#but it is flawed in that the evidence is in multiple implications that can be easily ignored or missed

[nothorses]

i see you've reblogged a very weird and racist post about what it means to be a "settler" and i would encourage you to engage more deeply with Native & Indigenous thinkers! "settler" isn't just like a static inborn unchangeable biological fact. it's a specific relationship to land, nature, governance, Indigenous people, etc

(For other people's reference, this is the post in question)

I 100% agree with you that the definition of "settler" the article is discussing is not the like, actual definition- particularly in the context of indigenous/native American people (at least that I've read anything by). I think it's a shitty and inherently flawed understanding of the word, it doesn't serve anyone, and my understanding of the article is that it's critiquing the same thing: a critically, and perhaps intentionally, flawed understanding of a word that has a very different meaning. (They use phrasing like "under this definition of the word" or similar whenever they mention it, and allude to the fact that actual indigenous/native American folks are being left out of the conversation).

I think the article could have (and should have) been clearer about this point, because it feels like it's never very direct in this, and that absolutely does leave room for some people to interpret this as "the concept of 'settlers' is antisemitic".

What I'm picking up on could just be nothing, but, imo, it's really not absent from the author's intent. It seems more like they were focused on the issue being discussed ("the way this term is being misused hurts Jewish people, please think about the flaws in your understanding of this word") and didn't think it was as important to define a more accurate understanding of the word where it might invite a debate about semantics- or maybe because they don't have a solid enough alternative understanding to provide.

I don't think it's entirely fair to jump from "author critiques flawed understanding of settlers" to "author argues that the concept of settlers is inherently harmful", and I think the perspective they're offering is a very real and important one to hear out. I'll add that I've personally seen this misunderstanding of "settler" trotted out in legitimately harmful ways, in real life; I very recently had a supervisor use this definition of "settler" in staff training, multiple times, in a program that prides itself on cultivating real connections with local tribes to inform their curriculum, to imply that everyone's ultimate goal should be to leave this land and go back to our "ancestral homelands" (when presented with the idea that some people just don't have any way of knowing where that is, she suggested "dreaming about your past lives" and, failing that, shrooms).

But like, I can also very much see where they're not actually making the effort to actively defend the very real concept underneath the common misunderstanding of it, and how that can- and probably has- caused harm. And I'm sorry if you or anyone else has felt that harm.

I also invite disagreement and discussion here, and I recognize that my perspective is likely to have blind spots given I'm neither Jewish nor indigenous.

[saintsenara]

📖🖤

thank you very much for the asks, anons!

if you had to remove one book from the series, which would you choose?

answered here.

which character is not as morally good as everyone else seems to think?

i'm going to bend the terms of this question a little bit, so that i can talk about how little i vibe with a common way of writing luna - the one which presents the things she believes as correct, and the rest of the world as simply too narrow-minded to see it.

this turns luna into - essentially - a flawless clairvoyant, working tirelessly to get others to see the truth, and it therefore turns her canonical naivety, stubbornness, inability to accept that she might be wrong, and refusal to consider multiple viewpoints into displays of moral fortitude.

instead of what they actually are... flaws. all of which have made her a conspiracy theorist, rather than the one person in the world who gets it.

i'd be really interested in a fic which takes this aspect of luna's character seriously - whether it looks at her beliefs becoming more entrenched, or thinks about what it would be like for her as she began to drift away from the certainties of her conspiracist thinking. i'd also like to see fics take the implication of canon that she is - to some extent - indoctrinated by her father seriously. and - of course - i'd also like to see the crack fics of luna managing to genuinely convince swathes of people to get into snorcack hunting...

i'm not interested one bit in manic-pixie-dream!luna.

what does everyone else get wrong about your favourite character?

snape is not a good occlumens because he's emotionally controlled. nor because he's emotionally repressed.

he's good occlumens because he's incredibly petty.

contrary to its fanon interpretation, occlumency is not building a mental fortress - putting up an occlumency shield/wall isn't a thing [and, indeed, can't be - because then the legilimens you're protecting your thoughts from would realise that you were doing this...] - and nor is it the total control of any emotion other than bland calm.

occlumency is, essentially, being able to lie [or, at the very least, to bend the truth] fluently - and to manage your emotional response [including responses which appear to be unstable, like glee, anger, or sorrow] with sufficient ease that nobody ever guesses that you're lying or withholding information.

this requires a certain level of performativity. it also requires a certain level of self-awareness - and, especially, self-awareness of your negative characteristics. one of the reasons why i think harry isn't a good occlumens is because - while he's a very good liar when he knows that what he's saying is exclusively a lie - he's prone to righteousness in situations in which he knows [or thinks he knows] that what he's saying has any level of truth to it. he finds it incredibly difficult to hold his temper - that is, to manage his emotional response, or to perform anger, rather than letting it overtake him unrestrainedly - in front of people like snape or umbridge because they're wrong in how they interpret his views and behaviours, and this is something which he never learns [during the canon series, at least] to not be provoked by.

but snape is clearly aware that he has a tendency towards delighting in the misfortune of others - as well as an evident loathing for people who think that they're cleverer than he is, whom he loves misleading.

and it's this which makes him such a good occlumens - he likes lying, especially to people who are arrogant enough to believe that they've got him all figured out.

or, as he puts it in half-blood prince:

“You think he is mistaken? Or that I have somehow hoodwinked him? Fooled the Dark Lord, the greatest wizard, the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen?”

he has - of course - done just that. and he clearly finds it enormously entertaining - thereby making him relaxed enough to allow him to manage his emotional performance while lying - that both voldemort and bellatrix never seriously consider the fact that this might be the case...

[itsclydebitches]

It astounds me that CRWBY can have the whole volume's 'character arc' resting on the idea that Ruby doesn't need to be perfect and that her friends aren't expecting her to be, only for her heroic entrance in the climax to be followed by her team mates basically going "If she wasn't perfect, we wouldn't follow her.". They've already failed to effectively establish a character arc and somehow STILL manage to undermine it.

Unfortunately, that's RWBY's go-to writing style: put forth a straightforward character arc, but then fail to consider how everything surrounding it may undermine that journey. RT seems to continually believe that The Message of the show is separate from everything else we see on screen, rather than realizing they're two sides of the same coin; a fictional series of evidence supporting a fictionalized argument. You can't have a character proclaim, "I've learned to be charitable!" and then show numerous scenes where they're being unnecessarily stingy. That's a head and a tails that simply don't fit.

Cat: You’re broken! You break everything you touch! I call Humans… weak! Confused! Incomplete! Weiss: No, you’re wrong. Yang: She’s never been any of those things. Blake: That’s why we follow her.

Unlike my above example though, RWBY is usually a bit more complicated. Here, the Cat tosses out accurate and inaccurate accusations, making it that much easier for viewers to simply ignore the ways in which this moment doesn't support Ruby's arc because look, some of what he's saying is nonsense. Personally, I disagree with "broken" and "incomplete"—especially with those two descriptors leveled partly at Yang—but confused? Frequently. Weak? Yes, that's a part of life; a challenge to overcome. Breaking everything they touch? Not everything, but a large part of Volume 9's reflection was supposedly them acknowledging how massively they messed up in Atlas. So... yeah. Things have been broken, on a literal and metaphorical level. Why would the heroes deny that in the final hour?

The purpose of Ruby's arc was meant to be accepting her flaws to the point where she can work to move past them. There's a fine line between acknowledging that people are imperfect while likewise acknowledging our responsibility to continually improve. It's not an excuse or a pessimistic declaration, yet Volume 9 started by denying the impact that their failure has had on others—Who cares that an entire Kingdom is gone? We tried our best and that's all that will ever matter!—and ends with the girls denying that those flaws exist at all. "You're wrong... She’s never been any of those things." Ruby has never been weak? Or confused? She's never fucked up? Huh, I thought this arc was explicitly showing how weak and confused and a failure she's been, to the point where those emotions drove her to a magical suicide. Worse than simply erasing Ruby's (already near non-existent) growth though, this moment—as you say, anon—suddenly paints Ruby as perfect when the whole POINT was for her to realize she didn't have to be. Her team turns her into an archetype on a pedestal, rather than a living, breathing, flawed person who needs support. Ruby is never confused. She's never weak. She's never lacked anything within her sense of identity. She's never made horrific mistakes. She is the PERFECT leader and that is why we follow her. Insert the implication here that a flawed Ruby would be abandoned by her team, AKA the very fear she expressed earlier that day:

Ruby from a few hours ago: "Why do I have to be the leader, anyway? Why do I always have to be the one to pick people up? What about me? ... Gotta find someone who isn't going to just screw everything up! Gotta stay positive, right? Smiles all around!"

RWBY is so frustrating because we have these scenes where multiple narrative problems are combining. I hate that they have Ruby complaining about being leader when she continually demanded that responsibility, to the point of actual Kingdom-wide destruction, and I hate that she's simultaneously right to be upset with how her team has been treating her. RWBY fails on both fronts by giving us a hero who is incapable of acknowledging her own screwups without making a whole production of it (Ruby's breakdown, though understandable, puts her in the position of a victim in need of comfort, rather than the responsible party who needs to own up to those mistakes) and it gives us a hero who expresses a need to be treated like a human being... only for her team to turn around and deny a large chunk of what makes her human.

None of which even gets into the iffy human/faunus dichotomy and how these definitions of humanity apply to Blake...

I love you just the way you are, says Summer, talking to a literal toddler who has not caused irreparable damage in a war. What about me? screams Ruby, someone who has made it all about her since she ignored Qrow's advice and ran after Cinder. We never expected her to be perfect, says Yang, and she's kinda right because the story has consistently shown Ruby demanding this responsibility, not having it placed on her shoulders. We follow Ruby because she's perfect, says the team, obliterating this Volume's arc that was already contradicting the rest of the series. This show is a MESS, says Clyde, banging her head against the metaphorical wall.

[mercifullymad]

It’s frustrating and disappointing to see nominally social justice-focused eating disorder organizations (like Project Heal and the Alliance for Eating Disorders) support the passing of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). KOSA is opposed by more than 90 civil rights and digital rights groups, including GLAAD, GLSEN, the ACLU, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Library Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. KOSA also contradicts the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that children should not be subjected to “unlawful interference with [their] privacy.” One of KOSA's main premises — the belief that increased parental surveillance of children’s Internet use will protect children’s mental health — is inherently flawed, and it is of paramount importance for abused and marginalized children that mental health organizations don’t buy into this belief.

This open letter signed by several organizations details the many dangerous implications of KOSA’s overreach. While KOSA aims to protect minors under 16 from the negative effects of social media use (such as “addictive” design features and content that “promotes” eating disorders, self-harm, or substance use), its vague language enables increased surveillance of children’s Internet use, increased data collection on both children and adults alike, and the power for parents and state government officials to decide what content is “appropriate” for children. With some states increasingly legalizing the idea that any kind of content that acknowledges the existence of queer people or the U.S.’s legacy of racism is inherently “inappropriate” for children (by banning books and preventing school curriculums from mentioning these realities), KOSA has the potential to prevent children from accessing these topics online, too.

KOSA is particularly dangerous to marginalized and abused children because of the level of inescapable parental surveillance it enables. Passing KOSA might prevent a 15-year-old from looking up how to report his abusive parents or where to seek help. It might prevent a 14-year-old whose parents will disown her if she’s pregnant from looking up sex education or abortion care. It might prevent a 13-year-old living in a homophobic household from connecting with accepting peers. It might prevent 12-year-olds who are already self-harming or eating unintuitively from looking up harm reduction techniques that could keep them alive. KOSA would not keep children safe or improve their mental health — it would make the most at-risk children even more unsafe, and it would worsen the mental health of anyone living in an unsafe household or state.

I presume that eating disorder organizations are campaigning for KOSA because they believe the unrealistic, fatphobic, and eurocentric beauty standards proliferating on social media are causing and/or exacerbating eating disorders, and they are desperate for any recourse to curtail these harms. But KOSA is premised on flawed understandings of media effects, and it is a dangerous piece of legislation that wouldn’t adequately address the very real harms of social media. Multiple studies have shown that similar content bans and increased parental control have not been effective, and have even made harmful content easier to find. Whatever good intentions eating disorder organizations might have by endorsing KOSA, it is important to note that all evidence points to KOSA harming children, not helping them. 

KOSA aims to make social media companies accountable for preventing children from seeing content that “promotes” eating disorders, self-harm, suicide, and substance use. The problem is, social media algorithms are incapable of distinguishing between content that promotes these behaviors and content that discusses these behaviors in a neutral manner or provides harm reduction techniques for making these behaviors less dangerous. As the EFF notes, “there is no way a platform can make case-by-case decisions about which content exacerbates, for example, an eating disorder, compared to content which provides necessary health information and advice about the topic.” We’ve already seen Instagram repeatedly fail at distinguishing between fresh self-harm and years-old scars, censoring and removing pictures of people simply living in bodies that are scarred. If KOSA passes, any mention of the aforementioned behaviors is liable to be censored and removed from social media platforms, which may have the paradoxical effect of pushing children who want community support, neutral information, or harm reduction techniques into more harmful corners of the Internet, such as specifically pro-ED sites. 

Moreover, KOSA and the eating disorder organizations supporting it buy into the same harmful narratives of social contagion that anti-queer and anti-trans groups promote so fiercely. The narrative that children uncritically adopt any behavior or identity they see online is egregious and clearly false (especially when it comes to teens, as opposed to 8-year-olds), but of course it is easier to blame social media alone rather than thoroughly examine the systems of injustice, oppression, and abuse that contribute to children’s poor mental health. While online content that promotes self-destructive behaviors is a real harm to children that should be addressed, the way to address this harm is not by mandating governmental and parental surveillance of children’s internet use. It is to equip children with better media literacy, trustworthy adult figures they can turn to for help, and tools for critically evaluating digital content. 

Platforms certainly do need greater regulation, and children do need greater protection from social media companies, which don’t care about their mental health as long as they can profit off them. But children need real protection, not KOSA, which is just increased surveillance for everyone under the thin veneer of child protection. I encourage you to read some of the many, many articles detailing the harmful effects KOSA would have. We must demand better for children than surveillance under the guise of “care,” and we must prioritize the children who are already hurting when considering who this legislation would harm the most. 

[penguicorns-are-cool]

I don't think we talk about the antisemitism of The Great Gatsby enough. Like, before reading the book I was very prepared for the sexism and gayness, but I didn't have any idea what would be coming with Meyer Wolfsheim

Meyer Wolfsheim is a greedy Jewish mafia person who has definitely killed people over money, done corrupt and sketchy business dealings, and may or may not have killed Gatsby himself.

He is introduced when Gatsby invites Nick to a business lunch meeting and at that meeting Wolfsheim tells a whole lot of stories of sketchy business deals, people he's killed multiple of whom were killed for money-related reasons, and some violent (money-related) family drama. After referencing a deal he has with Gatsby he leaves and Gatsby says that Wolfsheim was the guy who rigged the 1919 world series. This isn't just significant for the "Jews control everything" set of conspiracy theories but also because it's referencing a real guy, Arnold Rothstein, who was the head of the Jewish mafia and accused of rigging the world cup in 1919 (there wasn't enough evidence to convict though)

At this point, Nick thinks that Gatsby is the most perfect amazing person of all time except for the fact that he works with Jews. He really genuinely believes that Nick is perfect other than his deals with Jews.

Later on, Gatsby is dead and Nick has reason to suspect it was Wolfsheim. He describes the death as a holocaust which is problematic but not for the reason you probably think. Before the Holocaust happened, holocuast referred to burnt sacrifices by the Greeks and Jews. So here, Nick is comparing Gatsby's death to a Jewish sacrifice which falls under the whole barbaric talmudic rituals and blood libel forms of antisemtism

Then Nick goes to Wolfsheim's house to invite him to the funeral. He fights with his wife who tells Nick he isn't home and when Wolfsheim does come to the door he says he can't come cause he can't associate himself with any deaths or he might be accused of something. There is also an implication that he's hiding from debt collectors.

The entire book is criticizing rich people's lifestyles but ends up having the message of, rich people crazy but overall good and while they may do bad things it's justifiable cause most of them fought in WW1 and are having a mental crisis. Like can you really blame Gatsby or Daisy for that hit-and-run where they killed someone cause Daisy was having a mental breakdown and Gatsby couldn't just not let the woman he has a big major crush on drive just cause she doesn't know how to drive and was in a bit of a violent mood. However, the rich do work with Jews and that's bad, bad for everyone including them. See Jews like Wolfsheim ultimately control the rich cause if they don't want to make deals with Jews they can just kill them. Look at that, Gatsby is dead cause he decided to do business deals with Jews such a shame he had such a major flaw like works with Jews otherwise maybe he would've been able to move on from Daisy and stop borderline stalking her.

like please, the antismetism of this book is crazy. And I'm not saying like don't read it cause of that. I'm saying we should be reading this book and analyzing the antisemitism. Cause that antisemitism is really blatant and a really great example of antisemitism in the 1920s US and what rhetoric they used at all. Like we should be talking about that portrayal and how antisemitism today presents in similar or different ways.

[thescreamcorner]

My Thoughts on "An Open Letter" from Grey Faction

As a preface, this is something I've thought about doing ever since I wrote my post on RAMCOA's history, as a link to their site was featured due to it having extensive detail and evidence regarding the behavior of ISSTD's members. When I read through their "open letter to the DID community", I had a lot of thoughts about it, not nearly all of them positive, but addressing that wasn't relevant to that post.

So here's this one. My thoughts under the cut.

To start, I do want to say that I understand there is good faith in what is written. Their points seem genuine and open minded, and do source two medical writings for their viewpoints about DID not necessarily being a "strictly" post-trauma disorder. However, I strongly contest their reasons for presenting this, and the implications behind them (and the writings themselves).

Grey Faction asserts that the trauma model of DID is the fundamental deficiency that bolsters the ISSTD. They imply that DID being defined as a trauma-caused disorder is the solitary gateway to treatment that improperly fixates on reliving and recovering from trauma, therefore making it a net benefit to redefine the disorder entirely and include those not affected by any form of trauma.

However, I must note the information I was able to glean from their sources first-- one of them is from 1994, being by no means "recent" as they state. It claims in the abstract that DID (referred to as MPD) in its entirety is merely socially constructed, "like other forms of multiplicity". I don't think I need to go too in depth about why presenting this is the opposite of "helpful" for those with DID, but I'll make a separate post for it if anyone asks about it.

The second source actually is recent, being from 2022. However, it mostly includes DID as a footnote while addressing dissociative disorders as a whole, and how other factors can play into developing one. It also focuses in on the failures of treatment for dissociative disorders due to the fixation on trauma-focused healing, and posits an urgency for psychiatric teams to incorporate therapies and treatments that actually have empirical evidence of being beneficial regardless of specific diagnosis.

With those out of the way, I want to address what I see as the fundamental flaw of this letter: its indirect address of "the community". Online spaces for DID are rife with self diagnosis, misinformation and misinterpretation, so this could be targeting all sorts of people and viewpoints that have nothing to do with DID, but rather "multiplicity" as a whole cultural category. Something that, much like both sources seem to do, completely conflate it with DID- a disorder.

Not all forms recognized as "multiplicity" are in any fashion related to a disorder. DID is not a disorder on the basis of experiencing multiple facets of self, but rather because of the dissociative separation, and the diminished quality of life that results. Something that, on that level, is still suspected to occur primarily (if not exclusively) due to trauma, and as such trauma is still a noted aspect in the DSM 5. Therefore listing any and all forms of multiplicity under the same categorization, let alone including them when addressing DID specifically, is very much a problem.

With all this in mind I want to propose what I find to be the real issue with DID and its clinical treatment - the trauma-centric approach to recovery, and the absolute ego and stubbornness of those in the ISSTD.

If a patient is diagnosed with DID, a trauma-based dissociative disorder, and is found during the course of care to not have any form of trauma, this constitutes a misdiagnosis. But as we've seen from the ISSTD message boards, their members absolutely HATE the idea that their diagnosis could be wrong, and will bend over backwards to justify their patient having DID-- including leading and implanting fabricated memories, like the cases of Dr. Braun.

If you were to remove that stubborn mentality and focus on treatment that is not centered around recovering specific traumatic details, then two things can happen when a client is found to have no trauma history. Either treatment has been found beneficial and can continue while pursuing a re-diagnosis, or treatment has not been found beneficial and a re-diagnosis can be pushed to find what treatment will be more effective. That person can then, if they experience a non-disordered form of multiplicity, seek out spaces that are more accurate to their experiences.

Dissociative Identity Disorder is not synonymous with "multiplicity" as a cultural experience, and cannot be boiled down to "people in your head" due to the many factors of its diagnostic presentation. When pushing for completely removing the trauma model, there's a heavy conflation between DID and other forms of "multiplicity", not only by the public but even by medical professionals writing these dissertations, that further damages the ability to recognize and treat DID. This also re-presents a problem from psychology's history, of treating any "abnormal" behavior or belief as inherently disordered.

This conflation is something I am not complacent in within my own spaces, and it is not something I will become complacent in just because cited sources feature a doctor.

[constdefeclit9]

Construction Defect Litigation

Understanding Construction Defects

Construction defects encompass a broad range of issues that can arise during or after construction, affecting both residential and commercial properties. These defects can manifest in various forms, including:

Design Errors: Flaws in the architectural or engineering design that lead to structural problems or functional issues.

Material Deficiencies: The use of substandard or improper materials that compromise the integrity of the building.

Construction Deficiencies: Errors or poor workmanship during the construction phase, such as improper installation of components or systems.

Subsurface Issues: Problems arising from soil, geotechnical, or foundation-related issues that affect the stability of the structure.

Water Intrusion: Issues related to improper waterproofing, leading to mold, rot, or other water-related damage.

The Complexity of Construction Defect Litigation

Litigating construction defects involves navigating through complex legal and technical landscapes. These cases often require a thorough understanding of construction practices, building codes, contractual obligations, and applicable laws. Key challenges include:

Technical Expertise: Assessing and proving construction defects often requires specialized knowledge of architecture, engineering, and construction practices.

Legal Nuances: Understanding contract law, tort law, insurance coverage issues, and local building codes that impact liability and responsibilities.

Document Review: Scrutinizing construction documents, contracts, inspection reports, and expert opinions to build a compelling case.

Expert Testimony: Presenting expert witnesses who can provide credible testimony regarding the defects and their implications.

Benefits of Hiring a Pro for Construction Defect Litigation

Legal Expertise and Experience: A seasoned construction defect attorney brings years of experience in handling similar cases. They understand the nuances of these disputes and can navigate the legal complexities effectively.

Investigation and Evidence Gathering: Professionals have the resources to conduct thorough investigations, including site inspections, document reviews, and expert consultations. They know what evidence is crucial to building a strong case.

Negotiation Skills: Many construction defect cases are resolved through negotiation or alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation or arbitration. An experienced attorney can negotiate on your behalf to achieve a favorable settlement.

Litigation Strategy: In cases where litigation is unavoidable, a skilled attorney will develop a strategic litigation plan. This includes preparing legal arguments, identifying key witnesses, and anticipating defense strategies.

Maximizing Recovery: Whether seeking compensation for repair costs, loss of property value, or other damages, a proficient attorney will work to maximize your recovery under applicable laws and insurance policies.

Case Study: Importance of Legal Representation

Consider a scenario where a homeowner discovers significant water intrusion issues in their newly constructed home. Despite attempts to resolve the matter with the builder, no satisfactory resolution is reached. In such cases, hiring a construction defect attorney proved pivotal:

Legal Assessment: The attorney conducted a thorough review of the construction documents and inspection reports, identifying multiple instances of improper waterproofing.

Expert Witnesses: Engaged building envelope experts who provided detailed analyses confirming the defects and their impact on the property.

Litigation Strategy: Developed a strategy that included filing a lawsuit against the builder, alleging breach of contract and negligence, supported by compelling evidence and expert testimony.

Conclusion

In conclusion, construction defect litigation demands meticulous attention to detail, technical expertise, and strategic legal maneuvers. Hiring a professional attorney specializing in construction defect litigation is not just advisable but often essential for achieving a favorable outcome. Their knowledge of construction law, ability to navigate complex legal procedures, and dedication to advocating for your rights can significantly impact the resolution of your case. When faced with construction defects, investing in experienced legal representation can make all the difference in safeguarding your property and pursuing rightful compensation.

#constructioncontracts #construction #constructionlaw #contracts #building #nec #law #lawfirm #constructionlawyer #constructionindustry #pittsburgh #pgh #steelers #steelcity #pittsburghsteelers #pittsburghpa #pennsylvania 

[pedagogmarketing]

AI Makes Mistakes Too: Understanding and Addressing AI Bias in Education

The transformative power of AI in education is undeniable, yet its flaws, particularly its inherent biases, are often overlooked. As we increasingly integrate AI into classrooms, it's crucial to address these biases to ensure equitable and effective learning experiences.

Inherent Biases in AI

AI's learning process is akin to that of a child: it learns from the data it is given. However, this process is fraught with potential biases, especially if the training data itself is biased. A significant example of this is in AI plagiarism detectors, which tend to be biased against non-native English speakers.

The Case of AI Plagiarism Detectors

AI plagiarism detectors, trained primarily on native-speaker datasets, often unfairly flag essays written by non-native English speakers as AI-generated. James Zou, a Stanford professor, highlights this issue in his paper, "GPT Detectors Are Biased Against Non-Native English Writers." He explains that detectors often associate simple vocabulary and grammar, commonly used by non-native speakers, with AI-generated content, while complex language is deemed human-written. This bias results in a high rate of false positives for non-native speakers.

A Stanford study further illustrates this bias: while AI detectors were nearly perfect in evaluating essays by U.S.-born eighth-graders, they wrongly classified 61.22% of TOEFL essays by non-native English students as AI-generated. Such misclassifications highlight the severe impact of biased training data on AI's performance.

Broader Implications of AI Bias

The biases in AI are not limited to language. Facial analysis tools, for instance, often misidentify people of color due to a lack of diversity in training images. Joy Buolamwini, a researcher at MIT Media Lab, found that error rates for gender classification were significantly higher for darker-skinned females compared to lighter-skinned males. Such biases underscore the need for diverse datasets in training AI systems.

Solutions: Broadening Datasets and Educator Involvement

Addressing AI biases requires more than just technical fixes. It necessitates broader, more diverse datasets and the active involvement of educators in AI development. Educators bring a crucial perspective that can help create ethical and representative AI tools, ensuring that these tools serve all students fairly.

Addressing Biases at the Classroom Level

While systemic changes are necessary, immediate steps can be taken at the classroom level to mitigate the impact of AI biases. This involves fostering critical thinking and AI literacy among both educators and students.

Educating Ourselves and Students

Understanding our own biases and recognizing how they can be perpetuated through technology is the first step. Educators must be aware of algorithmic biases and teach students to critically evaluate the information presented by AI tools.

Promoting Critical Thinking and Media Literacy

Encouraging students to question the validity and sources of information helps them recognize biases. Teaching media literacy involves evaluating claims and understanding the origins of information, asking questions like: "What evidence supports this?" and "Whose voices are included or excluded?"

Algorithmic Literacy

Students should learn to question the data and assumptions behind AI algorithms. By examining questions such as "What data trained this algorithm?" and "What biases shaped its development?" students can develop a critical perspective on AI tools.

Seeking Multiple Perspectives

Fostering an environment where diverse voices are heard and considered is essential. Encouraging students to consider different viewpoints and ask, "How might other people see this differently?" helps them understand the broader context and implications of AI biases.

Moving Forward

To harness the full potential of AI in education, it's imperative to confront and correct its inherent biases. This involves not only creating diverse datasets and involving educators in AI development but also fostering critical thinking and AI literacy in the classroom. By taking these steps, we can ensure that AI becomes a beneficial tool in education, enhancing learning rather than perpetuating existing biases.

[thelistingteammiami]

Is That Fixer Upper A Dream Home or A Money Pit? 5 Major Warning Signs to Help You Find Out

So, you have finally found your dream house after what could be weeks or months of searching. It is an old house that needs a little work — okay, maybe a lot of work — but its character and charm are exactly what you are dreaming of in a home.

Fixer-uppers are appealing, especially if you think there is potential in a property. Bonus if you are an HGTV fan. It also seems like a great idea if you want to save money on your home purchase. Likewise, the opportunity to put personalized touches and let your creativity show in the home can be exciting.

The problem starts when you realize that not all fixer-uppers are equal and worthwhile. And if you are not careful, that fixer-upper might turn out to be a money pit that could transform your dream project into an expensive nightmare.

A fixer-upper VS a money pit: How to tell

Generally speaking, a fixer-upper is a house that is structurally sound and should only need general maintenance and cosmetic repairs. The biggest thing to remember when purchasing a fixer-upper is to look beyond the surface. A money pit, on the other hand, has many major flaws and expensive issues that require extensive professional assistance to make it more livable. As long as the general systems of a home are in good shape, your budget is best allocated to refreshing the property instead of repairing it.

If the fixer-upper you are looking to purchase is plagued with even one or more of these huge deal-breakers, it's time to consider running the other way.

The bones or foundation that supports the entire house and what is holding it together. Without a solid foundation, it is impossible to have a structurally sound home. Serious issues with the structure are a large, expensive, and time-consuming undertaking to fix that could potentially turn your deal into an ordeal.

Therefore, it is probably the most important thing to look at when hunting for a worthwhile fixer-upper. Keep an eye out not only for large cracks, but also for bowing walls, shifting masonry, uneven floors, and even moisture in the basement or crawl space when viewing a home. Better still, bring in a structural engineer or a foundation repair professional to inspect the foundation very carefully. If there's anything questionable about the structural integrity of the house, the expense involved in repairing the home may end up being more than you’re willing to spend.

Water is meant to be confined within the building structure, such as pipes and plumbing. When it runs unabated in crawl spaces, basements, floors, or walls, it can cause significant water damage, which is disastrous, and a giant red flag. Moisture can damage a home visibly by warping the walls. Even a slow leak will rot out drywall, and could eventually weaken structural elements such as joists and beams.

Worst is, mold can thrive, which can cause serious health implications and be costly to remediate. Be aware of any damp smell, scour the ceilings for signs of leaks, and check every inch of the basement and foundation for cracks or water.

Another simple point to remember, if the mechanical systems of a home, including plumbing, electrical system, and heating, need a complete overhaul, you might want to think twice before taking that fixer-upper. These can all be expensive to update and have finite lifespans. Plus, outdated electrical systems can be extremely hazardous and cause electrocution or fire hazards. The value of fixing those problems will far outweigh the good, potentially leaving you out of pocket.

Many fixer-uppers might need at least some level of roof repairs, such as replacing some cracked, or missing shingles. But if the roof is already sagging, there are multiple layers of shingles, or the shingles are dry, cracked, and brittle, and you find evidence of major leaks on the ceilings, then it's a different matter. A complete roof replacement can cost you thousands of dollars, so you must know the age of the roof before buying.

Not to mention, severe damage to the roof could also cause a myriad of issues, such as damage to the sheathing, trusses, beams, and rafters, resulting in water damage, mold, or structural issues, from wood rot. Unfortunately, none of these repairs are cheap.

Lastly, be diligent with pests that can eat away at your house and budget. Especially if there is termite damage, or worse, an active case of termites, treating the home can be incredibly costly. The structural damage these wood-boring insects cause can be more problematic because it is not always visible. When checking a fixer-upper or any home, look carefully for signs of an infestation, including crumbling, damaged wood, buckling wooden or laminate floors, mounds of termite pellets, mud tubes climbing foundation walls, or discolored or drooping drywall.

If you suspect a termite infestation, make sure to enlist the help of professionals such as exterminators and structural engineers to help you understand the full extent of the damage. Catching the damage early, could mean you'll only need to cover the cost of extermination/treatment. However, finding it late should be your cue to look for a more worthwhile fixer-upper.

[descendant-of-truth]

I know it's been analyzed to death at this point, but I rewatched the Sans fight and it's only now occuring to me just how... weird it is to witness??

Like we can talk about lore implications all we want and it'd be fun but when you take a step back for a moment, it's really just. Sans venting at you for about ten minutes straight.

Everything he knows about the timelines, his nihilism regarding resets, going out of his way to call the player out on their motivations multiple times. It's like everything he was repressing in all the other timelines finally broke to the surface, and he still somehow manages to be fairly composed with his word choice.

(He's significantly less composed when he's throwing you around the battle box as fast as he physically can until he just can't do it anymore. All the more evidence that this fight is just him losing it)

But here's the thing. He's also doing his best to get you to give up. And as much as I applaud him for breaking the game's mechanics wide open, disabling invincibility frames and attacking you in the menu... he really fails at making you want to give up.

Because as much as he claims to know "our type," he forgets one crucial detail: we love being told things.

He understands that we're doing the No Mercy route just because we can, but he neglects "curiosity" as a motivating factor. We want to learn more by exploring different routes, and in his frustration, Sans gives us exactly what we want.

(We also get a challenge from him, and what gamer dedicated enough to get past Undyne wouldn't enjoy that)

And that's kind of. Sad, in a way?? Even when he locks us into his turn, he can't stop himself from talking. Everything he does to make us frustrated or bored doesn't work because despite everything, we still like Sans. We want to hear what he has to say. And he has a lot to say that he would normally keep close to his chest otherwise.

I don't know if that's what the dynamic is meant to be like in canon, given how ambiguous Frisk's motivations are and how we don't technically know if there's a "player" involved in the first place, but that's just how it reads to me. And I think Sans having this slightly flawed perception of what the anomaly wants from him is a really interesting angle for his character and the fight as a whole

[umbran6]

The Argument Against Caleo

Spoilers up to Blood of Olympus and beyond. Beware! (Or not, the book series has been out for a few years, get over it). I wrote this after seeing a user wondering why people didn’t like Caleo, or in some cases, hated it. Here, I want to explain the answer as much as possible while doling out my own points. 

One of the main grievances I have as a fan of Leo Valdez would be the ship Caleo, or Leo x Calypso. It’s a complicated ship, to say the least, with multiple issues that make me question why people like the ship. And I admit it, they initially had some chemistry, but there’s multiple issues that Uncle Rick produced through making such a relationship that makes it extremely open to criticism, criticism which I will explain through this post.

One of my main points against them is that the ship was created on a very limited time scale. Although we aren’t given an exact date to date of when Leo and Calypso met to when they fell in love, we can safely estimate it to be a week at best. Such a limited amount of time from going through the multiple stages of a relationship already stresses the limits of the suspension of disbelief.

A counterexample would be Percabeth, or Percy x Annabeth. Throughout the series, we aren’t introduced to them being romantically involved until the Titan’s Curse, which was two years after they met. Specifically, this is brought up by Aphrodite, the goddess of love herself. Admittedly, Percy and Annabeth were twelve years old when they first met, when romance was definitely out of the picture, especially with a quest to get the Master Bolt.

However, from there we get to see multiple examples of their character depth, ranging from their respective fatal flaws to their ambitions, hopes and dreams, and their friendship. We get to see the slow build up of their chemistry, which was a really good writing move on Uncle Rick’s part. These characters took their sweet time to get to where they wanted to go, and despite the false romantic lead of Rachel, they still got together.

On the other hand, we don’t see enough of this between Leo and Calypso — we only see one book where they interacted with each other in The House of Hades, and that was only for a handful of chapters. While they are definitely older so they can jump straight to romance (some may say too old, but I’ll get to that) its still a pretty huge gap to jump through without making it stick. This makes it hard to root for a ship when it is built on a rather faulty foundation from the ‘they just met’ to ‘they get together’, especially when they don’t have a lot of events to show their chemistry.

Which brings me to Ogygia, which has raised a few red flags for me when looking at it from a retrospective point of view. Now, we know what the main issue of the island is that the hero who landed on said island can’t leave until Calypso falls in love with them. And we’ve seen this with Percy during the Battle of the Labyrinth, where he lands in the island and Calypso falls in love with him while tending to his wounds from, you know, being erupted from freaking Mt. St. Helens. Needless to say, this falling in love with each other montage happened quickly to the point of suspicion, which sets up the complication that Calypso and Leo might have fallen in love due to magical intervention.

And hear me out, because although this  might be a pretty big pill to swallow, we have evidence for this through Percy. It only takes one chapter for Calypso and Percy to meet, and the next he’s willing to consider leaving Camp Half-Blood and Annabeth behind to live on the island when Hephaestus gives him the choice to leave Ogygia or stay. We don’t even get an explanation on why Percy considered giving it all up just so he can be with her. All we know is, girl meets boy, now they want to live on an isolated island forever. It’s especially absurd considering Percy’s hamartia (fatal flaw) is freaking loyalty to those he loves.  Needless to say, It’s a huge YIKES, especially when we apply it to Leo and Calypso. 

It also raises the possibility that the romantic relationship between them is doomed to failure. And if you guys want to fight me on this, let’s look at Jason and Piper, a couple whose relationship started with a similar foundation. Piper had romantic memories implanted into her brain by Hera through the use of the Mist, while Jason was reduced to a Tabula Rasa (a blank slate for those who lack culture) by said goddess. They broke up before the Trials of Apollo because it was clear that when the dust settled, Piper had been aware that their romance was a lie and that their intentions to stay together was a mix of delusion and pressure from freaking Aphrodite. Leo and Calypso get together under what is arguably a very similar set of conditions if Ogygia’s magic had any influence on their relationship, and that this magic could wear off if given enough time. 

Third, and here’s a pretty big one for me, would be Calypso’s character, mainly because there are a lot of unfortunate implications attached to it. In The Blood of Olympus, she was turned into the divine equivalent of Princess Peach, with Leo being her Mario (except he saves her with a badass metal dragon). Its extremely unnecessary to make a character, especially as one such as Calypso, get  turned into the typical reward of a B-Class action movie. It’s insulting and puts her up as a trophy, a narrative that is definitely not ok by any means necessary.

In another direction, Calypso is also really, really worrying when things don’t go get her way. First, let’s look at The Odyssey, the first myth she pops up. Calypso had imprisoned Odysseus for ten years on her island until Hermes said to let him go, and although it gives them plenty of time to fall in love, it also raises the implications of stockholm syndrome. Then we’ve got the fact that Calypso cursed Annabeth out of spite, implicitly saying that she wished the daughter of Athena would suffer the same isolation that she did, which came to reality when Percy and Annabeth met the Arai in Tartarus. And Annabeth wasn’t even aware that she was still in Ogygia, much less intentionally intervened in the matter. When Percy left Ogygia, rather than be angry at Percy, Calypso cursed Annabeth out of all people to suffer the same loneliness and misery she went through. That’s some Hera at her worst levels of spite. 

Through such evidence we can see that Calypso is extremely wrathful towards those who break her heart even though they don’t want to. It certainly implies that Calypso isn’t in a good state of mind, and could easily repeat said actions if provoked. We could almost compare it to Medea and the original Jason, but at least in that case, Medea has every right to be pissed off at Jason and take her revenge. Calypso’s curse and how she handles things certainly implies a level of immaturity that would end in disaster if they broke up.

One issue that, I’ll admit is more from my personal point of view is that the ship took a lot of Leo’s character and threw it in the garbage in Blood of Olympus. Though we see him do a lot of stuff behind the scenes, the fact that its all for the goal of reaching Calypso just reduced him to someone who is more focused on love than, you know, fighting the evil goddess that was responsible for killing his mom and getting sweet sweet revenge. While the revenge plot can be cliched sometimes, it can be played well, while romance and the typical ‘always save the girl’ trope is just overdone. If Leo had been allowed to, you know, be more focused on other things rather than Calypso, we could have seen a lot more variety in his character.

For example as one of the possible character arcs he could’ve gone through, Leo has always been alone among the couples, often being isolated. Heck, Nemesis herself stated that he would always be the seventh wheel, and that he would never find a place among his brethren. Though some fellow tumblr users have taken this in multiple ways, either saying that he should learn to be happy by himself or that he is socially isolated in the Argo II because of these romantic relationships (I prefer a mix of both). Uncle Rick just giving him a girlfriend seems like taking the easy way out of solving such an issue and abandoning what could’ve been a rather interesting character arc. The relationship isn’t a bad thing if we remove some of the unfortunate implications, but it is a bad way to end what is a complex and realistic problem for a character and in some cases maybe possible in real life.

One more minor but still yikes worthy point is that there’s a huge age gap between them. We’re not talking about the ‘Hazel is 15 and Frank is 17 and in one year that’ll be a problem because then Hazel will be jailbait’ age gap. And even then, we can argue that Hazel is older since she is chronologically ninety-one years old. No, Calypso is older by millennia in terms of mindset and body due to the perks of being a goddess, while Leo is sixteen.

God-to-Mortal relationships are already complicated, even with emotionally and socially well-functioning adults. The fact that Leo is underage, inexperienced with romance (despite his flirting, Calypso was his first kiss), and has been through a freaking ton of trauma in his youth, does not make this okay. At best, they’re both mutually interested in each other but may have different expectations when it comes to a relationship. At worst, Calypso is taking advantage of a boy just so she can get out of Ogygia and possibly dumping him later on like the wrapping of a candy bar. Even though Calypso lost her immortality during The Trials of Apollo, that doesn’t even compensate for the immense age gap alongside Leo’s guilt at the possibility that he might’ve been responsible for her losing said immortality.

Oh, and about Leo... I’m a fan of him, but I can admit that he is in a bad spot both mentally and emotionally throughout the series. He’s lost his mom due to a mix of his own powers and Gaea’s trickery, and never had the chance to fully process that event and come to terms with it. The foster home system alongside his own trauma has forced him to hide his emotions through a façade of happiness and jokes when it’s quite clear to me he needs a therapist, stat. He's also run away from several foster homes, implying this means he was and still is being affected by the event. His mask is still on during The Blood of Olympus considering he hid a lot of things from Piper and Jason.

Speaking about them, not helping this matter is the fact that he’s rather isolated in terms of friendships since Jason and Piper, his supposed best friends are more interested in locking lip rather than, you know, actually hanging out with each other.  He doesn’t have good friendships with the rest of the Seven, and the closest ones he does have is with Hazel and Frank. And even then they start off in the wrong spot since Frank is very insecure about possibly losing Hazel to him during Mark of Athena while Hazel in the meantime, is also dealing with the fact that he is the descendant of her possible boyfriend Sammy Valdez. 

This could indirectly have made him desperate for affection since he has nobody else to confide in during the rest of the series, which is a bad mental state to be in when one lands on Ogygia, the island that we’ve seen could possibly force two people to fall in love with each other. A romantic relationship is not something that he needs or something that will help him in the future. He needs more than that, and having him in one that could end in disaster is the last thing he needs. 

And that does not make him a bad person, much less a bad character. While some who are similarly emotionally and socially isolated may turn to violence or creepy behavior on those they want affection from, Leo does not do that to the other characters. It just means that he as a character needs more time to recover and develop before we go giving him romantic relationships, much less one with Calypso.

That’s not to say that they don’t have some things in common. Both are starved for love and affection, with Calypso being constantly rejected by heroes while Leo was rejected by foster homes and his own family. It’s a trait that they have in common, but it shouldn’t be the only thing that they have in common, especially since it is laced with a trauma that is clear they haven’t had help processing. They need to develop more as characters and as friends before they should be paired together.

So… yeah. The Caleo relationship is, in my eyes, doomed to failure, or at least heavily flawed after taking the above points into account. Uncle Rick, as if seemingly aware of these criticisms, has put the relationship in a rocky place by The Tower of Nero, giving them the possibility of overcoming the above criticisms and their own flaws, or giving fanfic writers an out and pairing Leo with another character or have him single, but happy. Either way, in my opinion Caleo is a bad ship when it comes to how it was created, alongside the flaws and unfortunate implications it has.

While I can see some of the chemistry the ship has, you can’t just use a couple of moments where they get along as evidence that they belong together, especially with the above reasons. That’s like using a band-aid to cover a bullet hole without removing the bullet, stopping the bleeding, and preventing infection. If both characters and their relationship had been given more time to develop, I would understand how they would get together. 

[petitfanboy]

Comprehensive and in-depth analysis of Asuka and Shinji relationship in 3.0+1.0, implications for the ending and why many youtube Eva analysis videos titles I believe are wrong. (Spoilers ahead)

Preface

It seems it was yesterday when I wrote an extended essay regarding the essential and critical relationship of Asuka and Shinji in Evangelion for the last time. However, seven years have passed. 

My idea here is to write, in general lines, about the relationship of Asuka and Shinji in the last movie and the ending and its implications in a more detailed way. I will use different analyses I have read so far besides mine, and you will find the links to all of them in the text. 

I have tried to maintain an analysis that followed the narrative plot and what I believe is closer to what the director wants to express. However, as Anno himself has said multiple times, his work may inspire different feelings in different people, so I understand where the differences might come from and, in no way, this is intended as a confrontation to other opinions and theories. 

Please, let me start with an introduction.

Introduction

While a lot has changed for me in these years, my view of A/S relationship in the whole Eva universe, including their dynamics, meaning, and canonical aspects have not changed. 

Long story short, A/S represent core aspects of the message Evangelion wants to transmit: The Hedgehog's dilemma, the fear of connecting and rejection while having a strong desire to be loved and understood, and finally, the pursuit of happiness. Asuka and Shinji are opposites on their outside and equals on their inside. A perfect match for exploring those issues.

RoE makes clear their similarities

Asuka and Shinji similarities

Evangelion arrives at a fulfilling conclusion at the end, showing us how it is possible to overcome the abovementioned problems. To depict that, it always involves resolving the different issues Asuka and Shinji have between them, becoming closer, opening to one another and, probably and eventually, staying together.

Evangelion portrays that resolution using scenes showing the exact moment of the change in A/S dynamics, the moment when both pursued real connection starts. What happens after that change is unknown, but the intention is clear: once they begin to make an effort, they have the chance to be happy together.

Before the release of 3.0+1.0, different spoilers and youtube video’s titles ruined my life, as I suppose that happened to some of you. It had such a significant impact on me that it is hard to define with words. Not because I was an angry asushin fanboy as some might classify me, but because, had it been confirmed, it would have meant that the message that Evangelion has been constructing since its first airing was shattered to pieces. I could not accept it.

At that specific moment, the Eva Extra Ex manga came and saved me.

Eva Extra Ex Manga Translated

I cannot highlight enough how important this manga was and still, it is. For me, it represented a call from Anno himself, saying: Do not worry, Evangelion is going to keep being Evangelion. I still recall the endless discussions on the internet when 3.0 came out about the effect of the time-skip, in what lousy state the relationship between Shinji and Asuka was (or if it was even inexistent!) and how Evangelion was going to transmit another message in the end. For me, there were always precise moments in 3.0 that pointed against those conclusions. But with Eva Extra, everything changed. It tied aspects of 2.0 and 3.0 very nicely and allowed us to discover more regarding Asuka's feelings and motivations.

With the first interaction in the manga between Asuka and Mari, we see that Asuka still has (deep) feelings for Shinji.  As the story progresses, we see how Asuka reacts to Mari's teasing and how unconvinced Mari is of all the bravado that she displays. A/S relationship, alongside their communication and hedgehog's dilemma related problems, still existed in the present timeline of the events of 3.0 and 3.0+1.0.

God's in his heaven all right with the world.

Chapter 1: The houses of healing

Instead of speaking of every Shinji/Asuka interaction scene, I will try to make this analysis lighter by talking about how it progresses across the film and focusing only on key scenes.

The film's first part explains how Shinji achieves healing after understanding how people around him are friendly, which is a big difference from EoE. In EoE, it was impossible. Shinji was left hurt and without any option to heal. He ultimately achieved healing through his experiences in instrumentality, leading to the ending and the hope/love message we all know in One More Final: I need you.

This process, this healing, happens in a precise location. That is the reason for the chapter's title. I took the liberty of naming this first chapter as the eighth chapter of Tolkien's book The Return of the King. But, what place is it?

Initially, Shinji is taken to Toji's house. While that place suits Rei, who will understand the basic meaning of life and being human, Shinji makes no progress there. Interestingly, Kensuke sees how Shinji is not making any progress and suggests he should go with him to his house. Why? It is driven by his new parental role, reminiscent of Kaji. He thinks why Shinji is in such a state and understand his needs at that moment. Besides, with or without knowing it, he reunites Shinji and Asuka under the same roof and the same parental figure.

I cannot say that he willingly wanted to reunite Shinji with Asuka, although I am sure he thought it was a direct consequence of carrying Shinji with him, so he was happy with that idea. As we know from 2.0 and the original series, their friends are the ones who notice Asuka and Shinji bond, so it would not be strange that Kensuke wanted to reunite both of them.

With or without Kensuke's will, bringing Shinji to Kensuke's house mirrors Misato's apartment, but with a male figure as the leader (i.e. A Kaji instead of Misato). It is a comeback to better times. Kensuke takes the parental figure for both Shinji and Asuka, as Misato did when Asuka moved in 2.0 for both children. This time, Asuka is the one who is already living there (previously it was Shinji), and Shinji is the one who arrives later.  In 3.0+1.0 Misato cannot fulfil her maternal role anymore, as explained later in the film (and redeemed at the end).

Let me linger on this parallel. In 2.0, when Asuka arrives at Misato's house and introduces Asuka to Shinji, we have the romantic comedy scene of the shower a few minutes later. The scene makes us understand that they feel some attraction to each other, albeit in a very early stage (and introduces PenPen to Asuka). Time forward, this first interaction is repeated in Kensuke's house. When Shinji arrives, he finds Asuka naked after having a shower. This time, no reaction is seen from either part explicitly. Neither Shinji nor Asuka blushed or overreacted, but Asuka clearly states her disappointment, which shows us her desire that Shinji reacted, that Shinji expressed attraction towards her. A significant line that adds up to all the previous evidence about Asuka's persistent feelings for Shinji. What about Shinji? There is a minor detail. When he sees Asuka naked, he stares at her with a glare that is just a mix of emotions. Although it is difficult to tell what he is thinking, Asuka is directly opposite him, and he can see both the DSS choker and her body. However, he only notices the choker when she wraps herself with a towel. Draw your conclusions.

From that point onwards, we get a few scenes representing the problem Asuka and Shinji have communicating and how alike they are. When Shinji throws up for the first time, Asuka explains to Kensuke why Shinji behaves like that and shuts himself off. However, she is doing the same, playing with her console. Asuka's video game is Shinji's SDAT.  Asuka hates the behaviour of Shinji because she sees her flaws in him.

Despite all the façade, she tries to communicate and help Shinji repeatedly in the coming scenes, checking on him on several occasions. Whenever she does that, the movie clearly shows us that she has abandoned her Shinji-like behaviour, showing us the console turned off.

Asuka and her videogame

The climax of their conflict is the force-feeding scene. But before analysing that scene, let me tell you a few more details.

I believe that the mirroring of Misato's apartment is portrayed through other details. For example, the name KenKen might have been chosen in honour of the missing companion from Misato's apartment: PenPen.

Furthermore, while some people might find odd the tendency of Asuka to be naked, this is driven by her disgust with her own body, which is shown in the Eva Extra manga. Finally, to enforce the idea that the relationship between Kensuke and Asuka is different from the one that she and Shinji have, it is essential to notice how Kensuke calls them. He calls them by their surnames, Shikiname and Ikari, placing distance between them.

Let's return to the force-feeding scene. In that scene, Asuka wants to help him, which is why she feeds him, and at the same time, she explains her frustration regarding the lack of reaction and understanding on his part. The conflict between them is portrayed similarly to the Eva 03 incident in 2.0

Visual comparison 1

Visual comparison 2

She is trying to understand him, and she tells him rather precisely why she thinks he is in such a state. She only wants him to reciprocate that understanding, and she wants him to think and explain why she punched him after seeing each other after 14 years. I must highlight the punch's importance. It summarises their communication problems, their conflict. Eva clarifies it in 3.0 using the same parallelisms as other communication problems, like Gendo and Shinji.

However, we know how she feels. The Eva extra manga gives us that insight. She has feelings for Shinji but hates his inaction due to his internal struggles. The hedgehog's spikes have been replaced by a punch. If they can talk about the punch, they will start communicating.

From an external view, Shinji reacts to being force-fed in a way that probably is not what Asuka wanted. Shinji leaves the house, followed secretly by Asuka, in another display of how Asuka feels internally.  It is another parallelism with Misato's apartment, again with a reversal of roles between Shinji and Asuka.

Parallelism

However, we will learn in future events that Shinji started to think about what Asuka told him at that moment, so he listened to her.From this point onwards, Shinji will deal with his thoughts and come to an understanding with himself. It is not achieved alone, but with the help of Rei and, although not directly, Asuka. She is the one who directs Rei to the place where Shinji is and continues checking on him to see that everything is going fine. She is there.

Asuka cares

When Shinji grows up and maturates, we have the first bidirectional communication attempt between Asuka and Shinji. While she asks Shinji if he feels better, he responds with only sounds. Yet, this is the first time they have tried to talk about their respective problems and emotions calmly. We will see this pattern repeat itself several times in the movie: Shinji grows a bit, and then Asuka opens herself another bit. It is very interesting to see Asuka's glare. Asuka is drawn with that glare whenever she is looking at Shinji in a positive/concerning him way. We will return to that later. Besides, she speaks to him without looking at her console.

All this healing process ends in a sentence that is easily overlooked. The night Kensuke is discussing with Asuka the plans to return to the Wunder, Shinji comes home and says, "I am home". It is the reflection of Shinji's complete healing. Thanks to his growth, he has found a new place where he belongs once more. It let us understand why he will consider that this place is important for Asuka too. Both have suffered the same parental love deprivation, lacking a place where they truly belong. Finding a place that they can call home is part of their way to happiness and usually happens before both connect.

The film also let us see how Shinji heals, comparing it with the healing of one of the village's dogs

Now, Shinji is ready to go with Asuka to the Wunder and start a transformative journey for himself and those around him. But first, let me post a few more details, some of which I had not noticed until doing some research on the internet:

Visual comparisons that highlight the similar role of Kensuke as Kaji (Parental role)

2. Asuka's scarf to hide her DSS choker.

3. The possible futon share between Asuka and Shinji, showing how she cares about him.

Chapter 2: A trip in the Wunder

The most relevant scene for their relationship in the Wunder is Asuka's confession. However, there are a couple of interesting interactions before that. The first one is the display of Asuka's jealousy of Sakura when she sees her interaction with Shinji, saying, "Are you his wife?"

The second one happens when Asuka meets Mari. While loaded with fanservice, this interaction is not trivial. Mari's teasing is an essential element in the Rebuild series, even more knowing how important the character of Mari will become at the end. She seems to be aware of Asuka's real feelings, and we know from the Eva extra manga that she tries to push Shinji and Asuka together, which I will come back to later. Asuka replies to Mari's teasing that Shinji "does not need a lover, he needs a mother". This sentence is a double edge sword. First, it shows Asuka's interest in Shinji as a romantic partner, given her deception, and actually, Asuka is saying this sentence while she is playing the videogame, so probably she is hiding her feelings, shutting herself oof the world as Shinji used to do. Second, it shows the problems they face: Communication and maturity. Maturity, because Asuka feels that Shinji has not changed as she has had, and communication, because as we will soon know, Asuka also wants that figure in her life. However, it is not true that Shinji has not grown up. It is just that they have not tried to communicate again, and thus, she does not know about Shinji's recent developments

Everything will change when Asuka faces the reality of possible death. Before the "final battle", she decides to reach out for Shinji. After Mari introduces herself to Shinji in an awkward way that will be important in the ending, Asuka repeats her question. In reality, she asks if he has thought about her, how she feels and everything she has gone through. To Asuka's surprise, Shinji answers the question, blaming his inaction. Taking this as a partial sign of maturity and growth, Asuka starts opening herself, although not wholly, a sign that Shinji's answer might not have been entirely correct. Besides, her body language is similar to the previous lift scenes in Evangelion, where we know she hid her real emotions.

She will equal what to tell Shinji to Shinji's growth. Therefore, she explains to him how she liked him 14 years ago, but not how she feels now. Furthermore, she leaves before Shinji can reply to her statement, leaving Shinji staring back at her through the glass. So, it is Mari again who makes us understand that this has been a sign of communication that goes in the right direction. She congratulates Shinji and stimulates him to continue like this. Again, Mari is trying to solve Asuka and Shinji's problems. Mari says goodbye in Chinese to Shinji (perhaps, a way to tell us that the spell of goodbye works, as they meet again later) and goes to do the same with Asuka, asking her if she feels better. Mari is trying to make Asuka see that opening herself to Shinji will bring happiness to her too.

Nevertheless, we must not forget that the short confession happened because Asuka thought this might have been the end. In a sense, it almost was.

Chapter 3: I need you

This chapter starts after Shinji and Gendo have resolved their issues. As I explained before, the need of resolving their parental matters will be critical to both Shinji and Asuka. The same happened in EoE. Asuka gets to know her mother in her battle against the mass-produced Eva, and Shinji learns about his father's plans and mother during instrumentality. After those experiences and their other interactions through instrumentality, they arrive at the I need you scene where they open to each other.

Gendo gets off the train, and the control of instrumentality is handed over to Kaworu. While Gendo was willing to sacrifice everything for his sake, the growth of Shinji reaches its maximum at this point. Shinji decides to take the reversal role of his father. Even if he is heartbroken or it is a hard and not a pleasant experience, he wants to help Asuka and those who were nice to him. This is the transformative journey that Shinji accomplishes in RoE that marks a completely different path from NGE+EoE.

I worded the sentence highlighting Asuka because those are the literal words of Shinji, naming Asuka as an individual and using the Japanese word "minna" for the rest, which could be the rest of his friends or even the rest of humanity. Shinji has learnt that he must give without seeking anything in return. He must stop thinking about himself only. He is going to help their friends without any positive repercussions on himself. As he later will explain, he plans to rewrite the world with the new spear given by Misato to get rid of the Evas and what they represent, stopping the cycle of suffering that comes with them, and let their friends live a happy life.

Symbolism of the spear

Interestingly, he does not explain this to Asuka and only mentions it to Rei, with some hesitation, which is what prompts him to tell her that Mari would come for him eventually. That behaviour is because for getting rid of the Eva and rewriting the world, he needs to impale himself with the spear inside Eva 01. While we do not know for sure the effects on Shinji, the way it is portrayed resembles a willing sacrifice, a person opening himself to that terrible outcome for a better benefit for their friends. Besides, we must not forget that the sync rate of Shinji with his Eva was infinite at that time, so probably the expected outcome would be the death of the pilot and he knew about that.

This situation is what gives us an essential context for understanding Shinji's actions. As Asuka earlier, he also thought that he might not return. But let’s see what happens with Asuka and Shinji.

The first to be saved is Asuka. As some sort of guardian for Asuka (and Shinji, and even Asuka/Shinji relationship), Mari reminds Shinji before he leaves her entry plug in the anti-universe that he has to find her. And he does.

There are many iconic and meaningful landscapes in Evangelion. Still, none of them has the symbolism, meaning, emotional associations and beauty as the beach where Shinji and Asuka laid at the EoE has. Although it is not the same beach and there are different details, the scene's meaning is clear. It was the scenario of One More Final: I need you. Thus, the location evokes that meaning, where Shinji and Asuka connected and expressed their emotions and feelings in EoE. To increase and highlight that intention, the first shot we have of the landscape is a full white moon, a remnant from the N3I. The moon has always been a poetic figure for love, and it brightens the sand creating the white beach. It is the perfect scenario to share an intimate moment.

Then, a saved, Eva curse-free Asuka awakes. The first sentence references the fact that the curse of Eva is lifted, and she can sleep. As some people detail, the plugsuit is a combination of different ones. This phenomenon will repeatedly happen in the anti-universe. Long story short, as I do not want to enter the terrain of the time loops and different universes, I believe that the idea behind that symbolism is that Evangelion is a multiverse. The anti-universe might somehow connect them, and we can see them. However, the characters remain the same from the universe where they come from. Only those annotated in the book of life remember those other universes or RoE time-loops (which seem to affect only the RoE universe and seem not to be confirmed in the other universes), and probably, as Shinji is in charge of the flow of events, the bleeding in his memories is what drives those changes.

The fact that Asuka wears a plugsuit that is a combination of previous ones, does not mean that she is Soryu or several Asukas at the same time. She is Shikinami, and it is the first time that she is on that beach. Her background and memories are from the RoE timeline, as she does not express, as Shinji will do later, any perception of that phenomenon. The same goes for their location. While they are on a similar beach, it is not the same where Soryu and Shinji found themselves in EoE. It is probably the bleeding of details between universes that wraps the metanarrative message that gives importance to the scenery (that beach is where they connected and accepted each other both in EoE and in this movie, and the place will always symbolise that)

Even those aware of other timelines (Kaworu and Shinji at that point) can only remember that they met before or have a déjà vu feeling. They do not have a complete insight into what happened. I think that this bleeding of details gives an important message: All the universes of Evangelion exist. Soryu and Shinji's story from NGE and EOE has happened, albeit in another universe, part of a larger multiverse. In a sense, it is saying that NGE+EoE is as canon as RoE, something essential to maintain coherency. The difference is that they happen in different physical planes of space and time.

Let's return to the fact that a grown Asuka is on the beach. The camera plays, repeating the same shots as in EoE, linking both scenes thematically again. Moreover, the visual links expands to other couples in Eva.

Here, Shinji sits next to Asuka, with his arms around his legs and a completely different gaze, making clear Shinji is happy to see her. The events follow this path:

Asuka sees Shinji next to her and calls him "Baka Shinji" in a not mean way. A way that shows us that despite calling him "Baka Shinji" time and time again, that did not mean that she truly hated him.

Shinji verbalises his happiness to see her again and says thanks to her for letting him know her feelings previously.

Shinji reciprocates the same feelings, using the past tense. Why? Well, at least this time is more straightforward than explaining why he choked her.  Shinji has several reasons for this: First, it directly answers what Asuka told him earlier. And second, he wants to save and return her to the Eva free world, and thus, knowing that he might not return, hides his current feelings.

Asuka is surprised that her feelings are reciprocated. She blushes and turns to her left, hiding her real feelings at that moment to Shinji. In the next shot, we see a happy, blushed Asuka smiling.

The reaction of Asuka and all the previous evidence from the movie and the manga make it evident that she still has feelings for him. With his body language, Shinji is also transmitting to us that he is hiding his true feelings. Besides, a past tense confession for Shinji makes no sense at all. Shinji has been sleeping those 14 years. For him, those moments where "he liked" Asuka are only a few weeks or months ago from this moment on the beach.  We will get the last evidence that Shinji still has feelings for Asuka, thanks to Kaworu. He, who is aware of all the timelines and universes, asks Shinji if he will feel lonely letting Asuka go. Shinji, with the same body language and a sad face, says no. We must link Shinji's behaviour to the fact I explained earlier. Shinji wanted to sacrifice himself for the happiness of Asuka and everybody.

This links with another idea. The scene is fast-paced. Once Shinji confesses his feelings, he says goodbye to Asuka and the Kensuke sentence. While this might be a reminiscence of Asuka's behaviour in the Wunder, allowing him to avoid any reply, that would have made things more difficult. However, his words are carefully chosen. We know from Rei's experiences in the village that "goodbye, is a spell of magic to see each other again. Despite his plans, Shinji's wish is to see her again

The meaning of goodbye

Then we have the Kensuke sentence. I wanted to talk about this in a simple way. Asuka needed the same parental role as Shinji, and through her experiences in instrumentality, she finds that she has that part of herself fulfilled by Kensuke. However, things get complicated if we start to notice some details. The fact that Kensuke calls Asuka "Asuka" instead of Shikinami and that the doll with Kensuke inside of it appears in the Rei scene has raised concerns that the Kensuke who appears in Asuka's instrumentality scenes is in fact Shinji, helping Asuka to find her place in a future world without him. In more detail:

All Asuka's scenes in instrumentality revolve around Shinji, nothing from Kensuke. It seems that Shinji wants to revert that and makes her conscious that she can find a place to belong and the parental role she needs, especially taking into consideration that he was about to die.

Instrumentality scenes comparison

She verbalises that she has no place to belong yet (despite living with Kensuke for some time), so Shinji wants to clarify that point for her.

It answers why Kensuke calls her Asuka and not Shikinami and why the doll appears again in Rei's scenes on the stage. Furthermore, it connects Asuka's memories with the beach scene, as it is after Kensuke says, "Asuka is Asuka" that she wakes up next to Shinji.

The original source of the theory for me was this video

In the end, from Asuka's instrumentality to the end of the beach scene, Shinji wants her to understand that she has a place to belong alongside the parental figure that she needs and that she is also loved by him, although he is going to let her go for her benefit. A true act of selflessness given his feelings. That is heart-warming and an actual act of love on his part.

Then, something happens amid the fast-paced scenes. The camera shows Asuka with an open mouth, sleeping(?) and Mari next to her. Wait. When did Mari come in? Why? I am not sure of the answers to these questions. It shows that Mari is more than we thought and has more knowledge about the anti-universe and what is happening. We do not know if this scene happens just after Shinji’s words or something has happened in the middle, as Asuka's expression seems not to match the last we see from her. Is there a deleted scene in the middle? Mari says her goodbye to Asuka. Mari has been a bridge between Shinji and Asuka and a close friend to her. In some sense, and continuing the parallelisms between Shinji and Asuka, she has been her Kaworu

Interestingly, Mari only appears to say bye to Asuka and not Rei or Kaworu. At the same time, Shinji only says sayonara to Asuka, the only character that does not have a handshake and a shutter closed. While there is no definitive answer to this fact, I believe it is crucial regarding the ending, as it will establish a continuity between the goodbyes and future gatherings, all directed by Mari, and that is why she appears probably (and she might be the one ejecting Asuka’s entry plug)

After Mari's take care, Asuka wakes up in the entry plug and is ejected by Unit 13. It is important to note that Asuka leaves without any kind of voluntary movement. She awakes in different locations and is the Eva 13 who ejects her. We do not know Asuka’s opinion about this at any time, or how she feels about being saved leaving Shinji behind.

Chapter 4: The sacrifice is stopped

After Kaworu and Rei's scenes, which I am not going to talk about, Shinji decides to carry out the Neon Genesis. We get to the moment where he is ready to sacrifice himself, in some sort of redemption of humanity's sins for creating the Evas and all the suffering that accompanied them. But then, Yui appears.

She stops the spear, protecting Shinji, and takes him out of the Eva 01. Yui’s wish is that he can live in that Neon Genesis world where the Evangelions do not exist, where people, and Shinji, can be happy. This moment changes everything. The plot twist will allow Shinji and Evangelion to have a happy and hopeful ending, thanks to Yui's (+/- Mari) plan.

The sacrifice of Shinji's parents for the sake of their child redeems them from the emotional deprivation Shinji has endured all his life. Shinji, mimicking the last instrumentality scene in EoE, returns to the anti-universe, now alone.

Chapter 5: Mari to the rescue

Shinji waits patiently on a blue water beach. Slowly, he starts to fade away in the anti-universe, as there are no others to relate with. This concept was explored both in EoE and at the end of the TV series. Then, Mari comes with her Evangelion to rescue him and take him back to the real world, now the Eva-free world, as promised to Misato. This is very important, as it highlights that Shinji is not going to a parallel universe. He is returning to the same world where his friends are (Asuka for sure, Kaworu will meet him again too, and Rei, honestly, it is not so obvious where she decides to go in her scenes, but probably too)

Mari's last Evangelion is important too. Contrary to Kaworu and Rei, I believe it is how Mari and Shinji returned to the ordinary world (probably with its entry plug, like Asuka). We might never know that. Then, the next scene is the opposite scene from Asuka in the entry plug, but with Shinji. Now we see an adult Shinji in a train station.

There are different questions to answer to understand what is happening in the ending. However, I think that the film's conclusion is the same regardless of the answer to those questions.The questions are:

Is the train scene set in the AU or in the real world?

Are Mari and Shinji the people we see coming out from the station?

Did Asuka arrive at Kensuke’s house or is she present there if that is the real world?

I tried to sum up the different theories in simple pictures.

 My personal opinion just after watching the movie was that the first scenario was the most likely. However, after seeing different analyses, I am not 100% convinced and I cannot give my support to other theoriesyet. 

The sources for the other theories are these

And the fact that the pilots might be illusions come from here 

As you can see, regardless of the answer to the questions from above, they always end up meeting again. While this is not explicitly shown in the movie, I strongly believe it is the reason why Mari appears at the end scene. Mari is the beacon light that will guide him in this new world, and there is a lot of visual comparisons that prove this fact, comparing Mari to Misato, and knowing the role of Mari in Gendo and Yui’s life. Furthermore, a lot of people consider that the fact that Asuka is alone in the platform is a sign that she is there to be reunited with Shinji, as she has no partner and seems to be playing with something like her old videogame. All of this is enough evidence to stop thinking about this ending as “Shinji choosing Mari to live a happier life” or “to let go the past”.

Comparison

The role of Mari in Yui/Gendo life. A hint in her possible role with Asuka/Shinji

Mari and Shinji, Mari and Gendo, the same fate.

I am sure that Mari will reunite Asuka and Shinji. She has been a bridge between them since 3.0, and the Eva Extra manga gives more insight into that respect. Besides, she did the same with Yui and Gendo, and there are a lot of comparisons between Yui/Gendo and Asuka/Shinji in a visual way throughout the series.You will find Asuka glancing at Shinji with the same face and eyes expression as Yui did. 

We have talked about this before. 

While it would be interesting to know exactly how Shinji arrives there, the narrative conclusion that they will meet again, independently of what has happened to the world, will not change. This resonates with the title of the movie "thrice upon a time", as evidenced here. 

There have been multiple Evangelion universes, both with and without Evas (EoE ends with a world without Evas, as the manga does) and in all of them, all of them, Asuka and Shinji meet again. And this is really important, as now they can communicate and have the chance of growing together and be happy.

Conclusion

Asuka and Shinji are two sides of the same coin, with different defence strategies in the context of the hedgehog's dilemma. Despite their mutual attraction, they are incapable of communicating and reaching each other. In EoE, it took almost the end of the world and humanity to understand that it is thanks to not living with the fear of pain and rejection that we can understand and accept others, ultimately overcoming the hedgehog's dilemma. This is expressed by the caress of Asuka to Shinji in EoE. This loving gesture shows us that the characters start understanding each other and have the chance to be happy together. EoE ending is a message of love and hope.

A/S relationship will represent this conflict wherever they are portrayed, in a cycle of desire/attraction, which leads to conflict and a resolution with understanding and love once they learn to accept each other and start communicating. In EoE is quite visual and displays both of them together at the very end. The manga is less explicit and more hinted at, but the scene at the train depicts how they connect in that new world where they will understand each other.

Thrice upon a time is not an exception to this rule. The last scene of EoE and the manga that involves Asuka and Shinji is the moment they connect, communicate, and change the way they treat each other. In 3.0+1.0 their final scene together is the beach scene, where they confess their mutual feelings in what is a never seen before sincerity and openness between them. Then, a world without Eva is created (in EoE this is exemplified by the crucified Eva and in the manga is more similar to the movie) and we know that Mari will guide Shinji to a safe return to that Eva free world and a gathering with Asuka and his friends. Despite not appearing on screen, all the narrative of the movie, and the whole of Evangelion, makes us understand that they will understand each other more and more and will be more honest towards their feelings, giving them the chance of being happy. As a consequence of that, the leitmotif of Evangelion is repeated once more.

The message of 3.0+1.0 is not about letting go of the past because you have grown up or let it go to move forward. The message is that it is thanks to going through those good and bad experiences that life gifts us, accepting the chance of suffering pain, that we can mature and learn. This learning will make us understand ourselves and those who surround us more, making us love ourselves and others, having, ultimately, the chance of being happy, loved and finding a place to belong to.

And it is in the middle of this struggle, that the love story of Asuka and Shinji shines, reminding us that humans can connect and be happy. 

If they can overcome their problems, so will us.

Everybody finds love in the end.

One More Conclusion: Where is Anno's wife?

What a ride! I think I have written about almost all of Shinji and Asuka's interactions, perhaps leaving just a few ones at the beginning of the movie, and without the mention of Anno as Shinji or his wife as Mari in all the essay! While extremely popular, the theory that Mari represents his wife has many flaws and I still do not understand where it is based. From the character being designed without the supervision of Hideaki Anno to the direct denial from his wife, including that the theory does not match the narrative plot. While self-insertions and story developments related to personal experiences are not rare in storytelling, we cannot explain everything in Evangelion by metanalysis. While Anno's struggles with depression have shaped NGE+EoE, the development and growth of the characters in their own arcs are what matter when analysing them. Shinji might be inspired by his awful experience at that time, but as we said earlier, Asuke is shaped like Shinji, albeit with different behaviour. Therefore, we should accept that both of them are depictions of Anno and not only the masculine figure.

In the end, it is Shinji who rejects instrumentality, returns to the real world and is caressed by Asuka in EoE. The characters do that, not Anno. The same happens in this last scene. While the location of the train station and city is totally related to the director, what is going to happen to the characters in the context of the plot is an important thing to consider when analysing them.

From NGE+EoE to this last movie Shinji grows and understands the path to be happy always.  This is not exclusive of the RoE saga because Anno has overcome his problems. Therefore, conclusions such as "now Anno is happier, so he wants Shinji to be happy" are not supported. What changed in RoE is that the growth of Shinji happens prior to the last impact and instrumentality, instead of growing after those experiences. This allows the portrayal of a lighter version of Shinji in those dramatic moments, resembling more a traditional hero who saves his friends, instead of letting them down and then coming to an understanding all together (because everyone shares a slice of the guilt cake) in instrumentality.

I believe that it would be more fruitful if we took into consideration his wife's work in the way that this tweet states, rather than engage ourselves in discussions about meta self-insertions.

I hope my words have helped those who felt like me after the release of the movie.

Thank you very much for all your time reading this.

[ironwoodprotectionsquad]

“bad faith criticism"

i.e.: You laid out point-by-point exactly what happened in the show, on screen, for everyone to see, but Nonnie doesn't feel good about the implications so they don't want to listen - yet cannot disprove it so they fall back on popular meaningless buzzwords like "bad faith criticism" so that they can maintain their sense of intellectual and moral superiority without actually putting in the work of examining the media they watch for propaganda that they might not have initially noticed was in it

"built on blatant ignorance of what the show is communicating"

i.e.: You openly and clearly stated the things the show PRETENDS to be communicating, with all their pretty and flowery speeches about "love" and "unity" and "freedom," yet you also had the nerve and the audacity and the presumption to point out that sometimes a Capitalist Corporation will sell Rainbow Pride Merch with one hand while stabbing multiple different marginalized groups in the back with the other, and pointed out that if you read what the series is ACTUALLY COMMUNICATING instead of mindlessly swallowing the thin veneer of false-progressive candy-flavored pesticide the stuff was generously coated with for *marketability,* you'll find that the series openly condones and uplifts Capitalist Conservatism all the way through and that it frequently echoes sentiments and rhetoric proudly spouted by alt-right bigots in the real world - to the point where I have never seen an "Anti-RWDE" argument that did not mirror something I've seen from racist homophobic sexist gun-toting pro-trump anti-mask All-Lives-Matter folks I've argued with on facebook and twitter in the past.

"and a lack of common sense"

i.e.: Nonnie has absolutely no ground to stand on in this argument, no evidence to support their claims, no pretention of logic or reason to bolster their position, so they fall back on petty insults and false accusations so that, once again, they can maintain their sense of intellectual and moral superiority without actually putting in the work of examining the media they watch for propaganda that they might not have initially noticed was in it

"Get your head out of your ass. That’s not a request."

And now we get to the part where they unironically quote Disney's character The Beast during one of his early-arc abusive moments, when he's just used his position of power to threaten an old man's life and then agreed to spare him only on the condition that a woman become his life-long prisoner and he wants to get with her so he demands that she go on a date with him, "That's not a request." It's almost as if Nonnie thinks that they are inherently Superior to other people: as if they think they are the Bestest and Smarterest and Popularest and Holiest kid in school, and therefore they get to dictate what everyone else is allowed to do or say or think, and if anybody dares to have the nerve and the audacity and the presumption to deviate from their Bestest Smarterest Popularest Holiest standard, it gives them the right to bully and attack and abuse them to "teach them a lesson." Gee, I hope that Nonnie one day goes through enough self-reflection that they actually have the chance to grow and change like the Beast, instead of continuing to behave like a belligerent and violent abusive asshole for the rest of their life like the As-Seen-On-TV version of Adam Taurus they currently act like now - but considering how far their own head is up their own ass, and how deep they've shoved their fingers in their ears, and how tightly they've squeezed their eyes shut, and how loudly they're screaming "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," I kind of doubt that 'becoming a better person' is something they're willing to try for.

It’s so frustrating that I can say “this is what was on screen. You saw that right?” And people like anon can be like “no it wasn’t stop lying” and think that’s somehow enough and is a valid way to try and shut me up. They don’t want their to be any flaws within RWBY so they just pretend they don’t exist and scream and yell when people point out that ignoring the flaws don’t make them go away. That’s not to say a person can’t be bothered by the flaws or think they’re not a big deal, that’s fine. But trying to deny the flaws even exist is a massive problem. Pointing out stuff that the show has in it and mentioning why you have an issue with it is NOT “bad faith”, it is just criticism. I would like to know why someone who gets so violently angry towards any sort of criticism trolls the RWDE tag and my blog so religiously. Just....block me if you don’t want to see it I literally could not give fewer fucks about how many people block me. I don’t care seriously if my content upsets you block me or block the RWDE tag whatever but yelling and screaming will do nothing. 

Oh gosh that part was just so painfully wrong I don’t have much more to say outside of what you already said because you put it so well anon. The show pretends to have these powerful messages of hope and standing together and trusting love and all that bullshit but if you take two seconds to look at the mains who are supposed to be spreading these messages you find that they....don’t. As you said this is something all corporations on some level do. They sell pride merch during pride month and go on and on about how much they love the LGBTQ community but then turn around and donate to organizations that exist solely to cause LGBTQ communities harm. That is the terrible miserable truth about capitalism. The show is painfully capitalistic with its not so hidden messages about how the real bad guys are the government agencies trying to put in protections from the uwu poor corporations to keep them from exploiting their vulnerable workers to make a buck. 

It’s so funny (sarcasm) how they spent so much time spewing ridiculous and nonsensical insults at me that they forgot to actually you know put in a real argument. But maybe that was the point. They had no argument against what I was saying so they had to resort to pathetic insults to try and distract from the fact that they have no argument and hope that everyone just agrees with them rather then using their critical thinking skills to come to their own conclusions on the media they consume. It’s okay to be wrong sometimes. It’s okay to make mistakes and screw up and be imperfect. It’s okay for people to have not noticed the shit the show tries to push out and the harmful messages it had because yea when you love something it is so easy to get lost in the magic and to ignore the flaws because these are characters you care about. You bonded with them and they often mean something to you and admitting they fucked up or even seeing that they fucked up can be so hard sometimes. Hell the first time I watched volume 6 I was cheering Ruby on when she beat Cordovin and gave her speech to her and yes looking back now I see how cringy it was but at the time I was lost in the show and loved the characters so much I didn’t notice the shit. It took longer then it should but once I saw the shit the girls where willing to pull and how horrible they could be it made it hard to not see how bad it had been in earlier volumes. And it’s okay to have been like that. It’s okay to care about the characters that its hard to see the flaws or you don’t want to focus on the negative and want to enjoy the good you find within it. What’s NOT okay is doing what that anon did and calling people names and harassing them and going around the block people put against them. 

I just still cannot believe that anon could type out those words and still hit send and think that was a. okay and b. anyone would ever listen to that bullshit. Does anon not realize how fucked up and toxic and abusive that kind of language is? Or do they not care because in their mind its okay to be a terrible person to someone they deem as an irredeemable monster for the horrific crime of having a different opinion about an animated TV show. But....that’s the trend these days isn’t it? We’ve gone from “bullying is wrong” to “It’s okay to bully people we deem as bad people” so nasty people who just like bullying people are incentivized to find ways to make people they do not like into bad people at any cost even if it means blatantly lying or twisting someone's words to fit their narrative so that it becomes okay to bully and belittle them and so that no one will care what is being done to that person because we have made it okay to bully and torment and harass people we do not like. And that is a dangerous place to be in. No one has the right to bully anyone ever. Period. People are deserving or respect and acting like you can order someone around and pretend you’re so high and mighty and everyone will simply bend to your whims is vile and disgusting. I hope that anon can learn to be a better person but as you said I doubt it.  (I know I said “you” a lot in this but the you I am referring to is the other anon the one you are responding to does that make sense lolz)

[thelightofthingshopedfor]

I suppose part of what’s bothering me about the response to Loki episode 4--the whole show so far, actually, but especially episode 4, and by extension why I’m worried about the final two episodes and the response to them--is that it’s kind of...making me doubt my own perceptions, or grasp of storytelling, or taste, or something.

and yeah, I’m sure some of that is just that I have some issues with having, knowing, and defending my own opinions about literally everything, which I’m fairly sure can be traced back to when I was a kid and I was taught by implication that having opinions or preferences usually equated being fussy/difficult/wrong. (I was the oldest daughter, I was way more conflict-averse than my sister, I often tried to do the peacemaker thing, I was raised evangelical and conservative, my dad is a lawyer with a lot of very strong opinions so he’s good at arguing them anyway, plus everything he believed was pretty much the foundation of my life for many years, it’s a whole mess of factors.) but it’s also...

I mean, I know taste is wildly subjective, and it’s totally possible for two people to come to a text in good faith and still develop very different interpretations, and of course people have different priorities and dealbreakers when it comes to fiction. but things like pacing or writing storytelling in general are a little more objective, right? whether you like a thing, or think it has more good parts than bad, isn’t really relevant to a discussion of whether it’s flawed in more technical ways (although of course the subjective aspects will influence how much importance and attention you assign to various technical aspects).

and, you know, I haven’t spent a lot time actually studying visual media in a non-fandom way, but I have a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in English literature, I taught freshman English for two years as a TA while getting my MA, and I have years of actual professional experience in different kinds of editing. I have at least a halfway-decent idea how to analyze a text, in other words, both for thematic aspects and for more technical ones. I also like to think I’m not a bad writer, in both technical and more subjective ways.

so--I’ve mostly liked the Loki show thus far. some of that is intentional on my part, which I’m aware gives me a bias right off the bat; I’ve basically been determined to like it, so I’ve actively looked for things to like, focused on opinions from people who also found stuff to like, and sought out analysis or alternate takes for stuff I didn’t care for on first watch. but on a purely technical level, I’ve found the show to be...pretty good, in general? some moments of sloppy writing, certainly, especially within the larger context of the MCU, but the vast majority of it seems...pretty competent to me. and if we’re focusing on technical aspects, that’s not so much a matter of opinion--it’s a lot more possible to be just plain wrong, and evidently I can’t tell the difference. (as a side note, “it’s totally okay to like things that are objectively garbage! ☺️“ is, uh, nowhere near as validating/comforting/whatever as a lot of people seem to think it is.)

with episode 4, specifically, my general reaction was one of relief, because I saw in it some payoffs to at least one major thing that had been bothering me from the beginning (i.e., the perception of the TVA as The Good Guys) and something of a return to the more serious tone I preferred from the second half of episode 1. and maybe I just need to be following different people, but my response...doesn’t seem to have been the general fandom reaction at all. in fact, multiple people I followed recently for their takes on the show, people who posted almost entirely positive stuff about the first three episodes and sometimes even engaged in a bit of scolding others who were more critical, kind of hated it, to the point that their negative reaction to episode 4 seems to have colored their reactions to the show in general and now they’re primarily posting criticism too. (and no, their reactions had nothing to do with ship wars, at least in terms of massively preferring one ship over another.) I also follow people who liked episode 4, but for various reasons they haven’t posted about it anywhere near as much, so that doesn’t help much in terms of getting a balanced perspective. and it’s sort of just...messing with my head that there’s such a huge difference in reactions to this episode, in both technical and more subjective terms.

I don’t really have a conclusion for any of this, it’s just bothering me and I don’t really know what to do with it.

[michaels-blackhat]

thoughts on evil Forrest 😈

We are going to start out by apologizing. This is very very late. I’m sure when you sent this ask, you meant it to be in the same joking tone that I approach all of my other propaganda posts. Sadly, this is actually going to be a deep dive into a few Evil Forrest related things, including the moment I feel they changed directions, the perfect wasted build-up, and the implications of the change/how it then negatively impacted the story. As I’m sure you already know, by being on my blog at all, I don’t think the story was good to begin with, so we are going to focus on the weird hoops they made themselves jump through to make that story still work. Additionally, I am only going to mention once, right now, how much of a waste it was to not have Forrest ‘fall for his mark’ and complete one of my absolute favorite tropes. Honestly, I think “because I want it” is a completely valid reason to like Evil Forrest. But, the question was “Thoughts on Evil Forrest” and these thoughts have been developing for over a year and a half. So, I apologize in advance.

The majority of this is under a cut, with highlights in the abstract. If no one wants to read this, I understand completely. Go ahead, skip it.

Note: it pains me greatly to not actually have full sources for this essay. Just know that in my heart I am using proper APA citations, I just absolutely do not feel like digging through tweets to find sources to properly cite.

Abstract:

Previous research indicates that Roswell New Mexico has a history of repeating excuses to explain mid-season changes to plots. This essay explores how those excuses are not only loads of crap, but how they hinder the show’s ability to tell a coherent story, misuse the multiple-plot structure to enhance the themes being explored, and lead to decisions that mean the show continuously goes over budget. This also means that characters are not used to their full potential and has led to what some fans consider to be “out of character” behaviors. While these behaviors are not universally agreed on, evidence can be shown that these behaviors directly contradict emotionally important character arc/plot points in the show.

The author of this paper acknowledges that the show took some strides to mend this problem. However, once again no consensus could be found on whether Forrest was a low-level member of Deep Sky and thus just allowed to fuck off on a bus, or his job was recruitment because he did a piss poor job of making Alex not join.

The concept of Evil Forrest has been with the fandom as early as New York Comic Con (NYCC) in 2019, when it was revealed that Alex had a new “blue-haired love interest”. Speculation abounded within the fandom, with some people, including the author, going “yeah, he’s evil” while others rejoiced in the concept of Alex having a loving partner. Speculation increased as fans discussed Tyler Blackburn’s seeming disinterest in his new love interest, prompting some once again to scream “EVIL” at the top of their lungs to anyone who would listen. Very little was revealed, beyond the fact that the new character would show up somewhere around episode 3 of the second season.

Episode 2.04 aired with some commenting on how he barely interacted with Alex- prompting more evil speculation- and others excited to see the characters interact more. The character appears again in 2.06, where he invites Alex to dubious spoken word poetry (which Alex attends); 2.08, where they have a paintball date and go to The Wild Pony; 2.10, where the two are seen writing together briefly at the beginning of the episode; and 2.13, where Alex performs his song at open mic night, tells Forrest his relationship with the person in the song was long over, and they kiss. Forrest was not revealed to be evil during season 2.

Amidst the season airing, Word of God via Twitter post announced that yes, Forrest had originally been planned as a villain, though not the main villain, but it was changed as filming progressed.

The Word of God Twitter post revealed that Forrest had originally been planned as a villain, but they decided that they could not make their “blue-haired gay man” a villain. This mirrors a similar situation and excuse used the previous season, where the character of Jenna Cameron was originally planned to work with Jesse Manes against the aliens, before it was changed because they just “loved Riley [the actress] too much”. Both of these examples occurred while already filming and reflect on a larger problem with the show. Though not the topic of this essay, it is important to note that both characters are white, both in the show and by virtue of being played by white actors. The fact that they couldn’t be villains for one reason or another is not a courtesy extended to the male villains who are all the most visibly brown, and thus ‘other’, members of the cast.

This also highlights the fact that, via Twitter, it has been revealed two other times that occurrences that were reported in season 1 also occurred in season 2. During the airing of episode 1.02, it was revealed that the single best build-up of tension in the show- when Alex walks to the Airstream not saying a word to Michael after a dramatic declaration- happened because one actor was sick at the time and they had to go back and film the kisses later. At the point of airing for episode 2.08, it was revealed that one of the actors were sick and unable to film a kissing scene. Allegedly, this caused the writers to retool the entire scene and deviate from the plan to make that subplot about Coming Out. The execution of this subplot will be explored later in this essay.

The last occurrence revealed via Twitter also revealed larger issues within the show: lack of planning and poor budgeting. During the airing of season 1, Tyler Blackburn was needed for an extra episode beyond his contracted 10. A full explanation was never given, but speculation about poor planning and to fill in because Heather Hemmens had to miss one of her 10 episodes due to scheduling conflicts for another project. During the airing of season 2, yet another tweet came out saying they made a mistake and Tyler would once again be in an additional episode. No explanations beyond “a mistake” were given, though once again speculation occurred. It is the opinion of the author that this was due to changing plot points over halfway through writing, while episodes were already in production. It has been speculated by some that these changes occurred during the writing of 2.08, which was being finished/pre-production was occurring roughly around the time of NYCC 2019.

Previous Literature:

A brief look at different theories of plots and subplots

Many people have written on the subject of plotting, for novels and screen alike. The author is more familiar with film writing than tv, but a lot of the concepts carry over. Largely, the B- and C- (and D- and E-… etc) plots should reinforce the theme of the A-plot. This can be through the use of a negative example, where the antithesis of the theme is explored to reinforce the theme presented by the A plot, or through other examples of the theme, generally on a small scale.

A movie example of this would be Hidden Figures (2016), where the A-plot explores how race and gender impact the main character (Katherine Johnson) in her new job. The B-plots explore the other characters navigating the same concepts in different settings and ways- learning a new skill as to not become obsolete and breaking boundaries there (Dorothy Vaugn) and being the first black woman to complete a specific degree program and the fight it took to get there (Mary Jackson). A TV example that utilizes this concept of plot and theme is the 911 shows. Each of the rescues in a given episode will directly relate to the overall theme of the episode and the overall plot for the focus character. This example is extremely blunt. It does not use any tools to hide the connection, to the point you can often guess the outcome for that A-plot fairly quickly.

This is not the only way to explore themes within visual media. Moonlight (2016) looks at three timestamps in the life of Chiron. Each timestamp has a plot even if they feel more like individual scenes or moments rather than plots as some are more used to in films. Each time stamp deals with rejection, isolation, connection, and acceptance in different ways. So while there is no clear A-, B-, or C-Plot, each time stamp works as their own A-Plot to explore the themes in a variety of ways, particularly by starting out in a place of rejection and moving to acceptance or a place of connection to isolation.

Please note that there are many ways to write multiple plots, there are just two examples.

While there are flaws within season 1 of RNM, overall the themes stayed consistent throughout the season, mainly the theme of alienation. The theme threads through the Alien’s isolation/alienation from humanity which is particularly seen through Michael’s unwillingness to participate and Isobel’s over participation. There is Rosa’s isolation from others, how her friendship with “Isobel” ended up compounding her existing alienation from her support system due to her mental illness and coping mechanisms. We see how Max and Liz couldn’t make connections. This theme presented itself over and over in season 1. While this essay is not an exploration of the breakdown of themes in season 2, it should be noted that there were some threads that followed throughout the season. The theme of mothers/motherhood was woven throughout season 2, with some elements more effective than others. Please contact the author for additional thoughts on Helena Ortecho and revenge plots.

One of the largest problems within season 2 was the sheer number of plots jammed into the season. These plot threads often ended up hindering the effectiveness of the themes and made the coherence of the season suffer. Additionally, a lot of them were convoluted and difficult to follow.

Thesis:

Essentially, season 2 was a mess. To look at it holistically is almost an exercise in futility. Either you grow angry about the dropped plots and premises, you hand wave them off, or you fill them in for yourself. Instead, this essay proposes to look at individual elements to explain why Forrest should have stayed evil.

We first meet Forrest in 2.04 when he is introduced on the Long Family Farm, which we later learn was the location where our past alien protagonists had their final standoff. He’s introduced. He’s largely just there. The audience learns he has more of a history with Michael. In 2.06, we meet him again with his dog Buffy (note: poor Buffy has not been seen again and we miss a chunky queen). There’s mild flirting, Alex is invited to an open mic night, which he attends. For the purpose of this essay, the author’s thoughts on the poetry will not be expressed. Readers can take a guess.

It is after this point that the author speculates the Decision was made. This choice to make Forrest not evil- paired with the aforementioned ‘can’t kiss, someone’s sick’- impacted the plot. We have Alex have a scene with his father- which the author believes could have been pushed to a different episode- and then have Alex go on a date and then not kiss Forrest at the end of the night. Here, the audience sees Forrest hit Alex in the leg, allegedly not knowing he had lost his leg despite ‘looking him up’, which parallels the shot to the leg that happens to Charlie. Besides wasting this ABSOLUTELY TEXTBOOK SET UP WTF, it also takes Alex away from the main plot and then forces a new plot for him. Up to this point, Alex’s plot was discovering more about the crash and his family’s involvement. Turning Alex’s date from a setup for evil Forrest to a Coming Out story adds yet another plot thread to a packed season. It is also the author’s thought that this is where the convoluted kidnapping plot comes in. With Forrest already in 2.10 for a moment, a plot where Alex is evil has Forrest attack him for Deep Sky rather than Jesse abduct him for a piece of alien glass Alex was going to give him anyway and then for Flint to abduct Alex from Jesse. It’s messy. In a bad way. Evil Forrest would have been a cleaner set up: no taking back a piece of alien glass Alex gave to Michael in a touching moment. No double abduction. Instead, there is only Forrest, who Alex trusts, breaking that trust to take him as leverage over Michael.

Implications:

Now, Alex has two plots (Tripp & Coming Out). The Coming Out plot is largely ineffective, as they are only relevant to scenes with Forrest and have the undercurrent of there only being a certain acceptable way to be out. This could have been used for Alex to discover his comfort levels, mirroring Isobel’s self discovery, but there was not enough screen time for that. Additionally, Isobel’s coming out story was about her allowing herself the freedom to explore. Alex’s story was about the freedom to… act like this dude wanted him to. Alex’s internalized homophobia played out often in the series but it was also informed by the violence he experienced at Jesse’s hands and the literal hate crime he and his high school boyfriend experienced. With that in mind, the “kissing to piss off bigots” line comes off poorly. This is a character who experienced what a pissed off bigot could do- reluctance to kiss in public is not the same as not being out. There is more to be said on this topic, but as it is not actually the focus of the essay, it will be put on hold. To surmise: Alex’s coming out is attempted to be framed as being himself, but it is actually the conformity to someone else’s ideals. It does not work as an antithetical to Isobel’s story, as the framing indicates that the conformity/right was to be out contradicts Isobel’s theme.

Further Research:

MAKE FORREST EVIL YOU COWARDS

Author Acknowledgements:

The author of this paper acknowledges that the show took some strides to mend this problem. However, once again no consensus could be found on whether Forrest was a low-level member of Deep Sky and thus just allowed to fuck off on a bus, or his job was recruitement because he did a piss poor job of making Alex not join.

[ace-pervert]

Something i find contradicting about the defenders of the bill is that apparently it came to be because a child came to the school officials, said they were trans and in between having to pull funds from the teachers pockets to paint classrooms and have actual food for the kids, they somehow got money to get this kid to transition, or more realistically they were only socially transitioning and getting support from the people at school, but of course this distinction is totally irrelevant and inconsequential for narratives and objectivity(/s), so unless they somehow got this kid to go on hormones, how exactly were they not "prudent" like this bill claims it's middle ground allows? the fact a child is coming out to school officials in the first place means they don't feel safe at home to begin with, and the officials should objectively not tell the parents and try to provide a safe space for the child or teen, but the very story these people claim this bill will prevent from repeating has multiple aspect of it they claim the bill won't affect...but the story they claim gave birth to it literally starts with the child not feeling safe to tell their parents, like is just very Kafkaesque, like if the bill doesn't allow the school to allow social transitioning and students to have same sex romantic relations inside of it without having to inform the parents, yeah no sorry no matter how much virtue signaling and stranger danger narrative the defenders use, this is a flawed law that will have more negative results than positive ones, if any at all

P.S: how does this bill prevent grooming when last time I checked it's not even illegal in the USA? Which it should be, but if it was then it would be about minors being manipulated into having romantic and sexual relationships with others when they turn legal, not a school library that's open for the community having 12yo and 14yo rated books that are legally allowed to talk candidly and openly about sex, and I'm pretty sure half those senators and legislators calling everyone and everything "groomer" would be sued for slander and libel since accusing a person of a crime without evidence is immediate grounds for and evidence of damaging a person's character in society.

The supporters of the bill fall into three categories.

The first is people that think sexual orientation and gender mean sex in certain contexts like laws and education.

The second is the group that thinks gay is an adult theme, while straight is not.

And the third is homophobes eager to use any bill they can get their slimy hands on to ban homosexuality.

Of these groups only the third understands the implications of the bill