#your pretty much dealing with systemic social politics

[clockworkreapers]

Theoretically if Limes are allowed back into AN society and live a normal live, where are they in the hemospectrum and what are the typical jobs for them?

(ps: still waiting for Hiveswap 3 for Lime lores)

An interesting question since as with canon lime bloods are removed from the social structure entierly, outright culled off but in AN… it’s not much better. Firstly it would take a TON of law changes and likely a change over in ruler as well as having stuff slowly integrate into a point where lime bloods even are seen as valid citizens again. I’m talking thousands of sweeps trying to get anything to change let alone highbloods and traditionalists to agree to such a thing. ALSO FOR CLARITY I ONLY SPEAK FOR ALEPH NULL’S UNIVERSE HERE.

Where they would be put is entirely up to the powers that be, could be rust level, could be where they were prior- could even be they are put up higher to give them more protections. It really depends on who’s in charge. I’ll tell you one thing though (cuz I’m a realist even when it comes to fiction love idealist stuff but there are logical issues) I don’t think a lot of trolls might enjoy the fact an excommunicated caste is allowed back in the system. I could go into why but that WILL become a massive tangent on Alternian social politics wich is likely messy as fuck.

The only safe place to realistically put them would honestly be below rust till you figure out how to fix their entire social structure and systemic issues. Thus you’d likely give them any job rusts might, maybe the general just ubdisirable things, housing same deal start small. Later on you can open more doors and fix the entire fuckery that is their society if that’s your goal. A system like alternias is incredibly fragile to make any changes you need to be very slow and delicate lest it will shatter and not in the way you want. (It’s very easy for war to break out if you move too fast and you tip the scales a bit too much and piss off a ton of people with your decisions.)

[visenyaism]

Stuff about American election night that you should know:

We’re one week out! Crazy. So I know too much about US politics because I explain this for money, so I figured it might be helpful to talk a bit about what we should expect from election night. If you're not American, are new to our insane election system, or are anxious about what's happening next week, here's the deal with next Tuesday:

1. Most important thing: Do NOT expect to know the winner on election night. Different states have different laws about when they can start counting early/mail-in votes, which often slows down reporting time.

2020 took until the Saturday after to call because of the high mail-in vote count due to Covid, and while that isn't happening this time, it'll take longer than 2016, 2012, or 2008 because the polls are predicting that this one's going to be a lot closer than those. Consider just going to bed instead of staying up for the results.

2. Because of the Electoral College, popular vote doesn't matter as much as who wins each individual state does. Every state has a certain amount of electoral votes based on population, whoever wins a state gets all their votes, whoever gets to 270/538 wins. We know how most states are going to vote. The Electoral College puts the election in the hands of 7 "swing" states that could go either way. This time, that's Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada. These are the states to watch. Here's the map:

3. No one will know anything until polls close and states start reporting results. Doomscrolling is kind of pointless anyways, but it's especially pointless before 7pm. here's a map of closure times:

4. Data will shift throughout the night. Rural counties report results first because fewer people live there. This means the earlier you check, the more conservative the state maps might look. Do not look at the election results for any state with less than 90% reporting and freak out, especially if the state hasn't been called (deemed mathematically impossible for the other candidate to win) by multiple news outlets.

5. Voter fraud happens way less than you think it does. Pretty much never, actually. One study claims you're more likely to get struck by lightning than you are to witness actual, impersonation-based voter fraud in a modern US election. Be extremely skeptical of any voter fraud claims you might see.

6. Avoid getting news from social media accounts that aren't news outlets. There's a lot of disinformation out there, especially as AI/Deepfake tech is getting worse. Fact-check everything you might see. Anyone can make a destiel meme about the election. make sure it's true before you reblog it.

7. The electoral college sucks shit and does allow for a 269-269 vote tie. In this case, it goes to the House of Representatives, who are majority-Republican and will pick Trump. Some states might be within 1% (like 49.3%-49.7%) and candidates can demand recounts, which might delay official results by weeks or months. It HAS to be over by mid- December when the Electoral College officially votes.

8. take care of yourselves. if we're not going to know on election night, you may as well power down your phone and go to bed at a reasonable hour.

[machineheraldbabe]

arcane, populism, and why viktor is the odd one out (yet again)

as a piltover-anti, a silco criticizer, and a pacifist, i am very very interested in how arcane presents not just the political undertones of both topside and the undercity, but the characters/dialogue through which they communicate those undertones. allow me to use some political science bro lingo to air out some thoughts.

long, long post incoming.

there are 2 ideological struggles at war throughout s1 (and i can predict that the struggle will carry over into s2): neoliberalism and populism - in their broadest terms since we're talking ofc about a fictional show dealing with surface level political machinations. by neoliberalism, i mean a focus on the social, political, and cultural structures of a polity (piltover, for our purposes) refocused into a strictly economic vacuum. and by populism i mean a unifying belief that the existing political systems of a polity fail to adequately represent their constituents, so the masses choose to rally around a specific gripe or issue, i.e., class discrimination, xenophobia toward immigrants, etc. this, in turn, forms a populist party or movement. an applicable example i can think of would be Nasser's Egypt in the 1950s.

*i know these are weighty topics with very real world implications! i just want to separate the theory to apply to our favorite fictional world.

the political struggle in question is put forward immediately by piltover, who, though presented as a technocratic state, embodies crucial neoliberal ideals emphasized especially by up-and-coming counilor mel medarda, much like how fresh-eyed american economists blew up the economic scene in the 1980s with a revival of capitalist, free market enterprise. take how she seizes the advent of hextech, for example:

she quickly sees hextech's potential yet not from the solely intellectual standpoint that jayce and viktor do - for her, it is profitable, literally and in terms of international relations. her goal is for piltover to prosper, but she has no rose-colored glasses on; prosperity means capital gain, and she's willing to override piltover's political and social systems to achieve her goal. an important caveat is that she draws the line at ambessa medarda's progression into militant authoritarianism, which deserves a whole post of its own!

piltover's populism moment will come later. first, let's unpack silco, who is probably arcane's most blatantly political figure, and a masterclass in the merits and failures of left wing, class-based populism.

silco, having been spurned by the classism and xenophobia that piltover's elite proliferate, and assisted by his rampant shimmer operation, fills the vacuum that vander's pacifism opened up. though silco's methods are unilaterally cruel (argue with the wall), the undercity clearly invested faith in him at some point, especially as vander's credibility as a guiding figure wavered over the years. he was fighting alongside vander for zaun's right to exist as their own independent body. in other words, he was uniting the undercity toward a common cause because the existing political system failed their constituents. to quote councilor shoola: "they may not be our preferred constituents, but they're still our people."

the track record of populism in our real world frequently ends in the ruin that silco himself brought upon the undercity. the kingpin is too dedicated to self-preservation, sees himself as too central to the movement, which prevents both compromise and/or a necessary armed revolt (insert your own politics about self-determination here). see italy's right wing populism party, Lega Nord, as a real-time example of this phenomenon.

but arcane makes an interesting plot decision with jayce, a very unexpected and "unwilling" contributor to piltover's abrupt dip into right wing populism. the showrunners love foils!

in arcane lore, i think it's safe to say that jayce's moniker "the man of progress" is pretty tongue-in-cheek. both he and viktor have a bemused tone about it in the run-up to his speech, and jayce is taken aback by heimerdinger's insistence that he deliver said speech. but the glowing, savior-esque imagery can't be ignored, nor can jayce's quick switch into his councilor role, no matter how reluctantly he makes it.

jayce is confronted by 2 forces that he seeks to combat in his quick tenure as councilor: internal corruption and an ineffective governing body. the latter goal is inspired almost solely by viktor, playing into jayce's naivety as a fresh-faced political figure, but this will be especially important to note later on. the innocence he offers up to mel is quickly erased, transformed instead into an uncomfortable - and inexperienced - militancy:

important in the bridge scene to my analysis is the populist "out group," or the designation populists give to those whom they actively oppose, and this opposition serves as their basis for organization. in this case, it's the undercity (keep this in mind for viktor's role!!).

jayce's combined frustrations at the unrest in the undercity and the council's (namely heimerdinger's) refusal to act, to both save viktor and to deal with the undercity's looming violence, motivates him to act like silco for a short time. unsatisfied with the status quo, he unites a likeminded individual, vi, along with the enforcers, to undercut the political system he feels is unable to represent its constituents or act in an effective manner. however, UNLIKE silco, jayce's realizes the inevitable cost the method of violence has and refrains in the end. he returns to the council and capitulates to some of silco's demands in the name of a peace piltover and zaun always thought impossible.

jinx's complete undoing of this underscores the failures of populism, especially as an extended movement over time. she wasn't accounted for. it's common sentiment at this point that she didn't attack the council for political gain. she was not invested in zaun's independence. she did it out of her and silco's twisted parental bond, and thus undid piltover's brief instance of compromise and compassion.

so...where does viktor fit into all this? and what are his implications for neoliberalism vs. populism in season 2?

viktor is neither wholly within nor wholly outside the populist outgroup - though jayce unintentionally shoves him back there in the pivotal bridge scene. furthermore, viktor also makes use of piltover's technocracy. he seems to have had a "raise yourself up by your bootstraps" history in arcane, contrary to left wing populist insistence that neoliberal ideals make this impossible.

this compounds as a double alienation for viktor, who also is straddled with the complications of his disability. a lot of his story is searching for a fellow in arms, if you ask me, and he had that with jayce until the pendulum swung, hence his return to singed.

if we stop there, viktor represents the failing of these 2 very flawed political ideologies. he fits nowhere and arcane uses him adeptly as a symbol of the failings of binaristic ideologues and systems. but let's speculate some more!

i'm convinced that viktor, due to his ambiguous 3rd party role in the story so far, will be one of the central villains (if not THE villain, if you allow me to be admittedly hopeful/biased) in season 2. consult the innumerable very well written theory/meta posts about the subject for more details, but one piece of evidence i want to focus on is this inherent physical, cultural, and ideological separateness that is innate to his character.

can we see him allying ever again with piltover, knowing that there's a split incoming? even without outside knowledge of league lore, singed's damning prediction ("if you take this path, they will despise you") cannot go unheeded. alternatively, then, can we see viktor allying with the supposed jinx-as-revolutionary side? no. personally, i see him as becoming increasingly unwillingly to compromise his a) immediate survival; and b) his ideals, especially after being endlessly sidelined in his attempts to express them in acts 2 and 3. he's also just a loner, guys.

there's some controversy on this point, but i'm convinced that the finger-printed cultists/followers we saw in the s2 trailer are devoted to viktor. starting with the shimmer addict he touched in the teaser, he is accruing a following all his own. and since noxus is here, touting their authoritarian militancy to replace piltover's outdated liberal ideals, nothing that jinx's revolution OR viktor's following does can be apolitical. to organize and to fight is survival under s2's raised stakes.

there aren't any binary spectrums when it comes to political theory in my opinion, so i am prepared to witness viktor introduce an entirely separate totalitarian narrative into arcane. where it will surely lack in militancy, it will make up for in its domination of the arcane. my biggest speculation is that, as they always do, piltover will fold and compromise at the last minute, perhaps yield to noxus, and invest wholeheartedly in taking down viktor's BBEG cultist regime. and by isolating his narrative repeatedly in s1, the writers planned this out expertly.

even if i'm wrong about viktor as third party, i like to think my observations still stand about the specific and qualifiable political divisions between piltover and zaun. the biggest hole this leaves for me is the question: will arcane ever take a stand? they seem very averse to making a blatant political statement, but i think their pervasive anti-police thread makes it clear that we're not meant to sympathize with piltover yuppies or their seasoned, jaded councilmen. let me know your thoughts!

also, as a jayce fan and a fan of arcane's overall story, none of this is meant as a CRITIQUE of him, mel, or silco. as silco said, "we all have our parts to play." i believe arcane's very greatest strength is their archetypal storytelling, and these distinct character roles are crucial to the success and vibrancy of the story.

if you read all the way to this point - ily <3

[apas-95]

I’m an anarchocommunist that thinks a lot of other anarchists are stupid. For example, I don’t think that most people will just make insulin or do garbage collection/processing out of the kindness of their heart, and I also don’t think if it was genuinely done out of the kindness of their hearts that it’d work great. My idea is that for the “getting people to do the shitty jobs” question, the people that do those jobs should be compensated better in some way. Maybe a larger/nicer house, I’m not sure on the details. But other anarchists will say “all labor is equal”, and while I’d like to agree in the “work is hard” sense, I think things for the obvious common good, like teacher or garbage man or doctor deserve some sort of reward over other jobs. And for the efficiency of the labor, I think *specifically for labor* there needs to be some sort of organization, and we can use what’s worked before. We don’t need to have bathtub insulin if there’s a factory right there, and if there’s no connection from the insulin factory to doctors/pharmacists and truck drivers then it won’t work either. Really, my main problem with Marxism/Leninism or Stalinism or Maoism or any combination of those is that there are specific people with far too much power over others. I’m ok with light power in the way of “man you gotta drive the firetruck to the burning building even though you hate the dude that lives there”, but I’m not ok with the idea of a supreme leader or representatives in a political sense due to as I’ve amounts of power obviously corrupting people.

Really I’m sending this to you to get your criticism of my ideas- I think you’re pretty smart, and even if I disagree with you on some issues, I think I agree with you on others. I also want to say that not all anarchists are… like that.

So, years ago, before I started reading any Marxist theory, this is about where I was at politically. If you think about any of the practicalities, you come up to points where, very clearly, the maxim of 'no authority at all' conflicts with being able to do anything. If you're seriously considering how society could be better organised, if this is something you actually intend on bringing about, then you make some amount of concession to reality - as you did with the firetruck example!

Now, myself, I went on like this for a good while, coming up with methods of truly democratic organisation that wouldn't be susceptible to the types of totalitarianism I'd heard about, ending up very similar to your position. I was interested, however, in how these 'failed experiments' that I'd learned devolved into bureaucracy started out, and I started reading up on the history, and realised, with some discontent, that what I'd developed, once I'd made all the concessions for reality that would be necessary if this system were to be the actual one real human beings lives depended on, was essentially identical to the Soviet system.

From there, I read up on Marxist theory, still basically wary that this had all, at some point, been taken over by an evil dictator, but able to see that the earliest stages, at least, had been exactly what I was imagining, but put into practice. Reading the theory, reading how their experience experimenting with different forms of organisation, and the failures of some types, had led them to discover what did and didn't work, and adjust accordingly, made me suddenly appreciate why certain things were done certain ways. The harsh experiences of civil war had revealed certain dynamics and mechanics in the way society and production worked, which translates into political theories that bore out results I wouldn't have expected (and neither had the communists who had discovered them through practice!).

Eventually, with some chagrin and a significant deal of excitement, I realised that much of what I'd passively absorbed about socialism, many of the common-sense maxims that I'd been taught by capitalist society about the nature of power and so on, were very much artifacts of a decades-long war against these communists and the system they'd built, carried out by exactly the corporations and empires I had thought myself opposed to.

I won't critique any individual point of yours, but I will enjoin you to try out some Marxist theory - Dialectical and Historical Materialism, or Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, or Principles of Communism, or even the Communist Manifesto, and to read between the lines of whatever capitalist source you read on socialism, to notice every [citation needed] and wonder what actually happened such that someone felt the need to make something up.

[imagine-shenanigans]

sighs dramatically.

Okay but the ghost distribution system as we call it is hysterical but can we tlak about how None Of The 141 are built to date.

Like, sure, Gaz is great at flirting, and he's charming, but DATES? He's the type who asks you on a date because he thinks youre pretty/handsome/adorable/etc but by the time the two of you actually go on a date he's ready figured out like. the whole rest of your lives together. He's already imagined up 20 different scenarios of different dates, stalked your front-facing social media and found your secret or hidden accounts that theoretically don't link back to you. Sure, he's scrounged through your discord servers and your private messages and texts and a thousand other things while he was bored on leave. He knows enough to know that he's happy with what comes next. All dates are simply... ritual at this point? Something obligational, other than the fact he gets to spend time with you.

You're not going anywhere, he's just the least heavy handed of them, the one who'll let you think its your choice to keep him around until he's got his ring officially on your finger. Life won't go according to plan but he's prepared for that too. In his head, you're already married anyway, he's just working his way up to that part. He'll manufacture any scenario to keep you with him, because he wants you to be. And he'll make sure you want to be too.

Soap on the other hand is WAY less tactful about it. He's charming, and he'll take you on dates, sure, but the moment he spots you it's incredibly easy to get obsessed. He immediately drops an arm around you, purring in your ear and talking to you. Doesn't ask you on a date so much as demands it, puts his number in your phone and presses a kiss to your temple, his fingertips squeezing your chin before you leave. God forbid you let him into your home - he'll never leave if you do. Johnny's SUCH a physical guy that while, yes, personality matters, it seals the deal for him the moment he's got his tongue down your throat and his fingers in your pants. Something about the way you settle in against him makes him feel like he's home, and you will never get rid of him.

He's willing to take you on dates if you need more proof, but he won't even pretend like he doesnt already have a copy of your key. Like he's not telling the guys about the bonnie little thing he's going home to - he slips into your apartment/house/etc and into your bed without changing, barely finding time to slip his boots off. Presses one hand to your mouth and just... holds you. He'll fuck you within an inch of your life later when you're less panicked, sure, but he just wants to press his nose to your neck and breathe you in. If his hips rut against your ass, ignore it for now. (Haha... unless? No? okay in a minute then)

Price is just as manipulative as Gaz can be, just as charming as Soap and Gaz too. But he just... doesn't care, just like Simon. There's a reason so many people have Price with like... mail order bride or a "one day you look up and hes your husband" scenario and thats because he's good at what he does. And by that I mean being a husband and pumping you full of kids whether or not its physically possible. (Btw check out Ceil's mail order bride western au its good shit, or Bo's Kingpin Price drabbles, makes me lose it every time.)

He sees you walking about and the MOMENT you do anything remotely domestic - pick up a neice/nephew/babysitting kid/etc and put em on your hip? Rock hard. play peekaboo with a baby across from you at a cafe? pick up after yourself just to be polite to the waitress? he's already stalking you on multiple platforms theres no goddamn way youre getting away from him. He'll figure out where you go in your free time and insert himself there as naturally as possible. He's not particularly hiding what he's doing either - he likes to test you, to see if you notice things missing or moved. If you do, he'll be a little more cautious, use it as reason to drive you into hsi arms. If you don't he jsut views it as all the more reason to take you away - poor thing, you just can't help yourself can you? You're lucky nobody else has got their claws around you, hm?

[pikahlua]

Can you expand a bit on why Hawks would want to keep the hero rankings rather than get rid of them? I'm having a hard time understanding why he would do that whatsoever. What "good points" are there that he would want to keep? It always felt like a major source of corruption imo, especially since one of Nagant's jobs with the HPSC was taking out corrupt heroes who found unsavory means to boost their rankings (convincing normal people to do crimes, then arresting them). Appreciate your insight as always <3

Hawks' major criticism of the hero rankings was not the rankings themselves but the popularity component of the rankings.

Saying the "popular" thing, saying the thing everyone wants to hear, isn't heroic; it's cowardly. It's conforming. Hawks is looking for a dependable hero to be a symbol, and such a symbol has to be strong in the face of criticism. They can't capitulate to what's easy and popular, especially when such sentiment stands in contrast to what's needed and righteous.

Hawks goes out of his way to pick Endeavor to mold into a leader because Endeavor has that leadership quality--he's not trying to look good in the public eye in every moment. He's consistent and dependable. He has the highest rate of incidents resolved--even more than All Might. Hawks thinks Endeavor is reassuring, that people will follow his lead.

Of course, the good part about the "popularity" component of the ranking is that it keeps people in check. To give an example, there's this concept in my old line of work called independence, which is divided into two things: actual independence and the appearance of independence. It's important for someone in my old position to be independent in fact BUT ALSO in appearance. If people can't TELL you're independent, how much does it help even if you actually ARE independent? The same thing can apply to heroes in terms of public approval. Yes, heroes need to take public approval ratings with a grain of salt, because sometimes doing the right thing is not the same thing as doing what's popular. However, consistently going against the grain without a thought for helping the public understand you, without regard for social mores or others' feelings, will eventually turn the public against you. It's the issue Katsuki had to deal with as he went through his character arc. If the public doesn't trust you, why would they take your hand when you reach out to save them?

Hawks never really goes into anything like what Nagant mentions, and I don't know if Nagant's commentary on heroes who colluded with villains for fame and glory even was a) directly referring to the hero ranking system or b) something that can be resolved by eliminating hero rankings in the first place. That issue seems like a product of fame chasing, not merely public approval, and people will continue to crave the limelight whether or not there's a ranking system. But if people aren't dependent on heroes being the only heroic ones, such as in this new list of everyday heroes Hawks is considering, the existence of fame-chasing heroes doesn't hurt society as much. People won't be depending on heroes to all be perfect and good, they'll support each other, and so the whole system won't be shaken up by the public image of heroes wavering.

As an aside, there's one other funny thing to me about this idea Hawks has.

Hawks is a young upstart, and the fact that he landed this influential political position is quite a shake-up of the status quo. Japan notoriously likes to have things happen in a certain social order, and young people jumping up the ladder ahead of their elders always makes for an awkward dynamic. I do kinda think Hawks is being considerate by not "doing things a little too fast" and completely destroying the old system, because something that radical is not always palatable to the majority opinion, especially when the person advocating for it is as young as Hawks. Just changing a system this much is already a pretty radical step based on my (limited) understanding of contemporary Japanese politics. And I direct you back to my commentary on how Hawks is building on what the older generations have given the next ones. He's always been a character that sat between the older and newer generations like a bridge, so this seems like a decent compromise.

[pawberri]

thank you for all the posts you've made, your takes are always so refreshing to hear.

I want to know your thoughts (if it's okay with you, you can also totally ignore this) about all the "men hate" I see online. like I (poc transmasc non-passing) get it, there are genuine societal gender problems. transmisogyny does exist-women face more challenges than men do. but it genuinely hurts when women, especially trans women, think it's funny/quirky to call men trash or say they want all men dead or whatever. idk I just am hoping someone else understands, you know?

There's a lot of nuances to this question. First, I just want to caution against focusing too much on trans girls as the perpetrators of this. A lot of the asks I get from trans men seem to really fixate on trans women as the perpetrators of hard line gender essentialism. I really think trans girls are not the main people we should be focusing on here. If a trans woman is saying this stuff, take the time to analyze her ideology outside of that pithy comment and consider how much trauma and how little power she has in the world. That said, trans women are affected by this kind of ideology just like us, and they rarely have the power to wield it against others in the way cis people can. I know it hurts to feel isolated by your own community, but that kinda gets into my second point.

Part of dealing with this is learning an impulse progressive cishet dude have had to get used to over the decade. Sometimes, "men are trash" or even "kill all men" are not literal phrases. They are things women say when they're in the throes of trauma to vent their frustration. "Men are trash" in particular is generally pretty lighthearted and used to complain when you have a bad date or something. You have to get used to analyzing what someone actually means and airing on the side of empathy. You, as a man, are the one with some amount of systemic power over that woman, so you are the one who needs to prove you are dedicated to not being a misogynist. The same thing happens when my friends say they hate white people. I have to assume they don't hate me given that I'm their friend, but that I still have some of the negative traits of whiteness. I need to care enough to be a good friend by being anti-racist and checking myself on my behavior. I need to be willing to prioritize their comfort over mine. That includes not becoming this meme:

Now that that's established, there ARE times when "all men are evil and should die" is an actual ideology. It's an ideology that hurts tons of minority groups before it hurts the most powerful, but it's also not really great if we assume it only hurts cishet white guys. Following it to its logical conclusion, it just proposes a reversal of oppression dynamics. This gender essentialism is a key part of radical feminism, trans exclusionary or not, but it leaks out of that community to general feminism all the time.

As a young person on Tumblr and Twitter, this deeply affected me. I internalized the idea that you can "just be a girl." It was repeated by some trans girls, but also a LOT of TME people. It was framed as trans inclusive, but it's trans inclusive in the way "political lesbianism" is lesbian positive. It posits gender as a moral choice that is completely up to the individual and unrelated to biology. It's the lazy version of "gender is a social construct." I felt sick and disgusting for wanting to be a boy because tons of well-meaning friends of mine had made it clear that "being a boy" was a choice, and it was the wrong one. "Boy" was a social category that could and should eventually be eradicated. Trans women were conditionally supported because they, in theory, made this future possible. This didn't amount to actual support, of course. It was an ideology mostly spread by afab queer people that mostly benefited afab queer people. There were a few trans girls who spread it, maybe some due to genuinely believing in the ideology and some due to social pressure, but there were also a lot of people straight-up grifting as trans girls who used this thinking to feel powerful in a niche community of teens. Remember fucking Yandere Bitch Club???

At a certain point, I genuinely thought of being a man as an unambiguous moral failing, and I lashed out at out trans men because of it. I wanted to feel powerful, and here was a type of man in my community I could shame and exclude. I still feel bad for making a bunch of ~girls only~ stuff in HS that excluded the one out trans dude at our school, my friend, because he was just a ~binary man~ and leaving him with no friends and no community. I treated transphobia like it wasn't a real oppression on its own and, in doing so, perpetuated transphobia. It happens a lot.

I wasn't really able to accept that there was nuance to the concept of manhood until I read this article while struggling to accept my own gender:

This is a pretty seminal piece of writing. It has its flaws, of course, but the empathy and intersectionality it highlights was life-changing. It also shows that this kind of thinking is largely perpetuated by TME people and hurts trans women greatly.

Gender essentialism is a bad ideology, it's a transphobic, transmisogynist, racist, etc etc ideology. It's literally essential to patriarchy. But it's also very easy to repackage into leftism and easy to dogwhistle. As a result, it's natural to be hesitant when you see someone saying they hate all men, but you have to tread extremely lightly and actually care what they're attempting to express. Because, yeah, men as a social class still hold power over women. They still have reason to fear and hate men.

I'm writing a comic about this stuff, actually, so look out for it in the future..........

[psychotrenny]

While there is a pretty significant number of exception, it's still conspicuous how disproportionately Anarchists tend to be White, TME and able-bodied. Like it's an ideology that claims to oppose all oppression; surely it would be very appealing to the most oppressed right? The problems lies in the fact that most Anarchists advance the view that an ideal society is one where people are reliant primarily on the human compassion and goodwill of their community. But this way of living is already a reality for many of those on the peripheries of Capitalism. And it's a very widespread sentiment that this way of living fucking sucks.

Like goodwill and compassion are often very fickle things, especially on the scale of a community, and even the best positioned person can find themselves on the wrong end of various sorts of petty dramas and politics. Sure this sort of thing can be an issue under any system, but at least under a formalised hierarchy there are can be various limitation and mechanism of appeal. "Non-Hierarchical" organisation is in practice nearly always "Informally-Hierarchical" which can quickly turn into the most terrible sort of tyranny. It can be an awful problem for anyone, but this sort of thing is consistently much worse for those that are already seen as a lesser sort of human

And like this process is already bad enough for those marginalised by the formal structures of Capitalism. But at least those structures, as fucking awful as they are, are capable of occasionally offering an alternative. There is at least a distant chance that you'll get a decent job or your welfare payments will start coming through and maybe the restraining order will keep them away. Simply removing those structures, rather than genuinely changing or replacing them, and stripping things back to the "community" level is hardly an appealing alternative.

Like whatever your problems with policing as an institution, you aren't gonna make things better by just replacing them with lynch mobs. And under your typically imagined Anarchist Utopia, "Social Murder" is gonna spiral into "Physical Murder" even quicker than it already does. Like it's bad enough to get kicked out of your house and stop receiving the monetary charity you need to afford food and medicine. But if your abusive ex convinces the local Bathtub Insulin Guy that you're a dangerous predator, then you are just straight up completely and utterly dead.

If someone's already the sort of person to get mistreated by your community, they're unlikely to be convinced by an ideology that wants them to become even more reliant on it. You can't appeal to the oppressed if you fail to deal with their oppression

[racefortheironthrone]

On the subject of UBI, I always ask about the MCU UBI: Tony is a billionaire who lives a life of luxury, Bruce has a serious chronic illness that requires expensive medical care, and Trevor just wants to sit round all day drinking and doing drugs. I take the UBI guys more seriously if they can say what each man gets from a UBI.

That's a somewhat odd choice of characters to think about how a UBI would function in the MCU.

So yes, Tony Stark would get a UBI. Relative to his private income, his UBI check would be totally inconsequential - and given the level of taxation needed to support a UBI, it's pretty much guaranteed that Tony would be paying far more in taxes than he would be getting back in UBI payments.

This is not an accident or a mistake or a flaw in the system; this is how a healthy social policy should function. When Social Security was established in 1936, FDR made a big deal of the fact that even John D. Rockefeller would get a Social Security check - because it hammered home the point that everyone contributes, and everyone benefits. Reciprocal solidarity would short-circuit the divisive politics of distribution and redistribution and cement a permanent majority coalition in support of a universal welfare state.

Bruce Banner would also get a UBI check. Now, his financial situation is a little unclear - originally, Banner was a top research scientist at Culver University with U.S military contracts, so he would probably have been in the top 10% of incomes (affluent but not wealthy). After his transformation into the Hulk, however, Bruce was a wanted fugitive with no way of earning income.

After that, Bruce was an Avenger - and this is where things get odd. As established in Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Avengers in the MCU don't get a salary: Tony gave them free housing and paid their Avengers-related expenses, but Sam Wilson notably relied on his veteran's pension and government contracts for his living (thus why his banker could justify turning him down for a small business loan rather than admitting to structural racial discrimination) and Steve Rogers even with his veteran's benefits, Social Security, and SHIELD salary couldn't afford a place in Brooklyn. This means that, while Bruce doesn't need to worry about money for his research and can save on rent, he does actually need the UBI for everything else.

This is very different from in the comics, where Avengers get quite decent salaries:

$4k a month in 1983 dollars works out to around $150k a year (on top of free housing at the Avengers Mansion), putting them solidly in the top 13% of U.S personal incomes.

As for Trevor Slattery, I feel like your description is unfairly characterizing a working actor. Slattery was not a major success in Hollywood - hence why he took Aldrich Killian up on his job offer and became part of a criminal conspiracy - and he does have some serious substance abuse issues, but what he does in his private life is his own business. Hell, even when he was abducted by the Ten Rings, he kept working as an actor. That being said, Trevor is going to have a hard time getting UBI, both because he's a wanted fugitive and convicted felon (which would end his eligibility in the U.S) and because he's now living in a rural village in another dimension.

[thenightfolknetwork]

Hi, we are several hundred rats. More accurately, I am a rat, writing on behalf of my several hundred friends, who are also rats.

It's pretty good, being rats, certainly compared to all the nonsense sapios and other bipeds have to deal with. Like knees, and dentist appointments. Recently, though, we've run into a problem. It's very common for sapios to mistake us for a multi-coporeal entity or a collective intelligence or something of that nature. You know, quote-unquote hive minds. Ignoring the fact that most hives don't actually work like that and the way that the common vernacular exposes the inherent sapionormative biases of the modern social system, it usually isn't a problem. One of us corrects them, the human reacts however they react, no big deal. Their reactions are on them, not our problem.

I'm being asked to add that it's a little sad that the humans don't have the close social bonds that could be mistaken for that kind of thing. So now I have. And now they're discussing whether it's sad or just the nature of the human condition. I'm going to keep writing while they're not trying to co-author this letter.

Well, about three years ago, a colony of cerebrachnids moved in next door with their host body. We don't need to tell you, of course, that brain spiders are actually a collective intelligence. Almost all of us have been of great terms with them since day one. It's nice having someone around who can sympathize with how sapios view us. Rats and spiders, right?

Turns out that they've thought we were some sort of multi-coporeal entity this whole time. It came up last week when some of us were visiting for tea. They've thought for years that we were some manner of genus similar to them, and have just been too polite to ask what we are. I, the rat doing the typing, wasn't there, but the ones who were there all agree that our neighbor got a little weird about it, and they're a lot less overtly friendly since then.

We can't agree if they're feeling awkward, or if they're maybe reevaluating the whole friendship in the light of how we have less in common with them than they thought.

Any advice? Do we just pretend it didn't happen and go on like normal?

Thank you for getting touch, reader – or should I say, readers? I'm extremely heartened to hear how healthy your collective attitudes are to the misconceptions people have about multi-corporeal entities and collective intelligences. I'm also pleased that you recognise your own boundaries in managing other people's expectations and reactions to your lived reality.

That said, I don't think there's any risk of your overstepping those boundaries by reaching out to this neighbour and clearing the air about their misconception. I understand you don't want to take on more than your share of the emotional work. But frankly, simply being aware of that as a potential issue is generally enough to stop it from happening.

There might be any number of reasons for your neighbours' sudden standoffishness. They might be embarrassed by their mistake, or feeling foolish for misunderstanding your nature. Or they might be disappointed at the loss of what they assumed was a friendship built on commonality of experience. The fact is, you won't know until you talk to them.

Invite them over for tea and let them know how much you've missed them. Emphasise how much you all value your relationship with them, and that you're keen that this misunderstanding should be set aside.

I would also take the time to stress how much you do have in common, despite these differences. You may not share the same kind of consciousness as them, but there has been enough shared between you to sustain years of friendship – not only shared interests and talking points, but also deeper commonalities around how sapios treat your genuses.

I don't think anything will be gained by making them feel shamed or punished, especially if they were acting out of nothing more malicious than embarrassment. Give them a little grace, and take the time to clear the air between you properly. Then, with any luck, you'll all be able to shrug this moment off as nothing but an awkward bump in the otherwise smooth road of friendship.

[For more creaturely advice, check out Monstrous Agonies on your podcast platform of choice, or visit monstrousproductions.org for more info]

[steampunkforever]

Postmodernity is dead. Long live whatever is going on right now. It'll be dead before we can figure out what to call it.

I'm a few years removed from an academic context where I'm sure I could be properly corrected on this, but I've been lumping a lot of current post-postmodern of a certain flavor under the title of Vermeulen/van der Akker's definition of "Metamodernity" as the traditional postmodernity of the mid to late 20th century gives way to whatever we're experiencing today. Thats right, despite the harangues of cable newscasters, Postmodernity has been over for decades. Literary and artistic movements are rarely named while they live and breathe (unless they're some astroturfed "[PREFIX]-Punk" genre driven by posers) and so to try and name what's happening today is futile. But for simplicity's sake lets file this one under "Metamodern" so I can actually write this filmpost on the surrealist film "Greener Grass."

The last couple times I've mentioned the concept of metamodernity has been with Quentin Dupieux's surrealist film "Rubber" and-- on the absolute other side of the spectrum --Greta Gerwig's "Barbie." Greener Grass is like if the movies swapped directors, with the mind behind Mr. Oizo taking a crack at what dealing with life and womanhood in a pink-saturated nightmare is really like.

Anyone who grew up in an affluent suburb with a William Sonoma store in their local mall will likely resonate with this film. I think we all remember those , whip thin mothers of classmates who drove Escalades and wore outfits too intentional to not be expensive. Their kitchens were massive and uncooked in. The exercise classes they attended were always feminine, nonthreatening, and adhered to with iron wills usually reserved for Olympic training. One must be pretty like you were in college sorority but a homemaker like his mother in the 70s but "with it" in ways that don't conflict with the new Land Rover financed in your McMansion driveway. The performance of gender and class and perceived societal value is incredible, and that's exactly what Greener Grass is about.

The film talks about something much more complicated than "Barbie Goes To The Gynecologist." It's a film about performance, social hierarchies, and the injustice of artificiality thrust upon us by the manufactured standards of innocuous but deeply "wrong" systems. And it does so by creating a surreal world of skinjob characters pretending that everything is perfect, ignoring the graves their children play over as they conduct monstrous business with a smile and polite posturing. Everything is pink. Everything is perfect. Your son drowning himself and turning into a golden retriever is perfectly normal, even if he does flunk math class. It is dreadfully important you continue to be a good mother.

The fact that Covid killed this movie is a travesty. Go watch it.

[drdemonprince]

Struggling with black and white thinking. During the pandemic we’ve been told wearing a mask protected others & people who didn’t wear a mask didn’t care about other people’s lives. Mask mandates have lifted & I’m still wearing a mask in public. Most of my friends have stopped. It’s hard to deal with the cognitive dissonance as a result. I feel like they don’t care about my life and means we can’t hangout indoors. This has been very isolating as I pull away from friends as a result. Help!

ohhhh buddy, i love that you are asking this and so self aware of what's going on under the hood as you're dealing with these tough emotions. my whole next book is exactly for you!!

Speaking for myself, the thing that is always important for me to remember is that people's decisions are shaped by their social context, by needs that they're trying desperately to get met, and by their risk tolerance -- but risk tolerance often actually means risk *resignation*. When people feel hopeless and alone, it looks a lot like moral nihilism.

I really do not think that people who have been sloppy with covid protocols or isolation are evil people who want disabled folks to die, or that they dont want to be able to socialize with you safely, or anything like that -- i think we have all been pervasively failed by the systems around us, and that the full weight of that failure falls disproportionately onto you and people like you. and so of course it makes sense for you to be really upset at the injustice of it.

I would read this piece by Awards for Good Boys

and here's some pieces I wrote about how systems are responsible for where are with COVID today, not individuals behaving badly:

none of these facts make the situation you're in any less tough, i've got to acknowledge, and so you've gotta give yourself some license to be mad and to mourn how unfairly so much has been taken away from you and continues to be. i just think it is also really perilous for any of us to go down the path of developing a politics rooted in the belief that most other people are lazy, irresponsible, shameful, or evil. i see that kind of political pov germinating pretty widely on disability twitter, for instance, and it goes to really reactionary places really quickly -- and it often willfully refuses to engage in a class analysis

(for instance, people bragging about getting their grocery deliver drivers fired for making a small error on an order, and claiming thats disability justice because they need that service bc they cant go to the store. nevermind that many delivery drivers and gig economy workers themselves have disabilities from covid exposure due to doing those shitty jobs! etc).

[centrally-unplanned]

As I have been sick over the past week+ (doing better now I think) I have put in *checks save file* over 100 hours into The Last Sovereign, the ero-kingdom-builder-RPGmaker indie game. I am as done as I can be with it pretty much right now - its being released piece-by-piece, from all plot suggestions it is right at its penultimate chapter. I highly recommend it - it's a full-on RPGmaker game and not by someone who is a tech or art wiz breaking that box's confines, so you have to be down for that aesthetic & design style. But if you are the game has one of the most detailed "politics of rulership" games I have ever played in the genre, and done very seriously through the hilarious ero-lens of you dealing with succubus migrant populations, church purity inquisitions, and orc intelligence uplifting experimental breeding pits. This plot concept lets the game be hyper-realist and irreverently funny at the same time, a welcome tone.

But it's me, so I am here to whine about some stuff!

The game has, as typical to the genre, "hidden variable" systems for resolving big political plot elements - you talk to people, make dialogue decisions, those get stored as variable counts or binaries, etc. More uniquely it also has a huge economic investment system, where you make choices balancing money-making, military, political, and social investments through cycles that give you more money and impact said political plots. This is all quite complex but it works really well in the beginning, when everything is contained.

Chapter 3 is you and your harem plotting a false flag-style insurrectionist takeover of a kingdom, Yhilin. You made some investments pretty much purely for profit in the last chapter, so you got some opening cash, you have some allies to talk to, decisions around orc recruitment, and a one-off political event. This is all pretty clear - the game even locks some of your money in a vault to make sure you spend it on military supply industries, so you can't screw up by under-provisioning. You know you are gonna invade Yhilin, and you know that you need a good army, good allies, you have a desire to minimize civilian casualties for morality reasons, and a desire to minimize damage to reduce rebuilding costs. Should you save some of your army strength at the expense of more civilian deaths? Whose to say what is better in the long run, but you know what you are choosing. This part works great, it's the best part of the game. The plot is linear, sure, you are gonna win no matter what, but based on your choices the Yhilin you conquer can be quite different.

In future chapters, particularly chapter 5, the scope is drastically wider; you are dealing with *does some head math* 10 countries in your main continent of Arlecent and ~7 nations on other continents, all of which have investments opportunities, political decisions, and hidden variables. Big plot events will occur where 4-5 different variable tracks from different countries will come into play. And the game is not built for this, for a few reasons:

Most importantly, Chapter 3's Yhilin invasion was ordered correctly; you were told you were gonna attack Yhilin first, then made decisions after. Each big political event after that is a surprise; you will have terroristic Incubus Kings attacking via magic portals three kingdoms with no warning, and your multi-track variable scores of each of those countries will impact those events.

The UI is just not built for this. Its RPGMaker, and all the variables are hidden; you can access a ledger list of investments but it doesn't tell you how important each is or anything, just money. I could track one goal in Chapter 3 around a concrete list of options and tasks; that same UI doesn't work here.

All of this would be fine if it was mainly plot, and every option was "equally good", like in some playthroughs Givini does well and Ardoheim does badly, that's cool. But it really isn't; if you know the plot ahead of time, time investments for each event, and so on, you do way better in the game, get bonus equipment and even characters. Hell it's an ero game, you get bonus sex scenes! I skip all those but I'm sure it's important for some of the players out there. So these hidden decisions are high stakes.

So yeah, all that combines to make what should be a "making tradeoffs" political management plot feel way more like a lottery system - and in practice the game is just ludomantically begging you to read a walkthrough. I tried for a long time to play the game sans guide, and as its scope expanded I gave up; I was essentially missing a lot of content because my decisions were suboptimal and I couldn't track all the decision points I ran across to make decisions between them (Also its combat is really hard and easily-missed items can make a huge difference, another guide-pushing factor).

I personally would fix this in the obvious ways; make these variables not hidden, and rewrite the plot to have less "surprises" and more telegraphed decision moments. And then make me actively choose between Ardoheim & Givini with known consequences instead of accidentally doing that (the game does have some decisions like that, its not amateur hour over here; its just out of balance).

But the more important thing to do is imo that UI, and 'conveyance'. Right now all the investment opportunities for example are discovered organically - you talk to a person in Gasm Falls (yeah, that's in the succubus kingdom, how'd you know?), she tells you about a religious order expansion opportunity, and if you wanna spend the coin you go back and talk to her. Again, fine in Chapter 3; but when there are over 50 concurrent investment opportunities across the globe in later chapters, I really can't track this all; I am making decisions somewhat arbitrarily. Instead I would have more structured events; at the end of each cycle you sit down with your harem-ministers in a room and go "here is the list of investments; if you select these 13 here is a loose summary of the bonuses each nation would get, expected revenue, etc." Since RPGs don't typically do that this game doesn't, but it's not a typical RPG right? Its UI needs to evolve with the game.

Which, btw, it is doing! So there are a bunch of political conferences throughout the game's story, and at first it was just talk to people, make dialogue tree decisions, hope you keep it all in your head and make it work. But for the last few one of the mages in your harem would cast a "display spell" making a little magic demiplane with characters who summarize all the information for you. Dealing with potential suitors for the new Queen of Ardoheim? Let's line 'em up and give you a summary of their current odds if you talk to them:

This is great, it's way better! Why aren't there more of these? I am pretty sure it's because, ya know, the creator didn't think of it until recently lol. It's an indie game, being updated live and serially. This is likely feedback in action; the events of Chapter 3 & 4 got too unwieldy, the creator realized that, so in the last few sequences in Chapter 5 improvements were added. But going back and adding these to already-completed sections? Ugh, that can't be a priority in comparison to finishing the damn game.

Which, as I often say, is why I don't judge a game harshly for these issues when it's an indie creator and their small team making their vision. The creator knows this is a problem, but fixing problems is hard! They can't do it all. It's actually very cool to see the game 'evolve' over time as they got new ideas for plot concepts, map design, and structuring political mechanics. That makes the game messier, for sure, but also more interesting; a tradeoff I normally will take.

[aceouttatime]

26 29 45 50 for your Shep!

paine! thanks for the ask!!! <33

26. Does Shepard have a Twitter account?

-> Whatever the galactic version of Twitter is, Shepard probably has one. While he genuinely doesn't have much time for it, he thinks it's important to stay up to date on galactic issues. Granted, when he does have free time he doesn't want to have to deal with petty, online issues when he's actually out there doing things about the state of things, so it's a delicate balance.

I'm sure he gets told by all kinds of sources, news or otherwise, what to post, so he's got an official account that's partially managed by a team on the Citadel that corresponds with him when he's on duty. He may have multiple important people in the Alliance muted in his DMs.

Shep keeps it professional, mostly commenting on the state of the galaxy or what other important political figures put out. But that's absolutely not to say his omnitool isn't full of memories of the crew on shore leave, and cute pictures he snuck of Garrus asleep next to him, and videos from That One Time Everyone Had Their Asses Handed To Them playing poker against Cortez and Vega.

He'd be one of those people that would gravitate more towards facebook/instagram to keep up with the lives of close friends, if he was living a civilian life, but as it is, Space Twitter is accessible and easy to put away when he needs to.

29. Does the alliance use their image for propaganda/recruitment? Did they agree to/want it?

-> This is very much in the same vein as the social media thing. The Alliance has made a figurehead out of Shepard, boosting their influence, funding, and numbers, often by cherrypicking things he's said on tape as part of whatever their current pro-Alliance propaganda is and riding off of the success of his bravery during service and induction into the Spectres. They made him their hero, their golden boy, and then discarded his autonomy in the matter when he no longer fit with that image (see: Cerberus, claims of a Reaper invasion, Arrival DLC).

Shepard himself has very little say over the matter; he'd practically signed his life away to the Alliance after the raids on Mindoir, back when he was a traumatized teenager latching on to anything stable. Even during his training and service, he disliked the media attention wrought by important events like graduation ceremonies, ballroom dinner parties, and political events, most of which were not all that optional. He felt out of place--he wasn't a politician, he was a soldier, and for a long time, he floundered during things like that, not having ever needed to learn those sorts of intricacies. So he continued being unabashedly straightforward and saw much of the socio-political nonsense for what it was: a game he had no place in.

By the era of the trilogy, Shepard held a deep dislike for the way his image was warped to further ideals that were not his own. But they fell in line with what the Alliance needed, what the Council expected, and what kept the suits of the galaxy placated.

So he tries to let his actions speak for themselves because it is too late to reverse the distortion of his public image.

45. Do they vote?

-> Yes! Shepard casts his vote in at least the most important/largest issues affecting Council and Alliance space. He's technically a citizen of Mindoir (a colony of the United North American States--economically pretty reliant on, and thus fairly politically controlled by, them), but he also has citizenship on the Citadel itself, which functions a little differently than how human citizenships typically work, most notably in the taxation and legal departments (but I won't get into that just now). (I talk politics a little here--if that bothers you, please feel free to skip to the end of the blue section <3)

Politically speaking, Shep values more socialist internal policies like accessible healthcare, a well-funded and standardized education system, and workers' rights. He believes that the material, economic, and societal profit of a governmental system should primarily benefit and be controlled by the means of production: the everyday people that keep the system running.

He also has strong opinions on the rights of individual colonies, states, and nations, as he values national identity and the preservation of culture, natural resources, and history. While he sees the benefit in a centralized government for both each specie and the galaxy as a whole, he believes that the systems put in place before the shift towards interconnectedness should not be written off as arbitrary, outdated, or inefficient. There is a balance that must be struck between overarching governmental systems and lower ones, and that balance will be different for different peoples, whether due to biology, psychology, economics, history, culture, etc. He believes that a higher government's main duty is to defend the people and systems beneath it in a way that respects their freedoms, and therefore puts a lot of importance in national defense (as a victim of terrorism, a career-long Alliance soldier, and a man who pays close mind to the turbulent state of the galaxy in places beyond Council jurisdiction, like the Terminus systems).

Socially, his opinion is left-leaning, though he has some opinions that do not fit within the mainstream ideology. Shepard is a proponent of equality as a concept: racial, gender, sexual, etc., and equity where equality does not suffice. He puts value in individual freedoms like bodily autonomy, marriage rights, protections for minors, the right to carry, voting rights, minority rights, and privacy protections.

50. What was the last thing (non-email) Shepard read? Book, play, poem, essay etc

-> The most recent undertaking is, Vuigaris Ro'tana Dime (Folk Devils), a collective biography of a number of non-asari biotics that explores the stigma, state of infrastructure, medical issues, military training, and psychology regarding biotics and being biotic in different species and cultures. Some of the highlights are the experiences of a retired turian Cabal officer, a woman who worked on the development team for multiple L-series implants, and a salarian diplomat who faced political fallout after developing late-onset biotics.

[rainbow-neko-artblog]

saw that one of your posts had the word "delulu" in it... id like to kindly ask you not to use that word. if you havent already heard, pretty much nobody who actually experiences delusions likes "delulu". it's making light of very real struggles we face by turning it into a cute & quirky #relatable thing to say on social media, meanwhile we aren't taken seriously at all. it's like saying "im so ocd" just because you like being neat, or "im so bipolar" because you sometimes have mood swings, or "im so adhd" because sometimes you forget things. even if it isnt your intention to be disrespectful, it lets mentally ill people who see your work know that you dont care about us/take us seriously & think that engaging in your favorite media is somehow comparable to thinking all your friends are going to kill you, or that the world is a simulation. delusions arent a hobby, they arent a daydream to escape to by choice, theyre often debilitating & terrifying & inescapable. nobody who has experienced delusions thinks "delulu" is okay. please stop using it. not hating on you, i just wanted to inform you of what's wrong & why in a calm & polite way before someone else comes in guns blazing. please remove "delulu" from your vocabulary.

Hi I'm sorry but...I'm, not, gonna do that?

Uhm. Maybe this is out of pocket for me to say but I have??? DID????? Which....while I don't like to think of it this way because it makes me feel crazy, does in part deal with delusions and blurring reality. I am delusional. I experience delusions. Using the word delulu feels easier to me to say, cause it's a silly word that has no impact on me compared to alternatives.

As for the "mentally ill people who see your work", as you might have guessed as someone who has DID among other mental illnesses, my friends, other people who veiw my work, are like me. Nuerodivergents, systems, ectect. I have a whole discord server dedicated to talking to them, and I'm sure they would tell me if they were really uncomfortable with me using that, but they haven't. Because I'm actually delulu? So I mean. Yeah. Uh. Ye.

[tanadrin]

that last post was getting long as it was, and this wasn’t central to my point, but:

i don’t think the existence of a center of power alternative to the aristocracy is, on its own, going to set the conditions for what we think of as modern liberal democracy. it was part of the winding journey between the ancien regimes of europe and the liberal democratic present, but much of europe managed to be pretty dang illiberal even while the new middle class and the aristocracy were duking it out in the 19th century! that was bismarck and metternich’s whole deal, to try to find a way to put to use the merchants and industrialists of their respective countries without actually having to break up the aristocratic order, and they managed to thread that needle for a surprisingly long time

and i don’t think the fear that redistributive functions of the state will turn suddenly to authoritarianism is really very sensical. there are plenty examples of right-wing authoritarianism that aren’t strongly ideologically in favor of redistribution. the fear that expanding medicaid or whatever will lead to the state kicking down your door and dragging you off to a FEMA concentration camp is something you see on the hardcore libertarian right in american politics, but among historical examples of authoritarian regimes, robust social safety nets are neither a necessary prerequisite, nor exclusively a left-wing phenomenon (von bismarck was instrumental in establishing modern germany’s system of universal healthcare!)