Unlike Mars, Earth trusted his moon wasn't doing anything malicious. Mars and Venus instigated the moons vs planets trials because they refused to let the moons say their proposal to the sun. By immediately jumping the gun, Mars had only proven he did not care what the moons wanted all along. He just wanted to fulfill his self-righteous ego by preaching what he did not practice.

[cadejos]

MEASURING NANAMI'S CRITICAL HIT POWER

i'm going to take a few liberties here, and make some assumptions based on characters' dialogues. however, i'll still try to be as realistic as possible with this assessment.

it all starts with this panel from chapter 231.

nanami in the panel says quite plainly that the critical hits he works hard to pull off are equal to gojo's average, no-effort punches. we can make the reasonable guess that gojo's "average punch" are his punches that are enhanced with blue. why? because those are the punches kusakabe talks about.

these are also the punches gojo himself brings up in chapter 256, as for why it's less likely (less necessary) for him to perform black flashes.

hese punches are intense enough that they make heavy hitters like hakari and yuuta nauseus. they're clearly not happy to have been on the receiving end.

... so we can draw the conclusion that if nanami were to do a critical hit with his full strength, the same effect would be achieved.

the problem now is clarifying what nanami means by a "critical hit". in chapter 20 of the manga when he is describing his technique, critical hit is exactly the term he uses, so we could assume that he means his base power with his CT in chapter 231. right? but i don't think its that simple.

i think there's levels to the critical hits, and not all of them are made equal. in order to meet the criteria for "full power critical hit", nanami needs to do a certain number of things. it can't just be his average jab, since he says that he needs to put great effort to match the likes of gojo's baseline strength.

one of those things may be "revealing his hand", a binding vow which increases the effectiveness of a technique in exchange for letting the enemy know what's up, and it's something he uses in that very chapter. (casually, it uses gojo as an example too)

nanami reveals his hand mainly for yuuji's benefit (and for us as readers), we don't know if he really needed it for this curse. after all, he still only hit it with the blunt side, implying that he can regulate the level of his blows through the use of his tool vs other things, like his fists (which may be more powerful, perhaps because the cursed energy does not have to flow into his cleaver)

average hits may be enough for weak curses, but stronger opponents require stronger measures. in his fight with mahito, he both reveals his hand and employs his overtime binding vow. even nanami's average punches merely represent 80% of his baseline capacity, making analysis a little blurry.

this is also the chapter that introduces us to ratio technique: collapse, an expansion of nnmi's 7:3 technique. it's enough to pulverize everything in a specific area, and it feels like a "minor earthquake" even from a distance.

nanami's technique is all about buffs and debuffs, both inherent and self imposed. the fact that he engages successfully in so many battles with curses at only 80% of his CE capacity is something that is quite noteworthy and oftentimes overlooked. i doubt that collapse would be as powerful at 80%, but that's why he only uses it after overtime is in place. it probably would still be pretty formidable with 100% capacity.

we are not even taking black flashes into account, an area where nanami excels. a critical hit buff stacked on top of a critical hit that is already buffed? that sounds borderline excessive. but that's something that nanami has been shown to be capable of.

so, all of this to come to the conclusion that the upper range of nanami's punches, given the proper conditions, are homologous with gojo's middle range blue enhanced punches. all of this is not to talk down on gojo's punches, but quite the opposite.

nanami needs to be precise in order to hit the weak spot his technique has forcibly created. gojo doesn't have that limitation. while nanami needs to actively think and measure his blows, gojo barely has to think, as it comes like second nature through the use of his six eyes.

still, the fact that level of power is even reachable for him is not insignificant.

[emry-stars-art]

I didnt mean to rediscover how much I like brainstorming and world building stuff but here we are - this time it’s (mostly) pirate Neil and shark Andrew flavored!

@tell-me-your-vision had some very good tags on the last post like this so of course I started thinking harder about it lol, you all know by now that the best way to get me to draw more is to leave ideas and questions in your tags 😘 it’s very interesting figuring out what parts I want to be drawn directly from the source animal and what I want to have artistic liberty with! Sometimes you just gotta say “it’s this way because I decided it is” and offer no more explanation, not even to yourself.

That being said. If the snippet interested you, find more of the unfinished scene here :D (and if you want to leave a comment… 👀)

I don’t know how clear this image is going to end up being, so here’s the important notes typed up:

Does [Andrew’s] missing fin cause maneuverability problems? Yep. Fins keep the body stable and streamlined in the water. No fin/half detached fins means Andrew spends a lot more energy to be equally as efficient while swimming. (That’s part of why he had more upper body strength than most mers.)

Does jelly Neil feel pain like humans? Not at all. Pain vs nociception - the detection of averse stimulus. So Neil can sense and respond to ‘painful’ stimuli, and he does feel some pain like a person would in his upper half, but it’s mostly just a sensation that he responds to. (This is dangerous. Less pain means he doesn’t realize how dire a situation may be.)

A second eyelid - like a crocodile/etc; a clear secondary eyelid that closes horizontally beneath the primary eyelid, developed to keep the eye safe and clear underwater. Why jelly Neil rarely ‘actually’ blinks

Pirate Neil’s prosthesis. Most of it is always hidden under clothes; it’s made of leather, copper, rubber, and cumaru wood. It was given to him by Stuart as soon as the man found out that Neil had lost his leg, and Stuart had it custom made through his vast connections. At one point in the timeline, Neil angrily takes it off to show a wary and lashing-out sharkDrew that he has also once been on the wrong end of a ‘whaler’s’ knife.

The tiny two panel comic in the bottom right corner: pirate Neil says “stop trying to stab me in the leg” while sharkDrew was fairly certain he just took out this pirate’s kneecap with his sharp rock

The snippet:

“And it was terrified. It’s second eyelids fluttered, it’s eyes were hazy. It held the rough stone ready in case Neil tried to get close again. It still wasn’t breathing right. It was still bleeding.

“Okay,” Neil said softly. He held his own hands out a little to the side. “I’m not going to hurt you more.”

The shark snarled, though it’s mouth never opened.

“I didn’t hurt you in the first place. They’re still finning mers?”

Neil tried to step in, slowly, and was met with another vicious swing. He was ready this time, avoiding the sharp stone neatly.

“Hey, thing. Keep moving like that and you’ll bleed to death.”

Another attempt, and another swing. Neil looked at the place it’s fin had been, now a horrible, gaping wound on its back. He could see the meat beneath the blood. If he didn’t help soon, the shark would go into shock, if not simply die here on the rocks.

“Do you even realize what’s at stake for you?”

[nanawaffles]

This ask is your chance to talk or rant about anything at all for as long as you want. Need inspiration? What is the nicest thing that happened to you today? What is your opinion about whatever media you've watched or read recently? Talk about your favorite character. Finish this sentence 'In a hole in the ground there lived...'

Hi darling! Thank you for sending this I've been saving it for a rainy day. And it's cloudy with a chance of salt today. I'm a little upset, fandom centric yet again ( because it's usually fandom that gets my goat ) based on shipping and the concept of new fans vs old fans. Is this about Tolkien and rings of power, yes... yes it is.

So in a hole in the ground there lived a 6 year old girl who fell in love with Lord of the Rings, and spent every December reading it for the next ten years. Then at 16 she found out this fantasy series had more content, she devoured it, then at 18 found another book in a secondhand shop and spent way too much money to get it because it was a book from this series and world she ( at that time ) could not find anywhere else. Bit by bit her library grew, at 21 she found the second part of that extra material, and added it to her collection. Now at 29, with two kids, a home based job, and a love of writing, this woman has a shelf dedicated to that piece of fiction, and is passing that love on to her niece, nephew, and children.

Now, as a result I've seen the fandom develop. At 6 I was equal parts enthralled and upset by the Peter Jackson trilogy because there were parts i wish he hadn't changed. Faramir being tempted, Samwise being tempted, the lack of Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel, the changes of Aragorns personality, the seriousness of elves, the omission of the entirety of the Scouring of the Shire. I grew to eventually see these things as different, the books were the books, the movies the movies, similar on many levels but different at certain core things that even now I gotta sigh and go "that isn't right". The Hobbit came out, even more changes occurred. Thranduil was painted with a brush so darkened that many of the fans hated him, Kili fell in love with an elf and instead of dying to defend Thorin he died defending her, Azog in his entirety-- but by now I'd learned that they are separate entities. No adaptation will ever measure up. There will always be creative liberties, there will always be bias and change, and there will always be fans that will tear it apart because they can't handle this reality. Ultimately all adaptations are a form of fanfiction. Is it ideal? No. It just is.

Now we get to the source of my contention. With every adaptation and form of media created off of something, there will inevitably be new fans. These fans do not have the same base, they don't know about obscure lore, they base their experience off the singular media that brought them in. This means their opinions will be very different. Their ships will be different, their canon will be different. And there's two ways to deal with this, and unfortunately I have seen both in the last few months. We either embrace them and attempt to bring them more into the world so they can share what we've been sharing for decades---or we are rude, obnoxious, harassing, attacking and all around unwelcoming, painting ourselves and our fellow fans as if we are these "canon nazis" who cannot bear to see another form of the story we love. How hypocritical we seem. Did we not accept the changes of Peter Jackson's versions? Did we not and do not still tout them as exemplary forms of media? Loyal to the book, right? Jackson missed crucial bits of Tolkiens themes, his own biases showing through. I could give lists with receipts on this if anyone is interested because as a die hard fan I watched the BTS interviews, and realized the reasons my favorite things were omitted.

So now we have Rings of Power, which lacks on finer details, and makes certain decisions which are questionable but it hits on key things. Is it loyal in a literal sense? No. But it's loyal in spirit in many ways. Elrond and Sauron are perfectly done, Celebrimbor is deep and compelling, and no younger casting could have done him with such perfect complexity. We have built so much of this fandom on scraps, sometimes I've realized there's stuff we see as canon that actually isn't because one beautiful thing about this world is how in many ways we have the ability to build it. There is canon, typically that was originally published in the appendices and then the Silmarillion, but there's so much conflicting "canon" that it's not completely wrong for Rings of Power to have made the decisions they did. So Gandalf is hanging with proto hobbits, and Tom Bombadil is there. Show me where it says that cannot happen. Is it fanfic? Yes in a way, but given Amazon has very few rights ( don't get me started on this I'm not happy about it ) it's not surprising.

But Tolkien Fandom... what -- and I mean this most sincerely -- the ever loving fuck.

For the older fans, you're letting the fandom down. Attacking those who were not interested in the movies or books but this is their gateway. I'll repeat that you're insulting and unwelcoming, and giving us who want new blood a horrific name. You've scared so many people do you realize that? So many who want to get into this world but are too afraid of you. Hate Rings of Power if you wish, but do not forget there's a person on the other side of those screens. Artists, writers-- you complain about lack of content and yet kill off anyone else who might be sparked in inspiration because they're new! You should embrace and encourage them to get as deeply into this world as you are not bash them because of what they don't know. Stay humble. Remember that once upon a time you didn't know a Finwe from a Finarfin, elves seemed eternally ethereal and not the absolute dumpster fires that they are. Remember the days, for those who began with the movies, that you thought Arwen saved Frodo not Glorfindel, an elf who you didn't even know his name. Imagine if there had been a hoard of angry fans ready to roast you on a spit because you dared to ship Legolas and Gimli ( for those of you who do ). So, respectfully, take a seat and think about it.

Now to you newbies I have this to say. You're welcome to be here, please don't get discouraged. However, keep humble yourselves, remember that there's a lot of canon you're ignorant of, canon that is precious to us OG fans. Canon like Celebrian and Celeborn, aaand yes I'm looking at you Elrondiel shippers. Ship what you want, but quit bashing those characters. Elrond is not some creep just because he loves Celebrian, he did not watch Celebrian grow up, he met her after she was well over a thousand years old. He loved her so deeply, keeping it to himself for a thousand years until the war was over, and her capture and eventual sailing was big to his character. He did not love Galadriel in that way, no matter what you ship, and Celebrian was not some kind of replacement.

Celeborn is not boring, he's a Sinda with a temper and a hatred of dwarves who loves his wife, is very giving, and is essential to supporting Galadriel to do what she does. Do not mistake PJ's sloooow talking "where is Gandalf for I much desire to speak with him" Celeborn for Celeborn. He married an elf who though welcome in the kingdom of Doriath was involved in the Kinslaying at Alqualondë. If anything she would have been a slightly forbidden character, who lied by the way to Melian regarding her involvement for years. He married in spite of that, and they built and built and survived and fought together.

Now I will say this version of Galadriel does bring up some questions mainly because they actually nerfed her true power. This elf is the most powerful elf to ever exist, save Fëanor himself. Galadriel is not a sword wielding badass in the second age because she learned at the hand of Melian the Maia, aka she was literally the apprentice to a demigod. The complaints you see about her and our view is because the eldritch horror witch who rules a forest and can literally speak in your mind and unsettle you with how much she knows, got demoted to a commander with a sword who cannot even perceive Sauron himself and leads him straight to Celebrimbor. This Galadriel perhaps would be true to the first age, haughty and arrogant and flipping the Vala off because she doesn't wish to be subject to anyone. The second age however... wellll... no. Sorry. No. Now I suspend my disbelief, and I let myself enjoy the show regardless, but do not think for one second that that's Galadriel. She isn't. Hate that as you will.

Moving on.

Celebrian is not useless but rather essential to the main plot in ways you do not yet understand. Without Celebrian, it's very possible that certain aspects of Rivendell would not be there. Additionally, there would be no Arwen who gives hope to Aragorn, no Elladan and Elrohir who although omitted from film play a major role in the Return of the King. Just because a character is supportive to other characters does not mean she's useless. She is the Lady of Imladris, her capture marked a beginning of Saurons return. Her sailing was tragic, but indicative of a future for Elrond and a reason for him to get through it all. Do not throw out a loveliness that even the actors of Rings of Power acknowledge for your presuppositions on characters you do not understand.

Now I shall quickly address Elrond x Galadriel and why there's so much pushback. Apart from aforementioned stuff it mainly exists in that these two characters have such glorious arcs on their own with their ships that to cut those arcs out seems as if we're gutting the characters for the future. There is now no Lorien, no Celebrian, no Celeborn. Elrond who is millennia younger than Galadriel ( for all you folks who want to bash him for a "canon creep factor" please remember she was hundreds of years old before he was born and according to show canon found him at sirion as a child ) who in canon has a kind of relationship that one would see among colleagues. He respects her, but that's as far as it goes. He marries her daughter which then would infer a mother/son relationship, not one of "he can't get Galadriel so he settles for her kid". Like please... no. So ship what you want but that's what I see in terms of us. The kiss was what pushed y'all over the edge on that score, which tbh is a shame. All that work Rob Aramayo put in, and that's what you got out. Even he said it was platonic and to distract. I'll digress though, I know you don't like hearing that.

And OG fans, quit attacking them. You're not helping us, you're just making things worse.

With that... I'll end this. Thank you for reading.

[haggishlyhagging]

De Cleyre's active exploration of the Woman Question, manifested both in her published work and private correspondence, dated from 1891, a year after the birth of her son. Prior to that time, although she had demanded the freedom to make her choices as a human being without the hindrance of feminine constraints, she was less aware of the costs of such an assertion; motherhood forced her to confront the consequences of her stance. Having realized first-hand that free love did not by itself assure equality, she drew on the work of the anarchist-feminists of the 1880s and, to a lesser degree, of Moses Harman as well in order to begin to develop the most complete articulation of the anarchist-feminist position to appear in the nineteenth century.

Two essays in particular, "The Gates of Freedom," published in 1891, and "The Case of Woman vs. Orthodoxy," published in 1896, illuminated de Cleyre's feminist theory and also demonstrated the maturation of her feminist philosophy. From the beginning she insisted that the questions of marriage and economic independence were inextricably connected. Opening "The Gates of Freedom" with an unequivocal denunciation of marriage, she declared: "Young girls! if any one of you is contemplating marriage remember . . . what the contract means. The sale and control of your person in return for ‘protection’ and support." Yet opposition to marriage was insufficient; women needed also to declare their emotional independence from men. "I say right here, candidly, that as a class I have nothing to hope from men. . . . [My] hope lies in creating rebellion in the breasts of women." Despite her disappointment in the legalistic and political emphases of the organized women's rights movement, de Cleyre praised mainstream feminists for articulating some feminine discontents, so that "Woman, through a dimly roused consciousness, is beginning to feel her servitude." Nevertheless, feminists had yet to wrest from men the most important precondition for equality, individual autonomy—"the freedom to control her own person." And how were women to bring themselves to this threshold of freedom? Not by the grace of men. "I never expect men to give us liberty. No, women we are not worth it, until we take it." . . . .

Two ideas, in addition to her arguments about the interconnectedness of marriage and economic dependence, were central to de Cleyre's feminism in 1891: first, that women should expect nothing from men; second, that women should not invest their hopes in an organized movement because independence can best be achieved by individual acts of rebellion. Turning aside from the notion of sisterhood, de Cleyre wanted women—in countless singular defiant acts—to challenge traditional feminine expectations, to refuse to marry, to bear children, or to fulfill wifely and maternal duties. In effect, she advocated a leaderless general strike against marriage and motherhood.

-Margaret S. Marsh, Anarchist Women, 1870-1920

[laerien]

While I'm not necessarily ecstatic about The Acolyte being cancelled as far as the future of Star Wars television goes, rewatching the first season of Rings of Power solidified my thoughts about why I think the former needed a bit more work.

The premises are pretty similar: a story based in a time we haven't seen yet in a world that has extensive lore but lots of grey area. Rings of Power and The Acolyte both capitalized on this to take liberties and add several new aspects; whether to genuinely add to the story or to fit into a studio's motive is anyone's guess. Both had fantastical aspects, established orders who refused to believe evil was returning, love vs duty debates, and an exploration of morality.

As a Tolkien fan, I was left feeling indifferent about RoP when it first aired. There were several things I thought would be established in canon that were suddenly changed, yet there were new additions and stories that I could still trace to very evident Tolkien motifs. While not perfect, the new characters, relationships, and storylines all sat clearly on a timeline that would undoubtedly lead to the Middle-earth we knew from the existing media. The dark was gone, it's returning, and we're going to figure out who, how, and why.

As a Star Wars fan, I thought I was very open to The Acolyte coming in and creating some new stories on the timeline. I have to give them some credit, as the majority of the characters were new to avoid blatant fanservice. However, with so much room to work with, I suppose I expected a clearer establishment of the story. A lot of time was spent with so many new characters and world building, and for what? We know Star Wars for being a battle for a better galaxy, just like the LotR franchise is a battle for a better Middle-earth. Without the war, but with knowing the Sith didn't canonically reappear until the prequel era, what was the intention of the season? The Jedi Order exists, the Sith are hinting at a return, but we're not going to figure out anything by the end of the season besides small hints that the Jedi Order is already corrupt, both Mae and Osha would give up everything we learned about them in their backstories in a single moment for something they've been fighting against the whole season, and Darth Plageius is hiding in the shadows even though there's a rule of two and Qimir's motive of having an acolyte to fulfill the rule of two is supposed to still make sense? Everything else that happened in the season is inconsequential to a larger picture, and I think that's why I struggled to understand it, despite genuinely liking several aspects of it.

I recently rewatched Rings of Power, so it's fresh and, while not without flaws, it was an excellent juxtaposition to The Acolyte. By the end of the season, RoP gave us an immensely satisfying answer to the Sauron plot point given in the first episode. It began each storyline, played adequately in each one, and wrapped up each one, all while leaving plenty of mystery in a way I found exciting. The Acolyte had appeared to have all the characters revolving around one story: the Jedi stopping a mysterious dark force from murdering more Jedi. The audience was left out of the loop on so many important things, that, by the time they were revealed, we already had more questions lined up. For all the work they did in making characters with fleshed out backstories, none of it seemed to matter when they made a choice that seemed irrelevant to it all.

I think I'm mostly annoyed that the Acolyte was cancelled because I hoped they could redeem themselves in a second season. Although, I think that annoyance is about equal to watching the finale and realizing the few mysteries solved were either full of holes or just confusing. If anyone can clearly explain to me if I'm missing something huge about the Acolyte's plot and character choices, I am very open to it. It's always exciting to see something new in the fandom, and it's always discouraging to feel like you side more with the never-happy fan trolls.

In any case, let's hope the second season of Rings of Power survives these never-happy fan trolls. I'm catching a screening tonight, but would also love to hear if people think I'm missing something terrible with this show.

[centrally-unplanned]

I watched the Scott Pilgrim anime! I was deeply ambivalent, which I am sure is a shock to no one who knows me and saw it lol. I think I have a sequence of thoughts, so I will tackle the obvious one first to get it out of the way: Marketing, Adaptation, & Genre Drift in Scott Pilgrim Takes Off

Starting from top, if you don’t know, the Scott Pilgrim anime is not an adaptation of the original source material, but an alternate history version of the events where the titular Scott isn’t present for the majority of the episodes and Ramona Flowers is the main character. Which has been controversial! Not…amazingly controversial or anything, this is an extremely low stakes scenario and from my analysis the majority of people liked it. But controversial enough to get insufferable Kotaku articles “explaining the backlash” which don’t explain the backlash well. Let me see if I can do a better job - its fun to set low bars for yourself to clear after all.

The backlash starts with the marketing; really just the professional drama-trolls would have objected beyond an initial reaction to Netflix announcing Ramona Flowers vs the World; as a concept it makes a ton of sense, and it is essentially what they actually did (well, we will get into that). But that is not how it was sold:

“Join Scott in his fight for love, life, and rock!” I’d love to, still waiting for the invite! This is the first teaser for the show, and if you do a quick “frame count” it pretty equally privileges Scott & Ramona both, but Scott is still on top and it deliberately hides any sense that it is an alternate timeline. It even has this screenshot as one of its final moments:

Which I am pretty sure does not appear in the actual anime! If it does its in some flashback alt-timeline scene in a later episode, not its implied context (in the actual episode Scott ‘loses’ this fight). I can show more evidence - casting the original cast of the movie to make it seem like a ‘recreation’, statements by O’Malley where he plays deliberately coy with the idea of how similar it's going to be, and so on - but I think I don’t have to, because it was intentional, you don’t have to read the tea leaves on this. The bait-and-switch is part of the marketing, not an accident from it.

That is the step 1: people are thrown about being deceived. The step 2 is simple - this is a deception about an adaptation. I am someone who constantly complains about shows sacrificing cohesion & storytelling for “the twist”, but its too common these days to be that mad over it in a mass way. My designated punching bag over at Kotaku points this out:

This is a recurring theme for metatextual work like Final Fantasy VII Remake and the Rebuild of Evangelion films: initially they’re presented as retellings of beloved stories, only for it to become clear at some later point that they’re going to take more than a few liberties and tell a different story entirely.

The difference here is that FFVII and Evangelion are remakes, not adaptations. FFVII is a video game being made into a video game again; Evangelion is a tv show + movie being made into a movie series. The FFVII decision was controversial, but fundamentally you can just go back and play the original game; fucking everyone hated the idea of the Evangelion rebuilds being remakes because that is pointless, the originals have aged amazingly, and they had to deviate to justify their existence (they failed at that, but a story for another time). Meanwhile, Scott Pilgrim is a comic, that has never been a TV series, or an anime. There is the movie, but did you know a bunch of comic fans hate the movie? You see a lot of comments like these all the time (from a discourse reddit thread debating the new show):

Personally, I thought it was fun. I agree with a lot of your complaints honestly, but I don’t understand how you liked the movie? I can’t stand the movie because I feel like the characters are all flat, especially Ramona who has absolutely no personality at all.

I disagree btw, the movie is great, but it is a loose adaptation - hell it was released before the final volume of the graphic novels was finished, it has a different ending! A short, cohesive movie could never adapt a long-form, episodic graphic novel. And its live action, stylistically very different. So this TV show was both branded as, and was expected to fulfill a demand for, a first “real” adaptation of the comic, that people wanted. The fact that Evangelion deviated in its remake is a poor comparison. Questioning that people want full adaptations of works they enjoy isn’t really worth our time.

Now I personally don’t care about the above two - I am explaining the debate, but they aren’t problems for me. Step 3 is where I start caring - I think Ramona Flowers vs the World is a great idea. They thought they made that, and I wish they had. But in the process of telling the bait-and-switch of the story, they also bait-and-switched the genre. There is this great quote from O’Malley about the original graphic novel’s story from an interview (whose headline we will revisit in another post, don’t you worry):

Yeah, I mean, when I was writing Scott Pilgrim the first time, I just wanted to come up with a very simple story engine: fight, fight, fight, get to the end. That gave me something to hang all this other stuff on, all this slice of life hanging out in Toronto.

Its such a nice summation of what Scott Pilgrim is - the fighting against the evil exes? Its all sizzle and jokes, none of it matters. Its a plot device to structure the real story, which is a slice-of-life romance drama, coming-of-age narrative, and extremely intimate portrait of Toronto’s scene of indie music venues and hipster coffee shops. The joke is that Scott is dealing with all this crazy video game/anime shenanigans on top of actually having to navigate very grounded past emotional damage and present challenges of adulthood. The heart of the comic is not the fight scenes, some of which literally happen in the background while other characters are talking, but scenes of a group of friends hanging out at 11:00 PM at a dive Korean restaurant:

Scott Pilgrim Takes Off meanwhile is not built around this cast. Its built around a mystery plot and Ramona Flower’s evil exes, who she is investigating, and Scott Pilgrim, uh, checks notes travelling to the future and fighting his …aged enraged alternate self from the original timeline…? Anyway, Ramona’s evil exes are mainly joke characters, comic reliefs who engage in crazy shenanigans. Half of the episodes are structured around them, and their episodes are filled with extended comedy bits and very-long fight scenes. Episode two has a 13 minutes long fight scene between two of them, including build-up, over control of the League of Evil Exes. Hell, they don’t even live in Toronto - a ton of the new anime takes place in New York City and a bit in California. The comic meanwhile has panels just…explaining locations in Toronto sometimes:

Listing the hours of operation, its so cute! The anime has no time for this in between its sci-fi plots and fight scenes, and its far cheaper for it.

The decision to focus on shallow characters like Ramona’s exes is downstream of the decision to focus on Ramona without Scott -besides the exes the rest of the characters are Scott’s friends, who Ramona gets to know through him. Which is the final point here - who are the characters people love from Scott Pilgrim?

All of Scott’s friends ofc. Characters like Lucas Lee are memes, not people. Obviously Kim Pine, Young Neil, Knives Chau and so on appear in the anime. Sometimes they have great scenes - like the adorable scene of Knives & Kim playing music together, Knives’s first time really trying to jam:

Which goes absolutely nowhere from a character perspective - Knives & Kim barely interact after this. It sets up Knives doing a comedy-meta musical for the plot, sure…but that’s boring in comparison to real emotional connections, Knives doesn't have an arc. But they can’t have more, because our main character Ramona Flowers doesn’t know these people; she wouldn’t just hang out with them, and she is busy with her mystery investigation. She sees them when she needs them for plot reasons. Kim and Knives and Stephen Stills are much flatter this time around (Julie, to her credit, kicks ass in this one).

Obviously I could point out that Scott & Ramona’s relationship in the anime, given that they have literally one date before Scott vanishes, has no depth to it, but that is easy. The funniest way to summarize this character issue is if you check the tags on Tumblr right now, you are going to be awash in Scott/Wallace shipping posts. Like I swear, at times its straight(?)-up 50% of the posts going on, its a rabid gay horde out there lusting for this sugar daddy/baby dynamic. Which makes sense, they have so much sexual tension & emotional depth as friends…in the comic. In the anime they barely know each other! Wallace hates Scott and interacts with him maybe a half dozen times, primarily to tell him to move out, then does his own shit. This is all people projecting comic!Scott/Wallace onto the current show.

There are more downstream consequences of these decisions & other issues (like the overdone meta elements, or abandoning most of the indie-music aesthetic) but this has gone on long enough. The point is that telling a different version of the story would actually be fine. It would disappoint some fans, sure, but if done well you would likely win them around. Hell, the original comic’s ending kind of sucks, good time to polish some things. But if you change the main character and the genre and the cast focus and all the character dynamics…at a certain point its just its own new story now. A story irrevocably tied to the old one, but not about any of the things the old one cared about. I think you can see why that would be a harder sell than Ramona Flowers vs the World, even if it was a good zany action comedy anime in its own right. You will get backlash from this level of drift - and you will deserve it.

Also fuck Lisa am I right? Jeez, 0 out of 2 for moving picture adaptations. What you get for being blonde I guess.

[thevagueambition]

Speaking of changed lines, they gave Gavroche the lines from the 2012 movie

"This is the land that fought for liberty / Now when we fight we fight for bread / Here is the thing about equality / Everyone's equal when they're dead"

Which... I understand why they want to do more to be clear about the setting given the concert setting vs full play setting, but man...

anyone who's paid attention at a graveyard can tell you that people are not equal in death

[world-of-wales]

The Indian PM is asking for votes in the upcoming election by saying that voters shouldn't support the opposition leaders coz they eat........Non-vegetarian food.......

This isn't him relating environment problems and veganism/vegetarianism, but rather him campaigning that in a secular country only his party is the best because they follow the moral and vegetarian majority religion. Which is funny in itself since, except for North India, the rest of the Hindus in other parts consume all kinds of non vegetarian food items.

And to most people outside India, this vegetarian vs non-veg debate might seem foolish, but here it is proving to be the main election agenda now. A lot of people may think oh he's advocating for being vegetarian, that's great. But unfortunately not in this case coz his party which is filled with upper caste Hindus mostly use this argument of food choices to demonize minority communities in the country, they deny protein to poor children in the meals provided to them by the state in public schools, their supporters go and harass & have in many cases k-worded innocent people in name of 'Cow protection', force butchers who come from low income backgrounds to shut down their stores making them unable to earn even the meagre ammount that they do etc etc. So veg/non-veg in the case of Indian elections rn is so much more than just a debate on dietary choices.

So, no talks of education, health, economy, jobs etc this election season but rather cheap and completely nonsense topics during campaigning. And I wish I could call it satire, but unfortunately this is what the so-called largest democracy has come to.

This issue is just the tip of the iceberg of all the things that need to be changed in this country to take it back to where it was before this train wreck that the past decade has been and to start rebuilding it brick by brick.

The reason I'm posting this today is that, I want to request anyone who's eligible to vote in India to PLEASE GO VOTE! exercise ur right. Don't let anyone tell you that your voice doesn't matter coz it does. And it's never been more essential for you to make use of Article 326 and cast your vote. It is ur fundamental right.

I don't think there could be a more appropriate time to ask you for this, as it is the 133rd birth anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar today, the father of the Constitution. The man who fought all his life to make sure everyone in his country had democratic fundamental rights. He gave you that Constitution that protects you and your interests and rights. The tip of his pen changed the world you live in today for the better. So please don't let that the sacrifices made by him or of all those in the Constituent Assembly, of all those who came before you go to waste. They gave this country their all, so you could have all the freedoms that you do today. They gave you a constitution based on liberty, equality, fraternity, secularism, socio-economic democracy etc to protect you, the citizens. And now, as these rights slowly get encroached upon, it is more important than ever before for you to assert these rights.

Go read the election manifestos of the parties and learn about the candidates fighting elections from ur constituency. Please make an informed choice. Don't go and vote for people on the basis of religion, caste, etc. Go and vote for that person who actually talks about the on ground issues you face, who has plans to make ur life, and the society you live in better. Who promises to give you the basic rights that you deserve, someone who promises not to infringe upon the fundamental rights as enshrined in the constitution, the one who talks about creating better employment, creating a robust health system, making sure every child in this country has access to quality education, someone who wants to create a safe space for women not just out in the world but also in the private sphere, someone who promises to work towards dealing with the problems of inflation & other economic problems you face, someone who wants to work towards dealing with the vast enomic disparities that exist across the board. Someone who wants to work towards providing safeguards for the most vulnerable people and communities, etc etc.

Go on the website of the election commission, check out the dates of vote casting in your area, mark that date, wake up that morning take ur voter id card and please go push a button on the machine at the particular booth you fall under.

Don't let people tell you that you are young, you don't know what you need, you shouldn't be jumping into political discourse, don't let them discourage you from exercising the most important right the constitution has given you. TRUST ME, YOU DO KNOW WHAT YOU NEED, POLITICS AFFECTS YOU TOO, THE GOVERNMENT POLICIES AFFECT YOU TOO, SO YOUR VOICE IS JUST AS IMPORTANT IN THESE UPCOMING ELECTIONS AS THAT OF THE OTHERS!

YOUR VOTE MATTERS. IT'S NEVER MATTERED MORE!

[dotthings]

The performative outrage farming style of leftism in this site has gotten so ridiculous there’s literally accounts who spread misinformation against the Democratic candidates that tries to make people feel miserable about voting for them, because people want to feel virtuous, I guess, at the same time they turn around and tell you to vote and voting is so important!!!!

Are these real people? Are they agitprops? Who even knows anymore. The actual election interference diatribes have been going on for months, and the nihilistic grind has predictably now turned towards Harris-Walz.

And the lying about the progressive policies at the top has to end. Too bad if it’s inconvenient for your sense of absolutist morality. Distorted narratives won’t help anybody. “Both sides equally bad” “both sides are the same” is an appalling and blatant lie and every time I see it I wonder if someone is actually an agitpropping election interference bot.

It’s not “progressive” to keep drinking the nihilistic chaos agent kool aid. Some really just want the US to burn and don’t care about the global harm of that or how many people in marginalized groups in the US would get hurt.

Speaking out is important and criticizing politicians is important. Contact your reps, protest, donate. But it’s more complex than that.

There is a whole wide gap between alert, active, critical & supportive engagement with democracy vs nihilism & performative wokeness that isn’t actually saving people and in fact enables mindsets that could result in the side winning this US election that will not only make things worse globally and in the US but unleash a full on dystopia where civil liberties in the US are gone and people will die from it. I’m sick and tired of this faux moralistic superiority that encourages throwing open the gates to even more death and suffering. Oh yeah that’ll teach everyone a lesson!!! Society is saved!!!

If you want to live in a better society, you don’t just shoot your mouth off on social media. You don’t only engage in outrage farming. You do the work.

You engage not just to performatively and nihilistically scream and yell about how all the establishment US politicians suck, you also engage positively to support the ones in power you think are doing better, and you plan for the future. Want things to move in a more progressive direction at the top? Support progressives downticket because that’s the pool for the future top powers.

You don’t abandon “red states” thinking you’re too woke to touch them. While you’re treating those like an unfixable cesspool, there are real people living there whose lives would be improved by progressive downticket candidates winning races. There are multiple ways to enagage and help: donate to a campaign, volunteer to write postcards or phonebank, do word-of-mouth, online and off.

Also, yes please vote!!! Not just at the top. Local politics improve and save lives too.

I’m tired of hearing how allegedly mean it is just to point this stuff out. That it’s somehow ~bullying people to urge them to vote and be engaged instead of giving in to impractical nihilism. (As if the misleading nihilistic dialogues are so great???)

For context, I’m a fandom blog. I don’t talk about politics much on here and I need that kind of space. I volunteer with several grass roots orgs and devote hours every week to educating myself about what tf is going on in the world and the US and I contact my reps with my opinions regularly and do GOTV efforts and support candidates. There is a link between the harmful dialogues I’ve referenced and the demands that “if you don’t reblog this or talk about this you’re morally bankrupt.” It’s toxic and misleading and discourages active engagement. Speaking out is part of the picture but non-stop outrage farming also dilutes the message.

[the-crow-binary]

Im quite curious about your opinion on the portrayal of the french revolution; I know it was a super complicated political moment with multiple fronts from the commoners wanting better life conditions, the bourgeoisie wanting to get the nobility out of the way (which it's part as to why it cant be directly translated into 21'st century american capitalism analogy 🙄), how multiple nobles supported the revolution for moral values despite going against their families interests (bc social class influences but doesnt instantly determines your morals) and that many revolutionary groups supported the independence of Haití (heck, many members of my countries independence participated and almost got beheaded in the resulting mess. And ad hundred and something years later France would try to invade us lol). What im trying to say behind my ramble here (sorry for that lol) its that im sure nfcv made it a slavery bad black ppl vs white ppl american dilemma without getting into the complexity of it and i say this as a foreigner with basic history knowledge, so i do wanna see your take on it

Which portrayal of the French Revolution? 🙃

I swear this very important Historical event that affected not just France but all of continental Europe and is considered as one of the world's biggest events was just used as background for the characters to fight and be racist. The characters keep throwing around the word "revolution" from all sides, but we don't see shit. Maria gives context in the first episode (there's a revolution, they overthrown the monarchy and declared a republic, they arrested the king...), talking to a group of revolutionaries, and from then on the story could've literally taken place in an imaginary country with imaginary politics it would've been the same.

Oh, what am I saying, there IS one thing. Our motto. 🙃"Liberty, equality, fraternity" 🙃 Yeah it has been thrown here and there... Except that it wasn't our official motto yet. We had the notion of liberty and equality, sometimes fraternity, and it was in the middle of other words such as "friendship", "sincerity", "charity" and "union". There is some people and even some books who used this motto but it was abandoned then taken back later... Just this is a mess lmao but the point is. I cringed everytime the characters screamed "Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!". And while we're on the subject, Richter, at some point, meets three girls during a festival (I suspect one of the girls to be Marianne, who wasn't a real person but the symbol of Liberty) talking about dressing up as Liberty and Equality and Fraternity. And Richter, thinking he is so smart, say that you need to be a man to dress up as Fraternity, because it means "brotherhood" (and the girls go "sisternity then" and don't correct him). Oh, and the writers clearly thought it was very clever too, since later on Annette's teacher (and even the Messiah I think??) will ALSO talk about the motto, saying "liberty, equality, brotherhood". IT DOESN'T MEAN "BROTHERHOOD". I MEAN IT CAN. BUT IN THIS CASE IT MEANS "FRATERNITY". IT'S A TERM TO TALK ABOUT A BOND EXISTING BETWEEN PEOPLE CONSIDERED AS MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. AKA IT CONCERNS EVERYONE. YOU ARE NOT CLEVER, AMERICAN WRITERS.

Also I thought a fucking festival at a time like that where people dress up at the concepts of our not-exactly-official-motto-yet was stupid, and it is. There was no such festival, however, we did have the "cult of the reason". To put it simply: it was a serie of events and civic holidays wich were organized by a group of atheists. In it there WAS an event called "Fete of the Reason"... Where one ACTOR dressed up as Liberty. It was NOT multiple people representing liberty, equality or fraternity.

The fun fact is, the French Revolution was a pretty good occasion for NFCV to promote it's CHURCH BAD mentality. We were taking away the church's power, more people became atheists, anti-christian vandalism and blasphemy was actually encouraged, it was a mess. Paris even ordered to shut down churches at some point, wich did not happen in the end. So yeah, this precise moment, right before the Vendée War, was perfect for the church-haters those writers are. And it ended up just being as bad as the original show, without any nuance... Ok there might be a little bit of nuance because of Mizrak, a guy who served the church and in the end actually team up with Richter and the gang, and it looks like he's there to stay. Emmanuel (the abbott) tries to be complex, but in the end, he is still a God-obsessed man that makes terrible decisions and is not a good representation for the church. So okay, it might be a BIT better than the original show thanks to Mizrak, but it's not saying much.

Another thing. Only the main characters are shown to have a dislike for the church. We don't see ANY of the french people doing anything against the church (but we do hear the church complaining about the revolutionaries, tell don't show y'know), not even talk about it. It's mostly jokes about how haha priests are sexual predators/they can't keep it in their pants (with the occasional "it exploits the people and take their money" line, and by occasionnal I mean once). There IS a few shades thrown at God here and there, honestly I didn't bother remembering the exact lines because they are so cliché and really not that deep. I think Maria is the one complaining the most.

What angers me the most is the lack of ANY ACTION FROM THE FRENCH PEOPLE. It's like nothing is actually happening except vampire killing people and vampire hunting (wich begs the question: WHY bother making it happen during the FRENCH REVOLUTION?). Nocturne literally made the french people the side (oh what am I saying, the BACKGROUND) characters in their OWN REVOLUTION. AND ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS. WHAT THE FUCK. Maria is supposed to be a revolutionary leader but she doesn't lead anyone. We never see anyone do anything outside of the main characters. The french are literal planks, except from those three girls from the festival and villains, they don't even have a voice. At some point the vampire Messiah arrives in town, in plain view, and people are like "OUR SAVIOR IS HERE! OUR DELIVERER!" and I thought the people shouting were vampires, but no, there is humans TOO. ALL TOGETHER. And you have no idea how much I hate that they basically portray the french people as not doing shit and needing someone else to save them 🙃 To do things for them 🙃 And also. That that someone else is not even french themself. 🙃 Even without the Messiah... the revolutionaries we saw were led by Richter (romanian/american/british idk at this point), Annette (Haitian, even if Saint-Domingue was owned by France at the time), Tera (Russian) and, of course, Maria, who's both Russian and French, at least. Those four were doing most of the work while the french people were in their houses cooking baguettes, I guess. And by "work" I mean fighting vampires and night creatures, there was nothing done about the Revolution. Almost like there is NO REASON TO MAKE A CV SHOW ABOUT THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

Oh and I just HAVE to talk to you about Saint-Domingue, and the BLACK PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSED theme going on with Annette. And that's when I'll have to take out this magnificent dialogue again:

"Even these french with their high ideas, what do they know about we've suffered? And what do they care? They're building new world, but it won't be freedom, or equality or brotherhood for US"

This is said by Annette's teacher. Worth to note that before that, in episode 3, she also shat on the French revolution and our motto. Basically, the show portray the French Revolution as being one thing and the slaves in Saint-Domingue having their own other revolution. And not just that, it implies that the French did not care about slaves, and that they do not know what suffering is (yeah, people just start revolutions because they feel like it y'know 🙃). And the anti-white dialogues are portrayed as normal and are even applauded, btw. And it is BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLSHIT. MY FUCKING GOD. OH THIS SHOW MAKE ME SO ANGRY.

First off: Only the colonies were pro-slavery. The french pretty much weren't. A "Society of friends of black people" was even created in France in 1788 to fight for the abolition of slavery. People fought for black people's rights during the French Revolution. Books written by black people to join the fight came out. The French Revolution scared the colonies who were very against losing their slaves and it led to Haiti's own revolution (slaves rebelling, killing their owners, burning the plantations... Nocturne at least got that part right). So both revolutions are very closely linked and the slaves might not have rebelled at this point if it wasn't for the French Revolution threatening Saint-Domingue's economics and creating social upheavals.

And what does those shitty american writers remember? BLACK PEOPLE OPPRESSED. BLACK PEOPLE SUFFERED SO MUCH MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE. LOOK AT THESE POOR BLACK PEOPLE. WHITE PEOPLE ARE SO POWERFUL. THE FRENCH ARE UNGRATEFUL ACTUALLY. BLACK CHARACTER IS RIGHT TO SHIT ON THE WHITE FRENCH WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM.

FUCK.

Oh, and I mentioned the Vendée War earlier... So, fun fact, during the revolution, we have what we call "la Terreur". It's a pretty gruesome period of time during the Revolution that caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people. La Terreur happened from 1793 to 1794. So one year after this first season of Nocturne. 🙃 I'm just saying. It wouldn't surprise me if they used this for season 2. 🙃(I literally do not trust them)

And the vampires... Look the vampires have their own can of worms that I'm not motivated enough to open. I'll just say that, of course, in classic NFCV fashion, the message the show is trying to pass is not subtle at all. They're just evil. All of them. All of the french nobles. Evil evil EVIL EVIL!! NUANCE AND COMPLEXITY ARE FOR PUSSIES.

Also the count of Vaublanc? Annette's ex-owner? This guy existed. And he never owned slaves. He was pretty pro-royalty, at some point he voted against slavery, then later voted in favor of it... but he did not own slaves. But honestly I don't care about that guy much, I just wanted to show that NFCV really doesn't care about nuance. Everything has to be black or white (lol) and that's why we have no human nobility in Nocturne.

Urgh. UUUUUURGH. I SWEAR WATCHING THIS SHOW WAS A PAIN AND THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT THE MORE PAINFUL IT BECOMES. THERE IS SO MUCH GOING ON IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND NFCV IS DOING JACKSHIT WITH IT. I MEAN IT'S SO MUCH FUNNIER TO SHIT ON THE BELMONT CLAN AND SHOW TIDDIES TO MAKE THE FANS HORNY.

So, my opinion on the portrayal of the French Revolution: CREATE YOUR OWN FICTIONAL REVOLUTION NEXT TIME AND LEAVE THE HISTORY OF MY COUNTRY ALONE.