#like yes vote but also nuance exists | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

purgemarchlockdown · 9 months

Text

I told myself not to interact too much with the voting discussion because of how much it bothers me, but due to how her votes are going I will talk about it. I know the idea is that to protect the other prisoners we need her to be voted guilty. That's the theory, I'd argue that not only would that not work out the way people expect it to and I'd also argue that voting innocent is the better option overall.

But let's talk a bit about a dichotomy first.

Something I've noticed in fandom when it comes to victims of abuse and trauma is that there's a want for easily digestible abuse victims. There's a want for victims of abuse that are easily infantilized and woobified. In other words, there's a want for a very sanitized depiction of abuse. One where the characters who are being abused did nothing wrong and are morally pure completely righteous characters.

On the flipside, once an abuse victim steps out of those bounds of sanitized digestibility the audience reactions shifts. You tend to find these characters demonized and portrayed in ways that showcase how horrible, toxic or...dangerous they are. If you are an abuse victim in fiction you have to be an incredibly idealized version of the perfect abuse victim who does nothing wrong because if you aren't people will find ways to demonize you and erase any sense of nuance from the story.

You can either be a good abuse victim, or a bad one.

Now of course not everyone voting Amane guilty is doing it because of this...like I've seen a lot of posts from people who just don't know what to do or people who just feel that the consequences of Guilty Vote Amane is worth it in the end or people who just vote her guilty cause they don't like her much. I'm biased in this regard because I love Amane Momose! I'm very much biased towards her.

However it is troubling to me that I see this sort of bias, a lot of people have talked about how this also happens with Mikoto and I'd argue there was a bit of this also involved in Haruka and his voting.

It's something In this fandom and it's something that troubles me personally because I care a lot about this stuff, stories like Amane's are important to me, and I don't like seeing people react like this to abuse victims in fiction just because they aren't palatable.

I doubt most people in real life would act the same way if Amane was real, but also I'm unfortunately very familiar with people ignore someone who is suffering just because they feel uncomfortable. So I do think it's important to mention.

And I think Amane doomed by Milgram! I think Milgram is exactly the kind of place that would trigger her trauma! But even so I don't think Amane is doomed completely. I think viewing her as someone who can never change, who's stuck forever as a devoted cult follower is frankly a disservice to her character.

The power of cults come a lot of factors, manipulation, isolation, perpetuation of abuse and abusive cycles and way more things that I can't even mention. It Does Not come from magic unbreakable brainwashing! We have accounts from former cult victims! They exist! You can google them! There are people with stories like this out there!

I'd argue that Milgram's guilty system emulates Amane's previous abusive situation. It emulates that system of rules and punishment and torture. I don't think voting guilty would help, because voting guilty means Amane has to deal with something that closely emulates her horrible abusive situation, it would drive her further into isolation and trauma. She'd be reliving the situation she just escaped.

"But the other prisoners are at risk-" They're still at risk even if Amane is voted guilty! I'd argue their more at risk because Amane would be driven further into her isolation! Cults tell people that the outside world is dangerous and out to get them! It's one of there methods of control!

If we prove that to Amane, if we prove that yes, the outside world is out to get her and there's no one out there that can actually help her, then we give her The most righteous reason to attack.

Amane from what I can tell usually attacks if she feels like she's justified, if she feels like she's in danger. It's a defense mechanism born out of the torture she experienced. It's not wild swinging at anyone and anything she hates as it seems like people think it is.

I think voting Amane Innocent actually has the better chance of really helping people out. I think Amane being innocent would help crack this image she has of the outside world which would be fantastic actually! Would she be fully deprogrammed? No, you can't deprogram someone with one choice, especially if you validated their beliefs beforehand but it certainly changes things.

I don't like the idea that Amane is completely hopeless, I Feel like it treats cults and the Real Harm they do to people as something that no one can come back from and makes it feel weirdly mystical. Like the cult gets their hands in ya and now their brainwashing is just unbreakable. There's Real Ex-Cult Survivors in the world! They Exist! They aren't an impossibility and I don't think we should treat Amane's growth as a person as an impossibility!

#milgram #amane momose #008 #milgram amane #milgram meta #milgram analysis #cw torture #cw child abuse #cw cults

90 notes · View notes

alarajrogers · 6 months

Text

This is long. I've been percolating on it a while.

As usual, when I see a discussion going on that has no nuance, where two sides have been staked out and any suggestion that one side has a point is taken as full support for the other side and everything they do... I feel compelled to try to point out the nuances. This is likely to get me a lot of nastygrams in response, possibly from both sides, but I can't take the lack of nuance any longer.

First, let's begin with this. The government of Israel is committing atrocities. Full stop. There is no way to minimize this. Nothing the civilian population of Palestine has done or could ever do would justify the Israeli government's response here. Israel, as a state, are unmitigated bad guys in this situation. Just like my country, the USA, were unmitigated bad guys for invading Iraq on flimsy pretenses and committing atrocities in the process. A nation doing terrible things doesn't mean the people of that nation are terrible. I pointed this out when the government of Russia chose to invade Ukraine. In democracies, like the US and Israel, the people bear more responsibility than in dictatorships, but as a person who protested the Iraq War and tried to vote out the president responsible for it, I am deeply, deeply uncomfortable with the idea that all the citizens of a democracy are responsible for the actions of its government.

And I am flat out appalled by the notion that non-citizens with no vote should be held responsible; treating Jews as synonymous with the current Israeli government and its awful decisions is like the US rounding up Japanese-Americans and putting them in camps because the Japanese government attacked the US. It was wrong then, it's wrong now, and if you come from an English-speaking country and you're white, 90% chance you come from a country that committed similar atrocities in the course of expanding an empire or colonizing land that didn't belong to it. (I think the Irish, Scottish and Welsh are exceptions; I do not know of any others.)

If you blame Jews worldwide for the actions of Israel, you are a shithead, and if you come from the US, England, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, you are also a hypocritical shithead. France and Germany and Spain, yes, still a hypocritical shithead. Was your nation ever a colonial power? Then if you blame Jews worldwide for Israel's actions, you are a hypocritical shithead.

More to say, possibly more inflammatory, under the cut.

I have seen people I follow saying things like "We should treat Zionists in leftist spaces the way we treat TERFs, they should have no place with us." A lot of "denounce Zionism." A lot of "Zionism is evil."

I have also seen, on the flip side, the disgusting behavior of governments and institutions punishing people for making the argument that Israel should not be murdering Palestinian civilians. This is awful, and inhumane. The people of Palestine have done nothing to deserve this; the existence of terrorists committing atrocities in their name does not justify a civilian population being murdered. As an American, I feel very strongly that I would like to not be murdered for what the CIA did in South America, okay? And frankly, all Americans and anyone from any kind of colonial power should feel the same way, so this behavior where our governments and institutions give Israel free reign to murder civilians is despicable.

But Zionism does not mean "supporting every horrible thing Israel ever did." It means the belief that Jews need and deserve a homeland of their own, that the best place for that homeland is Israel, and as a result Israel has the right to self defense. (Self defense, y'all, is not a euphemism for "murder civilians." In fact murdering civilians usually is antithetical to self defense, because it radicalizes the civilian population against you. You don't fight terrorists with bombs unless your goal is to make more terrorists. Which I actually think Netanyahu's goal is, because he is a right wing war hawk who wants an excuse to commit atrocities against Palestine. That's not good for Israel, but it's good for a right wing war hawk who wants to stay in power.)

I've seen a lot of arguments that Israel are colonizers. Technically it's true but that word has certain baggage due to the motives and behavior of 90% of the world's colonizers. Specifically, when white imperialists marched in to territories occupied by other people, took them over, and killed, enslaved, drove off or ruled over the people who were already there:

The motive was greed, folks. Want, take, have. We're allowed to have everything because we're white. Nothing about "we need this or people will keep killing us."

It wasn't territory they had ever held. Territory associated with them in the lore of the world's biggest religions? Nope. It wasn't territory they'd ever had at all.

They did the colonizing themselves. A third party didn't colonize and then hand it over to them.

Israel's situation is different for multiple reasons.

For 2000 years, Jews have not been treated as full and equal citizens of anywhere they tried to live; those 2000 years have contained so many instances of Jews being murdered en masse, or driven out and all their stuff stolen, I don't think we have an accurate count of how many times it happened.

Anywhere that Jews were treated as full and equal citizens for any period of time, a change in government or in the circumstances of their neighbors could reverse this. Most Jewish citizens of Germany thought of themselves as Germans first, and thrived in Germany, until Hitler stirred up the currents of anti-semitism that apparantly always are present under the surface of a European or European-based society.

It is very easy to argue that the reason for this is that Jews were driven out of their own homeland, and their efforts to keep their own culture during the diaspora made them mistrusted strangers everywhere. Therefore, it's also very easy to argue that the solution is for them to have a homeland again.

This was why Zionists in the 40's were successfully able to get Britain to cede them Palestine. There are very good arguments from the evidence of history that Jews do in fact need a homeland of their own, because anywhere else they live may spontaneously decide to murder them for no reason, because it has been happening for 2000 years and has no evidence of stopping.

Of course, there's a huge problem. Britain didn't hand over part of Britain. Nobody handed over Rome, which forced the Jews out of their homeland originally, or Germany, which had just committed the Holocaust. (These would not have gone well either.) They handed over a territory full of people who had done nothing to the Jews, had nothing to do with the Holocaust, and were not consulted or asked for permission.

Jews sought an ethno-state where Jewish people would be treated as more equal than non-Jews because they're an extreme minority worldwide, and anywhere where they allowed non-Jewish people to become full citizens anytime they wanted, would eventually fill up with enough gentiles that it would again become dangerous to be Jews there. Palestinians were, rightfully, pissed off that they were being forced off their land. So they fought back, and Israel retaliated, and that is how this whole poisonous dynamic began.

Does Israel have a right to the land they were ceded? That is unfortunately the wrong question. After Europe and other places randomly murdered Jews for being Jewish for 2000 years, it becomes really hard to argue against the necessity of a Jewish homeland, somewhere, if you have any empathy for Jewish people at all. Where should that be? Well, there is no uninhabited land on Earth that's suitable for habitation; anywhere would have required throwing people off their land.

This may be colonizing, but it's different colonizing than what white people did. It was done for survival, in the face of 2000 years of threats, and it was done by giving them back land they'd lost 2000 years ago.

There are very few cultures that still exist after being thrown off their land that long ago. Romani still exist, but we really aren't sure exactly where they came from... last I heard the best theory was somewhere in India. Native Americans and other indigenous people displaced by colonization were forced off between 100-500 years ago and a lot of their culture has been lost. This makes it kind of difficult to compare the Jewish situation to anything else. But if there was a movement to give the Native Americans back Montana, and fuck all the white people currently living in Montana, they can move or they can live in the new Native American nation... honestly I do not think the left would object to this. (The right would, they'd screech about it, but a lot of leftists would either be "good for them! fuck those white Montanans!" or "well, I dont think it's right to force people out of their homes, but Native Americans were forced off that land in the first place, so...") The Native Americans lost that territory like 150 years ago or so, not 2000. It's not the same thing. But it is, unfortunately, the closest analogy we have, because no one else managed to hang onto their culture and their memory of having a homeland and the world's memory of it too, for 2000 years.

So. Can you criticize Israel? How can you not? You have to criticize Israel to be a good person because they are murdering civilians. They received a horrible provocation from professional provocateurs who knew that they would react harshly, and that that reaction would fuel their movement, and they did exactly what Hamas knew they would, which is incredibly stupid from the perspective of protecting Israel (but Netanyahu wants to protect his own power, not Israeli citizens) and also morally bankrupt on every level. Arguing that Hamas didn't actually do anything all that terrible is simultaneously untrue and besides the point, because Palestinian civilians aren't Hamas and you can't fight a terrorist group with bombs.

But can you argue, with a straight face, that a homeland for Jewish people shouldn't exist? When Israel's behavior has just caused worldwide antisemitism to spike, and once again, random Jews are being subjected to violence for nothing they did? When we have 2000 years of history of the world attacking Jewish people for no good reason? (I do have some theories as to the reasons, but none of them were good ones.) How do you think Jewish people should protect themselves from antisemitic violence, then? What other options are on the table?

And if you're blaming random Jewish people on the Internet who are not Israeli for the actions of Israel, you are doing the same thing the state of Israel is doing when they blame all Palestinians for the actions of Hamas. Justifying their behavior. Plus, if you come from a colonial power, and if you're on the Internet odds are you do, you're being a sickening hypocrite, because I bet you don't want to be murdered for the atrocities your country has committed. I sure don't! I don't want people blaming me for the Iraq War! I was against it. I don't want people blaming me for Trump! I voted against him. I'm American and my country has done horrible, horrible things that I don't want people to treat me badly for because I also think they're horrible and never supported them... but that doesn't mean I'd be okay with America ceasing to exist.

Jews who support Israel's existence, whether they are Israeli or not, are still not personally responsible for Binyamin Netanyahu being a monster. Israelis aren't entirely responsible for the fucker, given that it is human nature to vote conservative when you live in fear, which is why conservatives fearmonger so hard. Their press probably makes it fairly hard to learn about the atrocities they are committing, just like the American press makes it hard to know what evil things America has done lately. But especially, Jews who aren't Israeli citizens can still support Israel's existence while believing that Israel's current behavior is an atrocity, because Israel was founded to protect Jews from worldwide antisemitism, which if you are blaming Jews for Israel's behavior, you're participating in.

I'm not Jewish. But I find the behavior of gentiles who are demanding that Jews not only reject what Israel is doing (that's fair, it's monstrous) but reject Israel having a right to exist, in a world where America, which took over a continent because we felt like it and slaughtered most of the people who lived here, is never told it doesn't have a right to exist... I mean if you're so out there that yes, you believe America and Canada and Australia have no right to exist, I suppose you're being consistent, but if that is not your position, you don't get to argue against Israel existing. Israel displaced people who didn't deserve it and has treated them like shit ever since, just like every other colonizing power, but Israel, at least, is doing it because Jewish people keep getting murdered for no reason and this has been happening for two millennia. The US has no such justification for existence.

This entire situation is more complicated and nuanced than you think. Not the part where Israel's committing atrocities, that's beyond question. That's horrifying and the world really needs to force them to stop. But everything else -- Zionism, the existence of Israel and its right to self defense, blaming Jews for Israel, yadda yadda -- all that. That is more complicated than you think it is.

#israel #palestine #antisemitism #colonialism #expecting to lose followers now

23 notes · View notes

striving-artist · 6 months

Text

okay, its This Post if you want to go look, but I'm not going to reply on the thread cause I have writing to do tonight and, like I said, yelling at a brick wall does no good. But I WILL take the opportunity to point out a couple things that are common mistakes online during discourse and how you can manipulate a response.

Under a cut because most people don't find examining fallacy and post analysis interesting.

To start, here's all responses of the thread in a simplified form:

Post about voting against Trump

Post from Ohsalome supporting OP with a reference to a commonly heard complaint about Biden (that he is supporting Israel)

Post supporting OP, with a reference to a statement from Trump about creating a dictatorship.

Post supporting OP, talking about the dangers of Trump globally.

Post about the use of Russian misinfo in 2016, discouraging voting and dividing progressives from more moderate dems. Also that it is visible today about Gaza.

Me, supporting OP, and #5, acknowledging the existence of nuance, and adding reminders of Trump being awful.

Quote of someone's tags in support of people voting

Arabian Knight shifts tone and topic, sounding more like Trump, and throws out a lot of directionless insults at the rest of the thread.

Arabian Knight again, misquoting #2, turning a statement into a scare quote that they use to expand on their insults.

Anathema comes in, loudly outraged by the quote Arabian Knight presented in #9, claiming it came from Ohsalome in #2

Wet Paint arguing for people to vote in a primary against Biden (there is no primary btw, this is not an option) and then tagging me and my quote, to claim that I think American lives are worth more than Palestinian lives.

So. That's an excellent example of how fast online conversation can be derailed by one person, and how misquotes and misrepresentations can invent a new conversation and scandal.

Fast analysis version: Arabian Knights changed the quote - maliciously or not - Anathema only reacted to the last post, with the false quote. Now in an emotionally charged setting, Wet Paint responded emotionally, colored by the anger of Anathema and Arabian Knight's posts.

Slower version:

High in the thread is Ohsalome who (Im not tagging folks in, do not do so for me) references a hypothetical argument against Biden. They don't say a specific source, bc its a simplified version of the hyperbolic complaint that shows up on a lot of posts lately. "he is murdering palestinian babies" Many progressives are rightly horrified by Biden supporting Israel, and don't know how to square that with voting for him. To me, that's a fairly clear and obvious generalization by Ohsalome, ymmv. Highlighted below.

In response to Ohsalome, Arabian Knight abbreviates the hypothetical quote, reducing it to just the phrase Palestinian Babies, and places quotes around only those two words. Yes, those are words that Ohsalome said, but you should basically never trust a tiny quote if someone is hinging an argument on it. That change turns it from a hypothetical quote from someone talking about why you wouldn't vote for Biden, and implies that Ohsalome themself was using scare quotes and doubting the existence of Palestinian Babies killed in the attacks on Gaza. That is not what it says or implies. It is a manipulation by Arabian Knight (statistically, this wasn't intentional manipulation, just tumblr's reading comprehension fails) But by putting that cherry picked phrase in quotes, it shifted the meaning and tone of the entire thread.

Then they bring in the accusations - and to be fair if Ohsalome DID claim that the dead in Palestine were fake, that would be super fucked up - and Anathema jumps in to back them up, responding exclusively to a misrepresented quote, not the original, and not the context of the original. They're specifically mad about quotation marks implying that there are no dead Palestinian babies, which - Again - were placed as scare quotes by Arabian Knight, not Ohsalome.

Anathema then takes another step to move the argument into emotions and morals by citing their own reaction to images they have seen.

See how fast it's turned into emotions? You already know that pivoting into emotions is a super effective way to manipulate someone. In this case, it took a post about hey, we really gotta prevent Trump winning, and made it into whether those people therefore, personally support murdering babies. You make that jump with emotion. Anything else, and people notice it.

Now.

I got tagged into this despite getting skipped by the misquote kefuffle. Here's what the new contender, Wet Paint, said, and the grab of what I'd said in my response.

This time, its not a misquote or a modification of a quote. Props for that. Yeah, it skips the context of the rest of the comment, but that's the nature of pulling quotes. Which is why you have to get in the habit of going back to the source to check context. I know its obnoxious, especially in the age of paywalls, but. do it anyway.

What Wet Paint does instead is create a false dichotomy. If I thought it was done intentionally, I'd almost be proud, because my post IS talking about a dichotomy... but not the one they are. I was talking about how its going to be Trump or Biden. A dichotomy.

They remade it into a zero sum scenario where it is Biden or Palestine. They've added the assumption that by saving American lives, you are killing Palestinians. There are times when that situation exists, so, this can easily sound like something you should stop and consider. And honestly? Do that. Pause, consider, and when you do, go chase down the source and see if you're missing something.

If a situation is as clean cut as 1 for 1 exchange of life, holy fuck, grab a pitchfork and give me a call so I can grab mine.

I'm not repeating my statements from that post. That's not the point right now. I just wanted to talk about how arguments get shaped and twisted online.

If I was a russian actor, and I wanted to manipulate this conversation to divide voters and increase Trump's odds of winning, the above is a really good starting point for how to do it.

#oh tumblr #analysis #instead of getting into a fight #I decided to write an essay on debate and distraction tactics #but this really is a clear example #if I wanted to divide Biden supporters #this is how I'd do it for sure #I'd use fewer random insults though bc that throws more people off #principles - Strife

8 notes · View notes

uefb · 1 year

Text

A Love Letter to Newt Scamander’s Autism™ and a Plea to Those Continually Gloating About the ‘Failure’ of the FB Franchise

(this is stream-of-consciousness really, forgive me)

Look. I…dislike…JKR as much as the next politically active gender/queer who was raised on Harry Potter and subsequently spent their 20s raging against the binary and tearing down the system.

But look—

I’m also autistic.

So I can’t pretend to be able to celebrate the potential crash of the first fantasy franchise/series (well, any franchise, really!) to star an empathetic, autistic hero just because I hate her.

The lady has enough money to pave Europe, enough money to buy anyone’s votes—hell, enough money to probably repurchase the entire bloody (pun intended) British empire—

And she frankly has enough money to attempt to destroy trans folks and trans women’s lives whether or not FB continues.

FB is not the root of the problem.

JKR and the increasingly inflammatory political and economic and social moments we keep hurtling through are the problem.

So when I think back on that lonely, autodidactic, quiet, gender nonconforming, gentle, awkward, morally driven (and sometimes-accidentally-in-trouble) eleven-year-old version of me—

That little nerd who clung to the safety of Hermione (as close to a relatable fictional character as I would ever find for decades) like a life raft in the godforsaken sea of adolescence—

Well.

When I think how much Newt Scamander would have meant to that little dork then,

And how much he must mean to so many kids now (let alone adults)…?

I just can’t find it in my heart to purely wish ill on every single one of JKR’s endeavors. Or to celebrate JKR’s failure specifically regarding Fantastic Beasts.

(So maybe Cursed Child can die in a fire, and —yes — JKR’s isms and antisemitisms and absolute crock can—

Well.

You get the idea.)

And maybe it’s the Hufflepuff in me—masked so often by my more ADHD-forward Gryffindor traits—but I just can’t take joy in an atypical, kind, adult autistic character—an unusual hero, in fact!—being [potentially] cancelled when I know it not only hurts me, but so so many others. It’s not joyous to me that people are losing something dear to them, when it’s not the media itself that’s damning but the woman who dreamed it into existence. (Though so much of the good of FB was built by the producers and artists and actors—it was built out by them like a wood-elf in a well-tended garden. The core of it—the trellis, perhaps—was provided by she-who-must-not-be-named, but all that delicate work in between? the moments of worldbuilding, the nuance of character and culture and blah blah blah? they wove the intricacies of the fabric and fashioned the clothes to hang in her closet.)

But I’ve mixed my metaphors and I digress.

What I mean to say is this:

A franchise like FB being cancelled is nuanced and complicated—especially since WB is gonna milk the Wizarding World for all it’s worth even if they do drop FB. This is a multifaceted issue spanning individual, political, capitalistic, societal, etc etc overlapping and contradictory levels, and we should treat it that way, not the way I’ve seen it circulated in posts—just laughing about how JKR had it coming and skimming over all the rest.

Like yes, duh.

Of course she did.

Those of us who grew up on HP rejected her for the very same reasons we loved HP in the first place.

But use your critical thinking skills.

The world is bigger than JKR—art and media have implications and impacts outside of their origin. And, thus, implications for supporting or enjoying something exist on multiple levels that must sometimes be carefully measured and interrogated, even if individually or factionally we come to our own different—and perhaps opposite—conclusions.

So i’m just proposing: maybe we should reconsider taking joy in Fantastic Beasts failure when FB is about so much more than just JKRs considerable sins —

When so many people have seen in Eddie Redmayne’s Newt Scamander the first character who truly acts like them, moves like them, speaks like them—seems to see the world like them!—for the first time in their lives.

Because yes: JKR’s views and horrific anti-trans and—frankly—anti-anti-anti-everything campaigning are personal, but so is what Newt has come to represent.

Words can’t describe that for me. What he means, from an autistic perspective.

Anyway.

I only request that you place your thinking in the complex context it deserves.

Also, please don’t viciously @ me. I’m open to nuanced conversation, should I have the word-energy to engage—though I have been teetering on the edge of a shutdown for days—but I’m not open to being torn apart for loving quality autistic representation, and for simply wishing I could have more of that character and that content in the world. To not always have to be the one to push for it. To not always have to be the one to write my own representation, to seek it out, to demand I’m worth space and consideration as a reader and consumer with intersectional identities—

It’s complicated.

But I’m tired.

And potentially losing Newt really isn’t funny to me.

#will I regret posting this later?#probably #do my words make sense right now?#not entirely - my brain is fried #do I have enough self control to leave this in drafts?#absolutely not #uefb rambles #fantastic beasts and where to find them #fantastic beasts #newt scamander #autistic newt scamander #also apparently this is my antiJKR proNewt tag now -#and jesus fk jkr’s bullshit but god bless newt scamander & god bless eddie redmayne for giving us the character he did #wizarding world #harry potter #my stuff #actually autistic #also i hope you like my ted talk gif

16 notes · View notes

thegirlmirage · 9 months

Text

It's a little frustrating because, Tumblr is often a place where nuance or cognitive dissonance can't exist but every American election cycle we have to teach everyone to vote again.

Yes it's true that voting is not the most effective form of change, if at all, and the voting process is heavily gerrymandered or manipulated to produce non democratic results and the person you end up having to vote for to stop American Hitlers winning is also part of the establishment and has many faults but also... it's the absolute bare minimum.

I live in the UK. I'm British. We've not had what I would consider a democratic result to our elections for most of my life. But it does make it HARDER for it to be manipulated if you do show up and vote.

I'm under no illusions that it fixes everything, or even anything. But if it wasn't a thorn in the side of fascists and conservatives then why do they work so hard to stop or discouraging you from voting?

You think that direct action is more effective? Good. Do that. But that doesn't mean don't vote. Voting is also something that, barring voter suppression, is something that a lot of people can do. My grandmother can't go out protesting or burning police stations down, but she could in theory walk one street to her local voting poll station and vote for the not fascist.

The other thing is, Americans, I don't know if you're aware just how much power you have over the rest of the world. And even the places you don't directly control, militarily, economically (if such a thing is possible) culturally, is that for good or bad reasons, other countries copy what America does. Just look at how much Bolsanaro mimicked Trump as an example. If you even slightly appear to be legitimizing fascism more than you already constantly do, it has huge ripples and that's not even including the direct damage people like Trump did to the world. The only reason he didn't nuke anyone is because people essentially just planted their feet in the ground. And he still got very close.

So yes, I want you do far more revolutionary and subversive acts against American imperialism (which honestly I'm not actually sure most the people saying there's no point voting because are even doing) but you can't replace voting with that. You've got to do both, or at the bare minimum, vote. They're counting on your apathy.

Do the bare minimum. Please. It really is a matter of life and death for so many people. And so many people to come.

#vote #voting #american election #usa politics #please vote

0 notes

rewcana · 4 months

Text

this whole ordeal of people on here accusing users who feel unwilling / hesitant to vote in the upcoming presidential election as ops is so funny and silly. notice how the majority of these people are also not saying anything about gaza and palestine.

it's one thing to point out the dangers in not voting (yeah we get it) and a completely other thing to equate voting with something to do to save people. and not voting as condemning the "bad guys" to win.

i understand that people are rightfully worried about how many fascist policies conservatives have been passing at state levels across the country. but, accusing folks who feel like they can't in good conscience vote for someone who is approving millions of dollars of aid and weapons to enact genocide to be psyops for the gop is just.... like what? yes even if the people are aware that under a republican president, that genocide would continue and or worsen.

this is the thing about election years that really pisses me off is how people will completely hold off on criticizing the fuckin president and accuse folks who are criticizing a genocidal monster of being psyops. like oh yeah we have to put all of our criticisms on hold because it might make people not want to vote UwU.

"if you criticize the usamerican democratic system you are a psyop" "if you tell people not to vote you are a psyop and secretly conservative" "if you say you're not voting you actually want trump to win" etc etc etc. meanwhile these same people aren't stressing the importance of more local or state level elections.

i guess i'm just tired. election season completely erases any nuance to discussions of politics. the only conversations that people are having are "not voting = morally bad person and also you're a conservative/ fascist probs lol". and a lot of people really think it's actually as simple as that. there are tons of people who know all the complexities and different factors of this upcoming presidential election and still aren't going to vote / are not sure they're going to vote. and just vehemently shaming those folks / calling them ops doesn't actually get anyone anywhere.

the choice to vote or not to vote is deeply deeply personal. especially if you have a personal relationship or direct connection to the severe inhumane harm and straight up genocide that the current president has and is enacting. if you are telling people who are sharing updates about gaza and palestine every day who are so disgusted with the usamerican politicians' roles in the terrorism and genocide who say they are never going to vote for biden that they are secretly conservatives and don't care about the future of usamerica or whatever then how about you just shut up for a bit.

also this new thing going around warning people to not criticize taylor swift because the trump folks are doing a hate campaign against her or something is so utterly stupid. oh yeah this blog with like 60 followers is gonna make biden lose the election and doom usamerica because they shared how taylor swift is suing the person who keeps releasing all the data about how frequently she uses her private jet. and also they are obviously a psyop and doing work for the GOP.

i understand that people are paranoid about ops in online spaces and honestly i think that's a very smart instinct to have. but making sweeping generalizations about arguments that have existed in leftist spaces for as long as they have existed unequivocally meaning that those folks are operatives is so damn frustrating. politics are deeply personal and if you can only make broad generalizations and decry anything that doesn't fit your moral view as an agent trying to steer you wrong then you really need to take a step back and interact with folks not on online spaces more.

and for the record before anyone calls ME an op, i do intend to vote for biden. i was hesitant about it but decided to because of the crusade against lgbtq rights and also because of biden's initiatives to improve public transit and start new public transit projects. both of those issues are incredibly personal to me which is why they pushed me to the point of deciding that i would vote. i understand that you are worried about this upcoming election and you want to make sure people vote for your "right candidate". but accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being an operative isn't even close to the way to do it. and also asking people to look away from the horrific ongoing genocide to just "vote blue!!!!!" is actually quite harmful. i'm voting for biden and it's going to be very difficult for me to do so because i feel incredibly morally wrong considering a vote is an endorsement of a horrific person who has committed many human atrocities and is funding genocide. and i am not going to judge folks who can't put that disgust aside to vote and i'm not going to shame those folks if biden doesn't win.

if you really truly believe leftist politics are as simple as "if you don't vote in the presidential election you are a secret conservative operative" than i am BEGGING you to gain some perspective. not everyone who disagrees with you is an op, friends. there is nothing morally wrong with criticizing a deeply flawed political system, YES EVEN DURING AN ELECTION YEAR!

#rewcana rants #rewcana rambles #gods it's like calling someone an op is just like a gotchya #it's such a convenient excuse to not engage with anything the person is saying because guess what you are an operative #bc u are critical of the political system you are an op and i dont have to listen to anything you say #cause you're just trying to propaganda me hehehehe hoohooohoohoo i got u silly op #it's like girl don't u see the harm in that???? tf???

0 notes

a-spam-oeuvre · 4 years

Text

Since some of y'all don't know yet here are some examples of things that are ok to disagree about and some that aren't

Topic 1: Coronavirus

Agree to disagree:

Side a: My father thinks that a longer lockdown hurts more people than opening would, pointing to lost jobs and increase in depression, anxiety, and suicides. He thinks opening up with some restrictions is the right move

Side b: I think that the state and national government's failure to take the pandemic seriously has cost too many lives and that they rushed to open up with the wrong priorities. I believe that the government should focus on creating protections for people effected by restrictions instead of prematurely lifting those restrictions.

Why is it ok to disagree? Both of us have the interest of the people in mind and are utilizing true and proven facts to build our opinion. Our disagreement lies in which path we predict will be better for the general welfare.

A toxic disagreement:

Side a: someone on instagram believes that young people are unaffected by the virus and therefore refuses to wear a mask and continues to attend large gatherings without social distancing, all while attending a large public school.

side b: Has an autoimmune disorder and due to family situations has to attend school in person. Her risk of getting it is high and her risk of dying from it is even higher. When she asks her classmate (side a) to wear a mask, she refuses and coughs on side b.

This is not agree to disagree. This is deliberately and avoidably endangering lives due to self interests.

Topic 2: LGBTQIA+ RIGHTS

Agree to Disagree

Side a: My friend believes that homosexuality is not allowed under his religion, but accepts that his religious beliefs are not shared by the entire country, and respects/accepts his queer friends and the queer community. However, he also believes that private business owners have the right to turn away gay customers on the basis of religious freedom.

Side b: I believe that precedents set in the 1960s civil rights movement give congress the authority to prevent customer discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation for businesses engaging in interstate commerce. Just as lunch counters can't have "whites only" signs, businesses should not have "cis, straight" only policies.

Why is it ok to disagree? Neither of us are basing our opinions on a bias for or against a group, but instead on which policy would best protect civil liberties.

A Toxic Disagreement:

Side a: My former teammate repeatedly used the f-slur and frequently said extremely homophobic things that are not worth repeating.

Side b: exists as a queer person

This is not agree to disagree. This is a hateful display of intolerance and deliberate denial of humanity.

Conclusion: You can disagree about pizza toppings, not human rights.

#respect existence or expect resistance #essay ideas #reference #politics #tw: homophia mention #void nonsense #this isn't a full argument i just wanted to get some thoughts down #i have a few of these types of things in my draft i can't wait for the days when i can just write essays for fun #i have one on the nuances of identity labels and it's really interesting to me #this is an open response to people that says politics shouldn't ruin friendship #like yes you should have friends and aquaintances of other parties but not ones that disrespect entire people groups #like the former teamate had a friend who is also republican and i'm friends with the other one still because he isn't hateful #he told our out wlw friend that we all were there for her and support her when she mentioned that her gf's parents were lowkey homophobic #and i was so proud of him like that is GROWTH right there #when i first met him someone told him i was liberal and he asked me about it in a bad way but now he texts me about how disappointed he #is really disappointed in trump and (if he could vote) is starting to lean more towards Biden #i'd like to say it was my influence that brought him left but our entire team is way more liberal this year now that most of the #conservatives graduated or quit and i think having that less toxic atmosphere helped him a lot #i should be doing physics right now

2 notes · View notes

roseapprentice · 2 years

Text

I am once again reminding fellow US people that there is, in fact, a substantial difference between the (admittedly bad) dysfunction in the Democratic Party, and the (HOLY SHIT) dysfunction in the Republican Party.

I am also reminding you that if we elect an ACTUAL democratic majority to the senate, we will no longer be beholden to the most obstructionist democrat the senate has to offer. We will instead be beholden to the second most obstructionist, and that would in fact be much less terrible.

Yes, the government is a shit show. But nuance exists, and we get to pick which flavor of shit show takes the stage next. Lives depend on us choosing well.

So please stop reblogging "Both parties are the same!!!" posts.

Parties are made up of people, and different people are fucked up in different ways. Even if it were logistically possible to make the two parties into perfectly interchangeable puppets, choosing a person who can demonstrate reason and compassion to represent you at the puppet theater would still be slightly less bad. And when you're dealing with a global empire, slightly less bad can go a very long way.

Criticize the Democratic Party all you like; that's valid. But don't spread the message that voting makes no difference. That's just pushing people to ignore a concrete opening to shift the world in a less awful direction. We have a responsibility to each other to make those openings more visible, not less.

Democracy is like Tinkerbell. You shouldn't listen when it tells you to shoot people, but it's still worth keeping around and it only lives if enough people believe in it.

#rose posted this #us politics #politics #rant tw #vote #us centric

102 notes · View notes

thiswaycomessomethingwicked · 3 years

Note

Was Napoleon a tyrant? I don't necessarily think he was: at least, I believe he was a better alternative to the absolute monarchs he was fighting. But there are those who disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?

This is a can of worms to be sure.

I mean....how are we defining the word tyrant? All monarchs are tyrants to someone. Monarchy, by its very nature, is tyrannical in one way, shape, or form, no matter who is at its head. Even in the more neutered forms we see now days with the British. The Queen still exerts a ridiculous amount of power, all things considered.

Napoleon was no better or worse than any other monarch in Europe at that time. Indeed, better than some, worse than others. Because you know, he was human!

This got VERY long. SO LONG. Choice excerpts from below the cut:

"'Power was encroaching with large strides behind the words order and stability,' as Thibaudeau put it."

"(And I suspect he was concerned about seeming too eager for power/setting up a monarchical system. Fouche: You're about as subtle as a canon going off right next door. Napoleon: Hush.)"

"Theeeeeen the little bastard (affectionate) became Emperor."

"Napoleon Vs. Jeff Bezos: fight! fight! fight! (I'm putting my money on Napoleon.)"

tl;dr: a more or less benevolent emperor who had his faults and who was intimately aware, for better or worse, more than most monarchs, that the head is only tenuously attached to the body. (Skim to the bottom for my thoughts on the personal things i.e. how I interpret Napoleon's actions and brain)

But, more seriously, as with most absolute statements, I am opposed to calling him a tyrant because it is reductive and serves no purpose except to make broad sweeping political statements that I believe are far more about the person making the statement exemplifying their modern political, republican position (as in, actual republican-I-support-the-existence-of-republics not the gop) rather than expressing any sort of truth about the past. (wHaT iS tRuTh.)

For historical purposes, it can over-simplify the situation and lead to skewed interpretations of events because you're coming in with this word that has a lot of modern, 20th and 21st century baggage to it.

And, because these people are coming in with this big, bad word of tyrant as a label for Napoleon, it doesn't allow them to engage with the nuance and complexities of his reign.

Anyway.

Napoleon, as emperor, supported centralized power held in his own hands, with support from other governing bodies (senate, council of state etc.). However, Napoleon had a lot of influence in the structuring of these governing bodies and the subsequent appointments as a means to exert control over entities that would otherwise be able to act somewhat independent from him and impinge his power.

We see this consolidation of power beginning, obviously, under the consulate. 'Power was encroaching with large strides behind the words order and stability,' as Thibaudeau put it.

There was the whole theatre around the Tribunate offering to extend Napoleon's tenure as First Consul for another ten years as a means of thanks/showing gratitude for all he did for France (Fouche was like: fuck that, let's just make a statue of the guy). Napoleon played the part of Humble Servant of the Public and refused both statue and the ten year extension. (Very Julius Caesar: You all did see that on the Lupercal, I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?)

In actuality, though, he was pissed because he wanted it extended for life.

This resulted in the Council of State deciding "independently" (i.e. Napoleon wasn't present but he sure as hell influenced that Council session) to hold a plebiscite in order to ask The People two key questions: 'Should Napoleon Bonaparte be consul for life?' and 'Should he have the right to designate his successor?'

Napoleon nixed the second question saying to Cambaceres, 'The testament of Louis XIV was not respected, so why should mine be? A dead man has nothing to say.' Which is to say, he knew people would vote for him to be Consul for life, but the prospect of him choosing a successor, a la the Roman Empire, and having that choice be without input from the people and respected upon his death? Less clear.

(And, I suspect he was concerned about seeming too eager for power/setting up a monarchical system.

Fouche: You're about as subtle as a canon going off right next door.

Napoleon: Hush.)

For the Plebiscite, there were around 3.56 million votes for Yes to the question of Napoleon as consul for life and only around 8,300 for No.

The turnout rate was 60% which is uhh...impressive! (To be fair, there was no real evidence of tampering with the vote. Unlike in subsequent Plebiscites, such as the results for Do We Make Him Emperor, which were absolutely doctored. But, considering the highest turnout ever seen in the French Revolution was around 30/35%, double that is certainly something.)

Lafayette was pissed with this. He kicked up a fuss in the Senate and wrote to Napoleon saying that his 'restorative dictatorship' had been well and fine for now but has Napoleon thought about restoring liberty? and that he was certain Napoleon, of all people, wouldn't want an 'arbitrary regime' to be installed!

Napoleon: Bold of you to assume that, Lafayette.

There were, at this time, some mumblings and grumblings about tyranny from the liberals and those still wanting to continue the experiment of the French Republic, to be sure. They increased as time went on and Napoleon's power continued to consolidate.

Theeeeeen the little bastard (affectionate) became Emperor.

Lafayette: WhAt Is tHiS??

Napoleon: Look into my face and tell me honestly that you are shocked.

His government, as Consul and as Emperor, was centralized and very top-down in how it operated. Little was done without Napoleon's input.

The seemingly democratic institutions that had propped him up into power were retained and Napoleon used them as a means to facilitate his rule. As noted earlier, Napoleon had a heavy hand in appointments and the processes in place to fill various offices. Nothing was really...independent of him and his influence.

Though, in terms of Image Building of Empire, Napoleon worked hard to try and maintain the façade of impartiality as emperor. That he was head of state, sure, but all state apparatuses operated independent of him.

(Why is Napoleon's hat so big? because it is full of lies supporting the imperial image making machine.)

That said, when it came to filling those offices, Napoleon focused on merit more than anything as he wanted his governing officials to be capable, hardworking and, above all else, loyal.

(A good quote from Napoleon in one of his more Eat the Rich moments of the consulate: 'One cannot treat wealth as a title of nobility. A rich man is often a layabout without merit. A rich merchant is often only so by virtue of the art of selling expensively or stealing.'

Napoleon Vs. Jeff Bezos: fight! fight! fight!

(I'm putting my money on Napoleon.) )

This is getting really long and I feel that I've not addressed anything in a useful manner, but am I going to stop? No.

Napoleon, himself, at least in 1803, did express some conflicted views about assuming an imperial title. To Roederer he said, 'So many great things have been achieved over the past three years under the title of consul. It should be kept.'

Cambaceres said to Napoleon that upon assuming an imperial title 'your position changes and places you at odds with yourself.' No longer are you merely a public servant, an upholder of the Republic's ideals. Now you are a man wearing a crown, trying to be the upholder of the Republic's ideals.

(nb: I feel that duality is something Napoleon never fully got a handle on. He would veer strongly into authoritarian monarch then have moments of Rousseau-ian Idealism.)

Napoleon was insistent that his rule be a parliamentary monarchy (keeping the governance framework implemented in the Constitution of Year VIII, if I am not mistaken. But don't quote me on that.) and that the French were not his subjects but his people.

So, the imperial government worked thus with the Legislative process divided between four bodies:

Council of State which would draw up legislative proposals,

Tribunate which could debate on legislation but not vote on it,

a legislative body which could vote on legislation but not discuss it, and

Senate which would consider whether the proposed legislation conformed to the Constitution.

The Senate and the Legislative body could, theoretically, curtail Napoleon’s freedom/power. However, considering the fact that he was involved in the appointment process of these offices, and the general rhythm of daily governance, how much power they were able to exert over him was limited.

(This is at his height! Of course, towards the end we see a shift in that. But that's largely tied up in his military defeats and the British banging the door knocker demanding to be let in. Also they brought with them some friends. You might have heard of them? Bourbons?)

The initial terms the Senate brought to Napoleon with their offer of accepting him as a hereditary monarch included, but weren't limited to:

liberty cannot be infringed

equality cannot be jeopardized

sovereignty of the people must be maintained

the laws of the nation are inviolable

all institutions were to be free from undue imperial influence (e.g. the press)

the nation should never be put into a position where it needs to behead the head of state. Again.

Napoleon was uh. Not best pleased with this and had a new version drafted up that included acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the people, but a lot of the other things (e.g. freedom of the press) were cut out.

Yet, Napoleon maintained certain parts of the French Revolution's values which were reflected more in the 1804 Code Napoleon and other legislative and legal pieces than in the initial terms of Senatorial acceptance of his imperial title.

Some of the things enshrined in the Code that were carry-over from the Revolution include, but aren't limited to, the abolition of feudalism, equality before the law, freedom of conscience (to practice their own religion), gave fixed title to those who had bought church and émigré lands during the 1790s, and the equality of taxation was maintained (tax those aristos and the church). Also, there was affirmation of the idea of careers being "open to talent" rather than an accident of birth (as touched on above).

The Freedom of Conscience clause in the Code was a further formalization of several Articles Napoleon amended onto the Concordat in 1802. The Articles guaranteed the principle of religious toleration and made the Protestant and Jewish churches similarly subject to state authority (alongside the Catholic).

These are just a brief summary of some of the more liberal/revolution-informed aspects of Napoleon's governing.

The non-liberal ones I believe we're all pretty familiar with: suppression of the free press, roll-back of rights for women (women are for babies!), reinstatement of slavery (which he later reversed circa 1810/12-ish), top-down Emperor-has-final-word approach to ruling (Napoleon was all about Authority From Above, Trust From Below) etc. etc.

At the end of this, I would say Napoleon's empire falls into that "benevolent monarch" situation. For a given value of "benevolent." As stated at the start, he was like most other monarchs in Europe at the time. Better than some, not as great about certain things as others.

Really, it all ties back to Order and Stability.

Napoleon's assent, and his approach to strong, centralized ruling, was a result of uncertainty and constant government change over ten years of revolution alongside the growing belief, by 1803, that a republic like the Romans or Greeks was not going to happen any time soon. Not without constant warfare and the forever looming threat of a Bourbon restoration.

In addition, Napoleon was doing imperial drag. (If that makes sense.) He was dialing the notch of Emperor up to 11 - being the most emperor of all emperors. So, state control was absolute because he couldn't show any signs of weakness - either in his own body, his familial body, or the body of state. The court protocols were intense and over-the-top at times because he had to prove he was not just a second son of a parvenu lawyer from the sticks. No! he was worthy of this pomp. He was worthy of imperial majesty. He was worthy of the crown and scepter.

Napoleon was not raised to be anything other than a military officer and a middle-class head of a family (would have been a MASTER at doing Sunday Dad Puttering About the House). When he dawned the mantel of power, particularly that of empire, he had to make it up as he went along. For such a self-conscious and proud man, this was difficult. He never wanted to misstep and be embarrassed - on a personal level, political or military.

At the same time, he was reared on Rousseau and Revolution so still had those values and ideals imbedded in him, and those fears and memories. Napoleon knew as well as any Frenchman that a monarch's head is easily removable should it become necessary. Therefore, he sometimes ran roughshod over the liberty to ensure security. For better or worse, that was the choice he made.

Napoleon was a flawed leader with a complex approach to governing that was focused on a centralization of power within him while, at the same time, trying to be the Successor of the Revolution, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Layers! Like an onion.

His approach as emperor really was within the realm of normal-for-the-times when compared to most other monarchs on the European stage in 1800. He also granted liberties to his people that were unheard of in other countries.

I feel like all my Napoleonic ramblings end with the same message: Dude was nuanced. Dude was complex. Dude did good things and bad things. Dude helped people and hurt people. Dude contained multitudes. Because he was simply human, at the end of the day.

ANNNNNNND we are done.

Gods bless all y'all who made it this far.

Have my favourite picture of Napoleon at Tuileries as a prize.

hmm that beautiful heavy, handed symbolism.

#napoleon #napoleon bonaparte #ask #reply #napoleonic #history #19th century #imperial myth making #napoleonic identity

64 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 3 years

Note

Hey there! Admittedly I'm a little bit nervous since this is my first ask, but I'll try to not be too rambly.

So, recently the main subreddit, r/RWBY, made a ban on active users of the r/RWBYcritics subreddit. As a result there's been discussion around bad-faith criticism in the latter subreddit. What are your takes on bad-faith criticism?

For me personally, I think a bunch of people are misusing the term "bad-faith" and using it as a way to shut down criticism, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Hey there, everyone! We woke up to some drama this morning, huh? And hello to you too, Tortoise! I'm so glad you decided to send in an ask, even if it's following some pretty tumultuous events...

Right, I'd like to start with a story. The story of how I personally don't spend time on Reddit, but I have plenty of friends who will occasionally cross-post something for me to see. Yesterday (or the day before? Idk time is meaningless) a friend told me about a post — which, significantly, I'm now having trouble finding — that covers RWBY's inconsistent writing and the fandom's tendency to try and explain away those missteps. They'd thought I'd be interested because I'd just had a conversation here on tumblr where I made that exact point to someone who, also significantly, vehemently disagreed with me, but in a very civil fashion. Given everything going on, I feel like this side point needs emphasis: we debated, we did so in a sometimes heated, but nevertheless respectful manner, it was clear neither of us was going to sway the other, and the conversation ended. The two "sides" of the community interacted without Armageddon coming about.

But back to the purpose of this tale. I went to take a look at this point and found that it no longer exists. There's just some vague message about it not obeying the subreddit's rules. "What happened?" I asked. "Why'd they take the post down?" "People were getting too heated in the comments," my friend replies. So, given that the comments were still visible, I proceeded to read through them, expecting personal attacks, slurs, harassment, etc. Any number of things that would justify deleting the post itself to put an end to such behavior. Instead, I found a thread of people having a conversation. Was the conversation heated at times? Sure. Did one or two individual posters edge into the realm of petulant, "No. You're wrong and stupid" responses? Yes. Was any of this remotely what I was expecting given the post's removal? NOPE.

"This isn't allowed?" I said. "Well then what is? People were being civil! Or at least as civil as hundreds of strangers ever get when discussing a series they're passionate about online."

Then, this morning, I hear that the entire critic subreddit has been banned.

So to answer your question, Tortoise, I don't actually think that "good faith" criticism exists. Meaning, it's not just that fans are misusing the term "bad faith criticism," but rather that there is no unified, agreed up method of writing criticism that will meet their standards. It's not possible and we know it's not possible because fans have been trying to meet those elusive standards for years:

A fan posts nothing but praise for RWBY until changes make them criticize the show as it is now. Their entire body of work is dismissed as the product of a "hater," despite the overwhelming gap between positive and negative reviews.

A fan posts a review that's a pretty balanced mix between praise and criticism. They're dismissed because it's still too much criticism.

A fan posts a review that's 99% praise with 1% criticism. That's still too much, with fans focusing on the single problem they had with the work and using it as an excuse to dismiss the entire review out of hand.

(As an aside, the argument that critics are "obsessed" with only saying negative things and that the only problem here is that they're "too" negative ignores the argument that... RWBY has a lot of flaws nowadays. Few are willing to acknowledge the possibility that it's not fans insisting on making things up to be mad about/ignoring the good parts of the show, it's the that show is, as of now, legitimately more of a mess than it is a praise-worthy product. If I'd been writing recaps in the Volumes 1-4 days, my work would have been skewed far more towards the positive. The critics' stance is that RWBY has gotten worse, which yes, results a higher volume of critical posts. To say nothing of how criticism takes far longer to explain, likewise resulting in posts focused primarily on that side of the divide. I really enjoyed the image of a crying Jaune reflected in his sword. I did not enjoy that moment's context. Saying that you liked an animation choice is a one sentence thing. Explaining the complexities of Jaune securing emotional moments, the problems with Penny's second death, the hurt many fans experienced watching an assisted suicide, etc. takes a whooole lot longer. Hence, you get massive, multiple posts about these nuanced topics and fewer, smaller posts about the details that are working well.)

A fan talks about a topic that has been metaphorically banned by the fandom as a whole. They have something good to say about Ironwood. They dislike something about Blake/Yang. They enjoyed Adam as a character. They have a problem with Ruby's leadership, etc. There's a whole list of topics nowadays that will result in an automatic dismissal, regardless of the point the fan is trying to make or how well they make it.

A fan talks about the minority representation of RWBY — its black characters, its queer characters, its disabled characters, etc. — and as a result has something to say about the biases and missteps of those writing these characters. This is considered an attack on the writers and, therefore, automatically bad.

A fan talks about how they enjoyed RWBY as it was years ago and is having trouble reconciling the dark, complicated story with the simple, hopeful one we started out with. This is seen as an attack on Monty's vision and an unwillingness to accept that "everything is planned."

A fan does as asked and ensures that their post is meeting all the requirements of "real" criticism. They have an argument to make. They have a point. They provide evidence. They recommend a solution. They keep their tone respectful. They don't attack the creators. They provide disclaimers in every single paragraph about how they do not hate RWBY. It doesn't matter. They're considered too negative.

I have, quite literally, seen every one of the above examples on multiple occasions. I have had many of the above accusations leveled at my own work. When fans say that they're fine with criticism provided it's not "bad faith" criticism, they don't actually have a specific post-type in mind; a checklist of behaviors another fan can emulate and, provided they do that, no hate will come their way. Or, if an individual fan does actually go, "Yeah. That criticism I'm fine with" that response is in no way universal. One person's "They make a good, civil point" is another person's, "Omg stop bashing the show!" Because "bashing" has come to mean everything from curse-laden insults towards everything RWBY has ever done, to posts that just happen to say something other fans don't agree with.

It's a rigged game. There is no way to post criticism about RWBY in an agreed-upon, appropriate manner. This recent ban is proof of that. I think it's incredibly telling that almost immediately after I was going, "Wow. A pretty calm debate about the flaws of RWBY in the main sub. That's great to see," all posters from the criticism subreddit were banned. The main sub literally just had the sort of criticism that they claim to accept — people respectfully posting analysis-based arguments resulting in calm debate — and yet they implemented the ban anyway. I'm not going to pretend that I've never gotten too heated on my own posts, never made snarky comments when I'm frustrated, never used exaggerated reaction GIFs that can come across as insulting... but I'd say on the whole my RWBY work is precisely the sort of "good faith" criticism that other fans are supposedly looking for. I never make an argument I don't think I can back up with evidence. I try to allow for the nuance and differing opinions of complicated topics. I try — even if I don't always succeed — to write in a clear, respectful manner. Yet none of that work has stopped people from telling me I'm a "bitter... raging asshole," a "deranged, delusional psychopath," telling me to set myself on fire, threatening to smash my head in, or just messages to straight up kill myself. If someone like me who legitimately works hard to create fair, defendable criticism and who only ever posts on a personal blog that people can easily block, who never engages in debate until someone else starts it first, never seeks out other fans I disagree with to harass them about what they like... if someone like me is still a "bad faith" critic who "deserves" that kind of hate mail... then what kind of criticism do people want?

Nothing. That's the answer. No criticism whatsoever, of any kind, no matter if it's delivered respectfully, is making a good point, whatever. That's why "RWDE" was created. That's why the critic subreddit was created. The community at large has demanded a complete separation between Praise and Anything That's Not 100% Praise, which has now resulted in this ban. Any other explanations we see are excuses, which becomes glaringly obvious when you look at the mods' supposed reasons for implementing the ban:

"Constant arguments with r/RWBY users" - As opposed to the arguments surrounding things like shipping that never, ever happen?

"Vote manipulation and comment brigades" - The subreddit with 3,000 participants, with around 200 on at a time, is manipulating the votes of a subreddit with 155,000 participants, with over 1,000 on at a time? Those numbers just do not check out. If a positive post is downvoted, or a critical post upvoted, maybe that's because large swaths of the community actually agree/disagree with that assessment, not because the incredibly smaller group is somehow manipulating things.

"Attacking and harassing those they disagree with" — Again, as opposed to those non-critics that never, ever harass people? This is an individual problem, not a community problem. Both critics and non-critics have their sub-groups acting in ways they shouldn't. If anything, the main sub will have more individuals harassing other fans, simply by virtue of being so much larger. As the above examples attest, it's not other critics who have told me to light myself on fire and, just to be clear, the asks I've responded to are a miniscule number compared to the amount I've received. I delete the lion's share for my own sanity and to save my followers from reading the really graphic threats.

"Months-long NSFL spam brigades" — I am, admittedly, not sure what this is referring to. Spamming of NSFW content? If so, that's also an individual problem.

"Homophobic, transphobic, and racist attacks towards our users" — See the above points. Again. If someone is being homophobic, transphobic, or racist, then yes please, ban them. Don't ban an entire community for the actions of a few. It's like walking into a store and banning a customer for causing a scene... but then also banning everyone else who happened to be shopping at the same time. It's guilt by association.

The silver lining to all this? The community as a whole isn't pleased. At least according to the main subreddit comments and a few individual voices like MurderofBirds. Despite the increase (from my perspective anyway) of critical voices post-Volume 8, criticism of RWBY is still very much seen as taboo. As this ban showcases. But it's really reassuring to see so many fans, critics and non-critics alike, going, "This was a mistake." A community is meant to include all aspects of engagement: praise, criticism, and the gray area between. If anything, fans like the mods of the main subreddit should be creating a separate subreddit that is specifically for praise. In the same way that there should have been a tag for RWBY praise, rather than trying to eliminate any and all criticism from the main "RWBY" tag. The majority of fans, even those who claim to hate critics and all they (presumably) stand for, recognize that a blanket ban of all criticism is not the way to go, especially when "criticism" has come to have such a staggeringly broad definition. If you want your RWBY experience to be nothing but sunshine and roses (ha), then cultivate your own internet experience to reflect that. Create your own pockets with rules about how this is the space for praise and if you're not up for praising RWBY right now, don't interact with us in this particular space. Don't try to make the entire community — the main tools used to discuss the show online — conform to your preferences. As established, there is no "good" criticism that everyone in the fandom will accept, which just leaves a fandom with no criticism at all. I'm glad to see I'm far from the only one who, when presented with that extreme, is going, "Nope. No thank you."

#rwby #mymetas #suicide tw #rwde

49 notes · View notes

sanstropfremir · 3 years

Text

kingdom episode 5 review!!! lets fucking go!!!!!

look. was i insanely hyped for this episode? yes. was my hype justified? also yes. holy FUCKING SHIT. you’ll have to forgive me for going off the rails at some points because ateez and btob directly tapped into something primal in my brain and i am obsessed. i'm obsessed. there’s no other word for it I’m obsessed.

ok ok ok i'll focus. i'm focused. i'll do the stage breakdown first and then do my personal ranking at the end. i might do a quick runup comparison of the self and expert rankings for funsies but i'll see how i feel when i get there. instead of going in airing order i’m gonna reverse it, since that was the order i actually watched them in and also i will run out of brains if i talk about rhythm ta first.

skz

i feel for skz. i don't think this show is going to be as much of learning curve as it needs to be for them because the fan voting skews the rankings so much. I’ve said it so many times before, but letting something flop or getting a bad ranking is actually good, because it shows you that you need to improve. because skz keeps getting validated by the fan rankings and placing first in the last two stages, they aren't actually taking the time to evaluate what about their stages is or isn't working. and besides, we’ve now seen two very similar concepts in a row from them, just one is on a grander scale than the other. what they should be doing is what both ateez and btob did for this round, which was scale up production value, but scale down concept. i know this sounds weird but i'll explain. skz has done two very abstract and ‘grand’ concepts. first round we had ghosts/good self vs evil self, and this stage they just went straight for the throat with a deal with the devil type stage. now when you combine these very abstract concepts with an unclear narrative arc, you lose clarity of intent in the performance because there are no specifics that you’re playing off of. there’s a lot more places left up to personal interpretation and this is where people can get lost. btob and ateez both narrowed down their concepts to hyperspecific scenarios where they very clearly showing the audience the arc the stage is taking. audiences can be smart but also if you can lead them by the hand they like not thinking about highly conceptual ideas, and especially not so much in a pop song competition show.

costume

this is so rare because generally stylists are pretty careful about this, but i genuinely think they got outshone by the backup dancers, especially in the ‘heaven’ sequence. those sash and skirt combos with the strapped white tops that look like straitjackets? the fucking angel wings?! these are some thematically fun costume designs and because they’re white they stand out so much more when skz are wearing black. i also think i've seen these tops on backup dancers before? i thought it was on the last stage but i might be going insane.

i am a sucker for beaded embroidery and the combined dyework on some of their sashes is beautiful. but again, thematically irrelevant? at least you can see the greco-roman inspiration in the backup dancers’ costumes. all this is telling me is that whoever the stitchers are at jype, they are fucking incredible, but they don’t actually have a good designer because the main costumes for all their stages have been both aesthetically similar and thematically irrelevant.

again, i applaud skz for trying more experimental makeup, but boys you have to go bigger, it has no impact right now.

set

well, i did ask for them to commit to the western art bit and they sort of delivered? the first space is not planned very well and combined with the wide wide camera shots instead of making the space seem grand and sweeping it just seems bare. the ‘heaven’ side was excellent though, there was much better control of the camera and the columns and altar scaled the space down so it was more believable. also the breakable columns were fun and corny and i love it when stuff gets destroyed onstage.

the child statue transformation into actual child was a neat trick that i think landed really well. i wish they had given that concept a little more grounding other than the flashback bit but it was still very readable.

i know using rodin's gates of hell is the easiest way to shortcut saying that like, “you are now entering hell,” but them being used SO literally feels a bit blunt when the last time we saw them used in kpop was by original blasphemous catholic lee taemin, who used them with such nuance and intelligence that i'm a bit put off by skz’s literalism.

on that note, i find it very interesting the conflation that happens between greco-roman/”classical” aesthetics and catholicism, because ideologically the two are opposed (see: the bible) and historically, they didn't exist at the same time. now i'm not going to go off on a tangent about neoclassicism because you are not here for an art history lecture but i thought i would make the observation about how catholics continued appropriation of greco-roman aesthetics without complete understanding or context of those aesthetics is as pervasive as it ever has been in the last several hundred years.

lighting

generally the lighting is pretty good, but there’s an over-reliance on projections that cheapens the look of the stage but also devalues the intentions as well. at the core of it there’s a profound statement being made about trading away your innocence, but when you underscore that with like, clock graphics and a WoW looking demon, it loses that simplicity of message.

the thing about using this particular type of projection, which are actually screens and not typical projectors, is that screens always throw light. and due to where they are situated, this basically means that if you're using the screens at full capacity with a cool colour range, we are going to be able to see everything. this is another contributing factor to why the stage looks so empty; they’re lighting up everything and it exposes where the gaps are.

now i fully acknowledge that this possibly could have been a deliberate choice, since they do actually use some spot lighting at the beginning and end. however, if it was it did not land for me.

i loved the intro of demon felix done in blue, that was a nice switchup from what we would usually see, but i wish there was more of a coherent colour arc. like the narrative it stutters around a bit.

sound

the arrangement was a miss for me. i found it a bit dissonant again, like their last stage, since the original i'll be your man has obvious lyrics about a good christian boy being sad about a girl. this gets a bit wonky conceptually as soon as you add a child self into it. i don’t know if they changed any of the lyrics in the singing to match this a little more because i don't speak korean, so i'll have to wait for episode subs for verification.

i really applaud them for trying, and overall they didn't actually do that bad, but skz is not a vocal group. the most i'm going to say about it is that these boys don’t have the breath support. this is likely because they're trying to do choreographically complex movements, but also it's a training thing. you can hear the difference even just between eunkwang’s ‘vocal warmup’ at the beginning of back door, he’s not projecting full voice but he still has the breath support for his voice to sound full, whereas all skz boys sound thin in comparison, even when at full volume, because they’re trying to project from the throat and not the chest. that's all i'm gonna say about that. i don't think the cracked note was bad, i didn’t really clock it on first listen.

staging

thematically they could have had something really interesting here if they stuck to a more simple narrative arc. the genesis (i’m very funny) of the idea here is good, the whole mephistopheles deal with a devil + regret/loss of innocence is clear, but the arc isn't really an arc, and the colour story doesn't help. it kind of goes earth (green/blue) -> the gates of hell are opening (red) -> oh it's heaven now (blue) -> oh just kidding it's hell/lets destroy heaven (red) -> back to earth (blue). not necessarily a bad arc, just a bit complex for four minutes.

the choreo was a lot better this time, there was a lot more intention and relevance to theme and i didn’t feel like they were flailing for the sake of flailing as much as i have in their other stages. there was also a clarity in the overall blocking and movement patterns that was missing from their other stages. this stage has a really great handoff of each member playing the ‘main’ character, especially in the beginning. i especially liked the cut from falling off the stairs to laying centre stage.

i think I’m right in assuming that it was a choice that the members were all playing the same character and demon felix was that character possessed rather than the actual devil, but personally i think it would have been a lot more fun if they had straight up just made him be the actual devil. there’s a bit of dissonance when you have a performer with such a specialized skillset that gets used in very specific instances, but then he shows up in the regular group choreo like any ol’ guy. they always put such emphasis on felix (as they should, he’s their most charismatic performer), but they never go the distance. i would have loved it if they had committed to the bit like TOO did in their magnolia stage from rtk, where they had a member just be blinded justice. that was literally the only thing he did and it worked so well. could have done the same here with felix and it would have been fun. that being said the felix parts were SO good. love love love him getting dragging in chains.

btob

this hit every little one of the buttons in my tiny backstage crew brain. i'm in love with this stage. there’s so many true to life little details here that on repeat viewings you're still finding new things. i know i rag on and on about narrative every week but here is a good example of what i've been trying to get at this whole time: the stage needs a shape. an a to b. you don't need a whole pirates spiel or a game of thrones theme extended universe; all you need is a clear setting and a point a to point b. this stage has both those things perfectly. we have a hyperspecific setting, (american rockstars) and a basic arc (getting ready to perform -> performing). even though back door is outside of btob’s wheelhouse, they spun it in a way that played to their strengths and did a bit braggadocio, which is rightfully earned. i'm gonna be saying it every time but the experience shows!!!

costume

good contemporary costume is SO difficult, i want to impress that here. because it's the the time period that we are currently living and seeing every day it's so easy for the audience to spot mistakes. although yes it's easier to source/shop for, to get it good enough that it doesn't pull people out of the immersion is surprisingly more difficult than you think. their stylists did an excellent job here. the backup dancers and btob are all in monochrome plus one and it adds a very clean unity to everything without visual clutter.

each of btob’s costumes have enough to give indication of character, along with the member’s acting, which i'll get more into in the staging section. regardless, never underestimate the power of a good fitting shirt and statement belt. oh and minhyuk in the stirrup motorcycle boots with the skinny jeans and the supreme boxers and the red satin robe? good bye.

i love love love a dyed buzz this was such a good aesthetic choice for peniel, 10/10 i have no complaints about the costumes.

set

oh my god i’m gonna french kiss this set designer. this is such a simple set but it’s executed so well. there’s the ‘backstage’ area, the corridor with four dressing rooms, and then the ‘stage’ that’s pretty much just velvet ropes. so simple, but all the detail is in the set decoration and props. the road cases, the monitor, the subtle flex of the posters of them on the walls, the clothing racks, all the booze. although this is not the actual layout of any theatre (they're normally much weirder than this), there’s so many little details here that really make the experience.

there’s a very straightforward path here and it works so well. i think this might be the best use of the gates so far? it appropriately suited the drama of the moment and they didn't have to do anything to them because they're already in a theatre. bada bing bada boom.

lighting

love the setup and continuation through the amber ‘BRRRMM.’ like with sf9 it gives a smooth transition into the stage. also loved no blackout. it's a general rule in current theatrical practice that you only use blackouts when they are absolutely necessary, because they can stop the pacing of a play dead in the water. so the lack of one here at the start of the stage was a really smart choice and makes the transition feel less jarring.

i will say that actual backstage areas are very rarely lit with amber because it travels far and it's bright. it's much more common to see running lights (the lights on during a performance) to be deep red or blue.

those blasting wash lights as the gates open? the DRAMA. such a seemingly innocuous choice that really cements the atmosphere of ‘we are about to perform.’

really smart use of the projections to accentuate the already existing stage facilities. it's pretty much unnoticable because it's very well done but i appreciate it.

sound

this ARRANGEMENT!!!! it's so good!!! back door has this premise essentially built into the song so it was so smart of them to put this gimmicky spin on it. loved the literal interpretation of the knocks into the structure of the stage, it makes the blend between the sound design and the staging that much more effective.

more rock versions of everything please and thank you.

btob is just stunting at this point and i love it. i'll have to wait for subs but judging by the hands in front of the camera bit and the ‘your super high note’ i’m pretty confident the added rap lyrics are full of shots at the other groups and honestly? valid.

staging

there's some really sharp camera control here with the one take first half. It’s up very close and personal because there’s a lack of space but it really works for the ‘intimacy’ of seeing backstage at a venue. also this is such a simple movement track but it’s so effective. it backs over a couple spots but it doesn't feel repetitive because there’s a sense of urgency and drive.

there are so many good little details in here that are true to life and unnecessary to include but sell the performance as a whole. peniel flinging water onstage, minhyuk stripping down twice and flinging his clothes around, minhyuk closing the door on the standby’s face, the backup dancer as a dresser with the laundry basket, peniel stealing the hat off her but then not going on stage with it these are all things that I’ve either had directly happen to me or something very similar has happened. but the best one and the one that sets off the tone amazingly for the whole stage is eunkwang’s intro. that ‘vocal warmup’ with the quiet okay at the end? with the little jump? i see that moment of vulnerability before the transition between person and actor every time i watch someone go onstage for the first time and there’s no way to describe it other than magic.

the luxury of only having four members, there was actually time in this stage to establish character. it also speaks to the performing strength of btob that they can establish clear character in this short amount of time. obviously it’s pretty one dimensional; there’s serious eunkwang, typical rocker minhyuk, fuckboy peniel (how many licks does it take to make your tootsie pop, anyone?), and comedian changsub. i’ve seen and met and worked with these exact dudes many, many times. ugh i love this stage

ateez

the utter euphoria i felt at the proof that last round’s stage wasn't a fluke. this stage is so good. it's so good. i'm obsessed with how good this stage. as an unreformed pop punk teen who played a LOT of latin jazz i am LIVING. if you’ve only seen the episode cut and not the full version here i'll make it easy and link it for you because oh my GOD mnet destroyed the pacing by cutting in a full minute and a half of reaction shots. actually mnet fucked up the pacing for all of these stages but this one was the worst. and look. i know this is the closest these boys are going to get to being real punks and this is a carefully curated and artificial facade for narrative purposes only but oh the pandering tastes so sweet. regardless of that, i am IN AWE of the level of storytelling happening here. the narrative is so clear on just the first viewing even though there is so much going on and they use every possible element they can to further enhance that narrative. repeat viewings just add more and more little details. i’ll probably miss some things because there's so much but i'll try my best.

costume

look, hanya and i were joking that my notes for this stage were just gonna be ‘san dog collar’ for a thousand words and i was so tempted to just leave it at that because.....woof. so here is a short list of things i am the most obsessed with:

san dog collar

san smeared lipstick

wooyoung cruella deville ponytail

hongjoong terrible blond crewcut

san crushed velvet cargo pants?!

seonghwa cropped fur jacket

yunho arm sleeve

hongjoong sockless in red derbys

but in all seriousness the costumes are so good. none of these are truly authentic punk looks but they capture the spirit right and that's what matters. all the right trappings are there; safety pins, patches, plaid, leather, and a lot of diy type looks. i love the painted masks, especially as a callback to the comedy/tragedy theatre masks. it was a thematic choice to have the backup dancers in black and the tac vests are a super simple contextual device.

also hongjoong’s quickchange hat/jacket combo is super fun and i hope that’s intentionally a preview of the next stage.

set

if you weren't convinced before that whoever is designing the ateez stages is a stage designer, i don't know what to tell you. it's hard to tell because there is so much environmental storytelling happening, but there is NO large scale set here. like with their last stage, kq smartly put money into two highlight pieces; the anarchist blimp and the van/wall, and the rest of the stage atmosphere is established solely through propwork and lighting. just think about that for a bit. every other group has some kind of large scale room or wall build. ateez has a bunch of tables, flyers, and a podium. i don’t know if i can accurately communicate just how difficult this kind of coordination is to pull off but holy fucking shit this is so hard to pull off. these are theatre people i see you and i see your work and i love you!!!

they fully used the gilt mnet stage as their pseudo government building and it works. everything about this (lack of) set is so smart i wish i could be more articulate about it but there’s so only so many ways i can say the same thing over and over again.

lighting

the laser scopes. the LASER SCOPES!!! god this lighting designer is so good. whoever you are, i'm acknowledging your effort because you deserve it. there’s some really wonderful contrast and directional lighting: the van light, the pinlights/lasers/smoke as searchlights. a lot of atmospheric red lighting but it makes sense for the theme (alarm lights) and they offset it well (unlike in the other two predominantly red stages we’ve seen) by fill lighting the faces with blue or amber; this is what actually makes us able to see what’s happening on stage

the projections are used to augment the stage action in without being overpowering, they're at relatively low tonal value so they aren't lighting up the stage at full brightness like in the skz stage.

the big brother eye on the tv screens (it's just a projection, not actual screens) combined with the government ban notice and the broadcast has to be the record for fastest visual explanation of fascist totalitarian state.

sound

i love it. they really successfully made rhythm ta into an ateez song and it’s cool as fuck. i love that it isn't sonically very loud. a lot of the chorus is actually quite level tone and quiet, which is a bold choice and they pull it off. this is very comfortably in their range (excluding jongho) and they went more for style than range and that's exactly what every group should be doing. singing high does not equal singing good. yes i am looking at you jongho you should have stopped at that penultimate note, it was fine!!

using rhythm ta as a pseudo protest song against a fascist government that’s banned all music and art? galaxy brain. that intro of hongjoong whispering “hey hey hey hey, this is just a song so get on the rhythm” after gunning down military police/guards? king fucking shit.

staging

i will eat all five pairs of my fluevog boots if kq hasn't hired a bunch of theatre professionals to direct and design these stages because now it's been proven that last stage wasn't a fluke. the level of execution at work here is absolutely incredible. oh the gesamtkunstwerk of it all!!! there is SO much happening so quickly in this four minute stage and it still manages to convey exactly the correct amount of information that it needs to on the first go round, and it only gets better on repeat viewings.

they use a really classic theatre perspective trick with san climbing the rope, and they absolutely didn’t have to do that. san probably could have actually climbed that himself, but here they made a choice for aesthetic artistry over tricking/other feats of skills we’ve seen the 4th gen groups do. instead of going with the more technically difficult and ‘impressive’ option, they chose the simple way that allows for more character to shine through. there’s actually very little tricking in this stage as whole, they're putting trust in the design of the stage and the raw performance abilities of the members to carry the stage and they stick the landing again. san has some breakdancing and so do the backup dancers, but it’s window dressing in the same way that the flyers are window dressing.

there’s a lot of really good little moments of acting that really sell the performance and dedication of the group as a whole to giving their all. hongjoong overall in his cocky aspirational leader role, seonghwa’s first verse and malfunctioning earpiece bit, san’s falsetto hostage interrogation bit. also i'm obsessed with how far yunho just hucks that mask. he gets like fifteen feet of air with that thing. also props to hongjoong barehanding that glass break.

the paper props are impeccable. the first notice sets up the situation right away, and then we get some further exposition with the newspaper wooyoung is holding (which says ‘the central government has defined the black pirates as a terrorist’ but honestly you don't really need to know what it says to get the point), and then we have raining anarchist flyers from the anarchist blimp. great atmospheric touches.

the blackout crash-to-mask transition is just so good. this is an example of a good use of a blackout. nothing else to add i just thought i would point it out because it's dope.

like with btob there's some really tight camera control here, that along with the lighting and the way they've laid out the space make it easy to follow the trajectory of where they're going and also make the space seem smaller than it is. this is a really big stage and if you don't control how you want it to be seen you end up like with what happened to the first part of skz’s stage. i wish they had tracked some of the one takes a bit better, but the end of that take where the camera followed the group movement laterally and then the formation swung around to face front? sexy. surprisingly the editing is pretty ok.

there’s probably still so much i could talk about but this is already so long so if i missed something just let me know.

ok finally lets do some rankings

personal ranking

this round wasn't as tough to rank because there were two clear top tier stages for me. i actually went back and looked at my ranking from last round and this is identical except the top two spots are switched, which i find extremely funny. however in contrast to last round, these stages were all leagues better than their predecessors. all the groups are improving, just some at greater speed than others.

ateez - i'm not even gonna explain this one.

btob - i won't explain this one either since i just did that.

sf9 - this would have been first if ateez and btob hadnt blow everyone out of the water.i still think they made all the right choices and played to their strengths.

ikon - this stage is so fun to watch but the others offer me more. that’s it.

skz - i like the idea behind it and i loved felix; i'm always down for some good catholic fuckery but like last round it just wasn't played out far enough.

tbz - double ding on the moulin rouge and the continued game of thrones references for me. there were a lot of strong elements here but when compared to every other stage it just doesn't have the same gravitas.

the self rankings i thought were fairly accurate, but again, what the fuck is up with these expert rankings? who are these experts? what stages are they watching?? i won't go more into it than that because then you'll be here even longer but i don't trust these experts who consistently rank btob at the bottom, do you have eyes??? ears????

ok i'm done for real now im so sorry this 4.6k words......if you make it this far do something nice for yourself like eat a cookie or something. this is way too long you deserve a reward for making it through my nonsense. as always if you’ve got questions or want to share your opinions feel free to send me an ask!

#kingdom #kingdom review #should i risk it and tag the groups this time? i kinda wanna bait some weirdos #kpop analysis #ok im gonna do it #ateez #btob #stray kids #the boyz #sf9 #ikon #im pretty sure i missed so much here but this is so long im so sorry #at least next week i wont be doing this kind of writeup #text

54 notes · View notes

maxwell-grant · 3 years

Note

Fellow brazillian here. If The Shadow existed in Brazil today, would he go after Bolsonaro, seeking to bring him down?

Sim. Se tem alguma pessoa que mereceu a ira vingativa do Sombra em cheio, é o cara que está chacinando uma nação inteira. Acompanha o post comigo:

This is gonna be the first and only time I'm ever going to talk about a potential "The Shadow deals with real life politician/figure I hate" scenario. Assume that, yes, he would find a way to stop them and achieve a decent-if-not-ideal outcome because he's The Shadow, and it's your fantasy to do as you please. I'm only making an exception here because it's Bolsonaro.

Putting this one below the cut, and I was gonna write this one in Portuguese but, idk, maybe some gringos should read it too.

Generally I'm not in favor of stories about fictional characters going after real people or addressing "real issues" because they are very rarely done well, but Bolsonaro crossed whatever thresholds of decency and nuanced discussion long before he even became president. I don't want to call Bolsonaro a monster because I like monsters, and there's not a single monster in fiction who deserves a comparison to that vile shrieking beast and shitstain on humanity that has made everything worse for everyone here ever. I want all of you who don't live in Brazil to understand that, yeah, Bolsonaro might be a joke to you guys, and rightfully so. But he is not "diet Trump". He is WORSE Trump, in literally every single regard, as a person and a politician and a (loathe as we are to admit it) human being, and I don't make that claim lightly. He's guilty of every crime conceivable and there isn't a single Shadow villain worse than him.

The Shadow would not gun down Bolsonaro personally, as appealing a fantasy as that might be to literally anyone living in Brazil right now who didn't vote for the fucker or regrets doing so. Because, one, Bolsonaro is not the ultimate perpetrator of evil, he is mainly the loudest one. Scumbags like Mourão entrenched more deeply within the government and able to get away with more heinous shit because Bolsonaro soaks up all the attention, those are a bigger problem, because those guys will weasel their way out of their fuck-ups, while Bolsonaro is (hopefully) on his way out as is now that he's an active liability even to his own government and we are, FINALLY, reaching another election.

And two, the sheer repercussions such an act would have for the population are not something The Shadow would risk, if he didn't plan for those and for who would have to take over. Last thing he would want is to further revive Bolsonaro's public support by making a martyr out of the man. The Shadow Knows better than to just assume a government's problems will go away if the president dies, and even if he can't possibly be expected to fix the metric shitton we've been in for decades, he's The Shadow and this is a fantasy story, so ideally yes, he would know better than most what to do.

All I'm gonna say further on the matter is to just post excerpts from the end of Dictator of Crime, which is a story where The Shadow helps oust a dictator from a South American republic, by aiding efforts to restore the former president and manipulating the gangsters he's been hunting throughout the story into gunning down the man.

Earlier, The Shadow had silently disposed of Castenago's bodyguards, but he didn't specify whether he had handled them individually, or in pairs.

The trail suddenly became very hot, for it was leading to the place where Castenago expected sure refuge; the banquet hall

Out of breath, the bulky dictator staggered into sight of the astonished guests, panting for guards to save him.

For the benefit of the guards about the banquet hall, Castenago turned and gestured toward the door, gasping for the guards to hurry and block off his enemies. He hadn't finished the words before the enemies, themselves, appeared.

Murk and his men saw Castenago, and they also spied the guards, who were grabbing for rifles. Murk didn't wait for any ceremony.

He fired straight for Castenago, and the other thugs copied the act. As swiftly as they had murdered Durez, the quick-triggered assassins disposed of Castenago.

They were turning away while the bulky dictator still was swaying on his feet. A moment later, Castenago toppled, lifeless when he struck the floor

The Shadow's laugh denoted no surprise

É só substituir alguns nomes.

9 notes · View notes

bisluthq · 3 years

Note

Some of the stuff Taylor says re identity politics (for context i’m a black bi woman) is so…un-thorough? 😭 like that thing she said 'Rights are being stripped from anyone who isn't a straight white cisgender male' completely leaves classism out of the conversation, or how in the YNTCD music video all the homophobes were redneck working class white americans in tank tops (those aren’t the worst homophobes, the ones in suits in the republican party are) or how her first reaction after George Floyd was shot was telling Trump we’d vote him out as if that alone would solve systemic racism and police brutality (the first two examples could just be me reading into it too much but this one I really disliked when it happened) when those are issues that have existed long before he was in office (though it obviously got worse again in his presidency because he fed into it). Maybe this is nitpicky or maybe I just view things differently but I wish she would read some theory on intersectional feminism, queer theory and would go beyond the surface in politics more and was just more eloquent when it comes to that, especially as she’s so eloquent regarding other things like music. I think this is also why I didn’t enjoy songs like YNTCD and The Man on Lover (apart from the Joel Little production which also leaves a lot to be desired).

I mean these things are fair. Like expecting Taylor Swift or all people to be intersectional and have a really nuanced view of things when she’s had every privilege bar a dick and hasn’t been to college (and finished high school in a Christian homeschooling program) is always going to turn up a little bullshit. Like she’s a good person who tries hard but like obviously her views aren’t nuanced or important, and tbf I don’t know why we’d expect a hot white lady who prances about stage in a leotard to share something profound with the class.

Do I think Miss Americana was misguided af? Yes.

Do I think Taylor Swift has interesting things to say about politics? No.

Like I wish she’d never made “I’m political now” a brand but I also don’t think her stances and lack of action and lack of fucking knowledge are surprising.

But you’re allowed to be mad at her and go off her for that even tbh, because my word.

#nat talks tay’s politics

4 notes · View notes

camelely · 3 years

Text

TFATWS Spoilers under the cut

Literally the following is my thoughts and opinions, and there are probably some unpopular opinions lol. It's kinda really long lol.

Starting with some positives.

I loved how the two leads had storylines that mirrored each other. Sam needed to become Captain America and gain a title and Bucky needed to move on from The Winter Solider and loose a title.

Sam. Just Sam I loved him before but now I love him more.

Sam becoming Cap.

I loved Isaiah and his story.

I loved Sam's family, how they welcomed Bucky and the struggles Sarah had.

I really liked how they spent time with both Sam and Bucky and didn't forget the show was supposed to be about both of them. Often times shows tend to lean into the more popular or fan favorite lead and this show didn't do that. When Sam took center it felt natural and when Bucky took center it felt natural.

The Wakandans were great. I love Ayo and her friendship with Bucky.

Zemo was fine and fun enough.

John Walker was incredibly done. Wyatt Russell did an amazing job and the scene with the blood on the shield will forever be in my memory. Hands down one of the most impactful MCU moments.

I like the genderbend on Karl/Karli and the direction they took her character. People that go from sympathetic ideas to unforgivable means, make good villains. I think her more boring elements come from the lack of development she got.

Now on to the negatives.

This show could have been like two hours shorter and still told the same story with the same impact. Also earlier episodes, (maybe later episodes too I might have just gotten used to it and stopped noticing lol), had some weird ADR moments. IDK what happened behind the scenes but it was noticeable.

I would have loved it if one of the episodes was a flashback episode. The Sharon twist was obvious from the first episode she appeared in but like they thought it was good enough to save confirmation for the mid/end of the finale? Both her and Karli would have been benefited from a flashback episode.

Karli should have fought Bucky while Sam was focused on Walker. Sam could have had a moment where he tells him he will never be forgiven and Walker would responded with something similar to "I do what is right. I don't need forgiveness." Then when he becomes USAgent it lands more like the next progression in an arc rather than the redemption arc this could be interpreted as. I personally think this is a stepping stone and not a redemption but the MCU (and Disney) doesnt have a great track record when it comes to handling anything with nuance and the fans have an even worse track record when handling things that arent black and white. I guess my point is they could have handled the John Walker set up better.

Speaking of set up, this entire show was set up. This is my main and only real problem with this show. Nothing felt like it was resolved at the end. Karli even says she was part of a bigger movement. Killing her didn't change the fact a lot of people felt the un blip ruined their lives. People always shit on Tony for wanting to bring people back five years later instead of going back in time but like it had been five years, while some like Steve and Natasha hadn't moved on, others had. Some had better lives. Assuming everyone wanted to back to the way things used to be would also be a mistake. This has consequences too, as we see in these shows. But ruining the lives of the people who had bettered themselves would have been shitty too. And yea some people who had been bettered were worsened once again when the un blip happened but my point is going back and erasing the five years would have been shitty too. There is not really a right answer here as the right answer would have been to either stop the snap before it happened or to come to terms with the fact that the snap can never be undone. Leaving everyone as dead might have hurt, but it was the best thing for a community that had five years of mourning and moving on and counseling ETC. Ooof that was a tangent lol and I could probably write an essay so going back to my original point about set up. The flag smashers, or at least people who think the way they did still exist, Sharon Carter is the powerbroker but Sam and Bucky dont know and now shes back as agent 13, John Walker went from war hero to committing war crimes and his journey as USAgent is just starting, Sam has taken the Cap mantle and is ready to begin acting as Cap, and Bucky is both coming to terms with and moving on from his past. Nothing is actually resolved in this mini series. I know it's supposed to make you excited for the next movie/show/season whatever but have six episodes of little to no payoff IMO made for a flat show.

Building off the set up problem. This show had too much going on. Sam and Bucky each had their own personal journey (The A and B plot depending on the episode), Sam and Bucky being friends and their shared journey (C), John Walker and the Flag Smashers (the D and E plot depending on the episode), Zemo and the Wakandans (F), The PowerBroker/Sharon (G), The boat and Sarah which could be considered part of Sam's plot but since if you cut it out the only thing that actually effected Sam's journey would be the bank in the first episode and yet it still went on till basically the end I'm calling it it's own plot (H), Valentina Allegra de Fontaine, which might be part of John Walker's story but since it's all set up for her to take a bigger role in the future and his set up could be completed without her I'm counts her separately (I), then you have the big meeting at the end, the senators and policy makers making choices the vote that they keep mentioning and once again more set up... (J). 10 ideas by my count, all needed their own set up, follow through, and payoff. And yes some stuff like Valentina the pay off will come later but still... It's all too many plots! And thats not mentioning side characters that were new to the show that they wanted to spend time with but couldn't.

Even though I think the shows aren't comparable/two different genres WandaVision had two more episodes (and yes some were shorter but I already mentioned I think FATWS could have benefited from that), completed all the main plots and had Wanda's journey (A), Vision's journey (B), Agatha, Pietro/Ralph, and the citizens of the hex (C), Outside the hex Monica (D), Outside the hex everyone else and sure you can separate Darcy, Jimmy and Heyward but none of them were setting up future stories or had their own distinctive plot outside the hex thing like Monica so she is the only one I am separating (E), the kids who could be counted as an extension of the Wanda and Vision plots since they didnt really have their own arc or story (F). 6 total. And some of those could be combined. Like I think we should separate Wanda Vision and the kids but technically they are just an extension of Wanda. And same with Monica, her story was mostly intertwined with Darcy, Jimmy and the outside the hex stuff. I separated her since I think she had enough moments to herself and she set up secret invasion or whatever, but like Valentina being a part of John's story it is arguable. Of these plots only the missing witness Jimmy thing, Wanda's post credits moment a moment seperate from everything else, Monica's mid credits i think? moment another one separate from everything else, and white vision were unresolved. They gave Agatha an opening ending but it was still an ending. And yes Darcy Heyward etc will probably come back but the plot they had here was finished. So arguably they had 2/6 unfinished plots. And if you don't count Jimmy's witness as a plot and just count it as an unanswered question then 1/6. And technically white vision is just half a vision and the other vision got a complete plot so really it's 0.5/6 At best they completed 92(ish)% of the plots and left 8 (ish) % for future stuff.

In contrast FATWS only finished Sam's journey into becoming Cap, Zemo and the Wakandans, and arguably Sam and Bucky's friendship. You might be able to argue that Bucky had a full circle moment with the guy whose son he killed, but that is one guy and Bucky has been carrying around a list of people like that guy. It's not the end of a story it is the start of a journey. And maybe it is possible to say the boat thing had an ending kinda. 2/10 completed. maybe 3/10 if you wanna push it 5/10. IMO at best they completed 50% of plot set up.

Clearly FATWS is meant to be this way and thats why it bothered me. They want you to watch Cap 4 or whatever they decide to call the theatrical movie that will come after this. I guess I was just expecting it to stand on it's own, and other than Sam's journey into becoming Captain America, which was amazing and deserved in every way, nothing this show did felt like it could have stood on its own. I know it's arguable that was the main story and only story that deserved to end. But I've already pointed out all the other running plots this show had, and I think at least two or three of them should have had follow through in the show.

Someone who plans to never seen an MCU movie after these shows could have watched WandaVision and enjoyed it. That is not the case for FATWS. If you don't plan on watching any MCU stuff in the future you won't know how over half the plots of this show will end. THis isn't even how the movies work. They each tell their own story while also setting up other things, so it is clear they know how to do this.

I can see why Disney decided to submit it as a series and not a mini series. Not only do they not want to compete with themselves (nominating WV as a miniseries) but also this isn't a miniseries.

I guess to conclude I'll say I did really enjoy watching this show. It was fun and there were some great moments. It featured amazing character and amazing actors, but I wish it had bothered to finish more of what it started.

Thank you so much for reading till the end of a post that has surely become unintelligible gloop by now. If you disagree I'd love to hear why!

7 notes · View notes

qoreprojects · 3 years

Photo

The Party Whip, or Lilith in the 11th House

Not long ago, I paid a visit to my 11th house to speak with Lilith. She lives there, along with my South Node - a tiny golden compass that points toward the past. It was the past that I wanted. Lilith had lived in this house alongside it for so long that I believed she’d be able to help me understand what it meant.

“You thought that I would be angrier?” she laughed sharply.

Lilith was perched on a window seat, half her face bathed in the single stream of light in an otherwise shadow-filled room. She wore a simple red shift dress. Her hair was loc’d and tumbled towards her leather-belted waist on one side of her head, exposing a shaved opposite side to the dappled sun. She held an orange and a pocket knife in her hands.

I nodded slightly. Every movement in this room could be felt in ways that did not exist in the material realm. Palpable waves rippled away from the tiniest gestures. Shadows danced in the corners. The air was possessed, and every shift had meaning.

“That’s funny,” she said, flicking a peel onto the floor, “I don’t know why people only recognize Lady Regret when I am in my war clothes.” She used her own title with a touch of irony.

Several crows called to one another outside, and a light breeze stirred the distant treetops. This movement agitated the shadows in the room. All was as it should be - in flux.

“You are here because you want to know about your greatest regret,” Lilith stated presently.

“I suppose so, yes,” my breath rippled away from me in the cool, dark air. “At this point, I’ve run out of reasons not to know.”

Lilith smiled a lop-sided smile and continued peeling, one foot on the sill and one on the floor. “Are you familiar with the term ‘true believer’?”

“Yes,” I said quietly, knowing where this was going. I could feel the conversation as a tangible thing, like a strong westerly wind. The shadows and the dust particles organized themselves accordingly. Lilith tilted her face to look me directly in the eye. “What about the term ‘party whip’?”

The wind of conversation changed directions, and the shift was slight but sudden. I marveled at the subtle switch, and a sense of dread overcame me. The life inside the room absorbed my response as an addition to its moving chorus of shadows.

She paused to eat one section of orange, and then began peeling again. “The party whip is a different thing, isn’t it? Let’s examine the two…”

The True Believer and the Party Whip

The life of a True Believer can easily be confused with personal sacrifice on behalf of others. This is because, from the outside, it looks as if the True Believer is willing to give up a great deal for their party. They may give up relationships, time, effort, money, or freedom to make certain lifestyle choices. Observers who consider the party a worthy cause call the True Believer “self-sacrificing” and “a saint”; people who dislike the cause say the True Believer is silly and “voting against their own interests”.

In truth, the True Believer sacrifices little for the party because the party’s goals and the True Believer’s goals are almost exactly the same. If a True Believer does sacrifice anything for the party, it is minor and without much pain or hesitation. There is no real conflict between their motivations and that of the party. The True Believer may recognize some problems or contradictions within the party, or they may lack the critical perspective to do so. In either case, the flaws of the party and the flaws of the True Believer are largely the same. There can be a kind of innocence in that.

A Party Whip is not the same thing as a True Believer. (A Party Whip can also be a True Believer - but for the purposes of this conversation we will consider them separately.) Unlike the True Believer, the Party Whip does not necessarily align with everything the party says and does on a personal level. They may notice glaring flaws and issues within the party. They may believe that the party’s words and deeds do not match. They may long for previous versions of the party, or hope for future ones, while considering the present party to be a mere shadow of itself. They may think of the party’s goals as good general rules that will benefit the world, but that should not be applied in every situation without nuance.

The only things necessary for the role of a successful Party Whip are a sincere belief that the party is the best way to get things done - to have a hand in the creation of the world, to make things happen - and that the ends of this goal justify the means. For the sake of those two beliefs, the Party Whip can modify their own behavior and offer themselves up to be ‘borrowed’ by the party, in the hope that they can ‘borrow’ the party’s collective power for themselves at a later date.

Say, the leaders and vanguards of the party have decided that its collective goals will be best served by oranges. Under no circumstances can there be apples. Other fruits are fine, though less than ideal - but absolutely no apples. The Party Whip shows up to work and receives the party line: everyone in the party is to vote for oranges, and it is the Whip’s job to ensure this outcome.

The intelligent Whip has their finger on the collective pulse and can understand exactly why the party agenda is supported by oranges. They also know that competing parties are out there voting for other fruits - sometimes even apples. This is unacceptable. The party must win, which means that oranges must win and apples must lose.

The skilled Party Whip may not personally enjoy the taste or texture of oranges. They may even feel sympathetic to apples. However, the Whip is quite accustomed to viewing their own tastes and desires as a secondary concern to more important matters: the party line. They know how to either conceal or surgically remove the parts of themselves that are not convenient to the party and its goals - unlike the True Believer, who has never had to change very much about themselves in exchange for membership.

Therefore the Party Whip is assigned a role: to go out among members of the party, keep track of everyone who might vote for another fruit, and get them to vote for oranges instead. To accomplish this, the Party Whip is going to use whatever tools they already use to keep themselves in line with the party’s interests.

These tools vary, and may include:

Shame and guilt

Reasoned arguments

Coercion

Information

Misinformation

Bribery

Cost-benefit analysis

Promises of future reward for current sacrifice

Appeals to duty, loyalty and obligation

Not all of these methods are equally ethical. A Party Whip is only able to be as ethical when whipping the rest of the party to consensus as they are when whipping themselves in private.

Lady Regret in the 11th House

Your biggest regret is being a very skilled Party Whip.

You were good at living your life according to the party line. This earned you such compliments as ‘inspiration’ and ‘example’, which made you feel safe and valued. You were gifted at being able to distance yourself from your own instincts so thoroughly that parties rewarded you with protection and support in exchange for your skill at keeping their dissenting or individualistic members in line. This was not questionable for you - you participated in this exchange because you believed it was good and righteous, and that the party’s ends justified the means.

You privately exulted in your own savvy. You believed your differences from the True Believer - your ability to perceive the group’s flaws and issues with a bit more perspective - made you more ethical. In reality, it made you more culpable. Your clarity was a gift meant to inspire you to take risks and speak up, valuing the truth over any attachment to the party’s reaction.

You did not speak up.

You chose to improve the party by sacrificing your unique perspective in exchange for access to the collective’s power; you were shocked when improvement never came. When push came to shove and the party’s power was threatened, for one reason or another, they abandoned you. Perhaps the abandonment was purposeful. Perhaps they simply no longer had enough clout to protect you. In any case, the party name was no longer able to get you into the rooms you wanted to enter. Your persuasiveness on others’ behalf was no longer in demand. The recognition in strangers’ eyes when you flaunted your membership card dwindled. Circumstances may have even become so drastic that mentioning the party put you in danger rather than keeping you safe.

A lone, displaced ruler must rely on personal power and instinct. They cannot rely on an ever-present council or party membership to get things done. You were suddenly alone - the sole authority of your life. You were not prepared for this. The years, or even lifetimes, you spent living outside of your own will have taken a toll. You don’t even know how to have a thought or emotion without examining it for its usefulness to some group, even when there is none present. You walk around barefoot and in rags with panic behind your eyes. You roam the streets waving a saw and rasping through dry lips, “I will saw off anything for friends in high places! Fingers, feet! I will cut off anything for friends in high places! Eyes, face! I have experience, will work for connections!”

Most people are horrified and cross the street when they see this display. Some see you as a temporary tool and take advantage of you until you have nothing left to give. Some people see your true heart better than you do and try to connect with it, but by this time you are jaded and assume that all anyone could want from you is your skill as Party Whip. They try to love you, but you are too preoccupied with trying to dutifully serve their interests in exchange for power and validation.

Dreams shrivel and die like old fruit under these conditions - again, again, and again. This is the loop, the hoop that must be mended.

Resolution

Lilith rose from the windowsill. Her full height compelled the room’s darkness to rearrange itself. Dead orange peels lie on the floor at her feet, glowing in the patch of sunlight that streamed through the window.

“Who are you when you are alone?”

I sat down on the dusty floorboards and stared into the shadows.

“What are you capable of creating - or destroying - when you only do so from your heart?”

The shadows gave me nothing but constant shifting in return.

“As long as you sacrifice your dreams for others’ out of fear that you cannot accomplish them alone, your efforts will go to waste. Parties are not forever; empires fall and agendas shift like the wind. Learn to build true alliances based on raw love - which can only happen when you are clear and unashamed of your own desire.”

I looked up just in time to see her toss me the last slice of orange. My hand shot up to catch it, and I carefully considered its juicy ripeness against my fingers.

It felt delicious.

#11th house #lilith #south node #astrology

8 notes · View notes