#because it’s imperative that people be treated right

[jenjensd]

If you ever consider a job where you have to care for people, you are not allowed to be a bigot. I don’t give a shut if you’ve “always wanted to be a nurse”. Quit. Now. If you are in a position where people depend on you, you cannot be selfish.

Doctors, Nurses, Teachers. If you are a transphobe, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, ableist, eugenicist, fatphobic, misogynist, any of that shit. Quit right fucking now. You cannot be trusted to care for people unless you are able to put aside your biases and help people.

We’ve all heard stories of that shitty bully who became a nurse and acts like they never tormented the weird kid at school. The nurses who don’t like you because you’re not a typical case. The doctors who dismiss the person with a brain tumour because she happens to be fat.

If you are a Fucking bigot about anything you can get the fuck out of your job. If you won’t help everyone no matter who they are, you cannot do your Fucking job.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Podcasting "Microincentives and Enshittification"

Tomorrow (Oct 25) at 10hPT/18hUK, I'm livestreaming an event called "Seizing the Means of Computation" for the Edinburgh Futures Institute.

This week on my podcast, I read my recent Medium column, "Microincentives and Enshittification," about the way that monopoly drives mediocrity, with Google's declining quality as Exhibit A:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/microincentives-and-enshittification/

It's not your imagination: Google used to be better – in every way. Search used to be better, sure, but Google used to be better as a company. It treated its workers better (for example, not laying off 12,000 workers months after a stock buyback that would have paid their salaries for the next 27 years). It had its users' backs in policy fights – standing up for Net Neutrality and the right to use encryption to keep your private data private. Even when the company made ghastly mistakes, it repented of them and reversed them, like the time it pulled out of China after it learned that Chinese state hackers had broken into Gmail in order to discover which dissidents to round up and imprison.

None of this is to say that Google used to be perfect, or even, most of the time, good. Just that things got worse. To understand why, we have to think about how decisions get made in large organizations, or, more to the point, how arguments get resolved in these organizations.

We give Google a lot of shit for its "Don't Be Evil" motto, but it's worth thinking through what that meant for the organization's outcomes over the years. Through most of Google's history, the tech labor market was incredibly tight, and skilled engineers and other technical people had a lot of choice as to where they worked. "Don't Be Evil" motivated some – many – of those workers to take a job at Google, rather than one of its rivals.

Within Google, that meant that decisions that could colorably be accused of being "evil" would face some internal pushback. Imagine a product design meeting where one faction proposes something that is bad for users, but good for the company's bottom line. Think of another faction that says, "But if we do that, we'll be 'evil.'"

I think it's safe to assume that in any high-stakes version of this argument, the profit side will prevail over the don't be evil side. Money talks and bullshit walks. But what if there were also monetary costs to being evil? Like, what if Google has to worry about users or business customers defecting to a rival? Or what if there's a credible reason to worry that a regulator will fine Google, or Congress will slap around some executives at a televised hearing?

That lets the no-evil side field a more robust counterargument: "Doing that would be evil, and we'll lose money, or face a whopping fine, or suffer reputational harms." Even if these downsides are potentially smaller than the upsides, they still help the no-evil side win the argument. That's doubly true if the downsides could depress the company's share-price, because Googlers themselves are disproportionately likely to hold Google stock, since tech companies are able to get a discount on their wage-bills by paying employees in abundant stock they print for free, rather than the scarce dollars that only come through hard graft.

When the share-price is on the line, the counterargument goes, "That would be evil, we will lose money, and you will personally be much poorer as a result." Again, this isn't dispositive – it won't win every argument – but it is influential. A counterargument that braids together ideology, institutional imperatives, and personal material consequences is pretty robust.

Which is where monopoly comes in. When companies grow to dominate their industries, they are less subject to all forms of discipline. Monopolists don't have to worry about losing disgusted employees, because they exert so much gravity on the labor market that they find it easy to replace them.

They don't have to worry about losing customers, because they have eliminated credible alternatives. They don't have to worry about losing users, because rivals steer clear of their core business out of fear of being bigfooted through exclusive distribution deals, predatory pricing, etc. Investors have a name for the parts of the industry dominated by Big Tech: they call it "the kill zone" and they won't back companies seeking to enter it.

When companies dominate their industries, they find it easier to capture their regulators and outspend public prosecutors who hope to hold them to account. When they lose regulatory fights, they can fund endless appeals. If they lose those appeals, they can still afford the fines, especially if they can use an army of lawyers to make sure that the fine is less than the profit realized through the bad conduct. A fine is a price.

In other words, the more dominant a company is, the harder it is for the good people within the company to win arguments about unethical and harmful proposals, and the worse the company gets. The internal culture of the company changes, and its products and services decline, but meaningful alternatives remain scarce or nonexistent.

Back to Google. Google owns more than 90% of the search market. Google can't grow by adding more Search users. The 10% of non-Google searchers are extremely familiar with Google's actions. To switch to a rival search engine, they have had to take many affirmative, technically complex steps to override the defaults in their devices and tools. It's not like an ad extolling the virtues of Google Search will bring in new customers.

Having saturated the search market, Google can only increase its Search revenues by shifting value from searchers or web publishers to itself – that is, the only path to Search growth is enshittification. They have to make things worse for end users or business customers in order to make things better for themselves:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

This means that each executive in the Search division is forever seeking out ways to shift value to Google and away from searchers and/or publishers. When they propose a enshittificatory tactic, Google's market dominance makes it easy for them to win arguments with their teammates: "this may make you feel ashamed for making our product worse, but it will not make me poorer, it will not make the company poorer, and it won't chase off business customers or end users, therefore, we're gonna do it. Fuck your feelings."

After all, each microenshittification represents only a single Jenga block removed from the gigantic tower that is Google Search. No big deal. Some Google exec made the call to make it easier for merchants to buy space overtop searches for their rivals. That's not necessarily a bad thing: "Thinking of taking a vacation in Florida? Why not try Puerto Rico – it's a US-based Caribbean vacation without the transphobia and racism!"

But this kind of advertising also opens up lots of avenues for fraud. Scammers clone local restaurants' websites, jack up their prices by 15%, take your order, and transmit it to the real restaurant, pocketing the 15%. They get clicks by using some of that rake to buy an ad based on searches for the restaurant's name, so they show up overtop of it and rip off inattentive users:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/24/passive-income/#swiss-cheese-security

This is something Google could head off; they already verify local merchants by mailing them postcards with unique passwords that they key into a web-form. They could ban ads for websites that clone existing known merchants, but that would incur costs (engineer time) and reduce profits, both from scammers and from legit websites that trip a false positive.

The decision to sell this kind of ad, configured this way, is a direct shift of value from business customers (restaurants) and end-users (searchers) to Google. Not only that, but it's negative sum. The money Google gets from this tradeoff is less than the cost to both the restaurant (loss of goodwill from regulars who are affronted because of a sudden price rise) and searchers (who lose 15% on their dinner orders). This trade-off makes everyone except Google worse off, and it's only possible when Google is the only game in town.

It's also small potatoes. Last summer, scammers figured out how to switch out the toll-free numbers that Google displayed for every airline, redirecting people to boiler-rooms where con-artists collected their credit-card numbers and sensitive personal information (passports, etc):

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/phone-numbers-airlines-listed-google-directed-scammers-rcna94766

Here again, we see a series of small compromises that lead to a massive harm. Google decided to show users 800 numbers rather than links to the airlines' websites, but failed to fortify the process for assigning phone numbers to prevent this absolutely foreseeable type of fraud. It's not that Google wanted to enable fraud – it's that they created the conditions for the fraud to occur and failed to devote the resources necessary to defend against it.

Each of these compromises indicates a belief among Google decision-makers that the consequences for making their product worse will be outweighed by the value the company will generate by exposing us to harm. One reason for this belief is on display in the DOJ's antitrust case against Google:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1328941/download

The case accuses Google of spending tens of billions of dollars to buy out the default search position on every platform where an internet user might conceivably perform a search. The company is lighting multiple Twitters worth of dollars on fire to keep you from ever trying another search engine.

Spraying all those dollars around doesn't just keep you from discovering a better search engine – it also prevents investors from funding that search engine in the first place. Why fund a startup in the kill-zone if no one will ever discover that it exists?

https://www.theverge.com/23802382/search-engine-google-neeva-android

Of course, Google doesn't have to grow Search to grow its revenue. Hypothetically, Google could pursue new lines of business and grow that way. This is a tried-and-true strategy for tech giants: Apple figured out how to outsource its manufacturing to the Pacific Rim; Amazon created a cloud service, Microsoft figured out how to transform itself into a cloud business.

Look hard at these success stories and you discover another reason that Google – and other large companies – struggle to grow by moving into adjacent lines of business. In each case – Apple, Microsoft, Amazon – the exec who led the charge into the new line of business became the company's next CEO.

In other words: if you are an exec at a large firm and one of your rivals successfully expands the business into a new line, they become the CEO – and you don't. That ripples out within the whole org-chart: every VP who becomes an SVP, every SVP who becomes an EVP, and every EVP who becomes a president occupies a scarce spot that it worth millions of dollars to the people who lost it.

The one thing that execs reliably collaborate on is knifing their ambitious rivals in the back. They may not agree on much, but they all agree that that guy shouldn't be in charge of this lucrative new line of business.

This "curse of bigness" is why major shifts in big companies are often attended by the return of the founder – think of Gates going back to Microsoft or Brin returning to Google to oversee their AI projects. They are the only execs that other execs can't knife in the back.

This is the real "innovator's dilemma." The internal politics of large companies make Machiavelli look like an optimist.

When your company attains a certain scale, any exec's most important rival isn't the company's competitor – it's other execs at the same company. Their success is your failure, and vice-versa.

This makes the business of removing Jenga blocks from products like Search even more fraught. These quality-degrading, profit-goosing tactics aren't coordinated among the business's princelings. When you're eating your seed-corn, you do so in private. This secrecy means that it's hard for different product-degradation strategists to realize that they are removing safeguards that someone else is relying on, or that they're adding stress to a safety measure that someone else just doubled the load on.

It's not just Google, either. All of tech is undergoing a Great Enshittening, and that's due to how intertwined all these tech companies. Think of how Google shifts value from app makers to itself, with a 30% rake on every dollar spent in an app. Google is half of the mobile duopoly, with the other half owned by Apple. But they're not competitors – they're co-managers of a cartel. The single largest deal that Google or Apple does every year is the bribe Google pays Apple to be the default search for iOS and Safari – $15-20b, every year.

If Apple and Google were mobile competitors, you'd expect them to differentiate their products, but instead, they've converged – both Apple and Google charge sky-high 30% payment processing fees to app makers.

Same goes for Google/Facebook, the adtech duopoly: not only do both companies charge advertisers and publishers sky-high commissions, clawing 51 cents out of every ad dollar, but they also illegally colluded to rig the market and pay themselves more, at advertisers' and publishers' expense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

It's not just tech, either – every sector from athletic shoes to international sea-freight is concentrated into anti-competitive, value-annihilating cartels and monopolies:

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/learn/monopoly-by-the-numbers

As our friends on the right are forever reminding us: "incentives matter." When a company runs out of lands to conquer, the incentives all run one direction: downhill, into a pit of enshittification. Google got worse, not because the people in it are worse (or better) than they were before – but because the constraints that discipline the company and contain its worst impulses got weaker as the company got bigger.

Here's the podcast episode:

https://craphound.com/news/2023/10/23/microincentives-and-enshittification/

And here's a direct link to the MP3 (hosting courtesy of the Internet Archive; they'll host your stuff for free, forever):

https://archive.org/download/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_452/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_452_-_Microincentives_and_Enshittification.mp3

And here's my podcast's RSS feed:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/doctorow_podcast

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/microincentives-and-enshittification/

[crownmemes]

Daddy Issues Sentences, Vol. 2

(Sentences for discussing the effects of an absent parent and/or confronting one's own father. Adjust phrasing where needed)

"Doesn't it bother you that you don't know who your dad is?"

"I sometimes expect too much of you."

"Tell me about your father? What was he like?"

"Your father was a great man."

"Since when have I had the power to stop you from doing anything?"

"On one level or another, we all want to kill our father."

"I came to make peace with you, even though you're the father of lies."

"You disappoint me."

"Nothing I do is ever good enough for you."

"If the test of a man is how he treats those he has power over, it was a test my father failed."

"No, I'm sorry, but your dad was wrong."

"I don't think I'll be winning any 'father of the year' awards."

"It is difficult for a father to bear less than perfection in his son."

"Of course, I believed him because he's my father."

"Your mother and I kept asking ourselves what we'd done wrong in your upbringing."

"He’s your dad. It doesn’t matter what he does, you’re going to love him."

"All I ever really wanted was for him to love me."

"You have big daddy issues."

"I have a theory on what makes good boys 'good'. It’s not because of some moral imperative."

"What did I do that filled you with so much hate?"

"You can't keep letting other people define you!"

"The situation between my father and myself has not changed."

"You're an embarrassment to me."

"I don't know what your daddy issues are, but don't deflect them on me."

"Even the best-intentioned parents end up damaging their kids."

"I wanted so much to be like you..."

"Why is it you always think you know what's right for me?"

"All I'm saying is, make peace with your father another way."

"My father was emotionally stunted, afraid of getting close, and definitely not the best at goodbyes."

"You're ashamed of me."

"Please don't tell my father!"

"I think I could have forgiven her if she hadn't made me love her, but she did."

"The only people who keep insisting they're not terrible parents are terrible parents."

"He's still the man that's my father, but I'm not the son he used to know."

"Actually, my father is a rather important man."

"I guess nobody gets to choose who their parents are."

"Can I ask what he's done to deserve your loyalty?"

"He's my father. I have the right to avoid his funeral."

"Please let me be your daughter again..."

"I don't like people referring to him as my father."

"I would have killed my father if I could have."

"The relationship between a father and his daughter is tenuous."

[theblackfemininesociety]

✨This is your sign to declutter you life:

Start with your socials: Unsubscribe / unfollow the uninspiring, redundant, low frequency content that isn’t adding value to you or a reflection of who you are become. Also, delete or archive any photos that don’t align with the woman you want to become.

Empty out your inbox: there’s no reason why you have 1,000 unread emails or spam text on your phone. Unsubscribe and delete the unnecessary messages and emails! Only subscribe to things that align with the woman you are becoming! And for my shopaholic besties, unsubscribe those tempting stores that is declining your saving account ! Remember there’s nothing soft about being an aesthetically cute but broke woman. 😉

Take a social media break: this is for my extroverted and social media thirsty besties, it’s time to disconnect. Just a week. Cut it off and if it’s too much to bear, Limit your time on social media for a week! This also includes a people detox, put your phone on DND. Fall back for a bit and indulge in self care. The tea you love to indulge in can wait and your loved ones will reach out on their own if needed but please have some me time 💆🏾‍♀️

Clean your space: dedicate a day or days to completely clean your apartment/ room. I am talking about that closet that you’ve been avoiding and that cabinet that hasn’t been opened because it’s out of reach. After that, treat yourself, light a candle order some food, or take a long hot spa like shower. You will feel so much better in a clean space. Clean decluttered environment!

If you don't use it, Throw it away: I don’t know what it is exactly but I know there’s items in your space right now that simply take up space! And when you clean you probably move it around or organize it better. If you don’t use it, throw it away! If it’s worn down throw it away! If you have time to donate it, do so. Lately as for me., If I don’t donate it right away it’ll stay there until “I have the time” so lately I’ve been practicing the “do it now” method. Which is exactly how it sounds. If you have time do it now if not in this case of decluttering and cleaning, throw it out.

Journal: Take some time to reflect and write out your thoughts and feelings. Nothing beats putting a pin to paper (or stylus pen to iPad) and writing down all that’s in your mind.

Mediate & Pray: In our fast-paced world filled with constant distractions and never-ending to-do lists, it is imperative to find moments of stillness and connection. One powerful way to achieve this is through the practice of meditation and prayer. to quiet the mind, find inner peace, and connect with our own spiritual essence. Both prayer and meditation are powerful practices that can bring numerous benefits to our lives. They provide us with a sense of belonging and purpose, reminding us of what really important.

Need more motivation & support? Follow us on INSTAGRAM!

[txttletale]

idk how to put this sorry if this comes off as rude/confrontational I'm not trying to be — when you say stories about forgiveness/reconciliation, do you mean more the type about forgiving & reconciling with family, or more generally (so like including - this isn't the best example but I can't think of any better rn - catra for example? where it's about being trapped in hurting people because of trauma and breaking out of that)? or is the thing you dislike more stories' framing of forgiveness as a moral imperative?

sorry if this doesn't make sense I'm just curious what you think bc you've raised some interesting points and would really like to see you elaborate on them

don't worry you don't come off as rude whatsoever! while i think my points apply broadly to how forgiveness is treated across media (rare actual example of cultural christianity) -- i obviously am not, like, against forgiveness or stories about forgiveness on principle. what i dislike about all the narratives about people forgiving their abusive parents is that:

like you said, it's always framed as a moral imperative. there is always an underlying assumption that forgiving the abuser is the 'right' and 'correct' thing to do, that not doing so would be wrong. this is tremendously insulting to survivors who have every right to not forgive their abusers!

in most of these narratives, the parent barely does shit to be forgiven. there's very often a narrative equivocation, in fact, between parent and child. like, sometimes the parent won't even be expected to apologize -- sometimes, even more grotesquely, both the parent and child apologize for their shared supposed 'wrongdoing'. this is also obviously insulting to survivors, who are not in any way responsible for their abuse or for having a poor relationship with their parents.

the reason why this in particular pisses me off so much is that it mirrors and in turn contributes to the cultural expectation on abuse victims in real life to maintain contact with their abusers, the constant casual pressure from everything from strangers to friends to acquaintances saying 'well, can't you just put it behind you?' or 'look, he's changed' or 'she's your mom' or 'you'll only have one chance to have a relationship with your siblings' or whatever the fuck. the sanctity of the family is a cardinal value across a lot of societies and this sanctity means a constant, neverending societal pressure to bow to sweeping abuse under the rug. i've seen many people i care about struggle deeply with feeling obligated to maintain relationships with family members who treat them like shit and make htem miserable every time they interact bc of exactly these sorts of sentiments being everpresent in their cultural environment. & these narratives always paint that sort of pressure as being well-founded and fair and ultimately for the better, which is absolutely repellent to me.

so, yeah. i am not against narratives where an abusive person actually confronts their actions and changes and repairs that relationship (that's another fucking thing, these narratives always put the onus and responsiblity on the character who was abused to forgive rather than on the abuser to earn forgiveness, just like in real life familial abuse victims are always fucking expected to be the ones to repair the relationship). i think such narratives can be powerful and compelling and explore questions of what the value of 'forgiveness' or 'redemption' even are, as well as dispel the mystique and exceptionalism often attributed to the 'abuser' as a holistic malevolent figure that can be cleanly separated from every other parent/grandparent/sibling/etc.

what i'm against is narratives where someone who is abused has their feelings delegitimized -- their rage is wrong, counterproductive, they need to let go and move on, they need to forgive their abusers and let them back int otheir lives because oh, they did something wrong too or oh, their abuser had a difficult life, or whatever the fuck. to which the answer should be a flat -- no. they don't. all the more power to people who choose to do that if that's what makes them happiest and safest but absolutely nobody has a moral obligation or need to forgive an abusive family member. obviously i am exaggerating slightly when i say every abusive parent subplot should end with the parent being killed with hammers, but i'm using the hammer murder as a synechdoche for a narrative treating an abuse victim's antipathy towards their abuser as something legitimate and justified and obviously reasonable rather than a flaw or something they need to move past.

[tachypodion]

18 things I love about being Jewish

we are encouraged to question things and to have an understanding of why we do what we do

challah is delicious and I get to eat it (theoretically) every Friday night and Saturday

...speaking of which, I think it's pretty great that our days start in the evening because then I get to start my day off with rest and rejuvenation!

back to the challah note, I love that it gives me a great reason to learn to make bread and all other kinds of fun cooking and baking that connects me to my ancestors

learning in general — Jewish culture values learning so much and it makes for such great opportunities and conversations, and I never feel out of place being a person who loves accumulating knowledge for knowledge's sake!

we have a holiday almost every month of the year, and the one month where there are no holidays is nicknamed "bitter" specifically because it has no holidays

our new year is in the beginning of the fall, usually right around the same time that the school year starts, so all the new beginnings happen at the same time

"Bubbie" and "Zayde" are way more fun to say than "Grandma" and "Grandpa" and also provide me with a really cool opportunity to use the language my ancestors did in every day life!

the opportunity to develop a bond across generations that comes with the teaching of Torah skills in preparation for b'nei mitzvah, and the leadership opportunities given to teenagers who go from student to teacher

the inherent willingness to consider multitudes that is exemplified in the age-old saying "three rabbis, four opinions"

the fact that I don't need permission from anyone to believe what I believe, and personal beliefs are secondary to community for many people especially when it comes to relationships with divinity. looping back in #10, many of us hold multiple conflicting beliefs, sometimes at the same time!

our holidays are treated as holy days and the commandments we follow require us to pause and reflect and devote our time to being in the moment and considering the meaning behind the day

we have a commandment "shmirat haguf" that requires us to care for and protect our health and wellbeing, making self care an imperative for those who follow the commandment — this also instructs us to prioritize our safety above following other commandments such as keeping kosher or observing shabbat

the focus of our practice and belief systems is on the living world and not the afterlife, which means both that i can use my religion as a way of grounding me in the present and that i get to use my imagination when thinking about the fates of my dead loved ones

even though we may disagree about significant aspects of our practices and traditions, having Judaism in common with someone is always a rich vein of bonding when making new connections, and it also helps set us up for success in having relationships with people we disagree with about things!

Hebrew gives me a common ground language with every Jewish community in the world, so even if I don't speak a single word of the local language if I find my way to a synagogue I know I'll be able to communicate and be welcomed and understood

the unique blend of resilience and good (if dark) humor embedded in our culture that comes through in quips like "they tried to kill us, we survived, let's eat"

the blessing of community and cultural continuity that allows me to feel connected in perpetuity with a collective entity larger than the sum of its parts and fills me with warmth and confidence in the knowledge that we will outlive them

[leezlelatch]

Ditto to what the previous anon said! I literally reread Romancing like two days ago because I had a capital C Craving for it 😫 The way you write him as partaking in something traditionally seen as feminine without it being emasculating is just MWAH CHEF’S KISS 😘👌 A lot of the time in fanfic feminine man = submissive and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that of course but it’s not my cup of tea so I really love the way you write Copia 💞 Hope you’re having an incredible day xx

Hello. 🤩 Thank you so much for your kind words.

Yeah, I think in fanon, and it’s a very common thing for Ghost as well, there are these widely accepted stereotypes set upon these old men, and it’s kind of crazy. Terzo is a twink. Copia is a pathetic rat man. Secondo has a BDSM dungeon. These ideas grow so big that the characters themselves get lost in translation. It becomes very two dimensional. Static, if we want to use a literary term.

I see so many takes like Copia can’t read, he can’t drive, he’s dumb, he can’t get a partner, he’s bad at sex, etc. And I’m like we’re talking about the same dude right? The senior most Cardinal. The guy with the second most employee of the month awards. Secretary of the Treasury. Papa. Frater Imperator.

Sister wouldn’t have left him in charge if she didn’t know he is entirely capable of running an organization. Which then it goes into a whole argument about treating neurodivergent people like their babies with half a brain.

I clearly have a lot of thoughts lol. But yes, I try very hard to give these men a voice. And thank you for seeing that.

Have an incredible day as well! 🖤

[emeritus-fuckers]

Trans Copia headcanon

Copia is a bisexual trans man.

He's always felt trapped in the body he was born it. He'd cut his hair with scissors just to keep it short. He'd keep trying to ruin anything girly clothing he was given. Anything to feel more like a boy.

And while Sister Imperator tried not to get involved in her child's life to keep Copia's existence a secret, ever since she gave up her newborn baby to the Ministry Orphanage/Nursery, she'd keep a close eye on him growing up, claiming she just wanted to be a bit more hands-on with the future generation.

And one night, when Copia was eight, she saw him cry and cut his hair. From then on, everyone was expected to treat him like a boy as she took on the role of his legal guardian. It was then that Ministry became really protective and caring about trans issues.

She made sure he would get anything he required. Proper puberty blockers/hormones, surgeries... Anything he required to feel right in his body. And she made absolutely sure nobody dared to say a single word.

Thanks to Sister's protection, he socially transitioned before the age of ten, so many people either don't even remember he was trans. Only those closest to him know - Sister and his Ghouls.

While he did get proper care pretty soon, he still feels dysphoric sometimes.

This is why he used to copy Terzo's on-stage behavior so much, to ensure he would be viewed as a man.

This is why he got plastic surgery on his face when he became Papa. To look more like a Papa. Like a man.

Because sometimes... He's still insecure. He's still scared he'll wake up and get ridiculed by the other kids for how he ruined his clothes and hair just to be a boy.

And while he's now way more comfortable in his body, while he feels good with his body aside from the brief moments his dysphoria gets to him, he understands what it's like to feel wrong in your own body. Be it trans or simply insecure in any other way... He understands. And he cares.

In the Ministry, he is known as the Guardian of the Trans Siblings. He organizes any help he can get for them. He does his best to help the LGBTQ+ people or even Ghouls in the Ministry.

~

And here at emeritus-fuckers we want all the LGBTQ+ people, especially the trans people, to know that we care as well. Our hearts go out to you. Stay strong and take care of yourselves. The world is scary now, but please remember you have our support. We're here for all of you and we love you.

- Jez, a trans person

Taglist: @sirlsplayland @firefirevampire @mamacarlyle @thatoddboy @lightbluuestars @mybotanicaldemise @emo-mess (send an ask if you'd like to be added! read the pinned post before asking!)

[grim-has-issues]

What is really interesting about relating to fictional characters is the feeling you get when analytical, logical, and critical discussion is opened about them.

For example, I relate heavily to Albus from Bastard Warrior, but there are certain traits that are imperative to his character that separate us. Thus, making discussion on his flaws easier and encouraged.

Similarly, I heavily relate to Raven, specifically in Neon Wings, but there are less traits critical to Raven’s character that separates us. (Mostly because she is a listener character and thats an important aspect to characterization) Everything that woman did, I understood, viscerally.

Yeah, she did some cringe fail things like have a mental breakdown in public (could never), but all of her actions were logical, executable, and understandable. TO ME.

Then, when discussion is opened about her character, behavior, and actions, I began to realize that her character has more flaws than I initially observed.

This is most notably seen in @jacks347 writing on Raven. She asserts that Raven is a great character, but a shit person. This analysis, while harsh, is correct. This is further supported by the creator of Raven, @escapedaudios. He also asserts that Raven’s trauma leads her to unfairly treat those around her.

Now this is all fine and good. So whats the problem?

Raven and I share a litany of experiences and traits, and seeing how people react to her actions is extremely intriguing.

It is almost like hearing people talk about you right in front of you.

Now is this a problem of using art for escapism (no pun intended) and placing myself in fictional stories to distract myself from the world?

Probably, but thats literally what the medium of Audio Roleplay is made for.

In short, it opens my mind to my actions and my own issues, and how one might approach rectifying the hurt you bestow on other people.

Just like Raven, I have an overwhelming urge to run away when something bad occurs, but she learns to appreciate those around her and heal for, not only herself, but for those she loves.

And that’s pretty cool.

TL;DR

People being critical of Raven from Neon Wings hurt my feelings a little bit, but it allowed me to assess my own actions and how I affect the people close to me.

(I have issues projecting myself onto characters and then separating them again)

And thats what is so cool about art.

[iremiari]

Daydreams || A Dead Boy Detectives Ficlet

A journalist interviews Charles and Edwin, asking how they would feel if Season 2 got cancelled. aka: the time i got too carried away making incorrect quotes (hence this fic being mostly dialogue), so have this really short ficlet of them!! Also yes, they technically broke the 4th wall during this entire thing.

Edwin and Charles are sitting on chairs, sitting in front of a white backdrop - much like those you see in interviews. Because they were in an interview, and by the looks of it, it was almost about to end.

One of the news reporters have given Charles and Edwin a question: How would they feel if they didn't get renewed for Season 2?

"Nonsense." Edwin reacts almost immediately. "It is imperative that we get renewed for Season 2. I must," he composes himself, "I must hear Charles tell me he loves me."

Charles, next to him, raises an eyebrow, and looks at Edwin with a smile, "Oh, and you're certain about that, yeah?"

"Well, no. But one could infer that-"

A little peck had landed on Edwin's lips.

Charles has just kissed Edwin, and the two boys look at each other. Charles is the first to speak.

"'Cause you're right. I do. I am in love with you."

Edwin just looks at him, stunned. Charles, charming as he is, gives him a topic to go off of.

"But keep going. I love hearing you talk about whatever's on your mind."

Edwin tries to speak, but he cannot seem to focus with what just happened and how casual Charles is treating this situation. All that comes out of his mouth is a series of mumbles and stutters, "I- there is-- I am… speechless."

"Aw," Charles smiles, "luckily, that isn't a problem."

He kisses him again, way more intense than the small peck he gave him earlier. They wrap their hands around each other's head, and continue. For Charles, it felt like a dream come true. He had been waiting to say that for a long time and--

"Right, Charles?" a voice says, interrupting whatever Charles was imagining.

"Huh, yeah, what?"

Turned out it was a dream. A daydream, anyway.

"Clearly, you got distracted again." Edwin gave a sigh - not one of disappointment, though. Maybe Charles was just imagining it, but it sounded like... a sigh of adoration.

"Anyway, I was telling these journalists just now that if our show does not get renewed for another season, then it would be highly devastating - for both us, the agency and the viewers at home."

"Oh," Charles collects himself, "Oh yeah, now you got me. I totally agree."

He looks at the camera. "I think a lot of people are... excited to see where our story leads, especially like- especially considering all the different narratives in store for us."

He ends with a chuckle, and turns to Edwin, smiling. "Also, sorry for zoning out there, mate. Won't happen again. Promise."

"We shall see about that." Edwin said to him with a coy smile, hiding his delight, before turning his attention to the journalists in front of them.

"Would that be all for you lovely people today? Charles and I do still have a lot of work to get done."

"Certainly, Mr. Payne and Mr. Rowland. Thank you for your time."

The news reporter looks through their notes as Charles and Edwin walk out of the set, looking very satisfied with the outcome of the interview.

[maxwell-grant]

What do you think of Vega/Balrog/Claw and where do you think his story should go if they brought him back for SF6?

Vega is a perfect fighting game villain because he is as frustrating to challenge as he is satisfying to defeat, and I do think he's a lot more compelling as an antagonistic force towards the likes of Chun-Li or Ken or Cammy than he is as a character unto himself. There's some reasons why the fights with Vega, in the animated movie or in II V or in the Udon comic, tend to be seen as the high points of Street Fighter adaptations.

Largely because as an antagonist to them, he is uniquely vicious and horrifying and murderous to an extent no other SF character is, he escalates any situation into a fight for survival just by walking into the room, while still occasionally allowing strange moments of poignancy due to his skewed honor and priorities, at least when Cammy is involved, and also being by design extremely satisfying to beat and watch get beaten. He is not just a punchable goon and smug champion like Balrog, he is also a creep and a serial killer, and an extremely privileged one at that, which makes beating and humiliating him a moral imperative on top of everything else. That, along with the fact that he's blatantly cheating with that claw and protecting his face with a mask, not just because he is desperate to preserve his good looks but because he doesn't even want to touch you as he kills you, is part of what makes him arguably the most punchable character in the series, or at least, the best designed for that purpose. That is, of course, if the player can catch him, which his whole playstyle is designed to avoid. Vega can and will fly circles around you as he wears you down, and like any nobleman, he will attack you from distances and positions you can't strike him back from, and it will wear on your patience, making it all the more satisfying if you do catch and smash him, which is still a big If.

And as a character onto himself, he's someone who's pretty much got his life figured out and as a result only truly wants what he can't have. He is a nobleman who's been gifted with wealth, power, skill, charm, intellect, beauty, and everything he could possibly desire, including the ability to kill people with impunity on a regular basis. He is a guy who lives his perfect life, but who still takes it upon himself to put on a mask and go out at night and viciously murder people he deems ugly, not just because their existence makes his world less perfect for it, but because championing the superiority of beauty by subjugating the ugly is the only form of meaning Vega can find in life. He lives reveling in his own futility and only comes alive when faced with a challenge he can take pleasure in vanquishing, which is right around the time when he either loses and vanishes to preserve his pride, or gets his face smashed or even just touched and flies into a searing rage, because of course deep down he will not accept being bested on the only battlefield that matters to him. He is a disgusting and violent hypocrite who has little need for nuance, and so far being this has worked out pretty great for him.

But he isn't just a violent horrible sadist, there is a specificity to him that makes him scarier than if he was just that. He's an intelligent, cultured and traveled man who has an extremely strong sense of justice guided by his thinking in extremely binary good-evil terms, it's just that he's traded his moral core with his aesthetic judgement. He's replaced the concept of good and evil with beauty and ugliness, which is not even that far off from the way the upper class treats those to begin with. He throws parties for the wealthiest and most powerful of society, but he resents the attendants, because he finds worship of money and power to be ugly. He throws his lot with Shadaloo because they enable his tendencies and afford to let him keep living his lifestyle, but he resents everyone he works with inside of it because they are ugly and crude (and he's frequently paired with Balrog, a guy who embodies everything he hates). He fights to save the Dolls and saves Cammy's life, but he is disgusted by the existence of the Dolls not because of the, everything involving their creation, but because he thinks it's a waste of beauty and is offended at the idea of turning those he deems beautiful into puppets. It is in fact pretty funny that he's appalled at Bison for what almost consist moral grievances but really are just aesthetic ones, while Bison himself, a guy who is literally made of evil, has frequently expressed annoyance and even a little bit of disgust at Vega's obsession, in a "I kill people too, you don't see me being such a weirdo about it" way.

And something I find interesting about Vega, and part of why I do think they miss the mark sometimes in making him a tad too much of a sadist or pervert (like his win quotes in V about bathing in blood, when the whole reason for the claw and mask used to be that he dislikes blood and touching the opponent directly) is that he isn't a vile murderous bastard just because, or just because of the trauma regarding his mother's murder, but because he is a nobleman who was raised to see the world the way a nobleman does. They've gone back and forth over the years on whether his mom's murder was at the hands of his birth father or stepfather, but a detail that tends to be glossed over is the fact that Vega gets his entire moral outlook from her and his environment:

He gains his looks and personality from his mother, with the addition of corrupted feelings planted in the back of his mind during his upbringing. Vega lost sight to the meaning of life at a tender age and started to cling to his mother's beauty, which grew into strong extremism. Those who were not deemed beautiful were not of value, and only the beautiful were worthy of survival. This is why in order to prove his strength Vega enters the arena as a prerequisite of beauty. - SF2 profile

He was born the only child of a beautiful noblewoman from a fallen house, and an ugly but wealthy man. His twisted thoughts, obsessions and value system regarding beauty were all handed down to him by his mother. Her twisted thoughts went unrewarded, as she was murdered by her own husband. Vega was profoundly affected by this, and this trauma is said to be the reason Vega insists on maiming his opponents. - 30th Anniversary Collection

He is a guy driven by the same standards of self-improvement and excellence through combat that drive most of the other characters, except in his case, he believes that beauty is the truest form of strength, that it is the only thing that matters, that the order of the world dictates that beautiful people must never lose, and the worst thing that ever happened to him was a triumph of uglyness so world-shattering that every imperfect-looking person in the world must pay for it. Like a ninja, he is true to his code, offering second chances to fighters he deems beautiful (if only so he may savor the honor of beautifully killing them at the right time), and he is true to his high society upbringing, in that he lives to uphold and enforce a disgusting prejudiced worldview that just so conveniently puts himself at the top of everyone else, a worldview he lubricates with the blood of his opponents and a worldview that crumbles as soon as the mask comes off. He is profoundly disgusting in a way that does a lot to reinforce how evil Shadaloo is for not just enabling him but directing him, and he remains the absolute worst person inside of it no matter how much he may think of himself as above Shadaloo.

And as for him in SF6? I could honestly do without seeing any major Shadaloo players show up for 6, or even much of any of the old characters period. I wouldn't be upset if he returned, given the wonderful job they've done so far on all the returning characters and new ones, I'm sure there would be room for them to do something interesting involving him and the Neo Shadaloo goobers trying to get away from the evil past of Shadaloo that Vega embodied, but I kinda don't want to see him again unless it's to see Chun-Li throw a couch at him again or lightning kick his face through a wall and off of a building, which is not just a high point of the series, but the most beautiful thing that ever involved Vega.

[frasier-crane-style]

Furiosa And Its Response: A FAQ

Q: What’s Furiosa about?

A: Ironically, for all the claims prequel Fury Road wasn’t ‘about’ Max, Furiosa isn’t entirely about Furiosa. The first hour or so features Furiosa as a child, kidnapped from the Green Place (an idyllic oasis whose people live in peace and abundance, zealously protected against the post-apocalyptic depredations of outsiders) and then becoming the prisoner of Dementius. Dementius is sort of the villain protagonist of the movie’s first half while Furiosa is on the sidelines.

He seems like the last gasp of the savage warlords like Toecutter and Lord Humongus that we saw in the Mel Gibson Maxes. He is entirely about increasing the size of his horde while taking and consuming any resources he can find. He comes into conflict with Immortan Joe (the villain from the ‘sequel,’ Fury Road), who is more of the iron fist in the velvet glove, and one of the interesting points of this movie is how Joe seems like a reasonable administrator in contrast to Dementius. He’s an awful person, obviously, but at least he keeps the trains running on time.

Furiosa grows to adulthood caught in-between Dementius and Joe’s feud, eventually moving to escape and return to the Green Place.

Q: Is it as good as Fury Road?

A: Not quite. It has a new cinematography look that tends to give things a plasticky CGI sheen, like Attack of the Clones or something. I know that they did a lot of the effects practically and that Fury Road used a lot of CGI itself, but yo, what's the point if it looks fake?

Also, towards the end, Dementus gets into this "we're not so different, you and I" deal with Furiosa that feels like a reach, considering he hasn't seemed to be motivated by revenge at all throughout the story, just bog-standard ambition and lust for power, so trying to make him a dark mirror to Furiosa now seems like a strain for profundity.

Q: Is it woke?

A: I’d say not unless your definition of woke is so expansive that it’s basically meaningless. The themes of the movie are too universal to belong to any one political movement.

-Rapists, tyrants, and warlords are bad.

-In a radioactive wasteland, it’s good to live in a self-sufficient oasis.

-Good people try to avoid violence when possible and want to live in peace.

It does have a female protagonist, but so do Aliens, Terminator, Kill Bill, and a buttload of Michelle Yeoh movies. If you say that you’re fine with female protagonists, just not with poorly written ones, then I don’t see how that’d be a problem here.

In fact, it’s stated that the reason Furiosa is so badass is because a straight white man, Imperator Jack, saw her core toughness and mentored her. He’s not at all a simp and is treated as a paragon of masculinity—reasonable, respectful, self-controlled, and hypercompetent. He and Furiosa are in an implicitly romantic relationship.

That’s right. Furiosa is so cool because a boy fell in love with her and taught her everything she knows.

Other men help out Furiosa on her quest and some women are enthusiastically villainous. In that respect, it’s even less ‘feminist’ than Fury Road was.

Q: Okay, how’s it doing at the box office?

A: Not well.

Q: Why is that?

A: Opinions vary. Some say it’s because, despite the movie’s quality, it’s getting caught up in a backlash against ‘gender-swapped reboots’.

Q: Is it?

A: Possibly. I should note it isn’t meant as a ‘passing the torch’ ‘legacy’ ‘rebootquel’, just as a spin-off. The next movie that director George Miller wants to do is a prequel to Fury Road focusing on Mad Max, entitled The Wasteland. So this movie is more like if, between Batman movies, they made a movie about Catwoman going on a solo adventure.

Q: It can’t be doing poorly because it has a female protagonist, the most successful movie last year was Barbie!

A: You’re telling me female audiences showed up for a wacky comedy with a big showstopping musical number, but not for a gritty action movie focusing on death and revenge, despite both having female leads? It’s almost like girls like girly movies while men like manly movies (most of Furiosa’s audience is male��and I wonder how much bigger it would be if they’d advertised Imperator Jack’s presence instead of keeping it a secret).

Q: All movies are doing poorly this year!

A: Godzilla X Kong did well, as did Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, Dune 2, The Beekeeper…

Q: It’s been a long time since Fury Road came out, people forgot about it!

A: It was a long time after Beyond Thunderdome that Fury Road came out.

Q: Well, people are only going to the theaters for big event movies!

A: Chris Hemsworth and Anya Taylor-Joy in an epic action movie follow-up to Fury Road isn’t a big event? Look, I’m not saying these aren’t factors, but I remember seeing a movie before this came out and overhearing an elderly couple looking at a poster for Furiosa and muttering, in a disgruntled fashion, words to the effect of “Oh, great, they made Mad Max a girl.” I think it’s very possible that Hollywood has killed the market for female-led action movies by making people think they’ll get a deliberately assaultive product every time they try their luck.

Q: But aren’t woke people turning consuming politicalized product into a secular religion?

A: Umm… maybe? I think most people who are fans of anything get pissed off when quality work goes ignored while slop (reality TV, Michael Bay movies, Call of Duty games, comics about Batman) get hugely appreciated. Everybody should probably not take the box office so seriously, since the important thing is that we have a fun movie to enjoy, even though it is frustrating that we could’ve had a whole trilogy of Rocketeer movies if just a few more people had bought tickets. Jennifer Connolly, in her prime, playing a thinly veiled Bettie Page!!!

Q: Then you think I should see it?

A: Yes. You don’t have to if you don’t want to, obviously, but if you like action movies or prior installments in the franchise, it’s hard for me to believe that you won’t get your money’s worth here.

Q: Does it have good disability representation?

A: Uh. I guess? It’s in the context of people having birth defects owing to radioactive fallout from nuclear war, but sure. Why not?

[singingcicadas]

Why are Autobots just as bad as the Decepticons?

Why? Some people seem to be under this impression that the Autobots have some kind of original sin that makes their cause morally inferior to that of the Decepticon 'revolutionists', for Reasons:

1. Autobots are bad because they were part of the old oppressive government.

Okay but it was literally Optimus who came up with the name, when he stormed the Senate demanding for autonomy? Sentinel took it for his own use. Optimus was a fugitive under Sentinel. He was doing vigilante work against the government. 

2. But Optimus was a cop and served Zeta. Cops are bad and Zeta was bad so Optimus was just as bad. 

Well Optimus only worked with Zeta because Zeta hid his true colours at first and seemed a decent progressive guy. He and Megatron killed Zeta when that turned out not to be the case, thus ending the oppression of the old government. 

What did he do as a cop that’s so unforgivable, besides the occupation itself? He wasn’t making political arrests for the government (he treated Megatron with respect and lauded his polemics, he sided with rebel bomb planter Hot Rod) or persecuting people based on their class or function. He threw the cops who did that in jail (sorry Whirl), he got help for the people on the streets instead of arresting them as per government protocol (Drift). The only arrests he was shown to make were either thugs harassing defenceless citizens (the guys beating up Drift), illegal drug and arms dealers (Swindle), murderers, and terrorists. Notice how they’re all Decepticons. Because that’s what the Decepticons were to Cybertron’s society.

— Like it's important to note that there's never been a sweet point in Decepticon history where they were true upright freedom fighters, dedicated to nothing but emancipation of the people. That idealized version only ever existed in Megatron's writings. The Decepticons didn't start out well-meaning and turned bad somewhere along the way, they've always been a ragtag gathering of degenerates from the dregs of society looking for a venue to excerise violence and embrace their pursuit for chaos and power. They were warmongers. Terrorists. Thugs. Weapons traffickers. Opportunists. Sadists. Bloodsport enjoyers/profiteers. It’s those people who were the targets of Megatron's recruitment speeches when he promised them that he'd turn the planet into their gladiatorial arena. It’s those traits that were coveted, sought, valued by the Decepticon ranks. Revolution of the oppressed lmao, aside from Megatron himself, there's not one honest-to-god true proletariat or bottom class in the Decepticons' upper echelons. Soundwave, Ratbat’s lackey. Starscream, criminal tax swindler. Shockwave, mad scientist (with a specialization in body experimentation) and former sketchy Senator. Honest work got you as nowhere in the Decepticons as in the Cybertron social ladder.

This is an example of political persecution. By a team of sanctioned torture police created for this explicit purpose. For literally every bad thing the government did, the Decepticons have done something to one-up them. Think functionalism is bad? How about let's conscript everyone into a combatant and if you don't want to fight you can die. Painfully. Social stratification? How about a military hierarchy for the entire society based purely on might makes right. Empurata and shadowplay? Forced frame alteration and body experimentation. Lobotomy. Grooming. Vamparc ribbon that sucks the life out of an entire city's worth of people? Burn up the planet and massacre half its population. Unlawful treatment of prisoners? Pick from the menu of anti-personal bombs, live incineration chambers, multi-year torture marathons, or a DJD custom treatment. Persecution/neglect of the unfortuate mechs who ended up on the streets? Just throw them straight into the smelting pool to make into something useful instead. Expansion and colonism? Imperalism and genocide ftw. The Decepticons were worse than the old government in practically every concievable way.

3. But Optimus was violent as a cop.

Yes he was violent towards the Decepticons, a Decepticon specifically, Swindle, an unrepentant repeat offender, because they were using innocents to bomb cities and conquering citystates and Megatron must be stopped before the situation got any worse but Swindle just won’t spit any info. Like obviously his actions were wrong but they weren’t completely unfounded considering the circumstances, certainly not comparable to an equal level with the Decepticons who regularly torture prisoners for the entertainment. The most he's guilty of is paying evil unto evil and meeting violence with violence.

4. Autobots were perpetrators of the injustices of the society because they didn’t actively fight against it.

That’s not true, Optimus fought against it by using his position to help people as much as he possibly could; a lot of his work went against government orders. Rachet fought against it by running his clinic at Dead End. Impactor fought against it when he stood up for Rung. The outlier vigilante team fought against it, they risked their lives to help the Decepticons with Optimus when they stole the fake matrix bomb. Hot Rod fought for Nyon. They all fought by allowing themselves to grow beyond the societally imposed prejudices, by focusing past the rightful anger at being born into such a cruel world, by trying to become the best people they could under the circumstances and extending kindness to others no matter how difficult their own struggles. It's the entire society that's dysfunctional and has been dysfunctional since the beginning of history, individuals should not be held responsible when they're just trying to make the best out of the life they'd been given and not maliciously harming anyone along the way.

5. But that doesn’t count as actually fighting if they didn't get engaged in outright war.

Uhhh I’m sure that’s the justification Decepticons used when they were doing join or die massacres but okay I guess.

And then there’s the grand finale：

6. “Autobots are bad because wars are bad and they fought a war.”

The Autobots didn't want to fight. It was the Decepticons who declared war on them. They were literally forced into it. It was either that or accept Megatron’s peace through tyranny. And there is a massive difference between deaths/violence/destruction/resource appropriation that’s justified by military necessity and the excessive use of force like killing and torture for the funsies only the latter would be considered a war crime omgggg people please stop spamming the word war crime

Anyways this line of reasoning need to go and duel it out with the previous one because they are contradictory.

The Autobots are by no means perfect but to make them comparable to the Decepticons is just. I dont even know. It's like putting a piece of white paper with a black dot on it beside a piece of black paper and saying they're the same colour. No. The black paper didn't even start out white. Of course not everything is going to be that clear cut in war but acknowledging the presence of those grey areas doesn't mean you can equate the values of right and wrong. 

And also associating the Decepticon movement with freedom fighters is buying into their propaganda. Megatron never gave a shit about anyone's freedom other than his own.

'Peace through tyranny' is a pretty self-explanatory phrase come on

[the-perfect-wagnerite-again]

I have a categorical imperative question. I read some Kant in undergrad but do not retain much. My question is; does the categorical imperative account for specificities? As in, is lying, for example, acceptable under specific circumstances because under those circumstances the most ethic action would always be lying (say by omission)?Or is it more of a blanket concept, such that even though I feel it’s the right thing to (more or less) lie and tell an acutely dying man that he will “be alright”, and that this is the correct action under this circumstance, is it still morally wrong because I am lying?

Not sure if this illustrates what I mean properly. Would love an explanation to scaffold my meagre understanding. Please recommend any useful Kant texts that you’d consider readable for someone undergoing intensive study in an entirely separate discipline, too (I mean that I don’t have a whole lot of time to dedicate to personal reading). I’d love to learn more but have some difficulty knowing where to start.

The short answer is: no, the moral law is immutable and absolute.

The thing to understand about Kantian deontology, and the thing that gives most people the most trouble with accepting it, is that it makes absolutely zero room for conditionals. Kant was not trying to derive moral rules based on sentiment or hypotheticals, he wanted to derive a moral LAW from the principles of his metaphysical system. A law is universal, regardless of circumstance.

It's difficult to explain why this moral law is such without getting into the specifics of Kantian metaphysics, because the two are deeply interconnected, but I can give a few brief comments to summarize Kant's first Critique:

We live in a phenomenal reality full of objects that we perceive and cognize through our rational faculties (this is the world of science and matter).

Our capacity to understand this world is predicated on the subjective unity of our self-consciousness (Kant called this the fundamental unity of apperception). If we had no self-awareness, and no awareness of our self-awareness, we would have no knowledge of the world.

The Self, therefore, is simultaneously an object in the world (we interact with other people every day) and a subject transcendental TO the world (you are not the object of your own experience - you are the vector through which experience is possible).

This becomes more clear as we consider freedom and free will, which directly contradicts the deterministic laws of nature upon which science is possible. We are both determined objects of nature AND self-determined subjects of free will. This contradiction cannot be rationalized away, because it extends beyond the limits of our cognition, and yet we still know it to be the case.

This leaves the Self as the isolated viewpoint of experience. When we try to experience the Self, we simply shift our perspective, in much the same way that we cannot isolate the boundaries of our field of vision without changing it. The question of morality then becomes: what is the way in which I should interface with the Other, that which is the "Not Me" but still possesses that same agency and self-determination as Me?

This cannot be a conditional hypothetical, because those change with the tastes of the person and their desires. Anybody can determine arbitrary rules of conduct (and indeed, the constantly evolving landscape of moral norms proves this), but it's something quite different to derive a moral law that is universally applicable in all cases. This is the categorical imperative, which has three formulations:

Act in such a way that the maxim of your action (the will informing it) should be established as a universal law.

Treat other rational beings (including yourself) always as ends in themselves, and never as means only.

From the following two, it follows that the will of every rational being must be regarded as though it were a universally legislating will.

The end result of this is an almost common-sensical notion of fairness and justice, a sentiment we all know personally when we are honest about our interpersonal relationships. The "golden rule," as we call it, has had a nearly permanent presence in the moral discourses of all sufficiently civilized societies throughout recorded human history specifically for this reason. When we lie or cheat or steal, we know it to be wrong on a level more fundamental than arbitrary rules or regulations of society: we are violating an imperative that impels us to act with the same sense of duty to others that we would expect from them. This is why even white lies feel "off," because in the process of sparing our interlocutor the pain of the truth, we are denying them their right to full agency as a rational subject. We treat them as a means instead of as an end in themselves. The autonomous will, the truly moral agent, therefore consists of the agent that identifies the moral law within themselves and intentionally acts in accordance to it by virtue of their freedom. Willing oneself to obey the moral law IS freedom, because in doing so we release ourselves from the cage of desires, appetites, and incentives that would otherwise inform and inhibit our practical reason.

Obviously this is a prescriptive system and not a descriptive one, because human beings do not behave in this way. We are fallen creatures, we lie and cheat and steal where we can afford it, and we make excuses to rationalize our own moral failures in the face of scrutiny. But in that rationalization, we vindicate the categorical imperative, because it is only when we know we have violated it that we feel compelled to make excuses for ourselves (I only lied because X, I cheated because I deserve Y, if Z didn't happen then I wouldn't have to steal, etc).

As for readings on Kant, I advise you stay away from Kant himself. His work is an incredibly complex analysis of thought, and that makes it impenetrable for those who lack either the means or time to commit to him. Instead, I offer these recommendations to introductory texts on Kant, which are sadly insufficient as a substitute but good as a supplement:

"Kant and German Idealism," from The Story of Philosophy, by Will Durant (audio version available on youtube, highly recommended)

Kant: A Very Short Introduction, by Roger Scruton

Introductory Lectures by Dan Robinson, a personal hero of mine, found on youtube or here:

Let me know if you have any more questions, I absolutely love talking about this stuff

[fatehbaz]

Thank you. Glad that it’s enjoyable.

Simultaneous rage and compassion. Solemnity and silliness. Somber yet playful. Grieving and joyous. Fire and whimsy.

The juxtaposition is very deliberate, from me. The contrast between deathly seriousness and silliness. How to live a rich and full life in the shadow, in the grips of unending violence imposed from above, without being solely defined by the trauma.

This was a tag, from just this week, that someone added on a post of mine.

Average tags from an average post. These were also from within a few days of each other, which people added to merely one single post of mine:

I guess, the two realms must coexist if I am to survive and also somehow find, make, experience joy. 

To go about your day, witnessing a thousand “small” cruelties and tragedies merely in the first waking hours of the day during the morning bus ride to work. Watch the city from the window. Gentrification, homelessness, chronic illness, institutional disavowal.

Relentless violence. Without pity.

Sometimes I half-seriously joke about the “ethical imperative to be whimsical.” It hurts! We’re being killed! Things are dire! But we won’t concede joy!

How to make a life when you’re being neglected, forsaken, hunted, actively harmed.

---

In a piece from 2023, in Kohl’s special issue on “Anticolonial Feminist Imaginaries,” Katie Natanel recently described a similar challenge:

‘I think what is sitting in my heart at this moment is how to hold this together: a will to do things otherwise and build things elsewhere, in ways that keep sight of power – and yet refuse it as totalising. [...] [N]ot an abstract theoretical musing [...]. Rather, it is something to be done -- a practice that we envision and embody because we must.’

---

Avery Gordon, who writes often of institutional abandonment and “hauntings,” described our predicament as if we are trapped in hell:

‘[C]oncentration of global wealth and the “extension of hopeless poverties”; […] the intensification of state repression and the growth of police states; the stratification of peoples […]; and the production of surplus populations, such as the landless, the homeless, and the imprisoned, who are treated as social “waste.” […] To be unable to transcend […] the horror […] of such a world order is what hell means […]. Without a glimpse of an elsewhere or otherwise, we’re living in hell. [...] [P]eople are rejecting prison as the ideal model of social order. […] Embedded in this resistance, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly, is both a deep longing for and the articulation of, the existence of a life lived otherwise and elsewhere than in hell. […] Cultivating an instinctual basis for freedom is about identifying the longings that already exist – however muted or marginal […]. The utopian is not only or merely a “fantasy of” and for “the future collectivity”. It is not simply fantasmatic or otherworldly in the conventional temporal sense. The utopian is a way of conceiving and living in the here and now [...]. But there are no guarantees. No guarantees that the time is right […]; no guarantees that just a little more misery and suffering will bring the whole mess down [...]. There are no guarantees of coming millenniums [...], only our complicated selves together and a […] principle in which the history and presence of the instinct for freedom, however fugitive or extreme, is the evidence of the […] possibility because we’ve already begun to realize it. Begun to realize it in those scandalous moments when the present wavers […]. The point is to expose the illusion of supremacy and unassailability dominating institutions and groups routinely generate to mask their fragility and their contingency. The point is […] to encourage […] us […] to be a little less frightened of and more  enthusiastic about our most scandalous utopian desires and actions [...].” [Text from: Avery Gordon. “Some thoughts on the Utopian.” 2016. Bold emphasis added by me.]

Elsewhere, Gordon also says this:

‘In this context of enhanced militarism and securitisation, [...] [there is] more widespread social abandonment and more entrenched inequalities [...]. At the same time, there is widespread, daily, active and open political opposition to all this, at the scale at which people can contest it [...]. And there are also so many people, more and more [...], looking for ways to think and live on different – better terms – and doing it in small ways [...]. What will happen we don’t know, of course. But as more people become unable to participate in the existing economic and governing systems, they must find another way. [...] [A] standpoint and a mindset for living on better terms than we’re offered; for living as if you had the necessity and the freedom to do so; for living in the acknowledgement, that despite the overwhelming power of all the systems of domination which are trying to kill us, they never quite become us. [...] ‘Can a past that the present has not yet caught up with be summoned to haunt the present as an alternative?’ What would happen if we understood that what haunts from the past are precisely all those aspirations and actions – small and large, individual and collective – that oppose racial capitalism and empire and live actively other than on those terms of order. [...] Julius Scott called it ‘the common wind.’’ [Text from: Avery Gordon. As interviewed by Brenna Bhandar and Rafeef Ziadah. “Revolutionary Feminisms: Avery F. Gordon.” Transcribed and published at the blog of Verso Books, 2 September 2020.]

Gordon adds that “the struggle to transform the world takes place immanently today now.”

---

In a similar style, AM Kanngieser says:

‘The no of refusal is a mode of survival: an impenetrable boundary, silent or shouted. It is a refusal to be killed or to succumb [...]. Vast ecosystems flattened for plantations and fields, raw minerals pulled from the ground and sea for the building of nation-states [...]. Being-with requires a pause from which to imagine this otherwise, in all of its vastness and uncertainty. [...] To be-with [...] needs a disposition of attentiveness, listening, curiosity and noticing, [...]. The immensity of the loss of people and ecologies to capitalist brutalities exceeds what we can comprehend. But [...] so do the myriad, and insuppressible flourishings and alliances, the joyfulness and love, the lives lived otherways.’ [Text from: AM Kanngieser. “To undo nature; on refusal as return.” transmediale. 2021.]

---

What kind of “flourishings and alliances”?

In an interview from 2021, Robyn Maynard describes the importance of care, love in “fighting back”:

‘Every day I wake up and rehearse the person I would like to be. […] To use the words of the late, great, C.L.R. James, “every cook can govern.” Organizing, whether formal or informal, whether geared toward a short term goal or a massive, transformative shift: this is what happens when people consciously decide to come together and “shape change,” to think with Octavia Butler. And to move through the world with the intention of making it a better place for living creatures to inhabit. […] And most importantly, it’s an invitation to join in. And it is a reminder that liberation is not a destination but an ongoing process, a praxis. Every day, groups of parents, librarians, nurses, temp workers, ordinary people, tired of the horrors of the present, come together to decide what kind of world they want to inhabit. […] In a historic time of mutual aid, newly created support networks, and old and new freedom strategies, we bear witness to rehearsal, study, experimentation in form, a multiplicity of formations of struggle being waged, often most strongly by people for whom freedom has been most denied. I’m thinking here of Claude McKay’s words from “If We Must Die”: “Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!” [...] [F]or so many people, whether abandoned by the state [...] or abandoned by society in a carceral site, fighting back, by virtue of necessity as well as of ethics, is building, always building. This is the freedom work, and the love work, and the care work, of rehearsal.’ [Text from: Robyn Maynard. “Every Day We Must Get Up and Relearn the World: An Interview with Robyn Maynard and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson.” Intefere: Journal for Critical Thought and Radical Politics.” 19 November 2021.]

---

As for whimsy as an antidote.

I like what Dixa Ramirez D’Oleo says:

‘Opacity, multiplicity, and refraction unsettle many […]. Here I must reveal myself as someone who loves deviance and mischief. […] The word furtive delights me. A quick [online] search for synonyms yields other poetically inspiring words: secretive, surreptitious, clandestine, covert, conspiratorial, oblique, and shifty. […] We must fold these small acts of love and creativity and play (and laughter and irreverence and whimsy) into other resistant projects against white supremacy […]. In various trans-American imaginaries, the boonies are raced as nonproductive land inhabited by people who are not fully part of the Western episteme. [...] Caribbean(ist) people are familiar with el monte, the hills, or les mornes. El monte is always just around the corner, encroaching, sprouting persistently like fungi amid the rubble of hurricane disasters or abandoned plantation and industrial sites. [...] The hills, like much of our hemisphere, are sites of damage containing the residual energy of violence, [...] the “places of irresolution.” [...] I turn over rocks and push thorny vines to the side to find wet dirt, small creatures, and, perhaps, delightful hidden treasures [...]. I open my hands so that these and other surprises “jump into [them] with all the pleasures of the unasked for and the unexpected” [...]. Remaining open to these gifts of the nonhuman natural world [...]. What can we make possible when we make room for the unexpected in the midst of ruin. […] How much ruddier might we be against the multiheaded hydra of white supremacy as “a world of mutually-flourishing companions” [...]?’ [Text from: Dixa Ramirez D’Oleo. “Mushrooms and Mischief: On Questions of Blackness.” Small Axe. July 2019.]

[bisquid]

Clothing repair is not a moral imperative and you shouldn't feel bad for not doing it

One of the most frustrating things about the whole 'just repair your clothes!' thing is that so many clothes just aren't easily repairable, and yet so many of the takes I've come across act like anyone not repairing their stuff are either lazy or stupid and Contributing To Climate Change.

My favourite pair of jeans was three years old when they ripped along where the back pocket was attached. I darned it. The first time I wore them again they ripped along the edge of the darn line.

I patched and redarned them. They ripped along the other pocket. Patch and redarn. They ripped where I'd sewed the patch on, even though I'd tried to weave in every stitch from more than an inch away

Every time I tried to repair them the denim basically disintegrated, because it was incredibly cheap and thin, so the repairs were stronger and just ripped free

One of my favourite dresses got mangled in a washing machine incident because it was a jersey knit stretch fabric and I have no idea how one goes about patching something that needs to stretch in every direction

I wanted to lightly modify the pocket situation on a denim jacket but couldn't, because I physically couldn't get a needle through the four layers of denim I needed to

One of my favourite t-shirts failed at the underarm seam and I couldn't fix it because they'd cut off and overlocked the majority of the seam allowance, and that had frayed when the seam failed

Another pair of trousers came entirely unseamed up one leg the first time I wore them because the (almost certainly overworked and underpaid) person who sewed it had failed to catch the thread in the hem, so the whole thing just unraveled. I did manage to resew that seam, but it took four weeks and three tries, and it's a bit wonky to this day

I have a favourite hoodie that's hanging up, unwearable, with almost an entire sleeve missing, because it got eaten by mice but I'm too attached to it to bin it, but I have no idea how to even START fixing damage like that.

'Twelve cool visible repair designs!' cool cool so that four colour embroidery over a one inch hole is going to cost approximately as much as just replacing the item cheaply and take how many hours to complete? And how many hours to develop the skills to make it look good?

I don't own a sewing machine. I don't particularly want to own a sewing machine, because they're expensive and take up space and require an entire skillset to use effectively. I have to repair or modify everything by hand. I don't have time for that, generally.

There's so much out there that's treated like a moral choice (clothing repair! Food delivery!Plastic straws!) without any examination of the barriers preventing people from doing the (please note the quote marks) '''right thing'''.

The people who most need to be able to repair their clothing are also the people most likely to only be able to afford the cheapest and therefore least repairable clothes. And also least likely to have the time and/or equipment to do so.