#when will you people be radicalized into taking action? when will you start giving a shit? | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

essycogany · 5 months ago

Text

Rare But Not So Rare Sonic Moments

Sonic Swooning Over Amy

So, Sonic’s been kind of the driving force of Sonamy recently. Let’s analyze that.

I’ll show Sonic having feelings for Amy in almost every media aside from Fleetway and the two cartoons she isn’t in. I’ll also present the “whys” in more detail then just “Amy calmed down.” While that’s part of it, I’d like to add my own can of worms. And possible headcanons too. Bear in mind I never grew up with Sonic, so forgive my mixed opinions.

While I love Amy having a crush on Sonic like the energetic sugarplum she is, nowadays Sonic’s oddly been the drive of their dynamic. Any examples of it beforehand? Let’s look outside of the games first.

Sonic X

This Sonic takes more time to himself. He’s introverted, so his feelings for her isn’t displayed as obviously as the others. In fact, most people think he didn’t like her in this show because of how much he runs away. He even manipulated her by flirting in one episode. In my opinion this show has Sonic running away from Amy more often than not. Hot take: Sonic and Amy never had a real conversation either. They don’t…talk like they do now. Unless you count,

“Oh, Sonic I love you!” “Ah! C’mon, Amy. Knock it off!” No, it wasn’t constant but still common.

From my point of view, the conversations were short lived to none existent. It was the same in the earlier games too. Compared to how they talked to other characters or now, you might be able to notice. At least until Sonic And The Black Night were he talks to both The Lady Of The Lake and Amy. The two would also have visual gags of Sonic getting aggressively hugged by Amy. Or Amy falling on her face while trying. Aside from one moment in Sonic Riders where Sonic put Amy in danger, it wasn’t good or bad. Just cartoony for lack of a better term.

Maybe I’m just insane. You decided.

Anyhow, their dynamic in X is clearly built on actions. Like Amy giving Sonic a seashell bracelet and Sonic giving her a rose. Those little things. While I do prefer them being able to hold longer conversations, I don’t mind how X handles them. But let’s get to Sonic’s crush. I assume in Sonic X Sonic is conflicted. He’ll run away from Amy or try to pull from her on most occasions and others Sonic would constantly hold onto her when he doesn’t have to. For a long period on time no less. Amy’s the same way. One moment she’d be head over heels and other she’s bashful. Goes to show how young they were I guess. I have no clue as to why Sonic liked her back because there wasn’t much to go off of. Except the bracelet moment or her general kindness like feeding him one time. She was a bit much to him and most characters back then.

It’s possible Sonic just liked her and that was it, but I’d imagine due to all of the hand holding and small reciprocated gestures were enough to convey something was there. Straight forward and simple like the show itself. I headcanon this Sonamy being where the boyfriend gets dragged into a relationship and is fine with it. This version of Sonic’s attraction seems to be chaotic pink hedgehogs apparently.

Sonic Boom

Should I even explain it? Might as well because not only do I have something different to say, but these two haven’t been brought up much. Sonic and Amy’s romance mostly is played for laughs. Not saying their love for each other means less because of that, but the humor is the main reason they exist. Much like why in the main canon they started out the way they did. Regardless, I’ll dive deeper into Boom!Sonic’s affection for Amy to the best of my ability.

Boom!Sonic is egotistical, so whenever he thinks Amy’s crushing on someone else, it bothers him. Apparently he’s the only one she’s allowed to like. No “Radical Speedsters” or “Celebrities” can take her attention away from him. Like in Sonic X he tries to keep his crush to a minimum. Even though both him and Amy are terrible at it.

The moment in “Fortress Of Squalitude” a episode where everyone is a bit rude to Amy, close to the end Sonic says, “We may have a hard time saying it Amy. But…well you know.” Then she responds with, “Yeah, I know.” It’s such a sweet moment. Not as powerful as most moments with them but for Boom it’s very nice. Sonic and the others still value her as part of the team, but it’s Sonic who expresses it out loud. Goes to show how much he cares about her for even attempting to open up in this instance. Didn’t even have to finish the sentence. Amy understood perfectly. I also noticed how much he tries his best to impress her. When he needs to return her book back, finds her hammer in Archie, (Vector did it in the show and Sonic got jealous) shows off randomly or dreams about her, and stopped racing to get her some eggs in one episode.

The funny thing about this Sonic is how much of a people pleaser he can be. Especially since the towns people are very spoiled and ungrateful. He wants to be needed and that’s possibly why he goes out of his way to do special things for Amy like go out on picnics, implied dates, and comforts her. She’s very take charge in Boom and Sonic has no problem calling her out when he needs to. Much like Amy in the show and games. Sonic will even put effort into doing things he doesn’t feel like doing for her. How honorable of him. Sure, sometimes he tries to make her jealous and isn’t perfect, but he tries. I believe Sonic likes Amy because again like Sonic X Boom isn’t canon, so more outright reciprocated feelings are allowed in this case. Not to mention the dude likes being shipped with her in the show. Which is a win in my book.

Sonic enjoys bugging Amy much like a playful boyfriend. He probably admires her leadership, but I’m saying this by observation. It could be for anything. Maybe he thinks she’s cute when she’s mad and finds her temper amusing. It could also be for her stubbornness. Some people like each other because of how much they can relate to their partner and in Sonic Boom’s case they’re two cuts of the same cloth. Although still different, due to the show’s theme, they carry the same condescending, slightly self centered, hotheaded, stubborn, and humorous traits. But they’re still good hedgehogs with a heart of gold and usually makes reasonable decisions. Not to mention they’re both equally shy about their crushes. In Sonic Boom, Sonic and Amy is that married couple who doesn’t get along much, but when they do you’ll understand why they stay together.

Reboot Archie Sonic

I haven’t read the comics (unless you count watching a few dubs and internet reviews) but I’ll give my limited thoughts. Luckily there’s not much to say. Although most people believe it was unintentional, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch that someone from Archie thought it was a fun idea to have Sonic crush on somone in this reboot. Maybe it’s unintentional but it doesn’t seem that way.

I’m basically using this part of the post to ramble about how Reboot Archie’s Sonic still manages to be a casanova. He’s like a mixture of his old self and how he is in the games. That’s also why he acts the way he does around Amy. Could it also possibly mean he’s meant to like her canonically too? Reboot Archie did have to follow a more accurate way of writing Sonic after all. Anyways, let’s run down the list of Game!Sonic if he was allowed to be down bad for Amy like they’re already dating. Which is how I view this continuity. It’s basically if Boom and X had a weird fusion and this version of Sonic’s crush was the result. Except here he manages to be more bold and upfront. He knows what he’s doing. Here’s a run down.

First of all, THIS. No joke, more of these interactions would send me to the moon. I would explain why but the panel speaks for itself.

Sonic says, “I was worried about you.” Which he hasn’t admitted to her before this to my knowledge. He states this by giving her a side hug. Along with other out of nowhere physical affection and flirting. Not to single out Sonally fans. Sonic and Sally clearly have a close connection people appreciate and I respect that. In any case, Sonic and Amy in Reboot Archie also matches energies so much. They’re both clearly running off the same brain cell. You’d think they were together. They’d be a chaotic couple that’ll do the most outlandish things and somehow manage to survive them. After willfully risking their lives they’d do it again because being normal and safe is boring. I promise you, this version of Sonamy would be a huge force to be reckoned with.

-I’d also like to mention my friend Salty showed an example of Sonic being jealous of Knuckles coming with Amy on a mission and it’s brilliant. Dude gets all bratty about it too. Archie!Sonic does not play around. The post in question.

Sonic Prime

Already talked about this in another post, but I want to mention it again. Prime!Sonic is the most sensitive version of the character, so it’s no surprise he displays his admiration for Amy freely and out loud.

This moment says enough on its own. Sonic’s like this throughout the entirety of Prime and even changes the tone of his voice when speaking to or about her. It’s so authentic and adorable and makes him stand out against other variants.

Amy’s crush on Sonic in Prime is up to interpretation, but I don’t think she likes him in that way personally. Like other characters, Amy tends to be done with Sonic’s childishness. Guess she thinks he’s probably too immature to be boyfriend material whether she has feelings or not. Sonic on the other hand, acts how you wouldn’t expect. I personally see him as his own interpretation, so I’m fine with it. If he wants to have goo-goo eyes for Amy in Prime, it’s cool.

Prime!Sonic has it bad and I wouldn’t be shocked if he’d be the one wanting to go out on dates. Maybe he’d cook dinner for her sense he cooks in the show. I’d imagine Amy declining at first, but does it after his constant begging. They’d be swapped version of most emotional to least emotional. Prime!Amy would be a girlfriend who feels more like a parent than a partner.

Unleashed/Black Night

No one can bring up Sonic Unleashed without the lovely Amy meeting the Werehog scene. I love how Sonic didn’t like Amy hugging him, but right after she left he solemnly mopes around for probably the first and last time. He’s never in any game slowly moped around disappointedly before. Proving he only has certain reactions when it comes to Amy Rose. At least in some continuities. Unleashed gives you a choice to go on a date with Amy or not. Then the next game Sonic Team followed through with it, but ended up having Amy mad at Sonic for missing it. At least Sonic tried. Not to mention his reaction to The Lady Of The Lake and him flirting is fun to watch.

See how Sonic still likes her back but it isn’t because she’s “calmed down?” She’s still the same excitable love strucked Amy. There must be something more to it. Other than the obvious answer with Sonic Team wanting to do something with the pear. I have no idea why but having multiple hints even in the past must’ve been done for the fun of it. “We created this love interest but then railed back to Sonic not reciprocating her feeling. But we still want to market them as a couple in some way.” This franchise never cease to confuse me.

Amy encouraging Sonic in one of the cutscenes could’ve been where he started liking her back. Not in the way he does now, but he admired her none stop compassion and might’ve wanted to return the favor. “Eh, she’s sweet. Maybe a date won’t be so bad.” The fact he went out of his way to get her a chilidog and flirted with a different version of her should tell you enough. Of course it would take a while before anything else happened.

IDW/Sonic Frontiers

Yeah, after issue 2, Sonic’s never felt the need to run from Amy. From the comics to Sonic Frontiers there’s a lot of moments of Sonic being somewhat emotionally candid. Not by much, but close. I believe Amy’s the reason for that in a way. Sonic’s not afraid to hang out with her anymore. He even hugs her back on some occasions. “Ames” was a nickname from fanfics and Boom which became canon over time and he occasionally calls her that.

Sonic wishes to share an umbrella and spend more time with her. He also gets excited to see her more often. It’s like Reboot Archie but slightly toned down. At least up until the hard to trigger lines from Sonic Frontiers. The same game where he outright admits to being worried about Amy and smiles back at her with a Coco looking between the two. Then he supports Amy’s decision to leave etc. We all know where we are now.

Crazy how the more you look into this franchise the more tiny details you notice. It’s also crazy how much Sonic’s been into the love interest he originally was already supposed to love. To me, Sonic had a crush on Amy in Unleashed but fell in love with her in IDW. What makes Sonamy gripping though is how unique it is compared to most romantic relationships. Leaves it to be more entertaining whenever something unexpected happenes. It keeps you engaged.

Why Sonic Crushes On Amy?

1. Amy doesn’t want to slow him down. Obviously because of IDW issue 2’s love confession with Amy saying “I can’t change you. I don’t want to change you.” Amy joins Sonic and he includes her more often because of that. His speed is no match for her persistence anyways.

2. She shows compassion and love for those around her. Not just to Sonic, but everyone. She’s the definition of soft hearted. Even for people Sonic and his friends would be weary about. Think about now in the recent comics and games where Sonic’s trying it out. I do think it should be more of Amy’s thing then Sonic’s but it just goes to show how much she probably inspired him. Who knows? Even in the past he had respect Amy for her tenderheartedness.

3. Amy’s energy matches Sonic’s. Though sometimes she can be overly enthusiastic compared to him. Even before now, Amy’s always been adventurous and that’s probably something Sonic liked from the start. Not in a romantic way, but in a respectful way. If he were to have a partner he’d need someone to keep him grounded and be on the same level. No exceptions.

4. Her loyalty. No matter what Sonic does (including times she disagrees) she’s one of Sonic’s most loyalist companions. Obviously other characters are too, but Amy has her being a long time childhood friend/Sonic 06 and Unleashed going for her. 06 for trusting Sonic over Silver and Unleashed for still loving Sonic despite his transformation. Heck, before she knew who the Werehog was she wasn’t disgusted. Amy’s commendable for that.

From all these points here physical attraction isn’t included. What I like about both characters is their crushes don’t stem to how they look. Though it is worth mentioning Sonic has called Amy “Radiant” in TMOSTH, but that’s probably the closest we’ll ever get to an outright physical compliment. From Sonic at least.

- Side note thanks to @saltynsassy31 again, Sonic and Amy’s dynamic can be summed up as not a relationship but rather a situationship. Yes, it’s a real word. What does it mean? Basically two friends who has crushes on each other but doesn’t do anything about it. Just a fun detail for you guys.

Why Did Sonic Run From Amy In The Past?

I’ll make this quick, but the reason Sonic ran from Amy wasn’t because he didn’t like her. On the contrary. Sonic always could’ve ran at his normal speed to get away from her. Sonic’s the fastest thing alive. Why would he let someone he “didn’t like” catch up to him? I personally think he enjoyed the thrill of the chase. It’s why I believe he misses it nowadays. Though I do understand Sonic didn’t often treat Amy like a friend. Not in a way I can understand at least. Not that I think their relationship was bad, but from what I’ve seen, it was more told then shown due to Sonic and the gang not including her on missions. Amy normally had to catch up with them which was a running gag. Especially in SA2. It might be why some prefere her in stuff like Reboot Archie, Boom, IDW, and Frontiers. Because Amy’s friends includes her on adventures now. At least in my opinion. Correct me if I missed anything.

Final Headcanon

Since Sonic in the games has been the one to push the Sonic side of Sonamy much more then Amy does for herself, I’d like to think in most cases (especially as their dynamic grows) Sonic would start carrying other versions of him traits like trying to mess with her.

He’d want to get her to chase him more often and Amy would probably ask once or twice, “What’s going on and why are you acting weird?” He’d definitely play it off as him fooling around. Sonic doesn’t know much about romance, but he does know what Amy likes. Maybe he’d ask her out or go on a bunch of traveling missions. Anything to get her to pay attention to him again. After all, there’s been examples of the guy feeling ignored by her in and out of canon. It’s possible.

-There’s also a consistent detail where Sonic’s finally ready to open up but has to deal with Amy doing her own thing. Or when he’s face with different variants of her, he’s flirtatious with them. For the fastest thing alive, he has terrible timing when it comes to making his mind up.

Conclusion

Welp, there you have it, darlings. Examples of Sonic crushing on Amy more than some would think. It’s a Sonic character analysis and Sonamy post all in one. I know there’s more, but I think this gathers examples from the actual content.

Stay Creative! 💜

886 notes · View notes

maxx-the-queer · 29 days ago

Text

One of my criticisms about Dragon Age, and this isn't unique to Veilguard, is how antirevolutionary their narratives are. (Spoilers for Veilguard ahead, naturally)

Narratively, they're not adverse to all change (since stories have to have some change in order to exist) but they're hardly accepting of it either.

Any change that happens to the status quo has to happen within the system, otherwise it's deemed extremism and wrong in universe.

Contrast that with when Anders or Grand Enchanter Fiona take actions against the systems of the Circles that spark the mage rebellion - they're vilified for it by the narrative and everyone around them. They're painted as fools at best, malicious murderers at worst. All because their steps for change were taken outside of the system. (Anders blows up a Chantry, Fiona starts a vote to disband the Circle of Magi)

In a worldstate where Leliana becomes Divine Victoria and disbands the Circles to allow for the formation of the College of Enchanters, she's celebrated because she stayed within the Chantry, rose to the top through unconventional but still allowable means, yet achieved radical societal change nonetheless.

If Dorian becomes Archon, his anti-slavery views aren't seen as unreasonable or too radical because he stays within the system. His work with the Shadow Dragons - an anti-slavery group, who by all standards aren't that different from the mage rebellion in the south, is deemed different because their leaders are still trying to work with the systems for change.

Solas gets both versions of this anti-revolutionary treatment. In Inquisition, he felt honestly quite reasonable to me in his motivations to tear down the veil, but he can't escape that same vilification as when he's trying to fit the mould of a force for rebellion, he's treated like a monster or has significantly more flaws in the narrative. When his motivations are framed as complete systematic change, he's shown to not view anyone in modern Thedas as 'real people.' In one of his approval scenes in Inq, he goes out of his way to tell the Inquisitor essentially "you're one of the good ones." He's ignorant, racist, and singlemindedly focused on destroying the world to have a second Elvhenan but better.

But in Veilguard, in order for the narrative to consider him redeemable, his reasons for wanting the veil to come down get changed from wanting betterment for the elves and restoring the Elvhen people, into personal regrets he needs to fulfill. He's no longer framed solely as a political, rebellious force for change, but as a mere man who went too far for a woman he loved. Suddenly the narrative gives the player permission to give him redemption. Because he doesn't actually want change, it's just what he thought Mythal wanted, so that's fine and different.

Your player character protagonist can never actually flat-out agree with the vilified rebel characters either. I can't have my pro-mage rights Hawke say "hey, actually, Anders was right to blow up the Chantry, I agree with him," you always have to ultimately condemn his actions, even if you agree with the outcome.

I can't have my Dalish Inquisitor or an Elven Rook say "hey, actually, maybe Solas has a point, this world does suck for elves and maybe the veil coming down would fix that," they always have to ultimately believe that the veil has to stay.

The games do everything they can to avoid letting the player come to the conclusion that revolution is a good thing. Instead, they force the idea that the only way change is ethical is if you do it within the preexisting status quo.

#dragon age #dragon age inquisition #dragon age the veilguard #dragon age 2 #solas dragon age #anders dragon age #dorian pavus #leliana dragon age #bioware

307 notes · View notes

literaila · 6 months ago

Note

Do u think gojo is a good partner in a typical family? P.s I really like all the nuances you've added to all the characters but I was just wondering ur pov on this

gojo is not perfect—despite what he claims��but he is intelligent, and he cares. he cares maybe a little bit too much, sometimes.

and sure, he sprung two kids on you when you were freshly graduated and he hadn’t spoken to you in the six months prior—but that’s because he trusts you. it’s because if there’s someone he knows will be there, even ghosted, it’s you.

plus he was only eighteen so give him a break.

but gojo is prone to growth. he always has been.

when he was a kid and people watched him become an anomaly—the kind of sorcerer that they couldn’t teach, simply because they would never understand. or when he was a second year at jujutsu high and he changed radically. in an instant. because that’s who he is—that’s who he’s always been.

gojo doesn’t do well with change, and maybe that’s why it’s so drawn to him.

but he started out just annoying you, and a couple months in, he began to care about you.

and then he admired you, and trusted you, and wanted you to be there with him while he navigated a newfound responsibility—and gojo hates change, but if you’re there to change with him then who is he to argue?

yes, he’s too quick, he’s too insensitive, he jokes too much and he struggles to let anyone in—maybe because he doesn’t want to be misunderstood, or maybe because he’s protective.

but you’ve never been the type to turn away from a struggle, and you do understand him. in a way that gojo can’t even comprehend—for nine years, at least.

and before he was even your boyfriend, or your husband, he was a good partner.

gojo might not understand humanity, or simple morals, but he’s always had that intrinsic need to take care of you. to protect you from harm, and find a way to reassure himself that you’re not going to leave too—that he’s not going to give you any reason to leave.

so what if he takes at least seven years to kiss you?

so what if you’re twenty five when he finally admits that he’s in love with you after knowing you for almost a decade?

you’re the one that taught him that actions speak louder than words, anyway.

and gojo might be good at lots of things. he might be a natural at everything he’s ever tried.

but being in love doesn’t come naturally. it isn’t something you can control, something you can cater to.

being in love is about growing.

and if it comes to you, gojo is willing to grow until he dies.

he’ll learn how to communicate better. he’ll learn the fine line between amusing you and pissing you off (though, that one takes more practice). he learns how to soothe you when you’re upset, how to pick out dinner for you when he’s out with megumi, how to buy you birthday presents.

he learns what your favorite color is and wears it whenever he wants to make you blink. he learns what your favorite flowers are and keeps them on the counter at all times.

and most importantly, he learns how you interact with everyone. he recognizes the sound of your voice, and can guess what you’re going to say when one of the kids is in trouble.

gojo will learn how to lean on you eventually, but you’ll just have to give him some time.

and would it really be so bad to teach him how love? to learn with him?

#gojo x reader #a typical family #gojo satoru x reader #gojo satoru #gojo satoru x you #gojo satoru x y/n #gojo x you #satoru gojo x reader #jjk gojo #jjk x reader

135 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 8 months ago

Text

Inkjump Linkdump

For the rest of May, my bestselling solarpunk utopian novel THE LOST CAUSE (2023) is available as a $2.99, DRM-free ebook!

It's the start of a long weekend and I've found myself with a backlog of links, so it's time for another linkdump – the eighteenth in the (occasional) series. Here's the previous installments:

https://pluralistic.net/tag/linkdump/

Kicking off this week's backlog is a piece of epic lawyer-snark, which is something I always love, but what makes this snark total catnip for me is that it's snark about copyfraud: false copyright claims made to censor online speech. Yes please and a second portion, thank you very much!

This starts with the Cola Corporation, a radical LA-based design store that makes lefty t-shirts, stickers and the like. Cola made a t-shirt that remixed the LA Lakers logo to read "Fuck the LAPD." In response, the LAPD's private foundation sent a nonsense copyright takedown letter. Cola's lawyer, Mike Dunford, sent them a chef's-kiss-perfect reply, just two words long: "LOL, no":

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/19/apparel-company-gives-perfect-response-to-lapds-nonsense-ip-threat-letter-over-fuck-the-lapd-shirt/

But that's not the lawyer snark I'm writing about today. Dunford also sent a letter to IMG Worldwide, whose lawyers sent the initial threat, demanding an explanation for this outrageous threat, which was – as the physicists say – "not even wrong":

https://www.loweringthebar.net/2024/05/lol-no-explained.html

Every part of the legal threat is dissected here, with lavish, caustic footnotes, mercilessly picking apart the legal defects, including legally actionable copyfraud under DMCA 512(f), which provides for penalties for wrongful copyright threats. To my delight, Dunford cited Lenz here, which is the infamous "Dancing Baby" case that EFF successfully litigated on behalf of Stephanie Lenz, whose video of her adorable (then-)toddler dancing to a few seconds of Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" was censored by Universal Music Group:

https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal

Dunford's towering rage is leavened with incredulous demands for explanations: how on Earth could a lawyer knowingly send such a defective, illegal threat? Why shouldn't Dunford seek recovery of his costs from IMG and its client, the LA Police Foundation, for such lawless bullying? It is a sparkling – incandescent, even! – piece of lawyerly writing. If only all legal correspondence was this entertaining! Every 1L should study this.

Meanwhile, Cola has sold out of everything, thanks to that viral "LOL, no." initial response letter. They're taking orders for their next resupply, shipping on June 1. Gotta love that Streisand Effect!

https://www.thecolacorporation.com/

I'm generally skeptical of political activism that takes the form of buying things or refusing to do so. "Voting with your wallet" is a pretty difficult trick to pull off. After all, the people with the thickest wallets get the most votes, and generally, the monopoly party wins. But as the Cola Company's example shows, there's times when shopping can be a political act.

But that's because it's a collective act. Lots of us went and bought stuff from Cola, to send a message to the LAPD about legal bullying. That kind of collective action is hard to pull off, especially when it comes to purchase-decisions. Often, this kind of thing descends into a kind of parody of political action, where you substitute shopping for ideology. This is where Matt Bors's Mr Gotcha comes in: "ooh, you want to make things better, but you bought a product from a tainted company, I guess you're not really sincere, gotcha!"

https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

There's a great example of this in Zephyr Teachout's brilliant 2020 book Break 'Em Up: if you miss the pro-union demonstration at the Amazon warehouse because you spent two hours driving around looking for an indie stationer to buy the cardboard to make your protest sign rather than buying it from Amazon, Amazon wins:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/29/break-em-up/#break-em-up

So yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of consumerism as a framework for political activism. It's very hard to pull off an effective boycott, especially of a monopolist. But if you can pull it off, well…

Canada is one of the most monopoly-friendly countries in the world. Hell, the Competition Act doesn't even have an "abuse of dominance" standard! That's like a criminal code that doesn't have a section prohibiting "murder." (The Trudeau government has promised to fix this.)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-an-overhauled-competition-act-will-light-a-fire-in-the-stolid-world-of/

There's stiff competition for Most Guillotineable Canadian Billionaire. There's the entire Irving family, who basically own the province of New Bruinswick:

https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/dynasties-2-the-irvings/

There's Ted Rogers, the trumpy billionaire telecoms monopolist, whose serial acquire-and-loot approach to media has devastated Canadian TV and publishing:

https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/canadaland-725-the-rogers-family-compact/

But then there's Galen Fucking Weston, the nepobaby who inherited the family grocery business (including Loblaw), bought out all his competitors (including Shopper's Drug Mart), and then engaged in a criminal price-fixing conspiracy to rig the price of bread, the most Les-Miz-ass crime imaginable:

https://www.blogto.com/eat_drink/2023/06/what-should-happened-galen-weston-price-fixing/

Weston has made himself the face of the family business, appearing in TV ads in a cardigan to deliver dead-eyed avuncular paeans to his sprawling empire, even as he colludes with competitors to rig the price of his workers' wages:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-12/a-supermarket-billionaire-steps-into-trouble-over-pandemic-wages

For Canadians, Weston is the face of greedflation, the man whose nickle-and-diming knows no shame. This is the man who decided that the discount on nearly-spoiled produce would be slashed from 50% to 30%, who racked up record profits even as his prices skyrocketed.

It's impossible to overstate how loathed Galen Weston is at this moment. There's a very good episode of the excellent new podcast Lately, hosted by Canadian competition expert Vass Bednar and Katrina Onstad that gives you a sense of the national outrage:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/podcasts/lately/article-boycotting-the-loblawpoly/

All of this has led to a national boycott of Loblaw, kicked off by members of the r/loblawsisoutofcontrol, and it's working. Writing for Jacobin, Jeremy Appel gives us a snapshot of a nation in revolt:

https://jacobin.com/2024/05/loblaw-grocery-price-gouge-boycott/

Appel points out the boycott's problems – there's lots of places, particularly in the north, where Loblaw's is the only game in town, or where the sole competitor is the equally odious Walmart. But he also talks about the beneficial effect the boycott is having for independent grocers and co-ops who deal more fairly with their suppliers and their customers.

He also platforms the boycott's call for a national system of price controls on certain staples. This is something that neoliberal economists despise, and it's always fun to watch them lose their minds when the subject is raised. Meanwhile, economists like Isabella M Weber continue to publish careful research explaining how and why price controls can work, and represent our best weapon against "seller's inflation":

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_workingpaper/343/

Antimonopoly sentiment is having a minute, obviously, and the news comes at you fast. This week, the DoJ filed a lawsuit to break up Ticketmaster/Live Nation, one of the country's most notorious monopolists, who have aroused the ire of every kind of fan, but especially the Swifties (don't fuck with Swifties). In announcing the suit, DoJ Antitrust Division boss Jonathan Kanter coined the term "Ticketmaster tax" to describe the junk fees that Ticketmaster uses to pick all our pockets.

In response, Ticketmaster has mobilized its own Loblaw-like shill army, who insist that all the anti-monopoly activism is misguided populism, and "anti-business." In his BIG newsletter, Matt Stoller tears these claims apart, and provides one of the clearest explanations of how Ticketmaster rips us all off that I've ever seen, leaning heavily on Ticketmaster's own statements to their investors and the business-press:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/antitrust-enforcers-to-break-up-ticketmaster

Ticketmaster has a complicated "flywheel" that it uses to corner the market on live events, mixing low-margin businesses that are deliberately kept unprofitable (to prevent competitors from gaining a foothold) in order to capture the high-margin businesses that are its real prize. All this complexity can make your eyes glaze over, and that's to Ticketmaster's benefit, keeping normies from looking too closely at how this bizarre self-licking ice-cream cone really works.

But for industry insiders, those workings are all too clear. When Rebecca Giblin and I were working on our book Chokepoint Capitalism, we talked to insiders from every corner of the entertainment-industrial complex, and there was always at least one expert who'd go on record about the scams inside everything from news monopolies to streaming video to publishing and the record industry:

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

The sole exception was Ticketmaster/Live Nation. When we talked to club owners, promoters and other victims of TM's scam, they universally refused to go on the record. They were palpably terrified of retaliation from Ticketmaster's enforcers. They acted like mafia informants seeking witness protection. Not without reason, mind you: back when the TM monopoly was just getting started, Pearl Jam – then one of the most powerful acts in American music – took a stand against them. Ticketmaster destroyed them. That was when TM was a mere hatchling, with a bare fraction of the terrifying power it wields today.

TM is a great example of the problem with boycotts. If a club or an act refuses to work with TM/LN, they're destroyed. If a fan refuses to buy tickets from TM or see a Live Nation show, they basically can't go to any shows. The TM monopoly isn't a problem of bad individual choices – it's a systemic problem that needs a systemic response.

That's what makes antitrust responses so timely. Federal enforcers have wide-ranging powers, and can seek remedies that consumerism can never attain – there's no way a boycott could result in a breakup of Ticketmaster/Live Nation, but a DoJ lawsuit can absolutely get there.

Every federal agency has wide-ranging antimonopoly powers at its disposal. These are laid out very well in Tim Wu's 2020 White House Executive Order on competition, which identifies 72 ways the agencies can act against monopoly without having to wait for Congress:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/13/post-bork-era/#manne-down

But of course, the majority of antimonopoly power is vested in the FTC, the agency created to police corporate power. Section 5 of the FTC Act grants the agency the power to act to prevent "unfair and deceptive methods of competition":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

This clause has lain largely dormant since the Reagan era, but FTC chair Lina Khan has revived it, using it to create muscular privacy rights for Americans, and to ban noncompete agreements that bind American workers to dead-end jobs:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/25/capri-v-tapestry/#aiming-at-dollars-not-men

The FTC's power to ban activity because it's "unfair and deceptive" is exciting, because it promises American internet users a way to solve their problems beyond copyright law. Copyright law is basically the only law that survived the digital transition, even as privacy, labor and consumer protection rights went into hibernation. The last time Congress gave us a federal consumer privacy law was 1988, and it's a law that bans video store clerks from telling the newspapers which VHS cassettes you rented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

That's left internet users desperately trying to contort copyright to solve every problem they have – like someone trying to build a house using nothing but chainsaw. For example, I once found someone impersonating me on a dating site, luring strangers into private spaces. Alarmed, I contacted the dating site, who told me that their only fix for this was for me to file a copyright claim against the impersonator to make them remove the profile photo. Now, that photo was Creative Commons licensed, so any takedown notice would have been a "LOL, no." grade act of copyfraud:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/21/the-internets-original-sin/

The unsuitability of copyright for solving complex labor and privacy problems hasn't stopped people who experience these problems from trying to use copyright to solve them. They've got nothing else, after all.

That's why everyone who's worried about the absolutely legitimate and urgent concerns over AI and labor and privacy has latched onto copyright as the best tool for resolving these questions, despite copyright's total unsuitability for this purpose, and the strong likelihood that this will make these problems worse:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#invisible-hand

Enter FTC Chair Lina Khan, who has just announced that her agency will be reviewing AI model training as an "unfair and deceptive method of competition":

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4682461-ftc-chair-ai-models-could-violate-antitrust-laws/

If the agency can establish this fact, they will have sweeping powers to craft rules prohibiting the destructive and unfair uses of AI, without endangering beneficial activities like scraping, mathematical analysis, and the creation of automated systems that help with everything from adding archival metadata to exonerating wrongly convicted people rotting in prison:

https://hrdag.org/tech-notes/large-language-models-IPNO.html

I love this so much. Khan's announcement accomplishes the seemingly impossible: affirming that there are real problems and insisting that we employ tactics that can actually fix those problems, rather than just doing something because inaction is so frustrating.

That's something we could use a lot more of, especially in platform regulation. The other big tech news about Big Tech last week was the progress of a bill that would repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act at the end of 2025, without any plans to replace it with something else.

Section 230 is the most maligned, least understood internet law, and that's saying something:

https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/

Its critics wrongly accuse the law – which makes internet users liable for bad speech acts, not the platforms that carry that speech – of being a gift to Big Tech. That's totally wrong. Without Section 230, platforms could be named to lawsuits arising from their users' actions. We know how that would play out.

Back in 2018, Congress took a big chunk out of 230 when they passed SESTA/FOSTA, a law that makes platforms liable for any sex trafficking that is facilitated by their platforms. Now, this may sound like a narrowly targeted, beneficial law that aims at a deplorable, unconscionable crime. But here's how it played out: the platforms decided that it was too much trouble to distinguish sex trafficking from any sex-work, including consensual sex work and adjacent activities. The result? Consensual sex-work became infinitely more dangerous and precarious, while trafficking was largely unaffected:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-385.pdf

Eliminating 230 would be incredibly reckless under any circumstances, but after the SESTA/FOSTA experience, it's unforgivable. The Big Tech platforms will greet this development by indiscriminately wiping out any kind of controversial speech from marginalized groups (think #MeToo or Black Lives Matter). Meanwhile, the rich and powerful will get a new tool – far more powerful than copyfraud – to make inconvenient speech disappear. The war-criminals, rapists, murderers and rip-off artists who currently make do with bogus copyright claims to "manage their reputations" will be able to use pretextual legal threats to make their critics just disappear:

https://www.qurium.org/forensics/dark-ops-undercovered-episode-i-eliminalia/

In a post-230 world, Cola Corporation's lawyers wouldn't get a chance to reply to the LAPD's bullying lawyers – those lawyers would send their letter to Cola's hosting provider, who would weigh the possibility of being named in a lawsuit against the small-dollar monthly payment they get from Cola, and poof, no more Cola. The legal bullies could do the same for Cola's email provider, their payment processor, their anti-DoS provider.

This week on EFF's Deeplinks blog, I published a piece making the connection between abolishing Section 230 and reinforcing Big Tech monopolies:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/wanna-make-big-tech-monopolies-even-worse-kill-section-230

The Big Tech platforms really do suck, and the solution to their systemic, persistent moderation failures won't come from making them liable for users' speech. The platforms have correctly assessed that they alone have the legal and moderation staff to do the kinds of mass-deletions of controversial speech that could survive a post-230 world. That's why tech billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg love the idea of getting rid of 230:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/facebooks-pitch-congress-section-230-me-not-thee

But for small tech providers – individuals, co-ops, nonprofits and startups that host fediverse servers, standalone group chats and BBSes – a post-230 world is a mass-extinction event. Ever had a friend demand that you take sides in an interpersonal dispute ("if you invite her to the party, I'm not coming!").

Imagine if your refusal to take sides in a dispute among your friends – and their friends, and their friends – could result in you being named to a suit that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle:

https://www.engine.is/news/primer/section230costs

It's one thing to hope for a more humane internet run by people who want to make hospitable forums for online communities to form. It's another to ask them to take on an uninsurable risk that could result in the loss of their home, their retirement account, and their life's savings.

A post-230 world is one in which Big Tech must delete first and ask questions later. Yes, Big Tech platforms have many sins to answer for, but making them jointly liable for their users' speech will flush out treasure-hunters seeking a quick settlement and a quick buck.

Again, this isn't speculative – it's inevitable. Consider FTX: yes, the disgraced cryptocurrency exchange was a festering hive of fraud – but there's no way that fraud added up to the 23.6 quintillion dollars in claims that have been laid against it:

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/US-v-SBF-Alameda-Research-Victim-Impact-Statement-3-20-2024.pdf

Without 230, Big Tech will shut down anything controversial – and small tech will disappear. It's the worst of all possible worlds, a gift to tech monopolists and the bullies and crooks who have turned our online communities into shooting galleries.

One of the reasons I love working for EFF is our ability to propose technologically informed, sound policy solutions to the very real problems that tech creates, such as our work on interoperability as a way to make it easier for users to escape Big Tech:

https://www.eff.org/interoperablefacebook

Every year, EFF recognizes the best, bravest and brightest contributors to a better internet and a better technological future, with our annual EFF Awards. Nominations just opened for this year's awards – if you know someone who fits the bill, here's the form:

https://www.eff.org/nominations-open-2024-eff-awards

It's nearly time for me to sign off on this weekend's linkdump. For one thing, I have to vacate my backyard hammock, because we've got contractors who need to access the side of the house to install our brand new heat-pump (one of two things I'm purchasing with my last lump-sum book advance – the other is corrective cataract surgery that will give me lifelong, perfect vision).

I've been lusting after a heat-pump for years, and they just keep getting better – though you might not know it, thanks to the fossil-fuel industry disinfo campaign that insists that these unbelievably cool gadgets don't work. This week in Wired, Matt Simon offers a comprehensive debunking of this nonsense, and on the way, explains the nearly magical technology that allows a heat pump to heat a midwestern home in the dead of winter:

https://www.wired.com/story/myth-heat-pumps-cold-weather-freezing-subzero/

As heat pumps become more common, their applications will continue to proliferate. On Bloomberg, Feargus O'Sullivan describes one such application: the Japanese yokushitsu kansouki – a sealed bathroom with its own heat-pump that can perfectly dry all your clothes while you're out at work:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-22/laundry-lessons-from-japanese-bathroom-technology

This is amazing stuff – it uses less energy than a clothes-dryer, leaves your clothes wrinkle-free, prevents the rapid deterioration caused by high heat and mechanical agitation, and prevents the microfiber pollution that lowers our air-quality.

This is the most solarpunk thing I've read all week, and it makes me insanely jealous of Japanese people. The second-most solarpunk thing I've read this week came from The New Republic, where Aaron Regunberg and Donald Braman discuss the possibility of using civil asset forfeiture laws – lately expanded to farcical levels by the Supreme Court in Culley – to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for the energy transition:

https://newrepublic.com/article/181721/fossil-fuels-civil-forefeiture-pipeline-climate

They point out that the fossil fuel industry has committed a string of undisputed crimes, including fraud, and that the Supremes' new standard for asset forfeiture could comfortably accommodate state AGs and other enforcers who seek billions from Big Oil on this basis. Of course, Big Oil has more resources to fight civil asset forfeiture than the median disputant in these cases ("a low- or moderate-income person of color [with] a suspected connection to drugs"). But it's an exciting idea!

All right, the heat-pump guys really need me to vacate the hammock, so here's one last quickie for you: Barath Raghavan and Bruce Schneier's new paper, "Seeing Like a Data Structure":

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/seeing-data-structure

This is a masterful riff on James C Scott's classic Seeing Like a State, and it describes how digitalization forces us into computable categories, and counts the real costs of doing so. It's a gnarly and thoughtful piece, and it's been on my mind continuously since Schneier sent it to me yesterday. Something suitably chewy for you to masticate over the long weekend!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/25/anthology/#lol-no

145 notes · View notes

bonefall · 1 year ago

Note

(dif anon) So is Ashfur grooming Shadowsight a plotline you would keep/rework in BB? I'm not so keen on the way canon used it to retcon his epilepsy, but I do think a plotline examining how clerics can be vulnerable to abuse from StarClan spirits is kinda compelling

Shadowsight's epilepsy is staying in BB, the Erins can try and take it away again over my dead body

Yes, that's staying and BB!StarClan was reworked with unfairness in mind.

This time around, I'm considering the idea that Ashfur didn't work completely alone. After the events of Squirrelflight’s Horror, Silverpelt's divisons are starting to crackle the stars.

Skystar and the other more traditional spirits are losing patience with the peace that Fire Alone brings, and the ways that the code has been bent.

They feel that honor is being lost in their descendants.

Even angels disrespect the collective; see how Skypelt has its own heaven? With a demon in its midst? There is blasphemy even in the skies.

Firestar and the more modern pantheon are ferociously defensive of the choices of the living. StarClan exists for them; not the other way around.

Meanwhile, Mousefur has gone missing. Others start to blink out, too. This is causing panic... and Ashfur keeps it quiet that he's the only one who knows where they've gone.

The angels that plan action probably were a small group to begin with, radical spirits. Skystar and Ashfur are two of them, and Ash is the "youngest." So when he comes down to the mortal plane and betrays them, very few other angels knew what had happened.

(I might even have a few angels be doing the various supernatural things in that first book, but slowly, Ashfur is wittling down their numbers until it's just him.)

I'm still working out specifics, but the other angels that Ashfur has consumed are giving him a massive power boost. He can use this to jump between planes freely, and he's able to do some whacky things like weave dreams and pull nightmares out of the Dark Forest.

The most important unique power he has, which he can do ALL on his own once he's absorbed enough starpower, is blast Shadowpaw with a bolt of lightning. The electric current runs through Shadowpaw's brand new scar, giving him a connection to StarClan like he's a little radio tower.

Thing is... when StarClan is blocked off, the only signal he receives is Ashfur's.

So, Shadowpaw.

From the time he was very young, Shadowkit has had an unhealthy relationship to life and death

He watched a lot of cats die before he was old enough to really understand it, and the only one who came back was Heartstar.

His epilepsy was so severe it would have been terminal. He was prepared to die as a kit.

Tawnypelt took him to the Tribe to learn more about treatments, bringing back a method of refining chamomile to manage the convulsions.

When people come back from death, it was to serve "a purpose."

He feels like he needs to be special, like he needs to find the great meaning in his life. The reason why he's still here.

In BB, there can be guardian angels. Cats you knew in life who decide to watch out for you in the afterlife. Moleflight is Jayfeather's, Shrewface is Squirrelflight’s. Ashfur poses as Shadowpaw's.

THAT is how I plan to address my criticism. Ashfur DOES build a very personal, trusting relationship with Shadowpaw, pretending to be the one who's here to give him the destiny he craves. Pretending like he's someone looking out for him.

I actually LIKE how desperate the situation was in-canon and I want to stress how none of this was Shadow's fault, so I also plan to keep that they had very little choice. Shadowpaw trusts his angel completely, and Ashfur coaches him on saying all the right things.

The older Clerics are suspicious, but... what else can they do?

Also, instead of framing this all as something Shadowpaw needs to "atone" for, I'm going to make certain cats unfairly scapegoat him for bringing the Impostor into the forest. Shadowpaw himself agrees with them, blaming himself, but he has to learn it wasn't his fault.

He DIDN'T let anyone down by failing to live up to great expectations, and there's no way he could have known that Ashfur was using him. This never happened before, he always made the choice he thought was right and tried to make up for harm done, and he's not responsible for what his abuser made him do.

I actually want to have him figure out some of this by talking to DF demons, towards the end. Cats faaaar more responsible for what they did in life than him.

Ravenwing in particular, who was also mislead by a rogue StarClan spirit, but... ultimately decided that if StarClan was right in their judgement.

He was told (by Birchface, but he still doesn't know who it was in particular) to make three kittens unsafe by revealing their parentage. His choice killed three innocent children, and lead to the Queen’s Rights.

And StarClan was furious that he'd ever believe they'd want something so CRUEL.

And even if they DID want something so cruel... "Then they wouldn't have been ancestors worth following. And that's why I believe it's right that I'm here."

As a Cleric, he had authority on their behalf. And if they would misuse it through him, he wishes he could have just given it right back.

And Shadowsight's lightbulb goes Ding!

The very last thing Ashfur does in TBC, when the jig is up and he's about to be killed by the Lights in the Mist and a bunch of Demons who have come to defend their home, is swallow a Founder-- Skystar.

He takes the level of a true god, and reaches a nearly undefeatable level of power. Instead of black water, he's so large, malicious, and has a gravitational pull so massive it starts destroying the afterlife. It shatters the purgatory (Meadow of Young Stars) into floating cosmic fragments, and Heaven and Hell are set to collide.

Shadowsight confronts Ashfur, politely explaining that he's, well... done a lot of thinking, and, he doesn't really want what he gave him. "You can, uh, have this back!"

And blasts the lightning from his scar right back at him, like a chain, holding the screeching eldrich horror in place. Every ally he's made, here in the DF, come down from StarClan, and as Lights in the Mist, jump to his side. They can't hold down Ashfur, but they can hold SHADOWSIGHT

While they're all supporting him, Bristlefrost sees the one chance to get rid of him, once and for all. A clear shot. She bolts, pounces, and SHOOTS right into Ashfur like a falling star, knocking them both off the edge of the heaven he destroyed, burning up in orbit with a monster a hundred times her size.

And after that, Shadowsight has to go home and live with this.

He gave up the very connection that made him so special, and now he has to go back to being a Cleric without StarClan.

but the other Clerics accept this. They have to. They were all complicit in the choices that allowed the Impostor to rise.

What Shadowsight learns is... everyone was part of this. From those who made the follies with him, to the supporters and rebels against the impostor, to those who helped him realize his worth, to Bristlefrost who ultimately killed Ashfur.

He is valuable because living is valuable.

Everyone, and everything, matters. All cats have a role to play, and he was never alone.

I want to close him out in BB!TBC on a tea scene that parallels the various points in his life. Others used to prepare his chamomile treatments FOR him, in careful doses, because it is a very serious medicine. Now, at the end, he's the one brewing it.

A fully fledged Cleric, who realizes he's never been alone. Cats who love him were around him the whole time, making his medicine, and they'll love him even after he's given up his powerful gift. So now he's at the stage in his life where HE can make that medicine, share his wisdom with others, and find fulfillment in the skills he's acquired over a hard life brightening.

#Ashfur was a scary and terrifying villain worthy of the WC hall of fame #I will make him WORSE #I should change one of the titles to the later books to The Black Hole as a reference to BB!Ashfur swallowing other stars #Maybe the last one since that's where his bossfight happens lmao #I love the vibe of all the morally gray and post-redemption cats of BB seeing Shadow like #''Youve done nothing wrong. Youre literally just baby.''#Lmao Breeze like 'oh honey nooooo'#Lineup of guys like What Are You In For?#'Tyranny of an ancient civilization'#'Political assassination'#'Attempted murder of a child'#'Did what a bad person told me :('#And they all drop their shit to be like 'its ok youre ok youve done nothing wrong'#I kinda want to give him an honor title that means 'Whole Shadow'#In reference to the way that when you stand with a dozen people behind you #You only cast a single shadow #better bones au #BB!TBC #BB!Shadowsight

169 notes · View notes

miraculouslbcnreactions · 16 days ago

Note

One of the problems I had with the online radicalization of Jalil in reunion is how it actually occurs. Jalil is supposedly radicalized by a message board, but it’s provided by alliance and the AI mascot he uses is Lila. So it’s left muddled on what exactly is happening here.

Is there really an internet based opposition to LB and CN? You wouldn’t think it since Paris enlarge is shown to still support them. But the presence of message boards would imply at least some support for monarch even if it’s mostly trolls. Or is alliance fabricating it for Gabriel to upset people in a targeted way? Or is it just Lila with a bunch of alt accounts? It’s really hard for me to tell just how wide spread this is as a problem for Paris considering it’s dropped after this one episode.

I'm also not sure how seriously we're supposed to take the criticism shown in that episode. It feels very much like the sort of BS we get with Su-Han where he points out a legitimate concern but in the most obnoxious, inflammatory way possible so that the audience feels forced to disagree with him. It's terrible writing that isn't very fun to watch. Reminds me of all the awful live-action Disney reboots that try to engage with every critical take anyone has ever had, leading to a lesser story. They would be much better off to just ignore the criticism they don't want to properly address and have fun with the story even if there's an arguable flaw. That's what suspension of disbelief is all about!

You want Paris to support Ladybug and Chat Noir no matter what they do? Cool! That works! Just don't take an episode and introduce the idea that there is actually criticism out there because that makes us start to question things like anon is doing here.

Another great example is the "issue" that Gabriel never uses the butterfly miraculous to heal his wife when it feels like that should be within its power. The show was totally correct to never address that on screen because the butterfly probably should be able to heal her! The reason it can't is because then the show would end. If the writers tried to explain an in-universe reason, then it would be as nonsensical as their explanation of how the rooster works:

Gabriel: There! (to Orikko) You! You can grant me any power I want! (closes the Grimoire and walks toward Orikko) You will give me the power to travel through time! Orikko: No, you're mistaken! Time travel is Fluff's power and I can't grant the power that already belongs to another Kwami! Gabriel: Are you trying to deceive me?? Orikko: (nods) By all means! Read the Grimoire again! (Gabriel reopens the Grimoire.) Sass: Each Kwami represents a concept, and a concept can only exist once in the universe. Xuppu: Too complicated, Sass! Let's use an example to make things simpler. Take Tikki, she is the Kwami of Creation, and creation is creation, and if there's another creation than creation, then it's not "creation", it's "replication"! Gabriel: Then grant me the power to locate Ladybug and Cat Noir's Miraculous! Orikko: Trouble is, that's not a power; that's a wish! Xuppu: For instance, if I asked Santa for a pair of socks, that's a wish. But if I want Santa to grant me the power to knit socks, then it means Santa needs to know how to knit socks in the first place so he can teach me! Gabriel: (groans angrily) Grant me the power to unmask Ladybug and Cat Noir's secret identities! Xuppu: No can do! Orikko: (shoves Xuppu away) I cannot give a power that would disrupt another Kwami's magic. And being able to conceal the person behind the costume, well, that's part of the magic of their Kwami. Gabriel: (enraged) So you're utterly useless!

If all of this is true, then how do the goat and the peacock make things? Isn't that Creation? And how was the butterfly able to make a time travel villain? That's Fluff's power! And how was Gabriel able to offer to make Marinette into a villain who could unmask people via the butterfly? That's going against the miraculous' powers!

The answer is simply that the lore was not thought out in a way that stands up to even the most basic questions. When that's the case, the only way to handle the problem is to just ignore it. Keep your on screen explanations as shallow as your lore. Don't try to add depth that isn't there. Trying to address it just highlights how shitty your world building is.

#anon ask #ml writing critical #ml writing salt

46 notes · View notes

heytherecentaurs · 8 months ago

Text

It’s hard to have a nuanced and level-headed compassionate reaction when people are actively trying to kill you. Whatever the Rat Grinders were before they aren’t that now.

(Discourse beneath the cut.)

I think conversation about what the rat grinders deserve is reasonable. They were manipulated and exploited. Maybe they deserve redemption. But why should it fall to the bad kids to give it to them? Also just because you’ve been manipulated doesn’t mean you’re less responsible for your actions. Teens radicalized by the far right are still responsible for their actions. “I was manipulated” isn’t a great defence for murder. Also everything about the Rat Grinders comes from a place of privilege and a belief they are owed something. They made the choices and bought into the ideology because of their sense of entitlement and this really common insidious belief I see on the far right of denying they have privilege and viewing themselves as some kind of oppressed class.

I interpret the rage and fanaticism as an analog for radicalization. The death of the people they once were and the rebirth of fanatics. It started out small, making choice after choice until it reached a point of no return. The Rat Grinders gave away pieces of themselves until they were new people. An ideology didn’t make them hateful spiteful self-entitled people. They accepted the ideology that fit their personality. Does who they were make them owed redemption? Obviously saying no was an option. Lucy said no; she healed the rats. She tried to follow KLCK but reached a breaking point. Have they ever shown remorse? Has there been any indication that they ever wanted to turn back from the path that led them to their conflict with The Bad Kids? Doesn’t seem like it. Where in this story has Kipperlilly been anything more than Kyle Rittenhouse with a blonde ponytail?

If they are to be redeemed, who they are now needs to be destroyed. Another death is required. And it should not be up to the bad kids, a group of teens to see that the rat grinders are deradicalized. Somewhere some reasonable adults need to take responsibility and control over things and deal with the situation. The bad kids may be able to fight to save the world but they don’t have degrees in therapy or any kind of deprogramming knowledge that’s gonna stop the rat grinders from killing them and Elmville along with them.

I like the rat grinders as villains but they are villains in a D&D game. And just because you may find them sympathetic doesn’t mean they automatically deserve redemption. It just makes their deaths tragic and avoidable and that’s fine. A lot of people die tragic avoidable deaths because of their own character flaws and because they trusted the wrong people. That’s allowed to be the case. They can be tragic and still die. Hell they can be tragic and still deserve to die narratively.

#dimension 20 #d20 #fantasy high #fantasy high junior year #fhjy #fhjy spoilers #the bad kids #hey there centaurs #I hate delving into discourse but I had thoughts

93 notes · View notes

drdemonprince · 1 year ago

Note

Hello! You have opened a fascinating door into kink communities I didn't even know existed. Thanks for that. I was describing some of your steamworks adventures to my partner, who works as a Disease Intervention Specialist (aka DIS, a government healthcare worker who administers free/low-cost STD testing and then attempts to track down and notify+test the recent sexual partners of any infected individuals). (He brings some INSANE stories home from work and gets to give sex ed talks at the local Christian college using a model penis that actually ejaculates--but I digress.) He was horrified by the hypothetical situation where an infected person could have blindfolded sex with an unknown number of nameless strangers. It's hard enough trying to track down partners when the patient only knew them by their Grindr username. How do you have safe sex in these situations? Some STDs can be transmitted via skin-to-skin contact even with a condom. Do venues like steamworks enforce any rules around testing/protection/etc.?

If your partner is 'horrified' by the actual sex lives of the populations he ostensibly serves I think he needs to read more from harm reductionist thinkers and queer activists from a variety of past eras and work on processing his feelings of judgement to ensure it doesn't impact his actions in that line of work.

The books and Melancholia and Moralism, Saving Our Own Lives, and Beyond Shame: Reclaiming the Abandoned History of Radical Gay Sexuality are good places to start.

If you're having anonymous or blindfolded sex in cruising spaces, one route of managing risks is to assume that every person there could be infected with STIs you do not have and to plan accordingly. Vaccines, condoms, PreP, testing, and education are just some of the tools at one's disposal, and one should always be cognizant of the risks that one is consenting to. Steamworks has sexual health educators and testers present within their space regularly, but they don't gatekeep based on serostatus, health status, drug regimen or use of protection -- doing so wouldn't be feasible and would be problematic on multiple grounds.

I don't believe the goal of a public health initiative or a life well lived is to eliminate all risk, or to regard the presence of any infection in any human body as unacceptable, but rather to empower people to make informed decisions about the level of risk they are comfortable confronting, or that is worth the numerous benefits to them.

Personally, I was in far greater danger when I didn't have access to such spaces. Cruising spaces make negotiating sexual consent far safer than privately dating and hooking up with someone, and Steamworks are vitally important queer community spaces, and for me are well worth the trade off. No one should have any illusions about this ever being an experience that they can eliminate all risk from, rather they should anticipate it and plan for it.

I think "safe sex" is an unhelpful framework to pursue because it is so binary and can't ever be guaranteed. What does safety mean? Which types of exposures do we consider to be "unsafe"? Am I unsafe if I encounter another person who, like me, has had a cold sore before, like 80% of the population? Or someone who has a strain of HPV I am vaccinated against? What about if I have an encounter with somebody with a cold? I'm "safer" being fucked by an HIV positive person who is undetectable and wearing a condom than I am having barrier free sex with a long term partner who cheats. I can't even know I'm taking a risk in the latter case; at Steamworks, I'm assuming my risk level to be on the high end and planning accordingly.

I understand that testing and tracing are important parts of public health for our populations. It was vitally important when monkeypox broke out. Maybe Steamworks should collect member emails and alert them if there was a reported transmission on a night that they visited. Though even then, there are some negative public health implications to dozens of people panicking. But there is no means of eliminating all risk entirely or tracing all human sexual behavior and I would be myself pretty horrified if there was.

272 notes · View notes

viburnt · 10 months ago

Note

MORE BAKUGOU 🗣️🗣️🗣️

pretty pls

Wasn't sure what kind of Bakugo you wanted so...

CONTENT WARNING: Possessive and stalker behavior, bullying, rumors and gaslighting, seclusion, sexual themes, abuse. Dead dove, do not eat!

Bully! Bakugo and his outcast darling

You never quite understood why you didn't fit among your classmates, an odd look splashing their faces whenever you tried to engage with them. 'Maybe it's all my imagination,' you'd tell yourself in an effort to explain such behavior. Perhaps, you were just being dramatic.

You weren't.

People do avoid you, and not particularly because you've done something wrong. It's because of him. This bully carefully crafts an intricate web of lies and rumors, slowly but surely intoxicating people's minds; it's so easy to believe someone like him! His confidence and reputation making his word almost a truth. Doesn't take long for your classmates to form a distorted opinion of you.

Bakugo is the kind of bully that allows the roots of his obsession to go deep, his grasp creeping and filling every crack and crevice of your life. He wants to give you no option, no chances for you to escape him; Bully! Bakugo wants to be the only thing you can have, the only thing you need.

It starts with small things, whispered words into the hallways that reached the right people: slut, idiot, dumb... all kinds of names and crazy gossip stories eating your classmate's brains like worms to an apple. A new reputation for you, the sweet and stupidly unaware darling that you are.

You notice the uncomfortable ambience, the changes in the atmosphere, how people stop talking when you're around. It makes you feel scared, dreadful, and Bully! Bakugo is always there to bask on the worrisome frown your face has. He loves to play pretend, act as if your presence was bothersome and he's only pitying you, "reluctantly" giving you a shoulder to cry on.

The blond follows you around to see the results of his hard work, grinning with pride whenever you start having a mental breakdown in the bathroom or at the library. And he's always there to offer his company, in his own twisted way...

"Tch, you're so fucking annoying. Stop crying already, dammit!" "Have a fucking tissue and stop bothering me." "Fine, you can fucking cry in my shoulder..."

Bully! Bakugo loves fucking with your mind; the same hand that ruthlessly tears you bit by bit, feeds you copious amounts of sugar to keep you wrapped around his pinky finger. He enjoys making you doubt yourself, your choices, your everything... Always reminding how much of a waste of time you are, making you think you should be grarteful that he's even speaking to you.

"They don't like you," He says, "Why would they like a crybaby? I barely can stand you."

"Tch, stop crying already, I don't like that!" "S-sorry, I-I'll try to stop the tears."

Bully! Bakugo who likes pushing you around to do things you would never! If he wants you to do something (no matter the nature of the action), he'll first try to plant the idea and bother you with it over and over, and then, when you try to say no... "Tch, come on, don't be a fucking bore!" "I'm your only friend, aren't I?" "You'd be so lonely without me, can at least do this for me."

Master of guilt tripping.

Do I think he'd leave some sort of mark on you to scare others away? Yes. He already managed to wreck what little good reputation you could have, but he wants people to know that you're his property! It's very probable that he buys a piece of jewelry for your ears (earrings if you have or maybe piercings), or go for a more radical mark like a tattoo or scar. No, silly, you don't have a saying here!

He adores how desperate you look! Seriously, the fucker has a thing for making you cry, calling you the absolute worse in ways that your poor brain can't grasp. This Bakugo also enjoys baby talking to you, there's something about it that makes him feel in control (not to mention that the little leap of joy you do when he's slightly sweet to you makes his dick hard.)

Next stage for him is keeping you secluded. Trust me, he already did a fantastic murdering your social life, but now he takes it further. Oh, you wanna go to that school? Keep dreaming, you'll be by his side where he can have you at his heart's content. No, silly, you can't go anywhere without him; yes, he'll have his hand on the back of your neck everywhere. And don't think of making small talk with any friendly strangers! He'll chew you out for it.

This Bakugo doesn't normally go for his sexual desires with you, he is rather content with having a dumb little pet he can kick whenever he feels like. The topic is not exempt though, he'll have his leg between yours just to make you pathetically grind on it. If he feels particularly lustful, he'll spit on your face as he pushes you against the wall, having his way with groping and squeezing and-

"Curve your fucking back, pet! Fuck- Your stupid cunt is always ridiculously tight."

Overall a different kind of manipulator; compared to Stalker/Possessive! Izuku, this version of Bakugo has a different motto: wreck it down and build it to your fucking liking.

#my hero academia #mha bakugo katsuki #bakugo katuski x reader #Bully! Bakugo

78 notes · View notes

idylls-of-the-divine-romance · 2 months ago

Text

So @prosphoramuncher asked me to write about why I say the make-up industry is demonic.

Gladly hehehe.

So this idea is rooted pretty firmly in the Book of the Revelation and so first thing to understand is I am an idealist: I do not believe it is just for the first century, or just for the last one; nor do I think the historicist perspective makes much sense either. But rather I believe the Book of Revelation is using symbols and archetypal language to talk about the spiritual meaning and significance of the rise and falls of powers in the world. It is about the ongoing cosmic conflict between God and the forces of darkness.

That said, there are some radical idealists (*agressively side eyes Brian*) that reduce the symbols to just being internal and about personal sin and whatnot. I do not hold to this and refer to this as "abstracting". It's taking "the Cup of God's Wrath" from Jeremiah and making it about hell when you die instead of about God allowing his people to be trampled by Babylon. That's dangerous, don't do that.

With all that out of the way, let's start talking about the beast.

There are 2 Beasts in the Revelation are the Beast from the Sea and the Beast from the Land.

The Beast from the Sea is a state or human kingdom that is in opposition to God and conquers through violence. So yes the Roman Empire. But also Greece and Persia and Babylon and Assyria and Egypt and etc etc etc. The British Empire, Germany, The United States, I mean just look for a military power in history or in modern times that has set itself in opposition to God and his will. Spoilers: it's just almost if not all of them.

The second one, the Beast from the Land, is an economic machine that exalts it's power as divine, looking like God but having the voice of the Adversary. It exists for the purpose of promoting the authority of the military state and for performing great signs. It is a liar and a deceiver that denies the kingship of the Anointed One (anti-Christ, "against the anointed one"). It demands that people worship the nation-state or be killed and ordains that all people must give their allegiance via their thoughts and actions.

Both are powered by the Dragon, who is the Serpent of Old (Genesis 3) who is called both "the Slanderer" and "the Adversary", who is the deceiver of the whole world but is defeated by the death of the Lamb.

So, I mean, do I even need to spell it out?

The make up industry, at least in modern times, is an industry that sustains itself through exploiting the insecurities of young women.

That's demonic. That is freaking demonic it is literally a servant of the Beast from the Land are you even kidding me!?

Now, I wish to make something quite clear: I am

Not saying that the people at the heads of make-up industries are worshiping with demons. I am not a charismatic for goodness' sake.

I am also not saying that by buying and wearing make-up that you are opening yourself to demons. Again: I am not a charismatic T-T. My little sister wears make up, not because she's insecure, but because she's a little kid who likes to play dress up all the time lol.

What I am saying is this: that we, as the Church, the Body and Bride of the Lamb, can NOT blindly support such industries without even thinking about it. Taking the Mark of the Beast is not getting a freaking vaccine or a chip implant; it is when we thoughtlessly contribute to, benefit from, and refuse to even become aware of these systems of oppression and violence.

So, to anyone reading this, young or old, man or woman, whatever: if you like make up keep wearing it. But if you think you need make up, do not wear it. You are being taken advantage of not only by an industry but also by the Adversary who wishes to destroy your body and your mind. Do not let anyone feed on your insecurities. You are a human image of God, do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

Keep fighting Babylon, family. Till His kingdom comes.

29 notes · View notes

saintsenara · 7 months ago

Note

❤, 💛, and 💜 please!

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

which character do you think is the most egregiously mischaracterized by the fandom?

having seen the state of my inbox, this isn't the only time this one will come up...

so let's start strong by going for... albus dumbledore.

i find dumbledore bashing incredibly boring - not because dumbledore is a character i think of as morally spotless, but because the way he's criticised in certain areas of this fandom becomes dull by virtue of never actually engaging with interesting critiques of his character and decisions.

dumbledore is not some machiavellian evil genius - the entire point of deathly hallows is that the omniscient vibe that he projects in the first six books isn't actually omniscience at all, and it always irks me to see authors miss this, and ascribe to malice what is clearly human fallibility. nor is dumbledore intentionally or egregiously manipulative or cruel. and nor is there something "wrong" with him.

[the closest i've come recently to throwing my laptop at the wall was seeing a nonsensical post proposing that one of the reasons why it's fine to think of him as a villain is that he has anti-social personality disorder. not because i think it's inappropriate to assign diagnoses to fictional characters, but because i think if you do wish to do that you should attempt to know what you're talking about... and (evidently quite poorly) reading the wikipedia summary of an extremely complex disorder is not that.]

dumbledore is a wartime paramilitary leader - and wartime leaders have to make extraordinarily complex decisions, often ones which result in harm befalling their soldiers. the series is generally fairly weak on the realities of war - since its genre conventions require it to end with all being well - but what it shows of dumbledore's tactics is one area in which it shines.

and it also gives us plenty of meat if we want to emphasise the ways in which he's inadmirable.

dumbledore is a creature of stasis - he holds radical views, but he does nothing to actually advance them in society [this is a man who is at the heart of the establishment for half a century, who does nothing with that power to dismantle the oppressive social structures which drive wizarding politics and prop up blood-supremacy], and he also has a tendency to adopt a "wait and see" approach in situations where intervention would be obviously more appropriate. dumbledore is a hypocrite - he’s happy to be depended on by fudge, he is appalled that fudge might depend on lucius malfoy. dumbledore lives in an ivory tower, and clearly has little interest in the ways poverty, violence, and isolation affect people. dumbledore projects his shame and self-loathing onto others in a way which is detrimental to their own happiness. and so on.

all of these flaws have a tangible impact on the arc of the series - and dumbledore's failure to take meaningful action to prevent either voldemort or snape's radicalisation is something i think he can be genuinely criticised for - but they can't be taken in isolation. dumbledore fucks up because he's just one man - and the character flaws which cause him to fuck up also contribute to many of his most admirable traits: his mercy; his courage; his steadfastness; and his faith.

and it's so much more interesting than reducing him to a one-note caricature of evil!

what is a popular ship you just can't get behind, and why?

dramione, because i have a very low tolerance for both fanon!hermione and fanon!draco.

i think it could be done interestingly... i've just never seen it.

which character is way hotter than everyone else seems to think?

which got two more shoutouts:

arthur and molly weasley.

they both clearly fuck - and the lack of respect they receive for this in the fandom is because of the tiresome association of sex with youth and [one, very narrow, view of] beauty [hence why characters like snape often become mysteriously hot when they're being written in romantic pairings...], meaning that both of them being middle-aged, arthur balding, and molly being fat means that the fact that they're clearly obsessed with each other never gets the attention it deserves.

#asks answered #unpopular opinions ask game #albus dumbledore

52 notes · View notes

ofmdsalt · 6 months ago

Note

i really enjoyed con and taika’s implied backstory/headcanons for izzy and ed’s past and how they met at kids, grew up together etc etc and i was always really bummed that we never get a flashback to see that.

then I saw the fandom discourse and it’s sheer unerring devotion to misread every single one of Izzy’s relationships & interactions in the worst possible faith, and I’m pretty sure that if we’d gotten that flashback in canon, the gentlebeardies would say some shit like “it’s so clear now that Izzy groomed Ed from the beginning” because that is level of media illiteracy we are at.

hey op! if you have any links to where con and taika have talked about their backstories for there characters, i'd love to check them out and see what they said!

the one part on Taika's take on Ed and Izzy's relationship is him saying to Con that they were like Jesus and Judas Iscariot from the musical Jesus Christ Superstar and i for one find this imagery very interesting! indulge me for a moment here.

many people raised within a Christian context and/or society all likely know of the story of Jesus and Judas. Judas, as one of the original 12 disciples, being the one to eventually betray Jesus and lead the Romans to him in the Garden of Gethsemane all for 30 pieces of silver. the guilt of this leads Judas into killing himself. the interpretation of his character is predominantly about how bad he is. how evil he is. how he is responsible for Jesus' death and it's largely simplified his character. i prefer more modern interpretations of him, and i think Jesus Christ Superstar made him a much more nuanced character than say others media have done (Mel Gibson's fairly antisemitic Passion of the Christ comes to mind when it sort of also supports the over-simplification of Judas' role in Jesus crucifixion)

but this is all to say the interpretation i like the most comes from the understanding of Judas being more concerned and hesitant about Jesus when he started kicking up more attention. more attention directed at them. like clearly Judas was comfortable with what Jesus was saying and preaching. he stuck around long enough to be called a disciple, but the moment those words turned into actions? when Jesus started flipping tables in the temple? when he started miraculously healing and calling people back from the dead? well, now, hang on, Teacher. all this noise will draw the ire of the Romans. is that what we want? is that what you are calling us to do? what if they come and jail us? what if they kill us? Jesus' radicalism in a time of oppression may have scared those too willing to keep their head down. consume some radical materials on the side, but otherwise not stick their necks out too far out of fear they would get themselves killed. i mean, Peter likewise denied ever knowing Jesus for fear that he would be crucified too.

but even after all that, Jesus was killed. murdered by the state for his beliefs. perhaps Judas didn't think they would take it that far. that he wouldn't be made a message, but he was. and it's that grief that pushed Judas into committing suicide

going back to the parallels of Ed and Izzy, it's easy to see where Taika would get this inspiration. Jesus Christ Superstar starts with Judas warning Jesus against Mary Magdalene because accepting a prostitute would go against his teachings. Izzy is frustrated by Ed's growing fascination with Stede because it goes against his teachings of keeping pets on board, and Izzy tries to get Ed to see how Stede is nothing more than a pet project to Ed. and pets are not allowed.

i can see Izzy's frustration with Ed's changing path of being more "why would you give up the image of Blackbeard when that fearsome reputation has kept you and your crew safe for all this time? why would you give it up to be this gentleman? to be this fish out of water?" just as Judas might wonder why Jesus is as outspoken as he is. why draw more attention to yourself? why make yourself a deliberate target in this way? why why why?

Judas does what he thinks is best in the moment and so does Izzy, but Izzy doesn't let Ed go to his doom. he pays his bail and tries to show him why it's dangerous for people like them to give up on the things that have kept them safe. even if those ways of being are no longer required. the world has changed, is changing, and they should change with it.

it's a tragedy what they have become. too used to the pain and violence that has become a reality for them to even see that there is another way of existing.

all we can do now is speculate on how Ed and Izzy came to meet and how they came to be friends. how they came to be what they are. i think there's a lot of potential for people to play around with who they were, how they rose to infamy, and how they ultimately destroyed each other. it was mutual self-destruction and it's frustrating to see how certain other fans try to over simplify the relationship. either by removing Ed's agency entirely to say that it was all Izzy's doing, despite how they also assert that Izzy is actually a terrible planner and has never done anything successful in his life ever.

im sure David and co had more plans for Ed and Stede flashbacks as they did throughout s1. it would've been interesting to see how Ed took on the name Blackbeard. where he started. where it all came together because we all know how it fell apart

#edward teach #izzy hands #ofmd #our flag means death #ofmd meta #edizzy #i'll take it now for that because that's basically what this post is #i know people will disagree with me #and likely screenshot this to hell and clown on it in their own private chats and discords #that's to be expected #but media literacy is not about the “right” opinion guys #people from different backgrounds and different perspectives will read things differently #and there's nothing wrong in that #omg

22 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 4 days ago

Text

Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:

Elon Musk’s and Vivek Ramaswamy’s proposal for changing government has, thus far, been disheartening. They want to change things, but it is hard to take the whole enterprise seriously when you have to spend a lot of time sorting through their mixture of vagueness, misstatements, and hyperbole. Doing so made made me realize: I don’t think Muskawamy themselves actually know what they are doing.

Like Trump, they don’t know much about government, except as businessmen. Like Trump, they are serial bullshitters, who do not seem to value basic public service tasks and, for Musk in particular, given to conspiracy theories. And there is the rub. They will make big promises without knowing if they can fulfill them, and wild claims without knowing if they are true. But the point is to hold our attention, to convey the message that the government is broken, and to justify radical actions, even if the consequences of those actions are unknown, or, clearly damaging to state capacity. One thing is clear: for all the “government should work like a business” rhetoric, private organizations are typically not led by people who oppose the mission of the organization, make sweeping reorganizations that are not informed by basic operational facts, or make a habit of denigrating their employees. This is because that sort of toxic leadership would get you fired. But this is the sort of vibe that Musk and Ramaswamy are bringing to the table. Previously, I broke down some of their claims about federal spending. Now, lets look at what they have been saying about the federal personnel system, and sort out fact and fiction.

They Can’t Fire Lots of Employees, But Can Encourage the Best Ones to Leave

One problem with Muskawamy is that they can’t give a straight answer about what they will do and how they plan to do it. It will be amazing, and historic, but lets not get into the details. “It’s going to be very easy,” said Elon Musk’s Mom, who is apparently sitting in on her big boy’s meetings. Their claims will work for a MAGA audience, or for people who do not understand how government works, but start to vaporize when forced to engage with reality. And soon they will actually be in power, so reality will start to matter.

Lets take the example of firing employees. As a presidential candidate, and until relatively recently, Ramaswamy claimed that the president could fire 75% of federal civilian employees. Ramaswamy uses the trick of citing an old and obscure law, claiming that it enables radical actions, and hope that no-one checks up on the details. In this case, he refers to the Reorganization Act of 1977. But, the Reorganization Act was about reorganizations of federal agency structure, not layoffs. The Act also requires the President to go to Congress to get permission to pursue his actions. Also, the Act has expired. And in 1983 the Supreme Court found its mechanisms of operating to be unconstitutional!

In short then, Ramaswamy claims that an expired and unconstitutional piece of legislation from the Carter era gives Trump a power unmentioned in the legislation. This also applies to the claim that the President can unilaterally eliminate agencies. Again, reorganization authority has expired, so the President does not have this power. Only Congress can create or eliminate an agency or Department.

Notably, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed with Musk (which was presumably written by someone from a Trump-aligned think tank like Heritage or America First Policy Institute), Ramaswamy is no longer talking about the Reorganization Act. At this point, it is no longer feasible to pretend this gimmick is real. That does not mean that his other promises are realistic, just that they reflect more sophistication. Instead, Muskawamy rely on Section 3301 of Title V, Code of Federal Regulations, to promise “large-scale firings.” That section gives the President power to “prescribe such regulations for the admission of individuals into the civil service in the executive branch as will best promote the efficiency of that service.” I am emphasizing the “into” because the section is clearly about hiring, not firing. (See more from Nicholas Bednar on this point).

Jennifer Nou, an administrative law professor at the University of Chicago told me it is “likely illegal” that the President can pursue mass firings based on this Section 3301, with the uncertainty of the “likely” reflecting less the plain text of the law than how far certain Judges will allow Trump to go. She also points out that adverse action policymaking is limited to the Office of Personnel Management, and would require a new rule that has to follow the timing and evidence of the Administrative Procedure Act, a constraint that Muskawamy explicitly reject. Even if such mass firings were feasible, they are bad personnel policy. Jennifer Pahlka points out that Part 351 of Title V means that reductions in force must first eliminate specific term and temporary positions, those under various special authorities, plus those in the first three years of service, before reaching career employees, and then prioritizing non-veterans first.1 This means younger employees, and employees with specific skills like digital expertise, will be the first to go.

[...] Muskawamy promise to make cuts that “use existing laws to give [employees] incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.” This, they can do. The Clinton administration did so in the 1990s to reduce the number of employees. The criticism of this approach is a) it will never generate the numbers that Muskawamy are claiming need to go, b) the people most likely to leave are those who are at retirement age, or feel confident that they can land a job in the labor market. In other words, this is not a good tool for sorting good from bad employees, and is most likely to be used by people with the most marketable skills, while keeping in place employees who doubt that they can land a job in the private sector.

[...]

Return-to-Office Policies

Muskawamy also have promised to compel federal employees to return to the office five days a week. If you think this is about performance, it doesn’t make a lot of sense that Muskawamy both want a) to move more jobs out of DC, and b) want all DC employees in the office five days a week. In fact, they are pretty up front that the purpose of return to work policies is not to improve government efficiency, but that it “would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome.” Here are some basic things about return-to-office that Muskawamy would benefit from understanding.

People differ on the value of remote work and telework. But it is certainly not clear that in-person work is better. Private companies that have adopted return-to-office policies have seen slower growth.

Telework can be a useful tool to attract a broader pool of employees. This is especially likely to be true if your headquarters is in an expensive region like DC. Federal managers I have spoken with consistently say that telework and remote work (where an employee is hired with no expectation of an in-office work) allows them to access a much broader pool of talent then they could otherwise find.

The idea that telework is some public sector perk while the real America is toiling at their offices is false. Private sector companies use remote work at about the same rate as public organizations.

Most federal work is in-person. About 54% of federal employees work fully on-site, and the remainder can use telework. If you exclude remote workers, which is about 10% of federal employees, almost 80% of regular hours work occur in-person, and 61% of work for those who are telework eligible.

The suitability of telework depends on the task. For TSA staff or Veterans Health doctors, telework does not make sense. And guess what? Those sort of jobs are mostly not offered telework options! About 94% of work occurs in person in Veterans Affairs, and about 85% of work at Homeland Security. By contrast, the rate for the National Science Foundation is about 42%, which mirrors university-style work environments that they are similar to. (Anyone who actually cares about this sort of detail, and agency justifications for their use work of telework can find more information here).

Forcing employees back to the office will have to contend with labor agreements that provide telework options. Social Security is one of a number of agencies that have rushed telework options in collective bargaining agreements. If you are genuinely interested in improving public services, there are other more productive fights to pick with public sector unions.

Since the federal government is a vast employer with lots of different jobs and needs, it is entirely possible to build policies around remote work that are nuanced and will improve services. A one-size-fit-all approach is dumb, and the use of punitive return-to-office policies to drive people out is going to hurt state capacity. And guess what? The federal government largely has the former type of policy, delegating authority to agencies, requiring them to justify the use of telework vs. in-person with an emphasis on pushing them toward at least half of work to be in-person. Muskawamy want the dumb one-size-fits-all policy.

Don Moynihan wrote a solid Substack piece on how the federal government under Trump/Musk/Ramaswamy’s axis of evil would become a toxic employer by encouraging a brain drain exodus of qualified employees out of the federal government.

#Schedule F #Regulatory Powers #Donald Trump #Trump Administration II #Title V #Civil Servants #Elon Musk #Vivek Ramaswamy #DOGE #Administrative Procedure Act #Remote Work #Brain Drain

9 notes · View notes