#and thus things need to be changed both on an individual and societal level | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

linkspooky · 3 years

Text

The Hands that Will Save the League

In chapter 321 we're reminded once again of the reoccurring motif of hands reaching out to save someone in need, especially with the double spread close-up of Iida's hands reaching for Deku's hands. I couldn't help but think how this could apply to the league of villains. Hand symbolism has always been associated with Shigaraki (duh), both in the fact that his hands destroy everything they touched, and also his reason for being a villain stems from the fact that not a single hand reached out to save him that day. However, we've also had another character in the league with hands drawn up close and personal reaching out to save the others: spinner.

1. Just an Empty Cosplayer

I'm not the first one to make this observation. @codenamesazanka pointed this out long before me, especially in regards to Spinner's importance to the league, but basically, Spinner's role is that despite being a teenage mutant ninja turtle he's also the everyman of the league. He's not connected to the main conflict of the story by bloodline or legacy, the way Shigaraki, Dabi, and Compress are. He's not someone with an incredibly powerful or deviant quirk like Twice or Toga. He is a victim, but he doesn't have the elaborate villain backstories of Twice, Shigaraki, Dabi, and Toga.

He literally is just some guy with a lizard quirk. He has the weakest quirk in the league and the weakest reason for why he joined the league. Spinner faces societal abuse because of his quirk, but what spurred him to action was seeing Stain appear on TV, and a desire to be a less empty person than he was before. Spinner was pushed, he was rejected by society, but I would say as an inverse to the league who are driven by extraordinary circumstances, Spinner is basically an every man who drives himself to keep up with the rest of the league despite seemingly lacking everything "special" they have.

And I believe this every man quality, and this drive Spinner has is what's going to be the key to piecing the league back together. It's because Spinner sees himself as so far behind the rest of the league, and so much less special than they are, that he's driven to try to understand them.

Not only is Spinner a member who has tried to understand every member of the league in one way or another, Spinner is also someone who similiar to Sihgaraki foils every single character in the league despite just being an everyman.

2. Spinner and Toga

While Spinner and Toga may not have the same level of development to their interactions as Twice and Toga, Spinner reaches out to her once but not twice, and there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the characters.

Both Spinner and Toga joined the league for the same reason, an empty admiration for Stain, without really caring about Stain's ideals. Toga admires Stain because he's covered in blood and fighting for something and she wants to become more like the people she admires, Spinner because he saw himself as pathetic for hiding in his room all day and when he saw Stain taking a stand trying to change the whole world on his own he wanted to become that way too. Which means both of them have a tendency to want to become more like the people they admire, because their own sense of personal identity is so weak.

Himiko and Spinner both define themselves by the way society has rejected them. Spinner has internalized the idea that he's an empty person who can't accomplish anything on his own, every terrible thing other people said about him due to his heteromorph quirk he accepted it. At the same time, Toga was somebody born with a "dangerous quirk" who was told to repress it and then did that living under a fake identity as a normal school girl that would please her parents and the people around her for as long as she could. Both Toga and Spinner are taught by the society around them to be self-loathing and to repress themselves because of their quirks. They're also characters who are both defined by a desire for release.

When Spinner asks if Toga still wants to be in the league because of Stain and she responds, Now I wanna become everyone I love. Spinner comments, "You're so free."

Spinner and Toga both claim they joined the league because of love for another person, they both loved and admired some aspect of Stain, but their real reason for joining, or at least the reason they stay is that deep down both of them desire the freedom to be themselves. Toga wrapping her desires up in language like love for other people, and wanting to become them, is because deep down she believes because of her quirk there's no one who would accept her for herself, as the normal girl she believes she is, no one will let her live as Toga thus she tries to become other people. It's the same for Spinner, who believes he can't be anything other than the Lizard Freak, so he too tries to dress himself up and become a Stain Cosplayer. It's only through the league's acceptance that Toga and Spinner slowly begin to learn that they are good enough on their own, just as themselves, and their priorities begin to shift.

3. Spinner and Twice

Twice and Spinner have several backstory parallels already. They are both characters affected by poverty, Spinner lived in a backwater town plagued by old views of heteromorph quirks, Twice lost his parents and began working to support himself at a young age before becoming homeless. Spinner and Twice were also both labeled in a way that stuck with them, after Twice got a criminal charge in an accident on his permanent record he couldn't find another job after being labeled deviant. Spinner was labeled as a deviant because of his quirk and the idea that he's a lizard freak has always stuck with him the same way that Twice has internalized the idea that "bad people don't get saved."

They also both chose to isolate themselves because of the circumstances they faced. Twice's first response to homelessness was to decide to never trust anybody but himself, and he became a criminal who pulled off heists with only clones of himself as team members until that stopped working for him. Spinner's response was also to shut himself away in his room and become a NEET. They both cut themselves off to the society that labeled them as unacceptable, but in the process they also cut themselves off from other people and became unable to trust others.

While they have major backstory parallels, I believe the greatest parallel between them is going to be that Spinner will inherit that role that Twice had for the league. While Shigaraki is the leader, Twice more than anybody else believed the League to be a family, and encouraged everyone to be friendly with one another.

It's Twice more than anyone else who emphasizes the bond of the league, that they're all strays, that they need to take care of each other and save each other. It's Twice who urges Shigaraki to save Giran because he's one of them. He makes the unspoken bond of the league as a group of miscreants into a spoken one, because Twice wants those things, he's well aware of the fact that he wants trust and acceptance and came to the league to find those things. This is the greatest thing that ties Spinner and Twice's characters together, because they both view themselves as worthless, they define themselves by how they help the other members of the league.

Twice's death so far isn't something that has been really capitalized on by the plot, Hawks has yet to face consequences, we haven't gotten to see much of the league's reaction because they were scattered soon afterwards. However, if Twice's death is going to cause development eventually I believe it will be in the vacuum in the league created now that Twice is gone. There is no longer someone who is urging all of them to be together. Twice's death causes most of the league to become less stable. Toga goes on a killing spree, Dabi attacks Hawks, Compress tries to kill himself in a heroic sacrifice, Shigaraki hasn't gotten the chance to react yet but he's also gotten worse considering he's currently possessed. You could even say that Twice's death has caused other characters to double down on their worst habits.

Dabi's worst habit is that he acts separately from the league and refuses to participate in the group dynamic, believing himself to be a solo avenger. Dabi not trusting or telling the league what he was planning on doing with Hawks, as a consequence of his decision to play solo avenger, caused Twice to trust Hawks which led to his death. Hawks was the one who killed him but Dabi played a part, and when Twice dies Dabi obviously reacts to it, but also his decision is to double down on his bad habit, insisting he's only using the league and he doesn't care about the rest of the group. Toga also doubles down on her bad habit, she runs away from the rest of the league and insists she's only doing this for the freedom to do whatever she pleases, not because you know Twice got killed right in front of her. Compress's arc is less pronounced, but he also does, in fact, try to kill himself in a grand heroic sacrifice for the rest of the league.

When twice dies the league begins to fall apart and everyone acts on their individual worst flaws, ignoring that they were always stronger together as a group. However, there is still one person who wanted the exact same thing Twice did, to be trusted, to belong to a group. This is most likely the role that Spinner is going to grow to, someone who is trusted by everyone in the group.

Notably, when Toga is about to run away it's Spinner who reminds her that the league is a place for them to come back to. Toga who was probably the closest to Twice and spiraling the worst because of his death, and Toga and Twice's friendship was the first time we really saw how much of a "bond" the league had formed with one another, because in the camp arc they barely cooperated, only begrudgingly. It's Spinner who who emphasizes that even though everyone in the league is doing this for individualism "doing what they want" that they are also together as a group. Spinner is set to inherit Twice's role as the heart, because one he tries to understand other people in the league making the effort to reach out, and two Spinner is aware of what he wants just like Twice he wants to be trusted by the rest of the group.

4. Spinner and Dabi

This one is a little bit harder because Dabi's character arc really hasn't started yet. We have just now gotten to the reveal of who he is and what his motivations are, after it being a mystery for so long. However unlike the rest of the league, we haven't really seen how Dabi has reacted and changed by becoming a part of the group. Even if his motivation isn't "I'm only using them" and deep down he really does care, I don't think he's even realized yet that he does care or that he's not just using them. Dabi still believes himself to be alone, and therefore he's still isolated from the rest of the league and flying his revenge quest solo even though he's really not.

In that case, the biggest parallel between Spinner and Dabi is that they both had to be won over by the league. They both joined because of admiration for Stain, probably because Dabi genuinely believed in Stain's ideals of taking down impure heroes because it fit his own agenda so well, whereas Spinner is a self-proclaimed empty cosplayer.

Spinner, however, has already gone through an arc where he was dissatisfied with his reasons for joining the league and didn't believe he belonged with the rest of the group. He didn't have anything to love like Toga. He didn't know yet he wanted friends he could trust like Twice already did. He doesn't have a strong backstory motivation like Compress, or Dabi or even knows what he wants out of society. However, the entirety of MVA is Spinner letting himself be changed because of his interaction with the group.

Spinner failed at life, his quirk is worthless and only good for sticking to walls. He also internalized the idea that he himself was a failure, and locked himself inside believing he couldn't accomplish anything on his own. Spinner says he has nothing he loves, and nothing he wants to do. Not only that he feels unloved and unwanted. However, Spinner finds something to love in Shigaraki, even if he can't find a strong sense of individualism and still believes himself to be worthless he becomes motivated to help others. Spinner, the most normal person in the group with the most worthless quirk, becomes the greatest help to Shigaraki, basically once he gets over himself and his preconceived notions of himself. Because, you don't actually have to be a special person or have a strong quirk to be a hero, you have to reach out a hand.

The same way Spinner was won over by the League, Dabi has yet to be won over. However, if that does happen, it's probably going to look like Spinner's arc. Dabi antagonizes Spinner a lot, but they actually have more in common than they do differences. They both have failure quirks, while Dabi has an overwhelming fire quirk he wasn't allowed to use, Spinner is literally just a gecko. They both also were labeled as disappointments and given up on, Enji gave up on Touya, Spinner never had any potential from the start and locked himself away in his room. However, their paths so far have been opposites, Spinner let Shigaraki reach him and became a part of the group, Dabi at every possible opportunity insists he's doing this all alone. He takes every chance he can to separate himself from others. If Dabi's arc is going to be a mirror to Shoto's arc eventually, then someone has to reach him and convince him he can't do this all on his own, and Dabi can only truly find himself when he's part of the group once more. After all, so far Dabi is the one most resistant to change. Toga's goal has changed, Shigaraki's changed, Spinner has changed, even Compress now admits that while they're just a gang of thieves that he cares more about everyone else's dreams than his own. Dabi is still nursing a ten-year grudge against Endeavor and doing everything he can to take him down on his own because he hasn't let the group in. And he won't improve or change until he does let others in.

5. Spinner and Shigaraki

I love Compress but I'm skipping over him because his arc hasn't been elaborated on yet. If you want a quick summary though, both Spinner and Compress didn't believe the group to be anything more than a gathering of selfish criminals, however, both of them changed because they wanted to see Shigaraki's dream come true. Not only was Shigaraki the one who inspired both of them to change, but also Compress is the one who first sees how close Spinner is to Shigaraki more than anyone else in the group was.

He also sacrifices himself BECAUSE he's come to realize that what he wants more than his own dreams is to see everyone else's dreams come true. I know Compress's backstory is rushed as all hell, but it almost... almost... works because Compress isn't actually doing this because he's Oji Harima's grandson. His motivation changed a long time ago, he just didn't realize it until he was about to lose the league.

There are a few more parallels, they're both dropouts. It's implied that Compress was literally just a retired and failed stage magician before he decided to become a villain. Hopefully we'll become more on that later because the idea of Compress sucking in showbiz so he decided to follow his grandfather's legacy is really awesome. Spinner was a Neet before he saw Stain on television. They also both have more minor quirks, Compress just shrinks people, Spinner sticks to things. They both also are characters who don't seem important at first, but consistently hover around in the background constantly making sure everyone in the group is okay. Compress calls to check up on people, he talks to Dabi a lot, he tries to keep up with everybody in a melee, it's the little things he does that make Compress same for Spinner. They're both cosplaying as legendary villains who are greater than they are, Stein is cosplaying his grandfather, Spinner is cosplaying Stain, but it's unknown whether Compress really cares that much about his grandfather's ideals, I think he cares about the league more. Compress and Spinner are also people who question and try to understand things, Compress lectures the kids that they had their ideals handed down to them for adult, Compress realizes Spinner's importance to Shigaraki before Spinner even did, Compress and Spinner also both try to understand other people's dreams because they're lacking in their own. Spinner doesn't even have a dream, but he's the one who listened to Shigaraki's dream first.

Now it's been directly said by canon that Spinner and Shigaraki's connection is the most developed, and they are the closest to one another. By developed I mean, it changed over time, when it started out they had almost nothing to do with one another. Spinner was just a rank and file league member that Shigaraki used on the hideout raid. They didn't even get a character introduction scene like Shigarki did with Dabi and Toga.

However, Spinner and Shigaraki's characters are extremely closely tied together. Shigaraki's like the main character of the league, his backstories parallel everyone else's, including the main character of the entire story Deku. He's the one who makes the plans, goes through training arcs, he's the one who the league unites around. However, Spinner actually has all of that too. I just spent a very long time showing how Spinner despite not having an overly complicated backstory has strong parallels to everyone in the league. If Shigaraki is the main character, then Spinner is the everyman / the perspective character, hence why he's the narrator of MVA. Shigaraki is a person of extraordinary circumstance, the symbol of society's oppression who everyone in the league deepy relates to because he's suffered the same way that they have and he accepts them. Whereas, Spinner has suffered because of Hero Society too, he's more like a normal guy who makes an effort to understand everyone around him.

However, Deku wasn't saved by his love interest, or even his childhood friend who is apparently his destined rival, he was saved by Iida trying his best to keep up with him.

Spinner and Shigaraki are both the emotional core of the league in different ways. The league all respects Shigaraki, they rally around his ideas, his dreams are what inspire everybody. However, more and more it's looking like Spinner, ordinary, average, Spinner is working to build emotional connections to everyone in a much more normal way. He talks to Toga and tries to understand her love. He even consoles Toga when twice is gone. He challenges Shigaraki directly to his face. Compress who is always sort of watching the league in the background and checking up on them in little ways notices how hard that Spinner is trying to take care of Shigaraki.

Shigaraki accepts people at their worst and gives them a place to belong, but I think by Spinner's efforts to get to know and understand others, we as an audience are shown how humanizing of a presence that Spinner is on everyone else. Spinner, just being a normal guy, brings out the fact that the rest of the league despite their extraordinary circumstances are deep down just normal people to, who want to be loved normally, and live normally. Spinner literally wakes up Shigaraki, because he remembered the one time that he opened up in front of all of them, and cares enough to try to understand Shigaraki's hurt feelings and what he cares about.

If anything from the last arc in the manga, we're shown at great length, how understanding, reaching out, it all takes effort and it's not as flashy as defeating a villain or rescuing someone from a natural disaster.

Spinner is so important to Shigaraki, because while Shigaraki has given everyone in the group a place where they can be individuals, Shigaraki hasn't realized he himself can be an individual yet. He ultimately, shares the same character flaw as Deku. It's because he's decided that he's going to carry out his dreams for the sake of the league and to create a better future for them, that Shigaraki no longer cares what happens to himself, or about his own future. Everyone talks about Dabi's suicidal nature, but this is something that Shigaraki is challenged on over and over again. What are your motivations. What are your reasons. What do you want to accomplish. He always responds with nothing. There's nothing that he wants, there's nothing worth living for, he only wants to destroy and make a better world for the people who are around him. Shigaraki is the most thoroughly dehumanized character, to the point where he just straight up accepts "god of destruction" because that is at least an identity. Shigaraki needs Spinner and his normalizing influence, because Shigaraki can't see himself as a normal person.

Shigaraki shares the same character flaw as Deku, he does everything for the sake of others, with no regard to himself, which leads to extreme bouts of self-harming and fighting alone. Shigaraki faced off against Endeavor, and basically all the heroes alone even though he did call for backup. However, even before that Shigaraki made the decision to get dangerous risky surgery that would be like hell, because he believed deep down he wasn't good enough alone. Shigaraki just does not care about himself and is unable to see himself as an individual, which is exactly why he needs someone to care for him and see him that way.

Shigaraki's greatest challenge to date is that he's been dehumanized so thoroughly, and lost sight of himself to the point where he's lost even his own body autonomy. When Shigaraki is battling for possession of his body as AFO attempts to take total control and make him into a symbol again, denying him his personhood, we're set up directly with Spinner being the one who reminds us that Shigaraki is just a person, who likes video games, and gets along with his friends. It's Spinner who notices right away that AFO is different from Shigaraki and challenges him the same way that he challenged Shigaraki directly in the My VIllain Academia arc. This is all set up most likely, for Spinner being the one to reach out a hand the same way IIDA did, because what Shigaraki needs the most right now, is not a hero who will save him, but rather a normal person who will understand him and remind him that deep down he was just a normal kid too before all of this happened. What Shigaraki is most in need of is a hand that will reach out to him, and Spinner has already done this once putting Nana's hand back on his face when he couldn't wake up, but what he's failed to realize is that it's his own scaly lizard hands that should be doing the reaching out.

#mha meta #lov meta #league of villains #league of villains meta #spinner #shigaraki #toga himiko #higuchi iguchi #shigaraki tomura #dabi #touya todoroki #twice #jin bubaigawara #compress

517 notes · View notes

kitkatixx · 3 years

Text

kirukiyo headcanons (long ish)

If you haven’t noticed-- these two are my otp, and v3 did them both dirty... both in terms of plot and their few interactions (hi, utdp, i’m surprised they didn’t have an event with direct interaction)

I haven’t done these formally but figured I’d drop a few of my headcanons as of now, since the ideas I have for these two are fluid, but the base nature of their relationship remains about the same. You’ll see below the cut, they’re fairly in depth and give some flavor to the characters (especially Kirumi)

general summary

Subtle, subtle, subtle.

These two are experts at keeping their relationship under the table, and it takes the rest of the class--perceptive ones included-- quite a bit of time to figure out they’ve been together, even though many a student (Kokichi, Miu, Rantaro, Kaede) have made jokes about their likeness to a married couple.

While they are more than capable of adapting to the scenario, both of them are private individuals at heart, in spite how their talents require them to be around people nearly at all times. So for Kirumi especially, she prefers someone mature who can respect her desire to keep the limelight out of her personal life. After all, she prefers to keep her home and (incredibly taxing, chaotic) work life separate...

That being said, it is no secret to Class 79 (what I’ve dubbed the v3 cast in my HPA AU) and the upperclassmen (SDR2, DR3, THH) that the Ultimate Maid is a stubborn workaholic.

Thus, it takes a specific type of person to ‘get through’ to her-- specifically requesting her presence at refreshments, politely stopping her in the hallway for a conversation, all as cleverly disguised ‘breaks’ without infringing upon her time and duties. Even if it’s only momentary, small steps, persistence, and patience are key with her, as there is a fine line between obligation and devotion to one’s craft.

Korekiyo happens to be able to see past the professional ‘selflessly devoted’ front that Kirumi maintains nearly at all times, having had the opportunity to observe numerous types of people in his time as an anthropologist, and given what was seen in canon, it’s fairly evident that he was intrigued, speaking highly of her post trial (he even has a FTE in her lab!)

Initially, her insistence on wholeheartedly embodying the values of a proper maid piqued his attention, leading to him to take an interest in getting to know her more-- what makes Miss Tojo who she is, exactly? What motivates her to behave in such a way? And what of the human side of the Ultimate Maid? Such were the questions he wished to answer, and as any good researcher would do, it was necessary to approach this in a straightforward, concise manner.

Because of this unorthodox approach to getting to know her (indirectly) for a scholarly reason, Kirumi had no reason to decline his invitations to converse or shoo him away from observing her everyday duties as she would have done under normal circumstances. This in particular gave Korekiyo an advantage over many of his other peers, who would have had difficulty a) approaching her b) maintaining a sizeable conversation with her before moving onto her next task.

Eventually, the two would find they share similar interests (Victorian customs, tea preparation, etc), and get along well with each other; the meetings that began as strictly for research evolve into moments where two friends are talking.

Down the line, someone catches feels.

Now as for who that could be... let’s move to the next section to answer that.

a few typical who does/is relationship headcanons:

1. Who makes the first move and how?

Korekiyo does. While Kirumi eventually does develop feelings for him first, she won’t act on them out of concern that the quality of her work will be compromised, and stays quiet. Korekiyo, however, takes a little longer after mulling over whether his emotions can be chalked up to his general adoration for all of humanity or genuine feelings for her. He does pick up on small changes in her behavior and routine-- serving his preferred meals and tea at just the right temperature, being especially open to assisting him even when she’s terribly busy, and so on, which motivate him to make the first move. Very small, but incredibly thoughtful of her. He’s always liked the details.

The anthropologist is quite capable of being romantic if he so desires, but decides that with her in particular, it would be best to be polite and to the point. Of course, this is Korekiyo we are talking about, so he’ll still put his own twist on it-- so most likely discreetly slipping her a letter with a proper wax stamp on it expressing his feelings and a carnation, which in Japanese flower language is associated with fascination and distinction.

The letter’s contents include notes of the uniquely human aspects of her he finds especially beautiful, and are highly specific: the faint curve of her mouth that appears for a split-second (when she thinks no one is looking) after someone receives retribution for their antics, her deft, graceful movements as she slices into vegetables and pours tea, the glint in her eye that appears after a particularly challenging request is given... the list could go on and on, he writes, but it would be far too long to be appropriate for this letter, yet Kirumi Tojo’s identity is so much more than only the Ultimate Maid.

Lastly, it finishes with an attached sketch depicting one of the moments ‘when she is the most beautiful,’ showing her in her element... broom in hand, small frown on face, and scolding someone (read: Kokichi) After all, while many miss it, Korekiyo has picked up on the angry micro expressions that flit across her face after something particularly irritating has just occurred, and he loves them-- they make her humanity shine through.

Subsequently, it would prompt her to meet somewhere secluded in the evening if she reciprocates-- her missing presence would be more than enough for him to take the hint. Not that she intended on doing so.

2. Who is the most insecure and what makes them feel better?

You’d think it would be Kirumi, but no, Korekiyo is, beneath his unusual charm and charisma, by a margin. After the passing of his sister, it left him hesitant to get close to people at a personal level, which contributes to how he ended up choosing anthropology-- not only to travel and experience the world when she could not, but because it allows for one to be ‘close’ to humans in a removed manner. So while he can easily wax poetry about nearly anything about humans, cultures, or a person, he does this in a very ‘scientific manner’ at times, preferring to view things as an observer rather than a participator. Of course, this aspect of him was integrated into his identity long before HPA, but it is this distanced nature that contributed to his initial indecisiveness about whether his feelings are organic, and the occasional concern about how much emotional intimacy he is obligated to show in a relationship. Luckily, Kirumi isn’t the type to absolutely need direct communication in a relationship, and is more subtle in demeanor as well.

Having been in the service industry for years and hiding her own emotions (from herself as well), Kirumi is proficient at recognizing others’ needs, and picks up on these issues seamlessly. She isn’t exactly the best at opening up either (this is an area of improvement for both of them), but still makes attempts to directly talk to him about this. Generally, their form of communication is largely nonverbal, being highly in tune with each other-- to this couple, actions speak louder than words, but issues like these are best addressed face-to-face, with words, before they fester.

3. Who is the most romantic?

The anthropologist takes the cake here by societal standards-- his love language is giving gifts and words of affirmation, whereas Kirumi prefers acts of service (no surprise there!) but both share quality time as a commonality, and are very attentive towards each other. Regardless of the gift, Korekiyo is always sure to pick something thoughtful and practical, the way she likes things-- though now and then there’s something more material with emotional value in the mix, which she secretly likes. Kirumi is not used to people being so direct in this department with her, so while she’ll politely cite her preference for gifts as something useful, the silk gloves and other paraphernalia he gets her are a nice way to validate she has an identity outside of being a maid.

Not to mention that he has a way with words, and is incredibly proficient at finding 50 unique ways to compliment her in public, much to her chagrin (and hidden embarrassment,) but he takes pride in, citing that she should be more proud of her accomplishments. Nevertheless, Korekiyo still finds her indirect way of showing affection endearing, especially when she attempts to politely deflect compliments as ‘doing what any maid worth their salt would have done.’

Some things never change... even though he and the other members of Class 79 have slowly gotten her to be more open about accepting assistance from others (she’s overworked herself and passed out once!)

4. Who can’t keep their hands to themselves?

Again, while both of them are capable of (and prefer) being lowkey in public, it’s free real estate in private, so once again, this goes to Korekiyo. His official love language isn’t physical touch, but he embodies all five of them quite well, this one very much included.

Kirumi, on the other hand, doesn’t like PDA out of professionalism, which makes her a bit hesitant, even in the privacy of his or her room to be comfortable with it. This isn’t to say she isn’t curious or won’t even consider the possibility, but it takes her a considerable amount of time to warm up to it. Initially, the most you’ll see from them in public is subtle touches on each other’s hand-- little playful taps here and there-- which then morph into holding hands when no one’s around to see it. In private, they’re more willing to be physically close (think head in lap while reading), and Kirumi’s brushed his hair on more than one occasion. It should be noted that one of the most intimate moments the two have had was holding hands in private without any sort of fabric acting as a barrier.

However, Korekiyo does have a cheekier side that slips out (more slyly playful to incite something interesting/fluster her) and is known to slip an arm around her waist, pulling her in close. If you squint, you might catch a faint flush on the usually unflappable Kirumi. Bonus points if this is during the evening, and a breeze blows by. Bonus bonus if this is in public, during broad daylight.

The ‘class dad’ has to assert his dominance every now and then over the unruly children, no?

5. Who says ‘I love you’ first?

Love comes in a lot of different forms and of course, at each person’s pace. Both of them circle around this topic and have essentially said it nonverbally before, but the first to vocalize it is most likely still Korekiyo. It’s not in Kirumi’s nature to be direct about her emotions (but for duties and professional matters, absolutely), so it’s up to him to say he loves her first.

It’s most likely uttered in private, accompanied with a small kiss, and very quietly-- so quiet you can barely catch it, but that doesn’t matter, because only the one who needs to hear it the most will.

conclusion

Three words best describe this relationship: mature, meaningful, and synchronized.

Both of these individuals are aloof and formal on the surface level, but if one takes the time to truly get to know them, there’s quite the intense fire burning underneath in the form of being utterly devoted to each other every step of the way. Of course, this is all done in a very reserved manner, and if they don’t want you to know about it, you won’t.

Well, if you got here, thank you for reading all of this. I’ve liked this ship for a while, and I remember being nervous to create content-- I’m sure know how volatile fandom life can be, no? Hope you enjoyed my take and spins on their relationship, and I might post more later.

Feel free to request or drop something in the askbox for these two.

66 notes · View notes

ill-will-editions · 4 years

Photo

Covid-19: The 21st Century Begins Now Jérôme Baschet

Historians readily accept that the global 20th century began in 1914, with the onset of the cycle of the World Wars. One day it will no doubt be said that the 21st century began in 2020, with the introduction of SARS-CoV-2. The range of scenarios to come remains, of course, very open; but the sequence of events triggered by the spread of the Coronavirus offers a preview of the disasters that are bound to intensify in our convulsive world, marked as it is by the effects of a global warming well on its way towards an average increase of 3 or 4 degrees. What is happening before our eyes is an increasingly tight intertwining of multiple crisis factors, which it suffices for a random element, both unforeseen and widely announced, to activate. The collapse and unravelling of life, climate disorder, accelerated social decomposition, the discrediting of governments and political systems, the unbridled expansion of credit and financial fragility, failure to maintain a sufficient level of growth (to mention only a few): these dynamics all reinforce one another, generating an extreme vulnerability that derives from the fact that the world system is now in a situation of permanent structural crisis. Henceforth, any apparent stability is merely a mask for growing instability.

Philippe Sansonetti, a microbiologist and professor at the Collège de France, recently remarked that Covid-19 is an "Anthropocene disease”. The current pandemic is a total fact, in which the biological reality of the virus is inseparable from the societal and systemic conditions of its existence and spread. Invoking the Anthropocene — a new geological period in which the human species has become a force capable of modifying the biosphere on a global scale — invites us to take into account a threefold timeline: firstly, the recent period in which, under the pressure of perceptible evidence, we became aware, albeit too slowly, of this new era; secondly, the decades after 1945, which were those of the rise of consumer society and the great acceleration of all the markers of humanity's productive (and destructive) activity; lastly, the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries which, by setting in motion the cycle of fossil fuels and industrialization, caused the curve of greenhouse gas emissions to take off, thus marking the beginning of the Anthropocene.

The virus that afflicts us has been sent by the living, who have come to present us with the bill for the turmoil that we ourselves have caused. The Anthropocene means: in whatever befalls us, human responsibility is involved. But whose responsibility is it exactly? The three timelines mentioned above allow us to be more precise. On the most immediate horizon, our attention is monopolized by the staggering affair of the evaporation of mask stocks since 2009 and by the indolence that has failed to replenish them urgently as the epidemic approaches. This is merely one more aspect of Europe's overwhelming lack of preparation. In this inability to anticipate, we bear witness to another disease of the times, namely, its presentism, that force by which everything that extends beyond the immediate disappears from our view. The coldly calculative neoliberal methods of hospital management took care of the rest, with its persistent lack of resources, reduction in the number of beds, on top of a shortage of staff and personnel who are already exhausted during normal times. Care workers have been howling their despair for a long time, without being heard. Today, the criminal nature of long-standing policies has been proven to everyone. As Philippe Juvin, head of the emergency department at the Pompidou Hospital in Paris recently stated, "careless and incompetent people" have caused us to find ourselves "naked in the face of the epidemic". And if Emmanuel Macron wanted to set himself up as a war chief, he should not overlook the fact that this same rhetoric, invoked by so many rulers these days, could also one day one day turn (metaphorically?) into an accusation of high treason.

Glancing back over the second half of the twentieth century allows us to identify several of the major causalities behind the multiplication of zoonoses, those diseases caused by infectious agents that are able to make a species leap from animals to humans. The expansion of industrial livestock farming, with its despicable tendency toward concentration, led to the sort of deplorable health consequences we now know far too well (swine flu, H5N1 bird flu, etc.). Meanwhile, excessive urbanization and metropolization have shrunk the habitats of animals, pushing them into closer contact with humans (HIV and Ebola, in particular). These two factors may not have played a role in the case of SARS-CoV-2, although more still needs to be known about the entire chain of transmission. On the other hand, it is clear that the sale of wild animals in the Wuhan market would not have had such consequences had Wuhan not become one of the world capitals of the automobile industry. The globalization of economic flows is indeed at work; and this is the third causality to be invoked, all the more so as the senseless expansion of air traffic was the vector of the rapid planetary spread of the virus.

But we can't stop there; we must also look back two centuries and give the Anthropocene its real name: Capitalocene. For it is the result, not of the human species in general, but of a specific historical system. The principal characteristic of this system, capitalism, is that the bulk of production is based, above all else, on the imperative of turning a profit from the money invested (capital). Although its configurations are variable, the world is ultimately organized according to the imperious demands of the economy. The result has been a civilizational break with all previous human experience, in which private interest and competitive individualism now reign as supreme values, the obsession with pure quantity and the tyranny of urgency opening up a void in being. The result is also and above all a deadly productivist compulsion, one which lies at the origin of the overexploitation of natural resources, the accelerated disorganization of living things, and climate change.

When the current quarantine and health emergency ends, nothing will be the same as before; that much has been made clear. But what will change? Will our self-examination be limited to a short-term temporality, as is to be feared, or will we take into account the full cycle of the Capitalocene? We have now reached the threshold of the twenty-first century. The real war that is about to be waged will not have the Coronavirus as its enemy, but will be fought between two opposing options: on one side, there will be the continuation of a world in which the fanatical drive for merchandise reigns supreme and whose compulsive productivism will only lead to the deepening of the ongoing devastation; on the other side, there lies the invention, already being explored in a thousand places, of new ways of existing that would break with the categorical imperative of the economy, in order to lend priority to a good life for all. Preferring the joyful intensity of the qualitative to the false promises of an unlimited impossibility, the latter would combine an attentive concern for inhabited milieus and the interactions of the living with the construction of the common, mutual aid, and solidarity, and the collective capacity for self-organization and self-government.

The Coronavirus has come to sound the alarm and stop the mad train of a civilization hurtling towards the destruction of life on a mass scale. Shall we let it continue down its course, once again? That would only guarantee new and unprecedented disasters, which will make what we are experiencing now look pale in retrospect.

Paris, March 27, 2020

Translated by Ill Will Editions

****

Jérôme Baschet is an historian currently teaching at the Autonomous University of Chiapas in San Cristóbal de Las Casas. Author of several books on medieval history, he has also published Défaire la tyrannie du présent. Temporalités émergentes et futurs inédits (2018), La Rébellion zapatiste (2019), and Une Juste colère. Interrompre la destruction du monde, on the Gilets Jaunes.

#covid19 #climate catastrophe #france #translation #article

855 notes · View notes

hsu-liangyu · 3 years

Text

“Orientalia”: White Fascination and Nostalgia for China and the Orient

4/11/2021

Denver, CO

CW: Racism, anti-Asian and anti-Chinese sentiment, violence/sexual assault

Preface:

Today was certainly a day. I’ve been on a cross country trek, which I’ve come to call “The Great Journey East”, where I’m driving from my home in the Seattle area to Portland, Maine to ply my usual trade, working aboard some traditionally rigged sailing vessels that operate from the Maine State Pier. I’ve most recently arrived in Denver, CO, after a tumultuous night of camping in un-ideal circumstances on the shores of Great Salt Lake in Utah. I decided to treat myself to a middling hotel downtown to try to affect an aura of urban tranquility before I head out for Wichita in the morning, and then on to see my mother’s family in Oklahoma. The drive thus far has been marked by astounding natural beauty, kind people, and a long series of audio books that I’ve only just begun to make a dent in. I began this journey listening to “Tribe” by Sebastian Junger, which I found to be extremely interesting and helped some of my own understanding of how society today does not serve the community, and how we may one day return to a society where the people come first, as opposed to the individual. After finishing Mr Junger’s audiobook, I turned my ears to a tome that I have put off reading for a long time: “The Chinese in America: A Narrative History” by Iris Chang.

Listening to this audiobook over the last few days, which begins in Qing dynasty China and ends in the modern day, I can say a great many things. I can say that I deeply feel the experiences that were collected by the author and compiled into this book, not only on an intellectual and emotional level, but on a spiritual level. I can say that, despite years of my own research into my familial experiences and the experiences of contemporary Chinese Americans, my level of knowledge was severely lacking, even though I considered myself to be a relatively robust lay-scholar on the topic. I can say that the experience of we Chinese Americans, foreign and natural born, has changed very little in our time here. While circumstances change from person to person, family to family, and era to era, we are all bound together in trends that have haunted our communities, not unlike the tigers that have stalked southeast Asia for time immemorial, striking out when least expected.

All of that, however, is a surface level understanding. Those realities are the first few layers of a complicated and long history of horrific, violent, brutal, and inhuman oppression in the United States.

I began this audiobook believing that I knew most of what I needed, enough to enlighten the odd person in online discourse, or conversation over dinner. Enough to tell-off the casual bigot that accused me and other Chinese people of overblowing our racial, social, and economic anxieties while making them look a fool. I realized very quickly that while I was not wrong in my knowledge, my staunchly anti-racist rhetoric, or my suspicious attitudes towards the US government and law enforcement, I was missing so much of the story. I was not missing the statistics or the legislative history: I was missing word-to-paper stories of my ancestors -- our ancestors -- and the cold, hard, and hellacious reality that they faced when they got here. These realities may have differed from generation to generation (the Chinese washer-man and washer-woman, miner, and restaurateur of the 19th century was faced with markedly different circumstances from the Chinese who fled WWII, the PRC, or settled in other areas of the world during the diaspora), but they are cold and hard, none-the-less.

I have cried more in the last three days than I think I have in the last three years. My heart hurts for our ancestors, our elders, our parents, our siblings, our uncles, our aunties, and our future children as we exist in a country that has committed nearly every atrocity it could think of to rid us from their stolen land.

This was the state of being I’ve come to Denver with. Finally in the privacy of a hotel room, I showered and talked with my partner. She found a book today, written by the child of white missionaries who fled China just before WWII, that was a compilation of “Oriental” inspired needle-work patterns. She shared the preface of this book with me, which I found to be incredibly alarming, and has prompted me to write on the subject of “Orientalism”, the exotic, and how the experience of white Europeans and Americans in China was vastly different from the Chinese people. Out of respect for the author and their work, which I believe was written as an honest tribute to Chinese culture and its influence on them, I am choosing to omit the author’s name and the title of the book in question. While some may see this as underhanded, I am choosing to do so because I do not wish to wage a war of rhetoric with an author who I have very little personal knowledge of, because I believe it is unethical of me to do so.

However, I will be addressing some problematic concepts that are present in the preface of this book, as they are worth speaking about as we attempt to further society’s collective understanding of differential experiences between people and people groups.

Thank you for reading on, as well as for reading my preface. The following issues are things that I have struggled with for a long time, and I hope that my words bring you additional perspective on Chinese American issues.

“The Orient, the Oriental, and Orientalia: A Curious Lens of Exoticism Riddled with Racism”

Today, I saw a word that I had not seen in a very, very long time.

As most any Asian person will tell you, the words “orient” and “oriental” are generally unwelcome descriptors of Asian people and culture. These two descriptors are applied to clothing, architecture, pottery, art, furniture, cookware -- the list keeps going. I often joke to those who use these words, “what am I, a rug to you?”, which normally drives the point home in a friendly way They are both hangers-on from an era that we’d best leave in the past. An era where the Occident and the Orient were opposites of one another, incompatible, and fundamentally in conflict. The two terms saw relatively common usage in the 19th century, and many Euro-Americans considered “the orient” to be interchangeable with “the far east” while the occident was a catch-all word for Euro-American civilizations ranging from western Europe to the New World. It could be said that the Occident and the Orient began as harmless descriptor words that only communicated a vague notion of differences between cultures, they were rapidly weaponized as anti-Asian, especially anti-Chinese, sentiments began to flare in the western world. Imperial Germany used the two terms to great affect, framing the differences between the Occident and the Orient to be far more than cultural and societal. It was a matter of life and death.

The Occident was the pinnacle of industrialized civilization. It was moral and upright, beholden to the Christian god, supported by the titans of industry, government, and cutting-edge military technology. The Orient was backwards, overrun with dirty Chinese heathens who constantly lied, cheated, and stole from the superior whites. The Chinese were looking to enslave white women, turning them into sex slaves or take them as wives so that they could propagate a wretched half-breed race that would overrun the world and mark the end of all Occidental civilization.

This rhetoric was incredibly powerful, and one only needs to look at early anti-Chinese political cartoons and articles to see these words used in incredibly derogatory ways. The other side of the Orient/Oriental dichotomy was steeped in foreign luxury and exoticism, which served to peak the interest of wealthy whites that bought up all kinds of Asian furniture, clothing, fabrics, cookware, and art from unscrupulous dealers and certifiable importers alike. Affluent white women of the 19th century are well-documented as being deeply invested in luxurious goods imported from “the Orient” and marketed as “Oriental” or “Orientalia” to garner societal notoriety, whereas their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons would have dressing gowns, cravats, and handkerchiefs created out of fine imported silk. All of these goods were considered exotic and other-worldly, which is not a debased outlook for the time, considering that so few westerners had actually managed to travel in the vicinity of China, let alone disembark in one of the few official trading ports open to European traders. This fascination with all things Chinese, entirely divorced from the reality that many Europeans and Americans viewed the Chinese as grave existential threats to white civilization, is not without irony.

While Chinese peasants and workers died in droves from starvation, disease, localized conflict, or at the hands of white Europeans and Americans acting with impunity in a country that was barred from holding them legally accountable for their actions, cargo hold upon cargo hold of Chinese goods were exported for consumption by westerners. These westerners had military and diplomatic presence in China, especially in the mid to late 19th century, often seizing prime real estate in Chinese port cities for international settlements where it was the westerners, not the Chinese, in charge. These ostentatious settlements, coupled with missions run by Christian organizations from all over the western world, exercised great influence with local Qing dynasty officials, and western nationals all throughout the southern coast of China were free to use and abuse the Chinese around them as they please. These prosperous settlements, a highly visible and permanent show of colonization and foreign aggression, were made so by the labor of Chinese workers and peasants. The same workers who were forced into horrific working conditions in and around the settlements while western nationals were free to treat them as they please with no repercussions, ever for outright murder. Any fascination with the Chinese lifestyle, manner of dress, and other items that could be quickly imported to the west as exotic tokens of the Orient was inherently divorced from the horrific reality of daily life within China, and was nearly always a fascination that arose from social tiers that could afford to be ignorant of those realities while directly benefiting from them.

“Orientalia and the Noble Savage”

The westerners’ fascination with all things Orientalia outlines another phenomenon present in the west’s view of China in the 19th and 20th centuries, an phenomenon that Americans are familiar with as it is applied to Indigenous peoples in North America: the Noble Savage.

The Noble Savage idea and stereotype found quick traction with American colonists as they fought to drive out Indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands all over North America. These Indigenous groups, savage as they were perceived to be, were often regarded as principled and noble in their way of life, whether that was seen in their treatment of the lands, natural resources, their art and craftwork, their societal structure, or in how they treated white settlers when they were taken prisoner. While all of this talk of nobility betrayed the slimmest undercurrents of admiration from white settlers towards Indigenous peoples, the second word of the phrase was integral to its application: Savage. Despite these noble ideas and practices, a savage is a savage is a savage. This two-faced admiration served only one purpose -- to communicate the slightest inkling of fake remorse in widespread acts of genocide against people that white settlers hated and chose not to understand.

For the Chinese and Chinese Americans, the idea of the noble savage is easily translated. While Indigenous peoples in North America had a comparatively low level of technology to Americans, the same could not be said of the Chinese. Despite lacking robust gunpowder arms and other advanced forms of military technology, the technological prowess of the Chinese people was without doubt. Massive cities, sprawling agriculture, advanced irrigation, roads, palaces, and so much more was plainly evident to any westerner who arrived on Chinese shores (the same can be said of Indigenous populations throughout the Americas despite the prevailing myth of "primordial wilderness" perpetuated by white settlers) . Despite the different perspectives that westerns had between the two groups, westerners applied the Noble Savage ideal to the Chinese just as quickly and easily as they did to the Indigenous peoples across the oceans.

While the Chinese were obviously proficient in architecture, engineering, and in art, many westerners were quick to follow up any admiration of their eastern counterparts with staunch, racial criticism, highlighting their savagery in their daily lives such as gambling, long fingernails, or their seemingly archaic dress. Much of the criticism leveled on the basis of savagery had to deal with the assumption that Chinese men would, without hesitation, steal from white men and kill them, while selling white women into slavery. And while this was based in very loose reality (the triad societies of Canton did, indeed, participate in the sex trafficking of Chinese women to California and the Coolie trade that sent enslaved Chinese men to work on plantations in South America), the fears were stoked by ferocious anti-Chinese rhetoric in Europe and America.

The Chinese who emigrated to America were seen no different, and while public opinion waxed and waned, it was always understood that the Chinaman was a noble savage at best, and the earthly embodiment of evil at his worst. While modern Chinese and Chinese Americans may not be subject to the Noble Savage ideas from two centuries ago, it is not uncommon for Americans, especially white American youths, to take this idea as gospel, tormenting their Asian classmates throughout their formative years.

“China’s Sorrow: Nostalgia for a China that did not exist”

(As a forewarning, this the section where I may become quite emotional.)

Something that I encountered today was nostalgia. Not my own nostalgia, but the nostalgia of an author who grew up in a mission or international settlement in pre-WWII China, and fled from the country just before Pearl Harbor. This author, who shall remain nameless for the reason I stated in the preface of this essay, spoke highly of China’s sights and sounds, the people, the food, the craftwork, and of their pleasant life as the child of white missionaries in China. They spoke on how the pace of life in China was different than America, and that they much preferred the comforts of life in the Orient, surrounded by Oriental people and objects, enamored with Orientialia well into their adult life.

I found this passage to be absolutely appalling. I understand that I may be picking the wrong fight here, but this is my emotional response to an issue that I have found difficult to articulate that managed to, somehow, someway, manifest succinctly in the preface of a book that I randomly encountered. I lay my thoughts here:

White missionaries in China lived privileged lives, much like the other westerners that inhabited international settlements all throughout the major cities of the country. Missionaries, like the other westerners, were an extremely privileged class, living privileged lives in a country that was being torn apart by colonization, internal strife, famine, disease, and violence. While the average Chinese peasant in late Qing, early republic-era China had to contend with the daily realities of starvation, material scarcity, and the reality that a western could beat them or kill them and face no legal consequences for that action. Merchants were forced to deal with countless one-sided trade and land treaties, while government officials struggled to keep the country together, if they weren’t themselves contributing to the horrendous reality. Life in international settlements for western nationals is often reminisced upon as idyllic, quaint, and prosperous, which paints a stark contrast to their Chinese neighbors’ experiences. The westerners were off-limits, exempt from legal prosecution, and largely able to conduct themselves as they saw fit, even when their conduct directly endangered Chinese lives.

Meanwhile, outside of these international settlements, war ravaged the country. When the Qing dynasty fell and the Republic of China was established, the country fractured. The nationalist government was constantly at war, sometimes with itself, sometimes with bandits and warlords, sometimes with organized crime, and most of all with the Chinese Communist Party. The Koumintang government, in the wake of Sun Yat-sen’s death, saw Chiang Kai-shek seize power. The Japanese began to aggressively push their borders into China, fighting with superior military technology and training while the national army faltered from unwilling conscripts led into disastrous battles by inept, corrupt, and tyrannical officers. The CCP fought a guerilla campaign against the KMT that further muddied the conflict, with innocents caught between two radical and violent sides while Japan tightened the noose. Communist and Nationalist fought together against the Japanese one day, and may have fought against each other the next.

While the country was torn apart, the westerners in international settlements were unconcerned with the wars raging across the land. They continued to live their idyllic lives until the war was literally at their doorstop -- only then did they become concerned with the plight of the Chinese people.

Only then did the westerners in international settlements care for the circumstances of the average Chinese peasant in the countryside or worker in the city. They could bear no concern while they benefited from cheap Chinese labor, horrific working conditions, or while some of them got away with murder. They could bear no concern while Europe and America colonized China and ransacked the economy. And they could bear no concern for the Chinese being tortured, beaten, raped, and murdered in the countryside, far from their gates, until it was on their doorstep.

The nostalgia that some westerners feel for China, a China that existed before the chaos of the 1920s onwards, is propped up by lives of privilege and white-washed memories that ignore the struggle of the Chinese people right under their noses.

They feel nostalgia for a China that did not exist, because the one that existed was destroyed in part by their international settlements and the colonization efforts of their home countries.

This nostalgia for a China that was at least slightly better than the chaos of the 1920s through the 1940s, or better than the Cultural Revolution, or better before Tiananmen Square exists also within the Chinese immigrant community. But this nostalgia strikes in a way that the other does not.

While the westerner who lived in an international settlement may be able to intellectually sympathize with the Chinese experience during this tumultuous time, it is the Chinese themselves who bear the actual scars. Many of our elders long for a prosperous China as well, but there is a key difference in this: our elders, our family, sometimes we ourselves, bear the scars of the past. Our nostalgia is momentary, continuously shattered by the very real heartbreak that the Chinese and Chinese American community has been subject to over the last century. While circumstances and perspectives differed, the China that some of us long for is just as much a painful sore on our souls as it is a pleasant memory. The pain, the loss, the grief, anxiety, and struggle.

It is a nostalgia for our ancestral land that cannot be found anywhere else, as precious as it is painful.

Hsu Liang Yu

#aapi #end aapi hate #aapi history #aapi authors #chinese american #history #white allyship #white allies

12 notes · View notes

unsafepin · 3 years

Text

Optical Illusions: A Study of Aesthetics in Activism in Two Accounts

There’s been a particular thing bothering me about social media for a while. I should probably get a cool editing app, write it in a few bullet points and post it on Instagram. You know what I’m talking about, right? The goddamn infographics. If I have to sit through another slideshow explaining to me another military conflict, another societal issue, another existential unfairness on a baby pink background in a cheery font, I might combust. But the cognitive dissonance of aesthetics in activism has been a problem for a while, hasn’t it? So today, I want to examine the effect of focusing on aesthetics over content, or, on the flipside, not considering the optics of your activism enough, and what it does to the consumer of your content by picking apart two local activist-adjacent media projects, Tetraedras and Giljožinios.

Firstly, I want to make my own bias abundantly clear. I am personally acquainted with the teams of both projects, so obviously there will be innate personal bias involved. I highly encourage anyone reading to check both projects out themselves (@t3traedras and @giljozinios on Instagram, as well as Giljožinios’ YouTube channel) and make their own conclusions on the matter. I believe that while my familiarity breeds deeper knowledge of my subjects, it also makes me more vulnerable to assumptions about individuals involved. My insights come from the perspective of an observer, not an expert. Welcome to the circus.

The use of the word “optics” in a metaphorical political sense sprung up in the 1970s to describe the way major political decisions would not necessarily affect an average citizen, but how it would appear to them, e.g. 'U.S. President Barack Obama temporized for weeks, worrying about the optics of waging war in another Arab state after the Iraq fiasco' (Toronto Star, 19th March 2011). However, it’s become increasingly relevant in our age of social media, an age of perceptions over substance, of shortening attention spans and increased barrage of information one has to stomach daily. Social media is the great equalizer - a random person off the street can theoretically hold as much influence as a politician - thus it is becoming increasingly crucial for the average Joe posting on the countless apps owned by Facebook to be as familiar with PR terms as a firm with a six figure salary. Or at least that would be nice, seeing that more and more average Joes are becoming actively involved in politics and education, seeking to influence their newfound audience.

So, let’s see how successful average people with no media or politics degrees are at balancing their image. Both Tetraedras and Giljožinios lean into their 2010’s social media project optics: millennial pink themes, bold names, young teams. But that’s where the similarities end. Tetraedras’ brand is safety. The shades of color on the profile are calming, the illustrations are youthful and playful, their more serious posts are interspersed with more relaxing content (poetry, photoshoots, etc.). Giljožinios is confrontational. The colors electric, posts loud and to the point, they’re what it says on the box - a leftist project - and unapologetic about it. This might help to explain why audiences react as differently as they do to these two, on the surface, similar accounts. Because while you might’ve stumbled on Tetraedras organically while browsing, them having almost two thousand followers, Giljožinios crashed into the educational/political social media scene by being featured on the goddamn national news, that’s how controversial the project is. And obviously I am oversimplifying the issue, Tetraedras slowly built up to posting more opinionated content, while Giljožinios came in guns blazing accusing USA of imperialism, but you’ll have to let me explain. Tetraedras, in its essence, is a welcoming environment. They explain complicated problems in short bullet points with accompanying comforting visuals, their mascot is a inoffensive geometrical figure and their face is a beautiful girl, make-up matching the theme of the post. Giljožinios is named after a revolutionary device, their profile picture is a monarch being beheaded, their host quite infamously sat in front of Che Guevara memorabilia in their first and (as of writing) only video. It’s a lightning rod for angry comments by baby boomers, no matter what comes out of their mouth. In fact, I would argue that, if presented accordingly, the idea that the US is conducting a kind of modern imperialism is just a simple fact and personally can’t wait until Tetraedras posts that with a quirky illustration of Joe Biden to introduce the concept to the wider public.

This leads me to my next point, because despite what’s been previously suggested, I’m not here to solely sing Giljožinios’ praise. There is a cognitive dissonance in both of these flavors of social media activism, but while I can understand Tetraedras’ on a PR level, I’m kind of personally insulted by Giljožinios’. While purely personally I find aspects of Giljožinios’ radicalism distasteful, I appreciate the honesty in the youthful maximalism, of coming in strong and not backing down, but from the guys that made a communist Christmas tree once I almost expected something more stirring than “military industrial complex bad”. This leads me to ask: who is your content for? Your average breadtube-savvy twenty-something already heard this a thousand times, because they consume similar english-speaking content and I doubt any minds of the vatniks that came by to fume in the comment section are being changed. I’m obviously harking on a newborn project here, the team of which has already been bitten by authorities censoring their content, but so far there has been a lot of optical bark, but no substantial bite, especially considering the team seems to be in a safer place now. And the inverse is true for Tetraedras, while I can understand wanting to be visually interesting yet inoffensive, their visuals are sometimes laughably, morbidly light for the topics they discuss Sexily posing in Britney Spears-inspired outfits while discussing the horrors of her conservatorship springs to mind (funny how Britney’s conservatorship leads her to have next to none bodily autonomy, including her public costume choices). And, once again, your target audience is teenagers. They understand English, they’ve seen the news, they don’t need you to translate infographics filled with statistics and information that’s locally completely irrelevant. There needs to be some kind of middle ground between aesthetic cohesion and common sense, because this all signals to the viewer that the content is meant to be mindlessly consumed first and to educate second.

Which leads me to ponder what kind of consumption accounts like these encourage, which will surely lead me to an early grave as I drink away the existential dread of how social media rots all of our brains. Because yes, actually, producing funky visuals to convey an idea way too complicated for an Instagram post is fun. I myself got distracted multiple times during writing to make the first slide for my own post. Meta, I know. This is obviously more of a problem for Tetraedras, who seem to fervently resist injecting their content with a few more paragraphs and a tad more nuance, but even with Giljožinios choosing a more appropriate long-form format to educate, I still pray everyday they don’t get lost in the revolutionary reputation their group built up and forget to make a point, not just talking points.

Because what all this all inevitably leads to is misinforming the public. Again, this seems to be less of a problem for Giljožinios, as the amount of critical eyeballs they have on them leads to them being corrected on every incorrect numerical figure and grammatical mistake, I just hope all this harassment, once again, doesn’t get them all caught up in the optics of a revolution against all the Facebook boomers and forgetting to do their due diligence to the truth. As far as I know, the only factual mistake is miscalculating how much Lituania invests in NATO and there’s still a historical debate in their comment section about the existence of a CIA prison in Lithuania, if anyone’s concerned. Tetraedras, however, is safe. And safe content goes down just like a sugar-coated pill, you don’t even feel the need to fact-check it. And fact-checking is what it sorely requires, or else you’re left with implying that boxing causes men to become rapists and citing statistics of every country except the one in which, you know, me, the team and the absolute majority of their followers live in.

So what’s my goddamn point? Burn your phone and go live in the woods, always. But in the context of this essay, if you are a content creator that aims to educate, inform, incite, whatever, you need to put aesthetics on the backburner. And, more importantly, we as consumers need to stop tolerating content that puts being either pretty or inflammatory first instead of whatever message it’s trying to send, because the supply follows where the demand goes. Read books, watch long-form content made by experts, not teenagers on the internet chasing followers out of not even malicious intent, but almost a knee-jerk reaction. Because while the story of those two accounts cuts especially deep, expectations for local-, even friend-made content being much higher than that for some corporate accounts shooting their shot at activism, the problem is entrenched deep, thousands of accounts exhibiting the same problems racking up millions upon millions of followers. Having said that, my attention span is barely long enough to read the essays I write myself, so maybe do burn your phone and go live in the woods.

Also, pink is actually my brand so both of these accounts are being contacted by my lawyers and the rest of you don’t try any shit.

#unsafe pin

3 notes · View notes

akechicrimes · 5 years

Note

Hey crimes, feel free to disregard this tangent but, do u ever feel like P5 inadvertently or otherwise implied Goro was right with his fake “vigilante justice operates outside and the law and thus must be brought to heel” opinion? What with the fact that the Yaldabaoth confrontation implies the thieves work perpetuated humanity’s sloth AND THEN after an entire game showing us the hundreds of people who were at the v least COMPLICIT in shido’s machinations, a system which is (1)

ohhhhh this one is fun!! this is a super neat question, ty for asking!!!

hmmmmmmmmm

im going to try and break this down into parts, partly because persona 5 is such a convoluted mess with its own lines of thinking, so tell me if i dont do it right. the issues are: (1) goro definitely did say that operating outside the law was bad just on principle that you shouldn’t operate outside the law, and (2) persona 5 did definitely go on to say that all of the phantom thieves’ operations outside the law didn’t come to anything in the first place anyway, because they were only targeting individuals instead of mass systemic corruption/their presence was enabling people to become more apathetic.

i think what persona 5 is trying to get at is that it’s not necessarily that acting outside the law is bad, but that, like you said, targeting only individuals doesn’t work as a tactic. so vigilante justice (e.g. batman style of taking down supervillains) cannot compare to societal reform through collective action.

when i say collective action, i mean that i think persona 5 is trying to point out that “systematic” corruption is really just a corruption of many, many, many individuals working in concert--and that “reform” could just be said to be the opposite, which is activism from many, many, many individuals working in concert.

obviously the ending cutscene where akira;s social link network gets together to protest his arrest is the best example of collective reform, but i think one of the things that i rly like about shido’s wide-spread conspiracy is that it does a rly good job of paralleling akira’s social link network, and pointing out that in the same way that shido’s conspiracy is a collective effort of many many many people that make up a “system,” akira’s widespread social link network creates the opposite effect of a collective effort of many many people that make up a force for change.

which is why having the phantom thieves as a group itself just promotes more apathy--you get one group of people doing all the work for the rest of society, when if anything’s going to change, we need everyone on their feet.

which surprisingly correct, insofar as i’m aware. if society’s going to change in a substantial way, beyond just changing the hearts of a handful of abusers and letting the rest of the system remain untouched, everyone’s got to be involved. collective effort. do your part. wash your hands. stay indoors. don’t forget to vote. seriously, wash your fucking hands.

but when it comes to whether or not persona 5 says that you shouldn’t be acting outside the law...

i think persona 5 really really really really really doesnt want to be caught promoting lawbreaking while also being You Should Break The Law: The JRPG.

part of this trouble, i think, is just because they need players to actually like the characters in the game, and therefore all the character have sympathetic reasons for breaking the law. because persona 5 has to sell marketable characters, too, persona 5 itself makes it pretty clear that people who operate “outside the law” are usually not evil dipshit criminals who love sin. the people in persona 5 who act outside the law are usually people who dont have enough power to operate inside the law in the first place. akira, the pt, and goro all seem to have resorted to what they did because they had no societal power at the start, wound up with a persona (aka fast and easy power source), and wouldnt have been able to do anything about their situation otherwise. characters who operate outside the law (like takemi with her vaguely illegal practice, or kawakami and her also vaguely illegal sex work, or iwai and his vaguely illegal gun business) are still supposed to be waifus you are sympathetic towards.

(...i think i accidentally called iwai a waifu? hmm. on second thought, i’ll just leave that sentence as it is.)

and i really do have to point out that persona 5′s attitude of FUCK COPS is insanely strong. like. persona 5 HATES cops. and that doesn’t let up basically ever, at all, at any moment. for anything. persona 5 wants me to believe that makoto will become a good cop in the future, but if i wanted to find an existing good cop, i’d have to go all the way back to persona 4. like!! shit!! goro akechi is the closest thing we have to a good cop, and he has a pet guillotine for CEOs and his middle name is komaeda.

and that part of the big attitude with FUCK COPS is that it’s another way of morally exonerating the phantom thieves. i think... although the game ultimately concludes with “you should probably not break the law any more because the metaverse is gone,” it’s difficult to argue with the fact that persona 5 is a game in which it presents you with 10000000000000 reasons to break the law and feel Great about it.

(another tangent: i feel like one of the big undercurrents of persona 5, and especially the TV station, is that the phantom thieves are justified in their lawbreaking because the police aren’t doing their fucking job. like, someone’s got to keep people safe, and if the cops don’t like the phantom thieves, maybe they should get off their asses and actually get the criminals before the thieves do. akira literally was on live television and he was like ALL COPS ARE BAD and goro was like wow. anyone else think that was really sexy? @ the guy in the glasses in the back, call me later when you’ve leveled up your charm and knowledge.)

so atlus is in this place where they’ve pointed out that people break the law because they dont really have any other choice, and also persona 5 the game HATES cops, and also persona 5 the game cannot tell you that breaking the law is bad because it is literally A Game About Breaking The Law, but at the same time, they cant really go around promoting crime. from a doylist perspective i was 100% unsurprised that they came up with a fancy narrative reason to get rid of the metaverse and their change-of-heart abilities and just the phantom thieves in general, because all of those are a threat to the status quo. although the game might be right that relying on the phantom thieves to change society for the rest of the population makes the rest of the population lazy and apathetic, it’s pretty convenient that this means that the kids are now no longer able to break the law. so persona 5 really wants people to do things the kosher way, e.g. protesting and such.

hhfmgmhfmghfmgfmghmfhgg. taking this all with a grain of salt, because again, i do think atlus is trying very hard to avoid saying that people should break the law:

i think atlus wants to say that it’s not necessarily acting outside the law that’s not right, but the fact that just loading the phantom thieves with a ton of power makes people apathetic, and changing the hearts of a few individuals is Not enough to get rid of something like shido’s conspiracy. so instead they say, you shouldn’t break the law because it’s not effective without collective reform.

i think another thing that persona 5 wants us to believe is that for the most effective reform to be achieved, people both inside and outside the law/system have to be involved in the collective effort to improve society.

e.g., toranosuke wants to be a man of the people--someone who speaks for the people who are outside of the diet, but toranosuke himself is someone inside the diet. sae’s the other good example; the phantom thieves protest akira’s arrest at the end of the game, but sae, as the insider in the justice system, has to be there to hear and work with them. and this might just be because i watched haru’s s link last night, but i feel like takakura is a really good example: haru pushes back against the company’s shitty policies with her “outsider’s” perspective (quoted because she’s technically the largest shareholder, she just hasnt ever been really involved in how the company is run), but takakura, as the company president and most powerful person at okumura foods, has to be there to hear her request and agree with her, and make company changes based on her requests.

and it’s for this reason that persona 5 wants us to consider maybe lawbreaking isnt morally bad, just not effective.

i wish i could say that that’s more bad atlus writing, but it’s not. i’ve only really examined changing schools on an institutional level, but the best examples of institutional change in school administration have always been cases where the administration, parents, and community members all work together. in some cases, parents bring up requests for the school to accommodate their needs, and the administration listens and works with them. something something--everyone needs an advocate. the point of a lawyer is to advocate for you. the point of a politician/representative is to represent you and your interests. so on and so forth.

(and i also wish that it could be as simple as saying, “wow atlus said something right for once!” because that’s not true, either--acting outside the law can be outrageously effective. persona 5 trying to tell us that acting outside the law to get shit done isn’t effect smells like corporate trying to tell its workers that unionizing doesnt actually do anything.)

(and i also wish that persona 5 would have acknowledged that sometimes, it takes more than just an extremely moral person to change the world. take toranosuke, for example--i’m sure that if he gets elected, he’ll go out there and be a wonderful representative of the people, but at the same time, can’t we also simultaneously acknowledge that any politician who can make “politics” a career for profit will always be incentivized towards self-interest? in the same way that a military for profit will always be incentivized towards war?)

but insofar as whether or not persona 5 thinks that vigilante justice/acting outside the law is in and of itself morally bad--i’d say probably not. i think they want us to think that it’s not effective.

this is a slight tangent that kind of goes off the issue of whether or not persona 5 is concerned with whether or not breaking the law is moral or effective. i was going back through goro’s dialogue in the engine room--who knows if that’s going to be changed in royal--but i was trying to figure out exactly what the phantom thieves condemn him for. (fucking difficult as fuck considering how bizarre that dialogue was at places.)

the first one is murder, which goro is unimpressed with (LMAO. KING). the second is that he operated outside the law, to which he replies that they did the same thing (valid). the third is that his form of justice was “selfish,” in that it only served his personal need for revenge. at that point, goro changes the subject--which is not really surprising, since goro admitted long before the engine room that his quest against shido was for his own personal satisfaction.

that is to say, the phantom thieves can’t say that they don’t operate outside the law, because they do--however, if the phantom thieves can’t be legally exonerated, the phantom thieves are morally exonerated despite operating outside the law because they do it for the benefit of others. that’s actually not an incorrect statement from the phantom thieves, although i dont think they’re doing it for Society Writ Large. the phantom thieves in every single palace have taken on targets to help someone else: firstly ann and ryuji and shiho, then yusuke, then various shujin students being blackmailed by kaneshiro, etc, etc. i remember pretty distinctly that ann insists that she doesnt want to get involved with madarame just for drama or fame (whereas ryuji wants to pick a big target just for the sake of getting famous), but she agrees to get involved with madarame’s palace because she doesn’t want to leave yusuke to possibly kill himself like a previous student.

because the phantom thieves are not able to say that they haven’t operated outside the law in the same way that goro has, the dividing line between them is instead that the phantom thieves are doing so selflessly. but this is just an elaboration on the question of whether or not “is lawbreaking moral?” rather than necessarily “is lawbreaking effective?”

there’s an argument that nothing goro or the phantom thieves did was effective in the long run, and there’s an argument that sae is proof positive that working inside the system won’t be effective, either.

anyway, unions are effective. so maybe we should agree to wash our hands and join a union.

#mine #meta #clouis-loumentine

105 notes · View notes

goddessdoeswitchery · 4 years

Text

Hellenic Polytheism 101 Transcripts: Pillar of Hellenic Polytheism Sophrosyne

Hello and welcome to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101, where we will be moving onto to the next pillar of Hellenic Polytheism: Sophrosyne, which is, essentially, moderation, prudence, self-control, self-discipline, or temperance based upon thorough self-examination. Since we are coming up on a holiday season in the US, this seems like the perfect time to focus on Sophrosyne, and to remember it’s opposite, hubris, and how to avoid it. It is also important to remember that even in Ancient Greece, it was well understood that Sophrosyne could be taken too far, something we also understand still today.

“Earth shaker, you would not consider me sophrosyne if I were to fight with you for the sake of wretched mortals” Apollo says this to Poseidon in the Illiad, as Homer brings us a look at what Sophrosyne would mean to the same deity who brings us the Delphic Maxims, such as know know thyself, know by learning, exercise prudence, praise virtue, nothing in excess, know who is the judge, keep secret what should be kept secret, take sensible risks, be well behaved, be self disciplined, be sensible. This is not the only example in Homer’s work of Sophrosyne. In fact, there are a really a lot of them. I would definitely suggest you read both of them and look closely for examples of sophrosyne. Homer was very sensitive to the need for Sophrosyne in society and in an individual. On an individual level, sophrosyne prevented people form getting into serious trouble, both with themselves and on a religious level. After all, someone exercising sophrosyne would be very unlikely to become a spider after being cursed by Athena, right? On a modern level, someone exercising sophrosyne is less likely to face personal problems as well. You won’t wind up drinking to excess and getting into a car accident. You won’t find yourself challenging someone better than you to a fight. You won’t find yourself taking on more tasks than you can manage. You won’t find yourself spending more money than you can spare on things you don’t need. By exercising sophrosyne you can avoid a lot of trouble. On a societal level, we should try to exercise that same self control and temperance. After all, there is no reason for any country to spend more than 56 countries combined on defense spending. There is no reason for a city to cut taxes and not invest in repairing roads or assisting those who need it the most. There is no reason for a group of friends to go out in the middle of a pandemic to a bar just to have a good time. We can bring the ideals of sophrosyne to our own lives and encourage others to do the same, through voting and talking to others and being an example.

When we do not practice sophrosyne, we tend to fall victim to hubris. For someone who has spent any sort of time practicing Hellenic polytheism, we should all know exactly how bad hubris is. We’ve all probably seen it or heard it online. Recently, there was a lot of talk of witches online cursing the moon, specifically aimed at making Artemis or Apollo angry. Now, in the end, it was revealed to be some big hoax, a lie they told to make other witches start saying things about how they could tell someone had hexed the moon because their own spells weren’t as effective. Then the original hexers could say “Ha! We told you witch craft and the gods weren’t real, see? These guys said they noticed a change but we didn’t do anything, so clearly they must be faking!” The whole ordeal was a perfect example of what could happen if people fell victim to hubris, and many more sensible folks online pointed out that it was hubris, believing anyone could have an affect on a deity by cursing the moon. We’ve all seen other examples of hubris. Hellenic polytheists who say that Artemis would never let a man worship her, or a straight woman, or a woman who has had sex with a man. People who gatekeep, projecting their personal bigotry onto the Theoi. We’ve all come across. Hopefully, most have us have rolled our eyes and ignored it.

Even in mythology, hubris is painted to be among the worst things a person can be. Niobe lost her sons and daughters to Artemis and Apollo after she bragged to Leto that she was better than Leto for having more children. Arachne, turned into a spider for daring to compare herself to Athena. Antigone’s father, who lost his son and his wife for believing that his life was higher than the law of the gods. Oedipus refuses to accept his own fate and wound up falling victim to it because of his hubris. Ajax, believing he was entitled to the armor of Achilles and being driven mad and eventually killing himself. Icarus, flying to close to the sun, too prideful to listen to his father’s warnings. Orestes taking it upon himself to avenge his father by killing his mother and being driven mad. Greek stories are teeming with examples of people who have fallen victim to hubris. In many of these stories, sophrosyne is pointed to as a virtue to aspire to strictly to avoid it’s opposite, hubris.

And yet, we can also take sophrosyne too far. For example, in the Bacchae, Pentheus holds himself as a champion of sophrosyne, as fails to understand that by being overly self-controlled and self-discplined and holding himself up as the model of sophrosyne, he ignores the moderation and temperance part. He tried to force everyone listen to him, to oppose the Bacchic rites, and, in the end, his obsession with only a part of sophrosyne causes his own death. The Ancient Greeks understood that there was such a thing as being too controlled. There was such a thing as a fatal exaggeration of one side of the many-sided virtue of sophrosyne. Thus one of the biggest keys to sophrosyne is moderation. Nothing in excess says one of the Delphic Maxims, not even self-control and self-discipline.

As we go through this holiday there a lot of ways you can apply sophrosyne to your life. One of the dangers of the holidays is becoming over-extended. For example, I have a large family. Like…..over 100 people kind of large. So large that we could probably fill a high school basketball stadium kind of large. It’s also got a lot of different branches. Mom’s side, which has dad and mom in separate houses. My ex-stepdad, whose family we still see. My dad and his family. My dad’s ex wife and her daughter and her kids, who I’m also close to. My girlfriend. My kids’ dad and his family. I always joke that we’ve got our own little 12 days of Christmas skit between grandpa jones, grandpa long, Uncle Cody, Uncle Andrew, my dad, his ex wife’s house, my girlfriend, the kids’ dad, his family, and we’ve still got to squeeze out time for our own holiday celebration too. Factor in the fact that, like most customer service based companies in the US, my job doesn’t allow us to take more than half of Christmas Eve and all of Christmas day off. Sure, we’ve got the Sunday before and after when I’m off as well, but that’s barely 3 days for 4 states and 10 places to visit. Factor in the budget for all those places and all those gifts, not to mention the drama that comes around when we decide where we’re having Thanksgiving at and you can understand why I bring up being overextended as a danger of the holiday season. Now, maybe that isn’t a problem for you. Maybe you become over extended by volunteering to work too many hours to help your more Christian friends have time off. Maybe you offer to do too much during Thanksgiving and wind up having to wake up at 5 am to get started on a meal that you can’t believe you promised to cook. Maybe during Halloween, you spend too much time focused on parties or trick-or-treating and realize that you would have had a much better time sitting at home, watching Halloweentown with a bowl of candy and some friends. Either way, we all tend to push ourselves too hard, especially once the holidays roll around and we start wanting to do everything so we can get every experience. We need to remember sophrosyne during this time. Exercise self-control and stay home when it’s something you want to do. Exercise self-discipline and avoid getting gifts when you can’t afford it, there is no shame in saying “Look, finances are strapped and I can’t manage more than X”. Exercise moderation and remember that you can’t actually do everything. Be prudent and accept the reality of whatever situation you are facing. Practice sophrosyne.

Thank you for listening to today’s episode of Hellenic Polytheism 101 where we discussed another one of the Pillars of Hellenic polytheism, Sophrosyne. Today, I relied on the Odyssey, The Illiad, Sophrosyne: Self Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature by Helen North, A Period of Opposition to Sophrosyne In Greek Thought also by Helen North, Mythology of the Greeks by George Grote, and the Wikipedia entry for Sophrosyne. Remember, all links to the resources I used can be found on my tumblr at goddessdoeswitchery.tumblr.com, along with a transcript of today’s episode under the tag “Transcripts”. I look forward to speaking with you all again on October 18th, where we will be discussing Eusebia.

#hellenic polytheism #hellenic polytheism 101 #transcripts #sophrosyne #pillars of hellenic polythiesm

6 notes · View notes

things2mustdo · 4 years

Link

A while back, I came across a thought-provoking article about r/K selection theory. The basic idea is that r-selected species are adapted for environments with unlimited resources, while K-selected species are adapted for competition. The typical examples of these are rabbits and wolves. As the article explains:

Rabbits (r-Strategy)

They’re herbivores with near unlimited resources (never a shortage for grass).. The virtually unlimited resources are a primary reason why rabbits are not territorial. This is also part of the reason why they opt for breeding often; unlimited resources means they’re not going to starve.

They have no defense against predators other than running. They do not have any loyalty towards their group. It makes no sense for a rabbit to rush to the aid of another rabbit being attacked. Then you’d just have two dead rabbits. Because they can be killed so easy, it makes sense to reach maturity as quickly as possible so they can begin birthing children.

Hierarchies are pointless in rabbit society. Rabbits lives are rather simple; eat grass and run away from danger. There’s no need to invest heavily in their offspring. As such, there’s no need to prove who’s the superior (alpha) and the best candidate for passing on their genes.

Wolves (K-Strategy)

They’re carnivores that must hunt to survive. Hunting requires more intelligence and training than grazing on grass. Due to the increased difficulty of hunting compared to grazing, more time is invested in training the offspring to survive.

Because prey is limited, wolves must viciously protect their territory from intruders. While it might seem heartless, if another pack is allowed into their territory the supply of prey will be exhausted and both packs will starve to death.

Wolves are monogamous/pair-bond. Because raising the offspring is so important for the continuation of the species, the wolves will pair for life in order to raise their young. As such, they will choose the best mate they can find to further improve their chances of birthing strong, healthy cubs. This process of choosing leads to hierarchies with an alpha male leading the pack. Wolves also wait longer before reproducing and generally have less offspring. If they reproduced early and often, there would be too many wolves for the ecosystem resulting in the consumption all the prey and starvation.

Wolves are more complex. This is true for carnivores in general. Because carnivores typically live in groups, they must have more sophisticated ways to communicate. The same is true for their domesticated brethren. Look at a dog and you can easily identify if he is scared, happy, angry, or bored by his body language and barks. Can you tell the same moods on a rabbit?

This isn’t a completely binary distinction. For example, some herbivores (such as bovines) will flock in packs and defend themselves. Lions are more K-selected than domestic cats.

The social angle

Humans are mainly K-selected; that’s what is natural for us. There are individual differences and statistical outliers, of course. As an extreme example, imagine two brothers; one picks up Atlas Shrugged and is inspired to become a successful businessman, and the other reads the Communist Manifesto and then continues to live in Mom’s basement where he smokes weed and posts social justice memes on 4chan all day. Compare also the factory worker who is a pillar of his community and is proud to bring home the bacon to his wife and kids, versus the starving artist who has yet to produce much of value.

Differing societies have their own average balance between r and K selection. Those mostly r-selected tend to be more collectivist; those more K-selected are generally individualist. In isolation, societies find their own level and work out what’s best for them according to their own unique cultures. When one group enters another group’s turf, problems can happen. I’ve already described how this was a factor in my witty take on the demise of the Neanderthals, who might have been too progressive to survive, rather than too backward as is often assumed. That, of course, was an analogy for what’s going on in today’s society.

This even has implications for mating strategies. What we’d now sometimes derisively call “provider game” used to be the only game in town, and was natural for our society at the time, as it had been since antiquity. After the Sexual Revolution, all the rules changed seemingly overnight, and what used to work became ineffective. The flowers, gifts, and poetry stuff once showed you were dependable and good-natured, which (believe it or not) used to be desired qualities. That will get you Friend Zoned now.

The weird thing is that today’s game strategies are an adaptation in response to our society’s unnatural shift from K-selection (where being hard-working and stable is valued) to r-selection (where being “exciting” and flashy is valued). This is why in today’s dating arena, those continuing to use traditional courtship strategies are like fish out of water. These days, being at least somewhat game-aware is pretty necessary even to get a steady girlfriend. These differing strategies lead to much confusion about what best exemplifies an alpha—a socially savvy and successful man, or a meth head ex-convict with missing teeth and a high “notch count”?

The political angle

Ideologies tend to support either K-selection or r-selection as a model for society. Now consider the part quoted about rabbits given above. Which ideology favors handing out unlimited free goodies, is anti-military, puts down traditional morality, believes in gun control, despises their own society, will run from a fight, seeks to eliminate the consequences of promiscuity, considers any hierarchy to be “privilege” or “oppression“, and doesn’t believe in self-improvement?

That certainly hits the highlights of the culture war. This presents a new perspective on why Social Justice Warriors want to re-invent society their way. All along we thought it was only cultural Marxism, but maybe there’s something even deeper going on psychologically with the SJWs.

This is reflected in policy arguments too; compare Bush the Elder’s “family values” with Hillary’s “it takes a village to raise a child”. As we can see, quite a bit of leftist ideology is basically about turning human society from the K-selected model into one friendly to the r-selected model. Two competing ideologies (or two societies living in the same space) with differing ideas about these things will come into conflict. The more K-selected ones will get themselves dragged down by the others if they let it happen, or even destroyed. Also, take a look at any bad neighborhood; consider it a low-investment parenting theme park.

In the wilderness, these things wouldn’t happen. Apex predators don’t tolerate rivals coexisting in their own turf. The smart lion drives away a pack of hyenas, and the smart bear chases away the foxes. In human societies, this has worked out quite differently, especially when clever manipulators weaponize our own societal values of tolerance, fairness, and all the rest of it against us.

The greatest problem is that we don’t actually have unlimited resources available to meet our wants and needs, like rabbits in a grassy field. All the free goodies a government hands out must come from taxpayers, with bureaucrats getting their piece of the action. (So who are the predators in that situation?) As Margaret Thatcher put it:

I think [The Labour Party] made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people.

In the Communist world, those faced with the task of implementing the silly theories of Karl Marx had to ration resources, which resulted in inefficiency and corruption. Things didn’t go according to theory, obviously. Ideologies out of touch with reality become dysfunctional pretty quickly.

The endgame

Now here’s something even more disturbing. In advanced species, adulthood means being able to fend for oneself. In the beginning, people relied on families and tribes (extended families writ large) for resources, protection, and support. Some degree of interdependence in a community is natural to us, since organized hunting and agriculture increased the odds of survival, and thus we’re social creatures. The head of the household called the shots in the family, and the chief led the tribe.

At the dawning of civilization, related tribes bound together into nations. The model of families living under kings was the norm up until the Age of Enlightenment, with the main drawbacks that the nobility (and those close to them) got rich at the expense of others, lorded it over their subjects, and sometimes got into short-sighted wars. Afterwards, the transition into democracies moderated some of these problems, though graft and corruption and badly-conceived wars still happened.

Now we’re moving into the “New World Order” model, where a few thousand plutocratic elites around the world use their wealth and influence to implement managed democracy, get into spit-in-your-eye wars, and other forms of skullduggery to influence things their way. They’re pushing to open the borders, erase national sovereignty, turn the diverse peoples of the world into a mass monoculture, and they’ve conspired to make the public unaware and compliant.

Overall, the elites are causing increased dependency on the nanny-state governments, which meanwhile neglect the public’s safety and well-being. They’ve shown great hubris, trying to live as kings and make us their serfs. Meanwhile, young adulthood has become increasingly an extened adolescence, and these days many are seeming more childlike than ever. The more all this goes on, the less citizens resemble independent adults.

The extreme model of this in the animal kingdom is with some insect species, such as ants and bees. Joseph Sobran used The Hive as a metaphor, and so have I. If you don’t feel like being one of their worker bees, or a neutered drone, then it’s time we get the globalists off our backs.

Read More: Cultural Collapse Theory: The 7 Steps That Lead To A Complete Culture Decline

1 note · View note

stateofellagrace · 5 years

Text

Comm 10: Assignment 2

A. What are the differences between primary oral cultures and literary cultures? How are they related with each other?

Primary oral cultures are cultures that involve talking and listening. There is no knowledge of writing meaning, the information heard was collected in the minds of the people. The absence of writing made it difficult to preserve the information thus, paving the emergence of literary culture, which in turn employs the manner of reading and writing. However, in literary, there is no involvement of the bodies unlike oral cultures; just pure text and interpretation, but the edge is that, it’s easier to grab the information since everything is written. Regardless of the differences, they’re important because both contribute to the effectiveness of our communication in the present time as well as to the next generations.

B. What does Walter Ong mean by the intersubjectivity of communication? How does this differentiate communication from media?

Intersubjectivity happens when individuals agree on a given set of meanings. In short, it can also be synonymous to the word “agreement.” To achieve an effective communication, an understanding between the sender and receiver and an exchange of roles happens as the sender becomes the receiver expecting for a respond. However, in media, there is only a one-way process allowing the sender to send the information, having to receive no feedback at all. A good example would be reading a newspaper. We may have different stands on the issues yet, we cannot oppose as to what the editor says. Hence, there is no intersubjectivity between the sender and the receiver.

C. How does the ‘media’ model of communication show chirographic (i.e. writing) conditioning?

The media model of communication shows chirographic conditioning in such a way that written text conveys information, specifically a one-way informational process, in which there is no actual receiver. When information is changed from speech to written medium, chirographic conditioning occurs. It implies that whatever the sender broadcasts, none of the receivers can respond since the information and messages can be grasped by any person.

D. What are the industrial or economic factors in the evolution of media from print to radio to television?

In the earlier years, print media was a great way to disseminate information. Newspapers were the leading forms of prints as they serve as a way for people to connect on communal issues. As time goes by, prints from newspapers evolved into radio news, which technically marked the start of convergent media since there is already a merging of different forms. In no time, another medium was invented and it was the television. The process of the evolution of media had made people access information without any struggle. And because how fast-paced the demands of the people are, it resulted to the fast evolution of mass media.

E. What does the digitization of videos mean for information producers and consumers?

The digitization of videos for both producers and consumers mean that the information we need can now be easily accessed. It is basically in this process that has revolutionized the communication system because of the capacity and ease it provides for both production and consumption of media. For producers, information could be disseminated in different ways whereas for consumers, it makes life convenient because we can easily look and search for the things, we want to know easily. Digitization of videos also means transforming traditional home media into various digital formats that could be accessed anywhere through the help of the internet.

F. What are the pros and cons of media accessibility?

The best thing accessibility of media probably brings is that it makes us all connected. In an instant, it makes us aware of the news and information happening across the globe. Media is also used for advertising and marketing business. With it, it has help businesses reach potential consumers faster and easier. Broadcast media is a way of conveying information in vast audiences and keeps us updated with news. But in every progress accompanies downsides. The fact that it has already existed everywhere, it leads to lesser human interaction and more time on social media. It can also be used for misinformation because media as a whole is vulnerable to propaganda and lies. Knowing these cons, it is our responsibility to teach ourselves how to become media literate individuals.

G. What constitutes a convergent media? How is it differentiated from traditional media? Would you consider convergent media under the categories of new media? Explain your answer.

Media convergence, generally means the merging of different media channels- e.g, magazines, radio programs, TV shows- into a single digital bit-stream accessed through mobile digital system. Convergent and traditional media do not differ really, because both are tools for communication. I guess the distinguishable difference between the two is the period of existence in which traditional media obviously came out first which had involved the use of prints. The convergence of media is somehow under new media since it refers also to the combination of traditional and new media considering that it has allowed us to communicate in a whole new level. Technically, convergent media has just started before but has further elaborated at present through the combination of text, videos and audios

H. How does convergent media empower individuals to assert themselves in the bigger society? Think of the metaphor of David and Goliath.

In a world wherein technology is constantly evolving, media convergence has become an important element to people most especially that we are bombarded with different issues today. Let us think of the bigger society as Goliath, wherein along with him lies the societal issues which needed to be given attention. But David, who basically represents us, believes in the power of voicing out our thoughts and feelings. With the help of the sling and rock, David was able to take down Goliath by hitting his weak spot. And that sling and rock, depicts media convergence. It has become a medium for us to fight against the unending issues in the society. Through it, we could also be a part of a positive change, and could plan for an effective solution for the betterment of the society.

I. Compare and contrast the evolution of communication from orality to literacy and the evolution of media from traditional media to convergent media. Reflecting on how these developments came about, what could be assumed (or predicted) for the future of media production and consumption and/or mass communication?

The evolution of communication from orality and literacy is not that apart from the evolution of media from traditional to convergent. Basically, orality paved the way to the existence of literacy in the same manner the convergent media came from traditional media. These evolutions differ according to the period of time they emerge but they are similar in the way that both developed through time and became into something much more helpful and convenient. In the next years to come, we can expect that there will be greater and even more advanced inventions to improve our accessibility to media and communication. We can also assume that more individuals will likely engage in the use of media to further connect and adapt in the constant change technology has brought to the world.

J. What is Bitzer’s definition of a rhetorical situation?

In the context of Lloyd Bitzer, rhetorical situation refers to the natural context of persons, events, objects, relations and an exigence which strongly invites utterance. In addition, a rhetorical discourse can only occur if there is a rhetorical situation. It serves as a guide of the rhetoric to consider what must be conveyed to the audience.

K. What are the different aspects of a rhetorical situation?

Lloyd Bitzer mentioned that in order for the situation to be considered rhetorical, it must comprise the three components which basically are- (1) exigence, which refers to the importance of the subject; (2) the audience, that introduces the discourse and actions, and (3) the constraints, which limit the decision or actions.

I. Which of the issues you encounter today do you think warrant rhetorical discourse?

The issue that I personally believe still warrants rhetorical discourse is the War on Drugs by our President Rodrigo Duterte.

m.i. What were the different persuasive strategies mentioned in the chapter?

The different persuasive strategies mentioned in the chapter are: Taking and Avoiding Sides; Explicit Appeals to Common In-Group Membership; Constructing Aspirational Identities; Implicit Displays of Rhetorical Alignment; Who are “WE” Flexibility and Vagueness in the use of first-person pronouns; Using Pronouns to Display Complex Political Allegiances; Using First-Person Plural Pronouns to Convey Ideological Messages.

m.ii. Of these strategies, which have you encountered during political campaigns?

For me, the most usual persuasive strategy I have encountered so far that was used by politicians during political campaigns would be taking the side of the common people.

m.iii. Were these strategies effective for you? Why or why not?

Personally, the strategies mentioned in the chapter are effective since without the strategies, the political discussions and debates would no longer matter. We have our leaders and politicians sitting in the government, leading us today because we, citizens were convinced by their rhetoric discourses which had influenced us to vote for them.

8 notes · View notes

psybomb · 5 years

Text

On Government Funding

Because I’m a bit of a masochist, it seems. Got into a heated discussion the other day about various bits of the US Government, and I made the point that said government has no reason to be crying about funding. They have about a dozen different levers they can pull to increase funding, and taken together they’re MORE than enough to fund everything even the most Left candidate is currently floating as ideas.

My statement got called a bluff, and that I should prove it. Although I didn’t exactly present a dozen on the spot, I DID drop eight into the proverbial table. Going to drop them here as well, maybe someday by the magic of sharing the list will come to someone who can use it. Nothing below should be a surprise, basically none of it is of my own invention. I just farm for ideas, do the math, and present them.

Before the list itself starts, some background. The US Government tax model is transactional in nature. That is, money that changes hands while within the system generates revenue for the government. This in turn leads to twin philosophies on how to raise revenues. You either increase the amount of “mobile” money (thus increasing the number of times you get a cut), or access funds that were locked away and inaccessible.

Lever 1, Tax Static Wealth: Assess the net worth of every individual, and present a tax for worth over a certain amount. Candidate Elizabeth Warren is catching heat for this one, but it makes a lot of sense. The majority of the real wealth in the country is static, unmoving. It goes to a bank account and stays there to keep score and nothing else. The idea here is to access this locked wealth, either a one-time large hit or annual small ones. If you set the baseline amount at something like $10 million, you are effectively ignoring any money being used to actually live. At that point you have enough for yourself and your children (possibly your grandchildren) to live in comfort until the day you die without lifting a finger to work for another cent, ever.

As the goals go, this falls within “accessing locked away funds”. Probably the cleanest and easiest lever to pull with the lowest actual impact on standard of living, as long as you are careful about what’s counted (such as excluding active farmland).

Lever 2, Progressive Income Tax: Although this is in theory already in effect, much more can be done with it. Top rates have been at or over 90% in the past, and can return there. In some versions of this, the idea of a “billionaire” should not be able to reasonably exist, since personal gains over a certain point go almost entirely to the government for use elsewhere. The idea is also to exclude reinvested income, money that goes to opening plants, paying workers better, upgrading lines, etc.

This forces mobility and prevents the above hoarding that is currently taking place. It also greatly encourages companies to create better infrastructure as opposed to short-term shareholder profits, since those shareholders have way less reason to care about raw dollars after a certain point.

Lever 3, Charitable and Church organizations: I nicknamed this one the “Joel Osteen” tax. Take a good hard look at organizations like the Salvation Army or mega churches, which are currently tax-exempt on income due to it being donated. Take the difference between donated income and charitable outlays (not maintaining their church, actual actions taken feeding the poor, housing the homeless, healing the sick, etc) and remove it from tax-exempt status. Preferably, this comes with an amount ignored in order to allow small community churches to still exist. Also preferrably comes with a rate way higher than typical tax brackets.

This has several effects, besides accessing locked funds. It forces organizations that claim to be charitable to actually do charitable things instead of sponging off of people who are trying to do good. It also means that charitable giving write-offs end up doing actual goal actions.

Lever 4, Public Assistance Employer Tax: this one is simple enough. Apply an additional tax to medium and large companies according to how much public assistance cash their employees draw (things like SNAP or heavily subsidized health plans). Suggestions range from 25% to 110% (not a typo) of the amount being given to their employees. If the last one was Joel Osteen tax, this is the Walmart/Amazon one. It targets employers who profit pretty much directly off of the assistance the government has to pay their employees.

This is the first lever with potentially significant bottom-level consequences. It heavily encourages employers to keep full-time employees and pay them well (plus puts many more workers into ACA-mandated company health plans), but punishes those who can’t or prefer not to work 40 hours. It also means that most workers will only have one significant job, for good or ill. However, it again creates more asset mobility (in this case, by ensuring that workers are able to pay for goods and by offsetting what the government has to use to support the underpaid) and prevents a lot of wealth-hoarding when it comes at the expense of human misery.

Lever 5, Pursue those profiting off of public investments. Things like initial medical research, NASA-sourced materials (and even things like ergonomic seats), and the like. In essence, either make the use of these like a license, or fine windfall profits on such things. This will allow much more in the way of public research, and force price-setting to be more in the realm of reason. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pushing this extremely hard, particularly in relation to pharmaceutical companies who are profiting off of research they themselves didn’t fund until the very last steps (if at all).

Same goals are in play. Free up cash to be more mobile on the bottom level (by both making better research available and allowing people to spend less on things they helped fund already) and prevent wealth-locking by those at the top. The problem is that this can sometimes discourage necessary public-private partnerships needed to utilize production capacity that the government does not natively have (such as actually making enough of a medicine for general sale)

Lever 6, Elimination of Unneeded Subsidies: here’s one that’s constantly floating around. The question, as usual, is determining exactly which subsidies are not needed. Me personally, the criteria are threefold. First, what percentage of the industry’s profits come as a subsidy result. Second, how important is what it is trying to encourage versus the outlays. Third, the cost of retraining affected people to similar industry that is not propped up. Yes, Coal, I’m talking about you specifically, but quite a few other pork issues can be done away with.

While this is not pure revenue like the above, it reduces waste and allows funds already being gathered to be used to better effect. The problem is that there are going to be losers on this one, lots of them.

Lever 7, Captive Consumer Regulation: this is phrased very carefully, and for good reason. In essence, certain industries have recently discovered that they can get away with highway robbery because their consumers do not have the option to walk away. This specifically refers to medical and higher education costs, but can also apply to things like bail bond companies. People who abuse a place that should be about public service for personal gain. The result has been prices increasing entirely out of proportion to costs, and significantly reduced end quality.

The goal, as usual, is to return liquidity to those forces into the system and keep those at the top for hoarding profits. In this case, fixing these systems also ends with vastly increased quality of life overall along with societal benefits. The problem, as usual, is in how to solve it. Lots of opinions I won’t get into here, the point is that none are being acted upon.

Lever 8, pursue Offshoring: This is not necessarily targeting call centers in India, I mean more in the way of tax havens and foreign incorporation. Companies that are gaining the benefits of being based in the US without paying back into the system, and people keeping their money offshore and out of circulation. I will not touch things like buying foreign steel, that is free market and not the place of this post to discuss.

The point, just like above, is to keep money in the system and moving in both directions. Use the Panama Papers (remember that?) as a checklist and get it all back within the borders. The problem is that this is the most difficult of these options to pursue, with the lowest bang for the buck. Also difficult to perform with our receding place on the world stage.

Now, I’m sure someone reading this will have issues with some of the above. No problem, more than happy to discuss them. The point is that the options exist, and heavily benefit the lowest and middle members of society. Powers in charge just do not have the will to do so for the most part, despite their being little negative impact except to those committing societal fouls already. Why is this? Various reasons, which I will discuss another time. The point is that they exist.

4 notes · View notes

honeyhopeful · 6 years

Text

The Beauty Industry Profits on your Unhappiness

In 4,000 BC, historians traced the first ever beauty product - kohl eyeliner that the Egyptians used to create dramatic eye looks. Social media emerged in the 1970s when the internet really transpired in this time period. These days, the beauty industry and social media have seen immense growth. The beauty industry is appraised to be worth above 15 billion Euros, and social media is expected double in growth in the next few years - with Snapchat and Instagram being in the lead for most users.

The beauty industry has always had problems - especially when it came to women's' expectations. Feminist movements have always admonished the use of makeup - as most women felt rigid feminine expectations were being pushed on them. In recent years, makeup was seen in a different light - as a way for women to express their creative side, to feel good about themselves, and that despite wearing makeup - they should always be respected not as women but as people.

However, makeup and the use of social media is being viewed in a critical lens once again.

Social media is a double-edged sword in the 21st century; what was seen as a way to open doors, connect with like-minded individuals, research topics, and have educational discussions over an online platform. However, the curse that lies in social media is how accessible we have become - with a lack of privacy and a fast-paced environment, many users are feeling fatigued and dissatisfied with their social media use and accounts. Social media in its infancy celebrated creativity and open-ended dialogue between users from all over the world, but now with marketing changing along with our online communications - social media has quickly turned into a virtual department store where products, ideologies, and misinformation are at the ready.

The beauty industry and social media are now seemingly joined at the hip with more companies using influencer marketing strategy. Here is where the article gets ugly.

I'm not going to pretend that beauty ideal, marketing, and social media were not an issue before - I'm sure women in my generation back then felt the pressures as much as the women of this generation do - but back then, the beauty industry was not in our faces 24/7. I myself as a young girl barely read any magazine articles concerning beauty, and I wasn't interested in fashion, or any notion of performative femininity. And my friend would tend to agree, back then we were free to be kids. I didn't even start wearing eyeliner until I was seventeen years old, and even if I did wear eyeliner it was because my mother forced me to because it was a holiday. Even if you Google teenage celebs in the 90s to early 2000s and compare to teenage celebs in 2014 - 2018 - you can definitely see a difference in how the beauty industry and the beauty standards have changed. Young girls today are feeling more and more pressure to look a certain way that young girls in my generation ever did.

And the consequences of these societal expectations are causing teens to not only become prematurely depressed, but body dysmorphia, eating disorders, and self-objectification is on the rise.

Tweens, teenagers and young adults who are interested in makeup all follow at least one social media mogul - usually its' Kylie Jenner, Jaclyn Hill, Tati Westbrook, or any other celebrity such as Ariana Grande. The beauty of social media was that it allowed users to have complete control over their image and use promotion as their means to get funding. Each day, as I scroll on my phone, I often see women with long, incredibly toned legs, plump breasts, pouty lips, chiselled cheekbones, flat tummies and perfectly, rounded buttocks. The comments on each one of their photo and captions is fans wishing to look like them, often chastising their own appearance whilst praising their looks and ask for dieting tips, look tips, fashion tips.

As influencers share their dieting tips to look the way they do, this is seen as an honest way to connect with their audience and provide insight.

Unfortunately, this is not what happens.

The problem with the beauty industry is that it heavily relies on false representations and unrealistic standards. An Instagram model or even a well-known celebrity will post on their social media the secret to their physique and over-all look - and usually that "secret" comes in the form of detox teas that are filled with laxatives and dangerous ingredients, diet pills that have not been properly researched, or whatever snake oil they needed to push on impressionable young women. In reality, this is farther from the truth. Kylie Jenner was one of the celebrities to promote a laxative-based tea that can induce gastrointestinal problems later in life, but it is well known that Kylie Jenner, American socialite and TV personality, has been very open about retouching her photos, undergoing cosmetic surgery, and even has a personal gym and trainer within her residence. The same can be said for Kendall Jenner, sister of Kylie Jenner, who was recently criticized for becoming a spokesperson for ProActive, claiming it was the sole cure to her acne. Mostly because, a few short months earlier in 2018, Kylie Jenners' dermatologist explained that the cure for Kendall Jenner's acne-problem was a mix of well-formulated skincare products that were not ProActive and a laser treatment.

Los-Angeles based makeup artist Jordan Liberty stated on his Instagram stories that a models' job was not to look attractive, but it was to sell products by using her facial muscles and body. A models' job is to always promote merchandise - and recently the beauty industry has been taking models to promote unrealistic beauty standards and the quick fixes and products to attain that level of beauty.

The problem with the products that most models becomes a spokesperson for is that none of these products promotes a healthy lifestyle. As I have mentioned, many diet-based teas often have laxative ingredients that will damage the intestinal system and can cause serious dehydration to a young girls' body. Not to mention, that by utilizing hashtags such as 'thinspo' and 'body goals', including the high amounts of re-touching and intricate makeup placements to allow the model to look thinner, healthy and well-toned, often leads young women to negative thought patterns, depression and body dissatisfaction.

In 2016, Fardouly and Vartanian researched the high-rise of social media and the correlation of body image concerns, and they found that users with more appearance exposure suffer a lot more from weight dissatisfaction, drive for thinness, and thin-idealisation. They concluded that social media does indeed impact teenagers appearance concerns. Dr Helen Sharpe was quoted by The Guardian and she stated that most teenage girls resort to unhealthy weight loss practices, such as skipping meals, smoking, and lower levels of physical activities. Social media such as snapchat and Instagram are even damaging to young women due to filters and facial-reorganising that occurs on both apps - thus giving an overall distortion of ones' appearance. Time Magazine even reported on Snapchat causing self-esteem issues, dubbed as 'snapchat dysmorphia', plastic surgeons are writing that there is a surge in clients wanting to look like their filters, with bigger eyes, thinner noses, and fuller lips. They describe such a trend alarming since those filters are meant to be an unattainable facial structure and the lines between fantasy and reality are slowly blurring. Plastic surgeons are also arguing that these apps are making people lose touch with reality, and are expecting to look perfectly prim in real life.

Accounts such as @celeblife have taken upon themselves to remove editing, plastic surgery and enhancements to show users before and after shots of the models in question. These accounts are not there to ridicule the celebs or poke fun at their bodily enhancement, but really it is to remind users that at the end of the day social media is just smoke and mirrors. None of it is real. The images that we see, the videos that we observe - they're all scripted, edited, filtered, and processed.

The Beauty Industry will let people - especially impressionable young women - fight to attain those unrealistic beauty standards - but all the industry is doing is leaving a sea of depressed young women in its' wake. All the industry does is prey on women's' insecurities and fear by pushing and pushing products to make them 'selfie ready' or 'life-ready'. I myself as a woman have often skipped going to social events because I didn't want to put on makeup, or wouldn't even call my friend using video because I wasn't wearing makeup.

Accounts like @celebself and beauty influencers like Samantha Ravandahl, a Canadian Youtuber, talking about what it truly means to sell product - citing that brands sent over scripts instructing her to claim that no other product has helped her as much as this one - Ravandahl stated that she could not cooperate with the brand because at the end, she did not want to lie to her audience. Ravandahl recently talked about no longer receiving product launches from brands and wants to return to her authentic, educational roots than constantly act as an advertiser. These accounts and outspoken, honest influencers may remind us not to be so hard on ourselves, and that at the end of the day, we're admiring a tiny, unattainable fraction of reality.

So, if you're a young girl reading this and you're worried about the way you look - I can't tell you “don't be” as we both know these things are harder to shake off, but I can only remind you that everything on social media is glamorized and even if you do not look like the models on Instagram - you're still beautiful, worthy of respect, intelligent and you should give yourself more time and credit.

#makeup #beauty #beauty industry #youtubers #social media #mental health #the beauty inside

54 notes · View notes

enigmatic-elegance · 5 years

Text

Interview with the Mistress

Q: What did you have for breakfast?

"An odd way to begin any form of interview. You do not know much regarding the Draenei, do you? We eat sparsely, given our biological makeup. I have not had a meal in three days, and am still quite content. So the appropriate answer is I had nothing.”

Q: What can you cook perfectly?

“Ahh, domestic matters. Given my occupational directions through the course of time I grew a certain measure of self-reliance. Indeed, trusting others to prepare your food is a swift way to a painful end, more so when one possesses a number of enemies. I can cook most things to above satisfactory level. I will not spare quality on any measure.”

Q: If you could choose a pet, what would it be?

“Something I need not dedicate time to care for. Something that can sustain itself. Something that requires no affection or attention from me. I’m rather fond of certain plants, in that respect. That will have to pass for a response.”

Q: How is your relationship with your parents?

"You touch upon a rather guarded subject matter. Our relationship was terminated due to a mutually beneficial matter linked toward a shift in my own path. At the time, however, I doubt my parents saw it the same way. I know not what they thought of me at the time they perished from this reality.”

Q: What is your favorite read?

"Metaphysics. From the theories to the studies. You’d be amazed how accurate some are.”

Q: Do you put both socks on first, or one sock, one shoe?

“..hooves..”

Q: Do you fold your clothes before bed?

“I can shift my garb as necessary without much due effort. Any outfit I no longer wish to wear ceases to exist as a new one issues into its place. Thus, no.”

Q: How do you feel about marriage?

"A useful political move. One I am not keen to partake in, but understand for those who wish to play that game. Those who do it for reasons such as emotional connections build their foundation on sinking sands. Emotion is fickle.”

Q: Who was the last person you crushed on?

"What a droll way to word that. No one.”

Q: What does your dream home look like? and where would it be?

"I live where I desire to. In a place disjointed from the restrictions of reality. The ever changing halls. For me it is what I wish it at the moment I command it so.”

Q: What’s your worst habit?

“If something about me is unfit, I will change it. Why is that a difficult concept for so many? They speak of their habits as if they were powerless. You host the most power over yourself beyond any other. If you do not appreciate your own being, make change to it.”

Q: What do you do for a living and how do you feel about your job?

“I operate a certain group of individuals ushered into a force with potential to uproot the natural order of a bleeding societal body. It is satisfactory.”

Tagged by: @risrielthron @blessed-by-pride

Tagging: @harvee-sarah-zena @elenata-moonsong @ahn-qiraj @tanzrielle

#asks

7 notes · View notes

xntrek · 6 years

Text

2018 - A year of discovery, crying, depression, loss, rejection ... and not necessarily in that order.

It all started, as most things do, with a drink.

— more —

For years I knew I was different, that my emotions were not the same as others, that I felt things in weird ways and with that came a way of interacting with others that was ,,, different to standard societal norms.

I always knew that I could love multiple people, equally and equitably - at the same time. No one else around me was the same, and everything - movies, stories, fairytales, counsellers, therapists - tells us that love is some kind of pie that apparently you need to decide how to slice up - because there is a limited supply of it.

That was never true for me.

My love is bottles. Each person gets one, and the more I love you, the more bottles I fill on your shelf. Those bottles never go away either. I may no longer have you in my life, but those bottles remain - getting dusty, but as full as always. Even ex-partners who have wronged me still have their bottles - sure, there may be warnings or a cross-and-skullbone label on them, but the love, it’s still there.

Late last year I met someone who finally gave me a name for people like me. Polyamorous. Yet, in my initial research I didn’t think I was one of them. Most of the literature is either based on “technical polyamory” relationships or on those more inclined to what I referred to as the “poly sexual” group - namely the swinger set and those addicted to the NRE (New Relationship Energy) high.

But I did find others who were like me, and for a while that was enough.

But, as I said, it all started with a drink - and someone who I was attracted to, who I was avoiding because I wasn’t meant to have those feelings for, who I wasn’t meant to crave or desire or in any way have - she told me she wanted me.

Now, you have to understand something else - no one has ever said that to me before. Ever.

I’ve been with Ingrid for 25 years. We love each other. I know she loves me. But she never wanted me. We met under confused messages, we found ourselves together. We have worked through a lot of things over the years. But she never wanted me. Worse, she rejected me, more than thrice - and yet I forgave and we kept going. But this entry isn’t about that.

With the discovery of “my people” and thus the fact I was not a “freak” and the impetus of this wonderful person who awoke a part of me I had forgotten existed - I asked, although she tells me I practically demanded - that I be allowed to explore this part of me. She agreed, but apparently it was because she felt she had to or risk losing me ... so I found out later.

I set up a few dating accounts - tinder, OK Cupid, FetLife - and she even helped me to do so. I had the young lady who had expressed her interest in me, but thought that since she had a boyfriend (she wasn’t a poly), worked with me and had expressed her desire while very drunk that nothing more was ever to come of it.

That was incorrect.

We started seeing each other. It was wonderful. It made me happy.

But then Ingrid realised it was real. She had originally asked me not to tell her who I was seeing, but due to my stupidity and incorrect assumptions, she discovered who this woman was ... and it was no longer ok.

This was just as I headed off to the united states in May.

In New Orleans, at the Collision Conferance, I met another woman - she was intelligent and gorgeous, everything I would have described as a perfect subject of my “weird science” experiment if I had been given that power ... we synced on so many levels ... except she did not see me in that way, at all. Story of my life really.

We became friends though, and it turned out she was the Ingrid in her relationship with a poly ... so we talked and talked and I saw her point of view, and thus understood Ingrid’s better as well.

I came back to Australia and the pieces of the wreck that was my relationship was still there to sort out. But first I need to back track to March 2017 to catch you up on the other half of my life that was crashing down at the same time - work.

In 2017, the multinational I was working for merged with another. Combined, it became a corporation of 170,000 individuals world-wide. Prior to the merger, I was the Divisional COO - the operations lead for a division of four practices and 400 people at its peak. Due to the magic of McKinsey, my role was merged with that of the acquired group and the role was offered to the individual with the University degrees, not the one who was already in the function (i.e. me), So, over the next 6 months, I had to manage the transition of the staff over to the new divisional organisation, including the graduate programme cohorts I was managing ... until i was left without a department, a team or a group of young minds I had been enjoying helping set up their careers and development.

Fast forward to June 2018 and the various avenues I had been exploring in the new corporation were all drying up - the CTO function for two seperate divisions I was in the running for were both de-funded and thus dead in the water. The leadership role for a Digital Transformation Center that partnered with a local university, also died for the same reason. The Principle Consultant role was re-classified as an associate level and the three suggestions I offered for new roles were all declined.

So there I was - home and work life both in shambles.

Due to the machinations of beaurocracy, my last pitch demand from my previous director to “give me a job that actually makes use of me or pay me out” became a decision to do the latter - but that would take another three months to actually implement.

During this time, Ingrid and I were trying to determine what to do. Although she claimed she felt I had given her an ultimatum with my request, she now gave me one ... remain monogamous or we have to go our seperate ways.

We got a therapist - we went on a relationship therapy weekend ... we have talked and we understand each other a little better ... but ultimately nothing has changed.

So, come September 1, 2018 I was out of a job with a redundancy payment, a relationship that was broken, a lover who couldn’t be mine and an emotional state that was rougher than a perfect storm seascape.

Over the last few months I have had to try and regain some of my professional confidence - something I am still working on - but ultimately came to the conclusion that I wanted my work life to have some real meaning - a purpose that was greater than profit.

A dream job came up - the CTOO role for the Movember organisation - but i missed out on that due to their dream candidate being available and ready to start. So, that hurt, regardless of how logical and reasonable the choice for them was.

I forked out 20K from my redundancy to hire an outplacement service. They’ve been good - helping me with my CV, networking, LinkedIn, etc. However, as I said, I wanted a purpose greater than profit ... so I sunk another 50K into starting a business. From scratch.

I’m sitting here at 3am on a Thursday morning, on my back porch - smoking. Oh yeah, I returned to my self-destructive habit of coping by swallowing my emotions and my self-loathing one drag at a time.

I have a lover who is done with me.

I have a partner who is happy with the way things are and doesn’t want anything to change.

I have no job.

I have a business with no clients.

I have a rapidly declining bank account.

I have my MDD slamming my emotions harder than a screen door in a storm.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot - I discovered something else about myself this year. As part of a therapy session to deal with my eating disorder - I discovered that even under the power of suggestion, I couldn’t find a “safe and happy place”. My life has been tumultuous to say the least ... but the thing that gets me, is that almost all of the therapy options rely on building you back up by finding this magical place and using it as a foundation.

So, yeah. That’s great. What happens when you don’t have a foundation stone?

So - that’s been my 2018. Crying. Depression. Rejection. Loss. Basically a general sense of dystopic hopelessness.

If I survive the “festive season” I can only hope that 2019 is a fucktonne better.

It has to be, right?

#depression #crying #loss #rejection #polyamory #relationships #fuck 2018

27 notes · View notes

it-d035n-t-m4tt3r · 5 years

Text

4/16/19

Hello again everyone! This week’s class was very interesting, yet again of course, and even more so was the particular discussion we were having over the views of Simone De Beauvoir. A person considered to be the contemporary to Jean Peal Sartre. Her perspectives on the essence, or rather in-essence of women, takes the discussion of existence preceding essence to another and higher level. Dealing specifically with the social development and constructions built around “the woman” and femininity. So today I would like to discuss an overview, in brevity, as much as can be so, her perspectives on essence, agency, women, and feminism.

What is she concerned with? As a whole she is concerned with the notions of individual agency or freedom of will, as well as responsibility to that agency originating from within the individual, rather than responsibility originating from socially constructed normalcy. She takes greater issue with two things that she sees as obstacles to this line of thinking.

The fist being nominalism, which is the idea that a name given to something isn’t always the best descriptor of what it is. In her example, she uses the name of woman, given to a person because of some facticity by which their physical self has been thrown into. But for her, the descriptor of “woman” and what a “woman” as an individual actually is, are incongruent thoughts to one another. A woman IS a woman and a woman alone, is insufficient description enough to realistically depict the individual in their entirety. And because of, simply, the title of “woman” they are in some way pre-disposed being a woman and woman alone? No. The issue with such nominalism as it refers to an individual, is the context of such a title. The name of woman as a descriptor, holds different values across different societies around the world. And this leads to the second road block to individual agency, conceptualism; the notion that there is a natural essence to all things.

There are, in every society, pre-conceptualized notions of the meaning or purpose of a woman and their role within society which many times, and more often than not, act as inhibitors to breaking out of anything beyond what society views them as. For Du Beauvoir, diminishing the role of conceptualization of women leads to the understanding, that such limitations of their capabilities, perspectives, desires, and their agency are nothing more than societal constructs. De Beauvoir says “One is not born a woman, but becomes one”, further demonstrating her position, that societal conceptualizations are what shape the nominal value, or definition of women in general. But women are more than a societal construct, and more than simply the title of woman and woman alone. Moving on from these notions of what women are, or should be, within it contains the need to also acknowledge the differences between men and women. Biologically, yes, but also phenomenologically. Men and women experience the world in radically different ways. Acknowledging these differences in a meaningful and progressive way, for De Beauvoir changes how society will view women in the future.

So where does De Beauvoir take specific issue with conceptualism and nominalism?

One of the greatest issues within the current societal treatment of women, is the differentiating between “The One” (X) and “The Other” (Y). A relationship where Y only exists within its relation to X. “The One” is defined as the default way of being, the way of being that is societally valued; the predominant driving force of effecting any revolutionary change. For society, De Beauvoir would say, the default way of being, is the masculine way of being. This is because society, as a whole, values the idea of masculinity. It attributes things like strength, bravery, cunning, etc. to be equivocal to the idea of masculinity, and being so ranks one among the upper echelons of societal value. Within relation to this, femininity has thus been not only defined by masculinity, but used as a mechanism of the suppression of women, as its traits are societally constructed as counter to that of masculinity, and pejorative in any other context unrelated to women. So, if we seek to address this relationship in any socially constructive way, within the confines of the current society, it must be done in such a way as to address “The One” before “The Other”. We generally address, the thing that “IS” before the thing that “ISN’T”. A man (is) is not a woman (isn’t). Masculinity (is) is not femininity (isn’t). It is, therefore, this relationship of one before the other, demonstrative enough to show that we derive our understanding and perceptions of women, from our view of what men should (is) and shouldn’t (isn’t) be. For De Beauvoir, “The One”, or the thing that is, is the subject of existence. It is capable of acting, having agency, and within society, has automatic validation of their understandings, preferences, and goals. The Subject has autonomy and has a life to be lived. “The Other”, the thing that isn’t, or the object on the other hand, is purely complimentary in its nature to the subject. The object is acted upon and is by its own nature, inert. It has no goals, preferences, or agency, and it is used only to play a role in the life of the subject, to satisfy the goals of the subject. Men have been the traditional actors, the subject, “The One”, and as such, have treated women as objects for much of history, and not as individuals capable of their own agency.

However, for De Beauvoir, acknowledging the phenomenological differences between men and women, acknowledging the relationship of the subject and the object, is not conceit to the notion that women are or should be less than men, or that women are the object of man’s subjective existence. In fact, there is, aside from historical development alone as it so happened to play out, no good or justifiable reason in which men should be considered superior to women. There is no substantial reasoning to think of men as “The One” and women as “The Other”. Because of this, it is easy to see, that in the course of historical development, how the roles of this relationship could have been reversed. Instead of men as “The One” it could have been women. Rather than masculinity defining femininity, it could have been femininity defining masculinity. We might have been thrown into the facticity of matriarchy, rather than the patriarchal structure of today’s society. The conceptualization of women’s dependency on men, for definitional existence, is not an essential truth of humanity itself. It is again rather, given the manner in which historical context has played out, purely a product of politics, jostling for power, and child rearing. The acknowledgement of these differences enables society to better realize that both women and men are of equivocal agency and goodness, despite their differences. And nor are men better than women because of them. De Beauvoir would argue that enlightened societies would have no need for distinguishing between “The One” and “The Other” but would rather consider the society as “The Ones” ore “The Different Ones”. This way each individual may reclaim their agency, their subjectivity, and their freedom. Every individual must be seen as the subject, and capable of agency. Every individual must be able to have their goals and preferences validated. De Beauvoir does not consider those who claim that the roles of society, in terms of subject/object or “The One”/ ”The Other” be reversed to be a feminist, nor does she assert that men are inherently bad. For her, a feminist is one that believes that one’s gender is not a good reason to keep them from doing something, having agency, or having their goals or preferences validated. Nor should they be excluded on the basis of gender for performing a role within society. And anyone who would assert to be a feminist, should strive to acknowledge the differences in gender, and work to improve society, lest we fall into the state of objectification of one from another.

This week, I will wrap up my brief (LOL) discussion on De Beauvoir with a piece of feminist art.

This work, done by Angela Alés called Manifestation, represents a discussion of the phenomenological perspective of women viewing the world. Specifically, women looking at women. This piece was painted to highlight the complexities of being a woman, with all the struggles and joys therein.

~Put that in your pipe and smoke it~

#simone de beauvoir #existentialism #conceptualism #nominalism #feminism #1940s #acknowlegement #difference #agency #freedom #the different ones #the ones

2 notes · View notes