#stupid. arbitrary and political and not even necessary most of the time

[thepandalion]

unironically suffering in class rn

[f0point5]

Idk about you but personally people in general hating on women or men for liking a tweet years ago and stuff is pathetic to me. Cancel culture is stupid. People like offensive TikTok comments all the time but then go ahead to hate on a celebrity for doing so 6 years ago. People need to get lives tbh who even scrolls down on someone’s likes THAT far 😭 insane imo but you do you I guess. Sure liking a racist tweet ain’t it and having a sponsorship from a homophobic author isn’t the most moral thing to do but it’s not the end of the world as a lot of people make it out to be. Often times people put celebrities on such high expectations like they’re gods that need to do the right thing all the time/ need to use their voice on every single topic. Sorry if I offend anyone but also the war between Isreal and Palestine(🍉).Obviously it’s important to be educated and stuff but people go ahead and expect every single celebrity to comment on it. People need to remember that those people have a platform built for entertainment not politics. Using your platform to educate people is awesome but no need to shame someone for not speaking up about politics when their content is about beauty and stuff yk. Cancel culture is embarrassing as HECK and then those that claim to have ”cancelled”someone act as if they’re saints. I wonder what kind of jokes they laughed at in their lives or what tweets they liked etc. cancelling isn’t even real. The ”cancelled“ celebrity will disable their comments and keep going with their content because the era of being cancelled lasts at most 1 month and then everyone keeps supporting them again.

I’m pretty sure cancel culture is not real because when was the last time the internet successfully cancelled someone? They come back like a whack a mole 😂

But anyway, yes I agree that making discussions out of the likes tweets or Instagram stories of women who date boys that drive cars is pretty sad behaviour. Because trust me the people submitting this nonsense to gossip pages would not pull their boss/family members up for the same thing. They like to talk when there’s no consequences. It’s the same theory as “punch down” humour…you’re too scared to say it when saying it might actually affect you. So you say it about people who don’t care about your opinion. It’s just so���exhausting.

And yes, people really be expecting the world of these people for why? Where were they educated, what are their qualifications, where did they sign up to be UN ambassadors, that you expect so damn much from them? They’re people who do a job that means a lot of people know who they are, that doesn’t make them more “ethical”, educated, informed, or interested, than anyone else. In most cases it makes them far less educated than the average person. So you’re holding them to these arbitrary standards on what basis? Idk man.

Personally, I like it when celebrities stfu about politics. Because I simply don’t believe they are educated or informed enough for their opinion to be necessary or adding to discourse in a positive way. Just because 5 million people like to watch you get ready for a night out, doesn’t mean you know shit about shit. And frankly, most of them aren’t interested. Which is FINE. It’s totally fine not to be interested in every world event, but just hold your hands up and say you don’t know, or just leave it alone. Don’t have your assistant collect 4 infographics from Google and then repost something on your story just to pretend you know what you’re talking about. You recommend foundation for a living? Stick to that please. The amount of celebrities and influencers that spout political/economic jargon when it’s clear they don’t have the slightest understanding of the terms they are using or the principles behind them never ceases to depress me (and 99% of the time their “ideologies” are incredibly hypocritical, which they don’t realise because they don’t actually know what they’re saying).“Political” celebrities give me the ick.

[mourning-again-in-america]

I expressed to @xhxhxhx some months ago that I was skeptical of the legality of the federal reserve, and I still remain so, for about these reasons. The main issue on my mind at the time was one of appointment and the origins of its creation, Wilson semeingly not particularly overworried about the particular Constitutional issues of his various projects and Jennings Bryan even more so (contrast with the respectable Chief Justice and President, Taft). I came into McCulloch as I was studying law thinking that it must be wrong, for SOME reason, given what it effectuated, and altho I'm less certain of my rightness now, I do believe I have it in the right. That the Federal Reserve, through its communications with the Treasury and the Mints, may direct the production (or non-production) of paper currency, for which it may be used in place of specie for debts to private persons and to the Governments of this Union, I am relatively fine with (the finer points I may argue about, esp in the contexts of the Legal Tender Cases, given their shaky legality). I am even willing to acknowledge a non-unitary executive in this area, an area in which it is particularly necessary to have an independent executive agency (and yet I still hear rumors that various Presidents use it for their own purposes, such as a poorly timed program for the '92 election, which ended up benefiting the candidate of "it's the economy, stupid"). But what is to stop arbitrary powers from being brought to bear through the various "facilities", and the institution or non-institution of them? They certainly create money, much like loans, while making that money available to certain partisans and not to others (have a bank account at the Fed? Welp, guess you're shit outta luck! And no, you can't incorporate solely to let your customers have such access).

It seems to me that the Federal Reserve is aware of such power and how certain factional support could bring about its death, much more so than the head of the Second Bank, who seems to have enjoyed near aristocratic privileges when trading under his name of Biddle, and enjoyed giving favors to those who he could court, bringing into alliance various other powers of family and heritage that made up e.g. Virginia and the Hudson. Were Acts of Congress to trade on these bases (i.e. aristocratic privileges) it should be an outrage, especially to those people who favored Jacksonian politics. What a surprise then, when such people have such disfavor for such an institution! In fact, I have become a bit conspiratorial as of late, thinking the vilification of Jackson to be a program of those colleges I often speak unfavorably of, especially those ones on the Charles and the Quinnipiac, the charges against him regarding the Cherokee, possibly the most important, often becoming secondary to his position on the Bank and on John Marshall, their ideological favorite, second only to Hamilton.

I can defend the bank of the United States on the general necessary & proper ground for the circulation of non-specie money (its value undergirded by its utility in the payment of taxes of the fedgov), but the lending branch makes me sick. What purpose could it serve, but to reduce the accountability of officers of the United States who want certain loans to go through and certain loans less favored, who could easily accomplish their objective through private bills, except that it would leave them open to mockery from their compatriots and infamy from later generations! What cowards would desire such a thing?

[tanadrin]

@mkfshard The idea of kids voting terrifies me. Not because children don't deserve a right to decide their futures, of course they do.

But I know that if I'd been able to vote as a kid, there's exactly one way I would've voted: the way my conservative parents told me to.

I can imagine Quiverfull-like strategies popping up like weeds everywhere in response to kids being able to vote.

I guess the reason this doesn’t bother me is 1) young people are very unlikely to vote even once allowed; just because they ought to have the opportunity doesn’t mean they have the obligation, and while I wish many more 18 year olds would vote (not least because cynically I think it would lead to more of the policies I like getting passed), I don’t think this policy would lead to a massive increase in the electorate; also because 2) only like a fifth of the US is under 18, and it’s even less in many European countries. Ideologies motivated to have lots of kids like conservative Catholics or Quiverful are an even smaller proportion of the population; and while yes kids would probably vote very much like their parents, this is true across multiple axes, not just age! Plenty of present-day voters simply regurgitate their parents’ beliefs, because, well, people get a lot of world view from their parents to begin with. Actually having a dozen kids and raising them is expensive and difficult, and not guaranteed to produce teenagers who will vote how you tell them to.

What I do think letting children vote would do is at least create an opportunity for civic education, because children would be able to participate in the system as they learned about it in school; it wouldn’t be an abstraction. And it would provoke the political system to think about how to frame children’s issues in a way that is actually meaningful to them. Let’s be realistic here; I don’t think any six year old is going to give a shit about politics; my real target audience here is kids in their mid to late teens, but without an arbitrary punishment for, say, the younger teenager or preteen who’s smart and motivated and interested in politics being locked out because of their age. Would a lot of kids be bad voters? Hell yes; but tens of millions of adults are low-information voters who pick who they vote for for stupid as hell reasons. “They would vote badly” is actually a terrible reason to deny someone the vote.

And all the counterarguments I can come up with flounder in the face of all the times I, as a kid, remember adults devaluing me and my peers’ concerns because, well, they didn’t have to give a shit about what we thought! We were just kids. Legally not whole persons, politically not whole persons, our interests not our own to define--when people talk about children’s welfare as a political concern, what they overwhelmingly mean is children’s welfare as interpreted and understood by their parents, or other adults. If those adults are empathetic, kind, thoughtful, and competent, that can come quite close to children’s actual welfare. But lots of adults are callous, cruel, stupid, or incapable, and frankly my sense as a kid of a lot of adults around me having no idea what was really in my interest has only been vindicated in adulthood.

I also think it’s a bit stupid to take a category of people, like sixteen year olds, and go “we can’t let them vote! they have no political awareness!” Again, see “low information voters, millions of;” also, of course they have no political awareness--they have no possibility of political participation! Politics is as theoretical to them as particle physics! They can’t even vote for the school boards whose bureaucracies run a huge chunk of their lives! “Student councils” usually get to decide on, like, the fuckin’ homecoming dance theme, not any real issue of school administration. And there are tons of local government issues that matter a lot to teenagers that they should absolutely get a say in. And often want--but we treat the needs teenagers do often express as though they are cryptic and random utterances, because we have no need to exercise the leadership necessary to translate those needs into actionable policy, because, well, nobody really has to give a shit what a sixteen year old thinks. And I think most adults who scorn the idea of paying attention to what young people think do it because deep down they know that people can usually tell when you don’t actually give a shit about their well-being; and they don’t and don’t want to have to give a shit themselves.

We look back at history and rightly recoil at arguments like, “well, only landowners are educated and responsible enough to vote; besides, they’ll vote for what’s good for the country!”, and “only men are educated and responsible enough to vote; besides, they’ll vote for what’s good for the women, too!” and so on and so forth; all of the paternalistic and anti-democratic justifications for denying full representation to other categories of people also apply to people who happen to be below an arbitrary legal age of majority, so why do we have that limit at all? Let everybody motivated and interested enough to vote, vote. I don’t think it would make the sky fall, or cause a political revolution. I do think it would make the world a little more humane and a little less hypocritical, and I think that’s important.

[skyhopedango]

State of the Season (OMG IT’S ALREADY MARCH???!)

So... yeah. Time really does fly, huh. :O I’ve been so swept away by work and politics/activism and trying to rock an undercut that is the surprisingly fortunate result of trying to cut my own hair, that all these months just kind of passed me by. Holy shit, it’s almost summer. And covid is still here.

Anyway, so the shows I’ve been watching, or not watching as the case might be.

Dropped: 

SK8: I ranted about it a while back - I tried watching a couple more episodes, but nah, sorry. The show is trying to do one thing and another completely different thing, and it just fails to do either well, missing the balance by a shot so long it fades into infinity. It doesn’t lean fully into just being crazy and OTT fun, but it leans into it enough that there’s a tonal dissonance between the crazy OTT parts and the “real” and “drama” parts, which result in neither parts working for me. The “adults trying to write cool kids” factor and the really dated visual design doesn’t do it any favors either. It’s 2021 guys! If you want to be “hip and cool” come up with something that doesn’t smell like moth balls.

As for the rest: 

Osomatsu-san S3: This is... kind of a pity. I talked about this before, but it really feels like the writing has lost its touch, and its sight of who/what the characters are. Also, the extended cast just doesn’t work. Totoko and Nyaa are just not interesting enough to carry so much of the show, and the AIs are perplexing and not in a good way. They feel completely pointless, characterless and boring. 

It’s not like the show is bad though. The voice work continues to be absolutely amazing (why is this cast so good), it’s still mildly entertaining, and there are flashes of brilliance every now and then - the pizza skit is one of the Osomatsu-san greats, as is the entirety of episode 22, with the detective show spoof and the crazy hide-and-seek skit. Even the AIs had an unexpectedly fun and relatable moment, the skit with the shitty senpai you kinda pity but also don’t really want to associate with. Overall though, this season is a miss, which is a pity.

Jujutsu Kaisen: This has been precariously teetering on the edge of being dropped, but eh, I might as well finish this season. Like, the show is mostly harmless, really, mostly inoffensive, but also 90% of why I’m still watching it is so I can listen to Nakamura Yuuichi, Shimazaki Nobunaga, and a couple more seiyuu. It’s bogstandard WSJ action stuff. But also, it’s at the “let’s have a tournament arc, and introduce tons of new characters and their super special powers and angsty backstories!” part where these stories always lose me. Like, I don’t really care about all the power wankery, yes, the character is super strong, but if that’s all then I don’t care about the details, let’s move on. Also, I just want to spend time with the main cast, y’know? I don’t need two thousand characters, and OK, we can have a huge cast but flesh out your main people first? 

Aside of the cast, the animation continues to be its saving grace, but even there some things grate on me - things I wouldn’t care about normally, but since the show is clearly an animator wank fest, these things stand out. Like how the composition is often kinda dodgy, with the characters not integrating fully with the background? Or how there’s the "telling not showing” thing where they have characters telling us things that could be so easily conveyed by animation. Yes, that’s necessary in manga where the images are not moving, but here, especially with all the animation wankery, it just feels like the director just wanted to show off, and didn’t put a lot of effort into actually creating a good and complete translation of static to dynamic, manga to anime.

Back Arrow: This one is... well, it’s entertaining. It’s a bit of a letdown in that it doesn’t really go as hard as it could and should. Like, the jokes are good in theory, but in practice more ofthen than not the punchlines don’t quite land. Still, I’m being entertained so I’ll keep watching. (Mostly, I just like what a terrible, stupid bunch the characters are. :D) Will I remember this show a week after the finale, though? Not likely, but hey, I don’t need all shows I watch to be unforgettable masterpieces.

Beastars: This is, well, good. It’s really good, actually, it’s a great show! It’s just that I kind of lost my enthusiasm for Beastars so I just can’t get hyped. And without the hype, my brain just starts thinking too deeply about things I’m not supposed to think about, like... yes, I understand the allegories and whatnot, but also isn’t it just awfully convenient that like all of herbivores we see on the regular are the “small, soft, prey” type? Where are all the tough, often aggressive herbivores that predators think twice (three times, four times) about messing with? Where are the African buffalos, the bisons, the elephants, the rhinos? I’m just saying, it’s really convenient for the story that those are out of the picture. Also, what with all the focus on size and strength, it’s kind of dodgy how the show just handwaves away the fact that there are small carnivores and large herbivores, and the latter could kick the formers’ ass any day, like come on, a horse vs a cat? Yeah. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

But anyway, yeah, show is good. I’m enjoying it a lot. I hope they won’t adapt the rest of the manga.

Tenchi Souzou Design-bu: This is just tons of fun. :D It takes an issue that I very often think about (namely, “why is this creature like that? what the hell, Mother Nature?”) and puts it in a context that makes complete sense (”oh I see, it was created by overworked designers based on vague and arbitrary instructions, gotcha, I can relate to that” :D). And even though it’s just basically the same settings and jokes over and over it doesn’t get old. :D

Kemono Jihen: This one is fine? It’s not mindblowingly amazing, but not bland or mediocre either. It’s just a solid, good show, although I really hope that Aya is not a permanent addition to the cast because I really hate the “jealous girls fighting over a guy” trope. That aside, I actually started reading the manga for this, but... well, this is one of those cases where the anime format just works better for me. I hope it will get a second season.

But most of all I really really look forward to the spring season, partly because there’s quite a lot of shows I’m interested in, and also it’s one step closer to the summer season and Night Head 2041. :D

[theorynexus]

68 will be my second post, this morning. I wonder if it will start section 8 of the Meat Epilogue.

Oh darn it. I forgot to make a Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy/Meaning of Life reference on Meat 42. At least we’re back to a 43, and things might therefore be luckier. Maybe.    (I am very silly when it comes to superstitions regarding numbers, sometimes, even though I don’t really believe them.)

MY TIMING SENSES WERE TINGLING!!!

Hmm. Well, strategy meetings and investigations are important.  (Also:  I am again reminded of the dreadful likelihood that Terezi went with Dirk, which continues to be a disturbing thought.)

Hmm.  For some reason, I have the impression that he does indeed have a vague idea where he’s going, but he may not actually know where/how to find it, yet. That seems pretty likely.  Thus, Roxy would be partially correct. (On that note: Interesting that Jake didn’t actually come with. I thought for sure he’d have snuck aboard at the last moment, or something, as a stow-away.)

Eh, I’d say it goes a little beyond “prove a point,” but it’s also probably incomprehensible to you, right now.  I guess we’ll all have to be patient before we can more thoroughly sort through his insanity in that regard. As for Jane...   I don’t know. It might be more trouble than it’s worth to contact her.  The fact that Dirk has her as a seemingly important part of his plans suggest that it could essentially be springing a trap on yourself. I wonder how she’ll react to finding out that Dirk’s been mind controlling people and that that probably invalidates the actual results of her election, in the sense that it dramatically undermined the democratic process. (That is a really complicated issue that is somewhat entangled with real life politics, though, so I don’t want to get into a deep and proper discussion of what determines electoral legitimacy on a philosophical or political level here.)

It is a very interesting choice on Alt!Calliope’s call to focus on incestuous questions and Dave being awkward, rather than to follow tat important call.

Dirk is so twisted at this point that I’d almost not put it past him, but at the same time, why, Dave, do you have to assume that the motivations are sexual in nature?   (I mean, honestly, it could be the fact that Dirk was trying to force him to have sex with Karkat that gave him the impression that Dirk was [and he is, but maybe not to that extent] way too carnally-minded and motivated.)   Honestly, Dirk’s head is way too concerned with philosophical matters, and if anything he’s probably going to make a clone of himself to have sex with or something stupid like that, if he REALLY has to engage in some sort of tension-releasing copulation that isn’t masturbatory in the way that having sex with someone you’ve brainwashed and twisted into being your personal object of amusement is.   Therefore, I juuust can’t quite see Dirk having sex with Rose/her new robot body.  (Gosh, I hate that I feel compelled to address this.)

I honestly quite agree with Karkat, and now understand a little bit more about why our focus strayed where it did--- though it would have been nice to receive some sort of narration to indicate that.  And yes, it’s sad that Kanaya’s being put on hold, I guess. A little bit.  (Not really. I understand politicians in places of power can get quite busy, and it may not even be Jane’s decision to have her on hold... though if it is, I can most certainly affirm that that is quite rude.)

I mean... to be fair, Karkat, it’s rooted in biology.  Humans not having a Mother Grub means that the don’t have a natural means to reduce the genetic load that would be caused by related populations interbreeding and therefore dangerously duplicating genes.  Thus, it is not actually arbitrary, which I am sure you would know if you had spent a bit more time acting like the “geneticist” your troll handle suggests you happen to be (yes, I know it means to refer to his ectobiological frog wrangling/recombination; even so, the point stands).

I take it that Karkat’s dejection about the election has kept him a bit preoccupied and out of the loop, lately.

This is horrible (Karkat’s part, I mean).    Roxy’s new new outfit sounds like something I would be very interested in seeing fan art of.   A pink-looking slightly more effeminate Dave look sounds aesthetically striking (and I’m not even a fan of pink). But yeah, good on her for not giving up in frustration for people confusing them, I guess.   ***shrug***

And we return to this awkward and slightly funny subject. Considering it was not resolved last time, I guess that’s reasonable.   (Some day, maybe I’ll write a post analyzing Roxy’s trans-iness and/or how they/he seems to have been affected by those around he/them in his/their path to figuring it all out.  This sort of issue is always a bit difficult to properly tackle without raising some people’s hackles, so to speak, though, so I am not sure if I’ll end up doing it.  Regardless, it’ll have to be quite some time in the future, should I do so, after I’m at least done reading both sides of the epilogues. I’m sure Roxy’s interactions with John will have some important light to shed on the matter.)   It’s sortof nice that Dave and Roxy can joke about this without it becoming too uncomfortable (apparently) for either of them.

...   Is revealing this something they’ve discussed before now?  I mean, doing this in front of friends and family could be sortof... bad for things between them, if Karkat’s still trying to figure out how he feels about it and whether he wants to press on vs throttle back?  I mean, just calling each other boyfriends is not something either of them were comfortable with, and just because Dave is now doesn’t mean Karkat necessarily will be.   I dunno.  I feel conflicted on the matter, despite the fact that it is on the border of being cute.

Yeah, see, this is what I meant:  Awwwwkwaaard.

Yeah, it definitely did serve as a good distraction, at the very least. ~~~ Jane either not knowing or not being willing to tell (we’ll have to wait for a perspective shift to her to be certain) is no surprise.

Gah. FINALLY.  If Roxy weren’t such a Void-y ball of fun, everyone would have known this for some time, by now.  (Also: This is another reason why I am quite certain that Dirk was responsible for at least the way that John died. He didn’t want him to be a threat to him.  [I wonder, though: will Candy John potentially pose that problem, in the future, given the fact that he will likely be able to traverse the two different timelines, should he become aware of them?   Heck, this could be the reason why one had to die in the first place. Or one reason.])

This is what you get when you    A S S   U   M E. Also, Terezi would really be useful due to her Seer powers in particular.

Well. That is a useful compromise. Good on you for finally figuring something out to bridge the gap between your morals and Dirk’s amorality.  (Also, that presents interesting potential conflict in the future, insofar as there might be a point where Calliope has to decide whether to allow them to take Jade with or not.)

Has little Timmy fallen down a well?   O: <

This is funny because it’s like that one time where Jade was sleeping and Dave couldn’t get in touch with her. That time his weird fursona came up. Tightest butt in the jungle, or some stupid nonsense like that.

Dave is smarter than Dirk would give him credit for, calling him the dumbest of the Stralondes, by the way.

Not only do they need one of his ships, but it is quite reasonable to assume that they might be able to entice him to follow with them to where Dirk is going.  This is a potentially dangerous gambit, like bringing Gamzee along anywhere, but I think it could pay off in the end.  I think that, as I suggested earlier, Jake’s probably going to be the one to end up killing Dirk, in spite of all the underestimation that and horrific invective that had been directed his way.   In all honesty, this would really seem to be the direction that Jake’s been being pushed in all along, considering all the failed opportunities to interject him into a place of importance in the story.  

Considering his level of devotion and love for Dirk, now, he very strongly reminds me of that one old clown story that AH wrote... the one where the clown was never able to pull himself away from the service of his abusive, evil master. I bring that up specifically to suggest that Jake WILL succeed, however.  I believe that, counter to the example that I just cited, and contrary to all of the deterministic forces that Homestuck has seen in play, the power of Hope will be what is necessary to do the impossible.  A Page has a long, pain-filled story arc, but when it finally blossoms into the great behemoth that its seed of potential suggested it was from the very beginning, amazing things can happen. A Page of Hope is perhaps one of the most potent Classpect-endowed figures that Paradox Space could conjure up.  I have come now to see that this turn on Dirk’s part was probably planned from the beginning, as was the fact that Dirk’s abandonment of him was likely meant to be the catalyst for the eventual realization of Jake’s full potential. Obviously, this will not likely happen in the near future, much to our short-term misfortune. Dirk, if you ever see this, know your folly:  Jake English is just the force you would need to break free of the shackles of the reality you live in---   if only you believed in the him that believes in you.   Instead, your Rage will consume you. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I love this dramatic comedy.

Honestly... this is great. From a writing stand-point, this is excellent. The decision to have Dirk drag Terezi along brings more significant stakes to things and drama for the future, especially with the fact that we DO know that he can be brought back to life, now, despite Dirk’s statement to the contrary. Despite all of my pathos earlier, the way this story (the story of Homestuck) is ending is actually getting me excited and washing away the scars that came from the darkest hour of the path previous.     I really like the mechanic of Dirk having reality warping powers and Alt!Calliope being able to counter them, but only in close proximity. With the speed of his ship being a factor, especially, this sets up for some really interesting potential action in the further development of the story, as well.                    That Hussie was able to so masterfully navigate these emotional waters and string me along to this point was brilliant too.    In sum:  WOW, GUYS, I’M PUMPED!!! ... But... while this would actually serve as an excellent, fully complete and enticing epilogue in and of itself, the fact remains... there is yet more. Not only in the Postscript, but in Candy.      This throws many spanners into the works, and I honestly don’t know how to feel about all that!     If this weren’t Andrew Hussie we were talking about, I would be incredibly afraid that what is to come would throw everything off and make the eventual follow-up in Homestuck^2 (which I know he’s at least directing, though he’s not quite as involved in the story as he was in Homestuck, apparently?!) potentially quite messy and of a much lesser quality than I might expect. Given this IS Andrew Hussie we are talking about, however, I actually am quite confident that eventually, it will work out splendidly, and raise his literary accomplishments to even greater heights. Though... I am filled with a bit of trepidation. That “eventually” will be so far in the future. ***laughs awkwardly*** ... Buuuuutttt there’s still more left, even on this page, so I had better get to that. ...

It is very interesting that she’s been enveloped in that blanket of space so thickly and constantly that she’s come to find it comforting. That said:  How is it possible for her to withdraw and still let narration continue, supposedly without source or accountability, as she states?   Is this meant to suggest that the passive forces of Paradox Space will naturally fill in the gap if there is no one manning the ship, so to speak?   This feels a bit unlikely, considering the lack of content for years of the characters’ lives, and Dirk’s suggestion that “God had abandoned them,” or however the heck he put it. This is all veerrry curious, indeed.  (I do like her commentary on narration. A lot.) ~~~ Woooooo!!!~    It’s really nice to finish this at--   Dangit, time, why do you have to keep ticking into the future?!       Well, even though it’s not 3:14, anymore, it’s still very nice to finish the Meat Epilogue on 02/02/2020.   :’)

[eldritchsurveys]

276.

Looks and Personality

What do you look like? >> I was going to just paste a selfie in here but I felt weird about having a big photo of my face just... here, like that, so here’s a link to one instead. Which is also ideal because then people can choose to look if they want to know, or not look if they don’t care. How often do you bathe? >> Three times a week (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday). How do you wear your hair? >> I just keep it short. The longer it gets, the worse my ability to take care of it gets, so it’s way better for my sanity to just buzz it and call it a day.

What colours do you tend to wear? >> Black, mostly. At this point it’s largely just convenience (a black garment will automatically match everything else in my wardrobe), not because I don’t like other colours. Do you have any tattoos? What, where and why? >> The number 19 in Roman numerals with a spider dangling from the “I” on the inside of my wrist (Dark Tower reference, and a reference to me); a Mannaz rune on the back of my hand (it’s the Norse rune I like best); “scully, it’s me” on the inside of my elbow (I’ve been an X-Phile for literally most of my life and it really does define me at this point. Sparrow has the matching version -- “mulder, it’s me” -- but I had been planning on getting this even before we decided to do it this way).

What kind of clothes do you wear? >> A lot of band shirts and branded lounge pants and hoodies. I like to be comfortable but also advertise the things I like. What kind of jewellery do you wear? >> A few important pieces, but nothing much. Jewelry annoys me because I love the way it looks but it can be such sensory bullshit. Is there anything else you often wear? >> Not really. Would you say you had a “look”? >> I don’t think so, no. I used to, but I don’t have any of the clothes I used to have and finding new ones to match the look I like is... so fucking hard. I cannot convey to you how much of a nightmare trying to shop for clothing is for me. Another reason why I just buy a lot of t-shirts. :T When going out, do you dress up or down? >> That obviously depends on the outing. And how I feel that day. What do you wear to bed at home? >> Lounge pants and an undershirt. What do you wear to bed when your somewhere else? >> The same. Is there a place you keep any prized/secret things whilst you’re away? >> If there was, I wouldn’t tell you. What’s your favourite food? >> I don’t have one specific favourite food. What’s your favourite drink? >> Non-alcoholic? Jasmine green tea (cold). What’s your favourite desert? >> I don’t have one. What’s your favourite type of food (e.g Mexican)? >> That’s really difficult to choose. Do you have any mental problems? >> Sure. Do you have any phobias? What? Why do you think you have this/them? >> I don’t have any phobias, no. Why might somebody dislike you? >> There are a variety of reasons someone might dislike me, and I’m sure I can’t even think of them all, because I can only see myself from the inside. But everyone’s dislikeable to someone. What skill do you possess that you are most proud of? >> I think I have a way with words. I mean, I spent most of my developmental years really interested in language and story-telling, and I guess it paid off. Or maybe it’s a Gift(TM), I don’t know. Who knows, really? It’s just the only kind of charm I have, so I’m glad I have it. :p What is your greatest strength (e.g. honest, loyal, brave)? >> Resilience, adaptability, curiosity. They kind of all go hand-in-hand. What’s your greatest shortcoming or flaw (e.g. cowardly, alcoholic)? >> My tendency to treat myself harshly for even the slightest things. But whereas my greatest strengths are innate, this greatest flaw is definitely learned behaviour from how I was treated. Who do you most admire? >> *shrug* Who do you most love? >> *shrug* What three things do you look for most in a partner? >> I don’t really look for partners in the first place. Do you like crowds? >> Crowds tend to be sensory hell for me, so I avoid them whenever possible. What are your hobbies? >> Mehhhhhh. If you can’t get to sleep in the middle of the night, what do you do? >> Read, usually. What is your favourite animal? >> Otters and capybaras. What is your favourite colour? >> Gold. If you could ask God (to athiests - IF there was one) one question, what? >> Well, as neither a monotheist or an atheist, I really don’t know what to do with this question. If I have a question for a god, I usually just... ask them. Rate yourself on these traits from 0 to 10. 0 - do not possess this trait. 10 - you have great amounts of this trait. Calm temper >> Number scales are so arbitrary to me and my personality traits are dependent on situation, person, etc. None of this is set in stone like I’m some kind of character trope. Skipping. Charm Cheerfulness Confidence Courtesy Curiousity Forgiveness Generosity Greed Helpfulness Honesty Loyalty Optimism Patience Self-sacrafice Wit

Background

Where were you born and raised? >> New Jersey. Briefly describe your family. >> I really would rather not. You must choose one - your childhood was calm/peaceful or tragic/turbulent? >> My assessment of my childhood is extremely unreliable because I really wasn’t too present for most of it. I spent most of my childhood inworld. Outworld was just this incomprehensible mess that I couldn’t make any sense of until well into adulthood. Did you have any rolemodels? >> No. What is the worst thing that has ever happened to you? >> Hmm. How did it affect you? >> All in all, I had a maladaptive development, still have remnants of post-traumatic behaviour, and still lack the ability to form healthy emotional bonds with other people. Have you ever had any recurring nightmares or themes in nightmares? >> I mean, maybe when I was younger, but I don’t remember. What were they? >> ---

Do you currently have a boyfriend/girlfriend? >> Something like that. Do you have any close friends? >> No. Briefly describe your best friend: >> --- Any enemies? >> No. What’s even the point, really. Who? What are they like? >> --- Would you risk your life for your best friend?(not lover or family member!) >> I... can’t imagine risking my life for anyone. With who was your most important romantic relationship? >> --- Of what are you most proud? >> I don’t know. I guess the fact that I kept living, and kept fighting for a better day. Of what are you most ashamed? >> Maybe that I can’t just... fix everything wrong with me through brute force, by myself. Which is stupid, because no one can do that. But I feel like I have no other choice, so if I can’t fix me, then...????

Alignment, Ethics and Religion

What is your religion? >> I am my own religion. --Facetious answers aside, I don’t have a religion because none of them suit me. At best, I’d be a syncretist, but mostly I’m just irreverent. Where do you stand on abortion? >> I am pro-choice. Where do you stand on the death penalty? >> I really don’t see a point to it. I mean, I can see what other people regard as the point, but it doesn’t sway me personally. Where do you stand on wearing fur? >> I really don’t care. Wear all the fur you want; that’s not a hill I care to die on. Do you have a moral code that you follow? What? >> Meh, not really. My take on morality is really just... everything is situation-dependent and moral codes are always subject to revisions -- and when people refuse to revise them, messy shit tends to happen. Could you kill somebody? >> I mean, maybe. For what reason would you kill somebody? >> I don’t know. I feel like self-defense would be a pretty solid reason for me to kill someone. But if I’m honest, “curiosity” is just as solid a reason, for someone like me. (Fortunately for everyone involved, the law exists, and I like my freedom.) Would you SERIOUSLY CONSIDER killing anybody right now? >> No. Do you trust easily, or not? >> Not. What are your political beliefs (anarchy, communism, democracy etc.)? >> I have no political beliefs. I literally could not be bothered to give a fuck, and I certainly couldn’t imagine seriously arguing with someone about this shit. What, if anything, WOULD you sacrifice your life for? >> I really can’t imagine sacrificing my life for anything. My life is the most important thing to me, and it’s the only one I’ve got. Would you ever, for any reason, abandon your friends in an hour of need? >> I mean, yeah, there are certainly situations and unforeseen circumstances that would necessitate me abandoning a friend in their hour of need. But I think I would do my best to not do that unless it was extremely necessary.

Motivation

What are your dreams/ambitions/goals? >> Hm. How do you plan to reach them? >> --- How would your ideal partner look? >> *insert a picture of Cenarius from World of Warcraft here*

Do you ever want to have a family someday? With children? >> Oh, I don’t know. I think a lot about what it would be like to raise a child with all my sensory issues and... unorthodox approaches to life. I’m still not entirely convinced I could do it, especially if I’m the only parent at home most of the time. I’d prefer to help raise a child, like in a communal kind of setting, and contribute to the child’s development by being someone who will encourage their creativity and curiosity and sense of wonder and sense of humour. But the real messy shit (literally) about raising children? The noise and smells and dirt and all of that? I’d do it if I could, but I’m pretty sure it’d be at least mildly disturbing for a child to see their parent or parental figure having a meltdown while trying to clean up after them. Children tend to take shit like that real personally and there’d be nothing I could do to persuade them otherwise. Who would you want to start this family with, or do you not yet know? >> --- What would stop you from reaching your goals (e.g. death, retirement fund)? >> --- What do you see yourself doing next year? >> I have no real comprehension or concept of anything past a couple of weeks into the future, at most. What do you see yourself doing in twenty years? >> See above. Would you ever have an affair? >> I’m not in a strict monogamous relationship, so that’s not even necessary. Would you ever have a one night stand? >> No, those days are over. What are your greatest fears? >> A bad death is a great fear of mine. I don’t think I’m particularly afraid of death itself, I’m just afraid of a bad death.

More information

If you had a month of nothing (no work, no obligations) what would you do? >> My life is mostly like that already. How do you relax? >> Eh, it depends. What one thing would you change in this world (free Tibet, abolish Sweden)? >> *amused look at “abolish Sweden”* I don’t have anything like that. Would you ever choose a career or job where your life was at risk? >> No. How would you like to be remembered after your death? >> I think I would just settle for being remembered for a while. I don’t like to focus too much on how I’m seen by other people, because that’s completely out of my control. Plus... I’ll be dead. It’s not like I’ll ever find out how people remember me, so what’s the point in caring?

Random questions

Where you present at any major historical events (e.g. 9/11)? >> Nope. How did they affect you? >> --- Do you have any famous relatives? >> Not that I know of. Wouldn’t really care if I did, either. Do you have to try and live up to your family’s expectations? >> --- Are you a loyal member of any organizations? >> No.

General Information

Name: >> Mordred. Age: >> 31. Date Of Birth: >> May 28. Race: >> Black. Height: >> 5′5″. Weight: >> 148lbs. Are you happy with this? >> No, but I’m trying really, really hard not to hyperfocus on it, because all it’ll lead me to do is punish myself and we’re trying to move away from that kind of behaviour. Desired weight: >> 130lbs. Sexual orientation: >> Inworlders only. First language: >> English. Second/Third/Fourth etc. languages (if any): >> --- Why did you take this survey? >> It looked interesting enough, and I hadn’t already taken it.

[bi-honor]

Why the “Batman should just kill the Joker” argument is stupid.

Pre-scriptum: This turned out a bit longer and a lot more complicated than I’ve expected. Please bear with it.

Sunday night, before heading back to uni, I decided not to sleep (like a sensible person would), and instead started watching Gotham.

And shit, son.

A show that actually understands the underlying themes of Gotham?

I can't believe it.

This realization reminded me of the million times, when I've been hit with the good ol’ "Batman should just kill the Joker, he is so stupid" argument.

Hearing this always drove me crazy, but now I can actually present a (somewhat) coherent debunking, so strap in for a little rant.

So the two main arguments, that come up are as follows: Killing the villains would more effectively reduce crime.

Batman’s presence is just worsening Gotham’s situation by creating/pulling supervillains into Gotham causing even more death and suffering in the process.

Now, depending on the exact iteration, these are correct observations, but they miss the goddamned point of everything.

Batman is not a person. He is an ideology. He is not a man, as much as the idea, that justice is real and is coming to kick your ass, in a city where major criminal offenses are justified with “this is Gotham, kid. Get over it”. It is not a coincidence that Bruce is commonly referred to as the mask of Batman and not the other way around.

He is trying to uphold the power of law and correct the system where it is goes to shit. This is the reason why many of his small scale opponents are corrupt cops and why several of his allies are people such as Jim Gordon (who is trying to fix the police from the inside) and pre-Two Face Harvey Dent (who does the same on a legal/political plane). How he uses his personal financial and political power reflects the same.

Now, the reason why I’m harping on about this is that one of the core tenets of human civilization is the “no kill” rule, which is also the most important element of Batman’s backstory. Killing is viewed as necessary evil by many people, but the end goal should always be minimizing it, and shifting the focus to rehabilitation. It is not a coincidence that Arkham is an asylum, not a prison. Due to writers wanting to use the same villains, and their relevant themes, they cannot be cured (long-run comics be damned), but that does not change the fact that it IS an asylum (a facility or rehabilitation), not a prison or the Phantom Zone (which are only for containment, and are linked to much more “wholesome” heroes).

Batman is often praised for his rouge’s gallery and for good reason. Besides packing style and AWESOME in troves, they are all (at least the good ones) defined by a single or a few overriding flaws and deviations from order. Here is a (non-conclusive) list: Wanting to demolish all order as a reaction to its flaws (Anarchy), declaring oneself above the rest due to outstanding intellect or some other quality (Riddler), wanting to abolish civilization and let nature take over (Posion Ivy), taking arbitrary laws too seriously (Two Face) or my personal favourite: putting one’s personal trauma above the rest of humanity (Dr. Freeze), they all represent real and understandable ideologies that are constantly up against the ideal of law and order. And don’t forget the antithesis of Bats and literal definition of LE, Joker, who quite literally represents men’s tendency to be evil just cause, and who also happens to be the ultimate cynic (more on that in a minute).

But the villains are not the main opposition of Batman. It is Gotham itself (thus the name of the show). Batman doesn’t become Batman because people are being abducted for experimentation or because the Joker is killing people. He becomes Batman, because he is living in a city, where two people are shot in front of their child for a necklace and everyone just waves it off as yesterday’s news. The real enemy is cynicism, the idea that things cannot and will not change for the better. He is one of the few, who faced with cynicism and neglect for such things, stands up and says ‘No. It does not have to be like that.” He is dead-set on bringing a better world to fruition and breaking the fundamentals of his beliefs would equal to ceasing to exist as what he is and the resistance he signifies. He can be cynical in his approach, but always within bounds, and never on an ideological level (barring deconstructions, but those are deconstructions for a reason).

(I don’t want to write an entire dissertation, so I swore I wouldn’t bring up paladins or Sanderson, therefore I assume the dear reader can make the connection)

In the faithful Batman stories, both his unrelenting realism and fundamental care for others are emphasized. He approaches situations with a level head, and almost always asks the villains to put the weapons down, before actually engaging in combat. For example, in the animated Justice League series (the be all, end all of animated superheroism) we see Batman tell the entire JLA that they can either kick him out or see why a contingency is needed for their own power, and we also see Batman sitting down on a swing with a little girl who might be a danger to the fabric of reality, so she wouldn’t have to spend her last minutes alone.

One could say that Batman himself is quite the broken and hypocritical character as he exhibits many of the traits which identify his villains. He is a vigilante (Anarchy), almost solely inspired by personal trauma and loss (Freeze), constantly imposes an arbitrary moral code on others (Two-face), and so on. However there are many reasons why this only betters the whole thing.

First and foremost, Batman is trying to create the synthesis of the ideal and the realistic and make it into a comprehensive and ordered system, which just so happens to be the fundamental challenge of legislation and governance. Secondly the best Batman stories and his meta villains (Arkham series, Red Hood) can very effectively bounce off of these “flaws” allowing for a further exploration of the themes. Thirdly, when his fundamentals are broken (the original Dark Knight) and it is not fucked up (LOOKIN’ AT YOU SNYDER) it makes for a very effective deconstruction. There is also a fourth reason, but let me get back to that later.

Now, on the show itself. In one of the first scenes we witness Gordon being ridiculed, after not shooting an obviously miserable junkie and taking a more circumvent approach, just so killing could be avoided. Later we see police applaud a serial killer for killing crooks, right up until he targets a policeman (who is also a crook btw), where they suddenly go all “we don’t kill a policemen, hurrdurr”. Said serial killer turns out to be a guy who worked with orphans for decades and thought the only way to change the city would be to start killing the corrupt. He doesn’t even have to pick his targets, because anyone, who has the slightest smidgen of power in Gotham would be a proper target.

The villains in the show are also shown to be evil, but also fundamentally broken as people, which is the cause of their villainy. Cobblepot is very obviously a bullied loner, Nigma is viewed as a loser by everyone while he just wants to share what he finds interesting, Selina’s only brush with authority was getting thrown into institutions and Ivy experienced an abusive family. Being broken doesn’t excuse their choices, but it does give rise to them, tying into the fact that there is a root cause for evil other than human nature and that it can be treated.

Now the final reason why Batman not being perfect is not a problem, is that he is not actually the ideal hero of the world of Gotham. Due to all his hypocrisies and nigh superhuman nature, he is not actually the best synthesis of order and Gotham. The real ideal is Jimmy Gordon himself.

Why? He shares, both the unrelenting idealism and humanity of Batman, but he does so without having to resort to terror tactics or vigilantism. And without access to ALL THE MONEY or superhuman intellect. This is the reason why he is the main of the show and not Bruce and also why in some versions of the story, Batman falls, giving rise to more perfect heroes and Gordon is the one who tidies up the GCPD and/or becomes mayor.

Take for example the pier scene from the show [mild spoliers]. Harvey (a different one) takes Jim and Cobblepot out to the pier and says that Jim must shoot the guy into the water or their ass is grass. Now, Jim is presented with two options here. Comply (give in to status quo) or Resist (and die shortly thereafter, also feeding into the status quo). Batman would choose Resist, which is a valid choice, but only for him and not the layman. However, Jim recognizes the false ‘agency’ inherent in the choice and breaks the system by coming to a third solution. This moment, in one scene summarized, what the struggle for a better Gotham is and how it can be achieved.

(Struggling not to bring Geralt into this)

Which ties us back to the main point of this whole thing. Killing the Joker or any other villain for that matter, does not solve the problem, because the Joker is not the problem. The problem is that Gotham is a place which produces people like him on a consistent and reliable basis and that its own habitants believe that this cannot be changed. Viewing killing as the only solution only strengthens the very core of the problem and at best momentarily cures some of the symptoms, but not the sickness itself.

In the spawn of 4 episodes, the show demonstrated, what is the problem of Gotham, how it affects everyday life and thinking, how truly superhuman Bruce is even as a kid, how the city creates its own broken people, what challenges someone has to face if they want to produce change and it managed not to be crowded to incomprehensibility or made into a cheese-fest. I hope it will not go off its rails, as I don’t know if anything ever inspired this type of positive excitement from me. Rant over

[junker-town]

Why a dead English football club lives on

Jorge Luis Borges once claimed that “football is only popular because stupidity is.” He couldn’t foresee the imagination and resiliency of Bury FC’s community.

The Estadio Antonio Vespucio Liberti rises an incurvate bowl, puncturing the skyline of Buenos Aires. It has formed an integral part of the cityscape for 80 years. Known more commonly as the Monumental de Nuñez, or simply ‘El Monumental’, the stadium is situated in the Belgrano barrios of the Argentine capital and has provided a home to River Plate, one of the country’s biggest clubs. For a huge swathe of people, El Monumental is the beating heart of Argentine football; as far as River fans are concerned, you should remove your sandals, for the place in which you are standing is holy ground.

Imagine Honorio Bustos Domecq’s surprise, then, when he takes a walk around Belgrano and finds El Monumental nowhere to be seen.

A couple of opportune contacts later and Domecq finds himself in the offices of Tulio Savastano, president of the Abasto Juniors Soccer Club. To break the ice, he does what any fan would do and talks football: “What a goal! Canary Island All-Stars pressing through Zarlenga and Parodi but unable to prevent Musante’s delightful pass through to centre-half Renovales who smashed home. Football at its finest!”

Savastano sinks into his chair, takes a deep draft of his mate and, as if dreaming aloud, says, “And to think it was me who invented those names.”

Those of you familiar with the work of Jorge Luis Borges will have recognised the telltale signs: the surrealism, the scrupulous attention to detail, the fascination with the power of the imaginary.

As with so many of Borges’ works, “Esse est Percipi” is a modern-day morality play. Beneath the surface of the narrative lies a question about the role that the imagination plays in the production of cultural phenomena: even cultural phenomena as seemingly banal as football.

The title of the story means “being is being perceived.” Borges is asking a seemingly absurd question: To what extent does the reality behind our cultural artifacts even matter? To what extent do we rely on the stories that media tell us? Would it make a difference if football was just a sham? If being is being perceived, who cares about the substance that underpins it?

Mellow-voiced sportscaster Ron Ferrabas enters the room in which Domecq and Savastano are talking. Savastano relays a message: “Ferrabas, I’ve spoken to De Filippo and Camargo. In the next match, Abasto is beaten by two to one. It’s a tough game but bear in mind — don’t fall back on that pass from Musante to Renovales. The fans know it by heart. I want imagination — imagination, understand? You may leave now.”

Gradually, it dawns on Domecq. “Am I to deduce that the score has been prearranged?”

Savastano’s answer, in Domecq’s own words, “tumbles him into the dust.”

“There’s no score, no teams, no matches,” the Abasto president admits. “The stadiums have long since been condemned and are falling to pieces. Nowadays everything is staged on the television and radio. The bogus excitement of the sportscaster — hasn’t it ever made you suspect that everything is humbug? The last time a soccer match was played in Buenos Aires was on 24 June 1937. From that exact moment, soccer, along with the whole gamut of sports, belongs to the genre of the drama, performed by a single man in a booth or by actors in jerseys before the TV cameras.”

Domecq grows bold. “Sir, who invented the thing?”

“Nobody knows. You may as well ask who first thought of the inauguration of schools or the showy visits of crowned heads. These things don’t exist outside the recording studios and newspaper offices. Rest assured, Domecq, mass publicity is the trademark of modern times.”

“And if the bubble bursts?” Domecq barely manages to utter.

“It won’t,” Savastano says, reassuringly.

“Esse est Percipi” is a caution. For Borges, what begins as a shared social practice — the watching of football matches by fans — takes on a life of its own in the imaginations of these fans until, before long, the mechanisms by which fandoms exist become more important than the games.

The real protagonists, as far as Borges is concerned, are not the players themselves but the media — those who are literally in media res, or in the middle of things: “the men [sic] in the booth or the actors in jerseys in front of the TV.” Beyond these media, there is nothing. In the words of Savastano, “These things don’t exist outside the recording studios and newspaper offices ... mass publicity is the trademark of modern times.”

Borges carries the logic of his story to its reductio ad absurdum, but in the process he falls into the trap of jumping straight to the end without making his way there from the beginning. Is it necessarily the case that, because the imagination is involved in the production of fandom, that it is therefore entirely imaginary? Does reality fall away altogether?

At the end of “Esse est Percipi”, the most generative question of Borges’ narrative is left unanswered: “And if the bubble bursts?” What then?

“It won’t,” Savastano says. But he is wrong. In the last year, the bubble burst for a football club in England. And when it did, it taught us something deeper about the powerful role the imagination plays within the human endeavour.

Visionhaus

Here’s another story; this one no less surreal than the Borges tale.

It begins in the United Kingdom in 2010. A general election is held and, when no political party holds an overall majority, a coalition government takes over, made up of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

One of the Tories’ manifesto promises is a restructuring of the payment system for people heading to university for further education. To determine the course of action, a review is carried out. By November, the government has agreed to raise the yearly cap on fees from £3,000 to £9,000 and, by 2012, these increased fees have been rolled out.

With this influx of capital into university coffers, a building boom takes place. Institutions in higher education see an opportunity to reinvigorate the tired fabric of a sector that has been underfunded for years. Unsurprisingly, where there is money to be made, there is a market. A number of companies spring up to respond to this boom.

One of these companies is Mederco, owned by Stewart Day. With business booming and the future looking bright, Day does what many industrialists have done before him: he buys a football club. Bury Football Club.

Unfortunately for Bury, Day’s company goes into receivership. Despite the riches to be found in university property, Day was reliant upon a ‘peer-to-peer’ lending company imaginatively titled ‘Lendy’. With Bury’s ground, Gigg Lane, mortgaged off to an equally dubious outfit, Capital Bridging Finance Solutions, the club accrues debt on their stadium to the tune of £1,500 per day.

Confusingly, the perceived solution to this conundrum is to find another equally unfit property magnate to buy out the club. This time, he arrives in the form of Steve Dale, who takes control of Bury FC after handing over £1 for the pleasure, and despite his failure to demonstrate to the EFL that he has the economic wherewithal to salvage the club. Dale fails to pay the players and holds onto the club long enough to instigate an insolvency process in which creditors receive just 25 percent of what they are owed.

If the creditors aren’t happy, neither are the EFL. After the Insolvency Practitioners Association announces that it will investigate a £7m claim admitted into a Company Voluntary Agreement as a debt owed by Bury to Mederco, the EFL offer Dale ultimatum. After a series of deadlines are not met, he is given a deadline of 5pm BST on Tuesday, August 27th, to provide proof he has the money to finance the club and its debts or to conclude a sale.

The deadline passes with no reply, and after 125 years of membership, Bury Football Club are expelled from the Football League.

What is left behind when a football club’s infrastructure collapses? When the stadium is dismantled? When all the historical artifacts of that club’s existence fade into oblivion?

If you were to ask Borges this question, he would say, “Nothing but the imaginary.” But as to the nature of this “nothing but,” Borges ascribes it a fair amount of heft. The power of the imaginary is enough to undercut the reality of the footballing sphere and leave it in the thrall of narratives spun by its purveyors.

Because of the capacity of the imaginary, Borges suggests that the need for actual players, actual matches, actual stadia, and the actual artifacts of fandom is entirely superfluous. In his short story, the reality that props up the imaginary realm of the football fan is slowly dismantled and the whole rigmarole continues unaffected.

The imaginary, then, as Borges views it, is detachable from the real; there is no necessary link between the two and, in fact, you can detach one from the other without the existence of either being affected.

This approach pushes us towards a bleak philosophical outlook. If the stories that we tell about the world bear no resemblance to the reality that underpins them, then what use does that reality have in any heuristic sense? You support this team, they support that team; there is nothing intrinsic to your support that makes it any more or less meaningful than that person’s fandom. The whole thing is arbitrary. It is hardly surprising that this worldview would lead Borges to utter the immortal words, “Football is only popular because stupidity is.”

In the end, Borges muses, the bubble will never burst in football because the world underlying our fandom will never break through; we are already too mired in the imaginary to allow the real to emerge before our eyes.

Getty Images

What is left behind when a football club’s infrastructure collapses? When the stadium is dismantled? When all the historical artifacts of that club’s existence fade into oblivion?

Bury’s slow decline illustrates that the relationship between the real and the imaginary is tighter than Borges suggests. Compared to the fictional Buenos Aires, the real Greater Manchester was less forgiving about the dismantling of one of its football clubs. Fan groups mobilised, attempts were made to find the club a new owner, and even local politicians were drawn into the conversation. The imaginary hardly continued on its merry way as the real Bury struggled.

The media also refused to play the part ascribed to them by Borges. Instead of persisting in their production of an imaginary that proceeded without accounting for what was going on, the media turned the situation to their favour, sending in news crews to Bury to interview fans, to speak to club and league officials, and to keep their audience abreast of things; a far cry from the cover-up of “Esse est Percipi”.

For fans of Bury, the reality where they now find themselves has an undeniable impact on the imaginary space in which they construct their fandom. Without a team to support at the weekend, without a stadium to visit, without a place to call their own, there can be no supposition that Bury supporters have not been affected by the situation of recent months. But rather than reveal the ultimate meaninglessness of fandom, Bury’s dissolution has done the opposite: fans have found renewed meaning, have been given a clearer sense of what their fandom consists.

When the club dropped out of the Football League, a number of fans and fan groups mobilised under the banner of the Bury Phoenix Club. On Oct. 26, they made the following announcement:

We are here to tell you that whilst the incarnation that we all know and love will soon be no more, from its ashes this club shall be reborn. 134 years of history will not die when Bury FC’s last rites are read. Bury FC is alive in every single fan.

We are what makes Bury FC and whilst we have fought tooth and nail to avoid the scenario that faces us, it is now time to look towards the future. A small team of supporters has been exploring ways to create a Phoenix Club from scratch. The aim is to have a football team playing competitive fixtures in Bury by August 2020.

This is not the end of the story for them. A club called Bury AFC could be playing in 10th-tier English football next season. Bury FC’s closure has not led to an existential crisis. This is simply the beginning of another chapter in the club’s history. Their imaginations are in overdrive as they make Bury Football Club a reality again.

The feted emergence of a new football club in Bury suggests a different relationship between the real and the imaginary to the one proposed by Borges.

Where “Esse est Percipi” is a tale of an imaginary whose relationship to the real has been slowly eroded, Bury FC presents a narrative in which the relationship is reciprocal: the threat of non-existence pushes Bury’s fans even closer to reality, until they are confronting it head on.

This return to reality doesn’t result in a negative attitude towards the imaginary aspect of fandom. Instead, they augment one another, creating possibilities where previously there had been nothing. A year ago, Bury FC were owned by an inveterate capitalist whose main concern was to break up the club and sell the parts for profit. Now they face the prospect of a fan-owned Bury, offering them the ability to make decisions in their own interests and take the club in any direction they want.

When Bury Phoenix Club make the claim that ‘Bury FC is alive in every single fan,’ then, this is not a rhetorical flourish or ideological nicety; it is a recognition that the imaginary which has slowly developed across the 134 years of Bury FC’s history is all that is needed to affect real change in the world.

So where does that leave us?

The story that Borges tells about football also tells a particular story about who we are as humans. As he sees it, our over-reliance on the imaginary makes us little more than automatons ascribing meaning to our meaningless lives in a bid to make sense of the world we find ourselves in. In Borges’ reality, those meanings are arbitrary; we could tell any story about ourselves and it would make little material difference.

This is why Bury Football Club must persist. Because it tells a different story about who we are as humans. It tells us that it is only through the operation of the imagination that we can ever catch a glimpse of the possibilities available to us within the world. And because the imaginary can impact upon the real, there is always the chance that we can enact these possibilities into existence.

The imaginary impels the real. Without it, there would be no Bury FC. The club would die, consigned to the annals of history. In reality, Bury Football Club only exists in the imaginations of its fans. And with them, exists the possibility that a dead football club might rise once more.

[theuniversitychallengereview]

Emmanuel, Cam vs St Hugh’s, Ox

St Hugh’s College, Oxford was founded in 1886 by Elizabeth Wordsworth as an all-girls college, and for one hundred years it stayed that way, only admitting its first gentleman a mere fourteen years before the turn of the century. It’s truly staggering to think that more than half way into the nineteen eighties an institution at one of the most prominent Universities in the world was permitted to discriminate entrance on the basis of some arbitrary aspect of potential applicants’ biology.

Of course at the time this move had its detractors, those who said there was nothing wrong with denying men the right to study at the college - that they should stick to being firemen and train drivers, because, “their brains are wired that way”. Why do they even need to go to University?

Tonight’s Hugh’s team is comprised of four guys, and many would state this as a victory for the progress that has been made on equality since the days when boys weren’t even allowed through the doors. Those same people who decried the college in 1986 however, would probably see this as political correctness gone absolutely mad, that the college has purposely gone out of its way to put together an all male team as part of some gimmicky liberal agenda. After all, how could these men, built for football and farming, possibly have been the best choices for the team? They probably slept with the selection committee, too.

Emmanuel hadn’t suffered quite as badly at the hands of the PC Brigade and with one woman on their team, were the clear favourites going into the contest. This despite them having retained only one of the three mascots they felt the need for last series (with Ellie the duck making the cut while Kleiny the Bottle and Manny the Lion fell by the wayside). St Hugh’s also have what appears to be some kind of duck-like bird representing them, though it does have two heads. One of the heads has a scarf on. Is it a goose? A geese? Who knows.

Grainger negs the first starter on astronaut Tim Peake, and I saw loads of people on Twitter, mainly women it should be pointed out, saying how this proved the stupidity of the affirmative action they saw as having got him on the team. Of course this was nonsensical, as Fraser, another man, picked it up for Emma, but the cognitive dissonance necessary to sustain bigotry is rather tenacious.

They miss the first of the bonuses on Quentin Tarantino, but take the next two, with the third being an outrageous gimme on ‘Kill Bill’ that could only have been easier if they’d given you the first word and said that the second word rhymed and started with a B.

Elias nabs the next Ten for Oxford, and Grainger takes the third of the night to make up for his earlier error. Mehigan gets in on the act and takes the first of a personal six to give St Hugh’s a thirty five point lead going into the first set of pictures. Not bad for a bunch of boys, eh?

Fraser and Derby combined to wrest the lead back for Cambridge, and they hold it reasonably comfortably until the final few minutes when Mehigan took his fifth of the evening on a Canaletto painting with a determined nonchalance to start a late charge from sixty five back.

The big American shoots for his sixth and Grainger grabs his second to put the Oxonians within five points thanks to a panicked neg from Mistlin. Seconds left.

But it was the boy from Bristol, Jim Fraser, who held his nerve and completed his own sextet for Emma on the last starter of the night to secure a Cambridge victory.

A really tight, well fought game - it turns out that if you give them the chance, the lads can be just as good as the women.

Final Score: Emmanuel, Cam 170 - 155 St Hugh’s, Ox

St Hugh’s 155 means that Ulster have been confirmed for the play-offs with their losing score of 160, and the Oxford side are looking pretty safe bets to join them with only three first round matches left. Next week St Andrews take on St John’s looking to make it three Scottish teams in round two.

[xranker]

Facebook’s Supreme Court for content moderation is coming into focus - The Verge

Yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg made an appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival In keeping with the spirit of the event, Zuckerberg brought some ideas The big ones: Facebook was right not to remove the doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Zuckerberg said it should have been flagged as misleading more quickly, but defended leaving it up (I basically agree with him on this one) ”This is a topic that can be very easily politicized,” Zuckerberg said “People who don’t like the way that something was cut.will kind of argue thatit did not reflect the true intent or was misinformation But we exist in a societywhere we value and cherish free expression” But Facebook will treat deepfakes differently than other forms of misinformation Zuckerberg said that the company’s policy team is currently considering it: “There is a question of whether deepfakes are actually just a completely different category of thing from normal false statements overall, and I think there is a very good case that they are” Facebook can’t protect against election interference alone Zuckerberg was rightly critical of the US government’s extremely weak response to Russian attacks leading up to the 2016 election, saying: ”One of the mistakes that I worry about is that after 2016 when the government didn’t take any kind of counteraction The signal that was sent to the world was that “OK. We’re open for business” Countries can try to do this stuff and our companies will try their best to try to limit it, but fundamentally, there isn’t going to be a major recourse from the American government “Since then, we’ve seen increased activity from Iran and other countries, and we are very engaged in ramping up the defenses” On Tuesday, some reports had suggested that Zuckerberg was going to unveil a surprise new “constitution” for Facebook Instead, on Thursday the company released a report detailing the progress it is making in building an independent oversight board for review The board is connected to Zuckerberg’s big ideas — this is the body that could someday make a binding, independent evaluation of whether a video like the Pelosi fake could stay up on the site Since proposing the idea last year, Facebook has held six workshops around the world, which included more than 650 people from 88 countries Among other things, the company has been conducting a kind of mock trial — having participants debate what to do with particular pieces of controversial content, as part of the work of developing a fair process for the board to implement in the future The idea remains to build a board of 40 people who will make content review decisions in small panels But all of the details are up for discussion, and you can read about the infinitely branching debates the company is now having in the report itself It makes for a surprisingly brisk read — for one thing, it goes out of its way to find and cite examples of people calling the board a stupid idea And it’s much more entertaining than this halting, uncertain conversation between Zuckerberg and two prominent law professors , which attempts to bring a sense of history to the conversation but mostly just magnifies the historical weirdness of absolutely everything under discussion Mostly, though, it’s just wild to watch a public company staging a miniature constitutional convention in 2019 The main problem is that almost anything is possible To wit, from Facebook’s report today: Facebook has suggested that Board members serve a fixed term of three years, renewable once Other suggestions included varied term lengths; staggered appointments; and shorter term lengths, given the “rapid pace of change” in content and technology However, while some felt that three years was too long, others felt it was not long enough The latter believed that more time is necessary for members to become acquainted with their responsibilities, as well as the complexities of content governance Feedback was similarly split on the size of the Board Facebook has suggested up to 40 members on the initial Board, which would be global in nature and organized to operate and decide on cases in panels Some felt this number was too small and expressed concern over “docket management” and “caseloads” Others, conversely, found the number to be unwieldy and unmanageable Still others, on a more practical level, suggested that the Board include 41 members, in case a tiebreak would be required It goes on like this for 38 pages. ( The appendices go on for another 177) Many important decisions appear to remain totally up in the air For example, I assumed that one benefit of developing an independent oversight board would be to allow the board to create precedents — a kind of case law for future board cases to refer to. But according to the progress report, many participants have frowned on the idea of precedents at all: Overall, feedback generally supported some sort of precedent-setting arrangement Most expressed hope that the Oversight Board could support “some idea of … continuity, some idea of stare decisis” that could evaluate “multiple fact patterns and have some precedential weight” Response from the public questionnaire suggested the same The majority of respondents (66%) stated that “considering past decisions is extremely to quite important,” while almost a third (28%) consider past decisions as “somewhat important” Others felt that precedent would need “to be considered carefully, as … there will need to be overruling rules articulated in order to reverse panel decisions that are later seen to be out of step with changing circumstances” Furthermore, it was argued, “a strict coherence rule may cause a situation where the first panel to discuss a certain issue might set a standard that may not be reconsidered later This will create a sense of arbitrariness and stagnation” Others argued that since social media is a rapidly changing industry, precedent should not prevent review of future, similar content In the end, many argued for balance: an understanding of precedent that would help ensure consistency but not necessarily be determinative The report doesn’t make clear how these questions have been resolved, though it seems likely that many have been Facebook says a final charter for the board will be released in August, and that it will work to stand up the first group of panelists shortly thereafter There are at least two good reasons to support Facebook’s board initiative One is that it shows that the company understands its power over public speech is untenable, and is seeking to devolve some of that power back to the public. Two is that by returning some of that power to the people, Facebook can become more accountable to its user base over time The details are all messy, and of course they are — it’s a pseudo-constitutional convention! But the goal still strikes me as a worthy one, and Facebook is moving ahead with a caution that is as welcome as it is rare Democracy Twitter will now hide — but not remove — harmful tweets from public figures In a significant step, Twitter says it will now put a content warning over certain inflammatory tweets posted by big accounts, Makena Kelly reports: Today, Twitter is rolling out a new notice for tweets belonging to public figures that break its community guidelines Now, if a figure like Donald Trump were to tweet something that broke Twitter’s rules, the platform could notify users of the violation and lessen the reach of the tweet In recent interviews, Twitter executives have hinted that a change like this would be coming soon This notice will only apply to tweets from accounts belonging to political figures, verified users, or accounts with more than 100,000 followers If a tweet is flagged as violating platform rules, a team of people from across the company will decide whether it is a “matter of public interest” If so, a light gray box will appear before the tweet notifying users that it’s in violation, but it will remain available to users who click through the box In theory, this could preserve the tweet as part of the public record without allowing it to be promoted to new audiences through the Twitter platform What Facebook Privacy? Candidates’ Tough Talk Is Just That With Missouri Sen Josh Hawley making a racket about Facebook’s data practices, Hamdan Azhar explores how his campaign uses information gleaned from the service: Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) told Yahoo Finance that he wouldn’t trust Facebook with his money “I don’t trust Facebook with anything,” he said Just one problem: Despite their professed concerns with Facebook, both senators’ campaign websites—sherrodbrowncom and joshhawleycom—have an invisible piece of Facebook technology, called a pixel, that tracks when anyone visits their homepages and shares this information with Facebook Hawley’s website even shares when visitors donate and the exact donation amount Facebook can then associate that information with an individual’s Facebook account Facebook Is Challenged To Ban Military Leader Accused Of Killings Aarti Shahani looks at the Facebook presence of warlord Lt Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who reportedly oversaw the killing of more than 100 people in Sudan: Lt Gen Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, better known as Hemeti, is a social media personality He is also the leader of the Rapid Support Forces — the paramilitary group that attacked thousands of pro-democracy protesters this month, leaving more than 100 dead This is a bit of a second act for Hemeti, who also served time with the Janjaweed, the militia group considered responsible for the genocide in Darfur about 15 years ago, according to Foreign Policy magazine On Facebook, multiple pages promote Hemeti as a formidable yet kind authority figure Artificial intelligence can’t solve online extremism issue, experts tell House panel Emily Birnbaum recaps a hearing this week on online extremism: Top tech companies, including Facebook, have claimed that their AI systems are already successfully detecting a huge swath of terrorist and extremist content But experts at the hearing said those claims are often overblown “Context is vitally important and context can often be hard for algorithms to detect,” Ben Buchanan, an assistant teaching professor at Georgetown University, said Amazon Is Watching Will Oremus explores the Amazon panopticon, now under construction: The Amazon of today runs enormous swaths of the public internet; uses artificial intelligence to crunch data for many of the world’s largest companies and institutions, including the CIA; tracks user shopping habits to build detailed profiles for targeted advertising; and sells cloud-connected, AI-powered speakers and screens for our homes It acquired a company that makes mesh Wi-Fi routers that have access to our private Internet traffic Through Amazon’s subsidiary Ring, it is putting surveillance cameras on millions of people’s doorbells and inviting them to share the footage with their neighbors and the police on a crime-focused social network It is selling face recognition systems to police and private companies The Amazon of tomorrow, as sketched out in patents, contract bids, and marketing materials, could be more omnipresent still Imagine Ring doorbell cameras so ubiquitous that you can’t walk down a street without triggering alerts to your neighbors and police Imagine that these cameras have face recognition systems built in, and can work together as a network to identify people deemed suspicious Imagine Ring surveillance cameras on cars and delivery drones, Ring baby monitors in nurseries, and Amazon Echo devices everywhere from schools to hotels to hospitals. Now imagine that all these Alexa-powered speakers and displays can recognize your voice and analyze your speech patterns to tell when you’re angry, sick, or considering a purchase A 2015 patent filing reported last week by the Telegraph described a system that Amazon called “ surveillance as a service ,” which seems like an apt term for many of the products it’s already selling EU should ban AI-powered citizen scoring and mass surveillance, say experts Europe is moving to block any future implementation of a social credit system, James Vincent reports: A group of policy experts assembled by the EU has recommended that it ban the use of AI for mass surveillance and mass “scoring of individuals”; a practice that potentially involves collecting varied data about citizens — everything from criminal records to their behavior on social media — and then using it to assess their moral or ethical integrity The recommendations are part of the EU’s ongoing efforts to establish itself as a leader in so-called “ethical AI” Earlier this year, it released its first guidelines on the topic, stating that AI in the EU should be deployed in a trustworthy and “human-centric” manner The new report offers more specific recommendations These include identifying areas of AI research that require funding; encouraging the EU to incorporate AI training into schools and universities; and suggesting new methods to monitor the impact of AI However, the paper is only a set of recommendations at this point, and not a blueprint for legislation Leaked Audio: Wayfair’s Co-founder on Migrant-Camp Beds Ellen Cushing obtains audio from a meeting in which the home-goods retailer’s co-founder appears to be unaware that the line between business and politics is rapidly eroding: His argument is a cousin of the one many of his peers in the technology industry have long clung to: that they aren’t really political entities, but simply value-neutral conveyor belts for whatever service it is that they offer—short-term rentals, rides, community, connection, information, entertainment That their sheer scale, multiplied by the wide spectrum of beliefs held by their users, makes moderation of any kind so Sisyphean and so subjective a task that the only possible solution is to allow for just about any idea, or any customer But as my colleague Alexis Madrigal notes, the notion of the unbiased platform is dying before our eyes , if it ever really existed: “Some things could not be said Some types of content were favored by advertisers and companies The algorithms they use to sort and promote content have biases” In other words, you simply cannot order this much information without making some judgments Fear and Loathing in Toronto Anthony Townsend explores why Google’s plans to build a new kind of urban renewal project in Toronto has drawn outrage among locals. It boils down to trust: Data governance has been a lightning rod because its new and scary Early on, Sidewalk put more energy into figuring out how the robot trash chutes would work than how to control data it and others would collect in the proposed district As part of Alphabet, you’d think this would have been a source of unique added value versus say, a conventional development Not so — the company’s initial proposal in 2017, also hundreds of pages, tacked on a 2-page memo to CYA on the topic It didn’t work, and belated efforts to fill the gap only led to more missteps along the way, doing little to calm critics More important questions and criticisms have been raised about Waterfront Toronto’s handling of the Quayside bidding process and its transparency Existential questions for Canadian cities about the shifting line between public and private delivery of government services are also on the table None of these have been satisfactorily addressed by Sidewalk, and the number of elected officials speaking out against the project has grown as a result Elsewhere A Facebook contractor posted a video of Bruce Springsteen lyrics to his profile to protest working conditions He was fired two weeks later Elizabeth Dwoskin reports that a content moderator got fired after posting lyrics from “Factory” and “The Promised Land” on an internal forum Also: On Thursday, a group of a dozen moderators published a new letter reviewed by The Washington Post on Facebook’s internal Workplace forum, demanding better pay and a revision of confidentiality agreements that they say prevent them from seeking clinical help to address the traumatic effects of the job, among other asks The moderators work for an Accenture subsidiary in Austin Inside China’s battle to keep internet addiction in check Celia Chen visits China’s internet addiction treatment centers: Run by Tao Ran, a former People’s Liberation Army colonel who headed army psychology units, the centre is one of the earliest places in China to diagnose and treat internet addiction and is said to have developed treatment protocols that are used in other parts of the country The facility consists of several buildings that serve as canteens, dormitories and treatment rooms, arranged around an internal open-air courtyard that doubles up as a basketball court and where patients assemble for exercise No electronic devices are allowed This Horrifying App Undresses a Photo of Any Woman With a Single Click Samantha Cole writes about a $50 app called DeepNude, which “dispenses with the idea that deepfakes were about anything besides claiming ownership over women’s bodies” The software, called DeepNude, uses a photo of a clothed person and creates a new, naked image of that same person It swaps clothes for naked breasts and a vulva, and only works on images of women When Motherboard tried using an image of a man, it replaced his pants with a vulva While DeepNude works with varying levels of success on images of fully clothed women, it appears to work best on images where the person is already showing a lot of skin We tested the app on dozens of photos and got the most convincing results on high resolution images from Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issues Adam Mosseri interview: Instagram seriously considering potentially massive change for platform Adam Mosseri talks to Gayle King about, among other things: a Facebook breakup: “I think it’s important to be really clear if you believe that we should be separated, why and what problem it’s gonna solve,” he said “If you look at the issues that I’m most focused on, things like bullying or self-harm or elections integrity, all of those problems become exponentially more difficult for us at Instagram to address if you split us up” The Global Economy Runs on Parties You’re Not Invited To Farhad Manjoo goes to a Facebook party at Cannes Lyon: There is obviously something conspicuously icky about the excess on display One morning last week, everyone in Cannes woke up to The Verge’s investigation into horrendous working conditions at a contract facility that hires moderators to monitor Facebook It was a study in contrasts: The moderators complained of bathrooms covered in feces and menstrual blood At Cannes, Facebook bought a piece of the beach and built a coffee bar, meeting space and private boat launch to entertain its clients It’s not true that the internet is eliminating every job for humans There are humans everywhere in the social media supply chain Some of them suffer Others get to schmooze The internet changed everything It also changed nothing Launches Twitch launches subscriber-only streams, but only for creators who don’t violate its rules Twitch is giving its creators another carrot with which to lure paying subscribers, Julia Alexander reports: Twitch is giving its well-behaved streamers a chance to offer a new, VIP-like feature to their most loyal viewers with subscriber-only streams The new feature does exactly what the name suggests: any Twitch Affiliated or Partnered creator can choose to broadcast exclusively for moderators, VIPs, and subscribers. This comes at no additional cost to the subscriber beyond the minimum $5-a-month fee they’re paying to support the streamer Fans who aren’t subscribed will be greeted with a preview of a broadcast before being asked to subscribe to a channel Takes Libra’s Questionable Benefits ($) After interviewing two of its top executives, Ben Thompson calls Libra “a bad idea” To my mind money — which, at the end of the day, is the medium that makes society work, particularly a capitalistic one — has those same high stakes That means the downsides should be weighed more heavily than the upsides, which means less efficiency and more accountability should be preferable to the opposite And that, by extension, means that a currency managed, if not by a single corporation then at best a collection of them, is a bad idea To be sure, all of these objections apply to a reality that is very far in the future, if it arrives at all By the time that future arrives, though, it will be too late to raise them Facebook’s Libra probably won’t help people without bank accounts Half of all adults who don’t have bank accounts live in seven countries, according to a report cited by Facebook Elizabeth Lopatto says this could limit Libra’s power to lift people out of poverty: Facebook is banned in China Some countries, such as Pakistan, Indonesia , and Bangladesh , have temporarily banned Facebook for periods of time, possibly limiting the effectiveness of any money tied to the app Facebook mentions this as a risk factor to its business in its quarterly filing : “Government authorities in other countries may seek to restrict user access to our products if they consider us to be in violation of their laws or a threat to public safety or for other reasons, and certain of our products have been restricted by governments in other countries from time to time” That’s not all: many of these countries have laws around cryptocurrency (Yes, I know it is debatable whether Libra qualifies as a cryptocurrency or not But Facebook is calling Libra a cryptocurrency, so I am going to assume cryptocurrency laws will apply.) India’s current regulations mean Libra can’t operate in the country Pakistan is considering regulation for cryptocurrencies, but currently they are banned Cryptocurrency is also implicitly banned in Bangladesh and China And finally Why People Pretend To Be Boomers In Facebook Groups Brad Esposito talks to people participating in my favorite current trend in Facebook Groups: pretending that you are extremely old: In the group Snider helps manage people post Facebook-prompted text images lamenting the death of their “son” in brutal honestly (“My son is dead“), they share gifs of the American flag in faux patriotism, the words “Flood Facebook with our flag!” emboldened along the top Often, it’s just someone replicating the ham-fisted way the older generation can often find itself using Facebook’s basic features, asking amongst an army of commas what the acronym “wyd” means (“Is this some gang language?“) (Yes it is a gang language) Talk to me Today I invite you to send me tips, comments, questions, and your nominations to Facebook’s oversight board: casey@thevergecom Read the full article

[cupkayke]

Cupkayke Rewatches/Liveblogs Boueibu!

Season 1, Episode 4

I channeled En for about a week and was too lazy to quit playing Resident Evil and finish this liveblog buuuut better late than never, right?! I may only manage one of these a week but I just had a bunch of fanfic ideas (unrelated to watching the episode) so I figured I’d press onward and finish these. Mostly cuz I’m really interested in getting to season 2 because the Beppus are my favorite. But for now- IT’S THE EPISODE WHERE THEY GET BABYFIED! OMG CUTENESS ABOUND.

PS- I love the discussion that happened from my previous liveblog! Thank you @nardaviel, @angry-jewish-magical-girl (whom I cannot tag for some reason), @magiccatprincess and everyone else who contributed :3 ( @thatlittledandere I absolutely loved your flailing in your tags lol <3) Reactions make this a whole lot more fun for me- especially because the screencapping and formatting is so tedious. But anyway! ONWARD! I doubt this episode I’ll get that deep but WHO KNOWS.

OH HERE WE GO FEELS AND BACKSTORY

LOOK AT THE BABIES

Although why are they unsupervised in a field all alone as like elementary schoolers WTF WHERE ARE THEIR PARENTS?

Cliche wish upon a star!

Srz tho their voices are SO CUTE- who did they get for the baby voices??? 

Look at how cute blushy baby Atchan is!

BUT I AM A CHILD ATCHAN SO LOGICAL YET SO MUCH SHADE

CUTE BABY KINCHAN AND HIS ‘JUST IN CASE’ WISH AND HIS BLUSHING

Seriously look at this smol child. I think when I first watched the series this was the scene where I was first like “AWWW” at any of the SC.

-aaaaaand cut off

“Don’t mind me I’m just being broody and emo in the office with the lights out looking at the stars while I reminisce about my first love childhood friend who ditched me to go eat fucking curry with a pleb NBD I’M FINE”

That Arima Sass(tm) I didn’t remember him being so... memorable with his lines until this rewatch lol (oops I feel bad for ignoring him the first time around he’s so cute)

"Arima I s2g if you say one more word I will put snails on everything you own”

I didn’t cap this but in hindsight of the end of the season, his wish going from friendship to world domination is a perfect place for the “well that escalated quickly” meme…

Tickling Wombat looks so fun lol

I think I had a point about the ‘stink’ debate but I have since forgotten it so here have some silly screencaps of Wombat freaking out and Yumoto being adorable

QUICK SOMEONE WHO’S NEVER WATCHED BOUEIBU EXPLAIN WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE.

I mostly just love their faces lololololol I laughed for like 5 minutes after taking this

Side note- Poor Wombat- he’s a sentient creature that gets treated like a pet/plaything/child- no wonder he runs away from Yumoto every chance he gets

THE BIRTH OF WOM-SAN

More screencaps with no explanation other than I laughed harder than I should at them. THE EYES KIND OF REMIND ME OF HAYAO MIYAZAKI WHY?

Dads that are 12,000% done with this shit

En’s views on childishness/high school students in this scene is kind of telling- he seems overly image-conscious, yet he doesn’t want to be seen as old. Maybe Atsushi’s worrying is rubbing off on him?

Yumoto did you forget that you fight monsters on a weekly basis??? What ELSE is the definition of Superhero???

I wonder how they feel looking at basically a NAKED DEAD BODY all the time. It’s probably not fu- WAIT.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING

BUT WHEN I TOOK THIS SCREENCAP I CAME TO THE HORRIFYING REALIZATION THAT TAWARAYAMA-SENSI LOOKS JUST LIKE MY DAD

MY DAD USED TO BE A MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHER AND HAS GRAY POOFY HAIR AND A MUSTACHE AND NOW I CANNOT UNSEE IT

Cupkayke.exe has stopped working

anyway

WHAT IS IT WITH THE SIDE CHARACTERS AND FREAKY EYES IN THIS SHOW

Io all about that money. Why do I find this exchange hilarious?

WAS THAT TEASING

OMG YUMOTO AND HIS SENPAIS THIS IS ADORABLE

SHOT THROUGH THE HEART

Also I JUST NOTICED that Ryuu and Io’s washing supplies are color coded by their hair/battle lover outfits omg

Who was it who had that headcanon that their battle lover outfits were chosen because of their favorite colors?

Lololol well Ryuu is the youngest other than Yumoto, isn’t he?

En does have a point

But Ryuu’s views on his looks here are interesting- he knows he’s stereotypically ‘young’ looking, so he makes do with what he has and turns up the charm to 100

I mean... he’s good at it, too. Look at that last screencap.

Also Yumoto in that screencap is splashing water through his hands LOL EVEN IN THE BACKGROUND HE’S ENFORCING THE CHILDISH NARRATIVE

…what was the point of Yumoto interrupting there?

Did I miss a joke?

More on En’s view of age/maturity and Yumoto blowing bubbles like a child in the background

I can definitely see where Yumoto would rub some people the wrong way here- his childishness is being played too heavy-handedly to just be for laughs

But it’s necessary Boueibu format foreshadowing

Ryuu looking so cool, so casual washing his feet

HOW CHILD HOW

Also I definitely noticed the pink bath supplies in this screencap

Senior must not be a common term for students in Japanese

Lololol Ryuu so cheeky

I feel like this line would get localized into something really cheesy or lame like “old man” when dubbed into English

There we have it.

ALSO BUTTS

En’s age crisis- again, he has a desire not to be seen as immature and is quick to call out childish behavior in others, but the moment his attention is brought to how he might be percieved as ‘old’, he obsesses on the negative aspects of it instead of the positive- which he was stressing as the better option only moments before.

This is really interesting but I don’t quite know what to make of it. If he doesn’t want to be seen as childish, but doesn’t want to be seen as old, what does he want to be seen as? Simply exactly his age? Boy, En, I have news for you... unless you’re a genetic miracle, no one looks exactly their age.

Seriously I’m twenty-fucking-five and I STILL get carded everywhere because I look 18 T_____T

YUMOTO YOU DON’T NEED TO BE BALD

GLAMOR SHOTS TIME

STARTING WITH RYUU’S ASS

I KNOW EVERYBODY AND THEIR BROTHER HAS TAKEN THIS SCREENCAP BUT DAMMIT JUST LET ME-

...bubble butt, bubble bubble bubble butt~

Yumoto your laugh is creepy

Again Io being sexy

En you aren’t fooling anyone, Atsushi’s using his glamor shot to worry about you- even tho my screencap apparently missed the caption

And then they keep splashing like kids lol

What a nickname

I’ve noticed the SC almost always speaks in a certain order- Arima, Akoya, Kinshirou

Is this on purpose or just arbitrary?

…morning cuddles…

Gora: “...dafuq kind of club is this defense club???”

AND DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING THE LAST EPISODE YUMOTO IS NOT INTERESTED IN PICKING UP GIRLS

This definitely supports the ‘cumpulsory heterosexuality’ theory, however; Yumoto last episode was talking about girls in a polite, “this is what I’m supposed to do” kind of way. This episode, he must feel freer with his feelings that he can admit that he’s not interested to his senpais.

Or maybe cuddling Wombat is just WAY more fun than all of those things lol

EN STOP IT YOU ARE NOT OLD-

OH. It’s a vanity thing, is it?

Wow Atsushi talk about throwing shade

Srz is that any way to talk to your boyfriend???

I wish I knew what animes they were referencing - I took a bunch of caps here but they’re not really relevant I guess unless someone wants to tell me what they’re talking about

En basically called Atsushi an otaku ffft

WHY ARE YOU PETTING EN YUMOTO

HIS HAIR IS NOWHERE NEAR AS FLUFFY AS YOURS

Though En definitely looks cute when he’s being tickled... ok Yumoto carry on

….Ryuu what are you talking about approximately no one is fooled by your indifference

TICKLE FIGHT

This scene is adorable - THE BLUSHES

So many laughs

YUMOTO NOTICING THAT AND NOT HAVING ANY REACTION

Aww they’re all so smol

Also the rest of them, their eyes were kept proportionate to their bodies but LOOK AT EN

His eyes are like waaaaay bigger and innocent

Double AWWW

The nodding at Yumoto’s stupidity lolol

Tho Yumoto still manages to be adorable wtf look at his happy face

Your hair is VERY pink like why

BABY TRANSFORMATIONS AWWW

But seriously the ‘love making’ thing sounds SOOOO inappropriate coming out of smol Yumoto

Like when Wombat said it I cringed

If it weren’t for the gutter my mind would be homeless

THE BAGGY CLOTHES

Hi there, fourth wall

Omg Ryuu why are you so cute

SMOL POWERS

Tripping on the clothes or perhaps because of little legs

NOW IO IS TOO ADORABLE FOR WORDS STAHHHHHHP

No seriously look at his face!

Though his pupils are two different sizes in this screencap lol

CHILD ENDANGERMENT DUDE

Atchan with more fourth wall breaking

And they figured out the enemy very quickly! They seem more observant as children than they are regularly

Okay, they say kindergarteners but they look like 3 year olds or babies

I CANNOT at Ryuu’s hair spikes getting smaller and less detailed

Also his face reminds me that his voice in this scene is hysterical

THE MODESTY LEAVES

ATSUSHI WHY IS YOUR BUTT IN THE AIR STOP THAT

En and the fourth wall for the third time

RYUU WHY ARE YOU WORRYING ABOUT YOUR PENIS

And you’d think image-conscious Atsushi would be the one most embarrassed about being naked babies in public but NO APPARENTLY IO IS SUPER SHY

Sad baby Io sounds so pathetic

And Ryuu hardly seems worried

Yumoto rolled a perception check and got a 20 like whoah

RYUU AND EN ARE SAVAGE AF 

SMOL NAKED BABIES ATTEMPTING TO LOOK BADASS- all except Io who just wants the fuck out of here lol

How are they even still able to fight?? Their powers were diminished earlier??? Is it because they realized it was an illusion?

CHUBBEH BABY BUTT

AAAAND NAKED IN PUBLIC

Did their clothes just vanish???

And Io’s STILL embarrassed.

Meanwhile Yumoto has his priorities straight I guess

Also WHY IS IT SUDDENLY NIGHTTIME WASN’T IT JUST MORNING CUDDLES TIME???

YOU’RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT THEM BEATING YOU I MEAN C’MON AT LEAST LAUGH AT THEIR NUDITY

OH IT’S NIGHT SO HE CAN LOOK AT THE STARS AND REMEMBER THINGS AGAIN THAT’S WHY IT ALL HAS TO COME FULL CIRCLE BECAUSE PLOT

Ryuu you have no tact sheesh

Atsushi is STILL throwing shade like a pro. He must take lessons from Arima the sass master.

And we end on Atsushi reminiscing about Kinshirou and their stargazing adventures but THIS BOTHERS ME BECAUSE OF COURSE YOU FUCKING KNOW WHAT HE WISHED FOR YOU DIP. Context wise, it’s obvious Kinshirou told him. I mean, he might be meaning he’s since forgotten the wish (which would explain his falling out with Kinshirou in another dimension other than the curry thing) but showing that flashback in such detail and then having Atsushi remember it (or hinted that he remembers it) but without hinting that he knows what Kinshirou wished for is just kind of.... idk it bothers me. That line wasn’t 100% necessary, or perhaps it could have been something like “I don’t remember what he wished for”. Of course, for all I know he could have said that but crunchyroll could have translated it poorly idk.

Buuuut that’s the end! That was mostly just an enjoyable “aww” episode with not a lot of substance other than we discover that Kinshirou is dramatic AF, En is self conscious (perhaps even moreso than Atsushi, or possibly just vain) and Io is definitely embarrassed by public nudity. Hm. Maybe you guys have some more intelligent commentary.

I’m gonna shoot to get Ep 5 done in the next couple days (maybe hours... but this shit takes forever) because I want to finish compiling all this stuff so I can get to writing these plot bunnies that just bit me in the ass... buuuut I need research. Man... En the lazy is definitely my spirit animal OTL

[caustic-pixie]

I am fascinated by the echo-chamber of self-righteousness. There's no set of predictive factors or personal preferences that breeds this behavior – any one in any place in time is vulnerable to it. My theory is that it is born out of faith, like a human fashioning its own personality into its private religion; the god-shaped hole is bricked over by unexamined, internal/internalized beliefs rather than healed to make a whole person.

The human mind's capacity for faith is a tool that can be honed to perfection. Whether that perfect faith is used for good, bad, or neutral is not only arbitrary but subjective: the person experiencing their own faith could be living in a misery that improves the world around them, or they could be joyous while others suffer, or they could live unaware of an effect on their own self but still have their fate in life be driven by some subtle faith as an undercurrent.

Who does one disdain most: A person who is different in all ways than theirself, or a person who is certain ways similar? What is the scarier concept: To be individual or indistinguishable? Self-righteousness goes from theory to practice with discomfort as a catalyst. Whether or not there's an audience-facing cause like religion or politics or music preference, the mind secretly becomes its own sword and shield whispering “You don't have to question yourself. There's no need to feel unfamiliar.”

Even the holiest beauty is at risk to show an ugly side when it feels threatened – whether or not the threat was actual or even intentional. Every argument against becomes their argument for. Every plausible harsh reality becomes a rallying cry to rebel. Like the addages around addicts needing to hit their own personal rock bottom, for the self-righteous there -is no rock bottom-, because there is no person nor event that could wrench that faith out of them. There is no loss too great, because the most valuable -thing- is this righteousness.

Homeless, hungry, hunted? No matter, these insults to basic survival will be reworked in to reasons to refuse help, because help would mean having to change. Admitting any real attachment would imbalance the delicate stasis. Uncontrolled emotion would assault the protective shell of not-feeling-feelings, or feeling-no-feeling, or the stubborn misery-is-equal-to-joy. They are the victim here, the minority, the constantly embattled and stressed despite their will to prevail by any means necessary, despite their verbal abuse and social isolation and escalating combative behavior.

So then, here you are, finding yourself suddenly at odds with some tenet of their faith. Did you see it coming, before now? Do you remember any red flags?, you might ask yourself. They demand from you: How dare you try to manipulate them? How could you be so stupid and mean stepping so far out of line as to believe in something that contradicts their self-righteousness? What gives you the right to be so entitled, that you would even -consider- examining this identity?

It's perfect. It's easy to hate and to love how perfect it is, this mental construct that can be honed out of enough kinds of time and applied pressures. This self-blinding, writhing faith that squirms in and out of leveraging any kind of power it can get against -whoever- it can get. This sanctimonious denial of reality to the far reaches of stagnation as the last and eternal line of protection. This pure stability that draws the less-powerful, the less -stable-, toward it because from some distance it looks like a natural refuge in natural chaos - like they have figured out a system and an answer and are doing "better" for it.

I'm not even proposing a solution because that, too, will be ground in to that efficient machine for fuel. This is directed at no-one, everyone: In a terminal case of self-righteousness, the only cure is to want to be cured / to be stuck in a cycle of relation to one like this, there is no “fixing it”, there is only staying in or getting out.

[yes-dal456]

8 Stupid Office Rules That Drive Everyone Crazy

Companies need to have rules—that’s a given—but they don’t have to be shortsighted and lazy attempts at creating order.

I understand the temptation. As my company has grown, so has our difficulty maintaining standards. There have been many instances where someone crossed a line, and we were tempted to respond with a new rule that applied to everyone.

But that’s where most companies blow it.

In just about every instance, upon closer inspection, we realized that establishing a new rule would be a passive and morale-killing way to address the problem. The vast majority of the time, the problem needs to be handled one-on-one by the employee’s manager.

When companies create ridiculous and demoralizing rules to halt the outlandish behavior of a few individuals, it’s a management problem. There’s no sense in alienating your entire workforce because you don’t know how to manage performance. It makes a bad situation that much worse.

Here are some of the worst rules that companies create when they fall into this trap.

1. Bell curves and forced rankings of performance. Some individual talents follow a natural bell-shaped curve, but job performance does not. When you force employees to fit into a pre-determined ranking system, you do three things: 1) incorrectly evaluate people’s performance, 2) make everyone feel like a number, and 3) create insecurity and dissatisfaction when performing employees fear that they’ll be fired due to the forced system. This is yet another example of a lazy policy that avoids the hard and necessary work of evaluating each individual objectively, based on his or her merits.

2. Ridiculous requirements for attendance, leave, and time off. People are salaried for the work they do, not the specific hours they sit at their desks. When you ding salaried employees for showing up five minutes late even though they routinely stay late and put in time on the weekend, you send the message that policies take precedence over performance. It reeks of distrust, and you should never put someone on salary that you don’t trust.

When companies are unnecessarily strict in requiring documentation for bereavement and medical leave, it leaves a sour taste in the mouths of employees who deserve better. After all, if you have employees who will fake a death to miss a day’s work, what does that say about your company?

3. Restricting internet use. There are certain sites that no one should be visiting at work, and I’m not talking about Facebook. But once you block pornography and the other obvious stuff, it’s a difficult and arbitrary process deciding where to draw the line. Most companies draw it in the wrong place. People should be able to kill time on the Internet during breaks. When companies unnecessarily restrict people’s Internet activity, it does more than demoralize those that can’t check Facebook; it limits people’s ability to do their jobs. Many companies restrict Internet activity so heavily that it makes it difficult for people to do online research. The most obvious example? Checking the Facebook profile of someone you just interviewed.

4. Banning mobile phones. If I ban mobile phones in the office, no one will waste time texting and talking to family and friends, right? Ya, right. Organizations need to do the difficult work of hiring people who are trustworthy and who won’t take advantage of things. They also need to train managers to deal effectively with employees who underperform and/or violate expectations (such as spending too much time on their phones). This is also hard work, but it’s worth it. The easy, knee-jerk alternative (banning phones) demoralizes good employees who need to check their phones periodically due to pressing family or health issues or as an appropriate break from work.

5. Draconian e-mail policies. This is a newer one that’s already moving down a slippery slope. Some companies are getting so restrictive with e-mail use that employees must select from a list of pre-approved topics before the e-mail software will allow them to send a message. Again, it’s about trust. If you don’t trust your people to use e-mail properly, why did you hire them in the first place? In trying to rein in the bad guys, you make everyone miserable every time they send an e-mail. And guess what? The bad guys are the ones who will find ways to get around any system you put in place.

6. Stealing employees’ frequent-flyer miles. If there’s one thing that road-weary traveling employees earn, it’s their frequent flier miles. When employers don’t let people keep their miles for personal use, it’s a greedy move that fuels resentment with every flight. Work travel is a major sacrifice of time, energy, and sanity. Taking employees’ miles sends the message that you don’t appreciate their sacrifice and that you’ll hold on to every last dollar at their expense.

7. Pathetic attempts at political correctness. Maintaining high standards for how people treat each other is a wonderful thing as we live in a world that’s rife with animosity and discrimination. Still employers have to know where to draw the line. Going on a witch-hunt because someone says “Bless you” to another employee that sneezed (real example) creates an environment of paranoia and stifled self-expression, without improving how people treat each other.

8. Shutting down self-expression (personal items and dress code). Many organizations control what people can have at their desks. A life-size poster of a shirtless Fabio? I get it; that’s a problem. But employers dictate how many photographs people can display, whether or not they can use a water bottle, and how many items they’re allowed to place on their desks. Once again, it’s the ol’ “If I could just hire robots I wouldn’t have this problem” approach.

Same goes for dress codes. They work well in private high schools, but they’re unnecessary at work. Hire professionals and they’ll dress professionally. When someone crosses the line, their manager needs to have the skill to address the issue directly. Otherwise, you’re making everyone wish they worked somewhere else because management is too inept to handle touchy subjects effectively.

Bringing It All Together

If companies can rethink their policies and remove or alter those that are unnecessary or demoralizing, we’ll all have a more enjoyable and productive time at work.

What other policies drive you bananas? Please share your thoughts in the comments section, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

Want to learn more? Enjoy my book Emotional Intelligence 2.0.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58d2bbd7e4b002482d6e6d6b,584099f0e4b09e21702dbaf7,5774298ee4b0ee1c313d8218

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from http://ift.tt/2nUqqr2 from Blogger http://ift.tt/2o6M1K8

[imreviewblog]

8 Stupid Office Rules That Drive Everyone Crazy

Companies need to have rules—that’s a given—but they don’t have to be shortsighted and lazy attempts at creating order.

I understand the temptation. As my company has grown, so has our difficulty maintaining standards. There have been many instances where someone crossed a line, and we were tempted to respond with a new rule that applied to everyone.

But that’s where most companies blow it.

In just about every instance, upon closer inspection, we realized that establishing a new rule would be a passive and morale-killing way to address the problem. The vast majority of the time, the problem needs to be handled one-on-one by the employee’s manager.

When companies create ridiculous and demoralizing rules to halt the outlandish behavior of a few individuals, it’s a management problem. There’s no sense in alienating your entire workforce because you don’t know how to manage performance. It makes a bad situation that much worse.

Here are some of the worst rules that companies create when they fall into this trap.

1. Bell curves and forced rankings of performance. Some individual talents follow a natural bell-shaped curve, but job performance does not. When you force employees to fit into a pre-determined ranking system, you do three things: 1) incorrectly evaluate people’s performance, 2) make everyone feel like a number, and 3) create insecurity and dissatisfaction when performing employees fear that they’ll be fired due to the forced system. This is yet another example of a lazy policy that avoids the hard and necessary work of evaluating each individual objectively, based on his or her merits.

2. Ridiculous requirements for attendance, leave, and time off. People are salaried for the work they do, not the specific hours they sit at their desks. When you ding salaried employees for showing up five minutes late even though they routinely stay late and put in time on the weekend, you send the message that policies take precedence over performance. It reeks of distrust, and you should never put someone on salary that you don’t trust.

When companies are unnecessarily strict in requiring documentation for bereavement and medical leave, it leaves a sour taste in the mouths of employees who deserve better. After all, if you have employees who will fake a death to miss a day’s work, what does that say about your company?

3. Restricting internet use. There are certain sites that no one should be visiting at work, and I’m not talking about Facebook. But once you block pornography and the other obvious stuff, it’s a difficult and arbitrary process deciding where to draw the line. Most companies draw it in the wrong place. People should be able to kill time on the Internet during breaks. When companies unnecessarily restrict people’s Internet activity, it does more than demoralize those that can’t check Facebook; it limits people’s ability to do their jobs. Many companies restrict Internet activity so heavily that it makes it difficult for people to do online research. The most obvious example? Checking the Facebook profile of someone you just interviewed.

4. Banning mobile phones. If I ban mobile phones in the office, no one will waste time texting and talking to family and friends, right? Ya, right. Organizations need to do the difficult work of hiring people who are trustworthy and who won’t take advantage of things. They also need to train managers to deal effectively with employees who underperform and/or violate expectations (such as spending too much time on their phones). This is also hard work, but it’s worth it. The easy, knee-jerk alternative (banning phones) demoralizes good employees who need to check their phones periodically due to pressing family or health issues or as an appropriate break from work.

5. Draconian e-mail policies. This is a newer one that’s already moving down a slippery slope. Some companies are getting so restrictive with e-mail use that employees must select from a list of pre-approved topics before the e-mail software will allow them to send a message. Again, it’s about trust. If you don’t trust your people to use e-mail properly, why did you hire them in the first place? In trying to rein in the bad guys, you make everyone miserable every time they send an e-mail. And guess what? The bad guys are the ones who will find ways to get around any system you put in place.

6. Stealing employees’ frequent-flyer miles. If there’s one thing that road-weary traveling employees earn, it’s their frequent flier miles. When employers don’t let people keep their miles for personal use, it’s a greedy move that fuels resentment with every flight. Work travel is a major sacrifice of time, energy, and sanity. Taking employees’ miles sends the message that you don’t appreciate their sacrifice and that you’ll hold on to every last dollar at their expense.

7. Pathetic attempts at political correctness. Maintaining high standards for how people treat each other is a wonderful thing as we live in a world that’s rife with animosity and discrimination. Still employers have to know where to draw the line. Going on a witch-hunt because someone says “Bless you” to another employee that sneezed (real example) creates an environment of paranoia and stifled self-expression, without improving how people treat each other.

8. Shutting down self-expression (personal items and dress code). Many organizations control what people can have at their desks. A life-size poster of a shirtless Fabio? I get it; that’s a problem. But employers dictate how many photographs people can display, whether or not they can use a water bottle, and how many items they’re allowed to place on their desks. Once again, it’s the ol’ “If I could just hire robots I wouldn’t have this problem” approach.

Same goes for dress codes. They work well in private high schools, but they’re unnecessary at work. Hire professionals and they’ll dress professionally. When someone crosses the line, their manager needs to have the skill to address the issue directly. Otherwise, you’re making everyone wish they worked somewhere else because management is too inept to handle touchy subjects effectively.

Bringing It All Together

If companies can rethink their policies and remove or alter those that are unnecessary or demoralizing, we’ll all have a more enjoyable and productive time at work.

What other policies drive you bananas? Please share your thoughts in the comments section, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

Want to learn more? Enjoy my book Emotional Intelligence 2.0.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58d2bbd7e4b002482d6e6d6b,584099f0e4b09e21702dbaf7,5774298ee4b0ee1c313d8218

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from Healthy Living - The Huffington Post http://huff.to/2o6OS5I