#obviously american productions do this too

[elfiepike]

favorite obvious sponsorship of chinese tv i have watched:

number one will always be the word of honor nut money!!!!!!! they used those five dollars from the nut men so well

generally speaking: drink promos

specifically speaking: the dmbj sandsea lactose free milk sponsorships, especially su wan!! absolutely believe sweet summer child su wan would simply reflexively remember commercial selling points when talking about drinks with his friends after getting a head wound

least favorite:

literally any car commercial. who cares

[bluegiragi]

I don't want to sound rude, you may have already answered this question (if so, I'm sorry, I didn't find that answer), but I'm wondering why you're so against AI bots specificly. Obviously, this is a personal matter for everyone, but I'm a little confused by such harshness. Of course, I'm not going to prove anything to anyone, but I just wanted to understand the roots of your position. I really like your work, but to be honest, your last answers have thrown me into a kind of stupor :(

i have an ideological opposition against AI as a whole to be fair. a lot of it comes down to it's environmental impact

Globally, AI-related infrastructure may soon consume six times more water than Denmark, a country of 6 million, according to one estimate. That is a problem when a quarter of humanity already lacks access to clean water and sanitation.  

but i also believe it's inherently anti-human.

In a time when global literacy rates are diving (did you know that half of american adults read at a 6th grade level or below?) , I think it's incredibly short-sighted to be essentially surrendering your ability to write your own emails/essays/messages to an AI, when doing it yourself, despite what online contrarians will say, does have value (emails teach you how to communicate professionally, messages improve your social skills, essays improve your critical thinking skills). In this political landscape, it also feels dangerous to have your ability to read critically by yourself get dampened by AIs which are, at the end of the day, owned by silicon valley billionaires many of whom attended trump's inauguration, which is a good indication of where they lie politically.

Generative AI when it comes to art is also killing culture, removing opportunities for existing artists who are the ones who can extend the ceiling for human creation and helping society devalue art even more even though it's the only thing keeping us all sane. How would you feel if all you had in your life was just school or work, leaving out music, movies, tv shows, books, art? Doesn't art bring enough value to your life that it's worth properly compensating the people responsible for it? Why should we ever encourage or normalise throwing art into a meat grinder and feeding on the approximated soulless sludge it generates?

For AI chat bots, my beef with it is that it's an inherently anti-social product. All it does is remove the need to ever communicate with another person, which is horrible for people's brains. Some people are "falling in love" with their ai chatbot, some people are using their ai chatbots as therapists. The desire for real human connection is getting lost. An AI chatbot also makes RP obsolete, which is a foundational part of fandom which, i always feel like i need to remind people, is based on community. The point is to connect with people! I just fear that the popularisation and normalisation of this technology is going to end up with people shut in their homes their entire life, lost to whatever toxic pipeline their anti-social behaviour inevitably leads them down.

i know people love to play with AI like it's a fad, and it's "not that deep bro" but i think it's shameful and embarrassing to act as if you don't have agency in your life. You can choose to abstain from technology, you can choose to find entertainment elsewhere, you can choose to be a person independent of technology. If all AI went away tomorrow, would you be able to still do your job? Write a story? Read a book and understand its meaning? AI is a product built on instant gratification and entitlement - not to get too deep on an ask about AI chatbots, but i think art, relationships, culture, all of it is worth the journey to get there.

[giotanner]

PLEASE take a few seconds to read this. I need to talk about it at least here, or I swear steam will start coming out of my ears.

For weeks now, Luca Marinelli has been surrounded, humiliated, and mocked by a large portion of Italians (spoiler: fascists, but without saying it) just because, in some interviews (interviews he HAD to do—it’s not like he volunteered—purely to promote his new high-profile project M, The Son of the Century on SKY TV), he stated that he is antifascist, that his grandmother and entire family were too, and that it was difficult for him to take on Mussolini’s appearance and portray him.

The series is outstanding, making it untouchable from a production standpoint (JOE WRIGHT is the director! The same director of Pride & Prejudice and Atonement with McAvoy).

So what did this disgusting Italian ignorance do? Of course, it could ONLY latch onto Marinelli’s words.

Words that should be completely normal in a democratic government, right? An Italian actor says it was challenging to portray a historical figure who was atrocious and horrible for Italian families themselves.

And yet… no. They attacked him, mocked him. From then until now (to the point that he was interviewed again, and he admitted that yes, of course, it hurt him because he was speaking genuinely about himself). And now that a second season is confirmed, they’re mocking him even more.

But what exactly are they saying? Well, the usual ignorance:

That he took the MONEY, so he should shut up. (He worked. Obviously, he got paid. He worked for a production team and even said he was thrilled to collaborate with them. But he still despises the historical figure he portrayed.)

That he's a nobody. (Sure, he’s not super famous outside of Italy. But in Italy, he’s REALLY well-known. He’s one of the few Italian actors who has worked with Charlize Theron, starred in an American series, won at the Venice Film Festival, worked with foreign directors, acted in LGBTQ+ projects, and performed in English, Italian, and German.)

That he should shut up (again) because other famous actors have played bad characters and stayed silent. (Completely false. Leonardo DiCaprio and even Evan Peters—who played Dahmer—have both said it wasn’t easy to portray a real-life serial killer. Plus, we’re talking about Marinelli, an Italian actor playing an Italian dictator from the 1900s, not Caesar. This is recent history, and it still carries deep wounds in our country. You can’t compare it to an "American actor" playing a fictional villain or even a real historical figure from another country—someone who didn’t harm their homeland or cause them personal pain or shame.)

That he only said it to get attention and his moment of fame. (FALSE. GUYS, GUYS, GUUUYS… we’re talking about Luca Marinelli, who DOESN’T have social media, whose private life is completely unknown, who is genuinely shy outside of acting, and who has never been involved in any gossip.)

All of this disgusts and saddens me… The only thing I’m "happy" about is that at least The Old Guard 2 is happening.

[cecizilla1]

Before someone sends a pipe bomb to my house, is it really that horrible and controversial to say that Jimmy was just as much of a victim failed by the same disgusting system as everyone else? While support from loved ones is important, he needed actual resources. We don’t know anything about him beyond that he was struggling, so all we can assume is that he couldn’t hold down a job that was definitely due to his severe mental health issues. There’s nothing wrong with being an advocate for a friend, but it’s incredibly irresponsible to put someone you know is unstable into a literal inescapable environment for MONTHS with people who don’t know what they’re getting into and ripping him away from the possibility of actual helpful resources like intense therapy, psychiatric counseling, and rehabilitation. This man needed to be surrounded by professional and community support systems, not a friend who dismisses everything he does because how is that productive at all? So many people are avoiding this conversation because they believe they’re dismissing what he did by being empathetic in that way and it drives me up the fucking wall.

Although I’m not an obsessive, violent, sociopathic narcissist, it’s painful just dealing with being bipolar, past suicidal deviation, and comparing myself to my best friends who have accomplished way more than me while I’ve been struggling to fill out even one job application. The capitalist system we live in grinds us down to our bones that if we can’t climb up the social ladder, that if we can’t pick ourselves up from our lowest alone, we aren’t worth shit and are weak—which leads to people like Jimmy lashing out on everything and everyone to gain some sense of superiority.

As someone who is extremely passionate about how capitalism has completely obliterated what it means to be in a caring community because of its intrinsic suffocating individualism, its exploitation of the lower class, and how we are chained down to an unforgiving inherent debt for our whole lives, I just find it childish that so many people avoid thinking about this aspect of his character or completely override him from the story all together.

As much as I LOATH him, I can’t help but wonder what could’ve happened if he did get the help he needed before Curly roped him into PE. While it unfortunately blew up in Anya and Curly’s face because they were taken advantage of, is it that fucking horrible to believe that someone can grow and change if given the chance (as long as they obviously don’t hurt you in the process)? It’s the same reason why the prison system—especially the American prison industrial complex—should be abolished because how the fuck is locking someone up for the rest of their lives going to do anything for anybody in the long run? Obviously he needed to be brought to legal justice, but I believe that we should start at the core of why he is the way he is, what will be effective for everybody in the long run, and the possibility of him being reintroduced into society once he gets his mf shit together before people start pulling him this way and that (with boundaries ofc.) I’m a victim of sexual assault and emotional abuse myself, but I don’t want that person to rot behind bars. I just want to heal and move on. I don’t want revenge, I want closure. I want to be able to face that person and know that they won’t hurt anybody else if I am to believe that I myself can grow beyond what happened.

I know that many other creators have expressed the same sentiments already, but I needed to get that off my chest too.

Anyways, this game means so much to me because it touches on societal issues that I care about. Fuck capitalism and may everyone be free from this hell.

[p0orbaby]

I'm so giddy for Wicked so can I request a blurb about Arsenal teen who's into musical theatre and has a show or something that the team go to watch in support???

-

It starts with Leah. It always does. She finds out because you leave your script on the bench at the training ground, a heavily dog-eared copy of Grease. Your name is scrawled in the corner of the front page, along with random doodles—hearts, stars, some vaguely car-like thing that was supposed to be a reference to the Thunder Road scene but ended up looking more like a potato on wheels.

Leah picks it up and, in typical Leah fashion, starts reading it aloud. Dramatically. By the end of her impromptu performance, Katie has joined in, doing the worst American accent you’ve ever heard and shouting, “Tell me about it, stud!”

By the end of the day, the entire squad knows you’re playing Sandy in some local production of Grease.

“Sandy?” Katie says during warm-ups the next day, grinning like the cat that got the cream. “Didn’t know you were into leather trousers”

“I didn’t know you were into reading my stuff,” you fire back, glaring.

“What songs do you get to sing?” Beth asks, suddenly invested.

“All the bangers,” Katie answers for you. “Hopelessly Devoted. You’re the One That I Want. She’s probably been practising the hand jive in her bedroom”

“Can we not do this?” you mutter, stretching in an attempt to hide the faint blush creeping up your neck.

They don’t stop. Beth hums Summer Nights under her breath every time she sees you. Steph suggests the squad should do a Grease theme for a fancy-dress night. Katie spends an entire training session calling you “Sandra Dee,” much to Renée’s exasperation.

And then they buy tickets.

You don’t find out until Leah casually mentions it while you’re tying your boots. “We’re coming to your show, by the way”

“Who’s we?” you ask warily.

“The team”

“All of you?”

“Obviously,” she says, like it’s the most natural thing in the world. “We got the front row”

The night of the performance, you’re convinced something will go wrong. Maybe the mic will cut out, or you’ll trip during Greased Lightning. Or worse—Katie will heckle you from the audience.

As you step onto the stage, the lights blinding, you spot them immediately. They’re hard to miss. Leah’s in the middle, holding a pink ladies’ jacket that looks two sizes too small for her. Katie is beside her, wearing sunglasses indoors and a white T-shirt with “T-Birds” scrawled on it in Sharpie. Beth has a foam finger. Where she got it, you’ll never know.

The show goes on. You hit every note, every step, every wistful glance at Danny Zuko. During You’re the One That I Want, Katie lets out a cheer so loud you almost miss your cue.

By the time the curtain falls, you’re drenched in sweat and half-mortified. The standing ovation feels surreal, though it’s mostly them, clapping and whistling loud enough to make up for the other half of the audience.

Backstage, they barge in like they own the place. Leah hugs you first, grinning like a proud big sister. “You smashed it,” she says.

Beth holds up her phone. “I got the hand jive on video.”

“Delete it”

“Absolutely not”

Katie, predictably, starts singing We Go Together at full volume, much to the annoyance of the cast and crew still trying to pack up.

“You lot are ridiculous,” you say, but you’re smiling, the words softened by the warmth of their support.

Leah drives you home, Katie still singing in the backseat. And despite the chaos, the embarrassment, and Katie’s mangled rendition of Beauty School Dropout, you think to yourself: this is what family feels like.

[sixofcrowdaydreams]

I was incredibly lucky enough to get to visit London and see Next to Normal twice in the short time I was there (and meet Jack Wolfe at the stage door!) But lots of fans might not have the same opportunity, so I wanted to share some details about the production and the changes/additions made to the performance since the Donmar production because I remember eagerly reading as many details as possible once upon a time.

Obviously, spoilers ahead for acting choices and stage directions. (Personally, I love spoilers and knowing what to look for in a production, but if you have the chance to see the show and want to be surprised, this is a good place to stop reading.

First off, Diana is shown as waaaaaay more crazy. Her behavior is far more erratic and there's never a moment when you think she's lucid and in control. Personally, I liked this change because I felt like in the Donmar production she was too... normal? She didn't quite behave as the person who broke down in the market, set the house on fire, crashed the car, and jumped in the swimming pool. Here, I completely believe she did all those things. Diana is hypersexual, ripping her top off as she runs past Natalie in the beginning to go have sex with Dan. She plants a kiss on Henry, to Natalie's utter horror, the first time she meets him. (Dan does not react to this, haha, he's used to it.) All of Diana's interactions with with therapists have an undercurrent of overly flirty, sexual dialog. Obviously, this is one sided and unreciprocated from the therapists. At one point she tells the therapist that she's flattered, but her husband is waiting in the car and it's impossible to see it as anything other than super sexual. (She's kinda into it though...) Diana lays curled on the floor more often clutching her head. You never doubt that she is manic.

Let's talk about Gabe.

Jack Wolfe rewrote the role of Gabe, there's no denying that. Instead of the menacing looming ghost, all American jock ghost, Jack plays him as a soft boy. The ultimate soft boy. And I didn't know it was possible, but he ramped that energy up 100% in this production. Jesus christ, he couldn't have been any more adorable if he stood on stage batting his eyelashes. Not only is Gabe played as a soft boy, he's particularly played as being very child-like. It's quite the duality. He has the body and mentality of a supposed 18 year old. He makes a joke about not taking coke "right now," and taunts his father with the location of the car keys at the beginning of the show. Later he reminds his mother that young people in love are horny.

Yet, Gabe's emotional responses, reactions to those around him are extremely childish. It really struck me how similar his expressions of joy, fear, and anger were to my toddler. Eerily similar. In a new addition, his face lights up with uncontrolled joy, giggling when he sees the music box. (His music box.) Gabe jumps to sit on the counter, and hugs it to his chest as he and Diana listen to the music.

There are moments when he is hurt by watching his parents fight and looks absolutely wounded. Like, shoulder hunched, chin tucked in looking down completely betrayed. Another new addition to this production includes Gabe turning his head away and closing his eyes as his mother flushes her pills down the drain. He does not want to see her do it. The dialog is a little at odds with this action because he still tells Diana that he thinks she's being very brave even though he visibly disagrees with her choice.

Gabe recoils in fear during the "chair moment" in a way you wouldn't expect from a young man. When Gabe and Dan crowd Diana during "I Am the One" she lashes out and grabs the chair, swinging it around, forcing them both away from her. Gabe jumps backward in surprise. But this time he also runs behind the counter, visibly terrified that his mother's anger is directed at him. He ducks as she swings the chair, unlike Dan, who is still on the same side of the counter as her and backs out of the way but continues singing and engaging with her, unlike Gabe who does it from a safe distance.

And when Diana's memories of Gabe, and Gabe himself returns after shock therapy, he unleashes the "I'm Alive Reprise" with what I can only describe as the same chaotic gleeful energy my toddler has when my kid starts evil cackling. It's a loud, full body laugh of delight that no one else takes any amusement in that, but that does not stop the child from enjoying it. It's a wild moment in the production. Gabe literally rolls around on top of the counter in delight at being unleashed.

Gabe is also more physically affectionate toward Diana. He hugs her several times and kisses her head. If he gets the opportunity to touch her, he will. In one poignant moment, Dr. Madden convinces Diana to look at Gabe's baby items and start letting go. Gabe tries to get her attention by attempting to hold her hand in order make her talk to him, and instead of taking it, she walks away and leaves him reaching toward her. He is devastated. In the Donmar production Diana and Gabe sat against the counter and leaned on one another. In this production that moment was substituted for Gabe kneeling on the floor and Diana lying on the floor and putting her head in Gabe's lap. He strokes her hair and reassures her.

Instead of seeming jealous or spiteful toward Natalie, Gabe seems enraptured with her. No sibling rivalry here. He tries, unsuccessfully, to get her attention several times and even places his hand over hers on the counter in a moment of comfort, not that she notices. In this production Gabe does not put Diana's purse or bag of pills in front of his sister, starting her addiction. She finds them herself.

This production solved one of the problems I originally had with "Super Boy and the Invisible Girl" in the Donmar production. In the original original New York run Gabe was played by Aaron Tveit as the very jock, athletic all American boy, which is in strict contrast to Natalie, the dorky anxious sister. At the end of the song Gabe joins Natalie singing, "she's not there," until his voice overpowers her and takes over the song as a vocal reminder that he's the favored child. Obviously, the Donmar production didn't do this because Gabe changed to soft boy energy. So Gabe joining the end of the song, singing at Natalie made less sense that the two are no longer in competition. THIS PRODUCTION instead had both Gabe and Natalie singing the end of "Super Boy and the Invisible Girl" to Diana, which was completely brilliant. Diana curls up on the floor clutching her head as both turn their attention toward her. Natalie stands at the top of the stairs and Gabe stands on the counter, both looming over Diana on the floor (asking her why she is not present in their lives and almost accusing her for casting them in the roles of Super Boy and Invisible Girl.)

Gabe is also present in more moments than the original Donmar production. He lurks in the background of several more scenes that did not feature him at the Donmar. This is an excellent choice. He joins Diana during her therapy session when she is hypnotized. Diana makes the joke about turning the light on at the bottom of the stairs to Gabe, both of them being playful and sharing teasing glances because they doubt the success of the hypnosis. (Jokes on Gabe) As Diana falls further into hypnosis, Gabe becomes less visible on stage until he's completely eclipsed behind Dr. Madden and cannot be seen at all even though he's still on stage standing behind the doctor. Gabe tails Diana through the house like a sad puppy afterward when she goes upstairs and retrieves the "baby box."

Gabe did not "try" to make his mother commit suicide. He grabbed his backpack and a dufflebag and started to walk out the door until Diana sang, "I'd die to dance with you." She had already made up her mind to die before Gabe turns around and begins to sing "There's a World." He seemed to help her after she already made her choice. It was less coaxing her into suicide and more guiding her through it, reassuring her of the what came at the end and how he would be there with her.

Gabe watches while Dan cleans up Diana's suicide attempt. He shows up just in time for Dan to sing the lyric, "And there's no one around," disproving Dan's claim that he's all alone. Now, looking this up, it seems like Gabe is supposed to be in this scene, but I have NO MEMORY of Gabe at this part in the original Donmar production. That could just be my faulty memory though. This scene really strengthens their confrontation later in "I Am the One Reprise." I also have no memory of the "sonogram scene" at the Donmar though I distinctly remember reading about it and was actively watching for the moment when Gabe stood on the upper floor and the curtain dropped, casting him in silhouette reminiscent to a sonogram while Diana listens to the music box. So maybe I'm just not remembering correctly? Still, this scene was also excellent and haunting as Gabe hummed the music box melody. The humming was beautiful and it broke me.

At one point in this production, Gabe almost touches his father, but pulls away first. Gabe, desperate to be acknowledged, stands in front of Dan, who reaches forward to touch Diana. Gabe quickly retreats in fear, and throws himself out of the way to avoid touching his father.

I'm not particularly sure anything changed during "I Am the One Reprise," but it's my favorite scene of the entire show, so I'm gonna talk about it. Because hot damn. Before this moment Diana talks to Natalie and sings "Maybe" While they talk Dan and Gabe are sitting against opposite side of the counter. (Dan in the front on the far left hands clutching his head, Gabe behind the counter on the far right curled into a ball, arms wrapped around his knees, forehead on his knees) When Diana finally tells Natalie (and the audience) how her older brother died, Gabe perks up at the mention of his name. He slowly unfolds, sits up, and listens as if it is the first time he's heard it too. Then Diana sings "So Anyway," and leaves. Both men watch her go. (To my utter amusement, Gabe turns into a prairie dog standing up on his knees -- again, reminding me of my toddler who does the same thing in order to sit up and see better -- as Diana leaves.)

Dan stands and starts singing "I Am the One Reprise" to Diana. But Gabe stands and starts singing the reprise to Dan. Then he gets to, "I know you told her that I'm not worth a damn, But I know you know who I am." And then the music cue drops.

It's so powerful.

For the first time Gabe looks angry. Confrontational. He demands to be recognized by his father while Dan denies his presence and begs him to go away. In a stunning leap of athleticism, Gabe jumps on the counter and grabs Dan from the back. It's almost violent. Dan struggles but Gabe refuses to let go until Dan spins around they lock onto each other's forearms and sing the same verse. It's so emotionally charged. Both actors are cry and yell at each other as they sing.

Then Dan starts to pull away and Gabe desperately reaches out trying to hold him again, but unable to from his position on the counter. He continues to reach out despite Dan growing farther away. it's heartbreaking. Dan finally says Gabe's name and recognizes him. It's all Gabe has wanted from his father the entire show. Gabe is so happy in this moment. They look like they are going to continue talking, but Natalie comes in and asks her father, "It's just us?" Now, I remember the line being "It's just the two of us?" at the Donmar, but it's been a hot minute, so I could be wrong (again). But I like, "It's just the two of us?" better because it forces Dan to deny Gabe once again. Dan deliberately looks over at Gabe on the counter before agreeing with Natalie. And Gabe just... gives up. He got the 10 seconds of acknowledgement he wanted from his father. Dan said his name and Gabe's content with that much even though Dan denies him once again in front of Natalie.

Gabe slowly gets off the counter, touches Natalie's hand, though she's unaware, and walks upstairs like a sad little ascending angel who watches over his remaining family.

Other thoughts:

I may not have talked nearly as much about the rest of the cast, but they were all perfect. I loved everyone's voice. Dan was sooooo sympathetic and I love him more and more each time I see the show. Natalie's voice is gorgeous. Stunning. Diana is an unreliable narrator and I think the audience often forgets that.

There are so many props in this set, it must be a nightmare to restock for each show. The food Diana throws around making sandwiches is real, as is the disastrous dinner. (During Diana and Dan's argument they clean up and Diana just throws the dishware into the trash, not just the food, the pan and bowl too and it feels so in character.) Everything else just gets shoved into the sink, haha. The sink does have running water. The birthday cake seems like a prop though and Diana did her best to keep the candles lit while she raced around the stage looking for her dead son. From the balcony on my first viewing I had a really good view of the baby box and saw the exact moment the "blood" began to leak from it. It happened very quickly before the stage turned around, which made me think the it was remote controlled and not set on a release timer (though it probably could be. Every movement from everyone on stage is extremely coordinated even though they are not dancing.) Sitting closer to the stage, the box seemed to leak from all four corners -- I'm just a weirdo who likes knowing these production details.

The cast popping out of the fridge was way funnier during "Psychopharmacologist and I" because they opened the fridge was used it as an ordinary fridge during the opening song. So it was totally unexpected.

Only one person audibly reacted in the audience to Gabe's death reveal between the two shows I saw. Lol. Everyone else went in knowing.

Jesus christ, I have no idea how the actors wore long sleeves and pants on stage. I sat four rows back on the second viewing and I WAS HOT from the stage lights and I wasn't running around the stage like they were. They definitely were visibly sweating.

A friend pointed out that the cast were using American accents, which I didn't realize. For the most part they sounded fine, especially compared to the interviews where the cast use in their natural accents. The most shocking difference was Natalie's actress -- she had the best American accent compared to her strong irl accent. Dan's actor too! Both Jacks couldn't quite cover up their soft vowels so my American ear didn't realize they were using an American accent when I heard their natural ones so clearly.

There were several stage mishaps the second time I saw the production. The curtain that goes up and down on the upper levels of the stage knocked over the "I'm Alive" microphone stand when it when down, knocking the mic off. The mic popped off and bounced down the stairs and rolled off the back of the stage where production presumably grabbed it. The actors picked up the mic stand and put the mic back on it in the next scene. The same microphone stand fell down again when Gabe turned around and his red backpack knocked it over. He picked it up very quickly.

During my "Psychopharmacologist and I" one of Dan's pill bottles, being used as a shaker, exploded. The actor froze for a second, then kept going as the "pills" scattered across the stage. He just put his empty hand in the pocket of the medical coat and continued. When the song ended, a production manager came out, apologized, and said the stage needed to be reset. All the actors left as the stage was swept. The audience looked at their phones for 5 minutes and then the production started again.

Next to Normal was such a joy to see. Like, yes, I saw it because of Jack Wolfe and he was absolutely a highlight of it. But I was never bored without him on stage. Though I did think "So Anyway" was a bit too long, but that's my personal opinion and the effect of jet lag may have influenced that thought. All of the cast and their voices were incredibly talented and I'm glad to be familiar with the show now.

This is long enough, but if you have any questions about the production, please ask! I am happy to answer questions to help those who might be able to see it in person visualize what happened on stage.

[michaelwheelerdefiodental]

Stranger Things on Capitalism and Communism:

So, i've seen some discussions about Stranger Things message about politics during the years, that started in season 3. To start, i need to make it clear that the series has a really strong anti-communism message, but i don't really think they're really giving a pro-capitalism propaganda, i mean, they're kinda doing it, but as y'all know, American Democrats know how to make it enjoyable for both sides.

How the American Military and Government is depicted:

They're pretty much show as "for the greater good" trope, they'll do horrible things with a supposed "good intention", but at the end it shows that they are just power hungry, but those characters have more depth, this make them more "likeable", like Brenner, Sullivan and Owens (YES, HE AIN'T FOOLING ME WITH HIS EMPATHETIC PERSONA).

How the Soviet Union is depicted:

So now it starts to get more complicated; in season 3, all of them are 99% stereotypes, while in season 4, i think they can be described as 50/50. Anyway, most of them are shown as sadistic, power-hungry people who don't care about anything else, so this makes them less likeable, besides Yuri and Dmitri (Enzo).

Season 3 Communism Satire:

I don't think there's much to say here; they're just power-hungry maniacs that at the same time can be smart (building a fucking military base on an American shopping underground, even though they were helped by Larry), and then be extremely stupid and ignorant. At the end, they don't even explain what the ideology behind them is, so they are just generic villains.

Season 3 Capitalism Satire and Alegories:

America without Erica

I will start with a scene where many people seem to not see the purposeful irony. Erica, as a black kid, saying that capitalism is great is clearly a joke. She says that on capitalism she will do a job and get paid as she deserves, but she ends up entering on an enemy military base and almost died all because of A ICE CREAM, that at the end she didn't even receive it and didn't receive the recognition for saving the town either. It can be compared to Black soldiers that fought in wars for the USA and then got discarded.

Rats on The Mall

Now talking about the Starcourt Mall. It's an alegory about consumerism in a capitalist society; the kids would go there thinking it would be more fun because of the things you can pursue, but at the end it was their company that made it really enjoyable. Mike buying something for Eleven was a great way to show it; he could make peace with her by simply talking to her like he did with Will (this has something to do with Mike's character and byler, but this ain't the point of this essay, lol).

The Blonde Pig

There's Larry and the small business closing to discuss too; i see the meaning as the greedy capitalist going against the people and letting the enemy get a hold of their nation.

The Nationalist Lovers

Murray and Alexei are the classic nationalist enemies that understand that they can live together blah blah blah... it's easy to understand. But the scene where Murray explains the July 4th games is kinda confusing, he makes a critic about the way of America using people happy hour to make the rich even more rich, and the poor even more poor, and says that all these are rigged, you can't win them, then Alexei wins one of the games and then Grigori (Soviet super-soldier) kills him. That scene is kinda weird to me, was the meaning that at the end capitalism is the right way and then the "commie pig" had to kill the traitor, or it was to show that at the end you really can't win, because this system will make you go down on a way or another??? It's up to you that is reading to decide.

Brand New Flavor

Lucas and Mike Coke's ad is another scene that is weird; it's obviously a way of the show making propaganda for one of their sponsors, but there's a criticism about the product evolving but at the end being the same shit.

The Consumers

Now this that i will say can be seen as a stretch, but the Mindflayer consuming people could be seeing as this system consuming everybody's souls, until they turn into a literal zombie only following orders. And when they have no use anymore they're just consumed entirely and turn out to be just one of the victims of the system. It shows that even the most reactive and violent people can't outdo this force, as we can see with Billy and Nancy's bosses.

Henry and his (not so) New World:

As we know, Henry was tired of the way the world functioned and wanted to create a new one. There was a bigger force (time) that stopped everybody from fulfilling their potential. What he doesn't understand is that his world will end up being the same; the powerful will control it just as our world, and honestly, this is what Henry want to happen, but what he doesn't understand is that he isn't the most powerful being there, it's the Mindflayer, and he will use Henry until he isn't valuable like the rest. At the end, Henry is just another victim of the same system.

So basically:

"I AM THE CAPITALISM, HENRY!!!"

The Mindflayer said laughing.

Me at the Cinema:

My Conclusion:

They make a rant about both sides, but the anti-communism part is way more explicit and more stereotypical, while the anti-capitalism part is more subtle, and Americans from generation X were the target audience at the beggining of the series, and we know that they aren't the most clever to see behind subtle things or even what is already obvious.

(this is a remake of a post from my old account)

[idontliekmondays]

excerpts from a daily mail article released shortly after her arrest

When members of the Geneva High School role playing club asked 16-year-old Lindsay Souvannarath to choose a character they were expecting an elf, a sorceress or perhaps a female warrior.

But the shy, clean-cut teenager opted for a rather more unsettling choice, presenting them with a detailed pencil drawing of her chosen persona - the 'Nightmare Nazi'.

The trench coat, jackboots and gas mask were unmistakably those of an SS soldier; the skeletal hands clutching a vast dagger more akin to dark fantasy art.

Former classmates at Geneva High recall Lindsay Souvannarath as a shy, withdrawn youngster, who had few friends and instead sought out after-school groups and writing clubs to express her creative side.

But she was also prone to bouts of anger and violence - allegedly stabbing another student with a pencil in one outburst and occasionally letting slip an alarming infatuation with the Third Reich.

'On first impressions I didn't think there was anything too strange about her,' he told Daily Mail Online.

'She could be funny and intelligent but most of the time she was quiet and not very warm or outgoing.

'One year her character was a sort of Wonder Woman-type heroine, then all of sudden she tells the group she wants to be a Nazi ghost.

'You choose your species and come up with a back story. Hers was that her character was a guest from a crazy, dark Nazi universe.

'It's supposed to be a game in a medieval, fantasy setting but she would just argue if she didn't get her way.

'So we went on our quest with a robot, a couple of elves, wizards and this weird Nazi.

'Aside from the character's background he didn't do anything racist or too alarming. We didn't know about her interests at that time so we just got on with it.

Ms Szigeti recalled how Souvannarath began to idolize black-death metal bands in her mid-teens.

She became particularly infatuated with Varg Vikernes, a white supremacist musician convicted in 1994 of killing a rival guitarist and burning down three churches in Norway, describing him as 'cute' and writing essays about him.

'Her work was always dark and full of violence, there were soldiers and Nazis and all this weird stuff,' Sabrina said.

'She acted normal on the surface. She was never physically violent but she would get aggressive and upset if you criticized her.

'Everyone was uncomfortable but we just avoided trying to start a fight with her. 'If you asked her straight up 'are you a Nazi?' she would argue that she wasn't.

As far back as 2007 - when she was just 15 - she allegedly wrote 'free speech is dead' in one forum, adding: 'That's why we need people like David Duke to bring it to life again.'

In another warped entry, writing that same year under the pseudonym Snoopyfemme she wrote: 'They use sex in commercials all the time to sell products. Why don't they ever use violence?

'Wouldn't you love to see a bunch of guys tearing each other apart with machine guns to get a bowl of Cheerios?

'Sure, it might traumatize our children, but in my opinion, children aren't being traumatized enough.

'The only reason for Americans to breed is to create more soldiers to fight for freedom. We need to weed out the weaklings early on. Survival of the fittest, man.'

'She was very odd to the point among a lot of our classmates that no-one was surprised by her arrest.

'She was a very lonely person - but she isolated herself. 'From what I remember she was even suspended for stabbing someone with a pencil in middle school.'

'She was known for putting spells on people. She would do it by saying weird things and then putting on a curse - obviously we did not take her seriously.

'She would break out into laughter in the middle of class for absolutely no reason.

'When we saw that Lindsay did something like this, nobody was surprised. She was the one most likely.'

source

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Notes: Logical Fallacies

A logical fallacy occurs when an argument is not adequately supported.

This can be the result of errors in reasoning, a lack of evidence, the author’s use of irrelevant points, or other reasoning moves that do not logically support the argument.

Advertisers, salespeople, politicians, and others might use logical fallacies to manipulate you.

Argument to the People (Appealing to Stirring Symbols)

Involves using a visual symbol (the American flag, pictures of babies, “Support the Troops” bumper sticker, etc.) of something that much of the public finds hard to reject but that has little relevance to the argument.

Example: Political candidates often use the American flag and other patriotic symbols in TV ads to appeal to and persuade citizens to vote for them.

Appeal to Pity (Ad misericordiam)

A verbal version of Argument to the People.

Example: A political candidate may tell stories about their life that are not connected to their platforms.

Like Arguments to the People, Appeals to Pity are fallacious if they are irrelevant to the argument in question; pity for the candidate should not be a reason why citizens vote for them.

In some cases—for example, when soliciting money for people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold or for the Humane Society—appeals to pity may be legitimately used.

Erroneous Appeal to Authority

Example: Years ago, a commercial for Bufferin Aspirin used Erroneous Appeal to Authority by featuring people on the street lining up to ask Angela Lansbury, a popular actress at the time with no medical authority whatsoever, questions about the pain reliever.

Ad Hominem (“to the person”)

Involves a personal attack on the character of the opponent rather than on the argument itself.

Example: Criticizing a restaurant because the chef is “too skinny,” rather than focusing on the merits of the restaurant’s food, service, atmosphere, or other relevant aspect is an ad hominem attack.

However, an ad hominem argument that is relevant to the issue (“Rinalda Gooch will not make a good President because she faints every time she tries to make a speech”) is not a logical fallacy.

Shifting the Issue (Red Herring)

Refers to the arguer’s changing the subject to avoid dealing with an unpleasant aspect of the argument.

Example: When a reporter questioned candidate Stone about her past marijuana use, she responded, “Why haven’t you asked my opponent about his drinking?”

Hasty Generalization

Means to argue on the assumption that an entire group shares the same traits as one or two examples of that group.

Example: “Women should not be considered for high political office because they’re too emotional to make thoughtful decisions.”

Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)

An argument based on the premise that an idea or product has merit just because it is popular.

Example: “All the cool kids are wearing Stinko sneakers this season,” the saleswoman told the boy. “You don’t want to be left out, do you?”

Begging the Question

Involves “supporting” an argument by stating the argument in different words.

Example: “We need to bomb evildoers because they are guilty of horrendous acts,” basically restates the claim (evildoers are people who do evil) instead of stating a reason why bombing the “evildoers�� is a good thing to do.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

An argument that uses Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) illogically suggests that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second to occur.

Example: “The fact that students cut their hair over the weekend and their test scores were higher on Monday shows that shorter hair leads to good grades.”

False Dilemma or Dichotomy (Either/Or)

This argument attempts to sway opinion by making it seem as if the only alternative to a proposed argument is one that is obviously unacceptable.

Example: “We must fight the enemy in their land so they don’t follow us to ours” suggests -- but does not attempt to show -- that one country’s aggression is the only way to decrease another country’s aggression.

The Slippery Slope

This argument attempts to dissuade people from taking or allowing a specific action because it might cause a particular condition to spiral out of control – no matter how far-fetched.

Example: “Legalizing same-sex marriage could lead to legalizing marriage between people and their pets!”

If these notes are helpful in your writing, do tag me, or send me a link to your work. I would love to read it!

Writing Notes & References

[sporesgalaxy]

Pacific Rim isn't anti-nuclear in the same way Kaiju movies usually are. The resolution is facilitated by the detonation of a nuclear warhead and a nuclear reactor power core. So........what's up with that?

I mean, it's deeply American, obviously, but what else? Why does it not feel particularly pro-war in the same way, say, a typical MCU does? What does it mean that the Kaiju are prompted by human activity (carbon pollution "practically terraformed" Earth for the invading aliens), but are ultimately not a true manifestation of Nature's Wrath (not even from Earth)?

What arguments is Pacific Rim making in the place of the typical kaiju movie anti-nuclear-pollution, wrath-of-nature fare?

I stream-of-consciousness rambled about this for multiple paragraphs and don't feel like cleaning it up much. Basically: I think Pacific Rim is a commentary on the myriad problems with political responses to climate change over the years.

•••

So, in the Great American Kaiju Movie, two nuclear blasts save the day rather than creating all the problems. Despite the fact that at least one of those nuclear blasts still probably did a lot of collateral.... I do wish Pacific Rim had focused a bit more on collateral, and the environmental damage caused by both the Kaiju and, inevitably, the Jaeger project AND Wall of Peace. Food rations are mentioned once-- but surely metal and construction equiptment rationing must also be in place to allow for wall construction! I want my environmental messages shoved violently down the audience's throat, damnit! But I digress

I think an important detail to consider in the Kaiju/Nuclear discussion is how Mako and Raleigh's Jaeger's nuclear power generator is what really allowed them to save the world, multiple times.

The history of politics around nuclear power plants vs nuclear warhead production is interesting, especially in the typical kaiju movie thematic context of man carelessly abusing nature. The argument in defense of nuclear power plants is that, despite the need for extremely rigerous and long-term nuclear waste disposal considerations, there is a lower volume of waste created by nuclear power plants in relation to the energy provided by them, when compared to other modern methods of energy generation like coal power. So, in theory, nuclear energy could be a beneficial power source for minimizing environmental impact.

In the Kaiju movies I've seen, nuclear power is only ever addressed as an extension of the inherently unnatural and harmful abomination of the invention of.the nuclear warhead. It's understandable, the environmental devastation caused by radioactive pollution is massive, and its something a nuclear power plant is very capable of doing if enough goes wrong.

So, what do the Jaegers represent within this conversation? what does the Wall of Peace represent? Here's my thought: they represent (more) active versus passive solutions to the growing threat of climate change. Jaegers represent the way that active work against climate change is only funded as far as it is beneficial to the image of the government.

Yes, the Rift was found to be impossible to blow up with nukes, but it's pretty clear that the world governmemts were putting more money into the publically popular and flashy Jaeger program than they were putting into researching the increase in Kaiju frequency and a permanent solution to the issue. Because of the complicity the world fell into once Kaiju and Jaegers were Rock Stars, the root of the issue with Kaiju goes unadressed for an entire generation, in favor of defeating each Kaiju in impressive and propogand-izable ways.

Only once the problem becomes too big for the propoganda-friendly Jaegers to manage do the world governments start looking for alternate solutions, and the Wall is immediately shown to be too little too late. As soon as it stops being useful for propoganda, the government loses interest in truly solving the problem, and begins investing in moving itself inland and leaving poor coastal populations to die.

The kaiju are only able to be defeated in Pacific Rim because a group of people separate from the government comes together and searches for a solution to the root of the issue-- the Rift being open in the Pacific at all.

Nuclear power is therefore not posed as a solution to war against fellow humans, but is used as a solution to a collective human effort to fight the exponentially speeding destruction of the Earth. The Jaeger pilots and everyone else working in the resistance HAVE to be willing to do anything, willing to take drastic active measures, in order to stop the destruction of the Earth's climate. Yay :)

[ghost-of-a-dream-girl]

as a doctor, where in the hospital staff would you place each of the bg3 companions? what would fit their characters the most?

Hahah oh this is great

Gonna keep this to doctors but let’s do different specialties

Ok so starting off strong: I think Karlach has big emergency medicine energy. She’s running the ED with an energy that nobody else can match, but especially that resus/trauma bay! Doesn’t shy away from the scary, gets stuck in. You know they don’t need security there to restrain the agitated when she’s on shift- all you need is Karlach and some ket.

Next I think Gale has the same aura as a senior ICM registrar (intensive care medicine resident). Probably dual training in renal or respiratory, likely has a PhD on the side. He has intensity when it matters but is an utter nerd. Likely the type who doesn’t like odd numbers on the vent settings. Precise, a little OCD, but fucking magical.

Wyll has to be a medical registrar (internal medicine senior resident). Probs in something acute like acute medicine or resp/gastro. Able to deal with vast quantities of shit and still put on a smile, graceful, caring, and properly holistic in the way he views patients. Quietly competent as the hells. Sacrifices himself for the good of the hospital.

Shadowheart is a tricky one. It would be too obvious to lean into the goth girl vibes and say pathology or whatever but actually I don’t think that fits. I think Shadowheart is an anaesthetist (anaesthesiologist to u Americans). Very very competent and always there exactly when you need her to save everyone else’s asses, but keen to retire to theatres after the fun is over and just crack on with a case by herself. Able to gossip like a pro. Likes taking the lead with her own problem solving. Would be catty as hell about her list overrunning or the surgeons doing something silly. probably overly reliant on caffeine.

Astarion. Cardiothoracics. Probably specifically cardiac surgery. No mortal human can stand for 12 hrs and perform like that. Also the most (justifiably) egotistical surgeons around. Would be bitching about his colleagues across the drapes with Shadowheart. Has had 200yrs to practice his techniques so the ego is probably really well placed. Those rogue hands were meant for complex cardiac surgery but that hair was made for the drama of it too. Easy access to blood products. Would do 30% NHS lists and 70% private practice to fund his lifestyle. Best dressed in the hospital.

Lae’zel is that really strange surgical registrar (general surgical senior resident) that you’re never quite sure if she’s joking or not when she makes threats toward you. Obviously very competent. Makes other surgeons cry but particularly the men. Has > 300 publications in major medical journals. Probably pioneered a revolutionary new technique that she came up with one rainy Saturday. Can get an appendix out in 5 mins max.

There is only one woman for trauma and orthopaedics and that is of course Minthara. A woman who dominates what is well known to be the most male dominated field in medicine. Lowest complication rate in the country. Every single one of her male juniors is terrified of her and for good reason. Will operate on things other surgeons would be too scared to touch. Complex poly-trauma patient with ‘unsurvivable’ injuries? Watch them walk out of hospital 3 months later.

Honourable mentions:

Durge- you know what, it’s so tempting to put Durge as a surgeon or even a pathologist (people who do autopsies), but that’s just too obvious. I think the murdering would be kept on the side. One thing Durge would love though is blood and carnage, maybe even a little high octane drama. For that reason- obstetrics. A little poetry to a killer bringing new life into the world too.

Jaheira - that incredible Professor who only works part time clinically now but when she does everyone is reminded of how brilliant she is. Gives me the energy of a ‘seen it all’ medical consultant (internal medicine attending).

Minsc- he should be ortho. Everyone thinks it- he has big Ortho lad energy. But he’s not. Minsc is a paediatrician!!!! It shocks everyone when they first meet him, this massive guy with a hamster on his shoulder. The kids love Boo. He’d be obsessed with Prof Jaheira too.

Halsin- can see him as a psychiatry professor actually. Probs does dabble in a little of the cooler types of therapies on the side (and tries them for himself) eg LSD for PTSD. Mixes medicine with non medical therapies. Very soothing to listen to.

Withers- palliative care consultant that should have retired millennia ago.

Volo- ophthalmology. 👁️

—

[strangebiology]

So I understand that it is extremely difficult to know which type of fur is more ethical/sustainable/less damaging to the environment due to bias coming from basically all sides of the discussion, however, what would you recommend for consumption of fur products? Do you have any "best practices" for trying to reduce one's impact in general? I rarely buy fur, I mostly get it second or third hand if I get it at all and use scraps and such as much as possible. Overall I'm not a big consumer, but if I need fur for crafts or something similar, do you have recommendations on how to cause the least harm? Thank you for your contribution to the overall discussion. I think this is important.

Thank you for asking openly! Unfortunately I don't have a clear answer, except #1 below:

The one you have I feel confident that "the most sustainable coat/car/whatever is the one you already own." But, obviously, sometimes you need a new one.

Thrifting Second to that, I figure thrifting is probably best. Or making sure you take what you want when Grandma dies and you clean out her house. Logically, thrifting either one--whichever you find that fits you and your needs--should have a fairly minimal impact. And there are tons of clothes out there that are just about to hit the landfill. (Nice coats, though? Might be a little harder. Probably not too hard.) There could be issues with second-hand stuff, of course. I read in The Scavenger's Manifesto that there was a time when vintage clothes were so popular that demand outstripped supply, and companies just started manufacturing vintage-like clothes. I could imagine a world in which items become so commonly thrifted that it's close to the same price to just buy something new, and that props up the new-product industry. I wonder if Poshmark is popular enough that people are just shipping clothes around and polluting via transportation without really wearing them enough, but all in all, I think second-hand is probably second-best (to the one you already own.)

More sustainable real fur options? I did profile someone who had a roadkill-fur business. But: a simple fox-fur ruff for your coat was thousands of dollars because the economies of scale weren't there, and the company went out of business anyway. If you know and trust someone or can do something like that yourself, great! But that's not a really accessible option for the average American.

More sustainable faux fur options? Not all faux fur is made of microplastics, companies like GACHA and Savian. But...I don't really know how accessible those are, nor have I seen environmental assessments on them.

Sooo...honestly I won't judge what you buy or wear. I'll say that second-hand anything is probably very low-impact, sustainably.

I have to admit there are reasons to buy new. If you buy something on clearance, is it possible you're saving that from a landfill, too?

Once, I spent a whole bunch of Saturdays in a row biking around to garage sales, trying to get a second-hand lamp. So many hours wasted. I found a dirty one for $10 and couldn't get it home on my bike. One weekend my roommate took me in her big car to Walmart and we got a new lamp in a box for $7. No shopping around, no hoping to get lucky, just "there it is, and I can return it if it doesn't work." So...while secondhand is almost certainly more sustainable, I also won't blame anyone who wants to just buy new.

Another sustainability thing: I also recommend trying to ensure your coat fits your parameters really well, like your size, do you want hoods and pockets, do you think it looks good, so you don't get in the habit of stuffing it in your back closet because you don't like it and buying another.

Sorry I don't have a simple answer!

EDIT: I now realize I have written this as though Anon was asking about a coat, but their ask is more about crafts. Uuuuuuummmm gosh, I don't know. Faux fur can be so much cheaper and easier to find than real. And not everyone has a thrift store nearby. I know I don't, except that little store that sells used things for 150% of the new price. If I was doing a craft...I'd probably start with the fur someone gave me for free and then if I needed more I'd probably just order faux so I don't have to drive 150 miles to risk it at a thrift.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Trump can’t do ANYTHING for his base

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me in PITTSBURGH on THURSDAY (May 15) at WHITE WHALE BOOKS, and in PDX on Jun 20 at BARNES AND NOBLE with BUNNIE HUANG. More tour dates (London, Manchester) here.

Trump's coalition includes a huge number of people who will suffer terribly from his policies, but who voted for him anyway. Trumpism requires that he find ways to keep those Christmas-voting turkeys happy, or at least distracted.

Trump's go-to move for keeping his base happy is inflicting pain on people they hate, like immigrants, racialized people, queers and women. That goes a long way, obviously: there's a kind of person who can be distracted from their own deteriorating material condition by the spectacle of cruel treatment for their enemies.

But Trumpism can't just run on sadism. There's a lot of people who enjoy the sadism, but not so much that it cancels out their own rage at their deteriorating personal conditions. Trump's main tactic is to blame the suffering of his base on the rest of us: "radical leftists," "wokeism" and other hobgoblins of the small-minded. That, too, has its limits – especially when Trump controls Congress, the courts, the senate and the White House. Obviously, Trump isn't above blaming his own people for being traitors (e.g., by sending a literal noose-bearing lynch mob after his own vice president), but there are limits to this, even for Trump. If all the power-brokers in Trump's coalitions are branded as disloyal, cowardly, or traitorous, Trump will have no one left to do the actual work of advancing his agenda.

Ultimately, keeping Trump's base happy requires providing some form of material benefit to that base. Every authoritarian has a version of this – like the cash handouts that Poland's former far-right government gave out:

https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/poland-model-promoting-family-values-cash-handouts

For Trump, this presents a problem: because he represents the interests of exploitation, extraction and looting, everything nice that he gives to everyday people in his base potentially gores the ox of someone who really matters to him. It's no surprise, for example, that he reversed Biden's price-cuts for Big Pharma's most expensive drugs – the cheaper drugs are for sick people, the less profitable they'll be for pharma companies:

https://www.levernews.com/trump-already-disarmed-the-war-on-drug-prices/

Luckily (for Trump), Biden's consumer protection and antitrust agencies teed up a long list of extremely good policies that would directly shift money from rich parasites to everyday people. For example, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau passed a rule that would make it very easy to find out which bank would charge you the least and pay you the most, and let you switch banks with one click:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/01/bankshot/#personal-financial-data-rights

It was a move that would have shifted $667m/year from banks to everyday people, every year, forever. But Trump's most important barons, like Elon Musk, hated the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and insisted that it be shuttered, so that $667m/year will go to the banks after all – indeed, virtually all of the good things Biden's CFPB decreed the American public would enjoy henceforth have been destroyed. Sure, Trump would have liked to have taken credit for these, but the conflict between stolen valor and displeasing Shadow President Musk will always cash out in Musk's favor.

It's not just the CFPB. The FTC also set up a whole roster of ambitious projects to improve life for Americans. Some of these made the news in a big way, like the antitrust case against Meta:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/18/chatty-zucky/#is-you-taking-notes-on-a-criminal-fucking-conspiracy

Trump has lots of upsides from pursuing the Meta case. Everyone hates Meta products, including (especially) the people who are trapped using them because that's where their friends, family, communities, customers or audiences are. Breaking up Meta would be hugely popular with the American people. But also, once a court has convicted Meta of violating antitrust law, Trump can solicit favors – cash and favorable algorithmic treatment – from Meta in exchange for ordering his FTC to go easy on Meta in the "remedy phase," letting them off with a fine, rather than forcing them to spin out Whatsapp and Instagram:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/12/the-enemy-of-your-enemy/#is-your-enemy

But even if Trump lets Meta walk, there's plenty of great stuff Biden's FTC did that he could take credit for – policies that would help everyday people.

The most prominent of these is the FTC's "Click to Cancel" rule. It's a pretty simple rule: companies have to make it as easy to cancel a subscription as it was to sign up for it.

In other words, they can't do that thing – beloved of everything from the New York Times to every manosphere influencer's supplement business – where you can sign up for a subscription with one click, but you can't cancel unless you phone them, wait on hold, and beg them to let you off the hook.

Companies do this on purpose, because it's super profitable. Amazon executives carried on internal email threads where they straight up said that they'd deliberately made it confusingly easy to sign up for Prime and basically impossible to stop paying for it:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/03/big-tech-cant-stop-telling-on-itself/

This is a no-brainer. Companies make signing up for subscriptions into a greased slide, and they make canceling subscriptions into a greased pole.

No wonder, then, that when the FTC solicited public comments on a proposed "click to cancel" rule, they had no trouble building up the evidentiary record needed to pass the rule.

Now, Trump's FTC has announced that they are delaying enforcement of the rule until mid-July:

https://techcrunch.com/2025/05/10/ftc-delays-enforcement-of-click-to-cancel-rule/

This is the second time they've delayed enforcement (originally, the rule was supposed to go into effect in January). Trump FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson had no trouble getting the votes for the suspension, because he illegally fired the two Democratic Commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter:

https://www.theverge.com/decoder-podcast-with-nilay-patel/657115/ftc-bedoya-slaughter-trump-fired-supreme-court-interview

Ferguson is proof that the FTC can't do anything material for Trump's base. Sure, he can set up a snitch-line so tht FTC employees can rat each other out for being "woke":

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/bedoya-statement-emergency-motion.pdf

This should be a slam dunk. It epitomizes the "unfair and deceptive" business practices Section 5 of the FTC Act empowers the agency to snuff out. The Trump admin is unwilling to gore the ox of out-and-out scammers, people who trick you into unkillable subscriptions. It seems that there's no material benefit that Trump's oligarch backers are willing to cede to working people. All they can offer is cruelty.

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

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/12/greased-slide/#greased-pole

Image: Vis M (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slide_at_Thenmala_deer_rehabilitation_center.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[annabelle--cane]

hokay, just finished bingeing through the first season of murray mysteries, here are my #thoughts:

-> moving the narrative chunks around and starting with the equivalent of mina's journal without jonathan's castle segment does really interesting things to the mystery and the release of information. even though I obviously know what's going on it feels like I only have the same amount of information as mina so the events are a lot more unnerving, particularly the part where mina sees lucy being fed on by dracula. it feels intensely What The Fuck Is Happening Right Now.

-> this is pretty clearly a first-time passion project so the production values vary, I'm not going to hold that against it, and sometimes that marries extremely well with the frame of this being mina's low-key personal show. she and lucy have both the most convincing performances and the most convincing relationship, they feel like two friends just chatting about whatever in their own home, and that lack of polish makes me buy into the idea that these are real people which then makes it a lot more emotionally intense when they start to go through the horrors. nail-biting trembling sitting there with my headphones on thinking "noooo that's her actual friend who's dying someone call her noooooooo."

-> I'm good with most of the adaptational modernizing choices but I do think it was a misstep to remove the transfusions from the suitors and van helsing. I get that it would have been difficult to finagle that in a modern setting where doing an impromptu vein to vein transfusion of blood in someone's bedroom when 999 calls and ambulances exist is completely insane, but I think it would have been worth it to somehow work it in. this is a vampire story, exchanges of blood are kind of important.

-> the in-universe podcast format is doing unimaginable things to the energy of this narrative. at first I was like "even with redacting the name, mina and seward publicly sharing seward's patient notes for renfield online in an entertainment context is a bit much 😬" but I was a fool. I had not yet understood the insanity of these people when elevated to the status of podcast characters. lucy records and posts all her emergency doctor's appointments. lucy ends her testament with "please never let art listen to this, it would be too upsetting" and seward posts it. mina can't get in touch with lucy (because she's mcfreaking dead) so instead posts an open letter (voicemail) to her podcast feed without listening to any of the episodes her friends have uploaded while she's been away. they post the recording of lucy's literal actual death. mina listen's to jonathan's audio diary of his captivity and torment at castle dracula and without even consulting him her first thought it "I must post this for my followers."

-> of course van helsing's american. if van helsing needed to be from anywhere other than the netherlands it would have to be america. she's giving pure american nonsense.

[max1461]

This has mostly disappeared from my corner of the internet over the last few years, but it used to be the case that every once in a while some story would go around about a corporation or a government doing some fucked up shit in pursuit of their self-interest, and people in the comments and reblogs would act utterly aghast that said government or corporation would do such a thing.

This was always baffling to me, and I have only ever been able to interpret it as a sign of profound naivety. Of course, I too think it is awful, sad, and unjust when people are exploited, killed, abused or so on by the institutions of our society. But "aghastness" is not synonymous with these things, to be aghast is to be (or present yourself as) in some sense surprised. And surprise is wholly unwarranted here.

I suppose this is part of my worldview that feels very fundamental, it feels deeply obvious, and I struggle to figure out how to talk productively with people who did not get the memo: exploitation and abuse of others in pursuit of self-interest is in some sense the natural behavior of agents in any kind of competitive context. It requires a lot of effort and coordination to mitigate this behavior. We do not feel "aghast" when someone is bitten by a dog. Dogs bite people, idiot! And corporations exploit their workers, lie, cheat, and steal, unless you work very hard to prevent them from doing so. And governments exploit and neglect their citizens, and go to war and kill and maim, unless you work very hard to prevent them from doing so. Individual humans, as members of a social species for which cooperation is paramount to survival, have quite a lot of specific programming whose purpose seems to be to discourage us from doing these things (empathy, loyalty, etc. etc.), and yet very often we still do them!

I have relatives who have a hard time believing in US atrocities abroad, on the grounds that "Americans are the good guys, and the US just wouldn't do that". This is very stupid! Do you think the US got where it is today without cracking some eggs? Bullshit. There's never been a government or a military in the history of humanity that "just wouldn't do that". I sometimes see posts on here from tankies, defending Chinese or Soviet atrocities on the grounds that these things must be Western propaganda, a socialist government just wouldn't do that. Again, I find this so obviously false as to be essentially beneath engaging with. We don't live in a just world! Often, a very effective strategy for achieving whatever it is you're trying to achieve will involve treating people like shit. It is what it is.

I'm not trying to play defense for injustice here. Obviously I think we should do as much as we can to prevent these abuses. But I think that doing so must start with basic recognition of the following: it is the nature of institutions—being as competition between them is essentially unavoidable, and being as their decision processes are unavoidably removed from the face-to-face social context which is so load-bearing in motivating respectful treatment between individual humans—to abuse people in pursuit of their (perceived) self-interest. This behavior is mundane and expected. It can be mitigated in various ways, ideological and structural, but it will probably always be with us to some degree. To look at it and express shock in any capacity suggests a completely misguided understanding of how the world works.

This is the first and most important thing I ever learned about politics or society.

[read-marx-and-lenin]

This is a genuine question that I hope I can ask but you don't need to answer if you don't want to or can't! I've heard a lot of people, for example a relative of mine who visited a couple of times DDR, say that communist or socialist countries were poor and it could be seen in the architecture, the clothes, the food etc. While this is obviously too simple way of thinking, especially when you don't consider the way other capitalist countries have affected socialist countries and still do, I was wondering where the "raggedy and poor" looks that everyone always seem to bring up come from. Do capitalist countries look richer simply bc they take from other countries and socialist countries avoided doing that? I feel like people always bring up the poor looks of socialism when they want to dispute or discredit it. Sorry if I explained this poorly!

I would say the main reason that many socialist countries appear poor to Western eyes is simply because a lot of them did not adopt Western fashions. So to take West vs East Germany as an example, West Germany was economically and culturally dominated by the US, and so the more American one looked and acted, the more wealthy one seemed. This made East Germany look "old-fashioned" by comparison.

It is true that imperial core nations get much of their wealth through exploitation, but this also contributes to the apparent differences through the availability of certain products. One of the often-heard claims of Eastern poverty is the lack of availability of fruits such as bananas and oranges. But where do these fruits come from? The tropics, which are dominated by imperial powers. West Germany had access to imperialist markets and could get cheap oranges. East Germany didn't have the same access and so oranges were a luxury.

You see the same issues of economic isolation in North Korea vs South Korea today. South Korea occupies an extraordinarily privileged position with its relationship to the US, just as West Germany did, whereas North Korea is even more economically and culturally isolated today than East Germany ever was. Yes, the DPRK is a poor nation, but they look even more poor because of a lack of Western fashions and Western products which are signifiers of wealth to Western eyes.

However, it remains the case that socialist economies are better capable of improving the average wellbeing of their citizens than capitalist economies are. In the capitalist world today, more than two-thirds of workers earn less than the local purchasing power equivalent of USD$10 a day. That is to say, the money they earn each day would afford them less than what $10 could afford a person in the United States. This number has only gotten worse over recent decades. So regardless of what anyone might say about the poverty of socialist nations, at least socialist nations are improving the lives of their citizens. Capitalist nations have been stagnating as more and more wealth is siphoned off into the pockets of the imperialists.

Recommended reading: