i think. one-one is like if wheatley was actually as endearing as the portal fandom likes to pretend he is

Here is why conventional healthful-thinking is not working on Millennials.

Have you ever had that terrifying dream where you are stuck in a dark forest or sketchy alley, frantically running for your life from some kind of feral monster or mad man? Most of us can personally recall at least once being roused from sleep in a cold sweat because their brain had spent the last few hours perfecting the latent image of a made-to-order nightmare. While that experience is certainly not exclusive to Millennials (rather quite the opposite), the waking reaction or at least how it is processed later by this roughly categorized group of mislabeled people is unique to say the least.

For years now, people in marketing have been fervently dissecting and attempting to recreate what has been loosely categorized as "Millennial Humor". And in all of their efforts to connect with this flock of black sheep, the grand majority of them seem to be missing a key factor in the psychology at work here. For all the unwarrantable bilge that modern advertising haphazardly cobbles together, only a small percentage of the nonsense is seasoned perfectly with the secret ingredient. What is this singular spice? Well, while indulgent to profess and speculative, from someone "sitting in millennial class”, it's obvious: A touch of salt.

Never will I sit here and cry to the general public about how unhappy I am that the modern advertising industry is just not scratching my itch for the wares it’s peddling, but I think it's important for us now to look at how this systemic lack of understanding is reaching beyond the world of subliminal profiteering. Society has other significant quality-of-life effecting systems that are also missing the mark when trying to aim and reach out to help this specific group of people. Puns aside, "a touch of salt" as I quipped, is flavoring the lives of a lot of people in their mid to late 20's and early 40's. And the most frustrating and difficult to reconcile attempts that I personally have made to better myself, have been those that were guided by people who just cannot seem to put their brain into that salty head space.

For example, trying to focus on and internalize a well-organized medical presentation about the encompassing negative effects of stress or insomnia and its seemly simple solution of just "changing your thinking", is about as easily digestible as a two-decade-year-old fruitcake for someone who is imprisoned daily by the symptoms of chronic stress. While I may sit there and give listening (ironically) "the old college try", the sound quickly turns to fuzzy white noise the deeper the lecture dives into positive thinking.

You see, Millennials are not generally fluent in positive thinking. More and more of them seem to be speaking a very distinctive dialect of realism, which incorporates a robustly cultivated sense of sarcasm and a somewhat grim shade of hopelessness. A lot of millennials grew up with a laughably poetic twist on "Growing Up" and "Being Successful", which in turn has colored their day-to-day interactions and created this defeatism-culture. Millennials will openly joke about their death as a needed release, their eulogy as a retirement card, or emotionally decompile themselves over something simple like saying "you too" in a situation that doesn't warrant it.

A good percentage of Millennials were old enough to understand the destructive consequences of the most recent housing market disaster on a very personal level; At an impressionable age, watching their own parents, who may have worked excruciatingly hard at the expense of any number of personal or family goals, lose just about everything resonated in a way that cannot be unheard. Then add the borderline criminal and unscrupulous "sheep-shearing" that became common place when the generation was herded off to college, trade school, or other form of career-building education. Not to mention the fact that upon completing said programs, a proverbial "step-in-the-right direction", a substantial number of these "hopeless wanderers" were faced with yet another barbed-wire hurdle when the job market in countless fields were oversaturated with potential employees. Many positions had not been vacated as they normally would have been with the age of retirement being stretched further and further down the road due to increased cost of living and financial demands; the finish line or lap marker was just not getting any closer. To add insult to injury, Millennials, sometimes unbelievably hardworking, are frequently being listed as perpetuators of the clashing reality we have today. This being what the modern media is calling "The Great Resignation"; a dubious combination of a labor shortage amidst an unemployment spike fueled by uncompetitive wages left unchecked, the government's inability to reel in the situation, and a general devaluing of laborers overall.

Oh. And also, we were killing the diamond industry at the same time. Or was it simultaneously the marriage and divorce industry? Wait! I think it was cinema? Or no....maybe it was fabric softener. For a complete dissertation of all the things Millennials brutally murdered over the last two decades, perhaps I'll include a link below if for no other reason to drive my point home.

You have this group of people who are conditioned to endlessly swimming upstream, against the current, with nothing but chastising and bitterness to listen to. So, when it comes to something universal like learning to "sleep better" or "problem solving", the indifferent but somehow time-honored approach of saying "it's as easy as just taking control" is over time if not immediately rejected as dissonant information.

These people don't feel like they have control; some of them feel like they never had any to begin with.

Why is this a problem?

Our society is not developing a taste for "salt" at a pace in which it can prepare social-sustenance for its population. We're not getting any younger, and neither are the generations in front of us.

Millennials are already, by some definitions the mass-population of workers, voters, and other titles that we've yet to embrace. And our lack of interest is not because we do not have a passion for positive change (even on a global scale). Millennials have voiced over time that they feel they are the silent majority amidst a group of people who will not give them breathing room and don't respect the validity of their opinions and ambitions. And it is by no means restricted to one region or country on this planet. This is a global phenomenon.

I could spin a vast yarn about the political ramifications of continuing to exclude the Millennials from the metaphoric Counsel of Elders, but I'm more concerned about the neglect that is spreading elsewhere. We need our leaders in the medical and social fields to really respect and dig deep into how to incorporate "Millennial Thinking" into their treatment and development plans. A large amount of the global population is going to need carefully tailored treatment for things as old as depression, bi-polar tendencies, or schizophrenia as well as newly discovered mental encumbrances like imposter-syndrome.

While “positive-thinking” may have been easily cultivated in the past, we may need to start from a more negative approach and build from there to educate and treat a group of down-on-their-luck millions. Pumping drugs into a populace is not going to permanently patch the leak either, so there truly is precedence for a rehashing of how we should prioritize mental health in modern society.

Stop spending so much time and energy assigning blame to modern technologies and social norms. Are these going away? No? In that case, those things are much like our other daily stresses that are unavoidable. Yes, you can change your nightly routine to de-stress the same way that you can change a job or a daily commute, but there needs to be a fundamental shift in accountability divvied to circumstances out of a person's control rather than scolding them for not being able to manage it.

Do I have all the answers? No.

But this was less about offering a solid a solution and more about opening a dialogue. A starting point.

So yeah. I've had that dream of being chased through the woods by a life-leeching alien. It felt very similar to being sucked dry of my pitiful wages for an education that was at the time, barely panning out. Even now, as a 32-year-old, slightly more successful version of the starving student I've become, I still feel as though my rat race will end when my heart gives out; and all I can hope for is enough money when I drop to cover the ambulance ride to the over-crowded emergency room and a large pit to rot in. But I just hope that the generation behind me has the benefit of a system that understands how to create and sustain “Millennial Inspired” social structures that will allow them to flourish in what little we can leave behind for them.

Also, could you pass the salt?

Hey! Love the blog! I’m new to the fandom and I’ve fallen completely in love with Brittany! I was wondering how you think Brittany and Santana’s emotional intimacy changed throughout the show? And especially while Santana struggles with her sexuality

Hey, @darthmanius​!

Welcome to the fandom! I’m glad you like my blog. Sorry if it’s taken me a while to get back to you—I haven’t been online in a while.

In regards to your questions, I think one of the primary ways that Brittana’s emotional intimacy changes over the course of the show is in terms of how they communicate about their feelings.

More under the cut.

_______

In Brittanaland, “With feelings, it’s better” has long been a watchcry, but also potentially a misleading one if taken literally, because, honestly, with Brittana, the feelings have never been lacking.

The real issue? Acknowledging feelings for what they are. Communicating straightforwardly about how one feels. Not obfuscating or sidestepping. Just being honest. 

This issue lies at the heart of Brittana’s journey from emotional distance to peak emotional intimacy. As the girls learn how to disclose to each other about how they feel—and essentially to “call a spade a spade” when it comes to what their relationship means—they’re able to move from confusion, heartache, and unnecessary angst to connection, certainty, and emotional openness like never before. This evolution as a couple tracks closely with Santana learning to embrace her sexual identity and with Brittany learning to advocate for herself and stand up for what matters to her.   

We see this process start early on, when Brittana presents something of an “emotional intimacy paradox,” insofar as the girls are simultaneously both incredibly emotionally intimate in some ways and incredibly emotionally closed off from each other in others.

On the one hand, they are best friends of the closest kind:

They confide in each other.

See, for example, in 2x12, when, after maintaining her “bitch” front in the face of everyone else, Santana finally breaks down in the hallway with only Brittany present, revealing the depths of her upset.

They are attentive to each other’s feelings.

See, for example, in 2x02, when Santana sticks up for Brittany when she catches flack for not wanting to perform Britney Spears like the rest of the glee club.

They support each other’s successes.

See, for example, in 2x09, when they are excited about each other’s respective dancing and singing solos at Sectionals.

They make use of an extensive lexicon of intimate touches through which they communicate with each other (e.g., pinky-linking, back rubs, playing with each other’s hair, sweet lady kisses, etc.).

See all of S1, while they’re sitting on the back row.

They understand each other’s quirks, tics, and personality traits like no one else does.

See, for example, in 2x19, Brittany’s defense of Santana during the Blurt Locker scene.

We don’t get to witness a lot of their “alone time” together play out on screen, but anyone with eyes can tell that they are extremely close to each other—more so than they are with anyone else on the show. They talk to each other more than they do other characters. They act differently toward each other than toward other company. They demonstrate all sorts of care for each other in myriad different ways. Both of them are more “themselves” in each other’s presence than they are otherwise. 

Of course, on the other hand, they also have a giant emotional wedge between them which impedes their emotional intimacy—namely, Santana’s unwillingness to acknowledge the true nature of their relationship and/or their respective sexual orientations (or to allow Brittany to do so).

For all intents and purposes, Brittana are in a romantic relationship with each other throughout the entire history of the show, and yet in the early seasons, Santana refuses to either acknowledge or to permit Brittany to acknowledge said relationship as romantic. She’s so terrified of anyone knowing the truth about her sexuality that she tries in every possible way to bury it. 

Even though she and Brittany are sleeping together, hanging out all the time, and doing quintessentially coupley things, they aren’t (according to her) girlfriends; they are “best friends.” 

Even though they have a passionate, regular sexual relationship—that is even seemingly monogamous between episodes 1x16 and 2x06—what they’re doing isn’t (according to her) serious; it’s just a recreational time-kill in the absence of boys. 

Per Santana, sex isn’t dating, and cuddling in the choir room isn’t a big deal. What she feels for Brittany is only best friendly affection, not passionate love. She rationalizes and downplays and represses EVERYTHING, insisting that Brittany do so, as well, freaking out and retreating any time Brittany even gets close to suggesting that their relationship is at all romantic.

—and because Brittany fears that if she freaks Santana out, she’ll lose her, she goes along with Santana’s charades, as ridiculous and unconvicing as they sometimes are. If Santana says that sex isn’t dating, then sex isn’t dating. If Santana says that they have to get with boys, then they have to get with boys. Brittany, at this point, is a passive entity. Her m.o. is to go along to get along and not do anything that would possibly cause Santana to spook.

She keeps her mouth shut, even though she knows in her heart that what Santana’s selling her is bullshit.

In Santana repressing and in Brittany humoring her, Brittana experience complications with their emotional intimacy, including (among other issues):

While they are both skilled readers of each other’s cues, they often can’t discuss what they see going on with each other. They have to pretend that they don’t know why the other girl is upset or conflicted or angry or sad or confused—or at least they have to tiptoe around the subject very carefully, being cautious not to mention their feelings for each other or sexual orientations in the process. 

For example, in episode 2x12, Brittany knows very well that Santana’s upset about Valentine’s Day has a lot to do with her gay panicking and fear that she is going to be alone for the rest of her life. However, because of Santana’s moratorium on talking about feelings and the topic of their sexual orientations, Brittany can’t very well say to Santana, “Don’t worry. You won’t end up alone! One day, you’ll be with a girl you love—and I hope that that girl is me.” Instead, she can only look on with concern while Santana flails, offering physical comfort but no address to the underlying problem.

Santana’s repeated verbal devaluation of her and Brittany’s relationship  conflicts with the physical cues she sends Brittany, which causes Brittany a kind of emotional whiplash. On the one hand, what Santana says can be downight cruel (“I’m not making out with you because I’m in love with you and want to sing about making lady babies. I’m only here because Puck’s been in the slammer for about 12 hours now, and I’m like a lizard. I need something warm beneath me or I can’t digest my food”), but, on the other hand, what she does, from the back rubs to the kisses to the lovemaking, is so sweet and attentive. Between the two extremes, Brittany doesn’t know where she stands or to what extent she is allowed to make known her own feelings.

Hence Brittany’s occasional “flubs,” where she wears her heart on her sleeve and tells Santana how she feels, believing, based on Santana’s recent behavior, that her expressions of affection will be reciprocated, only to have Santana suddenly shoot her down (e.g., in 2x04).    

The girls perpetuate a dizzying cycle in which every time Santana allows hereself to be emotionally vulnerable with Brittany—in some way revealing how much she needs, wants, and loves her—she then panics and emotionally retreats, attempting to date boys (and encouraging Brittany to do the same) in order to reassert their “heterosexuality.” This behavior causes both girls heartache and confusion, as every step forward they might take—for instance, their long period of monogamy between episodes 1x16 and 2x06—is then immediately wiped out by the proverbial two steps back—for instance, Santana roping them into a double-date with Puck and Artie, which eventually segues into her (once again) sleeping with Puck and Brittany (for the first time) sleeping with Artie.

In this sense, the girls are also very emotionally closed-off from each other, insofar as they can’t acknowledge their feelings for each other in any other way than on a physical level. They don’t talk about their romantic relationship in terms of it being a romantic relationship. They don’t talk about what the sex means, even though sex for them is incredibly meaningful. They deliberately mischaracterize their interactions as “platonically friendly” and attempt to hide the fact that they are each other’s primary partners, even though such is clearly the case.

The walls Santana builds up as a self-protective measure create emotional dissonance between them, which eventually results in Brittany deciding to take her at her word—i.e., that they’re not dating, despite all evidences to the contrary—and pursue a relationship with someone else instead, namely Artie Abrams.

From her relationship with Artie, Brittany learns the importance of being at liberty to discuss one’s feelings with one’s partner (“But when Artie and I are together we talk about stuff like feelings”). She also experiences the joys of having a formalized relationship. Artie, despite not fully understanding Brittany and oftentimes underestimating her intelligence, is generally an attentive and positive partner. Brittany’s time with him tends to be happy.

However, for as much as she flourishes in her relationship with Artie, she also finds herself unwilling to completely break off her relationship with Santana, with whom she is still deeply in love. Unlike Artie, Santana does fully understand her, and the feelings between them run so deep and so strong. 

This unwillingness on her part to forsake her relationship with Santana eventually leads to cheating between her and Santana while she’s still dating Artie, and the cheating eventually leads to the implosion of the Bartie relationship.

In the meantime, Santana’s experience with suddenly being Brittany’s “side dish” as opposed to her primary partner proves to Santana something that for years she has attempted to deny: that she is deeply in love with Brittany, craves intimacy with her, and can��t stand to be without her.

So cue first the Hurt Locker scene and then the Back Six of S2, where Santana finally allows herself to name her love for Brittany aloud and to acknowledge to Brittany that she wants them to be together, and, shortly afterward, Brittany suddenly becomes “available” again.

From there, Brittana’s is not an all-at-once transformation, where the girls go from being emotionally impeded to emotionally intimate in every way, but rather a step here and a step there over the course of the Back Six, with Santana learning (with much help from Brittany) to “embrace all the awesomeness” that she is and accept her own sexuality, becoming increasingly emotionally transparent in the process, and with Brittany learning to assert herself and be her own person, refusing to swallow her own feelings to preserve Santana’s ego. 

At the same time that Santana is gathering the courage to put on her  “LEBANESE” shirt and wear it proudly (see 2x18), Brittany is gathering the courage to stand up to the next person who calls her an idiot (see 2x19) and to tell Santana that she deserves to be treated well in their relationship and have her feelings acknowledged (see 2x18). It is a period of individual growth for both girls, and that individual growth paves the way for them to come into themselves as a couple. 

They suffer a few setbacks along the way—such as when Santana stands Brittany up on Fondue for Two (see episode 2x19)—but, gradually, by the end of S2, they reach a place where they can be honest with each other about what their actions toward each other mean and how they feel about each other and their relationship (see the Heart Locker scene in episode 2x22).

This progress continues into S3, when they officially start dating and take the first steps toward negotiating their emotional intimacy in public. Here, we see Brittany being wonderfully mindful of Santana’s comfort levels in terms of their coming out process as a couple (see episode 3x04) and Santana opening herself to Brittany in ways she never has before.

Santana becomes willing to cop to her feelings for Brittany not only when they are alone together but also before others, even in Brittany’s absence, and even to hostile audiences, like Principal Figgins or her abuela.

Unfortunately, Brittana—and especially Brittany—don’t get a lot of dialogue as the season progresses, but it’s still easy enough to see that they’re closer than they’ve ever been before. 

Hence why it so strains credulity when the Glee writers make it so that, somehow, Santana has no idea that Brittany’s not going to graduate, though that’s a rant for another day.

Of course, if we were charting Brittana’s emotional intimacy on a line chart, the “up curve” they’d experienced between S1 and S3 would take a sudden downturn come S4, when their breakup—precipitated by distance—suddenly reintroduces uncertainty into their dynamic, the likes of which they haven’t experienced since before Santana could bring herself to say the words “I love you.” 

Again, as before, the problem isn’t in the feelings. 

It’s in the inability to express them.

As discussed here, Santana and Brittany are still very much—truly, madly, deeply—in love when they break up, but because the entire object of said breakup (as Santana conceives of it) is to permit them both the freedom to pursue other happinesses while they can’t for the moment be together, they have to try to move on from each other, which means giving up the trappings of their former formal relationship. If they’re going to do the “find your bliss elsewhere” thing, then they have to do it right, and that means that they can’t function like a couple. There have got to be some boundaries.

The difficulty comes in deciding where those boundaries lie and then somehow enforcing them.

Throughout their entire “broken up” period between S4 and early S5, neither one of them is certain how to interact with the other now that they’re uncoupled. They still crave each other’s company (see, for example, 4x06 and 4x13), but they’re not sure how much they can do or say or even where to draw the line when it comes to physical touch. How much disclosure is too much? At what point are they crossing a line? 

Santana, in particular, is so afraid of getting her wires crossed that she finds it difficult to maintain regular contact with Brittany, especially once Brittany starts dating Sam.

Remember: Even in the primordial days of S1, when the girls were still pretending that they were “just” best friends, there was always a romantic element to their relationship. They’ve never known how to maintain a strictly platonic dynamic. 

This uncertainty creates some notable awkwardness during S4. Though at various points, the girls vow to each other that they’ll always be best friends and remain close, even when they’re dating other people (see, for example, in 4x06 and 4x13), their communication—at least as far as we’re shown it in canon—appears both sporadic and far less open than it once was. They’re careful around each other in a way they haven’t been since S2.

It takes Brittany’s misery at MIT and Santana’s misery in New York to reopen their channels of communication (see episodes 5x12 and 5x13). Because their concern for each other’s well-being is always paramount even when they’re not officially “together,” when each one learns how unhappy the other one is in her current living situation, they each attempt to counsel and support each other, despite their previous awkwardness, and those attempts eventually lead to them talking about their relationship. 

Brittany bravely admits that she wants her and Santana to be together again, and her act of emotional disclosure causes Santana to realize that she wants the same thing, too. 

They talk about first their fears and then their hopes in getting back together. They make plans. They tie up loose ends. 

From there, their emotional intimacy only increases and deepens.

The Brittana we see in S6, fresh off of their months-long vacation to Lesbos and concert tour as Mercedes’s background singers, have seemingly only grown closer in the time they’ve spent together since S5. 

They are extremely communicative, talking together about their feelings both negative and positive. They also help each other problem-solve and build each other up in times of stress and duress. They’re incredibly attentive to each other’s wants and needs and united in the front they present to the world.

And most importantly?

Their words and deeds align exactly. 

They tell each other how much they love each other with handholding, nose-nuzzling, kisses, hugs, and lovemaking, but they also say it in words—with “I will love you until infinity,” “I choose you over everyone,” and “I do”—and mean every one through and through, from the very depths of their hearts. 

There’s no more discrepancy between what’s actually going on with them and what they say is going on with them. 

They’re on the same page, 100%.

Brittany has metamorphosed from the yes-woman who went along just to get along. She no longer allows anyone to step on her, and she doesn’t sacrifice her own emotional truth to placate other people. She expresses her feelings clearly and is active in making decisions regarding her and Santana’s relationship. Gone is the girl who looked on, brokenhearted, while everyone told her who she was and how she should feel. Now she knows how to advocate for herself, for Santana, and for their love even—and even especially—when the stakes are high (see, for example, her speech to Santana’s grandmother in 6x06).

Santana, too, has undergone a remarkable, seasons-long change. No longer is she the girl who is too afraid to admit, even just to herself, that she’s in love with her best friend. Now she’s the woman who almost can’t help but tell the whole world how much she loves her wife at every opportunity, and she’s willing to prioritize her relationship with Brittany, even when doing so isn’t easy or without personal cost to her. While she once imposed ridiculous rules on herself and Brittany to try to keep their love a secret, now she breaks all the rules so that they can be together. She allows herself to be vulnerable and to show her innate sweetness. She allows herself to be honest about what she feels. 

—and, ultimately, that growth and honesty for both girls allows Brittana to enjoy a high degree of emotional intimacy during their engagement and marriage.

Their scenes together in episode 6x06 are some of the most emotionally intimate in the whole show—and I’m not just talking about them standing side by side to take on Alma at the end of the episode, but about Santana confronting Brittany in the hallway and about their ensuing conversation about Santana’s boundaries and how they’ll work together from now on to achieve common goals. That communication is so healthy and expressive. It’s so adult and straightforward. It’s something they never would have been able to do early on. It really shows their growth.

Looking forward, one can only imagine that as married women, they continue to learn each other better and to make use of their well-honed communication skills. Their “I love yous” undoubtedly continue to be frequent, their acknowledgment of who they are and how they feel absolutely their norm.

In any case, I’m rambling now, but TL;DR? Brittana’s biggest obstacle regarding emotional intimacy is the issue of being able to acknowledge their feelings for what they are. Once they learn to do that—together—they cohere in a remarkable way, emerging as the most cohesive, communicative, emotionally intimate couple on the show.

“With acknowledging feelings, it’s better.”

Thanks for the question!  

Mass Effect Andromeda Post-Mortem Disquisition

Preface

Recently, I had this impulse that it was about time I sat down and put my thoughts on Mass Effect Andromeda to "paper" in a more coherent manner than previous comments, and in a conclusive way that gives everyone the explanation behind my decisions that they deserve.

This turned out to be an amazingly horrible idea. I'm overly verbose at my most concise of times, and this was a very complicated matter. Needless to say, these penned thoughts now rival the Encyclopedia Britannica in length. Seriously, if you all make it through this in one sitting without falling asleep, you deserve a bloody cookie or something.

Now, as many have noticed, my build guides and live streams for the game have stopped. My future content planned for map guides and strategies have also been canceled.

The reasoning? As a pro-consumer advocate, I cannot justify continuing to make content that supports a game that I personally would not recommend anyone buy. Each build guide, live stream, or other content I make for this game perpetuates the idea that I support the game and that you should buy it. Such is no longer the case. This decision unfortunately took much longer than it should have, as I spent literally months in a state of cognitive dissonance.

So now here we are. To keep things orderly, this will be broken down into a clear format: Opening, Single Player, Multiplayer, Community, and Summary. Mostly so I don't get lost and start wandering around a supermarket in my underwear like a dementia patient.

So, without further distraction, allow me to present my disquisition on Mass Effect Andromeda:

Opening

Mass Effect Andromeda has been a game of unparalleled and divisive controversy. Even the months leading up to launch, there were lines of people in camps looking for both ways to love and hate the game. It was abundantly clear this game had a lot of passionate people anticipating its launch.

Unfortunately, the game made a really poor first impression on people due to issues that were anywhere from aesthetic like facial animations to tedious like stellar flight animations to game-breaking like multiplayer server outages. First impressions are everything, and the game's first impression was reason why the game was received so poorly.

After most of those issues started clearing up so did the criticisms. It was then that one started to get a clearer understanding of what Andromeda did well and not-so-well outside of fixable bugs.

Single Player

The gameplay of Andromeda was, for the most part, a vast improvement over previous games. Before launch, I was vocally concerned about the "sticky-cover" being introduced, especially after playing Ghost Recon Wildlands that has a horrible sticky-cover system. I can happily admit my concerns proved to be unfounded. The game is generally fun to play... Be it driving in the Nomad or in combat.

The worlds were also quite well made, for the most part. The first planet I'm pretty sure had colour-swapped art assets ripped from Inquisition's Breach. Or was it actually the Breach?

[#SharedUniverseConfirmed]

Otherwise, the game looked great. Harvarl was honestly my favourite as far as design goes, but that's not shocking considering is was much smaller than the other planet maps. Smaller maps mean level designers can get more detail in the same timeframe as larger maps with only a small impact on game performance.

Unfortunately, that's where most of my praise ends. See, Andromeda is, as is BioWare's forte, an RPG. It's not an action-adventure game that is focused primarily on action and environmental storytelling. It has a very clear narrative. The problem is that the narrative is largely re-using most of the story elements from Mass Effect 2 while poorly trying to copy the companions from Mass Effect 1.

Why is copying ME2a problem? Wasn't that one of the best titles in the franchise? ME2 was the second story in a trilogy. That kind of story presumes the player already is entrenched in the current environment... Lore, protagonists, antagonists. You should already have your "compass" in the story, but that's not very easy when everything is new.

The examples of this start early with the death of Alec Ryder in the very beginning. The player has no real emotional connection with Alec, so an extremely influential character had no more weight than a red-shirt like Jenkins from ME1. The way I equate that is to imagine if ME2 were the first ME game you played... Shepard dying 15 minutes in would really mean nothing to you as the player. You have no attachment to him by 15 minutes in… Unless, of course, you just spent the entirety of another game playing as him and cultivating relationships with him and the crew.

And then we get the poorly copied companions. In ME1, you have 2 permanent human companions (after Eden Prime) with Ashley and Kaiden. Both fit on the crew because they are assigned to the Normandy by the Alliance military. Personality-wise, you had the Kaiden the emotionally conservative and Ashley the emotionally radical. You other companions: Liara, Garrus, Tali, Wrex... You were able to experience the motivation of why they joined you first-hand:

Liara was a scientist specialising in Protheans, and you needed her help to better understand the Prothean Beacon and information it gave you. Socially, she was nerdy and socially awkward in a "quirky cute" way, making her more endearing to some.

Garrus was a C-Sec officer convinced Saren was bad and determined to prove it even without the Council's approval, and Shepard was in a unique position to facilitate that. Socially, his strong convictions and aspirations to bring justice make him a strong moral compass for some.

Tali found evidence of a bigger plot behind Saren, and, having some insight into Geth enemy you were facing, was ideal for the mission. Socially, Tali's soft-spoken idealism act to brighten the mood of the story.

Wrex claims to "just want in on the action" after you help him take down Fist, but deeper inspection finds that he admires Shepard and sees him displaying attributes he thought of as what a Krogan should be.

Compare that to Andromeda: Two humans, male and female, assigned to the mission with Cora and Liam. Inverse the genders of the ME1 humans, where Cora is the emotionally conservative one and Liam is the emotionally radical. And by “radical" I mean immature. Seriously, he's like a bloody preteen. Sadly there is no Virmire on which to leave Liam.

As far as the aliens go:

Peebee joined because you're investigating Remnant vaults and she is somehow an "expert" on "RemTech", despite only studying it for a few months by herself. It's trying to match to Liara, except Liara had been studying Protheans for decades with teams of researchers. Peebee has the same “nerdy and socially awkward" trait found in Liara, again trying to get that "quirky cute" vibe.

Drack joins because... He likes killing Kett, I guess? It's essentially distilling Wrex into "just a thug" and trying to copy that. Unfortunately, whereas Wrex peels personality layer back like a turtle-shaped onion, Drack never really evolves and grows as a character. You just find out his organs are failing because he's so badass.

Vetra joins because she can help you with "stuff" and serves as a sort of quartermaster for a ship of maybe a dozen people. Despite the fact that her apparent talents in wheeling-and-dealing would be better served to both Tempest and Nexus if she were on the latter not the former. Makes perfect sense if you don't think about it. However, BioWare determined we "need" a Garrus on the crew. Except Garrus was so much more complex even just within the story of ME1. Vetra sadly will never match Garrus' reach and flexibility.

Jaal was the only exception here. Superficially, he's a copy of Javik from ME3 in his archetype, true, but he at least felt like he had a reason for being on the ship: A liaison/ambassador to the Angarans. Surprisingly, his character also has actual depth and dimension, albeit at times he felt like the “man-meat" in a Harlequin romance novel... Surprised he was missing full head of long flowing hair and wasn't introduced to us by galloping a horse down a beach at sunset whilst shirtless. He's the Fabio trope in an alien body, but that makes him interesting nonetheless, even if only comically so.

Why am I focused on the companions so much? Because that has been one of the foundational pillars of BioWare storytelling… From HK-47 to Kang the Mad to Mordin Solus, BioWare has defined themselves by crafting memorable and endearing companions. Mass Effect 3 was all the more memorable because you got to experience the effects of the Reaper War on each of the people you had befriended along the way. BioWare felt as though it lost touch with that cornerstone by recycling character archetypes from Mass Effect 1.

BioWare has not been as solid with major narrative writing of late, however. Case in point, Andromeda’s was seemingly copied directly from Mass Effect 2. Archon is a generic bad guy. You could insert Coryfish or Harbinger-Possessed Collector#212 instead and I'd be unable to tell the difference. His motivation is ripped straight from ME2... I was honestly waiting for him to announce that he was the Harbinger of our perfection at several points. This is honestly the gravest problem to me... So few stories nowadays can give us a compelling antagonist. No one ever makes the bad guy relatable anymore. Saren, despite his reasoning being warped by Indoctrination, thought he was SAVING everyone. Loghain was convinced that fighting Darkspawn would leave Ferelden open to attack from Orlais, which he judged to be the worse of two evils. Eredin's home world was on the brink of annihilation. You hate all of those antagonists because they all did something you find reprehensible as the player, but all of them have motivations that at least you could find understandable albeit going about things the wrong way.

And then we had the conversations. BioWare got rid of the really thematically weak binary morality system… And replaced it with something worse. They tried to copy Dragon Age 2's"mood" choices, where you'd be given choices that would fit a certain personality style you could use to better role-play your character. Which would have been fantastic, albeit I can't imagine why anyone would choose anything other than Snarky.

Unfortunately, the writing team appeared to have not really fleshed that out since you are rarely given a full gamut of choices. Most times you are given the choice between “logical" and "emotional" responses and that's it. Even then, there were times when those two options were the exact same line! This was naturally compounded with the long-standing problem with "summarized conversation wheels" where what the summary of a choice sounds like it means and what your character says are often two completely different things.

The combination of all those things made the main story feel like fan-fiction, not BioWare's famous storytelling.

Then we get the side quests. The MMO fetch quests forced into the game as filler because BioWare had to shoehorn in the "open world" gimmick into a game that really did not need it. It is content padding... It fills the world with “stuff" and keeps the player in the game for longer. Worse yet, larger side-quest arcs were left unfinished. Those both are design choices based on deliberate tactic used to maintain market demand for DLC. I know a lot of people are still angry about not getting any single player DLC, but the truth is that many games are releasing nowadays as DLC-selling frameworks rather than actual full-featured titles, and that's horrible for consumers. This was no exception.

Overall, the sheer lack of creativity in the single player story really lend credence to the rumours of project leadership woes during the process of creating this game. This feels like a game made in eighteen months, not five years.

Multiplayer

Then we go on to the multiplayer. Before the game launched, I had a lot of concerns about the multiplayer when coming from Dragon Age Inquisition that had extremely flawed design choices. Many of the developers/producers were actually very forthcoming with assuaging my concerns. There would be no promotion system that allowed player stratification and the RNG loot table would be more akin to ME3'smultiplayer where you gain items from packs until they reach Rank X and they are removed from the drop table. Seemed great.

My first complaint from the beginning was that the multiplayer character skill points were now tied into the RNG drop table… Whereas ME3 awarded you appearance options for repeated drops of the same character, MEA also added skill points every other drop, meaning you now had to get a character dropped to Rank X before you could use them to their fullest. Furthermore, whereas previously each class had a linked XP pool for all the characters of that class, Andromeda separated them all out. Both were done to extend playtime in order to increase potential microtransaction sales.

The second complaint I had was that powers, weapons and combos all felt grossly underpowered. An often-quoted statistic in games difficulty balance is “time to kill", or TTK. As the name implies, this is the time it would realistically take a player to kill an enemy. The TTK on average in Andromeda was nearly 70% longer than ME3's multiplayer. It didn't make the game more difficult, just more tedious. Enemies taking too long to kill are often called “bullet sponges", and are generally not liked in games primarily because it's a done to make the enemy more difficult, which it does not do.

Then, once the game officially launched (I was playing the multiplayer before launch), the multiplayer matchmaking servers would experience frequent disconnections and almost daily outages. That meant that the times when you could even get into the multiplayer mode, chances of finishing a match would extremely small.

Needless to say, I did my due diligence and carefully outlined these problems to BioWare.

The server issues were a high priority and fixed within the first week or two. Then BioWare started giving new content and balance changes for multiplayer. Fortunately, the feedback that I and many others had given to BioWare helped them to better balance the damage output of players, leading to a more enjoyable experience. My other feedback was ignored, which I waved off because I suspected there wasn’t much to be done about some of the more deeply engrained design problems.

However, ME3veterans would quickly notice that new content delivered was considerably less substantial than what ME3 received. Whereas ME3 received tons of new characters, weapons, and maps in bulk drops every month or two, Andromeda saw a trickle of content… A new character here; A new weapon there… Maybe a map once and a while. The amount and variety of content delivered to the multiplayer was next to nothing, which not how you keep people playing a horde-mode multiplayer bordering on being completely forgettable.

Then Patch 1.09happened. For those not acquainted with this horrendous excuse for profiteering, BioWare released its largest content drop to date… Which saw very little actual new content. Instead they doubled the amount of drops you could get for a single character (from Rank X to Rank XX) and quadrupled the amount of weapons drops in a similar fashion… Now, each weapon had three variants that would start dropping once that weapon was Rank X, each themselves dropping up to Rank X. The three variants, or "augmentations", each had a generic added effect that was the same for each gun. BioWare called it “extending the progression" for the multiplayer.

Now, why was that a big deal? It means you have more to work toward, right? Unfortunately, that's not actually it. See, as I said, all the loot is based on RNG lootboxes. YouPlay some matches, buy some "packs" (lootboxes) and get random items as a reward. There are different grades of lootboxes that offer differing rarities of items. Simple, right? Well, sure, until you start looking at the numbers.

During the same time period (March-September), BioWare has released 28 new weapons and characters in ME3MP compared to 13 new weapons and characters to MEAMP. You'd think that would mean there’d be less “grind” to MEAMP, but unfortunately, this is where things get unsettling:

For those 28 new weapons and characters, it totaled 172 drops one would need to get to max your manifest. With the 13 new weapons and characters in MEAMP, it totals 540 drops to max. This is due to the “S” variants of common weapons, the additional character ranks, and weapons augmentation that pad drops without actually adding anything new. MEAMP has added more than three times as many RNG drops while adding less than half of the new content. And those numbers are only for new content… If I factored in what was available at launch, the difference would be even more insane.

Sounds a bit shady, right? That’s because it is. More drops means more “grind”. More “grind” makes microtransactions look more appealing. I’ve written out thoughts before on how delicate balancing the “grind” of free-to-play games is, where you have to respect the time of the free player while still encouraging microtransaction sales. This is an example of an unbalanced system, mostly because it relies on RNG lootboxes. If you think all I’ve said sounds malevolent now, just wait.

See, this RNG lootbox system is employed by a lot of games, most of which are free to play. It relies on manipulating the player into falling for a mixture of the Gambler's Fallacy and the Sunk-Cost Fallacy.

The former is when a person assumes the statistical probability of past events affect the outcome of statistic events in the future. For example: Losing thousands at roulette is acceptable because it means I’m about to win big on the next spin.

The latter plays off the fallacious logic that the more time/money/effort you spend on something the more indebted to that something you become. For example: Losing thousands at a craps table means I have to keep playing until I win because otherwise all I’ve spent up to now was wasted.

The comparison to gambling is deliberate.

The RNG lootbox system is frankly a manipulative and unethical business practice. Even if the game is rated M, children and young adults still play these games where their minds are still not fully developed, and companies like BioWare are legally allowed to effectively get them addicted to gambling with this system. Most governments don't see this as gambling because the reward has no material value. You know what country has actually taken a stand against this? China. China is the country forward-thinking enough to realise how bad this practice is and have classified it as gambling. "China" and “forward-thinking" are not two words you often hear in the same sentence in the Western World.

I understand BioWare is a business and wants to make money. That's quite fine. Instead, they could employ more ethical microtransactions like those employed by Digital Extremes in Warframe: If I want to unlock a specific character or weapon, I can buy that outright for real money. The cost should be dependent on the difficulty to obtain. To acquire them for free, I have to earn them from more time consuming tasks like playing a specific map, against a specific enemy type, or both. Of course, in order to maximize revenue from the more ethical business model, BioWare would have to commit to releasing a considerably greater amount of new content for the multiplayer than what Andromeda has.

To be completely honest, given the level of separation ME multiplayer has from its single player even in the development cycle and that they are targeted at two separate audiences, I've honestly been suggesting that BioWare should consider spinning it into a standalone free to play title. I think the same should happen to DA multiplayer as well. Then it can see a small team of continuing support with new characters, weapons, maps, and balance changes. All funded by those new, more ethical microtransactions I suggested. But I digress.

Community

Now this is where things get unpleasant. Andromeda itself, despite my criticism, is an overall above average game in its current state. It is not terrible, but also not very good. This is why I used to not recommend purchasing it unless you got it on sale for at least 50% off. That's what I felt the game is worth.

However, what turned that recommendation from "Get It On Sale" to "Avoid Like The Plague" is the community.

While many, if not most, of the community around BioWare games are amiable enough and just enjoy the games, there is a sinister fanaticism that lurks in the dark places of the community. This fringe fanaticism either fervently hates or passionately loves the game, and harbors and intense level of bigotry.

Months before Andromeda was released, videos were being made openly calling for a boycott of BioWare games due to the political ideologies of individuals working (at that time) for BioWare, while others were praising BioWare for those same ideologies. Both positions were a Fallacy of Composition… Assuming that something true of one part of a body must also be true of the whole body.

If only that were the end of it. As launch got closer, so did the intensity of turning any developer interviews or updates into some kind of political clash. In all fairness, this was not exclusive to Andromeda… In fact, I could posit that it might just be a reflection of the then-current state of modern society. Regardless, Andromeda was controversial without ever having posed a single controversial position.

Then BioWare made a mistake. It gave out press copies of Andromeda to review outlets and "influencers”, the latter of which I will be discussing more in a moment. However, while reviewers were under an embargo that prevented them from releasing their review until the day before the game was released, BioWare allowed “influencers" and people that subscribe to EA/Origin Access to play and stream the game for 10 hours one week before release.

By the time professional reviews came out… Which were generally positive… There was so much confusion already permeating the internet. Clear, concise, and fair-minded criticism was drown in a sea of angry denouncement and cult-like devotion.

After a few scathing criticisms and popular memes arising due to issues in the game, a few of BioWare's loyal influencers" set about attempting to counter much of the criticism leveled at the game either by justifying mistakes and design choices or by outright attempting to discredit critics themselves.

Let's take Mass Effect Follower (now known as BioWare Follower), for example. He made a video titled Addressing the Criticism in Mass Effect Andromeda where he attempts to simultaneously justify the existence of bugs in the game while discrediting those that was put forward with comments like:

"Now, the reviews are people's opinions and nothing but that. [...] That should not deter you from trying out the game and seeing if you enjoy it yourself. Some people are not a fan of RPGs or open-world games and from there they're not going to like Mass Effect Andromeda and therefore they're going to write negative things about the game. Plus, as many of you know from being on the internet, some people just like to cause negative feedback. [...] They just want to say bad things about a game just to fuel hate. [...] Try to ignore them if you can."

Yup, he just tells people to ignore all negative reviews, because they either don't like RPGs/open-world games or they are just trying to promote hate. Or like this:

"All the story missions I've played have all felt well written and set up. The side missions I've done are widely varying in what you have to do and they feel like they have a meaning. The random characters I come across feel alive and like they have a purpose for being there."

Which feels like a legitimate public statement written by BioWare themselves. This first point made there I've already outlined my heavily diverging viewpoint, and the second two points are outright falsehoods. Essentially the video asks people to ignore negative criticisms of the game and just buy it based on his questionable claims on quality. Then, for all the bugs, hope that the game would be fixed and hope that the story would get better based on nonexistent future content.

On a small level, I pity channels like BWFollower. Once a channel becomes a certain size, it becomes beholden to the content it makes. When that content relies on an amicable relationship with a corporate AAA developer, a channel might feel pressured to make content that portrays work of that corporate AAA developer in a favorable light or risk being black-listed by that developer. It's an unenviable position, but it's entirely self-imposed.

This kind of content is what's known as subversive advertising, and it's not always done knowingly. BWFollower may not have realized that he was manipulating people into making a purchase that they may not have wanted. Nonetheless, it does not change the effect it had. When you are a public figure... One that a major AAA game developer would consider to be an "influencer", you have a responsibility and a trust... One which BWFollower completely failed. It is about the most anti-consumer reaction to a game possible because it crippled the ability for consumers to get fair and honest information before making a purchase.

Not everyone has money to waste on a game they won't enjoy, and so-called "trusted" voices countering healthy consumer feedback undermines the trust consumers have in those of us that with any measure of public responsibility. This utter deception perpetrated by several similar such "influencers" was, without a doubt, one of the most pivotal elements leading to the consumer backlash against Andromeda. The Streisand Effect, they call it.

Summary

Overall, I think Andromeda was indicative of the overall state of BioWare during the development of Inquisition and Andromeda... Including the upcoming Anthem. They were creatively rudderless, sailing whatever way the wind was blowing, denoting a lack of proper creative leadership and overall project vision.

Now, that may have changed. BW Montreal was merged into EA Motive and Aaron Flynn was replaced by Casey Hudson as GM of BioWare (essentially their top spot in the company). The only beacon of hope that Anthem won't turn out to be as bland as Inquisition/Andromeda is that Drew Karpyshyn (the main reason BioWare games are popular) is the lead writer on the project.

As I write this, the multiplayer is still currently receiving updates but the single player support was ended a few weeks ago. I imagine that Andromeda's multiplayer will continue receiving updates for months to come as they continue to unethically on money out of players through manipulative microtransactions that really should be legally classified as gambling.

Going forward from here, there are several lessons and opportunities for BioWare. They have already made changes to their organisation that may see their content improve. However, I will not presume that. Time will reveal what, if any, effect those changes create.

The lesson I have learned is that corporate greed inevitably diseases creativity. Not only has this experience made me extremely distrustful of BioWare, but AAA game development as a whole, which is honestly for the best. Businesses should not be entitled to your patronage. They should earn it. Something which BioWare has seemingly forgotten.

In writing this, however, the most unexpected realization result from the release of the latest entry of BioWare's most popular franchise: Where their path forward became much less certain to many fans, mine became clear. More information on that will be coming soon.

That, in its totality, is my post-mortem of Mass Effect Andromeda. Feel free to share your thoughts on the game and stayed tuned for some new things coming soon.

Once again, this is Angelus de Mortiel, signing off.

The Living and the Dead and Undertale

I wrote this in October 2015. Four months later, my grandmother died. Six months later, my mom died. Grappling with so much tragedy has absolutely altered how I look at pop culture now, especially our culture’s relationship with death and mourning. But looking back at this piece, I don’t think I’d change a word. Only one thing has really changed: I believe, more than ever, that Undertale is perhaps the wisest and most emotionally honest game ever made about the subject of death, which is something most games are inundated with but never have the courage to address. It’s about sadness, mourning, remembrance, and love. It’s about the things we are so often afraid to confront when we experience tragedy. It is almost certainly my favorite game ever made.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a child, I didn’t comprehend death until a whole bunch of it hit my family all at once. When I was five years old, over a six month span aunt died at 23 of bone cancer, my grandfather died at 62 of pancreatic cancer, and my uncle died at 30 after he was struck in his car by a drunk driver. I learned then, before I knew much else about anything, that death was permanent, that death disabled entire families (some temporarily, some permanently), that death presented a wall of grief that simply has to be endured until every individual affected has the strength to move on, on their own terms.

As I grew older, the stories I consumed pretty much ignored all that.

In stories, death is typically a device. It is an obstacle for a hero to avoid. It is a convenient way of setting stakes. It is a means of taking large numbers of enemies out of the equation and assuring that they will not bother you again. It is a way of showing how much a character has changed, for the good (in how and why they face death) or for the bad (usually in inflicting it). This is not inherently a bad thing. Storytelling relies on tension. To create tension, characters need to have something to worry about. Death is hard to beat in that regard. Of the greatest TV dramas of all-time, how many didn’t rely on the possibility of death to provide impetus for the plot? Breaking Bad, The Wire, The Sopranos, Deadwood- all had death and killing around every corner. The same for Lost, The-X-Files, 24, and Game of Thrones.

Or what about films? Of the AFI’s top 50 films, by my count 35 feature death as a major plot point. Citizen Kane opens with the protagonist’s final breath. The Godfather is about a man’s descent into cold-blooded killing. Shane is about a man’s inability to escape a life of killing. Some Like it Hot is about two men who witness a murder and go on the run. Death moves stories forward. It’s natural to use to it to that effect. But sometimes, I wish more stories reflected on the aftermath. Sometimes, I wish more stories were about what happens when it feels like everything is crashing down at once, because someone you know and love has died. The way death affects the living is different for everyone. Stories are rarely about this.

That video games feature killing and death goes without saying. Ludonarrative dissonance permanently entered the gaming thinkpiece lexicon a few years ago as it became harder and harder to sympathize with a protagonist who commits mass slaughter simply to move the plot forward. I remember checking the stats while playing Uncharted 2 and seeing that I had amassed more than 900 kills and wasn’t close to finishing the game. The sheer absurdity of the number made it impossible not to imagine Nathan Drake- the game’s jovial and good-hearted protagonist- as a harbinger of death, wiping out entire bloodlines. It’s easier to make no attempt to reconcile the dissonance. It’s easier to accept it and get back to having fun.

My favorite work of literature about death is James Joyce’s short story The Dead. It’s title is up front about its theme, no? And yet the story itself meanders through a day in a man’s life, not broaching its titular subject until the very end. You’ve probably read it. If you haven’t, please do so now. It won’t take that long. The plot isn’t really about death. It’s about a man named Gabriel who builds his ego up a bit too much over a speech at a Christmas party. He hears someone singing “The Lass of Aughrim” in another room. He gives the speech. He is proud of himself. He is flushed with affection for his wife, Gretta. On the way to their hotel for the night, he asks her how she feels. Gretta reflects sadly on a boy she’d loved when she was young. He sang “The Lass of Aughrim” to her. Got caught in the rain. Died. Snow falls. Gabriel reflects on how this young man whose life was so short, who accomplished so little during it, could still so deeply affect his wife. They are all still bound together. The dead never really abandon the living. Humanity is in a perpetual state of overlap, those who knew the dead keep living, passing on their memories to others who never knew them. Joyce writes: His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.

We never leave Gabriel’s point of view. Somehow, by the story’s end, we know Michael Furey. Time stopped for Gretta when he died. Sometimes, it still does.

Undertale. What does that title evoke? Graves, perhaps. A vague sense of the unknown. It takes place in a world of monsters. You are thrown into this world with no preparation. Early on, one monster asks you very kindly, to please have mercy when you get into a fight. This is easier said than done. You play the game as you are accustomed to doing with these games. Fight monsters, defeat them, level up. Progress through the story. But this game gives you options. You don’t have to fight. And if you do, you don’t have to fight to the death. Granted, it can be hard. But you don’t have to. You are reminded of this regularly. A character you kill might be referenced by someone else later on in the game. Characters you speak to might mention a frightening entity who has come down from above, killing innocents. But this isn’t new. You move on. You reach the end, beat the game. There’s much, much more to it than that, but I’m trying leave this experience as fresh as possible. The first playthrough of Undertale took me about six hours, and I enjoyed every minute.

After winning, the game does something that was surprising when it happened and, in hindsight, is sort of remarkable.

It asks you to play again. With absolutely no killing.

Is this a gimmick? It might look to be. It’s not. It’s where Undertale becomes something truly remarkable.

One of my favorite films about death is The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. Have you seen it? There’s a good chance you haven’t. It was directed by and stars Tommy Lee Jones, and written by Guillermo Arriaga. It generated some buzz at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival, where Jones won best actor and Arriaga won best screenplay. It came and went in February 2006, earned mostly strong reviews, grossed less than $10 million. I believe it’s one of the best films ever made about the living and the dead.

Melquiades Estrada (Julio Cellido) is a rancher in southern Texas. Pete Perkins (Jones) is his work partner and closest friend. Estrada (this isn’t a spoiler, look at the title) is killed senselessly by a border patrol agent (Barry Pepper) who, as men in positions of power and holding weapons that kill often do, fires without regard. The agent attempts to cover up the killing. Pete digs deep, finds out what happened, and exacts justice. A normal telling of this story would involve revenge. Eye for an eye. A killing for a killing. Death as a device. Jones and Arriaga have a better story to tell than that. Pete wants the agent to see what he has done. To honor the life he stole. Pete kidnaps the agent and takes him on a journey to Melquiades’s home town in Mexico. To say any more would be to spoil the quiet richness of this film. In refusing the easier path, it finds truth and beauty. Revenge makes for shallow stories. Pete’s method of justice accomplishes something deeper. He makes sure his friend is not forgotten. He ensures that Melquiades will survive for unforgiving march of time.

On my second playthrough of Undertale, I noticed a detail in one of the first locations. A diary. Its contents were amusing at first. Knowing their full context is impossible without beating the game once. Seeing it again, I felt my spirits lift with a sort of happy recognition, its meaning coming full circle., before falling back down with sadness, knowing its full context.

I found myself being more careful. Not just refusing to fight. Getting to know characters I hadn’t talked to before. Talking my way out of conflicts that I thought could only be resolved through violence. I found myself unlocking new relationships, new stories, and even new places in the game. I was more than happy with the novelty of this experience, of how different the game was with this approach. Then I neared the end.

A character who’d been my adversary in both playthroughs found themselves changed by my actions. They wanted to change. But time was running out for them. I hadn’t fought them. As in life, death comes to all, one way or another. I was given the chance to reach out to them, to forgive them for our differences. They reached out physically and embraced me. I don’t want to let go, they said.

They were the first character to die in this playthrough. I was moved to tears. Screw that. I was sobbing. Games are so often rife with death. Undertale, more than any I’ve ever played, is about the dead, as well as the living. It’s a game where the dead are meant to be remembered. And for the living in their wake, time stops.

Radio Free Universe shares latest single "She's High Again"

Radio Free Universe is an indie-rock band hailing from the city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Their new single "She's High Again" captures two perspectives of the same situation -- the light and carefree chorus is the perspective of “She” and the dark verses are the reality of the situation played by the singer. Listen to the new single "She's High Again" now on Soundcloud and read the interview with Radio Free Universe. Can you talk to us about the inspiration behind your latest single, "She's High Again"? The song is about my guitar player and best friend and his wish. It’s a “be careful what you wish for” kinda story. Some time after his break-up with a rising starlet, we were in our downtown loft making yet another record. He’d tried dating and messing around with girls, but he was frustrated. One night he just came out and said it, ”I wish a really hot girl would just walk in off the street so I wouldn’t have to bother dating.” Well ten minutes later, in walked our subject. They were married within a month. We were all naïve and had no clue she was on meth. We just thought she was “different”. He stuck by her for years through everything you could think of. I found it fascinating. Years later, like a good Yoko, she split up that project right here in Hamilton. When Radio Free Universe decided that this song fit this new project, all those years of observation combined with living in Hamilton to produce the finished product. How has your community contributed to your success? A lot of career musicians live in Hamilton. The city has a vibrant and dynamic music scene. It’s a blessing and a curse. The blessing is you’re always around incredible dedicated music professionals (players, producers, writers, and sound engineers). Mohawk College is constantly developing new young talent. A lot of young bands meet there. It’s a great city to be a musician. You can find live music worth seeing every night. We all get to know each other. We all learn from each other. The curse is simply the saturation of the local market. Listeners are so spoiled. You really have to work hard to get their attention. When artists start to expand their market out of Hamilton it’s amazing to see how well the rest of the world reacts to so much of what we do. I got to pick some of the best people to make this record with. From strings to the guys who joined the band. It’s very similar to living in California back in the day where you had a plethora of raw talent living close to a lot of production facilities. What advice would you give other musicians? Make great music. Make it so you can listen to it and be proud of it for the rest of your life. That’s really hard to do, but you have to. Make sure you connect with the song emotionally. If you almost can’t sing it sometimes because it makes you feel so intense that you almost lose the note, you’ve done it. Someone will listen to it and really connect with you and when they do you will have a listener for life.Next get a real producer.  I’m a total hypocrite here because I was very involved in producing this record on every level, but I fully understand the equipment and the technical application of the recording process. Not because I took some stupid course, but because I worked alongside some great producers. Even with that I still know that I have to have someone who is pushing when I’m not. I have a co-producer for that -- really important. If you don’t know anything about recording, don’t start -- just play your song and your instruments. Learn how to perform it perfectly then get a producer.  Listen to music you like and start looking. If you hear something from another artist that blows you away, find out who they worked with and work with them. For many, thinking you’re capable of engineering and producing your own record is the kiss of death. Sure, you will eventually make something good but it will take you a decade or more. Save yourself the trouble and pay someone reputable to make your record -- it’s your career.  People pay $100,000 to go to school; you can pay $15k to make a real record. Figure it out. There is no easy way these days -- you have to kill for it. While you wait for that to happen. Just post yourself (providing it’s great) playing live or performing acoustically. Record it with your phone and get it out there.  Build your fan base like that if you have to. Yes people really like live raw sounding stuff because they know they are getting that when it scrolls up their feed. These are distinct things. One of my biggest problems is self image. I’ve always been self-conscious about that crap. Get over it and get out there. People will love you for being real as long as you’re great. Describe to our audience your music-making process. It’s voodoo. I mean after writing for so long it’s not changed too much. I get less impressed with myself, which has really helped. Songs can come in many ways but usually it’s a melody I hear somewhere. Like in my dream or driving, when I’m not doing music specifically it just hits. I always drop what I’m doing and document the idea. It’s like a whisper from the other side. From there I’ll go to the studio to bounce the idea off Mark (co-producer) or a band member and just start working our asses off. We aim for a track that carries itself with no production -- one instrument and the vocal. Then the games begin.  Once a song is started, we usually leave it up on the board until it’s done. (Yes I said board. Having a real studio with a full-frame class A console at your disposal is really the greatest thing in the world.) How did it feel when you released this new music? Amazing! I’m really proud of the songs on this record. I had to dig deep to make something I could listen to perpetually. That meant rediscovering basic things like what made me want to make music to begin with. We referenced our favourite music and tried to make something that could be played alongside it. If you could collaborate with any musician/band, who would it be? And why? I have gotten to work with some amazing people. I’ve been around some of my heroes and I’ve tried to absorb their “thing” and make pieces of it my own. There are a couple of people that I would die to work with. Dr. Dre. for one -- I’m a huge fan. I would love to see his process and try to get my head around how he builds a track. I think I would get so much from that. I’m sure it’s very different than what I’ve already got in my bag. He’s so not hit and miss. He always nails his productions. I also want to work with Quincy Jones. Especially the younger version because I love the idea of working 20 hrs a day on something. I want to learn his process first hand. I think that would be humbling. What first got you interested in music? The vacuum. My parents made me vacuum all the time. And young -- like 7 or 8 years old. When I heard the sound of it I would hum to it. I discovered dissonance and harmony and tone. I was able to sing well very early on. The very first time I sang in front of people, I was in grade six. From that point on I knew I would be a musician. It wasn’t even a question. Read the full article

Covert Narcissists Use These 3 Sneaky Techniques To Disarm And Demean You

We’re all familiar with loud, bold, and overly confident overt narcissists. These types of narcissists are visibly grandiose, aggressively posturing their superiority for all to see. They may be vain and somatic, overly focused on their appearance, or they may be on the more cerebral end, contemptuously putting down anyone and everyone who threatens their so-called intellectual superiority.

Fortunately, overt narcissists are usually easy to spot and hopefully easier to avoid investing in. Covert narcissists, on the other hand, present new challenges; they can appear meek, innocent, introverted, shy, charitable, even humble at first glance. They can be disarmingly seductive, even loving, personable and gracious.

Yet beneath their quieter nature and seemingly sensitive façade lurks a contempt and sense of entitlement that is ultimately even more harmful simply because it is so startling and traumatizing to the victims who bear witness to it. Their tactics work to diminish, demean and sabotage their victims behind the scenes – which is why their manipulation and exploitation can leave their loved ones blindsided and reeling from the unexpected psychological violence they subject them to. Here are three manipulation techniques that covert narcissists use and tips on how to stay grounded if you encounter one:

1. Mixed put-downs, double meanings and coded language. A mixed put-down occurs when a covert narcissist is threatened by someone else’s intelligence, accomplishments, status, appearance or any other resources he or she may covet. It involves throwing the victim off the pedestal while also offering potential for getting back on it. In order to put their victims down while still evading accountability, the covert narcissist will first provide a sweet compliment, followed by a backhanded “slap” of sorts (ex. “Wow Mary, you’ve really lost weight! Too bad about the sagging skin, huh?”).

This can also occur vice versa – the narcissist may first attack with an overly critical stance, only to seemingly ‘soften’ the blow with a crumb of a compliment to create confusion in the victim (ex. “You do know you’re completely wrong about that, right? Well, you’re hardworking, at least, I’ll give you that.”). This will allow their put-down to appear more like a legitimate critique rather than an excuse to tear you down unnecessarily. It “trains” and conditions the victim over time to seek the narcissist’s approval and validation.

Covert narcissists can even get creative and send a mixed message by contradicting their seemingly innocuous words with a devious undercurrent. For example, this may include giving you a compliment with a condescending tone of voice, relaying a humorous “joke” at your expense with a contemptuous look, using a startling gesture or provocative facial expression or saying something that can easily have two meanings (one innocent, and the other, abusive). Of course, they will do everything possible to convince you that they never “meant” to communicate the more malicious meaning, but the underlying undercurrent of something deeper is always present in such an interaction.

They may also engage in what I like to call “coded” language. This can involve putting you down in front of others by poking fun at something they know you’re sensitive about, but others may not realize is a vulnerability of yours.

Much like an inside joke, the knowledge of how this comment affects you is shared between you both, but unlike an inside joke, it is meant to undermine you rather than build rapport. It also serves to evoke reactions in you that may seem excessive to any outsider looking in. This is a way for them to get away with their abusive behavior and provoke the victim to react in public. They then use their victim’s reactions to prove the victim’s “instability” while casting themselves as the innocent party.

To understand why covert narcissists employ these methods, remember that their ability to prey upon a victim’s uncertainty allows them to create a sophisticated “Gaslighting Effect.”

The victim is led to so much conflict and uncertainty about who the really abuser really is that he or she is compelled to find a sense of closure or resolution. Essentially, the victim reduces his or her own cognitive dissonance and confusion by choosing to “believe” in the abuser’s version of events. Slowly but surely, these covert put-downs, coded messages and ambiguous comments become integrated into a warped reality that the covert manipulator creates for his or her victim.

TIP When encountering a put-down like this, avoid reacting to the narcissist’s hypercriticism as much as possible. Instead, validate your own accomplishments and leave the conversation as soon as possible. The more emotionally reactive you are to a put-down, the more likely the covert narcissist will store that information and use the same exact tactic again in order to provoke you.

If you react to their hurtful tactics and coded language in public, rest assured they will use your reactions as “proof” that you are somehow unstable. Keep your cool in public whenever possible and if possible, address it to them in private (though, it is likely they will never own up to it) if you have to.

If you are feeling baffled as to whether or not you’ve experienced a covert put-down, compare the way the narcissist has reacted to your success to the way other, healthier people in your life have. Chances are, the healthy people in your life congratulated and celebrated you in whatever arena the narcissist is currently putting you down in. This is a sign that the narcissist’s criticism stems not from helpfulness, but rather from their pathological envy.

2. The great diversion. The covert narcissist does whatever is possible to distract you from the fact that they are putting you down in the first place. That means that they will create all sorts of diversions to get you from staying grounded in your own sense of what has just happened. This serves to disguise their malicious intent to gain control and power over you by keeping you in a state of perpetually walking on eggshells. Instead of focusing on holding them accountable for their behavior, they get you to refocus on your own behavior, personality, or fabricated flaws.

One second, they may be making a harsh, cruel comment about your body, and the next second, they’re being disarmingly sweet and complimentary about how slender you are, as well as how you “read too deeply into things” when you express your confusion about the sudden “switch.” Another minute, they’re planning a romantic evening out with you, and the next, they’re blaming you for expecting that of them in the first place – even if it was their idea to treat you in the first place. By intermittently switching from pain to pleasure, from dissatisfaction to loving admiration, they are able to hide the fact that they’re constantly shifting blame onto you.

This is how they “divert” from the fact that they’re putting you down and setting you up for failure by constantly shifting the goal posts. It is also how they change the subject rapidly when they are confronted on their shady behavior. Phrases such as, “I am not going to argue with you,” or “This isn’t worth pursuing” is common when they are called out on their insidious tactics.  No matter what you do or don’t do, the narcissist will rarely be satisfied and you will never be satisfied by their inability to ever take responsibility.

TIP Stay true to what you experienced and observe the long-term patterns of behavior rather than what the narcissist claims to be doing or not doing. A narcissist’s longer-term predatory behavior will tell you far more than their contradictory words ever will. When a narcissist tries to “divert” you from the main topic by pointing out something irrelevant you did or said, or tries to stonewall you by ending the conversation even before it’s had a chance to begin, repeat the facts, stay focused on the issue and end the interaction without giving into their gaslighting attempts.

3. Tunnel vision minimization. This is when the narcissist develops “tunnel vision” by hyperfocusing on something irrelevant or unrelated to minimize something you’ve accomplished, are proud of or something they know is considered an asset of yours. If you’ve graduated with a Master’s, the covert narcissist might start demanding to know when you plan to get your Ph.D; if you recently signed the lease on your dream apartment, they might change the subject to something in your neighborhood that seems unsavory or mundane. To a narcissist, there is always a way to get under your skin and inside of your head.

The presence of minimization can usually help you identify who the narcissist is in a group setting; while others are congratulating you on a job well done, the narcissist is often lurking in the corner, sulking and ready to burst your bubble like a needle to a balloon with a backhanded compliment, excessive critique or a “helpful” obnoxious reminder of something they perceive you’re lacking.

Remember: when a covert narcissist causes you to feel insecure, uncertain and unbalanced, it is often because they don’t want to deal with their own emotional issues and the fact that they may not be as special or unique as they desperately want to believe. This is where the narcissist continually passes off any unwanted feelings onto their victims. Minimization and projection act as self-serving tactics for the narcissist to avoid the discrepancy between the grandiose, false self and the true self.

TIP Resist the minimization and maximize your self-validation. Instead of focusing on the narcissist’s envious attempts to minimize you, refocus on the people who are celebrating you. Realize that in the narcissist’s minimization is a secret confession of their own sense of ineptitude and entitlement; they want to be exactly where you are and have what you have but they know they never will. You really are that threatening to their false sense of superiority.

Most importantly, celebrate yourself. Self-validation and self-love are two of the most powerful tools you can have when conquering the sabotage of a covert narcissist. TC mark

This article first appeared on Psych Central as 3 Sneaky Techniques Covert Narcissists Use to Disarm and Demean You.

By Shahida Arabi

Shahida is the author of Power: Surviving and Thriving After Narcissistic Abuse and the poetry book She Who Destroys the Light. She is a staff writer at Thought Catalog.

Source: https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2018/02/3-sneaky-techniques-covert-narcissists-use-to-disarm-and-demean-you/?utm_campaign=related&utm_source=thoughtcatalog&utm_term=shahida-arabi

What my anxiety is, what it feels like and how it complicates my life

This will be the first actual post on this new blog about my mental health problems. I decided to move away from Facebook because there are some people on there who would prefer not to actually see the various things that I am going through, or who get upset when I discuss the part they have played within my mental health issues. My hope by moving to here is that I will have a greater amount of freedom to be honest about my experiences, and to also decrease the drama I am currently experiencing within my life. 

Anyway, this first post is going to be about my anxiety, what it feels like and how it complicates my life in some ways that you may not be aware of. 

Anxiety is basically a state of being where you constantly feel under psychological, emotional or physical attack. What this means is that you live with the threat of some kind of external discomfort or violence, and your brain reacts accordingly. 

Now, when a supposedly neuro-typical person (they don’t exist, but the concept is useful for this discussion) experiences an attack a number of things happen:

Psychologically, they process the events and typically this activates the fight, flight, friend, freeze or flop response. This means that the events cause them to want to argue or respond in a violent manner, to run away, to befriend the person causing them the discomfort or being violent towards them, to go into a state of shock, or to just completely breakdown and be unable to do anything. 

Emotionally, the response tends to be anger, fear, bargaining, numbness or terror, or an overwhelming sense of your emotions starting to go out of control. 

Physically, the person may lash out with violence or unkind words, they may flee the scene in an attempt to stop the situation from happening or progressing, they may try to reconcile, fix or apologise for a situation they are not responsible for breaking, they make curl up on the floor or hug themselves, or they may just start sobbing uncontrollably. 

Of course, none of these is a definitive list of the ways in which a person might react. There are numerous other ways in which a person could respond to the situation, too. Further, these responses tend to escalate when the anxiety becomes outright panic. 

The triggers can be many, they can be few, they can be consistent or contextual, caused by circumstances or caused by particular people. What can trigger you one time may not do so on other occasions, and what has never triggered you before might do suddenly one day. Anxiety attacks are unpredictable and horrific. 

As for how I feel during an anxiety attack, the one trait that tends to be the same throughout every triggering and attack is what I will call the surge. The surge is a surge of emotions that go out of control which seriously impair my ability to control my response to outside stimulus. Most of the time, I can control these surges, but recent events which have seriously harmed me, my sense of self and my sense of security have made it harder for me to do so. 

Let’s start with anger: this will often manifest, in me, with me getting upset with inanimate objects and smashing them up or throwing them when I am on my own. I haven’t done it in the presence of another person since childhood. If not lashing out at something that has triggered me, when it is a person I will lash out verbally or via a letter or email. This may not be considered a good thing, but is a necessary cathartic step - if it has reached a point when my anxiety has resulted in me becoming angry, then that person has either seriously wronged me, or I believe that they have, and the only way to counter this is by communicating with them. 

Next is fear: fear is probably the most common response in me. Being a queer person who doesn’t identify with the gender I was assigned at birth, I am constantly fearful of the reactions of those around me to just who I am. There are a great many silly people who think that my existence is somehow a serious threat to there existence, and as a consequence behave in a many designed to threaten, demean or upset me. Predictably, I am more likely to run away or hide myself in situations such as this. 

Following on from that, we have bargaining: this is probably the worst of them all, as people tend to see you as weak and pathetic when you try to actually fix problems in a mutually beneficial way rather than perpetuating hatred, fear and anger. I have always tried to reconcile with people as deep down I value those in my life and want everyone to be happy and positive... though, of late, I have learned that some people are desperate to hold onto victimhood and anger at the expense of everything else. With children, we tell them to shake and make up. With adults, we let wounds fester and scab, but they never really fade because we can’t help but keep scratching them. 

Terror, next: terror is different to fear because fear is the act of worrying that something may happen or may be happening, in this context, whereas terror is when your brain is actually registering it as happening at that very moment. And this is an important distinction that everyone misunderstands about mental health: whether it is happening or not is far less important than whether the person perceives it is happening. For me, there have been times when I have over-reacted to things. I admit that. It is true. However, if someone else just screams at you that you are overreacting and your in such a bad headspace that you’re experiencing absolute terror, then they are to blame for dismissing your experience. Especially as, in this situation, the person suffering from this terror enters a more malleable state where the people around them can influence their thoughts and feelings for the worse - what Naomi Klein talks about in The Shock Doctrine - or the better. Kindness is required here, but many people are too wrapped up in their own negative feelings to offer it. 

The last two I will do together as they are connected: the first is the idea that your emotions go out of control. I have had anxiety attacks so bad that my emotions did go out of control, with wildly contradictory emotions happening as a consequence, such as laughing as I’m sobbing in grief, or having manic episodes when something bad has happened, or getting to the state where I’m just reacting to what is going on around me without being able to control my feelings. This is genuinely terrifying. Further, it is caused not by a trigger but by an escalation trigger. This is what I would call being triggered and then having somebody further trigger you so that the feelings intensify and worsen, and this can happen multiple times. Imagine a friend suddenly snapping at you just after an anxiety attack has started, or someone behaving in a threatening or intimidating manner - the situation escalates, but inside your head it escalates more and more and more, so that even the limited fight, flight, etc. response starts to go haywire. 

And this, of course, brings us to numbness, because if your emotions going absolutely bonkers like a Gummi Bear bouncing here and there and everywhere is so scary, of course your mind will try to stop that from happening. Your mind might be your worst enemy a lot of the time, but it is also one of your best friends and doesn’t want you to get hurt. So, you become emotionally numb and very cold at times - indifferent to scenes of excess stress and problems. With me, I tend to become flippant and disengage when this happens because it is far better than actually getting trapped in an emotionally distressing loop. Make some witty comment, offer a pithy solution, and then go and play video games and try not to get involved. 

And, like a one-armed bandit, I cannot rely on any of these responses to any situation. What comes up can be entirely random. 

Now, all of those are emotional and behavioural responses. The last thing I would like to discuss is what happens to my physical health when I have a prolonged period of anxiety. 

Because the body thinks it is under attack, it does a number of interesting things. 

Firstly, it creates a sense of heightened awareness. This is something viewers of Sherlock probably think is great, but they would be very wrong. In real life, you don’t see a handful of things and the possibilities shrink to one obvious answer - instead, data washes over you so much as to become essentially meaningless. Along with the constant running dialogue in your head, this means that you become very, very confused and the filters we employ in our day-to-day life to just construct the simplistic narratives that make up our lives break down completely. You second guess until you convince yourself people hate you whilst simultaneously knowing they don’t hate you, and this cognitive dissonance becomes your new normal. 

Secondly, your brain floods with chemicals designed to make sure that you can spot and fend off attacks. This means you are constantly looking for attacks which might not even be there. This can lead to arguments, misdirected anger, and much more. 

Thirdly, due to this state of worry you can tend to under-eat at times and then over-eat to make up for it. Being anxious actually makes me feel sick, physically sick, but this also means that I then don’t eat for extended periods. When I realise I haven’t eaten in 18 hours, I then gorge myself to make up for it - not enjoying the food, the feeling afterwards, and often eating comfort foods or drinking alcohol to manage the feelings of upset and inadequacy that I feel as a consequence. 

Fourthly, almost every muscle in my body becomes taut as if in preparation for an attack. It is a state of constant preparedness for fighting of some kind. However, as I have been in a state of anxiety for TWO MONTHS, I am now extremely tired the entire time, but not sleeping properly because my brain i constantly fearing an upcoming attack of some kind. So, instead of just getting tired and sleeping, I’m getting tired, not sleeping, eventually missing most of the normal day due to this cycle, and then ending up repeating it again and again throughout the day. I am now completely shattered, mentally, physically and emotionally as a consequence of this period of anxiety. However, this has also caused actual health problems to worsen as a consequence, such as the pain in my legs from a car accident years ago which worsen with my anxiety as they are connected to my muscles.  

Fifthly, it also causes me to grind my jaws, which has serious dental problems as a consequence. 

So, that is what my anxiety is like for me. 

The Kids are Our Future

The Children are Our Future... so what does “The Baarn ... a ...Baby” issue say to them

Roll out the song cue…"The kids are our future, teach them well, and show them the way. Conflate with “Baby, baby it's a wild world, it's hard to get by without a smile”.

In my humble opinion (”IMHO”) the overall direction of society has followed a consistent historical trajectory of self-interest and hypocrisy. Improvement may not be demonstrable while recognizing improvements in intellect, knowledge base, or technology. Different folk will cherry-pick whatever period of mankind resonates with them, and their particular narrative. That can change easily to whatever is expedient at any time, situation, or audience.

So, what are the most important issues IMHO that today’s adults are leaving our next generations:

1. Climate Change, and its impact on economies, prosperity, population movements and unequal impacts on countries or continents.

2. Inequality in Society and growing disparities are certain to challenge the Western Democratic Model. The constant challenges from alternatives cannot be naively discounted, as appears the norm.

3. Expanding Debt, both public and private, and all its trailing issues. Yes, too many to detail at the moment (”ATM”).

4. Intangible expenses, such as pollution, climate change, and all changes in technology, social cohesion or perceptions of a good life. How they are measured, and how they are communicated to an economically unsophisticated populace. The merits of GNI over GDP is a meaningful starting point.

5. Whatever issues an observant dog, of sufficient mental bandwidth, can sniff out?

Now to “The Baarn…a…Baby issue” (”BaB”) as an aphorism, metaphor and parable (”AMP”) to today’s media beat up as a distraction, and competitor for limited public attention spans, when compared to my list of critical issues.  

For future reference, any AMP requires the background lyrics, soundtrack and visuals by AC/DC to their song ‘TNT’).

IMHO ABC program “Insiders” is the best current affairs offering ATM. The 18/02/18 episode devoted much time to BaB, so why?

Gerard H said words to the effect of - a furious statement by the PM initiated an equally emotional response by Barnaby Joyce (”B”). To the less involved, other side of the brain, thinkers such as GH “fury is best handled privately”. Wow, what does that mean to a dog? My perception is whatever you want it to mean. Any wide statement can be interpreted by anyone for whatever narrative they seek to perpetuate. So, surprise, politicians and media commentators from the left and right start bickering. Any subset of otherwise “emotionally intelligent” folk share many values of narcissism, cognitive dissonance, willful blindness, hypocrisy, hubris, self-interest for the greater good of the tribe ("my filters").  IMHO, Pollies are just pecking at the seeds as a usual course of conduct. I suggest a good lick to discern the pheromones and relevant neurotransmitters being released.  

The PM has a strong view on marriage. That may be limited due to his success at meeting his true soul mate. I often see Lucy and Malcolm walking, hand in hand, completely at ease with each other's company and on display for all to see. Half or more of the population should be in envy. The media have many examples of opposing examples such as Donald Trump and other partners. I refer to this President as Agent Orange (”AO”). Has he followed precedent and introduced some dog sense of values into The White House?    

I submit that the PM has limited experience of family breakdown, or Family Court of Australia ("FCA") matters. I describe this mental vacuum as no personal skin in the game. Accordingly, the PM should stay out of issues, such as BaB, that he is largely ignorant of. An empathetic dog can construe B’s statement and use of the emotive word “inept” in that context. Maybe it is partially true in the entire context of FCA issues that B is currently submerged by. This is not suitable material for political glibness, and I repeat a matter that the PM has no skin in the game. Strangely I have heaps of it. When the subject of divorce is raised in discussion with acquaintances, and lesser relationships, I mention my master's circumstances in this quagmire having a wife who is a more competent lawyer than him. It is unsurprising that the conversation mostly stopped, until a circuit breaker was introduced. That is an example of excessive skin in the game. Perhaps better and further particulars may be relevant in another blog.

The AMP of “oil and water” was raised to elucidate the entire context of many contradictions encompassing personal matters, or family issues, and politics. Agreement with the outstanding broad-brush AMP, yet where is the public interest test for any Government ("G") funded person or position? The timing of the introduction of “The New Code” comes into question and may be the Emperor’s New Clothes. It cannot apply to B, either retrospectively or due to the fact that the PM has limited ability to direct leadership decisions for its Nationals coalition partner. However, the timing was a barb that B, as a compromised individual experiencing family trauma, could not ignore. The lack of foresee-ability shown by the PM to this certainty is breathtaking and disappointing to my master. Furthermore, this distraction from real policy making for the public good was fodder for an opposition attempting to gain traction amid good economic and employment news.  

I submit that the decision for B to take a week off to consider his options was appropriate and necessary in the entire political and FCA context. His priority ATM should be to manage as best as possible the vexed issue of his children’s welfare and the future of his new union, including a yet to be born baby. FCA papers, and counselors, discuss the theory that divorce proceeding initiate various lengths of temporary psychoses in about 80% of applicants. Therefore, I submit that B has a good chance of being affected, especially when conflated with the extreme pressures of politics.

The optics of whether B should have accepted free rent from a mate is more political chaff. Need and greed, overlaid by timing and other distractions, are relevant issues for subjective navel gazing. The journalists with their usual premised questioning techniques have managed to obtain a narrative of different ‘facts’ from B and the friendly landlord. Wow, what a revelation? Seek, often and repeatedly enough, and you will find ‘gold’. Any dog knows that you have to sniff out the entire turf, just to cover the field of possibilities.

That luminary social commentator, Karl Stephanovic ("Karl"), raised doubts about the PM’s possible different treatment of B compared to previous Ministers. I suspect he may be a cat lover. Karl alleged that the PM knew of all manner of mischief, while taking advantage of all the investigative instruments of State. This was likely to have been, months before us mere mortals were informed by the ever-vigilant media. The argument raised by one hypocritical politician, or media commentator, against other equally morally compromised members is that you must be consistent. I submit that Karl has recently been in a similar situation to B, and therefore in my doggy notion of fairness has standing to comment. The issue is likely to have tickled his nerve on the hypocrisy exhibited by the PM and many other journalists and Pollies.  

In summary, I suggest that asking a Pollie to be consistent is akin to asking a flossy such as Kim K to justify engaging in a sexual act on social media for added exposure. OK, perhaps a mental stretch, yet still an intellectual departure for a nuanced PM. Are the Nationals actually unable to remove a leader to the standards expected of effective politicians? The optics of going into a by-election in a Conservative jurisdiction with a leader who has left his family and is now living rent free with his pregnant former staffer requires some review by the local voters. It is not a loyalty to the National Party issue, or the hidden elephant of the G’s tenuously hold on power, yet a question of political judgement. These may be watershed moments when a 24/7 social media enabled electorate require greater transparency from the PM for appropriate information to determine his ability to perform the job.

Legislating personal liaisons of any nature between consenting adults, including the specter of a moral police on a Monotheist Iranian or Saudi model, should appropriately raise the hackles of most Western Libertarians. The opportunities for abuse, conflicts of interest, and by whom are too obvious to require review. However, the matter of moving a well-paid position that already existed in the Nations party office to that of senior ministers is well within the public interest test. Note, not a created position as touted by unsympathetic media outlets, yet the variation to salaries is also relevant. Exposing hypocrisy may be embarrassing to both the accuser and accused. The legal analogy in Equity is that if you seek relief, then you must approach with clean hands.  

Subjective review, and Key Performance Indicators (”KPI”), for which job are merely far too salacious matters for a dog. Geoff asked me if a previous standard existed regarding the issue of moving jobs to shield B or others from political harm? My assessment was a conceded pass to a vague and subjective concept, requiring a tasty bone to mull over the marrow. The issue of a possible breach of existing Ministerial Conduct wrt informing the PM or others is worthy of greater scrutiny. The fact that B was not an active Minister at the time of job movements, moving into free accommodation or when relevant persons should be fully informed has some traction. No journalist to my knowledge has raised the issue of relevant timing. Requirements for a possible breach of conduct by B resurfaced immediately after a position of trust was engaged, and more so, if re-engaged. The reasonable person test kicks in, with a greater expectation due to the previous experience. It is easier to sniff a butt when the tail is raised.  

The new lady journalist to the Insiders panel, Annika S raised further hypocrisy when cherry-picking B’s words on the campaign trails. Specifically, B advising folk to move to the country to obtain cheaper rent was a zinger of Bill Short- of- Integrity optics. Perhaps a well-paid Government Minister could afford to pay a friend a sensible rent, even if he offers otherwise. Conflicting recollections of negotiations, invitations to treat, leading to oral contractual relations and past conversations are emerging. I confess to being a cynical person in relation to the conduct of all business-folk, especially regarding tax minimization. Therefore, should some cunning person or the ATO sniff out if the ‘landlord’ providing free rent to B was negatively gearing this particular complex, or his wider property portfolio, within his tax affairs?

The observation recalling the 2016 election tussle with Tony Windsor was a true political gem or nauseating to a right-minded person or their dog. The “running off with Julia barb” was regurgitated. The salacious suggestion that Tony was engaging in an illicit extra marital affair with a former PM was outside The Pale. Yes, it offended most of my value set and alerted all my sensory filters. Maybe, B's canine pals can provide some relevant insights?

The vexed issue of the scarce resource of water and conflating such with the performance of the (Federal) Murray Darling Water Authority and other State entities was salient and relevant political inquiry. IMHO, this is the really meaty issue that B should be answering in regard to a waste of taxpayers' funds. Geoff assures me that the quantum of money and political machinations far exceed the tantalizing and salacious content of BaB. When he asked me if we could chase this simmering saga into another blog, I merely opened my mouth, stuck out my tongue to taste the air, and wagged my tail in approval.

Mike Bower’s photo zooming in on B, with other Pollies out of focus was potentiated by a musical option. The cartoon of pigs covered in crap was identified by Mark Knight as worthy - of a culinary award IMHO.

DISASSEMBLING THE MUTUAL EXCLUSION OF THE EXISTENCE OF EMOTION AND REASON

One Saturday morning in late September, I was fatigued for myriad reasons, but I had to go with my mother (one of those reasons) to buy fabric for a project. Thankfully, the sewing shop delighted me. I thumbed the material on every bolt, considering carefully considering which I could fashion into the most authentic, joy-inducing pair of pajama pants possible. Isolated from my mother but longing for a second opinion, I sent some photos of various patterns to my darling Joe--an intellectual, appreciative of art. He’s also quite cynical, so I wasn’t expecting abundant enthusiasm. Realistically, I was playing a compatibility game based on how seriously he took my interests, especially as he [internalized misogyny] would likely deem this a sort of frivolous task. But we were talking anyway, so I assumed the risk. His response, for lack of a better word, gutted me: “All due respect, I give so few shits which of 5 nearly identical types of fabric you're going to make your own pajama pants out of. Pick one.” ...There were seasonal scenes, public-transit-upholstery-type patterns, abundant florals, and I was leaning towards a flannel material showing a collage of stripes, pinecones, and teacups. He chose none of those, so I told him I would talk to him later. (Though we both knew there was a text hurricane brewing on my end, ready to drench his behavior in cold, salty analysis.) He said sorry, but followed that with, “Maybe that's a good necessary line. I gotta be mean every once in awhile.”

Right, Joe. That is most certainly the way you should go about this relationship. Most people love to feel foolish about things they enjoy. I felt deja vu. Earlier in the week, a friend tried to convince me that the unnecessarily punitive actions of our teacher were part of a larger effort to “prepare us for a dark, confusing world.” But...why? First of all, that is not part of his job description. Second, that’s paradoxical: is he preparing us for a cruel world or do his actions perpetuate the cruelty we’re supposed to overcome? I am sick of people rationalizing negative reinforcement as a means of maintaining a “realistic” perception of life. How is it helpful or fair to me in the moment to recognize my pain while simultaneously suggesting I temper my emotions, accept reason, and be grateful for a life lesson?

The relationship between emotion and reason is incredibly challenging to balance. A phrase from childhood plays over and over in my head--“[She/he] didn’t mean to hurt you...”--straight from the young adult camp counselor/soccer coach handbook as a reasonable response for a frazzled child. Realistically, kids shouldn’t be treated like victims if they haven’t been victimized. When Coach Mark says those six little words, he is simply pointing out a misunderstanding: an attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance of being harmed by a trusted peer. It’s not an unfair approach, but children don’t have developed analytical skills. When I reflect on how I absorbed this message as a child, (though I could not put it into these words,) I felt something more along the lines of confusion about the validity of my own claim and embarrassment for having hysterically disrupted an activity. My feelings were acknowledged, but not validated. I couldn’t really process them since an elder had just effectively convinced me that I shouldn’t have had them in the first place.

Americans, particularly, are clearly fascinated by emotion but are known for being repressed. We love dramatic TV, cry reading Marley and me, and have an obsessively loving and fanatical celebrity culture; but a week ago, while lamenting about my darling Joe, my friend’s European cousin noted that “American boys” are very culturally assimilated yet quite individually insensitive. I’m FASCINATED by her observation, for it is literally in the foundation of our cultural sensibilities. As psychoanalysis became increasingly popular in western culture in the 20th century, the leading American psychological school was Behaviorism, a far more emotionally-detached, sociological approach to psychology. Behaviorists stressed observation of environment/interaction as opposed to introspection, and behaviorist models are the leading experimental models in American psychology. This explains our tendency to mitigate conflict by straying from an emphasis on individual emotion, encouraging people to re-evaluate their surroundings and think critically about if they truly have a reason to be upset.

It is not my place to say that it’s completely futile to rationally approach emotional situations. My darling Joe cites the cure for a breakup as “objectivity and time.” However, behaviorist principles are kind of reductive of the power of emotion; in fact, contemporary researchers have actually come to the conclusion that our decisions are pretty much exclusively driven by emotion, and we only have control over how we later rationalize those choices (or don’t.) This is cemented by the work of Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, who found that people with damage to the part of the brain that generates emotion had greatly impaired decision-making skills.  Getting over a breakup is not objective; it involves the brain growing tired of being sad, perhaps even becoming distracted by a different emotional task. Rarely can it autonomously expel the sadness through critical thinking.

My therapist tells me that is simply not worth my time and energy to try to change the behavior of those around me. First though, I want to entertain my desire to have a heart-to-heart with Machiavelli...known for his declaration that it is safer to be feared than loved, (if not both.) His use of the word “safer” reveals that, as opposed to unscrupulous, Machiavellian values could more sympathetically be described as overly-protective. He asserts that men are, in general, "ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, [and] covetous." Men with those qualities could pose valid threats, I suppose: thieves are covetous, traitors are cowardly, and  killers are fickle. But those aren’t natural traits, more like emotional problems: economic insecurity, political/civil insecurity, and emotional/social insecurity, respectively. In a discussion about The Prince  in my European history class, many of my classmates sympathize with Machiavelli, contending [some of] his views as “reasonable/realistic/rational.” I would sympathize with him rather by admitting his fears were valid, for there is a difference between sympathy and vindication. I am hesitant to rationalize his attitudes because at some point those rationalizations degrade, become a bit more tempered, and infect other belief systems. (Ex: I see Machiavellianism  in the types of principles adopted by 2nd-Amendment supporters: “everyone is safer is if more of us have guns, anyone has the right and sometimes a duty to exterminate a threat, etc”)

I didn’t know how to explain to my therapist why I always feel the impulse to correct and sensitize people’s behavior. It became very clear to me as I was watching Viceland’s Hate Thy Neighbor. They were studying the rise of far-right nationalist party, Azov, in the Ukraine; they had they same old grievances as every white supremacist group in the world. However, watching footage of one of their demonstrations in Kyiv, I was intrigued by their chants. [All translated from russian,] the men of course got their catharsis shouting about hating enemies and martial dominance, but later I heard phrases along the lines of “..Restore my weathered soul..Temper my spirit..” and more. This demonstration was literally a cry for help, they are admitting to being broken. I am by no means suggesting we sympathize with white supremacists;  as a white person who recognizes racism as my problem, I have noticed that reason doesn’t really work in dismantling their ideology, I’m interested in treating racism (or any supremacist ideology) like an emotional disorder. Perhaps we stray from camp counselor tactics, acknowledging the extreme emotion but nullifying its existence. A cruel world isn’t measured quantitatively  by hate groups, a cruel world is marked by indifference/neglect; it is one in which we give up the effort to gain understanding of even the most depraved characters.

SO, though it irritates him, this is why I can’t help but try to change the fatalistic mind of my dear Joe.. I can’t make him stop teasing me, but I won't let him downplay my emotions in the name of reason. After all, he revealed to me later that he did not mean to snap at me in the sewing shop...he simply had a headache and was frustrated by his fantasy football league...oh poor, sweet Joe.