#and by the way individuals choose to perpetuate it

[soldier-poet-king]

I said I wasn't gonna be mean and argumentative bc it alienates people and makes me feel bad abt myself but this is one (1) thing I'm certain about and it Actually Matters

No Jesus didn't say that being rich is inherently evil and all rich people go to hell but he did very much say the whole camel and needle thing. And rich people are SOOOOOO desperate to make it about anything other than wealth.

And like. "Not all rich people" isn't exactly a good argument here. The VAST majority (if not all) methods of accumulating wealth are unethical, either directly unethical, or at the very least profiting off of an economic structure which is designed to disadvantage the many for the benefit of the few. Yes yes there is no ethical consumption under capitalism or whatever, but there's a major difference between....buying everyday items and living on an average wage and the vast accumulation of wealth we see in the west.

I'm not even talking about the ultra rich! (Although I'd certainly argue they are the most unethical here, and the unbalanced ownership of the means of production IS a problem, regardless of your opinions on Marxist theory). But I'm talking about the comfortably middle class here too! I can't stomach it. And I genuinely don't understand how people can live like that and are still able to live with themselves. Too see suffering everyday, not even globally, but in their own cities. Obvs the exploitative ultra rich are The Real Problem here, but I think we're becoming far too comfortable with the accumulation of even casual wealth, when poverty and desperation and class inequality are only worsening.

And just to kick the hornets nets because I can and am frankly reaching a point of idgaf anger, Christians making these arguments in defense of wealth often tend to hold certain opinions about the government, and taxation, and how charity should be an individual decision and not "enforced". Okay. Fine. I don't actually like the govt either and in my ideal world sure that'd be the case. But I live in the real world and in the meantime people need to be fed and housed. However, these are the self same people who are often defending their own comfortable middle class lives and disposable income* and who aren't participating in the "freely chosen" mutual aid they apparently prefer. It just. Hm. (Leftists are ABSOLUTELY not off the hook for this one either, but when it comes to the explicitly religious argument against wealth, it oftener is a more conservative issue. 99% of religious leftists I know are radicals)

Anyway! Greed is perhaps the worst sin! Imo! The root of the majority of societal ills! And I will not fuckin stand for this rich people apologism! One good egg genuinely trying to do good in a sea of selfish people does not change the fact that the methods of accumulation are unethical, (and if it is inherited, holding onto unethically gained goods for your own benefit while others suffer is STILL unethical)

*to be clear I'm not saying we should all be ascetics. I like my creature comforts too. I'm soft and weak. But within reason. Within a certain degree of limitation. There is a point beyond which not only can we not live with our conscience, but we have a moral obligation to help each other, to do something with that wealth. Not just sit on a nest egg for another few decades so we can go on some extra vacations when retired. And yeah it's a process and we're not all zaccheus to transform ourselves overnight. But cmon. Most of us aren't even trying.

[whitecreekvalley-if]

[ Demo TBA ] • Character descriptions • Pinterest •

Genres: Slice of life, drama, mystery, romance

WCV is rated 18+ for explicit language, violence, alcohol and drug use, and explicit sexual content.

Life's taken a nosedive—no apartment, no job, no friends. Desperation pushes you to cling to a chance from a kindly stranger offering a ticket to a town hidden beyond mountains and plains, a place people don't seek but always seem to need.

Welcome to Whitecreek Valley, where the Brass Pine Ranch needs your unique skills to mend a crumbling homestead, and a crumbling family. As you tackle the decay of the ranch and the town alongside the rancher's son, deeper troubles emerge—livestock falling ill sparks fears of a town on the brink of extinction. Can you navigate this community, help them rejuvenate, or will it become another link in the list of ghost towns of America's Wikipedia page?

FEATURES

Customization: Appearance, personality, gender & sexuality, what job they had before, their hobbies, etc. Choose how they feel about being a farmhand, how they're adjusting to the rural life, and - with your choices - how the town as a whole sees them. Are they part of the community or an perpetual outsider?

Skills: Depending on your previous job, you'll have a unique set of skills to help the community. Choose to learn new skills, like woodworking, bronc riding, or sheep shearing, to mention a few.

Animal husbandry: The distances around Whitecreek Valley are hefty, so it's necessary to have at least a horse to get around. Choose your favorite out of a cast of individual equines, each with their own personalities. Also, help a calf into this world and realize how fun it is to raise a baby cow! As long as you're in good standing with the rest of the herd, of course.

Rebuilding: Try your best to rebuild the Brass Pine ranch, and the town adjacent. The better job you manage, the more opportunities (and challenges) come your way.

Community outreach: A dying town is still home, and there are stories to be heard, problems to solve. Lend a helping hand to your new community and see how one kindness can pay itself back.

Romance: Not everyone in town is adverse to strangers, and if your heart yearns romance, there is a chance for a spark along the way. Just be careful as to who you're trying to woo in front of whom. Small town gossips, we've all seen it.

Mystery: There's something hanging over the valley, like a rot in the air. Why are people moving out? Why are exports not moving out? And who's behind the animals getting sick? Don you detective hat and lend a hand to the entire four local police officers working the bizarre case.

THE LOCALS (RO'S)

THE RANCHER'S SON

Mason "Mace" Gannon - 27 - he/him

He used to be so much fun. I miss hanging out with him, out by the bonfires. He'd always make everyone feel so included and happy, and oh, that homemade cider he'd bring? Warmed us up on those chilly late fall nights, when we had nothing else to do. Did I tell you about the time he got us all to go skinny dipping? He was such a charmer, I wonder --

Imagine Mace as your human golden retriever – the guy who's a blast to be around, a bit mischievous, and the first to rush to your aid whenever you need it. After being gone for five years to live his rodeo dreams, he's back, now the sole caretaker of the family ranch in his hometown. He goes to great lengths to keep his personal issues personal, and it's the butt of many jokes how he's always there to help others but has the worst time asking for help himself.

He's you boss, and probably one of the best you'll ever get. Just don't pay mind to the spats between him and his dad.

THE BARTENDER

Alice Marks - 25 - she/her

Alice, she's a feisty one! Like her poppa, rest his soul. How I love the drinks she comes up with at the bar, and that horse of hers! She could go into rodeo, but I don't think after what happened with her pa... Oh, but she's a wonder! Always there with a quip, how they drive her suitors mad. Good thing she stopped with the talk about moving away, the town would be so dull without her!

Alice is the town's most known inhabitant, running the show from the only bar in town, which she just happens to own. Her mind is like a machine for fun, and she's the brain behind all the pop-up events and happenings around town. Sure, she can be a bit like a hurricane of enthusiasm, but hey, that's Alice for you. If the town had a social heartbeat, it'd be Alice – the vibrant, smartass soul making everyday life feel like a blessing.

THE DEPUTY

Word of the wise: Never challenge Alice to a drinking game. You will lose, spectacularly, and it'll all be on film.

Judge Gannon - 34 - he/him

Judge is a bit strange, don't you think? He just vanished as soon as he turned eighteen and popped back out of nowhere! That must've been, let's see... Five years ago? He doesn't spend much time with us commoners though, but I think I've seen him at the bar once or twice. I don't actually think he knows how to make nice with people, he always has that glower on. Gets it from his dad, let me tell you --

Bold and straight to the point, Judge isn't out here trying to be intimidating – it just kinda happens. If his brother is a golden retriever, he's definitely the doberman of the family. He's got this brash, no-nonsense vibe that some folks mistake for arrogance, especially when they try laying on the charm and he's not having it. He steers clear of small talk unless it involves his job, and when duty calls, he's more than ready to throw down to protect his town and county.

There's this local urban legend that he cracked a smile once, but it's like spotting a unicorn – not everyone's buying it.

THE LAWYER

Mercedes "Sadie" Diáz - 32 - she/her

The new girl, yes! Oh, a beauty! And so curious. I do love sitting down with her though, oh the stories she brings from the big city, so intriguing! I hear she finds our town intriguing too, the mayor once - don't tell anyone I told you this - the mayor once said he caught her breaking into the city hall archives! I know, scandalous, but good on her, maybe now someone will argue that my neighbors fence post --

Sadie, the big-shot lawyer from the city, doing her solo act in town. When she's not in court, folks are lining up just to get a piece of the urban tales she's got. A trailblazer and truth-seeker, she's got this knack for poking her nose where it probably shouldn't be, and surprise, she knows more local secrets than the town gossip. Sure, she's all passionate and calculated, a bit out of sync with the town's warmth, but hey, that logical mind of hers might just shake things up and get the town back on track.

It's a well known fact that she could get access to places with the right documents, but she herself has said it's more fun to pick locks. Go figure.

LIST OF MAJOR NPCs

LIST OF MINOR NPCs

[theblackfemininesociety]

The Power of Black Women Supporting Each Other: United We Win 👑

(Black Women in Hollywood, Essence. 2024)

In a world where black women have historically been marginalized and pitted against each other, it is crucial now more than ever for us to stand united and support one another. The notion that there is only room for a few at the top is a fallacy that has perpetuated division and hindered our collective progress. It is time to recognize that there is an abundance of talent, brilliance, and strength within our community, and by lifting each other up, we can shatter barriers, redefine success, and create a new narrative of solidarity and empowerment. Together, we can break through the glass ceiling and rise to new heights, leaving no black woman behind.

🪄 The Magic Behind Supporting Each Other Includes:

👑 Embracing Sisterhood:

As black women, we understand the struggles and challenges we face in various aspects of life. By supporting each other, we foster a sense of sisterhood that allows us to connect on a deeper level. Through embracing the concept of sisterhood, we find common ground and create a safe space where we can share our triumphs, challenges, and knowledge. Together, we uplift and empower one another, ensuring that no one is left behind.

👑 Breaking Stereotypes:

When black women succeed, we shatter preconceived notions and pave the way for future generations. Our collective achievements inspire others to pursue their passions, regardless of societal limitations.i

👑 Collaboration Over Competition:

Rather than viewing one another as competitors, we choose collaboration over competition. We recognize that our individual successes do not diminish the accomplishments of others. Instead, our achievements collectively contribute to a stronger, more vibrant community. From sharing techniques and experiences to supporting each other's businesses, we foster an environment where everyone can thrive.

👑 Leading By Example:

When we support one another, we become beacons of inspiration for young black girls and women who aspire to become successful in all areas of life . By showcasing our unity, we demonstrate the power of collective success. We encourage future generations to embrace their talents, chase their dreams, and support their fellow black women in their respective endeavors.

As we stitch our efforts together, we have the chance to showcase the power and harmony of black women upliftng one another. By celebrating each other's victories, we reinforce the belief that there is more than enough room at the top for all of us. Let us continue to uplift, empower, and inspire one another, for when one of us wins, we all do.

[gatheringbones]

[“In a 2019 tweet (since deleted), Twitter user Brooke wrote of ‘carving “trans” into every bone of my body so when they find my skeleton in two hundred years they don’t get too confused’. A reply parodied the response of an oblivious archaeologist: ‘We must be careful not to jump to conclusions about what these ancient carvings could have meant; This individual could have had a passion for mass transit, transcontinental travel, or a combination of poor spelling and a love of trance music’.

Every time I read jokes like this, I get a jolt of hurt and defensiveness: not all historians and academics are like that! I try so hard, every day, not to do the kind of history they’re talking about! And yet I can hardly blame these people for talking and writing the way they do. The fact is that the discipline of history is set up to erase queer lives, and particularly trans lives. We are expected to adhere to double standards of evidence, which encourage us to state with impunity that a historical figure was definitely cis, but to hedge with caveats the suggestion that they were maybe, possibly trans; to use phrases like ‘cross-dresser’ or ‘impersonator’ as if they’re neutral, and to write lengthy defences of ourselves if we decide to avoid them; to expect backlash from colleagues and reviewers if we choose to use any pronouns for a historical figure other than those associated with the gender they were assigned at birth; to say, like the caricatured archaeologist above, ‘We must be careful not to jump to conclusions’, even when the evidence for trans experience is actually abundantly conclusive. It hurts when people memeify the oblivious, transphobic ‘historian’, but it’s also not unfair of them to do it. History, while it may not perpetuate physical harm, still repeatedly enacts violence against trans lives in the past and the present. And it’s not the job of the communities we’ve hurt to give us the benefit of the doubt: it’s our job to convince them that historians can be different.

In this book, I’ve identified new ways, and new places, to look for trans history. I’ve argued for the presence of trans experience in histories of gender-nonconforming fashion; histories of gender-nonconforming performance; and histories of people taking on a social role that isn’t associated with the gender they were assigned at birth. I’ve shown that many trans histories are inextricable from histories of other experiences: the sexual, the intersex, the anti-patriarchal, the spiritual. I’ve argued both for acknowledging trans possibility in histories of widespread gender nonconformity that have previously been explained in other ways, and for understanding gendered histories on their own terms – including seeing them, where necessary, as both trans history and the history of other kinds of people and experiences.

In this last kind of history in particular, I’ve often been confronted by what writer and philosopher Hil Malatino (quoting fellow scholar Abram J. Lewis) calls the ‘irreducible alterity’ of people in the past: the fact that some histories of gender are not possible to map onto or relate to the way people experience gender today. Malatino characterises the acknowledgement of this ‘irreducible alterity’ as a form of care for those past people, an idea that speaks deeply to me. It struck me, when I first read it, how different this framing of ‘care’ was from the arguments historians more commonly make against describing people in the past as trans: that it is presentist, that it is anachronistic, that it inappropriately fixes past people in modern categories. These arguments have rarely seemed to me to come from a place of care for people in the past; instead their priority seems to be history or historiographical methodology as an abstract, faux-objective entity. Still more rarely do they seem to acknowledge the concurrent urgency of caring for people in the present: the people who are living now, experiencing and articulating their gender in manifold ways and drawing strength from the histories of people who have done the same. Might it not be possible to find ways of recognising the essential difference of people in the past – people who disrupted gender before we were trans – while simultaneously holding space for the feelings of identification with them held by people in the present, the people who are trans now?”]

kit heyam, from before we were trans: a new history of gender, 2022

[starberrywander]

If men aren't the ones holding up the patriarchy then pray tell, who is? Oppression isn't some non corporeal force, it is created and regularly enforced by the oppressive class. It is the culmination of what a class of individuals think and do that create oppression. I think you should read even just the wikipedia article for Feminism and Patriarchy.

The answer is everyone who isn't actively fighting it. Not just men. Have you really never encountered women who enforce patriarchal gender roles on their families? What about all these female GOP politicians who regularly fight against women's rights?

You are correct, oppression isn't some non-corporeal force. But its not just the actions of individuals either. It is a system and a culture. It is maintained not just by those who actively defend it but also by those who act within it complacently. It's not some cult where people have to be forced to take action to maintain it, the patriarchy is a culture that we are all raised in. It implants itself in the minds of all people who exist within it through social rules and people, all people, will act on and pass on that culture if they do not actively fight to identify and remove it from themselves.

The patriarchy is often passive; meaning it doesn't have to be actively enforced by the conscious will of individuals to have effects on us. It is woven into our environments so deeply that everyone is conditioned to act on it and pass it on, even if we are not consciously aware that is what we're doing. Just like any other cultural element, the people who live within it tend to take it for granted as facts of reality. Ever heard of implicit bias? That is how systems like these maintain themselves.

There is not some active conspiracy among men to uphold and wield the patriarchy. Its not something they, or anyone else who hasn't challenged it in themselves, are consciously thinking about and controlling. It's just a culture that people are raised to think is the natural order of things. Yes, the oppressive class (in this case men) enforce oppression, but a very significant portion of that is done without any intention to oppress. It is, again, what people have been taught by the patriarchy is the natural order. Acting like all men, by virtue of being men, are in on some scheme to oppress women is disingenuous. Some may be (Andrew Tate, for example) but your average garden variety dude is not on some mission to maintain superiority.

Think what you want about me, but I can observe the world with my own two eyes and ears and see that most men are not out to get women. More often than not their harmful behaviors are done without any knowledge or understanding of the damage they can have (Obviously I'm not referring to things like abuse and rape, before you jump to extreme conclusions.). And they are never going to gain that understanding and start pulling the weeds of patriarchy from their minds if we do not allow them to process and discuss the way patriarchy plays out in their own lives.

So yeah, you're right. Men do uphold the patriarchy. It's not just men, but they do have the largest impact. But what I feel you get wrong is this framing that they always do so consciously, that it is an active thing that they are choosing and therefore must answer for. Most of the time it is implicit bias. And the only places those biases are challenged are feminist ones. Or at least ones with feminist influence. If we keep excluding them that fact will never change and they will never stop upholding the patriarchy. They do not hold it up because they're male, they hold it up because that's all they've been taught to do. They have been raised by a culture designed to perpetuate these ideas and pass them from generation to generation.

Idk why it's not obvious to more people, but maleness is not the cause of patriarchy. The ideology of patriarchy is. And ideology can be passed on by anyone, to anyone. If we just ignore this crucial source, nothing is going to change. We are going to fight a constant uphill battle if we just assume that men are changeably in favor of this ideology and give up on rooting it out. We need to root it out. That is probably the most important step we can take toward dismantling the patriarchy right now. And the most effective way to do that is to actually discuss the patriarchy with men and allow them to express and process their perspective and experience without being driven away for their thoughts. No, this doesn't mean just tolerate prejudice silently. What it does mean is to listen, consider, empathize, and start pulling the weeds of prejudice out by challenging biased statements in a way that doesn't make them go on the defensive.

Seriously, how do you propose we end the patriarchy? What's the plan here? Because to me the most obvious course of action is to free men and women alike from the captivity of this harmful ideology until there is no one left to uphold it. And we do that by assessing all effects of the patriarchy and discussing them, including the ways they effect men. In what way would it ever be bad to better understand the patriarchy? Because that's what happens when you allow men's experiences to be discussed.

Maybe you don't see it this way, but when I think of Feminism the goal is to free all of humanity from the grips of patriarchy, not to free women from men. The problem is the culture and ideology of patriarchy, not men for wielding it. Or at very least, that's the problem we should be focusing on if we want to make any progress. I don't see how we could ever stop men from perpetuating the patriarchy if we don't make them stop believing its lies and assumptions.

[sincerely-sofie]

I just realized how crazy Opal’s family is on paper. Imagine you’re a greedy crook so you kidnap the child of the random Charmeleon lady who you know has more money than she lets on. Then you send a ransom letter and set up a dungeon so this Charmeleon woman can give you the money for her child back. It’s fool proof!

And then you find out said Charmeleon lady is not JUST a Charmeleon lady, she’s the lady who stopped the world from getting paralyzed with her friend. Okay, no problem. They probably haven’t fought in a serious battle for years. It’s still an easy job- oh she still goes into dangerous mystery dungeons and so does her previous partner Kip. Okay, startling, but you can still pull through on this- oh wait, Grovyle the time gear thief, Dusknoir the hit man, and the time traveling mythical Pokémon Celebi are also part of the family? They also care about this Charmeleon lady?? And they’d also be apoplectic about this? Okay, now you’re a lot more worried, but it’s nothing that hiring a few accomplices can’t handle! Wait. The father of the baby is the guy who actively tried to cause the planet’s paralysis? The one who managed to torment an entire town? And all have of them practically stared Dialga in the face and said “yeah I can win this/I have to win this” and actually did win? Or at least one of them caused Dialga’s insanity?

You now realize you have only a few options:

1. Lie to potential accomplices about who exactly you messed with because no one sane would look at the full implications of this and go “yeah let’s do it!”

2. Hope the Charmeleon lady won’t call for backup, and that said backup won’t find out and come anyways, therefore plan proceeds without a hitch.

3. Just give the baby back and apologize.

If you’re really greedy or desperate for money, you’d choose one of the first two options. Otherwise, you’d choose option three and run for the hills.

And that’s before said criminal realizes they kidnapped a baby legendary.

The best part of all this is that her family never talks about the craziness of their lives. So you think you're just kidnapping some rich lady's kid and then a brigade of highly competent, highly dangerous individuals come swooping in simultaneously, but the brigade is comprised of:

That old man who you saw agonizing over what cookware to buy at the market the other day and apparently knows how to corner people who are running from him with startling efficiency

A scrawny, ugly grass-type you crossed paths with at the clinic when he was getting some medicines for his chronic pain and who is also unbelievably fast and hits like a truck

A marshtomp who, despite having famously (and shamefully, according to many) retired from exploration, is arguably even more dangerous now despite his calmer occupation, because he knows everything about the ruins you’re hiding out in, including where all the traps are

The rich lady whose baby you stole and also has apparently BESTED MULTIPLE LEGENDS IN COMBAT with the help of that marshtomp we mentioned earlier, and is currently tearing her way through the countryside and rapidly closing in on your location

And two entire legends who are not only extremely capable on their own, but can destroy your psyche by showing you the exact location, date, and cause of your death (right here, right now, her disemboweling you personally with her bare hands) or locking you in a perpetual nightmare. Also that one over there is the baby's dad? Oh heck you're so dead—

AND THE BABY HERSELF IS A LEGEND WHO KEEPS TURNING INTO DIFFERENT ROCK + STEEL TYPES WHO WEIGH VARYING UNHOLY AMOUNTS AND IS SHRIEKING LOUD ENOUGH FOR ANYONE IN A 30 MILE RADIUS TO KNOW WHERE YOU ARE. OH HECK YOU'RE SO DEAD.

Beyond this scenario, imagine being an older Opal who's chilling with the fam during the holidays. Everyone is having a nice time hanging out and soaking in the good company. And then your uncle who cries whenever you call him Uncle mentions that he hasn't had this good of food since before his parents kicked him out of the house when he was a kid. You don't say anything, but you're extremely confused. Did he say he was evicted from his family home as a child? Maybe you misheard...

And then your other uncle says that he got the recipe from some bidoof during that window of time that your mom didn't exist. Your aunt nods sagely and says that it was very kind of the bidoof to share such a treasured family recipe with him during that time. He probably needed the comfort food while grieving his best friend.

At this point you are very much baffled by the conversation, and then your grandfather politely asks if we can stop talking about this, because he'd rather not be reminded of the fact that they all died when he's still finishing dessert.

Your dad then chimes in by saying he'd appreciate a topic change as well. His appetite is rather soured by the reminder of his part in their deaths.

You have never been more confused. And they all just move on to chat about the weather like nothing about what they said is absolutely unbelievable. So later you go to ask your mom about it and she has the audacity to reply:

TFW you’re finally old enough to comprehend The Family Lore™️

[not-goldy]

Realistically, if he wants children he has to leave jungkook and live with a woman/alone. If Korea suspects he has adopted a child and is raising him with a man, the child most likely will be taken away. This is not Disneyland, grow up.

And that's something to gloat about?

Opinions are like noses. Everyone has them.

Uhm, No. Compulsory hetersexuality is not his only way out in spite of the institutionalized oppression against queer individuals, inspite of the challenges queer Individuals face due to their culture.

Believe it or not Queer families do exist in SK. Queer couples exist in SK. They have for many years and they will for years to come. The world may not have been made to accommodate us but we do exist against the odds.

What you are describing here is perpetuating heteronormative traditional family values, well modern non traditional families exist in South Korea too.

The fact that their culture stigmatize people with tattoos or gay people don't mean people have stopped getting tattoos or that gay people have ceased to exist altogether for fear of oppression.

One thing about queer individuals is, if a loophole exists we will find it. Not too long yall argued its impossible for Jikook to serve together because their laws does not allow gay men to serve together and here they are proving you all wrong

Jimin has options. Believe it or not.

What you are describing is just one option, the easiest- or hardest option way out I'd say depending on how you look at it.

His life, and other queer individual's lives would be so much better if they weren't queer at all won't it?

But then again, lying about your sexuality, marrying a woman to cover up his sexuality, lying to his wife and children about who he is, using another human being to avoid persecution while hiding and meeting up at Rendezvous joints to screw other men and satisfy his gay urges- is cowardly and in itself hell yet quite common.

Some queer men do do that. It's sad, unfortunate and cruel and never easy on them too but it does happen.

If he meets a girl he genuinely loves and falls in love with and wants to build a family with her I would genuinely support that for him. He's bisexual. He can do that. It won't erase his sexuality.

If he has to use another human being to avoid persecution..... I will support that too. A boy gotta do what a boy gotta do. Sorry not sorry.

If he wants to leave SK behind, live forever as a bachelor, a single father, if he wants to use surrogates, or adopt i will support that too- fortunately for him, he has a lot of fame and money and that puts him in a privileged position compared to the average queer man in SK.

Jimin has options. Some more challenging than the other. It's his choice to make, and as he turns 30 and the social pressure increases for him to settle down, I know he's gonna think about these choices and decisions he has to make and he will decide which way to go.

He might feel they are out of time and need to get real and get with the system. Or he can choose himself and his truth and find a way around it.

I will support him any way he swings but the fact that this is what Queer people have to deal with in this life is just sad.

Stay strong Jimin. Hwaiting

[blackhistorystoryteller]

Read about African polygamy

Historical Context:

Polygamy in Africa predates colonialism and is intertwined with traditional cultural practices and religious beliefs. In many African societies, polygamy was a symbol of wealth, power, and prestige, as having multiple wives signified a man's ability to provide for and protect his family. Additionally, polygamy served practical purposes such as expanding family labor forces and ensuring lineage continuation.

Polygamy, the practice of having multiple spouses simultaneously, has sparked debates and controversies around the world for centuries. While some argue that polygamy can have positive effects on individuals and communities, others condemn it as harmful and oppressive. In this article, we'll examine both sides of the argument to better understand the complexities of polygamy.

Cultural Significance:

In some African cultures, polygamy is seen as a way to strengthen family ties and social networks. It also plays a role in the distribution of labor and responsibilities within the household, with each wife often having specific duties and roles. Moreover, polygamous marriages are often accompanied by elaborate ceremonies and rituals, reinforcing social cohesion and community bonds.

Contemporary Perspectives:

While polygamy remains legal and socially accepted in many African countries, its practice has evolved in response to modernization, urbanization, and changes in societal norms. In urban areas, economic constraints and shifting gender dynamics have led to a decline in polygamous marriages, as the costs associated with maintaining multiple households become prohibitive. Moreover, women's empowerment movements and changing attitudes towards gender equality have challenged the patriarchal structures that underpin traditional polygamous unions.

Title: Debating Polygamy: Exploring the Pros and Cons of a Controversial Practice

The Case for Polygam

1. Cultural Preservation: For many societies, polygamy is deeply ingrained in cultural traditions and religious beliefs. Advocates argue that prohibiting polygamy infringes upon cultural autonomy and the right to practice one's beliefs freely.

2. Economic Benefits: In agrarian or subsistence-based economies, polygamy can provide economic advantages by expanding the labor force and increasing household productivity. Multiple spouses can contribute to farming, childcare, and other domestic tasks, thereby improving the family's overall welfare.

3. Social Stability: In some contexts, polygamy can foster social cohesion and stability by strengthening family networks and community bonds. Polygamous unions often involve extensive kinship networks, which provide social support and security for members.

4. Gender Empowerment: Contrary to popular perception, some women choose polygamous marriages willingly, viewing them as a means of financial security, social status, or companionship. In certain polygamous arrangements, women may have more autonomy and decision-making power than in monogamous marriages.

1. Gender Inequality: Critics argue that polygamy perpetuates patriarchal power structures and exacerbates gender inequality. In many polygamous societies, women have limited rights and agency, often facing discrimination, abuse, and neglect within the household.

2. Emotional and Psychological Harm: Polygamous marriages can lead to emotional strain, jealousy, and conflicts among spouses. Children in polygamous households may also experience psychological distress due to complex family dynamics and divided parental attention.

3. Legal and Ethical Concerns: Polygamy raises legal and ethical questions regarding marital rights, inheritance, and child custody. In societies where polygamy is practiced without legal regulation, individuals may be vulnerable to exploitation, coercion, and marital instability.

4. Health Risks: Polygamy is associated with higher rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV/AIDS transmission, particularly in contexts where condom use is inconsistent or taboo. Multiple sexual partners increase the risk of disease transmission, posing public health challenges in polygamous communities.

The debate over polygamy is nuanced and contentious, reflecting divergent cultural, ethical, and moral perspectives. While proponents emphasize its cultural significance and potential benefits, opponents highlight the risks of gender inequality, social harm, and health hazards associated with the practice. Ultimately, the question of whether polygamy is "good" or "bad" depends on one's values, beliefs, and the specific context in which it occurs. As societies continue to grapple with issues of gender equality, human rights, and cultural diversity, the conversation around polygamy will undoubtedly evolve.

[thedroloisms]

just an essay bc it's been on my mind but the way that victimhood becomes a weapon on social media is so fucking stupid and counterintuitive to actual advocacy. people wielding "im a victim" as a defense not only in situations actually involving their specific case but also in basically every damn situation in the world is so ???? even in cases involving dream, for example, i will see people using his history as a means of defending him (it's really fucked up that you would accuse a victim of ___, he's an abuse victim i'm sure he won't defend ___ and that he'll ___) and while i understand where that sentiment comes from, the base assumption it's making is...nakedly untrue. and assuming its truthfulness can hurt victims moreso than it helps them.

being a victim isn't moralizing. being a victim doesn't make you a good person. suffering isn't absolution, and going through fucked up shit doesn't make someone "good." people equate abuser = bad person and victim = good person, and then assume that victims are incapable of abusive behavior or "problematic" internalized ideas. an abuser can't be neurodivergent, or mentally ill, or part of a marginalized group, and most importantly an abuser can't be a victim. the boxes of victim and abuser are strictly defined with no overlap. once you've been through something truly, verifiably, Fucked Up (tm), congrats! you get a certificate of eternal victimhood that prevents you from ever being a Real Bad Person ever for the rest of your life.

only that's not how real life works! it's just not! generational trauma leads to cycles of abuse that perpetuate themselves over whole generations of people! the kids that think that it's perfectly fine and a-okay for a parent to physically punish their children don't tend to be the ones with parents that don't lay a finger on them! and you know, it sucks. it sucks that you get nothing out of being hurt, that there's no fucking prize, that there are no suffering vouchers for you to cash in because of the abuse you suffered that can give you good-person-points. it sucks to endure all that shit for nothing. but the opposite idea of suffering making you a good person is the exact reason why some people preach about the miles they walked to school in the driving rain to excuse taking out their shitty temper on their small children.

being abused generally doesn't make one "better." if anything, trauma tends to fuck you up in ways that hurt you...and others. going through shit tends to make people worse. working to get better is something that requires actual conscious effort, not something that you are given as a side effect of going through hell. over and over again, traumatized individuals who are made to feel powerless and given little freedom and ability to change their circumstances, when in a situation where they are given power to some degree over some person, may choose to abuse that power while they're in their own abusive situation or after. part of being a victim of abuse often means having a distorted view of the abuse you've been through! it can mean normalizing fucked up behavior! looking at shit and treating it lightly because you've been taught that it's "not that bad," if you've been taught that it's bad at all! victims aren't granted perfect ideologies from god because they walked through flames--cult survivors usually have to unlearn all sorts of messed up beliefs that were drilled into them--beliefs that many people on twitter would then damn them for, because obviously if you've thought something like that in the past then you're a bigoted hateful individual.

i can only speak from my own experience, but i can't fucking count the number of people i've heard of or met or known personally who have been through some kind of trauma in the past, who are undoubtably victims of abuse, who then go on to act in toxic, manipulative, and abusive ways to others. oftentimes, these people are aware of the fact that they were in abusive situations in the past and make quite a big deal about the fact that they care about victims, as a victim, and want to advocate for them. they're the same people who react extremely negatively to anyone alluding to the idea that they could be abusive--they're not like that, they've been abused, how could anyone accuse them of abusing another person, don't they know how much that hurts with their history. and so on and so forth.

and...i have a lot of sympathy for these individuals, generally speaking. because as mentioned above, being abused in the past doesn't necessarily make it harder for you to be a perpetrator in the future. sometimes--oftentimes, even--it's the opposite. and i feel for them, because going through trauma and being hurt makes you scramble for ways to not be hurt again, and oftentimes the easiest answer for that (and the ways of solving problems as modeled to them in the past!) is control, and controlling another party can very easily slip into manipulative, abusive behavior. especially if you still have internalized ideas mixed in with the fear that surviving abuse entails, internalized ideas that are often left unexamined by people who believe that their victimhood absolves them from any further responsibility. i feel for people who are deathly afraid of ever being seen as terrible people, oftentimes because of the shit that they went through, who seek explanations for their abusers' behavior that make it so much easier to simplify the matter into "they're something separate from me, something that i can never become." i sympathize with the anger and fear and frustration and grief that might never had had a healthy outlet while in a past situation that ends up poured out into places where it shouldn't be in the present, i sympathize with the desire to find reason in being hurt where it doesn't exist, to want there to be something to make the whole damn thing worth it instead of having nothing to take with you but your pain.

but at the end of the day, that's not how life works. that's not how abuse works. yeah, there are abusers who are cruel for cruelty's sake, who are aware of the harm they do and desire to cause more--and there are just as many who genuinely believe that they're doing the right thing, that they're doing good, that they care for the one that they're hurting unselfishly and wholeheartedly. there are many, many people who hurt others because they have been hurt before, and this isn't an excuse--of course not--but refusing to acknowledge the ways that pain can perpetuate itself and blinding oneself to the possibility of their own actions ever being abusive can literally be how this pain continues. it's good to be self aware, it's good to want to do the right thing, but assuming that victims are good people because of the suffering they went through not only means that so-called "bad victims" (or anyone that's not yet Acceptably untangled the thought patterns and actions that have been normalized to them, or anyone who lashes out in quote-unquote appropriate ways as judged by whatever social media council is handing out social justice tickets for the week) get overlooked and ignored, but abusive patterns of behavior are allowed to continue to exist, just in a repackaged form with different language. it's not fair to victims to nail them to this standard of so-called righteousness that is also inextricably connected to their experiences, allowed to be revoked if they're too "abuser" to be "victim" anymore, or to overlook the victims of their behavior because their inherent suffering-borne righteousness keeps them from crossing the line into bad behavior.

at the end of the day, no one deserves abuse, victims deserve to be advocated for, and people who have been through horrific shit didn't deserve to go through horrific shit. but you don't get handed get-out-of-jail-free cards for being treated badly, you know?

[decolonize-the-left]

hey! if you don’t mind could you elaborate on why TLOU is racist and zionist? i kind of get the racist part but i’m really lost on why it’s zionist

The entire first game and first season of the show is to build up the relationship between Joel and Ellie and make you care about their relationship.

Why?

So that when Joel is murdered in the second game and (likely) the second season you feel so much empathy for Ellie that you don't even question her motives when she goes on a revenge homicide spree.

Why?

So you understand hate. So you understand the pull of violence when it comes to people who hurt you and the people you love. So you can understand "both sides" of the genocide happening in Palestine. So you understand Israeli soldiers who commit war crimes. So you understand why Israel keeps going and won't stop. So you understand that conflict can't end until "both sides" put down their arms. So you personally can feel & understand why peace can never be realized. To justify Palestinian genocide as an inevitable of human nature.

Which is absolute horse shit to any non-bigot of course, doubly so for anyone aware that Israel is definitely the country perpetuating a literal genocide and most violence commited against them is out of defense and self preservation.

The creator of the game and show Literally said this himself.

The real horror in zombie fiction is usually not the legions of undead, but the frailties and cruelties that they expose in the living. The differences between stories in the genre come from the specific fears and frustrations that they render into their metaphors. The Last of Us Part II fits perfectly within these genre conventions, but what's different here is its sources of inspiration.

The Last of Us Part II focuses on what has been broadly defined by some of its creators as a "cycle of violence." While some zombie fiction shows human depravity in response to fear or scarcity in the immediate aftermath of an outbreak, The Last of Us Part II takes place in a more stabilized post apocalypse, decades after societal collapse, where individuals and communities choose to hurt each other as opposed to taking heinous actions out of desperation.

More specifically, the cycle of violence in The Last of Us Part II appears to be largely modeled after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I suspect that some players, if they consciously clock the parallels at all, will think The Last of Us Part II is taking a balanced and fair perspective on that conflict, humanizing and exposing flaws in both sides of its in-game analogues. But as someone who grew up in Israel, I recognized a familiar, firmly Israeli way of seeing and explaining the conflict which tries to appear evenhanded and even enlightened, but in practice marginalizes Palestinian experience in a manner that perpetuates a horrific status quo.

The game's co-director and co-writer Neil Druckmann, an Israeli who was born and raised in the West Bank before his family moved to the U.S., told the Washington Post that the game's themes of revenge can be traced back to the 2000 killing of two Israeli soldiers by a mob in Ramallah. Some of the gruesome details of the incident were captured on video, which Druckmann viewed. In his interview, he recounted the anger and desire for vengeance he felt when he saw the video—and how he later reconsidered and regretted those impulses, saying they made him feel “gross and guilty.” But it gave him the kernel of a story.

“I landed on this emotional idea of, can we, over the course of the game, make you feel this intense hate that is universal in the same way that unconditional love is universal?” Druckmann told the Post. “This hate that people feel has the same kind of universality. You hate someone so much that you want them to suffer in the way they’ve made someone you love suffer.”

Read the article. It's Extremely informative and lays all of it out clearly. It's a very well written analysis.

Personally I'm going to be side eyeing Anyone who agrees with Ellie's sentiment that "they deserve it at any cost, no price is too high for me" when season 2 is released. Season 2 will be serving as a litmus test tbh.

I had no idea about any of this until the show came out, I posted about it (cuz I used to love the game), and someone sent an anon. I googled it, looked through some tags, read this article, and decided the show nor the game are worth my time anymore.

It's inherently Zionist. To play the game or watch the show at all means consuming Israeli genocide propaganda. There is no way to avoid it and thus no reason to watch it "critically" as I assume people will try to say justify keep watching it.

Besides that most people who say they will watch it critically already analyzed the game and the Zionism went right over their heads. Which is case in point that most people who use that excuse simply do Not have the knowledge or skill necessary to do so in the first place.

[poordeadsejanus]

from baby to brutal: coriolanus snow's hair transformation throughout the ballad of songbirds and snakes

something that i find so interesting as a physical marker of coriolanus' change into snow is his hair.

the progression we see him go through, from those nice soft curls, to the buzzcut, to the platinum bleach and tone really remind me -- and walk with me here -- of when babies/little kids get their first haircut and how the new growth changes their hair.

for instance, when a family member of mine was really young, they had super soft, thin, and curly hair; we were all convinced they would just have curly hair forever. but them, they got their first hair cut (cut down really short), and from that moment on, the hair grew in much thicker and noticeably straight. baby hair is always so soft and fine, and it's when they start to grow up that it begins to change, especially when the first cut snips all of the baby hair away. it's a marker of change, of growing up (and, i suppose to be a bit cynical, losing the innocence of youth).

okay so, back to coryo. we first see him with the golden, loose curls.

this is when he's more naive to the realities of the world, when he still has not become the hardened man we know later on. still innocent i suppose you could say -- well, as relatively innocent as coriolanus snow can be. [more below the cut]

even when he's a child, the hair is loose and similar to the way he wears it when he's older. almost as if it's showing us that he's sort of stuck in this perpetual state of paranoia, fear, and the single-minded sort of thinking common in children, but exacerbated a million times in adult coryo.

next we get the buzzcut. and there is much to be said about this.

so, first of all, we're seeing a cutting off of the baby hair, representing him letting go of his old life, his childhood, that last bit of good he had going for him. he takes a turn for the worst. this is when he starts to experience life outside the capitol and everything goes awry.

the idea of a haircut in general is supposed to be a renewal, a starting over, an embrace of change. but obviously that's not really what this is for him because he does not choose to cut his hair. a forced haircut -- and it is; there's a scene in the movie where he's getting sheared and he has this sort of glassy look in his eyes that just screams 'i do not want this so maybe if i tune it out it'll stop happening' -- is essentially the exact opposite of all the things a haircut is supposed to be. it's taking choice entirely out of the hands of the person. no more is it about a new beginning and a change made by the self, it is a forced change inflicted on someone: effectively a 'this is how it is now, deal with it'. really having something as personal and vital to your autonomy as hair being forcefully changed (or removed) is a completely violation of the self, both outer and inner.

plus, in this specific context, it's a military cut. it's meant to symbolize conformity and the putting aside of your own self to become part of something bigger than the individual. (and really, i don't think i need to explain why that is something coryo is not happy about). for someone so set on his great exceptions and bright future as an individual with power and status ("coriolanus snow, future president of panem" tbosas, 11), becoming a faceless grunt doing menial labour is not fulfilling the expectations both he and others have for him. this haircut is about conformity, making coriolanus into someone completely anonymous and without power.

the power loss is both literal, but also more metaphorical in it's ties to the hair loss, because crassus had that same white hair as him, so cutting it off, down to the bare bones of it, takes away that connection and identification that he had with his father and the larger snow reputation in general.

okay, last thing about this buzzcut. obviously, when sejanus shows up on the train -- or in the barracks like in the book -- he too has his hair buzzed, so you could assume that he's experiencing the same sort of identity crisis and helplessness as coriolanus, but i'd actually argue otherwise. of course, we can't actually know because coryo's narration is heavily biased so we couldn't ever hope to actually know sej's true thoughts, but i think for sejanus it actually might function as a sense of freedom. he's joined the peacekeepers, he's out of the capitol, he can make a difference. it's about his freedom to become someone anonymous (not tied to the plinth name), whereas coryo's is the exact opposite; a loss of freedom and the snow name. it's a punishment for coryo to become no one, but a relief for sejanus. and while the haircut is required regardless of personal feelings on peacekeeping, sejanus' haircut would've been much less of a violation because he signed up for it. it's not something he's being held in place and forced to do. he can shear his hair and shed the capitol life, and embracing anonymity, becoming a piece in something bigger than himself, whereas for coryo, this isn't something he chooses. a choice for sejanus and a punishment for coriolanus.

[and isn't that sort of the piece of their contrasting characters? one desperately seeking to distance himself from the capitol and his family name, and one clawing and fighting and killing to get back to that very same thing...]

now, finally on to coryo's final evolution in the movie: salon-fresh bleached and toned haircut.

to get back to the baby hair metaphor: the baby hair has been shorn, and the adult hair has grown back differently (or it is styles purposefully differently). this symbolizes a loss of that innocence and childhood that he was clinging to, represented by the curls. but we are also past the violation of the buzzcut, where he was deeply uncertain and off kilter -- an identity crisis. now, his hair has grown back, and this is pretty much the style we see in all the way up to thg trilogy and donald sutherland's snow.

it is pushed away from the face (very unlike the baby curls we see, which constantly are in/over his face), showing us that he is not clouded by those same childish things that he was before. it is more structures and carefully styled, displaying discipline and order.

i'd be curious to know if he straightens it in these early years post-lucy gray as a staunch refusal to even slightly be similar to how he was before. because president snow as we see him has some of that wave back. this is a super "plate of corn" moment, of course, but it is something i was thinking about.

also, this new hair is obviously meant to be a nod to crassus' hairstyle: emulating the man he wants to be. the hair is more straight, pushed back away from the face, very structured, for both crasus and snow.

the change is very clearly marked and meant to be very obvious, showing us coriolanus' transformation and his descent into villainy. it's done so masterfully, both obvious and subtle at the same time. the movie did such a spectacular job giving us insight into coriolanus' transformation in so many ways, particularly with the costume choices / colours, etc. and obviously none of this would mean anything without suzanne collins' phenomenal writing in the first place.

subtle visual representations of character transformations you are so special to me <3

[leohtttbriar]

one day i'll make a whole obnoxious powerpoint (with the checkerboard transition effects obvs) that's a thematic comparison/contrast-ion between jadzia dax and odo and what they mean but for now i'm thinking again about "children of time" and the way odo and dax were framed as like the only possible actors in a impossible-to-act situation. it was odo or dax, who would let the potential closed-loop lives of a colony of people be rendered materially forgotten. and the more i think about it the more convinced i am that, actually, dax wouldn't have ever chosen differently. it had to be odo.

they're refracted versions of the other---defined by a multiplicity, which they understand and handle in different ways. where dax (who has been accused of frivolity the whole season by her upright buddy worf) can't see beyond the agony of her own selfishness, odo just does. he does what he thinks he is obligated to do based on his own individually-mandated moral rectitude. he is solipsistic in the way all of the changelings are for they can be anything and are also all each other and that is certain. but he loves kira, who is similar but solipsistically fastened to the world, thru a faith in fate, so he can just...selfishly act in a way she couldn't. and tbh the morality of the selfishness is up for grabs, too, bc kira "selflessly" choosing to die is also a condemnation for everyone else so like. odo's lawful/strict-desire sure does help them out of jam. and dax isn't about to step on anyone even if perhaps there should be some stepping. she is "conviction-less." but.

in a way. the show argues, while not really making the argument, that: dax's mistake is sourced in its own obligations. what's the point of anything if you're not going to risk it for sweet victory-biscuit? to risk something to get the details on some (potentially smart) maybe-fungus? to take a magic-carpet ride? to extract the dino-dna from the amber? to be curious? is that not also a carefully considered rectitude? is that not a justice--that, if one has the power to witness what exists, however weird, however potentially useless, then they possess a simple fealty, sworn to lord universe, as vassals made up of sensory powers, to continue witnessing? like "this planet is here and is therefore interesting and i seek glory thru it yay" and now she is presented with lives upon lives who absolutely need her--who existentially need her perpetual attention. as her curiosity dooms, her own version of personal law chooses for her too: odo and kira are sure of their own minds. dax is sure of everything else outside herself (or within herself but within a worm--the boundaries are fuzzy) and swears to it, quite a lot.

so like. where odo and dax agree about the value of a proto-universe, they disagree here. odo is like: "thou shall not kill. it is written." so he can just. unwrite a reality that is utterly dependent upon those that are not children of time, but freely moving amongst it. citizens, for instance, of the real. he breaks nothing bc the kira-dying reality is what is broken to begin with. also he's like. super in love. and dax is like: "phenomena! there it is! things that exist! in my hands and my choices, phenomena! you can't make me be god about it :(" and then her future self which is still technically her tries to be god about it and then ultimately doesn't. so.

what's really funny about all this is later when odo is fully on board with kira just throwing herself off a cliff bc of "fate," dax is in the background with miles coming up with scientific eviction papers for super-dimensional aliens. odo just accepts a law in contradiction to his own (he is large!) and dax is like "what even do we have to do with this" and "i think living is a lot more attractive." bc. the point is. they are foils.

[actualbird]

WAIT I WAS SPAMMING MARIUS TO INTERACT WITH HIM IN VISIT FOR FUN AND HE SAID “my brother used to buy me clothes. he had a better sense of fashion than me” (or something v similar to this, I got the intimacy level up screen half way through) and I’m like AGH the angst, he even took marius on shopping trips 😭 😭 😭 maybe marius buys clothes based on what giann would pick 😭

WAHHHH yes thats one of my favorite lines from his regular interactions!!! i love how it gives a glimpse of marius and giann's relationship, even if it's a very mundane detail. theres two things i wanna say about this though

1 ) while the line seems to be nostalgic in a way, i also like the implication/thematic tie in that marius growing out of his brother's shadow (even if the circumstances that Led to this happening are less than ideal)

like, theres several stories that show that other people saw marius as lesser or as somebody simply in his brother's shadow and not a person himself. but among marius' key story themes methinks is individuality and carving out his own identity for himself and expressing that identity while bound to a world that is so strict about how he "must" present himself

(sidenote: this is an incredibly queercoded theme to me and i mean that genuinely! the radical decision to be himself against all the "norms" of what the society surrounding him wants him to be!)

(sidenote 2: marius actually shares this theme with vyn a LOT. royal expectations and high class expectations. except that vyn made the radical decision to leave, which is in itself still a valid and worthwhile expression of his individuality. also vyn chose a new name for himself that is so lgbt of him)

so yeah, while giann was the one taking care of marius' clothes (and thus, in a way, marius' image) (though this doesnt strike me as a bad thing, more just in an overbearing protective caring older brother sense) (i hc giann has a lot of guilt in failing marius during their childhoods so he overcompensated in a lot of ways and maybe one of the ways was HEY MARIUS LET'S GO SHOPPING)—SORRY IM GETTING OFF TOPIC. anyway while giann was the one buying clothes in the beginning, that obviously is no longer the case now. so much like the other spheres of marius' life, he needs to employ his individuality in this smaller mundane way as well.

so while i think marius does, every once in a while, buy some clothes because it was what giann would pick, i think he does this out of nostalgia and out of how much he misses giann. not because the image giann had helped him make is one he necessarily fully and only ascribes to. i think marius by and large chooses his own clothes based on his own tastes and identity that he has now made for himself

and i think hes done a pretty good job! marius' outfits are AWESOME. quick shoutouts to my favorite outfits of his:

(sidenote 3: i know that last one, the pink denim jacket one, had POLARIZED audiences but sue me i personally love it jHVKJHSDF i think it is so fun and so campy and pink suits him well)

ANYHOO the second thing i wanna bring up is

2 ) IM SO CURIOUS AS TO WHAT GIANN'S FASHION SENSE IS

i know many many of us have seen giann's sprite already from the cn server bday 3 card of marius, but that sprite showed him in a very formal outfit. i wanna know what his casual day to day fashion sense is like. is it soft cardigans core? something more streetwear? dark academia? JVSKFJHDVFS

i personally think his fashion sense would be in a perpetual state of smart casual. i have no basis for this, this is just me going off of vibes.

thanks for the ask!!

[allamericansbitch]

If I may weigh in again because I've been thinking about this nearly all day you're right that it really does not matter whether or not Taylor is mentally ill, and she is not in anyway obligated to discuss her mental health publicly. If she were mentally if, if she was so mentally ill and physiologically resistant to medication that her best option was ECT, it would not change the fact that what she is doing now is sensationalising both mental illness and ECT. There is no ethical way to sensationalise something - exoticisation is inherently racist, fetishising queerness is inherently queer-phobic, and aestheticising mental illness is inherently abelistic. No one is saying that she isn't allowed to engage with the concept of mental illness in her music and performances. What we are saying is that the way she is doing so is incredibly insensitive. She consistently denigrates someone else for being depressed, and having substance abuse issues in TTPD, then turns around and co-opts both those things in a highly performative, trivialising way.

The contrast between the accusatory way she says "You needed me but you needed drugs more" and the flippant delivery of "I was high functioning alcoholic/until nobody noticed my new aesthetic" makes it very clear that she is not approaching substance abuse with any gravity at all - in the first instance she only cares that it's getting in the way of someone loving her in the way she ways, and in the second instance she explicitly states that she views alcoholism as a personality to role-play for attention.

"Here we go again/the voices in his head/called again to end our days of wild" very succinctly embodies a recurring issue in the album - He implicitly has persistent, capital-letter mental health issues, and she is fed up of them interfering with her ability to have fun. She is very clearly trivialising someone's mental health issues, and expecting sympathy for having been victimised and "broken" by it. He's not mean to her, doesn't do anything to her, she's just tired of his problems -- and that's the feeling we're expected to be sympathetic towards, that's what's being valued over mental illness.

And all this is directly harmful. The wide-spread trivialisation of mental illness means that people have a harder time being taken seriously by professionals, it means that their friends, peers, co-workers, bosses, parents, teachers etc, don't understand the extent to which mental illness affects a person's life. Perhaps most dangerously of all, it means that the mentally ill individual may not understand that what they're experiencing isn't normal because the language of their experience has been misappropriated into a causal context. I understand that she's just following a trend, but in following it, she's also perpetuating it in a very big way because unfortunately, we live in a world where she has much more influence than anybody actually qualified to talk about mental health.

(I wanted to rant a little about how disgusting the TTPD choreo is from both a mental health and feminist perspective, but this is probably already way too long.)

yes YES YES! all this is exactly it. no one's saying she isnt allowed to talk about mental health issues or specifically her struggles with it, of course she can. it's the way she's choosing to express it that's just very problematic and she's ignoring the problematic history of and trivializing them for performance/aesthetic purposes. she's just treating every issue she discusses with no empathy or gravity. she repeatedly treats others with mental health issues as a liability but then we should feel sad for her when she didn't feel bad for anyone else.

and the last part is just perfect and wanna reiterate it:

"I understand that she's just following a trend, but in following it, she's also perpetuating it in a very big way because unfortunately, we live in a world where she has much more influence than anybody actually qualified to talk about mental health."

[lookismstuff]

On Johan and Zack

(bonus: oasis "don't look back in anger" as bgm to this post hahaha)

In their friendship, Johan had always been the one who left and Zack had always been the one who was pained by his own failures. While there were positive things about each of them individually, in my opinion somehow the friendship was strained because their weaknesses were amplified by it.

Johan had always been insecure because he was repeatedly betrayed, used, and failed by other people.

Raised in abject poverty, he was used by his mom's cult leader, by Charles Choi through Gun, by Jin Jang of God Dog, by White Tiger, and by Workers. If you take Questism into account, then he was used by Kim Soohyun through Seong Haru, and last by Big Deal through Luah.

While individually Johan's exceptional talent and innocent outlook on life made him unique, the friendship magnified his bitterness and fear of abandonment, even though Zack (and Mira) had never hurt him.

So Johan kept leaving again and again whenever opportunities of reconnecting with people occured.

Zack, on the other hand, had always been overly conscious of his own shortcomings. At the same time, I strongly suspect that Zack was also nursing some sort of noblesse oblige as his raison d'etre.

Raised in an affluent family, he subconsciously felt guilty when he didn't fix himself or solve the problems of the people he saw as less fortunate than he was. As a result, Zack persisted regardless of those persons' willingness or unwillingness to accept his help, including when it came to Johan.

While as an individual Zack's eagerness to prove his worth was the key to his steady development, in the friendship he came across as overprotective and insecure at the same time.

So the perpetually disconnected guy and the overwhelmingly self-reproachful guy were both stuck in this cycle of bitter interaction where they were neither friends nor enemies. Just two people who must grow up and choose whether to part ways or salvage whatever was left. Maybe now the time had come.

[argumate]

so you start by looking at advertising as something that "brands" do and analyse it based on what's in the interest of the companies that operate those brands and then you can zoom in to look at the people who work there and consider their interests, which might differ from the interests of the company in the same way that management and employees and shareholders can all have different interests, but you can also zoom out and look at the behaviour of entire industries, and I think that can sometimes make more sense even though there's a danger of getting detached from reality the more abstract you get.

for example, most brands in a given industry will advertise in similar ways, such that you can mention "a car ad" or "a fast food ad" and people will know what you mean (and not just people, it's obvious enough that AI can figure this out too!)

and there are reasons for the convergence, whether it's because certain ideas just work or become so strongly associated with a product category that they're necessary to communicate what it is you're selling, or simply because companies rely on the same advertising consultants and design follows fashion just like everything else; occasionally an ad may break the mold but the majority will follow a very familiar template, the same language.

but wait, isn't advertising supposed to differentiate your product from others? if all fast food companies associate their product with hunger satisfaction and thirst quenching and being cool and happy, how does it help you choose one over the other?

I think to some extent it doesn't! but it boosts the fortunes of the industry as a whole, making it a weirdly cooperative venture, an inversion of the idea of trees all competing to be the tallest and more like a Gaia hypothesis of the industry as one organism responding to commercial imperatives as a collective.

now of course you can't read too much into this, competition does exist and companies do try to differentiate themselves, and following the idea that every industry is working as a collective to implement a shared agenda will lead you to some strange places, but it's still worth considering advertising from that perspective.

(and you might go even higher than individual industries and see advertising as just one facet of the way culture perpetuates itself across time, an even more powerful framework that's even more detached from material reality).