#Eternal Sugar suffered from Toxic Positive

[cookieofearthbread]

Eternal Sugar before they fell and became corrupted was no doubt was really energetic and supportive cookie; doing everything they could to bring joy and happiness to cookiekind and the world. They would grant cookies their dreams and comfort them to the best of their abilities, however they didn't allow themselves to be sad or upset as they needed to be a pillar to everyone.

After all, they held the virtue of Happiness. In their mind; they couldn't afford to be sad or even feel a single negative emotion.... No matter what.... Of course, this would be their downfall due to the simple fact they bottled up their emotion and were slowly burning themselves out by being the pillar of support.

At some point, Eternal Sugar started to get burnout with trying to help everyone they could and grew tired until only grew worse with each passing day until one day; they didn't want help a cookie as they simply wanted to sleep, which lead into a huge argument.

An argument that ended in tragedy when Eternal Sugar accidentally ended up using their magic, which resulted in the cookie's death. When they realized their mistake; they felt nothing for the cookie's death.... In fact; there was part of them that felt relief and free...

As such, Eternal Sugar decided that if they weren't allowed to do nothing or sleep, then they would kill any cookies that dare bother them with the only exceptions being the other Beasts as the friendship was the only thing that the fallen angel cared about now.

[zephyrthejester]

Steven Universe Future: A Predictive Wish List

The future is now. And by that, I mean that the debut of Steven Universe Future is at hand! A super special "limited series" (whatever that means) that will ultimately wrap up the greatest cartoon to grace television this decade. Indeed, all good things must come to an end. Regardless of what the Future holds, it is doubtless that I'll love and continue to love this show forever... So! Let's have a good ol' chat about what we want to see in the upcoming episodes!

I'm going to divide this wish list into two distinct sections, both of which should be self explanatory. Things that I "need," that my heart burns with desire for, and things that I "hope," that would be cool if it happens but it's no big deal if it doesn't.

This is going to be a loooooong post, so click Keep Reading to see it all!

What I NEED to Happen

Lars needs closure for his three ongoing story arcs. From Lars, I hope we see him expressing how much he and his life has changed, and how he's dealing with the return to tranquil life on Earth and his zombie status. Secondly, he and Sadie need to have a good, long chat. Their relationship was in turmoil at the time Lars got abducted by Aquamarine, and since then Sadie has redirected her life with a self-empowering attitude. There is a lot that remains unsaid between the two of them. Thirdly, Lars and Ronaldo were once childhood friends and had a feud as kids that lasted into their teens. I hope that gets touched upon, even if it's something as simple as the two apologizing to each other.

When it comes to Jasper... I don't want the show to handle her story in Future like a "redemption." Being redeemed is not what her character is about, and it's not what she needs. No, Jasper has lived her entire life clinging to an ideal and the perception of her strength. Both those things were ripped away from her. What Jasper needs is to learn acceptance of her reality, to embrace that even someone who is "flawless" can be fallible, and to become responsible for herself. The happiest ending for Jasper, I think, is not to become friends with the Crystal Gems or even to like Earth, but to accept herself.

On the subject of Jasper, the last thing I want are any positive interactions with Lapis Lazuli. In the best case scenario, the two won't interact at all. They were each other's mutual abusers and were both responsible for the most painful days of their lives. Some might say you need to confront the past to move beyond it, but Lapis already has and Jasper can learn to do the same. To cut someone toxic out of your life and move on without them should be celebrated. Could you imagine if Greg tried to reconnect with Marty? Yuck, right? That's how I feel about Lapis and Jasper.

Fusion Experiments and especially the Cluster need to be formally dealt with. While bubbles can keep them in stasis for eternity, Steven's not the sort of person to abandon those who suffer (unless you're a Ruby floating in space). The question is, how? Can he repair the shattered? Or will he give them the best lives they can get in their state? And how could the Cluster be removed from inside the Earth?

Speaking of those who remain in solitude... Pink Diamond's Zoo needs to be dealt with. There are dozens of Zoomans, a skeleton crew of Quartzes (including Holly Blue Agate, most likely) and most importantly of all, the entire Gem population of Rose Quartzes. REAL Rose Quartzes. We've never actually seen a real Rose Quartz, and it's high time we do. What do they sound like?! Dude, it’d be super funny if the real Rose Quartz voice sounds super distinct and Steven would wonder how Pink Diamond’s disguise fooled anyone.

We need an episode dedicated to Nephrite! She's technically been in the show longer than Lapis and Peridot, debuting in episode 01, and she's represented the entire Corrupted Gem plotline! We need to learn more about her! See her interact with people, including Steven! If not a whole episode for her, than at least some hearty screen time!

Spinel and the Diamonds need some screen time. It's a safe bet since they were all in the new intro, so to take a riskier request, I'm going to hope that the Diamonds come out and directly admit how horrible of monsters they've been. Their crimes are infinitely cruel, in both number and scale. And so far, the only thing they've done about it is to make an effort to... not commit more crimes against humanity. Err, Gemanity? Perhaps in their experience with a free Gempire they can actually get context for what they did, recognize the night-and-day difference between suffering and not-suffering, and get a little introspective about themselves.

Pink Pearl... Just, Pink Pearl. Like, hot dang, dude. If anything, make her the poster child of the above point about the Diamonds' crimes. Simply for wanting Pink Diamond to be happy, White overwrote Pink Pearl's individuality, even scarring her form, and kept her that way for thousands of years. How does Pink Pearl feel about that?! How will she deal with Pink Diamond being gone? What's next for her?

This last one tows the line between the two categories and might even be a bit selfish, but... I hope we see Mystery Girl again. I know Pearl's been "playing the field" since she met her, but it'd be cool to catch up with Pearl's relationship(s). It's not something we need to see, but just a quick line or two to reference it would be cool. Although, there is the unresolved hint that Mystery Girl might be Kevin's ex...

What I HOPE Will Happen

It'd be a crime not to introduce a fusion that involves Lapis, Peridot, and/or Bismuth. And, well... My take might surprise you. I'm hoping that Peridot will remain fusionless, because she is my oh-so-precious Ace representation. As for Lapis... I dunno. Is fusion something she desires? Could there possibly be a threat big enough to warrant fusing for combat purposes? It's hard to imagine either, though it would be sweet if fusion could become something more than Malachite for her. And that leaves Bismuth! To that I say, HELL YEAH! We heard tell of Bismuth once fusing with Garnet back in the Rebellion, and I can only dream how incredible that would be. Alternatively, maybe Bismuth and her best buddie in the whole world, Biggs, would make a good pair.

I want an episode that's a good ol' Space Adventure. Hopefully with Connie along for the ride! There's a massive galaxy out there ripe for exploring. The possibilities are endless! An episode of this nature would be a good excuse to see more of certain Gems such as Nephrite, Emerald, the Zircons, and maybe Lemon Jade.

It'd be cool to see some characters from the games, even if only as background easter eggs. I'm talkin' the Prism, Hessonite, Squaridot, those new garnets from the recently announced game I forget the name of (Unleash the Light?)...

At least one episode to meet and greet the Little Homeworld denizens, specifically Bismuth's big three (Biggs, Crazy Lace, and Snowflake). But especially Snowflake Obsidian. She looks super cool.

Finally, I'd like to see some light shed on the many, many unexplored mysteries. I'd be surprised if we got any of the following, but I can dream: What is the origin of Gem Species and/or The Diamonds? What is the deal with the Crystal Heart? What is the Geode? What's up with the space outside Warp tunnels? What's the latest on Watermelon Island? What are the rooms in the Temple like for most of the main cast Fusions, + Ruby and Sapphire's rooms? What has become of Pink Diamond's palanquin in Korea? Can Steven kiss up the Kindergartens to heal it like he did for Beach City in the movie? What's the deal with Rose's lion pride in the desert near her leg ship? And most importantly: WHAT WAS IN THE FREAKING CHEST?!?!?!?!?!?!?

WHAT WAS IN THE CHEST, SUGAR?!

...Okay. That’s it. That’s everything I want to say. Hmm. Looking back, I’m surprised how little Amethyst, Garnet, Connie, and Greg figure into my desires. I guess I’m totally complacent about their current status in the story.

So, I hope you’ll join me tomorrow when we take our first look at Steven Universe Future! Until then... Check out my analysis of the new Opening, if you haven’t already!

[politicaltheatre]

“conservative”

With CPAC speakers once again defending the rights to own assault weapons and not to pay taxes, and once again attacking gun violence victims and the role of any government beyond the military in our lives, it is once again time to discuss the word on which their toxic ideology places so much weight:

"conservative"

It is the first "C" in CPAC. With everything going on, and going wrong, it might seem like a waste of time to talk about a single word, but few words are more at the heart of what is going on and what is going wrong for our country and for the rest of the world today than that one, single word.

No doubt, if you find yourself reading this or anything else tagged "politics", you've already spent years running across politicians and especially journalists using the words "conservative" and "conservatism" when they mean "right-wing" or something even more extreme. If it feels confusing and/or wrong, trust that. It is.

Look up synonyms for "conservative" and you'll find a surprisingly wide range of meanings. A dictionary will tell you everything from "right-wing" to "moderate", which obviously are not synonyms for each other. So, what then is "conservative"?

One thing is most clearly is not is anything about the behavior or ideology of our current president. Nor can it be used to describe millions of his most rabid supporters. Tax cuts for the rich that increase the federal deficit are not conservative. Deregulation, both de jure and de facto, is most definitely not conservative. Playing "chicken" on foreign policy with countries holding nuclear weapons and with other countries once held as allies could not be less conservative. As for the personal behavior and leadership on social issues, well, the tweets speak for themselves.

This is why the continued use of the word "conservative" is such a problem. It suggests that there is something reasonable about what is done under its protective shield. It normalizes it.

That the right wing in our country and elsewhere have sought and found this protection is no accident. Politicians and journalists have used "conservative" for at least two centuries to cover any political thing to the "right of center", and have done so for no other reason than sheer laziness. It's lazy because the world to the right (or left) of center extends as far as any ideology can go.

Is someone who is fiscally risk averse yet socially progressive the same as someone fiscally risk taking yet socially repressive? Ask most journalists and they'll say "no", yet they'll still describe both of them as "conservative".

The eternal irony here is that "conservative" really is just another way of saying "moderate", which is itself just another way of saying "risk averse". That's how the word started in politics and how it was used. "Conservative" meant being opposed to change, while "liberal" meant being open to change.

It's easy to see how confusing that must have been the first time someone wanted to change something back, but politicians and the journalists ever since have saddled us with the term "liberal" to describe anything demanding more government and "conservative" as anything demanding less.

Idiots.

The result is that we can't really trust either word, and we really need to be able to trust words. If we can't trust words we can't trust each other. The right-wing know this all too well, which is why they try so hard to destroy our ability to trust everything.

Being "conservative" works for them. Right up until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, a sizable portion of Americans supported "Lucky Lindy" and his America First movement. Charles Lindbergh claimed it was all about preserving American traditions and not risking American lives for other peoples' problems, but it turned out that that was all just a line.

In appealing to the selfish desire not to have to fight on behalf of another, Lindbergh was advocating on behalf of a Nazi ideology that was at that very moment slaughtering thousands a day in Europe, a Nazi ideology that he and many of his most powerful supporters kind of liked. Lindbergh was fine with the notion of "might makes right" and the suffering of those who got in the Nazis' way. “Strong leadership” were the euphemistic words for it.

Lindbergh's stated position may accurately be described as "conservative", in that it would have in the moment he said saved American tax dollars and lives, however put in context it may also be described as "repugnant". As everyone learned all too quickly, America First would only have made America last to fall, and perhaps not even that.

Truly conservative thinking stretches out beyond the here and now. What is the risk of not intervening? What is the ultimate cost of allowing innocents to suffer while we could have protected them? These were the same questions asked during the Great Depression, ones asked after doing nothing had allowed the suffering to expand to the point of catastrophe.

After the war came a series of movements far to the right of center. McCarthyism promoted the fear of a "red menace". Dixiecrats, aided by their good friends in white sheets, promoted a fear of "uppity n*****rs". Objectivists promoted the fear of being made to be accountable to others. The John Birch Society managed to promote all three, which make perfect sense because all of these movements share, as all right-wing movements do, the same greed for power and the same desperate fear of losing it.

Still, as long as they were considered "fringe" movements outside the "mainstream", their power and the damage they could do remained limited. McCarthy achieved the most of both in his time, ruining countless lives in a witch hunt that lasted almost a decade. Public opinion, aided by the new medium of television and by high profile artists creating works of protest, finally turned against him and against other "extremists".

It was at this time, in the mid-1950s, that the American right-wing began a different approach. It was at this time that they began to claim the word "conservative" as their own. Savvy pitchmen such as William F. Buckley preached reactionary policies and even open racism all while claiming that they stood not for harming others but for protecting "tradition" and "values". Buckley was normalizing the Right by normalizing the pure virtue of pure selfishness.

Naturally, it didn't take long for right-wing politicians to adopt this same language of codes and dog whistles. After the first civil rights victories of the 1950s there was always going to be a backlash, and it came and went in the form of Barry Goldwater. He was Bircher but more importantly than that he was a Republican, one of the two standard political parties.

His loss was framed by the Right as call to arms. Those answering it were those southern Dixiecrats, who left the Democratic Party and formed the quite racist southern Republican bloc that we know all too well today. These newly Republican politicians and voters formed the basis of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan's "southern strategy" and much of the "base" that supports Donald Trump today.

The rest of that base comes from descendants of that other 1950s right-wing group, the Objectivists, aka, followers of Ayn Rand. You may hear the word "libertarian" thrown around a lot with them and with the John Birch Society, but they are about as libertarian as Donald Trump is conservative.

To be libertarian, truly libertarian, is not just about wanting not to have to be accountable to anyone, but accepting that no one else has to be accountable to you. That last part is difficult to live with, and difficult to survive, which is why so few true libertarians actually exist.

No, what Ayn Rand, ideological idol to selfish 12 year-old boys of all ages, and Robert Welch, maker of Sugar Daddy lollipops and John Birch founder, wanted was what must now seem all too familiar: they must never have to be accountable to others but everyone must still have to be accountable to them.

If that sounds familiar it's because it is the very ideology promoted by Rand fanboy Paul Ryan, by his budgeting counterpart, Mick Mulvaney, and by Mulavney's boss, Donald J. Trump. It is nothing less than the ideology at the corrupt heart of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. It is behind every executive order Trump has signed, every budget and tax cut he has proposed, and every appointment he has made for the purpose of destroying government's ability to oversee and regulate industry and commerce.

Those in positions of power in today's Republican Party could reasonably be called many things. They may accurately be called "reactionary" or "regressive". They, through action or inaction, could accurately be called "racist" or "misogynist". One could make an excellent case for calling them "callous", "unsympathetic", "sociopathic", and simply "selfish". One could, and perhaps should, think of them as "aggressively selfish", in the way that a small, spoiled child is both greedy and quick to anger when he does not get what he wants when he wants it.

The one thing it makes no sense to call any of them, however, is "conservative". Until we and our friends in journalism understand and accept that that one word should not be used, all of those other words and the behavior and choices that reflect them and expand their reach will remain protected and normalized under it.

For the sake of all of the good, necessary things that "conservative" should only ever mean, this is why we must focus on a single word. Call it, "self preservation".

- Daniel Ward