#then they would not be saying his ideology on its own is WRONG

[mxtxfanatic]

Everytime I see someone in the tgcf fandom says that Xie Lian needed to be humbled and learned a lesson, I get so angry. A lesson for what exactly? Being a 17 year old who was optimistic and idealistic and correct in all of his ideas ? One who just happened to be a prince but wanted to help people with the power he had ? And 800 years of misfortunes is not a lesson, it's just more trauma and his character development in the present is unlearning some of the way he dealt with said trauma during those 800 years.

Also that idea is what Jun Wu has been trying to do to Xie Lian for 800 years, why are we,as a fandom, following the antagonist's lead on that one ?

“Being a 17 year old who was optimistic and idealistic and correct in all of his ideas?”

Yes, this is what people are mad about 😭😭😭 A teen was idealistic about the world and said that people are capable AND willing to do and be better when given the chance and resources and without outside manipulation, the narrative proved him right in every way during every arc, and fandom has hated him ever since.

[ephhemeralite]

listen. i understand the fact that aziraphale's part of everyday is a lot of new and interesting bits of character development that are very fun to tear apart. but i've seen tons of people discussing what heaven and forgiveness and crowley-as-an-angel mean to aziraphale without the corresponding look at what it means to crowley. so i would really like to do that

cw: discussions of abuse, indoctrination, trauma, and a Really Very Long meta post

it super surprised me when s2 opened on an angel!crowley scene because that kind of scene isn't typically necessary for the kind of character he is. crowley's character is one that revolves around the absence of who he was Before -- so you can understand all that you need to know about him by the ways that he deals with what he's lost (looking at where the furniture isn't, right?). he talks about stars and creation now because they were the most important parts of his angelic life and he cannot leave them behind. he mentions how he fell for asking questions because that's still a large part of who he is; he doesn't believe in hell's mission and he questions the goals and ethics of hell/heaven (the whole graverobbing ordeal, as well as the opening in s1 with hastur and ligur where you can see that his demonic strategy is fundamentally different from more traditional demons, not to mention having a permit from heaven during the job scenes and still disobeying orders according to his own morality). we get a really solid understanding of crowley and what he's about perfectly well from his current demon iteration, because the most important tenants of his character have stayed consistent or formed after the fall.

so what do we gain by such a scene to open the season? well, we learn that this is when aziraphale met crowley for the first time, we learn that aziraphale is immediately besotted by crowley, we learn that aziraphale expresses concern for crowley's questions (and imminent fall). this scene focuses on aziraphale experiencing crowley as an angel because this is an important moment for aziraphale's story, not anything to do with how crowley is or where crowley's story is going.

some other things we know about crowley are that he is the one constantly pushing for "their own side," for separation from heaven and hell, for a person that understands him as someone outside of the angel/demon binary. crowley is the one to approach aziraphale first as agents of opposite sides on the wall of eden, to suggest the arrangement, to convince aziraphale that armageddon would be bad and that they should work together to stop it. he's the one pushing aziraphale further from acceptable angelic behavior. hell, we even find out that he tempts aziraphale into trying food for the first time, which is aziraphale's greatest vice as a character.

this isn't because crowley wants aziraphale to fall or because he's set out to corrupt an angel, though. he sees aziraphale sin (or separate himself from heaven as a collective) first with giving away his sword, then through continued conversation with crowley (The Enemy), and the various other historical scenes where aziraphale lies or indulges in consumption or doesn't follow the divine plan to a tee. this culminates in the arrangement, which crowley sees as a concrete acknowledgement of the futility of heaven and hell, along the lines of "if we can both do the other side's acts and we're both canceling each other out, what's the point in doing any of this in the first place?" (this is NOT, notably, a question on the futility of life itself. crowley covets some material items like the bentley and alcohol that point to a personal valuation of living on earth, but he also has a strong and consistent emphasis on actual, living creatures: the goats, job's children, his plants, the children drowned during the flood, the antichrist, and the line from s2e6 where he says "if heaven kills all life on earth it will be just as dead as if hell had done it.") he believes that this is a clear indication that aziraphale no longer subscribes to the traditional opinions of heaven and hell. obviously, he discovers that he's very wrong come the last scene of season two, but it's helpful to understand the mindset he walks in with.

there's been a lot of gorgeous meta about how the two of them communicate and what their relationship is like in the present, so i'll try not to reinvent the wheel too much here while i look at the conversation in everyday. there's two particular things id like to look at: how crowley can never truly tell aziraphale no (this is pretty well-established so i don't feel the need to go into it, yes?) and the consistency with which crowley denies being the angel he was before the fall -- there are the unsubtle lines about not being the angel who fell, his time as an angel being a long time ago; there's also the slightly subtler moments where he refuses to acknowledge any memory of working with any particular angel/demon during their time as angels (both the pencil-pusher demon and saraqael, if not anyone else im forgetting), as well as his rather iconic reaction to being described as good or nice (this is typically interpreted as a reaction to being seen as not demon-like, but crowley really doesn't care about demons or hell beyond what his association requires. no one cares who's doing the job so long as it gets done, yeah? its more interesting to me to see these moments as times where crowley is described in angelic terms and refuses to let himself be seen as something he can no longer be.)

so if you take crowley at his word, what does it mean to no longer be an angel?

it means that there was a point where crowley was an angel, as we've both heard and seen. it means that he spent time in heaven, had a role, experienced and valued a lot of typically angelic things like kindness and forgiveness. it means that he was eventually cast out for, as we've heard and seen, being curious and headstrong. it means that he lost his place in heaven, his role, his identity, his values and experiences (using experiences here to refer to things he has done and can no longer do, rather than his memories, since i don't have enough textual substance to discuss any ideas i might have about memory). this is the really important part, i think: that crowley had all of these things and that they were taken from him because of who he is as a person (who he already was as an angel, before the exacerbation that came when he became a demon). not only that, all of this loss also took the form of an extremely traumatic fall (as in, a single event that caused crowley not only emotional but assumably physical pain, as well as being a generally physical ordeal).

abusive situations can often thrive because of the manipulation the people within them experience. unquestionable, morally just figures like parents to children or gods to angels get away with what they do because they are able to turn the victim's doubt around onto the victim (what i do is right because i'm The Parent/God/The Boss and you as The Child/The Angel/The Employee have no right to question me, thus if you do you must be Wrong) as well as the ephemeral nature of words (did they really say that or am i exaggerating to make them seem worse in my memory? this is where the physical aspect of falling comes in). this is something i fully see happening to aziraphale within the show.

however, one of the things that can knock an abused person out of their abusive situation is something that's too big to go unquestioned and an absence of the manipulating force to direct the shape of their conclusions. this is where crowley and aziraphale's character stories differ: crowley fell, lost all connection to heaven, and then had no one to tell him heaven was in the right and he the wrong. after landing in hell (which could have also been a bad and manipulative situation) crowley is removed from the manipulating forces by being stationed on earth, where he is allowed to experience life out from under anyones thumb (relatively), process this giant trauma and loss, and find his own answers. he then does what a lot of people who have been abused do when they're no longer being abused: he goes out and does stuff that he couldn't do before. this is where he meets aziraphale, who is also stationed on earth and doing a number of (aforementioned) things that don't align with heaven. the thing that crowley doesn't understand is that aziraphale hasn't had these same experiences that lead to crowley's epiphany nor is he isolated from heaven's manipulation (often seen as gabriel in the first season and metatron in the second). each time aziraphale does something that does not align with heaven's ideals, he either sees that as a reflection of what a bad angel he is or he tries to rationalize it into fitting into his/heaven's world view (the ineffable plan. it was literally right there this entire time i could SCREAM about this GOD'S INEFFABLE PLAN)

so aziraphale is holding onto this idea of an angel that does not exist anymore and crowley is projecting an understanding of similar experiences that did not happen. they're miscommunicating, wow, what else is new? we understand that aziraphale is rationalizing and being manipulated, but why did crowley act the way he did during the fight instead of falling into the familiar and consistent pattern of following aziraphale and going where he leads?

that's right, i said i wanted to talk about how crowley can never tell aziraphale no!!

from crowley's point of view, their entire relationship revolves around their experiences on earth where he has perceived aziraphale defying heaven and he felt intense kinship with that. he's delighted about giving away the sword, he watches aziraphale eat a LOT, they definitely like to drink together, he protects aziraphale from the consequences of lying (crowley protecting aziraphale from falling deserves a billion metas right this instant really). these are all major moments to crowley where aziraphale distinguishes himself from the celestial system. when aziraphale asks crowley for things, he does them because (yes, he loves aziraphale, but also) aziraphale is the one person across heaven, hell, and earth that crowley feels he is actually allied with. he has to go through the motions with hell, deal with all of the pain surrounding heaven, but this one angel is a place where crowley can be genuine, whether that be good or bad or none of the above (this is literally manifested physically within the text with crowley's glasses). the foundation of their relationship, to crowley, is their side. this is why crowley's reaction at the end of everyday is both so intense and pivotal: aziraphale asks crowley to join heaven's side with him and crowley says no.

crowley is not an angel. when crowley was an angel, before the beginning of time, he was too incompatible with heaven and so he fell. that is what being an angel got crowley. there have been some points made about how unhappy being a demon makes crowley and how sweet and innocent he seemed as an angel, but i think that line of thinking falls into the same trap that aziraphale does, which is in assuming that being an angel is in some way inherently better than being a demon, or that crowley wasn't unhappy as an angel, or that aziraphale isn't unhappy as an angel himself. because crowley is happy, when left to his own devices or with aziraphale. his unhappiness comes from the interventions of heaven and hell within his life (thus the importance of crowley questioning the point of heaven and hell and not life itself) because he would like to be separate from them, not restored to some prior state of belonging within their system. the truth is that crowley will never become that angel that aziraphale met again, because that's not how trauma ever, ever works, but that does not mean that crowley cannot have a full and meaningful life in his current state. he's not broken, he's just someone who has been rejected by heaven.

crowley responds to the most fundamental aspect of his identity being questioned and dismissed (i can make you an angel again), with, frankly, a respectably low-key amount of upset. he tells aziraphale that they're better than their sides because his ultimate goal is to separate their side from that of heaven and hell. when aziraphale reveals that he wants to fix heaven, crowley hears him. this is so important to me, because this is a moment where crowley is trying to communicate. he changes his approach and tries to speak to aziraphale instead of reacting out of emotion. after this moment, crowley doesn't speak out of anger at all, even in response to when aziraphale does. instead, he tries to confess his feelings to aziraphale and offers up the option to leave heaven and hell behind again. this is such an important moment because it's crowley trying to break out of their long, deep-instilled habit to hide and double-speak and he gets really close to saying what he means explicitly, even factoring how intensely emotional it makes him to do so.

his offer to run away isn't done to ignore aziraphale's needs but to show him that there is another way out, if aziraphale is willing to take it. there are other options that aziraphale hasn't considered, but crowley is, because crowley is still trying to solidify the existence of their side. from their side, they are free to ignore the angel/demon dichotomy and just be themselves, whatever that looks like. this is what crowley wants, above everything else in the world.

aziraphale rejects this entire concept when he lets go of his bookshop and earth as a whole with the nothing lasts forever line. aziraphale is rejecting earth, the middle ground that they've built their entire lives together on, forcing them into the roles of angel and demon exclusively. this, of all moments, is when crowley puts his glasses back on. because he cannot be an angel, the only role left to him is demon, and thus his vulnerability is not safe or welcome to be exposed to aziraphale.

crowley tries to acknowledge their life on earth twice in the next few moments: the nightingales, which represent everything they went through in the last season (which aziraphale is not thinking about, because he's already left their role as representatives of earth and/or humanity behind) and the kiss itself, which is as explicit as crowley is physically able to be about his own feelings and the future he wants them to have on earth as their own side. he is asking aziraphale, as well as he can, to stay. he's physically closing the divide between their roles in an attempt to show aziraphale how little it all really matters in practice and

aziraphale does the most angelic thing he possible could and Forgives crowley. this is not said out of kindness or as an instinctive reaction. aziraphale is angry and upset when he says this because, in some way, he understands what his words mean even as he does not understand crowley's actions or rejection at all. he reinforces the binary between them and acts vindictively (to parallel the insistence on the apology dance after the argument in the first episode) in retaliation to crowley denying what he sees as his gracious and miraculous offer of restoration.

the most important part of crowley's character to understand in this moment is that while he wants a happy life with aziraphale more than anything, he has extremely hard limits and heaven is one of them. his boundary here is a fundamental part of him and even his deepest desires cannot overcome them. as a fallen, crowley knows that who he is as a person is not angelic. as a fallen, crowley knows what its like to lose the most important, pivotal pieces of his life and start again. as a fallen, he knows that he survived it once. he tells aziraphale don't bother.

and crowley, who will be (and always has been) a demon if it means not being an angel, who has told aziraphale that demons are unforgivable, does the only thing he can do. he leaves.

[pocketbelt]

they announced one of the main writers for FFXIV: Dawntrail is the one who wrote the Shadowbringers trial series, "Sorrow of Werlyt", and the amount of people going "ew no that's the one that redeems Gaius" drives me kind of insane

That storyline takes Gaius and says "Behold this idiot, watch and be stunned as everything he ever said to anyone turned out to be fucking obviously wrong. Watch as the fascist imperialist philosophy he ingrained into his beloved children makes them run to their deaths, even as he pleads them not to, and they tell him to fuck himself and do it anyway. Marvel as he watches them die by your hand, you, who destroyed Gaius himself at the peak of his life, and he can do nothing to stop it", and that's a redemption arc to people

The only surviving kid only makes it because her brother acts to protect her, she doesn't make it because of any act of Gaius'

The entire story is literally "In case you somehow missed it in ARR and most of Stormblood, everything Gaius believed in was horseshit and there's no such thing as a 'noble general in the evil empire'". All his meritocracy bullshit vanished the second he was gone, no-one but his own children believed it or held onto it, and the empire put someone directly opposed to that belief into his old seat when he vanished. No-one cared, no-one else "believed", the Empire was never about that, it was only propped up in his own singular legion by him being there and the second he was gone the legion dumped it and moved on and only Gaius was too naive and stupid to see it.

I mean for fuck sake, the Empire digs up the chemical gas weapon he explicitly had sealed away and destroyed all record of after he's gone and if it wasn't for a particularly dedicated and enterprising catboy and his comedy crew of hardcore engineers, it would have caused the eighth apocalypse

Even the follow-up in patch 6.4, of the family portrait, isn't some "aw he good now" thing. The family portrait you help organise for him has to have four of its six members be projected onto the scene via a machine's reconstruction of them as normal people because they're dead, they threw their lives away because the ideology Gaius taught them meant they could only think to die fighting and nothing else. That's his loving family portrait: four ghosts stood at his back as his last living child smiles through her pain.

"well the people of Werlyt didn't kill him for conquering them" they let him clean up the mess he made (which meant watching his children be killed) and as "thanks" they're letting him stay there to live out the last third of his life or so attempting to atone by fixing the damage he did.

He's 56 at the time of ARR; the Empire he gave 3-4 decades of his life to is gone, it's a smouldering ruin, all but one of the people he loved is dead, his surviving daughter is scarred by the path he led her down, and what few friends he had are also dead. He learned that his beliefs were all horseshit and pretty much everyone around him except for himself knew it, he must live knowing that those beliefs got his children killed, all that he achieved that he once considered "good" was for nothing, he learned that the cool old emperor he idolised who had no magic but built an empire by pulling up his bootstraps and who told him that magic and gods were bad was actually an ancient incredibly magical sorceror attempting to resurrect his own god.

That's not a redemption arc, he's the most owned man still alive in XIV

[queenvhagar]

I believe Rhys Ifans’ statement “Both sides are genocidal war criminals… I think we should all enjoy seeing how they die[,]” would be wrong because the entire time the story HOTD is fundamentally about how one group, the greens, IE Alicent, Otto, and Aegon Hightower, seek to maintain the status quo of an oppressive power structure versus Rhaenyra, the blacks, whose very existence seeks to jeopardize that power structure (the patriarchal society of Westeros).

It is made explicitly clear that the chief architect of team green in the usurpation of Rhaenyra’s throne that the only reason that they cannot have Rhaenyra on the throne is explicitly because she is a woman. It’s a theme that is present throughout the entirety of HOTD’s season one as this conflict builds up.

For instance, the conversation between Alicent and Rhaenys at the end of season one where Alicent justifies why she is participating in the usurpation of Rhaenyra’s throne to Rhaenys by saying that it is not a woman’s place to rule the Seven kingdoms and instead it is a woman’s place to gently guide the hand of the men who do rule.

The story of HOTD, the civil war for the succession of the Iron Throne following the death of Viserys, the Dance of the Dragons, is fundamentally a conflict that is built on the foundation of misogyny and the writers are making that explicitly clear.

The weird false equivalency when ppl imply that both sides are equally genocidally crazy, that treads to reduce the nature of this conflict down to just simple good old fashioned greed which it really isn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Rhaenyra is perfect and of course I understand that over the course of the war, she’s going to do some pretty terrible things but it’s been made pretty clear that Rhaenyra’s done everything in her power to avoid this turning out into a war in the fist place.

I just don’t think by any stretch of the imagination regardless of what Rhaenyra does throughout this war, that you’re supposed to enjoy watching her die. I don’t think that’s how her character is written and I don’t think that’s what the narrative goal of her end is supposed to be. Her character is a character by all accounts some victim of the patriarchal society that she lives in. Even if she does go down the “mad queen route,” it will only be to explore how the patriarchal society has completely twisted her. How this war that was started because she dared to be queen of the seven kingdoms completely ruined her and ruined her family.

I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this and would like to learn more if this take of mine is confusing and blinded.

I think this take might be correct if you're solely going off of the show and its interpretation of Team Black as modern feminists attempting revolutionary societal change led by divinely ordained and pure Rhaenyra vs Team Green as conservative misogynists led by incompetent and unorganized abuser Aegon...

Fire and Blood is not this, though. Sexism and misogyny is one element of power and power imbalance in Westeros but it's not the only one, nor is it the only factor into why Rhaenyra's claim was disputed, despite what the showrunners are trying to portray on screen.

The reality is two ideologically different sides with fairly equal claims to the throne are trying to seize power, leading to a war that ruins the land and the family that started it. Team Green has Aegon, firstborn son of the last king, following Andal tradition going back thousands of years and most recently reinforced in the Council of 101 AC that made his own father king. Team Black has Rhaenyra, eldest daughter named by the previous king but not supported by precedent. Rhaenyra unfortunately also had some political scandals that went against her in having bastards, having Velaryons killed and mutilated, and marrying Daemon despite fear of him in power being the reason she was named heir in the first place. Any of these are valid reasons why some people might be against her coming into power. It's more than "she's a woman and I don't like women."

Rhaenyra did not press her claim to raise up the women of the realm, nor did she do it out of a desire to save the world. She wanted it because she wanted power that was promised to her. But the show can't let women simply want things for themselves. Rhaenyra has to be an advocate for peace and want the throne for some higher purpose instead of just wanting power for power's sake.

The Greens were motivated by power to push for Aegon's claim, and surely misogyny in the society helped to get Aegon on the throne, but they also put Aegon on the throne out of fear for the lives of all of Viserys' sons, who would have to be taken out of the picture to secure Rhaenyra's atypical claim lest war and rebellion potentially break out against her at any point in her reign, and Team Black had already shown willingness to resort to violence to help themselves (Rhea's death, Laenor's death, Vaemond's death, Velaryons' tongues getting cut out, Aemond's eye cut out without any punishment and instead Aemond threatened with torture over speaking the truth about Rhaenyra). It's not just "we hate the idea of a woman ruling, we hate women, and we're terrible, incompetent people."

Fire and Blood is a tale of two sides fighting for even more power than they already have who are willing to do horrible terrible war crimes against each other and innocents in order to obtain their end goal of the Iron Throne, and realistically you are interested in seeing all of them die and face the consequences of their actions. The story has weight, the characters are real and human and messy and tragic, the war is unjustified in its means and methods and purpose. It's the failure of Viserys' legacy and a reflection of the flaws of monarchy and specifically the ideals Targaryen supremacy. No side is right and the other wrong. Nobody's a hero.

This is where the show has failed in its adaptation. It has abandoned its themes, along with several characters, characterizations, and plot points, in order to create their own narrative that fits a story that they think will sell best to the casual modern viewer: essentially, redemption for Daenerys fans after the catastrophe of Game of Thrones' ending. By making up prophecy and dream stuff to give to Rhaenyra and also giving her some of that Dany "change the world" mentality that was absent in the source material, the writers can cut apart the character of Rhaenyra and make her into a new Daenerys, and this time they can give the fans want they wanted for Daenerys. Except Rhaenyra is not Daenerys at all, and their only similarity is dragon riding queen seeking to inherit their father's throne. Changing the narrative so Rhaenyra becomes the new Daenerys and a true hero of the story ruins the underlying themes of Fire and Blood and specifically the Dance.

Rhys Ifans likely read Fire and Blood and actually knows what he's talking about. The point of the Dance isn't "heroic woman attempting to overthrow the patriarchy is burned and destroyed by the patriarchy and agents of the patriarchy." The takeaway isn't just "misogyny and sexism are bad and hurt women" like the show hammers in so heavily every single episode. It's "the pursuit of power by the already powerful comes at the cost of innocents, war is never justified no matter what (and certainly not justified by manifest destiny, someone's dream of saving the world, or even 'misogynists stole my throne') and the violence of war destroys indiscriminately." There should be catharsis when gray characters who have done good but also horrific bad in the pursuit of power finally face the consequences and die early deaths. Like, for example, the end of Succession: none of the Roy siblings get what they want, and we understand why, and even though parts of their character are sympathetic and tragic to us, we can objectively view them as flawed and selfish people whose decisions led to this ultimate, inevitable conclusion where they don't get what they want, and it's deserved. This is what House of the Dragon should have been. Tragic, flawed characters on both sides acting selfishly but realistically to seize power from each other and ultimately failing. But the writers opted for an oversimplified morality tale of good vs evil to push their version of feminism into the story where it doesn't belong, at the detriment to the characters and the story to the point it goes against the themes and messages of the source material.

[communistkenobi]

went on a terf blocking spree and they were sharing this tweet around

and like obviously this is factually wrong - “homosexual rights” happens primarily through de-pathologising homosexuality, quite literally an effort to redefine sexuality and sexual activity, which was commonly followed by a legal redefinition of marriage in many states as not only being between a man and a woman, and parenthood as not being strictly done by a mother & father - that’s redefining gender categories! Gender doesn’t exist as a repressive force independent of political & legal institutions. Universal paternity leave is a redefinition of gendered reproductive labour through employment and labour policy, it is a structural economic benefit that incentivises fathers to participate in child rearing. This is a (limited, partial) redefinition of what it “means” to be a man, just as gay marriage is a redefinition of what it means to be a husband or wife, just as allowing gays to adopt is a redefinition of motherhood and fatherhood. 

And this denial of being in an “ideological cult” is also intentionally downplaying the massive homophobic outcry that gays were/are in fact trying to destroy the meaning of family and marriage - that gay marriage would let you marry your dog, that gay parents are all pedophiles, that even expanding the definition of the nuclear family to include cis gays would threaten to destroy all categories of familial and civic life. Denying that gay rights are not viewed as an “ideological cult” of their own is laughably homophobic.

Taking this argument to its natural conclusion - that cis gays just want to be “left alone,” they aren’t here to “redefine” anything unlike the transsexuals - means a comprehensive denial of the law as an institution that produces patriarchal and gendered violence, that societal conceptions of gender (and the oppression produced by those conceptions) are unaffected by legal redefinitions of family and marriage. An absurd claim! This argument denies patriarchy as a social force, assigning it instead to this mystical abstract force that exists “out there” in nature, unable to be punctured or altered by any social response. Like tbh if you believe that why even fight for gay marriage at all? Just accept your lot in life as broken men and women with a mental disorder that makes you incapable of raising a family.

But of course they don’t actually really believe this, they know what side their bread is buttered on. Cis gays got themselves removed from the ICD and DSM, got gay marriage legalised in a bunch of countries (the tweet’s exclusive use of past tense when talking about gay rights implies the fight for gay equality is finished, an obviously self-centred western & homophobic argument) and said fuck you got mine! The king granted us entrance into his castle unlike you freaks, all we ever wanted was a seat at his table. Liberation is not the goal, cis gays just want to be permitted equal access to the power of cisheterosexual society. This tweet is arguing that gender is not a relevant mechanism in the oppression of homosexuals, that their oppression is altogether something else, unrelated to ideas of what it means to be a woman or man, because they want access to the violence those categories produce. Destroying these categories makes this goal unattainable for them, and so now cis gays are continuing to pivot to reactionary opposition to trans rights. But don’t take my word for it - I’m just repeating what this guy’s saying!

[archonofdivinity]

Oliver Fog - The Representation of Trade Unions Post-War

When most people talk about Oliver Fog, it’s never through an analytical lens. He is mostly used for the sake of shipping and sibling headcanons. And if his backstory is ever addressed, it’s normally taken wrong. Oliver isn’t a character who just hates work. In fact it could be argued that he is a microcosm of trade union representatives in his time period.

First I must discuss the importance of trade unions on Oliver’s character especially of 1953. I say 1953 because Oliver mentions that he has not worked overtime for 211 days in his anecdote. Trade unions at the time were much more powerful than they were today, and had much heavy tight links to the UK Labour Party, which was undoubtably much more left wing than it is today. The leader of Labour at the time was Clement Attlee who, while no longer Prime Minister, was one of the most influential socialists in UK history and helped to set up the NHS. I bring this up due to Attlee’s influence on the country and left wing politics as a whole, and as a civil servant, Oliver would have been aware of him.

Let’s now take a look at Arsenal. Oliver says he was a fan of them as a child since they were a popular team, but for that we must look at Arsenal’s history to find out how old Oliver would have been. Seeing how Oliver turns 15 in 1952, he would have been born in 1937, just before the outbreak of WW2. Highbury Stadium was build in 1939 and the Football League was suspended for the duration of the wartime period, meaning that it was impossible for Oliver to have seen them at a young age. The earliest he could have seen the team by walking out on his own was at the age of 10. At this point in his life, Oliver would have lived through the death, devastation and brutality of a wartime period and how it left Britain bankrupt. 

Arsenal’s red colour palette is also telling due to it being his favourite team - red is a colour that politically means left wing ideologies, and in the UK is a reference to the Labour Party, as well as its anthem The Red Flag, a socialist song about the labour movement. It’s possible that the fact Oliver’s favourite team being Arsenal was picked especially for this comparison, but at the same time it might just be me leaning in too far.

Oliver has a persistent want of an eight hour work day in reference to the social movement prevalent after the Industrial Revolution, where working hours were long and children were exploited for labour. While the UK to this day doesn’t have an eight hour limit to the work day, there have been major strides, and it was first accomplished in 1889 by the founders of the modern day GMB union. The fact Oliver specifically becomes part of this social movement is telling of his feelings about rights. There’s also his hatred of overtime, which adds onto this.

Oliver’s rant to A Knight could also be alternatively read as a rant on a predatory structure or system.

I’m not even supposed to be here! I’m just a boy, but because of your dreamed-up notions of purpose and responsibility, I was forced to become a Fogwalker. I never wanted to walk amongst the fog. I’m terrified of it… I just want to… I just want to stay alive.

Oliver is without hope at the beginning of his anecdote, lost in not knowing why he so readily took up the position of the Fogwalker. By the end of it he’s become aware of his true beliefs.

The Fogwalker is one who steps into the fog and brings light to others. Fundamentally, it’s a joke like any other, mundane as tightening screws or scooping manure. But that’s not all it is. My father once walked through the fog to bring me hope. On that day, he did the same. “This is my responsibility, and it is our responsibility.” […] On that day in 1952, he also brought hope to the people of London. The hope of survival.

Personally there are a few hints that Oliver falls along left wing ideology such as socialism. This could be especially true of his beliefs in social activism of his attitudes towards labour rights. Let’s take a look at his new garment. 

Version 1.8’s location is Russia, presumably in the 1910s before the Russian Revolution that would later set up the groundworks for the Soviet Union, so already the fact the garment comes out in this version specifically is telling. This garment set as a whole is called ‘Constructivism in Concept’. Constructivism is a theory where people acquire knowledge through experience and conversations, not through just seeing things, which could be reflective of Oliver’s anecdote. The garment itself is ‘See You At The Workers Club’. Workers’ clubs were something set up in the USSR and was a place for workers and their families to relax and also a place for propaganda. It was also sponsored by trade unions. I had to use Google Translate for the writing on the sheet metal, and the text reads, roughly, “let’s protect the eight hour working day”.

It’s easy to interpret Oliver as a microcosm through what he does and what he says. As a whole, he is a complex individual, a traumatised overworked teenager.

[hugthesquids]

Steven is a hybrid, NOT a fusion

So this is just an essay to this topic I really wanted to make:

Steven is a hybrid, not a fusion. I think this is very important to Steven's identity and the message of the show as a whole.

Not only that, this is actually confirmed by the Crew, that Gem Steven and Human Steven aren’t full beings of their own, but just two halves of a whole.

Identity

One of the core themes of SU is identity. Every character has something in their arc to do with their own identity, either finding it, or accepting it, or fighting to have it be accepted after being denied it.

Identity is so ingrained into SU that its main antagonists, Homeworld, the Diamonds and especially White Diamond, their ideology and society are literally the anti-thesis to identity and individuality. The whole reason Peridot defected is that she was just another number to them, but to Steven she was a person. Every gem is just a cog in the machine, and even the Diamonds themselves are not exempt from this as White treats every one of them in the roles she sees them fit to be.

Blue laughs at Garnet calling herself a Garnet, Amethyst is reduced to just being a defective gem and a mockery of a Quartz, and Pearl is just a Pearl, an objectified servant who is only as important as the owner she belongs to, bereft of her own identity.

And no one has been denied their identity as much as Steven has.

Not only on the Homeworld side but also among friends and family.

There is obviously the whole Rose Quartz and Pink Diamond thing, either being treated as her or having to live up to her or just being an extension of her.

There are also his family and friends who deny Steven's gem or human side, only seeing him as one of them and not the hybrid he is. His dad treats him like a gem, which neglects him in the human department. And his mom only considers his human side, which makes her blind to all the gem stuff he has to deal with that she inadvertently leaves him with.

The Crystal Gems veered into only seeing him as the human, making him feel left out of their group to the point of crying about the idea the gems would abandon him of he didn’t prove his useful worth as a gem, to then veering into seeing him only as the gem he was later on, making them blind to the human neglect that caught up to him later on as we see in SUF.

And in CYM, White treated him just like a gem embedded onto a human child, as two separate people.

Ironically, it’s White Diamond in SUF that actually has Steven the most spot on. When the Diamonds changed their ways, White actually sees Steven as the hybrid he is, “Half a Diamond, half a creature of earth, in all the universe there's no one else that could know what you’re going through”. He is one of a kind hybrid.

This only further highlights the importance of that scene in Change Your Mind (CYM).

CYM

With identity being so central to SU and White Diamond and the entirety of Homeworld’s ideology being the anti-thesis of identity, it’s no wonder that the most crucial scene and theme in CYM has to do with the identity of the protagonist himself, the one who’s been struggling with identity the most.

The whole point of CYM is that Steven's identity has been denied for so long, which is why Gem Steven screams at White who's trying to deny him being anything other than Steven. Steven literally says "I'm me, I've always been me" after becoming whole again.

Steven is Steven. Him being anything else, a fusion, having a brother, having this separate Pink Diamond gem attached to him is so wrong and goes against everything the scene stands for, and by extension what Steven Universe stands for.

Gem Steven and Human Steven are two halves of a whole hybrid, not a fusion or anything else. They’re not meant to exist separately, they’re not two individual beings.

Split Steven is a shattered Steven.

This is why that scene in CYM is so important, because Steven was forcefully split apart—essentially shattered because White denied his identity. Shattering has been shown to be essentially the worst offence one could do.

Which also fuels why Steven has such a visceral reaction to WD in SUF compared to anyone else, even Spinel who almost killed his entire planet and reset the gems he didn't have that visceral reaction to. Treating him like a fusion would take away the sheer violation of being a whole being shattered in two that he experienced in CYM.

As we see when split, the two halves act like they’re shattered where the pieces are still conscious but can only focus on becoming whole again, as we’ve seen is the case for shattered gems. And the way Steven’s parts “fused” back together, works just like how the shattered gem parts “fused” back together after Yellow Diamond put them back together.

This is actually confirmed by the Crew, specifically Joe Johnston, the one who wrote and storyboarded this very scene in CYM and is a director on the Crew:

Question: "If gems can’t fuse with humans how did Steven’s gem fuse back with him?"

Answer: “Think of the split Stevens like they’re two halves of a whole. The two Stevens are each only half of a being, they can’t not fuse back into a full Steven. If you kept them apart they would only ever be focused on becoming whole again, seeking their other half. A little like two magnets that get close to one another and then snap together.“ - Joe Johnston

We see this in action during CYM.

A heart without body, a body without heart

Both Human and Gem Steven are lacking what a full human and gem is, and both their body and mind seem to not be fully there. They’re obviously not fully functional beings of their own, but are missing what the other has, because they’re one full being split apart, like bones without muscle, heart without body.

The show makes it especially clear with how the PoV was literally cut in half in that scene.

Another way they make it clear is showing how both halves are lacking vital parts on their own.

Gem Steven struggles to be animated like a normal gem with his face mostly blank, unblinking and has very mechanical movements. He also almost looks like a hologram instead of a proper light form as the gems have. Meanwhile Human Steven obviously can't even walk and is very pale and weak.

Gem Steven is pragmatic in his thinking, while the human side is very empathetic. Human Steven gets concerned when Gem Steven pushes White back along with his controlled friends and shouts “don’t hurt them”, but Gem Steven isn’t hurting them or shows any interest in engaging with them but sees pragmatic side of stunning them so White doesn’t keep attacking which delays Gem Steven’s movement to reach Human Steven.

Both have emotions still, as we see Gem Steven’s anger at White denying his identity, which is an anger that has been building up for so long as nearly all of Steven’s trauma comes to this, and him being denied being Steven ended up with Steven essentially being shattered.

Gem Steven seems to be fast to act on his defensive reflexes when attacked by WD but struggles with his mind on the finer details. Human Steven is the opposite. We see how Human Steven is the first to reach out and crawl to his gem, and it’s only when Human Steven falls that Gem Steven seems to realise what’s going on, since he’s not used to operating on half a brain.

When Gem Steven screamed, he didn’t realise it also hurt his human side and it’s only when he sees him crying that the camera pans to the gem’s face like an “oh” realisation.

It’s only when they’re united again, Human and Gem Steven in physical contact that they gain what they’re missing. Gem Steven becomes more animated, able to smile and blink, and Human Steven gains more energy and is livelier, able to keep up with the dance.

They're literally missing pieces of themselves which is why each half doesn't function properly.

Shattered like a heart ripped from the body, or like a brain cut in half with a right brain and left brain. There is no separate gem and human consciousness when they are whole, there is only Steven.

If you try to separate him, it’s creating an artificial divide. It’s like when you cut a brain in half irl (yes that’s a medical practice that existed); so yeah the two brain halves will act differently when split, but they’re not meant to be split in the first place. And when whole the brain will not even consider there being two separate parts.

This is why it’s wrong to treat Steven as two separate individuals.

What fusion are and what Steven is not

The show has also made a very clear distinction what a fusion is.

A fusion is a relationship between two or more individuals, separate beings with identities of their own. And as we've seen with Garnet's arc, it's important that fusions aren't co-dependent, something Rebecca Sugar herself talks about and the components are still allowed to be individuals of their own outside that relationship. Garnet makes it very clear that Ruby and Sapphire are their own people.

That's why it's very wrong to treat Steven as two separate people as that would basically nullify the meaning of Steven saying "I'm me, I've always been me", in response to seeing his gem side being actually Steven and no one else or external entity, it's just him.

It would also go against what fusions stands for, because even a “permafusion” like Garnet had to go through an arc of recognising the components as their own individuals who should be allowed to explore themselves who they’re outside of their fusion.

Another thing that we see about fusions is that they are a conversation between two people. Steven doesn't have that, he doesn't have a mental plane with a human and gem Steven because he's just Steven. He can't "unfuse" from mental disagreements since there are no two people arguing, he's just one person.

And he can't "unfuse" by taking damage either. He can only be forcefully pulled apart like ripping a heart out of a body or cutting a brain in half, not meant to exist without the other.

Unlike fusions, he can’t exist being split apart; he is only half a human and half a gem when split, not two whole functional human and gem. Again, stated as canon by the Crew.

Identity and the neglected hybrid

SU is inherently a very queer show with queer themes interwoven into it (heck, it was the whole reason the show got cancelled, since the wedding happened and Rebecca didn't want Ruby and Sapphire's relationship denied).

And the same goes for identity.

The core message of the show is identity and Homeworld its anti-thesis.

Pink and Rose got to choose her identity outside of the Diamond she was expected to be, Pearl chose hers to be more than a servant, Ruby and Sapphire became Garnet, Amethyst is not defined by her "defectiveness", and lastly we have Steven, someone who has been denied his identity the whole franchise, which is why it's so powerful to say Steven is Steven.

And we know the show is called Steven Universe and we see things from his PoV. Which makes sense why his identity is central to the show.

SU was about Steven being denied even being Steven, while SUF is him knowing he is Steven Universe but struggles to figure out what Steven Universe even is, as most of this identity has been built in the shadow of constant conflict and the neglect he inadvertently encountered.

I don’t think I can write this section without also writing a whole essay and analysis on Steven’s perspective in SUF to really understand what he’s going through.

But I’ll at least say this.

Steven being a hybrid is so central to Steven’s character. He’s one whole being, one person going through all of this chaos, trauma and neglect. And this trauma and neglect stems from his hybrid nature and how no one really knows how to accommodate him.

This is why it’s so important that Steven is a hybrid, not a fusion or anything else. Because acting like his gem is a separate entity to him really takes away the pain and identity struggles that Steven goes through.

Steven in SUF never treats his gem as a separate being to himself (neither his human side either). His frustration with his family, as we saw with the argument in the van, is that they only see one side of him.

And it’s ironic that being blind to his human and hybrid side is exactly what causes his gem powers to act up. The feeling of being brushed aside, unheard, blind to his pain and needs. Meanwhile in contrast we saw that someone like Priyanka, who actually treats him as a human and gem is the one who manages to help him. Acknowledging that the very human experience of his trauma and stress response is what causes his gem powers to act on that stress response.

This is why it's important that Steven is Steven, not two people in a trench coat.

[ge-nde-rr-env-y]

i played owen carvour in a production of spies in sydney, and tcb i have a confession i added a line. in the man behind the curtain reveal, owen says "if it hadn't been for my spot on aim and interest in foreign policy, i might have been an actor." i had about a month between application and audition and i was sitting on the first paragraph for so long and i got a bit bored. so i added "and you know, being blackmailed by the english" to that list. it added this manic, pained spark to the moment. fuel for the fire.

i dont know what joey thinks about owens history, but i gave him a timeline. born 1926 (nov 14th. scorpio bitch.), his fine family home destroyed in the Blitz, he enlists for some income (and maybe to escape home) at 17 in 1943, too young, but he's slick and clever enough to pass as an adult. 1945, right before the end of the war, he sees something he shouldnt have. the higher ups in a below the table deal that could ruin a lot of rich and powerful peoples lives if it reaches the wrong hands. owen carvours hands were the wrong hands. but he's a remarkable soldier, he's quick, he's a master tactician, and he's Good At Lying. hes useful. so instead of taking him out. someone says "hey kid. howd you like to be a secret agent. -also if you say no you'll die-" no choice. he'll continue to live at the behest of a governments will.

he doesnt Like being a spy, but its not the worst thing in the world. he likes the more decadent aspects, certainly, and deception not only comes naturally, but brings a sort of thrill.

he doesn't like being a spy until he meets curt mega. this part of his history is a bit blurry, but i imagine them meeting sometime near 1952 (because of the song Video Killed The Radio Star), surely on the job somewhere. curt makes spying fun. and curt is the first real thing owen has had reliably since 1943. he doesnt change, hes delightfully predictable, and despite him appearing somewhat less intelligent than owen, he has this knack for seeing straight through to owens heart. curt is daring, where owen might be intially more cautious. curt has the guts to get the two of them *into* situations, where owen has the tactician skill to get them *out*.

i think owen got comfortable. tragically, the two of them were so in sync, so reliant on each other, that he didnt see the fall coming at all.

it wasnt the fall that hurt. it was watching curt walk away. he'd always thought that if this were to happen, theyd go down together.

CHIMERA found him in the rubble, a boy who'd always been controlled, who'd never really got a chance to live a life of his own, and saw a man who was easy both to manipulate, and to empower.

they weren't aggressive about their agenda because they knew what would happen. the founder/ceo (a man i have decided is named Thomas) simply let owen recover in their facilities and let him free when he was able to leave, with an explanation of their plan, and an offer of further help should he require it.

owen broke within a month. a string of killings across europe simply attributed to an individual named The Deadliest Man Alive. CHIMERA drags owen back by the scruff of his neck.

"what the hell do you think you're doing."

"what? who are they going to arrest? owen carvours fucking dead."

its very important to me that owen wasnt brainwashed by CHIMERA. every choice has to come from him because the catharsis of him fully believing in the ideology he carries out with his chest for the first time is just delicious.

he doesnt. hate curt. i dont think. he loves curt, and he hates the institution of Espionage that forced them into this. but ultimately, that institution is so driven into curt that owen cant get what he really wants, which is to break curt out of that and have him all to himself. coldest goodbye reprise is a moment of sorrowful acceptance for both of them. owen understands that curt is always going to be a spy, no matter what, and giving up on the fantasy he had.

[tomorrowusa]

Mike Godwin is an internet legend. He was the first known person to use the word meme in its internet context. He's also the originator of what's become known as "Godwin's Law".

In a recent interview, Mr. Godwin stated that comparisons of Donald Trump to Hitler or Nazis are fair and appropriate.

So to be clear — do you think comparing Trump’s rhetoric to Hitler or Nazi ideology is fair? I would go further than that. I think that it would be fair to say that Trump knows what he’s doing. I think he chose that rhetoric on purpose. But yeah, there are some real similarities. If you’ve read Hitler’s own writing — which I don’t recommend to anyone, by the way — you see a dehumanizing dimension throughout, but the speeches are an even more interesting case. What we have of Hitler’s speeches are mostly recorded, and they’re not always particularly coherent. What you see in efforts to compile his speeches are scholars trying to piece together what they sounded like. So, it’s a little bit like going to watch a standup comedian who’s hitting all of his great lines. You see again and again Hitler repeating himself. He’ll repeat the same lines or the same sentiment on different occasions. With Trump, whatever else you might say about him, he knows what kinds of lines generate the kinds of reactions that he wants. The purpose of the rallies is to have applause lines, because that creates good media, that creates video. And if he repeats his lines again and again, it increases the likelihood that a particular line will be repeated in media reporting. So that’s right out of the playbook. You could say the ‘vermin’ remark or the ‘poisoning the blood’ remark, maybe one of them would be a coincidence. But both of them pretty much makes it clear that there’s something thematic going on, and I can’t believe it’s accidental. The question is why do it on purpose. Well, my opinion is that Trump believes, for whatever reason, that there is some part of his base that really wants to hear this message said that way, and he’s catering to them. He finds it both rewarding personally for himself and he believes it’s necessary to motivate people to help him get elected again.

He adds this cautionary comment about the state of American democracy...

When I was growing up and being taught the American system of government, we would always be taught that the U.S. government has checks and balances in its design, so you can’t take it over with a sentiment of the moment. But I think what we’ve learned is that the institutions that protect us are fragile. History suggests that all democracies are fragile. So we have to be on the alert for political movements that want to undermine democratic institutions, because the purpose of democratic institutions is not to put the best people in power, it’s to maintain democracy even when the worst people are in power. That’s a big lift.

[nenekobasu]

I’ve been reading some of your analysis posts for a while, and one thing you keep emphasizing is how Isagi is a key in Blue Lock, while Kaiser is Blue and a Lock. And another is how Isagi is a gun in a team of swords

I agree a lot on what you’ve said about Kaiser (neo egoist, new hero), but I’d like to talk about Isagi.

Is it so bad that he is a key in Blue Lock and a gun in Bastard München?

For a while now, I’ve thought of Isagi being too much of a goody two-shoes. He listens to everything Ego says without question, and he always look as if he has some kind of mindblowing eureka moment when he does. I think it would be nice if he challenges Ego on some stuff and gain his own unique football philosophy, similar to how Kaiser challenges Noa to instead play like how he likes.

Maybe that’s the point of Isagi being a key and a gun.

Although I admit it’s too early for Isagi to deviate from Ego’s ideals, as he himself can’t seem to visualize past it yet, this build-up is just in time.

hi, thanks for the question. if i'm understanding the ask correctly, the sum of your argument seems to be "the point of isagi's nel arc development is that isagi demonstrates he can challenge egojin in the realm of thinking/ideals/etc, by creating something original to him" (if this is wrong i'm sorry and please disregard the rest of this answer)

starting off, i can't refute this in a satisfying way. the reason is because the argument seems motivated by a dissatisfaction with blue lock's pre-ubers match presentation of isagi and egojin. my belief about egojin is that he's the author-insert who acts as the fullest representation of blue lock's ideology, and as such occupies a position of thematic correctness within blue lock; isagi following egojin, then, is him fulfilling his purpose as the protagonist of blue lock, embracing his story's ideology and becoming its embodiment. this is a basic aspect of blue lock that i accept as 'correct', regardless of how i feel about it being so; from this standpoint, any instance of isagi deviating from his purpose will be unacceptable to me.

with that in mind, i think "isagi becoming a key and a gun" was where the nature of the story being told was transformed. before, in manshine (when isagi followed egojin and was 'correct'), isagi fulfilled his ideal form as a god-devil under great pressure, and bonded with yukki the sword— at that point, the story being told was that "isagi, under lock, becomes the heart of a sword." for the story to transform into one where "isagi, freed by a key, becomes a gun" was only possible when isagi betrayed who he was in the previous story.

since i accept the previous "lock and sword" story as what is 'correct' within blue lock, i feel the need to condemn this current story. but i understand that, for anyone dissatisfied with the previous story or with what blue lock advances as the 'correct' option, any change would be refreshing and/or a cause for hope. i can't argue with the frustrations of someone who (from my standpoint) rejects one of blue lock's core elements, as i, too, have only accepted this element not out of agreement but out of convenience.

overall i regret this response, as i realize i've basically just told you "yes it's bad because blue lock said it's bad which means it's bad." this exposes only my acceptance of egojin's correctness, and with it my acceptance of blue lock's message. it's important for me as a reader that blue lock remains contained within itself, so i can't reject the frustrations of anyone who dislikes it. that being said, i'll try to make another argument for why i condemn isagi's "gun and key" development.

to make something clear, isagi himself isn't the key— hiori is. and, isagi didn't organically become a gun on his own— hiori made him into one. instead of egojin feeding isagi ideas for how to become number 1, hiori was the one giving birth to isagi as their number 1 striker. isagi doesn't meaningfully challenge egojin, because all isagi did was replace egojin with hiori. 

so while the current isagi opposes egojin's teachings, he only developed to do so by latching onto a more convenient version of egojin who was capable of giving him immediate glory. the cause of isagi's opposition towards egojin was not a desire for rebellion, but forgetfulness. if anything, his "gun and key" development reveals how dependent he is on other people to give him direction and form his own ideas… as such, i'm incapable of seeing any silver lining to isagi's development

(as a final note, i understand the intent behind the isagi-egojin to kaiser-noa comparison, but while i do absolutely think creating his own ideal to challenge noa is core to kaiser's development i also think that this doesn't cut into noa's position as a 'correct' figure within blue lock, and that kaiser challenging noa leads to him 'following' noa in a true sense— for instance, kaiser's early test run of his ideal in ubers match leads to his ch.220 goal, which is eerily similar to noa's barcha goal. kaiser breaking from noa ultimately leads to him becoming more noa-like) (also i don't think of egojin as someone with an "ideal" in the same way as the master strikers but i haven't thought about it enough)

in any case i've done my best to communicate my beliefs about blue lock, but i understand if this answer fails to satisfy your objections. there were other approaches towards answering this that relied on an examination of the "key" and "gun" symbolism, but it would have looped around to being about the same central issue of whether the 'correctness' blue lock presents should be accepted by the reader. to take one final swing, though, i want to add that isagi is the chosen protagonist of blue lock, bound by blue lock's confines… from the beginning, true escape for him was a fated impossibility. i want isagi's current ideal of "freedom" to be thought of in this context of a deeper incontrovertible oppression, where isagi yoichi is only the protagonist because he exists in the prison called blue lock (manga). no amount of partnering with a key or shooting his enemies dead will change that isagi is trapped, but the only reason he doesn't realize this fact is because he's incapable of seeing what lies beyond his own, tragically limited perspective

[sokkastyles]

Hi,

Hope you are doing well.

I have come across the reblogs of The Reckoning of Roku and three things hit me.

The fact that the Air Nomads believe that the world would be better if everyone was a pacifist like them feels a bit like Sozin's thought process. This one is a reach, but I feel there is a small similarity.

I didn't understand the shot at the Fire Lady thing, because we are not shown anything about the Air Nuns mentioned in this novel. Is it a shot at fans? Because if so, this is a stupid attempt.

The novel feels like a deifying of the Air Nomads. That they were these pacifist people, but come to think of it, till book 3, I doubt it was implied that the Air Nomads were pacifist, to my recollection at least. And I doubt Aang's word can be taken into account, because no twelve year old will have an understanding of his culture.

I would like your thoughts on this.

The main problem with the "the world would be better if everyone were pacifists like us" thing is that it isn't inherently wrong. The world WOULD be better if everyone worked to end violence. The problem is that the novel and the series as a whole have a very shallow view of what pacifism actually is. They seem to think it means not eating meat and having a hands off approach to violent conflicts, while what Roku calls for is actual activism and bringing peace through justice. Gyatso declaring that wars would not exist if everyone were like the Air Nomads, while simultaneously advocating for not getting involved, does reek of the same logic Sozin used when he said that the world would be better off if the Fire Nation were to spread its greatness. Neither view is actually doing anything to promote peace.

And of course that doesn't mean Gyatso is just like Sozin, and it certainly doesn't mean that what happened to the Air Nomads was justified (a view I have seen expressed by no one except Aang stans accusing Zutara shippers of saying so in entirely bad faith). But a central theme of atla is that the Fire Nation thought they were the good guys. Their entire ideology was about the belief that they were making the world a better place, and any ideology that assumes the world would be better off if these other people were more like us, while not actually addressing conflicts, is an inherently flawed ideology.

Which would be great if, as I have seen some Aang stans say, also in bad faith arguments to hate on zutara shippers for pointing out bad writing, any of this were actually intentional. But the series is not actually interested in making Gyatso or any of the Air Nomads actual human beings. We're supposed to believe Gyatso is right simply because the Air Nomads are the good guys. And that's why what he says is dangerous. Nobody is saying the Air Nomads are not the good guys here. But it is glaring that the show put these words in the mouth of a character we are supposed to idealize, when the original show explored the dangers of that idealization as one of its main themes. It's because Gyatso is a good guy and a victim of genocide that the writers making him say this is so offensive.

The fire lady mention is absolutely a dig at zutara shippers, who invented the term because of the original show's deficit in depicting the lives of women. It feels like the creators are trying to dodge any accountability for their own sexism, something they have a history of doing. And yeah, it's telling that we still know nothing about Air nuns except that, according to Gyatso, there are "good reasons" for gender segregation. It reeks of "our sacred traditions vs their backwards sexism" as well as the creators once again trying to make excuses for their own sexism.

Which doesn't make any sense from a cultural perspective, but again, the franchise is not interested in depicting the Air Nomads as real people beyond the Shangri-La stereotype they've been running with. They don't even do a good job of trying to be progressive, because that line about how Air Nomads can move temples if their understanding of their gender shifts actually raises more questions than it answers, and just gives a gender essentialist and heteronormative view on lgbtq issues.

[thrown-away-opinions]

Watching "Why Do You Always Kill Gods in JPRGs?" and I am in awe of the stupidity on display.

>45 minutes of rudimentary Japanese/eastern history in broad strokes > glosses over the fact that Japan has basic capitalistic free trade and business for its entire history >no, fucking seriously, Japan had industry, independently owned businesses, the general free exchange of goods and services... otherwise known as capitalism. >Japan underwent a post-war economic boom >Some people get very rich and powerful during this boom primarily due to controlling the banking system with backing from a corrupt government >"Their new religion was... CAPITALISM." (paraphrased) >youtube essayist proceeds to explain at length the ways that forcibly aligning culture, religion, and government with private corporate interests is a bad thing (which it is, but it's not capitalism) >... but still constantly invokes "Capitalism" being forced on Japan from the West ("The False God") as the true evil in this narrative >Points to various examples in games where the bad guy is literally just the government and politicians, corrupt megacorps, giant evil monsters, and/or overt oppressive authoritarianism and tries to frame them as symbolic representations of western culture and Capitalism (spoken of as an evil ideology that makes people evil) >At no point do any of these stories (FF7, Persona 5, Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, etc) present the idea that anyone except the already corrupt and evil are in favor of oppressing/destroying/enslaving all humanity and the planet in the name of endless economic growth and power for power's sake. >Several examples are literally evil entities that demand destruction for the sake of destruction and say as much directly >essayist's explanation for why none of this seems obvious and so far detached from the far more clear messages in their stories is because Japan speaks in deep contextual code so as not to offend anyone >aka, essayist gets to assert his beliefs and you can't tell him he's wrong because you just don't get the triple-secret encoded message hidden under all the deep cultural context clues that only a true Japanese audience (or foreign weeb, apparently) would understand >his western examples of Capitalist metaphor are the Outer Worlds and Bioshock Infinite... games where corporatism and an overt pseudo-religious authoritarian are the villains >this guy is a goddamned lawyer, apparently.

This is so fucking stupid. I should have checked out the moment I detected that hint of venom when he named capitalism as the culprit, but morbid curiosity got the better of me. For a bit there, when he was talking about the economic bubble and the lost decade, it seemed like maybe he wasn't going to be totally retarded, but he sure proved me wrong.

The message behind the JRPG genre is often that protecting the world is good, amassing power for the sake of power is bad, and that with the power of friendship and grinding side quests, a ragtag gang of spunky kids can save the world from malicious extraterrestrial entities that aim to mindlessly consume.

And also that the SMT series and many other pieces of Japanese media invokes western religious iconography, names, and symbols because it sounds cool and mysterious to Japanese audiences. That's literally the direct explanation given by nearly every single game and anime writer when asked about all the obtuse and confusing mythology and symbolism in their games.

[thetrashthatsmilesback]

Watcher, Capitalism, and the Petite (Petty) Bourgeois

So the whole Watcher controversy has revealed an interesting misunderstanding of what constitutes "the rich" or capitalist beliefs. The major theme that arose during the controversy was the sense that Shane in particular had gone against his previously stated leftist beliefs - that he had, for all these years, taken up a humorous aesthetic of anti-capitalism without actually believing in what he was saying. I believe that this is due to a breakdown in definitions as they become spread to the general public. Dissemination of information is a good thing, and I would never argue against it, but one problem which arises from concepts spreading to large groups without context is that often the actual meanings break down until they are vastly different from their original, academic denotation. This is, I believe, what happened with the phrase “eat the rich” and its current colloquial usage.

I want to preface this with the fact that nothing I am about to say applies exclusively to Watcher, or that the Watcher staff have done anything wrong or misrepresented themselves. I also don’t think that the Watcher fanbase is wrong at all – the situation just happened to spawn arguments both in defense of and critique of the Watcher team which indicated, in my opinion, that an understanding of “the rich” in a capitalist society is not well understood. Disclaimers out of the way, let’s get into this.

During the controversy, two major sides arose – those who had begun to see the Watcher crew (in particular Steven, Ryan, and Shane) as “the rich” or ruling class in a capitalist setting, and those who argued against this by arguing that as Watcher is a small business, and not the upper 1%, they are not included in the definition of “the rich” expressed by leftists. I want to focus in on the counter-argument that Watcher being a small business just trying to survive means that they are not considered “the rich.”

In Marxist theory, there is a small group called the “petite” or “petty bourgeoisie.” This group is defined as those who both own and contribute to the means of production – aka, small business owners. Marx himself wrote little about the petite bourgeoisie, predominantly referencing them in passing in his essays The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 and very briefly in The Communist Manifesto. He does happen to criticize this group in the little writing he did on it, “Marx derides what he sees as the petit-bourgeois self-delusion that, because it combines both employment and ownership of the means of production, it somehow represents the solution to the class struggle. This class was progressive in a limited sense, as witnessed by its claims at various times for co-operatives, credit institutions, and progressive taxation, as a consequence of felt oppression at the hands of the bourgeoisie. However, these were (in terms of the Marxist view of history) strictly limited demands, just as the ideological representatives of this class have been constrained by their own problems and solutions” (“Petite Bourgeoisie - Oxford Reference”).

Now, it is very important to note that team “Watcher is a small business” aren’t completely wrong in their positioning of Watcher’s attempt to raise more revenue as Not Evil Capitalism. Marx’s belief was that eventually the Petite Bourgeoisie would be pushed into the proletariat class. I also am not positive that Watcher is a classical small business – they very well could be a worker co-op. A worker co-op is a business where the workers have ownership of the company, and significant representation on the board of directors(“What Is A Worker Cooperative? – U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives”). While some criticism of worker co-ops from a communist or socialist view exist, they are generally seen as a more socialist approach to the typical small business model.

I couldn’t find direct confirmation that Watcher is a co-op. One point against them being one is the use of titles such as CEO and Owner, but these designations could simply be for tax and paperwork reasons. Watcher is an objectively small company, they have between 25 and 30 workers, and most people cite them currently having 27 workers, but in the past they have employed interns and I am unsure of if they currently have interns on board so I am going to stick to the range. It would be incredibly easy to have a worker co-op with 25-30 people, you wouldn’t even need voted representatives; everyone could just be on the board and contribute to decisions. I figured the next best approach would be to see what the roles on Watcher’s shows are – if Steven, Shane, and Ryan contribute significantly rather than just showing up and looking pretty on camera, then there is a good chance they might be functioning as a worker co-op more than a traditional business or small business.

To do this, I decided to look at Watcher’s largest show for each co-owner. This means Ghost Files, Mystery Files, Puppet History, and Steven’s food series. These numbers broke down as follows:

Ghost Files: Ryan is listed as a Creator on all Ghost Files videos. Ghost Files Debriefs do not have writers, so that role will not be held against them on those videos. Ryan and Shane were listed as a Host and an Executive Producer on all videos, but neither ever held a Writer, Editor, or Sound Mixing role.

Mystery Files: Ryan and Shane were listed as a Host and an Executive Producer on all videos, but neither ever held a Writer, Editor, or Sound Mixing role.

Puppet History: Shane is listed as a Creator on all Puppet History videos. He is listed as a Host on all videos, an Executive Producer on all videos, Writer on 4 videos, and never held an Editor or Sound Mixing role.

Steven’s Food Series: Steven is listed as a Host and an Executive Producer on all videos, but neither ever held an Editor, or Sound Mixing role. This show does not require a writer so this will not be held against him.

*Do take these numbers with a grain of salt, I wrote this while in class so its possible that I missed something.*

Looking at those numbers, the main three do predominantly just film, but I don’t want to devalue the work that goes into being on camera. They are still generating capital by acting, I simply wanted to clear up confusion I had due to seeing people say they edited every Ghost Files video. From what I can see, they don’t do the editing, but as executive producers they likely have to review every video before it goes out. I also still can’t fully come to a conclusion on if the company can be considered a worker co-op, but I believe it is a standard small business – aka, the petite bourgeoisie.

All of that leads to the final point – the way that people only began to view the three lead Watcher members/founding members as “the rich” after the announcement of the streaming platform shows the way that leftist theory has become divorced from some of its meaning. I saw several people arguing “you guys can’t recognize the rich”/”you guys would attack doctors and lawyers under the guise of eating the rich,” and yes its true that doctors who work in hospitals are proletariat, but if a doctor opens a private practice or a lawyer opens a private firm, does that render them more bourgeoisie or more proletariat? At what point do the petite bourgeoisie become a part of those who we disavow? I don’t actually have answers to these questions, and I’m sure people much smarter than me or better versed in economics have written on this (one source I found that seemed good while I was skimming it despite its age is this one https://www.jstor.org/stable/2083291?seq=3 ). I didn’t make this point to argue one point over the other on whether Watcher counts as “the rich,” but more to focus on the way that term gets used. The argument could be made that we could have started questioning Shane’s anti-capitalist beliefs the moment he helped start a company, but we didn’t. We only started to criticize him on the basis of hypocrisy after the announcement and its out of touch comments. This raises so many questions about how we use the term “the rich” now – does it refer to anyone we dislike who is financially stable? Has the term become completely divorced from its original meaning? Or were we being hypocrites all along? Has Watcher Entertainment always been incongruent with Shane’s implied political beliefs? Is there a certain point at which the petite bourgeoisie become a part of the financial aristocracy? Or is that term only relegated to the industrial bourgeoisie, is it reserved exclusively for those in financial positions that no artisan could ever hope to reach?

Is it possible that both arguments are correct regarding the Watcher boys, and all other members of small business ownership and management positions? That they are both “the rich” but not a part of the proper bourgeoisie?

I don’t know. I find it fascinating though.

[reasonandempathy]

It is truly absolutely insane seeing exactly how much Zionism continues to be a prevalent and major, supported ideology, especially in and around Israel's current behavior of the ethnic cleansing/genocide in Gaza and even the saber-rattling about Iran, which Netanyahu has been trying to start a war with for decades now. This war is in nobody's interest, at all, period, unless that person is Bibi Netanyahu, a direct political ally of his, or is so committed to enacting violence (on either side) that they will almost happily see Israel and Palestine as a whole turn into a literally bloody wasteland.

Even limiting every other article/source to just Israeli press, Israel's attack on Iran is delegitimizing everything it's saying or proposing about attacking Rafah.

Taking over the Gaza Strip, the great "ground operation" that has left more than 34,000 Palestinian dead, was born in a diplomatic and strategic vacuum, with no plan for the "day after," no exit plan, and conducted by improvisation, with daily events replacing the empty square called "strategy" and dictating its content. The same is true for the killing of the Al Quds Force commander in Syria and Lebanon, Hassan Mahdavi (also known as Mohammad Reza Zahedi), which was not based on an understanding or recognition of the expected Iranian response, and which forced Israel to hurriedly built a response to the response – which also is not anchored in a strategy that takes into account the global and regional repercussions, especially the repercussions on Israel's own security.

The war and IDF are carrying out what is best for Netanyahu's political interests, not for Israel itself.

But history has shown us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a world champion in missing opportunities. There have been so many since the first week after the atrocities of October 7. That's the problem with a striker who plays for himself. He's only concerned about the glory from scoring goals. He doesn't care if his team suffers a stinging loss. That's how it is when your eyes are constantly on the wrong ball – political survival, not Israel's interest. ... The Bibi-ist social media was beaming with unabashed pride on Sunday: If only Netanyahu had been woken up in time on October 7, Israel would have been protected from its enemies and everything would be beautiful.

Bibi's actions and escalation are actively endangering Israel as a whole.

Israel is facing a historic defeat, the bitter fruit of years of disastrous policies. If the country now prioritizes vengeance over its own best interests, it will put itself and the entire region in grave danger Unfortunately, Benjamin Netanyahu and his political partners have repeatedly proven that they are unfit to make such decisions. The policies they pursued for many years have brought Israel to the brink of destruction. So far, they have shown no regret for their past mistakes, and no inclination to change direction. If they continue to shape policy, they will lead us and the whole Middle East to perdition. Instead of rushing into a new war with Iran, we should first learn the lessons of Israel's failures over the past six months of war.

The war and escalation are actively harming the Israeli economy on the long-term

Ratings agency S&P Global cut Israel's long-term ratings to A-plus from AA-minus overnight into Friday, the confrontation with Iran heightened last weekend and amidst the already elevated geopolitical risks for Israel. In addition to the downgrade, S&P also published a negative outlook, meaning the agency believes it's likely there will be an additional downgrade in the future. S&P typically updates credit ratings on predetermined dates, with the exception being if an urgent update is needed. Israel's update was due to be published on May 10, and the agency said the political and security situation led to the urgent update. "We forecast that Israel's general government deficit will widen to 8 percent of GDP in 2024, mostly as a result of increased defense spending," S&P Global said in its statement.

Israeli courts are calling bullshit on the government's claims that they're taking steps to address the famine.

"This is the opposite of how people see the High Court of Justice. People think the state comes to court trembling with the fear of being reprimanded. But actually the court is very careful not to intervene." But the Supreme Court – serving as the High Court of Justice because it was responding to a petition – found a way to intervene. It didn't lash out at the state, it opted for soft activism. "The court, in its wisdom, entered through the opening that the state gave it," says Eyal Benvenisti, an international law professor at Cambridge University. "The justices told the state, 'You're saying you're taking steps; let's hear what you're really doing. And what you can do more of." ... Cohen-Lifshitz wondered why the state was so proud of its coordination with the aid agencies if in the same breath it rejected their reports about the acute humanitarian crisis in northern Gaza, arguing that these reports are based on Hamas' phony numbers.

Israeli claims that they're not going to takeover Gaza are laughably at face value, especially since the IDF is actively building fortifications in Gaza.

Satellite images and photographs shared on social media show extensive development and construction at two outposts the Israel Defense Forces is building on the strategic road that divides the Gaza Strip into two. The army calls the construction of these outposts in what it calls the "Netzarim Corridor" as a long-term achievement. The whole corridor is referred to as something that is here to stay. The Netzarim Road, in the heart of this corridor, bisects the Gaza Strip. The outposts were built along this road, which is intended to enable the IDF to control the movement of Palestinians from the south to the north and launch operations in different parts of the Strip.

And, of course, it isn't actually about Gaza or Hamas at all. Israel is still building new, Jewish communities in Jerusalem. There are many more to come.

A report by Ir Amim and Bimkom nonprofits, said that since October 7, planning agencies have advanced 17 master plans for Jews in East Jerusalem that encompass 8,434 apartments. The plans for almost 3,000 of these apartments have been submitted by the custodian general, which is responsible for managing Jewish assets abandoned when Jews were forced out of eastern Jerusalem during the 1948 War of Independence. Some other plans would expand large Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, like Gilo and Pisgat Ze'ev, by replacing low-rise buildings with high-rise ones. According to the Peace Now nonprofit, the invitation to bid shows that "Israel is advancing new settlements in East Jerusalem at top speed, and thereby perpetuating the bloody conflict with the Palestinians and the countries of the region."

And of course they're still speeding along any and every action to kick more Palestinians out of their homes, legal opinions be damned.

A court ruled that the Palestinian family's home is owned by a right-wing Jewish group that acquired the interests of a Jewish trust that bought the site prior to Israel's establishment in 1948. The Israeli justice who ordered the eviction stated he's not waiting for the attorney general's legal opinion

[a-very-tired-jew]

The server closes, but the antisemitism it gave is forever

By the time this gets posted from my queue the Dropout Discord server will have officially closed/froze (May 26th, 2024). However, the looming freeze hasn't dissuaded any of the users in a particular channel from posting their wild conspiracies and outright falsities. Take this one that happened on May 24th.

Fig. 1. User states that Jews should be safe around the world and Zionism was invented by anti-semites (their word) to get the Jews out of Europe. Let's break down this picture. It's the same thing we have heard from goys time and time again about this entire issue. Jews should be safe around the world and we should make the world safer for them so they don't need Israel. Here's the problem...we've tried that multiple times. In fact, there was a whole ideology opposite of Zionism called Bundism that pushed for that very thing. Guess what happened? Bundists were exiled, tortured, imprisoned, cleansed, and killed. That's not to say don't make the world a safer place for us. We'd like it to be. But historically speaking, this sort of action hasn't been consistent. Now, the second part of their post: "Zionism was originally invented by anti-semites who wanted Jews out of Europe". Imagine being so confidently wrong in something. Not only does a quick fact check tell you you're wrong, but demonstrably so. The "Father of Zionism" is Theodor Herzl who helped formalize an ideology that was already present in Judaism. His actions were inspired by the Dreyfus Affair. If you don't know what this is, a Jewish officer of the French army was falsely accused of being a spy and imprisoned. The actual culprit was identified and the French army suppressed the evidence and acquitted him, he was not Jewish. Throughout this time there was rampant antisemitism in French society, which had previously been viewed as a liberal bastion of acceptance. If this place that intellectuals viewed as tolerant of differing views, creeds, religions, and so on could become virulently antisemitic, then were Jews actually accepted? That is the underlying thought that led to the formalization and creation of political Zionism as we know it (albeit in a very brief and generalized summary). Hell, this person probably doesn't even know what Labor Zionism is and it would probably break their brain. The most progressive societies in the world can say they're safe for Jews to exist in, but they will turn at the drop of a hat.

So when someone like this says that Zionism was made by anti-semites (and they're using the hyphenated incorrect term which is indicative of other issues) I can't help but think that they know next to nothing about the conflict outside of what they've consumed these past months. The likelihood is that this particular person has only engaged with antisemitic content because that misinformation they're spreading is something that only exists in those circles. It's antisemitic conspiracy wrapped in anti-Zionism. It's reminiscent of things the Soviets would say about Israel while actively killing the Jews in their country. They then followed it with this.

Fig. 2. Same user generalizes a whataboutism regarding safety for everyone, then specifically asks why no one prioritizes the Palestinians in these conversations. In this photo they ask why do we assume that the world is going to hate Jews forever? Because it has. Antisemitism is one of the oldest forms of hatred towards another group. Jewish history is marred with repeated incidents of cleansing, torture, imprisonment, exile, and killing. In no century has there ever been a time when Jews just existed peacefully with our own autonomy. And yet someone like this, who has shown their whole ass with their ignorance of what Zionism is and its origin, asks "why aren't we talking about the Palestinians in these conversations?" Because there is not a specific word that describes hatred of Palestinians like there is for Jews. Nor do they have thousands of years of history regarding that hatred. It's a false equivalency and a pitiful whataboutism to try and make conversations about antisemitism into something they're not. However, considering this user writes "anti-semite/semitism", I would not be surprised if they are of the "Palestinians are Semites" mindset (which myself and others have gone over in other posts, and even the server itself addressed months prior). We can talk about Palestinians and the dangers they face. We can talk about the rights and country they should have. We can talk about how other countries in the region keep them in camps and don't let them become full citizens. We can talk about all the issues surrounding them as a people. But not when we're talking about antisemitism, because it's not about them. The fact that this user is trying to make it that way and was not confronted in any capacity about their outright misinformation and manipulation says everything about the Dropout Discord Palestine channel that you need to know.

[archivalofsins]

I really enjoy how Yamanaka can encapsulate the guilt of being alive in his characters. That guilt from living and being human people all intrinsically have due to our shared history. Along with the ways we as individuals try to admonish ourselves for it.

The ways we begin to police ourselves and form ideologies to prop up the moral and right center we believe we should have. In what's a clear attempt to differentiate or sometimes make ourselves feel superior to others. It really highlights that at the end of the day, it's not just ones ideologies that hurt people but how they communicate and practice those things.

There are beliefs that people have crafted over decades for the sole purpose of hurting and devaluing others. Beliefs that one would be hard pressed to not find a person that on some level believes them regardless of where in the world they are. It'd be even more difficult not to run into someone who sympathizes with those who believe in something that is clearly harmful. Not because they think the thing is good but because they recognize this is a mistake they either could've made, almost made, or have wanted to make themselves.

Milgram is a good series because it serves to show, through its audiences response and participation, how many things left unsaid can become the foundation of biases. Biases that then go on to impact and inform how we treat others around us. It's easy to say religion is bad when it's not your beliefs being questioned.

It's harder for an individual to ask what beliefs that I hold dear are causing pain to those around me. Furthermore, how can I practice and keep to my beliefs in a way that causes no harm to others. Do I really believe this, or do I just like the impression of me it gives people if I say I believe this. What sort of person am I? Am I the lines I draw or the many ways I hold others to these lines but skirt around them myself? Is there a way to truly objectively be moral and in the right?

Or is the very act of conveniencing ourselves we can be just another form of human error?

What's the worst that could happen by interrogating the idea that I may be wrong? Does the possible blow to my ego matter more than the possibility for growth that could give? If I'm wrong about this, there's no telling what else I could be wrong about. What if I've been wrong about everything all my life, then what?

It's different when it's something we believe in ourselves. It's different when it's a cause one has convinced themselves to fight for. It's different when we have to cross our own lines. A lot of people equate changing with dying instead of growing. I believe this is because a lot of people feel shame and guilt over their past. So they say things like that was the old me, I'm not that person anymore.

Something that isn't always indicative of growth and come off as just plain denial.

Yes, I'm not the person I was yesterday. I won't be the person I am now, tomorrow or an hour from now. Yet, I'll still be me regardless of what I learn. Regardless of when I face what I have yet to know and it becomes what I now know. Regardless of if something from my past comes back to question me now. My feelings, views, and circumstances will keep changing because the fact that I'm alive today gives me the privilege to experience change.

When did people become ashamed of saying "I'm still me." When did it become more important to discrad oneself in the name of changing than to grow into yourself. When did change become denial? Plus, what exactly will it hurt to give ourselves space to fuck up and be wrong? What would people lose out on by not beating themselves down?

Instead of going the that was the old me going,

"During that time I was biased, stubborn, uniformed, and only centering my own views. I'm trying to be better now. I want to hear your opinion and be present in this moment with you. That can't happen if I'm always playing defense."

When we admit we're capable of doing wrong, it can feel bad. That sort of thing can really fucking sting. Yet if we never do, we ultimately deprive ourselves of the ability to be right. We ultimately trap ourselves in one spot. We put ourselves up on the same pedestal we place these characters on and try to do no wrong.

It's easy to say this sort of thing hurts the person doing it the most. Easy to see how this mindset can impact us because we're the one's experiencing it. It can feel like someone is the only person experiencing these things at times. That others just don't understand, and they may not be asking them to anyway.

That's their weight, their duty. Their's to carry nobody else's. Then, one day, they'll look up wondering why this thing they were meant to carry on their own has crushed everyone around. If it was their choice, why didn't it just impact them? That's the fair thing after all.

Yet, that's just not how living works. Our choices, beliefs, and views impact more than just ourselves because we're people. We live in a shared experience with the others around us. It's a miraculous and amazing thing. If the Milgram characters couldn't impact and interact with each other... If they couldn't form or deny community within the prison.

Would it still be Milgram? If we didn't have that choice ourselves, would we still be living? Those sort of things. Displaying those types of characters and creating that sort of atmosphere. It's difficult but endlessly entertaining.