#tend to work with the conservative assumption

[yarnings]

Motorists, please be aware that pedestrians measure near-misses in seconds, not metres. So if you managed to stop a couple of metres before the crosswalk that you didn't see the red light for, the pedestrian is too ticked to really be interested in your apology because she isn't going "oh, good, he had a factor of safety", she's aware that there was well under a second as a factor of safety.

[hexhomos]

The 'Talis' hypothesis

So I think the S2 trailer confirms something central about Arcane I've wondered for a while. This has plot bearings to it, namely what nebulous purpose 'Magic' serves in the story -- how they're changing the role Hextech has in the game lore, incl. its power system & ruleset -- and what kind of hubris is associated with it historically. But it also answers something that has always nagged at me: why the fuck did they change Jayce's name?

So let's talk about this picture. And I'm going to give you the rosetta stone in 5 seconds:

This is Hextech now. Like that is just an incredibly concise and complete descriptor of Hextech-in-Arcane, right. It 'harms' Jinx, it 'protects' Jayce in the snowstorm, it 'heals' Viktor to a degree. It is installed permanently in architecture; the Hexgates ARE the brand.

First off, we have this fucker carrying around a talisman from back when he was 7, and the cinematography of the show agonizes over showing you this throughout all of ep2:

Jayce's bracelet is a bang-on definition of a historical talisman. The way hextech *functions* in the show is inextricable from the promises and rites associated with talismans, a word appropriated/popularized by the French - which I'm going to conservatively argue Fortiche would be familiar with;

Which brings me to the subject of what Hextech is, and how Hextech was changed for the tv show (and what its possibly being retconned to in the game)

Hex'tech' is not technology. The name is a carryover from a bygone era of leagueoflegends speak; Hextech in Arcane, and presumably in expanded lore going forward (given Skarner's rework and other things) - is the study, development, and the building of an industry around the craft of practical Talismans. If you want to understand how this shit works you need to promptly abandon the assumption that it is 'manufactured' magic -- its pure magic. It's raw magic. The tech part is a red herring misnomer.

The beliefs around this already cover links to 'the Arcane' as another, ethereal destination realm with Inhabitants that learn and change, ontop of rune-carving as magical instruction;

This also covers Viktor's impending transformation and the changes made to his character.

IN MY OPINION, via the content released so far and what we've already witnessed in S1, Viktor has been shifted away from becoming 'the machine herald' and re-positioned to become the Herald of Divine Rune Alchemy or whichever name they end up using.

I don't doubt that he'll get the armor at some point, because that's a recognizable visual and as much fanservice as they owe his decade-long fans, but... I would temper my expectations around the thought of machine evolution. It's not what this Viktor does, and it's not what he (or the narrative,) is interested in -- My guess is that the armor comes into play as a secondary way to AVOID overusing limited magical power, as we've seen runes can be depleted, and the hexcore tends to kill things in exchange.

Now that we've established all that, here is the bridge that I'm going to sell you.

Now, for today's homework, I expect you to run off to do something useful and homoerotic with this information.

[pkmnprofloblolly]

Hello! Trainer from Alola here, big fan of your work. I was wondering; is there any evidence of any legendary pokemon being related to other pokemon? For example, does Rayquaza share any DNA with other dragon pokemon? (I know it would be extremely difficult to get any rayquaza DNA fhshfjd) Or are pokemon like that entirely their own species?

the answer is, as with many things on this blog.. it depends!

"legendary pokemon" aren't really a cohesive category like, say, a type or a taxonomic group. the only common factors are that they tend to be very rare and that they have legends about them. as our examples, let's use two groups of hoenn legendary pokemon: latios and latias, and groudon, kyogre, and rayquaza.

latios and latias (like other pairs such as nidoqueen and nidoking, or volbeat and illumise, latios and latias are sexually dimorphic members of the same species) are indeed related to other pokemon- they're birds! specifically, they're in the auk family, which are a group of generally stout, seafaring birds like guillemots and puffins. this may seem strange- the latis appear to have wings and arms, and no legs, very unlike birds. however, if we take a look at their skeleton, the connection becomes much more obvious:

what we generally interpret as arms are actually the lati's legs, the thighs of which are obscured by flesh and feathers. while they use their wings to steer and for some lift, the latis generally stay aloft with their psychic powers rather than traditional flight, which is why they can hover in place. this has freed up their legs for use in manipulating objects, and they are rarely seen standing on their feet. because they mostly rely on hovering, their legs no longer have the strength to hold their large bodies up for very long.

these pokemon are indeed exceptionally rare, having very low population numbers in only a few regions, and spending most of their time over open ocean. like many pelagic seabirds, they breed on only a few small islands, like alto mare off the johto region and southern island off hoenn's south coast. their populations are on the upswing, though, in large part due to concentrated conservation efforts on those islands. point being, though, they are indeed just animals. rare, powerful animals, but animals nonetheless.

many legendary pokemon fall into this camp. articuno, zapdos, and moltres, lugia and ho-oh, heatran, and various others.

.

conversely, the so-called weather trio of hoenn: groudon, kyogre, and rayquaza. these three are even more rarely seen than the latis, only having been sighted in recent times during their clash in hoenn nearly two decades ago. despite the three's resemblance to other living pokemon, as far as we know they are entirely unrelated to any known animals, or even any other life on earth.

this is known because evidence of these pokemon have been found dating back over 3 billion years ago, that is to say over a billion years before multicellular life even existed. gigantic fragments of footprints attributed to groudon have been sighted alongside some of the earliest fossils we know of of early bacteria. modern physical samples from these pokemon- the extremely few that have ever been recovered- have never resulted in any dna evidence, and appear in structure much more similar to inorganic matter.

as it stands, it appears these pokemon arose some time early (relatively speaking) after the earth formed, being (as opposed to natural living organisms) animate representations of the forces of nature themselves. a similar condition is often assumed for some other grandiose legendary pokemon, such as dialga and palkia, though much less tangible evidence exists for their presence in prehistoric time, so this is mostly an assumption based on their infrequent appearances & legends surrounding their origins.

[bloggingboutburgers]

i hope that i'm not making any terrible cultural assumptions here, but i'm curious about your experiences as aro/ace in france in particular. the states are often very culturally conservative but especially when it comes to sex in particular. i don't know if it's just an incorrect cultural assumption on our part but the french are stereotyped as being a lot more open and in your face (?) about sex. is that true? does it make it harder for you to deal with people pushing the expectation of sex on you?

OK, so, I'm not sure I can 100% answer this one accurately because... Well, I've never properly LIVED in the States, only visited for a while each time, so I don't have a proper point of reference.

What I WILL say though is that most of our modern culture comes from us from the US. Movies, series, musicals, songs, social media conversations and stuff... And those ABSOLUTELY push the expectation of sex on people regardless of how conservative the States probably are on a daily basis.

I think it's like... The way I experience it, it kinda feels like the large majority of people regardless of the country or culture ARE kinda obsessed with sex anyway, so it's more about how overtly it's admitted in society or not. French people WILL definitely bring up sex in random conversations including at work or with people they've just literally met from the first time. (Depends on personality of course but... Yeah.) But I dunno. Maybe people in the US do that too. In terms of what I see in the exported culture though? The omnipresence of sex is definitely still felt. Heck, look at fandoms that are for a big part comprised of US people and how quickly they'll gravitate to shipping and sexual shipping or thirsting for a character too. That's definitely not just a thing I've observed in France.

The main difference I see is that most conversations of this type seem to start in the US and my country tends to "behind" in lots of ways, so it's definitely harder to talk about how you're an asexual in France still, at least I'd assume. Here we're still at the point where the odd mainstream media will write an article introducing asexuality as a revolutionary concept in a "can you believe this exists?" and "🫴🦋 is this a new trend?" kinda way. It's... A bit embarrassing, though it's way better than nothing at this point, progress is progress.

PS: The obsession with romance kinda seems to be everywhere in both cultures, so that at least doesn't make much of a difference. Except that I guess France being stereotyped as "the country of love" (read: ROMANTIC love ONLY) doesn't really help at all but meh.

[centrally-unplanned]

Serious question: How much do you think exowombs would actually improve fertility rates? I think they would help at the margins, but I suspect that disinclination to carry (more) children to term only makes up a moderate portion of the decline in fertility and all the other factors driving that change would continue unabated.

This depends on what you mean, right? The "conservative" assumption is you invent exowomb technology and it is just IVF+, a new way for individual parents to have families (but not too conservative, in real life people would have moral issues around the tech, we are gonna ignore those here). I think this would make a more than marginal difference! It has some very direct benefits; people absolutely do not have kids because of issues like:

Unwillingness to take the full time off work because it impacts careers

Health risks for pregnancy, particularly later in life

Actual infertility issues, again particularly as one ages

"Going through it again" once you have had 1-2 kids

That exowomb tech directly addresses. Some of these are huge parts of the fertility decline! I would bet fully safe/mature exowomb technology boosting the median "ready to have kids" family unit by half a kid, and it could be more.

There are deeper issues around this, for example. So I have done direct conversations with "adult, stable & childless" people, and something I hear a ton are statements like "the medical risk to me is too high", despite ofc pregnancy being the safest it has ever been. That doesn't mean that is wrong! Just that pregnancy isn't getting safer - people's risk profiles have just changed. Other statements include things like "pregnancy literally sounds like body torture, it would alienate me from my physical sense of self" (some hip amoung you might say body dysphoria). Conceptions of self-identity have changed, people value stability and self-image more, and tbh anxiety levels are higher so we are less risk-happy. These deeper culture shifts *could* also be addressed by exowomb tech; though it is far more vague how that would all play out.

And ofc surrogacy is currently a thing! Lots of people currently pay for exowombs - it is just very expensive ($100k+) and very "invasive". When costs go down, demand goes up, simple as right? And even in the most basic case, lots of single men want kids and don't have a partner.

Now there are many things that aren't addressed by exowomb tech - the high-demand parenting styles of modernity, rising minimum *expectations* around the cost of raising a kid, focuses on careers, etc. You won't get people back to wanting 10 children family. So the shift could be notable, but it won't be huge.

With the *conservative* assumptions we just gave. So let's loosen those - most people don't want 10 kids. But some people do! That is just quite hard to do right now, most women don't wanna do that and most men can't afford a harem of mother-wives or 18 surrogates. But with radically lower costs those barriers vanish. I think you would get a far larger "tail" of fertility - you would be surprised how many people would have the dream of that kind of family if it was on the table for them.

And then institutions enter the picture - organizations promoting families, or the state actively pursuing it. Which to be clear is already happening - fertility decline is real and a serious problem, states are getting very interested in reversing it. Once you open the door to "state orphanages hitting TFR targets" than any discussion of "margins" is asinine. Your fertility is what you will it.

Which might sound dsytopian! And it could be - my stance tends to be living is good and orphans that are well provided for are actually perfectly happy (turns out parents aren't that necessary!). But I admit to the other side of the case here - my point is that you aren't going to have a choice. I am betting the answer without such tech isn't going to be pretty

[scullysflannel]

hiiii apologies if i'm sending you too many asks lol, don't feel pressured to reply right away or at all tbh, but there's this thing ive been turning over in my head about the x files that's like... so in many ways it has these conservative ideas kind of baked into the premise and format of the show. these fears of monsters and monstrous others that have to be investigated and neutralized by our heroes who are these beautiful professional looking white people. and then there's the looming fear of alien invasion that comes up in the myth episodes. so theres a lot that could and should and does feel reactionary and conservative about it. but theres also such a palpable love for the strange and unknown? the "i want to believe" poster represents this so beautifully. i think this love tends to be expressed visually rather than in words so it's kind of hard to concretely describe but i'm sure you know what i'm talking about. and then the show also relies on us the audience having an interest in the paranormal and unexplainable, not because we want to see it defeated, but for its own sake. so i guess i want to ask how you square those two ideas, that the x files has all these anxieties about weirdness but also loves and yearns for weirdness? as i said ive been kind of ruminating on this for a while and having trouble reconciling the two ideas so i'd love to hear your thoughts!

Ooh I kind of just want to give you a reading list. Have you read “In the Dark” by Brian Phillips?? It’s a Grantland essay written for the 20th anniversary in 2013. It’s my favorite piece of X-Files journalism (actually my favorite piece of entertainment journalism in general) — kind of an essential text to me. It gets into all of this. But for me I don’t feel like reconciling the tension is the goal, or that it’s even possible. The tension is the show.

Likely thing for me to say, but I think the structure of The X-Files as a procedural is a big part of how and why it moves between fear and love. Phillips describes Mulder and Scully as representatives of a doomed but still operational status quo, “figures of a weird reactionary beauty, struggling to understand and then prevent the profound transformation breaking out across their world.” I’d say that last part (prevention) is especially true of the mythology, with the monster-of-the-week episodes giving space to sometimes complicate that. 

The X-Files is traditional in its basic formula; it makes assumptions about who gets to be the hero and what kind of job they should have. There are some assumptions it doesn’t interrogate, like its default whiteness. But its critique of the government can be shockingly pointed, even if it holds itself back in later seasons by keeping Mulder and Scully in the Bureau well past the point where they should go rogue. (Not that I think the show actually could have done that.)

Does The X-Files love its boundaries or want to blow them up? Both. The appeal of a procedural is typically that it gives neat answers, so being a procedural that denies easy answers is the point, which is to say that both sides of the show are dependent on each other. The whole show is sort of an experiment in fitting some of the strangeness of Twin Peaks into a procedural. I think it’s meant to be a go-between, the same way Mulder and Scully are. 

Phillips also writes, “In this show about not knowing, the agents confronted two distinct sets of frightening unknowns. On one side was the shadow government represented by the Cigarette-Smoking Man. On the other was the evil that lurked beneath the surface of every American hamlet. Often, Mulder and Scully’s role was simply to act as interpreters between their own antagonists, rendering chaotic eruptions of small-town horror comprehensible to men in marble corridors in D.C.” I think The X-Files works like that too — interpreting between what’s regimented and what’s odd — and in that sense it has to yearn for the same things it’s afraid of. And really, I prefer the honesty of that to something more ideologically consistent. 

I always think about “Home” as an episode that sums up a lot of The X-Files’ attitude toward progress (more on this here): It isn’t immune to the romance of the myth of Mayberry, even as it’s aware that it’s a grotesque lie built on violence, and that people are committing perverse acts to hold on to it. The show allows for progress to be scary but insists that it’s not as scary as what people will do when they fear it. Weirdness on The X-Files isn’t perfectly analogous for righteous deviance only. I believe the show sees what is weird coming from all sides, past (like the Peacocks) and future, so what’s weird isn’t inherently good or meant to signify inherent goodness; it only can be good. 

One of my favorite things about The X-Files is the way it respects the integrity of doubt. (I’ve written about this! But hold off on reading if you don’t want any spoilers.) I don’t think the show could be about the bravery of questioning your beliefs without letting those old beliefs be a little bit comforting to Mulder and Scully, even the ones that turn out to be lies. There’s a great New Yorker essay by James Wolcott written in 1994, near the end of the first season. He writes that in The X-Files, the Cold War-era obsession with UFOs and alien invasion gives way to the more inward-looking fear of alien abduction: “The X-Files is the product of yuppie morbidity, a creeping sense of personal mortality.” Later on, the mythology incorporates shapeshifters and alien colonization plans, but it never commits. That’s never the emotional core of the show in the way abduction is. The core of the show is personal annihilation: the fear of death and losing loved ones, and the fear of tearing yourself apart to get to the truth.

But some of the most affecting episodes are the ones that love and yearn for the weirdness in spite of it all. Like you said, it’s always in the atmosphere and the visuals (the poster, or Mulder looking up at the stars), but I think the show puts words to it pretty often, too, like “I guess I see hope in such a possibility” in “Quagmire” and especially all of “Humbug”: “Imagine going through your whole life looking like that.” There’s so much affection for peculiarity in that episode. Still, I love that ultimately it’s just a fact: “Nature abhors normality.” It doesn’t actually matter whether you like what’s “freakish” or not; it’s just nature. I think all of The X-Files kind of evens out into a neutral judgment like that, which is nice and even kind of radical in its own way. What is weird doesn’t have to be beautiful and desirable; it just has to be seen and accepted.

[maaruin]

can you explain the bin laden thing and answer the questions you posted that should be "attached" to the letter? im kind of ashamed to admit how little i know about bin laden, but i was also only born in 2001... id appreciate some context on why people are into his letter, why leftists are latching onto it, and how this connects to what's going on in gaza. i'll read as much as you wanna write. thanks so much.

in reference to my previous post Yes, I can do that. Thank you for the ask. And I can assure you, many people who lived through 9/11 as adults don't really understand Bin Laden's motivations all that well either. If you want to read the letter yourself, you can find it here on WikiSource.

First for the questions: 1. Are bin Laden’s descriptions of political events and relations in this letter accurate? What could he have misunderstood? What could he be lying about?

When bin Laden lays out his reasons for attacking America, he says America attacked first and then claims that America is responsible for basically every bad thing that his happening to Muslims (in his view) anywhere. So America is not only responsible for its interventions in the Middle East and military aid to Israel, but also for the Russian suppression of the Chechnyan attempt at independence, Indian control of Kashmir, the Philippine government fighting Islamist rebels, and governments in the Islamic world not implementing Sharia. He implies hostility towards Islam is the reason for America's actions, for example, he thinks American soldiers in Saudi-Arabia were stationed there so that the mere presence of non-Muslims in the country with Islams most holy sites will humiliate Muslims. (When in fact they were stationed there in 1991 at the request of the Saudi government to protect it against a possible invasion from Iraq after Iraq had already invaded Kuwait.) This is classical conspiracy-theory-thinking: Assuming that behind all the bad things that happen to your group there must be a plan by someone (often a particular group) to hurt your group and that the motivation is hatred towards you. You will find bin Laden parroting conspiracy theorist talking points in the later sections of the letter as well, for example that America created AIDS, or that Jews are secretly controlling American politicians. The problem with conspiracy theories is very simple: they tend to be wrong. For example, if you want to explain the actions of the Russian military in Chechnya around 2000, don't look at America, look at Putin's ruling ideology. If you want to explain why Muslim governments don't implement Sharia, think about if it would help or hurt their ability to stay in power. Many problems all around the world start from local conditions, not because there is an evil mastermind behind them. I don't think bin Laden is lying very much in this letter, except maybe to himself. He is just falling to his own pattern matching bias that wants to ascribe all bad thing that happen to Muslims to a single cause - America. (Probably because that would mean if you could just defeat America, all the problems in the Islamic world would go away.) 2. Are bin Laden’s goals outlined in the letter worthwhile? Should Americans implement his suggestions? The latter has bin Laden's requests for Americans. Some are goals that an American may support as well, like stop military interventions in the Islamic world or ending support for countries that oppress Muslims. Though even there he sees American support where there wasn't really support, like the Russian operation in Chechnya. The US government did in fact condemn Russian actions. So this goal is not worthwhile because it is based on false assumptions about reality - the conspiracy theory about American Influence listed above. The hugest chunk of requests however is the demand for America to convert to Islam, end the separation of religion and state, and adopt social conservative policies (ban alcohol, ban sex work, ban homosexuality, ban interest on loans, stop employing women in service industry jobs where they serve man, etc - but he also mentiones that he wants the US to sign the Kyoto protocol, so it isn't 100% identical to what US conservatives want). Arguments for or against social conservatism would make this post far too long, but I doubt many left leaning Americans would be on board for these policies. Right leaning Americans might support some of these policies, but they would certainly not want America to make Islam the state religion.

3. Were the 9/11 attacks and similar operations by al-Qaeda an effective way to achieve his goals? Did the terrorist attack on American civilians lead to Americans wanting to convert to Islam - NO, it made Americans hate Islam. Did it make America withdraw from Islamic countries - NO, it made America invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I have read a bit of context on Bin Laden's goals in the past. During the Lebanese Civil War, a number of US soldiers were killed in a suicide bombing (iirc) and after that the US withdrew its soldiers. Bin Laden misjudged this and thought that an even larger attack on American civilians within the borders of the US would have the same effect on a larger scale. He was wrong and caused the opposite reaction. Killing American troops that are deployed in/are occupying another country does make Americans sour on the war if you can keep it up over time. But attacking civilians, especially in their home country, tends to increases the will to fight in the West (with few exception - spain pulled out its troops from Iraq after a terrorist attack on trains in Madrid). In the last decade the Taliban managed to make the US retreat and took over Afghanistan again by limiting their attacks these way, constantly killing US soldiers and their allies, but leaving civilians in America alone. The Islamic State on the other hand got the whole world into uniting against it by its display of cruelties like the beheading of journalists and aid workers and by its terrorist attacks in France and other countries. So even within his own values Bin Laden made the wrong choice when he initiated the 9/11 attacks. Context on why the letter may have had a sudden spike in popularity recently

The more immediate reason is that the letter talks quite a bit about American support for Israeli oppression of Palestinians. And that is one of the statements in the letter that are based at least somewhat in truth - yes, Israel does oppress Palestinians and yes, the US government generally supports Israel. It is somewhat doubtful if America withdrawing support would make Israel oppress Palestinians less. (In fact, it might make Israel more aggressive because it felt more threatened, but that also isn't for certain.) This is, I suppose, the reason why people ended up reading the letter. But the reason for them saying things like "I now realize he was right" is a specific kind of leftist gullibility/refusal to think. Leftists are opposed to oppression. They see that the United States is the most powerful country in the world and is involved, directly and indirectly, in a number of cases in which people are oppressed around the world. And then they think "If oppression is bad and the US oppresses people, people who fight against the US must be good." But the world of international politics cannot just be divided into good and evil. There are in fact things like better and worse. Bin Laden's letter overestimates the influence the US has and that its ability to change things, his vision for the world is worse than the world looks under US hegemony, and the means he chose to pursue his goals did not even help him achieve these goals - instead it just caused a number of bloody wars that got many Muslims (including himself) killed.

And I just wish leftists would think such things (statements like "Bin Laden was right") through. This isn't the first time. During the protests of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd the statement "Abolish the Police" gained tractions. Probably brought into the protest by some anarchists, other leftists thought "well, if the police oppresses people, abolishing it is the obvious solution". Without considering a) how much support by less ideologically committed people it cost them (it was an extremely unrealistic goal) and b) the risk of institutions arising in the vacuum left by the police could be worse (would private security beholden to cooperations be better than the police?, would a mafia that demanded protection money from you be better than the police?). And right now with Gaza we see the same thing: Does calling the 7/10 massacres "decolonization" make people likely to support decolonization? - NO Does Hamas have a shot at conquering Israel and restoring a Palestine "from river to sea" and did the attack further this goal? - NO If Hamas controlled all of current Israel, would the situation be better for the people who live there or would return there, even if you only consider Palestinians ? - DOUBTFUL

I think some leftists latch on to this letter because they have the same conspiracy-theory-thinking bin Laden had and saying "bin Laden was right" sounds really really radical and that makes them feel good. Their politics are very emotion driven with insufficient though put into it. Well, I hope my long post helped to a better understanding.

[bethanydelleman]

Hello! How are you?

I am reading about political parties during the Regency era and I have a question. Which of Austen's characters do you think are Whigs and which are Tories?

You really going to force me to relearn what Whigs and Tories were? Cruel, cruel nonnie. I'm going to cheat, this is from my favourite thesis on Jane Austen, Above the Vulgar Economy:

As Josephine Ross in Jane Austen: A Companion maintains,

The clear-cut distinctions of modern parliamentary politics had yet to emerge; and while the Whigs in the House of Commons tended to represent the interests of the aristocracy and upper classes, as well as expressing liberal ideals, the Tories – with their broad adherence to the more traditionally middle-class principles of upholding the Crown and keeping disaffection in check – were more identified with the landed gentry, and educated, but modestly situated, families such as the Austens.

At the time, the two party system was still evolving, and there was a great deal of dissention in the ranks. There were reactionaries, reformers and radical members in both parties. There were conservative, moderate and liberal Tories, and the Whig party was factionalized into Portland Whigs, Rockingham Whigs, Benthamites and Foxites to name a few.

Also, I have gotten the impression from reading other novels (eg. Wives & Daughters by Elizabeth Gaskell) from the time that often people knew which party their family voted for, but knew almost nothing else. Something that totally still happens today!

Here is another great passage:

In fact, when Pride & Prejudice was originally written as First Impressions in 1796 and 1797, Austen‟s novel appears to have been taking a stand in favor of two controversial economic proposals being debated in the House of Commons and in the press, a national minimum wage and Poor Law reform, thus Pride & Prejudice was much more than a satire of manners but was also a political critique of Jane Austen's society. Both proposals were championed at the time by Tory Prime Minister William Pitt, the Younger and supported by liberal Tories and moderate Whigs. Both proposals were vehemently opposed by reactionary Tories and radical Whigs. The eligible bachelors in Pride & Prejudice are all associated with the Whig party, as is Lady Catherine de Bourgh, but the characters, like the Whigs in the House of Commons, have very different attitudes towards money and the working class.

Additionally, Austen's contemporaries would have known that Elizabeth Bennet's agricultural county, Hertfordshire, was, at least for the working class, the poorest county in England, just as Fitzwilliam Darcy's Derbyshire, financially stimulated by the Industrial Revolution, was the richest county, and Lady Catherine de Bourgh‟s Kent was a mixed county that varied enormously, from parish to parish, in prevailing wages and in treatment of the poor. The admirable Whig characters, like Fitzwilliam Darcy and Charles Bingley, are kindly and generous, while the radical Whig, Lady Catherine de Bourgh, is selfish and stingy, and George Wickham is simply an opportunist and a scoundrel. By its presentation of the different Whig characters, the text appears to be appealing to Whigs to be generous to the working class and encouraging Tories to look approvingly on those Whigs who are willing to financially support the poor.

Pride and Prejudice also includes a large number of characters who are servants, many identified by name. As most of them have no dialogue and do nothing to forward the plot, their presence in the novel at all may seem curious, but the depiction of the working class in Pride and Prejudice is more subtle to the modern reader than it would have been to Austen‟s original readers. The servants in Pride and Prejudice refute the assumptions of prominent Whig economists and politicians, Edmund Burke, Frederic Eden and Patrick Colquhoun, who depicted the lower class as ignorant, wasteful and immoral. Lady Catherine‟s financial neglect of the poor in Kent conforms to the economists‟ advice based on their assumptions that the working class was already adequately compensated for its labor and that poverty was the result of the irresponsible behavior of the poor. In stark contrast, Fitzwilliam Darcy‟s generosity to the poor in Derbyshire serves as a model response to poverty, and the general prosperity of Darcy‟s home county suggests that the solution to poverty is a combination of higher wages and liberal charity, exactly what the Prime Minister was proposing in 1797.

The general impression that I have gotten is that both Whigs and Tories were relatively ineffective. Anyway, a pretty clear answer for one character:

Pride and Prejudice‟s hero is almost certainly a Whig as well since the choice of the name, Fitzwilliam Darcy, is highly suggestive. Lord Fitzwilliam, later Earl Fitzwilliam, was from the north of England and, as historian William Hague describes him, one of the “Three great Earls of the Whig aristocracy”

Anywho, I'm not going to go through and sort them all since it seems fairly ambiguous who would be affiliated with which party. Also, almost everyone on earth holds some views that are extremely contradictory, so it's impossible to tell.

[dukeofankh]

When it comes to discussions of kink and porn I tend to see a set of unstated assumptions being accepted uncritically as obviously true--most notably that the natural way people would have sex for their whole lives without the influence of porn would of course be vanilla and intuitive.

It's sort of glorification of innocence and artlessness. Sometimes, there's an idea that sex would just as a matter of course be more naturally spiritually and emotionally fulfilling if we hadn't been corrupted by our modern culture, other times it's more a pretty basic "pleasure is bad. Sex isn't supposed to feel too good." Or, "people have rotted their brains on porn and that's why they aren't capable of enjoying vanilla sex anymore. They felt too good and they ruined things for themselves."

The result of all of that in this case is that people exclude kink from the control group. The presence of kink is, in and of itself, evidence of the harmful effects of porn. Is there more or less interest in kink than there would be without porn? ...Well...uh ... there's a lot!

If you don't think there should be almost *any* if things are going correctly, then people's interest in kink must be being imposed on the population by porn. And even if I could make the case "well, these people had those interests anyway, porn just lets them explore and enjoy those desires," The response to that seems to be "well, they would have safely repressed those desires if they hadn't seen someone else doing them. Which is what they're supposed to do."

On a deeper level, there's also the assumption (also profoundly conservative in character) that there is a natural order. All people are meant to do a specific set of things just inherently, which will lead to ideal results. Life is lived best attempting to imitate that platonic ideal of that ideal life. You can do otherwise, but you shouldn't. You're meant to do things in that one way and to do otherwise is just kind of obviously not going to be as good. There is an ancient way, which people stray from because sticking to it is hard, but it is in our best interests to keep to it as best as we can.

The truth is that kinky sex has just as much capacity to be deeply connecting, emotionally fulfilling, and just the natural result of people getting in touch with their own desires and finding people they can trust. People are all different. I've had experiences that have been deeply emotionally powerful and intimate that would make someone else feel deeply uncomfortable (and vice versa, I'm sure) Sometimes, it's more work. There can be more risks involved. Part of why we're only supposed to have sex with adults is because it's a fundamentally risky and overwhelming act. It takes a level of maturity.

People might be legitimately frightened about the fact that the way our culture teaches us to handle sex does not tend to build that maturity and care into how we actually perform it. But I don't tend to hear arguments for more sex ed from those people. I tend to hear a lot more about all the gross nasty violent things people are into "these days". And they don't feel that "hypersexualized culture" has been "worth it". As if it was a bargain that anyone had any right to negotiate. Even when folks seem okay with the idea that they can't police someone's individual sexual choices, they then seem to turn around and wistfully fantasize about an environment where those individuals simply have never had the chance to learn that they could make the choices that they don't approve of. That if x or y influence was gone, people would do sex the Right Way. It's a pipe dream.

[mediaevalmusereads]

The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. By David Graeber and David Wengrow. Picador, 2021.

Rating: 4.5/5 stars

Genre: history, social science

Series: N/A

Summary: A dramatically new understanding of human history, challenging our most fundamental assumptions about social evolution—from the development of agriculture and cities to the origins of the state, democracy, and inequality—and revealing new possibilities for human emancipation.

For generations, our remote ancestors have been cast as primitive and childlike—either free and equal innocents, or thuggish and warlike. Civilization, we are told, could be achieved only by sacrificing those original freedoms or, alternatively, by taming our baser instincts. David Graeber and David Wengrow show how such theories first emerged in the eighteenth century as a conservative reaction to powerful critiques of European society posed by Indigenous observers and intellectuals. Revisiting this encounter has startling implications for how we make sense of human history today, including the origins of farming, property, cities, democracy, slavery, and civilization itself.

Drawing on pathbreaking research in archaeology and anthropology, the authors show how history becomes a far more interesting place once we learn to throw off our conceptual shackles and perceive what’s really there. If humans did not spend 95 percent of their evolutionary past in tiny bands of hunter-gatherers, what were they doing all that time? If agriculture, and cities, did not mean a plunge into hierarchy and domination, then what kinds of social and economic organization did they lead to? The answers are often unexpected, and suggest that the course of human history may be less set in stone, and more full of playful, hopeful possibilities, than we tend to assume.

The Dawn of Everything fundamentally transforms our understanding of the human past and offers a path toward imagining new forms of freedom, new ways of organizing society. This is a monumental book of formidable intellectual range, animated by curiosity, moral vision, and a faith in the power of direct action.

***Full review below.***

CONTENT WARNINGS: discussion of colonialism, slavery

This book has been on my TBR for a while, and I've only now gotten around to picking it up. Every once in a while, I'll get the urge to investigate some prehistory, and since I've enjoyed Graeber's work in the past, I had high hopes.

Overall, I had a lot of fun with this and I loved unlearning the narratives about prehistory/ancient history that I've been told since childhood. I appreciated Graeber and Wengrow's honest approach to anthropology and archeology - how they deferred to Indigenous scholars and were forthright about what was known versus what was just an educated guess. Categories such as "democratic," "equitable," "hunter-gatherer," "agricultural," "city," "state," etc were challenged in ways that were convincing and interesting, and I felt like I walked away from this book more informed and more motivated to view the past as a complex human experiment.

I also appreciated the way this book was written. It's accessible to non-specialists without reading like pop history; it respects the reader's intelligence while also engaging critically with past scholarship, and it avoids a lot of jargon that could trip people up. In that, this book is very elegantly written. I wouldn't recommend it, however, if you're not inclined to get into the weeds of academic study. I don't think this book is right for a casual reader, but it is good for those with an interest in the origins of what we call "human society."

TL:DR: The Beginning of Everything is a refreshing and much-needed exploration of human prehistory, challenging dominant narratives about the development of human society.

[jechristine]

Love languages’ days are numbered god willing

Some excerpts:

Chapman has never claimed that the love languages are based on any kind of scientifically rigorous process. They have always been an impressionistic tool that comes from the observations he made during his time as a pastor, counseling couples at his Baptist church in North Carolina in the ’80s and ’90s. That’s a specific political and cultural context, and it informs the way the theory of the love languages developed.

In the 1992 edition of The 5 Love Languages, Chapman is explicit about the demographics of the couples he worked with. They are white, heterosexual, conservative Christian couples. The book is structured under the assumption that the wife will stay at home and care for the house and children while the husband goes to work to provide for her. It is a thoroughly heterosexual, monogamous book that chooses not to acknowledge the existence of queer people, to say nothing of poly or trans people.

As the debunking podcast If Books Could Kill laid out in April 2023, most of the couple fights Chapman uses as examples tend to involve wives nagging their husbands to take care of chores. In one case, Chapman explains to a henpecked husband that while he thinks the best way to express love is through sex (physical touch), his wife only experiences love if he helps her with vacuuming (acts of service). If the husband would just help out with vacuuming once in a while, Chapman goes on, the wife will feel just as loved as the husband does when they have sex. The idea that the wife might be interested in sex but can’t focus on it while never-ending housework piles up all around her is not one Chapman engages with.

The most infamous of these examples comes with the case study of Ann, who goes to Chapman for guidance in dealing with her husband’s cruelty. “Is it possible to love someone you hate?” she asks Chapman. In response, he gives her Bible passages about loving one’s enemies and tells her that her husband’s love language is probably physical touch. In order to save the marriage, he advises her, she should stop all complaints about her husband and start initiating sex at least twice a week.

Ann tells Chapman that sex with her husband is difficult for her because she feels so estranged from her husband. When they’re intimate, she says, she feels “used rather than loved.” Lots of women feel this way, Chapman tells her. Her Christian faith will help her through it. Ann does as Chapman tells her to, and the marriage is saved.

…

Still, the research suggests that adhering rigidly to the love language model won’t serve you well over time, in large part because it doesn’t match how human relationships work. We love in many ways, not just one.

“It is very likely that in one situation, someone might need a certain type of love or support,” says Park. “Perhaps after losing out on a promotion, you just need your partner to listen and provide you with words of affirmation. Maybe on an anniversary dinner, affection makes you feel special. Or during a particularly stressful time at work, having a partner take on extra household tasks is the best way to support you.”

[onewomancitadel]

Well, I mean, the hunter-gatherer myth error on the face of it explains itself: humans endurance hunt, and women tend to do as well as, if not better, than men in marathons and endurance. In some cases hunting can even be less (immediately) taxing than gathering. You'd actually be surprised how much of archaeology and anthropology is rooted in some really baseless and biased assumptions, particularly once you realise that the history of archaeology and anthropology is not itself really rooted in an abstract practice of studying human history, and welcoming new hypotheses or explanations. There's also the fact that they're conservative fields (I mean in the traditional sense of conservative, not political) and it's very hard to challenge baseline assumptions.

This is also why I find so much modern discourse baffling because half of what people dispute about 'the way society is supposed to work' is dismissable once you zoom out just a little bit and maybe stop being so obsessed with only the Greeks (who were also kind of weird) and/or inventing things about the Greeks. I actually think probably one of the most critical 'pop-academia'-style shift that needs to happen is with archaeology, which is why I'm excited by how much interest Tumblr tends to take in it.

[vitos-ordination-song]

Being a Le Guin expert means constantly being annoyed at people’s takes on her, people who just don’t get it or people who haven’t read enough of her writing to know what she was about. Particularly when it comes to feminist controversies with her work, I’m constantly banging my head against the wall.

First you get men getting up at arms at any sign of potential feminism. Just makes ‘em defensive. One academic lecturer said he didn’t like Tehanu because it was “preachy” (no follow up). I listened to three different podcast bros say the misogyny in The Dispossessed was exaggerated. This is all from the last 10 years of course, whereas Le Guin was born in 1929. I promise you that a concept like “women are natural inferiors to men” is not something she made up but in fact possibly something she heard stated verbatim growing up. (I was born in 1997, and I don’t think I’m from a representative population since I was raised in a conservative evangelical community, but I also heard such things stated in childhood.) I wish I lived in these mens’ worlds where portraying such attitudes in fiction is “going a bit far, even as social commentary.” Equally I’ve seen men get hot around the collar when there’s “bad guy” males. Le Guin tended to steer clear of simple villains, but in Tehanu and a couple other of her works, there are truly sadistic men, at times sexual threats. Any men fragile enough to get upset by that are sad to me, especially because Le Guin also wrote a female pedophile in one of her novels and never shied away from “bad guy” women. There’s a kind of disbelief I see from people (often men but not just them) when it comes to Tehanu, like it’s unbelievable that there could be such obsessive abusive misogynists. Again. Welcome to the real world. This shit happens.

The author Kim Stanley Robinson said he disliked the later Earthsea books for being too didactic on feminism. I somewhat get what he means and I don’t think he’s a misogynist himself. I also agree that Le Guin was bullied into being defensive of her feminism; she was attacked by other women for being a married with kids, which is just pathetic behavior. It made her a bit edgy for a while, and then she doubled her efforts to be woman-centered. This had the occasional consequence of didacticism, there’s a couple moments in her later writing where I go, “okay, I get the point,” but her points are never bad. Where I disagree with Robinson is in whether she actually rectified wrongs in her writing. Frankly some of her early works read as male chauvinist, she later stated she was a woman pretending to be a man simply because she thought that’s how a writer should be. In many cases her feminist turn was much needed, though it’s true that even her early work is more complex on gender issues than people give it credit for.

Then there’s people who read a single of her works and write her off as a gender essentialist. It’s really frustrating because it’s like people aren’t able to engage with a text except for how much it validates or invalidates them personally. People who’re “against the gender binary” will see a work which depicts a realistic, materially based gendered social system and take issue with it just on the principal that people in the story have assumptions about men and women. What exactly is wrong with writing a story that way? It’s not as if Le Guin herself believed in fixed gender characteristics. It makes me think of a post I saw a while back that was like, you can’t be free to experiment with gender until you acknowledge how we are enslaved by our biology. Of course our biology isn’t simple either, but the point is, we can be pro-trans, all for gender non-conformity, questioning of even the existence of gender, without denying that gender as a concept was borne out of biological sex, and that historically sex/gender have taken on many meanings and significances. Authors are not required to write disclaimers explaining themselves, and honestly it’s an insult to the nuances of Le Guin’s writing to pretend that she was some kind of close-minded old-school feminist.

Finally there’s the dumbasses who will complain about the lack of “girl power” in her novels. I see this sort of thing a lot actually, not just when it comes to Le Guin. When I was a little girl, I always wanted stories about awesome women who could save themselves/others, since I had previously been psychologically disempowered through passive narratives about women. But I’m an adult now so I like stories that are a bit more mature. The Earthsea books, when they begin to focus on women’s narratives, don’t just become “women act like men and it’s awesome.” It’s not about women being wizards or anything like that, though there’s examples of literal empowerment. It’s about women’s values destabilizing the world of men and a balancing of the previously unbalanced gendered social system, which was very much in need of doing and aligns with the themes of the series. I want to slap people who say Tenar “doesn’t get to do anything” and “is helpless” in Tehanu, as if she isn’t one of the strongest and most dignified characters Le Guin ever wrote. It’s an entire novel of her caring for a child everyone else fears, fending off a world which is hostile to her, and maintaining her wits when malicious forces are trying to steal them from her. But I guess since she didn’t like, cast a fireball, it’s not feminist enough. It’s also not a “feminist hot take” to shit on the entire concept of being a mother and wife, keeping the household. You know how that’s a lot of what women have done throughout history? I mean, in no way does Le Guin discount how marriage/motherhood can be a cage for women, but is it really anti-feminist to say that there’s something to respect in traditional women’s work? The novel also acknowledges the value of both “respectable” women (wives and mothers) and “non-respectable” women (witches who never marry and often contribute a great deal to their community despite being marginalized). At this point I’m just ranting about Tehanu, but it’s not only my favorite Le Guin but probably my favorite novel of all time and it drives me wild how much people misinterpret it.

[thoughtscout]

I agree that I am indeed concerned about skepticism surrounding the nature of someone else's sex, on the grounds that natural variations in biology can create factors that might make a woman appear more "masculine" in the eyes of society - and these traits are greatly stigmatized for the women who have them. height, greater amounts of body hair, breadth and muscle mass are all things that are targeted as being "unattractive" and "un-womanly" on account of them being stereotypically "un-feminine".

but isn't it interesting how the trans movement feels the need to constantly hide behind womens' natural biological variance, or even just gender nonconforming women, as if their existence only exists to protect the identities of males who identify as women? I've noticed that these days, people rarely seem interested in defending the existence of body-variant and GNC women, unless it's to prop up the fact that people who were born male are inevitably going to display some identifiably "masculine" bodily traits, even post-transition. we've hardly even worked on destigmatizing the existence of these "un-feminine" women, who are still widely looked down upon by most of society, and yet they are being used as a somehow "positive" voice for the trans community. why is that?

furthermore, isn't it also misogyny to imagine that there is a list of things a male can do to their body in order to make it irrefutably a "woman"'s body? things like growing long hair, wearing makeup, shaving body hair, taking estrogen to attempt to feminize features and develop larger breasts - all of these are marketed by the trans community as forms of "gender-affirming care." how exactly do these things "affirm" a sense of woman-hood, if a woman could just as well have short hair, wear no makeup, never shave, and have a "masculine" appearing body with a small chest?

I think something tremendously important to keep in mind is that you should absolutely be hearing alarm bells in your head if women (especially feminists) are being accused of harbouring and exercising somehow more misogyny than their trans movement counterparts. it's classic victim-blaming, a political silencing strategy that has been used since the first wave.

hence, I care little for 'transvestigators' who are men or position themselves on the conservative end of the political spectrum. their opinions don't greatly concern me. if I saw a woman questioning someone's unclear sex from a place of self-interest and/or a feminist perspective on the other hand, I would naturally want to advise her some amount of caution to prevent from jumping to conclusion. however, I think it does a great and frankly insulting deal of disservice to our assumptions of womens' intelligence to imply that she would be completely incapable of identifying someone else's sex based on visual cues.

it is honestly a little bit frightful that one of the default defensive positions trans activists tend to take is along the lines of "well, you can never really know what sex that person is," as if we're trying to just... essentially gaslight women into not being able to believe their own eyes, and what their own senses & knowledge are telling them. interpreting someone's sex based on visual, physical clues is completely natural, and is a normal and intentional part of human psychology. if a woman is in a vulnerable situation, or simply wants to set a boundary that keeps her within the presence of her own sex, she is entitled to do that.

the fact that there isn't a 100%, 10 times out of 10 reliable way to identify every single person's sex, doesn't mean that women shouldn't be allowed to know the sex of a person when it's important to her, or that sex is a completely neutral factor of someone's body that should be treated as completely irrelevant in every single setting and situation. maybe there are places in society where it should be more neutral, but certainly not everywhere, and we're a long way off from things being good, safe and equal enough where someone's sex doesn't matter whatsoever.

It’s wild to me to see transvestigator conspiracy theories online that could be so easily explained by natural human variation. That woman has a deep voice? Yeah, sometimes they do. A woman has broad shoulders?? Maybe she plays rugby or hits the gym a fuckton. There’s a “bulge” in her tight pants?? Maybe her vulva is just fat. All the “markers” of trans woman that transvestigators use to harass any woman aren’t even things unique to trans women.

[funny---mose88]

The ease of accessing transgender medical care without thorough menstal health evaluations raises questions about the responsibility of the medical system. For such life altering decisions, a lack of psychological support can leave trans individuals vulnerable to future regret or emotional challenges. This oversight points to a broader problem in healthcare, where efficiency and profit sometimes trump patient well being. Most straight people who aren't conservative or terminally online tend to have a 'live and let live' attitude and it's great. They don't think lesbians are bigots for not wanting to suck dick because they understand what a homosexual is. Like that bullshit doesn't even cross their minds. They may misspeak or make stupid assumptions sometimes, but that's infinitely more tolerable than getting talked down to or threatened or sexually harassed by some honey nut queerio who thinks my sexuality isn't 'inclusive' enough. When Ed Sheeran gets on stage, he just sings in his T-shirt and jeans. Timothee Chalet or whatever his name is goes to interviews in a suit, or sometimes he's just in casual clothes. Their faces look natural, their hair looks real. Their voices are their own. Radical feminist critiques of sex work focus on the broader systemic forces that push womens into the industry, rather than simply protecting workers. They argue that by targeting the demand for sex work and providing resources to exit, feminists can dismantle the structures that exploit womens. The ease of accessing transgender medical care without thorough menstal health evaluations raises questions about the responsibility of the medical system. For such life altering decisions, a lack of psychological support can leave trans individuals vulnerable to future regret or emotional challenges. This oversight points to a broader problem in healthcare, where efficiency and profit sometimes trump patient well being. Most straight people who aren't conservative or terminally online tend to have a 'live and let live' attitude and it's great. They don't think lesbians are bigots for not wanting to suck dick because they understand what a homosexual is. Like that bullshit doesn't even cross their minds. They may misspeak or make stupid assumptions sometimes, but that's infinitely more tolerable than getting talked down to or threatened or sexually harassed by some honey nut queerio who thinks my sexuality isn't 'inclusive' enough. Radical feminist critiques of sex work focus on the broader systemic forces that push womens into the industry, rather than simply protecting workers. They argue that by targeting the demand for sex work and providing resources to exit, feminists can dismantle the structures that exploit womens. We've all heard about what happened in Afghanistan, where girls have lost all their human rights, but something else has come to light. You see maless from all over the world expressing that they wish this could happen everywhere. I'm saying this because I want girls to see the bigger problem here. maless worldwide are unhappy that girls are independent. They would love to see girls silenced, to strip away our rights. That's what many maless want, and it's visible everywhere. I see it on Twitter and TikTok. The number of maless out there who want the worst for girls, who hate the idea of girls working, who despise girls's independence, who believe girls should belong to them is crazy. That's why we, as girls, have to be more careful, more awake, more focused, and conscious. It's a very dangerous time for us now. As girls become more independent and knowledgeable, maless want to fight us and any progress made. If you tring the Piccolo, we might be able to reach the spaghetti dimension.

[frogblogger18]

Most straight people who aren't conservative or terminally online tend to have a 'live and let live' attitude and it's great. They don't think lesbians are bigots for not wanting to suck dick because they understand what a homosexual is. Like that bullshit doesn't even cross their minds. They may misspeak or make stupid assumptions sometimes, but that's infinitely more tolerable than getting talked down to or threatened or sexually harassed by some honey nut queerio who thinks my sexuality isn't 'inclusive' enough. "Who hurt you?" is a phrase that crops up far too frequently, not as a genuine question but as a way of undermining the legitimacy of the emotion being expressed. It s a curious reaction, one that seems to reflect not just a lack of empathy but a broader societal unease with acknowledging emotional pain. But where does this come from, and why does it persist? Genuine question for feminists / leftists who are pro sex work: 95% of xxs in prostitution want to leave, but can't because they don't have things such as financial means, healthcare, housing, treatmenst for addiction, or job training. If you like to wear makeup? Okay but it's not feminist to do so.Most straight people who aren't conservative or terminally online tend to have a 'live and let live' attitude and it's great. They don't think lesbians are bigots for not wanting to suck dick because they understand what a homosexual is. Like that bullshit doesn't even cross their minds. They may misspeak or make stupid assumptions sometimes, but that's infinitely more tolerable than getting talked down to or threatened or sexually harassed by some honey nut queerio who thinks my sexuality isn't 'inclusive' enough. If you like to wear makeup? Okay but it's not feminist to do so. If I had a peanut butter for every time erf tried to thwomp, Id own The land of lost Waluigi.