#there’s a clear distinction between critical discussion of a work (which values differing opinions) and just being rude and inconsiderate

[kuroananosanji]

It’s so hard engaging with the English-speaking fandom sometimes because people are so comfortable with expressing negativity unprompted. You’re not supposed to be rude to someone over something that’s not real. Your words are being heard by real, living people, BE POLITE.

[thedreadvampy]

Hey Ruth! I noticed you've talked in the past about asexuality in quite a negative manner. As an ace-person (who has received backlash for it) I was wondering: do you still uphold these opinions?

Hey! I have in the past said I don’t really...like people popping up in my ask box asking me My Opinion On Asexuality, but I do appreciate you asking me as someone I kinda know and with your face turned on, so I’m gonna aim to answer in the macro. Though I mean it depends on what the opinions...are? I have had a lot of opinions over the time I’ve had this blog and I don’t necessarily know what all of them were or which ones have concerned you. I can give you a top-level view of how I see my views, though (however, since I have been largely holding off on answering this kind of ask for Literally A Year Now this is less an answer to your specific question and more an answer to the last year of asks)

(also if I get dogpiled in my inbox for Having Bad Asexuality Opinions which I do every time I talk about asexuality regardless of what I actually say then. my phone is broken I won’t know about it :) so I feel untouchable)

I don’t think I hold a negative opinion of asexuality as an identity (I say I don’t think bc we all have blind spots)? I have a lot of very important people in my life who are asexual, aromantic or aroace and. I mean it feels pretty condescending to say ~uwu it’s valid~ bc like. ace and aro people don’t really need my input to validate their identity. but a) it seems like a pretty accurate way to describe their experience and b) I know a lot of them have had a really huge boost from finding a name and community to fit their experience and have found that really helpful, and I’ve seen that make a huge difference in people’s lives and I’m really happy to watch my friends come to understand themselves and feel comfortable and accepted in a part of themselves they had felt really alienated or stigmatised by. In a broader sense, I think there’s huge value in decentralising romance and sex in our assumptions of What Human Happiness Means and for some people that’s not the most important thing, and for some it’s just not interesting. 

So like. I find it difficult to really express these opinions in any meaningful way because my opinion on asexuals and aromantics is much like my opinion on trans people or idk like people of colour. like very obviously those people exist and very obviously those people don’t deserve to be marginalised or stigmatised but it would feel. weird and performative to just make a post saying like “Asexuality Is Good And Valid, I Am Pro It” bc again like. who needs my permission or cares about my opinion. it’s not a Good Thing To Do it’s just. a thing you are that shouldn’t be treated as a bad thing.

however. and I suspect that this is what you’re referring to. while I love and appreciate ace and aro people, I think building communities and active support for ace and aro people is valuable and needed and, as above, I think Asexuality Is Good And Valid I Am Pro It, I do take some issue with elements of how discussions around asexuality are framed online (pretty much only online, I really haven’t run into the kind of black-and-white thinking in in-person queer spaces) 

and I also. think there are some issues with people extrapolating their experience of their own sexuality onto the world in a way which. I’m just going to say a lot of the time when I talk about The Ace Discourse in a negative way it’s around people assuming that the world is split into a binary between ace and allo people, or assuming that only aspec people experience a nuanced or complex or fluid relationship to their sexuality while pigeonholing allosexuality into a pretty flat image of sex and romance focus. and I have always felt like this does a massive disservice not just to people who don’t identify with aspec labels, but also to the general hope that we could work against the expectation that there’s a Standard Amount To Value Sex/Romance - I think that the assumption that there are aspec people and then Everyone Else Has The Normal Type and Level of Attraction just. reinforces the idea that there’s a “Normal” type and level of attraction. which is ultimately pretty self-defeating and also just. observably untrue. 

and this division of the world into Aspec People and Allo People also has some other weird knockon effects - I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with identities like gray ace or demi or other aspec labels beyond asexual and aromantic, but I do think that the way those labels are used is often. unhelpful. and they’re defined in such personal, subjective ways that you get weirdnesses sometimes like people Diagnosing Each Other With Demisexual or people saying ‘you can’t talk about this experience you share because it’s an Aspec Experience’ and again. there isn’t a concrete material experience there because the whole experience of romantic and sexual attraction, what that feels like and how sharply divisible it is is very, very personal and subjective. and everyone has different experiences of those and will name those experiences differently.

there’s also. historically a minority of Big Ace Blogs that kind of sneer at allosexuality or who would hijack posts about other issues to derail them to asexuality. but I don’t think they were ever representative of the community as a whole and I certainly think that inasmuch as those blogs remain around they’re a legacy of the Long-Ago (and a lot of them are trolls imo)

but there is. an issue I take that does seem to be more currently live which is the question of allo privilege. I think personally that framing all allosexuals/alloromantics as privileged over all aspec people on the basis of feeling sexual/romantic attraction is provably untrue in a world where people, particularly queer people, are actively oppressed and marginalised for expressing non-normative sexuality. it isn’t that I don’t think asexuality and aromanticism isn’t marginalised and stigmatised, because it visibly is, but it seems pretty reductive to boil it down to a binary yes/no privilege when both sexualisation and desexualisation are so actively tied into other forms of marginalisation (this is what I was trying to express in the argument about Martin a while ago - sex and sexuality are so often disincentivised for fat, queer, disabled and neuroatypical people that it doesn’t...feel like a reclamation that those tend to be the characters that get fanonised as ace where slim, straight, able-bodied and neurotypical characters aren’t. like it’s more complex than a binary privilege equation; sex and romance are incentivised and stigmatised differently at the intersection of oppressions and. for example. in a world where gay conversion therapy and religious oppression of gay and SGA people is so often focused specifically on celibacy and on punishing the act of sexual attraction, I don’t think it’s a reasonable framing to say that a gay allosexual man has privilege over an aroace man on the basis of his attraction) 

so those are like. things I would consider myself to feel actively negative about in online discourse (and again. in online discourse. not in how I relate to asexuality or aromanticism or aspec identities in general but in the framing and approaches people take towards discussing it in a very specific bubble).

but also. um. the main criticism I have of the online discourse culture of asexuality is that there are things I don’t have experience of that I have mentioned, when asked, that I don’t personally understand the meaning of but I don’t need to understand them to appreciate that they’re useful/meaningful to others. things like 

the difference between QPRs, asexual romantic relationships and close friendships

how you know the difference between romantic attraction and friendship

the distinction between sexual attraction and a desire to have sex with someone for another reason

and I hope I’ve generally been clear that this is. honest lack of understanding and not condemnation. I personally have a very muddled sense of attraction and often have difficulty identifying the specifics of any of my own emotional needs so like. it’s a closed book for me at the moment, how you would identify the fine distinctions between types of want when I’m still at step 1: identify That You Want Something Of Some Sort, Eventually, Through Trial And Error. but I think I’ve always been explicit that this isn’t a value judgement it’s just a gap in my own knowledge and yet. every single time I’ve said anything other than enthusiastic “yes I understand this and I love it and it’s good and valid” (and again. I have not gone out of my way to talk about it I have mostly only mentioned it because people keep asking me to talk about it) I have got a massive rush of anger and accusations of aphobia and “just shut up if you don’t know what you’re talking about but also answer my 30 questions to prove you think Correct Things about asexuality” and. I understand that this comes from a place of really unpleasant and aggressive backlash towards the ace community so it’s a sensitivity with a lot of people but like. it doesn’t seem proportional.

also I feel like ever since I hit like 700 followers my Tumblr life has been a constant cycle of people asking me Are You An Ace Inclusionist Are You An Exclus Are You An Aphobe Justify Your Opinion On Asexuality which. eventually yeah I’ve got pretty snippy about the whole thing. but you know. fuck it I’m just gonna lay it out and if you or anyone else is uncomfortable following me based on those opinions then I’m sorry to hear that and I will be sad to see you not want to engage with me any more but I also think that’s absolutely your prerogative. however I will not be taking questions at this time (and not just bc my phone’s broken) - demands for an argument about this Are Going To Be Ignored so if you want to go then go.

so like the big question I reckon is Do You Think Asexuality Is Queer and

yes. no. maybe. I don’t understand the question what does it mean for an identity to be queer? 

there are spaces and conversations where any form of aromanticism or asexuality makes sense as a relevant identity. talking about hegemonic expectations of normative romance. building community. combatting the idea that heterosexual missionary married sex between a man and a woman is the only rewarding or valuable form of relationship or intimacy.

there are spaces where I think heterosexual aros/heteromantic cis aces don’t. have a more meaningful or direct experience of the issues than allo cishets. because while being aro or ace or aspec has a direct impact on those people on a personal and relational level, disclosure is largely a choice, and the world at large sees them as straight. they don’t have the lived experience of being visibly nonconforming that SGA people and aroace people do. they may still be queer but there’s a lot of conversations where they bring a lot of the baggage of being Straight People (because. even if you’re ace or aro you can still be straight in your romantic or sexual attraction and if your relationships are all outwardly straight then you don’t necessarily have an intimate personal understanding of being marginalised from mainstream society by dint of your sexuality). this doesn’t make you Not Queer in the same way that being a bi person who’s only ever been in m/f relationships is still queer, but in both cases a) you don’t magically have a personal experience of societal oppression through the transitive properties of Being Queer and b) it’s really obnoxious to talk as if you’re The Most Oppressed when other people are trying to have a conversation about their lived experience of societal oppression. and they’re within their rights to say ‘we’re talking about the experience of being marginalised for same gender/non-heterosexual attraction and you’re straight, could you butt out?’)

(I very much object to the assumption coming from a lot of exclus that “cishet ace” is a term that can reasonably be applied to non-orientated aroace people though. het is not a default it really extremely doesn’t make sense to treat people who feel no attraction as Straight By Default. when I were a lad I feel like we mostly understood “asexual” to mean that identity - non-orientated aroace - and while I think it’s obvious that a lot of people do find value in using a more split-model because. well. some people are both gay/straight/bi and aro/ace, and it’s good that language reflects that. but I do think it’s left a gap in the language to simply refer to non-attracted people. this isn’t a criticism of anything in particular - there’s a constant balancing act in language between specificity and adaptability and sometimes a gain for one is a loss for the other)

some queer conversations and spaces just. aren’t built with aces in mind. and that isn’t a flaw. some spaces aren’t built with men in mind, but that doesn’t mean men can’t be queer. some conversations are about Black experiences of queerness but that doesn’t mean non-Black people can’t be queer. not all queer spaces will focus on ace needs but that doesn’t mean asexuality isn’t queer, or that queerness is opposed to aceness - sex, sexuality, romance and dating are all really important things to a lot of queer people, especially those whose sexuality and romantic relationships are often stigmatised or violently suppressed in wider society. there should be gay bars, hookup apps, gay and trans friendly sex education, making out at Pride, leather parades and topless dyke marches and porn made by and for queer people, romantic representation in media of young and old gay, bi and trans couples kissing and snuggling and getting married and saying sloppy romantic things. and there should be non-sexual queer spaces, there should be discussions around queerness that don’t suppose that a monogamous romantic relationship is what everyone’s fighting for, sex ed should be ace inclusive, etc. 

I think the whole question of inclusionism vs exclusionism is based on a weird underlying assumption that If An Identity Is Queer All Queer Spaces Should Directly Cater To That. like. aspec identities can be queer and it can be totally reasonable for there to be queer spaces that revolve around being sexual and romantic and there can be conversations it’s not appropriate or productive to centre asexuality and aspec experiences in and we can recognise that not all queer people do prioritise or have any interest in sex or romance. in the same way that there’s value in centring binary trans experiences sometimes and nonbinary experiences at other times but both of those conversations should recognise that neither binary or nonbinary gender identity is a Universal Queer Experience.

anyway that one probably isn’t one of the opinions you were asking about but I have been wanting to find a way to express it for a while so you’re getting it: the Ruth Thedreadvampy Inclusionism Take.

uh. it’s 1:30 on a work night so I have been typing too long. if there was an opinion you were specifically thinking of that I haven’t mentioned, chuck me another ask specifically pointing to what you want me to clarify my thinking on. sometimes I gotta be honest I’ve just been kind of careless in my framing (thinking of the Martin Fucks debacle where I spent ages insisting I didn’t say Martin couldn’t be aroace then read back like two days later and realised that I had said “he’s not aroace” bc I had written the post at 2am without proofreading and had meant to say “unless you think he’s aroace”) so I May Well Not Stand By Some Posts or might Stand By Them With Clarification

[bbq-hawks-wings]

Series Review Pt. 1/3

So, this isn’t even a YouTube video where you have the advantage of hearing a voice over a recording with snappy editing to lighten the mood or convey feeling; but believe me that there was a lot of earnest sincerity put into the review this time around.

But before I put the rest of it under the cut, there are some corrections/clarifications I want to put down about my last review that I believe we're significant shortcomings on my part. 

My first, and probably most MAJOR goof was my choice of words in trying to describe the scene with Hawks and Twice at the end of 263 - “ he clearly hasn’t killed Twice yet, and we don’t know why, but if he has to he’s prepared to do so without hesitation or remorse.”

BIG OOF. I hadn’t even been looking much at others’ opinions and the common-enough impression that Hawks doesn’t care about Twice at all/is incapable of empathy/ONLY concerned with his mission from the Commission. When I looked back at my own review, though I didn’t have any indication anyone believed I was one of those people (“without remorse” being the problematic phrase in question), I could easily see how others could get the impression and decided to wait until the next review to do a better job instead of just saying I would. My views on that particular scene will be clear later on, but at least that’s out of the way in case that was keeping people from reading this in the first place.

Second, I failed to arrange my observation points in a more ideal order. If anything, the fact that we were seeing that last page from Twice’s perspective should have been the first point. This mistake made it sound like a neutral assessment of the situation instead of an observation through the context of Jin's feelings. This ended up confusing even myself, as someone who usually writes these reviews solo, into forgetting to factor in that Twice's perspective may be warping the perception of Hawks guarding him into one of intent to kill while forgetting that the Hero Code forbids killing others unless it's truly a necessary last resort. For some reason, Sad Man's Parade and Twice's two-double limit also slipped my mind which brings me to the last point.

Third, I rushed things. When I rush, I make mistakes, sometimes pretty sloppy ones. It has been a ROUGH couple of weeks to be a Hawks or villain stan, even more so if you’re both, so for some reason I felt like I needed to get my thoughts out there quickly. I don’t have any kind of real incentive to do so other than a faster response - I don’t make any money off this, don’t have any relevance algorithm to feed as if I was on YouTube or Twitter, and I’m not the only half-decently known blog to hold these opinions so I don’t know what I was thinking. That’s my problem, but that doesn’t mean I have to make it anyone else’s.

For complete transparency, I’ve been reading and re-reading through the entire series canon again, starting with Hawks’ manga debut, and reviewing the entire series’ events and in-universe history, and have been taking literal whole pages of notes and drafts since Thursday the 12th. I’m glad I did because it brought to mind things that often get left out of pockets of fandom discussion who hyper-focus on their circles of interest while forgetting that each individual section is meant to work with the whole.

That’s what we’ll be working with today, and additional thanks goes to  @baezetsu and @dorito9708 for volunteering as proofreaders and editors to make this more focused and concise. If you’re interested please keep reading. A fair warning, this is what we in the professional field call a “long-ass post, no seriously guys grab a drink and a snack we’re gonna be here a while.” It's actually so long I have to split it up into parts because Tumblr Mobile is stupid and doesn't like making the "read more" function available to the mobile version.

So here we go, people, let’s try this again one last time…

Where we’re at in Chapter 264 (or at least, you know, ignoring literally everyone in the series that isn’t these two) is Twice and Hawks’ confrontation in the study room; but let’s put a pin in that for now and come back.

The biggest piece of information to keep in mind is that even though both these characters are currently front-and-center and have major plot and symbolic value in the series, they are still not the main characters. Their conflict is also not the central conflict. Let’s zoom out to the big picture and see what happens when we put everything together at the end.

The whole inciting incident of the series is when humanity began to display superhuman abilities in a few random individuals. These abilities are neither inherently good or bad - they are constantly intended as neutral with the potential being dependent on the user. Eventually these abilities began to be collectively termed as “quirks” - literally just a single facet of each person’s unique identity. From a social commentary standpoint, quirks have been used as a narrative stand-in for the unique situational circumstances or combinations of circumstances individuals may find themselves with that are either mostly or completely outside of their control like aptitude, physical ability, race/appearance, mental state, and inherited societal station. While more of these examples have been explicitly stated and inserted into the story later on, quirks still serve as the main catalyst and lens by which these topics are discussed.

Because of the initially new and unfamiliar nature of these abilities, people who possessed them faced descrimination and persecution despite having no say in whether or not they had them; and some who did possess these abilities began abusing their power. Taking advantage of this, a man calling himself One-for-All took unwanted quirks from people and redistributed them claiming to want to help others and bring about peace but merely wished to amass power and a following for his own gain. Morally upright individuals eventually rose to the occasion and placed themselves between innocent bystanders and evildoers, earning no official reward or compensation for their work, though eventually they became so effective that they became recognized and endorsed if they went through proper governmental training and channels. These endorsed specialty crime fighters came to be dubbed “heroes.”

All-For-One had risen to prominence by this point and his loyal following actively supported him in his now blatant criminal empire despite the morally reprehensible actions he committed which incessantly terrorized innocent bystanders - earning him the title Symbol of Evil or Symbol of Fear. Eventually a hero named All Might rose up to specifically deal with All-For-One’s reign of terror, having worked his way up from obscurity taking down criminals and saving civilians in unprecedented numbers, determined to create a world where everyone could feel safe in the face of danger. Though only succeeding in beating AFO into hiding All Might ushered in a new era of safety and prosperity earning him the title Symbol of Peace.

Therein lies the central message - “It’s not the situation you’re given that determines your worth or potential but what you choose to do with it” - and the main conflict is - “I want to use what I’ve been given for my own benefit" vs "I want to use what I’ve been given for others.” Deku and Shiguraki are merely the next generation iteration of this conflict distilled down to their simplest essence. Deku's desire is to save anyone who needs help the moment he realizes they need it. Shiguraki wants to remove people's sense of security regardless of their character or situation. 

This conflict is initially framed as simple - a clear black and white/good and bad dynamic that’s easy to see from a distance; but as characters and groups developed over time it’s become more and more difficult to tell the two sides apart. It was not a coincidence that immediately after introducing the clear-as-day bad guys to the series we were presented with the idea that who we perceived to be “good guys” could be bad people doing good things or that people could do good things for the wrong reasons when we were presented with the personal conflicts that Bakugo, Shinsou, and Todoroki all faced at the Sports Festival that were either their internal struggles with the way the were perceived by others or were their personal struggles with the way they perceived themselves. Immediately after that, we were introduced to Stain's criticism of modern heroes and shown who would come to be the core members of the League of Villains.

At the current events in the series we’ve waded through so many shades of grey we’re expected to determine who’s a “hero” and “villain” not by what they say but what they do, how they do it, and why they do it. The individual members of the League of Villains touch on various ways a person might be driven to a life dedicated either to the pursuit of personal satisfaction with no concern to others or to the active pursuit of destroying others, and generally the villains are some of the most morally gray characters we have in the series, though not all of them - the two most notable morally gray “good guys” are Hawks and Endeavor.

There’s one last thing to note about how the series chooses to distinguish morally gray characters as “good” and “bad,” and that ultimately boils down to the choices they make with the hand they are dealt - that being to help or to harm others. This is not quite the same thing as a “hero” and a “villian” (I know, as if it wasn’t confusing enough), but the series has now gone to great lengths to make a clear distinction between the ideals of heroism and the institution of heroism.

Looking at the difference in institutions and ideals as the series presents them we get a better picture of the actual core issues the series seeks to address. The institution of heroism is a utilitarian approach to maintaining a sense of order and safety, and it does so by incentivising people to resolve as many public altercations as possible in exchange for wealth and fame. Criminals are those who break the law regardless of the motivation for the crime or its degree of impact. The institution does not take into account factors that may drive someone to commit a crime nor is it concerned with the core motivations of those enforcing the sense of order.

On the opposite hand, the ideal of heroism offers no reward, no recognition, may require some amount of suffering on the part of the hero, and never guarantees that the victim in question will be saved. Conversely, villainy/evil is any action taken for one's own gain with zero regard to the impact on others and/or is any action committed with malicious intent. These definitions are about moral obligation and human to human connection.

While having a strong correlation (helping others because it's right usually helps the majority in the long run, and doing harm is often ultimately bad for the majority) these two schools of thought are able to function independently of each other. In other words, a criminal can be a good person fallen on hard times (like stealing food to feed their family, but only as much as they need from someone who won’t notice it missing) while a “professional hero” can be an evil person doing good things for the wrong reasons (like obsessing over gaining wealth and popularity with no mind to collateral damage they may cause). Most characters are categorized and even described in-universe as morally aligning with the institution they associate with; but several have been explicitly noted as exceptions to the rule such as Gentle Criminal and La Brava, Endeavor, and Twice. 

Are we properly confused yet? Great, because there’s one more layer to consider! What do we make of someone who is trying to do a good thing (like saving as many people as possible from a known threat) but to do so has to make a choice that might leave a few people in the fire? Which outcome do we use to decide if this is a good person or a bad one? Do we judge based on intent or on the outcome?

Now we zoom back in to Hawks and Twice, but we’ll pick that up in Part Two.

Part Three

[jesawyer]

Unsolicited Opinions on Improvements for Mordhau’s Frontline Mode

In spite of not being particularly good at them, I’ve been a fan of competitive team-based, objective-oriented FPSes going back to Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory and Battlefield: 1942.  When they’re good, they’re great.  The thrill of victory/agony of defeat on map like W:ET’s Fuel Dump is hard to match in either a single player game or a standard DM/TDM environment.

When I saw that Mordhau was coming out with a team-based, objective-oriented mode (Frontline), I was thrilled.  Mordhau’s combat is challenging and I always appreciate when something is...

There are problems with balance (HORSES) and, as with any online competitive game, the in-game chat being a vortex of brain-destroying negative energy, but the developers at Triternion have already discussed plans to address those issues.  And while they’ve also discussed plans to look at Frontline, that’s not going to stop me, who has no experience working directly on team-based, objective-oriented FPSes (other than giving advice on Armored Warfare, I guess... ), from giving my unsolicited opinions on how Frontline could be improved as a mode of gameplay.

I’m an RPG designer, so if anyone reading this wants to dismiss these ideas immediately, feel free.  Take ‘em or leave ‘em, baby!

Things I’m not Going to Address (Except Here)

It’s worth saying things that I’m not going to really dive into because I don’t think they’re problems with Frontline as a mode.  First, weapon balance.  I have opinions on how weapons and weapon costs are balanced in Mordhau as a whole, but I don’t think any Frontline map is made or broken because of overall weapon balance.  Horses and firebombs are sort of the exception here, but Triternion has already acknowledged problems with both, so there’s no point to beating on that billhooked horse.

Second, in-game chat being a cesspool of idiocy.  I mean, it absolutely is, but it’s also 100% unnecessary for playing Frontline.  Because Frontline has a single conflict point at any given moment of the game, it’s really rare that any deep team coordination is required.  And if the mode evolves to require better coordination, it would be better served by the existing voiced in-character quick bark system (which is not dissimilar in overall structure to Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory’s) than by requiring characters to type in / read text chat.

As a reminder, you can disable the chat log entirely from the options menu.  In my experience, it is only an improvement.

Asymmetry

One of the first enormous hurdles to achieving good gameplay balance on any Frontline map is that every Frontline map has either asymmetrical map layouts, asymmetrical objectives, or asymmetrical map layouts and objectives.

It’s hard to un-ring the bell on these design decisions, but it’s important to recognize that when both the layouts and objectives are asymmetrical, it’s significantly more challenging for designers to achieve what feels like (to players) a fair set of challenges for both teams.

On maps where the layouts are close to symmetrical (e.g. Mountain Peak), it’s important to ensure that the final stage objectives feel like they require a similar amount of time, effort, and focus to complete.  Of course, Mountain Peak’s final stage objectives don’t require a similar amount of time, effort, and focus to complete, so whether your team wins or loses once pushed back to their final spawn can feel like a tooth-and-nail struggle (pushing the ram to red) or like you suddenly lose out of nowhere without even seeing the final objective fall (burning tents in blue).

To compare these two objective types, we can look at how they work in games like Overwatch or W:ET.  The ram at red is like an Overwatch payload and other than the fact that it moves, it’s not much different from flag objectives in Frontline.  Blue players stand around the ram and it moves -- unless red players stand in the area and/or kill the blue players in the area.  Unlike an Overwatch payload (or the train car on W:ET’s Rail Gun), the defending team cannot reverse the direction of the ram once it starts moving.  They can only stop it (reclaiming their nearest flag will also halt forward progress).  The ram is easy to track and players from both teams can try to dogpile onto it (or the nearby flag).

In contrast, the tents that blue has to defend are spread out over a relatively large area.  A single red player can throw a torch and light up a tent and there’s not much blue can do to stop it.  Of course, red can just forget to do it, which is a real and separate problem, but all of these problems contribute to making the final objectives feel massively different in terms of the effort and coordination required to accomplish them.

It would probably be easier to change the objectives on Mountain Peak than to try to use map layout as a balancing factor.  On maps like Grad, where the layout is so totally asymmetrical, making the final objectives more symmetrical could help a lot.  Even if both red and blue had to destroy three carts, the layouts of the final objective zones are so fundamentally different that the experience would be inherently different.  And that’s really the goal, right?  That it feels different winning as blue than it does winning as red?  I believe most players would rather have symmetrical objectives that feel more balanced for each side than to have asymmetrical objectives that feel massively lopsided in execution.

Map Refinement

This is related to asymmetry, but is a separate issue.  There’s a lot that could be edited out or changed on each of the existing Frontline maps to make gameplay more enjoyable.  A relatively minor, but significant, change on Taiga’s layout made a huge impact on the viability of blue taking the central flag.  There are two types of map refinements that are important: large scale and polish.

Large scale issues are things like Grad’s subterranean dungeon.  I would argue it doesn’t need to exist at all, but a reasonable argument could me made that having another path into the castle is valuable for red.  Still, it could be cut in half in terms of overall complexity/size and it would still accomplish the same goal.

Another large scale issue is the distance of blue’s spawn from the center of Crossroads relative to the distance from red’s spawn.  Blue’s is quite a bit farther away and their path is obstructed far more than red’s.  Additionally, red horses can (and do, nonstop, every match) run circles through blue’s spawn.  I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that the base spawn of each team should be blocked from continuous horse access.

In general, looking at each team’s spawns relative to the capture point between them, consider if each team has a similar burden to access the capture circle in terms of distance, obstruction, and vulnerability to enemy harrying tactics (i.e., prior to even entering the circle).  If they don’t, address those as part of large scale map changes.

Polish issues are things like the myriad small collision hangups that exist on almost every map.  E.g. on Crossroads, overhead clearance between the ground and stairs in the central fort, the chunk of debris on the ground just around the NE corner of the base of the central fort, and red’s ramps over the palisade wall.  Making movement collision accurately model every bump and nook and cranny produces frustrating experiences for players.  Smooth out the collision to produce walking surfaces that don’t stop player movement because of minor, almost imperceptible height differences.  If smoothing the collision out makes it differ too much from the world geometry, change them both.

Catapults, Trebs, and Similar Instant Death Machines

Speaking personally, I don’t think these add any value to Frontline.  When I get killed by one of them, 3/4 times I had no indication that danger was imminent and in many situations there was nothing I could to avoid death.  E.g. on Grad, it’s easy for red to launch catapult shot over the wall into the smithy, giving even players who are looking in that direction less than half a second to react (i.e., realize they will die) to the enormous stone sphere as it crests the wall.

If these siege weapons continue to be a part of Grad, Camp, and other maps, please give players an audio/visual cue - regardless of where they’re looking - that death is inbound.

Airstrikes and artillery in W:ET are preceded by colored smoke and distinctive sounds that give players a window of opportunity to get out of the way.  I’m not saying there should be smoke where they will land, but a better audio cue would go a long way to making siege weapon deaths feel less random and arbitrary.  Yes, silent death from a catapult is realistic, but it’s obnoxious from a gameplay perspective and can instantly change an objective from being threatened to being completely cleared.

Better Audio Cues

Players have a difficult time focusing on Frontline.  It’s just human nature.  There’s a reason why Overwatch focuses everyone toward a single payload that they stand on.

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory used voice of god-style announcements to indicate when major map-critical events were occurring and to tell players what they were supposed to be doing.  At the start of Fuel Dump, the Axis announcer says, “Don’t let them construct the bridge! Construct the command post!”  When the Allies construct the bridge, the announcer yells, “Bridge constructed! Destroy it!” The announcer keeps track of every major game state and constantly reminds the players where they stand on the map.  When dynamite is planted on an objective, everyone in the game is made aware of it and it focuses their efforts on defusing it / ensuring it goes off.  Critically, there is a window in which the defending team can rush to the objective and stop / reverse what has been set in motion.  

In Frontline, when enemies are attacking a flag, players on the defending team don’t get an audio cue until the tide has turned in the attackers’ favor.  But by that point, if a player is not already involved in the defense of the flag, it’s unlikely that they can reach the flag in time to make a difference.  Better and more audio cues about the state of an objective would help focus players more on the objectives than they currently do (not much).

Audio cues can also apply to player-initiated barks being broadcast across the team.  Yes, spam can be a problem, but muting players should be an easy process in any competitive online game.  Mordhau already has a robust set of voice barks, but they’re only heard in proximity to the player and most of them aren’t useful in any practical sense.  Being able to yell for help isn’t that appealing when it’s limited to a 15′ radius around you and everyone in that radius can already see someone feint morphing a maul into your face.

However, being able to call for help or reinforcements and having it broadcast to the team with an on-screen indicator of your location or the nearest active objective -- that could be quite helpful.  Arguably one screen of the commands could be reorganized to only and always be team-wide barks: Hold, Follow Me, Help, and Charge.  Need Healing or Need Repairs could also be added to the list.

Point Scoring and Display

Even players who elect to play Frontline are often awful at actually focusing on the objectives.  A lot of players go into it as though it’s TDM.  How many times have you seen Crossroads end and the losing team has a proud player at the top of the leaderboard with a 50:3 K:D due to running down the enemy team’s spawn with a horse for the whole match?

K:D is a fine metric for success in DM or TDM, but it’s not the point of Frontline -- at least, it isn’t when it’s away from the objectives.  I think there are a variety of changes that could be made to scoring and to the display of scores to help focus people on the objectives.

First, killing and, arguably, dying on or near an active objective should be weighted as more valuable than killing random enemies 75m away from an active objective. Players currently accrue points for neutralizing and capturing an objective, but if the needle isn’t moving, they don’t earn any points for fighting on the objective.  This discourages proactive defense and doesn’t motivate attacking players to push fights into the objective unless the odds are already heavily in their favor.

Damaging blockades (with anything other than firebombs, anyway) and repairing them are tedious, often dangerous activities that arguably do more to aid/hinder access to the objective than killing an individual unit.  Since firebomb damage is being tuned, it may be worth considering increasing the score bonus for damaging or repairing blockades to encourage more players to prioritize taking down barriers before entering melee with people in the general vicinity.

For Frontline, consider highlighting score in a lighter color (vs. K/D/A) and either adding additional stats (healing, capture, and repair/destruction score contributions) or only showing the player’s K/D/A (no one else’s) to de-emphasize the importance of K/D/A.  I’ve seen a lot of posts online where players post screenshots of someone “scandalously” at the top of a Frontline scoreboard with a poor or mediocre K/D/A.   Yes, it’s not DM/TDM, it’s Frontline.  The point is ostensibly about pushing objectives and helping your teammates do that.  The way points are scored and displayed should emphasize that, with K/D/A only being one element.

Supply Boxes and Their Placement

I have pretty mixed feelings about deployable objects in games of this type, but rather than advocate removing any of those things, I’m going to suggest rethinking the inclusion of supply boxes and, if they stay in the game, where they are placed.  Supply boxes are the easiest way to build ballistae and for that reason, where they are placed can have a huge impact on the defensive capabilities of the team controlling the space around the supply boxes.

If the developers’ intention is that ballistae should be used mostly defensively, supply boxes should be placed primarily away from central objectives, and not close to lines of sight that point toward central objectives.  This promotes back-and-forth gameplay across the center, rather than entrenching the dominant team’s position at the center.

Transparency and Tuning in Objective Capture Mechanics

It’s not currently obvious to most players how the capture mechanics on an objective work.  What changes the objective from Attacking to Capturing?  What ratio of attackers vs. defenders are required?  Some UI changes could help highlight exactly what’s happening.

Finally, I urge the developers to think about the timing of captures and how that works with spawning mechanics.  It’s common for a defender on an objective to die, be unable to respawn before the objective is considered “Losing” and, after respawning, be able to reach the objective before it is fully captured by the enemy.

Is this the desired pacing of objective captures?  I would guess that something more forgiving is desired.  Once an objective is “Losing”, if it’s technically impossible for respawning defenders to reach the objective in time to prevent it from being fully captured, it can be extremely frustrating.  Tuning the pacing of objective captures can help make the back and forth feel less hopeless, more satisfying.

Thanks for reading.

[gh0st-patr0l]

Selfishness v. Selflessness: An Analysis of Deceit

So.

Since the latest episode came out, I’ve been thinking about a LOT, but especially about Deceit. He’s an amazingly complex character, and it’s a lot to wrap your head around. However, I felt that the thing I wanted to talk about most was his overall intention with this whole scenario- note, when I say that, I’m not talking about the call-back v. wedding debacle. Because, when you really look at it, Deceit’s true intent had little to do with those events themselves. It was just a convenient scenario that could be used to illustrate a point. And I’ve already gone on a rant about that part- how in the end it wasn’t even an issue of right or wrong, but staying true to your moral compass- so I won’t get into it here. What I really want to do is take a closer look at Deceit’s closing arguments, in context of the rest of the episode and his previous statements. 

I’ll be honest, the first time I watched the episode I was so invested in the drama that I actually didn’t even PROCESS what he meant with this scene, but now that I’m looking back it’s absolutely critical to understanding Deceit’s true intentions. Written out, it’s actually a pretty short exchange, but there’s a lot to pick apart here. Let’s start from where the actual argument begins.

Thomas: I don’t understand... you got what you wanted. You proved that I’m not as honest as I’d like to believe. Deceit: But you’re still missing the point! Didn’t it seem kind of ridiculous to take this matter SO seriously, to the point of settling it in a legal setting?! Everyone else: [mumbled disagreements] Roman: We do that kind of stuff all the time...

Alright, so this is where Deceit has obviously become frustrated that the others haven’t picked up on his intentions with this whole scheme. (Tbf Thomas’s Single braincell had been omitted from most of the situation so it’s really not totally their fault,) 

Here, we see a BLATANT distinction between him and the rest of the sides. The sides all consider these elaborate scenes and lengthy discussions and journeys over their dilemmas to be a completely sensible way of dealing with their problems. It’s just how they do things, it’s how they work best.

But Deceit, despite being a part of Thomas, doesn’t get it.

Unlike the other sides, he doesn’t give equal weight to all issues Thomas has. He sees the choice between a social obligation and a career opportunity as obvious and pointless to agonize over. 

It’s important to think about this in combination with what he says in the courtroom- his ultimate goal is to fulfill Thomas’s wants and look out for him. At first, that simply sounds like the same benevolent thought process that all the other sides have, and to a point it is. But when you think about that along with the fact that he considers his friends and family as inconsequential- not just a little lower on his list of priorities, but not even worth considering- it becomes clear that Deceit’s protection and concern of Thomas takes on a whole nother form in light of his outlook and actions. But we’ll come back to that in a bit, let’s get back to the argument.

Deceit: WHOO, okay, let me put it this way- life... is like a pinata.  Patton: Colorful, and full of stuff that makes you happy??? Deceit: ...SURE. And you WANT that stuff that makes you happy, right?! Patton: Do I?! Roman: Do I... Deceit: Then in order to get that stuff, you must ATTACK the pinata!

THIS is where Deceit’s language comes into play. Thomas and the rest of the Sanders Sides team are fantastic at writing, especially dialogue, and I think the specificities of the metaphor Deceit’s chosen to use here are critical.

When Deceit describes the human experience and life in society, he describes it as an object that must be looked at through a gauge of offense. He doesn’t use language like take, obtain, earn- he says attack. He views life as a struggle, as something violent that must be beaten and won. And this is reflected in the court scenes. Specifically, when he’s talking about his motivation for wanting Thomas to lie, he uses the word disadvantage. Again, referring to life as a competition, or a game. (This actually made me wonder why Thomas didn’t choose to bring up Conflict Theory at any point, but now that I think about it more I suppose an anarchistic viewpoint would fit Deceit better than one rooted in socialism.)

And Deceit wants the others, and most importantly, Thomas, to look at life that way as well. He sees life as a competition against others, and because of that, sees no value in putting other’s wants and needs above his own. In my mind, this is where his rhetoric crosses the line from sensible into overly cynical. He was right in the point that sometimes selfishness can be good- but that’s not what he’s saying anymore, and I think it may have never even been in the first place, and that he was simply being less radical in the case to appear more favorable. Deceit doesn’t just think that selfishness isn’t inherently evil, he thinks that selflessness is damaging. 

And, from a character standpoint, that makes sense. Because inherently, Deceit is a selfish concept. It’s lying at someone else’s expense to achieve your own goal. And, as Deceit pointed out, that isn’t always bad! Your goal can obviously be benevolent. But as a character, he is quite literally a personification of deceit, with the goal of getting Thomas what he wants and/or needs. In a concept like that, there’s little to no room for morals or empathy.

Which brings us to our last bit of relevant dialogue from that scene;

Deceit: But you’re wearing a blindfold right now. You can keep playing with the blindfold on, if you like the game better that way. But if you take it off, it’s easier to get that stuff that you want!

Admittedly, this bit is a little harder to understand, but I think it’s clear that by blindfold, Deceit is symbolizing what he sees as disadvantage or hindrance; morals and empathy. 

Throughout the entire episode, and his other appearances, Deceit has never responded with concern towards the feelings or circumstances of anyone other than Thomas himself- it may look like that on the surface from his first appearance and his acknowledgment of Thomas wanting to be a good friend, but in reality, he only reacts to those things when they’re directly related to what Thomas wants. In the lying episode, he doesn’t actually want to spare Joan’s feelings; Thomas feels bad, Thomas wants Joan to think he’s a good person, and Deceit sees a way to fulfill Thomas’s want in that scenario. In that sense, he’s actually very similar to Logan- function over feeling. He doesn’t care what he’s doing or why, as long as Thomas gets what he wants.

And this is when Deceit’s argument finally becomes clear and concrete. Deceit wanted this trial to prove that being selfish is better. This is when his intentions are no longer agreeable, at least to me, because what he’s trying to say is his core philosophy is that Thomas should ignore his morals towards the people around him, because it will be easier to then achieve his own goals. The argument goes from what was seemingly encouragement towards self-care, to a complete disregard of others. He sees caring for the people in his life to be an optional difficulty and a burden that only makes it harder for Thomas to get what he wants. He places no value in Thomas’s relationships, and only serves, or attempts to serve, in their benefit when it is Thomas’s immediate goal to do so. 

And that is interesting- Deceit has no control over what Thomas wants, but an obligation to help him achieve them, and apparently, opinions on what his priorities within those wants should be. And this is when we need to remember that the sides are not full personalities, but facets of Thomas himself.

Of course, the main four are such broad concepts that it’s easier to fit more of a “person” into each one. Morality is a vast understanding of right and wrong, but has a lot of room to move around in as far as demeanor and actions, and is combined with an interesting representation. The same with logic, and the same with passion- their representations combined with the flexibility of their definitions and interpretations offer a lot of room for filling out characters. Anxiety is a little different since at its core, anxiety and fear are really only an instinctual reflex. However, by extending that out into vaguer definitions and related traits like insecurity and morbidity, and once again tying it all up with a wonderfully engaging persona, Thomas still makes him feel like a character. 

But the sides are not real people. They are built to represent a certain trait, and because of that, their behavior and motivations are more extreme and less well-rounded than normal people’s would be. They are written to be, for the most part, single-faceted characters. Their personality is only a specific section of someone else’s, and because of that they don’t act or think with the complexity of a real human person. And that is SO important to understanding Deceit.

To a point, Thomas managed to fully characterize Deceit as well- however, he’s a bit different. Because unlike the others, Deceit is a much more limited concept. He is a personification of lying and dishonesty. He doesn’t represent any emotions, any other traits, he’s just Deceit. Because of that, he can only be so emotionally complex (which is why I’m very impressed that Thomas and the team managed to give him so much life and feeling!). And that is partially why... I don’t really see him as sympathetic as many do, personally.

(This is where I’m gonna move away from Just Facts to more opinion based reasoning, so just skip to the end if you’re not interested in that.)

I’m not sure if I’m maybe missing something, but from what I saw, I don’t actually think Deceit was ever sad or hurt in that exchange- only frustrated because he couldn’t understand why the others didn’t see things the way he did. In the end, I don’t feel like him blowing up was from a place of emotional hurt. On the contrary, I think the source of conflict for him was in his reasoning. It was the fact that his logic couldn’t make sense of the choices around him, because he’s physically incapable of understanding the situation from a place of empathy like the others do. What he saw was Thomas making a decision that goes against what he directly wants, and Deceit literally just can’t understand that. He can’t understand the concept of Thomas choosing to uphold his morals over his personal desires, because he just doesn’t have the personal capacity to do so. So he loses his temper, gets bitter, and leaves. 

I hope that this doesn’t give you the impression that I dislike Deceit as a character. I actually LOVE Deceit, from the standpoint of a writer and a fan. He’s a wonderful addition to the cast and adds a lot to the series.

However, I don’t fully sympathize with him, and I don’t feel comfortable idolizing him as he is in the show, because I honestly don’t see him as benevolent. I appreciate his motives, but I disagree too strongly with his outlook and logic to relate to or support him. I think that’s what I was trying to communicate with this analysis- it felt to me like a lot of people completely overlooked the intention of Deceit’s actions in this episode, which in my opinion does a HUGE disservice to the complexity of his character. He’s not a helpless, misunderstood victim. He’s a character who pairs good intentions with manipulation, carelessness, and immoral methods, which is a lovely thing to appreciate as an element of a show. But when you ignore those parts of his character to either idolize OR demonize him, it does a huge disservice to both him and the writers. I think I’d just like to see more people appreciate the intricacies of his character, especially in terms of his moral implications.

But, I think I’ve rambled enough as it is, so Imma end it here. This was a LOT of fun to write, and I might do more if yall like it, cause I have a LOT of thoughts about this series in general. Let me know if you’d want to see that! Bye for now!!!!

[spiritroots]

Hey, can I ask for some advice? So a while ago I tried a good grades spell & it didn't work so this made me really insecure and i fell out of my practice But obvs bc witchcraft is in me, i still have my moments but I'm just filled with anxiety that something won't work out and even I know that practice makes perfect, Idk where to start again

Hey there :D This is such an interesting question because it gets into a really huge topic that I’ve thought about a lot, which is getting results in magic and/or witchcraft. I have a rather unpopular opinion about this because the methodologies behind my practice are based on a very Buddhist and Afrocentric worldview, which is totally distinct from and inconsistent with the mainstream perspectives of Witchblr.

I hope this little essay/ramble below shows a very different set of perspectives on magic that may be helpful for you. Take it or leave it. Ultimately I can’t tell you what’s right or wrong, only share my thoughts in the hopes that it’s useful somehow.

Disclaimer: Below is a lot of information about my personal methodologies and worldview, so if anyone disagrees that’s okay! I am not sharing this to preach what I do to others or say that anyone else should or has to emulate it. 

I respect others’ paths, and I simply share this in the hopes that my path is respected also. If it’s helpful to anyone who finds common ground with anything I’ve said, then I’m glad (:

I also talk a fair amount about witchcraft vs. what I do, and I’m not trying to overgeneralize or speak for all witches. There are always exceptions to things, I’m just sharing some of my observations.

[ Ask me anything ] [ About ] [ Buy me a coffee ] [ Spirit Roots Shop ]

Magic Methodologies & Getting Results

I am an equal part of this community just like anyone else, and I respect witches and other magic practitioners immensely for what they do. We learn from each other, and I’ve grown my practice together with yall. So on Witchblr, I read the methodological discussions about witchcraft that I see. Most tend to advocate that witchcraft is whatever you want it to be, any kind of magic can be called witchcraft and included in that practice. A few here and there say that witchcraft is all about results, and although the implications of that opinion aren’t always agreed upon, it seems true that most witches are very results-oriented.

I don’t see any one magic path as better or more effective than any another, but the paths I’ve chosen or been called to walk down with magic and divination are very different than most of what I see across Witchblr. I watch these witchcraft discussions happening around me and standards or rules put forward for witches that don’t really apply to me or have anything to do with what I do because of the paths I’ve chosen for myself.

Since I’m not a witch, I don’t really get worried about what people say witchcraft is or isn’t. I practice magic not on the terms of witchcraft, chaos magick, or what Witchblr says about anything. I practice magic and divination on the terms of my ancestors, on the terms of nature, on the terms of Ifá. Ifá itself actually means “nature,” and represents the traditional African Yoruba worldview of magic, divination, spirituality, and all aspects of life itself.

Another important structure for me that also dictates the terms of my magic practice is Buddhism, especially when it comes to attachment, karma, and ethics. I don’t curse (though I am very pro-cursing in the sense that I support everyone’s right to curse!), I avoid ever casting non-consensual magic on other people, and most significantly for this conversation, I am not results-oriented.

The entire foundation of Buddhism rests on the Four Noble Truths, which explain that attachment is the root of suffering and freedom from suffering can only occur when there are no more attachments. Apply this to magic, and it flies in the face of how most people think about magic because in most cases magic seems to be about trying to make results happen. Yet as a Buddhist, I consider becoming very attached to results in this way to be contradictory at the core to my religious beliefs. So if not results, what motivates what I do? How does it fit into this framework?

In Buddhism, karma means action not results, and the results of your karma are dictated by not just the action itself but also your intentions behind them. For example, from a Buddhist perspective, if you feed ten hungry children just to make yourself look good, your action (karma) seems to be excellent but your intention was egotistical and ultimately the results for you will match that intention. Apply this to magic, and suddenly magic has a whole new spin on it. Regardless of what magical actions are performed, when the intention behind them is cultivating good values such as compassion or loving-kindness for others, then it’s probably good karma from a Buddhist perspective. So, for me, magic isn’t about results, it’s about karma, a combination of my intentions (the magical methodology) and my actions (the application of that methodology). 

One might ask, well what about Ifá and hoodoo? Don’t they have very practical, results-oriented magic traditions? 

There are several different ways of practicing “magic” in Ifá. (I put magic in parentheses because the line between what is “religious practice” and what is “magic” gets very blurred within Ifá since it doesn’t need to make a clear distinction within itself.) Arguably the most important way is through ebo, making sacrifices to the orisha. It is an exchange of ashe between humans and orisha through the animals sacrificed. Ashe is the Yoruba version of “energy” that flows through all life and all of the universe. Ashe can contain messages within it, encoded with intent. When we say oriki (prayers), we are encoding ashe to be sent to a particular orisha and to express certain intentions. The ashe of the human beings involved and their intent through oriki is carried by the animal up to Olorun, where many of the orisha live. This is how ebo works. So there’s action (the ebo) and intent (the oriki), but where’s the results? That is the domain of the orisha, not the humans who made ebo except to continue in their lives toward that goal.

With hoodoo, the thing is, people can say that it’s “results-oriented” all day and night, but when it comes down to it, the traditional views are that you can only manipulate or push forces of nature one way or another by working roots - you can’t gain full control over the entire universe. If you ask Christian rootworkers, they’ll tell you that it’s God - not them - who decides the results. This is why in hoodoo you petition the ancestors, you don’t boss them around. You traditionally pray over candles, oils, etc. you don’t only say incantations. A lot of hoodoo is actually asking your ancestors, spirits of nature, and God or other deities for help and working with them. This is why in hoodoo, divination is typically done before casting any spells for a client. It’s communication to get information about the possible results happens beforehand to find out if it’s even worth trying - or to find out what spell would be effective.

This is all to say that while I see a lot of emphasis on Witchblr about getting results, results are not the emphasis in my practice because Buddhism and Afrocentrism have led me to focus more on other aspects of the process. My focus is first of all, the intention, the magical design, the methodology and purpose, which follows hoodoo and/or Ifá tradition and requires innovation with my intuition at the same time. Then secondly, it’s the actions, the application of that design and that methodology with careful technique and concentration. I believe the results are in the hands of nature and the universe, but my actions and intent are the aspects that I can control.

And strangely enough, I find that when I focus on what I can control in the magical process and let go of my attachments to the results, that’s when my magic is the most effective. My manifestation magic has been at it’s most effective when I express my desire for an outcome through my actions combined with intent and then completely and utterly let go of any attachment to the results. I find this very challenging to do, but when I do it, that’s when the universe tends to respond and we flow together.

And when it doesn’t work out? I trust that it wasn’t meant to for one reason or another. This lack of attachment doesn’t hurt my methodology because every time I cast a spell or do divination, I am very very careful to make my methods and practice as carefully designed and as good as possible. When I say I focus in on my actions and intent, I mean I really work the design of it and the application. I study, I research, I am passionate about the process. The thing is, because I am not attached to the results, I can do all this in a very non-judgmental way that actually allows me to be more mindful and present in what I am doing without being caught up in self-criticism about it. 

I can improve and grow and learn through practice every time, not just after the times that I got unintended results. I don’t get discouraged because I am constantly learning, nothing is ever just a success or a failure, but always a learning process. I am always watching what results I am getting from my karma, and then adjusting from there the things that I do have control over. 

I do not believe that I can simply dominate or control the universe, but I can learn to work its roots. As one string in the cosmic web, I can cause ripples across the intersections and then watch as a student to see what happens and figure out where to go and what to do next.

@hexcuse-me I know that was a lot, but now, here is my advice. Think about your methodology as a witch. I don’t think this question is really just about success or failure or getting results, but asking what does it even mean for you to “succeed” or “fail” when you practice magic? Do your standards for success and failure align with why you began practicing witchcraft to begin with? 

It’s okay to be results-oriented, it’s also okay not to be. I think this gets into the nature of your relationship with witchcraft and magic on a very fundamental level. How do you believe magic works? Why do you practice it?

If you take a step back and dig deep into the heart of your craft for you - not what anyone else tells you it is or isn’t - I hope you will find the direction you’re looking for to start again

[mschaefer-rt]

*Isocrates, Politics, and “Good” Rhetoric*

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/

The following critical questions will be examined in this entry: “How does or doesn't this artifact fit Isocrates' criteria of good rhetoric (Kairos, appropriateness, originality)? Is this example of rhetoric ethical/productive for democracy and/or limiting to society?”

To analyze these questions, I chose to look at Frederick Douglass’ speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July.” Though there may have been conflicting feelings surrounding the issue slavery at the time, the speech ultimately fits Isocrates’ criteria for good rhetoric. His speech is given at a significant time, he is sure to reflect the values of the audience, and he presents his original ideas. By utilizing these strategies, he is able to use the Fourth of July holiday to point out inconsistencies in American values and urge Americans, especially white Americans, to become involved in the fight to end slavery. Douglass’ words have had a lasting impact on American history and the speech remains productive for democracy today.

Frederick Douglass delivered this speech in July of 1852. At this point in time, abolitionist movements were gaining support in the United States, but they were also met with extreme opposition. The speech was given at a gathering for the Ladies Anti-Slavery Society of Rochester, held at Corinthian Hall in Rochester, New York. Due to his personal beliefs about the Fourth of July holiday, Douglass decided to give his speech on July 5th (Waxman). He explains, “This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn” (p. 13). Throughout the speech he exposes the hypocrisy of the Fourth of July by referencing both the United States Constitution, as well as the Church. He uncovers the contradictions in the American values of freedom and liberty compared to the widespread support for, or at least complacency in, maintaining the practice of slavery.

Ancient Greek orator Isocrates explains that “speeches cannot be good unless they reflect the circumstances (kairoi), propriety (to prepon), and originality” (p. 64). Kairos, or circumstances, refers to the timeliness of the speech. Isocrates believed that skilled orators would pay close attention to whether their speech was being given at the most opportune time. The propriety requirement, also referred to as appropriateness, asks whether the speaker’s words reflect the community values and standards that the audience would expect. Originality is the final essential component to Isocrates, who sees little value in speaking on an issue unless a new perspective or idea is introduced. To him, all three of these requirements must be met in order for a speech to be considered good. 

Douglass’ speech exhibits Kairos through the way he utilized this important event to address a profound issue that was plaguing the United States at the time. In remembrance of Independence Day, it is valuable to discuss events that have occurred in American history. The timing of Douglass’ speech is significant down to the day, as he chose to give his speech on July 5th instead of July 4th. Not only was this important to him personally, but it was also a decision that powerfully contributed to his message. By boycotting the Fourth of July, he is reinforcing his message of the exclusiveness of the holiday, and how that reflects on American society as a whole. This was a clever move, as July 5th still falls within the season where Americans may be reflecting on the country’s history, but it is not the exact day that many would find disrespectful to scrutinize. Kairos is further exhibited through Douglass’ emphasis on the immediate need to end slavery. He states, “Tell me citizens, where, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States” (p. 20). He goes on to discuss the fact that many other countries have abolished slavery and asserts that America needs to act immediately. Through this rhetoric he is able to draw attention to the significance of this point in history and prove the relevance of his points to that specific moment. 

Douglass’ speech overall meets the criteria of appropriateness through his expression of the commonly-held value of liberty. Because of the history of slavery in the United States, there were conflicting opinions, at that time, on who this liberty should be extended to. Regardless, Douglass’ speech was delivered initially to an abolitionist group, so each audience member likely shared his belief in the need to extend freedom to Black Americans through the abolition of slavery. Though Douglass later introduces many powerful critiques of United States democracy and society, the first third of his speech is dedicated to recognizing the significance of the American Revolution. He praises the fathers of the nation and describes them as wise, persevering, and principled. He further explains, “They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory” (p. 8). By doing this he is not only respecting the tradition of Independence Day that many audience members may hold in high regard, but he is also showing his value of acknowledging important historical figures in American history. Despite his lack of connection to the holiday, he was still able to convey respect for it. Since the holiday symbolizes liberty for many Americans, Douglass effectively expresses his belief in the shared value through this strategy. 

Regardless of the overall message of his speech, Douglass also shows a clear respect for the decorum expected of him as a speaker at the event. Through the hopeful tone and determined attitude of his speech, he further proves its appropriateness. As he is drawing his statement to a close, he asserts the fact that he wants to leave the audience with a message of hope. He states “I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery” (p. 32). This section is significant for this value of appropriateness because it not only reveals his adherence to the tone expected of a Fourth of July speech, but to American values in general. By making this statement he essentially summarizes the fact that he still believes in the positive qualities of America, despite his willingness to point out its transgressions. Though his words do seem sincere, it was wise of him to include this point from a logical standpoint as well. Many Americans view their country with great pride and optimism. Certain people might see his remarks as an attack on their values, regardless of their position on slavery. Though alternative expressions would also be valid, Douglass’ speech may not have had the same effect on white Americans if he wasn’t able to express his views from this optimistic viewpoint.

Douglass expresses originality throughout his speech by drawing upon his experiences to make his point about the celebration of the Fourth of July. At the beginning of his speech he states, “The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable” (p. 2). By emphasizing this difference, he is drawing attention to the rarity of his position, as a formerly enslaved person who became a renowned abolitionist leader and speaker. Throughout his speech he repeatedly refers to the Fourth of July as “your” holiday, reinforcing his point that Independence Day doesn’t mean much for enslaved and formerly enslaved people. This further contributes to the originality of his speech by asserting his distinctive position. Not only does he utilize his own life experiences to enhance his speech, but he also expresses his feelings about the Fourth of July that may not have been heard often at the time. 

Douglass’ speech is not only effective according to Isocrates, but it is clear that he is using his  skills in a productive, ethical way. Douglass was able to speak out and use his platform to unite people under the important goal of ending slavery. Since his audience was mainly white Americans, he carefully maneuvered the line between respecting traditions, while challenging certain ideals. This is extremely clear in his expression of the value of liberty, which helped increase the appropriateness of his speech. It is admirable that he was still able to put himself in the shoes of his audience despite the hardship he had faced as a formerly enslaved person. His speech was not only valuable in the way he spoke about his ideas, but also in the actual ideas he presented. Again, take the value of liberty. If anything, Douglass’ words represent a more pure idea of liberty than the one prevailing at the time. Despite the fact that alternative opinions were common at the time, slavery was—and still is—incredibly unethical and cruel.

The magnitude of this message becomes even more clear in retrospect, as slavery was abolished with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation around 10 years later. This use of rhetoric was not only valuable at the time, but it remains productive for society today as well. Pieces of Douglass’ speech circulated on many social media sites during the summer of 2020, as many Americans were protesting after the deaths of countless Black Americans at the hands of police officers. Douglass’ words were used by activists as a tool to encourage all Americans to have empathy for their Black neighbors and to play an active role in dismantling oppressive systems in the United States. Not only is this an ethical stance, but a democratic one as well. Throughout history, the perspectives of Black Americans have been suppressed—and not just on the Fourth of July. It remains valuable for diverse perspectives to be represented in democracy, so the government can continuously keep working to serve all of its people.

Throughout his speech, Douglass is able to use effective rhetoric, according to Isocrates, by exhibiting Kairos, appropriateness, and originality. His message, as well as his method, is ethical and productive both for democracy and for American society as a whole. The perspectives of Black Americans are often overlooked, not just on this issue but on many others too. It is important to understand why some people may take issue with the Fourth of July holiday even today. In a broader sense, it remains important to continuously question the values imposed upon each American. Douglass is not just asking the audience to understand his perspective, but to take action to abolish slavery. His words will continue to serve as a guide for creating a more just America.

Douglass, Frederick. “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July.” Teaching American History, teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/

Isocrates. Isocrates I. Translated by David Mirhady and Yun Lee Too, University of Texas Press, 2000.

Waxman, Olivia B. “'What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?': The History of Frederick Douglass' Searing Independence Day Oration.” Time Magazine, 26 June 2020, time.com/5614930/frederick-douglass-fourth-of-july/. Accessed 18 March 2020.

[areyouthereyaitsmecriticaltheory]

What is a Novel? Heteroglossia and David Yoon’s Frankly in Love

In reading, we often focus so much on determining what we are reading about and forget to think about how we are reading about it. In thinking about how to define and classify the genre of young adult fiction, I began to think about its parent genre–the novel. The novel is most likely the predominant mode of young adult fiction because of when the genre emerged; according to Michael Cart, in 1942 (Cart 11). Evidently, the popularity of epic and poetry had long been replaced by the novel when young adult fiction’s genesis occurred. The novel has remained the predominant mode of young adult fiction to this day; from the “golden age” of the genre–S.E. Hinton’s The Outsiders, Walter Dean Myers’ Fast Sam, Cool Clyde, and Stuff, Judy Blume’s Forever, Robert Cormier’s The Chocolate War, Sylvia Engdahl’s Enchantress from the Stars, and Richard Sleator’s House of Stars, to recent YA phenomena like the Twilight series, The Hunger Games, the works of John Green, Angie Thomas’ The Hate U Give, and the novel I will analyze today, David Yoon’s Frankly in Love. Although the styles of each work are evidently distinct, from first person to third person, realism to dystopian, and about widely different aspects of adolescence, each work is undeniably a novel. So, in order to determine what the novel serves to represent adolescent experience, one first has to ask what is a novel? Keep reading to find out.

Synopsis of Critical Theory 

Although I doubt Mikhail Bakhtin would have intended his notion of heteroglossia (literally different tongues/languages) to be related to young adult fiction, I do not think his argument is inconsistent with the genre. In “Discourse in the Novel” Mikhail Bakhtin defines the novel as “as a diversity of social speech types, sometimes even diversity of languages and a diversity of individual voices, artistically organized” (Bakhtin 32). Then, Bakhtin insists that “Literary language” “is itself stratified and heteroglot in its aspect as an expressive system, that is, in the forms that carry its meanings” (Bakhtin 33). Such stratification, Bakhtin outlines, is “generic,” “professional,” “social,” “historical,” and “socio-ideological” (Bakhtin 33-34).  

Thus, the language of the novel reflects the various stratifications of language in real life: 

all languages of heteroglossia, whatever the principle underlying them and making each unique, are specific points of view on the world, forms for conceptualizing the world in words, specific world views, each characterized by its own objects, meanings and values. As such they may be juxtaposed to one another, mutually supplement one another, contradict one another and be interrelated dialogically. As such they encounter one another and co-exist in the consciousness of real people – first and foremost, in the creative consciousness of people who write novels. (Bakhtin 34) 

Bakhtin also argues that language is at the same time individual and related to that beyond oneself: “As a living, socio-ideological concrete thing, as heteroglot opinion, language, for the individual consciousness, lies in the borderline between oneself and the other” (Bakhtin 35). 

Ultimately, through his definition of the novel as heteroglot, Bakhtin concludes that interpretation is infinite: “The semantic structure of internally persuasive discourse is not finite, it is open; in each of the new contexts that dialogize it, this discourse is able to reveal ever newer ways to mean” (Bakhtin 44). Due to the fact that the reader’s relationship to language is heteroglot and stratified in ever new individual ways, people will inherently read the novel in different ways at different times. In thinking about how this relates to the genre of young adult fiction and my own experience of reading works from the “golden age” of YA, I determine (and I think Bakhtin would agree) that it is still valuable to read such works in 2020. Although I may not read Blume’s Forever as someone would have in its year of publication, that does not make my interpretation any less valuable, In fact, Bakhtin’s idea democratizes interpretation, in that no interpretation can be privileged over another, because they are all as individualistic regardless of who the reader is and when they read the work.  

Application 

Although I could argue for the heteroglossic nature of each work of “golden age” YA I outlined above, I think recent trends in the genre, as exemplified in David Yoon’s 2019 Frankly in Love, allow for a clear connection between the novel and heteroglossia. As YA fiction has become increasingly more diverse so too has its language. For instance, in Frankly in Love Yoon stratifies language between that of English (Californian), Korean, Spanish, text, email, student, son, friend, and boyfriend (Yoon 39, 43, 62, 65, 67, 70, 109, 131, 133, 259, 293-294, 376, 379, 401). This list is not extensive, and I encourage you to see what other types of languages (‘generic,’ ‘professional,’ ‘social,’ ‘historical,’ and ‘socio-ideological’) your students can identify in reading the text. 

The novel is self-aware of the various languages it uses to represent the narrative. In fact, the narrator, Frank, explicitly calls out such a practice: “In Language class Ms. Chit would call this code switching. It’s like switching accents, but at a more micro level. The idea is that you don’t speak the same way with your friends (California English Casual) that you do with a teacher (California English Formal), or a girl (California English Sing-song), or your immigrant parents (California English Exacerbated). You may change how you talk to best adapt to whoever you’re talking to” (Yoon 39). Although Frank refers to “code switching” here rather than the stratification of language that is heteroglossia, the variety of languages present in the novel is still the central idea. Thus, the definition of code switching that Frank provides only further highlights the multiple languages he uses, and that consequently Yoon uses in the novel. 

Frankly in Love not only exemplifies heteroglossia, but also reflects and encourages Bakhtin’s notion that there are ‘ever newer ways to mean.’ This perhaps is best reflected in the title of the novel, which serves as a pun for the main character’s name: Frank Li. Thus, the title can be interpreted both figuratively and literally. The novel is literally about the protagonist, Frank Li, in love, and is figuratively an honest and “frank” account of being in love. Therefore, the title alone encourages readers to interpret words in multifaceted ways and nods to the multiple meanings of language depending upon the reader and context.

To return to my initial question, then, the novel serves to represent the various languages of adolescents. Consequently, adolescents, as readers, provide a unique perspective and relationship to language that perpetuates words’ quality to possess ‘ever newer ways to mean.’ Ultimately, Young Adult fiction, as a genre comprised of novels, intersects with a variety of languages, but predominantly is defined and interpreted by the language of adolescents. 

Discussion Questions

How does Frankly in Love reflect Bakhtin’s notion of heteroglossia? 

How does Yoon stratify language in the novel? What languages does the novel rely upon to tell Frank’s story? 

How does Frankly in Love promote the idea that language is both individual and representative of the “other”? 

Works Cited

Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Discourse in the Novel.” Literary Theory an Anthology, edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan, Blackwell Publishers, 1998, p. 32-44. 

Cart, Michael. “From Sue Barton to the Sixties.” Young Adult Literature from Romance to Realism, Chicago, Neal-Schuman, 2016. 

Yoon, David. Frankly in Love. New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2019. 

[jeffreygnad833-blog]

Is Medical Marijuana a Convenient Gout Solution?

"The thought that marijuana could be made use of for medical purposes is not a brand-new principle; in fact, it has been around for countless years. Before I started to do research on this topic I highly believed that marijuana could be utilized as a reliable medicine. I had actually heard many stories regarding its possibility for assisting cancer and Help patients, to name a few diseases, to take care of both the symptoms of the illness and also the adverse effects of the therapies. These treatments could include radiation treatment or radiation when it comes to cancer clients. I also was cognizant of the truth that marijuana has never ever had a single recorded situation of a person passing away from a marijuana overdose. This by itself is reason to state that marijuana could be a more secure medication rather than other prescriptions. With this evidence alone, it might appear that I am a complete supporter of the possibility of marijuana being utilized for medical purposes. This is not completely the situation. Prior to doing any one of my study I have actually listened to the scary tales of people coming to be totally addicted and also having the medication take over their lives. The whole concern of cannabis is an extremely debated topic as well as should be taken a look at from different point of views prior to making a decision a position.

As I performed my research study among the major disagreements in this warmed dispute is about the actual capacity for it to help individuals better cope with the signs of illness. Some individuals think that marijuana has much to use individuals in the realm of medicine; others say that it does even more injury than good. Those who are advocates of marijuana being legislated say that it is of remarkable clinical value. They recommend that it can assist reduce persistent discomfort, stop muscle spasms from taking place, cause a gain in hunger and help stop queasiness, as well as also relieve pressure within the eye. A few of the conditions that could be assisted by this drug include AIDS, cancer cells, epilepsy, numerous sclerosis, and also glaucoma. AIDS as well as cancer people can take advantage of marijuana by having both the discomfort connected with this disease diminished. Additionally, these clients could be assisted by having a more stimulated cravings and also less nausea or vomiting. Those with epilepsy could be helped by potentially having seizures stopped. Individuals experiencing several sclerosis can potentially have much less excruciating muscle spasms. Likewise, those who have glaucoma could be provided with remedy for intra-ocular stress and potentially be spared severe eye damages.

This short article overall was generally a list of completely that maybe practical for a number of diseases. It also mentioned that for a very long time marijuana was being made use of as medication already so this idea of it serving is not new. After seeing all of the diseases that it might possibly help with I was shocked. All I can think about when it come to individuals that suffer from these conditions is that if I remained in their area I would cbdforsalenearme.com wish to attempt anything that can possibly work.

Nonetheless, there are those that disagree totally as well as say that marijuana has no area in the medical world what so ever. They cite the truth that cannabis has actually never been approved as a true medicine by many major organizations involved in screening and also certifying medications including the Fda. Also, it has actually been explained that medical cannabis still can not be recommended in the large majority of the states today. Marijuana is additionally not offered in pharmacies, as well as possibly the most crucial point to note is that marijuana is still rated in the same classification of medicines as heroin, LSD, and various other illegal drugs.

This write-up was defiantly versus clinical marijuana. It criticized every part of it having clinical worth. It mentioned that it has never ever been accepted for clinical use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It additionally broke down the requirements for a medication to be accredited to have clinical worth and spoke about each point and why cannabis did not qualify. This short article was, if nothing else, extremely reliable at showing the sharp comparison in views in between the supporters as well as resistance.

An additional disagreement that has been made is whether marijuana has the potential to be an addictive medicine. Some people state that cannabis provides a danger to society as a result of its addictive homes. There is a good reason to rely on this viewpoint. During the time in between 1992 as well as 2006, the strength of marijuana enormously boosted. As a matter of fact, it is approximated that this increase could be as high as one hundred seventy-five percent. This created the variety of individuals who are dependent upon marijuana to enhance. There are numerous threats that go along with dependence on marijuana. Among these is that some customers can possibly drive while drunk of the drug. Utilizing cannabis impairs electric motor skills as well as can bring about crashes. In general, cannabis is the 2nd most often spotted drug in the chauffeur's systems.

When reading this post, it became clear that the writer was really versus all types of cannabis both medical and also non-medical. It goes on to discuss the evolution of cannabis into what we have today, along with the reason that it is so habit forming. The author of this post likewise shows the greatest factor they think that marijuana ought to not be legalized in any type. Clinical marijuana is one step more detailed to legalisation. This places children and teens in danger as well as this article mainly makes a declaration versus such scenarios.

On the other hand, there are people who state that cannabis is not habit forming and is really a really risk-free medication to utilize. One such individual is Paul Armentano writer of ""Marijuana is not addicting"". In his article, Armentano mentions a record done by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). According to the IOM, less than ten percent of people that try cannabis satisfies the summary of a person that exhibits addiction. This is an unlike the number of individuals that showed addiction to other medicines.

These medications consisted of tobacco which went to 32 percent, heroin at 23 percent, cocaine at 17 percent, as well as alcohol at 15 percent. All of these percentages are high compared to marijuana which went to less than 10 percent. An additional element that supports the truth that cannabis is non-addictive is the absence of withdrawal signs and symptoms. Cannabis, unlike cigarette or alcohol, does not cause severe withdrawal impacts. One of the most noteworthy results of marijuana are slight uneasiness, frustration, as well as lack of sleep. Tobacco produces similar withdrawal results, however a lot more extreme by comparison. Many times tobacco's effects suffice to persuade an individual to start up again, which is not true for marijuana.

This post to me was really mind-blowing. It offered a very large amount of details that was focused on the problem of whether or not marijuana is addicting or otherwise. It contrasts reliance prices with a lot of the other abused narcotics; along with discussing the withdrawals that each drug triggers. In general, it clearly favors marijuana being utilized as a medicine, and presents scientific proof to show why it must be.

One more major piece of evidence that sustains legalization comes from a write-up entitled ""Medical Cannabis"". While the National Company for the Reform of Cannabis Laws was carrying out a research study regarding the chemicals that cannabis consists of, scientists discovered something fascinating. The particular chemicals that they examined are called cannabinoids which are chemicals distinct to the cannabis plant. These chemical substances were located to actually be anti-cancer.

This article is extremely essential because of the details that it contains about the distinct effects of marijuana' chemicals. The article likewise takes place to reiterate the benefits that were offered formerly in a different discourse. Further in the source, the lawful success are also talked about which were associated with how medical cannabis was able to reach where it is today.

To conclude, cannabis being used for medicinal functions is a highly open to question subject. Numerous researches have been done with each appearing to generate different outcomes. After reviewing all the short articles, my point of view has actually not been swayed by the resistance. I still side with those that rely on legalization for clinical purposes. I do nonetheless recognize that people have very various and very solid opinions on the topic. It is tough to inform precisely that is right or incorrect. There is a lot evidence presented both for, and also against the legalization of cannabis as medication that it is much less concerning that to believe as well as a lot more regarding who not to think."

[brooksrkvz148-blog]

Medical Marijuana - The Federal Feedback

"The thought that cannabis could be used for medical purposes is not a brand-new principle; actually, it has actually been around for thousands of years. Prior to I began to do study on this topic I strongly believed that cannabis could be made use of as an effective medicine. I had listened to numerous tales concerning its possibility for aiding cancer cells as well as Help people, among other diseases, to manage both the signs and symptoms of the diseases and the side effects of the therapies. These treatments can consist of chemotherapy or radiation in the case of cancer people. I additionally was cognizant of the fact that marijuana has never ever had a single recorded situation of a person passing away from a cannabis overdose. This in itself is cause to say that marijuana could be a safer medicine in contrast to other prescriptions. With this evidence alone, it may appear that I am a total supporter of the prospect of marijuana being made use of for clinical functions. This is not totally the situation. Prior to doing any one of my study I have actually heard the scary tales of people ending up being entirely addicted and also having the medicine take over their lives. The entire concern of marijuana is an extremely discussed subject and ought to be taken a look at from various point of views prior to choosing a placement.

As I performed my research study one of the primary arguments in this heated discussion has to do with the real potential for it to assist individuals much better manage the signs of illness. Some people believe that marijuana has much to use individuals in the realm of medicine; others state that it does even more injury than good. Those who are supporters of marijuana being legislated claim that it is of significant clinical worth. They propose that it can assist minimize persistent pain, quit muscle spasms from occurring, cause a gain in appetite as well as help stop nausea or vomiting, as well as likewise alleviate stress within the eye. A few of the ailments that could be helped by this medicine include AIDS, cancer, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, as well as glaucoma. AIDS as well as cancer cells clients might gain from marijuana by having both the pain related to this condition reduced. Likewise, these people could be aided by having a much more triggered cravings as well as less nausea. Those with epilepsy could be aided by possibly having seizures avoided. People experiencing several sclerosis can possibly have much less agonizing muscle spasms. Also, those that have glaucoma could be given with relief from intra-ocular pressure and possibly be saved serious eye damage.

This post overall was essentially a listing of completely that it could be useful for a number of illness. It also pointed out that for a very long time cannabis was being used as medicine currently so this thought of it working is not new. After seeing every one of the conditions that it could potentially assist with I was surprised. All I can think of with regard to individuals that struggle with these conditions is that if I were in their place I would want to attempt anything that could potentially function.

Nevertheless, there are those who disagree entirely as well as state that marijuana has no area in the clinical world what so ever. They point out the fact that marijuana has actually never been accepted as a real medicine by a lot of significant companies associated with screening and also accrediting drugs including the Fda. Additionally, it has been explained that medical cannabis still can not be prescribed in the huge bulk of the states today. Cannabis is additionally not marketed in drug stores, and maybe the most crucial point to note is that cannabis is still ranked in the exact same category of medicines as heroin, LSD, as well as various other illegal drugs.

This article was defiantly versus clinical cannabis. It criticized every single part of it having clinical worth. It mentioned that it has actually never ever been accepted for clinical usage by the Fda (FDA). It also broke down the standards for a drug to be accredited to have medical value and talked about each point and why cannabis did not certify. This short article was, if absolutely nothing else, really reliable at revealing the sharp comparison in views between the fans and opposition.

An additional debate that has been made is whether marijuana has the possible to be a habit forming drug. Some individuals say that marijuana offers a hazard to society because of its addictive residential or commercial properties. There is an excellent reason to believe in this viewpoint. While between 1992 and also 2006, the stamina of cannabis greatly raised. Actually, it is estimated that this increase could be as much as one hundred seventy-five percent. This triggered the variety of individuals who are dependent upon marijuana to increase. There are a number of dangers that go along with reliance on cannabis. One of these is that some customers could perhaps drive while under the influence of the medication. Utilizing cannabis harms motor abilities and can result in mishaps. Overall, marijuana is the 2nd most regularly spotted medication in the vehicle driver's systems.

When reading this short article, it became clear that the author was really against all forms of marijuana both clinical as well as non-medical. It takes place to go over the evolution of marijuana right into what we have today, in addition to the factor that it is so habit forming. The author of this post likewise reveals the most significant reason they believe that marijuana must not be legalized in any kind of form. Clinical cannabis is one action more detailed to legalization. This places youngsters as well as teens in danger and this short article generally makes a statement against such scenarios.

On the other hand, there are individuals who state that cannabis is not addicting as well as is really a very central square health and wellness secure medicine to utilize. One such person is Paul Armentano writer of ""Cannabis is not addicting"". In his article, Armentano cites a record done by the Institute of Medication (IOM). According to the IOM, less than ten percent of individuals that try marijuana fulfills the summary of a person who shows dependency. This is a far cry from the number of people who showed addiction to other medications.

These medicines consisted of tobacco which was at 32 percent, heroin at 23 percent, drug at 17 percent, and alcohol at 15 percent. All of these portions are high contrasted to marijuana which went to less than 10 percent. An additional factor that supports the reality that marijuana is non-addictive is the lack of withdrawal signs and symptoms. Cannabis, unlike cigarette or alcohol, does not create extreme withdrawal effects. The most remarkable impacts of cannabis are minor worry, agitation, as well as lack of sleep. Cigarette produces similar withdrawal results, yet far more serious by comparison. Lot of times tobacco's effects suffice to encourage a person to launch once again, which is not real for cannabis.

This article to me was very mind-blowing. It offered a large quantity of details that was focused on the problem of whether or not cannabis is addictive or otherwise. It contrasts dependency prices with a number of the various other over used narcotics; in addition to going over the withdrawals that each drug creates. Overall, it clearly favors marijuana being utilized as a medicine, and offers scientific evidence to show why it ought to be.

One more significant item of evidence that supports legalisation originates from a short article titled ""Medical Cannabis"". While the National Organization for the Reform of Cannabis Regulation was carrying out a study concerning the chemicals that marijuana has, scientists discovered something intriguing. The particular chemicals that they studied are called cannabinoids which are chemicals special to the cannabis plant. These chemical compounds were discovered to really be anti-cancer.

This article is very crucial due to the details that it includes about the distinctive effects of marijuana' chemicals. The short article also takes place to reiterate the advantages that were offered formerly in a different commentary. Even more in the resource, the lawful victories are additionally talked about which were related to just how clinical marijuana had the ability to get to where it is today.

In conclusion, marijuana being used for medical purposes is an extremely debatable subject. A lot of research studies have actually been performed with each seeming to create various results. After reviewing all the write-ups, my opinion has not been guided by the opposition. I still side with those who count on legalization for clinical objectives. I do however recognize that people have extremely various and extremely strong opinions on the subject. It is hard to inform precisely who is right or incorrect. There is a lot proof presented both for and against the legalization of marijuana as medication that it is much less regarding that to think and extra concerning that not to believe."

[gamerszone2019-blog]

The Blame Game: Trump, Video Game Violence, And Following The Evidence

New Post has been published on https://gamerszone.tn/the-blame-game-trump-video-game-violence-and-following-the-evidence/

The Blame Game: Trump, Video Game Violence, And Following The Evidence

Following a pair of back-to-back mass shootings, some American politicians and pundits have once again turned their ire towards video games. The most high-profile of these was President Donald Trump, suggesting that video games contribute to a culture of violence that causes people to feel flippant with the sanctity of human life. However, he was far from the only or even the first politician to cast blame. But where does this reaction come from, and does the scientific evidence support it?

Playing Politics

Though the pair of tragic shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio on August 3 and 4 have revived the topic of video game violence, politicians expressing concern over the effect of violent video games on young people is anything but a new phenomenon.

Prompted by games like Mortal Kombat, Night Trap, and Lethal Enforcers, Congress held hearings on video game violence in 1993-1994. Led by Senators Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl, the planned hearings were given extra furor thanks to Bureau of Justice statistics that showed gun-related violence had reached record highs in 1993. Politicians pointed the finger at violent media, especially video games.

“I’d like to ban all the violent video games,” Lieberman said at the time. “It’s hard to control every measure of this, especially in a society that values free speech and First Amendment rights.”

During the hearings, Lieberman argued that the average video game player was 7-12 years old, and so violent games were being marketed to children. Recognizing that an outright ban was impractical, however, Lieberman threw his support behind warning labels for violent video games. Congressional pressure had made clear that the government would take action to regulate the industry if it did not regulate itself. The result was the industry banding together to form and abide by ratings given by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB).

The next significant political challenge to video games came from a California law that eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. Brown v Entertainment Merchant’s Association was a suit concerning a 2005 law restricting violent video game sales to minors without parental supervision. The law, drafted by former California State Sen. Leeland Yee and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, demanded labeling beyond the standard ESRB labels and would fine retailers for selling violent games to minors. It defined violence under an obscenity statute that had previously only been used to restrict the sale of sexually explicit material. The EMA argued that the law unfairly treated video games as fundamentally different from other media, the sale of which is not restricted to minors.

In a rare 7-2 ruling, the famously conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the Court’s opinion that video games are subject to the free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, with Justice Samuel Alito concurring. Only Justices Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas dissented. Significantly, Scalia’s written opinion explicitly rejected California’s argument that a causal link existed between media violence and real-world aggression.

“The State’s evidence is not compelling,” Scalia wrote. “California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason. They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively … They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and some minuscule real-world effects.”

Despite this standing opinion from the highest court, politicians still regularly point fingers at video games, especially in response to acts of real-world violence. This latest example isn’t even the first time we’ve seen it from President Trump. Following the mass shooting in 2018 at a high school in Parkland, Florida, the president convened a roundtable with industry groups and critics on the same subject. It similarly used depictions of video game violence to suggest a causal link between exposure to violent games and real-world violence.

So why does this keep happening?

The Renewed Furor

The shootings in El Paso and Dayton took place over the course of less than 24 hours. Though mass shootings have become almost routine in American life, two mass casualty events occurring in such quick succession appeared to shake Americans to their core. Heartbroken citizens looked to leaders for guidance and action.

Almost in unison, conservative leaders rallied against video games as a culprit. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy both appeared on Fox News Channel on the morning of August 4, calling for action against video games and suggesting a causal link between violent games and violent actions. President Trump’s prepared remarks on Monday morning gained the most attention, but he was largely following a narrative already set by other conservative leaders.

“We must stop the glorification of violence in our society,” Trump said. “This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace. It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence. We must stop or substantially reduce this, and it has to begin immediately.”

Critics of the president have suggested the tendency to blame video games is something of a stalling tactic, to shift the focus away from discussions of gun control that often take place following mass shootings. And to be sure, this would have strategic merit. American interest in gun control legislation waxes and wanes with current events, so muddying the waters and waiting it out could work, if one’s goal was to simply maintain the status quo.

Whatever political maneuvering might be at play, some segment of the broader population does genuinely believe video game violence contributes to real-world violence. Their strong concerns may be based in good faith, but the evidence is inconclusive at best.

What The Evidence Actually Shows

One of the most common arguments against a link between video game violence and real-world is anecdotal and intuitive. It has been stated many times and in many ways: video games are enjoyed the world over, and countries with similar or much higher video game adoption rates have significantly lower levels of gun violence.

The ESA stated this in its initial response to President Trump’s remarks, saying, “Other societies, where video games are played as avidly, do not contend with the tragic levels of violence that occur in the US.”

Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick echoed this sentiment days later, calling Trump’s comments disrespectful to the victims and their families. “The fact is entertainment is consumed world-wide,” he said, “but gun violence is uniquely American. So we need to address the real issues.”

This sentiment isn’t new. The Daily Show host Trevor Noah lampooned the Trump administration along the same lines in a 2018 segment following the roundtable after the Parkland shooting. In the segment, Noah argued that stricter gun regulations are “most effective and realistic way to limit gun violence,” citing lower homicide rates in countries like Japan–despite their fondness for video games.

A more authoritative refutation can be found in a policy statement issued by the American Psychological Association in 2017. It argues, “Scant evidence has emerged that makes any causal or correlational connection between playing violent video games and actually committing violent activities.” The policy statement goes on to point out that a 2002 analysis from the United States Secret Service “suggested that school shooters tended to consume relatively low amounts of violent media compared to normative levels for same-age peers.” It’s careful to note that this finding does not conclude that increased consumption of violent media would result in less real-world violence, just that a link cannot be established.

The paper concludes that public officials and the media should refrain from suggesting a causal link between media violence and real-world acts of violence. At most, it says, media figures should refer to studies that may link video games to “aggression.” It argues this because, as Justice Scalia noted in his 2011 ruling, the studies linking media violence to actual aggression are disputed, and usually extend to minor acts of aggression such as “the administration of unwanted hot sauce to make food too spicy, making someone put his or her hand in freezing ice water or bursts of white noise in laboratory experiments.” The APA suggests that these findings are not conclusive and the methodology “remains a matter of reasonable debate.”

On the other hand, a 2016 statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics is more sharply critical of media violence. First, it draws a distinction between aggression and violence, to help parse terms.

“For example, a snarling dog is behaving aggressively; once it bites, it has resorted to violence,” the statement says. “A person who verbally abuses another would not be committing an act of violence by this definition. Thus, all violent acts are aggressive, but not all aggressive acts are violent.”

It argues for a “broad scientific consensus that virtual violence increases aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors,” and dismisses the landmark Supreme Court ruling as based upon First Amendment grounds rather than scientific merit. It does concede, however, that laboratory aggression as a proxy for real-world aggression has proven to be a research challenge. Though increased aggression in a laboratory setting has been consistently shown and studied, this does not necessarily result in real-world violence. Finally, it states that an experimental, real-world study linking virtual violence with real-world violence has never been conducted, because the rarity of violence precludes a large enough sample size to be accurately studied. On the whole, though, the AAP appears to suspect some link may exist, and recommends more stringent enforcement mechanisms.

Conclusion

While scholars may disagree regarding the weight and emphasis of conclusions offered by laboratory studies, even the sharpest scientific critics of video game violence draw a cautious distinction between findings of heightened aggression and the soundbite-ready conclusion that video games are a primary cause in these ongoing national tragedies. Regardless, politicians have been looking to the medium for more than 20 years, and they likely will again the next time a tragedy hits close to home.

Source : Gamesport

[wlreports-blog]

India's Transformational Leader 2019: Anshu Budhraja, CEO, Amway India

India's Transformational Leader 2019: Anshu Budhraja, CEO, Amway India

    At Amway, we are empowering the society, especially women by offering them an opportunity to own and operate their own business by selling distinctive and high-quality nutrition, beauty, personal care and home/ durable products.

  Years of working in the industry, your contribution reflects versatility and volubility. What has influenced your decision-making process at various stages? I follow a participative leadership approach where my role is to make the purpose clear to the team and facilitate decision-making, supporting an agile organization and the overall organization goals. My experience has taught me that one should empower their team and trust the team’s decisions for which they have the expertise and authority. This helps in not only making the process of decision-making faster, but also instills a strong sense of responsibility and ownership within the team. Setting up processes for decisions at different levels has helped me in improving the decision-making abilities of the team. I believe in communicating the details of significant decisions directly to the team and providing the basic reasoning behind each decision. This helps in better comprehension of the decision, building transparency across levels, getting the team support and buy-in and helping them to make better future decisions. When it comes to critical decision-making, I believe in a balance between an analytical and an intuitive decision-making style. A project or an accomplishment that you consider to be the most significant in your career? I have spearheaded the organization growth in the country by challenging conventions and leading Amway India through transformations. Besides leading the organization through tough regulatory challenges due to lack of clear laws on direct selling industry, I decided to launch a slew of new initiatives to spur growth in India. Some of these are driving growth through relevant innovations, building emotional connect with consumers, enhancing direct sellers’ productivity and riding the digital wave to engage direct sellers, as well as consumers. After addressing internal & external irregularities and bringing the focus back to the business, Amway India has successfully established itself among the top seven markets for Amway globally. I treated the regulatory environment not as an obstacle but as a challenge and encouraged employees also to find ways to overcome it rather than getting overwhelmed by it. I spearheaded the reputation building strategy of Amway India by using my understanding and insights of the Indian regulatory environment not only for the company but also for the Direct Selling (DS) industry in India.    How do you integrate corporate philanthropy or corporate social responsibility as a part of your business strategies? At Amway, our CSR initiatives are based on the belief that social responsibility is much more than the incurrence of a cost or a resource or a charitable/ philanthropic act of social benefit. It is an opportunity to bring in social innovation and change. This belief is articulated in our vision of helping people live better lives. When it comes to commitment to corporate citizenship, we make a serious and concentrated effort to reach out and help people improve their lives. At Amway, our aim is to enable healthier and happier lives, while growing the business. The focus areas are those where the business intersects most closely with the society and where the company can use its expertise to create maximum impact. These include: Health - to address the issue of childhood malnutrition in India with a focus on children below the age of 5 years Education – to provide avenues of education to the less-privileged sections of society, with a focus on visually impaired individuals and children Livelihood enhancement – to promote self-employment among women and to create awareness on affordable health and hygiene practices. Improve communities – to improve ground water level and to provide quality healthcare to the underprivileged individuals around the manufacturing facility Our CSR efforts have been recognized at various platforms including the ‘CSR Leadership Summit & Award’ in the category of ‘Promoting Employment for Specially-abled’.  

What has been your driving force or philosophy in life? I believe that ‘Future is built from the future. Future is not built from the past.’ Customer experiences, digital innovations and youth are trending and are the only growth drivers across industries and organizations. I am a strong believer of a customer-first approach and have always stayed focused on building relationships with our direct sellers, customers, and employees along with the society that we operate in. This approach has been a guiding factor and has enabled me to carve winning strategies that helped in putting us on strong growth trajectory, to take decisions and synergize the organization’s efforts towards creating best-in-class customer service. I have managed to achieve remarkable results through teamwork, involving team members in decision making, helping them to grow and creating a caring organization. Amway is built on the foundation of providing entrepreneurial experience and expertise to individuals to lead a better life. What are the other philanthropic works you are involved in? Social responsibility and cause championship are an integral part of our ethos. Our vision guides our strategic choices, drives our relationships and compels us towards a purposeful global mission – to create a positive change in people’s lives around the world. We have dedicated programs in the areas of education, health, livelihood enhancement and community improvement across the country. Our contribution towards the welfare of community at large further extends to our efforts in line with the Government of India’s efforts. Recently, we associated with ‘Eat Right’ movement by FSSAI, which is an exemplary initiative to promote healthy lifestyle among the masses and towards building a healthier country. Safe & nutritious food at School campaign – to promote food safety and benefits of eating healthy food amongst children and TB-Free India summit. We contributed INR 1 crore towards Kerala Chief Minister’s public relief fund to support the flood affected victims recently. I am also on the Vice Chair of the governing body of United Ways of Delhi, which focuses on education, livelihood, health, environment and disaster response. The scope of work is wide and varies from location to location, to ensure it matches local priorities. The key priorities include helping children read, preventing girls from dropping out of school, training people with disabilities, raising awareness on public health issues, increase the green cover of the city or rejuvenate lakes. How do you define success and how do you measure up to your own definition? Success to me is living the company’s values everyday, leading with passion, purpose and pride and inspiring others to perform their best and celebrating people success. I have always viewed obstacles as opportunities to grow and innovate, I believe empowering and growing together are the foundation pillars of innovation. I contribute rigorously to the thought that organizations perform better when all employees work collaboratively across organizational lines, and are allowed to voice their opinions, have healthy and open discussions and learn from each other’s experiences. It is this belief of ours as an organization that has enabled successful 20 years of Amway operations in the country and has helped in establishing Amway as the number one FMCG direct selling company. A recent project or solution to a problem that you have made better, faster, smarter or less expensive? We are embarking on our journey of new way of working across Amway globally. This is in line with the AmwayNEXT strategy to fund our growth initiatives, align and prioritize resources with customers at the centre of the business. The initiatives towards a more agile organization started last year with a rigorous process that involved outside-in thinking, reviewing the best industry practices and incorporating inputs of leaders from all areas of our organization. This analysis drove key changes and established a differentiated approach for functional designs including the following: Investing in Amway Direct Sellers/Customer-facing functions to drive fast, innovative, customized solutions for Amway direct sellers and customers (Sales, Marketing, Digital, Analytics). Standardizing global support function activities to drive synergies and deliver efficiencies. In the process, create sustainable funding to reinvest in our growth initiative pillars including Digital Transformation, Product Experiences, Amway Direct Sellers Incentives and Leader Growth Solutions. In your opinion what is the most significant aspect of leadership? Leadership to me is best described as “you can have the best strategy and the best building in the world, but if you don’t have the hearts and minds of the people who work with you, none of it comes to life!” I believe in a transformational and participative leadership with strong focus on 3 Ps- People, Process and Purpose. As a true servant leader and people’s person, I have managed to achieve remarkable results through teamwork, involving team members in decision making, helping them grow and creating a caring organization which reflects in my belief. I believe in constantly nurturing relationships even while challenging my team. I have developed a highly motivated workforce who are inspired to channelize their discretionary energy, as well as their commitment and creativity, towards achieving the organizational goal. When you look across good to great transformations, you will see ‘discipline’ as the one common culture across organizations, when you have disciplined people, you don’t need hierarchy. When you have disciplined thought, you don’t need bureaucracy, when you have disciplined action, you don’t need excessive controls. When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get the magical alchemy of great performance!  In my current role, as the Chief Executive Officer of Amway India, having led diversified teams in both Indian and US based multi-national organizations, I am driving Business Strategy, Supply Chain, Corporate Finance, Manufacturing, Business Excellence for the company. Apart from this, I am also focused on driving Go-To-Market strategy, Geography and Cluster management, Development of infrastructure including stores / e-commerce, sales operations and promotions, and Cross Functional Talent Building. Your perception of an empowered society. How far your industry has / can contribute for the same? In my view, the true meaning of empowerment is when you feel responsible and at the same time independent to drive things. The true feeling of empowerment in the team comes with information sharing, rewarding, and sharing power. An empowered society is where new ideas are welcome, innovation flourishes, people are inspired, and they work together to find solutions to hard problems. At Amway, we are empowering the society, especially women by offering them an opportunity to own and operate their own business by selling distinctive and high-quality nutrition, beauty, personal care and home/ durable products. There is no cost to join the Amway Business and the products have a money-back guarantee for 100% satisfaction of use. We provide a conducive ecosystem to entrepreneurial minded individuals to pursue their goals, along with the tools and training that help them represent Amway and its products in a more articulate way. These include online and offline trainings, product videos, mobile applications etc. We also nurture the spirit of entrepreneurship in individuals by imparting the skills required to run a business/an enterprise and by providing a community of mentors to support and guide them at every step. We have recognized the strong entrepreneurial spirit in the country which is well reflected in our research, Amway India Entrepreneurship Report 2017. This report has shown that a majority of Indians want to start a business of their own and 70% of the nation’s population has a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship. Moreover, 61% of youth consider entrepreneurship a good prospect to earn a livelihood in India. This aptly establishes the huge potential of direct selling in India. We strongly believe that direct selling can play a crucial role in fueling the economic growth and in creating employment opportunities, especially for women and youth. Women not only represent half of the population, but half of the potential too and we take immense pride in the fact that more than 60% of our direct sellers are women and this is especially gratifying for us. We are also tuning our strategy to tap the potential of youth, which comprise a major part of India’s population. The opportunities for employability as well as consumption among under 35 audience are manifold. Every year, more than 12 million people are joining the workforce of this country and there is a clear gap in both employment and employability. At Amway, our focus is on supporting the efforts of the Government in creating opportunities of employment. The current trend prevailing in the country clearly indicates positive inclination of the millennials towards entrepreneurship which is encouraging for the Direct Selling Industry. Our commitment is to develop the entrepreneurial ability in them by giving them the right environment, the right incentive, the right opportunity along with appropriate coaching and training.  PERSONAL GRID  

Anshu Budhraja, CEO, Amway India   One thing you wish to change and one thing you wish to retain about your industry? To change: In India, the economy and businesses are changing rapidly. New laws addressing this fast-changing ecosystem should be brought out. All laws before 1990 should be reviewed for their relevance. Today acts of 1970s exist for Business in 2000. There should be progressive laws for consumer protection as consumer is the king! To retain: Keep encouraging and perpetuating an entrepreneurial mindset and empower people to lead better lives. Whom do you owe your success to? My family has been very supportive during the different phases of my professional career. My wife and my kids inspire me and keep me grounded. Best thing about your job? I love connecting with people as for me they are intrinsic and at the heart of all strategies. It is a source of immense satisfaction to be in a business like Amway which encourages and perpetuates an entrepreneurial mindset and empowers people to lead better lives. A constant source of daily fuel is innovation, planning for the future and leading a purpose driven life. Two key targets for me are to increase the women participation in our business and encourage micro entrepreneurship within our entire ecosystem. I enjoy the ‘fast, focused and fun’ culture at Amway. A message from you to all the future entrepreneurs/leaders? At Amway, from our experience of helping people run their own businesses, we have learnt that while there is an inherent entrepreneurial spirit in all of us and the extent may vary, entrepreneurship can also be learnt. An entrepreneurial mindset begins with being opportunity-oriented and demonstrates leadership. Leadership skills are used to convince others to follow them in their quest of fulfilling their business vision and to take significant risks. One of the most important things about successful entrepreneurs is that they are prepared to fail. Success for them means a process of continuous efforts, learning from mistakes and others’ experiences, course-correction and keeping on doing the things that matter. Read the full article

[joescanlan-blog]

Classism: An Introduction

They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented. — Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte We admire the work, but despise the workman. — Plutarch, Life of Pericles

Art has a long tradition of Class-ism. It will become clear to the reader (and clearer still throughout the pages that follow) that by Class-ism I mean several things, all of them, in my opinion, interdependent. The most readily accepted designation for Class-ism is an academic one, and indeed the label still serves in a number of academic institutions. Anyone who teaches, writes about, or researches popular culture—and this applies whether the person is an cultural critic, sociologist, historian, or economist—either in its specific or its general aspects, is a Class-ist and what he or she does is Class-ism. Compared with American Studies or area studies, it is true that the term Class-ism is distasteful to specialists today, both because it is too vague and general and because it connotes the high-handed executive attitude of nineteenth and early-twentieth-century European colonialism. Nevertheless books are written and congresses held with “ pop culture”  as their main focus, with the cultural critic in his new or old guise as their main authority. The point is that even if it does not survive as it once did, Class-ism lives on academically through its doctrines and theses about the political economy of culture.

Related to this academic tradition, whose fortunes, transmigrations, specializations and transmissions are in part the subject of this essay, is a more general meaning for Class-ism. Class-ism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between “ popular culture”  and (most of the time) “ fine art.”  Thus a very large mass of writers, among whom are poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists, economists and museum curators, have accepted the basic distinction between pop culture and art as the starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, social descriptions and political accounts concerning pop culture, its people, customs, “ mind,”  destiny, and so on. Class-ism can accommodate Aeschylus, say, and Victor Hugo, Dante and Karl Marx. A little later in this article I shall deal with the methodological problems one encounters in so broadly construed a “ field”  as this.

The interchange between the academic and the more or less imaginative meanings of Class-ism is a constant one, and since the late nineteenth century there has been a considerable, quite disciplined—perhaps even regulated—traffic between the two. Here I come to the third meaning of Class-ism, which is something more historically and materially defined than either of the other two. Taking the late nineteenth century as a very roughly defined starting point, Class-ism can be discussed and analyzed as the corporate institution for dealing with pop culture—dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Class-ism as a sophisticated style for dominating, restructuring and having authority over pop culture. I have found it useful here to employ Michel Foucault’s notion of a discourse, as described by him in The Archaeology of Knowledge and Discipline and Punish, to identify Class-ism. My contention is that without examining Class-ism as a discourse one cannot possibly understand the enormously systematic discipline by which the art world is able to manage—and even produce—pop culture politically, sociologically, aesthetically, ideologically, critically and imaginatively during the twentieth century. Moreover, so authoritative a position does Class-ism have that I believe no one writing, thinking, or acting on pop culture could do so without taking account of the limitations on thought and action imposed by Class-ism. In brief, because of Class-ism, pop culture was not (and is not) a free subject of thought or action. This is not to say that Class-ism unilaterally determines what can be said about popular culture, but that it is the whole network of interests inevitably brought to bear on (and therefore always involved in) any occasion when that peculiar entity “ popular culture”  is in question. How this happens is what this article tries to demonstrate. It also tries to show that art gains in strength and identity by setting itself off against pop culture as a sort of surrogate and even underground self.

In the most benign sense, Class-ism is a way for art to come to terms with popular culture and the special place it holds in daily life. Indigenous or “pop” cultures are not only adjacent to art; they are also the place of art’s greatest and richest and oldest traditions, the source of its imagery and its languages, its cultural contestant, and one of its deepest and most recurring specters of the Other. In the United States in particular, pop culture has helped to define art (and its institutions) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience. Yet none of pop culture is merely imaginative. Popular culture is an integral part of visual art’s material organization and context. As a mode of discourse, Class-ism expresses and represents that part culturally and even ideologically through supporting institutions, vocabulary, scholarship, imagery, doctrines, even bureaucracies and styles. In America, the understanding of pop culture is considerably more complicated than in Europe, although the influence of China, India and global consumerism in general is creating a more sober, more realistic awareness of the cultural power of consumers. In response, the vastly expanded political and economic role of art museums and international biennials makes great claims on our understanding of exactly where art originates and how its cultural value is determined. This expanded role—and the assumed usurpation and dominance that is inherent to it—is what I call Class-ism.

Historically and culturally there is a quantitative as well as a qualitative difference between the art world’s involvement with popular culture and—until the ascendancy of the Independent Group and Pop Art after World War II—the involvement of every other middle class consumer. To speak of Class-ism therefore is to speak mainly, although not exclusively, of a detached, ruling class cultural enterprise, a project whose dimensions take in such disparate realms as the imagination itself, thewhole of America and Madison Avenue, cinema and Hollywood, consumer products, fashion and a long tradition of taste makers, a formidable scholarly corpus, innumerable pop culture “ experts”  and “ hands,”  a pop culture professorate, a complex array of “ pop culture”  ideas (glamour, gender, camp, sensuality, “ dumbness” ), many popular subcultures, philosophies and wisdoms domesticated for local use—the list can be extended more or less indefinitely. My point is that Class-ism derives from a particular closeness experienced between the “detached” class and popular culture, which until the early twentieth century was an extremely local affair, its broad definition being largely limited to common knowledge of the Bible, Greek mythology and archetypal notions of Nature. Out of that closeness, whose dynamic is enormously productive even if it always demonstrates the comparatively greater strength and performance of the ruling class, comes the large body of texts and strategies I call Class-ism.

It should be said at once that even with the generous number of books, artworks, authors and artists that I have examined, there is a much larger number that I have had to leave out. My argument, however, depends neither upon an exhaustive catalogue of texts dealing with pop culture nor upon a clearly delimited set of artworks, authors and ideas that together make up the canon of Class-ism. I have depended instead upon a different methodological alternative—whose backbone in a sense is the set of historical generalizations I have so far been making—and it is these I want now to discuss in more detail.

II

Pop culture, or even indigenous culture, is not an inert fact of nature. It is not merely there, just as art is not just there either. We must take seriously Vico’s great observation that men make their own history, that what they can know is what they have made, and extend it to economics: as both economic and cultural entities—to say nothing of historical entities—such communities, locales and economic values as “ popular culture”  and “ fine art”  are manmade. Therefore, as much as art itself, pop culture is an idea that has a history and a tradition of thought, imagery and vocabulary that have given it reality and presence in and for the ruling class. The two economic entities thus support and to an extent reflect each other.

Having said that, one must go on to state a number of reasonable qualifications. In the first place, it would be wrong to conclude that pop culture was essentially an idea, or a creation with no corresponding reality. When Hal Foster said in his exhibition Damaged Goods that appropriation strategy was a career, he meant that to be interested in commodity display was something bright young artists would find to be an all-consuming passion; he should not be interpreted as saying it was only a career. There were—and are—nations and cultures whose daily lives are organized around sites of commerce, be they Vancouver, the Niger River or suburban shopping malls. Their lives, histories and customs have a brute reality obviously greater than anything that could be said about them in the

world of art. About that fact this study of Class-ism has very little to contribute, except to acknowledge it tacitly. But the phenomenon of Class-ism as I study it deals principally, not with a correspondence between Class-ism and its ideas about pop culture, but with the internal consistency of Class-ism and its ideas about pop culture (appropriation strategy as a career, etc.) despite or beyond any correspondence with, or lack thereof, a “ real”  popular culture. My point is that Foster’s statement about appropriation strategy mainly refers to that fabricated consistency, that regular constellation of ideas, as the pre-eminent thing about pop culture and not to its mere being, as the Wallace Stevens’s phrase has it.  Pop culture only exists to the extent that it conforms to what the art world thinks of it.A second qualification is that ideas, cultures and histories cannot seriously be understood or studied without their force, or more precisely their configurations of power, also being studied. To believe that pop culture was created—or more precisely, “ aestheticized”—and to believe that such things happen simply as a necessity of the imagination, is to be disingenuous. The relationship between the art world and pop or indigenous culture is a relationship of power, of domination, of varying degrees of a complex hegemony, as is quite accurately indicated in the title of William Rubin’s classic, Primitivism in 20th Century Art: Affinity of the Tribal and the Modern. Pop culture—and we would be prejudiced to think of Rubin’s “ primitive”  African artifacts as anything other than just another form of popular culture, as examples of a particular society’s daily objects, no more or less fetishized than our cars and stoves and handbags—has been aestheticized not only because it was discovered to be “ popular”  in all those ways considered commonplace by the Baby Boom generation, but also because it could be—that is, submitted to being—made popular. There is very little consent to be found, for example, in the fact that Jack Kerouac’s encounters with jazz music produced a widely influential model of the African-American man. In On The Road, the black man never spoke of himself, he never represented his emotions, presence, or history. Kerouac spoke for and represented him. Kerouac was white, comparatively wealthy and male, and these were historical facts of domination that allowed him not only to possess that musician creatively but to speak for him and tell his readers in what way he was “ typically black.”  My argument is that Kerouac’s situation of strength in relation to the jazz musician was not an isolated instance. It fairly stands for the pattern of relative strength between art (in this case, literature) and popular culture and the discourse about popular culture that it enabled.

This brings us to a third qualification. One ought never to assume that the structure of Class-ism is nothing more than a structure of lies or myths which, were the truth be told about them, would simply blow away. I myself believe that Class-ism is more particularly valuable as a sign of curatorial-theoretical power over pop culture than it is a reliable discourse about pop culture (which is what, in its glossy or scholarly form, it claims to be). Nevertheless, what we must respect and try to grasp is the sheer knitted-together strength of Class-ist discourse, its very close ties to the enabling socio-economic and political network of high-powered commercial galleries, trade journals and museums and its redoubtable durability. After all, any system of ideas that can remain unchanged as teachable wisdom in the United States (in academies, books, congresses, universities, biennials) from the period of Jasper

Johns in the late 1950s until the present must be something more formidable than a mere collection of lies. Class-ism, therefore, is not an airy, ivory tower fantasy about pop culture, but a created body of theory and practice in which, for many generations, there has been a considerable material investment. Continued investment made Class-ism, as a system of knowledge about popular culture, an accepted grid for filtering pop culture through and into high art consciousness, just as that same investment multiplied—indeed, made truly productive—the statements proliferating out of Class-ism into the general culture.Gramsci has made the useful analytic distinction between civil and political society in which the former is made up of voluntary (or at least rational and noncoercive) affiliations like schools, families and unions, the latter of state institutions (the army, the police, the central bureaucracy) whose role in the polity is direct domination. Culture, of course, is to be found operating within civil society, where the influence of ideas, institutions and colleagues works not through domination but by what Gramsci calls consent. In any society not totalitarian, then, certain cultural forms predominate over others, just as certain ideas are more influential than others; the form of this cultural leadership is what Gramsci has identified as hegemony, an indispensable concept for any understanding of cultural life in the industrialized world. It is hegemony, or rather the result of cultural hegemony at work, that gives Class-ism the durability and the strength I have been speaking about so far. Class-ism is never far from what Reyner Banham has called the pretense of Art, a collective notion identifying “ us”  cultural authorities as against all “ those”  mere consumers, and indeed it can be argued that the major component in high art is precisely what made it hegemonic both inside and outside the art world: the idea of art appreciation as superior to the everyday actions of consumers, however similar (indeed, identical) their preferences often are to those of art professionals. There is in addition the hegemony of art world ideas about pop culture, themselves reiterating aesthetic sensitivity over commercial crassness, usually overriding the possibility that a more independent, or more skeptical, thinker might have different views on the matter.

In a quite constant way, Class-ism depends for its strategy on this flexible positional superiority, which puts the art professional in a whole series of possible relationships with pop culture without ever losing the relative upper hand. And why should it be otherwise, especially during the period of extraordinary artistic ascendancy from World War II to the present? The artist, the critic, the curator, the collector, or the viewer is in, or thinks about, pop culture because he or she can be, or can think about it, with very little resistance on pop culture’s part. Under the general heading of knowledge about popular culture and within the umbrella of high art’s hegemony over pop culture since World War II, there emerged a complex pop culture suitable for study in the academy, for display in the museum, for reconstruction in the artist’s studio, for theoretical illustration in art historical, curatorial, linguistic, pictorial and racial theses about mankind and the universe, for instances of economic and sociological theories of development, revolution, cultural personality, national character or religious affiliation. Additionally, the imaginative examination of things popular was based more or less exclusively upon a sovereign art consciousness out of whose unchallenged centrality a popular world emerged, first according to general ideas about who or what constituted popularity, then according to a detailed logic governed not simply by empirical reality but by a battery of desires, repressions, investments and projections. If we can point to great Class-ist works of genuine scholarship like Lucy Lippard’s Pop Art or Dave Hickey’s AirGuitar, we should note that Lippard’s and Hickey’s ideas come out of the same impulse (as did a great many postmodern novels by the likes of Donald Barthelme or Don Delillo). This impulse, by turns respectful, awestruck or contemptuous, recognizes the shiny, lurid, delusional, melancholic absurdities of popular culture, marvels at them and  resigns itself to them, and even makes use of them. Ultimately, though, such uses, however skeptical or sympathetic, can only have the consequence of proposing that this or that fragment of popular culture is worthy of consideration as Art. In other words, is a worthy subject of Class-ism.

[bywordofaphrodite]

Book Reviews 9&10: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone by J.K Rowling & Twilight by Stephanie Meyer

This review’s theme is *drum roll* books I was banned from as a child! Audience age: age 9 and up for reading level… as for content, that will vary between parents !

So to shake things up for my final reviews, rather than reviewing books I grew up with, I am discussing two books that were banned in my household, my church and my school. Triple threat! Good for them. To be transparent, I have not read Harry Potter before at all. I even bought one of the books a couple of years ago and still haven’t made it round to reading yet. However, I have seen all the movies and I love them very much. More than that, I’ve always loved the lore surrounding the series; I think fans have made the legacy more interesting than the movies in adapting the lore to different fanfictions, which I’m sure some people will agree with and others will not. With many people I meet around my age, it is fairly common for me to be asked what my Hogwarts house is (Slytherin, in case you’re curious), and even people I wouldn’t expect to be all that interested will know their house.

As for Twilight, I actually did read these in year 9 in school, and I snuck the movies into my house too (I still have PTSD from my mother bursting into my room and catching me- don’t worry she’s not a crazy religious person anymore. She even watched Twilight for the first time in last year’s lockdown lmao). My friendship groups reference Twilight memes multiple times a day and I even gifted my best friend a poorly printed ‘BWTHHYBL’ (‘Bella where the hell have you been loca?’- God, Jacob, why did you say this) on a piece of paper and stuffed it into a small frame for her birthday present a few weeks ago… which she keeps beside her desk, just as I intended… so I think it’s safe to say that Twilight has not exactly faded into the background of pop culture just yet, even though the hype surrounding the series began well over ten years ago.

Nostalgic review

Rating: ★★★ (for Twilight only)

Book wise, I can’t actually write my old opinions of Harry Potter because I grew up in a weirdo Catholic cult that quite seriously believed J.K Rowling’s works to be articulated by the devil’s own hand (I’m sure Rowling is involved with the devil for other reasons, but that would be due to her obsessive transphobia not her writing). Using my imagination and hypothesising a little here, I’m going to assume that had I been allowed to read the books I would have loved them. Magic books and boarding school stories were a great love of mine, after all.

Now, for Twilight. I read this series just once, about nine years ago, and while I recall thinking that Meyer was not a very good writer I do know I was hooked on the storyline. I don’t know what she laced that series with but it was addictive for no good reason, especially given how many weird racial stereotypes were in there, in addition to her Mormon ideals that permeate Bella’s every move. Whatever it is, I know I ate it all up even with the awareness that it was not good (no, I don’t mean morally due to religion, I just mean it was compelling garbage).

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone Review

Post-read: ★★★★

Synopsis: On his 11th birthday, Harry Potter discovers that he is the orphaned son of two powerful wizards and the survivor of an attack by the evil, most powerful wizard to have ever lived, Voldemort. He is whisked away to the wizards’ school Hogwarts, where he studies and hones his powers, and eventually comes face-to-face with the enemy everyone believed to be dead.

I’ve seen plenty of criticism of Rowling’s writing problems, many of which I absolutely agree with. The writing is not the best, and this article actually dissects Rowling’s patterns and explains how she fails as a writer. Despite this, for the first book of a series that many young children read, I don’t think it is all that bad. My younger siblings struggle to read well, but I’ve begun reading this book to them for bedtime and they say it’s ‘good for learning’, so that’s something I’ve taken into consideration while thinking over this.

In terms of setting and place, Rowling did a good job of transporting me to the various locations in the novel. Part of the charm of Hogwarts is experiencing the rainy weather, the crackle of the fireplaces and the eeriness of sneaking about a giant castle in the dead of night just like the characters. It felt very vivid to me, and while that may be in part due to my having the film scenes to envision while reading, I believe Rowling did well. Harry’s first encounter with the Weasley family and the house-sorting scenes are enjoyable and lovely beginnings to Harry’s found family after a dreadful upbringing in the Dursley home.

Harry Potter is a very clear example of the Hero’s Journey literary route, which makes the storyline very easy to follow; the heroes and villains are very distinct, there are clear goals, and the main characters have genuine and natural character development as the story goes on. The adventures to the Forbidden Forest and other off-limits areas of Hogwarts are all the right amount of engaging and spooky. The opening chapter does have me on the fence still in regards to its length and basis for introduction. Upon first reading it, I found it a bit strange that it’s written from the Dursleys’ point of view, as this awful couple may have adopted Harry, but they are simply not the Main Characters. The conversation between Professor Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall goes on for a longer time than I would think necessary. A brief analysis of this scene is actually available on the Pottermore website, and it explains some of the clever details written in. Regardless, the film’s choice to shift the immediate focus to Harry was a better choice in my opinion.

Something that became a source of amusement to me while reading was the obvious hate every house has for Slytherin, and I know that’s because they contain most of the ‘bad’ characters, but having read so much fanfiction from other fandoms just using the house characteristics and lore meant I’d never read so much consistent Slytherin-hate before. ‘Stinking Slytherin’ Harry says- well, he’ll be maddened to know half the internet bases half their personalities around being Slytherin. Yes, this is a call out, for myself included.

Characters who aged well: good or bad, the characters in Harry Potter are entertaining, even as an adult, the children’s antics and developing friendships are entertaining and heart-warming as they become closer. Voldemort is a solid villain, and the Dursleys and Malfoys are well-written antagonists; children tend to adopt their parents’ values for better or worse, and Draco and Dudley are perfect examples of the way young people turn out when raised within a vicious cycle.

Characters who aged badly: Severus Snape with his weird grudge against Harry. I don’t care about your history with his parents, Harry is a child, and you are an adult school teacher. Get a grip, sir.

It would be remiss for me to ignore the strong controversy surrounding J.K Rowling herself, though it isn’t the focus of this review. Strongly criticised for lack of representation for both POC and LGBT+ readers, Rowling has constantly made alterations in recent years, claiming certain characters to be something they were never written to be; most notably, Albus Dumbledore being announced as gay but with no scene in the books nor the films alluding to it. I would also add in that while Hermione’s character is great for exploring an ‘outsider’s’ perspective (the daughter of two muggles in the wizarding world), she also does take the role of the ‘bossy girl’ in a male-dominated book series. I’ll link an article here that discusses some of the gender roles, sexism and other concerns across the series.

Favourite scene/quote: “‘There are all kinds of courage,’ said Dumbledore, smiling. ‘It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends’.”

A wonderful piece of advice for young kids! It’s something a lot of people don’t learn until they’re older- how important it is to stand your ground no matter who you’re up against, and that sometimes the people you like and admire aren’t always in the right.

As for my favourite scene, that would have to be when Neville stands up to Draco! Harry tells Neville he is ‘worth twelve of Malfoy’, and Neville, red-faced and timid, stammers the words back to Draco later. Neville is my favourite character (he’s just so cute I love him) and I was so proud when he joined Ron to fight against the Slytherin bullies.

Twilight Review

Post-read: ★★

Synopsis: awkward teenager Bella Swan moves to the tiny town of Forks where she meets mysterious classmate Edward from the strange Cullen family and becomes determined to find out more about them.

Re-reading Twilight I was made aware of two things. First, that the writing is just as bad as I remembered it to be, and second, that despite knowing how ridiculous it is, I still love it.

I was still invested in what happens. The romance, the drama, the detective work leading up to Bella’s confirmation of supernatural existence- all of it. As this article acknowledges, much of the appeal of Twilight is its bad writing: the sentence structure is basic and easy to binge-read, making it perfect material for a young audience to enjoy, especially for kids who might not normally pick up a book in the first place. There is also not much to worry about in terms of applying solid concentration, because many scenes border on being simply filler content.

For all of its ease, I still found myself plagued by its many problems the entire read, so at best I would rate it two and a half stars. Sorry, Meyer.

Something I thought about more extensively while reading was that Meyer essentially took away any real ‘flaws’ of vampirism with her reworking their existence. Vampires are evil and eat humans? Solved! The ‘good’ vampires are ‘vegetarian’, eating only animals. Vampires can’t go in the sun or they’ll burn alive? Sort of solved? They won’t die a terrible death, but *shock horror* they will sparkle. Bella describes Edward’s skin to be like ‘thousands of tiny diamonds were embedded in the surface’. So, the stakes are what, exactly? The vampires are beautiful, never age and don’t even eat humans. If anything it’s comedic that the Cullens don’t show up to school on sunny days, lest they… sparkle. Honestly, I don’t hate the concept, really, but Edward’s constant referral to himself as a ‘monster’ doesn’t really make sense with the knowledge that the Cullens are extremely tame… after all, humans hunt and eat animals too.

The final chapter and epilogue tie everything quite neatly together, and if Meyer hadn’t continued writing the novel could easily be left at book one. Bella informs her mother she wants to stay in Forks with her father, and Jacob Black the werewolf comes to the high school dance to tell Bella that the Quileute tribe will be ‘watching’ her and Edward, still distrustful of the Cullens (even though the Cullens have done literally nothing, but whatever, that’s over dramatic territorial werewolf-vampire drama, I guess). It ends with Bella still pestering Edward to turn her into a vampire, and him declining. I suppose that’s enough of a cliff-hanger to warrant a sequel?

Characters who aged well: Did any of them, really? To be nit-picky, it could be argued that all of them have one too many problematic roots to age well. I’m going to add in Carlisle and Esme, though, because I can’t find fault any serious fault with them. I’m also going to add in Bella’s father, who despite being criticised very constantly for not keeping an eye on Bella, did a decent job. After all, Charlie had no way to know anything about the supernatural world that turned Bella’s life upside down, and I don’t think he can be blamed for that.

Characters who aged badly: well. Um. A massive part of Twilight’s criticism is Bella’s one dimensional character. I’ve always been on the fence about it, because sometimes people just really are quite bland, and she is a depressed teen so I usually cut her some slack on that count. My real issue is Meyer’s intention for Bella to be a Mary Sue rather than a substantial character: while she can be headstrong and humorous in passing, she does not have any real opinions, thoughts or motivations that aren’t related to Edward or the Cullens to the point that she has no initiative to exist outside of being with him. This also makes her selfish in her lack of care for her father; I understand not caring too much about the kids you have to attend school with- not many choices in a small town- but the way Bella shuts her dad out is just too much. As for Edward, why does he like Bella, really? I understand the intrigue of not being able to read her thoughts, but beyond that there’s really not much going on. I think they actually do have some good banter between them and parts of the relationship are very fun, but if you took away the vampire aspect, none of it makes much sense (*spoiler* like, say, Bella’s sudden marriage to Edward in Breaking Dawn immediately after high school graduation would be just as weird to us if they were only human as it is to the townsfolk in Forks).

Both the novel itself, the film and Edward’s character- and many of the male characters in the series- normalise a lot of misogyny, gender roles and sexism (please refer to the links for further information). Edward’s misogynistic tendencies- rushing in without asking Bella’s consent to ‘protect her’- are portrayed as desirable, and Bella is flattered by it. Every girl in the books- human, vampire or werewolf- is described unimpressively, always some form of shallow and petty compared to every male character having a distinct personality. Rosalie had so much promise for a strong female character, with her university degrees and interest in mechanics, not to mention her revenge on her rapists, but it all becomes lost in her overwhelming dislike of Bella (which worsens with the realisation that Rosalie sees herself as a ‘monster’ because she can’t have children, and she hates Bella for being a ‘real’ woman).

I’m going to link one article here about racism entrenched within the Twilight series. The writer discusses the racial bias within the Twilight saga, and while it is primarily geared towards the movies, the points made also reflect the characters in the books. Concerning the lack of diversity in the series, Stephanie Meyer is quoted saying she ‘wrote that they [the Cullens] had this pale glistening skin!’; she refused to allow Twilight director Catherine Hardwick to change any Cullens to people of colour, wanting the actors to resemble the white friends and family she had in mind writing the books. Hardwicke herself had hoped for Alice to be of Japanese descent, but that her ideas were thwarted as Meyer ‘just could not accept the Cullens to be more diverse’. While Meyer allowed some of Bella’s school mates to be POC, it is concerning that the most prominent character she accepted being non-white was the antagonist vampire Laurent, who was played by a black actor. Along with all the ‘good’ characters being white, there is also the issue of Jasper’s backstory as a proud Confederate soldier- which Meyer seems to portray with a strange reverence.

I’m also going to link a Reddit thread here where people offer their different opinions on whether the novels, movies or Stephanie Meyer herself are racist or at the very least, very ignorant. The werewolves of the series are not as present in the first book/movie, but the legends of the Quileute tribes are referenced- and changed- according to how Meyer wanted to use them in her story. To summarise, many readers believe Meyer’s use of descriptors such as ‘dogs’ or ‘mongrels’ toward the werewolves (the Native American Quileute tribe) are racist. This is due to the Cullens (the good, all-white vampire clan) being the ones to refer to the Quileute people in such a way; furthermore, they are the only non-white people in the books, making Meyer’s decision to liken only POC to animals more questionable; others argue that the ‘dog’ term is only because they are effectively intended to be giant dogs.

Favourite scene/quote: “‘You said last night that you weren’t interested in any of the boys in town.’ But he picked up his fork again, so I could see the worst was over.

‘Well, Edward doesn’t live in town, Dad.’

He gave me a disparaging look as he chewed.’”

Charlie just doing his best while Bella always remains a few steps ahead of him is one dynamic Meyer wrote decently (probably because it was all in aid of Bella’s only motivation in life: being with Edward).

The chapter ‘The Game’ holds my favourite scene from the novel, aka the iconic baseball game regarded as the film’s best scene. It’s a fun moment where Bella watches the Cullens play baseball as a storm rises, requiring the thunder to mask the loudness of their hits. Unlike the film, the novel is able to explain the dynamics between the Cullens and how their powers work, specifically detailing the communication between Edward’s mind-reading and Alice’s ability to see the future.

Overall verdict:

Owing to the stark popularity of the books I’ve discussed here compared to my past choices, there was a lot more material and controversy to discuss for this review.

I found both books to provide a solid feeling of time and place. I love stories shrouded in rain and dark forests and both series are set firmly in just that. Like I mentioned earlier, I have issues with both authors’ writing, though I still feel that it is more acceptable in Harry Potter than Twilight. Interestingly, there is no character in either novel that I really see myself in, which is rare; I like plenty of them, I just don’t relate to anyone in full.

With author Stephanie Meyer’s Mormon beliefs and personal morals obviously creating these characters, it isn’t exactly an easy case of separating art from artist. Twilight is an entertaining read for all its flaws and its too far gone to ‘cancel’ now- although I suppose it has probably been cancelled numerous times anyway?- but it isn’t too late for readers to educate themselves on its problems to prevent Meyer-level ignorance where possible. Harry Potter, on the other hand, doesn’t have the same ties to the writer that Twilight does. Most of Rowling’s problematic behaviour came well after the books were written, but I’ll link one article here that discusses how some transgender fans have responded to Rowling’s actions. For some people, the controversy has affected their abilities to love the franchise anymore; others have chosen to separate the content from author, akin to many Twilight fans.

Personally, if religion hadn’t interfered with my ability to read Harry Potter as a child, I maintain that I would have loved it, especially as I enjoy the films now. Just as with Twilight, I typically find it easy to enjoy stories while understanding their flaws. There is a keen amount of nostalgia surrounding both these franchises and likely always will be, but there are newer stories with real representation being released all the time, and the ideal outcome for me would be working towards popularising these series over wasting our time arguing over already-published novels!

[ofubox]

Back in May, at Google’s I/O Developer Conference, the company demonstrated its new Duplex system, an AI-powered virtual assistant that makes phone calls to organize your schedule for you. The audience watched a recording of Duplex making bookings at a restaurant and hair salon. They laughed in surprise when it ‘mmm-hmmm’d its way through the conversation, apparently convincing the person on the other end of the phone that they were, in fact, talking to a fellow human being. This unexpectedly convincing demonstration set social media buzzing – and in the process, it raised a question. Does Duplex’s capabilities for reading and sending conversational signals show that a machine is capable of empathy? This is one of the most critical questions in the developing debate around AI, its role in society, and the extent to which it will disrupt creative industries such marketing. Can a machine have empathy? The three responses I wanted to get a sense of the different opinions out there – and so I decided to ask the question in my LinkedIn feed: Can a machine have empathy? It was the start of a fascinating discussion stream with some intriguing responses. Broadly speaking, these answers fell into three categories. I think these are a pretty good representation of the views that professionals have of AI’s capabilities – and their views about how those capabilities could be used. The first type of response is that yes it can, or yes it will, because AI is ultimately capable of anything the human brain is capable of. As one of the commenters on my question put it, Empathy can be programmed like us. We are machines… the brain is a very good computer but still any ordinary analogically programmed Quantum computer.” The second response is that no, it can’t, because empathy is a uniquely human characteristic and not something a machine is capable of experiencing: Empathy entails not only a sense of self, but also experiencing the emotions of someone else (more or less)—to feel another’s pain… We do not understand consciousness in humans, let alone possess the ability to create it—with verification—artificially.” The third type of response is particularly intriguing. It’s a question of its own: if a machine appears to have empathy, does it really matter if that empathy is real or not? It amounts to functionally the same thing, whether that machine is feeling the same emotions as us or merely deducing those emotions from the signals we send, and coming up with the most appropriate response: “let's imagine we can't tell the difference if it is genuine or not, because a robot has learned the mimic and structure of empathic behaviour, are we still able to look at the robot as a machine?” I’m writing this post to share my own view, but also to answer the question raised in the third type of response that I received. Does the distinction between real and ‘artificial empathy’ matter? I believe that it does. Especially in marketing.Why machines are incapable of true empathy First though, let’s go back to the original question: can a machine have empathy? I’ll put my cards on the table here. I don’t think this is a matter of opinion – and I don’t think it’s one of those questions where the answer may change in the future. A machine cannot have empathy by definition. It comes down to what empathy is – and what a machine is. The full definition of empathy in the Oxford English Dictionary is this: “the power of mentally identifying oneself with (and so fully comprehending) a person or object of contemplation.” Machines cannot mentally identify themselves with human beings because what goes on in the mind of a human being involves things that a machine can never experience for itself, no matter how advanced and deep-learning-driven its own processes might be. For the same reason, a machine will never fully comprehend a human being. As we discuss the role of AI in society in general, and in marketing in particular, it’s important to be clear about why this is. Feeling machines that think The neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio describes it like this: we are not thinking machines that feel; rather, we are feeling machines that think. Human consciousness involves a lot, lot more than rational cognition. In fact, that ability for rational thought is a byproduct of most of the other aspects of our consciousness – not our brain’s driving force. Our conscious life is driven by the way that we experience the world through our senses: a combination of sight, sound, touch, taste and smell that no machine will ever experience in the same way. It’s also driven by powerful biological impulses and needs. No machine will ever feel what it means to be hungry or thirsty; no machine is moved and motivated by the drive to have sex and all the attendant emotions that spin around it; no machine fears homelessness or feels the intense vulnerability that comes from fear for your physical safety. Finally, and no less significantly, our consciousness is shaped by the collective intelligence and cultural memory that comes from being part of the human race. We have collectively channelled our shared emotions and sensory experiences into stories, conversations, shared jokes, sarcasm, symbolism and incredibly subtle psychological signals for many thousands of years. That same collective intelligence develops ethics and values that we can all instinctively agree with; it makes sense of money and systems of fair trade; it agrees on concepts that aren’t logically concrete but are perfectly solid in our minds. Nothing else communicates like human beings – and human beings communicate with nothing else the way they do with one another. This is significant, because the only way to acquire a share in our collective intelligence is to be interacted with as a human being yourself. Unless we engage with machines in the same, full way that we do with other human beings, this collective experience and intelligence is simply not available to them. They are not part of the empathy club. Artificial Intelligence doesn’t replicate human intelligence When people talk about the human brain operating like a computer or about AI learning in the same way that a human being does, they are guessing. In fact, they are part of a long tradition of guessing at how the brain works – and what really makes our consciousness tick. Whenever we invent a new technology, there’s a powerful temptation to start using that technology as an analogy for how the brain functions. When we invented electricity, we started talking about electric currents in the brain; when we invented the telegram, we decided it worked by sending signals. Every time you talk about the cogs whirring away trying to figure something out, you’re harking back to the era when we invented clockwork and became convinced that something similar was going on inside our heads. The conviction many people now have that the human brain works like a computer (and is therefore primarily a logic machine) is just our latest guess. We really don’t know how the brain works and how that working produces our consciousness. It’s therefore highly unlikely that we replicated the human brain when we invented computers – or developed AI. These are the reasons why I agree passionately with the second of the responses to my question in the LinkedIn feed. When we claim that a machine can feel empathy, we’re guilty of reducing the immense, mysterious workings of the human brain and human consciousness down to something that can be understood, replicated and mimicked through a machine driven by logic. It’s not so much that we’re overestimating the capabilities of AI – it’s that we’re severely underestimating how complex our own capabilities are. What’s the difference between Artificial Empathy and the real thing? That brings me to the second question – does it matter that Artificial Empathy isn’t true empathy if it still interacts with us in the same way? I believe it matters a lot. If we proceed with AI on the basis that it doesn’t, the implications will be huge. Artificial Empathy works by observing, learning, responding to and replicating the signals that people send. As deep-learning AIs evolve, and as they are able to work on larger and larger data sets, they’ll get better and better at doing this – of producing the appearance of empathy. However, true empathy involves a lot more than merely observing and responding to emotional signals, no matter how many of those signals you have to work with. Why? Because the signals that people send are a tiny fraction of the internal narrative that they experience. You and I are both far more than the sum of what other people think we are by watching what we do and say. We contain capabilities, emotions, memories and experiences that influence our behaviour without ever coming to the surface. They have to be intuited without ever actually being observed. Beyond rationality: what human empathy is capable of Human intelligence is so powerful because it is not limited to rational thinking. The other elements of our consciousness enable us to deal with the inherent unpredictability and ambiguity of the world around us. They enable us to make decisions on the basis of shared values and motivations that resonate collectively and enable us to know what is right without having to figure out what is right. Empathetic human intelligence is able to feel what it feels to be sad, and feel what it feels to be happy – and it allows those feelings to sway its judgments and its behaviour towards others. A machine couldn’t do that, even if it wanted to. Things become complicated when machines start taking decisions that have profound consequences, without the emotional context and shared values that all humans use when making such decisions. This was one of the key themes in the piece that Henry Kissinger recently wrote on the implications of AI, for The Atlantic. Take the self-driving car that must decide between killing a parent or a child. Will such a machine ever be able to explain to human beings why it makes the choice that it does? And if it’s not required to explain actions with human consequences in human terms, what becomes of our system of ethics and justice? It will need to be rewritten, simplified and stripped of emotion in order to accommodate such machines. As a result, it will feel less representative of us as human beings. Beware a Narrow AI definition of marketing A similar process would occur if we substituted artificial empathy for human empathy when it comes to marketing. AI can impersonate human interactions, but with a far narrower understanding of what’s going on than a human being would have. We have to bear this in mind when we choose the role that AI should play in engaging with audiences or directing marketing strategies. Google’s Duplex may have the appearance of empathy, but that empathy is strictly limited to what’s relevant to the task at hand: completing a restaurant booking, for example. It’s not trained to detect any emotion outside of this – or readjust its behaviour on that basis. If the person on the other end of the phone sounded disorganised and stressed could Duplex respond? Could it make them feel better? Could it thereby charm them into somehow finding a slot for them at a busy time? And from the restaurant’s point of view, will the person making the booking be as likely to actually turn up – or will they feel less obligation to do so, since they never actually spoke to the restaurant themselves? There’s a lot more to human conversation than exchanging information efficiently – and that’s where the implications of real and artificial empathy start to become particularly significant. It’s not just one-to-one conversations that are affected by the difference between real and artificial empathy. It’s also the conversations that you hold with the market and your audience in general. Marketing is the process of creating a proposition that has value for people, and which they will exchange value for. Up to now, marketers and their audiences have been able to feel that value in broad and varied terms that reflects what it means to be alive. Brands and their products and solutions provide functions and services but also reassurance, confidence and certainty; a sense of support and potentially even belonging. And don’t think I’m just talking about consumer brands here. B2B marketing addresses some of the most powerful motivations and emotions that a human being can feel: around security, hopes for the future, the ability to provide for others, personal value and worth. If we start to hand fundamental strategic decisions about marketing to AI, then the definition of value will narrow with startling speed. It will be based around what can easily be observed, measured and communicated – the kinds of things that machines can feel artificial empathy for. It will offer efficient optimisation of particular aspects of a marketing proposition – but the risk is that it ignores the other elements that engage human consciousness in different ways. Smart B2B marketers know the dangers of talking about price when their buyers really want reassurance on value. They know the importance of instilling confidence over and above simply describing product features. Perhaps most importantly, they know that what a buyer describes as being the basis for their decision is often not the only basis for their decision. It’s not just what’s observable that matters. Does AI make better judgments – or just more efficient ones? Much of the fear that people express about AI involves being replaced by a superior form of intelligence that can think in ways that we can’t conceive of and outcompete us in almost every role we can imagine. I believe that the real danger is subtly different: that we downgrade our own intelligence and unique capacity for empathy because a far narrower artificial version is capable of doing some things in a more efficient way. Unless they are fully aware of these risks, organisations that plan on unlocking vast new forms of competitive advantage through AI could end up narrowing the scope of what they are capable of instead. I work for LinkedIn, which is itself owned by Microsoft: two businesses that are developing exciting applications of AI but which also spend a lot of time thinking about how that technology can be ethically used, and what impact it has on society.  Microsoft thought leaders talk about building self-limiting considerations into AI systems, for example, describing AIs that know “when they need to get out of the way.” That’s hugely important at all levels of marketing and business. There are exciting times ahead for applying AI in marketing, including applications that can detect emotional signals at scale and provide us with new depths of audience understanding. As marketers, AI tools can make us more responsive to our audiences on an emotional level – but only if we see them as an input for human empathy rather than a substitute for it. The secret to making best use of artificial empathy will be recognising its limitations compared to the real thing. Effective leadership in an age of AI involves recognising that a world of sensory, emotive, complex and conscious beings cannot be navigated by logic and observation alone.

http://ofubox.blogspot.com/2019/09/can-machine-have-empathy.html

[ruthsulivan]

Vaping Is Now Taxed Nearly Twice As Much As Smoking In This State

Vermont’s new 92% e-cigarette tax took effect this week, with some worried it will ultimately increase the number of smokers.

Vaping taxes have become an all too common part of life for vapers across the US, with legislators often content to tax them at the same rate as cigarettes. Despite the clear and obvious reasons vaping and smoking should be treated differently, some lawmakers have taken that sentiment too far in the wrong direction.

Vermont passed a hefty 92% tax on vaping earlier this year, which officially took effect earlier this week. Unfortunately for vapers, this means the tax on vaping products is almost twice as high as the per pack tax on cigarettes.

Vaping advocates have blasted this backward logic for giving clear incentive for vapers to switch back to cigarettes. Vaping and smoking may appear outwardly similar, but research shows their relative risk is vastly different.

Regardless, many anti-vapers still consider this new tax a victory for making e-cigarettes much more expensive. It’s unclear what sort of impact the law will have outside of Vermont, but as discussed when the bill was first passed, it will undoubtedly lead to many small business closures across the Green Mountain state.

Nearly Twice As High

When the state legislators passed their 92% tax earlier this year, it glaringly did not impact packs of cigarettes or roll-your-own cigarettes. It did, however, place a 92% tax on “all other tobacco products” such as chewing tobacco.

When you compare this with the average cost of a pack of cigarettes in Vermont, something doesn’t quite add up. For starters, Vermont’s government tax website clearly states the tax on a pack of 20 cigarettes is $3.08. According to reports, the average cost of a pack of cigarettes in Vermont is $9.62, which means without the tax they would cost approximately $6.54 per pack.

A simple calculation then shows packs of cigarettes in Vermont are only taxed at a rate of around 47%. So instead of doing what many other states have done and start taxing vaping and smoking at the same rate, which is still fairly unreasonable given the research, Vermont has chosen a wildly different approach.

In addition to their new tax, state lawmakers also raised the age to buy tobacco and vaping products to 21 and greatly restricted the sale of e-cigarettes over the internet. There hasn’t been much reporting on the glaring oversights of this new tax from the mainstream media, but vaping advocates across the country are still working to get the word out.

What Science Says About Vaping

The most common argument for misguided and overreaching vaping regulations like these is protecting the youth. Many legislators haven’t taken the time to look into the research themselves and therefore protecting the youth is a very worthwhile cause.

Unfortunately, if they looked into the research for themselves, they would see the truth is not so dire. A report of over 60,000 teens by Action on Smoking and Health concluded that only between 0.1% and 0.5% of non-smoking teens are ever vaping more than a few times. This means far fewer than even 0.1% could ever be ending up full-blown smokers because of smoking.

Other reports have proven a clear smoking cessation value for e-cigarettes. For instance, a report out of the University of Louisville tested all the most common smoking cessation tools and methods. After collecting and analyzing all their data, the team concluded that not only is vaping an effective quit aid, but it’s more likely to succeed than anything else.

Looking into the harm reduction value, and there’s even more reason to support them. We’ve known since 2015 that vaping is at least 95% safer than smoking, while reports from just last year out of Roswell Park continue to back this up. Even more impressively a report from the Journal of Aerosol Sciences concluded the excess lifetime cancer risk of a vaper is about 57,000 times lower than a demographically similar smoker.

Implications

Vapers everywhere should be mad that such a blatant overtaxing of vaporizers is going unnoticed. The more normalized it becomes to treat vaping like smoking, or worse, the harder it will become to protect our rights as vapers.

It may only be a matter of time before the entire vaping industry is barely a shell of its former self. That would undoubtedly lead many vapers to turn back to a life of smoking.

If we want to prevent this from happening, the best thing any of us can do is teach the smokers in our lives about the distinct differences between vaping and smoking. The more people who understand what’s at stake, the stronger our cause will become.

Do you think it’s fair for vaping to be taxed so heavily by the state of Vermont? What’s the most critical thing vapers can do to protect their rights in your opinion? How should we work together to teach others about the value of vaping? Let us know what you think in the comments, and don’t forget to check back here or join our Facebook and Twitter communities for more news and articles.

The post Vaping Is Now Taxed Nearly Twice As Much As Smoking In This State appeared first on ChurnMag.