#extremist discourse

[odiabonecessario]

I really appreciate actual discussions here, I really really do and I should thank everyone who spent their time showing me a different perspective without wanting to convince me I'm wrong. I'm always in a certain danger of falling for unfairly dehumanizing discourses like I did but meeting people (especially here) who genuinely tried to explain it to me without being cocky or assuming I'm trying to do evil still gives me a bit more hope we can improve as a society

[buckitweride]

This fandom is so funny (not affectionate). Any opposing takes on what happens in the show is constantly minimized to being a side effect of ship wars.

Oh, you don’t love the Bobby death arc and the way the show is handling the fallout? Must be because you’re a delusional bvddie truther.

Oh, you don’t like the tone departure from the past 7 seasons of no MCD precedent? Well that’s because you’re a fake fan who didn’t watch season 1 since Eddie wasn’t in it.

Oh, you’re not upset enough about Bobby dying? Well it’s because you only care about Tommy and are making the whole season about him.

Liiiiiike…. This fandom creates its own problems I stg. If you don’t seek out the extremists, then you’d see that normal fans across all shipping preferences have liked and disliked the current storyline in various measures.

Reducing absolutely all opinions regarding the show down to shipping preferences is 1) weird 2) unnecessarily reductive and 3) overly inflammatory for no reason.

[matt0044]

A video was made to generate thoughtful discussions rather than be "Avatar/Korra bad" and TheStoryteller's legit enough in my book. It's called:

Avatar’s Hidden Fear of Real Change

My take?

To me, Korra actually does take things away from her enemies. Amon's was a more personal one in how her resolve and confidence would be challenged in seasons to come. However, Unalaq would lead Korra to think that maybe the spirit portals should remain open and takes his points about the world losing connection with the spirits in its modern forms. Zaheer might've been bad about it buuuuuuut he still killed the Earth Queen (with a very real fallout) and forced Korra to reckon if the world needed, well, her.

Now Kuvira has a point about the potentially stolen land buuuuut it was meant to be a symbol of peace with the Earth Kingdom involved. Furthermore, she still rebuilt the Earth Kingdom into something very... dictatorial as the Earth Empire. Heck, Korra sparing her and talk her down once she was depowered feels like natural extension of Aang vs. Ozai.

Personally, I feel like the comics could stand to be adapted as a new season with us seeing Kuvira go free and reform herself but I digress.

Now in terms of writing and production crew, at the very worst, it's more the blind leading the blind. Blind to their potential biases and not so well aged attitudes. Fact of the matter is that none of us are as woke as we believe to be.

That's the benign truth. But even then, I still stand by my reading.

I think Korra’s stance is more, “Changes to the Status Quo will be ugly but necessary as they expose what needs to be rethought.” Amon’s takeover of Republic City led to them restructuring the council into a presidency, one with a non-bender who could see the perspectives of those Amon enamored.

However, that still led to an imperfect society with a president concerned with reputation and polls. Thus not the blanket solution as it may’ve felt.

Each villain after exposes something off about Korra’s era but they seek to overhaul the world overnight. The truth is that when society is this entrenched in these systems, a sudden revolution is going to cause a lot more problems in the aftermath. Kuvira’s Earth Empire was a knock off effect from Zaheer’s killing of the Earth Queen after all.

Maybe it’s the recent years but I’ve come to realize that there won’t be a neat and tidy society reform that will be all happily ever after. Prejudices linger like a bad stain and while it’s important to get it out, it may not be for many generations until it gets out.

Whole reason why Trump was ever nominated was because he spoke to the people who didn’t like how things were changing like legalized gay marriages and more scrutiny put on cops post-Ferguson. He spoke to those who wanted to say the quiet part outloud.

But is it really portraying the systems and status quos as a full on good thing as some try to claim if corruption is still present?

In Season 1, we have the corrupt Tarrlok and the rather complicit council. Especially with how he had the police be more hard on non-benders out past curfew who weren't causing any harm. While one can make the argument they don't do more with it (time limits on episodes aside for now), there is an acknowledgement that he's using the corruption in Republic City's flawed systems.

At best, the show doesn't portray change as impossible but really hard and how the anger it inspires can be taken advantage of. It shows the systems maybe in too neutral of a light but Avatar Korra has frequently been shown to fly in the face of authority:

-going vigilante on the Triads and getting arrested for it.

-Going against Tarrlok, especially when her friends are arrested because of it.

-Defying the Earth Queen's authority and freeing the airbenders even if her laws permit her to do with them as she wishes.

My read on her character post-Book 1 is that she's "play by the rules unless said rules are bullshit." As Avatar, she learns that she has to be responsible more during social unrest but that doesn't mean that she'll stand by if she's needed.

I don't deny that a story about industrialization in Avatar's world would be worth exploring. But that feels like a conudrum that the Gaang had to contend with well before Korra's time with how the comics show the gears of industry spreading out of the Fire Nation.

See, the mistake people make about Amon is that he's less a civil leader and more a cult leader taking advantage of non-benders' discontent. He believes in his own hype but he sees himself as king of the castle and all others as his loyal subjects. Even so, the Equalists do what they do out of a desire to change things. Hence, why the reveal of Noatak's bending dissolved his cult of personality.

There's also how Zaheer and Kuvira are shown as two sides of the same coin with anarchism and fascism. Varrick represent capitalism and he only ever remotely becomes a "good guy" when he's stripped of his fortune, escaping Republic City to start over in Zaofu.

I could reccommend a video essay I like but honestly, I recommend returning to the show proper. It's there on Netflix if you got it. I think people, be they blind Korra haters or critics that are a bit more honest, haven't truly sat with the show with a rewatch. It's worth really seeing what the show overall is saying for oneself.

I also feel that some underestimate how much East-Asian culture in infused in the show. Though Bryan and Mike are caucasian, they've very much worked to make sure they respect the culture that Avatar's world is inspired by. It's worth delving into the behind the scenes info. The artbook's cool.

[theirloveisgross]

.

[sammydem0n64]

I hope if we get a Kitakami movie or anime arc that it extends the “Guys should we like Pecharunt and the Loyal Three” debates. I love this discourse. It’s a fucking Berry and three animals who just so happened to kill a man once

[janusfranc15]

I’m going to reblgo your tags as well as this post, if that’s alright.

Your commentary is very insightful! And yes. As a British person I was primarily exposed to Puritans via The Smashings, and banning of Christmas. Good to know there’s more to it.

Why People Are Wrong About the Puritans of the English Civil War and New England

Oh well, if you all insist, I suppose I can write something.

(oh good, my subtle scheme is working...)

Introduction:

So the Puritans of the English Civil War is something I studied in graduate school and found endlessly fascinating in its rich cultural complexity, but it's also a subject that is popularly wildly misunderstood because it's caught in the jaws of a pair of distorted propagandistic images.

On the one hand, because the Puritans settled colonial New England, since the late 19th century they've been wrapped up with this nationalist narrative of American exceptionalism (that provides a handy excuse for schoolteachers to avoid talking about colonial Virginia and the centrality of slavery to the origins of the United States). If you went to public school in the United States, you're familiar with the old story: the United States was founded by a people fleeing religious persecution and seeking their freedom, who founded a society based on social contracts and the idea that in the New World they were building a city on a hill blah blah America is an exceptional and perfect country that's meant to be an example to the world, and in more conservative areas the whole idea that America was founded as an explicitly Christian country and society. Then on the other hand, you have (and this is the kind of thing that you see a lot of on Tumblr) what I call the Matt Damon-in-Good-Will-Hunting, "I just read Zinn's People's History of the United States in U.S History 101 and I'm home for my first Thanksgiving since I left for colleg and I'm going to share My Opinions with Uncle Burt" approach. In this version, everything in the above nationalist narrative is revealed as a hideous lie: the Puritans are the source of everything wrong with American society, a bunch of evangelical fanatics who came to New England because they wanted to build a theocracy where they could oppress all other religions and they're the reason that abortion-banning, homophobic and transphobic evangelical Christians are running the country, they were all dour killjoys who were all hopelessly sexually repressed freaks who hated women, and the Salem Witch Trials were a thing, right?

And if anyone spares a thought to examine the role that Puritans played in the English Civil War, it basically short-hands to Oliver Cromwell is history's greatest monster, and didn't they ban Christmas?

Here's the thing, though: as I hope I've gotten across in my posts about Jan Hus, John Knox, and John Calvin, the era of the Reformation and the Wars of Religion that convulsed the Early Modern period were a time of very big personalities who were complicated and not very easy for modern audiences to understand, because of the somewhat oblique way that Early Modern people interpreted and really believed in the cultural politics of religious symbolism. So what I want to do with this post is to bust a few myths and tease out some of the complications behind the actual history of the Puritans.

Did the Puritans Experience Religious Persecution?

Yes, but that wasn't the reason they came to New England, or at the very least the two periods were divided by some decades. To start at the beginning, Puritans were pretty much just straightforward Calvinists who wanted the Church of England to be a Calvinist Church. This was a fairly mainstream position within the Anglican Church, but the "hotter sort of Protestant" who started to organize into active groups during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I were particularly sensitive to religious symbolism they (like the Hussites) felt smacked of Catholicism and especially the idea of a hierarchy where clergy were a better class of person than the laity.

So for example, Puritans really first start to emerge during the Vestments Controversy in the reign of Edward VI where Bishop Hooper got very mad that Anglican priests were wearing the cope and surplice, which he thought were Catholic ritual garments that sought to enhance priestly status and that went against the simplicity of the early Christian Church. Likewise, during the run-up to the English Civil War, the Puritans were extremely sensitive to the installation of altar rails which separated the congregation from the altar - they considered this to be once again a veneration of the clergy, but also a symbolic affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

At the same time, they were not the only religious faction within the Anglican Church - and this is where the religious persecution thing kicks in, although it should be noted that this was a fairly brief but very emotionally intense period. Archbishop William Laud was a leading High Church Episcopalian who led a faction in the Church that would become known as Laudians, and he was just as intense about his religious views as the Puritans were about his. A favorite of Charles I and a first advocate of absolutist monarchy, Laud was appointed Archbishop of Canturbury in 1630 and acted quickly to impose religious uniformity of Laudian beliefs and practices - ultimately culminating in the disastrous decision to try imposing Episcopalianism on Scotland that set off the Bishop's Wars. The Puritans were a special target of Laud's wrath: in addition to ordering the clergy to do various things offensive to Puritans that he used as a shibboleth to root out clergy with Puritan sympathies and fire them from their positions in the Church, he established official religious censors who went after Puritan writers like William Prynne for seditious libel and tortured them for their criticisms of his actions, cropping their ears and branding them with the letters SL on their faces. Bringing together the powers of Church and State, Laud used the Court of Star Chamber (a royal criminal court with no system of due process) to go after anyone who he viewed as having Puritan sympathies, imposing sentences of judicial torture along the way.

It was here that the Puritans began to make their first connections to the growing democratic movement in England that was forming in opposition to Charles I, when John Liliburne the founder of the Levellers was targeted by Laud for importing religious texts that criticized Laudianism - Laud had him repeatedly flogged for challenging the constitutionality of the Star Chamber court, and "freeborn John" became a martyr-hero to the Puritans.

When the Long Parliament met in 1640, Puritans were elected in huge numbers, motivated as they were by a combination of resistance to the absolutist monarchism of Charles I and the religious policies of Archbishop Laud - who Parliament was able to impeach and imprison in the Tower of the London in 1641. This relatively brief period of official persecution that powerfully shaped the Puritan mindset was nevertheless disconnected from the phenomena of migration to New England - which had started a decade before Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury and continued decades after his impeachment.

The Puritans Just Wanted to Oppress Everyone Else's Religion:

This is the very short-hand Howard Zinn-esque critique we often see of the Puritan project in the discourse, and while there is a grain of truth to it - in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Congregational Church was the official state religion, no other church could be established without permission from the Congregational Church, all residents were required to pay taxes to support the Congregational Church, and only Puritans could vote. Moreover, there were several infamous incidents where the Puritan establishment put Anne Hutchinson on trial and banished her, expelled Roger Williams, and hanged Quakers.

Here's the thing, though: during the Early Modern period, every single side of every single religious conflict wanted to establish religious uniformity and oppress the heretics: the Catholics did it to the Protestants where they could mobilize the power of the Holy Roman Emperor against the Protestant Princes, the Protestants did it right back to the Catholics when Gustavus Adolphus' armies rolled through town, the Lutherans and the Catholics did it to the Calvinists, and everybody did it to the Anabaptists.

That New England was founded as a Calvinist colony is pretty unremarkable, in the final analysis. (By the by, both Hutchinson and Williams were devout if schismatic Puritans who were firmly of the belief that the Anglican Church was a false church.) What's more interesting is how quickly the whole religious project broke down and evolved into something completely different.

Essentially, New England became a bunch of little religious communes that were all tax-funded, which is even more the case because the Congregationalist Church was a "gathered church" where the full members of the Church (who were the only people allowed to vote on matters involving the church, and were the only ones who were allowed to be given baptism and Communion, which had all kinds of knock-on effects on important social practices like marriages and burials) and were made up of people who had experienced a conversion where they can gained an assurance of salvation that they were definitely of the Elect. You became a full member by publicly sharing your story of conversion (which had a certain cultural schema of steps that were supposed to be followed) and having the other full members accept it as genuine.

This is a system that works really well to bind together a bunch of people living in a commune in the wilderness into a tight-knit community, but it broke down almost immediately in the next generation, leading to a crisis called the Half-Way Covenant.

The problem was that the second generation of Puritans - all men and women who had been baptized and raised in the Congrgeationalist Church - weren't becoming converted. Either they never had the religious awakening that their parents had had, or their narratives weren't accepted as genuine by the first generation of commune members. This meant that they couldn't hold church office or vote, and more crucially it meant that they couldn't receive the sacrament or have their own children baptized.

This seemed to suggest that, within a generation, the Congregationalist Church would essentially define itself into non-existence and between the 1640s and 1650s leading ministers recommended that each congregation (which was supposed to decide on policy questions on a local basis, remember) adopt a policy whereby the children of baptized but unconverted members could be baptized as long as they did a ceremony where they affirmed the church covenant. This proved hugely controversial and ministers and laypeople alike started publishing pamphlets, and voting in opposing directions, and un-electing ministers who decided in the wrong direction, and ultimately it kind of broke the authority of the Congregationalist Church and led to its eventual dis-establishment.

The Puritans are the Reason America is So Evangelical:

This is another area where there's a grain of truth, but ultimately the real history is way more complicated.

Almost immediately from the founding of the colony, the Puritans begin to undergo mutation from their European counterparts - to begin with, while English Puritans were Calvinists and thus believed in a Presbyterian form of church government (indeed, a faction of Puritans during the English Civil War would attempt to impose a Presbyterian Church on England.), New England Puritans almost immediately adopted a congregationalist system where each town's faithful would sign a local religious constitution, elect their own ministers, and decide on local governance issues at town meetings.

Essentially, New England became a bunch of little religious communes that were all tax-funded, which is even more the case because the Congregationalist Church was a "gathered church" where the full members of the Church (who were the only people allowed to vote on matters involving the church, and were the only ones who were allowed to be given baptism and Communion, which had all kinds of knock-on effects on important social practices like marriages and burials) and were made up of people who had experienced a conversion where they can gained an assurance of salvation that they were definitely of the Elect. You became a full member by publicly sharing your story of conversion (which had a certain cultural schema of steps that were supposed to be followed) and having the other full members accept it as genuine.

This is a system that works really well to bind together a bunch of people living in a commune in the wilderness into a tight-knit community, but it broke down almost immediately in the next generation, leading to a crisis called the Half-Way Covenant.

The problem was that the second generation of Puritans - all men and women who had been baptized and raised in the Congrgeationalist Church - weren't becoming converted. Either they never had the religious awakening that their parents had had, or their narratives weren't accepted as genuine by the first generation of commune members. This meant that they couldn't hold church office or vote, and more crucially it meant that they couldn't receive the sacrament or have their own children baptized.

This seemed to suggest that, within a generation, the Congregationalist Church would essentially define itself into non-existence and between the 1640s and 1650s leading ministers recommended that each congregation (which was supposed to decide on policy questions on a local basis, remember) adopt a policy whereby the children of baptized but unconverted members could be baptized as long as they did a ceremony where they affirmed the church covenant. This proved hugely controversial and ministers and laypeople alike started publishing pamphlets, and voting in opposing directions, and un-electing ministers who decided in the wrong direction, and accusing one another of being witches. (More on that in a bit.)

And then the Great Awakening - which to be fair, was a major evangelical effort by the Puritan Congregationalist Church, so it's not like there's no link between evangelical - which was supposed to promote Congregational piety ended up dividing the Church and pretty soon the Congregationalist Church is dis-established and it's safe to be a Quaker or even a Catholic on the streets of Boston.

But here's the thing - if we look at which denominations in the United States can draw a direct line from themselves to the Congregationalist Church of the Puritans, it's the modern Congregationalists who are entirely mainstream Protestants whose churches are pretty solidly liberal in their politics, the United Church of Christ which is extremely cultural liberal, and it's the Unitarian Universalists who are practically issued DSA memberships. (I say this with love as a fellow comrade.)

By contrast, modern evangelical Christianity (although there's a complicated distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist that I don't have time to get into) in the United States is made up of an entirely different set of denominations - here, we're talking Baptists, Pentacostalists, Methodists, non-denominational churches, and sometimes Presbyterians.

The Puritans Were Dour Killjoys Who Hated Sex:

This one owes a lot to Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter.

The reality is actually the opposite - for their time, the Puritans were a bunch of weird hippies. At a time when most major religious institutions tended to emphasize the sinful nature of sex and Catholicism in particular tended to emphasize the moral superiority of virginity, the Puritans stressed that sexual pleasure was a gift from God, that married couples had an obligation to not just have children but to get each other off, and both men and women could be taken to court and fined for failing to fulfill their maritial obligations.

The Puritans also didn't have much of a problem with pre-marital sex. As long as there was an absolute agreement that you were going to get married if and when someone ended up pregnant, Puritan elders were perfectly happy to let young people be young people. Indeed, despite the objection of Jonathan Edwards and others there was an (oddly similar to modern Scandinavian customs) old New England custom of "bundling," whereby a young couple would be put into bed together by their parents with a sack or bundle tied between them as a putative modesty shield, but where everyone involved knew that the young couple would remove the bundle as soon as the lights were turned out.

One of my favorite little social circumlocutions is that there was a custom of pretending that a child clearly born out of wedlock was actually just born prematurely to a bride who was clearly nine months along, leading to a rash of surprisingly large and healthy premature births being recorded in the diary of Puritan midwife Martha Ballard. Historians have even applied statistical modeling to show that about 30-40% of births in colonial America were pre-mature.

But what about non-sexual dourness? Well, here we have to understand that, while they were concerned about public morality, the Puritans were simultaneously very strict when it came to matters of religion and otherwise normal people who liked having fun. So if you go down the long list of things that Puritans banned that has landed them with a reputation as a bunch of killjoys, they usually hide some sort of religious motivation.

So for example, let's take the Puritan iconoclastic tendency to smash stained glass windows, whitewash church walls, and smash church organs during the English Civil War - all of these things have to do with a rejection of Catholicism, and in the case of church organs a belief that the only kind of music that should be allowed in church is the congregation singing psalms as an expression of social equality. At the same time, Puritans enjoyed art in a secular context and often had portraits of themselves made and paintings hung on their walls, and they owned musical instruments in their homes.

What about the wearing nothing but black clothing? See, in our time wearing nothing but black is considered rather staid (or Goth), but in the Early Modern period the dyes that were needed to produce pure black cloth were incredibly expensive - so wearing all black was a sign of status and wealth, hence why the Hapsburgs started emphasizing wearing all-black in the same period. However, your ordinary Puritan couldn't afford an all-black attire and would have worn quite colorful (but much cheaper) browns and blues and greens.

What about booze and gambling and sports and the theater and other sinful pursuits? Well, the Puritans were mostly ok with booze - every New England village had its tavern - but they did regulate how much they could serve, again because they were worried that drunkenness would lead to blasphemy. Likewise, the Puritans were mostly ok with gambling, and they didn't mind people playing sports - except that they went absolutely beserk about drinking, gambling, and sports if they happened on the Sabbath because the Puritans really cared about the Sabbath and Charles I had a habit of poking them about that issue. They were against the theater because of its association with prostitution and cross-dressing, though, I can't deny that. On the other hand, the Puritans were also morally opposed to bloodsports like bear-baiting, cock-fighting, and bare-knuckle boxing because of the violence it did to God's creatures, which I guess makes them some of the first animal rights activsts?

They Banned Christmas:

Again, this comes down to a religious thing, not a hatred of presents and trees - keep in mind that the whole presents-and-trees paradigm of Christmas didn't really exist until the 19th century and Dickens' Christmas Carol, so what we're really talking about here is a conflict over religious holidays - so what people were complaining about was not going to church an extra day in the year. I don't get it, personally.

See, the thing is that Puritans were known for being extremely close Bible readers, and one of the things that you discover almost immediately if you even cursorily read the New Testament is that Christ was clearly not born on December 25th. Which meant that the whole December 25th thing was a false religious holiday, which is why they banned it.

The Puritans Were Democrats:

One thing that I don't think Puritans get enough credit for is that, at a time when pretty much the whole of European society was some form of monarchist, the Puritans were some of the few people out there who really committed themselves to democratic principles.

As I've already said, this process starts when John Liliburne, an activist and pamphleteer who promoted the concept of universal human rights (what he called "freeborn rights"), took up the anti-Laudian cause and it continued through the mobilization of large numbers of Puritans to campaign for election to the Long Parliament.

There, not only did the Puritans vote to revenge themselves on their old enemy William Laud, but they also took part in a gradual process of Parliamentary radicalization, starting with the impeachment of Strafford as the architect of arbitrary rule, the passage of the Triennal Acts, the re-statement that non-Parliamentary taxation was illegal, the Grand Remonstrance, and the Militia Ordinance.

Then over the course of the war, Puritans served with distinction in the Parliamentary army, especially and disproportionately in the New Model Army where they beat the living hell out of the aristocratic armies of Charles I, while defying both the expectations and active interference of the House of Lords.

At this point, I should mention that during this period the Puritans divided into two main factions - Presbyterians, who developed a close political and religious alliance with the Scottish Covenanters who had secured the Presbyterian Church in Scotland during the Bishops' Wars and who were quite interested in extending an established Presbyterian Church; and Independents, who advocated local congregationalism (sound familiar) and opposed the concept of established churches.

Finally, we have the coming together of the Independents of the New Model Army and the Leveller movement - during the war, John Liliburne had served with bravery and distinction at Edgehill and Marston Moore, and personally capturing Tickhill Castle without firing a shot. His fellow Leveller Thomas Rainsborough proved a decisive cavalry commander at Naseby, Leicester, the Western Campaign, and Langport, a gifted siege commander at Bridgwater, Bristol, Berkeley Castle, Oxford, and Worcester. Thus, when it came time to hold the Putney Debates, the Independent/Leveller bloc had both credibility within the New Model Army and the only political program out there. Their proposal:

redistricting of Parliament on the basis of equal population; i.e one man, one vote.

the election of a Parliament every two years.

freedom of conscience.

equality under the law.

In the context of the 17th century, this was dangerously radical stuff and it prompted Cromwell and Fairfax into paroxyms of fear that the propertied were in danger of being swamped by democratic enthusiasm - leading to the imprisonment of Lilburne and the other Leveller leaders and ultimately the violent suppression of the Leveller rank-and-file.

As for Cromwell, well - even the Quakers produced Richard Nixon.

[yellowstonewolves-main]

My take on the ao3 ddos attack might be unpopular but…

I mean, “Russian bot” has become a common smear from centrists who are losing arguments on twitter, and Russian “bots”were certainly not the main reason trump won in 2016 but we do know that the Russian government has paid people to get involved in very stupid very online internet nonsense! (And the CIA does dumb shit all the time as well! It’s not all James Bond you know, a lot of espionage shit is deeply stupid)

I have never seen convincing evidence that the reports of this are fake. A lot of people on here are 100% convinced that the reports of “Russian chaos agents” on tumblr have been disproven. They haven’t and I think the arguments around this are either conspiratorial or just plain wrong. I mean the most popular argument is “How did tumblr staff find out Russian chaos agents when they can’t even…” and so on. Tumblr staff weren’t the ones who found them out. And also, how come we don’t have a single substantiated claim from someone that they were targeted unfairly in the deletion? This would be so fucking sloppy as a way of like, supressing leftist and blm content. Just relying on no one having like, ever saved an email from tumblr. I need even a crumb of evidence here and all I’ve ever gotten is guilt trips.

I’m not even claiming to know the truth behind the ddos! I just hate the manipulation, because it is manipulation. If someone with no facts and no sources is screaming at you that you’re such an unbelievably gullible and stupid (and in a roundabout way probably BIGOTED) moron for believing something that’s different that what they believe, I think you can safely discount them forever.

(Also, I don’t get the fixation with the word smut? It’s not like “lemons” it’s a real word ((albeit old fashioned))that is commonly used in anti-obscenity polemics.)

[halalchampagnesocialist]

I've probably made a gazillion posts of this iteration over the many years but it bears repeating. What frustrates me about liberal discourses on Palestinian-Israeli violence is the implication that violence is sporadic on both sides. It's frustrating because people will act like the only real issue with Israeli violence towards Palestinians is ones that come solely from extremist settlers or from right-wing governments.

You might argue that perhaps Palestinian violence against Israelis is random, sporadic and so on, but that is not the case with Israeli violence towards Palestinians at all. Israeli violence towards Palestinians is systemic but also is a daily occurrence. Not only does Israel kill Palestinians every single day, even prior to the current war, but it acts as a bystander to settler violence, even actively supports the settler violence. Violence does not even have to be murder but just the sheer control over Palestinian lives. The fact that Israel can cut water, electricity, etc to Palestinians at any time without notice. The way that Israel can come into any city and bulldoze streets like it's been doing in Jenin and Tulkarem in the West Bank. Of course, can't forget to mention the land grabs and that Israel can designate any piece of land a closed military zone whenever it wants. Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason to Israel's actions at all but just does so to play with the lives of Palestinians.

The Israeli hostages did not deserve to die but you absolutely cannot talk about the tragedy of their deaths or Hamas' 'brutality' in isolation without also mentioning that Gaza has been effectively turned into a death camp or that Israel holds thousands of Palestinians in its prisons without trial. This isn't mentioning that Israel as the occupier can kidnap any person it wants at any time and treats those prisoners very inhumanely.

The worst part about all this is not just the obfuscation of these facts but so many of these same people acting like the violence is sporadic act so nonchalant towards Palestinian deaths in 'normal times.' Or even towards whoever Israel kills as long as Israel gets their wanted guy. It's also this discourse that leads certain people to deny Israeli culpability, minimise Palestinian suffering, etc.

[elbiotipo]

I think I wrote several times about this, but when socialists in the third world think about what their ideal future society would be, they think about improving the lives of people: housing, education, health, industrializing their countries so that they don't have to depend from foreign economies, and yes, among all this, enviromental protection, because trust me, it's not the local oligarchs who care about that. Not only materially improving the lives of people either, but also more; science, arts, sports, culture. It's putting the economic forces in the service of the people rather than generating profits for local oligarchs and foreign investors. When I think of a better society, of a socialist society, I think that.

In some first world discourse I've seen socialism be characterized sometimes as some kind of... medievalism but better. Like "after the collapse I will recycle clothes from tatters" (real thing I read). It's something very extremist about Usamericans in particular "oh our civilization is causing global warming? better tear it all down". Why are you WANTING a collapse? What kind of society are you wanting where we have to return to medieval levels of living, or even worse judging by the fact we'll have to recycle clothes, what kind of Fallout shit?

This is mostly pointless internet discourse but if your ideal society cannot even clear the low bar of "making new clothes" that even medieval villages could manage, I'm not interested in your ideology or anything you have to say.

[supreme-leader-stoat]

Right? Developers had three very, very simple rules that they needed to follow as part of the unspoken agreement between us and them that let them generate revenue from us looking at content:

Don't let ads hinder or outweigh the actual purpose people have for coming to your page/site (be that through extreme obtrusiveness or through slowing their browser to a crawl)

Vet your ads and don't bombard people with nsfw content

Vet your ads and don't give people fucking malware

And that was fine! It worked! But sometime in the past ~decade 90%* of sites decided that was too hard, and that they'd really just like to make money off of the plebs without any sort of accountability packaged in, and so the average web user had to start protecting themselves with countermeasures that up until then had been relegated to small and relatively unobtrusive circles of privacy enthusiasts. The users didn't start this war.

One of the paradoxes of the modern internet is that I genuinely understand sites need to get revenue somewhere, and while I don't love ads I'm actually okay seeing relatively unintrusive ads on a free site, hearing words from sponsors, etc.

But the modern internet is so full of modal popups and video ads on autoplay and trackers that using it without an adblocker is basically impossible, so everything gets blocked.

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

I'm not 100% sure how to articulate this, but something that has been bothering me about I/P discourse (especially in the last month, it's gotten so much worse) that I haven't seen talked about in a productive way is the "yoking" effect that the extremist ugly takes create for the good-faith people just trying to talk about their issues. And I see it on both sides, and have felt compelled to act this way myself.

Essentially, when I talk about antisemitism (especially the significant spike in the last month), my goal is focused on educating people about the antisemitism and urging them to do something about their own behavior, help groups that are working on it, and/or become part of the people working on advocacy to that effect. I just want to talk about the antisemitism, and have that stand as a topic on its own terms. But the problem is, I'm a Jew and extremists on both sides have made it so that anything I post about this requires disclaimers that I also support the rights, freedoms, and care about the lives of Palestinians also. And I do! But that's not the point. The point is that Jews facing antisemitism should be able to talk about this without bringing in a whole separate topic to prove we're worth listening to. And I saw this with Israelis trying to talk about the grief they were feeling after the Hamas pogrom; they couldn't do it without either including some kind of statement about wanting peace, separating Hamas from Palestinians as a whole, etc. or face relentless antisemitic abuse.

And this effect comes both from outside people [supposedly] supporting Palestine being awful unless the Jew in question attaches sufficient disclaimers, as well as [supposedly] pro-Israel people who couldn't help themselves from spouting off dumb racist shit in their posts on otherwise valid topics.

But as I've watched things play out, and Western outsiders become more and more antisemitic in their [supposed] support of Palestine, I've noticed Palestinians and their not-antisemitic allies having to couch their [valid] criticisms of Israel with caveats about how antisemitism is not okay, or else face harassment when talking about their legitimate issues - even ones that aren't about Israel at all.

That's what I mean by "yoking" - this inability to talk about ourselves and our own issues without bad faith actors coercing us to address the other and "prove" that we're worth listening to. It's dehumanizing, because it means that our legitimate issues are always and only ever able to be discussed in the shadow of the other. They aren't allowed to stand on their own without risking harassment.

Anyway, I think the reasons we got here are complicated, but I lay most of the blame at the feet of uninvolved westerners using this conflict as a proxy for their own problems. I don't know that there's a way to fix this at this point, either, because the discourse has become so unbelievably toxic. I think the closest thing I've got is just the suggestion that if you see a Palestinian (or ally) talking about Palestinian issues and not being antisemitic about it, don't derail what they're saying even if they don't specifically denounce Hamas outright and/or antisemitism in their post. And if Jews (including and especially Israelis) are talking about antisemitism and/or legitimate issues and aren't being racist or Islamophobic about it, don't derail what we're saying even if we don't offer caveats denouncing the Israeli government and/or Islamophobia/anti-Arab racism in that specific post.

We can support each other in the face of danger and want peace without having to constantly be forced to talk about other issues and divert focus from our own issues.

[oldpotatoe]

as many of you know, gaza has now gone dark.

targeted israeli strikes have wiped out the telecommunications infrastructure. phone lines and internet services are gone. gazans cannot call their loved ones to check if they are still alive. they cannot call for ambulances for aid. if they survive the increased bombardment tonight and the following nights, they will bleed out alone with no aid.

now i will tell you what will happen in the next few days/weeks, and i pray it to be untrue. unfortunately the apartheid state, also known as israel, has been quite obvious and transparent with their plans.

the stated goal of many politicians over the years from israel, including netanyahu, has been to have the entire strip of land of gaza as israel, with no separate region for palestinians. i am not going to provide links, google is free and i am fucking tired.

what they had done before tonight, in the last two weeks, was destroy over 50% of buildings in gaza city as well as neighbouring areas, so gazans have nowhere to return to. gazans have been forced south, and israel will use this opportunity to have troops in north gaza (currently referred to as the ground invasion) advancing south while bombing "h*mas sites" in the south. israel will do this knowing there are plenty more civilians there that will die, causing terror and panic and having palestinians want to flee to anywhere, anywhere that is safe.

israel is doing this in the hopes that this panic and terror will convince egypt to open the border (well, the border israel isn't currently bombing) so that palestinians can escape to the sinai desert in egypt.

once survivors leave, the area that is currently the gaza strip will 1) be reduced in size if a lot of palestinians stay, should they not be bombed out of existence, or 2) be entirely absorbed into israel if very few palestinians stay, which is the ultimate aim of israel. those remaining palestinians will be moved to the west bank, or the remainder of gaza will be converted to west bank conditions where they'd go through the same problems palestinians in the west bank go through (reduced access to water, checkpoints to go from any place to any place within their own land, getting dispossessed, or randomly killed by racist extremist settlers).

now, egypt has been adamant not to displace the palestinians. in online discourse, people have been dehumanising palestinians by talking about past disruptions in other refugee areas and saying that is why egypt does not want to take them. while there may be slight truth to this from egypt's perspective, the major reason egypt is refusing is that no palestinian refugee abroad has even been given the right to return to their own land. and this will be the fate of gazans if they are made to leave in a mass exodus to egypt/other neighbouring countries such as jordan, which these leaflets from army-backed israeli are threatening palestinians with (photo from salfit in the occupied west bank):

therefore, what i likely see happening is the above bombardment (in increased numbers now that gaza has gone dark) -> mass panic in gaza, more so now that gazans are cornered in the south -> a reluctant egypt, but with the US will promise a large amount of "aid" money to egypt to facilitate the mass exodus of palestinians, the borders will open.

palestinians will be forced out. israelis are already planning on hoovering up the prime real estate there, for amusements park no less!

this is nabka 2.0. this is genocide.

btw, as we speak: israel's leading newspaper is already making claims that h*mas's main operation base is under shifa hospital. the hospital currently housing 50,000 displaced palestinians. the idf is claiming h*mas is using the hospital as a human shield, which is their new favourite phrase to justify killing civilians. so you already know what to expect in the news.

[maxdibert]

Marauders fans who try to whitewash the actions of James Potter and Sirius Black or excuse them with the pretext that Snape joined the Death Eaters, I have news for you: you’re a bunch of classist idiots, and you don’t even realize it because you’ve never bothered to open a damn book to read about how capital and power work and how they are connected.

Was Severus Snape a racist? No, because believe it or not, there are many reasons to join an extremist group, and when we talk about vulnerable youths, ideology is often the last motive. Severus joined the Death Eaters because he wanted protection, he wanted to fit in somewhere, he wanted power. That need for protection stemmed from coming from a home filled with violence, but also from being systematically bullied at school without any consequences. In fact, not even the attempt to murder him had consequences. His life meant nothing, while his abusers—those rich, popular, and handsome kids (economic capital, social capital, physical capital)—did whatever they wanted without facing consequences. He was poor, friendless, and ugly, so he had no power, he was nothing. The only way to become something, to gain status and defend himself, was to do what other people with capital told him to do, those people he met at his house who didn’t treat him like an outcast. They promised that if he joined their group, he too could win, he could have power, he could be part of something—and he accepted. And he accepted because people like him only know how to do one thing: survive. A poor kid raised in violence is a survivor, and survivors do whatever it takes to stay alive. And they do ANYTHING to stay alive. Severus learned this from a young age, and that’s what he did as a teenager; that’s why he created spells to defend himself and why he made decisions to survive. Were they the right choices morally and ethically? If we ask ourselves this from the comfort and stability of a structured life, probably not, but that wouldn’t be fair, because his reality was very different.

It’s very easy to make the right choices when you have everything going for you. It’s very easy to surround yourself with the right people when you’ve had nothing but good influences around you. It’s very easy to have the right views when that’s all you have to think about and not whether you’ll have food the next day or survive a beating. James Potter had it incredibly easy in life, and even then, he chose to torture a poorer and more vulnerable kid simply because he could. And he didn’t do it alone; he did it supported by his friends, outnumbering him. Potter didn’t have to survive, he didn’t have to fend for himself, he didn’t have to find safe spaces because he was born surrounded by gold and affection, and still, he chose to be a jerk. And he did it because he had the money and the social position to do it. He did it because he was rich and Snape was poor, because he had loving parents and Snape didn’t, because he was a spoiled, classist brat. And so was Sirius. Sirius was classist and violent, and he enjoyed the suffering of others. He had the usual sadism of the Black family, except he changed the discourse about blood. But Sirius also never had to survive. He left his home with a millionaire inheritance from his uncle and was taken in by other millionaires, the Potters. He never had to fend for himself or survive anything, and he never knew what it was like to truly escape from hell with absolutely nothing. And he chose, like his other rich friend, to take advantage of his privileges.

Defending the abuse of power based on class advantage is classist. Not considering someone’s socio-economic conditions when evaluating their decisions is classist. Comparing the decision-making power of someone rich with that of someone who has nothing is classist. Judging the ethics of a person who had everything with someone who has feared for their life since childhood is classist.

And yes, defending the Marauders is classist as hell, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[katjohnadams]

Ah, yes, my side of the discourse. The right and just side. The people on my side who are voicing insane extremist ideas are actually just a straw man created by their side.

Oh, no, their side of the discourse. The evil and cruel side. The people on their side who are voicing insane extremist ideas demonstrate why their side is so dangerous and must be opposed unilaterally.

I have the universally unassailable moral high ground in this discussion and to disagree with me is to agree with the very worst people who do not share my view.

[aossimusings]

Claire from the Bear, and why she's not badly written, she's just not occupying the character role people expect of her and they don't know what to do with that

Alright. I'm bringing some film student analysis to The Bear, and subsequently, Claire, because I'm tired of people saying crazy things like, "she's a manic pixie dream girl" or that her character is underdeveloped or badly written or that she's pure male fantasy or any other crazy, extremist reaction to her character, when really, I think she's occupying a different character role than we're used to seeing from characters like hers, and in typical The Bear fashion, we as an audience are not being told how to interpret her character with words, but with visual and narrative structure.

Be warned, this is a very, very long post.

Lets take a minute to understand narrative structure in film:

There's an A plot and a B plot. The A plot is what is referred to as "the promise of the premise." It's why you come to watch what you watch. The B plot is all the emotional character development/growth that undergirds the A plot and makes it emotional and impactful. So in the Bear, The A plot is the whole thread of, let's fix the Beef -> let's make a new restaurant -> let's get a star, etc etc, that evolves with each season. The B plot is mostly centered on Carmy (although other characters also have their own smaller B-plots) and on him healing from his grief and family and kitchen trauma and finding himself as a person, etc etc.

Claire as a character is a B-plot character. Her role as a character is to be a part of Carmy's emotional B-plot development, whereas the rest of the characters in the show occupy roles in both the A plot and the B plot. In a show centered

The thing that I think is causing a lot of the discourse around her character is the fact that she's not occupying a typical character role for her sort of character, and then people don't know what to do with her. They're either trying to slot her into a a bad female character role (like a manic pixie dream girl) and are then angry that that type of character would be included in the show, or they think she's a badly written attempt at a more developed character and are then angry because they think her character was fumbled, when in fact, she's neither.

Let's take a minute to examine these two roles:

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl

A manic pixie dream girl as defined by the Oxford language dictionary is:

"(especially in film) a type of female character depicted as vivacious and appealingly quirky, whose main purpose within the narrative is to inspire a greater appreciation for life in a male protagonist."

On paper, I can see why people would say that she's a MPDG. She's a little quirky, and she appears to "inspire a greater appreciation for life" in Carmy. She's a doctor, but she's a bad driver, she loves Mondays, she shoplifted in high school for the adrenaline rush, etc, etc. But I would argue that she's not actually a MPDG because her role in the narrative is fundamentally different than that of a MPDG.

In terms of narrative, MPDGs are a catalyst. They are crucial to the movement of the plot and the development of the main character. Specifically, they're supposed to be a catalyst for main male character growth. This is part of why MPDGs are a sort of problematic character -- the idea that they don't get dimension as a character, yet their entire role is to catalyze the main male character's positive growth and evolution is sexist. They aid the MMC at the cost of their personhood.

However, notably, Claire doesn't actually inspire positive growth in Carmy. He is not made better for knowing her. He doesn't grow as a person, learn from his mistakes. He isn't calmer or nicer in the kitchen, he doesn't resolve any of his trauma, I would argue that he doesn't even have a "greater appreciation for life" as is critical to the relationship between the MMC and the MPDG; he is just as depressed and anxious for knowing her as he was when he didn't know her.

So Claire: not a manic pixie dream girl, despite being quirky and trying to "inspire a greater appreciation for life."

The Badly Written Main Female Character

I think for a lot of viewers, if Claire isn't a MPDG to them, she's viewed as a badly written, badly developed main female character, who isn't afforded a lot of screen time, and as such, is one dimensional because she doesn't get much character development.

Wait, what? She's a badly written main character without a lot of screen time to develop? But part of being a main character is to have significant screen time to develop! But Claire doesn't have a lot of screen time... Tina has more screen time. Sugar has more screen time. Marcus has more screen time. It's almost like...Claire isn't a main character, even though, as a love interest, she occupies a role typically only allowed to main characters.

So then...what is she? To understand her narrative role, we need to take a minute to understand what Carmy's B-plot has established thus far. My apologies for the following, very drawn out explanation of Carmy's mental health. I promise I'll return to Claire, but this is important.

Carmy's B-plot (aka, the emotional stuff)

Seasons 1 through 3 are essentially following Carmy having a slow, drawn out breakdown. Or rather, it's not slow. It's a pretty realistic depiction of someone who is pretty mentally/emotionally unwell continuing to not get the help that he needs, and trying to fix things unsuccessfully on his own. But admitting that he's unwell feels like admitting defeat, so he's trying to fix things while never actually admitting that he needs help, and as such, is in a self-destructive spiral of trying to fix things unsuccessfully, feeling out of control because of it, trying to fix different things unsuccessfully, feeling even more out of control, etc etc.

By S3, we have a better understanding of the Berzatto family structure: an unnamed father who walked out leaving them in debt, Donna who is/was an alcoholic and otherwise emotional black hole, Mikey who died at age 43 (born 1979, died 2022 as seen on his prayer card), Sugar who's 36 a year after his death (born 1988, confirmed by her hospital intake in Ice Chips), and Carmy who is 26 a year after Mikey's death (confirmed by the original script.) So when Carmy was born, Sugar was 10 and Mikey was 18. This is important because in light of Fishes and Ice Chips, Donna was an alcoholic for as long as they were children, was incredibly unpredictable with mood swings, poor emotional regulation and maybe even emotional abuse (see how Carmy and Sugar essentially are trying to regulate their mother's emotions in Fishes), and probably some physical altercations if Donna's behavior in Fishes is anything to go by. Sugar explicitly says that she frightened all of her children. Mikey was probably the de facto parent in a lot of instances, being the only other adult in the household. The fact that he was also an addict, and as seen in Fishes, also violent or unpredictable at times, complicates this. S3E1's scene with Sugar and Carmy at the airport implies that after Mikey started cutting Carmy out (and struggling with addiction) Sugar started to assume that parental role. So that's a whole fucked up childhood right there, with very little room to healthily develop emotions or coping mechanisms or an understanding of healthy relationships. In ice-chips, Sugar demonstrates that she's aware of this. "I ask people if they're okay way too much," and "I'd make myself sick to make you feel better." Everything with Carmy's character demonstrates that he does not have this self awareness.

Carmy explains in his al-anon monologue that the rhythm of the kitchen became soothing to him, because it was so rigid and so predictable (a direct contrast to his home life.) But while it was soothing, he also cut contact with people in his life, because the self-isolation made things "quiet" (and probably gave him a feeling of control, like most self-destructive impulses do) which led to him being incredibly isolated and incredibly dependent on work as a coping mechanism by the time he ends up working with the abusive NYC chef. Important thing to note about that: now his only coping mechanism has been polluted by abuse as well, and the trauma of that will haunt him increasingly throughout the seasons (coupled with the fact that he's probably never learned how to healthily process his own emotions, in part because he ended up having to set them aside to emotionally regulate his own mother.)

Then Mikey kills himself. (which again, is the fucked-up family figure of brother and parent and addict and idol all rolled into one suddenly dying on you after abruptly cutting your out of their life)

I say all this because I want to make very clear that mentally, Carmy is not well. Across his various al-anon monologues, the fridge conversation, his flashbacks, etc. it becomes really clear that he's never really had any sense of safety or security in his life except for maybe when he was 18-24 when he did the French Laundry, Ever, Noma, and Daniel. The amount of anxiety that he experiences in his day to day life is not normal, it's not healthy. It's exhausting and damaging. He's also probably pretty depressed, and probably had been even before Mikey and NYC chef. He talked about in al-anon that when he was a kid, he could never feel happy or excited about anything because he was always waiting for the other shoe to drop (arguably because of his mother, because if she was upset, she made everyone else upset to deal with it, and if she was happy, he was waiting for her mood to shift.) We very rarely actually see him happy or joyful in any of the seasons. So basically, as evidenced by that and what we see in the seasons, he's got this really damaging spiral of anxiety and depression, where he's so anxious he can't feel happy.

Pursuit of happiness is actually what brings us to Claire as a character. He meets her almost right after he talks in al-anon about the fact that he should "provide amusement and enjoyment" for himself. Then he meets her in a grocery store, and promptly, and deliberately, gives her the wrong phone number. Personally, I read this as Carmy knowing that he's not ready for a relationship. He pursues it anyways, for likely 2 reasons:

Pursuit of happiness. Sugar always wanted him to get away from the Beef in S1, now he's trying to get some space and do something to "provide amusement and enjoyment"

Mikey! In Fishes, Mikey was really excited about the prospect of Carmy dating Claire. At the time, Carmy was like WTF, but in the wake of Mikey's death, this is probably a way of connecting with him. See, I can do it! I can date a girl! I can do this thing that you thought would make me happy. I can be normal. I can be what you wanted.

Now a little film student analysis:

One thing that I love about the Bear is that they're really good at the whole concept of "show don't tell". You'll hear about this a lot in writing advice, but it's actually even more relevant in film. Here's a good example from the bear:

The Bear never, ever says that Carmy has anxiety. I'm not even sure if the word "anxiety" is even said onscreen. Instead, The Bear shows:

Carmy drinking bottles of Pepto Bismal and chewing fistfuls of Tums, yet rarely eating anything

Carmy sleep walking and almost setting his apartment on fire

the sheer amount of nervous energy he has (tapping spoons, sharpies, cigarettes, etc. , never standing still, being generally twitchy)

some really great tricks with filming and lens that make the world around him shift focus, shift perspective, blur, and otherwise visually simulate the effects of an anxiety/panic attack.

In film, you have to be incredibly intentional about what you keep in and out. In my first film class, when we were doing film analysis, a lot of people would start "I'm not sure if this was intentional, but..." and the film teachers immediately shut that down with this statement:

"assume everything is intentional. even if it wasn't, someone still chose to leave it in" meaning that, in film, what you see on screen is actually a fraction of the material that filmmakers had to work with; if something makes it through to the final cut, it was important.

I mentioned before that despite Claire occupying a main character role as a love interest, she does not get main character screen time. Like I said above, I think a lot of people perceive this as her character being done a disservice, that she's badly written, that she's meant to be this perfect male fantasy, etc, etc.

Firstly, I present to you the fact that characters such as Sugar, Sydney, Tina, Donna, all have absolutely beautiful storylines and arcs. They're complex, well-written characters. I don't believe that Claire's lack of screen time is because the show-runners secretly idolize manic pixie dream girls and women of "male fantasy" and thus Claire is supposed to be this perfect person who doesn't need any screen time to be developed (which feels like a thread I've seen a lot.). I really don't think the show runners are secret misogynists. Sorry.

What I do believe is that Claire as a character is not meant to be central to the story. The show very intentionally spends more time developing Carmy's relationships with Sydney, Tina, Sugar, Richie than it does with Claire. Why? A host of reasons.

1. Because Claire is a new form of escapism for him, not that the kitchen is no longer is sanctuary.

I talked before about how after the NYC chef, and I would argue, now that he's trying to start his own restaurant, his one safe space of the kitchen has become polluted with the same chaos and/or abuse from the rest of his life which he spent years running away from. But because he's so isolated, he has no where else to go. So he creates somewhere to go, by creating a relationship with Claire. That relationship is his new form of escapism.

The show communicates that to us in one very specific way: 90% of the time, if Carmy is with Claire, we don't see him. This is not 100% true 100% of the time, but there was a clear pattern that developed in S2 that time spent with Claire is time spent off screen. I think a lot of people see this as "not developing Claire's character" and not giving her screen time, when in fact it's more so about Carmy's absence.

When he ditches Sydney to move boxes with Claire, we never see that scene. We just assume that he was doing it.

When Sydney is trying to figure shit out in the restaurant by herself, it's implied that Carmy is with Claire, but we don't cut to them.

When Carmy talks to Sydney about all the menu things he talked about with Claire, we never see those scenes.

Why? Because he is escaping The Bear by being with her. It would be a very different narrative if we actually did see these scenes, because it would demonstrate that they have an emotional weight and importance in the show. Instead, they're defined by their absence.

Carmy and Claire's relationship is defined by its absence in the show.

2. Claire is not the right type of partner for Carmy, and we're not supposed to believe that she is.

I think it's interesting to look at Carmy's relationship with Claire through Sugar's relationship with Pete. I was talking with some people and they observed that in a lot of ways, it makes sense that Sugar would be with Pete because he is completely non-threatening. In many ways, he's the opposite to most of the men in the Berzatto family (note: I'm not saying Berzatto men are threatening.) But Berzatto men are loud, and opinionated. Some of them engage in behaviors such as: screaming in their kitchen, and throwing spoons and sharpies; throwing forks like darts at their relatives and also shouting; telling their nephews that there nothing and worthless and will never be anything; walking out on their families and leaving them in debt; lording their financial success over various family members. You also have Donna as a parental figure who also throws things violently, yells and screams, is an emotional black hole, and has aggressively grabbed Sugar at least once. Pete is about as far away from all of this as you can be.

I think that Claire is Carmy's Pete in a lot of ways. She's quiet, and calm, she's non-threatening, etc. She's not emotionally manipulative, she doesn't ask much of him (so when she does ask things of him, it's a welcome escape), she is a doctor, which is meant to help people. However, and part of why I don't think their relationship would work in the long run, is that Carmy doesn't need a Pete. Sugar has an emotional intelligence that Carmy doesn't, for one thing. For another, as alluded to by Ice Chips with Sugar listening to the podcast about Adult Children of Alcoholics, each of them were affected differently by their traumatic childhood. And quite frankly, I think that Carmy needs someone who can be gentle and empathic and quiet with him, but also someone who won't take his shit and can stand up to him. (because unlike Sugar, who tends to internalize everything, Carmy has a tendency to externalize everything.) He tends to take it out on the people around him, and I think he needs someone who can simultaneously shut that down and hear him out. And I don't think Claire is that.

3. The chemistry just isn't there.

I don't want to get into an argument about shipping. I can't predict if Carmy is going to get back with Claire after some emotional development, or if he's meant to be with Sydney, or whatever. Personally, I think that any discussion of a relationship is premature (and I think that Carmy knew that subconsciously when he gave Claire a wrong number and was very hesitant on the phone when she called him the first time.)

What I have observed is this: the few scenes that we do see of Carmy and Claire feel a lot less emotionally charged than other scenes in the show. Forgetting romantic relationships, there is so much more emotion and connection in the following scene than in the scenes we see with Carmy and Claire:

Richie and Carmy's conversation about purpose in S2.

Carmy and Sydney's conversation under the table in S2.

Carmy and Mikey's conversation in the pantry in Fishes.

The snippet in the fridge when Carmy's talking to Tina.

The scene with Claire that really sticks out to me having emotional weight is the scene in S3 where they talk about the days of the week, Carmy's hand scar, and Claire accidentally almost killing that girl in the ER. It hurt so much you couldn't feel it. Firstly, it's telling that that scene happened in flashback, not during their relationship, and secondly, the main thesis of that scene was more of a commentary on trauma than it was about their chemistry (ie, Carmy is so traumatized atm, he doesn't realize that he is because of how much it hurts.)

This demonstrates to me that a) the show writers can write emotionally powerful scenes, and scenes with chemistry, and b) the lack thereof in scenes with Claire was an intentional choice because it demonstrates that other relationships are more important for Carmy's character than the one with Claire.

For all that Carmy said that he loved Claire, we never see any evidence of it. It's told, not shown. Whereas his affection for other people in his life isn't mentioned, but it is shown: "I have time for this" and sitting down to talk to Richie about purpose. Buying Sydney a monogrammed chef's coat because she liked his.

His relationship with Claire is important for what it helps demonstrate: his desire for escapism, his self-destruction, his emotional immaturity, the fact that he has other very important relationships and that he needs to deepen those bonds, the fact that he needs to get his priorities in order. It's not so much about Claire. And maybe that will read as sexist to some, because it's more about him than it is about her, but I don't think she's really meant to be a main character either.

[pastadoughie]

also re:re: the 4chan x tumblr thhing while ido think that both are filled w/ a bunch of cynical gay losers who like to consume ragebait & form reactionary extremist ideologies i do think that tumblrs maintaining of atleast a superficial veneer of leftism is prolly better then just mask off white supremicy &

-while ican say that a 15 yr old cyberbullying another 15 yr old about how '[x] ship is problematic & reblogging 1 peice of soriel fanart makes you worse then an actual rapist' is fuckinhgn annoying & how tumblr shipping discourse always has 1 foot in the homophobia pie & is being ideologically disengenuous w/ themselves when they hollowly reblog shit abt supporting trans ppl or whatever-

i think all flaws considered tumblr ship discourse is less harmful then mask off white supremicy & antisemitism especially that as someone who HAS a 4chan loser brother 4channers r significantly more violently & aggresively hateful then the endless tumblr queer discourse posts ever could be