#they have lacked morals multiple times! they have also lacked ideals!

[soullessjack]

i love the discourse about whether or not dean and sam are antiheroes. babygirl two of their close friends and surrogate family members are the Demon King of Hell who canonically alluded to murdering infants once, and his abusive witch mother who still violently murders her own enemies after several mini-redemption arcs. half of the series’ conflicts are their fault because they were either too stupid to realize what they were doing, too selfish to stop doing it because it had some personal benefit that outweighed the damage it would cause, or they just didn’t think another option was out there.

and yea, even though most of their Big Bad arcs were a product of the… [title card]…supernatural; possession, curses, soullessness, eldritch influences, whatever else…it’s not like they were completely good people without those factors. dean was a deeply sadistic torturer in hell for no other reason than being in pain and wanting to inflict that pain onto others. Cas created first-generational trauma with the family of his vessel, was briefly both a cannibal and a megalomaniacal zealot who tried to take over heaven and earth. sam believes all incarcerated people are evil and deserve to be in the system (lol) murdered his grandfather and allowed a child to be tortured (by Cas).

not even going into the numerous apocalypses they were all responsible in, or the amount of innocent people they all collectively murdered in cold blood because they stopped giving a shit about saving vessels after like season 2. if even that. even jack has a fair amount of murder and torture and wrongfully harming innocents under his belt and he hasn’t hit chronological double digits yet. bonus mention for the fact that across multiple perspectives, these guys are either regarded as psychopathic serial killers, psychopathic hunters, or Those Guys Who Constantly Fuck Up Peoples Lives And Endanger Everyone Around Them.

like, an antihero by the dictionary definition is “a main character in a narrative (in literature, film, TV, etc.) who may lack some conventional heroic qualities and attributes, such as idealism, and morality,” — and, (cont’d) — “Although antiheroes may sometimes perform actions that most of the audience considers morally correct, their reasons for doing so may not align with the audience's morality.”

that’s literally a grocery list for them to scratch off girl. come on now.

[alphajocklover]

I really want a hot boyfriend. does instajock always make you straight or can I use it on a guy to make him more my type? (and maybe also make me more his type)

So, I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding, one that I want to clear up. While I do my best to report on different transformation methods, I can’t include every detail about every one of them. My posts are relatively short and don’t always cover everything, because if I did it would take forever. The lack of details, plus some distracting pictures, leads to a lot of people getting details mixed up or getting confused. It’s happened before, and I think it’s what is happening here. I say this because as far as I can remember I have never mentioned anything about InstaJock turning someone straight.

InstaJock can change a person's sexuality, theoretically, through the settings and details section that I've mentioned in previous posts. The thing is, it normally doesn’t. Instajock changes its users personality, their body, and their mind, but for some reason their sexuality will usually stay the same. They’ll become more openly sexual, and also often very flirtatious to fit their new jock persona, but their sexual identity doesn’t change. Even when their sexuality does change it usually turns them gay, not straight.  For some reason the app's already confusing setting page is set up so it's a lot easier to set your sexuality to gay then to straight. My best guess for why the app is set up that way is that the creator, or creators, are gay themselves and have a thing for jocks. I mean, you don’t make a seemingly impossible app that changes people into dumb jocks if you don’t have some sort of kink for it.. So, If you use the app on someone who's already gay you’ve probably got nothing to worry about. Chances are they’ll stay gay, unless they happen to have a huge conversion kink and are really good with computers. Anyways, now that we’ve cleared up that issue let's get into the specifics of your issue. 

Changing someone's personality and identity so that they’ll be your ideal boyfriend is… pretty questionable, if I’m being honest. But so is much of what happens in the world of transformations, so I’ll focus on the ‘how to’ rather than the morals. Your first problem is one I’ve brought up before: You can only give someone the app if you already have the app. Only an already transformed Jock can invite another person to InstaJock. You’d only be able to transform him,but only if you are changed yourself. I know you said you’d be with being changed, but once you become a jock figuring out the app will be much harder, so you might not end up his type, or he might not end up yours. I think your best bet would be to convince a jock to change both of you. InstaJock users can send out multiple invites at once, so it would be easy even for him. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if he makes a dumb mistake. He is a jock afterall.

I do hope this works out for you. Not because I approve of what you’re doing, but because there are a lot of ways this could go wrong. One of you could have your sexuality changed when you get transformed, the jock who changes you both might make you brothers instead of boyfriends, or you and he could just not click. Just because someones your type doesn’t mean they’re the right person for you. Even if you and your target don’t end up together, I think you will have a much easier time getting a boyfriend after you use InstaJock. I hate to be shallow, but dating is usually easier when you have a 6 pack and huge pecs.

[evillex11]

tldr: geto ain't all that /j. he (may) actually never had his shit straight, gathered, and set as many thought he did (incl gojo). u can skip to the conclusion cuz this is way 2 long

i have the idea of geto being set on his goals drilled into my head so much that I forget how vulnerable he really is. he isn't really as “i've already decided and I won't stop at anything to pursue it” as I remember him to be 

like, I already know that geto's goals aren't solely for his personal gain or interests, he's not as selfish/cold-hearted as he might come off. he wanted to create a world where it's easier to live as sorcerers .... and it's not just bc he was almost killed by a nonsorcerer (toji) for a greedy reason and doesn't want it to happen to him again ... but he also had his friends and colleagues in mind—he doesn't want to see another innocent kid who had a shot at living the way she desired be killed again, he doesn't want gojo to be a tool anymore, he doesn't want to have piles of other sorcerers’ (his colleagues!!) bodies to be at the end. and mind you, when he decided to abandon everything he had, he was a teenager that saw too much as was spiraling out of control. he wasn't fully mature when he made his decision 

and if u maybe squint, u can see hints of regret in his decision... maybe uncertainty or just not wanting to pursue it as much as we're all led to believe. he was away for 10 years... that's a lot of time, what exactly did he do? he was running a cult and gathering curses for his grand plan of ridding the world of nonsorcerers. but in those years, he never posed any serious threat to the jujutsu world or nonsorcerers despite his already powerful technique ,, not until his declaration of war at least. but even then, it wasn't even like he was guaranteed to win bc of how strong he's gotten... he declared that war knowing he had a good chance of losing, it was half-assed (lack of a better term). and when he did lose, he didn't bother to run away. he let gojo get to him, he let himself to die in his hands

all that to say, maybe geto didn't know what he was doing exactly—he wasn't as sure about his end goal, where he was going exactly, how he was going to do it and whatnot. it feels like he just decided on something without as much thought as he should've and is bound to that decision and felt inclined to just... keep going. dare I say, the whole thing was to give himself a new purpose. your whole life being you're a tool, a thing with an innate purpose to fulfil, isn't very pleasant to realize isn't it? (would like to add: purpose/value of life is explored multiple times in jjk). so maybe he wanted to take control of his life back by steering his goal from the one instilled to him as a sorcerer to one that he decided for himself. 

his lack of actual, impactful violence is telling of this. he was shaken up by the events that stacked onto him that it caused a decision to be made when it's heaviness fell on him. he had a crisis n felt like he needed to get a hold of himself, his ideals/morals were slipping away and he needed to grasp it again, somehow. it's not actually as grounded as I remember, it's not as set in his mind as we think. it seems otherwise by the way he seems accustomed to his new life, how untroubled he looks when we see him in jjk0, how fulfilled he is with how it's going. he has new acquaintances, a family, a goal which he won't stop at anything to reach. but we dont see what's behind that... we don't see how he feels through all this, how relieved he might've been to have gojo kill him finally. 

sorry for being so redundant lol I'm blabbering. but basically, geto may seem like he laid a clear path towards a goal bc of how confident he left everything the day of the KFC breakup, but he's actually unstable and unsure as hell. he stalled a LOT on doing actual impact and taking BIG steps to reach his goal. deep inside, he actually doesn't wanna go down that path, he just said he will to have a hold of himself, his ideals, his purpose.

but what do I know? I haven't rewatched jjk0 yet and I'm not done rereading the entire manga so… I don't trust my memory that much. might've remembered some things wrong or forgot a detail so ..  feel free to point that out !!! as always, discussion is always appreciated :3

also this makes me a bit happy cuz now my “the deal” by mitski x geto suguru vision is now perfect<3 I'm gonna have fun making that animatic!!!! in my head almost each line fits him now, I'm so happy. I love u geto I love u mitski. I do hope I get to make that damn animatic. I'm telling you it's so geto-coded!!!

[im-a-chunky-potato]

ahaha okay so I have nothing better to do so I'll just say this:

THE PARTNERSHIP FOR ATUSHI AND AKUTAGAWA SHOULD NOT BE NAMED SHIN SOUKOKU

Is this controversial? Idk. But it really does irk me. And full disclosure this will all be just opinions and stuff so don't take anything too seriously!

So let's just start off with the origin of the name. Shin soukoku translates to new double black. This is referring to how they are meant to replace Dazai and Chuuya, the original double black, as the new strongest duo.

And Dazai has stated this was his plan all along. But does the world really need a new skk?

Yes, they were strong. Yes, they saved the world multiple times. But now there's the agency! Which is you know the group made to complete the 3 way plan Natsume made.

And its been made very clear that a plan like double black won't really work out long term... not that they're weak but they will not make it against groups like the doa or guild. They need others to make them their best and give them the most potential.

And even if they are necessary, it's possible akutagawa won't even be able to make it until he's needed! Dazai/Chuuya are only in their 20s and as far as we know they aren't going anywhere? They may live dangerous lives but it's not like they'll die anytime soon.

You could argue this is their insurance and yeah that makes sense but Akutagawa only has a few months to live at best! Don't forget he has the lung disease.

SOMEBODY ALSO NEEDS TO POINT OUT THAT THE NAME DOESNT EVEN FIT.

Im sorry- double black? Have you met atsushi before? That guy is white.

And I say that because undeniably his soul is light and pure. He has a wave of innocence around him and wants to save people, you know?

But seriously double black works for soukoku because of their past. As the Demon Prodigy and a God of the pm the name suits them. They are undeniably black in terms of nature and soul.

I guess this leads to my main point. Atsushi and Akutagawa are not chuuya and Dazai. They never will be and thats alright.

By calling them sskk, this implies they have to fill that role. They have to be everything their mentors were and more... but no! They're their own people with their own morals and ideals and htsgsgs

We can see this clearly! Atsushi lacks the same mindset as Dazai and Akutagawa may not have the same strengths and Chuuya but they still work together and are a capable duo! They are their own pairing that deserves their own name!

Sorry I don't mean to come off as harsh! But that's all, I just have strong emotions about this. I know people love to talk about generational stuff in bsd but not everything has to have a predecessor!

[vitos-ordination-song]

I’m trying to put into words why I feel so defensive over Thorfinn’s pacifism. Plenty of fans who like the non-violent direction still say things about it which make me cringe. Like “he’s gone too far with his beliefs” or “he needs to be realistic” or “he’ll have to figure out when violence is okay and when it isn’t.”

I have agreed with critiques of pacifism before. I don’t like it when people living privileged lives start to preach to oppressed groups, telling them not to fight for freedom. I don’t think moralizing is the right response to violence in general. Whether or not violence is “right” isn’t the question. We never know what’s right from wrong with certainty. The only thing we can do is look at the circumstances surrounding violence and decide how to proceed. I’m also not immune to enjoying, even celebrating, liberatory violence, which I believe exists.

However, in real life, what percentage of the time is violence positive in any way? For violence to be liberatory or justified, violence must already have been done. This non-justified, aggressive violence is far more common than violence done in self-defense, as not everyone has the ability to stand up for themselves. For the people who can fight back, being forced to commit violence is usually traumatizing. But in fiction, violence is more often portrayed in a positive light; heroes commit justified or “badass” violence, and those who act in self-defense come out on top. With Vinland Saga, Yukimura wanted to create one, just one story where violence isn’t justified, where the characters look for another way instead of making excuses.

Since Thorfinn is a former warrior who has no right to judge others, his character sidesteps being preachy. Additionally, his main foil is Canute, who uses violence to try to reach the same ends and is framed as understandable and pragmatic by the narrative. The work presents multiple perspectives on violence, enriching its themes, but I strongly believe that to the end, Thorfinn will never compromise his beliefs. Not everyone in the world has to believe the same way that he does, but it is right and good that he maintain his pacifism. Readers looking for complexity in a work often want characters to reach a middle ground, like this automatically means they’ve grown, but some of my favorite stories focus on protagonists who cling to ideals and resist change. Through being forced to test out their ideals in real life, they become wiser, better people, more able to live in accordance with their values. That is what I believe Yukimura is going for with Thorfinn’s character.

In my heart of hearts, I believe that Thorfinn is right. He’s never once said that violence is always wrong, only that it should be a last resort. He hasn’t killed anyone since his vow of non-violence, but he’s had to bust some heads. In a recent chapter, he said there’s no such thing as righteous violence; that’s not the same thing as necessary violence. He can do it—but he hates it. If you’ve ever felt a thrill of enjoyment in hurting someone, you know how seductive it is. Developing a disgust for violence is healthy antidote to this tendency.

Reading the Vinland arc, I fully agree with other readers that Thorfinn is naive. I just disagree on whether his pacifism is a part of that naivety. When I examine the story so far, Thorfinn’s failures as a leader mostly stem from his lack of experience. He spent 10 years of his life fighting, then he became a slave, and then he became a merchant. Technically, he has a lot more life experience than most readers. But there’s plenty of things he doesn’t understand because he’s never been exposed to them, like the settlers’ investment in private property. Further, Thorfinn has a kind of simplicity to him, maybe caused by his rebirth, the way he was emptied out and then filled back up. He’s surrounded himself with like-minded individuals, true and honest friends seeking the same goal as him. He also knows how to deal with enemies, warriors who make their intentions clear. Where Thorfinn has failed is in dealing with manipulators and opportunists, paranoids and backstabbers. He isn’t good at understanding people who might cooperate with him while harboring ill intentions or irrational beliefs. It was very naive of him, and the rest of his people, that they didn’t check new members for weapons before leaving for Vinland. I’ve felt from the start that Thorfinn shouldn’t have allowed Ivar and his group to come at all, and he hasn’t been able to handle them very well, not recognizing the threat they pose.

But I’ve seen people equate these failures with his pacifism. That’s where I disagree. If the settlement wasn’t peaceful, it would have already failed, like the one that Leif’s brother started. If Thorfinn wasn’t constantly reigning in the violence of others and trying to communicate peaceful intentions to the natives, war would have broken out a long time ago. It is a simple fact that if you approach people with mistrust, superiority, and violence, you will create an enemy, while if you approach them with openness, humility, and generosity, you will create a friend. It’s interesting how quickly people jump to calling pacifism unrealistic or immature, when violence is usually the true example of those things.

Regardless of whether Thorfinn is right or wrong, naive or wise, it is possible that Vinland will fail. He may not be able to hold it together. But is this because of his non-violent ways? After all, Canute’s violence will ultimately fail as well—historically, his stable kingdom collapsed after his death. Vinland Saga portrays human beings who long for something better while remaining trapped in their failures and misfortunes. Yet the story still praises the efforts of those who try. Following their ideals, foolish as they may be, they attempt to shape the world. This theme is introduced all the way at the beginning with Thors, hurting his family’s livelihood to save a dying slave. There is a nobility and strength in continuing to pursue what you believe is right, regardless of the outcome. That is the only way for us to live fulfilled lives.

[irradiate-space]

Builders' Tea

for reasons, I occasionally receive updates from an Englishman who is restoring a Scottish castle:

Admonition the Fifty-first: A Cup of Tea is Essential to Keep the Team Happy

If you have self-built or self-restored or even commissioned any significant building work here in the UK, you will know the importance of builders’ tea (BT). Not only that everyone on site drinks at least a dozen cups a day, but that you have to make a good mug to ensure workforce morale.

It helps too if you smoke.

Or did.

Or at least can provide matches.

Smoking or possibly vaping (though I have no experience of the latter) has been an integral part of the tea taste experience for years and shouldn’t be discounted lightly in the building site experience of tea drinking. The cloying sweetness of a good BT can be cut through by a drag of Golden Virginia or similar. Prefabs are, in my view, too polluted with additives – like salt petre – oh – and filter. This is not to say a fag is necessary, or even desirable, its just that for historical purposes, one needs to see that a cigarette until recently has been a virtually compulsory condiment.

A big Newfoundland is helpful too – not as a condiment obviously, but to finish discarded mugs left on the floor, ensuring that next tea-break is presented with a “sparkling” set of crockery.

The builders’ tea which would achieve the equivalent of three Michelin stars for the maker takes practice and an ability to distinguish in microseconds between multiple tea shaded pantones as well as the respective mash- and sledge- hammers of sweetness.

Critical BT elements are:

One: a big mug. Preferably with a sweary joke on the outside, or for a fuller flavour, inside on the bottom as well. It needs to be a big receptacle for the purposes of ensuring adequate hydration in the squad member, but also to retain tea-heat to the bottom of the vessel – this is especially important for the self-styled raconteur of the group, who will, it is true, spend more time gassing than drinking, smoking, laughing or farting, but will still insist on a properly hot cup of char to the end of the mug and / or break. Two: boiling water. Not for the purposes of flavour as refined tea-baggers would have it, but so the tea remains hot for as long as possible, particularly after the violent pressing – (3) below – and multiple silver spoons – (4) below. Three: Violent pressing (VP). For a deep mahogany colour, despite full-fat milk and below-mentioned epic quantities of refined Tate&Lyle. VP is achieved with plenty of greased elbow and an over-large teaspoon (otherwise the already heroic number of four teaspoons of sugar becomes a teeth-crackingly legendary seven). The deep colour of a good builders’ tea will visually presage the hot, sweet assault when you drink it. Four: 1 bag of Tate&Lyle Silver Spoon a day. To sweeten and render the correct stiff tea-texture, in which teaspoon stands momentarily. The legend of the permanently upright utensil is an overstatement. What you need to see as you lift your hand from the spoon is a momentary hesitation, and then a smooth fall in an arc centred on the tip of the spoon sitting on the bottom of the mug. If either the spoon tip slips to the side of the mug or, the fall is as sudden as you’d expect in water or, if the jangle of the spoon hitting the side of the mug speaks to a jostling, and a multiple impact, and therefore a lack of meniscal tension in the liquid – well, then, I am afraid you will have failed.

Now you might ask, what of the actual ingredients? Well, bags are essential. You will not have time to muck about with loose tea, no matter how flavourful and subtle. As you will have gathered, subtlety will be entirely wasted. The jury is still out on round, square or triangles, and I think, is influenced by the fact that various brands have different technologies. For me its about the blend … And a good blend is essential. Yorkshire. Scottish. Cheap is ideal of course because the more dusting included with leaves the thicker the texture. Milk is important. Just on the turn can invoke disgust or, depending on the audience, reminiscence about growing up. Full fat is better – again thicker. Skimmed works, but its thinness mitigates against the overall effect. No, the lactal fizz behind your back teeth of a full fat or even, gold top, as lactose and sucrose interact is an essential part of the experience – although the richness of the gold top might just be too luxurious. Biscuits are the compulsory condiment. We began with variety boxes, roadtested all-comers then settled on Rich Tea, Gingernuts and Bourbons. The deciding factor was the performance of each having been dipped. All other things being equal, you are now ready to recruit your team and begin the restoration – in our case, the house, rather than the castle.

Isn't he wonderful?

[captain-astors]

1

2

4

9

12

for the tg head canons

Thank you! Why did I get so many 1's you all know my favorite critter is Furuta and I know most of you hate him (fairly) but I'll take it.

1. His whole thing is kind of just layering himself in caricatures full of the hypocrisy he finds so evident in those surrounding him while simultaneously mocking and irritating them despite how arguably he's exactly within the lines set for whatever position he's placed in. Hence the swing from compliant yet cowardly subordinate, to annoying, overconfident and toxically masculine V agent, and so on and so forth. That's a lot of words, allow me to summarize: Nimura's functionally intentionally ticking off everyone at once, but technically he's always the ideal person for whatever role it is. The Washuu King Kichimura is much the same because arguably he's the culmination of everything they wanted in a Bureau Director. He's commanding, intimidating, he's charismatic, he's terrifyingly efficient and if it was actually his intention I have no doubt he could've wiped ghouls off the face of Tokyo but it's not, and no one actually likes him because they're not supposed to. He plays the perfect role not because it's what he wants, but because that's how he shows how truly disgusting those people are. He's efficient but he completely lacks morals and boundaries, he's very masculine and commanding but effeminate and ridiculous in a conflict, he's intimidating but he's so evidently taking none of this seriously, dressing up in a ridiculous costume and calling it a party because really that's what the CCG does, it dresses up the atrocities so that no one has to feel uncomfortable about it. Kichimura dresses up the atrocities so that you feel uncomfortable about the present ones, and have to start thinking about the ones of the past- though it's kind of a thing that works only in retrospect because I imagine all the investigators were a little too focused on "Oh my god what is this guy doing" to realize it was exactly what they've been doing from the start cranked up to 100. All this to say it would be entirely in character of post-clown siege arc Nimura to wear heels and the added height would make a good distinction from the meek persona of Rank 1 Furuta. I REST MY CASE!

Also this is less of a headcanon and more of a thought which is why I'm sticking it here, but I find it hilarious that he's not actually that much taller than I. Can't even joke about biting his shins because I know multiple 14 year olds taller than this man. 2. You didn't specify a character so random person it is! Uta and Itori made use of Uta's kagune disguising ability to pretend to be a pair of famous food critics they ate once upon a time, and it started as a joke but they're in way too deep to back out now. They give the wildest reviews you've ever heard, but as long as they dodge around describing actual flavors and just talk about the feeling people eat their stupid fabrications up, and they find it hysterical. They've singlehandedly demolished the reputation of 3 perfectly respectable restaurants out of boredom and they don't even know what steak actually tastes like, they're beasts unleashed having the time of their lives. 4. Ship unspecified... Mutsukanae? Mutsukanae. Sometimes the two just collapse upon each other after a long day and wrap each other in a spiky, tangled mix of Bikaku and Rinkaku and pass out for an hour. They will not be moving, do not disturb them. 9. Probably just rampant projection but Seidou feel very ADHD ish to me. I have more thoughts on this but I'm too tired to explain it and I don't want to seem like I'm just slapping it on so ambiguous reasoning it is! 12. Kagune cloning and facial copying exists as a byproduct of extremely advanced aggressive mimicry (when a predator acts like the prey animal, or the prey animal's food source so as to catch them off guard) only certain ghouls are capable of the process by nature and they're considered powerful to a fault, however a large number of the already very small portion of ghoul capable of this will go their entire lives without knowing, because their parents were killed before they could be taught how to do so, and/or they simply don't have access to the RC needed to make a branching puppet and then separate it from their main body. If you manage to get yourself to that point in the first place however, (such as Uta) you're pretty much never going to have an issue reaching it again because one ghoul with that many RC cells in their system is formidable enough, but if you're your own hunting party have pity to the poor souls deemed dinner. But such a ghoul comes around so scarcely and leaves so few survivors that it's not even acknowledged by the CCG. Ghouls without this evolutionary advantage occasionally still practice a rudimentary form of it, so people are often cautioned against chasing after a child's silhouette in an alleyway if it looks a little awkward, as there's always a chance it's really a bikaku's tail or something.

[paperstorm]

I really appreciate all of the links and information in that post you reblogged about the Israeli prison/detainment policies/abuses (not sure the best wording for all of that horror tbh)… but the OP post of that talking about the condition of hostages vs prisoners released doesn’t make sense to me at all. Are they saying the hostages released are supposed to be some kind of reflection of being treated well during captivity? cause I’ve read about a hostage who was shot multiple times and needed surgery, another on the brink of death because of lack of medication, a 12 year old boy who said he was beat by residents, another child being forced to watch footage, etc. I don’t understand why we can’t acknowledge the absolute horrors Israel is committing while also not trying to turn Hamas into angelic freedom fighters with the purest of morals. Things like this make it really hard for me to reblog or share stuff on social media cause I can agree with 95% of the information but then I’ll realize “oh that link hidden in this post actually goes to an alt right neo nazi website” or “oh snuck in the middle of this really great article is the most glaring of antisemitic rhetoric”… anyway, I’m sorry for the rant here I’m just… exhausted. By the world and also sometimes by my fellow pro Palestinian advocates.

I am also exhausted by it sometimes, and not immune to getting swept up in the emotions of all of this as much as I'm trying to stay reasonable. I agree the way OP worded the original post was not ideal, if it had been just that without the longer and well-sourced reply I don't think I would have reblogged it. Because you're right, criticism of Israel can't devolve into acting like Hamas by default is an amazing upstanding moral organization. That's kindergarten nonsense, this need to have a well defined Good Guy and Bad Guy in every situation. Adults should be capable of more nuance than that, and it's really frustrating to see that so many aren't.

I think for me - because I don't know the intentions of that other person and can't speak for them - posts like that are not about saying 'wow look how wonderful Hamas is'. They are about the more zoomed-out task of challenging the Western/Imperial narrative that Israel isn't doing anything wrong. The 'right to defend itself' narrative, that is just blatant nonsense under international law. The narrative that when Hamas does something it's terrorism but when the state of Israel does the same thing (or, usually, a far worse version of the same thing), it's not. The narrative that Israel is the moral authority who is following international law to the best of their ability, is trying to minimize civilian casualties, is only going after Hamas, has no choice but to bomb hospitals because there is no other way to protect their own citizens. It's not for me about saying that just because Israel is bad, Hamas is automatically good. It's about acknowledging that for literal decades, the broadcasters of the Western narrative (governments in America/Canada/UK, corporate owned media companies like CNN and MSNBC, etc) have been just blatantly lying, propagandizing, and selectively presenting partial or twisted information, all in service of empire and money and colonization and the enrichment of defense contractors. Joe Biden said, years ago, (paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact quote) "If Israel didn't exist, America would have to invent an Israel to protect it's interests in the region."

I don't know if that makes sense, I hope it does. For me it's about .. yes, push back against people who are trying to make this a binary situation in which Israel is Bad therefore Hamas is Good. But also seeing more value in a more zoomed out perspective that is meant to challenge extremely pervasive and genocidal Western narratives that have gone largely unchallenged for the entire history of the region. Sometimes you do get there by drawing equivalencies. By asking "wait a second, why does Israel have thousands of Palestinian hostages in the first place and why does no one in power seem to think that's a problem?"

[whatdoeschronicevenmean]

Reading Relationship Anarchy: Occupy Intimacy

“Today, there may be a clearer awareness that someone possessing another is not acceptable and that no one should ever exercise control over someone else’s behavior, much less within the framework of a social structure that automatically positions some individuals over others. Still, recognizing the existence of structures of control does not assure that I’m immune from the possibility of unconsciously adopting this thought, a notion that has surrounded us and shaped us our entire lives, time and time again.

I’ve been taught to believe that I’m entitled to give permission to those I have relationships with that are of a certain degree of intensity; to tell them (without any further consideration, per the privilege I’ve acquired) that something they do bothers me (even when I am not there); to hold them responsible for my happiness; to know the details of their private lives; to blame them for my insecurities, jealousy, lacks; to tolerate their emotions and actions (as long as they don’t affect me too much); to insist that they understand my needs without me having to express them (because they’re determined by the norm: they should know how to take care of a man/how to treat a woman); to get angry when something doesn’t meet my expectations...

Even though something so commonplace and intimate may seem far-removed from the social axes of power and oppression, there’s probably not another more singularly political act than trying to identify involuntary authoritarian actions, the nearly invisible components of the hegemonic instructions we’ve received. Any relationship model that aims to be ethical must have at its very core an analysis of power relations and proposals aimed at changing them.”

In my opinion, this text overly focuses on lifestyle politics and thinks it to be very radical, an argument I would disagree with), its analysis often muddy and taken-for-granted (makes very little effort to explain exactly how certain behaviors or thoughts are hegemonic), and assumes a general USAmerican/Western perspective (even in its understanding of power, relation, and most notably race/colonialism).

“One example that’s easy to understand is the role historically assigned to women. It’s no coincidence that, at different eras in each patriarchal society, the feminine traits that were considered natural have been the most useful for the prevailing system of social organization. The behaviors that the different gods have required in their moral mandates have also always been ideal for maintaining stable patriarchal models of power.”

Ahistorical, anthropologically defunct nonsense statement.

Good points Perez Cortes makes: 

“Just as how the solution to low wages is not another side hustle, the answer to the problem of the normative couple as a bubble that isolates and prevents relationships from forming a network of support, care, and mutual understanding is not the “freedom” to multiply the bubbles. Relationship anarchy does not explicitly define affective-sexual practices. It is therefore not a kind of ethical or consensual non-monogamy, a category that would encompass swinging (which consists of a couple’s joint sexual activities with other people or partners), open relationships (sex outside the couple is tolerated but never has an affective component), and polyamory, both hierarchical and non-hierarchical (acceptance of the possibility of multiple affective-sexual partners with some relationships being subordinate to others or all being on equal footing), to name a few.”

“ In other words, I suggest moving away from the “Relationship Anarchist” brand as a label for identity, just as the meaning of those two words, and which I’m dedicating all these pages to, suggests moving away from ail these brands with a seal of approval: “Couple,” “Boyfriends,” “Girlfriends,” “Friends,” “Partners,” “Lovers,” ‘MyGuy,” “MyGirl’... I propose understanding each other without coercing each other, taking care of each other without recipes, letting approaches like relationship anarchy show not how things should be, but how they could be. What could they be like if we could live according to near-utopian principles that, if we like, are there to seduce us. They will seduce us only if we let ourselves be seduced, only as much as we let ourselves be seduced, and only until when we stop letting ourselves be seduced.”

“ In going through the possible derivations of relationship escalator, I mentioned swingers, open couples, hierarchical polyamory, and nonhierarchical polyamory as forms of departure that aren’t actually so at heart. In the first three cases, there are, in order of appearance, models of open relationships that range from the purely sexual shared experience to non-shared ones and permitting each member of the relationship’s emotional involvement with other people. The rest of the path remains intact, allowing only partial access to the escalator. Those who are higher up are often seen as in their right to set limits on the height that those who have arrived later or stayed at lower echelons are allowed to reach. The concept of consensus, pact, or explicit agreement presiding over the ethical arguments in which these paradigms are supposedly founded only work from the top down. The agreements made at higher levels define the limitations established for the lower echelons.”

“ I specifically mean that, with the understanding that sincerity is not enough to guarantee a fair relationship, the complementary question is whether complete transparency is necessary or desirable in general. Again, in most of the non-monogamous approaches adopted as a basis in activist circles, conversations, books, articles, talks, and workshops, the “obligation” of maximum transparency in relationships is an almost inviolable axiom. It’s a requirement of any relationship that seeks to adhere to ethical non-monogamy, according to the most common standards. The basic questions on which the analysis was founded would once again be the same: does the normative obligation (poly-normative or non-monogamous-ethical-normative, in this case) to renounce personal privacy fit into a model of self-management for relationships? And can a possible vector of authority or power be derived from this demand?”

[starstrucksheeptrash]

I feel like there is a huge lack of literacy within this post that drowns out some valid criticisms that SHOULD be held up and talked about. And that is only going to cause more harm than good. Puritan media is genuinely going to be the death of us. To gloss over the genuinely disgusting act of using a holocaust survivors name the way the show did, and instead bring up numerous explainable situations that were written well if paid attention to-

Fallout is a series that has been constantly about morally gray characters and decisions. There has been racism and indoctrination since the very beginning. To say that the writing is inherently racist because Maximus and Thaddeus, who were raised in the BoS, have adopted those ideals makes no sense. To have a scene with just them, where there is no one else to argue against that, and to see that as a show encouraging it? When Lucy sees ghouls multiple times throughout her journey and only ever treats them with sympathy and kindness? The writers of the show expect you to be able to take in what is being said, to inspect it, see the holes within the characters' statements, and begin to make your own conclusions. To think critically. They shouldn't have to hold up a giant sign saying "racism BAD" because it is. That is not something they have any desire to argue with. If characters raised in a highly cult like environment are not allowed to display and voice the very ideals they were raised by, how are we supposed to know they have those ideals???

Lucy does not forgive Cooper. She doesn't like him. That is so clear throughout every single one of their interactions. But she was raised in a meritocracy. She has had specific ideals about treating others how you want to be treated (which she calls the Golden Rule) ingrained in her since she was a baby. That mentality is a pillar of her personality, one that is shown throughout the series to be tested and tested again and again. Her teaming up with Cooper at the end of the series? That's her knowing she needs to find her dad, acknowledging that Cooper is a highly skilled tracker looking for the same thing and tagging along. There is no forgiveness. She isn't even happy about it. She does it because she has to.

Continuing with Lucy, and along the same lines, she is a person raised in a vault with defense training that she has never before had to use in a real-life scenario. It's also Fallout. Playing the games, you were CONSTANTLY getting shot, blown up, or your shit absolutely rocked. I truly don't understand why this is suddenly something that is a problem? Are the main characters not allowed to be put through situations? Is it because she is a woman?

That scene with the feral ghoul Martha was clearly put on a sympathetic angel, same with the ghoul she met with Cooper. Lucy is kind, she is sympathetic, Ella is so good at showing how Lucy's heart bleeds for these two. She begs Martha to not attack, to find herself, she is tearing up about it. And when she shoots her, it's a massive moment for her character. It also reveals, again, how strongly she sticks to her morals, because she sees what happened to these two ghouls and, as much as she dislikes Cooper, can not stomach letting him fall victim to it when she has the means to help. Personally, I think that the show did an amazing job showing feral ghouls to actually be human, that's literally what the ENTIRE first feral ghoul moment is about. How many times in the games are they just treated like zombies to shoot up without ANY thought to who they were?

Rape is not a word that should be thrown around so blatantly. Yes, she has every right to feel violated, but rape isn't a word to be used in such a flippant manner. While the raider does lie about who he is (being a vault dweller), she also willingly had sex with him without knowing a single aspect about him other than "hot man I just got married to". She enthusiastically consented, literally throwing herself onto him (do not take that in a shaming way, she was genuinely excited is what I am stating). If not knowing exactly who someone is before having sex with them means rape than you are essentially stating that one night stands are rape.

We are in a place where, because of a desperate attempt to make everything correct and equal (a pursuit that should be continued), we are almost beginning to go back to a mentality of stripping opportunities from marginalized people, specifically in cinematic narratives. We do not know whether Fances Turner was sought out specifically, or if she had auditioned and gotten the part. I feel like refusing to give someone a part because they're a Black woman is vastly more racist than allowing them to take the part.

Media literacy is on such a decline, and puritancial beliefs are becoming so prevalent that now the actual problems or fucking heinous things are being brushed aside. "A holocaust survivors name was used for a character that was once a part of a fascist organization, that's bad. But let's focus on reducing a very serious words meaning, and also how if a main character is a woman she should not ever have a hand laid on her because that's super abusive and morally wrong. Also, characters raised in a racist cult should not struggle with racist ideologies not even once because racism is bad."

Long post ahead. My full thoughts on the fallout series. TW for references to Sexual Assault, racism, antisemitism. It's not particularly in depth here- but I do reference specific acts of violence done in the show.

I've had people insinuate I'm only mad because I'm a New Vegas fan, because I think they retconned the lore. I'm not upset at the fallout show for its dubious lore additions and reworks. I think they're quite bad in places, but they're by far the least of the show's problems.

This isn't a case of a New Vegas fan mad they messed with my game in a way I didn't like.

Please refer to literally any of my posts pointing out the racism and antisemitism in the show. They brand a black man in episode 1. They named the enclave scientist after a real life holocaust survivor and then spent most of the show lobbing around his decapitated head like a volleyball.

But I'd like to consider other elements of the show. View it as a whole.

Consider the inherent misogyny of having a female main character whose entire character arc is just her getting abused for 8 episodes. How the trajectory of her character revolves around not giving up on the humanity of the man who waterboarded her and sold her to organ harvesters. A female main character who is raped in the first episode and watches her entire community get brutalized and who comes out of it completely unphased- still as plucky as ever- just worried about her dad.

Consider the horror of having a black woman be the one to drop the bombs. Consider the horror of her leading a council of elites who have infiltrated and taken over the US government. Consider the ways this group is presented and shown, the ways every fault of the US government in the series is offloaded onto a shadowy group of elites.

Consider how the capitalist critique of the show only goes so far as saying there's a secret organization of bad people who must be purged. The antisemitism and conspiratorial nonsense inherent to that premise.

Consider the rampant classism with the show's depiction of Wastelanders as either animalistic monsters or too stupid to live.

Consider the ways the show punishes nearly every act of kindness- the ways the world rewards might-makes-right authoritarians.

Consider the way the NCR collapsed offscreen because a disgruntled husband was mad his wife left him, and how after it collapsed the army immediately became raiders and the survivors became blood drinking cultists. Don't give me "it's just shady sands that collapsed" because the NCR was a developed nation. If one of their cities blew up, they would send aid. They would assist.

Consider the way the show constantly uses sex crimes as comedy and horror- the incest jokes and the "chicken fucker" bit, and the Vault 4 monster impregnation and the main character's rape in the first episode.

Consider the ableism of the treatment of ghouls, how every ghoul is now a ticking time bomb, how Lucy helps free a small dementia-riddled old ghoul woman from a medical torture facility and then is immediately punished with the woman trying to inexplicably murder her. Thaddeus openly talks about ghoul exterminationism and it's never a joke or a bit- he just says it and nobody reacts or says anything.

Consider the way the Vault 33 town councillors use real world progressive talking points about restorative justice and prison abolition and multiculturalism- meanwhile Norm advocates for the death penalty and a closed society. How Norm is shown as good and righteous and the vault dwellers range from deluded to damningly stupid- how the mere concept of restorative justice is made a farce because the NCR raiders are screaming about eating organs and murdering people 24/7.

Consider the way they removed the Boneyard, and the Followers of the Apocalypse by extension. In New Vegas we heard about the Followers operating a university in LA. It's gone now. Not destroyed by bombs- but written out of existence because the Boneyard never existed, and Shady Sands is in its place. Consider what that says about this world- that the group most dedicated to peace and rebuilding has been surgically excised from the narrative- destroyed more wholly than even the NCR- written out of existence entirely.

This is the single most reactionary fallout story that has been produced. By a fucking country mile.

Whatever lore critiques there are should be secondary. The storytelling is reactionary in ways I straight up have not seen from other Bethesda entries in the series. It is cruel to a fault, and depicts a world that is incapable of healing or growing- where the best you can do is hold onto that small spark of goodness while every bit of the society around you tries to murder it out of you. This isn't a story about rebuilding, or about postwar politics, or about society- it's about dueling warlords and might makes right attitudes and grimdark views of the nature of humanity. It's fallout in aesthetics alone- and it's perhaps the most hateful thing I've seen come out of this series outside of the actual neonazis in the fanbase.

Whatever hope there is in Moldaver's final moments looking out over the glittering ruins of LA is undercut by the knowledge of what came before. What was destroyed. And it's undercut by the Brotherhood's totalitarian control. It's not hopeful, it's the bare minimum of survival. It's all the progress of the postwar world, 200 years of humanity and history, reduced to just barely getting the lights back on.

In the intro to fallout 1, "War Never Changes" is used as thematic glue. It ties together two concepts- past wars- and present capitalism and militarism.

Ron Perlman describes the Roman Empire, the Spanish conquests of the Americas, and the Nazi regime- and then he says "war never changes" and uses it to connect those past atrocities to the modern world of the setting- to the war that ended everything. The phrase existed to link the resource wars and their ensuing fallout to all the crimes of empire prior. War never changes wasn't a hard and fast rule of human nature- it was a specific condemnation of America.

Lonesome Road even ends with the phrase refuted. War Never Changes. But men do, through the roads they walk. There is hope. That's what this series has always been about. The Master died at the end of fallout 1 and said "leave while you still have hope."

In this show, the black woman Vault Tec exec who ends the world says the phrase. It's stripped of all meaning. Just a generic throwback because it's a famous phrase in the series' history. It's not a condemnation of America, it's a celebratory thing. Vault Tec toasting to the end of the world.

What a thing to see this series become. What a thing to see celebrated.

[vshrproacademy]

Being a leader: Are you truly ready to lead or ready to be called?

The transition to leadership is a defining moment in any professional’s career. Yet, for first-time managers, stepping into this role often feels like being thrust into uncharted waters. Being a leader is not just about having a new position but also about the responsibility, challenges, and transformation that come with guiding others. The real question is: Are you prepared to lead, or are you simply ready to be called a leader?

For first-time managers, this distinction is critical. Many new leaders find themselves caught off guard by the complexities of leadership, from managing relationships to making high-stakes decisions.

During leading a project or company, you’re expected to handle multiple responsibilities and navigate complex situations. Leaders must make decisions, manage conflicts, provide guidance, and set strategic directions—tasks that require specific skills and knowledge.

When unprepared, a leader might struggle with:

Decision-Making: In the absence of experience or clear frameworks, decision-making can feel uncertain and risky, leading to stress and indecision.

Productivity: With numerous responsibilities, prioritizing tasks becomes difficult, potentially resulting in missed deadlines or incomplete work.

Team Dynamics: Without an understanding of team management, leaders may find it hard to motivate, delegate, or resolve conflicts effectively, which can lead to disengagement and low morale.

Adaptability: The inability to adjust to changing situations or unexpected challenges can make leaders feel overwhelmed, as they lack the tools to handle change effectively.

Emotional Strain: The emotional labor of leadership—balancing empathy with authority—can be draining without preparation, leading to burnout or ineffective communication.

​ Proper preparation equips leaders with the tools, confidence, and strategies needed to manage these challenges, making the role more manageable and successful.

Avoid confrontation: People can not work well if they have arguments so avoid conflicts as much as possible–it is ideal and obvious in teamwork. However, in reality, people can not always meet their expectations, and things are not happening as you planned (Laurie, 2024) Therefore, who will be the one to solve these when it occurs? That’s why a leader is.  Leaders will always stay there to resolve pop-up events and human status.

Lack time management skill: Time is equal to each other. It will depend on the way you use your time effectively rather than whether you are busy or not. If you lack time management skills, everything will end up a mess.  For example, a manager consistently prioritizes minor tasks over critical deadlines, leaving key projects incomplete. Team members, uncertain about priorities, waste time on low-impact activities. As deadlines approach, the leader panics, creating a stressful, unproductive environment that undermines team morale.

Inability of delegating tasks: You are not sure of evaluating your subordinate ability to “put one in the right position”. This style of leadership can stifle a team member’s growth and limit your own effectiveness. Remember, the goal is not for tasks to be done your way—it’s for them to be completed effectively while allowing your team to contribute uniquely.

Being afraid of changes: You feel insecure when new things happen and hesitate to apply or accept.

Fostering ineffective communication: Frequent misunderstandings, difficulty conveying ideas clearly, lack of engagement or feedback from others, feeling misunderstood, or experiencing frustration in conversations may be the signs for ineffective communication. If people often ask for clarification or seem disengaged, it may signal discussing challenges.

Now let’s explore this Case Study: Leadership Training vs. No Training

1. Performance and Productivity: ​Employees who received leadership training showed a 25% increase in productivity compared to untrained counterparts. Trained leaders are more equipped to manage teams effectively, resulting in higher team output and problem-solving efficiency. 2. Career Growth: Trained leaders were 62% more likely to be promoted within three years compared to those who didn’t receive training. Leadership training equips individuals with essential skills like strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and effective communication, which are highly valued in management roles. ​ 3. Income Growth: Professionals who underwent formal leadership training reported earning an average of 20% higher salaries than those who relied solely on on-the-job experience. This disparity underscores the financial value of structured training in career development.

Are You Truly Ready?

The transition to leadership is as much about preparation as it is about opportunity. Recognizing the skills you need and the gaps you must address is the first step to becoming an effective manager. This is where Leadership 4.0: Becoming an Effective Manager and Leader comes in—a course designed to transform first-time managers into confident, capable leaders.

Leadership is not just a badge of honor—it’s a journey of growth and responsibility. For first-time leaders, preparation is the key to unlocking their potential and building a foundation for long-term success. Leadership 4.0: Becoming an Effective Manager and Leader offers the guidance, frameworks, and confidence you need to step into your new role with purpose. Don’t let the challenges of leadership hold you back. Equip yourself with the skills to lead effectively and inspire your team to achieve greatness.

In conclusion, the title of leader is earned, not given. 

Are you ready to prove yourself? Your journey to effective leadership start now.

Besides, access to these if you want to cultivate your skill as a leader:

Leadership Development Guide: Watch Strategy (Yes, it's Free)

Process Improvement Toolkit: Download PDF (Yes, it's Free)

Workforce Flywheel Framework Training: Watch here (Yes, it's Free)

Tools for HR Leaders Access Here (Yes, it's Free)

Leadership 4.0 Becoming an Effective Manager and Leader Here (Yes, this is exclusive)

Reference: 5 Signs You Should Not Be A Leader. Laurie Maddalena. Available at: Here 

[qubexpro]

Why Coworking Spaces are More Productive than Traditional Office Spaces

The Evolution of Work Environments

In recent years, the concept of workspaces has evolved significantly. Traditional office setups are being replaced by more flexible and dynamic coworking spaces. But what makes coworking spaces more productive than normal office spaces? Let's dive into the reasons.

Enhanced Flexibility and Autonomy

Work Your Way

Coworking spaces offer unparalleled flexibility. Unlike traditional offices, these spaces allow individuals to choose their work hours and environments. This autonomy empowers employees, leading to increased productivity. When workers have control over their schedules, they can align their work with their peak productivity times. This is particularly beneficial in a Business center in VIP Road, where flexibility can cater to diverse professional needs.

Variety of Workspaces

In coworking environments, individuals have access to various workspaces. Whether you need a quiet corner or a collaborative area, coworking spaces provide options. This variety helps in preventing monotony, which is often a productivity killer in traditional office settings. The Business center in VIP Road offers multiple workspace configurations to suit different working styles.

Collaboration and Networking Opportunities

Diverse Community

Coworking spaces bring together professionals from different fields. This diversity fosters a collaborative spirit and opens up numerous networking opportunities. Interacting with people from various industries can spark creativity and innovation, enhancing overall productivity. A Business center in VIP Road often hosts a wide array of professionals, making it an ideal place for networking.

Collaborative Culture

The culture in coworking spaces is inherently collaborative. These environments encourage sharing ideas and resources, leading to more innovative solutions. Traditional offices often lack this level of collaboration, making coworking spaces a superior choice for productivity. The collaborative atmosphere in a Business center in VIP Road can significantly boost your business growth.

Access to Amenities and Resources

State-of-the-Art Facilities

Coworking spaces are equipped with modern amenities that cater to the needs of today’s professionals. High-speed internet, ergonomic furniture, and advanced technology are standard features. These facilities ensure that employees have everything they need to work efficiently. The Business center in VIP Road is known for its top-notch amenities, making it a preferred choice for many.

Support Services

In addition to physical amenities, coworking spaces offer support services like administrative assistance, IT support, and even event planning. These services alleviate the burden of non-core tasks, allowing workers to focus solely on their primary responsibilities. A Business center in VIP Road often provides comprehensive support services to its members.

Work-Life Balance and Well-being

Promoting Wellness

Coworking spaces often integrate wellness programs into their offerings. From yoga sessions to meditation rooms, these spaces prioritize the well-being of their members. A healthy work environment boosts morale and productivity.

Reduced Commute Stress

Many coworking spaces are strategically located, reducing the need for long commutes. This not only saves time but also reduces stress, contributing to higher productivity levels. Employees can utilize the extra time for work or personal activities, striking a better work-life balance.

Cost-Effective Solutions

Affordable Options

Coworking spaces provide cost-effective solutions for businesses and individuals. Unlike traditional offices, which come with high overhead costs, coworking spaces offer flexible membership plans. This affordability allows startups and freelancers to access professional workspaces without financial strain. The Business center in VIP Road offers various membership options to suit different budget levels.

Scalability

For growing businesses, coworking spaces offer scalable solutions. As your team expands, you can easily adjust your workspace requirements. This flexibility prevents the disruptions that often accompany traditional office expansions, ensuring continuous productivity.

Conclusion: Embrace the Future of Work

In summary, coworking spaces offer numerous advantages over traditional office spaces. Their flexibility, collaborative culture, access to modern amenities, and emphasis on well-being make them ideal for enhancing productivity. As the work environment continues to evolve, embracing coworking spaces can lead to a more efficient and fulfilling work experience. The Business center in VIP Road exemplifies these benefits, providing an optimal environment for modern professionals.

[britesparc]

Weekend Top Ten #634

Top Ten Transformer Cities

I’m back on my bullshit, by not only doing a totally unnecessary continuation of last week’s list – bringing you the most disappointing sequel since every single Terminator movie released after 1991 – but also once more wanging on about bloody Transformers again.

Yes, after talking generically about fictional cities last week – ranking both Gotham and Metropolis as best in show, uniting the entire DC universe as the bestest at making make-believe towns and that – I’m now doubling down by picking one particular fictional universe (well, I guess, one particular franchise that’s full of broadly-similar but still somewhat different universes in a vast multiverse of toys what turn into stuff), and ranking the greatest cities therein. And this is especially fun with Transformers because a lot of their cities actually turn into stuff!

So there’s going to be two strings to this bow, really: the cities that are also people – your “Titans”, your Metroplex and Trypticon and the like – and then the cities that are just cities. These latter townships – all places on Cybertron, as it happens – are interesting because of their place in fiction. They could be prominent cities, the Transformers equivalent of Metropolis; or they could be, say, the birthplace of the War on Cybertron, or where the dead rose, or the place that gave its name to the leader of the Decepticon Justice Department.

And that’s all there is to it! Ten cities from the various wings of the Transformers franchise, ranked in order of how cool I think they are.  

Autobot City: the Earth-based city that’s the star of 1986’s classic The Transformers: The Movie, it’s a beautiful piece of metallic engineering in a luxurious rocky setting, featuring cascading waterfalls and attractive foliage. Can be converted – with some difficulty – into a battle fortress with large guns, missiles, and multiple blast shields. Probably not quite as attractive in 2005 as it was in 2004.

Metroplex: now, is Metroplex actually Autobot City? Or does he sleep under it? Is he a part of it? Regardless, Metroplex is a city – the first real city-bot – but he’s also a person. This was a fantastic conceit in 1986, and the toy really did feel incredibly cool as both a base/battle station and as a frickin’ huge toy robot. The character’s stoicism, selflessness, and humbleness is a great counterpoint to his huge badassery too.

Trypticon: the Autobots have a bloke to be their city; so the Decepticons have a monster. Whilst Metroplex might have the “platonic ideal of robot city” conceit all sewed up, what could be as cool – cooler, even? A giant dinosaur. Yeah, he’s had some cool characterisations over the years; but basically, just being a kaiju-sized robot T-Rex is more than enough. Also: his toy could walk.

Iacon: the capital city of Cybertron (most of the time, I think), it’s one of the most-seen locations on the planet. It’s one of the only places that seems to have a distinct look. It’s got large domed buildings and several towers, and usually is home to important functions of state or Cybertronian culture. One of the few places that really does appear frequently across multiple versions of the franchise, and as such is often wrecked, too.

Scorponok: back to the city-bots, and if you can’t have a chuffing huge dinosaur, how about a frankly massive scorpion? Scorponok – and we’ll come back to this point I believe – occupies a funny place as he’s either a big city-sized person or he’s just an above-average Transformer with claws. As a city, he’s got a cool colour scheme and – depending on continuity – was rebuilt out of a secret, evil, underground Nebulon city. As a character, especially in the old Marvel G1, he was fantastic, a nuanced and multifaceted bad guy with doubts and morals. But let’s not take away: city with claws.

Polyhex: basically – traditionally – the Decepticon version of Iacon, it may lack the various elegiac governmental institutions and pretty architecture, but it does boast a sinister fortress called Darkmount, a Cybertronian slum called the Dead End, and – wonder of wonders – the smelting pools, home to one of the most tragic events in the original Marvel comic.

Tarn: I’m not really sure what Tarn is like; how pretty it is, how big, how many Starbucks. But it’s notable – historical – because it’s traditionally where Megatron is from. As such, it often has negative connotations; there’s more than one continuity where it’s destroyed or falls immediately to the Decepticons. It also gave its name to Tarn, the leader of the terrifying Decepticon Justice Division.

Kalis: again, this is a city more notable because of an event. Underneath Kalis, in one continuity at least, a renegade Autobot built a giant reactor, and a signal device that controlled the bodies of dead Transformers. That’s right – the dead walk the streets of Kalis.

Kaon: Kaon is usually a pretty bad town. In some continuities, it basically takes the place of Polyhex as the “Decepticon city”; often it’s still one of – if not the – first city to fall to Megatron. It’s the home of the (illegal?) gladiatorial games where Megatron himself, former miner, rose to power. Like Tarn, it gave its name to a member of the DJD: Kaon the Decepticon turns into, get this, an electric chair.

Fortress Maximus: ah, here we are again: is he a city, or is he a bloke? Fortress Maximus, in most Transformers fiction, is presented – like his Headmaster leader/city counterpart Scorponok – as being basically big and beefy for a bot, but not a base. And I love his character; whether it’s the war-weary pacifist of old Marvel, or the gung-ho cop with PTSD in the IDW comics. However, as a base, he’s great; massive (held the record for the biggest TF toy of all time for over twenty years!), cool-looking, complicated, with my favourite ever gimmick: his head turns into a robot whose head turns into a robot (well, a human). You can’t get better than that. Apart from maybe nine other cities.

[carolinemitchelljou4500blog]

Reflection 1

"Building Trust: A Pulitzer Center Resource" provides a comprehensive and thoughtful guide for journalists learning to cover stories of trauma or traumatic events. As a journalism student, these insights offer an understanding of the ethical considerations and practical strategies for reporting sensitive topics. This resonates with the challenges I face in navigating the balance between telling impactful stories and ensuring the well-being of my sources, myself and the impacted community. 

The video’s emphasis on honesty and transparency reinforces the belief that maintaining open communication and transparency builds trust with sources and forms the ethical foundation of trauma-informed journalism. Being upfront about intentions, addressing potential discomfort or issues, and showing the intended outcome of the story all contribute to establishing trust with your sources. Reflecting on communication in the “real world” of journalism and my classes thus far, I can easily recognize that transparency establishes a foundation of trust and supports the ethical standards my peers and I aim to meet. 

Creating a supportive environment is another key aspect highlighted in the video. Acknowledging power dynamics, providing resources for sources, and fostering a comfortable setting all build confidence and trust between myself and my source. The video also recognizes the importance of cultural sensitivity and the need for translators or guides, especially in communities where the journalist may be considered an outsider. I imagine the difficulty this can bring up, especially knowing that many Americans are not versed in any foreign languages. Something I realized when I went out of the country for the first time was how lacking our education system is, especially when it comes to learning multiple languages. I can imagine a source knowing how to speak some English and ourselves being left with nothing but English. In a traumatic event, this could incredibly hinder our ability to perform as journalists. 

The emphasis on prioritizing well-being over deadlines is a refreshing perspective, especially seeing the intensity of some students when they are pursuing an important story. This reminds me of some reasons I have drifted away from journalism, as I have seen how some stories have affected my peers. I have also had to work on difficult stories before, most notably a story I worked on about a sexual assault case on campus. From my experiences so far, being a journalist means putting yourself in someone's shoes, and sometimes, it means reliving your own trauma or experience just to get the story. Being mindful of your well-being is just as important as the well-being of your sources. This aligns with our responsibility to respect source boundaries and prioritize their comfort, even if it means deviating from your strict goals or what your ideal story might look like. I know a lot of students have an outcome in their head even before speaking to a source. The video also touched upon the significance of visual storytelling and the ethical responsibility that comes with it. I’m a strong believer in spending time off-camera and off the record to establish genuine connections, and understanding the potential for re-traumatization underscores the commitment to ethical journalism.

Something else that caught my attention is that the video discusses the reporting process and addresses what happens after the story is published. It emphasizes the need to protect source safety and acknowledges the moral responsibility for their well-being and their communities. The suggestion of involving sources in the fact-checking process is a level of practicality that I hadn't fully considered before.

[collapsingintojupiter]

Just got finished reading all the posts you linked, and I sincerely appreciate your perspective on this series, thank you for taking the time to share it with me. I'm a person who generally really enjoys heavy whump/fucked up brain stuff/characters who are a moral 'mess' to put it lightly/a lot of other darker themes, but I definitely agree that a lot of them were handled poorly in MTMTE/LL [if they were handled at all, like you mentioned]. One thing that I recall sticking out to me personally is that Rung definitely feels like he's written by a person who doesn't have a good grasp of how therapy works, as someone who's been to multiple therapists myself and has gotten well-acquainted with it. The way he handles patients is written like the writer understood therapy from a purely Hollywood perspective and not really anything else, which is...yeah that's not great.

And MAN...Red Alert, yeah. I really love him, and as someone who's also suffered paranoia and suicidal idealation it was devastating to see him kinda just. Swept aside like that and not in a good way. I really wish he'd been given more/better characterization, because i really related to a lot of things about him and wanted to see more.

And the fact that all the villains are mentally ill, holy shit!! A part of me does want to forgive that, because the way the war is written in this series kinda feels to me like nobody would be left without severe trauma of some kind [with a few exceptions ofc, but I digress], but at the same time it does come off in a lot of ways as lazy writing. Instead of properly exploring what might lead a character to those choices in a natural way, mental illness feels like it's used to handwave that to make less effort in writing the buildup - ie, they were lazy. It also feels... pretty inconsistent regarding what behaviors are framed as destructive/bad/whatever depending on the character displaying them, which is, to be frank, gross [such as the stuff with Trailcutter and Megatron that you spoke on in the first linked post].

And the stuff with Senator Shockwave... yeah. I honestly fucking adore this version of him, I won't lie, but there are some big issues with how we was portrayed like with a lot of other things. I personally think they should have just left him dead at the end of Dark Cybertron and not gone further with it, as I feel it would've been a more satisfying end imo, but that's neither here nor there.

I read MTMTE/LL as my... *checks notes* third iteration of transformers ever? [though I have since also seen tfa and the 1987(?) movie] I watched the first Bayverse movie when I was like 13, watched TFP last year, and then read MTMTE/LL shortly after. It leaves me lacking a lot of context, unfortunately, which it seems made that an easier read given I didn't notice any of the inconsistencies with prior characterization.

That being said!!! I'd love to check out any recommendations you might have for other series/comics I should check out, I've really fallen in love with transformers as a concept and I'd like to see more.

Hello! I just recently found you through that post you made regarding the racism present in MTMTE/LL, and I wanted to say thank you for putting into words what I was struggling to [I still personally love the story, but I also think it's important to be able to look at it critically]. I was also curious - have you done an analysis of the albeism in those comics? It was one of the things that really stuck out to me as someone who's neurodivergent and mentally ill, though I haven't had the energy to really dig into it.

Hi, I'm really happy to hear that post was meaningful to you! I actually haven't done a post just about all the ableist themes of MTMTE/LL. A big part of that is for the same reason as you... it would be so massive and need to have so many examples in it that it might end up being twice the length of the one about racism, and I don't feel capable of writing that. It would drain a lot of my energy. For example, I can think of how long the section just on the Scavengers would be... and they weren't in many issues at all!

Another reason I haven't made a post just about the ableism is that James Roberts did already receive some criticism about this as the series was coming out, to the point that in interviews he gave around the end of Lost Light, he did apologize for what he did with Red Alert and Trailcutter (though I think that is the bare minimum TBH and there were so many other horrible portrayals that he hasn't said sorry for). Whereas when it comes to how ridiculously racist MTMTE/LL is, I had never seen any other extensive criticism about it, and I don't think JRo even now sees any issue with how he portrayed race. I also remember that back when IDW's comics were coming out, there were many, many posts about how problematic TAAO's handling of cold-construction was, but so much of the criticism was like, "This doesn't fit at all with what JRo was trying to say with it!" and I was like. Hm. But everything he was saying with it was extremely racist....

That being said, I did make some other posts you might find interesting. When I recently reread MTMTE/LL, I made some posts about individual things that touch on ableism:

A post all about Trailcutter that discusses his alcoholism

A chart of the tropes JRo used for his villains

Someone asked me my thoughts on Senator Shockwave

A post about Skids and what happened after his death, that includes discussion of his mental health struggles

Also, I'm not sure how to say this, but there's a level of ignorance and carelessness in MTMTE/LL that makes it sometimes difficult for me to analyze things deeply. For example, people on here have made interesting posts about how Rung is written, how he handled his patients, what that means about JRo's intentions and level of knowledge about therapy and mental illness, and so on. But all I can think is, "He literally wrote Rung going out drinking with his patients/potential patients including Ultra Magnus, the guy who loves law and ethics, not giving a shit, and didn't see anything weird about this at all. And then the other 'therapist' in the series and his... partner are a clear ripoff of Hannibal because Tumblr was so obsessed with that show."

[dropoff99]

—On WoT fandom disagreements and such—

Been reading WoT since 1998. For most of my life it was THE fantasy series as far as I was concerned and still is in many ways. The world and the characters were simply deeper and more realized than anything I was reading. The roster of fantastic characters, scale, the magic system, masterful use of multiple POVs, metaphysics, and general lore Jordan created pulled me in and wouldn’t let me go.

I stilI have visceral memories of the time around RJ’s death, distinctly feeling like nothing resembling a proper ending was going to come to what I felt like was the best fantasy series around . Very few other fantasy authors prior to his passing were eager to cite Jordan in tones of reverence. If anything many “serious” fantasy fans were embarrassed to admit they loved the infamously long series which was the peak of the genre once but had more or less stalled out. Knife of Dreams was amazing to me personally but with RJ’s death and the slog prior you couldn’t argue that a satisfying ending was on the horizon. Fantasy authors like George RR Martin (despite being a friend of RJ’s and WoT definitely influencing both his work and success) constantly railed against many of the tropes of the genre (Chosen ones, Tolkien imitation, lack of moral ambiguity, plot armor, etc.) that Jordan reimagined/leaned into early on. It also didn’t help that Martin didn’t exactly argue when people made critiques of WoT in front of him either (like the famous Stephen King interview he did much later). This wouldn’t really matter if these sentiments were not so common among fantasy readers when Sanderson hopped on board. What was clear to me very early on after reading TGS was that not only was Sanderson a fan but he clearly understood the gravity of finishing the series and the care/respect he had for both the community and Jordan’s legacy was evident. I never had the feeling that it was an outsider coming in who just didn’t “get” the wheel of time. Secondly what Brandon did very well is communicate what was special about the series as a whole to new readers.

I have my issues just like anyone else but I genuinely have enormous respect for the work that both Team Jordan and Sanderson did under circumstances that were obviously not ideal. I can see the arguments regarding Sanderson’s religious/political overtones entering his other works but certainly not Wheel of Time. Yeah he didn’t completely overhaul every institution Jordan created and had to resort to quicker solutions. I’m also not going feign any sort of religiosity or be his apologetic in that regard and consider it to be the thing I like least about Stormlight. His worldview/biases of course will remain (just like Jordan’s). However I really don’t think you can deny he was an enormous fan who had genuine love and respect for both the series and Jordan himself. The fact that Harriet (Jim’s widow and long time editor) picked him based on his work and eulogy mean a lot to me. The reverence with which Harriet still seems to hold for BS and the job he and Team Jordan did seems to indicate that at the very least the people closest to the work and previous author felt that the promise of Jordan’s vision was delivered as best as could be expected.

I’m not someone who is without criticisms for BS. I envisioned the direction of Mat, Padan Fain, Perrin, Logain, Nyanaeve and several others very differently after reading the story well over a decade by that point. I missed Jordan’s unique style on character perspective and gift for painting a visual I could walk into mentally. But I also think in retrospect Sanderson was the perfect choice outside RJ to do the job. Some of his weaknesses at the time (barreling through plot, lack of rich setting, hasty exposition etc.) actually worked in his favor as he converged gigantic swathes of character arcs which still required three massive books. I respect those who think Sanderson’s choices were bad. And if you really hate the guy based on political/religious views go off I guess. I just don’t see how claiming he doesn’t respect Robert Jordan or his legacy holds any water at all. Or at the very least, as someone who’s been paying attention to the community my entire adolescent+adult life, I have not seen compelling evidence for that to be the case.