#also i invite (civil) discourse about this

[morrigans-umbrella]

putting my english major to work

AKA

unit 919 favourite (semi popular so you’re not forced to google them all) classics headcanons

starting off strong with morrigan. for reasons i hope are evident i think she is absolutely a gothic girlie, she’s probably got an affinity for poe. i’d say her favourite is the raven, though unlike most poe fan girls i don’t see her as someone who is able to yap endlessly about why she likes him. she’s quite reserved with her interests after all. i imagine she’s capable of giving solid but simple reasons to justify herself when asked (pressed) by her friends but otherwise keeps her thoughts internal.

cadence, this might be a hear me out, has an adoration for oscar wilde. my first thought was dracula actually but as someone who is perpetually cursed to be forgotten i think she’d enjoy the way wilde writes. she finds society frivolous and rather stupid, and wilde is prompt to agree with her on this. i’d say her favourite text is the importance of being earnest, as it’s possibly the most ridiculous piece of nonsense ever, entirely on purpose.

hawthorne was a hard one, as i don’t think he willingly reads anything that he could preemptively deem “boring”. i had to shake my brain like a maraca to try think of something easy and entertaining enough to keep his white boy adhd brain locked in long enough for him to intake it. the conclusion drawn was that i think he could survive through three men in a boat (sincerest apologies she’s a little niche). i found it funny enough, i think hawthorne is capable of switching off his brain and blindly enjoying it.

anah. well. i adore her greatly and i was a little in between. i think she’d ADORE little women. i think she has incredibly strong opinions on all the film remakes and could give you an extensive breakdown of the pros and cons. however. i also think the only CORRECT choice with her is pride and prejudice. she seems like she enjoys a good love story that has her giggling and kicking her legs it just befits her.

now, archan. if you ask he will lie to your face, he will very confidently say the most pretentious book he can think of. this is because his favourite classic dodie smith’s i capture the castle. which isn’t embarrassing by any means, but it is a very silly romance novel (i am strongly passionate about it). i think he likes to read casually more than obsessively and it’s a relatively easy read, and if you get the right copy the cover makes you look very distinguished in public.

mahir was harder as i had to test my knowledge of various translations across the world. he’s definitely a poetry type, i think he likes collections of poems as opposed to large brick novels. poems are more entertaining to translate and test your skill far more. i think he’d like mahmoud darwish (who is unfortunately NOT a classical author but i wanted to bring him up anyway), so i’m marking his as leaves of grass by walt whitman. which i strongly recommend to all poetry enjoyers out there. he definitely would get into translation purism beef online if he could. i know it in my heart.

so francis was kind of hard. i was actually tempted to be sneaky and pick an old recipe book as his favourite without specifying BUT i concluded through my non biased perfectly objective opinions he’s an agatha christie enjoyer. poisoning and cooking are sort of born of the same mother. to me at least. his favourite is dumb witness, as it features a brilliant dog. full disclaimer that’s the one i am presently reading, so i don’t know everything that occurs in it, but i know in my heart he would enjoy this.

thaddea was hard, man. i expended my one easy ish to read comedy on hawthorne and i refuse to repeat. then i remembered treasure island. which i also have not finished (someone stole my copy when i was 50 pages in). i don’t actually think she banks too hard on humour to get through books, she more so is interested in action and adventure. i actually think thaddea enjoys to read, she just has a hard time keeping herself focussed and finding the time to sit down and enjoy it, so she probably leans toward audiobooks.

lambeth. well. i opted against the one i initially was thinking of not because it wouldn’t fit just because i considered the discussion that surrounds it and concluded i didn’t feel compelled to dig into that here. she’s definitely a prose enjoyer, she has probably the most “refined” taste save for maybe mahir (i like to believe they talk books together frequently). after much consideration i concluded on black beauty. on account of the fact that it’s my (second) favourite and i think she would appreciate how gorgeous the craftsmanship is.

[growling]

Omg your tags on that tfem headcanons post are so real like I’m glad other people agree, it’s so performative

I'm glad other people also agree god I hate this little phenomenon so much.

Like I don't even get the impression they even like those headcanons, just say that they have them out of "obligation" to fill some sort of quota, or as a way to bring down transmasc and transneutral headcanons of the same character and act like this makes them morally superior to the people that prefer those instead. Or just trying to prove themselves as one of the good boys and acting as if them saying they like blorbie as transfem instead of transmasc is.... genuine transfeminist activism..??

(kept this ask hostage for a day before answering cause I originally had a whole lot more to say but also I forgot everything sooooo. Maybe I'll add on later when my brain stops paywalling itself)

[lloydfrontera]

You know, regarding Lloyd's achievement in history and whether ordinary citizens know him or not made me crave post canon modern au.

Imagine seeing an in universe fanfic authors notes in ao3 or twitter crying about how they simply wanted to write a story set in Lloys time but they just keep diving into rabbit holes.

Kinda like

"So i was writing an historical au set in Alician era where the MC had a detour in Cremo and he was admiring a statue by the sea with a local explaining its history. Of course, I needed to do some research only to found out that Lloyd Frontera, YES, THAT Lloyd Frontera who made the Pantara railroad defeated some sea monster, nearly died and got statue for it"

Maybe someone from Beneto Kingdom being so confused because all he learned from history in school (Beneto history) is that Lloyd is just some brilliant engineer so he got specially confused on why in the movie he was watching set in Alician era is Lloyd fighting a goddamn bone dragon.

I'm interested on how scholars and political figures bemoan and analyse Lloyd's action and achievement but ordinary people's Internet discourse could be so much fun as well.

Javier and Lloyd getting the Alexander and Haphaestion treatment on whether they were lovers or not. The discourse would be so toxic lol.

oh my god forget changing the history of civil engineering forever, sparking the nastiest discourse ever on history/fandom internet forums is lloyd's true greatest achievement akshfksdg

he's the go to historical domain character used to set the time period for a historical movie/book/series. he's the guy writers insert to give their work a more period accurate vibe. everyone knows just enough about him to make really passionate history nerds very angry about all the inaccuracies and made up facts that are taken as common knowledge.

i'm thinking people of completely different online circles all knowing about lloyd in some capacity but regarding completely separate facets of his life and work and being so surprised when they accidentally find yet another whole field lloyd revolutionized. like.

a sword nerd who's really into the concept of the asrahan core technique and knows perfectly well that lloyd helped invent it getting gobsmacked about the fact that's the same guy that laid the ground for modern sewer systems.

a fan of historical romance stories who is used to seeing lloyd as a fun cameo in the background of stories set in the alician period being really confused when they open their book on thermodynamics and see there's a whole chapter dedicated to a method lloyd figured out to create ice without the need of magic.

a train enthusiast who is really fascinated by the rudimentary switchback system lloyd frontera implemented when the concept of a train wasn't even known in the empire being completely dumbfounded when their friends invite them to see a movie about that one time lloyd frontera and his knight defeated a knight of hell in namaran.

i think it's definitely a meme to post "so i was doing research for my asfahan au and went on a rabbit hole and guess who fucking built the qanat that's widely regarded as the only reason the kingdom didn't fall into civil war. take a wild fucking guess" "was it lloyd frontera" "IT WAS FUCKING LLOYD FRONTERA OF COURSE IT WAS"

i'm also certain there would be some guys who think he's overrated and people should really stop talking so much about him when there's so many other historical figures who are just as interesting and not as recognized 🙄. to which people immediately go "mad cause your history blorbo didn't defeat a bone dragon aren't you" at them

Javier and Lloyd getting the Alexander and Haphaestion treatment on whether they were lovers or not. The discourse would be so toxic lol.

they definitely get the alexander and hephaestion treatment you are so correct. they're also the achilles and patroclus of the modern magentano girlies. there's a bunch of 'queer retellings' of their lives. they're the go to example for homoerotic friendships. there's a bunch of edits that mix historical paintings of them with ship fanart with that 'history hates lovers' song playing over them. dudebros get really angry about it. llojavi truthers pull out their 20 pages long annotations that start with "they fucking slept in the same bedroom for years" and it only gets worse.

there's one poor person online who just really fucking wants to know how and why lloyd frontera changed faces one day out of the blue with no one ever explaining it. there's no official records. no member of the royal family ever made a statement about it. why is everyone acting like the frontera family didn't have one eldest son for 25-29 years and one day suddenly had a completely different one. what the fuck is going on.

so. yeah. i'm a little obsessed with this concept actually ajkshdksa

[ryuichirou]

Re: Gaslighter Rook. I wanna preface this by saying ofc people are free to hc whatever they want but I have some issues with what the other person said and how dismissive they acted about the whole thing. I apologize if this invites drama or discourse, that is absolutely not my intention, I moreso just want to share the other side's point of view for the sake of balance since you said you don't mind civil discussion even if we disagree. Firstly, yes a lot of the arguments for this come from the labcoat vignette. However, it is not all just because of one line. In the same vignette, Rook tells Vil he can't trust his own eyes because Rook knows him better than Vil knows himself which is a very common gaslighter tactic. He then further mentions that people will leave him unless he does what Rook tells him to and puts down the "me or everyone else" argument. Rook further tries to undermine Vil's ability to trust other people in Vil's dorm vignette by saying the other dorm members would never appreciate Vil's efforts for them even if they knew about them – a blatant lie that however still makes Vil withdraw from talking to them about it. During Vil's overblot, Rook refuses to give Vil personal space while he's having a mental breakdown and repeatedly asserts that Vil "doesn't deserve" it as well as claiming to be responsible for punishing him. After VDC, Rook not only claims that his vote was the deciding one despite having no way of knowing that but also claims it was the objectively correct thing to do as, again, Vil didn't deserve to win, simply because having a mental breakdown is ugly (since he was referring to the overblot, not the attempted cursing – which was never confirmed to be intended to be lethal by the way, that was also just Rook's assumption, one Vil, a character who already struggles to communicate with people especially if he feels they see him negatively, didn't fight but also didn't confirm). I also take issue with the claim that it cannot be abuse just because Vil respects Rook. Even ignoring how often irl abuse victims don't realize they're abused because of their warped perception of their abuser, we have examples of this even in twst. Mrs. Rosehearts wasn't a wonderful mother who suddenly became abusive when Riddle stopped making excuses for her behavior. Abuse doesn't stop being abuse because it isn't recognized and to a lot of us gaslighting victims, Rook's behavior is spot-on with things we went through, hence why we call him a gaslighter. Oh and a small note before anyone claims anything, according to multiple psychology sources, gaslighters aren't always aware of what they are doing. Me and others calling Rook a gaslighter don't automatically mean he WANTS to be evil toward Vil. Some of us see it that way while others don't but regardless, acting as though this headcanon comes from one single out of context line and not from a pattern of behavior Rook consistently displays feels very disingenuous and like it's trying to make us seem crazy when all we try to do is explain why we may not be comfortable with a character.

You don’t have to explain why you are uncomfortable. Neither me nor that Anon have made any judgment about it, and frankly, who cares why you don’t like a character. You don’t need reasoning for not liking him, a person might just think Rook’s hair is stupid or dislike characters with green eyes, and that’s enough. None of this makes you crazy, and this isn’t that deep.

If you look at the first ever reply I did on this topic, I said it then (and after that I said it time and time again):

Based on what you’re saying, your opinion is influenced by your past experiences. Which isn’t a bad thing, we all have our own biases, but it makes a proper discussion quite difficult, especially when there is trauma involved.

Because we love Rook as much as you hate him, and I fail to see why we should align our feelings and experiences with yours. This is not a public debate platform, this is not a discord server, this is my personal blog, and my opinion is always going to be prevalent here. I usually try to take the position “agree to disagree” also to avoid situations like this.

You’ve said that you just want to explain and share your side of the conversation, but in that case claiming that the other side’s opinion is dangerous or uninformed is a pretty shitty thing to do, just as it is shitty to completely ignore the points they were trying to make and put words into their mouths instead, alluding to them victimblaming and dismissing real victim’s struggles. What I’ve said multiple times at this point is that Rook Hunt isn’t a gaslighter. Not that it’s Vil’s fault for trusting him, not that if Vil respects him that it automatically makes Rook not an abuser (Anon didn’t say that either). Not that Rook is always right. Not that Rook has never hurt Vil. I’ve even said that we can��t say for certain that Rook’s brutal honesty is always helpful and doesn’t affect Vil in any bad way:

Maybe sometimes it would be better for Vil to just take it easy and relax instead of perfecting every single thing, but this isn’t what Vil wants for himself: he doesn’t want to be pampered, he wants to be appreciated for his hard work.

Just because this is what Vil wants doesn’t mean that this is what’s best for him. I still don’t think that it makes Rook an abuser, by the way (which is also a completely different topic from Rook being a gaslighter). You have ignored every single argument I’ve made in all of my previous replies, which is fine, but then I don’t really see the reason for you to explain yourself if you’re not even going to listen to me again.

No one tried to paint you as crazy, and even if I or Anon thought that this entire argument (argument, not you) was weird, it doesn’t concern you. If Rook Hunt hurts you, why would you even interact with any discourse about him? Why did that very first Anon confront me for not calling Rook a gaslighter, if all you (collective “you”) people wish for is to explain your point of view? I am not an emperor of Rook Hunt land; I am a rando writing hcs about dicks on the internet. And Rook Hunt is a character of a gacha game.

I’ll repost another thing from my very first reply.

Just ignore shit that you don’t like because while it might be traumatic for you, to us it might be one of the few things that bring us happiness.

Please read this part carefully. And respectfully, let’s stop this. I don’t agree with any of your points/interpretation, I find them drastically off from Rook’s actual characterisation to the point that it’s almost baffling at times (I have read all the scenes you’ve mentioned and I disagree with your every single point.) And guess what, it’s absolutely okay. Like I, wow, have said time and time again, we all have our biases. Yours happens to be to read everything that Rook does in the worst way possible and to compare him to Riddle’s mom. Mine happens to be very different, and insisting on me just missing the point or thinking or feeling the wrong way or not being educated enough about gaslighting or abuse (something that I also experienced, and you are aware of that) feels pretty disrespectful. This isn’t what I meant when I said that I don’t mind a civil conversation. This doesn’t feel like a conversation. Because, you know…

Even if it feels completely off to how I view it, I can appreciate or at least respect it if they respect the way I do things. And don’t imply that I don’t get it or I am stupid.

I won’t write an actual rebuttal to your points because one thing hasn’t changed from my very first post about the topic: this isn’t about Rook Hunt. And I don’t want to discuss the so-called danger of fictional tropes that don’t even apply to the character in my view. Also, stating that the way I headcanon a character’s behaviour and share my thoughts with others is dangerous to other people in real life (because someone is going to take my opinion as a course for their actions, I guess?) is also ironic. Why isn’t me drawing problematic ships or writing dark headcanons dangerous then? It’s the same logic, I have heard this argument multiple times, and I fail to see how it’s different right now. Rook Hunt is not a real person, we see his interactions with others from all points of view, he has actual writers with their own intentions (none of which is to portray Rook as a terrible, atrocious person, he’s not even 100% a villain, he’s a character that helped the princess in the original story, and I believe that his writers keep that in mind, ffs), and it is drastically different from the way I would treat this situation in real life: exactly because I would have to base my opinion on the lack of other perspectives and not witnessing the situations myself, and a bunch of other factors connected to the fact that this is real life, and in those cases I would prioritise the victim of someone’s suspicious actions. What a surprise.

I also believe that Katsu and I did our part so you could easily ignore our Rook-centric posts that make you uncomfortable. So please do your part and don’t interact with our Rook-centric posts (this applies to anyone who is deeply uncomfortable with this character or any other character, for that matter). Coming up with ways to mention Rook in posts so it's easily mutable for you and only you and still getting treated like an abuse apologist who spreads dangerous ideas makes one feel kind of silly for ever trying to be considerate and respectful. You’ll have to come up with ways to deal with that on your own now. This conversation is over.

This is also the last post I’m writing on this topic, every follow-up ask or comment about it (from anyone, anywhere) won’t be replied to.

[biblioflyer]

Critical Mutant Theory: Fictional Societies are Loose Allegories

This is the third entry in a longer essay about the pessimism of X-Men, why it is a pessimistic setting, and if that is indeed a fair reading at all. This part discusses some of the deeper influences of X-Men, the problems with direct analogies to the real world, and why X-Men is unable to move beyond depicted pogroms.

Part 1 laid out some of the core conceits of the setting.

Part 2 discusses theories of historical change.

However fitting events throughout history and the world might be for interpreting X-Men, it is by intent a culturally American setting with a majority culturally American writers and artists, the classic example being the assertion that over time Xavier has come to represent the thinking of Martin Luther King Jr. while Magneto represents Malcom X. 

Again, like everything else X-Men these are clumsy metaphors that cannot represent the complexities of either man or the movements they were influential within. These are metaphors that are exaggerated for effect by design and metaphors that have had decades across multiple mediums to evolve beyond their original conceits. The notion that this was the original conception of the characters also appears to be folklore, the associations with King and X came later which makes trying to apply real world historical movements, ideas, and events to the world of the X-Men that much less likely to be anything more than vaguely accurate, although occasionally by accident or intent it is spookily relevant.

Suffice to say I am also intimately familiar with the discourse around how political opportunists have flattened the lives and beliefs of King in particular in order to moralize about Black American failings and justify various disenfranchisements as a consequence of not living up to a mythology that is convenient for the comfortable and powerful. I’m also aware of how the mythologized King has been used to try to discredit other civil rights movements for being too disruptive, too ambitious, or too untidy. Something I think X-Men ‘97 does quite well is show us that the X-Men are often exhausted, demoralized, and even sometimes lash out in frustration and anger, but reliably recommit to acting upon their virtues.

The complexity of trying to use X-Men as a direct allegory is why the surface level nihilism of X-Men is worth unpacking. I’m fond of saying that we need to not forget that fictional societies are storytelling devices, not remote civilizations that have consistent internal rules that can be examined and codified by anthropologists. As storytelling devices, they can reflect our world in a funhouse mirror sort of way. 

Mutants are explicitly an invitation for people who have experienced aggression and unfreedom due to an arbitrary characteristic to feel represented, at least metaphorically.

More specifically, the X-Men setting is a storytelling device to talk about incredibly emotionally difficult concepts with some degree of emotional distance like bigotry, identity based violence, reform efforts, bitterness, systemic oppression, resistance, and the risks and rewards of rebellion or assimilation. If the victims in the setting make lasting gains that aren’t reversed, then the setting is either finished as a device for telling stories about bigotry or it needs to become more sophisticated. 

Lynchings and massacres are visceral events that the audience can easily grasp what is happening, why, and it gets the blood pumping. Something more rooted in the present might be someone being shot by the police because the police panicked and thought they were about to get shot with projectile spines or laser vision. A mutant being refused a home loan because they’re purple or being asked to file down their horns for their office job to avoid making the humans uncomfortable is very relevant but not particularly cinematic.

Because of the difficulty of trying to preserve familiar themes in a recognizable way while allowing the characters to achieve meaningful victories, the temptation is always very strong in any setting to reverse victories and prefer stasis or even make things significantly worse. There are opportunities for letting the heroes actually win and start a new “phase” of the story where the heroes are dealing with the consequences of winning as well as the ever present threat of revanchism. X-Men ‘97 even leaves the door open to this in small ways. Which will be the theme for the next installment.

[problematic-fodlan]

Welcome to Problematic Fódlan!

Inspired by older projects on Dreamwidth as well as by an unaffiliated blog that was unfortunately deactivated, here's a place for you to submit anonymous opinions, headcanons, and interpretations of Fire Emblem: Three Houses and Fire Emblem Warriors: Three Hopes without worrying about getting trolled, flamed, or caught in an endless reblog war. Takes will be posted without comment, though as more come in they will be tagged according to topic for easier searching.

Rules:

All asks and submissions must be anonymous. Those who do not adhere to this rule will have their names censored, and will be ignored if I can't fit the entire submission in at most two screencaps.

Do not send asks entirely in header font, or in all caps. They're annoying to read.

Asks must also primarily relate to one or both of the Fódlan games. References to other Fire Emblem games or other media are acceptable provided Three Houses/Hopes remain the focus.

References to real-life events/situations are permitted, but please remain civil. This includes not bashing or making generalizing statements about anyone based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. or making statements that could be considered culturally insensitive, i.e. bashing real world religions. Also do not assume any of these things about other anons or attribute any real-life political affiliations to them. References to especially charged topics, for example Nazis/fascism or the Palestinian genocide, are also banned. The blog owner reserves the right not to publish submissions considered to be offensive or deliberately inflammatory.

Do not accuse other anons of being part of any particular fandom faction, ex. "Edelstan", Edelcrit", or "Dimitri stan". This includes alternatives to these labels, like "Edelgard fan/hater," when used in a negative sense. Self-identification as one of these labels is fine. Similarly, the term "fujoshi" and variations is not allowed except as a self-identifier because of its potential as a sexist or transphobic slur.

Online names of participants in Fódlan discourse may be included, but this is not meant to invite trolling or harassment and ought to be understood as such by readers as well as by those making submissions. Harassment is bad, people. Don't do it. I also reserve the right not to publish any such submissions if they name people who I see publicly interacting with this blog, so as to head off any potential arguments.

Submissions may not contain URLs linking to other posts on this blog, nor may they quote or directly address other anons. This is to avoid confusing exchanges between different anons as well as prevent submissions turning into another type of reblog chain. Also, asks that are just one or two word responses about another post will not be published. Use the reply feature if you need to make a reaction like that.

Happy posting, everyone!

[continuations]

Moderation in Social Networks

First Pavel Durov, the co-founder and CEO of Telegram, was arrested in France, in part due to a failure to comply with moderation requests by the French government. Now we have Brazil banning X/Twitter from the country entirely, also claiming a failure to moderate.

How much moderation should there be on social networks? What are the mechanisms for moderation? Who should be liable for what?

The dialog on answering these questions about moderation is broken because the most powerful actors are motivated primarily by their own interests.

Politicians and governments want to gain back control of the narrative. As Martin Gurri analyzed so well in Revolt of the Public, they resent their loss of the ability to shape public opinion. Like many elites they feel that they know what's right and treat the people as a stupid “basket of deplorables.”

Platform owners want to control the user experience to maximize profits. They want to be protected from liability and fail to acknowledge the extraordinary impact of features such as trending topics, recommended accounts, and timeline/feed selection on people's lives and on societies.

The dialog is also made hard by a lack of imagination that keeps us trapped in incremental changes. Too many people seem to believe that what we have today is more or less the best we will get. That has us bogged down in a trench war of incremental proposals. Big and bold proposals are quickly dismissed as unrealistic.

Finally the dialog is complicated by deep confusions around freedom of speech. These arise from ignoring, possibly willfully, the reasons for and implications of freedom of speech for individuals and societies.

In keeping with my preference for a first principles approach I am going to start with the philosophical underpinnings of freedom of speech and then propose and evaluate concrete regulatory ideas based on those.

We can approach freedom of speech as a fundamental human right. I am human, I have a voice, therefore I have a right to speak.

We can also approach freedom of speech as an instrument for progress. Incumbents in power, whether companies, governments, or religions, don’t like change. Censoring speech keeps new ideas down. The result of suppressed speech is stasis, which ultimately results in decline  because there are always problems that need to be solved (such as being in a low energy trap).

But both approaches also imply some limits to free speech. 

You cannot use your right to speech to take away the human rights of someone else, for example by calling for their murder.

Society must avoid chaos, such as runaway criminality, massive riots, or in the extreme civil war. Chaos also impedes progress because it destroys the physical, social, and intellectual means of progress (from eroding trust to damaging physical infrastructure).

With these underpinnings we are looking for policies on moderation in social networks that honor a fundamental right but recognize its limitations and help keep society on a path of progress between stasis and chaos. My own proposals for how to accomplish this are bold because I don’t believe that incremental changes will be sufficient. The following applies to open social networks such as X/Twitter. A semi-closed social network such as Telegram where most of the activity takes place in invite-only groups poses additional challenges (I plan to write about this in a follow-up post).

First, banning human network participants entirely should be hard for a network operator and even for government. This follows from the fundamental human rights perspective. It is the modern version of ostracism, but unlike banishing someone from a single city it potentially excludes them from a global discourse. Banning a human user should either require a court order or be the result of a “Community Notes” type system (obviously to make this possible we need some kind of “proof of humanity” system which we will need in any case for lots of other things, such as online government services, and a “proof of citizenship” could be a good start on this – if properly implemented this will support pseudonymous accounts).

Second, networks must provide extensive tools for facilitating moderation by participants. This includes providing full API access to allow third party clients, support for account identity and post authorship assertions through digital signatures to minimize impersonation, and implement at least one “Community Notes” like system for attaching information to content. All of this is to enable as much decentralized avoidance of chaos, starting with maintaining a high level of trust in the source and quality of content.

Third, clients must not display content if that content has been found to violate a law either through a “Community Notes” process or by a court. This should also allow for injunctive relief if that has been ordered by a court. Clients must, however, display a placeholder where that content would have been, with a link to the reason (ideally the decision) on the basis of which it was removed. This will show the extent to which court-ordered content removal is taking place.

What about liability? Social networks and third-party clients that meet the above criteria should not be liable for the content of posts. Neither government nor participants should be able to sue a compliant operator over content.

Social networks should, however, be liable for their owned and operated recommender algorithms, such as trending topics, recommended accounts, algorithmic feeds, etc. Until recently social networks were successfully claiming in court that their algorithms are covered by Section 230, which I believe was an overly broad reading of the law. It is interesting to see that a court just decided that TikTok is liable for suggestions surfaced by its algorithm to a young girl that resulted in her death. I have an idea around viewpoint diversity that should provide a safe harbor and will write about that in a separate post (related to my ideas around an "opposing view" reader and also some of the ways in which Community Notes works).

Getting the question of moderation on social networks right is of utmost importance to preserving progress while avoiding chaos. For those who have been following the development of new decentralized social networks, such as Farcaster and Nostr some of the ideas above will look familiar. The US should be a global leader here given our long history of extensive freedom of speech.

[nirvanarules]

ok, there's two sides to this argument really, the view that radqueers are the abelists or that antis are the abelists. Now, my stance is that the radqueers are the ableist ones, having a mental disorder - especially a developmental one - isn't something you can just CHOOSE to do, and i find it quite offensive that you do, but there is also the stance that because antis are speaking out against what i find is ableism, they themselves are being ableist, assuming every single fucking transabled person has munchausen's or BIID, both of which would justify such a behavior, but it is to my understanding that most transabled people don't have this, yes? One person told me ALL transabled people have one of these, which would be impossible given the rarity of these disorders and the fact the radqueer community isn't a safe space specifically for people with BIID and munchausen's, and he failed to provide any proof that ANY transabled person has these things. The issue really is in the fact nobody will have a sensible debate, they'll throw buzzwords like "anti" "ablest" and "acceptance" at people to shoot down their arguments without really acknowledging these arguments themselves, they refuse to listen to countering arguments due to how entwined they are with their beliefs, almost comparable to that of a cult member. No, i am not saying radqueers are a cult, i am simply making an observation. This is my invitation to all to come into the replies of this post and have a CIVIL (yes, a CIVIL) debate about this topic. I am tagging this with both anti and pro radqueer, transid, transabled, etc... tags.

If the argument turns into every other anti-pro discourse, as i'm expecting it will, i will delete this post, but i have some trust you can keep it civil

[nazmazh]

So the whole "cozy farming/town building/etc. games are colonialist/imperialist in nature" discourse that's going around these days:

Like, I firmly do believe that it's not the worst thing in the world to examine underlying reasons - Conscious or unconscious - For why something might appeal to you/an audience in-general.

And sure, there probably are some societal factors that lead to certain things being used as shorthand or jumping off points that do often go unexamined - Like, the idea of there being a terra nullis that you can no-muss-no-fuss-no-complicated history of colonialism/displacement/genocide is definitely one that does often just get used unquestioningly. And there certainly could be some interesting discussions about whether or not that should be such a default.

But, like, at the same time - This is explicitly escapism. Fantasy of a sorts (depending on the game/setting, it might explicitly not be the real world). These scenarios, unless otherwise stated are taking place in a true terra nullis - Nobody had to suffer anywhere in this place's history. Build your animal people village or cozy little farm without even having to think about this sort of thing.

But it's not always so simple, is it?

Any game that includes side-tasks centered around finding treasures/artifacts, exploring ruins, etc.? Well, now, that implies that this was not truly a terra nullis after all. And yeah, that can raise some implications. Much of the time, it still falls back to something like *Oh, they all died long, long before you/your current civilization got here - Don't even worry about it!"

And, like, I get it.

You don't want to think about your character's potential complicity/inheritance of a legacy of genocide when you're playing a cozy farm sim game. You just want to make a nice, efficient farm, and arrange found trinkets in a satisfying manner. You just want to curate your village to look like a 1:1 recreation of your favourite Skyrim town, but with silly animal people. Sometimes it's just the skin that's wrapped around your "make the numbers match up in a satisfying manner" exercise. Sometimes it's all about the stories and playing a role as given to you by the set-up.

And that's all fine.

You're allowed to have escapism without having to turn into Chidi from The Good Place, agonizing over whether everything is 100% ethical from all angles and possible implications.

And people are allowed to think about things from those points of view and decide for themselves if they really enjoy these sorts of games after all.

And there are some games out there that do invite you to think about these sorts of things - Sometimes explicitly, sometimes subtly.

Like, I play Satisfactory, which has a few of these elements - Terraforming an alien world - A supposedly true terra nullis as far as the scenario is concerned - And while resource extraction and manufacturing isn't a cozy pastoral farm, there still is a deep level of well, satisfaction, that comes with arranging things just-so, such that you have an aesthetically-pleasing factory colony, and one in which all of your processes' rates sync just right that it all flows smoothly to get you the components you need.

But it's also a running joke of sorts between me and friends who play about well, just how much sprawling machinery you can into a formerly pristine wilderness. The game might not outright say "Look how horrible this all is for the environment here", but you can't really look upon your creation and not see the horrible transformation the once beautiful natural landscape has undergone.

In the end, though - I've only despoiled a digital canvas, so to speak. No guilt needs hang over my head for finding joy in my colossal monstrosity of a factory. (Other than perhaps I need to work on improving my efficiency. I love my tangle of conveyor belts, but maybe I should plan my machines better so that they're not always backed up and stalled out).

And, like, these people complaining about Stardew Valley or Minecraft being imperialist and then saying people shouldn't enjoy them (Admittedly that last bit seems only to exist as a theoretical strawman to argue against and get mad at/about - I can't say I've honestly seen anyone claiming that nobody should be allowed to enjoy them) - Have they run out of complaints about other game genres? I know that nothing should get a free pass by merit of something else being worse, but I am curious as to where their logic would lead in terms of whether any games with any sort of abstraction/story should be enjoyed, ever.

Have... Have they seen other genres of games, at all?

Like, I also love the 4X genre, but that one explicitly encourages imperialism. The Xs include "exploit" and "exterminate", specifically. And yes, there have been criticisms of this genre too, but I can't say I've seen people vilified in the same way as this last round of criticism lobbed at cozy games.

There's plenty of games whose entire goal is just "kill everyone else" - PC, NPC, mob, etc.

Again, though - I'm not outright against criticism/reexamination of things from different angles or anything like that.

Honestly, the sci-fi and fantasy genres have had some absolutely fantastic developments stemming from the line of thinking of "Hey, does it feel a little off/icky to have expressly sapient races that are universally evil/bad and therefore okay to in-turn slaughter without hesitation?" This reexamination has led to plenty of games where Orcs and Goblins and such aren't just stock villains and cannon fodder - They have their own actual motivations beyond "Pillage and kill! Just because!", they're full-fledged factions that can be reasoned with, negotiated with - Dealt with in ways that don't necessitate violence.

Like, sure, if you have a certain style of game, you'll need foes. And making them "monsters" is often an easy strategy to avoid having to think about why it's okay/good/fine to kill them. But if they're all purely mindless or bestial, it gets a little repetitive - So, yeah, you add in ones that can think too. But at that point, they ought to have the capacity to question what they're doing and why, and thus, should have the freedom to not just default to doing bad guy stuff for the sake of it. And then from there - Writing them to always be evil anyway kind of does feel lazy/reductive and willfully, pointedly avoidant on a subject that should be considered.

I don't know if I have a point to all this. Yes, it's fine to enjoy things. Yes, it's often good to question underlying assumptions - Including and often especially things presented as "idealistic" and "harmless". Yes, consumption of media can lead to self-reinforcement if ideas, including potentially harmful or toxic ones. But also, yes, sometimes, things aren't necessarily as deep as they have the potential to be.

Sometimes it's just "If I had a small corner of the world to make my own, what would I do with it?"

Sometimes it is "If I could take over the world and make it align with my vision, what would I do with it?"

Sometimes it is "If I could take over the world and expressly be like, a cartoon supervillain, what would I do with it?"

People's escapism often isn't meant to be problematic. Or examine how things might be problematic.

Sometimes, it is something that would be expressly problematic outside the confines of the theoretical/simulated.

And that's fine.

It's fine.

People are allowed to enjoy problematic things.

People are allowed to indulge in fantasies that aren't completely selfless or altruistic. As long as they're not going out there and actually harming other people/the world/whatever -- What does it ultimately matter?

[williamvinegrad-2024-blog]

Slow and Steady: A Manifesto for Inclusive Protest

Slow and Steady: A Manifesto for Inclusive Protest

I have recently realised that I am not built for confrontation. Not because I do not care, but because I have lived too long in the margins where survival often depends on silence, discretion, and the careful reading of rooms. I know the cost of speaking out when your livelihood hangs by a thread. I know how capitalism trains us to hold our tongues, to become invisible, to swallow truth in order to endure.

Many of my peers in activist and artistic circles are bolder, louder, and more confrontational. Often, they have the safety nets I never had: families, finances, cultural permissions that allow them to speak recklessly without fearing total collapse. I cannot fault them for their courage, but I also cannot join them in it. We live, it seems, in different worlds. And so I protest differently. I create.

I build spaces where inclusion, gentleness, and slow transformation are acts of resistance. I make art that invites rather than attacks, that offers rather than demands. I believe protest can be a conversation, not a confrontation. I believe that real change, the kind that lasts, that roots itself deeply comes not only through outrage, but through patience, tenderness, and endurance.

It is not a weakness to refuse to burn bridges for the sake of being heard. It is a strength to cultivate connection in a world obsessed with shouting. The ‘angrier’ we get the more ammunition powers have.

Historically, British politeness has been linked to ideals of civility and restraint, reflecting an emphasis on emotional control, indirect communication, and a preference for understatement. This can be seen in the way British people often avoid direct confrontation or soften criticisms with humor or euphemisms.

However, the concept of politeness is complex. On one hand, it fosters inclusive and respectful public spaces; on the other, it can serve as a mechanism of social control, sometimes masking deeper power dynamics or excluding those unfamiliar with its unwritten rules (such as immigrants or outsiders to certain class cultures).

Even peaceful protest contradicts values of politeness. Blockades stopping folk from living their daily lives etc. This gives our government ammunition to ‘tut’ at us. Hull was awarded 270k to respond to and to distribute to activity that counter responds to the Summer Riots of 2024. A drop in the ocean, when we consider why we have refugees and immigrants here in the first place at the hands of the global arms trade that we readily profit from.

Starmer condemned the riots as "far-right thuggery" and emphasised that such actions would not be tolerated. He stated, "You will regret taking part in this disorder, either directly or those whipping up this disorder online," highlighting the government's commitment to holding perpetrators accountable. ​

Such behaviours give our government further permission to reiterate what we the Great British public will not tolerate as per our ‘values’ this gives aggressors more room to champion this constructed belief system.

In this climate, the push for politeness becomes both a cultural norm and a political strategy. It asks us to express resistance only in ways that are palatable to those in power effectively neutralising it. That is the double-bind: if we are too polite, we risk being ignored; if we are too forceful, we risk being punished and discredited. For me it is about finding balance, protesting whilst safeguarding myself.

In contemporary Britain, politeness is both celebrated and critiqued. While it continues to shape interactions from local communities to political discourse it also faces questions about authenticity and whether surface-level civility can coexist with meaningful social justice and equity.

If we fail to recognise the importance of tact, grace, active listening and understanding as per our Personal, Cultural and Structural make-up and that of others. The Government will win, they want to polarise us, so we procrastinate on the ‘fluffy’ details that allow them to play monopoly with our lives. Distractive rhetorics. When we recognise this and find healthy ways to communicate that do not alienate our contemporaries we will unify and overcome.

This takes time. SLOW AND STEADY WINS THE RACE.

I know we are running out of time. Climate collapse, trans rights, racial injustice, economic exploitation the urgency is real and crushing. But even in urgency, I choose a steady path. Slow does not mean passive. Steady does not mean complacent.

To believe that even now, even here, invitation can still move mountains is an act of quiet defiance. I understand how difficult it is to embody that stance when lives are at risk and being lost. For some, aggression comes far too easily so ingrained they don’t even recognise it.

If we respond in ways that are ‘loaded’ or emotionally charged, I believe we risk becoming counterproductive, even regressive, in achieving the very aims we set out to meet.

The truth is, I don’t really know how to be angry. I’ve spent much of my life carefully ensuring I never inconvenience anyone. For now, it’s business as usual… but watch this space.

This is my protest. This is my resistance. This is my way.

[faith-in-democracy]

Snark can save democracy. Yes, you read that right. In a world where political discourse often feels like a shouting match, snark is the unlikely hero we need. It’s the secret sauce that can transform heated debates into civil conversations and restore our faith in democracy.

Imagine this: a political debate where instead of hurling insults, candidates exchange witty remarks. Snark, when used wisely, is a powerful tool. It cuts through the noise, disarms hostility, and invites laughter. It’s the gentle nudge that reminds us we’re all human, even when we disagree.

Snark is not about being mean. It’s about being clever. It’s about pointing out the absurdity without being absurd. It’s the art of saying, “I see your point, but here’s a twist.” It’s the gentle jab that makes us pause and think, rather than react with anger.

In a democracy, we need dialogue, not diatribes. Snark fosters dialogue. It encourages us to listen, to engage, and to respond thoughtfully. It’s the antidote to the echo chambers that divide us. It bridges gaps with humor and wit, making room for understanding.

Snark also holds power accountable. It’s the voice that says, “We see you, and we’re watching.” It’s the playful reminder that leaders are not above the people they serve. It’s the check that keeps democracy vibrant and alive.

So, let’s embrace snark. Let’s use it to promote civility and faith in our democratic process. Let’s wield it as a tool for change, for connection, and for hope. Because in the end, a little snark can go a long way in saving democracy.

[shakebelton]

(i wrote most of this as tags at first but decided to make a proper post out of it but it might still read a bit clunky)

i said this before and i will say this again: this movie is so fucking easy to understand (and OP is correct or at least mostly correct in understanding it imo). and it is just baffling people wanted to be spoonfed obvious “republicans are evil” shit. like i wouldn't say this movie at its core is about war even or that it is explicitly anti-war, because guess what, wars do in fact have 'good' and 'bad' guys even if on the ground it's a muddled mess (not in the sense of being purely morally good because of course both sides kill and whatever, but in the sense that one side is right and the other side is wrong). but this movie doesn't tackle that at all because not only is it not political in that way, it is also not really about war specifically all that much. it's mostly just going “look what division and radicalization can do. everyone is insane and inhuman and you don't even know why.” so it *is* political in the sense that it's not taking a us-american stand of democrat vs republican, but instead it's going “oh btw the insane level of division and crazy rhetoric going on in the world right now? this is what it leads to.” but it is all still secondary and you are just invited to think about it and draw conclusions from it on your own time. but the main focus of the movie imo is actually just war journalism and its morality. and again the movie doesn't tell you what to think, it just shows you what happens and what kinda person you need to be to survive reporting from hot zones and then it wants you to make up your own mind about it. and people not understanding this movie and calling it controversial is what's wrong!!! it's showing you what can happen if you keep carrying on like this, and you are failing to understand it, because you wanted it to be the 1000th thing telling you trump is bad (and then of course you'd dismiss it as vapid and predictable). and the attempted trump assassination and the insane discourse surrounding it actually tracks with this. because now y'all are digging in the shooter's political affiliations, searching for something you can use to blame the other side. but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what the guy believed because he was an insane radicalized weirdo who set out to kill a person, and ultimately he was a lethal threat to people he supposedly agreed with. y'all get it yet? no you don't, you think "civil war" was stupid and soft. sure

I feel like so many critics are angry about the Civil War movie 'not taking a stand' but I think that misses the point. This was not gonna be a movie about "this side good, that side bad". On the ground, war is hardly political. The 'looters' being strung up ("knew him in high school, he barely talked to me, now he does"), the two soldiers pinned down by a sniper with christmas background music, Jesse Plemons' character picking them off one by one, the Global Relief Fund camp, etc. This wasn't necessarily about (American) politics, why the civil war broke out, or how the various alliances came about. This was about war on the ground, on the streets, the role of journalists in showing that, are they complicit or not, how much must you sacrifice for the money shot, is there a 'right' meaning we can draw from their images?

To me it was actually a very effective and thought-provoking anti-war movie. (Also the cast and cinematography were both phenomenal.)

[leonbloder]

You Are Here

I visited Salt Lake City, Utah, during my recent road trip. It is a city I've never experienced before but one I'd love to return to someday to spend more than just a day, which is all the time I had to visit.  

I was pleasantly surprised by all that Salt Lake City had to offer and how forward-thinking and artsy it is.  I guess I had preconceived notions about what I would encounter, considering how powerful the Mormon church is in that part of the world.  

The locals that I met and hung out with later in the evening (who eventually convinced me to go sing karaoke with them until the wee hours) had some pretty harsh things to say about Mormons and Mormonism in general. Nearly all of them had been raised Mormon and had left the Church.  

The city is beautiful and clean, with breweries, restaurants, and great nightlife. Signs and posters advertising Pride events from June were still up, and the public art I encountered was unique. 

One art installation caught my eye, though. It was made entirely of street signs of all shapes and sizes, each containing two words or phrases with oppositional meanings. 

There was "Work / Play," "Oil / Water," and "Sublime / Ridiculous," to name a few. 

The painted locator invites the viewer to sit on the bench amid competing ideas that often challenge us to choose one or the other.  I accepted the invitation and sat down briefly to think about what I was experiencing. 

In our current culture, it is difficult to sit in the middle of the tension created by oppositional ideas, which is what the art installation sought to project.  But there is also a more profound truth that the art conveys: Each of us is full of contradictions.  

Even those of us who want to believe the world is divided into "right" or "wrong" ideas and that we are always on the side of what is "right" have a lot more grey areas in our thinking than black-and-white. 

Many people find sitting in the tension created by competing ideas uncomfortable. This is why we see such hard lines drawn around us, divisive politics permeating our cultural space, and people demonizing one another for being on the wrong side of things. 

When an idea seeks to dehumanize, denigrate, and marginalize other human beings, it's slipped from being a competing idea to an immoral one.  Reasonable people can see this. 

But we must remember that we all have tensions regarding our worldviews.  This should give us more compassion toward one another and more opportunities to engage in civil discourse about our differences. 

Many Christians, probably more than most, must take this to heart.  

Jesus spent much of his ministry demonstrating that hard-line religion, dogmatism, and a hyper-fixation of rules and regulations were not the way to go when seeking God's kingdom on earth. 

He sat down to meals with outcasts but also dined with the religious elite.  He demonstrated that dividing people into right/wrong, inside/outside categories was not something God was interested in at all.  

Jesus often sat in the tension between competing ideas, offering a third way forward through compassion, acceptance, inclusion, and transformation.    

Imagine if those who claim to follow Jesus sat in the tension rather than avoiding it.  Imagine what could happen if Christians began seeing their grey areas more clearly.  What kind of society could we create if we began modeling Jesus to the world around us?

May it be so.  And may the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all, now and forever. Amen.  

[fbaio]

* COUNTERPUBLICS*

 In this entry, I will examine the critical questions, Why/how is it a counterpublic? What is its rhetorical message, and how does it use rhetoric and symbols to make arguments and/or create identity? How is it empowering and/or limiting?

To investigate these questions, I examined a protest from an environmental activist group,  Just Stop Oil, as my rhetorical artifact.  Just Stop Oil strategically employs disruptive tactics, such as roadblocks, social event interruptions and vandalism to symbolically challenge the approval of new fossil fuel policies primarily in the UK. Through these controversial methods, the movement aims to empower its members by fostering a collective identity committed to ending fossil fuel production. However, the confrontational nature of these actions may limit broad appeal and lead to divisions among climate activism supporters, those prioritizing immediate action, and those considering alternative considerations.

In this protest, two Just Stop Oil protestors are seen wearing Just Stop Oil shirts as they throw cans of what seems to be Tomato soup onto a Vincent Van-Goh painting Sunflowers located in London’s National Gallery.  The protestors then take out bottles of superglue and glue their hands to the wall as one begins to speak.  The protestor exclaims, “What is worth more, art or life. Is it worth more than food, worth more than justice? Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting, or the protection of our planet and people? The cost of living crisis is part of the cost of the oil crisis.  Fuel is unaffordable to millions of cold hungry families, they can't even afford to heat a tin of soup.” (The Guardian 00:28-01:01).  This nonviolent civil resistance is central to Just Stop Oil’s strategy to impact social change and accomplish its goals.  Just Stop Oil has also organized similar protests in which the protective glass was shattered on a painting by Diego Velasquez in the same galley as Van Goh’s.  Other protests organized by the group include disruptions to major sporting events, shutting down major roads in England, and disrupting cultural events.  These actions are seen by the organization to be a necessary aspect in order to get people to pay attention to the issue of climate change as they see it as an immediate threat to our civilization.  They believe that protests that do not disrupt society are not reported on and gain little attention in the media and therefore are excluded from the public sphere.  By interrupting people's days, they are forcing the issue to the forefront of people's minds.  These disruptive tactics have not gone unnoticed and have even caused contention between other climate change activists who believe that these tactics are harmful to the movement as a whole and turn people off to the message of climate change.

Squires explains that counterpublics are formed when groups of peoples ideas or identities don't align with the main or dominant public sphere.  She explains that the public sphere may overlook or purposefully ignore the concerns of counterpublics because it is in the best interest of the public sphere.  These counterpublics often bring  alternative discourses to the public sphere and voice concerns that they feel are not being heard or addressed appropriately.  In her article, Squires focuses on how the black press promotes the black counterpublic and how the oscillation between the state and the black counterpublic occurred during the 1900’s.  Squires details how the State even tried to stifle the black press and even was able to ban certain newspapers in the South.  This however did not stop the flow of information to blacks in the south, it only created a roadblock to be overcome.  Squires explains how despite this, the black counterpublic used methods of transmitting the information to the audiences being kept from the newspapers.  One of the ways in which southern Blacks were invited north was labor agents coming into the south and explaining how they could have a better life up north where they did not need to fear lynchings, jobs were available, and their vote mattered.  As a response, “Some states sent their own labor agents North and paid Blacks there to tell stories of freezing temperatures and joblessness” (Squires 115) in an effort to discourage migration to northern states in an effort to maintain their cheap labor pool that they were used to. Squires explains how counterpublics face backlash from the public sphere as the counterpublics may challenge power structures that are currently in place.  

Just Stop Oil is attempting to overcome the roadblock of governmental inaction on climate change by disrupting the day to day lives of ordinary people in an effort to force the issue of global warming to the forefront of people's minds so that it is not something that is ignored.  Specifically they vandalize a famous painting and then state the question “What is worth more, art or life?” (The Guardian 00:28-00:32).  By asking this question as the first words that are spoken after their actions, it forces the audience to step back and consider their position before outright dismissing the claims later made by the protestors, “Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting, or the protection of our planet and people?” (The Guardian 00:40-00:45). The protestors in this instance are calling out the backlash they will receive for their actions and countering it with the idea that their actions are insignificant compared to the global crisis of climate change and the implications that not acting on it have on the people of the world.  The protestors are calling on not only the government to take action but also for the public to put pressure on and support policies that are cognizant of the climate and aim to mend the damage we have done thus far.  It is also worth noting that the painting itself was not damaged in any way as it is displayed in a frame with protective glass over the front of it.  They also are importantly wearing shirts that promote the cause and the organization that they are a part of and are hoping to inspire further interest and publicity for Just Stop Oil.  The organization itself believes in taking action when petitions have been ineffective.  

The protestors aim to create a sense of unity by connecting the cost of living crisis to the cost of oil crisis.  The protestors state “Fuel is unaffordable to millions of cold hungry families, they can't even afford to heat a tin of soup” (The Guardian).  By bringing this larger concept of the problematic usage of fossil fuels and applying it to the everyday lives of people, the protestors aim to create a link between the public and the organization's goals. Their words make the audience have empathy for the goals they are trying to accomplish.  The use of tomato soup to throw on the painting is also a deliberate choice by the protestors as they hold up the empty can when they stress this point.  Additionally the empty can is a symbolic representation of the harsh reality of what many families experience as a result of the cost of living crisis.  The protestors actions and symbols aim to evoke a visceral response from the audience by showing the interconnectedness of economic struggles and environmental concerns.  They also hope to promote a unity among the people that disregards traditional divisions in order to promote a more sustainable future and that puts people over profit.  

The ways in which Just Stop Oil conducts their protest are a vital component to their identity as a counterpublic.  Many counterpublics are characterized by their attitude towards violence and disruption.  For example in the United States, one of Dr. Martin Luther King’s main component to protesting was his use of non violent protests, whereas the Black Panthers believed that non violent protests could not truly liberate black Americans and engaged in violent action against the state.  The way in which an organization chooses to spread their message is an identifying feature about themselves.  Weisser states in a 2008 article that “Publics are as much a product of their forms of communication  as they are a product of their subject matter.” (Weisser 611).  The article goes on to say that “the conventions of dominant discourse in democratic societies generally cloak the power dynamics involved in what is considered standard, appropriate, or acceptable.” (Weisser 612).  This is to say that when a counterpublic does not follow the conventions of the dominant public, it can be seen as inappropriate or unacceptable because it is not in accordance with standards.  Because the dominant public views an action, like in this case direct action, to be inappropriate, the counterpublic struggles in finding acceptance within the dominant public.  Rather the counterpublic is not trying to fit in but rather create a space in which their voice and viewpoints may be heard even if it is contrary to what the dominant public's views are.  

These protests however are not without controversy and their share of criticisms.  These disruptive protests that Just Stop Oil organizes and executes may be productive in garnering attention for their cause, however it is not productive in bringing more people to their side of the cause.  Rather it solely builds a community within the environmentalism counterpublic.  Those who see the protest occurring likely have already made up their minds about the topic at hand and are unlikely to change their views based on the actions of the protestors.  Many people see these protests as a nuisance and an annoyance rather than real social change.  According to a survey, “Many campaigners believe so-called direct action – such as defacing public property, blocking traffic or gluing people to roads or objects – is an effective way of drawing attention to their cause. But the vast majority of Britons (78%) say this kind of protesting hinders, rather than helps a cause” (Morris).  This is an essential disconnect that the organization has with the public sphere.  The counterpublic is in this case not oscillating with the state, but rather seems to be protesting the British public as they are not causing issues for the state but rather for the everyday citizen of the UK.  One response to this criticism could be that the large majority of British citizens do not believe that climate change is a real issue that needs to be addressed.  This is not substantiated as “ In October 2021, three-quarters (75%) of adults in Great Britain said they were either very or somewhat worried about the impact of climate change” (Office for National Statistics).  With this in mind, it is clear that Just Stop Oil is putting pressure in the wrong places as the majority of the public agrees with them, yet they are disrupting the lives of those same people.  Instead, the organization should focus its tactics and attention on disrupting the lives of the politicians who receive donations and gifts from fossil fuel executives and companies.  While yes it is the people who elect the politicians, the fossil fuel companies are unfortunately the ones who finance their campaigns.  

In summary, the rhetorical analysis of this Just Stop Oil protest reveals how a unique counterpublic interacts and oscillates with the dominant public sphere.  The organization uses protest strategies designed to interrupt the daily lives of people in an attempt to force the issue of climate change to the front of the discussion.  They aim to be a more confrontational movement and one that is not able to be ignored.  In accordance with Squire's idea of a counterpublic, we see that this group has formed their own identity as a response to marginalization from the dominant sphere.  The group's rhetoric in this instance calls out the public for caring more about material things like paintings over human lives and our environment.  These protests have been effective in garnering attention and news headlines, however it has struggled to gain support from the wider public audience because of its confrontational nature.  The group aims to navigate the tension of effectively raising awareness of the issue and turning people off to the words and ideas of what is being said because of the actions being taken by the group.  This is a problem that many counterpublics face and it is one that is difficult but not impossible to overcome.  

Works Cited 

Morris, Joanna. “The Majority of the Public Believe Protests Rarely, If Ever, Make a 

Difference.” YouGov, YouGov, 14 Feb. 2023, yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/45232-majority-public-believe-protests-rarely-if-ever-ma?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Fpolitics%2Farticles-reports%2F2023%2F02%2F14%2Fmajority-public-believe-protests-rarely-if-ever-ma. 

Person. “Three-Quarters of Adults in Great Britain Worry about Climate Change.” 

Three-Quarters of Adults in Great Britain Worry about Climate Change - Office for National Statistics, Office for National Statistics, 5 Nov. 2021, www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/threequartersofadultsingreatbritainworryaboutclimatechange/2021-11-05#:~:text=In%20October%202021%2C%20three%2Dquarters,were%20neither%20worried%20nor%20unworried. 

Squires, C. (2001). The Black Press and the State. In R. Asen and D. Brouwer (Eds.), 

Counterpublics and the state (pp 111-136). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

The Guardian, director. Just Stop Oil Activists Throw Tomato Soup on Van Gogh’s Sunflowers 

Painting at National Gallery. YouTube, YouTube, 14 Oct. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTdquzu-BXg. Accessed 21 Nov. 2023. 

Weisser, Christian R. “Subaltern Counterpublics and the Discourse of Protest.” JAC, vol. 28, no. 

3/4, 2008, pp. 608–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866859. Accessed 21 Nov. 2023.

[3fluffies]

Open Letter/Discourse Invitation on the Controversial Pairing in Chapter 42 of Favors (Hunger Games AU)

My Hunger Games AU longfic, Favors, has gone in many directions I've never dared before as a writer, and possibly no more so than the very (understandably) controversial pairing that took place in the most recent chapter.

Disclaimer In Case It’s Unclear: I am IN NO WAY endorsing this type of relationship on Real World Planet Earth.

As anticipated, some readers were squicked, skeeved, and even triggered, while others were ambivalent. So here is an explanation of how my decision to do it came about and why I decided it worked for this dark AU of a dark dystopia.

Ch. 43: An Open Letter/Discourse Interlude on the Controversial Pairing - Discussion/debate whether in agreement or disagreement with my reasoning is encouraged and welcome, just please be civil to other readers. (You can be mean to me if you want - I had another lawyer call me a big fat liar today!)

Also, for those still reading, which I hope everyone will, there's a poll in the endnote about the update schedule.

[mmmmalo]

Okay so in roughly the order I noticed stuff:

First, How the World Works. The show was produced during 2020, right. So between Socko asserting the FBI killed MLK and describing police as enforcers of economic hierarchy, the puppet functions not only as an ambient voice of leftist critique, but also a stand-in protestor in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Bo threatens to take Socko off his hand when the critique/protest violates a standard of decorum (said "fucking"). In context, Socko's being sent into the waking paralysis of being off-hand, unable to move or speak freely, seems like a clear metaphor for incarceration. Hence Socko delivering the "I can't go back (implicitly to prison)" line, hence Bo demanding the sock look in his eyes and call him "sir", like an officer in the mood for humiliation

MLK comes up again on White Woman's Instagram, being incorrectly attributed as the source of an undescribed Lord of the Rings -- a white voice coming out of a black (or black-aligned) protestor's mouth, like Socko? The attribution line is perhaps doubled by "a dreamcatcher bought from Urban Outfitters", insofar as MLK famously Had A Dream, Urban is a once common euphemism for Black, and the clothing store suggests Socko (and/or wearing MLK like a t-shirt). The dreamcatcher alone suggested cultural appropriation (a Native cultural artifact turned into a mass commodity), so we're implicitly invited to project that same sense of exploitation onto the misuse of MLK's name and status

Unpaid Intern is a white-collar synonym of "slave", which along with the bluesy, Hit-the-Road-Jack-esque melody racialize the proceedings and frame Bo's protest song as a distortion of George Floyd protestors, as with Socko. The kaleidoscopic accumulation of reaction videos represents the Discourse that follows ("the backlash to the backlash to the thing that's just begun", as he later puts it in That Funny Feeling)

The playful appropriation continues in Sexting: "we talk dirty like we're ancient Egyptians" isn't just a comparison of emojis to hieroglyphs, but a statement of the RnB track's basic structural premise of a white guy adopting a black mode of expression for the purpose of sexy times.

Look Who's Inside Again is a moving reflection on the social anxiety Bo associates with performance, like many of these tracks -- but it also continues the invocation of police brutality, with the anxious closing line "come out with your hands up, we've got you surrounded". The song's mocking title begins to sounds like officer taunting a repeated offender they have returned to the Inside of a jail cell...

...hence the song is followed by Problematic, which is a workout video because that's what you do in prison. Bo's confession about having long ago dressed up as Aladdin (He's really sorry!!) doubles as a description of the song's present, in which Bo plays the part of a minority locked up for some crime or other. "Are you gonna hold me accountable?" the prisoner cries, ironically.

...and we now hear the prisoner lament that he is Turning 30. He remarks that he will "do another 10" years (a phrasing that implies a prison sentence), and once he turns 40 he'll kill himself. In the US, more than half of all prisoner deaths in the last 8 years were suicides, apparently

All Time Low affirms the ongoing use of Bo's personal struggles to symbolize racially inflected policing with a quick denial: he is "rapidly approaching an ATL, which is an All Time Low, not Atlanta".

That Funny Feeling is very cryptic in its juxtapositions, but I'm guessing "live action Lion King" was placed next to "Pepsi Half-Time Show" for the shared content of "singing minorities"...? Or else it's a remark on the march of civilization, raw nature to hyper-commercialization? Unsure. The pair is followed though by two seeming reaffirmations of Bo's desire to kill himself: first with "20,000 years of this, 7 more (years) to go" as though the 10 year suicide clock from Turning 30 plunged forward -- apparently there's a film called "20,000 years in Sing Sing (Prison)", which explains the first number and grounds us in jail. After this line, the suicide is reinforced by "Carpool Karaoke. Steve Aoki. Logan Paul" which walks us from the recurring topic of disassociation (singers in Carpool Karaoke perform their own music) to the Aokigahara forest (a suicide spot in Japan; Logan Paul infamously posted one of the dead to YouTube). "20,000 years of this" is the implicit cause of the suicidal ideation, so Bo here delivering a sense of doom built on either anti-civ primitivism or racism...? The Unabomber (who is in jail?) approves, in either case. This might have something to do why Bo does this song as an acoustic folk melody and spends other bars tying "female Colonel Sanders" to the prospect of Civil War and bemoaning commercial gun culture -- this song has takes its focus and affect from the white/rightwing, rather than the black/leftwing.

Anyway, All Eyes On Me borrows its title from a Tupac song, which like Bo's ditty juxtaposes self-aggrandization with an all-consuming sense of paranoia directed towards the innumerable eyes watching/targeting him. In Pac's case, this included federal authorities, who harassed his family for its ties to the Black Panther Party.

That's everything I caught. Obviously none of this encompasses the work, but its clear at least that Bo is by some measure engaged with some political connotations of being stuck inside

Homestuck's training in white racial irony is helping me catch some saucy double entendres in Bo Burnham's Inside, so that's fun