#EGOT status incoming

[in-burning-red]

Me to The Eras Tour Film at the 2024 Golden Globes

[kendallspussy]

JEREMY STRONG EGOT STATUS INCOMING 🤭🤭🤭

[colorsinautumn]

Joe got that egot incoming. Main pop girl status™️

joe and taylor writing probably started out as something fun and now there is like, legit potential for them to be and egot award winning power couple and that is fucking insane

[saintlaurentproblems]

Dang. Why y’all so bitter about Ms . Ponytail doing makeup/skin care? She wants another side income which is good cause she won’t be only getting money from music.

Because I want movies and music not foundation and blush. I want EGOT status.

[swcctserpentarchive]

𝑪𝑯𝑨𝑹𝑨𝑪𝑻𝑬𝑹 𝑺𝑯𝑬𝑬𝑻 repost,  don’t reblog !

𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬 !

FULL NAME.  finn wei zhang. MEANING. finn : ‘ fair ‘. wei : ‘ power ‘. NICKNAME.  sweet pea. sweets. pea. GENDER.  cis-male. HEIGHT.  6′3″ / 191 cm. AGE.  18.  ZODIAC.  scorpio. SPOKEN LANGUAGES.  english. mandarin. some spanish. 

𝐩𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 !

HAIR COLOR.  black. EYE COLOR.  brown. SKIN TONE.  fair. BODY TYPE.  athletic. muscular. ACCENT.  american. VOICE.  deep. DOMINANT HAND.  left. POSTURE.  confident. intimidating, when necessary. SCARS.  scarred knuckles, from fights. long scar down his left side from a stab wound on riot night.  TATTOOS.  serpent tattoo on his neck. two arrows on the thumb of his right hand. MOST NOTICEABLE FEATURE(S).  glare. smile. height.

𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 !

PLACE OF BIRTH.  riverdale, new york. HOMETOWN.  riverdale, new york. BIRTH WEIGHT.  average. BIRTH HEIGHT.  average. MANNER OF BIRTH.  natural. FIRST WORDS.  “ mama ”.  SIBLINGS.  ryan zhang  ( older brother ). tamara zhang  ( younger adoptive sister ).  ellie zhang ( younger sister ). PARENTS.  sean murphy ( deceased ) and cassie zhang. PARENT INVOLVEMENT.  father died when he was seven. mother is extremely nurturing, loving, but often absent due to her working hours.

𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 !

OCCUPATION.  mechanic  ( apprentice ). waiter. construction  ( during the summer ). CURRENT RESIDENCE.  “ tent city “, southside, riverdale. CLOSE FRIENDS.  fangs fogarty. toni topaz. joaquin desantos ( deceased ). jughead jones.  RELATIONSHIP STATUS.  single. FINANCIAL STATUS.  low income, working class. DRIVER’S LICENSE.  yes. CRIMINAL RECORD.  yes. minor infractions, no felonies.  VICES.  cigarettes. alcohol. sex. 

𝐬𝐞𝐱 & 𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 !

SEXUAL ORIENTATION.  bisexual. ROMANTIC ORIENTATION.  biromantic. PREFERRED EMOTIONAL ROLE.  submissive       |         dominant       |       switch PREFERRED SEXUAL ROLE.  submissive       |       dominant       |       switch LIBIDO.  average — high. TURN ON’S.  empathy.  kindness.  confidence.  perseverance.  intelligence.  compassion. TURN OFF’S.  aloofness.  egotism / arrogance.  ignorance. LOVE LANGUAGE.  quality time. physical touch. words of affirmation. RELATIONSHIP TENDENCIES.  passionate.  devoted.  can be insecure perhaps too often.

𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬 !

CHARACTER’S THEME SONG.  bury me face down by grandson.  dna by kendrick lamar.   HOBBIES TO PASS TIME.  working out. fixing cars. spending time with his friends / siblings. MENTAL ILLNESSES.  undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. intermittent explosive disorder ( diagnosed --- takes regular medication ).  PHYSICAL ILLNESSES.  none. LEFT OR RIGHT BRAINED.  right. PHOBIAS.  abandonment.  asphyxiation.   SELF CONFIDENCE LEVEL.  generally high, though he’s prone to moments of debilitating insecurity.  VULNERABILITIES.  his temper. 

TAGGED BY: the lovely @chaosblossomed ! TAGGING: @invigilia / @invigilandi ( for whoever ). @chandlrs. @lovetrgdy. @empathicstars. @bridgcsburncd ( for one of the ladies maybe? )

[anshulkumarpandey]

Bol: Interrogating the Human Condition

We all have grown in a specific environment that has contributed to the mental makeup that we possess presently. Our surroundings have contributed immensely to mold ourselves to become the kind of person that we are today. Our current psychological forms are largely a result of the beliefs, values, traditions and culture that we have inherited from our society. Yet, human tendency tends to act in an inchoate and unpredictable manner that sometimes produces such results which not only shatter our long held dogmas, but also provide us a completely new understanding of the material and the emotional. When such rebellious emotions translate on the screen, the result is not upheld for its moral content or philosophical undertones, but is adored, braced, defended and endorsed by all and sundry for the raw energy that it unleashes in the comatose intellect of the social order. 

The Pakistani motion picture, Bol, is the result of such recalcitrant impulse of acumen which questions the deep rooted hypothesis of existence in our community. To sit through the film is a chilling experience, as you feel yourselves connected to one or the other characters portrayed in the story and the situations seem to spring out from your very past contact with the community. Every scene is a depiction of the miseries haunting the humanity around us, every dialogue is a biting satire on the accepted norms of survival. The film is not a moral treatise or theoretical examination of the human condition, rather it is a question mark on the set standards of normalcy and decency that we have created, or rather imposed on ourselves and others.

I am not interested in indulging in a scene by scene dissection of the film. Rather, I am interested in communicating the lessons that I drew from some of the stunning scenes that this film portrayed. An ordinary way to start would be to proceed chronologically in accordance with the timeline of the movie. Please mind that these conclusions are totally my own, and that you are more than free to differ. What grabs your attention from the start is the farewell meeting between the convicted prisoner, Zainub (Humaima Malik), and her mother and sisters. The prisoner seems to be walking in delirium, and hardly has any sense of existence or belonging. She is escorted to her family members to bid them adieu. As if delivering her final message, she exhorts her sisters and mother to throw away the burqa, which, to her, is a sign of bondage and slavery. She urges them all to become independent and to break loose the restrictions that the society has placed on them by virtue of them being women. 

This, to me struck as a paradoxical interpretation of the niqab or the burqa. Here in our country, I have come across women who fiercely protect their right to wear burqa in public places by defending it as a sign of their independence (independence!) and as an inalienable part of their identity. Similar protests have been recorded in France, Italy, USA and other European countries, who have passed, or tried to pass legislation banning this 'symbol of slavery' from the public places. When it comes to the Pakistani society, the burqa is a symbol of slavery for some, and yet here in India, it is a part and parcel of a Muslim women's identity. Why? Was the character in the movie wrong in reading the significance of the burqa? Or did she really echo the views held by most? The answer I think, is not difficult to understand.

In the kind of fiercely religious and conservative society that Pakistan has evolved itself into today, religious dictum is being taken to be embossed in stone and is regarded to be unquestionable. Even the smallest of divergence from the religious norms is seen to be a sign of bigotry and heresy. The result, obviously, is especially punitive to the historically weaker and under represented sections of the society by virtue of their exclusion from power (in this case, they being the women and the religious minorities). Due to such stringent, rigid and remorseless interpretations of religion, religious symbols and values cease to be a denotation of reverence and morph into a cross of social existence which one must bear, no matter how unbearable the pain, in order to survive. While we, on the other side of the border, have been marginally more successful than our neighbors in enforcing a culture of mutual respect devoid of double standards, our friends across the line of control are bearing the brunt of the selfishness and a culture of contradictions which they promoted since independence. As a result, the burqa, which is a symbol of identity for Muslim women in India, turns into an emblem of subjugation across the border.

The most horrific rendition of remorselessness is echoed in the scene where the father (Manzar Sehbai), kills his own child (Amr Kashmiri), who happens to be a eunuch. The actors have acted so brilliantly, that the intensity of the hatred prevailing in the society towards that uncatalogued and unnamed gender hits you with full force. 

What compels a father to such an extent so as to suffocate the last vestiges of life out of his own child? The rough hatred towards the 'other' in most of the societies in most of the countries around the world is such that we emphatically refuse to assimilate their identity into the mainstream and furiously oppose any move to normalize their existence. The Character of Amr Kashmiri has startling resemblances to that of Ravi Jhankal's Munni in Shyam Benegal directed Welcome to Sajjanpur in that both are continuously harassed when they try to take part in the ordinary scheme of things. Such an absolute refusal to change our preconceived norms of ordinariness betrays the insecurities of our own society and the egotism of one's own conscience. And the eagerness to prove one to be normal, to be a vibrant part of the mainstream, to be an obedient member of the laws and rules of the community is the driving force behind such rough hatred, hostility and neglect.

The character of Zainub, is a classic example of what happens when the voice of reason and rationality shuns and rejects the set dogmas and superstitions of the humankind. She is rebuffed, rebuked, slapped and showered with myriad forms of abuses for arguing against the ordinary course of thought. Since she is nearly divorced (which makes her a bad company for children, taboo for the outside world and a burden for the family), her status is downgraded to that of a ghost, whose opinion has no value and whose presence is not favorable. No standards of dignity seem to apply to her. Religion fails to protect her and the grinding weight of patriarchy conspires to stifle her voice.

Yet, the overarching theme of the film, which questions the root of all the ills prevalent in the society, is the constant lust for the birth of a boy child due to which the father keeps on impregnating his wife, only to be punished with another girl child. His lust seems to be unquenchable as he goes on producing a girl after another girl even though his income dwindles day by day. This Frankenstein of his own creation lurches him to one problem after another, makes him to commit one bigotry after another, destroys his religion and shatters his reputation in the household, ultimately resulting in his murder by Zainub.

Bol isn't an ordinary Pakistani movie. Its a mirror reflection of the narrow mindedness of our public. Its a documentation of the fanaticism seeping slowly in our surroundings. Its a tale of the oppressed and downtrodden. Its a challenge to array of accepted beliefs in the world. Its a colour full story narrated through the colour less lens of patriarchy to a colour blind audience. Its a loud resonance of our own shame and contrasting principles.

Bol speaks and silences.

[nebris]

If the Point of Capitalism is to Escape Capitalism, Then What’s the Point of Capitalism?

There’s a question that keeps recurring to me these days. It goes like this: if the point of capitalism is to escape capitalism, then what’s the point of capitalism? I know, it’s a circular and funny query. So let me explain.

Here we are, all trapped in and by this grand, global system called capitalism — which reaches into every nook and cranny of our lives, orders our wants and desires, plans our days and nights, and structures our time and energy. You can even talk to capitalism like it was a person now — “Hey, Alexa…” A system by which we mean something like “profit maximizing corporations, owned by shareholders, run for that one sole end, no matter what the cost is to anyone or anything else.” But what’s the organizing principle of life that this system, which is so pervasive and permeating, produces? What are we really trying to accomplish through it?

The worker is trying to become a manager. The manager is trying to become a capitalist. I’ve put that in modern terms — let me put it in Marxist ones, just for contrast’s sake. The prole is trying to become a petite bourgeois. The bourgeois is trying to become a haute bourgeois. The worker, a shop owner, the shop owner, the owner of a chain. Even, maybe, in the small way of “owning” a home — which is to say, paying back its debt all his life — or buying a stock or a bond, and so on: the point is to amass capital. So capitalism is something like a pyramid, which we’re all climbing, worker to manager, prole to bourgeois, and at the apex is the capitalist.

But what is the capitalist trying to become?

The capitalist, ironically enough, is trying to earn his freedom from capitalism — just like everyone else. The only difference is that he’s a step closer. Let me prove it, with a simple and extreme example, that of a plantation, and slave, owner — the truest capitalist of all, not so long ago. What is he really after? He’s trying to earn is freedom from labour — not having to do work, hence the slaves. He’s also trying to win freedom from exploitation — he holds the whip, but is above the moral law. And from control, punishment, hierarchy — he has no boss to answer to. Perhaps he devotes his life to more “gentlemanly” pursuits — art, literature, discovery, exploration: but what’s the point of these? These, too, are a freedom from capitalism — from its bruising stress, pressure, anxiety, competition — now he is free to really be himself.

Do you see my point? How funny and strange it is? Even the capitalist is really just trying win back his freedom from capitalism. Buy it back, properly speaking. But so is the prole. So is the bourgeois. So is the wage-slave. Whatever terms we choose, depending on our politics, the point remains the same. So, my friends, are we all — the point of capitalism is to escape capitalism.

(Some systems are self-perpetuating. Like a forest. Like a river. Like an ocean. But some systems are self-annihilating. Like a fire. Like a storm. Like an epidemic. They burn themselves out. We tend think of capitalism as the former — but we are wrong. It is the latter — a self-destroying, not a self-sustaining, system. If we’re all really just trying to escape it — then what else could it be? After all, that means there will probably come a day when we do make our escape — and on that day, poof! — capitalism, at least in the sense above, winks out, like a storm, or a fire. So if we see for a moment through the great lens of human history — first there was tribalism, and we escaped it, then feudalism, and we escaped that — today now there’s capitalism, which we’re currently trying to escape, all over again. But while kings and knights might have not been so keen on escaping feudalism, what’s striking about capitalism is that we’re all trying to escape it — even most of the capitalists — because it makes us so miserable, mean, and foolish.

No, that doesn’t mean there aren’t bad eggs, whose only goal in life is amassing more money, and using it to abuse people. Sure there are. Still, just the idea that even capitalists might be trying to escape capitalism too will probably upset both those on the American left and right, because I’m going beyond Marx, and suggesting “class war” is just as limiting as “capitalism is the sole end of human life!” I think, though, that this is an idea often taken for granted by now in Europe, thanks to Adorno, Adler, Freud, Fromm, and many others.)

You can see it in stark, comic terms. What are Bezos and Musk doing? Trying to flee to Mars. What’s Gates doing? Recommending you books to read, and trying to save the world with charity. LOL — how ironic. These are different forms of freedom from capitalism. Maybe on Mars, we can build a better world. Maybe through ideas and philanthropy, we can solve the problems that corporations can’t. All the capitalists I see are trying to win freedom from capitalism, in one way or another. Aren’t they?

There are many people who, having amassed fortunes, seem under the grip of a kind of compulsion. They must turn ten million into a hundred, a hundred into a billion, and so on. This is what Marx called “fetishization.” Later thinkers, like Adorno and Fromm, would have said that such a person is still trying to escape capitalism — only they don’t know how, the poor things. They are trying to buy love, affection, belonging, meaning, and purpose, they are trying to win the very same self-discovery and self-realization our genteel bourgeois is after, devoting his life to literature or art once he has made his money, with a bigger yacht, mansion, and bank account. But you cannot really buy those things — in this world, or the next. So it’s true to say that mega-capitalists aren’t exactly monks — but I don’t think that means they’re not also trying to escape capitalism, too. They’re just trying to buy their way out.

Then there are many people who are the mirror image. They are not trying to become Bezos and Musk and Gates. They are just there, doing their jobs, earning their wages, and going home. It’s true — many of us try to escape capitalism by making our peace with it. Surrendering to it, in a way. If I do this much work, I might never get rich — but at least I’ll be left in peace this many hours a day. At least I’ll have my hobbies, my interests, my passions. It’s a calculated bargain, apathy, which is always a kind of capitulation, in the end. And it only proves the point — we are all trying to win our freedom from capitalism, rich or poor, prole or bourgeois.

Now. Let me distill the things we are trying the freedom for, from capitalism. Freedom from exploitation. Freedom from control and domination. Freedom to find, develop, and realize ourselves. The freedom to live lives which really sear us with meaning, purpose, and fulfillment — instead of being crushed with anxiety, bruised by competitiveness, and suffused with fear.

So here is the real question. If these are things we are really after — why don’t we just give them to one another? Perhaps that sounds trivial to you, but I want to put in perspective. This is probably the first juncture in human history where we are really capable of giving these things to one another.

We’ve never had the physical capability before. Until this point in human history, we needed armies of labourers, doing the work of providing sustenance to nations — farming, accounting, driving, and so on. But now, finally, technology is automating away repetitive, formulaic labour — not just in the way factories did before: churning out canned consumer goods. But in a real one — replacing their inputs, tilling the cornfields and balancing the books and directing the deliveries and so on.

Nor have we had the financial means. If we wanted to give people all the above, how would we have done it? We had no way to give everyone the means of what today is starting to be called a basic income. Would everyone line up at the central bank? Today, everyone can open an account online at the central bank, and poof — money. If we really wanted to, we could make freedom from capitalism a financial reality almost overnight.

Then there is social technology — social institutions, public goods, and public investment. Only in the last century or so, really, have human beings really become capable of operating things like healthcare, transportation, retirement elderly care, childcare, and so on at a social scale. That is because these things require post-capitalist management, too, which we’re still learning how to do. Who “owns” the NHS, for example? It’s held in trusts by communities. What does it maximize? Neither profit nor planning, but healthcare outcomes, which are measured carefully. Not Marxist-Leninism, nor American capitalism — but a kind of 21st century post-capitalism at work: one made of public goods and public investment.

These three things, technology, finance, and public goods, have finally matured and developed to a degree that freedom from capitalism isn’t just possible. It’s becoming inevitable. What’s really happening as these three forces intersect? Society’s surplus is being reinvested back in precisely the very things we are really after — instead of being skimmed off by predatory elites. Freedom from exploitation, freedom from control, freedom to find, realize, and develop ourselves. We haven’t had the means, mechanisms, or tools, in the long history of humankind, to ever really achieve those on a mass scale yet. But we have them now.

And that is an eminently good thing. It tells me that the obsolescence of capitalism is as inevitable as that of feudalism before it. That doesn’t mean that trade and enterprise and creativity will go away. Quite the opposite. It means that they will be genuinely more beneficial — we can devote them to better things, at last, than money, status, power, and egotism — which is what capitalism limits us to. And through that limitation, by perpetually draining away our empathy, wisdom, courage, wisdom, truth, and happiness, causes us to desperately wish to escape it, all our lives long. No matter if we are rich, poor, or somewhere in between.

Umair September 2018

https://eand.co/if-the-point-of-capitalism-is-to-escape-capitalism-then-whats-the-point-of-capitalism-bedd1b2447d