#(whether you like their methods and ideologies or not)

[whatudottu]

Okay, BETC!Blitzwing having introjects based on Astrotrain and Octane is an absolutely galaxy brained idea, but did you mean it in the sense of two of pre-existing alters (most likely Hothead and Random) being based on them to serve as their “replacements” (perhaps for added angst, Blitzwing having done so unconsciously due to a mixture of the Triple Changer procedure messing with his memories and dissociative amnesia) or Blitzwing having other alters besides the three he usually displays that are repressed and/or can’t properly express themselves due to lacking their own faceplates? Both of them are equally good, I’m just curious to see if you were referring to a specific one,

It's an either or situation because as soon as that idea propped up I went to look into the personalities of Astrotrain and Octane to see if they matched any of the face alts, not that the original G1 personalities dictate anything about TFA characteristics considering how many characters (including Optimus himself) has a different twist to their personality. Of course, not every alter in a system fronts (or is even active) so having fellow triple changer headmates that might speak or observe through one of the fronting faces of Blitzwing is still rotating in my mind, if they haven't gone dormant.

If Blitzwing has exomemories from Astrotrain and Octane then his earlier Autobot experiment days would be muddled (more than they already were) by proxy of the fact these introjects may have taken some of his own direct trauma and hold it under their own names, like 'dealing with base frame abuse' from Blitzwing's pre-existing warframe being allocated to Octane with his flight frame or 'being turned into a tool for war' onto Astrotrain's frame alteration into galactic soldier transport vehicle. If they ever were to front maybe they'd borrow a face they prefer or can use to present themselves more accurately.

#ask #anonymous #blitzwing #tfa blitzwing #transformers #tfa #BETCs #bot experiment triple changers #maccadam #the blitzwing we see now isn't quite the same blitzwing that was fresh of the experiment table #depending on the logic of the experiment the faces may be built in or as an unintended bonus #the latter seems more likely because the autobot scientists pride themselves on efficiency #(whether you like their methods and ideologies or not) #so they may consider giving extra faces a weird thing to do especially for their custom war machines #but what does it mean to have extra faces as a triple changer? is it limited to the number of alts you have? #are the faces self-built to fit the vehicles and act as root mode? #i know in the almanac which implies ba as behind the operation to have given blitz the extra faces #were they in fact locked to one face until they had gotten someone to give them the three? #three for the alters that wanted to front? more for the active alts? at request of the front alters that wanted a face? #who knows beyond a cool character design feature that becomes subject to human representation #because by cybertronian standards blitz may be the only system to have it like they do #a DID based on the experiment to give the original jet blitzwing a third mode and secondary alt #even if the bots went to their own significantly less warframe civ mecha that's still at most 4 (living) with this DID #astrotrain and octane may not both fronting because they are already in a frame not their own

[carpathxanridge]

what this has taught me though is a lot of yall’s pro-choice arguments are not that ideologically sound, or at least don’t get to the heart of the argument. i know there are a lot of common abortion arguments that we like to default to, and none of these are wholly original arguments on either side, but i can’t emphasize enough the process of thinking deeply about these common arguments and understanding what the actual warrant for the claim is.

for example, if you say “a fetus is not a person.” and then the person you’re arguing with says, “it’s a literal human being,” and instead of refuting why the fetus does not have “personhood” in the legal sense and then making a broader philosophical claim that we shouldn’t view a fetus as a person, switching to the argument “okay even if it is a person it doesn’t matter because no person can be forced to be an organ donor even if the other person will die otherwise etc.”…. kind of makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about and are conceding that a fetus is a person.

similarly, if someone says “okay but there’s a difference between a nonaction (organ donation) and an action (abortion), there is no moral justification to abort because if the pregnancy progresses naturally the fetus will become a baby”… the crux of that argument isn’t answered by making a convoluted scenario (i haven’t seen it used in this particular argument but i’ve seen it in other context) where “ok someone connected all your vitals to a dude on life support against your will, do you have the moral justification to pull the plug?” no, the crux of that argument is that the pro life person is making an appeal to nature, usually paired with the argument that a pregnancy and its outcome is god’s will, and is suggesting that women’s role in the pregnancy is passive, just letting nature take its course. you might better be able to engage that particular argument by interrogating “why isn’t abortion natural when there are natural methods to abortion, when medical abortion has only made safer what women have done all throughout history? when miscarriage too is natural, happens in nature all the time, and isn’t always experienced as a loss by the mother—often it’s mundane, a woman’s body making the decision to terminate an unviable pregnancy, often before she’s even aware of it. so why is it natural for a woman’s body to terminate a pregnancy for her own survival and wellbeing, but as soon as she wills it and takes steps to do so it’s unnatural and immoral? yes, abortion is an action, but why do you see it as a perverse and immoral choice for a woman to make equivalent to murder, rather than her natural domain?”

and following these kinds of lines of questioning (rather than just switching to another stock pro-choice argument) will always get you closer to the heart of the disagreement, that which cannot be resolved over the course of a single conversation. which is that feminists simply believe that in a humane, moral society, women should get to choose whether or not to bring life into the world, whereas forced birthers believe a fetus is a life from conception, willed by god, and that women must surrender to god’s will.

[apas-95]

why do usamerican anarchists even want to cook bathtub insulin like regulations on drug manufacturing just arent exploitative relationships

the only reason anyone ever does anything incorrectly is the profit motive. if you took away all safety regulations and threw a bunch of random people into a machine shop and asked them to build medical equipment they'd do so perfectly safely and correctly, because why would they Want to do otherwise?

i joke, obviously, but that's the thought process - it's fundamentally an extension of idealism: for a politics that otherwise completely ignores the material necessities and restrictions placed on political organisation and the measures they require to apply to the real world, in favour of, essentially 'if everyone just agrees with us our ideas will win', it shouldn't be that surprising that that extends to production.

in reality, of course, there are factors outside direct human control, and the implementation of safety regulations and inspections are an incredibly obvious and necessary measure - *but*, once you accept that, the question is then 'what good are safety regulations without any form of enforcement?', which, for anyone concerned with simply the task of bettering life for the working class, would prompt a response of 'oh, you're right, we'll need some form of enforcement, then.' for a lot of people, that's the end of their relationship with anarchism.

however, the underlying motives that generate these politics - as, in general, idealist political philosophies disconnected from reality don't simply spring up by themselves - aren't about the task of bettering life for the working class. fundamentally, the interests of these worldviews are those of the small-producer, the middle class: they promote a utopia where everyone is a small business owner (whether in a commune or a 'free market'), and, providing no real method to achieve these utopias, function mainly to drive these middle classes away from their character as labourers, and towards their privileges. the question of 'authority', a nebulous concept, has always been specifically the existence of any authority *over the small-producer's enterprise*. it's for *that* reason that, when the idea of 'authority' comes into contradiction with the task of improving the lives of the working people, some *do* decide that 'authority' is more important.

there is no such thing as a definite 'left' and 'right wing' - there are left wings and right wings of individual classes, but they both share more in class interest than they often do with their counterparts of other classes. libertarianism, in all its forms, is a middle class ideology, and shares its flaws - any jab against libertarians works just as well, 'who'll build the roads', 'would you need a driver's license', 'how will you ensure medicine is produced safely', etc.

when faced with these problems, people not married to the need to avoid 'authority' will simply accept the ideology is flawed - there are people who are pre-emptively 'anti-state', but fundamentally, their opponents are not 'pro-state', just practical. the anarchists are the only people coming to the table with a pre-existing, overriding position about 'authority' and the role of the state, and they're willing to abandon all practicalities to support it. functional regulations on medicine production *have* to be considered authoritarian, because that's the point of the ideology.

[moongothic]

Seen quite a few people comment how they believe it's more likely the Dragodile Divorce happened due to ideological differences rather than because Dragon was too straight to stay with Crocodile, and. Like I did suggest that (or at least tried to) in my Crocodad Giga Thesis (really I should've been more clear about it in my essay so I wouldn't be writing this now lol), but like yes, Dragon and Crocodile absolutely have drastically different beliefs on How One Overthrows The World Government. And that absolutely could have contributed to the two separating and/or Crocodile deciding to go his own way instead of becoming a proper Revolutionary

Because like, as I tried to imply in the essay (but failed to deliver); if Crocodile's goal had always been to get Pluton so he could just nuke Marijoa off the face of the earth by himself and end it all in one go, then Crocodile and his way of thinking could work as this, like... contrasting opposite to how Dragon believes things should be done. Some fans (unfairly imo) call Dragon a "fraud" because over the past 20+ years he has only attacked Marijoa and the WG directly just once, and even when he did, instead of doing something to stop their corrupt reign for good... the Revs destroyed... the Tenryuubito's... food storage..? Like. Sure, that'll bother them for a little while, get their panties in a good twist etc, but in the end they're just going to demand more tributes and more free food. The Revolutionary Army may be successfully inspiring more people and more countries to rebel against the World Government's corrupt rule, but the Tenryuubito are still in power and will continue to be in power for a long time. And that's kind of how Crocodile would greatly complement Dragon within the narrative. Dragon being arguably "too soft" with his slow, methodical way of overthrowing the WG, while Crocodile would just kill them all without mercy, even if it meant hurting innocent people in the process. The two would act as the opposite sides of the same coin, the different extremes of the same spectrum. Crocodile would become like a response to the complaints people have against Dragon.

And yeah, the two having such wildly different ideological views could VERY EASILY contribute to a divorce, for sure.

My thing is that... If (and this is an if) Crocodile is meant to go a character arc and grow as a person, if we're meant to see him as a sympathetic character at all and maybe even feel bad for him... It'll be much harder to write that if the Dragodile Divorce happened only because of the two having ideological differences. Like who's going to feel bad for Crocodile if the two got divorced because Crocodile wanted to mass murder people and Dragon wasn't okay with it? That's not a tragedy, that's not a situation where we as the readers would feel for Crocodile and want to root for him. That's not something that would give a character unprocessed emotional trauma to heal from and overcome. He'd just be a villian who'd need to have his beliefs changed.

Where as, if The Divorce was caused by Dragon and Crocodile no longer being compatible due to Dragon being straight while Crocodile transed his gender... Even in the most respectful of scenarios that is a heartbreaking situation, a painful thing to go through. That is a tragedy without bad guys, a story where you could feel bad for Crocodile and want to root for him. That is a situation that would give him trauma to heal from.

And that's kind of why I so strongly believe in Crocodile's transition being a more important, contributing factor in The Divorce. Again, this does absolutely depend on what Crocodile's actual role in the story is going to be and whether or not he's even meant to go through a character arc at all. Like if he's not going to be that important and if he isn't meant to go through an arc then sure, Crocodile's transition doesn't have to matter one fucking bit. But if he is meant to go through an arc, if we are meant to feel bad for him and find outselves rooting for him eventually... From a writing perspective, that'll be far easier to do if we can find ourselves sympathizing with him even just a little bit.

Also like. Yes, you can have queer characters who are just queer for the sake of being queer, their queerness does not have to be an important aspect in them or a huge plotpoint in their story at all. Crocodile could be queer just for the sake of being queer. Because that's what it's like being queer, you just are what you are. At the same time, from a writing perspective. What would even be the point of making him queer if it didn't matter to his character at all and have an impact on his character?

Also while Crocodile and Dragon clearly have very different beliefs on how the WG should be dealt with right now, we don't really know when Crocodile came to his beliefs. Like for all we know Crocodile could've formed his worldview years after the divorce. Hell, based on the way he spoke to Vivi about her ideals, and how we know he spent over a decade in utter emotional solitude, his current worldview could have been partially born from resentment towards Dragon (and his ideals) that's been simmering away over the years.

All of this to say; yes I think the two's beliefs could have been a contributing factor in The Divorce, but from a writing perspective (and based on the direction I personally want to see the story go), I find it far more likely if Crocodile's transition was the main cause, one way or another.

#Moon posting #OP Meta #Dragodile #Like for me it's either they divorced because of the transition OR the transition AND ideology #But not because of the ideology alone #There is also something to be said about people having it hard to imagine Oda writing something... So nuanced about trans people #Which. Fair. Like eight months ago I had zero fucking hope either #But also if you look at how Oda has been writing characters (queer or not) you can see he should actually Get It #Like when I shared that video from MelonTeee about Katakuri and joked about Katakuri being trans as hell. Like yes I was joking #But also the way MelonTeee explained Katakuri's story made me realize how queer coded it actually was #If Oda can write about Katakuri having to hide his true self from his family for a fear of rejection for who he really is #Then maybe Oda can write about Crocodile being rejected by his significant other for who he truly was #One Piece is so much about finding love and acceptance no matter what and no matter who you are #I think Oda could do it. I want to believe

[tomwambsganshater]

Vinland saga gets a lot of criticism for being unrealistic and too naive in its pacifism but I feel like that's a fundamental misunderstanding of thorfinn's character. His ideology isn't supposed to be universal, he develops it because of his circumstances, he's killed too many people and inflicted too much misery to be able to stomach any more of it, to the point that defending himself disgusts him. It's not a method to live your life or to change the world, it's his specific emotional reaction to his experiences. He's not even preachy about it either, when he meets Canute he admits that he knows he can't change the world that way, and that he can't judge whether Canute's way is right or wrong. His vinland plan is an attempt to create a society from scratch based on his radical pacifism in hopes that it'll meaningfully stick and become a value for the next generations, and thus create a society where it's the norm, but as we can see in the story and just history, it's going to fail. I don't know how exactly it's going to end, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to be by telling the reader that "You should be a pacifist all the time and violence is never justified". The story's always been nuanced, Thorfinn himself is just incapable of stomaching it.

#vinland saga #and i mean i dont think hes a bad character or anything his ideology is reasonable given his circumstances #just like canute's impossibility to not try to change the world through violent methods is understandable with his disillusion for #christianity and pacifism in general #or even thorkell! he's a lot less justifiable given he doesnt have noble goals but his ideology is coherent #war is inevitable and the goal of life is to enter valhalla + hes naturally super strong so he fits perfectly in that culture #yukimuta obviously tends towards pacifism but the story is more interested in showing different perspectives and how characters developped #them than claiming theres an absolutely right one

[bimboficationblues]

what are the differences between marxism and anarchism?

one is based on the writings of Karl Marx and the other is based on the writings of Jean-Luc Anarquis

the respective ways in which they annoy me

it's difficult to get precise because anarchism is notably more expansive, which is sort of inherent to its nature. Marxism is thoroughly modern and often emphasizes its breakage with the previous radicalisms and socialisms that influenced it (while also being explicitly based on the models and preoccupations of a specific guy or set of guys). and although a lot of anarchism is to some extent also modern and similarly birthed out of 18th-century radicalism, it has a claim - much like communism outside of Marxism - to a longer, more extensive intellectual and political history. not to mention these two are, both being forms of socialism, kind of on a gradient (communization theory is a good contemporary example of a synthesis of the two). any attempt to kind of boil down either, and framing it as a binary in the first place, is going to miss a lot.

to bang my metapolitics drum: goals should be derived from values, and strategy and tactics are derived from both. I feel like you're probably familiar with the strategic/tactical disagreements among Marxists and anarchists (parties, cooperatives, state power, etc.) because they're...fairly obvious, so I'm more interested in emphasizing that first process.

there are (or at least can be) a number of overlapping values between Marxism and anarchism, even if the substantive content can vary. I think a notable breaking point is the central object of their ire. Marxism is interested in the rule of capital and its representatives, how this distorts and deranges social life, and more broadly how class conflict emerges from different methods of organizing social needs in ways that are destructive/irrational/restrictive on flourishing. I think anarchism's attention is towards processes of obedience and submission, how is it that people come to be positioned in hierarchical and coercive dynamics and either lose or surrender their personal and collective liberty, and how the state/political organization act as the chief source of this repression. I think there's obvious linkage here, and I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive, but where you place your emphases matters and is going to lead you to different assessments of goals.

they primarily split on the question of what to do about political power, which I would suggest is related but non-identical to the break over what to do about political economy. assuming a revolutionary scenario (which not all anarchists do, see the individualist strain derived from thinkers like Stirner which I am somewhat influenced by, but this is the conventional tale of the Bakunin/Marx split): should political power, conceived as a weapon of class rule, be seized in some capacity before we seek its full abolition, or should this mode or conception of politics be abolished through the act of making revolution?

again, there's kind of a spectrum of answers here. I think how you flesh out the substantive content of specific values will inform where you land on this question, of exactly how to get to statelessness. fwiw, I think nobody has really cracked the problem of the state as a force with its own inertia and limitations for forming a desirable society vs. the demands of a defensive revolutionary position, but I think recognizing that it is a dilemma is more fruitful than just pretending it doesn't exist or like a clean answer has been handed down from on high by our predecessors.

and, to some extent, there's also a disparity (though not universal between the camps) on the matter of whether a post-capitalist society should have things like markets - not all anarchists are necessarily communists. not all Marxists are either but they usually at least pretend to be.

anyway, I think there's obviously a lot of other historical and ideological differences and tensions for a variety of reasons, but I think these are some of the most interesting threads right now. in conclusion,

[transmutationisms]

I'm curious if you've come across any examples of what you would consider effective communication or collective organizing around Covid? I know of a few groups who I think are doing good work to get people access to masks and rapid tests, making connections to broader issues such as lack of sick leave, barriers to healthcare etc, but they're also relying on things like questionable wastewater data extrapolation to make their points. I don't really know what to do about the latter issue, since we've just had access to all data taken away from us by the government. (I know it's not an effective tool for collective action, but tbh I also struggle with the idea that all alarmism is bad, because I am high risk and I am scared!)

well 1st of all to be clear, i think wastewater data are valuable and i do look at them. what i don't do is make wildly overconfident guesses from those data about exactly how many people are infected, how many sick people are standing in any given room, how many people will eventually qualify for a long covid dx, etc. i think wastewater data are a rough proxy but still an important one, and generally more useful at the local level (where they can be cross-referenced with factors like vaccine uptake, circulating variants, and municipal public health policy) than at national or regional levels (where the necessary amount of aggregation makes it difficult to tease out much useful information about any one town or city).

2nd, i don't know what country you live in but i do look in on CDC's covid dashboard, which includes data on hospitalisations, emergency department visits, deaths, vaccine uptake, test positivity rates, &c. if this is applicable to you i strongly encourage always reading the footnotes as these statistics vary in accuracy (in particular, test positivity rate is very unreliable at this point). i consider a lot of these numbers useful primarily as indicators of comparative risk: eg, i assume hospitalisation numbers have been inaccurate lowballs for the entirety of the pandemic; however, it is still useful imo to see whether that number is trending in a particular direction, and how it compares over time. again, local results are sometimes more helpful as well. i also glance in on the census bureau's household pulse survey results, which come out numerous times throughout the year and include questions about duration of covid symptoms, ability to function, and vaccine uptake. these numbers skew in the opposite direction to many of CDC's, because the phrasing of the covid questions is intended to be broad, and does not attempt to distinguish between the sort of long covid that entails a 6 or 12 month recovery period, vs the sort of long covid that turns out to be me/cfs or other chronic long-term post-viral complications. again, i still think these numbers are useful for viewing trends over time; no data will ever be completely 100% without flaw, and i'm not holding out for that. what does frustrate me, though, is people (with any and all ideological axes to grind!) interpreting any of these numbers as though they are in fact perfect flawless representations of reality, with no further caveats or critical analysis needed. that's what i'm pushing back on, whether it comes from the "pulse survey says long covid prevalence is decreasing, so fuck it!" crowd or the "biobot says last week was a micro-surge so we're all going to die!" crowd.

as far as local orgs or groups doing actual action, like distributing masks or vaccine clinics, i don't put so much stock in what they say on instagram or whatever because frankly i think it matters very little. the masks and vaccines and air filters and so forth are useful in themselves; that work is valuable. if someone's positioning themselves primarily as a communicator then yes, i'm going to scrutinise their communication methods more. if it's an action org i'm honestly less concerned, unless there is egregiously unreliable information being propagated or they're communicating in the sort of stigmatising manner that many peak Posters have adopted (people who got sick are stupid / immoral / deserve it, etc).

i'd also just like to make it clear that like... i live with someone who is at high risk, i accordingly treat my own covid precautions as though i am also at high risk, and i wouldn't want covid regardless... like, please understand that when i talk about this i'm not coming at it from a perspective of someone who's unaware of the need for caution! my concern is, again, that caution and risk discussion are not synonymous with "making frightened guesses and asserting them with 100% confidence" or "selectively attributing truth to data because they agree with me, regardless of the actual methodology and any problems therein". i understand that when people are behaving recklessly and being encouraged to do so by state and medical authorities, it is tempting to look at that situation and think that communicating the seriousness of the virus is worth risking a little bit of inaccuracy if it protects people. however, i do not think that strategy actually pays off in the long or short term as far as changing people's behaviour (if it did, wouldn't it have by now?) and i think it is playing with fire to encourage this manner of interpreting and disseminating scientific information as though it is a kind of ideological buffet requiring no further verification or investigation beyond a cherry-picked deference to the stated objectivity and ideals of The Scientific Method.

#covid

[purgemarchlockdown]

Deep Cover prep involves me organizing the Kotoko Thoughts and something I think about a lot is her Adherence to the Status Quo rather than Revolting against it.

It's something that seems strange at first since Kotoko is so overtly violent and aggressive and hateful towards society, but what we know about Kotoko's Worldview are things that seem In Favor in not only keeping the hierarchical status quo, but to make it Stricter.

It's notable to Me that Kotoko wants to partner up with Milgram instead of fighting against it, she believes in Milgrams' ability to affirm "justice."

(Task)

Kotoko: To be honest, I don't know your (*Milgram's?) true intentions. And I don't know whether you are a similar person with similar thoughts. Who knows, maybe it's just my delusion of wishful thinking. Even so, it uses multiple ways to reveal good and evil. To me, MILGRAM, this kind of nature itself, has a kind of charm to it. So? Do you understand me as a person now?

Now, personally. I think Milgram as a Prison is flawed in...multiple ways, and is extremely unjust and unhelpful in actually doing any sort of justice due to being so extreme and unnuanced that it ultimately just harms everyone at the end of of it all. Kotoko even acknowledges that the prison is using unjust methods in Yonah.

(Yonah)

Kotoko: So you tolerate all of the psychological abuse going on in this prison, but draw the line at the physical one? What double standards you have!

She doesn't Stop wanting to become Es fang here, actually she wants them to become even more cruel and harsh and have no mercy for any of the prisoners.

(Kotoko: I can excuse the abuse but I draw the line at hypocrisy

Me: You can excuse the abuse?)

1moremilgram-enjoyer talked about that Kotoko believes that the world's normal state of being is "good" and that evil is a poison infecting it.

The normalcy sought for, Fading away, Everytime death comes

Which informs a lot of her ableism and violence against people who she deems as "sinners."

And I've personally talked a lot about how Kotoko idealizes the Past, and is stuck as how she was as a child. Telling Amane that she was Exactly how she was at her age...that being twelve. She outright admits she hasn't grown from being a child, as if that's something to be proud of. Her worldview is strict and immature frankly, it doesn't allow for any nuance.

(We have a Word for an ideology that idolizes the past and enforces hierarchical power systems for the "good" of humanity and I would link archivalofsins post to it IF I COULD FIND IT-)

Kotoko Believes in the current hierarchies of the prison (the world) and just believes that the people running it are flawed and that if they just instate the Good People everything will be Fine Actually.

Es: Your hand.. What does it mean? Kotoko: Let's shake hands. We will be companions. Es: You and me.. Companions?

She believes in the power of violence and believes that using it is the only way to Truly bring about justice is by using physical force.

T1Q4: When did you start learning martial arts? In elementary school, perhaps. Without enough power, you can't enforce justice and do the right thing, can you?

She does not believe in mercy or compassion, nor is she wiling to put in the effort into understanding that it is Much Harder to make the world a better place than she would like it to be.

T1Q7: What did you study at university? For a while, I studied at the faculty of law. There's something I want to do, so I'm currently taking a break from studies, though.

She wants a good, simple, clean, answer. A group of people she can blame the evils of this world on.

Whose fault is it, This is getting ridiculous What should the punishment be

(Kotoko Birthday Timeline. 12/15/2023)

Kotoko: “Fufufu, fufufufufu. You’re thinking some outrageous things. To be frank, it’s abnormal. But I don’t dislike it. If only all sinners were like you.”

She just needs to find someone who "agrees" with her, a Good Person who can enforce the system the way She wants it enforced.

I've chosen the awaited hero

#milgram #kotoko yuzuriha #milgram thoughts #cw police violence #uh...fuck what other CW does kotoko need- #milgram spoilers

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Excellent question! It might sound straightforward, but it's actually very fuzzy.

Optimate and populare were not ideologies, like "socialist" or "monarchist," and they weren't political parties, like "democrat" or "Tory." So what were they?

Depends on who you ask - and when. In the Pro Sestio, Cicero defined the optimates as decent, honorable people, and populares as demagogues who tried to appeal to the masses because they couldn't hack it in the Senate. But in his Fourth Catilinarian Oration, he uses popularis in a positive sense, more akin to "one who serves the popular will." He applies that word to himself and Julius Caesar(!), and contrasts it with politicians who talk a good game but haven't the guts or integrity to follow through.

Muddling things further, most Roman writers don't use either word in the same way as Cicero. They use populares to mean "countrymen" or "fellow Romans," and optimate is a rare synonym for aristocracy. Sallust never refers to them as distinct factions, even when he's talking about class conflict and political movements.

So, we're left with asking whether optimate and populare are useful concepts at all. Erich Gruen and Henrik Mouritsen reject them entirely, arguing that it makes more sense to divide Roman politics along family lines and personal rivalries. Andrew Lintott and T.P. Wiseman believe the terms could be used for describing ideological trends, albeit not for discrete political parties. Robert Morstein-Marx redefines them as methods for gaining influence - optimates networking with elite senators, populares appealing to the crowds - which weren't mutually exclusive.

Personally, I think it's useful to be specific. To speak of the Catonians and Marcelli, for instance, rather than lumping them both into optimates. And it helps to remember that political factions were time-bound: you can identify Marians and Sullans in 80 BCE, but the groups break down by 70 BCE. There weren't many organized groups or movements that lasted for multiple generations of the republic.

#sorry anon but i'm not going to talk about your favorite anime on here. i'll give you something more interesting: political historiography!! #just roman asks #optimates and populares #jlrrt essays

[incrediblemeh]

Thinking about the parallels between Doomguy and Vader, and what's interesting is the minor similarity between the classic doom helmet and Vader's helmet (particularly the way both broaden on the way to the bottom and the ventilator fully covering the mouth and nose.) But its interesting that are many depictions where Doomguy's face is still visible through the visor, which I think serves as a visual reminder of his humanity and empathy remaining regardless of his rage and fixation. in contrast Vader's face is never shown and when it is he doesn't at all resemble the person he was before being disfigured, his single-minded hatred is the only thing driving him. Doomguy is that one in a million dark side user that doesn't just feed into their own greed and ambition as if those are meaningful in and of themselves. the dark side is passion and desire primarily, but is so often characterized as evil because of how easy it is for people to gravitate towards the most unga bunga "me want big power number forever large" ideology. People like Palpatine are basically just chasing after that endorphin rush from getting that level up after XP grinding. Playing the force like some gatcha game, because they just feel so good when their rare jpeg has higher crit chance. And with the Jedi constantly telling force users to never explore their emotions, its no wonder people who are disillusioned keep falling into an ideology that matches the most pervasive and addictive method of real world manipulation in any form of entertainment Palps was probably shitting his pants a bit after realizing how much potential Anakin Skywalker had as a dark side user, because instead of buying into the "more P O W E R" bullshit Anakin just wanted love and acknowledgement. He needed to straight up manipulate him into sabotaging his own life by committing atrocities and maiming him so his life support puts him in constant agony to control him, because otherwise he'd be empowered purely by the love of his wife and kids. Conversely, Doomguy is just someone who loved his pet rabbit and couldn't stand the idea of hurting people. Demons are equally reliant on the satisfaction of getting the big number as the Sith, and they can't corrupt Doomguy because probably the only thing in life he wanted was to give an animal unconditional love and geek out about nerd shit. I'd say the big difference between Vader and Doomguy is really that Palpatine was smart enough to manipulate Vader into ruining his own life. Because the demons killed daisy directly as a simpleminded act of revenge, Doomguy isn't vulnerable to self-hatred the way Vader is. If Palps had gone "haha I killed your wife don't you feel bad?" Anakin would have absolutely merced the fuck out of him and probably every self-proclaimed sith to ever surface for as long as he lived. Vader wants to keep feeling self loathing and pain, and fall more and more into becoming a monster. Because that's what he thinks he deserves. It took realizing his son was alive to even begin working back from that. Doomguy has a clear understanding of who is to blame for his tragedies, his hate is fixated outwards on something that truly deserves it. He can mess around with guitar and vinyl figure collections and allow himself to still be an empathetic human being without having a moral crisis about whether he deserves those kinds of things.

#doomguy #doom slayer #doom #darth vader #anakin skywalker #star wars

[buddhistmusings]

The Palestinian people are being failed on all sides.

Obviously, the state of Israel and its current government are engaging in an ethnic cleansing of the region and engaging in irresponsible and malicious methods to maximize Palestinian suffering as part of a project to cripple Palestinians.

Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as shields for its operatives and impose far right Islamist ideology on Gaza, all while their leadership is safe abroad.

The United States and Europe fail to condemn the actions of Isreal. Through the funding of the IDF and the direction of resources to the Israeli government, they further enable Isreal to carry out it's atrocious actions. It's also important to note that Israel is quickly losing the goodwill of Americans and Europeans, and that American and European support of Israel is not guaranteed. Even President Biden, who is known for his support of Israel, has been hardening his stance and been voicing concerns, both publicly and privately, about the actions of Israel.

Palestine aligned governments like Egypt and Jordan fail to accept refugees, even when doing so would save many lives, especially in light of the attack on Rafah. They are complacent and complicit.

And some loud voices within the Free Palestine movement engage in extreme and explicit, as well as more mild and implicit, antisemitism. Many endorse Hamas and the Houthis as organizations, despite the fact that they're explicitly antisemitic and Islamist. Some endanger the lives of Jewish people and harm the Free Palestine movement as a whole by discrediting the movement's validity by behaving in these ways.

If you want peace, advocate for peace. Do not, as part of antigenocidal efforts in one location, endorse genocide in other locations. Such as the ongoing anti-Jewish ethic cleansings across the Middle East. Do not endorse Islamism or Islamist organizations, which are far right genocidal organizations. Do not amplify the voices of antisemites. Think critically about whether a speaker is advocating for Palestinians or against Jews. Do not claim that all Isrealis are settler colonists. Many live there because they were expelled from their homelands or to escape genocide in thier original countries. When you do these things, you are failing to advocate in a way that is helpful to Palestinians.

Palestine deserves educated, reasonable, peaceful, and strong advocates - not advocates who overshadow thier concern for victims of war and violence with prejudices.

May all beings be happy, may all beings be free. 🙏

#palestine #politics #religion #world politics #israel #free palestine #gaza

[bestworstcase]

Sort of a funny/sad realization but it just occurred to me Salem & Sienna potentially could have worked together.

Cos even if we ignore well thought out speculation on Salem's end goals, her priorities have been Relics > Ozma > Maidens > Kingdoms.

With the last two being more like tools to get to the latter two.

Sure we know from Atlas she is OK with a civilization falling, but she's also fine with something just being snuck out of the Vault or given to her.

Thus, it seems it was more Cinder's methods and or issues with the kingdoms as concepts that informed some of her methods or allies, IE, Adam who cares more about killing than he does about building or conquering.

But if city destruction and mass death are not necessary, one could actually see an alliance between Sienna & Salem.

i think abt this all the time cause like

salem sends hazel, her most level-headed lieutenant and the one least likely to escalate or resort to violence in circumstances where ozpin is not present, to represent her to sienna khan

hazel (& salem by extension) is not forewarned of adam's plan to assassinate sienna and his open disgust with adam afterward leads to hazel (& again, salem by extension) essentially washing hands of adam's white fang at haven

"but the moment you put your desires before my own, they will be lost to you" <- this isn't true of hazel (he lies to protect emerald, salem intimidates emerald to make a point but does not hurt her) or cinder (salem doesn't stick to "she must be left to toil in her isolation" for long and cinder wins the power struggle in V8), but it IS true of adam, whose coup results in salem dropping him

so like… it seems pretty evident that salem would have preferred to work with sienna over adam which aside from the obvious ideological implications of that preference also… makes sense because, as you note, both sienna and salem are pragmatists motivated by change rather than wanton destruction.

i would also point out that salem's campaign is specifically against the huntsmen academies, with the kingdoms being collateral damage (grimm withdraw from vale but continue to hold beacon, in mistral she assassinated qrow's information network and targeted haven very precisely, her forces do not attack mantle or follow civilians into the subway), and atlas falls as a result of what ironwood does while salem is a smear of ash on the ground + by the time she reconstitutes the cities are almost completely empty. so i do think it's an open question whether salem intended for atlas to fall versus just not caring to save it from falling when she reformed in a doomed but fully evacuated kingdom.

which matters because if sienna were brought into the loop regarding what the academies are really for (i.e., safeguarding the relics for mankind's eschaton) i do think she would find working with salem to break the academies and retrieve the relics a fairly easy sell if salem gave her a compelling reason to believe that the ultimate plan is to build a new world--it is obviously not going to go well for the faunus if the human who controls those relics ever summons his gods back for the day of judgment and it isn't as though sienna's averse to violent tactics if she believes they will be effective in furthering her strategic end of a better world for the faunus. (salem not being human is also a potential point in favor)

#one of those 'they never met in canon but i think a normal amount about how they would interact' situations

[orbital-inclination]

Can I know more about Killer, Horror, Dust, Cross, and Blue relationship like how they became part of the gang and any personality changes?

answering this will either take two posts or a read more bc i do NOT do things by halves.

*Edit; I’ve chosen the read more option. Y’all get the backstories in a later post.

I “recently” went over a bit about Killer here. So for now, I'll go over Dust, Horror, Cross and Blue.

Horror: gentle giant. He just wants to feel included. Due to his head injury, he struggles with frequent memory loss and speaking verbally. He uses a notebook to keep himself on track, but his most successful plans are usually thought of and executed on the fly. He's really reliable in a pinch. Has good instincts. Out of the group, he's the most likely to be underestimated by outsiders. His love language is cooking for others but he's not picky about what he eats himself. Hates loud high-pitched noises. (screaming specifically.)

Dust: quiet brooding guy. Outwardly he seems to be the most laidback and apathetic of the group. In reality, he’s restless and moody. The most likely of the group to wander off spontaneously with no purpose in mind. Doesn’t talk much but he knows his way around chemistry. A competent engineer. Makes his own fireworks. Hard to say whether he's introverted or not but if he wants to be left alone you won't' find him, and if he wants company he will tail you like a shadow. more talkative in a group setting, strangely enough.

Blue: enthusiastic, boisterous, and incredibly earnest. He wears his whole heart on his sleeve. He doesn't believe in committing theft, crime in general, or even trespassing. He's actually a little scared of trespassing. secretly, he thinks criminals are brave (but stupid) for trespassing. Can’t lie to save his life. Not that the skill matters much when he lives with two empaths. Cross: introverted, defensive, reluctant to let down his guard, and enough of a workaholic to challenge Rem for his title. Cross needs a structured routine to function. He takes his duties very seriously and generally goes about things as if he has something to prove. (He doesn’t but he hasn’t realized that yet.) -On the Group Dynamic- Dust and Killer get along well. Most of the time. They have a lot of things in common. How they met the Apple twins. The tragic circumstances of their respective AUs. The fact Blue reminds them of Papyrus… do not bring up Papyrus or the Human, on this note. They’ve gotten into bitter violent confrontations over what happened with their brother. Don’t push it. Horror is good friends with Blue, actually. Blue is conscientious of Horror’s intolerance for loud noises and makes an effort to use his indoor voice in his company. Horror tolerates Blue’s erm… creative meal ideas in turn. And they mutually bond over their shared interest in food prep, wordplay, TV Drama, and baking competitions. (Molt, Horror and Blue set aside a date/time to watch the latest episodes when they air. (Cross sometimes joins them as long as they don’t make a big deal over it.) Molt can’t see the screen ofc, but he’s able to experience the show through how Horror and Blue react to it, the occasional narration from both of them, and ofc, the verbal drama of it all.)

Blue’s relationship with the rest of the group is complicated. He knows he’s the odd one out because he is ideologically opposed to Rem’s methods. At the same time, he begrudgingly accepts that sometimes for the greater good, you have to make sacrifices. (He doesn’t like it and is always looking for a better option anyway.) He sticks around out of loyalty to his friend and because he firmly believes the group needs a firm but kind hand. He knows they’ve all been hurt in some way. And if no one else will look out for this group of renegade thieves and scoundrels, he will!

Cross tries his hardest to get along with exactly no one because he wants to keep everyone at arm’s length but ironically this has the opposite effect. Killer treats him like a surrogate little brother. Dust simply doesn’t give a shit as long as Cross is a team player. Horror fusses over him. He has an open invitation to join Blue's workout routine whenever. Rem trusts him. And worst of all, he wants to spill his guts out to Molt whenever something even remotely happens, and that can only mean he feels safe here. And that is terrifying to Cross. He has a home now and that is the worst thing that’s ever happened to him.

#moltendreams!au #orbital chatter

[read-marx-and-lenin]

Re: My friends say Marxism-Leninism is Stalinist revisionism of Marx and Lenin and also the focus on “scientific” elements is extremely weak empirically and undermines communism by being pseudo-scientific. Are they wrong?

Not a hater, just want to know why they’re wrong. I’ve read the passages they’ve linked about socialist commodity production being a contradiction, and that seems true.

Also, reading history of Marxist-Leninist texts, seems like Stalin had influence over the formation of it as an ideology—famously Marx was not a Marxist (I know the context of the quote, but I think the point is still generally true) and Lenin was not a Leninist, but a Marxist. It is hard to not be suspicious of Stalin since I really can’t believe the treatment of the Old Bolsheviks was justified*

Especially because the M-Ls I see on here defend modern China (not fully, but a decent amount), and I don’t get how someone could say the Old Bolsheviks would need to be dealt with as they were AND that modern China is anything but complete bourgeois revisionism. The majority of the Maoists I know do not consider modern China socialist at all, so it is confusing to me to see M-Ls avoid full denunciations.

Again, I am not a hater or anything, I am trying to understand what seem to be contradictions in what I hear from my friends and read from theory.

I wouldn't say socialist commodity production was any more a contradiction than the socialist economy itself. Too often people get caught up in these thought patterns where they think things like "well why didn't the communist party just abolish money? Why did they pay different workers different amounts? Were they secretly bourgeois? Was it all just state capitalism?" I used to think all these things myself. It's a difficult process to study and understand how socialist economies came to be and the material conditions they faced in building up socialism in the real world.

The Soviets were not ignorant of the difficulties and contradictions inherent to economic planning within a socialist economy. The socialist economy was not viewed as ideal or as an end, and at every stage efforts were taken to minimize contradictions and deviations whenever possible. Whether or not you agree with the direction it was taken in or how effective their methods were, you must acknowledge that it was one step towards an eventual goal and not the goal itself, and that it was shaped by the material conditions not only within the Soviet Union but within the global economy, which the Soviet Union could not avoid interacting with if they wanted to develop their own economy.

If you want to know more about the Soviet perspective on the socialist economy, then it's a good idea to read contemporary Soviet textbooks, such as this 1954 textbook, Political Economy. Chapter 32 in particular goes into detail about socialist commodity production and the role of money in the Soviet economy.

As the leader of the Soviet Union during one of its most tumultuous periods and as a prolific author, I don't think it would be possible for Stalin not to have had a profound influence on Marxist-Leninist theory. His 1951 work "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" was certainly fresh on the minds of those who put together the textbook I just mentioned. Regardless of how you feel about Stalin as a person (and to be clear, I do not think he was a good person for many reasons,) to simply dismiss everything he said or wrote or to dismiss everything inspired by his words as contaminated with some kind of original sin is to be more than just pseudo-scientific, it is to be entirely unscientific. If you are trying to make an effort to understand the development of socialism as it applies to the real world, then ignoring Stalin would just create an unnecessary gap in your knowledge. For better or worse, Stalin had a part in the shaping of socialism and socialist theory, regardless of which strain of thought you personally subscribe to.

Defending China and considering China to be socialist or non-revisionist are two different things. The Western attacks on China are still imperialist, anti-socialist and anti-communist despite any revisionism or liberalism in China, and the potential for the Chinese working class to achieve socialism or communism exists despite any revisionism or liberalism. I don't think it's uncontroversial to say that whether or not you agree with the liberal reforms in China, that China is still much more poised to achieve communism than any Western nation is. Deng might have been a revisionist, but compared to Gorbachev, his liberal reforms weren't nearly as destructive.

I linked this video in response to two other asks about China, and if you want to learn more you should definitely watch it.

#anon ask #socialism #communism

[toweringclam]

MTG Plane Concept: Paramount City

Elevator pitch: Superheroes in MTG

The story is set in Paramount City, a metropolis rivaling New Capenna (though still dwarfed by Ravnica). It's a thoroughly modern city, though with touches that make it fit with Magic's design aesthetics. In this world, there's a mysterious force called the Rift that drives people to extremes of both good and evil. Some people can tap into the Rift through various methods (inborn talent, actual magic, gadgets, intense training, etc), and those people are called Supers. Using Rift is aided by adopting an archetypal identity, especially if you keep it separated from your "normal" identity, hence all the wild costumes and names.

Mechanically, the set would be factional based on arcs. However, rather than "centered" arcs (one color+its allies) it's more like "split" arcs (enemy colors+their mutual ally). This means that each faction is pulled in two different directions by opposing goals, fitting the theme of split identities. Also, although there are five factions, there's a pretty strong good/evil split, with the faction centered on Blue as a spoiler.

Those factions are:

The Metropolitan Defenders (Defenders, GWU): The big damn heroes. The ones you think of when you hear the word "hero." They're the most morally upright team, holding themselves and others to the highest standards of ethics (W). Their internal divide is between serving the people (G) or upholding the law (U).

The People's Underground (Underground, RGW): Split off from the Defenders years ago over ideological differences. A loosely affiliated network of neighborhood protectors, vigilantes, and others who skirt up to the edge of the law. They're dedicated to protecting the people of the city (G), but are split over whether to pursue justice (W) or vengeance (R) against those who would cause harm.

The Breakers' Union (Breakers, BRG): Originally started by disgruntled henchmen, they're an alliance of small-time crooks, anarchists, and others who find themselves on the wrong side of the law. They defy the system almost on principle (R), but are torn between whether they should do something about it (G) or just serve their own self-interest (B).

The Council of the Rift (Council, UBR): The Council are a contentious group of malefactors who all seek to exploit the Rift for their own ends. They're willing to employ any methods to pursue their own personal power at the expense of everyone else (B). Though some wish to use it to remake the world in their own image (U), others would rather just see the world burn (R).

Initiative Omega (Omega, WUB): An organization of scientists, soldiers, and spies formed by the government in response to the rise of Supers. Omega sees both sides as dangerous and disruptive to the status quo. To that end, they seek to understand the Rift as much as possible (U), though whether they'll use it for the betterment of mankind (W) or to eliminate all Supers (B) is still up in the air.

I'll maybe go more in-depth on this idea later, just want to get it out there for now and see if people like it

#mtg #magic the gathering #custom plane #magic oc #fan creations #paramount city #superhero #superheroes

[betterthanbatman1]

bman and jason have a seriously strained relationship as is, and our braindead coma patients at DC have no interest in fixing it because Drama Sells, so what do you think would genuinely help these two get back to something real?

Ooh, great question, Anon! Thank you :)

So, right if the bat (pun intended) we know that Bruce and Jason don’t get along well, specifically because of their dissimilar morals.

In DC comics, Bruce only sees in a black or white, this or that way of thinking. It’s either ‘continue to fight crime and leave the rest to the justice system’ OR ‘focus on controlling crime and killing criminals to protect others’. Jason on the other hand sees both of these as opposing morals, and he also recognizes that there is a middle ground which is ‘get rid of the absolute worst of them’. Because Jason understands Bruce, he knows that nothing will make Bruce take a life or do things differently (I mean, his own death didn’t make a difference to Bruce’s morals), but Jason also believes that Bruce doesn’t have to change who he is, he just needs to accept that Jason’s methods are right for Gotham. Ultimately Bruce killing Joker for Jason would have helped their relationship, because Jason would have known that he was loved and his life was worth more than the clown’s. And in UTRH Jason says “I’m not talking about cobblepot or riddler or Dent… I’m talking about him, just him” Bare with me, I know that Jason says this regarding Bruce killing Joker for a different reason being -Joker’s crime was a lot more personal. However I still feel like regardless if Joker hadn’t killed Jason, Jason would still feel the same way about Joker- meaning he’d still think Joker deserves to die because of the sheer brutality and sadism and absolute power the clown has on Gotham & it’s people. (More than any other Gotham city rogues!)

So back to the point, if Bruce acknowledged (like Jason does!) the middle ground of killing the worst of the worst, then that would bring the two closer together.

Listen, I get that Bruce killing would forever change ‘The Batman’, but Bruce doesn’t have to kill people to accept the ideology because he knows Jason is right, he knows crime is down because of Jason. But NO!, DC has to make him beat the shit out of his son instead of having a fucking conversation.

Which brings me to this point. For some reason DC seems to think that these two have to fight no matter what. If they went to have soup with Alfred they’d still end up punching each other for whatever reason. It’s ridiculous. Is this what they think readers want? I completely agree with you, Anon. Drama sells, unfortunately.

The next point is that Bruce needs to actually have faith in his son because guess what?, Jason needs his father’s support to do good. Actual good. Bruce second guessing Jason and not trusting him with missions is exactly what gets Jason frustrated, causing him to feel inferior, worthless, or unlovable in Bruce’s eyes. From a psychological perspective, if Bruce trusted Jason and told him he trusted him, Jason would feel so much better about himself and their relationship. It’s so much better for a child to prove their parents are right for trusting them (motivating them positively) than having a child strive to prove their parents wrong (motivating them negatively). Bruce needs to stop being so condescending and Jason will finally feel heard. Bruce treats him like a child which is just so wrong and demeaning.

Last point is that Bruce needs to spend more time with Jason as Bruce and not as Batman. Sometimes Jason needs his father and that’s okay. It’s up to Bruce to be there for him. Whether Jason is an adult or not, he should be able to feel like he can call or visit or ask for help from Bruce without Bruce getting angry or telling him he’s off the mission.

At this point DC just needs to get the whole family seeing some therapists.

In conclusion, things that would help mend Bruce and Jason’s relationship:

Finding a common middle ground among their morals

Bruce should not beat his sons regardless if they are ‘criminals’ in his eyes or not

Bruce killing the Joker (this would bring Jason closer to Bruce, but it does cause some changes in Bruce’s character).

COMMUNICATION (this is the first step in therapy probably)

Having them be partners and act like partners. Bruce needs to get off his high horse and stop being so condescending to Jason.

Similar to the above-Bruce needs to trust Jason and make sure Jason knows Bruce trusts him.

Spend more time outside of crime fighting. Idk go watch a baseball game or go fishing. Have some family dinners and talk about the times when things were easy and fun and silly, before everything went to shit. Jason deserves his dad and Bruce deserves his son.

Therapy (The whole family would benefit).

#Thank you for the ask :) #I love this ask so much #My brain literally just switched all of my senses off and I wrote this as fast as I could type #Absolutely love being able to turn off the world and hyper focus on bat stuff #bruce wayne is a good dad #Unless he’s written by DC #DC thinks we want the pure masculine energy of a man beating another man who is his son who is also a villain #I have to say though: #As much as I’d love Bruce and Jason to have a better relationship #I also don’t trust fanon to write them #it’s either Bruce beating Jason in DC or Bruce and Jason falling asleep crying and hugging each other in fanon #I just want a middle ground where they still love each other but also act like how a fathers’ and sons’ relationship would be #DC I just want them to have at least a semi functional relationship I’m not asking for them to read books before bed every night- #it shouldn’t be that hard!! #I’m going to make a post about Bruce killing Joker and how that would affect them/their relationship #don’t tag as ship 🔪 #jason todd #Batdad #red hood #batfamily #batman #bruce wayne #batfam #dc #dc comics #character analysis #asks #feel free to ask! #I spend too much time in the tags smh #Red rambles