#-while the other has a more ambiguous view of the participants (like they appear helpful at points but are still undeniably bad guys)

[jcmarchi]

How do reasonable people disagree?

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/how-do-reasonable-people-disagree/

How do reasonable people disagree?

U.S. politics is heavily polarized. This is often regarded as a product of irrationality: People can be tribal, are influenced by their peers, and often get information from very different, sometimes inaccurate sources.

Tribalism and misinformation are real enough. But what if people are often acting rationally as well, even in the process of arriving at very different views? What if they are not being misled or too emotional, but are thinking logically?

“There can be quite reasonable ways people can be predictably polarized,” says MIT philosopher Kevin Dorst, author of a new paper on the subject, based partly on his own empirical research.

This may especially be the case when people deal with a lot of ambiguity when weighing political and civic issues. Those ambiguities generate political asymmetry. People consider evidence in predictably different ways, leading them to different conclusions. That doesn’t mean they are not thinking logically, though.

“What’s going is people are selectively scrutinizing information,” Dorst says. “That’s effectively why they move in opposite directions, because they scrutinize and selectively look for flaws in different places, and so they get overall different takes.”

The concept of rational polarization may help us develop a more coherent account about how views differ, by helping us avoid thinking that we alone are rational — or, conversely, that we have done no real thinking while arriving at our own opinions. Thus it can add nuance to our assessments of others.

The paper, “Rational Polarization,” appears in The Philosophical Review. Dorst, the sole author, is an assistant professor in MIT’s Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.

Looking for flaws

To Dorst, rational polarization stands as a useful alternative to other models about belief formation. In particular, rational polarization in his view improves upon one type of model of “Bayesian” thinking, in which people keep using new information to hone their views.

In Bayesian terms, because people use new information to update their views, they will rationally either change their ideas or not, as is warranted. it, But in reality, Dorst asserts, things are not so simple. Often when we assess new evidence, there is ambiguity present — and Dorst contends that it is rational to be unsure about that ambiguity. But this can generate polarization because people’s prior assumptions do influence the places where they find ambiguity.

Suppose a group of people have been given two studies about the death penalty: One study finds the death penalty has no deterrent effect on people’s behavior, and the other study finds it does. Even reading the same evidence, people in the group will likely wind up with different interpretations of it.

“Those who really believe in the deterrent effect will look closely at the study suggesting there is no deterrent effect, be skeptical about it, poke holes in the argument, and claim to recognize flaws in its reasoning,” Dorst says. “Conversely, for the people who disbelieve the deterrent effect, it’s the exact opposite. They find flaws in the study suggesting there is a deterrent effect.”

Even to these seemingly selective readings can be rational, Dorst says: “It makes sense to scrutinize surprising information more than unsurprising information.” Therefore, he adds, “You can see that people who have this tendency to selectively scrutinize [can] drift apart even when they are presented with the same evidence that’s mixed in the same way.”

By the letter

To help show that this habit exists, Dorst also ran an online experiment about ambiguity, with 250 participants on the Prolific online survey platform. The aim was to see how much people’s views might become polarized in the presence of ambiguous information.

The participants were given an incomplete string of letters, as one might find in a crossword puzzle or on “Wheel of Fortune.” Some letter strings were parts of real words, and some were not. Depending on what kinds of additional information participants were given, the ambiguous, unsolvable strings of letters had a sharply polarizing effect on how people reacted to the additional information they received.

This process at work in the experiment, Dorst says, is similar to what happens when people receive uncertain information, in the news or in studies, about political matters.

“When you find a flaw, it gives you clear evidence that undermines the study,” Dorst says. Otherwise, people often tend to be uncertain about the material they see. “When you don’t find a flaw, it [can] give you ambiguous evidence and you don’t know what to make of it. As a result, that can lead to predictable polarization.”

The larger point, Dorst believes, is that we can arrive at a more nuanced and consistent picture of how political differences exist when people process similar information.

“There’s a perception that in politics, rational brains shut off and people think with their guts,” Dorst says. “If you take that seriously, you should say, ‘I form my beliefs on politics in the same ways.’”

Unless, that is, you believe you alone are rational, and everyone else is not — though Dorst finds this to be an untenable view of the world.

“Part of what I’m trying to do is give an account that’s not subject to that sort of instability,” Dorst says. “You don’t necessarily have to point the finger at others. It’s a much more interesting process if you think there’s something [rational] there as well.”

#250 #asymmetry #Behavior #brains #Crossword Puzzle #deal #Drift #form #how #Ideas #issues #it #Linguistics #material #misinformation #model #News #One #opinions #opposite #Other #paper #perception #Philosophy #picture #Politics #process #Research #review #School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences

[daisyachain]

hi!! i've been reading through your ao no flag liveblogs lately and they're really interesting! i enjoy seeing someone so passionate about this manga and it makes me want to reread it .... i'm really interested in hearing what you have to say about masumi's ending though!! part of me thinks it makes sense but i'm mostly conflicted on it and would love to see it from your perspective ^^

haha well thank you! ah yes, the arc that created as much controversy as you can get in an active readership of like 10 people...

Blue Flag is an imperfect story, but it also gets a lot of flack for things that a) didn't...actually...happen, b) didn't happen in the way people think they did.

Part 1: Is it actually straightwashing?

The most common criticism I see of Masumi's ending is that she was written as a lesbian character and straightwashed at the end. Marrying off a female character as a way to 'fix' her issues is a common and harmful trope, and saying that lesbian women just need to get a man is a widespread homophobic trope and talking point. So, it's not a good look. To have a character angst over interest in a woman and end up happily married to a guy reads like a '50s pulp novel that just uses f/f attraction for marketing.

But, if the intention of the ending was to show that Masumi should give up on women and force herself to date men, then it doesn't. Mitsuyuki's description of her is 'look at my bisexual wife who has dated both women and men and could also have married a woman', which is an odd choice if the intention was straightwashing. It feels more like a clumsy way to make sure that, in a series full of ambiguity, there could be no argument that Masumi was queer. That isn't to say that cisstraight people don't view bisexuality as less/better than/straighter than her being lesbian and that making a previously gay character bisexual isn't still straightwashing (increasing the appearance of straightness).

Part 2: Was it actually a retcon?

So: Masumi's ending reaffirms that she's a WLW. One question is, was she always meant to be bisexual, or was she originally written as lesbian?

Blue Flag doesn't have a lot of straight (no pun intended) answers. Taichi never expresses any explicit attraction to guys, but there is enough subtext to suggest he's attracted to Touma well before the finale. Futaba believes she is attracted to Touma at first and is shown to be attracted to him using the visual shorthand of manga (blushing, etc.), but she later says that it was just misinterpreted admiration. Mami doesn't want to date Touma or any man, but she implies that she is attracted to Touma when she says around him she was 'glad to be a woman.' Within the main romance, Futaba says that it was specifically because Taichi was a friend to her that she grew to like-like him. The lines between friendship and romance are blurred in Blue Flag, and sometimes romance can only grow out of friendship.

Masumi has a tense conversation with Taichi in the first half after she breaks up with her boyfriend that most people (me included) read as her saying that she tried guys and she just isn't and can't be attracted to them. However, it's Blue Flag, so the conversation is unfocused and doesn't paint a complete picture.

"Even if I get a boyfriend, I can never make it work"/"I don't know why [I don't like him anymore]" seem to imply that Masumi realized that she was feeling compulsory heterosexuality and that she will never like men. "[I don't know] why he like someone like me"/"You can be friends with potential sexual partners? With both guys and girls?"/"I just wanted to hear how you men feel about [a girl liking other girls]" seem to imply that Masumi is bisexual and is afraid to date because someone might find out. Maybe she's written as questioning--she knows she likes Futaba, but she's feeling out other possibilities. It's Blue Flag, so it's unclear.

Part 3: How does it work with Masumi's arc?

Diving further into Masumi's story, she acts as a foil to Touma (and Futaba, see later). Touma feels free to show his affection for Taichi as a friend as well as a love interest and almost confesses to him of his own free will, well before he's forced to. Touma tells her that he intends to try and set Taichi up with Futaba (because they would be good for each other), and also that he intends to pursue Taichi in some way. He tells her he's "not like [her]."

For Masumi's part, she tells Touma that she wants to express more affection for Futaba--not necessarily in a romantic way, just to participate more fully in that relationship--but she's afraid to, she doesn't feel confident enough to try, and that she's "the worst" because of it. We see this theme repeated, that Masumi is pessimistic, is afraid to trust people and hates herself for being afraid. Her conversations with Aki and Mami explore this; Aki tells her that it's not bad to be insecure or unready and that it's fine to keep a secret/stay closeted until she's ready, Mami tells her that she does have people she can trust, who care about her and who will do their best to understand her and help out. Why am I typing all this out? Because Masumi is a bitter, insecure wlw and that is an Established Trope, but her twist on it is that her negativity or bitterness isn't over her attraction to women/to Futaba or even over the reaction she might get from others (as Touma's is), it's over her own insecurity. Like Futaba, she's hesitant to act on her feelings, and like Futaba, she gets frustrated and hates herself for her own inaction.

All that is to say--Masumi is never shown to have a problem with her attraction to women. Her angst isn't gayngst, she's not ashamed of her feelings for Futaba bur rather her inability to express them. Her problems are with social attitudes and more with her own personal feelings--she and Touma face similar problems, but Touma is simply aware of the consequences (being roughed up and ostracised by a certain group of people) while Masumi feels a more generalized and ambiguous fear.

If Masumi were shown to have mixed feelings about her queerness/were shown to be in denial/were shown to be trying to move on from Futaba, then her ending would read more as straightwashing. As it is, there's nothing in her character and arc to say that she'd ever want to erase that part of herself or get rid of it, rather, she wishes she could embrace it but she just doesn't feel confident in doing it. Her ending shows her as an openly bisexual woman who is out to her friends and husband at the very least, which is a completion of her arc in the manga (of learning to trust other people and express her feelings honestly).

Part 4: What context clues does the rest of the series give us?

This is branching off a little from the strict text of Parts 1-3. As I've said, as we know, Blue Flag is 50% subtext and interpretation. Characters speak, but they don't say what they mean, characters think, but they're not always honest with themselves or in tune with reality. Mami is an ominous and antagonistic figure in the first half, but then it just turns out that Taichi was jumping to conclusions. Taichi is the main character and narrator, but we get radio silence from him for like 7 chapters after the climax. Taichi is bisexual, but the reader has to guess that from the way the art style shifts between PoVs, the similar panelling between Futaba and Touma's confessions, the things he does and does not think about Touma and how he feels about them. It's safe to say that there is room for speculation.

First, there is no explicit evidence that Taichi could be bisexual before ch 54. It's easy to tell that he is, but again, there's nothing specific. Some people reading Blue Flag have said that him marrying Touma was out of character, unforeshadowed, bizarre, inexplicable, etc. because their experienced is coloured by their own heterosexuality. Masumi is shown to have dated a guy and in saying she didn't like him "anymore," implied that she did like him. Her conflicted feelings over her bf could well have been foreshadowing her liking men as well, and my reading that as comphet could have just been my own experience colouring the text. Who knows! Taichi's bisexuality was intentional from the start but could be read as a last-minute twist, so why not Masumi's?

Second, Mitsuyuki is Futaba 2.0. Same colouring, same personality. This could feel like a way of saying "Masumi just needs to like guys instead," but to me it reads deeper with some of the trans subtext around Futaba. One of my issues with Blue Flag is that it doesn't go further into Futaba's admiration/envy for masculinity and her uncomfortable relationship with femininity. As a cis woman who wants to be buff and mildly masculine, I can understand why she's a cis girl throughout and I don't necessarily think that she was supposed to be a trans guy. However, her relationship with masculinity draws a parallel to Mitsuyuki. Reading Mitsuyuki as a cis man, he is the combination of Futaba's personality and looks with her 'ideal form.' So, Masumi marrying Mitsuyuki can read as Masumi marring Ascended FutabaTM.

Third, Futaba having a faceless prop husband is interesting in the context of Mitsuyuki getting a name and personality. Mitsuyuki = Futaba and Mr. Kuze is a blank space, so the reader is prompted to reduce the scenario and slot Masumi into that blank space. Given Masumi and Touma's history as foils, I'm inclined to think that Mitsuyuki exists to show the road not taken. Back at the fireworks, Touma tells Masumi that he hasn't given up on Taichi, and Masumi says she doesn't intend to pursue Futaba even though the pining is making her miserable. Given that Futaba reacts a lot better to the idea of Masumi liking her than Taichi reacts to the idea of Touma liking him, given that we see Masumi has successfully wooed male!Futaba, I think that Masumi's ending shows that she could have ended up with Futaba if she chose to pursue her. She didn't and she still got a happy ending where she is confident in her sexuality and unafraid to trust, but she could have also had a happy ending where she married Futaba. Mitsuyuki is a man because desire-for-masculinity is a key aspect of Futaba's character, and Mitsuyuki is a named character with a personality because KAITO wanted the reader to know that Masumi could have ended up with Futaba (as Touma ended up with Taichi).

Fourth, KAITO's notes on volume give us a few hints. He comments that there was remarkably little interference with his story and that he was able to tell it as he wanted, and that the ending was meant to be a "question" to the reader. The way I see it, Masumi's ending wasn't meant to say "maybe you'll be fixed if you get a man" but rather was meant to complement Taichi's ending and say "things happen in ways you might not expect, but that doesn't mean they're bad."

Fifth, Touma/Taichi ending up together shows us that the series is willing and able to show queerness as a good thing and a happy ending, so it's unlikely that Masumi was meant to come off as "actually she just needed a man" and more as "life can be unpredictable but you can always find happiness"

Summary

It's unclear whether Masumi was written as a bisexual woman or a lesbian woman or a questioning wlw

I personally read her as a lesbian and I wish that part of her character had gotten more exploration

Masumi's ending wraps up her arc (struggling to trust other people with her feelings in general and her queerness in particular) in a satisfying and logical way

Masumi being bisexual does not in any way negate or lessen her identity and experienes as a wlw, bisexual people still face external and internalized homophobia and all the associated issues

Masumi's bisexuality may well have been foreshadowed, but the execution makes it easier to read her as a lesbian, which makes her ending seem like a homophobic cop-out in the style of the Hays Code

Masumi's ending doesn't straightwash her and goes to unusual lengths to affirm her attraction to women

Masumi's ending seems to be written to contrast Touma's ending, showing that getting or not getting the love interest depends entirely on whether you choose to pursue them

It's unlikely that authorial intent was to straightwash Masumi

#ao no flag #blue flag #itachi masumi #masumi itachi #kelsey liveblogs ao no flag #that 8 volumes of a manga where nothing happens could be so complicated...

[mysanderssidessideblog]

A Good Day

Warnings for Sides fading out, major character death, unsympathetic Patton, angst, gaslighting, not a happy ending.  

Written for #UnsympAndAngstSidesBingo

Link to AO3

“I'm very disappointed in you kiddo.”

Janus looked up from his book, frowning.

True, he knew his occasional appearance in the Lightside was not exactly welcome, but he had been slowly trying to help the others acclimatise to his presence by sitting quietly with a book from time to time.

He'd even carefully set out a tea set and biscuits this time, rather than his usual tea for one, making a subtle gesture that he was open to company. So far, none had taken him up on the offer.

Yet, he could not fathom source of Patton's discontent. He was <i>trying</i>, and short of dragging Virgil out by his ear to reluctantly sit with him, he was not sure what more he could do.

“Patton. Will you not join me?”  Janus had learnt that the use of the word 'not' had evolved to ambiguous meaning; 'I could care less' tended to be treated the same as 'I could not care less', even if the wording was inaccurate. As a result, he leaned heavily into the word to help mask his lies.

“No.”

Morality's face, usually lit up with a bright smile, was stern.

Janus pursed his lips, and feigned indifference. “As you like.”

“You had one job, and you have failed.”

That took him aback, Patton not usually so confrontational. lowering his book, Janus schooled his expression into neutrality, opting for addressing the accusation in a calm and civil manner. He inclined his head so that he appeared interested in what Patton had to say, while opening his stance to appear receiving to discussion.

“I am not sure I follow. Please, help me understand.”

“You were to keep the undesirable elements of Thomas hidden, secret. <i>You</i> were supposed to stay away, out of sight, out of mind.”

“Ah.”  Janus straightened, and clutched at his book, trying to hide the hurt from his voice. He had thought he and Patton had reached something of a truce, that Patton had seen that he had some merit in being known, in being active participant in the mindscape.

“I believe we agreed that repression was not of benefit. That I could keep things hidden, but it would be best for Thomas to be more self-aware, to learn that he had sides to him that were not always...”  Janus struggled for an appropriate word, “...good.” he finished lamely.

It was hard to argue with Morality; he held great power and influence, and his view of the world was parsed down into good and evil. Janus sought to teach him of the deeper complexities, but Patton was reluctant to even consider than lying could have small benefit in theory, so the idea of applying small untruths to day to day happenings was unthinkable to him.

“It is not working. Thomas is more stressed than ever with so many conflicting opinions, and then there is Remus! He is disgusting, and vile, and Thomas does not need him and his corrupting presence!”

 “And don't think I have not noticed Logan's more regular angry outbursts. The influence of the dark sides has gotten out of hand, and must be corrected.”

Janus was glad of his gloves that hid how white his knuckles had turned with how tightly he held the book.  He swallowed nervously.

“Patton, I understand that this is a time of change, and that change can be daunting, even uncomfortable. However, change is important for growth, for improved insight. This will help Thomas become a better person, eventually.”

“Thomas was already perfect before the dark sides came along! Things were better before!”

Patton's face then broke into a smile.

Janus did not like that smile, not in the slightest.

“Maybe that is answer.....”

He was about to get to his feet, about to retreat, when Patton walked towards him.

“You could not keep the dark contained.” he said, as the air around them grew dense. Janus felt uneasy, as Patton's eyes narrowed behind his glasses. “So I guess it's a father's duty to step in when a Kiddo has failed....”

Janus did try to get up then, but found himself held down by Patton by a hand upon his shoulder, surprisingly strong.

“You'll help me, won't you Kiddo? Help me fix up your little mistake...?”

“I don't understand Patton, what are you talking about?”

“You, and Remus, all the dark sides, are a bad influence on Thomas.”  Patton then stretched his lips  wider, his face a rictus parody of a smile, “It's high time someone did something about that....”

Janus shook his head. “Patton, you cannot just deny that Thomas has dark sides to him, same as everyone! We are just as much a part of him as you are!” he lifted his hand, tried to push Patton from him. He could not make Patton's hand budge at all.

“Thomas needs us. Needs all of us!”

Patton's grip shifted, instead of holding Janus down, curling his fingers past the fabric and into the flesh underneath, so tight Janus felt like Patton was reaching to leave fingerprints upon his bones.

“No. Thomas needs to be good.” Patton gave a short nod to himself. “Thomas will be good.”

Janus cried out, in pain, in fear.

“Let me go!”

“I can't do that Kiddo. See, if I'm gonna make everything right again, I'll need to borrow just a tiny bit of your power.”

“You can hide things, and I have high influence over nostalgia and memories. I think that if we really put our minds to it and work together, we can hide the memories of the dark sides so deep that they will never be thought of again!”

“Patton, Thomas needs all aspects of him. He needs to understand that others have the capacity to lie so he is not taken advantage of. He needs the ability to get angry when things are not right so he can sort it out.” “He even needs Remus, the core of his jokes that are a little crude, a little naughty....” “You cannot just.... delete those vital pieces of him; that way lies madness!”

“You are one to talk about lies mister!”

“OK, OK, I have lied, and will likely do so again, but you have been told that repression doesn't work... that didn't come from me, but Logan. And you trust Logan, right?”

Patton tipped his head, thoughtful.

“Hmm. Good point.”

Janus sagged slightly, relieved he had managed to get through to Morality.

“I guess we'll just have to remove the the dark sides entirely!” he said brightly.

Janus froze, unbelieving. If it had been anyone other than Patton, he'd have accused them of a off-tone joke..... but Patton wasn't lying.

“I will help you!” he snarled, shaking his head, the lie unsubtle and obvious.

Tutting, Patton looked down.

“If you are not part of the solution, then it seems to me you are part of the problem...”

Patton's hand clawed, and Janus felt something creak within his shoulder.

He felt Patton tug at his influence, and thrashed and fought to keep what he was whole. He hissed and bore his teeth as if he might bite.

The hand across his throat stilled him, surprised, shocked that Patton would do such a thing.

“Stop fighting me, I know what's best for Thomas.”

“I will not help you destroy the dark sides!”

Patton's grip, both on shoulder and throat tightened in irritation. Janus struggle to fight back, to even draw breath, but Morality held much more sway than he did, and he could not break free.

He struggled, cursing himself for dismissing Patton as native and weak. Janus knew he was merely stalling for time, that Patton would eventually win. There was a small hope that one of the others might happen upon them and intervene, but he was not well liked, and he did not trust that another side would not work with Patton against him.

Patton looked down over his glasses, considering, and Janus desperately tried to stop Patton from draining his power, his essence.

Patton's grip round his throat relaxed, and Janus drew desperate and painful breath.

It took him a moment to realise that Patton was stroking against the side of his neck, affectionately. “You have an affinity for self-preservation, yes? Give me your power, willingly, and I shall let you survive.”

His mismatched eyes widened as Janus took in how very serious and set on this course of action Patton was.

Terror gripped him as the fingers round his neck tightened again, and he feared for his life.

A better side would have stood up for what was right.

A stronger side would have fought harder.

A clever side would have found the words to make Patton reconsider.

But Janus was a selfish side.

Weakly, he nodded.

Janus tried to cry out as Patton syphoned his strength and his power, but he could only hiss which what remained of his breath. His gloves and cape leached their colour, turning dull and grey as Patton stole from him.

He did not hold out much hope that Patton would ever return what he had taken.

When it was done, Patton released Janus, standing tall and confident, radiating energy.

“You made the right choice. Well done kiddo.”

Janus, sagged in the chair, tired. He managed to bring his head up to look at Patton.  

“Patton, wait...” he managed to say, each word needing so much effort to utter than before, lie or not, “Please take a moment to think.. to reflect... You would be interfering beyond your realm of expertise. Do not do this!”

“Oh my silly little snake!” Patton leaned down to plant a fond kiss upon Janus's forehead.  “It's already done!”

“What? No!” Janus clutched at the chair, as if it might hold him steady against this new revelation.

“All those nasty bits that Thomas doesn't need are already disappearing from thought. If you wanted to say your goodbyes, I would hurry. They are fading fast.”

One thought came to mind.

“Remusssss!”  he hissed, and with a lurch, Janus swung himself downwards, sinking through the floor.

He landed in a landscape in disarray, the features of the darkside twisting and fragmenting, everything coming apart.

Remus was there, trying to shore up a crack in the wall with what looked like a mix of blood and cement.

“Snake-butt! Something's happening. Something's wrong!” he hollered over the low groan of the mindscape rejecting the dark.

Janus looked about in despair, only to see Remus staring at him, the crack beyond repair and stretching out. Horrifically, Janus could see the crack behind Remus, as the darker creativity grew translucent and hazy.

  “My head feels fuzzy like mould on a birthday cake, and what's up with you? You've gone all grey.”

“It's Patton, he is not unmaking the dark side!”  even in desperate times, Janus could not speak truthfully.

“What does that even mean?!”

Remus's voice was strange, softer as if he was shouting from a distance, but that did not hide the fact that he was scared. Janus could not ever recall Remus sounding scared.

Janus looked to him, halfway transparent and afraid, and the surrounding walls crumbling apart.

 He forced a smile.

“Everything will be all right.” he lied, as he reached over and wrapped his arms round Remus, so the other would not see the tears in his eyes.

The sounds of unmaking crescendoed about them, and then, grew quiet.

Remus, and the darkside, and all that it contained faded to black... no, not black.....

Nothingness.

*********

Janus had had to claw his way back from the nothingness, drawing on what little power he had left.

He shouldn't have made it, should have faded out with the rest, but Morality's promise of his own unworthy survival held true.

The effort of returning to the lightside caused him to stumble, and he landed gracelessly in the common area.

Logan, writing down something in a note book, looked up. He gave curt nod.

“Janus.” he acknowledged, and then returned to his writing.

“Logan!” Janus hissed out, struggling to his feet.

Logan looked again, and adjusted his glasses at the sight of Janus bereft of his usual colouration.

“You have a new outfit. It is... monochromatic.”

“Do not summon the others. It's not important!”

Logan frowned, “If it is of such little import, then why can you not do it?”

Hands clenched weakly at his sides, Janus swayed where he stood.

“I can!” he lied, and then cursed himself for not speaking clearly as Logan stood back expectantly.

It did not take long for Logan to realise that Janus was making no move to call the others to them.

“Oh. You are lying.” Logan's lips tightened, “Very well.”

Roman rose with a flourish, and Virgil popped up sitting on the stairs.

“Patton has not done something terrible!” Janus started, then caught himself. He took a breath.

“Patton has done something terrible. He has destroyed the darkside, and all those still connected to it.”

Virgil frowned in thought, “I thought I felt something weird... ”

“Or it could have just been your usual constant worry of something about to go wrong.” Logan reminded, to which Virgil gave reluctant nod.

“Even if that were true, which I very much doubt it is coming from you, then why are you still here?” Roman asked, sceptical.

“I....” Janus swallowed his pride and spoke aloud his grievous mistake. “I made a deal with him to survive.”

“but he took my power, and used it to unmake the darkside!”

“Patton wouldn't do something like that.” Roman said confidently.

“Patton wouldn't do something like what?”

Janus pulled back as Patton approached, smiling cheerfully.

“Janus thinks you have done something bad.” Logan explained.

“Are you sure you didn't mishear him that I've done something 'Dad'?”

Janus snarled.

“You destroyed them, all the dark sides! Pieces of Thomas, ripped apart and gone!”

Patton laughed, “As if I would do anything to hurt dear Thomas!

Roman and Logan nodded with Patton, that of the two, Patton was far more trust-worthy than Deceit.

“Anyway, Thomas doesn't have dark sides, save for you....” Janus did not like the way Patton looked at him, as if he was nothing but another problem that needed 'fixing'. He shuddered.

Patton continued, “But don't worry, we'll all help you find your place and learn to be good! Just like Virgil!”

Virgil gave an uncomfortable shrug at being pointed out.

Janus turned to Roman, desperate, “Roman, your twin! He is... he is gone Roman!! Patton killed him!”

“My brother?” Roman frowned, and reached to the back of his head to rub against a fragment of a memory.

He looked to Patton for guidance, deeply confused.

“Don't be silly, you don't have a brother.”

Roman's hand dropped, and he shrugged at Janus. “I don't even have a brother. Don't speak such lies Snake!”

“You did! His name is... is... was.....”

Janus's eyes widened in horror, as he could not bring the name to mind.... nor the face....

 Patton had not just destroyed the dark sides, but he had erased even the memories of them. How could Janus convince them of Patton's misdeed, when he had cleared every scrap of evidence from the mindscape?

How long before Janus himself forgot what Patton had done?

He lunged then at Patton, furious. He was stopped by Logan's arm easily blocking him and pushing him to the side.

Patton folded his arms, face full of fake concern.

“I was merciful before, but I think you need a time out Janus. Go to your room. In fact, I think it would be for the best if you were to stay there for the time being, and stop telling such terrible lies.”

“Roman, be a dear and take Janus to his room for me.”

“Sure thing Pat!”

As Janus let himself be led away, disbelieved and defeated, and destined to forget what he was and be moulded into whatever Patton deemed acceptable form of Deceit, Janus heard Patton address the other sides.

“Oh Kiddos, I'm just so happy! I have a feeling today is going to be a <i>good</i> day!”

#unsympandangstsidesbingo #unsympathetic sides #unsympathetic patton #angst #unhappy ending #major character death

[tiakennedy-beecher]

Art and Design Contexts and Research

1. Fine Art, Film and Cinema

Fine Art:

Elizabeth Catlett, Target, 1970

In 1915, Elizabeth Catlett (the granddaughter of freed enslaved people) was born in Washington, D.C. and unflinchingly depicted the violent reality of racial injustice throughout her career. Catlett’s decision to focus on her ethnic identity, and its association with slavery and class struggles, was bold and unconventional in the 1930s and 1940s when African Americans were expected “to assimilate themselves into a more Eurocentric ethic,”. She confronted the most disturbing injustices against African Americans, including lynchings and beatings, as she was confident that art could foster social change. She also portrayed civil rights leaders — Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Angela Davis and Malcolm X — as well as the courage and resilience of everyday African-Americans, particularly women. She “always wanted my (her) art to service my (Black) people — to reflect us, to relate to us, to stimulate us, to make us aware of our potential,”. She believed that “We have to create an art for liberation and for life.” Target and Black Unity (1968), a raised fist carved in mahogany, are two of the most iconic and lasting artworks in the continuing movement for civil rights.

The signifier is the cross hairs of a rifle sight framing the head of an African-American (Black) man mounted on a block of wood. It was created in response to the fatal shooting of two Black Panthers, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, by Chicago police officers. The signified is to highlight the fact that research shows that young Black men are far more likely to be killed by police than other Americans. It also dates back to the Civil War era when rifle scopes entered into widespread use or to the present day where more up to date weapons are used as well as choke holds and physical restraints. I have discovered that artwork can have an ever lasting impact on the world as it can still be very much relevant years to come. The research has helped me discover the potential in possibly creating a symbol or action that can be used in/to identify a protest in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project. Film:

Martha Rosler, Semiotics of the Kitchen, 1975

Martha Rosler’s video is a grainy six minutes that spits in the face of America’s gendered social hierarchy. In a kind of parody (or perhaps anightmarish version) of Julia Child’s cooking shows in the 1960s, Rosler stands in a kitchen, wearing an apron and walks through the alphabet, assigning letters to various objects found there (“A” for “apron,” “B” for “bowl,” “C” for “chopper”) as she holds these objects up to the camera with an eerie lack of expression and emotion. Her movements become increasingly contrived and violent as the video continues on. By the time she gets to “fork,” she’s stabbing at the table aggressively with the utensil. When she arrives at the letter “R,” for “rolling pin,” she thrusts the object at the camera. By the end of the alphabet, she’s brandishing other kitchen tools like weapons, stabbing the air. The video ends with the artist offering an exhausted shrug, an ambiguous gesture that feels less like a resignation of fate and more a way of asking, “What is wrong with us?”.

The signifier is a woman wearing an apron reciting the alphabet while demonstrating objects in the kitchen that correspond with the start of each letter. The signified is to highlight America’s gendered social hierarchy. It also demonstrates women’s frustration with society’s expectation of them being housewives therefore they feel that they are unable to dream big due to being trapped in a cage. I have discovered that artwork can have an ever lasting impact on the world as it can still be very much relevant years to come. The research has helped me discover the potential in possibly creating a symbol or action that can be used in/to identify a protest in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project.

Cinema:

Ava DuVernay, When They See Us, 2019

When They See Us is based on a true story that gripped the United States of America, it chronicles the notorious case of five teenagers of colour, labeled the Central Park Five, who were convicted of a rape they did not commit. The four part limited series will focus on the five teenagers from Harlem (Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana and Korey Wise). In the spring of 1989, when the teenagers were first questioned about the incident, the series will span 25 years, highlighting their exoneration in 2002 and the settlement reached with the city of New York in 2014. When They See Us was created by Ava DuVernay, who also co-wrote and directed the four parts. Jeff Skoll and Jonathan King from Participant Media, Oprah Winfrey from Harpo Films, Jane Rosenthal and Berry Welsh from Tribeca Productions executive produce the limited series alongside DuVernay through her banner, Forward Movement. In addition to DuVernay, Attica Locke, Robin Swicord, and Michael Starrburry also serve as writers on the limited series.

The signifier is five teenagers of colour from Harlem, New York sitting in a holding room after being illegally questioned/beaten by NYC police. The signified is to highlight the fact that research shows that Black men are 3.5 more times likely to be falsely accused of a sexual assault crime they did not commit than their white counterparts. It shows how their conviction effected their lives before and after they were exonerated. It also shows how they were all pinned against each other, from the very beginning, just for the sake of convicting someone due to the cases huge media coverage gaining it public attention.

I have discovered that cinema can have an ever lasting impact on an individual as I, myself, and I’m sure many others can relate will remember scenes from this movies years to come and forever carry that anger and heartache for the victims (Antron, Kevin, Yusef, Raymond and Korey). The research has helped me discover the potential in possibly using real life stories of activism (preferably issues that physically or mentally affect us such as domestic abuse, racial injustice or mental health) to create a greater impact and deeper personal connection in result making an everlasting impact on the individual viewing in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project.

2. Graphic Communications, Advertising and Semiotics

Graphic Communications:

Hank Willis Thomas, All Power to All People, 2017

Hank Willis Thomas’s “All Power to All People” is an eight-foot-tall Afro pick with a Black Power fist raised to the sky as its handle. It is a response to America’s long history of erecting monuments to racist white men. It was first installed in Philadelphia’s Thomas Paine Plaza, not far from a statue of Frank Rizzo, the city’s former mayor and police commissioner. Starting in 1967, Rizzo presided over a police department that was known across the country for its unhinged racial violence, and when he was elected mayor in 1972, he only helped perpetuate and cover up this violence. The Philadelphia Inquirer cited a grim statistic that “police shot civilians at a rate of one per week between 1970 and 1978,” roughly the period in which Rizzo was running the city. Thomas’s statue was a remarkable rejoinder. Though it was only on view in the plaza for about two months, it has since become a kind of roving monument to equality. Versions of the sculpture have been shown at places ranging from Burning Man to the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Human Rights Campaign. Meanwhile, after protests over police brutality against Black Americans erupted across the country this summer, Rizzo’s statue was vandalized and, finally, taken down.

The signifier is an eight-foot-tall Afro pick with a Black Power fist raised to the sky as its handle and a peace sign featuring in the middle. The Black Panthers used the slogan "All Power to the People" to protest centuries of racial injustice against Black people in America. The Black Power fist is associated to the Black Power movement that began in 1960. It was a social movement motivated by a desire for safety and self-sufficiency that was not available inside redlined African American neighbourhoods. The signified is to highlight America’s long history of erecting monuments to racist white men. It also shows that white racist men are glorified and rewarded for their racism with a monument. This further adds fuel to the fire as it further adds to the on going disrespect and injustice of Black people.

I have discovered that historical objects (usually frowned upon or used to shame others) relating to ethic groups can be used to celebrate and moralise. The research has helped me discover the potential in using items that cultures were originally shamed for and then culturally appropriated by other races as a way to reclaim them as their own in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project.

Guerrilla Girls, Do Women Have To Be Naked To Get Into the Met. Museum?, 1989

Guerrilla Girls are an anonymous group of feminist. They are female artists devoted to fighting sexism and racism within the art world. In 1985, the group formed in New York City with the mission of bringing gender and racial inequality into focus within the greater arts community. The group employs culture jamming in the form of posters, books, billboards, and public appearances to expose discrimination and corruption. Members wear gorilla masks and use pseudonyms that refer to deceased female artists to remain anonymous. Their identities are concealed because issues matter more than individual identities, "Mainly, we wanted the focus to be on the issues, not on our personalities or our own work."

The signifier is a nude portrait of a women (in black and white) laying on a purple silk sheet while holding it and wearing a gorilla mask. The purple silk sheet appears as a sex toy on first inspect, on second inspect it appears as a feather duster due to the dark shadows and shape on the sheet creating the effect of bristles but once you take a closer inspection it is clear that the sheet has been made to look this way to truck the mind. Both these items, the sex toy and feather duster, are meant to degrade women and place a stigma around these objects. They are made to shame/put women (down) purely based on the decision they make. The signified is to highlight the fact that less than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art Sections are women but 85% of the nude portraits are female.

I have discovered that objects can be used to deceive the viewer into believing something completely different to what is presented in front of them (intentionally) in other words this would be seen as an illusion of some sort. The research has helped me discover the potential in intentionally deceiving viewers in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project.

Advertising:

Act Up (campaign poster), Silence = Death, 1987

In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the US government and mainstream media infamously ignored the crisis. By the time President Reagan finally uttered the word “AIDS” in 1985, 12,000 Americans had already died. That same year, six men in New York City (Avram Finkelstein, Brian Howard, Oliver Johnston, Charles Kreloff, Chris Lione and Jorge Socarrás) began meeting to privately share their experiences of AIDS-related loss in the absence of public discourse. They were inspired to create something tangible that could spread awareness, they swiftly settled on a poster. They decided that it should have have little (if any) text. Frankielien belied that  “Sentences barely do (work). You need sound bites, catchphrases, crafted in plain language. The poster is exactly that, a sound bite, and vernacular to the core. The poster perfectly suits the American ear. It has a power. If you’ve ever stopped in front of one or turned your head for a second look, that power was at work.” The result of their collaboration was a hot pink triangle (an inverted version of the symbol Nazis used to label gay men) emblazoned on a black background above the slogan “Silence = Death”. It debuted in 1987. The six friends hired wheat-pasters to cover the East Village, West Village, Times Square, Chelsea and the Upper West Side (neighbourhoods chosen to reach both queer audiences and the media) overnight, and the city woke up to what became the most enduring icon of H.I.V./AIDS-related activism. Later that year, on April 15, members of the newly formed activist group AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (Act Up) stormed the city’s General Post Office carrying copies of the sign, solidifying its ongoing centrality to their cause.

The signifier is a black and white poster reading “SILENCE = DEATH” with a hot pink triangle in the centre of the page. The pink triangle draws the viewer in creating a central focus is to highlight the fact that the AIDS epidemic/crisis was infamously ignored by the US government and mainstream media resulting in 12,000 Americans dying before the issue was publicly addressed by the current President (Ronald Reagan) using the word “AIDS” to create a clear and direct message.

I have discovered that using little to any words and a play on historical icons previously used to dehumanise others can create a powerful effect on the viewer causing them to have another look and really focus on the subject matter. The research has helped me discover the potential in reclaiming objects that are used to oppress others and use short snappy catchphrases to grab the attention of others in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project.

Semiotics:

Dread Scott, A Man Was Lynched by Police Yesterday, 2015

From 1920 until 1938, the N.A.A.C.P. would mark lynchings by flying a stark black and white flag reading “A Man Was Lynched Yesterday” from its New York headquarters on Fifth Avenue. The was done to confront the residents of a northern city with the horrifying regularity of these murders. In 1938, the N.A.A.C.P. ceased flying the flag after the organisation’s landlord threatened eviction. In 2015, Dread Scott felt that the banner was just as grimly necessary in the present day United States of America as it had been nearly a century earlier. He produced his own version of the flag, updating the text to read “A Man Was Lynched by Police Yesterday” in response to the fatal shooting of Walter Scott by a South Carolina police officer. “During the Jim Crow era, Black people were terrorized by lynching…It was a threat that hung over all Black people who knew that for any reason or no reason whatsoever you could be killed and the killers would never be brought to justice,” said Scott. “Now the police are playing the same role of terror that lynch mobs did at the turn of the century.”. The piece became a source of national controversy when it remained on view above the street after a deadly sniper attack on police officers in Dallas, Texas, sparking a wave of threats to the of Jack Shainman Gallery from people who felt that the work encouraged violence against police. The gallery removed the flag and displayed it indoors following pressure from the building owner.

The signifier is a black and white flag reading “A MAN WAS LYNCHED BY POLICE YESTERDAY” hanging from a flag pole. The way in which the piece has been displayed shows a stark resemblance to the topic of discussion on the banner/flag. This is due to the fact that there is a clear link to the action/movement of what would happen to the victim when these acts of hate crime would be carried out. Furthermore, the use of black and white colours symbolise the two races affected not only that but it creates a stark contrast therefore grabbing the attention of others. The signified is to highlight the fact that “A Man Was Lynched by Police Yesterday” (something that has been and still is a common occurrence in America). It also highlights the horrific acts of hate crime and racism that is directed at/towards Black people on a regular basis throughout the world (but more commonly with the USA). These acts of hate crime have been around for centuries however they have changed in the way they are carried out and by whom they are carried out by. Despite this, one thing has remained the same…no punishment is never given. 

I have discovered that subtle visual links to the subject matter create a powerful impact. The research has helped me discover the potential in simplistic art pieces in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project.

3. Fashion Design, Photography and Promotion

Fashion Design:

Public School, Make America New York, 2017

Public School creative directors’, Dao-Yi Chow and Maxwell Osborne, athleisure-focused show featured sweatshirts with the phrase, "We Need Leaders" on the back. Many of the models wore red baseball caps that parodied Donald Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" insisting instead that we "Make America New York”. During the finale, the song "This Land Is Your Land" played in the background.

The signifier is a red baseball reading "Make America New York." in white font that has been unpicked creating a distressed look. This imitates the (destructive) style of presidency Donald Trump took on. The signified is to highlight the fact that Donald Trump did not follow the formal style of presidency previous President in America usually follow. It also shows how Donald Trump was unable to lead the country due to the lack of his leadership skills and only ever appeasing to his base in result leaving many Americans unheard.

I have discovered that subtle visual links to well known controversial political figures creates a powerful impact. The research has helped me discover the potential in parody art pieces in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project.

Photography:

Suzie Blake, Blood Mountain, 2019

Suzie Blake created a sculptural installation featuring a 3-meter high mound of red clothing and apparel. In the 3000 kilogram pile are T-shirts displayed slogans like “Girl Power” and “The Future Is Female” which peak out from the crimson clothing. It is displayed like a giant pile of landfill. The clothing is all in the hue of that liquid which runs through our veins and tarnishes our hands when we remain silent on serious issues. Blake created the work in the form of a mountain as it is considered the archetype of ascent and power  ( the bridge between heaven and earth). Her goal was to reimagine this archetype in the form of greed and waste. “Blood Mountain” asks, what is the environmental cost of bloated man-made structures? And what is the role of feminism within such structures? Also, whose empowerment does the current iteration of the feminist movement serve? And since when did we think it was acceptable for brands to piggyback on our movement?

The signifier is a sculptural installation featuring a 3-meter high mound of red clothing and apparel. The signified is to highlight the fact that the fast fashion industry is the second biggest polluter after oil. It also brings attention to the fat that most garment workers are women, or sometimes girls  (around 85%) who get paid on average $3 a day. It also raises a set of questions in the viewer’s head such as “What is the environmental cost of man-made structures?”, “What is the role of feminism within such structures?”, “Also, whose empowerment does the current iteration of the feminist movement serve?” and “And since when did we think it was acceptable for brands to piggyback on our movement?”.

I have discovered that pairing well known objects (that are associated with a topic) and subtle objects that imply the effect the topic has on humans creates a powerful and clear message while opening viewers’ eyes to situations that were overshadowed. The research has helped me discover the potential in direct but subtle art pieces in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project. Promotion:

Vivienne Westwood, Homo Loquax A/W 19 LFW, 2019

Vivienne Westwood is renowned for seamlessly amalgamating fashion and activism, having used her platform over the years to protest a whole range of issues, from fracking to austerity. Westwood had models wear clothes with slogans berating politicians while protests about the environmental impact of London Fashion Week took place. She sent models down the catwalk wearing aprons and tabards with anti-consumerist and climate change slogans.The show happened at the same time as environmental action group Extinction Rebellion organised protests at several of London Fashion Week venue's to highlight the throwaway nature of the fashion industry. Models also held microphones and spoke to the audience in a theatrical display, urging one another to buy less and pontificating on the consequences of consumerism. A model paused on the runway to say that Brexit was a crime, while another took a jibe at American foreign policy. The clothes themselves were as avant-garde as one would expect of a Vivienne Westwood collection.

The signifier is a collection of clothes featuring slogans berating politicians. The collection also featured a set of playing cards that illustrate a plan to save the world from climate change. The signified is to promote the dangers of climate change, Brexit and capitalism. It also shows that fashion is all about styling: buy less, choose well, make it last.

I have discovered that using a global stage to speak out on issues that affect the world as a whole can deliver a strong and direct message. The research has helped me discover the potential in using fashion as a political message/statement in identifying opportunities for progressing with the project.

[tsukumosanaappreciationblog]

Why Byakuya Togami Is A Misunderstood Character

In the Danganronpa community the antagonists of each game remain fan favorites and Togami is no exception however the difference in how they are perceived is how much focus is put in their ideology. While people love Komaeda and Kokichi everyone focus on their ideology for example people will praise Komaeda for his belief in absolute hope regardless of the methods  which is a interesting ideology but with Togami people tend to boil him down to being a run of the will arrogant rich kid which I think is a shame because there is depth beneath the surface that gets under explored. Togami is my favorite antagonist in the series and my second favorite character in the series behind Ibuki so in this essay I hope to spread light on why I think he’s a great character.

One reason I love Togami is because he is the only antagonist to get a proper character arc from the beginning of the game to the end of the game. Just because a character has an arc doesn’t make a character inherently better than characters without an arc but I think his was well handled. Some people think of it as an arrogant character learning some humility while still being arrogant but I think was more of a major change to his worldview than that but to understand his change of worldview we have to understand his worldview in the first place.

Togami as a person sees all people as inherently selfish and as much as they would like to think of themselves as selfless there just lying to themselves. As an example there’s this quote from chapter 2 "Did you already forget? This isn't a co-op game. It's every man for himself. What good does it do me to go out of my way to help you?”. Though the gaming comparison seems a bit out of character in retrospect it does offer insight to his ideology. I think it serves as an interesting extreme to the distrust one would feel in a setting like Danganronpa. Speaking of parallels I think he serves as a great foil to Makoto. Makoto is optimistic and trusting to a point of naivete whereas Togami’s relentless cynicism makes it so he doesn't trust anyone. There is also a contrast to Makoto’s humility and Togami’s arrogance. Putting aside Togami’s role as a foil, there is another important component to Togami’s personality: his desire to keep winning. This can be seen in this scene from chapter 2 "Shut up. I would never stoop to the level of a childish criminal like you. Let me just say this... After I have achieved complete victory...you're up next. I'm going to find you and kill you. Understand? In the name of the Togami family, for which victory is a foregone conclusion... I swear, whatever it takes...I will kill you!". What stands out here is the fact that he says that in the name of his family which means that due to him being a member of the Togami family he was raised to value victory so he wishes to win the killing game by any means necessary. Another interesting point is he does legitimately see the killing game as a game with the expectations of the masterminds and arguably Kokichi .Kokichi fans will say he hated the killing game but he definitely seemed to be having fun during the first three trails and to a lesser degree chapter 4 but that’s a can of worms for another day. With Togami it’s far less ambiguous when he specifically states "But it *is* a game. It's a game of life or death, which can have only one winner. That's all there is to it.”

You may be asking okay I understand his ideology but why does he think this way? I’m glad you asked because if you played his free time events you get a clearer picture. I’m going to transcribe most of his fifth free time event because it gives us the most information on his backstory. ”It has to do with the secret to the Togami family's prosperity. Our success comes from our family's rather...peculiar inheritance system. You see, our family head never takes a wife. Rather, he couples with exceptional women the world over, in order to bear as many children as possible. They then make the children compete, and only one can come out on top. And whoever it is...earns the right to become the next head of the family. For my battle, there were fifteen of us in total. When all was said and done, only one was still standing—the youngest brother. Me. In the entire history of the Togami family, the youngest male had never won. So, now do you understand? I won my title in open combat. *That* is how l became the Ultimate Affluent Progeny. I was not born into greatness. I had to earn it. I put my life on the line, and I *earned* the right to be called the chosen.”-Togami “You put your life on the line...? Then...what about your siblings?”-Makoto Dead. I don't mean that literally, of course. They become dead to the family, unfit for the name of Togami. Of course, for them it really is like death. They're forced to become one of the 99%.

That was a lot to take in so let’s break down what all of that actually means and how it affected Togami’s character. First the section where he had to compete with fifteen of his siblings to gain the inheritance. His cutthroat desire to win stems from the fact that he needed to compete with such high stakes from a young age. With the inheritance system he was made to have a survival of the fittest mentality which explains in behavior in game. He described those who didn’t get to inherit the Togami name as dead which shows the absolute value he puts into winning. The fact that he won this competition also is responsible for his superiority complex because he managed to overcome  such adversity he sees himself as better than the 99% of people that live normal lives. Once you put it into perspective Togami was a product of his environment which really humanizes him but I don’t blame people for missing optional content.

Now let’s move on to the turning point for his character chapter four. In the book Creating Character Arcs By K.M Weiland she explains that to create a positive change arc there is a misconception about the world or themselves that they believe and external forces change that idea so they must accept reality. In this case the lie Togami believes is that all people are inherently selfish and the reason he stopped believing that is because of the selfless actions of Sakura and Hina. Sakura’s sucide was because she wished to stop the in-fighting caused by her being revealed by the traitor along with the fact she wanted to save her dojo. Togami despite being intelligent couldn’t figure out that it was a sucide because of the way he views people. In a similar fashion he also couldn’t figure out that Hina wasn't the true killer because he couldn’t see why anyone would be willing to sacrifice their own life for the sake of a friend. These truly selfless acts made him change his worldview which can most clearly be seen with the quote “"This is a life-or-death elimination match. The only way to survive...is to win. There can be no doubt that those are the rules of the game. Which is why...I am bowing out of the game. Sakura and Hina were both willing to sacrifice their own lives to deny the reality of the game. Thanks to them, it would appear the others have cast aside their fear for this game. There's no point in participating in a game which has lost that sense of excitement. Which is why I will no longer be participating in it. Now I have only one thing to look forward to. And that is to heap the harshest possible punishment onto the one who thinks they can control me!” Although the way he phrased it was backhanded, this showed genuine faith in people and will no longer participate in the killing game which is major development for him. It also helps prove while does get him into trouble sometimes like that time he got framed by Sayaka that Makoto’s belief in people is not misplaced.

In conclusion despite him often being dismissed as another arrogant antagonist Byakuya Togami is an interesting character with an interesting way of thinking that helps him serve as a foil to the protagonist ,an often overlooked backstory that humanizes him and give proper explanation for his actions along with a great character that the other Danganronpa antagonist lacked that he stands out as a stellar character in a game series with an already excellent cast. I hope this essay gave you a new found appreciation for the character.

#danganronpa #byakuya togami #dr1 #long post #tw sucide

[shiberpostshere]

THE GENTLE DRIZZLE OF THE NIGHT

Pairing → Kim Junmyeon (Suho) x Female Reader

Genre → Fluff

Word Count → 4K

Synopsis→ The beginning of the weekend, its drizzling all over the city and you take the chance of filling in for someone else’s blind date which soon turns out to be the best first date you’ve went on.

My Masterlists

The idea of blind dates often feels ambiguous for you to voluntarily participate in but you’re presented with a tricky situation where you are unable to decline. 

“I don’t do blind dates, Dia, you know that.” You answer with much difficulty as you rush towards the subway, the phone sandwiched between your shoulder and your ear. 

Your room-mate is determined on the other line, “I swear my colleague said she would go but I can’t just cancel on the guy last minute!” 

Climbing down the stairs you finally get a proper hold on the phone, “Why should I fill in at the last minute? I don’t want to.” Your persistence remains consistent. 

“(Y/N) please, just this once. He’s a great guy, you won’t regret it. I will feel really bad if I don’t keep my side of promise.” Her pleading voice wavers your decision.

The number of blind dates you went to as a college student still make you shudder. The time you were stood up, the time you had to cover the entire bill, the time your date won’t look up from their phone, all the worst possible scenarios. You definitely don’t need a strange man to ruin the beginning of a much needed weekend but you trust Dia just a little bit more than those who had set you up previously.

Huffing a sigh, you turn around to leave the station, “Fine!”

The answer earns you a shrilling cheer. “I swear, I owe you and I won’t forget about it, I won't.” 

Finding an empty spot near the bus station, you resume the conversation. “I am dressed in my casual clothes, I won’t stay if I don’t like him and he better not be a creep in his 40s.” You state the conditions. 

She lets out a sound of relief, “Don’t worry. I will send you his name, he made a reservation at a restaurant, it’s a casual setting and I LOVE YOU!” An unexpected kissing sound is delivered which you chuckle at.

“Okay, okay, I love you too, quickly text me the details, see you after!” The call ends and your phone pings with a message in a minute full of details regarding the stranger you’re about to go on a ‘date’ with. 

What the hell, what could go wrong? A blind date for Friday night it is. 

You glance down at your outfit, a loose tee and boyfriend jeans, you shrug, this will have to do. 

The restaurant Dia texted you details of is only a street away. Luckily, your last appointment happened to be in a popular area and so does this restaurant. 

It’s Friday night with gentle on and off drizzle that has set a pleasing, warm and dispersed filter over the entire city, adorning it with a muted, twinkling, coral hue. As you walk towards the restaurant, you detect the pungent remnants of the rain in the air. 

The night life is bustling with greasy street food and hurrying back home to relax after a long week of work and you’re making your way towards what might be a famous food place in the most basic attire ever. 

Checking the address again, you take a right turn. The place is called, 'Daydream' and not hard to spot as the neon sign blinks atop the building in it's silver glory.

A little hesitant, you take a peek inside. The ambience is inviting and intimate. The setting is definitely meant for couples and fancy meetings. Drawing in and out a few deep breaths, you attempt to fix your hair in the translucent glass and step inside. 

The humid heat of the outside world is left behind and you are greeted with a refreshing atmosphere blended with floral fragrance and rich aroma of delicacies. 

Dia, this is no way a place you come dressed in T-shirt and jeans. 

You approach the reception desk tentatively. 

“Good evening ma’am, Welcome to Daydream. How may I help you?” The male flashes you a polite smile. 

You mirror his expression, “Good evening, I am here to meet Mr. Kim, he made a reservation.” 

The receptionist nods, “One second ma’am, let me check.” He shifts his eyes to the computer screen whereas you begin to feel out of place a little more as the minutes on the clock tick by. 

“Yes, Mr. Kim has a reservation. If you would please follow me.” He gestures with his hand towards the main area. 

He leads you to a table that offers the view of the street on the other side, people walking by and the vehicles zooming by onto their business. You thank him as he pulls out a chair and leaves.

A minute since you’ve settled down and a woman approaches you. “Good evening ma’am, I am Aliah, I will be your server tonight. Would you like to order something or wait for the expected company to arrive?” 

“I would like to wait, thank you.” You answer, clutching your messenger bag for some familiarity in the setting that feels like it is lulling you into a trance, you experience only after sipping a well-aged, red wine.

 The restaurant is comfortably...elegant, brightness toned down to create a somber environment that keeps one’s attention on their company. 

The other tables except for a few empty ones are occupied by couples embraced in their own bubble of chatter. Unknowingly, your hand keeps reaching out to your hair to fix god-knows-what. While you wait, you decide to text Dia for conning you into believing that you are dressed for the occasion. 

It is hard to believe that just half an hour ago you were running around in a wedding hall, delivering instructions as your assistant jotted them down. 

“Hello, I am sorry I am a little late, I was--” A frantic voice interrupts your silence. 

The owner of the voice takes the seat in front of you and his expression continues to dissolve more and more into a puzzled one. 

Is there something on my face? God, I should’ve checked once in the bathroom if I knew a walking god would be sitting opposite to me. 

The male appears to be in his late twenties, dressed in a crisp, white shirt with accents of blue flowers on the front pocket, his gentle face studies you in a way as if he is attempting to solve a riddle. He is breathtaking. 

I am extremely under-dressed compared to him, fantastic!

“Oh no, please don’t worry about it, Dia mentioned in the message that you work a little farther from here. It is nice to meet you, I am (Y/N) (Y/L/N)” You stand up and offer him your hand, instantly regretting that your work ethics decided to reveal themselves now.  

He furrows his brows before standing up himself and taking your hand. “Oh, well, I am Kim Junmyeon, better known as Suho, whichever is fine, I guess.” Both of you move your hands in a mismatched manner and settle back in your seats. 

You are unable to shake your blind date jitters. 

“Is everything alright?” He inquires with concern. 

It’s best he knows before we begin, “Okay so, I know I am under-dressed for the date because I came here straight from work but I have to be honest with you.” You begin speaking and he leans back with his arms and legs crossed. “I haven’t been on a blind date for a long time and I wasn’t supposed to meet you today. The person you were supposed to meet cancelled last minute and Dia wanted to keep her promise and sent me instead.” With a soft exhale, you confess. 

The uncertainty fades off his features and he leans to the front, his right hand supporting his chin. “Oh well, that explains it. Thank you for being honest. It is quite unexpected but why don’t we make the best out of it?” His statement makes you smile to yourself with the way he delivers it, a look of assurance. 

“So, you’re alright with it?” 

Curiosity is evident on his features. “Yes, I don’t see why not. What about you?” 

You shrug. “Sure, why not, other than the fact that I am under-dressed.” 

His smile widens at your response, gaze ever so observant indicating that he is still calculating the situation. 

He lifts up his hand to call out the server. “Shall we begin the evening then?” 

The atmosphere of the restaurant and the comfort of the male you’ve just met settles you into a state of familiarity, without worrying about your hair or your outfit. Both of you study the menu together.

“What are your thoughts on seafood pasta?” 

A man after my heart. “I’d love seafood pasta. Wine?” 

“Red or white?” He looks up. 

“Let’s go with white for a change.” You close the menu. 

He nods, places the order and the server leaves. 

“That was a quick and harmonious decision, don’t you think?” Your fingers dance on your lap with excitement about the upcoming hearty dinner. 

His finger taps the menu. “I look forward to a good meal every day.” 

You grin. “That makes it two of us.” 

“Just a minute.” He sends a quick text and the conversation resumes. 

It begins on the note of stating your respective career and you’re least surprised to hear his. If he had made you guess, you’d answered correctly in a single attempt. 

“You manage a firm? It explains the choice of place.” You eye the surroundings. 

He shakes his head with an amused expression, “Managing the firm is a family business, I am a person who enjoys art as well. If you had the choice, what would you have selected?” 

You consider for a moment before replying. “I enjoy new flavours so I would like to eat at a hole in the wall restaurant that serves spicy food.” 

He hums. “Well, that’s a deal breaker, I cannot handle spicy food but I would love to come with for a second date.” 

His comment causes your lips to perk up naturally but you decide to hold it back. “Who said there would be a second date? I don’t think I can date someone who manages a firm or someone who mentions second date ten minutes into the first one. I am into someone who is open to new things.” 

He clasps his hands together and places them on the table. “Aren’t you being stereotypical? Also, my bold statement must prove something.” 

“Okay, kinda but tell me three out of the box things you have done.” You ask, putting on your best challenging expression. 

He chuckles. “I can name more than three, I went paragliding, I paint as a hobby and I think I am quite good at it, I have a winery in Italy, I also visit Hawaii to enjoy the sun and the beach and I--” He doesn’t even take a moment to ponder while listing such enviable activities and hobbies. 

“Okay, okay, now you’re just making me jealous. I haven’t indulged as much as you have and I apologize for being stereotypical.” He wears a victorious expression at your defeat. 

The food is finally served, wafting mouth-watering aroma, you two continue your conversation while digging in. 

“And you decided to be a wedding planner because you like planning events?” 

You nod, “I like the idea of planning things and then executing them. It is absolutely satisfying to see what was dreamt come to life.” 

He slightly softens at your answer. “Which wedding has been your favourite so far?” 

It comes to you instantly, “Oh, definitely the one I planned for an old couple in a manor. It wasn’t the venue or the decorations that made it special but the love they shared towards each other. I thought I had gotten over the ‘crying-at-every-wedding-phase’ but that day, I couldn’t hold myself back.” 

The food melts on your tongue, the wine adding a little kick. You are trying your best to keep your composure under his gaze that is highly alert. 

“That does sound beautiful. Everything you’ve said is quite contradictory to what I have experienced so far.” He sets down his spoons aside, leaning back into a relaxed state. 

“Likewise. It’s a first for me, going on a blind date with a lawyer. You belong to a different world but you feel familiar.” Placing down the fork, you finish as well but continue to sip your drink. 

He holds out his drink. “The familiarity perhaps comes from the way of accepting different things, which I see you are open to do. Like going on a blind date last minute.” 

You look at him with your mouth open, refusing to clink your glasses. “Okay, weird way of complimenting but take that back! I came so that you won’t feel like you’ve been stood up. I’ve had it happen and believe me, it’s not the best feeling.” 

A vague glimmer of wonder flashes across his face. 

“Alright, alright, yes, my fault but I am glad that it is you instead of the person who was supposed to show up.” His honest expression delivers the sincerity of his words. 

You fix your hair in a ponytail. “But what if that person is supposedly a better company than I am?” 

He reaches out and takes your hand, interrupting the course of tying your hair. “I don’t wish to think of what would have happened while I am enjoying the great company I have with me right now.” 

A little taken aback, you clear your throat and chuck the hair tie into your bag. “The feeling is mutual and I have to admit that you are beautiful, oh wait--” You say the last part out loud without realizing. 

He slightly tilts his head, eyes filled with piqued interest. “Am I beautiful?” 

The mesmerising tune of the violin offers you a little courage. “You are.” 

“But I definitely cannot surpass the level of looking so good in a T-shirt amongst women wearing dresses.” 

A sudden rush of heat takes all over you as you shift your eyes beyond the window to observe the nightlife. The gentle drizzling has begun again, illuminating the glow of the city. 

“What happened? Did I leave you speechless?” He pries further after his compliment. 

You cannot believe this smooth-talking man. “If you know you have then why do you ask? Do you want me to look as red as that traffic light there?” You point outside at the street. 

His palms cover his face as he laughs. “Do you want to eat dessert somewhere else? I know a great place that serves ice cream you cannot say no to.” 

Your eyes light up at the mention of ice cream. “How can one say no to ice cream?” 

“Amazing.” With that, he calls over the waiter again and you two split the bill. 

Thanking the server, you two step out of the dim-dizzying environment into the wet, busy streets of the city. 

“This way.” He begins walking and you step by his side as the mild drops are falling down from the midnight blue skies. “I am not carrying an umbrella with me.” 

“Neither am I.”  

“I guess a little rain won’t hurt.” He places both his hands into the pockets of his pants as he walks. 

The gentle droplets begin to cover your clothes and his, often landing on your eyes and clouding your vision for a brief moment. 

“The little rain is hurting in a way.” You say, making your way through the drift of people. 

He slowly pulls out his right hand, offering it to you. “Then we’ll have to hurry.” 

Without a second thought, you take his hand and he intertwines them together securely to make way carefully through the crowd. 

The night has shifted towards a more darker phase than before it began, the sky clear amidst the gentle drizzle. It’s hypnotising.

You feel grateful towards the woman who cancelled this date, otherwise you cannot imagine getting the opportunity to spend time with a man as pleasant and attractive as the one currently holding your hand. 

A mere five minutes of walking and you two halt in front of an ice cream store in an area less crowded than the one you were in before, you turn to him when you see it's a hole in a wall ice cream shop. 

“I see what you’re trying to do here.” He pulls you into the shop. 

Without looking back, he responds. “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” 

This man is full of surprises. 

The chill in the shop causes both of you to shiver a little due your clothes brushed by the rain, you notice that they’re sticking to your body and even more to his that constantly catches your attention due to the sharp and tempting  definition. 

“Cone or cup?” His hand releases yours to pull out his wallet. 

“Cone and you’re paying?” 

“You can pay when we devour that spicy food.” 

You peek from his shoulders, “When did we decide that?” 

“We haven’t? Okay, we’ll talk about it over dessert. Which flavour do you want?” Ever since you’ve entered the shop, he still hasn’t met your eyes and yet continues to deliver statements that have you feeling flushed every minute. 

Scanning the options, you say, “One scoop of vanilla and one of chocolate.” 

“Two of the same please.” He pays the person behind the counter and hands you one cone. 

Before you can ask about where you will be eating, he takes your hand and walks out of the shop. “There is a park right in the front, a great place to own a shop, don’t you think?” 

“And we’ll be sitting on the drenched grass?” You happily skip behind him, careful about your ice cream. 

He turns around, his eyes turning into crescents. “Do you mind?” 

You shake your head, bewitched by his dampened hair sticking to his forehead, changing his appearance from the impersonal one at the restaurant to a more personal one under the streetlights. 

The park is abandoned due to the drizzle, the benches and the grass covered with an undisturbed sheet of droplets. 

You drop down and your jeans get soaked instantly. “I don’t think I should get up now, I will give people wrong ideas.” 

“Not many people on the street and I will keep your secret.” He winks, causing you to stick your tongue out in a disgusted manner. “Hold this, will you?” He hands you his ice cream and pushes his hair back from his face in a sleek motion. 

At the holy sight happening in front of you, you try not to crush the cones occupying both hands. His fingers undo the buttons on his wrist, rolling back his sleeves to his elbows and you can clearly see that the rain has casted a special spell of favouritism on him. 

“Don’t look at me like that, this is still our first date.” He plops down in front of you, taking back his ice cream that he eats in a not-so-subtle, sensual manner. 

This man is illegal.

You raise a brow, “And what does that mean?” You decide to implement his technique on him. 

He drives his face further causing you to reflexively move back. “I think it implies exactly what you’re thinking right now.” 

Defensively, you too, move forward and judging by his face, he didn't expect you to do so. “I’m thinking about stealing your ice cream right now.” 

His laughter livens up the numb environment. “Oh I know, don’t think I didn’t see you eyeing my ice cream.” 

“Oh my god, okay!” You roll your eyes and focus on your ice cream. 

His laughing doesn’t stop there, his delight keeps doubling the more you scrunch up your nose. “Alright, alright, it’s my fault, I’ll make it up to you.” 

“No, thank you.” Your teeth clatter as you savour the dessert. 

He pats the space right next to him. “Come here.” 

You slide closer within a heartbeat. “Yes?” 

“I have something to confess as well.” The sudden severity on his features shifts the mood. 

You nibble on the ice cream. “Go ahead, as long as you aren’t 42, it's fine.” 

He eyes you, dumbfounded. “Woman, do I look 42 to you?” 

You nudge him, “C’mon, just kidding, go on.” 

He draws in a deep breath and looks straight into your eyes with utmost sincerity. “I am not the supposed blind date you were to be meeting. I was there to meet a client who cancelled after I arrived, when I saw you, I thought the client came after all but when you confessed to what really it was, I decided to play along.” 

You blink once, then you blink twice and thrice to process what he’s just said. “Kim Junmyeon! What if I really stood someone up! My room-mate will kill me!” 

“Hey! I was the only person there who had a reservation under the name ‘Kim’, all the other tables were occupied after and yes, I am guilty, I am sorry but I cannot let go of an interesting person, an interesting woman at that.” He admits looking sinful, sinfully stunning even if he’s apologizing. 

You feel charmed yet mildly infuriated by his confession. 

“I’ve known you for an hour and half and I cannot believe I am already giving into your smooth talking so easily, let me see if my roommate has sent me death threats yet.” You pull out your phone to check if it is bombarded with messages and slump when you see numerous missed calls and texts from your roommate. 

However, as you read, they tell a different story. 

From: Dia

8:18: Why aren’t you answering my calls? (Y/N), I am sorry but he cancelled last minute due to an emergency, you can come home. 

8:21: Is everything okay? Please answer your calls, I don’t want you waiting for someone at the restaurant, it’s actually not so casual as I had mentioned. 

8:26: (Y/N) I am waiting for your reply, god, you and your habit of keeping your phone on silent. Don’t make me feel this awful!

8:30: I give up, TEXT ME ASAP YOU SEE THIS!!!!!!!!!!

You frantically type a response that you are doing well and receive a message of relief instantly. 

“So, how angry is he?” He is already aware that he is right yet he wants you to admit but you won’t be. 

“Why did you play along? I am not exactly the most charming person solely based on my appearance. Was it pity?” You nibble on the cone with your shoulders drooped.

He leans a little into your space. “No, it was your honesty. You can say that the liking for honesty comes with the profession.” His statement seems believable. 

“Honesty, hm?” You pull your knees closer to your chest.

He too finishes his dessert and diverts his attention solely on you. “I am being serious when I say that this has been a wonderful first date. You are beautiful (Y/N).” His fingers gently tucks a strand behind your ear, “Let me make it up to you.” 

His gaze makes you shiver more than the cold winds around you. 

He fingers travel to your cheek, pulling you closer. “May I?” 

You need a taste. You grab his neck and pull him closer. He understands your confirmation and his warm lips meet yours as his other hand pulls you right into his chest in a firm hold. 

His cold lips and yours alike move with an urgency to ignite a warmth in between, you can feel the thumping of his heart against your chest as he can feel yours. Even though he holds you close, his arm around your waist keeps pulling you in even further. His thumb gently caresses your cheek and you let your fingers weave through his damp locks. 

He pulls apart for a moment, your foreheads resting on each other, his eyes meet yours and he draws you in for another brief kiss that leaves you entirely breathless. He feels like a hearth, you cannot get enough. The sweet taste of vanilla and chocolate is being exchanged but it's not cold, it’s full of butterflies that are dancing in your stomach as you gasp the moment he oh-so-gently pecks on your lower lip with some mysterious magic. 

The kiss halts but you two do not separate. His chest heaves up and down and so does yours, his eyes are closed and so are yours, he holds you close and so do you. For a moment, you enjoy the silence to calm your senses that wish for you to unleash the hidden desires. 

You slowly open your eyes and greet his that are already open, a recognisable faint gleam floating within. 

“Did I make up for stealing your date and time?” He wraps his other free hand around you as well. 

You lock your arms around his neck. “Can we do this again after we eat spicy food?” 

He bites his lower lip. “Do you think it’s a good idea after eating spicy food?” He unlocks his arms to hold your cheeks. 

“I was talking about eating ice cream, what are you thinking about?” You quirk an eyebrow at him. 

His expression transforms into something beyond belief, making you snicker. “Yes, of course. I, too, was thinking about eating ice cream. Sure I was.” 

You begin laughing in his embrace, throwing your head back, the surroundings light up as he joins you, his forehead meeting yours as you two laugh your heart out. 

A/N: Hello! Yesterday, it was raining and I was listening to Self-Portrait, that album always leaves me speechless. I really wanted to let out those emotions so I wrote what came in my mind. It has been a long time since I’ve written and it felt liberating in a way. What do you think after reading it? Do let me know! What’s your favourite song from the mini album? 

#exo #exo imagines #exo fluff #exo scenarios #kpop #kim junmyeon #suho imagines #suho scenarios #kim junmyeon fluff #kim junmyeon scenarios #suho fluff #yixing #baekhyun #chanyeol #jongdae #kyungsoo #sehun #minseok #jongin #thegentledrizzleofthenight

[hellzyeahwebwielingessays]

The Not-So-Amazing Mary Jane Part 29: AMJ #4.1

Previous Part

Next Part

Master Post

I don’t have any preamble. Let’s just get on with this.

Thankfully the recap page isn’t as bad as in prior issues.

First of all, we get yet more information not introduced in the earlier issues. Admittedly this is a minor point, but Ken Gullapalli’s last name is first revealed here. Additionally, we get the title of the movie repeated her, even though it has yet to be mentioned in-story.

More significantly, the recap ascribes additional motivations to the Savage Six. It claims that they took umbrage with Mysterio’s life being dramatized at all, whereas prior issues never implied that. Isn’t it great that part of the motivation for the villains is being explained in the recap page.

Another minor point worth noting is that the recap mixes up the sequence of events. It claims Sonny Diperna joined the movie and then the Savage Six attacked. It was actually the other way around. Also, the recap claims the movie lost all but one investor. Depending upon how you wish to interpret that line, it might also be called inaccurate. The investor they found in issue #2 was never one of the original investors. The movie lost all  of it’s investors but then found a new one.

Neither of these are that big of a deal. But those are pretty basic thing for a recap  to screw up. It’s another example to the shoddy production of this comic (outside the art).

The story proper picks up immediately where the last issue left off. Charlie (the actor playing Spider-Man) quits, claiming the production is cursed. He points out everything has gone wrong, even before the crew were attacked by actual super villains.

MJ counters that things have been looking up since they found a new secure location. Charlie though points out this ‘secure location’ is an abandoned zoo too horrible for anyone to even want to attack them. Charlie accuses MJ of being delusional for believing in the movie.

You know I never had anything to say about Charlie up until now, but in this moment he is the single most relatable character in the whole story.

What’s ambiguous is Williams’ own perception of the character. He’s clearly been framed in an unsympathetic light (and will be again in consequent pages) so the audience isn’t supposed to like him. And yet he is keeping it real, he is pointing out every danger and problem with the production and why it isn’t safe.

I don’t know if he’s intended to be an audience avatar, and author avatar or both. But he’s certainly my  avatar right now.

Charlie’s rant continues by claiming people are going to laugh at Sonny Diperna and MJ for participating in this disaster of a movie. ‘McKnight’ then gets up in Charlie’s personal space and grabs him by the shirt. He yells that speaking to MJ the way he did would have gotten him fired anyway. With Mallorie’s prompting, ‘McKnight’ tells Charlie that he’ll be returning the advance he was given for the scene he’s left unfinished.

Charlie though has other ideas.

Charlie wasn’t exactly being rude. The worst thing he said was that MJ was being delusional. Putting aside how she genuinely has been, in context it’s a perfectly valid thing to say. MJ has been pushing and backing an extremely troubled production that has genuinely intimidated Charlie and jeopardised his wellbeing. Last issue alone confirmed several cast and crewmembers had quite the production after the Six’s attack.

Even if it wasn’t fair to call MJ delusional (which it absolutely is), in context Charlie’s outburst is totally sympathetic, it’s something the cast and crew should be able to excuse given the situation. Not to mention, he’s outright warning  MJ. He’s informing her she is endangering her career and public image by participating in the film. I’m not saying this is outright concern, but on balance his dialogue to MJ is not exactly rude. He’s justifiably upset and is pointing out the dangers to MJ.

Beck in this scene is problematic. I’m not going to say he assaulted  Charlie, but he was way out of line for grabbing him the way he did. That should b the umpteenth warning sign to MJ (who noticeably does nothing) that Beck is bad news and dangerous.

I also detest the framing of Beck in this page. He’s framed as someone defending MJ’s honour, or at the very least a loyal friend. It’s yet more of this messed up sympathetic/friendship portrayal of Beck and his relationship with Mary Jane.

Finally, notice how no one is considering how Charlie’s departure seriously jeopardises the crew. He is now someone constantly off set who knows exactly where the crew are. Do they consider changing location? No. Do they consider that the Six will target Charlie for information no. It’s stupid enough that they aren’t involving the authorities at all. But if you accept that then it’s really stupid for them to not consider Charlie a liability.

On the next page Charlie tries to blackmail ‘McKnight’. He threatens to call his guild rep and report unsafe working conditions; citing the Six’s attack. That is unless he’s allowed to keep his advance. ‘McKnight’ literally tosses cash at Charlie and tells him to leave.

I have nothing really to say about this page. It’s just kind of screwed up that Williams has chosen to make the one character  who’s talking some sense unsympathetic.

On the next page MJ proposes that she will play (a fully masked) Spider-Man in the final scene. She suggests Beck use his skills to ‘heavily edit’ the footage to make her look convincing.

Okay, so this is a double-edged sword.

On the plus side we’re finally dealing more with MJ actually acting  in a mini-series set up to be about that very premise. Having her pretend to be her lover is also a brilliant set up for character exploration. Have MJ, in an abstract way, see Peter in a new light by pretending to be him. But the potential for interesting commentary goes deeper, because she’s acting out Mysterio’s vision for Spider-Man. It’s an opportunity for Williams to explore MJ and Mysterio’s contrasting views of Spidey. That in turn could say a lot about MJ and Beck, as well as Peter himself.

But on the other hand…isn’t this pretty dumb?

Peter and Mary Jane have completely different body builds. According to official stats, Peter is 2 inches taller than her and weights nearly 50 pounds more than her. Then of course you have the fact that Spider-MAN has a MALE body shape and Mary Jane has a FEMALE body shape. And what about the dialogue? How is MJ supposed to convincingly pull off Charlie’s voice?

Oh, sure Beck’s skills are more than capable of faking the difference. But what is the point?

Why use Mary Jane when you could just use any of the actual men on set?

Master Matrix is in that very scene. His body build might not be identical to Spider-Man’s, but it looks similar enough. Or at the very least it looks far more similar than MJ’s body build does.

In fairness, I don’t know much about Master Matrix, so maybe he’s not capable of the physical movements necessary for the job; he is a robot after all. But there are definitely, other  male crewmembers on set. The Kangaroo for example is an actual super villain, he’s literally battled Spider-Man and he also has a far similar body build to Spidey than MJ does.

One might argue that it’s not all about the body type though, they need someone who can act the part, deliver the dialogue. Except if that’s the case, why get MJ? She’s a talented actress but she’ll be wearing a mask, her facial acting will be moot. This means it will just boil down to her ability to voice act, but she is neither  trained VA nor would she believably sound like Charlie/Spider-Man. Realistically ‘McKnight’ would have to use technical wizardry to distort MJ’s voice into sounding like Charlie’s. That’s more than likely within his abilities (especially with master Matrix and HERBIE’s help). But you know what would be much easier? Having someone else dub over the footage!

That’d be a lot cheaper, easier and more dramatically effective than altering the vocal performance of the actor in the suit. In fact, given how the mask is realistically going to muffle the voice of the wearer, ADR would likely be employed anyway. If memory serves I think they have done that in every real life Spider-Man film since 2002. Hell, Darth Vader  was brought to life with a suit and a voice performance.

The point is Beck wouldn’t need  someone in the suit who can deliver dialogue great, so why not get someone with a closer body build?

Shit, if he’s employed so much of his illusionary skills anyway, why not just fake Spider-Man himself? Jesus, Christ he could just make a Spider-Man robot if he wanted or dress up one of the X-Men robots from issue #1.

Or he  could play Spider-Man himself. He literally did that in his first ever appearance!

No matter how you slice it, this is yet another interesting idea Williams fails to sufficiently justify.

Moving on, remember how the worst thing Charlie did was call MJ delusional? Remember how Beck took this as an immense insult? Yeah, well he immediately does the same thing on the next page.

Beck explains he’s very uncomfortable with MJ playing that role. MJ retorts that it’s just one scene and since audiences would be none the wiser it wouldn’t affect her character’s arc. She starts to suggest Beck use his illusions to affect the change but Beck interjects that that’d be cheating and would ruin the authenticity of his work. MJ counters that she’s the most ‘authentic connection to Spidey’ Beck will find.

Beck accepts MJ’s offer. He reminisces that MJ was supposed to play his love interest, a version of someone he wanted to exalt. He then acknowledges MJ has become the saving grace of the movie, making her the second  woman who had the ‘misfortune’ of believing in him. He further elaborates that they’ve strayed so far from his original vision for the film, he sometimes questions if it’s even the same movie.  MJ reassures him that he’s just pivoted.

While this conversation is happening, Mallorie is dealing with another issue. Sonny Diperna has been running late because the paparazzi were tipped off about his inclusion. As a result he can’t get close to the set’s location without revealing it’s location. Mallorie turns to Screwball who launches several remote controlled drones.

A few things to unpack from these pages.

The first is that MJ has it in mind for Beck to use his illusions to finish the scene; something Beck ultimately agrees to. If they were just going to use illusions anyway why do they need MJ specifically to finish the scene? Again they could just get any of the male actors, extras or staff members to fill in.

Shit, they could get Screwball  to do it. These pages depict her acrobatic prowess; and weren’t the first to do so. Additionally she’s actually faced off against Spider-Man herself. Between the two of them Screwball is far more qualified than MJ in recreating Spider-Man’s movements and physical prowess. Her on set job also isn’t something necessary to film a scene. If she were in charge of lighting or the cameraperson then that’d be one thing. But she could almost do her job between takes or hand over her responsibilities to someone else temporarily.

MJ’s justification that she is the most authentic connection to Spider-Man is a moot point. Yeah, she has more of a connection to Spider-Man than anyone on set…and? Charlie had 0 connection to the real Spider-Man, and yet he was cast in the role and ideally would be finishing the movie. What on Earth does MJ’s personal connection to Spider-Man have to do with anything?

It can’t be some nonsense about her being able to act well in the scene. Again, realistically she’d be dubbed over and/or her voice would be distorted affecting any vocal performance she’d give. Not to mention her job wouldn’t be to draw upon her personal knowledge of Peter. It’d be to do what Beck would want of her, to bring his  vision of Spider-Man to life. At the same time her job would be to synch up as best as she could with Charlie’s performance in all the other scenes. She isn’t creating her take on Spider-Man from the ground up, therefore her ‘authentic connection’ is meaningless.

Also isn’t MJ smart to be hinting to the incredibly clever trickster that she’s got a personal connection to Spider-Man. It’s not like he could research her, learn she’s has (and has had in the past) long-term relationships with Peter Parker.

You know, that guy who famously took Spider-Man’s pictures for the longest time and created Spider-Man’s tech and had Spider-Man as his bodyguard when he ran Parker Industries. If you accept the (BS) post-OMD explanation that everything happened the same way but Pete and MJ just weren’t married then that means Beck could learnt his stuff with Google. This is evidenced by Marvel Knights: Spider-Man #1, wherein literal school children were able to look up Peter and learn about his relationship with Mary Jane.

Mary Jane realistically should already be wary of Beck handpicking her for the movie anyway. She should already suspect that that had something to do with her connection to Spidey. Not only did Williams ignore that, but now she’s just having MJ outright wink to Beck that she has a connection to Spider-Man. That’s not endangering herself, her family, her friends or Spidey’s identity now is it?

Let’s talk about Mysterio. So his dream was to make this biopic about himself. He’s got only a little time to make it before he is literally dragged back to Hell. He envisions it as his magnum opus. A chance to be forgiven by the masses and to make amends to his old flame Betsy. And he’s you know…super egotistical and selfish. His history reveals that to us. His original origin entails him wanting to steal Spider-Man’s limelight by framing him. A revised origin entails him feeling pushed aside in spite of his talent.

So is he really  going to compromise this much? Is he really going to so drastically revise the role of the one woman he arguably ever loved to this extent?

The answer is Hell no.

Remember when Beck assaulted someone in the first issue because they insulted his ego?

Remember when he delivered a grand speech about the meaning of art in issue #2?

Is he really  going to allow something so important to him be distorted this much? Is he really going to just meekly accept questioning if it’s even his vision anymore?

Again, Hell no, that’s not in character.

And MJ’s rationale is totally nonsensical from Beck’s POV. The whole point of MJ’s character was wrapped up in Beck’s affections for the real life woman she was playing. But now her role is totally unrecognizable from how he began. That’s not a pivot, it’s a wholesale change. Or at least, that’s how Beck would view it.

In the best-case scenario, we could interpret his attitude as evidence of insincerity. As in, he wasn’t actually all that hung up on ‘exalting’ Betsy. At which point MJ should be on her toes and concerned about how genuine he’s been about anything else. Then again she should’ve been at least wary long before now.

As for the other story thread in these pages, we’ll get to that in a little while.

On the next age, Diperna is confused as to who Screwball is. The paparazzi are following his car in several cars. That’s when Screwball’s drones show up and dazzle them with some flashing lights of their own.

Sonny’s confusion over Screwball is itself confusing because he was literally in the same scene as her in the last issue.

Additionally, it’s incredibly  dangerous to blind any drivers with flashing lights under any circumstances. Shit, when I was learning to drive it was drilled into me how dangerous it would be to be dazzled by another car and how to avoid accidentally dazzling them myself. Here Screwball is deliberately  dazzling three cars. Some of them have open tops and people practically hanging out of them unbuckled.

And on top of that they are clearly moving at speed, around a bend on some kind of upward slope. Accidentally dazzling them with regular car headlights would be a recipe for disaster. Here though, Screwball is using at least six drones to deliberately dazzle them. You can tell from the art and sound effects that one of the cars had to make an abrupt stop. We don’t know if the riders incurred any injuries from that alone but it would’ve been all too easy. Frankly it was really lucky no one was seriously hurt.

I guess you could justify this in a case of self-defence, but the paparazzi were not endangering Sonny’s life. Not unless you argue their cameras were themselves dazzling his driver. But it’s not clear that that was happening and even if it was, that’s not a justification for what Screwball did. Not to mention he could have ended any jeopardy the paparazzi posed by simply stopping the car, getting out and answering their questions. Sure he’d be late, but it’s a lot safer than the alternative. Besides he was already late and it’s publicity for the film.

I’m not suggesting this was out of character for Screwball. But I am saying MJ has just seen a criminal do something extremely  dangerous for no justifiable reason. Bu rights her judgement should no longer be reserved about Screwball as it was last issue. Not that it ever should have been. She should be telling Beck to get rid of her or at least try to keep her under control somehow.

Somehow I doubt that will happen.

By the way, the paparazzi are yelling at Diperna during the car chase…why? Neither he nor they could possibly hear one another in that situation.

I am going to leave it there for now as the next few pages are so bad I’ve decided to dedicate a whole post just to them before continuing onto the rest of the issue.

Previous Part

Next Part

Master Post

#Leah Williams #amazing mary jane #mjwatsonedit #Mysterio #mary jane watson #Mary Jane Watson Parker #MJ Watson #Spider-Man #Vulture #the vulture #Quentin Beck #Adrian Toomes #Savage Six #The Savage Six #S.H.I.E.L.D. #Peter Parker #Carlos Gomez

[arcticdementor]

It’s been mind-boggling to watch White Fragility celebrated in recent weeks. When it surged past a Hunger Games book on bestseller lists, USA Today cheered, “American readers are more interested in combatting racism than in literary escapism.” When DiAngelo appeared on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon gushed, “I know… everyone wants to talk to you right now!” White Fragility has been pitched as an uncontroversial road-map for fighting racism, at a time when after the murder of George Floyd Americans are suddenly (and appropriately) interested in doing just that. Except this isn’t a straightforward book about examining one’s own prejudices. Have the people hyping this impressively crazy book actually read it?

DiAngelo isn’t the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category.

If your category is “white,” bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy (“Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities… Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness”), which naturally means “a positive white identity is an impossible goal.”

DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except “strive to be less white.” To deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo’s lecturing – what she describes as “leaving the stress-inducing situation” – is to affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the “ordeal by water” (if you float, you’re a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.

DiAngelo’s writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of this type is built around the same principles as Orwell’s Newspeak: it banishes ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform, center and silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices. Ironically, Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like “AMAZING!” and “SAD!” that are simultaneously more childish and livelier.

…

It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example that illustrates the mathematical opposite of one’s intended point, but this isn’t uncommon in White Fragility, which may be the dumbest book ever written. It makes The Art of the Deal read like Anna Karenina.

Yet these ideas are taking America by storm. The movement that calls itself “antiracism” – I think it deserves that name a lot less than “pro-lifers” deserve theirs and am amazed journalists parrot it without question – is complete in its pessimism about race relations. It sees the human being as locked into one of three categories: members of oppressed groups, allies, and white oppressors.

…

This dingbat racialist cult, which has no art, music, literature, and certainly no comedy, is the vision of “progress” institutional America has chosen to endorse in the Trump era. Why? Maybe because it fits. It won’t hurt the business model of the news media, which for decades now has been monetizing division and has known how to profit from moral panics and witch hunts since before Fleet street discovered the Mod/Rocker wars.

Democratic Party leaders, pioneers of the costless gesture, have already embraced this performative race politics as a useful tool for disciplining apostates like Bernie Sanders. Bernie took off in presidential politics as a hard-charging crusader against a Wall Street-fattened political establishment, and exited four years later a self-flagellating, defeated old white man who seemed to regret not apologizing more for his third house. Clad in kente cloth scarves, the Democrats who crushed him will burn up CSPAN with homilies on privilege even as they reassure donors they’ll stay away from Medicare for All or the carried interest tax break.

…

Corporate America doubtless views the current protest movement as something that can be addressed as an H.R. matter, among other things by hiring thousands of DiAngelos to institute codes for the proper mode of Black-white workplace interaction.

If you’re wondering what that might look like, here’s DiAngelo explaining how she handled the fallout from making a bad joke while she was “facilitating antiracism training” at the office of one of her clients.

When one employee responds negatively to the training, DiAngelo quips the person must have been put off by one of her Black female team members: “The white people,” she says, “were scared by Deborah’s hair.” (White priests of antiracism like DiAngelo seem universally to be more awkward and clueless around minorities than your average Trump-supporting construction worker).

…

The downside, which we’re already seeing, is that organizations everywhere will embrace powerful new tools for solving professional disputes, through a never-ending purge. One of the central tenets of DiAngelo’s book (and others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and can only be managed through constant, “lifelong” vigilance, much like the battle with addiction. A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency experts — in the fight against this disease, companies will need the help forever and ever.

Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was denounced for expressing the opinion that “anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was forced out of the Writer’s Union of Canada for the crime of “cultural appropriation,” and denounced as a racist by many, including a poet named Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki “doesn’t see the humanity of indigenous peoples.” Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter for failing to provide proof that she was Indigenous.

…

People everywhere today are being encouraged to snitch out schoolmates, parents, and colleagues for thoughtcrime. The New York Times wrote a salutary piece about high schoolers scanning social media accounts of peers for evidence of “anti-black racism” to make public, because what can go wrong with encouraging teenagers to start submarining each other’s careers before they’ve even finished growing?  

“People who go to college end up becoming racist lawyers and doctors. I don’t want people like that to keep getting jobs,” one 16 year-old said. “Someone rly started a Google doc of racists and their info for us to ruin their lives… I love twitter,” wrote a different person, adding cheery emojis.

A bizarre echo of North Korea’s “three generations of punishment” doctrine could be seen in the boycotts of Holy Land grocery, a well-known hummus maker in Minneapolis. In recent weeks it’s been abandoned by clients and seen its lease pulled because of racist tweets made by the CEO’s 14 year-old daughter eight years ago.

#matt taibbi #read the whole thing

[holytheoristtastemaker]

Developer Relations has an image problem. The job itself is an ambiguous catch-all for activities ranging from coding to public speaking, and everything in between. People spend an exorbitant amount of time arguing about defining DevRel: what title should they have, how to measure it, who has the better program and/or team, and on and on and on. Amongst all this discussion, we have individuals who come on to these teams from a variety of backgrounds for a single purpose: to make developers' lives easier. One of the ways to do this is by speaking at conferences. It's not the only way, but it is one. Somehow over the years it appears we have over-indexed on this singular facet and forgotten about the other aspects of Developer Relations. At its core, Developer Relations should be exactly what it sounds like: relating to developers. And how do you do that? You go where developers go. You engage with developers on their level of expertise and with the tools that you both use as developers. Tools found mostly on the... Internet. The truth is, not all developers go to conferences. In fact, many of them don't have the means, or time to attend. Some of them will watch a video after the fact, but most are likely to be found deep in Stack Overflow. When they are not researching how to solve their bug, they are digging through blog posts to an eloquent solution for the problem they are currently facing, or watching a hands-on-tutorial for some new technology or a novel way of doing something. So with this pandemic, I have great news! Developers are still using that trusty tool called the internet. Old School I've long idolized some of the early Developer Relations teams and what they represented. You couldn't tell the difference between a developer and a developer relations person because they were doing very similar things: coding, working on content and occasionally going to conferences. I loved that they were so authentic and able to reach developers where they were, naturally. These teams were doing everything from maintaining docs, sdks, tutorials, running and participating in hackathons, to answering questions on Stack Overflow. They were good at their job because of their authenticity, willingness to help and ability to jump from one project to another. There weren't many companies that had developer relations, but the ones that did had some pretty solid teams. New School We are now in a different era where many, many different companies have developer relations — —for better or for worse. We have also grown the number of conferences and hackathons significantly. From that, we've brought on a whole onslaught of developer relations professionals with a broader skillset that have helped us grow and evolve into pioneering new ideas and different areas of reach. The easiest way for these teams to feel they had value in their reach was to go give a talk, whether that was locally or getting on a plane. And because of reach, the bigger the talk, the better. And to increase reach, the more talks you could give, the better. "Bigger, better, more" became the name of the conference game. The more conferences there were popping up, the more plane tickets, talks and people they had to hire, and well, you get the idea. An illusion was created: to be effective in DevRel, you had to be on a plane. Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten our core purpose: meet developers where they are all the time — — online, not just where they go once a year, at a conference. The travel problem There is a ubiquitous cost of conferences that no one talks about — — and it's not just limited to fiscal revenue; it carries personal, social and environmental impact. Don Goodman Wilson referenced this concept about two years ago in his discussion regarding our utilitarian view of flying and our decisions to travel. Review more here. There is a toll to travel, not only to our environment and our company’s bottom line but also to us individually. They are called road warriors for a reason: it is a trek. Quite often this is what we see online, where Developer Relations people talk about #devrellife, in which people are living out of their suitcases, not getting enough sleep, eating poorly and taking selfies on the plane. This all takes a toll — — not only on our bodies but on our personal and social well-being, which is not sustainable. I like to use food as an analogy. Travel is like dessert: It’s fun, it’s exciting and I love to have it in my life. However, I don’t need it in my life and I certainly don’t need it all the time, because that’s not sustainable. We need fruits, vegetables, and proteins, which help balance things out so we can have dessert and then enjoy it more when it does come around! While travel is a great add-on for our impact as Developer Relations, it's not the core activity that brings value to the position. Of course, this looks different for everyone: for me personally, I know I can bring value through coding or writing a blog post at home, going to my local gym and sleeping in my own bed — — these are all of the things that I need for a sustainable lifestyle. Then when I get to the opportunity to go to a conference, I amplify the impact of these activities. Here I am free to enjoy the satisfaction of my dessert, sans cavities. Ultimately, we don’t need to travel to do our jobs well, and quite frankly we never have. Many developer relations programs specifically focus on not getting on a plane. James Governor mentions Stripe’s policy of fly less, write more in one of his talks and how excellent they are at their developer experience because of it. Here are the questions you need to ask yourself: Is the ROI of attending a conference as high as a strong following on your written content? What about bringing a trusted resource on Stack Overflow. More generally how trusted are you as a community member? The ugly truth is: the grind of travel is hard. And it may not have the highest ROI. The Pandemic So here we are in the midst of our COVID-19 crisis and there are a lot of conversations happening around how to “recreate” conferences and the Developer Relations job. We have pushed things to the summer, fall and then straight canceled many others. But the truth of the matter is we don’t know when this will be over. We don’t know the peak and the full effect it will have. Who knows when conferences will come back, and if they will even come back the same way. There is a real chance that this is the last thing to return to normalcy, whatever that may look like. But at the core of everything, canceled conferences do not end Developer Relations —— they create an opportunity for growth. This pandemic is giving everyone the chance to reset back to the basics. It’s not about conferences, and it never has been. The skills that we came into developer relations with in the first place is what I like to call flexing our “Dev Rel muscle”. We can reach developers through our code contributions, our content creation, and our online community. With all of this, we can still do our jobs and do them well. Because developers, just like everyone else, are still online. I would encourage us all to take a good hard look at our activities for the rest of the year and in general, think about the impact we are having as individuals on our developer community and for our company. We have plenty of things in our toolkit to boost our outreach during this pandemic and it's not just online conferences. As Developer Relations, we know how to code, we know how to write, we know how to be on a microphone. There is so much we can do with that trifecta alone from the comforts of our own home that can make such an impact! We don't need a fancy set up that costs hundreds or thousands to create. We just need a problem to solve and a good story to tell around it.

http://damianfallon.blogspot.com/2020/04/back-to-basics-how-to-devrel-without.html

#SEO #Local SEO training

[thisguyatthemovies]

It’s no joke

Title: “Joker”

Release date: Oct. 3, 2019

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Bill Camp, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Glenn Fleshler, Douglas Hodge, Marc Maron, Josh Paris, Shea Whigham, Bryan Callen, Sharon Washington, Leigh Gill

Directed by: Todd Phillips

Run time: 2 hours, 2 minutes

Rated: R

What it’s about: In this origin story of “Batman” supervillain The Joker, Arthur Fleck, a middle-aged Gotham City resident with a plethora of mental health issues, becomes increasingly unstable and violent while unwittingly become a symbol for anarchists.  

How I saw it: So many adjectives, so many questions.

Let’s start with the descriptors. “Joker” is bleak, unsettling, troubling, violent, depressing, edgy, gritty, enigmatic and entertaining, though in an uncomfortable way. Todd Phillips’ origin story of Batman’s most notable villain is, in short, not exactly a super happy fun time. It also is a bit of a mess of troubling images and mixed messages, which means you’ll likely be regurgitating it in your brain for days to come. It begs many questions, not the least of which is, “Is this a movie I should like?”

The much hyped and criticized “Joker” is the story of Arthur Fleck, played by Joaquin Phoenix, who somehow has raised his game to another level. Fleck is a middle-aged man who lives with his ailing mother in early 1980s Gotham City (New York). Fleck works for a clown service and aspires to be a stand-up comedian. He also has serious mental health issues, including a condition that makes him uncontrollably laugh out loud.

The setting is important here. It is modeled after – in scenery, lighting, color – the New York in two Martin Scorsese films “Joker” has been most frequently compared to, “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy.” Both star Robert De Niro, who has a key role here as TV talk show host Murray Franklin. Gotham City is enduring a garbage collectors’ strike and being overrun by rats. Millionaire Thomas Wayne, who we all know as the father of Bruce Wayne/Batman, is running for mayor. The city is struggling financially, and Fleck’s therapy and medications are the victims of budget cuts.

It’s all downhill from here for Fleck, who was starting in a pretty low place anyway. He is beaten in streets while working and eventually loses his job for having a handgun while performing for kids. While riding a subway dressed as a clown, he laughs uncontrollably as three young businessmen harass a young woman. They confront him, and Fleck shoots them to death. The crime makes headlines (media reports are prevalent throughout the film), but Fleck is not captured. And though it was not his intention, the crime makes him an anti-hero among Gotham City’s working class, who participate in protests while dressed as clowns. Fleck’s mental state continues to deteriorate, and he becomes more and more violent as he endures one setback after another. Eventually he embraces his status as a symbol for the angry and oppressed, and The Joker is born.

Phoenix’s performance is remarkable even by his standards. He is almost unrecognizably emaciated here, all arms and legs as he runs through the streets and occasionally performs odd dance moves. The weight loss shows most in his face, which just sort of hangs there waiting to be contorted depending on Fleck’s mood, and when he is shirtless, he doesn’t have enough meat on him to cover his ribs. Phoenix is wonderfully uneasy to watch. He is playing a man who knows he has issues and is looking for something, anything to turn out right but seems to resign himself to remaining in a downward spiral. Phoenix is flat out scary, especially during tight shots, even when he isn’t being a psychopathic killer. He is clearly the best thing about “Joker,” and the rest of the cast, except De Niro, largely gets left behind through no fault of their own.

“Joker” has its share of memorable scenes, the best of which is its most violent and darkly funny. Two of his former co-workers stop by his apartment after the death of Fleck’s mother, and Fleck has a bone to pick with one of them, a fellow clown who convinced him he needed a gun. After much blood is shed, his other former co-worker, Gary (Leigh Gill), who oversees the clowns and is a man with dwarfism, apologetically tries to leave the apartment but needs Fleck’s help to do so. Perhaps disturbingly, this provides the most laugh-out-loud moment of a film that contains few funny moments.

While Phoenix lives up to the pre-release hype, it’s not clear if the rest of the film does. Except Gary and a neighbor of Fleck, no one – not random people on the bus, not Fleck’s mother, not even his state-assigned therapist – is a nice person. “Joker” lacks the moral compass of, say, Frances McDormand’s Marge Gunderson in “Fargo.” Its most pleasant scenes, as it turns out, are strictly a figment of Fleck’s psychosis. When Fleck appears on Franklin’s talk show, confesses to the shootings and then makes a speech about how he was driven to violence because everyone in the world is terrible, Franklin reminds him that not all people are bad. But those words are hollow coming from Franklin, who invited Fleck to his show just to mock him.

Part of the confusion, at least after one viewing (this seems like the kind of film that might get better with multiple viewings), is what “Joker” is supposed to be. It presents a familiar comic book character, and though a mostly original story meant to be a standalone, it links itself to the Batman universe, including in a delicious twist that seems to resolve itself but leaves enough ambiguity to produce some doubt. Viewed strictly as a comic book origin story, it is great.

But Phillips has stated that the intent was for “Joker” to be a serious movie, one with Oscar aspirations (and one that was screened at many of the big festivals), and the gritty, realistic setting (no capes, magic sledgehammers or CGI cityscapes here), ties to real-life events and Phoenix’s performance help him accomplish that. However, Phillips has been outspoken about the backlash against the film, most notably those who see it as glamorizing violence (including gun violence) and having the potential to inspire copycats among “incels” in the real world. Movies aren’t released in a vacuum, and “Joker” was hitting the festival circuit about the time of several mass shootings. Much of the criticism against “Joker” is politically motivated in nature, but Phillips’ film, because of its tone and subject matter, can be interpreted as highly political. Thomas Wayne is a wealthy, powerful and crass man not unlike a certain president, but when he calls Gotham City’s ordinary people “clowns” and then talks about how they need him to help them, it sounds a lot like Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” episode. “Joker” doesn’t exactly glorify Fleck’s rise to public anarchist, but it does not condemn it, either. If “Joker” is being criticized on political grounds, the fact that it is tied to a comic book character is not a viable defense against that criticism. Serious criticism goes with the territory of a film that aims to be taken seriously.

About those questions. Among them: What was the point here? Comic book origin story or statement about an uncaring real-life society? That everyone is terrible, and that could drive someone to insanity and violence? That a more caring (and better funded) government could prevent people with mental health issues from someday trying to overthrow that same government? That the human psyche can withstand only so many setbacks before a beast is unleashed? That it is OK to fight back against the right people? That a terrible world creates terrible people? Or is the world terrible because people are terrible? That our society and the media are fascinated by deranged killers? That everyone is perverse at the core, and that perversion is why we like watching someone go way off the rails?

��Joker” is an enigmatic, chaotic, twisted movie. Perhaps that is the entire point.

My score: 80 out of 100

Should you see it? Yes, if you like being made to feel uncomfortable in a theater but see a great actor at the top of his game.

#movies #movie review #movie recommendation #Joker #dc characters #dc universe #joaquin phoenix #batman

[theladyactress]

Anna Cora Mowatt and the Rumor Mill

It is more usual to think of historians as searching for verifiable facts about historical figures and events. Because this research project is focused on scandal and reputation, I am in the unusual position of being engaged in a search for verifiable rumors and documented innuendo.

I have seen traces many Ogden, Ritchie, and Mowatt descendants in my travels on the internet.  If you make a stop here, be assured that I am not casting aspersions on your illustrious ancestor.  Anna Cora was ruined financially and devastated emotionally by Walter Watts’ crime. Her effort to rebound from this scandal – further complicated by the timing of James Mowatt’s death -- was nothing short of astounding.  I am merely plumbing the depths of the pit into which she suddenly found herself plunged without friend or comfort.

To anyone joining us for the first time, here’s a brief rundown of the Watts scandal:   After Mowatt’s very successful Broadway debut in 1847 as first a playwright then as an actress, she was encouraged by friends, critics, and colleagues to try her luck on the London stage as many American performers had before her to varying degrees of success. Arriving there, she immediately drew the attention of Walter Watts, the manager of the Olympic and Marylebone theaters.  Despite the fact that she was a mere novice, he signed her to a lucrative long-term contract (Even stars players were usually hired only for one show at a time). Watts publicly presented her with expensive gifts and had a deluxe dressing room outfitted for her where he hosted champagne dinners attended by London’s literary and social elite. This jealousy-inspiring treatment came to an abrupt and shocking end in March of 1850 when Watts was arrested for fraud. Watts’ arrest brought to light the fact that he was a clerk for the Globe Insurance Company who had been financing a millionaire lifestyle for over a decade by systematically embezzling from his company. Four months later, Watts hung himself in Newgate prison.

(If you’d like to read more about the scandal and Mowatt’s entanglement in it, this webpage goes into more depth: Touch of Scandal)

The double difficulty in my research into this scandal is that I’m trying to sort out not only what really happened, but what people thought happened. Because of her personal rhetorical approach and the general standards of the times, Mowatt did not directly address the rumors connecting her to Watts. After a certain point in her autobiography, she even ceases to refer to him by name. Her biographers use phrases like, “everyone in London thought” when talking about the scandal, but it now seems like few of those people documented their beliefs. Therefore more than a century later, I am trying to pick up the echoes of a very damaging whisper campaign.

A tidbit I discovered in one of my recent research “finds” is a perfect illustration of the sort of damaging innuendo that may have been being spread tying Mowatt to Watts at the time of his arrest in a manner that did harm to her reputation in England.

The article, entitled “The Forgeries of Walter Watts” appears at the bottom of page 3 in a New Zealand newspaper on November 5, 1892. Walter Watts and James Mowatt had been dead for forty-two years when the article was published. Anna Cora herself had passed away twenty-two years before. Still, this “true crime” story from half the globe away was deemed by the publishers of the paper entertaining enough to devote two columns to -- wedged in between a chapter from a Robert Lewis Stevenson story and a testimonial for the Society for the Cruelty to Animals.  This account followed along the general lines of the narrative that I first saw recorded by David Morier Evans in Facts, Failures, and Frauds: Revelations, Financial, Mercantile, Criminal in 1859.  The narrative mentions all of what I have come to consider the “major” rumors tying Mowatt to Watts; such as the silver urn, the dressing room, the locket, and the silk scarf.  We will devote much time in future blogs dissecting each of these elements at length as they appear in this and other accounts.  However among the colorful details this story adds that I have not seen in other accounts, I want to focus here on the following:  “(Watts) sent the lady’s husband on a voyage to Trinidad…”

Nothing in my research indicates that Watts funded James Mowatt’s trip to Trinidad or that it was the manager’s idea in any way. According to Mowatt’s autobiography, her husband set sail for the West Indies in October of 1849 on the advice of more than one doctor after a re-occurrence of an unnamed neurological disorder or perhaps a growing tumor that rendered him blind in one eye and would kill him before the end of 1850. She says that the doctors thought the warmer climate and the long sea voyage would be good for him.

I have to enter into the record here that this is the point in Mowatt’s autobiography where she has stopped referring to Watts by name. She wrote her account of the decision for James Mowatt to set sail for the West Indies using a lot of passive voice and vague constructions like “doctors were consulted” and “it was decided.”  In the spring and summer of 1849, Watts was presumably still the Mowatts’ friend and great benefactor.  She was giving speeches in public talking about how wonderful Watts was and writing glowing dedications to him in the published versions of her plays.  Watts was Anna Cora’s employer and had access to much more money than the Mowatts did. If he generously offered help fund a medically-ordered trip to Trinidad for the critically ill James and insisted that Anna Cora stay in London to fulfill her contractual obligations, then how could they refuse?

Also, to look at the scenario from the other side, if I was Walter Watts – embezzler and con man, leading a double life, -- who had convinced James Mowatt,  -- ailing, middle-aged, controlling, ex-lawyer husband of my little American princess star actress -- to invest his wife’s life savings in the Olympic theater that I probably had burned down in the spring so I could rebuild with money I was stealing four and five hundred dollars at a time from the insurance company I was secretly working for... You know, I think I could think of a thousand good reasons why I might want him in Trinidad soaking in the sun and slowly dying instead of at a hospital in Germany or Switzerland that specialized in neurological disorders or cancer treatments while I had champagne dinners with his young beautiful wife in her fancy dressing room in London.

Thus you can see that the “(Watts) sent the lady’s husband on a voyage to Trinidad…” statement starts with the firmest foundation of a good rumor.  It is plausible. All the characters are behaving in the manner that we imagine that they might—even when we imagine them to be behaving very, very badly.  

[In a future blog, I plan to discuss the the aspect of rumor in which the spread of scandal is aided by prior negative perceptions of certain classes of individuals and how being an American actress in London fueled the harm caused to Mowatt by the Watts incident. However, we’ll leave that for now.]

In addition to being plausible, another aspect giving additional power to the Trinidad rumor is the truth of this information is knowable. Unfortunately, I’m not saying that I think that I will ever know the truth of the matter, but it is plausible that there were individuals at that time who knew the truth of about whether or not Walter Watts paid to send James Mowatt to Trinidad. When James left, Anna Cora moved in with her acting partner, E.L. Davenport and his pregnant wife, Fanny. They probably knew.  Their children could have known. Members of the theatrical company may have known. Friends of Watts could have known.  This anonymous account is written from the perspective of a young man of who Watts befriended.

Thus the “Trinidad” tidbit is succinctly is capable of confirming a willing listener’s most negative suspicions about Watts’ predatory behavior in the Mowatt marriage and Anna Cora’s either passive or active participation in that interference – depending on how negative one’s pre-existing view of her is. Although anonymous and even only ambiguously non- fictional, the narrator gives himself just barely enough credibility to serve as a plausible source for this information.

And so, my friends, forty-two years after the principals are dead, a strong rumor takes a deep, nourishing breath of fresh air.

The presentation chosen for this account leaves me with several questions that I’d like to share with you, dear readers. How seriously am I meant to take this “Page 3” story? It shares many characteristics with Sydney Horler’s “true crime” version of Watts’ story in his 1931 book Black Souls (A million thanks to Christi Saindon for helping me track down this hard to find volume!). Unlike Horler, though, the anonymous narrator claims to have first-hand insight to Watts’ actions and does not identify their version of the manager’s thoughts or words as fictionalizations.  Do any of you know anything about New Zealand newspaper publishing conventions circa 1890?  Was this section of the paper reserved for light entertainment? Reprints from English papers? Excerpts from books or magazines?

Also, my knowledge of Victorian medical science is thin. Do any of you have more expertise? How valid was the West Indies as a destination for the dying James Mowatt in 1849? I know that neurology was in its infancy and that “the rest cure” was being proscribed for a wide range of psychological and physical disorders of the brain that would be treated with medicine or surgery only twenty or thirty years later, but wouldn’t there be better places in England or Europe to treat someone with something that was exerting so much pressure it was making them lose sight in one eye?

I look forward to your input! Next week – more scandal!

#theater history #victoriantheater #victorian times #annacoramowatt

[meredithritchie]

Mask of Anonymity: Anonymous Asks as a Teen Outlet

[The following is an article I wrote for a campus submission. I retained the rights to publish it here, as well. It regards my experiences as a fandom blogger.]

“Hi, I’ve been suffering with what is probably depression for years without any help and recently it’s been getting worse,” begins the anonymous message that drops into my inbox one night. It’s a teenager asking me how to keep themself stable until they can get a diagnosis from a pediatrician. I tell them I’m proud of them. I tell them I’m not an expert. I tell them to be kind to themself. I tell them they’re loved.

Since founding my Tumblr blog in April of 2017, these messages have become almost routine. In just a few months of actively posting my fanedits and fanfiction online, I amassed almost five thousand followers.  In this particular fandom, where the most popular bloggers have ten thousand followers, that’s a dramatic amount. Via the blog’s anonymous ask feature (colloquially called “anons”), anyone in the world can drop a question into my inbox without revealing their username, even if they aren’t one of those five thousand. Many if not most of these followers are minors, and some of them are not even of the minimum age to use the site: thirteen. My sister is twelve and loves watching fandom videos on YouTube, and in one year, she will be old enough to make an account with access to my blog and the blogs of all five thousand of my followers. I wonder if she’ll be one of the faceless messages I get in my ask box.

“Could I ask for some advice? It's about gynaecologists and vaginal health while being trans.”

“What I’m wondering is, how did you go about narrowing down lists of colleges to go to?”

“I basically cant[sic] think anymore and it's really hard to do school work because of this. Do you have any advice?”

“How does one stop obsessing over someone, when that person will never be theirs?”

“Hey I really need some help like older sister stuff help”

“I had a breakdown at school today. At least I think that’s what happened because I don’t remember it clearly.”

Some of it is generalized, and some of it is specific, but it all comes from a recognizable place of teen struggle and fear. Sometimes these messages linger in my inbox, as I try to struggle for just the right words. Other times I feel urgency, and dash off a response as quickly as possible. I re-read the post later and wonder if I said the right things, if I said what I meant. I’m not the only one.

Other fandom blogs, some even larger than I am, have turned off anons or closed their ask box entirely because of an influx of personal rants, requests for help, and even suicide notes. While Tumblr’s anon feature is meant to be a place for shy and intimidated users to express themselves in a way that isn’t possible via conventional social media like Facebook and Twitter,  the double anonymity of a hidden screenname offers confidence to say things that are otherwise difficult or even unsayable. When it comes to personal questions and statements, many young people lack a safe location to speak them, and the ask box offers a unique relief. Many teens don’t want to speak to their parents, teachers, or guardians about their sex life, their mental health, or their personal problems. Even Googling answers sparks fear that a teacher will confiscate their phone, or a parent will borrow their laptop, and evidence will be left in view. With a generalized segregation of America by age, most teens also don’t have other adults which they can speak to on a friendly basis, let alone speak to face to face for advice on difficult issues. Often the only adults that young people interact with face-to-face are authority figures like older relatives, teachers, and coaches. In the absence of face-to-face interactions, teens instead turn to the leaders of their fandoms, who often foster online personas  as Fandom Rens, Moms, Uncles, and Sisters. Plenty of older fandom members cultivate this image, though “older” is relative and in a small community these members may be only eighteen or nineteen years old, though they are generally in their twenties and thirties. While many fandoms have a primary userbase of tweens and teens, these senior members often run the most popular blogs and produce the highest quality fanart, fanfiction, and other fan content. During fandom “discourse,” these older members often lead the way and resolve conflict.

“Discourse” in fandom is not like discourse in the academic sense. While academic discourse encompasses many elements of rhetoric and debate, fandom “discourse” is essentially a euphemism for argument, frequently with an ethical element or discussion of “problematic” behavior. This discourse can involve either relationships between real human beings like celebrities and fandom members or the content of any fictional work contained in the fandom canon. The wide umbrella of “discourse” covers everything from discussion of whether a fandom celebrity’s recent comment was racist all the way to whether fanwriting two characters romantically is incestual when both characters are figments of a third character’s imagination. In essence, discourse gets hairy, complicated, and even philosophical. Like real political and social issues and like fandom itself, discourse gives some young people a sense of belonging and also the feeling that they are on the side of right and reason. An individual’s choice to participate in discourse becomes part of their identity.

In this way, fandom becomes what Mary Louise Pratt refers to as a contact zone, “where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other.” Through fanfiction “AUs” (alternate universes) fans of color write white characters as PoC, queer fans write cisgender/heterosexual characters as LGBT+, and neuroatypical fans write neurotypical characters as autistic, depressed, anxious, or otherwise neuroatypical. While alternate universe only emerged as a genre with the rise of the internet, these stories reflect a longer history of the insertion of the subordinate into dominant texts. Pratt refers to a text called The First Chronicle and Good Government, in which a man native to South America uses the language of his colonizers, the Spanish, to talk about the experience of the indigenous people, “in which the subordinated subject single-handedly gives himself authority in the colonizer’s language and verbal repertoire.” Through this text, Pratt touches on what she calls transculturation, a product of the contact zone, in which “members of subordinated or marginal groups select and invent from materials transmitted by a dominant or metropolitan culture.” In the modern world, the dominant culture produces Steve Rogers, a cisgender man, and fandom reinvents him as a transgender man. The dominant culture creates Hermione Granger and Harry Potter, two white children, and fandom reinvents them as black and Indian. The dominant culture offers Legolas and Gimli, both ambiguously straight, and fandom reinvents them as a gay couple. For young marginalized people encountering this kind of contact zone for the first time, fandom becomes a community that is irreplaceable and unique, where they have the ability to express themselves and see themselves in characters.

Between the aspects of community in fandom itself and the discourse which offers a cause and creates both positive and negative relationships, it is hardly surprising that young people turn to fandom elders when they encounter a problem. After watching older fandom members participate in, manage, or even quell discourse, younger fandom members begin to look up to them as people who have all the answers, as leaders of this unique community. The availability of anonymity makes the opportunity even more enticing. A kind older fandom member becomes everyone’s shoulder to cry on, everyone’s outlet, and everyone’s therapist. While this may serve as a resource for plenty of teens, there is always an associated toll taken on the mental wellbeing of the members who serve them. Fandom creators want to help their followers, but may be struggling with their own past or present depression, anxiety, PTSD, eating disorders, body image issues, and attacks on their identity.

Self-proclaimed “Fandom Grandpa” @randomslasher (known in the community as LJ) runs the largest art and writing blog in my fandom and has struggled with a history of anon rants and anon requests both to themself and to their partner Thuri, who also runs a popular blog. As long ago as 2013, LJ posted, “I don’t think I will ever understand people who hide behind a mask of anonymity for the sole purpose of making someone else feel bad. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should [emphasis original].” LJ has made additional posts before and since requesting that people abstain from ranting into their inbox, but the issue continues for LJ and other major bloggers who gain new followers every single day. Many of these anonymous messages are never published, as evidenced by posts like this one, which appeared on LJ’s blog in 2018: “Anon i’m sorry to hear that, but that wasn’t a safe ask to send someone without a trigger warning, and i won’t publish it. Try to get help if you can.” The message of the post alone is ominous, and one can only guess at the content of the ask.

The teenage years are known to be a time of struggle, both personal and social. This is significant now more than ever as depression and anxiety rates among teens rise, and many teens experience suicidal ideation, unhealthy relationships with their own bodies, and struggles with their gender and sexuality in addition to the classic problems of teenhood which should be no more serious than asking someone to homecoming, getting a driver’s license, or taking a chemistry exam. However, as student struggles become more severe, especially among marginalized groups, resources to cope with this period is not moving apace, and young people use fandom as a resource to get answers and to express themselves. Older fandom members are suddenly bearing the weight of hundreds of teen struggles, and most of them have no formal training or resources to cope with them.

#writing

[lazykoalacollectionblog]

Types of definitions in logic | Logical Reasoning Study Notes UGC NET

New Post has been published on https://ugcnetpaper1.com/types-of-definitions-in-logic/

Types of definitions in logic | Logical Reasoning Study Notes UGC NET

A question from this topic features in the exam paper every time. A definition or a concept is given and candidate has to choose the definition name to which it belongs. This  topic is sub topic of Locical Reasoning Syllabus and most of the time it has been skipped by Students ! 

Topics Based on UGC NET Syllabus of Logical Reasoning

Understanding the structure of arguments: argument forms, the structure of categorical propositions, Mood and Figure, Formal and Informal fallacies, Uses of language, Connotations and denotations of terms, Classical square of opposition.

Evaluating and distinguishing deductive and inductive reasoning.

Analogies.

Venn diagram: Simple and multiple uses for establishing the validity of arguments.

Indian Logic: Means of knowledge.

Pramanas: Pratyaksha (Perception), Anumana (Inference), Upamana(Comparison), Shabda (Verbal testimony), Arthapatti (Implication) and Anupalabddhi (Non-apprehension).

Structure and kinds of Anumana (inference), Vyapti (invariable relation), Hetvabhasas (fallacies of inference).

Types of definitions 

What is a definition?

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term.

When writers are trying to explain an unfamiliar idea, they rely on definitions.

All definitions attempt to explain or clarify a term.

In mathematics, a definition is used to give a precise meaning to a new term, by describing a condition that unambiguously qualifies what a mathematical term is and is not.

Definitions and axioms form the basis on which all of modern mathematics is to be constructed.

What is axiom ?

a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true .

So, A definition is made up of two parts :

DEFINIENDUM- term which is to be defined.

A word, phrase, or symbol which is the subject of a definition, especially in a dictionary entry, or which is introduced into a logical system by being defined .

DEFINIEN–  words used to define a term. 

The different types of definitions are given below –

Different Types of definition 

#1. Formal definition-

It is the definition which we generally see in the dictionary for a book, describing some particular characteristics of a concept things, or phenomenon. Such characteristics are used to familiarise reader with unknown terms.

A formal definition is based upon a concise, logical pattern that includes as much information as it can within a minimum amount of space .

Formal sentences components are the term being defined, the class it belongs to, and its distinguishing characteristics.

#2. Informal definition –

sometime a  known word in the form of antonyms and synonyms can be used for explaining something unknown.

Such definitions are introduced by “ like “ “also known as” or “in other words” extra these are used to familiarise a lesson on term with any other well-known related term. 

Having a relaxed, friendly, or unofficial style, manner, or nature.

Informal language is more casual and spontaneous. It is used when communicating with friends or family either in writing or in conversation.

#3. Extended definition –

An extended definition is a one or more paragraphs that attempt to explain a complex term. Some terms may be so important in your report, there may be so much confusion about them, or they may be so difficult to understand that an extended discussion is vital for the success of your report.

The extended definition can be formal or informal. As the name suggest these are used for explanation by including examples of listing familiar points, explaining concepts, historical references etc .

When you write reports, you may often discover that you need to explain certain basics before you can discuss the main subject matter.

For example:

In a report on new treatments for sickle cell anemia, you’d need a section defining the disease.

In a report on the benefits of drip irrigation, you’d need to write an extended definition of drip irrigation, explaining how it works and what equipment is used.

In a report showing small businesses how to weather economic recessions, an extended definition of the term economic recession would be needed first.

One of the first things to do when you write an extended definition is to compose the formal sentence definition of the term you are writing about. Place it toward the beginning of the extended definition.

It establishes the focus for the rest of the discussion. It is “formal” because it uses a certain form .

#4. Lexical definition  –

Its relating to the words or vocabulary of a language. 

The  lexical definition also known as the dictionary definition, is the closely matching the meaning of the term in common usage.

It is also known as reporting definition. 

According to Oxford English dictionary, lexical means relating to the words or vocabulary of a language. Does the lexical definition related to a words dictionary meaning of the meaning in the common vocabulary of language. It shows how the term is used in a language. It is difficult to change.

Lexical meanings are denotative meanings . 

Lexical meanings can’t be changed.

It is used to avoid ambiguity. 

It should be universal, never supporting any positive or negative aspects. 

As its other name implies, this is the sort of definition , one is likely to find in the dictionary. A lexical definition is usually the type expected from a request for definition, and it is generally expected that such a definition will be stated as simply as possible in order to convey information to the widest audience . 

The definition which reports the meaning of a word or a phrase as it is actually used by people is called a lexical definition. Meanings of words given in a dictionary are lexical definitions. As a word may have more than one meaning, it may also have more than one lexical definition.

Lexical definitions are either true or false. If the definition is the same as the actual use of the word then it is true, otherwise it is false . 

#5 Stipulative definition  –  

A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context . 

When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary definition of the term.

It is the new meaning giving to an already existing term on meaning assigned to a new term.

It is arbitrary in nature .

A term can have different stipulative meaning at different places or among different people. 

For example some people use “LOL” for “lots of love” and some use it for “laughing out loud”. 

Idioms and slangs have stipulative meanings .

 The terms to prove stipulative definition is sometimes used to make a deliberately misleading definition.

 It is easy to change as it has a meaning in local language. 

When the stability of definition of a term that popular former y my get included in the dictionary and becomes a lexical definition.

For example:

Suppose we say that to love someone is to be willing to die for that person.

Take “human” to mean any member of the species Homo sapiens.

For the purposes of argument, we will define a “student” to be “a person under 18 enrolled in a local school”

#6 Persuasive definition  –

Such definitions favour  a particular view or an favour any view, but are presented in a neutral form. In such definitions ,  emotional, positive or derogatory meaning is attached to the term.

The term “persuasive definition” was introduced by philosopher Charles Stevenson as part of his emotive theory of meaning . 

It is usually used in discussions,  debates ,  etc to favour or unfavour particular  views.  For example  –  there can be different views on death penalty ,  those who are in favour will define it as Harsh punishment which will help in preventing heinous crimes and those who are not in its favour will define it as “legalized murder”. 

A persuasive definition is a form of stipulativedefinition which supports to describe the true or commonly accepted meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes.

Examples of persuasive definitions (definist fallacies) include:

Democrat – “a leftist who desires to overtax the corporations and abolish freedom in the economic sphere”.

Persuasive definitions commonly appear in controversial topics such as politics, sex, and religion, as participants in emotionally charged exchanges will sometimes become more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts.

#7 Parenthetical definition – 

Sometimes, for the sake of explanation we write the meanings of some words in parentheses in a sentence. Meaning of a difficult word mentioned in a few words in parentheses ( brackets) is known as parenthetical definition. 

Some times to understand better difficult words we write easy words or meaning  in brackets are called parenthetical meaning.

For example  – to understand meanings of arbitrariness we write in brackets to choose randomly or by chance . what ever we write in bracket for own understanding are called parenthetical definition.

Parenthetical phrase is an explanatory or qualifying word, clause, or sentence inserted into a passage. The parenthesis could be left out and still form grammatically correct text.

Parentheses are usually marked off by round or square brackets, dashes, or commas.

Billy-bob, a great singer, was not a good dancer. The phrase a great singer, set off by commas, is both an appositive and a parenthesis.

A dog (not a cat) is an animal that barks. The phrase not a cat is a parenthesis.

My umbrella (which is somewhat broken) can still shield the two of us from the rain. The phrase which is somewhat broken is a parenthesis.

The following are examples of types of parenthetical phrases:

Introductory phrase: Once upon a time, my father ate a muffin.  

Interjection: My father ate the muffin, gosh damn it!

Aside: My father, if you don’t mind me telling you this, ate the muffin.

Appositive: My father, a jaded and bitter man, ate the muffin.

Absolute phrase: My father, his eyes flashing with rage, ate the muffin.

Free modifier: My father, chewing with unbridled fury, ate the muffin.

Resumptive modifier: My father ate the muffin, a muffin which no man had yet chewed.

Summative modifier: My father ate the muffin, a feat which no man had attempted.

While a parenthesis need not be written enclosed by the curved brackets called parentheses, their use, principally around rhetorical parentheses, has made the punctuation marks the only common use for the term in most contexts.

#8. Sentence definition-

such definitions are given in sentence forms , like ‘ computer is an electronic machine used to store , process and retrieve data. 

Here is the first part of definition  is ‘ computer the term itself , the next part- electronic machine , shows what it is , and the last part depicts the function of computer. 

 Sentence  is a set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses.

The sentence is generally defined as a word or a group of words that expresses a thorough idea by giving a sentence or order.

#9. Intention definition –

Such definitions specifiy the properties, features, meanings , and the necessary and sufficient conditions of a term.

For example – even numbers are the numbers divisible by two.

#10. Ostensive definition – 

literal meaning of ostensive is denoting a way of defining by direct demonstration, e.g. pointing .

In this type of definition, a term is described by showing the real objects; for example, showing banana, tulips, mangos, etc, to describe the yellow colour . 

An ostensive definition conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples.

This type of definition is often used where the term is difficult to define verbally, either because the words will not be understood (as with children and new speakers of a language) or because of the nature of the term (such as colors or sensations).

 It is usually accompanied with a gesture pointing to the object serving as an example, and for this reason is also often referred to as “definition by pointing”.

An ostensive definition assumes the questioner has sufficient understanding to recognize the type of information being given . 

SOLVED MCQ Question for practice 

Question 1 – Determine the nature of the following definition “abortion” means the ruthless murdering of innocent beings.

Lexical

Persuasive 

Stipulative 

Theoretical 

Answer- Persuasive

Solution – A persuasive definition is a form of stipulative definition which supports to describe the true or commonly accepted meaning  of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes. 

Question 2 – when the conclusion of an argument follows from its premise conclusively, the argument is called

Circular argument

Inductive argument 

Deductive argument 

Analogical argument

Answer- Deductive argument

Solution– Deductive argument, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements to reach a logical conclusion. Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. 

Question 3- A stipulative definition may be said to be 

Always true

Always false

Sometime true, Sometime false

Neither true Neither false.

Answer-Sometime true, Sometime false

Solution- Stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context . When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary definition of the term.

Question 4. A definition put forward to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring emotions is called

Lexical

Persuasive

Stipulative 

Precision 

Answer– Persuasive [See Above Notes]

Question 5 – A definition that has a meaning that is deliberately assigned to some symbol is called : 

Lexical 

Pressing

Stipulative 

Persuasive 

Answer– Stipulative [See Above Notes]

Solution already given in one of the  above question. 

#Logical Reasoning

[starmarketingz]

MLM vs. Pyramid Selling

Among the many techniques of direct selling, Multi Level Marketing takes the top spot simply because it is expanding rapidly and steadily all over the globe.

Every day, more individuals join the network to become distributors, and many have made millionaires as a result of the network.

If you want to establish your own company or make a second income, MLM is the perfect option for you. The fact that anybody from any background, at any age, with or without credentials, may join the MLM network and become a distributor makes it the most accessible company to start. Furthermore, the company does not need any expenditures on your part and is risk-free.

Before you select the Company, Product, and agree to join the Network and start your company, it is critical that you understand how the Network marketing business works. Unlike many people believe, MLM selling requires hard work and concentration, and you must be persistent in your efforts to develop and grow your network.

You are likely to get confused unless you are clear about the MLM business idea, grasp how sales and revenue creation occur, and have a clear knowledge. Before you start a company, you must thoroughly grasp all aspects of it.

Many individuals mistake MLM marketing with pyramid selling. It is accurate and probable that the general public's view of network marketing is negative, and you may encounter such sentiments while approaching individuals. As a result, it is critical that you grasp the difference between MLM and Pyramid marketing, including the legality and ethical elements of both systems, so that you can explain the difference to your prospects and clear up any misunderstanding.

What is Pyramid Selling?

Pyramid selling is a technique that works similarly to Network Marketing in that it recruits individuals to join the network. Pyramid schemes are developed to earn money by the promoters via recruitment of individuals into the network promising future advantages that would accrue when they recruit other people into the network. These schemes do not include the sale of commodities or products, but rather charge an entrance fee to individuals who join the network in order to make money in the future. The 'Chain of Letters' scam is a well-known fraudulent practice that has spread across the globe. It takes some time for the participants to understand that there is no money to be earned and that the promoters stand to benefit without any actual business. Often, Pyramid marketing schemes may discuss bogus goods or therapies, subscriptions to publications, catalogues, and trainings, and so on. None of this equates to a significant sale of concrete goods. They compel distributors to purchase and sell on paper, with no actual exchange of items or commodities.

What is the difference between MLM and Pyramid Selling?

A careful examination of the schemes and comprehension of all the facts will reveal the distinction between Pyramid Selling Schemes and MLM Schemes.

MLM Schemes have a legal procedure regulated by regulations and contractual responsibilities for distributorship as well as inventory keeping, training, and sales, among other things. Pyramid selling, on the other hand, is based on extremely loosely structured, ambiguous rules, promises with no legal or contractual responsibilities, and, more crucially, no significant product variety.

Pyramid selling attempts to make fast money from the network, while MLM companies concentrate on establishing and expanding distribution networks mainly focused at selling their goods and therefore earning revenue from product sales.

MLM Schemes do not need you to make any investment other than a modest charge for purchasing a start-up kit or some marketing materials, or a tiny distributor fee for membership, and these fees are very minimal. Pyramid selling networks are centered on generating money by collecting various entrance fees as well as encouraging distributors to purchase, keep inventory on paper without real physical products or depending on schemes such as catalogue or magazine subscriptions or some kind of discounts, etc. Instead of a future sale and revenue, every plan subscriber is given the opportunity to make investments that only benefit the promoters. Pyramid selling is usually accompanied by unclear plans that encourage inventory hoarding as well as a lack of transparency about revenue creation.

Pyramid selling in general has tarnished the public image of direct selling and Multi Level Marketing programs. Due to a lack of clarity and knowledge of the distinctions between Pyramid selling and Multi Level Marketing, the general public considers both ideas to be the same and maintains an unfavorable view. As a Multi Level Marketing Distributor, you should be aware of the pyramid scheme and the aforementioned facts. This knowledge will help you face the unfavorable views of the individuals you meet in your company and alter their impressions of your business.

Contact Us for MLM Software In India

Our Network : MLM Software Company in India | MLM Software Company in Delhi | MLM Software Company in Lucknow | MLM Software Company in Bhopal | MLM Software Company in Pune | MLM Software Company in Mumbai | MLM Software Company in Jaipur | MLM Software Company in Patna | MLM Software Company in Chennai | MLM Software Company in Hyderabad

www dot mlmsoftwarez dot in

Helplines : [phone]

Whatsapp : [phone]

This content originally appeared on Linkedin Pulse - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

#best_mlm_software_company_in_delhi best_mlm_software_company_in_jaipur best_mlm_software_company_in_delhi_ncr best_mlm_software_company_in_l