#they are so fundamentally opposed in their values

[soph-skies]

i think one of the reasons i’m so drawn to xue yang (besides Hot. and Vaguely Evil) is that every time i see him i’m staring at an alternate universe wei wuxian. he and wwx are absolutely each other’s ‘what could have been’ and watching them interact is so fascinating

[cloudbends]

Ohhhh I just know friday's pokemon episode will be a life-changing event for me.

[dc-comics-enjoyer]

In a context where Batman is known and seen through his public League appearances, the misogynistic, homophobic, "alpha male" guys start using his image to illustrate their discourse of going to the gym, and seeking submissive women. They admire and misinterpret his traits as endorsements of their toxic masculinity. Online, they share images of Batman with stuff like "Be the Alpha, Be the Batman". They even use the word Batmen as a synonym to Alpha Male. "Real Batmen don't show weakness".

When Bruce becomes aware of this, he hates it. He despises them for all their messed up views, knowing they completely misunderstand his principles. Batman's true strength lies in his commitment to justice, empathy, and respect for all individuals, values that are fundamentally opposed to the toxic masculinity they promote. Bruce is determined to distance his image from their rhetoric, seeing them as nothing more than sexist and homophobic idiots.

So he decides to be a tiny tiny bit more Brucie when they appear in public. Not in form, but in substance :

When he's asked a question, he tries to go "I have no clue, I'd have to ask Black Canary.", or "I'm not sure, I'd have to see what Wonder Woman thinks about that", or "This time, we really couldn't have done anything, anything at all, without Supergirl."

Also, Batman becomes more visibly affectionate with Superman. During public appearances, if he senses a camera on them, he makes sure to be seen clinging to Superman. He would rather face dating rumors every day than be associated with those idiotic discourses.

(It's also a good premise for a superbat fake-dating fic !!)

[mcmansionhell]

McMansion Hell urges all New Yorkers to Rank Zohran Mamdani #1 for Mayor of NYC

I know I am just a blog about ugly houses but I want to say something important here: the ruling class in this country does not want you to have affordable housing. They don't want you to have clean, reliable public transportation. They don't want you to have access to groceries you can afford. If something bad happens to you, they don't care if you live or die. If you lose your home, they will hole up in their penthouses, McMansions, and mommy-bought apartments and tell you it's your fault -- but it's not. It is theirs. Everything from budget cuts to rent hikes, is their fault, their way of ensuring that the city becomes a place made up solely of people like themselves.

Zohran Mamdani is the only high profile candidate I've seen in my narrow, millennial lifetime running for any position -- least of all the mayor of the biggest city in the country -- on a platform of decommodification in terms of access to food, housing and transportation. City-run grocery stores would ensure that food stays affordable because there is no profit motive. While some are critical of his policy of fare-free transportation (as opposed to spending the same amount of money improving services), given the amount of policing involved in watching the fareboxes, it's something I'm coming more and more around to.

In demanding a rent freeze, Zohran is one of the only politicians able to articulate a direct plan for keeping people in their homes at a time when rent is skyrocketing with no end in sight. Zohran is one of a limited few in this miserable, cowardly country who are willing to speak out for the rights of Palestinians being murdered en masse by Israel. A vote for Zohran is a vote for the idea that better things are possible and, if you ask me, I think we live in such dire times that we've begun to forget this fundamental truth: things do not have to be like this. We do not have to live under the jackboot of privatization and exploitation forever. That choice, however, is up to us.

I am forever skeptical of the power of the ballot box to enact lasting change, especially in recent years. In fact, I am the most skeptical of electoralism I have ever been. However, why is it that the right can use what little sovereignty and enfranchisement is available to us to enact sweeping, if devastating changes, and yet, when the opportunity presents itself to the left, all we hear is that such things are no better than pissing in the wind? The answer to this question, of course, is that the ruling class is perfectly content with a party that hinders rather than ushers in change. Zohran may be using the sclerotic party system we've been doomed to inhabit, but despite these limitations his candidacy has surged immensely in the last few months, and the momentum of the people is on his side. This may be one of the last chances wherein one can attempt a truly progressive campaign like this.

Now that things are heating up, the ruling class, the backers of Andrew Cuomo, an abuser of women and a man responsible for the untold deaths of the elderly because he valued profits over their lives so early on in the pandemic, will stop at nothing to make sure that Zohran Mamdani does not win, that things stay the same. That the rent goes up, that the grocery prices continue to explode, that New York City becomes the playground of the rich and famous at the expense of everyone else. The party will try to intervene in undemocratic ways just like they did with Bernie Sanders in the 2020 primary. There will be untold lies and accusations, the press will abandon what few journalistic obligations they still abide by, and it will get ugly. There are even rumors that Cuomo will run as an independent even if he loses the primary, which, to be honest, isn't a bad tactic -- he's just the worst guy to be using it.

I realize this post may be annoying to some (hell, I myself live in Chicago), and I'm sure there's some rightful criticism for my not having used my blog like this before. (However, for those of you who don't know, I usually write about all manner of politics in my column at The Nation!) That being said, if you follow me and you live in New York City, rank Zohran #1 and Brad Lander #2. DO NOT RANK SUBURBANITE BIKE LANE-PARKER ANDREW CUOMO.

Anyway, that's all. I'll be back with a new McMansion Hell this Friday, so stay tuned.

[libraford]

It is possible to interact with people whom share opposing views and no this is not about pineapple on pizza. In fact, it is imperative that you learn how to be civil with some people who you may find difficult to agree with.

At work, Youngin would often tell me that the guy that trained him (Ginger) was a misogynist. I had never met Ginger, and I had very little to say on this matter. But I would ask Youngin some questions about him because I like to know the other seasonal workers a little. I ask about Ginger- first words from Youngin's mouth 'he's a misogynist.'

I asked him why he thought that. (There are many misogynists at this location, as someone that is woman-shaped I see it often, I am comparing notes.)

"We were on our way to a location and a driver was going really slowly. When he got around her he said 'fucking women drivers.' Like he was going out of his way to prove that the driver was a woman."

The last month or so, Youngin worked exclusively with me because I knew that it was a matter of time before he said something that pissed off one of the guys. He was not going to get along with people here, it just wasn't happening.

When he left, everyone wanted to know what he was like to work with. And I finally got to have a conversation with Ginger.

"I'd like to ask you something a little strange- he said that on his first day there was an issue with a driver going slowly. Can you tell me about that?"

"Oh yeah! She was going super slow and when I got around her I said 'yup- little old lady driving.' And he was like 'what's that supposed to mean?' And I just kind of dropped it, but I hear he was saying I was a misogynist over it?"

So I give Youngin some grace because he's young, he's got a social bubble that's very liberal, he has not met very many people that weren't part of that kind of scene. But he often talked about how every person here has said something that pissed him off and he seemed really surprised that I (woman-shaped queer liberal) would be okay working with all these sexist homophobes.

And I give grace to Ginger because he had no reason to think that his words would be interpreted like that. What he was saying was normal to him. This is... somewhat the culture of landscaping jobs. And its not even close to the worst thing I've heard out of these dudes mouths. (Literally had one of the dudes comment that he would like to 'motorboat' one of the pedestrians.)

It was weird for Youngin to carry that with him for the whole two months that he worked here, over a very... small comment.

Every single person I've worked with here has said something that has given me pause and I tuck it away to rant about later and then I let it go. If it gets out of hand, I talk to one of the bosses about it. I know how to contact HR. I came into this place knowing that I was going to disagree politically with most of the people that I work with because I'm coming in to a culture that is fundamentally different from my own.

If I am being frank, I find the overt bigotry somewhat better than the corporate bullshit of 'we value your contributions, but won't be granting your accommodations request out of fairness to other workers' or the glass cliff or literally being fired for my sexual orientation but phrased with 'oh you just weren't a good fit for the culture here.' I at least know what I'm getting into when I come to work. I know what not to talk about. Last time I thought I was safe to talk about something queer with my boss she blindsided me with some transphobic garbage.

Its admirable to stick up for the marginalized people in your life, but part of changing minds is knowing the time and the place to comment. I think I've changed more minds at this warehouse by being a visibly out lesbian at work than I have by making carefully crafted speeches.

That is fine. It is fine to disagree. Sometimes you have to work with racists, homophobes, and assholes. That is part of being an adult. You talk about things like... sports or TV or weather or some cool bug you saw. Finding common ground with people who are different from you in many ways is an important part of socialization and it sucks to think you have anything in common with a jackass but look- you're spending 7-ish hours with these people and at some point some of them are going to say stupid shit. You are going to say stupid shit also. I have said my fair share of stupid shit. Deal with the fact that you're all stupid shits.

And for fuck's sake, wear your hardhat.

[txttletale]

What I don't get is that other your support of AI image generation, you're SO smart and well read and concerned with ethics. I genuinely looked up to you! So, what, ethics for everyone except for artists, or what? Is animation (my industry, so maybe I care more than the average person) too juvenile and simplistic a medium for you to care about its extinction at the hands of CEOs endorsing AI? This might sound juvenile too, but I'm kinda devastated, because I genuinely thought you were cool. You're either with artists or against us imho, on an issue as large as this, when already the layoffs in the industry are insurmountable for many, despite ongoing attempts to unionize. That user called someone a fascist for pointing this out, too. I guess both of you feel that way about those of us involved in class action lawsuits against AI image generation software.

i can't speak for anyone else or the things they've said or think of anyone. that said:

1. you should not look up to people on the computer. i'm just a girl running a silly little blog.

2. i am an artist across multiple mediums. the 'no true scotsman' bit where 'artists' are people who agree with you and you can discount anyone disagrees with you as 'not an artist' and therefore fundamentally unsympathetic to artists will make it very difficult to actually engage in substantive discussion.

3. i've stated my positions on this many times but i'll do it one more: i support unionization and industrial action. i support working class artists extracting safeguards from their employers against their immiseration by the introduction of AI technology into the work flow (i just made a post about this funnily enough). i think it is Bad for studio execs or publishers or whoever to replace artists with LLMs. However,

4. this is not a unique feature of AI or a unique evil built into the technology. this is just the nature of any technological advance under capitalism, that it will be used to increase productivity, which will push people out of work and use the increased competition for jobs to leverage that precarity into lower wages and worse conditions. the solution to this is not to oppose all advances in technology forever--the solution is to change the economic system under which technologies are leveraged for profit instead of general wellbeing.

5. this all said anyone involved in a class action lawsuit over AI is an enemy of art and everything i value in the world, because these lawsuits are all founded in ridiculous copyright claims that, if legitimated in court, would be cataclysmic for all transformative art--a victory for any of these spurious boondoggles would set a precedent that the bar for '''infringement''' is met by a process that is orders of magnitude less derivative than collage, sampling, found art, cut-ups, and even simple homage and reference. whatever windmills they think they are going to defeat, these people are crusading for the biggest expansion of copyright regime since mickey mouse and anyone who cares at all about art and creativity flourishing should hope they fail.

[the-one-and-only-elita]

One thing that I absolutely love about TFOne's writing is that it manages to avoid a lot of the heavier criticism I've seen regarding MegOp's hero/villain dynamic over the years (trust me, the mid-2010s TF discourse was crazy)

*Spoilers Below*

First of all, the narrative benefits so much from the main 4 cast members all being a part of the same exploited mining class. So many takes on MegOp have Orion being of a higher status (an archivist, a cop, etc) while Megatron is much lower down on the social latter (a miner, a gladiator, often in the context of being a slave).

I've seen many people be put off by this, because it feels as if Megs is being villianized for being rightfully angry at the system that deeply harmed and exploited him, while Orion/Optimus is praised for taking a more pacifistic stance despite him not suffering as much from or in some ways even benefiting from the system he claims to oppose. I don't find their dynamic to be as simple as that, and I do find these takes to be a bit reductive, but I do very much see where they are coming from.

I am definitely one of those people who's very frustrated with the way pacifism is hailed as the one true path of morality, and the inherent implication that taking any sort of revenge on the people who abused/exploited you makes you just as bad as them. Also, Marvel's particular brand of demonizing any form of radical political action, despite the system clearly being broken and corrupt, but being completely unwilling to offer any other alternatives to meaningfully change things for the better.

When looking at what I described above its pretty easy to see how a lot of versions of MegOp's hero/villain dynamic unfortunately fits into that trope. Bringing it back to TFOne, you can see how Op and Meg coming from the same political/social status subverts this. The existence of Elita and Bee only further illustrates that out of the 4 people of the mining class who were all deceived, exploited, and literally mutilated in the same way it is only D-16 that completely loses himself to his rage, even to the point where he loses compassion for his own companions and disregarding the safety of the other miners (when he decides to "tears everything down" and Elita exclaims he's going to "kill everyone").

What I think I love most about the characterization in TFOne is that Orion is the radical one. Not only that, but he is praised by Elita and by extension the narrative for it. He is constantly challenging authority, and is the first to have the suspicion that their society is structured in an unjust way.

Meanwhile D-16, to be frank, is kind of a bootlicker. He fully believed in the system and that Sentinal Prime, as someone with power, had the right to decided "what was best" for those who are weaker/lesser (I wish I had the specific quote from D-16 to support this, but the movie's still in theaters). It illustrate that D-16 already held certain fascistic ideals, and that he and Orion already have fundamentally opposing moral/political values, it simply hasn't been of any consequence yet. It shows that their eventual falling out was inevitable, even if they had decided to rebuild Cybertron together.

It should also be noted that D-16's feelings of anger and betrayal do not necessarily have anything to do with the unjust system itself, but that said unjust system was predicated on a lie. Hence his fixation on deception in the post-credits scene and him naming his faction the Decepticons. Meanwhile, when Orion learns the truth he's just sort of like "yeah, I always kinda knew something was up" because again, he understood on some level that their system was predicated on injustice.

Even D-16's obsession with Megatronus Prime, while initially an endearing aspect of his character, is also an indicator of the questionably large amount of value he puts on one's strength. It foreshadows the "might makes right" ideology that the decepticons follow, and is a key part of their ideological characterization across continuities.

Instead of the narrative we often see in Transformers media were Optimus is idolized by the narrative for being more moderate and Megatron is villiainized for being radical (or so people often claim), it is instead Optimus who is rewarded and praised by the narrative for being radical, and Megatron who is villainized and punished by the narrative for holding potentially fascistic values.

I do agree with some criticism I've seen that the whole thing with killing Sentinel and D-16's final turn into villainy felt a bit rushed and more than a little cliche, but I also understand it both had a limited runtime and that it is ultimately a family film meant to be accessible to children. More importantly though, I think the movie set the groundwork early on that, no matter how this final act played out, D-16 was always going to turn to darkness, and Orion would not have been able to stop him.

Its perfectly tragic, the way all MegOp should be, while also feeling really well thought out from a thematic standpoint. I love it.

[communistkenobi]

“transphobia hurts us all” is an analytical statement. It is making a claim about how a specific bigotry operates in the world, and its supposed analytical value is in revealing something about transphobia that appears on the surface to be counter-intuitive - “while you might think transphobia only hurts transgender people, that isn’t the case; it hurts cisgender people too.” The follow-up to this statement, sometimes implied and sometimes explicit, is a moral imperative - transphobia is a social ill that hurts us all, so we should seek to get rid of it.

This analytical-moral chain of logic isn’t unique to this statement; a lot of analyses of the social world come from a broader desire to “figure out what to do.” When we investigate a social phenomenon to uncover its inner workings, and in this investigation we identify the scope and impact of the harm it causes, we are in a better place to understand how to reduce harm in the world. Of particular interest in this investigation of transphobia is highlighting its illegitimacy - if transphobia also harms cisgender people, this is evidence of its illegitimacy as a social force in the world. We have uncovered some fundamental contradiction in the workings of bigotry, and this contradiction provides a rational ground for us to oppose it. Of course transphobia is irrational and must be opposed; it harms other groups of people who are not transgender.

This is also why people object to this statement on analytic grounds - disagreeing with the argument that transphobia hurts everyone is a critique of analysis. Importantly, it is not a dismissal of empirical evidence; we can see many direct real-world examples of cisgender people being targeted for transphobic abuse, such as cis people being attacked in bathrooms for “looking transgender.” A critique of the claim that transphobia hurts us all is a methodological critique, it is a critique of analytical framing; we are operating from the same set of social facts, but reaching different conclusions. The reason for this is because we are using different investigative and theoretical tools in our analysis. And these differences are not trivial; how we define the social phenomena under investigation directly informs how we understand the facts in front of us.

So first, we must settle the problem of definitions - what is transphobia? Simply defining it as a hatred of transgender people is insufficient for all parties. If it does indeed also hurt cis people, then this definition doesn’t do us much analytical good. Where do we go from here? Perhaps a better place to start is to investigate its origins - what assumptions does transphobia operate from? Where do those assumptions come from? This is where we start getting somewhere. Transphobia draws its core assumptions from cissexualism - the belief that there are two mutually-exclusive and irreconcilable sexes, sexes which are immutable and biologically hard-wired, meaning that it is a difference in human beings that exists independent of the social worlds that human beings build. This idea is bound up in many forms of power, one of which being patriarchy; yes indeed there are two sexes, and one of them is better than the other. And because sex is hard-wired, then patriarchy is likewise a simple fact of nature. These assumptions are also bound up in reproduction; one sex impregnates (this is the powerful sex) and one sex gets impregnated (this is the weak sex). These ideas and assumptions structure much of our social world, being embedded in many social, political, and economic institutions, from family to labour to dating to census records to political office, and so on. 

Transphobia is thus an output of these logics - if sex is biological, and sex determines your place in society, then attempting to change your sex means you are thwarting the natural hierarchy of human beings. You are either trying to rise above your station, or abandoning your post. Either option is grounds for punishment. Why would you go against nature? How dare you?

So, transphobia is a bigotry that comes from cissexualism. We could investigate further where cissexualism comes from (and indeed those investigations are taking place), but for our purposes we now have a much more analytically rich definition. Transphobia is a social technology of discipline; it performs a regulatory function for the continuation of cissexualism, much the same way that misogyny is a regulatory apparatus of patriarchy, and homophobia is a regulatory apparatus of heterosexuality. These bigotries perform a very ‘rational’ social function; they reproduce existing forms of power by policing their borders and brutalising anyone who does not behave in accordance with their logics.

We now return to the original question: does transphobia harm everyone? This question now feels methodologically inappropriate, because we are ignoring the role cissexualism plays in producing transphobia. This is as absurd as describing homophobia without mentioning heterosexuality. The question should instead be: does cissexualism harm everyone? The answer of course is yes - we can see how cissexualism produces the social conditions for people to assault someone in a public bathroom for “looking transgender,” for an adult to force a child to report what their genitals ‘really look like’ so they can continue playing soccer, and for a billionaire to spend the latter half of her life dumping money and resources into political legislation that makes it more difficult to, among other things, correct administrative mistakes on your birth certificate. 

But because we are now talking about cissexualism, it is much easier for us to see how its violence is differentially applied across groups. Cisgender people can point to their cisgenderism as grounds for being exempt from transphobia - “don’t target me, I haven’t done anything wrong! I’m following the rules!” Their societal position as cisgender allows them to argue that they are illegitimate targets, that they are being unfairly treated. This animated much of the surrounding discourse around Imane Khelif - I can’t believe JKR is targeting a real woman! Can’t you tell she’s biologically female? Here’s her birth certificate to prove it, and anyway, don’t you know it’s illegal to be transgender where she lives? 

This is a defence that transgender people cannot mount for ourselves - we are by definition fraudsters in the cissexual regime of gender, we are abandoning our stations, we are perverting nature. And in this difference we come to see that it is not transphobia that harms us all, but cissexualism; we are all subject to scrutiny under cissexual surveillance, but cis people can generally pass the test. Transgender people cannot. 

This distinction also has implications for the second sequence in this investigative chain: what do we do about transphobia? Again we see that this call to action is methodologically inappropriate - you cannot “deal with” transphobia in society while leaving the cissexualist structure that produces it intact, in the same way that getting rid of misogyny without first getting rid of patriarchy is impossible. You cannot get rid of an output without destroying the machine that produces those outputs. This is also where many cis people, even those who count themselves as trans allies, become uncomfortable; abandoning the idea of a metaphysical property of being, hard-encoded into their DNA, means abandoning a whole host of other ideas about identity, about social organisation, about institutional operations. Even minor reformist calls by transgender people, such as removing sex markers on birth certificates (which determine your ability to access all kinds of administrative and civil services), is met with intense hostility by cissexuals - how will we run our hospitals, how will we raise our children, how will we track population data, how will we do anything without sex markers? You people are insane! Look how you deny reality! What is wrong with you freaks? Why can’t you just be happy with the way you were born? And on and on, ironically refusing to concede the fact that states, hospitals, child care, and census data are not natural facts of the world and can be changed. Because if those things can be changed, perhaps sex is not this monumental biological destiny after all!

“Transphobia hurts us all” is an analytical statement that advances a set of cissexual assumptions about the world, and as a consequence, it is severely limited in its value for advancing a moral imperative about how to resolve the problem of transphobia. It is not a neutral statement, nor is one that is helplessly subservient to “the hard facts.” We know those facts - describing them is the role of the social scientist. Whether you are in a laboratory or on the street, you are doing social science by analysing social phenomena. And when you say transphobia hurts everyone, you are doing a poor job of it

[afloweroutofstone]

Hiii, I am curious to learn more about your personal politics. Are u socialist of democractic socialist? Do you reject Marxism–Leninism? Are you more of a reformist of revolutionary?

Over time I've moved away from talking about my own ideology on here for a variety of reasons (I have lots of disparate influences and there's no label I 100% identify with, everyone loves to start heated fights on here, it seemed a bit self-absorbed, etc.) But considering that it has been years since I've really made any attempt at laying out what my viewpoint is, it might make sense to do so again.

There are three terms you could fairly use to describe my views:

I am a democratic socialist because I think that the people should be able to collectively decide upon their shared fate, and that democracy is superior to both political dictatorship and capitalist oligarchy. (See Eugene Debs, Michael Harrington, etc.)

I am a liberal socialist because I believe that socialism is the logical extension of historical liberalism as an attempt at liberating people from existing hierarchies and authoritarianism. (See Carlo Rosselli, John Rawls, etc.)

I am a social democrat because I believe that the potential for successfully achieving transformative change through aggressive action within the presently existing system is drastically larger than the potential for a successful proletarian revolution, mass insurrection, etc., etc. (See Eduard Bernstein, Jean Jaurès, etc.)

This all puts me very firmly in the reformist camp of the reform vs. revolution debate. I would not consider myself a Marxist, although there are ways in which Marx's thought has influenced my own both directly and through the thought of others in the broader Marxist tradition.

In further detail:

I am a market socialist who believes in a large welfare state that provides for everyone's basic needs from cradle to grave; workplace democracy through widespread cooperatives and strong labor unions; progressive reforms to redistribute wealth more evenly; full employment; the reorganization of the global economy to eliminate present injustices; the diminishment of corporate power; strategic public ownership in certain key sectors; and the provision of opportunities for everyone to live their lives in the way that they desire.

I am a democrat who believes in an equal opportunity for everyone to influence public policy, including the periodic chance for the people to freely select their own leadership from amongst a variety of different choices, without unfair restrictions, corrupt financing by the wealthy, domination of the process by a political elite, or external interventions.

I am an anti-militarist opposed to armed conflict in any and every scenario where it can be avoided; an anti-imperialist opposed to the abuses of all powerful governments which take advantage of others and impose their will upon them; and an internationalist who believes in a democratic system of multilateral diplomacy and equitable exchange in which all countries can resolve their differences peacefully and cooperate for the common good.

I am a progressive who believes in an egalitarian culture that values every single person equally, abolishes rigid social hierarchies like patriarchy and white supremacy, welcomes immigrants, embraces secularism to separate church from state, and provides for the full rights and liberties of all peoples.

I am a civil libertarian who believes in the universal right of all people to fundamental liberties (speech, belief, protest, press, association, etc.) and protections from authoritarianism (privacy, government transparency, a fair legal system, limits to detention, humane treatment of prisoners, rule of law, anti-discrimination policies, demilitarized state security forces, etc.)

I am an environmentalist who believes in a just transition that ends our dependence on fossil fuels and establishes a green economy that minimizes (and even reverses) the damage of climate change; ensures clean air, water, and land; preserves natural ecosystems; and provides for everyone's needs in a sustainable fashion.

[psychotrenny]

The core premise of Democratic Socialism, that Capitalism can peacefully transition to Socialism through Liberal Democratic procedure, is an error that can only result from the most blatant revisionism. Because if you coherently apply Class-based analysis to the situation it's pretty obvious that the Bourgeoisie state would not passively allow its own procedures to decisively act against its class interests. Both in theory and in practice (i.e. the rise of Fascism in 20th century Europe) the Bourgeoisie are more than happy to drop even the pretenses of Liberal Democracy if they ever pose a serious threat to Bourgeoisie power. The State does not exist as an entity on its own disconnected from broader society; it is fundamentally an expression of and tool to reinforce the power of the dominant classes. It might be possible to, at least temporarily, turn those tools against them but the results that subversion can achieve are limited on a structural level.

Like Democratic Socialism only works if you adopt a fundamentally Liberal mindset, that sees social structures as determined entirely by metaphysical ideas. In this way, political positions are evaluated in terms of the abstract values they hold rather than the material interests they advance. "Democracy supporters would never oppose the results a free and fair election; that would go against their ideals". But as soon as you start looking through the lens of class analysis it becomes pretty clear that Liberal Democratic elections are just a means to an end, and an easily discarded means at that. Despite all the fuss they like to make about democracy, the fundamental fact is that the Bourgeoisie class were not voted into power and so cannot be voted out. Democracy under a DOTB is fundamentally a game where the Bourgeoisie set the rules and are free to ignore the results; you can't beat them at it no matter how good you play

[lilithlounge]

Vertex in Synastry: Fated Encounters & Karmic Connections

Ko-fi or Buy Me A Coffee for a personalized Synastry Analysis!

In astrology, the Vertex is often called the "fated point" of the natal chart. It’s associated with destined meetings, pivotal relationships, and life changing moments that seem to happen when we least expect them. When someone’s personal planet or angle touches your Vertex in synastry, it can mark a connection that feels almost written in the stars but these encounters aren’t always easy or simple.

I’ve personally experienced this in my current relationship. My partner’s Vertex falls in my 11th house, and my Vertex is in his 2nd house. From the very beginning, our meeting felt oddly serendipitous like we were pulled into each other’s lives for a reason bigger than either of us could explain. Over time, I noticed how he helped me dream bigger about my future and the people that surrounds me (classic 11th house themes), while I encouraged him to rethink his values and relationship with stability (very 2nd house). These are the kinds of shifts the Vertex often signals in synastry.

The Vertex becomes a major player when another person’s:

1-Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, or Mars conjuncts or opposes it.

2-Ascendant, Descendant, Midheaven or IC aligns with it.

3-Outer planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto aspect it, which can indicate deeper karmic lessons.

Themes You Might Notice in Vertex Synastry

Fated Meetings: there’s an immediate feeling that this encounter was meant to happen.

Recognition: even if you've just met, there’s a strange familiarity between you.

Turning Points: your life might shift course after meeting this person.

Unpredictability: the timing and circumstances of the meeting can feel completely out of your control.

Vertex Overlays by House

1st house The Vertex person feels changed just by knowing the planet person. Their sense of self is challenged, expanded or reborn through the relationship.

2nd house Hi. Themes of security, self worth and material life come to the forefront. Relationships here can trigger shifts in finances or fundamental values.

3rd house The connection sparks new ways of thinking and communicating. It’s often marked by constant conversations, ideas and mental stimulation.

4th house A sense of "coming home" emotionally, often tapping into family patterns or healing deep inner wounds. Ancestral themes.

5th house Passionate, playful and often very creative. Sometimes it brings children or a renewed sense of joy and self expression.

6th house The relationship reshapes everyday life, work habits or health routines. It often introduces themes of service, healing or practical support.

7th house One of the strongest Vertex placements for relationships. The other person feels like a natural partner or a mirror showing you your relationship patterns.

8th house Profound change. These relationships are often deeply intimate and may touch on shared resources, we are talking Pluto themes, so deep fears or rebirth through crisis.

9th house The connection challenges and broadens your worldview. It spark spiritual growth, education or even long distance journeys.

10th house Your public life or career can be reshaped by this connection. He/She might push you toward greater visibility, success or a new professional path.

11th house Hi again. A fated friendship or shared mission is often at the heart of this connection. You might come together to build something larger than yourselves.

12th house It can feel mystical, otherworldly and honestly sometimes confusing. Themes of sacrifice, healing and past life connections are common.

So, is it a Soulmate indicator?

The Vertex points to important connections but not all of them are meant to last forever. Some people come into our lives to wake us the fuck up, push us toward our purpose or help us close a karmic chapter/cycle.

When there’s mutual Vertex activation and especially if it’s supported by Venus, Moon or North Node aspects it can suggest a deep soulmate bond that leaves a lasting imprint on your life, whether or not it lasts "forever" in the traditional sense….

[absolutechaosss]

Something that bothers me greatly with the analysis I've seen of Laios and Toshiro's argument is people will try to say it's a great example of when neurodivergent people come up against the unspoken standards of neurotypical people. First of all, there are plenty of textual moments with Toshiro that do read as neurodivergent to me and it cheapens his character to put him in that role so he seems more antagonistic. But more importantly it just fundamentally seems to miss the fact that neurodivergent people don't just fail to understand neurotypical people, but each other, all of the time. We often have competing needs and opposing difficulties with social situations. Neurodivergent people don't inherently understand each other, even if it can be easier. It's very common for the situation between Laios and Toshiro to happen. It's frustrating to not be told what you should be doing in a social situation and invest yourself in a friendship that isn't mutual. But it's equally neurodivergent to struggle to communicate discomfort and set up boundaries. I know I've personally been in plenty of situations where anxiety and fear of rejection have made me stay silent even if the person I'm speaking to would have appreciated being told what's wrong. Toshiro and Laios aren't clashing because one is neurotypical, but because they have clashing values and needs.

[writing-with-sophia]

How to develop the enemies to lovers trope effectively

I wonder why I didn't write this post sooner. The enemies to lovers trope is so fascinating! I think I love it from now!

Establish Strong Conflict: Create a compelling and believable conflict between the characters that sets them up as enemies. This conflict can be based on opposing goals, ideologies, or personal histories. The more intense and fundamental the conflict, the more satisfying the resolution will be.

Show Layers and Complexity: Develop multi-dimensional characters with depth and complexity. Avoid one-dimensional stereotypes and explore the reasons behind their animosity. Give each character strengths, vulnerabilities, and compelling motivations that contribute to their dynamic.

Gradual Shift in Dynamics: Allow the transition from enemies to lovers to happen gradually. Start by depicting intense clashes and heated interactions, gradually revealing glimpses of vulnerability or shared experiences that challenge their initial perceptions of each other. Show subtle shifts in their interactions and emotions over time.

Moments of Connection: Create opportunities for the characters to have genuine moments of connection or understanding, even amidst their conflicts. These moments can be brief and subtle, such as a shared joke or a moment of empathy. These small sparks of connection build the foundation for their evolving relationship.

Forced Proximity or Collaboration: Place the characters in situations that force them to spend time together or collaborate on a common goal. This could be a mission, a project, or a circumstance that necessitates their cooperation. Develop shared goals or a common cause that forces the characters to work together despite their differences. As they face obstacles and make sacrifices for the greater good, their bond strengthens, blurring the lines between enemies and allies. Proximity also allows them to see beyond their initial prejudices and discover shared values or unexpected qualities in each other.

Natural Development of Chemistry: Develop a slow burn in the characters' romantic feelings. Craft witty and engaging dialogue between the characters. Use banter, verbal sparring, and playful teasing to create chemistry and showcase their evolving relationship. Allow their emotions to evolve naturally. The chemistry between them should build gradually, fueled by their changing perceptions and shared experiences.

Internal Conflict: Explore the characters' internal conflict as they navigate their shifting feelings. They may struggle with their attraction, question their loyalties, or wrestle with the fear of vulnerability. Internal conflicts add depth to their journey and make the resolution more satisfying.

Growth and Change: Show personal growth and development in both characters as they navigate their shifting relationship. They should evolve beyond their initial roles as enemies, confronting their flaws, and challenging their beliefs. This growth is crucial for a believable and satisfying transition from enemies to lovers.

Mutual Influence: Demonstrate how the characters influence each other positively. Through their interactions, they should inspire growth, self-reflection, and change. Each character should have a transformative impact on the other.

Authentic Resolution: Ensure that the resolution of their conflict feels authentic and earned. The characters should confront and address the issues that initially made them enemies, finding common ground and genuine understanding. Their resolution should be based on mutual respect, trust, and a genuine emotional connection.

Vulnerability and Emotional Depth: Explore the characters' vulnerabilities and emotional depth as their relationship evolves. Allow them to gradually open up to each other, sharing their fears, dreams, and past traumas. This vulnerability creates an emotional bond and deepens their connection.

Conflicting Loyalties: Introduce conflicts of loyalty that challenge the characters' evolving relationship. They may have allegiances to different groups or individuals that complicate their feelings. This internal struggle adds complexity and raises the stakes for their choices.

Remember, the enemies to lovers trope is most effective when it is supported by strong character development, realistic conflicts, and a gradual evolution of emotions. And don't forget to maintain a balance between conflict and romance, allowing the characters to evolve while staying true to their unique personalities and circumstances.

If you want to read more posts about writing, please click here and give me a follow!

[dingodad]

Do you ever think about how Homestuck connects male homosexuality to misogyny? I think this relates to how Homestuck treats gender as a whole but I haven't connected the dots yet. What do you think?

homestuck absolutely plays with the classical tradition of Platonic homosexuality wherein women are always secondary to relationships between men. (Dirk's fascination with classical philosophy even comes close to making the allusion explicit.) one could - and indeed some have - comment on the negative way this reflects on homestuck's gay characters overall; but in the interest of fairness, it's not like homestuck is necessarily bloated with heterosexual guys who have a lot of respect for women, either. because like you say the comic's approach to sexuality goes hand in hand with the class-based approach to gender i refer to in my terezi post; we should not think of the characters' sexualities thru the lens of identity politics but rather as a relationship to power dynamics.

as the cherubs so often are, Caliborn is this concept distilled to its most overt and easily identifiable form. because he comes from a race which is by its fundamental nature heterosexual; even subtracting our own (or Aranea's) preconceptions about maleness and femaleness, the entire mythological purpose of the cherubs is steeped in this sexual struggle between two opposing cosmic forces. but we also understand that, even though cherubs need to form heterosexual couplings to procreate, cherub women and men don't actually like each other - they approach each other with hatred and animosity justified as "black romance". and this is clearly reflected in Caliborn's own behaviour: he's ready and eager to treat women as sex objects (or at least, to weaponise sex in aim of objectifying them), but he's clearly not someone who 'likes women'. Caliborn is gay! all of the relationships he assigns any value to are with other men! it's the same logic by which Scratch can sincerely claim to be "asexual" in the face of accusations of grooming - the presence or absence of sex in the relationship ultimately is not relevant. only power is.

it spawned a little bit of controversy in the group chat when I similarly tried to assert that Equius is a "gay" character. he pursues women sexually, yes - but his whole relationship to women is tied up in this complex of genderacial superiority, and with his final breath he proves that his life's purpose is really in service of upholding the power of the men above him. his love for men comes before his like for women, always.

beautifulyounglady and Marilyn Frye will always have put it best, though:

Choosing the boys over a woman is so gay that even real homosexuals don't do that shit. Straight men are in the true cult of the cock, gay men are just normal men that have sex with men.

"To say that straight men are heterosexual is only to say that they engage in sex (fucking exclusively with the other sex, i.e., women). All or almost all of that which pertains to love, most straight men reserve exclusively for other men. [...] Heterosexual male culture is homoerotic; it is man-loving." --Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality, pages 134-135

POST IS LONG and my response to the next part of the ask about gamzee is more speculative so i'm putting it under here 👇

Gamzee absolutely fits into the established mould - for all his characteristic objectification of women, he rarely if ever seems to show them any affection. that being said, I don't know if he's inversely "man-loving" enough to be identified as homosexual in the same way Equius or Caliborn are? I suppose there are a couple of rare examples of male affection from Gamzee - toward Karkat as a moirail, or Tavros as a severed head - but even these are characterised by exercises of power... my instinct is to compare him to Scratch in this respect: sex is within his arsenal of power plays, but submission isn't in the same way it is for Equius or even for Caliborn (who frequently fixates on the men prophesied to usurp him in battle), because it's only ever with the aim of elevating himself.

which I suppose is his position as the highest echelon of Alternian masculinity - a true alpha male, as compared to the chronically beta Equius. he - or his caste - is after all the very ideal which the troll patriarchy seeks to uphold; when even other men are beneath him, "man-loving" becomes synonymous with elevating himself. to this end, it might not even matter to Gamzee whether Terezi is a boy or a girl - the way it matters to other misogynic forces like Eridan - because male-servant and female-servant are relationally the same to him? if we wanted to get really in the weeds analysing the Gamzee-Terezi relationship psychosexually, it could be that positioning her as masculine legislacerator, as his ancestor did to Latula, is part of the power-play.

his later relationship with Jane, who similarly exerts masculine authority, could be taken as illustrative of this same tendency - on the complete other hand, the parent-play at work in their relationship suggests the contrary? having never had someone "above him" (a lusus OR an immediate superior on the genderacial spectrum), for Gamzee to position a lover as a mother figure is ALSO a kind of power-play.

THE NUANCES OF THE CLOWN MIND TRULY BOGGLE

[casscainmainly]

I think I know why, but could you share your thoughts on why Duke would hate Kate?

My thoughts aren't as clear-cut as usual on this subject tbh, and in canon Duke gets along fine enough with Kate, so this is very much just me! The biggest obstacle is Kate's military background - though not a cop, she's authority-adjacent, and a LARGE part of her story is about the military and her belief in the code. Kate frames her superheroics through the idea of military:

Detective Comics #860

This is different from, say, Dick, who although he was briefly a cop, does not funnel his philosophy through a cop lens. But for Kate, the military is what she grew up in, what she aspired to be - the Bat symbol is a way for her to serve. There is no untangling Kate from her belief in the U.S military and authority in general; in Detective Comics (2016), for example, she is very much The Leader of the team. This kind of authority (and Kate's belief in it) is antithetical to Duke's ideals, and I do not believe they'd work well together.

Of course the events of Detective Comics (2016) would drive a wedge between Kate + Duke too. When Kate kills Basil (to protect Cass and the city), Luke sides with Kate while Cass sides with Bruce against them. Based purely on who's on each side, Duke would side against Kate; based on his own philosophy, I think he'd see the killing as militaristic and, well, cop-like. Duke doesn't have the depth of anti-killing code that Bruce and Cass do, but he's very much pro-rehabilitation, and I do think police violence and the consequences of anti-Blackness underlie his own aversion to killing.

But Duke and Kate also have lots in common! Honesty is a huge part of their characters - it's what gets Kate kicked out of the military, because she refuses to compromise on her identity. This is something Duke would respect a lot! Kate, in turn, would like Duke's straightforwardness. They both highly value family, too. But I don't think these similarities would negate how fundamentally opposed their codes and upbringings are.

Actually their interaction in Detective Comics #952 is very fun:

"You're telling me" is a peak Duke line omg. But anyway, even from this short interaction there's some tension here: Kate in the first panel indicates that the cops tonight are different from usual, and Duke rebuffs that immediately; then in the next one Kate is the one rebuffing Duke. They are on different wavelengths, not outright hating each other but not fully liking each other either. It's different from normal Duke haterisms because I think there's less of a chance Duke & Kate would ever see eye to eye.

Caveat that I'm nowhere near well-read on Kate so this might all be wrong, but it's certainly an interesting relationship to think about! And also read Batwoman: Elegy!!

[pocketgalaxies]

"do you need help doing something dishonest?" "yes." i love that she just admits it and lets him do his thing. it is so interesting to me that this is a story about people but it's specifically a story about people who are confined through their own values and personhoods to individual domains. trist cannot break into this hospital because she can't bring herself to do a dishonest thing. but she understands that it is fundamentally in milo's wheelhouse, and she understands that that wheelhouse, although diametrically opposed to hers, is equally useful and important in the right circumstances. this is a family that has fought a civil war for centuries but it is also a family that understands they cannot lose each other, for losing any one of them will be detrimental to the holistically complex mortal experience