#i refuse to use correct capitalization

[noirleo]

confession hcs

bayverse tmnt (aged up, dont be weird <3)

mikey

mikey has confessed his feelings for you at least twice a day since you first met. he was convinced he was in love with you from the first meeting, and it wasn’t until several days later that he realized he was so caught up in planning your entire future relationship that he didn’t actually get your name.

which, of course, just presented an excellent excuse to need to see you again. and again.

before you even realize, you have a very talkative escort to and from your apartment at night. late night walks graduate to movie nights at the lair, and before you realize it, you’re spending every weekend at the lair, watching old horror movies or carefully curated playlist of funny youtube compilations he put together just for the two of you.

you didn’t take his flirting seriously at first. mikey flirts with every person he meets as surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west—hell, you’ve seen him make passes at casey once or twice. you brushed it off, taking his declarations of love all in good fun.

slowly but surely, though, your feelings for him crept in, burrowing their way under your skin and stubbornly taking root in your chest. you found yourself anticipating his “come over???? :)” texts and buying him little trinkets and things you think he might like when you go shopping with your friends. the two of you have become inseparable over the past several months; the brothers claim that they never really see one without the other anymore.

tonight you and mikey are crashed out on the couch, facing each other with your legs folded over one another’s gracelessly. a bowl of popcorn balances precariously on your entangled legs, and mikey’s eyes are glued to the screen, excitement lighting up his features as he mouths the words in time with the actress on the screen. it’s the third night in a row he’s chosen terminator, and at this point you could probably quote it backwards without having to spare a glance at the screen.

you tell yourself that’s why you’re staring at him again—you’re just bored, no other reason— but you can’t seem to pull your eyes away from his face to look at the tv.

“see something you like, babe?” mikey asks cheekily, not even turning his head away from the tv. you take a piece of popcorn and throw it at him; it bounces off the side of his head before he turns back to you, mouth dropped in mock disappointment.

“aw no, wait, i wasn’t ready that time! go again,” he pleads, and you toss a few pieces high into the air. he snaps them up and raises his hands, waving to a fake cheering audience. you giggle and kick at his leg, which he easily catches, pulling you closer to him. your breath catches as he pulls you onto his lap, still giggling, and you wrap your arms around his neck without thinking.

“when are you finally gonna kiss me, ‘angelo?” the words tumble out of your mouth before you can stop them. emotions flash across mikey’s face within a split second before his usual, wide grin spreads across his face.

“you saying you want me to, angel face?” he asks, not even trying to hide the hopefulness in his voice. you don’t even respond, glancing from his eyes to his lips, before he pulls you into a kiss.

the movie you were supposed to be watching ends at some point, but the two of you are much to busy to notice.

[shatterdome-underscore]

Trying out dating apps again is a special form of hell. I saw someone with neopronouns who also had eir Hogwarts house listed, like what in the cognitive dissonance are you doing comrade? Both sides are going to think you're wearing enemy colors, drop the house and come on home

[vaspider]

While I'm writing things that I've been intending to write for a while... one of the things that I think that a lot of people who haven't been involved in like... banking or corporate shenaniganry miss about why our economy is its current flavor of total fuckery is the concept of "fiduciary duty to shareholders."

"Why does every corporation pursue endless growth?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations treat workers the way they do?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

"Why do corporations make such bass-ackwards decisions about what's 'good for' the company?" Fiduciary duty to shareholders.

The legal purpose of a corporation with shareholders -- its only true purpose -- is the generation of revenue/returns for shareholders. Period. That's it. Anything else it does is secondary to that. Sustainability of business, treatment of workers, sustainability and quality of product, those things are functionally and legally second to generating revenue for shareholders. Again, period, end of story. There is no other function of a corporation, and all of its extensive legal privileges exist to allow it to do that.

"But Spider," you might say, "that sounds like corporations only exist in current business in order to extract as much money and value as possible from the people actually doing the work and transfer it up to the people who aren't actually doing the work!"

Yes. You are correct. Thank you for coming with me to that realization. You are incredibly smart and also attractive.

You might also say, "but Spider, is this a legal obligation? Could those running a company be held legally responsible for failing their obligations if they prioritize sustainability or quality of product or care of workers above returns for shareholders?"

Yes! They absolutely can! Isn't that terrifying? Also you look great today, you're terribly clever for thinking about these things. The board and officers of a corporation can be held legally responsible to varying degrees for failing to maximize shareholder value.

And that, my friends, is why corporations do things that don't seem to make any fucking sense, and why 'continuous growth' is valued above literally anything else: because it fucking has to be.

If you're thinking that this doesn't sound like a sustainable economic model, you're not alone. People who are much smarter than both of us, and probably nearly as attractive, have written a proposal for how to change corporate law in order to create a more sensible and sustainable economy. This is one of several proposals, and while I don't agree with all of this stuff, I think that reading it will really help people as a springboard to understanding exactly why our economy is as fucked up as it is, and why just saying 'well then don't pursue eternal growth' isn't going to work -- because right now it legally can't. We'd need to change -- and we can change -- the laws around corporate governance.

This concept of 'shareholder primacy' and the fiduciary duty to shareholders is one I had to learn when I was getting my securities licenses, and every time I see people confusedly asking why corporations try to grow grow grow in a way that only makes sense if you're a tumor, I sigh and think, 'yeah, fiduciary duty to shareholders.'

(And this is why Emet and I have refused to seek investors for NK -- we might become beholden to make decisions which maximize investor return, and that would get in the way of being able to fully support our people and our values and say the things we started this company to say.)

Anyway, you should read up on these concepts if you're not familiar. It's pretty eye-opening.

[prickly-paprikash]

Kendrick doesn't just hate Drake as a person. He hates the very idea of Drake.

Hip-Hop is rooted in revolution. In defiance. These are the songs of an oppressed group of people, and decades upon decades people have hated it. Accused of being meaningless and invalid. Media outlets took steps to belittle hip-hop and make sure it isn't recognized as an art form and as a means to fight back.

2Pac spoke of wealth disparity and inequality. Tupac was literally a member of a communist organization when he was younger and never stopped speaking against capitalism.

Lauryn Hill spoke of the struggles a woman faces. Not just women, but black women. Salt-N-Peppa. Queen Latifah. MISSY FUCKING ELLIOT.

N.W.A made sure people knew about police brutality and violence against the Black community.

And now, in this day and age, we're also experiencing an explosion of Queer Hip-Hop. Lil Nas X is at the forefront of this. Lil Uzi Vert came out as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, even when they knew that a lot of their fans would never use it or even respect them for it. Auntie Diaries, a song about a young man who grew up in a transphobic environment and bought into those beliefs, but could never fully do it because his Uncle loved him so much and taught him a lot of life lessons, and that wisdom translated to him accepting his cousin as a woman as well.

Drake is none of that.

He's the perfect representation of what people think hip-hop is. Flexing. Posturing. Objectifying women. A fucker so insecure he bought 2Pac's ring just to feel like he's part of the black community. Rejected by Rihanna publicly. Tried to groom Millie Bobby Brown. Kissed and inappropriately touched an underage girl during his concert. His songs have inspired so many young boys to treat girls like shit. His belief that the amount of rings and chains and cars he has is the true meaning of success.

Additional Edit: This is my fault. If this post gains more views, then it would be remiss of me not to add to this. It was my fault to begin with, not stating this beforehand because while I did know, I got lost in celebrating Hip-Hop in a place that doesn't usually do so, and rightfully so.

2Pac did fight for wealth equality and better social living for the black community. He also has a long, long history of battery, domestic abuse, and sexual harassment against women. Specifically against women of color. He made a song to celebrate his own mother, but outright refused to give the same show of respect to other women in his life. His hypocritical nature was brushed off in later decades, just the way I did now.

N.W.A is the same. Sexual assault charges, violence—they spoke of Police reform, but refuses to give the same treatment back towards the women in their lives.

50 cent refuses to backtrack on any of his misogynistic lyrics.

Modern rappers of today, such as the dead XXXtentacion. 6ix9ine. Kodak Black.

I do love Hip-Hop. I love rap. And the music itself has always been anti-authoritarian at its core, because those are its roots. And I was happy that circles that did not normally know of it or enjoy it were getting into it, even for one thing like this rap feud.

Lil Nas X, Little Simz, Childish Gambino, Missy Elliot, Queen Latifah, Lauryn Hill—rappers who have at the very least consistently tried to put their money where their mouth is. Who have tried to act in accordance to what they rap and write and sing for.

@shehungthemoon @ohsugarsims finnthehumanmp3 were the ones who rightfully clarified in the comments. I know an apology won't correct my hypocrisy or my stupidity. I should have added all of this before making this post, but I wanted so badly to celebrate a genre of music but failed to do my due diligence in showing a better, holistic view of it. If anyone felt triggered, offended, troubled, frustrated or any other intense negative emotions surrounding this, please do block me. I'm sorry.

[beardedmrbean]

I bet the last thing Bernie Sanders expected upon his arrival in Ireland and Britain was to be met by angry protesters—to find himself heckled and damned as a sellout by the kind of radicals who would have been shouting his praises just six months ago. And yet that is what happened: Some of Britain's Bernie Bros have morphed into Bernie bashers.

Why? Because he refuses to describe Israel's war on Hamas as a "genocide" and he doesn't approve of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement against Israel.

Quick—cast him out. Unperson him. He has ventured outside the parameters of acceptable Left-wing thought and must be punished.

It all kicked off in Dublin. Senator Sanders, who is on these isles to promote his book, Why It's OK To Be Angry About Capitalism, was speaking at University College Dublin. A group of pro-Palestine protesters assembled at the entrance to the venue, all wearing the uniform of the virtuous: a keffiyeh. "It's OK to be angry about capitalism, what about Zionism?" they chanted.

It got heated inside, too. Sanders was interrupted by audience members. "Resistance is an obligation in the face of occupation!" one shouted. "Occupation is terrorism!" yelled another.

Sanders kept his cool with his reply: "Good slogan, but slogans are not solutions," he said.

It continued at Trinity College the next day. Sanders was in conversation with the Irish journalist Fintan O'Toole. Outside, a small but noisy gaggle of anti-Israel agitators displayed a banner that said: "Boycott Apartheid Israel."

"Free Palestine!" they chanted. (Deliciously, a woman who was queuing for the Sanders event bellowed "from Hamas!" every time they said it.)

Again, Sanders was heckled by hotheads. "Ceasefire now!" they shouted. At one point, in the words of Trinity News, Sanders "threw up his right arm in frustration and looked at O'Toole, as if to ask him what would be done."

It is little wonder he felt frustrated. Sanders was there to talk about capitalism, yet angry youths kept badgering him about Zionism. He is used to a fawning response from Socialist twentysomethings, and yet now some were effectively accusing him of being complicit in a "genocide." It's quite the downfall for one of the West's best-known leftists.

The turn on Bernie is underpinned by a belief that he is too soft on Israel. The radical Left will never forgive him for initially supporting Israel's war on Hamas. Even his more recent position—he now says there should be a ceasefire—is not good enough for these people, who seem to measure an individual's moral worth by how much he hates the Jewish State.

They want Bernie to say the G-word. They want him to damn Israel as uniquely barbarous. They want him to agree with them that it is right and proper to single Israel out for boycotts and sanctions.

In short, they want him to fall into line. They want him to bend the knee to their Israelophobic ideology.

These illiberal demands on Bernie to bow down to correct-think continued when he arrived in the U.K. A group of communists protested against him in Liverpool. Normally, Sanders would have been shown only love in a historically radical city like Liverpool, said the Liverpool Echo, but this time, "the atmosphere was different," for one simple reason: "his refusal to brand Israel's actions in Gaza as 'genocide'."

Sanders' resistance of the G-word haunted him in his media interviews, too. Ash Sarkar of Novara Media, a key outlet of Britain's bourgeois Left, asked him three times if he would call Israel's war on Hamas a "genocide." He refused and it went viral. Armies of ersrtwhile Bernie fans damned him as a "genocide denier."

There is something quite nauseating in this spectacle of an elderly Jewish man being pressured to denounce the world's only Jewish State as genocidal. Millennial Gentiles who want to trend online might be happy to throw around the G-word. But Senator Sanders, who lost family in the Holocaust, clearly has a deeper moral and historical understanding of what genocide is. And it seems he is not willing to sacrifice that understanding at the altar of retweets or an easy ride.

Good for him.

Sanders' father was born in Poland, where most of his family were exterminated by the Nazis. Sanders is a son of the Shoah, a descendant of survivors of the greatest crime in history. To subject him to the modern equivalent of a showtrial in which you demand that he scream "Genocide!" at Israel feels unconscionable. As does branding him a "genocide denier."

Why won't he call Israel's war on Hamas a "genocide"? Maybe, says a writer for the Jewish Chronicle, it's because he lost so much of his family to Hitler's gas chambers and therefore he "knows what a genocide is, what a war crime is." He knows that while the war in Gaza, a war started by Hamas, is "horrible," to use his word, it cannot in any way be compared to the Nazis' conscious efforts to vaporize an entire ethnic group.

There has been a Inquisition vibe to some of the Bernie-bashing in Britain. At times it has felt cruel. The sight of fashionable, privileged Israel-bashers haranguing a man who will have heard stories from his own father about the genocidal mania of the Nazis has come across like Jew-taunting rather than political critique.

More broadly, this unseemly episode gives us a glimpse into the authoritarian impulses behind the Left's obsessive opposition to Israel. Israelophobia, it seems, is less a rational political stance than a borderline religious conviction. There are true believers, who dutifully repeat the G-word like a mantra, and sinful outliers, who refuse to treat Israel as uniquely "problematic."

One's moral fitness for radical society is increasingly judged by one's willingness to treat Israel as the most wicked nation in existence. The dangers of making hostility to the Jewish State a requirement of being a Good Leftist should be clear to everyone.

Sanders is wise to resist this tyrannical zeitgeist, and to say what he believes rather than what he believes will be popular.

Brendan O'Neill is the chief political writer of spiked. His new book, A Heretic's Manifesto: Essays on the Unsayable, is available now.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Margery E. Beck at AP:

A new South Dakota policy to stop the use of gender pronouns by public university faculty and staff in official correspondence is also keeping Native American employees from listing their tribal affiliations in a state with a long and violent history of conflict with tribes.

Two University of South Dakota faculty members, Megan Red Shirt-Shaw and her husband, John Little, have long included their gender pronouns and tribal affiliations in their work email signature blocks. But both received written warnings from the university in March that doing so violated a policy adopted in December by the South Dakota Board of Regents. “I was told that I had 5 days to remove my tribal affiliation and pronouns,” Little said in an email to The Associated Press. “I believe the exact wording was that I had ‘5 days to correct the behavior.’ If my tribal affiliation and pronouns were not removed after the 5 days, then administrators would meet and make a decision whether I would be suspended (with or without pay) and/or immediately terminated.” The policy is billed by the board as a simple branding and communications policy. It came only months after Republican Gov. Kristi Noem sent a letter to the regents that railed against “liberal ideologies” on college campuses and called for the board to ban drag shows on campus and “remove all references to preferred pronouns in school materials,” among other things.

All nine voting members of the board were appointed by Noem, whose remarks in March accusing tribal leaders of benefitting from illegal drug cartels and not properly caring for children has prompted most South Dakota tribes to ban her from their land. South Dakota’s change comes in the midst of a conservative quest to limit diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives gaining momentum in state capitals and college governing boards around the country, with about one-third of the states taking some sort of action against it. Policies targeting gender pronoun use have focused mainly on K-12 students, although some small religious colleges have also restricted pronoun use. Houghton University in western New York fired two dorm directors last year after they refused to remove gender pronouns from their work email signatures.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) and her appointed state Board of Regents enacted a extreme prejudicial policy that is anti-freedom of speech by barring employees from using pronouns and tribal affiliations in email signatures.

This is a naked act of hate and erasure against indigenous peoples and the LGBTQ+ community in The Mount Rushmore State.

[she-posts-nerdy-stuff]

An interesting thing about Kaz is the way he views a hierarchy within everyone he meets, an attitude probably defined in him by the Kerch culture of trade and the environment of Ketterdam. Kerch is a country that in many ways is designed to reflect the American Dream as it is portrayed in classic literature such as The Great Gatsby: as an ultimately unattainable and useless lie, designed to control and quell the masses in the danger of extreme capitalism. The social hierarchy in Ketterdam is well-established and discussed throughout the novels, though mostly in Crooked Kingdom since the plot stays almost entirely within city limits, and the attitude of viewing a miniature hierarchy amongst those around you as part of the overall societal structure is evidenced in Kaz, and possibly reflected in Wylan; a link both to their different upbringings within the Ketterdam social structure, and their position as literary foils. (I wrote a whole long thing about how Kaz and Wylan had/have the potential to become each other, so feel free to check that out for more detail if you want it). The city’s hierarchy and the unattainability of joining the rich upper echelon of society is cleverly hinted at from the very beginning of Six of Crows, when Kaz is jumped and then wakes up in what he expects to be the deb of a rival gang. He instead finds himself in Councilman Hoede’s Manor House, which I believe is on the Geldstradt, and the way he makes the distinction is by realising that the decor in the room he’s in “takes real money”. We know that people like Pekka Rollins or Tante Heleen have become truly rich from what they do in the Barrel, and so it’s strange to suggest that you’d need “real money” for this since we would generally use that phrase to refer to a large amount of money. What Kaz actually means here is “old money” or “family money”; you need the kind of money that the Merchant Council have been hoarding for generations, making supposedly risky trades when they have millions of savings to cushion the blow if things go wrong, not the kind of money that comes from the popular gambling dens and brothels of the Barrel. He means the kind of money that Daisy and Tom have in Great Gatsby, people who’ve never worked a day in their lives and yet like to think of themselves as very successful at life when all they’re truly succeeding in is spending their parents money, not the kind of money that Gatsby scraped and saved and began to chase through undisclosed illicit means. Even when men like Gatsby and Rollins make their money, and their name, they are never equal in the social hierarchy to people with old money. (To be clear, not that this is a defence of either character, I have criticisms of both, especially Rollins).

But the hierarchy Kaz places upon himself and upon the others is slightly more subtle, and arguably subversive. He looks down on Matthias because he “stinks of decency” and because he supposedly hasn’t struggled, arguably gaining slightly more respect for him when he learns of him losing his parents and baby sister but still maintaining the idea of ‘everyone has a sob story and you were clearly more lucky in your options to deal with it than I was, it’s not my fault if you made the wrong choice’. We as readers obviously know that Matthias had no options but to go with Jarl Brum and spent the next 6 years of his life (I think that’s the right amount of time, please correct me if I’m wrong) being emotionally manipulated and abused by him, but Kaz simply refuses to accept has suffered because it would be psychologically damaging to him to admit that Matthias was able to go through that and still come out a good person, when Kaz sees himself as having become truly demonic. Matthias looks down on Kaz for the exact same reason, unable to understand - especially since he knows far less detail about Kaz’s trauma - how someone who ever had a core of decency couldn’t maintain it through their pain, he assumes Kaz was never a good person, or never had the potential to be one. Kaz also looks down on Wylan, arguably far less for his attempt to maintain a core decency but because he views Wylan as having had the option to do so. Kaz seems to have more respect for Wylan in Crooked Kingdom than in Six of Crows, when he knows more about (but never, it should be noted, the full extent of) Jan Van Eck’s abuse to his son, once again showcasing that he struggles to accept the idea of someone feeling bad when they have supposedly suffered less than him. His trauma has clearly warped him in many ways, and one of them is losing the ability to see relative pain and how different things can affect different people in different ways; he effectively views everything in the manner of ‘I had it worse, and I’m fine so you need to get over yourself’. He labels Nina “a snob” for staying away from the Crow Club and the Slat despite being a Dregs member, and her response is “she didn’t much care what Kaz Brekker thought”. I think that Nina is possible the person Kaz holds the most respect for in his platonic relationships, and that is mostly because she simply couldn’t care less whether he respects her or not.

His relationship with Jesper is more complex; he judges Jesper for his addiction and yet continually eggs him on, giving him a line of credit to play cards at the start of Six of Crows and having the first step of his planning in Crooked Kingdom to make Jesper play all night, although it’s unclear whether Jesper has ever shared anything about his mother if anyone knows then the most likely parties are Kaz or Inej and yet Kaz forces Jesper to give up his revolvers in Crooked Kingdom, his most treasured possession and his constant connection to his late mother, he consistently infantilises Jesper, but mostly in his head and this is possibly an interesting link to the final nail in the coffin of their relationship; Kaz sees Jesper as a substitute to Jordie. I think it’s possible that he likes to see him as younger because that’s how he remembers Jordie - it’s also important to remember that Kaz is now several years older than his elder brother ever was so seeing him in someone his own age is possibly even more painful because that’s a point Jordie never reached (he was only 13 when he died). Jesper is someone that Kaz feels the need to keep at arms length, not because he doesn’t respect him but because he fears having a close relationship with someone who could so easily slip away from him like Jordie did. I think we can also arguably see aspects of Jordie within Jesper, the naïveté of thinking you can make it Ketterdam followed by the city swallowing you whole, killing Jordie and driving Jesper to his slow self-destruction - “I’m dying anyway, Da. I’m just doing it slow”. (If y’all have read many of my analytical posts you may have begun to notice that’s one of my favourite quotes)

Then we have Inej. Kaz places Inej on a pedestal whatever she does. I’ve spoken before about how she claims to be bad at picking locks whilst he claims to have done “a shoddy job at teaching her to pick locks” because he’s incapable of accepting that she is incapable of something; if there are flaws, they must be his because she cannot have any. In a lot of situations this can be harmful, going back to the romance of Daisy and Gatsby where Daisy is placed on a pedestal and idealised so much that she become more of an image than a person, so when she does not live up to his every high expectation Gatsby is destroyed by it. But with kanej this seems only to elevate their position, possibly because Kaz isn’t claiming that Inej is flawless, but rather that she is capable of working on her flaws in a way that he isn’t; it is almost a form of envy. For example, Inej also has a fear of touch and human contact, but she purposely forced herself to cope with small amounts of it, such as allowing Nina and Jesper to hug her even though it makes her flinch, because she fears it becoming a debilitating condition, as it has done for Kaz (not that she knows that initially when it’s first implied that she too fears contact). In the bathroom scene when she admits to him that she also struggles with touch, it has such a massive effect on Kaz not because he refuses to accept that she has flaws but because he sees her as so much stronger than himself and wishes that he could be more like her. Although both of them are ultimately unable to go any further than a few light brushes of contact, it’s suggested that what trigger Inej more than the touch itself is the sexual implications of those touches based on everything she went through at the Menagerie. Kaz doesn’t see Inej aligned with with himself or the other gang members, but as above them - and not in the way he labels Nina as a snob, but in a genuine manner he refuses to acknowledge her as low in society because he sees her as deserving of so much more. He notably never refers to her as “a canal rat” and he never even comes close to defining her by her time at the Menagerie, a start contrast between him, the supposed low of the hierarchy, and Van Eck, the supposed upper, he yells at her “you little skiv! You little whore!”. However, there is one way in which Kaz arguably looks down on Inej and it’s in a similar way that he looks down in Matthias: how dare she still try so hard to remain truly good, and decent, and to find her Saints and to politely ask them for forgiveness, when it would be so much easier to let the world beat that out of her? Arguably, it’s not that he judges either of them for their faith, but it’s that he fears them judging him for losing his, be that in religion or in the world at all. (I don’t think we know if Kaz was raised in a religious household or not, but based on societal structure in Ketterdam and the way most of the population in most of the countries are religious I think it’s safe to assume he at least grew up with an understanding of Ghezen). Kaz fears that they’ll judge him for failing to maintain his core of decency, which is exactly what Matthias does, and so he aims to offend or challenge them before they can him.

Ok I’m not gonna lie to you guys it’s like quarter past one in the morning as I’m writing this, and oh my god it just got so long out of nowhere… I might have lost my point somewhere in there, I don’t even know, this came from one quote I was thinking about and I’m not sure I even wrote that quote in there so, yeah, I guess. If you bothered to read this far the tysm I hope it made sense

[sagethefool]

I like the idea that Snow looked at Katniss and Peeta and gradually started seeing the first two people he betrayed. He sees the dynamic and effect they have on himself and others, and assumes Katniss must be like Lucy Gray, a songbird and performer, and Peeta must be Sejanus, loyal, soft-hearted, good Sejanus.

In reality, Katniss is more like Sejanus--she can't watch others suffer, she buries Rue when she dies and mourns her deeply, she's impulsive when it comes to doing what is right, and cares so much it hurts. Every action she takes is a decision made because she could not live with herself if she allowed others to suffer, period. I think that might be what makes her the more rebellious of the two, whether she realizes it or not. In a society that demands blood and cruelty, Katniss refuses and chooses kindness, chooses to give people a softer end, and what could be more rebellious than that? Like Sejanus, she is willing to see the suffering the Capital inflicts and say it is wrong, and then take action to correct it

It's Peeta, kind, fool-in-love Peeta, who is the upgraded Lucy Gray. He might not sing or play the guitar, but he plays the Capitol people for all they're worth just as well as any instrument Lucy Gray might have. He's clever and, yeah, a little manipulative, but never for his own personal gain. From the moment he steps into the Capital, he's plotting and planning how to keep Katniss safe, what strategies he needs to use, what words to say, because only one of them can make it home, can live, and he wants to make sure it's her. Ultimately, Peeta wants Katniss to be safe and to live in peace, just as Lucy Gray ultimately wanted to just live in freedom and peace.

And it's this misunderstanding of who they are that means Snow can't control or manipulate them. He's using the wrong tactics, threatening the wrong person. Katniss has no idea how to perform and manipulate, so much so that even the District 13 propos team struggle to make her their symbol without putting her in the middle of suffering to invoke the reactions they need from her. Peeta, on the other hand? I think if Snow had approached Peeta, threatening to hurt everyone he loves, and told him he had to appease the districts, Peeta would have managed it. But he sees Peeta as weak, simple, and, clearly, he's just been charmed by Katniss into throwing his life away for her.

[hyperlexichypatia]

This survey of why parents are estranged from their adult children is such an interesting illustration of how neurobigotry functions in society and interpersonal relationships. People accuse their estranged family members of being Mad/neurodivergent, because Madness is synonymous with being at fault in a relationship. It's considered inherently Reasonable and Justified to cut ties with a Mad/neurodivergent person -- especially an untreated-by-choice Mad/neurodivergent person -- because to be Mad/neurodivergent is to be inherently wrong, inherently unreasonable, inherently burdensome, inherently the one who is not abiding by the social compact.

Or as one of my friends put it, "Mental illness exists as a sociopolitical concept of ontological wrongness."

One of the pervasively enduring aspects of neurobigotry is that people who have been abused by neurobigotry will, instead of rejecting neurobigotry, simply accept it and turn it around on their abusers. People think they're really onto something with "No, it is my abusive parents who are mentally ill and need therapy" or "No, it is the people in power who are mentally defective" or "Racism/capitalism/bigotry are the real mental illness!"

But you can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools. Pathologizing your parents doesn't correct the power imbalance of being pathologized by them, and using pathologization as a way to convey wrongness is still reifying pathologization and neurobigotry.

The context of family estrangement reminds me of this thought process I started about the construction of "cults." When the anti-cult movement began, it was centered on family members of people who'd joined new religious movements. The premise that people who joined religious groups their families didn't approve of were victims of "cult brainwashing" who needed to be "rescued" and "deprogrammed" (against their will, of course) was a tool of controlling families trying to deny their (usually) adult children's right to freedom of religion and general life choices. The idea that "cults" caused family estrangement was an integral aspect of the moral panic around them.

But over the decades, the stigma on "cults" has shifted. The contemporary anti-cult movement is fueled by people who grew up in abusive religious communities and chose to leave. It's applied as often to older, larger, established religious groups as it is to newer, smaller ones. While the original anti-cult movement largely centered on parents trying to control their adult children, the newer anti-cult movement largely centers on adults who've broken away from their parents' control.

Except. Except. It still uses the pathologization framework established in the 1970s. It's still a reversal -- No, it is you, the parents, the church, the authority, who are the Mentally Ill, the cult, the deviant, the ones in need of being fixed -- rather than a rejection or reframing: Actually, young people should be free to choose their own path in life.

It's not only applied in relationships between parents and children -- it's even more commonly invoked in breakups between former friends or partners. People feel the need to establish which party was Mentally Ill and Needed Therapy as a proxy for which party was At Fault in the breakup. In reality, breaking up doesn't necessarily mean either party was At Fault, but it's more socially acceptable to say "We had to break up because he's Mentally Ill and Refused To Get Help" rather than "We just didn't get along." Discussions of bad and badly-ended relationships are just constant rounds of uno reverse allegations of Madness/neurodivergence.

One of my least favorite examples is trying to "rebut" the neuromisogynistic trope of "Women are crazy" with "Men cause women to become crazy." Why are you validating "Women are crazy" by trying to "explain" it? Why are you accepting the premise that "crazy" is a bad thing? Why are you reifying the idea that being "crazy" has to be "caused" by something "bad"? If a man says "I broke up with my ex-girlfriend because she's crazy!" why validate the neuromisogyny with "No, you're crazy!" or "You must have made her crazy!" instead of challenging it with "What's wrong with being 'crazy'? What does that have to do with anything?"

If someone says "I stopped speaking to my child because they refused to seek therapy," why validate the neurobigotry with "You're the one who needs therapy!" instead of challenging it with "Why is their choice whether or not to seek therapy any of your business?"

[rafecameroninterlude]

i refuse to believe you don’t have any prior experience to writing. you’re insanely talented!!!

i actually do have prior writing experience but not in the fanfiction world lol. i used to be in writing club when i was in middle school, and also when i was in high school. it was so fun, i miss it ૮ . . ྀིა⁩

basically we would draw a piece of paper that had themes like ‘dystopian’ , ‘fantasy’ , ‘justice’ etc… and we would meet up every two weeks to present a short story based off of that theme. we had to world build and create personalities for all of our characters, and stuff like that (this is a huge reason why i love writing with my !readers and creating them!)

and i would also go over and correct essays lol (formation, punctuation, capitalization, grammar, spelling, etc..)

thank you so much anon <33333

[vergess]

hello do you happen to have an explanation/definition of what pinkwashing is? don't trust googlie with a term so new and it does not line up with my understanding of the terms it's made up of (-washing = covering or changing the original or true depiction, pink- = I only know this term in politics from pink-collar and I am 99% certain it does not mean the same thing here)

Oh, yeah, you're absolutely correct about it not being a pink-collar thing.

For my followers, pink-collar refers to paid work outside the home that is traditionally held by women. The "pink" refers to women, femininity, etc. Just girly things, if you will.

In pink-washing, however, the pink refers to pink triangles, a prominent symbol of queer survival after pink triangles were used to mark sexual deviants (that is, gay men and trans women).

Pink-washing is the use of "we have queer rights, unlike those barbaric savages" to justify state violence.

Right now, the term is mostly coming up in discussions of Israel. In that specific context, it refers to the fact that Israel is far and away the most progressive and well-protected place for queer people of all sorts in the middle east. Which the Israeli government often likes to point to as proof that their brutal ethnic cleansing is a "necessary force" to protect queer lives from Islamist extremism.

It's a sort of, "look, I know what I'm doing is bad, but what they're doing is way worse: look at how badly they treat their queers. Obviously I must be violent to help civilize the animals, for the sake of their queers," often while actively killing queer civilians for being for the wrong race.

Unfortunately, pink-washing is itself strong evidence that a state devalues her queer citizens, thinking of them not as vulnerable people to be protected (as the state will insist is the case), but rather as tokens to be trotted out as proof of the state's "goodness." And should any queer person defy the role of "good little token," they are inevitably and severely punished. As they say (they being in this case an Israeli sociologist whose name escapes me entirely), "A trans woman in uniform will be given medical care, but a trans woman who refuses military service will go to a men's prison."

Pink-washing is also extremely, EXTREMELY common in the U.S. though this doesn't get as much air time lately as Israeli pink-washing. But, the U.S. very regularly uses pink-washing around gay (not so much trans) rights to justify both imperial and domestic violence. Even at the per-state level, it is extremely common for people in "progressive" states to say absurd shit like, "well we treat our gays with respect, unlike Alabama!" to thought-stop themselves from noticing how miserable their lives are as a direct consequence of state action (or even state inaction to stop violence, as is often the case with capitalism and policing problems).

There's also a significant problem in Canada with their pretty solid record on queer rights being used as a counter-argument to their mistreatment of indigenous peoples. This too is pink-washing.

Pink-washing also devalues to lives and specifically the queerness of the people being targeted for violence. You know. By killing them and stuff. But also by denying that they deserve the very right to life and safety that is supposedly the mission statement.

If the entire point of pink-washed violence really was queer liberation, they would suck at that because they keep killing all the queer people they don't fucking like.

[bizarrequazar]

Zhang Zhehan, 813, and Zhang Sanjian FAQ

I’ve been thinking for a while that I should make this as a starting place for people just learning about the situation. Please let me know if you have any corrections or anything you would like me to add.

1. What happened to Zhang Zhehan? / What is 813?

On August 13. 2021, a photo was spread by online water armies of Zhang Zhehan in front of cherry blossoms from a trip he had taken to Japan in 2018. This was accompanied by claims that he had been there to visit the Yasukuni Shrine—a politically controversial shrine which honors WWII war criminals—and that he held right-wing anti-Chinese sentiments. This photo was later joined by others, all either photoshopped or with falsified context, “backing up” these accusations along with further claims slandering him and his family.

In the days following, Zhang Zhehan lost all of his endorsements, had all of his past works taken down, had all of his social media shut down, and was boycotted by the private association CAPA without the chance to defend himself. His name and image were also later banned from social media, he was used as a negative example in schools and on exams, and his name is blocked from registration on some social media sites and certain devices. He and his family have been subject to intense harassment including death threats.

All of the accusations against him have been shown to be false and he is currently pursuing legal action, but he is still unable to speak or appear publicly in any capacity.

Further reading:  -  Talking points pamphlet  -  Wiki page

2. Who was behind 813?

The boycott was issued by the China Association of Performing Arts (CAPA), a private industry association that at the time held sway (but no official authority) over many social media and streaming companies. CAPA is heavily suspected of being the ones who orchestrated the entire incident and related events, see point 4 below.

2.5. Was Gong Jun behind 813?

No, he had no motive whatsoever, was still a small name in the industry at the time, has no industry sway, had his most popular show taken down because of 813, and was targeted by similar attacks in the months after. If he had not stayed quiet about 813, Gong Jun very easily could have been taken down by it as well. Please see point 7 below if you have this belief because of Zhang Sanjian / zhangzhehan_super3, and if you have this belief because of the Twitter account Justice for Zhang Zhehan please know that she is an idiot.

3. Was 813 caused by censorship / homophobia / the Chinese government?

No. There is no evidence for 813 having anything to do with censorship, it was perpetuated by private venture capitalism. The Chinese government had no known involvement—CAPA has no government affiliation, and both the NRTA and MCT confirmed after inquiry that they had nothing to do with Zhang Zhehan’s cancellation. Quite the opposite, it was said by Li Xuezheng that government officials were in attendance during the interview between him and Zhang Zhehan released 2022-01-01.

4. Why Zhang Zhehan? / What was the motive behind 813?

The exact reason is not known for sure, but it is heavily suspected that he turned down an exclusive endorsement deal with one of CAPA’s subsidiaries around March / April 2021. CAPA took this as a slight and, because he was heavily in the public eye at the time, they decided to make him an example of what they could do to people who refused to play their game.

Other smaller parties who participated in 813 were driven by industry competition, private capital, mob mentality, and/or because they’re shitheads who found it fun.

Further reading: Lead-up to 813

5. Does the lack of news about Zhang Zhehan mean he’s given up / he’s lost his case?

Absolutely not, and quite the opposite in fact. Avoiding the public eye is the best thing Zhang Zhehan can do to avoid media frenzy and the potential skewing of the narrative that that could cause. Due to the length of time it has been since 813, whatever Zhang Zhehan first does when he becomes public again is guaranteed to cause a stir, and therefore he has to be very careful about not saying anything publicly until he and his case are at a favourable point to do so.

Further reading:  -  Question about the length of the case  -  Breakdown of the legal process in relation to Zhang Zhehan’s case

6. Could Zhang Zhehan pursue a career internationally instead? 

Until his name is cleared, no. 

Zhang Zhehan did not have enough international recognition prior to 813 to realistically build a career overseas, and he has not shown fluency in any language other than Mandarin with which to do so. Even if he did pursue this, until his name is cleared he will always be associated with 813 and would struggle to find success with how he would be viewed by Chinese diaspora. 

As well, given the nationalistic nature of 813, seeking a career overseas would communicate guilt and/or giving up on his case.

7. Is Zhang Sanjian / the zhangzhehan_super3 Instagram account / the person releasing new songs Zhang Zhehan?

No. There is overwhelming evidence that Zhang Sanjian etc. is a scam using Zhang Zhehan’s name and image, utilizing photoshopping, deepfakes, and impersonators. 

The people behind this have known professional connections to CAPA, and the activities the scam has engaged in have consistently been aimed at further damaging his image. The Zhang Sanjian persona is characterized as having given up on clearing his name, being degrading and rude to both his fans and former costars, and giving up on his career in China to pursue international fame (see point 6 above). Practically every action made by the persona and related parties go completely against Zhang Zhehan’s character and/or make no logical sense for someone in his position.

Further reading:   -  Timeline of the IG’s early activity  -  Deepfake breakdown  -  Collected information about the Bangkok concerts  -  Wiki page for the IG account

8. Why doesn’t Zhang Zhehan speak out against Zhang Sanjian?

See point 5 above. It is likely that part of the original aim of Zhang Sanjian was specifically to try to bait him into saying something against it. The scam has been trying very hard to control the public narrative via buying public screens, commissioning tabloid articles, releasing a ridiculous number of songs and artificially raising hit counts on these, etc.

9. Why go through so much effort to erase Zhang Zhehan / continue the Zhang Sanjian scam?

For CAPA, Zhang Zhehan winning his case and overturning his boycott will heavily diminish their industry influence (not to mention jail time, hopefully). It could, in the best case scenario, even lead to the complete disbandment of the company under Chinese anti-monopoly legislation. (see the first point under [this post])

For the smaller players involved in the scam specifically, the motive is by and large personal financial gain. Many are known to be in debt / have been in debt but are suddenly now making lavish purchases (Sophie for example), some are known professional con men (Peter), and some are seeking other personal goals such as trying to get famous themselves (Lexus), to promote their own businesses (the Chens and the gym bros), or even for sexual gratification (Hewitt). 

As well, it’s important to keep in mind the financial scale of the extremely lucrative Chinese entertainment industry. The amount that has been spent on 813 and everything since is barely anything in the grand scheme of things.

Further Resources:  -  Zhang Zhehan wiki  -  Masterlist of my posts about Zhang Zhehan  -  My ZZH info tag

[pleasecallmealsip]

Zizek, the poets, and Przybyszewska

The weirdness (affectionate) of Przybyszewska does not only stand in her hyperfixation on the French Revolution. It stands in her refusal to make Robespierre a person that invites the readers' empathy or imitation.

Sure, in her universe, everybody from Eléonore to Barère are impressed with Robespierre, but that admiration has been framed as neither comfortable nor desired. Saint-Just is the closest to an equal friend to Robespierre that we see, and Saint-Just's love language is a paraphrase of "take care of your mental health: do a dictatorship". Robespierre does all the internal battles, and the affection he gets is from several individuals, and never from "the people"; he does not become a hero of the people à la Danton-in-Wajda's-Danton (no, i will Not stop trashing Wajda).

The entire unreality of Robespierre predicting military dictatorship in Act V of The Danton Case, of Robespierre dreading for the continuation of the always-already-too-long contamination of always-already-late-stage capitalism in the second act of Thermidor, keeps a distance between Robespierre and any communist in Przybyszewska's audience (and one needs only recall the situation of Polish communists in the late 1920s and early 1930s, to see how much trauma her plays were supposed to instill), and shatters the possibility of any member of audience leaving the theatre and uttering "he's just like us".

Przybyszewska did not theatricalise the more commonly-celebrated moments of the French Revolution. 14th of July was not the point. 10th of August was not the point. Valmy was not the point. It is almost as if she wanted to confront head-on the contradictory liberal formula of "1789 without 1793". To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht: what is the strangeness of Przybyszewska setting her theatrical works in 1793-94, compared to the strangeness of setting the fête nationale on bastille day (as supposed to, for example, danton death day)!

It is insufficient to state that Przybyszewska chose a correct side of the barricade. It would be more accurate to say that she escaped the temptation of representing the French Revolution as an event that defines a modern country, as mythic violence (as supposed to divine violence), in short, she managed to be a poet without nationalism (and for a Polish socialist, avoiding French nationalism might have been even more difficult than avoiding Polish nationalism). Such a feat is as rare as it is fine.

Slavoj Zizek keeps repeating Plato's idea of banishing poets from the city, and more than that, Zizek apparently agrees that poets should, in fact, be thrown away. This is the Zizek who, in Less than Nothing (2012), said that "the Elizabethan era occurred in order to produce Shakespeare". This is the Zizek who illustrates how external war should lead to internal revolution by referencing Fight Club.

How do we square this? Well, we are not saying No here, we must say Yes And. Yes, by "poets", Zizek means the likes of Ezra Pound, Wyndham Lewis, or W.B. Yeats, all of whom sympathising with fascists (this, btw, was not a coincidence of "they wrote beautifully but they also happened to dupe themselves into less-than-based ideologies": recall only how Walter Benjamin saw fascism operating through aestheticising military violence itself, through providing metaphors that could give the cowardly soldier a calm respite from his horrible deeds of slaughter). No, by "poets", Zizek also means the likes of Aleksandr Dugin. It is the nationalistic function of poetry that Zizek is especially wary of.

There was a time where without poets, towns-people and village-people would not know whom their compatriots were, and now we have a time where, without poets, the imperial core would know the power of the imperial periphery, would come into terrifying knowledge of their own cowardice and contradictions.

Far from exclusively advocating peace and friendship and tender sentiments, poets can make even the most innocuous and folk-wisdom-like sayings into nationalistic propaganda, the type that drenches the reader in pride and pathos for the far-away and the long-ago, and numbs the reader's senses regarding specific sufferings of the here and now. In his preface to Sophie Wahnich's In Defence of the Terror (2012), Zizek wrote:

There is no ethnic cleansing without poetry — why? Because we live in an era which perceives itself as post-ideological. Since great public causes no longer have the force to mobilize people for mass violence, a larger sacred Cause is needed, a Cause which makes petty individual concerns about killing seem trivial. Religion or ethnic belonging fit this role perfectly.

If we look at apologists for the usamerican army for the past at-least-twenty years, do we not observe exactly this kind of defence-for-the-sacred talking points? we rarely hear apologists say "we need to steal natural resources from countries that we have intentionally kept away from economic growth by tactlessly slaughtering non-white people for the sake of it". no. we see the narrative of "some of the army are village teenagers struggling to pay college tuition fees", the narrative of defending the liberal (derogatory) illusion of individuals climbing up the social ladder.

Do we return to Przybyszewska purely out of a desire to recount the events during 1789-1794? Again, we must yes-and this. Yes, recounting the revolution is the least we can do. And, frustrating the dream to be the perfect revolutionary, frustrating the idea that friendship can come cheaply as commodities do in the revolution, frustrating the illusion that with revolution comes heroism, comes national pride, comes guarantee of the big Other — these frustrations are sorely needed for a pessimistic view, the view where the only way through a crisis is by revolution. Only the optimists would think that a reform, or worse, a "revolution without a revolution", can do the job.

[despazito]

Idk in my idyllic world the use of ai could improve animation workflow and catapult junior level artists into creative leads roles faster if there's less menial work to be done.

We could have artists still in charge of creative decisions and drawing vis dev while the computer assists with the most labour intensive steps of making shows or movies.

For simpler shows for instance it would be neat I think if you could run your storyboard through a script and have the machine import all relevant assets staged to the best of its abilities instead of manually having to drag props and rigs into your shot and scaling everything before you can even begin to animate (does that tech exist already? Probably).

Like nowadays we already have animation programs where you can set deformer limitations.

i could imagine a possible future where software includes or does subscription services to ai trained on work by artists who got paid to draw or animate template motions or anatomy references. something like generating smart bones could become an automated feature. i can maybe even foresee tech that can look at a character model or design sheet you've drawn and generate a rig for it. in all these scenarios you would have to correct stuff and tune things to your liking, but it gives a considerable head start to the work.

More dynamic shots could be made on smaller budgets if we gave ai props or backgrounds and said "give me this but rotated a little" instead of drawing the same damn chair from 10 angles as a prop artist, I refuse to believe anyone's passion in life is to make prop turnarounds or clean up inbetweens.

what if you had an ai that was trained on drawings of heads at every angle, animals in every angle, a slew of expressions and mouth shapes, then gave it a character ref drawn from a few angles and bam it makes the vtuber rig for you.

this still leaves space for original art and would still require a skilled creative to make something look it's best, that could be a gig. more animators could potentially begin their own smaller studios if cartoons are way easier to make. if anyone could potentially make their own movie in the future, charge people to do it right! no computer can replace a human knowledgeable in film or drawing to guide it in the right direction. without creative people at a production's core, i think the future of ai film is just a very, very, sophisticated version of goanimate than can also do art theft.

this could become the weird futuristic version of "i wrote this children's book can you illustrate it for me?" but instead your mom's friend wants to commission a show pilot they wrote a screenplay for.

When animation was drawn on cels we had entire painting departments whose job it was to paint each individual frame by literal numbers, and it was tedious!! Now we have the paint bucket tool for digital coloring, and software like Toonboom lets you color in one frame then generate the coloring for the proceeding frames. We still have a colour and painting department, it's just different work now. but now we also have people making full color cartoons from their basements because Flash was released for personal computers with said digital tech along with computer generated motion tweening for animation!!

Junior animator and junior bg painter or prop artist roles will probably face an overhaul where more work can be done with less people. But the utopian outcome would be these junior artists can sooner take up lead or supervisor positions where they get to execute their own ideas instead of someone else's. more shows or movies could be produced with less crew for less money, slashing costs when deciding what to greenlight or to take a risk on new talent. The problem is capitalism would make it suck because it only cares about exploiting workers for those cheapest costs possible and forego the necessary human crew required to make the difference between machine-assisted productions and pure ai generated slop

[communist-ojou-sama]

Okay so I'm gonna go ahead and put a disclaimer up top that these are the ramblings of a dilettante that shouldn't be taken too seriously, but I think that people (understandably) frustrated with with the ICJ ruling and convinced it will have no material consequences should consider some things before they say that.

The first thing I want to remind everyone is that the west is far from invincible. Their rule is not iron-clad and their ability to enforce their will on the world is far from complete and is waning apace.

I think a lot about how in the process of the transition to late capitalism (as I personally define it), one consequence of the mass financialization of the economy is the pricing-out of most common consumer commodity-based manufacturing enterprise in favor of transactions that are most elastic in price, and how the result of that is a mass outflow of raw productive capacity from the imperial core to the global periphery.

If I can frame that in another way, and forgive me in framing this in very neutral terms, but it turns these countries from production-rich countries to production-poor countries with economies defined by the phenomenon of asset-price inflation.

The resulting global situation is that, similar to the assertion that Africa for example is rich because it's where the natural resources that facilitate the global economy are located, Mexico is rich. Vietnam is rich. Bangladesh is rich. These countries are awash in raw capacity to create goods that have a use value. What is the one thing that keeps them relatively cash-poor?

That is, the law. There's a bit of poetry in the idea that just as how within imperial core economies the most important economic instruments are legal contracts to either some percentage of a company's equity or its debt, what sustains its (nominal) riches over the global periphery is a legal regime of ownership that entitles them to the rights to all of the profits going on in these incredibly production-rich countries in the Global South.

It is absolutely correct to say that at the highest level, these legal regimes are enforced at the barrel of the gun, we've seen how too much refusal to to honor these laws by heads of state can lead to mass disinvestment and eventually coups d'état, and even now it would not be a good idea to say, seize the productive assets of a bunch of US firms.

However, and this is where the ICJ comes back in to my point, let's not think about the US. Let's think about, for example, the Netherlands or Belgium. These countries maintain fantastic financial wealth via contracts of ownership with countries in the global south but they are also small and geopolitically unimportant, with little in the way of individual military power.

For little countries like these, genuinely the Only thing that secures their ability to act as a parasite on the global productive economy is the strength of legitimacy that international law affords them, and the position of overwhelming power the west Once had, decades ago.

But the power and prestige of the West continues, as I said, to wane apace. it's too early to happen now but these less militaristic countries are aware of how exposed their assets are to simple seizure if over time international law comes to be seen as a joke.

As awful and condamnable as the current global system is, it is not total dictatorship. It is only able to perpetuate itself because the overwhelming majority of countries that are parties to it have buy in and because, albeit much more slowly than they could have under socialism, they have been able to make dents in their own poverty with it.

The exposure of the international law framework as having absolutely no legitimacy, as being a naked tool of domination of rich countries over poor countries has knock-on effects that stand to be incredibly dangerous to less militarily capable countries that rely on them for their economic structures. On a long-term scale, especially as these countries become richer and more geopolitically influential in their own right, they may well begin to pose the question: why Shouldn't I seize these french factories in my country? Why Shouldn't I seize this Belgian-owned diamond mine? Why Should I pay back this IMF loan, if the ICJ framework can't even compel the Zionist Enemy to end a genocide? And I promise you, this is a reality of which at least some people in those countries are highly cognizant and wary, so I'd wait and see a bit before being Too pessimistic.

[ride-thedragon]

NETTLES AND THE IDEA OF INNOCENCE

Innocence, especially for women in asoiaf has a particular place in their perception.

Innocence in our world holds a very similar place.

When a character is innocent, you want better for them because any turmoil they go through is undeserved, and by the rules of both societies, it should allow them to be exalted from hardships.

So when it comes to such a small character like Nettles the idea of her innocence is perpetuated past the character we have because she is exalted from the concequence of what she is accused of in the narrative and is redeemed from all the hardship she faces towards the beginning when she claims a dragon.

But I don't think that's fair or correct so I want to go over some things we know and hear about her that people use to defend this idea of innocence and come to the conclusion that even though she is innocent it's not in the way typically attributed to her.

1. Nettles and Sheep:

Her relationship to this animal is a fun metaphor to understand her. Nettles trades sheep to gain her dragon Sheepstealer. Nettles trades innocence for power.

"Lambs have always been sacrificial animals. From the Ancient Greeks and Romans to Christians and even later civilizations, lambs were used for sacrifice to a higher purpose. In most cases, it was the sacrifice to Gods.These are the qualities that make lambs so symbolic. "

"They are a sign of innocence, purity, vulnerability, and sacrifice. Many of these symbols overlap with the symbolism of youth."

The idea of innocence is something that her taming Sheepstealer inherently corrupts. She slaughters sheep every day to get close enough to establish a bond to him. It's a continued effort to trade innocence for power, and because dragons make Targaryens closer to gods than men, the idea is that she's offering a sacrifice to a 'god' to gain power.

I'll link my post about this parallel she has to sheep further.

Another thing is that she's young, and that plays a part in what she is absolved from in the narrative because of the nativity and ability to grow with the potential of youth.

2. Nettles and The Cost of Power:

The regression of this trade for power comes after Driftmark is sacked and burned. In the war effort that Nettles largely contributed to, she loses her friend and her home. We are told her reaction to the loss is crying through the soot on her face so hard it leaves streaks. As with what happens consistently in mythology, the protagonist reaps benefits and consequences in the quest for power. The cost of gaining that power was fighting in the war, something she knew would happen. The fact that it came at the cost of her closest known relationship at the time as well as the place she grew up and had to leave behind to join the war effort is conceivable but not predictable for anyone to know. Especially not a 16 year old girl.

3. Nettles and King's Landing:

A while back, I drew attention to the fact that in the book, we have no real evidence that Nettles had any of the promises made to the Dragon Claimers kept to her. No marriages, lands, or knighthood equivalents are given to her in the wake of the fight. A lot of people use this as a way to say she's innocent because she believes in a cause and is sticking by it. That doesn't seem accurate towards the situation. King's Landing is the capital at that moment for punishing treason. She's a young, grieving girl, experiencing the price of power in a place where her refusal to fight or her running away will be met with a death warrant. Nettles has a nose scar for stealing allegedly. She's one of the characters we know understands the cost of disobedience in this world. She is a cost they'd be willing to pay. Even with her dragon adding to her necessity during the war, they're executing Noble men at that time. Nettles' entire life in juxtaposition to their's is incredibly small. Whether or not she cared about gaining anything (I like to think they gave her money), it's very clear that it's a weary time with major consequences for defiance or treason.

4. Nettles and Daemon:

This is the one people use this idea of innocence the most frequently for. "Nettles was innocent of the accusation made against her (sleeping with Daemon, not witchcraft), and Rhaenyra was influenced and turned against her."

Nettles doesn't need to be innocent for what Rhaenyra did to be wrong. The men who defend Nettles against the decree say that Nettles is wrong but young and shouldn't be killed for that. They conceded that the idea of treason is fair, but the idea surrounding it with the spell implications is simply incorrect and will make Daemon kill them if executed. Daemon is the sole person who puts her in danger and saves her in this narrative for his own character arc. Nettles isn't innocent, but she is young. She has her life ahead of her and has done everything that is expected of her. She isn't punished for love by the narrative. It saves her life and allows her to escape the trapping of power altogether, something she never returns to traditionally.

She does return to it with the burned men, but entirely away from the system, she originally gained that power from.

5. Nettles and Treason:

She did commit treason. That's not an innocent thing. It quite literally required her sleeping with a married prince. Whether or not she's a virgin (we'll get to it) in this world, giving into sex outside of marriage or prostitution as a woman is framed as wrong because of the value of virtue for women. With someone like Nettles, she'd know it's a bad thing and still proceeds with it. While as prince consort and a man Daemon will never dare a lick of concequence for adultery, Nettles would, and treason isn't a far stretch for the crime. Even with the understanding that Daemon would protect her, that they seemingly have, it's not okay. (It is to me. She's completely innocent.)

6. Nettles and Virginity:

Virtue is a currency in this world. Sleeping with a girl and deflowering is seen as a commodity and milestone. Virtue for women is posed as an added value. Without it, as we see in the books, women without maidenheads are seen as a lesser offer often beneath the standard of noble men.

Nettles is not ever positioned as a virgin. In this world, it's a logical conclusion to draw that she is not and would've traded sex for food or money. I'm not saying that happened, but if it did, there seems to be a stigma that it makes her lesser character in the story and / or denies her own autonomy by demeaning her. With the way it is presented in the narrative, it's a fair conclusion to draw. It's said to deter the idea that Daemon would sleep with her because she isn't even worth it, and that's my issue with the she should be virtuous reading.

It falls into the temptation of a character doing what she must to survive being a way to demean her. Nettles was surviving every day before the sowing. Her having sex, prostitution or just because she could, should not shroud her character in any world. Nettles can exist as both a critical view of how Westeros treats girls like her and as an autonomous character who chooses whether or not to have sex given her situation without it being demeaning or derogatory towards her as a character.

7. Nettles and Sex Work:

To add on, sex work is often demonized in this world, and because of the poor class of women often in these positions who are quite young and have no real alternative. Nettles as a character would exist in contradiction to the narrative of not only sex workers who die or are brutalized in that life, think book Shae, Show Roz. She'd also be the one who is actively saved by the class of people who often perpetuate this system of abuse they exist in.

Nettles isn't in it anymore or has once been preyed on by the entrapping cycle that brothels perpetuate but escapes and makes her own way. She's foul-mouthed and marred because of it, but she also becomes a dragonrider, and then when she has sex it's because she wants to.

When the narrative tries to condemn her for it, she's saved by the person who puts her in that position, unlike the other girls, like Tysha, Nettles' value isn't placed on her past sexual partners, and she is like the other girls who fall victim to the predatory sex work establishments in ASOIAF, but she escapes and isn't punished in the narrative for sleeping with someone or trying to survive in the first place. Something we don't really see in this world.

Overall,

The overarching angle of innocence pushed on her character is extremely strange and does not benefit her as a character. Innocence in this world is based on patriarchal feudalism that commodifies women into property and places value on them like stock that depreciates with superficial nonsense.

Question this world.

Nettles isn't innocent and shouldn’t have to be to deserve the ending she gets. She can just escape because she learns and grows and is young enough to do it without major consequences for her.

Nettles is innocent however, in the narrative of a poor, homeless girl with nothing, accomplishing a tremendous feat and gaining power from it, being used in wars and fights that have nothing to do with her and having the threat of death looming if she doesn't comply.

In being used as a means to an end in a conflict between the two most powerful people in the realm and escaping without any permanent concequence to her. She's not guilty.

Let girls have fun and be complex characters in their narratives. Innocence isn't a necessity, but even if it was for you to like her, she is, in a sense, innocent.