#sustainable development essay

[agrocomp0sites]

Sustainable Meaning: The Key to a Balanced Future

Outline Heading Sub-Headings Definition of Sustainability Origins of Sustainability, Modern Interpretation, Key Components Environmental Sustainability Importance of Biodiversity, Climate Change Impact, Renewable Energy Economic Sustainability Economic Growth vs. Environmental Preservation, Sustainable Business Practices, Green Economy Social Sustainability Equity and Social Justice,…

[faithfromanewperspective]

just a heads up I may take a break from tumblr for a bit (or I may not. I may fail at it which we’ll deal with if we get there) because it’s starting to feel like the news rn. and I know my limit but also my creativity as an activist and how negativity does stifle it and I’ll be a better activist if I step away and focus on solutions for a while.

I might post some of these solutions:: I’m doing a course on making an impact via business as well as my urban design stuff and I’m gonna post some of that at some point, some guinea fowl pics and I’ve got some music for over at @edge-oftheworld that’s almost ready to put up. so I’ll still check my notifs and if you see something I’d like please please please tag me in it??? I will appreciate an awful lot. just need to not see sad world news for a second but I want to see your neurodivergence headcanons and ideas and what you think of songs.

also dm me if you want my Instagram or fb or email or linkedin idk just know I rarely check all of those too but I will change my ways if we are having a good conversation :)

[samwisethewitch]

Homemaking, gardening, and self-sufficiency resources that won't radicalize you into a hate group

It seems like self-sufficiency and homemaking skills are blowing up right now. With the COVID-19 pandemic and the current economic crisis, a lot of folks, especially young people, are looking to develop skills that will help them be a little bit less dependent on our consumerist economy. And I think that's generally a good thing. I think more of us should know how to cook a meal from scratch, grow our own vegetables, and mend our own clothes. Those are good skills to have.

Unfortunately, these "self-sufficiency" skills are often used as a recruiting tactic by white supremacists, TERFs, and other hate groups. They become a way to reconnect to or relive the "good old days," a romanticized (false) past before modern society and civil rights. And for a lot of people, these skills are inseparably connected to their politics and may even be used as a tool to indoctrinate new people.

In the spirit of building safe communities, here's a complete list of the safe resources I've found for learning homemaking, gardening, and related skills. Safe for me means queer- and trans-friendly, inclusive of different races and cultures, does not contain Christian preaching, and does not contain white supremacist or TERF dog whistles.

Homemaking/Housekeeping/Caring for your home:

Making It by Kelly Coyne and Erik Knutzen [book] (The big crunchy household DIY book; includes every level of self-sufficiency from making your own toothpaste and laundry soap to setting up raised beds to butchering a chicken. Authors are explicitly left-leaning.)

Safe and Sound: A Renter-Friendly Guide to Home Repair by Mercury Stardust [book] (A guide to simple home repair tasks, written with rentals in mind; very compassionate and accessible language.)

How To Keep House While Drowning by KC Davis [book] (The book about cleaning and housework for people who get overwhelmed by cleaning and housework, based on the premise that messiness is not a moral failing; disability and neurodivergence friendly; genuinely changed how I approach cleaning tasks.)

Gardening

Rebel Gardening by Alessandro Vitale [book] (Really great introduction to urban gardening; explicitly discusses renter-friendly garden designs in small spaces; lots of DIY solutions using recycled materials; note that the author lives in England, so check if plants are invasive in your area before putting them in the ground.)

Country/Rural Living:

Woodsqueer by Gretchen Legler [book] (Memoir of a lesbian who lives and works on a rural farm in Maine with her wife; does a good job of showing what it's like to be queer in a rural space; CW for mentions of domestic violence, infidelity/cheating, and internalized homophobia)

"Debunking the Off-Grid Fantasy" by Maggie Mae Fish [video essay] (Deconstructs the off-grid lifestyle and the myth of self-reliance)

Sewing/Mending:

Annika Victoria [YouTube channel] (No longer active, but their videos are still a great resource for anyone learning to sew; check out the beginner project playlist to start. This is where I learned a lot of what I know about sewing.)

Make, Sew, and Mend by Bernadette Banner [book] (A very thorough written introduction to hand-sewing, written by a clothing historian; lots of fun garment history facts; explicitly inclusive of BIPOC, queer, and trans sewists.)

Sustainability/Land Stewardship

Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer [book] (Most of you have probably already read this one or had it recommended to you, but it really is that good; excellent example of how traditional animist beliefs -- in this case, indigenous American beliefs -- can exist in healthy symbiosis with science; more philosophy than how-to, but a great foundational resource.)

Wild Witchcraft by Rebecca Beyer [book] (This one is for my fellow witches; one of my favorite witchcraft books, and an excellent example of a place-based practice deeply rooted in the land.)

Avoiding the "Crunchy to Alt Right Pipeline"

Note: the "crunchy to alt-right pipeline" is a term used to describe how white supremacists and other far right groups use "crunchy" spaces (i.e., spaces dedicated to farming, homemaking, alternative medicine, simple living/slow living, etc.) to recruit and indoctrinate people into their movements. Knowing how this recruitment works can help you recognize it when you do encounter it and avoid being influenced by it.

"The Crunchy-to-Alt-Right Pipeline" by Kathleen Belew [magazine article] (Good, short introduction to this issue and its history.)

Sisters in Hate by Seyward Darby (I feel like I need to give a content warning: this book contains explicit descriptions of racism, white supremacy, and Neo Nazis, and it's a very difficult read, but it really is a great, in-depth breakdown of the role women play in the alt-right; also explicitly addresses the crunchy to alt-right pipeline.)

These are just the resources I've personally found helpful, so if anyone else has any they want to add, please, please do!

[arabiclanguageday]

Global Youth foum on Multilingualism.

10 winners of the Arabic language multilingual essay contest organized by ELS Educational Services, INC. and the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI) met at UN Headquarters. They presented their essay on the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.

[opencommunion]

"There is an inherit bias towards 'Israel' that sustains the continual colonization of Palestine. Christian theologians, in few cases consciously but in most cases subconsciously, keep using a 'biblical' language and producing 'theological' concepts whose 'Sitz im Leben' is blunt colonialism. They might do this 'innocently' because their minds are occupied with the Bible on the one hand and with a Western cultural narrative on the other.

For Palestinians, including the Palestinian Christian community, Palestine is a real land with real people; it is our homeland. For Christians in the West, Palestine is an imagined land, a land that they know mainly from the Bible. It has little if anything to do with the real Palestine. When Christian pilgrims visit Palestine, they want to reinvent the Holy Land of the Bible. They are excited about how the Bible comes alive in Palestine. Nineteenth-century archaeologists, while digging in Palestine, were looking for the Bible. This is true also for theologians. When Christian theologians write about Palestine, their minds are occupied with the Bible and a Western dominant narrative. They write about the Land as if it exists in a vacuum; they strip it from its socio-political context, from its real people, and they rarely think about how such a theology has been and is being used to enhance settler colonialism. These occupied minds reinforce the continuing occupation of Palestine. Here, I’m not talking about evangelical theologians or Christian Zionists alone, but I’m concerned about those who are well-regarded, mainline, and accomplished theologians of many denominations. In the last seventy years, many theological concepts were developed and occupied the minds of several generations of theologians worldwide. Many of these concepts might have been well intended at some point, but they mean something totally different in the current context of occupied Palestine. Theologians in their naiveté are still using a language and concepts that support current Israeli settler colonialism. ... It is incomprehensible to me when the occupation of Palestinian land is not seen as part of modern European colonial history, but as part of biblical and thus salvation history. It is very disturbing when theologians ignore the ways in which biblical ideology is used as a political claim with major colonial consequences. ... Christian theologians have been playing, consciously or subconsciously, a major role in aiding the ongoing colonization of Palestinian land and people. The land theology was one of the theological tools used for Palestinian dispossession and oppression. Christian theologians failed to see that the promised land is but the confiscated land."

Mitri Raheb, "The Occupation of Theological Minds: The End of Innocence," in Resisting Occupation: A Global Struggle for Liberation (2022)

The main terms Raheb critiques in this essay are "the Temple Mount" and "the Promised Land" (or simply "the Land"). He also touches on the conflation of the biblical Israel and theological concepts of Israel with the state of Israel, the ethnonationalist notion of “God's chosen people," and the narrative that Joshua's conquest of Canaan was divinely ordained and salvatory. He identifies in these concepts an overarching "theology of conquest" that also informs other European settler colonial projects.

[nenelonomh]

45:15 pomodoro ~ study technique

the pomodoro technique was developed in the late 1980's by francesco cirillo, who was a university student at the time. here’s how it came about:

struggling to focus. cirillo found himself struggling to focus on his studies and complete assignments. feeling overwhelmed, he sought a way to improve his productivity and concentration.

the tomato timer. inspired by a kitchen timer shaped like a tomato (known as “pomodoro” in italian), cirillo decided to experiment with time management methods. he set a two-minute timer for himself and challenged himself to stay focused for just two minutes.

twenty-five-minute work intervals. building on this idea, cirillo refined the technique. he divided his work into twenty-five-minute intervals, which he called “pomodoros”. during each pomodoro, he worked diligently on a task without distractions.

short breaks. after each twenty-five-minute work interval, cirillo took a five-minute break. these breaks allowed him to recharge and maintain focus.

longer breaks. after completing four pomodoros (a total of one-hundred minutes), he rewarded himself with a longer break of fifteen to thirty minutes. this cycle helped him manage his time effectively.

some challenges that people face with the pomodoro timer include: facing interruptions and distractions, task switching, ridgity, ignoring breaks, perfectionism and fatigue.

this is why some students choose to partake in a 45:15 pomodoro, as it allows them to spend more time on their tasks, and then they can enjoy a longer break.

longer intervals allow for deep focus. some students find it difficult to switch tasks every twenty-five-minutes, preferring to immerse themselves in a topic for a longer period.

certain academic tasks, such as extended essays, research and programming, require sustained attention. longer pomodoros accommodate this better.

it's important to remember that everyone has different levels of focus and a unique productivity rhythm. it's important to test out different structures and strategies and learn what works best with your natural flow.

❤️ joanne

(images are from pinterest)

[familyabolisher]

hi! i'm a follower, & i enjoy reading your posts and essays. in your recent post about the anti-intellectualism kerfuffle on tumblr, you said, "Part of my communism means believing in the abolition of the university; this is not an ‘anti-intellectual’ position but a straightforwardly materialist one."

i haven't heard of university abolition before, and if you are willing, i would like to hear what it's about. what is the university abolitionist image of a better alternative to universities? should learning still be centralized?

thanks for your consideration. :)

University abolition, as with any other form of abolition worth its salt, understands the role played by the institution of the university under capitalism in sustaining the conditions of capitalist-imperialist hegemony, analyses the institution accordingly, and recognises that the practices that the university purports to represent (that of intellectual production, the sharing and developing of knowledge) will undergo a fundamental overhaul and reconstitution under communism. This means looking at the university not merely as an organic institution wherein we study and develop ideas, but asking what ideas are developed and legitimised, and who is afforded the opportunity to do so, and why the university exists in the first place; we are taking a materialist rather than idealist approach. 

Simply put, the role of the university is to restrict access to knowledge and knowledge production, and to ensure the continuance of class divides and hierarchised labour. These restrictions come about in a vast number of ways; the most immediately obvious is the fact that one must meet a certain set of criteria in order to qualify for entrance in the first place, and this criteria tends to require compliance with the schooling system (itself another such arm of capitalist governance), a certain amount of wealth (and/or a willingness to accrue debt), and an ability to demonstrate methods of intellectual engagement compliant with the standard of the academy. Obviously, there are massive overlaps in this set of criteria; those who come from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to have had a good education and thus can better demonstrate normative intellectual engagement, those who can demonstrate that engagement have probably complied with the schooling system, and so on. The logic behind the existence of private schools is the idea that sufficient wealth can near-enough secure your child's entry into the university and therefore entry into the wealthier classes as an adult, with the most prestigious institutions overrun by students from privately educated backgrounds. Already, you can see how this is a tactic that filters out people from marginalised backgrounds; if you’re too poor, too un[der]educated, too disabled, not white enough, &c. &c., your chances of admittance into higher education grow slimmer and slimmer.

Access to the university affords access to knowledge; most literally through institutional access to books, papers, libraries, but also through participation in lectures and seminars, reading lists, first-hand contact with active academics, the opportunity to produce work and receive feedback on it, the opportunity to develop your own ideas in a socially legitimised sphere. As I explained above, who is afforded access to such knowledge is stratified and limited; the institution is hostile to anyone deemed socially disposable under capitalism. Access to the university also affords access to a university degree, with which you can continue down the research path (and thus participate in the cycle of radical knowledge-production being absorbed and defanged by the academy, and water down your own ideas to make them palatable to institutions which tend to balk at anything with serious Marxist commitments), or gain entry to better-paid, more stable, more prestigious jobs than those which people without degrees are most often relegated to. In this sense, the people who are more likely to be able to meet the access criteria for the university and then successfully participate in it are able to retain their class position (or else promulgate the myth of social mobility as a solution to mass impoverishment) and thus gain a vested interest in maintaining the conditions of hegemony. Those who gain entry into the middle class have done so after undergoing a process of stratification according to means; which is to say, class, race, [dis]ability; and tend to lose interest in defending a politic which seeks to destabilise their relatively privileged position in the pecking order.

Success in a research career, too, depends upon liberties afforded by wealth; can you afford to go to all these conferences, do low-paid and insecure teaching work in the university, churn out research, and support yourself through a postgrad degree without going insane? Not if you don’t have independent means. In the UK, the gap between undergrad and masters funding is absolutely wild—obviously there are scholarships afforded to a limited number of people (another access barrier—the whole institution runs on the myth of artificial scarcity), but broadly speaking, it’s pretty much impossible to put yourself through an MA with just the money you get from SFE unless you work a lot on the side to pay your bills (this is what I tried to do; I went insane and dropped out, lmfao) or have independent wealth. Establishing oneself as an ‘academic’ is simply easier when you have financial security. In this way, the people who make it to the very top of academia (the MAs, the PhDs) tend to be people who come from privileged backgrounds; people who are less likely to challenge hegemony, who will maintain the essential conditions by which the university sustains itself, which is to say the conditions of social stratification. These people often tend to hold reactionary positions on class—the people who are outraged at how little a stipend postgrad students get tend not to think twice about the university’s cleaners being paid minimum wage, or think of working-class jobs as shameful failstates from which their academic qualifications have allowed them to escape (how many people have you heard get absolutely aghast at the thought of ‘[person with a BA/MA/PhD] working a typically working-class job’?). Academic success tends to engender buying into the mythology of academia as a class stratifier and class stratification as indicative of one’s value, even amongst people who probably call themselves academic Marxists.

Universities are also tangible forces of counterinsurgency. I live in the UK, where universities are huge drivers of gentrification; university towns and cities will welcome mass student populations, usually from predominantly middle-class backgrounds and often coming to cities with significant working-class and immigrant communities, neighbourhoods formerly home to those communities will be effectively cleaned out so that students can live there, and the whole character of the neighbourhood changes to accommodate people from well-off backgrounds who harbour classist, racist feelings towards the locals & who will assimilate into the salaried middle-class once they graduate. More liberally-oriented universities will tend to espouse putatively progressive positions whilst making no effort to forge a relationship with grassroots movements happening on the streets of the city they’re set up in; student politics absorbs anyone with even slightly radical inclinations whilst accomplishing approximately fuck-all save for setting a few people off on the NGO track; like, the institution defangs radical potential whilst contributing to the class stratification of the city it’s set up in. 

This is without even touching on the role played by the university in maintaining conditions of imperialism and neocolonialism, both through academic output regarding colonised regions (from ‘Oriental studies’ to the proliferation of white academics who specialise in ‘Africa’ to the use of the Global South as something of a playground for white Global North academics to conduct their research to the history of epistemologies such as race science as transparently fortifying and legitimating the imperialist order) and through material means of restricting access to and production of knowledge based on country of origin (universities in the Global South are significantly limited in what academic output they can access compared to those in the Global North; engagement with Global North academia relies on the ability to move freely, something that is restricted by one’s passport; language barriers and the primacy of English in the Global North academy) keeping knowledge production in the Global South dependent on the hegemony of the North. Syed Farid Alatas has termed this ‘academic dependency,��� as a corollary to dependency theory; academia in the GS is shaped by the material dependence it has on the West, which in turn restricts the kind of academic work that can be undertaken in the first place. Ultimately, all institutions under capitalism must ultimately reroute back to the conditions that favour capitalism, and the university is not an exception.

This is just a very brief overview of an expansive topic; I would recommend going away and examining in greater detail the role played by the university under capitalism, and what the institution filters out, and why. What sort of research gets funding? What sort of knowledge gains social legitimacy? What can the university absorb and what must it reject? Who is producing knowledge and to whom are they accountable? etc.

[p6to]

What the fuck is going on?

I was in the process of typing out several essays worth of thoughts in the tags of @tsarinablogs's lestappen 2024 manifesto, because what else is new. Since I am uncannily similar to Max in all aspects of his public persona (except his driving abilities and his apparent need to come out as bisexual in every third interview), including the 'tism allegations and the certified "parent has a very weird sense of seeing their child as their own person" experience, in this essay I will be yapping about Screwderia Ferrari, shady business and of course: Charles Leclerc.

Charles has given his life and a large part of his career in f1 to Ferrari, leading to six wins, including his own home race Monaco and Ferrari's home race Monza, but also ten gazillion strategy fuck ups and now a (likely) second failed championship battle.

How much is too much for a person to handle?

Ferrari has not won a championship since Kimi Räikkönen in 2007. That much was known when Charles went through the ranks in the Ferrari Driver Academy, so he knew they were not suddenly going to dominate the way Red Bull did the last few years and Mercedes before them. He still had faith in them, made promises about his achievements to his dying father when he must have known that they might be impossible to ever reach.

His devotion and his talent have made him into an (almost) religious figure to the tifosi. Charles Leclerc is Ferrari, and Ferrari is Charles Leclerc.

Or is it?

Time and time again, we have witnessed Charles getting fucked over in favour of his teammate (see "it looks like they're going to sacrifice Leclerc" - George, or the entirety of the SF-23, maybe even today). While a team principal and a good number of other employees were fired in 2022 because things were going horrible and Charles insisted on it, and things were looking better when competent personnel and even Lewis Hamilton were signed by Fred Vasseur, it seems like the actual problem is still there.

Based on what we saw with the Barcelona upgrades and Carlos' interviews, we may have to expect the car to be developed to suit Carlos' understeer-y preference once again, which is wild considering that he is a driver who is leaving at the end of the year, has been outperformed by Charles pretty consistently over the time they were teammates, and has shown very clearly (alone this season!) that he is (in the words of a friend) not driving for Ferrari but for Carlos.

How can it be that Charles has mechanical and technical problems every second race weekend, while his teammate does not, and not only does nobody from the team leadership say anything about it but they also let Carlos downplay Charles' very severe brake issues in Bahrain?

Silverstone has marked the third race this season where Charles did not score points due to either inherent issues of the car (tire warm up in qualifying), mechanical issues (engine), damage (front wing in Austria) AND very questionable strategy calls. Three races of the twelve that have passed is 25%, a figure that is much too high for any top team, let alone Ferrari who were very close to catching up to Red Bull in the WCC just four races ago.

Of course, problems in car development and maybe even a higher lack of reliability in mechanical parts can happen to any team. However, we will now come to the area where I see the biggest problem.

This entire triple header, Fred Vasseur has been giving unacceptable statements about BOTH of his drivers. In Barcelona, he downplayed the issue between Charles and Carlos at the start, positioning himself directly against the driver he should be supporting since he was objectively (data-supported) correct. In Austria, Sky Sports had to make him watch the moment Charles sustained the damage to his front wing, because he could not be bothered to watch it during the actual race.

And now in Silverstone, he blamed both Carlos and Charles for not performing miracles with this shitshow of a tractor during qualifying, let his drivers be fed different information regarding the incoming rain leading to one of them making the wrong tire choice, ruining his race, and then had the audacity to lie about that and Charles position during this incident, making it look like he was still behind Lance when he had actually already overtaken him and was now behind Carlos after starting four places behind him, EVEN THOUGH there were radio transcripts and of course the fucking broadcast that showed the truth.

Us Chirlies have to preface our posts about conspiracy theories with statements about tinfoil hats and "for legal reasons this is a joke", but I will not do this here.

I fully believe that there is shady business going on at Ferrari, including but not limited to potential blackmailing, software sabotage and bribery. I will not pin these onto specific people/groups, because there are too many options. I also think that there is shady business going on at every team, but not to this extent.

The way things are going, with Charles already being on an actually not so subtle PR warpath, I expect some form of news in the next three weeks, including either announcements about people being fired or a Charles-to-Red Bull announcement, although Charles to Mercedes would not surprise me either.

Merc fans joined in on criticising Fred yesterday, and hardcore Max fans are saying Charles should leave Ferrari and join Max at Red Bull. This issue has breached containment, as it should.

Either things are changing at Ferrari or Charles will be exchanging Ferrari for a different team. There is no other solution.

(You have made it to the bottom of this yap-fest. Congratulations! I wish you a very nice day/week/month/year/life without Ferrari-like fuck ups and thank you for reading my stuff :) )

[theromanticscrooge]

Lord Boxman, the Lonely Tyrant of Boxmore

Note: I've been wanting to return to writing beefy character essays for awhile and I was finally able to start back up after rewatching O.K. K.O.

Lord Boxman started out wanting to build a robot army strong enough to defeat POINT. Look at his early interactions with his first sapient robot Mr. Logic. This was his original business partner; someone he 'invented' to help fill in what gaps and blind spots he might have. Someone he wanted active feedback and suggestions from. Boxman himself was a lot more open-minded, patient, and collaborative at this point in time. He immediately called Mr. Logic his 'best friend' and treated him with warm, open affection.

Mr. Logic advised Boxman that he shouldn't immediately jump at his goal because he didn't yet have the manpower or resources to pose a legitimate threat. Instead, Mr. Logic proposed using Boxman's inventing abilities to tweak and improve upon his current inventions, to sell these inventions to other villains, and build a villain supply chain store. With time, hard work, and concentrated efforts, Boxman would eventually have the resources and power to successfully launch an attack later. It was a big-picture, long-haul plan. The Mr. Logic-Boxman team led to building the main Boxmore company headquarters and establishing Boxman as a trusted robot minion supplier.

Unfortunately, Boxman isn't a big-picture man. He didn't stop to consider that heroes could also start up and maintain a hero supply chain. Suddenly, POINT wasn't an abstract, 'someday' goal-post anymore. The heroes were right in Boxman's backyard with the presence of Mr. Gar and the developing Lakewood Plaza Turbo. Boxman thought he had ample time to become an indomitable powerhouse, but if the heroes had the same advantage, he'd never be able to catch up and had to address that problem now. When Mr. Logic said to "ignore Lakewood Plaza," Boxman was too lost in himself to listen. He felt threatened and intimidated enough that it stoked his insecurities and anxieties.

When Mr. Logic ventured out to investigate Lakewood Plaza, it could be seen as someone talking to the "other" that their parent, friends, or whomever painted with broad strokes and demonized. Boxman told Mr. Logic that his role was to fill in the "logical inconsistencies" with his plans, but he never asked Mr. Logic what he wanted to do with his life. With Boxman, everything was tailored to realizing Boxman's dreams and ambitions. When Mr. Logic spoke to Mr. Gar, it was a partly about what the Plaza was for and what Mr. Gar hoped for the future with the other part inviting Mr. Logic to share his plans for the future; plans about and for himself, not just the sustainability of Boxmore.

After Mr. Logic had his perspective broadened and returned to Boxmore wanting something fundamentally different from Boxman's new "Destroy the Plaza!" direction, it was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Boxman was already knee-deep in plans to stop this new existential threat; to have full control over his environment and his life. When Mr. Logic challenged Boxman's worldview, Boxman saw it as a challenge to him personally. Seriously considering Mr. Logic's arguments here meant that Boxman would have to self-reflect in a way he wasn't equipped to. So if Boxman had to shave down Mr. Logic's personhood to a black and white concept of "obstacle in my way" to safeguard his ego, that's what needed to be done.

GIF by zevzevarainai

The episode "Lad & Logic" is a fantastic launchpad to unpacking Boxman's screwed-up dynamic with his other children. His creator-robot minion dynamic is an allegory for an emotionally abusive parent that sees their children as extensions of themselves rather than full, autonomous beings with their own wants and desires. Mr. Logic was fully self-actualized and wanted something different than Boxman. Despite what he said out loud, Boxman knew that Mr. Logic was on even footing with him. Everything came down to power dynamics. So, when Boxman invented his next set of robots, he opted to be their "parent" because of the power imbalance he could exploit.

Shannon, Darrell, Raymond, and others strictly and obediently follow their father's wishes because they were deliberately conditioned and threatened to. Boxman pits them against each other to vie for his favor. The only TV they're allowed to watch at home are movies he carefully filmed to reinforce his "father knows best" agenda. It's similar to strict Christian parents banning their kids from watching certain shows or reading certain books because they may contain "undesirable" properties. Anything that encourages their child to question Christianity or endorses more critical thinking about their household values period is a threat to their authority and maintaining a "functional" household.

While Darrell, Shannon, and Raymond seem satisfied with their lives, unconditionally love their father, and gleefully attack the plaza, every time Boxman threatens them with the "furnace" or yells at them for failing, it's an exaggerated, blunt example of bad parenting. The "furnace" is a catch-all punishment for not being able to meet or exceed Boxman's expectations with anything and everything. He leaves some amount of ambiguity in his demands so that he can tug the proverbial leash every time he feels he needs to.

Granted, it's important to look at everything that led up to Lord Cowboy Darrell. Boxman's most egregious display of favoritism was when he built Boxman Jr. and refused to acknowledge how stung Darrell was. He kept pushing how much stronger, more competent, and better Boxman Jr. was overall. Generally, Darrell's respective relationships with Shannon and Raymond were strong enough to buffer against Boxman's picking favorites tactic. They'll fight each other for Dad's affection, but there was always an implicit understanding that they had each other's backs under normal circumstances. Jr. is different in that he had no significant relationship with his other siblings, only Boxman. And Boxman blatantly showered the newest addition with praise and affection the others never received.

Pushed to his limit, Darrell took matters into his own hands and staged an effective coup d'etat against Boxman. Through his disillusionment with his father, Darrell stepped up and became the focused, tight-knuckled business operator that Boxman could never be. Boxman tried to fill the mold that Mr. Logic helped him create and focus on appeasing his board of directors. But his all-consuming obsession with destroying the Plaza was always his true life's goal and work. This was such a core part of his character that he was miserable and hollow if he gave up on that goal. In contrast, Darrell can follow orders and do what needs to be done with whatever task he's given. The result of Lord Cowboy Darrell was one potential future of Darrell as a self-actualized villain without Boxman putting him down and actively demoralizing him.

After K.O. convinces Boxman to talk to Darrell and tell him he's proud of his achievements, it leads to the pivotal moment that Boxman couldn't give Mr. Logic. For once, Boxman looked at one of his kids and saw them as a separate, autonomous being rather than an extension of him. For that brief moment, he placed Darrell on equal footing. Darrell took over Boxmore partly out of spite but also out of an earnest interest in following in Boxman's footsteps. Without Boxman, he's a better Boxman; with Boxman, he's a co-conspirator that's as eager to destroy the Plaza as Boxman is.

GIF by the-green-sailor

Enter Professor Venomous. In stark contrast to Lord Boxman, Professor Venomous and Fink call themselves "boss" and "minion" respectively but it's really a father-daughter relationship. Venomous makes a point of bringing Fink along to important events or letting her tag along where relevant. He brings along what extras are needed to accommodate Fink whether it's a high chair, crayons, or even glorbs for a high-powered attack on some heroes. At their best, Venomous makes a point to talk to Fink on her level and she speaks very highly of what kind, affectionate gestures he does for her. Where Venomous trips up is discipline. Fink can do whatever she wants. Babysitters are run over by her reckless energy and disregard for other people that aren't Venomous. Any sign of a complaint or a tantrum is pacified with an expensive gift. When Venomous starts getting overwhelmed, the gifts replace all usual attempts at parenting or communication period.

After re-watching O.K. K.O. recently knowing that Professor Venomous was K.O.'s biological father from the jump, perhaps the "boss" and "minion" labels were Venomous' coping mechanism for knowing he abandoned one of his kids. It was easier to interact with and care for Fink as long as she was his "minion." That's a different enough relationship that he can compartmentalize it and distance it from what guilt or regrets he had from his past as Laser Blast.

When Boxman became business partners with Professor Venomous, it led to obvious shifts in his approach to parenting. After his night out with Venomous and Darrell and Shannon babysitting, he gave them T-shirts as rewards for their efforts. No pushes at playing favorites or nitpicking for once.

GIF by loser-jpg

With Professor Venomous in the picture, Boxman finally had the business partner he wanted and needed. While Mr. Logic's approach worked beautifully for kickstarting Boxmore, Boxman needed Venomous to cultivate it into exactly what he wanted vs what it was when tied to a board of directors. For a short time, Boxman and Venomous were building a blended family that was more successful together than separately. Boxman encouraged exercises and attempts towards Fink and Darrell getting along better. The Boxbots all received personalized upgrades from Venomous to improve and augment what weaponry or abilities they had. Fink now had access to what 'toys' Boxman could invent that were several grades above what Venomous could just buy. In short, Boxman dating Venomous led to him becoming a more proactive parent in a surprisingly organic way.

Venemous' intense self-destructive and literally destructive stint as Shadowy Venomous further elucidated what impact he had on Boxman. When Boxman had to step up as the responsible parent, the first problem he addressed with Venomous was how he'd been failing Fink recently with the "You missed Fink's recorder recital" comment. He was also emotionally strong enough to realize that Venomous was causing enough problems in the household that things had reached a boiling point and he had to leave. Breaking up would be emotionally devastating for him but Boxman was prioritizing the emotional well-being of his house and kids overall.

Even the devastating scene where Boxman leaves his kids to go off on an ambiguous "finding myself" quest was meaningful improvement on his part. Similarly to his confrontation with Lord Cowboy Darrell but with all of his kids this time, Boxman told them that they didn't need him. He was cutting the dependent and toxic grip on his apron strings. The Box kids are resilient and capable enough that they could carve out their own path.

There's a quote that Boxman brings up in another episode: "I'm a villain. I'm not a monster." In context, the quote was a punchline for a dark joke about Boxman potentially being a cannibal. Though, it interestingly applies when looking at Boxman's actions during his confrontations with Shadowy Venomous. Shadowy was the kind of monstrous villain that wanted mindless destruction and to see the world burn. Seeing the absolute lowest his partner could reach led to Boxman establishing what lines he wouldn't cross.

He wants to destroy the Plaza, not the world, and a pretty face isn't enough to convince him otherwise when he finds the self-assurance and confidence he needed. It's the pique of his character development as a father. While there is a lot more room for exploring this part of Boxman's character, there's enough substantial story here that it's an interesting look at a "bad dad" that was actively working on becoming better. Boxman and Venomous get back together later but only after Venomous proves that he's working through his bigger issues in a meaningful way with real, tangible results.

Over the last several years, there have been several stories tackling generational trauma that include parents realizing their failings and working on course-correcting with those failings. This has been a point of contention about a recurring to the point of tired stories in recent Pixar animated movies and the core of what made Everything, Everywhere, All at Once the powerhouse that it is. It's not too far of a reach to include Boxman as another one of these stories or even a decent starting place for digging into stories or characters dealing with generational trauma.

In Boxman's case, he could be seen as an example of an insecure parent that uses their role as a parent to reassure themselves in a constantly changing, unpredictable world. He only starts to get better when he starts changing and adapting to fit into that unpredictable world rather than trying to make his little corner of the world continue to conform to just him alone.

[blessingmaxxer]

My response to @mywitchyblog!

"Thank you for your response! I definitely have a deeper understanding of your perspective. I will make sure to answer your direct questions within your argument as soon as possible, as well as also clarify/highlight some of the points I made in my argument." - my initial response to your post

My stance: Race-changing is often (if not always) disrespectful and you shouldn't need to race-change to care about or try to understand another race

With that being said, I'll start again!

To answer your question about mixed people race-changing, I don't see why one would need to? Are you not those races??

Anyway, the practice of reality shifting, wherein individuals immerse themselves in alternate realities or dimensions, includes the controversial activity of race changing. You argue that race changing allows for profound personal growth, empathy development, and cultural competence. However, critics express concerns about cultural appropriation, racial fetishization, and racism. This essay critically examines the arguments for race changing in reality shifting, addressing its ethical implications and assessing the validity of its claimed benefits.

You and some others describe the practice as a deeply immersive experience that extends beyond physical transformation, including emotional and cultural integration. You say that this immersive experience fosters empathy and a nuanced understanding of different racial identities. However, this perspective oversimplifies the implications of embodying an entirely different racial identity, especially considering that race-changing practitioners can opt in and out of their new identities at will—a privilege not afforded to real individuals facing racial discrimination. Those who do so will always do it in a cavalier manner, since they can easily discard all social implications and conventions that exist. Vacationing to a life of discrimination is truly disheartening and fetishizing to see.

"Just wanting see" what the hell that is discrimination is like is backwards. What could be so interesting about a different race that you have to become it? If you strip every argument down, it will always lead to someone not fully respecting other races is-- They don't see it as something to be held in regard if they can easily cross that boundary.

While you claim that race changing enhances empathy by allowing individuals to experience life from a different racial perspective, this argument has limitations. Experiencing racial identity through shifting lacks the permanence and systemic context that characterize real-life racial experiences. Even if you shift to a new race, you will never inherit the deep-rooted understanding of what it means to be that race. Visiting another country does not make you automatically or intrinsically a part of it's culture for the virtue of you being there, and having a willingness to "learn", does not automatically translate to a willingness to be respectful of that culture or identity.

Shifters may encounter only a superficial or selective aspect of racial identity without enduring the lifelong societal challenges and discrimination that individuals of that race face. Thus, the empathy developed through such a practice might be more akin to a simulated experience rather than a genuine understanding of racial adversity.

Furthermore, while race changing might lead to personal reflection, the capacity for self-reflection does not naturally translate into a deeper or more accurate understanding of racial issues. Genuine empathy and social justice awareness require sustained engagement with real-world issues and communities, not merely temporary immersion in alternate realities.

Shifting for a few months or years does not an empathetic person make, or give you true understanding of an identity. What do you expect, you have someone call you a slur and suddenly you become a better and more understanding person, ready to fight discrimination every which way? Multiverse or not, that's not how people work.

You acknowledge that race changing can be seen as a form of cultural appropriation. That is because it is. Assuming a different racial identity, especially for temporary and frivolous purposes, does, in fact, trivialize and commodify the lived experiences of those races. You don't want it to be that way, but it is. You counter that shifters can engage with new cultures deeply and respectfully, integrating themselves fully into their desired identities.

Nevertheless, this perspective fails to address the fundamental issue that race changing involves choosing and discarding identities at will, an act that lacks the permanence and societal impact associated with real racial experiences. The practice risks perpetuating the notion that racial identities are interchangeable and can be explored without the enduring consequences of systemic racism, ergo, discarding the meaningfulness of these people and experiences.

Additionally, the ability to "opt out" of a racial identity undermines the reality of living with that identity, potentially reducing it to a mere fantasy or experiment, which for an incomprehensible amount of people, it is not.

The concern of racial fetishization is pertinent, as race changing might encourage the objectification or exoticization of racial identities. I argue that focusing on racial characteristics for personal or imaginative exploration can reinforce stereotypes and reduce complex identities to superficial traits.

You assert that the immersive nature of race changing fosters genuine cultural engagement and empathy. However, the risk of fetishization remains significant, particularly if the practice involves an emphasis on stereotypical or desirable aspects of a racial identity while neglecting its broader, more complex reality. It doesn't go away because you think there's very little evidence or weight to it. Effective engagement with racial identities requires more than temporary immersion; it demands a deep and respectful understanding of the lived experiences and systemic challenges faced by individuals of that race.

The argument that race changing is inherently centers on the notion that it minimizes the real struggles faced by marginalized racial groups. I believe that such practices can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and disregard the reality of racial oppression. Those who race-change often operate from a place of privilege, like a rich person pretending to be poor for the fun of it or the aesthetic.

Just as someone would rightfully side-eye said rich person, people of color have every right to side-eye race-changers, and people who enthusiastically support it (as you've said, people have the right to be offended; that's because it makes sense to be).

To address these concerns, it is essential for practitioners of race changing to engage critically with their motivations and the broader implications of their practice. Effective empathy and anti-racism require MORE than temporary experiences; they necessitate a sustained commitment to understanding and addressing real-world racial issues.

Having that "as long as we aren't weird about it, we can do it" mentality is a coverup; there's no way to be not weird about it, if you're already willing to cross that boundary. You can't say, "Oh, black people... Cool, cool... Let me see what that's like, looks interesting," and it not be weird. Race isn't a fashion that you can try on and discard later. It's not a enriching activity you can do with the family. It's a real and tangible identity that one random person on the internet can't just grapple or tackle on a whim, or even with careful thought.

In short, race changing in reality shifting may offer some insights into different racial perspectives, it also raises significant ethical concerns. The practice risks trivializing real racial experiences, reinforcing stereotypes, and perpetuating a superficial understanding of racial issues. For a meaningful engagement with racial diversity and empathy, it is crucial to approach these issues with a commitment to real-world understanding and systemic change, rather than relying on temporary, simulated experiences. Critical reflection and genuine engagement with racial communities (outside of reality shifting) are essential for fostering a deeper and more accurate understanding of racial identity and systemic inequality.

Thank you for your time.

[agrocomp0sites]

Sustainable Development

Outline Headings Sub-Headings Introduction Definition of Sustainable Development Importance of Sustainable Development Global Impact Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Overview of SDGs Importance of SDGs Economic Aspect of Sustainable Development Economic Growth and Sustainability Green Economy Environmental Aspect of Sustainable Development Conservation of Natural Resources Climate…

[dailyanarchistposts]

Queer autonomous zones and participatory publics

Bobby Noble points to ‘the simultaneity of the relations between gendered embodi- ment, sex play, and racialization inside homonormative communities, neighbour- hoods and venues for cultural production’ (Noble, 2009). Similar critiques of the queer community have been taken up by Gay Shame anarchist activists organizing in the late 1990s. In That’s Revolting! Matt/Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore docu- ments their personal experience in Gay Shame collectives in San Francisco and New York City. ‘Gay Shame emerged to create a radical alternative to the confor- mity of gay neighbourhoods, bars, and institutions – most clearly symbolized by Gay Pride’ (Sycamore, 2004: 238). Gay Shame is ‘mostly anarchist leaning’ (2004: 239), and organizes gatherings, events and direct action protests against capitalism and intersecting oppressions. A San Francisco flyer asks, ‘Are you choking on the vomit of consumerist ‘gay pride’?’ (2004: 239). Another poster entitled ‘Gay pride, my ass: It’s all about gay shame’ (2004: 240) announces an ‘autonomous space’ (2004: 240) outdoors on Tire Beach with performances, art-making, bands, instal- lations, DJs, food, kidspace, and ‘politics and play’ (2004: 240). The event hosted ‘speakers on issues including San Francisco gentrification and the US colonization of the Puerto Rican island of Vieques, as well as prison, youth, and trans activism’ (2004: 241). The range of issues and events in the ‘autonomous space’ point to a very different kind of sprawling, engaged public than Berlant and Warner’s indoor, circumscribed, queer counterpublic. ‘We encouraged people to participate in cre- ating their own radical queer space, and people argued about political issues, painted, poured concrete and made a mosaic, dyed hair, and mudwrestled naked’ (Sycamore, 2004: 241). Participation is a key element in the formation of a ‘Queer autonomous space’ (2004: 237) or zone, as are multiplicities of political focus (Puerto Rico, kids, youth, prisons, trans people, art production, gentrifica- tion and so on) and an over-arching anti-capitalist practice that includes free entrance, barter and trade, dressing to ‘ragged excess’ (2004: 240), and the provi- sion of ‘free food, T-shirts and various other gifts’ (2004: 241).

Queer autonomous zones thus are open-ended spaces in which participation of all comers is encouraged through a direct (rather than liberal) democracy model. They are facilitated via engagement with a multiplicity of intersectional anti- oppression politics. Interactions in queer autonomous spaces develop sustainable social relations and value-practices, based on mutual respect, consent, sexual lib- eration, and non-normativity, in which people engage in open-ended processes of developing alternative ways of being, feeling, thinking, engaging, acting and becoming-liberated. The question is – what’s next? How do we continue to expand our movements and theorizing to extend the becoming-liberated of queer?

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments, Jamie Heckert for encour- agement and patience with my process, and Sydney Neuman for engaged proofreading.

References

Berlant L and Freeman E (1992) Queer nationality. Boundary 2 19(1): 149–180.

Berlant L and Warner M (2000) Sex in public. In: Berlant L (ed.) Intimacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 311–330.

Bordo S (1990) Reading the slender body. In: Jacobus M, Fox Keller E, Shuttleworth S (eds) Body/Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science. New York: Routledge, 83–112. Castiglia C (2000) Sex panics, sex publics, sex memories. Boundary 2 27(2): 149–175. Corber RJ, Valocchi S (eds) (2003) Queer Studies: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Crimp D (2002) Mario montez, for shame. In: Barber SM, Clark DL (eds) Regarding Sedgwick: Essays on Queer Culture and Critical Theory. New York: Routledge, 57–70.

Deleuze G and Guattari F (1983) Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia Vol. 1. 1972. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

DeLuca KM (1999) Unruly arguments: The body rhetoric of EarthFirst!, act up, and queer nation. Argumentation and Advocacy 36(Summer): 9–21.

Duncan N (1996) Renegotiating gender and sexuality in public and private spaces. In: Duncan N (ed.) Body Space: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality. New York: Routledge, 125–143.

Dyer R (2006) Stereotyping. In: Durham MG, Kellner DM (eds) Media and Cultural Studies KeyWorks. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 353–365.

Heckert J (2004) Sexuality/identity/politics. In: Purkis J, Bowen J (eds) Changing Anarchism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 101–116.

Hennessy R (1994–95) Queer visibility in commodity culture. Cultural Critique 29(Winter): 31–76.

Jeppesen S and Visser L (Leahfish) (1996) Projectile: Stories about Puking. Toronto: self- published.

Les Panthe‘ res Roses (2004) Operation ‘‘Pepto-bismol SVP!’’ URL (accessed 12 July 2008): http:/lespantheresroses.org.

McCall L (2005) The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1771–1800.

Noble B (2009) Trans-Culture in the (White) City: Taking a Pass on a Queer Neighbourhood. URL (accessed 8 May 2009): http:/nomorepotlucks.org/article/ego/ trans-culture-white-city-taking-pass-queer-neighbourhood.

Sullivan N (2003) A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. New York: New York University Press.

Sycamore M, Berstein M (eds) (2004) That’s Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation. Brooklyn, NY: Soft Skull.

Vade D (2005) Expanding gender and expanding the law: Toward a social and legal con- ceptualization of gender that is more inclusive of transgender people. Michigan Journal of Gender and Law 11: 253–316.

Warner M (2002) Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.

On the Author

Sandra Jeppesen is an activist, writer, and Assistant Professor in Communication Studies at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. Her research is in guerrilla texts and autonomous media, including analysis of discourses produced through anti-poverty activism, anti-colonial no-border activism, radical feminist and queer collectives, anti-racist pedagogies, and other social movement texts. Address: Communication Studies Department, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, CJ 3.230, 3rd Floor, Montreal, Canada H4B 1R6.

[1] Following Vade’s important article (2005) advocating the ‘Gender Galaxy’ which reveals the falsity of the gender/sex divide and the negative legal impact of this distinction on trans people, I am using the term ‘gender’ to be comprehensive.

[2] In the USA this is particularly true. In Canada same-sex marriage and human rights are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and immigration processes are begin- ning to include same-sex partners in sponsorship claims, as well as considering persecution for sexuality as a basis for refugee claims. These processes however remain heteronorma- tive. I’d like to thank Melissa White for sharing her insights and research on this issue.

[mnemyo]

a VERY long essay on V’s Day 7 Visual Novels as a Rika lover

.

while rika is an extreme version of this, to many mentally ill people “unconditional love” comes off as very burdening, especially for a character like rika who everyone who ever “loved” her before always had a lot of expectations for her to fufill. On a less character defined level,

V’s “unconditional love” is also a trap of sorts, in his story rika describes the “darkness” in herself. you see, if you dont show rika affection whatsoever she doesn’t tell you the root of her ideology, however, if you side with her in the rika vn sequences she tells you the story of her darkness and light (im aware she explains some of it even if you reject her but there is more when you embrace and sympathize with her) basically her analogy is

her darkness is not inherently born in her, her darkness is the trauma and negative feelings others inflicted onto her in her upbringing.

the darkness used to externally present as tears (sadness) until people responded to that, too, with more darkness.

In response to that darkness, she developed severe anthropophobia (fear of humans) until she was able to suppress her phobia by finding a way to suppress her crying. her tears stopped coming out but they were still there behind her smile, just welling up on the inside until she was so full of tears. the body needed to expel tears because there was no more space

unfortunately, the way the excess tears came out wasn’t by the physical tears coming out, rather, through extinguishing her own darkness (harming others, abused becomes the abuser) she lists these things that would expel tears: cry, yell, and do something others would hate.

(at this point you can comment on how you think she’d be pretty when she’s finally able to cry and notably rika is grateful but comments that the mc, too, looks like shes going to cry, this shows the scene is meant to be in a sympathetic lens)

continuing her ideology she says one day she found a devil swimming in the tears inside her.

the devil whispered to her her incecurities: that she was unlovable, that her fiancée secretly hated her, that she was worthless.

This caused her to cling further to V (her fiancée) because the ‘devil’ was sustained by her tears, and she desperately wanted to kill that devil by drying her tears. V has an obsessive ideology with loving someone like the sun, drying all of someone’s tears and vanquishing the devil inside them, an unconditional all encompassing love.

while V encompassed her in this love, she had a realization that this devil that kept telling her she was worthless and unlovable, was actually herself, the herself that was deeply hurt in her childhood and was alone for so long. immediately she became terrified, terrified of this man who so devotedly wanted to kill her devil she asked him to spare the devil, to stop this sun like love that would one day reduce her to nothingness but he refused, so she ran away to start a cult of people, like her, so filled with darkness.

she actually comments at this point that she wont save those in agony through freedom and charity (the way she tried to get mentally better before, by starting a charity organization) and that not everyone can be saved by freedom and charity, rather need fear and salvation.

another interesting thing is that she says V will never be right in rejecting her ideology UNLESS he sacrifices himself to blind her with his light, in which case she would lose everything (this happens in another route where he dies for her and she permanently enters a catatonic hollow-to-life state where she can’t even talk and is sent to a mental hospital abroad because no one can take care of her other than a specialist) she ends this conversation by posing the mc a question. when she one day has to make the decision (this conversation happens during v’s route where you get together with him) the decision being independence (what she chose) or stableness (v’s all consuming light)

there within hides the reason why the game says v’s all consuming, sun like love is negative. theres 2 reasons

1. his all consuming unconditional love is self-sacrifical and is thusly even more burdensome

2. this also expands on part 1, this love is stable but also causes a deep codependency, even if V did “fix her” who would she be? she only knew herself as consumed by darkness before but who would she be after? a product of v? v’s wife? she wouldn’t be able to recognize herself

she also states that to her love is both light and devil, love being described by her as the duality of trust + healing but also obsession and possession. she then states that v’s love doesn’t contain any obsession (while sounding negative a light version of obsession in a relationship is a good thing, think your thoughts being filled by your loved one and with possession theres jealousy and a desire for them to stay with you) without those two aspects the love is only light and endless undeserved trust is a bad thing and too much healing doesn’t let one take time to process each stage of a deep set wound, healing is meant to be a full process and sometimes there needs to be pauses in the process to *be able* to mentally process

another thing rika comments is that v wants her to torture herself which is what starts her explaining her darkness ideology, even commenting that no one ever asked her about her darkness before

this is concerning because if no one asked her about this before that includes v that means v knew next to nothing about all her trauma (theres a lot)

non conclusive list of rikas trauma:

- shes an orphan abandoned by her parents

- she was adopted by a abusive religious family and was abused and even implied sa by their priest (i’ll get back to this in a second)

- when she ran away from her adoptive family she went to a lot of trouble to find her biological family, not her parents rather her step-parents (this doesn’t really make sense as a statement but thats what she states, probably makes more sense in og korean) and said step parents also abused her!

- she was also bullied in school for being a not cheerful girl

she states to all this trauma that she didn’t even know there was light in the world, since all she’s known was darkness, that she thought she was born to be tormented and tortured or she wouldn’t have a purpose to live

now going back to the catholic priest abuse, this is most likely why she sees herself as the devil and why devil isn’t an inherently bad thing to her.

all this really to say that while a lot of what rika did is inexcusable like man after that whole life she lived + when she ran away to start a cult V instead of telling her friends and cousin she was mentally ill the entire time she’s known them he tell them that she killed herself! because he is so dead set on “shouldering the pain he caused on his own” he socially isolates the only other people who can show her light, ESPECIALLY since rika comments that the RFA all have their own darkness.

Thank you if you’ve read this far! I have a lot of thoughts about Rika my friends are sick of me. This is not to say any of rikas actions aren’t bad by any means but I think she’s a wonderfully complex character that i find easy to sympathize with and for any fellow Rika lovers (or someone who just wants to understand rika more) I would recommend reading the day 7 vn’s in her own words, she says more details if you side with her more.

[khofiecloud]

how to preserve your mental health at school

School is probably one of the most mentally taxing things a teen can go through. It certainly is mine. With the pressure to be the best, to get ahead, and to generally succeed, it's hard to not be affected. The mental strain is unavoidable, and I struggled with it for most of my school years, but over time that has led me to find tips that could help anyone going through this cope.

There are a few signs that can tell you whether or not you are being severely affected. You might be unmotivated and apathetic throughout the school day, and just because of school itself. You might feel like crying in school during the whole day and every day. Reasons can range from academic pressure to bullying and social ostracization to feeling inferior to your over achieving classmates.(If it's bullying, please tell someone who can help you) But here's some tips that might help based on what I learned from experience:

Find a piece of comfort (that you can come back to whenever you feel bad) .It can be a show, anime, song , movie, fanfic, manga , book, food, piece of clothing, or really just about anything (my recs are saiki k, ghibli songs and movies) . It’s best to have multiple just in case you get too used to 1 of them.

Get a support system: the way you can get this may differ based on your specific problem but here’s some ideas : make new friends offline or online (best app is slowly) and strengthen your existing relationships with friends and family.

Find a 3rd place which is not electronic: A third place is any public area away from homes and school/work ,where people meet and interact in an open environment. But the real challenge is not making your 3rd place your device .It's hard but here are some ideas for a 3rd place : libraries, arcades, gym, yoga place, sport club, skateparks, playgrounds, parks, coffee shops and cafes, bodegas. Make sure to choose a place where you feel comfortable. 

Get enough sleep: being tired will just make you feel so much worse. Never underestimate the power of a good night's sleep. Just to make it extra too, listen to some calming music, light candles and wear your fanciest sleepwear.

Put your mind on other things and focus on finding things that'll make you proud of yourself: You could get new hobbies, especially creative ones since those allow you to express yourself easily. Some examples are crocheting, embroidery, drawing, painting, sculpting, pottery, dancing, writing music, performance art and writing (stories, poetry, essays)

Take a leap of faith: create or design something based on your interests and skills and share it with the world. This can develop into being your own personal extracurricular activity. It might be scary but that's what makes it so rewarding in the end.

1) Video editing : post videos on your favorite subject and post on tiktok or youtube 2) Fashion and Photography : take pictures of yourself wearing cute clothes (or just your fav ones) and post them on your social media 3) Painting and Sustainability : paint an exhibit and display it in public 4) Volunteering and Social Media: make and run the official Instagram account of a local business 5) Gaming : make a game on roblox 6) Reading: start a book review blog These are just a few pretty ambitious ideas. You don’t have to follow these. Create your own project, it all depends on who you are. Take the best out of all of you (pieces of your soul) and create a masterpiece. If you don't have any interests (post on tips coming soon) just make something out of your skills . Make sure to only take on a project if you have time and resources.

Lastly, this is a tip I got from Quora. It’s to make a slow nights document. You can write this down on paper or open a doc and write down your comforts, favorite movie, favorite art pieces, places you’d like to go in the future, what you think your life will be in 10 years and so on. Just write things that will make you you.

School can make you feel drained, insecure and hurt for so many reasons. It may end up in you being numb and apathetic. In most cases, the problems you have can’t be solved by just forcing yourself to look at the bright side or forcing yourself to avoid or ignore them. They are real issues. And when asking for tips on the internet isn’t enough, I hope this post will help you. It probably didn’t solve all your problems, but I hope it showed you a way to go. Thank you for reading and Good Luck 

[plaguery]

long post time

im not really in the mood to write a solid essay with a structured thesis i just kind of want to infodump and explore the subject as i write. unfortunately for everyone but me and a select damned few this will be about zenos but it will also be about my wol/the concept of the wol in general (there will be a perhaps strange interplay between the two because i feel like siv really highlights my commentary on the concept of the wol but i still recognize that shes her own character)

so.

i scrapped together a basic idea for my wol quite a while before i even played the game myself. my friends were heavily into it and i wanted to join the crowd despite not having wifi at the time to even download the game. i used what little guidance they gave me of researching the ffxiv races and the seventh umbral calamity to throw something together. core idea: femroe from a village, specialized in funerary traditions, born to a former pirate, largely raised by her aunt, propelled into adventuring after her aunt dies and her shitty pink catboyfriend breaks up with her.

as i played the game, i developed her backstory more and got clearer on specific details and locations. but even into heavensward and cumulative weeks of gameplay, for the life of me i could not get a grasp on her character. the non playable characters were rich and i enjoyed following them around, albeit mildly, and so i continued to power through, aiming for the later expansions with promised quality. i struggled to connect to the game by story or premise. often, i felt confused, baffled, or humored by contrived plot lines and conflicting messages.

straddling this line of willing reluctance to move further, to fully engage and give in to the "fantasy" of the game--one which posits that ultimate hope of a select few can rally together a world on the brink--i began to understand my wol to be as willingly reluctant as myself, the player, in her adventures. she still felt intrinsically vague to me. her purpose was as missing as mine was, more a waiting, an expectation of change as reliable as a roll of the dice, the turning of the cards. i couldn't call her bluff, because she simply didnt have one.

as the player, i was enriched through learning the mechanics of the game, progressing in skill, and with every mark of achievement: ever the more able to level our foes. where i couldn't find enjoyment with the story or premise, i was able to sustain my efforts forward through enjoyment with digital battle. it was not until that particularly rainy nightfall in doma, with the foiled assassination of our newest enemy, that i finally felt a "click" with the story. we were purposefully kept alive, for a second time, by an opponent embroiled in the philosophy of violence for violence's sake. driven forward by the promise of enjoyment with our digital battles.

the warrior of light, for all intents and purposes, is a template character. they exist for the player to insert a character of their own design, one that the developers cannot predict or reasonably accommodate with the mass of players who log on everyday. this character can then essentially be anything or anyone. with any background, any motive, any connection and viewpoint to and of this world. but in their limitless potentiality, they must also be a kind of nothingness, a malleable emptiness, at least to function as the playable template required for the main scenario quests to move forward.

but our template is united by certain factors. as a mmorpg, the idea of community is interwoven throughout the fabric of the game, a rallying cry of unison behind our light parties, our trials, and our companies. we are members of guilds, associations, military factions. whatever drives us forth, we are strung forward by violence, battles won and lost, tempering our skills both literally and digitally to rise to each occasion. and no matter our motive, our history, or the alliances of our hearts, it is unmistakable that the warrior of light is hailed as a hero.

against our warrior of light, zenos makes sense to me as a literary foil, unique in what exactly he contrasts and reflects. he is as much a means to the end as the warrior of light, a plot device of villain and hero. he lacks character outside of vague philosophical ideals in an embrace of bloodshed, the temptation of meaning through ultimate pursuit. without the bonds that our warrior of light holds in contrast to him, his meaning can only be found in his lone design. with the actions he must take in his role, no matter his motive, his history, or any alliance of his heart, it is unmistakable that he is reviled as a villain.

this aspect of emptiness to him, i feel, is not fully engaged with until endwalker, but he constantly calls into question this relation to violence, its purpose and meaning, and the power of physical (in the player's case, digital) attainment.

after zenos left us to grow in strength for the second time and we find ourselves the inspiration for yet another rally of the citizenry, my wol finally began to make sense to me. i saw the idea of the bluff itself in her, that her willing reluctance, this paradoxical hollow, was what made her her. admittedly, this was partly reflecting my own disconnect to the game so far onto her, but it was also a championing of what kept me in the first place, the value that i found as a player in leveling my jobs and completing the duties and trials that first scared me as an amateur gamer. to play a game, even if you don't find worth in the story, you can typically look to satisfaction in the gameplay. if you don't find it, the sensible action would be to stop playing and move on. but you made it this far. again, cumulative weeks of gameplay, and i made it this far.

siv, my wol, was born to death and violence, inheriting a funerary position from her father and a disgraced pirate's vengeance from her mother.

"She had ever been cold, distant, untouchable. To be a symbol, something separated from life into the ideal, was her most natural state of being. Less a person than a personification of the care and cruelty of death all set adrift into the cask of a body, struggling to mold itself against the flesh, clumsily adopting habits and gestures and preferences."

she exists in tandem with her creation as a warrior of light, a template, an idea more than a character with unique traits that solidify fantasy into something resembling reality. if not for some strike of fate, she could have ended up on the other side, the villain seeking nothing but violence, perfected. and for a time, there was quite a villainous life she led, massacring others alongside her mother.

"Morality meant as little as the rest of her life. Morality was another meaningless, inscrutable gesture of the world. There was no right or wrong to her violence at sea and yet, something was still amiss. It was not enough. Nothing could be enough."

but still, even later as hero, she follows violence.

zenos eventually asks an interesting question of jullus in endwalker,

"Would you be 'happier' had I a 'good reason'? [...] If my motives met with your approval, would you no longer resent the outcome?"

to probe these questions further: what exactly makes zenos' violence villainous? what exactly makes the warrior of light's violence heroic? do their motives, histories, and alliances inform these delineations and where exactly do we draw the line? is there and can there be an exact line?

i wanted a warrior of light who indirectly asked these same questions back; a character, who perhaps had no right being a hero, thrust into the role. would people be disappointed to find out that their hero lacked 'good reasons' for her acts of liberation and protection, large and small? would they resent her, knowing that she feels no intrinsic sense of right or wrong?

what do we make of a story where both hero and villain are hollow?

"These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever." (Jude 1:12 & 13, NIV)

"In that transcendent moment, what was it that I sought in you? And what was it that you sought in me?"

"Never have I understood those around me. Understood their obsessions. Besieged by their banality, the world was a mire of tedium and trivialities. [...] What of you, my mirror?"

accounting for the blankness of the warrior of light, zenos and wol look to each other as personified void trying to find the light. in absence of a clear, defined character to examine, zenos is left to address the player's shared thrill of combat with him and conclude their sameness in this respect.

by this point in time, my wol, siv, has changed much from her beginnings. directly, she has been changed by the people around her and has come to understand a purpose for herself. her hollowness serves her, her ability to take and accept an abundance of unanswerable questions without limits allows her to brighten the path for others.

siv, through all the trials, found fulfillment.

zenos, through his mirror, found understanding.

and in the mirror, siv finds an acceptance, a peace, a resolution that she, as the warrior of light, was able to reach even the most unreachable of places.

[northern-passage]

hey whats up!! i'm someone who is writing my own if, and i'm doing bad over here 😰😰😰 i really need help developing my world, and the northern passage is so so super cool, i've never seen anything like it and i love tnp soooo much. do you mind sharing how you did your worldbuilding, or any tips you have (for the worldbuilding or just in general i have no idea what i'm doing any of the time) or anything you think might be helpful at all in any way please i'm doing bad i'm doing so bad

oh this is funny anon i was just ranting about worldbuilding to some of my friends the other day lmfao

firstable i will send you over to brandon sanderson's lectures on worldbuilding (two parts, lectures 5&6, it's a little over 2 hours)

i assume you're writing a fantasy but i know worldbuilding is also pretty significant for scifi and post apoc settings as well, and kind of an integral part across all 3 genres. so i won't get too specific since idk much about your story but i'll tell you what i did for tnp

so tnp's setting is one that i've kinda been kicking around since like.. high school... but it's changed a lot since then, as your writing from high school always should. but the most basic thing i started with was the environment. i knew i wanted it to be cold and i wanted the ocean to play a significant part in the story, which led me to making it a significant part of the culture, both in the religion as well as the economy.

if it's cold and mountainous then what exactly would sustain the people there and how would their economy function? i already wanted the ocean to be a part of the story, so why not make a port city an important location? the north would focus on trading, fishing and whaling and animal husbandry while the warmer southern areas were perfect for farming. the backbone of Adrania is their port cities and trading across the country between the north and the south.

i'm not really one to get super into this kind of worldbuilding, especially since my story is not focused on this aspect of the world, however it's still important to feel out the basics, imo. you want to have a general idea of what day to day life looks like and how it is this country/kingdom/colony/etc functions. and in a broader sense it's a way for me to find roles for my characters to fill, like as an example: Merry works in tnp because maritime trade is very significant to the two countries present, so of course there would be pirates.

from there, my focus shifted to the story itself: the hunters. when i look back, i didn't really ask myself these questions word for word at the time, but i think this is a good general idea of how i started feeling things out:

1. what are hunters?

2. what is their role in the story and in the wider world?

3. how exactly do they fit in? what effect does their existence have?

4. why are they needed?

5. how do other people feel about them?

you can substitute whatever you need in that first question in place of hunters and apply this to just about anything. those 5 questions will get you pretty far, and will lead you to more questions, too. if hunters exist to stop monsters, then where do the monsters come from? they come from the vel. what's the vel? it was put in place by the gods to confine humanity to one plane of existence. well, who are the gods? and how do the monsters still get through? the gods are xyz and they did a bad job so the vel can be weakened. how can the vel be weakened? because it's blood magic. what's blood magic? are there other kinds of magic, too? on and on and on and on....

if you have a magic system, i once again point you to brando sando. if you don't want to watch the full lectures, you can still check out his 3 laws of magic essays on his website. tnp's magic system is something i'm still kind of figuring out (this is a first draft, after all) but i knew i wanted it to be elemental based +blood magic and i knew i wanted it to work alongside alchemy. i've made changes since then to allow for enchantments and other cool stuff i have planned later down the line, and i know it's something that i'll need to refine in the first 2 chapters at some point. so i honestly don't have too much advice on that one... so go read the essays ☝️ i also feel that these 3 laws can also be applied more broadly to like, how the technology works in your scifi/cyberpunk story as well so i still recommend reading them even if you're not using magic.

when it comes to worldbuilding, the biggest thing you want to do is look at your story and ask yourself... "does this make sense?" which sounds very silly but let me use an example (and also continue the rant i was on about the other day lol)

i was watching a review for fourth wing and i'm sorry to anyone that likes this book but it's a good example of very bad worldbuilding. the rundown is that this is supposed to be a very militaristic society, they force people into military training academies for the sole purpose of funneling them straight into The Military. however. for some reason... they just Kill anyone who doesn't "pass" the super elite training courses....? this doesn't make sense. why would they not just delegate them to another role within the military? why not just use them as cannon fodder? what about the logistics-- who is cooking meals for this military, is there a functioning quartermaster, what about people that just take care of the dragons (they have dragons in this book. we could say horses, too, or any other animal, really)? a military consists of more than just Super Special Elite Soldiers.

you want your choices and story to make sense within the society you've created, whatever that society may be. fourth wing gets compared to the hunger games, but it's not the hunger games. the hunger games had in-world reasoning for the kids to die during the games. there was a society that was built around the games and it functioned in a way that made sense. there is no reason for the kids to die in fourth wing except for the author to make an artificial conflict for the mc that doesn't make sense.

so if you already have your story, and you know what you want to do with it, you need to build a society that compliments your story and that actually allows it to happen. they have to hold hands and get along.

anyways that's a lot of rambling... i hope this helps, at least a little bit! worldbuilding can feel very daunting, but honestly i encourage you to start small like i did - something as simple as the weather and the terrain, and that will lead you on to more and more and more.