#poli-sci who????

[fluffypotatey]

sorry. even more thoughts from gumy. hey in the s3 finale there's a direct contrast between mk's "i'd never abandon her when she needs me! we're heroes, it's what we do!" vs mei's "that's the hard part of being a hero!" as she tries to burn wukong to a crisp. the different facets of being the Hero

the contrast between MK's "we're Heroes! it's what he do!" vs Mei's "that's the hard part of being a hero."

dam T^T

but yeah, let's dissect this a bit more :)

well, we (the audience) know that both Mei and MK think of themselves as heroes. we first meet Mei when she saves MK, and our first scene with MK is him idolizing how "heroic" the Monkey King is. even after getting the staff and being dubbed as Sun Wukong's successor, MK wants to help people (he does it first by deciding to bring the staff to SWK because, you know, he's never fought bad guys before). MK's heroic ideology is to "help everyone," "save everybody," "protect my friends and family from the evil™️" and "no man left behind" (except himself)

Mei's is very similar but different. "Protect friends and family from the evil™️," "save those who cannot save themselves," and "protect others from themselves." this is probably why she was able to reckon with the act of burning SWK to a crisp because it was risk she was willing to take. the needs of all trump the needs of one no matter how much it might hurt

but MK can't do that. he has been shown how much he cannot do that. all of his plans are ones that are meant to ensure everybody survives and lives to see another day. (see, MK having everyone fight Peng and Yellowtusk while he and SWK fight OP!Azure.) and if he is told that there is no other way than to sacrifice another or that it's possible someone is lost forever, MK will try to find another way. and so far, his method has worked (bc he's the MC and the narrative cannot work if MK fails but that's more of a technical behind the scenes outlook rather than "in-story" which is a whole other can of worms and is not at all a part of my point)

however, Mei is shown to be a bit more grounded and have a realistic view that sometimes...you have to face the fact that there is no other option. Wukong's scroll being sliced? there was a very high likelihood that the monkey king was lost forever. MK refused to see it, but Mei knew that the chances of them even bring him back were super, super slim. Mei "understood the risks" so to speak that happy endings are not guaranteed. that the world is more gray than it is black & white.

in a way, both of their ideologies complement each other. it's why they are such a good pair as friends and when fighting together.

ignoring my urge to sob, fucking look at these two T^T and doing some quick research on the web, yellow and green are said to be the colors of hope. both colors have mostly positive meanings, so put together simply adds to their individual hopeful vibes and doubles it, basically (idk color theory this is my interpretation of what i read and how i can apply it to MK and Mei)

they may not be complementary but they do compliment each other in that yellow brightens the room and provides a soft light while the green can provide a bit of that grounded darker tones and make a room more fixed. (wtf am i saying, why does this make sense to me, how am i mixing home decor with-)

so yeah, while the colors are different facets of hope, MK and Mei are also different facets of what it means to be a hero (selfless, compassionate, self-sacrificial, loyal, willing to do the impossible vs willing to do what's necessary for all) and i am now very emotional about them T^T

[acediathemelancholy]

Of course Lily believes in enlightened despot theory

Enlightened despot theory states that there should be an absolute ruler who embodies the ideals of the Enlightenment who can better protect the rights/lives of everyone else. It was a popular idea with European absolute monarchs in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

It very much meshes with the rest of Lily/the Alicein's aesthetic that takes a lot of inspiration from eighteenth century France. Enlightened despot theorists also were proponents of social contract theory rather than the divine right of kings, which seems to be consistent with Lily's worldview.

Under social contract theory, an authority is obligated to be obeyed by its people only as long as that authority protects those people (either by maintaining social order and/or protecting the rights of individuals).

Being born an Alicein alone didn't give them the divine right to keep Lily's loyalty. Mikado broke their social contract by fearing Lily, and therefore Lily believes he has no obligation to obey him as a "king". He thinks that Mikuni must be the king, the enlightened despot, the eve of the new strongest servamp, to preserve/create the world that Lily wants because he is clever and capable.

[femmesandhoney]

i had long chats w my favorite poli sci prof about how ridiculously uneducated many high schoolers and into college age people are about politics and what constitutes political science. they teach barely a drop of real poli sci in k-12, and if they manage to have electives in ur school they're often overtaken by the most obnoxious boys in your grade (how my school was...) so no girls and many guys didn't even want to take the classes. then u reach college and most universities do not have reqs to take poli sci and its heart breaking bc real poli sci is fascinating and important and yet theres so many americans going around with the most basic concepts completely wrong in their heads that should not be this wrong.

[loverslakes]

idk why i never shared this here, but! i made this for a beloved mutual for christmas last year and now it’s all canon (i think.) in the “tried and true blue”verse. i’m finishing up my byler lumax road trip ficlet so they were on my mind. ✨🩷 including the OG sticky notes discussion board featured in t&tb (and more, under the cut!!)

(pls bare with the style i tried to make it 9th grader vibes idk)

[eskildit]

as yet unsent modern au but its just that judith coronabeth and camilla have a group project for an undergrad poli sci class. comparable levels of torture to being held in captivity.

[lesbiradshaw]

three shots in trying to figure out what bradley was planning on doing with his poli sci degree if getting in the navy didn’t pan out

[sapphoslibrary]

the amount of gen z “leftists” who lack even basic education on the american political system is genuinely astounding and terrifying

[f1ghtsoftly]

Im being real I only want to organize with other women but my interest in like passing laws vs direct action is literally zero.

Laws are helpful, but they are ultimately reformist. I think, coming out of the 20th century a major takeaway I had is that women need to build things that cannot be taken away from us (basically separatism). Abortion should have never been a debate, it’s a right, if a government tries to legislate that then it is illegitimate. Women’s work should be paid. Women should run households. No women should be forced to live under constant threat of rape or battery. Sex is about love and connection not about owning someone (or their children). None of these things are complicated. Women understand this reality intuitively. It is men who do not. By asking rather than taking-we in turn legitimate this source of power but, men should not hold power over women. It is illegitimate.

The biggest failure, in my opinion, of second wave feminism in the US is it could not reproduce itself. I agree with Federici’s assessment that “Wages for Housework” (or some variation) is one of the biggest tasks left undone. By and large child production in the US remains a task for the nuclear family, ensuring patriarchy will live on for another generation and another generation of adult women will suffer inside of it. We can remedy this by creating intentional communities of women by women, raising our own wages and collectively supporting each other through family creation and in the workplace.

Furthermore, I really strongly encourage women to stop supporting causes, political movements or organizations that refuse to prioritize women’s issues. This is particularly relevant in the realm of foreign policy. I find it repulsive how many self styled radical feminists turn around and support US imperial projects abroad. We must reshape the way we organize the production of commodities if we are to liberate women. That means *not* supporting the imperialist powers in their quest to secure new markets and create sources of cheap labor+raw materials. Women’s piss poor wages in garment factories in Bangladesh is directly related to the strength of the conservative patriarchy in Bangladesh. Subsistance farmers in Brazil and South Asia need women to produce a large workforce as cheaply as possible, they accomplish this through patriarchal marriage and religion. The US forced it’s way into Eastern Europe to secure new markets and access to raw materials and the looting of the Soviet State saw the largest entrance of women into the sex trade in world history. Im not saying be uncritical about places like Iran, China or Russia, but I am saying be mindful of what exactly the person speaking intends to do about it. Global revolution is different than a proxy war between US+friends, solidarity with striking workers is different than Sanctions and Embargos which starve women and children. NGO’s operate in the interest of their donors, whoever they happen to be. Both horrors can be true and we must develop the capacity to see all of them-so that our intention to help does not untinentionally prolong the suffering of our global sisters. I cannot be more adamant that vigorous opposition to imperialism, vigorous opposition to the US government and her military is the absolute best way those of us living in the west can support women globally.

Many women are fooled by the belief that this is impractical and centering women and demanding real, revolutionary change is hopeless but allow me to ask you this, how many women have lived and died under this current regime? How many women have given their lives, have devoted themselves entirely to women’s advancement? We have made small gains-but it is not nearly commiserate to the effort we have put into achieving them. We are staring down the barrel of a new age, one where women’s bodies can be spliced and sold like pieces of meat. One where religious fundamentalism will remain a dominant global force. One where women can look forward to lives as drudges, whores or wives living with back to back pregnancies, constantly under the boot of men. Is that the world we want? Is that the world women have worked so hard to achieve?

We need a more radical, more prideful strategy befitting our dignity and in line with what we deserve. We deserve so much more than concessions. We deserve freedom and the fruits of our labor.

So please, consider that it is ok for you to be the main character in this story and stop lending your time, support and energy to causes that do not center women’s experiences. I don’t care if you’re “also lgbtq” or also a “poc” or also “colonized”. You’re suffering more than a man is, women deserve to be at the forefront of every single social movement, not a supporting role, a woman unfairly in prison is just as significant as her male counterpart. Lesbians get beat up and preyed on by homophobic men just as much, if not more, then gay men do. Women suffer worse under occupying armies, women suffer worse under sanctions, women suffer worse in post colonial political chaos then men do.

You matter just as much as they do and you need to *leave* if they do not recognize that. You will never lose by recognizing your worth.

[gatorade-brand-deodorant]

Do you know the meaning in the word "tankies" or is this just a buzzword you heard on Reddit?

Because it does not mean what you seem to think it means.

genuinely I don't know what specifically it means nor its origin, if you have the time please do tell. I use it as a representation of liberal democrats who support the US military industrial complex but like, if you have more context or anything I would love to hear it please. thanks for reaching out <3

[abyssaldyke]

My toxic writer trait is I dont care if something is technically incorrect if the aesthetics are better than the correct version

[fantastic-nonsense]

@supersaiyanjedi14 "both sides are bad" When did that ever happen? The closest thing we get to somethign like that is DJ (a sellout who isn't supposed to be taken as objective) remarking that the ship they stole belonged to someone selling weapons to both sides (which says more about the arms dealer than the two sides) and Luke denegrating the Jedi (something he changes his mind about by the end). Everywhere else? The First Order are blatantly bad and the Resistance are blatantly good

Okay, let me lay this out a bit more in-depth. I could go into the Luke-Jedi stuff (which would mostly be me ranting about how Rian took away all the wrong things from the prequel trilogy, ignored the elephant in the room that is Palpatine, and leaned into the whole victim-blaming "the Jedi deserved to be genocided" nonsense for no reason other than he needed to create needless drama between Luke and Rey that justified him refusing to teach her), but I'm going to focus on DJ since that was the original point of my post.

This is what DJ says in that scene:

Finn: At least you're stealing from the bad guys…and helping the good. DJ: Good guys, bad guys…made-up words. Let's see who formally owns this gorgeous hunk. [holoscreen powers up, starts to show a slideshow of weapons] This guy was an arms dealer. [screen shows a TIE Fighter] Made his bank selling weapons to the bad guys. [screen flips to show an X-wing] Oh, and the good ones. Finn, let me learn you something big. It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join.

DJ is explicitly stating a kind of extreme amoral centrist perspective here: "there's no such thing and good guys or bad guys. Don't join either side." And to back up his claim, he shows Finn evidence of capitalists profiting off of both sides of the war.

Okay, cool. Capitalism and war profiteering are bad. Great high school level deduction. But this is Star Wars; usually, everything has a larger purpose (even if it's not executed particularly well). So why does DJ get to say "there's no such thing as good guys or bad guys" and have that claim remain unexamined and uncritiqued for the rest of the movie considering that the conflict between the Resistance and First Order is, all things considered, pretty black and white? Finn and Rose are both characters who have been directly harmed by the First Order's actions (Finn through being kidnapped, brainwashed, and raised as a child soldier, Rose through the exploitation of her planet and the sacrifice of her sister). And yet they have nothing to say to DJ about this?

After all...like you said, throughout the rest of TLJ the Resistance is portrayed as pretty unquestionably "the good guys." Unlike in say...Rogue One, where the darker and dirty side of fighting a guerilla war is both showcased and remarked upon on multiple times (both via Cassian and Saw Gerrera), the Resistance isn't shown to be using any questionable tactics or purposefully dealing under the table. And unlike the prequel trilogy, there's no messy, complex background political conflict underpinning the fight against the First Order. So why do we get an out-of-nowhere "both sides" subplot that ultimately says nothing and goes nowhere?

Yeah, sure, DJ's a traitor and a sellout. We're not supposed to like him or think he's right. But what he says is never actually discussed or refuted other than a prefunctory "you're wrong" from Finn later on in the film, when he sells them out to the First Order:

Finn: You murdering bastard! DJ: Oh, t-take it easy, Big F. They blow you up today, you blow them up tomorrow. This is just business. Finn: You're wrong. DJ: Maybe.

Again, none of what he says is ever actually examined. Sure, he's a bad guy, but why spend so much time with his character, dialogue, and actions to do nothing with it? Especially considering he's functionally an unnecessary character Finn and Rose never should have run into to begin with (since he's not the hacker they were sent to Canto Bight to find and they never actually talked to the one they were supposed to bring with them)?

We could just say "eh DJ is wrong, don't listen to him," but why is he here in the first place? What is the narrative function of letting DJ run around saying the things he does and acting the way he does, especially when he gets off scot-free for doing it? It never comes up again. He basically says his speech, betrays Finn and Rose, runs off with his money, and is then promptly ignored. There's no follow-through. It just adds more elements that are never addressed.

Unlike Han Solo, who is explicitly called out by Leia in A New Hope for being "mercenary" and ultimately comes back to help the Rebellion and destroy the Death Star, DJ just betrays Finn and Rose, takes his money, and leaves. Unlike Jyn "I’ve never had the luxury of political opinions" Erso, who slowly shakes off her own political amorality to join the Rebellion and sacrifice herself on Scarif, DJ's opinion never changes. Unlike the various small-time antagonists we get throughout the PT, OT, and anthology movies, there's no coherent personal narrative going on that explains why he's there. And if DJ's supposed to act as the devil to Rose's angel on Finn's shoulder about his own place in the Resistance, what purpose do his words actually serve except to set up a moment of doubt (mind you, in an ex-child soldier's mind about fighting the group that literally enslaved him) which is never explored or brought up again because the conflict in practice is so blatantly black and white?

That entire plot thread also doesn't make much sense just on a basic practical level. The First Order isn't buying and selling weapons; they're building their own stuff and taking what they aren't. Meanwhile, the Resistance is canonically a splinter paramilitary group that isn't funded by the New Republic and is both a) made up of ex-New Republic ships, re-purposed Rebellion-era weaponry, and personal fighters and b) so poor that they can't even re-fuel their own ships, and yet we're supposed to believe they're buying stuff from Canto Bight's profiteering weapons manufacturers?

This conflict has also been going on in the MAJOR background for less than 5 years; the New Republic was canonically peaceful, prone to appeasement, and had a policy of non-aggression toward the First Order (at the time, a well-funded but fringe terrorist organization operating out of the Unknown Regions). The Resistance was actively avoiding engaging in open conflict with the First Order until Starkiller due to their lack of resources and firepower. When TLJ starts, "the war" has been going on for two days. Reasonably, there's no private military-industrial complex for anyone to profit from in this particular conflict. This entire subplot comes out of nowhere, goes nowhere, and makes little practical sense for the canon that had been laid out at the time.

So what we get left with is a character whose entire narrative purpose in the movie is to give a "both sides are bad, good guys and bad guys don't exist" speech without any of the ideas he actually discusses being examined in any way, shape, or form. Meanwhile viewers are promptly shunted straight back into Resistance vs. First Order dogfights like everything's just business as usual and we didn't just spend a whole hour with DJ and his amoral centrist nihilism. Within the narrative the sequel trilogy tells, DJ is right: the Resistance blows up Starkiller in TFA, then the First Order blows up the Resistance throughout TLJ before getting semi-blown up themselves on Crait, and then the Resistance blows them up again in TROS. What else are we supposed to take from DJ's presence in a story that is determined to either ignore his words without addressing them...or prove him right?

And all this in a movie about fighting space fascists that released the year after Donald Trump got elected. It's narratively incoherent, politically irresponsible, and blatantly out-of-place in a Star Wars movie.

[enneamage]

any thoughts about quackity vs dream *said nonchalantly like im asking about a shonen anime*

Oh Nelly.

So it’s been a while since I wrote on Q in any depth and while some of my opinions have shifted, I also haven’t had much to attach to since he’s being very tight-lipped about how he feels regarding the server situation. The implication is passive-aggression to an extreme, but guessing with him is hard. It turns out that Q shedding friend groups when they no longer serve him had more than a bit of truth to it after all.

Q craves uniqueness and distinction. The idea of two servers doing the same thing at once probably genuinely chafed him with how much emotional investment he had in the idea, he had a passion project and he wanted to be the one to bring it to life. It’s identity on identity on identity, creator identity and public identity and national identity and being able to feel pride in all of them, Dream stepped on some sensitive toes here. Q gives a fuck, there’s no way he doesn’t, him freezing things out feels like repression.

The ‘idgaf war’ is primarily wracking up civilian harassment so I’m not impressed by the line of thought that only sees the lack of peacemaking as an own against Dream. Something really ugly is going down right now and Q is doing nothing to stop it when it wouldn’t be that hard to make even a shallow symbolic gesture. Again, I bring it back around to people misestimating what ‘normal’ would look like in this situation outside of the internet, there are real life communication standards that exist when it comes to community management and conflict resolution and public statements serve a purpose in times like these, what we’re seeing is ‘very online’ behavior.

Dream is reaching out until the end, I’m both surprised and not that he seems to be holding the door open for Q to reach back still. Controversial opinion but him writing out the full story of how this developed was a smart idea because he becomes a one stop shop about the full story, while Q remains a blank to be filled in. The statement doesn’t appeal to twitter typical emotional austerity but it seems sincere and I think it will age better than most of his previous statements. If the Usmp really was meant to be a server where people could just hang out as old and new friends I can see why this whole situation has been antithetical to that, and how it marks bad things to come if things keep spiralling.

This looks like a situation that’s still developing, so we will see what happens next because I don’t see it just ending here.

[faeriedustunicorn]

Fellow Travelers is so traditionally yaoi coded like we got the rich unfeeling top and the innocent poor bottom doing sexual favors for a job😩

[mars-ipan]

class is spicy today :]

[cithaerons]

girl what? have you ever taken a science class

[alexalblondo]

The West Wing truly is like porn for me 🥵🔥