#to be clear I don't think legality is the core of the issue here

[normal-thoughts-official]

Interesting interview with Francesca Albanese, UN special rappirteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, for those who want to understand the legal standing of Israel and Hamas:

“The right to self-defense that Israel has invoked under Article 51 of the UN Charter is quite clear. It entitles a state to repel an attack that comes from another state. So, the action necessary to repel the attack must be based on its intensity and scope. And it must be proportional.”

[...] “There is jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice that says that self-defense cannot apply in a context of military occupation when, in this case, Israel is occupying another state, another people.”

[...] “In 24, 30 hours, Israel had regained control of its territory. So, as of then, the right of self-defense in its own territory — if self-defense is to be applied — was exhausted.”

[...]

“What Hamas did on Oct. 7 goes beyond what legitimate resistance is, because the massacre of civilians is never justified, cannot be justified. Hamas is to blame for the brutal killing of civilians, because in a context of hostilities, while military targets are legitimate, and killing a soldier is a tragedy, killing a civilian is a war crime. Killing civilians is absolutely prohibited.”

[The link has videos of the interview, all with CC, as well as a written summary of its contents]

[jingerpi]

While I do often reblog posts about privilege experienced by those in the imperial core, even marginalized workers, I do think there is something to be said for colonial subjects within places like the US. While it's certainly important to recognize the benefits of imperialism as well as the fact that there are apartheid systems in the global south largely because of US influence, it's also important to recognize that the US is still a colonialist project and there are people here who live under a pseudo-apartheid. Many already recognize this, but I do want to emphasize it. it's very possible to acknowledge and discuss both of these simultaneously.

Though there are few laws explicitly about race, the ways Black and Indigenous people are treated by this government and legal system are markedly different from how white people are treated by those same institutions. The statistics on incarceration alone paint an extremely clear picture of this. We can conclude the purpose of a system is what it does and say this is intentional, or we can even look at the professed motivations of members of these systems, either way it's very clear that the systems of this country treat Black and Brown people very differently from white people, and even differently from each other in many ways. Black and indigenous communities have their own histories and complexities which are often completely overwritten because of their shared victimization by the USA, as do Latine folks and many other demographics.

More to the original point, while there are some privileges functionally everyone in the US receives, like easy access to the English language as well as the default currency of the USD, many people in these demographics primarily face disadvantages due to their presence in the USA, rather than benefits. While these oppressions aren't necessarily on the same axis', it's important to recognize the Imprisoned Black man utilized for slave labor is not better off for having his ancestors trafficked to the US, as if he weren't in the US he likely wouldn't be forced into slave labor in the first place, due to the racial subjugation that takes place under these systems. That being said!!! there are still people in these conditions in other countries! While being enslaved in the US is worse than being a free man, it is disingenuous to suggest it is the worst oppression Black people face, or that there are no countries which utilize slave labor in this way and have no access to English or the global trade enabled by USD.

To summarize this: while many who face oppression in the US do not face oppression across all the axis' a person in a similar position in an imperialized country would face, this doesn't necessarily mean that being in the US is on the whole a privilege, as many people in these positions would not be experiencing the same conditions of oppression in the first place were they not colonized and enslaved both historically and continually into the present by the USA.

I think it is quite possible to acknowledge and discuss both of these truths, without claiming that indigenous communities somehow benefit from being colonized, or that colonized people in America somehow have it worse than colonized people in other parts of the globe. (seriously please stop saying minorities here have it worse, we do not)

Finally I want to add that while this issue is close to my heart for a number of reasons, I am white and in the imperial core and will necessarily be lacking in experience or understanding. If you're in a similar position please don't stop this discussion here with me and other white people, seek out and read works by people who experience some of the things I've discussed. and if you are one of those (many, many) people colonized, imperialized, or both, by the USA, please don't hesitate for a moment to critique me. This discussion requires more voices than mine, I only want to amplify with my voice, not center the discussion on myself.

[carriesthewind]

thank you for the breakdown. omg you'd almost think the AI bros *want* their little toy banned if this is what they're doing with it.

This isn't in defense of the AI bros, but I don't think this particular case is attributable to that broad category of people. Most of the people advocating for chatgpt as tool for legal filings are either as a supplemental drafting tool or as a tool for pro-se litigants.

Just to be clear: I think that first suggested use-case is pointless (there are already existing tools for helping drafting that are much better) and the second is evil (see, generally, "the unauthorized practice of law," but make it tech scammers).

Although I think the chatbot angle to this case is interesting - because it really highlights the limitations of the chatbot behind the marketing hype - at it's core, the problem that happened here isn't the use of the chatbot. It's the conduct of the attorneys in drafting and researching and, most importantly, filing, without checking anything, and then doubling down on the lie. The issue before the court would be the same if, say, the attorneys had used a random person on the street as the source of their drafting, instead of a chatbot.

[corporatevalue]

Restraint is a learned skill. Doesn't J just know it.

It can certainly relate to the urge. How easy it'd be to escalate this interaction; J was technically at a disadvantage, sure, but that'd not make it any less satisfying to fire its bb g— actually, scratch that, just whack the tin can with its firearm repeatedly and relentlessly like it's some baseball bat. Nonetheless, its Boss spoke of a truce. It refuses to be the one at fault for its Nullification. Though, if the worker drone were to ruin it… gladly, given the opportunity, it'd fire right back.

But it didn't happen. The tool clatters as it is dropped back into the box, and in return, J rolls its eyes in annoyance. "Your comparison falls flat, for I don't need no company to hold my hand like I'm some clingy preteen with abandonment issues. The two of you, on the other hand…"

J didn't actually know much about the relationship between Uzi and the clumsy excuse of a disassembly drone. That said, it could easily fill the blanks just by knowing its former colleague's miserable attempts in keeping himself sane, befriending rocks - shamelessly talking to them outloud. It's all J needed to know. What an outright embarassing guy to be associated with, seriously.

Though, when it comes to V... ...

"Wow. Three guesses, and they're all incorrect. I have a life outside of you two, you know. Though, that may be difficult to understand for a worker drone solely attached to its one sole special interest…" it'd add, gesturing to the propped up door. That's all that the worker drones, hiding in their itty-bitty outposts, ever cared about, right? When in doubt, just build another quick door? Laughable.

Not like it mattered. Uzi bit the bait, but instead of basking in victory, it just… squints at the new information. The small drone then continues talking, but J only started to consider her words after the mention of a business transaction.

Thinking of it as a business transaction… That J wanted a more thorough answer than that, was a given. Though, asking it to be honest to a worker drone in return… it'd be an understatement to claim that it was averse to the idea. Thinking of it as a business transaction, however, lit up a metaphorical light bulb.

When it comes to business transactions of ordinary nature - that is, nothing that puts the existence of the company at risk - a verbal agreement can theoretically be just as legally binding as a written one, assuming both agree to the same terms. Though, there's a reason why J prides itself in saving everything in writing; without evidence that such an agreement has at all taken place, you'll find it quite difficult to get anywhere in court after you're (inevitably) taken advantage of.

With no way of enforcing what has been agreed upon, or in other words— no real consequence awaiting it should it choose to lie; yes, J certainly does like the sound of that. It won't even feel guilty about it. This isnt one of its colleagues— it's just some hormonal teenager.

Sweeping with its tail, it'd clear a space of the stoop from snow, sitting down on the cleared area. "First of all, slight correction on your response: I'm here as myself, and not as representative of anyone else. Shocker, I know. Truth be told, I doubt Boss would ever believe a single word that you'd share willingly." not like it could blame her. "It's just that I am… adamant to not rule out anything without first reviewing it."

A part of J thought of it as unwise to continue, but - it was worth a shot, right? "You say you've destroyed her core, yes? That only begets more questions than answers."

"If you genuinely only did the same thing to Boss as what you did to me — of which even I have returned from in good condition, clearly — then consider this conversation as over. But if you've beaten her beyond return, something that I cannot fathom; I'd want to know the details."

It looked… tired, almost, with its voice lacking the sassy intonation it usually sticks with. The question wasn't a new one, was it..? "Tell me. How."

She won't even say his name. For some reason, that really ticks her off.

For a moment, Uzi's hand glows with a triangular glyph of violet light, reaching through space and grasping the handle of a hammer. It would be easy to just Rotate, Translate the thing right through J's smug face, blunt end first. It's nearly reflexive at this point, like there's some part of Uzi that's been waiting for a chance like this. She wants to. She really wants to. But she shouldn't.

Sighing, the light vanishes from her hand, and the hammer drops back into the toolbox with a clatter. Did J notice? Whatever. "Guess you'd know a lot about clinging onto stuff that's not there, huh? Like a whole company," she says, rolling her eyes. Or some skin, she decides not to add.

J denies her accusations of creeping, and Uzi wonders if the other drone has enough creativity to lie about it. "Huh. V, then? You're a few blocks off, but she's not home right now, anyways," she says, not seeing any point in lying herself. "Or maybe you're really just that bored. You could check out that big hole in the middle of the city, you know. Throw yourself down it, see where it leads."

But she doesn't get to enjoy that KYS before J starts doubting how frickin' awesome she is. Uzi just frowns, rolling her eyes. "I'm not stupid, I destroyed her core, like we had to with yours. You were there, why are you asking-"

Her eyes hollow as she stops short. No, J wasn't there. Hold on, why is she even asking? Is she trying to get info for Cyn? Did Uzi let her guard down, did she just get outsmarted by J? This is the most humiliating thing that's ever happened in her life, thank robo-god no one else is around to see it.

No, wait. Maybe she can turn this around, maybe she can learn a few things too. "Frickin'... Whatever. Fine, cards on the table. If I know things you two don't, then instead of dancing around it, just ask what you want to know. But then I get to ask you something. If it makes you feel better, you can think of it as a... business transaction, or whatever."

The knowledge she and V have is one of their key weapons against the forces of lameness, but there's a few things on her mind that she'd love a clear answer on. "I'll even give you that last one for free," says Uzi, taking a seat on the stoop. "Well?"

[haleigh-sloth]

Maybe I'm being repetitive here but do you have any idea why certain people are *so* against redemption for Tomura when it perfectly aligns with the core of the story + it's themes and has been set up for god knows how long? Not to mention that villain redemption isn't like... an insane thing? It's pretty common. I'm genuinely confused here and I don't really have anyone to ask so I'm curious on your thoughts

Agh there's no real answer to this

Personal taste, selective reading, misreading, all of the above.

I think most of it is personal taste and that therefore leads to selective reading and misreading. Because as someone who immediately wanted a redemption arc for Tomura the second I laid eyes on him, I looked for the signs of it and I saw them. If someone had no desire to see that or hated the idea of it right off the bat because it's not their personal taste, they probably won't see the signs of it (no matter how obvious they are) or they'll ignore them because they're in denial or something.

I see a lot of "what happened to just evil villains for the sake of being evil", and there's nothing wrong with wanting that. But imo that's a them problem and not a bnha problem. If it's so upsetting to them they should go read something else, but oh well.

You're right it's not uncommon to happen in manga, it's certainly not new. I do think that BNHA being SO BIG has resulted in a large fan base with a lot of people where this is their first manga. I feel this way for more reasons than one--outside of this redemption arc hating debacle. But that's one reason I see there being such a negative reaction to it.

I think this series has a unique issue also where people confuse "hero" with "infallible good guy whose perspective shouldn't be questioned". "Hero" and "villain" are legal titles within the world building of the story. "Hero" is not always good, in this story. Endeavor and Hawks are pretty clear examples of this. "Villains" are not always villains at their heart, or they are not always destined to remain villains, in this story. This story has those TITLES and ROLES simultaneously and I think people just...forget that. So then you have people screaming about how Hawks is a perfect angel despite the story literally screaming at you otherwise, same thing with Endeavor. Why this subversion of the hero and villain title is so upsetting to some people though, is really beyond me. I think it works really really well for a story like BNHA where the writing is anything but subtle, things are both literal and metaphorical at the same time, things are both "bad" but also "not" at the same time, things are both "good" but also "not" at the same time. But I think people started the manga and thought that "hero" and "villain" were going to be taken in the most literal direction and never veer from it until the end. And the story doesn't do that.

Also idk, the villains really are a driving force behind the themes of the story. Without them, the story wouldn't be what it is, there'd be absolutely no way to deliver the message the manga is delivering if not for them. They are quite a central point of the story, but they weren't always like that for the first good 2/3 of the manga. So I'd say maybe that shift in tone upset some people as well because I see a lot of upset about the side character 1akids being shafted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There're too many reasons, but the most general ones I come across are listed above.

[desidarling123]

FACT CHECK: Did JKR sue people for writing Wolfstar fanfiction? [FALSE] [with sources]

So, if you're at all active in the HP fandom, and ESPECIALLY if you're on TikTok, you've likely come across a post or video claiming the following:

JKR LITERALLY SUED PEOPLE OVER WOLFSTAR FANFICTION! AND THAT'S ALSO WHY SHE MADE REMADORA CANON -- TO SPITE THE SHIPPERS!

I'm not sure who first started this claim or how its various permutations grew, but it spread at the speed of light across social media. This widely-circulated meme summarizes it:

For the LONGEST time, I didn't know what to make of it. The claims were vague enough that they seemed like they could be true -- after all, JKR is a megacunt and a renowned TERF. You don't need to fact-check either of those things.

But then -- for the first time ever -- I came across a video on TikTok claiming that what was being said was NOT true, and that it was being used SPECIFICALLY to stir up drama. Which was... crazy, to say least.

And that led me, well, to do my own research & fact-check. I've taken the original video's structure and added some exposition as well.

So here's the truth:

That 2003 case the above meme refers to? Not even REMOTELY what the situation was about. Hell, not even CLOSE.

In 2003, JKR sent a cease-and-desist letter to an explicit adult HP fan fiction website, called "Restricted Section". Here's the letter:

As the above letter states, the site was sent a notice because of overarching concerns that minors would accidentally stumble onto the sexually explicit content the site hosted after searching up 'Harry Potter'.

The hand-wringing over minor safety probably seems dated now, but it was, in fact, standard practice in the early 2000s - sexually explicit fan content was being removed across the internet for those exact concerns. In fact, just the year before, in 2002, fanfiction.net was purged of NC-17 content (which would happen one more time, in 2012).

I feel ridiculous stating it, but just to be clear -- in the above letter and all my subsequent research, there's NO evidence she went after Wolfstar -- or any ship, for that matter -- directly.

In fact, the letter goes an extra mile to declare that "our clients (JKR) make no complaint about innocent fan fiction written by genuine Harry Potter fans", but that, "there is plainly a very real risk that impressionable children... will be directed... to your sexually explicit website".

But that leads in nicely to the next point -- the website DIDN'T shut down, as per the letter's request. Instead, they added password protection to ensure only members older than 17 were accessing it.

OK, but why did JKR and Warner Bros go after this site in the first place? Most believe it was because of a widely-publicized article in THE SCOTSMAN that talked about the website. But, once again, this article doesn't go after Wolfstar in particular -- it only goes after Harry x Draco and Harry x Snape. The inclusion of latter was arguably what generated the biggest controversy -- the pairing of Harry, a fictional minor, with an adult character, in slash stories largely written by adult heterosexual women, was not one that could be cast in a good light to the general public. It's hardly a surprise JKR's lawyers sought to do something before the controversy got out of hand and worried parents started to make calls.

What I said before still goes, though. The legal core of the issue was ALWAYS to do NOT with the ships, but the EXPLICIT NATURE of the work -- and the (very real) concerns that the series' then-mostly-under-18 readership could find said works with very little as far as guardrails were concerned. (I know, because I was one of those kids)

TLDR; JKR did NOT sue people over Wolfstar fanfiction, she sent a cease-and-desist notice to a website that was not taking adequate precautions to prevent minors from accessing the explicit adult content on the site.

To be clear -- this is not meant to be a statement on what to ENJOY in your fandom ships. You can ship Wolfstar, Remadora, both, neither -- it really doesn't matter. I think the fandom is critical enough of the author to have reclaimed her work on our own terms, and people should be allowed to just, idk enjoy things.

But propagating straight-up falsehoods is dangerous, especially when it comes at the expense of 1) a safe fandom environment (see: the current fandom ship wars between Remadora and Wolfstar, which are difficult to watch) and 2) serves as a distraction from the ACTUAL garbage JKR engages in (of which there is plenty -- no need to make it up lol).

Also, truth be told -- inter-fandom ship wars don't generally add anything productive to the necessary conversations that need to be had about her works. The thought that dashing fan ships was a key motivator in her writing rather than, I don't know, plot concerns, is ludicrous on face, and gives fans a level of control over the original writer that just... doesn't exist IRL? And certainly didn't back then?

And again -- the books would have been VERY different series, plot-wise, if Sirius Black HAD lived. Him being in a relationship with Remus, confirmed or implied, has no relation to that decision.

If we have talk Harry Potter, I'd rather talk about just about anything else -- the racism, the misogyny, the lack of any sort of organic queer rep and JKR's inability to just own up to the problems in her works. But the minutiae of ship wars -- and the inevitable stream of disinformation that comes with it, sans any kind of concrete evidence -- is one I'd prefer to pass on.

SOURCES:

Cease-and-Desist Letter Copy: http://archive.is/HTLsq

THE SCOTSMAN Article: http://archive.is/VdEaY

Restricted Section Updates Page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20030815233612/http://www.restrictedsection.org/news.php

BONUS: The original TikTok video I came across whose structure and sources I shamelessly stole to read and build out my argument. I copied a lot of their wording because it explained it better than I could, you just get some bonus snarky commentary from yours truly

[the-breath-in-air]

Fixing "Boy Erased" (2018)

I recently decided to watch Boy Erased (2018) again, now that we're a couple years out from its initial release (and hype). And I came away with some thoughts.

First, something I think worked. You know that scene near the end, when Jared (Lucas Hedges) is trying to leave the conversion camp and he's racing through corridors and whatnot. That whole sequence works, but there's one moment that really stands out.

Jared attempts to get his phone and Michael (one of the 'camp counselors') tries to physically wrestle it away from him. There's a bit of a fight but eventually Jared makes his way to the bathroom and he calls his mom to come take him away. He then emerges from the bathroom and says to Victor Sykes (who runs the camp), "If you, or anyone else puts their hands on me, I have witnesses." Victor puts up his hands and says, "Nobody's gonna put their hands on you. Why would anybody do that? Come and sit. We're gonna wait for your mom, okay?" Then there's a hard cut to this:

Victor Sykes and Brandon literally laying their hands on Jared and praying. And I love that juxtaposition because it brings to light the violence inherent in this situation. They're restraining him through enforced religious acts. There's violence in this prayer.

And on top of that, it serves as a pretty good metaphor for the whole film. Jared's parents (especially his mother) believe they're helping but really they're hurting. They can't see the violence of their actions in sending him to the camp.

If only the rest of the film was working on this level.

Problem the first: Audience as observer. The film is really about observing its subject, Jared, as he experiences these events. But it isn't about giving us any insight into his perspective or interiority as he does so. The camera is looking at Jared more often that it is revealing to us what he's seeing. Perhaps the most obvious example of this issue is with the perfume ad scene. Jared is on a run and he comes across a perfume ad on the side of a bus stop with a bare chested buff guy. The camera shows us the ad, and then the rest of the scene has the camera (and thus, the audience) placed some distance away as we see Jared first touch the ad, then throw a rock at the ad, and then scream "fuck you" at it repeatedly. The ad itself isn't salacious enough to illicit that kind of response in the average audience-goer, and the camera is so disconnected from Jared's experience that we aren't really gaining insight into why this ad is affecting him in such a strong way. It ends up making it so that scene really does not work.

This isn't to critique Lucas Hedges's performance in that scene. It's more to say that all the other elements of that scene make it feel ridiculous - because the audience has not been guided toward viewing that ad in the same way that Jared does in that moment.

The second problem: Casting. To be absolutely clear, this is not a knock against any of the actors performances. On the contrary, I think everyone was pretty dang exceptional. Rather, it's more a conversation about casting choices. Two of those choices really stand out as somewhat misguided: Xavier Dolan as Jon and Emily Hinkler as Lee.

Turns out Emily Hinkler is a nonbinary actress. Lee (the character) is a cis guy who is conspicuously unmasculine. (If you've seen the movie - he's the one who gets hit in the head with a baseball). Casting a nonbinary actress as a cis boy at a conversion camp feels a bit off on it's own in that a conversion camp would be forcing people to adhere to assigned genders at birth. But I could get behind it as a sort of statement, like, a casting decision as direct opposition to the enforced gender binary of a conversion camp. i.e. Why should the movie adhere to the oppressive gender binary that the camp would? However, by casting a nonbinary actress as the least conventionally masculine character - it actually feels like it ends up reinforcing the binary. Lee's defining trait is that he's small and unmanly and, afaik, he's the only one of the male characters who is not portrayed by a cis man.

My issue with Xavier Dolan's casting is much simpler: Jon feels like he was written as a teenager and Xavier Dolan was approaching 30 when this was filmed. Maybe it wouldn't have bugged me so much if I didn't already know who Xavier Dolan was when watching the movie? Like, maybe if you watch it without knowing the actor's age, it works better? But also, the character feels like a teen but isn't explicitly stated to be a teen. So whenever he was on screen I kept wondering if actually part of Jon's situation is meant to be that he is 30 but stuck in a sort-of adolescence due to his relationship with his abusive father. Or did they just cast Xavier Dolan to portray a teenager?

This brings me to the third problem: Not enough of the ensemble. Jared, and thus the audience, spends proportionally, little screen time with the other people at the camp. They are rarely shown talking to each other - especially outside the restrictive observation of the camp's 'counselors.' This could be part of the point - i.e. that the camp is so isolating - but that isolation wasn't really highlighted by the camera/scenes/dialogue...so it really feels more like it's just an oversight. The movie focuses on Jared and his individual story and so the rest just fell by the wayside.

This is really unfortunate because there are some (potentially) great characters in there, especially Jon and Gary. Jon went through the program once before and is now back for a second time. We don't know what happened to make him come back. He appears to be 30-ish but he's staying at a hotel with his abusive father. He is completely invested in the program and treats his sexuality like an addiction. He has even taken it upon himself to forego all physical contact with other men (not even a handshake). His self-loathing is at once horrifying and heartbreaking.

In contrast, Gary (Troye Sivan) knows the entire program is bullshit, but he's playing along for his own survival. He's over 18; he lived with his boyfriend for a year prior to coming to the camp. So that begs the question of how his family convinced him to enter to the program. Also, Gary's so invested in his own survival, that he stays silent and is complacent in the abuse and violence he witnesses against others in the camp. He is both a victim and a bystander (at times).

I think this film would've really benefited from spending more time with these characters (as well as Sarah, portrayed by Jesse LaTourette, and Cameron, portrayed by Britton Sear) in the camp and seeing how they all interacted with each other. Give us a sense of their different contexts and perspectives - and give us a better sense of the ways that conversion camps disempower the people sent there (even people like Gary, who knows it's bullshit). It's the thing that makes all the other movies about conversion camps work so well.

Which brings us to the fourth problem: the ending. If we spend more time with the ensemble, we'd either end up with a really long movie or we'd have to cut out something else. Well, folks, we can cut about 10 minutes off the end. Everything after the dinner Jared has with his mother post-escape can go. The climax of the film is when Jared finally decides to leave the camp. The resolution comes when his mother places herself in opposition to Jared's father (which she had never done before) and decides that she's going to take Jared home. And the emotional resolution comes when she admits to Jared that they made a mistake and that they harmed him by sending him to the camp.

Everything after that is extraneous. We don't really need to see Jared living in a city with a boyfriend, or see him begin to reconcile with his father. His relationship with his father was never the emotional core for the film. Boy Erased is, in some ways, a movie about self-actualization and that's the sort of movie that's best to end with something a bit open-ended. Y'know...a sort of end-that's-just-the-beginning kind of thing. Because the story of Jared falling in love and dating and moving out and gaining the self-confidence to confront his father - well that's a whole other movie. And here it gets shoved into the epilogue, which does the whole thing a real disservice.

Then there are the informational cards at the end. Two stick out as being particularly frustrating. One, "The real Victor Sykes left L.I.A. in 2008. He now lives in Texas, with his husband," feels irrelevant and unnecessary. The audience cares about what happened to Gerrard Conley (who wrote the story and whom Jared is based off of). But why do we care about what happened to the real guy who ran the camp? We don't...except for the jab about him now being married to a man - which feels like it's a more significant point for the cis straight people in the audience than for anyone queer. Turns-out-ex-gay-pastor-was-actually-just-gay-the-whole-time is not revelatory, I gotta say.

Then there's also this:

The emphasis about conversion therapy "practiced on minors," feels a bit disconnected from the film we just watched - which emphasized how abusive and traumatizing it is, even for adults. And in the U.S., all states currently legally allow conversion therapy for anyone 18+. Only Washington D.C. has banned it. And that, to me, is equally egregious, yet it isn't mentioned. The film itself challenges the notion that it's somehow okay for this to be practiced on adults because it's ostensibly their "choice," and then the info cards at the end shy away from that stance by focusing on kids.

I think the thing I find most frustrating about this movie, is the wasted potential. As I said at the beginning of this, there are some moments that really stand out in how they use the medium to convey meaning. There are some choices in how the film uses light and brightness (or lack thereof), that are pretty dang good, too. But ultimately, it's a film I feel so detached from and I think some of what I explained above is part of why.

[asynck002fa7]

How to avoid the spread of project scope

Why does scope spread happen so often?

What should be done to manage the scope?

Have you ever worked on a project with expanded borders? Yinheedu.com

Or more importantly, have you ever worked on a project that has not expanded in scope?

Scope sprawl is usually defined as: the expansion of the project beyond the plan.

How can we avoid it? Is it possible to efficiently and effectively control and manage our business process improvement projects?

The answer is, absolutely!

PMP 2021 study guide

Almost everyone who has participated in project work has encountered the problem of project scope spread. This is like a compressed sponge. When it is dropped into water, it will expand and become 10-20 times its original size. This is because its boundary (plastic capsule) is dissolved. Similarly, the disappearance of the project boundary will also lead to the spread of the project scope. In order to prevent the scope from spreading, it is necessary for us to correctly define the root cause of the problem.

If we analyze the root cause of scope spread, we can find the following main problems:

Wrongly defined processes and failing to realize that all processes are interconnected.

The wrong person is defining the scope.

The terms related to the project are not defined.

No high-level interface between processes is defined.

Ignore the "physical examination" of these interfaces.

I didn't realize the problem: certain aspects of the project would make the scale of the project too large to manage.

1. Wrongly defined processes and failed to realize that all processes are interconnected.

These problems are not related to the work we have done, but to the things we haven't done. All questions begin with how the organization defines business processes. When asked how a business process is defined, I often get answers like this: It is a set of business activities that make inputs into production results. Two characteristics of processes are rarely mentioned: First, almost all processes are cross-functional. Second, almost all processes are interconnected.

If a "process" in your project only includes one functional department, it is very likely that your original project scope only includes a part of the process, and in the end, the project scope will include the entire process.

For example, a company wants to improve the "process" of accounts payable, can this be done? Accounts payable is indeed a set of business activities that turn inputs into production results. However, we must ask: Why is an input required? When the monthly credit card bill came in, I had to ask the same question. I have a bill because I purchased an item. Therefore, in a company, if we want to improve accounts payable, we must check what happens in the procurement process. Then, if we buy an item, what happens next?

For the time being, we can assume that the screening process takes place in the marketing department. We can list more situations, but here is just a simple example. How much has the scope of the project changed? Starting from accounts payable in a functional department, it expands to procurement, receiving, inventory control, legal affairs, and marketing. Now, our project is 5 times larger than it was at the beginning.

On the other hand, we can only improve accounts payable. After all, the inclusion of other categories will make the project more complicated, which means that someone has to coordinate the resources required for cross-functionality.

In this case, we need to redesign the accounts payable "process" in order to produce more efficient billing. However, we never took full advantage of discounts. We purchased office supplies from ten suppliers, paid for items we never received, or paid for items we received but leaked to inappropriate organizational departments. Some people may ask: Why are there no commercial benefits from the accounts payable improvement project?

2. The wrong person is in the definition. Yinheedu.com

The second reason for the spread of process improvement project scope is that we don't often have the right members to define the process. Members must be senior managers of relevant functional departments, who have a very comprehensive understanding of the business and existing problems. It is the responsibility of these members to define the boundaries of the process.

For example, determine where the process starts and ends. These team members must also have the right to mobilize resources. In case the project boundary is defined, but the resources required by the project cannot be found.

Let's take another look at the order management process improvement project. Does this process start with the phone ringing? Or start by signing an order? Or does it start when the credit is recognized and the validity of the product is confirmed? When does this process end?Does it end in "shipped"? Or does it end with product delivery or product acceptance?

The way we define project boundaries affects the project itself time and time again. This will affect who we get input from, who our core team should include, what we want to measure, how we set up our vision, and when we redesign or improve the process, what scope changes should be listed enter.When the scope is defined by the right team, this team can also guarantee the availability of resources. Don't let anyone else do your work, this will give the scope a chance to spread.

3. The terms related to the project are not defined.

We must discuss the terminology related to the project so that all project participants and process parties can reach a consensus on the meaning of the term. Most of the time, we "assume" that everyone has the same understanding of the process. This is one of the many "assumptions" in the process of a process project. These assumptions are usually inaccurate.

Although we assume that everyone has a clear understanding of the process and the terms used in the process, unfortunately, these assumptions are just assumptions, not facts. Only when we go deep into the project and begin to question and reflect, can we accurately define these terms.Usually, the definition of terms also changes the definition of the project.

For example, when we mention American pizza, a very clear picture will be formed in our minds.However, if you order a pizza in Italy, Hungary, or other countries, the pizza delivered is probably a very novel rectangular pizza, some with fried eggs and corn on it. This shows that we cannot assume that everyone understands the terminology used in the project.

For example, for accountants, Fasby should be FASB (American Financial Accounting Standards Board), but if you are not an accountant, you will not understand this pun, and you might think that this is just the name of a dog.

PMP 2021 study guide

4. No high-level interface between processes is defined.

The high-level interface between the processes must be defined. For this reason, it is necessary to know what the process is considered in the project, and what is the interface between this process and other processes. In other words, what processes have affected the process, or are affected by the process, what creates the interface, or what flows between the process and other stakeholders.

We define these interfaces as IGOEs (input, control, output, enable). Usually, it is difficult for an organization to define these interfaces because they have not even clearly defined the process itself. Therefore, if an organization does not define its processes, how can the scope of the project be determined?

The typical situation is that there are many organizational function modules involved in the project, which shows that we are aware from the beginning that the scope will spread (lack of accurate process definition). Therefore, we need to define some high-level process interfaces.

5. Ignore the "physical examination" of these interfaces.

We need to analyze all the interfaces to determine that each interface is intact. The purpose of this is to focus our energy on what is really important, and to know what can affect what is not.

For this we must ask some questions: Which ones work well and which ones are bad? What is impossible to change? Which ones will consume a lot of our time within a given resource and time limit?

The result of this new understanding is scope changes. This means that everything contained in the boundary may change in some way. This is the definition of our project scope.

6. I didn't realize the problem: some aspects of the project would make the project too large to be managed.

We must take the reality into consideration in the scope of the project.For example, if the scope of the project is the payment process of a large financial institution, we need to consider whether to check all payment categories or only a few major payment categories (which have the greatest impact on the organization's risks and expected rewards).Yinheedu.com

In short, can the project scope be better managed? sure! The frustration of process improvement projects is usually caused by not knowing how to deal with project scope issues. You now have the knowledge and ability to control your project efficiently and effectively!