#so in a world where this appeals to our sense of a functional world-order - the idea that a status symbol can defend herself feels unjust

[bisexual-magneto]

I mean, I feel like it is a natural outcome considering that both the jury and the public seemed to completely forget that Depp v Heard was about defamation, not abuse, but it terrifies me that a lot of people don't realise me what a giant blow to women's freedom of speech this was. She didn't name Depp as an abuser in that article, she said she was a figure representing abuse. The article was co-written with the ACLU and one of the contested lines was written by the editors but she got sued for it. Not the Washington Post, not the ACLU. Which definitely is at least partially because she had the worst lawyers and partially to get back at the ex, but Depp sued the Sun in the UK. He does sue newspapers.

And this is another facet of the larger phenomenon where all those big Western values of liberty and individualism, the personal pursuit of happiness, civil liberties for everyone etc etc etc - is and always have been directed at (white) men, with anyone else being granted some of that as a concession. So many of the lauded works in our literature are about how any person has the right to take charge of their own fate and needs civil liberties to be able to take responsibility for their lives - but at any of those points of time, it was always clear that this does not apply to women.

That since men have decided that women are happier as housewives, they have to be housewives, it had to be made law and there had to be social pressure. Since men have decided that women are better wives if they're uneducated, they barred them from education. That since men had decided that women cannot handle stress, they have to be banned from all sorts of things. And so on. The ideal of self-determination has always been a gendered one. It is about the man as the special crown jewel of creation, the being of infinite value, intelligence and depth, alleviated to personal power by the Enlightenment - and the woman as the NPC beside him. The rib. Remember, the same phase in history when male philosophers and scholars started to push for the idea that every (white) man is created equal, has the same abilities barred by circumstances - that was the same time that othering was more and more transferred from a religious rationale to a scientific one.

And much in the same way, if a man - any man but especially a white man - had lost a defamation trial on such shaky, shaky grounds, men would be taking his side, sharing 1984 quotes or whatever and consider it a dark day for human rights. In fact, think of all the male pundits who will spin outright lies about some celebrity being part of a cannibal paedo cult - and when they're found out to be lying, their fans defend them and say that "well it's their freedom of speech!"

For the public, there is no urgency to defend women's right to freedom of speech, especially when they're talking about gendered issues, because quite classically, they think a woman has nothing meaningful to say and "should be seen, not Heard".

[tanadrin]

[epistemic status: a bunch of semi-related thoughts I am trying to work out aloud] It has been noted countless times that reactionary politics rely on a feeling of threat: our enemies are strong and we are weak (but we are virtuous and they are not, which is why they’re our enemies!); we must defend ourselves, we must not be afraid of doing what needs to be done; we must not shie away from power generally, and violence specifically.

And there are lots of contexts--like when talking about the appeal of reactionary politics in the US before and at the beginning of Trump’s rise to prominence, or when talking about hard-on-crime policies that are a springboard to police militarization, or (the central example of all this in the 21st century) the post 9/11 PATRIOT-act terrorism paranoia that was a boon to authoritarians everywhere, and spurred a massive expansion of both control and surveillance in everyday life--where critics of reactionary rhetoric are chastised for their failure to appeal to the other side, because they come off as callous towards their concerns and their real fears and anxieties.

And while this might not be strategically correct, frankly, I think there’s a sense in which it is justified to be callous towards those concerns. Because those concerns are lies. They may be lies borne out of a seed of real experience (9/11 did happen, of course), but the way that seed is cultivated by focused paranoia, by contempt toward cultivating any sense of proportionality or any honest comparison of risk, the way it is dragooned into the service of completely orthogonal political goals (”the CIA/NSA/FBI must be able to monitor all private communications everywhere in the world, just in case it might prevent another 9/11″) chokes off any possible sympathy I might otherwise feel. American paranoia about another couple thousand lives being lost in a 9/11 like event resulted in a number of deaths literally multiple orders of magnitude larger in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the former, some years Iraq was suffering the equivalent of six or seven 9/11s a year.

So, any fear-driven policy must not (for example) say “to prevent disaster X happening again, we’re going to make it happen 270 times over to someone else.” That’s not reasonable. And “fear is a bad basis for crafting policy” is not exactly a revolutionary observation. There’s that probably-apocryphal story of a Chinese professor responding to Blackstone’s Ratio--you know, “better that ten guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer”--with “better for whom?” Which is supposed to be this trenchant and penetrating question that makes you reexamine your assumptions. But it’s always struck me as idiotic. Better for society! For everyone! Because the law only functions well if it is seen as a source of order and justice, not as an authoritarian cudgel; because a society in which anxiety drives policymaking and legal responses to social ills is one that is in the process of actively devouring itself; because flooding the public discourse with language that dehumanizes criminals and makes it easy to separate the individual from universal principles like civil rights is an acid that destroys the social fabric.

Fear as a germ of reactionary politics manifests itself in lots of ways outside of both historical examples, like fascism, or more recent examples, like US foreign policy during the war on terror. Fear and its link to purity-attitudes, with a low level of scientific literacy in general, drives stuff like the organized anti-vaccine movement. In the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram of political tendencies, I’d argue it’s a big factor in the wellness-to-Qanon track. It’s a big part of tough-on-crime rhetoric, which in the American instance in particular also draws on an especially racialized form (cf. the “Willie Horton” ad). Fear and purity and anti-contamination anxieties are even big in opposition to nuclear power, because most of the public just has a really bad sense of what the comparative dangers of nuclear vs fossil fuel are; and because the former has been culturally salient since 1945 in a way the latter hasn’t, nuclear contamination feels much more threatening than fossil fuel waste, despite by any measurable harm the latter causing far worse problems, even before you factor in any risks from climate change.

I would like to argue in particular that true crime as an entertainment genre, and wellness culture, and fears about child abuse all contribute to reactionary politics--they are in themselves major reactionary political currents--in a way that cuts across the political spectrum because they are not strongly marked for political factionalism. A lot of the rhetoric both from and around true crime entertainment promotes the idea that violent crime exists, or at least can flourish, because of an insufficiently punitive attitude toward crime; one that can only be fixed by centering victims’ desire (or putative desire) for retribution in the legal process, by eroding the civil rights of the accused, and by giving the police and prosecutors more power. Obviously, this is just 80s and 90s tough on crime rhetoric repackaged for millennials; it centers individual experience a bit more and deemphasizes the racial component that made the “Willie Horton” ad so successful, but it posits that there is only one cause for crime, a spontaneous choice by criminals that has no causal relationship with the rest of the world, and only one solution, which is authoritarianism.

Wellness culture leverages purity concerns and scientific illiteracy in ways which are so grifty and so transparently stupid that it’s by far the least interesting thing on this list to me; its most direct harm is in giving an environment for the anti-vaccine movement to flourish, and I’m always incredibly annoyed when people talk about how the medical establishment needs to do more to reassure the public about vaccines’ safety and efficacy. Again, strategically, this may be correct; people dying of preventable disease is really bad. But doctors as a body didn’t promote Andrew Wakefield’s nonsense; doctors as a body didn’t run breathless article after breathless article about vaccines maybe causing autism; doctors as a body didn’t scare the bejezus out of folks in the 90s and then act all surprised when preventable childhood diseases started breaking out all over the place.

Although outside the whole anti-vax thing, I think there are lots of other harms that wellness culture creates. It tends to be fairly antiscientific; in order to sell people nonsense (because as a subculture it exists almost exclusively to sell people things) it has to discredit anything that might point out that it is selling nonsense. Whether the anti-intellectualism that flourishes in these quarters is a result of intentional deceit or just a kind of natural rhetorical evolution probably varies. But it is an important component of wellness culture to be able to play a shell game between “big pharma doesn’t have your best interests at heart,” “you don’t need your anti-depressants,” and “laetrile cures cancer.”

The way in which fears of child abuse are turned into a reactionary political cudgel probably actually annoys me the most; whether it’s Wayfair conspiracy theories, conservatives trying to turn “groomer” into an anti-queer slur, or just antis on tumblr, the portrayal of sadistic sexual threat aimed at children from an outside malevolent force is compelling only because the vast majority of child abuse and CSA comes from within families and within culturally privileged structures of authority like churches, and this fact makes everyone really uncomfortable, and no one wants to talk about it. I remember getting really annoyed during the Obama years when the White House wanted to talk about bullying and anti-LGBT bullying in particular, while studiously avoiding blaming parents and teachers in any way for it, despite the fact that all the coming out horror stories I know are from people’s parents turning on them.

Now, very conservative politics have always opposed dilution of a kind of privilege for the family structure; they envision a family structure which is patriarchal, and so dilution of this privilege is dilution of the status of patriarch. Very insular communities which cannot survive their members having many options or alternative viewpoints available to them, including controlling religions but also just abusive parents who want to retain control over their kids, also bristle at the idea of any kind of general society-wide capacity for people to notice how parents treat their children. But beyond that, I think our society still treats parents as having a right of possession over their children and their children’s identities, especially when they’re young, and bolsters that idea with an idea that the purity of children is constantly under threat from the outside world, and it is the parents’ job to safeguard that purity. The result is the nuclear family as a kind of sacred structure which the rest of society has no right to observe or pry open; and this is a massive engine of enabling the abuse of children. To no other relationship in our society do we apply this idea, that it should be free from “interference” (read: basic accountability) from the rest of society.

Moreover, the idea of childhood as a time of purity and innocence, which not only must be protected from but during which children must be actively lied to about major aspects of how the world works, is one of the last ways remaining to an increasingly secular culture to justify censorious and puritanical Victorian morality. It is hard to advocate for censorship to protect the Morals of the Christian Public, when nobody believes in the Morals of the Christian Public anymore; but “think of the children!” still works as a rallying cry, because of this nagging sense we have that age-appropriate conversations with children about adult topics will cause them to melt or explode.

In many ways, these anxieties on behalf of theoretical children are the ones I am most contemptuous of. Not because child abuse isn’t a serious problem--it is--but because the vector imagined for it is almost entirely opposite the one it actually tends to occur along. People who pretend that the primary danger to children is from strangers are usually woefully misinformed; people who pretend it is from media are either idiots or liars seeking a cover for their craving for censorship.

In conclusion: while it’s not possible to exorcise all our neuroses from our politics, anymore than we will ever exercise all our neuroses from our aesthetics, there are some we should be especially on guard against. A sense of threat, and anxieties which tie into concerns about purity and fears of contamination, are two big ones. These produce policies that are not only badly correlated with the outcomes they ostensibly want, but actually and severely destructive to them, in the same way that invading Iraq was actively destructive to any notion of preventing terrorism, saving American or Iraqi lives, or promoting political stability in the Middle East. And we should hold in healthy suspicion anybody whose politics seem to be driven by similar neuroses. Some merely believe very harmful things. Some are actually actively deceptive. None will achieve any of the higher aims they claim as justification for their beliefs.

[thedupshadove]

So, there is a certain...idea I've noticed floating around in the culture. You could call it a "meme", but I mean "meme" in the old-school sociological sense rather than the internet sense. It goes something like "The primary function of female sexuality is to soothe male pain."

Like a lot of our culture's ideas about sex, it forgets that women can enjoy sex for our own sakes, but rather than imagining women needing to be pressured into sex, or using sex as a tool of manipulation, it posits a system where women will altruistically choose to have sex with men they deem worthy in order to help them more easily endure the horrors of life.

Now, obviously this idea has caused more than its share of trouble, but the thing is...I think there's something about it that appeals to women, despite on the face of it being a vision of a world where sex is entirely for the benefit of men.

Like, there is definitely A Female Fantasy of the guy who's so perfectly noble and giving and he does so much good for so many people and of course he would never think of asking for anything in return, but he's hurting so much, because even though the work he's doing is good and important it's taking so much out of him, only no one else seems to see it, and wouldn't it be so satisfying if you could take him and hold him and make it all better without him even needing to ask? Especially since he'd surely be so awed and appreciative, since he'd never expected anyone to notice or help; never thought he had the right to make demands?

Like...the wish fulfillment of being someone else's wish fulfillment, I guess is how I would summarize it.

[drzootsuit]

Hi, I saw ur comment on the AI post while combing thru the notes. I’ve been seeing a lot of gorgeous architectural images come up in my feed and I’m discovering a lot of it is done with AI. I remain on the fence abt whether it’s cool or not, or whether to use it, bc im uneducated on what the ramifications could be. Do u think if we didn’t live in a capitalistic shitworld where artists didn’t have sell their creativity and their labor to live, that AI would still hinder or push out human creative expression? Is it’s shittiness inherent or is it just bad under these circumstances?

This is actually a really good question, and a very worthwhile chain of thought. While I endeavor to be thoughtful it's all too easy for my frothy-self to descend to loom smashing, so this is an angle worth considering. My opinion on things is heavily colored by my upbringing. It may sound pretentious, but for various reasons, I consider 'artist' as one of my cultural designations. For those who have taken sociology 101, I consider it one of my inherent status' rather than an ascribed status. Call it what you want, but for me, it's in my bones.

My problems with AI artwork are slightly hysterical at points as a result, but let's start with the most sensible note that you bring forth; the fact that we are within the system we are.

Our current form of capitalism is based around an eternal cancerous expansion of profit, and if one follows certain industries, (in my case, the games industry) one can easily see the problems with always trying to grow bigger in a finite world. Companies firing whole development teams right before shipping so that they don't have to pay them for actually completing the project, and other such acts of corporate autocannibalism are the signs of an animal that is nearing the cliff edge and begun choosing which of its own internal organs it can claw out in order to make itself lighter.

Art has always been at war with money. Making art requires money, but the people that control money tend not to understand art. This is obviously a gross tribalistic simplification, but the point is that the two need each other, can achieve great things in concert... and absolutely hate each other.

In a perfect money world, art and artists would be eliminated entirely. I speak with proof behind this: look at the NFT bubble from earlier this year. This was an attempt to boil artwork down to a stock price. Numbers to be traded and nothing more. The art attached to NFT's was crude, designed as such to carry the message of "the artwork doesn't matter. Only the money that makes it up."

So. When we look at AI, it becomes clear: a machine that can spit out art perfectly to order with no involvement from those annoying artists who demand respect, freedom, and worst of all, pay? This is a wet dream for the money. Under the current system of corporate function, AI art is one of the single most dangerous tools yet created. It stands against artwork, it stands against labor and negotiation in all forms, and it stands against the idea that art is worth anything more than cash.

But that wasn't your question. Do I, personally, consider AI art valuable if viewed without the context of the war of art vs money?

Me personally? No. This is where I will appeal to emotion so hard it will make anyone versed in debate weep enough to fill an overly-salty swimming pool.

In my view of things, Art is the result of every stimulus we recieve. Everything. Every single thing any of our senses receives goes into a huge bubbling rendering vat, and then we use that bubbling material to sculpt new works to portray our experiences and view of the world.

As such, I don't think it's worth using AI art as a jumping off point. Yes, it can provide some gummy material that can kickstart creative impulses, but to anyone that strapped for ideas, I would beg that they instead experience more things.

Hideo Kojima has spoken about his philosophy that an artist must always be adding new things to their rendering vat of experience, and I agree with him. no matter who you are, you haven't seen everything. Even within the purviews you obsess over. I love video games dearly, and even I have not played every single one. There will always be something new within the things you love, wether those things are sci-fi novels or urban architecture or tax filing systems. There is always something new to learn and see, and the pursuit of knowledge, of fresh experiences, of new people and new conversations about new topics, will, if you are an artist, spark something within you. And I think that shows what I think is another danger that AI art poses to artists: complacency.

Life begins at the end of our comfort zone. Artists must by nature be curious about the world and her people if they are to dream up stories within and without her boundaries. If an artist is able to punch in familiar keywords and receive a computer-made blob of associated goo made from stolen, unaccredited, scraped work, that artist has robbed themselves of the chance to examine themselves and the world around them.

Also, that's really the big issue. This shit comes from somewhere. The AI needs to be fed existing images in order to know what an image looks like, and there is no possible way for that to be done in a way that does not denigrate the work or the artists who make it. Even if that work is a cell-phone photo of a stack of pancakes, it is wrong for the machine to silently harvest it, and due to the other issues, I struggle to find any arrangement I am happy with even with consent and transparency.

So overall, while I think the technology is very impressive, and I can't blame people for getting excited about it, within my worldview, I am forced to be a curmudgeon. My view of art, the world, and humanity requires that I thank the programmers for their work, shake their hands on their success, marvel at the power of the technology, and then push the server cabinet off the edge of the building. It is a danger to human identity and the development of such.

Loom-smashers ahoy.

Thank you for your question! I absolutely love writing essays about things I'm impassioned about, and this was a blast.

[anenvs3000f24]

Unit 9 Blog

Nature holds countless wonders that continue to amaze and inspire us, but if I had to highlight one particularly astonishing phenomenon, it would be the mysterious and awe-inspiring world of bioluminescence. The idea of organisms creating their own light feels almost magical, as if nature has embedded secret, living lanterns within its ecosystems. This biological marvel connects the gap between the extraordinary and the everyday, bringing an element of the fictitious to the real world. Let’s dive into what makes bioluminescence so incredible and how it reveals the complex artistry of nature. Bioluminescence is the production and emission of light by living organisms, a trait seen in creatures such as fireflies, certain types of fungi, and deep-sea dwellers like jellyfish and anglerfish. The most fascinating thing about this phenomena is that it is an evolutionary marvel that performs vital survival functions rather than only being a beautiful display. For instance, fireflies use their rhythmic flashes to attract potential partners. Each species has a unique pattern that functions as a kind of coded language. In the huge, dark ocean where sunlight never reaches, deep-sea fish use their glow to communicate or attract prey. Imagine being submerged in total darkness, where the only light comes from living organisms. The primary source of light in the deep water is bioluminescence, which takes the role of the sun. The anglerfish is an excellent example of adaptation fulfilling a need thanks to its bioluminescent lure. In addition to being a tool for predators, this light represents life's resilience by demonstrating that even in the most hostile and severe conditions, nature manages to endure and flourish. The biological foundation of this natural miracle adds to its amazingness. A chemical known as luciferin reacts with oxygen to produce light in this reaction. The process, which is made possible by the enzyme luciferase, is a very effective way to transfer energy because it virtually never loses heat. The fact that this efficiency outperforms artificial light sources acts as a reminder that even the most advanced technology can still learn a lot from the inventions of nature. Bioluminescence and nature also find their way into our art and society. Consider the vivid descriptions of people discovering luminous mushrooms in enchanted woodlands in books or the frequent usage of glowing components to generate wonder in movies. The sense of wonder and excitement that bioluminescence evokes in the human mind is captured in these depictions. This mutually beneficial relationship between nature and art is a reflection of the chapters we have read that highlight the need of interpretation in creating a comprehensive understanding of environmental phenomena. The basic concept of bioluminescence teaches us that nature’s greatest feats are often its most purposeful. Our course's discussion of nature's innate inventiveness is closely related to how these species use light for communication, hunting, and survival. Chapter 8 emphasized how, in order to properly understand natural wonders, we must communicate both their aesthetic appeal and their practical use. We reach a basic function of environmental interpretation by analyzing phenomena such as bioluminescence to enhance comprehension and generate amazement that goes beyond a quick look. Bioluminescence, in all its forms, is a testament to the marvels hidden within the natural world. It challenges us to look closer, to learn, and to interpret.

[the-drokainian]

First Baptist Church

==========

Sunday Morning, August 11, 2024

"Your Church"

==========

As we begin a new church year, we may need to be reminded of our mission; the mission Jesus gave his Church.

Matthew 28:18-20 ESV

[18] And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

"The Great Commission"- Our marching orders- Our directiveWe will look at three "arenas"1. Your Church2. Your Family3. Your World1. The ChurchBut what is the Church?

Ekklesia- "Assembly" or "gathering"This gathering is our home base, our training ground; to grow, to train, to be equipped... so as to go.

Service

1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 11-13 ESV

[4] Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; [5] and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; [6] and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

[11] All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. [12] For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. [13] For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Spiritual Gifts- Given by the Spirit- To serve the Lord- Empowered by GodNotice the timing of the giving.

1 Corinthians 12:13 ESV

[13] For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

When you were saved. Jesus gave you a gift (or gifts) by his Spirit!For what?- To serve the Lord- By serving his ChurchYou were saved for this!- To serve Jesus- To serve the Church

Watch out for these hangups!

1 Corinthians 12:14-20 ESV

[14] For the body does not consist of one member but of many. [15] If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. [16] And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. [17] If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? [18] But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. [19] If all were a single member, where would the body be? [20] As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

Jealousy- "Why am I not gifted like them?"Narcissism- "Why are they not gifted like me?"Apathy- "Why do I need to serve?"Doubt- "I don't have a gift to use..."All of these lead to disobedience.Want to serve God?Want to worship God?Want to know God's will?

Romans 12:1-2 ESV

[1] I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. [2] Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Where do I start?

Romans 12:4-8 ESV

[4] For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, [5] so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. [6] Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; [7] if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; [8] the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

There are opportunities everywhere!AskSeekKnockServe!

AccountabilityWe see this everywhere else!Why is it awkward at church?What we don't mean:Not Legalism- "If you don't follow these man-made rules... you're out!"Not Tribalism- "If you don't meet these certain cultural standards... you're out!"Not Judgmentalism- "If you don't measure up at all times and places... you're out!"So what does it mean?

Matthew 18:15-20 ESV

[15] “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. [18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [19] Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. [20] For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Not at the whim of any one pastor or leaderNot at the whim of any one groupBut recognized and tearfully observed by the whole church.

And what is the goal?

Matthew 18:15 ESV

[15] “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

Galatians 6:1 ESV

[1] Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV

[24] And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, [25] not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

- You need this!- I need this!

Hebrews 12:14 ESV

[14] Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

FamilyThis is something bigger and far more costly than a business, school, or place of business.

Ephesians 4:5 ESV

[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

The blood of Christ- Bought us for himself- Binds us together- Beckons us to eternityThis is real family.Do you see it that way?Do you treat it that way?This is our home base. This is where we are equipped and trained to go!The Mission starts here!

[anoyms]

A South Indian Vintage Treasure: The Timeless Elegance of the Brass Dabara Set

Features of the Brass Tumbler:-

The brass coffee dabara set includes a coffee tea bowl and a tumbler that are finely made. The traditional skill is on full display in each of the four vintage pieces from South India. The matte interior and polished outside of the brass tumbler work together to make it long-lasting and practical. The combination of its lightweight design and strong manufacture guarantees a secure hold and long-lasting durability. The use of brass material gives an air of antiquity to each work, so transforming it into an expression of cultural heritage. The detailed design features and classic finish of the brass dabara set show an elegance that is ageless and can be easily incorporated into any table setting when used properly.

Use of a Brass Tumbler and Its advantages:-

There are several practical and aesthetically pleasing ways to improve your drinkware by using a brass coffee dabara. To begin with, brass is an excellent material for general household hygiene due to its natural antibacterial qualities. Improved cleanliness and reducing the likelihood of bacterial growth are both aided by this quality. Second, your drinks will maintain their ideal temperature for much longer thanks to brass's high thermal conductivity. It doesn't matter if you're drinking a hot cup of coffee or a cold refreshing beverage; the brass tumbler will assist you keep the temperature just right.

With this set of 4 South Indian vintage tumblers, you may serve drinks with elegance at any social or family occasion. The classic style will bring a sense of refinement and memory to your meal, elevating the pleasure of every drink. Also, your tumblers will last a long time because brass is resistant to rust and considered to be durable. Incorporating both form and function, the brass is visually beautiful and would look great in your dining area or kitchen. The purchase of this set of brass tumblers not only improves the quality of your beverage experience but also enriches the look of your home with a cultural touch.

Using Brass Dabara for serving, drinking, and giving:-

You can't go wrong with the brass coffee dabara set as a present or for everyday use. This coffee maker is perfect for any coffee enthusiast's collection because it can be used for both serving and drinking coffee. The brass dabara set is a one-of-a-kind present for those in your life who love vintage and antique things due to its traditional appeal. The fact that each component of the set represents various cultural history makes it an ideal present for individuals who place a high value on traditional crafting methods.

Whether you're shopping for a particular someone or simply want to express your gratitude, the brass dabara set is an elegant and functional present. Its classic design guarantees that it will be a valued object in any house, as it combines elegance and usefulness in a single package. This set is not just about drinking a beverage; rather, it is about experiencing a piece of cultural history with each and every sip with each and every drink.

For those who enjoy collecting unique and meaningful items, the brass dabara set is a perfect addition to their collection. Its traditional design and high-quality craftsmanship make it a standout piece, whether used daily or displayed as a decorative item.

Global service and availability:-

The fact that we offer global services guarantees that you will be able to take pleasure in the attractiveness and practicality of this South Indian vintage treasure regardless of where you are located. All of our overseas customers can expect a great experience from us, from the ease of placing an order to the quickness of our delivery. No matter where you are in the world, you may bring a little bit of tradition into your house by embracing the elegance of the brass coffee dabara.

Because it combines traditional craftsmanship with practical usefulness, the brass dabara set is an excellent addition to your house or a meaningful gift for someone who is very important to you. Its long-lasting allure and cultural significance guarantee that it will be treasured for many years to come, and it will lend a touch of South Indian history to any event that you choose to celebrate.

[hazardproscleanup]

Streamlining Your Space: The Benefits of Junk Removal Services

In a world where consumption is rampant and possessions accumulate faster than we realize, the need for efficient junk removal services has become increasingly evident. Whether it’s old furniture, electronic waste, or simply the clutter that’s been building up over the years, these services offer a solution to reclaiming space and restoring order to our homes and businesses.

Junk removal services provide a range of benefits that go beyond just tidying up. Here’s a closer look at why investing in these services can be a game-changer for both individuals and businesses alike:

1. Convenience:

One of the most significant advantages of junk removal services is the convenience they offer. Instead of spending hours sorting through your belongings, hauling heavy items, and figuring out where to dispose of them, you can simply schedule a pickup and let the professionals handle the rest. This not only saves you time and effort but also eliminates the stress associated with decluttering.

2. Proper Disposal:

Many items we consider as "junk" can’t simply be thrown in the trash. From old appliances containing hazardous materials to electronic devices that need to be recycled responsibly, junk removal services ensure that your unwanted items are disposed of properly. They have the knowledge and resources to recycle, donate, or dispose of items in accordance with local regulations, minimizing environmental impact.

3. Space Optimization:

Clutter not only creates visual chaos but also takes up valuable space in our homes and businesses. By clearing out the unnecessary items, junk removal services help optimize your space, making it more functional and visually appealing. Whether you’re looking to create a more organized living environment or make room for new furniture in your office, decluttering is the first step towards achieving your goals.

4. Safety:

Large, bulky items can pose safety hazards if not handled properly. Attempting to move heavy furniture or appliances on your own can result in injury or property damage. Junk removal professionals are trained to safely lift and transport items of all sizes, minimizing the risk of accidents and ensuring that your property remains undamaged during the removal process.

5. Stress Reduction:

The process of decluttering can be overwhelming, especially when faced with years' worth of accumulated possessions. Junk removal services take the stress out of the equation by providing a streamlined solution to clearing out unwanted items. Whether you’re downsizing, moving, or simply looking to free up some space, knowing that you have a team of experts to assist you can make the entire process much more manageable.

Conclusion:

In a society where material possessions often dictate our sense of success and happiness, it’s easy to become overwhelmed by clutter. Junk removal services offer a practical solution to this modern-day dilemma, providing convenience, proper disposal, space optimization, safety, and stress reduction. Whether you’re tackling a major decluttering project or simply looking to free up some space in your home or office, investing in professional junk removal services can be a game-changer. So why wait? Streamline your space today and experience the transformative power of decluttering.

[craftedproducts]

Conversational Cornerstone: Styling Your Living Room with a Center Table

Welcome to our article on the conversational cornerstone of living room decor – the center table. As interior design enthusiasts, we understand the importance of having a well-styled and functional living room. It is the heart of our homes, where we entertain guests, spend quality time with our loved ones, and relax after a long day. And at the center of it all, lies the center table. This piece of furniture not only serves as a functional surface for placing drinks and snacks, but it also acts as a focal point for the room. A well-chosen center table can tie together the overall aesthetic and bring balance to the space. In this article, we will explore the different styles, sizes, and placement options for center tables, and how to incorporate them into your living room design. Whether you prefer a classic, modern, or eclectic look, we hope to provide you with valuable insights and tips to help you create your dream living room. So, let’s dive into the world of center tables and elevate your living room to the next level.

1. Incorporate functionality with style.

When designing a living room, it is essential to incorporate functionality with style. One key element that can achieve this balance is a teak wood center table. A teak wood center table not only adds a touch of elegance and sophistication to the living space but also provides practical functionality. At Aakriti.store, we offer a wide range of center tables online, carefully crafted from premium quality teak wood. These wooden center tables are not only visually appealing but also durable and long-lasting, making them a valuable investment for any living room. With its sleek design and ample surface area, a teak wood center table provides a perfect platform for displaying decorative items or serving refreshments to guests. Additionally, its sturdy construction ensures that it can withstand daily use, making it an ideal choice for busy households. So, if you’re looking to enhance the style and functionality of your living room, consider a wooden center table from Aakriti.store.

2. Elevate the space with symmetry.

Incorporating symmetry into your living room design is a powerful way to elevate the overall space. By strategically placing a teak wood center table in the middle of the room, you can create a sense of balance and harmony. The clean lines and symmetrical shape of a wooden center table offer a visually pleasing focal point that anchors the room. Not only does it provide a functional surface for placing drinks or decorative items, but it also adds a touch of elegance and sophistication to the space. Whether you opt for a classic rectangular table or a round one, the symmetry created by the center table brings a sense of order and cohesion to your living room. With Aakriti.store’s wide selection of center tables online, you can find the perfect wooden center table for your living room that seamlessly blends style and functionality.

3. Consider the room’s proportions.

When styling your living room with a teak wood center table, it is essential to consider the room’s proportions. We want to ensure that the size and shape of the center table complement the overall dimensions of the space. A small center table in a large living room may look out of place and get lost in the vastness of the room, while a large center table in a small living room can overwhelm the space and make it feel cramped. By taking into account the size of the room, we can choose a wooden center table that strikes the right balance and creates a harmonious atmosphere. Aakriti.store offers a variety of wooden center tables for the living room, allowing you to find the perfect fit for your specific room proportions. Whether you prefer a rectangular, square, or oval design, their collection ensures that you can find a center table that not only suits your style but also complements the size and shape of your living room.

4. Create a cohesive color scheme.

To enhance the overall aesthetic appeal of your living room featuring a teak wood center table, it is important to create a cohesive color scheme. We can achieve this by selecting colors that harmonize with the wood’s warm tones and natural grain patterns. Neutral shades such as beige, cream, or light gray can serve as a versatile backdrop that allows the beauty of the wooden center table to take center stage. Adding pops of color through accent pillows, throws, or artwork can inject personality and visual interest into the space. Aakriti.store, a reputable source for center tables online, offers a wide range of options in different finishes to ensure that you can find a wooden center table that seamlessly integrates into your desired color scheme. By carefully curating the colors in your living room, you can create a cohesive and visually pleasing environment that showcases the beauty of your teak wood center table.

5. Personalize with unique decor pieces.

In addition to selecting a stunning teak wood center table from Aakriti.store to anchor your living room, personalizing the space with unique decor pieces is essential for creating a truly captivating ambiance. By incorporating carefully chosen accessories and accents, you can infuse your living room with your own distinctive style and personality. Consider adding decorative items like vases, sculptures, or decorative trays that complement the design and finish of your wooden center table. These decor pieces serve as conversation starters and can effortlessly elevate the overall aesthetic of the room. Experiment with different textures, materials, and styles to create a visually dynamic and inviting space that reflects your individual taste. The wide range of options available at Aakriti.store ensures that you can find the perfect pieces to enhance and personalize your living room to perfection.

In conclusion, we hope that this guide has provided you with valuable insights on how to style your living room with a center table. As we have discussed, a center table not only adds functionality to your space but also serves as a focal point for your room’s overall design. Whether you opt for a minimalist, traditional, or eclectic style, remember to choose a center table that reflects your personal taste and complements the rest of your furniture. With these tips in mind, we are confident that you can create a stunning and inviting living room that you will be proud to show off to your guests. Happy styling!

[passionneat]

Mastering Tranquility: The Art and Science of Professional Organization

Finding solace and order within our living spaces has become essential in a world where the demands of work, family, and personal life seem never-ending. Enter the professional neat organizer– an expert in the art and science of decluttering, organizing, and transforming chaotic spaces into havens of tranquility and functionality.

The Role of a Professional Organizer

At its core, a professional organizer's role is more than just arranging items neatly. It's about understanding individuals' and families' unique needs and lifestyles and then designing systems that bring order and enhance daily life. A professional organizer is part strategist, part coach, houston professional organizer and part design visionary, working hand in hand with clients to create harmonious living environments.

The Science of Decluttering

Clutter isn't just about too much stuff – it reflects our habits, emotions, and decision-making processes. Professional organizers delve into the science of decluttering, home organizing services houston helping clients assess their possessions objectively. A guided process evaluates items based on necessity, utility, and sentimentality. This process not only creates physical space but also profoundly impacts mental clarity and emotional well-being.

Customized Organization Strategies

Every individual and space is unique. What works for one person may only work for one person. Professional organizers recognize this and tailor their strategies accordingly. They design personalized organization systems that consider a client's routines, preferences, and the specific challenges of their space. These strategies ensure that organization isn't just a one-time endeavor but an integrated part of daily life.

Functional and Aesthetic Harmony

An organized space isn't just about functionality but also aesthetics. Professional organizers possess an innate sense of design, arranging items thoughtfully to create visually pleasing and balanced spaces. From choosing the proper storage solutions to coordinating colors and textures, they transform rooms into visually appealing sanctuaries that soothe the senses.

Enhancing Productivity and Well-being

An organized space has far-reaching effects on productivity and overall well-being. Imagine starting your day with a clutter-free and inspiring workspace or coming home to a living room that welcomes relaxation. Professional organizers understand the psychology behind the organization and use it to create environments that support focus, creativity, and relaxation.

Sustainability and Mindful Consumption

In a world grappling with sustainability challenges, professional organizers champion mindful consumption. They encourage clients to make intentional decisions about what they bring into their lives, promoting quality over quantity. This ethos aligns with global efforts to reduce waste and live more consciously.

Teaching Life-Long Skills

The impact of a professional organizer extends beyond the initial transformation. Organizers teach valuable skills that clients can carry forward by working closely with clients and involving them in the organization process. These skills empower individuals to maintain their spaces and make intentional choices, preventing clutter from accumulating again.

Conclusion

The profession of a professional organizer marries practicality with passion, science, and creativity. It's about understanding the profound connection between physical spaces and well-being. Through the artful arrangement of belongings, the strategic design of systems, and a deep understanding of human behavior, professional organizers give their clients more than tidiness – they offer a path to mastery over chaos, a route to tranquility, and an invitation to live more intentionally. So, if you yearn for a harmonious living space that supports your aspirations and eases your daily life, consider inviting a professional organizer to embark on a transformation journey with you.

[humansanimalsplants]

Week 4: Social Ecology

Social ecology is the field of ethics that recognizes the link between ecological and social problems on the basis the first are a consequence of the latter. This means that in order to correctly acknowledge the ecological crisis we need to first address and try to solve the issues that afflict us as a society. 

According to Bookchin, our society is prevailed by hierarchies and the need for domination, feelings which we then translate onto the natural world and have resulted in the sense of superiority that many feel towards the non-human. This is a behavior that should not reflect us for Bookchin, since we are a synthesis of nature and society. More specifically, every human has two natures, the first nature characterized by our biological and organic existence, and the second nature which defines us as social creatures. The first nature is reflective of where we come from and our biological roots, the second nature is the result of evolution. In order to live a full life we should not have to choose between one of our two natures, but rather be able to embrace them both in a point of equilibrium. “In this ‘either/or’ propositional thinking, the social is either separated from the organic, or flippantly reduced to the organic, resulting in an inexplicable dualism at one extreme or a naive reductionism at the other.” 

Our first nature is what makes us similar to our nonhuman counterparts, with the difference that while their evolution has only been guided by reflex and the instinct to survive, ours has led us to create associations and technologies that have slowly impacted the world for all its inhabitants. And it’s this material and technological advancement that has brought to a society based on class stratification. And with it came the advent of capitalism and the idea of a free market, both concepts based on the need to grow one’s own profit without taking into consideration the more humane and moral aspect of things. According to Bookchin, this attribute of capitalism stops social ecology from morally appealing to it, and causes an insurmountable gap between the two. This is why for social ecology to thrive and become the prevalent ethical system, this hierarchical and class structure that our society has taken on must be abolished to give space to a true democracy. 

On a more practical level, this process would be implemented by a change in which are the dominating factors of society. First of all, the concept of citizenship would be reinstated to its formula glory and not simply as a tool for national legitimation, because it’s through citizenship that a lifelong ethical education in the participation of the public life could be guaranteed. Furthermore, property would not be viewed as it is in a capitalistic world, it would be shared by everyone equally and not have single owners.  

From Bookchin's argument it clearly transpires that although he asks for a synthesis between the social and ecological world for which only one ethical system would work equally, this system is being presented as composed by strict and binding moral laws. Although it is true that the opposite view would see morality only as a nice accessory one doesn’t need to be concerned with much, perhaps by following his own advice and creating a synthesis where a moral system can be made of technically speaking “laws” that might function more as a guiding tool to living an ethical life then perhaps this could answer the question of how social ecology would work if actualized. 

To try and apply the concepts of social ecology in real life, I spent a week trying to live with as minimal environmental impact as possible, so I limited my social sphere to try and better my ecological sphere. I tried to change if not eliminate all those unnecessary daily routines that could have been considered a waste. I started partitioning my daily usage to water by turning it off every time I was not actively using it, I tried to limit my use of paper by instead resorting to reusable cloths, I made sure turn off the lights or unplug any electrical appliance that I was not actively using, and I avoided buying products that I knew were either unrecyclable or being made through a great disruption of the environment. These were all little tasks that did not require much effort on my part but that did have a positive effect on the environment. The week that I made myself go through turned into two, then three, until I eventually started doing all these little things daily without much thought. This shows how by adjusting some even smaller details from our daily lives, we might be able to better the environment that surrounds us.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

I read Nietzsche years ago, but now - because we've come to live in a woke world, and wokeness, as Nietzsche himself would doubtless have pointed out, is so palpably derived from Christianity - he seems infinitely more shocking than he did.

- Tom Holland, Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind

Holland’s point is a simple one, our sense of ourselves - our Western identity - is derived less from Greek or Roman origins than from Christianity. Our language, our morality, our ethics, our sense of right and wrong, our sense of justice and so and so forth are all nourished from Christian roots. In our Western society, the language with which we debate secularism, atheism, human rights, or any other controversial subject are knowingly or unknowingly shaped by a uniquely Christian ethical world view.

It’s hard not to see a similarity to wokism (or wokeism or woke-ism, hmmm)), which contends that society is grotesquely unjust and, in fact, white supremacist. Those with power are privileged and perpetuate systemic racism, while those who are indigent and/or without social status are noble victims of the oppressive order. In the woke narrative, though, god has been replaced by the secular justice of the anti-racist crusader. Their efforts, not the intervention of a deity, is what will usher in an era of justice, overturning the corrupt world now inhabit. Although the puzzle Nietzsche sought to solve in “Genealogy of Morals” was not, of course, the origin and rise of wokism, his analysis of the triumph of Christianity is illuminating and quite useful. According to Nietzsche, the weak were bitterly envious of the powerful, but incapable of actually conquering them physically. Therefore, they created the conception of a deferred justice, one in which the wrongs of the world would be righted and turned the concept of “bad” into “evil.” They were not actually weak and impotent, but noble and oppressed. And the powerful were not righteous and aristocratic, but brutal, evil, and exploitative. We see here the basic narrative of apocalypticism and the basic outline of a psychological explanation for its appeal. People who have low status, whatever the cause, are generally reluctant to confess that they deserve their lowly position in society. And they will be attracted to narratives that claim that, in fact, they are not lowly because of they deserve to be, but rather because of some fundamental corruption in the universe, some deviation from the “right.” Wokism, like other apocalyptic narratives (e.g., some extremist strands of Judaism and Christianity, communism), thus attracts people who are or were low in status because it explains that they would/should be more elevated. But, Wokism, like Christianity after the imperial Constantine, is also an elite phenomenon. And this is where Nietzsche’s analysis, I think, sputters. Many hyper-educated people are also attracted to and ardently articulate and defend the doctrines of wokism. Surely, they aren’t bitter about their lack of status?

Instead, I think they are attracted to wokism for two reasons: One, because it functions as as a status system to distinguish educated elites from hoi polloi and two, because, like other religions, is provides a powerful justification for distinctions in status. It’s an elite form of virtue signalling. Status disparities cause tension in society. This, in fact, is the chief observation behind the appeal of apocalypticism for those low in prestige: It satisfies their grievances by suggesting that they will, in a just world, be elevated over the corrupt who now have status. Therefore, those who have status need to justify it to others and perhaps especially if they are egalitarians to themselves. Wokism serves this function by suggesting that their status is cosmically just because it is congruent with their righteousness. This happy thought also likely soothes their own vexatious reflections on the massive disparities between hoi polloi and themselves. No reason to feel guilty if status is earned through spiritual purity. Like any good ideology, wokism appeals to multiple factions in society at the same time. It appeals to those who have low status because it contends that the poor, the lowly, the “last” are actually noble victims of an intolerable evil. And when the just world of the future arrives, those who are now last will indeed be first. And it appeals to educated elites because it provides a rich signaling vocabulary that they can use to distinguish themselves from relatively uneducated whites while also justifying their status to others and to themselves.

Wokism, therefore, is both a philosophy of ressentiment and an elitist apologetic. No wonder it has proliferated so rapidly amongst the misguided middle classes intellectualised on emotion and grievance over reason and experience, truth and history.

[iamafanofcartoons]

I found yet another hypocritical criticism on the critics sub. Somebody said that Salem's plans being vague hurts the show's story and tension. They must really hate Voldemort, Sosuke Aizen, and Obito/Tobi, then, since their plans were just as vague until near the end of their stories. To paraphrase Shrek: "r/RWBYcritics, can you not be massive hypocrites FOR FIVE MINUTES?!"

Salem's plan made more sense than Dracula from Netflix Castlevania.

His was basically kill as many men, women, and children as possible before he died, and drag his allies down with him. And what's more important, he wasn't even subtle about his death wise. Most of his allies were willing to betray him once they realized he wasn't about Vampire World Order, but suicidal lashing out.

He had power and charisma, but that was it.

Salem had charisma and intelligence, And she had an unlimited army, AND could not be killed.

So why not conquer humanity? Why not destroy humanity outright? Because like Dracula, she wanted to die and destroy humanity out of spite, but Salem HAS a plan, which Dracula did NOT!

Salem's Plan:

Divide humanity using humans and faunus against society.

Gather the 4 Relics and use them to summon the gods

Show the gods that they are as flawed as their creations.

Force the gods to wipe not only humanity out, but Salem at last.

Salem achieves death while spiting Ozpin, The Gods, and Humanity.

She dies with the satisfaction of knowing she was right, and everyone else wrong. She wins, everyone else loses.

We were able to infer Salem's motives as far back as Volume 6. Which of course critics hated the 2nd half of because it involved their favorite angry edgy white boi with a blade getting skewered by lesbians. God, I LOVED the salt from that one Adam fangirl on r/rwbycritics who was screaming that Yang and Blake should have just arrested Adam after all he did to kill them, or at least "knock him out so he couldn't follow" after him basically spending a volume doing just that.

Salem knew that if her allies learned of her true motives, they'd betray her, which is what Emerald Sustrai and Hazel Rainart did upon learning the truth...thanks to Oscar doing what Ozpin would not or could not do.

So Salem appeals to her allies with the half-lie that gathering the four relics would change the face of the planet, allowing for Salem's New World Order. And she technically wasn't lying about that. It WOULD Summon the Gods back and they would affect the planet. And by New World Order....there would be nothing left...silence, quiet...order. Which is what Salem wanted for the world. For it to no longer turn, so she could no longer walk its face. Half-lies are easier to maintain than outright lies. And Salem's skill with manipulation is very potent.

Tyrian of course figured it out...but he's Tyrian.

Cinder however...SHE is the wild card...let's see how Cinder reacts to learning the eventual truth.

Every fix-it fanfic I've seen either fails to grasp it entirely, or pretends that Salem was not the Narrator of Episode 1, to where they retcon her.

Its hilarious how many critics ignore EVERYTHING.

Are we even watching the same show?

In any case, use these to block out the negative youtube channels.

These browser extensions will allow you to hide channels and videos from your youtube searches.

That was for Firefox, this is for Chrome

Best of luck to all of you!

[ashesandhackles]

Harry And Personal Conflict: A Meta On Evolving Dynamic With Ron and Hermione

One of my last metas on Harry was how his abuse at the Dursleys informed who he is as a person and a lot of his main personality traits. This time, I want to explore Harry's relationship with conflict, mostly in regard to his best friends - Ron and Hermione.

First things first, because of his abusive upbringing where he is constantly in conflict with his caregivers, conflict is seen as Bad Thing when we first meet him as a 11 year old. And it informs how he reacts to both Ron and Hermione at first. He instantly relates to Ron because Ron is an underdog - a boy who feels neglected and passed over in his large and boisterous family. Harry shares his own experience of neglect with Ron and they both bond instantly.

His initial impression of Hermione is that she has a "bossy sort of voice" . The bossiness is an important characterstic to his impression of her - she reminds him of an authority figure and he does not particularly take to her as easily as he does Ron. Before the troll incident, he is frequently annoyed by her interventions because "he can't believe anyone would be so interfering". It's her vulnerability and the fact that she may be in danger that makes Harry, and by extension Ron, go after her. And she pays it back in full with a demonstration of loyalty to them in front of people she wants to impress: teachers. This sets the tone of his friendship with Ron and Hermione.

There is sense of easiness to his friendship with Ron, especially in earlier books that he doesn't quite share with Hermione. This is a bit gendered as well, of course. His relationship with Hermione evolves as Ron's own equation with two of them changes, more specifically Ron's cognisance of his romantic feelings for Hermione. So how does this inform his relationship with personal conflict?

Let's look at it Book wise.

Book 1-4: Since Harry tends to see All Conflict As Bad, when Hermione becomes his friend, he tends to ignore traits of her that he particularly doesn't take to. Specifically her argumentativeness - which he usually leaves Ron to deal with. For example, look at when Hermione drags him off to the kitchens in GOF. When he realises what this is about, he nudges Ron, and Ron does the protesting: "Hermione, you are trying to rope us into that spew stuff again!".

Often, you can say he is amused by Ron's more ..let's say colourful.. reactions to Hermione being overbearing. So when Ron and him are not speaking and Hermione gets a Quidditch term wrong, it causes him "a pang to imagine Ron's expression of he could have heard Hermione talking about Wonky Faints". It's that deeply ingrained into the dynamic.

While Ron acts buffer and protects Harry from stepping into a potential conflict ("skip the lecture", "don't nag" he tells her), Harry's world view remains quite the same. Part of Harry's growing up is integrating conflicting points of view and gaining nuance. For example, he can't understand why someone like Snape, who seems to hate him so much, can also save his life at the end of Philosopher's Stone. This is his first venture into trying to integrate two conflicting things about a person into nuance. Dumbledore gives him a very easily digestible story, one that appeals to his ideal of his father and Harry is sated.

Again, Harry's world view is tested when he finds out that he relates with Tom Riddle - for their "strange likenesses". He doth protest too much at Dumbledore's office: "I don't think I am like him! I am Gryffindor!". And Dumbledore offers him a wisdom nugget: "It's our choices which define who we are" (paraphrasing). Harry is uncomfortable that he empathises with Tom Riddle, his parents' murderer, at this point in the story.

In the first four books, his only proper personal conflict has been with Ron.

It is depressing to think about in these terms - but Ron is Harry's first experience of unconditional love (we can even put Hagrid here, but he is not the one who spends most time with Harry). And when Ron and him fight, Harry is so hurt by the prospect that he proceeds to abandon Ron before Ron abandons him. (the whole chucking a "Potter stinks" badge at him and making a jab about having a scar is what he wants, or the fight in DH where he yells "then leave! Pretend you have gotten over your spattergoit and have your mummy feed you up"). It's an interesting defense mechanism and he feels "corrosive hatred" towards Ron during these times because Ron and him aren't supposed to be like this. Ron is a certainty in his life. It's also why when Ron comes back, Harry either doesn't need him to apologise (as in GOF) or quickly forgives him in DH - although I do think Harry thinks the locket bit was punishment enough. But even without the whole locket, I think Harry has trouble holding Ron accountable in general beyond few slaps on the wrist - especially if Ron and he are on good terms.

5th Book: This is the transition point for Golden Trio friendship. Harry has come back from an immensely traumatising night at the graveyard and his PTSD isolates him from his best friends. This is also the point where Ron, especially after GOF, is aware of his romantic feelings for Hermione ("the perfume is unusual Ron", Hermione tells him in this book). So in this book, we often see Ron and Hermione on one side, with Harry on the other.

Ron is unwilling (quite like Harry in that respect) to engage him in a direct conflict, but he is also unwilling to shield him from Hermione's nagging in this book. This is why, OOTP is the book where you see Harry ignore or avoid Hermione and lie to her more than usual to avoid conflict. For example, he tells her that Snape thinks he can carry on Occlumency once he got the basics - that is categorically not what happened. Or the entire day he spends ignoring Hermione's warnings about breaking into Umbridge's office. (The description here is comical - about Hermione vehemently hissing so much that Seamus Finnigan is checking his cauldron for leaks. ) If he cannot lie to her or avoid her, at the end of the rope, he will treat her to display of his frightening temper.

Interestingly, OOTP is also the book that his world view goes through a tremendous upheaval: mainly, his ideal of his father and having empathy for Snape. It is unnerving for Harry to see Snape being the "boy who cried in the corner" when his father shouts at a cowering woman. Similarly unnerving is that his intense empathy for him - "he knew exactly what Snape felt when his father taunted him and judging by what he had seen, his father was every bit as arrogant as Snape always told him".

While he is placated that his father grew out of it, this memory of his father being a bully is something he cannot bear to watch again in DH. Few chapters later, he grins at Ron "sweeping his hair" back to make it look more windswept, just like his father - suggesting that Harry is beginning to integrate two conflicting things he knew about his father: from the people who loved him vs the people he was cruel to.

6th Book onwards: It's interesting to me that his better appreciation for Hermione comes after OOTP (one, because she is the one who challenged the whole Ministry plan and she followed him into a trap knowing it was one anyway) but also the timing of it is in line with Harry having a more nuanced understanding of his father. He struggled to hold conflicting information about him into one cohesive person - the boy who was a bully vs the man who joins Order of Phoenix to fight a war he could very well have sat out. The pedestal crashing helped Harry gain nuance (he thinks of his father and mother with pride in HBP - of them walking into an arena with head held high). HBP also sets up his deeper understanding with Snape in DH. There is lovely meta by about this by thedreamersmusing. Read it here. HBP is also the book he feels "sorry" for Voldemort and also feels "reluctant admiration" for him - both of things he is less defensive about.

And this nuance informs his relationship with conflicts - especially the kind he has with Hermione. He is more confrontational with her and does not lie or sneak around her as much as he did in OOTP in the Half Blood Prince. ("Finished? Or do you want to see if it does back flips?" He asks her when she takes the book from him to check if it's jinxed. Or the "I hope you enjoy yourself" he calls out irritably when she declares intention to find out who HBP is. And "do you want to rub it in Hermione? How do you think I feel now?" He tells her when she says she was right about HBP).

The fact that he is willing to be confrontational with her is a big step in his character - a step up from his unregulated outbursts in OOTP, which is a function of him not knowing how to put his anger across in normal ways. He is also more willing to stand up for her in front of Ron too - "You could say sorry" he tells Ron bluntly. This is in contrast to his more quiet standing up for her in POA: "Can't you give her a break?" Harry asked him quietly. In POA, he lets the subject drop after Ron flatly refuses. Here, he presses on more : "What did you have to imitate her for?" "She laughed at moustache!" "So did I, it's the stupidest thing I have ever seen".

His relationship with Ron is an interesting contrast to his relationship with Hermione, which functionally teaches a very important lesson for an abused child who thought all conflicts are bad: That his friendship with her is challenging, and frustrating, filled with conflicts but their love for each other isn't disputed. It's a very important thing for brain development in general - to hold conflicting information in one space. The defense mechanism abused children do to avoid this is called splitting.

So, Ron allows Harry to be the age he is: a teenager and it's foundation for his further development, and Hermione teaches him how to be an adult, and therefore, spurs his growth. (In esoteric terms, if you look at Ron and Hermione as proxy parents - Ron is the Mother archetype, the one who offers unconditional love. Hermione is the Father archetype - one who demands best of him, and guides him).

Additional reading: Harry, Prongs and Prince - Harry's Inner Struggles For Forging An Identity. By u/metametatron4

Harry Identifies, and Reluctantly Admires Snape Even Before The Prince's Tale by thedreamersmusing

[thejudgingtrash]

Annabeth is a good person,but not a nice or pleasant one,IMO.

YES.

That’s it. That’s the post. Pack it up everybody, we just cracked the case and cleared up one of the most compelling fights in the PJO fandom since forever. Good job everybody, clap it out and there’s the door! Don’t forget ordering the drinks at Starbucks, Mitch! They’re on me!

Okay, but on a more serious note: YES. YES EXACTLY.

And before some of you roll your eyes or grab your pitchforks – put your biases aside and hear me out for once. I like Annabeth. She’s my in my top three characters only second to Percy himself. I love Percabeth. It’s my favorite ship in the entire series and to be frank, the only ship that I care about PJO wise. Hell, I spend my time creating my own headcanons or writing my own fanfics with Percabeth being the star in them.

But that is not to say that I’m unable to see how certain things have developed over the years or where they stand now in regard to Annabeth. I’m not here to ignore things that have been said and/or done due to or in the name of Annabeth and I’m not here to vilify anyone that doesn’t like her. And I’m here to admit that I’m guilty of some of the things that may be addressed in this meta essay that you will read in just a second. However, I try my best to assure you, that I’m for once able to recognize my own bias.

Warning: a monster essay lies right upon you.

This should count as a paper of its own.

Back to the statement on top: I would go out even further to reframe your claim, anon:

Annabeth Chase is a good character but not a nice or pleasant person.

Annabeth is a wonderful character but she isn’t a nice one. Or at least not nice to everyone. She is (construction wise if I dare say) the best character out of the series. She has her positive traits (she’s caring, she’s emotional, she’s encouraged and volunteers, she fights for what she believes in, she forgives (even if doing so begrudgingly)) but she also has her negative traits (she’s stubborn, she’s brash, changing her mind takes forever, she is prejudiced, she baits others). That balances things out. She is branded as the intelligent kid but does irrational things (like I’ve just said a) she’s a kid and b) she’s not a robot). She should probably know better, but we all make mistakes and hopefully grow and learn from them. The clouds in the sky do blur and cover our visions sometimes.

Annabeth had clashes with other characters or was about to have fights due to her stubbornness or jealousy (Rachel, Reyna, etc.) and has of course her problems with the mortal world and her family but she also found new friends, some things cleared up throughout the narration and she was/is quite popular in Camp Half-Blood.

The thing is: she doesn’t have to be nice or pleasant (as a character). Or at least not all the time. Her character is humanized. That is what or who she is. Human. She does stand out as a character, not just because she’s the (future) love interest. She feels like someone you could meet in real life and either adore from the top to the bottom or declare as your biggest enemy. And that’s totally okay if you lean either way – liking or disliking her. Or even feeling indifferent about her. Also great!

To say that she has been the best character that Riordan has crafted is easy to say, because she has been sculpted after Riordan’s wife. He had a model he could rub some of real-life events or traits on. That’s not the problem. The problem truly doesn’t lie on Riordan’s side for the most part for once.

The problem is inherently on the fandom’s side. What the fandom does, how it acts and how it treats Annabeth as a character is the problem. The problems vary but it’s mostly the mischaracterization of Annabeth, starting fights and fan/ship wars, internalized misogyny (in some cases) and how some of the Annabeth stans lash out (ha, got firsthand experience in that field among many of my friends and mutuals!). There is a reason why many people are wary of people that have Annabeth or Percabeth related URLs.

The fact that we see Annabeth mostly through Percy’s lens and (until the Heroes of Olympus saga hits) we never really see her in chill everyday situations is essentially Riordan leaving the back door of the house open, ready for all of you asshats to rob his mansion in Boston. Because a frame on a character means that we don’t get to see the character in its entirety (unlike we do with Percy in PJO for the most part). That means a bunch of stuff is left open for interpretation which is the reason why Annabeth gets so many polarized headcanon and opinions tossed around. I think that is one of the true appeals of Annabeth. You can add on stuff and it necessarily doesn’t have to contradict itself.

We have people calling her abusive due to a (n admittedly stupid and unnecessary) judo flip and we have people that act like she’s never done anything wrong. People sorta use this excuse to form and shape Annabeth however they want and distort her characterization.

People in the fandom act like Annabeth is some weird prized possession. We perceive Annabeth mostly through the eyes of others (Percy, Apollo, etc.) and when we had some sort of insight in her ways (MOA, HOH) it felt… weird? Somewhat? Like Riordan left two bullet points of her characterization and told the ghostwriter: aight, fuck it up, gringo, see you on Tuesday and greet Fred the next time you see him for me. 

There have been many posts lately (by Tharini, Simi, Sawasawako, Jewishpercy and Annie I believe?) that HOO Percabeth felt weird. That they felt weirdly constructed, that there was no conflict, no growth. It felt stagnating, like we’re turning back. We had five books prior where we had Annabeth and Percy slowly shifting from disliking to liking and crushing each other. True development. And when we finally got the cake it felt… dissatisfying. Like the cheap box stuff and not the delicious exquisite taste that we were promised.

I said it previously in my Percabeth ship roast, but let me repeat myself: many Percabeth related things are straight up fanon. Some of it is very old fanon so that’s been unable to distinguish unless you’ve read the books recently and subtract nearly 99,9% of things you see on Tumblr (and occasionally the other shitty parts of the fandom like Reddit, IG, Twitter. Although they mostly steal and recycle tumblr stuff oh well. But back to the topic).

The way people treat Annabeth is so strange. She’s either an innocent fluffy smush baby that’s never harmed a fly and all that she wants for Christmas is being Percy’s lapdog or she’s the devil incarnate, broke into your house, killed your parents Batman style, kicked your puppy and didn’t flush the toilet on the way out. I think this is what mostly makes people hate her or the ship Percabeth. And both extremes are wrong and right at the same time? She is multifaceted so both stereotypes are true and untrue and sorta cancel each other out in the same way.

The true reason why people dislike Annabeth is because the stans are doing the most. (The haters as well, don’t get me wrong, but oh boy. Piss of a stan and you’ll know what I mean). That isn’t inherently new. Are you guys old enough to remember the ship wars that have happened cross platform? Perachel vs. Percabeth? Oh boy, oh boy. I saw some kids on tumblr a few months ago trying to infiltrate both tags and start shit (and also fail). The fact that Rachel still gets used as the bitchy (ex) girlfriend in fanfics? It’s 2020 guys. I know this apocalyptic year is far from perfect and over but I think we can let this trope die, right? Right? I thought we’ve established that Rachel is a pretty chill charcter by now… right?

If you posted your stuff on FFN back in 2010-2013 and it wasn’t the typical cutesy Percabeth story (Goode High, the gods read TLT, punk/prep Percabeth, college AU, etc.) people would’ve come for your fucking throat. Not because the story or the narration was shit. But because the pairing wasn’t Annabeth and Percy (in the sense that Annabeth had to be paired with Percy. I mean Percy gets shipped with everyone and their mother but for Annabeth it was strictly Percy. As annoying as this whole Connabeth thing is – the people behind it actually had a point. She never had a different love interest unless it’s a Percy centered story and he goes off dating Athena, Artemis and Zoe at the same time for some odd reason. Yeah, FFN Percy ships are something). Or it wasn’t the action filled canon compliant story or it wasn’t an AU that was popular.

People were really stubborn, snobbish and wanted their stuff in the four five boxes that were the most popular ones and that’s it. People have been bullied off the site in many fandoms, so it’s not a PJO-only thing but it’s still sad that it happened. (Off-note: most of these FFN tropes are still alive and well and thriving on AO3. Don’t be so snobbish and pretend that every piece you’d find there is a holy grail. There’s a lot of trash you have to waddle through. Same with Wattpad, Tumblr or anywhere else where fanfics get posted. Also had this discussion with Annabeth stans. Sigh).

And Tumblr back then? Forget it, wasn’t much better.

That view has sorta changed (at least for people that have been in the fandom for several years or have managed to find a way to navigate through it) but some of the negative sentiment from back in the day has survived. Be it by new fans coming in or from old fans that never let their stance die. The aggression feels differently and somewhat not. (I don’t know if the anon function had been abused that much back in the day. I was an observer not a participant in the fandom).

Crack a joke at Annabeth’s expense (Kal’s famous “Annabeth is a Republican” post or Dee Dee’s and many others “Annabeth has the education of a second grader, chill with the college plans, girlie” stance) and you have people insulting you, making callout posts, unfollowing and blocking you (based on only that? Okay, honey), making aggressive counter-posts, etc. in a minute. If you respond with “It’s a joke, it’s not real” you have a 50/50 chance of either getting blown off or embarrassing them so that they apologize for once.

This isn’t just about jokes. You can make a headcanon that’s not the cozy cute convenient mainstream saga and people would react the same way. Or art piece (no, not including the whole Tannabeth Blackchase shtick done by Viria and others) or fanfics.

People project so much onto the unfinished canvas that is Annabeth Chase that any form of negative sentiment as little as someone not liking her to straight up criticism, regardless of how tiny it may be, seems like an affront. Like an invitation to a fight. Like an insult to them, their character, everything they believe in. Let me state something:

You are NOT Annabeth Chase. Annabeth Chase IS NOT you. Annabeth Chase is NOT real. Her feeling cannot be hurt. Someone criticizing, disliking, joking about her or even insulting her will not bother her. Someone making a statement about her is not an insult to YOU.

Let me repeat that:

Annabeth Chase isn’t real. Annabeth Chase isn’t you.

So think a little before you act? I get it when you’re a kid and new to fandoms or haven’t been up with fan cultures in the past and are back in the scene. But if you’re in your late teens or even older as an adult and you’re unable to understand that you aren’t what you like – you aren’t the extension of a fictional character – I feel incredibly sorry for you. Because that’s just incredibly sad. Someone disliking something you like isn’t an attack of your character. It shows you that you are you and the other person is a human just like you. That they just have different taste. Disliking something you like isn’t a crime, you know? But me feeling sorry for the way some of y’all act won’t mean that that’s even remotely okay. Especially if you’re no longer in the intended audience for PJO age wise and should know better.

This isn’t a “white stans” only thing. I’ve seen and witnessed firsthand how people of color, mainly women of color, act the same or not even worse when it comes to her character. People have projected their problems and real-life occurring events into her character (I’m sure that she isn’t the only character nor that this is the only fandom where this is happening) and in some cases like I’ve said cannot separate their own personality from the fictional world. Fights with woc happened because of Annabeth fucking Chase. So many things have happened in the fandom the past few months, mostly due to people being forced staying at home because of the quarantine but I’d say it’s 10% on quarantine and 90% on people for acting up like this.

So here’s a little story: There was the act of Riordan blowing the fandom up because of his own stupidity and being unable to apologize for his mischaracterization and lack of research (the whole Piper fiasco) back in June (?) and admits the upset fandom, people on Twitter, Tumblr and Discord legit thought that none of that mattered and that the outcry was destroying Annabeth Chase’s birthday. That’s right. People thought that Annabeth Chase’s non-existing birthday because she’s a fictional character had a higher priority than the rupture and prevalent racism in the fandom. Okay. This isn’t a great look, Annabeth stans. And this of course pissed a lot of people off. I made a post about it and someone not only berated three other people on said post but no, we had a mighty argument which had disrupted many friendships in our circle which haven’t recovered until this very day. We both had our parts in it and no one is innocent. But the cause of this still remains Annabeth Chase or how people prioritize her non-existing well-being. Anyway. I’m getting agitated just thinking about it.

Let’s go back to the characterization thing with Annabeth. Let me remind you:

Annabeth Chase is an asshole. There I’ve said it in a post ages ago (too lazy to look it up, sorry) and I’ll say it again. And that’s not me insulting her. That’s me actually loving that about her. Annabeth is one of the very few unapologetic female characters that really showed all young readers across the world that you can be a girl, a badass, smart, strong, standing up for yourself and what you believe in. You don’t have to be nice. You don’t have to hide your feelings. You don’t need a man in all cases but it’s also okay to accept help and defeat.

A large reason why I think she’s an incredibly important character in children’s literature/YA because many other novels (mostly (sadly)) have the “Oh, I’m a white skinny dark-haired girl that likes unconventional things like READING. I’m not like the other girls, that take care of themselves and pamper themselves by enjoying shopping and wearing make-up. No, I’d rather be one of the boys but a sweet cute little boy and not the jock fuck that drank vodka shots out of a filthy shoe once. Despite me calling myself hideous every man in a 10-kilometer radius falls in love with me and tells me I’m oh so sexy and by the way I’m only 16 years old” shit going on for no goddamn reason.

Yes, I do blame Twilight for this mostly in recent years, but this trope isn’t by any means knew. Pretty sure that you could even use classics as Pride and Prejudice and dissect them in the same manner (Bold statement: Lizzy Bennet is the OG Bella Swan. There. Go fight somewhere in the corner, people). The new wave of YA focuses on girls belittling themselves and only starting to believe in themselves because someone else (mostly the male love interest) tells them they’re worth it. And these books hit the mainstream because they’re incredibly bland and picture perfect white.

With Annabeth it’s different. She shows up for the job and is done with it. (Brie Larson would probably be the perfect in real life version of her. You either like or dislike her. Or you really don’t care). That is what is so refreshing about her. Her unapologetic nature. Can it be off-putting? Yes. Is it annoying? Yes! Hell, every time I read The Lightning Thief, I want to rip her goddamn head off. And it’s just so well written. Her shift from mistrusting Percy but secretly still believing in him to her opening up. Wow, Riordan did something right there.

Annabeth Chase isn’t a young character. She has existed along with PJO for 15 years. She’s on her way to the second decade. I’m pretty sure that with the success of Percy Jackson (and Harry Potter) many lives have been warped and shaped.

But when I say the problem lies mostly in the fandom, it doesn’t mean that Riordan’s completely innocent. The only problem that I have with Annabeth lies not truly with her but the fact that Riordan is only able to produce three variations of female characters:

The sweetheart (Hazel, Silena, Calypso, Hestia)

The strong feminist (Annabeth, Piper, Thalia, Reyna, Artemis)

The bitch (Drew, nearly every female goddess in the goddamn Riordanverse next to every female monster)

And these female characters only know three endings:

End up married with a mortgage, three kids, two dogs and a cat somewhere in Connecticut by the age of twelve

Get dumped into the hunt

Chill on Mount Olympus and only come down to be a nuisance and/or give a cryptic message before going back and doing a godly rave party or something

We know Annabeth as the badass strong female first (or the bitchy character we’re supposed to actually like. Choose your approach), the blueprint so to speak, so some of the other characters feel almost pale in comparison and almost not needed? Doesn’t mean that other characters can’t behave similarly, but it feels kind of redundant especially if their character arcs end in a rather anticlimactic way (Thalia, Reyna). The new additions are the much needed woc as the main story with PJO was inherently white (anyway stan black!Percy and Grover, folks). So it’s not to bash on the new characters, it’s more Riordan’s fault more than anything.

Since Riordan only knows three female character arcs it feels like he tried to copy the formula several ways with different nuances. Some more or less successful. This is where fandom actually comes in handy and helps create more distinguished and fleshed out characters in form of headcanons or fanfiction.

But even in these cases people still make it about Annabeth when it’s time for characters of colors to shine. Remember that whole spiel and discussion that broke out when people (Kal, diver-up, Caitlyn, Bee, reynaisalesbian, etc.) joked about or criticized that Annabeth thinks that she’s having it harder because she’s a blonde? In front of Hazel and Piper? If she would’ve been a real person that’s an invitation for getting decked. And then all hell broke loose because Annabeth stans couldn’t accept the fact that in the real world and/or in fictional worlds the woc/coc have it harder? That the white woman wasn’t the victim that needed the coddling? Yeah, that was mad pathetic.

I hope you people get my point?

Well fuck. I wrote so many things and have the feeling I’ve said nothing. Anyway, I hope I made sense. This is way too long.

TLDR: Chill about Annabeth please. She’s an important character but that doesn’t mean that everyone has to like her, regardless of being a character in the books or a reader/fan of PJO in real life. She isn’t nice or a sweetheart all the time. She also isn’t the monstrous asshole that some try to make out of her.

Peace out.

[dangermousie]

Look at those arms! MMMMM!

You know, I really like Gilina. Or, more correctly, I really like what Gilina represents, both in terms of Crichton’s development and in his feelings for Aeryn. Gilina is Earth Crichton’s dream girl: she is blonde, pretty, sweet, and plucky (she is no push-over). She is also a girl geek, and a techie and for our scientist, that’s quite irresistibly appealing. (Btw, let me take a moment to note how much I like that the show showed us that Crichton had a type in women, B.A. (before Aeryn): they were blonde and sweet and had a certain safe niceness to them. Aeryn is not blonde, not sweet, and not safe at all. And neither is his feeling for her). If Gilina was a girl working for a research institute on Earth and she and John met at some party, I can easily see them talking, dating, falling in love and getting married. And having a happy married life. And the John of ‘PK Tech Girl,’ despite some unpleasant encounters in the Uncharted Territories is still enough of the Earth John to be attracted to Gilina, to be at the very beginning of developing something for her. He is still enough of an innocent, with enough uncomplicated and sweet left in him, for Gilina to be his type. But of course, that is not the case any more when they meet again in ‘Nerve.’ When they meet again, Gilina has had a fairly uneventful PK tech existence. She hasn’t changed much. But she is not Crichton’s type any more. Not after Maldis and finding out firsthand that there are psychopaths that will just enjoy watching you die for the fun of it, not after Crais and finding out that no, if you only explain the truth, it won’t make it better. The person will still want to kill you even if they believe you, even if it’s wrong and irrational, and there is nothing you can do. Not after ‘Jeremiah Crichton’ (my least fave ep of the whole show, but whose theme of Crichton’s long isolation is well taken). Not after finding out the truth about Zhaan, or almost dying out there in space with Aeryn. Not after the mind and soul fuck of ‘A Human Reaction.’   Gilina is not for this John. Not any more. And it’s not just that in the meanwhile he’s ceased to see anyone but Aeryn. It is also that his character has changed. And that is only the beginning. When he meets her in ‘Nerve’ it is pre-Scorpius, pre-Aurora Chair, pre-everything in S2, 3 and 4 (I’d do a list but it would take too long to type). If Gilina met S4 Crichton, she’d freak and run away and rightly so. A digression, but I find it fascinating how John's non-Aeryn women reflect his change. We have his ex-gf on Earth who he was serious enough to apparently want to propose to, before they went their separate career way. She is sort of like Gilina only blander, less engaging (Earth Crichton strikes me as someone who's had things come to him too easily because of his intelligence or what not. His passion (for whatever) was never truly engaged to the full, and the gf reflects that.) There is also Caroline (who we meet in Terra Firma) with whom he had something or other, but she is rather like his Earth-ex and it's clear the Crichton of TF doesn't even have anything to say to her any more. From them, we progress to Gilina (about whom see above). In first half of S2, there is the PK Disruptor. Now, she is a lot more edges, more hardness. If she is like anyone, it's a female version of Bond. And Crichton sleeps with her, because hey, he's tried everything to get Aeryn to admit any interest, he's beaten his head against the rock and he's beaten it and beaten it. But she refused and she's conclusively walked out of his life for good (not even came to see him for the very last time, when he needed her most). And also, girl can kill him, good to stay on her good side. There is no Gilina sweetness in her, at all. PK Tech Girl Crichton would annoy her and be intimidated to be with her, not so much Crichton of that s2 ep arc. But interestingly, that is the last time he even looks at another woman, no matter the circumstances. Once Aeryn and he admit their love to each other at the end of S2/beginning of S3, that is it. Even at the second part of S3, when Aeryn is off with Talyn-Crichton, Moya-Crichton goes deep into his obsession with wormholes, not any girls at all, and he is just as obsessed with Aeryn as ever. Even after the end of S3, the beginning of S4, even after he tells Aeryn "I can trust you with my life. But not my heart" and he locks himself away, he still does not look at anyone else. He cannot. And even the drugs cannot knock her out from his mind. Which is why his last non-Aeryn woman is Grayza, who rapes him while at the same time telling him if he gives her the wormhole stuff she will help him find Aeryn (OMG, that bit is seriously the worst in the whole scene). I think the darker progression of these women-others mirrors the darker and darker universe. OK, digression over.   I find it interesting that in S1 we have a number of people (beings, whatever) whose life is affected, changed by Crichton and who are grateful for that and thank him for changing/opening/saving either explicitly, or it’s implied. But after S1 this slows to a trickle pretty fast and then stops almost entirely. Crichton is such an innately kind person, and one of the saddest things in the show is seeing this kindness leach away under the tortures (literal and figurative) he is subjected to. I find it so sad and so significant that in the S3 finale it’s Aeryn who brings up the fact that the command carrier has a lot of lives which John’s plan might end. Aeryn. Not John. She’s become more compassionate (she, who started out saying ‘I hate that word’) and he’s become much less. These are both reactions to their environment, to events they are in (When they initially meet, she is a product of an individuality-less, soulless scenario. Even if he is wrong in reading her at the very very first in Premiere during intros, he is not wrong in reading her potential, in recognizing she is a person, and even as early as Premiere she proves him right. I also love that for Crichton, she is always her own person, not a preconceived notion of what she should be. He loves her for being Aeryn, not for some idealized being in his head). And yet it is never completely suppressed, it is always there, however muted and downtrodden, however circumscribed. He had to jettison most of it in order to stay sane and to survive, but somewhere deep inside he is still the guy who, in a completely strange world, took the time to fix the eye-stalk of a mechanical critter thingy he didn’t know at all.   And of course, part of the reason he jettisons it is also because whenever he tries to save someone or make it better, it often ends up making the situation worse. I am thinking for example of S3’s lovely ‘Different Destinations’ which turns a beloved sci-fi trope on its head and he has to live with it and he can barely bear it.   And I love how the show never lets us forget the cost this takes on him, that he is not a power-hungry psychopath, a cavalier callous being only caring about his small group of friends. That coda to S4’s ‘We Are So Screwed’ where he is with Aeryn, and he breaks down, and he can’t help it, and he weeps for what he’d done, for what he almost did (and it’s going to be small fry in comparison with PKW) is just brilliant and heartbreaking and one of my favorite bits (and I love that she is there, and she silently comforts him, and he clutches her arm as a lifeline). And that is why I actually liked the drug storyline in S4. After all the stuff that Crichton been through, I am surprised he didn’t end up going on something earlier, just to deal with it all somehow (I love that the show brought up earlier that he has nightmares, feels tremendous guilt, and that was mid S2, I am sure they are much worse now). And it also made sense that when his number 1 obsession, Aeryn, told him to give it up, he did, as he’d pick her over anything. She’s his number 1 drug. Basically, he needs Aeryn desperately. She is what allows him to function, allows him to stay (relatively) sane, what holds him together. When he can’t have her, or doesn’t have her, he falls apart and needs something else to get through the days (wormholes in S3, lakka in S4). I do find it interesting that Crichton keeps his compassion, however tattered, but he develops absolute priorities, as a result of choices he shouldn’t have had to make. Most people don’t really analyze whether they will pick the woman they love or selling one’s soul and giving up something which earlier, to protect, you didn’t give up even when tortured or hunted or broken. They don’t have to. Crichton’s developed rigid priorities are a result of the environment where he had to confront those hierarchies in himself. Crichton’s earlier ‘purity’ and goodness and optimism exist in part because he is a product of a relatively sheltered life (compared to Uncharted Territories). But that early cleanness allows others to see a better or at least a different path for themselves and so they repay the favor later by pulling him out when he is on the brink of succumbing to all these horrors (which really do seem to be scarily disproportionately triggered at him). One of the things I love about Crichton is that even after he’s seen and dealt horrors, he has a certain moral absolutism to him (however broken it gets at times) and a pure refusal to give up, and strength even if only to make the least worst of two bad choices presented to him. Something untainted is always there, maybe a legacy of his initial idealism, and so he never breaks, not permanently, not irreparably, though he comes very very close. Throughout the show, even as that world bends and molds and twists him to its own parameters, he manages to make the world somewhat bend and mold and twist to himself.   Do you know what I really really wish for John and Aeryn and the kid after the end of PKW? A few years of total peace, where they can just travel the space in Moya, and John can do his research, and be with Aeryn and watch their child grow, without having to worry about saving his and their lives every other day.

OK, these are getting epically long omg.