#any other kind of commentary on it would be derailing :P

[forgottendance]

Some scary aphobic rhetoric to debrief

So, I argued with some aphobes last night. Not particularly intensely, it was pretty tiny, but I do want to go over what happened/what I woke up to because I think the tactic these people used to silence me is particularly terrifying and I want to make sure other acespecs and arospecs know exactly how Wrong these people are. 

I also want to encourage everyone to consider who should be engaging with such people and how. Personally, I believe these people have been given too much fuel. As long as we keep talking at them, they keep finding ways to manipulate our words and spout their hate. This is particularly damagingto those of us who are acespec and arospec! Allo folks, how can you protect us while challenging this? Acespec and arospec folks, let’s protect ourselves and each other before engaging with such harmful people. 

So, what happened?

Someone made an incredibly valid post to point out that straight trans people existed and were lgbt. They then reblogged their own post to clarify that this didn’t include “people who don’t have sex”.  Either this person really means “people who don’t have sex”, which implies that sexual behavior is a condition for being lgbt, which not only negates acespecs that don’t have sex, but any sex-repulsed lgbt person, anybody lgbt person who may choose not to have sex, including those who do it for religious reasons and some survivors of sexual abuse, and even people who just happen to not be having sex at the moment for one reason or another... More likely, this person is using this to mean “asexuals”, which shows a huge lack of understanding of what asexuality is. Personally, I believe that if someone can’t even used the correct word, or define it properly, they’re not really knowledgeable enough on the subject to make an informed opinion and should probably do some more research before making such comments. Most importantly, this was absolutely unnecessary to add. They had made their point that this was about straight trans people in the beginning. The only reason they had to include a crude, misinformed reference to ace people was to attack. It was an active attempt to exclude acespecs from the conversation, despite the fact that we hadn’t been in the conversation to begin with. Basically, this person dragged us into a conversation just so they could say “no, not you”. 

We went back and forth twice, I didn’t want to escalate or fall into the path of justifying (which gives strength to aphobes’ arguments), so I simply made it clear where I stood on the matter, particularly for any a-spec person following me, and then went to bed. This morning, I woke up to responses from a new person and from one of the aphobes I was interacting with last night claiming that I had derailed a conversation about trans people.

This is FUCKING CREEPY.  First point, I want to make this very clear, the conversation was derailed the minute OP dragged acespecs into this. I was not the one derailing, I was challenging aphobic rhetoric as it appeared on my dash. This conversation was derailed and causing harm long before I touched it. 

Second point, it’s really easy to believe someone when they says something like this. We all want to be better people, we want to learn how to listen to all sorts of trans people, we want to not derail conversations. Except, when someone says something aphobic on a post specifically about trans people and then claims that any argument against their aphobia is derailing the conversation about trans people, they are not only ignoring the fact that they were the one to derail, they are abusing a true desire to support trans people. They have turned transness into a manipulative get-out-of-jail free card. My transness does not exist to help aphobes avoid arguments, and neither does anyone else’s. 

Third point, acespec and aropec trans people exist! And we are deeply harmed by posts like this, which basically tell us that only certain parts of our identity are legitimate. To challenge an aroace trans person for challenging a post that directly harms them increases this harm. All I can say is that these folks are lucky that I’m not a straight aro trans person or a straight ace trans person, because that would have caused even more harm. 

So, fellow acespecs and arospecs, I would like to encourage you to think critically when an aphobe acuses you of transphobia or of derailing a conversation and making it about you. Yes, sometimes we do that, we aren’t perfect people, but it appears that aphobes are trying to gaslight us into thinking we’re doing it when we aren’t. Always ask yourself - why do I feel the need to challenge this comment? Why are a-spec identities important in this conversation? Who am I showing my love for when I add my voice? What am I trying to say? Am I saying it? Is this an effective and appropriate way to say it? You may find that the aphobes have you doubting yourself more than you think.

And allos! Especially trans allos! Please consider context when you reblog something. It doesn’t matter how good a post is about trans people, if it’s made by an aphobe, it doesn’t support trans people because some trans people are ace and/or aro. And, if you see a positive trans post that is actively excluding a-specs, don’t be surprised when we respond to us. We were dragged into the conversation against our will. 

[amwritingmeta]

i am living for all this meta talk tbh, it makes me feel less Tragically Optimistic and more regular optimistic. SO, we know that Dean and Cas' respective stories, and the story as a whole, doesn’t necessarily NEED that romantic element to be complete, right? supernatural isn’t a romance story. but, dean's response to the idea of “settling down with someone” is never “i don’t want that,” it’s, “i can’t have that,” essentially. which, in my mind, is just really good, ah, cannon fodder

Hello, sweetling! 

Aw that’s so brilliant to read! And regular optimistic is good! Welcome to the fold. :)

supernatural isn’t a romance story.

Exactly! It truly isn’t. And even if the scenes we get between Dean and Cas from here on out, or at least in S15, begin to illuminate the fact that they’re in love with each other, I will still say that the show won’t be about them and so the narrative axis and its main plot points, if you will, most likely won’t have anything directly to do with their love story.

If that makes sense?

We won’t get a finale centred around Destiel, is what I’m saying. Like, I’d bet my hair. (and I’m quite fond of my hair) (never mind it’s greying around the edges) And, can I be frank? Hope so ‘cause I’m gonna be. I actually don’t want a finale centred around Destiel. Or centred completely on the brothers. I would like it to be about TFW!

Adding to that statement the reason for it, which is that I would love the love story to come into bloom slowly and organically and I know these writers and these actors could make something quietly spectacular out of it so I’m just gonna sit here and cross my fingers and toes, yeah? 

That said, if we get high drama then hell, I’m not gonna say no to that. I just hope we get it, and that we get it indisputably on screen, whatever it may be. I have such high hopes that we won’t just get it strongly hinted at (because the commentary will then be lost on every viewer who actually doesn’t read the subtext) or that we land in it in the very final episode or something like NO! GIVE ME SCENES DAMN IT! GIVE ME IT!! GIVE ME THEM TEXTUALLY FLIRTING DARN IT!! GIVE ME LINGERING BLOODY EYE CONTACT AND BUTTERFLIES IN STOMACH SMILES AND JUST WHATEVER!! ALL THE DAMN ROMANCE!! 

Pretty please. With all the cherries.

This may not be a romance story, but it is a story about love and… love. :)

Look, I believe we will get it, but I don’t know we will, so my faith is entirely based in hope here. I just really want to actually witness those moments when they begin to open up to the goddamn truth of their relationship: they love each other equally and they truly balance each other out beautifully. 

They’re so good for each other. They bicker and argue and push and pull, yes, but they both need that, you know? They both need someone to question their behaviour, and it just so happens that the person questioning them is the one person neither wants to let down. It’s gorgeous! It’s the foundation for opening up to change. Someone you respect questioning your actions while never turning away from you, even when you mess up so badly you grow to hate yourself. 

Aw, it’s so important that they have the other there as quiet support no matter what!

And, back to your actual ask, YES! Dean’s issue has always been that he thinks he doesn’t deserve to have good things and his fear of happiness is entirely based in this deeply rooted belief that Good Things Don’t Last, which is entirely tied to Mary’s untimely death, yeah? And this has been, to my mind, what has informed how he relates himself to this man he’s falling madly in love with who happens to kind of sort of be an angel that dicks off at any given moment without so much as a by your leave, good things don’t last, yeah, very aware.

Cas’ unreliability hasn’t stopped Dean falling in love with him, though, which I think is a part of Dean’s character progression. Instead of him having even the whisper of a codependent relationship with Cas (though their reliance on the other is unhealthy in other ways) and it feeding Dean’s insecurities, it’s the complete opposite and it exposes Dean’s insecurities as false. Because CAS ALWAYS COMES BACK. :P

As for the unhealthy part, I do believe that losing the person you love doesn’t have to stop your life in its tracks. I’m not dismissing the incapacitating weight of depression or grief related depression, but I also believe that there’s help to be had, you know? I’ve gone through horrendous grief in my life. It never goes away, that loss. But you can learn to deal with it, yeah?

Losing Cas has derailed or stopped Dean’s progression twice. Hugely. Majorly so. And however romantic the undertones, the reality of it (the way I see it) is that it’s unhealthy. Instead of Dean unconsciously relying on Cas to be his compass, since Cas represents faith to Dean, Dean should have faith in himself regardless. Same goes for Cas, but I think Cas is a little farther along here, because he’s stepped into the place of humanity himself many times over, especially this season, in how he relates himself to Jack (though Cas still refers to himself not as a human of course not but rather as a thing) (never over it), and in how Jack chose Cas as father figure, which is just all shades of pretty.

Dean and Cas’ relationship will be happy and balanced when both of them are moving into their true identities, chill to be themselves, no more armour to be seen.

Gah! I want it for them so badly. *clutches at heart*

Your ask is pretty much you bright-eyed and bushy-tailed agreeing with the idea of Destiel not having to happen, but that it happening will deepen the overall message of the show, once the narrative truly wraps up and we land in what that message was always (or not) meant to be, yeah? 

I mean, I sincerely think they don’t have to deliver on anything, because, as said, the narrative could be tied up without the love story coming to a conclusion, but I believe the writers want the love story to conclude, because of how intentional the subtext has always been, and because of how important Cas has been, subtextually, to Dean’s progression. That takes thought power. That takes awareness and love and care. Immense love and care for these characters and their needs and wants. And huge respect for the narrative as a whole. The writers have worked with these tools for going on fifteen years and for a reason. I cannot fathom that it’d be for no good reason. The reason for it is right there in the narrative.

But I don’t need to argue for this. We all know this. :P

What I believe in, very firmly, is that the writers also don’t want the love story to conclude ahead of its time. Every time its been building towards an actual conclusion they haven’t changed their mind, they’ve just had to draw it out, because there was more story to tell, more character progression to explore, and I’m stoked that they now have the chance to finish this narrative and finish it the way they’ve envisioned it for the last few seasons. Or that Dabb envisions it now, as they know for certain they’re truly wrapping it up. Whichever it is.

Now, as already agreed, the narrative doesn’t need the love story to conclude to end on a good note, it really doesn’t. But like I said in another ask today: if the love story is left open to interpretation, that openness will leave a hole. Perhaps not for the GA, as it were, but certainly for us, right? It won’t diminish the subtext in any way, but leaving it wholly open to interpretation would, at least to me, be taking away from making a more resounding statement about breaking free of societal norms and fear of judgement, which is what I believe has kept Dean away from being openly queer for such a very long time.

Either way, I’m excited to see how much they give us and how far they’ll go. Truly, truly excited. I’d love to get to watch all three characters level out and grow truly comfortable in their own skin. With a fourteen year build towards the show’s climax, the denouement should hopefully be something we get to witness for more than an episode or the very final scene of the entire series. I hope we get more. But I also know the show we’re watching and it’s possible they’ll keep it excruciatingly subtle right to the very end. 

We shall see!! Whatever happens, I’m sure it shall be spectacular!

[scarlettlawyer]

Part 11 of my reaction/commentary to the Phantoms & Mirages Saga, the fanfic series by @renegadewangs

(Chasing Phantoms): Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

(Haunted Specters): Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

(Vanquishing Mirages): Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9

Vanquishing Mirages / Lifting Spirits: Part 10

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 1

At the very least, he could rest easy knowing that his first motorcycle lesson hadn’t been a complete disaster. The future looked promising.

ANY future looks promising when it has Motorcycle Simon in it

“Here, I brought you a sandwich.” “Is it chicken?”

Blackquill: [known bird lover, intense lover of birds pouring over bird documentaries in his spare time and cherishing Taka with all his heart]

The boy who would become the phantom, the moment he is presented with a sandwich: iS IT CHICKEN?

“But… People die when they are killed.”

ASDJHSDBKJS

A+ DIALOGUE THANK YOU I LOVE IT. GOOOSH I’M. SOMEBODY needs to compile a list of things this same person has said in this series. The above line. The courtroom jokes, the irony line… the “I’m aroace” line… The other things he said to intentionally turn Bobby against him post-phantomquill kissbait, throw in a bunch of other Lex lines too. The RANGE. THE SHEER RANGE. You could just do a list like that, show it to someone and be like “Yeeeaahh so ALL of these are essentially said by the same character in different stages of his life.”

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 2

Finally, there was a knock on the door and Lang led the way into the room. He looked irritable. He’d been giving off that air since before the surgery. Lex had a suspicion on what might be causing such irritation, but kept it to himself. Lang wouldn’t take his advice on matters like that anyway.

“Matters like that” I’M FGLKFGLKNGF

OKAY ALSO

I SOMEHOW MISREMEMBERED THIS AS BEING SOMETHING HE THINKS BACK BEFORE THE SURGERY BUT EITHER WAY IT’S JUST. GOLD.

The phantom – or the former phantom – Lex just sitting there doing his best to refrain from giving out romantic advice.

Someone younger than he’d expected. This man couldn’t be older than thirty- probably hadn’t even reached that age yet. […] this guy looked rather meek. He was lean; the sort of physique that made it seem like a strong gust of wind could blow him off his feet. His black hair was smoothed back with copious amounts of gel and his face bore overly kind features. A few sheets of paper and a notebook were clutched firmly under his right arm. Coupled with his neat black suit, dark blue tie and thick-rimmed glasses, he looked more like a door-to-door salesman than a therapist.

GEEEEE MEOWZY, GEEEE, SUCH DESCRIPTION, I WONDER IF HE’S AN IMPORTANT CHARACTER OR ANYTHING sdjnksdfknl.

Okay but back when I read this 1st time I was like. Well I seriously didn’t know WHY the hell this guy needed such a strong narrative focus on what he looked like. Like. “He’s the therapist. That’s all we need to know. He’s not important! Why do we care what he looks like! Why does it matter!” askjbsdkjnedskj just felt SO excessive just annoying that the narrative felt like it Cared so much about a random therapist character DFKDFKJ GOD I WAS A FOOL

AND ALSO UHHH

Like yes this fic post-bait was still promising and as superb as ever and had thrilled me with things like the music-listening thing BUT. I need you to understand that I was still very hurt over Fake Phantomquill and therefore, REALLY not in the mood for getting to know Sudden New Characters. The intense goodwill I’d built up for this series over three fics had been largely derailed at this point. I just… didn’t really care all that much about giving new characters a chance thanks to that new apathy. That, and the fact that this series genuinely felt like it was reaching the end at this point, with all of the Major Players already introduced. So how could any important character POSSIBLY show up now? Coupled with how Done I was after the phantomquill bait. SO YKNOW. Idiot that I am, I kind of breezed over the above paragraph a little impatiently without really taking anything in, like I read it but didn’t really ABSORB it or incorporate the physical description into how I pictured the character. I was just like “yeah ok he’s the therapist moving on? What’s next?” (BENNY I’M SO SORRY I WAS VERY MEAN). So yeah, my foolish logic: “series is almost over, all the important characters are introduced, therefore no character introduced at this point could possibly be important, therefore I don’t need to care about or pay attention to anyone new.”

…Like okay, I knew the story wanted me to see this new character as someone important and therefore pay attention to them, but I couldn’t understand why and therefore intentionally failed to pay much close attention almost out of spite.

But like. God. If I had actually bothered to take in anything about that physical description I would have actually NOTICED how handsome he is right from the start. Joke’s on me!

“[…] a person who’s supposed to have no emotions is incredibly interesting.”

[…]

Such an odd point of view was another thing that took Lex by surprise. All his life, people had called him a monster. A freak. A heartless robot or a demon. A Phantom. No one had ever considered his emotional state to be interesting. No one had ever considered it an honor to be sitting across from him. Who in their right mind would?

WHY WOULD YOU CALL ME OUT LIKE THIS

HELLO. SDKJNSFKJNSDKJ. ALSO THANK YOU SOMEONE ACTUALLY AGREES HOW INTERESTING THE LACK OF EMOTIONS THING IS.

But this is so funny it’s like the fic is takign aim at the fangirls. Me, a phantom fan: Hah… Yes… Who in their right mind would consider it an honour to be sitting across from him.. sdkjsdkjdsf

(Okay, that angle didn’t occur to me on 1st readthrough but now I’m just jokingly like “I feel so attacked” HAHAAH)

Most of the focus had been on Lex’s physical health and the way he was being treated, both on a medical level and on a personal level. Emotions could affect the body and Lex had to admit that recovery from his surgery was still going at a slow pace. 

OH MY GOOOOOD FUUUUUDGE TH. BENNY IS SIZING HIM UP HE’S ASKING THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS FOR A REASON. GOD DAAAMN IT BENNY… Knowing the way he is being treated medically, things like that, can make it just that little bit easier! To! Make an attempt on his life! I’M

TFW u do ur job as a therapist but also as an assassin simultaneously.

No one else stopped by his room for hours on end. Not until it was time for the guard shift to rotate and Bobby Fulbright came strolling inside. Over the past week, it’d become painfully obvious that the Phantom’s attempt to crush the man’s cheerful attitude towards him had failed. That Bobby was still as overbearing as ever, acting as if that little incident involving Simon Blackquill hadn’t happened.

Idiot spy underestimated the power and strength of just HOW MUCH Bobby cares about him.

“Hahaha, that’s just like him.” Bobby nudged the wrapper towards the bin with his foot. “And just so you know, he’s single.”

BOBBY NO. THAT IS HIS THERAPIST. THAT IS YOUR THERAPIST,

Lex made sure to shoot Bobby the most emotionless expression he could still bring his face to ease into. It was funny how the surgery had messed with even that much. “It isn’t too late for me to end your life, you know.”

SDJKSDFNKJSDFKLNSDLNKSDLKN this & him saying this is so funny SEND HELP

The mark of Shelly de Killer.

OH. OKAAAY. I’D FORGOTTEN THAT THE FIRST ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT TAKES PLACE ON THE SAME DAY. BENNY WASTES NO TIME AT ALL… And it makes sense I mean. He got the info he needed to go ahead, so why wait? Oh my god..

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 3

…It’s terrible how much I kind of enjoyed Lex’s sudden downturn; what essentially was the prelude to and then became a vomit scene just because This man used to be the Unshakeable Phantom! LOOK AT HIM NOW. >:D

Plus he starts off soooo arrogant and overconfident at the beginning of the chapter as well before Lang is just like. “Lol. Looks like you didn’t actually kill Shelly and he’s after you.” Making the rapid nosedive that follows even more… It feels kinda weird to say “amusing”, but… IDK MAN THERE’S JUST INHERENT NARRATIVE APPEAL IN THIS LEVEL OF WEAKNESS AND VULNERABILITY AND WHAT HAVE YOU ON DISPLAY after a bout of confidence no less, from this character with this history specifically. Any other character and I’d be appropriately squicked out/feeling bad. I CAN BE VERY MEAN TO MY FAVE.

Also, “prayers to the porcelain god” is actually SUCH a good euphemism. Somehow… If I ever get the chance… I want to see if I can work it into saying it in real-life at least once. I don’t see any such opportunity arising anytime soon, however. :P

“Just send him in, it’s not like the day can get any worse,” Lex grumbled, clambering back onto his bed.

>:D

Benny shows up and it’s just pure dramatic irony. Re-reading is suuuuch a bonus.

What if they were endangering Benny by having him here?

OH MY G

“You’re a Snapple guy?”

I’M, I LOST IT AT THIS

Maybe he just wanted to be the one raising the questions- to be in control of the conversation. …Yeah, that was probably it. That was how the human psyche worked.

I’M?

“Of course. I don’t know how other people manage with their android phones. Snapple’s always got the upper hand,” Benny remarked, not even bothering to take his eyes off the screen.

Lex: Right. Have fun with your planned obsolescence, sucker.

IF A REAL LIFE MAN ACTUALLY SAID THIS TO MY FACE.. I GOTTA TELL YA… The sheer level of aggravating this is. XD. I DON’T KNOW IF I’D BE ABLE TO HOLD MYSELF BACK FROM SAYING SOMETHING.

Me internally if an IRL man said this to me: Oh so you’re insufferable and I probably won’t like you very much at all.

SDKJSDNKJSDNKJ

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 4

Bro. Bro I was suspicious of that coffee, man. And then when Lex drains it all, I was like “MMMM somehow… that feels like a mistake he’s going to regret.”

“Could there be any kind of poison in it that interpol could fail to detect?”

But, I didn’t suspect Benny of wrongdoing. I was suspicious of the coffee, but not Benny. I figured that if the coffee had been tampered with, Benny was completely unaware of it. But then, I forgot about it and put it out of mind after that when nothing too dramatic happened immediately after he takes the coffee.

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 5

“It’s fine.” Lex was embarrassed to hear that he’d taken on a rather squeaky tone.

Embarrassed… Embarrassed… Embarrassed…!

Yeeeees. It’s like I’ve waited 3 full fics and then some to see this man FINALLY be embarrassed. Feels good.

…Well this chapter certainly gets intense after that. :[

Now this second vomit scene is actually quite appropriately upsetting to read. OOF.

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 6

Bro just imagining that slowed-down music really IS super eerie, damn.

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 7

“Bobby Fulbright. I was under the impression that you were no longer allowed to be here.”

Gooood he STILL goes for the full titles all the time when “orienting” to the conversation, like he didn’t need to use any name at all here. I’m telling you, 1. This is his character trait, Lex and Phantom alike, and 2. It’s so Franziskan sdkjsdnkjsd.

Bobby sighed. It was like everyone around him realized his care for the Phantom was unwarranted. He himself realized it too, but that didn’t change anything. “I know. I’m just an idiot like that.” “Acknowledgment is the first step to recovery. Now take the next step and get out.” With that, Lex made to slide the headphones back over his ears.

UM rUDE xDDD

While the concept of him being aromantic had been cast into doubt ever since the surgery, he didn’t mean to dig much further into it. Unless he was somehow miraculously saved from execution, his sexuality didn’t matter. He would die just as he’d always lived; alone. The concept didn’t quite stop him from appreciating Benny’s handsome features, though. Or the way Benny kept smiling as if he wasn’t looking at a murderer.

Ohooooh my. Here we are! Precisely what connects back strongly to a lot of the stuff I discussed in my previous post but I couldn’t quite fit it in.

So like. I could very much see what was going on here. Mhm. Yes I did. We are getting implied Lex/Benny. And, confession time, but I MIGHT have stumbled across a post that heavily implied Lex/Benny back before I had ANY inkling of who Benny was… Back before Lex was Lex. So it meant absolutely nothing to me at the time, it simply DEEPLY confused me in the sense of “You’d think I’ve read far enough into the series and yet WHY can’t I make heads or tails of this post?” But, I quickly put it out of mind and temporarily forgot about it and was able to continue reading the text “blind”, but when Benny actually showed up… and Lex is Lex now… And Bobby’s all “He’s SINGLE 😉” I narrowed my eyes all like. Oh. Oh… There’s a certain way this could go. But I still thought “Hey. Maybe nothing will happen and neither of them will develop feelings, maybe it’s just like, a fun side-idea the author personally likes but didn’t put directly into the story- ohhhh and here it is hints on Lex’s side building up in the story. WELL THEN.”

It just felt like…

The author: [shipteases phantomquill, phantom/Athena (YES I KNOW THAT WAS A JOKE AND I AM INCLUDING IT ONLY AS A JOKE THAT WILL LENGTHEN THIS LIST), spyshipping, and even Freudian Phantombright (I AM ALSO INCLUDING THIS LAST ONE ONLY AS A JOKE)]

The author, after doing all of this: [whips out/ushers in their OC at the last minute to pair up with him]

Me:

DFJKSDLKSDKL

The above is a retooled version of a message I sent to my friend at the time – I hope the summary comes across as more of a comically condensed expression of frustration-at-the-time and not mean-spirited (mean-spirited is not what I want to be, I just exaggerate for comical effect is all, and I didn’t expect I’d be telling my feelings to the author directly ahhah..) But as already established? I was quite bitter over the now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t phantomquill, and so I was not particularly impressed at the time as a result… xDDD

I also just love how he, of all characters, seems to be the “launcher of a thousand ships” here… LOL

But of course, Benny is not technically an OC, is he? :P You can argue he’s merely an interpretation of a canon character from Dual Destinies – the courtroom sniper. Dskjdsjknsd

At the time it might have felt “ushered in”, but in reality, Benny has that connection to a “canon” character – the courtroom sniper – the further connection to ace attorney canon through being Shelly’s son, AAAND has already been very much intertwined in this series through “off-screen” references. He really is quite heavily grounded in the fic’s lore. And in Ace Attorney lore. Very, very clever and well-done. …Of course, I didn’t know any of this until the Reveal, so I remained unimpressed until then. Now post-reveal is a different story, and I came to intensely appreciate not only Benny as a character but also just how awesome the dynamic between Benny and Lex really is.

Shipping aside, you have the aroace business… I have actually previously come across a post on your blog where you stated you kinda felt bad for not keeping Lex aroace. I feel like this can easily get pretty thorny, and I want to kind of, as I stated in a previous post, analyse the text as an independent entity here – how I would judge/react to the text without any knowledge of or contact with the author or the context it was crafted in. Indeed, at the time of reading Lifting Spirits I didn’t have a clue what you may personally be or whether you were personally aro/ace or not and couldn’t make any assumptions either way.

There’s, I guess, two main ways to look at this… the phantom was effectively aroace and there was never any evidence suggesting otherwise. But with blocked emotions removed, it turns out the man is not aroace. You can treat “the phantom” and “Lex” as two separate entities in this regard.

But the phantom didn’t completely lack emotions. If Lex is not aroace… It stands to reason that EVEN IF there never was any evidence to suggest the phantom was anything but aroace, there was still the potential for small, limited amounts of evidence that he wasn’t to occur, even if such a thing did not happen to occur when he was the phantom. Which would make the phantom technically not aroace(?) but he simply never realised that. Hmm.

If there were a blanket consistency – if the phantom had experienced an extremely limited and probably outright warped sense of attraction or something like that – or if Lex was also aroace – then there wouldn’t be any “issue”. But as it is, it’s very easy to derive Unfortunate Implications from how it is set up, wherein the Emotionless Killer is aroace, but then he gets to experience proper emotions and becomes a “real person” who basically gets redeemed as that new person and all of a sudden… Only after becoming a “real” and “proper” human being he experiences attraction. It’s all too easy to feel like perhaps the message is that attraction is an integral part of the human experience – EVERYONE’S human experience.

And the flip that happens between the phantom and Lex in this realm further drove home what I perceived to be the massive distinction being made between the two and helped fuel much of my feelings surrounding what I discussed in the previous post. About how perhaps “the phantom” was being thrown under the bus to set up Lex as the good and better alternative. By treating them as two separate people, the connection is not TOO far away to feel as if the aroace aspect is attached to the phantom as part of what gets “thrown under the bus”, inherently attached to a villain seeing as it does not get carried over, inherently attached to emotionlessness – something necessary to be “cast aside” in order to fully complete a transition into a redeemable and “complete” human being.

I do know that none of this was your intent, and I sensed at the time of reading that it was not the author’s active intent as well, but not having enough background context at the time, I couldn’t entirely dismiss the possibility that perhaps it was a possible unintended predisposition bleeding through – nothing malicious in the least, mind you. But perhaps a subconscious assumption that every human being feels attraction and… idk. I wanted to believe the best of the work and the author but it was just, at the very least, an unintended implication that I could not entirely ignore. Being ace myself, it kinda stung, although I did keep that to a minimum until I could actually have more context.

I’m glad for being able to have access to additional context so that I can enjoy the work as it is to the best extent – if, for example, I did not have access to any information or additional context whatsoever about the author and the background under which the work was crafted in, I wouldn’t have been able to entirely shake the discomfort and it’s something small that would have continued to bug me long after I’d finished reading, if only for the fact that I would never have been able to know for sure if the writer was actually dismissing something like asexuality or not.

And Conflicted Thoughts/Feelings once again because, if we step back for a moment and look at this particular narrative thread as it exists in Lifting Spirits and its conclusion as a whole, I AM happy for Lex, it’s great that he gets to have a love interest, it’s a great ship, and the concept of the former phantom becoming attracted to someone and getting a crush is so so great…

What it ultimately comes down to, is that even if you can read Unfortunate Implications into the text regarding the aroace business, any such implications were not your intent. I much prefer reading a text in the most charitable way possible to enjoy it to the fullest possible extent, so that’s what I’ve ultimately done, given additional background info.

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 8

The complete role reversal of this chapter is so good… For months and months prior to ever beginning to read this series, I’d actually been working on a fanfic of my own, albeit for a different fandom. It also centres around inverted character dynamics and such as the central running theme to the extent that it’s even alluded to in the title… But this… The role reversal or transformation that Lifting Spirits centres around is so… It does it so damn well. Kind of makes me want to hold myself and my own fanfiction to a higher standard.

I had perhaps been a little bit suspicious of Benny prior to this chapter, but not much… And the end of the previous chapter had me VERY much like “OK… SOMETHING’S WRONG HERE… SOMETHING’S WRONG! WHAT IS THIS GUY’S DEAL?!” BUT omg this reveal

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 9

He’s the fourth heir to the lineage of De Killer, which means spilling blood is in his blood. It’s a shame, really, that he can’t stand the sight of it.

This chapter description is just so poetic. It’s like, the chapter description is not really separate from the fic itself – it’s just as artistically intertwined with the text. Absolutely GORGEOUS chapter description.

Oughhhhh Benny’s backstory and just. His whole character and the internal conflicts that he has and EVERYTHING is just so damn compelling WOW!

The glimpses into Benny’s past and home life are such a fascinating look into how vastly different his frame of references are… How very unique his perspective and positioning in the world is.

The Phantom… Benjamin had heard of this man, of course. An international spy. One who was so wanted that his father had been hired by at least five clients.

F-FIVE CLIENTS?! AT LEAST? LEGEND.

Okay this is quite interesting to think about too because I always figured that Shelly would only ever take on one client and have one target at a time, so that he could devote his full attention to the task at hand and uphold his end of the contract – his client has faith in him to do a job and to do a job well, so I figured a single-handed focus would be part of that. Under normal circumstances, this would present no issue. Why would it? Shelly’s very good at his job and tracking down an assigned individual target wouldn’t be too difficult. My impression is that a job would generally take maybe 2-3 weeks from the time of meeting with the client and the deed getting done, unless it’s exceptionally easy and the person in question gets taken out within the week.

But obviously the phantom presents a clear problem to that operational method. Shelly’s left with a target he has little to no leads on, no physical description, no name beyond the title, who could be anywhere and anyone. Job like that’s gonna take a little bit longer than three weeks. But Shelly is nothing if not a professional, and he’s more than happy to honour his client’s wishes if they want this guy dead, and he’s certainly not gonna give up or back down from the request…! I wonder if Shelly was in the habit of taking on multiple clients at the time or if he was forced to break from his standard method of operation, cause if he has no leads he has to wait until one turns up/keep searching indefinitely. And it kinda puts a huge damper on business to not accept any new clients for years on end. Maaaaan not being able to take the phantom out quickly & efficiently must’ve bugged the HELL out of him too. He’s made a commitment to his client, his (first) client is trusting him to take this guy out, and YEARS pass and STILL it hasn’t been done. Wonder what kind of dynamic that would have caused between Shelly and the first client.

I have no real doubt that Shelly actually had enough money to put business on hold for a few years if that’s what it meant to track down the phantom, if he wanted to. But it’s just not practical if he genuinely has 0 leads to go on for months on end, it makes more sense to be doing stuff in the meantime. PLUS, part of it would also be to ensure that the de Killer name does not fall into disuse and remains prominent in the minds of the public. To disappear for years only for calling cards to start showing up again… It just wouldn’t look particularly good for The Brand I suppose? The general public wouldn’t know the reason for the silence.

There’s not only that, but he accepts requests from multiple clients for the same target, hugely increasing his payout for a single job. I would have thought it’s possible that were someone to make a request that’s already been made, Shelly might be like “Ah, actually, you can’t select this particular individual”. And if years have passed with no success it begins to raise questions about the “ethics” of accepting further requests for the same person if part of the payment is being made in advance, which I’m sure it is. But then again – I’m sure there was no doubt in Shelly’s mind that he’d actually get him in the end. The length of time that passed didn’t matter. The job would be done, and he was never going to give up. He had multiple clients depending on him, after all.

I guess every time he got another Phantom request he’d sigh and internally be like “ADD THIS CLIENT TO THE LIST I SUPPOSE…”

Client: I want you to take out the phantom

Shelly, internally: Get in line

Dsjsdjh

Really though I’m very sure that the phantom’s difficulty to track down would have irked Shelly to no end. Not that he would necessarily let such sentiments show externally.

And while I’m speaking about this, I guess I will also address Benny being his son here as well. My reaction REALLY was “HIS FATHER??? HIS FATHER????”

I’ve never played DGS and I know there’s de Killer stuff going on in those game(s) and I don’t know if any light is shed in that series on how the lineage works – hm! It’s interesting to think about. One of the theories I’ve seen proposed is that the new de Killer establishes themselves as such by successfully taking out the previous de Killer – no familial relation. That has logistical issues of its own however but it was kind of the default idea that I’d gone with as I hadn’t really seen any others discussed.

Shelly’s unique job and his intense dedication to said job makes it very VERY hard for me to picture him not only establishing a relationship with someone but also fathering a child with someone… It’s quite hard for me to picture how it would work. How it would look in practice. And of course, in the Benny flashbacks, there is no mention of a mother. So I was a little bit like ????? on that front. And then you get the reveal practically at the VERY end of the fic that Benny is adopted, which makes plenty of sense. It is hard for me to picture Shelly as a father but I CAN see him adopting, caring for and raising an adopted child. A child that is to continue the proud de Killer heritage.

THE FACT THAT SOMEONE GOT MISTAKENLY SHOT BECAUSE THEY WERE ASSUMED TO BE THE PHANTOM BUT WEREN’T… OOF. Hope Shelly didn’t prematurely celebrate on that one. He might’ve already enlisted three clients wanting the phantom gone by that point and thought that he could FINALLY collect the rest of whatever money they owed him from them – that he could FINALLY reassure them that the guy was finally flippin’ DEAD. Perhaps only for the phantom to show up AGAIN some time later. (Shelly doing refunds? Dsjksdkj). Ok but on a serious note – I know he would’ve probably known it was not the phantom either immediately after/soon after the guy was shot. There’s things like No Mask and whatnot and probably the aftermath would have made it obvious it was the wrong person without the phantom needing to show up on Shelly’s radar once again. But OOF.

In March, a man had come to see Ben ‘Benny’ Volent, seeking counseling. A man who bore the name of Bobby Fulbright.

WHEN THIS REALISATION HIT ME… OH MY GOD? OH MY GOD? BOBBY FULBRIGHT HAD BEEN UNLOADING THE TRAUMA OF WHAT HE SAW… ONTO THE SON OF THE VICTIM! I CANNOT. THAT IS… NOT GOOD. Being so close to the murder victim can compromise the therapist’s ability to assist the patient at hand, so… conflict of interest! Benny had to sit there and listen to recounts that would have deepened his OWN pain. Bro I am SO sorry. WHAT a punch this was.

Agent Lang had mentioned a move to the federal prison right in front of Benny.

NO JOKE but back when that scene originally occurred I was just like “UMM should they REALLY be discussing this while the therapist is there?” Because I had found Benny to be a LITTLE bit potentially suspicious and. Hmm!

OKAY THE FUNNIEST PART – OR RATHER – THE MOST WACK PART OF THIS ENTIRE SITUATION IS JUST HOW MANY LEVELS OF “CROSSES THE LINE TWICE” IT IS.

Like. The realisations started pouring in for me, one after the other. First it was like “um, Benny counselling Bobby considering the circumstances is a conflict of interest that can potentially compromise his ability to remain objective and properly assist Bobby’s recovery”. THEN, hilariously enough, I was like “UM, IT IS HIGHLY UNPROFESSIONAL FOR BENNY TO ACT AS LEX’S THERAPIST – EXTREME CONFLICT OF INTEREST SEEING AS THE PHANTOM KILLED BENNY’S FATHER AND YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED PERSONAL BIASES TO GET IN THE WAY WITH HOW YOU SEE THE PATIENT”. This was coupled with how… awkward I found it earlier on for Bobby to even suggest, however jokingly, to Lex that Benny was single – how iffy it was for Lex to have developed feelings for Benny (cause if you got feelings for ur therapist that’s bad news for the therapy and Lex even seems to know this) or the possibility that perhaps it was on some level reciprocated, which would be highly unprofessional and further detrimental to the therapist-patient relationship.

BUT THEN I REALISED THIS WAS ALL MOOT AND COMPLETELY BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER ALL BY:

BENNY WAS TRYING TO KILL LEX THE WHOLE TIME ANYWAY.

So LITERALLY WHO CARES about conflict of interest or “professional conduct” here, I’M PRETTY SURE IT IS NOT IN THE LINE OF A THERAPIST’S WORK TO BE ACTIVELY TRYING TO KILL YOUR PATIENT.

And all I could do was laugh. This is the kind of crosses-the-line-twice funny, there’s just SUCH a cluster of professional breaches going on that it is OFF THE CHARTS and loops back around to being hilarious. You can’t even criticise ANYTHING specific about Benny’s conduct, there’s no point, because it is so BLATANTLY and obviously out of line, professionally and legally speaking, in its ENTIRETY. And then you realise his credentials were faked to begin with too, even though he’s genuinely studied the profession and is good at what he does. He’s walking around with faked qualifications ANYWAY.

Lex and Benny’s patient-therapist dynamic was stuffed to HIGH hell, inherently, far before it ever began. It was already compromised beyond belief. THE GUY’S QUALIFICATIONS AREN’T EVEN 100% LEGIT… >failed step one. It is SO wild and subsequently funny as a result. Benny got built up as such a good therapist too, and don’t get me wrong, he does seem to actually be good at what he does as I said. But then you go ahead and reveal all of this about him and it’s sooo… omg

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 10

Simon was about to turn away when he thought he saw it. Just for a fraction of a second. Were Alexander’s lips about to quirk into a victorious smirk? …No, that was ridiculous.

OOOHH MY GOOOOOD I HAD TOTALLY FORGOTTEN ABOUT THIS I SWEAR TO GOD………… I swear to god. Acting skills WAY too strong. He’s still got it. This man is way too powerful/skilled for his own good I swear to god.

Yes, he successfully got Benny to leave and he got out of the ordeal of being held at gunpoint unscathed. But he still had been terrified when going through that. Regardless of how things turned out it makes sense for Lex to be in shock and still be working out some of that fear. Because he HAD been genuinely terrified. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he is genuinely a little in shock during this scene but oh my god.. Because it makes sense for him to still be jittery and then I just. LEX. KINDA HATE THAT I MAYBE GOT A LITTLE WORRIED BECAUSE STILL BEING SHAKEN MAKES SENSE BUT ALSO CONFUSED AT THE EXTENT. On first and second readthrough.

Can’t really say too much else about this chapter right now it’s just sooo intense and riveting gosh.

For a split second, it seemed like Fulbright was so overcome with emotion he might try to pull Alexander into a hug as well. Luckily, Lang cleared his throat in such a loud manner that it was obvious he did so on purpose.

LANG HOW COULD YOU. “LUCKILY” MY FOOT.

Lifting Spirits, Chapter 11

His license was most likely a fake. Would any report compiled by him be worth a damn? And to think, Bobby Fulbright had spoken so highly of him.

WAIT I WAS ONLY JUST SAYING THIS EARLIER SDKSDKNS

Hey. I obviously knew this Mirage scene was coming this time around and yet it managed to somehow sneak up on me anyway. When I got up to it and read through it I just outright started crying. I did not cry on the first readthrough, I was completely dry-eyed. I GOT SUPER ATTACHED TO AND MORE EMOTIONAL OVER MIRAGE ON MY SECOND READTHROUGH OF THIS SERIES FOR A REASON.

Oh, something else that struck me on first readthrough about this scene was… The phantom always EASILY felt to me the far more “bad” person compared to Mirage. When compared to the phantom, Mirage always felt… well, it was easy for me to forget that she’s also done terrible things, that she’s also a criminal. She naturally just seemed like the waay better person – with SOME amount of a moral compass. So it was odd to suddenly have her being in the same room as Lex, no longer being contrasted against the phantom, but contrasted against Lex instead… Lex seems to actually have a much more proper moral compass compared to her now. He’s actually filled with remorse and regrets.

Mirage… still chose to kill people. She’s still herself, and that self is someone who didn’t have a bone sliver preventing her from understanding how much of a powerful impact death can have. It was odd… Lex knows internally how bad killing people is now. Mirage most likely still doesn’t really know… not only that, but… he would know that she doesn’t? I don’t know how to explain what I’m getting at here, but yeah.

Also:

“Why did you ask to see me?” he found himself asking. “…Why do you care?” She giggled, the sound of it rather strained. “Because we’re friends, you idiot.” “We’re not…-”

Me:

“You’d better pray the Phantom’s retrial leads to the death penalty. I’m being released next year, but I wouldn’t mind being tossed right back in here if it means I got to strangle Metis’s killer with these two hands.”

…N-NEXT YEAR?! BUT THAT’S… SO SOON… SOONER THAN I… THOUGHT… I FIGURED SHE HAD LIKE… MAYBE ANOTHER TWO YEARS LEFT… I DIDN’T REMEMBER HER SAYING IT’S NEXT YEAR.

[Thinks about this line and then Tracking Ghosts]

Oh my god… Can it PLEASE at least be the second half of the year I’m dying here… Like I KNEW she had to be released from prison eventually and. Yeah. I JUST THOUGHT WE HAD MORE TIME.

You know what’s funny? This line 100% didn’t faze me on first readthrough. Ahahaha. Why should it have? “You’d better pray the Phantom’s retrial leads to the death penalty” was, after all, my own train of thought at the time… HDHDFH. I was just kinda [nods] “at least someone around here’s got the right idea.” …AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

You completely missed me on the first go, but second time’s a charm. Ya got me. Ya got me with this line this time around. I am worried. :’)

[woodworkingpastor]

Say What? It’s not my place to judge--Matthew 7:1-5--Sunday, August 15, 2021

I am often surprised at how much conflict there is in the New Testament. It was helpful to hear Charles Wilson talk about this last Sunday, as he described the church as a place that doesn’t have the same disagreements and division that the world does, because we are shaped—and are being shaped—by Jesus. We recognize that at a fundamental level, our lives are defined by Someone who is both larger and “more ultimate” (if that descriptor even makes sense!) than the issues of our day. Because of the reshaping that is at work in us, we even begin to approach the issues of our day from a different perspective.

This has been a characteristic of how churches grow in contexts that are hostile to the Gospel. Why is it that people would want to follow Jesus if it made certain circumstances of their life more difficult? The Christian answer to this is that God has revealed part of God’s character to everyone; that there exists within us a sense of true north, if you will, and we can begin to move in that direction on our own. So people see Christians behaving differently and it touches something in them and some of them become curious about how this can be. Questions are asked, relationships are formed, and lives are changed.

We should not romanticize stories like these, because living differently from the prevailing culture also comes at cost. That, too, is part of our story.

Knowing all of that doesn’t really do all that much to lower my surprise at the conflict portrayed in the pages of the New Testament. We might expect people who have been captured by Jesus and filled with the Spirit to behave better. And we certainly do find some of that. Both in the New Testament and in Christian history we find many examples of people’s encounter with Jesus becoming an inflection point in their lives, a point any of us can look back upon and say, “Aha! Here is where things changed.” We see people and note that their life used to look one way, but now it looks another. With the resources and testimonies of nearly 2,000 years of Christian history to draw from, we can begin to predict what some of that transformation will look like:

Life and relationships are held in much higher regard, especially for those persons and circumstances on the margins. We are moved to be concerned for people and circumstances that we have no compelling reason to be concerned about;

Patterns of destructive behavior are left behind;

People begin aligning their lives and their priorities with Jesus.

Being a follower of Jesus entails nothing less than becoming a visible alternative to the world!

Knowing all of this, how is it that leaders in the New Testament from Jesus to the elders and deacons of the early church consistently found themselves knee-deep (or more) in conflict? It is precisely because the Spirit challenges our old ways and patterns of living and interacting. Even after our lives pass that inflection point and we begin on this new trajectory, the old ways are still with us. Change and loss are threatening, even to people who operate with the best of intentions. When we find ourselves in situations where tensions begin to rise, we begin to judge.

This leads me to two challenging questions for us this morning:

“How many times have you looked at a person and/or their circumstances—or been talking to someone else about that person and/or their circumstances—and said, ‘Well, it’s not my place to judge’?”

“When you said this, were you, in fact, judging?”

I believe the answers for each of us will be the same: “Often” and “Yes.” Just making the statement is a fairly clear indication that we’re looking at a situation you don’t approve of, and we don’t want to say out loud what we are thinking in our minds.

This is why this sermon makes it into the Say What?! series, and why we want to understand the fullness of what Matthew 7:1-5 has to say on the matter. The significant issue with all the myths, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations is that that they offer a simplistic answer in place of a deep answer. But simplistic answers are insufficient for faithful discipleship.

We are surrounded by situations where someone’s testimony about Jesus does not line up with the pattern of their living. We are certainly capable of recognizing those situations. But what are we to do then? “Judging” means something specific: it involves making an ultimate determination about the value of another person’s life. When we “judge,” we are looking at another person and their circumstances and acting as if we have all the information necessary to determination the value of their life. We are assuming that we know:

all the circumstances of the situation;

the reasons why they did what they did;

that we would not have made the same decision if we had been in their place;

their future—and this is the big one. Even if the situation we see is every bit as bad as we understand it to be, when we pass judgment on another person, we come very close to deciding the person has no value.

All of that can be tied up in that simple statement, “It’s not my place to judge” when, in fact, we are doing that very thing!

Why do we judge? I think it’s because at a certain level we’re looking for a reason to demonstrate the strength and superiority of ourselves and of our group. We know ourselves very well; we know we’re not perfect; we understand the ways we let God and ourselves and other people down; we know all the times we’ve not had the courage to live boldly and courageously for Jesus because it was just simpler to give into the circumstances and temptations of the moment. Grace can be so hard to give, but I wonder sometimes if grace is even harder to receive. It’s easier to try to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down.

What Jesus does in this passage is the same thing he is does throughout the Sermon on the Mount: he is reframing our imaginations so we can begin to comprehend Kingdom life. Having met Jesus and dedicated our lives to Him, part of the Spirit’s work in our lives is teaching us to think differently. Rather than responding to situations that we see by assuming some kind of moral or spiritual strength and superiority, our response comes from a place of meekness. Earlier in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told us,

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth”

Here is an example of that. Following along past the simplicity of the Say What?! section of the passage and moving into the depth of the fuller teaching, Jesus goes on to say,

Why do you see the speck in your neighbors eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?...You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye (Matthew 7:3,5).

Mennonite pastor and theologian Myron Augsburger says it this way:

the refusal to be judgmental does not mean a refusal to be helpful. But helping one’s brother [or sister] at his [or her] point of need must be done with a spirit of grace and understanding (The Communicator’s Commentary, v. 1, p. 96).

Jesus wants to reframe our imaginations so that we come to see strength in meekness neither as a contradiction nor a paradox, but as the Spirit-inspired way of life so that we can help one another along the hard road and narrow gate “that leads to life.” One encouragement for me in this regard is to read the experiences of the spiritual giants of the church. It is helpful to see what this process looked like in the lives of people who came before me; I’ve found it to be a tremendous gift to have spiritual mentors in my life, even the ones whom I only know through their writings.

Lately, I’ve been reading The Confessions of St. Augustine. Augustine, one of the all-time spiritual giants of the church, was born in what is modern-day Tunisia in the year 354. His mother was a Christian, and as a young adult Augustine gave his life to Christ in earnest, eventually rising to the level of bishop. Augustine was also an intellectual giant who defined and defended orthodox belief in the face of several significant theological controversies that threatened to derail Christianity

The Confessions are one of his most famous writings and are a spiritual biography. In the Confessions, Augustine reviews each segment of his life and to understand the ways his sinful, pre-Christian self disappointed God and caused harm in his own life. At one point he writes,

I wish to bring back to my mind past foulness and the carnal corruptions of my soul. This is not because I love them, but that I may love you, my God. Out of love for your love I do this. In the bitterness of my remembrance, I tread again my most evil ways, so that you may grow sweet to me, O sweetness that never fails, O sweetness happy and enduring, which gathers me together again from that disordered state in which I lay shattered in pieces, wherein, turned away from you, the one, I spent myself upon the many. For in my youth, I burned to get my fill of hellish things. I dared to run wild in different darksome ways of love. My comeliness wasted away. I stank in your eyes, but I was pleasing to myself and I desired to be pleasing to the eyes of men (Confessions, Book 2, Chapter 1).

There is an attitude there we don’t hear too often. But we need to understand that Augustine was neither indulging a guilt trip nor tearing himself down out of a misguided sense of self-loathing. These are the writings of a man who wanted to understand how far Jesus had brought him, and part of that process was in understanding just how far away from God that he really was. He wanted to “take the speck out of his own eye” so that he might be a useful vessel to bring others with him along the path of faithfulness.

Augustine knew how to view himself as a spiritual being with a clear place and role to play in the Kingdom of God. To participate with God in this transformed imagination where strength in meekness is sought after, he was willing to go to great lengths to be pleasing in God’s sight.

When it comes to the amount of conflict we see in the New Testament—and in the church—we really shouldn’t be all that surprised. We’re at different levels of having our imaginations being transformed. One great gift that we have to offer is doing the hard work of removing the specks from our own eyes so that when others stumble—and they surely will—we can come along side in a spirit of meekness and humility to lift them up, not cast them out.

[tanadrin]

Utopia: A How-To Guide

So, I picked up "Utopia For Realists" by Rutger Bregman at Dussman yesterday, somewhat intrigued by its title; based on the blurbs inside the cover and the summary on the back, I was expecting something, well, a lot more utopian: a look at crazy pie in the sky ideas which sound terribly interesting but also are ridiculously impractical. In reality, the book is much more modest. It's basically a 250-page, meticulously footnoted argument for a modest progressive political program, written in an informal and approachable style, which has some (fairly restrained) rebukes in it toward leftism that's more about shoring up the identities of activists, or aiming at poorly defined abstract goals than actually improving people's lives. I don't think many people reading this will substantially disagree with the ideas Bregman presents, but he condenses a lot of persuasive arguments in favor of them into a single place, and in a form which I think is likelier to appeal to the average person interested in politics as opposed to the average rationalist-adjacent Tumblr user.

Notes I made and passages I highlighted:

The opening chapter is basically about how much *better* the modern world is than the world of the recent past; this is probably obvious to anybody who's at all sympathetic to Whig history or interested in technological progress/transhumanism, but Bregman is making a larger point here: a lot of the things that were hilariously impossible Utopian dreams in the past we have achieved, and we've achieved them precisely because people were capable of imagining absurd Utopias, and refused to give up on them until they achieved them. In contrast, Bregman contends, most contemporary politics is patching minor deficiencies in the current system--important, to be sure, but this work doesn't provide a structure for forward progress, and we're in danger of stalling out, and letting runaway income inequality and other issues derail our forward momentum as a civilization--and cause a lot of unnecessary pain in the process. I really like the chart on p. 3, which charts life expectancy and per capita income across the world in 1800 versus today; even the most wretched country in the 21st century is doing better than the most prosperous country in 1800. The Netherlands (Bregman's home) and the U.S. had life expectancies of about 40 and per capita incomes of about $3,000 or less in 1800; even Sierra Leone and the Congo are doing better in terms of life expectancy now, and a large but still developing country like India is trouncing U.S. per capita income in 1800. The world has gotten a *lot* better, in other words, even if it still has a long way to go.

p. 7-8: Bregman cites a figure saying that vaccines against measles, tetanus, whooping cough, diphtheria, and polio, which are notable for all being "dirt cheap", have saved more lives than would peace would have in the 20th century. That's a frankly astonishing figure, if true. His source: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-identifies-the-areas-in-which-increased-development-spending-can-do-the-most-good

p.9: For people concerned about IQ, Bregman points out that IQ has gone up an average of 3-5 points every ten years due to improved nutrition and education. This reinforces my belief that any attempt to work out whether IQ actually varies significantly among different human populations due to genetic factors is basically doomed from the get-go, since that information is hopelessly confounded by other factors (and because an evolutionary biologist once told me strongly selected-for traits like intelligence is in humans should be expected to vary by very little in any species; if IQ did vary strongly among between populations for genetic reasons, it would be *very unusual* in that regard).

p. 12-15: Bregman wants to distinguish between two kinds of Utopia: "blueprint" utopias, as he calls them, where you decide what the Utopia looks like ahead of time and how to get there, and then spend all your time and energy forcing society to fit that mold--via revolution, dictatorship, terror, etc., whatever means will achieve your ends--verses a more ideal (idealistic?) kind of utopia that's about broadening possibilities of the future. This is more just about not saying "no" reflexively to weird ideas: instead of saying "Ah, UBI is nice but it's a crazy idea," you look at what it *would* take to achieve it. This also entails being able to criticize your own ideas--and to adapt them when they prove not to be working. Honestly, I don't think this is necessarily utopianism at all: I think this is ordinary progressive politics, seeing a critical flaw in society and demanding we work our utmost to change it rather than saying "good enough." If this feels utopian then it's because our standards for what is achievable have fallen sharply in the last thirty or forty years (more on that later).

p. 17-19: Even Bregman is not immune from the occasional tiresome moral panic. Angst about narcissism in a pampered generation; none of this is central to his thesis, though, just shallow culture criticism.

p. 34: Discussion of the Mincome experiment in Canada, which was started by a lefty government in Manitoba, shut down by a righty government that came to power after them, and whose results remained unanalyzed in for decades in the National Archives. The researcher who dug up these files after they sat gathering dust for years and years? Evelyn Forget. You cannot make this stuff up. (@slatestarscratchpad, I know he appreciates this kind of thing).

p. 37-8: I knew about Mincome; I read an article about it a while back, when UBI was just getting into the news. I did not know there were four other UBI experiments in North America around the same time, all in the U.S. The U.S., in fact, for a tantalizing moment in the Nixon administration, was relatively close to implementing something like UBI, as a way of eradicating poverty. For various reasons, including a century-and-a-half old British government report (more on that later), the bill failed; but America came very close to implementing a safety net that by the standards of our present political moment is *very* Utopian. And, I can't stress this enough, this was under Richard Nixon.

p. 55-62: A section entitled "Why Poor People Do Dumb Things," which basically takes various scientific studies and uses them to argue that poverty 1) makes idiots of us all; 2) is self-perpetuating, and as a result 3) is really, really hard to escape unless the immediate cause of the psychological stress it produces--i.e., an acute lack of money--is removed. Also probably a good answer for why poor *societies* continue to be poor; I can't imagine these cognitive limitations Bregman is talking about go away just because more of your society is experiencing them.

p. 58: "So in concrete terms, just how much dumber does poverty make you? 'Our effects correspond to between 13 and 14 IQ points,' Shafir says. 'That's comparable to losing a night's sleep or the effects of alcoholism.'" I don't know much about IQ, but I feel like 13-14 IQ points is *a lot of IQ points.* And again: the fact that this effect is so large makes me think any attempt to search out a genetic source for IQ variation is futile.

p. 59 mentions an interesting experiment to control for individual variation in IQ by comparing the performance on cognitive tests of farmers in India who make almost all their income right at harvest. Just before and just after harvest gives an opportunity to compare differences in performance  when cash is tight versus when cash isn't night in the same group of people (the effect found in other experiments, including ones in the developed world, seeemd to hold).

p. 68: Arguments with lefty types like my family often result in somebody bringing up the fact that capitalism necessitates the creation of a poor underclass, to which everyone promptly agrees as if this is the most obvious or well-studied fact in human history. This drives me *nuts*, because it's one of those wild overreaching statements that makes an *empirical assertion* about a facet of economics and society that, being empirical, should be verifiable or falsifiable (or which at least some form of evidence for or against could be acquired). But I've never seen a single study cited in support of this notion; never seen even a lazy historical analogy drawn between societies experiencing similar conditions but with different economic systems to support this argument. It's Aristotle-level laziness about the empirical universe: Capitalism is bad, poverty is bad, therefore capitalism causes poverty. I know I'm the world's worst leftist, but things like this are why: we would rather repeatedly assert a statement which comforts us that we are on the right side of history than critically investigate the assertion (repeated by a legion of leftist political philosophers) that might require us to confront the fact that the leftist understanding of economics is... deficient. To say the least. And that if you are going to make empirical assertions about the structure of society and about its economic organization, you had better know what you're talking about, or you run the risk of creating a leftist empire built on ideology that collapses when it is forced to confront reality. *coughtheentirewarsawpactcough* On p. 68, Bregman cites an *actual* example of an economic system that necessitates the existence of an underclass. It's mercantilism, the system capitalism replaced (and which has been lifting hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty ever since).

Dryly observing the fact that capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of extreme poverty, of course, gets you tarred and feathered as a neoliberal or even (inexplicably) a fascist in some leftist circles (like my family). It doesn't matter if you still think capitalism has grievous shortcomings; you must participate in the Ritual of Blaming Everything on Capitalism in order to qualify as a real leftist, apparently, which makes me feel like one of those Dutch atheists in the 17th century who had to say "well of *course* God exists" before being able to make my argument as to why burning bushes aren't real and basing your society on a Bronze age ethnic mythology from the Middle East is a terrible idea.

p. 70-71: It's weird to lump Utah and the Netherlands into the same category, but the two polities in the 21st century who seem to have first discovered how to eliminate homelessness are... Utah and the Netherlands. Spoiler alert: giving people homes is relatively cheap.

p. 79: Speenhamland, which sounds like a budget brand of meat spread you occasionally see in the grocery store but never have the courage to try, is really the source of a lot of our problems around just giving poor people money. We can, strange as it sounds, probably blame an obscure, 170-year-old English experiment in basic income, and the inquiry that followed it, for the failure of the idea during the Nixon administration--and, subsequently, the U.S.'s rightward shift toward welfare 'reform,' a revival of the notion that there is deserving and undeserving poverty, and that if you're poor, it's because you're lazy.

Martin Anderson, one of Nixon's advisors, used excerpts from Karl Polanyi's "The Great Transformation"--specifically, the bits about the Speenhamland system--to turn Nixon off his plan for the Family Security System in 1969. Polanyi presented a damning indictment of the Speenhamland system based on the parliamentary inquiry used to justify dismantling it, and indeed the original report was harshly critical of the system. Trouble is, the report was mostly written before the results of the inquiry were gathered; and the numerous surveys and interviews conducted during the inquiry were almost entirely aimed, not at the people who actually benefitted from the Speenhamland system, but clergy and landowners who were critical of it from the beginning. The comissioner responsible for the report had written the draconian Poor Laws he wanted to implement before the report was even begun; even the leftist criticisms (from Marx and Engels) of government assistance were based on the lies of Speenhamland, alienating the left from its natural ally when it came to alleviating the condition of the poor, i.e., the only institution in society powerful enough to solve massive coordination issues like wealth redistribution. Lucky for us, modern leftists don't regard Marx and Engels as writers of scripture whom we dare not criticize for their imperfect knowlede of economics that is 200 years out of--wait, shit.

p.88 spells out for the first time in anything I've read what the demographic transition actually entails; I've always been slightly muddled as to why people want to have less kids when they get richer; if nothing else, if people like having kids and they have more money to support them, why wouldn't they have more? I always figured I was just missing something. And I was! People don't have lots of kids pre-demographic transition because they like having kids; they have lots of kids because that's the only insurance they have that when they're old there will be someone to care for them. More children provide more economic stability; so when society is more prosperous, when you can save money to retire on, and when the government implements a safety net, the birth rate drops--down to a level which more closely resembles how much people *actually like* having children. Having birth control available helps; but sometimes it just means people marrying later, or (probably) having different kinds of sex. This implies 1) modernity isn't 'destroying families,' it's just that people don't like having big families nearly as much as either the traditionalists or the evolutionary psychologists would assume, and 2) the demographic transition is probably permanent, i.e., we're not going to see the birth rate mysteriously start creeping upward in a hundred years in rich societies once we've adapted to our current levels of affluence. (Most) people just don't like having kids as much as we might naively assume.

A lot of bonus stuff in this part from people like Malthus who woefully misunderstood the psychology of poverty. And, sadly, their ideas are actually not all that out of date.

p. 91-2: "Now and then politicians are accused of taking too little interest in the past. In this case, however, Nixon was perhaps taking too much. Even a century and a half after the fatal report, the Speenhamland myth was still alive and kicking. When Nixon's bill foundered in the Senate, conservative thinkers began lambasing the welfare state, using the very same misguided argumetns applied back in 1834.

These arguments echoed in 'Wealth and Poverty,' the 1981 mega-bestseller by George Gilder that would make him Reagan's most cited author and that characterized poverty as a moral problem rooted in laziness and vice. And they appeared again a few years later in 'Loosing Ground,' an influential book in which the conservative sociologist Charles Murray recycled the Speenhamland myth. Government support, he wrote, would only undermine the sexual morals and work ethic of the poor.

It was like Townsend and Malthus all over again, but as one historian rightly notes, 'Anywhere you find poor people, you also find non-poor people theorizing their cultural inferiority and dysfunction.' Even former Nixon adviser Daniel Moynihan stopped believing in a basic income when divorce rates were initially thought to have spiked during the Seattle pilot program, a conclusion later debunked as a mathematical error."

p. 95: "Lately, developed nations have been doubling down on this sort of 'activating' policy for the jobless, which runs the gamut from job-application workshops to stints picking up trash, and from talk therapy to LinkedIn training. No matter if there are ten applicants for every job, the problem is consistently attributed not to demand, but to supply. That is to say, the unemployed who haven't developed their 'employment skills' or simply haven't given it their best shot."

Related: every time I see somebody say something about how all we need to do is train West Virginia coal miners to code, I want to bang my head on a wall. Look, I've never met any West Virginian coal miners, but I have known middle aged people from the South who use a computer maybe for an hour a week, and maybe from within your bubble computer skills are something anybody can easily acquire, because everyone you know is comfortable in that environment and easily navigates the metaphors of, say, object-oriented programming and smartphone interfaces, but I *promise* you the problem is so much harder than you understand. It's a proposal that is at once condescending and infuriatingly naive, and unfortunately it's a general pattern that applies to a lot of the bandaid solutions people have for the growing American precariat. Just give them money. Let them decide what they need. Just give them money!

p. 104: Bergman is frustrated by the shortfalls of GDP as a measure of a country's prosperity--and don't worry, he's not impressed by Bhutan's "Gross National Happiness" either. "Bhutan rocks the chart in its own index, which conveniently leaves out the Dragon King's dictatorship and the ethnic cleansing of the Lhotshampa." (p.118)

He makes some good points--GDP is a more subjective measure than people like to admit; it's hard to measure the produce of certain kinds of work, like Wikipedia which provides tons of practical value to society but is free; in GDP terms the ideal citizen is a compulsive gambler with cancer going through a drawn-out divorce he copes with using massive amounts of antidepressants.

p. 106: "Mental illness, obesity, pollution, crime - in terms of GDP, the more the better [because fixing these problems generates economic activity]. That's why the country with the planet's highest per capita GDP, the United States, also leads in social problems. 'By the standards of the GDP,' says the writer Jonathan Rowe, 'the worst families in America are those that actually function as families - that cook their own meals, take walks after dinner, and talk together instead of just farming the kids out to the commercial culture." OK, there's a little bit of moral panic here, but the broader point is that if your policy goal is maximizing GDP, you're not necessarily maximizing the things people want in their day to day lives; and if the GDP is growing, people aren't necessarily seeing consistent improvement in their lives. The real issue here is careful and nuanced construction of policy, which is probably doable, but kinda tough; Bergman isn't advocating a single alternative to the GDP, and admits even the GDP has its uses (though it most useful moment was probably during World War 2, when measuring the material amount of stuff the country could produce was most urgent).

This chapter also touches nicely on another annoying rhetorical reflex I find among lefties, the whole "resources are finite, the GDP can't grow forever." The GDP isn't a measure of the consumption of finite resources; it's a measure of money moving around in the economy (and hopefully of wealth being created). Non-tangible goods with no or very high limit on the resources they consume, like video games or hours of representation by a lawyer or sex work, all contribute to the GDP, and in an increasingly service-oriented economy the GDP can indeed continue to grow without necessarily substantially increasing resource consumption--especially if we're also making better use of the resources we harvest through, e.g., recycling and renewable energy. You know, things we've been pursuing eagerly for the last half-century. Seriously; do you even *care a little bit* about actually understanding what terms like 'GDP' mean?

p. 107: "The CEO who recklessly hawks mortgages and derivatives to lap up millions in bonuses currently contributes more to the GDP than a school packed with teachers or a factory full of char mechanics." Though I'm not sure how to correct something like this.

p. 108: More on the shortcomings of the GDP, and how in rich countries it's a poor correlate to actual prosperity. In developing countries, though, GDP is still mostly pretty good.

p. 117-119: Some alternatives to GDP, like Genuine Progress Indicator and Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, which incorporate measures of pollution/crime/inequality. "In Western Europe, GPI has advanced a good deal slower than GDP, and in the U.S. it has even receded since the 1970s." Might explain why America feels so crummy compared to Europe whenever I go back there. Like, I don't deny that some parts are fantastically prosperous, but I don't see how anyone who isn't upper middle class can begin to afford to live in most of the U.S.

p. 120: On the absolute limits of economic efficiency. "Unlike the manufacture of a fridge or a car, history lessons and doctor's checkups can't simply be made 'more efficient.'" Well, maybe; there definitely are things in society that can't be, though I think those two are weak examples. He also talks about Baumol's Cost Disease, though in a way different from how I understood it when @slatestarscratchpad was discussing it; if I am understanding him correctly, Bregman says the phenomenon of prices increasing in labor intensive sectors doesn't reflect those sectors actually getting more expensive so much as society choosing to spend more money there, because we have more money to spend as a result of other sectors becoming more efficient.

"Shouldn't we be calling this a blessing, rather than a disease? After all the more efficient our factories and our computers, the less efficient our healthcare and education need to be; that is, the more time we have left to attend to the old and inform and to organize education on a more personal scale. Which is great, right? According to Baumol, the main impediment to allocating our resources toward such noble ends is 'the illusion that we cannot afford them.'

As illusions go, this one is pretty stubborn. When you're obsessed with efficiency and productivity, it's difficult to see the real value of education and care. Which is why so many politicians and taxpayers alike see only costs. They don't realize that the richer a country becomes the more it should be spending on teachers and doctors. Instead of regarding these increases as a blessing, they're viewed as a disease.

Yet unless we prefer to run our schools and hospitals as if they were  factories, we can be certain that, in the race against the machine, the costs of healthcare and education will only go up. At the same time, products like refrigerators and cars have become "too cheap". To look solely at the price of a product is to ignore a large share of its costs. In fact, a British think tank estimated that for every pound earned by advertising executives, they destroyed an equivalent of seven pounds in the form of stress, overconsumption, pollution, and debt; conversely, each pound paid to a trash collector creates an equivalent of twelve pounds in terms of health and sustainability."

p. 122: "Governing by numbers is the last resort of a country that no longer knows what it wants, a country with no vision of utopia." I actually disagree here: I think governing by numbers is in principle a fine idea. What's a terrible idea is governing by bad, ambiguous, or useless numbers. A bad measure of national well-being is no better than *no* measure; but you have to have some kind of yardstick or you're just guessing. Responsive policy has to have *something* to respond to.

p. 123-4: On the disillusionment of the inventor of GDP, Simon Kuznets, with the GDP.

p. 134: "But the most disappointing fail? The rise of leisure." I do believe that's the first time I've ever seen "fail" as a simple noun in print. Language marches on, lol.

p. 135-136: On the failure of the workweek to continue getting shorter, even once the size of the labor force increased upon women entering it. I admit that when it comes to a shorter workweek, I have Questions. In principle, yes, a more productive economy means more resources to spread around which means people having to work less; in practice, short of a basic income funded by big taxes on productivity, people working less means less taxable income for the government and less personal income. Nonetheless, the work week getting shorter from the beginning of the industrial revolution to the 70s or 80s or so was accompanied by an *increase* in people's incomes as wages rose. In other words, I'm saying I don't have a good understanding of the economic issues at play here, and I wish I understood them more clearly.

p. 139-140: On the shorter workweek increasing productivity. Henry Ford saw big productivity gains by decreasing his employees' work week from 60 to 40 hours, due to his workers being better-rested and happier. W.K. Kellogg, of cornflakes and masturbation fame, decreased the work day to six hours in 1930 at his factory in Battle Creek; productivity increased so much he hired 300 more people and reduced the accident rate by 41%. "The unit cost of production is so lowered that we can afford to pay as much for six hours as we formerly paid for eight." Nonetheless, there has to be a limit on the gains achievable by this sort of thing? Like, you wouldn't expect a half-hour workday to be commensurately more productive (or even productive at all).

Also the example is given of Edward Heath shortening the workweek to 3 days in 1973 in the U.K. in response to government expenditures rising, inflation, and mining strikes. "On January 1, 1974, he imposed a three-day workweek. Employers were not permitted to use more than three days' electricity until energy reserves had recovered. Steel magnates predicted that industrial production would plunge 50%. Government ministers feared a catastrophe. When the five day workweek was reinstated in March 1974, officials set about calculating the total extent of production losses. They had trouble believing their eyes: The grand total was 6%."

So there is a limit; but it's much lower than I expected. But if you gradually reduced working hours even to the point where productivity began to stagnate a little, this could have positive environmental benefits: one reason we have to worry about global warming is that our fossil fuel consumption is so high. So I dunno, even a really short work week like 3 days might not be such a bad idea, if it was approached gradually.

p. 143-144: Social benefits of less work. Apparently men who take paternity leave not only do more laundry and more housework as a result, but the effect is permanent even after they return to work. An unusual solution to a gender imbalance in unpaid labor, perhaps.

p. 150: For people who worry that lots of leisure time will make people lazy, there's a good Bertrand Russel quote here about how one reason people seem lazy these days when they're not working is because work takes up all their energy: i.e., if you work eight hours a day at a stressful job, maybe all you have the energy to do when you get home is play video games or watch TV. If you want people to do more and more interesting things with their lives, have them work less.

p. 154-155: Another way of looking at Graeber's "bullshit jobs" is as jobs which don't create wealth, but merely move it around.

p. 158-159: Fascinating historical case of a bank strike in Ireland in 1970. "Overnight, 85% of the country's reserves were locked down. ... businesses across Ireland began to hoard cash. ... At the outset, pundits predicted that life in Ireland would come to a standstill."

Spoiler alert: not much happened. The economy continued to grow; the expected paralysis from lack of available money did not appear. Contrast this against the strike by a group more useful to society (garbagemen in NYC) which paralyzes the city in less than a week, this strike lasted six months, and was entirely uneventful.

"After the bank closures, they continued writing checks to one another as usual, the only difference being they could no longer be cashed at a bank. Instead, that other dealer in liquid assets - the Irish pub - stepped in to fill the void. ... 'The managers of these retail outlets and public houses had a high degree of information about their customers,' explains the economist Antoin Murphy. 'One does not after all serve drink to someone for years without discovering something of his liquid resources.'"

Basically, a new, decentralized monetary system appeared overnight, built on the country's 11,000 pubs. The thing that served to help create paper money in Europe in the first place--personal promissory notes and informal networks of trust--served well enough during the strike to maintain the essential institution of paper money, and while it limited the availability of large loans for things like construction projects, it did rather undercut the claim that the financial sector performs some kind of utterly indespensible service the economy can't do without.

p. 161-162: In other words, just because something is difficult and concentrates wealth as a result (finance, say), doesn't mean it's necessarily valuable to the economy as a whole, or that it's creating wealth itself.

p. 165-6: Explicit invocation of Graeber's bullshit jobs. Look, I'm not entirely satisfied with Graeber's notion of the bullshit job; I'd like a more formal examination of how the economy could produce whole industries which are somehow superfluous to its operation. But it's striking how consistently people are willing to declare that, yeah, their own job is essentially bullshit, and thinking about how much genius and skill and knowledge is being soaked up by sections of the economy we could probably do without, and which could be applied to more important problems of human flourishing (like eradicating disease or ending poverty) is kinda terrifying.

p. 169: Bregman's contention is that badly-constructed policy seems to drive the creation of bullshit jobs, like taxing the wrong thing. "A study conducted at Harvard found that Reagan-era tax cuts sparked a mass career switch among the country's brightest minds, from teachers and engineers to bankers and accountants. Whereas in 1970 twice as many male Harvard grads were still opting for a live devoted to research over banking, twenty years later the balance had flipped.... The upshot is that we've all gotten poorer. For every dollar a bank earns, an estimated equivalent of 60 cents is destroyed elswhere in the economic chain." A financial transaction tax, Bregman argues, would get people doing work that's more useful (would create more wealth).

p. 169-171: Bregman touches briefly on one of my pet peeves, in education. The trend of education being tailored to what jobs are in demand (banking, accounting, middle management) and in general treating education like job training, either in the tulip bulbs sense or in a more direct practical sense like the editorial pages of the Economist tend to do, have the tail wagging the dog: education is a means to shape society in positive ways, and we shouldn't necessarily be training people to be accountants unless we think our society is poorer for having fewer accountants. The rule of law, Bregman notes, is not seventeen times more effective in the U.S. than it is in Japan, even though the U.S. has seventeen times the number of lawyers Japan does per capita.

p. 173: Nice coda to his NYC garbage collector strike story: people *really* want to be garbage collectors in NYC these days, because it pays well, even though the hours are long and the work is hard.

p. 195: "Of course, the laborer William Leadbeater may have been exaggerating slightly when he predicted that machines would be 'the destruction of the universe,' but the Luddites' concerns were far from unfounded. Their wages were plummeting and their jobs were disappearing like dust in the wind. 'How are those men, thus thrown out of employ to provide for their families?' wondered the late eighteenth century clothworkers of Leeds. 'Some say, Begin and learn some other business. Suppose we do; who will maintain our families, whilst we undertake the arduous task; and when we have learned it, how do we know we shall be any better for all our pains; for... another machine may arise, which may take away that business also.'" But teach coal miners Java!

p. 200: Bregman doesn't say it, but the impression I get from this book is that we solve a lot of these problems *now*, when maybe--just maybe--they're tractable, or we suffer a lot as things get worse for the next 50 years and end up having a much more chaotic and terrible time trying to fix things once they've broken down beyond our ability to maintain the status quo.

p. 210: On whether it's better to give away mosquito nets or sell them cheaply. Seems to be better to give them away; people used the nets regardless, and even people given nets for free would later buy them if they had the opportunity, i.e., people get used to having nets, not to getting handouts.

p. 215: On the historical recentness of closed borders. Before World War 1, borders seem poised to disappear; border controls were rare, passports seen as a tool of backward countries like Russia and the Ottoman Empire, and people predicted railroads would erase national distinctions. The war, and the closing of borders to prevent spies crossing them, seems to have put the kibosh on that.

p. 216: Let's say you lifted all trade barriers in the world; the productive gains from doing so would be approximately one thousandth that of general open borders. That is a hard number to argue against.

p. 221 ff.: A list of pro-open-borders arguments. Standard fare here: notable stuff includes a discussion of criminality among migrants. It's been noted in some countries, like the Netherlands, immigrants have higher crime rates than the native population, in contrast to countries like the U.S. and the U.K, where the crime rates are lower. "For a long time, research into this question was put off by the dictates of political correctness. But in 2004, the first extended study exploring the connection between ethnicity and youth crime got underway in Rotterdam. Ten years later, the results were in. The correlation between ethnic background and crime, it turns out, is precisely zero. ... Youth crime, the report stated, had its origins in the neighborhood where the kids grow up. In poor communities, kids from Dutch backgrounds are every bit as likely to engage in criminal activity as those from ethnic minorities."

Bregman also argues that, contra Robert Putnam, immigrants don't undermine social cohesion. "Putnam's findings were debunked... . A later retrospective analysis of ninety studies found no correlation whatsoever between diversity and social cohesion." Putnam apparently didn't take into account that African Americans and Latinos report less social cohesion no matter where they live, and controlling for this undermines Putnam's results. Poor communities have less social cohesion, yes, but it's not attributable to the presence of minorities or immigrants.

Another good points is that more open borers promote immigrants' return: when the U.S. patrolled its southern border less strictly, ca. 85% of illegal immigrants who crossed it eventually went back. Seems kind of obvious in retrospect: if you want illegal immigrants to leave... just let them?

I have this prediction that the first developed country that tries open borders is going to get a massive competitive economic advantage against the rest of the world, but I think it'll be a long time before this actually gets tested. Personally, I'm betting on the Canadians.

p. 237: Bregman is willing to discuss some of the doubts he has about his own positions, which is much more than I was expecting from a book of this type. I really, really wish more authors would do this.

p. 240: Bonus Asch Conformity discussion.

Bregman wants to know, can people actually be convinced? And how? His answer's not especially encouraging: it takes a crisis, like 2008. The problem with 2008, though, was that there wasn't a strong counter-narrative in place: there was no alternative to try. Movements like Occupy were nebulous and didn't have a clear set of goals. What was needed was a preexisting political movement or position that was placed to take advantage of people's openness to new solutions. This book is, I suppose, his attempt to spread some of these "utopian" ideas, so when the next crisis hits, they're available as solutions for people to advance. That's a modest goal for a book allegedly about utopian politics, but I don't think he's wrong; opinions change only slowly, and having a realistic view of how to go about changing opinions is important.

p. 254-255: Discussion of the Overton Window, and the left's role in nudging it around. Plus, a slogan I like: "Be realistic! Demand the impossible!"

p. 256: Discussion of leftist parties that seek to quell "radical" sentiment inside their own ranks in order to try to (so they think) remain electable. This is a pattern I see happening repeatedly: in the SPD in Germany, in Labour in the U.K., in the Democrats in the U.S., leaders like Pelosi and the bigwigs of New Labour who think that they have to go as middle-of-the-road as possible and avoid upsetting the status quo, ignoring that the strength of the left is often in expanding peoples' understanding of what society can achieve. It's depressing as hell, and it's not surprising that people are turning toward formerly obscure politicians like Corbyn and Sanders who are willing to actually try new ideas. Trouble is, Corbyn and Sanders have been minor politicians for a long time for a reason: they're charismatic as a couple of day-old fish, and they're not actually that good at uniting their parties.

p. 257-8: "'There's a kind of activism,' Rebecca Solnit remarks in her book "Hope in the Dark," 'that's more about bolstering identity than achieving results.' One thing Donald Trump understands very well is that most people prefer to be on the winning side. ... Most people resent the pity and paternalism of the Good Samaritan. Sadly, the underdog socialist has forgotten that the story of the left ought to be a narrative of hope and progress. By that I don't mean a narrative that only excites a few hisptes who get their kicks philosophizing about 'post-capitalism' or 'intersectionality' after reading some long-winded tome. ... What we need is a narrative that speaks to millions of ordinary people."

And he's not wrong. Bregman argues for reclaiming 'the language of progress,' i.e., meeting the current (neoliberal?) worldview on its own terms and explaining how these goals fulfill its aims, rather than contest them. I'd add to that that I'd like to see a left that actually cares about asking what constitutes effective activism, what actually changes people's minds, and what actually wins election and helps shapes policy, rather than just feeling good and laughing when Richard Spencer gets punched. That second vision of the left isn't just shortsighted; it's depressing, it's small-minded, and it's vicious. It's also selfish: it's about being secure in your own identity rather than *helping people,* and the fact it claims the moral high ground in a lot of debates is just repulsive to me.

All in all, the program Bregman seems to advocate for is startlingly modest, and delightfully specific: he wants UBI, a 15-hour workweek, a financial transaction tax, and open borders; and he's willing to be as incrementialist as possible on all these points. There are some other goals around the edges--a clearer and more purposeful vision of education's role in society, for instance, and a new approach to politics--but these too don't seem to require moving heaven and earth to accomplish them. In some ways, this book disappointed me: there's nothing here that fundamentally upends social or economic relations in the developed world, and it's all pretty consistent with a vision of historical trends in progress just extrapolated a little further into the future. But Bregman writes lucidly and engagingly on these subjects, and he condenses a lot of sources into a single volume. What this book is probably ideal for is giving to your centrist or left-leaning cousin or friend, who might be sympathetic to UBI or a financial transaction tax, or someone you know who is just curious about interesting new policy proposals in general.

Bregman's program would be suitable for a center-left political party in Europe, or a movement within the Democratic Party in the U.S., especially if it was helmed by someone who could talk cannily about these ideas in the public sphere. This book is proof these ideas *aren't* actually that utopian, and *can* be talked about in a way that makes them seem plausible--we just need more people doing that.