#contextual leadership

[lostconsultants]

Grasping Everyday Leadership: More Than Just Being in Charge

Leadership is a multifaceted domain with countless approaches, theories, and styles. In our previous posts about leadership, we’ve explored various dimensions of this intriguing subject. Today, we’re taking a deeper dive into an often under-appreciated aspect: the context in which leadership occurs. Welcome to the world of contextual leadership. Before we delve into the nitty-gritty, let’s start…

[utilitycaster]

The thing about the argument that the sword makes Laudna uncomfortable is that it's valid if it does, but if you've been in any sort of organization that attempts to have an emotionally open dialogue in making decisions, and especially if you've been in any sort of leadership position within it, you will almost certainly encounter people who suddenly become uncomfortable when, as the meme goes, we are not about them. You encounter people who suddenly express discomfort - which should ideally be brought up early in the conversation since that alone may be a reason to blackball a decision - when multiple other arguments haven't worked (and during the ensuing argument this episode, you can easily watch Orym stick to the same exact story he's been saying for 50+ episodes and that he wants to reclaim this sword and use it to kill Ludinus while Laudna throws out multiple arguments, switching from one to the other as the rest of the party slowly realizes the sword isn't cursed and that this is Delilah's influence). You see this in internet spaces as well; people who do not draw a line between "trigger" and "squick" or "discomfort" and "dislike" even though that line very much exists.

Obviously you do have to still listen, because there are plenty of valid reasons to change a decision because someone involved is uncomfortable; but even a legitimately uncomfortable person does not automatically outweigh the needs of everyone else and you cannot please everyone at once. These decisions must be made contextually because otherwise "I'm uncomfortable with this" becomes a magic Uno Reverse card to hold the group decisions hostage. It's a factor, but ultimately, even if Delilah were in no way involved, if Laudna's the only person uncomfortable and this also means a lot to Orym, the solution is likely going to be either "keep it out of sight" or "give it to a member of the Accord". And yeah, as Imogen points out, if Laudna's genuinely uncomfortable with Orym having a sword with a dark history, absorbing it herself really undercuts that point.

[itsclydebitches]

Don't mind me, everyone, just gonna slip on my Tedependent conspiracy hat for a bit...

Okay, for real though, can we talk about how Trent's backstory in 3x06 completely re-contextualizes his dinner with Ted in 1x03? Based on my own interpretation, the implied timeline is that Trent was married to a woman, attempted to come out to her and was dismissed (perhaps in large part because they were married: what do you mean you're gay? You can't be. You love me, etc.), either having his daughter forced Trent to become more honest about what he and his family needed, or they had her in an attempt to "fix" the marriage, she gets caught in the crossfire of all this, Trent comes out again, this time his wife believes him, they divorce, are still good friends, and their daughter is happier than ever because she has two loving parents who are now living their best lives.

Given her age - 3 at the start of the series, about 6 now - that means there's a decent possibility that Trent was still married at the beginning of the show.

And that his dinner with Ted is one of the things that pushed him to try coming out again.

As his core Ted is someone who is authentic and that authenticity is what catches Trent's interest. He's dismissive of it at first, literally thinking it's a "fucking joke," only to later end up with the revelation, "You really mean that, don't you?" - that Ted honestly enjoyed spending time with him. AKA, Ted says and does what he means, even when it seems completely unbelievable. How freeing must that be to see? I'm just imagining this interview-turned-dinner through the eyes of a man who is still unhappily married, mostly closeted, and struggling to help his daughter through the stress of that dynamic. Then he meets this sunshine of a coach who is so authentically himself that it initially comes across as an act, an exaggeration, a joke. But Ted never wavers, simply refuses to be anything other than himself. Soon he's doing even more than that, breaking down gender norms by characterizing the masculine, aggressive Roy Kent as the "little girl" from A Wrinkle in Time, burdened with the responsibility of leadership. He turns what should have been the end of a horrific day of shadowing into a dinner date and Trent finds himself answering the hard-hitting questions instead of his interviewee. Ted brushes off his accusation of greed with, "Wait, I'm supposed to be getting paid?" but Trent is completely caught off guard by Ted's "What do you love?"

The textual answer is "writing" and the fun fandom answer is "you," but if this is a Trent who still hasn't fully come out yet that's! A hell! Of a question!!! A closeted, queer individual's mind is going to jump to their biggest secret and, when offered an out, they're going grasp at it, so Trent eagerly agrees with Ted's guess of "writing" the same way Colin eagerly pulls the 'This is a gay bar? Haha, my mistake' card and makes a run for the door. Reading this interaction as Trent not just being gay, but potentially being closeted and unhappily married makes it less about the journalism (this strange coach likes me and thinks I can be a good person despite my invasive career choice) and more about his sexuality. Oh, no big deal, just having an intimate dinner with another good-looking man who's questioning me on love of all things and slowly inspiring me to be the best version of myself, which would require coming out to my wife again. This is a totally normal and not at all life-changing night! I definitely don't need to run away now!!

Via this reading Trent's article feels so loaded. Ted is "out there in the community" either "bravely or stupidly facing the music." That sounds a hell of a lot like a parallel to literally coming out and facing the music of a community's potential rejection, with Ted's American background/inexperience/unique personality acting as a stand-in for sexuality; the reasons he's labeled a "wanker" before anyone actually gets to know him - as the pub trio does while those very words are narrated by Higgins.

And then we have this:

"If the Lasso way is wrong, it's hard to imagine being right.... and though I believe that Ted Lasso will fail here... I can't help but root for him."

There are other elements at play here, like the football's celebration of ego and the threat of the club being relegated, but underneath it really sounds like a still-cynical Trent wanting to see the kind of changed world that those like Ted could bring about, but not really believing that it's possible. Given his history, is he really just talking about football when it comes to "the Lasso way"? I doubt it. Trent is potentially feeling trapped at this point in time, pessimistic to the point where yes, he still thinks that Ted will fail at football and creating a more inclusive, accepting community... but even still, Trent can't help but root for him. Of course he can't. He wants what Ted is offering. He needs it.

But then, of course, Ted succeeds! Not just in doing well by the club, but by the community as a whole. He maintains that inspiration and hope until, potentially, Trent felt like he could do something about his own situation. He found the nerve and strength to try again. So he comes out to his wife, they divorce, their daughter is happy, he goes on a date with a mustached man at the local pub, ditches him to try and 'interview' Ted, blows up his career because he realizes that his job is undermining the very thing he's been rooting for and he can't not give Ted a heads up, begins shadowing Ted as he looks for something "deeper," and then comes out to Colin, gazing wistfully across the water as he imagines being able to kiss a man after a win...

I'm not saying Ted Lasso is going to go there - and I'm DEFINITELY not saying there should be ANY accusations of queer baiting if/when they don't, because we've absolutely built the majority of this ship in fandom spaces - but I AM saying that if Trent's potential intersection of his history with Ted's influence and Ted's desire to shake things up while imagining bisexual triangles actually led to something... it would be a damn well done setup!

[ratgrinders]

So I read this interview of Brennan Lee Mulligan post-Junior Year (really interesting btw, I recommend everyone check it out!!!!) but I wanted to talk about a couple questions that interested me in it regarding the Rat Grinders:

I love the Rat Grinders and how they're just this dichotomy...Talk to me about leaning into not just that they are the opposite of The Bad Kids, but their corruption, because they were really sweet as the High-Five Heroes before they followed Kipperlilly down this path. Brennan Lee Mulligan: There's an interesting question there. I think that for a lot of it, there were hints, and most of the things we've seen of their sweetness are contextual from bits of writing, little things, investigations. But I think that you can see… It's both. There are elements that they were not always like they are now, but the seeds of what they are now are there in the past. I think that when you look at the High-Five and then eventually becoming the Rat Grinders. There's an indication there of Kipperlilly's focus because yeah, the High-Five Heroes is sweet, but it's also sort of a indication that Kipperlilly is pushing them towards, for lack of a better word, do we have something that we're about? The Bad Kids get their name because they've all been given detention on the first day and it's connected to their story. Whereas you get the sense from the High-Five Heroes that it's not actually describing anything. It's like the person being like, "Our inside joke is going to be high-fives." And you're like, "Well, everyone high-fives." So there's an indication there, for me at least, that Kipperlily is trying to make a comradery right away that is not actually there. It's not based in something that happened to them.

So a confirmation that Kipperlilly naming them all the "High-Five Heroes" on the first day is her trying to "force" a sense of comradery, and also possibly an adventuring identity? Like how the Bad Kids already have this strong group cohesion and "story" because they were all given detention on the first day of classes, and Kipperlilly's trying to create something like that without it having a strong basis.

This seems indicative of a couple things to me, like Kipperlilly having a naturally strong, pushy personality that maybe overrides her other group members, or that she has a certain idea in her head about what makes an adventurer. She wants all the gimmicky stuff like a cool party name and inside jokes, but even then on the first day is trying to force it without having earned it. She's enamored with the idea of an adventurer in terms of them being the hero of their own story, and in her head how good of a "story" you have is directly linked to how good of an adventurer you are.

It also makes her opposing the name "Rat Grinders" later interesting, lol. Rat Grinders is obviously WAY more based in something unique to their party and an inside joke on what they actually do. Maybe it was just because she didn't appreciate her sense of control and her name being undermined.

How do you think they're going to diverge now that they don't have Kipperlilly leading them? Brennan Lee Mulligan: I think that the future of that group is very… I think I leave it to the players, but as you're saying with Kipperlilly, her leadership of that group to me, the moment that is the fundamental, very critical to the season and understanding it I think, is that killing of Lucy Frostblade. Where that is the moment where power and the opportunity for power is chosen over all else. The participation of everybody in that, that the other Rat Grinders came in and that they killed Lucy Frostblade, is the ultimate like, "Oh, we can understand wanting to have the status that The Bad Kids have. This was not worth that. It is not acceptable. Even if you really want to have something, you can't kill an innocent person who is also your best friend to get it. That is evil." And so I think that that's really the turning point for them.

And talking about Lucy being her best friend, and the killing of Lucy Frostblade as the point of no return. I imagine that after killing Lucy the Rat Grinders were deep in the sunk-cost fallacy, that "oh, we've just done this horrible thing, there's no turning back now". Like the text messages the Bad Kids found in Ruben's house.

Canon leaves it slightly unclear the order in which the Rat Grinders were shatter-starred, and just how culpable they are for their actions while under their influence. I'm going to assume that Kipperlilly was the first one, "willingly" taking one (for a given definition of "willingly", as I'd argue she had still be subjected to a year and a half of manipulation and grooming by Porter. She may have been sound of mind, but she never would've done this without Porter encouraging her or validating all her worst aspects). Then, she and Porter worked to kill the other Rat Grinders, an unwilling ritual that put them under the thrall of the rage god. Lucy was the last holdout, and was killed with the assumption that she would come back like they did, but she instead "stuck to her guns" and stayed dead.

I'm also going to interpret the shatter-star as an element of divine manipulation that drives people with rage to do actions they wouldn't do normally, but which are ultimately based on a kernel of truth. Think Adaine in the mall fight, "What would Adaine do if all she ever thought about was rage?" and Siobhan talking about the forest of Sylvaire being destroyed in the search for her mother. We know Adaine would never use such an excessive amount of destruction, but we see the underlying motivation to her actions.

So when the other Rat Grinders killed Lucy, they weren't exactly "sound of mind" as they were under the influence of the rage star, but they were still themselves, they still made the conscious choice to choose power over everything else. The rage star only elevated it to murderous heights; they never would've murdered her without its influence (in fact, I'd argue that the expectation she'd come back is why they did it in the first place), but the motivation still stemmed from a selfish want for power they all shared.

I think, too, that there's a thing with them, there's sort of a you can't have it both ways. The strategy that the Rat Grinders employ to get powerful is to do this grinding. Eventually, they get leveled up also by these powerful monsters that are being killed, they're allowed to join in with, but fundamentally it's like you can't have your cake and eat it too. Kipperlilly as a villain to me is very focused on, "Ooh, I can get by with the letter of the law and not the spirit. There's a better way to get powerful as an adventurer other than going on these important missions where you can probably die." That's the other thing, too, is you look at The Bad Kids, the Bad Kids run into that Corn Gremlin fight, and two of them die. They took a huge risk to save the school and stop something bad from happening, and the Rat Grinders never take that risk. So even as Kipperlilly is like, "Why aren't I getting what they're getting?" It's like, you're not making the choices they're making. Obviously grinding rats in the woods is a safer way to gain levels and the reward for doing it the safe way is you've never saved the world.

And with this last bit, Kipperlilly wanting the accolades of adventuring but without having to risk her life for it. It's interesting that Brennan mentions Kipperlilly avoiding "missions where you can probably die", because I've theorized before that part of the Rat Grinders' motivation for sticking to grinding is them not wanting to risk dying!

This is where genre conflict comes into play for me, because in a normal world I'd argue it's totally acceptable and fine for teenagers to do everything in their power to avoid Literally Dying. However, Spyre is not a normal world and runs on DnD conventions, where Aguefort trains them to be murderous "violent wanderers" who enact their will on the world, sometimes fatally. Death is also comparatively cheaper here when adventurers specifically have an easier time getting revived. The Rat Grinders may protest all they want about the standards of the genre that encourage crazy, violent, fatal behavior, but they're always going to be in the wrong genre and their protests are doomed to failure.

And "having your cake and eating it too". Her adventuring party never took those risks, so they don't get the rewards for saving the world.

[dekusleftsock]

I JUST HAD THIS REALIZATION IN THE SHOWER WHY HAVE I NEVER. THOUGHT ABOUT KATSUKI LIKE THIS.

So this is going to kind of go into Izuku’s bullying from Katsuki but it’s mainly if not entirely about why Katsuki has always stood out as a person, regardless of quirk or even leadership.

What got me thinking about this was actually those “American meets K-Drama bullies” on tiktok, which I often feel has a hint of xenophobia, but I digress.

One of the main points as to WHY the American in those examples would “win” is because of the cultural differences between fighting back vs shutting up and taking the beating. The main reason most Americans believed they would win is because culturally, a K drama bully would never think that their victim would retaliate, much less try to beat their ass in the first place.

Japan and China have similar cultural standards, especially to bullying (which is why bullying is so so bad statistically in Japan, with a whopping 57% bullying rate), and this “sit down and take the beating” cultural standard often permits bullies to continue to retaliate within the school. (Fun fact I was actually researching divorce in Japan for this due to some misinformation I’d read a while ago, but apparently Japan doesn’t have joint custody?? Like period?? It comes from the idea that a family is a set unit, and that were a parent to want to leave that unit, they are fundamentally no longer apart of it. No marriage, no custody, no child. You simply don’t see your kid very often, or ever. Sometimes this is even a decision on the father’s part, thinking that it’s “too painful to see the child after separation”, and that parents don’t see the benefit in children having both parties in their lives)

So, thinking of this in mind, I first went to why Izuku wouldn’t necessarily speak out or try to fight back. He wants to, he definitely almost does, but ends up standing silently shaking instead. Yes, fighting back may feel good, but even to people who would sympathize with said struggles may still blame the victim in this situation for “causing trouble”, it’s why Izuku and Katsuki’s relationship is even more interesting; it’s not just Izuku gaining confidence as he goes into high school, but that after he was given a space TO fight back (the first hero training), he actually started his arc on “defying society” and “not pushing things under the rug”. Tearing that rug to shreds doesn’t just mean looking out for those who haven’t been looked for, but also for destroying the standards that fighting back is a fault of yourself.

Tbh we also have this in the west as well, even those Americans who like to make those TikTok’s shaming people in countries they have no contextual idea to understand, much less solve. Because it’s not that fighting back itself would be hard, but that the social backlash would cause you to be even more of a target. It’s a lose-lose situation, so yes, a student will choose the wisdom of their parents and their elders that tells them to pretend it isn’t there.

But, besides that, in America (and I honestly wouldn’t doubt that this is in Europe too) the subtlety of that shame IS STILL THERE. I can even account for this in my middle school, for lightly pushing my bullies who ganged up on me, I was the one blamed and threatened punishment. The idea of a fight at all in high school would cause immediate suspension on both parties records, regardless of why or who started it. My brother in middle school was expelled for threatening kids who were both physically and vocally harassing him, and instead of any sort of help from the school, they REFUSED footage that might have defended him and my brother was then ostracized by my neighborhood/school district and thought to be some kid about to shoot up a school, he wasn’t.

Violence isn’t always the answer, obviously, but this is mainly to point out the hypocrisy of putting the west on this pedestal for fighting injustice.

I wanted to put this in somewhere but didn’t know where so it’s going here, but I find this take even funnier given the fact that North America has a 1% higher bullying rate than Asia which is so fucking funny and ironic

BUT BACK TO THE MAIN POINT ON KATSUKI, IM GETTING THERE I PROMISE🙏🙏

I think there’s this perception online of Katsuki that he is considered so unbelievably cool and normal given the context of his middle and elementary school, but putting it into perspective? Fighting your bullies, especially ones a year older than you, is REALLY WEIRD. Like, he’s an odd ball. It actually makes so much more sense as to why Izuku admires Katsuki in the first place. Katsuki has NEVER simply sat down and took the beating IN HIS LIFE.

And when you really think about it? All of that direct language, how rude he talks in Japanese (as in what pronouns he even uses for people, to the point that even the “softer” or “more intimate” pronouns he uses are… also kind of rude), and yk, suddenly, it’s almost like all the people at the beginning of their first year making fun of him… makes sense. And not just in a “lets humble this guy” way, they have no reasons to think of him in any kind of way really, they’re simply reacting to Katsuki and his odd way of speech and forwardness. He IS weird here, not just an asshole.

But EVEN GIVEN the fact that people know and think Katsuki is weird, he still strides along anyway. In fact, the only person who has ever gotten under his skin has been Izuku, who never even implied that he thought any malice of him in the first place.

Even now Katsuki continues to be himself to such a visceral, outward degree. I saw this post recently that was saying Izuku was actually quite mature for his age, but I’d argue that it’s less maturity, and more that he has just abided by a certain cultural standard of being thankful for the opportunities he’s been given.

It’s almost like Horikoshi has used Katsuki as this… idk, societal commentary? He certainly stays a societal commentary here in the west and our standards, often portraying more nuanced ideas of forgiveness and change and humility, but it’s different now that I think about it.

Katsuki isn’t just a character made to be rude for the sake of being funny, he’s an honest to god, walking, talking, culmination of what Japanese culture stands to change. It’s why Katsuki keeping his “hardened” traits is so so SO important. And it’s even more interesting given that he’s popular, he’s powerful, and he’s still bold while he does so.

Katsuki didn’t try to be popular, he just happened to do so. Explaining why he’s so bizarrely different from everyone else suddenly makes everything about his character make sense to me. Like, ofc Izuku would admire him to an almost worshipping degree, ofc he would stay in his life regardless of his flaws, Katsuki is himself in the most unapologetic way possible and THATS what’s truly admirable about him. His quirk, his determination, they’re both beautiful, but he’s the hero in his life because heroes inherently juxtapose the society around them. And that is exactly what Katsuki is.

And Katsuki, for all his flaws, never changed himself for society. He was always, long before he went to UA, before he even had his quirk, before he’d probably even met Izuku—been a hero.

[hms-no-fun]

I know you said you're cautiously optimistic about HS2, but the newest blog post has me kinda worried. The talk of "fixing the fans broken trust" and how even the new writers don't like a lot of story decisions that were made by the old team seem really off to me, like it's throwing the old team under the bus. I want to expect good things from HS2 but when the people working on it don't seem to like the story as it stands right now it really just seems like they might bend over backwards to appease the shitty side of the fandom. What do you think about this whole thing?

this is in reference to the october 30th 2023 news update on the hs:bc website. i give the date because the news posts don't seem to have individual links atm, so if you're reading this in the future you might have to scroll back.

to your worry that the new team might bend over backwards to appease the shitty side of the fandom, i wrote at length in my prior hs:bc post about why i don't think that's gonna be a problem. i'd also caution against reading too much into what james says about the attitude of the hs:bc team at large, for reasons that should be apparent by the end of this post.

i think it's perfectly reasonable to take a diplomatic position towards a fandom that is historically very hostile to this continuation. a lot of people haven't read the epilogues/hs2 and hate on them anyway because of what they've been told they contain, and refuse to question those received opinions on principle. many who did read them seem to have been inattentive or otherwise needlessly aggressive, sometimes owing to a baffling refusal to accept the premise of postcanon. plenty of others maybe just need a reason to think that homestuck is for them again. for this project to succeed, the fandom at large needs to be given a reason to revisit the epilogues/hs2 from a position of safety and critical distance. i have my own barbed opinions about this state of affairs, but it is what it is.

i understand and to an extent share your misgivings over that Q&A post, but it simply is not james roach's job to relitigate the conduct of the hs2 team. to even broach the subject in more than a general sense would constitute the opening of a massive can of worms, because the truth is muddy. mistakes were made on all sides, some worse than others, and to really contextualize where the hs2 team were coming from you'd need to explain the history of the hs fandom, the leadership of the reddit/discord, the overall tenor of twitter post-2016 and especially leading into/during 2020, the history of pgen and the homestuck renaissance, the lack of PR training or oversight or guidance from anyone at WP, the history of audience hostility in homestuck, and on, and on. for what it's worth, i think that context is essential-- but i don't know that anyone working on this project ought to be the ones to tell it (nor do i think they want that responsibility), and a brief casual Q&A post as a halloween treat is certainly not the place to publish it.

and ultimately, none of that has much at all to do with hs:bc. they are not beholden to or responsible for the choices made by the hs2 team. they have been entrusted with the reins of this story, and with that trust comes their own admitted desire to take it in different directions than what was initially planned. the hs2 team did this to the outline andrew hussie gave them; it's only fair that the hs:bc team has the same leeway over the outline they inherited. acknowledging fault in prior leadership, admitting disagreement over past creative decisions, is an olive branch to a largely skeptical fandom. i bristle at some of this because the hs2 team were my friends and i'm very protective of their work and that moment in history, but that isn't james roach's (nor the hs:bc team's) cross to bear. his choice, as the new public face of homestuck, is to move forward rather than linger on the past. it's good that he's burying the hatchet, frankly. i'm sick of that fucking thing.

love it or hate it, agree or disagree, the hs:bc crew has to exercise diplomacy right now. they've reopened the patreon and want to sustain this project for the foreseeable future, ideally without subjecting the workers to intensely traumatic levels of scrutiny and harassment. this involves clearing up miscommunications, admitting fault, gesturing at shared disagreements over story direction, and otherwise putting on a friendly face for strangers. and let's be clear, i know for a fact that plenty on the original hs2 team had a panoply of disagreements with the choices made in the epilogues! the operative condition here is not unquestioning devotion to / hatred of prior material, but a willingness to build upon that prior material constructively regardless. that's what matters most to me, and i have every reason to believe they're taking the constructive route.

i'll end this saying what i've been saying from the start. the measure of this project's success or failure should be taken in the work itself. if james roach blanket dismissed the prior team, but hs:bc constructively evolved in a way that didn't invalidate or undercut prior material, i'd still consider us oldschool hs2 fans the winners. i wouldn't be HAPPY about it, but the art is what we're all here for, and it's the art that people will remember. i think often about how the showrunners of the tv series LOST insisted from day one until the very end that everything in the show had a scientific explanation, despite the fact that they *always knew* this was a bald-faced lie. they told this lie because ABC did not want to fund a fantasy show and would've canceled it otherwise. some fans to this day decry the lack of scientific explanations in the text of the show, even when you point out that the promise of such explanations was false from the start.

point is, there are material realities to leading a creative enterprise. james roach has put himself in a genuinely dangerous and scary position, a fact that's easy to forget with how casual and welcoming his posts have been thus far. but this is perhaps the single most mismanaged property of the internet age, and there's no walking that back without stepping on some toes. over-correction is expected and probably necessary. if it ruffles your feathers, that's fine-- but let the work speak for itself, and judge it on its own merits. all this other stuff is ancillary and will inevitably fade into the distant fog of time.

[centrally-unplanned]

Something I have noted before is that as a technocrat utilitarian-esque person (not a Benthamite or anything), my commitment to democracy as a political system is pretty instrumental. If an enlightened despot (like say me!) ruled the country and employed idk large advisory councils to make the people feel heard while still deciding on policy themselves, and that system functioned better than democracy by the admission of its own people in some "objective" way we could know, that would be fine, I would be okay with such a system. All government, even democracy, serves humanity, not itself. I am such a strong supporter of democracy not because it is ethically pure, but because enlightened despotism fails virtually every single time, the inherent politics of governance just make rule by a "people's mandate" more effective. I don't put the mandate on a pedestal, its half illusion anyway and is just a tool for a job.

And if I apply that logic to governance, so too must I apply that logic to protest. Its very common to critique radical political action from the lens of "they are a loud minority forcing its views on a silent majority" - and that critique is perfectly correct! The say Columbia protestors want the university to reverse policies based on demands they, a non-elected group, wrote up. Even if the "majority" might, if asked, support such an action, definitionally outsider political groups lack the tool of state to hold a vote on it regardless. Protests are, from this view, totally undemocratic. They often meet in the middle on this - citing polls or non-binding, ill-specified referendas and such, like in Columbia's case - but its still a compromise, very often a laughable one, they normally just put action above legitimacy.

But who cares? This is true of pretty much all protests, revolutions and such throughout history. If you opposed every single one of them then you do you I guess, but most don't. If the cause is justified, the strategy sound enough, and price worth paying, and you happen to win its worth it. Even if you don't, maybe its still worth it, history will decide. That is just reality; no political system, anywhere, ever, has functioned on unlimited consensus -almost all assign the large majority of agency to non-democratic forces. Dissident movements certainly can't be held to a higher standard.

So to apply it to the university protests, I personally don't think these protests have a viable strategy or even the right goals, so they aren't my pick of a horse to back. But the idea that its wrong for them to be "overriding the interest of the majority" yeah that is called politics. If the majority wants a voice, protest back, make your own plays, pressure leadership call in the cops (which, if the protest is bad, is also contextually fine to do! That has to go both ways), or do nothing and be confident in your silent power. The ethics complaint just isn't much of a criticism in my book.

[difeisheng]

duel meta

i think a good aspect of the conflict present in the donghai fight is the fact that li xiangyi and di feisheng are each seeing the other as representing incompatible things, and this isn't something that began with the duel but it was part of what doomed them by the end of it.

it has to do with how both of them view their places in the jianghu, in general. li xiangyi by this point has become the symbol of sigumen. he embodies everything it stands for, and by extension of sigumen's prestige, he embodies what those in the jianghu striving for righteousness should look like. he's the legend of both this generation and the next, and when he snaps at shan gudao, li xiangyi literally considers himself the beating heart of sigumen. without him, it can't exist. he has become one with every person he represents while still apart from them, embedded in this fame across the jianghu and all its eyes on him. it's a burden, but while he's placed on the pedestal, li xiangyi still attempts to do good by all who put him on it. so here he stands, trying to shoulder it all.

di feisheng, on the other hand, has always seen his position on an individual level. he's associated with jinyuanmeng and he built it, yes, but that power is not something he's thrown himself into as its leader. he wouldn't say that jinyuanmeng wouldn't exist if he was gone; once di feisheng is reinstated as mengzhu in the present day, the first thing he does is to hand it over to jiao liqiao. his actions throughout the story after that are largely separate from those of jinyuanmeng, and he makes little effort to involve his subordinates except for a few specific people. to di feisheng, his achievements and strength ultimately rest on himself as a swordsman, and his skill compared to other distinguished people at the top of the jianghu. we see that on the night he frees jiao liqiao. he's not here to take over forces or resources, he's just here for one man and the rank he holds.

(i would argue that the power di feisheng did accumulate through jinyuanmeng is for two reasons. one, so that he had enough people behind him to apparently rival li xiangyi, and two, to keep him safe from the di mansion. but that's a different topic.)

so when the war between sigumen and jinyuanmeng breaks out, its final act on the donghai ship is a standoff between two people: one who views himself as representing a collective, and another who considers himself in that moment a swordsman on his own. and this greatly influences how both of them treat that fight.

to li xiangyi, this is a duel contextualized by leadership. because he will take the responsibility for sigumen and his side of the fight, he's focusing all that grief over shan gudao, all that anger and blame on di feisheng alone, as the opposing head of the forces he's been clashing with. since the name of li xiangyi cannot be separated from sigumen (and by now i don't think li xiangyi could define himself as person from image even if he tried), now he attaches di feisheng to jinyuanmeng in his attempt to force him to take accountability. in li xiangyi's eyes, they're really not people in this duel. they're the faces of hundreds more warriors, and every move they make has the lives of those people hanging onto them.

to di feisheng, the fact that they stand alone on that ship means they are alone, cut loose from everyone and everything else in an isolated space. this is a fight in its purest form now. just two men and their blades, relying on their own physical/spiritual strength and nothing else. it's what di feisheng has been waiting for, this chance to challenge li xiangyi where both of them stand on truly equal ground. there is no sigumen or jinyuanmeng dragging them down. they've cut through all the noise of the jianghu that he doesn't care for, and they're just di feisheng and li xiangyi, two highly skilled people who get to see who's stronger in an environment no one else can influence.

(it's worth noting, i think, that di feisheng chose the location of the duel by situating himself and therefore li xiangyi who would find him out at sea, even though the majority of their forces were fighting on land. his men on the ship complained about how horrid a decision it was to be at sea in that weather (it's the first dialogue of the show), but this ensured that any outside/not predetermined interference during their head-to-head would be much more difficult.)

these views or motivations are so terribly at odds with each other. li xiangyi is fighting out of desperate rage and the need for retribution, weighed down more than ever by all the people who look up to him and depend on him to seek justice. di feisheng is fighting for fairly-won status and glory, and in his eyes, for the first time they have been granted the freedom to go against one another where nothing else needs to matter.

it shows in the moves both of them choose to make. namely, that di feisheng fights with more restraint, while li xiangyi fights quite viciously. i'm going to focus a bit more on di feisheng's role here, because i think this contrast on his part is interesting and works to subvert his initial reputation/image, something significant to his character throughout the show (or at least more than it is for li xiangyi).

i would argue that di feisheng is on the defensive for the majority of this fight, as his side has been this entire war. in the duel choreography he's blocking, dodging, or backing up a significant amount more than li xiangyi, who keeps pressing, launching new offenses wherever possible to search for an answer and revenge. there's a clear give and take between them as the fight progresses. and thanks to how this dynamic plays out, and with the background of these characters' motivations, there are three key pauses in the duel that stand out to me. they're all points where di feisheng could have moved on or killed li xiangyi, even as he was the one being attacked, but chose not to.

the first is when li xiangyi is pressed up against the ship wall, di feisheng's sword against li xiangyi's cheek, enough to cut but not enough to lethally wound. they're locked in this position for a good few seconds before either of them react. di feisheng could press forward and cleave his skull, since li xiangyi can't parry him. i couldn't get a good screenshot, but shaoshi is buried in di feisheng's shoulder here. for that di feisheng could also back up and away, given his injury. but he does neither. instead he freezes in place, doing nothing until li xiangyi draws his blade out of di feisheng, and makes the next move.

the second is when there's a lull in the action on the roof of the ship cabin. we get di feisheng's line “一个剑客不该有弱点” ("a swordsman shouldn't have weaknesses") and li xiangyi pausing as the bicha poison begins to take effect. this is another very long break where di feisheng could've taken advantage of li xiangyi being distracted, but he stands still. we learn later that he didn't even know li xiangyi had been poisoned then, so this isn't him dramatically pausing to revel in li xiangyi's pain. his opponent wasn't immersed in the fight, so di feisheng waited until he was. he only moves forward to meet him when li xiangyi chooses to.

these breaks turn the duel into a dance, almost, where di feisheng is letting li xiangyi lead and only moving with him (when they're both in the physical state to). he's fighting with too much respect and leniency to be out for blood the way li xiangyi is, with everyone else on that ship already dead. they're fighting the duel through vastly different lenses and neither of them have realized it yet.

that point of realization is this last pause, di feisheng's blade stabbed into li xiangyi while he stands over him in the rain. the fact that di feisheng isn't actively trying to kill is apparent in two different details here. the first is that di feisheng's blade missed li xiangyi's heart, even though his accuracy as a swordsman is incredible. the second is that, once again, he waits until li xiangyi can move again before attempting to do anything further— except this time he yells that he's won.

this is the moment it genuinely struck for me that their perspectives on this duel are so different. di feisheng dealt li xiangyi a wound that is serious in the moment, but for someone of li xiangyi's strength, he'll be fine in the end. it only takes him out in the short term, and within that time, what di feisheng is waiting for after calling his victory is for li xiangyi to concede the duel. to say it's over, and give over his name as the top swordsman. that's what di feisheng was after.

to him, when it came to li xiangyi, defeating the man and killing him were two different things.

but this isn't where it all stops, because li xiangyi didn't know this (how could he?) and he's fighting for more than ensuring his name remains above anyone else's. di feisheng is fighting cold, but li xiangyi still has so much anger, so much left to do. so much at stake and on his shoulders and 'defeat' and 'giving up' are luxuries he doesn't have.

when the blade in him and the poison taking greater hold pushes li xiangyi into needing a last stand, he refuses to hold anything back. he's an opportunist now, and di feisheng has given him an opening. so out comes wenjing in a surprise attack, there goes di feisheng impaled against the mast, and it all goes to hell. di feisheng can't fight honourably because li xiangyi is coming for his life, and for the first time after a pause like this, he's the one who attacks first.

their last skirmish is because now there's nowhere else for either of them to go. all other motivations have been shattered. either one of them must break, or they must fall together. and the latter is exactly what they do.

perhaps, in a thousand other worlds, the duel went differently. but in this one, li xiangyi fought because he thought they both represented everyone, and di feisheng fought because he believed they represented nothing more than themselves, and neither man could understand that the other didn't share their perspective. signalled though it was throughout the fight, and evenly matched though they were, they were fighting two separate battles on that ship. it wasn't anything they could help, only the result of contrasting lives in the jianghu and what it had shaped them both into. and so there was nothing that could come of that duel except for both of them to lose.

[wilderebellion]

Calorum Lore Shared in the Dropout Discord

Thank you, Past!Brennan.

Some of them might re-contextualize a thing or two about TRW series. Typically in response to specific questions, but I focused solely on posting Brennan's responses.

Lore on The Ravening War (from April 20, 2020 1:02am ET)

In 1188, a conflict broke out because Count Jacques Tomaté, a Fructeran noble, was by birthright next in line for the throne of Greenhold!

Culture of the Meat Lands (Feb 21, 2020)

Brennan: Meatlanders have clan delineations based on bloodline and their worship/propitiation of The Great Beasts, which is a pagan, polytheistic faith! Warfare between various clans goes back centuries and centuries, a lot like the ancient Celts, so while some Meatlanders might feel kinship with other Meatlanders over outsiders, it's just as common for a given Meatlander to feel THE MOST animosity to a member of an enemy meat clan. So "The Meatlands" doesn't really have a national identity in the same way that, say, Ceresia does, and individuals there are much more likely to define their loyalty by family, clan and faith than by nationality.

(May 18, 2020 8:14pm ET)

The Meatlanders are like ancient Celts: The fact that they don't wear shirts lets southerners stereotype them as barbarians, but their culture is equally as beautiful, ancient and complex as any other land's. Carn is a metropolis full of architectural wonders, beautiful art, etc. Meatlanders rule!!! Labeling them barbarians, like in real life, is a tool artistocrats use to breed xenophobia and hatred into their homleands population, making them more malleable and compliant

The Rocks Sisters (May 1, 2020 11:46pm)

The four sisters were the four archetypal classes! Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue!

Magic Items (April 20, 2020 9:44pm ET)

Magical items aren't quite as prevalent in other nations as they are in Candia!

Amethar's Mom (April 20, 2020 1:21am ET)

Amethar's mother, before she was Queen Pamelia Rocks, was Pamelia Pomegrana, a Fructeran noble!

Magic and Miracle Workers (from April 20, 2020 1:04am, 1:06am, 1:15am)

Brennan: Just like in normal D&D, it takes SPECIFIC training or divinatory magic to tell if magic is arcane or divine, or where its power source originates from! People's reactions to magic are LARGELY based on uninformed prejudice, and aesthetic. This is how Lapin is mostly able to con people.

Even within the Bulbian Church, 99+% of its clergy CAN'T cast magic. Being a miracle worker is a REALLY big fucking deal, and almost always guarantees ROCKETING to the top of the church hierarchy

Liam's magic truly getting him in trouble depends on context! Obvious spellcasting would get him in a lot of trouble, but Candian's magic items usually get a pass from commonfolk because it would be viewed as "alchemy," which isn't seen as being heretical at all!

Leadership in Calorum (from May 6, 2020)

5:32pm ET

Brennan: Plumbeline is the Sovereign Ruler of Fructera, yes! Gustavo had to abdicate in order to become Concordant Emperor! Plumbeline's title is still Lady though, Fructera doesn't have a monarchy, it has a complex consortium of Noble Houses that rule through an orchestrated bloc of alliances, kind of an aristocratic bureaucracy!

5:40pm ET

Brennan: Dairy Islands ALSO a monarchy, just doesn't confer the title of King or Queen to its monarch (uses Prince or Princess), also Ceresia HAS been a monarchy at times, has vacillated between Republic and Imperatorship MANY times, with some dynasties of Imperators lasting a dozen generations or more!

Social Categories

Brennan: All the food nations have weird edge cases, so the delineations are DEFINITELY social and not biological/botanical. Pie people, a combination of grain, butter and fruit, are overwhelmingly Candian. In Calorum, these edge cases would be much like they are in our world, the result of historical wars of conquest, marriages, alliances, etc!

Genetic Complexity (from April 20, 2020 2:14pm ET)

Brennan: Popping in here like a goddamned troll to say that Calorans' DNA are powerfully influenced by more than just their parents genetics, but also by the geographical location of their conception, their gestation and even their childhood dwelling place up through puberty! I suspect that every question I answer only serves to raise further questions, for which I am deeply sorry!!

Other Monarchies in Calorum (May 6, 2020 5:40pm ET)

Brennan: Dairy Islands ALSO a monarchy, just doesn't confer the title of King or Queen to its monarch (uses Prince or Princess), also Ceresia HAS been a monarchy at times, has vacillated between Republic and Imperatorship MANY times, with some dynasties of Imperators lasting a dozen generations or more!

Queer Rights in Calorum (from May 18, 2020 8:23pm)

Brennan: Candia is the MOST permissive of all the nations in terms of most issues, but no nation in Calorum is openly homophobic. However, it's important to remember that archaic concepts like bloodlines, political marriage, heirs and primogentiure [sic], etc. still exist in this world, and are more emphasized and expected in nations outside of Candia, which puts a lot of pressure on the nobility from that end of the spectrum. In a weird way, that means peasants are a lot freer in terms of who and how they love and marry than aristocrats and especially royals, which there is also some interesting IRL research and precedent for!

Post-War Events (May 18, 2020 8:07pm ET)

I don't think any of these are spoilers, but Amethar and Caramelinda married shortly after the war ended. King Jadain died shortly after the war, after the establishment of the Concord!

Funeral Rites of Calorum's Faiths (May 18, 2020 8:04pm ET)

Bulbians practice burial and very formal funereal rites, and have a sharp delineation between body and spirit, so the body which is crass and material goes back into the ground, and the soul joins the Bulb. Meatlanders practice cremation, and have different beliefs based on religious affiliation, but most Great Beast faiths belief that an afterlife is EARNED through great deeds, otherwise you're reincarnated and get to try again!

[jeannereames]

Did Christianity change the perception of Alexander in a meaningful way?

Perhaps a bit surprisingly, the rise of Christianity didn’t really alter perceptions of Alexander that much, largely for two reasons.

First, imperial authors (both Greek and Latin) had already shaped those perceptions according to popular philosophic virtues—using Alexander as either an exempla of Bad Behavior or of Proper Restraint (or both, depending on the writer).

Second, in an attempt to gain acceptance, or at least tolerance, for Christianity among the larger Roman imperial public, some early Christian theologians began presenting Christianity as a form of philosophy (Justin Martyr and Origen are good examples, as well as Augustine later). Some non-Christian philosophers fought back directly (Celsus and Plotinus, most notably), and some Christian authors actively resisted this “philosophizing” of Christianity (Tertullian). Yet several philosophic ideas (and ideals) seeped into early Christian thought in ways that might have surprised Jesus.

Probably the most influential were Neoplatonism (thank you, Origen), and Stoicism. Notions of self-control, ataraxia (equilibrium), and asceticism folded into Christianity as early as Paul, but certainly by Justin Martyr (early/middle first century CE) and Origen (early second century CE). These then became part of Christian discourse. Christian Gnosticism, after all, is just a particular flavor of gnostic thought found throughout the Mediterranean and ancient near east. Gnosticism owes to Neoplatonism mixing with an influx of Persian and Hindu notions that had floated west even before Alexander but certainly accelerated after. (One could even debate to what degree Plato himself was influenced by eastern ideas; after all, philosophy was born in Asia Minor with Thales & Friends, then bypassed mainland Greece for a bit to land in Sicily and south Italy. Athens was a johnny-come-lately to the party.)

In any case, “Alexander” had already been firmly situated in philosophic and rhetorical discourse in ways that were easily adopted and adapted by Church theologians. He remained a negative example of anger and worldly ambition, and a positive one of (military) leadership and physical (especially sexual) restraint.

One might point to the elimination of Alexander’s bisexual interests as Christianizing, but that’s too simple. We already find Roman literature headed that way. Romans had mixed receptions of “Greek love,” even when expressed “properly” between older men and younger boys/male slaves. It’s Roman Curtius who gives us the very negative impact of the eunuch Bagoas as part of the larger depiction of Alexander corrupted by Eastern (Asian) influence. It’s also Curtius, however, who gives us clues to other (freeborn) boys who may have been Alexander’s beloveds, but always presented in coded language as “favorites.” There’s more to say about that, but it depicts pretty well, imo, the Roman mixed mind on the matter. Also, Plutarch’s presentation of Alexander’s indignation when offered pretty boys is, even now, used by those who want to deny Alexander’s interest in males. While we can quibble over exactly what Plutarch meant Alexander to object to (it’s important to contextualize where this anecdote appears), it’s certainly not the open praise of beautiful boys found in, say, the poetry of Solon.

None of that is Christian.

Also—and conversely—we find several Renaissance-and-later paintings that depict Hephaistion and Alexander, some homoeroticized, such as the tapestry made from LeBrun’s sketch of Alexander taking leave of Hephaistion (by kissing him). Yes, kissing was a normal hello and goodbye, but the overtones are, imo, intentional.

It’s really not until the latter 1800s that Hephaistion starts to disappear from ATG discourse as heightened homophobic fears require him to be excised from Alexander’s narrative to protect the conqueror from THOSE allegations. Yes, that’s related to Christianity, but I’d argue it’s more about rising homophobia in Europe, even if Christianity is used as the excuse—just as slavery pre-existed Christianity, but Christianity was later employed to justify its continuation.

So, perhaps surprisingly, no, Christianity didn’t significantly alter popular consciousness of Alexander.

I’m not a specialist on the Alexander Romance, but it’s here you’d find more obvious Christianizing, and Islamizing, as well. Look up the work of Richard Stoneman on the Romance. Also checkout Ken Moore’s Brill's Companion to the Reception of Alexander the Great.

[whencyclopedia]

Embattled Nation: Canada's Wartime Election of 1917

In the midst of one of the most turbulent periods in Canada’s history, Patrice Dutil and David Mackenzie delve into what they deem as the most significant and tumultuous elections since confederation. Their work, 'Embattled Nation: Canada’s Wartime Election of 1917 ', meticulously explores the 1917 election between Conservative leader Sir Robert Borden and the Liberal opposition of Sir Wilfred Laurier.  

Patrice Dutil and David MacKenzie provide a detailed and well-researched account of Canada's political and social landscape during World War I, focusing on the 1917 election and the issue of conscription. The book is commendable for its extensive use of evidence and meticulous documentation of events, offering readers a thorough understanding of the period's complexities. Their use of diary entries and personal accounts from Borden, Laurier, and those around them gives a sense of authenticity to the events being described. The book also provides a thorough context for the period with extensive maps, statistics, election information, and statistics of the war effort that effectively paint the scene of 1917. Finally, this book helpfully contextualizes the existing linguistic and cultural divides between French and English Canada which would aid readers greatly in future discussions.

However, despite its solid evidentiary foundation, the book falls short in convincingly arguing that the 1917 election was the most contentious in Canadian history and that it nearly saw the collapse of the confederation. The authors emphasize the deep divisions between English and French Canadians and describe how conscription became a central and divisive issue. Yet, they also acknowledge that there was majority support for the Union government and conscription, which complicates their argument about the election nearly breaking up the country.

Portraying the election as a moment that almost led to the dissolution of Canada seems somewhat overstated. While the authors provide ample evidence of French-Canadian opposition and the resulting social unrest, they do not fully reconcile this with the broader national support for the Union government and the conscription policy. This oversight weakens their central thesis about the election's unparalleled contentiousness. While it is true that perhaps this election did deepen the divide between French and English Canada, it did not do so to the extent to which one could say that the country was near collapse, at least not with the way this book presented its evidence.

While it is true, by the provided evidence, that much of French Canada vehemently opposed conscription, they did not oppose the country as a whole, with a referendum to succeed, having only marginal support and never actually making it to a vote on the Quebec parliamentary floor. There were indeed protests and riots during the time. Still, they were fed by feelings of alienation and betrayal by the Borden government, not the Confederation, with Laurie receiving much support from French Canada. It is accurate to say that both the Liberal and Conservative governments were almost torn apart, yet, in the end, both parties survived relatively unscathed under the united leadership of Laurier and Borden, respectively.

Patrice Dutil is a Professor in Toronto Metropolitan University's Politics and Public Administration Department while David Mackenzie is a Professor in the university's History Department. Overall, Embattled Nation is a valuable resource for understanding the political dynamics of wartime Canada and the cultural rift between English and French Canadians. It provides an often unexplored context to the First World War in Canada, giving insight into the French-English divide, one of Canada's most prevailing conflicts. To understand the impacts of the First World War on Canada, one must first understand how the war impacted the home front. However, its assertion that the 1917 election was the most divisive in Canadian history could have been more convincingly articulated, given the authors' admissions of widespread support for the Union government and conscription from a majority part of the Country. Perhaps refining the thesis to focus more on the French-English connection rather than the election itself with an increased focus on the protests and riots would make for an overall more convincing argument. Meanwhile, it is accurate to say that the 1917 election was pushed by issues surrounding conscription; the election itself was fairly unanimous thanks to the political maneuvering by the Borden government. With more focus on those aspects and a closer examination of the reactions to said maneuverings, the argument that this period in Canadian history was the most tumultuous becomes more evident and more convincing.

Continue reading...

[favvn]

Jim Kirk / The Conscience of the King / Tarsus IV Masterpost

As someone who enjoys digging into the details of Star Trek TOS and writes meta posts so that I can better understand the characters, especially Jim Kirk at the moment, I am compiling this for easy browsing and to be a resource for anyone else who may need it. This post includes background information on Tarsus IV and the episode The Conscience of the King, the 1967 Writer's Guide, and my own posts that use Tarsus IV as a lens for viewing Jim Kirk.

This will probably continue to be updated as I make my way through my first viewing of the show. Tarsus IV is something that enables endless re-contextualization for Star Trek TOS episodes in my opinion, and it took me a whole month after first seeing The Conscience of the King to start realizing what Kirk's past means for his present.

1967 Writer's Guide: (Text in alt; link is to a pdf)

Transcript of The Conscience of the King (archived link)

Tarsus IV, a planet inhabited by colonists from Earth, originally under the leadership of Starfleet

It is estimated that Jim Kirk lived on Tarsus IV at the age of 13 and survived the upheavals of a revolution, famine, and massacre of half of the colonists. It is unclear if the famine predated the revolution or vice versa, so this is left to the audience to decide. It is also unclear if the "exotic fungus" that infected the crops and destroyed the food supply was a natural occurrence or a manmade one. What is clear is that Kodos seized power during the revolution, Tarsus IV's food supply was so limited that rations were running out, and he chose to kill 4,000 colonists that he deemed fit to die in order to allow the chosen 4,000 to live.

While it was cut from the finished script of The Conscience of the King, Jim Kirk originally lived with his father on the colony until Kodos killed George Kirk for refusing to join him in the revolution. Jim Kirk witnesses this murder according to the same early draft.

Jim Kirk was selected by Kodos to die. He remembers the exact words of the death summons 20 years later but survives along with eight others. The exact nature of how Kirk and the others survived is unclear and left to the audience to develop on their own. But he is one of “nine eyewitnesses who survived the massacre who’d actually seen Kodos with their own eyes," as stated in The Conscience of the King.

Jim Kirk: Life and Death after Tarsus IV a parallel post that compiles how Tarsus IV has impacted Kirk's sense of mortality and how he has continued living in spite of it

Tarsus IV + SINNER REPENT something of a long-belated alternative to my initial post about The Naked Time's wall writing

Jim Kirk: Victim/Survivor or Barbarian/Monster At the time I made the post, I refrained from adding a caption, but that's the gist of my thought process

The Conscience of the King + Mirror, Mirror a post that looks at the mirrored dialogue between the Tarsus IV massacre committed by Kodos that Jim Kirk survived and the Vega IX massacre committed by Mirror Jim Kirk

The Conscience of the King: A Closer Look at Tools and Humanity a meta post analyzing how Kodos and Kirk view tools and what their views reveal about their own humanity

The Terror of Violence a parallel/web weave post about how Jim Kirk can only accept violence if the one who uses it experiences pain and anguish as a result (in other words, a painless death is not the result of mercy, but a suppression of mercy and the desensitization of emotions); in a similar vein, the parallels between how Kirk rejects vengeance in both The Conscience of the King and A Taste of Armageddon

Tools and Humanity a post that combines Georges Bataille's argument that work and the tools created for work inhibits humankind's urge for violence alongside A Taste of Armageddon and The Conscience of the King

Jim Kirk and The Enterprise a post that examines what the Enterprise means for Kirk in light of Lenore Karidian telling him, "You are like your ship--powerful and not human."

Jim Kirk and Lenore Karidian's first meeting a post that looks at how the plot of Macbeth mirrors the plot to The Conscience of the King and the roles Kirk and Lenore play

[horizon-verizon]

You’re a whole coon, of course Rhaenyra hates women, especially Black women, she tried to murder a 16 years-old Black girl, slut shamed her, called her racial slurs, and linked Nettles “ugliness/attractiveness” to her Blackness. Rhaenyra literally acted like a pathetic pick me in regard to Daemon and Nettles. If given the chance, Rhaenyra would have enslaved her. TB must truly despise Daenerys to compare her to Rhaenyra, they couldn’t be more different. (The way Rhaenyra is never mentioned in Dany’s chapters and GRRM has never discussed them in conjunction with the other, finally y’all can thanks HOTD for turning her into a progressive and flawless Mary Sue).

And really an insanely privileged white woman dying after putting a bounty on a lowborn Black’s girl head should be a good thing right ? We just gon have to celebrate Rhaenyra death with Nettles.

If you say so, anon, I guess I'm a straight up coon. 🤷🏿‍♀️

I suppose arguing how no one can be a feminist in a medieval world is coonish. I guess that pointing out how unconstructive it is to go "she wasn't a feminist so we shouldn't care about any possible effect her coming into power like the men before and after her have been able to will have an effect on other noble women's power to maybe implement some pro-women stuff in their own domains" to us analyzing why/how Rhaenyra is important to the history of Westeros and Daenerys is coonish.

I guess it's coonish of me to flout so many non-Nettles arguments of Rhaenyra's supposed bad leadership and amorality not once, but TWICE (that I remember), where it clearly just veers into straight up sexism: HERE and HERE....thus coming into why I even bother defending Rhaenyra (in some points).

It's not like I haven't already wrote several time in several posts how Rhaenyra's trying to get Nettles' head reveals much about the Targ-Andal paradigm she grows up in and tries to use to bolster herself through her going after Nettles to the end. It's not like I don't see how essentially different Daenerys and Rhaenyra are as people through the Nettles event as well as how they grow up and come into their positions of power and how/why they desire those roles:

It's not like I haven't already written about the Black Jezebel stereotype at least three times, including on Twitter and here. It's not like I have defended Nettles not just from "dettles" stans but also from people who call themselves Rhaenyra stans while bashing on Nettles and Mysaria, totally misunderstanding both characters and what even a supporting character is.

But sure, I'm a coon bc I don't want to ignore the journey of Rhaenyra's downfall and make distinct where she decided to destroy another woman vs her being the victim. Sure, I'm a whole coon.

And for the last fucking time, "compare" does not always or only mean "these two things are exactly alike and I will show you how"! "Comparison" analyses means that you will list out what traits or developments two things have, what inspirations, and see how they differ and how they don't. And through such a process, you will find out how many and how well/or not these two or more things are alike and how.

For Dany and Rhaenyra, I never said these girls/women were the same person. I said that both women, as women in male-designated positions of power, have to deal with people in world AND out of world must contend with misogynist feelings towards of their not deserving power or leadership on account of their gender, no matter what sort of characterization either had BECAUSE even with the main series not being like F&B, not being a history book, PEOPLE IN THE FANDOM STILL TEND TO MISREAD OR TWIST DANY'S ACTIONS AGAINST HER CHARACTER AND GRRM'S INTENT. Rhaenyra is meant to contextualize that very experience into a real event of catastrophe, she was set against ever since she was 10 bc she was female and another, older woman wanted power denied to her directly bc she was a woman. This is a fact, you nor I can change that. There is a difference between what we learn from the events to make the conclusions of who should rule ideally and what we should shoot for VERSUS thinking of the situation at hand for what it would have been like for the character.

F&B (having been written after the main series) continues even this "analysis" phenomenon; what do people choose to believe when it's a woman at the center of their stories?! No matter her real circumstances or their knowledge of things not present in their understanding of the world and of history?

I also mention, several times, how it is here, Rhaenyra's end, where the Targs lose their dragons because they have assimilated into the intenser patriarchal paradigm already mentioned to the point where they weakened their women's positions by denying them their autonomy and political powers...which plot sequence wise leads to the end of the dynasty as whole and Dany's exile. I'm must be a coon to not want Nettles, a 17 year old, to fuck a 50 year old, esp with her being his bio daughter. No, anon, I am too repulsed with direct vertical incest (parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, etc.).

Then there is how the Bloodstone Emperor and the Amethyst Empress and how the former usurped tha latter and plunged the entire world into mythological "darkness"--thus leading up to the importance of the Azor Ahai, aka Dany, directly seems to reflect how another brother--Aegon II--usurped his older sister--Rhaenrya--and thus the world loses a strong magical tool against darkness "dragons". An obvious link....

In fact, I tend to repeat how different they are as people! There's this whole thread talking abt the very thing I despise abt some critiques of Rhaenyra. I even say many times that Rhaenyra couldn't have the throne after the Nettles letter, that at that point, there needed a "refresh". Up until then, there was simply more reason for us to not think her a real terror except for maybe Addam and Alyn. But I have my misgivings there and it comes down to timing and grief.

No, Rosby and Stokeworth do not count and why? I already wrote why, but for someone who doesn't stan Rhaenyra or is not a fan of hers but actually stans just Daenerys--the previous ozymalek says:

I have myself said several times how I disliked how they rewrote show1Rhaenyra to make her a much less assertive version of herself, and I agree with others how they made her female-friendless. No matter how amoral or moral she was, similarly to Dany, people have written her sexistly in the show. I believe that this is CENTRAL to the point of F&B, how people refuse to see the point of it.

Finally, I really don't see how the hell show!Rhaenyra even is a Mary Sue or a NLOG, bc for the first, she displays no skill she excels over others at. A Mary Sue is:

Show!Rhaenyra, for some reason, seems "perfect" to some people. Esp with Luke saying so in epi 8. I never felt that way, I always thought she (older, not younger) was too meek and that is her great flaw---due to the sexist writing, but if kept at face value, that's the great flaw. Other definition: Who is inserting themselves into her character on the show? you got proof?

A NLOG (not like the other girls) is a Cersei like character who goes out of their way to destroy/diminish most women who are competitors for their power or destroy any semblance of socially-defined femininity and socially-coded feminine "weakness" so as to appeal to the male authority and get privileges. Problem is that EVERY SINGLE FEMALE MONARCH AND WOMAN IN SOME SORT OF AUTHORITY OVER MEN IN EVERY SINGLE PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY had to convince their male supporters that they were the one they should follow to some degree more than any male heir or candidate--during a time where they had to either fight for their "birthright" or they were planning coups (Catherine the Great), came into power through some accident, or whatnot--that their rule was in it for them. There is no pattern of woman-hating or self-hating to define Rhaenyra as a NLOG, where she consistently tries. NLOGs tend to hate women even in their own "race" or group for perceived acts of upheaval and destabilizing their positions of power. Alicent was and she uses misogyny to do so, so Alicent is not Rhaenyra's victim; other way around. Rhaenyra has all reason to despise Alicent, justified even. It's more than the positions, it's the whole targeting since 10 deal and trying to espouse Rhaenyra's inherent unworthiness for power.

So Rhaenyra deciding to do the Rosby/Stokeworth bit is her seeing how her greatest ally, a sexist man, has basically all her ships during wartime and insisting she does not give those girls their father's seats is Rhaenyra choosing wrongly, yes, but something I don't think that you or a small number of women would bow under considering the other shit she was going through. Yes, even black/PoC women. Again, this is not about Nettles but about women vs women (yes with them all being white or white-adjacent) bc I know that this will be the next thing some will say as a counterargument to what I'm saying here.

You are correct, however, in how similar Rhaenyra's behavior abt Nettles is pick-me-ish and NLOG concerning her intent to turn Daemon back to her and how this was her seeing Nettles as competition for "control" over Daemon, who was one of her principal military commands as well as her romantic partner...and like i said once before, this is a reflection on how this Andal-Targ patriarchal paradigm makes its own female "terrors" through misogyny. To ignore the process is to endanger its justified repetition. Yeah, Rhaenyra ends up becoming like Alicent in that way after the consistent losses, and I mean defaulting back to destroying another woman for a simulation of power. This doesn't mean that she was a feminist or that she didn't intend on using the Black Jezebel reasoning to get rid of "competition" to feel more in control. It does mean that her behavior reveals her enmeshment in the xenophobic, aristocratic, patriarchal Targ-Andal feudalist paradigm that she chooses to use to, again, construct more feelings of power at a time where she seemed to feel she was losing more and more--after the betrayals and the deaths of her sons in that moment. And yet if there is anything to be extracted from her narrative it is how that built-in classism (the companion and parent of racism) can become the thing these women default onto to retrieve/gain the agency & power denied to them. I believe this is also where you can draw a core similarity to Cersei, who is rather the starkest extreme example of that classism making up for her internalized misogyny through her Lannister Exceptionalism.

The discourse has to include how we, the readers, over-blame Rhaenyra for things she has either very little control over or what she had no control over and for trying to, again, assert herself (before Nettles). She's a reflection of her times and situation; doesn't mean she isn't still a victim. You don't need to like her. I never asked for people to do so. I don't care if you do or not, I've never needed that. Just don't lie or twist information or ignore clear patterns GRRM establishes that are also important, or try to erase the lines of harm done to her and undo the work GRRM is doing to point out this pattern of misogyny that contextualizes one very key aspect of Dany's journey: sexism doesn't care how good or classist you are, you are a woman so you will be subject to disenfranchisement, distortion of facts, and destruction...if you are not like Dany, who intuitively and "rationally" discovers lanes of power while reintegrating her being to the natural process and relationships between herself and her dragons for the ecological benefit of the entire world (the Others, again). Unlike Rhaenyra, Dany doesn't fall into the ideological "trap" or the noblewoman's save-grace of exploiting of lowborn people AND dragons but intelligently seeks other non-exploitative ways to use her dragons and those inspired by he bravery. This again, does not erase or override the sexism and specific elements of gender politics that tie these two together.

It's a paradox, not a contradiction.

[tobiasdrake]

Oh wow, they take Sokka way too seriously in this first episode.

They're trying to present him as a stern, dignified, and responsible leadership figure. We've lost the tragic absurdity of Sokka overcompensating for the harsh reality of being, like, the only warrior this village has at an age much too young for such a responsibility.

Instead, he's just kind of a dick. Because the comedic shenanigans that simultaneously undercut him while also accentuating his tragedy are gone.

Katara and Aang are working for me, but a lot of Sokka's character is wrapped up in the juxtaposition of him being supremely self-assured but contextually a weenie. And when you take out his weenieness, it just doesn't work.

They Manosphered muh boy.

[iturbide]

*reads tags on the last post*

...ok but now I'm actually curious about your issues with TOTK👀

okay so to be per, fectly clear: Tears of the Kingdom is a really fun game. I've been playing a lot of it, aimlessly wandering around, exploring the Depths, finding shrines, doing side quests, and so on. At this point I've cleared the four regional quests, a bonus mainline quest I wasn't supposed to know about yet I found the shrine early and had enough hearts to open the door, what can I say, I'm curious, I have the Master Sword, and I think most of what's left is armor upgrades and wrapping up the main story.

But also I have been spoiled since the game came out about what's in store and boy do I see a lot of similar narrative issues to my gripes with Fire Emblem.

So we might as well start off small with how TotK actively rewrites its history in ways that are even more extreme than Skyward Sword. Skyward Sword introduced Hylia and Demise as concepts, with Hylia inheriting the Triforce from the Golden Goddesses of Din, Nayru, and Farore and tasked with protecting it, while Demise appeared as a demonic entity intent on taking that power for himself. As of Skyward Sword, Zelda was written as the mortal reincarnation of Hylia, thereby retroactively contextualizing her powers. The Triforce has been a power source sought after and fought over through every prior entry in the series, and even though BotW didn't make outright reference to it, the Triforce was clearly present on Zelda's hand when her powers awakened and appeared in full when she sealed Calamity Ganon at the end of the game.

And Tears of the Kingdom does away with it completely.

Hylia is mentioned as the only goddess. The Golden Goddesses aren't referred to at all. There is no Triforce at all, it's instead been replaced by the Zonai 'Secret Stones' even in the ancient past, despite the fact that we saw the Triforce at the end of the last game. It was right there. Zelda is also no longer the reincarnation of the goddess: instead her powers are re-explained as being the product of the historic marriage between the Zonai Sage of Light and the Hylian Sage of Time, giving her command over both (but she's considered only the Sage of Time for some reason?).

Also, BotW pretty heavily implied that Hyrule was a matriarchy: it's the queens and princesses who have the sacred power, so it stands to reason that Zelda's mother was actually the one in charge of Hyrule before her death, and the king only stepped into the leadership role on a temporary basis until Zelda came into her powers (hence that pointed "heir to a throne of nothing but failure" remark in one of the memories). But despite there being a Hylian queen right there in the ancient past, the game firmly establishes that Rauru is the one with the power, and Sonia is just his consort, a priestess who he chose to marry.

And then there's the Shiekah. Throughout all of BotW we were surrounded by these amazing machines, ancient technology crafted by the Shiekah and unearthed in working condition after a myriad in the ground which are still running and wreaking havoc a hundred years after the Calamity. We start the game in a Shiekah Shrine that literally saved Link's life and allowed him to recover from what should have been fatal wounds, though it did take a hundred years to do so.

And all of that is gone in TotK. Not a trace of it remains: the shrines have all been wiped from the face of the earth, the Divine Beasts are nowhere to be found, the Shiekah Towers have evaporated into thin air -- and the shrine that saved our lives is completely gone, replaced by a hot spring. It still bears the name of the Shrine of Awakening, but none of the miraculous technology remains.

Personally, the idea that either Purah or Zelda would consider the Skyview Towers worthy of dismantling that Shrine completely shatters my suspension of disbelief. They're both scientists: they should want to study all of that in detail to understand how it works, not destroy it for glitchy impersonations of the old towers I hate the Skyview Tower miniquests so much.

(Let me tell you, it was absolutely chilling for me to get to Rito Village and see an empty place where I clearly remembered there being a shrine. The Shiekah presence in history has basically been wiped out in TotK outside of Kakariko Village, and I don't like what that says considering that the Shiekah were also victims of a genocide by the ancient king of Hyrule.)

And then there's the imperialism. I have my issues with Three Houses and every ending needing Fodlan to be united under a single banner, though it's most egregious in CF where Edelgard's stated purpose is returning Fodlan to its proper state unified under the Imperial Standard. TotK is worse. There have been some excellent breakdowns of the narrative implications, touching on everything from the loaded imagery and black-and-white narrative purpose of Ganondorf and the Gerudo (dark-skinned evil desert dwellers who oppose the good and glorious worshipers of the goddess...where have I heard that before...) to the game showing outright that the other races of Hyrule were treated as lesser vassals in the ancient past (the Sages being masked and therefore erasing their individual identities, receiving the Secret Stones that Rauru had been hoarding only when Rauru needed help to fight Ganondorf and thereupon swearing their very lives and the lives of their people to him and his empire???). They're great analyses, they've been living in my brain for weeks.

But I think the thing that I'm most mad about is that the narrative bends over backwards to keep anything from changing. At the start of the game, Link's arm is so badly damaged by the Gloom that he nearly dies and he spends the rest of the game with Rauru's arm in place of his own...but then, in the end, he magically gets his original arm back no worse for the wear. Zelda, in an attempt to empower and restore the Master Sword, turns herself into a dragon, a process that we are told outright in the narrative will cause her to lose herself and is therefore irreversible...but then, in the end, she magically returns to her human form thanks to her ghost ancestors somehow reversing this supposedly irreversible process. And on top of all that, Hyrule itself is exactly the same when all is said and done: there's no change to the power structures, no independence for the other races who choose to come together in the spirit of cooperation like we saw at Tarrey Town -- instead, the four Sages once again swear their support and fealty to the Princess of Hyrule.

Personally? I like a narrative where the characters and the world change over the course of it. That's one of the things that I thought was so meaningful about BotW: while most of the gameplay takes place in the present, the true start of the game is 100 years in the past, allowing us to see how the Calamity affected Hyrule, the devastation it wrought and the continued struggles of those who survived through the century that followed. We end the game with Zelda once more free, where she had been locked in combat with the Calamity; with the spirits of the Champions at peace, where they had been trapped by the Blight within the Divine Beasts; and with Hyrule finally at peace and beginning to recover now that the Calamity has been sealed away. I still think it's ridiculous that they don't actually show any of Link's scars in the game (especially since we are at one point forced to strip to prove that we are who we say we are, and they say point blank I would recognize those scars anywhere when there are no fucking scars), but at least things have changed over the course of the narrative!

But nothing changes in TotK. The status quo remains untouched and unquestioned. And it just feels...bad to me. Insincere, maybe. Unrealistic, sterilized, manufactured. It's a narrative that says there's nothing to question, that everything going back to the way it always was is the right and proper way of things, because clearly the Hyrule Empire is the right and proper rule. And I just don't like that.

[sourcreammachine]

LABOUR PARTY MANIFESTO 2024 SUMMARY ie, the agenda of the party that'll win

tldr: Milton Keynes, by which i mean it's keynesianism but really boring. it's the principle of keynes, but with its ambitions scaled so far back that it no longer even qualifies as social democracy

you’ve probably heard that they want to increase spending without increasing tax. the theory goes that state investments reap dividends — the deficits you run will grow the economy, so your dividends will go up, so debts will always be repaid. this how this manifesto can justify being so scant on revenue-raising, the existing sources of revenue should automatically reap more over time

but, keynesianism is very fundamentally sociodemocratic. state expenditure goes to big-ticket economic infrastructure to improve AND to public services, to improve health and wealth, which serves to grow the economy further – a slightly cold but contextually understandable framing for the fact that stamping out poverty and delivering vital public services is a moral imperative and a good thing

this wheezy manifesto fails in all that, fundamentally. there are spending plans for public services but they are tiny compared to the big-ticket economic investments. it's keynesian theory in liberal practice, and i say that derogatorily. it's the same neoliberal system with the smallest yank back towards un-neo liberalism to try to save it from itself

literally, in the Innsmouth debate last week starmer was asked why he wouldn't raise taxes on high-earners to fund the beleaguered public services that've been crushed and broken, and starmer gave a coward's answer, saying it wasn't the right thing to do, in the poorest town in the country, in front of an audience of fishpeople, not an audience of aristocrats and six-figure salarymen

which serves my point. this isn't a manifesto of enlightened, committed socioliberalism, far from it: this is a manifesto of cowardice. rumours suggested it could've been about 30 pages long, around a third of the typical length. and while it's not that short, it's been padded to hell and back with justifications, waffle, and masses of promises with no policy to make them so. even objectively non-economic policy is anaemic, with scant plans for reform, scant plans for social policy, and scant plans for anything

labour alleges it's plan is to decentralise power and end the autophagic hypercentralist leadership. but no, that couldn't be further from the truth. sir kid starver is running for president. he wants a blank cheque. he wants the right to make decisions. he "changed the labour party" to centralise power to override internal power controls, and not because he's an evil scheming autocrat, but because he has zero faith in democracy. they are the decisionmakers. they are the governors. participatory democracy is impossible, shut up and do your job: putting them in power

it’s also the only manifesto i’ve found a typo in, on page 125. naughty naughty

💷ECONOMY

LITERALLY NO TAX PROPOSALS

abolish nondoms and 'end the use of offshore trusts'

restore the industrial strategy council quango with legal authorities

make the independent minimum wage commission 'account for the cost of living', maybe raising it one maybe two bob idk, and abolish the age bands so everyone gets the adult wage

ban zerohour contracts, ban fire-rehire, strengthen rights to to sick pay, parental leave and protections from unfair dismissal

extend the oil/gas windfall tax for five more years, raise it by three percent, and close loopholes

"people who can work should work, and there will be consequences for those who do not fulfil their obligations"

reform the work capability assessment system, though based on above, it'll be to get more and quicker rejections

not increase the internationally tiny business tax for the entire parliament, letting the invisible hand wank everyone off

more registration/reportage requirements at HMRC, tactical focus on the tax avoidance of corporations and the rich [which like, aint that how it's supposed to be already?]

unify employment law / workers' protections authorities into a single enforcement body, "we will strengthen the collective voice of workers, including through their trade unions" [clarification needed]

programme to get under-21 neets into free training or work programmes with a focus on mental health

£7b centralised national wealth fund for economic investment including automotive gigafactories and steel

new state energy company, long an ephemeral promise of theirs, now confirmed to be backend-only, responsible for building and maintaining infrastructures, while the private companies remain responsible for selling the electricity to the people

remove planning restrictions on datacentres

strengthen Equality Act regulations for gender, racial and disability pay imbalances, increasing workers' ability to sue the pants off their employers

create a regulatory innovation office to coordinate new regulations for rapidly moving economic sectors, ie big tech, with a specific pledge to introduce 'binding regulation on the handful of companies developing the most powerful ai models”

aim to double the size of the cooperative/mutual sector

turn a blind eye to the City just like all other major parties

🏥PUBLIC SERVICES

free breakfasts in primary schools, but not lunches

put misogyny on the curriculum

i mean like. teaching about misogyny. that it's bad

reform royal mail 'so that workers and customers can have a stronger voice', implying preventing its privatisation to that czech billionaire

found the national care service

recruit 8500 mental health staff, reform the mental health acts

6500 more 'expert' teachers [citation needed]

double the number of CT and MRI machines

'end HIV cases by 2030'. they won't do it tho

mental health professionals in every school

build a boatload of new inhouse integrated features into the NHS app, with an inhouse appointment system, local service referrals, vaccination reminders and a pool of personal medical guidelines and treatment information

convert some colleges into specialist technical colleges

3,000 "new" nurseries glued onto primary school sites

finally end the "charity" status of for-profit private schools to make private parents pay their fair share

ok, here's the bulk of labour's trans policy, and the unfortunate reason why i've chosen to list it under public services: they've pledged to reform the Gender Recognition system, per them, "to remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor". they continue with an equally cowardly statement to 'support the implementation of single-sex exceptions'. this is a coward's position because the labour leadership is terrified of the commentariat and the terf cult it stands by. that's also why there's a fleeting line to "implement the expert recommendations of the cass review". lmao, they should call him wes fleeting. truth is, they have no plan to reform gender recognition. the abolition of the transmedicalist clause is the minimum amount of feasible and meaningful reform that could have any sort of political momentum, but that minimum is over the line for the terfs and will cause commentariat outrage. the labour right has no ability to change the situation of trans people by staying on the fence, they'd have to commit to supporting the struggle for freedom — and their choice is to stay on the fence

reintroduce the age-gated fag ban, maybe raising it from 2006 to like 2008

limit the number of branded items of uniform schools can require

replace ofsted headline grades with a 'report card system', 'bring multi-academy trusts into the inspection system' but not abolish the indefensible MAT system

🏠HOUSING

ban no-fault evictions, introduce more powers for renters to challenge rent increases

reintroduce mandatory housebuilding targets, national target to build 1.5M in five years

abolish leaseholds, ban flat leaseholds and replace them with commonholds

scramble and deploy more planning officers to local councils, which are to keep stronger housebuilding plans, and with combined authorities given full power (and requirement) to plan and housebuild with their funding

reform compulsory purchase compensation laws to force the price of appropriations down to actual value rather than speculative value

explicit threat to nimby councils: "we will ensure local communities continue to shape housebuilding in their area, but where necessary [we] will not be afraid to make full use of intervention powers to build the houses we need"

prioritise brownfield development [clarification needed] but release and build on 'grey belt', their neologism for shit green belt that nobody wants

ensure social housing is central to the building scheme

ban new developments being sold to international buyers before construction ends, ie, slowing the hypergentrification of luxury districts, though possibly not fixing these areas or even doing enough to stop the trend

new New Towns, which'll be 'part of a series of large-scale new communities' [clarification needed]

🚄TRANSPORT

simply wait for the franchise-concession system to lapse, established in 2020 when the private franchise system collapsed, then give british rail the contracts as a single island-wide renationalised train operator with a unified consumer frontend

return to local councils the ability to franchise their own bus networks (ie, not centrally fund their doing so) and let them create their own unified travel networks (like the bee in Manchester)

expand freightrail

devolve to mayors rail british rail planning for their areas

restore the 2030 ban of new petrol cars, build more ev chargers

👮FORCE

raise defence spending to 2.5% GDP

points-based immigration system and restrict visas, ban employers who break migrant labour laws from hiring any migrant again, intelligence border command 'hundreds of new' officers to stamp down on desperate people wanting a better life, new home office unit for mass deportations

recognise palestine… but no commitment to do it immediately or unambiguously, only “as part of the process” etc etc etc. “push” for an immediate ceasefire

'Respect Orders', ASBOs 2, with power to ban people from entering town centres

'force' fly-tippers and 'vandals' to 'clean up the mess they have created'

mandatory referral to reoffending programmes for young people caught with knives

end the sengoku period by enacting katanagari

SVU in every police force, 'using tactics normally reserved for terrorists and organised crime

upgrade any and all hate crimes to aggravated offences, though not actually amend the definition. Brianna Ghey's slaughter was, under the letter of the current law, not a hate crime, despite one of her killers openly admitting to targeting her due to her being transgender

ban conversion therapy including for trans people

make spiking a specific criminal offence

extend protection against domestic violence in marriages to cohabitees

reduce relations with china

'build on the online safety act', not ruling out the potential for a bad internet bill

massive building of new prisons

"labour is committed to reducing gambling-related harm. recognising the evolution of the gambling landscape since 2005, labour will reform gambling regulation, strengthening protections. we will continue to work with the industry on how to ensure responsible gambling" is the entire section on gambling. don't get me wrong, this is scandalous. the country's gambling laws are lax beyond words and an international laughing stock. The House have not hidden their infiltration of the labour party lobbies - their biggest catch is probably Tom Watson, former deputy leader-turned-gambling lobbyist, who waged civil war on corbyn, founded the major caucus against him, and so commands major respect from the labour right MPs who'll be in the new government. this pathetic paragraph means The House can continue to demolish lives for the next five years at least and the public health emergency will continue to burn. i fucking BEG prime minister starmer to remove all equivocation from the first two sentences of this paragraph, and throw the third in the bin. a punt on the game, a night in the bingo hall, the lottery are all brilliant and beloved, but The House being let loose to make money on people's lives makes it an enemy of public health.

continue to be the american empire’s prettiest bitch

🌱CLIMATE

zero-carbon electricity by 2030**: quadruple offshore wind, triple solar, double onshore wind, rollout Small Modular Reactors

**two asterisks: first to maintain a 'strategic reserve' of gas stations for energy security, and second "ensure a phased and responsible transition" to not Thatcher the communities that're employed in gas. idk, it seems like you can't do that in six short years without a radical plan

commitment to upgrading the Grid (a long-looming problem), which may well push through projects that annoy the nimbys

no new licenses for oil extraction, no new coal licenses, permaban on fracking

three new national forests, plant millions of trees, expand protected wetlands, woodlands and Pete Boggs, seed new woodland

LEAVE WATER PRIVATE despite the shit situation (shituation), but ban bonuses of dumping bosses and criminalise repeat dumping

introduce a land-use framework for economical usage of land, a policy shared by the liberals

end the badger cull, ban trailhunting, ban trophy imports, ban puppy farming

🗳️DEMOCRACY

votes at sixteen

immediately evict all 92 hereditary Filth, but keep the 25 bishops

immediately introduce an 80-year age limit for the Filth, with evictions occurring at the end of the parliament the Filth turns 80. also introduce minimum attendance requirements, and eviction for rulebreaking. 308 of the 709 filth who aren't hereditary or bishops are 75 or older right now

"Whilst this action to modernise the House of [Filth] will be an improvement, Labour is committed to replacing the House of [Filth] with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them." okay. look. i know you're intelligent enough to see that this paragraph is just a get-out-of-jail-free card. president starmer has no plans to replace the Filth with democracy, because the patronage spoils system is too useful for his closed-door regime. that's also why there's nothing about electoral reform, the dumb bad stupid system simply serves him and regime-minded political operators too well. democracy is for chumps. end of story. sorry peasants

keep the indefensible voter id system

new council of all first ministers and mayors for some reason

more combined authorities, with devolution of transport, adult education, housing, and 'employment support', give the new CAs 'strong governance arrangements' and renew those of the existing ones so the CA areas have better governments

create a commons modernisation committee to modernise the commons' useless old practises, with its purview including replacing the pairing system with proxying

ban on MP second jobs in advisory or consultancy roles, task the (above) committee in restricting other second jobs, 'enforcing restrictions on ministers lobbying for the companies they used to regulate' [clarification needed]