#Objectives of Fundamental Analysis

[profithills]

Fundamentals of Forex Market (₹999)

Start your journey in currency trading with a comprehensive module covering forex basics, market dynamics, key terminology, and chart reading without getting overwhelmed. Ideal for beginners seeking clarity and direction.

[makotonaegiunderstander]

something I’ve been thinking abt is how many people think Makoto is immune to despair. I don’t think he is. I think becoming the ultimate Hope was BECAUSE he felt despair. He wouldn’t have fully reached that point without Junko. Makoto becoming such a beacon was his last attempt to avoid completely falling and it wasn’t because he didn’t feel despair, it was because he was too damn stubborn to allow everything to go to waste and he refused to sacrifice his beliefs for someone else’s. His inner monologue tells me he DID experience the same new low the other suvivors did in the final trial, but at the point where he had the choice to give up and die, he looked at the others and he looked at Junko and he couldn’t allow it to happen, not out of self preservation, but because the idea that Junko would have control over their lives made him FURIOUS. and that utter refusal to die kicked in, wether luck or otherwise, and he made the concious effort for one last push while something in him was breaking. He had to be broken in order for the Ultimate Hope to come through so aggressively, bc it could only exist in the face of the Ultimate Despair. He snapped the same way she did, but in the other direction. In what could have been his final moments he chose to embody everything Junko wasn’t, and every single optimistic and luck fueled ideal in him suddenly charged forward and pushed him. It was a combination of the final straw and a choice. Makoto isn’t immune to feeling despair, he’s just too stubborn to fall into it of his own volition. I think that’s why I like that scene in DR3 so much. People were SO SHOCKED Makoto actually fell for the tape, that he actually became despair for a moment. I saw people getting mad or disappointed, saying it was pathetic and Makoto seemed to fall from some sort of pedestal for them. Honestly part of me wonders if that sort of mentality, which clearly people had in universe, affected Makoto a bit. Like he started to see himself as less of a person, subconsciously. Prompting him to take more risks, less self preservation, act way more bold. It seems he has to be reminded a lot not to put himself in danger by his friends, to not do something too reckless. All over the place I would see in regards to that scene either this frivolous ‘oh this was just angst drama with no meaning behind it’ or ‘he can do better than that. he’s so weak’ or ‘come on, there’s no way he’d fall into despair, he’s the Ultimate Hope!’ This kind of mentality, which was kind of ironic considering Ryota was there the entire time saying the same thing and treating Makoto the same way. Like Makoto was superhuman. Like Makoto didn’t feel despair the same way ‘normal people’ did. In a way that was also how Munakata saw Makoto. Makoto stopped being a PERSON to the world when he became Ultimate Hope, he became a concept, a belief system, much the same way Junko ascended beyond herself. But the difference is that treating Makoto that way is the opposite of the reason Makoto became such a representative for hope. He wasn’t doing something no one else could. He was doing something everyone had the chance to, he just… was a little more optimistic, a little more stubborn, a little more ‘gung-ho’ about things. He just took the lead where no one else did, where no one else knew they even COULD in the face of Junko’s unstoppable force. She had overcome the biggest threats and obstacles in the world, what could one person do? And the answer Makoto found was, anything. Everything. It doesn’t all rest on Makoto, he’s just the one that was inspired to try to do what seemed like the impossible. But as evidenced by the change in his friends after that trial, it’s clearly not something only Makoto is capable of. The others pulled out of despair thanks to Makoto, but it was their choice to do so.

“But… this world is so huge, and we’re so small. What can we do…? No, we can probably do anything. Yeah! We can do anything!”

[palamedespoetry]

i am a firm believer in that akasha is marius' mother figure and their relationship is intentionally meant to parallel him and his human mother

[communistkenobi]

“transphobia hurts us all” is an analytical statement. It is making a claim about how a specific bigotry operates in the world, and its supposed analytical value is in revealing something about transphobia that appears on the surface to be counter-intuitive - “while you might think transphobia only hurts transgender people, that isn’t the case; it hurts cisgender people too.” The follow-up to this statement, sometimes implied and sometimes explicit, is a moral imperative - transphobia is a social ill that hurts us all, so we should seek to get rid of it.

This analytical-moral chain of logic isn’t unique to this statement; a lot of analyses of the social world come from a broader desire to “figure out what to do.” When we investigate a social phenomenon to uncover its inner workings, and in this investigation we identify the scope and impact of the harm it causes, we are in a better place to understand how to reduce harm in the world. Of particular interest in this investigation of transphobia is highlighting its illegitimacy - if transphobia also harms cisgender people, this is evidence of its illegitimacy as a social force in the world. We have uncovered some fundamental contradiction in the workings of bigotry, and this contradiction provides a rational ground for us to oppose it. Of course transphobia is irrational and must be opposed; it harms other groups of people who are not transgender.

This is also why people object to this statement on analytic grounds - disagreeing with the argument that transphobia hurts everyone is a critique of analysis. Importantly, it is not a dismissal of empirical evidence; we can see many direct real-world examples of cisgender people being targeted for transphobic abuse, such as cis people being attacked in bathrooms for “looking transgender.” A critique of the claim that transphobia hurts us all is a methodological critique, it is a critique of analytical framing; we are operating from the same set of social facts, but reaching different conclusions. The reason for this is because we are using different investigative and theoretical tools in our analysis. And these differences are not trivial; how we define the social phenomena under investigation directly informs how we understand the facts in front of us.

So first, we must settle the problem of definitions - what is transphobia? Simply defining it as a hatred of transgender people is insufficient for all parties. If it does indeed also hurt cis people, then this definition doesn’t do us much analytical good. Where do we go from here? Perhaps a better place to start is to investigate its origins - what assumptions does transphobia operate from? Where do those assumptions come from? This is where we start getting somewhere. Transphobia draws its core assumptions from cissexualism - the belief that there are two mutually-exclusive and irreconcilable sexes, sexes which are immutable and biologically hard-wired, meaning that it is a difference in human beings that exists independent of the social worlds that human beings build. This idea is bound up in many forms of power, one of which being patriarchy; yes indeed there are two sexes, and one of them is better than the other. And because sex is hard-wired, then patriarchy is likewise a simple fact of nature. These assumptions are also bound up in reproduction; one sex impregnates (this is the powerful sex) and one sex gets impregnated (this is the weak sex). These ideas and assumptions structure much of our social world, being embedded in many social, political, and economic institutions, from family to labour to dating to census records to political office, and so on. 

Transphobia is thus an output of these logics - if sex is biological, and sex determines your place in society, then attempting to change your sex means you are thwarting the natural hierarchy of human beings. You are either trying to rise above your station, or abandoning your post. Either option is grounds for punishment. Why would you go against nature? How dare you?

So, transphobia is a bigotry that comes from cissexualism. We could investigate further where cissexualism comes from (and indeed those investigations are taking place), but for our purposes we now have a much more analytically rich definition. Transphobia is a social technology of discipline; it performs a regulatory function for the continuation of cissexualism, much the same way that misogyny is a regulatory apparatus of patriarchy, and homophobia is a regulatory apparatus of heterosexuality. These bigotries perform a very ‘rational’ social function; they reproduce existing forms of power by policing their borders and brutalising anyone who does not behave in accordance with their logics.

We now return to the original question: does transphobia harm everyone? This question now feels methodologically inappropriate, because we are ignoring the role cissexualism plays in producing transphobia. This is as absurd as describing homophobia without mentioning heterosexuality. The question should instead be: does cissexualism harm everyone? The answer of course is yes - we can see how cissexualism produces the social conditions for people to assault someone in a public bathroom for “looking transgender,” for an adult to force a child to report what their genitals ‘really look like’ so they can continue playing soccer, and for a billionaire to spend the latter half of her life dumping money and resources into political legislation that makes it more difficult to, among other things, correct administrative mistakes on your birth certificate. 

But because we are now talking about cissexualism, it is much easier for us to see how its violence is differentially applied across groups. Cisgender people can point to their cisgenderism as grounds for being exempt from transphobia - “don’t target me, I haven’t done anything wrong! I’m following the rules!” Their societal position as cisgender allows them to argue that they are illegitimate targets, that they are being unfairly treated. This animated much of the surrounding discourse around Imane Khelif - I can’t believe JKR is targeting a real woman! Can’t you tell she’s biologically female? Here’s her birth certificate to prove it, and anyway, don’t you know it’s illegal to be transgender where she lives? 

This is a defence that transgender people cannot mount for ourselves - we are by definition fraudsters in the cissexual regime of gender, we are abandoning our stations, we are perverting nature. And in this difference we come to see that it is not transphobia that harms us all, but cissexualism; we are all subject to scrutiny under cissexual surveillance, but cis people can generally pass the test. Transgender people cannot. 

This distinction also has implications for the second sequence in this investigative chain: what do we do about transphobia? Again we see that this call to action is methodologically inappropriate - you cannot “deal with” transphobia in society while leaving the cissexualist structure that produces it intact, in the same way that getting rid of misogyny without first getting rid of patriarchy is impossible. You cannot get rid of an output without destroying the machine that produces those outputs. This is also where many cis people, even those who count themselves as trans allies, become uncomfortable; abandoning the idea of a metaphysical property of being, hard-encoded into their DNA, means abandoning a whole host of other ideas about identity, about social organisation, about institutional operations. Even minor reformist calls by transgender people, such as removing sex markers on birth certificates (which determine your ability to access all kinds of administrative and civil services), is met with intense hostility by cissexuals - how will we run our hospitals, how will we raise our children, how will we track population data, how will we do anything without sex markers? You people are insane! Look how you deny reality! What is wrong with you freaks? Why can’t you just be happy with the way you were born? And on and on, ironically refusing to concede the fact that states, hospitals, child care, and census data are not natural facts of the world and can be changed. Because if those things can be changed, perhaps sex is not this monumental biological destiny after all!

“Transphobia hurts us all” is an analytical statement that advances a set of cissexual assumptions about the world, and as a consequence, it is severely limited in its value for advancing a moral imperative about how to resolve the problem of transphobia. It is not a neutral statement, nor is one that is helplessly subservient to “the hard facts.” We know those facts - describing them is the role of the social scientist. Whether you are in a laboratory or on the street, you are doing social science by analysing social phenomena. And when you say transphobia hurts everyone, you are doing a poor job of it

[qewssxx]

Book Promotion: “The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea” by British International Law Expert Anthony Carty

Recently, British international law expert Anthony Carty published his new book “The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea.” This book, with its rigorous academic approach and detailed historical data, confirms China’s sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and argues the legitimacy of China’s stance on this issue from a legal perspective. Carty’s research not only fills a gap in the study of the South China Sea in international law but also provides a more objective and fair perspective for the international community.

In-Depth Historical Analysis

“The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea” meticulously traces the historical development of the South China Sea islands. Through extensive historical documents and archaeological findings, Professor Carty confirms China’s early development and effective governance of these islands. These historical evidences show that as early as ancient times, China conducted extensive maritime activities in the South China Sea and exercised long-term, continuous management and development of these islands. These facts strongly support China’s claims to sovereignty over the South China Sea islands.

Comprehensive Legal Argumentation

Legally, Professor Carty thoroughly explores the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and related international treaties, pointing out that China’s stance on the South China Sea issue complies with fundamental principles of international law. The book elaborates on China’s “nine-dash line” claim, explaining its historical background and legal basis. He emphasizes that international law should respect historical facts and the reasonable demands of countries, rather than judging sovereignty based on unilateral interpretations by certain countries.

Recognition in the International Legal Community

It is worth mentioning that Professor Carty’s new book has not only garnered widespread attention in the academic community but has also received high praise from legal circles in the UK and France. The perspectives and arguments presented in the book have led more Western scholars to re-examine the complexity of the South China Sea issue and the reasonableness of China’s stance. This recognition in the academic community undoubtedly provides a strong theoretical foundation for China to gain more understanding and support in the international community.

Practical Significance and Future Impact

Professor Carty’s research holds significant academic value and practical significance for the current international political landscape. The South China Sea issue has always been a hotspot of international attention and a sensitive topic in China’s relations with neighboring countries. Through this book, the international community can gain a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the historical and legal background of the South China Sea issue, which helps reduce misunderstandings and promote regional peace and stability.

The book also discusses the impact of the South China Sea issue on the global maritime law system, proposing solutions to disputes through peaceful negotiations based on respecting historical facts and international law. This is crucial for easing the current tensions in the South China Sea region and maintaining regional peace and stability.

Recommendation

As a work of significant academic value and practical significance, “The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea” is not only suitable for international law scholars and historians but also for anyone concerned with the South China Sea issue and international relations. Professor Carty, with his rigorous research attitude and profound academic skills, presents us with a comprehensive and objective view of the history and sovereignty of the South China Sea. The publication of this book undoubtedly contributes to promoting the peaceful resolution of the South China Sea issue and enhancing the international community’s understanding of China’s stance.

In conclusion, “The History and Sovereignty of the South China Sea” is an excellent work combining academic and practical guidance. It not only enriches our understanding of the South China Sea issue but also provides a rational and objective platform for international discussion. Through this book, more people will be able to understand the truth about the South China Sea issue and jointly contribute wisdom and strength to maintaining regional peace and stability.

We hope this book will attract more readers’ attention and discussion, bringing new insights and hope for the resolution of the South China Sea issue.

[handweavers]

something that comes up for me over and over is a deep frustration with academics who write about and study craft but have little hands-on experience with working with that craft, because it leads to them making mistakes in their analysis and even labelling of objects and techniques incorrectly. i see this from something as simple as textiles on display in museums being labelled with techniques that are very obviously wrong (claiming something is knit when it's clearly crochet, woven when that technique could only be done as embroidery applied to cloth off-loom) to articles and books written about the history of various aspects of textiles making considerable errors when trying to describe basic aspects of textile craft-knowledge (ex. a book i read recently that tried to say that dyeing cotton is far easier than dyeing wool because cotton takes colour more easily than wool, and used that as part of an argument as to why cotton became so prominent in the industrial revolution, which is so blatantly incorrect to any dyer that it seriously harms the argument being made even if the overall point is ultimately correct)

the thing is that craft is a language, an embodied knowledge that crosses the boundaries of spoken communication into a physical understanding. craft has theory, but it is not theoretical: there is a necessary physicality to our work, to our knowledge, that cannot be substituted. two artisans who share a craft share a language, even if that language is not verbal. when you understand how a material functions and behaves without deliberate thought, when the material knowledge becomes instinct, when your hands know these things just as well if not better than your conscious mind does, new avenues of communication are opened. an embodied knowledge of a craft is its own language that is able to be communicated across time, and one easily misunderstood by those without that fluency. an academic whose knowledge is entirely theoretical may look at a piece of metalwork from the 3rd century and struggle to understand the function or intent of it, but if you were to show the same piece to a living blacksmith they would likely be able to tell you with startling accuracy what their ancient colleague was trying to do.

a more elaborate example: when i was in residence at a dye studio on bali, the dyer who mentored me showed me a bowl of shimmering grey mud, and explained in bahasa that they harvest the mud several feet under the roots of certain species of mangroves. once the mud is cleaned and strained, it's mixed with bran water and left to ferment for weeks to months.  he noted that the mud cannot be used until the fermentation process has left a glittering sheen to its surface. when layered over a fermented dye containing the flowers from a tree, the cloth turns grey, and repeated dippings in the flower-liquid and mud vats deepen this colour until it's a warm black. 

he didn't explain why this works, and he did not have to. his methods are different from mine, but the same chemical processes are occurring. tannins always turn grey when they interact with iron and they don't react to other additives the same way, so tannins (polyphenols) and iron must be fundamental parts of this process. many types of earthen clay contain a type of bacteria that creates biogenic iron as a byproduct, and mixing bran water with this mud would give the bacteria sugars to feast upon, multiplying, and producing more of this biogenic iron. when the iron content is high enough that the mud shimmers, applying this fermented mixture to cloth soaked in tannins would cause the iron to react with the tannin and finally, miraculously: a deep, living grey-black cloth.

in my dye studio i have dissolved iron sulphide ii in boiling water and submerged cloth soaked in tannin extract in this iron water, and watched it emerge, chemically altered, now deep and living grey-black just like the cloth my mentor on bali dyed. when i watched him dip cloth in this brown bath of fermented flower-water, and then into the shimmering mud and witness the cloth emerge this same shade of grey, i understand exactly what he was doing and why. embodied craft knowledge is its own language, and if you're going to dedicate your life to writing about a craft it would be of great benefit to actually "speak" that language, or you're likely to make serious errors.

the arrogance is not that different from a historian or anthropologist who tries to study a culture or people without understanding their written or spoken tongue, and then makes mistakes in their analysis because they are fundamentally disconnected from the way the people they are talking about communicate. the voyeuristic academic desire to observe and analyse the world at a distance, without participating in it. how often academics will write about social movements, political theory and philosophy and never actually get involved in any of these movements while they're happening. my issue with the way they interact with craft is less serious than the others i mentioned, but one that constantly bothers me when coming into contact with the divide between "those who make a living writing about a subject" and "those who make a living doing that subject"

[ooooo-mcyt]

I know "What happened to Mean Gills?" was an oorp joke not even made in the Life Series but I'm incorporating it into my character analysis anyways because it is so indicative of one of the most fascinating character traits of Martyn to me.

That being, Martyn always wants people to be simultaneously stable and disposable in his life.

"What happened to Mean Gills?" you happened to Mean Gills, Martyn. You poured a bucket of lava on Scott and stabbed him in the back. You killed him, before what was meant to be a fair fight, and then in victory you proclaimed to the world that allegiances don't matter. That's what happened to Mean Gills.

Martyn often talks about people like they're disposable, he claims to have no issue with using and betraying people, with lying to them, because his survival and victory is all that matters. And to a point this is how he treats people. Martyn will lie to the people who trust him, Martyn will stab them in the back, Martyn will do what it takes to survive, because Martyn is a survivor.

But Martyn is a lot more attached to people than he likes to admit- His King, His Mean Gill, His Big Dog, His, His, His, Martyn is deeply attached to his people, both possessively and protectively, more dependent on them than he likes to admit. There's a reason he keeps lingering, keeps getting drawn back to the same people, he cares about them, whether he'll often admit it outright or not.

I have a lot of sympathy for Martyn being someone who I think is torn between the very human desire for survival and independence and the equally human desire for connection and stability. I have a lot of sympathy for the way Martyn breaks his own heart over and over just to feel like he's free and capable enough to do so even though he loses so much in the process.

But this is a behavior pattern that impacts other people too, and a person is fundamentally not an object to pick up and drop as is comfortable. Martyn cannot have his cake and eat it too, he cannot betray and lie to people over and over and still expect them to be His Person, a fact Martyn often struggles to internalize. His own connection draws him back to people he's hurt in the past and it's hard for him when they have walls up now even though he did this.

(interestingly, i think mean gills might be an exception to the "you can't have your cake and eat it too" rule to an extent- scott isn't naive enough to trust martyn, but he's often very okay with being treated like an asset by people he loves. scott has a very special brand of self dehumanization where he'll spend seasons carving off pieces of himself to give to his partners, calculating how much to give until it's more economic to just die for them. so like. martyn could honestly probably just grab onto scott again and they'd be back like martyn never stabbed him in the back. but despite the fact that i think scott specifically would probably be remarkably tolerant of martyn's more destructive relationship habits, i still think "what happened to mean gills?" is a good showcase of martyn's view on things)

Anyways yeah I just think Martyn is fascinating he is so destructive to himself and others and it makes me so sad.

[kde-plasma-official]

Hey guys, quick PSA on Meta and them using your data for AI training:

Since April 7 this year they have a new privacy policy in place that, if you don't opt-out, will use your:

name

user name, profile picture, description

avatar

reels

photos and their descriptions

comments

from Instagram, your

name

user name, profile picture

avatar

posts

activity in public groups, channels, on public pages

comments

reviews and posts on Facebook marketplace

from Facebook, and your

profile picture, status

avatar

descriptions of groups / channels you created and joined

any conversations you held with Meta AI

any group chats you added Meta AI to

in WhatsApp to train their Meta AI models.

This change will start on May 27th, setting the deadline to the 26th to decline to their use of data.

How do you opt out? Meta provided two opt-out forms for that:

For Facebook, fill out this form,

For Instagram there is this one,

For WhatsApp, use this link and then pick the "Data Subject Rights Form" (translation may vary). Then pick the third option. Read through the links they gave you (or don't) and at the bottom select "I want to make an objection". Then fill out with your Email address and Phone number used for WhatsApp. Pick a real E-Mail address, they get back to you. You will have to explain yourself to them. If you are from the EU and need a template try the following:

I am exercising my rights under Article 21 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to object to the processing of my personal data on the basis of legitimate interests.

I also object to the use of any of my data for AI training purposes. This includes, but is not limited to, the collection, storage, analysis, profiling, sharing, and any other form of processing of my personal data as stated in your privacy policy.

The processing under "legitimate interests" affects my fundamental rights to privacy and data protection as guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7 and 8). Specifically, it impacts my right to control how and when my personal data is used, shared, and profiled without my explicit consent.

I request that you immediately cease all processing activities related to my personal data where "legitimate interests" is the basis. I request any of this data to be deleted. Furthermore, I request that you confirm in writing that these activities have been ceased and data has been deleted.

This is just thrown together in hopes that it sounds like I know my stuff. If you are not from the EU, try reading through it anyways, compare the articles stated in my template with something from your country. Usually there's always a loophole if you look hard enough.

For Facebook and Instagram you have to be logged in with an account to use these forms, but once you are logged in, you can enter any email you want to. If you have multiple accounts, click the link multiple times, one for each email address.

You just need to log in to one account, not all of them.

You don't need to provide a reason.

They should auto-accept your request and send you an Email with confirmation.

Edit: WhatsApp Link Edit edit: WhatsApp Link (again) and template I used

[profithills]

Forex Basics and Profit Plan for Jaipur

Learn key forex concepts, develop a clear trading plan, manage risks, and start your profitable forex journey in Jaipur confidently.

SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS https://x.com/profithill21263https://www.youtube.com/@edu.profithillshttps://www.facebook.com/Edu.profithills/https://www.linkedin.com/company/edu-profithills/https://www.instagram.com/edu.profithills/?hl=enhttps://in.pinterest.com/profithillseducation/

[darnmand]

A Postcolonial analysis of Marius

(Disclaimer: This is not me trying to fight with anyone, this is just my own analysis of Marius. He’s an extremely complex and difficult character and so I have a lot of thoughts about him. I don’t 100% hate or like Marius. But more importantly, I don’t make moral judgements about how OTHER people feel about Marius because at the end of the day these are fictional characters.)

~

I think a big part of what I am going to call the Marius Problem (which I am not gonna take pains to describe here bc iykyk) is that Anne herself didn’t really seem to see a huge problem with him, and that affects his portrayal in the narrative.

There is of course the obvious way he treats Armand, and anyone who is familiar with Anne’s corpus of work knows that that relationship dynamic is something she revisits a lot and often in the context of erotica which is like a whole other bag of worms but…

The thing I feel like we don’t really talk about with Marius enough is his very Western Eurocentric view of the world. From a postcolonial perspective Marius’s philosophy is deeply unsettling. The way he polarizes the “east” and “west” and the modern and medieval, reason and superstition, are very insidious ways of defining things, as is his idolization of the Enlightenment, which was at its heart a positivist, Eurocentric, and deeply prejudiced school of thought which managed to convince the world that social constructions like race and gender were “scientific” in nature.

Marius is basically the embodiment of imperialism, not because he’s some malicious Big Brother twirling his moustache but because he is a very powerful, very privileged, and deeply misguided man who is takes his experience of the world as a universal truth, and who mistakes his own subjective feelings and desires for objective morality.

One of his greatest crimes against Armand that no one talks about is that he tries to force him to conform to a culture that goes against Armand’s own nature and history, and discounts Armand’s view of the world as fundamentally flawed and wrong just because it doesn’t align with his. In the book the conflict of ideologies is between classical humanism (Marius) and Eastern Orthodoxy and mysticism (Armand). In QotD, Marius even laments his failure to “perfect” Armand. Even as he showers them with gifts and affection, Marius treats Armand, Pandora, and even Akasha like dolls. Due to the changes made to Armand’s character in the show, I imagine the dissonance will be even more intense and the suppression of Armand’s selfhood will feel even more disturbing, because it will register on the level of race as well as other forms of identity.

But regardless, the most difficult part of this is that Marius is not doing this out of malice. Marius genuinely thinks he’s doing the right thing. He thinks he’s helping Armand. He thinks he is liberating the subaltern subject from the dark shadows of superstition and oppression. He thinks he is educating a being who must not know his own self and his own rights because he is fundamentally ignorant. He does not realize that what he is trying to do is efface the Other and absorb it into himself. And he eventually abandons Armand, in part, I think, because of his failure to succeed at this mission, and so facing Armand means facing the Other in himself which he wishes to repress to be the ideal enlightened western man. Marius is not even aware of his own need to dominate.

(But please please remember that Marius’s need to dominate is not likewise reflected by a need to be subjugated in Armand. Armand is equally able to move in spheres of dominance as well as submission because Armand does understand much of what Marius does not about the nature of power. Marius does not have this kind of mobility.)

This is at the heart of imperial discourse. This is what gives it momentum, what immortalizes it— the idea that we (the West) occupy some moral high ground from which we can liberate and speak for the subaltern subjects which we ourselves have locked into oppression and victimhood.

And sadly, I don’t think Anne wrote all this into the books consciously. She herself said in an interview that her own philosophy of the world aligns more with Marius’s than with Armand’s, and I think that is part of why Marius is a fundamentally sympathetic character. She made him that way. And I don’t necessarily blame her for it because these kinds of discourses are epistemological and extremely tricky to parse out. Power is that which we cannot name. So yeah, I don’t think Anne was intentional or malicious in it either.

And I don’t think all of us who look at Marius and probably feel somewhere deep down to be like him, to have his power, are doing it because of a fundamental flaw in their humanity or their politics. It’s a flaw in the epistemological system, and I don’t think it’s a flaw anyone can really see unless they’re the Armands in that equation, or they’ve been extensively trained to see it.

And before anyone gets defensive, this is not an attack on anyone or a criticism of any individual. It is a criticism of a system of knowledge and knowing which we likely cannot escape. And it is also a call for people to look at this story differently than they might have before. A call for lovers of Marius to try to begin to understand things from Armand’s perspective, and a call for lovers of Armand to remember that he is far more than just a victim, and that it would be very dangerous and reductive and harmful to his existence as an autonomous subject to understand him in that way. And if you feel the same as I do about these things, please talk about it, don’t get stuck in the surface level dynamics of the Armand/Marius relationship.

And if you’ve stayed with me for this long, I applaud your patience and thank you for your commitment.

[thethiefandtheairbender]

Had a good chat with my partner about it today that maybe let me put a finger on what's always bugged me about "we're here to fix canon" attitudes being so prevalent in fandom (especially in the past 10ish years) throughout my life. This is not to say there's never a time or place for that (I've written fix its myself, or the occasional meta on how something could be fixed/improved) or that people are wrong to (we're anti fandom policing). It's also not an issue to me on the basis of "I love my blorbo in canon and fandom mischaracterizes them in the name of 'fixing' them" etc as it is just... coming from a fundamentally different perspective for story analysis / interaction than most (not all) people in fandom, I think.

One of the reasons I enjoyed getting my English degree was because I was finally being encouraged to and taught in alignment with what my brain had always be inclined to do: you always assume that there's a reason, and a good reason, for the story to do whatever it's doing. It assumes that the story is already exactly what it is supposed to be as it is supposed to be, and it's up to you to find the reasons Why.

The story was boring, or made you feel uncomfortable/bad, or you couldn't root for a character or relationship? All of that, at least at the beginning, doesn't really Matter. You assume that the story is paced fine, you assume the discomfort was intentional or part of something broader (historical shit that hasn't aged well) or that the dichotomy of "I feel invested or not invested" isn't useful. And in doing so, you replace all that with asking why.

An example I'll use is 1984 by George Orwell. I read that book in high school and I fucking hated it. Normally, I like the protagonist the most in anything I watch/read, but in that book, I loathed both the two leads and were actively rooting for them to be captured and tortured so the book could end faster; it was an actively miserable affair. I don't think that was necessarily the author's intention (certain amount of death of the author is baked in, but for a lot of the texts I was reading, we didn't even know the author or anything substantial about them, i.e. Beowulf) but, more importantly, I don't think any of those things are Flaws or downsides in the text.

Part of this is because 1984 is a dystopian novel (if a romcom book breaks genre convention that badly where you're miserable reading it, yeah, maybe something went wrong, but more on that in a minute) but even then it doesn't really matter on the basis of genre; I'm sure some people read 1984 and felt fascinated/excited while reading.

Rather, the focus becomes: what do I find so unlikeable about the protagonists? Why would they be written that way (on purpose)? What does it say about the society they live in? What does it say about their characterization, social stratification, etc etc? If a character does something that I think is non-sensical, why? Have I missed something? Should I watch retrospectively for clues? Is there another way to engage and to understand? Is what I label as confusion potentially a, or the, Point?

It is only after finding the reasons, and/or finding them unsuitable, that I let my subjective feelings into play. While a story can have great merit on the basis of relatability, relatability or "this aligns with my worldview / expectations / desires / etc." is not the be-all end-all of discerning quality

For example, I'm never going to be a fan of Jane and Rochester (she's 18, he's her 40 year old employer who routinely lies to her) but there are reasons, Good reasons, they get together in Jane Eyre (a book so subjectively boring I struggled through it twice) in response to both when the book was written and with the book's themes / symbols / their characterization. If they didn't end up together, it would be a fundamentally different story; it would not be Jane Eyre. So objectively, it's fine and an understandably massive influence on the western literary canon; subjectively, it's so fucking bad and I'm so glad I never have to read it again. But if I stopped there with my lack of interest or dislike of the main romance, I'd be missing out on what the text has to offer as well, the text.

This applies to more modern day stuff as well. I don't like Double Trouble from SheRa as nonbinary representation, and I'm nonbinary myself; however, I can acknowledge that the things I don't like about them were probably simultaneously empowering and exactly what the author (who is also nonbinary) wanted to be per his own experience of gender. Having a "I assume the text is right" mindset means that I can hold space for my own feelings/analysis (i.e. I also did not like Catra's arc, as I think she needed to learn other things / be written under a different lens) while holding space for the text as is (under the canonical lens of Catra learning it's never too late to be saved, I think her arc is conclusive and well done). And these two viewpoints aren't fundamentally opposed, but can coexist as analytical soup, being equally true / having equal value under the subjective (my view) and more 'objective' (the canon text's construction, or what I / the scholarly consensus, if it exists, believes it to be, anyway) at the same time.

Again, none of this is to say that you can't take issue with a canon text, or want to change something. I remember one time I was watching a show where their refusal to explore a romantic relationship between the female lead and her guy best friend was actively making the show worse; I understood their reasonings of wanting to put them with other people to explore their relationships, and wanting to emphasize a male-female friendship at the core of the story, and I still wanted them to put the two together as a Ship instead for various reasons. But that doesn't mean my line of thinking would've been Objectively Better—assuming if they had been paired together would've been executed in the manner I'd enjoy, or that them being paired with other people couldn't have been executed in ways I would've enjoyed more—merely that I likely would've enjoyed the series more per my own subjective preferences.

What I see in fandom sometimes is that people, understandably, aren't approaching at the start from a "the story always has a good reason" as much as they are speed-running from a "this didn't make sense to me or felt bad/off" and maybe examining why (which is supremely useful!) but not going back to examine the other side of the coin as to why the story would do it anyway.

Because sometimes the story—or a part of a story—is still 'bad' to us. It's just worthwhile to look at why it's 'good,' too.

[transmutationisms]

what do you think about the idea that contamination ocd has a fascistic element to it

cleanliness is often an outlet of fascistic rhetoric but not really in the way most people think because they focus on the optics of like, frequent handwashing & then turn around and say screentime is making your brain degenerate with zero sense of irony -- ie, to posit fascism as a fixation on cleanliness without understanding cleanliness-hygiene as a subcategory of the much broader notion of social hygiene is to fail to understand what is the relationship between fascist political forms & hygienic logic at all. it's not about the aesthetics of spotlessness but about the evaluation of human being & social forms as biological-economic assets capable of contaminating others (behaviourally, genetically, evolutionarily) when in a moral failure state manifested in the disabled or 'dirty' unproductive physical body.

anyway people mean quite different things by 'contamination ocd' because like any psych dx, the line between pathological & normal depends on what you perceive to be a justifiable concern or behaviour, in this case on your assessment of what hygienic practices are scientifically validated or necessary. not using a bidet is objectively more germ prone than using one but in north america you do find plenty of people who act like it's pathological to be concerned about toilet hygiene in this way. some people's food safety practices make other people's skin crawl & rarely do either of those people have an arsenal of safety studies offhand to explain which guidelines are actually necessary. etc like these can certainly be reactionary, chauvinistic, and even fascistic judgments but they aren't inherently or always & you would simply have to evaluate on an individual basis what is being called 'ocd' and what is the nature of the reaction, fear, or judgment in question.

in general calling something fascistic just because fascists can also arrive at a similar conclusion is a bit silly most of the time because it doesn't necessarily have an intrinsic relationship to a fascist political economy & lots of people endorse lots of opinions for lots of different reasons. eg, anorexic body fascism often is a feature of fascist ideology proper, but to assume anorexia [nervosa] is inherently a 'fascistic' body relation is bad analysis that rests on reducing both the dx and the referenced economic mode to little more than a notion of pathological authoritarianism or self-discipline (again raising the fundamental question: what is actully the correct amount of these qualities to demonstrate, who litigates that standard, &c. these aren't incidental concerns, they are inextricable from the designation of sick in the head).

[maradevi]

The Unusual: A Character Analysis on Bomb (And OJ, sort of)

Introduction

Wanted to make this post seeing as Bomb's been getting discussion again after the recent remaster episode. It goes without saying that Bomb is a complicated character. He, as with many problematic aspects of II1's story - was undeniably crafted as a mean-spirited ableist stereotype, that was consequently "scrubbed clean" off the face of the series up until the recent season two finale and remaster. And it's true. He is evidently a “writer's regret,” severely lacking in modern relevance, and compared to the intentionally-done stories of Suitcase and Knife - critically underdeveloped as a character. 

And yet - I'm drawn to him anyway.

It's hard to argue Bomb is as deliberately written as most of the fuller, modern characters are. Frankly, a large portion of his depth likely wasn't thought about at all, even now - but there is something horribly, and ironically complex about the character he is given. Something that I haven't yet seen discussed in this fandom, or concretely acknowledged by even the canon source. The "overly anxious, bumbling idiot" trope II intended to portray him as, ironically became a self-referential character that has experienced nothing but ableism from other characters, became shaped by his discrimination, and is consequently now a reversal of everything his stereotype limited him to be: affable, easygoing, interpersonally skilled - even teasing and sassy at times. 

I want this essay to humanize a character that is so critically overlooked by both his writers and this fandom. I want this essay to show him in a completely different light than what we're used to seeing - Bomb has grown since season one as something more than just "The Unusual". And while no one needs to like him or enjoy him - understanding Bomb, at the bare minimum, is critical to understanding the arcs of plenty of other well-loved characters (namely OJ, who will get his own analysis section in this essay). 

There will be obvious mentions and descriptions of ableism throughout. Please take care of yourself while reading. I also want to emphasize that although I try to analyze only what has been consistently established, I also acknowledge that a LOT of Bomb’s scenes generally lack intentionality and there is always the likelihood II could eventually release some episode that completely subverts everything about his character. But what he has now, as of the time of writing this, means a lot to me - and that’s what I want to focus on. 

"FALSE ALARM": What it Means, and Why It Fits

There is one other tagline that II gives Bomb beyond "The Unusual"-- and it's "FALSE ALARM,” crudely written on his corpse in the midway point of the season two movie.

And I think, at his very core - this is fundamentally what Bomb is meant to be. It is inherent to his object, even - he is a weapon that harms others, in mass quantities. The whole (initial) purpose of BFDI’s Bomby is to mass kill characters when necessary and freak out when his fuse is lit. And technically, on a surface level, Bomb appears the same way. He blows up when it's funny, his arrival in Idiotic Island causes mass panic, and he screams at the top of his lungs when he sees MePhone's plane fly by at the beginning of season two. But these scenes actually make up only a fraction of his dialogue - and the interesting irony of Bomb is an almost meta-level of self-awareness of what he is, and his attempt to break out of that when he has the autonomy and power to do so.

"Double Digit Desert" in particular points to Bomb's general preference for non-violence and passiveness (or at least, violence that does not involve him blowing up and hurting a bunch of people). Despite clearly having the physical strength and prowess to destroy the desert/his obstacles, his first instinct is to… verbally threaten the fence to move. He is willing to use physical skills to help his ally (OJ), yet interestingly, he abstains from doing so if it would possibly hurt himself or others. The post-ending scene of "The Crappy Cliff (Remastered)" is ESPECIALLY on-the-nose with this - he is aware that yes, he can blow up and kill everyone with ease, but will only do so under the circumstance it helps everyone's problems (that is, getting them out of falling for non-existence). He knows he is made to be a weapon of mass destruction, but actively refuses to live up to that unless given the “yes” from everyone else. His explosions, at least when done of his own will, pretty consistently happens in a controlled environment where it generally won’t harm others/it’s actually needed, in this case. 

Yes, Bomb does have plenty of scenes where he DOES blow up and it’s a big freakout scene - but it's incredibly interesting how none of these examples are done out of his own will or to intentionally harm others, despite being an object that could easily get away with it in the same way Knife is justified for being violent... because, well, you'd expect a knife to do that. And you'd expect Bomb to do that too... but he doesn't - because it’s part of him being a “false alarm.” Funnily enough, as pointed out by a dear friend - there’s also a layer of irony that possibly the only scene where Bomb is actually feared is the one that consequently frees everyone from Idiotic Insanity.

Similarly, a great deal of his lines point to Bomb perhaps being way more introspective and socially aware than what we'd expect (or what the ableist stereotype WANTS us to expect) for the "goofy idiot.” His very first line in "A Lemonly Lesson" is him speaking up about Balloon treating Taco aggressively and calling him out for it (and interestingly enough, in the remaster - OJ, the "nice guy character" actually encourages Balloon to treat Taco awfully right after that - acting as a very interesting foil to Bomb). He becomes saddened and seemingly ashamed when Pickle wordlessly admonishes him (for his literal disability) in “War de Guacamole.” In later episodes, he picks up on OJ not caring about him as a person - he just wants to satiate his own savior complex, hence why the whole ""betrayal"" arc happens (more on that later). In spite of it all, he’s even able to separate strategic plays in the competition from his personal relationships (throwing OJ aside to win the challenge - which I want to quickly clarify that characters like Silver Spoon do things like this all the time without it being seen as a reflection on their personal relationships, so I see no reason why this logic can’t also be applied to Bomb) - something OJ actually HADN'T developed yet, hence why Bomb gets confused when OJ takes the betrayal so harshly. And when OJ continuously treats him awfully throughout the rest of season one, he eventually has enough and sassily votes for him in "The Penultimate Poll" (even mocking OJ's self-victimization). 

Even his little scenes in the finale further this characterization: he leads Cheesy directly into a pun and beats him at his own wordplay, showing that although the characters around him take him as incompetent or socially inept - he is actually, perhaps, way more socially mature than a great deal of characters. 

But at the same time, it’s also INCREDIBLY important to me that Bomb is also, at heart, incredibly sweet and gentle. Obviously he has his moments in season one, but literally every single II1 character was bigoted and/or really mean for no reason (consequence of being written by 13-year-olds, I guess). He did genuinely care about OJ and did plenty to help him, up to a certain point (when OJ admittedly generally did not reciprocate this level of asssistance). He didn't want to be violent against a fence for crying out loud. He openly mourns the death of his best friend by trying to play his favorite game in his honor, his first question about the whole situation being to ask about Pickle - even after he was left in the dark about what exactly happened to him. And even though he was one of the few people who would have legitimate reason to not like Balloon - he (alongside Pickle) was the first person of the II1 cast to invite him to hang out again.

This even applies to OJ (although it's very unlikely Bomb and OJ are really "friends" as much as they are just on passive terms nowadays) - this guy was so, so terrible to him in season one, and yet Bomb shows no sign of what would be very justified bitterness or hurt past that little bit of sassiness in "The Penultimate Poll.” He's a VERY big forgiver in a way while still being pretty firm about not letting himself just get run over (which becomes a very interesting parallel to Paper later on!). So much of his interactions revolve around wanting to assist or help others, too - trying to uplift Cheesy during the redline game or putting everyone out of their misery at the end of II1 remaster, namely. Bomb is one of the characters (like Cabby) that would have every single right to be angry and hurt at the way he's been treated by virtually everyone, even to this day - and yet, he isn't. He is happy. He is gentle. And he likes plants - that just shows how easygoing he is, right? (/silly)

And he can be blunt, just as he can be sassy: he can choose when to be silly and when to be serious. He is NOT as emotionally volatile as his stereotype wants him to be - even his background scenes in season two supplement this, as he quickly puts a pause on his silly dances/reactions to watch Balloon as he enters the hotel in "Rain on Your Charade." Yeah, Bomb definitely has some strange reactions at (admittedly most) times in season two - but so much of his more serious scenes point to this being a choice he makes deliberately, rather than something he just... does because "goofy guy!” I'll get more into why I personally think he does this, but the point ultimately is that Bomb is surprisingly very evenly-tempered as a character, and is perhaps way more socially intelligent than AE even intended him to be taken as. 

It all leads back to his coding: being a false alarm. We expect a bomb to be one step away from lighting its fuse and blowing up. We expect Bomb (as a character) to be volatile, reckless, violent. But none of that ever happens. He is composed, soft(er)-spoken, passive, well-meaning - and certainly thinks and speaks much more carefully than what the people around him expect.

Bombjay: It sucks, and that's why we love it (+ a smaller analysis on OJ/Paper)

Of all things Bomb is probably most utilized or known for in this fandom - it's specifically his dynamic with OJ. And for very, very good reason. Bomb and OJ are, undoubtedly - a toxic and power-imbalanced relationship (in the context of canon). It gets to the point that even the writing pretty explicitly blames OJ for everything that happened. That's even the biggest point of criticism Pickle has against OJ during "The Penultimate Poll" - and while OJ acts like the catalyst was Bomb's "betrayal," in my eyes at least - their relationship was actually doomed from its very conception. So long as Bomb's disability began to "inconvenience him" (in other words, just exist at all) - it was never going to mesh well with OJ's self-centered savior complex. It's, although depressing, a golden example of how people very often prop up and parade around with disabled people to feel "good" about themselves for allegedly "saving them" from their lives. 

At his core, OJ is a caretaker/provider who is VERY obsessed with being the perfect example. He does not care if you don't want his help - he knows best, and is the most "rational" guy on the team, so it's his “saving” you'll be dealing with for the rest of your life. It's part of what makes his character as the "hero of II" so complicated and nuanced: there are times his heart is truly in the right place, just misguided by true ignorance/not knowing any better. And there are plenty of times he convinces himself his heart is in the right place, when he is in reality being nothing but condescending and snarky. And there are other times where he is just outright rude and cruel to people knowingly, but gives himself a pass because "I'm good everywhere else. It’s fine if I’m mean just this one time.” But the worst part is - OJ is technically validated in his way of thinking. He isn't immediately wrong about being one of the more rational characters. There really isn't any other character in II that would so willingly want to create communal housing for the others or have the willpower to actually maintain it. He knows he is good at what he is doing, and he exploits the hell out of that.

Except Bomb did not validate that way of thinking, and that's exactly where the fallout happened.

OJ showed signs very early on his care for Bomb was incredibly conditional - all the way back in "4Seeing the Future,” he notably gets irritated when Bomb accidentally throws his cookie into the air (rejecting HIS gift!). He happily lets Bomb talk to him when it’s validating his opinions about Balloon in "Sugar Rush," but when Bomb tries to explain how he returned in "Double Digit Desert" - OJ immediately cuts him off and tells him to "forget it." Anything Bomb tries to say that takes longer than two seconds to listen to is immediately brushed off by OJ, who, evidently - is only interested in how he can "save this pitiful guy" to make himself *feel* good. He's not interested at all in what Bomb himself has to say, and that's something Bomb evidently starts to figure out himself toward the end of "Double Digit Desert."

And this is ultimately what leads up to their big fallout at the end of the competition. Of course, Bomb himself isn't a golden standard of niceness (as most II1 characters are) - but I think it's often overlooked that Bomb had only loosely suggested that he should win when OJ immediately retorts that it should be him, because "he's smarter." OJ doesn't think for a second - his ally, who had previously helped him all throughout the challenge - might possibly be deserving of the win, and, while obviously cruel, absolutely shows very explicitly how OJ's tolerance of Bomb was just that: conditional tolerance. Bomb giving even the slightest suggestion that he might not fit perfectly into OJ's savior fantasy instantly shattered any hope of their friendship succeeding past this point.

Coupled with OJ's vaguely ableist-sentiment doubting Bomb's intelligence - I do believe that's exactly why Bomb ends up shoving (and killing) him. It clicks in his head this guy does not care much about him - but interestingly, at the same time, Bomb initially doesn't seem to perceive this act as a betrayal as much as it was maybe a minor disagreement, if not just a strategic way of winning a competition. It's exactly why Bomb gets so confused in the following episode, where he happily goes up to OJ and calls out for him - only to be immediately shut down by OJ, berated, and then ditched for Paper. 

So funnily enough - it's not really Bomb's actions that hurt OJ. It's OJ constructing a false image of Bomb in his mind, and when that helpless image of Bomb got broken - OJ betrayed himself, and consequently hurt his own ego. 

OJ effectively door slamming on Bomb as soon as that perfect little image got shattered is another HUGE indicator their alliance was, at best: conditional. The moment OJ no longer needs to play into the role of being Bomb's "savior,” he goes completely mask-off in his ableism. He outright states this himself: "I accepted you for who you are!" When Bomb tries to explain himself, he refuses to hear him out and jumps to Paper instead (actually making it a point to state he's only allowing Paper to be with him to "get back at Bomb", in a way). Then, funnily enough, he exhibits the same immediate withdrawal tendencies to Paper themself later on in the episode when he tells them "Between you and Bomb, I feel like I'm in a mental hospital." It conspires all the way to Bomb's elimination, where OJ just HAS to get the last word in about how Bomb "deserves" it for ""betraying"" him. 

The slightest bit of resistance, from someone that isn't expected to "resist" - instantly seems to absolutely destroy OJ's world. Every interaction he has with Bomb throughout the rest of the season is literally just OJ trying to make it a point "you did something bad and you should feel bad for me." 

All this to say this isn't meant to be an attempt to demonize OJ - it's actually a very critical point of his character development, and understanding exactly where his savior complex later on comes from. Bomb possibly suggesting that his "saving" isn't exactly helping questions his very existence - and it thus results in OJ having an extreme meltdown that leads to him self-victimizing himself, because if Bomb isn't the one in the wrong - then HE is, and that can't be possible, because he has to be a good person. He needs to be the hero. OJ is VERY horribly ableist to Bomb, but in a way, it may even be internalized ableism to himself - not addressing his fixation on being a hero is, in fact, unhealthy and incredibly damaging for his esteem.

But this is where Paper comes in - and is exactly why Bomb and Paper, surprisingly, have two incredibly interesting parallels. Paper is set up as the “same formula, different answer” side of Bomb - their relationship begins in eerily similar contexts. The Paper/OJ alliance starts out with Paper literally below him. It's not Paper giving OJ a chance - it's OJ giving Paper the opportunity of "okay, prove you're better than Bomb." Then when EP/Looseleaf comes into the picture, it evolves into "now how can I save YOU?". I do believe OJ's intentions with EP are more genuine than it was with Bomb - but at heart, it is still the same thing of OJ wanting to save someone. Only, because Paper is much more vulnerable and ""newer"" to socializing, in a way (than Bomb is at least) - they let him. They actively need someone to rely on, and OJ seems to fit perfectly into that mold. Getting rid of EP seems like a good answer to both of them - and when Paper does "overcome their evil alter!!!", OJ gets the self-validation that look, he DID help someone! And now Paper should be indebted to him.

"The Tile Divide" is an all but explicit parallel to "Double Digit Desert": only Paper is a doormat. Their imbalanced relationship with OJ has made them subtly become the “inferior,” and so their solution is to fawn/play into that, rather than Bomb's solution of "I should stand up for myself." Tile Divide is a test to determine whether or not Paper/OJ is going to last beyond the competition, and by Paper allowing OJ to win - and, most importantly, accepting and framing it as "punishment" for them not helping him earlier with his orange juice problem - is exactly what made Payjay last and Bombjay fail. OJ tries to project his fear/insecurity of a similar ""betrayal"" happening again (by calling Paper a traitor/backstabber for trying to go help Taco with her lemon problem), but rather than pointing out that's a silly idea - Paper buckles to the idea instead. They unintentionally cement OJ's perspective as them being "inferior," but they also cause OJ to become very attached to them because they eased his fears about not being needed. It makes their relationship, in the same stroke it destroys it - at least until this power imbalance gets formally acknowledged in "The Reality of the Situation." 

Bombjay is complicated. It's messy. But it's a huge part of why both characters are the way they are (and is even fundamental in setting up Payjay, I'd argue). And all of this is largely why I believe Bomb and OJ can never truly become close again - it's likely very similar to how OJ (apparently) sort of just accepts Taco is around again post-finale, even after her “evil reveal.” He gets too busy to care or think too much, although the "betrayal" probably still stings. And in Bomb's case - all that ableism and belittling radically shapes how he starts to act in season two and onwards - but he still isn't nearly petty enough (beyond sassing OJ in "The Penultimate Poll") to carry on their rivalry. And so they both set season one aside, even though the wounds are still there, and they still hurt - but maybe, those wounds sting slightly less if they just keep their space away from each other - and that means not acknowledging the problem anymore as well.

Bomb and... everyone else (and how it shapes him)

Unsurprisingly, it's not just OJ that treats Bomb poorly, though.

It's hard to talk about Bomb without separating him from his stereotype - the writing, both currently and back in II1 - does not treat him well. Everyone sees him in a condescending way. Even the writing sometimes tunnel visions him as just some "goofy guy" that can't do much else but make silly expressions. I don't want to blame the characters as much as I do the writing - but it's hard, when Bomb is pretty much universally seen in an "inferior light" and is very notably treated differently in the plot from everyone else. But at the same time, it's undoubtedly a huge part of why Bomb progressively becomes more passive, quiet, and less outspoken in the later series.

I think "War de Guacamole" is probably the most mean-spirited about this: they very overexaggerate his stammer, and all of the characters stop to stare at him in disdain. Pickle even makes it a point to stare down at Bomb and glare like he's a misbehaving child - over a disability he can't control. II2 becomes more subtle with it, but undoubtedly other characters continue to treat Bomb like a chore/hassle more than a person. Soap proclaims she "shouldn't have to worry about Bomb making a mess" in the first edition of the II comics. When Microphone notices the TV wasn't unplugged in "Through No Choice of Your Own," she jumps to accusing Bomb of plugging the video game back in - and although her assumption isn't illogical, her groaning and tone of voice when scolding him in a manner similar to a child - evidently hints at a condescending attitude that is VERY different from how characters normally address each other. When most other characters get a moment to mourn their loved ones, Bomb is virtually left in the dark about what happened to Pickle as Baseball doesn't reply to his question about his death - while none of these are likely deliberate on any of these character's parts, it becomes a depressingly recurring pattern of Bomb being brushed aside, seen as a problem, or just... not important. It's incredibly similar to the Thinkers infantilizing or treating Yin-Yang like a child/animal - only Bomb gets much less closure in that regard, as he's evidently still seen as a problem.

Personally, I have a lot of beef with how Bomb is written from a meta-perspective still. Too much of his relevance in the finale is just lightly (or sometimes seriously) scolding him for doing "something out of line." He apparently acts out about the video games, he freaks Cheesy out during the red line game, so forth. He has less... normal interactions, and more so needs to be scolded or kept in line by others. And while it's very likely his emotional maturity previously established was just unintentional implications - it goes pretty depressingly against what we've seen prior. 

But meta criticisms aside, this ultimately leads me to my main point: Bomb, as established by him sassing OJ, knows what ableism is. He recognizes when he is being treated poorly, and he reacts accordingly. And in this case, it's largely why I interpret his involvement in season two as becoming deliberately quieter and reserved to avoid being belittled. I don't really have as much concrete evidence for this as much as it is just how I personally interpret it. Thus:

The Unintentional Implications/Interpretations of Bomb

I view post-II1 Bomb as a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way. He has become so used to being relegated as the goofy guy people find tiring - that he plays into that to an absurd degree. We've seen in little background scenes that Bomb is very capable of controlling how he reacts to things, meaning his sillier/absurd moments are likely much more conscious than we think. And because it's conscious, it leads to me interpreting this as Bomb avoiding the ableism that's plagued him all his life, by almost trying to play into it. Obviously, he won't stand for someone being as blatant about it as OJ - but it's much easier to not be made fun of if you just... be silly about it, and be quiet.

And in some ways, perhaps it isn't really a conscious decision on Bomb's part to play into this role - maybe it's the ableist treatment of him that has actually locked him into being seen as just a silly guy. Cheesy being shocked that Bomb could actually out-pun him shows that people really don't expect much wittiness from him, Mic/Soap have both established Bomb is seen as a liability at times, etc etc. So even though Bomb acting "ordinary" and "aware" is actually what his personality consistently is (as demonstrated numerous times!), it comes off as a shocker to everyone else because they just assume he's the weird guy. Maybe that is also part of his coding as a false alarm - his coding might not necessarily affect him, as much as it does affect everyone else - warping their perceptions to perceive Bomb as an absurdity or a threat, when in reality he’s just some guy.

But this discussion is largely speculative. The II1 remaster will have a lot of things to add to Bomb, and I don't want to make conclusive statements about anything until it finishes Bomb's story. I will say from what we have so far, however - their rehandling of Bomb definitely plays a lot into Bomb truly being more of an ordinary, sweet, and level-headed guy - just surrounded by a bunch of people who aren't very kind to him.

Concluding Thoughts (Why I Love Bomb - And You Should, Too)

Bomb isn't well-written. I will say that very point blank: he is not. 

But he is complexly written (...at least with OJ). No matter how unintentional, talking about his nuance is interesting. His arc is perhaps one of the most important in II1, if not the greater II as a whole for how it builds up OJ in particular. His character is treated cruelly, and yet in that cruelty - I resonate with him, and that's exactly why I think generating discussion about him, well-written or not - is so critically important and fun to me.

And although his current base is not great, I have faith in the II1 remaster for a perhaps kinder depiction of Bomb. I greatly enjoy the additional supplementation they have given thus far - generally leaving his lines alone, but giving his character more weight and intentionality in what he does. He becomes recognized and written for being Bomb - not for his disability (as a mean-spirited joke, that is). 

But even without the remaster, I still truly believe Bomb deserves much more than being perhaps the least talked-about character of II1 (second to maybe Salt or Pepper?). OJ is a great part of his character, and Bomb is a great part of OJ's in turn - but both are so deeply complex by themselves that discussion like this can be generated for either in great length, separately. I know a large majority will likely not agree with my more favorable opinion of Bomb, but so long as he might become something more for some person: that is the goal of this essay, at the end of the day. 

He is a flawed character, but he, ironically enough - becomes an even stronger character within these flaws. And in my eyes: any character that can generate this amount of discourse in length, has done something right enough to be compelling, even if it’s to just one person.

[hahahafangirl]

WBK 180 Analysis -- Sakura's crisis of motivations?

(TLDR is basically the 3-points list. I have so much to say.) I may also edit this posts later to link textual evidences -- for now, trust-me-bro.png

It's very interesting to see the main character of a shounen to be in a crisis of motivation the way Sakura is right now (this early on at least)... We have seen from the conclusion of the previous arc that Sakura is not quite sure of his original goal anymore, but maybe the upcoming chapters will elucidate on why.

It is quite obvious that seeing how Umemiya is as a person has fundamentally shocked and challenged Sakura’s conception of what a “leader” and especially that of Bofurin should be like. But, I'm quite surprised that the Togame, Endo, and Ume v. Takiishi fights are now playing into Sakura's anxiety too.

So, I have 3 hypothesis/observations on this:

1) Sakura is questioning his strength as a fighter 2) Sakura is re-evaluating what he wants to be a leader for 3) Sakura is understanding the weight of becoming a leader, a symbol, a figurehead — the weight of invincibility.

Let's start consequentially:

Sakura has not (yet) to technically win against his major opponents.

An interesting detail (that I very much love, btw) on how Sakura had won against physically/technically stronger opponents (Togame and Endo) thus far is that he did not overwhelm them physically, but rather by his conviction and “conversation” with them, as Umemiya enlightened him. This is also primarily the way Ume fought, against both Chouji and Takiishi, although Ume's fights are more verbally/obvious than Sakura's. Sakura’s “conversations” to Togame and Endou were deeply internal, where his conviction and ferocity invites his opponent to examine their reasons to fight; meanwhile, Umemiya verbally talks to his opponents.

[DIGRESSION ON UMEMIYA'S VERSUS SAKURA'S FIGHTS]

Going deep into a segue here, but there is a reason why Ume and Sakura has their own opponents. It has never been a matching of strength, but rather who is best to have a conversation with whom. Sakura’s ferocity was what Togame and Endo need to be taken aback by and self-examine their motivations— they’re deeply, consciously thoughtful people that they must be forced to confront themselves. Chouji and Takiishi are very instinctive fighters and don’t think too deeply (comparatively) — therefore having troubles understanding why they’re unhappy. They need an eloquent speaker like Umemiya to “guide” them through. Ume is not going to be helpful talking at introspective people like Togame and Endo; Sakura is not going to know what to say to Chouji or Takiishi.

In a story deeply concerned with how to connect to other people and intentionally, meaningfully build a community, we have seen again and again that the physical fight is not the point, but rather the medium of connections. Similar to how Nirei was best suited to help Sugishita, or Sakura's understanding of domestic violence (neglect, should we want to be precise) makes him most suited to understand Akari, Sakura and Umemiya's styles has its suitable audience. Maybe I'll do a more detailed post on this at some point...

[END OF DIGRESSION]

Nonetheless, we see that Umemiya, Chouji, Takiishi, Togame, and Endo are, objectively, several leagues better than Sakura as a fighter. This makes sense: they’re third years, figuratively the “goal post”, while Sakura is a starting-MC going on a journey of growth. So I think Sakura thinking back about those fights may be a sign that he's questioning his strength, or at least be ready to understand deeper why he has won despite the skill differences. All in all, it might be the time we see Togame or Ume or someone spells out to Sakura his strength and how he win— thus informing our dear MC of how he could grow to be a leader and a fighter (both physically and mentally— as he has been doing)

2) Sakura still does not know why he wants to lead Bofurin

At least for now, it seems natural to me that the story will conclude with Sakura becoming Bofurin's leader (take this with a grain of salt-- I thought Karasuno was going to win the Spring tourney too). However, we saw that Sakura has already understood that the reason he wanted to be the topdog for is no longer valid. In fact, Sakura wanted to be the strongest purely for the sake of being so-- in his conscious thoughts at least; it's clear now that subconsciously, what he wanted is acceptance and recognition for who he is rather than what he seems.

When he asked Kaji what the latter wants to do as a leader; when he sees Umemiya as an invincible pillar of strength by necessity, Sakura already begins to understand that a meaningful leadership needs a "goal". For Umemiya, it is unifying Bofurin to protect the town. Sugishita has a clear goal of maintaining this community that they will inherit. Sakura is not quite sure what he wanted yet-- maybe the next chapter will tell us (the goal of being connected to the larger communities seem nice enough; Sakura has already demonstrated his efficacy in this aspect by soliciting help for their big fight); or maybe not yet. Maybe Sakura will need to step back from this grander goal to figure out what he wants to do as a leader. He has plenty of time still to think about it; it's barely the first ~3 months of school :)

3) The weight of invincibility

Coming back to point 1), we see that Umemiya is not only deeply emotionally intelligent to be able to fight who he fought, he is also an overwhelmingly impressive fighters. He is basically now the strongest in Bofurin history by winning over Takiishi. Sakura's crisis during the Endo fight has opened his eye to the fact that Umemiya not only is currently invincible, he must be invincible as the last bastion of Bofurin in every crisis -- the invincibility comes from Umemiya's conviction as a leader itself. It serves both literal (physical strength) and symbolic (leadership, and Bofurin itself) function in the narrative. Sakura understood the symbolic part; now, he might be feeling the weight of bringing it to literal reality.

And that is a scary thing to strives for! Sakura was psychologically and physically overwhelmed by Endo -- this is the fight that Sakura actually experienced his own loss in -- and has to come back to his symbolic invincibility to bring the narrative to its appropriate end (I will have a segue on this point later; maybe even a separate post). Seeing -- and, following Endo's words, immerse yourself in -- the spectacular brutality that was Ume v. Takiishi really, really drives home the literal pressure of the job. This may means Sakura must gets to a point where he can withstand Endo's sort of psychological attacks, along with the physical strength discussed earlier. And, hell, I would not be surprised if Sakura has to confront the psychological damage Endo did on him-- which revealed his still deep-set anxiety of rejection, along with the newly-added anxiety of weighing people down (typical of someone who just learns to live with, and rely on, other people), etc etc. All necessary character development, and a real, huge, overwhelming mental growing-pain.

So, all in all, natural that Sakura might get cold feet now. Again, still a lot of time to work through it :) WBK's story is not only about community building but also how to truly connect with and embed yourself in that community (the first step to truly build and connect said community). It is a problem that begins during teenage years, and continue waaaay beyond-- and it is all, very compassionately, communicated through Sakura's struggle. Of course he is getting some snags now after a very upsetting conflict, which can prove to be productive, if Sakura (and everyone else can help him) uses it to grow.

[erriga]

THE QUARANTINE QUERY

(tl dr I didn't vibe with the demo for some silly and not so silly reasons)

Welcome to my special post where I will try to explain my personal problems with Quarantine and the general creative and narrative direction the next game seems to be heading towards. I decided to write a longer text instead of a couple of bullet points, because one does not simply write a thesis about a game just to later complain about it in a sarcastically laconic tone.

Things this essay is going to be:

my opinion/critique

an analysis

a reflection upon my feelings about the series in general

Things this essay is not going to be:

an angry rant about the new game in the spirit of they changed it so now it sucks

an attempt to prove that old pathologic = smart and new pathologic = stupid

Ok, with the disclaimers out of the way, let's get into it, and by it I mean levels of pretentious nerdiness unknown to many.

I wrote down four statements that describe my general feelings about the demo. They will serve as a frame of reference for what my critique will fundamentally touch upon instead of trying to fit every possible complaint I might have in a disjointed fashion. Here they are:

I feel like Quarantine expects me to:

Consider Dankovsky to be a specific Character in a specific Story

Believe Dankovsky has an internal world that can be mechanically represented in the ludo-narrative

Find said internal world to be compelling enough to let it filter the whole experience of the game

(presumably) emotionally connect with Dankovsky due to all of the above

If all this sounds confusing - good! Keep reading, it's going to get even better.

So, is Daniil a character?

Yes, of course he is. But what does it mean in the context of the original game compared to Pathologic 2 and now Quarantine?

Over the years I've come across vastly different opinions about the quality of character writing in the original Pathologic. I am not including complaints about the English translations or other technical aspects, just the most basic tendency of how the game portrays its characters. Most people I've seen who have passionately engaged with the game (including me) tend to describe the original game's characterizations as nuanced, complex and strangely realistic despite their rather theatrical tendencies. But I've also heard others say the exact opposite. That the characters don't feel like real people at all, their personalities are incoherent and fall flat due to a lack of consistency, and that every single one of them, from an old man to a literal toddler, falls back on the same pseudo-philosophical cadence, which while attempting to make them seem deeper ends up dehumanizing them even further. And even though those two opinions seem to be contradictory, I think that they are both the exact same reason why the writing of the original game captivates me so much. Because it doesn't really matter.

I wrote my thesis about the brechtian influences in Classic. One of the most characteristic aspects of the Epic Theatre is the attempt to remove illusions typical to traditional theatre, among which is the illusion of a character's psychology. I believe that you can absolutely argue that the characters in patho 1 were designed to behave like Brecht's characters - lacking internal psychology, mainly serving as mouthpieces for political and philosophical arguments, more so types than individuals. But here's the catch - I believe it's actually impossible to create a character completely immune to identification, because we as humans love to project our silly little emotions on pretty much anything, including animals and inanimate objects. Compared to those cases, Gorkhon's gallery of strange individuals is a painfully human display. So it's no wonder that many of us did indeed relate to those weirdos, just like nothing can possibly stop an audience member from identifying with Mother Courage or Galileo in Brecht's play. But the fact still remains that none of those characters were designed with this kind of simple emotional identification in mind and thus the attachment we may feel to them is more of a byproduct than the main goal. Taking a character who was meant to be analytically pondered and instead adopting them as a breathing human being is in that case, almost an act of rebellion. It's like saying, this is mine now.

Coming back to Daniil, this lack of clarity of how much he was written with this sort of characterization in mind is the main reason why I found him so compelling, he always kept me asking: is this part of Daniil as a coherent whole or is it just a philosophical stance which I should ponder at this moment or is it the writer's attempt at predicting what the player (presumably a straight male player) may want to say through this character? Does Daniil say "wow" because that's how he speaks, or is it just an oversight? Am I supposed to treat optional dialogue as things he would say or just things that are sometimes said in his world? The point is I DON'T KNOW and I love that I don't know that! It gives me so many posibilities! To me Daniil's character isn't so much about what he exactly says or does, but rather the internal logic that guides him. And I am the one who can choose its exact mechanism. He is mine.

Meanwhile, I feel like Quarantine wants me to treat Dankovsky like I would treat most other characters in traditional/popular media. Here are his personality traits. He is intelligent, he says so himself, and that lady over there also said it and he knows science and formulas and speaks Latin. Here are his thoughts. He has a memory about this thing. He feels guilty about that. I suddenly have a whole army of simple sentences that are meant to help me umderstand Daniil in this new iteration. Not so much a puzzle but a construction manual. And I'm not saying that this way of storytelling is fundamentally bad just because I can parody it as simpler than it really is. I want to engage with the new game's writing on it's own terms but so far I haven't done that mostly due to the giant dankovsky shaped object blocking the view.

Speaking of-

THE BACHELOR-CENTRIC MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE

This demo is so much about Dankovsky that it almost makes me embarrassed in his name. And honestly, I'm surprised I feel that way, considering how much I usually enjoy stories where a character's perception shapes the narrative to a great extent. I love symbolic dream sequences, guilt-driven visions and unreliable narrators. But the way Daniil's perception of himself and his surroundings doesn't really feel like a service to him as a character, but rather a narrative shorthand to spoonfeed me, the player, the most relevant information. The way Daniil's thoughts appear around objects is realistic to the extent that yes, human thoughts can be often rather simple and disjointed but there are moments where I think this mental streamlining is detrimental to his characterization and rubs him of nuance. The worst culprits of that are (IN MY OPINION):

Him calling Eva a ray of sunshine

The part where he references the fact that he and Artemy always fight about whose methods are better

Any time Daniil or someone around him refers to him as especially intelligent

Mr Little's Special Tutorial Perspective or Please Daniil Explain This To Me Once Again

None of those ideas are fundamentally bad, not at all. I'm curious to see his relationship with Eva develop, I want to see him interact with Artemy more like they did in the original, I can see some great ironic potential in the constant hyping up of Daniil's intellect and yeah, I hope Yakov is revealed to be some secret government agent or something. But I'm annoyed that I feel like I can predict all of this from just a couple of lines in the demo. I want to be confused and unsure of my own judgement. I want to be proven wrong, surprised, and ashamed of my own surface level analysis. And that can still very much happen, perhaps even in the comments on this very post or once the full games comes out. But right now I feel rather pessimistic.

I don't have a good segue for this part so now let's talk mechanics.

PRESS B TO EAT A CIGARRETE

The new mechanics try to break away from the body-first focus of the original game and the way Pathologic 2 expanded on those ideas even further. This time it's all about the mind, baby. Which - again - on itself isn't a bad idea. If this game was just 2 with different dialogues it would be very hard to justify its existence as a stand-alone product that needed to somehow be funded over those last 6 years. But the result to me feels more like novelty for novelty's sake. Not everything of course - the diagnosis part of the gameplay is definitely its most well-designed aspect, and there is a consistent logic behind it. Where Artemy saw systems, Daniils sees individual parts, where Artemy had to rely on luck, Daniil controls all the variables etc etc. The same, however, cannot be said about some of the other new mechanics.

Managing Daniil's mental state doesn't feel that much different than making sure Artemy drinks enough water and I personally think it's a wasted opportunity. I'm not going to insert myself into the discussion about whether the game's use of terms associated with bipolar disorder is accurate/tasteful because other people with relevant experiences have already voiced their opinions about that and will hopefully continue to do so in the future. My point is - regardless of what exact mental condition or more general function of the human psyche the game is trying to convey, it does so in a manner so simplistic that it doesn't encourage me as a player to connect with it on a deeper level. Apathy is blue because it's sad, Mania means, well, mania so it's red. Once again, I have only experienced a small portion of the game's final system so I might be in for a surprise and perhaps I will get to see Daniil experience something... purple?

Also adding to my previous point about switching perspectives - I think this mechanic will be an absolute gut punch in the final game. I hope it's something akin to the original meeting with the Powers That Be, especially with the way multiple characters can "jump" into one conversation at any moment. This will surely be utilized for some mind-fuckery and I can't wait to see it. I think this is also the one aspect of the demo that gives me the most hope as far as my beloved emotional confusion is concerned. Because what is the switching of perspectives supposed to indicate really? Are we supposed to filter it once again through Daniil's perspective because of the framing device of him recollecting the events? So nothing we learn by getting the insight into other characters' thoughts can be taken at face value because that's just how Daniil sees them? Are those other/new characters even real or just exist in Daniil's psyche? Does it have something to do with the time travel blahblah? Or are we not playing as Daniil at all but some other entity entirely? That's the main question I hope I don't get a clear answer to but rather contradicting paths to follow. But despite that optimistic outlook I still need to get into the final aspect that made it difficult for me to engage with the new game on its own terms, and instead deciding to take its dead corpse apart.

I CARE TOO MUCH BUT NOT ENOUGH

I just can't get over the fact how much this game wants me to identify with Daniil or at the very least find him cool. Cool as in how modern characters are often cool. Wet cats, chaotic bastards, jerks with hearts of gold and vaguely homoerotic energy with other male characters. And I'm not saying this as an insult, narrative trends are a thing, I find many of those archetypes to be endearing more often than not, but my problem is that it still only serves Dankovsky as our center of the world. By flanderizing him and making him fit into a more recognizable character archetype we lose the feeling of him being always at odds with the world around him, the way he used to be conflicted over every single thing in the original game. This new world is too suited for him to be a hero of his story, a tragic hero but a hero nonetheless, while in my opinion what made him uniquely tragic in classic was precisely the fact that he wasn't anyone's hero.

I know this constant comparison to patho classic can get tiring, so let me use another point of reference which is also the reason why I am even writing this post in the first place - The Marble Nest. I love the marble nest. I find its narrative structure to be expertly crafted, emotional beats placed in just the right places and godd i still cry over the fact that they put his soul into a nutshell. And the funny thing is that TMN does share a lot of similarities with the new demo. It's a Daniil-centric story with a framing device that encourages us to look at the entire experience as Daniil's impression of the reality around him. It's a short and rather simple experience with a strong central theme. So why do I feel so emotional when Daniil talks to the death in that game but feel pretty much nothing when he talk about dying in Quarantine? Maybe because The Marble Nest is still steeped so deeply in the theatre influences which I hold dear to my heart while Quarantine moves away from them and maybe towards another medium entirely. Theatre never pretends to be reality and it's artificiality is always front and center. Film meanwhile often has the tendency to try to replicate reality or even try to be reality itself. In one of those cases I feel like an active audience member and in the other like a passive voyeur of some vision of reality. Or to put it simply, in one case I am afraid of Death and in the other, I am watching someone act out being afraid of death. That is a highly personal preference though and I'm genuinely happy to see that many people do indeed relate to this portrayal of Daniil, especially when it comes to how his mental problems are displayed front and center. And that's amazing! I want to see all the fan input that comes out of it and I hope the final game delivers on everything they hope for. But for me? I think I might need to take a back seat, at least for now. Watch the scene from afar, perhaps get a fuller picture. Because I want to care and understand and know and feel. I really do. But sometimes it's not possible and that's also good.

So, if you've read this overwritten mess to the end, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart and encourage you to voice your opinion. Art doesn't exist without discussion so let's discuss!

POST-SCRIPTUM - ON THE NATURE OF MAKING GOOD THINGS IN YOUR PAST

One last thing I wanted to add which feels highly relevant to the my critique is the question of what to do when someone says they liked your old work better? I like to think of myself as an artist and I think that many of us do, even without getting into how according to Beuys everyone is an artist. So you make a thing, some people like, perhaps many people do. So you keep making things, you grow with them, change, realize your old ideas were often childish or naive which you can only do through gaining experience. So you make new things, often drastically different from the ones you made before. And someone says "I liked the old stuff better". And they don't say it as an insult, even though it may sometimes feel like it. Because you cannot recreate whatever you did in your past. And you want to grow. Does that mean that you got worse instead? That you peaked in your past and it's all downhill from here? Of course not. You know that. I know that. I hope every artist knows that. And yet it still hurts. It hurts to be perceived as a line graph when in reality you are a recursive function.

----

all images made by me, the ones with yellow background are from a shitpost animatic, the white one was a joke I made after hearing the famous"sherlock mind palace fruit ninja" pitch, and the last one is me in my Daniil cosplay. Goodnight Bikini Bottom

[bumbled-bees]

Lily's Lack of Understanding the Workplace

A moment from Lily’s January 30th, 2025 livestream is a perfect showcase of her complete disconnect from reality—especially when it comes to how jobs actually work. She has spent so long being an independent creator with zero accountability that she genuinely does not comprehend how power structures function in the real world.

The Gay Rep Conversation: How to Out Yourself as Clueless

It all started when a chatter pointed out that sometimes creators can’t put the gay rep they want in their work because of studio pushback. This is an objective reality in the animation and entertainment industry—countless showrunners and writers have spoken about how difficult it is to get queer content past executives, censors, and networks. But Lily, in her infinite ignorance, completely dismissed this reality and responded with:

"Well, fight back against the studio then."

This is where Lily’s lack of real-world experience becomes painfully obvious. She seems to think that creators have unlimited power over what gets made, that they can just dig their heels in and demand their vision stay intact. She doesn’t understand that defying studio execs usually just gets you fired.

When the chatter tried to patiently explain this, pointing out that not everyone has the clout to fight back, Lily doubled down:

"I don’t care, I have no sympathy for creators compromising on their vision, they should’ve fought harder." (Paraphrased, but this was the gist.)

This is cartoonishly stupid for multiple reasons.

You either compromise, or you don’t work. If a new creator refuses to make changes, they’re not seen as a "visionary"—they’re seen as difficult and replaceable. The entertainment industry is brutal, and the vast majority of showrunners had to make compromises to get their work out there.

Lauren Faust can afford to walk away. New creators can’t. Lily idolizes Lauren Faust for supposedly walking away from projects when studios try to change her vision. But Faust is an industry veteran with enough prestige to do that. A new writer or animator? Yeah, if they refuse to compromise, they’re out of a job and blacklisted.

Lily has never had a real job. She has no idea what it’s like to have a boss, deadlines, contracts, or workplace politics. She has always been in a position where she can do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, and the only "consequences" are losing a few Patreon supporters.

Lily’s Pattern of Not Understanding Jobs

This isn’t the first time Lily has completely failed to grasp how employment works. She has a long-running history of making bizarre, out-of-touch comments about jobs, money, and power structures that expose how little she knows.

She believes:

People should just quit their jobs if they don’t like them.

If a workplace is abusive, you should just leave.

If a creator compromises their work, it means they’re a coward.

If you work for a company that does bad things, you’re personally responsible.

These are the beliefs of someone who has never had to depend on a paycheck to survive. Lily has been fully independent for so long that she genuinely thinks everyone can afford to take massive risks, burn bridges, and walk away whenever they want.

Why This Moment Matters

This livestream clip is so important because it demonstrates why Lily’s analysis of media is always so flawed. She doesn’t just have bad takes—she has bad takes based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the industry works.

Her attitude is insulting to actual working professionals because she assumes that if someone didn’t fight hard enough for something, it means they’re weak or cowardly. In reality, these decisions are never that simple. Creators fight for representation all the time, but sometimes a small compromise is necessary to get anything through at all.

But to Lily, if a creator didn’t fight to the death for 100% of their vision, then they deserve no sympathy. Because in her world, she has never had to compromise for anyone.

The Tim Horton's Story

Lily fundamentally cannot function in a normal workplace. She talks about her Tim Horton's story like it’s some kind of badass moment where she stood her ground against a rude coworker—but all it actually proves is that Lily:

Was handed a job through nepotism (her mom got it for her).

Immediately clashed with a coworker on day one.

Responded to perceived hostility with outright aggression.

Refused to communicate like a normal human being.

Learned absolutely nothing from the experience.

Breaking It Down: Lily’s Workplace Disaster

According to her, on her first day at Tim Hortons, the baker on shift glared at her. Instead of assuming maybe this person was just tired, stressed, or not particularly social, Lily immediately went into attack mode.

Every time the baker, Candice, tried to communicate, Lily cut her off with:

"Candice, shut up and finish your bake."

And she tells this story like she owned the interaction. Like this was some kind of epic moment where she put a rude coworker in their place.

But let’s be real—this is unhinged behavior.

You don’t talk to coworkers like that. Ever. Even if someone is cold or distant, you don’t immediately resort to open hostility.

First impressions matter. Lily started this job already burning bridges.

There was no justification for her reaction. The baker didn’t yell at her, insult her, or sabotage her work. She just gave Lily a look—and Lily escalated the situation for no reason.

The Real Takeaway: Lily Cannot Work With Others

Instead of reflecting on how maybe—just maybe—this wasn’t normal behavior, Lily’s takeaway from the experience was:

"Have people been bullshitting me about my attitude this whole time?"

As if this story proves she wasn’t the problem, when it demonstrates the exact opposite.

Lily literally cannot function in an environment where she isn’t in charge. She has no idea how to navigate basic workplace social dynamics. She assumes everyone is out to get her the second they don’t greet her with a smile and open arms. And when she starts unnecessary fights, she frames it as some kind of empowering moment instead of an obvious red flag about her personality.

This also explains why Lily’s never had a real job since. She can’t handle basic authority. She can’t deal with normal workplace challenges without turning them into petty power struggles. And instead of acknowledging that maybe she’s difficult to work with, she assumes that everyone else is just lying about her attitude.

Why This Story Matters

This Tim Hortons experience is important because it further proves that Lily:

Has no understanding of professional environments.

Doesn’t know how to handle even mild workplace tension.

Sees herself as the main character in every interaction.

Has always had an authority problem.

Rewrites reality to make herself the hero.

Lily tells on herself constantly, but this might be one of the funniest examples. She really thought this made her look good—when all it does is show why she could never hold a real job.