#This post is about Fighting Capitalism and how some people don't understand how to do that

[moongothic]

Especially with things like alt fashion, I understand how people look at how obscenely expensive certain things can be and how many people will decide to make their own dupes instead because it's cheaper

But sometimes I just wish people would just understand that the dupe of a 30 dollar alt fashion t-shirt you made with cheap acrylic paint onto a 1 dollar plastic t-shirt from Walmart or Shein or Amazon isn't the Epic Own Against The Rich you think it is

Like yes the 30 dollar t-shirt is expensive but also like

This isn't Super Scientific but you get the idea

The more expensive an item is, the more likely it is the item was made with fair labour (costs money), responsibly sourced materials (costs money) and is of higher quality (also costs money). Also, especially with things like alt fashion, by buying from an alternative creator/brand you are directly supporting the subculture

Meanwhile the plastic t-shirt you painted-- well it was already going to shed microplastics in the wash but now it'll shed even more because that paint isn't going to hold up with time. Like congrats, you made your own fast fashion piece, I'm sure Walmart appreciates the money you gave them.

Mind you, the big caveat here is that, of course, brands can still make their products as dirt cheap as they can and still hike up the price an obscene amount, I am absolutely not saying that cost = quality or anything like that (I think any of the "classy fashion brands" like IDK Gucci or whatever are a great example of that)

Like. All I'm saying is that sometimes when things are expensive, ot's because they're genuinely worth the cost, and making dupes of products from small niche businesses with mass produced materials from big box stores isn't fighting against capitalism, it's contributing to it

[germiyahu]

There's such an intricate interplay between antisemitism and islamophobia from the slacktivist left. For every reason they can think of to delegitimize the Jewish People's connection to Eretz Yisrael, it's propped up by some Noble Savage presumptions about Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims.

Since Jews in America are seen as a model minority, seen as having accessed whiteness and privilege, and "antisemitism" is at worst having to explain what Hanukah is to clueless Christians, the Left is confused as to exactly why Jews care about Jerusalem and the Land of Israel so much. Shouldn't they be above such petty and barbaric and outdated concerns such as a dusty old book from 2,000 years ago?

They should be more enlightened than that. They're all rich suburban secular Democrats. They're the leftist religion, according to bloggers on this very platform. There is no room for Judaism to be a religion, there's no acknowledgment of ancient customs, rituals, and the deep mysticism that's still alive and well in the Jewish community. There's no attempt to understand Jewish history and culture and why a group of people you think shares your vaguely atheistic vaguely liberal (and not in the Tankie sense) vaguely smug detached Western worldview... is more complex and unique than that.

Jews should be happy living in Diaspora because clearly the problem of antisemitism is fixed now, and never really was a problem in America. There must be something sinister behind a desire to reestablish a country by and for Jews. There must be something colonial, oppressive, European and White about it. Because why else would they do it? They have it good here. And no we won't acknowledge where Israelis primarily descend from because that requires us to do research and have a shred of nuance and integrity when it comes to Jews. No thanks!

A lot of the modern left is nonconsensually dragging Jews kicking and screaming from their own unique demographic toward the banal Norm. To themselves. But not totally. See they think they relate to Jews and vice versa, but not enough that when they think Jews should "know better," or haven't "learned their lesson," from the Holocaust, it engenders a deep seeded disgust and mistrust and rage that's not felt for actually privileged mainstream dominant society.

Conversely, the slacktivist Left sees Arabs as savages. Silly desert people who eat sand and worship a big black cube and cover every inch of their bodies for some reason. How quaint! When the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim cause explains that Jerusalem is important to them, the White Western Leftist nods sagely and says "Your culture is so valid queen," because they don't care. They just accept that Muslim society would be willing to fight over an ancient city proscribed as holy in dusty old tomes. Because that fits the narrative already surrounding Muslims.

They're seen as backwards, but the Left, reacting to their conservative parents and the Bush era, see "Muslims are backwards," and says not "No actually they're modern groups of people with practical geopolitical goals," but instead "Yeah and that makes them better than us!" Especially with this new crop of baby Leftists who think Islamo-Fascist "Feudalism" or whatever the best term would be, is aspirational or at least harmless... because it's not capitalism :)

So Muslims are infantilized and condescended to because the Western Leftist is still just as racist as their parents, but they feel guilty about their parents without considering their contribution to White Supremacy and the Post Bush surveillance state. And all the while Jews are reprimanded and held to an impossible standard because the Western Leftist, again, rejects their conservative parents' philosemitism, and decides that Jews Must be Punished when they step off the pedestal that Suffering the Shoah placed them on.

Jews should be above nationalism, Jews should know that demurely suffering pogroms and ethnic cleansing and genocide and general inequity and humiliation will earn them their divine reward in the end. Muslims should not be above nationalism, because they're not capable of being above it, and can't we throw them a bone, after all Obama was the worst president in history because of the Drone War and let's not mention George W Bush at all :0

Hot take, but I believe this is an essential underpinning of where the average disaffected White millennial/zoomer Leftist's head is at with regard to Israel and Palestine. They won't acknowledge it of course, but I can generally see through things like this.

[matan4il]

Daily update post:

Israel has been preparing for the possibility of a direct strike from Iran. To that end, the IDF has been initiating GPS jamming, first in the south, and now in central Israel as well. On a personal note, I had to calm my mom down today (I could do this thanks to having heard about it on the news already), because it's a scary thing for people, and they don't know what to think, when they open Waze and find themselves "appearing" in enemy territory. Iran's attack options might also include drone attacks, or anti-Jewish terrorist attacks around the world. We've heard about Esther and Mordechai's Tomb being attacked tonight in Iran itself.

Speaking of the country that's the biggest funder of terrorism globally, tomorrow it's "Al-Quds Day" (Jerusalem Day) in Iran. It was established in 1979, after the Islamist revolution, as an antisemitic political measure, meant to help radicalize people against the Jewish state. Officially, it's a protest of Israel's sovereignity in Jerusalem, the city which has been the capital of the Jewish people, the place we pray to, for over 3,000 years, longer than Islam has existed. Some people worry that Iran will use this date specifically to strike against Israel or other Jewish targets around the world.

With or without connection, the chief of Israel's army intelligence is quoted as saying in private conversations, "I have told you time and time again that it is not certain that the worst is behind us and we are ahead of complex days."

Back in February, we heard that the niece of Hamas' overall leader, Ismail Haniyeh, gave birth in an Israeli hospital, and her baby, which was born prematurely, was treated in an Israeli hospital's NICU, the same hospital that had to have millions of shekels spent on, in order to make parts of it safe during Hamas' rocket attacks. While at it, we were reminded that several of Haniyeh's sisters live in Israel after marrying Israeli Bedouins, and that a few more of his relatives were allowed from Gaza into Israel for medical treatment. Just a small reminder that Haniyeh's personal wealth is estimated to be somewhere between 4 to 5 billion dollars (Taylor Swift's is only a little over 1 billion dollars), and if he wanted to, he could have flown his entire family out of there, to join him in Qatar, with the best facilities and care, rather than get medical care at a hospital subsidized by the "genocidal Zionist enemy."

Now we get the news that one of Haniyeh's sisters, a 57 years old woman, has been arrested for helping Hamas, including support for the Oct 7 massacre.

This is 34 years old Lidor Levi.

He was critically injured in the Palestinian terrorist attack in Gan Yavne. He was in a hospital, fighting for his life for 4 days. Today we got the news that he succumbed to his wounds. He leaves a pregnant wife and a daughter behind. May his memory be a blessing.

I will never understand how the accidental killing of 7 civilians in Gaza is making more headlines, and causes more rage, than the on going and intentional killing of so many Israeli civilians targeted in terrorist attacks along this entire war. I can't remember the world even addressing it, let alone raging about how unacceptable these killings are, and how they're proof that Palestinian terrorist organizations must be stopped. For that matter, I haven't come across anywhere as many headlines and world leaders' statements about an intentional drone attack that killed several rescue workers in Kharkiv, where a residential area was targeted. The hyperfocus on the one conflict where Jews can be demonized, is also leaving a lot less attention for, practical aid, and just general caring about other conflicts, which are in many ways far worse (just look at Tigray alone on the below map). It's harmful to so many more people than we come close to realizing.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[alpaca-clouds]

The Power Of Media

I need do address one thing, because I see that kinda mindset creep up again and again.

Basically, under postings about utopian media, be it Star Trek, Solarpunk, or - heck - just bare Hopepunk, sometimes people will just go: "Media does not do shit. It does not change the world."

And that just is... demonstrably fault and a very defeatist attitude.

Now, one thing first: Yes, media on its own will not change the world. It will not. If you have this mindset, you are right in so far. We can have endless amounts of hopeful media and the world will not change from it.

But...

We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words. - Ursula K. LeGuin

This quote of Ursula K. LeGuin is very powerful to me. Because it really captures the issue very well.

See. Right now we get bombarded with capitalist propaganda left and right. It already starts in school, we will often get it at home and obviously in media again and again.

It is so hard to escape, that to many it is hard to imagine that there ever could be anything else. I mean, we even have the issue within Solarpunk. When I read through those Solarpunk Anthologies, I will again and again find stories, that feature either capitalist worlds - or a world that has to be rebuild after the apocalypse. Because people really struggle imagining how it could be otherwise.

And this is why fiction is so important. Why Hopepunk is so important.

A lot of young people right now are able to see that the system is broken, that it has left them behind. Most young folks, who do not come from generational wealth, see that they will under the current system never own their own house. Their own retirement seems to be rather unlikely. And that is, if they do not die before from either the effects of climate change, from some pandemic through which we have to work because line needs to go up, or just in general because the health care system does not take care of them.

And these young people are willing to fight. They are. But right now they are only fighting against a system. They do not know what they fight for.

I know, for some this might sound like a small thing. But it is not. Especially not in a world, where more and more people are struggling with their mental health.

People need hope.

And again: No, it is not enough on its own. Just hopeful fiction on its own runs the danger of just being endless escapism.

We also need to offer mutual aid for each other. We also need to organize. And, yeah, we need to protest and actually get out there to fight.

But don't underestimate the power of fiction, when it comes to giving people something to fight for.

We know that media and stories have these powers. It is, after all, why those in powers dripfeed us the kinda stories that vilify those, who want to change the system. That tell us, that "everything is fine, okay, just trust the good billionaires" and what not. Because they understand this power.

And we should not leave this power to them along.

[katapotato55]

How to write a good metaphor

yall seemed to like my post on "how to write good horror" so i figured i should make another one of these.

1- do. not. explain. the. metaphor.

don't.

"oh but how will the audience know my deep and meaningful message- "

SOME PEOPLE WONT GET IT. if you explain what you mean then suddenly the metaphor won't be deep anymore. it becomes a generic forced message.

i know you are tempted to make a character infodump about everything, fucking don't.

followup on this:

2- a good metaphor should potentially have multiple interpretations.

"but i don't want people to get the wrong impression of the story!"

then you either need to make damn sure its an elegantly written metaphor, or none at all. the death of the author is the idea that everyone has their own vision of a story they read, rearguards of authors intent. you need to come to terms with this or else you won't improve your writing skills.

you need to trust that your audience is intelligent enough to understand the metaphor on their own without bashing them over the head with it. sometimes people misunderstand meaning, it is a fact of life.

The game little inferno was thought of as a metaphor about pollution, in which later the creators went out to say it was actually about capitalism and wasting your life with things like exploitative mobile games. you just need make it SUBTLE and hope for the best.

3- The story/gameplay/etc should inform the metaphor(and sometimes reference real life examples)

To mention little inferno again, the "you must wait x amount of time for in-game item to be given to you" is a mirror of mobile games in the real world that use timers to leach money from you.

another example: analogue horror.

broken old technology is scary on its own, but many good analogue horror artists tend to use this to the advantage.

analogue horror can be used as a metaphor for dying trends and technology, like how in the 30's through 70's we used asbestos in the walls. Analogue horror makes a great parralel to this idea (see Blue_channel by gooseworx for a good example.) . the audience questions WHY this is on an old CRT tv and not just a smartphone, perhaps to imply this was an event that happened years ago.

undertale is another example, where most RPG's encourage you to fight and to level up, undertale uses this as a simple metaphor about obsessive control and being cruel to get an arbitrary achievement (i recommend the escapist's video on "why i didn't review undertale" on youtube for way better examples)

tldr: a metaphor is stronger if you lightly reference real life occurances and implement your metaphor in the medium presented.

4- the curtains are blue because they are blue.

not everyone is going to understand your metaphor

and not everyone is going to notice every single little metaphor you add to your story.

remember those teachers that would constantly stretch to imply something in a story is a metaphor and that the curtains are blue because of some deep metaphor for death and sadness and shit?

those teachers are full of it. ignore them.

metaphors are allowed to be simple. not every metaphor needs to be a hyper deep depth defying world changing thing. I could even argue a bunch of small metaphors connected to each other can be better than one big metaphor depending on your story.

relax. don't think too much about it because your average audience member won't.

5- study movies, tv, books, games, etc and understand why their metaphors work.

don't fall into that "the curtains are blue because of a deep message" English teacher mindset mind you.

"but how do i tell what is and isn't a metaphor?" you may ask

simple. trust your gut. you won't understand everything you come across but the human brain has a way of telling what is and isn't a metaphor in stories.

(spoiler about bugsnax)

I could argue Bugsnax is a metaphor about drug abuse and addiction. The characters have personality traits commonly associated with people vulnerable to drug addiction. An athlete, a hippy, a married couple going through a rough spot in their marriage with the threat of divorce, a mentally ill person with trauma and paranoia, etc.

It isn't obvious, many people may disagree with me, but you can't deny that there are signs i may be right.

(end of spoiler) the point i am trying to make: don't stretch to find a metaphor when you don't see one. if you are curious google other people's theories and make your own opinion. metaphors are hard and you will learn over time. and finally 6- do not ever do "it was all just a dream" or "the character is secretly in a coma" etc this applies to writing in general but it is still related to metaphors. the only time i have seen this done well is driver san francisco, but what it did right was A- make it so the players can guess ahead of time the mystery, such as the radio saying voices of your character in the hospital, or if you zoomed out you could hear a heart monitor. and B- it didn't completely un-do the entire story. that is my core issue with this trope. it either wastes your time un-doing the entire story readers worked hard to finish, or it is just nonsensical and terrible. "dora the explorer is actually in purgatory!" "spongebob is a metaphor for the 7 deadly sins!" "ash is in a coma and that is why he never ages! " ooooor it is a cartoon and you are forcing meaning that doesn't exist in something that doesn't even imply it. the world being a bit weird is not enough to be a metaphor for anything. If you want to make a good metaphor: do more effort than just slapping a lazy "it was all a coma" thing at the end. Like horror, stuff like this needs to be built up properly. also consider authors intent. I understand death of the author and all of that, but do you really think a retired marine biologist made spongebob to be a complex metaphor about sinners in hell ? (rip Stephen Hillenburg btw. we didn't deserve him.) thank you for reading, hope this helps. and please, learn to understand the tropes of metaphors before you attempt to make the story of a generation. edit- adding a couple more things i forgot 7- "the darkness is going to destroy the land or whatever!" i see this used all the time. spooky wookey dark shadowy bits going to destroy a land and is the hero's generic bad thing to fight. stop it. it is not a deep and complex metaphor about depression or whatever the hell you are on about. its lazy and stupid. 8- a story should stand up on its own regardless if audience members understand the metaphor or not I don't like Gris. it is a very pretty game with lovely visuals But also the entire story is just the main character moping about artistically and shit and go on about how artistically sad and dramatic this all is. if i don't understand the story without understanding the metaphor, then your story and your metaphor sucks. an example of a metaphor done well: spiritfairer without the metaphor, it is a simple game about running a traveling boat. even if you didn't care too much about the deeper meaning it is a cute story and the gameplay is fun (spoiler) if you look deeper, it can also be taken as a metaphor about greif and learning to accept your loved ones will one day die. things like the boat being filled with empty houses you can't remove is a good example of this. (end of spoiler) your story needs to stand up on its own to be good. don't use a metaphor as a crutch.

[girafeduvexin]

Thinking about Yulia and Victor. I mixed P1 and P2 here, not everything in P1 is still true in P2 but anyway :

- they share the same theme "Useless science", which could have been Daniil's theme too. They both have huge library, again certainly like Daniil would have if he lived here. All of them studied at the Capital : they are scholars, intellectuals... but it's useless against the Plague.

- Yulia and Victor visit the hospital and are, with Lara, the only npc to do that (not counting Rubin and Clara because they're healers and they are supposed to be here). They are also both in the town hall when Block arrives, with Daniil. They might be intellectuals but they are also pragmatics - it's especially interesting for Yulia because she's neither a leader nor a healer but she still wants to help.

- Yulia has an high opinion of Victor, and while I don't think Victor ever talked about her, she was invited by the Kains to the town iirc, so he must appreciate her, at least professionally.

- He's an Utopian and he's devoted to sacrifice his own life for the greater good. She's an Humble and she's ready to... sacrifice her life for the greater good (in P1 at least). She's the founder of the Humbles, but she used to work with the Kains : her fatalism directly opposes their utopism, but in the end, Utopians and Humbles sacrifice themselves anyway. She compares herself to Simon while talking to Clara which... says a lot.

(Could do a whole post about the Utopians and the irony for Daniil, who wants to fight death, to have as a bound people who are fully ready to die for a greater cause (Eva, the Kains) or self-destructives (the Stamatins) )

- More on that, Yulia wants Victor to lead the town, but he doesn't seem to want to, and he apparently would rather have a more passive role (like he had when Nina was alive). This behavior is very.... humble, maybe?

- This one is more... dubious but they are both, imo, aware of the true nature of the town, to some extent : a game. Yulia is a fatalist, she "predicts" events, which could be explained by her realizing her choices don't matter in this game. Clara says in Marble Nest that she's the only person to "truly understands" what's going on... As for Victor, it might be far-fetched but in P2, he created the clocks you use to save and he discusses time and how it works in the game, nearly breaking the fourth wall. He also says stuff like "in reality, this town looks completely different" or "it's like something is pulling my strings" and hm. Waiting for the Bachelor route to say more.

- He made the clocks you use to save... She made the roads, therefore the map, you use to guide yourself in the city, to see your objectives etc.

[wumblr]

Hello! I have seen the discourse about Eurovision around here and I just wanted to ask you, since I have seen the post about someone’s friend’s dad having alzheimer and Eurovision being a tradition they are keeping alive I guess, did the person who wrote that watch Eurovision too? Because if he/she/they did then I agree with your statement about responsibility, but if he/she/they didn’t and are only showing why some people might have wanted to watch Eurovision, then I don’t fully understand your post bashing that person. I wanted to ask you becaue I’ve seen people get crazy about the topic but never really saying anything, and I think you’re pretty honest so I just wanted to know. I didn’t watch it as a boycott, and I have a co-worker who did watch it because he’s been doing it every year for like 5 years or so, and I was confused after reading your post because I understood him but was mad that he couldn’t understand why I was boycotting, and I want to know what’s your take on this, if you would give it to me. Thanks!

there's this implication here that the most important thing in the world is politeness that i really don't like. if we can have a civil discussion about two million people dying of starvation, they're going to die while we're having it! the illusion of civility has collapsed. i never bought into it in the first place, but i am capable of recognizing that other people did

note that i am not telling you how to treat your coworkers! i am pointing out that jumping into the discussion online to only say that we should respect them is a ludicrous way to behave, and it makes you look monstrous in a really particular way: unwilling to take responsibility for your own viewpoint, you have to couch it in an absent third party. "but they're so nice and sweet, would you really be rude to them too?" YES! people are dying of starvation! hello?

this comes across as nothing more than a weak-willed way to check if your perspective is really that reprehensible without taking responsibility for yourself. it's hard to believe that you genuinely don't recognize which side of the conflict arguing this point places you on. "but some people --" ok well let me know when they show up so i can dress them down directly to their face too! until then, it's just you and i having the discussion. "but i didn't watch --" then what's the issue, exactly? you are not thoroughly comfortable with your decision not to watch tv? you don't know how to engage in a tv show boycott and still go to work without starting an argument that loses you your job? you're scared of losing friends for doing the right thing? welcome to the shitshow. glad you finally made it. if you could figure it the fuck out for yourself, things might move quicker than they will if you keep asking other people to explain the basics to you over and over!

the third thing i have already said that i would like to reiterate once again is that i'm ashamed this is the location of the frontline. i don't want to have this conversation either! i didn't pick this! but we are in an information war. the weight of the world's 100 trillion dollar pool of capital is bearing down upon us, and they have figured out how to operate in unilateral lockstep aligned with their class interests. you are walking up to the frontline and saying "why are you fighting? can't we all sit down for a nice dinner together?" shut the fuck up! are you joking? people are dying of starvation! if you would get out of the way, the frontline could advance to somewhere less fucking trivial!

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

You and @aifsaath hold a certain aversion to the Starks during the Dance from what I could understand in a previous post of yours, ( i’m so happy to find likeminded people!) and I’d really like to know your opinion! Cregan’s of no interest to me and the Starks as a whole annoy and bore me 😅

@aifsaath and I are certainly are not subtle about our thoughts on Cregan! I don't actually mind the Starks as a whole in the main series. They're not my favorites, but generally they're fine. I think the fanbase is too reductive about that house though, and people treat Cregan as another Ned when in fact they're very different characters. This might get long!

Ned is extremely reluctant to get involved with anything in the capital. It's one of his most redeeming qualities, to me, the lengths he goes to keep his family out of royal politics. Bobby B. has to show up on his doorstep and practically drag him out of the North, and he's doomed the moment he becomes Hand. His honor is also sometimes too rigid, and GRRM invites us to really think about how inflexible moral codes sometimes stand in the way of the greater good. There is also a whole through line in ASOIAF about oaths and the impossibility of upholding all oaths and simultaneously acting according to one's conscience. This all gets tossed out the window when it comes to how large swaths of this fandom view Cregan, however! Cregan sits out nearly the entire war, but gets willingly and gleefully involved at the end when the dragons are gone and the armies on both sides are pretty spent. Okay, he's harvesting or whatever, fair enough, but because he and Jeyne Arryn have sat out the entire war while the two sides were obliterating each other, doing sweet fuck all while their queen and her whole family died, they have fresh armies while everyone else is pretty much spent. Then they decide to roll up when the fighting is already done, bully and threaten all of these people who have lost their entire families in this war, all for the sake of putting a highly traumatized ten year old on the throne. Cregan made an oath by golly, and he's going to stick to it. And speaking of traumatized kids, "the Lads" are often read as being cool and badass but Benjicot Blackwood had been fighting in this war since he was eleven, and we know GRRM is not generally trying to glorify child soldiers in his work, so what's up? The Lads lost their fathers in this war, they're ready to make peace, then Cregan shows up and tells them they're pussies if they don't want to keep fighting (even after Aegon II is dead and Aegon III is king) because now he's got to invade the Reach for some fucking reason. Apparently the only person in the entire realm who hasn't had enough of war is Cregan and so everyone else should just go along with that (and I've seen the suggestion that he needed to cull his population but that's sounds like a Cregan problem not a realm problem). It's only Black Aly's promise to marry him if he stops that gets him to back off. This is not Nedlike behavior and it irritates me to no end that Cregan is considered another Ned, and that being a Stark means his actions automatically get painted with a patina of honor. That's not even getting into how he handles the poisoning of Aegon II (often held up as a sign of his honor), how Aegon III has to beg for the life of his sister's grandfather, how Cregan's interference creates a power vacuum that allows Aegon III to be isolated under a regency that should have, by rights, included at least one of his sisters, but instead, beyond Corlys (who is 80 at this point), is full of strangers who don't give a toss about him (one of whom is responsible for the murder of his wife), and completely ignore his wishes until he comes of age. So yeah, not a Cregan fan!

[jingerpi]

@matmat99 moving since the original post is already very long

I understand this difficulty and thought it might be worth discussing. while I can't fix this I can maybe provide some perspective.

this issue if "what makes good, good" has been a philosophical issue for a long time. pretty much the only groups which have a consistent answer are religious groups which say it is ordained by God as Moral. there are reasons to see certain things as good outside of religion though. as someone who left religion, I had to come to terms with no longer having a "hard coded" framework for morality built into my ideology.

In part, it was easy, not being religious didn't make me suddenly want to murder people, but in part it was also difficult, because I'm someone who likes to understand things very deeply and it was something I gave a lot of thought to.

what I've come to understand isn't that you can never have ideas about morals, but that there is no absolute consensus for morality and it's simply something you have to decide on and work towards. generally it's easiest and likely best for you as an individual to value human society generally, because if you don't, human society will turn on you and you will suffer.

I genuinely believe we can come up with rational/logical reasoning for any "moral" concern which may typically be brought up. it can even be self interested, I don't think we explicitly need altruism to want good for all those around us.

there is an emotional aspect to what comes easiest though, to me it is easiest to think in terms of overall suffer reduction and pleasure maximization. that being said, this emotional easiness doesn't necessarily justify it, so I've taken steps to understand justifications for my actions distinct from my emotional biases towards them. one thing I've noticed is I can ground almost any piece of argumentation I have to my own self interest rather than to morality. I never have to make appeals to morality with my framework for understanding the world. I think capitalism should be overthrown because it oppresses many people including myself, and I will oppose anyone who wants to keep it. not because it's morally wrong but because it hurts me and the people I care about.

If we want to address how to handle morality when something may not directly benefit us, we can still understand how it may help in an indirect way. For an example, I am white and I live in the imperial core. I naturally due to no specific choices of my own benefit from racism and imperialism. So you may ask, if you justify your beliefs on self interest, why do you advocate for and participate in anti-imperialism? This is because I understand Capitalism as a force which subjugates society not just into classes, but into class stratifications. Capitalists will give us (white people and other privileged/oppressive groups) concessions or temporary/marginal power over other stratifications of our class as a way to keep us from uniting with each other against capitalists. I deeply believe that any benefits I could get from embracing racism/imperialism/etc are outweighed by those I stand to gain from solidarity with said groups in our fight against Capitalism-Imperialism. this is especially apparent to me as I am myself multiply marginalized.

It's not a position I came to hold purely out of self interest, I do genuinely also just think it's correct in an emotional sense, but I believe my emotions are founded in materialist reasons, not abstract moral ones, and the above passage outlined the materialist reasons I align myself with other minorities and turn away from things which may appear to interest me in the short term.

I do think the bourgeoisie would and do have fundamentally different conceptions of morality from me, but instead of trying to convince them through abstract argumentations with regards to morality and emotional appeals, I will instead argue rationally that their empire will fall and that they will face the wrath of the Proletariat. Proletarian victory is all but inevitable, you don't want to fight us, and plus, would you feel better if you weren't responsible for countless murders? notice that last part, you can still use emotional moral appeals, but they have to be backed up by real, rational appeals. Call them threats if you want, or arguments or whatever, power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and the concept of morality simply doesn't help with that, Materialism does.

it's far from a single absolute and concrete answer but I think this will provide enough information to provoke further thought. it's genuinely worth thinking about and it's something philosophers have argued about for centuries (take a look at the is-ought problem for example). overall I hope this was helpful and I appreciate your response to my post. have a lovely day/night/etc

[grim-echoes]

Any thoughts on what's up with the Accelerated Dynamics nightmare dungeon? The obvious surface is about corporate greed, but how does that relate directly to Jimmy's life like the other nightmare dungeons do?

i've been slacking on the analysis posts a hell of a lot but this is one of the dungeons i've been looking for an opportunity to talk about because it's another one of those inclusions in jatpm that i think gets overlooked because it doesn't have an immediately obvious interpretation like some others do (or, as obvious as is possible for your average jimmy fan). i've done a lot of thinking about it, and a while back had this realization (slight tw for very very brief suicide mention, also obvious spoilers ahead):

kasey definitely put a lot of his own personal grievances with capitalism into accelerated dynamics, but in my opinion it's an incomplete picture without taking megatropolis as a whole into consideration. terminal illness is extremely costly to treat and particularly in the US, it's (in my experience) much more terrifying to imagine being unable to afford the cost of healthcare than it is to actually fall ill and require treatment. even with insurance covering the cost of medical supplies and bills most people continue to struggle to feed, clothe, and house themselves, and that's assuming they do have health insurance that covers the right necessities to begin with.

i say this because i doubt jimmy's cancer treatment was at all affordable given that he's already been through chemotherapy once before, and has spent the entirety of his second battle comatose while his family continues to work not just to support themselves, but to try and save his life. this isn't to argue that money troubles were absolutely a factor in his family's life because of his illness because we don't know much at all about their financial situation--more that this is a terrifying reality for many, many families fighting illnesses, and megatropolis is representative of something that jimmy and his family don't have the luxury of anymore: leisure.

accelerated dynamics is set in a sprawling city landmarked by arcades, shopping malls, theaters, toy company headquarters, and a massive school campus, all adjacent to a high-class beach resort. it's a stark contrast in atmosphere that was likely very intentional--accelerated dynamics is devoid of personality and wonder in comparison to bonita vista or even shinryu and features workplace ambience as its area theme and visuals of skeletal employees hanged outside the office windows. i think a lot of people were incredibly disappointed in mr grouse as a character to see that his humble beginnings had led him to this point, but i think the commentary runs a lot deeper and touches on this incredibly grave aspect of illness and thus jimmy's personal life that can be easy to miss for the trees; mr grouse tells jimmy before the fight that he used to dream of his banking business growing bigger and bigger and that now, with the advent of it having grown so big that it's now expanded into an entire enterprise, he understands the power and influence that money can buy him, but more than anything he now conceptualizes how terrifying it is to lose that wealth.

his dialogue after the fight is an admission that wealth completely and utterly eroded his morals and that jimmy should enjoy his innocence while he can--this is the incomprehensible, horrifying world of adulthood that he couldn't possibly understand at this age--and it's very clear that this is (one of) the intended angle(s) of this dungeon's theme where jimmy will never live long enough to understand the complications of growing older and losing his innocence to concepts like late stage capitalism, but mr grouse phrases his dialogue like an earnest request for reflection, something for jimmy to consider in a way that his brain can more easily deconstruct--think of all the things you could do if you had practically infinite wealth, and the only thing you had to worry about was not having money.

if jimmy and his family had infinite wealth, then maybe they'd be able to afford luxury resorts and theme parks and theaters and shopping trips again. if jimmy and his family had infinite wealth, maybe they wouldn't need to work themselves into an early grave over their child's deathbed.

[spiralling-thoughts]

i know you’ve talked about otto & ginnee before but i’ve been thinking about them lately so i was wondering if you have any other headcanons to share? i especially like ginnee & i think she and sheaf would have been good friends if they had the chance!

Oh thanks for asking this is my chance to get to talk about something I came up with

I started headcanoning that otto and ginnee are part of a group that call themselves "scavengers of the tunnels " they are a group of kids who loves causing mischief in areas of district 6 and the more adventurous ones steal from the peacekeepers and cause mischief to annoy them then runaway without the peacekeepers noticing them although this is not a recurring practice they always need to come up with well thought out plans for this stunts Otto is part of the group who loves causing mischief and stole supplies from the peacekeepers on few occasions, the group have their secret hideout in a abounded underground tunnel and ginnee like decorationing the hideout with some of their artistic friends each members of the group have their own talents like painting, building from scraps, mechanically smart and some do parkour and gymnastics they also get into typical street kids shenanigans if you are fimalir with ekko and his friends from arcane and riot games this group is like them, they also paint memorials for the children who get reaped s die in the games I also headcanon district 6 as having their own salute similar to district 12 so when Otto and ginnee were reaped their friends did the salute when they were both on stage

I know I said in a previous post that Otto doesn't hate the ring twins.... yeah that changed he hates them with a capital H , he doesn't trust them, he hates that they told him and ginnee to do something to hype the crowd, he is angry that if he managed to win they would benefit from it while he will only have trama and blood on his hands and the lose of his friend he Envy the fact that they never had to work a day in their lives or had to take on the responsibility of providers when they were children he resent how they never witnessed the cruelty he witnessed and how they are involved in the system responsible for his suffering, he wanted to reject the food he got from performing and the what the ring twins have brought them but the need to eat outweight his hatred , Otto was also battling the urge to throw dirt in the faces of the capitol folk who were gawking at them but ginnee stopped him I see her as the more responsible and quieter of the two and she remains neutral towards the ring twins although she too was suspicious of their intentions

I once imagined a scenario where ginnee and panlo were staring at eachother in confusion because they don't understand why Otto and sheaf are at each others throats I also headcanon ginnee as a curious person so maybe she would take the straight route and ask sheaf about the beef between her and Otto and yeah I can see them being friends if given the chance I headcanon that they both have big imaginations and get lost in their own worlds so they would talk about that, I also see ginnee being friends with teslee as they both like making things from junk and are both nerdy , I also see Otto as being friends with circ if given the chance I headcanon that circ too had to take on the responsibility of a provider for his family , Otto is deep down a empathetic person and he empathize with other people who are in a similar situation to his ( I am still trying to figure out why he was beefing with sheaf though but hey none is perfect)

Otto was determined to at least try to win he couldn't go out without a fight whereas ginnee was going to resort to hiding and being sneaky if she went to the games she couldn't accept the idea of killing someone so she was going to resort to out of sight out of mind

These are the new ones I managed to come up with

[goldxnfemme]

So I just read your post about disability.

I have severe endometriosis. Like, couldn't eat for several days because I'd just throw it all up and falling over kinda cramps. It's better now that I'm on birth control but not entirely handled. But my Endo also causes a lot of chronic pain and migraines.

I have no idea if I'm allowed to call myself disabled. It does affect my day to day life. But I feel like no one would take me seriously. My job already doesn't. I just don't know

So I'm here to speak in general terms, because I don't feel comfortable putting on or taking off the label of disabled on somebody, that's not what I'm here to do, but I want to tell you that there's not much of a point basing your decision on how much people would take you seriously, because people don't take, even visibly, disabled people seriously all of the time, we live in a society that's extremely ableist, it's conveniently (to the system) designed for us to not be taken seriously and for us to, most of the time, not get what we need without so much of a fight, sometimes not get what we need ever.

I understand your job doesn't take you seriously and I'm sorry about that, most jobs don't really care about their employees' health or pain, unless it's something that could kill them easily because they don't want to deal with that. They care about productivity and profit, which a lot of disabled people can be behind on for various limitations so too many times they won't even hire someone who's disabled, mostly people who are physically disabled.

I'm glad your condition is better and I want to tell you that if you want that label, I'm not the authority on who can and cannot use it, but if it seems it fits you, go for it, if what you need is someone to tell you you're allowed, you are, only you know how much it affects you.

The fact that a lot of people feel they're not allowed to use it is possibly because we have normalised pain and suffering in general in order to function "normally", or in most cases try to, in a society that's not designed to cater to us, we have stigmatized disabilities, we have accepted capitalist rules that stop us from getting what we need without proving ourselves in some sort of way. At the end of the day disability or not, people should be allowed free access to healthcare, people should be allowed accommodations, people should be allowed to speak about whatever conditions they have and be taken at face value.

I have a huge problem with capitalism but that's for another post.

[cboffshore]

Since I saw you reblogging an ask post...

I was reading one of your fics on ao3 (I forgot which one :,) ) and in one of the notes you mentioned that there were certain Skybound angst tropes that you weren't quite fond of. So what are those tropes if you do mind me asking?

Hey there! Starting off with a SPICY one, that's fun. I've probably got that note on all of my Skybound stuff in some way, shape, or form, because aside from being my personal preferences, these tropes I don't like run DEEP in the fandom. This is going to get long, so under the cut we go! (Cw/tw for mentions of SA and related topics.)

There are three main tropes in Skybound fic that I dislike, but they appear so often and in so many forms that it's impossible to name them all, so they're split into three main categories for ease here. Ordered from least to most irritating:

Probably the least annoying on this list: violence and gore. This is the most understandable one that shows up - after all, this is a fighting show, and of course we've got that whole eyepatch scene to reckon with - but it's still a little annoying. I can usually work past it unless it's take 62837272727 of someone gouging out Jay's eye or a souped up Scrap n Tap scene with nothing added but more blood and gratuitous violence. Doesn't matter how creative it is, that's usually enough to make me close out unless the fic has something cooler to offer. It gets boring fast, okay? Like, I completely get it most times, but it's been done to death. Not always a total deal breaker, though. I've used shades of it in my own work, so I can't condemn it entirely.

A lethal pairing I like to call Sopping Wet Cat Jay and Therapy Dog Nya- usually comorbid, very rarely independent. This also usually presents in post-Skybound reveal/healing style fics. Sopping Wet Cat Jay is when all Jay (when presented with Skybound memories or reminders) is capable of is being absolutely, well, sopping wet and pathetic about it. Lots of crying and wailing and nightmares. Therapy Dog Nya is the traditional response to this, where Nya forgets her own trauma entirely to be a huggable object and supplier of gentle reassurance that nothing that happens to Jay was his fault. Again, I completely understand why people write these, but I feel very strongly that they're a disservice to BOTH characters. Jay flew the Keep (ETA: originally wrote Jeep lmao) straight into the Temple and threatened to turn Nadakhan into French toast! Nya DIED after spending all season trying to advocate for herself and her independence! Did we even watch the same show? Sure doesn't feel like it when I see this trope. Absolutely, yes, trauma presents weirdly down the line - but this as the default response always seems weird to me. And it shows up so, so often. Worse still is when a fic might try to give Nya a little agency and nod at her trauma, only to spin on its heel the moment the author decides Jay needs to start sobbing about mops or something. (I'm probably coming off bitter here, but let's be real: this has been happening for seven years. I'm tired.)

This one is an absolute deal breaker: gratuitous sexual assault and/or capital R offenses. Doesn't matter who it happens to, honestly, but the absolute worst is when it happens to Jay (perpetrated by Nadakhan) and when the author acts like it's canon and writes as if it's a given. I actually have already written an entire two part essay on this - part one is here, with a link to part two at the end. Some of my stances in part two have shifted slightly (for instance, I've recently blocked both case study authors because every time I see someone endorsing their work, I want to deep fry my thumbs), but for the most part, this essay conveys my feelings on, nuances of, and rough history of this trend WAY better than I can here. And if you thought #2 came off kinda bitter, well. This essay is battery acid, but I mean every word. An opinion I didn't fully examine in the essay is that I also feel it's a disservice to Nadakhan's character - he's FASCINATING, so to see him reduced to a r*pist just makes me mad. Go after him for his CANON crimes, please. Stop making stuff up!!

Anyway - thanks for the ask! If you read the essay and have any questions, please let me know.

[pentacentric]

I am so so not gonna rb that john post bc of how it frames John caring so much about Sam & not Dean & such shallow take on John overall in general but i wanted to tell you how immaculate and on points your tags were.

I don't know why it's a war (i know why & you can see which side of fandom is shaping it as if John was attending to Sam 24/7 taking him on freaking themeparks every weekend) it's frustrating & upsetting. Let's not forget that in his last living moments John he was telling Dean he gotta kill Sam. Like this guy would've killed Sam unlike Dean. But hey, Sam had such loving tender father figure who cherished him. Anyway sorry for the ramble. I rarely see someone actually acknowledging that there's NOT supposed to be a competition but minimizing Sam's abuse and suffering is very common here bc they gotta remove Sam from the story in one way or another. I even consider myself a big john lover just bc how flawed but layered and damaged he was but he wasnt a good father for Sam either. He did NOTHING for Sam. Hell it was even Dean who carried Sam out of the fire. It was Dean saving and cherishing Sam, not John. I mean, I don't think there's an argument that he loved them both but that doesn't change how be treated them BOTH

Thank you❤️ 100% in agreement with you. This fandom can be a little exhausting at times as we all know and I generally try to stay out of that kind of discourse, but sometimes stuff like it slips in my feed and I just get so frustrated and I can't help myself. It's always nice to know there's other people that understand that the whole battle thing is just pointless.

And trauma fighting aside, even, it's such a bad take on its own. Like, not only are you completely erasing Sam's whole story and character (which is pretty much a capital crime, really), you are actually doing such a disservice to Dean! It removes so much complexity and nuance from his character, and only adds to the whole boring Dean woobification syndrome where he's the only one that suffered and is alone in the world and no one understands him (except, maybe hmmm I wonder…). Like Dean didn't have Sam suffering right there by his side. Like it wasn't the two of them against the world (which John was a central pillar of). Like all of that isn't such an integral part of why they are so intrinsically intertwined, which is what makes Dean Dean and Sam Sam and drives the whole damn show! You can't say you love Dean and try to remove his actual bond with Sam or reduce it to some kind of fanonized parentified-child/golden-child guilt trap. Because that's not it at all. And if they think that, they don't know Dean it all.

And I agree with you about John. I don't hate him (and JDM made me love him, even, with the way he portrayed him), but I can also be hard on him sometimes because he does have a lot of faults and he is abusive and it's very recognizable. But it's in a very realistic way where he isn't truly a bad person. That's part of his complexity as a character and why he's interesting. Like, someone can be loving and intend to do well and have a lot of great attributes, and also a total fucking mess and abusive and a kind of shitty parent at the same time. John may have tried, but he did utterly fail them in as many ways as he overall kept them safe and cared for them. It's fascinating because in those situations children tend to be pulled between loving that parent and wanting their approval and affectio , and also being resentful and hurt and angry, and both sets of feelings are totally valid. I think the show captures that really well with the way the boys react and develop as characters themselves. Villainizing John is as reductive as erasing Sam's canon history.

[vro0m]

I agree with your prev post btw, however a similar discourse was fueling the bird app a while ago and i’ve been meaning to say something adjacent;

>>This is also all my opinion, i’m also not trying to police f1, Lord knows we have enough of that;

I personally think as long as you’re a journalist, why shouldn’t one be biased? it’s a sport at the end of the day. A technical one so there’s a more quantifiable logic but a sport regardless. I don’t like comparing F1 to other sports but atm that’s what’s lacking (imo). Rivalry makes a sport. it allows like minded people bond over mutual love/distaste (maybe those are harsh words and it gets borderline toxic most times but ygwim). Again, you and you alone are entitled to how you enjoy your hobbies.

I appreciate Max and Lewis fans so much cuz imo they’re the ones keeping the lights on. These drivers haven’t been in a title fight in a while lol but the fans would argue over the color of the sky if they could. Everyday Alonso fans say “if Alonso had gone to… in 2014, he’d have had… championships by now”. Sainz and Leclerc fans as of lately are also at each other’s throats cuz these are great drivers.

When Lewis got announced to Ferrari, people fell to their knees cuz that’s the enemy, that was the death star. Sure this may not be our grand parents Ferrari and here we sing and do marshmallow challenges now but it’s a long rivalry. Mclaren-Ferrari, Red Bull-Mercedes. I’m not trying to dissect what was said or what caused what but Toto seemingly trying to cozy up with Helmut and Max felt like backstabbing to some.

delusional takes?… exists everywhere, some driver’s fans have blamed the wind,mirrors, chassis and even his own team sabotaging him for poor performances. saying the other teammate’s win has been “nullified”.

AFCON, Nig vs Cameron, one team absolutely bottled it but the fans were dancing up until the last minute to boost morale. it’s what fans do. Objectively is good but so are biases, it makes us human imo.

These days a lot of the races imo are boring asl. It’s why DTS tries to milk slight disagreements as intra team rivalries. There’s also new wave of fans who’s welcome to the sport ofcourse but i just personally don’t understand this “I love every driver and want to see everyone do well”. If i wore an arsenal muffler with a Tottenham jersey in North london i’m getting jumped over rivalry that’s been here almost 100 years lol.

Again yes it gets extremely racist and parasocial but that’s the toxicity that doesn’t belong in a fandom but exists in most if not all. It’s all capitalism at the end of the day but at the core of it or what it should be is a sport

ps…this long ass essay lol and it’s also one of the reasons imo football socials don’t take us seriously and also calling f1 not a serious sport😅

Yeah that's what I meant by everyone is entitled to enjoy the sport the way they want. I personally think it's fine if you're 100% delulu biased following other like minded delulu biased people if that's what's fun to you! God knows the delulu posts are the funniest on this hellsite!

I understand what you mean with rivalry and I agree but personally didn't find the teamLH-orange army war fun at all because it got nasty really quickly. Fans were hating on each other and very aggressive about their opinions and I don't like that. I like heated arguments fine but when it tips into hate then it becomes a bad experience for most people.

To take your football example, I think singing songs in the stadium, making fun of the other team and fans, it's all playful and part of the culture. But fuck ultras, you know what I mean? I shouldn't be worried about getting jumped when I leave a game. Same thing goes here. The problem is a lot of people get genuinely angry at things and then genuinely aggro and that's not fun. So like I said in my previous post, if getting into fights with other people over these things is fun to you, you do you, I'll personally probably block you cause it's not enjoyable to me.

Imo the difference lies in self awareness. If you're a bit or even fully insane about your fav but you know that you are then it's generally all in good fun. But some people aren't aware that they are being irrational about things and that can get ugly because they take things seriously and get serious emotions about it and send serious hate about it etc. But it's not only bad for other people they might get aggressive towards. I've had anons here be genuinely distraught and/or enraged by the lack of performance at the moment. I've had to ask many a person "are you sure F1 is enjoyable to you?" because at the end of the day arguing can be fun (God knows I looove debating, irl and online, I'm annoying that way) but if you step away from these fanspaces angry, sad, frustrated most of the time, then is it really good for you? are you really having fun?

[chronostachyon]

Came across your responses to the post about spiderverse nimona and anarchism\communism, loved the tags too, thank you for your responses!

This is long and mostly not related to your ask, but since you liked my tag ramble I thought I'd share my deeper thoughts on the matter.

Firstly, I think anarchists and MLs waste so much energy by fighting amongst ourselves rather than paying attention to the fact that we hold more beliefs in common than anything. I suspect there's a lot of disinfo from capitalist regimes to try to divide us; we know for a fact thanks to FOIA that the US government (CIA and FBI) has infiltrated both in the past, in order to keep us divided and bickering! Both the anarchist and ML camps have bad actors, many of which are being encouraged by imperialist plants, capitalist propaganda, and/or the unquenchable human instinct for groupthink, but there are a lot of genuinely good people doing genuinely good work in both camps too, and it makes me sad that we don't work together more often.

One of the reasons I consider myself an anarcho-communist, rather than a Marxist-Leninist or pure Marxist of any stripe, is because of an insight I got from Marx himself! Among their many reading sources, anarchists should read Marx too! But Marx also got bogged down in the idea that revolution had to be a process achieved through violent overthrow of the capitalist state, and replacing it with a new state, rather than eroding the capitalist state at the foundations until it washed away as he'd originally envisioned in his Manifesto / Das Kapital era. He also lost sight of the fact that alienation of labor, as he originally envisioned it, is not merely about alienation from the profits of labor, but alienation from the purpose of labor: working on something because someone in charge tells you to work on it is inherently dehumanizing, no matter how the profits are distributed. We need a personal connection to our labor, to personally see the ways in which our labor benefits our community! Even under Lenin and Mao, the USSR and PRC were alienating laborers from their own labor by assigning jobs to them instead of letting them pick and choose among the jobs that needed to be done.

And the very concept that some people deserve to rule over others, to lord over them with "superior information" and tell them what to do, is inherently kyriarchal and eugenics-adjacent, making it very easy to slide into red-brown fascism and to perpetuate sexist/racist/queermisic/ableist beliefs. Everybody gets it wrong sometimes! Marx, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky, but anarchist writers too! The more power you concentrate into fewer hands, the worse the consequences when we inevitably make mistakes, and then we have the instinctual human response to not want to admit that we fucked up and to pretend that the mistake never happened, and the bigger the scope of the harm the stronger that instinct is when it kicks in.

(It's also weird the sheer number of MLs who stan Putin's capitalist kleptocracy in 2023, as if communism and capitalism themselves were always just strategies in a global football game between empires over whether the East or the West deserved total power over everyone else in the world. I can honestly understand China stans more than Russia stans, because China is at least nominally still communist, even if it abandoned Maoism ages ago. But MLs really should be pointing more at Cuba or Vietnam than at any imperial power if they want to convince us that statist communism can actually work for the people.)