as someone who has obviously done extensive research on the topic i would like to present to you all...dyketennant's "which david tennant character are you" uquiz

race & culture in fandom

For the past decade, English language fanwriting culture post the days of LiveJournal and Strikethrough has been hugely shaped by a handful of megafandoms that exploded across AO3 and tumblr – I’m talking Supernatural, Teen Wolf, Dr Who, the MCU, Harry Potter, Star Wars, BBC Sherlock – which have all been overwhelmingly white. I don’t mean in terms of the fans themselves, although whiteness also figures prominently in said fandoms: I mean that the source materials themselves feature very few POC, and the ones who are there tended to be done dirty by the creators.

Periodically, this has led POC in fandom to point out, extremely reasonably, that even where non-white characters do get central roles in various media properties, they’re often overlooked by fandom at large, such that the popular focus stays primarily on the white characters. Sometimes this happened (it was argued) because the POC characters were secondary to begin with and as such attracted less fan devotion (although this has never stopped fandoms from picking a random white gremlin from the background cast and elevating them to the status of Fave); at other times, however, there has been a clear trend of sidelining POC leads in favour of white alternatives (as per Finn, Poe and Rose Tico being edged out in Star Wars shipping by Hux, Kylo and Rey). I mention this, not to demonize individuals whose preferred ships happen to involve white characters, but to point out the collective impact these trends can have on POC in fandom spaces: it’s not bad to ship what you ship, but that doesn’t mean there’s no utility in analysing what’s popular and why through a racial lens.

All this being so, it feels increasingly salient that fanwriting culture as exists right now developed under the influence and in the shadow of these white-dominated fandoms – specifically, the taboo against criticizing or critiquing fics for any reason. Certainly, there’s a hell of a lot of value to Don’t Like, Don’t Read as a general policy, especially when it comes to the darker, kinkier side of ficwriting, and whether the context is professional or recreational, offering someone direct, unsolicited feedback on their writing style is a dick move. But on the flipside, the anti-criticism culture in fanwriting has consistently worked against fans of colour who speak out about racist tropes, fan ignorance and hurtful portrayals of living cultures. Voicing anything negative about works created for free is seen as violating a core rule of ficwriting culture – but as that culture has been foundationally shaped by white fandoms, white characters and, overwhelmingly, white ideas about what’s allowed and what isn’t, we ought to consider that all critical contexts are not created equal.

Right now, the rise of C-drama (and K-drama, and J-drama) fandoms is seeing a surge of white creators – myself included – writing fics for fandoms in which no white people exist, and where the cultural context which informs the canon is different to western norms. Which isn’t to say that no popular fandoms focused on POC have existed before now – K-pop RPF and anime fandoms, for example, have been big for a while. But with the success of The Untamed, more western fans are investing in stories whose plots, references, characterization and settings are so fundamentally rooted in real Chinese history and living Chinese culture that it’s not really possible to write around it. And yet, inevitably, too many in fandom are trying to do just that, treating respect for Chinese culture or an attempt to understand it as optional extras – because surely, fandom shouldn’t feel like work. If you’re writing something for free, on your own time, for your own pleasure, why should anyone else get to demand that you research the subject matter first?

Because it matters, is the short answer. Because race and culture are not made-up things like lightsabers and werewolves that you can alter, mock or misunderstand without the risk of hurting or marginalizing actual real people – and because, quite frankly, we already know that fandom is capable of drawing lines in the sand where it chooses. When Brony culture first reared its head (hah), the online fandom for My Little Pony – which, like the other fandoms we’re discussing here, is overwhelmingly female – was initially welcoming. It felt like progress, that so many straight men could identify with such a feminine show; a potential sign that maybe, we were finally leaving the era of mainstream hypermasculine fandom bullshit behind, at least in this one arena. And then, in pretty much the blink of an eye, things got overwhelmingly bad. Artists drawing hardcorn porn didn’t tag their works as adult, leading to those images flooding the public search results for a children’s show. Women were edged out of their own spaces. Bronies got aggressive, posting harsh, ugly criticism of artists whose gijinka interpretations of the Mane Six as humans were deemed insufficiently fuckable.

The resulting fandom conflict was deeply unpleasant, but in the end, the verdict was laid down loud and clear: if you cannot comport yourself like a decent fucking person – if your base mode of engagement within a fandom is to coopt it from the original audience and declare it newly cool only because you’re into it now; if you do not, at the very least, attempt to understand and respect the original context so as to engage appropriately (in this case, by acknowledging that the media you’re consuming was foundational to many women who were there before you and is still consumed by minors, and tagging your goddamn porn) – then the rest of fandom will treat you like a social biohazard, and rightly so.

Here’s the thing, fellow white people: when it comes to C-drama fandoms and other non-white, non-western properties? We are the Bronies.

Not, I hasten to add, in terms of toxic fuckery – though if we don’t get our collective shit together, I’m not taking that darkest timeline off the table. What I mean is that, by virtue of the whiteminding which, both consciously and unconsciously, has shaped current fan culture, particularly in terms of ficwriting conventions, we’re collectively acting as though we’re the primary audience for narratives that weren’t actually made with us in mind, being hostile dicks to Chinese and Chinese diaspora fans when they take the time to point out what we’re getting wrong. We’re bristling because we’ve conceived of ficwriting as a place wherein No Criticism Occurs without questioning how this culture, while valuable in some respects, also serves to uphold, excuse and perpetuate microaggresions and other forms of racism, lashing out or falling back on passive aggression when POC, quite understandably, talk about how they’re sick and tired of our bullshit.

An analogy: one of the most helpful and important tags on AO3 is the one for homophobia, not just because it allows readers to brace for or opt out of reading content they might find distressing, but because it lets the reader know that the writer knows what homophobia is, and is employing it deliberately. When this concept is tagged, I – like many others – often feel more able to read about it than I do when it crops up in untagged works of commercial fiction, film or TV, because I don’t have to worry that the author thinks what they’re depicting is okay. I can say definitively, “yes, the author knows this is messed up, but has elected to tell a messed up story, a fact that will be obvious to anyone who reads this,” instead of worrying that someone will see a fucked up story blind and think “oh, I guess that’s fine.” The contextual framing matters, is the point – which is why it’s so jarring and unpleasant on those rare occasions when I do stumble on a fic whose author has legitimately mistaken homophobic microaggressions for cute banter. This is why, in a ficwriting culture that otherwise aggressively dislikes criticism, the request to tag for a certain thing – while still sometimes fraught – is generally permitted: it helps everyone to have a good time and to curate their fan experience appropriately.

But when white and/or western fans fail to educate ourselves about race, culture and the history of other countries and proceed to deploy that ignorance in our writing, we’re not tagging for racism as a thing we’ve explored deliberately; we’re just being ignorant at best and hateful at worst, which means fans of colour don’t know to avoid or brace for the content of those works until they get hit in the face with microaggresions and/or outright racism. Instead, the burden is placed on them to navigate a minefield not of their creation: which fans can be trusted to write respectfully? Who, if they make an error, will listen and apologise if the error is explained? Who, if lived experience, personal translations or cultural insights are shared, can be counted on to acknowledge those contributions rather than taking sole credit? Too often, fans of colour are being made to feel like guests in their own house, while white fans act like a tone-policing HOA.

Point being: fandom and ficwriting cultures as they currently exist badly need to confront the implicit acceptance of racism and cultural bias that underlies a lot of community rules about engagement and criticism, and that needs to start with white and western fans. We don’t want to be the new Bronies, guys. We need to do better.  

Would you agree that it’s almost impossible for motherhood in the harem to not be toxic to some degree? Especially so in mother-daughter relationships, but still prominent in mother-son relationships as well. (Also I’m not making this observation about harem motherhood to say that harem fatherhood is a lesser evil or non-toxic. If anything it’s even more toxic and damaging..especially given that it was such a norm for fathers to kill their children and feel completely justified in doing so, but that’s a discussion for another day.) I’ve observed this in almost every mother in the series. With Hafsa and her daughters (remember Sah at Mihrimah’s wedding talking about how her mother forced her and all of her sister’s to marry, and based on what it sounded like, at an extremely young age against their will), with Halime and Dilruba (Halime was geniunely okay with the possibility that Dilruba might die after Kösem kidnapped her if it meant sparing Mustafa’s life), with Hürrem and Mihrimah (forcing her to marry Rüstem at 17 years of age and using manipulation for years to keep her daughter in an unhappy marriage). The list goes on and these are just a few examples but I can’t not see a pattern here. Even with their princes there was the constant forcing a love-interest for upon their sons (Mahidevran I believe forced Fatma on Mustafa if I remember correctly? My memory is spotty there so tell me if I’m wrong) or eliminating their sons love interests in often brutal ways if it was self-serving (Hürrem killing Beyezeid’s harem to cover up Huricihan’s murder.) I almost believe there is no way for motherhood/fatherhood to be completely healthy in an enviornment like the harem especially given the examples.

Yes, I definetly agree with you on this one. It's truly almost impossible for mothers to not be toxic in some way in the environment that is the harem, because so much of it is dedicated on perpetuating such toxic behavior in both the dynastic and non-dynastic sultanas.

The first and foremost thing a woman who has just entered in the harem has to think about is how to survive, how to lend in a more comfortable position. And the first step in doing that is going to a halvet and bearing a child from the sultan. But that's not so easy, since she both has to make a solid impression and fight so many rivals on the way. The harem encourages competitiveness, putting people against each other for a single goal and the ambition to climb yourself as high in the hierarchy as you can, all of which leads to constant stress, paranoia and opportunism. As we see with so many characters and their arcs throughout the series, the longer you get to be in the harem, the longer you adapt to the system (which is a central theme of the franchise for a reason), the longer you endure, you just get used to it and at many aspects, absorb it. It's only natural at this point this would transfer to the children of the mothers, as well, because they are not only children, they are, as sad and unfortunate as it is, the keys to both full survival and success in the harem that can turn into tools for their mothers to mould when it's necessary. Because these mothers perfectly acknowledge that they aren't alone. When you bear a child, you do get to have a sense of comfort, but that comfort is only temporary and by the realization that there are other mothers with other children that will turn into deadly rivals for your own child, it slowly transitions into the next phase of the game of life in the harem: the fight for the throne where you have to fight harder than ever, actually. The most difficult part of it all seems to be just beginning and you have to use your best virtues as a player in the harem to win the war the system put you into. And a healthy relationship with your children, as we know it, sadly isn't a part of that.

There is this one exact aspect of the toxicity of some mothers you referred to here that comes more due to the exertion of the "mother knows best" attitude. No matter how many allies and supporters their one prince, in example, has, the mother is the one who would always vouch for him and would never turn his back on him, if only they're their ticket to more piece or that they've truly come to love him as they should. The system demands of the mother to raise the prince the best way she knows how and gain as much political advantage as she can, that including all these infamous political marriages. The mothers have to at least give their children sound advice of all things and that's what they also become used to, more or less. And them having these obligations, in a way, to their children, along with having gone through what they have in the harem, all make them believe that their children don't know better. They're the ones that have gone through this and have to stay strong and act pragmatically, not these children that have yet to find out what is going on. And even when they grow older, there is this decent possibility they won't realize the stakes of the game. MCK Bayezid is the most notorious example, with him living a fairly comfy life under Kösem's care when it comes to this that only vanished after Gülbahar came to the castle and he became the favourized heir of the throne and yet, Gülbahar still had to constantly remind him for so long that "he's the center of the fire" and that "they're in a war". MC Mustafa often refused to make pragmatic decisions that would've basically spared his life. Hürrem literally tells Cihangir that he shouldn't meddle in these things, because she knows better and thinks he can't tell the difference from right and wrong. So the mothers usually consider themselves forced to make the hard decisions instead of them, trying to keep all aspects of their life in check. That's why they meddle so much in their love lives, as well, along with their personal opinion and bias for the women they chose to be with, of course. Mahidevran and Valide wanted to marry Mustafa and Aybige for both reasons - Mahidevran both doesn't like Efsun and found the upper hand in a marriage with Aybige. {though it is important to note that Mahidevran specifically monitors Mustafa's love life because of the fear of the possibility of the next Hürrem, too, whose arrival and tradition breaking in the castle are still very deep wounds for her. She got over that eventually with Rumeysa and Mihrunnisa, but it was there and it was really showing at first. She sent Fatma to a halvet in E50 with the intent to distract Efsun away from Mustafa, but when Efsun was already dead, Mahidevran was strictly against all her attempts to sabotage the other concubine Mahidevran was sending and win Mustafa over and even decided to not send her to Manisa exclusively for that, disguising it with that she currently needs her in the castle.} I'm taking about the princes, but it obviously applies to the daughters, too, of course, especially Mihrimah, who also had a long way to go until she figured out what is the game all about and even then that only worked when it was connected to the protection of the family and Hürrem knew it. And while the daughters are perceived to have "less value" than the princes, bound to become sultans, as seen with Halime's relationship with Dilruba, they still play a significant part in the game and help the princes gain yet more security and the mothers influence the matters much more through the vezier or pasha the daughter has married. And it's as important to find the proper candidate, which is why Hürrem was against Taşlicalı and she broke her promise to marry Mihrimah to the person she loved. Leave it to the mothers to make the opportunistic choices that their grown-up children sometimes won't be able to make.

The fight for survival also triggers severe amount of protectiveness that plays a part in the toxicity of the mothers. They always have to keep an eye on the children, because there is the possibility of someone trying to attack them or someone else to try taking advantage of them, which is why, as well as attempting to dictate their actions, they always want to track every single move the sons and/or daughters make in order to dictate their actions. There is this prominent fear of backstabbing, betrayal and murder attempts that just can't let these mothers think or act otherwise.

It's tricky because even though some of them get so engrained into this it becomes a personality trait of theirs or apply personal gained bias when they embrace their toxic motherhood traits, they try their best to maintain cordial relations with their children and show them their genuine affection. There are so many profound mother-son and mother-daughter relationships that are either incredibly interesting on their own, either have so many human interactions with their sons or daughters, in spite of the circumstances. And in the case of, say, Halime and Mustafa, but almost all these relationships qualify, the huge amount of such interactions creates a very fine line between the tender affection and the toxicity the system causes them to show, which is why maybe it could be missed to an extent, but the narrative still does its best to make it obvious enough. It's so sad and chilling that the life in the harem just won't let healthy dynamics in general and if one starts to think for a second that the children may be an exception because they are the closest link to their mothers and the ones most likely to reveal their humanity, it soon becomes clear that this is far from the case. The system leaves nothing and no one untouched.

It becomes even tougher when, knowing the law of Fatih, a mother has to choose between her princes in the inevitable scenario where only they are the only heirs of the throne left. There every possible ounce of a healthy dynamic leaves much faster than usual, because the mothers have to realize sooner or later that they do actually have to make a choice. They love them all with the bottom of their hearts, but there is only one more fit to rule. And there is never a guarantee that the "chosen" or the only surviving prince will never dare to think about executing the law. That choice seems ludicrous, because how would a mother choose from her own children? This conflict is icredibly exploited through Hürrem in S04. She undergoes a subtle arc that has her deal with this precise moral dilemma. It tore apart her belief that the fight would be over after Mustafa's death and all her flaws in terms of Selim and Bayezid's parenting came back to her, with her seeing the problems and inevitable power struggle between them in their fullest power. She couldn't bring things back now, for their conflict had already gone too far. So she goes through fairly lengthy denial of the choice at hand and tries her best to search for a peaceful solution, for both of them to be able to "coexist", but she eventually realizes that this wouldn't be possible and when she did, it was way. too. late. And Hürrem had her preferred candidate for the throne regardless, so when you face that struggle as a mother, it's impossible for your relationship with your children to not be toxic in a way. And I know many mothers out there would relate with Hürrem's internal conflict when it came to this, because no matter how much they've adapted to the circumstances, these are their children, aren't they? The children of their own blood they cared for their whole life up to that moment! How damaging would that be for a mother? Kösem as a mother faced an even more extreme display of this, because she had too many princes and a son on the throne; she not only had to choose between them, she had to eliminate them as a desparate, but apparently necessary measure - she had presumably won, but then she came to realize that her son couldn't rule the country and didn't listen to any advice. As I've said before, her whole S02 arc was her coming to terms that she had to eventually eliminate him, for he stands against not only the country, but her as a representation of said country. She infamously sealed the pact to kill Ibrahim also because he apparently wasn't fit for the country. That tore her apart, but she did it anyway. In her time period, I dare say it's even harder to not have some kind of toxicity present in the mother's relationship with her children, because of its more dynamic rhythm and the ways of ruling in it where women, which are naturally mothers, too, are at the peak of their power and are way more likely to do stuff for its sake alone than in Süleiman's time. So we could argue that it's not only impossible for mothers not to show toxicity in the harem, but that toxicity increased as the franchise progressed, cementing the core contrast between MC and MCK: power for the sake of personal motives vs. power for the sake of power. That obviously has to impact the mothers, for they truly are the main players in this whole game.

I can't lie that it's more probable for the dynastic sultanas (that are not daughters of the sultan) to not show toxicity to their children, since they don't really have that survival fight in front of them and they have to build their families, live in a castle with them and that's about it, but then another problem arises - they have grown in the harem, they have grown with this toxicity. They have been taught this their whole life. They and their children can't exactly have healthy relationships, because the established hierarchy in the harem and the positions of these mothers are stopping them. They are gonna live with the mindset that the son is more important than the daughter (we have Hatice wanting her first baby to be a son) and even if the child is a girl, they would be constantly reminded of their social standing, that they have the blood of the dynasty. Yes, this is way less toxic, but could still bring problems and can't be healthy in a literal sense. Not to mention that ambition within a member of the dynasty isn't a concept to be discarded - Şah Sultan is the perfect example of this, with her wanting to marry Esmahan to Bali Bey, not just because her daughter is okay with this, but also because that marriage would be useful to her goals. Esmahan being the one who proposed it in the first place (as far as I recall?) and her wanting to put it in motion a lot, was only sheer luck.

Motherhoods in the harem are indeed fascinating, but toxic in one way or another. There is a clear pattern in all these relationships that is bound to show itself at some point and the fight for survival may cause mothers to put their own needs above the ones of their children's. And that kept going on and on for the longest time. There's so much humanity in these relationships, but a considerable amount of toxicity, too, that I blame mostly on this gross system.

[Fatherhood in the harem is truly even more toxic, destructive and even dangerous in many areas. Most fathers we've seen in the franchise are sultans and the sultans are notorious with their relenting paranoia of betrayal that manages to go over their own heads. I can go on and on how the same paranoia screwed every single sign of a healthy dynamic between a father and a son especially, rendering it totally nonexistent in a while, but that's truly a post for another day.]

Zootopia Takes: Darker’s Not Better

The Shock Collar Draft

So, it sounds like people are largely positive on me doing some Zootopia posts on this blog, and I wanted to talk about this tweet I saw the other day:

I’ll punt on explaining why Beastars isn’t “Dark Zootopia”--that’s a great topic for another post. But I would like to talk about why this popular yet stridently uninformed tweet is so, so wrong. Why the shock collar draft was not better, actually.

And obviously, I’m not writing several pages in reply to a single tweet--this is a take that’s been around since the movie came out, that the “original version was better.” It’s been wrong the whole time.

Let’s talk about why!

Part 1: “Because Disney”

Let’s start with this--the assumption that the film’s creators wanted to make this shock collar story and “Disney” told them to change it.

That’s not how it works.

I try to keep stuff about me out of these posts as much as possible, but just for a bit of background, I’ve worked in the animation industry for about half a decade. I know people at Disney. I have a reasonable idea of how things are there.

There is this misconception about creative industries that they’re constantly this pitched battle of wills between creative auteurs trying to make incredible art and ignorant corporate suits trying to repress them.

That can happen, especially in dysfunctional studios (and boy could I tell some stories) but Walt Disney Animation Studios is not dysfunctional. It’s one of the most autonomous and well-treated parts of the Disney Company.

The director of Zootopia, Byron Howard, isn’t an edgelord. He made Bolt and Tangled. He knows what his audience is, and he’s responsible enough not to spend a year (and millions of dollars in budget) developing a grimdark Don Bluth story that leadership would never approve. It wouldn’t just be a waste of time--he would be endangering the livelihoods of the hundreds of people working under him. Meanwhile, Disney Animation’s corporate leadership trusts their talent. They don’t generally interfere with story development because they don’t need to. Because they employ people like Byron Howard.

Howard and the other creative leads of Zootopia have said a dozen times, in interviews and documentaries, that they gave up on the shock collar idea because it wasn’t working. They’ve explained their reasoning in detail. Maybe they’re leaving out some of the story, but in general? I believe them.

But Beastars Takes, you say, maybe even if Disney didn’t force them to back away from this darker version, it still would have been better?

Part 2: Why Shock Collars Seem Good

I will say this--I completely sympathize with people who see these storyboards and scenes from earlier versions of the movie and think “this seems amazing.” It does! A lot of these drawings and shots are heartbreakingly good, in isolation.

I love these boards. They make me want to cry. I literally have this drawing framed on my wall. Believe me, I get it.

But the only reason we care this much about this alternative draft of Zootopia is that the Zootopia we got made us love this world and these characters. You know what actually made me cry?

Oh, yeah.

So let’s set aside the astonishing hubris of insisting Zootopia’s story team abandoned the “good” version of the story, when the “bad version” is the most critically-acclaimed Disney animated feature in the past SIXTY YEARS.

“But Beastars Takes!” I hear you say. “Critics are idiots and just because something’s popular doesn’t make it good!”

Fair enough. Let’s talk about why the real movie is better.

Part 3: The Message (it is, in fact, like a jungle sometimes)

This type of thing is always hard to discuss, in the main--a lot of people don’t want to feel criticized or “called out” by the entertainment they consume, and they don’t want to be asked to think about their moral responsibilities. But it’s hard to deny that Zootopia is a movie with a strong point of view. Everything else--the characters, the worldbuilding, the plot, grows out from the movie’s central statement about bias.

And the movie we got, with no shock collars, makes that statement far more effectively.

To dive into the full scope of Zootopia’s worldview and politics (warts and all) would be a whole post on its own, so I’ll just summarize the key point of relevance here:

Zootopia's moral message is that you, the viewer, need to confront your own biases. Not yell at someone else. No matter how much of a good or progressive person you consider yourself to be--if you want to stand against prejudice you have to start with yourself.

That’s a tough sell! For that message to land, we need to see ourselves in the protagonist.

Judy’s a good person! She argues with her dad about foxes. She knows predators aren’t all dangerous. She’s not speciesist. Right?

Ah fuck.

Let’s fast-forward to the pivotal scene of this movie. In an unfortunate but inevitable confluence of circumstances, Judy’s own biases and prejudiced assumptions come out, and she shits the bad.

Nick, who’s already bared his soul to her (against his better instincts), is heartbroken. But not as heartbroken as he is a minute later when he tries to confront her about what she’s said, and she makes this face:

Whaaaat? Come on, Nick. I’m a good person. Why are you giving me a hard time?

People like to complain about this scene. That it’s a hackneyed “misunderstanding” trope that could be easily resolved with a discussion. They’re wrong. Nick tries to have a discussion. She blows him off.

This isn’t Judy acting out of character, this is her character. Someone who identifies as Not A Racist, and hasn’t given the issue any more thought. This is not only completely believable characterization (who hasn’t seen someone react this way when you told them they hurt you?) it’s the film’s central thesis!

Yes, Nick somewhat provokes her into reaching for her “fox spray,” and her own trauma factors in there, but she’s already made her fatal mistake before that happens.

(As an aside, people also make the criticism that the movie unrealistically deflects responsibility for racism onto Bellwether and her plot. It doesn’t. All the key expressions of prejudice in the film--Judy’s encounter with Gideon, her parents’ warnings, the elephant in the ice cream shop, Judy’s early encounters with Bogo, Judy's views on race science--exist largely outside of Bellwether’s influence. She is a demagogue who inflames existing tensions, she didn’t invent them. Bogo literally says “the world has always been broken.”)

So, anyway. But we love Judy. She’s an angel. She also kinda sucks! She’s proudly unprejudiced, and when her own prejudice is pointed out to her she argues and doesn’t take it seriously. This is bad, but it’s also a very human reaction. It’s one most of us have probably been guilty of at one point or another.

Look at Zootopia’s society, too--it’s shiny and cosmopolitan, seemingly idyllic. Anyone can be anything, on paper. But scratch too deep beneath the surface and there’s a lot of pain and resentment here, things nobody respectable would say in public but come out behind closed doors, or among family, when nobody’s watching. It’s entirely recognizable--at least to me, someone who lives in a large liberal city in the United States. Like Byron Howard.

Wow, this place is a paradise!

Wait, what’s a “NIMBY”?

Part 4: Why Shock Collars Are Bad

So, with the film’s conceit established, let’s circle back to the shock collar idea. Like I said, it’s heartbreaking. It’s dramatic. It’s affective.

It also teaches us nothing.

If I see a movie where predator animals are subjected to 24/7 electroshock therapy, I don’t think “wow, this makes me want to think about how I could do better by the people around me.” I think “damn that shit’s crazy lmao. that’d be fucked up if that happened.” At a stretch, it reminds me of something like the Jim Crow era, or the Shoah. You know, stuff in the Past. Stuff we’ve all decided couldn’t ever happen again, so why worry about it?

The directors have said this exact thing, just politely. “It didn’t feel contemporary,” they say in pressers. That’s what it means.

If anything, the shock collar draft reifies the mindset that Zootopia is trying to reject--it shows us that discrimination is blatant, and dramatic, and flagrantly cruel, and impossible to miss.

And...that’s not true. If you only look for bias at its most malicious and evil, you’re going to miss the other 95 percent.

The messaging of this “darker version” is--ironically--less mature, less insightful, less intelligent. Less useful. Darker’s not better.

Part 5: Why Shock Collars Are Still Bad

So what if you don’t care about the message? What if you have no interest in self-reflection, or critical analysis (why are you reading this blog then lmao)? What if you just really want to hear a fun story about talking animals?

Well, this is trickier, because the remaining reasons are pretty subjective and emotional.

The creators have said that the shock collar version didn’t work because the viewers hated the cruel world they’d created. They agreed with Nick--the city was beyond saving. They didn’t want to save it.

The creators have said that Judy was hard to sympathize with, not being able to recognize the shock collars for the obvious cruelty they were.

Fuck you, Judy!

But we haven’t seen the draft copies. We haven’t watched the animatics. We have to take their word for it. Anyone who’s sufficiently invested in this story is going to say “well, I disagree with them.” It doesn’t matter to them that they haven’t seen the draft and the filmmakers have. The movie they’ve imagined is great and nobody is going to convince them otherwise.

But the fact remains that the shock collar movie, as written, did not work. And, if behind the scenes material is to be believed, it continued to not work after months and months of story doctoring.

There’s even been a webcomic made out of the dystopian version of Zootopia. It’s clever and creative and well-written and entertaining and...it kind of falls apart. The creator, after more than a little shit-talk directed at Disney, abandoned the story before reaching the conclusion, but even before then the seams were beginning to show. How do you take a society that’s okay with electrocuting cute animals and bring it to a point of cathartic redemption? You can’t, really. The story doesn’t work.

Does that mean people shouldn’t make fanworks out of the cut material? That they shouldn’t be inspired and excited by it? Hell no. This drawing is cute as hell. The ideas are compelling.

But I suppose what I’d ask of you all is--if you’re weighing the hot takes of art students on Twitter against the explanations of veteran filmmakers, consider that the latter group might actually know what they’re talking about.

See you next time!

Optical Illusions: A Study of Aesthetics in Activism in Two Accounts

There’s been a particular thing bothering me about social media for a while. I should probably get a cool editing app, write it in a few bullet points and post it on Instagram. You know what I’m talking about, right? The goddamn infographics. If I have to sit through another slideshow explaining to me another military conflict, another societal issue, another existential unfairness on a baby pink background in a cheery font, I might combust. But the cognitive dissonance of aesthetics in activism has been a problem for a while, hasn’t it? So today, I want to examine the effect of focusing on aesthetics over content, or, on the flipside, not considering the optics of your activism enough, and what it does to the consumer of your content by picking apart two local activist-adjacent media projects, Tetraedras and Giljožinios.

Firstly, I want to make my own bias abundantly clear. I am personally acquainted with the teams of both projects, so obviously there will be innate personal bias involved. I highly encourage anyone reading to check both projects out themselves (@t3traedras and @giljozinios on Instagram, as well as Giljožinios’ YouTube channel) and make their own conclusions on the matter. I believe that while my familiarity breeds deeper knowledge of my subjects, it also makes me more vulnerable to assumptions about individuals involved. My insights come from the perspective of an observer, not an expert. Welcome to the circus.

The use of the word “optics” in a metaphorical political sense sprung up in the 1970s to describe the way major political decisions would not necessarily affect an average citizen, but how it would appear to them, e.g. 'U.S. President Barack Obama temporized for weeks, worrying about the optics of waging war in another Arab state after the Iraq fiasco' (Toronto Star, 19th March 2011). However, it’s become increasingly relevant in our age of social media, an age of perceptions over substance, of shortening attention spans and increased barrage of information one has to stomach daily. Social media is the great equalizer - a random person off the street can theoretically hold as much influence as a politician - thus it is becoming increasingly crucial for the average Joe posting on the countless apps owned by Facebook to be as familiar with PR terms as a firm with a six figure salary. Or at least that would be nice, seeing that more and more average Joes are becoming actively involved in politics and education, seeking to influence their newfound audience.

So, let’s see how successful average people with no media or politics degrees are at balancing their image. Both Tetraedras and Giljožinios lean into their 2010’s social media project optics: millennial pink themes, bold names, young teams. But that’s where the similarities end. Tetraedras’ brand is safety. The shades of color on the profile are calming, the illustrations are youthful and playful, their more serious posts are interspersed with more relaxing content (poetry, photoshoots, etc.). Giljožinios is confrontational. The colors electric, posts loud and to the point, they’re what it says on the box - a leftist project - and unapologetic about it. This might help to explain why audiences react as differently as they do to these two, on the surface, similar accounts. Because while you might’ve stumbled on Tetraedras organically while browsing, them having almost two thousand followers, Giljožinios crashed into the educational/political social media scene by being featured on the goddamn national news, that’s how controversial the project is. And obviously I am oversimplifying the issue, Tetraedras slowly built up to posting more opinionated content, while Giljožinios came in guns blazing accusing USA of imperialism, but you’ll have to let me explain. Tetraedras, in its essence, is a welcoming environment. They explain complicated problems in short bullet points with accompanying comforting visuals, their mascot is a inoffensive geometrical figure and their face is a beautiful girl, make-up matching the theme of the post. Giljožinios is named after a revolutionary device, their profile picture is a monarch being beheaded, their host quite infamously sat in front of Che Guevara memorabilia in their first and (as of writing) only video. It’s a lightning rod for angry comments by baby boomers, no matter what comes out of their mouth. In fact, I would argue that, if presented accordingly, the idea that the US is conducting a kind of modern imperialism is just a simple fact and personally can’t wait until Tetraedras posts that with a quirky illustration of Joe Biden to introduce the concept to the wider public.

This leads me to my next point, because despite what’s been previously suggested, I’m not here to solely sing Giljožinios’ praise. There is a cognitive dissonance in both of these flavors of social media activism, but while I can understand Tetraedras’ on a PR level, I’m kind of personally insulted by Giljožinios’. While purely personally I find aspects of Giljožinios’ radicalism distasteful, I appreciate the honesty in the youthful maximalism, of coming in strong and not backing down, but from the guys that made a communist Christmas tree once I almost expected something more stirring than “military industrial complex bad”. This leads me to ask: who is your content for? Your average breadtube-savvy twenty-something already heard this a thousand times, because they consume similar english-speaking content and I doubt any minds of the vatniks that came by to fume in the comment section are being changed. I’m obviously harking on a newborn project here, the team of which has already been bitten by authorities censoring their content, but so far there has been a lot of optical bark, but no substantial bite, especially considering the team seems to be in a safer place now. And the inverse is true for Tetraedras, while I can understand wanting to be visually interesting yet inoffensive, their visuals are sometimes laughably, morbidly light for the topics they discuss Sexily posing in Britney Spears-inspired outfits while discussing the horrors of her conservatorship springs to mind (funny how Britney’s conservatorship leads her to have next to none bodily autonomy, including her public costume choices). And, once again, your target audience is teenagers. They understand English, they’ve seen the news, they don’t need you to translate infographics filled with statistics and information that’s locally completely irrelevant. There needs to be some kind of middle ground between aesthetic cohesion and common sense, because this all signals to the viewer that the content is meant to be mindlessly consumed first and to educate second.

Which leads me to ponder what kind of consumption accounts like these encourage, which will surely lead me to an early grave as I drink away the existential dread of how social media rots all of our brains. Because yes, actually, producing funky visuals to convey an idea way too complicated for an Instagram post is fun. I myself got distracted multiple times during writing to make the first slide for my own post. Meta, I know. This is obviously more of a problem for Tetraedras, who seem to fervently resist injecting their content with a few more paragraphs and a tad more nuance, but even with Giljožinios choosing a more appropriate long-form format to educate, I still pray everyday they don’t get lost in the revolutionary reputation their group built up and forget to make a point, not just talking points.

Because what all this all inevitably leads to is misinforming the public. Again, this seems to be less of a problem for Giljožinios, as the amount of critical eyeballs they have on them leads to them being corrected on every incorrect numerical figure and grammatical mistake, I just hope all this harassment, once again, doesn’t get them all caught up in the optics of a revolution against all the Facebook boomers and forgetting to do their due diligence to the truth. As far as I know, the only factual mistake is miscalculating how much Lituania invests in NATO and there’s still a historical debate in their comment section about the existence of a CIA prison in Lithuania, if anyone’s concerned. Tetraedras, however, is safe. And safe content goes down just like a sugar-coated pill, you don’t even feel the need to fact-check it. And fact-checking is what it sorely requires, or else you’re left with implying that boxing causes men to become rapists and citing statistics of every country except the one in which, you know, me, the team and the absolute majority of their followers live in.

So what’s my goddamn point? Burn your phone and go live in the woods, always. But in the context of this essay, if you are a content creator that aims to educate, inform, incite, whatever, you need to put aesthetics on the backburner. And, more importantly, we as consumers need to stop tolerating content that puts being either pretty or inflammatory first instead of whatever message it’s trying to send, because the supply follows where the demand goes. Read books, watch long-form content made by experts, not teenagers on the internet chasing followers out of not even malicious intent, but almost a knee-jerk reaction. Because while the story of those two accounts cuts especially deep, expectations for local-, even friend-made content being much higher than that for some corporate accounts shooting their shot at activism, the problem is entrenched deep, thousands of accounts exhibiting the same problems racking up millions upon millions of followers. Having said that, my attention span is barely long enough to read the essays I write myself, so maybe do burn your phone and go live in the woods.

Also, pink is actually my brand so both of these accounts are being contacted by my lawyers and the rest of you don’t try any shit.

1: Also I would VERY MUCH love to hear more of your thoughts on season 3. It always annoys me to NO END how people who hate them think that fans love them for their season 3 relationship despite the fact that other fans have mentioned numerous times that it's not because they thought their relationship was perfect, but that they didn't get a real chance where both of them were at a better place in their life.

Continued: It's very obvious in the season that their relationship actually DOES work in the sense that they get along when there's no outside pressures in the form of Lorelai/Dean, that they actually like spending time with each other and do dates, but the issue is that we never got enough of that, only the big arguments were placed in the forefront which imo is unfair because it further gives people 'proof' that Dean saying that Jess treats her 'like trash' is true, when in fact it's very much not (also it's just obvious shipper bias how many people, particularly r*gans love focusing on the negative aspects of Lit but just sweep aside all the issues Logan has in seasons 5/6, hell even in season 7 with how he proposed to Rory and then immediately ended their long term relationship when she couldn't say yes to him). It's also more than justified for fans to be intrigued of the possibility of older Lit when both Jess and Rory have their own lives that are more separate from the influence of Stars Hollow/Jess's turbulent past, because not only is Jess more mature, more open and just more stable and sure of himself, Rory now has to make decisions for herself and not based off of what Lorelai or anyone else says for her to do. And, although I'm in the minority with this opinion, even though Rory's writing in AYITL was awful in terms of fleshing out how and just why she is at this state, without allowing people to be more sympathetic, I'm not gonna suddenly go against her being with Jess simply because people think he 'pined' for her all these years when it's clear that he's not holding his life back for her, but merely in his own way, will always love her. And what I mentioned about her and Jess finally having a relationship that isn't influenced by anyone outside of it still stands for this, especially when Rory's gotta put her life back together now and Jess would imo offer support, the same way she tried to do it when he was younger and unsure of his capabilities. But yeah even discrediting AYITL, an adult relationship between them would truly be a positive thing

Okay I’ve had my morning coffee so I am ready + this is definitely going to warrant a read more!

Exactly!! I have never seen anyone claim their season 3 relationship was great. We don’t get to see them just be happy and hanging out together – even though we’re explicitly told they’re together often – unless it’s to set up conflict and I think a big part of that comes from the fact that Milo was already being written out of the show before the characters even got together.

They’ve always liked just spending time together and I love how that ends up being a constant thread throughout their relationship, be it in a romantic context or not, with season 4 being an obvious exception but at that point they were still confronting the completely unresolved ending to their relationship. But anyway, getting back to season 3...

Let me just repeat myself here: Dean cast a looming shadow over the entirety of the Rory and Jess relationship in season 3. That’s not to say that they would have been together forever if Dean hadn’t been there because I think it was inevitable for their paths to diverge (and eventually come back together!) – of course it would have been nice for them to grow together but in terms of canon, I actually like that they got to experience life independent of each other. However, Dean’s presence definitely exacerbated the issues in the Rory and Jess relationship. (I don’t mean to frame this in a way that everything wrong with Rory and Jess’ relationship has to do with Dean, I’m just examining the ways in which his role in the narrative had an influence on their relationship)

The Dean/Rory/Jess love triangle had been building up for almost a year by the time we get to 3x07 so we as viewers are ready for it to culminate in a big, dramatic, exciting way and it certainly delivers in that regard because it made for good television but it’s a shaky starting point for Rory and Jess. Before Rory even has time to cry to her mother, or even just tell her mother about the breakup with Dean, she’s already swept up in a new relationship. For that reason, an interesting “what-if” to consider is what if Dean had ended the relationship once he realised she liked Jess in 2x18? But that doesn’t happen, so from this point on Rory slowly becomes aware of her growing feelings for Jess while still being in a relationship with Dean and she feels guilty, obviously! Once she’s with Jess, she feels like she has to make things right with Dean. On top of that, Rory was always being told by the town and her mother about how Dean was the perfect boyfriend and, oh, she was so lucky to have him as her first boyfriend! Regardless of how false that whole narrative rings to me as a viewer, this puts Rory in a position where she is always comparing Jess to Dean; by Rory’s own admission in 3x09 she says she feels like the town is watching them and she’s right, they are watching! There is this pressure put on her to have her life perfectly together, which is an impossible and even damaging standard to be placing onto any teenager. At this point, Lorelai is still heavily involved in Rory’s romantic life but because Lorelai plays friend more often than mother, she has always made her stance on Jess very clear and consequently, Rory doesn’t feel she can talk openly to her mother when she has issues with Jess and this is unfamiliar territory for Rory. In the first episode with Rory and Jess together, Lorelai is already saying things like, “But I never expected you to be with Dean forever, just like I don’t expect you to be with Jess forever.” As much as she says she’s supportive, Rory never actually feels her support. For these reasons, we don’t get to see much of Rory addressing or confronting her relationship with Jess throughout season 4 – we see her play it cool or “stoic” with Lorelai and the townies but we see it’s an act to some extent when talking with Lane in 4x22 or with Jess – “I have actually thought about this moment. A lot.” that whole speech she gives feels like it’s been something she’s been holding onto for a while and never been able to vocalise. Back to season 3: Rory feels she has to hide things from Jess like she did with Dean because she was always trying to avoid a fight with him (which is.....☹️), failing to realise that Jess is not Dean, and thus begins the miscommunication problems throughout their relationship. All of this to say... Rory has no other point of reference for relationships, so I understand where she is coming from during season 3!

Now for Jess we go back to the 3x07 for a moment: obviously this is all open to interpretation but he looks very surprised and also somewhat guilty during the very public Dean and Rory breakup, which I take to mean... he never wanted it to happen, nor expected it to happen, like this. Jess is very aware of how the town and everyone in it views him in comparison to Dean; there’s an insecurity there for Jess “She picked you.” / “God knows why.” because she never actually did choose him and he doesn’t particularly like himself very much at this point. Which brings me to the point that Jess was simply not in a place to be in a relationship – his communication issues were there before he ever got into a relationship with Rory because it’s easier to not deal with things and allow people to have a low opinion of you so that you don’t disappoint them. He really thought the dinner with Emily would be a one and done thing, which highlights both his inexperience with relationships but also his misconception that this relationship could be just him and Rory, see also: “I don't wanna talk to anybody else. I don't like anybody else.” As much as he may love Rory and Luke, they can’t be Jess’ sole support system and he has a lot of personal growing to do. If we are to assume Jimmy was always going to show up in late season 3, I think that’s something that Jess was always going to want to see through. He definitely makes efforts to do better, particularly after 3x15 (there is no way he or Luke didn’t hear that voicemail...) is when we actually see them at their most chill as they’re having movie nights, they’re talking about Rory’s future at Yale, Lane is supportive, Jess is ready to go to prom without complaints, etc. He went after Rory once she leaves the bedroom in 3x19 but the moment he sees Dean, he gives up and we’re back to the looming shadow that is Dean. Without that shadow, I think they could have at least ended things on better terms.

Rory saying, “I don’t want to deal with this.” after seeing Jess in his car in 4x12 really is a good summation of their romantic relationship lmao 🙃

That proposal really was so.........yikes!!

Yeah, I have never gotten the impression that Jess has been pining after Rory all these years. I remember coming onto the internet after watching AYITL and being so confused by how heated people were with regard to that parting look in Fall. From everything we saw – which was very little, admittedly – Jess seems very content with his life and in a place of stability, continuing to mature and better himself since the last time we saw him. For what it’s worth, my interpretation of The Window Look(tm) is that Jess meant it when he told Luke that he was over Rory, and it’s not something he had been consciously thinking about until he went to the window and was like, “Hm..........” and the fact that they hadn’t seen each other in so many years before Summer is actually kind of... reassuring to me? I guess in my mind, once they become consistent figures in each other’s lives then it becomes more difficult to understand why they aren’t together because it would progress into more. “What’s it been, four years?” / “Maybe more?” does not have to set their futures in stone, leaving no room for development.

I’ve probably said it before but the whole story of first, it was Rory offering Jess support when he was sorting himself out and lacking the stability for a relationship; then it’s Jess offering Rory support when she is sorting out her life and lacking stability is just a very compelling story for me! The parallels! The star-crossed aspect of it all! I would like to see it dot gif

Abandon Ideology

In Jordan Peterson’s second foray into self-help, he writes his VI’th rule for life: ‘Abandon Ideology.’ As an ardent follower of Jordan’s, on first reading of this, I took this rules’s implications at face value; that is, the implication that an ideology is something that is held by a group of people, but that the individual, striving for what is true and pure, should rid themselves of all ideology, in the interest of progressing new and helpful ideas to the culture at large. Recently, particularly after having watched this YouTube video by Philosophy Tube, a question which I wrestled with subtly after reading Jordan’s recent work has made its way to the forefront of my mind: Are we so sure that it is even possible to abandon ideology? and I don’t mean once you already ‘have one’, so to speak (though this is a valid question also, albeit requiring a few more prior assumptions), but rather, is it even possible for an individual to not have an ideology? (Paraphrased,) Philosophy Tube makes this point explicitly, comparing ideology to a**holes: everyone has them, they use them everyday, but nobody tends to take a good look at their own unless something has gone wrong. So who is right?

Interestingly, both philosophers consider ideology to be something that actually exists - which, to me, is by no means a foregone conclusion. Jordan assumes that it is a sort of group-think parasite that infests the mind, while Philosophy Tube believes that ideology is an inevitable function within the individual. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed that the latter tends to be a more common belief among those with left political leaning, while Jordan’s point tends to be expressed by individuals who are more popular with those with right political leaning*. As we know that political leaning seems to be a result of a temperamental difference between individuals, it could be that this is just another form of what one could theorize as the fundamental question between the extremes of such differentiations, which is the question of whether the individual is fundamentally formed through nature or nurture. I have personally arrived at the conclusion, as have others, that the answer to this question is clearly both; however, the question of whether or not ideology is fundamentally group-oriented or individual-orientated doesn’t quite fit neatly into the dimensions of this theory. This is because, in no small part, that the roles of thought in regards to ideology in this case are antithetical to the typical hypothesis presented by the theory: in this case, the left leaning individuals are the one’s more likely to believe that ideology is an innate characteristic (nature), where as the right leaning individuals are more likely to believe that ideology is a product of culture (nurture). While it may not be a perfect comparison, this is the reverse of what an individual who agrees with this line of logic would likely guess. Is there a reason for this?

Perhaps it is the more fundamental tenant of conservatism, which tends to prize its own culture’s tradition, that demands from its right-wing thinker a bias in believing that their own way of interpreting the world is the ‘correct’ way to do so, based on the interpretation of the facts of ‘objective reality,’ which is free of ideology, because that is the way it is has always been; or perhaps it is liberalism’s inclination towards progression - its greatest strength and weakness simultaneously - that forces it to be open to all possibilities, and therefore implying that there is no single way of being, there is no objective reality, because reality could be anything based on the individual’s own subjective experience, based on their own ideology, which must therefore be present in all of us; or, perhaps, (and this is in no way to imply a comprehensively exclusive list) there is the consideration which I mentioned above, which questions the existence of ideology as an objective truth altogether. 

[Aside: for sh*ts and giggles, let’s explore this last idea. So ‘ideology’, stems from the french word idéologie, where idéo- or ideo- is “idea”, and -logie or -logy is “the (scientific) study of the subject field represented by the stem.” (From Merriam-Webster.com). Also from Merriam-Webster: “Though ideology originated as a serious philosophical term, within a few decades it took on connotations of impracticality thanks to Napoleon, who used it in a derisive manner. Today, the word most often refers to ‘a systematic body of concepts,’especially those of a particular group or political party.” So according to this definition, ideology is more of a strictly philosophical or scientific term referring to the study of ideas. Well, everyone has ideas. But somehow this definition doesn’t quite seem to fit the bill. It seems as though both sides of the political spectrum seem to regard ideology as something deeper than the this definition gives it credit. It seems as though according to the political (to use a loose term to define the parameters of this debate) debate, believes that ideology is either a type of group-oriented idea that can inhabit a large swath of people, or it is the fundamental subjective framework that the individual uses to interpret the world. Of course, I doubt many serious thinkers on the right would deny that everyone needs a framework for which to use to interpret the world (Jordan Peterson certainly doesn’t). Instead, they would argue that framework is not the same as ideology, but simply a tenant of being human, as a combination of both an individual’s objective and subjective experience (and of course one could argue about whether objective experience actually exists also, but that’ll have to be another topic for another day; today we will assume that both objective and subjective experiences are real). But this also begs the question, why is it that some people can have an ideology while others can be free from it? This brings the argument illustrated nicely by Gad Saad into play; namely, that ideology is the equivalent of an idea pathogen, echoed by the complimentary position presented by Jordan’s work which contends with the idea that although not everyone need be infected by an idea parasite, everyone must have a narrative framework to operate in the world. This in and of itself, of course, asks us to contend with the question of whether or not there is even a difference between this “narrative framework” and ideology, to which we may get different answers based on the political leaning of the person whom we ask. As my inherent bias seems to lean to the right in most cases, my intuition tells me that there is a difference, that narrative framework is superordinate to ideology, but again, its difficult to assess whether or not that is my tendency towards conservatism and its respect of (let’s say the west’s) cultural background getting in the way of objectivity, sustaining that objectivity is real in the first place. But to play devil’s advocate to the side opposite to my intuition in a different way, I would say that it’s possible that the real problem is that we do not have our definitions straight: what is ideology to one may be narrative framework to another; and in this sense, I might also add that it is entirely possible that ideology itself does not exist past what may also be considered a narrative framework, since what one would call an ideology another may say they are only acting in according to their own narrative framework (or, “yes, I do have an ideology, but - of course - so do you). The obvious argument to refute this would likely refer to the nature in which an individual with an accused ideology would hold beliefs which mirror that of another individual with the same ideology, therefore rendering the ideas non-unique. And this is indeed a powerful argument. It’s also an argument which, hitherto, I never second guessed. But thinking now, of course it isn’t the case that two individuals narrative frameworks cannot be influenced by similar subjective experiences. This gets more complicated when you compound uncountable numbers of people who have “the same ideology,” and therefore expressing similar subjective experiences that derived their narrative frameworks; after all, could that many people really have had such identical experiences that they are brought to such similar beliefs independent from and “idea parasite” or ideology? Maybe not, but also, maybe the subjective experiences and narrative framework (or ideology), of the accuser has led them to a sort of confirmation bias, where one signal of similarity leads them to the expectation of uniformity; where the sight of a leaf of a certain type or color leads to certainty that that leaf must belong to a specific breed of tree, rather than perhaps a tree of only similar lineage. In this regard, with special consideration given to the possibility of miscommunication of words and their definitions, it is possible that the deeper form of “ideology” within the context of our current culture, does not even exist. It’s certainly a possibility which I will be keeping my eyes and ears on, anyways. End Aside.] 

A conclusion about who is right certainly won’t be reached in a blog post by me today. What I can conclude from this thought experiment, however, is yet another example of why your intuition - based from your temperament and experience - can lead you astray when considering complex questions. Or even seemingly non-complex issues, for that matter. The perspective that Jordan Peterson provides may very well be the correct one. But the perspective that Philosophy Tube highlights as well feels as though it could be superior. Then there is the possibility that they are both wrong - or both right (it is such a strange world we live in, after all, where paradoxes are known to exist). One thing is for certain: both of these people are much smarter than I, so, as per usual, there is much left to consider and ponder. And to gather erratically.

One day I will start to write blog posts that focus more on my reader than my inner ramblings. But for now, I still need to sort myself out, and I hear writing can be incredibly useful for that. This is ErraticWoolGathering, after all.

Best,

- Alex 

*An example of this that I can bring to mind is exemplified by Gad Saad, author of The Parasitic Mind, who similarly claims - as I understand it - that ideology is a matter of group-think, or in his words, that an ideology is no different than a type of “idea pathogen.” Now, whether Gad claims to be of right political leaning or not (as far as I know, he does not), his book and his ideas clearly seem to be more popular with the the right-wing of our culture than they are with our left-wing.      

Now Reading: You are a Badass

You are a Badass by Jen Sincero is just one of those books you always hear about but never get around to (so here’s me, getting around to it).

I’m just under halfway through the book, but it’s sparking so many thoughts in my head that I want to write about it to fully grasp the messages.

If you haven’t gotten around to reading this book yet, here are some of my favourite quotes (so far) to give you a taste of what it has to offer.

“You need to go from wanting to change your life to deciding to change your life.”

This book is a self-help book that makes fun of other self-help books. This phrase appears very early on and although it seems like more overly-simplistic self-help nonsense, I think it easily sums up what it means to try to get better. 

Many people get stuck at just wanting to change their lives, but never actually take the concrete action to get anywhere. When we decide to change our lives, life is no longer seen as some whirlwind roller coaster that we just pray to get through but rather something that is entirely up to us. 

I know I’m guilty of wanting life to get better without actually making any changes. Deciding to change my life means planning, making conscious active decisions with my well-being in mind and following through with myself to take full control of my future.

“It’s not your fault that you’re f-cked up. It’s your fault if you stay f-cked up.”

Think: BoJack Horseman. Yes, your past has been messed up. Yes, you’ve had to go through many difficult things. Yes, those things were completely out of your control and shaped the person that you are today.

But the explanation for who you are is not an excuse for who you are. You can’t blame your present actions on your past. Your present situation might be explained by your past, but your present actions are completely in your control. 

I am completely aware that your social situation can influence your thinking and actions (so if your situation is affected by your past, then your actions might as well be, too). However, I also know that there is no guarantee that a person will act a certain way even if all social situation factors are controlled. People always have the ability to choose to act differently (think: Schindler's List), so you need to take 100% responsibility for your actions in order to change your life.

“The trick is to not only deny the criticism any power over you, but, even more challenging, to not get caught up in the praise.”

This one caught me off guard. Usually when we’re told not to care about what other people think, we’re referring to the negativity and hate that inevitably comes. However, we welcome praise and recognition with open arms in order for our efforts to feel validated! Even though it feels better, caring about the praise is still caring about what other people think- so it should be ruled out, too.

The point that she makes in this section of the book is that our sense of self must come from within us, not from external sources. This means that, yes, we shouldn’t let criticism dictate our lives, but it also means that we shouldn’t give that power to flattery either (otherwise, we’ll just keep searching for more compliments and get sucked back into caring about what other people think).

In the words of John Mulaney, “When I walk down the street, I need everybody, all day long, to like me so much. It’s exhausting.” Setting constructive criticism and constructive praise aside (which are also covered in the book), this quote made me realize that in order to change myself, I have to begin by truly understanding myself (and not others’ opinions of me).

“You have to change your thinking first, and then the evidence appears.”

I know a bunch of people who believe that manifestation is crazy talk, and to each their own. But even from a “scientific, empirical view” (with very loose quotations), mindset shifts like this in order to change your reality still make complete sense.

According to dictionary.com, confirmation bias is “bias that results from the tendency to process and analyze information in such a way that it supports one’s preexisting ideas and convictions”. We have this natural inclination to find things that support our beliefs and miss things that go against them. Thus, if you believe that the world is a sad, dark place, you’ll probably feel the weight of the world’s misfortunes on your mind more than its miracles.

It’s hard to change your mindset when you see things happen a certain way in life, but it’s hard to see things happen a different way if your mindset stays the same. So, if you’re the type of person who needs to see evidence in order to draw conclusions, just make sure you’re looking in the right direction. 

“I just wanna see what I can get away with.”

This is a life mantra offered in the book in order to maintain youthful fun and curiosity in life. Obviously it must be taken in the right context, but with that in mind, how fun can life be when you really push it to the limits?

Which odds are against you in life? What boundaries are placed upon you? More importantly, which challenges are you willing to fight through anyways to do what you want to do? How far do you think you can you make it?

Hard work and determination are always praised for achieving goals, but focusing too hard on those aspects alone can ruin the fun and the whole reason you set out on your goals in the first place (to have fun, to be happy). We can often suffer from impostor syndrome when taking ourselves too seriously, so this life mantra tells us to just lean into it: yeah, I’m an impostor, let’s see how far I can take it! Fake it til you make it is sometimes the only way to go.

-

Self help books often get a bad rep (even from other self help books). However, I think that surrounding yourself with influences that reflect your own goals will always help you along your journey, whether or not they singlehandedly change your life. 

I’ll probably finish this book by the end of this week. There were so many great excerpts to choose from, but I picked the ones that resonated with me the most (so far). If you’re looking for easily digestible motivation and mindset shifting, I would highly recommend checking out this book to give you a little push along your path. 

Fifty and Four sends us cresting over the hill, if we weren’t already. How long until we hit the bottom?

Oh ho? Jane’s perspective again, huh?  ‘t’s been a while.

EEEHHHH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!   Oh gosh, oh gosh, oh gosh, that is not good!

Rrrrgh, she does not need to be building up a habit like that!    The consequences of such use are far too severe and unpredictable, even if you don’t consider the potential negatives to one’s psychological health. >.< Gosh... even with her Life aspect probably protecting her a little bit from its sugary after-effects, reading that makes me feel sick.  > ~~~ <

Figures that a Cherub would be biased in favor of it. At least Alt!Calliope is willing distance herself and try to be objective, though.

***giggles uncontrollably, even though this honestly shouldn’t be funny***

Very politically-minded, but it also sortof sounds like the excuse-making that an addict would engage in, so I am not convinced that this is a legitimate argument.  Yeah, shoring up your base is important, but doing something that could strongly alienate swing voters is not necessarily wise, either.  I suspect she knows this too, but is in denial about the fact of the matter, because she enjoys the benefits of Trickster Mode too much. It is quite interesting that the human kingdom’s subjects appreciate it so much~

HAAAAA. Oh my fricking gosh, Alt!Calliope is a Cherub Supremacist! XD  

(Sortof makes sense, based on the mindsets that were described in Aranea’s [?] talk about the Cherubs’ origins, though. Might be biologically-driven, honestly.) Also, it’s quite interesting to see Jane interacting with Alt!Calliope like that, but it is hardly unique or overly-noteworthy, all things considered... at least, most likely. Quite a few other characters have responded to narration in a similar manner.

... Honestly, I was about to freak out about the Juju getting covered in dirt and grime, but the way she tossed away probably significant keepsakes, trophies, or the like for the sake of honoring it is... quite disturbing, and speaks to a danger in her presumably worsening compulsion/habit.  Though they might just be cookies.

Dirk displays surprising wisdom/good judgment, here, and amusingly alludes to the fact that his voice is being otherwise suppressed.   His actually talking in a scene represents a nice sort of loophole, but not one by which he can utilize such control as he would otherwise be capable.    ... And yes, her burning out is a very legitimate concern, which speaks to the fact that Dirk definitely+legitimately cares about the things that serve his purposes and/or agendas. They, he is willing to more gently guard, comparatively, it would seem.

It feels like this is a reference to something, probably from the 1980s or early 90s, but I can’t place my finger on it. Oh well.

This is very amusing, honestly.

Deeeeeerp.      (Yet another example of why it is difficult to take his attempt at super-godhood seriously... or at least find it anything better than dreadful.  Dirk is great at juggling many things at once, but not as great as he’d need to be. )

Oh, and I appreciate Jane’s concern for Dirk.  She is indeed correct in saying that he is usually much better at it than my previous comment might have suggested. But I am not entirely being unfair, insofar as this is true: the greater the responsibility one wields, the greater the level of competence one must have in order to pass proper muster.  He was failing in his attempt. I didn’t really give him all that much of a chance to sway me, honestly, but my own demeanor in dealing with him had nothing to do with the actual quality of his work.

This must be really concerning to Jane.  And... honestly, yes he is. They are very, very similar. Dirk is just more obvious with his intelligence, more controlled, and more mature. They are both highly ambitious, crave challenges, enjoy art, have quite a bit of masculine pride, and have a shared appreciation for irony, riddles, and absurdist humor.     Caliborn was likely very, very influenced by Dirk in particular, both of them received Yaldabaoth as their Denizen due to their personality and prowess, and both of them are highly manipulative men of questionable morality.   Also, their sexual interests seem to be somewhat similar, but that is a debatable matter. Lord English has Lil’ Hal integrated as part of his soul, Lil’ Cal has played a profound part in both of their (multiple) life cycles.  Finally:  as of the Epilogue and his attempted control of the narrative seen therein, Dirk essentially has pursued the same goal that LE did: domination of Paradox Space through his will controlling the natural flow of events. Dirk and Caliborn are in truth extremely alike.

I do so very much like where this is going. It would seem that we will soon find out precisely what Dirk is planning. “Diminishes and ascends” has an interesting ring to it, as well.  That red rifle:  Is it the one that launches portals? Honestly, Dirk is indeed quite clever, by the way. He has the seeds of great potential.  It’s simply that it has not fully bloomed, yet, and he is a little bit overly full of himself, and arrogant in what he believes he can do.  And yes, he is indeed temperamental when people interfere with his plans, it seems.

There’s the scheming politician we’ve all been waiting for. Way to go, thinking in such calculated manners and considering backstabbing ones you care about, Jane. Somewhat petty, and certainly rather dangerous, all things considered (things are a bit more explosive, where gods are involved), but closer to the political ideal which I would hope for if she were to be portrayed as competent. (Of course, I am actually disgusted with that sort of behavior. It’s one of the things I dislike about politics. I’ll recognize that it at least paints her in a slightly better light than the previous samplings of her thought process and tactical capacity has; thus, I generally like and dislike where this is going.)

Yep. Angelic purity with sexual potency/desire. There has always been this sort of tension in Hope’s nature. Just like the fact that angels are, in Biblical texts, both symbols of terror and destruction as well as hope and salvation. All (almost all?) the important positive interactions with heavenly beings start with fear on the part of mortals, followed by a “Fear not!” to suggest they come in peace. Otherwise, they come bringing judgment and wrath, and thus don’t tend to bother much with formalities.

Is that sarcasm, Jane?  If not, there’s certainly a heavy layer of irony. Do remember what just happened with Jane when she invited Jape Jake over for a friendly visit, not too long ago, my good audience members.

...   ***twitches, and tries very hard to hold in the inappropriate laughter***

If only I had someone so dependable to tell me when I was not dwelling far enough into the land of Always Woke.   Perhaps then I would be able to avoid the inevitable scandals that would result from Foot-in-the-Mouth-itis. Oh, wait, no politician can avoid being attacked for various probably minor accidents on their part as the populace naturally over-reacts to what honestly may not actually reflect their character so much as them being accident prone or ignorant?  What’s that about manipulation of audio/video recordings for the sake of generating useful sound bites that might be used in an attempt to impugn the honor of any prospective candidate?  Oh. I see. Thank you for that important bit of knowledge that I otherwise might not have had access to, imaginary adviser.  (Note:  I do not actually believe that one should try to be as careful as possible with regards to what one says; nor that one should ignore or scorn important social issues. I am utilizing exaggeration and mockery for the sake of comedy.) ... Alt!Calliope’s description of Dirk holding the rifle is quite elegant and beautiful.

This is indeed a beautiful irony, seeing the situation with regards to Dirk and Alt!Calliope’s tendencies toward bias being reversed.  

***snickers***   Magnifique. 

It is strange to see Alt!Calliope teasing and egging him on. It may be unintentional. Hard to say.

Art is influenced by the society that surrounds the artist. It is rare to receive any piece of art that doesn't, in some way, reflect the attitude/mindset/beliefs of the populace and the artist. It can be a criticism of the society or a narrative meant to reflect the creator's own bias. Some are heavy handed and some are subtle. It's not so much the fact that there are real world issues reflected in media, it could just be the way they are presented or it's just somethings you don't agree with.

Yes and no, storytelling is a complex thing, however, this wasn't even my point. When people say they want games that aren't political, they do not mean the game cannot or should not contain politics of any kind (which is the misconception people seem to have). What they mean is, that the politics in game, shouldn't be references to current events in order to make a point or pander to the audience. I don't want a company to tell me how to think of things such as the US president, police brutality or transgender issues (which are things people apparently crave cause they need every medium they consume to suck their dicks at all times). Games will inevitably reflect real scenarios and ideological positions and that's not what "no politics in games" means. I don't want unpolitical games, but i want apolitical companies. I don't know if people play dumb or actually are, but CDPR said they want to tell their stories without injecting it with their irl political opinions and that's literally it and i respect that a lot.

the right people ~ holt x kevin

As long as we’re with the right people, we can handle anything. - Amy Santiago - and also Raymond Holt, later that day.

AN ~ for the Anon who prompted: “Kevin comforting Holt when he doesn’t get the Commissioner position or celebrating with him when he does”. (And also for me, because it’s what we deserve.) This is emotional hurt/comfort so there’s some mild angst in here but it’s all wholesome I swear. Enjoy <3

Read on AO3 (~1800wd)

the right people

Kevin knew better than to wait up for Raymond on a night like this, and though he would have liked to spend the evening together – an increasing rarity in their lives of late – he could not begrudge Raymond the celebration of Peralta and Santiago’s wedding. Instead, he simply passed along his well-wishes for the newlyweds, and set peaceably enough about his evening routine. He cooked and ate tea, washed up, walked and fed Cheddar, pressed Raymond’s suit for the next day, and then retired to the lounge. There, he browsed Le Monde for a time, and then returned to his place in The Brothers Karamazov with a glass of port in his hand, ready to settle in for an evening of literary leisure.

It was at this moment that he was interrupted, and by the sound of Raymond’s keys in the door no less. Kevin glanced at the clock. It was hardly early, but still, something didn’t seem quite right.

“Raymond?” he wondered. Uncertainty tempered his joy at the thought of being able to spend the evening with Raymond after all. For a man whose friends had just celebrated their marriage, Raymond seemed awfully sullen. Kevin frowned, and set his book and drink aside. “… Is everything okay?”

Raymond did not bother to remove his coat or bag at the door, and instead headed right past Kevin and into the kitchen. Kevin leapt after him, now especially concerned that Raymond had apparently surpassed the melodramatic monologuing stage of whatever this was and had moved straight to something more drastic. Kevin’s concerns were only compounded when he found Raymond in the kitchen, having finally abandoned his coat and bag, staring deep into the soul of the microwave oven.

“Do we have ketchup?” Raymond wondered half-heartedly, watching goodness-knows-what spin around on its plate inside. There were only a few seconds to go.

“Ketchup?” Kevin’s frown deepened. “No, though if I remember correctly there is some tomato chutney in the-“

“Salt, then?”

“Top shelf, leftmost cupboard I believe. Why?” Kevin asked. “Raymond, what’s the matter? And what is…“

He trailed off when he saw the tell-tale red packaging strewn across the bench. The microwave chimed, and his stomach turned at the mere memory of the smell. Oh yes, he knew what that was.

Pizza pockets.

“Oh, no,” he objected.

“Oh, yes!” Raymond cried, raising the pizza pocket on the plate high as if it were some kind of holy punishment from ancient times. “I am a failure, Kevin, and so I shall eat the food… of failures.”

“I highly doubt that-“ Kevin began, only to find that Raymond had apparently recovered sufficiently from his initial disappointment to have re-entered the monologuing stage of… grief, or whatever this was.

“Peralta calls this his ‘comfort food,’” Raymond mused, turning the plate this way and that to study the pastry from all sides. “He assures me all will be well should I allow it to cradle me against its sodium- and preservative-filled bosom. Of course, I do doubt it, but then again, if today has taught me anything, it is that my opinion is meaningless. Everything is meaningless, except for this. This… pocket full of pizza is the only small chance at joy I have left in this world, Kevin. It is the one cheese- and bacon-filled star that remains in the black, burnt-out husk of the sky that is my career. It is… What. I. Deserve.”

Kevin could not stand idly by and untangle the net of mixed metaphors Raymond had just weaved for himself; not when, right before his very eyes, Raymond – with all the resignation of a heartbroken hero in a Shakespearean tragedy – plunged his teeth deep into the pizza pocket’s cheesy depths.

“No!” Kevin cried, knocking the plate and the rest of the pastry out of Raymond’s hands. “Don’t be ridiculous, Raymond. Why would you do this to yourself? Whatever is the matter, please tell me. It’s not about the wedding, is it? Because I already told you, I have no regrets about that.”

“No,” Holt agreed. “It’s not about the wedding. Such as it was. It is about… the job.”

“The Commissioner job?”

“Yes.”

“You didn’t get it?”

Kevin blinked, flabbergasted. He was frozen in place, paralysed by confusion and no shortage of indignant fury, as Cheddar ran into the room and gleefully began licking up the cheese-and-bacon-flavoured mess he’d made. Raymond knelt to scratch Cheddar’s ears and murmur sweet nothings. Kevin’s brain ran the gauntlet of the Kubler-Ross Model.

First, denial. Could Raymond be joking? If so, it would not have been the first time he had used his subtle manner to extract humour of a practical nature. Immature though such a joke may have been about a thing like this, he was undoubtedly a little tipsy and may not have been thinking as clearly as he usually did.

Then again, the pizza pocket spoke to that well enough, and the amount of drink he had consumed had no doubt in itself been influenced by the receipt of such terrible news. It was not fair, it was simply not fair, Kevin thought. Raymond had worked impossibly hard, and fought frankly ridiculous odds, to stay with an organisation that had never cared for him. What else could the NYPD have possibly wanted Raymond to do? He could hardly have spent more early mornings or late nights at work. He could hardly have conducted himself more professionally. He could hardly have given up more than he did, or believed in the purest most idealistic heart and soul, the intended purpose as he saw it, of the NYPD any more than he did. Serve and protect. Kevin defied anyone to have done it better.

And yet, they had both seen this coming for a long time. Raymond had had to fight for every scrap of recognition, every case, every promotion he had ever received. He was a proud black man, and gay too, and not remotely ashamed of either of those facts. He had come out in the midst of the AIDS crisis and never looked back. Never backed down. He had stood up for Sergeant Jeffords, advocated for Santiago, and fought racial bias in the NYPD where ever he had found it. That had to be intimidating for an organisation chaired by white men who were comfortable in their ways, who baulked at change, who served the mission of the organisation to their own end. Maybe the other candidates for Commissioner had indeed been quality officers – Kevin knew himself better than to assume he would give any officer besides Raymond a fair assessment – but after watching his husband be systemically undermined at every turn…

The urge to march into the new Commissioner’s office and have a strongly worded discussion with him (if not an outright swordfight, which Kevin had also briefly entertained) began to fade. The inevitability of it all did sting, but Kevin realised, there was only so much he could do about it at this point. No doubt all of these thoughts, and more, had been running through Raymond’s mind ever since he’d found out about the board’s decision. It was no wonder he’d resigned himself to pizza pockets. And no matter what the reason, Kevin reminded himself, the fact remained that his husband was clearly extremely upset. Maybe he could not single-handedly fix the prison system or end mandatory sentencing, but pizza pockets? Not in his kitchen. At least that much, he could handle.

Taking a deep breath, Kevin brushed Raymond’s shoulder to regain his attention.

“Take a seat, Raymond,” he offered; for both their dignities, ignoring that Raymond was still all but curled up with Cheddar on the kitchen floor. “I have a plate for you in the oven. There is no need for you to torture yourself any further with that… ‘food’.”

Raymond sighed as well, and hefted himself off the floor with a visible effort.

“You are too good to me, my dear,” he declared, catching Kevin’s hand and squeezing it, leaning in for a brief embrace as they passed each other. “What would I do without you?”

“Experience an ischemic cerebrovascular accident, no doubt,” Kevin offered.

“No doubt indeed.” They had passed each other like orbiting planets as Raymond moved toward the dining table and Kevin toward the oven, but Raymond took his time releasing Kevin’s hand. He picked up the packet of pizza pockets from the bench, with three remaining pastries inside, and glanced over the list of ingredients on the back. To think, what he had been about to put into his body? Thank goodness for Kevin helping him see the light. Raymond dropped the box into the bin, and for the first time since reading those fateful words – we regret to inform you - a smile touched his lips. And not just because he was glad to be rid of those awful frozen pockets of pizza.

“Raymond, may I request back the use of my hand?” Kevin asked. “The plate is hot and it will be safer for both of us - and for your dinner - if I am able to use my full faculties.”

“Of course.”

Raymond released Kevin, and watched as he pulled a plate of roast cauliflower, broccoli, pumpkin, carrot, and lamb from the oven with all the grace and strength and decorum with which he had always conducted himself. The plate itself was nothing special, all of it unseasoned to perfection, and yet Raymond found himself staring rather moonishly as Kevin turned back and saw him.

“What is that look for?” Kevin wondered; flattered, if a little confused.

Raymond was thinking of what Amy had said earlier. What he himself had repeated at the bar. That as long as we’re with the right people, we can handle anything. His squad, certainly, was comprised of good people and he was proud to be their leader and their friend, but there was one ‘right person’ he had come dangerously close to overlooking tonight. How was he to convey how sorry he was, or how happy, how grateful, how loved? How could anyone bring themselves to write wedding vows at all? Then again, why did they need to, when three little words could achieve so much?

“I love you,” Raymond said.

Kevin’s expression softened.

“I love you too,” he said. Then, as they walked to the table together like it was any old Parisian street, he added: “Would you still like that salt?”

Raymond shook his head as they sat. “I don’t need it. Thank you.”

“No trouble at all, my love,” Kevin assured him. Of course, there was no need for the extraneous pet name, but after a long day, it never hurt to indulge. “No trouble at all.”

Do you think You's been sidelined too much in Season 2?

Unpopular opinion: Nope.

Now, before y’all start coming at me with pitchforks, let me explain.

[Putting under a cut for S2 spoilers]

To understand this question, we need to know what factors contribute to a character getting screen time. Of course, this is usually not a straightforward matter, but for the purposes of this ask, I’ve simplified it down to three:

Plot

Popularity

Fairness

…I’m now slightly upset that I can’t find a word that starts with a “p” for #3.

Well, whatever. First up, the plot. If a character is crucial to whatever story arc is going on at the moment, then obviously they get more screen time. Take Kanan in Season 1 - everyone made jokes about her getting next-to-zero lines for the first half of the season, and then she finally got her chance to shine in the moments leading up to the Mijuku DREAMER episode.

But look at it this way: in the beginning, the anime was all about Chika’s efforts to start a school idol club and develop a fledgling school idol group. At that point in time, Kanan was still opposed to the idol of being a school idol again, and was busy helping out at her family’s diving shop to boot. It’s a shame that Kanan didn’t appear more, but you also have to consider that she didn’t have anything to offer in terms of plot advancement.

As for popularity, it’s actually kind of a chicken-or-the-egg factor. Popular characters get more screen time because they’re the ones who are drawing in viewers, and so the more screen time they get, the more that people will watch a show. On the other hand, certain characters become popular because they get screen time - just look at how Ruby’s popularity exploded after the Hakodate episodes in Season 2.

You can even argue about this working for ships. There are plenty of YohaMaru and YohaRiko moments for the massive YohaMaru and YohaRiko fanbase out there. KanaMari has no shortage of ship tease moments in S2, and I will confidently say that a large part of their explosion in popularity is thanks to S1E9. Whatever the case may be, it’s undeniable that popularity does have some level of influence on screen time.

Finally, we have fairness. Every character gets their chance in the spotlight by having an episode dedicated to them. Dia fans did get plenty of fun moments in Season 1, but had to wait until Season 2 for her “turn”. Plus, if a character doesn’t get enough screen time for a while for no particular reason, usually the gap will be made up for at some point in the future. Since the RubyMaru episode in S1 mostly focused on Hanamaru, and Hanamaru got a lot of screen time after that, it was only fair to introduce a major Ruby arc in S2.

Now, how does You fare in Season 2 under these three conditions?

Is she popular? Sure! Her popularity’s probably taken a bit of a hit over time, as characters like Yoshiko and Hanamaru have gotten a chance to be fully developed through the anime, but she’s still up there in the ranks.

A side note - this is probably my bias speaking, but part of You’s constant popularity might be thanks to her seiyuu Shukashuu, who is undeniably popular. Case in point: at the time of this post, Shukashuu has the most followers on Twitter out of the Aqours cast (if you’re curious, 2nd is Rikyako and 3rd is Aikyan). Also, if you look up prices for Aqours seiyuu bromides, sets for Shukashuu tend to be markedly more expensive than sets for the others. I can’t help but feel like You would be a lot less popular if Shukashuu wasn’t so well-loved. I have no doubt that there are plenty of fans under the Watanabae spell, but I also suspect that You has an underlying base of Shukashuu fans who help maintain the character’s popularity.

All right, back on track. The big questions we need to ask: is You plot-relevant right now? Is it her “turn” to get screen time?

Let’s go over what’s happened so far in Season 2. Dia learned how to be more comfortable with the group; Riko finally got over her crippling fear of dogs; Chika went through another period of self-doubt over her capabilities as a leader; Ruby proved that she’s grown from a shy girl into an independent young lady; the third years made peace with their inevitable separation; and finally, Aqours renewed its commitment to winning Love Live for the sake of their beloved school.

Now, where does You fit into this? That’s the issue - she kind of…doesn’t.

Season 1 was about Aqours making a name for itself. They needed to prove that they weren’t just a µ’s copycat, and that they had their own unique hopes and charms that would make them stand out as school idols. Since at that point, Aqours was still forming and everyone wasn’t quite comfortable with each other, You got to have a lot of screen time. Since she was Chika’s best friend, You would be the one who Chika would rely on in the beginning. As You provided a lot of skills that Aqours didn’t have yet (choreography, physical training, costume designing), she got bonus screen time for those parts as well.

With Season 2, a lot of the reasons why You got screen time faded away. Chika learned how to communicate better, confiding in not just You, but Riko, Kanan, Maru, and the others as well. Ruby gained enough confidence to proudly sew outfits for the group instead of hesitantly hovering in the background. Kanan and Mari continued to oversee the group’s training regiment and choreography.

Unfortunately for You, the way her character has been built means that the factors of “plot” and “fairness” work against her for screen time. Since You got to shine in Season 1, she had to step aside to give the others a chance in Season 2. As for plot…well, there are some people who complain that You is too “perfect” of a character. In a way, they’re right.

You see, characters like Chika and Yoshiko stay onscreen because of their imperfections. Chika has the constant pressure of being the leader and trying to stay positive for the sake of the group. You can see that there are times when she breaks under the stress, particularly at times of failure (see: the 0 from S1, the training portion for MIRACLE WAVE, the announcement that the school was closing for good). Chika is the embodiment of Aqours, and seeing her ups and downs is the equivalent of seeing the growth of the group as a whole.

Yoshiko is also a character who always struggles with herself. Her “fallen angel” routine hides a vulnerable first-year student who is still unused to the idea of having friends. Riko and Maru may scoff and tease her at times, but they are also her top supporters, and don’t hesitate to step up to the plate when they see that she needs help (whether it’s raising a dog or attracting customers for fortune-telling).

So while others may stumble and falter, You is the character who will always be there for the protagonist, and provides a sense of security and consistency. If it’s You, she can do it. If it’s You, she won’t fail. That’s what You means to the viewers - she’s everyone’s “rock”. However, this means that she’s there as support rather than the driving force behind the plot. Above all, characters need to be shown for the sake of development and growth - You, unfortunately, doesn’t have too much room for either.

There’s actually a µ’s character who I’m reminded of in this situation: Umi. Like You, Umi is the childhood friend of the leader of her school idol group, and decided to give her all to support her despite juggling a top position in a sports club. Unlike You, Umi didn’t even get an episode dedicated to her - although Umi also suffered from being the reliable best friend, she didn’t really have any glaring insecurities that needed to be resolved (plus, Honoka constantly clung to Umi, which eliminated any possible jealousy subplots like You’s).

Both Umi and You have the misfortune of their major character block being something that can’t fit into the anime - them being in another club. If you read alternate LL adaptations, you’ll discover that the characters who get left behind in the anime get their chance to shine again. In SIF, Umi missed practice for several days due to an archery competition, and in her School idol diaries, she goes over how she feels about her duties as the inheritor of a dojo. In the manga, a major plot point for a couple of chapters is actually about You’s swim club practices making her too busy for the school idol club.

These story arcs, while interesting, have no place in the anime. The anime needs to focus on the group’s journey to Love Live, and there are already enough nigh impossible obstacles for them to overcome without the additional threat of missed practices. It’s regrettable, but Umi and You were thus relegated to providing reassurances and encouragement when needed, and making sure that everything runs smoothly for the group in the background.

So in the end, do I think that You’s had a severe reduction in screen time this season? Yes - in fact, there are actual statistics out there (i.e. hardcore fans straight up recording how much time she gets on screen) to prove this. She really has been kinda put on the sidelines for a good chunk of Season 2.

But do I think she’s been sidelined too much? As I’ve explained above, although I’m a huge You fan myself, I get why the sidelining had to happen. It’s not “too much” if there’s a legitimate reason behind it.

Plus, remember my third point about fairness and how characters that lacked screen time would eventually show up again? Fans of You (and ChikaYou in particular) got massively rewarded for their patience with that lovely, heartfelt moment between You and Chika in S2E11. Perhaps it was done on purpose - after all, S1E11 was You’s episode (and also the episode that caused all ChikaYou fans to melt into a puddle of tears).

It’s a pity that You hasn’t appeared too much in Season 2, but hopefully it’s understandable. I have strong hopes that she’ll appear more often from now on - and I have no doubt that we’ll get plenty of yousoro love in the future! o7

Racism by degrees

Racism is the unfair treatment of a person by reason only or partially of their skin colour or ethnicity. I know racism exists. From the age of 8 to 13 I was frequently bullied and called a ‘P*ki’, and even a ‘N*gger’ at school because I was just a little bit browner than my peers,  These upsetting experiences were also bizarre to me because I am not from an ethnic minority. The different ethnicity was simply assumed from my skin colour. 

To my mind if we talk about racism, and more especially if we are serious about wanting to fix it, we need to provide evidence in terms of concrete incidences: actions, words, behaviour, rules, policies and laws that need changing. I am very concerned that among social theorists, racism has become ‘abstracted’ and divorced from actual happenings, even economic and social context. Anti-racism has become the servant of ideology, in particular the Cultural Marxism that pervades academia. This ideology wants to generate social conflict between alleged oppressors and oppressed in order to realise utopia via revolution. Signs of this ideology are the presentation of racism as a kind of  vaguely explained taint or miasma, using  fuzzy, ambiguous, nebulous or incoherent concepts such as ‘systemic racism’, ‘institutional racism’ and ‘white privilege’. These notions go far beyond pinpointing wrong doing. They all have in common the ascribing to a social group or body  a ‘collective guilt’ seemingly without the need to prove individual guilt in the present or even prove any particular organisational structures or policies are causally having a bad effect.  But if accusations of racism are not attached to actual acts of racism, what we have created is a free floating mirage, floating free from any facts. This worldview is as dangerous as the denial that racism exists.

But if you believe there is something that is meant by ‘systemic’ or ‘institutional’ racism,  then I’m going to help you out by demonstrating what you are (probably) referring to is a type of underlying subjective mindset. Except this is a mindset shared, to some degree, by most human beings. I could call this the ‘pre-racist’ mindset, but this ‘pre-racism’ isn’t inevitably morally bad or invidious. Nor does this pre-racism necessarily lead to actual racism. This pre-racist mindset is as old as the hills and better referred to as Xenophobia. Literally, the ‘fear’ of the outsider. While Xenophobia has come to mean the ‘hate or dislike’ of the outsider  I have no doubt the Greeks were right first time. A natural anxiety may be the reason we have a ‘problem’ with outsiders at all.

So my argument is Racism is rooted in our xenophobic attitudes to others who are not part of our group. In a somewhat different context Scottish historian Neil Oliver pointed out that ‘Human beings have been tribal since the dawn of our species,and before. Chimpanzees are tribal. Gorillas are tribal.’*  It shouldn’t be at all surprising that the presence of newcomers  might at the very least create reactions within the tribe. On the positive side, newcomers also often bring new things of value that change the community for the better. Barely any human progress would have occurred if human tribes had been shut off entirely from outside influences.

I believe there is such a thing as a human social ecology, and communities have a natural equilibrium developed over generations that we identify as ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’. This is an equilibrium that can be destabilized for good or ill (usually both) by any significant change. One such is the  mass movement of one people in a short period (say one or two generations) whether by colonization or by migration to an area populated by an existing indigenous people.  I believe the mass movement of peoples inevitably produce some measure of social - tribal - conflict. The greater the difference in values, the greater the flashpoints. Anyone who cares about social peace must acknowledge that celebrating multiculturalism is backing a huge social experiment with uncertain outcome and where liberal optimism is flying in the face of much historical experience. The issue is not that one culture is ‘superior’ to another - we’d need some independent objective measure to argue otherwise - it is simply that two different cultures of equal objective value and merit, must clash.

I must reiterate. Racism is a bad thing. Why should anyone be treated less well than another person by reason of something that is out of their control like their colour or ethnic heritage? I didn’t want that for myself, so I should not want you to suffer that experience either. We all want to live in a society where each person is equal under the law, equally protected by (and from) the forces of law and order, and all get a fair opportunity for success without artificial barriers, presumptions and prejudice getting in their way. And if this isn’t important to you, remember that we are all members of some minority or other. 

It would be equally unwise to not admit xenophobia, if not actual racism, comes very naturally and starts off in the most subtle, and entirely innocent forms. From birth, and without any particular plan or assumptions, we extend our lives beyond our social circle but gravitate to those of similar interests. There is nobody on earth who is so open they care equally for every human being.  And even if we felt that way, establishing  bonds of trust - the lubricant of social life - with those who are culturally very different to us, is not easy. Familiarity, shared expectations and shared social customs and behaviours, and especially shared language, greatly lessen our social anxiety. 

Racism will occur when very different populations of people are pushed together, especially if the resources we all need are scarce or under pressure. A rapid increase in cultural heterogeneity in a community is not some unalloyed good because the instinctual social bonds that bind us will surely be weakened, at least in the short term. An altruistic, God like love of diversity and difference for its own sake requires a form of sophisticated thinking that competes with our base instincts. Instincts which more often than not are behaviour adaptations that once aided our survival.

Here is my take on the types, or better, degrees of xenophobia. Remember behaviours don’t automatically follow, if they do, they may give rise to both stronger group identity and in-group social bonds as well as the unfair behaviour toward outsiders. I have used pejorative descriptions to show extremes of the the mindset - which is informed more by emotion than reason- are not ‘good’ for social peace. Yes, Xenophobia is natural, but so is death and disease which we try to avoid. These mindsets involve objectively unreasonable and illogical prejudices until we have made the effort to get to know someone from an outsider group. And then, even if 10, 50 or 99% of an outsider group, does seem to fit some preconceived negative stereotype, this does not mean everyone from the outsider group is like that.  We might be missing out on a beautiful, mutually beneficial relationship.

The Base Level. Innocent ‘casual’ Xenophobia.

Unconscious group bias - the apparently universal tendency to prefer those most similar and like ourselves and to be less naturally trusting of outsiders and newcomers. We give people like ourselves the benefit of the doubt; we tend to empathise more. We’d rather ignore outsiders, we prefer to have people like ourselves around us; we are ignorant of the history or culture of the outsider; the outsider’s  manners and behaviour are strange, alien and most especially, unpredictable. The latter unpredictability may feed our anxiety in interactions.

Prick Level Xenophobia

Our bias means we cold shoulder outsiders; we now prefer to have our own group around and we are likely to be conscious of our exclusively. We uncritically accept stereotypes of the other group. We distrust the outsider group to a significant degree. We are highly suspicious of them, but we make no effort to befriend them or learn about them. We are starting to build a negative narrative about the other group or our relationship to them.

Wanker Level Xenophobia

We now believe our group is superior to another, outsider, group.  Our success is explained in terms of our group's alleged unique and innate characteristics which just ‘are’. Attitudes to outsiders can range from the patronizing, mockery and condescension to justifying less favourable treatment in terms of our greater ‘desert’. Usually the sense of superiority includes a judgement of intellectual or moral superiority: our group are good, the best or better; that other group are worse or simply bad. We quickly see only the negative, we ignore the positive in outsiders. Along with our sense of superiority is the desire to preserve that superiority or dominance.

Arsehole Level Xenophobia

Without good evidence we conclude an entire outsider group are a physical threat; we are now stirred to action, our reasoning is increasingly clouded by the emotions of fear and anger.  Or less dramatically, the outsider group may be perceived as an obstacle to our personal prosperity, a barrier to advancement or simply undermining our way of life by replacing their culture with their own. We see them as in collective competition against ‘our’ people for scare resources (housing, jobs, public services), moreover we believe this is ‘unfair’ competition produced by certain benefits or alleged privileges that have been inappropriately bestowed upon them.

Coda

Lots of experiences in our lives soften or harden (reinforce) the xenophobic tendencies that presumably develop sometime during childhood, as we acquire a sense of ourselves and our place in the world.

Sadly, in the summer of 2020 a significant section of the population is drifting toward arsehole levels of xenophobia. And my controversial final comment is this: no race or colour is immune from a proliferation of xenophobic pricks, wankers and arseholes.

Athlete’s Footnotes

*Neil Oliver on TalkRadio. See https://youtu.be/rWLde0uO6u8

Why Your Business Must Double Down On Data

During this time of uncertainty, it’s imperative that companies double down on data.

JoPanuwatD | BigStock

As our governments fight to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’re seeing the global economy grind to a painful halt. While we strive to save lives by restricting non-essential services and observing stay-at-home orders, both B2C and B2B companies—large and small—are feeling the effects of the unfolding economic crisis. For example, your sales pipeline and forecast from the beginning of the year probably looks nothing like your current figures. You may have already initiated some cost reductions and pulled back on spending to prepare for what’s coming. Except you don’t know what’s going to happen—nobody does.

In this unprecedented period of uncertainty, it’s difficult to plan or make decisions with confidence. As a result, the natural tendency may be to hold the line, ride out the storm, and wait for things to return to normal. While this approach may feel like a safe strategy, it is based on a misguided status quo bias. In reality, what we define as “normal” may never return. If we do eventually return to something resembling “normal,” what happens if it doesn’t emerge for 18-24 months? Can you afford to wait? Probably not.

In these challenging times, change is inevitable—standing still isn’t an option. While many digital transformation efforts have waited patiently for proper attention, organizations must now embrace digital change like never before. Companies need to pivot and adapt quickly to the new business environment. As our intuitions desperately seek to guide us through these unfamiliar waters, our fear-fueled cognitive biases will inevitably trip us up. During these turbulent times, data may prove to be the very life preserver that keeps your organization afloat. Insight-driven decisions—not gut-driven ones—will lead to business survival. It’s time for every organization to strengthen, not weaken, its commitment to data by doubling down on its analytics efforts.

What do the analytics experts say

To better understand how companies can leverage data to adapt and optimize their businesses in this unique pandemic crisis, I reached out to three analytics entrepreneurs for their perspectives and insights:

For this article, I interviewed three analytics entrepreneurs who are on the frontlines of driving … [+] value with data.

Brent Dykes

Jason Krantz, CEO/Founder of Strategy Titan, a strategic analytics advisory, and a provider of economic, labor, and market insights.

Michael Helbling, President/Founder of AJL Analytics, an analytics consultancy focused on analytics strategy and value creation through data.

Jason Thompson, Co-Founder of 33 Sticks, an analytics boutique that uses consumer behavior to solve complex business challenges.

Each of these individuals runs their own analytics consultancy, is focused on driving value with data and works with a wide variety of companies that exhibit various levels of data maturity. From my discussions with these analytics experts, I’ve identified six key themes for how you should approach doubling down on data during these uncertain times:

1.   Stay calm, don’t panic

As organizations struggle with this economic crisis, it’s important to be calm and not panic. Thompson said, “When businesses start panicking, they make illogical decisions that in the aftermath they will greatly regret.” These mistakes may include becoming too paralyzed with fear and unable to act, abandoning promising analytics initiatives and letting valuable brainpower go that could have helped in the recovery phase. Krantz noted, “The smart leaders are staying calm and leveraging this opportunity to recalibrate various components of their businesses.”

2.   Turn challenges into opportunities

The pandemic shines a new light on your current business operations. A problem that was once invisible may now become painfully obvious during these demanding times. Helbling stated, “It’s a critical moment to establish a solid foundation for your business analytics so you have a clearer understanding of where your business is right now. With this foundation, you can then discover new opportunities for customer acquisition, lead generation and product sales.” Thompson noted, “Our sharpest customers are using this time as an opportunity to innovate at an even faster pace—it’s a chance for them to get even stronger.” In most cases, companies possess everything they need to seize new opportunities. Krantz pointed out that “the answers to many of your most pressing business, customer and market questions are likely already within your four walls—hidden within your data.”

3.   Listen to your customers

Listening closely to customers–both their words and behaviors–will be critical in a shifting … [+] business environment.

fizkes | Bigstock

If you assume customer needs are the same and haven’t changed with this crisis, you may miss the mark. It’s critical that your business is aligned with today’s customer needs—not yesterday’s. Thompson commented, “Customers have changed. Companies should be using all the data they have available to them to understand what their ‘new customer’ looks like, how they can connect with them and how they can make the buy-receive process as anxiety-free as possible.” Whether it’s leveraging behavioral, survey, or conversational data (from picking up the phone), your company needs a clear signal from its client base. Based on feedback from customer interactions, Krantz’s team developed an entirely new offering of financial benchmarking and economic insights to help businesses track the recovery of their industry. He noted, “This was not in our roadmap but came forth because we listened to our customers.”

4.   Lean on your best people

To identify and drive improvements to your business, you’ll want to review your current roster for key individuals who could tackle innovative, data-driven solutions. These individuals are typically not in your executive ranks but visionaries at the mid-management level. Krantz recommended staff who are “high enough to have clarity on the strategic vision of the company but are still close enough to the day-to-day activities of the business to be able to quickly identify game-changing opportunities.” Unfortunately, Thompson noticed many firms have been letting go the exact type of talent who could help them the most right now. He said, “I’ve been shocked to see friends and past colleagues, that I know have the experience and brainpower to help companies take their businesses digital, getting caught up in the first waves of layoffs. It makes zero sense to me.” Companies can’t afford to let short-sighted cost-cutting negate the pursuit of future growth opportunities.

5.   Focus on analytical agility

Analytical agility is especially critical during a moment of crisis like we’re currently … [+] experiencing.

Koonsiri Boonnak | Bigstock

In this current environment, you’ll want to prioritize smaller analytics projects that focus on opportunities with the greatest potential with the least amount of risk. Helbling emphasized, “Companies need to get very practical and specific with their data analysis to deliver quick insights. Agility is everything when navigating a global crisis like this pandemic. In addition, ensuring the quality of the data goes hand-in-hand with these quick analyses. For many companies, data quality issues must now be addressed and can’t be ignored any longer.” Krantz also added, “It is a great time to leverage outside expertise to get these types of initiatives off the ground and rapidly show value.”

6.   Test everything

If your organization hasn’t yet developed a test-and-learn approach yet, now may be the time. Helbling noted, “People talk about the ‘new normal’ but the truth is none of us really know what that is so rapid experimentation is urgently needed. Without data to quickly discern the opportunity and its potential size, how will you know to stick with a tactic or abandon it for something more promising?” Thompson found some companies were holding off on optimization testing on their websites due to abnormal traffic patterns. He said, “Companies need to better understand these new audiences. What works? What doesn’t? They need to innovate and move quickly right now or they’re going to miss out on connecting with these new customers. Using data to inform a robust optimization testing strategy is absolutely a winning move.” Krantz echoed the need for testing and highlighted how his team is testing new ideas every week. He stated, “Not everything you try will work, but all you need is for one test to work and it could change your business for the better.”

As we go through these trying times, we need data more than ever to influence and guide how we move forward. To be clear, by doubling down on data, you aren’t necessarily spending more on analytics. It may simply mean staying committed to being data-driven, using your existing resources more effectively and adapting your analytics approach to the new business environment. Yes, the human and economic cost of this pandemic crisis will be felt for many years to come. However, the adversity of this moment may evolve your business into its best version—leaner, faster, stronger, and smarter than what would have been possible before. May data help propel your organization, teams and employees through this rough patch in our shared human history.

Source link

Tags: Analytics, Business, business intelligence, covid-19, Data, data-driven, digital transformation, Double, economic crisis, Optimization, pandemic, testing

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3f2mKey via IFTTT

＊＊A Former Journalist’s Perspective on the Above:

Ok guys, let’s stop for a second and break this down--

Things Rian has said:

–There will not be a Han-Leia TYPE romance. –I.e. this will not be a frustrating, unrequited love type thing. –This TYPE of relationship dynamic will not be a centerpiece.

Things the VF writer assumed from Rian’s statement:

–That this somehow means there will be no romance at all. –They assumed that just because the romance wouldn’t be the unrequited type that that somehow means no other kinds of romance at all. That is NOT what Rian said.

I used to work as a journalist for a massive international news network, and let me tell you- the number one mistake we were NEVER allowed to make was *assume* something from a statement- ‘assumptions’ being the hallmark of American journalism.

If I were responsible for writing or researching this story for my past job, I’d have had to get a direct quote saying “there is *no* romance in 8″. Hands down, if I did not have that direct quote, I would NEVER have been allowed to make such a statement. But not only is that quote NOT here, but the writer makes the egregious mistake of *assuming* that one type not being there is equivalent to NONE being there.

This, my friends, is most likely going to backfire. A bit like how JJ let slip that Rey’s parents weren’t in 7 and then badly tried to backpedal in a later statement.

Basically I think Rian will come back and personally amend the article’s assumption, either through twitter or in another interview. Because going by his quote, this is literally ALL you can *actually* take from it:

Things that Rian ACTUALLY said according to his statement, without the writer’s assumptions tacked on:

–The TYPE of romance Han and Leia had, i.e. grump vs. lovable cad, is not a type we’ll see here. –That type of romance seen in the OT will not be a “centerpiece” to this trilogy”

Things Rian did NOT say according to his statement:

–There will be no romance (he did not say this!! He only specified a certain type!) –That there will be no Rey-Kylo romance. (he did NOT say this! Again, he only specified a certain type! Not a pairing) –That there will be no Finn-Poe romance. (again, he didn’t say this! Stormpilot wouldn’t even have the potential to fit into the angst dynamic Rian describes anyway)

Keep in mind the writer’s reporting bias!

The writer specifically pointed out ships by name. This is a person who has at least read a buzzfeed article about different types of SW ships, and yes, if you don’t think journalists read other peoples’ work for leads on their own stories, you’re dreaming- we do it constantly. If this person was out to debunk all ships, considering the writer works for ‘Vanity Fair’ and NOT a news outlet, he could swing Rian’s “not this TYPE of romance” statement in any direction he personally wanted to. And it seems he took it and turned it into an assumption of ‘no romance’ when Rian clearly never said that, is not quoted as saying that, only said that a certain TYPE of romance we’ve seen in the past wouldn’t be there. 

Short FAQ:

Q: But wouldn’t LF/Disney have to approve the article before it’s published to make sure it’s accurate??? A: NO. This is not how journalism, even the type VF does, works. I’ve had people in the past ask me for advance copies of stories to ‘approve’ and we’ve always politely told them no and subtly that that was an absurd request. SW also has a VERY long-running relationship with VF, which would mean an even more hands-off approach anyway.

So Let’s Make Our Own More Educated, Objective Assumptions (since the fandom aren’t journalists and allowed to):

–Everyone is STILL outrightly dodging the topic of discussing the Kylo/Rey dynamic. This is significant. This is the type of bone you want to chase. Clearly nobody’s being allowed to. Remember who is depicted on the teaser poster! –Since only a certain TYPE of romantic dynamic we’ve seen in the past won’t be happening, that leaves us with a whole slew of others. If unrequited love isn’t on the menu, then the opposite of that is REQUITED. If it won’t be “burning”, then it could be MEANINGFUL. All Rian’s done is scratched one potential item off the menu- it doesn’t meant the rest of the menu isn’t still there! When you look at most of our fanfiction anyway, is it really unrequited love? Or is it almost always an underlying understanding of “Oh god, this is happening- this is scary but it’s almost fatalistically inevitable!” We may not have been barking up the wrong tree here on how this will play out. –When Carrie was asked at the 2016 Wizard World con in Chicago if any of the characters would be friends with Kylo (who she kept calling “her son”) the FIRST WORDS out of her mouth were “Well Rey is very forgiving...” but then after the slip (yes, slip!) she immediately tried to backpedal and say “He’s an asshole”. THAT, my friends is solid- Carrie was asked about friendship with Kylo, and the first person she names is Rey. No, she did not say directly that they would be friends- she CAN’T say something THAT specific. Saying something like that would be extremely specific. But the fact that she named ONE character in a POSITIVE vein with regards to Kylo is the closest she can legally get to saying “Rey and Kylo will have a working, friendly relationship at the minimum” without the Disney lawyers coming after her, which is why she amended with a negative statement by calling Kylo an “asshole”.

KEEP IN MIND: Production for the new SW films is slippery as fuck. They will wrap you up in semantics if they think they can make your brain redirect, and then when something actually DOES happen later, smile enigmatically, shrug their shoulders, and quote obi-wan by saying “Well by a certain point of view!”

So to recap on the highlights:

-DON’T let a writer’s possible anti-shipping bias influence you -DON’T let poor assumptive journalism confuse you- again, making assumptions without the blatant facts to back them up are a classic hallmark of American journalism and international journalists are VERY keenly aware of this problem and have to work around it constantly -DON’T take Rian’s statement about ONE TYPE of romance happening to mean *no* romance is happening because that is NOT what he said!

Personally, I’m not that concerned- I do not feel that reylo is impacted by this guy’s assumptions nor Rian’s statements because all he’s said is that OT-type unrequited love won’t be a main strain of the story. Well that leaves a bazillion other juicy possibilities. This writer has made some assumptions that *cast* members have already somewhat contradicted, and personally I’m more inclined to believe them than some dude writing for VF. I also do not condone supposedly reputable publications twisting around quotations from production and making *massive* assumptions, because what this guy has done is exactly that. It’s *massive* to sweep *ALL* romance off the board when Rian didn’t even say that!! This clear bias and disregard for what was actually said makes me question the validity of the rest of his articles. If I were still working in journalism looking for story leads, I’d take things this guy has said with a grain of salt and tread very carefully after reading a good word twisting like that. Those are the sorts of things that make reporting very unreliable.

I’m not sure how to end this, so I’ll just say that I hope this has helped, I hope this has also shed some light on how these things work and how they SHOULDN’T work, and frankly, KEEP SHIPPING, GUYS because I don’t think anything has been killed or debunked or anything like that. If anything I feel like if unrequited love isn’t happening, the requited love is that much more of a strong possibility and BOY should that make the ants quake in their boots with fear. >:3

Credit to @sleemo for the above screencap and for letting me use it- thanks friend.

Looking at the posts I’ve accumulated so far for #500 reasons and counting, I realized I need to frame the various subjects I’m tackling. I’d rather post more quotes than original posts, but the trouble with a complicated history like the Reformation (and the internet in general) is taking things out of context causes problems. To do this right, we need a clear conceptual framework in which to lay those quotes (and my inevitable commentary on them). So while in my first post I talked about where I’m coming from personally, in this post, call it intro 2.0, let’s lay out some history and approach parameters.

Let’s get the approach parameters out of the way first: 

A) I’m trained in theology, not history, and I’m blogging about this as someone learning, not an expert. B) please charitably correct me (with sources!) if I get something wrong, but C) we should go into this realizing there’s a lot of room for disagreement (as you’ll see if you finish reading this post). D) I always try to represent the source I’m summarizing/working from accurately. That means: D-1) if you disagree with something I say, let’s first go back to the source and make sure I’m conveying it as they said it, and D-2) A good debater should understand the opposing POV so well that they can word their opponent’s argument to the satisfaction of their opponent. If I misrepresent an argument, it is not intentional. Please bring it to my attention and we’ll work it out. 

That said, now we can talk about bias. If we’re going to talk about the Reformation, its causes and effects, how it influenced our civilization and still affects people today - even, yes, all those pesky theological “details” many would say no one cares about and don’t matter anymore! - then we need to ask some pointed questions: Just what do we mean by the Reformation? Whose version of the Reformation and its legacy is correct? What exactly is it, septembersung, that you’re taking issue with and arguing against?

Well, if you ask three historians “what happened,” you’ll get thirty answers...

To a large extent, Catholics, Protestants, and secular historians tell the story of medieval Christianity (i.e., Catholicism) and the Reformation differently. Extremely differently. (There is a lot of overlap in some areas between Protestant and secular approaches, however.) You might think that “facts are facts,” but history isn’t primarily facts; history the story we tell ourselves about facts as we know them. Sometimes an assumption, or a “fact” that’s actually false, or a matter of opinion, or disputed, gets enshrined as truth, embedded in how the subject is approached and handed down, and then everything from that is skewed. (This is an exceptionally important point we will come back to frequently.) 

Everyone has a bias; this is unavoidable. In this context, bias means “where you stand to see the rest of the world.” Everyone has to stand somewhere. What’s important is to be able to identify your bias and see how it affects the story as you’ve received it and as you tell it. And, equally importantly, to differentiate bias, a fact of being an individual human person, from prejudice, which in this context means unfair and probably incorrect negation of a point of view you don’t share. An illustration of the difference: A secular, that is, non-believing, historian writes a history of the Reformation. Their bias is that they are not Christian, neither Catholic or Protestant. Their prejudice is shown in privileging the Protestant side of the story. To pick just three examples of how that prejudice could play out: using slurs against Catholics, the Church, and Catholic beliefs; accepting Protestant claims about Catholicism and Christian history a priori, as factual premise, without investigation or explanation; taking it for granted, as an accepted truth that does not need proving, that the Reformation did the world a favor. Here’s the kicker: this is not an invented example, but a summary of a large swath of writings on the Reformation.

As you know, I’m Catholic; that’s my bias. You should ask yourself: what’s yours? Do you know how it affects what you’ve been taught and the way you perceive history and the world around you? What prejudice might you be participating in that you don’t even realize is a prejudice?

(Sidebar: In addition (and related to) to the bias issue: intense specialization and the ways history as a whole is conceived and taught has led to such an overabundance of “facts” and narratives, particularly about this stretch of history, that there is little cohesion, and simply so much that trying to get a handle on the big picture can be completely overwhelming. You can drown in data and never learn a thing. (I always picture a cartoon child opening a stuffed closet and being buried in toys.) There’s a super good, though technical, layout of this problem in the introduction to Brad S. Gregory’s book The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society. I’m going to talk about that book a lot.)

The takeaway so far should be: the story of history that we receive varies by which community we’re in and which community delivered the story to us. I am not arguing that no objective truth about the matter exists. Quite the opposite: the first step to finding the truth is recognizing that what has been uncritically accepted as fact is an interpretation based on unreliable ideas. What I would most like to show my readers through this project, especially my Protestant readers, is that the reality and significance of the Reformation has been greatly misunderstood across the majority of communities. It’s pretty unlikely you’ll read my posts and come away deciding to convert to Catholicism. What is possible, and I hope it will happen, that you’ll walk away with a different understanding of Catholicism itself and Protestantism’s role the last 500 years of Christian history.

(Important sidebar: “Protestants” and “Protestantism” can only ever be a generalization. Not only do the vast number of denominations disagree with each other about Christian doctrine, on points big and small, but they have different biases, different understandings of history, different views of Catholicism - you get the idea. Whenever we use the term “Protesant/ism”, we should be aware that is a generalization.)

With all that said: here is a simplified summary of the story of the Reformation as popularly understood. What does that mean? It means this summary doesn’t cover everything, but it does encompass the broad spectrum of “not-Catholic” opinion, including both Protestant and secular views, which vary from each other and among themselves. And, of course, scholars and academia tend to acknowledge more nuance and complexity in the events of history than non-specialists. I spell this out to avoid tiresome arguments that I’m setting up a straw man or objections like “but I don’t believe that/all of that/that in that way,” etc. So as I said: the broad gist of the Reformation story as popularly understood by much of the world today:

The Catholic Church was pure institutionalized corruption. The hierarchy and religious lived immoral lives and oppressed the lay people. The Church was unChristian in deep and significant ways that were harming people. When Luther (et al) realized this, and that what the Church taught as religious truth was just a means of perpetuating its control and corruption, they got up and pushed, and the whole rotten structure came tumbling down. Suddenly the common people had access to the Bible, Jesus, real catechesis, spiritual and political freedom, genuine community, and (to use the modern terms) freedom and agency. There was some resistance, but the populace more or less welcomed the Reformation and joined in enthusiastically. The Reformation was a movement who’s time had come. With the suppression of “priestcraft,” superstitious practices and beliefs, and man-made ritual, the accumulated debris of centuries of ”Romish inventions” was swept aside and Christianity was given a clean slate. With this demolition of the Church, thus (believers would say) true, original Christianity triumphed; all the excess (at best) and demonic distractions (at worst) that led people away/separated people from Jesus was gone. With the demolition of the Church, thus (some believers and the vast majority of secular analyses would say) the road to modern society was paved: separation of church and state, the triumph of the thinking mind/rationality/logic over and against the deadening religious/organized religion influence, the growth of the sciences, freedom, tolerance, pluralism, etc.; the goods and wonders of the modern world exist because the iron grip of the Church was broken. Shedding the past launched us into the future. We’re lucky it’s over and done with and not relevant to us, in our secular society, anymore.

There’s just one problem with this narrative: it’s almost entirely wrong. 

That’s a large chunk of what I’m taking issue with and arguing against.

I can’t guarantee this tag is going to be particularly organized or exhaustive - I decided to do this just a few days ago and, despite being a fast reader, can only cram in so much - but I’m going to examine these kinds of claims (in their originals, please note, not from my general gist summary) through my own writing and through sharing the content of scholars and writers more qualified than myself, to argue for a contrary thesis: Not only is that understanding of Catholicism and Christian history factually incorrect, but the Reformation was not an organic, welcomed event/process but rather a violent uprooting of a strong, loved religious tradition and past that cut Christians off from their heritage, fragmented and splintered society, blew the foundation out of Christendom (society as Christian society,) putting Western civilization on the road to society’s secularization, the marginalization and oppression of religion in the public life, and opened the door to the moral, rational, and political chaos we know today. I will absolutely address issues like “but wasn’t the Church corrupt?” but to a certain extent I don’t think that’s actually helpful until some of the fundamental falsehoods in what is generally assumed about the Reformation have been examined. In addition, as we follow the ramifications of the Reformation down the centuries, we’ll get to talk about politics, American exceptionalism, Dracula and turn-of-the-20th-century English culture (it’s amazingly relevant), and - my personal favorite - iconoclasm and incarnation.

I highly recommend reading Karl Keating’s short article “Not a reformation but a revolution.” (Quotes are coming.) He says it better than I do.

The queue starts tomorrow, Sunday October 1st!