I watched all eight episodes of season 1 of Blue Eye Samurai over the weekend. I then went browsing because I wanted to read some online reviews of the show to see what people were thinking of it and also because I wanted to interact with gifs and art, as the series is visually stunning.

Yet, in my search for opinions on the show, I came across several points I'd like to address in my own words:

Mizu’s history and identity are revealed piece-by-piece and the “peaches” scene with Mizu and Ringo at the lake is intended to be a major character reveal. I think it’s weird that some viewers got angry over other viewers intentionally not gendering Mizu until that reveal, rather than immediately jumping to gender the character as the other characters in the show do. The creators intentionally left Mizu’s gender and sexuality ambiguous (and quite literally wrote in lines to lead audiences to question both) to challenge the viewer’s gut assumption that this lone wolf samurai is a man. That intentional ambiguity will lead to wide and ambiguous interpretations of where Mizu fits in, if Mizu fits in at all. But don't just take my word for this:

Re: above. I also think it’s weird that some viewers got upset over other viewers continuing to acknowledge that Mizu has a very complicated relationship with her gender, even after that reveal. Canonically, she has a very complicated relationship with her identity. The character is intended to represent liminality in identity, where she’s often between identities in a world of forced binaries that aren’t (widely) socially recognized as binaries. But, again, don’t just take my word for this:

Mizu is both white and Japanese, but she is also not white and not Japanese simultaneously (too white to be Japanese and too Japanese to be white). She’s a woman and a man. She’s a man who’s a woman. She’s also a woman who’s not a woman (yet also not quite a man). But she’s also a woman; the creators said so. Mizu was raised as a boy and grew into a man, yet she was born a girl, and boyhood was imposed upon her. She’s a woman when she’s a man, a man when she’s a man, and a woman when she’s a woman.

Additionally, Mizu straddles the line between human and demon. She’s a human in the sense she’s mortal but a demon in the sense she’s not. She's human yet otherworldly. She's fallible yet greatness. She's both the ronin and the bride, the samurai and the onryō. In short, it’s complicated, and that’s the point. Ignoring that ignores a large part of her internal character struggle and development.

Mizu is intended to represent an “other,” someone who stands outside her society in every way and goes to lengths to hide this “otherness” to get by. Gender is a mask; a tool. She either hides behind a wide-brimmed hat, glasses, and laconic anger, or she hides behind makeup, her dress, and a frown. She fits in nowhere, no matter the identity she assumes. Mizu lives in a very different time period within a very different sociocultural & political system where the concept of gender and the language surrounding it is unlike what we are familiar with in our every-day lives. But, again, don’t just take my word for this:

It’s also weird that some viewers have gotten upset over the fact women and queer people (and especially queer women) see themselves in Mizu. Given her complicated relationship with identity under the patriarchy and colonial violence, I think Mizu is a great character for cis-het women and queer folks alike to relate to. Her character is also great for how she breaks the mold on the role of a biracial character in narratives about identity (she’s not some great bridge who will unite everyone). It does not hurt anyone that gender-fluid and nonbinary people see themselves in Mizu's identity and struggle with identity. It does not hurt anyone that lesbians see themselves in the way Mizu expresses her gender. It does not hurt anyone that trans men see themselves in Mizu's relationship with manhood or that trans women can see themselves in Mizu when Mama forces her to be a boy. It's also really cool that cis-het women see themselves in Mizu's struggles to find herself. Those upset over these things are missing critical aspects of Mizu's character and are no different from the other characters in the story. The only time Mizu is herself is when she’s just Mizu (“…her gender was Mizu”), and many of the other characters are unwilling to accept "just Mizu." Accepting her means accepting the complicatedness of her gender.

Being a woman under the patriarchy is complicated and gives women a complicated relationship with their gender and identity. It is dangerous to be a woman. Women face violence for being women. Being someone who challenges sex-prescribed norms and roles under patriarchy also gives someone a complicated relationship with their identity. It is dangerous to usurp gender norms and roles (then combine that with being a woman...). People who challenge the strict boxes they're assigned face violence for existing, too. Being a racial or ethnic minority in a racially homogeneous political system additionally gives someone a complicated relationship with their identity. It is dangerous to be an ethnic minority when the political system is reproduced on your exclusion and otherness. They, too, face violence for the circumstances of their birth. All of these things are true. None of them take away from the other.

Mizu is young-- in her early 20s-- and she has been hurt in deeply affecting ways. She's angry because she's been hurt in so many different ways. She's been hurt by gender violence, like "mama's" misogyny and the situation of her birth (her mother's rape and her near murder as a child), not to mention the violent and dehumanizing treatment of the women around her. She's been hurt by racial violence, like the way she has been tormented and abused since childhood for the way she looks (with people twice trying to kill her for this before adulthood). She's been hurt by state-sanctioned violence as she faces off against the opium, flesh, and black market traders working with white men in contravention of the Shogun's very policies, yet with sanction from the Shogun. She's been hurt by colonial violence, like the circumstances of her birth and the flood of human trafficking and weapons and drug trafficking in her country. She's had men break her bones and knock her down before, but only Fowler sexually differentiated her based on bone density and fracture.

Mizu also straddles the line between victim and murderer.

It seems like Mizu finding her 'feminine' and coming to terms with her 'female side' may be a part of her future character development. Women who feel caged by modern patriarchal systems and alienated from their bodies due to the patriarchy will see themselves in Mizu. They understand a desire for freedom that the narrow archetypes of the patriarchy do not afford them as women, and they see their anger and their desire for freedom in Mizu. This, especially considering that Mizu's development was driven by one of the creators' own experiences with womanhood:

No, Mizu does not pass as a man because she "hates women" or because she hates herself as a woman or being a woman. There are actual on-screen depictions of Mizu's misogyny, like her interactions with Akemi, and dressing like a man is not an instance of this. Mizu shows no discomfort with being a woman or being seen as a woman, especially when she intends to pass herself as and present as a woman. Mizu also shows the women in the series more grace and consideration than any man in the show, in whatever capacity available to her socially and politically, without revealing herself; many of the women have remarked that she is quite unlike other men, and she's okay with that, too.

When she lives on the farm with Mama and Mikio, Mizu shows no discomfort once she acclimates to the new life. But people take this as conclusive evidence of the "only time" she was happy. She was not. This life was also a dance, a performance. The story of her being both the ronin and the onryō revealed to the audience that this lifestyle also requires her to wear a mask and dance, just as the bride does. This mask is makeup, a wedding dress, and submission, and this performance is her gender as a wife. She still understands that she cannot fully be herself and only begins to express happiness and shed her reservation when she believes she is finally safe to be herself. Only to be betrayed. Being a man is her safety, and it is familiar. Being a boy protected her from the white men as a child, and it might protect her heart now.

Mizu shows no discomfort with being known as a woman, except when it potentially threatens her goals (see Ringo and the "peaches" scene). She also shows no discomfort with being known as, seen as, or referred to as a man. As an adult, she seems okay- even familiar- with people assuming she's a man and placing her into the role of a man. Yet, being born a girl who has boyhood violently imposed upon her (she did not choose what mama did to her) is also an incredibly important part of her lived experience. Being forced into boyhood, but growing into a man anyway became part of who she is. But, being a man isn’t just a part of who she became; it’s also expedient for her goals because men and women are ontologically different in her world and the system she lives under.

She's both because she's neither, because- ontologically- she fits nowhere. When other characters point out how "unlike" a man she is, she just shrugs it off, but not in a "well, yeah, because I'm NOT a man" sort of way, but in an "I'm unlike anyone, period," sort of way. She also does not seem offended by Madam Kaji saying that Mizu’s more man than any who have walked through her door.

(Mizu doesn’t even see herself as human, let alone a woman, as so defined by her society. And knowing that creators have stated her future arc is about coming into her “feminine era” or energy, I am actually scared that this show might fall into the trope of “domesticating”/“taming” the independent woman, complete with an allegory that her anger and lack of human-ness [in Mizu’s mind] is a result of a woman having too much “masculine energy” or being masculine in contravention of womanness.)

Some also seem to forget that once Mama and Mikio are dead, no one knows who she is or where she came from. They do not have her background, and they do not know about the bounty on her (who levied the bounty and why has not yet been explained). After their deaths, she could have gone free and started anew somehow. But in that moment, she chose to go back to life as a man and chose to pursue revenge for the circumstances of her birth. Going forward, this identity is no longer imposed upon her by Mama, or a result of erroneous conclusions from local kids and Master Eiji; it was because she wanted people to see her as a man and she was familiar with navigating her world, and thus her future, as a man. And it was because she was angry, too, and only men can act on their anger.

I do think it important to note that Mizu really began to allow herself to be vulnerable and open as a woman, until she was betrayed. The question I've been rattling around is: is this because she began to feel safe for the first time in her life, or is this part of how she sees women ontologically? Because she immediately returns to being a man and emotionally hard following her betrayal. But, she does seem willing to confide in Master Eiji, seek his advice, and convey her anxieties to him.

Being a man also confines Mizu to strict social boxes, and passing herself as a man is also dangerous.

Mizu doesn't suddenly get to do everything and anything she wants because she passes as a man. She has to consider her safety and the danger of her sex being "found out." She must also consider what will draw unnecessary attention to her and distract her from her goals. Many viewers, for example, were indignant that she did not offer to chaperone the mother and daughter and, instead, left them to the cold, only to drop some money at their feet later. The indignity fails consider that while she could bribe herself inside while passing as a man, she could not bribe in two strangers. Mizu is a strange man to that woman and does not necessarily have the social position to advocate for the mother and daughter. She also must consider that causing small social stirs would distract from her goals and draw certain attention to her. Mizu is also on a dangerous and violent quest.

Edo Japan was governed by strict class, age, and gender rules. Those rules applied to men as well as women. Mizu is still expected to act within these strict rules when she's a man. Being a man might allow her to pursue revenge, but she's still expected to put herself forward as a man, and that means following all the specific rules that apply to her class as a samurai, an artisan (or artist), and a man. That wide-brimmed hat, those orange-tinted glasses, and her laconic tendencies are also part of a performance. Being a boy is the first mask she wore and dance she performed, and she was originally (and tragically) forced into it.

Challenging the normative identities of her society does not guarantee her safety. She has limitations because of her "otherness," and the transgression of sex-prescribed roles has often landed people in hot water as opposed to saving them from boiling. Mizu is passing herself off as a man every day of her life at great risk to her. If her sex is "found out" on a larger scale, society won’t resort to or just start treating her as a woman. There are far worse fates than being perceived as a woman, and hers would not simply be a tsk-tsk, slap on the wrist; now you have to wear makeup. Let's not treat being a woman-- even with all the pressures, standards, fears, and risks that come with existing as a woman-- as the worst consequence for being ‘found out’ for transgressing normative identity.

The violence Mizu would face upon being "found out" won’t only be a consequence of being a "girl." Consider not just the fact she is female and “cross-dressing” (outside of theater), but also that she is a racial minority.

I also feel like many cis-het people either ignore or just cannot see the queerness in challenging gender roles (and thus also in stories that revolve around a subversion of sex-prescribed gender). They may not know how queerness-- or "otherness"-- leads to challenging strict social stratifications and binaries nor how challenging them is seen by the larger society as queer ("strange," "suspicious," "unconventional," even "dishonorable," and "fraudulent"), even when "queerness" (as in LGBTQ+) was not yet a concept as we understand it today.

Gender and sexuality- and the language we use to communicate who we are- varies greatly across time and culture. Edo Japan was governed by strict rules on what hairstyles, clothes, and weapons could be worn by which gender, age, and social group, and this was often enshrined in law. There were specific rules about who could have sex with whom and how. These values and rules were distinctly Japanese and would not incorporate Western influences until the late 1800s. Class was one of the most consequential features to define a person's fate in feudal Japan, and gender was quite stratified. This does not mean it's inappropriate for genderqueer people to see themselves in Mizu, nor does this mean that gender-variant identities didn’t exist in Edo Japan.

People in the past did not use the same language we do today to refer to themselves. Example: Alexander The Great did not call himself a "bisexual." We all understand this. However, there is a very weird trend of people using these differences in language and cultures across time to deny aspects of a historical person's life that societies today consider taboo, whether these aspects were considered taboo during that historical time period or not. Same example: people on Twitter complaining that Netflix "made" Alexander The Great "gay," and after people push back and point out that the man did, in fact, love and fuck men, hitting back with "homosexuality wasn't even a word back then" or "modern identity didn't exist back then." Sure, that word did not exist in 300s BCE Macedonia, but that doesn't mean the man didn't love men, nor does that mean that we can't recognize that he'd be considered "queer" by today's standards and language.

Genderqueer, as a word and as the concept is understood today, did not exist in feudal Japan, but the people did and feudal Japan had its own terms and concepts that referred to gender variance. But while the show takes place in Edo Japan, it is a modern adult animation series made by a French studio and two Americans (nationality). Mizu is additionally a fictional character, not a historical figure. She was not created in a vacuum. She was created in the 21st century and co-written by a man who got his start writing for Sex in the City and hails from a country that is in the midst of a giant moral panic about genderqueer/gender-variant people and gender non-conforming people.

This series was created by two Americans (nationality) for an American company. In some parts of that country, there are laws on the book strictly defining the bounds of men and women and dictating what clothes men and women could be prosecuted for wearing. Changes in language and identity over time mean that we can recognize that if Mizu lived in modern Texas, the law would consider her a drag performer, and modern political movements in the show creators' home country would include her under the queer umbrella.

So, yeah, there will also be genderqueer people who see themselves in Mizu, and there will be genderqueer fans who are firm about Mizu being queer to them and in their “headcanons.” The scene setting being Edo Japan, does not negate the modern ideas that influence the show. "Nonbinary didn't exist in Edo Japan" completely ignores that this show was created to explore the liminality of modern racial, gender, class, and normative identities. One of the creators was literally inspired by her own relationship with her biracial identity.

Ultimately, the fact Mizu, at this point in her journey, chooses to present and pass as a man and the fact her presented gender affects relationship dynamics with other characters (see: Taigen) gives this story a queer undertone. And this may have been largely unintentional: "She’s a girl, and he’s a guy, so, of course, they get together," < ignoring how said guy thinks she’s a guy and that she intentionally passes herself as a guy. Audiences ARE going to interpret this as queer because WE don’t live in Edo-era Japan. And I feel like people forget that Mizu can be a woman and the story can still have queer undertones to it at the same time.

Blue Eye Samurai is perhaps the best show I’ve ever watched for learning interpret a text. Every scene of every episode is dripping with details to latch on to. Every character has levels of ambiguity that allow a critical viewer to draw their own meanings out of their actions. For instance, Mizu can be equally read as:

A parable about how a woman who has learned to speak the language of the violence that a patriarch society has constantly inflicted upon her can understand and enact violence better than the men who are habituated to inflicting violence

A tran-man who uses violence to claim his place in a violent world

A non-binary person who has always sat on the outside of the gendered world and thus has a better understanding of the violence inherent in gendering than anyone else

A bi-racial person who sees their only way to claim an authentic racial identity is to seek revenge in keep with cultural expectations regarding right action

An ōnryo — a vengeful spirit — created by the ways the weight of their history as embodied by their gendered and racial identities has consistently destroyed the hope of positive relations with others

A queer woman upon whom gender and sexual norms have constantly been inflicted as violence lashing out at a heterosexist society in turn

An artisan, single handedly pursue the art of vengeance at the expense of their humanity

A person whose relationship to themselves, their gender, their race, and their body has always been violently defined for them by others defining these for themselves by violently resisting the further imposition of external attempts to define themselves to themselves

And more. So much more. They contain multitudes unlike any character I’ve seen on tv before.

It is a show that resists clear and simplistic interpretation, necessarily requiring the audience to carefully consider their relationship to the events it depicts. What the show is trying to say is very much decided in dialogue with the audience’s interpretive lens. For me, the aspects of the show that stick out the most are those pertaining to the role of women in a violently patriarchal society. Mizu embodies much of the feminine (and lesbian) rage I see and have felt towards a social world that demeans women and refuses to see us as existing outside of our relationships to men. Her position on the margins gives her, and thus us as the audience, a unique perspective on gendered relations that I recognize and relate to. But nothing in my reading leads me to believe that this is the only way to interpret the narrative. There is simply too much interpretative space to fill for one reading alone to be exhaustive. Blue Eye Samurai demands not just reading but rereading. I feel it impossible to grasp the totality of what it says and what it wants to say in a single watch. It is almost academic. And I love it for that.

Extremely stupid and contradictory question that I still want an answer to, but what is it that makes people want a dictatorship with progressive values?

For that matter, why is it that nearly all dictatorships are so fundamentally built on conservative/authoritarian ideals and values?

Why doesn't genuinely good values ever end up being the core value that gets enforced with ruthless brutality instead of people twisting themselves into knots to justify always sinking to the worst possible impulses built on hatred?

Is decency just fundamentally anathema to it?

This is one of those questions where you're actually asking several different things at once, and it will take a lot of work for me to explain and contextualize everything that you're looking for. However, I do think this is important to understand, so I'll give it a shot.

First, if I may point out, you've answered a bit of your own question when you ask "why don't genuinely good values ever end up being enforced with ruthless brutality?" I think it's fair to say that if your values were actually good or something that would broadly benefit the lives of most people, they would not need to be enforced with ruthless brutality. This is the case regardless of which ideology your totalitarian dictatorship is built on; i.e. conservative Christian fascism or left-wing old-school communism/People's Republics. Because a dictatorship, no matter which values it claims to use to justify itself, never exists to benefit people. A dictatorship exists to vest supreme power in one person or system and totally disenfranchise everyone else, and it is not, regardless of what some people on the internet in 2023 seem to think, a tool of social justice. Marginalized groups who have a hard time in a traditionally white/culturally Christian Western democracy will nonetheless have an orders of magnitude worse time under a dictatorship, as will everyone else. It is not something you should wish for under any circumstances, and also represents a naïve Western privilege where, having grown up with the unpleasant consequences of late-stage capitalism, people go for the fallacy that old-school communism must be better! Except it isn't, and when you totally blow over and ignore the objections of people who actually grew up under those regimes and warn you that they're not so great, you're just straight-up projecting and wishful thinking. It has nothing to do with reality or history or what anyone should aspire to.

The idea has existed in human society for thousands of years that if you can just get a "benevolent dictator" or "merciful autocrat," who can be trusted to rule with supreme power, do what's right for everyone, and get rid of the messy and flawed process of representative democracy that never seems to quite fix society's biggest problems. However: this doesn't work, it has never worked, there have been countless wars fought over this question, and it would certainly never, ever work in a setting as complex as the globalized twenty-first century. The Online Leftists who want Bernie Sanders, an old white man, to be their all-powerful dictator -- that is, uh, not the Social Justice Flex (tm) you think it is. And as noted, a dictator of any stripe is fundamentally anathema to actual progressivism or social justice, and anyone who loudly wants one (or thinks that the American president should act like one) is exposing both their profoundly immature understanding of the situation and a worrisome thirst for tyrannical despotism as long as it has "the right ideas." This has, again, caused countless wars and numberless deaths, because "the right ideas" will never be universal, universally agreed upon, or anything else, and if they're enforced with violence, you have -- again -- a dictatorship! It's not great!

In chaotic and uncertain times, people tend to want a "strong leader" who they can trust to just fix all their problems and relieve them from the burden of governance or worrying how things are going to work out. This was first articulated in modern Western political philosophy by Thomas Hobbes, who wrote his Leviathan in the mid-17th century during the English Civil War. Basically, his idea was that the people should democratically elect an absolute monarch/leader, who would then rule with an iron fist and retain supreme power, because they couldn't be trusted to govern themselves. (Hobbes is also where we get the pessimistic description of life being "nasty, brutish, and short.") Because things are bad right now, people likewise tend to want an absolute monarch of either right or left political persuasion, but these are both very bad options and should be equally resisted.

Democracy is flawed, imperfect, slow, cumbersome, and contradictory. It can be badly hijacked and corrupted (as we've seen in the last few years) by money, misinformation, bad-faith actors, and more. It is also still always, 100%, all-of-the-time preferable to a dictatorship. People still fall for the idea that having an absolute monarch who just "makes things happen" right away without the cumbersome apparatus of congresses or senates or supreme courts of judges would be "better," and totally ignore the massive and systemic disenfranchisement it would impose on everyone else. Especially in our current misogynist white-supremacist homophobic etc. system; the dictator WOULD be a rich white dude and let's not even pretend otherwise. Even if he made a play at being "progressive," it would not be true and it would not last. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. etc. I do not want a dictatorship. I do not want to live in a dictatorship. I don't care what Good Intentions (tm) anyone has, because I think that anyone who wants to be a dictator or to live under a dictatorship has a very different idea of Good Intentions than I, or indeed most sane people, do. The end.

Yes, America is a deeply flawed country. Yes, it is built on systemic and ongoing racial and cultural white-settler-colonial genocide. However, where modern leftists struggle the most is the idea that two things can be true, because they're so deeply sunk into black-and-white, zero-sum thinking where if one thing is true, it rejects all the others. If we have a flawed democracy, the solution is to fix that democracy, not to just throw it out the window and cavil for an absolute monarch. You can be fiercely critical of America's imperialist actions, unnecessary wars, racist violence, and everything else while also realizing that if the first and oldest presidential democratic republic in existence was dismantled or turned into a fascist autocracy, it would be absolutely terrible for many, many countries around the world, and humankind in general. You do not have to subscribe to the nonsensical, navel-gazing tankie "logic" that America is the only country with (evil) agency ever, and everyone else in the world is just its helpless pawns. You do not have to subscribe to the idea that any work within the system, or accepting basic political realities, makes you a "bootlicking neoliberal shill" or whatever they're using to insult anyone who doesn't just live in their distorted bubble of self-righteous ignorance. You don't!

As I always say, the only people who really want a dictatorship are those who know that their ideas aren't popular enough to win a free and fair election, but think they "deserve" to be in power anyway, because etc. etc. My Ideas Are Better! (Spoiler alert: they are not.) This is the same whether it's the Republicans trying to outlaw elections or the Online Leftists who sanctimoniously refuse to engage with the civic process because it's "contaminating" for their Pure Ideas to make any compromise with reality. And yet those so-called progressives are utterly dependent on us Normie Liberals who actually vote against the rabid fascists, and are (just barely) holding the line. Because yes, in a liberal democracy, they do have the right to be sanctimonious, useless, toxic, holier-than-thou ideologues who sit on their asses and contribute nothing to the actual dirty process of change. But if the Normie Liberals haughtily refused to vote in the same way the Online Leftists do, the fascists WOULD be in complete control by now, and trust me, it would be grim.

To be frank, I think most, if not all, of what calls itself "Western leftism" has categorically and completely failed as a moral, political, or practical opposing force to right-wing fascism. Much of it is dependent on savagely backbiting even those people who already agree with you, refusing to take basic steps to enact change even incrementally (i.e. voting), and attacking the establishment liberal party, i.e. the Democrats in America, while vocally supporting foreign dictatorships as long as they're "anti-American" or ancestrally "socialist." We've seen the utter failure of Western leftists at developing a moral stance on Ukraine, a consistent opposition to Trump, or pretty much anything else that requires them to come down from their high horses and accept a more complex reality than their abstract purity tests or outright nonsensical clichés. And when you're attacking the Democrats nonstop and backing foreign dictatorships, that is, uh, pretty much the exact same thing that the fascist Republicans are doing. Which means both of these groups are profoundly and dangerously anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-intellectual, and anti-humanity. There's no way around it.

In short, so-called "progressives" want a dictatorship because they too have given up on democracy, don't believe that people at large are as "smart" as they are, and don't want actual praxis or the effort of making change within a flawed democracy. They subscribe instead to the magical thinking that an absolute monarch will instantly and benevolently fix everything, which has -- as noted -- been violently disproved over and over in human history, and they think that "leftism" consists of having the most "pure" views. They do not care about or actively deplore any idea of making compromises to put them into practice, they gain moral superiority by excluding more and more people to make a smaller and smaller in-group, they refuse to accept any information, history, or factual evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and they're just as angrily anti-intellectual as the worst Christian-fascist-nutjob-right-winger, because reality has a bad habit of being complicated and not fitting into neat boxes. And if you think, as I do, that it would be a very, very bad idea to trust these mean, vindictive, constantly-want-to-punish-everyone-who-is-not-exactly-like-them people with absolute power, then you'll have to move to the idea of accepting that for all its flaws, democracy is still the best and most just system we have yet invented for governing ourselves, and the idea is to fix ours, not get rid of it entirely. So yeah.

he had to hurt her like that, look at the cinema he made. did he? how do you know? the ends justify the means, huh. a woman could never actually act this well, it had to be real, a snuff film. yes, she was hired for her talent - but pain will make the talent brighter, right.

he is not alone. there are men around him who think like this. who choose actresses they can manipulate, exert power over. who write scripts that demand the pain be felt. she must hurt to uphold the message.

(an aside. author's note, i guess. in poetry, when the words cannot hold themselves up, we actually blame the writers. it shouldn't matter who speaks the literature. the words should carry their own weight. be their own scaffolding.)

the men in the room all applaud each other for doing less. they say they push boundaries. they're leaders in their field. they ask the hard questions.

when they get your resume, they put it into a pile that they will put into a trashcan. when they get your screenplay, they will use it as a coaster. when they build their museums, they will have a disjointed room dedicated to "repairing" the ways that women and people of color have been eradicated from "fine arts". it will be self-effacing. we may have overlooked some artists, they apologize. but really it's not our fault that white men make better art. (those men and their works are in permanent displays. for more on this, see: the way that he laughs at your work will make you sick to your teeth). in six weeks, their apology will be scrubbed and the room will be scrubbed and all the paintings will go back into storage.

they know they are right. sure, okay. maybe we have had less opportunities. but what would we have done with them? not something like this. it took a man to do this. okay, okay. it was deranged, we can all agree about it. but look at the product.

in your life, when you wake up, isn't it grand. if they made a museum for people like us, it would be a cycle of empty frames. of ruined videos. of songs with a voicecrack. all the little plaques reading some variation of a theme. here is where my work would stand if someone like me could actually get published in this fucking industry. here is the work i tried to make, before my agency was stripped from me. here is the placeholder of my dreams, but i could not afford them in this society.

if you keep walking, out in the greenhouse out back, the whole world is full of color. every fabric and fortuneteller and feverdream we spat out in despite. centuries of brightness, of novelty, of exploration. of talent, of wisdom, of creativity.

there is only one sign here in this alexandrian library. the sign acts like an epitaph. you already know what it says, don't you. THIS ISN'T ART, it tells you.

the blankets. the chef-level 5-course meals. the carefully-colored journal pages. the abandoned works-in-progress. the library of fanfiction. the margin drawings. somewhere in there, an actress makes a face, and you think - oh shit! she's really broken! but then she smiles at you, winking. she could do it, you know. she could always act like a starbeam. it's just that his name is the one scrolling at the bottom. she hadn't wanted to undress for him. she goes home and gets forgotten. in our museum, another blank frame goes up on the wall.

they'll give him an award, looking to the camera with almost an apology. he will laugh ruefully. nobody will do anything. little white strings will drip from his fingers. young boys in film studies will continue to chainsmoke while explaining how beautiful it is that there's violence in those scenes. she couldn't have done it without him pushing, he'll tell you, shrugging.

but what if, you wonder. what if he had never existed? without him, what else could we be making? all that time and love and spirit, allowed back into the light. into knowledge. what has he taken, to give us his art?

and is it a trade worth making?

I have no real feelings towards izzy hands. I do not hate him, I do not feel particular adoration for him, I’ve always felt neutral about him but I do appreciate izzy for what he is. but boy do I have some takes on him! and though I’ve refrained from speaking my mind I’ve learned that the hate mail will come anyway so fuck it, I’m doing a meta. please, if you feel very passionately about izzy on either side of the spectrum, please do not read this. this is a singular person’s interpretation of things, it means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of the world so please just be respectful. ok let’s do it:

*takes deep breath* *taps the mic*

to me, izzy hands is/was an antagonist not because of any internalized homophobia that may or may not be there but because the world of piracy has adopted its own system and practice of hegemonic masculinity.

hegemonic masculinity is the practice of the dominance of men— or, certain kinds of men— in society, so women and other marginalized ways of being a man are subordinated (i.e. queer men, trans men, disabled men, fem men). our flag means death does a great job of establishing two very different worlds and their takes on hegemonic masculinity: high society, and piracy. in high society, whiteness and wealth are two main pillars of masculinity. men are allowed to exhibit more feminine behaviour or attire such as ornate and colourful clothing, wigs, bows, tights, makeup, etc. because they are displays of social status and material wealth. in the world of piracy, however, those things aren’t exactly possible. violence is the real currency and the main tool in constructing the toxic masculine hierarchy. their attire has to be intimidating and express a capacity for violence. toxic masculinity is also established and formed through a sort of stoicism/being emotionally closed off, intimidation, power, deception, and fear.

ed has mastered how to perform fear and masculinity all too well over the years, but he also hasn’t been happy whatsoever in that role so when he discovers stede, he finds stede’s attitude refreshing and transformative.

season 1 izzy is different. season 1 izzy has thrived within the pirating world by adhering to the standards of hegemonic masculinity and does not see any problem with it. he enjoys the existence of a hierarchy and, though he dreams of being captain/top dog, still thoroughly adored (past tense now, though I originally wrote this before the teaser clip came out) being servile to edward. this sort of devotion does come from a place of being in love with ed. he does not have a problem with that, nor does he have a problem with the fact that men love other men. if it were up to izzy, gayness/homosexuality would be integrated as an acceptable characteristic of hegemonic masculinity.

but stede does not want that. he questions why patriarchal society has dictated that men not, under any circumstance, display their creativity, their emotion, vulnerability, hopes, dreams, or fears in front of each other. he questions why men have been taught to bottle things up, and why they aren’t more kind to one another. he actively works to dismantle toxic/hegemonic masculine standards within his own crew and season 1 izzy hates that. he sees those as the qualities of someone weak, soft, and effeminate. he wants to have queerness subscribe to the qualities of toxic masculinity that have been enforced upon him which is why his main beefs have been with lucius and stede, who are the most “feminine” and open gay men on the ship (stede being emotionally open in izzy’s eyes at least, and lucius being sexually open/vocally open and indifferent to authority). that’s why he uses lucius’s flirtatiousness and “promiscuity” as blackmail, and not his actual gayness. his problem has to do with his version of masculinity. he sees lucius and stede’s ways of being a man as worthy of subordination.

and yes, that is bad and he needs to work to unpack all that shit. but you can see through his comments in the trailer about piracy fostering a sense of belonging, through the teaser clip of him crying in front of others, through the unhealthy dynamic he finds himself in with ed where he pushed a button that he didn’t realize was going to set off a bomb in ed (metaphorically speaking), that he is starting to unpack it, and is learning the hard way (through much sympathizable suffering) that this system benefits no one, not even him. it harms him, in fact. his loyalty to a standard of masculinity that is so unobtainable, to a system that is not built in anyone’s favour, and one that makes him the losing dog every time, is starting to crack!! we can see him learn to develop a form of masculine self-expression without any of the toxic qualities that made him so wound up as before, and instead allow healthy masculinity to co-exist with a culture of acceptance and queer community!!! but his antagonism in season 1 doesn’t mean he’s homophobic per se, it just made him gender normative and annoying.

Being someone who is allo (just learned about the existance of this word) and cis, I want to talk about the hot topic of Alastor being shipped romantically and sexually by the fandom of Hazbin Hotel.

I understand that the topic I'm about to delve into may require some patience and open-mindedness. As a young individual seeking understanding, I implore you to hear me out before forming any judgments. English isn't my first language, so I apologize if my expressions seem weird, also it may take a while to get what I am saying here, I took a lot of time to get my point across so please give me a little bit of your time - especially if you are aroace or anywhere among that spectrum.

First of all, being cis and allo is obviously one of the most comfortable shoes you can wear within society. I am aware of that.

For instance, as someone who enjoys immersing myself in various forms of media such as books, movies, and video games, I often find characters and narratives that resonate with my experiences. This familiarity allows me to connect deeply with the stories and derive genuine enjoyment from them. I've never had to grapple with the challenges of feeling unseen or misunderstood in this regard, and for that, I am privileged.

Contrastingly, I recognize the struggles that members of the LGBTQ+ community often face. The need to repeatedly explain one's identity and preferences, the constant battle for visibility and acceptance – these are realities that I've never had to confront personally. My identity has always been accepted without question, and for that, I'm grateful. However, I'm eager to learn and empathize with those whose journeys differ from my own so please try and be patient with me.

To my fellow cisgender and heterosexual individuals who may be unfamiliar with what I'm about to explain: Consider the concept of "comfort characters" and why they hold such significance in our lives. For me, growing up, Katniss Everdeen served as my comfort character. Reflecting on her impact on my childhood development, I realize the profound influence she had. During a time when I was grappling with personal challenges that I wasn't yet ready to confide in my family about, my connection to Katniss provided solace. Through her character, I found the strength to envision myself facing adversity head-on, overcoming obstacles with resilience. It may seem trivial to some, given that she's a fictional creation, but the bond I forged with her played a pivotal role in shaping my identity.

I believe many of us can relate to forming such deep connections with fictional characters as we navigate through the complexities of adolescence and young adulthood. These characters serve as guiding lights, offering solace and inspiration during times of uncertainty. Even if you haven't personally experienced such a connection, I encourage you to consider the profound impact that representation can have on shaping one's sense of self and belonging.

Representation matters because it validates our experiences and identities, providing a sense of visibility and validation that is essential for personal growth and empowerment. Just as we find comfort and inspiration in the characters we admire, so too do marginalized individuals deserve to see themselves reflected in the stories they consume. It's through diverse representation that we foster empathy, understanding, and inclusivity within our communities and society as a whole.

Representation matters because it gives people characters they can relate to and admire. But not every character needs to be relatable for everyone to like them. For instance, I really enjoyed watching the relationship between She-Ra and Catra in the show She-Ra. Even though I'm straight, I can imagine the profound joy it brought to members of the LGBTQ+ community who could see themselves represented in a meaningful way. They relate to those characters differently than I do, and that's totally okay. Sometimes, fans want to see their favorite characters in certain ways, even if it's not exactly how the creators intended them to be. They create their own ideas about the characters to feel a deeper connection. While it's natural to want to connect with characters, it's also important to respect the original story and the creators' intentions.

While it's natural to seek characters with whom we can personally identify, it's equally important to appreciate the diversity of perspectives and experiences that representation brings. It's through this diversity that stories become richer and more inclusive, resonating with a broader audience and fostering empathy and understanding across different communities.

So what does that mean for aroace people when it comes to Alastor?

For this to understand I'm just gonna try and picture myself in a different pair of metaphorical shoes, but when it comes to being ace they may not even feel like shoes at all, but more as if you are running barefoot over the nastiest lego pieces in existance.

Imagine going to a bookstore and struggling to find something that aligns with your tastes. Maybe you spend hours searching, only to come up empty-handed. Perhaps you end up settling for whatever book is popular at the moment, feeling left out because there's no variety that speaks to you. Or maybe you turn to the internet, hoping to find your perfect book match online, but even that proves to be a challenge. In the end, you might resort to reading fanfiction because there, at least, the chances of finding representation are higher.

This struggle isn't limited to books but extends to movies, TV shows, and everything else. Constantly feeling like you don't belong can be painful and isolating. I wouldn't wish that feeling on anyone. Unfortunately, society can't change overnight, so we have to work with what we have for now.

The bottom line is, everyone deserves to see themselves represented in the media they consume. It's not just about personal preference; it's about feeling seen and valued in a world that often overlooks our differences. And until that becomes a reality, we'll keep pushing for change, one step at a time. Finally, there's that one character – in this case, Alastor – and for the first time, asexual individuals can feel that sense of connection I've been talking about. They feel seen and acknowledged, just as we all do when we find something or someone we can relate to. This is what books, TV shows, and video games are all about – providing us with enjoyment and a sense of validation, especially in a world that can be tough.

Representation of diverse sexualities in media isn't just important for LGBTQ+ individuals; it's beneficial for everyone. It helps broaden our understanding of each other and breaks down barriers without anyone having to change who they are to fit in. This is the power of art and the stories we consume – they have the ability to blur the lines between people and foster greater empathy and acceptance. Ultimately, it's about making everyone feel like they belong and have a place in the world.

I'll be honest – I don't really think about labels much anymore. I've found that they can sometimes divide people even further, which isn't what I'm about. It's not that I have anything against labels in general; I just personally don't dwell on them. However, I do recognize the subtle influence they can have on me, even though I consider myself quite open-minded.

I've come to a point where I've found peace in the idea that everyone should just be allowed to be themselves, as long as they're happy. I didn't actively choose to be straight; it's just who I am. And I don't expect anyone else to have to "choose" their sexuality either – they should just be able to exist and be happy. I've reached a mindset where I don't really give much thought to someone's sexuality when I see it portrayed in media. They're just who they are, and I'm just who I am. But I understand that for many people, having those labels is important for representation and visibility. Perhaps, initially, society needs those divisions in order for certain groups to feel seen and acknowledged. And while I may not personally identify with those labels, I can still appreciate their significance to others. At the end of the day, it's about acceptance and understanding, regardless of labels.

Returning to the topic of Alastor, now that there's this ace character, the fandom takes him and sometimes decides to change him to fit their own desires. It's similar (I guess) to the disappointment some feel when an author keeps a protagonist's appearance vague, only for fans to imagine them as the perfect, conventionally beautiful princess. This can be hurtful to people who don't fit that idealized image because they ask themselves "would the story be any different if she would be smaller, or chubby, or (insert whatever you want)?"

What's crucial to recognize here is that some fans might struggle to accept Alastor's sexuality because they feel like he has to be different for them to enjoy certain content without feeling guilty or needing to justify their actions. Our minds often try to protect us with such a mindset so we can feel good about ourselves and our choices. For some, that means trying to impose their beliefs on a character so they can comfortably engage with them in their own fanworks.

It's important to acknowledge that everyone interprets and engages with media differently. However, it's also important to respect the creator's original intentions and the representation they've provided. Trying to change a character to fit one's own desires can be disrespectful to both the character and those who identify with them.

Ultimately, it's about finding a balance between creative freedom and respecting the integrity of the source material.

Here are two key considerations that both sides should bear in mind, (if I even have the right to say anything as someone who is clearly underqualified when it comes to topics like that as a cis and allo):

On one hand, it's important for ace individuals to understand that people often enjoy engaging with characters in various ways, including through shipping and fanfiction. Characters may take on different traits or orientations in these creative outlets, and that's part of the fun and freedom of fan culture. However, when it comes to representation in canon material, it's crucial not to impose personal viewpoints onto characters solely for the sake of recognition. While it's acceptable to explore different interpretations in fan works, it's essential to respect the original portrayal of characters, particularly regarding their sexuality.

Reflecting on my own feelings on this matter, I've realized that I don't necessarily take issue with individuals changing the sexual orientation of straight characters in fanfiction. However, I become uncomfortable when there's an attempt to forcefully alter the canonical identity of a character. This discomfort arises from a sense that being straight is portrayed as incorrect or undesirable. This realization has deepened my empathy for the struggles faced by members of the LGBTQ+ community in seeking authentic representation in media.

This also brings me to the main point – the same principle applies to ace individuals when the community tries to forcefully change a character's sexuality, refusing to acknowledge their ace identity as portrayed in the show. Finally, ace individuals have a character to look up to who is even quite popular, only to see that representation invalidated or ignored because some people refuse to accept it – essentially, refusing to see them.

This kind of rejection can make ace individuals feel as though they need to conform to certain expectations in order to be considered "interesting" or "popular," just like Alastor. It's confusing and disheartening to see a character's identity denied or dismissed, especially when it's a rare instance of representation that could provide validation and visibility for ace individuals.

It would be VERY confusing for me, making me feel like, despite getting represented, I would not be enough.

I'd like to take a moment to clarify that while I enjoy engaging in fan works involving Alastor - some even portraying him romantically or sexually with another character, I wouldn't want him to be portrayed differently in the series. Changing his character in the serie itself in such a fundamental way would completely ruin the essence of who he is for me, much like what happened with characters such as Wednesday, Sherlock, or Loki. Despite my love for these characters, I felt that some of them should have remained as they were without delving into romantic or sexual storylines, as it would feel out of place, just as it would feel strange to me if Alastor suddenly showed romantic or sexual interest in anyone.

It's important to recognize that enjoying fan works doesn't necessarily mean wanting to alter the original outcome of the show or the character themselves. Sometimes, it's just for fun, without any deeper implications.

I don't have a definitive conclusion or a perfect solution to make everything peaceful – I'm not sure such a thing even exists. However, I believe that listening to each other and trying to understand one another, despite our differences, is crucial. I can only imagine how deeply hurtful it must be for ace individuals to see so much fan art of Alastor that conflicts with his established sexual orientation, but recognizing it as people having fun and drawing a line between canon and fanon is as important as it is for those who engage in such content to understand why ace individuals might feel upset about it, and to recognize that their feelings are just as valid.

We need to communicate with each other respectfully and without hostility.

I'm open to listening to anyone who might feel offended by anything I've written here – my goal in sharing these thoughts is simply to foster understanding and empathy. I never wanted to hurt anyone with my words, sorry in advance if someone feels triggered because of this.

Before I say anything else I want to be clear about two things.

One, if you don't have the energy to respond to this/don't want it on your blog I totally understand.

Two this really is in good faith. I'm not playing devils advocate and I'm not trying to prove a point or do a gotcha or anything.

In regards to the involuntary treatment for addiction(and for mental health issues in general), I don't entirely see the problem, and I was hoping you (or someone responding to your blog) could explain why it's such a bad idea.

I understand that these systems provide the perfect opportunity for serious abuse, and I also understand that they fundamentally are violating a person's freedoms.

I also understand that harm reduction options, like safe usage sites, are the best way to go, and that we should be putting our energy and resources into those.

But I also know in my own experiences I do not always have my best interests in mind, and sometimes I need someone to make me do the right things for myself.

My mental health has never gotten so bad that I have been institutionalized, so I may just not be fully grasping the depth of the flaws in the institutions, or I may not be properly understanding the state of mind of someone who is institutionalized.

However, it feels like assuming everyone will always make the right choices for themselves in the context of addiction and mental health, which doesn't seem like a responsible assumption to make.

Obviously I'd rather these institutions not have to exist, and instead provide people support before it reaches the point these systems are used, but we are not at that point yet, and it seems to me like involuntarily treatment is important in the interim.

Is this a situation where we should allow people to make a decision destructive to themselves rather than remove their freedom to make that decision? Or am I oversimplifying it?

I really am asking genuinely, and I'm very open to someone changing my mind. I just can't understand the issue at the moment.

Answer by @politicsofcanada:

There are a few reasons why I oppose involuntary commitment/involuntary treatment.

First of all, it doesn't work. Overwhelmingly, being institutionalized against your will does not benefit your mental or physical health. I studied this in college as well as having firsthand experience. The isolation and judgement that come with being institutionalized make people more likely to use substances to cope. Also, it is akin to being sent to jail for being mentally ill (which also happens but I won't get in to that right now). I've been in these places and they are not comforting, welcoming, or supportive environments. The concept of being sent to jail for being mentally ill should be more than enough to make people oppose this.

These places are rife with abuse and mistreatment. Staff are often violent, condescending, and sometimes sexually abusive. Much like the prison system, (because it operates in nearly exactly the same way) people of colour, poor people, and lgbtq+ people are overrepresented in the system. Marginalized people are more likely to experience addiction as a result of alienation from society, and involuntary commitment only makes that sense of alienation worse. Overwhelmingly, the best support one can offer someone experiencing addiction is safe supply, safe consumption sites, and community support.

Community support is far more effective than institutionalization. The only reason people prefer to lock people with addictions away is because its more convenient not to deal with them. Actually caring about people dealing with this means including them in your community, not locking them away.

Pharma's place in a Functionist society (headcanon)

So I've talked in some previous posts about all the reasons that Pharma isn't a functionist because canon never showed him espousing functionist ideals + he's actually in a place to be a victim of functionism. And I've been working on a Pharma-centric oneshot that made me put into words the best metaphor I can think of for Pharma's relationship with Functionism:

He doesn't support Functionism, but is simultaneously a beneficiary of it and also marginalized by it, because his position of being forged both a doctor and a jet basically turns him into a "token minority" of sorts.

I know that sounds kind of silly or maybe like a clumsy political allegory, but hear me out. There are a couple facts about Pharma and the circumstances of his forging that put him at the crossroads between privilege and marginalization within Functionism:

Tyrest says that Pharma was "famous for being forged." Not famous for being a forged medic-- otherwise surely Ratchet would be just as noteworthy-- but famous for being FORGED. But also, note that this is an opinion that SOCIETY had about Pharma, not something that Pharma espouses about himself. (For the sake of an example, Pharma isn't Starscream, who has an explicit, deep-seated need for others' love and approval. Pharma himself doesn't express any opinions on his own popularity or convey that fame/adoration is something he wants.)

Functionism on Cybertron held that if someone was born with a certain alt-mode, they can/should only have certain jobs. For people born with flight alt-modes, those people were almost always regulated to military or transportation/courier jobs

SIMULTANEOUSLY, Pharma was forged with medic hands, which under a Functionist society were viewed as the peak of medical care and all the best doctors were forged or at least had a "special something" that non-forged hands lacked (according to Ratchet).

So taken in combination, this means that from the moment of Pharma's birth, he straddled a line of Functionism between two different "predestined" paths for him, where he was simultaneously forged to be a doctor and also forged to fly, fitting into BOTH of these categories despite norms of Functionism which say you're one or the other. And I speculate that the reason Pharma is "famous for being forged" is precisely because of those lines he straddles: his very existence is a contradiction, but he was also FORGED that way. The same creed that dictated the two different functions of "hands" and "alt-mode" also says that Pharma should be what he was born to be. What he was born to be was a forged medic jet.

In my opinion, I think that being "famous for being forged" is sort of like a token-minority situation for Pharma, where perhaps Pharma was seen as a curiosity or even something exotic, not just as a person. Maybe because he was a jet and people assumed jets were only soldiers/transportation, a lot of his achievements were put in the light of "Oh, he's a really amazing doctor, for a jet" or "It's crazy that he's a doctor AND a jet at the same time". The attention Pharma received for the unique circumstances of his birth WAS positive, but it would've likely been framed in a bit of a condescending way, as if Pharma is noteworthy and famous not for being a good doctor, but for being a good doctor despite being born a jet.

So I would say that as far as Pharma's personal experience with Functionism, he simultaneously experienced privilege and marginalization. He enjoyed the privileges of being a medic while avoiding the restrictions of being a flight frame. However, a lot of the idolization and attention he received would have also come from a place of tokenizing Pharma: he's "famous for being forged," because in this society he's defying expectations merely for existing as himself. That is to say, Pharma in a Functionist society wasn't treated as remarkable because of who he is as a person and how hard he worked to be a good doctor; he was treated as remarkable for the circumstances of his forging, something he had no control over and can't change, and apparently Pharma being a forged medic jet is such a noteworthy origin that he's "famous" for it.

The above paragraph is purely headcanon, of course, but I like to imagine that part of Pharma's reason for having a big ego isn't out of simple vanity or insecurity, but because of a sort of "gifted student" syndrome, in a sense. From the moment he was forged he was treated as a rarity and an incredible phenomenon, and he would have had to work incredibly hard to be seen as "an incredible doctor" in his own right rather than just "that forged medic jet." Maybe, as a jet, he also had something to prove; he had to show to a Functionist society that being a jet doesn't make him an inferior doctor and that his alt-mode has nothing to do with his skills at his profession.

That is to say, I don't think Pharma would have been openly anti-Functionist, or had many opinions about it at all. I actually lean towards the interpretation that Pharma basically saw himself as getting lucky with the way he was forged and being content with the fact that he'd managed to carve out a reputation for himself as being incredibly skilled. However, Pharma not getting involved politically in Functionism doesn't change the fact that he WOULD have had a very complicated relationship with Functionism, in that alt-mode discrimination would have had an effect on him even though he was in the scientific/medical class and supposedly privileged.

you've talked about a lot of people your age are risk-averse homebodies; do you put that down to just helicopter parenting, or is everyone being broke also a factor?

Oh jeez is that post going around again.

Listen. Helicopter parenting is one of many factors. And I think that Helicopter parenting is only as common as it is because of Reagan era moral panics still having hold on society because of complex factors that have a lot to do with American exceptionalism and the cold war and American hyper individualism.

I don't think that being broke has much to do with it actually, I'm not saying it isn't part of it but it's kind of negligible in the specific problem of people refusing to touch grass. Like people are much poorer than their parents generally and it's a huge problem but it is possible and even easy to go out and hang out with people when you have no money. Literally go out and fuck around in the woods with your friends. Do it. It is easy and free and people have been doing it since the beginning of time.

No the issue is that the third space is being completely removed and part of that is manufacturing consent for it. For example community centers, if they haven't closed down altogether, have a lot fewer things for adults. You used to be able to go take a pottery class or some shit like that at a community center and it might cost you some money but those sorts of things were always intentionally affordable. Now everything is ages 5-12 if it exists at all. And as for spaces that aren't meant to be third spaces but which people use that way, loitering is being prosecuted way more now, especially in racially marginalized communities, but not just in marginalized communities. Like think about shopping malls for instance. In the 90s and 00s there used to be roving gangs of teenagers in those things now they're ghost towns. A lot of those stores will ask you to leave if you're not there to buy something. Those two things are directly connected. Bathrooms in coffee shops didn't used to be for customers only. When I was a kid I could walk into a coffee shop and sit down with a book and no one would tell me to buy something or leave as long as I was unobstructive, it's not like that anymore. Obviously COVID is a factor but that was happening before COVID.

Also people are wayyyy less religious than they used to be, which I think is good, but one side effect of it is that another third space disappeared. You used to go to church or temple or whatever once a week and Idk what non church places are like but usually you would sit for an hour and listen to some guy talk about God and you'd sing some songs and then you would go into the church basement and have coffee and food and talk to the other people who were there getting coffee and food. And the churches would have food drives and things of that nature on days other than Sunday. That stuff still happens if course but young people aren't there because we don't believe in that shit. Which yeah the church is a pretty bigoted institution and I think organized religion gives too much power to the leadership. If you connect god with some human guy that human guy can take advantage of your faith it happens all the time. But we have to replace that ritual of gathering somewhere and getting coffee and food with people once a week or we're gonna have a poorly socialized populace. And you can't really replace it with coffee shop because you have to buy your food there and you're not really encouraged to talk to other people you don't know that well the way you are at a church.

And yeah there's the financial aspect of it but it used to be easier to jump the fence and get into a concert, the bar didn't always have that cover charge, there used to be a public bathroom there, there used to be a public water fountain, there used to be a 30$ craft class, that used to be a public park and they'd do block parties and Shakespeare in the park there and now it's a parking lot, and so on and so forth.

Frankly one thing I find shocking is that even places that are expensive are getting less friendly to adults seeking activities. My town has 4 dance studios and not a single one of them offers beginner level dance classes for adults. And I'm not just talking about ballet either, they don't teach any classes to adults. I'm a drag queen that's a thing id be interested in paying for with my tip money so I can get more tips in the future. They don't have it.

Idk it just feels like "I'm broke :/" ok well being broke didn't used to mean that you had to stay in your apartment all day.

You mentioned about different analyses of 1984 in a post that you reblogged from me, and now I’m interested. I haven’t read 1984 for a while (I’m thinking of rereading it soon), but I’d be interested in any of your opinions / other people’s analyses if you want to share! :)

Omg yay 1984 is my favorite book and I always want to talk about it.

Of course the well known thing about the book is the issue of censorship, but the censorship in the novel does not exist in isolation, rather it is influenced by other political and economic forces.

1984 is a story of a society where, as a result of an end to scarcity (which would otherwise require a transition away from capitalism), those in power have created an economic system where war is used to manufacture scarcity, thereby ensuring the continued existence of hierarchy and power. It is important to note that hierarchy is also the problematized issue in Animal Farm, another book my George Orwell that is often misinterpreted as anti-communist while in actuality being anti-capitalist. The censorship in 1984 is done not only in the service of preserving the state but specifically for the purpose of preserving hierarchy as a concept. This is stated outright in the theory section in the middle of the book, when Winston is reading The Book. When I logged on to tumblr after finishing 1984 to look for meta posts and analyses, I was shocked to find people saying that they had skipped that entire section of the novel. I exclaimed out loud about this and my mother who was in the room at the time said she’d done the same thing. While people are entitled to consume media in whatever fashion they like and 1984 itself promotes this idea, I find it deeply concerning that many people skip what was to me the most interesting and important section of the book due to finding it to be a difficult read. The book states outright that the preservation of the power of the capitalist class and the subjugation of the working class is the entire reason that the government does everything it does, and people just don’t read that part of the book.

The censorship in the book is also not only censorship by elimination but censorship by the rewriting of history. This is important because it happens all the time in real life. For example, Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis wishes for it to be taught in schools that slavery helped Black people. This is the same kind of censorship that happens in 1984. In the field of political science this is called the “usable past” - versions of rewritten history used to uphold a nation’s identity.

Another political science concept that 1984 takes to an extreme is that if war abroad being used to put an end to social movements at home. This has happened throughout history as wars are used to make patriotism the norm, thereby marginalizing “unpatriotic” political movements such as labor or racial or gender equality that are seen as not in line with the aforementioned national identity that has been constructed. In 1984 the wars do this quite literally by manufacturing scarcity and thereby preventing the rise of communism.

I could go on forever, but instead I’ll conclude with an anecdote from when I was in high school. In my English class senior year of high school we were split into groups and assigned various novels to read instead of reading one as a class. The group that was assigned 1984 (not my group, I read The Color Purple which is another favorite that I could go on about forever) decided they wouldn’t read it because “the main character wants to rape someone.” I found this disturbing immediately because the novel is about censorship being a bad thing and here my classmates were not wanting to read it because it depicts sensitive subject matter. Their behavior was disturbingly indicative of the self censoring mindset of so many young people on the internet today. When I myself read the novel a few years later I discovered that it deals with rape in a few different ways. The first is that the main character was himself raped by his wife before the story takes place, not for sexual gratification but for reproductive purposes. The second is that he does indeed fantasize about raping someone who he is under the impression wants to get him killed. He later has sex with this person after finding out that she does not in fact want to get him killed, and it is the sex scene in a novel with the best negotiation of consent I have ever read. After the characters have sex Winston muses on the political power of sex in ways that I recognize more from queer activists who post on tumblr than from any other novel. All of the novel’s dealings with sensitive topics around sex are well done. The ones that are disturbing are intended to be disturbing - the book ends darkly; nothing in it is intended to make the reader feel good.

I could go on and I have - I wrote one of my papers in undergrad on 1984 and would be willing to share that too, if I could find a way to link it without my full name attached - but I’ll leave this as is for now.

It's a long-ish video, but it's worth watching.

ID - tiktok video from user gaygtownbae, stitching a video from someone criticising people "cheering on the death of billionaires" on the submarine situation and they go on to say:

So I want to talk about ethics versus morals. My name is Evan, I am a bioethicist and I did my thesis on misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories as a threat to public health. So there's been quite a few of these videos about how people are very upset

(Note number 1 and it says "Note* I made this video a few hours before the announcement about finding the remnants of the vessel, so the language reflects them still missing")

that folks are cheering on the loss of this submarine because it had billionaires in it and I want to talk about how that is in a way considered ethically neutral.

So for the folks who are saying this is really terrible, like we shouldn't be cheering on the fact that there are people in a really dire situation, who are clearly gonna lose their lives, what you are describing is your moral stance that you do not feel comfortable or you don't want to cheer on people being trapped at the bottom of the sea. (note 2 comes in and it says "Dark humor is a valuable technique/tool, especially as an expression of trauma and/or oppression")

You're making an individualized argument, which is fine, that's, totally, that's absolutely the right thing to do, nobody is denying that, but you're having a conversation with people who are cheering on a societal change. Something that has happened in society that may or may not shift imbalances, because what you're seeing is a group of people who are cheering on the loss of what they perceive to be an oppressor. And what we know when it comes to economy and it comes to a lot of things like access to healthcare etc, is that billionaires are a deep cause of a lot of those things ( note 3 comes in and it says "The power, privilege, safety, and existence of billionaires is not harmed by the mockery of a disempowered group.")

The inequality and inequity that people experience, especially marginalized folks, is due to the business practices, pretty directly, of people who are billionaires. (note 4 comes in and it says "Some modern philosophers would say mocking this historic global news event is moral because that is supporting an inherently immoral group's demise from their own choices. As an ethicist I am not trained in impose or challenge the definitions of morality, I am trained to look at designing principles that help us guide and decide societal consensus on morals.")

So this group of people is not cheering on the loss of five people, 5 husbands or sons, or hm, people who celebrate birthdays, what they're cheering on is what could to them symbolize a societal shift. I'm not saying that it's right, what I'm saying is that in this case, and in any other case where people are perceiving the loss of an oppressor, it's ethically neutral.

(notes 5 and 6 come in - the first says "If you've been cheering for Tr*mp to go to jail, making jokes about unvaccinated people getting sick from COVID, etc, you've participated in this behavior. These are all individuals with real lives too. But also, these people have been the source of great communal suffering." And the second says "The "us" and "them" stance that working class people feel toward billionaires is not created by them, they are forced to participate in that adversarial relationship. The wealthy class created it by dehumanizing their existence, extorting their labor, and constantly shifting necessary life supporting resources out of reach of everyone.")

It doesn't really have a good or bad stance and it's not effective or ineffective, they also don't have power in this scenario to change what's happening and so for them, it's empowering to see a group that has always had power be disempowered. It's in the same vein as like cheering on a bully getting beat up or seeing an abusive partner go to jail (note 7 comes in and it says "In an equitable world, the resources put into trying to save these wealthy people who made a dangerous (and ultimately deadly) choice would also be made available with the same urgency for the most vulnerable. But it's not, and this rightfully is enraging for a substantial portion of society.")

Um it's not about the individual as much as it's about the symbolism and just because you don't feel the same way (note 8 comes in and it says "A lot of social movements historically that have sought to challenge autocractic classes and governments have used this type of humor to force change. The group Otpor! is a great example.") , you have a different individualized moral stance, doesn't mean that these people are experiencing something that is wrong or doing something that is wrong, they're just doing something that quite honestly is very human. Humans celebrate the perceived fall of opressors all the time, hm, doesn't really have an ethical stance to it.

(note 9 comes in and says "manipulative and insidious leader can hijack this natural human reaction to seeing their oppressors suffer by redirecting blame to a scapegoated group, but that isn't what will naturally happen from this behavior.")

And when you tell people that they shouldn't be cheering on, you're insinuating that it's inethical and it's just neither and it doesn't lead to a slippery slope unless pushed by a manipulator, because it's not inherently inethical to dislike and celebrate the loss of someone that's been oppressing you.

End ID

Femininity is a lot of work and it’s actually very difficult to pull off. Even the “clean girl” look, which is the visual opposite of the heavy coverage MUA look that’s been popular for a while, hinges on having seemingly perfect skin and a “naturally” flawless look, meaning there is a ton of investment in skincare, etc behind the scenes—skincare being just another arm of the beauty industry of course. The rules and standards of femininity are also always changing; a particular body type has been extremely popular and achievable through readily available plastic surgery and now that it has achieved total saturation, I believe it’s already starting to become unpopular—women getting their BBLs reversed etc.

I think that because of the amount of work it takes to be feminine, plus the deep emotional investment in femininity, it would be a misnomer to label it as “easy”—for the individual feminine woman, it is not. But on a social and cultural level, on the level of media representation and in terms of what kind of otherwise marginalized woman can achieve visibility, fame, or success, yes, femininity is “easy.” It is quickly intelligible. It is considered desirable. It affords access and results in better treatment.

I am not arguing for “pretty privilege,” nor do I think benevolent sexism (i.e. female servers who wear makeup getting more tips) is a good thing. I don't think "pretty" women institutionally oppress others. But I do think that this society promotes those it wants to see more of; that it will help a "pretty" woman succeed before an "ugly" one, and applaud the "pretty" woman much more. This society cannot even tolerate a woman at neutral--a woman with no makeup on, with her skin texture showing, natural hair, braless, simply existing in a physical state that is unaltered.

For masculine and GNC female people, these are the stakes. For many of us, we do not just exist at neutral, which our culture cannot tolerate anyway; we in fact actively cultivate a specific aesthetic or what some would call a gender expression that is in open defiance of feminine norms. That is why it is not, per se, "representation" for e.g. a masc/GNC lesbian or bisexual woman to see an extremely feminine woman in the public eye identifying as lesbian or bi. It can be even more alienating, in fact, than having her identify as straight. She is the easiest version of us to swallow, and we are nothing like her; not only do we not want to be like her, it would take so much active work to deconstruct the image of ourselves we've already built--something we've loved doing--and reconstruct ourselves in her image that it's like an unscalable edifice ahead.

LM 1.1.10

mortal forms are horrible and limiting and I'm not gonna bother trying to catch up--I've said absurd amounts about all these chapters before anyway-- but I wanted to mark a couple things on this one (my favorite Myriel chapter!!) if only for myself!

So long as there shall exist, by virtue of law and custom, decrees of damnation pronounced by society, artificially creating hells amid the civilization of earth, and adding the element of human fate to divine destiny; so long as the three great problems of the century—the degradation of man through pauperism, the corruption of woman through hunger, the crippling of children through lack of light—are unsolved; so long as social asphyxia is possible in any part of the world;—in other words, and with a still wider significance, so long as ignorance and poverty exist on earth, books of the nature of Les Misérables cannot fail to be of use.

I voted the end of the tyrant, that is to say, the end of prostitution for woman, the end of slavery for man, the end of night for the child. In voting for the Republic, I voted for that. I voted for fraternity, concord, the dawn. I have aided in the overthrow of prejudices and errors. The crumbling away of prejudices and errors causes light. We have caused the fall of the old world, and the old world, that vase of miseries, has become, through its upsetting upon the human race, an urn of joy."

gee I wonder how Hugo feels about the republic. if only this book had any political opinions. /s

(if you're New Here and haven't seen the many terrible opinions about how Les Mis is Not About Politics well. I envy you.)

The other thing I kept thinking about while reading this chapter this time around is this passage from The Siecle (bolding mine):

...the Restoration was actually not a bad time to be a peasant farmer — compared to the recent past. From the 1780s to the 1820s, French life expectancy soared by about a decade — from about 28 years before the Revolution to about 39 years after it. The stunted peasants of the Restoration were still taller on average than their fathers had been. The improvement is a direct result of the Revolution, which removed the old “feudal dues” by which most peasants, even those who owned their own land, had to turn over significant shares of their harvest to their local lord. In much of France, feudal dues amounted to around 20 percent of the harvest. Now, peasants had a bigger surplus, some of which they ate and some they used to diversify from wheat into more profitable forms of agriculture, like grapes or cattle

I feel like even those of us who speak up against the Thermidorian or reactionary readings of the FRev don't spend enough time talking about how it improved people's lives, not on a theoretical or conceptual way, but in a practical, lives-and-comfort way. So LOOK AT THAT. An extra eleven years on an average lifespan that hadn't even been three decades long (and that almost certainly is translating into a massive reduction in child death, specifically , given how child mortality weighed on those averages). And an extra twenty percent of their own production to some of the poorest people in the country. When G talks about the Revolution creating happiness, he's not just talking about Cool Ideas in an abstract. And when the monarchists we'll run into through the book lament the loss of the Good Old Days , they are--consciously or unconsciously-- lamenting those shorter lives, those greater odds of starvation.

(and all of this isn't even touching on the legal advances for marginalized people made during the Republic and then rolled back by subsequent governments, but that's for another day...)

ok Past Here Be Spoilers, and also it's mostly just me flailing about foreshadowing/parallels

Man should be governed only by science."

"And conscience," added the Bishop.

"It is the same thing. Conscience is the quantity of innate science which we have within us.

this is a fascinating line to me always?? That when Hugo says science, he's talking about something that doesn't just need to be guided by morality, but something that is morality; Conscience is Science! It's not like the idea of science as amoral and potentially destructive is a brand new concept we only got in the 20C; Frankenstein came out in 1818! But Hugo's version of science seems to be an understanding of/connection to the Infinite. (also: aaaaah about how much this is foreshadowing later characters/events. AAAAAH!!!)

You may say troubled joy, and to-day, after that fatal return of the past, which is called 1814, joy which has disappeared!

OK I get that 1814 is, in practical terms, when the monarchy was restored (fatal return of the past) ; and in terms of Being A Bad Time For France, was the year that the rest of Europe more or less occupied them for a while. Still it's interesting that G seems to see only the monarchy as undoing the Republic, and not the Empire. And I wonder if that was really what Hugo thought, or if this is a bit of political maneuvering-- saving the Napoleon I callouts for later, when they're less likely to get read?

"You have demolished. It may be of use to demolish, but I distrust a demolition complicated with wrath."

"Right has its wrath, Bishop; and the wrath of right is an element of progress. "

AAAAH SO MUCH FORESHADOWING (but also man I feel like there's a point here about the usefulness of anger directed the right way that would do some characters here a world of good, if they could hear it.)

 I have done my duty according to my powers, and all the good that I was able. After which, I was hunted down, pursued, persecuted, blackened, jeered at, scorned, cursed, proscribed. For many years past, I with my white hair have been conscious that many people think they have the right to despise me; to the poor ignorant masses I present the visage of one damned. And I accept this isolation of hatred, without hating any one myself.

waaaah

I have been first, the most wretched of men, and then the most unhappy, and I have traversed sixty years of life on my knees, I have suffered everything that man can suffer, I have grown old without having been young, I have lived without a family, without relatives, without friends, without life, without children, I have left my blood on every stone, on every bramble, on every mile-post, along every wall, I have been gentle, though others have been hard to me, and kind, although others have been malicious, I have become an honest man once more, in spite of everything, I have repented of the evil that I have done and have forgiven the evil that has been done to me

aaaaaaaaa

A huge component of injustice in the modern world is flattening image and reality.

That has always been sort of timeless, and it's sort of part of how societies that skew heavily towards hierarchies use aesthetics as the means to clock the 'place' of a person, environment, or object. But given that many more people see... stuff, every day, thanks to the internet and advertisements the effect is not local to what you personally witness, it's extremely widespread.

Don't get me wrong-- the power to spread imagery has also had positive impacts. Modern anti-war protests wouldn't be the same without photojournalism that spread witness of war realities to the greater world. Images that depict ordinary people, and especially marginalized people in daily life are self-evident proofs of humanity and existence when art can be skewed by wealth towards being a self-portrait of the rich and powerful. Stuff like that.

But the structure of our world and how it thinks and breathes now is still very powerful and all tools will reinforce that first unless purposefully turned against that structure. The power to assert reality is also the power to create alternate reality and you can see it every day today. Entertainment and news are blended together in new ways. "Lifestyle" content depicts curated imagery as a form of reality, often imagery that reinforces what a successful person looks like, what a rich person looks like. Or the ideals people with that wealth would prefer others hold.

I challenge anyone to find an 'aesthetic' or 'curated imagery', 'a look that invokes emotions or a sense of intuition' that 1) isn't just a form of discrimination like racism or sexism or ageism, or bias against fat or disabled bodies, and 2) can't be achieved by borrowing items, cooperation, paying artists as you have ability to, collecting secondhand things, travel to another location, and a time investment (something that our modern world blames working-class and poor people for having if they don't have money, tries to eliminate.)

'You actually CAN'T tell anything from the image' is the core of many seemingly baseless freakouts by hierarchical conservative mindsets. In fact, it's the most effective way to sell those mindsets to people who don't have any wealth at stake: fear that they can't discern actual reality, a need to control the images around them instead. Transphobia and also control of gender expression in all people. Bias against those who don't have or don't publicly display markers of hitting certain life goals like marriage or householding. The need for poor people to 'look poor,' the insecurity of the middle class in physical space and the resulting surveillance culture in many neighborhoods, the hatred of any marginalized classes enjoying luxuries as 'tacky', or even just seeing them in public. Hatred of seeing children they do not control in public. Thin people of the majority race in plain clothes as 'a fit' but fat people and people who aren't the majority race in plain clothes as 'not caring enough,' and more.

Hell, even the whole 'hatred of piercings dyed hair tattoos' thing plays in. It wraps 'the bliss of the Other being easily identified by Shibboleths, even when they're my same race' and 'I need others to look the same around me, I don't want to stick out as living incorrectly,' in a neat little burrito. Both of which easily are gateways to, 'Support for Austerity: Poors Don't Get Nice Things, 'How To Clock Queers,' and finally 'Nazi Phrenology.'

Caring so much about imagery seems like a vanity thing. But the anxiety is actually about 'reality' and seeing conflicting images that 'compromise it.' Flattening complex reality into imagery that can be sorted without fail onto a hierarchy has always been a part of top-down, oppressive structures. Think like, feudal systems where the only art or imagery that has power 'belongs' to the church, to magistrates, or to nobility. But now with the ability to broadcast images to the entire world, hierarchy's alternate reality can feel like it envelops the globe.

So, can we agree that being childfree is not the same as "disliking children" and disliking them (which is a lot different from just not enjoying being around them) is in fact really weird but also not breaking social norms? From the moment the childfree movement has been popularized, a lot of weird people began trying to use the movement to justify what is very much blatant ageism (with tiny hints at ableism) and trying to make a case that they shouldn't bear witness to kids' existence in society cause "they are a bother" But if you analyse children as the vulnerable minority that they are, you can easily see that "disliking children" is very much always been the norm. From early child labor (that american politicians are trying to bring back) to the constant abuses in the entertainment industry (from both industry and sometimes parents), from domestic abuse under the argument of "It's my right to parent as I see fit", to the dwindling number of places made for kids (irl and online) and how people deal with them existing in public places, how whenever this discussions are made it's always with a language that they're some kind of monolith or abstract concept with no space to even give their own thoughts, much less those being taken into consideration (unless it's in a custody court). Yeah, kids have always been disliked and unwanted and objectified by society, they are at best "tolerated" because they'll eventually grow and are needed for the continuation of human existence. What wasn't the norm was choosing to not having or raising them, and that's about body autonomy and birth and parenthood, a whole different thing from how children are treated in the social sphere as children (not as someone's kid, but as a tiny human). They experience a lot of the same process of objectification and marginalization (and sometimes even violence) a lot of different minorities experience, inside and outside the home, with the added layer that since they can't defend themselves (nor have the opening to do such), are also used as ammunition to oppresive rethorics towards other minorities (the famous "think of the children"). And all that not even getting into the argument that people who say they dislike children are just giving similar arguments ableist people give to not liking neurodivergent people. So yeah, no, you're not making a "hot take" by saying you dislike children, you're just saying the quiet part out loud.

I think it's important to look at the Girlfriend Reviews incident of the Hogwarts Legacy response, because even if it's just a case of lack of awareness of some Youtubers, the way that they're being used is insidious.

So from what I've seen is that they tried to stream Hogwarts Legacy, a section of their fanbase expressed their disappointment mainly via messages they were unfollowing/unsubscribing, Shelby got upset and tearfully took a break, but they still streamed for 6 hours after. Since then the story has been used to label those opposed to Hogwarts Legacy as abusive towards Girlfriend Reviews and other streamers.

If there is any screenshots of the abusive language in their chat, please let me know, as further evidence is always appreciated.

I do think that Girlfriend Reviews were mostly naive, thinking that donating to the Trevor Project would be a reasonable counterbalance for their discretion, however that action is also telling that they knew that playing the game would result in some backlash. They're no strangers to backlash, as they did receive previous harrassment when they played The Last Of Us Part 2. They should be aware by now, how politics and video games interact.

I think when they got harrassed for TLOU2, there was more of a dismissive attitude of "people getting too upset over a game", rather than a culture of misogyny in video games and that culture lashing out due to a sense of entitlement. And perhaps Girlfriend Reviews thought that HL was more of the same, but it's not and to act like it is, is just being ignorant of systems of power.

But this isn't just about these youtubers. Shelby's tears are being manipulated by bad actors as White Women's Tears. If you're unaware of the term, WWTs is a common framing tactic that has been used, mostly for anti-black purposes, for a long time. It's used to justify continued oppression against marginalized groups by saying "Look how they've hurt the feelings of this symbol of innocence". White women have often been used as a tool within white supremacist, patriarchal societies, as something to be protected from the influence and existence of The Other. White Women's Tears are most notable in the case of Emmett Till.

I'm not saying that Shelby was aware of this when she cried, or that she faked crying. What I am saying is that the sort of folk who harrassed Girlfriend Reviews for playing TLOU2, are the sort of people who are now using the image of her crying to punch down on Trans people, Jewish people, and others who expressed their disappointment at Girlfriend Reviews for playing HL. I'd hope that Girlfriend Reviews would be able to see this, and make amends, rather than trying to retreat to an apolitical position, while allowing the continued use of this "harrassment" to inflict more harm on Trans and Jewish people. And that's the better of two evils, hopefully this doesn't make them follow in the footsteps of the likes of Jontron, becoming an alt-right talking head (although this seems unlikely).

The cognitive dissonance of trying to enjoy something you thought was just innocent fun, to find out it has wider political ramifications, is hard. It's painful, you don't want to feel bad for what you consider an accidental lapse of better judgement. However, the actions you take to deal with that cognitive dissonance is important. You can either face up to your mistake, bury your head in the sand, or stand by your action and in opposition of those you have wronged.