#we all have a bias and a lense through which we look at things

[oldmemoria]

okay heres the fucking thing about this script controversy that some people don't seem to get.

just gonna say it blatently:

strap in babes this is gonna be a long one!

The way Miguel O'Hara is written in the leaked transcripts is blatantly racist, here's why from a Latino himself!

all wrapped up in a sweet little bow for everyone who doesn't know how to comprehend what they're reading, cheers!

er. i mean.

¡Salud!

Miguel fans are not mad that they depicted him in a bad light and that they made it clear that he is in the wrong

WE FUCKING KNOW. WE'RE NOT STUPID.

Miguel has been depicted as a morally grey asshole since the early 1990s, which is when Spider-Man 2099 was initially debuted. And while yes, the movies are.... inaccurate, to say the least, it still stands.

The issue here is how he is depicted. They directly call Miguel O'Hara, a Latino man, an ANIMAL (he is directly called an animal TWICE. FUCKING TWICE.)

[1st image id: Miguel leaps onto Vulture, Clawing his way in past the renaissance armor. he is an ANIMAL. (keep in mind ANIMAL is literally in all caps.) /end id]

[2nd image id: Miguel SLASHES at the walls of light that surround Miles. Clawing the energy field apart, an animal in the throes of bloodlust -- /end id]

I need you to really soak in the fact that he is called "AN ANIMAL" twice. I'm awful at alts and ids but I feel I must so you can read it in plain text. sorry if they suck.

Our issue is not that the writers seem to have a bias against the character. a lot of writers write characters they dont particularly like and in turn tend to write them from a foggy lense of their own perception. An example would be Kate Cary and how she didn't like Crowfeather, a character she had to write about. I'm sure some of her bias seeped through. but this is different.

writing a Latino man as a bloodthirsty animal, implied to be called a predator because they call one of the people he fights (im not sure if its miles or the vulture, im leaning towards believing the former.) his "prey", THOSE ARE ALL RACIAL STEREOTYPES. ALL OF THEM.

[3rd image id: But Miguel can only see his prey: /end id]

There is no context to be needed here, the context is that this is miguel we're talking about and that they call him an animal. it does not matter if he is a villain or not (which he isnt, factually he fucking isnt im tired of having this conversation, fuck you). it matters that he's depicted in a racially insensitive way.

and this person brought this up pretty well actually, I didn't even think of it:

[4th image id: Tumblr user @/404-505 saying:

i want to be so mean to them

they couldn't write miguel crossing the border and stealing a job so they wrote him crossing into another universe and stealing his own identity

they couldnt write miguel as a drug addict so they gave him spider steroids instead /end id.]

They bring up a really good point about these clear stereotypes being seemingly. . . disguised behind points that are narratively relevant? This could literally just be pure coincidence, but noting how the writers wrote him before... it isn't looking too good for them. Sorry. Not sorry.

It is clear that there is some kind of bias against miguel that led to really disgusting, racist retoric. Whether or not it was intentional or if it was a first draft or whatever, the writers, which may i remind you were white, still wrote this at some point.

it makes me question whether or not they hated him because of his "bullshit utopia", their words not mine, or because of their own racial biases.

We cannot know because miguel is the only mexican character on the cast. I know Miles is Puerto Rican, but there are differences between how they were portrayed. also Puerto Ricans and Mexicans come from competely different cultural backgrounds that share simularities but are still different dont even try i will destroy you.

Using another users words again, but:

[5th image id: Tumblr user @/transmiguelohara says:

Don't talk to me about the Miguel parts in the script. I'm so disappointed in how the writers view him.

The difference between the way Miguel is written (antagonist, not the villain) vs Spot (the villain, whats to kill Miles' dad and everyone he knows) is soooo.....I don't know man it just screams racism in sorry. Describing Miguel as a bloodthirsty animal? Repeatedly? Treating him like he's mindless and has no motivation beyond having a hair trigger temper? It sucks man. /end id]

It also strikes me that now that we finally have a brown-skinned miguel, they write him like, well. this.

I don't really know if this is petty or not, but I want to wrap this back to the way the fandom also sees Movie Miguel.

Because TRUST ME it is not good either.

Miguel O'Hara Vs. FANDOM: Spoilers, it's been troubling since the beginning.

From the beginning (and by beginning in this case I mean since he was announced to be a character in this movie) Miguel has been continuously sexualized, beyond belief. He is repeatedly called "papi cholo" which NEED I REMIND YOU "Cholo" is a derogatory term used to call someone, usually a mexican person, a criminal or a delinquent.

FUCK YOU if you are not Latino OR hispanic and use this to describe people. from the bottom of my heart.

I'm pretty sure the majority of the people who called/ still currently call him "papi cholo" are mixing it up with "papi chulo" (white people moment.) which means something completely different but is still troubling as hell.

"papi chulo", which is slightly different in the way, just directly translates to "big daddy". Which again, Latino men being overly sexual "Latin Lovers" is ALSO A RACIAL STEREOTYPE. also its just blatant fetishization. Point blank fucking period.

Not only that but I notice a lot of art and fanfiction depicts him doing a lot of violence, or being very overbearing and demeaning, or in short terms.

a lot of people write him as physically and sexually aggressive.

fuck do you mean he growls during sex i can and will send you to space with no return.

which

for the millionth time

racial stereotype

halleluiah or however you spell it.

Having him say random spanish phrases you don't know the meaning or connotations of in your fanfiction is icing on the cake at this point.

fucking end me.

it isn't even only sexual depictions, since he's been shown in the movie, a lot of people seem to just see him as this guy who goes off and tries to kill children at a hairs trigger. which uh. fun fact no he fucking doesnt.

you clearly didn't watch the movie as well as you thought you did. hes just sarcastic and generally pretty level headed through the majority of his runtime, whether its implied by how characters around him act, or its just what we see on screen.

He doesn't necessarily have anger issues, the moment we see at the climax of the film is quite literally a mental break. he is not acting in a way that he usually would because he was cracking under the stress of holding the multiverse together with some scotch tape and orange glitter glue.

Also side tangent but he also has a mental break in the comics that's a little more... droopy and sad as compared to the movie, but it still happens. he has shitty mental health is what im saying. he only really lashes out angrily when hes at his wits end because that's how he grew up. he was taught to suppress his feelings and seem smaller when he was upset.

he is the result of abuse and neglect. of course he wouldn't be amazing at emotional regulation.

Which before anyone says it no, this is not an excuse for his actions. just an explaination that isn't "hes an angry animal that has it out for miles UwU" that everyone seems to have in their brain. I'm tired of you all. truly.

the sentiment that hes agressive and angry and his only emotion is anger and upsetness unless he's horny which is when he experiences all these emotions tenfold is. racist. idk how clear i have to be for people to get it through their damn skulls that the way the fandom depicts him is harmful. do i need to slap you in the face with a fish until you understand. do i need to burn your fanfiction. will you get it now that a 15 year old latino boy has to scream it in your face.

and dont even get me STARED on how inaccurately he is written

this is a more light hearted section because idk. feels like i should have it because this part is just comical, pun intended. How can you fuck up this hard guys.

I was gonna give them the benefit of the doubt because "Miguel has fresh trauma!" "He only shows up for like 10 minutes!" "insert 3rd reason!" for his drastic change in demeanor and personality, which, without context, are valid reasons for him to be a little different. trauma fucks you up man. we only see 10 minutes of him. but at this point im chalking it up to complete incompetence

it doesnt take that long to read a comic book guys. you could have done a little research, I know you can do it.

first off:

[6th image id: Miguel's SPIDER-SENSE goes off! He races to the edge if the building and peers into an empty alley -- /end id]

LMFAO WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN "SPIDER-SENSE"

Unless you didn't get the total of TWO jokes that they made in ONE scene (the vulture fight scene), Miguel doesn't have a spider sense. at all. He has elevated senses, but he doesnt have a spider sense.

guys

guys.

you made TWO jokes IN A ROW about it. YOU WHACKED HIM IN THE HEAD TWICE WITH IT. HOW DID YOU FORGET

I cant help but laugh! this is a rookie mistake! these are seasoned writers! They could have done at least a little research, or at least remembered that he doesnt have one, no? is it that hard? or does his lack of a spider sense only matter when you're making fun of your least favorite character? thats what I thought.

this one is less funny. not to sound like a stereotypical comic nerd but this infuriated me a little bit I'm not gonna lie.

[8th image id: tumblr user @/darksidecorner reblogged tumblr user @/spiderxpawz with:

They definitely didn't

a screenshot of the script reads:

AN INDUSTRIAL TANGLE OF HUGE PISTONS -- the literal DARK UNDERBELLY that undergrids Miguel's bullshit Utopia.

Miles doesn't know where to go... but he doesn't need to: SOMEONE YANKS him up into the safety of an alcove.

the user then continues:

This in particular made me PISSED because they quietly canonized that Miguel is CEO of Alchemax while conveniently ignoring that he did everything in his fucking power to BETTER Neuva York. Downtown wasn't built by him. It was built by people WAY before him.

I can excuse and defend some comic deviation, but THIS? Holy FUCK /end id]

I honestly cant tell if I find this part funny or pathetic because seriously. he did not do this. why are you blaming him for something he had nothing to do with. i dont think he decided "hey i should build a city for rich people over poor people because reasons" when he was like... not even alive. Alchemax did this before he was even sentient. it had always been this way since he was born. he also actively hated this decision. because he actively hates alchemax.

but right MIGUELS bullshit Utopia yeah HE did this that EVIL LITTLE BABY i cant believe him

kill me.

In conclusion:

I. . . Don't really know, to be honest. I'm still processing all this. I am genuinely disappointed and upset because this isn't okay. It never will be, and if it takes yet another blunt essay with absolutely no filter for people to understand it then so be it. I don't care if this comes off as mean. This is something I feel qualified to talk about and I will express my disappointment and anger if I want to.

All of the posts I reference I have reblogged within the last 24 hours of making this post, they shouldn't be that hard to find, but if you want the links to them here they are:

https://www.tumblr.com/spiderxpawz/735344322114977792/live-mexican-reaction?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/404-505/735289664739606528/they-couldnt-write-miguel-as-a-drug-addict-so?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/transmiguelohara/735289238625648640/cant-believe-the-writers-have-the-same-reading?source=share

if you want your image to be removed or for your link to be removed just ask and I'll do it. but currently im kinda bummed out and tired.

goodbye.

#atsv #across the spiderverse #miguel o'hara #spiderman 2099 #sm 2099 #spiderman 2099 comics #miguel ohara #marvel critical #marvel criticism #atsv miguel #spiderman atsv #spiderverse #into the spider verse #spiderman into the spiderverse #marvel #racism #fandom racism #fandom criticism #idk how else to tag this other than #fuck the writers #i guess. #long post

[happysadyoyo]

"Talking about trans men "playing up the F in AFAB" to access women spaces. Please someone send me an ask about this specifically so I have an excuse to go off tomorrow after work."

Fourth time's the charm right?

And I gotta disclaim that I'm one of them transes who sees his past self as the gender he thought he was. Little 11 year old me? Girl. I was a girl up to the point I wasn't and I don't really know where that line is. Somewhere between 19 and 25. But I do call myself AFAB and I do see a lot of my experiences as a child and teen as being both through the lenses of womanhood and closeted/subconscious transness.

So needless to say I'm a little biased and get a little angry when this argument that trans masculine people are trying to play up the F in their AGAB up.

First and foremost, the biggest push away from AGAB language I've seen is from nonbinary and trans masculine folks. So let's jot that down (again though, I have consciously put myself into spaces that allow me to hear these voices over trans feminine voices after nearly a decade of the reverse).

And there's the fact that trans people who present with traditionally "female" reproductive and secondary sex characteristics are typically more vulnerable in men only spaces... we gotta be realistic here. People who look like women are going to be treated like women by strangers and while I'm a firm advocate for not treating all men like dirt... well. We have statistics.

And that's even if there are men spaces... shit like shelters for domestic violence victims oh so rarely allow men in the first place.

Plus, let's not forget a lot of this "playing up the F in AFAB" talk is coming around during the repeal of Roe v Wade in the US, which brought up the discussion of reproductive healthcare and abortion access back into international center stage. We're supposedly leaning on our AGAB by pointing out that We! Need! Healthcare! And our healthcare needs generally line up with those seen as women's only.

A totally stealth trans man who is being denied reproductive healthcare because he's legally a man is going to have to lean on his AGAB to get a checkup with the ObGyn. Otherwise they're not going to see him... because he doesn't look like a woman to him. Sometimes, using your AGAB is necessary, if only because the largely cishet world doesn't get that sometimes women have dicks and men have vaginas, and there are some people who want both or neither.

Finally, and I guess this just irritates me the most because of the above mentioned bias... saying trans masculine and nonbinary folks are playing up their AGAB is outright denying the way so many of us grew up. I was raised as a girl. I was seen as a girl. I had expectations put on me that only women in my small part of Southern Baptist culture would have. I had a promise ring. I memorized the Proverbs 31 wife list. I had nightmares of my wedding night, and I was made fun of and belittled by my own mother for not liking makeup and not taking care of my appearance. My lack of sexual harassment, despite it being a super common thing for girls and women, still has me mentally fucked up despite now identifying mostly male.

I'm not playing up my AGAB by talking about these experiences and saying that I've experienced misogyny because of how I am seen. Claiming the trauma and benefits of womanhood when I saw myself as a girl and when the world sees me as a woman (as it oh so overwhelmingly does currently) is not me trying to play up my AGAB for victimhood points or to access women's only spaces.

Yes, there are trans men, masculine folks, and nonbinary people who were AFAB and currently enter women's spaces where AMAB folks aren't allowed. If I wasn't aware of them before, I certainly am after getting through the first few chapters of Whipping Girl because Julia Serano does not shut up about it. She's clearly salty despite pretending not to be.

But guess what! There's shitty trans women and trans feminine people out there too! Baeddels! TIRFs! The fact that there's shitty trans people like Buck Angel or Caitlyn Jenner is just because they're people! Who happen to be trans! And people will absolutely use whatever they can as leverage to be shitty! That's why there are gay and black Republicans. They leveraged their minority status to become figures in a group that hates them. Shocking.

But for fuck's sake, saying trans men, masculine, and nonbinary folks who happened to be AFAB are trying to express their victimhood through the F in their AGAB both reeks of ROGD as well as a clear yellow flag that maybe

just maybe

these people are trying to find the language to talk about the problems they're facing but people like Serano aren't letting them.

#julia serano #transandrophobia #exorsexism #nbphobia #fuck julia serano so much

[kakarot4school]

For the second-to-last class 4/22

Paprika was an okay film. At face value, it definitely sold me on how well illustrated the anime was, and that was it. However, I got caught up in the idea of dreaming. What is dreaming in the context of existence? I think Paprika attempts to make a commentary of what the subconscious does and what your identity is a function of. I feel like identity is something that people consciously show to others. This is encapsulated well; once I realized that the anime was more of a surrealist expression, it fell into place.

Identity is something that people struggle with everyday, because it’s necessary of humans to be self-critical and to view themselves from the outside. As we are social, we must make attempts to try to see in us what others see in us; we want to know how we’re seen from the outside. This alone is a very frustrating, conflicting idea. It forces people to question themselves, and from there, their integrity. So why does that matter? This is a completely conscious thing we do, we have to analyze ourselves and put in a substantial amount of effort to do so, but we have subconscious influences that restrict us from seeing ourselves truly. This is the prominent thing that restricts us when we look at ourselves. The subconscious in this context is destructive; it lays a film of bias through our lenses, which influences our judgement.

The best example of this is what you may feel when you talk back or argue with someone, one of the first things we do is deflect blame as a subconscious defense mechanism. That is madness. That is destruction. All of us have these subconscious ideas that influence the way we act and the way we think, if we were to allow this to affect our ego too much, we would all descend into madness. This is what I think Paprika commentates on. As for the symbol of dreaming? Dreaming is purely subconscious. Dreaming is how the subconscious manifests itself. Dreaming here is showing you how strong these thoughts are, even if you don’t notice their influence.

[egonspengler-1]

A Tear in the Diaphanous Veil

See Previous Installment

@venkman-and-rookie

{Unrelenting nightmares continued to roil in a not-unconscious mind. The onslaught tore from within. But emotion was far from some alien thing. It was just an irrelevant thing, usually. A cause for bias. It propagated error. But what was there, here, in this space between spaces, this pocket of something in the yawning void? Was there truth here? How could there be?}

No, Ray, I would never...!

{What there was here was abberation. It was like a sound that grated on the nerves, fingernails on chalkboard, the high whine of a fragment of metal caught in an engine, an utter cacophony of discordant notes. Only, it was far more silent than death itself. The grinding engines of the multiverse were all around, and here, were eddies of reality, crashing against this pocket. Felt, in juddering fits and starts, but never heard.}

These are only shadows. These things I see aren't real. But why does it feel so real? Why do I ache like this? Why does it feel like I've already lost everything, when....

I'm here.

{Brown eyes set below strong brows, behind wire-rimmed lenses, bleared open. A smear of bluish luminescence pervaded all around.}

Perhaps it's because I'm here. This creature wants me to suffer. These are its distractions - to me, to...my colleagues.

No. To my friends.

And...my family.....or was that a shadow, too...?

{Memories played out years of patterns and cycles, steady and familiar. Real. But no less unpleasant.}

I suppose they have their reasons to react this way to these shadows.

I want the truth.

{The Mother Mothel replied in what might have been mistaken for a sneer.}

Do you? What an odd creature you are. Your kind isn't exactly partial to the truth, is it?

That all depends on what you mean by my "kind." Or did you think we were all alike? If you wanted to take someone who trades in deception the way you do, then you chose poorly when you took me.

The truth.

{The blue luminescence flickered into darker shades.}

How dare you?

Easily.

{Enraged, the Mother Mothel hovered overhead, wings beating madly, then darted around the pocket in reality, caroming off unseen walls in puffs of glowing blue powder.}

I have met entities more threatening than you. More powerful. I am not impressed with you.

{The howl of rage that erupted from the Mother Mothel was all the terrible sounds of abberation that had gone so far felt, but unheard. The silence lifted to its deafening roar.}

I don't need to impress you! You are nothing but a fragile creature, plucked from the the thin slime of mortal existence on a damp rock hurtling through space around a mediocre star!

{There might have been something a little unsettling in the wry smirk that slowly spread across Egon's lips, if the Mother Mothel had understood such expressions.}

Obviously. Somehow, that doesn't seem to be stopping you from trying, nevertheless.

Fine. Shadows don't hurt you, odd creature that you are. So, perhaps the truth you claim to want, will. With you, came friction. It was easy to make them look the other way - to lose you and not even bother to come looking for you. But, without you, look how they stumble! See how this one tries to fight the Rising Darkness in your place, thinking you will never speak to him again.

...Russell...?

How easy it was to make him believe that the two of you had argued! It wasn't the first time. Do you think he really stands a chance?! It was harder with your friends, but it was still possible. You made it easy. Now, watch your world crumble and fall!

{Egon's brow furrowed in thought. This sight of his grandfather and his cousins, Mort and Russell, in a battle against a powerful demon which passed before him, as if through a window, could still be the Mother Mothel's deception. His soldier-boy cousin didn't have a scar down the side of his face...did he? It certainly made a weird lie, but a believable truth. There was really only one way to know for sure, and that meant getting out of this un-place, and back home again. But as his captor spoke those final words, he slowly turned his head to face the creature. Such hubris. What absolute, staggering chutzpah! She was starting to sound like a bad comic book villain. But, the insults didn't add up. The Mother Mothel spoke to him as if he really were important, and a key factor in battling this so-called Rising Darkness. It didn't matter. He was important to the people in his life who cared about him, and it was time he showed them that they mattered to him, too. Egon squared his shoulders.}

I don't take orders - least of all from you.

I'm going home.

{The ambient blue luminescence flickered like a bad fluorescent tube before collapsing into a dull glow, as if the area were bathed in blacklight. The creature flapped away, confused, and huddled as far away from Egon as she could get. The pocket of space shuddered as if shaken by a sonic boom. As it fell still again, the blue luminescence returned, but the Mother Mothel stayed where she was. Egon looked around.}

What was that?

#closed rp #roleplay blog #ghostbusters rp #Egon Spengler #Universe-1 #🕸

[grem-archive]

Completely unrelated to anything on your blog unt I found a first edition copy of the london arts society thingy from 1865to 1870 (cannot remember the date rn) and it's just sitting in my school library.

The immense differences in what is considered old in the uk and the us is astounding, like that book isn't by far the oldest I've found, theres a copy of dante's divine comedy from even. before that that would sell for 500 pounds if someone 100 or so years ago hadn't cut bits out an annotated them.

Like socially something is considered old about in the 1500s and asking Americans and then they say the 1850s is so wild to me, like perspectivessssss.

Ah, relativism! My favorite word. Perhaps strange, but it is my favorite part of what I want to do. I have always been a person on both sides of the story; I love the when, the where, and the why, not just the what! The ability to know and understand that human nature is not consistent or cookie-cutter. You could say that I might have a view of life colored filthily by optimism and rose-tinted glasses, but I simply have an excitement for the concept of living on this Earth here and now. Through thick or thin.

I can't say much because I am, unfortunately, American (meaning I have a bias and you should take my words with a grain of salt), and I have had my own moments of handling artifacts only 400-450 years in age and thinking with wonder, "I can't believe how old this object is!" Meanwhile, I know perfectly well that many texts, buildings, and even simple bricks and beads across the globe predate my homeland even being a thought by centuries - millennia in some cases! History - both written and unwritten - is fascinating and characterized by many facets.

There is richness in the sheer multitude of perspectives in this world. The lenses through which we view life are endless in origin and form. We are products of where we are from, who we are raised by, the people we meet in our daily lives, and the environments in which we were raised. The average view is that this is both a good and a bad thing - and even that view is relative. It differs from person to person. Honestly, human nature is like giving a kid a box of random LEGO bricks and seeing what they come up with without an instruction booklet. Only imagination and suggestions from friends that are nearby.

To you, we are that young. To us, you are that old. And such is true in the grand scheme of things on both sides. Someday in the future, perhaps even us Yanks will look at something and think, "My, that's so young compared to [local event]." Someday the 1850s will be more than just two centuries behind us and the 1500s will look even more ancient. Now isn't that a weird thought?

I think that's the fun of getting to speak to so many different people with platforms like Tumblr and Discord. I get to interact with so many different perspectives and that's a beautiful thing. The mosaic of life I constantly build in my head is elevated by the stories of friends, family, and even strangers on the street. Do not be afraid to learn. Do not be afraid to question everything. Above all, do not be afraid to have an adventure.

#callsign gremlin checking in #not hetalia #moooom! gremlin is archaeologyposting to her fandom blog!

[maganne-bonete]

Posting hetalia on main r n instead of my side-blog and pondering over my bias and perspective over my pre-colonial piri and pre-colonial polities portrayals

Disclaimer: I haven't updated my knowledge on pre-colonial history for more than 2 years and neither have I refreshed my knowledge on these things so keep that in mind

I'm somewhat still a bit iffy over the whole Lusong kingdom thing. Researching kampampangan history really hasn't been in my historical hetalia checklist at all.

It can't be help since I typically use OC making as a way to reconnect with my heritage. Most of the OCs are Tagalogs, which is from my dad's side. Meanwhile I'm doing a terrible (haven't even started) job at my mom's side, which is Bikolano and Ilokano.

But anyway, I'm typically against the whole "One Big Ancient Philippines" narrative. And in a sense, foreign records on the one giant kingdom/empire/rajanate of Luçõn, May-I, or what have you, tend to fall under this except it's saying that there was "One Big Ancient Luzon".

To be fair it is where the name of the island came from. The name was based from the word Lusong, referring to how many major rivers (like the one in Pampangga I think?) drains down to Manila bay. And like the meaning of the word "you have to ride through the flow of the water" or "riding through the flow" to get there.

There was some sense of identity. But often the thing that I find dangerous with narratives like these is forgetting that sense of "Different but Together" kind of perspective when not handled properly. And it's not necessarily true per se that Tagalogs never had wars or conflicts with each other.

(There was an old forgotten saying that people from my province are gentle mannered until you really crossed them. The balisong was supposed to cut mangoes, not draw blood.)

But yeah, Portuguese explorers have met Luçong warriors when they invaded Malacca. But we need to remember that this was through their perspective and it was only one of the many lenses of different civilizations that have interacted with the archeapelago.

And I think the thing that always urks me, and this bias I have against, is being perceived as some sort of monolith. For years, most of history is thought in schools in a very Manila-centric fashion and this goes the same for talking about pre-colonial history.

I had fun back in highschool learning about Kumintang, Tondo, and Namayan and other histories not commonly thought in schools. I just wish that people would look into their own local histories because these are often ignored.

I think there's this weird misconception that emphasizing the differences of each provinces and groups would only divide people more. For me, that's far from it. Everytime I learn something new about different traditions, cultures, and histories in the country it only makes me appreciate my nation more after years of cynicism due to politics and other toxicities I have to encounter growing up here.

But anyway, this has been my ponderings. Idk, if any of these makes sense but these have been running in my mind.

#hetalia #marge's stuff #another thing #it doesn't feel right either to think of the idea of one giant luzon kingdom when people are only refering to tagalog groups #like Bikolanos are a different group as Kapampangans are different as well #Spain didn't really bothered expanding from the tagalog and kapampangan area until a century after they took over 🥴 #for a certain time we were always an after thought to them #I guess there's also that #idk I'm rambling now and I'm hungry #and that's bad with my condition #rant in the tags

[sizzlingpatrolfox]

thoughts on people comparing jimin flying to support hobi to jimin flying for jungkooks birthday? A lot of jikookers were upset about the ot7-fication of jikooks relationship. Personally for me I just think it’s people shouting out how good of a friend jimin is to the people close to him. When I saw the tweet that had jimin flying to both jungkook and hobi, my first thought was jimin is such a sweetheart I can’t imagine having a friend so lovely. I know people were saying some ot7 army ignore jikook moments and only use them when they’re lumping them in with other moments and I get that- but at the same time not everyone looks at things with a shipping lens.

Yeah, not everyone looks through ship lenses or with the conviction that two people are together. Shippers have already made up their mind about that, so everything will be taken as proof that they're together; as well as shippers of a different ship are convinced jikook are not together, so everything will be taken as proof that they aren't. Jikookers, just like any other shipper, act on the basis of confirmation bias.

Jikookers are like why does no one celebrate jikook's friendship and then their tweets are like:

"Gay man jimin traveling across the world to visit his gay man BOYFRIEND literally the definition of a married couple of 4u4949 years name a better gay relationship than jikooks"

And then the same people are like "why do the fandom ignore jikook's friendship?????" Maybe if you actually called it a friendship, jeez idk.

I think there are many different factors to take into account and why one could even be generally seen as more "valid" than the other, and one of those has definitely got to do with how much we know of the two situations.

Literally the entire planet was able to watch on live when Jimin put foot in the airport, then we saw him backstage with Hobi watching TXT performance and other artists, too; then there was Hobi's own show, and the vlive after.

But what exactly was there about Jimin coming back from Paris in 2019? It was just a photo, a real-time photo from which we all made the correct conclusion that Jimin was back in Korea and celebrating JK's birthday with him; and then a month after, Jimin confirmed it in his live. But that was it. There was no watching Jimin arriving in Korea, no Jungkook saying Jimin came to surprise me he was a light while I was in the darkness, none of that happened. It was only a photo. There's nothing wrong with it being just a photo, but I hope you understand what I'm talking about on how that could make people talk more or less about an event --it's simply a matter of the information available. Likewise, the fandom is choosing to ignore a woman who has, what looks like a very close relationship with Hoseok, and also traveled to watch him perform. And they're choosing to ignore it because they don't know anything about her or their relationship, and that's okay.

I keep talking about how what BTS say matter, it has always mattered and the fandom, usually, more or less, picks up on what they say and base their interpretation of the members on the things they all say about each other.

People were cursing Jimin left and right for being there and "taking the spotlight away from Hoseok" (wow, does it really take that little??), only for Hoseok to pretty much say Jimin was his saviour. Hoseok was not eating until Jimin arrived. If he hadn't say that, nobody would've known how important Jimin being there actually was. I'm incredibly glad Hoseok said that. If he hadn't it, it would've still been true, but we just wouldn't have known.

Knowing, or not knowing things, understanding, or not understanding the reasons for something, all of that changes people's interpretations of the same situation.

I can repeat "Jimin came from Paris for Jungkook's birthday" until my voice is hoarse, but what else can I objectively say about it? It's just that, a hard, concise fact. There is no more information about it for people to assign a special meaning to it.

For me, getting that BTS_twt notification and seeing Jimin's tweet with JK's photo, it's one of those moments that I remember exactly what I was doing when it happened. I never believed that Jimin had come back only for that, he already had another trip planned with people from Korea, he had definitely bought his ticket before that day and it was decided that he would leave from Korea, etc, so I never believed that he came back exclusively for Jungkook; just like with Hoseok, I've always thought JK's birthday was a stop. A stop that he could've avoided, obviously, and he didn't. I've also always knew that he was capable of doing the same for other friends, too. But there was a whole story and context to 2019 jikook until that moment, and if I'm being honest, for me, it was all that had happened before September that gave weight to Jimin coming back. It wasn't the "visit" itself, but everything that had been happening for like a year before that.

On the other hand, Jimin going to Chicago for Hoseok has all the information one could need to feel moved by it, and even the people involved (Hoseok and Jimin) talked about their feelings on the event, so it's logically easier for people to give it a special significance and make a big deal about it. Because Hoseok himself said it was a big deal!!

[andiwendy]

POSITIONALITY

As people we have  have attitudes, perceptions, or  beliefs as well as ideas towards other people while we are not aware that they may be influenced by our own identity. “Bias is in all of us and affects us all” ( (Trawinski, 2015). Coming from a certain cultural background , religion, socio-economic status, race and being a particular gender shapes a person in a way that  what we believe impacts what we see in this world (Bowen, 2019)We often see people and things in our own lenses unaware that it  limits us the opportunity to experience or understand their full view or perspectives as clients.  It is important for us to know our positionality to be able to understand things not only through own.

I was born in one of the  small villages in Limpopo, Venda. I am a Tshivenda speaking and belong to the Vhavenda culture. I was raised in a Christian background and grew to become independent in the same religion. I am a black female and currently resides in a campus residence at the University student I was born into a low middle socio economic background. My positionality is created by these factors,  ethnic group, religion and cultural background , socioeconomic status , education , gender as well as sexual orientation. My identity has been shaped by my experiences while living in the villages and how people come together and make a strong community with only the little resources they have as well as helping each other. Identifying as a black person growing up, it did have an Impact in my life as we always saw whites as better people than us that we would compare good things with whites as though we are not worth or do not deserve any better or ‘good things’.

 Exposure to education and learning things especially in tertiary education has helped me understand that we are at some point in the same level ( we are people and similar basic needs) regardless of culture, religion, race or ethnicity or tribe or  although they also come from different backgrounds that have shaped their positionality. We share similar characteristics as students, and it is up to us to get out of the shell and reach out to be more aware of other people and their positionality instead of using the same instilled understanding by our parents or grandparents who experienced apartheid. It has taught me to be out there and be ready to learn from someone else, to be open to other people’s races, religion regardless of what I believe in. it has helped me understand other people and why they do things a certain way which greatly impact my understanding of clients that may  be of similar identities.

Although I come from a low middle socio economic background I had access to education, learnt some qualities and was able to experience the application of ubuntu in my community , regardless of the challenges that I may have encountered such as childhood trauma it still is a great privilege that some people are not able to reach. I sometimes find myself comparing where I come from to the areas we work in community. The priviledge that we may have such as strong family support, better socio economic status and other factors in the background such as accessing materials that promote positive outcomes in your life.

This made me realise that the people or community I work in may not have the same privilege as I have . Some have no parents and are living by themselves , trying to find ways to access basic needs daily. To apply positionality during sessions with the clients as a student therapist firstly I must ensure I understand my own identity, how  I should look in the client’s lens, how they are feeling , their experiences daily and how it is shaping they are identity. Some people have lost hope. I should always ensure that I acquire more, educate myself to their cultures their beliefs as well as how they turned out to be, however this should be done after understanding my own identity where I stand as an individual. It may help improve the client’s experience as well as indirectly influence client’s progress.

Working in communities with different people , exposes one to various identities that each day one must ensure that they understand the person/ clients and community as whole. This allows one to not be biased when assessing or treating clients. Understanding a person’s identity, cultural background, family influences , race , geographical area, socio economic status or community they belong to during assessments helps provide a clear picture of the person. This helps avoid focusing on a person’s illness or disability that they may have.

In a community I am working at, as an Occupational therapy student I make sure that I assess a person without focusing only on the illness they have but ask further about their home environment , how they live at home, relationships they have and other social characteristic that occur in a person’s life. This also help identify further parts of the client that are affected by the injury or illness. As we work with people , sometimes it is not only someone with a disability or an illness but a dysfunction in occupations or everyday function that we assess and plan treatment.

Poor communities are often the ones who suffer great injustices in our country where in due to coloniality they experience the oppression (McGeorge, 2010). Our system oppresses low income communities in many different ways. Members of community are left alone , less service delivery and sometimes abandoned as they government sometimes needs “ a wake up call “ to address the issues occurring in communities. This is where diseases and more health issues arise as there is less attention occurring. https://time.com/longform/south-africa-unequal-country/

This makes me think about the people we see in streets everyday in the community, client’s who come in for therapy and how vulnerable they are , all age groups as they all experience similar things .It is important to sit and listen to a person/ client , experiences they have and the current happenings in his/her life.

In communities , working in projects it is important to include the community members in planning and implementation. This requires their ability to understand the importance of the project and its significant in their lives. I also find that it is important for me as a therapist to consider the main issues in the communities ,that they are still tackling poverty, looking forward for employment, better health care provision and other factors. Bringing projects to the community while understanding their positionality gives a clear picture of what could be more beneficial to the community. This allows us to see through the lens of the community and its people . We are from outside the community and involving the people to implementation or imagining projects.

   References  

Bowen, Y. (2019,  february 10). Your Sense of Identity Determines Your Worldview. Retrieved  from The Good men Project:  https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/your-sense-of-identity-determines-how-you-perceive-the-world-vnmr/

McGeorge, C. R.  (2010). Social Justice Mentoring: Preparing Family Therapists for Social  Justice Advocacy Work. Michigan Family Review, 14(1). doi:  http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mfr.4919087.0014.106

Trawinski, C.  (2015, september 04). No one is immune from bias, not even us therapists!  Everyone has bias. Retrieved from LifeWorks Psychotherapy centre :  https://www.lifeworkspsychotherapy.com/when-your-therapist-has-a-bias/#:~:text=Therapist%20bias%2C%20as%20we%20define,aspects%20of%20that%20person's%20experience.

 https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-realworldcomm/chapter/8-1-foundations-of-culture-and-identity/

https://www.mitemmc.org/monthly-tips/positionality-intersectionality-and-privilege-in-health-professions-education-research/

[she-wolf-of-highgarden]

First off i want to say that i think calling someone a misogynist based on their feelings for one character is wrong. You don’t know people and to make assumptions like that is unfair. I don’t really care who the character is. That being said i do think social norms can paint how we view certain situations. I also think traditional (Western) gender roles play a role in how we view the incident at the Trident aka that one time where the adults present were useless and irresponsible. 

Who is responsible for the Trident and who gains sympathy is really interesting. I’m not going into responsibility because it was 100% the adults and Joffrey who the problem here. Who gains sympathy from the fandom, though is interesting. We fight over it. A lot. And the more i think about it, the more i think i can understand where some of it comes from. Key word, of course, being “some”, I’m not about to sit here and tell you why you think the way you do. 

By (western) social standards, Sansa is the more sympathetic character. She is one of the most sympathetic things you can be. She is a little girl who just lost her pet and is crying. The important part is the crying. She doesn’t get mad until later, at the jump she is crying. 

“ Robert had hardly been seen; the talk was he was traveling in the huge wheelhouse, drunk as often as not. If so, he might be hours behind, but he would still be here too soon for Ned's liking. He had only to look at Sansa's face to feel the rage twisting inside him once again. The last fortnight of their journey had been a misery. Sansa blamed Arya and told her that it should have been Nymeria who died. And Arya was lost after she heard what had happened to her butcher's boy. Sansa cried herself to sleep, Arya brooded silently all day long, and Eddard Stark dreamed of a frozen hell reserved for the Starks of Winterfell.” - Ned IV, AGoT

It’s a normal human reaction. Of course we sympathize with her (or at least we should). What’s interesting is that we see a bit less sympathy for Arya or something added to it, like “yea i feel bad but she was at fault”. We see people who say that Nymeria should go to Sansa because of the Trident or Arya should be forgiven for it because she was so young. It feels like half of the fandom forgets Arya was sad, she was depressed. The difference between her and Sansa, though, is that Arya gets mad too. Look again at the end of the Ned IV quote. 

“Robert had hardly been seen; the talk was he was traveling in the huge wheelhouse, drunk as often as not. If so, he might be hours behind, but he would still be here too soon for Ned's liking. He had only to look at Sansa's face to feel the rage twisting inside him once again. The last fortnight of their journey had been a misery. Sansa blamed Arya and told her that it should have been Nymeria who died. And Arya was lost after she heard what had happened to her butcher's boy. Sansa cried herself to sleep, Arya brooded silently all day long, and Eddard Stark dreamed of a frozen hell reserved for the Starks of Winterfell.” - Ned IV, AGoT

Even Jory points out that it’s weird. 

“They have been with you every day, my lord. Sansa prays quietly, but Arya …" He hesitated. "She has not said a word since they brought you back. She is a fierce little thing, my lord. I have never seen such anger in a girl.” -  Ned X, AGoT

Arya doesn’t do what we expect her to do. She doesn’t weep or cry until later. First she gets quiet and angry.

“Only that was Winterfell, a world away, and now everything was changed. This was the first time they had supped with the men since arriving in King's Landing. Arya hated it. She hated the sounds of their voices now, the way they laughed, the stories they told. They'd been her friends, she'd felt safe around them, but now she knew that was a lie. They'd let the queen kill Lady, that was horrible enough, but then the Hound found Mycah. Jeyne Poole had told Arya that he'd cut him up in so many pieces that they'd given him back to the butcher in a bag, and at first the poor man had thought it was a pig they'd slaughtered. And no one had raised a voice or drawn a blade or anything, not Harwin who always talked so bold, or Alyn who was going to be a knight, or Jory who was captain of the guard. Not even her father.” - Arya II, AGoT

In fact she gets so angry that she pummels Sansa when Sansa is trying to tell her side of the story. 

“You rotten!" Arya shrieked. She flew at her sister like an arrow, knocking Sansa down to the ground, pummeling her. "Liar, liar, liar, liar.” - Ned III, AGoT

 We can forget that she went through something as well. We forget that it must have been scary being 9 years old and hiding for three days in the woods. We forget Arya also lost her direwolf. Just because she’s alive doesn’t mean she’s there. We forget Arya is dealing with the loss of her friend. Arya is dealing with a lot of guilt and isn’t until we get to Arya II where we see her break down. 

“Arya desperately wanted to explain, to make him see. "I was trying to learn, but …" Her eyes filled with tears. "I asked Mycah to practice with me." The grief came on her all at once. She turned away, shaking. "I asked him," she cried. "It was my fault, it was me …” - Arya II, AGoT

And it isn’t until Sansa III where we see Sansa lose her cool. The interesting part of Sansa III is that Sansa looks at her little sister who had missing in the woods and tells her it should have been you that died, but the fandom tends to focus on the fruit aspect of it. Why? Because it is easy to deal with. Arya messed up something Sansa worked very hard on and cherished and she is at her wits end. It is much easier dealing with that than her anger. We gloss over what she says because it can be explained away. She was just angry, but she isn’t usually like that. She can’t get angry at the people she should truly be angry at. Besides the adults don’t seem overly bothered. Why should we be? 

Sansa’s grief is easier to deal with and to an extent what she goes through is easier for us to process because we have a clear villain and she has the correct responses. Her trauma is awful and we can pretty easily point out who is at fault. Arya’s gets harder for us to deal with because she becomes harder and disillusioned and doesn’t respond the way we have been taught she should. It is also harder to deal with because it isn’t as easy and x and y and z. She’s starving because during the war the Riverlands burned. She’s being beaten and made into a child soldier, but at least the HoBaW took her in. 

Because Arya isn’t delicate and meek and completely social conforming, we don’t think she is entitled to the same protection or sympathy as girls like Sansa.

#Arya Stark #A Song of Ice and Fire #asoiaf #asoiaf meta #social norms play a role #we all have a bias and a lense through which we look at things

[ceterisparibus116]

Hi, I really liked the discussion you guys had about WandaVision and I find your comment about every story asking a question really interesting. I don't know whether you have mentioned it before, but I will love to hear what you think about the question Daredevil's story is trying to ask, if any?

First, thank you! I’m glad the discussion was enjoyable!

Second, I am IN LOVE with this question and spent all weekend obsessing over it thinking about it, and my answer is kind of…complicated? (For those of you who are used to me, that should…not be surprising, lol.) This is straight-up an essay. I’m not sorry.

So as a preliminary matter, I want to explain my approach here. In general, I think a good Question is indicated by its exploration from multiple angles. A Question with a one-sided Answer is…well, it’s reductive. Life is more complicated than that. To the extent that we enjoy stories because they reflect on life and make us view life differently, a one-sided Answer is clearly not as satisfying as a nuanced Answer.

(Of course, if the point is more just to Entertain rather than to Explore anything, that’s not necessarily true. But my preference is for Explorative stories, so…there’s my bias, lol.)

So the way I’m trying to identify the Question includes, of course, looking to see what questions the show explicitly asks, but also looking to see what issues are explored from multiple angles, through multiple lenses, with different twists that challenge our assumptions. I say that so you can decide if you think that’s a good way to find the Question and maybe try using that method to decide what you think the Questions are.

Without further ado, here we go:

Let’s take the seasons each individually, and then loop back to see if we can identify the whole series' Question/Answer. Starting with S2, because Reasons.

Season 2:

So I think S2’s question is, “What is a hero?” Obviously, that Question is asked explicitly by Karen on the show, so obviously the writers want us paying attention to it. But there are other reasons why I believe that is the Question. First, the contrast between Matt, Frank, and Elektra essentially circles around how far a hero can go before crossing the line into villain (or antihero). Do methods matter? Do intentions matter? Does whether or not you feel guilt matter? Frank calling Matt a half-measure, Elektra getting a thrill from violence, Frank and Matt’s entire rooftop debate, the fact that both Frank and Elektra help Matt defeat the Hand…it all seems to be poking at the issue of heroism from different angles. And that right there would be enough for me to think “What is a hero?” is S2’s Question.

But it gets even twistier! Because we also see Foggy being a hero in court—and not only in court, but also in confrontation, such as when he goes and visits the gangs and blusters his way into getting information, and when he calms everyone down in the hospital. This showcases that you don’t have to use violence at all to be a hero.

And then we have Karen, which showcases the power of intelligence and tenacity in heroism. Plus, her whole approach to Frank’s case shows that a hero looks to understand people, even “the enemy,” and treat them fairly.

And then! At the same time! We have Matt, who is definitely a hero with regards to the Hand, being very unheroic with regards to the trial as he loses control of that side of his life. So…is he still a hero?

We also have Foggy failing to listen to Matt and support him and ultimately rejecting him. I’m still not entirely sure whether the show expects us to believe Foggy is in the right or Matt, or if the show wants us to simply say, “Man, this is complicated.” I lean towards the latter. But clearly the show doesn’t present Foggy handling things perfectly – especially in contrast to Karen, who shows that fundamentally, heroes understand other people, and Foggy repeatedly fails to understand Matt. (“I came to talk to my friend, not the vigilante” / “They’re the same person” / “They weren’t always.”) Foggy believes that he understands Matt better than Matt understands himself, and…all right, Matt isn’t exactly swimming in self-insight, but I think we’re meant to see Foggy as unheroic at least to some extent, especially in contrast to Karen, who continually invites Matt to explain himself without any judgment (...until she doesn't, because she also has a limit to what she'll put up with).

Anyway. All this reinforces, to me, that S2’s Question is, “What is a hero?” and S2’s Answer is, “A flawed person who tries.” Which I find really beautiful and honestly thank you so much for this ask because I think writing this out is making me actually appreciate S2 in a new way.

Ahem. Moving on. I’m skipping Defenders because…what the heck is happening there. I mostly just watch Matt and Jessica’s scenes anyway so I really don’t know what angles are presented via Luke and Danny.

Season 3

So, S3! Aaaaa S3 is so beautiful, and in my opinion, the clearest with its Question/Answer. I think S3 is asking, “Does love make you vulnerable?” and the answer is, “Yes—but it’s worth it.”

I FREAKING LOVE IT OKAY.

So we start off with Matt completely alone, and Maggie asking if he has anyone she can call for him. He says no. Smash-cut to Karen literally paying his rent. Setting aside the realism of that, it’s a beautiful picture. We also see Foggy with Marci and his big, happy family. We see Fisk isolated from Vanessa. And we see Ray with his family. As the season progresses, we also see Dex (abandoned by family but constantly seeking out someone who can love and guide him) and even Melvin and Betsy.

As the season progresses, what happens? Foggy and Karen are deeply hurt by Matt, who is afraid that his presence in their lives will hurt them (and, I think, also afraid of how being in any kind of relationship will affect him). We hear Fisk's monologue about love as the ultimate prison. We see threats against Betsy used to manipulate Melvin. We see Fisk using Julie to manipulate Dex. We see threats against Foggy’s family used to manipulate Foggy. We see threats against Ray’s family used to manipulate Ray. We see Matt giving up his chance to kill Fisk to rescue Karen. We see all the heartbreak caused by Maggie’s betrayal (and Father Lantom’s). And in the end, we see Matt and Fisk both find a truce that only works because of threats against the people they each love. Over and over again, we see that it’s true: love is a vulnerability.

(Incidentally, part of why I love S3 is that it vindicates Matt, who has been afraid of this ever since Stick got in his head as a kid. And I would’ve loved to see S4 show Foggy, especially, acknowledge that Matt is wrong about a lot of things, but he’s right that his presence in Foggy’s life endangers Foggy because people will try to use Foggy to get to Matt, just like Fisk used Foggy’s family to get to Foggy.)

But at the same time, of course, the resounding message of S3 is that love is still absolutely worth it. We see what happens to characters like Matt and Dex when they are isolated, and we see how both of them thrive when they have the support of loved ones. We see that, even if it would have been better if Ray hadn’t had to go to jail, he did so willingly both because it was the Right Thing To Do and because it was worth it to keep his family safe. Even Fisk, although I’m sure future seasons would show that he’s not content to sit idly in captivity, is willing to experience it if it’s the only way to keep Vanessa safe. (He just always thinks there’s another way.) We see Brett and his mom being the real heroes here, let's not ignore the obvious.

There’s more I could go into (like the parallels between Ray and his son and Jack and Matt, and what that says about love-causing-pain and love-being-worth-it) but this is long enough already, and I hope the points mentioned above demonstrate why I think S3 explored both the Question and the Answer with amazing nuance, from so many different angles.

Season 1

With that said, let’s circle back to S1. S1 honestly threw me off for a long time and I’m very curious whether any of you will identify a different Question/Answer. Because although there are a lot of cool themes and issues addressed in S1, the one thing that seems to hold it all together, and the one thing that is explored from the most angles is…Matt himself. I think S1’s question is, “Who is Matt Murdock?”

Which, honestly, is a very risky Question. Basing a Question on a character, even the protagonist, means that protagonist has to be truly fascinating—from the very beginning. Otherwise, many people wouldn’t bother to start watching at all, and those who did would quickly get bored. Why do they care about the nuances of a made-up person?

In fairness, Daredevil has an advantage in that it’s an adaptation of a comic book, so the character was already known to fans. However, that doesn’t explain why Daredevil was so immensely popular to people who’d never read the comics (such as yours truly). I think what Daredevil does masterfully (and in a way that I want to emulate in my own writing) is show almost all the nuances of Matt’s character immediately, so that the Question (“Who is Matt Murdock?”) is immediately intriguing. The audience says, “This guy’s a walking contradiction—how does he make sense?” (or maybe "How did he get like this?") and they stick around to find out.

I mean, in the first three scenes, we see that he’s heroic (even as a kid), blind, Catholic, a ninja, and also heroically violent in a premeditated way. Only a few scenes later, we see that he’s also a lawyer—a defense lawyer, no less.

Like, what the heck? How does this make any sense? Blind ninja? Catholic ninja? Catholic vigilante? Defense attorney vigilante? What??? Even the opening credits are masterfully done to poke at this by presenting us images representative of these conflicting aspects of Matt’s life! People are immediately intrigued.

And as the show progresses, it keeps circling around the question, primarily by contrasting him with other characters. The most obvious one is Fisk, as we see their similarities and differences, including an odd flip for traditional heroes and villains (Matt admitting he enjoys violence, and Fisk insisting that he doesn’t). But Matt is also contrasted with other characters, either as foils (like Stick and Vladimir) or because other characters directly challenge him on his actions (like Claire, Foggy, Karen, and Father Lantom).

And Matt himself, I think, is struggling to figure out who he is, how he’s supposed to balance these two halves of his life, and where his lines are drawn that actually do separate him from the villains (and whether those lines are even sufficient to separate him from the villains). By the end, he seems to have reached an unsteady equilibrium with himself and with the other characters (namely Foggy, Karen, and Fisk), but I think there’s a clear sense that this steadiness won’t last.

So what’s the Answer? Obviously, it's: “Matt is a disaster,” lol. Kidding aside, I think the Answer is something like, “Matt is complicated and flawed, but good.” I love that.

And so if I had to zoom out and ask what all three seasons have in common, I think the Question might be something like, "What is a hero?" and the Answer is something like, “Heroes are flawed, but good, and dependent on the love of others (even when that makes them vulnerable).” Which – HELLO, can we acknowledge how beautiful that is? For a superhero show, especially?

I mean, many shows want to present that Answer, I think, but fail, either because the writers aren't brave enough to make the characters actually be flawed in ugly and messy ways, or because the show is so gritty(TM) that it doesn't have room to present and celebrate real love. Or it shows love in a rose-colored way and ignores how much loving people can really, truly hurt and make your life...not harder, actually (not in the long run), but certainly more complicated.

But Daredevil. I just – I can’t with Daredevil. It's literally too good.

Thank you so much for giving me a reason to write all this. Now please excuse me while I go rewatch the entire series.

And while I'm doing that, what does everyone else think?

#meta #daredevil #matt murdock #asks #ask me things I'm friendly #one of my favorite posts ever tbh #fave #questions and answers

[gingerswagfreckles]

Queer is my fave word, thanks for posting about that book, I'm gonna try to get a copy! It's just awesome to have an umbrella term for not feeling cis-hetero but not entirely certain where you fit under the umbrella yet.

Ahh yes!! You mean Gay New York by George Chauncey? That book is THE book on queer history in the US (it's really not just about NYC, but it is focused there). Not only is it the most meticulously well researched book I have EVER read, it is just. So brilliant in how it analyses the construction of and intersection of gender, sexuality, biological sex, class, race, and society. Like I read it for a class in freshman year of college and trust me I was already EXTREMELY liberal and well versed in queer discourse. Yet it completely I mean COMPLETELY changed my understanding of not only sex and gender but just like. What identity is, how much of what we see as static and natural are actually very contextual social constructs. And it really showed in a very concrete and reality based way how every identity exists and is defined through the context of its environment, and that while our experiences are very inherently real, the lines we draw around these experiences to define them are not. Like. The existence of a queer identity the way we generally think of it now did NOT exist in the same way throughout history. The intersection of so many facets of life have been interpreted so completely differently throughout history and in different places and social contexts. The queer community has never been some static and well defined club that one is or is not a member of. It is and always has been a nebulous and highly changeable social network of people with common experiences and interests who have defined their own communities in wildly different ways depending on where you look. Trying to strictly define who does or does not belong in or who has or hasn't existed in the queer community throughout history is completely pointless, because in reality we are talking about an absolutely enormous group of people who have been variously connected to and socially isolated from others, who have seen their own identities and their own communities in completely different ways.

It really highlighted for me how pointless 99% of the discourse on this website is, and how much almost all of it boils down to a fundamental misunderstanding of what identity is. NONE of the identities we think of as inherently real are inherently real, and arguing about who should be included in a community or who's identities are "valid" just shows that you think the framework through which you understand sex and gender is universal rather than cultural, contextual, and highly individual. Like, identities overlap! Identities step on each others toes!!! Words and labels change, and people do not universally agree on what they mean at any point in time!!! You would not believe how many people who you would think of as being part of the queer community didn't think of themselves as part of the queer community, and you would not believe how many people who you do NOT think of as part of the queer community DID see themselves as part of it, and were accepted!!

Like, for example, the interpretation of what it even meant to be "homosexual" was SO different depending on what period on time you look at, what location, what social and financial class these people were part of, what racial identity they saw themselves as (and that's a whole 'nother can of worms!) Sexuality was often seen as MUCH more connected to gender performance and sexual roles one took than it is today, and a lot, I mean a LOT of men who always topped did not see themselves as homosexual/gay/part of the queer community at all, especially in working class communities. And!! Guess what!! This is the part that will really blow your mind!!!

T H E Y W E R E N ' T W R O N G!!!!!!!!!!!

They were not WRONG about how they defined their identities or how they saw themselves in relation to a certain social community!! Because they were using their OWN social and sexual framework to interpret their identities and their actions!!! And saying they were WRONG in their interpretation fundamentally misunderstands that the criteria YOU use to measure whether someone is part of an identity or social group is not any more correct or real than the criteria THEY used! Saying these people were "wrong" is to impose one's own modern and highly contextual social framework on people from the past-- and TBH it's fine to see people from the past through modern lenses, and to recognize that they would be seen as gay/a certain identity by modern standards. That's fine! But the way they saw themselves then wasn't wrong, it was just different, and your criteria for what you see as gay or straight or part of a community is just as arbitrary and based on the context of your environment as theirs was.

People like to argue with this all the time, saying things like that these individuals were just suffering from internalized homophobia, gender bias, ignorance of what this or that identity "really" means, and these people are really really really misunderstanding the point. These are usually the same people who say things like "words mean things!!" when points like the one I'm making are brought up, because they continue to misunderstand how much these words yes, mean things, but mean things within historical and cultural contexts that are NOT shared by the entire world. Like, ok, you may say our example man from the 1910s is gay whether he recognized that or not, because he engaged in homosexual acts. But what does it mean to have homosexual sex? To have sex with someone of the same biological sex? Well what is biological sex, and how do we define what makes ones biological sex the "same" or "different" from your own? Is it someone with the same type of genitals as you? That's not a universally shared opinion, and the way you define the "types" of genitals are not universally shared either. What if I told you that there have been cultures throughout history who have categorized biological sex through the length of the penis, with people with shorter penises being seen as a separate sex than those who have longer penises? So two people with penises could have sex with each other and not be understood as having sex with someone of the same sex, in that culture!

Oh, that's not what you meant? That's wrong? Why? Why? Because your personal understanding and your culture's general perception of what biological sex is is more valid and real than that culture's? Why? WHY? Could you really explain why, or is it just that the difference is making you uncomfortable, because it threatens your perception of a LOT of the ideas you see as inherently real?

And we could do the same thing with the ACT of sex! I mean, what is sex? What physical acts are sexual, and what aren't? Is it just someone putting a body part inside of another person's body in some way? Well what about handjobs and other kinds of outercourse? Is sex then some physical thing we do in pursuit of an orgasm? What if you don't orgasm? Is it not sex then? Is sex the use of our bodies to derive general physical pleasure? Well what about a massage? Is a massage sex? In some times and places, many people would have said yes!

These aren't just theoretical questions- Chauncey outlines how these differing definitions of what sex is and what makes it queer not only allowed for a lot of people we would unquestioningly think of as part of the queer community to exclude themselves, but also resulted in the inclusion of people we would never consider to be queer now. Like, most female prostitutes who served only male cliental absolutely hands down refused to give blow jobs in the early 1900s, because blowjobs were seen as an extremely deviant expression of sexuality and were understood to be part of "homosexual" activity, regardless of the sex or genders of the people involved, because it was sexual activity that explicitly was not seeking to create a baby. This was a widely understood concept at the time, and persisted despite the fact that many of these women were using contraception and therefore obviously not seeking to get pregnant. Blowjobs were still seen as perverse and "homosexual," and thus not something most regular female prostitutes were willing to engage in.

Therefore! Female prostitutes who only ever had sex with male cliental but DID provide oral sex (and many other not-penis-in-vagina-activities) were often lumped in with lesbians!!! And treated as such in arrest records and propaganda! And guess what?? As a result, guess who these women usually hung around with, and where they usually could be found? Within the queer community and queer spaces!! These women were seen by the broader society as well as by much of the queer community as QUEER, and many of them likely understood themselves this way as well!

And for the record, these questions of what sex is and what gender is and what makes it gay or straight or whatever are not questions that belong strictly to the past. Survey the general population about what act they consider to have been the one where they "lost their virginity," and you will get wildly different answers. Survey self identified gay or straight people on what kind of sex acts they engage with and with who, and you will similarly find an enormous variation in reports.

And these questions MATTER! These questions matter, not in that we have to find some way to answer them, but in order to understand that we can't, definitively, and that thinking our own perceptions of any of these things are more valid than others' perceptions is incredibly harmful and dismissive to the lived experiences of other people. You can't define other people's identities out of existence just because they threaten or overlap or contradict with your own understanding of some concept, because your definitions of literally any of the criteria you are using to try to build your boxes are ALSO up for interpretation!

Like, I'm sorry I know I am rambling soooo much but you opened the same floodgates that this book opened back when I read it. If the people on this stupid website had any understanding of the history they claim to know so much about, they would see how their attitudes of "this identity is more valid than that identity" and "you can't sit with us because you're not actually part of this or that identity because my definition is better than your definition" is nothing new or woke or progressive, but is the exact same shit that has always been done and has been used to marginalize people who's existence or behaviors threaten the status quo. Like yelling at asexual or pansexual or nonbinary or aromantic people or whatever other group that they don't belong, or that their identity isn't real because it threatens the perceived integrity of another identity...it's all so stupid!! Your identity is also just a way for you to define yourself within your cultural context! Like I've literally seen people be like "asexality isn't a real identity bc if we didn't live in a society that was so sex obsessed then you wouldn't feel the need to define yourself this way." And it's like....what?? Yeah, ok??? But we do live in this society???????? And you can say that about LITERALLY ANY identity??! Not even ones related to sex and gender! Like "you aren't really deaf and deafness isn't real, because if we lived in a world without sound then you wouldn't notice you couldn't hear." Like yeah?? But we do live in a world with sound?? So...people find this term useful to articulate their experiences? And they might even dare to form an identity around it, and maybe a community, and might even become proud of it, even though it is a social construct, just like pretty much everything else??

It just drives me nuts. We go around and around in circles without ever understanding that so much of the bigotry we face is the same thing we are perpetuating with each other, because we don't understand that it is natural and normal for people's definitions of certain identities to conflict, and for their interpretations of the world to run up against each other sometimes. And that there is no strictly defined queer community, and who does or doesn't "belong" is not a decision that any one person or even any one culture gets to make, ever.

To try to finally actually wrap back around to what your actual comment was to begin with, I think queer is a wonderful word, and that GENERALLY SPEAKING in our current cultural context, it is used to encapsulate so much of the messiness and overlap that makes people so uncomfortable, but is what makes the queer community so great!!!!! That being said, it of course has had different definitions in different time periods and cultural contexts just like everything else, and some people may still have negative connotations associated with it and therefore not feel comfortable using it to self-identify. And that's fine too, as long as you don't try to force other people to stop using the term to describe their own identities on the basis that your definition is more real than theirs, which is the opposite of what queer history is all about.

If anyone is interested in the book I am talking about, you can buy it as an ebook, audiobook, or paper copy here: https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/george-chauncey/gay-new-york/9780786723355/

It goes into way way way more depth about everything I'm rambling about here, and backs it up with the most research and evidence I've ever seen in one single book. The physical copy is about as thick as two bricks stacked on top of each other, so if you can't get an exclusionist to read it, you can always just whack them over the head.

#gingerswagfreckles #queer #queer history #queer community #panphobia #ace discourse #acephobia #transphobia #queer discourse #mogai discourse #discourse #gay community #oh i accidentally wrote an essay #im so sorry anon u did not ask for this #this just came pouring out tho #its been brewing inside me for years and with the recent resurgence of panphobia for NOOOO reason uuugh #ive been really agitated and thinking about this a lot #and it just came pouring out #source is the fucking book obviously #so pls dont ask #btw anon i say you you you a lot in this and ofc I am NOT talking to u specifically i promise lol #im talking to a general audience

[mgsapphire]

Ethics and morality... and how they're not the same...

Weird title, and I don't even know if I'll properly approach this one with all the topics I wish to this discuss in today's The Devil Judge essay, because a lot of things peaked my interest, I was debating on doing a separate post for each subject, but I'll do them all in here:

Starting simple

I know we're only 4 episodes in, but I want to break down the things that I often look for in a new show:

Cinematography

Soundtrack

Character building

Plot devices

Social commentary (sometimes)

Of course, these are things most people would consider basics, but I find that a lot of TV shows don't have enough balance in them. Also, cinematography and soundtrack are pretty up there for me because when a plot gets slow, or something like that, I stay for those two (biggest example: King Eternal Monarch).

The soundtrack in The Devil Judge is amazing and the cinematography can be a character of its own. They really get me hooked and are used as tools to properly tell a story. And I'll get into that further down this post.

The onlooker will never understand the actor

Experience is your best friend not only applies to job hunting, but it's true in the real world too. You can't truly weigh in on something unless you've experienced it yourself, you can give it your judgment and everything, but when bad things happen to someone, you'll never truly understand their pain. Am I bringing up because of the difference of mind in Judge Kang and Judge Kim's opinions? On how the public treated the minister's son? No. I'm talking about a very specific scene, where the cinematography told me to think that way and not the dialogue (it's that easy for my mind to be swayed). In episode 3, when the rich are about to dine right after the foundation's commercial for a better future, we see this aerial shot:

What's interesting about this? The seclusion and the enclosed feeling it conveys as a counterpart to the poverty shots we were just shown. Yet, these are the people making ads for a better future, what do they know?

They live comfortably behind concrete walls with no windows to see what goes on apart from the bubble they live in. This idea is further enforced at the party in episode 4, where they're not even a part of the donations, and watch and mock from afar as spectators. Yet, these people call the shots. They even call it commenting, as if they were watching the pain of others on TV.

The intriguing personality and the duality it encites

Now, this was a costume and wardrobe decision, but it was also very well thought of:

Judge Kim wears white and Judge Kang wears black. One is morally perceived by viewers of the show as morally good and the other is perceived as morally dubious at best. However, besides the costume and wardrobe thought put into this, we also have to think about the delivery of this scene and how it may further affect my detailing of this section. Judge Kang brings down the coats, and hangs over the coat to Judge Kim, he's the one who is making that annotation: You're pure, I'm tainted. This can have one of two interpretations:

Either Judge Kang believes Judge Kim to be pure and innocent due to his status as a rookie in the field

Or he believes Judge Kim to be morally white and himself morally black as he's looking at his brother's face and not at Judge Kim's heart.

Because most of the back story we're unveiling is through Judge Kim's perception, there's also an inherit bias we're having as well, because in Judge Kim narrative, he believes he's doing what's right and believes Judge Kang to be evil. In being served information about Judge Kang through Judge Kim's eyes, our bias is inherently skewed.

Another thing is that, when they put on the coat, they're standing in front of the other, as if the producers of this series are telling us they're two sides of the same coin.

The duality is made in more deceitful ways, which include:

A difference of classes that implies one has suffered while the other has not.

A difference of experience that implies one is more tainted while the other is pure.

A difference of age that implies one is a sly fox while the other one is is bunny about to be eaten.

A difference of temper that makes one erratic and the other logical.

Power dynamics

This one, in this one I could make a whole thesis based on just a couple of scenes in the drama. And you know I have to mention it: director Jung being the puppeteer.

It may not be as unexpected at first, nevertheless it brings forward a lot of things I've wished to touch upon for quite some time now. A woman being a puppeteer of an old man in the portrayed dystopia that The Devil Judge is painting makes much more sense than more common demonstrations of these dynamics where it's either a:

A man of power being controlled by a bigger man of power.

A man of power being controlled by a seemingly man of a lower status.

A woman being controlled by a man of power.

Although, there's nothing wrong with those power dynamics, and if they were to be used, a message could also be conveyed, this one in particular works as a megaphone.

A subversion of power in such a way can be interpreted as a true indication of the weak overcoming the powerful. Why? It is not that woman are naturally weaker than men, but that in society, patriarchy has been a big factor in taking voice away from women in order to give it to men.

In order for Director Jung to achieve her purposes, it's smarter for her to do it under the pretense that an old rich man in power is the one calling the shots.

This is better exemplified by her stance when the old man tries to excuse his behavior, and what her moral compass is. I'm not saying I agree with her unethical conduct, but that her morality is directly impacted by the perception of the public of her as a weak woman:

Just because a dog bites a human does the person get dirty?

This is telling on how she perceives the actions of the old man in gropping the waitress. She didn't do anything wrong, even if you touched her, you are the dirty one.

While she's evil, it's a refreshing and deep evil.

The public's opinion and how there's actually logic in the show's portrayal

The public opinion can make or break a person, even if it's not on a public trial like this. While "cancel culture" barely works in today's society, a person's reputation is forever tainted. The show does tell that, but it also exhibits the scary downside of it, by showing how easily it was to make people accept flaggelation as a fitting punishment.

There are many experiments that have tried to test the effect of societal pressure on an individual's decision and the effect of the authority's enforcement of power in the outcome of these decisions. Furthermore, theories based on analysis of human behavior not necessarily relying on experiments can also help break this down. What do I mean? Here's a small attempt at explaining:

Milgram Experiment on Authority: which measured the individual willingness to carry out actions that go against their conscience due to an authority's approval.

Argument from Authority; The idea that people are more likely to use an authority's opinion on something as an argument for their reason. This is often seen in science, where trusted authorities have done the research and offer it to the public. In here, authority bias also plays a role, as we often believe, at first, that an authority must be right.

Moral disengagement: basically speaking, because this is evil or bad, I'm not part of it and I most probably am not actively participating in it. One may disengage by moral justification, which means that before engaging in something that has been previously perceived as immoral, I'm changing my stance on it based on what I tell myself to be logical arguments. This particular form of moral disengagement is very effective in changing the public opinion. I'll be touching on another form further down this post.

Other factors played a part, but these ones in particular came to mind when public flagelation as a form of corporeal punishment was wildly accepted. First, an authority is the one telling them it's correct, to go ahead. Secondly, another authority (the minister) had previously shown approval to such unusual punishment. Thirdly, they are not the ones to be engaging directly in the act, and even if they were, it would be acceptable because an authority has told them so. They may even believe the punishment to be a necessary evil for the greater good.

In fact, the minister's son was actually correct when pleading his case, they were accepting it because it wouldn't affect them directly.

Regarding the cinematographic descent of the public opinion regarding the situation can better be exemplified by the old man we've seen through the episodes.

Does suffering justify misdeeds?

Today I came along the difference between excuse and reason. You may give a reason for your behavior, but it doesn't excuse it.

Not because I've suffered through shit, means I have to make you suffer too.

I may explain myself, but it's on the other side to excuse me.

Why I hate the unreliable narrator and why I love it so much

This story has been told mostly through the eyes of Judge Kim and what he hears and sees regarding Judge Kang, if anything, the narrative is very close to that of the narrative we've seen in The Great Gatsby. An enigmatic man is being narrated to us from the eye of a man who hasn't known him for a long time.

How is that an unreliable narrator? The narrator has their own set of bias and moral standards which function as lenses through which they see the world.

Another way of putting it would be the way teenage romances are often written in a first person narrative where either of the two teenagers is the narrator, so the author can sell to us something as simple as offering a pack of gum as the most romantic act on earth. We're perceiving interactions through rose tainted glasses.

In this case, we're seeing the interactions through Judge Kim's eyes who doesn't trust Judge Kang from the get go due to his own preset bias.

The narrative becomes even more unreliable as we're not exactly sure if what Judge Kang disclosed himself is a fact.

The reason why I love this narrative is because it leaves a lot of space to make simple plot twists to a narrative and make them seem grand, and can elongate a story without making it obvious.

The reason why I hate it is because sometimes, in tv shows mostly, we as viewers can see the other side of the story and grow increasingly frustrated with the main character's prejudice and misunderstandings (I'm looking at you my beloved Beyond Evil).

Also, because I have to wait for a long time before I actually have a clear picture of it.

#kdrama #kdramas #kdrama recommendations #analysis #rant #the devil judge #got7 #park jinyoung #ji sung #kdrama meta #kdrama quotes #kdrama analysis #meta #the great gatsby #kim min jung #please dont let this flop

[ducavalentinos]

Hello, What were the opinions of the people who personally knew Cesare ? Thank you !

Hello ;) So, there were a lot of opinions made about Cesare by his contemporaries, but most of the opinions come from people who met him, not knew him intimately. The unfortunate thing here is that Cesare is mostly seen through the lenses of people outside his inner circle: ambassadors, orators, enemies who wrote daily dispatches, reports, letters to their employers and others. Some of this material has weight and it’s helpful, but still they all contain the unavoidable political element and focus towards Cesare as the political figure, not Cesare as a person. There are interesting glimpses of his personality and intimate life here and there, but never enough to make more than a sketch of it, and often much of it is distorted, with incorrect information and/or evaluations which were believed at the time to have been accurate. Cesare through the lenses of people inside his inner circle: people who knew him intimately, people he trusted and loved and vice-versa, are frustratingly limited, there’s almost nothing, which creates a big unbalance about his figure and his life. I believe the opinions of his beloved tutor Giovanni Vera, his most known secretary and adviser Agapito Geraldini di Amelia, or Miguel da Corella, or of his mother, his sister, his wife, would be incredibly valuable in order to have more precise knowledge, and a more rounded assessment about his person, in all of its facets, since we don’t have that, what fills up this gap are the words of one of his first secretaries, the alleged words of his father, Rodrigo, and the words of intellectuals and poets who interacted with him at his father’s court in Rome, some later following him at his own court in the Romagna, beneath the exaggerated flattery common in these writings, these men make some interesting observations, and express a genuine opinion about Cesare, aside from just the political man, which helps to shed a light into his personality, his qualities, and other aspects of his life. With this in mind, I gathered opinions that can be confirmed by Cesare’s own documented actions, and that I find are generally reliable: not entirely dominated by personal/political bias, and absent of the malice and gossip which became more common the more powerful Cesare and his family became. There are mix between the first group (ambassadors, orators, enemies, etc), the second group (people close to him, intellectuals and poets), and maybe there will be one or two which does not belong to either group, so I’ll leave them for last as a type of miscellaneous third group, in chronological order: 1488:

“What thanks can I give you, Cesare Borgia? May this auspicious day be celebrated as a festive day, in which this work comes to light only out of your love, and if our judgment is worth something, it will be most useful for general prosperity. In this book, we teach how to write a poem, exploring and manifesting all the secrets of metric art. Certainly a work that will please you very much. [...]Add to that your great and truly effective love for beautiful letters.You, Cesare, are truly worthy of much commendation, if at such a young age you act with the wisdom of an old man. Forward, then, O hope and ornament of the Borgia family, and accept with a good heart our Syllables, an offering of your devoted friend. So I believe that my name, joined to your eternal name and that of [your house], will have ornament and life."

- Extracts from a dedication written to Cesare by Paolo Pompilio,h in his Syllabica, a literature text-book of verse composition, published in the same year. 1492:

“Cesare Borgia profited so much that, with ardent ingenuity, he discussed the questions posed to him both in Canon law and in Civil law.”

- Paolo Giovio, concerning the Disputation for the laurea at the University of Pisa, where Cesare studied from 1491 to 1492. 1493:

"On the day before yesterday I found Cesare at home in Trastevere. He was on the point of setting out to go hunting, and entirely in secular habit. that is to say, dressed in silk and armed. Riding together, we talked a while, I am among his most intimate acquaintances. He is a man of great talent and of an excellent nature; his manners are those of the son of a great prince; above everything, he is joyous and light-hearted. He is very modest**, much superior to, and of a much finer appearance than his brother the Duke of Gandia, who also is not short of natural gifts."

- Disp. written by Gianandrea Boccaccio to his employer, the Duke of Ferrara, Ercole d'Este. 1497:

"Nature has engendered in you not the seed of virtù, but virtù itself, and in occupying herself to form you, [she] has adorned your body with an excellent form, dignity, and every beauty, and provided the soul with moderation**, decorum, gravity, benevolence, and above all royal liberality**, which nature seemed to have surpassed herself. And this liberality of yours, is shown with writers and artists."

- Extract from a dedication written by one of Cesare's secretaries, Carlo Valgulio, in the first transl. of Cleomedes: De contemplatione orbium excelsorum. 1499:

“By his modesty, his readiness, his prudence, and his other virtues he has known how to earn the affections of every one.”

- Letter written by Giuliano Della Rovere, to pope Alexander VI, concerning Cesare's arrival in France.**

"The Pope's son was very gallant..."

- Baldassare Castiglione, in a letter after seeing the entrance of Cesare and his suite alongside King Louis XII of France in Milan. 1500:

“To-day, about the twenty-second hour (four in the afternoon), after he had dined, he had signor Ramiro fetch me to him; and with great frankness and amiability his Majesty first made his excuses for not granting me an audience the preceding day, owing to his having so much to do in the castle and also on account of the pain caused by his ulcer. Following this, and after I had stated that the sole object of my misson was to wait upon his Majesty to congratulate and thank thim, and to offer your services, he answered me in carefully chosen words, covering each point and very fluently. The gist of it was, that knowing your Excellency’s ability and goodness, he had always loved you and had hoped to enjoy personal relations with you. He had looked forward to this when you were in Milan, but events and circumstances then prevented it. But now that he had come to this country, he --determined to have his wish-- had written the letter announcing his successes, of his own free will and as proof of his love, and feeling certain that you Majesty would be pleased by it. He says he will continue to keep you informed of his doings**, as he desires to establish a firm friendship with your Majesty, and he proffers everything he owns and in his power should you ever have need.[...]When I take both the actual facts and his words into consideration, I see why he wishes to establish some sort of friendly alliance with your Majesty. I believe in his professions, and I can see nothing but good in them.”

Postscript: “The Duke’s daily life is as follows: he goes to bed at eight, nine, or ten o’clock at night (three to five o’clock in the morning). Consequently, the eighteenth hour is his dawn, the nineteenth his sunrise, and the twentieth his time for rising. Immediately on getting up he sits down to the table, and while there and afterwards he attends to his business affairs. He is considered brave, strong, and generous, and it is said he lays great store by straightforward men.[...]He is great of spirit and he seeks eminence and glory.”

- Extracts from a Disp. of Pandolfo Collenuccio to his employer, the Duke of Ferrara, Ercole d’Este, from Pesaro. 1501:

"This lord is very magnificent and splendid, and so spirited in feats of arms that there is nothing so great but that it must seem small to him. In the pursuit of glory and to acquire a State he never rests, and he knows neither danger nor fatigue. He moves so swiftly that he arrives at a place before it is known that he has set out for it. He knows how to make himself beloved of his soldiers, and he has in his service the best men of Italy. These things render him victorious and formidable, and to these is yet to be added his perpetual good fortune."

- Disp. written by Niccolò Machiavelli to the Signory of Florence. 1502:

"He [Cesare] argues with such sound reason that to dispute with him would be a long affair, for his wit and eloquence never fail him (dello ingegno e della lingua si vale quanto vuole...)

-Disp. written by Francesco Soderini, from Urbino, to the Signory of Florence.

"The duke[Cesare] is good-natured, but he cannot tolerate offenses."

- Rodrigo Borgia, to the Ferrarese ambassador B. Constabili.

Miscellaneous: A certain author named Camillo di Leonardo from Pesaro dedicates to Cesare, in the year of 1502, his famous work Speculum Lapidum, in which he 'commends the duke for his great love of letters, his courteous liberality towards the scholarly, the care he used when collecting the beautiful and numerous [works] of the library of Cesena, and even his sweetness and his gentleness.' Gaspare Torella, one of Cesare's personal physician and advisers also dedicated to him his Dialogus de Dolore, in which he says he is "...pleased that [Cesare's] virtù surpassed those of the great ones of Rome, such as the justice of Brutus, the constancy of Decius, the continence of Scipio, the loyalty of Marco Regolo, and the magnanimity of Paolo Emilio.” The French commanders used to say of Cesare: “At war he was a good companion and a brave man." The Spanish historian Zurita, atypically pays a compliment to Cesare when assessing the situation in Italy and of pope Julius' panic when hearing about Cesare's escape from the Spanish prison in 1506, he writes: "The duke was such that his very presence was enough to set all Italy agog; and he was greatly beloved, not only by men of war, but also by many people of Tuscany and of the States of the Church." Lastly, during the winter of 1500-1501, a scholar and poet named Francesco Uberti, native of Cesena, adressed to Cesare a volume of epigrams, all which show the Romagnese opinion about him. According to Uberti, Cesare's Romagnese subjects learned his temper was 'mitissima' (gentle), 'placidissima' (calm) and his 'crueltà' (cruelty) was the severity necessary to repress political disorders. There is also other epigrams where Tiberti praises Cesare's clemency, "pious and kind Cesare..." ** The terms modesty and moderation, according to Gregorovius, can be also taken to 'understand as part and manifestation of a liberal education,...’ and the term liberality means generous, which Cesare was particularly reputed as being, to such a degree his genorosity was called at the time after his own name as “liberalità cesarea”. ** I decided to add Della Rovere’s words about Cesare, because as writer and historian Anthony Everitt said in one of his books: “Praise from one’s worst enemy is the most annoying, but also the most credible, of compliments.” and because even if Della Rovere’s words are insincere, likely, these words can nevertheless be confirmed by the opinions of others about Cesare, esp. in the historical records about his soujour at France. **Cesare had sent long letters to Ercole d'Este while he was at the conquest of Imola and Forlì, telling him the details of the military campaign.

#ask answered #anon ask #cesare borgia #césar borgia #house borgia #writing this really made me painfully aware again of how much we don't know and will never know about cesare #i'm gonna go cry now excuse me

[radramblog]

Album Discussion: The Suburbs

Last week I felt like I didn’t have much time to pump an album review out. Was going to be in the lab all day, had work in the night, wanted to cover something quick. Then I finished really early, and had plenty of time in the afternoon to finish things off. This week I am in the same situation as far as scheduling, but someone’s bloody using equipment I need, so I’ve got a bit of extra time now. Time to talk about a >1hr 16 track record!

Also last week, I covered an album that I felt was more interesting from a meta level than it is musically. This week I’m talking about an album that I know nothing of the meta for.

The Suburbs I was reminded of recently. Mostly because I ran into the person who bought me the CD for the first time in like a year. I understand Arcade Fire have A Reputation as far as bands go, but the thing is: I have no idea what it is. I haven’t followed them at all, I don’t know whether they’re considered good or not, I haven’t even seen any of the music videos. I have never deliberately listened to an Arcade Fire song outside of this album.

But I do like this album. So.

Okay the one thing I do know is what the album is about. It’s about growing up in the suburbs of…I think Texas somewhere. I could look this up, but I refuse. The result of this is that the whole thing is intensely nostalgic, full of reminiscence and wistfulness, childhood innocence and what growing up is like. It’s one of those, you know? That does, however, make it fairly easy to like, because I think a lot of people are nostalgic for their childhoods.

(yeah so the only music videos for this one are at the very start and very end. this is going to be a bit of a wall of words.)

This is characterised by the opening track, which is also the album’s title track: The Suburbs. It’s opening with a very folksy acoustic guitar and piano, and longing for that childhood is its modus operandi. It is, however, tinged by the anxieties of that era- growing up in the shadow of the cold war is going to leave an impact on anyone, and that cultural climate is also going to be running through the album. I think the most poignant section of the song lyrically is the start of the third verse- wishing to become a parent, so they can live vicariously through their child, show them their childhood world before the reality and the memory are completely lost. Okay that’s kinda heavy moving on- the track is pretty much built around that piano/acoustic bit, sounding relatively upbeat but coloured by these lonesome strings running through the background. It’s very effective of conveying the feeling- which is something that comes up quite a bit over the course of the album. The Suburbs is one of my favourite tracks on this album, and having it come right at the front makes it a very solid stage-setter.

Track two is Ready to Start, a faster, rockier track with this grimy bassline running through the verses contrasting the relatively bright instrumentation of the chorus. Considering the themes of the song, about working for the man, dude, and trying to escape that sort of life, it’s fairly fitting, though it’s a very different sort of nostalgia than the previous track. The instrumentation gives the whole thing this sense urgency, which is enhanced by some of the lyrics- I mean the track is called Ready to Start, isn’t it. I feel like this song would be great to try and hype yourself up for something you don’t really want to do, and I’m not sure how many songs we have specifically for that feeling.

Our next song is called Modern Man, and it feels like tumbling through a confusing life. God, I’m really getting pensive today. I feel like this is a lot because this album resonates a lot more emotionally for me than musically. I’m someone with a very weird sense of nostalgia, seeing as my childhood is pretty effectively defined into three segments, and I tend to fixate on one of them because it’s The Weird One. I’m nostalgic for high school which is when I was nostalgic for living abroad which is when I was nostalgic for when I still lived in Perth, which I do now, but I don’t know anyone from back then, so there’s a whole sense of longing, and it’s something I’ve always had, and that’s funky. And I’m still young, this isn’t going to change, it’s going to get worse, and eghhhh I’m supposed to be talking about music. I don’t really have much to say about Modern Man, I guess. It’s aight, the previous two were better, but here I am 800 words into an album discussion, and I’ve gone through all of 3 songs on a 16 track album, so maybe expect this to be a slog.

Rococo at least makes an impact real quick, with fuckin psychotic strings right at the start that’s kind of a shock to the system, especially compared to the relatively mild instrumentation the rest of the song provides. I think that’s a fairly appropriate tone for a song about looking at #thecoolkids, bemusement tinged with utter stark bewilderment. I think I’m too young to really get this, I guess. The song’s title regards an art movement that sounds extremely pretentious and fake deep, frankly, but considering the point of the song is that you don’t bloody know what Rococo means, that’s probably also fitting. I kinda wish the strings were more present throughout the song than they were, they add this existential dread to the track that I do think the later sections are missing somewhat.

Speaking of strings, Empty Room is up next, and it’s one of my favourite tracks as well. It opens with the strings but they’re fast and energetic and they’re going to blow right past you. I thought this track was in like the second half of the album, but nope, here it is. This is also where the album’s second vocalist takes the lead for a bit (she only does for like 3 scattered tracks) and she’s genuinely great here. The songs chugs like an old train, in a way that reminds me a lot of other songs; in particular, the bit between the chorus and second verse (and chorus/outro) reminds me a lot of Teach me About Dying by Holy Holy- I can’t unhear “teach me about dying, teach me about dying-dying” over that instrumental. Despite its desolate lyricism, this song’s energy is genuinely excellent, and it carries really well through the whole thing. I can’t think of a lot of songs that start on this sort of tempo and have it run the whole way through- not to keep referencing other songs, but it’s very Go with the Flow by Queens of the Stone Age. And that’s like in the top 3 QotSA songs for me, so.

It’s only just struck me how much track 6, City With no Children, reminds me of There There by Radiohead. Its mostly the percussion, I think. That’s fucking high praise, but it’s also about as far as the comparison goes. The song is pretty okay outside of that, this theme of a town left lifeless by the commercialism and capitalism of the ultra-rich and what that does to people. Maybe that’s just my reading of it, I do have a bias for this sort of thing, but I challenge you to find another one. Looking on Genius is cheating. I do like the riff the track is built around, but it gets old eventually, since it doesn’t develop at all as the track progresses- lost potential, I suppose.

The next song is the first part of the album’s first of two two-parters, Half Light I, because apparently this one is trying to be a long-running drama show now. With that said, this ballad is kinda gorgeous, and yet also kinda extremely boring? Which is a frustrating place to be, frankly. I get the feeling this is an opinion that would get me crucified, but aside from those strings what fuck, the song just isn’t doing anything for me. Maybe it’s because it’s kinda almost the halfway point and I’m just getting tired, maybe it’s just a generational and cultural divide between America/Australia and 90s-00s/00s-10s and I don’t Get It. But I’m afraid to say this one doesn’t land.

Half Light II (No Celebration), for the record, is one I enjoy much more. The instrumentation is a lot more fun, the tone is a lot more pained (and y’all know I love me some angst), as the rose-tinted lenses of the previous half are replaced by the jade of someone growing up through the GFC (and just, in general). Despite being a two-part song, the halves are very different, a deliberate dichotomy representing two facets of that same look backwards. I feel like this isn’t like other two-part songs I’ve heard before, in that you can kinda appreciate the halves separately- or, in my case, one and not the other.

Track 9, and welcome more officially to the Second Half, with Suburban War. It’s very much about reminiscing about old friends, and I think I’m going to wax personal for a bit, because I have very little to say about the song musically. I mentioned earlier that I basically don’t know anyone from back when I was a kid, and that’s kind of a product of what my childhood looked like. It’s hard to have a “childhood friend” that you still keep up with when you spend 5 extremely crucial, defining years somewhere away from where all of them are. When you leave at 7 years old and don’t come back until you’re almost a teenager. People change so quickly at that age, and I’m no exception, and so I just didn’t have the ability to relate to those same people that long afterwards, even if I could find them. I don’t resent the experience of growing up in such a fractured manner, but it means I have a fundamentally different experience to that discussed in this album. At the same time, as I listen to the closing moments of this song, with the line repeated, “All my old friends, they don’t know me now”, I can’t help but notice the similarity. The writer’s friends don’t know them because they’ve grown up, changed fundamentally as people, whereas I don’t know my old friends in a much more literal sense.

Our next song is a bit more fun. Month of May is unequivocally a rock song, as opposed to the..indie? folk? of most of its surrounds. Much like Empty Room, it’s driven by its tempo and instrumentation, but it’s a bit less dour than that one, almost a bit oldie in its rock and roll swagger. The song isn’t so utterly different that it wouldn’t fit on the album, the traces of The Suburbs still roll through the whole thing, the same guitar and percussion tones driven up a couple notches on the ol’ Mohs scale. Quite solid, ultimately, in my opinion.

Track 11 is Wasted Hours. I think it’s a kind of appropriate title, not because it’s a waste of time, but because it just kinda feels like a nothing song as part of the album. Like, it is unquestionably Part Of The Album, sonically and thematically, but I deadass would not notice if it was missing from the record. Sorry if this one is your favourite, but this one isn’t for me.

Deep Blue, on the other hand, is the song that got me into the album. There’s really something about this track, this sense of discomfort with the passage of time, that really wormed its way into me. It’s a shockingly cold song for this acoustic instrumentation that’s usually associated with quite the opposite. The piano feels desperate, the guitars grim, and there’s actual synths hiding in here- the song relates to technology, after all. It’s concern for the future of humanity, of the youth, and for, well, the Suburbs, through the lens of watching that match between chess Grandmaster Kasparov and the A.I. Deep Blue in 1996. Go watch the Down the Rabbit Hole on that if you haven’t already (and have a few hours), by the way, it’s utterly excellent.

I can’t really describe how Deep Blue makes me feel. There’s just something about it. I feel like if I hear this song again in 10 years, it would genuinely bring me to tears- it feels like loss in a way, and not the meme.

We Used to Wait has a fun instrumentation, glittery piano and that funky guitar noodling in the background, but unfortunately the chorus kinda lets it down for me. I just do not care for it, it’s really built on a vocal line that really doesn’t track for me personally. Like, I’m just young enough that a lot of the theme of the track is utterly unrelatable to me- I hail from an era that is post- the change the track is referring to. I’m focussing a lot this time around about how the songs make me feel personally, but I think that’s kind of the appropriate tack for this album in particular- like the idea of nostalgic reminiscence is so inexorably tied to your own personal experiences that there’s no way around those experiences clouding your perception of this album, and with that, how well you end up liking it. I bet this whole thing hits way harder for someone born in the same couple years as this band.

We’re up to the second two-parter, Sprawl I (Flatland), kind of the finale for the whole thing. I mean, in I’s case, it’s certainly that emotionally. The song is so utterly down, it’s lost in the urban sprawl the title and lyrics describe, and with that comes a very quiet track. Moody strings and guitar, that eventually build during the fourth verse (there is no chorus and they’re short). It does eventually resolve on a more positive note, at least, one that’s hopefully relatable to many of us- eventually, we find our emotional home is, and it’s often not where we grew up.

Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains) is quite the different perspective. It’s got that other lead vocalist (I could look up her name but I won’t), it’s got a pulsing beat, and it has much more energy to work with. There are synths on this track that are absent from almost the entire rest of the album, but their introduction here, right at the end, is extremely cool. They’re cool, they’re clear, and they’re thematically relevant! I just really like the vibe of this track, and the way it trails off is similarly very good. Would recommend.

But of course there is one final track. Kind of. The Suburbs (continued) is basically a dark reprise of the album’s opener, shaded with more regret than that track is, more strings-y and whispered. It’s very short, but it acts as an appropriate closer for the whole thing.

And of course, that’s The Suburbs. In retrospect, I have a bit more mixed thoughts about this than I thought. There’s some really high highs, and some things that are just kind of bleh, but any album of this length is bound to have some misses. While I was browsing Genius to make sure I had the lyrics right for some tracks, I saw this record described as a Masterpiece, but I’m not sure that shoe fits- at least, not for me. The personal nature of this album, and anyone’s theoretical relationship with it, are such that I don’t think it can be given such a broad, universal title. I like the album as a whole quite a bit, but I personally wouldn’t call it a masterpiece.

It also doesn’t inspire me to go after more Arcade Fire. I’m actually perfectly content having them in my mind as this solitary piece, complete in its own way. Oh, they have like four other albums, but to me, Arcade Fire is The Suburbs. I don’t know why I’ve decided this, but it just works for me. So I’m sorry to any massive AF fans, but I did just dedicated 2.7k words to this album, so I’m sure you’re all satisfied.

God, next time I am going to have to cover something shorter, for my own sanity if nothing else.

#ramble #music #arcade fire #the suburbs #indie

[thegoodomensdumpster]

ABOUT SHADWELL AND TRACY

OK so. This is probably going to be the meta nobody asked for + the meta that has already existed for 30 years ( I read a bunch of it before the show came out, but I never found one tackling what I’m going to talk about, so chances are it exists but I missed it and now it’ll be impossible to find ). I’ve been wondering, a lot, how exactly the relationship between Tracy and Shadwell was narratively useful. (Especially Shadwell, what is up with Shadwell, really??? Why did he have to be ... the way he is???) Don’t get me wrong : I know perfectly well how nearly everything / everyone in Good Omens mirrors something / someone else. The Four Horsepersons / The Them obviously, a perfect mirror of humanity’s problems (self made be it for Death ) and how to fix them ( with hope, courage, love, and proper education for newest generations who are dealing with passed mistakes… )

And then all the duos echo each other and act as informations about every character . Crowley / Aziraphale Newt / Anathema Tracy / Shadwell So I had the nagging suspicion that Tracy and Shadwell would, perhaps, make more sense to me if I started comparing them to each other and to their counterparts.

After all, that’s how me (and dozens other meta writers) have managed to understand Newt and Anathema.

Newt is reasonable and rationnal, and he is also free and questionning. Anathema has lived a life devoided of surprises, all according to the Great Plan prophecies of a long dead ancestor she can not directly talk to.

Newt and Anathema get together because of the prophecies, but STAY together because they chose to, and Newt is the one to bring that choice to Anathema. Do I need to say which of them echoes Crowley and which of them echoes Aziraphale ? What about Shadwell and Tracy then ?

Welp. Let’s dissect them, shall we ?

Madame Tracy is, arguably, the most formidable character of the lot. OK, I may be a bit bias, I adore the woman. But with good reasons !

Deep down, she’s got one of the – if not the – strongest moral compass of the whole characters cast. She has confidence in her morals and ethics enough to trust a supernatural entity who just invaded her body( after being rightfully offended and scolding him a little ) AND to then go against said entity, an angel of the Lord, when he’s about to do something reprehensible. 

Badass. But on the surface, what is she ? She’s a marginal, a prostitute, a con artist (something that I’m not entirely happy about as I find it morally reprehensible, but it is very likely she pretends to be a medium to be some sort of cheap psychiatrist to people who can’t afford it so… I’ll allow it. But anyway, it is also important that she’s not a parangon of pure unaltered virtue, so this makes sense). She is all the things Shadwell says she is, and in his mouth ( as well as in the eyes of society) they are insults. Worse : she exudes femininity, she is comfortable in her sexuality, she’s a businesswoman, she’s self-sufficent and financially independant (she’s even the one who gives money to Shadwell…). None of this is bad, but most of it is (or, hopefully, was) regarded as bad.

Ok, we got Tracy figured out. Let’s try to understand Shadwell now. Shadwell… Is also a marginal, in a way (he has been to prison, after all, if we include TV Omens canon). But he’s another kind of marginal.

He is not financially independant (again, see : asking money to Tracy, and also, scamming Crowley and Aziraphale for years, which is a way bigger and morally reprehensible con than whatever Tracy is doing with her fake medium act. But tbh, I’m so impressed he scammed not one, but two supernatural entities for funding the same useless organization, I can’t be mad at him. Not for that, I mean.) He isn’t nice, he isn’t polite, he … seems to be everything Tracy isn’t. And, as Tracy is a beacon of light and kindness, it makes sense Shadwell would be a rude blackhole of hatred. But, more than being a lightsucker, Shadwell’s opposition to Tracy makes sense if we shift the way we look at them. Tracy is what society deems morally reprehensible but she isn’t immoral, and more than that, she is very modern. Confident in herself. Taking her fate into her own hands. Turned towards the future.

Meanwhile, Shadwell is entirely turned towards the past, so much so that his traditionnalism is too much by present’s standards, and that is the bit that makes him the most marginal. He wears his sexism and his homophobia as badges of honor, and runs A WITCHFINDER ARMY. A very definitely outdated organization that has for goal : BURNING WITCHES. And gays, too, but mainly witches. This is an activity that was once considered ethical, necessary, ultimately good, but isn’t anymore. Heaven approved of the Witchfinders’ Army on these « morally good » premisses, and Hell approved of it on the cruelty and horror it was actually responsible for. Society has moved on. Shadwell hasn’t. At least in surface . Because, just like Madame Tracy’s activities as a prostitute and self-made woman can raise eyebrows but ultimately don’t define her as a moral person, Shadwell… hnnngh, this is more difficutl to say this about him, but when time comes for him to act on his rotten outdated thrown in our face moral principles, he is actually siding with Tracy. He protects her, he refuses to shoot Adam, he chooses to do what he finds to be morally good, and he and Tracy share the same morals. 

(Also the one time Shadwell thinks he has killed someone he is genuinely shocked, so he is far from being a cold blooded killer. Only when he wants to protect Tracy or prevent Armageddon - and after Aziraphale has shown he isn’t really dead - does he threateningly raise his finger again. ) ((But homophobia and sexism aren’t a good look on him. Or on anyone else, for that matter. It’s not charming. Tracy, why were you charmed ???? WHY ???? ))

And we can only suppose that Tracy, beacon of light that she is, able to see the best even in the scum of the Earth, already knew that Shadwell and her agreed about what was ultimately important. They’ve had, possibly, years of interactions before the plot of GO kicks in, and maybe Shadwell hasn’t been so consistently horrible all this time and showed her a better side ? I hope ??? But, anyway, the thing is : these characters, Tracy and Shadwell, are made to mirror some of the best and worst things coming out of humanity. Tracy being kinda the worst possible carreer and personnal choice for religious bigots, and Shadwell being so deep into bigotry that it made him terrible even by bigots’ standards. Shadwell’s speech would have made him a hero a few centuries ago, now he’s just a lunatic. Tracy would have been burnt at the stake for her life choices. Now she’s… well, not in danger, at the very least, and besides Shadwell, all the GO characters seem to respect her. ( Or fear her, as is the case for Newt. ) ((I’m joking, I think he likes her, but confident people intimidate him.)) So. We’ve got Tracy who has built herself her own moral compass and is confident in the choices she made despite the hostility and difficulties she may have encountered, and Shadwell who lives according to a bunch of bigotted outdated rules he doesn’t actually believe in all that much. HA. Why does that ring a bell, I wonder… For the sake of not letting any ounce of ambiguity floating in the air, I’m going to spell it out :

Shadwell and the Witchfinders’ rules echo Anathema and her prophecies, and Aziraphale and Heaven’s indoctrination. Meanwhile, Tracy echoes Newt and Crowley for their marginality and self-made moral code (ok it’s less obvious for Newt especially if you haven’t read the book but he is the kind to question stuff constantly, to the point he hesitates a lot and has troubles finding his place in the world, but his – tiny - character arc is that he becomes able to question correctly and make decisions and help others make decisions).

The interesting thing is, in a way, Shadwell embodies the worst surface aspect of being a bigot blindly obeying outdated rules, while Tracy is the best possible outcome of a marginal making a life for themself. Newt and Anathema place somewhere in the middle, Anathema being able to let go of the thing that was ruling her life, and Newt is in the process of learning who he is, getting comfortable with that person and finding a place for himself in the world.

As for Crowley and Aziraphale, their long lives has thrown them in morally grey areas for a looong time, but at the end of GO, once freed from Heaven and Hell -but especially Heaven as Aziraphale has the most work to do to also get rid off his endoctrination completely- they are free to join Tracy, Shadwell, Newt and Anathema into finally becoming the most blooming versions of themselves. It is not too late, no matter how dark or how far back they’re coming from.

But !!! I am not entirely done.

The sword. And the gun. Both weapon given - more or less – to humanity by Aziraphale. The flaming sword, given at the very beginning to Adam and Eve hoping they’d use it to protect themselves, and that ends up in the hands of War. The thundergun, not given but required by Aziraphale to be put to use, right as the Armageddon is about to put an end to humanity, and to be used, this time, to kill someone. And, as I mentionned, both Shadwell and Tracy refuse to shoot.

Aziraphale cannot make humanity obey him, now can he ? Because that’s what it is, ultimately. Humanity. And, as always, free will. Because Tracy and Shadwell represent certain extremes and a lot of grey areas of humanity’s morals and diversity of personnalities, they are -almost- perfect ambassadors of humanity as a whole. Good and Evil bear no meaning around them, they refuse to fit neatly into any category, especially when scrutinized through the lenses of different places and eras as ethics shift constantely. Shadwell shows that even garbage trash men can show empathy, Tracy is the most merciful and kind person, which doesn’t prevent her from being surprisingly strong and adamant when needed. Shadwell and Tracy are part of each other’s life, against all odds, and even if it might have been just because they were neighbours at first, they ultimately chose to remain together. All duos chose to stick to their counterpart in the end. All of them represent the many contradictions of humanity, and how love is the ultimate way to live along together. And they use their free will for love. And while I would not, ever, EVER want to interact with a Shadwell IRL, I now see why it was important to make him the way he is depicted. From a narrative point of view, it was important to make him seemingly irreedemable, only for the one character he harrasses the most to trust and love him, because Tracy knows he, actually, isn’t as bad as it may seem. Because people who might seem horrible are not necessarily the ones who are. Because even Shadwell can love and be loved. And because everybody can improve.

Now, I do not know why the sexism and the homophobia had to be the main choices to convey how much of a bigotted idiot Shadwell was (No, I mean, I think I know why: probably because killing witches and gays were the Witchfinders’ Army main goals, but still, it’s tough on modern audiences - whether this should be taken into account by authors is... quite a debate to have, and maybe the main reason it bothers me? idk idk, I’ve already thought too much at this point). Because despite the fact that some of his lines and his excellent actor made him nice to see on screen (or read in the book for that matter), I have a very hard time liking his character. But that might be the point. I don’t know. Only Tracy can love him. But at least now, it makes more sense to me.

#good omens #meta #my stuff #long post #madame tracy #shadwell #sargent shadwell #witchfinder army #when i was thinking about this #the part that through through yet another lisa simpson existencial crisis meme #was when i realized the bit about #aziraphale giving weapons to humanity TWICE #and how each time #they refused to use it the way he wanted them to #this angel has shite luck with weapon #and is definitely not meant to be forcing decisions onto mankind #that's free will bitch #it's neither good or bad but humans sure love to be unfuriatingly disobedient #if aziraphale played stanley's parable he wouldn't see the point #look at me writing yet another post in the tags as is now custom #hi to those who read these tags

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

A CRISIS IN COSMOLOGY A group of astronomers led by University of California, Davis, has obtained new data that suggest the universe is expanding more rapidly than predicted. The study comes on the heels of a hot debate over just how fast the universe is ballooning; measurements thus far are in disagreement. The team’s new measurement of the Hubble Constant, or the expansion rate of the universe, involved a different method. They used NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in combination with W. M. Keck Observatory’s Adaptive Optics (AO) system to observe three gravitationally lensed systems. This is the first time ground-based AO technology has been used to obtain the Hubble Constant. “When I first started working on this problem more than 20 years ago, the available instrumentation limited the amount of useful data that you could get out of the observations,” says co-author Chris Fassnacht, Professor of Physics at UC Davis. “In this project, we are using Keck Observatory’s AO for the first time in the full analysis. I have felt for many years that AO observations could contribute a lot to this effort.” The team’s results are published in the latest online issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. To rule out any bias, the team conducted a blind analysis; during the processing, they kept the final answer hidden from even themselves until they were convinced that they had addressed as many possible sources of error as they could think of. This prevented them from making any adjustments to get to the “correct” value, avoiding confirmation bias. “When we thought that we had taken care of all possible problems with the analysis, we unblind the answer with the rule that we have to publish whatever value that we find, even if it’s crazy. It’s always a tense and exciting moment,” says lead author Geoff Chen, a graduate student at the UC Davis Physics Department. The unblinding revealed a value that is consistent with Hubble Constant measurements taken from observations of “local” objects close to Earth, such as nearby Type Ia supernovae or gravitationally lensed systems; Chen’s team used the latter objects in their blind analysis. The team’s results add to growing evidence that there is a problem with the standard model of cosmology, which shows the universe was expanding very fast early in its history, then the expansion slowed down due to the gravitational pull of dark matter, and now the expansion is speeding up again due to dark energy, a mysterious force. This model of the expansion history of the universe is assembled using traditional Hubble Constant measurements, which are taken from “distant” observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) -- leftover radiation from the Big Bang when the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. Recently, many groups began using varying techniques and studying different parts of the universe to obtain the Hubble Constant and found that the value obtained from “local” versus “distant” observations disagree. “Therein lies the crisis in cosmology,” says Fassnacht. “While the Hubble Constant is constant everywhere in space at a given time, it is not constant in time. So, when we are comparing the Hubble Constants that come out of various techniques, we are comparing the early universe (using distant observations) vs. the late, more modern part of the universe (using local, nearby observations).” This suggests that either there is a problem with the CMB measurements, which the team says is unlikely, or the standard model of cosmology needs to be changed in some way using new physics to correct the discrepancy. Methodology Using Keck Observatory’s AO system with the Near-Infrared Camera, second generation (NIRC2) instrument on the Keck II telescope, Chen and his team obtained local measurements of three well-known lensed quasar systems: PG 1115+ 080, HE 0435-1223, and RXJ 1131-1231. Quasars are extremely bright, active galaxies, often with massive jets powered by a supermassive black hole ravenously eating material surrounding it. Though quasars are often extremely far way, astronomers are able to detect them through gravitational lensing, a phenomenon that acts as nature’s magnifying glass. When a sufficiently massive galaxy closer to Earth gets in the way of light from a very distant quasar, the galaxy can act as a lens; its gravitational field warps space itself, bending the background quasar’s light into multiple images and making it look extra bright. At times, the brightness of the quasar flickers, and since each image corresponds to a slightly different path length from quasar to telescope, the flickers appear at slightly different times for each image -- they don’t all arrive on Earth at the same time. With HE 0435-1223, PG 1115+ 080, and RXJ 1131-1231, the team carefully measured those time delays, which are inversely proportional to the value of the Hubble Constant. This allows astronomers to decode the light from these distant quasars and gather information about how much the universe has expanded during the time the light has been on its way to Earth. “One of the most important ingredients in using gravitational lensing to measure the Hubble Constant is sensitive and high-resolution imaging,” said Chen. “Up until now, the best lens-based Hubble Constant measurements all involved using data from HST. When we unblinded, we found two things. First, we had consistent values with previous measurements that were based on HST data, proving that AO data can provide a powerful alternative to HST data in the future. Secondly, we found that combining the AO and HST data gave a more precise result.” Next Steps Chen and his team, as well as many other groups all over the planet, are doing more research and observations to further investigate. Now that Chen’s team has proven Keck Observatory’s AO system is just as powerful as HST, astronomers can add this methodology to their bucket of techniques when measuring the Hubble Constant. “We can now try this method with more lensed quasar systems to improve the precision of our measurement of the Hubble Constant. Perhaps this will lead us to a more complete cosmological model of the universe,” says Fassnacht. IMAGE....An artist’s depiction of the standard model of cosmology. CREDIT: BICEP2 COLLABORATION/CERN/NASA

#space #science #Astronomy #physics