#they have their own problems just as valid as ours but

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Do you think that Ms. Bustier is overhated?

Not particularly. I don't have any strong feelings about her, but she's clearly a terrible teacher who is in way over her head. I totally understand why she sets some people off. If she was a real person that I actually had to deal with, then she'd probably set me off, too, because she so perfectly encapsulates toxic positivity. If you're not familiar with that term, then here's a quick definition:

Toxic positivity is the act of avoiding, suppressing, or rejecting negative emotions or experiences. This may take the form of denying your own emotions or someone else denying your emotions, insisting on positive thinking instead. Although setting aside difficult emotions is sometimes necessary temporarily, denying negative feelings long term is harmful because it can prevent people from processing their emotions and overcoming their distress.

Read that definition and then look at this scene from Zombiezou:

Marinette: But Miss Bustier, it's so not fair! It was Chloé, pulling another...Chloé! And...I'm the one who's getting in trouble?! Miss Bustier: Of course you're not in trouble, don't worry! As the class representative, I want you to set a good example for your classmates. Don't give into feelings of anger. Try to forgive Chloé instead. Marinette: I don't get it... Chloé is the meanest person I've ever known. Miss Bustier: Come on... There are much worse people in Paris right now than Chloé Bourgeois. I'm sure people like Chloé are capable of great things. The problem is, they only think of themselves. They don't understand the meaning of love, and we can't force them to change. But perhaps we can show them by setting a good example. That's why Marinettes are so important in today's world; because they have a lot of love to give. I'm counting on you. Marinette: Yes, Miss Bustier.

This is toxic positivity in action. Marinette is told to set aside her extremely valid feelings as if anger is a terrible thing, but it isn't. All emotions have their place and ignoring them can do real harm, a lesson that Miraculous really struggles with. It seems to see "negative" emotions as bad and they're really not. What matters is how we express and address our emotions, not that we experience them. If you want to see a family friendly piece of media do this topic right, then go watch Pixar's Inside Out.

There's also the fact that Chloé is never punished for her actions in this episode. She ruined a gift that probably took Marinette hours and yet Miss Bustier puts the onus to fix things on Marinette, blaming the victim and doing nothing to actually fix the situation. Canon mildly complicates this with Chloé's father's willingness to meddle, making punishing her apparently impossible, but Miss Bustier doesn't even acknowledge that here. The stated logic is that you need to be nice to your bully and that will hopefully magically fix things, which is a terrible lesson that I don't want any kid to learn! What kind of logic is that?

I'll admit that I'm a big fan of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," but that doesn't mean that you should never acknowledge harm or fight back. It just means that you need to be measured in your responses and pick your battles wisely. If this episode was about that, then I'd be fine with it, but that's not the lesson here. There is no point where the wrong done to Marinette is even mildly acknowledged. Miss Bustier's initial reaction to seeing Marinette's ruined gift is:

Miss Bustier: Well, I think this present is wonderful. It'll be my new cosmetics bag! Then I'll be able to think of both of you every time I use it.

And we go straight from that to the toxic positivity.

Something is wrong with this woman. You shouldn't even take this approach with preschoolers! While I could see this being a good final solution to something like Chloé scribbling on Marinette's drawing, Chloé's behavior still needs to be addressed. She is still the one in the wrong here. The one whose behavior needs to change.

This is one of many cases where there are two paths to take with this character. The writers clearly want Miss Bustier to be a wonderful teacher, but they wrote a victim-blaming disaster who shouldn't be in charge of anyone. If you're ever adapting her, then it's up to you if you want to redesign her into her intended self or if you want to lean into the bad writing. I think both paths have merit because the writing is so bad that there is no way to make canon Caline work as a good teacher. She's too fundamentally flawed so you either acknowledge how awful she is or do a major overhaul where she's much less forgiving and actually acknowledges things like the Chloé problem.

[angelflms]

Cobra Kai has a tone-deaf problem.

Now, I am a Black woman so all of my observations are through the lenses of that. You can critique my words all you want, but don't be disrespectful because I will be equally as disrespectful in the replies.

I have this phenomenon that I've noticed for a lot of shows I have watched called The Leo Dooley effect, inspired by character from Lab Rats, where the main character, a POC who set the tone for the whole story, is surrounded by a white ensemble cast that slowly but surely pushes that character aside to serve their purpose.

Cobra Kai does the same thing with Miguel Diaz, as he seems to be the sole reason why any of these things on the show are happening (for better or for worse) and gets one of the worst character driven storylines throughout the series post-coma (I rewrote his story on my blog. Go find it under the Miguel or Xolo hashtags) to further make the show The Robby Show (we'll get into the tone-deaf writing of his character this past season in a minute). He becomes a shell of a character, empty, boring, and in the sidelines all up until the final season, where the writers seem to remember *snaps fingers* oh shit, Miguel's one of our protagonists, and writes an okay story for him. Better than his s5 plot, but not as good as the stuff we got in s1, 2, and the last half of 3 and 4.

Now, s6 has him in his true prime (not in the way people claimed he was in the past seasons). He's got a clear mind, he's goals-oriented, you wouldn't even be able to tell that this kid was paralyzed from the waist down a year ago (in-universe time). However, he's out-performing everyone, was single-handedly saving his team, and it wasn't even enough for Johnny. It was very interesting to watch as People of Color, especially Black and Brown people, tend to have to go above and beyond to prove that we're the shit, but it'll never amount to anything if our white associates (minus Devon in this case - more on her later) aren't doing anything. But the second they do, everyone is getting praised. Miguel knocked his opponent out in forty seconds. FORTY SECONDS. But because the team wasn't doing good overall, he got no attention. I know that feeling all too well and it sucks.

As much as I thought Johnny's "Miguel is our anchor" line was powerful, it also didn't at the same time. The Magical Negro is such an annoying stereotype, as well as the Strong Black Woman/Man, and the Brown and Asian variations that come with it.

Miguel is the Brown equivalent of the Magical Negro, trying to tell the white Johnny what's right and wrong. Teaching him what's okay to say and what's not, despite Johnny being grown enough to probably understand shit on his own. He basically is teaching Johnny in a sense despite the fact that it should be the other way around. And I know that's a typical mentor/mentee thing trope but with how the show goes out of its way to show how self aware of modern problems it is, it's hella tone-deaf.

In terms of the Strong Black Man trope (or in this case Brown), Miguel isn't always strong. He breaks down and cries pretty often but it's viewed by the fandom as annoying, weak, and pathetic, as well as not manly which pisses me all the way off because every time he gets emotional, it's with valid reason. Losing his girlfriend (both times), finding out he's paralyzed, apologizing for running away, his mom possibly dying, not getting into Stanford (tho this would've had more of a punch if Stanford actually mattered but it doesn't whatever). Also, he's a 16/17 year old Brown kid in poverty who was embarrassingly bullied MULTIPLE TIMES. You're telling me you didn't cry as a kid? But when Robby cries every once in a while (which is also equally as valid because he was also a kid in poverty who was bullied), everyone holds his hand and says "it's okay."

"He's our anchor." It just sounds so off to me. Like has to be the one to help everyone else, when you have two Captains who can do the exact same thing. We as POCs have to be the ones to hold down the fort and keep things steady on our backs while white people can settle for mediocrity and not have to do to much because "hey, the POCs got us." It's just like that "if you're in danger, find a Black woman" thing. Because we're expected to be the ones to save y'all when y'all are in trouble. But when the roles reverse, we're expected to save ourselves because we're strong. Y'all don't like it when Miguel isn't emotionally or physically tough because y'all expect him to push through since he's the main character, but it also feels like he's expected to push through because he's a Brown boy in poverty so he's been through enough.

Tory's "we have to fight to get a spot in life" speech was well performed by Peyton List but it felt strange to see a white woman explain privilege to a Brown boy who has less privilege in comparison to her. I have always had a problem with that scene and I never won't have an issue with it.

Moving on to Kenny. Kenny is the only Black character of current time to be in the ensemble. Aisha was on the show but left ofc. Kenny, like Miguel was brutally picked on, primarily by white kids, especially by white rich boy Anthony LaRusso. In the fandom Anthony tends to be the more favored overall. Kenny is primarily favored on the Black side of the fandom (much like Miguel). Similar to Miguel, there was a moment in s6 part two that may have not been intentional but in my eyes, felt very racially targeted.

Hawk and Demetri were very skeptical towards Kenny because they assumed that he was working with Silver despite the fact that Kenny didn't even want to do the Sekai Tekai to begin with after he became publicly bullied again. During a round of tag-teamed fighting, the boys refused to let Kenny in, causing them to lose the round due to Robby not being prepared to be tagged in (he thought they were gonna tag Kenny). Kenny gets mad, rightfully so but the boys didn't back down on their theory (the only reason this theory was even a thing was because they say Kenny and Silver talking and assumed the worst). It took the team's "anchor" to give Robby a pep talk to lead and the others will follow (you know, something a Captain should already know) for Kenny to get the attention he deserves. And then Hawk and Demetri finally accept Kenny. All because the white guy said "hey, we should tag him in."

That sounds so off in so many ways.

It wasn't intentional, I know. But the fact that this was something that happened and the boys didn't even apologize to Kenny after for the assumptions they made only furthers my point on how tone deaf this show can get. Amanda, Miguel, and Robby are literally the only people who see Kenny as more than just a Silver puppet and it sucks because Hawk and Demetri were in the same spot as Kenny once upon a time.

And then there's Devon, the overworking, overwhelmed Asian girlie who tries her hardest to seek validation and gets overlooked. Similar to Miguel in this new part, Devon got ignored badly in the first part. It was so bad that she cheated to get into the Sekai Tekai and got her ass handed to her. And like Miguel, it takes her to have to explain to her white sensei that she's being ignored for him for her to be taken seriously. She's not the best fighter by any means but I thought we were done with this Asian stereotype years ago. And the way Sam talked to her after literally celebrating her victory with all smiles and everything in the first part??? Like it felt so fake as hell.

Finally, Robby. Robby is written well, we all know that. But this shit that they did to him in the second part pissed me off, especially since it's not gonna get addressed apparently. So Robby gets drunk at a bar and basically follows Zara back to her hotel room. Next time we see them, he's disoriented, and she's kissing him. I'm sorry, but that's sexual assault, yes? Robby was drunk and didn't remember anything. So that's her taking advantage of him, yes? Well the creator apparently doesn't think so and is saying that Robby made a mistake and that the interaction won't be talked about next part.

Bitch, Robby is a VICTIM.

Zara sexually assaulted him. Just because he's a man doesn't change the fact that the man got taken advantage of by Zara.

Like did we watch the same scene?

This show has so many problems and I feel like since it's a show about fighting no one cares. But as a Black woman, I see this shit and in between the lines, there's so many issues that won't even get fixed because the show is over.

[baconcolacan]

damn I get you a lot, as a fellow 3rd country citizen, whose country is in a deep economic crises and has a dictator who people still love even tho he fucked us up with all of these struggling with mental health is sometimes difficult. I hope you get better as much as you can

Gosh, thank you so much. Yeah, seems us 3rd country peepos just have the worst stroke of luck huh?? Hahaha, I laugh but man its difficult sometimes.

But thanks again, I’m doing well enough, job doesnt pay much but yknow, economic crisis, dictator-tied president. The works and such, I’m hangin’ in there.

[seventh-district]

not even gonna tag this properly bc i don't wanna get Involved but i do have some Thoughts i need to get out into the void so here we go

(aaa quick edit: CW for mention/discussion of Boothill leaks)

[iloveschiaparelli]

My parents wouldn't let me bring alcohol to my dad's birthday party (feat. two friend families) so instead I'm staying up really late so that I can show up sleep deprived, which is a different type of drunk.

[doctorweebmd]

both zero-sum and the litany of love and loss were concepts that possessed me and would not not get out of my head until i wrote them but i have wastly different feelings about both of these stories despite loving them equally

[aaronymous999]

I think many queer people who are exclusionists have been shaped that way by queerphobia which is incredibly sad.

The flaws in homophobia/transphobia is honestly really aren’t their facts or statistics or the things they say- there’s no logic and even if their is the problem will and always will be their conclusions from the information. For example, the most common argument I’ve seen is “Having more gay representation will make the kids gay.” And the thing is this is an entirely neutral statement, the claim in itself doesn’t really mean anything to me, because it’s vague, there’s no context and there’s nothing inherently wrong with being gay.

Homophobia’s problem is coming to hateful conclusions from mostly neutral statements. Or hyperfocusing on the gay aspect to fuel their hatred.

A lot of exclusionists regret the idea of trans people without gender dysphoria because they feel that there has to be some sort of life threatening reason for someone to be transgender, because internally transitioning for “no reason” is an inherent evil. But that’s what the transphobes WANT you to think. There is no inherent evil to transition into a boy just because you like how boys look or you think boys are hot and want to be one, or any other reason. Of course medical transition needs long consideration but there’s nothing wrong with someone without gender dysphoria just deciding to change their pronouns to she/her and start using a girl name even if they had no problems as a man. The only people who think there’s something wrong with transness in any form are transphobes.

To get a little personal, I do have gender dysphoria and all the typical good gold star exclusionist binary trans person points. However, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that one of the reasons I’m transgender is because I grew up in a majority male household. I think due to my gender dysphoria I would have always been this way but my brothers and father definitely contributed. And for some out there, if they were born in a more gender equal society, they wouldn’t be transgender. And that’s okay. There’s nothing wrong with saying that. It doesn’t make you any less transgender.

As for accusations that are inherently negative, the problem is the conclusion and the “evil” drawn from it. Hearing about a story where a trans woman assaults someone, they draw the trans woman from the story and use it as ammunition against trans people as a whole. However the correct conclusion is that we are given little information her and all we know is that someone who happens to be a trans woman assaulted someone. One assumption is taken from hate and malice, and the other is neutral.

Not proofread just some thoughts and your friendly reminder that being queer has no rules and not to let internalized homophobia render you hateful for the members of our community who don’t follow as many “rules”

( I hate that I have to clarify this because I am worried it will be used as a strawman against me or will be co-opted by bad actors but I do not condone pedophilia, racism or anything like that. There is a difference between neo/xenogenders and “genders” that are just racism and pedophilia apology. Queerness shouldn’t involve any of that. )

[some-eldritch-bats]

I put too much in the tags.......

Read options carefully:

I do not like queer for myself / I don't identify with it. When people refer to the queer community I feel they are referring to me and I am uncomfortable with it :'(

I do not like queer for myself / I don't identify with it. When people refer to the queer community I feel they are referring to me and I am fine with it

I do not like queer for myself / I don't identify with it. When people refer to the queer community I feel they are not referring to me. I am fine with that

I do not like queer for myself / I don't identify with it. When people refer to the queer community I feel they are not referring to me. I feel excluded :'(

I do not like LGBT(and extensions) for myself / I don't identify with it. When people refer to the LGBT+ community I feel they are referring to me and I am uncomfortable with it :'(

I do not like LGBT(and extensions) for myself / I don't identify with it. When people refer to the LGBT+ community I feel they are referring to me and I am fine with it

I do not like LGBT(and extensions) for myself / I don't identify with it. When people refer to the LGBT+ community I feel they are not referring to me. I am fine with that

I do not like LGBT(and extensions) for myself / I don't identify with it. When people refer to the LGBT+ community I feel they are not referring to me. I feel excluded :'(

I am comfortable with both queer and the various initialisms

Something else - talk about it in comments and tags!

[girltalkcollectives]

Double Standard Dictionary: A Guide to Things That Are Only "Problems" When Women Do Them

Let's have an honest conversation about something that drives me absolutely crazy. You know those little comments and judgments that somehow only seem to apply to women? Yeah, we need to talk about that.

The Professional Edition

When men vs. when women do the exact same thing:

He's assertive → She's aggressive

He's focused → She's cold

He's passionate → She's emotional

He's dedicated → She's obsessed

He's confident → She's arrogant

He's strategic → She's manipulative

He's busy → She's neglecting her life

The Dating Double Standards

The classics that never seem to die:

He's dated around → She has "a past"

He's a bachelor → She's "left on the shelf"

He's selective → She's picky

He's career-focused → She's married to her job

He's a social butterfly → She's attention-seeking

He's "finding himself" → She needs to settle down

He's direct → She's desperate

The Appearance Police

The endless contradictions:

Look professional, but not too try-hard

Be attractive, but not attention-seeking

Wear makeup, but keep it "natural"

Be fit, but not too muscular

Dress well, but not too sexy

Look youthful, but not immature

Age gracefully, but never look old

The Emotion Edition

How it's perceived:

His anger is justified → Her anger is hysteria

His sadness is deep → Her sadness is dramatic

His stress is from hard work → Her stress is from "not coping"

His excitement is enthusiasm → Her excitement is over-the-top

His concerns are valid → Her concerns are paranoid

His anxiety is pressure → Her anxiety is weakness

The Family Chronicles

The never-ending judgment:

He's babysitting → She's just parenting

He's helping around the house → She's doing her job

He's focused on work → She's neglecting family

He needs time to himself → She's selfish

He's weighing his options → She's wasting time

He's figuring out what he wants → Her clock is ticking

The Office Politics

Things I'm tired of seeing:

Men get mentored → Women get hit on

Men network → Women "sleep their way up"

Men are busy → Women "can't handle it"

Men are thorough → Women are perfectionists

Men delegate → Women are lazy

Men need work-life balance → Women are uncommitted

The Social Scene

The ridiculous expectations:

Be fun but not too wild

Be social but not too friendly

Be smart but not intimidating

Be successful but not threatening

Be independent but not difficult

Be strong but still need help

Be confident but still humble

The Success Paradox

What we're dealing with:

Be ambitious but not threatening

Lead but don't be bossy

Achieve but don't outshine

Negotiate but don't be demanding

Succeed but stay likeable

Excel but remain modest

Win but make it look effortless

The Reality Check

What this actually means for us:

Constant second-guessing

Walking on eggshells

Energy drain from overthinking

Imposter syndrome

Reduced authenticity

Limited self-expression

Unnecessary stress

The Way Forward

What we can do about it:

Call it out

Name the double standard

Question the logic

Point out the inconsistency

Support other women

2. Break the patterns

Reject unfair labels

Define success personally

Set our own standards

Celebrate authenticity

3. Change the narrative

Share success stories

Highlight achievements

Create new networks

Mentor others

To Every Woman Dealing With This

Remember:

You're not "too much"

Your achievements are earned

Your feelings are valid

Your ambitions are worthy

Your standards are important

Your voice matters

Your path is yours

[genderqueerdykes]

i want to see more asexual, aromantic & aspectrum representation this year during pride month 2024. we've been made to feel like we're not queer at all, and when we are seen as queer, we are pushed to the VERY bottom of the priority list, seen as not as queer as others, or not a priority because we do not suffer from any kind of oppression.

i want to break the silence on this matter this year. even if an aspectrum person isn't affected by any sort of societal oppression, they still deserve to have a space to talk about how they experience their identity. having a complicated relationship or no relationship at all with romantic feelings and relationships in a society that guilt trips people into developing romantic relationships starting in their teens is not in line with our societal view of what is "normal" and "correct". constantly being told that you "haven't found the right one" is harassment.

Not experiencing sexual attraction, refusing to have sex, or having a complicated relationship with sexual feelings is 100% queer and outside of the norm in a sex-obsessed society that guilt and mocks people for not having experienced it, and at the worst of time, forces it on people, telling them that they'll have a changed opinion of they just experienced it for themselves. being guilted or forced into interacting with sexual media or having friends try to force you into sleeping with someone is harassment and assault.

having a complicated relationship with gender that results in someone feeling agender, whether they have no gender at all, or have a gender that feels partially agender and partially another gender often results in someone being told they're confused, or have no idea what they're talking about. many people refuse to acknowledge someone who totally lacks a gender identity, or identifies with gender neutrality.

aplatonic people are frequently told they are losers, or just have anxiety or are experiencing their feelings due to depression or something similar. aplatonic people are told they do not understand their own feelings, when it is a very valid experience to not experience platonic feelings or have a very complicated relationship with them that leads one to feel happier not engaging in those relationships.

these are very real issues aspectrum people face. even if an aspec person doesn't face these problems, they are still queer. they are still aromantic, asexual, agender, aplatonic, or some other like of aspec. you don't get to tell them how they experience their identity, and you don't get to tell them they're not queer or don't experience hardships and denial of their identity. i want to see more people talking about and accepting these identities in 2024. no more pushing aspectrum people to the back, we are here in the front with everyone else, shouting alongside you. we all deserve to be heard- including asexuals, aromantics, agender people, aplatonic people and other aspectrum folks. we are all shouting for our rights together. let's shout for each other, too.

[aeide-thea]

[ID: Text reads:

But this demand for "accurate representation" in the mass media is naïve. If the petition is successful one image is merely traded for another, the new one perhaps a little kinder, a little gentler. But because control over that image resides outside the hands of those being portrayed, the image remains fundamentally alien. As the mass media are commercial, this separation is multiplied, for the range of possible imagery is reduced to that which will appeal and sell. At the end of the line the process is complete: transformed into a mass media commodity, you buy your own image back. Since these representations are often how we know one another in a mass society like our own, the consequence of separation from one's own image is estrangement from one another. Social relations become relations between (mis)representations. ("Consumption," p. 131)

/end ID]

really into this passage about media representation in Notes From Underground by Stephen Duncombe

[dog-park-dissidents]

Went to my first pride parade. I swear, only 10% of the people in the parade were from local groups and the rest were either corporations or people running for office with nothing about queer people on their platform

Oh yeah, Pride parades especially in North America have gotten so far from our roots with how much it costs to get permitting and logistics that most actual queer orgs get priced out of participating. Corporations can afford it but of course, instead of decentering themselves and just being okay with like, Dykes On Bikes (Sponsored By Chipotle), they cannot help but make it all about their fucking marketing. We are literally dogs and we couldn't even dream of pissing on parts of public space to claim them as our own on the sheer scale of a corporate logo.

Local Pride organizers are generally part of the problem and lean all the way into this, cause they're usually shitlibs who feel super fuckin validated because Shell Oil turned their logo rainbow, and don't you know how great it is that their HR department has a nondiscrimination policy. Zac was dating the person put in charge of organizing New Orleans's Pride parade and he was like, what if we save money by not allowing floats, just make it a walking parade so more people can participate? And the rest of the goddamn board of directors was like, no, absolutely not, what would our corporate sponsors think.

So anyway that was the year he used his clout to at least let our local pup group lead the parade, which we did looking like this

Needless to say Shell did not return as a sponsor the year after that

[yellowocaballero]

There's a genre of post that I see pretty frequently, which can overall be summed up as, "Modern fandom has a culture problem where fanfic authors are treated as content producers instead of community members and their fanfic is treated as a commodity to be consumed instead of a high-effort labor of love that deserves attention and compliments given directly to the author". I agree with 3/4ths of that. I find the part I disagree with very interesting, the same way I find a lot of writeblr interesting, because it's a perspective that I had to work very hard to actually understand.

Because the posts have such a warped view of what writing is and why we post our writing! They say that fanfic fights against the commodified internet we live in, but all they're doing is changing the currency of payment in this attention economy. Another way you can summarize about 70% of these posts is, "My payment for writing and posting my fanfiction is compliments, and if you do not give me those compliments you are not paying. If you give those compliments behind my back, or talk about them privately without giving them to me as well, then you are stealing from me." I don't want to put it like that, but a lot of these posts use words like 'deprive', as if the reader who enjoys the fic without commenting is withholding something from them that they deserve. They use the word engagement, and they do talk about how part of that engagement is just the joy of talking about AUs and ships with other people, but when people say that comments are their motivation to keep writing, what they mean is that validation is their motivation to keep writing. Which is compliments.

I understand that, because I understand that fanfic writers are not immune to the attention economy. But I don't understand how almost every one of these posts talk about how this lack of attention makes them stop writing - that this act of theft is killing their desire to write. I could understand this if they meant 'desire to POST fic' (I don't post fic I think zero people would read.), but they talk about how lack of payment stops them from writing at all.

IMHO, that is what creates a commodity from fic. People want to treat fic as art, but an artist makes art for themself. Art is made because we want to hold parts of skills and ourselves in our hands. If you won't make art if you get no payment, then you have devalued the art completely.

We think of AO3 as this unique site that's born entirely from passion and is filled with fics written for love of the game. But guilt-tripping posts that shame people for not commenting on a fic they enjoy, and that describe how there's no point in writing fic if it's not getting attention, are directly contributing towards the culture of treating fic like a commodity.

I also really want a fandom culture where the relationship between artist and reader is reciprocal, where it feels like a community, and where I get to talk about my fanfic with people. My favorite part of posting fanfic is rambling about it on my blog, because I can talk about my art all day and I love it when people stop and listen. But I love that because I love my own art. If you love your own art, then it'll always have value.

Also Google your username, just trust me, that's how you find The Secret Discussions. Someone made a TikTok fansong of me once. WHAT?

[liberalsarecool]

From Professor Christopher Robichaud, Senior Lecturer in Ethics and Public Policy, Harvard:

“I'll say this, and then I likely won't be saying much more on here for quite some time, to the relief of some, I'm sure. But my farewell warning is this.

Everyone in the days and weeks ahead will use this loss as an opportunity to seek validation for their own hobby horse complaint. Harris lost because she campaigned with Liz Cheney. Harris lost because she didn't embrace Gaza. Harris lost because she didn't choose Shapiro. Harris lost because she wasn't progressive enough (possibly my favorite one).

Take a good, hard look at the map, my friends. Trump has won the popular vote. Trump ran the table. Explaining that with your hobby horse issue isn't going to cut it, tempting and consoling as it may be. The problem isn't the electoral college. The problem isn't that we didn't have a full primary. The problem isn't Harris. The problem isn't that Dems didn't have the right message. The problem isn't even inflation or the border.

The problem is so much worse than any of those things. Those are all technical problems, with straightforward expertise fixes. If only it were so! No, our problem is not technical. It's very much adaptive. A party that embraced the Big Lie, supported an insurrection, and has been selling conspiracy-addled madness for years, [which] was widely and enthusiastically embraced. Voter turnout was profound! People didn't sit this out.

Simply put, the problem--as some of you have rightly posted--is cultural. America, culturally, has completely abandoned a politics of decency and respect and has embraced instead a politics of resentment, revenge, false nostalgia, and bullying. And if you look at the demographics, you also won't be able to comfort yourself that it's just a white thing, or a working class thing, or an education thing. It's multi-class, multi-gender, multi-educational, and multi-racial. That's what winning the popular vote means. That's what running the table amounts to.

A culture that has descended to this level of debasement is not easily fixed. In fact it may not ever be fixed. The timeline for changing something like this is decades--at best--not two-to-four year election cycles. You can extend that in this case, because with the GOP likely controlling all branches of federal government and the courts, they will ensure that mechanisms are in place to keep them in power long after their popularity has waned. You can count on that.

The GOP evolved into a party of rage, lies, and revenge--and it correctly diagnosed that there was and is a large appetite for that. That's what the country wants. At least enough of the country wants it to ensure broad appeal and widespread electoral success. The old GOP will never return, and the Dems have nothing to say to American culture at the moment. Nothing. They've been speaking to a country that's gone, like dust in the wind.

And that's my final thought, which my posts last night alluded to. The America I knew and loved is gone. This new America--nah, I won't even bother. I will say that cultural change is less likely to occur in politics or in the academy. You're not going to get people to see how vulgar they've become through a clever argument or a nice campaign speech, that's for sure.

This would be time for the arts, broadly understood, to step in. The arts can change hearts and minds. Too bad the arts have been systematically dismantled in education in this country, and on the other end, the tech industry's assault on the arts through AI is sure to hollow out any good-faith efforts that might emerge.

And for the rest of the world, America's rightward lurch is, I'm afraid, bad news for you too. I know you know this. Because it's not isolated, is it? It's just at the moment the most prominent example of a burgeoning trend. And this will embolden others in other countries, to be sure. We need not speculate what happens when countries become mired in lies, embrace resentment, and savor bullying. We know exactly what happens. Bloody conflict and global destabilization.

The first quarter of the 21st century will, therefore, in hindsight, be viewed as the seed-planting stage for the absolute shit show that's about to unfold globally over the next two and a half decades. Count on it.

Adopt whatever coping and endurance strategies you have available. You're going to need it.

I think that's all I've left to say.”

The least evolved. The most paternalistic.

The bully. The liar. The most resentful.

This is the reality we are in. FOX and Republicans have been repeating the script for decades.

The Dark Ages are conservative aspirations.

The abdication of values/principles is complete.

'Good faith' no longer exists on the Right. The more reprehensible the action/person, the bigger the addiction. Trump proves this.

Anti-paternalism, anti-fascism and anti-bullying are my paths forward. Join me.

[wyvspike]

Revisiting 123 TMAGP (CAT#) Theory

Spoilers for up to episode 16 of TMAGP.

It's been a couple of weeks since I first put together this theory for myself and I wanted to add on some thoughts. Spoilers below the cut!

Here is my updated spreadsheet:

I still feel like 1 / 2 / 3 definitely act as a categorical grouping which are not mutually exclusive, with the general theme of who / where / what respectively. But there is a bit of an inconsistency in which statements receive what categorical assignment.

To clarify categories as I interpret them:

"Who" in my mind defines an avatar, or a person who somehow has super natural abilities that are innate (and not a result of a "where" or a "what").

"Where" defines a location that either causes paranormal events, or attributes supernatural qualities to the people inhabiting that space (Pennine Tower, the garden in Infection). Looking back, this one is the one I'm a bit skeptical of now. Namely because there are two statements that I feel like still don't quite make much sense based on my personal interpretation of what a "where" is. I'll get into that in a moment.

"What" is a thing (physical, or something that you can interact with) that has supernatural traits. Saw somebody say that tattoos are hardly a thing and I disagree. It's on your skin. You can touch it, interact with it, right? Same thing with apps. I digress.

Now to talk about the inconsistencies.

Ink5oul: Episodes I'm referencing are 2, 11, and 16.

For a while, I had a theory that Ink was not an avatar and instead had a tattoo machine that was supernatural (maybe Oscar Jarrett, referenced by Ink in episode 11, has a tattoo machine that they now use or something). This would explain why they could be referenced in (and sometimes the direct cause of the events in the episode) without being considered a paranormal being. We also need to consider how their tattoos include alchemical symbols, which are clearly important in this universe. This aligns with the classifications we saw in relevant episodes.

Then we got episode 16, and now I'm a bit confused to be honest lol, because it's classified as a 1. Based on my theory that the tattoos were supernatural and were therefore classified as "3s," I'm a bit mystified by this one. So here are some explanations I have thought of (though I am sure there are other reasons):

Ink only "triggered" the classification because they were physically present. When comparing it to episode 2, they were not physically present when Daria started to change her appearance, and in episode 11, they played no (supernatural) role in the events that occurred.

Ink has become an actual avatar since the events that transpired in episode 2. There is enough of a time frame where this could have happened, and the timeline kind of makes sense? Episode 11, they obsess over the ocean tattoo and maybe they discover something about it — with alchemical symbols, a tool, I don't know — that causes them to begin their practice. Episode 2 they give a tattoo to Daria, and they're still not quite an avatar, but the tattoos sure as hell are supernatural (because of the alchemical symbols? an evil magic tattoo machine? i dunno). At this point, they would still be new at it, and this makes sense because Daria says, "They’re pretty popular these days," which implies that it's a recent thing. And now, by episode 16, they themself are an avatar.

Regardless, assuming ink is an avatar (and they don't carry a supernatural item such as the bone dice and viol-ence), I would still expect this episode to be classified as a 13 based on previous statements to account for the tattoo.

Inconsistent 2s: Episodes I'm referencing are 7 and 11 (again lol)

There are two statements that are classified with CAT#2 that I am uncertain about. I'll start with episode 7 — Hilltop Center.

I'll be honest, I definitely saw the name Hilltop and immediately made connections with TMA, and thought "it must be relevant." And when I first started to see the commonalities between statements and the three classifications, it technically fit right in – it's a place, isn't it, and a canonically significant one at that. But I feel like I may have gotten ahead of myself with the excitement from the reference. This is a different reality from TMA. The Institute is in Manchester now, why would the same qualities exist in Hilltop in this universe?

Now, while it is possible that Hilltop caused the events that occurred in episode 7, when you think about the content of the episode itself, it has more to do with "who" rather than "where." It starts with one person who is strange and uncanny who ends up bringing more and more of their "friends" who want to "help." This "person" seemed to have originated outside of this place. And the statement giver (aside from being, yknow, traumatised probably), is not affected / changed by any "supernatural" quality of the Center. So why is this episode classified as CAT#2??? I don't know.

For episode 11, I'm a little uncertain to how place is immediately relevant. 3 makes total sense — it's a weird creepy tattoo. But I feel like 2 is not immediately clear as to why it is important in this episode, but wait, okay now that I'm writing this sentence, episode 15 is started to give us a bit more to work with actually–

Okay NEVERMIND. New theory. Episode 11 being classified as CAT#23 makes total sense. The cemetery is located in Padstow, and is a place where lots of sailors were buried. In episode 15, Luke orders a beer called "Doom Bar," also from Padstow, named after the Doom Bar sandbank. On their site they wrote: "The sandbank is revered as a formidable nautical challenge that should be approached with respect and navigated with skill." So I guess, what I'm trying to say, is maybe this sandbank, this part of the coast, is supernatural in nature. But it's just not immediately clear why it's classified in that way and why it's included in this episode's classification number — we just always need more information.

Snakes: Episode I'm referencing is 14

Is the guy that vomits the snakes everywhere an avatar? Like, I'm not really sure. And the statement giver too, says she feels her throat get all weird. I guess maybe it's an infection? But does that count as a who or a what? I'm not sure.

Theories:

Finally, this brings me to the issue of how the hell these statements are categorized in the first place. Because we have inconsistencies. How can Transformation (full) -/- dysmorphic result in a CAT#3 and Transformation (snakes) -/- horde result in a CAT#1? "Dysmorphic" and "horde" are the cross reference so I feel like we can rule those out. "Full" and "snakes" are the subsections of transformation. So how do those two words result in different CAT#s?

So my current theory which is definitely a cop-out, hand wavey one because I have NO IDEA is that I feel like the tables and binder and cross reference stuff must, in some way, be supernatural because there's no way somebody created a system this...well, flexible? It would need to be constantly updating to accommodate new language (such as "influencer" since that is of the Internet Instagram Era), and seeing as FR3-D1 is an old ass system and the two seem closely related, I feel like the classification system can't be Normal.

Conclusion: I think the 1 / 2 / 3 - who / where / what (or any variation of it) has a lot of merit, I just think that, like all things in Protocol, there is more nuance than we can see at the moment. We just need to know more.

123 TMAGP (CAT#) Theory

So I haven't seen my theory about how the CAT# works on here so I'm not sure if anybody else has noticed this but I figured I should share! I'm pretty sure that whether a statement is labelled 1-2-3 defines what kind of content is paranormal in the episode.

EDIT: Spoilers below the cut

Here's my spreadsheet ordered by CAT# ("code" in the last column):

I noticed that when I put the statements in order of "code", the main focus of each episode had something in common. Looking at statements coded "1" I noticed that they all had to do with a person. Episode 6 -- Needles, Episode 10 and 12 -- Bonzo, and episode 1 "reanimation" was the zombie guy. Okay, so statements labelled with a 1 seem to have something to do with people.

Next set, the 2s. Episode 5 -- the cinema. Episode 7 -- Hilltop Centre. Episode 8 -- Pennine Tower. These episodes all have to do with place that are paranormal by nature.

Finally, the 3s: episode 2 -- a tattoo. Episode 4 -- the slaughter violin. Episode 9 -- bone dice. Episode 13 -- the app. These episodes all have an "artefact" of some kind, whether that be a physical object or something literally tattooed into someone's body, that doesn't seem to matter. It's some kind of thing or object.

Of course, as we've noticed, CAT#s have appeared as 1 / 2 / 3, but also as groups of numbers, such as 23 in episodes 1 and 11, and on the Klaus spreadsheet as 12 and 13. This indicates that statements with multiple types of paranormal presences can have multiple IDs. In the case of episode 1 "transformation," the Magnus Institute is the paranormal place, and the box might be the object. In episode 11, the graveyard and the tattoo are the two major appearances.

Here's my spreadsheet with who / where / what

I just thought it was cool! And the episodes seem to align with my theory the majority of the time (the only one i'm mildy uncertain about is episode 3, because that implies that the reason the guy turned into a tree was because of the place but it's been a while since i listened to that episode so maybe it makes sense lol).

[utilitycaster]

I really like Taliesin elaborating on the inspiration from the 90s LA punk scene, in which he said a lot of the people he knew were just people looking for hope in a world that has been incredibly unfair to them. It's a very empathetic view towards people who, as he said, often are dealing with injustice and disadvantages.

He also mentions that many of these punks were dealing with drug and alcohol problems (and while he did not want that to be central to Ashton's character and wanted to focus instead on chronic pain for a number of reasons, including personal, Ashton definitely relies on alcohol for palliative reasons). More generally, we see Ashton look for hope and answers in a lot of places that end up being extremely incorrect. The most obvious one is with the shard of Rau'shan, which, after multiple people advised them against taking it with very clear warnings, they decided to still attempt to absorb, with nearly-fatal results; but there were flashes of this with their earlier cynicism towards Eshteross vs. a much more begrudging acceptance of the transactional worldview of Ratanish or Jiana Hexum.

Ashton often places his own pain in a position of honor, and in doing so can discount that of other people. He's been remarkably unlucky, to be clear; I think that's part of it. We as the audience know that their statement that no one in that room has felt helpless in their lives is demonstrably false about pretty much all of Vox Machina and their allies, as well as the Bright Queen. He says Keyleth maybe does know, not realizing that of Keyleth and Vex, one has been a homeless runaway rather like himself, and it's not the one he's saying knows helplessness. In a way, to hold on to that hope, they find themselves telling themselves a lot of lies because otherwise they have to face the truth that their suffering did not make them more qualified or better; it was just unfair and it might still keep happening. He blames the gods because then at least there's a reason and not just absolutely random chance that he was born to a self-important cultist, happened to survive a long-shot ill-advised ritual and wake up in the desert of another continent, happened to be the one thrown out the window of Hexum Manor, and happened to be saved with a Potion of Possibility. To be clear, they've since made a name for themself on their own merits, but a lot of who they are, both in terms of the traumatic and difficult elements and in terms of what now makes them special was dumb luck, good or bad.

For Ashton, for those LA punks Taliesin knew, for the Vanguard and for Ludinus and for countless people in Exandria and in our actual world, a lot of grasping for hope becomes grasping for a meaning for pain and suffering. I'd argue that this is a pretty major theme Taliesin explores with all his characters. However, just because the pain is real doesn't mean the conclusions one comes to as a result of it are inviolate and above reproach. It is possible to have extremely valid pain and trauma and to be incredibly wrong about its source or what it means, or to deal with it in ways that will either make it worse or that will inflict pain, even inadvertently, on others. And I think the theme of the campaign is very much that; what happens when someone either chooses to or must let the decisions they made to deal with a moment - or a life - of pain be writ large on both themselves and the world?